Presenting the Quran & rational thought to Saudi apologists

Merriam-Webster defines Apologetics as:

 

1

:  systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)

2

:  a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity

 

 

Amongst the Muslim community, there are those who defend the Saudi regime as if defending their religion or a doctrine. These apologists either have financial interests in doing so, or at the very least, subconsciously seek to soothe their hidden guilt at allowing an anti-Islāmic force to rule the sacred soil of Arabia. They are not bothered at the broader issues and crises of Islām as long as they can continue their lifestyle as they please.

 

 

The arguments they present are patently naïve and never refer to the Qurān or Ḥadīth, for indeed the sacred texts of Islām cannot condone the existence of a tyrannical, treasonous regime devoted to Ghayrullāh. To even call these arguments “apologetics” is a kindness, for apologetics is defined to be “systematic,” unlike the statements of Saudi apologists.

 

1.    The excesses of the Saudis are to be balanced against their great service to the Muslims

 

 

Okay, so the Saudis have made the Maṭāf marble when previously Ṭawāf was more physically taxing. They have installed air-conditioning and many other material amenities. This is not in dispute. What I do dispute is firstly, this argument presents nothing of a scriptural basis. It is pure concocted defence. Secondly the defence is invalid.

 

 

• The apologists pretend that the Saudis have spent of their own personal wealth in the cause of Allāh and deserve recognition for this supposed selfless sacrifice. How many minutes of honest labour have the Saudis engaged in and how many millilitres of sweat have they perspired to acquire this wealth of “theirs”?  Unless the apologists wish to stoop to unheard of levels of shamelessness, nobody is able to deny the fact that the thousands of Saudis who call themselves princes are nothing but parasites leeching off the wealth of Allāh and the Ummah. When they do engage in work, it is in the fields of drug trafficking, stealing property from commoners, taking loans and not repaying and the like.


• When the Jews offer the Palestinians some scraps of amenities, we are not impressed, and rightfully so. The wealth is stolen and if a portion is thrown back, why should the victim show gratitude? What is the difference between Jewish and Saudi theft?


• The amounts spent on the Ḥaramayn should be weighed against the mind boggling billions which the House of Saud lavishes not just on extravagant lifestyles, palaces and yachts, but Allāh alone knows the incalculable amount spent on gambling and prostitution. Consider just two facts – ABC reported in 2004 how Saudi princes paid prostitutes of both sexes in the French  Riviera up to $50,000 per session; and consider that in 1969, i.e. just two years after the loss of al-Aqṣā, Fahd gambled 5.6m USD away in a single night. Adjust that to current values and ask with what face do the apologists ask us to be grateful to this house?


• Even if the wealth came from the personal funds and generosity of the Saudis, I would advise the apologists to read the Qurān, at least once in a while. Remember that Pharaoh had raised Mūsā ‘alayhis salām since he was a baby. He not only paid for his food, clothing and the roof over his head, even the mother’s milk which Mūsā ‘alayhis salām drank was not for free. Pharaoh paid his mother to breast-feed him. The Qurān describes how the now Nabī Mūsā ‘alayhis salām denounces the shirk and tyranny of Pharaoh. Pharaoh responds in the same vein as the apologists and reminds Mūsā ‘alayhis salām of his past generosity to him. I shall limit myself to quoting the reply of Mūsā ‘alayhis salām. If an explanation is needed on comparing the two scenarios then may Allāh have mercy!

 

وتلك نعمة تمنها علي أن عبدت بني إسرائيل

And that is the favour which you flaunt against me despite your enslaving Banū Isrāīl? [ash-Shuara: 22]

2.    If Allāh was unhappy with the Saudis He would not allow them control over the Ka ‘bah

 

If not for the fact that I have heard this argument many a time, I would feel it a sheer waste of time to even respond to it.

 

• Three centuries before Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم  ‘Amr bin Luḥayy al-Khuzā‘ī ruled Makkah. It was this wretched person who defiled the Ka‘bah and introduced idolatry to Makkah. According to the Saudi apologists, control of the Ka‘bah is indicative of Allāh’s sanctioning a ruling. By this reasoning, Allāh sanctioned the rule of ‘Amr and the idolators for the next three centuries. Note that the Saudis have not yet completed a century of ruling Makkah, as opposed to the three centuries of idolatrous rule. If we extend the strange reasoning of the apologists, this would mean that Allāh is triply more pleased with the idolaters than with the Saudis.


• Again, if Allāh is pleased with whoever rules Makkah, what was the purpose of Rasūlullāh militarily صلى الله عليه و سلم opposing the government of Makkah and conquering Makkah?


•  During the Islāmic period Makkah has been ruled several times by the Shī‘ah. These included the Qarāmatīyah and Fāṭimīyah, both whom subscribed to Ismā‘īlī heresy i.e. ‘Alī رضى الله عنه is God incarnate! So… was Allāh pleased with these governments?


• Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم  has informed us that Ẓū Suwayqatayn will conquer Makkah and demolish the Ka‘bah. Indeed, by the reasoning of the Saudi apologists, Allāh’s pleasure not only encompasses pious rulers such as  Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, but a host of tyrants and disbelievers who have ruled and will rule Makkah.


• I again ask the apologists to refer to the Word of Allāh. Al-‘Abbās رضى الله عنه  is honoured as both a Ṣaḥābī and uncle of Rasūlullāh  صلى الله عليه و سلم  , notwithstanding his relative late entry into Islām. In fact he fought on the Quraysh side at Badr. He held a post in the Quraysh government and could be termed as the Minister of Ḥajj and Custodian of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām. He defended his perceived honour in regards the early Muslims by saying, “You may have preceded us in Islām, Hijrah and Jihād, but indeed we maintained the building of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām and gave water to the pilgrims and spent on the needy.” Allāh’s reply in the form of the 19^th verse of at-Tawbah should be well heeded by those who defend the House of Saud:

 

أجعلتم سقاية الحاج وعمارة المسجد الحرام كمن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وجاهد في سبيل الله لا يستوون عند الله والله لا يهدي القوم الظالمين

Do you make the giving of water to the pilgrims and building the Sacred Masjid equal to those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and strive in Allāh’s way? They are not equal in the Sight of Allāh! And Allāh does not guide the wrong-doing folk.

 

Although the scum of kufr seems to be overwhelming the pure river of Islām, inshāllāh Allāh’s Dīn will soon triumph. Islām’s triumph is guaranteed, Allāh alone knows when. The question each Muslim should ask, is whether he or she wishes to sell his or her religion and associate with the scum for the sake of temporary worldly pleasure, or whether he or she wishes to be amongst Allāh’s party. May Allāh guide us all.

Presenting the Quran & rational thought to Saudi apologists

Merriam-Webster defines Apologetics as:

1

:  systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)

2

:  a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity

Amongst the Muslim community, there are those who defend the Saudi regime as if defending their religion or a doctrine. These apologists either have financial interests in doing so, or at the very least, subconsciously seek to soothe their hidden guilt at allowing an anti-Islāmic force to rule the sacred soil of Arabia. They are not bothered at the broader issues and crises of Islām as long as they can continue their lifestyle as they please.

The arguments they present are patently naïve and never refer to the Qurān or Ḥadīth, for indeed the sacred texts of Islām cannot condone the existence of a tyrannical, treasonous regime devoted to Ghayrullāh. To even call these arguments “apologetics” is a kindness, for apologetics is defined to be “systematic,” unlike the statements of Saudi apologists. 

   "The excesses of the Saudis are to be balanced against their great service to the Muslims"

Okay, so the Saudis have made the Maṭāf marble when previously Ṭawāf was more physically taxing. They have installed air-conditioning and many other material amenities. This is not in dispute. What I do dispute is firstly, this argument presents nothing of a scriptural basis. It is pure concocted defence. Secondly the defence is invalid.

·         The apologists pretend that the Saudis have spent of their own personal wealth in the cause of Allāh and deserve recognition for this supposed selfless sacrifice. How many minutes of honest labour have the Saudis engaged in and how many millilitres of sweat have they perspired to acquire this wealth of “theirs”?  Unless the apologists wish to stoop to unheard of levels of shamelessness, nobody is able to deny the fact that the thousands of Saudis who call themselves princes are nothing but parasites leeching off the wealth of Allāh and the Ummah. When they do engage in work, it is in the fields of drug trafficking, stealing property from commoners, taking loans and not repaying and the like.

·         When the Jews offer the Palestinians some scraps of amenities, we are not impressed, and rightfully so. The wealth is stolen and if a portion is thrown back, why should the victim show gratitude? What is the difference between Jewish and Saudi theft?

·         The amounts spent on the Ḥaramayn should be weighed against the mind boggling billions which the House of Saud lavishes not just on extravagant lifestyles, palaces and yachts, but Allāh alone knows the incalculable amount spent on gambling and prostitution. Consider just two facts – ABC reported in 2004 how Saudi princes paid prostitutes of both sexes in the French  Riviera up to $50,000 per session; and consider that in 1969, i.e. just two years after the loss of al-Aqṣā, Fahd gambled 5.6m USD away in a single night. Adjust that to current values and ask with what face do the apologists ask us to be grateful to this house?

·         Even if the wealth came from the personal funds and generosity of the Saudis, I would advise the apologists to read the Qurān, at least once in a while. Remember that Pharaoh had raised Mūsā ‘alayhis salām since he was a baby. He not only paid for his food, clothing and the roof over his head, even the mother’s milk which Mūsā ‘alayhis salām drank was not for free. Pharaoh paid his mother to breast-feed him. The Qurān describes how the now Nabī Mūsā ‘alayhis salām denounces the shirk and tyranny of Pharaoh. Pharaoh responds in the same vein as the apologists and reminds Mūsā ‘alayhis salām of his past generosity to him. I shall limit myself to quoting the reply of Mūsā ‘alayhis salām. If an explanation is needed on comparing the two scenarios then may Allāh have mercy!

وتلك نعمة تمنها علي أن عبدت بني إسرائيل

And that is the favour which you flaunt against me despite your enslaving Banū Isrāīl? [ash-Shuara: 22]

"If Allāh was unhappy with the Saudis He would not allow them control over the Ka ‘bah"

If not for the fact that I have heard this argument many a time, I would feel it a sheer waste of time to even respond to it.

·         Three centuries before Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم  ‘Amr bin Luḥayy al-Khuzā‘ī ruled Makkah. It was this wretched person who defiled the Ka‘bah and introduced idolatry to Makkah. According to the Saudi apologists, control of the Ka‘bah is indicative of Allāh’s sanctioning a ruling. By this reasoning, Allāh sanctioned the rule of ‘Amr and the idolators for the next three centuries. Note that the Saudis have not yet completed a century of ruling Makkah, as opposed to the three centuries of idolatrous rule. If we extend the strange reasoning of the apologists, this would mean that Allāh is triply more pleased with the idolaters than with the Saudis.

·         Again, if Allāh is pleased with whoever rules Makkah, what was the purpose of Rasūlullāh militarily صلى الله عليه و سلم opposing the government of Makkah and conquering Makkah?

·          During the Islāmic period Makkah has been ruled several times by the Shī‘ah. These included the Qarāmatīyah and Fāṭimīyah, both whom subscribed to Ismā‘īlī heresy i.e. ‘Alī رضى الله عنه is God incarnate! So… was Allāh pleased with these governments?

·         Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم  has informed us that Ẓū Suwayqatayn will conquer Makkah and demolish the Ka‘bah. Indeed, by the reasoning of the Saudi apologists, Allāh’s pleasure not only encompasses pious rulers such as  Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, but a host of tyrants and disbelievers who have ruled and will rule Makkah.

·         I again ask the apologists to refer to the Word of Allāh. Al-‘Abbās رضى الله عنه  is honoured as both a Ṣaḥābī and uncle of Rasūlullāh  صلى الله عليه و سلم  , notwithstanding his relative late entry into Islām. In fact he fought on the Quraysh side at Badr. He held a post in the Quraysh government and could be termed as the Minister of Ḥajj and Custodian of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām. He defended his perceived honour in regards the early Muslims by saying, “You may have preceded us in Islām, Hijrah and Jihād, but indeed we maintained the building of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām and gave water to the pilgrims and spent on the needy.” Allāh’s reply in the form of the 19^th verse of at-Tawbah should be well heeded by those who defend the House of Saud:

أجعلتم سقاية الحاج وعمارة المسجد الحرام كمن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وجاهد في سبيل الله لا يستوون عند الله والله لا يهدي القوم الظالمين

Do you make the giving of water to the pilgrims and building the Sacred Masjid equal to those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and strive in Allāh’s way? They are not equal in the Sight of Allāh! And Allāh does not guide the wrong-doing folk.

Although the scum of kufr seems to be overwhelming the pure river of Islām, inshāllāh Allāh’s Dīn will soon triumph. Islām’s triumph is guaranteed, Allāh alone knows when. The question each Muslim should ask, is whether he or she wishes to sell his or her religion and associate with the scum for the sake of temporary worldly pleasure, or whether he or she wishes to be amongst Allāh’s party. May Allāh guide us all.

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