2013/06/26:
بيان استنكار لقتل الأب فرانسوا مراد
الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي يدعو لتنظيم النفير العام للجهاد في سوريا

His Emminence Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi
Denouncing the Killing of the Catholic Priest Francois Murad



بيان استنكار
لقتل الأب فرانسوا مراد

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

تلقينا بأسف واشمئزاز نبأ قيام إحدى المجموعات المسلحة باقتحام دير مار سمعان في جسر الشغور صباح الأحد

٢٣ حزيران وقتل راعيه الأب فرانسوا مراد ونهب محتويات الدير وإنزال الأجراس والصليب وإطلاق تسع رصاصات استقرت في جسد راعي الدير الذي فارق الحياة. لقد تريثنا بعد تضارب الأنباء حول مقتله إلى تأكدنا من مصادر في الدير أن قتل برصاص إحدى المجموعات المسلحة في الدير لا بقذيفة عشوائية كما قد أشيع.

إننا بقدر ما نستنكر جرائم النظام ضد الأبرياء فإننا نستنكر وبشكل أشد هذه الجريمة التي تعدى فيها من لادين له ولا أخلاق على دير بقي شامخا طوال حكم المسلمين في القرون السابقة.

كما أننا نستنكر إراقة دمٍ بريءٍ لرجل دين قد انقطع إلى عبادة الله تعالى وخدمة أتباع كنيسته. ونؤكد أن هذا العمل غدر وخيانة لا يقوم به مسلم، فنبينا عليه الصلاة والسلام يقول: “من آذى ذميا فقد آذاني”. وقد عاش المسلمون والمسيحيون جنبا إلى جنبا طوال قرون عديدة، وكانت بلاد الشام، مثالا يحتذى في التسامح والوئام والعيش المشترك.
لقد شوه الذين ارتكبوا هذه الجريمة النكراء صورة الإسلام وأساؤوا إلى شعبنا وثورتنه التي قامت ضد الاستبداد والقمع والطغيان.

نتقدم إلى بهذه المناسبة إلى دير اللاتين في الغسانية وإلى الكنيسة اللاتينية وجميع الطوائف المسيحية بأحر التعازي وأصدق مشاعر الأسى، ونؤكد على أن خسارة الكنيسة للأب فرانسوا مراد هي خسارة لكل سورية، ونؤكد على أننا شعبنا المسلم في سورية يشاركنا في مشاعرنا هذه، راجين إن يصار إلى تقديم المرتكبين لهذه الجريمة إلى العدالة ليصار إلى محاكمتهم لينالوا الجزاء العادل. كما نطالب العلماء والمنظمات التي تجمع العلماء من رعاة الثورة إصدار بيانات صريحة بالاستنكار وعدم السكوت خوفا من الثوار، فالحق أحق أن يتبع وديننا لا يقر بمثل هذه الأشياء ولا شيئ يمكن أن يبرر مثل هذه الجريمة على الإطلاق.

His Eminence
Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

Denouncing the Killing of the Catholic Priest Francois Murad

On Sunday, June 23, Syrian Catholic priest François Murad was murdered in his monastery in Gassanieh, northern Syria. The monastery was looted; and its bells and cross were removed.

As we received this shocking news with a lot of sorrow and sadness, we hereby declare our denunciation of this crime with the strongest words. The perpetrators are criminals who must be brought to justice. There is nothing in Islam or nor in any ethical principle that would justify such a crime.

Muslims and Christians in Syria have lived for centuries side by side in peace and harmony. Nothing happened to interrupt these historical relations. The Syrian people revolted against the Assad political regime for its oppression not against an ethnic or religious group. Therefore, we warn any change of the nature of our uprising to a religious or ethnic war. We stand all side by side, against crimes and oppression regardless of our religious or ethnic affiliation.
On my behalf and on behalf of many Syrians who share my views, I offer my condolences to the Latin Monastery of Mar Sam’an in Jisr al-Shughoor and to Catholic Church of Syria and to the Syrian people; as by killing him the criminals stabbed every Syrian in their hearts.

I call upon the syrian clerics who support the uprising of our people and the organisations and leagues of Syrian Ulema to issue clear statements denouncing this crime to prove to the rebels who may think of committing such crimes that they would go against Islam and they will be rejected by our people and brought to justice.

2013/06/15:
الصراع مع الأسد انتقل لمرحلة جديدة
الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي يدعو لتنظيم النفير العام للجهاد في سوريا

The Conflict with Al-Assad Has Entered a New Phase
His Emminence Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi
Calls for Regulation of the Jihad in Syria



العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

يدعو لتنظيم النفير العام للجهاد في سوريا

الصراع مع الأسد انتقل لمرحلة جديدة – نيوز سنتر

وجه الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي نداء إلى قيادة الجيش الحر لافتتاح مكاتب عسكرية للتطوع والتجنيد في عدد من العواصم العربية لنصرة الشعب السوري.

وقال اليعقوبي في بيان له وصل لموقع نيوز سنتر نسخة منه “بعد مرور نحو عام ونصف على حمل شعبنا للسلاح للدفاع عن دينه وأرضه وعرضه أمام واحد من أعتى أنظمة الإجرام في العالم، وبعد أن نهض الآلاف من الأبطال من سورية والعالم الإسلامي لنصرة شعبنا الجريح، وفي إطار الدعوة إلى النفير العام للجهاد في سورية التي أطلقناها منذ سنة ونصف وأطلقها مؤتمر العلماء اليوم ، فإننا ندعو قيادة الجيش الحر اليوم إلى حمل الأمانة واتخاذ الإجراءات بافتتاح مكاتب عسكرية للتطوع والتجنيد في عدد من العواصم العربية ، بحيث يكون التطوع حصريا عن طريق الجيش الحر ، فالتفرق مذموم والاعتصام بحبل الله تعالى تحت راية قيادة واحدة واجب، وقد رأينا من الفوضى في سورية ما يجب أن يدفعنا إلى التخطيط والتنظيم ووحدة الصف كما قال تعالى: {إن الله يحب الذين يقاتلون في سبيله صفا كأنهم بنيان مرصوص}.

وطلب الشيخ اليعقوبي أن يقوم بالجيش الحر باستعياب هؤلاء المتطوعين في تشكيلات جديدة أو توزيعهم على التشكيلات الموجودة حسب الحاجة من خلال خطة عسكرية مدروسة تراعي حاجة المناطق التي تتعرض لهجوم النظام ، وتكون التشكيلات بقيادة خبراء عسكريين من الضباط المشهود لهم بالخبرة والأمانة. وتشكيل محكمة عسكرية عليا واحدة على مستوى القطر ترفع إليها جميع القضايا المتعلقة بتجاوزات الجنود والمقاتلين، تتشكل من ثلاثة قضاة وثلاثة فقهاء وثلاثة ضباط يختارون من ذوي العلم الواسع والخبرة العملية في القضاء والفتوى والجيش.

مشيراً لضرورة تأسيس إدارة للتجنيد يقيد فيها جميع المقاتلين وتصدر لهم هويات بالأرقام ، ويكون مقرها في إحدى المناطق المحررة.

وختم الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي بيانه بأن الصراع مع عصابة الأسد بعد التدخل السافر لإيران وحزب الله انتقل إلى مرحلة جديدة تتطلب منا تطوير إمكاناتنا وطرق أدائنا لنكون على استعداد لاستقبال المتطوعين من الشعوب الإسلامية الذين يرغبون في نصرة شعبنا ضد الظلم والاضهاد. {ولينصرن الله من ينصره إن الله لقوي عزيز}.

His Eminence Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

Calls for Regulation of the Jihad in Syria

The Conflict with Al-Assad Has Entered a New Phase – Syria News Centre

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi appealed to the commander of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to open recruitment offices in several Arab capital cities for volunteers wanting to support the Syrian people.

In a statement Al-Yaqoubi said:

“One and a half years have passed since our people took up arms to defend their religion, land and honour against one of the most savage criminal regimes in the World. Till date, thousands of heroes from Syria and the Islamic World have aided our people.

In relation to the public proclamation of Jihad in Syria which we issued one and a half years ago and today the Ulema Conference issued, we urge the leaders of the FSA to implement the following points: To open recruitment offices for volunteers in some Arab capitals in the region so that volunteering is done exclusively in the FSA. Disunity is blameworthy and holding onto the rope of Allah Almighty under a single leadership is an obligation. The anarchy we have witnessed must push us towards planning, organising and uniting; as Allah Almighty says, {Indeed, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are a [single] structure joined firmly} (Surah Al-Saff:4).”

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi also requested the FSA to allocate volunteers to new formations or amalgamate them into already existent brigades as needed according to a well-studied military plan which considers the need of the most affected areas and that these newly formed units should be led by military officers bearing expertise and trustworthiness. He also requested that a supreme national military court should be established which deals with all military crimes. The court should include 3 judges, 3 jurists and 3 military officers, all of whom are selected based on knowledge and practical experience in fatwa and warfare, respectively. He also pointed out the need to set up a department which assigns every fighter with ID numbers and that this department should be located in one of the liberated areas.

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi concluded his statement by explaining how the conflict with Al-Assad’s forces has entered a new phased since incursions by Iran and Hezbollah and how this requires us to develop our capabilities and tactics to accommodate future volunteers from the Islamic World who are eager to support our people against oppression and persecution.

{And Allah will surely support those who support Him [His religion]. Indeed, Allah is All-Powerful and Exalted in Might} (Surah Al-Hajj:40).

2013/06/14:
نداء إلى قيادة الجيش الحر 
الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

A Call to the Commander of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)
Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi



بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نداء إلى قيادة الجيش الحر

الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

بعد مرور نحو عام ونصف على حمل شعبنا للسلاح للدفاع عن دينه وأرضه وعرضه أمام واحد من أعتى أنظمة الإجرام في العالم ،

وبعد أن نهد الآلاف من الأبطال من سورية والعالم الإسلامي لنصرة شعبنا الجريح،

وفي إطار الدعوة إلى النفير العام للجهاد في سورية التي أطلقناها منذ سنة ونصف وأطلقها مؤتمر العلماء اليوم ،

فإننا ندعو قيادة الجيش الحر اليوم إلى حمل الأمانة واتخاذ الإجراءات التالية:

  • افتتاح مكاتب عسكرية للتطوع والتجنيد في عدد من العواصم العربية ، بحيث يكون التطوع حصريا عن طريق الجيش الحر ، فالتفرق مذموم والاعتصام بحبل الله تعالى تحت راية قيادة واحدة واجب، وقد رأينا من الفوضى في سورية ما يجب أن يدفعنا إلى التخطيط والتنظيم ووحدة الصف كما قال تعالى: {إن الله يحب الذين يقاتلون في سبيله صفا كأنهم بنيان مرصوص}.

  • أن يقوم بالجيش الحر باستعياب هؤلاء المتطوعين في تشكيلات جديدة أو توزيعهم على التشكيلات الموجودة حسب الحاجة من خلال خطة عسكرية مدروسة تراعي حاجة المناطق التي تتعرض لهجوم النظام ، وتكون التشكيلات بقيادة خبراء عسكريين من الضباط المشهود لهم بالخبرة والأمانة.

  • تشكيل محكمة عسكرية عليا واحدة على مستوى القطر ترفع إليها جميع القضايا المتعلقة بتجاوزات الجنود والمقاتلين، تتشكل من ثلاثة قضاة وثلاثة فقهاء وثلاثة ضباط يختارون من ذوي العلم الواسع والخبرة العملية في القضاء والفتوى والجيش.

  • تأسيس إدارة للتجنيد يقيد فيها جميع المقاتلين وتصدر لهم هويات بالأرقام ، ويكون مقرها في إحدى المناطق المحررة.

لقد انتقل الصراع مع عصابة الأسد بعد التدخل السافر لإيران وحزب الله إلى مرحلة جديدة تتطلب منا تطوير إمكاناتنا وطرق أدائنا لنكون على استعداد لاستقبال المتطوعين من الشعوب الإسلامية الذين يرغبون في نصرة شعبنا ضد الظلم والاضهاد .

{ولينصرن الله من ينصره إن الله لقوي عزيز}.

In the name of Allah,
Most Compassionate Most Merciful

A Call to the Commander of
the Free Syrian Army (FSA)

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

One and a half years have passed since our people took up arms to defend their religion, land and honour against one of the most savage criminal regimes in the World.

At this time thousands of heroes from Syria and the Islamic World have aided our people,

And in relation to the public proclamation of Jihad in Syria which we issued one and a half years ago and today the Ulema Conference issued, we urge the leaders of the FSA to implement the following points:

1. To open recruitment offices for volunteers in some Arab capitals in the region; so that volunteering is done exclusively in the FSA. Disunity is blameworthy; holding onto the rope of Allah Almighty under a one leadership is an obligation.The anarchy we have witnesed must push us towards planning, organising and uniting; as Allah Almighty says, {Indeed, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are a [single] structure joined firmly} (Surah Al-Saff:4).

2. The Free Army should allocate volunteers into new formations or amalgamate them into already existent brigades as needed according to a well-studied military plan which considers the need of the most affected areas. These newly formed units should be led by military officers bearing expertise and trustworthiness.

3. A supreme national military court should be established so that military personnel who committ crimes are brought to justice. The court should include 3 judges, 3 jurists and 3 military officers, all of whom should hold expertise and experience in their respective fields.

4. A recruitment department should be formed which enlists all exisiting fighters and issues military ID cards for them. This department should be based in a liberated region.

5. Due to the incursion of Iran and Hezbollah, the conflict has entered a new phase wich requires us to develop our capabilities, tactics to accommodate future volunteers from the Islamic World who are eager to support our people against oppression and persecution.
{And Allah will surely support those who support Him [His religion]. Indeed, Allah is All-Powerful and Exalted in Might} (Surah Al-Hajj:40).

2013/06/13:
الشيخ محمد الفزازي :
ما قيل في مؤتمر القاهرة من طرف علماء الأمة، ولم يُنشر
Sh. Muhammad Al-Fazazi:
What was said in the Cairo Ulama conference but was not publicised



http://syria.nur.nu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06_Al-Fazazi-Cairo.pdf

Translation: https://www.facebook.com/muhammad.alyaqoubi/posts/313455118789202
google-cs: http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://syria.nur.nu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06_Al-Fazazi-Cairo.pdf&embedded=true

Muhammad Al-Fazazi from Cairo:

What was said in the Cairo conference by the Ulema of the Ummah

but was not publicised

It is known that a conference of Ulema took place in Cairo on 4th Sha’ban 1434 AH/13th June 2013. I was privileged to be invited and able to deliver a speech to the Egyptian masses gathered at the market in Tenth District in the Egyptian Capital on the same day and it was broadcasted live.

The final statement was followed by remarks from Shaykh Muhammad Hassan. Again, all of this is well-known. However there are matters which have been overlooked even though people need to know them. These are the very matters we discussed amongst ourselves in three separate circles. I personally spoke of a very sensitive issue and many of the Ulema concurred with me on it. That issue is the general call [for Jihad] and how it cannot remain broad [without specifics]. The Syrian people do not need youngsters to go there [Syria] to fight like sheep. Rather, they are in need of specialist weaponry that World Powers can provide especially the United States. The Syrians are in need of anti-aircraft weapons, armour and tanks not youngsters who go there to become burdens on the Free Syrian Army, as Shaykh Adnan Al-Aroor put it.

Other delicate issues also arose. Namely, that some enthusiasts for Jihad hold extremist Takfiri ideologies. They will go there and learn warfare, pyrotechnics etc and then return to their own countries – when Allah wills their return – to spread terror and devastation in the name of Jihad. I personally requested an approach to counter this problem by making governments to prevent their youngsters from joining the Mujahedin in Syria. This is not prevention from Jihad at all; it is merely a precaution against negative repercussions. There was a unanimous condemnation of extremism in religion and unneeded engagement in Jihad.

All of the Ulema present agreed on the criminalization of terrorism and its impermissibility in peaceful Islamic countries and that terrorism is not Jihad in the way of Allah Almighty.

In contrast are the current events in Syria where two distinct parties and opposing groups have emerged.

{And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might} (Surah Al-Hajj:40).

May Allah send prayers and salutations upon our Master Muhammad, his family and companions.

2013/06/11:
بيان استنكار قتل طفل في حلب 
العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

Denunciation of the execution of a boy in Aleppo
His Eminence Sh. Muhammad al-Yaqoubi calls upon foreign fighters to leave Syria



بيان استنكار قتل طفل في حلب

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

قامت أمس مجموعة من المقاتلين الذين يدعون أنهم مسلمون في حلب بإعدام صبي في الرابعة عشرة من عمره بتهمة الإساءة للنبي عليه الصلاة والسلام .

إننا نستنكر هذه الجريمة المروعة التي ارتكبت بحق طفل بريء ونطالب بالقبض على القتلة ووجوب القصاص وأنهم لا يمثلون الإسلام وإنما هم جناة قتلة يلبسون عباءة الدين ويتسترون به للوصول إلى مآربهم ، وهم أجهل الجهلة بأحكام هذا الدين ومقاصد الإسلام ، يقودهم الحقد على الإنسان مسلما كان أم غير مسلم صغيرا أم كبيرا .

لقد أقدم هؤلاء المجرمون باسم الدين على ارتكاب واحدة من أشنع الجرائم بقتل نفس بريئة وصبي ما زال في عمر الأطفال ، ومن المفارقات أن الصبي مسلم من عائلة مسلمة متدينة ، فجعوا والديه وإخوته به من دون شفقة ولا رحمة ، ولذلك فإنهم لا يستحقون الرحمة وهم حطب جهنم ، ويجب الإبلاغ عنهم والقبض عليهم وتسليمهم للقضاء لإنزال أقصى العقوبات بهم ليكونوا عبرة للمجرمين.

وقياما منا بما أوجبه الله تعالى علينا من البيان فقد أصدرنا فتوى موسعة حول عدم جواز تطبيق الحدود الشرعية الآن في سورية ، وبينا فيها وجوه الخطأ في هذه الجريمة التي ارتكبت باسم الشريعة الإسلامية .

وبهذه المناسبة الأليمة فإننا ندعو جميع المقاتلين الأجانب في إلى مغادرة سورية والعودة إلى بلادهم ، فنحن أدرى ببلدنا ، ولا نحتاج إلى مقاتلين، ونشكر كل من أراد تقديم العون للشعب السوري ، ونؤكد على أن أشد ما يحتاج إليه شعبنا إنما هو الطعام والدواء وأشد ما يحتاج إليه الجيش الحر إنما هو الذخيرة للقتال .

وختاما فإننا نتقدم بأصدق التعازي لأسرة الطفل سائلين الله تعالى لهم الصبر والسلوان ، وأن يجعله الله لهم فرطا في الجنة ، وأن يتغمد بالرحمة جميع شهداء سورية الأبرار ، ويمن علينا بالنصر والفرج إنه سميع مجيب .

Denunciation of
the execution of a boy in Aleppo

By His Eminence Sh. Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

A group of Muslim fighters in Aleppo executed yesterday a fourteen-year-old boy in after accusing him of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad PBUH.

We denounce this inhuman unIslamic crime; and we demand that the murderers be captured and brought to justice. They are but a gang of criminals who use religion to cover their thirst for power.

What these criminals just committed is one of the most cruel crimes ever perpetrated by the name of Islam. They murdered an innocent life and executed a child who happened to be a good Muslim from a righteous family who observes Islam; and we confirm that what the child said is not balsphemy against the Prophet of Islam in any form.

In response to the crime, we have issued a detailed fatwa on the impossibility of the implementation of Islamic penalties in today’s Syria. We explained with valid proofs all the errors and fallacies in this crime which was wrongly done in the name of Islamic Shari’a.

On this painful occasion, we call upon all foreign fighters to leave Syria and go back to their homelands. We know our country better and we confirm that we do not need fighters and we thank everyone who sincerely want to help our people. Yet, we announce that what our people need most is food and medicine and what the Free Syrian Army needs most is ammunition.

Last but not least, we offer our sincere condolences to the family of the boy, praying that Allah grant them patience and forbearance and that their child precede them to the Heavens. We pray that Allah bestow His Infinite Mercy to the martyrs of our country and that He grant our people victory and relieve them from their agony.

2013/05/30: Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi
Interviewed by Syria Comment



Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi
Interviewed by Syria Comment

by Matthew Barber

Sheikh Muhammad, it’s a pleasure to meet with you today.

I’m very happy to speak with you. You know, we still need America’s help to make it out of this conflict. What kind of help are you thinking of?

About 14 months ago, I believe, at a conference in Bulgaria, I signed a statement in the presence of the Bulgarian prime minister with some top politicians asking for the implementation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter for military intervention by the Security Council. We could have avoided much of the undesirable developments concerning the growth of ideological military groups.

Groups based on ideology, I believe, now constitute a great threat to the unity of Syria, to the very fiber of Syrian society, and even to Islam; you know Islam in Syria is very moderate! … continuyes …

Shafi’ites, Hanafites, Sufis—they love the‘awliya, the Saints. Now someone is coming to brainwash them by force? To tell them that the shrines of the ‘awliya have to be destroyed? Issuing fatwas for this? They already destroyed 3 of them (I issued a statement about this). And killing on a religious basis such as takfir? This is very dangerous and I think the international community let it go.

There has to be a greater power that either unifies, unites the military groups—some Syrians are patriots, they are good people and no one can blame them for forming small groups to defend their honor, their families, their villages… But the absence of any greater authority allowed for the growth of ideological groups.

I think there’s a sense that a US presence in another Muslim country would not be a successful operation… I think Americans learned from Iraq that Muslims do not believe that a non-Muslim force should fight on the ground in a Muslim country; they will be viewed as another enemy.

That’s right, and that’s understandable. And my suggestion was to have international backing for a force comprised of troops from the region, with air force cover. Probably Jordanian troops, Saudi troops, Turkish troops. They would come together under an international umbrella to create safe military passage for besieged areas, like Homs. Step by step: I’m not talking about invading the country, but about imposing no-fly zones, for example.

Of course, a Security Council intervention based on the UN Charter would lend it legitimacy, instead of a U.S. or NATO intervention that would lend the regime legitimacy, enabling it to claim that they are fighting the good cause of resisting foreign occupation—and we won’t give them this legitimacy. But we have to weigh the pros and cons [even of other forms of intervention]. I issued a statement calling on Jordan and Turkey to intervene. I don’t believe they will do it on their own, but I want Syrian people to be prepared for an international intervention spearheaded by NATO, or the UN Security Council, or by the U.S., because I believe that’s more realistic. I believe we’ve reached a point where the Syrian people are ready to accept international intervention due to several reasons, including the levels of human tragedy, as well as Jabhat al-Nusra giving bay’ah [allegiance] to al-Qaida.

No one would deny that they [Jabhat al-Nusra] had some sympathy from the oppressed—not from all Syrian people; wise Syrians were always aware of the fact that these people are alien in their ideology. Probably the majority of them are foreigners—their ideology is alien to the Syrian religious culture… but one could say they had some sympathy, because they made some achievements, though we never sympathized with them; we made it very clear that car bombs are forbidden and such. But now, they lost—morally—their reputation… because no one wants a new Afghanistan in Syria, no one wants such… Now that people see the need to get rid of them, they see them as a burden, as a cause of harm.

We’ve seen this before and wise people should… but sometimes you wonder… For example, I was sitting behind Mu’az al-Khatib at the Friends of Syria conference here in Marrakesh, and I didn’t like his statement when he criticized the U.S. for listing Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group. I felt that he rushed. In my opinion, the Ikhwaan are going to lead the battle against such extremists in the future, exactly like they are doing now in Egypt. The Ikhwaan want to reach power in Syria. And Jabhat al-Nusra will present a challenge to that. Exactly. And most of the Syrian politicians are afraid of making statements against them because they want to get in and out and Jabhat al-Nusra can assassinate them anywhere in Syria. So this is a reason for them being slippery in their statements… because they are afraid of being assassinated when they go in, either now or later. So this is one reason. But he rushed actually, and I thought it was unwise. Al-Nusra is al-Qaida; for us this was very clear.

