Boko haram

 The gathering now known as Boko Haram rose in 2002, when an accumulation of similarly invested anti Islamist withdrew to a remote range of the upper east called Kanamma. Here they viciously conflicted with powers.

They had been devotees of a youthful, magnetic minister named Mohammed Yusuf. He had a strict, fundamentalist elucidation of the Qur'an and trusted that the formation of Nigeria by British colonialists had forced a Western and un-Islamic lifestyle on Muslims.

It is hazy whether Yusuf assumed any immediate part in the roughness in 2003 and mid 2004. He later denied it, saying the adolescents included had essentially contemplated the Qur'an with him.

Importance of 'Boko Haram' 

Yusuf established his own mosque in the northeastern city of Maiduguri. Outcasts continuously came to know his Salafist order as Boko Haram, taking into account their comprehension of his teachings. 

The most normally acknowledged interpretation of the name, an expression in the indigenous most widely used language Hausa, is: "Western training is prohibited". It could have a more extensive importance however, since "boko" might likewise mean "Western extortion" or comparative understandings.

The gathering has following said it needs to be known by an expression that makes an interpretation of to "Individuals Committed to the Prophet's Teachings for Propagation and Jihad".

Selecting ground 

Despite everything they decline to send their youngsters to government-run "Western schools", an issue aggravated by the decision world class which does not consider training to be a need.

Against this foundation, charming Muslim pastor Mohammed Yusuf shaped Boko Haram in Maiduguri in 2002. He set up a religious complex, which incorporated a mosque and an Islamic school.

Numerous poor Muslim families from crosswise over Nigeria, and in addition neighboring nations, selected their youngsters at the school.

Be that as it may, Boko Haram was not just intrigued by training. Its political objective was to make an anti Islamic state by creating a false image of ISLAM in the eyes of west and others, and the school turned into an enrolling ground for false jihadis.

If there was an exact moment that the international community understood the breadth of Boko Haram’s evil, it came last month, when the group’s leader grinned and announced that he would sell more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls in his “market of selling human beings”.

Behind Abubakar Shekau, a man who rose to the top of Boko Haram through unmatched brutality and religious fanaticism, loomed several armoured vehicles. Local experts said the video was likely to have been filmed in the remote Sambisa forest in north-eastern Nigeria. The juxtaposition between rural land and advanced  machinery made a jarring contrast.

Despite the poverty of northern Nigeria – where 70 per cent of people live on less than 60p a day – the Boko Haram terrorist group has at its disposal a seemingly limitless amount of heavy weaponry, vehicles, bombs and ammunition that it uses to kill with unfathomable wantonness. The Islamic militants, masquerading as members of the military, raided three villages in north-eastern Nigeria this week and killed 400 villagers “from house to house” using “sophisticated weapons”, one local leader told Bloomberg.

Dozens more Boko Haram members arrived at another village, Bargari, disguised as preachers and assembled all those living in the village, ostensibly to teach Islam. Once they had gathered, another “large number of terrorists” arrived and “opened fire on the congregation”, one resident told Nigeria’s Daily Post. “The gunmen numbering 20 ambushed the village with four Toyota Hilux vehicles, AK-47 rifles, improvised explosive devices, and petrol bombs,” the paper said.

Muslims Of Nigeria Denounce and Condemn Boko Haram

We the Muslims of Nigeria hereby, unambiguously condemn in the strongest terms, the Boko Haram terrorists.

Boko Haram are not our brothers, we reject to associate with them.

They do not belong to the Ummah(follower-ship) of our Prophet Mohammed(P) and the deen of AL Islam.

The actions of Boko Haram are in clear contradiction of the tenets of Islam.

Islam forbids the killing of innocent victims.

Islam forbids Muslims to engage in individual war, unless with edict from the state.

Islam forbids suicide, one of the greatest sins which leads to the fire.

Islam forbids the attack and destruction of religious houses of worship, synagogues, Churches or Mosques.

Islam forbids war by burning.

Islam forbids the attack of women and children.

The Boko Haram terrorists, who may claim to be Muslim or may be other things are our sworn enemy.

We encourage the turning over of them to the authorities.

Dear brothers, fear only Allah.

When you see any one engaging in making bombs or terror activity,tell the police or email us.

Quran says what means- whoever takes an innocent life, it is as if he has killed the entire human kind.

And whoever saves a life, it is like wise as though he has saved the entire human kind

The Boko Haram Terrorists Are Not ‘Islamic’

The Nigerian terrorist assemble that captured several schoolgirls has nothing to do with Islam, and it's abnormally reckless of the media to propose it does. 

Consideration individuals from the media: Kindly quit alluding to the Nigerian terrorist bunch Boko Haram as "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" or whatever else including "Islam." The abhorrent demonstrations taken by this aggressor bunch—from seizing schoolgirls to butchering individuals at places of worship and mosques—have literally nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, as one surely understood Imam let me know, the case by Boko Haram's pioneer that its activities depend on Islamic standards is "impiety" of the most noticeably awful kind. 

Why do our media ceaselessly utilize terms like "Islamist" or "Islamic radical" to depict individuals or gatherings without doing the absolute minimum examination concerning whether there's really an association between their behavior and Islam? Rather, it creates the impression that the media expect that if the individual is Muslim and cases he is acting in understanding the confidence, that is sufficient for them. It shouldn't be. 

Here's some genuine "breaking news": Want to know what amount of the fierce demonstrations conferred by Boko Haram depend on Islamic standards? Nothing, nothing, niente, rien, or any word you need to use for having no association. 

Also, this isn't only my perspective. It's what Muslims around the globe having been stating for as long as week as they have both condemned Boko Haram's viciousness and expressed that Boko Haram's activities are not the slightest bit authorized or upheld by Islamic standards. We heard this from pioneers of real American-Muslim associations who held a question and answer session a week ago, and also from driving priests in Saudi Arabia, Canada and Nigeria. Ideally, this closures the case we get notification from the individuals who ask, "Why don't we see Muslims reprimand terrorism?" 

Also, closer to home, in New York City, three Muslim-American pioneers determinedly made this very indicate me. Imam Shamsi Ali, known for his interfaith work with Rabbi Marc Schneier, Russell Simmons and others, communicated his outrage that political terrorists like Boko Haram conjure Islam as the purpose behind their "egregious wrongdoings." Imam Ali called the Boko Haram pioneers "irreverent" for guaranteeing the Koran endorses their viciousness against guiltless individuals, since it's "in spite of everything Islam remains for" as well as it's "a wrongdoing against God and mankind." 

Daisy Khan, originator of the Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality, called Boko Haram's abducting of schoolgirls an "awful wrongdoing" that "disregards each significant goal of Islam." Khan clarified that no place does the Koran forbid ladies from getting an instruction or backing in any capacity capturing ladies and offering them as slaves, as Boko Haram has asserted. Khan portrayed Boko Haram activities as not being a "mixed up translation of the Koran, but rather a sheer manufacture of what it really states." 

It's additionally upsetting to see the twofold standard utilized by our media when they cover terrorists or radicals who are Muslim when contrasted with those of different religions. For instance, in the past we have seen actually several fierce assaults against fetus removal centers, from flame bombings to specialists being killed. These activists are probably motivated by their religious perspectives, yet we don't hear the media allude to them as "Christian terrorists." 

Also, why don't the media utilize the expression "Christianists" to portray fanatics like the Westboro Baptist Church, or Bryan Fischer of the intense Christian association the American Family Association? Fischer has asserted that "homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler" and that gays are the reason 6 million Jews kicked the bucket in the Holocaust, and who has applauded the late laws gone in Uganda making it a wrongdoing to be gay? These individuals trust that they are doing what Christianity requests of them. 

Just to be clear, not the slightest bit do I trust that these hostile to fetus removal terrorists or ministers of contempt speak to Christianity. Be that as it may, the same is valid for Boko Haram and others of their kind with regards to conjuring Islam. 

In any case, how about we answer an inquiry that I'm certain numerous have: Why do we see such a variety of occasions of individuals guaranteeing they are submitting brutal acts for the sake of Islam? As Imam Ali clarified: "These terrorists utilize the name of Islam to bolster their political plan on the grounds that it's an effective, passionate instrument to select and rouse adherents." Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive of the Cordoba Initiative, included that these activists utilize the "standard of Islam" to facilitate their own particular political motivation with zero respect for the standards of the confidence. 

In the event that you need evidence of the force of straightforward word affiliations, recollect when the Bush organization constantly summoned Saddam Hussein's name when talking about 9/11. Subsequently, by 2003, 70 percent of Americans trusted that Saddam Hussein was by and by included in 9/11, in spite of no proof interfacing him. 

It's opportunity that the media turn out to be more mindful with their utilization of terms like "Islamist," "Islamic radicals," and so forth. At the point when, as on account of Boko Haram, it's reasonable that their activities are not predicated at all upon Islam—and are truth be told oppositely contradicted to the principles of the confidence—then essentially call them what they are: Terrorists, killers, and executioners with a polit