When Muslims deny their wrongs

A comment on my article on the abuse of Muslim woman
http://kindi313.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/shattering-the-glass-vessels-of-the-nabi/#comment-151

Assalamu ‘Alaykum wa Rahmatullah Hadhrat,
You addressed an excellent point, which concerns me for a long time now. Maybe you can help me further expand my thoughts on it. Whenever Muslims are faced with any type of criticism, we witness too often that the first reaction is complete denial. Rather than acknowledging that the global Muslim community are really plagued by serious issues. Often we hear in our communities defensive arguments like “When a Muslim does a crime Islam is blamed and when a Jew/Christian does the same his religion is not made an issue.” There definitely exist people in whos interest it is to portray Islam in a bad and evil way and install hatred for Islam and Muslims, but is this situation not (partially) also our fault? Muslims today after committing most heinous crimes, take the cheap letout of abusing Islam to defend themselves and their crime. This trend according to my limited observations is only common amongst lay Muslims – not Jews or Christians.
I wish we as a Muslim community could rise up to the challenge and tell the rest of the world, that we are able to sort out the black sheep amongst us ourselves. We are not in need of their false understanding of liberty and freedom to solve our own issues. Maulana, so what was the way the Ummah used to sort out the black sheep amongst them in the past? I really wish you can further elaborate on this point…

REPLY

Wa ‘alaykumus salām wa Raḥmatullāhi wa Barakātuhu

Although the problem you refer to is collectively found in the global Muslim community, ultimately every collective problem has individual roots. If Muslims individually refuse to acknowledge their errors – which is the first step in repentance – such an attitude will obviously reflect on a collective basis. If one chooses to look at matters the other way around, and say that it is a top to down problem, that having leaders with such an attitude problem will reflect upon the community, I would reply that leaders do not come out of a void. The community produces the scholars and leaders. I have witnessed people of knowledge placing far greater emphasis on their home values and traditions (which might even be good values) to a far greater extent than what they place on the commands of Allāh and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . Then there are issues of ego and human weakness which we all suffer from and which lead to the current discussion. Perhaps this quality of being honest when wrong is a quality Muslims should consider when choosing their leaders. Thus it still boils down to individuals choosing the right or wrong paths. 

In response to your question on how Muslims acted in the past, the fact is that Muslims have acted correctly in this regard and also incorrectly. Obviously I cannot mention great details, so shall suffice with the examples of those whom we should follow.

Since the dawn of time

There have always been personalities and leaders who have erred. Some immediately admitted their errors; whilst others vilified and opposed those who spoke the truth. This is not just in our recent history, but since the dawn of time. The first to rebel against Allāh was Satan when he refused the command to bow to our father, Ādam عليه السلام . The door to repentance was not closed. Yet Satan showed an example which our leaders and community still follow – justify the wrong!

قال أنا خير منه خلقتني من نار وخلقته من طين

He said, “I am better than [Ādam]. You created me from fire and You created him from earth.” [al-A‘rāf]

It is our father, Ādam عليه السلام  who showed us the correct example of what to do when we commit a mistake. We admit it!!!

قالا ربنا ظلمنا أنفسنا وإن لم تغفر لنا وترحمنا لنكونن من الخاسرين

[Ādam and his wife] said, “O our Cherishing-Lord! We have certainly wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy upon us, we shall surely be amongst the losers.” [al-A‘rāf]

Which example do the Muslims follow? Self-justification or admission of wrong? 

(A slight diversion – neither the Qurān nor even the Christian scriptures mention what Ādam عليه السلام  ate. The myth of the apple was popularised in European art. This is just another example of our mental subservience).  

Other Prophets

For the Qurān to give us a single example should suffice. Yet the point is emphasised not just in commands to repent, but through several examples of the pure Prophets. These elevated personalities committed no sin.  Yet even upon uttering a word or acting in a way less to their station, they immediately turned to Allāh in repentance. For example, Nūḥ عليه السلام  interceding for his disbeliever son when all the disbelievers had been condemned and Yūnus عليه السلام  leaving the people of Nineveh without explicit instruction from Allāh. 

The greatest Prophet

The biography of Muḥammad صلى الله عليه و سلم  shows an example to the Muslims of a leader who is not shy to declare that his decision might not have been the best. For example, he was advised that there was a better placement for the Muslim camp at Badr than what he had commanded. Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم  agreed and changed his decision. Similarly his inviting the chiefs of Quraysh to Islām, when an ordinary Muslim sought his attention was no wrong deed, but ‘Abdullāh bin Umm Maktūm رضى الله عنه had far greater status in the sight of Allāh and Allāh revealed ‘Abasa. 