Speaking of that, you issued a very compassionate and sensitive statement of sympathy for the victims of the Boston bombing: knowing that al-Qaida would not share your attitude of compassion, but in fact advocates the use of that tactic for political gain, how did you feel about the announcement that Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaida?

I’m not surprised. The ideology is the same. The ideology is against mainstream Islam. And I would stress that this is a sect now. This ideology does not represent 1.5 billion Muslims and it is contrary to the rulings of the four Sunni madhabs on jihad, on going against oppressive rulers or non-Muslim rulers, and on contracts and truces between countries. It’s not about whether I like the U.S. or don’t like it—this is something else. I may agree with U.S. policies or disagree with U.S. policies, but I cannot legally put any Muslim country at war with the U.S. There is not a single Muslim country at war with the U.S. now (or the UK, or France, or any of these “Western targets” of al-Qaida). So legally, I have to say that when they [Westerners] visit us, we have to safeguard their property and respect their freedom; when we visit there or live there we have to respect the same; Muslims don’t stab in the back. So there’s no justification for their ideology at all.

So Jabhat al-Nusra joining al-Qaida, as I said, really destroyed its own reputation in Syria, its future in Syria.

But they didn’t join it; they revealed that their group was created by or in conjunction with al-Qaida. And not only that, but they are Syrian, and the members who would later form al-Nusra were working with al-Qaida in Iraq during the Iraq war. That’s right. They gave bay’ah. Giving bay’ah is like joining. They are part of it now. They under the command of Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Why did he decide to reveal this now? It seemed that al-Nusra weren’t ready to announce this, but Ayman al-Zawahiri—

To be honest they are to be asked this question, but from what I read, there was a conflict between al-Qaida in Iraq… and al-Nusra in Syria. So they didn’t want to give allegiance to the Iraqi wing of al-Qaida…

Regardless, they all represent the Devil, I believe. The damage they do to Islam is much worse than that done by any outside force or group or anything that could be imagined, and it’s our responsibility as religious leaders—doctors of the law, theologians—to explain what Islam is. I’m not afraid… I’ve been known, probably, quite well, for criticizing Western policies in the past, but now I ask for Western intervention [because of the extremists]. [smiling] Because we really have to see what’s right and what’s wrong. Ok, I can criticize Western democracy—this is my right, just as many Western and American professors and politicians criticize Western policies.

Do you believe a new Syria should be a democracy?

Of course! We had the earliest democracy in the Middle East, after independence from France in ’46; we had a Christian prime minister, Fares Khouri; we had a very smooth political system… it was interrupted by some military coup d’état…

So do you believe in creating an “Islamic state”?

Syria is an Islamic state. People are talking about an “Islamic state”; if you mean a state “ruled by shari’a,” let me tell you that 80% of the rulings of the laws in Syria now are based on shari’a. These people who are calling for [Islamic] reform are ignorant. Even the civil law, taken from the Napoleonic corpus of law, intact in 1949 and taken from the Egyptian civil law with some modifications—85% or more of it is compatible with the shari’a.

In Syria, like most Arab states, shari’a law simultaneously is and is not in play. You have a single, codified personal status law that governs family matters, informed by and based on traditional, Medieval shari’a rulings. So for example, a Muslim woman still cannot marry a non-Muslim man, polygamy is allowed, a wife can lose her mahr if she is disobedient, and women do not have the same access to divorce that men have. But this is codified and modernized shari’a that all courts must implement; there’s no place for individual rulings on the part of religious jurists who can dole out punishments like hand-cutting or public whipping, stoning. And certain new modifications for the protections of rights, particularly women’s rights, like a minimum age for marriage, restrictions on polygamy, a few expanded options for female-initiated divorce, and the prohibition of forced marriage—those exist in modern Arab family codes. So you have shari’a, but it’s modified a little bit. In a new Syria, do you favor maintaining the use of standardized family law, or would you want to return to the system ofshari’a governance implemented by traditional ‘ulema and individual jurists that existed prior to late-Ottoman codification and the modernization that accompanied the advent of the nation-state?

We do not recommend, generally speaking, after the collapse of the regime, any radical change [to Syria’s laws], because that would create more chaos in the country. Considering personal status law, I do not recommend changing it. The liberals are calling for a change toward more freedom, from, let’s say, the so-called shari’a. I think in Syria we have quite a relaxed system where various sects have their own personal status, and are not forced to follow the shari’a. So on that issue, I do not demand, or recommend, any change in the personal status law. As you described, it’s quite moderate, and it is fully compatible with the shari’a.

The one that was intact before 1949 (I believe the change was around that year, if I remember right) was based on the Hanafi madhab, taken from theahwal shakhsiya [personal status] of Qadri Pasha of the Ottoman time. The change was also made to take [rulings] from the other madhabs. And outside the four madhabs, two issues were taken [apart from or in contradistinction from the rulings of the jurists of the four madhabs]:

[Sheikh Ya’qoubi here described 2 issues: one regarding the number of instances and timing of verbal repudiations uttered by a husband to divorce his wife—a ruling from a student of Ibn Taymiyaa was adopted apparently due to the influence of Tantawi and other Ikhwaan in the ‘50s; and the second regarding the adoption of a ruling from the Zahiri madhab on wasiyya waajiba, part of inheritance law.]

What about the goal of Islamists to create new codes of “Islamic law” in the areas they govern?

They can’t write them. They are not scholars; they are not experts. The League of Syrian ‘Ulema (which is a cover for Ikhwaan) held a week-long course for judges. But a judge has to study and be trained for years, to be able to practice. I gave a lecture before his Majesty the King of Morocco here, last Ramadan. It was on fatwa and qadaa’ and the difference between them in Islam. Very crucial. I received a lot of praise for it.

Just yesterday I received a question from inside Syria about two groups of peasants who were fighting with each other. There was a truce, but one group had prevented the other group from cultivating their land, for one year. What would be the ruling? So I issued a fatwa: the ruling in the shari’a is that the rent is not applicable; the peasants don’t have to pay the rent to the landlord, because they were prevented from cultivating it, and the other party has to pay them compensation for the damages. But this is not the point. At the end of the statement, I said “This is a fatwa, not a judgment.” A judge cannot use this fatwa unless he hears both parties and obtains proofs regarding the case.

They [inexperienced Islamists applying “shari’a”] are using the fatwas as judgments! A fatwa is an opinion, and it comes from a mufti. A qadaa’ is a judgment, and it comes from a qadi. A fatwa is just a piece of news. It’s optional; people may apply it or not, inasmuch as they fear God or trust the mufti. But a judgment coming from a judge in a court of law carries force.

So many of the people who give fatwas now (even some ‘ulema) are unaware that their fatwas could be used by the common people… and people kill each other because of the fatwas! We have to be careful.

There was a discussion between me and a few scholars over the net, a few weeks ago, regarding a fatwa I had issued. When three Italian journalists were kidnapped, I issued a fatwa prohibiting the kidnapping of foreigners, anywhere, and specifically inside Syria. And I listed the reasons for it [according to the shari’a]. Now, I had generalized by saying “all foreigners” (and referenced credible legal texts from Hanafi and Malaki jurists, and especially from Hanbali jurists, because Salafis tend to use the Hanbali school [chuckling])… Now several scholars starting writing to me, saying “You didn’t write about Iranians and Russians. The fatwa is wrong; the Iranians and Russians are foreigners inside Syria supporting the regime.” I replied, “I cannot give a weapon to the common people or to the military commanders for the killing of supporters of the regime. Because then, they will decide—on their own, on the ground—who is a supporter and who is not. The positions of a country change between one day and the next, and sometimes two different politicians from the same country make two different statements.”

Shall we give military commanders on the ground authority to kill by telling them “You cannot kill foreigners—it’s haram—unless they are supporters of the regime”? Are all Iranians or Russians supporters of the regime? I said that when issuing fatwas, especially regarding blood, the ‘ulema have to be very careful. And to be honest, most of the young ‘ulema now, even some who are good‘ulema, are not very well trained. They didn’t accompany great scholars. My father and grandfather were great scholars and I’m the 4th in the Umayyad Mosque as instructor (in the family) in 100 consecutive years. From this, you develop a lot of sensitivity, and understanding of the true spirit of fatwa, because one has to be very careful not to be trapped—someone comes and asks you for a fatwa and then you say “this is allowed and this is not allowed” and then people kill!

How influential are your fatwas, and when you issue a fatwa, what impact does it have in Syria?

I actually wasn’t aware of the level of influence of my fatwas until a few months ago. There’s a huge influence. First of all, my fatwas are given a high level of respect by Sunnis, and my going against the regime was crucial for hundreds of young ‘ulema who turned against the regime because of my position, and the trust they have in us. (This was because of the well-backedfatwa I gave supported by many texts concluding that no one should support this regime.) No one should support this regime from a shari’a point of view; the president has to be removed.

So considering the fear you mentioned on the part of Syrians about the future, and considering the way that Jabhat al-Nusra, for example, is implementing what they call Islamic law over the areas that they control, it seems that in an apparent reaction to this phenomenon, Mu’az al-Khatib in the last few days has announced a project to prepare a kind of code of Islamic law that would be a more moderate alternative to that of Nusra and al-Qaida, to be implemented in rebel-controlled regions of Syria. What do you think of this?

I believe that the Syrian people agreed on the personal status law that has now been in effect for many decades, and the civil laws. I believe the same laws should remain in effect for now, and any changes should be done after the collapse of the regime, by referendum, after a new parliament is elected, a parliament that forms a constitutional committee for legal reform. Once a constitution is established, it will have a basis for establishing the legal committee that will tackle legal reform. I think that legal reform conducted under the barrels of guns is very dangerous.

So what laws should they be using in rebel-conquered Syrian territory? They are saying they need to establish Islamic law to maintain order.

They should be using the same Syrian laws. I am not for permitting any military group to make their own laws. Now, if Sheikh Mu’az al-Khatib wants to form a committee to establish a new code of law, is it going to be passed by the Coalition? By votes? On what authority? Are people in the liberated areas going to vote on it? These are the important questions we need to ask. The Syrian people have been ruled by these laws for some time: whether they are right or wrong laws, let’s make the changes after the collapse of the regime. It is now premature to decide on a new legal system.

But since there seems to be this “rush toward shari’a” (at least in territory controlled by Islamists), perhaps Mu’az’s effort is necessary to counter what’s taking place?

He’s probably trying to be in the middle. Yes, he’s trying to be in the middle.I had this discussion with Qadi [judge] Muhammad Anwar Mujanni, a magistrate who defected from the regime. He is now the head of the Majlis al-Qudaa al-‘Aala—the Supreme Legal Council. I had a discussion with him in Egypt, while supporting this majlis. There have been some attacks against this council by the Hay al-Shari’a in Aleppo. The conflict between the two was that the Hay al-Shari’a wants to establish “shari’a,” while the Supreme Legal Council is ruling according to the already established laws. They did a lot of damage to the Legal Council, but it [the latter] has now gained more reputation. Under whose authority does it operate? It consists of a group of qualified judges. Are they working under the National Coalition? Not for now. They work independently. They were all qualified legal magistrates and judges working previously within the legal system who defected. They formed it during the uprising and are thinking of the future of the Syrian legal system.Exactly. They are in communication now with the Arab League, and they are calling for international recognition for their council. Shouldn’t the Coalition support that? It should, it should. But the Coalition doesn’t want to get too far away from Jabhat al-Nusra and from this desire to “establish Islam.” We all want to establish Islam, but what version of Islam? What school? What madhabfor each area? I would consider this not establishing, but imposing Islam. So there is dialogue between the Supreme Legal Council and the Hay al-Shari’ain Aleppo? They threatened the Legal Council, I think they kidnapped one of their judges, they invaded their center—there has been some real conflict.

So in the future, there is going to be an inevitable conflict between what you represent, and the Islamists who are actually controlling territory. If the regime were to fall, and the conflict with the regime were to end, those fighters will look at any opposition leadership and say “We were here fighting. Where were you? We have the guns. We control this territory. We have Islamic law here.” How is that conflict with leaders like you going to play out?

[Chuckling] Unmanned aircraft are going to hunt them! That’s what reports are saying America is planning now. Yes, there has been talk of drones. It’s so discouraging to think of Syria looking like Afghanistan. For me, our line is very clear. As long as we have lived, we have opposed such ideologies. We didn’t like these extreme ideologies, takfir ideologies, even the Ikhwaan ideology of Sayyid Qutb who is the father of all of these movements and ideologies, and we haven’t changed over time. Now, the biggest challenge for the Ikhwaan will be which side to take. There will be a huge decision for them to make when the regime collapses about what form of government will be there, and they will have to face the fact that the Islamists are the strongest on the ground, organizationally, politically, in funding. The liberals in the opposition are very small. Ikhwaan have a long history and many resources. Either way, they are going to be affected. If they side with Jabhat al-Nusra and support it, they’re going to lose, and if they choose to fight it, they’re also going to pay a huge price. Morsi took a decision to confront the Salafi-jihadis in Sinai. But this is a marginal issue in Egypt; it’s not the biggest problem. But in Syria, it’s the central issue. Jabhat al-Nusra is in control of major cities and oil wells now.

So when we consider this future problem, what is your opinion on how intervention can help? You mentioned that you still support the international community’s help with intervention. What kind of intervention, and how would order be restored in those areas controlled by rebels?

Well, the purpose of international intervention must be to assist the Syrian people in establishing law and order. Toppling the regime can be done by the Syrians, if the right help is provided. But after that, there will be a threat to the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom, and many reports are coming out now about possible scenarios. There are Americans in Jordan now training Syrian rebels, and we’ve been working for this. I support this. I’m in contact with almost 70 military groups who consist of Sufis. A recent military group was formed, “The Free Sufi Movement,” and they consulted with me about their principles. I gave them a set of principles that they should use if they want to operate. One of the major issues was the necessity of handing over their weapons to the next Syrian government. They must swear by God that they will accept this.

So you believe international intervention could help establish the National Coalition’s authority over such groups in Syria.

Well, the National Coalition’s role ends upon the election of first government.

Right, but in areas controlled by rebels who may not recognize the authority of that government or of the Coalition’s transitional role, what kind of practical intervention could be conducted?

Some support for the Free Syrian Army. The exact form of it has to be discussed.

You were just elected to the National Coalition. Mu’az al-Khatib notified you of that, but now, soon after, he has resigned.

Well, he had already submitted his resignation when he notified me of my appointment.

Who do you think was responsible for your election?

Well, it is several factors. First, as Sufi leaders, we have been working together with a group of Sufi sheikhs of Sufi orders on an initiative to establish a political movement, a movement that would unite the Sufi powers, disciples, supporters, along with the Sunni ‘ulemaWhen did you start that initiative? Five months ago. Alongside the establishment of the Coalition. I made three trips to the area, including Cairo and Istanbul, holding meetings with Sufi sheikhs. We reached a point where we picked up 60 people: sheikhs and activists who are pro-Sufi. We contacted military groups. We now have the support of approximately 200 military groups of varying sizes. We set our principles in a document to be agreed upon and signed. We denounced violence, we denounced working in secret cells. We agreed to call the movement Tiyaar Binaa’ al-Hadara, Movement for Building Civilization. Some people wanted to call it “Islamic civilization.” I said no, just “civilization.” I specifically did not want it to have the name “Islamic” to keep it inclusive. Islamic civilization was also built by Christians, Jews, and others. But of course, included in its principles is that Syria is an Islamic state: the president should be a Muslim. Regardless of whether we achieve this or not—because this is the democratic process—the idea was to offer an alternative to Ikhwaan and Salafi political power. Those who are advocating the Islamist agenda in the Syrian political arena are three, currently: 1) Salafis (both ‘ilmiand jihadi), 2) Hezb ut-Tahrir, and 3) Ikhwaan (with several wings). And we believe that the three of them have no majority, no control, no popularity in Syria. They having been pushing in the last two years with a lot of money, and it can probably be said that Salafis have had the most success of the three—the ‘Ilmiya, not the jihadists, though the Salafi-Jihadis, like Jabhat al-Nusra, have been successful in building groups and using money to develop organizations. Ikhwaan would be next in terms of gains, and Hezb ut-Tahrir last. This is the main challenge that our people have been talking to us about over the last two years. Our people are religious and moderate by nature. Now, they will not stand behind someone who works against Islam or calls for the destruction of Islam. But they are complaining to us saying, “We are your students; we love you; we are not these people. What are you doing for us?”They are complaining about your absence in the armed opposition or the political opposition? Both. More than complaining, they are demanding results from us. Of course, people like me have been deliberately excluded, until now. When the SNC was founded in Istanbul, I had already been there for 3 months, before coming to Morocco. And I was excluded from all meetings and invitations. Even up until now: they recently held 3 conferences, and I was not invited to any one of them.

I don’t hear a lot about Hezb ut-Tahrir’s activity in Syria. Are they really that involved?

They are trying to make themselves bigger, and they’re pouring money [into the pockets of the rebel groups they want to win over]. I’ll give you one example: there’s a military group operating outside of Damascus in the Ghuta called Liwa Habib Mustafa. They consist of 2000 fighters. The majority of them are of the people, moderate people, fighting for their own villages, for their honor, for the property of their families, for their blood. And their leaders are, you could say, close to us; some of them might be influenced by Ikhwaan or Salafis, but in general they are moderate. Over six months ago I was contacted by one of the founders, begging for my help. They said “money stopped, we don’t have any funds.” Where was it coming from before? From Saudi Arabia. Every fighter had been receiving a salary of $200. At one point approximately six months ago, money stopped. (A lot of military groups complained that they stopped receiving funds around that time. I believe that a reassessment of the situation took place.) So they were in dire need. And Hezb ut-Tahrir came in, offering 20 million Syrian pounds, which at the time was about $100 for each fighter as salary, but requiring them to work under their umbrella, with the stated goal being the establishment of a khilafa¸ and pledging to fight until the goal is accomplished. Hezb-u-Tahir has its own corpus or interpretation of shari’a. Their founder wrote several books and they consider him as the only valid authority. Hezb ut-Tahrir has its own ideology in terms of ‘usuul al-fiqh; they have their own books, their own references.

So people were asking us for help, “please help us!” And I think they went ahead and took the money from them.

Speaking of the reassessment you mentioned, we’ve been reading that a lot of money stopped coming when parties began feeling that the opposition was too Islamist, and yet the non-Islamist fighters are complaining that parties like Qatar are giving money only to Islamists, sidelining the very groups that would be seen by others as legitimate recipients of support.

That’s right; several people are contacting me, even some members of military groups who receive through Qatar. They tell us “Qatar is paying money, why are you not getting anything? We don’t like it; we know that the leaders of our military groups are getting this money. But we are there just because we are getting paid. We can change sides and help form any new group, and we will be on your side.” To be honest, if we announced now a “Sufi Military Front,” we could easily get 50,000 fighters and a few hundred military groups together. So what are you waiting for? Funds. They can’t join if we don’t pay them. And it will be better for those more qualified with military experience to handle it—I don’t want to get involved in running the military myself; I’d rather stay on the political side.

Now you’re saying Islamists are a minority in terms of popularity and power inside Syria, but they are a majority in the political opposition. The Ikhwaan formed the political opposition and controlled it from the beginning, and they made sure that no other opposition figures would penetrate it. They are trying to make it appear that they represent all the Syrian people; this is why they do not want the ‘ulema to participate on any council, because people would turn to the ‘ulema. This is why good people left the opposition. There has been a hidden war against me personally, to block my access to these institutions. Al-Jazeera hosted figures affiliated with the Ikhwaan and excluded me, even though my name was suggested and recommended several times for appearances.

So coming back to the point about what has now led to my entry into the National Coalition: Sheikh As’ad, me, Dr. Mahmoud Hussein, a few others—we all wrote a draft letter to the Coalition a month ago and got the signatures of 25 Sufi figures on it. It is a good letter that demands several things from the Coalition. We demanded representation. We assert that we are a huge bloc of the social and religious tissues of Syria. That letter was sent to the chairman, Dr. Mu’az al-Khatib, and to the vice chairmen—this was before he resigned. We are now a group with 60 active leaders, ready to establish this movement. All we need is funds. We will be opening an office, hosted by Jordan.

What should the Syrian opposition look like, generally?

It should be made up of individuals, expertise, advisors from all sides and groups: religious and secular. The future of Syria is not bound by victory over the regime. I believe the future of Syria has to be looked at from different points of view, creating a unique opportunity between all members of Syrian society, and all religious and ethnic groups. We need to consider the non-Muslim vantage points. Consider yourself for a moment a non-Muslim Syrian citizen who is looking at the future of Syria. We need to look at how others see it, why others are afraid of us. It doesn’t mean that if I’m a Muslim, or a Muslim scholar, or a Muslim thinker, or a Muslim leader who happens to lead the uprising, that it should then be shaped or framed as in a religious way, or that I alone decide on the future of Syria. This is one point that I believe should be quite important. I don’t mind starting a political speech without “In the name of God.” Here I am in politics—I can mention the name of God on the way there, in my heart, as much as I wish, but now I am at a political event. However, some politicians around the Arab World do so, like Hosni Mubarak used to when he began speeches. It’s a cultural feature. Yes, it’s a cultural thing, but sometimes it shapes your discourse; we don’t want to shape our discourse that way. [By this] we are not running away from our religion! But we don’t want to threaten others. We don’t want others to believe that we are going to establish a shari’a-based state that is going to execute or exclude others. I believe we still have a huge margin of the Syrian people who are afraid to rebel against the regime, just because they are afraid of the future. Or they don’t have enough trust in the recent oppositional leadership. Mu’az won a huge margin—a lot of people who had been concerned before, joined the uprising because of his joining. And we need to give more assurances, I believe, from inside the Coalition. The expansion of the Coalition needs to continue until it reaches its best balance.

Now that you’re part of it, can you help make that happen?

Hopefully, hopefully. Even now that I’m part of it, I’m not claiming that I represent the Syrian people. I don’t have authority from the Syrian people to represent them, either in the Coalition or somewhere else. I am there to help the process of getting through this period, toppling the regime, organizing relief, trying to manage the areas now under the control of the opposition—whatever help we can offer. But the representatives of the Syrian people will be elected. Those who are elected after the fall of the regime will rightly claim to be representatives of the Syrian people.

Tell me your impression of Hitto.

I met him for the first time four months ago in Hatay Airport. He seemed to be quite well-educated. He’s head of the relief unit, the aid unit. I had a good impression of him. Now some people say that he is Ikhwaani, but I don’t know the history of his family. Even if he is, I don’t mind. We may have to deal with an Ikhwaani prime minister in the future Syria. That is democracy. But the real question is: will the government be of all one color, or will it be inclusive?

Tell me about your leaving Syria: why did you leave and why did you leave at that time?

Here’s what happened. Just to give you the picture before I get into this: I was well known for being a trouble-maker for the regime in Syria. At one point I had lost my job at the mosque for 6 months for criticizing [Grand Mufti] Hassoun. I had been offered several positions in the government when I returned to Syria in 2006 [after teaching for a period at Zaytuna College in California], and clearly they wanted me to serve as the mufti of Damascus. They negotiated and said, “This is the job for you.” But I always kept away because I was expecting the fall of the regime. So I did not accept the position to be mufti of Damascus; I was offered this and I refused. They appointed me as member of a council for just one month. Then I resigned. Hassoun was the head of the committee, overseeing the companies of Islamic insurance. I was there only one month and then I resigned after my conflict with Hassoun. This was in 2008. They were trying to woo me to the side of the regime, this is how they do it, by offering them jobs, money, compensation.

Hassoun is also a traditional ‘aalimYes. But the authority that appoints muftis in Syria is not ‘ulema-based but rather the regime.

