RSS

Tag Archives: shia-sunni divide

Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi: anti-Shia fanatic who supports Jews, Christians and Shia to pay jizya

Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi: anti-Shia fanatic who supports Jews, Christians and Shia to pay jizya

Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

Sunni terrorists kill many Shia

 Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi has founded mosques in England, Spain and South Africa but clearly his hatred is clear for all to see.  Of course, he likes to use words like kafir but of course when he was born he was but a poor and lost kafir who then found Sunni versions of Islam along the Sufi path of hatred and he hates in abundance.

Indeed, it amazes me why many Muslim converts try to rise even higher up the hatred ladder but maybe it is because of the need to belong?  Sadly, it appears that age will not mellow Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi and instead he just espouses hatred and clearly much of this hatred is aimed at the Shia.

Not only this, it is clear that “his schizophrenia birth rite” means that he can’t help but to hate because he needs to spread hatred in order to obtain followers within the Sunni and Sufi world.

It is ironic because Sufi Islam is now under attack by radical Sunni Islamic forces in Somalia and Pakistan.  This includes blowing up Sufi shrines and destroying gravestones and so forth.

In an article published by Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi called Ayyuha l-Walad! Lesson Three – Syria, he can’t help but to espouse Sufi hatred towards the Shia and he clearly shows that he believes in dhimmitude for non-Muslims and Shia Muslims alike.

Indeed, given the fact that this bigot is behind mosques in England and Spain; then why is he allowed to spread this hatred because if he was a Christian leader then the police and the liberal brigade would be up in arms.

Of course, it does appear that despite using comments like “kafir” he is happy to reside in mainly non-Muslim nations. 

In the article I mention the Sufi leader of hatred can’t hide his loathing and somehow the person born Ian Dallas is now entering the Sunni-Shia sectarian world.  Of course, to this religious bigot called Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi, then he, like Osama bin Laden, deems the Shia to be un-Muslim.

Yes, Ian Dallas is clearly in the schizophrenia world of radical Sunni Islam where this non-Muslim convert to Islam is now telling people who are or who are not Muslim.  Despite this, his deluded followers will either turn a blind eye or if they have been brainwashed enough, then they will probably follow the same path of hatred.

He states the following:

 Lebanon has already demonstrated that a concordance between the two religions (Islam and Shi‘ism) cannot work. It is now under the control of the Shi‘a. From it, the Palestinian entity has been destroyed, split in two, one side mafia-based and the other openly converted to Shi‘ism.”

“Jordan, too is split. The mass are modernist but devoid of an ‘Aqida and a Fiqh, while the Rulership openly espouses one-worldist movements and has issued a Declaration accepting the Shi‘a as if it could subsist within Islam. Shi‘ism is not a cancer in the body of Islam, it was a wart which fell off, hence its name.” 
 
“Bahrain we have identified as an anomaly. Since the rulers are too weak, bearing as they do a calamitous history, they can only do one of two things, submit to the kafir capitalist doctrine of counting people as numbers and give the country over to the Shi‘a, or ask Arabia to annex the territory, thus rescuing the arithmetic. I do not, cannot propose the Maliki Islamic solution. Declare the State Islamic, thus preventing non-Muslims holding office and at the same time charge the Shi‘a Jizya assuring them protection alongside the jews and christians. Now there is tolerance at its limit! This would have to be preceded by introducing a collected Zakat.”

Therefore, it is clear that Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi supports the jizya system and of course if the dhimmis do not pay jizya; then we have to presume that he will support the theory of enslavement and punishment.  After all, if he believes in jizya which is vindicated by Islam then it follows that he deems non-Muslims and Shia Muslims to be unworthy of equality.

The man of hate who is spreading Islam in non-Muslim nations by Islamic dawah is now firmly entrenched within the Sunni bigot mindset.  Ian Dallas is supporting the concept of jizya and using terminologies like kafir. He knows full well that hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims have been slaughtered in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen in recent times but he still wants to stir up more anti-Shia hatred.

This means that the schizophrenic mindset of Ian Dallas who became Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi isn’t only turning against his ancestors but he is sowing the seeds of sectarianism and hatred within Islam.  Given this, the ongoing persecution of the Shia in Bahrain and Yemen will probably make this Sufi Islamic zealot happy.

The non-Muslim who became a Sufi is now stating openly that Shia Muslims should pay jizya in Bahrain and this means that he supports the Shia being subdued alongside Christians.  Therefore, Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi is espousing dhimmitude and jizya and the consequences of non-Sunni’s not accepting this status means slavery and plunder according to orthodox Sunni Islamic teaching.

It amazes me how such a bigot and small minded individual could build up such a following and why nations like England, Spain and South Africa are allowing this hatred to go unchallenged.

Yet not only does he hate but somehow he is entering a world which does not belong to him and the schizophrenia mindset of individuals like Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi is clearly dangerous.  What did Shia Muslims do to him to justify his hatred?

He states that “The future of world Islam is dependent on the liberation of Kashmir, the liberation of the Uighurs, and the liberation of the great Muslim nation of Syria. As of today only King Muhammad VI of Morocco has had the courage to expel the Shi‘a – and now they are working hard to destroy him using the current doctrines of ‘democracy.’”

With this statement then even jizya and dhimmitude of the Shia is not good enough because now he is praising the fact that Morocco “has had the courage to expel the Shia.”

Also, note how he states the liberation of Kashmir and Syria.  If he knew about history then it was Islamic conquests which conquered and subdued the Hindus and other minorities of Kashmir.  Even in recent times hundreds of thousands of Hindus have fled Sunni Islamic bigotry in Kashmir.

Syria was also conquered by Islamic armies and this once mainly Christian region was subdued under the multiple forces of conquest, pogroms, dhimmitude, jizya, slavery, and Islamic Sharia law.

Therefore, Alawite Shia Muslims and Christians have good relations in Syria because both minorities fear systematic persecution by radical Sunni Islamic forces.  Given past history, it is clear that both communities are justified in fearing the worse. After all, in modern day Saudi Arabia not one Christian church is allowed and the Shia community is treated with scorn by the rulers of this nation.

The founder of the Granada Mosque in modern Spain is part of the real reality of what Sunni Islam was based on in past history.  It was based on hatred, dhimmitude and jizya and it is fitting that the modern day founder hates Shia Muslims and refers to non-Muslims being kafirs.

It is important that people like Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi are challenged because he is a thousand times more dangerous than Islamic terrorists. 

The real threat is stealth jihad and Islamic kitman and the hidden desires of people like Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi and others are the real threat because they are laying foundation stones for future dreams of conquest and sowing the seeds of anti-Shia bigotry. 

 

http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art115_30032011.php  – The full text of what Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi stated.

http://moderntokyotimes.com (please visit)

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

America and Iran: Shared interests or natural enemies?

America and Iran: Shared interests or natural enemies?

Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

America and Iran

President Obama is maintaining America’s uneven approach with Iran because the opposition continues to suffer at the hands of the internal security services.  Also, several outspoken individuals who attacked the current leadership in Iran have been killed in prison.  Despite this, comments against Iran are muted and often it appears that media consumption is more important than reality.

It appears to matter little if the leader of America is a Republican leader or a Democrat leader.  Instead, it is “a quiet” reprimand or comments are only harsh because of internal political pressure in America or because of media statements which show systematic abuse in Iran.

In theory, America and Iran are meant to be natural enemies, however, their relationship is very complex and sometimes both nations share a common vision in the realm of geopolitics. Yet to the outside world both nations do not trust each other and this is based on so-called tension and mutual loathing. However, do both nations really hate each other or are quotes taken out of context or do they have cultural meanings?

Or do both nations use each other in order to salvage domestic support at home? Therefore, what is the real relationship?

If we focus on economics and the nuclear issue, then it is abundantly clear that America does enforce a strict economic blockade on Iran. At the same time the nuclear issue could be the one area which causes a possible limited conflict or where America gives Israel the green light. Therefore, it is clear that you do have major tensions within the relationship and maybe it is Iran which is forcing this breakdown?

After all, if it wasn`t for the nuclear issue then tensions or conflicts could be contained, just like in the past. Given this, Iran should remember that America once had dealings with Saddam Hussein but he also over-stepped the mark.

Yet when we concentrate on the field of international relations and geopolitics then we find a very different relationship because in recent times both nations have worked together. Sometimes this may have applied to mere tacit support and not directly working together, yet this tacit support did sometimes involve a shared common ground. Therefore, it is important to focus on this unspoken side in order to highlight the complex nature of the relationship between America and Iran.

If we focus on Bosnia and Kosovo respectively, then America and Iran had a shared interest in supporting the Muslims of the Balkans. During the Bosnian conflict the United Nations enforced a military embargo on all sides. However, America clearly gave Iran the green light to send military arms to the Bosnian Muslims and this is how the Bosnian Muslims, and Croatians, could turn the table against Serbia within both Bosnia and Croatia.

Therefore, the military arms embargo was clearly broken and Iran often sent military arms in order to prop-up the Bosnian Muslim armed forces. Also, the American-Iranian policy in the Balkans shatters the myth that America is anti-Islamic. After all, during Bosnia, Kosovo, and Cyprus respectively, the armed forces of America and senior politicians sided with Islam every time.

If we even dig further and turn the clock back even more, then we even see covert dealings under the late Ayatollah Khomeini. This applies to the murky Oliver North scandal with regards to the Iran-Contra affair, whereby Iran was involved in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, via American economic support. Therefore, elements within the American administration were adopting a different policy and sometimes elements within different departments were ignoring senior political leaders.

Now if we forward the clock to more recent times then the same situation happens again. For example, when America attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan they allied themselves with the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance in turn was supported by both the Russian Federation and Iran. More astonishing was the fact that Iran gave America secret information about the Taliban; after all, the Taliban hated Shia Muslims.

Therefore, America and Iran had vested interests once more and it is very rare for the Shia in Afghanistan to be anti-America.  After all, Osama Bin Laden hates “infidels” and in the worldview of radical Sunni Islam, it is clear that “infidels” also applies to the Shia because they are deemed to be “un-Muslim” in the eyes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

If we also focus on Iraq then a similar linkage emerges once more because Iran also gave covert support to America via knowledge they had obtained during the Iran-Iraq war. Also, Iran did little to prevent this conflict because they hated Saddam Hussein and his secular regime. Therefore, was the trade off an Islamic state? Because once the secular government had been defeated, then America installed Sharia Islamic Law which in turn persecuted the Christian community.

Given all this, then what is the truth behind the “veil?” Do both nations share similar aims and objectives within a limited geopolitical space? If they don`t, then how do you account for past dealings between both nations? This issue needs to be debated openly because nothing appears to make sense when it comes to the relationship between America and Iran.

The rise of the Shia in Iraq and the delicate situation in Bahrain means that Saudi Arabia and Iran are at loggerheads. However, while America supports Saudi Arabia openly it does not mean everything is what it appears. 

The same applies to the complex nature of geopolitics because it does appear that America and Iran have shared several common themes. 

http://moderntokyotimes.com (please visit)

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.