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

Slander Against Abu Sufyaan

Mail sent to me:

 

Here is a post of a XXXXX scholar - XXXXXX- who is both provocative and controversial. He denies being Shi'i or Zaydi:

"KNOW YOUR HISTORY: The night before the Conquest of Makkah, the leader of the Kuffar of Quraysh, head of the Umayyad Clan and chief enemy of Islam Abu-Sufyan was brought to the Tent of the Prophet (SAW) under the protection of al-Abbas (RA). When Umar (RA) saw him, he continuously tried to kill him, but the Prophet (SAW) prevented Umar (RA) from that due to the protection granted by his uncle al-Abbas (RA). Thereafter, the Prophet said to Abu-Sufyan: "Isn't it high time you testified that there is no God but Allah?". Abu-Sufyan replied: "I guessed if there was another God, he would have helped me by now!". Then the Prophet (SAW) said: "Isn't it high time you testified that I am the Messenger of Allah?". Abu-Sufyan replied: "My heart is still doubtful of that". Then al-Abbas (RA) looked at Abu-Sufyan and said: "WOE UNTO YOU! TESTIFY OR I WILL CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF". So Abu-Sufyan proclaimed the Shahadah." (سيرة ابن هشام و تاريخ الطبري و سيرة ابن كثير)

And here are comments from him on this post:

"The Prophet (SAW) considered Abu-Sufyan and his sons amongst the Mu'allafati Qulubuhum i.e. "Those new converts who hearts must still be SOFTENED TOWARDS ISLAM"!!! This was obvious as he had NOT accepted Islam by his free-will but due to fear. Thats why they were given lots of MONEY after Hunayn but the proper Sahabah were not given anything or very little (they didnt care about Dunya in any case). His wife Hind cursed him when she heard he had recited the Kalimah. The Prophet (SAW) then made her blood Halal, even if she was next to the Kabah. SO she ran away, and then later on entered Islam in a devious manner, in order to save her life. Anyways, after the Batte of Hunayn, the Prophet (SAW) did not take Abu-Sufyan with in the Battle of Tabuk. He was left in Makkah. Ulama mention that the reason the Prophet (SAW) left Ali (and not others like he would normally do) in Medina was to safeguard Medina if Abu-Sufyan decides to attack it."

"I dont consider Abu-Sufyan and outright Munafiq. I believe he eventually realized that his beloved Kufr Days were over and that Arabia was never going to return to Shirk. For this reason, the Prophet (SAW) send Khalid bin al-Waleed WITH ABU-SUFYAN to demolish the Idol of al-Lat, after the people of Taif had accepted Islam. However, he continued to seek power and fame. Tribalism remained his motive, and was inherited by his family. We don't see much of Abu-Sufyan after that except that he came to the Prophet (SAW) saying: 'Your SAHABAH dislike me and my family, so please give us some position so that we may retain our respect'. Then he requested that the Prophet (SAW) use his son Muawiyah as a writer as he knew how to read and write. So the Nabi (SAW) used Muawiyah to write some letters, though NOTHING of the Qur'an. The Qur'an was primarily written by ALI (who was the actual writer of the Prophet), and Ubayy and Zaid bin Thabit, among other seniors."

"After the death of the Prophet (SAW), we see Abu-Sufyan coming to Ali (RA) and condemning the Khilafah of Abu-Bakr (RA) and ridiculing it. In fact, he promised Ali that he will fill Madina with the men and horses of Quraysh to uproot the lowly Abu-Bakr and appoint Ali. But ALI rebuked Abu-Sufyan and chased him out saying: "You REMAIN an enemy of Islam. We are satisfied with Abu-Bakr"!!!"

"One cannot compare Sayyidna Umar (RA) with people like Abu-Sufyan. Firstly, Umar accepted Islam willingly and when there was NO WORLDY BENEFIT in accepting Islam. Secondly, Umar spent years defending Rasul-Allah (SAW). Abu-Sufyan did nothing of the sort. Thirdly, Umar is praised in Quran as from the Sabiqun, and in many Ahadith by name, while Abu-Sufyan is from the Mu'allafah and never praised by the Rasul (SAW). He was not from the Sabiqun or Muajirun or Ansar (but was thier arch enemy). In fact, in the terminology of the Salaf, he wasn't even from the Sahabah. The Sahabah never used the term "Sahabi" for people like Abu-Sufyan."

"Our problem today is that, under a highly exaggerated, distorted and even un-Quranic perception of "Suhbah and Sahabah" we are treating Abu-Sufyan as equal to Abu-Bakr, Muawiyah as equal to Ali, Yazid as equal to Husayn...etc. One MUST distinguish between those who are called "Sahabah" simply due to being part of that generation, and those who are the Actual Sahabah, praised in Quran and Hadith. To use Ayat revealed in praise of the actual Sahabah as in praise of Abu-Sufyan is utterly RIDICULOUS because when those Ayat were revealed Abu-Sufyan was still a Kafir FIGHTING THOSE VERY SAHABAH who the Ayah was praising!"

Any comment,

 

My Reply:

 

 

wa alaykumus salām

Whether this person is Rāfiḍī or not, his style is the same. Mix one lie and distortion with many truths and the entire truth becomes a lie. Our friends of the Wake Up Project follow the same blueprint. If we refer to Ibn Hishām (Allāh’s mercy be upon him)whom he supposedly references, the section he CAPS locks actually reads:

 

، فلما رآه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ويحك يا أبا سفيان ، ألم يأن لك أن تعلم أنه لا إله إلا الله ؟ قال : بأبي أنت وأمي ما أحلمك وأكرمك وأوصلك ، والله لقد ظننت أن لو كان مع الله إله غيره لقد أغنى عني شيئا بعد ، قال : ويحك يا أبا سفيان ألم يأن لك أن تعلم أني رسول الله قال : بأبي أنت وأمي ، ما أحلمك وأكرمك وأوصلك أما هذه والله فإن في النفس منها حتى الآن شيئا . فقال له العباس : ويحك أسلم واشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله قبل أن تضرب عنقك

 

When Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم saw him he said, "Woe unto you Abū Sufyān!" Has the time not yet come for you to know that there is no god but Allāh?" [Abū Sufyān] replied, “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you. How forbearing you are! How noble you are! How you maintain ties of kinship! By Allāh! It has already occurred to me that were there a god besides Allāh he would have helped me by now.”

 

[Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم ] said, “Woe unto you Abū Sufyān!" Has the time not yet come for you to know that I am Allah’s Messenger?”

[Abū Sufyān] replied, “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you. How forbearing you are! How noble you are! How you maintain ties of kinship! As for this, by Allah, there remains something in me until now.”

 

Al-‘Abbās then said to him, “Woe unto you! Accept Islām and testify that there is no god besides Allāh and that Muḥammad is Allāh’s Messenger, lest your neck is struck!”

 

 

Whilst Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) might not have entered Islām with the same enthusiasm compared to others, that does not detract from the Ahlus Sunnah recognising him as a Companion of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم of whatever degree. The slanderer you write about is most dishonest. He deliberately censors the respectful words of Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) towards Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . The general warning of al-Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with him) that he may be slain on the morrow if the Muslims entered Makkah forcefully, is distorted into an immediate ultimatum to accept Islām or die.

 

 

Interpretation is based on context and not one’s personal agenda. If there are incidents of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم forcing someone to embrace Islām or die, it may be in the fairy tales of the Rawāfiḍ. As for the Muslims, we know of his anger when a Muslim slew an unbeliever in the heat of battle just after the unbeliever proclaimed the declaration of faith. Furthermore his anger was based on Allāh’s condemnation of the incident. [an-Nisā: 94]. The Qurān and Sunnah belie any possible existence for a context of Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) facing the choice of embracing Islām or immediate decapitation. Yes, if he had resisted the next day in battle, he most certainly would have deserved such a fate.

 

 

Indeed, the possible Rāfiḍī does not insult Abū Sufyān, but he insults Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . For he not so indirectly claims his intelligence, judgement and insight to be greater than that of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم who appointed Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) over Najrān, a position he held at the time of the demise of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . If it is so clear to the slanderer that Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) only accepted Islām for worldly gain, does he not slander Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and say that he was blind to all this? Is it not in fact wrong to intentionally and knowingly appoint such a person over the affairs of the Muslims? The slander is not against Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him), it is against Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم .

 

 

Much can be said in response to the lie that he never defended Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . Instead I shall simply quote one incident from al-Muntaqā of as-Sayyid Muḥibbuddīn al-Khaṭīb:

 

 

During the Jihād of aṭ-Ṭāif an arrow struck Abū Sufyān’s eye. Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him, “If you wish, I shall pray for you and Allāh will restore your eye. But if you wish, be patient and you will have Paradise.”

Abū Sufyān replied whilst experiencing that severe pain whose reality only one who has suffered the same can understand, “I choose Jannah.”

This is a promise guaranteed by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم during the most perfect form of worship i.e. Jihād. Abū Sufyān is in Paradise and may those who harbour evil against him have their noses rubbed in the depths of Hell.

 

Hind – may Allāh be pleased with her

 

 

Similarly whilst all accounts do mention Hind (may Allāh be pleased with her) veiling herself out of fear, why should we bother by the childish allegation of “devious”. Devious is he who pretends that Hind could not have fled Makkah, as others had, if she was a die-hard unbeliever. Devious is he who omits the fact that Hind revealed herself before the completion of the oath of allegiance and Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم smiled at her whilst the stern ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with him) laughed. [Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr]. Devious is he who fails to mention that the oath was administered under the injunction in al-Mumtaḥinah, “O Prophet! When the believing females come to you to pledge allegiance unto you…” Thus by Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم completing the oath, he recognised Hind as a believer on Allāh’s behalf. Such recognition is far superior to the mud cast by the devious one against the Companions of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم .

 

 

Scribe of the Qurān

 

I leave it to you to choose between the slanderer saying that Mu‘āwiyah (may Allāh be pleased with him) was not a scribe of the Qurān and the testimony of al-Imām Aḥmad, “Mu‘āwiyah, may Allāh be pleased with him, was the scribe of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . He was his Companion, brother-in-law and his confidant in regards revelation.” [ash-Sharī‘ah lil Ājirī]

 

The Imām was also asked, “What do say in regards one who says, ‘I do not call Mu‘āwiyah a scribe of revelation, nor maternal uncle of the believers, for he usurped the Khilāfah with the sword.’”

He replied, “This is an evil and rejected statement. Avoid such people and do not sit with them. We should clarify their affair to the people.”

 

 

Those whose hearts were softened

 

Was this person born on the moon to claim that we regard all the Companions on the same level? One with basic knowledge knows that Abū Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him) was the greatest amongst them. The Four Khulafā’ were superior to the others. The Ten blessed with tidings of Paradise are higher than the others. Those who never fought at Badr can never equal the 313 who did. Yet even those on the lower levels who only embraced Islām after the Conquest of Makkah and whose hearts required softening occupy spectacularly lofty ranks and Allāh Himself promises them:

…those amongst you who spent before the Conquest and fought are not equal [to those who came later]. They are of immense greater rank than those who spent later and fought. Yet for each has Allāh promised goodness…. [al-Ḥadīd: 10]

 

A word of advice

It may be said that my reply should have been much longer and tackled every statement. I find it fruitless to tackle every word of falsehood spoken. There are oceans of falsehood to occupy us and keep up from doing what we should. Concentrate on primary principles and be firm on them. If we discuss theology with Christians for example, do we focus on circumcision and pork or do we discuss the essentials of Trinity vs Monotheism?

The religion born from filth focusses on filth and slander. Rather than doing good, they have enough fairy tales to keep you occupied for ten lifetimes. Do not become unintentionally ensnared in such traps of lies and semantics.

 

 

سليمان الكندي

Slander Against Abu Sufyaan

Mail sent to me:

Here is a post of a XXXXX scholar - XXXXXX- who is both provocative and controversial. He denies being Shi'i or Zaydi:

"KNOW YOUR HISTORY: The night before the Conquest of Makkah, the leader of the Kuffar of Quraysh, head of the Umayyad Clan and chief enemy of Islam Abu-Sufyan was brought to the Tent of the Prophet (SAW) under the protection of al-Abbas (RA). When Umar (RA) saw him, he continuously tried to kill him, but the Prophet (SAW) prevented Umar (RA) from that due to the protection granted by his uncle al-Abbas (RA). Thereafter, the Prophet said to Abu-Sufyan: "Isn't it high time you testified that there is no God but Allah?". Abu-Sufyan replied: "I guessed if there was another God, he would have helped me by now!". Then the Prophet (SAW) said: "Isn't it high time you testified that I am the Messenger of Allah?". Abu-Sufyan replied: "My heart is still doubtful of that". Then al-Abbas (RA) looked at Abu-Sufyan and said: "WOE UNTO YOU! TESTIFY OR I WILL CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF". So Abu-Sufyan proclaimed the Shahadah." (سيرة ابن هشام و تاريخ الطبري و سيرة ابن كثير)

And here are comments from him on this post:

"The Prophet (SAW) considered Abu-Sufyan and his sons amongst the Mu'allafati Qulubuhum i.e. "Those new converts who hearts must still be SOFTENED TOWARDS ISLAM"!!! This was obvious as he had NOT accepted Islam by his free-will but due to fear. Thats why they were given lots of MONEY after Hunayn but the proper Sahabah were not given anything or very little (they didnt care about Dunya in any case). His wife Hind cursed him when she heard he had recited the Kalimah. The Prophet (SAW) then made her blood Halal, even if she was next to the Kabah. SO she ran away, and then later on entered Islam in a devious manner, in order to save her life. Anyways, after the Batte of Hunayn, the Prophet (SAW) did not take Abu-Sufyan with in the Battle of Tabuk. He was left in Makkah. Ulama mention that the reason the Prophet (SAW) left Ali (and not others like he would normally do) in Medina was to safeguard Medina if Abu-Sufyan decides to attack it."

"I dont consider Abu-Sufyan and outright Munafiq. I believe he eventually realized that his beloved Kufr Days were over and that Arabia was never going to return to Shirk. For this reason, the Prophet (SAW) send Khalid bin al-Waleed WITH ABU-SUFYAN to demolish the Idol of al-Lat, after the people of Taif had accepted Islam. However, he continued to seek power and fame. Tribalism remained his motive, and was inherited by his family. We don't see much of Abu-Sufyan after that except that he came to the Prophet (SAW) saying: 'Your SAHABAH dislike me and my family, so please give us some position so that we may retain our respect'. Then he requested that the Prophet (SAW) use his son Muawiyah as a writer as he knew how to read and write. So the Nabi (SAW) used Muawiyah to write some letters, though NOTHING of the Qur'an. The Qur'an was primarily written by ALI (who was the actual writer of the Prophet), and Ubayy and Zaid bin Thabit, among other seniors."

"After the death of the Prophet (SAW), we see Abu-Sufyan coming to Ali (RA) and condemning the Khilafah of Abu-Bakr (RA) and ridiculing it. In fact, he promised Ali that he will fill Madina with the men and horses of Quraysh to uproot the lowly Abu-Bakr and appoint Ali. But ALI rebuked Abu-Sufyan and chased him out saying: "You REMAIN an enemy of Islam. We are satisfied with Abu-Bakr"!!!"

"One cannot compare Sayyidna Umar (RA) with people like Abu-Sufyan. Firstly, Umar accepted Islam willingly and when there was NO WORLDY BENEFIT in accepting Islam. Secondly, Umar spent years defending Rasul-Allah (SAW). Abu-Sufyan did nothing of the sort. Thirdly, Umar is praised in Quran as from the Sabiqun, and in many Ahadith by name, while Abu-Sufyan is from the Mu'allafah and never praised by the Rasul (SAW). He was not from the Sabiqun or Muajirun or Ansar (but was thier arch enemy). In fact, in the terminology of the Salaf, he wasn't even from the Sahabah. The Sahabah never used the term "Sahabi" for people like Abu-Sufyan."

"Our problem today is that, under a highly exaggerated, distorted and even un-Quranic perception of "Suhbah and Sahabah" we are treating Abu-Sufyan as equal to Abu-Bakr, Muawiyah as equal to Ali, Yazid as equal to Husayn...etc. One MUST distinguish between those who are called "Sahabah" simply due to being part of that generation, and those who are the Actual Sahabah, praised in Quran and Hadith. To use Ayat revealed in praise of the actual Sahabah as in praise of Abu-Sufyan is utterly RIDICULOUS because when those Ayat were revealed Abu-Sufyan was still a Kafir FIGHTING THOSE VERY SAHABAH who the Ayah was praising!"

Any comment,

 My Reply:

wa alaykumus salām

Whether this person is Rāfiḍī or not, his style is the same. Mix one lie and distortion with many truths and the entire truth becomes a lie. Our friends of the Wake Up Project follow the same blueprint. If we refer to Ibn Hishām (Allāh’s mercy be upon him) whom he supposedly references, the section he CAPS locks actually reads:

، فلما رآه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : ويحك يا أبا سفيان ، ألم يأن لك أن تعلم أنه لا إله إلا الله ؟ قال : بأبي أنت وأمي ما أحلمك وأكرمك وأوصلك ، والله لقد ظننت أن لو كان مع الله إله غيره لقد أغنى عني شيئا بعد ، قال : ويحك يا أبا سفيان ألم يأن لك أن تعلم أني رسول الله قال : بأبي أنت وأمي ، ما أحلمك وأكرمك وأوصلك أما هذه والله فإن في النفس منها حتى الآن شيئا . فقال له العباس : ويحك أسلم واشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله قبل أن تضرب عنقك

When Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  saw him he said, "Woe unto you Abū Sufyān!" Has the time not yet come for you to know that there is no god but Allāh?" [Abū Sufyān] replied, “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you. How forbearing you are! How noble you are! How you maintain ties of kinship! By Allāh! It has already occurred to me that were there a god besides Allāh he would have helped me by now.”

[Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  ] said, “Woe unto you Abū Sufyān!" Has the time not yet come for you to know that I am Allah’s Messenger?”

[Abū Sufyān] replied, “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you. How forbearing you are! How noble you are! How you maintain ties of kinship! As for this, by Allah, there remains something in me until now.”

Al-‘Abbās then said to him, “Woe unto you! Accept Islām and testify that there is no god besides Allāh and that Muḥammad is Allāh’s Messenger, lest your neck is struck!”

Whilst Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) might not have entered Islām with the same enthusiasm compared to others, that does not detract from the Ahlus Sunnah recognising him as a Companion of  Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  of whatever degree. The slanderer you write about is most dishonest. He deliberately censors the respectful words of Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) towards Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . The general warning of al-Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with him) that he may be slain on the morrow if the Muslims entered Makkah forcefully, is distorted into an immediate ultimatum to accept Islām or die.

Interpretation is based on context and not one’s personal agenda. If there are incidents of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  forcing someone to embrace Islām or die, it may be in the fairy tales of the Rawāfiḍ. As for the Muslims, we know of his anger when a Muslim slew an unbeliever in the heat of battle just after the unbeliever proclaimed the declaration of faith. Furthermore his anger was based on Allāh’s condemnation of the incident. [an-Nisā: 94]. The Qurān and Sunnah belie any possible existence for a context of Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) facing the choice of embracing Islām or immediate decapitation. Yes, if he had resisted the next day in battle, he most certainly would have deserved such a fate.

Indeed, the possible Rāfiḍī does not insult Abū Sufyān, but he insults Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  . For he not so indirectly claims his intelligence, judgement and insight to be greater than that of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  who appointed Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) over Najrān, a position he held at the time of the demise of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . If it is so clear to the slanderer that Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him) only accepted Islām for worldly gain, does he not slander Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  and say that he was blind to all this? Is it not in fact wrong to intentionally and knowingly appoint such a person over the affairs of the Muslims? The slander is not against Abū Sufyān (may Allāh be pleased with him), it is against Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم .

Much can be said in response to the lie that he never defended Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . Instead I shall simply quote one incident from al-Muntaqā of as-Sayyid Muḥibbuddīn al-Khaṭīb:

During the Jihād of aṭ-Ṭāif an arrow struck Abū Sufyān’s eye. Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  said to him, “If you wish, I shall pray for you and Allāh will restore your eye. But if you wish, be patient and you will have Paradise.”

Abū Sufyān replied whilst experiencing that severe pain whose reality only one who has suffered the same can understand, “I choose Jannah.”

This is a promise guaranteed by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم   during the most perfect form of worship i.e. Jihād. Abū Sufyān is in Paradise and may those who harbour evil against him have their noses rubbed in the depths of Hell.

Hind – may Allāh be pleased with her

Similarly whilst all accounts do mention Hind (may Allāh be pleased with her) veiling herself out of fear, why should we bother by the childish allegation of “devious”. Devious is he who pretends that Hind could not have fled Makkah, as others had, if she was a die-hard unbeliever. Devious is he who omits the fact that Hind revealed herself before the completion of the oath of allegiance and Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  smiled at her whilst the stern ‘Umar (may Allāh be pleased with him) laughed. [Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr]. Devious is he who fails to mention that the oath was administered under the injunction in al-Mumtaḥinah, “O Prophet! When the believing females come to you to pledge allegiance unto you…” Thus by Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  completing the oath, he recognised Hind as a believer on Allāh’s behalf. Such recognition is far superior to the mud cast by the devious one against the Companions of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  .      

Scribe of the Qurān

I leave it to you to choose between the slanderer saying that Mu‘āwiyah (may Allāh be pleased with him) was not a scribe of the Qurān and the testimony of al-Imām Aḥmad, “Mu‘āwiyah, may Allāh be pleased with him, was the scribe of Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . He was his Companion, brother-in-law and his confidant in regards revelation.” [ash-Sharī‘ah lil Ājirī]

The Imām was also asked, “What do say in regards one who says, ‘I do not call Mu‘āwiyah a scribe of revelation, nor maternal uncle of the believers, for he usurped the Khilāfah with the sword.’”

He replied, “This is an evil and rejected statement. Avoid such people and do not sit with them. We should clarify their affair to the people.”

Those whose hearts were softened

Was this person born on the moon to claim that we regard all the Companions on the same level? One with basic knowledge knows that Abū Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him) was the greatest amongst them. The Four Khulafā’ were superior to the others. The Ten blessed with tidings of Paradise are higher than the others. Those who never fought at Badr can never equal the 313 who did. Yet even those on the lower levels who only embraced Islām after the Conquest of Makkah and whose hearts required softening occupy spectacularly lofty ranks and Allāh Himself promises them:

…those amongst you who spent before the Conquest and fought are not equal [to those who came later]. They are of immense greater rank than those who spent later and fought. Yet for each has Allāh promised goodness…. [al-Ḥadīd: 10]

A word of advice

It may be said that my reply should have been much longer and tackled every statement. I find it fruitless to tackle every word of falsehood spoken. There are oceans of falsehood to occupy us and keep up from doing what we should. Concentrate on primary principles and be firm on them. If we discuss theology with Christians for example, do we focus on circumcision and pork or do we discuss the essentials of Trinity vs Monotheism?

The religion born from filth focusses on filth and slander. Rather than doing good, they have enough fairy tales to keep you occupied for ten lifetimes. Do not become unintentionally ensnared in such traps of lies and semantics.

سليمان الكندي