Jumu'ah - just another entertainment channel?

Brother Ibrahim Musa had interviewed me on Channel Islam International concerning the above subject.

To listen to the interview, click here 

Brother Ibrahim has also transcribed the gist of the interview here

I had given credit to a meeting with Brother Khalid Baig to opening my mind to the pitfalls of using the entertainment medium of TV as a religious medium. However, I had not deemed it appropriate to mention on CII, that the very people who received a thorough and personal explanation on the view of Khalid Baig in that meeting, very mischievously selectively quoted him at a meeting last year, to give the impression that this great thinker is in fact in favour of their participation on iTV ("Islam" TV). I should respect differences of opinion, but to respect dishonesty?

I strongly encourage every Muslim who is interested in honest discourse on the issue, and not just empty slogans of, adapt to the times, etc, to read the book Khalid Baig had advised us to read. Please obtain a copy of Amusing ourselves to death by Neil Postman. 

سليمان الكندي

Jumu'ah - just another entertainment channel?

Brother Ibrahim Musa had interviewed me on Channel Islam International concerning the above subject.

To listen to the interview, click here

Brother Ibrahim has also transcribed the gist of the interview here

I had given credit to a meeting with Brother Khalid Baig to opening my mind to the pitfalls of using the entertainment medium of TV as a religious medium. However, I had not deemed it appropriate to mention on CII, that the very people who received a thorough and personal explanation on the view of Khalid Baig in that meeting, very mischievously selectively quoted him at a meeting last year, to give the impression that this great thinker is in fact in favour of their participation on iTV ("Islam" TV). I should respect differences of opinion, but to respect dishonesty?

I strongly encourage every Muslim who is interested in honest discourse on the issue, and not just empty slogans of, adapt to the times, etc, to read the book Khalid Baig had advised us to read. Please obtain a copy of Amusing ourselves to death by Neil Postman. 

سليمان الكندي

Khilafah vs Papacy

 

Al-Imām at-Tirmiẓī narrates in his Kitāb Tafsiril Qurān in Sunan at-Tirmiẓī that ‘Adī bin Ḥātimرضى الله عنه  narrates:

I came to the Nabī صلى الله عليه و سلم  wearing a golden cross around my neck. He called out, “O ‘Adī! Throw this idol off your neck!”

I then heard him reciting from Sūrah Barā’ah, “They made their priests and monks lords besides Allāh.”

He then commented, “They did not worship them, but if they made something Ḥalāl for them, they took it as Ḥalāl and when they made something Ḥarām for them they took it as Ḥarām.”

 One cannot blame a Muslim for being affected by the media fanfare surrounding the Pope and innocently comparing the situation of a divided Islām with a united Catholic Church under a single leader. “Why do we not have a Khalīfah?” he might lament.

The comparison and the lament, whilst born out of sincerity, are however incorrect and naïve.

No comparison between Pope and Amīrul Muminīn

Muslims must desist from seeking points of reference in the West. Our points of reference are Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. If we fail to do this, we unintentionally undermine our own faith. Specifically in this instance, we have not fulfilled the command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم of pledging allegiance to a Khalīfah for close onto a century. The least we can do however, is maintain the intention of a restoration and not contaminate the concept of the institution with alien ideas.  If we keep drawing parallels to the Papacy, the danger exists that the day the Khilāfah is restored, the imagery of a Papacy will be permanently imprinted on the minds on the Ummah.

I do not intend my blog to be an academic thesis on any subject, but hope that the following should suffice for the thoughtful:

1. Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “Now, it is beyond doubt that I have been elected your Amīr, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. Truth is a trust; falsehood is a treason.”   
2. The Papacy is an office that is bought, sold and bribed for. Whoever wishes to study the sordid details may peruse the biographies of the Medici and Borgia families. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “O people, I swear by Allāh that I never desired the Khilāfah either by day or by night, nor had I any inclination towards it. I never prayed to Allāh openly or secrectly to confer the office on me. I merely accepted this office lest some mischief arise at this critical juncture in the history of the Muslims…”
3. The Catholic Church is largely a compromise and distortion between Christianity and paganism. Thus even the symbols of the Pope, such as the insistence on wearing red shoes, have their origins with idol worshippers and has nothing to do with any heavenly scripture. The Khalīfah is strictly bound by Shari‘ah in his office. Any personal failings have always been recognised as such – his personal failing. It has never been institutionalised in Islām, unlike the Papacy. Popes and priests married for at least three centuries, and then were forbidden to do so.  Catholics deny that the prohibition was in order to increase the Church’s land holdings. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in Islām the Khalīfah has no authority to concoct divine law at human whim centuries after the practice of a different law. Again, the first Khalīfah said, “Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. When I disobey Him and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم, then obey me not.”

   Allāḥ knows best why we needed the medicine of loss of Khilāfah

 One of my teachers, Mawlānā Sulaymān Chocksī,  warned us against entertaining people’s demands for explanations of Ḥikmah (the divine wisdom behind a certain law or event). Such ventures merely lead to confusing replies and demands for substantiating every injunction, even if the reason might not have been clarified in the Qurān. I would add that in declaring that that is   why Allāh decreed something, am I not elevating myself to some kind of consultant to Allāh? Since when did I reach such a status that Allāh explains unto me why He decreed an event?

However, I see no harm in looking at events on the ground and stating what I see.

I first clarify:

1. The Jew Ataturk and the Saudis terminated the Khilāfah and have much to answer for in thus rebelling against Allāh.
2.  Khilāfah is a command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم.
3. Had I lived a century ago, I would have been obliged to obey the ‘Ulamā’ who sought to defend the Khilāfah.

Unity of hearts, not authorities

 I however say to those who lament that the Catholics have a Pope and we have no Khalīfah:

A problem today is lack of understanding of what Islāmic unity is. Unity is not conformity and uniformity which are the hallmarks of perhaps every single Muslim institute and organisation throughout the world. Islāmic unity means unity of hearts together with respect for difference of opinions. That is why when the King wished to impose the Fatāwā of al-Imām Mālik raḥimahullāh upon all Muslims to ensure “unity,” the very first to oppose him was none other than the venerable Imām himself. The Imām understood what unity really meant and what the consequences of a monolithic, unthinking, robotic Ummah would entail. We however have still not grasped the lesson.

Even the sternest Khalīfah, ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb رضى الله عنه , was a humble man who accepted differences of opinion. I may be wrong, but I firmly believe that should the Khilāfah be re-established within the next decade, this immature Ummah will produce such an overbearing dictator who will be closer to the “infalliable” Pope than ‘Umar رضى الله عنه . My sympathies then to the wise Imām of al-Madīnah raḥimahullāh. However, there are also signs of progress.

In this global atmosphere of religious dictatorship, the advantage Muslims enjoy of not having a central authority, is that we have the capacity to exercise our minds and submit our conscience only towards Allāh instead of a dictator who uses “religious” blackmail against those who do not tow the party line.

We must accept that the Khilāfah in its last Ottoman days was really not an institute to be proud of, and there was no hope of reform. It is highly likely that the very idealists and activists who now declare that all our problems would be solved had Germany and Turkey won and the Khilāfah preserved, would be the very ones lambasting the Ottomans for not coming anywhere the standard. By terminating the Ottoman state, Allāh has granted us a clean slate, a fresh start and an opportunity to work towards the real Allāh-pleasing goal.

Now, not as a ritual, but truly…. Allāh knows best.

 

Khilafah vs Papacy

Al-Imām at-Tirmiẓī narrates in his Kitāb Tafsiril Qurān in Sunan at-Tirmiẓī that ‘Adī bin Ḥātim رضى الله عنه  narrates:

I came to the Nabī صلى الله عليه و سلم  wearing a golden cross around my neck. He called out, “O ‘Adī! Throw this idol off your neck!”

I then heard him reciting from Sūrah Barā’ah, “They made their priests and monks lords besides Allāh.”

He then commented, “They did not worship them, but if they made something Ḥalāl for them,

they took it as Ḥalāl and when they made something Ḥarām for them they took it as Ḥarām.”

One cannot blame a Muslim for being affected by the media fanfare surrounding the Pope and innocently comparing the situation of a divided Islām with a united Catholic Church under a single leader. “Why do we not have a Khalīfah?” he might lament.

The comparison and the lament, whilst born out of sincerity, are however incorrect and naïve.

No comparison between Pope and Amīrul Muminīn

Muslims must desist from seeking points of reference in the West. Our points of reference are Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. If we fail to do this, we unintentionally undermine our own faith. Specifically in this instance, we have not fulfilled the command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم of pledging allegiance to a Khalīfah for close onto a century. The least we can do however, is maintain the intention of a restoration and not contaminate the concept of the institution with alien ideas.  If we keep drawing parallels to the Papacy, the danger exists that the day the Khilāfah is restored, the imagery of a Papacy will be permanently imprinted on the minds on the Ummah.