This has changed since Kuftaro in 1960; before that it was a council of muftis that would sit together and elect a mufti. This is how Sheikh Abu al-Yasir Abideen, the mufti before Kuftaro, was elected, and it was how Kuftaro himself was elected as a mufti. So he was the last one elected. Exactly. But at the time he was elected, the term of a mufti was four years. Kuftaro was elected, and afterwards Hafez al-Assad made a presidential ruling that he would be mufti for life. So he became mufti for 40 years, almost.

So the regime was wary about me. And before the uprising, I had been called for interrogation 4 times. This was in 2010 and in January of 2011, because of the subjects of my speeches. In one of them I spoke about the Tunisian uprising (and it had also recently begun in Egypt), and I spoke about corruption. I criticized Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi doctrine and at the time they were trying to beg the Saudis for good relations, so they called me for interrogation.

That is very ironic.

Yes, very ironic!

So I was known for being a trouble maker. Every time there was a special occasion for the Ba’ath party, like an anniversary or such, I would do a speech against the Ba’ath party.

So when the uprising started, I thought, “Let’s not rush.” We heard the president giving promises of reform; let’s wait for the reform. This was wise, but at the same time I wrote a plan of two pages of suggestions for the president and gave it to a friend who was a friend of the president and asked him to give it to him. These requests included the basics: removal of those responsible for the killing of demonstrators in Dera’a, reform of the security system, and other things. The Friday after that I didn’t deliver a speech. Then killing started; I delivered a speech (it’s on the net) about the danger of murder and killing innocent people. When was that? That was in April. It was a full speech, a half-hour on the issue of killing people and how dangerous it is and how this culture is spread by the regime… You specifically said that “the culture of killing is spread by the regime”? Well, not exactly like that, more to the effect of the “army killing people” or the “government killing people,” but it was very direct. The following Friday, they sent over 200 security people to the mosque, with arms [concealed arms, men not in uniform]. I was not planning on giving the khutba. I had appointed one of my students to deliver the sermon in my presence (I was at the mosque). When I saw that over 200 people had come 15 minutes beforehand [who were not those who usually frequent the mosque] sitting with the worshippers— Everyone was scared. They came prepared to fight. It was obvious that they were waiting for any slight provocation or controversial text to be mentioned so that they could start beating people. So I told my student, “Let me go up; I’ll do thekhutba” because I thought he wouldn’t be able to handle it. So went up to the pulpit, said the prayers and introduction to the khutba, and then I said “That’s it.” I didn’t do a khutba or speak about any subject! You have to be wise: I had approximately 1,200 people praying in the mosque and I didn’t want a massacre. If you want to make a statement, you have to make it at the right time. So on the following Friday (the 5th of May), I delivered a disastrous speech for the regime, a big slam to the regime. When they were not expecting it. Exactly. And there is a video of it on Youtube with English subtitles that you can watch. No one dared to say something like that. I described what was happening, gave a story of a man who was killed at a military checkpoint in cold blood, his father was prevented from giving emergency aid to him, I mentioned his name Mu’taz al-Sha’ar, I mentioned how people are tortured in prison, I mentioned how people are killed in hospitals… I described what was happening and I said “In any conflict between the people and the government, the people will win.” Just look at history.

So it was really… people were afraid for me! I couldn’t go home after thekhutba. I had been planning to say something, so I had already sent my wife and kids to my in-laws, and after the speech I went into hiding. And the security force came to my home that evening, and the next day, three times total according to the neighbors. So for about 25 days I kept moving from one place to another. I don’t think that the government expected me to leave the country, or perhaps there is always some gap [between an event that makes a person “wanted” and the awareness of border security that such a person should be detained]. But on my passport, I didn’t have my profession specified, because I travel a lot, and every time I want to travel (as a scholar) I’m supposed to get permission from the minister. So the last time I renewed my passport, I went to my father-in-law who is a businessman and got a certificate saying that I am a sales manager. So I had my passport issued with “sales manager” on it. So that when I wanted to travel back-and-forth from the country, I wouldn’t have to get permission from the minister [the wazir al-awqaaf]. And my name was not yet on the list of people who were banned from traveling. But someone finally came and warned me saying, “Sheikh Muhammad, some of the top generals in the security services are speaking ill of you, sooner or later things are going to escalate, you have to make a choice: if you stay in the country, they’re going to get you.” So I traveled immediately. I traveled from the airport; my name was not on any list at that time. (I checked before I went—there are people to whom you can pay money and they will check the computer system for you and let you know if your name is on the list. I wouldn’t have gone without checking.) I think two or three weeks after that my name was on the list. After a few months, I got my family out, through Jordan.

In my first appearance on al-Jazeera, I issued a fatwa saying the regime has to be toppled, because there was no justification in the shari’a for oppression. That was from Istanbul, after leaving Syria. After it I did several other programs on the situation, on BBC world, etc. But now they are banning me from al-Jazeera.

Can you say something about the Sufi ‘Ulema? Approaches to policy?

Sufis generally prefer monarchy [such as Morocco’s], but they don’t trust Saudi Arabia, because of the anti-Sufi Wahhabi movement. They hate socialism, so they would tend more towards America than, say, Russia or China. There was fear in the past that some Sufis would be pro-Iran, as Egypt has had Sufis that are pro-Iran. But in Syria this doesn’t exist. Sufis in Syria have no love for Shi’ism. Probably one quarter of the Syrian population is Sufi. This is far beyond ten-thousand members of the Ikhwaan. We don’t allow working underground in secret cells. We work in the open. We don’t need organizations, because the ‘ulema rely on the trust they build with people, through their life of uprightness, knowledge, reputation. So we don’t need, and we prohibit secret organizations. Because the moment we get into secrets, we get into the Batiniyya. They are sects which hold to hidden meanings, hidden dogmas, hidden interpretations: this leads to hidden policies and agendas. Secrecy is forbidden in Islam. Everything we do is in the open; we don’t have a secret organization. I’m at the age of 50 now. I started preaching at the age of less than 15, formally at the age of 17. They discovered that I was under the legal age for a preacher in Syria (18), so themudiir of awqaaf in Damascus wrote me a paper that he signed, saying “next year we’ll appoint you,” and the age of 18 they appointed me. Since that time I’ve been teaching, preaching, giving fatwas, to varying degrees; we get more knowledge the older we get. And I haven’t seen any need for or good come from secret cells or organizations. It’s very dangerous and people are brainwashed. We are ‘ulema. People come to us; if they don’t like us they go to another scholar—a fourth scholar, a fourth mosque. No one is forcing them to attend a particular mosque; they can choose for themselves. People like scholars of different styles, but at the same time, we work for the same Islam. Hanafi or Shaafi’i—minor differences—but the major issues are wellbeing, protection of life… even the issue of going against the regime: it is very difficult to get a fatwa for rebelling against the regime. And I couldn’t give it, in any circumstance. But the Syrian case is really different. This is why Dr. Bouti—Allayirhamo—and others couldn’t understand the complexity of the danger of the Syrian regime remaining in power. So they went with the classical position of the four madhabs that you can’t go against a ruler—which is very true in the four madhabsSo why does this case qualify? Well, here is the point: The ‘ulema reference a hadith of the Prophet that says “Even if the ruler is oppressive—takes your money and beats you…” Not me, but other scholars have talked about how oppression operates at various levels: when it is levied only at individuals, the statement of the Prophet applies, because an individual cannot rebel against a ruler, even if (and I would say especially if) he is influential, who then creates chaos because he was a single individual of influence who half the people would then follow causing a civil war or great chaos—just because he was oppressed as an individual. Here, the statement of the Prophet applies because you can’t rebel for your own sake, even if you are oppressed. The issue is: when oppression is against the nation, it conflicts with the very reason that this ruler is a ruler. As a president, his job is to protect people’s honor or blood or wealth. How do you decide when a ruler oppresses the nation? We have had many dictatorial Arab regimes with various levels of oppression. Some might say the oppression is directed at individuals or groups who threaten their status or positions of influence within the society. Others might conclude that it is against the entire society. How do you come to the decision that the Syrian case qualifies as this kind of oppression that delegitimizes the very purpose of rule, and calls for a revolution? To be honest, when I issued the fatwa, I sat, writing down—the fatwa from Istanbul, after you left? Yes. It had been in my mind, and I spoke about it in private sessions when I was still in Syria. So it was something already known. I would not have gone against the regime if—according to theshari’a point of view, I had not been backed. The point is, first we have the history of the regime, which gave indications about what would happen [in the future]. We all know that in the 80s, the Ikhwaan were wrong in their assassinations of some top Alawite officials of the time; but the regime’s reaction was beyond measure. It destroyed the city of Hama and killed between 10 and 40 thousand people; we don’t know the real figures. Even at the lower figure of 10,000, I would put no trust in such a regime for reforms—with this history. But briefly, that fight was with a kind of radical Ikhwaan movement that posed a threat to the legitimacy of traditional ‘ulema, like you, and even at that time, that group was ready to use weapons against the regime, prior to the massacre in Hama, which, by your definition would be an illegitimate rebellion against a ruler. If Hafez al-Assad was an oppressive ruler, but targeted specific individuals or groups who threatened his domination (rather than committing statewide massacres), then the Hama incident could be viewed as a reaction against an illegitimate rebellion on the part of the Ikhwaan who began provoking the regime with weapons—which of course did involve a large, brutal massacre in their crackdown. No, you’re right; it’s very coherent. The ‘ulema at the time—my father was alive—he passed away at the end of ‘85—we witnessed and had discussions with many scholars and I was very active in the intellectual debate, and the ‘ulemawere against the position of the Ikhwaan. Not because the regime had legitimacy; it had reached power through coup d’état. But if a change is to be made, it has to happen by consensus of the representatives of the nation. Not by a small group. The Ikhwaan acted on their own. They didn’t consult with the ‘ulema. You know from the history of revolutions that you must prepare people before making a change. If there is oppression, you have to prepare people so that they accept the change or call for a change. Now in the 80s, I delivered a speech (I was a Friday speaker) in Salhiye, in the heart of Damascus at the al-Tawusiyya mosque. (My father was a Friday speaker in that mosque. And I was as well, from 1980 to 1990. Then I resigned from all my duties and left the country to study English in the UK , then I studied in Sweden—this was also after a conflict with the regime! A conflict with the Ministry of Religious Affairs.) So we used to deliver Friday speeches at that time. There were three elements of the regime we didn’t like: socialism, nationalism (Ba’ath ideology), and the sectarian character of the regime. We used to put hidden criticisms of the regime into our speeches. I remember giving a speech in which I said “Until when will our children repeat every morning ‘wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiyya’ [the Ba’ath motto, “unity, liberty, socialism”], and how are we going to liberate the Golan Heights and Palestine while our children are being brainwashed?” Things of that nature. Over 10 people immediately took their shoes and ran away from the mosque, in that moment. So people were not ready. And the ‘ulema are the ones who are in contact with people. If any scholar had called at that time for rebellion or demonstration, not 10 people would have gathered around him to support him. In the West they recently wrote an article about Sunni business people supporting Assad so that he reached power, and to be honest, that’s very true! It was Sunni business people who supported him for their own business interests. They didn’t mind working with the devil. This allowed Hafez al-Assad to become stronger and stronger. And over time those business people wouldn’t object to or express disagreement with anything he did… but now things have changed. With the advent of satellite TV channels, people have been changing; they are not numb any longer. They began asking, “Why should I forfeit my freedom to this political regime?” And you shouldn’t expect people to oppose a regime in the early years of its creation; it takes a generation or two. In our case it took one generation, for the Soviet Union it took three. So the ‘ulema have to be wise in finding the right time. When the time was right and I delivered my speeches in the al-Hassan mosque (at the beginning of the uprising), people were coming to me and embracing me, thanking me for making such statements. The Arab Spring was the first cause of this, the second was the regime gradually revealing its truly nasty image. If similar speeches even 10% to that tune of opposing the regime had been delivered five, six, seven years ago, especially in the early years of Bashar, for example, people would have attacked me for every word. So returning to why you decided that this was the right time to issue a fatwa against the regime when traditionally in Islam a ruler is not to be opposed? I’ll give you some historical observations on what has been going on. Either the president rules or he doesn’t rule and the heads of secret service / security are ruling. We heard testimonies all over the news of how people were executed in hospitals, how tanks ran over demonstrators, how people were killed in prison, tortured to death—this savagery wasn’t something done by mistake. It was a systematic policy of the secret service, and people revealed this to the president. I wasn’t among the people who met with the president at the time. But several people met with the president and some of them came to my home after the meeting, the delegation from Deir Ezzor, the mufti and others, for example. After they met with the president they came to my home and had dinner, and we discussed it. I heard from others as well who had met with the president. The president would sometimes express unawareness about these events; other times he would agree that they were occurring but maintain that they were isolated events. Sometimes if cornered and pressured significantly, he would say “give me the names of the people responsible and I will sue them.” This is an interesting issue: some people feel that the president himself is personally responsible for the killing, that he is the one issuing the orders, that he is a murderer of women and children. Others feel that he’s not really in charge of the regime but is just a figurehead, a face for the regime. It is deeper than this, but the simple answer is that yes, he is issuing orders, orders for military responses. Major decisions are usually made by the president himself. For example, no military unit can move from one place to another unless there is a presidential order. But we all agree that when he first became president, he didn’t have any power. He didn’t become president because of any power of his own; the people who made him president, I’m sure, have authority over him. Still? Well, still or not, this is another issue. He could sack Abd al-Fattah Qudsiya, or Ali Mamlouk, or Jameel Hassan from the Air Force Secret Service; he can sack one of them and appoint another person and I don’t think there will be a coup d’état against him or that there would be an assassination against him. But the main issue is that ideologically, he is justifying for himself everything he is doing. He thinks that he is really defending the country against terrorists.

Is he entirely wrong when we see, at this point, that Jabhat al-Nusra is with al-Qaida, and they are willing to commit killings based on a takfiri ideology?

I think he knows very well that he is not right. In his early speech in April 2011, he mentioned that there were 64,000 criminal outlaws—how did all of a sudden 64,000 come from nowhere? This was in April, 2011. These were demonstrators, people going to demonstrations. Why did people form military groups? Mainly they were the people who had gone to demonstrations, were captured, tortured in prison, and then released. After what they went through and witnessed in prison, they opted for fighting the regime, afterwards. So I’m sure the president knows what’s going on, especially with the secret service: the cook knows what’s going on in the kitchen. Abu Mus’ab as-Suri was handed over by the U.S. to the Syrians after being captured in Afghanistan. And then he disappeared in the Syrian prisons. We heard reports that Fira’ Falastin [فرع فلسطين– the “Palestine Branch” of the Syrian mukhabaraat, secret services] released the ex-al-Qaida fighters from Iraq who had been captured, and those were the early ones who began forming al-Nusra.

So they would have released them in 2011? Yes.

How solid do you believe that evidence is? This conflict is full of rumor, and it’s difficult for me to believe that the regime wanted to escalate the conflict (which threatens its very existence) just to bolster the principle of its legitimacy. Sure, it’s to the regime’s advantage that it can now point to real terrorist elements within the opposition, but to create jihadist networks and car-bomb its own cities—destabilizing the very country it still wants to control—seems contrary to its goal of restoring order.

The regime was betting on something, taking a chance. As long as the uprising was peaceful, the regime would be losing. We heard verified statements that some security and military officers started selling arms in Dera’a, in the south. And in another instance, I heard (something I can’t verify) that people were offered weapons deals. The other statements that can be verified claim that they left Kalashnikovs and other weapons, for demonstrators to carry, in order to justify the regime’s actions. In Bashar al-Assad’s most recent interview, he said that this is a war. And when he calls this a “war,” he has considered it a war from the beginning. A “war” means he’s not dealing with “people” (who are demonstrating, who are defending their honor); in a war he can resort to any means necessary. So they wanted it to turn into a war.

But that strategy does not work, because the other side of that war has captured areas like Raqqa, Deir Ezzor; the Kurdish area is no longer under state control; Dera’a is going back and forth between regime and opposition control with areas near Jordan and the Golan out of regime control; the fight in Idlib is very tough; Aleppo is divided… Though not necessarily losing, the regime is not really winning right now. So a strategy to convert an uprising of opinion and dissent into a war—Did not work. It worked on one level but not for the best interest of the people. Although I was asked, and I issued a fatwasaying that people may defend themselves, in Homs, when Homs was attacked in Bab al-‘Amr; I said that jihad was obligatory, at the time. I was one of the earliest people who did so. For me, if our people carry guns and defend themselves under the Free Syrian Army it is better than having either military intervention or having ideological groups proliferate. But unfortunately the down side is that—yes, it’s a war now—probably 50% or so (I don’t know exactly how many on the ground) are extremist groups, whose goal is not just to topple the regime, but to establish their “shari’a states”  and have their own warlord-like control on the streets. The point is quite interesting. These people, especially foreign fighters, and including some of the extremist Syrians (I’m sure they will find some to brainwash and recruit) they won’t care about finishing off the regime or not; all they are interested in is their military activities, training, building secret cells, in order to move to other countries and to work against U.S. interests and some other countries. Someone drew my attention to this after having been inside and talking to some of them. He came back out with this impression. He said they don’t care whether the regime collapses or not; they are just building their own organization, cells, and strategic planning for future work. I believe that in the end, this will force the West to intervene, in order to get rid of them.

What did you think when Grand Mufti Ahmed Badr al-Din Hassoun issued the call for jihad on the part of the Syrian army?

[Laughing] Some have suggested that the Chechen brothers who conducted the Boston bombing were responding to this call for jihad! But that would mean that those brothers were somehow supportive of the Syrian regime!Yes, yes, this is the talk of Syrians who want the West to feel that the Syrian regime is the gravest threat to the U.S. Anyway, the call was very serious and very stupid. Ahmed Badr al-Din Hassoun is considered to be pro-West, pro-America. He was welcomed by the European parliament. He delivered a historical speech there, though I criticized him for some statements he made. I received a lot of damage myself, for criticizing him. Even in the U.S. some try to depict me as an extremist for criticizing him. Because they saw him as so moderate. Exactly. And this issue was related to the Prophet Mohammed; this, you know, is something serious. He made a mistake, he has to admit it—he did admit it. A few weeks before the beginning of the uprising, one of the top business people in Syria, Ammaar Sahlool contacted me and said “I want to come and visit you with him.” I said, “You are most welcome and I will honor him in my place when he comes.” He wanted to put an end to it, just to have a picture with me showing that things are settled, because my speech against him had had a huge impact. He admits that the toughest strike he received was from me. So anyway, I offered him condolences when his son was assassinated; death is something that when it comes, we must stand by each other. I respect him as a scholar, as a Sufi. I didn’t expect this to happen.

So my question is, is it possible for people on that side of the conflict to declare a jihad? There are many Sunnis still with the army, for example. They believe they are fighting for the protection of Syria from al-Nusra and other groups. Can those people not consider their struggle a jihad?

Yes, they can. So the call is legitimate. Not by the Mufti. We are talking about Sunni soldiers in the army who are brainwashed and are banned from any media except that of the regime. I would be lenient toward a soldier fighting in the Syrian army and accept his jihad if he believes in it; but not the Mufti. The Mufti knows what’s going on; he’s aware of the worldwide media, he watches it. You know he denied on al-Jazeera, live in an interview, that scud missiles hit Aleppo University. He denied it! He said, “Did you see it?” An empty argument! His call for jihad cannot be considered legitimate and no one is taking it seriously at all. But he’s an ‘aalim, he’s a mufti. Why can another call for jihad but not him? Okay, because he’s on the side of the regime. Calling for jihad for what reason? Well, from their perspective for the protection of Syria from certain threats. Well, if any people would be influenced by that, people who are brainwashed, people who have restricted access to the media, those who live within the army without a single day of leave and only watch Syrian channels… I think the fatwa is to serve these people. But I’m asking, from an Islamic perspective, theologically, is anything wrong with his fatwaYes, of course it is wrong. Everything is wrong with it.Why? Because the regime has no legitimacy, so why would you defend the regime? Why doesn’t it have legitimacy—in a theological sense? First of all, because the president went against his duty. I told you before: his job is to protect the country, protect the people, protect honor, protect wealth, protect sanity, and he did not perform this duty, at all. He had an opportunity to make reform, to bring criminals to justice. He formed a committee to study the case of Dera’a, Douma, and later on Lattakia, and the results of this committee’s analysis never came out. So it is very obvious that he is not on the side of the people; he is on the side of the criminals. So such a president, along with his assistants, has no shari’a backing or support for continued leadership of the country. Besides, from a shari’a point of view, let’s say there’s a controversy about him. He should resign, and hand leadership over to others—if the cause is right. If the cause is right, and there is a controversy, all that people are asking for is that he be removed. Ok, let’s bring someone else. Why not? Why is he sticking to the chair so? We see that the whole conflict will be solved by him being removed. So remove a nation (killing 100,000 people), or remove a single person from the presidency. It’s very obvious.

Sheikh al-Bouti echoed Hassoun’s call for jihad and referred to people fighting in the Syrian army as ashaab an-Nabi [companions of the Prophet]. All his statements supported that position of jihad on behalf of the Syrian army. I wonder about your relationship with Sheikh al-Bouti: he was an internationally respected scholar, and at the same time he supported the regime. It must be difficult and uncomfortable to reconcile that, and I wonder how you do it.

I wrote six articles refuting Dr. Bouti, in the past year. Dr. Bouti, as you said, is an international figure with a great reputation. His followers outside of Syria are millions of Muslims. His books have been translated into several languages. He was not my teacher, though I have to give him due respect as an elder scholar with a lot of experience and knowledge. He was a student of my father, studying for a while under him. He offered a great eulogy for my father in 1985 when my father passed away. I disagreed with him, with his positions, from 1990 on (or around that time). What positions? He went with the regime, and supported the regime. Hafez al-Assad succeeded in pulling him towards him, started sitting with him for hours and hours, especially when Hafez al-Assed was diagnosed with cancer. When Hafez al-Assad discovered that he had cancer, he began to spend more time with him?

In one session, he sat with him privately for seven hours; no one else was there. So this was when his health began failing; was he seeking something spiritual, that wasn’t about politics? Something like that. But probably, there were some politics in it. One of the strongest statements of Dr. Bouti in support of the regime came when Bassel al-Assad was killed (or died in a car accident). He prayed at his funeral, and made statements suggesting that he was in paradise, and that he saw him or that he would see him—I don’t recall the exact words, but his supporters claim that the opposition distorted his own statements. Is it a problem for him to make that statement about Bassel? It is problematic. Because he was Alawi? Not just because he was Alawi, but just because people were not ready to see anyone praising President Assad or his regime. It was very bitter. So the problem was a political problem, not a religious problem? Both, probably, both. Common Muslims are not really aware of theology. What affects them more is politics. No one was ready to see someone siding with the regime. If they had been able to get the Devil to come and replace Hafez al-Assad at that time, they would have welcomed the Devil. The image of Hafez al-Assad was so dirty that anyone who would shake hands with him would be rejected by people. And Sheikh al-Bouti’s relationship helped his image. It helped a lot. And then he prayed at the funeral of Hafez al-Assad himself, and he appeared on TV crying. And I saw him swearing that Hafez al-Assad was a Muslim. Now that funeral was in 2000. Yes. So why did you start disagreeing with him in 1990? The first public appearance of Dr. Bouti in support of the regime (or I would say, in the presence of Hafez al-Assad) was in 1980. That was the first event for the millennium festival for the 15th century hijri. It was at the University of Damascus’ theater. That was the first speech he delivered before the president. He offered sharp criticisms and pointed out the wrong that was happening within the government. He gave him strong advice, he didn’t praise him. But the government was smarter than was thought. They knew how to pull him. The people responsible for pulling him are two: Mohammed Khatib, ex-minister of awqaaf, and Alawite General Mohammed Nasif who was then head of internal security services. Now he is advisor to the president. He is one of the top Alawite rulers of the country now. What do you mean, “they pulled him”? Dr. Bouti was just a professor at the University of Damascus. He had two lectures weekly—Mondays and Thursdays in a small mosque. They succeeded in pulling up to that position and getting him close to the president. These two people. These two people. I don’t know Mohammed Nasif; people tried to have a meeting between him and me in the past few years because my name was growing. I said I have no interest in meeting him. I kept away from the regime, myself. But Mohammed Khatib, ex-minister—I know him very well. Mu’az’s family? No, a different family, from the south. He was minister from 1980-87. He was one of the greatest minds. And he is the one who got al-Bouti into supporting the regime. Now, Dr. Bouti is very emotional. He has some qualities which are good sometimes, but in politics they are not good. He believes anyone who gives him a statement; he doesn’t believe anyone would lie. He trusts people beyond what is reasonable. So little by little he established strong ties with people in the regime. They convinced him—Hafez al-Assad, for example convinced him that every morning and evening he was making extra prayers. He [Sheikh Bouti] gave him some texts to read, and every time they would meet, Hafez al-Assad would point out to him: “This is a text you gave me that I’m reading every morning and evening.” And these types of things lured him. So Dr. Bouti is different from Hassoun. Dr. Bouti really believed every word he said. This is why, when he died, I made a statement in his eulogy, and I consider him a martyr. And the bulk of the rebels disagreed with me, and I don’t care, because this is justice. Other scholars, even Ikhwaani scholars, kept silent, because they don’t want to lose popularity with the rebels. For me, I’m considering history: we have historical ties with Dr. Bouti. I disagreed with him on the theological and legal issue of whether rebelling against the regime is allowed or not allowed; I said this on a TV interview. But people should not be killed for their opinions. He died in a mosque, while giving a lecture, Friday night: he’s a martyr, from that point of view.

Tell me, what would be the place of the Alawi community in a new Syrian state?

My position and the position of the ‘ulema: We do not hold responsible any community or group, religious or ethnic, for the atrocities committed during the tenure of the Ba’ath regime or Assad rule. Every individual is responsible for his own actions. I think it is very important to emphasize the rights of allminorities, especially in the midst of this extremist violence, these winds of extremism blowing through the uprising. The ‘ulema in general have no problem with the minorities, and are probably the safeguard for the unity of the country, for the solidarity of the nation, for the coexistence between all groups—to give a guarantee for these. I recently suggested to the Danish Foreign Minister (I met him here at the Friends of Syria conference in Marrakesh) that someone should organize a conference and invite Sunni scholars and religious leaders from the Christian minority, from the Druze minority, from the Alawite minority, and we should agree on a common, historical statement for the future of coexistence in Syria. Between all of us. And I stress that this hasn’t been done until now. There was an attempt to do so by a U.S.-based organization, a good organization, called Religions for Peace, who invited me—Dr. William Vendley who is based in New York. They organized a conference in Istanbul, this last Monday. I was invited, but I couldn’t travel because of my papers here, which I have to have processed.

In a new Syria, regardless of whether it becomes a democracy or a system run by Ikhwaan or other Islamists, power is going to be Sunni. They are the majority and power is going to be in their hands. Under Islamic law, what kind of protection can there be for ghulaat sects? I don’t know if they are seen as ahl al-kitaab or not.

Let me first say that I don’t have an agenda to “Islamize” the law after the uprising succeeds; the law in effect would be applied for all citizens and I don’t think the law discriminates now. Yes, but it allows Christians and Druze to have separate ahwaal shakhsiya, so would ‘Alawi then be allowed to have their own?

Well, the question is about the very existence [identity] of the ‘Alawite minority. There is a long discussion about this issue—whether the ‘Alawites want to be depicted as ‘Alawites, number one. Under Hafez al-Assad they wanted to be identified as Muslims. As Ja’faris. As Twelvers. As Twelvers, exactly. Hafez al-Assad himself contributed to this. He allowed, for example, Sayyid Hasan Shirazi from Lebanon to come and do da’wa in order to open mosques and make ‘Alawites Ja’faris. And Hasan Shirazi at the time started establishing ties with the ‘ulema, and he came and visited us in our home in 1975. He visited my father and I attended the meeting. And the discussion was about ‘Alawites being Twelvers. And what was the attitude of your family and the ‘ulema in Syria at that time? Of course we would welcome this; this is much better, if they become Twelvers. But they were not Twelvers, they were just telling the public that they were. But here is the point: when you come to the ‘Alawites and ask them “Do you want personal status law,” they don’t have law. As a sect they don’t have it—it’s just a set of myths. Yes, but neither do Christians. Christians also don’t have “law,” but ahwaal shakhsiyya for Christians is necessary because the sphere of family law in Islamic societies is governed by shari’aBut the Torah is often included as part of Christianity, and it has many laws, including laws on marriage. But it’s a vastly complex legal system not followed or considered binding by almost all Christian communities. Christian legal systems that existed previously evolved when church institutions acquired political power, and where those institutions no longer have power those systems have generally fallen by the way. Christianity does not have a self-contained legal system like shari’a or Leviticus. But in Islamic societies where family law is governed by shari’a, it creates the necessity to give Christians ahwaal shakhsiya because they can’t be made to follow laws that are specific to Muslims. That’s right. But ‘Alawites have an internal conflict with themselves—whether they wanted to stay ‘Alawite, whether they wanted to change to Twelvers. If they wanted to write their own personal status law, I wouldn’t oppose it. If they do, it could distinguish them from Muslims. You see, their identity is not fixed. They themselves haven’t yet decided on their identity.But I question this idea that they “haven’t decided” on their identity. They are one of the oldest ghulaat sects in Islam. They are very old and they’ve existed in this area for many centuries. It seems that it was only in the 20thcentury that their identity began to be in flux, largely because of Hafez al-Assad coming to power, when they then had to wrestle with legitimacy. In terms of legitimacy, in the Hanafi school we consider them like the People of the Book. I didn’t know that. The Hanafi school has considered Magians as People of the Book. And similarly in the fatwas of the Hanafite scholars, such sects as the ‘Alawites and Druze are considered like the People of the Book, in a way that is quite simple, but which also has restrictions. Which scholars and in which period? I’m referring to scholars of the Ottoman period. I know you’re thinking about Ibn Taymiyya and others. I know he wrote against them. Exactly. So scholars after him in the Hanafi school—In the Hanafi school you also find books considering the ‘Alawites, and the Druze, and theBatiniyya in general as non-Muslims. Even a scholar called al-Mahdi from the Hanafi school authored a special book on them. (It has recently been re-published, just because of the uprising.) Now for me, mixing theology with politics is something very dangerous. When we say they are non-Muslims.. I was asked this question and some people misunderstood me. What I told them was that we teach theology in a class on theology: who is a Muslim, who is not. Who is a believer, who is an unbeliever—this discussion takes place in every religion. In Christianity: who is baptized or not baptized, who is entitled to salvation and who is not; it exists in every religion. But to have it in a political or a social law, this is different. When we say they are non-Muslims, it doesn’t mean they have to be killed. If we go to the books of politics: kitaab al-siyaasa, or kitaab al-jihaad, or kitaab al-whatever, or the books of fiqh, you’ll see that the muftis agreed on them living, agreed on giving them full rights. These were Ottoman muftis after Ibn Taymiyya; the Ottomans didn’t exterminate them. Now they had restrictions on them, which they [the ‘Alawis] considered oppression. Because they considered their religion falsehood, they were not allowed to proselytize for it. But nonon-Muslim religion is allowed to proselytize. Exactly. The other point is that because of their use of taqiyya, they were not allowed into higher positions, where they would harm the state. But you don’t see the phenomenon of Hasan Shirazi’s legitimization of them as a possible strategy for taqiyya? I think we have to differentiate between two things. There are some educated ‘Alawites, and I know some of them in Syria. I was in contact and in discussions with some of them including one of the greatest figures, Abd al-Rahman al-Khayir. Abd al-Rahman al-Khayir is from a scholarly ‘Alawite family and they consider the al-Assad family as a low family. The al-Khayir family are like the Sharifs of the ‘Alawites and there are several sheikhs from the al-Khayir family. The family and Abd al-Rahman al-Khayir himself was a friend of my father’s and other sheikhs. He presented himself as a Twelver. Now, I read some of his statements, and we believe that he was true in his statements. Now if others pretend, I don’t know. And I believe it was in the interest of the Iranian government to “Shi’atize” them.

Now I could be mistaken, but isn’t it the case that although ‘Alawis advertise themselves as Muslim, they often don’t make a point to portray themselves as Shi’i, but actually seem more aligned with Sunnis, even expressed through the president’s marriage to a Sunni woman?

Anything about ‘Alawites was banned. Books, media, newspapers, articles, radio programs, TV shows—anything. The word Alawiyya was banned. For 40 years! (From 1970.) They didn’t want people to discover the truth: that the regime was sectarian. Anyway, in terms of the future of the minorities, we have already set principles for all to participate in the civil conferences, and all citizens are equal before the law. We only reserve one right, which I advocate, and I think rightly; it is unspoken in most Western countries: the president has to represent the religion of the majority of the people. In Syria I think there is a need to satisfy people, and I think that would be good. When Kennedy was elected it was a big deal. Apart from that one item, I will rise to defend the minorities’ rights, even before defending the majority’s rights, because we don’t want anyone to be oppressed in the name of Islam.

Those with a takfiri ideology will say that ‘Alawis are the descendants of apostates, and therefore should be killed. They are also attacked with accusations of polytheism. Those who maintain these views would see them as unqualified for dhimmi status. When greater numbers of Muslims are being exposed to these views and are saying “hmm, that sounds right,” how does a scholar respond?

From a theological point of view, we oppose this because people may be unbelievers, they may be polytheists, but they may not be killed. These extremists who pose this “challenging” ideology—it doesn’t challenge anything. Their numbers are very small and everyone opposes them, all scholars including Ikhwaan. Here is the major difference between the Hanafi school and the opinion of Ibn Taymiyya (whose positions are not adopted by any of the four schools, but only by the Salafis): Although ‘Alawis are considered kufaar in the Hanafi school, as a sect we accept their legal presence within the Muslim community. They are not to be executed asmurtadiin [apostates], because they were not Muslims who rejected Islam. They were born within their sect!

Regarding the future of minorities, we need more representatives of their communities taking a stand against the regime now. The best guarantee for them is someone from that minority coming out in support of the uprising. We remember in Homs, people carried the cross in the demonstrations of Easter Friday. Muslims carried the cross in honor. Muslims will carry priests and honor them when they see them joining the uprising. The same with ‘Alawites. We haven’t seen highly prominent voices expressing regret and joining the uprising. That would be the best guarantee. However, our job as religious leaders is not to highlight the oppression that was carried out by ‘Alawites. In fact, we should prevent people from taking revenge. For example, Saudi sheikhs issued fatwas saying that women and children of the Nusayris should be killed. I said no. Around ten months ago or so, I was consulted for a fatwaon a military operation. Someone had planned an operation to kill a regime general, who was responsible for torture and such. He happened to be an Alawite. Anyway, they had put a bomb in his car, but when he got into the car, he had two sons with him. And there was a dispute as to whether they should detonate the bomb or not. After abandoning the operation, one of them said “let’s consult the sheikh” regarding what would be the right course of action. So he called me for a fatwa. I said “No, there is no way that you can kill him and kill his children.” Ok, do you have proof about him, that he is responsible, a criminal, an enemy in the war? But you can never kill his children. I’m very strict on this. There was another Alawite general who was captured in Douma. This was probably over a year and a half ago, early on in the uprising. And Douma has a mix of Salafis and others—Salafism is strong there. They also asked for a fatwa to kill him. I said “no way.” There is no way to kill a captive. Prisoners of war are to be protected. They tried to give examples from history, or from the Qur’an suggesting that prisoners of war may be killed. I said “this is not directed to you, it is to the ruler of the country!” If he decides that a prisoner of war is dangerous, he may be killed, and this is also based on the treatment of the opposition.

Myself and some others I research with found possible evidence of the killing of a bus full of prisoners in Raqqa, regime soldiers who had surrendered.

Oh, I have a number of stories also, of rebels accepting people’s surrender and then killing them afterwards.

It happens in every war. When people are angry and view the prisoners as those who are killing them, it becomes difficult to restrain the impulse for revenge amidst all that emotion.

This is why I never give a fatwa for the killing of anyone. A fatwa is more dangerous than a weapon itself, when you put it in the hand of angry people. In my last statement on kidnapping being forbidden, I said “a fatwa is a dangerous weapon when put in the hand of an angry man fighting on the ground—you will never know the extent of its effects.”

What role do you see yourself playing in a future Syria, when the country is rebuilt? What function would you like to perform?

Well, first of all I would like to go back to Syria to return to my work. One of the dearest things to me is to sit in the Umayyad Mosque; I want to continue teaching there. I was teaching al-Ghazali’s book Ihya’ ‘ulum ad-Din. Al-Ghazali is one of my favorites. And as a Sufi, I was teaching in the Sheikh al-Akbar Mosque, Ibn Arabi’s mosque [formally the “al-Salimiyya Mosque” after the Ottoman caliph]. I have very strong spiritual ties with him, and I was teaching Sufism there. I long for these places that have so much spirituality, such fragrances of history. Being there lets me perform a great service for Islam, which is a real honor for me. To continue teaching is the most significant role I can perform. At the same time, whenever there is conflict that I can resolve, a problem I can solve, I will always make a positive contribution when I can. Thanks to God I’ve been a good force in creating balance, influencing a lot of people in the uprising toward the right track. Wallah, I listen to so many angry people, receiving their anger; I try to absorb their emotion, their anger, and to transform it and produce something good from it. I tell them, “As Muslim believers if you’re going to treat your enemy in the same vengeful way that they do, you’re no different from them.” As Muslims, we’re unique for our mercy, for our pardoning, for our love, the love we have toward others. In the midst of anger, it is very difficult to control one’s emotions. I’m proud that through my talks, discussions, fatwas, that I’m spreading this orientation. We don’t have enough resources and support, and someone said to me, “In order to be popular, you need to be radical.” [smiling] I said, “I’m not going to change.”

That is going to be the most important thing in the future. After war, there is so much trauma. People suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, leading to problems in families, problems in connecting emotionally. Domestic violence increases after war, and the war-violence people experience affects all of their human relationships. Healing from that is very important, and your effort to absorb anger and produce something good from it is significant.

It is what people need most right now. Is any of the anger directed at you personally for saying or not saying certain things? No, it is just anger against the regime, anger at the atrocities. People need a guiding voice, we must embrace them, direct them in the right way, offer them solace. You know, the focus must not be on taking revenge. Revenge is not cured by further revenge; violence merely begets violence. The best way to treat it is by showing more love, showing mercy. This is what we can offer. If we were to really show it, no one could match Muslims in our mercy, but unfortunately, it’s disastrous now. We have to make a huge effort to heal hearts, to heal people’s hearts after the uprising.

2013/05/29:
هل الائتلاف الوطني وطني حقا؟
المكتب الإعلامي للشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

Is the National Coalition Truly National?
Press Office for Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi



هل الائتلاف الوطني وطني حقا؟

المكتب الإعلامي للشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

في منتصف شهر نيسان أبلغ الائتلاف الوطني الشيخ اليعقوبي اختياره عضوا للائتلاف، وفي اجتماع أيار ١١-١٢ أقرت الهيئة السياسية للائتلاف عضوية الشيخ اليعقوبي مع ثلاثين آخرين، ودعي الشيخ إلى إستنبول للمشاركة في اجتماع الهيئة العامة.

ولكن الائتلاف أمضى عدة أيام في نقاش عقيم حول التوسعة اتخذ بعده قرارا بضم ثمانية أعضاء لم يكن الشيخ بينهم، فما الذي جرى؟ ولمصلحة من يجري استبعاد الشيخ اليعقوبي من مراكز صنع القرار؟ ومن المستفيد من إقصاء عالم ذي حجة وبيان يتحدث العربية والإنجليزية طاف العالم يعرض القضية السورية واضعا علمه وخبرته في خدمة الثورة طوال سنتين؟

إن حضور العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي للائتلاف لم يكن باقتراح أو ضغط من أي دولة، وإنما جاء به تاريخ مشرق من الجهاد في خدمة العلم ونصرة ثورة الشعب، فهو عالم حر لا ينتمي إلى أي تنظيم ولا يميل إلى أي اتجاه سياسي.

لقد تذرع عدد من أعضاء الائتلاف في رفض التوسعة بالخوف من أن نسبة تمثيل العلمانيين ستزيد زيادة حادة بعد التوسعة، ولكن هذا العذر لا ينطبق على الشيخ، إلا إن كان أعضاء الائتلاف يرون أن الإسلام هو تنظيم معين ومن سواه من العلماء والدعاة وأفراد الشعب هم خارج الإسلام.

الشيخ اليعقوبي عالم صوفي وسياسي محنك، قارع النظام منذ سنين، وشارك في تأجيج الثورة من بداياتها، وكان لخطبه وفتاواه وبياناته منذ بداية الثورة أبلغ الأثر في انضمام الشيوخ والشباب في ريف دمشق وحمص وحماة وحلب إلى الثورة، لثقة الناس بعلمه ومواقفه. ولم يدخل في الثورة ليكون من المشاهير فهو مشهور قبل الثورة، ففي سنة ٢٠١٠ صنف بين خمسمائة شخصية إسلامية هم الأكثر تأثيرا في العالم.

إن استبعاد شخص وطني يمثل شريحة واسعة من الناس بسبب ضغط دولة أو تنظيم يطرح سؤالا هاما حول الائتلاف وطبيعته، هل هو وطني حقا؟! فاسمه الائتلاف الوطني، ولكن تصرفاته لا تدل على هذه الوطنية إطلاقا.

إننا لا نعادي أي شخص أو تنظيم، وليس لنا إلا عدو واحد هو النظام الذي يقتل شعبنا ويدمر بلدنا، ولكن الائتلاف مسؤول عن كل ما جرى، ونطالب من لم يرض بتصرفات الائتلاف المبتذلة أن يستقيل، كما فعل بعض الشرفاء.

وختاما نقول للذين يتاجرون بدماء شعبنا في الائتلاف: الحياة مواقف، والتاريخ يسجل، والقرار الأخير لصناع الأمجاد من الثوار الأبطال. والرحمة لشهدائنا والنصر لثورتنا.

Is the National Coalition Truly National?

Press Office for
Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

In mid-April the National Coalition informed Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi that he had been elected as a member of the coalition. In the May 11th/12th meeting, the Commission approved membership for Shaykh Muhammad and 30 others. Thereafter the Shaykh was invited to Istanbul to participate in the General Assembly Meeting. After days of futile discussions about the coalition’s growth, eight new members were announced however Shaykh Muhammad was not included. So what happened? What benefit is there in excluding Shaykh Muhammad from a decision-making role? What possible benefit is there in excluding a well-versed, multilingual scholar who has travelled the world making people aware of the Syrian crisis and with his knowledge and experience served the revolution since its inception?

Shaykh Muhammad did not attend this meeting due to pressure or by way of suggestion from any government. Instead he came bringing with him a history of Jihad in serving knowledge and the revolution. He is an independent scholar and does not belong to any organisation or political ideology. Numerous members have pretexted the coalition’s lack of expansion by claiming that secular representation will ensue if expansion occurs. However this excuse does not apply to Shaykh Muhammad unless coalition members considers Islam to be a particular organisation and that everyone else; the Ulema, preachers and the public, are outside Islam.

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi is a Sufi scholar and a seasoned “politician.” He has been battling the regime for two years and driven the revolution since its inception. From the beginning of the revolution his speeches, legal edicts and statements have had the greatest impact, making scholars and laypeople from the outskirts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo join the revolution. This is because people trust his knowledge and positions. He did not participate in the revolution for fame; he was famous well before. In fact, in 2010 he was enumerated amongst the 500 most influential people in the world. The exclusion of nationals representing a diversity of people because of governmental or organisational pressure poses an important question about the National Coalition and its nature: Is it really “national?” It is called the National Coalition but its dealings do not suggest an absolute national ethos.

We do not want to make enmity with any individual or organisation. We have only one enemy; the regime which is killing our people and destroying our country. Nonetheless, the National Coalition is accountable for everything that has transpired. We request those displeased with the coalition’s dealings to resign the way many notables have already done so.

In conclusion we say to those in the coalition who trade with the blood of our people: Life is but a few phases. History is recorded and the final decision will be with the distinguished heroes of the revolution. Mercy is for our martyrs and victory for our revolution.

2013/05/20:
القصير في خطر … واغوثاه
ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﺑﻲ

El-Quseir is in danger
Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi



القصير في خطر … واغوثاه

الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

القصير في خطر … واغوثاه

الشيخ محمد أبو الهدي اليعقوبي

القصير في خطر … القصير تستغيث …
القصير على شفا أن تسقط بأيدي أعداء الله القتلة المجرمين …
أهل القصير في رعب وخوف وفزع من انتقام النظام …
فكونوا مع أولئك الأبطال بالدعاء بالليل والنهار والعشي والإبكار والقيام والقعود والتشهد والسجود
كونوا مع النساء والشيوخ والأطفال بالدعم والتأييد ، بالإمداد بالطعام والشراب والدواء
من استطاع أن ينطلق ليداوي جريحا
أو ينقذ طفلا
أو يعين شيخا هرما
أو بزرع بسمة في وجه طفل يبكي خوفا من الموت
أو يضع السكينة في قلب امرأة تخشى أن تغتصب
فلا يتأخر
انطلقوا إلى القصير أيها المجاهدون للجهاد
انطلقوا إلى القصير أيها الأطباء للعلاج
جهزوا إلى القصير أيها التجار أحمال الطعام والشراب والدواء
فالقصير تنادي واغوثاه … واغوثاه
أرض القصير التي كانت في الماضي مرتعا للغزلان

تتوجه إليها الوحوش من جنود النظام والمرتزقة لافتراس البراءة وقتل الحياة .
نسأل الله تعالى النصر للمجاهدين في القصير وحمص ، وأن يكتب الله تعالى السلامة للأهالي .

ونحذر من أن القصير بوابة حمص وسقوط القصير يشكل خطرا شديدا على حمص ، ويزيد من الضغط على المجاهدين هناك ، فعليكم بالدعاء ومد يد العون لإخوانكم هناك

{ولا تهنوا ولا تحزنوا وأنتم الأعلون إن كنتم مؤمنين . إن يمسسكم قرح فقد مس القوم قرح مثله وتلك الأيام نداولها بين الناس وليعلم الله الذين آمنوا ويتخذ منكم شهداء والله لا يحب الظالمين}.

El-Quseir is in danger…

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

El-Quseir is in danger…
El-Quseir seeks help…
The residents of El-Quseir are in constant fear and dread of retaliation from the regime. So support them with duas throughout the day & night, morning & evening, whilst sitting & standing and in every tashahhud and prostration. Support the women, children and elders of El-Quseir with food, drink and medicine. Whoever can treat the wounded; save a child; help an elderly person; plant a smile on the face of a child crying for fear of death; or place tranquillity in the heart of a woman who fears rape then do not delay. Head for El-Quseir O Mujahidin for Jihad. Depart for El-Quseir O doctors to treat the wounded. O traders! Leave for El-Quseir carrying food, drink and medicine. El-Quseir cries out to you! El-Quseir: Once the serene land of Gazelles. Now the regime’s beasts and mercenaries turn to it to prey on the innocent.

We ask Allah Almighty that He aid the Mujahidin in El-Quseir and Homs. The fall of El-Quseir will result in a disastrous situation for Homs and it will increase the pressure on the Mujahidin there. You must make dua and extend your hands to help your brothers there.

{So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are [true] believers. If a wound should touch you – there has already touched the [opposing] people a wound similar to it. And these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people so that Allah may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs – and Allah does not like the wrongdoers} Al-Quran, 3:139-140.

