The Myth of Euphrates Shield 

​Shaikh Abu Muhammed al Maqdisi  explains Euphrates Shield 

Euphrates Shield has become a Russian and Bashar Shield. 

Today Russia has announced publicly that it has launched joint air raids with Turkey against the group ISIS in the city of Al Bab, and that it was coordinated with Bashar’s regime! 

So the alliance is between the Khalifa of those who water down the religious principles, and with Putin and Bashar! 

At present it is against the group ISIS, and soon it will be against JFS and the others.

Therefore, those who issued Fatwas permitting the participation in the Euphrates Shield should revise their Fatwa and absolve themselves from it.

Their Fatwa permitting it (Euphrates Shield) has become the Sheild for Bashar and Putin! So they must not be arrogant and bury their heads in the sand.

Retreating back to the truth is better than persisting in falsehood. 

“O ye who believe! Guard your duty to Allah, and speak words straight to the point” (Surah Ahzaab) 


Oh I wish my people know, and Understand message by Shaikh Abu Muhammed Al Maqdisi

​“I wish my people knew”

It is clear apostasy if one plots against the Islamic project which the Mujahideen are striving for, by handing over maps which show their locations to the secularist Kuffar or to the apostates or to Russia or to America, to destroy their Jihad and their Islamic project in order to facilitate the funders’ projects that establish the Taghut. And it is a betrayal towards Allah, His messenger   (PBHM) , and to the believers, and to the sacrifice of the Mujahideen and the martyrs.
The Muwahhid who knows his Tawheed will never doubt that.
Going to negotiations under the supervision of the Kuffar infidels who are at war with us and with our religion, and being pleased with their outcomes that are Kufr like a democratic state, as well as conspiring against the Mujahideen who are not pleased with them, is a clear act of Kufr even if it is made to appear pleasing by those who water down the religious principles, or justified by the religious clerics of the Murjia claiming to have made “Ijtihad” (an attempt to understand the Islamic verdict on a matter)..!
 There is no “Ijtihad” that can invalidate the textual evidence of Tawheed that makes it necessary to reject the Tawagheet and to dissociate oneself from their Kaafir systems, in addition to not supporting them against the Muslims.

 We have repeatedly warned the people against the plots of those who water down the religious principles and their religious clerics, and against the filth of Murjia and their scholars, and we said that they are striving to implement the funders’ projects that establish the Taghut. We have also warned against the consequences of aid and the harm caused by the funders and by those funded, because the Tawagheet and their regimes are not charity organizations! So those who water down the religious principles, the ignorant, and the fools, turned against us. But now some of those who turned against us and became angry for what we said, are crying and saying like what we previously stated!

It is not Fiqh or wisdom to recognize a Fitnah when it occurs or when it ends. But rather Fiqh is to warn against it and to have the insight to foresee it while it is approaching (before it reaches). So looking at the outcomes, and having insight into the people’s condition, and recognizing them (by their hidden trait) from the tone of their speech is necessary for the one seeking the truth, let alone the scholar whose Fatwas are followed by the people.

 Oh I wish my people know, and understand.

Secularism under attack in Pakistan

​[The following article written by a secular writer Umair Javed: show frightening among secularists. I am as a Blogger don’t agree with him, only show fear of Secular society in Pakistan]

AT the time of writing, liberal activists Salman Haider, Waqas Goraya, Aasim Saeed, Ahmed Naseer, and Samar Abbas were still missing. There is little to suggest that they will be recovered by the time this piece goes into print. No organisation has claimed their abduction, while whatever limited investigation that has taken place so far has yielded nothing conclusive.

One can only look at the past and make historically informed conjectures about who is capable of picking up people from different parts of the country with great precision. However, one may think twice about airing such (highly plausible) suspicions for fear of being picked up as well.

The incident has revealed something supremely rotten in Pakistan’s state and society. Instead of provoking unequivocal condemnation, the abduction of several activists has spawned mass indifference, or much worse, victim-blaming. Some days ago, I was informed by a gentleman in Lahore that those missing were prominent ‘anti-state’ and ‘anti-Islam’ agents thus implying they deserved their fate.

For those unaware, the abducted individuals allegedly ran a rationalist Facebook page, which carried jokes and memes challenging dominant Islamist and statist narratives in Pakistan. No other allegation against them has surfaced yet. Let’s just take stock of this assertion: we now live and breathe in an intellectual cesspool where Facebook posts are widely considered a serious threat to both the ‘fastest-growing religion in the world’ and a country designated as the ‘fortress of Islam’.

In the aftermath of these disappearances, one conservative ideologue stated that ‘liberal extremists’, such as the four in question, were actually worse than militants. The rationale underpinning this assertion was that the hurt caused by words lasts for far longer than the physical violence of actual terrorists. This is not an isolated viewpoint. It is one shared by many others populating our airwaves and writing in mainstream media outlets.

The actual goal of such viewpoints is to show that somehow the average Pakistani is caught between two extremes. On the one hand, you have those who wish to turn Pakistan into a theocratic state, and are willing to deploy gruesome violence to achieve those ends. On the other, you have foreign-funded liberals, who want to turn Pakistan, its law books, and all who reside within its boundaries into a godless, amoral mass.

Caught between the two extremes, we are told, are moderate, centrist Pakistanis who wish to live moderate lives. All that this middle Pakistan wants to do is follow their traditional practices in peace without the imposition of violence or foreign-funded secularism.

In the past decade, there has been no bigger myth than the one of two equal extremes. In reality, we don’t live in a bipolar country. We live in a country with thousands of Islamist militants, many far-right fascists, a large swathe of very conservative people, and a small (though growing) mass of people who are increasingly okay with the idea that religious minorities may have equal rights.

What actually lies on the other end of the social spectrum is a minuscule liberal population numbering no more than a few thousand households spread across the country. This population is politically fragmented, internally incoherent, and limited in its outreach. In short, as far as political or social movements go, it is largely non-existent outside of the internet.

To date, the number of people killed by these designated liberal extremists who run rationalist web pages and protest against religious discrimination and persecution is zero. The number of people abducted or threatened by what is pejoratively called the candlestick mafia is also zero. However, the number of men, women, and children killed by Islamist extremists in just the last decade is estimated at more than 40,000.

No political party in Pakistan is running on a platform of vocal secularism. Only a couple of leaders have ever been willing to speak out against the blasphemy law, and one of them was killed. Instead of mass shame and condemnation, his killing resulted in an unceasing wave of whataboutery and victim-blaming from university educated, white-collar middle-class people. His killer, on the other hand, will have his first annual commemoration at Liaquat Bagh on March 1; and like his funeral last year, it will be attended by thousands.

The myth of liberal extremism is a useful intellectual prop for those who share a great deal of moral and political affinity with far-right conservatives and organised Islamists, but are now wary of associating directly with their violent ways. In essence, by blaming people like Salmaan Taseer for his own murder, or by jumping through hoops to defend the abduction of liberal activists on grounds of national security and religious sensitivities, they create fertile ground for more obscurantism and extremism.

By now, it is clear that Pakistan is not a particularly democratic state. Individuals go missing and the first thing that comes to mind is that the state is somehow complicit in this. In essence, we reside in a security state with some superficial democratic pretensions. Nevertheless, as big a problem as this seems, it is one progressives have been familiar with for a very long time.

What is far more disconcerting now, and what will certainly pose a far bigger challenge in the long run, is the mainstream societal support offered to ideas from a fascist playbook. The belief that voicing support for religious minorities and their equal treatment is worthy of punishment is scary. Similarly, the belief that certain state institutions are in their right to pick up liberal activists merely for running a webpage is not the start of a slippery slope, it is quite some way down it. Worryingly, it is now apparent that we have no clear way of preventing our slide.

Article published in Dawn Newspaper 16 January 2017