I do not intend my blog to be an academic thesis on any subject, but hope that the following should suffice for the thoughtful:

1.       Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “Now, it is beyond doubt that I have been elected your Amīr, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. Truth is a trust; falsehood is a treason.”   

2.       The Papacy is an office that is bought, sold and bribed for. Whoever wishes to study the sordid details may peruse the biographies of the Medici and Borgia families. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “O people, I swear by Allāh that I never desired the Khilāfah either by day or by night, nor had I any inclination towards it. I never prayed to Allāh openly or secrectly to confer the office on me. I merely accepted this office lest some mischief arise at this critical juncture in the history of the Muslims…”

3.       The Catholic Church is largely a compromise and distortion between Christianity and paganism. Thus even the symbols of the Pope, such as the insistence on wearing red shoes, have their origins with idol worshippers and has nothing to do with any heavenly scripture. The Khalīfah is strictly bound by Shari‘ah in his office. Any personal failings have always been recognised as such – his personal failing. It has never been institutionalised in Islām, unlike the Papacy. Popes and priests married for at least three centuries, and then were forbidden to do so.  Catholics deny that the prohibition was in order to increase the Church’s land holdings. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in Islām the Khalīfah has no authority to concoct divine law at human whim centuries after the practice of a different law. Again, the first Khalīfah said, “Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. When I disobey Him and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم, then obey me not.”

   Allāḥ knows best why we needed the medicine of loss of Khilāfah

One of my teachers, Mawlānā Sulaymān Chocksī,  warned us against entertaining people’s demands for explanations of Ḥikmah (the divine wisdom behind a certain law or event). Such ventures merely lead to confusing replies and demands for substantiating every injunction, even if the reason might not have been clarified in the Qurān. I would add that in declaring that that is   why Allāh decreed something, am I not elevating myself to some kind of consultant to Allāh? Since when did I reach such a status that Allāh explains unto me why He decreed an event?

However, I see no harm in looking at events on the ground and stating what I see.

I first clarify:

1.       The Jew Ataturk and the Saudis terminated the Khilāfah and have much to answer for in thus rebelling against Allāh.

2.        Khilāfah is a command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم.

3.       Had I lived a century ago, I would have been obliged to obey the ‘Ulamā’ who sought to defend the Khilāfah.

Unity of hearts, not authorities

I however say to those who lament that the Catholics have a Pope and we have no Khalīfah:

A problem today is lack of understanding of what Islāmic unity is. Unity is not conformity and uniformity which are the hallmarks of perhaps every single Muslim institute and organisation throughout the world. Islāmic unity means unity of hearts together with respect for difference of opinions. That is why when the King wished to impose the Fatāwā of al-Imām Mālik raḥimahullāh upon all Muslims to ensure “unity,” the very first to oppose him was none other than the venerable Imām himself. The Imām understood what unity really meant and what the consequences of a monolithic, unthinking, robotic Ummah would entail. We however have still not grasped the lesson.

Even the sternest Khalīfah, ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb رضى الله عنه , was a humble man who accepted differences of opinion. I may be wrong, but I firmly believe that should the Khilāfah be re-established within the next decade, this immature Ummah will produce such an overbearing dictator who will be closer to the “infalliable” Pope than ‘Umar رضى الله عنه . My sympathies then to the wise Imām of al-Madīnah raḥimahullāh. However, there are also signs of progress.

In this global atmosphere of religious dictatorship, the advantage Muslims enjoy of not having a central authority, is that we have the capacity to exercise our minds and submit our conscience only towards Allāh instead of a dictator who uses “religious” blackmail against those who do not tow the party line.

We must accept that the Khilāfah in its last Ottoman days was really not an institute to be proud of, and there was no hope of reform. It is highly likely that the very idealists and activists who now declare that all our problems would be solved had Germany and Turkey won and the Khilāfah preserved, would be the very ones lambasting the Ottomans for not coming anywhere the standard. By terminating the Ottoman state, Allāh has granted us a clean slate, a fresh start and an opportunity to work towards the real Allāh-pleasing goal.

Now, not as a ritual, but truly…. Allāh knows best.