It is only the arrogant, who do not admit to mistakes, that will think that these incidents detract from the status of Muḥammad صلى الله عليه و سلم . They are blind to the fact that his humility in admitting when there was a better option to his first choice, only adds to his status and to him being the perfect paragon for all mankind.

He also taught us to help others when wrong.

عن أنس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " انصر أخاك ظالما أو مظلوما " . قيل : يا رسول الله ، هذا نصرته مظلوما ، فكيف أنصره ظالما؟ قال : " تمنعه من الظلم ، فذاك نصرك إياه "

Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  said, “Help your brother whether he is the oppressor or the oppressed.”

“O Messenger of Allāh,” someone asked, “He is to be helped when oppressed, but how do I help him when he is an oppressor?”

He replied, “Prevent him from oppression. That indeed is your help to him.” [al-Bukhārī]

His Companions

‘Umar رضى الله عنه  commanded that a woman be stoned to death and ‘Alī رضى الله عنه  advised him that that decision was wrong. ‘Umar رضى الله عنه  did not react the way we do, but remarked, “If not for ‘Alī, ‘Umar would surely have been destroyed.” This incident does not prove him a weak leader as the Rawāfiḍ would like us to believe, but shows him to be a human leader, capable of erring, but also humble enough to rectify himself as per the example he learnt from his master صلى الله عليه و سلم . Note also his use of the word, “destroyed.” He openly admitted that his hereafter could have been destroyed, and his appreciation to another Muslim who pointed out his error. 

I do not know of any similar incident in history to the following incident of Mu‘āwiyah رضى الله عنه  . During the final days of a truce with the Byzantines, he began advancing towards their territory with the intention of attacking as soon as the truce expired. Enemy territory was thus captured. An old man rebuked him that the march, even without attacking troops, was a violation of the word of the Muslims. Mu‘āwiyah رضى الله عنه  immediately admitted his error in interpretation and ordered a withdrawal, abandoning all the territory which had been acquired. 

A Rāfiḍī once “cursed” me, “You will be resurrected in the company of ‘Uthmān and Mu‘āwiyah.” I ask every reader to say Āmīn to that “curse”.

I do not see a change happening in the near future to the arrogant leadership Muslims live under. What we can do is adopt the attitude taught in the Qurān and Sunnah and which the pious inculcated in their lives.

سليمان الكندي

Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Ataturk, Snowden & Dajjal - Age of Deception

QUESTION:

requesting you to write something about #snowden , would like to hear your #perspective on the #issue, Insha'Allah

REPLY:

Your questions serve to reveal my ignorance. My reply is that I do not know the reality of this man. However, as you enquired on my perspective I shall share some thoughts on how I view current events.

 

The past century of deception

In studying ancient history, I find that the question marks, the unknowns, are due to lack of records, sometimes deliberate. For example, if memory serves me right, it was almost 20 years ago that I looked up the voluminous Cambridge History of Persia. It details 5 millennia of history, yet is mysteriously silent on the details of 1502 when Shāh Ismā‘īl proclaimed the land Rāfiḍī. It bothered me that there was no names to the regents ruling Persia in the name of the psychopathic butcher little boy. (Yes, I probably started reading at birth and my childhood spent in reading upset my mother for some reason). Yet as we approach our own times, when the minutest statistic is recorded, question marks and confusion increase rather than decrease. We are living in the age of deception. To me it appears that there was a growing trend of deceptive history round about WWI. The trend keeps amplifying and will probably reach a peak with the appearance of Dajjāl. I do not believe that he will appear in all his evil in sudden bang. Rather, his followers have laid the foundation for his deception and confusion for at least a century. Thus many events cannot be fully analysed at the moment. It is only in hindsight that the truth can be ascertained.

The demonic entity known as Ataturk

Turkey provides a sad yet excellent example of the above. The demon Ataturk began his campaign in the name of Islām! He deceived the masses loyal to Allāh, who hailed his supposed victories as a return to the days of the Righteous Khulafā. Had we been living in those days and you asked my perspective, might I not have exhorted you to support the great servant of Islām, Ataturk? It is only afterwards that he revealed his true colours, but some still refuse to discuss him being a Jew. It was also only after his death that analysts were able to piece together a picture showing the connivance of the British so-called enemy in allowing the demon to seize power.