2013/05/07:
بيان استنكار لهجوم إسرائيل على سورية 
العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

Denunciation of Israel Attack on syria

بيان استنكار لهجوم إسرائيل على سورية 

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

قامت قوات العدو الإسرائيلي بتعد صارخ على سيادة الدولة السورية وقصفت مقار ألوية ومخازن أسلحة تابعة للجيش العربي السوري ، وأيا ما كانت طبيعة علاقتنا بالنظام السوري فإننا لابد أن نستنكر تعدي إسرائيل على سيادة بلدنا وأرضنا وجيشنا ، فنحن لا نبوء بدمنا ولا نبيع تراب بلدنا ، ونتمثل بقول الشاعر العربي:

بلادي وإن جارت علي عزيزة
وأهلي وإن ضَنوا علي كرامُ

لقد كان النظام طوال أربعة عقود حارسا أمينا للحدود مع إسرائيل ، يسهر على أمن العدو مضحيا بالبلد والشعب والقضية ، وها هو اليوم يعجز عن الرد سوى بالخطب والبيانات كما عجز من قبل ، إنه ثمن البقاء في السلطة ، وهو لا يدري أنهم سيضحون به عما قريب كما ضحوا بالقذافي ومبارك وبن علي وأنه لن يفلت من غضب الله وعقابه ولا من انتقام الشعب ، وأن الغرب عند انتصار المعارضة سيفضل التعامل مع عدو قوي على صديق ضعيف كما فعل في مصر.

لم يترك هذا النظام المجرم أسلوبا في القتل والقمع والإرهاب لشعبنا الأبي إلا ارتكبه وآخر ذلك مجازر الجديدة ومجازر بانياس التي تقشعر لسماع أخبارها الأبدان ، وهو إنما يفعل ذلك بسبب تأييد إيران وروسية له وعجز دول العالم عن ردعه ، ولم يعد خافيا أن مرد هذا العجز إنما هو إلى عدم رغبة إسرائيل في تغيير هذا النظام.

ونحن إذ نتألم حين نرى جيشنا يدمر وقواعده تقصف وأمن بلادنا يتعرض للخطر ، فإننا نضع اللائمة في ذلك كله على هذا النظام ، وندعوه إلى وقف جميع العمليات العسكرية ضد شعبنا وتحويل فوهات المدافع نحو الجبهة ليدرأ عن سورية ما يحيق بها من أخطار .

إنني أدعو جميع قوى المعارضة والثورة إلى الأخذ بعين الاعتبار أن بين سورية وإسرائيل حالة حرب لم تبدأ بوصول نظام البعث للحكم وإنما ترجع إلى سنة ١٩٤٨ ، من أجل ذلك فإن الواجب الوطني يملي علينا أن نستنكر اعتداءات إسرائيل على بلدنا ، ولا يجوز بحال من الأحوال مهما ضاقت بنا السبل وانقطعت الحيل أن تضطرنا معاداة النظام إلى موالاة إسرائيل وبيع قضايانا وقضايا العرب والمسلمين.

وننبه إلى أننا نحتسب من مات من جنودنا تحت القصف ممن لم تتلوث أيديهم بدماء شعبنا الأبي في ثورته شهداء عند الله تعالى قتلوا وهم في رباط بيد عدو يحتل أرضنا وينكل بإخواننا في فلسطين والجولان، هذا إن صدقت النيات منهم في الجهاد ضد عدونا لا ضد شعبنا.

لكنا نشير إلى أنه لا خيار لنا وأبناء شعبنا يذبحون على أيدي هذا الجلاد ومن معه من المرتزقة إلا أن نواصل الثورة حتى النصر وإسقاط النظام وبناء دولة الحق والعدل ، ونحن على يقين أن الله تعالى معنا مهما خذلتنا الدول ، لأن الله مع الضعيف المظلوم على القوي الظالم ، ولا نشك في أن النصر قريب مهما تأخر ، لتحقق وعد الله تعالى به ، وأنه على الباغي تدور الدوائر

{وَسَيَـعْـلَـمُ الـذِيـن ظَـلَـمُـوا أيَّ مُـنْـقَـلَـبٍ يَـنْـقَـلِـبُـون}.

2013/04/21:
500 people killed in a New Massacre in Syria

In a recent statement, the Syrian, shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi called Jordan and Turkey to an immediate military intervention in Syria to save the Syrian people and put an end to its suffering; and to help the Syrian people establishing the next government.

500 people were killed in cold blood mutilated and many burnt outside Damascus in Jdaydit Artooz. The troops of the Syrian regime besieged the town and gathered men and women and brought 100 prisoners and killed them and set fire to the bodies. Many of the victims are women and children and the rest are civilians who mostly fled from other areas.

Denouncing is not enough – the removal the regime without delay is an obligation and bringing all the people responsible for these massacres to justice.

Therefor, we call for in immediate military intervention of the neighbouring countries, mainly Jordan and Turkey.

We offer our condolences to our brothers and sisters in Syria. May Allah have mercy of the victims and may He grant patience to their families.

MUhammad Al-Yaqoubi

[/tab]

2013/04/21:
فتاوى للثورة – حكم استئذان الوالدين للجهاد 
العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

Fatwa: Seeking Parental Permission for Jihad
His Eminence Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi



فتاوى للثورة – حكم استئذان الوالدين للجهاد 

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

السؤال: ياشيخنا أريد منك بيانا عن حكم الشباب الذين لم يخرجو مع الثوار خوفا من أن يؤثر عليهم غضب أمهاتهم وآبائهم مع الدليل المقنع، نحنا بحاجة إلى هذا جدا.

الجواب: الأصل في الجهاد أنه فرض كفاية إذا قام به بعض الناس سقط عن الباقين، واستئذان الوالدين فيه واجب.

قال برهان الدين المرغيناني في البداية في كتاب السيَر: “الجهاد فرض كفاية إذا قام به فريق من الناس سقط عن الباقين ، فإن لم يقم به أحد أثم جميع الناس بتركه”.

وحيث لم يكن فرضا عين على المكلف فاستئذان الوالدين فيه واجب ، لأن طاعتهما فرض عين ، فلا يجوز الخروج فيه حتى يأذنا.

والدليل هو الحديث المتفق عليه عند البخاري ومسلم عن سيدنا عبد الله بن عمرو أن رجلا استأذن النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام في الجهاد فقال له: أحيٌّ والداك؟ قال: نعم ، قال: ففيهما فجاهد ، وفي رواية في صحيح مسلم: “ارجِع إلى والديك فأحسن صحبتهما” ، وفي رواية في سنن أبي داود وصحيح ابن حبان: “ارجع فأضحكهما كما أَبكيتهما”.

“وأصرح منه” كما قال الحافظ أبو الفضل العسقلاني في فتح الباري حديث أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه الذي أخرج أبو داود في السنن وابن حبان في الصحيح وغيرهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ردّ رجلا هاجر من اليمن لوالديه ، قال له: أذنا لك؟ قال: لا ، فقال عليه الصلاة والسلام: ارجع إليهما فاستأذنهما فإن أذنا لك فجاهد وإلا فبرهما.
قال الحافظ في الفتح: قال جمهور العلماء: يحرم الجهاد إذا منع الأبوان أو أَحدهما بشرط أن يكونا مسلمين ، لأن برهما فرض عين عليه والجهاد فرض كفاية”.

قال علاء الدين الحصكفي في الدر المختار شرح تنوير الأبصار في كتاب الجهاد: “لا يُفرض على صبي وبالغ له أبوان أو أحدهما ، لأن طاعتهما فرض عين” . قال الطحطاوي في حاشيته: “لأن طاعتهما فرض عين أي والجهاد فرض كفاية ومراعاة فرض العين مقدَّمة”.

وقال الإمام النووي في شرح صحيح مسلم في شرح حديث ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما المتفق عليه: “لا هجرة بعد الفتح ولكن جهاد ونية وإذا استنفرتم فانفروا”: “معناه إذا طلبكم الإمام للخروج إلى الجهاد فاخرجوا ، وهذا دليل على أن الجهاد ليس فرض عين ، بل فرض كفاية إذا فعله من تحصل بهم الكفاية سقط الحرج عن الباقين ، وإن تركوه كلهم أثموا كلهم ، قال أصحابنا: الجهاد اليوم فرض كفاية ، إلا أن ينزل الكفار ببلد المسلمين فيتعين عليهم الجهاد ، فإن لم يكن في أهل ذلك البلد كفاية وجب على من يليهم تتميم الكفاية”.

فإذا صار الجهاد فرض عين على كل صغير وكبير لم يحتجِ المجاهد إلى استئذان أحد فيه . وإنما يكون فرض عين عند غلبة العدو على بلد واجتياحه له وعدمِ كفاية الناس للرد ، فيتعين على كل قادر إذ ذاك حمل السلاح.

قال الحافظ في الفتح بعد ما تقدم: “فإذا تعين الجهاد فلا إذن ، ويشهد له ما أخرجه ابن حبان من طريق أخرى عن عبد الله بن عمرو جاء رجل إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فسأله عن أفضل الْأعمال ، قال: الصلاة . قال: ثم مه ؟ قال: الجهاد ، قال: فإن لي والدين ، فقال: آمرك بوالديك خيرا . فقال: والذي بعثك بالحق نبيا لأجاهدن ولأتركنهما ، قال: فأنت أعلم . وهو محمول على جهاد فرض العين توفيقا بين الحديثين”.

قال المرغيناني في البداية: “إلا أن يكون النفير عاما فحينئذ يصير من فروض الأعيان”. والحال في سورية مختلف من مدينة إلى أخرى، إذ الشباب المجاهدون كثير والحاجة إلى السلاح والطعام أشد من الحاجة إلى الرجال ، ولكن قوات النظام قد تجتاح بلدة ما ، فيجب عند ذلك على الجميع النفير للجهاد ورد العدو ، قال المرغيناني: “فإن هجم العدو على بلد وجب على جميع الناس الدفع تخرج المرأة بغير إذن زوجها والعبد بغير إذن المولى” ، أي ويخرج الولد بغير إذن أبيه عندئذ عند هجوم العدو على بلدة ، وهذا هو الحكم في رد الصائل أيضا . فالجهاد عامة فرض كفاية لا فرض عين، والاستئذان فيه للوالدين واجب ، والوجوب يختلف بحسب القرب ، فهو أشد على أهل المناطق التي تتعرض للهجوم من قوات النظام ، كما أن الوجوب يقوى في حق من له قوة أو خبرة في استعمال بعض أنواع السلاح وإعانة المجاهدين بالمال جهاد.

والأصول كالجد والجدة في حكم الوالدين يجب إذنهما عند الحنفية كما في حاشية الطحطاوي . وإذا كان والداه كافرين ومنعاه من الخروج للجهاد لاحتياجهما إليه أو تعلقا به وخوفا عليه وجبت عليه طاعتهما الكافران فإن كان المنع لأجل كراهيتهما للجهاد خرج ولو لم يأذنا.

وكذلك الحكم فيما لو كان له أولاد أو زوجة ويخاف عليهم الضياع لعدم من ينفق عليهما فإن لا يخرج للجهاد. قال الطحطاوي نقلا عن البحر الرائق: “أما م سوى الأصول إذا كرهوا خروجه للجهاد فإن كان يخاف عليهم الضياع فإن لا يخرج بغير إذنهم وإلا يخرج وكذا امرأته”.

ومن لم يأذن له والداه بالجهاد فليتكسب ولينفق من ماله على المجاهدين يكن له أجر الجهاد بإذن الله تعالى ، فقد أخرج البخاري ومسلم عن سيدنا زيد بن خالد الجهني رضي الله عنه عن النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام أنه قال: “من جهز غازيا في سبيل الله فقد غزا ومن خلفه في أهله وماله بخير فقد غزا”. والله تعالى أعلم.

Fatwa: Seeking Parental Permission for Jihad

By His Eminence Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

Query:
I seek an evidenced explanation regarding young people who do not participate in the revolution for fear of angering their parents.

Answer:

Jihad is a communal obligation [Farḍ Kifāya]; as long as some people are fulfilling this obligation, it drops from the remainder. Thus parental permission prior to Jihad is incumbent.

Imām Burhān Al-Dīn Al-Marghinānī explains in his work Al-Hidāya, Chapter of War:
Jihad is a communal obligation; when a group of people are participating in it, the obligation drops from the remainder of people. However if no-one is establishing it then all people will incur the sin of abandoning it.

As long as Jihad does not become an individual obligation [Farḍ ‘Ayn], parental permission is obligatory because obeying them is an individual obligation. Hence departing for Jihad without their permission is not allowed.

The evidence for this is the hadith agreed upon by Al-Bukhārī and Muslim:
‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr states that a man sought permission from the prophet [peace be upon him] for Jihad. The prophet [peace be upon him] replied: “Are your parents alive?” The man said: “Yes.” The prophet [peace be upon him] then said: “Make Jihad [strive] in both of them [i.e. in their service].”

In the narration of Muslim, the prophet [peace be upon him] said:
Return to your parents and accompany them in kindness

In Sunan Abī Dāwūd and Sahīh Ibn Habbān:
Return to them [your parents] and make them laugh the way you made them cry

A “more explicit” evidence, in the words of Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalānī, is the hadith of Abu Sa’īd Al-Khudri [Allah be pleased with him] as narrated by Abu Dawūd and Ibn Habbān amongst others: The prophet [peace be upon him] sent a man who had migrated from Yemen, back to his parents. The prophet [peace be upon him] said to the man: “Do you have permission?” The man replied, “No.” Then the prophet [peace be upon him] said: “Return to them and seek their permission. If they permit, make Jihad; if they do not then be good to them.”

Ibn Hajar states in his work Fath Al-Bārī:
The vast majority of scholars say that Jihad is forbidden if the parents or one of them does not approve, given they are Muslim, because being good to them is an individual obligation whilst Jihad is a communal obligation.

Imām ‘Ala Al-Dīn Al-Haskafī says in Al-Durr Al-Mukhtār, Chapter of Jihad:
Jihad is not obligated for the child or the adult whose parent(s) are alive because obeying them is an individual obligation

Imām Al-Tahāwī adds in his gloss of the above work:
Because obeying them is an individual obligation, whilst Jihad is a communal obligation and the individual obligation is prioritised.

Imām Al-Nawawī says in his commentary of Sahīh Muslim, commenting on the hadith, “There is no migration after the conquest [of Makka] however there is Jihad and sincerity. When you are asked to set out then do so:”

The meaning is that when the Caliph wants you to set out for Jihad, you must do so. This is evidence that Jihad is not an individual obligation but is in fact a communal obligation; when those with whom the obligation is fulfilled make Jihad, the responsibility is dropped from everyone else. If everyone abandons it though, they are all sinned. Our jurists say that at present Jihad is a communal obligation unless non-Muslims invade Muslim lands; then Jihad will be stipulated for the people. Then, if the residents in that [the invaded] land cannot fulfil the obligation, neighbouring people must fulfil it.

When Jihad becomes an individual obligation for everyone, young and aged, the Mujāhid does not require anyone’s permission. Jihad becomes an individual obligation when enemies invade and dominate a country and the people are unable to fight back. In such as case it is incumbent for every able person to take up arms. Imām Ibn Hajar says:

When Jihad is an individual obligation, permission is not required. This is evidenced by the hadith narrated by Ibn Hibbān: A man came to the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] and asked regarding the greatest deed. He [peace be upon him] replied: “Prayer.” The man asked, “Then what?” He said: “Jihad.” The man said: “I have parents.” The prophet [peace be upon him] replied: “I instruct you to be good to your parents. I swear by the one who sent me with the truth as a prophet that I would verily make Jihad and leave them [parents]. The man said, “You know better,” [end of hadith]. This hadith is understood as referring to the Jihad which is individually obligated as per reconciling the two differing hadith.

Imām Al-Marghinānī says in Al-Hidāya: “Unless there is general panic. In that case Jihad will become one of the individual obligations.” The situation in Syria differs from city to city. There are enough fighters; the need for weapons and food is much direr than the need for fighters. However the regime’s forces have invaded towns. So it is obligatory for all to participate in Jihad against the enemy. Al-Marghinānī states: “If the enemies attack a town then it is obligatory on every person to resist; women will go out without their husbands’ permission and slaves without the masters’ permission.”

This extends to youngsters going out without parental permission when enemies attack a town, and to repelling an attacker also. Generally, Jihad is a communal and not individual obligation and thus parental permission is incumbent. The degree of obligation for Jihad will depend on distance from the attacked town. It is greatest for the townspeople of the city attacked by the regime’s forces. Obligation is also greatest for those able to participate and those who are trained in using weaponry. Supporting the Mujahidin with monetary aid is also a form of Jihad.

According to the Hanfite School, grandparents are like parents; it is incumbent to receive their permission as recorded in Hashiya Al-Tahtāwī. When both parents are non-Muslims and they prevent him from departing for Jihad because they rely on him or are attached to him or because they fear for him then he must them. If their prevention is due to a disliking for Jihad then he can depart without their permission.

If the person has a wife and children and he fears for them as there won’t be anyone to support them, he does not go out for Jihad. Imām Al-Tahtāwī says that “When he fears difficulty for them [his parents/grandparents], he does not go out without their permission, otherwise he can. This also applies to his wife.”

The person who did not receive his parents’ permission for Jihad should earn and spend some of his earnings on the Mujahidin; he too will gain the reward of Jihad if Allah Almighty permits. Al-Bukhārī and Muslim relate the following from Zayd ibn Khālid Al-Juhnī [Allah be pleased with him]:
The prophet [peace be upon him] said: The person who equips a fighter for Allah’s way, has partaken in battle and whoever takes care of his [the Mujahid’s] family and wealth with goodness, has partaken in battle.

Allah knows best.

2013/04/21:
الشيخ محمد أبوالهدى اليعقوبي
يدعو للتدخل العسكري لإنقاذ الشعب السوري

Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi calls for a military intervention in Syria



اليعقوبي يدعو للتدخل العسكري لإنقاذ الشعب السوري

دعا الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي الأردن وتركيا إلى التدخل العسكري الفوري في سورية لإنقاذ الشعب السوري من مذابح نظام الأسد المجرم.

وجاءت هذه الدعوة ردا على المجزرة الأخيرة التي ارتكبتها قوات النظام في جديدة عرطوز وذهب ضحيتها نحو ٥٠٠ من المدنيين كثير منهم من النساء والأطفال. وقال الشيخ اليعقوبي: “إن إنقاذ الشعب السوري واجب في الدين وحق من حقوق الجوار ولذلك فإننا ندعو إلى دخول القوات الأردنية من الجنوب والقوات التركية من الشمال لحماية المدنيين والقضاء على نظام الأسد وتسليم السلطة للشعب ، وإن أي مضاعفات لدخول مثل هذه القوات تتلاشى أمام ما نشهده من مذابح كل يوم يذهب ضحيتها الآلاف من الأبرياء”.

ودعا الشيخ اليعقوبي إلى عقد اجتماع طارئ للهيئة العامة للائتلاف الوطني لقوى الثورة والمعارضة يتخذ فيها هذا القرار ويبلغ رسميا عبر الطرق الديبلوماسية للحكومة الأردنية والحكومة التركية وجامعة الدول العربية ومنظمة التعاون الإسلامي والأمم المتحدة.

وأكد أن الائتلاف باعتباره الممثل الشرعي الوحيد للشعب السوري لا يحتاج إلى موافقة أي منظمة دولية لطلب المساعدة للقضاء على عصابة من المجرمين تقتل الشعب وتحرق تعيث فسادا في الأرض ، وأن هذا الطلب حين يصدر من الائتلاف بعد أن اعترفت به جامعة الدول العربية ممثلا شرعيا وحيدا يتوافق مع قواعد القانون الدولي في احترام سيادة الدول ولا تستطيع لا روسية ولا غيرها معارضته.

يذكر أن الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي هو أحد أبرز قادة الثورة من علماء الدين وهو عالم معتدل صوفي ذو خبرة سياسية واسعة ونشاط دولي ، كان مدرسا في الجامع الأموي الشهير بدمشق ، يتقن عددا من اللغات من بينها الإنجليزية ، وهو مصنف لعدة سنوات ضمن الشخصيات الإسلامية الـ ٥٠٠ الأكثر تأثيرا في العالم.

Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi calls for a military intervention in Syria

In a recent statement, the Syrian, shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi called Jordan and Turkey to an immediate military intervention in Syria to save the Syrian people and put an end to its suffering; and to help the Syrian people establishing the next government.

Shaykh Al-Yaqoubi’s calls comes, as he confirmed, in response to the most recent massacre in which the regime forces killed ca 500 people in a town outside Damascus.

He said, any risks in having military intervention by our neighbours, brothers and friends is less than the risks taken day by day in leaving the regime to continue slaughtering the Syrian people.

He also called the National coalition of the Syrian Opposition for an immediate emergency meeting in which a formal call to Jordan and Turkey for military intervention should made and sent via the diplomatic channels.

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi is a world-renowned sufi scholar and theologian. He is one of the forefront leaders of the Syrian uprising. He was an instructor in the Grand Omayyad mosque and is classified as one of the 500 most influential Muslims figures in the World.

2013/04/20:
فتاوى للثورة
المرأة التي فُقد زوجها في أحداث سورية ما ذا تفعل ؟
العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

What is a woman who lost her husband during the Syrian revolution to do?
Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi



فتاوى للثورة : المرأة التي فُقد زوجها في أحداث سورية ما ذا تفعل ؟

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

الحمد لله وصلى الله على خير خلقه سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه وبعد فقد ورد إلينا هذا السؤال: ماذا تفعل المرأة التي فقد زوجها في سورية الآن خلال الأحداث ولم يعرف عنه أي خبر أحي أم ميت ، وقد رأينا تفصيل الجواب كما في مذهب الإمام مالك رحمه الله تعالى فإنه أيسر المذاهب في أحكام المفقود.

وخلاصة الجواب

أن المرأة التي فُقد زوجها في أحداث سورية الآن فلا تدري أحي هو أم ميت وتريد الطلاق منه: أن الزوجة ترفع الأمر إلى القاضي أو الهيئة الشرعية وتطلب الطلاق من القاضي بعد إثبات الزواج ، فإن أثبتت أن الزوج لم يترك لها نفقة طلق القاضي عليه ، وتعتد من وقت تطليق القاضي ، ولها بعد انتهاء العدة أن تتزوج . وإن كان ترك لها النفقة فالواجب عليها الانتظار .

وتختلف مدة الانتظار بحسب حال المفقود ، والسجين ليس بمفقود شرعا ، ويجب على زوجته أن تنتظر حتى يبلغ عمره السبعين سنة ، فإذا بلغ هذه السنّ ولم يظهر قضى القاضي بموته ، فتعتد زوجته عدة الوفاة ، وتُقسم تركته بين الورثة.

ومن فُقد في سورية سواء خطف من حاجز أو ذهب للقتال ، وانقطع خبره ولم يعلم أحي هو أم ميت ، فهذا هو المفقود شرعا :

فإن ترك نفقة لزوجته ، وطال غيابه ولم يظهر ، وجب عليها أن تنتظر أربع سنين ، فإن لم يظهر بعد أربع سنين حكم القاضي بموته وتعتد عدة الوفاة .

وإن فقد ولم يترك لها نفقة جاز لها أن تطلب الطلاق فور فقده ، ولا يجب عليها الانتظار ، والقاضي هو الذي يطلق ، وتقوم الهيئة الشرعية مقام القاضي عند غيابه .

تـفـصـيـل أحـكـام الـمـفـقـود

المقصود بالمفقود هنا الزوج الغائب الذي انقطع خبره ولا يعرف أحي هو أم ميت. ويقال للمرأة التي فقدت الزوج “فاقد”.

المفقود أربعة أقسام عند المالكية أقسام:

القسم الأول: المفقود في القتال بين المسلمين بين الصَّفين ، وهو الجندي الذي خرج إلى المعركة وانتهت ، وكان فيها قتلى وفقد فيها فلم يوجد جسده ، ولم يعثر عليه، أي لم يؤخذ أسيرا في الحرب بين المسلمين إذا اقتتلوا.

هذا تعتد زوجته من وقت انتهاء المعركة، بشرط أن يشهد الشهود أنه حضر المعركة حال القتال بين الصفين، ولا تكفي الشهادة بمجرد الخروج للحرب.

وهذا أقرب شيئ إلى حال من يفقد في التفجيرات وتحت القصف ولا يعثر على شيئ جسده مع التيقن بوجوده في المكان بشهادة العدول.

القسم الثاني: المفقود في القتال بين المسلمين والكفار بين الصَّفين، والحكم فيه أن ترفع أمرها للقاضي أو من يقوم مقام القاضي حال عدمه، فيبحث عنه ويستخبر ويضرب لها سنة من وقت اليأس من خبره تعتد بعد انقضائها إذا لم يظهر، عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها أربعة أشهر وعشرا، ولها بعد ذلك أن تتزوج.

القسم الثالث: الذي ينطبق على أهلنا الآن في سورية هو المفقود ببلاد الإسلام، سواء كانت حرب أم لم تكن. وهذا حال من خرج الآن للحرب ولم يرجع ولم يعرف له خبر، وحال من خطف عند الحواجز ولم يعرف له خبر ، فلا هو بمحبوس ولا هو بأسير.

والحكم في هذه المرأة التي غاب عنها زوجها وانقطعت أخباره عنها ، ولم يُعثَر عليه ولم يُعرف أهو حي أم ميت: أنها ترفع أمرها للقاضي أو من يقوم مقام القاضي حال عدمه ، فينظر القاضي في حال الزوجة إذ لا تخلو من واحد من هذه الأحوال:

* الأولى: إذا لم يكن قد ترك لها نفقة من ماله ، ولا غلة له من تجارة تنفق منها ، ولا مال له تنفق منه ، وليس بموسر ، أو هو موسر ولا مال لها لتنفق منه بالتبعة عليه ، ولا تصبر على ذلك ، فحكم هذه أن يطلق القاضي عليه بعد العجز عن معرفة خبره ، وتعتد فور تطليق القاضي لها عدة المطلقة وهي عند المالكية ثلاثة أطهار، والعدة تبدأ من وقت حكم القاضي بالتطليق لا من وقت ابتداء الغياب أو انقطاع الخبر .

* الثانية: أن تخشى على نفسها العنت ، أي ارتكاب المحرمات أو الوقوع في الزنا مع غياب الزوج ، فهذه يجوز لها أن ترفع أمرها للقاضي أو من يقوم مقامه عند عدمه وتطلب الطلاق ، سواء ترك لها الزوج نفقة أم لم يترك ، إذ المقصود من الزواج إعفاف النفس وبغياب الزوج قد يفوت هذا المقصود ويلحق الضرر بالزوجة ولا ضرر ولا ضرار . ويطلق القاضي على الزوج وتعتد من وقت صدور حكم القاضي بالتطليق .

* الثالثة: أن يترك المفقود لها نفقة من مال أو غلة أو نحو ذلك، فلا يصح لها طلب الطلاق لذلك ، بل يجب عليها الانتظار (إلا إذا خشيت العنت كما قدمنا قبل أسطر) . والمفتى به في المذهب الانتظار مدة أربع سنين من وقت انقطاع البحث بالعجز عن الوصول إلى خبر عنه ، مادامت النفقة باقية ، فتعتد في هذه الصورة عند انقضاء السنين الأربع عدة المتوفى عنها زوجها أي أربعة أشهر وعشرة أيام ، ولها حينئذ أن تتزوج . ولا تحتاج للدخول في العدة إلى قضاء جديد ، فضرب الأجل يكفي ، وانقضاء الأجل مع عدم ظهور الزوج إذن بالدخول في العدة.

القسم الرابع من أقسام المفقود هو المفقود في بلاد الكفر، وهذا ينتظر فيه عند المالكية إلى يبلغ عمره السبعين سنة فيحكم القاضي عند ذلك بوفاته وتعتد الزوجة عدة الوفاة ، وبلادنا سورية بلاد إسلام فالذي ينطبق عليها هو القسم الثالث الذي فصلناه آنفا.

ملاحظات:

- يقوم الوالي مقام القاضي عند عدمه ، وكذا صاحب الشرطة ونحوهُ كالمختار في المحلة والقائم مقام الوالي ، فإن لم يوجد واحد من هؤلاء عند فقد القاضي رجعت إلي جماعة المسلمين من الصلحاء في البلدة . وتقوم الهيئة الشرعية مقام القاضي الآن .

- الأسير والسجين المعروف مكانه ولو ظنا ليس بمفقود ولكن للزوجة طلب الطلاق من القاضي إن لم يترك لها نفقة أو خشيت العنت ، وإن صبرت فالأجل في ذلك إلى يبلغ عمره السبعين سنة ، فإذا بلغ السبعين ولم يظهر حكم القاضي بموته.

- من أحكام المفقود أنه يجب على القاضي أن يعين وكيلا يدير تجارته إن كانت له تجارة ، ويتصرف في أمواله بالوجوه الشرعية فيما فيه صلاح له .

- لرجوع الزوج المفقود خلال العدة أو بعد انقضاء العدة أحكام مفصلة ينبغي السؤال عنها وقت النازلة . هذا ما لزم بيانه والله تعالى أعلم

والحمد لله رب العالمين وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه.

What is a woman who lost her husband during the Syrian revolution to do?

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

A woman who lost her husband during the Syrian revolution, not knowing whether he is alive or dead and desires divorce should contact a Muslim judge or an Islamic body and present her case for divorce after first proving that marriage had taken place. If she is able to prove that her husband has disappeared without leaving behind expenditure for her, the judge will issue divorce. She should start her sitting period [‘Iddah] immediately after the judge issues the divorce. After the sitting period has elapsed she can marry someone else. On the other hand if the missing husband left expenditure for her then she must wait for his return. The duration she waits varies depending on the case: Disappearing through imprisonment does not qualify the husband as a missing person according to Islamic law. The wife must wait until the husband reaches 70 years of age. If upon reaching this age he has not been declared dead by a judge, she begins the sitting period for a deceased husband and his wealth will be distributed amongst the inheritors. In a different case, if the husband went missing after being abducted at a checkpoint or after departing to fight and there is no news of him, i.e. whether he is alive or not, then such a person is a missing person according to Islamic law. In this case if the husband did leave behind enough expenditure for her and he has been missing for a long time, the wife must await his appearance for 4 years. After 4 years pass the judge will declare him deceased and the wife will begin her sitting period. If however he did not leave expenditure for her then the wife can seek divorce immediately after the husband went missing; waiting for his arrival is not incumbent upon her. The judge will issue divorce in this case or the Islamic body who take the role of judge if one is not present.

‘Missing person,’ refers to the husband who disappeared and there is no news about him; whether he is alive or dead. The woman whose husband has disappeared is called Fāqiḍ.

According to the Malikite School missing persons [Mafqūḍ] are of four types:

1. The person who partook in fighting between Muslims at the frontline. Such a person is a soldier who left for battle but after it ended he disappeared and his body was not found nor was he taken as a prisoner of war. The wife of such an individual will sit her sitting period from the end of the battle on the condition that witnesses attest that the husband actually attended battle while fighting was going on. Confirming his mere departure for battle does not suffice. This category is applicable to persons who disappeared during explosions and bombings and nothing of their bodies is to be found even though there is certainty of their presence at the bombed site through the testimony of trustworthy witnesses.

2. The person who disappeared from the frontlines in course of fighting between Muslims and non-Muslims. The case of such a person will be presented to a judge or to an Islamic body in the absence of a judge. They will then investigate what has come of the missing person and stipulate one year for this beginning from the time contact with him was lost. If a after a year he does not reappear, his wife will begin the sitting period for a deceased husband which is 4 months and 10 days after which she is permitted to remarry.

3. The third category applies to the people in Syria; a person who goes missing in Muslim lands whilst fighting in war or not. Presently this is the case of anyone who departs for war but does not return and there is no news of him and similarly persons abducted at checkpoints without being imprisoned or taken as prisoners of war. The wife of such a missing person will present her case to the judge who will look into the matter and determine which of the following applies to her:

  1. The husband has not left any expenditure for her, or business profits from which she can take her expenditure or any savings, or he was not wealthy. It may be that he was affluent but due to overheads she cannot cover her rightful expenses and she is unable to bear this. In this case the judge will issue her divorce after attempts to locate the husband’s whereabouts fail. Immediately after divorce has been pronounced she will assume the sitting period of divorce which according to the Malikite School lasts 3 episodes of purity. The sitting period starts from the time divorce is pronounced by the judge and not from when the husband went missing.

  2. She fears hardship such as falling into haram or into adultery in the husband’s absence. In this situation she is permitted to present her case to the judge or his substitute and seek divorce. This applies whether the husband has left expenditure for her or not because the purpose of marriage is to remain chaste and with the disappearance of the husband this purpose ceases and harm may come to the wife: Harm may not be inflicted nor reciprocated with harm. The judge will issue her divorce and she will immediately begin her sitting period.

  3. The lost husband has left either monetary expenditure for her or a business from which she can take her expenditure or something of this nature. In this case she is not permitted to seek divorce. She must wait for his return unless she fears hardship as clarified earlier. The followed position is that she must wait 4 years beginning from when contact was first lost. She must wait as long as she has expenditure. After 4 years she will assume the same sitting period of a widow; 4 months and 10 days. After this she may remarry. She is not required to seek a new edict for the sitting period because the passing of the waiting period without the husband reappearing suffices in permitting her to begin the sitting period.

  4. The fourth case involves a person disappearing in non-Muslim lands. According to the Malikite jurists the wife must wait until the husband’s age reaches 70 years, before the judge proclaims him as deceased. The wife will then begin the appropriate sitting period for a deceased husband. Syria is a Muslim country so the third category will be applicable here as explained earlier.

Notes

In the absence of a judge, the governor will be his substitute. In the absence of a governor, police authorities or the district mayor, for example, will be the substitutes. If none of these are present then she will refer to a group a local pious Muslims. Islamic Councils and Sharia Committees can also take the place of a judge.

If the husband is incarcerated in a known location, he will not be considered a “missing person.” However the wife may seek divorce via a judge if he did not leave behind expenditure for her or if she fears the difficulty explained earlier. If she decides to wait then the waiting period is u til the husband reaches 70 years of age. If he does not reappear by this time, the judge will pronounce him deceased.

It is incumbent for the judge to designate a representative who can manage the missing persons business, given he had a business, and handle his financial affairs in an Islamic and beneficial way.
There are separate detailed rulings for when the husband returns during the wife’s sitting period or after its completion. These will be explained when the need arises.

Allah knows best.

Praise if for Allah, Lord of the Worlds and may His prayers be upon our master Muhammad, his family and companions.

2013/04/15:
هام جدا – خبر مسرب هجوم متوقع للنظام
ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﺑﻲ

Important Message – Leaked Information: The Regime’s Unexpected Attack
Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi



هام جدا – خبر مسرب
هجوم متوقع للنظام

الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

وصلتنا معلومات مسربة تؤكد أن جيش النظام المجرم سيقوم بعملية عسكرية واسعة لاقتحام الغوطة من جهة العتيبة وقد أعد لها تسعة آلاف عسكري
وسيلجأ في حال فشل الاقتحام إلى سياسة الأرض المحروقة
كما وصلنا أن النظام قد جهز سرية من الانتحاريين للتسلل والقيام بعمليات بالأحزمة الناسفة
واستخدام السلاح الكيماوي وارد في الخطة

نرجو من جميع الكتائب والألوية الالتزام بأقصى درجات التأهب والاستعداد وأخذ جميع الاحتياطات وخصوصا لسلامة المدنيين

نسأل الله تعالى أن يرد كيد هذا النظام المجرم في نحره وأن يمد إخواننا المجاهدين بالنصر والتأييد.

آلشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

Important Message – Leaked Information: The Regime’s Unexpected Attack

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

Leaked information has reached us confirming that the criminal regime will be launching a mass military operation to storm into Al-Ghouta from the direction of Al-Otaiba, Damascus. For this the regime has prepared 9000 military personnel. In the event of failing to storm the area, the regime will resort to burning it down as we have been informed: They have secretly prepared suicide bombers to infiltrate and carry out bombings using explosive belts. The plan includes using chemical weapons too. We hope all battalions and brigades will ensure they are well prepared and that they will take all measures for the safety of civilians.

We beseech Allah Almighty that He returns the regime’s plots on itself and that He continue to grant our brothers, the Mujahidin victory and support.

2013/04/08:
فتوى تحريم خطف الأجانب 
العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

Fatwa against kidnapping foreigners in Syria or taking them as hostages
by His Emminence Sheikh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi



فتوى تحريم خطف الأجانب

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

سؤال:

هل يجوز خطف الأجانب في سورية وأخذ فدية لإطلاق سراحهم؟

خلاصة الجواب:

بعد حمد الله تعالى والصلاة والسلام على خير خلقه سيدنا محمد وآله فإن خطفَ الأجانب لا يجوز قطعًا لا في سورية ولا في غيرها ، وهو حرام : الخطفُ حرام ، ومالُ الفدية حرام ، وهو سُحْتٌ ، وهذا العمل تَعَدٍ على الآمنين المعاهدين ، والله لا يحب المعتدين ، والإساءة إلى الذمي والمعاهد من كبائر الذنوب ، ومن فعل هذا فقد ارتكب إثما ، وعصى الله تعالى ، وخاصمَ رسولَ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم . وكلُّ من دخل دارنا بعهد وأمان وجبَ علينا الوفاءُ له به ، بل يجب علينا حمايته ما دام في بلادنا . وذمّةُ المسلمين واحدة ، وأمانُ الواحد كأمان الجماعة ، والغدرُ من صفات المنافقين ، ويُنصَبُ للغادر لواءٌ يوم القيامة ، ومثلُ هذا العمل يضر بالثورة وينفر من الإسلام فالحكم فيه أنه حرام .

تفصيل الجواب:

السؤال عن مثل هذا عجيب ، لأن من البداهة في الشريعة الإسلامية أن القتل والحبس والخطف والتخويف والتهديد والإرهاب وسلب الأموال والابتزاز للآمنين كل ذلك حرام ، ويستوي في هذا الحكم جميع الناس من المسلمين وغير المسلمين . والذي يقوم بشيئ من ذلك آثم شرعا لقيامه بالغدر ونقض العهد ، سوى ما يترتب على ذلك من ضرر للشخص المخطوف أيا كان دينه .

أخرج البخاري عن عبد الله بن عمرو رضي الله عنه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : “من قتلَ معاهِدًا لم يرِحْ رائحةَ الجنّة ، وإن ريحَها توجد من مسيرة أربعينَ عاما” ، وترجم البخاري للباب بعنوان: “باب إثم من قتل ذِمّيًّا بغير جُرْم” ، وفي كتاب الجزية “من قتل معاهِدا” .

قال الحافظ أبو الفضل العسقلاني في فتح الباري : “والمراد به من له عهدٌ مع المسلمين سواء كان بعقد جزية ، أو هدنة من سلطان ، أو أمان من مسلم” . ومن دخل بلادنا من غير المسلمين دخل في أماننا وعهدنا ، له ما لنا وعليه ما علينا ، والمسلم لا يغدر .

والوفاء بالعهد من أخص صفات المؤمنين قال الله تعالى : {وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لأمَانَاتِهِمْ وَعَهْدِهِمْ رَاعُونَ} [المؤمنون آية ٨] . وقد أمر الله تعالى بالوفاء بالعهد فقال سبحانه: {وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ إِنَّ العَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولاً} [الإسراء آية ٣٤] .

وضد الوفاء بالعهد الغدرُ ، وهو من علامات المنافقين كما في عدة أحاديث . وقد نهى النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام عن الغدر وحذّر منه أشد تحذير ، وتوعّد عليه بأشد الوعيد، وهو من كبائر المعاصي والذنوب . أخرج البخاري ومسلم عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : “إذا جمع الله الأولين والآخِرين يوم القيامة يُرفَع لكلّ غادر لواءٌ يقال : هذه غَدرة فلان بن فلان” . وأخرج البخاري عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “ثلاثة أنا خصمُهم يوم القيامة” وعد أول واحد منهم: “رجل أعطَى بي ثم غدر” .

ولا يُشترط لإعطاء الأمان وجودُ الإمام ، فإن ذمةَ المسلمين واحدةٌ كما ورد في الحديث الصحيح الذي أخرجه البخاري ومسلم : “ذمة المسلمين واحدة ومن أخفر مسلما فعليه مثل ذلك” أي لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين كما في أول الحديث ، ومعنى أخفر أي غدر ولم يف بالعهد ، قال النووي في شرح صحيح مسلم : “المراد بالذمة هنا الأمان، معناه أن أمان المسلمين للكافر صحيح ، فإذا أمنه أحد المسلمين حرم على غيره التعرض له ما دام في أمان المسلم”.

ومن أحكام الذمي في الإسلام مما يغيب عن كثير من الناس أنه يحرم التعرض له بشيئ من الأذى ولا يجوز إتلاف ما يملكه من الخمر والخنزير، بل قال الإمام كمال الدين ابن الهمام في فتح القدير : “فتحرم غِيبتُه كما تحرم غِيبة المسلم” ، واعتمده التمَرْتاشيُّ في تنوير الأبصار وعلاء الدين الحَصْكَفي في الدر المختار شرح تنوير الأبصار وابن عابدين صاحب الحاشية”. ونص عليه ابن حجر الهيتمي في الزواجر .

وكما يحرم الغدر بالمعاهد في ديار الإسلام فكذلك يحرم على المسلم الذي يدخل بلاد المعاهدين أن يغدِر أو يخون أو يتعرض لأحد بسوء . قال الحصكفي في الدر المختار في باب المستأمِن : “دخل مسلم دار الحرب بأمان حرُم تعرضُه لشيء من دم ومال وفرج منهم ، إذ المسلمون عند شروطهم”.

فإذا تجاوز الأجنبي في بلادنا الحد وخالف قوانين البلد الذي دخل إليه كان للسلطات إنذاره بحسب خطورة المخالفة أو أن تطلب منه الرحيل . وفي ذلك أعراف بين الدول وقوانين جرى العمل بها ، ومعظم هذه الأعراف والمعاهدات في معاملة الأجانب مما لا يخالف أحكام الإسلام . ثم إن الأجانب الذين يدخلون بلادنا من صحافيين وإعلاميين ومصورين يؤدون خدمات للشعب السوري بإيصال صوت الحق إلى العالم . وواجبنا نحن أن نبتعد عن كل ما يسيئ إلينا من التصرفات خصوصًا حين نعلم أن أعين العالم تتوجه إلينا ، وشاشات الفضائيات تنقل أفعالنا ، فكيف والله تعالى شهيد علينا وهو سبحانه يقول في سورة يونس : {وَلَا تَعْمَلُونَ مِنْ عَمَلٍ إِلّا كُنّا عَلَيْكُمْ شُهُودًا إِذْ تُفِيضُونَ فِيه} ويقول سبحانه في سورة الزخرف: {أمْ يَحْسَبُونَ أَنّا لا نَسْمَعُ سِرَّهُمْ وَنَجْوَاهُمْ بَلَى وَرُسُلُنَا لَدَيْهِمْ يَكْتُبُونْ}.

والنظر في تصرفات هؤلاء الأجانب يرجع إلى قيادة الجيش الحر ، وفي غياب أي سلطة سوى سلطة العسكر ، فإن قيادة هذا الجيش هي التي تحدد قواعد تحركات الأجانب داخل سورية لتغطية أخبار المعارك والقصف ونقل معاناة الشعب وتوثيق جرائم النظام . وإذا ما شعرت هذه القيادة بأن بعض الأجانب يتعاونون مع النظام ويشكلون خطرا على الثورة من خلال التجسس على الثوار ، فإن القيادة تقوم بإنذاره أو طلب الرحيل منه ، حسب خطورة الأمر ، وطبقا للأعراف الدولية وقواعد المعاملات الإنسانية وأحكام المستأمن ، وكل ذلك مفصل في كتب الفقه .

واللجوء إلى الخطف لطلب الفدية أو للضغط على الدول التي ينتمي إليها المخطوفون هو مظهر ضعف ، وسوء تدبير ، وإساءة إلى الإسلام ، وتشويه لصورة العرب ، وهم الذين عرفوا بالوفاء بالعهد وإكرام الضيف وحماية الجار . كما أن هذا الفعل يعود على الثورة بالضرر في تأليب العالم ضد شعبنا الذي صار الملايين منه لاجئين مشردين وضيوفا غرباء ، لا ترغب فيهم معظم البلاد التي يحِلّون فيها .

ونقترح على قيادة الجيش الحر إصدار كتيب بالتعلميات الخاصة التي يجب على الصحافيين الأجانب الذين يرغبون بتغطية أخبار الثورة السورية الالتزام بها ، نحو عدم تصوير المواقع العسكرية ، والالتزام بالحشمة ، وترك التهتك ، واحترام خصوصيات الناس ، وغير ذلك مما يحتاج إلى بيان.

يجب على الثائر والمقاتل الذي يدافع عن نفسه وأهله وعرضه وأرضه ضد إجرام نظام الأسد أن يَحذر من أن يتبع طريق النظام في الظلم ويرتكب ما يرتكب النظام من الإجرام ، ويجب عليه أن يجتهد في أن لا يعامل الخصم بأساليب النظام في الخطف والقتل والتعذيب وسلب الأموال وقتل الأسرى وإساءة معاملة الناس مما هو دَيدَنُ النظام ، فشعبنا لم يقم بالثورة على هذا النظام إلا لإزالة الحَيف ، ورفع الظلم ، وإحقاق الحق ، ونشر العدل ، وينبغي لنا كلما ازداد النظام إمعانا في الإجرام أن نزداد نفورا من الإجرام وكراهيةً للظلم ، ورغبة في إقامة العدل ، فما بالُنا نَفِرُّ من جور إلى جور ونضع أنفسنا بمصاف عدونا ، ونساوي أنفسنا بحثالة من المجرمين ليصير الثوار قطاع طرق ولصوصا بدل أن يكونوا طلابا للكرامة وأنصارا للحق وشداة للحرية ! أجل هذا هو ما يحدث حين نجعل الغضب قائدنا والانتقام دليلنا ، وكل إناء بالذي فيه ينضحُ .

نؤكد على أن المقاتل يجب أن يتحلى بأحسن الأخلاق وأجمل الآداب ، وأن الثائر مؤتمن على السلاح ، لا يجوز له أن يستعمله إلا في وجه حق أمام عدو واحد هو النظام الذي ثار الشعب عليه ، ولا يتجاوز في استعماله حدود أحكام الشرع ومبادئ الأخلاق وقوانين الحرب .

والحرب ليست صنعة ولا تجارة ، وإنما هي ضرورة ألجأ إليها ما قام به النظام من اضطهاد . ويجب على كل مقاتل أن يعلم أن الغاية من حمل السلاح إنما هي الوصول إلى الأمن وإحلال السلم في ربوع بلادنا الحبيبة لتعود المحبة إلى كل قلب ، والبسمة إلى كل وجه ، والأمان إلى كل بيت .

وأرجو أن يتأمل كل مجاهد في وصية النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام للجيش الذي خرج إلى مؤتة : “لا تغدِروا ، ولا تَغُلّوا ، ولا تقتلوا وليدًا ، ولا امرأةً ، ولا كبيرًا فانيًا ، ولا منعزلاً بصَومعة ، ولا تقرَبوا نخلا ، ولا تقطعوا شجرًا ، ولا تهدموا بناء” . وكل من تجاوز هذا الحد فقد اعتدى ، والله عز وجل لا يحب المعتدين ، قال سبحانه وتعالى : {وقاتلوا في سبيل الله الذين يقاتلونكم ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين} [البقرة ١٩٠].

Fatwa:
Impermissibility of Abducting Foreigners

By His Eminence Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

Enquiry: Is it permissible to hold foreigners as hostages and take a ransom for their release?

Summative Answer:

Praise be to Allah and may prayers and salutations be upon the Best of Creation our Master Muhammad, his family and companions.

Abducting foreigners in Syria or any other land for that matter is absolutely impermissible. Abduction is forbidden and the ransom gained is an unlawful earning. This is act is a transgression and violation of people granted protection and Allah Almighty does not like the transgressors. Harming a Dhimmi [non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic country] or a Mu’ahid [non-Muslim granted protection] is a major sin and the perpetrator incurs sin for disobeyed Allah Almighty and opposing the Messenger of Allah, (peace be upon him). We must be faithful to the pledge of protection granted to anyone travelling into our lands and we must help them so long they remain here. This responsibility is for all Muslims and protecting one person is like protecting a group.
Treachery is a quality of the hypocrites and such a person will be marked by a flag on the Day of Judgment. Abductions and the like harm the revolution and repel people from Islam. In conclusion it is a prohibited act.

Detailed Answer:

This is a peculiar question because it is common knowledge that the Shari’a forbids murder, imprisonment, abduction, threats & intimidation, terrorism and looting the wealth of people granted security. Everyone is equal in this; Muslims and non-Muslims. Whoever engages in any of these acts has sinned due to committing treachery and breaking an agreement; this is additional to the sin of harming the captives, regardless of their religion.

‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr (Allah be pleased with him) reports the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: “Whoever kills a Mu’ahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its’ fragrance can be smelt from a distance of 40 years [of travelling].”

Imam Al-Bukhari entitled the chapter of this hadith as: “Chapter regarding the sin of a person who kills a crimeless Dhimmi.” In the Book of Tax he replaces the word “Dhimmi” with “Mu’ahid.”

Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani comments in his work Fath Al-Bari: “The Mu’ahid is a person who makes a legal pact with Muslims by way of paying tax or through a truce with the ruler or by receiving security from the Muslims.” Whoever from the non-Muslims enters our lands does so with our protection and agreement. He has the rights that we have and is subject to whatever [laws] we are subject to and a Muslim is not disloyal.

Faithfulness to contracts is a distinctive trait of the believers as Allah Almighty says: {And [the believers are] those who regarding their trusts and promises are vigilant.} Elsewhere He Almighty says: {And fulfil [every] covenant; verily the covenant will be questioned about}

Treachery is the opposite of fulfilling a promise and it is a sign of hypocrisy as described in several hadith. The prophet (peace be upon him) forbade treachery and gave severe warnings about it. He spoke of its punishments and their severity. It is from the major sins. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) reports the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: “When Allah gathers [everyone]; the first and last, on the Day of Judgment, a flag will be raised for every traitor and it will be said: This is the treachery of so and so son of so and so.”

Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased him) reports that the prophet, peace be upon him, said that Allah Almighty says He will be against three people on the Day of Judgment. One of those people is the one: “Who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous.”
The presence of a ruler is not a prerequisite for granting security because the covenant [Dhimma] of the Muslims is equal and the same as narrated in the authentic hadith of Al-Bukhari: “The covenant of the Muslims is the same. Whoever breaks a Muslim’s covenant, upon him is a likeness of that…” I.e. a likeness of the curse mentioned in the beginning of the hadith will be upon anyone who breaks the covenant of a Muslim. That curse is describes in the hadith as:” Allah’s curse and the curse of His angels and all people.” To break the covenant means to be treacherous and to show disloyalty to it. Imam Al-Nawawi explains that ‘covenant’ in this hadith refers to security; that is to say granting security to a disbeliever is valid and when a Muslim gives security to a non-Muslim, it is impermissible for other Muslims to harm the non-Muslim whilst he remains in the security of a Muslim.

It is an Islamic right of Dhimmi citizens, albeit overlooked by bmany that they are not harmed and their owned assets, even pork and alcohol, are not damaged. Imam Kamal Al-Din ibn Al-Humam says in Fath Al-Qadir: “Backbiting him [the Dhimmi] is prohibited the same way backbiting a Muslim is prohibited.”

This position is relied upon by Al-Tamartashiyyu in Tanwir Al-Absar, ‘Ala Al-Din Al-Haskafi in the commentary of Tanwir Al-Absar, Ibn Abidin in its super-commentary and by Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami in Al-Zawajir.

As treachery is prohibited with a non-Muslim under protection [Mu’ahid] it is prohibited for Muslims entering non-Muslim lands under protection to be treacherous, betray or harm its citizens. Al-Haskafi states: “For Muslims entering non-Muslim lands it is forbidden to [illegally] take someone’s life, wealth and chastity because Muslims remain according to their terms.”

If a foreigner in our lands transgresses the law, the government is permitted to censure him according to the severity of crime or ask him to leave the country. Usually conventions exist between nations for such cases. Most transnational conventions for dealing with foreigners do not violate Islamic law.

Many foreigners such as reporters, journalists and photographers who come to Syria come help the Syrian people by delivering the truth to the world. We must not do anything in our dealing and actions which may be detrimental to us, especially when the world’s eyes are on us. Satellite channels broadcast our behaviour globally. More importantly, Allah Almighty sees all we do as He informs us: {And you are busy in any work, and recite any Quran from Him, and you perform any act, We are witnesses over you when you do commence it} Allah Almighty also says: {Or do they think that We hear not their secrets and their private counsel? [Yes We do] and Our Messengers [appointed angels] are with them recording}

The Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders regulate the activities of these foreigners because presently there is no authority except that of the military. They set the rules for foreign groups in Syria who report the fighting, broadcast people’s suffering and document the regime’s crimes. Thus when some of the FSA leaders are made aware of foreigners aiding the regime or presenting a danger for the revolution by way of spying, they will either reprimand the foreigners or ask them to leave depending on the seriousness of the violation. However their course of action will be in accordance with international humanitarian guidelines and the Islamic provisions for non-Muslims granted security. These provisions are detailed in the books of jurisprudence.
Resorting to kidnaping and demanding ransom or pressuring the home country of the hostage is a manifestation of weakness, lack of initiative and a violation of Islam. Such behaviour distorts the image of our peoples’ revolution when in reality our people are known for loyalty, honouring guests and helping their neighbours. Not to mention how such behaviour turns the world against our people who in their millions have become homeless refugees and already many countries are hesitant to take them in.
We recommend the FSA publishes a booklet containing information for foreign journalists with specific regulations on how they must conduct their work if they want to cover the revolution. Points to cover may include: Non-filming of military sites, maintaining modesty and decorum, not recording shameful acts, respecting people’s privacy and other similar matters which may need clarification.

Rebels and fighters who defend themselves, their families, honours and homes against the criminality of Assad’s regime must be cautious in not following the way of the regime and from committing similar crimes to the regime.

Every rebel and fighter must work not to treat the opponent like the regime does with its ways of kidnapping, murdering, torturing, looting, killing prisoners and ill-treating people. Our people did not rebel except to remove injustice and oppression and to give rights to people and disseminate justice. So it is important that as the regime increases in crime we too increase in our detestation of crime and the regime. We must maintain our intention of establishing justice. We have to be mindful not to escape one tyranny to end up in another, taking on our enemy’s ways and stooping to the level of the regime’s scum; thus making the rebels grow into bandits concerned with looting instead of fighting for dignity and supporting truth and freedom. However this is inventible when we let our anger lead us and make revenge our justification: Every vessel is judged by what it contains.

We stress that fighters have the best morals and ethics. Any rebel entrusted with a weapon is not permitted to use it except for the truthful cause, before a single enemy – the regime – which people rebelled against. Nor is he permitted to transgress the boundaries of Islam and morality and the laws of warfare when using his weaponry.
War is not a profession or a trade; it is a necessity only resorted to because of the regime’s persecution. Every fighter must be aware that the only aim of raising arms is to eventually establish security and peace across our beloved country and to return love to every heart, a smile to every face and security to every house.

I hope every Mujahid will contemplate the Prophet’s [peace be upon him] advice to the army departing for the Battle of Mu’tah: “Do not break your promises; do not mutilate corpses; do not kill children, women or the elderly; do not destroy hermitages; do not cut down or burn trees and do not demolish houses.” Whoever exceeds these limits has transgressed; and Allah Almighty does not like the transgressors as He Almighty says: {And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but transgress not the limits. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors}.

2013/03/29:
مَنْ قَـتَـل الصَّـبِـيّـة ؟ 
العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

مَنْ قَـتَـل الصَّـبِـيّـة ؟ 

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

من أشد التأويلات فسادًا ما يُروى في التاريخ بعد مقتل سيدنا عمارِ بن ياسرٍ رضي الله عنهما: ومن المشهور في سيرته أنه كان من أنصار سيدنا علي رضي الله عنه ، وأنه خرج يقاتل معه في معركة صِفّينَ ، ولكنه قد وجد بعد انتهاء المعركة قتيلا . وقد أخرج البخاري ومسلم حديثا في شأن عمار يقول فيه النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام : “ويحَ عمارٍ تقتله الفئةُ الباغية ، يدعوهم إلى الجنة ويدعونه إلى النار”. روي أن معاوية رضي الله عنه قال وقد ذُكر هذا الحديث له: “إنما قتله من أخرجه” . وفي رواية: إنما قتله عليٌ وأصحابه ، جاؤوا به حتى ألقوه تحت رماحنا” . 

وقد نقل الإمام المُناوي في فيض القدير شرح الجامع الصغير عند شرح حديث عمار أن سيدنا عليًا رضي الله عنه ردّ قول معاوية – الذي لم يرو عنه أصلا بإسناد صحيح – بضرب المثل بسيدنا حمزةَ بن عبد المطلب: إذ يلزم عليه أن الذي قتل حمزة إنما هو رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي أخرجه ، وحاشاه صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم . ونقل عن ابن دحية أن هذا من باب الإلزام للإفحام، يعني أن يقول المجيب شيئا وهو لا يعتقده لإلزام الخصم وإسكاته . أقول: وهو ما يسمى في آداب البحث والمناظرة بالتنزّل الجدلي ، وهو التسليم بصحة قول الخصم ظاهرا والسيرُ وراءه وإظهارموافقته فيه لبيان ما يستلزمه من الفساد وكشف ما يترتب عليه من المستحيل . وقد قلب سيدنا علي رضي الله عنه بذلك الحجة على معاوية ببيان ما يلزم على هذا الاستدلال الشنيع ، ولا يستغرب ذلك من سيدنا علي كرم الله تعالى وجهه . 

ومع أن هذا الحديث في قول معاوية لا يصح وفي أسانيده مقال ، فقد أردت أن أضرب به المثال على منطق سقيم هو منطق البحث عن أضعف المبررات عندما تقوم الأدلة وتنطق البراهين بإدانة المجرم ، فلا يبقى لأنصار المجرم إلا قلب الحقائق واللجوء إلى المغالطات . وهو ما يقع فيه إعلام النظام وذلك متوقع من نظام أفاك سياسته الكذب وديدنه الخداع ، ولكن أن يقع فيه طلبة العلم فهذا ما لا يقبل بحال . 

والقصة اليوم أن سيدةً شكت البوطي إلى الله تعالى ، وكتبت تقول في كلام طويل : “ستحكي لك الأراملُ في البرزخ كيف كان النصيري الهالك حافظ الأسد وجنده يقطعون سواعدهن وهن أحياء لأخذ ماعليهن من ذهب وحلي !

أمانة ياشيخ …

ستقابل هناك طفلةً أرق من الندى وأنصعَ من الصباح وأعطر من الياسمين وأنقى من ماء الغمام .. ذبحها جيش الصحابة … في منطقة القبير،   كانت تصرخ بجزارها وهو يسوقها كدجاجة للذبح بعد أن ذبح إخوتها أمام ناظريها، كانت تنادي – ياشيخ – بصوت ارتجّ له قلب الليل :

- ياعمو الله يخليك ، الله يخليلك ولادك ، ياعمو مشان الله !

كل الكون بإنسه وجنّه وسماواته السبع والأرضين كان يرتجف لفظاعة المشهد لكن جيش الصحابة لم يسمعوا ياشيخ … كانوا يقهقهون !!

أمانة ياشيخ … أخبرها أنك الشيخ الذي كان يصدر الفرمانات الإلهية والأوامر الجهادية لذبحها علها ترتاح في عليائها ، فقد رحلت وعلى شفتيها المضمومتين كحبتي كرز سؤال تجمّد :
يارب ماذا فعلنا ، يارب لماذا يقتلوننا ؟!!

من يدافع عن البوطي عليه إعداد الجواب أمام الواحد القهار عن هذه الأسئلة وعن ملايين الأسئلة من ملايين السوريين”. انتهى الاقتباس من تعليق لأحد القراء في صفحتي على الفيس بوك . 

وهذا كلام يجب أن يُسمع ، ويجب علينا أن نصغيَ له . إنه صوت شعب جريح مكلوم أصيبَ في كل شيئ ، فقدَ كل شيئ ، أصيب في النفس والعِرْض والدين والمال حتى العقل لم يسلم بعض الناس من فقده ، فقد جن كثير من الناس لهول ما رأوه من الجرائم أو ما نزل بهم من العذاب ، بل إن بعض الناس جمعت له هذه المصائب جميعا في جِراب واحد ونزلت عليه ، إن من حق كل واحد من هؤلاء أن يقول ويجب علينا أن نسمع ، ولصاحب الحق مقال ، ولا يجوز للعالم أن يُصمّ الآذان كما لا يجوز للعاقل أن يحرّف الكلام . 

لكن الذي لا يمكن أن يسمع ولا محل له من الإعراب ولا مكان له بين كلام العقلاء هو أن يخرج هيّ بنُ بيّ من تلاميذ البوطي مدافعا عنه فيستخف بعقول الناس ويجرح شعور الثكالى والأيتام والمصابين ليلقي باللائمة في موت هذه الصبية وغيرها على الثوار ويعد المسؤول عن قتل من قُتل إنما هم الذين اختاروا الخروج على الإمام . فقد كتب أحد الأغمار معلقا على قصة تلك المرأة: “من يُسأل عن تلك الصبية هو من عصى الشيخ البوطي رحمه الله تعالى وواصل فيما يوصل الى قتلها و قتل غيرها و تدمير البلد كله” . وهو أنموذج من كلام يتكرر على صفحات شبكة المعلومات (الإنترنت) فرأينا أن قد وجب علينا بيان ما يقود إليه ولذلك ابتدأنا بقصة سيدنا عمار رضي الله عنه . 

وقراءة هذا الكلام جعلتني أنظر متعجبا متسائلا : ما الذي أنتج هذا الاستدلال ؟
 أهو حُمقٌ وصل بصاحبه إلى هذه الدرجة من السخف في التأويل !
أم هو ذهن كليل وعقل مريض انقدح له هذا الدليل !
أم هو الجهل المركب أوصل كاتب تلك الكلمات إلى هذا المستوى من الاستخفاف !
أم عمىً فقد صاحبه معه القدرة على التمييز !
أم تكبر عن الوقوف على الحق حجب صاحبه عن رؤيته !
أم هو الشيطان قد لبّس عليه حتى أراه النهار ليلا والليل نهارا والسواد بياضا والبياض سوادا والباطل حقا والحق باطلا !

ربما اجتمع ذلك كله وزاد عليه التعصب والتقليد بدعوى الحب، وقد روي في الحديث الضعيف: “حبك الشيء يعمي ويُصم” . نعم فالحب للشيخ البوطي غفر الله لنا وله قد أعمى بعض تلاميذه وأصمهم حتى تجاوزوا أستاذهم وسبقوه في العداوة للثورة بمراحل .

إن من أعجب العجب أن يقتلَ جيشُ النظام المجرم وجلاوزتُه وزبانيتُه الأطفالَ والشباب والشيوخ ويغتصبون النساء – وهذا موثق بيد العدو والصديق والقريب والبعيد – ثم يقالَ إن الذي قتل هؤلاء إنما هم الثوار ، وأن المسؤول عن ذلك إنما هو الشعب الذي هب للدفاع عن دمه وعرضه وماله وأرضه ، مع أن النظام اعترف بلسان الرئيس المجرم نفسه بأن الشعب لم يحمل السلاح ابتداء ، وأن الثورة قامت سلما ، ولكن الشعب اضطر إلى حمل السلاح بعد جرائم النظام من قتل للمتظاهرين في الطرقات وإعدام للجرحى في المستشفيات وتعذيب وانتهاك للحرمات .

لقد تعجبت واستغربت وأنا أقرأ جواب هذا الجاهل عن قتل هذه الصبية: “من يُسأل عن تلك الصبية هو من عصى الشيخ البوطي” 

لم أصدق أن يصدر هذا من عاقل يسمع الأخبار ويرى الصور ويجتمع بالناس ويعيش في الشام . نرجو من تلاميذ البوطي أن لا يهزؤوا بنا وأن لا يستخفوا بعقولنا بمثل هذه الردود والتأويلات . أتريدون أن تقولوا لنا بأن المسؤول عن كل هذه الجرائم إنما هو الشعب. وأن النظام بريء من ذلك براءة الذئب من دم يوسف .

النظام هو المجرم ، وهو المسؤول عن كل قتل للناس وتعذيب للسجناء واغتصاب للنساء وهدم للمساجد والبيوت وانتهاك للحرمات وتزوير للحقائق وعبث بالتاريخ . وهو نظام عدو للإسلام اغتصب الحكم زورا ، وحاول القضاء على الإسلام من خلال نشر مبادئ حزب البعث خمسين سنة ، ومن خلال تحويل البلد من بلد إسلامي إلى بلد علماني . نظام قام على القتل والإرهاب وسفك الدماء لم يَرْعَ في إنسان ولا مؤمن ولا عدو ولا موال إلاً ولا ذمة . وصدق الله تعالى إذ يقول في أمثال هؤلاء: {كَيْفَ وَإِن يَظْهَرُوا عَلَيْكُمْ لاَ يَرْقُبُواْ فِيكُمْ إِلاًّ وَلاَ ذِمَّةً يُرْضُونَكُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَتَأْبَى قُلُوبُهُمْ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ}

ولعل هذا المتنطع يقول إن الشيخ البوطي لم يحث الدولة على قتل الشعب وإنما كان يؤيد الدولة في قتل الخوارج المارقين . وهذا رد فاسد  لأن على المفتي أن ينظر عند الفتوى إلى السائل وأحواله ، وكيف يأخذ الجواب ، وماذا يفهم منه ، ولا يجوز له أن يلقي الكلام على عواهنه . جاء رجل إلى سيدنا عبد الله بن عباس رضي الله عنهما يسأله هل للقاتل من توبة؟ فقال : لا ، ثم جاءه آخر فسأله هل للقاتل من توبة فقال : نعم . وبيّن سبب اختلاف الجواب بقوله : “رأيت في عيني الأول إرادة القتل فزجرته ، ورأيت الثاني قد قتل وجاء يطلب المخرج فلم أقنّطه” . هذا هو الفقه ، فأين منه الدكتور سعيد غفر الله له وهو الذي كان يصر على وصف الجيش بالباسل والمقدام ويثني عليه ، والجيش يقوم بالقتل بلا تمييز ، لا يفرق بين الثوار والسكان ، والكبار والصغار ، والرجال والنساء ، والمكانُ الذي تنطلق منه رصاصة يجب أن يدمر ، والشعبُ كله عدو في المناطق التي تثور على النظام . وقد رأينا هذا في قصف حمص وحلب ومدن غوطة دمشق وقصف المخابز والمشافي والمدارس . أيعقل أن يكون الشعب كله خارجا مارقا ؟ أم يصدق أحد أن النظام يغار على الإسلام ؟ 

وأحسن الأقوال في د. البوطي بين أهل العلم أنه اجتهد في تأييد النظام فأخطأ ، ولكنه كان خطأ فاحشا جَرّ على أهل السنة الويلات . ونحن نرى أنه اجتهد في موضع لا اجتهاد فيه أصلا ، إذ كانت نصرة الشعب واستنكار الظلم والقتل من أوجب الواجبات ، ولذلك حكمنا في مقالاتنا من قبل بأنه كان آثما في ذلك الاجتهاد ، وأن الاجتهاد الذي يقبل من صاحبه وإن كان خطأ إنما هو في العزلة والصمت لا في تأييد النظام .

واجتهاده في تأييد النظام في قتله للشعب وقمعه للثورة يشبه في الفساد اجتهاد رجل جهل القبلة وبين يديه بعض أهل المكان من العدول ، فذهب يجتهد في تحري القبلة ولم يسأل الناس ولم يطلب العلامات فأخطأ ، فاجتهاده مردود عليه ، ويجب قضاء الصلاة هنا إذ ما فات في الوقت يقضى بعده . ولكن كيف تعود أرواح من مات من الأبرياء باجتهاد في موضع لا يصح الاجتهاد أصلا فيه ، إذ لا اجتهاد في مورد النص ، وقد تضافرت النصوص على وجوب نصرة المظلوم وإغاثة الملهوف وتحريم إعانة الظالم في ظلمه . 

ونُـذَكّـر بأننا قد أشرنا إلى فضله ، ونعَيناه بما هو أهله ، صلة لرحم العلم ، وقياما بحق الدين في الذَّبّ عن عرض المسلم فكيف بالعالم، ولسنا من تلامذته (فأنا تلميذ والدي العلامة الشيخ إبراهيم اليعقوبي عليه درست وبه تخرجت ومنه تعلمت الجهر بالحق) وإن كنت أستفيد من الصغير والكبير . وحكمنا له بالشهادة  لا لأنه كان على صواب وإنما باعتبار أنه مات فيما يشبه الحرق والهدم بيد عدو للإسلام فهو فقها شهيد آخرة لا شهيد دنيا كمن مات تحت الهدم ، له ثواب الشهيد في الآخرة لا حكمه في الدنيا. وترحمنا عليه لما نراه أنه مات على الإسلام في بيت الله .

لقد تصدينا للرد على الشيخ البوطي رحمه الله بعد انطلاق الثورة عندما رأينا ذلك واجبا ، بل رددنا عليه وخالفناه قبل الثورة في مسائل وفتاوى متعددة ، ولم تمنعنا شهرته ولا تقدمه علينا في السن والعلم من بيان الحق والإشارة إلى الخطأ وكشف الوهم ، فإن العلم مُشاع بين أهله . كما لم يمنعنا هذا كله من الثناء عليه بعد وفاته ونعيه والترحم عليه في وقت يتوجه إليه العشرات من العلماء والدعاة بالنقد بألسنة لاذعة . وقد هَـلَـكَ فِـيـهِ مُـحِـبٌّ غَـالٍ ومُـبْـغِـضٌ قَـالٍ ، الموقف الوسط الحق الذي يجب أن يقف عنده كل منصف عالم هو ما هدانا الله بفضله إليه وحملنا عليه ، فـ{الحَمْدُ لِلّهِ الّذِي هَدَانَا لِهذَا وَمَا كُنّا لِنَهْتَدِيَ لَوْلَا أَنْ هَدَانَا الّله . 

وأيا كان حاله فإن منطق التبرير للحكام والدفاع عن الظلمة قد مات بموته وذهب بذهابه . وقد أغلق الباب بين العلماء والحكام في بلادنا بلاد الشام ، ولن نقبل من أحد أن يأتي إلينا بالجهل فيصيّره علما ولا بالباطل فيخرجَه حقا. ينبغي أن يعيد موت البوطي إلى العلم رُواءه ، وإلى الفقه بهاءه ، وينبغي أن يكون موته درسا يعيد للخطيب جرأته ، وللمفتي استقامته ، وللواعظ رتبته . 

ومن أجمل مواقف العلماء مع الظلمة من الحكام قصة الإمام أبي القاسم خلفِ بن فِـيـرُّه الشاطبي، وهو أحد أعمدة قراءات القرآن الكريم تؤخذ القراءات السبع من طريقه ، وهو صاحب الشاطبية المسماة (حرز الأماني ووجه التهاني) . يُنسب هذا الإمام إلى شاطبة وهي بلد بشرق الأندلس ، وقد خرج منها مهاجرًا في سبيل الله حتى جاء إلى مصرَ ومات فيها – وقد زرت قبره في سفح المقطم بالقاهرة . وسبب خروجه من شاطبة أن أميرها أراد أن يقربه فأبى وخرج . وقد روى الإمام  أبو شامة رحمه الله – وهو دفين دمشق – عن علم الدين السخاوي أن سبب انتقال الشاطبي من بلده أنه أريد على الخطابة ، فاحتجّ بالحج وترك بلده ولم يعد إليه ، تورعا مما كانوا يُلزمون به الخطباء من ذكرهم الأمراء بأوصاف لم يرها سائغة . خرج الإمام الشاطبي وأطلق صيحة مدوية بقيت تنادي على كل عالم يقف على باب ظالم فاجر :

قُــل لـلأمـيـر مَـقـالــةً
مِـن عـالـم فـطـنٍ نـبـيـهْْ

إن الـفـقـيـهَ إذا أتَـى
أبـوابَـكـم لا خـيـرَ فـيـه

2013/03/25:
معلومات دقيقة حول الاتفجار الذي أودى بحياة البوطي
هــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــام



معلومات دقيقة حول الاتفجار الذي أودى بحياة البوطي
هــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــام ::  

نورد لكم بعض المعلومات المؤكدة بإذن الله حسب شهود عيان ثقة عن الانفجار الذي حصل في مسجد الإيمان بحي المزرعة يوم الخميس 21/3/2013 ولن ندخل في سجال التحليلات وقد تم جمعها من العديد من الأشخاص وتأخرنا في نشرها حتى تم التأكد منها ::

1. البوطي كان موجود في المسجد وعلى كرسيه والانفجار حصل قبل نهاية الدرس بقليل

2. الشهداء هم من كانوا في مقدمة المسجد والمسجد كبير وهناك كثير من المصلين كانوا في الخلف ولم يصابوا بأذى كبير وكان بعض منهم جرحى فقط

3. الفتحة التي تم تصويرها في السقف هي فتحة في جبصين وسبب انهياره هو ضعفه لأنه جبصين وبسبب الرطوبة التي أصابتها بسبب سوء العزل .. وهذه الفتحة ليست في سقف المسجد فهناك طابق علوي ثاني
وهذه الفتحة تقع في الجهة الشمالية للمسجد وبعيدة عن مكان الانفجار وقد تحطم الجبصين بسبب ضغط الانفجار فقط

4. عندما حصل الانفجار سادت حالة من الذعر والهلع والذي جرى أن العديد من الأشخاص ممن كانوا في الطريق وفي جوار المسجد دخلوا ليسعفوا الجرحى وذلك قبل قدوم سيارات الإسعاف وعصابات الأمن وإجراء الطوق الامني حول المسجد ومنع دخول الناس

5. سبب الذي حصل هو انفجار ولكن لم نتأكد هل هي عبوة ناسفة أم انتحاري والبعض قال ولم نستطع التأكد أن شخص كان يحمل ما يشبه الحقيبة وكان بين الحاضرين ووقف فجأة ورفع يديه ثم حصل الانفجار ووجوده بين الحاضرين وفي الصفوف الأمامية هو سبب استشهاد عدد كبير منهم

6. لم يحدث إطلاق نار داخل المسجد أبدا … جرى إطلاق نار خارج المسجد فقط

7. الدم والأشلاء وصلت لسقف الجامع وهو سقف مرتفع كثيرا ووصلت إلى الجدران القريبة من الانفجار وهذا واضح في بعض الصور

8. زجاج الحرم العلوي الرئيسي مكسر .. بعض الزخرفة وأيات القرأن التي على الجدران بالقرب من مكان الانفجار مكسرة . بعض المراوح التوت بسبب ضغط التفجير وبعض الثريات تكسر أجزاء منها

9. المكيفات القريبة على مكان الانفجار محطمة بشكل شديد . النيونات القريبة كلها مكسرة وحتى النيونات الموجودة في سقف المسجد فوق مكان الانفجار مكسرة وعليها أثار دماء

10. المنبر مكسر وساقط وهو من الرخام السميك وكرسي البوطي تحت المنبر وعليه بعض قطع الرخام الكبيرة وهناك قطع كبيرة للرخام المكسر والتي قد تكون سقطت على البوطي وكرسي البوطي يوجد فيه بعض آثار دماء .. المنبر والجزء المكسور منه مشار إليه باللون الأزرق في الصورة

11. هناك بقعة على السجاد متفحمة ومحترقة وتختلف تماما عن بقع الدماء الكثيرة الموجودة وتبعد هذه البقعة عن كرسي الذي يجلس عليه البوطي عدة أمتار باتجاه الغرب

وحسب المشاهدة يتبين أن هذه البقعة هي مركز الانفجار والمروحة التي تقع فوق هذه البقعة منحنية للأعلى بشدة بسبب ضغط الانفجار وهي أكثر المراوح تأثرا .. وأيضا منظر الدماء والأشلاء على الجدران المحيطة تدل أنه هنا مركز الانفجار والدماء تطايرت من هذا المركز وباتجاه المحيط

وحسب بعض الأقوال أن في مكان هذه البقعة تماما وقف الشخص الذي أشرنا إليه قبل قليل وكان يحمل ما يشبه الحقيبة وحصل الانفجار بعد وقوفه
جزء من هذه البقعة مشار إليها باللون الأحمر ولم تظهر هذه البقعة كلها في الصورة

12. الثريا المركزية في المسجد كما هي ولم تصب بشيء

13. بقع الدم على سجاد الجامع كثيرة جدا وعلى الدرج الخارجي

14. بعض المصلين يحملون أحذيتهم بأكياس مخصصة للأحذية ويضعونها أمامهم وهذا سبب وجود بعض الأحذية على سجاد الجامع وبعض هذه الأكياس واضحة في أحد الصور . بعض الأكياس مشار إليهم باللون الاخضر في الصورة

15. يقام درس البوطي كل يوم اثنين وخميس بين المغرب والعشاء منذ سنوات وحاليا يحضر الدرس ما يقارب خمس صفوف وأغلبية الحاضرين هم من مناطق مختلفة وبعيدة وليسوا من أهل المنطقة

16. لا يوجد تفتيش على باب المسجد عند الدخول أو الخروج أثناء درس البوطي

17. هناك كاميرات في داخل المسجد وهي للمسجد من أجل نقل الدرس على الشاشات في بقية أقسام المسجد وهناك كاميرات خارج المسجد تابعة للأمن

Details of the Al-Iman Mosque Bombing Which Killed Al-Buti

We present some noteworthy and accurate information as relayed by trustworthy eyewitnesses regarding the explosion at Al-Iman Mosque, Damascus, on 21/03/2013. We won’t get into analytical arguments as these have been collected by many people and will become available once ascertained.

1. Al-Buti was seated in the Mosque when the explosion happened, shortly before the end of his class.

2. Only people near the front of the Mosque, which is quite large, were martyred. There were many worshippers at the back of the Mosque but they were not greatly harmed and some only received minor wounding.

3. An opening in the ceiling of the Mosque was filmed. This was an aperture in the Gypsum which collapsed due to damp caused by poor insulation. The aperture is not in the exterior roof as the mosque has a second floor. The aperture occurred in the north side of the Mosque which is far from the point of explosion; it was caused by the pressure of the blast.

4. When the explosion happened people panicked and passers-by began to enter the Mosque to aid the wounded before the arrival of ambulances and security forces which sealed of the area and prevented people from entering.

5. It is confirmed that a bomb explosion took place, however it is undetermined if it was an IED or suicide bomb. Some said they were suspicious about a large of number of deaths being caused by a person carrying what appeared like a bag. He was already among the worshippers. He suddenly stopped and raised his hands, and then the explosion took place. His presence in the first row, between the worshippers, caused the fatalities.

6. No firing took place inside the Mosque at all; firing was outside the Mosque only.

7. Blood and dismembered body parts reached the ceiling of the Mosque which is very high and surrounding walls, as is apparent in some of the photos.

8. Glass of the upper part of the Mosque was damaged as were some of the decorations and Qura’nic verses on walls near the blast site. Fans and chandeliers were also damaged by the pressure of the blast.

9. Air conditioners and lights near the blast were severely damaged. Even the ceiling lights were damaged and covered with blood stains.

10. The podium, even though made from thick marble, was broken and had fallen. The chair of Al-Buti under the podium had large pieces of marble on it. Perhaps one of these pieces fell on Al-Buti. There were traces of blood on his chair. The podium and its broken piece are marked in blue in the photo.

11. In the photo there is a burnt and charred area on the carpet. It is completely dissimilar to the other blood stains and it is several metres away from Al-Buti’s chair. Upon examination it becomes clear that this area is the centre of the explosion. The fan directly above this area is the most damaged fan and has been bent upwards by the impact of the explosion. You can also see blood and ligaments on the surrounding walls; all indicating that this area was the centre of the blast. Blood splattered from this central point onto the surrounding area. According to some this is the very place were the man (mentioned earlier) was carrying what looked like a bag. The explosion took place after he stopped. A part of this area is marked in red in the photo; all of it is not visible in the photo.

12. The central chandelier seems unaffected.

13. There are countless blood stains on the carpet and the exterior stairs.

14. Some worshippers usually carry their shoes in shoe bags which they place in front of them. That is why so many shoes are scattered on the carpet. These bags are clearly visible in one of the photographs and have been marked in green.

15. Al-Buti’s class has taken place for years, every Monday and Thursday between Maghrib and Isha prayers. Nearly 5 rows of people would attend, most of who are from distant areas and regions.

16. There wasn’t a checkpoint at the Mosque doors before entering Al-Buti’s class.

17. There are cameras inside the Mosque which were used to broadcast the class to other Mosques. There are security cameras outside the Mosque too.

2013/03/23:
فتوى بجواز لعن روح حافظ الأسد
العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

Cursing the Soul of Hafiz Al-Assad
by Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi



فتوى بجواز لعن روح حافظ الأسد

العلامة الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

سؤال:

شيخنا الجليل هل يجوز لعن روح حافظ الأسد أفيدونا بالحكم مع الدليل بارك الله فيكم فقد تردد كثير من الناس في ذلك.

الجواب:

بعد حمد الله تعالى والصلاة والسلام على سيدنا محمد وآله والدعاء بالنصر والفرج لأهلنا:

نعم يجوز لعن الكافر عموما ويجوز لعن روح حافظ الأسد خصوصا بلا تردد. ولعن روح الكافر جائز لا يختلف عن جواز لعن شخصه لا فرق في هذا الحكم بين الشخص والروح، والشخص إنما يطلق أصلا على الجسد والروح.

ونستدل على جواز لعن روح الكافر بأن مذهب أهل السنة أن عذاب القبر يقع على الجسد والروح، وأن العذاب في النار يقع على الجسد والروح، وأن الحياة أصلا أنما هي للروح وكذلك الإدراك والكسب، كما قيل في أبيات: “فأنت بالروح لا بالجسم إنسان”. والروح والنفس هنا بمعنى واحد وقد نسب الله تعالى الكسب للنفس في الخير والشر فقال: {لها ما كسبت وعليها ما اكتسبت}. ولذلك وقع العذاب على أرواح الكفار والنعيم على أرواح المؤمنين.

وقد أثنى الله تعالى على النفس المؤمنة فقال: {يا أيتها النفس المطمئنة ارجعي إلى ربك راضية مرضية}. وجاء ذم النفس الكافرة في أحاديث منها: “وإذا كان الرجل السوء قالوا: اخرجي أيتها النفس الخبيثة كانت في الجسد الخبيث اخرجي ذميمة وأبشري بحميم وغساق” الحديث أخرجه أحمد والنسائي وابن ماجه عن أبي هريرة. فدل ذلك على جواز لعن روح الكافر وهو الدعاء عليه بالطرد من رحمة الله.

وقد ورد لعن الكفار في مواضع متعددة من القرآن الكريم منها في الأحزاب: {إن الله لعن الكافرين وأعد لهم سعيرا}. والحي كالميت عندنا في الحكم إذا اشتد أذاه للمؤمنين. ويجوز لعن الكفار عموما كما يجوز لعن كافر بعينه، وقد مكث النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام شهرا يدعو على رعل وذكوان وعصية لما قتلوا سبعين من القراء من أصحابه في بئر معونة.

أما الكافر الذي لا يؤذي المسلمين في شيئ من دينهم أو دنياهم فالدعاء عليه تنفير له من الدخول في الإسلام، وقد أمرنا بتأليف القلوب والدعوة بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة. والأولى الدعاء له بالهداية والتوجه له بالشفقة والرحمة كما قال النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام في حق قريش: “اللهم اهد قومي فإنهم لا يعلمون”.، مع أنه كان دعا على أفراد منهم معينين.

ويجب التنبيه إلى أن الأولى ترك اللعن والاشتغال بالدعاء وذكر الله تعالى وملازمة التوبة والاستغفار لرفع البلاء واستنزال النصر من عند الله تعالى فقد صح مرسلا “ما نزل بلاء إلا بذنب ولا يرفع إلا بتوبة”. اللهم ردنا إلى ديننا ردا جميلا وارفع البلاء عنا وارحمنا واعف عنا والطف بنا واكفنا شر عدونا واجعل بلادنا بلاد أمن ورخاء وارزقنا حسن الظن بك وصدق التوكل عليك سبحانك لا إله إلا أنت يا خالق كل شيئ ووارثه ورازقه وراحمه.

شيخنا العزيز: هل نؤجر على لعنه ؟

السؤال عن الأجر سؤال وجيه، والجواب: لا ثواب على اللعن إجمالا إذ هو مباح ولذك قلنا الأولى الاشتغال بالذكر والدعاء. لكنا لا نستطيع أن نحمل الناس جميعا على ذلك، وبيان الحرام من الحلال واجب، ولعن حافظ ولعن روحه من الجائزات لا يمكن أن نجعله حراما ولا مكروها، وليس كل المباحات يثاب عليها الإنسان والناس مراتب واللعن قد يشفي الغليل.

ويمكن استخراج وجه للثواب بملاحظة بعض النيات إذ وهو أن اللعن يحمل على شدة بغض هؤلاء وفي هذا وجه ظاهر من وجوه التقرب إلى الله تعالى ببغض أعدائه وأعداء النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام. ولعن هؤلاء فيه إرغام للشيطان إذ هم من حزب الشيطان. وفيه تحذير لأتباع هؤلاء الطغاة وأذناب هؤلاء المجرمين من المصير الذي سيصير إليه هؤلاء، وهي وجوه بعيدة على كل حال يعسر على العامة التحقيق فيها حال الغضب، ولذلك يتركون فإنما يفعلون مباحا على أقل الدرجات.

Cursing the Soul of Hafiz Al-Assad

by His Emminence

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

Question

Is it permissible to curse the soul of Hafiz al-Assad. Please provide us with a verdict along with supporting evidences as many people are hesitant in this matter.

Answer

Praise be to Allah Almighty and may prayers and salutations be upon our master Muhammad, his family and companions. We pray for the victory and salvation of our people.

Cursing disbelievers in general is permissible as is cursing the soul of Hafiz al-Assad specifically, without any hesitation whatsoever. Cursing the soul of a disbeliever is permissible and no different to cursing the very person [Shakhs] of a disbeliever since the term ‘person’ refers collectively to both body and soul.

We base this ruling on the fact that according to Ahl al-Sunnah the punishment of the grave befalls both body and soul. The punishment of Hell also befalls both body and soul. In actuality only the soul truly possesses life and comprehension and incurs deeds and misdeeds. This is summed by the following verse of poetry:

You are a human by soul, not body

In this context the term ‘self’ [nafs] and ‘spirit’ [ruh] are synonymous. Allah Almighty attributes deeds and misdeeds to the nafs:

It [the nafs] will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has earned. (2:286)
So punishment is inflicted upon the souls of disbelievers and Divine grace befalls the souls of believers.

Allah, the Glorious, has praised the nafs of the believers:

O reassured self! Return to your Lord well pleased and pleasing [to Him]. (89:27-28)

In contrast, the nafs of the believers has been denigrated in prophetic traditions including:

The angels say [to the disbelieving self]: Exit O malignant nafs which resided in a malignant body! Leave abased and have the tidings of boiling water and ghussāq (Ahmad, Al-Nasa’I & Ibn Majah narrate it from Abu Hurayra).

This hadith infers the permissibility of cursing the soul of a disbeliever which in essence is a supplication that the one cursed remains deprived of Allah’s mercy.
Moreover curses upon disbelievers have occurred in numerous places in the Qura’n including Surah al-Ahzab:

Allah has indeed cursed the disbelievers and has kept prepared for them a blazing fire. (33:64)
If some disbelievers severely harmed Muslims, then they can be cursed whether they are alive or deceased; they are equal in this case.

It is permissible to curse the disbelievers as a whole and individually. The prophet, upon him be peace, invoked Allah’s wrath upon Ri’l, Dhakwan and ‘Usaiyyah for a month after they killed seventy companions during the expedition of Bi’r Ma’unah.

As for the disbeliever who has not harmed the Muslims in any aspect of their religious or worldly affairs then supplicating against him may prevent him from accepting Islam. We have been instructed to bond the hearts and preach with wisdom and beautiful counsel. So the initial step is to ask Allah Almighty to guide such a disbeliever and to approach him with compassion and mercy as the prophet, upon him be peace, prayed for the Quraysh:

O Allah! Guide my people for they do not know.

He would also, upon him be peace, pray for specific individuals from the Quraysh . At the same time it is important to highlight the importance of abstaining from cursing and instead being occupied with supplication, the remembrance of Allah, and much repentance so that calamities are removed and victory is given by Allah Almighty. It is has been transmitted authentically in a mursal hadith:

A calamity does not descend except due to sins and it is not alleviated except by repentance.

O Allah! Return us to our religion in the most beautiful way and alleviate us of calamities. Have mercy upon us, forgive us, and descend your subtle graces upon us. Protect us from the harms of our enemies and make our country a land of peace and prosperity. Grant us a good opinion of You and true reliance upon You.

Glory be to You. There is no God save You, O Creator, Inheritor, Sustainer and Benefactor of all things.

Question

Are we rewarded for cursing Hafiz Al-Assad?

Answer

This is a good question the answer to which is no. Generally speaking there is no reward for cursing as it is a permissible [mubah] act. This is why we initially said that engaging in invocation and supplication is better. However we cannot say that this is true for everyone. Clarifying halal and haram is obligatory. Cursing Hafiz Al-Assad is a permissible act which we cannot declare haram or disliked. Yet not every permissible act is rewarded as people have various levels. Nonetheless, sometimes cursing quenches the thirst for revenge.

It may be possible that people are rewarded, considering some of their intentions: Their cursing is indicative of extreme hatred for these individuals. This is a clear way of gaining Allah’s proximity through hating His enemies and the enemies of His messenger, upon him be peace. Cursing these individuals also indicates towards resisting Satan since they are from Satan’s party. Through cursing the followers of these tyrants and criminals are warned of the fate which is soon to befall them.

The aforementioned intentions are difficult to maintain especially for the masses when they are angry. So they should leave cursing but if they do it then they should but on a minimal basis.

2013/03/22:
البوطي كان على وشك الانشقاق
Syrian Regime kills Dr. Bouti



البوطي كان على وشك الانشقاق  

نود أن نعلن لكل من استاء من بياننا الأخير هذه المعلومات

نحن منذ مدة نعمل على إقناعه بالانشقاق وكنا قد رددنا عليه في ست مقالات آخرها بعنوان’أفق من سكرك’

وصادف أن استشهدت حفيدة له في قصف النظام لعربين فاجتمعت عدة عوامل أقنعته أخيرا بأنه كان على خطأ وكان ينوي إعلان موقفه والهجوم على النظام غدا الجمعة ولكن يبدو ان النظام وضع أجهزة تنصت حوله فاتخذ القرار بالتخلص منه على عجل.

لقد كنا أشد الناس في الرد عليه وبيان زيف أفواله بالأدلة ، كما كنا أول من أفتى بوجوب الجهاد والخروج وإعلان النفير العام بل كنا من صناع الثورة في دمشق على منبر جامع الحسن في حي أبو رمانة وتعرضنا للملاحقة منذ أيار ٢٠١١ فأرجو أن لا يزايد علينا احد في الوطنيات والثورة

وإذا كان هؤلاء الذين يصفقون لموته يبيحون تفجير المساجد وقتل المصلين فإنا لا نبيح ذلك ولا نعتقد أن الجيش الحر ولا جبهة النصرة تقوم بمثل ذلك.

Syrian Regime kills Dr. Bouti

We strongly condemn the bombing of mosques and the killing of people inside them. We have no doubt that the regime is responsible for the killing of Dr. Bouti, as we have reliable information on this. In fact, we were working towards to convince him defect from the regime and move outside Syria. The last article we wrote refuting his stance entitled “To Dr Bouti: Wake up from Your State of intoxication” had reached him, and he had begun thinking seriously about breaking away. One of his inner circle was assisting in this effort, Dr. Bouti was preparing to declare something against the regime on Friday as a suprise. We have no doubt that the regime was listening in on all his discussions, and therefore decided to get rid of him.”

2013/03/20:
النظام يغتال الشيخ رياض الصعب
بيان من الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

النظام يغتال الشيخ رياض الصعب

بيان من الشيخ محمد أبو الهدى اليعقوبي

قام النظام المجرم في دمشق اليوم باغتيال أحد الشيوخ الأجلاء وهو القارئ الجامع الحافظ المتقن الشيخ رياض الضعب رحمه الله تعالى. وفي تفاصيل ما وردنا من الأخبار أن عصابات الأسد قامت باستهداف الشيخ من خلال زرع قنبلة في سيارته حيث انفجرت به عند خروجه من صلاة الفجر بعد أن صلى إماما بالناس صباح هذا اليوم.

إننا إذ نستنكر هذا العمل الشنيع والجريمة النكراء ندعو أبطال الثورة وشباب المدن إلى توفير حماية للعلماء والأئمة والخطباء لأن النظام لا يتوقف في ارتكاب جرائمه عند حد وربما يريد من خلال اغتيال الشيخ لا الانتقام فحسب وإنما ترويع بقية العلماء لكي لا يعلنوا الانضمام للثورة ولكي يسكت أصوات العلماء الذين يستنكرون تعدي النظام على الحرمات وتجاوزه للشرائع والأعراف والقوانين.

أما الشيخ رياض الصعب فقد عرفناه شابا نشأ في طاعة الله تعالى حسن السيرة صادق القول عف اللسان حفظ القرآن الكريم وجمع القراءات واشتغل بتعليم القرآن. وقد عرفته في صباه رحمه الله إذ ترافقنا ثلاث سنين أيام الدراسة في المدارس الإعدادية وعرفت والده خطيبا وداعية فاضلا وعرفت جده رحمه الله إذ كان رجلا صالحا ذا شيبة وسمت حسن يعمل بصنعة الطرابيش في دكان له في حي القنوات خلف جامع الدرويشية.

لقد أكرم الله تعالى الشيخ رياض الصعب بالشهادة وحسن الخاتمة ولكنا إذ نتقدم لأهله وإخوانه وطلابه بالتعازي نسأل الله تعالى لهم الصبر والسلوان لأهله وأن يحفظ علماء الشام من كل مكروه وأن يعجل بهلاك هذا الطاغوت المجرم والعصابات التي تتحكم بأهل الشام وأن يمكن لأهل السنة والعلماء والأولياء وأهل القرآن.
رحمه الله تعالى الشيخ رياض رحمة واسعة وأسكنه الفردوس الأعلى