سليمان الكندي

A Jew hiding behind me… or IN me? Introduction

عن أبى هريرة أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- قال « لا تقوم الساعة حتى يقاتل المسلمون اليهود فيقتلهم المسلمون ، حتى يختبئ اليهودى من وراء الحجر والشجر ، فيقول الحجر أو الشجر : يا مسلم يا عبد الله هذا يهودى خلفى فتعال فاقتله ، إلا الغرقد فإنه من شجر اليهود

Abū Hurayrah رضى الله عنه narrated that Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم  said:
The Hour shall not arise until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Muslims will slay them to extent that the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stone or the tree will call out, “O Muslim! O slave of Allāh! This is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!” The exception will be the Gharqad [Boxthorn/ Goji], for it is a tree of the Jews. [Muslim]

A Ḥadīth which the politically correct are uncomfortable with….fortunately, this loose cannon is not politically correct.

So what do we understand from this Ḥadīth?

• Before Qiyāmah there will be [or already is today] a major conflict between the Muslims and the Jews.
• Implicit to the above as that whilst individual Jews may be guided, the masses will remain in opposition to truth until the bitter end. There is however hope for the guidance of others.
• The Muslims will ultimately triumph.
• The remnants of the Jewish foe will flee for their lives.
• Creation which do not normally make any sound let alone speech, will call out for the destruction of these enemies of Allāh.

It is this last point which I wish to delve into in a series of postings inshāallāh.

There are some who have love interpreting the clear words of Qurān and Ḥadīth and declare them to be symbols in their complicated theories These theories deny the literal words of Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم  as if Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم  are incapable of saying directly  what they mean!  May Allāh save us from such thoughts.  Such esoteric interpretations, or rather the mind-set which necessitates such interpretations, are more appropriate, I believe, to the Masons. Our father, Idrīs ‘alayhis salām, was a scientist, but Allāh chose for his Final Ummah a nabī who could neither read nor write. Surely there is a reason behind that? Similarly Sulaymān ‘alayhis salām was a king-nabī, but our Nabī صلى الله عليه و سلم chose not to be. In other words, the Sunnah of our Nabī صلى الله عليه و سلم  can be fulfilled by every Muslim without needing to possess wealth, kingship or intricate scientific knowledge. Islām must be equally practical and comprehensible to a descendant of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم , a sophisticated European convert and an Amazon tribesman.
But I digress. I do not deny the clear literal words of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم. I firmly believe that stones and trees will speak with a human voice to expose the Jews. At the same time, I ponder if perhaps there is an additional aspect to the literal words.

The major distinction between stones and trees is that one is organic and the other is inorganic. The major commonality is that neither speaks. Consider that the Arabic also seems to have nice poetic metre - ḥajar and shajar. Does this not perhaps indicate that the entire creation will reach such an extreme level of uncontrollable frustration at the mischief which has been wrought on the earth, that even the organic creation of trees (instead of organic animals which at least make sounds) and the inorganic creation of stones, will scream with pent up frustration boiling over from centuries, “Enough! Enough! Enough! We’ve had enough of this mischief! Our earth is polluted, our air and our skies! We have been deformed and misused beyond any further point of forbearance. We have witnessed every possible mischief and rebellion against Allāh. We, the unspeaking, speak and demand that you clean us of these mischief makers! In the name of Allāh! O slave of Allāh, save us.”
Really, are the Jews that bad? If you believe in Allāh’s words and His Rasūl’s صلى الله عليه و سلم , then you already know the answer.

In our upcoming discussion, I shall seek to explain various aspects of mischief which have defiled the earth and must ultimately lead to the events described in the above Ḥadīth.  Whilst the list of mischief is long and painful, my primary concern is how Jews have managed to mentally colonise Muslims and modify their behaviour. Hence I ask each Muslim to ask, “Is there a Jew hiding in me?”
The balance Islām demands is not easy. It is not palatable to both the irreligious and the zealot. The zealot must be reminded that most of us are not in the domain of war and must treat every Jew we encounter with Islāmic character. Let him remind himself that ‘Abdurraḥmān bin ‘Awf  رضى الله عنه berated his wife for just once not sending a portion of her cooking to their Jewish neighbour. Let those who close their eyes to what mischief is wrought on earth remind themselves:

You will undoubtedly find the severest people in enmity against those who believe to be the Jews and those who ascribe partners [unto Allāh]. (al-Māidah: 82)