Proposal at the Kaʿbah, Are there Fiancés in Islām?

عمران بن حصين قال قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم الحياء لا يأتي إلا بخير

"Modesty brings nothing but good" [al-Bukhari]

Thanks to Allāh, my health has improved and basics like ablution and prayer are no longer such physically taxing mountains to overcome several times daily. I however delayed writing on a few topics I had in mind, since I had applied to write for a UK based blog. More important than the financial remuneration offered, I thought that being part of a systematic structure would be beneficial to me. However, it seems that swimming in a stream of rejection is my medicine for cleaning the heart of arrogance.

Today I read a tweet by a brother, “What are your thoughts about a Turkish man proposing to his fiance in front of the Ka’bah. Is respect being lost?”

I hit the reply button, “Why have you called her fiancé even before the proposal?”

He thereupon tweeted, “I haven’t. This is what a newspaper where I got the story from described her as”

My reply was, “The newspaper should check that fiancé is male and fiancée is female” “more importantly, terms create reality. Islamically they had no relation. We need not copy west in Islamic media.”

Petty Issues are symptoms of Broader Issues

If a certain dear friend of mine should read the above, he would berate me, “Are there no bigger matters for you to concern yourself with? Why do you nit-pick like this?” (His name I shall not mention, but shall indicate him by his vowel deprived birth place of Hrvatska – hint, hint).

To me there are enough people addressing “the important issues”. Besides which, there are not many who explain the link between the “petty issues” and the “bigger issues” at play.

Terms create Reality

I have written several times on this point. The words we use help create perceptions and ultimately new realities. See for example, my article on calling Palestine, “Israel”. Yet with the copy-and-paste attitude of Muslim media, one sadly notes Muslims calling al-Ḥaram ash-Sharīf in Baytul Muqaddas, “The Temple Mount”, for example. They never pause to consider the broader issues and the role they are playing in removing our claim to our sacred place.

So what is the big deal of saying “fiancé” whether before or after the proposal? In itself, as a simple description of a man and woman intending to marry each other, it is merely a word of identification. That is not a problem, for that is what the dictionary says. However, my gripe is with the unislāmic social conventions attached to the term, and which have become institutionalised amongst us as well.

Imitating Non-believers

Firstly, the issue of Tashabbuh bil Kuffār (imitating the non-believers), an issue which Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  and the jurists discussed at length, seems to have entirely disappeared as a matter of concern from present day Muslims - scholars and the masses. Where does the concept having a fiancé as an institutionalised norm originate from? Is the custom of prolonged “engagements” even compatible with the Sunnah? Would we even need to describe someone as a fiancé or fiancée if we adhere to the Sunnah instead of alien social norms?

Fiancé is not an empty term. It is a word used by the non-Muslims to indicate an entire social condition which is anathema to Islām. An Islamic wedding is simple both in implementation and expenditure. Beyond the social customs and financial extravagance of the engagement (which Muslims are so eager to ape) being a fiancé in practice becomes a licence to take liberties of marriage, which Islām does not condone before the actual marriage transaction. How many of the customs, parties and extravagances which occur between the proposal and the wedding have any Islāmic sanction, and how many anger Allāh, thus depriving the couple of blessings?

On one level, Muslims imitate the non-Muslims in discarding the laws of Ḥijāb and seize the term fiancé as a justification. They would date and say, “She is my fiancée!” A woman is either a stranger who should be respected with all the applicable laws and barriers of ḤIjāb, or she is your legally married wife and partner. Where in Islām is there scope for this intermediate stage of fornication on whatever level? By using the terms of unislamic immodesty, we help create an atmosphere where it becomes socially acceptable.

On an even more extreme level, accepting fiancé as an institution is already leading to the western way of the engaged couple living together before the marriage. She is my fiancée, we are living together to save expenses and to get to know each other.

I try to keep abreast of global developments. Yet I must confess to be completely taken aback to read on that when Prince William of the UK married his “fiancée” they had already been living together. Not that I do not know that it happens, but somehow I expected more from the future head of the Anglican Church. Yet it was not the immodesty which shocked me, it was the blasé manner in which the British media mentioned it, it was so normal. This is what I fear for us, not that we sin, but that our hearts accept this as normal.

Going to the Kaʿbah and proposing, which would entail so many violations of Ḥijāb (e.g. travel), is simply an extension of the license Muslims have illegally allowed couples who are “engaged” or have indicated that their dating will lead to marriage. By allowing respect to unmarried couples because “she is his fiancée,” we all share responsibility in this disrespect shown at the Kaʿbah.

Polytheism in Legislation

Another concept which many Muslims are no longer bothered about is ash-Shirk fit-Tashrīʿ (ascribing partners unto Allāh in the right of legislation). A man and woman who fornicate but acknowledge that it is a sin, remain Allāh’s sinful slaves and the doors of repentance are open unto them, however much the self-righteous judge them. On the other hand, someone who defends the right of couples “to express their love” before marriage (fornicate), even if he does not do the deed himself, has challenged Allāh’s right to sole-legislation, and is in a much worse spiritual plight than the actual fornicator.

There is a growing disease of Muslims having divorced, but remaining together, because “what will people say?” I unfortunately know such couples. Justifying such adulterous cohabitation is worse than the act of the adultery. However, the process of desensitising the couple’s aversion to adultery begins when their families are happy to let them defy Ḥijāb, “because we are fiancé and fiancée.”

Ḥijāb of Words

Ḥijāb is not just how we dress or even interact with each other, but the lives of the Companions of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  teach us modesty of the mind and words. A most beautiful example is that of the wife of ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAmr bin al-ʿĀṣ, may Allāh be pleased with them.

ʿAbdullāh رضي الله عنه  was devoted to his worship and was not inclined to marriage. His father, ʿAmr رضي الله عنه, eventually got him married. ʿAmr رضي الله عنه  visited his new daughter-in-law, may Allāh be pleased with her, to enquire how she was being treated. She replied, “He is a pious man. He spends the day fasting and the night praying.”

ʿAmr exploded in rage and complained to Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  against his son.

Er…. Did I miss something? Yes, the lady was being so modest yet eloquent, most of us who do not give account on what words should and should not be used, would miss the point. She had in fact most respectfully and modesty, yet honestly, indicated to her father-in-law, that she was a woman with human needs. With her husband who fasted the entire day and prayed the entire night, there was no opportunity for satisfying her natural desire.

Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  advised the young man to exercise a balance and to fulfil the rights of all.

