The Shaykh’s commentary on a tape containing Sayyaf’s answer to a question posed to him: What are the causes of this battle? Are they doctrinal, as some claim, or something else?

Listening to the tape: "The second question: What are the causes of this battle? Are they doctrinal, as some claim, or something else?
Sayyaf: The causes of the battle are no different from the causes of the battles that took place in other regions of Afghanistan. There, battles occurred that were much larger and much more dangerous than what happened... A battle took place in Fakhar, and its victims were the senior field commanders in the north. Battles took place in Kandahar that were bloodier and hotter than what happened in Kunar. The causes of these battles were internal problems among the mujahideen and problems related to the region itself, and the motives for the groups seizing the passageways and competing in this seizure of the passageways. There was no other motive. The same motives and the same causes were present in Kunar as well. If people thought...

The Shaykh: CommentaryThe Shaykh: You can stop for a moment. Perhaps the shine is being taken off. I think there is a difference between what recently occurred and those incidents. In those incidents, self-interest was the primary factor, unlike what happened in Kunar, because at the very least, it involved an effort (ijtihad) to establish the Shari'ah, which they had previously been able to establish when they were independent in the land of Kunar. Therefore, comparing this incident to that incident, we can say, in the terminology of the scholars of usul al-fiqh, it is an analogy with a difference (qiyas ma'a al-farq). So here, in the case of Kunar, there is first of all jihad, as exists in all regions and all parties, plus the emergence of the intention to apply the Shari'ah at the first opportunity that presented itself to them. Therefore, the fact that there were fitnah and fighting between some parties clearly indicates that it was, meaning, for the seizure of land or something similar. The Quran and Sunnah Group differs on one point from those he referred to, who are a doctrinal group, whereas those were not a doctrinal group; they were commanders who wanted to control as much land as possible. Whereas these people, through their efforts and the efforts of others, as we read in some reports, were able to take hold of the land of Kunar, and during the period they controlled it—three years—they were able to achieve some of the security that results from applying the Shari'ah. Whereas in those lands, none of that was present. Therefore, I see that it is fair not to overlook this difference between this fitnah and its predecessors.

The questioner: There is a brief rebuttal now. He is currently mentioning the words of the Party Group there who fought the Da'wah Group.

The Shaykh : The group of what?

The questioner: The Islamic Party Group ruled in Yar, and the field commanders, led by Faqir Allah, who is not a Salafi, and everyone in Peshawar knows this. The field commanders of the Islamic Party who fought the field commanders in Kunar are all Salafis. This is a widespread matter in Peshawar, and we know the doctrine, and even they openly admit it. And now he is speaking about this matter.

The Shaykh: I did not understand the point of the rebuttal. I say, and I repeat what I say, that there is a difference between the fighting of the Jamil Rahman Group in order to preserve this land under the Hekmatyar Party, and the fighting of those heads against one another solely for the purpose of seizing the land. There is a difference between these, meaning the Da'wah Group, and those. I only want our criticism of these or those to be free from all the surging emotions that have no limits. So, for example, we say this was a motive, or he fought for the land, but there was something tried in this land, and that is that Islam was applied to a great extent, and a very great extent. Therefore, the fighting was, at the very least, tinged with a religious motive, even if we assume it was a mistake. Whereas there, there was absolutely nothing of that, by his own admission; it was solely for the land. I wanted this clarification. And in any case...
Al-Halabi: I sayThe Shaykh : Sayyaf, when he mentioned now that this fitnah resulted in what was fiercer, bloodier, and more painful, and, meaning, this is truly strange and truly wounds the heart, because before the establishment of the state, this happens. How will it be if it happens and they hold on to a state and a party commits to it more than another party? What will the disagreement be? This is, by Allah, truly a very regrettable thing. Allah is the Helper.

The Shaykh: CommentaryThe Shaykh: In any case, I hope to forget. Write down for me. Do you have the first observation? I remember the first observation: that the participation of some individuals is not evidence. We agree with this, but we need to make sure, is it true that they did not participate as a group, as a party? What was the second observation?
Al-Halabi: The issue of the analogy between the previous battles.

The Shaykh: Meaning, the last one is recorded with you. Continue.
Listening to the tape: "That the Amir of the Islamic Association in Kunar, the teacher of the Salafis, who is...

The Shaykh: CommentaryThe Shaykh: Excuse me, what did he say?

The questioner: The Amir of the Islamic Association... He said the teacher of the Salafis there.

The Shaykh: In Kunar?

The questioner: In Kunar.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner: And now he is listing them one by one.

The Shaykh : Okay.

The questioner: Shall I go?

The Shaykh : Please.
Listening to the tape: "... because the Amir of the mujahideen from the Islamic Party in Kunar, the teacher of the Salafis, who is... The Amir of the mujahideen from the Islamic Party in Kunar... a famous Salafi, and most...

The questioner: The Association, he means, God knows, it might be the Da'wah to the Quran and Sunnah Group, Ghulam Rabani. Ghulam Rabani is affiliated with the Da'wah to the Quran and Sunnah Group. It might have been a mistake...

The Shaykh : May it be well.
Listening to the tape: "... and the commanders of the fronts affiliated with the organizations in Kunar Province are from the Salafiyyah. So the senior commanders on both sides of the battle were Salafis. Therefore, the issue of the battle was not a doctrinal issue. And I ask, where were these muftis during the events of Fakhar, the events of Kandahar, and the events similar to the events of Kunar that took place in Afghanistan and wounded the hearts of those who love jihad? Where were these fatwas? And why were they not investigating the issue? Was this fighting for a doctrinal matter or for another matter? When the events of Kunar occurred, everyone became active and began issuing fatwas and linking this conflict to a doctrinal matter. And I see that this is injustice to jihad, and this is a lie and slander. We ask Allah to guide the instigators of this matter to the right path."

The Shaykh: CommentaryThe Shaykh: Stop there. It seems to me this is an answer to this question: Where were they? It appears that the difference I mentioned earlier between the land of Kunar, which was in the hands of the Da'wah Group, and the land of Balkh or others where that fighting took place, this difference we mentioned earlier is the reason for the inaction of the religious people and the muftis, because they all knew that that fighting was not between two groups, one defending land for the sake of the land, and the other defending the land for the sake of applying the Shari'ah of Allah in this land. In other words, it was apparent to everyone at that time that they knew it was a fitnah with no religious significance. Whereas here, it is clear that the religiousness in the Quran and Sunnah Group and the application of the Shari'ah in this land for a period of time, this moved those who are enthusiastic for this group to say sometimes what is correct and sometimes what is not correct. So the answer is that this did not happen at that time because the matter there was clear that it was fighting for the sake of the land and not for the sake of the da'wah. Okay, we hope, if Allah wills.

The questioner: I can add something. At the same time that the Da'wah Group was establishing the Shari'ah of Allah in Kunar, in another region other than Darbes, this is the name of the region that the Da'wah Group was ruling, there is a region above it in the north controlled by the Islamic Party. The centers of the Islamic Party were there, and there was no fighting with the communists; the matter was over. They were also establishing the Shari'ah of Allah, and Faqir Allah was responsible for this matter, also establishing the Shari'ah of Allah on the Salafi methodology. And as is known, the fitnah occurred because the centers of the Party and the other centers were expelled from this region so that the region would be controlled by a single group, which is the Quran and Sunnah Group. And this is known. Why the fighting occurred was for this matter.

The Shaykh : Here we are discussing news that we are hearing with our ears and seeing with our eyes right now, from one noble man to another. When you mention this news now, first of all, you are not a witness; you are a transmitter. We want to see a transmitter like this whose words are trusted, and we place him on the scale of criticism. You, who are saying this now, also need to see as we see and hear as we hear. Then, either we accept much of what has passed, or perhaps we discuss a little of what has also occurred here. We do not have an image of a person who is an eyewitness and is speaking about a center of responsibility, as is the situation.The Shaykh : Siyaf.

The questioner : Abu Hajjaj, who spoke to you yesterday, is the one who spoke to me these words.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. I will say this: if I were to meet with Abu Hajjaj, there is no difference between Abu Hajjaj and Abu Mujahid. I see no difference. The important thing is that neither you nor he is an eyewitness.

The questioner : He is an eyewitness. Abu Hajjaj is the secretary.

The Shaykh : When I hear from him the point that he witnessed, then for every incident there is a new story.
Al-Halabi : Can the application of Allah's Shari'ah be achieved by violating Allah's Shari'ah?

The Shaykh : How?
Al-Halabi : Can the application of Allah's Shari'ah be achieved by violating Allah's Shari'ah?

The Shaykh : Of course not, but the truth is, I want to clarify with you what you mean?
Al-Halabi : That is, now when they said that in order to expel these people of the Islamic centers in some provinces or countries close to Kinar, and they acknowledge that the provinces apply the Shari'ah of Allah, and they expelled them, will these people who apply the Shari'ah of Allah be fought under the claim that we want to apply the Shari'ah of Allah?

The Shaykh : Clarify what your observation is regarding this statement?

The questioner : I have no observation.

The Shaykh : Then it is work.