Who is the Bravest of People?

عن علي أنه قال: أخبروني من أشجع الناس؟ فقالوا أنت قال: أما إني ما بارزت أحدا إلا انتصفت منه ولكن أخبروني بأشجع الناس قالوا لا نعلم فمن قال أبو بكر إنه لما كان يوم بدر فجعلتم لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عريشا فقلنا من يكون مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لئلا يهوي إليه أحد من المشركين فوالله ما دنا منا أحد إلا أبو بكر شاهرا بالسيف على رأس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يهوي إليه أحد إلا هوى إليه فهو أشجع الناس قال علي رضي الله عنه ولقد رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأخذته قريش فهذا يجبأه وهذا يتلتله وهم يقولون: أنت الذي جعلت الآلهة إلها واحدا قال: فوالله ما دنا منا أحد إلا أبو بكر يضرب هذا ويجبأ هذا ويتلتل هذا وهو يقول ويلكم أتقتلون رجلا أن يقول ربي الله ثم رفع على بردة كانت عليه فبكى حتى اخضلت لحيته ثم قال أنشدكم الله أمؤمن آل فرعون خير أم أبو بكر فسكت القوم فقال ألا تجيبونني فوالله لساعة من أبي بكر خير من ألف ساعة من مثل مؤمن آل فرعون ذاك رجل يكتم إيمانه وهذا رجل أعلن إيمانه. أخرجه البزار في مسنده

This might not be a full article and I do not intend writing soon, but upon reading this narration from Musnad al-Bazzār, my heart yearned to share it with others. I intended writing that may Allāh accept the personality described here, but then thought, who am I to think that my supplication of acceptance is needed for one so already accepted? So in following the way of the pious and learned, I can at least say, “May Allāh be pleased with him.”

ʿAlī رضي الله عنه  asked, “Tell me, who is the bravest of people?”

 “You!” they replied. 

He said, “As for me, I never fought anyone except that I exacted justice from him. Tell me, who is the bravest of people?” 

They replied, “Then we do not know who.” 

 He said, “It is ʾAbū Bakr. At the Battle of Badr, you built a hut for Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم  . We then said, ‘Who will be with Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم  so that no Mushrik may attack him?’ By Allāh! Not one of us stepped forward except ʾAbū Bakr with his sword drawn by the head of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم . None came to attack except that he attacked him. So he is the bravest of people.”

ʾAlī رضي الله عنه  continued, “Indeed I saw the Quraysh grabbing Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم . One held him while another violently shook him. They were saying, ‘You are the one who made the gods one!’ By Allāh! None of us dared go near except Abū Bakr. He struck at one of them, pulled back another and shook another, whilst saying, ‘Woe unto you! Do you kill a man for saying my Lord is Allāh?’”

ʿAlī رضي الله عنه  then raised the shawl which was upon him and wept until his beard became wet. He then said, “I implore you in Allāh’s name, tell me, is the believer of the people of Pharaoh better or is Abū Bakr?”

The people kept silent, so he said, “Will you not answer me? By Allāh! A single moment of Abū Bakr is superior to a thousand of the likes of the believer of the people of Pharaoh. That was a man who hid his faith and this is a man who publicly announced his faith.” 

سليمان الكندي 

Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Why I Boycott without believing in BDS

 

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in South Africa is currently engaged in a very energetic boycott campaign against Woolworths. I am not a supporter of the economic boycott, and harbour reservations about it. Nevertheless I have not bought a single item from Woolworths since the call was made. In particular I am suffering withdrawal symptoms from no longer drinking Woolworths milk… So do I have double standards or am I confused? I do not think either applies here. Acting contrary to one’s opinion is not the same as abandoning a principle. I shall seek to explain some of my reservations, but why I nevertheless heed the call.

The Racism of Palestinian Activism

To deny the importance of Palestine is to deny the Qurān and Ḥadīth. There are no two ways about it. Yet I am terribly disturbed how the blood of some Muslims is in effect regarded as less sacred than that of others. While Ghazzah was attacked during the Ramaḍān of 1435, Muslims were slaughtered in Central African Republic in far greater numbers. There were no calls for boycotts and no marches on embassies. The brutal fact is that Africa does not have the glamour of Palestine and still too many Muslims have less value for those of black skin. The very least one can expect from Muslim activists is a declaration that Palestine is being focussed on for strategic reasons, but our hearts are also with the other oppressed Muslims. Yet it seems that Africans, Kashmiris, Burmese, Uighurs and so many others do not deserve even such a modicum of respect.

Transforming Palestine into a secular idol

I accept that this heading is provocative and requires thorough explanation. If Allāh wills, I shall write separately on this and explain myself. For now, any act devoid of Allāh is not Islām. There are those who tout the economic benefits of Zakāh; the political dividend of Ḥajj, etc. without a mention of Allāh. Whatever secondary benefits may exist in a deed, the primary focus is the command of Allāh and drawing closer to Him. Removing Allāh from the equation secularises an outwardly Islāmic act, and so does Palestine become an idol to many.

Allāh’s Messenger cancelled sanctions

I find it incredibly dishonest of some who use the example of Thumāmah bin Uthāl رضي الله عنه as religious proof for a boycott, when the reverse should be true. Thumāmah رضي الله عنه was an ardent enemy of Islām and the chief of Banū Ḥanīfah, the main suppliers of wheat to Makkah. Upon his acceptance of Islām he banned exports to Makkah which was already suffering from a famine. The idolaters begged for mercy. They could have been starved into submission, but Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . ordered Thumāmah رضي الله عنه to cease sanctions against Makkah. So how do people clutch at straws and derive legal justification from a cancelled act?

Allāh’s Messenger’s politics and economics were proactive not reactive

When he entered al-Madīnah, the local Arabs were farmers and the Jews were traders. He established a new business district for the Muslims and instructed ‘Abduraḥmān bin Awf رضي الله عنه to teach the Arabs how to trade. In other words, Allāh’s Messneger صلى الله عليه وسلم taught the Muslims to be constructive, economically empowered and self-sufficient. Muslims today grab the other end of the stick. Jews control almost every aspect of economic activity in the world. Is there any processed food or manufactured item which can be guaranteed to be free of Jewish influence in terms of the ingredients and raw materials? (Most are not even aware that a flavouring can contain hundreds of ingredients in itself, let alone the other ingredients which can compose a food item.) The question is moot, for the Sunnah was not to boycott them but to establish the economy of the Muslims. There certainly are Muslim businessmen who empower the Ummah, but too often those with capital seek the quickest and easiest buck, or are princes who burn the Ummah’s wealth in the casinos and brothels of the west.

Liberation will only be with the sword

Palestine will only be liberated through war. That is clear from the Ḥadīth. Interim measures should remain in that context if we believe in the Ḥadīth. It seems to me that a focus on other methods distract from preparation for the real battle, however far off it may be. The two need not be contradictory, but interim measures should not become permanent, nor should sight on the ultimate goal be lost.

Legitimising partition?

I not comfortable with the position that atrocities, confiscations or other wrong doing is somehow worse if perpetrated in the West Bank as opposed to the land regarded as the “legitimate” Zionist state. Companies operating in the West Bank are somehow treated as if they are more evil than those assisting the Zionist terrorism elsewhere. To me this presents a problem in the long term, because if we agree with such a position, it tacitly confirms us as recognising the 1948 Usurpation and limiting our “disagreement” to only the rest of Palestine. All of Palestine has been usurped, and all must be liberated, whether the 1948 lands or the 1967 lands.

Targeting a fashionable and glamorous enemy

It is fashionable and glamorous to attack the Zionist entity. Whoever does so, is lauded as a good and heroic Muslim/ Socialist/ humanitarian etc, depending on who the audience is. Yet almost every Muslim organisation, government, leader and scholar remains unconscionably silent on the Saudi-Sisi axis laying siege to Ghazzah to the South. Whoever criticizes this axis is not lauded as a hero. Such a person is an unhinged radical who is in fact a traitor to the glorious Palestinian cause. Never mind that Ghazzah can have access to the world if a supposedly Muslim country no longer assists the Zionists in their siege. Never mind the billions the CIA lackeys of the House of Saud spend to prop up Pharaoh Sisi. For too long have the Muslims been complicit in allowing a Dajjāl-like regime to rule Makkah. However important Palestine or other issues might be, it makes no sense to at all to target our focus on the bleeding limbs of Islām, when the head of Islām is ruled by such a satanic regime.

So why have I heeded the boycott call?

The above arguments are my interpretation. Too many today act as if their personal interpretation is divine revelation and tolerate no dissent. Two years ago I was sorely disappointed when a scholar of oceans of knowledge, whose drop I cannot equal, mentioned during a presentation on differences of opinion, that scholars who differed with him on a particular issue will end up on the garbage dump of history… “…where they belong”! Let me point out again, that his topic was “Differences of opinion”.
I pray that I never attain such levels of arrogance and dogmatism. In this issue of boycott, a body of Muslims have made a decision on a certain tactic and method of engaging the enemy. I disagree. Yet I shall put all my arguments aside for the sake of a united front, concerted action and joining those who at least are doing something. Most importantly, this is an opportunity to save my soul from joining those who equate their personal views to the decree of Allāh.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Why I Boycott without believing in BDS

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in South Africa is currently engaged in a very energetic boycott campaign against Woolworths. I am not a supporter of the economic boycott, and harbour reservations about it. Nevertheless I have not bought a single item from Woolworths since the call was made. In particular I am suffering withdrawal symptoms from no longer drinking Woolworths milk… So do I have double standards or am I confused? I do not think either applies here. Acting contrary to one’s opinion is not the same as abandoning a principle. I shall seek to explain some of my reservations, but why I nevertheless heed the call.

The Racism of Palestinian Activism

To deny the importance of Palestine is to deny the Qurān and Ḥadīth. There are no two ways about it. Yet I am terribly disturbed how the blood of some Muslims is in effect regarded as less sacred than that of others. While Ghazzah was attacked during the Ramaḍān of 1435, Muslims were slaughtered in Central African Republic in far greater numbers. There were no calls for boycotts and no marches on embassies. The brutal fact is that Africa does not have the glamour of Palestine and still too many Muslims have less value for those of black skin. The very least one can expect from Muslim activists is a declaration that Palestine is being focussed on for strategic reasons, but our hearts are also with the other oppressed Muslims. Yet it seems that Africans, Kashmiris, Burmese, Uighurs and so many others do not deserve even such a modicum of respect.

Transforming Palestine into a secular idol

I accept that this heading is provocative and requires thorough explanation. If Allāh wills, I shall write separately on this and explain myself. For now, any act devoid of Allāh is not Islām. There are those who tout the economic benefits of Zakāh; the political dividend of Ḥajj, etc. without a mention of Allāh. Whatever secondary benefits may exist in a deed, the primary focus is the command of Allāh and drawing closer to Him. Removing Allāh from the equation secularises an outwardly Islāmic act, and so does Palestine become an idol to many.

Allāh’s Messenger cancelled sanctions

I find it incredibly dishonest of some who use the example of Thumāmah bin Uthāl رضي الله عنه as religious proof for a boycott, when the reverse should be true. Thumāmah رضي الله عنه was an ardent enemy of Islām and the chief of Banū Ḥanīfah, the main suppliers of wheat to Makkah. Upon his acceptance of Islām he banned exports to Makkah which was already suffering from a famine. The idolaters begged for mercy. They could have been starved into submission, but Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . ordered Thumāmah رضي الله عنه to cease sanctions against Makkah. So how do people clutch at straws and derive legal justification from a cancelled act?

Allāh’s Messenger’s politics and economics were proactive not reactive

When he entered al-Madīnah, the local Arabs were farmers and the Jews were traders. He established a new business district for the Muslims and instructed ‘Abduraḥmān bin Awf رضي الله عنه to teach the Arabs how to trade. In other words, Allāh’s Messneger صلى الله عليه وسلم taught the Muslims to be constructive, economically empowered and self-sufficient. Muslims today grab the other end of the stick. Jews control almost every aspect of economic activity in the world. Is there any processed food or manufactured item which can be guaranteed to be free of Jewish influence in terms of the ingredients and raw materials? (Most are not even aware that a flavouring can contain hundreds of ingredients in itself, let alone the other ingredients which can compose a food item.) The question is moot, for the Sunnah was not to boycott them but to establish the economy of the Muslims. There certainly are Muslim businessmen who empower the Ummah, but too often those with capital seek the quickest and easiest buck, or are princes who burn the Ummah’s wealth in the casinos and brothels of the west.

Liberation will only be with the sword

Palestine will only be liberated through war. That is clear from the Ḥadīth. Interim measures should remain in that context if we believe in the Ḥadīth. It seems to me that a focus on other methods distract from preparation for the real battle, however far off it may be. The two need not be contradictory, but interim measures should not become permanent, nor should sight on the ultimate goal be lost.

Legitimising partition?

I not comfortable with the position that atrocities, confiscations or other wrong doing is somehow worse if perpetrated in the West Bank as opposed to the land regarded as the “legitimate” Zionist state. Companies operating in the West Bank are somehow treated as if they are more evil than those assisting the Zionist terrorism elsewhere. To me this presents a problem in the long term, because if we agree with such a position, it tacitly confirms us as recognising the 1948 Usurpation and limiting our “disagreement” to only the rest of Palestine. All of Palestine has been usurped, and all must be liberated, whether the 1948 lands or the 1967 lands.

Targeting a fashionable and glamorous enemy

It is fashionable and glamorous to attack the Zionist entity. Whoever does so, is lauded as a good and heroic Muslim/ Socialist/ humanitarian etc, depending on who the audience is. Yet almost every Muslim organisation, government, leader and scholar remains unconscionably silent on the Saudi-Sisi axis laying siege to Ghazzah to the South. Whoever criticizes this axis is not lauded as a hero. Such a person is an unhinged radical who is in fact a traitor to the glorious Palestinian cause. Never mind that Ghazzah can have access to the world if a supposedly Muslim country no longer assists the Zionists in their siege. Never mind the billions the CIA lackeys of the House of Saud spend to prop up Pharaoh Sisi. For too long have the Muslims been complicit in allowing a Dajjāl-like regime to rule Makkah. However important Palestine or other issues might be, it makes no sense to at all to target our focus on the bleeding limbs of Islām, when the head of Islām is ruled by such a satanic regime.

So why have I heeded the boycott call?

The above arguments are my interpretation. Too many today act as if their personal interpretation is divine revelation and tolerate no dissent. Two years ago I was sorely disappointed when a scholar of oceans of knowledge, whose drop I cannot equal, mentioned during a presentation on differences of opinion, that scholars who differed with him on a particular issue will end up on the garbage dump of history… “…where they belong”! Let me point out again, that his topic was “Differences of opinion”.
I pray that I never attain such levels of arrogance and dogmatism. In this issue of boycott, a body of Muslims have made a decision on a certain tactic and method of engaging the enemy. I disagree. Yet I shall put all my arguments aside for the sake of a united front, concerted action and joining those who at least are doing something. Most importantly, this is an opportunity to save my soul from joining those who equate their personal views to the decree of Allāh.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Open “Mosque” – why can’t Muslims see wood for the trees?

Recently a man of questionable beliefs and even more questionable motives began an institute in Cape Town, South Africa, which he called the “Open Mosque,” meaning that it is open to all and sundry, irrespective of belief, gender etc. The purpose of this article is not to discuss the “Mosque” in itself – which wouldn’t serve much purpose anyway seeing that South Africa represents a small proportion of my readership, there are more readers in Ukraine than South Africa. Rather I’m simply using this incident to highlight an attitude problem amongst Muslims.

Belief supersedes deeds

This is a basic principle of our faith which many Muslims fail to understand and about which I had written previously. It applies both ways:

• We can appreciate the good deeds of a disbeliever, but his deeds are null in the Hereafter. If we are truly his well-wishers we should pave his way to belief. Ultimately correct belief outweighs a good deed of a disbeliever.


• The evil of a Muslim must be abhorred, but as long as he believes, the door of forgiveness remains open. Ultimately an evil deed of a Muslim is less than incorrect belief.

What irritates me, is not just how the masses fail to understand this, but worse, even those who are supposed to be learned and pious fail to distinguish between primary issues (belief) and secondary issues (deeds). This was again demonstrated in their reaction to the Open “Mosque” issue. However, I should mention that I was told that a statement of the Muslim Judicial Council, which I have not read, does indeed correctly target the issue of belief before other issues.

Objectionable Beliefs

Mr Tāj Hargey of the Open “Mosque” was raised a Qādiānī, a group whose denial of the Finality of Prophethood places them outside the fold of Islām. Although his current project makes no mention of that heresy, the onus remains on him to clarify his beliefs, under these circumstances.

The great Muḥāddith and Jurist, al-Imām an-Nawawī had stated that if we hear someone recite the call to Prayer, it would suffice to regard him as a Muslim. However, if that person is a Jew, we may demand clarification. The reason being that some Jews had no problem in declaring, “I testify that there is no god but Allāh. I testify that Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh.” However, they intended that Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is indeed Allāh’s Messenger, but only for the Arabs, not the Jews.

Typical of a denier of the Finality of Porphethood, Hargey claims that his Islām is solely from the Qurān, he does not accept Ḥadīth. These are primary issues of belief and these are the issues which need to be tackled.

The Gay Temple

Because of primary belief being wrong, a host of secondary issues (do we even dignify them by calling them juristic issues?) then arise. Mr Hargey is adamant that there is no distinction between the sexes, hence females may lead the prayers of males in his institute. All are welcome and there is no problem in being openly homosexual. Thus Muslim social media denounces his place as the “Gay Temple.” This is not the man’s primary objective. It is one of many issues that arise because he rejects the teachings of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . Even if that were his focus, it would remain secondary to rejecting Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم .

This is but an example, and I am not interested in giving this man more publicity, which he appears to crave. The issue is the inability of Muslims to prioritise belief over deeds. Muslims also often act immaturely and thus lose debates before they even commence. Sensationalising one secondary issue out of a host of issues and ignoring the primary issue does not help our cause. Rather by making us seem irrational, it strengthens the opposition.

Another point is why specifically was the term “Gay Temple” coined? Why were other issues not focussed on? None of the messages I read could even verify that a single open homosexual was following the man, although it may be. My opinion is those who propagate this term suffer from another malady afflicting the Muslims, that of selective morality. Homosexuality is a minority phenomenon and every Muslim knows that it is condemned in the Qurān. Yet why should we fall victim to selective morality, forget the sins which the majority is involved in, and feel justified in focusing on the minority phenomenon? We feel so comfortable in condemning sins we are not involved in and refuse to put our own house in order.

Occurrences like the Open “Mosque” do not only reveal heretics and lunatics posing as Muslims, but also our immaturity, love of sensationalism and selective morality.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Open “Mosque” – why can’t Muslims see wood for the trees?

Recently a man of questionable beliefs and even more questionable motives began an institute in Cape Town, South Africa, which he called the “Open Mosque,” meaning that it is open to all and sundry, irrespective of belief, gender etc. The purpose of this article is not to discuss the “Mosque” in itself – which wouldn’t serve much purpose anyway seeing that South Africa represents a small proportion of my readership, there are more readers in Ukraine than South Africa. Rather I’m simply using this incident to highlight an attitude problem amongst Muslims.

Belief supersedes deeds

 

This is a basic principle of our faith which many Muslims fail to understand and about which I had written previously. It applies both ways:

·         We can appreciate the good deeds of a disbeliever, but his deeds are null in the Hereafter. If we are truly his well-wishers we should pave his way to belief. Ultimately correct belief outweighs a good deed of a disbeliever.

·         The evil of a Muslim must be abhorred, but as long as he believes, the door of forgiveness remains open. Ultimately an evil deed of a Muslim is less than incorrect belief.

What irritates me, is not just how the masses fail to understand this, but worse, even those who are supposed to be learned and pious fail to distinguish between primary issues (belief) and secondary issues (deeds). This was again demonstrated in their reaction to the Open “Mosque” issue.However, I should mention that I was told that a statement of the Muslim Judicial Council, which I have not read, does indeed correctly target the issue of belief before other issues.

Objectionable Beliefs

Mr Tāj Hargey of the Open “Mosque” was raised a Qādiānī, a group whose denial of the Finality of Prophethood places them outside the fold of Islām. Although his current project makes no mention of that heresy, the onus remains on him to clarify his beliefs, under these circumstances.

The great Muḥāddith and Jurist, al-Imām an-Nawawī had stated that if we hear someone recite the call to Prayer, it would suffice to regard him as a Muslim. However, if that person is a Jew, we may demand clarification. The reason being that some Jews had no problem in declaring, “I testify that there is no god but Allāh. I testify that Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh.” However, they intended that Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم  is indeed Allāh’s Messenger, but only for the Arabs, not the Jews.   

Typical of a denier of the Finality of Porphethood, Hargey claims that his Islām is solely from the Qurān, he does not accept Ḥadīth. These are primary issues of belief and these are the issues which need to be tackled.

The Gay Temple

 

Because of primary belief being wrong, a host of secondary issues (do we even dignify them by calling them juristic issues?) then arise. Mr Hargey is adamant that there is no distinction between the sexes, hence females may lead the prayers of males in his institute. All are welcome and there is no problem in being openly homosexual. Thus Muslim social media denounces his place as the “Gay Temple.” This is not the man’s primary objective. It is one of many issues that arise because he rejects the teachings of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . Even if that were his focus, it would remain secondary to rejecting Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم .  

This is but an example, and I am not interested in giving this man more publicity, which he appears to crave. The issue is the inability of Muslims to prioritise belief over deeds. Muslims also often act immaturely and thus lose debates before they even commence. Sensationalising one secondary issue out of a host of issues and ignoring the primary issue does not help our cause. Rather by making us seem irrational, it strengthens the opposition.

 Another point is why specifically was the term “Gay Temple” coined? Why were other issues not focussed on? None of the messages I read could even verify that a single open homosexual was following the man, although it may be. My opinion is those who propagate this term suffer from another malady afflicting the Muslims, that of selective morality. Homosexuality is a minority phenomenon and every Muslim knows that it is condemned in the Qurān. Yet why should we fall victim to selective morality, forget the sins which the majority is involved in, and feel justified in focusing on the minority phenomenon? We feel so comfortable in condemning sins we are not involved in and refuse to put our own house in order.  

Occurrences like the Open “Mosque” do not only reveal heretics and lunatics posing as Muslims, but also our immaturity, love of sensationalism and selective morality.

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Scotland Referendum – Reflections for Muslims

Having no blood affiliation with the Scots whatsoever, and having never set foot in Scotland, I’m not exactly sure why I was so intensely fascinated with the Scottish referendum and the possibility of an independent Scotland. For the past 2-3 years I have read every article on Scottish independence on BBC News and more elsewhere. It might be that in a world where one has to toe the line of the powers that be or shut up, that a cause re-emerging after 3 centuries would hold an appeal to this rebel at heart.

I believe that an independent Scotland would have been much friendlier to Islām, than the blood-thirsty British Empire. Yet we also believe that not a leaf may blow in the wind, except with the permission of its Creator. The King of kings did not will an independent Scotland, and this must be accepted, whatever good we might have seen in it. Nevertheless, the referendum brought some issues to light which we as Muslims might reflect on.

Facts must precede emotion

Whether true or not, the impression was created that the Independence Movement had no answers and based their cause solely on emotional appeal. The Imperialists supposedly had solid facts to back their assertions. I was extremely disappointed with a Scottish Muslim journalist, who mostly touted emotional slogans, and hardly ever touched on concrete reasons why independence should be supported or challenged the Imperialist camp’s arguments. Thus the journalist contributed to the impression of an emotional movement devoid of reason.

What we should reflect on is how often we as Muslims react with raw emotion instead of looking at the facts. I have touched upon this issue previously when discussing our reaction to the video, Innocence of Muslims.

At times attention must be paid to what impression is created

When ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with him) wished to slay the hypocrites, Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم advised that the impression would be created that Muḥammad kills his own followers. Although not true, the wise leader صلى الله عليه وسلم had to pay attention to the impression created, not just the reality. With the media against them, the Scots got portrayed as brainless romantic fanatics and this was a factor against them.

Egos vs Issues

I am most impressed with the dignity and dedication of Mr Alexander Salmond, the leader of the Independence movement. Throughout the campaign, the supposedly rational Imperialists ceaselessly attacked the character and intentions of the supposedly emotional Mr Salmond. The dignity of Mr Salmond in not stooping to their level and remaining focussed on his cause and its issues, is an example our Muslim leaders could do well to emulate. I believe that promoting what you believe to be right is closer to the Sunnah than hammering at each other’s character flaws, real or imagined. It is regrettable that a man of such intelligence has not seen the light of Islām as yet. May Allāh bless him with the gift of Islām.

Listening to a speech here and there from George Galloway on Palestine never made me realise what a titanic ego the man possesses. This only became apparent to me during the referendum campaign. As the man is not a Muslim, it might be wrong of me to impose Islāmic ethics on him, but as a matter of reflection, Muslims should always be careful as to whether they are promoting Islām or themselves. Riyā’ or ostentation is a most dangerous spiritual malady which can destroy one’s good deeds.

Promises of the enemy

The Imperialists promised the Scots greater autonomy if they voted against independence. They fell for the ruse and got a rude awakening the very next day when the falsehood of the promises was exposed. It would have been comforting if we were in a position to warn them not to be so naïve, but the reality is that Muslims will gladly slit their own throats if the enemy promises them that there is benefit in that. For how many more decades will certain Palestinians continue to believe that Zionists are genuine peace partners when the facts on the ground show that the Zionists must be laughing themselves sick at such naïveté? They ignore the foretelling of the Ḥadīth and thus continue to humiliate themselves.

The promise of poverty

The threat of poverty which the Imperialists intimidated the Scots with, is the same which Satan promises the believers, as mentioned in the Qurān. Some Scots brushed the threat aside as scaremongering and some were willing to accept an economic price in exchange for their freedom and beliefs. The majority however caved in.

As a Muslim I should ask myself if I cave in to Satan’s threat of poverty in my daily life. Do I tell the truth in my business dealings even if it may lead to a lower profit? Do I falsify documents? Do I give false testimony? Do I hide defects in my product? Do I oppress my tenants? Do I consume interest? Am I willing to accept a lower paying job in which my religion is safe rather than a higher paying or more glamorous job in which I have to compromise my faith every day? Is Satan’s promise or Allāh’s promise greater to me?

Steadfastness during hardship

It appears that many Scots are already galvanising for round 2. A resounding defeat is not sufficient reason for a dedicated person to surrender his or her cause. As Muslims we are living through one of the most difficult periods of our history. If the Anti-Christ does emerge during this generation, which is possible, it will be THE MOST DIFFICULT period of history. If the Scots can remain steadfast to their ideal, why can we not be steadfast to the greatest ideal and the ultimate truth?

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi

Scotland Referendum – Reflections for Muslims

Having no blood affiliation with the Scots whatsoever, and having never set foot in Scotland, I’m not exactly sure why I was so intensely fascinated with the Scottish referendum and the possibility of an independent Scotland. For the past 2-3 years I have read every article on Scottish independence on BBC News and more elsewhere. It might be that in a world where one has to toe the line of the powers that be or shut up, that a cause re-emerging after 3 centuries would hold an appeal to this rebel at heart.

 I believe that an independent Scotland would have been much friendlier to Islām, than the blood-thirsty British Empire. Yet we also believe that not a leaf may blow in the wind, except with the permission of its Creator. The King of kings did not will an independent Scotland, and this must be accepted, whatever good we might have seen in it. Nevertheless, the referendum brought some issues to light which we as Muslims might reflect on.

Facts must precede emotion

Whether true or not, the impression was created that the Independence Movement had no answers and based their cause solely on emotional appeal. The Imperialists supposedly had solid facts to back their assertions. I was extremely disappointed with a Scottish Muslim journalist, who mostly touted emotional slogans, and hardly ever touched on concrete reasons why independence should be supported or challenged the Imperialist camp’s arguments. Thus the journalist contributed to the impression of an emotional movement devoid of reason.    

What we should reflect on is how often we as Muslims react with raw emotion instead of looking at the facts. I have touched upon this issue previously when discussing our reaction to the video, Innocence of Muslims.

At times attention must be paid to what impression is created

When ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with him) wished to slay the hypocrites, Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم   advised that the impression would be created that Muḥammad kills his own followers. Although not true, the wise leader صلى الله عليه وسلم   had to pay attention to the impression created, not just the reality. With the media against them, the Scots got portrayed as brainless romantic fanatics and this was a factor against them.

Egos vs Issues

I am most impressed with the dignity and dedication of Mr Alexander Salmond, the leader of the Independence movement. Throughout the campaign, the supposedly rational Imperialists ceaselessly attacked the character and intentions of the supposedly emotional Mr Salmond. The dignity of Mr Salmond in not stooping to their level and remaining focussed on his cause and its issues, is an example our Muslim leaders could do well to emulate. I believe that promoting what you believe to be right is closer to the Sunnah than hammering at each other’s character flaws, real or imagined. It is regrettable that a man of such intelligence has not seen the light of Islām as yet. May Allāh bless him with the gift of Islām.

Listening to a speech here and there from George Galloway on Palestine never made me realise what a titanic ego the man possesses. This only became apparent to me during the referendum campaign. As the man is not a Muslim, it might be wrong of me to impose Islāmic ethics on him, but as a matter of reflection, Muslims should always be careful as to whether they are promoting Islām or themselves. Riyā’ or ostentation is a most dangerous spiritual malady which can destroy one’s good deeds.     

Promises of the enemy

The Imperialists promised the Scots greater autonomy if they voted against independence. They fell for the ruse and got a rude awakening the very next day when the falsehood of the promises was exposed. It would have been comforting if we were in a position to warn them not to be so naïve, but the reality is that Muslims will gladly slit their own throats if the enemy promises them that there is benefit in that. For how many more decades will certain Palestinians continue to believe that Zionists are genuine peace partners when the facts on the ground show that the Zionists must be laughing themselves sick at such naïveté?  They ignore the foretelling of the Ḥadīth and thus continue to humiliate themselves.

The promise of poverty

The threat of poverty which the Imperialists intimidated the Scots with, is the same which Satan promises the believers, as mentioned in the Qurān. Some Scots brushed the threat aside as scaremongering and some were willing to accept an economic price in exchange for their freedom and beliefs. The majority however caved in.

As a Muslim I should ask myself if I cave in to Satan’s threat of poverty in my daily life. Do I tell the truth in my business dealings even if it may lead to a lower profit? Do I falsify documents? Do I give false testimony? Do I hide defects in my product? Do I oppress my tenants? Do I consume interest? Am I willing to accept a lower paying job in which my religion is safe rather than a higher paying or more glamorous job in which I have to compromise my faith every day? Is Satan’s promise or Allāh’s promise greater to me?

Steadfastness during hardship

It appears that many Scots are already galvanising for round 2. A resounding defeat is not sufficient reason for a dedicated person to surrender his or her cause. As Muslims we are living through one of the most difficult periods of our history. If the Anti-Christ does emerge during this generation, which is possible, it will be THE MOST DIFFICULT period of history. If the Scots can remain steadfast to their ideal, why can we not be steadfast to the greatest ideal and the ultimate truth?

سليمان الكندي
Twitter: @sulayman_Kindi