Yet the Masons who ruled before him had set the groundwork. They were even more deceptive in their apparent zeal for Islām. Even the sincere scholars of the time thought them to be good Muslims and tried to cooperate with them in the Silk Letter Conspiracy. So again, this is an era in which it is very difficult to see through the fog. During my formal student days, I looked up to a certain scholar as the epitome of Muslim leadership. Today, my heart is convinced that he is in the pay of the CIA.

Who was Hitler?

Mainstream media, NOT conspiracy websites, carried a report in 2009 on the DNA tests on the skull which Soviet troops recovered from Hitler’s bunker. They revealed that the skull was in fact that of a woman under 40. In other words, it was not Hitler’s (unless something very bizarre was hiding under that moustache). In yet other words, Hitler did not die in the bunker. Yet every standard history book maintains the lie that he did. His rise to power, his false death and the fiction of the holocaust are events that have shaped our past century of deception and confusion. Never before have we had so much data and yet been so confused.

Snowden

I do not see any evidence for separating Snowden from this pattern of history. I am ill at ease with facts surrounding his story and how he magically has a new exciting story at opportune moments. That is my admittedly ill-informed perspective and as I said, I do not know the reality of this man.

سليمان الكندي

Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Ataturk, Snowden & Dajjal - Age of Deception

QUESTION: 

requesting you to write something about #snowden , would like to hear your #perspective on the #issue, Insha'Allah

REPLY:

Your questions serve to reveal my ignorance. My reply is that I do not know the reality of this man. However, as you enquired on my perspective I shall share some thoughts on how I view current events.

The past century of deception

In studying ancient history, I find that the question marks, the unknowns, are due to lack of records, sometimes deliberate. For example, if memory serves me right, it was almost 20 years ago that I looked up the voluminous Cambridge History of Persia. It details 5 millennia of history, yet is mysteriously silent on the details of 1502 when Shāh Ismā‘īl proclaimed the land Rāfiḍī. It bothered me that there was no names to the regents ruling Persia in the name of the psychopathic butcher little boy. (Yes, I probably started reading at birth and my childhood spent in reading upset my mother for some reason).  Yet as we approach our own times, when the minutest statistic is recorded, question marks and confusion increase rather than decrease. We are living in the age of deception. To me it appears that there was a growing trend of deceptive history round about WWI. The trend keeps amplifying and will probably reach a peak with the appearance of Dajjāl. I do not believe that he will appear in all his evil in sudden bang. Rather, his followers have laid the foundation for his deception and confusion for at least a century. Thus many events cannot be fully analysed at the moment. It is only in hindsight that the truth can be ascertained.

The demonic entity known as Ataturk

Turkey provides a sad yet excellent example of the above. The demon Ataturk began his campaign in the name of Islām! He deceived the masses loyal to Allāh, who hailed his supposed victories as a return to the days of the Righteous Khulafā. Had we been living in those days and you asked my perspective, might I not have exhorted you to support the great servant of Islām, Ataturk?  It is only afterwards that he revealed his true colours, but some still refuse to discuss him being a Jew. It was also only after his death that analysts were able to piece together a picture showing the connivance of the British so-called enemy in allowing the demon to seize power.

Yet the Masons who ruled before him had set the groundwork. They were even more deceptive in their apparent zeal for Islām. Even the sincere scholars of the time thought them to be good Muslims and tried to cooperate with them in the Silk Letter Conspiracy. So again, this is an era in which it is very difficult to see through the fog. During my formal student days, I looked up to a certain scholar as the epitome of Muslim leadership. Today, my heart is convinced that he is in the pay of the CIA.

Who was Hitler?

Mainstream media, NOT conspiracy websites, carried a report in 2009 on the DNA tests on the skull which Soviet troops recovered from Hitler’s bunker. They revealed that the skull was in fact that of a woman under 40. In other words, it was not Hitler’s (unless something very bizarre was hiding under that moustache). In yet other words, Hitler did not die in the bunker. Yet every standard history book maintains the lie that he did. His rise to power, his false death and the fiction of the holocaust are events that have shaped our past century of deception and confusion. Never before have we had so much data and yet been so confused.

Snowden

I do not see any evidence for separating Snowden from this pattern of history. I am ill at ease with facts surrounding his story and how he magically has a new exciting story at opportune moments. That is my admittedly ill-informed perspective and as I said, I do not know the reality of this man.

 


 سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Islamic State & Khilafah - Allah does not need pious instruments

Q: would it be too much for me to ask you for a blog post on the Islamic State and this establishment of the caliphate?

My reply:

Khilāfah [Caliphate] was established from the beginning of Islām, so it is nothing novel, but yes it is novel to our era. We have completed a full 9 decades of the first time in the history of Islām when the world has not seen Khilāfah. As such, it is understandable that Muslims think of this as something new and expect guidance. I regret that I cannot provide clear cut answers to a situation that is so nebulous, but I do hope to share some food for thought that this declaration entails.

An Essential Institution of Islām

في حديث عبد الله بن عمر عن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال [من خلع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة ولا حجة له ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية

‘Abdullāh ‘Umar رضي الله عنه narrates that the Prophet صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم said, “He who withdraws a hand from obedience [to the Khalīfah] will meet Allāh on the Day of Resurrection without any proof [for his disobedience] and he who dies without the pledge of allegiance [to the Khalīfah] around his neck, dies the death of pre-Islāmic Ignorance .” [Muslim]

If nothing else, the declaration on 1st Ramaḍān 1435, has at least broken the silence and apathy of Muslims on the essential institution of Khilāfah, abolished by Jewish Ataturk on Monday 28th Rajab 1342 (3rd March 1924) and aided by the Satanic Saudi regime at the Makkah Conference two years later. This institution’s importance can be gauged from the actions of the two greatest, most pious and most learned Muslims upon the departure of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم from this world, i.e. Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه and ‘Umar رضي الله عنه. It would be expected that these two distinguished personalities who bore him such love as we can never imagine, would have attended to the following as ultimate priorities:

· Washing the body of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم

· Shrouding the body of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم .

· Arranging the funeral prayers for Allāh’s Messengerصلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم .

However important these may be, the command of Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم took precedence to their personal feelings. They hastened to establish the Khilāfah before any of the above three stupendously important deeds. In my view, no amount of academic wrangling can match the singular example of Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه and ‘Umar رضي الله عنه in their haste to establish the Khilāfah.

If nothing else, at least the symbol

The Khilāfah of course did not remain in its pristine form, and did not always fulfil the functions of succession to Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم . Let alone all the duties of tending to the political, spiritual, social, welfare, military, education etc needs of the Muslims, there were times when the Khalīfah functioned in nothing but name. Nevertheless the Muslims recognised the command of Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم and the practical benefit for a single symbolic leader. Notably when the Mongols massacred Baghdād and the last ‘Abbāsī ruler, al-Musta‘ṣim, in 1258 (with Rāfiḍī collaboration), a relative of al-Musta‘ṣim fled to Egypt. There the generally accepted greatest living scholar, ‘Izzuddīn bin ‘Abdis Salām - Allāh’s mercy be upon him – pledged allegiance to him as the new Khalīfah. Understand that this Khalīfah had zero political function. His only function was to continue the office so that it would continuously run for 13 centuries. The Khalīfah only gained practical powers when the Turks assumed the office in 1517.

Not that it can be claimed that we were united before, but the degree of pettiness our fights have gained would have been tempered by the unifying figure of the Khalīfah. Thus when scholars of the Indian subcontinent sensed the danger the Khilāfah faced a century ago, they initiated the Khilāfah Movement to defend the institution by their word, deed, blood and wealth. On the other hand, ask why the Rawāfiḍ have never raised this issue since their 1979 revolution in Iran. Anything which will lead to the victory of the Sunnah (Islām) is not in their interests.

Allāh is not in need of the perfect pious to implement His will

I have not pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī, for want of information and direction. Yet I must say that the objections that the declaration is invalid and must be recanted, appear to me to be nothing more than one-liners giving no theological references. Some statements seem tinged with panic, ego and personal interests. It might be that the declaration is in fact invalid. Yet I want substance and not ego when making a religious argument. Furthermore, where were these scholars when they allowed the Jewish and Saudi plan of eliminating Khilāfah to go unchallenged for almost a full century?

What can the possible scenarios be?

· The declaration is valid. The Islāmic State is composed of the righteous and must be assisted. The CNN reports of atrocities are lies and it is immature of certain Muslims to condemn without verifying the facts on the ground, in a land they have never been to.