Those who were present when the Word of Allāh was revealed, understood that the words we use have an effect. If we are to institutionalise immodest terms amongst ourselves, especially when it implies so much more, we allow for immodesty to become the norm.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Crusader ʿAkkā vs Zionist Ghazzah

المؤمنون كرجل واحد إن اشتكى رأسه تداعى له سائر الجسد بالحمى والسهر

ʾan-Nuʿmābin Bashīr (may Allāh be pleased with him) narrates that Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said, “The believers are like a single body. When his head complains, the entire body mutually calls out to him with fever and lack of sleep.”  [Muslim]

There are many striking parallels between the Crusades, almost a millennium ago, and the current situation in Palestine. To mention but a few:

• The geography


• The suppression of ʾIslām


• The role of scholars in reviving ʾIslām’s fortunes e.g. ʿAlī bin Ṭāhir as-Sulamī (may Allāh’s mercy be upon him)


• Treason of the Rawāfiḍ


• Treason of supposedly Sunnī rulers who aligned with the Crusaders against ʾIslām (Damascus princes then, Egypt and the Saʿūd royals today)

A comparison I wish to highlight today, is the contemporary Zionist siege of Ghazzah, vs. the Crusader siege of ʿAkkā (Acre).

ʿAkkā

Ever since its conquest by the Noble Companion of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  , Suraḥbīl bin Ḥasanah (may Allāh be pleased with him), ʿAkkā had played a distinguished role in the history of ʾIslām, not least because of its position as a strategic port in the north of Palestine.

Following his decisive victory at Ḥiṭṭīn (4^th July 1187), the Crusaders surrendered ʿAkkā to Ṣalāḥuddīn. However, on 28^th August 1189, King Guy surprise attacked ʿAkkā and laid siege to it. On the sea, the siege was supported by Sicily (Italians), Danes and Frisians (Dutch). On land, troops from France, Flanders (Belgium), Germany, Italy and Armenia added to the Crusader host.

Attempted Relief

Ṣalāḥuddīn arrived with the Muslim army on 4^th October and unsuccessfully attempted to break the siege. The Muslims were repulsed by the combined armies of Europe and the Ṣulṭān had to settle for pressuring the Crusaders by laying siege to them in turn. His fleet did however manage to break through and supply the besieged Muslims with food on the 30^th October.

Crusaders are further reinforced

Ṣalāḥuddīn desperately tried to save the Muslims for 8 months, but was unsuccessful. Worse was to come from July 1190, when the armies of England, France, Germany and Austria even further strengthened the Crusaders. The following year even more troops arrived with the kings of France (Philip) and England (Richard). On the 12^th July 1191 ʿAkkā surrendered and the flags of England, France and Austria flew over the city.

Massacre

On the 11^th August 1191 Ṣālāḥuddīn sent the first of three payments to ransom the Muslim prisoners held by the Crusaders. This was not fast enough for Richard. 9 days later he ordered 3000 Muslims to be sent to a hill called Ayyadieh. This was deliberately in full view of the Muslim camp, and in particular, Ṣalāḥuddīn’s headquarters. The Crusaders then proceeded to cold-bloodedly massacre the defenceless Muslims. Of course, Muslims are always terrorists, the ruthless barbarians who kill us are always the good guys.

The horrified Muslim warriors could see this bloodbath with their own eyes, this was no CNN broadcast. What emotion swept them, I cannot pretend to describe. They had fought close to two years to rescue their brethren. They had spent that time away from family and seen comrades fall to the enemy. The enemy had given its word and now causally killed 3,000 Muslim men, women and children. The broken Muslims attempted a final rescue but never made it up the hill. Allāh knows best how many joined the 3,000 martyrs in Paradise.

Tears vs Tweets

History records that ever since his repentance from his youthful lifestyle, Ṣalāhuddīn prayed every compulsory prayer 5 times daily with congregation, never alone. In addition, he never missed a single Tahajjud (optional night prayer). This was his constant lifestyle on the battlefield and on the rare occasion when he went home. History also records that his tender nature could not bear to see his Christian enemy suffer, let alone his fellow Muslims. Beyond the sweet pious Ṣultān, I would not venture to know how many Muslims spent the night after the massacre shedding tears. However many they may have been, they were certainly less than the tweets and retweets we emotionlessly broadcast in a few minutes. Yet, however few they may have been, I would dare venture that each tear was well received in the Divine Court, along with each drop of blood shed at Ayyadieh.

So how do contemporary Muslims react?

Ghazzah, the southern Palestinian port, receives a different reaction from contemporary Muslims as opposed to the reaction of our forebears to ʿAkkā, the northern Palestinian port. For one, no Muslim army has as yet been despatched to rescue Ghazzah, despite her siege being way longer than that of ʿAkkā. Of course, the sophisticated Muslim will be able to educate me on the realities of modern politics and enlighten me why that would be a naïve endeavour. Yes, I am not sophisticated, but what is quite simple for me to understand is that ʿAkkā was besieged by those who openly disbelieved in Allāh and His Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  , while Ghazzah is besieged by those who claim to be Muslim!

It is utterly hypocritical of the Muslim ʾUmmah at large, and activists in particular, to condemn and campaign against the Jewish blockade to the north, and quietly ignore their allies, the Egyptians, who besiege Ghazzah from the south.

Very easy to condemn the Zionist enemy, but no Muslim state, organisation or institute mention Sisi’s blockade, which is financed by the other Satanic regime of the region, the House of Saʿūd. How disgusted would the scholars who accompanied Ṣalāḥuddīn on his campaigns be, if they had known that the scholars of today either actively whip up support for these two murderous regimes, or maintain a “pious” silence for fear of losing financial backing or not being allowed an annual visa to Arabia. Their finances and annual pilgrimages take priority over speaking the truth and liberating the holy cities from regimes hostile to Islām. Perhaps I am wrong and there is great virtue and priority in multiple pilgrimages, when so many Muslims are starving, being killed and are besieged. Our contemporary scholars will be able to boast of their elevated position on the Day of Resurrection, and look down on Ṣalāhuddīn. Ṣalāḥuddīn, never knew a time to rest to even perform the compulsory pilgrimage, let alone annual voluntary pilgrimages. These scholars should also strongly rebuke the scholars who fought alongside Ṣalāḥuddīn, such as Qāḍī Bahāʾuddīn, or those who advised him, such as the Muḥaddith, ʾIbn ʿAsākir, for allowing him to fight for the sake of Islām and Muslim lives, instead of going on annual pilgrimages. Silly fellows!

Instead of rescuing Ghazzah, Egypt and her Saʿūdī paymasters actively besiege Ghazzah, to the extent of destroying Palestinian crops. To the eternal shame of Islām! There may have been other stinking traitors in the history of Islām, but I know not of anything as shameless as the Egypt-Saʿūd surrender. So enthusiastic as they are they to besiege Ghazzah, that Egypt joyfully evicts thousands of her own citizens along the Ghazzah border and allocates 79 square km of the lands of Islām to further tighten the noose around the Muslims of Ghazzah! For shame! And shame on the Muslims who remain quiet on this! Ghazzah vs ʿAkkā? There is no comparison.

You smugly declare that you do not buy dates from occupied Palestine, but do not care that your own Muslim governments stop food from Ghazzah.

You righteously tweet that unlike some Muslims, you do not buy a Jewish owned iced coffee powder, but do not care that your own Muslim governments stop medicine from Ghazzah.

Food? Medicine? A welfare worker told me that so many people are maimed in Ghazzah, they begged him to try and bring them adult diapers as they no longer have control over their bodies. Of course, your time-shares in Makkah and your shopping sprees there for the latest “Islamic” fashion and perfumes should always have priority.

Your forebears  at ʿAkkā should not spit on you. You are not worthy of their of their spit.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Junaid Jamshed & Muslim Social Media

 

حَدِيثٌ : " كَفَى بِالْمَرْءِ كَذِبًا أَنْ يُحَدِّثَ بِكُلِّ مَا سَمِعَ " ، مسلم في مقدمة صحيحه من حديث شعبة عن خُبيب بن عبد الرحمن عن حفص بن عاصم عن أبي هريرة به مرفوعا

Abū Hurayrah (May Allāh be pleased with him) narrated that Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  said, “It is enough of a lie against a man that he should narrate whatever he hears. ” [Muslim]

 

This article is not about the life, personality, status and achievements of Junaid Jamshed. Those matters can easily be found elsewhere, and those who read my blog would recognise that I prefer dealing with topics which are less mentioned or not at mentioned at all, e.g. the Satanic entity that rules Makkah and al-Madīnah.

Jamshed’s accomplishments are well known and his reward lies with Allāh. What I wish to address are certain observations of Muslim behaviour which came to the fore when he died.

We first verify and we do not narrate everything

 

I had only read the headline that a PIA aircraft had crashed, when a brother announced that he had received a Whatsapp message from his wife, announcing the death of Junaid Jamshed. I respectfully asked him to withhold spreading such news until it had been verified, on the possibility that the news may not be correct. He agreed, but within a few minutes, again repeatedly announced is news to others. “Fortunately” for him the misfortune proved to be tragically true. I say “fortunately” in that at least he was saved from the sin of spreading false news.

This habit is unfortunately a very common one amongst people who are otherwise religious. The habit of immediately jumping and spreading every item of news is a characteristic of hypocrites, but  has infected the believers as well.

وَإِذَا جَاءهُمْ أَمْرٌ مِّنَ الأَمْنِ أَوِ الْخَوْفِ أَذَاعُواْ بِهِ وَلَوْ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَإِلَى أُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنْهُمْ لَعَلِمَهُ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَنبِطُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَوْلاَ فَضْلُ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ لاَتَّبَعْتُمُ الشَّيْطَانَ إِلاَّ قَلِيل

And if any news, whether of safety or fear, come unto [the hypocrites], they broadcast it, whereas if they had referred it to the Messenger and such of them as are in authority, those among them who are able to think out the matter would have known it. If it had not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy you would have followed Satan, except a few (of you).[an-Nisā: 83]

A believer refers delicate news to the relevant authority. Consider:

• What if the news had been false, as is with so many broadcasts on social media?


• The emotional trauma upon the close ones of Junaid Jamshed hearing the news from strangers on social media, whereas Islām prescribes delicacy in the way news of death must be conveyed to the family of the deceased. Refer to Amongst the Etiquettes of Islām by Shaykh Abdul Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah. We have become uncouth and unthinking people in our slavery to push buttons without reflection of the consequences.


• The lust to speak without thinking is a spiritual disease which harms oneself and society. Even if the news is true, what is the harm in obeying the below command of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ and letting someone receive the news a bit later?

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه ، عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ، فليقل خيرا أو ليصمت ، ومن كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ، فليكرم جاره ، ومن كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ، فليكرم ضيفه رواه البخاري ومسلم

 

Abū Hurayrah (May Allāh be pleased with him narrated that Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  said, “He who believes in Allāh and the Last Day should speak good or remain silent…” [Al-Bukhārī & Muslim]

 

• A believer guards his tongue or his smartphone and computer button as the case may be in this age. Even true news should not be broadcast simply for the sake of broadcasting. Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said, “It is enough of a lie against a man that he should narrate whatever he hears. ”

A scholar who occupies a responsible position in a well-known Islāmic institute was a student during the time that it was announced that Usāmah bin Lādin had been slain. I did use Twitter at the time, despite him trying to convince me. He then argued that amongst the virtues of Twitter is that a Pakistani witness had been tweeting what he had been seeing even before institutionalised media had broadcast the news. So to him, accepting the news of some unknown man who did not even understand what he was seeing and spreading it without verification, is a virtue. Truly the world has gone insane when the learned regard contravention of Ḥadīth principles as virtue.

Love of Name and Fame

 

Why do we engage in hasty reporting when such behaviour is clearly contrary to the commands of Allāh and His Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  ? Each person’s outlook is different and there may be several motivating factors, but I contend that Riyā and Ḥubbul Jāh (ostentation and love of fame and status) are major motivating factors. Decades ago it was said that everyone will have “15 minutes of fame” as a consequence of the forms of the then new media and technology. So much has social media proliferated, that people now crave their mere 15 seconds of fame. There is just so much information overload and so many platforms, who gets an entire 15 minutes? People are unwilling to pause or even remain silent on a news item which they think that their circle may be unaware of. The anxious desire to spread news and be famous for being the one who did it first, is a sad hankering after the world, and for many, may well be within the ambit of the warning of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ :

يقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: ( ما ذئبان جائعان أرسلا في غنم, بأفسد لها من حرص المرء على المال والشرف لدينه )رواه أحمد

“Two hungry wolves set loose amongst goats are not as detrimental to the flock as what a man’s greed for wealth and status [fame] is to his religion.” [Aḥmad]

Another indication of the love of fleeting fame is the amount of people, who during a sad time immediately following the tragedy, took to social media to post photographs (remember that word?) of themselves posing with Junaid Jamshed. That this included scholars amongst their ranks, is a tragedy in itself. I doubt if these people can give a conscious reply as to their motivation, for those who use social media irresponsibly do not think, they just press the button. Subconsciously however, what motivation can there be other than the craving to glean off the fame of Junaid Jamshed. Juristic arguments against unneeded depiction of the human form are simply out-dated cobwebbed thinking to the one who in effect says, “Hey! See who I was buddies with, I too am famous.”

What possible valid reason can there be if ostensibly you are expressing grief? You are so grief stricken that you have time to search, link and post your pic? Are you proving your love? That must be a real flimsy love if you now need pictorial evidence. To who is the message? Junaid? Is he reading your tweets? To his family? Is our social fabric so ruined that mourning families spend their time playing with social media instead of praying for the deceased? If you are indeed so close, surely a more personal avenue exists to communicate with the family. No, the message is to the world, that you too are famous.

Personality Cults

 

وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ

Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dies or is slain, you will turn back on your heels? He who turns back does no harm to Allah. Soon Allāh will reward the grateful ones. [Āl Imrān: 144]

 

Upon the demise Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  , even such a great personality like Umar (may Allāh be pleased with him) was too overwhelmed with grief to think clearly. It took one greater than him, Abū Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him) to put matters in perspective, by reciting the above Verse.

The good deeds of Junaid Jamshed is a matter of public record and we hope that he receives an excellent reward from the Most Generous.  However, the rude silence of Muslim social media, and also formal media, in regards the more than forty other Muslims who had perished in the same incident, is indicative of yet another psychosis  many Muslims suffer from – the personality cult. Why is only the famous Muslim deserving of your prayers and comment? I’d rather not say anything further about such people, except that the example is given to us, that we have to learn to contextualise the status of a personality, whilst bearing in mind the facts and what is expected of us. I too have become embroiled in the personality obsession of Muslims.  In this week I came across a reposting of an article of mine on another website’s forum. The forum discussion then ensued as to whether I have any standing since my opinion is different from other scholars (none of whom they actually named or referenced). Disagreement is part of Islām. What however disgusted me, was they did not once debate the points I had made. To them, facts of religion are of less significance than personal views and personalities. These are features of a cult, not Islām!

In summary, the social media activity following the PIA crash, brought to light some of the many dimensions of a tool which often irresponsibly used. A Muslim guards his every word or remains silent.

 

 

 

Guarding the tongue in regards Allāh

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه ، عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ، فليقل خيرا أو ليصمت ، ومن كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ، فليكرم جاره ، ومن كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ، فليكرم ضيفه رواه البخاري ومسلم

Abū Hurayrah (May Allāh be pleased with him narrated that Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  said, “He who believes in Allāh and the Last Day should speak good or remain silent…” [Al-Bukhārī & Muslim]

I noticed during the course of my Ramaḍān Tafsīr that I was wont to quote the above Ḥadīth. In fact, I may have even quoted it daily. It is just so applicable in so many situations.

Lèse-majesté is the crime of offending the majesty of the ruler or the state. It is unfortunate that many sincere and well-meaning Muslims commit Lèse-majesté against Allāh, the King of kings, through the careless choice of words, when referring to Allāh, or to other matters of Islāmic belief. These people do not maintain silence, and instead of speaking good, in fact commit the reverse.

You might argue that surely sincerity should count and it does not matter if an unintended meaning comes about from the wrong choice of words? No! If the above Ḥadīth appears to be too general to make one think and choose the correct word before speaking, then please refer to my previous article on the importance which Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  placed on the selection of words and terminology.

Many of the words which slip from our tongues are offensive to the majesty of Allāh. If we should guard our tongues in regards the creation, how much more so in regards Allāh?

Allāh is not in need

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاء إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ

O mankind! You are in need of Allāh, whereas Allāh is self-sufficient, Most Praiseworthy [al-Fāṭir: 15]

Allāh is aṣ-Ṣamad and al-Ghanī. He is free of any need and we are Fuqarā, in need of Allāh in every way during every moment of our existence. “Need” means that someone is deficient of something.   To intentionally ascribe need unto Allāh is clear unbelief. How possibly is your Lord Most High deficient and in need? To carelessly ascribe need unto Allāh is a sign of one not being careful with one’s tongue. This is a requirement of faith.

One commonly hears this word being used for Allāh in South Africa. “Allāh needs us to….”

My dear brother or sister, if you should ponder over the implications of your words, you would realise that your words are the opposite of the religious message you wished to convey. Allāh is not in need of our prayers, faith, repentance….our anything. Nor is Allāh your buddy that you may use any word you feel like. “Allāh wishes” or “Allāh commands” is more appropriate to Allah’s Majesty.

Allāh does not look, His knowledge is complete

وَاللّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ

….Allāh knows and you do not know. [al-Baqarah: 232]

A statement often repeated in speeches which makes my blood boil is, “Allāh is looking for ways to forgive us.” The words of this statement implies two meanings of “look” which are far from the majesty of Allāh:

• look at Examine (a matter) and consider what action to take


• usually look for Attempt to find

Both meanings contradict Allāh’s attribute of perfect knowledge. Allāh does not have to consider what to do. He already knows in His perfect knowledge. Nor does Allāh have to attempt to find a way to forgive us. He does not attempt or try anything, He does! Furthermore attempting to find something means that Allāh’s knowledge is incomplete He still needs to search for the means of forgiveness! Worse, since the speaker will then be advocating a specific good deed, the implication is that the speaker knows the means of forgiveness whilst Allāh is “still looking”. Allāh save us from such ignorance.

It is not me who is being small minded, it is the utterer of such carelessness who should be more respectful to his Creator. Allāh has created various means for us to earn His forgiveness. He does not “look for ways to forgive us”.

Allāh does not have to “attempt”

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَإِذَا قَضَى أَمْراً فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decrees a thing to be, He but says unto it, "Be" -and it is! [al-Baqarah: 117]

Already mentioned above, Allāh does not try or attempt anything, he simply does. The oft repeated phrase, “What Allāh is trying to say in this verse….”contradicts  Allāh’s perfection. Allāh says, Allāh does not try to say. It is you who does not know what to say, for “to try” means to exert oneself in an attempt to achieve an as yet unattained goal. Only imperfect creatures such as ourselves have to exert and our goals have yet to be accomplished. Allāh is HIs perfection does not exert, there is no effort on Him, and whatever He wishes becomes as He wills. Do not cast our imperfections upon Allāh.

There is no obligation on Allāh

فَعَّالٌ لِّمَا يُرِيدُ

He most certainly does as He pleases. [al-Burūj: 16]

Allāh is not obligated to us in any way. If He forgives us, it is through His mercy, not that He is obligated to accept repentance. If He grants us Paradise, it is through His generosity, not that He is obligated to reward our good deeds. Words such as “must” which mean that Allāh is obligated, are not in line with our beliefs. “I have prayed, so Allāh must answer…”  is your arrogance, not Islāmic belief. Humble yourself by saying instead, “I have prayed and I am confident that my Generous Lord will answer…” as the Ḥadīth teaches that supplications should be conducted with confidence.

Respect the Speech of Allāh

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ إِنَّمَا كُنَّا نَخُوضُ وَنَلْعَبُ قُلْ أَبِاللّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِؤُونَ

And if you ask them, they will surely say, “We were only conversing and playing.” Say, “Is it Allah and His Signs and His Messenger that you were mocking?” [at-Tawbah: 65]

I had previously written on inappropriate Muslim “humour” and mocking the sacred. Since today’s topic is in regards words inappropriate to Allāh’s majesty, I shall conclude with discussing the using of the Qurān as humour, since it is the eternal speech of Allāh.

I find it tragic that as Islāmic knowledge increases, there are people who now have a greater platform for their jokes, just like the hypocrites mentioned in the Verse above, instead of having greater respect for the Qurān. It defies my understanding how the same people who rightfully show the utmost respect to the printed manuscript of the Qurān, are sometimes the worst culprits who disrespect the actual Speech of Allāh.

My ears have been polluted enough to hear variations of the South African “joke” that the Zulu nation is mentioned in the Qurān. Figure for yourself where the “zulu” sound occurs as part of Arabic words in the Qurān.

I recall as a student when we were taught the Verse containing “mustabīn”. The student sitting next to me is a person very respectful to the outer elements of the faith, yet he brayed, “Ha! Mister Bean is mentioned in the Qurān!”

Another idiocy I heard two decades ago and which just does not want to die, is that “Alif-Lām-Mīm means Allāh loves Memons.”

I will put this as simply as I can, and if does not sink in…then guidance is from Allāh.

The Qurān is the Speech of Allāh. Making jokes of the Qurān is mocking Allāh. This speech was brought to us through the efforts of His Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  who bled and was tortured to bring us this Book of Guidance. Can you not watch your tongue in regards Allāh and His Speech?

I have given a few examples which may not be applicable to all places or peoples. It is up to each slave to behave with dignity in regards his Master.

Slavery in Islām & Modernist Apologists

Q:

One particular question I have right now is with regards to the claim
made by people that Hadhrat `Umar ibn al-Khattaab رضي الله عنه had
abolished slavery. People say that `Allaamah Shibli Nu`maani has
mentioned this, but I have not as yet come across any such claim in
the Mu`tabar Kutub of Taareekh.

Perhaps you have come across something on this issue, Maulana Saheb?
Did Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه abolish slavery?

 

A:

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

Burden of Proof lies on the Claimant

 

Before addressing the actual question, I would remind the respected questioner and all readers in general, that in Islām the onus of proving a statement lies on the narrator, not on the hearer. Even if this were not what we are commanded to do, consider the thousands of ridiculous lies which float in cyber space  and which Muslims sadly magnify by the casual press of a forward button. If just the false conversion stories were true (Neil Armstrong, Pope Benedict), I wonder how many non-Muslims would be left on the face of the earth. If just the messages on foodstuffs which supposedly have pork in them were to be true, there would be billions more pigs roaming on earth than what there actually are. If we were to examine, trace and refute every lie, sadly most of which seem to have Muslim origins, there would not be time for the good deeds we are in fact commanded to do, even prayer.

 

البينة على المدعي

Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said, “The onus of proof lies on he who makes a claim.” [al-Bayhaqī]

 

Thus those who have lied to you must produce their “proof”. I shall nevertheless respond on this, because within the claim there hide certain dimensions which I had thought to write on independently, but hope to address now within the ambit of your question, if Allāh wills.

 

ʾal-ʿAllāmah Shiblī

 

I have of course not read every word ever penned by this most illustrious scholar, Allāh’s mercy be upon him, but I say without a shadow of a doubt that no Muslim scholar with the tenth of his learning and fear of Allāh would ever have made such a ridiculous statement, let alone someone of the stature of ʾash-Shaykh Shiblī ʾan-Nuʿmānī.

 

If on the possibility that he is simply being misquoted, misunderstood, or taken out of context, then I would offer the following incident which is narrated in ʾal-Wilāyah ʿalal Buldān as a basis for the misunderstanding:

 

ʿAmr bin ʾal-ʿĀṣ, may Allāh be pleased with him, was governor of Egypt under ʿUmar, may Allāh be pleased with him. ʿAmr’s son unjustly struck a Copt boy, under the delusion that his father’s status protected him from justice. The boy’s father took the boy to ʿal-Madīnah and sought justice from ʿUmar, who summoned ʿAmr and his son. When they arrived, ʿUmar handed the Copt boy a whip and allowed him to strike his Muslim oppressor. He then rebuked his governor:

متى استعبدتم الناس وقد ولدتهم أمهاتهم أحرارا؟

Since when have you enslaved people whose mothers gave birth to them as free men?

 

In other words, free men are not to be enslaved and mistreated outside the ambit of the law. In fact Islām accords slaves great dignity as well. Yet not by the furthest stretch of the imagination can this be equated with a “ban on slavery”.

 

The Spirit of Islām is Emancipation & Kindness

 

Islām never abolished slavery outright in the letter of the law. Yet it is clearly obvious that the spirit of Islām is to encourage manumission of slaves. There are many penalties in Islām, which are compensated by means of freeing slaves. For example:

 

لَا يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللَّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَٰكِن يُؤَاخِذُكُم بِمَا عَقَّدتُّمُ الْأَيْمَانَ ۖ فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَاكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ ۖ فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ ثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ كَفَّارَةُ أَيْمَانِكُمْ إِذَا حَلَفْتُمْ ۚ وَاحْفَظُوا أَيْمَانَكُمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

“Allāh will not punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten poor persons, on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families, or clothe them or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths (i.e. do not swear much). Thus Allāh makes clear to you His signs that you may be grateful.”[al-Māʾidah:89].

 

عن أبى هريرة (رضى الله عنه) قال: قال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( من أعتق رقبة مسلمة أعتق الله بكل عضو منه عضوا منه من النار حتى فرجه بفرجه

Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him) narrated that Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said, “He who frees a Muslim slave will have Allāh free an organ of his from the Fire for every organ of the slave, to the extent of his private part in exchange for the slave’s private part.” [al-Bukhārī]

If this is truly the spirit of Islām, why not simply abolish slavery? Firstly, in this age of atheism and apostasy, it is people who refuse to accept the station of the Most Glorious Master and that we are indeed His slaves, who feel qualified to challenge His decree. I may be a sinner, but I thank Him for guiding me not to approach that line. Secondly, the means Allāh created for a certain benefit may not always be palatable to all, yet the very fact that Allāh decreed it means that it is wise whether we see it or not. It would be a most depraved person who actually enjoys slaughtering a sheep and ending its life, nevertheless the mutton obtained is a blessing we all enjoy. Some people have a fantasy version of the spread of Islām that wherever a Muslim appeared, entire countries suddenly converted on the spot. Certainly there were mass and peaceful conversions. Certainly there was also stubborn resistance. Battles were fought and enemies killed. Did the Companions of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ enjoy killing for the sake of bloodshed? Certainly not! Did they however hesitate to kill when the need arose? No! And whether you like it or not, one of the means of subjugating stubborn enemies was slavery. The Companions enslaved those who had to be restrained and slaves were sold in the market of ʾal-Madīnah.

 

The full fruits of this form of slavery is known only to Allāh, bit consider the amount of knowledge we would have been deprived of had ʿIkrāmah, not been the slave and student of Ibn ʿAbbās (may Allāh be pleased with him), and that is but one example.

 

On the other hand, the disgusting history of Oman’s human trafficking in East Africa may well have been within the letter of the law but far, far be it from the spirit of Islām. Yet if legal, what is the issue? In contradistinction to the above examples, Oman’s enterprise in Africa was one of terror and inhumanity. Slavery was pursued for itself and its economic benefit, with nary a thought to need, the glory of Islām and the rights which Islām accords slaves. So much did the name of Muslims stink that it was only when Christian Germany removed that dirty empire from Africa that Islām more rapidly spread under Christian rule! Sadly these days “foreign” Muslims are treated worse in the Gulf than what Islām allows Muslims to treat non-Muslim slaves.

 

A comparison I would draw is that of the Islāmic penal code. It is stipulated in the Qurʾān, and whoever denies or argues it away should not pretend to be a Muslim. Yet the spirit of Islām is that the government should avoid exercising the penal code as far as possible. It is a tool which should be sparsely implemented, as opposed to the unrestrained practice of the Satanic Saudi regime and the cult known as ISIS. I have written about this previously in my article Misconceptions regarding Islāmic Penal Code & distancing myself from ISIS.  

 

The disease of Apologetics

 

As humans we all commit some sin of the body or the other and are not in a position to judge each other. However, the sin of apologetics is born from diseased hearts which are not satisfied to confine the disease within the afflicted, but seek to infect the entire ʾUmmah and create an epidemic of doubt, inferiority complex in regards the west, atheism, theories without any basis in the Qurʾān and Sunnah, etc.

 

For example, democracy in its very terminology is alien to Islām when adopted as an ideology, instead of a mere tool of governance, for it means that sovereignty lies within people and not the Creator. Yet there are so many who identify as Muslims who are so eager to bow to the western idol, that they insist that Islāmic Shurā (consultation), a command of Allāh, and whose result is not binding on the ruler, somehow equates to democracy, which teaches that the people can veto the Creator e.g. legalising prostitution.

 

These people have no concept of the regulations Islām imposed on slave owners. Instead their view of slavery in Islām is coloured by the movies Hollywood spews, and which might in fact be true for the west, but not for Islām. The slave in Islām was part of the family and every position was open to the slave. Slaves had government positions and were so placed, they even managed to assume authority of Egypt, Baghdād and Delhi, and the Muslim populace accepted these as their legitimate governments. There is no parallel in the west. The uneducated Muslim is unaware of the full facts and therefore desperately seeks create the fiction of a ban on slavery.

 

Certainly there were Muslims who were unjust to their slaves, but does a minority  breaking the law mean that the we change the Qurʾān? My previous landlord, a man who is five times a day in the front row of the Masjid, almost directly behind the ʾImām, never returned my deposit. Every month, as funds dry up, I think of that sum I am entitled to and which would be most helpful. Do financial irregularities of such people mean that Muslims are banned from financial activity? The reasoning is the same.

 

What further astounds me is that until very recently, the Church justified slavery as a punishment upon the “cursed” black descendants of Ham. Instead of tackling that racism and the evils which were practiced as religious tenets, not individual failings, we have Muslims who seek to transpose that western history upon Islām and change the Qurʾān!

 

One who commits a sin of the body, knows he is a sinner and can repent. The one who fictionalises laws of Islām, and is secretly unhappy with the religion he was born with, never repents. He claims to be an intellectual doing good, whilst he challenges Allāh and His Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ. The laws he concocts without authority requires scripture or a prophet. In challenging Allāh and His Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ he in fact implies that he is a god or a prophet, or at the very least, knows better than Muḥammad  صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.

 

 Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ owned Slaves

 

Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ and his Companions owned, bought, sold, and freed slaves. Are the apologists more pious and learned? There are so many narrations on this, but I thought the following narration of Muslim would be interesting, as it implies that the father who gifted a slave to each child would have been more just than just giving one child a slave. That was the law. Yet again, the spirit of  Islām is to restrict slavery, so he cancelled the gift., Note he did not free the slave.

عن النعمان بن بشير أنه قال إن أباه أتى به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال إني نحلت ابني هذا غلاما كان لي فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أكل ولدك نحلته مثل هذا فقال لا فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فارجعه

ʾan-Nuʿmān bin Bashīr narrates that his father took him to Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ and said, “”I have gifted a slave which I owned to this son of mine.”

Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ asked, “Did you give such a gift to every child of yours?”

“No,” he replied.

Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ then said, “Then take him back.”

 

There were slaves to the day ʿUmar died

 

ʿUmar (may Allāh be pleased with him) would never have dreamt of challenging the Qurʾān and Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ. To say otherwise is the height of disrespect. The simplest evidence which somehow evades those who concocted this lie, is that his accursed assassin, Feroz Abū Luʾluʾ, was the slave of Mughīrah (may Allāh be pleased with him). He complained that the fee Mughīrah charged him was too high. ʾUmar ruled that the fee was fair based on his skills. The enraged slave then killed ʿUmar (may Allāh be pleased with him.

 

Summary

 

• ʿUmar never banned slavery.


• The spirit of Islām however encourages its eradication in practice.


• In theory, the ruler retains the legal right to enslave a hostile population. To argue otherwise means that is some other revelation the proponent has received.


• The legal right where a need arises, does not contradict the overall spirit of emancipation.

 

Turkey – Murky History but Clear Future (2/2)

WWI & the Armenian Genocide

 

Turkey may have become a Masonic state, but the last vestiges of Muslim unity had still to be removed and Palestine transferred from the Empire to the Zionists. That was achieved by dragging Turkey into WWI on the German side. The result was a lost war and the Empire torn into pieces….one piece of course being Palestine which Sultān Abdul Hamīd had refused to betray.

 

It was also during this time that the Masons ruling Turkey massacred 1.5 million Christian Armenians who were supposed to be under the protection of Islām. What the motivation was, Allāh knows best, but since Turks were deceived into believing that rulers were true Muslims fighting for their people’s survival, they remain in denial over this horrid and shameful event to this day. The sooner the Turks come to terms with their history, the sooner they can resume their honourable role in serving Islām to the full.

The Silk Scarf Conspiracy

 

At this point some might question that a personality astronomically more pious, learned and politically astute than me, i.e. Shaykh Madanī of India, sought the cooperation of these very Masons during the First World War. Knowing certain audiences, I can already hear the infantile fuming accusation, “Does he think he is better than Mawlānā Madanī!!!?” Such a question does not deserve reply, for they might as well ask if I think that I am better than Ibn Kathīr and ash-Shāfi‘ī, Allāh’s mercy be upon them all, or the Noble Companions for that matter, may Allāh be pleased with them. What I do claim however is the following:

• With the passage of time more information becomes available to people who may not have been present in a given situation. Thus today we have a bit more information and insight on Turkey’s rulers of a century ago than those who lived a century ago. If that is construed as disrespectful, then frankly I cannot be bothered to try and engage you on an intellectual level.


• The above applies to me as well. There is much currently happening in the world that confuses me. People of later generations who never experienced the confusion, trauma, fear, anxiety and tests that we are undergoing, will have a broader perspective and greater information. What seems so nebulous to us, might seem so plain and obvious in 50 years’ time.


• I do not believe that Masonry was known and understood a century ago as it is today. Even so, people in political positions might have a different perspective than the man in the street. Cooperating for a specific objective is not an endorsement of the other party. Even if some evidence is found that the scholars of the time knew that the Turkish rulers were Masons, that does not equate to them knowing the agenda of Masonry, the plans of the Donmeh, or endorsing those people as righteous.


• It might seem silly, but some people behave as if twitter, the internet, whatsapp etc all existed throughout history. Please apply your intellect. Your living in the information age does not mean that information was always so easily accessible.

Erdogan, Dajjāl & the Future

 

Firstly, as a stickler for detail, the alphabet Ataturk imposed, had “c” for “ج”. So the President of Turkey is in fact, “ رجب طيبRajab Tayyab” Erdogan. I cannot help if Radio Islam and Channel Islam ignore my advice. If they prefer their copy and paste journalism and go along with western media in saying, “Recep” then so be it. Similarly for example, the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, would be Najmuddīn.

 

President Rajab is clear that he is a servant of Islām. Gulen claims the same. Ataturk claimed the same. The pious people of the time were deceived and hailed Ataturk as the great Ghāzī. They realised the truth when he almost wiped out Islām in Turkey. I am in no position to judge. I merely share my thoughts that Turkey has such a murky history and politics running back four centuries, we should be cautious in jumping to conclusions. Who is really the good guy and who the bad? It is Allāh who reads hearts, not me sitting thousands of kilometres away. As I have said, politicians sometimes have a different perspective which we might not be in a position to understand without the facts. There are issues I am unhappy about when it comes to President Rajab. This may be my lack of foresight and knowledge; or it may be his human weakness for surely nobody can expect him to be on the level of the first generation of Muslim rulers; or the third possibility which really pains me and which I would not be able to bear, is that he is another elaborate Ataturk, an agent of the Donmeh.

 

There are those who feel they can issue rulings upon all and sundry. I have already written against such arrogance. The Turks do not need my advice. As President Rajab is a Muslim ruler who claims to care for Islām, I would opine that we foreigners have to support him in our prayers at the very least, until there is clear evidence against him. At the same time we should be on guard. Turkish history demands this.

 

I list my reservations about the president below. If I am blind, may Allāh guide me. If he is in error, may Allāh guide him.

1. His extravagance is so colossal, even non-Muslims are amazed and criticise him. A Billion dollar palace four times the size of Versailles? This is not the way a true Muslim ruler behaves. His wife’s lifestyle is really embarrassing.


2. A Muslim ruler accepts criticism. Is jailing journalists galore what we want from a Muslim leader? He even feels threatened by 16 year old boys. He demands that Germany arrest its citizen for mocking him. Could he not instead humbly accept a role as a shield for Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ? They mock the noblest of creation. Defend him. If they mock you, you are diverting their tongues and pens from someone far superior and nobler than you.


3. The coup seems on the surface to be staged to me. I stress “seems”. I do not know. Many others have expressed their doubts in more detail, so I shall not elaborate.

 

So the past and present are filled with question marks. The future however, holds absolute certainty, for it is not based on my word, Erdogān’s or Gulen’s, but on that of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  himself. The scholars agree that the following narration of Muslim refers to Istanbul.

 

عن أبي هريرة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال سمعتم بمدينة جانب منها في البر وجانب منها في البحر قالوا نعم يا رسول الله قال لا تقوم الساعة حتى يغزوها سبعون ألفا من بني إسحق فإذا جاءوها نزلوا فلم يقاتلوا بسلاح ولم يرموا بسهم قالوا لا إله إلا الله والله أكبر فيسقط أحد جانبيها قال ثور لا أعلمه إلا قال الذي في البحر ثم يقولوا الثانية لا إله إلا الله والله أكبر فيسقط جانبها الآخر ثم يقولوا الثالثة لا إله إلا الله والله أكبر فيفرج لهم فيدخلوها فيغنموا فبينما هم يقتسمون المغانم إذ جاءهم الصريخ فقال إن الدجال قد خرج فيتركون كل شيء ويرجعون

Abū Hurayrah narrates that the Prophet صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  asked, “Have you heard of a city one side of which is on land and the other on the sea?”

“Yes, O Messenger of Allāh,” they replied.

He then said, “The Hour shall not arise until 70,000 sons of Isaac battle against it. When they reach it, they will come down, but will not attack with weapons nor shoot any projectile. Instead they will call out, ‘There is no god but Allāh! Allāh is the greatest!’ One side of the city will thereupon collapse. (Thawr [the narrator] says, I believe he said that it is the one on the sea). They will again call, ‘There is no god but Allāh! Allāh is the greatest!’ and the other side of the city will collapse.’  They will call out for the third time ‘There is no god but Allāh! Allāh is the greatest!’ and way will be made for them. They will enter the city and acquire booty. While they are sharing the booty, someone will come shouting, ‘The Anti-Christ has emerged!’ Thy will abandon everything and return. ” [Muslim]

 

This Hadīth speaks of the era of the Anti-Christ and has yet to manifest. It does not refer to the first conquest of Istanbul in 1453, but refers to a second Muslim conquest. There are many interesting points we can discuss, but I conclude with the following few points which are relevant to our immediate discussion:

 

1. Another Hadīth in Muslim clarifies that the crier is Satan himself who will lie to the Muslims, i.e. the Anti-Christ does not yet show himself. Thus Turkey will be a place of deception and involvement of the Anti-Christ until the end.


2. If the Muslims have to re-conquer Istanbul as described in the Hadīth, it clearly means that at some point the enemies of Islām will be in control.


3. Turkey will not re-enter the fraternity of Islāmic nations peacefully and democratically.


4. Resolution will be through military means.


5. The Turks will not be able to free themselves on their own. Outside intervention by their brothers will be needed.


6. Who are these Sons of Isaac? Candidates have been proposed, but I reject these opinions. They are supposed to have four features which are not to be found in these proposals. They are to be descendants of the Prophet Isaac (peace be upon him). They are to be numerous enough. (70,000 is often an idiom for a large number). They are to be Muslim. They are to be people capable in the battlefield. Only one people matches all four features simultaneously, but that is my opinion.


7. If we are to witness the manifestation of the Hadīth in the far future, i.e. after Erdogān, then this Hadīth has no immediate bearing on the current situation.


8. If the Hadīth is going to manifest in the near future and Erdogān is a true Muslim ruler, then Erdogān or his rightful successors will be removed just like Sultān Abdul Hamīd was removed. The Muslims will then fight those who are ruling Istanbūl.


9. If the Hadīth is going to manifest in the near future and we have been deceived, then the Muslims will fight those who are ruling Istanbūl.

 

May Allāh guide us. I do not think that matters are going to get any easier for the foreseeable future.

 

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Turkey – Murky History but Clear Future (1/2)

For those who have some kind of confidence in me, I fear that I shall disappoint you if you seek clear direction on recent events in Turkey, i.e. the “attempted coup” of Shawwāl 1437 [July 2016]. Nevertheless, I shall share some knowledge Allāh may have given me, and some thoughts. Allāh may use it for some benefit. Yet I would declare at the outset, that there will be people who will not be pleased with what I say.

The Anti-Christ Murkiness in Turkey goes back four centuries

 

To me the cause of the murkiness, confusion and lack of direction in Turkey is ultimately due it being a known future stage of the Anti-Christ’s operations. This we know from the teachings of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ which I shall discuss later, if Allāh so wills. However, the historical seeds were already planted four centuries ago.

 

The ‘Uthmānīyah Khilāfah (Ottoman Empire – the predecessor to the current Turkish Republic), had been a haven to Jews seeking protection from Christian Europe. Even some oppressed Christian sects would prefer sanctuary in Turkey, rather than face the not so tender love of their Christian brethren who sought their eradication. (“Turkey” here, may be technically incorrect, but some might find the Arabic too cumbersome, whilst I dislike the distortion of a beautiful Arabic name).

 

Jews and Christians who are true to their faith are welcome in the Islāmic State, which is obliged to protect their lives and property. (I shall not allow “ISIS” to hijack the term “Islāmic State.”) Those who are guided to Islām, become our brothers. The problem that arose in Turkey, and which I believe continues to permeate Turkey to this day, was the birth of a third group – hypocrites pretending to embrace Islām, whilst remaining false to Islām and working tirelessly towards the destruction of the faith which had provided them with sanctuary.

Sabbatai Zevi

 

Rabbi Sabbatai Zevi was born in Izmir, Turkey, in 1626. In 1648 he proclaimed himself the Messiah. The tumult he caused was not limited to the Empire, but spread through Europe. Three years later the rabbis expelled him and his followers from Izmīr. Eventually he was sentenced to death for sedition, with the option of redemption through conversion to Islām. He chose conversion and 300 families of his followers thereupon followed suit.

 

Yet this was the beginning of a disease most vile which penetrated the soul of Turkish Islām. A cancer which ultimately overthrew the Empire, abolished the Khilāfah from the memories of the Muslims, paved the way for the loss of Palestine, and Allāh alone knows best what is its true extent and activity today.

 

Zevi never embraced Islām in his heart. He continued preaching amongst the Jews and claimed to receive revelation. He thus assumed the lead of those who then outwardly converted, but simply used their new position as ostensible Muslims to act in secret against the state and the faith.

The Donmeh

 

These hypocrites were called Donmeh (converts) in Turkish. The full record of their secret conspirative deeds may never be fully known amongst men, except themselves. I suspect that a researcher, fluent in Turkish, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic; having full access to all public records for the past four centuries, would not learn one part of a hundred of the full story.

 

On the other hand, it would be foolish to blame every cause of the rotting of the Empire on them. Every people in history reached a peak and then declined. Yet where the rot manifested as the Turks becoming confused and rudderless as many appear today, where the issue is loss of identity and mental incapacitation, rather than simple military, political and economic collapse, I smell a whiff of Donmeh stench in the air.

 

Headgear – an example of how easily Muslims are confused

 

I do not point the example I am about to discuss as the direct handiwork of the Donmeh, but I do use the example of the confusion and ignorance Muslims so often display as amongst the general achievements of the Donmeh.

 

The primary and distinctive headgear of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ was the turban. The Turks wore their turbans as the Sunnah [way] of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ  and as a display of their Islāmic identity.

 

In 1839 Sultan Mahmūd II imposed the Tanzīmāt reforms. Whatever the merits and demerits of the details of his reforms might be, and which we can debate about at length, what I cannot abide of this man, is the mentality that everything European was superior to the Turkish and Islāmic heritage. His supporters lie when they claim that Tanzīmāt was mere modernisation. How is actively making alcohol fashionable modernisation? And then returning to the original example, how is banning the Sunnah Turban and replacing it with the “more European looking” Fez modernisation? Yet it is not his “reforms” I wish to highlight, but rather the fact that less than two centuries after Zevi, the Turks had somehow come to accept that aping Europe, up to and including what they wore on their heads, would restore them to greatness.

 

Now I do not know whether to call it ironic, sad or funny, but when Ataturk banned the Fez in 1925, the outcry was made to defend the “symbol of Islām” whereas the Fez was originally intended to make Turkey look less Islāmic.

 

This is comparable to the story of the ‘Iqāl (camel-string) of America’s agents, the Sa‘ūd. They did not wear turbans. Instead, they would wear a cloth over the head for protection against the hot Najd sun. When stopping on a journey, a string was used to tie a camel’s legs, or park it, as we might think of it. Somehow the idea arose that it would be convenient when not “parking” the camel, to use the same camel-string to tie the cloth to their heads. This eventually became their cultural attire. When the Sa‘ūd conquered and pillaged Makkah, Muslims began aping their costumes as the symbols of Islām, just as the turban replacing Fez had had its century of glory. We now witness Muslims proudly tying their camel-strings on their heads, especially on Eid days.

The Last Great Sultān

 

Sultān Abdul Hamīd II was overthrown in 1908 and then finally removed in 1909. He had to be punished for being the last true Turkish Khalīfah and Sultān with backbone and a zeal for Islām. In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish influential leaders had come to visit Sultan Abdul Hamid II. They offered to:
1) Pay the entire debt of the Empire.
2) Build the Navy of the Ottoman state.
3) 35 Million Golden Liras without interest

In exchange for:
1) Allowing Jews to visit Palestine anytime they please, and to stay as long as they want “to visit the holy sites.”
2) Allowing the Jews to build settlements where they live, and they wanted them to be located near Jerusalem.

Sultān Abdul Hamīd II refused to even meet them, he sent his answer to them through Tahsin Pasha, and the answer was, “Tell those impolite Jews that the debts of the Uthmāni state are not a shame, France has debts and that doesn’t affect it. Jerusalem became a part of the Islamic land when Khalīfah Umar bin al-Khattāb took the city and I am not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money, the Uthmānis will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam.”

He also told them to leave and never come back to meet him again.

The Jews did not give up on Abdul Hamīd, later in the same year, 1901, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Hertzl, visited Istanbul and tried to meet the Sultan. Sultan Abdul Hamid II refused to meet him and he told his Head of the Ministers Council, “Advise Dr Hertzl not to take any further steps in his project. I cannot give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic Ummah. The Islamic Ummah that fought Jihād for the sake of this land and they have watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while we are alive.”

The Masonic Young Turks

 

Freemasonry provided a convenient vehicle for the Donmeh to achieve their aims and thus İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti or The Committee of Union and Progress or the Young Turks was born in 1889. In 1909 the Young Turks removed Sultan Abdul Hamīd. From that day on, Turkey was a Masonic state with a figurehead Sultān. Here is a who’s who of the Turkish Masons:

Talaat Pasha: A Donmeh. Interior Minister of Turkey during WW I. Chief architect of the Armenian Genocide.

Djavid Bey: Donmeh. Talaat’s Finance Minister.

Messim Russo: Assistant to Djavid Bey.

Refik Bey: Editor of Young Turk newspaper Revolutionary Press; Prime Minister of Turkey in 1939.

Emanuel Qrasow: Jewish propagandist for The Young Turks.

Vladimir Jabotinsky: Russian Bolshevik who moved to Turkey in 1908. Editor of the newspaper Young Turk.

Alexander Helphand: Liaison of the Rothschilds. Editor of The Turkish Homeland.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: A Jew of Sephardic origin. Ataturk attended the Jewish Elementary school known as the Semsi Effendi School run by the Jew Simon Zvi. This Satanic entity basically banned Islām from Turkey. I’d rather not mention him further. Please read up yourself. Here is a simple but good starting point http://lostislamichistory.com/how-ataturk-made-turkey-secular/

 

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi