From al-Maqdisi’s Fatwa Collection

The question issued for al-Maqdisi is the following:

“Is it permissible for me to attend the khutba [prayer] of an appointed imam in one of the mosques which are in Egypt and what are the exact (legal) requirements for this attendance?

What does al-Maqdisi have to say about this?

He does answer “the brother” but first of all refers to his writing, which already has dealt with such a question. This is a series called the “removing the cover from the concealed sharia” – a bit complicated, but it means basically that he is the one who – as a legal “scholar” – makes it clear in his writings about the sharia, the legal rulings and implementations of God, derived from Quran and Sunna, what is permissible and what isn’t.

He goes on stating: “so we, my honest brother, generally despise the acts of such apostate governments, but we do not condem all of them [refering to people who carry out the acts of the gov’s] or declare all of them to be non-believers, furthermore one should regard [the indivuduals in their] function.

-It’s a double-talk thing: do not condem all the Imams, or governmental employed people in the arab countries, as not all of them “have been supporters of the idols (meaninig the governments) or the rulings upon them, which do not inlcude the sharia. But who is an “apostate” and who isn’t? The rhetorik of al-Maqdisis is clear, support the religion and even attend the mass in the state owned mosques, so one can fulfill his religious duty – but “in some of the countries, in which the imam is not in charge and he is in his function, as there is a [secular] division, to respect and follow the laws and duties of the idol (meaning the government), this idol [and these laws] are present in our country.

-the idol, at-taghut: taghut describes a tyrannical leader, or leadership, oppressing the “muslims” and denies “Islam”. It is a quranical term and bears a wide concept behind this term. For example, the al-Qa’ida on the Arabian Peninsula and the Voice of Jihad in general have introduced the taghut and made it widespread. On the Arabian Peninsula, taghut primarily is used for the saudi regime, who are “muslims” only on paper, according to the jihadis, and use “Islam” as an excuse to remain in power while they are backstabing the “muslims”. The concept of taghut has become a normal thing in the jihad literature, basically everything and everyone could be titled taghut: those who do not follow the “true teachings” etc, or use lies to remain in power, etc, the list is long.

So the original question is being redrawn by al-Maqdisi, who asks: “Is it permissible as an Imam to act or take side for the worldy rule [meaning secularity] (…) ?

And to conlcude: “the truth of this standing is that this imam is closer to wordly affairs and furthermore is closest to the taghut, who sets himself next to God and justifies the unbeliev in the islamic religion”

Basically, according to al-Maqdisi, all the Imams in Egypt are to be regarded as traitors of faith, as they support the taghut, and are furthermore apostates, as they are traitors of Islam.

A note, the website (, a huge radical library, seems to be down at the moment, so lets hope it stays down!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s