· The reports are correct, but distorted, not explaining actions for which there may be validity only comprehensible to those living there.

· The Islāmic State folk are really bad guys.

Even if the third scenario is true, and we are to disassociate from them, I would ask Muslims to reflect on the possibility that since they have done nothing to restore the Khilāfah for almost a century, might it not be that Allāh choses His instrument to wake us up, even if the instrument appears wrong to us? A good deed is not nullified because the performer is bad. A charity worker is indeed a hypocrite if he abuses his wife, but can we deny that he was the instrument to fill the bellies of the hungry? Consider the following:

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه …. لا يدخل الجنة إلا نفس مسلمة وإن الله ليؤيد هذا الدين بالرجل الفاجر

Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه narrates that Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم ordered Bilāl رضي الله عنه to announce, “None but a Muslim soul will enter Paradise, but indeed Allāh can strengthen this religion via the sinful man.” [al-Bukhārī]

Rather than our favourite pastime of fault finding, I would say that Muslims should instead discuss their forgotten obligation of restoring the Khilāfah. Indeed in Sūrah al-Isrā, Allāh calls Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم , ‘abd, “His Slave”. Four verses later He refers to the pagan Babylonians by the same word, in plural form, “Our Slaves,” simply because they were His instruments of punishing the rebellious Israelites. So let us not lose track of the real issue, simply because the instruments are imperfect or even bad people.

A more recent example is Tanzania. Oman ruled her with a harsh hand and treated the land as nothing but a means of acquiring slaves. Thus the name of Oman, Arabs and Islām stank in the nostrils of the locals. Germany expelled Oman, ended slavery and built infrastructure making transport to the interior possible. Muslims were no longer slavers and travelled to the interior to preach Islām. Islām spread more rapidly under Christian German rule than under Muslim Omani rule! Allāh fulfils His will as he wishes, not as we think to tell Him.

Mahdī

Allāh alone knows the future, but from the signs the Ḥadīth mention, it seems that time is running out. The Ḥadīth commands us to join with the Syrians when such time comes. Are we witnessing the preliminary events in our lifetime? Allāh knows best.

سليمان الكندي

Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

سليمان الكندي

Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Islamic State & Khilafah - Allah does not need pious instruments

Q: would it be too much for me to ask you for a blog post on the Islamic State and this establishment of the caliphate?

My reply:

Khilāfah [Caliphate] was established from the beginning of Islām, so it is nothing novel, but yes it is novel to our era. We have completed a full 9 decades of the first time in the history of Islām when the world has not seen Khilāfah. As such, it is understandable that Muslims think of this as something new and expect guidance. I regret that I cannot provide clear cut answers to a situation that is so nebulous, but I do hope to share some food for thought that this declaration entails.

 

An Essential Institution of Islām

في حديث عبد الله بن عمر عن نبي الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال [من خلع يداً من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة ولا حجة له ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية

‘Abdullāh ‘Umar رضي الله عنه narrates that the Prophet صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  said, “He who withdraws a hand from obedience [to the Khalīfah] will meet Allāh on the Day of Resurrection without any proof [for his disobedience] and he who dies without the pledge of allegiance [to the Khalīfah] around his neck, dies the death of pre-Islāmic Ignorance .” [Muslim]

If nothing else, the declaration on 1^st Ramaḍān 1435, has at least broken the silence and apathy of Muslims on the essential institution of Khilāfah, abolished by Jewish Ataturk on Monday 28^th  Rajab 1342 (3^rd March 1924) and aided by the Satanic Saudi regime at the Makkah Conference two years later. This institution’s importance can be gauged from the actions of the two greatest, most pious and most learned Muslims upon the departure of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  from this world, i.e. Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه and ‘Umar رضي الله عنه. It would be expected that these two distinguished personalities who bore him such love as we can never imagine, would have attended to the following as ultimate priorities:

·         Washing the body of Muḥammad  Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  

·         Shrouding the body of Muḥammad Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم .

·         Arranging the funeral prayers for Allāh’s Messengerصلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  .

However important these may be, the command of Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  took precedence to their personal feelings. They hastened to establish the Khilāfah before any of the above three stupendously important deeds. In my view, no amount of academic wrangling can match the singular example of Abū Bakr رضي الله عنه and ‘Umar رضي الله عنه in their haste to establish the Khilāfah.

If nothing else, at least the symbol

The Khilāfah of course did not remain in its pristine  form, and did not always fulfil the functions of succession to Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم . Let alone all the duties of tending to the political, spiritual, social, welfare, military, education etc needs of the Muslims, there were times when the Khalīfah functioned in nothing but name. Nevertheless the Muslims recognised the command of Allāh’s Messenger صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  and the practical benefit for a single symbolic leader. Notably when the Mongols massacred Baghdād and the last ‘Abbāsī ruler, al-Musta‘ṣim, in 1258 (with Rāfiḍī collaboration), a relative of al-Musta‘ṣim fled to Egypt. There the generally accepted greatest living scholar, ‘Izzuddīn bin ‘Abdis Salām  - Allāh’s mercy be upon him – pledged allegiance to him as the new Khalīfah. Understand that this Khalīfah had zero political function. His only function was to continue the office so that it would continuously run for 13 centuries. The Khalīfah only gained practical powers when the Turks assumed the office in 1517.

Not that it can be claimed that we were united before, but the degree of pettiness our fights have gained would have been tempered by the unifying figure of the Khalīfah. Thus when scholars of the Indian subcontinent sensed the danger the Khilāfah faced a century ago, they initiated the Khilāfah Movement to defend the institution by their word, deed, blood and wealth. On the other hand, ask why the Rawāfiḍ have never raised this issue since their 1979 revolution in Iran. Anything which will lead to the victory of the Sunnah (Islām) is not in their interests.

Allāh is not in need of the perfect pious to implement His will

I have not pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī, for want of information and direction. Yet I must say that the objections that the declaration is invalid and must be recanted, appear to me to be nothing more than one-liners giving no theological references.  Some statements seem tinged with panic, ego and personal interests.  It might be that the declaration is in fact invalid. Yet I want substance and not ego when making a religious argument. Furthermore, where were these scholars when they allowed the Jewish and Saudi plan of eliminating Khilāfah to go unchallenged for almost a full century?

What can the possible scenarios be?

·         The declaration is valid. The Islāmic State is composed of the righteous and must be assisted. The CNN reports of atrocities are lies and it is immature of certain Muslims to condemn without verifying the facts on the ground, in a land they have never been to.

·         The reports are correct, but distorted, not explaining actions for which there may be validity only comprehensible to those living there.

·         The Islāmic State folk are really bad guys.

Even if the third scenario is true, and we are to disassociate from them, I would ask Muslims to reflect on the possibility that since they have done nothing to restore the Khilāfah for almost a century, might it not be that Allāh choses His instrument to wake us up, even if the instrument appears wrong to us? A good deed is not nullified because the performer is bad. A charity worker is indeed a hypocrite if he abuses his wife, but can we deny that he was the instrument to fill the bellies of the hungry? Consider the following:

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه …. لا يدخل الجنة إلا نفس مسلمة وإن الله ليؤيد هذا الدين بالرجل الفاجر

Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه  narrates that Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  ordered Bilāl رضي الله عنه  to announce, “None but a Muslim soul will enter Paradise, but indeed Allāh can strengthen this religion via the sinful man.” [al-Bukhārī]

Rather than our favourite pastime of fault finding, I would say that Muslims should instead discuss their forgotten obligation of restoring the  Khilāfah. Indeed in Sūrah al-Isrā, Allāh calls Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم , ‘abd, “His Slave”. Four verses later He refers to the pagan Babylonians by the same word, in plural form, “Our Slaves,” simply because they were His instruments of punishing the rebellious Israelites. So let us not lose track of the real issue, simply because the instruments are imperfect or even bad people.

A more recent example is Tanzania. Oman ruled her with a harsh hand and treated the land as nothing but a means of acquiring slaves. Thus the name of Oman, Arabs and Islām stank in the nostrils of the locals. Germany expelled Oman, ended slavery and built infrastructure making transport to the interior possible. Muslims were no longer slavers and travelled to the interior to preach Islām. Islām spread more rapidly under Christian German rule than under Muslim Omani rule! Allāh fulfils His will as he wishes, not as we think to tell Him.

Mahdī

Allāh alone knows the future, but from the signs the Ḥadīth mention, it seems that time is running out. The Ḥadīth commands us to join with the Syrians when such time comes. Are we witnessing the preliminary events in our lifetime? Allāh knows best.

سليمان الكندي

 Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

  

سليمان الكندي

 Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi