|Saturday, 20 September 2014 Home About Us Contact Us|
You are here:
Mail to a Friend Printer friendly
Who is Abu Zubair Saleem Beg?
Abu Zubair Saleem Beg from Croydon, Surrey (United Kingdom) is from amongst the most active and ardent of the Qutbiyyah in the West (see here, here, here, here and here for proof that the Scholars recognize them and label them as a faction with this name and methodology). Since 5th December 2009 he started expending the greatest of efforts in order to defend, and promote the works of Sayyid Qutb that were responsible for the origins and developments of the destructive Takfiri and Jihadi movements in the late 1960s, and which continue to be the source works for such ideologies. This is the reason that this site (Takfiris.Com) came into being on 29th December 2009 and why you are reading this particular article.
You will see from this article that such a mentality continues to be produced, decades later, thousands of miles away from where it originated, thanks to the very same books that Saleem Beg and his likes are trying to propagate, defend and propagandize for. Saleem Beg, formerly called himself Abu az-Zubair al-Azzamee (an ascription to Abdullah Azzam), an appellation that he later dropped. His Qutbiyyah (meaning the propensity and desire to defend the "Marxist-Leninist-Communist" originating philosophy and methodology of Sayyid Qutb against all odds) is very strong, and he has been at the forefront of granting the Takfiris and Kharijites in the West a platform from which to spread their doctrines and from which to make Takfir of the rulers (that the Scholars have not made Takfir of), to make Takfir of the Scholars, if not defaming and cursing them, and to attack the people of the Sunnah for their defense of the Prophetic methodology in da'wah to Allaah and of the methodologies of the Salaf from the 20th century fikr that was brought to the Ummah by non-Scholars and whose true and real roots lie in the study of Western materialist secular philosophies.
We have documented extensively with proofs in other places that Sayyid Qutb was "gulping" down the Western materialist (secular atheistic) philosophies for 15 years of his life between 1925 and 1940 (see here); that when he started turning to Islam, this past nurturing affected his ideology and doctrine; that a major influence upon him was Marxist-Socialism; that he considered Islam to be made up in part of Communism (see here and also here); that on the basis of a Communist perspective of "Social Justice" and a [Communist] critique of Capitalism (see here), Sayyid Qutb reviled and attacked Uthmaan, Mu'awiyah, Amr bin al-Aas (radiallaahu anhum) and negated Islam from Bani Umayyah (see this series), continuing to publish his attacks upon Uthman and Bani Umayyah right until his death; that he launched a Socialist revolution in 1952 along with the Free Officers, helping Jamal Abdul-Nasser coming to power as a result, (this revolution being planned in Qutb's own house); that despite being refuted by Shaykh Mahmood Shakir in 1952 for his attacks upon the Companions he persisted upon displaying the Communist-Marxist-Socialist ideologically motivated attacks upon some of the Companions right up until his death (see here, here and here); that Qutb, having already been behind one Leninist type Socialist revolution in 1952, began to pen down the ideology of revolution in the late 1950s, along with the takfiri fikr in the late 1950s and early 1960s in his works az-Zilal and Milestones (a Leninist Manifesto for Muslims) - see this article. This went alongside and was built upon his mass Takfir of the entire Ummah which is known and acknowledged by prominent figureheads amongst the "Muslim Brotherhood" (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and Qutb essentially believed that all Muslims, societies and states had become apostates (except him and those upon his doctrines) and that the greatest obligation was to remove them with general revolutions. This then became known as "Jihad", an innovated, heretical, evil notion of Jihad, that has nothing to do with the Shari'ah Jihad.
What was the result of all of that?
So that it is impossible for the likes of Saleem Beg to accuse us of making this up, you can listen to and read it for yourself directly from a source Saleem Beg won't reject. And here are some excerpts from that:
This false methodology began in the year 1375H (1965CE). And it brought a new understanding for Jihaad which is against the teachings of the Sharee'ah. It occurred due to the certain situations in the lslaamic world and also due to the certain mindset of those people who propagated this...
We've quoted this so the Qutbiyyah themselves cannot reject this as it is from one of their own sources. And then you can read all the following articles too:
Once you've digested all of that, then you should not be surprised at the saying of Shaykh Muqbil (rahimahullaah) of Yemen, in the book (فضائح ونصائح), p. 162:
وأما كتب سيد قطب فحماسات فارغة لا يستفيد منها طالب العلم المبتدي، بل ربما لا تشعر بعد أيام إلا وقد أصبح من جماعة التكفير
As for books of Sayyid Qutb, then they just [contain] empty sentiments, the student of knowledge, beginning [the path to knowledge] will not benefit from them. Rather perhaps he will not realize after just a few days that he has become from amongst the Jamaa'at ut-Takfir.
At this point, it is simply not possible, after all the above, for anyone to claim ignorance, or to claim confusion, or to claim they don't understand, especially when they know of hadiths such as this:
The Kharijites Will Continue to Emerge Until Dajjaal Appears Amongst Their Remnants
The Effects of These Doctrines in 21st Century Britain and United States
Just so that we are not accused of making things up, then here is an excerpt from a recording of a video lecture given by Abu Hamzah al-Misri (also a Takfiri) done in refutation of Abdullah al-Faisal al-Jamaikee (a mentally-disturbed Takfiri) that was recently tubed on the web.
Here is the still from the video mentioned earlier:
The three are Ibn Umar (American accent), Abu Hamza (middle) and another called Bilal (right). Fifteen minutes into the video Ibn Umar speaks about extremism on the issues of Takfir, and from what he says you can just visualize late 1960s Egypt (except that it's here in the Western non-Muslim lands):
Here's the audio, just play it:
Here's the transcript, and you have to understand, this is late 1990s Britain and United States we are talking about, not some surburb in 1960s Egypt, or 1990s Algeria, and this is not from an adversarial source, it's straight from the horses mouth:
What I would like to cover briefly before moving on to some of the references on the tape is an explanation and a look at the dangers and consequences of calling someone a kafir (excommunicating a Muslim). I just want to look at some of the manifestations of this, that I've seen. Some of the things that I have looked at from this. The dangers and consequences of calling someone a kafir.
So we have Qutb's ideology alive and thriving in the Western lands, thanks to his Marxist Socialist Communist perspectives on writing about Islamic history, and thanks to his doctrines of "Jaahiliyyah" derived from French Philosopher Alexis Carrel's "barbarism" (see here) and the "Haakimiyyah" of thinker Abu A'laa Mawdudi and thanks to his Leninist-type revolution he envisaged (and mounted) - then all of this being penned down in his works to serve as the basis for the revival of the madhhab of the Kharijites, those "Dogs of Hellfire". These are the ideas that are the spring and fountain for this way of thinking, and these books are behind the nurturing that leads to this type of mindset.
What has been revealed above is precisely what happened in Algeria in the 1990s, with ignorance amongst the people, lack of contact with the Scholars, and instead of taking their guidance from true Scholars, they took it from the Qutbiyyah, the likes of Safar and Salman. Being nurtured upon revolutionary ideologies (see here), the ugliness of this Takfir and its consequences reached untold heights, and in the process it allowed government-aligned factions to manipulate the chaos for their own ends, in order to discredit the "Islamist" cause by staging their own attacks and massacres upon innocent people. These are real-life illustrations of the evil consequences of abandoning the Scholars and turning to "thinkers".
Coming back to the topic and what we've just read in the transcript of that audio by this person called Ibn Umar, when you have got this type of takfiri mentality being produced towards other Muslims in the Western lands, a mentality that allows the type of reasoning that we have seen in the transcript above, then your view and perception towards the indigenous people of that land itself will be such that you also make permissible their wealth and blood upon the reasoning that since their governments are waging wars in Muslim lands (and since the people pay taxes to those governments), then they too are lawful game. And that's your ideological justification for terrorism in non-Muslim lands, against innocent people, pretty much in the bag.
Now when it is the case that such a huge body of evidence exists for all of what has been stated above, coupled with the fact that all the Major Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah, when the truth became clear to them, advised against and warned against the books of Sayyid Qutb, and against this takfiri-revolutionary methodology (see this article regarding Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin specifically on the subject of this takfiri revoluionary "Qutbi" manhaj, and also this article from Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan on the same) and this has been known and propagated and spread for 15 years here in the West, and its propagation is itself known very well - after all of this, what reason do the Qutbis like Abu Zubair Saleem Beg al-Azzami have for being treacherous to the Ummah in continuing to defend and propagandize for authors and their works that provide the ideological foundations for the madhhab of the Khawaarij, all out of blind bigoted-partisanship and using the flimsiest and cheapest of so-called evidences? What excuse do such people have, especially when know what is reported in the Sunnah about the Khawaarij, their being "Dogs of Hellfire", their continued appearance in the Ummah, and Dajjaal appearing amongst their later remnants?
Further, when we couple this with other facts about these individuals, such as that they accused the likes of Imaam al-Albani (and Imaam Ibn Baz and Imaam Ibn Uthaymin by extension) for being guilty of Irjaa', that they continue bending over backwards to defend, aggrandize and propagandize for the works of ideologies of Sayyid Qutb, and that they maintain forums and websites which are gathering places for Takfiris and Khariijites, whilst cleverly putting on disclaimers, "Hey, we don't tolerate any violation of UK laws..." which is only a means by which they seek to protect themselves, and through which their real intent is to say:
Hey, come on our forums, speak what you want, its alright if you make Takfir of the Scholars and Rulers, you've got freedom of speech. However, to cover our backs, we'll just stick a disclaimer saying that our forum is open to people of all persuasions, however we do not tolerate comments that violate UK law. That way, you can come and say pretty much what you like, and at the same time we got our back covered, we can simply say it's an open forum, people can say what they like. So business as usual, and we can continue sailing the [cyber]-seas on our flag-ship, "the Qutbiyyah".
Along with this they allow Takfir of those Rulers (those whom none of the Scholars have made Takfir of), and even Takfir of the Scholars, as well as clear expressions of rank hatred and malice towards them to be promulgated and propagated amongst the general folk through their forums, and they allow the poisons of the ideologies of extremism in Takfir to be propagated. And you can see with your own eyes, many threads in which these deluded Takfiris make Takfir of the Scholars, curse and revile them, and in the very same thread you will have Abu Zubair Saleem Beg participating, often without even batting an eyelid through his silent approval of what is being posted.
As for their actions in writing about and condemning terrorist activities (such as after 7/7), you have to understand that a lot of these takfiri groups and individuals in the West know that with all the laws being passed, they risk prosecution, especially in a post-9/11 and post-7/7 climate, and especially considering that over the years, on their blogs, websites and forums, they have much material which could be used against them from a legal perspective. For this reason, the shrewd ones amongst them will come out and write articles condemning these actions, and again you have to understand the psychology at work here. You are not prepared to condemn and abandon those innovatory, heretical works and ideologies that are the spring and foundation for the type of extremism and deviance we have demonstrated through the quotes above in the both the Muslim and non-Muslim lands, rather, you continue to propagandize for them with the greatest of efforts (whilst attacking and abusing those who speak against them), but at the same time you write these token articles and one wonders whether this is truly genuine or motivated, if at least in part, by a desire to protect yourself, (rather than genuinely refuting the ideology behind this Takfir, revolution, extremism and terrorism).
If you were genuine, you would be writing about the underlying doctrines that give arise to these types of activities, in the same manner that Ali al-Timimi did in that quote from him above in the days in which he had his head screwed on mostly-right. That would signal that you are genuinely and sincerely opposed to that kind of thing.
But you will never see that from these people because then they will have demolished the very roots and foundations of that crumbling edifice they have built for themselves - it would mean Qutb's books have to be thrown into the closet - a disaster for the Qutbi-Bannawi "harakah" and the "Sahwah", that Qutbi "harakah" and "Sahwah" and fikr the origins of which lie in that 15 year period in which Qutb was gulping down the materialist secular atheist Western philophies - which affected the development of his ideas and doctrines (see this article in full).
Does Refuting and Criticizing Qutb Mean Denial of Jihad and Opposition to Islam?
With such blind and bigoted partisanship towards Sayyid Qutb, 20th century Qutbists have tied "jihad" and "Takfir" with Sayyid Qutb as if no Scholar in the entire history of Islam has outlined the correct Shar'iyy principles and realities of Takfir and jihad comprehensively and fully such that they are sufficient as a framework for all times and places. Rather what Sayyid Qutb innovated, fundamentally, has its roots in the Communist, Marxist-Socialist spectacles through which he looked at and analyzed the dawn of Islamic history and through which he devised his notion of "Social Justice", and on account of which he let out that malice and resentment towards Uthman (radiallaahu anhu) and made Takfir of Bani Umayyah, and later (with some ideological help from the writings of Abu A'laa Mawdudi) he applied his unjust, evil, oppressive judgment upon the whole Ummah, negating Islam from it as a whole, negating the Islam of every single Muslim on the face of the earth (with the exception of himself and whoever believed in his unique doctrine), and calling for "vanguards" of the "sagacious believers", (labels used to clothe what he had plagiarized from Lenin's "What is to be done?"), in every place to launch destructive revolutions. That's what Qutb innovated and introduced, and this is what became known as "jihad". A destructive and evil way of thinking that has nothing to do with Islam and with which unfortunately the correct usool and qawaai'd of Takfir and jihaad have been tainted and corrupted, leading to the type of ideological nurturing and subsequent misguidance and foolishness you see documented above in both the East and the West.
Link to this article: Show: HTML Link Full Link Short Link
You must be registered and logged in to comment.