The Mystery Beneath Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dajjalic “New World Order”


“THE ARK OF COVENANT” [ Taboot e Sakeenah]

King Sulayman Alaihissalaam was the king of what would now be recognized as ancient Bani Israa’eel and is recognized as a prophet and divinely-appointed monarch. Muslim belief holds that Sulayman Alaihissalaam was one of the elect of Allah, and was bestowed upon with many God-given gifts, including the ability to speak to animals and control jinn.

Muslims further maintain that Solomon remained faithful to a one and only God throughout his life; constructed the Temple of Sulayman (The first Temple), which became one of the key houses of worship for Jews; reigned justly over the whole of Israel; was blessed with a level of kingship which was given to none after him; and fulfilled all of his commandments, being promised nearness to Allah in Heaven at the end of his life. Nabi Sulayman Alaihissalaam remains one of the most commemorated and popular holy figures in Islam.

Muslim tradition further maintains that, along with Nabi  Dawood Alaihissalaam and Dhul-Qarnayn, Sulayman Alayhissalaam was one of three great monarchs of all time.

Sulayman Alaihissalaam’s Temple, also known as the First Temple, was the Holy Temple ( Beit al-Quds) in ancient Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount (also known as Mount Zion).It is the highest point in the city and also is said to be the place were hundreds of Prophet’s prayed and preached, this place is considered blessed and Holy by all three Ibrahimic Religions namely, Judaism, Christianity and also it is holy to the Islam because Our Prophet  Mohammad ( Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam ascended from there in the night of isra wal Meraaj.
“The center of the temple was called the Holy of Holies because it is where the Ark (Taboot e Sakeenah) rested.”

The Ark of the Covenant is described in the Holy Qur’an:

The sign of his kingship is that the Ark will come to you, containing serenity from your Lord and certain relics left by the families of Musa and Harun. It will be borne by angels. There is a sign for you in that if you believe.”
(Qur’an,Sura Al-Baqarah : 248)

According to Historical Sources, ‘The Ark of the Covenant’ is thought to have been manufactured on the slopes of Mount Sinai after the Bani Israa’il left Egypt, and contains stone slabs from the Prophet Musa (Alaihissalaam) and other items from the Prophet Harun (Alaihissalaam).

The Ark of the Covenant was carried to Jerusalem when the city was declared to be the capital of the United Jewish Kingdom in the time of the Prophet Dawud (Alaihissalaam), after that of the Prophet Sulayman (Alaihissalaam). It was placed in the Temple built by the Prophet Sulayman (Alayhissalaam), where it remained until 587 BC after which it was lost during the destruction of the temple

Later on, the belief began to spread that the Ark, which was not seen for the next 500 years by anyone, had not been destroyed but had been buried in a secret location under the Temple by the Levites responsible for its safekeeping. After the destruction of the Temple by the Roman Governor Titus in 70 AD, it was assumed that the secret chamber had been found and that the Ark and the other holy artifacts from the Temple had been carried to Rome.

The Ark has remained lost since 587 BC up to the present day.
No sign of the Ark was found then or more recently, and the subject has become a focus of interest for researchers in modern times.

The city of Jerusalem is known for being the home of the Temple erected by the Prophet Sulayman Alaihissalaam and for the Ark of the Covenant. The most widely accepted view is that the sacred treasures were carried to Rome when the Temple was torn down in 70 AD. Another opinion, however, is that the Ark, which has been lost since 587 BC, was hidden in Jerusalem and that it was taken further north, in other words to Tiberias (Tabariya), or to Antioch (Hatay), in order to prevent it being destroyed by the Romans or other peoples, since Jerusalem was regarded as unsafe. (Our Almighty Lord knows best.)

According to the hadiths, Imam Mehdi will remove the Ark of the Covenant from Lake Tiberias. Other hadiths provide other place names for the location of the Ark. These separate place names may mean that the site is not known for sure and is perhaps under special protection for the Imam Mahdi. (Almighty Allah knows best.)

According to all related hadiths, the fire of Zionism spurred on by some Jews will come to an end at the time of Imam Mahdi, and Islamic tolerance and Qur’anic moral values will spread among them.



Holy Qur’aan States:

Glorified be He Who took His servant for a Journey by Night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, the neighborhood where of We have blessed, in order that We might show him of Our Ayat. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.
(Surah Bani Israa’il: verse1)

To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibrahim Al-Khalil (Alaihissalaam). The Prophets all gathered there, and Prophet Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam led them in prayer in their own homeland during Isra Wal Meraaj.

This indicates that he (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them.

On the authority of Anas Raziyallahu Anhu that the Prophet said:
I was brought al – Buraq, an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, whose stride was a distance equal to the range of its vision.
I mounted it and came to Jerusalem, and tied it to the ring used by the Prophets. After entering the Mosque, and praying two rakats in it, I came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said, ‘you have chosen the true religion’ We were then taken to heaven…..”

Prophet Sulayman (Alaihissalaam) , built a mosque which is known as “Temple of Solomon”, a long, long time ago, in Jerusalem,
He dedicated it to the worship of Allah, the One True God. Like his father, Prophet Dawood (Alaihissalaam) , he was a Prophet and a Messenger, calling all humanity to the worship of Allah  and to establish piety on the earth.

Now, all these years later and its nowadays, there is some confusion about the site of the real Al-Aqsa mosque. In the eastern part of Jerusalem is the Old city, a quadrangular area built on two hills. Within the wall there are four quarters. The Muslim quarter, on the east, contains the Haram al-Sharif, within which are the ‘Dome of the Rock’ and the ‘Mosque of al Aqsa’. Both places are sacred sites for Muslims. However it is around the Mosque of Al Aqsa that the confusion lies.

Whenever mention is made in the local or international media pertaining to Al Aqsa, a picture of the ‘Dome of the rock’ will appear. These two mosques lie within a rather close proximity to each other but they bear little resemblance. All over the world, we can find pictures of the ‘Dome of the rock’ under the heading ‘Al Aqsa’ , to the point that people aren’t really sure anymore, which is which.

The Dome of the Rock, huge timber mosque which held three thousand worshipers was erected on this site, the site of the present Al-Aqsa Mosque. Fifty years later, near the end of the 7th century, it was given to the Umayyad Khalif, ‘Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, to construct one of the world’s most beautiful and enduring shrines over the rock itself. Highlighting the skyline of Jerusalem, and the memories of all that visit, the dome of the rock is a tribute to the Muslims’ love and respect for this site.

Actually Al Aqsa Mosque was the original qibla (The direction ofMuslim prayers), which was later changed during the time of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) to the Ka’ba at Mecca al Mukarramah.

The reason for the deliberate dispersion of false information is also clear and simple. By focusing attention on the ‘Dome of the rock’ under the label of Al-Aqsa, all the Muslim people all over the world will not know when the real Al-Aqsa mosque finally disappears !!
In the image right side picture is the real image of our previous qibla.



And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah (i.e. Muhammad ) confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the Scripture threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know! They followed what the Shayatin gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulayman. Sulayman did not disbelieve, but the Shayatin disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels, Harut and Marut, but neither of these two (angels) taught anyone (such things) till they had said, “We are for trial, so disbelieve not (by learning this magic from us).” And from these (angels) people learn that by which they cause separation between man and his wife, but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah’s leave. And they learn that which harms them and profits them not. And indeed they knew that the buyers of it (magic) would have no share in the Hereafter. And how bad indeed was that for which they sold their own selves, if they but knew.”
(Qur’an, surah Al-Baqarah:101,102)

When the Messenger of Allah was sent and Allah reminded the Jews of the covenant that they had with Him, especially concerning Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) , some party among them throw it aside.When Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihu Wasallam)came to them, they wanted to contradict and dispute with him using the Torah.

However, the Torah and the Qur’an affirmed each other. So the Jews gave up on using the Torah, and took to the Book of the magic of Harut and Marut, which indeed did not conform to the Qur’an.

They followed what the Shayatin gave out (falsely of the magic) in the lifetime of Sulayman means,
“During the time of Prophet Solomon.’ Beforehand, the devils used to ascend to heaven and eavesdrop on the conversations of the angels about what will occur on the earth regarding death, other incidents or unseen matters. They would convey this news to the soothsayers, and the soothsayers would in turn convey the news to the people. The people would believe what the soothsayers told them as being true. When the soothsayers trusted the devils, the devils started to lie to them and added other words to the true news that they heard, to the extent of adding seventy false words to each true word. The people recorded these words in some books. Soon after, the Children of Israel said that the Jinns know matters of the Unseen.

When Sulayman Alaihissalaam was sent as a Prophet,Sulayman Alaihissalaam was tasked with spreading Allahs word ie: the belief and worship in ONE god.
It came to Sulayman Alaihissalaam’s attention that groups of people in the land were still practicing magic and the occult. He ordered his guards to go throughout the land and confiscate every book, manuscript, tablet, or page that any occult or instruction to do magic or witchcraft was written on, as these taught people the practice of summoning spirits (Jinn).

He collected these books in a box and buried it under his throne; any devil that dared get near the box was burned. Sulayman Alaihissalaam said,
‘I will not hear of anyone who says that the devils know the Unseen, but I will cut off his head.’


When Sulayman Alaihissalaam and the scholars who knew the truth about Sulayman Alaihissalaam perished, there came another generation. To them, the devil materialized in the shape of a human and said to some of the Bani Israa’il, `Should I lead you to a treasure that you will never be able to use up’ They said. `Yes.’ He said, `Dig under this throne,’ and he went with them and showed them Solomon’s throne. They said to him, `Come closer.’ He said, `No. I will wait for you here, and if you do not find the treasure then kill me. ‘ They dug and found the buried books, and Satan said to them, `Solomon only controlled the humans, devils and birds with this magic.’ Thereafter, the news that Solomon was a sorcerer spread among the people, and the Children of Israel adopted these books and started to practice and spread black magic through out the world. As a result , people of straight path again lost their true path.

Even till the present-day if anyone asks a Christian or a Jew about Prophet Sulayman Alaihissalaam,they’ll tell us that he was a magician! (na’audhubillah), Which is a false allegation as Allah purified Sulayman Alaihissalaam’s status in the Holy Qur’an by clarifying that Shayateens were the one to tempt people into Magic and not Sulayman Alaihissalaam

Since all the original tablets, scriptures,books of satanic rituals were buried under the throne of king Sulayman Alaihissalaam’s temple, which is located under the Al-Aqsa mosque and as the ark of covenant is also somewhere hidden under the temple, made Solomon’s temple an alive mystery



Whenever masjid Al-Aqsa is spoken about in the media,they always show the image of only the dome of the rock,why?? So that most people remain unaware which building truely is Al-Aqsa.
This is a zionist ploy, so that when the real Al-Aqsa will be destroyed,most people won’t even realise it is happened. Muslims should take it as a duty to know which is the real Al-Aqsa mosque.
We know that Masjid Al-Aqsa has been under siege for many years. Palestinian people have not known peace since the State of Israel was formed in 1948.

Everyone believed it was because they’re Muslim, and because Israel wants their land, particularly the land on which Al-Aqsa is built.

In order to find out the truth, we had to go way back in history and literally put the confusing pieces of the puzzle together.

• There are Jews that believe in one god – praying properly etc.

• Then there are Jews that are “ashkenazi” and those that believe in the origins of the Jewish religion. Prior to Judaism, the people of that land were Zionist. They believed in Zionism, which has its roots in a practice called “Kabala” (this is an ancient form of Jewish magic and is based on the principles of the occult and paganism ie: believing in gods and goddesses as well as satan). This practice was learnt from the ancient Egyptians prior and during the time of Moses (Musa AS). Further research proves that what they actually worshipped was Jinn.

• The Qur’an warned us to never take Jews as our friends. Allah warned us that they would work to destroy Islam. And this is something we see happening.

• Muslims are awaiting the second coming of Isa Alaihissalaam The Messiah. We also know that the Dajjal (the Anti-Christ / False Messiah) will appear before Isa Alaihissalaam (Jesus) does. Jews also believe in a “second coming.” They are preparing for it.

However, the interesting thing is that the Jewish faith does not recognise Isa Alaihissalaam. Jews do not acknowledge Isa Alaihissalaam at all. If they do not acknowledge Isa Alaihissalaam and don’t believe he’s returning, yet they are awaiting a second coming…then who are they waiting for?? The false messiah Dajjal.


• Sulayman was tasked with spreading Allahs word ie: the belief and worship in ONE god.

• It came to Sulayman Alaihisalaam’s attention that groups of people in the land were still practicing magic and the occult. He ordered his guards to go throughout the land and confiscate every book, manuscript, tablet, or page that any occult or instruction to do magic or witchcraft was written on, as these TAUGHT people the practice of summoning spirits (Jinn).

• So, on Prophet Sulayman Alaihissalaam’s instruction, they brought all books to him, and he then buried them where he thought they would be safest i.e.: no one could get / steal them.

• Where did he bury them?? In the foundations of the temple, under his throne! He appointed guards known as the Knights of the Temple of Solomon (Knights Templars) to guard the temple day and night.

• The Knights did this initially.
When Sulayman (Alaihissalaam) passed away (May Allah grant him Jannah), The Knights discovered what it is they were guarding. They quickly realised the significance of this information, the practices and magic that they had at their fingertips. They stole it and began practicing. They moved completely away from religion and God, and immersed themselves under the power and influence of Iblees (Shaytaan). Due to the nature of their rituals, they quickly became the most powerful and wealthiest people in the land. (Recent interviews with members of the occult confirms that Satan rewards his followers with masses of wealth and material gain in this world, provided they do whatever he wants them to ie: spreading corruption, ungodliness and destruction on earth. Interviewees also said that Satan assures them, via his high priests and priestesses, that he is the real God – And that he is just misunderstood!).

.• Subsequently over the ages, the manuscripts were smuggled into Europe, and the Knights Templars took on the name “Free Masons” – With this new found power, they quickly spread this knowledge across the world, in the forms of secret societies – ALL WITH A COMMON GOAL: To serve their “god” Satan, and to prepare for the arrival of the one-eyed Dajjal, who is Satans representative on earth. Their symbol is a pyramid topped by an “all-seeing” ONE eye!

So if the masons have got this “secret treasure” already – WHY all the focus on destroying Masjid Al-Aqsa?

Well, simply put, they are preparing for the arrival of their deity “DAJJAL”.


“Well, in Islam we know the Dajjal is the false messiah. Meaning – he will imitate the true messiah in every way. The true Messiah, Hadrat Isa Maseeh (Alaihissalaam) will come back to rule the world from JERUSALEM.

So that’s where even the Dajjal will be arriving: THE HOLY LAND, JERUSALEM. He comes back to his home.”

The Zionists refer to the land between the Nile and the Euphrates as “their promised land.” Dajjal is their king, AND ONE CAN SEE WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THESE AREAS CURRENTLY BETWEEN THESE TWO RIVERS, Egypt is been replaced by a tyrant Sisi who is a Jew, Iraq is been desteoyed by ISIS whose chief is a mossad spy, Syria is being targeted by the kuffaars who are the real terrorists in suits and boots sitting in the UN etc, and in keeping with their occult belief, they have to resurrect the original temple for him to take his throne.

Archeological and historical evidence proves the ruins of the original temple of Zion is underneath the temple of Solomon. Meaning Hadrat Sulayman (Alaihissalaam) knew how evil this magic is, that he built his MOSQUE OVER THE ZIONIST SATANIC TEMPLE. Simply because people praying in that Mosque, worshiping one true God is strong enough to override any evil that happened there.


It’s common sense, logic! The Dajjal is inherently evil – so he will not be able to enter any holy place. Meaning he cannot rule or enter Al-Aqsa Mosque, where the worship of one true God takes place.The only place he can enter and rule from, is a temple in-keeping with his evil nature.


• This also explains why the US Govt is so buddy-buddy with Israel. They have a common goal, and common belief. They work for a force far greater, and far more evil and deceptive than you and I could ever comprehend. This is why their foreign policy is pro-Israel. This is why they allow Palestine, Syria, Iraq to be attacked over and over again. They need to destroy Al-Aqsa. And this is why they portray Muslims to all be terrorists. They want to turn the world against us in hatred, because the fact is, the people who will continue to defend Masjid Al-Aqsa are Arabs! MUSLIMS! Muslims understand the significance of Masjid Al-Aqsa, it is Islam’s first Qibla. Therefore the Muslim people of that land is their greatest resistance. And these disciples of Dajjal know that.

Islam tells us that one of the final signs before the arrival of the Dajjal, and the heralding of the end of times, is “THE FALL OF MASJID AL-AQSA.”

May Allah protect Masjid Al Aqsa and May Allah protect us all from the evil of Dajjal and the followers of Satan. May the light of Islam shine brighter than ever.- Aameen

Meaning of “The Kaaba moving in honour of the righteous”

The great jurist and spiritual master of the past century Maulana Muhammad Ashraf Ali Thanawi Rahmatullah Alaih has addressed the query about narratives of Kaaba moving from its place in honor of some righteous persons:

It is said about some saints that when they reached Makkah they found that Kaaba was not there. Amazed at it, they prayed to Allah to be told of the whereabouts of Kaaba. Once made to realize they saw that a pious person was coming and Kaaba had gone to receive him.

This narrative was found fault with by three groups;

1. Those who have nothing to do with religion. They belied it, laughed at those who narrated it and dubbed them as superstitious.

2. Those followers of the religion who just view things superficially. Such people rejected it as the hallucinations of the mystics.

3. The existentialists/empiricists. They said it is against reason and if it had so happened history must have had some record of such happenings and we have not found any such record.

[In order to understand the idea] know that there is the appearance (soorat) of Kaaba and there is spirit ( rooh) of Kaaba. Its spirit is a special ‘spiritual illumination’ (tajalli) of which the physical structure of Kaaba is a manifestation. Therefore, for the righteous people who saw that Kaaba was not at its place means that spiritual illumination of Kaaba was [to their mystic senses] focusing not on the pilgrims but on those righteous persons.

Anyway, there were pious people towards whom Kaaba itself turned [i.e. its spiritual illumination was focused towards them] but for the purpose of Hajj they had travel to Kaaba by themselves.”
Ashraf Ali Thanawi, Ashraf al-Jawab , (Karachi: Maktaba ‘Umar Farooq, n.d.) 314

Whether or not one opts to enter the realm of such mystical interpretation it has to be accepted that there is nothing particularly objectionable in this idea. If some gnostic (‘aarif) tends to put things this way there is no reason to take exception to it for it neither contradicts any established article of the faith nor subterfuges the shariah precepts and obligations.

The wisdom behind the Hanafi school’s [Occasional] Preference of Weak Hadith

[By Maulana Zakariyya Kandlawi Rahimahullah]

Occasionally,  the  Hanafi  school  of  thought  awards  preference  to  those  hadiths  which  have  a  weaker  chain  of narrators  or  even  to  those  hadiths  whose  chains  of  narration  may  not  be  as  superior  to  the  others.  This  is  so  because the  narrations  may  possess  some  other  more  superior  preferential  factors.  For  example,  the  fact  that  a  hadith  is  in greater  conformance  with  the  text  of  the  Qur’an  is  one  of  the  most  noteworthy  preferential  factors  that  render  a particular  hadith  superior  to  those  that  contradict  it,  according  to  the  Hanafi  school.

  This  makes  a  great  deal  of sense,  because  the  words  of  many  of  the  hadiths  are  not  the  actual  words  of  Allah’s  Messenger (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam .  In  most cases,  they  are  the  words  of  the  narrators  who  narrated  the  meaning  of  the  hadith,  On  the other  hand,  the  words  of  the  Qur’an  are  the  actual  words  (of  Allah)  transmitted  by  the  narrators. 

Therefore,  from two  conflicting  narrations,  the  narration  which  is  in  greater  conformance  to  the  text  of  the  Qur’an  will  obviously gain  more  preference  over  the  other  narration. In  one  example  of  the  above  principle,  the  Hanafi Madhab award  preference  to  the  narration  that  does  not  mention  raising of  the  hands  in  salat  over  the  narration  which  does  mention  it.  This  is  so  simply  because  the  Holy  Qur’an  declares,

“And  stand  before  Allah  with  ease  and  tranquillity”  (Surat  al-Baqara  2:238)

Hence,  from  among  the  conflicting narrations,  the  Hanafi Madhab award  preference  to  those  hadiths  which  conform  more  closely  to  this  form  of  tranquillity.

This  ruling  is  also  established  from  other  previous  occurrences.  In  the  early  days  of  Islam,  it  was  permissible  to speak  (and  to  make  salãm)  in  salat,  but  this  was  gradually  abrogated  and  the  salat  metamorphosed  into  a  more tranquil  action.  Hence,  the  narrations  which  conform  more  to  tranquillity  are  more  juridically  preferable  in  the Hanafi  school. In  addition,  the  narrations  which  do  not  mention  any  recitation  while  performing  salat  behind  the  Imam  are awarded  preference  over  those  narrations  which  mention  this  practice.  This  is  so  because  of  the  Qur’anic  verse,

“And  when  the  Qur’an  is  being  recited,  listen  to  it  attentively  and  remain  silent”  (Surat  al-A’raaf  7:204).

Similarly,  it  is  better  to  delay  the  Fajr  and  ‘Asr  prayers  because  it  is  in  greater  conformance  with  the  Qur’anic  verse,

“And  glorify  the  praises  of  your  Lord  before  sunrise  and  before  sunset”  (Sura Qaf  50:39). 

Before sunrise”  and “before  sunset”  means  a  time  which  is  close  to  them.  A  period  of  three  to  four  hours  before  sunrise  or  sunset  is  not normally  referred  to  as  being  “before”  sunrise  or  “before”  sunset.  Hence,  the  Hanafis  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is better  to  delay  the  Fajr  and  ‘Asr  prayers.  Furthermore,  the  Hanafi Madhab have  chosen  the  qunut  (a  supplication  made  in the  witr  salat)  of ‘Allahumma  inna  nastainuka…”  in  the  witr  salat  because  they  were  considered  as  two  sürats  of the  Holy  Qur’an.

The Meaning of the statement: “Sufi has no Madhab”

It is said:
ﺍﻟﺼﻮﻓﻲ ﻻ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻟﻪ
“The Sufi has no madhab for himself.”

The Ghair Muqallideen faction loves to quote these and pretend as if like the Auliya Rahimahumullah abandoned following the madhabs, but in reality these particular statement carries a totally different meaning unlike what the “literalist” Ghair Muqalideen make out of it:

Hakimul Ummah Maulana Ashraf `Ali Thanawi Rahmatullah Alaih stated in explanation of the  Statement above:

“This does not mean that the Sufi is one without a school of thought (la madhab) but that he is careful and excercises caution in every matter. This is called piety and God-fearingness. Our fuqaha (the scholars of law) have explained this as well stating that avoiding differences of opinion (khilaf) is recommended (mustahab) as long as doing so does not entail committing a disliked (s: whether ‘slight’ or otherwise; also leaving the difference should not make one fall into another difference and the difference should have some basis (Suyuti)) action in one’s own school.”
( Anfaase `Isa , Pg: 282)

Among the scholars who mentioned the principle that avoiding differences is recommended are Imam Suyuti in his al Ashbah al Nadha’ir , Imam Khadimi in his Sharh Tariqa al Muhammadiyya, Imam Nawawi, and many others.

It is related that Bayazid Al Bastami  Rahmatullah Alaih said that the Sufi should acquire enough knowledge that would make his actions in accordance with the Law according to the position of all four schools. The underlying reasoning behind this, according to Imam Khadimi, is that even though one considers his school to be correct, there still remains a possibility of error on specific issues. Thus, for example, the books of fiqh mention that it is recommended to renew ablution when one touches a woman – to avoid the difference of opinion with the Shafi`i school. (Maraqi al Falah, Al Durr)

Bayazid Al Bastami Rahmatullah Alaih also said:
ﻭَﺃَﻣَّﺎ ﺍﻟﺮُّﺧَﺺُ ﻓَﻴَﺠِﺐُ ﺗَﺮْﻛُﻬَﺎ ﻋَﻠَﻰ ﻛُﻞِّ ﺣَﺎﻝٍ ﺍﺗِّﻔَﺎﻗًﺎ

“As for dispensations, it is necessary to leave it at all costs.”

This is the path of taqwa.

The Qabar-Pujari Cult (Grave-worshippers/pseudo Sufis/ Ahle Bid’ah)


In the East, in countries such as India and Indonesia, the bane of Muslim association and companionship with Hindus, Buddhists and other Mushrikeen (polytheists) have resulted in a high degree of social and religious integration. The impact of such integration on Muslims has been adverse and highly detrimental since Muslims absorbed the cultural and religious influences of the Mushrikeen cults. In the wake of Muslim association with the Mushrikeen followed the wholesale abdication by Muslims of Islamic values and of the pure and simple Ibaadat practices of Islam. The Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was sacrificed.

Every case of social integration, in which Muslims fused their Islamic culture – the Sunnah – with the influences of the Mushrikeen, was at the peril of Imaan since it resulted in the Muslim abandoning the true and simple Sunnah acts and practices of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and of the Sahaabah. The process of spiritual and Deeni degeneration ensuing in the wake of such social assimilation did not terminate at the point of only abandonment of the Sunnah. Such abandonment resulted in a spiritual and cultural (pertaining to the Sunnah) vacuum which was filled by a mass of accretions – additions and introductions – borrowed from the cultures and religions of the Mushrikeen. Kufr and shirk trappings became interwoven in the pure and priceless Fabric of Islam.

The accretions, in many instances, battered the pure teachings of Islam beyond recognition. As the accretions dug deeper into the bodywork of Islam, the ignorant and the unwary led along by unscrupulous swindlers parading as religious divines, considered the new introductions into the Deen as integral parts of Islam. The pure and holy Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) came to be regarded as alien by the very people who professed to be Muslims and who vociferously asserted their love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Under the colourful slogan of “Hubbe Rasool” (Love of Rasulullah), they perpetrated the worst of abominations–shirk and kufr. They destroyed the beloved, pure, simple and holy Sunnah practices and acts of Ibaadat which that same Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) whom they professed to love, planted and nurtured with his holy sweat and blood.

In the terminology of the Shariah, accretions which displace or tamper with the Sunnah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are described as “bid’ah” or innovations. In regard to bid’ah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Every act of bid’ah is deviation (dhalaal), and every act of deviation will be in the Fire.”

Bid’ah in the Eyes of the Shariah, is highly reprehensible. Its villainy is such that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever honours a bid’ati (perpetrator of bid’ah) helps in the destruction of the foundations of Islam.”

Since bid’ah is the displacement of the Sunnah, it will be simple to understand the harsh attitude which Islam adopts towards the perpetrators of bid’ah. If bid’ah was allowed to flourish, the whole of Islam would long ago have been distorted beyond recognition. In fact, there would have remained nothing of Islam. But, Allah Ta’ala willed otherwise. From time to time, Allah Ta’ala raised a small band of devoted and uprighteous Ulama who diligently and resolutely purified Islam of the noxious accretions which the Ahl-e-Bid’ah attached to the Deen.

Muslims who have taken to bid’ah, thus renouncing the Sunnah, and adopting acts and practices which have neither origin nor sanction in Islam, come within the purview of the following Qur’aanic aayat:

“Many among them accept Imaan while (in fact) they are Mushriks.”

In other words, they profess to be Muslims, but they perpetrate acts of shirk such as worshipping the graves by performing ruku, sajdah and tawaaf to the graves of the Auliya. The fitnah of bid’ah in our time revolves around the cult of grave-worship (qabr puja). A fundamental doctrine of the Bid’ah cult in our day, is belief and practice in grave-worship. Among the acts of shirk offered to the graves by members of the grave-worshipping cult are:

* Making ruku of the graves.

* Making sajdah to the graves.

* Making tawaaf of the graves.

* Kissing the graves.

* Reversing away from the graves in a show of excessive veneration for the graves.

* Decorating the graves with expensive bedding.

* Placing foodstuff at the graves.

* Arranging festivals and fairs at the graves. Such fairs are called “uroos” by the grave-worshippers.

Bid’ah stunts the intelligence of those who indulge in it. It blinds the spiritual eyes of people. It leads unwary and ignorant people far from the straight path and sends them plunging head-long into an abyss of roohaani (spiritual) darkness. The fall into spiritual ruin is described in the following aayat of the Qur’aan Majeed:

One who commits shirk with Allah, is as if he has fallen from the sky; then some bird (of prey) snatched him or a wind blew him and deposited him in afar away deep pit (of darkness).”


Another vile facet of the bid’ah-“grave worship cult” is the pernicious practice of peer-worship. A “peer” is a spiritual mentor or a guide who has to guide disciples (mureeds) along the spiritual path leading to proximity with Allah Ta’ala. But, the “peers” heading the grave-worshipping sect are no true spiritual guides. They are wolves in sheep-clothing. About such spiritual frauds who pillage and plunder the Imaan of unwary and innocent people, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There will dawn an age when (some) men will don long woollen (religious) garments. Their tongues will be sweeter than sugar, but their hearts will be the hearts of wolves.”


In one narration, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described such religious frauds as “shayaateen (devils) in human bodies.” These “peers” have cast numerous unwary persons into the dregs of shirk and kufr by prevailing on them to execute acts of worship, not only to the graves, but, also to themselves (i.e. to the “peers“). Thus, we find in this vile cult of grave-worship, its members performing ruku to their “peers” and kissing the feet of these impostors. And to crown their villainy, they have an elaborate system of fees which their gullible and ignorant members have to pay for the supposed spiritual guidance offered by the deviates dwelling in bid’ah.

In the cult of qabar-puja and peer-puja (grave-worship and peer-worship) greater importance and significance are attributed to acts of graveworship than to even the Fardh Salaat and acts of the Sunnah of Nabi-eKareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Prostrating to the graves of the Auliya is considered a greater act of ibaadat than prostrating in the Musjid in the presence of Allah Ta’ala. The fun-fair “urs” festival is considered superior to the Hajj of Islam; hence the chiefs of the grave-worshipping sect decreed the cancellation of Hajj because of the regime of Ibn Saud. Hajj was performed during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) even at the time when Makkah Muazzamah was under Kuffaar domination–when the Ka’bah was under the control of the Kuffaar. But, the “muftis” of the grave-worshippers have decreed the permissibility and the validity of the cancellation of Hajj in present times merely because of the Saudi regime. The Bareilli molvis, some time ago, published a booklet, “Tanweerul Hujjah”, which explained their fatwa of the cancellation of Hajj in our times.

Thus, according to the grave-worshippers, qabar-puja is an adequate or even a superior substitute for the Fardh Salaat! It is for this reason that we find them so lax in Salaat. Even their “peers” are careless regarding the observance of Salaat. Their indifference to the Masnoon (Sunnat) formulae of Durood Shareef is amply illustrated by the fact that they prefer to recite their own concocted “praises” and songs about Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instead of adhering to the forms of Durood taught to the Ummah by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

It will be discerned among the grave-worshippers that, in general, they suffer from the malady of total indifference to the ordained acts of Islamic Ibaadaat. They accord greater emphasis to customs, shirki rituals and baseless innovated practices which were introduced into the Ummah centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They are able to shed without compunction the most vital acts of Islamic worship in order to uphold their dark, evil and pernicious acts of grave and peer-worship. While they regard their acts of qabar-puja to be adequate substitutes for the Fardh and Masnoon acts and practices of Islam, they never consider the acts of Islamic worship sufficient and adequate substitutes for grave-worship which is a must in their cult. In there belief, there is not a single act of Islamic Ibaadat which is on par with qabr-puja.


When they congregate at the grave of a Wali, they stand there like statues expressing great humility and veneration. In fact, the humility and reverence which they display at the graves of the Auliya are never shown in the Musjid when they have to perform Salaat for Allah Ta’ala.

At the graves of the Auliya they indulge in a variety of acts of shirk and kufr. They make sajdah to the graves and they make tawaaf thereof. But, according to Islam, Sajdah is to be rendered exclusively to Allah Ta’ala and Tawaaf exclusively to the Holy Ka’bah. They burn incense at the graves and they adorn the graves with lamps and lights in open violation of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam’s) prohibition to do so.

Grave-worship is not a new cult. It came into being after the age of Nooh A.S. Even the Christians and the Jews practised grave-worship, hence Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Allah cursed the Yahood and the Nasaara because they converted the graves of their Ambiya into places of worship.”
This hadith as well as other narrations inform us that Allah’s curse settles on the cult of grave-worship. Muslims should, therefore, never be misled by the false slogans raised by the grave-worshippers. Participation, in the activities of the qabar-puja cult occasions the La’nat of Allah Ta’ala according to the explicit statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The members of the grave-worship sect loudly proclaim their “love” for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), but they ignore his condemnation of grave-worship. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded:

“Do not make an idol of my grave so that it be worshipped.”

On another occasion, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: `O Allah! Do not let my grave become an idol which will be worshipped.”

When even worshipping the grave of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is prohibited, then by what stretch of imagination can the worshipping of the graves of the Auliya be permissible??

Many people not acquainted with the cult of the grave-worshippers are misled by slogans of “Hubbe Rasool” (Love of the Rasool) trumpeted by the leaders of this devious sect. Innocent and unknowledgeable people are ensnared by the sweet talk of Deen, expressed in flowery but insincere language by the peers of this cult of abomination. They vociferously proclaim their love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) but their life is devoid of the Sunnah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Expression of the Sunnah in practical terms is the natural consequence of Hubbe Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But, far, far from introducing the Sunnah in their lives, they eliminate the Sunnah and replace it with the rituals of shirk. Thus, their religion consists of graveworship, qawwaali, dancing, fun-fairs, eating, drinking in the name of dead saints and a host of other hotch-potch shirki rituals and beliefs, all borrowed from other religions of shirk and modified for the consumption of unwary and ignorant Muslims.

Grave-worship negates Imaan. It destroys Imaan since it is the very antithesis of Imaan. Islam does not subscribe to the marxist theory of the synthesis of opposites which the atheist asserted. Such ludicrous theories are spawned by minds maddened by atheism. Thus, Imaan cannot fuse with its opposite, viz., grave-worship, to produce a superior hybrid concept which according to the Ahle Bid’ah is the cult of grave-worship – a cult superior in their minds, to all forms of Islamic Ibaadat. Islam is uncompromising in its doctrine of Tauheed. Its monotheism is unique since it is not tainted by the slightest vestige of shirk. A Muslim, the bearer of Tauheed, cannot therefore participate in grave-worship and remain a Muslim. Qabar-puja eliminates Imaan.


The first strategy adopted by the grave-worshippers in places where qabar-puja does not exist, is to set up, by hook or by crook, a dargah or a mausoleum–a tomb around which they execute their acts of qabar-puja and which acts as their headquarters. The central institution of Muslims is the Musjid, but the pivot of all activity of the grave-worshippers is the grave of some person. Sometimes the grave happens to be that of a genuine Saint of Allah while in many cases the mausoleums are raised on the graves of non-entities and in some cases, even animals. Gullible people are then made to believe that some great buzrug (saint) lies buried in the grave.

Muslims should understand that we stand in no need of any cult or any act of worship which has no origin and no sanction in Islam. Grave-worshippers claim that they are beautifying Islam by their innovated acts. But, the Ummah does not need such fallacious adornments. The Ummah needs the Islam of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Najaat of Muslims lies in the Islam handed down to the Ummah by the illustrious Sahaabah and not in the brand of “Islam” offered by graveworshippers.

It is most surprising to observe unwary Muslims allowing themselves to be entrapped in the webs spun by the grave-worshippers, despite the fact that they express belief in only Allah Ta’ala. Every Muslim is fully cognizant of the Islamic belief of Tauheed. Every Muslim understands, or should understand, that in his declaration of the Kalimah LAA ILAAHA ILLALLAAH
he negates all objects which human shayaateen and jinn shayaateen offer as deities to be worshipped. The Muslim staunchly professes his belief in ONE Allah and he jealously guards that Imaan. He prides himself with the exceptionally pure and unique concept of Islamic monotheism. Daily, the Muslim declares no less than 48 times in his Salaat:
IYYAKA NA’BUDU WA IYYAAKA NASTA EEN (O Allah!) Only You do we worship and only from You do we seek aid.

But, the “Bid’ati” Muslim then goes and neutralizes his Imaan by bowing and prostrating, kissing and circumambulating the graves of the Auliya who were all creatures of Allah Ta’ala, who could not say or do anything without the permission of Allah Ta’ala.

Instead of supplicating–making dua–to Allah Ta’ala, the members of the qabar-puja sect petition the graves for their worldly needs and requirements. They pray to the inmates of the graves to grant them children, sustenance, desires and hopes. In order to appease the dead saints, the grave-worshippers offer holy vows and fast in the names of the Auliya. Yet, Islam teaches that Allah Ta’ala Alone is Khaaliq, Raaziq and Maalik. Not an atom can stir without His express Command. Not a leaf stirs in the breeze, but with the express Command of Allah Ta’ala. He knows and He commands. He has no partner. That is the uncompromising belief of Islam and so we believe.

Those Muslims who are not acquainted with the cult of the grave-worshippers should beware. Participation in the functions and rituals of the qabar-puja sect is at the peril of one’s Imaan. The rites of graveworship and peer-worship are impregnated with shirk which negates the belief in Tauheed. The strategy of the grave-worshippers is never to expound their shirki acts of grave-worship at their gatherings and functions. Their tactic is to dupe unwary and unacquainted Muslims. To achieve this pernicious aim, they project and display a conspicuous slogan and clamour of “Hubbe Rasool” while in reality they are devoid of the Love of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Their functions of meelaad and moulood are punctuated with calls and cries of “Hubbe Rasool.” This veil of deception deludes people into believing that these functions are designed in honour and love of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). At these functions ostentatious acts of shirk, e.g. sajdah and ruku to the “peer saheb” are not committed. Innocent and gullible people, therefore, are unable to detect the evil of this sect. The perpetration of the acts of shirk and kufr occurs at the graves of the Auliya and in the private haunt of the “peer.”

The illustrious Sahaabah, when they set out into the world to raise the glory of Allah’s Name, erected Musaajid in all places where they went. The Ummah has been following this Sunnah throughout the corridor of Islamic history. But, the followers of the qabar-puja cult set up tombs to worship wherever they go. Their headquarters are tombs and their gods are the saints.


[By Shaykh Ahmad Sadeq Desai D.B]


Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
Just as you are, so too will rulers be appointed over you.

Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) supplicated to Allah Ta’ala:
“O my Rabb! What is the sign to indicate that you are pleased with Your creation?”

Allah Ta’ala said:
“I cause the rains to descend when it is time for sowing the seeds, and I withhold the rains when it is time to harvest the crop. I appoint benevolent men to rule over them. I assign their monetary affairs to generous persons.”

Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) said:
“O my Rabb! What is the Sign of Wrath on your creation?”
Allah Ta’ala said:

“I send the rains when they harvest the crops, and I withhold the rains when they sow the seeds. I appoint ignoramuses to rule them, and I assign their monetary affairs to their miserly ones.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Allah Ta’ala says: ‘I am Allah. There is no deity except Me. I am the King of kings. The hearts of kings are in My Hands when the people obey Me, I turn the hearts of the rulers with benevolence and mercy towards them. Verily, when the people disobey Me. I turn the hearts of the rulers with wrath and vengeance towards them. Then they (the rulers) inflict severe punishment on them. Therefore do not become involved with cursing the rulers. On the contrary engage yourself with thikr and humility so that I protect you against the tyranny of your rulers.”

Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Verily, when Allah Ta’ala becomes wrathful on a nation whose destruction He has not ordained by means of earthquakes and disfigurement, then He causes prices to soar; He withholds rain, and He appoints the worst of people to be their rulers.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

‘Verily, Allah Azza Wa Jal says: ‘I extract vengeance from those on whom is My Wrath with others on whom is My Wrath. Then ultimately I shall cast them all (both groups) into Jahannum”

Don’t revile the rulers. Supplicate to Allah for their rectitude, for verily, their rectitude is linked to your rectitude.” (i.e. if you reform yourselves, the rulers will become reformed.)

“I take oath by Him in whose control is my life! Command righteous and prohibit evil. (If you do not) then the vilest among you will be appointed rulers over you. Your pious people will then supplicate, but their duas will not be accepted.”

Rulers are the reflections of the deeds of the masses. The rulers are mirrors in which the citizens can view their own deeds. A corrupt people will be saddled with tyrannical and corrupt rulers. Thus Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Your deeds are your rulers” .


Since the rulers are our reflections in the mirror, it is unintelligent to revile our own ugly reflection we see in the mirror. If a beautiful image is desired to be reflected in the mirror, it is necessary for the object in front of the mirror to be beautiful. A very ugly ignorant man who had never seen a mirror in his life once picked up a broken mirror. When he looked in it, he saw his own ugly face. In disgust he threw the mirror to the ground and exclaimed: “No wonder you have been thrown away!” This buffoon reviled the mirror for his own ugliness which was reflected in it. This is the condition of people who revile the rulers. They in fact revile themselves in the same way that the buffoon had thrown away the mirror and reviled it.

In the Hadith Qudsi, we are instructed to reform ourselves and become obedient servants of Allah Ta’ala. He will then either reform and tenderize the hearts of the tyrannical rulers or replace them with kind, benevolent rulers. It is quite obvious from the many Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as well as stemming from the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem that in general cruel and oppressive rulers are the consequences of the evils of the masses, and that the solution for the oppression and tyranny is not vilification of the tyrants. On the contrary, it is selfvilification, soul-searching, regret and repentance.

Moral reformation and submission to the Shariah of Allah Azza Wa Jal will bring about a peaceful revolution which will see either the change of heart of the rulers or their replacement by benevolent rulers. It is also quiet clear that the basic theme of all the Ahaadith on this subject is self-reformation, for only such reformation is the enduring solution for the tyranny of oppressors.


However, shaitaan has succeeded in casting the Ummah into the massive deception of believing that the problem is for example Sisi,Obama,Modi, Asad and the host of other kuffaar and munaafiqs who are today at the helm of affairs in the lands of Islam. These tyrants are merely the reflections of the moral degradation, bid’ah, fisq, fujoor and kufr in which the Ummah is today wallowing in a drunken stupor.

Removal and killing of the tyrants without moral reformation and submission to the Sunnah is simply the substitution of one system of tyranny for another system of tyranny. The scenario of substitution of tyrannies comes within the scope of the Hadith Qudsi (mentioned above) in which Allah Azza Wa Jal says that both groups – the oppressors and the oppressed who replace the former oppressors – are Mabghoodh Alayhim, i.e. the Wrath of Allah Ta’ala has settled on them. Both groups of scum will be swept into Jahannum. This is the situation prevailing currently in the Arab lands in the aftermath of the so-called stupid ‘Arab Spring’. Both groups are Mabgoodh Alayhim.

The other form of punishment mentioned in the Ahaadith for a flagrantly transgressing and rebellious Ummah when their final destruction has not yet been ordained, but is divinely schemed to be gradual and incremental, is drought, scarcity of essential foodstuff, soaring prices, pestilence, infighting, etc. Then when the hour dawns for the ultimate decree of annihilation, no respite will be granted.

And, when We decide to destroy a place (town/city, i.e. its people), we command its affluent ones (that is, we grant them leeway to transgress recklessly). Then they indulge in transgression. Thus the decree (of punishment) is ordained for them. Then We utterly destroy them.”
“And, when their appointed time (of annihilation) arrives, it will not be delayed a moment nor advanced.” (Qur’aan)

As long as Muslims fail to understand that every particle moves by the direct intervention and command of Allah Azza Wa Jal and that the oppression which rulers inflict on the populace is the decree of Allah Ta’ala, and the solution for such tyranny is Inaabat ilallaah (Turning to Allah with Repentance), they will remain sinking in an abyss of moral degradation and humiliation to remain the slaves of the western kuffaar.

“And not a leaf falls (from a tree) but He is aware of it….”


Examples of sins which the whole Ummah is flagrantly indulging in and justifying on the shaytaani basis of “valid ikhilaaf” and which were ruled emphatically as HARAAM according to the complete IJMA (CONSENSUS) of all the Akaabir of Deoband who upheld authentically the ruling of the Aimmah Mujtahideen and Fuqaha (jurists):

* Music – there is no such thing as ‘Halaal’ music, regardless of the new technology used to produce it.

* Pictures, Photos, Videos, Digital images containing animate objects – there is not such thing as Halaal video containing animate objects.

* Prohibition of Women coming out of their homes to go to the Masjids, public “Islamic” lectures, etc.

* Alcohol – even a drop of wine added to your food renders the whole food as HARAAM by Ijma’ (consensus). Small amounts of alcohol are added to ALL fizzy drinks, and countless other food items that are completely unnecessary for our survival, but eaten just for the sake of our Nafs (desires).

* Trusting the Faasiq-Faajir Saudi government for doing Eid based on a fake moon, who have let slip and revealed in numerous official documents and letters (to be published soon) that they do not base their month on Islamic moon-sighting.



Introduction to the Science of ‘Aqeedah

Islamic Beliefs and the Importance of Its Study                                                

Ilm al-tawhid, the science of divine oneness, is one of the most important and noble sciences. Not only does it refine one’s understanding of the Creator, His messengers, and His communication with creation, but it also enables one to gain insight into the reality and purpose of this world and into the eschatological matters of the Hereafter. These are in fact the three major themes of any work on Islamic beliefs:

(1) The divine being and attributes (ilahiyyat)

(2) The functions of prophethood (nubuwwat)

(3) Eschatology and that which comes after death (maghibat).

In the face of the present-day onslaught of varied ideologies and beliefs, and the promotion of unfettered freedom of thought, it is essential for all Muslims, the youth in particular, to have a firm grasp on their beliefs. The basic understanding one absorbs by being brought up in a Muslim home is scarcely adequate.

There is ample textual proof to the necessity of learning Islamic doctrine. In the Qur’an it states, “No that there is no other deity worthy of worship except Allah” (47:19), and the Messenger of Allah said, “Say, ‘I believe in Allah,’ and thereafter stand firm” (Muslim ).

Studying philosophy without a prior grounding in Islamic theology has many times been ruinous to the faith of some Muslims. Those with exposure to confused renditions of metaphysics and other recondite disciplines sometimes find it very difficult to accept the Islamic beliefs of which they were hitherto unaware. They are compelled, then, to assess these beliefs in light of the ideas that they have subconsciously or knowingly adopted. For some, this path leads to immense intellectual and emotional confusion and trauma which takes years to overcome.

Others are swallowed up by their predicament and become staunch proponents of “reform” and “progressivism” in the religion. Certain extreme cases-Allah forbid-end in outright apostasy. Only sincere believers who are blessed by Allah with the light of true knowledge and recourse to Him are saved.

Another benefit of studying one’s ‘aqidah , beyond this very basic level, is attaining a real and true appreciation of one’s beliefs and a deeper understanding of them, both of which lead to the elimination of doubts. Further study also curtails unnecessary and unconstructive debates regarding the nature of divinity. “Where is Allah?” “How Powerful is He and how much control does he have?” “Does Allah evolve?” “What is Allah and what is He not?” “What constitutes true belief?” “Are deeds important or is just calling oneself a Muslim sufficient for one’s salvation?” “Are prophets capable of sin?” “What is our perspective on the Companions?” “Are there other creations of Allah beyond what we can see?” “What comes after death?” “Is there such a thing as eternity?”

Questions like these can easily be answered by studying more advanced books on Islamic doctrine under the tutelage of reliable scholars. However, the true benefit of this learning lies beyond any intellectual satisfaction that one gains in this world; there is a higher purpose. The scholars, while explaining the first rules (mabadi’ ) of this science, state that its objective is to attain, by the mercy and grace of Allah, success in the Hereafter, the good pleasure of the All-Merciful, and entry into the gardens of eternal bliss.

Brief Sketch of the Origins of Islamic Theology

The earlier generations had little need for a codified form of theology. Most of the time, Surat al-Ikhlaṣ would suffice. Moreover, during the lifetime of the Messenger’s lifetime, in particular, whenever a question of faith or belief arose, he was there to answer it. There was no need then to formally systematize ‘aqidah , just as there was no need to do so for
fiqh , tafsir, and other religious sciences. Nearly the same was the condition of the era of the Companions and that of the Followers, the blessed period known that of the pious predecessors (salaf salihin).

Nevertheless, although Islamic belief and practice were for the most part unshakable during this period, faint tremors ominously signaled the quake that would soon rumble, then rock, the Umma. Seeing the danger posed to sacred Islamic knowledge by deviant individuals, ambitious politicians, and an increasingly confused populace, scholars from each successive generation, in response to the exigencies of their respective times, compiled and systematized Islamic norms, ideas, and beliefs, and meticulously crafted the disciplines we recognize today.

The origin of rigorous theological study can be traced back to as early as the caliphate of ‘Uthman. During his time, various alien ideas took root, with varying durability, in Muslim society and found an eager audience. During the Abbasid period, starting around the middle of the second century AH, the introduction of Greek (or more precisely Hellenistic) philosophy into Muslim lands led to heated discord. The newly formed Mu‘tazila managed to attain great favor with the ruling class, winning several caliphs over to their beliefs. They used their powerful political purchase to question and reinterpret many fundamentals of Islam and force conformity to their beliefs, or at least cow any would-be dissenters into silence. Those who had the courage to object were mercilessly persecuted, most notably Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal  ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ , who was cruelly put to the lash for refusing to accept false doctrines concerning the Qur’an. It was in this turbulent setting that the orthodox theological schools of Abu ‘l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ emerged.

Many of the differences one will find in Islamic doctrine and scholastic theology (kalam) literature are primarily between the Ash‘aris and Maturidis and the Mu‘tazila and, on a lesser scale, the Khawarij, Jabariyya, Murji’a, and a few other groups. The differences that some point to between the Ash’aris and the Maturidis are not theologically significant and have clear historical reasons, which we shall touch on below. It is more appropriate to view them as two approaches to the same theology and treat them as one. Indeed, the scholars do just that, referring to both groups collectively as Ash’aris when contrasting them with other sects. Both groups have always been mutually tolerant and never labeled the other innovative or heretical. It is only when these are set against the Mu’tazili and other doctrines that we see major theological divergence. An exhaustive study of each of these groups, and of others, and the effects their interplay had on Muslim government and society has been charted in the venerable tomes of history and theology. It is far beyond our purpose here to give even a synopsis of these works, but to gain a proper context in which to place al-‘Aqīdah al-Tahāwiyya , it is fitting to give a brief overview of the major theological groups.

The Ash’aris

The eponymous founder of the Ash’ari school was the “Imam of the Theologians,” ‘Ali ibn Isma‘il ibn Abi Bishr al-Ash‘ari al-Yamani al-Basri (Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’ 15:88). A descendant of the famous Companion Abu Mūsā al-Ash‘ari, he was born in Basra in the year 260/873 and died in 324/935.

Imam Ash‘ari ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ  was born at a time when several bickering sects were busying themselves with leveling charges of heresy and unbelief at other Muslims. Of these, the Mu‘tazila emerged as the strongest by far and earned the most adherents, especially once they started to garner support from the caliphate.

Abu ‘l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ  himself began as a Mu‘tazili. Growing up as the step-son and student of the famous Mu‘tazili teacher Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i (d. 303/915), he became firmly grounded in their ideology and proficient in their methods of argumentation, and he was a skilled debater to boot. All these qualities made him the ideal candidate to be the Mu‘tazilis’ star scholar, a post he held for many years. However, at the age of forty, he shocked all by severing himself from them and renounced their beliefs. He also publicly announced his repentance from their beliefs, and then set out to defend the true beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jama‘a held by the great jurists and
ḥadīth scholars of the time.

Much has been related regarding Imam Ash’ari’s ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ  conversion to orthodoxy. The great ḥadīth master and historian Ibn ‘Asakir relates from Isma‘il ibn Abi Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Ash‘ari    ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ, “Ash‘ari was our shaykh and Imam, the one in whom we placed our reliance. He persisted on the ideology of the Mu‘tazila for forty years. Then he disappeared into his home from the public for fifteen days. When he came out, he went to the Grand Masjid, ascended the pulpit, and said, ‘O people, I retreated from you for this period because, in my study of the evidences [of certain theological matters], they seemed to me to be on par with each other, and the truth over the false or the false over the truth was not discernible to me. I thus sought guidance from Allah, Most Blessed, Most High, and He guided me to the beliefs that I have recorded in this book of mine. I am now divested of all that I believed, just as I am divested of this garment of mine.’ He took off the garment he was wearing and cast it aside, and he passed the books on to the people. Among them were Al-Luma‘ (The Sparks). He then said, ‘Henceforth, I shall endeavor to refute the doctrines of the Mu‘tazila and lay bare their mistakes and weaknesses.’

When the scholars of ḥadīth and jurisprudence read these books, they adopted their contents and embraced them wholeheartedly, so much that their school of thought came to be attributed to him.”

Another incident, related by Qari, Taftazani, and others, may have also contributed to his conversion.

They relate that Shaykh Abu ‘l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ  once asked his teacher Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i, “What is your opinion regarding three brothers, one of whom dies obedient, another disobedient, and the third as a child?” He replied, “The first will be rewarded, the second punished with Hellfire, and the third will neither be punished nor rewarded.” Ash‘ari asked, “If the third one says, ‘O Lord, why did you give me death at a young age and not leave me to grow up so I could be obedient to you and thus enter Paradise?’” Jubba’i replied that Allah would say, “I knew that if you had grown up you would have disobeyed and thus entered the Hellfire, so it was better for you to have died young.”

So Ash‘ari ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ said, “If the second one says, ‘My Lord, why did you not let me [too] die young so I would not have disobeyed and entered Hellfire?’ What will the Lord say then?” Jubba’i was confounded.

Ash‘ari ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ abandoned the Mu’tazila doctrine and took to refuting it and establishing what had been transmitted from the Sunna and confirmed by the jamāʿa , or community, of Companions and pious predecessors. Therefore, he and his followers were called Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jamāʿa or “the People of the Sunna and Community” (Minaḥ al- Rawḍ al-Azhar 220, Sharḥ al-ʿAqā’id al-Nasafiyya ).

The Maturidis

Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Maḥmūd, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi  ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ the “Imam of the Theologians,” was the eponymous founder of the second major Sunni school of theology.

He was born in Māturīd, a district of Samarqand, in present-day Uzbekistan. Aside from being one of the Imams of the fundamentals of Dīn, he was a prominent jurist of the Ḥanafī school, having studied under Naṣr ibn Yaḥyā al-Balkhī.

Abu Zahra (d. 1396/1976) says in his Al-Madhāhib al-Islāmiyya, “Abu Mansur al-Maturidi ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ    and Abu ‘l-Ḥasan al-Ash’ari ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ were contemporaries, and both were striving in the same cause. The difference was that Imam Ash’ari was closer to the camps of the opponent [the Mu‘tazila]. Basra had been the birthplace of the Mu‘tazili ideology and the place from where it grew and spread, and it was also one of the main fronts in the ideological war between the Mu‘tazila and the scholars of ḥadīth and jurisprudence (fiqh).

Though Abu Mansur al-Maturidi   ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ was far from this battlefield, its echoes had reached the lands where he lived, and hence, there were Mu’tazila in Transoxiana mimicking the Mu‘tazila of Iraq. It was Maturidi who stood up to combat them.”

What we learn from the biographies of the two Imams is that their goal was one: to defend the orthodox beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jama‘a against the onslaught of innovators, especially the Mu‘tazila. Though their objectives were the same, certain elements of their methodologies inevitably diverged, commensurate with the unique circumstances of each Imam’s locality.

Some scholars sum up their differences as follows: Ash‘ari did not set great store by reason in the presence of sacred texts, even if they were transmitted by lone narrators ( khabar ahad ) rather than through uninterrupted transmission (tawatur ), while Maturidi would attempt to reconcile between reason and the transmitted text (manqul), as long as it was possible to do so without too much difficulty or without sacrificing fairness. This slight difference in methodology did not produce any substantial discrepancy in their theological precepts, but indeed served only to make the existing theological discourse all the richer. The differences were on ancillary matters that had no bearing on agreed-upon fundamentals, and most could be reduced to mere differences in phraseology. These two schools are thus both classified as orthodox schools of Islamic theology and of the Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jama‘a, with the Maturidis coming under the general heading of “Ash‘aris” when contrasted with the Mu‘tazila, Khawarij, and other innovators.
It should be interesting to note that most of the followers of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence have historically been followers of the Maturidi school of theology.

However, one third of them, along with three-quarters of the Shafi‘is, all of the Malikis, and some Hanbalis, adhere to the Ash‘ari school. A few Ḥanafīs, Hanbalis, and Shafi‘is subscribed to the Mu’tazili school, and aside from another group of Hanbalis, who remained on the school of the predecessors (salaf) in the practice of tafwid (consigning the knowledge of the details of ambiguous [ mutashabihat ] sacred texts to Allah), many others adopted the Hashawiyya ideology ( Muqaddimat al-Imam al-Kawthari ).

The Mu‘tazila

Isolationists or Dissenters. The Mu‘tazila doctrine originated in Basra in the early second century, when Wasil ibn ‘Ata’ (d. 131/748) left the circle of Hasan al-Basri ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ after a theological dispute regarding al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn, and whether a person guilty of enormities remains a believer. Hasan Basri  ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ said, “‘Ata’ has dissented from us,” and thereafter, he and his followers were called the Dissenters, or Mu‘tazila.

The Mu‘tazila (also called Mu‘tazilites) named themselves
Ahl al-Tawhid wa ‘l-‘Adl (The People of Divine Oneness and Justice), claiming that their theology grounded the Islamic belief system in reason. Mu‘tazili tenets focused on the Five Principles:

(1) tawhid (divine oneness)

(2) ‘adl (divine justice)

(3) wa‘d wa wa‘id (promise and threat)

(4) al-manzila bayn al-manzilatayn (the rank in between two ranks)

(5) amr bi ‘l-ma‘ruf wa ‘l-nahy ‘an al-munkar (enjoining good and forbidding evil).

The founders and leaders of this sect included Abu ‘Ali Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Jubba’i, ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, Bishr ibn Sa‘id, Ibrahim ibn al-Nazzam, Yashama ibn al-Mu‘tamir, Abu ‘l-Hudhayl al-‘Allaf, and Abu Bakr ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Kisan al-Asamm.

Over time, the Mu‘tazila split into more than twenty subgroups, such as the Wasiliyya, Hudhaliyya, and Nazzamiyya, each named after its founder, and some of them even considered the other subgroups to be unbelievers. However, they shared opposition to the Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jama‘a in several core beliefs, one of which was their negation of the attributes (sifat al-ma‘ani ).

Unlike the Ahl al-Sunna wa ‘l-Jama‘a, they claimed that Allah knows, wills, and sees through His essence, not through the attributes of knowledge, will, and sight. Furthermore, they denied the beatific vision by the dwellers of Paradise. They believed that Allah creates His speech in a body and that the Qur’an is therefore created; that reason can dictate the righteous and wicked to Allah and obligate him to declare it as such; that it is obligatory on Allah to punish the sinner and reward the obedient; that the servant is the creator of his willful actions; and that unbelief and disobedience are not created by Allah (hence, they are also Qadariyya). Nevertheless, it must be remembered that although such beliefs are corrupt and invalid, orthodox Muslim scholars did not necessarily charge the Mu‘tazila with apostasy, nor did they regard it permissible to label them unbelievers because of their views. However, they did render them the status of innovators and transgressors.

The Qadariyya

Libertarians. These were proponents of absolute free will, or libertarianism. The ideology of the Qadariyya (sometimes called Qadarites) is fundamentally shared by the Shi‘a and the Mu‘tazila, both of whom deny that Allah creates evil but ascribe to man the ability to create evil. Ma‘bad ibn Khalid al-Juhani (d. 80/699) was the first to speak in denial of qadar (predestination).

The Khawarij

Separatists or Seceders. The Khawarij (or Kharijites) were the first sect to split from mainstream Islam. After the arbitration between ‘Ali ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ and Mu‘awiya ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ, a small number of pietists separated from them and withdrew to the village of Harura‘ under the leadership of Ibn Wahb and were joined near Nahrawan by a larger group. This was the group responsible for the assassination of ‘Ali ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ and the failed attempts to assassinate Mu‘awiya ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  and ‘Amr ibn al-‘As ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  . Even more extreme than the Mu‘tazila, they held actions to be an integral part of faith and thus considered anyone guilty of an enormity to be an unbeliever.

There were some other theological sects that emerged which did not have as much influence as the Mu‘tazila, but nonetheless added to the fierce sectarianism that characterized the period.

The Jabariyya

Fatalists. The belief of the Jabariyya (or Jabarites) is diametrically opposed to that of the Qadariyya. They had a fatalistic outlook and believed that man has no free will in his actions; that man is under compulsion, or jabr, just as a feather is at the mercy of the winds; and that he has no choice even in his intentional actions. A subgroup of the Jabariyya are the Jahmiyya.

The Jahmiyya

They were followers of Jahm ibn Safwan al-Samarqandi (d. 128/745) and considered pure fatalists (jabariyya). Jahm expressed his heretical beliefs in Termez (present-day
Uzbekistan) and was killed by Muslim ibn Ahwaz al-Mazini in Marw (present-day Turkmenistan). Like the Mu‘tazila, he rejected the eternal divine attributes, but he also held other heretical beliefs. For example, he was one of the first to say the Qur’an was created, having learned this idea from his Damascene teacher Ja‘d ibn Dirham. Other beliefs attributed to him are that Paradise and Hell are transient. A number of beliefs are sometimes falsely ascribed to him, according to Imam al-Kawthari, and people sometimes hurl the name Jahmiyya as an insulting epithet upon any disagreeable opponent. Certain beliefs held by Jahm ibn Safwan do take one out of Islam into unbelief, as do some of those held by the Karramiyya.

The Karramiyya

Their name and beliefs are traced to Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad ibn Karram (d. 255/868). About them, Shahrastani writes, “They believed that many contingent things exist in the essence of Allah. For example, they believe that the informing of past and future events exists in His essence just as the books revealed to the messengers exist in His essence [rather than being through His attributes]. They are anthropomorphists (mujassima), for Muḥammad ibn Karram declared that his god (as Allah is transcendent above what he ascribes to Him) rests on the Throne; that He is “above,” as in the physical direction; that He is substantive; and that there are [physical] movement, displacement, and descension for Him, among other irrational ideas. Some Karramiyya also claimed that Allah is a body (jism ).
The Karramiyya divided over time into twelve sects
(Shahrastani, Al-Milal wa ‘l-Nihal 1:108-109).

The Murji’a

Postponers, Deferrers, or Antinomians. They were group of innovators who claimed that disobedience in faith does not harm one, but that Allah forgives all sins as long as one has faith, thus going to the opposite extreme of the Khawarij. Because of their belief, they frequently neglected their religious rites.

Although these sects may no longer exist today as formal groups, some of their beliefs have continued and are heard being advocated by contemporary figures who style themselves as reformers. All praise is due to Allah, then, who has preserved His faith and created in it the power to continually cleanse itself of innovations and spurious reformations. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “This sacred knowledge will be borne by the reliable authorities of each successive generation, who will [preserve it and] remove from it the alterations of the excessive, the interpolations of the corrupt, and the false interpretations of the ignorant”
( Bayhaqi; Khatib al-Baghdadi, Sharaf Ashab al-Hadith ).

[Excerpt from al-Fiqh al-Akbar Explained, Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf]

WHO IS THE GREATEST CONQUEROR IN HISTORY: Alexander the Great or Hazrat Umar Al Farooq ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨ??


Alexander lll of Macedonia known as Alexander the Great (21 July 356 BCE – 10 or 11 June 323 BCE), was the son of King Philip II of Macedonia. He became a king at the age of 20 upon his father’s death and ventured out of Macedon at 23. He first conquered the whole of Greece. Then he entered Turkey. After this he defeated Darius (Dara) of Persia, entered Syria, moved to Jerusalem and then Babylon and Egypt and India. In India he fought King Porus and founded the city of Phalia in memory of his favorite horse.
He started his return through Makran. Though his death is a mystery but commonly said that he contacted malaria or typhoid on his way back and died in the year 323 B.C. at the age of 33 in the palace of Bakht Nasr.

Alexander was the son of a king. he was taught to fight and ride by Leonidas of Epirus, a relative of his mother Olympias. Lysimachus of Acarnania taught him reading, writing, and to play the lyre. At the age of 14 Alexander was introduced to the Greek philosopher Aristotle who Philip hired as a private tutor.
On the other hand Hazrat Umar Farooq  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ did not have any royal ancestor in his 7 previous generations, grew up minding herds of goats and sheep and had not got trained in the art of war from anyone. Not just war but He didn’t learned horse riding or art of Archery and sword fighting from any teacher. But what goes in his way is that his only teacher was Last Prophet of Allah all mighty, Prophet Muhammad (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ).

In 15 years of conquest Alexander had conquered 1.7 million square miles of land with an army of more then 32,000-47,000 infantry and 5,100 cavalry.
Hazrat Umar Farooq ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ , in 10 years, conquered 2.2 million square miles of land including the super powers of that time, Rome and Persia with an un‐organized army. No ruler of ancient time had a domain as vast as that of Hazrat Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ which he had not only got conquered on mere horseback but had also managed and ruled it.
Alexander got many of his own generals killed during his conquests, many generals and soldiers deserted him, there were rebellions against him and his army even refused to proceed in India.

No companion of Hazrat Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ever had the courage to disobey him. He was the commander who deposed the strongest general of Islam, Khalid bin Waleed ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  right in the battleground and demoted him to a simple soldier in the Muslim army and name Abu Ubaidah    ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ as new commander in chief because Hazrat khalid bin Waleed ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ gave some one an expensive prize. So Hazrat Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ said “If Khalid gave this prize from his pocket then it was overspending and if it was from bait ul maal then it was an unjust thing to do.”

He removed Saad bin Abi Waqas ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ from the governorship of Kufa(1) and recalled the amir of Egypt Ghayas bin Ghanam, made him wear cloths made of rough hair and assigned him to grazing the sheep because he use to wear expensive cloths and had a guard at his door. No one dared to disobey.

Alexander conquered 1.7 million square miles of land but could not give any system to the world, whereas
Hazrat Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ gave such systems as are still prevalent the world over:
1 – Started Hijri calendar
2 – Introduced Jail System.
3 – Started the salaries for Muezzins (Who Say Azan for Prayers).
4 – He order to maintain light in all Mosques during night times.
5 – Introduced the Police system for the first time.
6 – Lay down the foundation of a complete court system where even he was answerable.
7 – Started a regular holidays system for soldiers so that they can give proper time to their family.
8 – He introduced the Canal System for agriculture and irrigation system.
9 – He first time made the Army FOB’s (Forward operating bases) and laid the foundation of a military departments and a complete organization system.
10 – He first time in the world ordered funds, benefits and appointed regular salaries for infants, handicapped, homeless, old, helpless and widows.
11 – Made rich, rulers and government officials to declare their assets.
12 – Started punishing unjust judges.
13 – First time in history started accountability of upper class.
12 – Started punishment for the consumption of alcohol.
13 – He first time ordered to wear uniforms for Police.
14 – During his tenure the Taraweeh Prayer was started regularly.
15 – Adopted the sentence ﺃﺻﻠﻮﺃﺓ ﺧﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻡ (Prayer is Better than Sleep) in Fajar Prayer.
16 – Built resting places on many places on famous trading routes.
17 – He used to protect the trade caravans at night.
18 – He was the only ruler ever to admit that even if a dog died of hunger on the banks on river Tigris during his rule, he would have to bear the punishment for this.
19 – He was in debt when martyred and his loan was paid off by selling his only property according to his will.
20 – His sentence “Mothers give birth to free children, since when have you enslaved them” is still considered the charter of human rights.
21 – He used to say that pardoning a tyrant is injustice to the oppressed.

He ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ used to say that rulers who deliver justice, sleep fearlessly at night.

His saying is that “the leader of the nation is actually its servant.”

His stamp read “Umar! death is enough of an admonition”.

He ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ never had two dishes on his table.

He ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ used to go to sleep with a brick and even his own elbow as a pillow.

While traveling, he ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ would just stretch a sheet on a tree to make a shadow and go to sleep whenever sleepy.

He ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ used to sleep on bare ground at night. His shirt had 14 patches, among them one of red leather.

He ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ used to wear thick coarse cloth and hated soft fine one.

Whenever he  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ appointed someone on a government position, he would get an estimate of his wealth and keep it with himself.

If the wealth of that person increased during his tenure, he ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ would be held accountable.

Whenever he ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  appointed anyone as a governor, he would advise him to never to ride a Turkish horse, wear fine cloth, consume fine flour, have a gatekeeper or close his doors to the distressed.

He ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  was the first Caliph of Islam who was given the title “Ameer‐ul‐Momineen”.

Every religion of the world has a special characteristic, the special characteristic of Islam is justice, and Hazrat Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  is one who makes this true.

His justice gave rise to the term “Adl‐e‐Farooqui” (the justice of Farooq).

His justice was such that when he died, a herdsman came running in a far off land in
his domain shouting “O men, Hazrat Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ has passed away.”
People asked him in astonishment who, thousands of miles from Medina, informed him of this in a jungle.
The herdsman said “as long as Hazrat Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ was alive my sheep used to move around fearlessly in the jungle and no beast dared to even look at them. Today, for the
first time, a wolf has taken away my goat. The fearlessness of the wolf indicates to
me that Hazrat Umar  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  is no more.”

The name of Alexander is now only in books whereas the systems devised by Umar  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ are still prevalent in at least 245 countries of the world in some form. Even today, when a letter leaves a post office, when a policeman wears a uniform, when a soldier goes on a leave after six months of duty,when a government pays a stipend to a child, a destitute, a widow or a helpless person, the society automatically accepts Umar  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  as “The Great” and acknowledged him to be the biggest “Sikandar” ever, except for those Muslims who, in their deep sense of inferiority, look around in fear even when reciting the words of faith.

The Muslims of Lahore had once dared the English that if they once decided to act, they will remind them of Changez Khan. Upon this Jawaharlal Nehru had smiled and said that “sadly these Muslims citing the example of Changez Khan had forgotten that there was an Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ also in their history.

A Famous historian once said “If Muslims had one more Umar Farooq  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  in them, Islam would have been the only religion of the world.”

We are also forgetting today that among us was one Umar Farooq ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ about whom the Prophet Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him had said that “If there could be a prophet after him, he would have been Umar (Radiallahu Ta’ala Anhu).

(1). Sa’ad was the one who built the city of Kufa in Iraq during the reign Umar ibn al-Khattab ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ He was appointed by Umar as its Amir. Later Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ removed him from that post but he was re-assigned during the caliphate of Uthman  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ. Muslim mentions that the people of Kufa filed a complaint against Sa’ad to the Caliph Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ   . Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ was known to be meticulous in his rulings & verdicts. He sent a committee to Kufa to investigate the matter. They passed by all mosques of the city asking about Sa’ad  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  & got loads of praise on his behalf. In just one masjid, that of the clan of Bani Abd, one single man (Abu Sa’adah) criticized Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  saying: Sa’ad never leads his troops, never rules fairly, & never divides profits evenly. When this reached Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ, he said: As he accused me of three, likewise I’ll ask God for three to befall him if he lied: to extend his life, to deepen his poverty & to make fall for temptations. The narrators Abdul Malak ibn Umair after Jabir ibn Thamarah testify that they saw such a man who falsely charged Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  cursed by Sa’ad’s invocation: old, poor & chasing women in the streets! If the accusations were false & Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ acquitted, why then did Umar  ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  remove Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ from his post as Emir of Kufa?? This resolution from Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ   was not for something wrong that Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ did. This is proved by the fact that Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  chose Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ as one of his possible successors. Moreover, Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  specified Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  in his will: “If Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ was chosen as my successor well & good, if not he should be consulted. I did not remove him for being defective or dishonest”.

Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ dismissed Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ as a part of his policy of legitimacy. He ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ would not leave someone in office who has been accused by people, even if the charges were proved to be false. He would not let doubts propagate in the hearts of lay people. When Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ was in his death-bed, he confirmed the honest status of Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ  admitting that he did not dismiss him for any defects or dishonesty on his side. And he appointed Sa’ad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ as one of his possible successors.

Once It was reported to Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ that Saad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ had constructed a palace, and had provided a door which could be shut at his option. The orders of Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ were that where the Governors sat to meet the people or attend to their complaints there should be no door so that all people could have access to the Governor at all times.

Umar ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ deputed Muhammad bin Masalma to hold an inquiry on the spot and if he found that a door had in fact been constructed it should be burnt. Muhammad went to Kufa and found the door. Saad ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ argued that as a market adjoined his house the door was necessary to shut down the noise. This explanation was not accepted and Muhammad burnt the door.

This is how Hazrat Umar ‘s ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ legacy was! What a great man! Surely Islam needs such men at the moment!

The Methodology of Imam Abu Hanifa ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ in Fiqh


One indication to Imam Abu Hanifa’s ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ vast knowledge of the sources of the Shari’ah is his methodology in deriving rulings from the Shari’ah, since one of his primary sources is the authentic sunnah and the opinions of the Sahabah, as he himself explicitly stated:

Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrates: ‘Abd al-Warith narrated to us: Qasim narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Zuhayr narrated to us: Yahya ibn Ma‘in narrated to us: ‘Ubayd ibn Abi Qurrah narrated to us from Yahya ibn Durays, he said: I was present with Sufyan al-Thawri ( ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ) when a man of great knowledge and piety came to him, and he said: “O Abu ‘Abd Allah! What do you have against Abu Hanifa?” He said: “And what does he have?” He said: “I heard him [i.e. Abu Hanifah] say a statement in which there is balance and proof: ‘Indeed I take [legal opinions] from the Book of Allah when I find it. That which I do not find therein, I take from the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger and the authentic narrations from him which have spread between the hands of trustworthy people from trustworthy people. If I do not find it in the Book of Allah, nor the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger, I take the opinion of his companions, [adopting the opinion of] whoever [of them] I wish, and I leave the opinion of whoever [of them] I wish. Moreover, I do not leave their opinion for another’s opinion. If the [legal] issue reaches [only] to Ibrahim, al-Sha‘bi, al-Hasan, ‘Ata, Ibn Sirin, Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab – and he enumerated [other] men – then, [they are] a people who performed ijtihad , so I may perform ijtihad just as they performed ijtihad .’” Thereupon, Sufyan remained silent for a long period, and then he said some words of which there remained none in the gathering but he wrote them: “We hear harshness in speech and we fear it. We hear softness and we desire it. We do not judge the living; nor do we judge the dead. We accept what we hear. And we entrust what we do not know to its knower, and we put our opinion in doubt in favour of their opinion.” (Al-Intiqa’ fi Fada’il al-A’immati l-Thalathat al-Fuqaha’ , pp. 264-5)

This sanad is authentic: ‘Abd al-Warith ibn Sufyan al-Qurtubi (d. 395) is thiqah according to al-Dhahabi ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ  in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala (Misbah al-Arib 2:297); al-Qasim ibn Asbagh al-Qurtubi (247 – 340) was called “the great hafiz ” and “the muhaddith of Cordoba” by al-‘Asqalani  ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ  and is
saduq (Lisan al-Mizan (6:367-8); Ahmad ibn Zuhayr ibn Harb (d. 299) is thiqah according to al-Daraqutni and Khatib; ‘Ubayd ibn Abi Qurrah is a shaykh of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ    and is thiqah according to Ya‘qub ibn Shaybah and Yahya ibn Ma‘in ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ (Tarikh Baghdad 12:386-9); Yahya ibn al-Durays (d. 203) is a narrator of Muslim, and is thiqah according to Ibn Ma‘in ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ (Tahrir al-Taqrib 4:89).

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi transmitted the same narration with a different chain leading up to Yahya ibn Ma‘in ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ  after which the chain is the same, and Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf commented on it, “This is a report with a sahih isnad, and its narrators are trustworthy and well-known.” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:504)

Several other narrations with similar wordings from Imam Abu Hanifa ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ about his methodology have been reported in al-Intiqa’ by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (pp. 266-7). These narrations from Imam Abu Hanifa ﺭﺣﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﮧ ﻋﻠﯿﻪ   regarding his methodology in deriving laws reveal the baselessness of the allegation that in most of his opinions he relied on analogy and parted from the transmitted sources of the Shari’ah. In fact, the Qur’an, well-known sunnah and narrations from the Sahabah were the primary foundations of his madhhab.

The Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs


There is a Hadith narrated in Musnad Ahmad which states:

“There shall be twelve Caliphs for this community, all of them from Quraish.”

This same Hadith has been narrated in many other reliable Sunni books of Hadith, and it has been deemed as Sahih by the Sunni scholars.

Is this not proof in support of Shi’ism, namely in their belief of twelve Imams?

Answer: This issue of the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs has caused un-necessary confusion within the ranks of Sunni lay-persons; the e-Shia have relied on this Hadith as a trump card whilst debating on various forums, mostly due to the fact that no Sunni site had–up until now–adequately dealt with this issue. The few responses that were available from the Sunni side were half-hearted at best and in fact failed to deal with the crux of the issue, namely the coincidence between the number twelve found in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams. No doubt it was this (so-called) “coincidence” that seemed to surprise Sunni lay-persons. It is our sincere hope that this article will finally bring an end to this situation; we will show, from their own Shia books, that there is absolutely no coincidence in the number twelve nor is it a proof for Shi’ism but rather it is only a proof of the Shia manipulations.

Throughout our answer to this question, we refer the reader to the following book: The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain. It should be noted that the author, Dr. Hussain, is a devout Imami Shia professor who wrote this book in order to defend Shi’ism. The book was published by “The Muhammadi Trust” as well as by the “Zahra Trust”, both of which are very well-respected Shia publishers. The book is also referenced by and therein cited as an authoratative source. Hence, the book is considered highly reliable to the Shia.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is an example of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. Therefore, before we begin, we must define what exactly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We read:

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become “true”.
(“Self-fulfilling prophecy”, Wikipedia)

To give an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, we have the literary story of “Romulus and Remus”: according to legend, Romulus and Remus were in their childhood sentenced to death for fear of a prophecy that one day they would kill the king. However, Romulus and Remus escape death and later in life they hear stories of the prophecy; after hearing these prophecies, Romulus and Remus then realize that their destiny in life is to kill the king, and they then do exactly that.

In other words, a self-fulfilling prophecy is a statement which may sufficiently influence people in such a way that their reactions ultimately fulfill (or seem to fulfill) the prophecy. The prophecies of various religious persons have always been the victims of this problem, whereby people seek to fulfill the prophecy themselves. As for the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, the Prophet (ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) prophecized that there would be twelve Caliphs after him, and thereafter various deviant sects “fulfilled” this prophecy by laying claim to political authority by putting forward their own set of twelve Caliphs.

The Hadith of the Twelve Caliphs

There is no doubt that the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) did in fact prophecize in Hadith that there would be twelve Caliphs, and many Sunni scholars do believe that the last of the twelve will be Imam Mehdi who will fill the earth with justice. This is most definitely a belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, well-known to the scholars even if it is not well-known amongst the lay-persons from amongst the Sunnis.

After the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) made this statement, there were many deviant sects which sought to exploit this Hadith and other similar prophecies in order to bring themselves to power. The Shia were one such group, who used this Hadith–along with those about Imam Mehdi–in order to place their own sect into power. It was based upon the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs that the Shia decided to limit their Imamah to the number twelve. We read (emphasis is ours):

These and other traditions (Hadith) were spread in both Imamite and Zaydite circles…According to al-Saduq these traditions (Hadith) and others predicting the occurrence of the Ghayba were the main reason for the Imamite acceptance of the Ghayba and for their being satisfied that the series of the Imams should stop at the twelfth.
The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.143

In other words, the Imamah of the Imami Shia would not have ended at the number twelve had it not been for this Hadith of the twelve Caliphs found in mainstream Muslim books of Hadith. It was this Hadith which was one of the “main reasons” that caused the Shia to terminate the Imamah at the number twelve. It is therefore based on very backwards and circular logic that the Shia should now use this Hadith as proof for their twelve Imams, when in fact it was they who based their belief on our Hadith! Today we have Shia youths who attack the Sunnis by saying “how could it simply be a coincidence that your Hadith also tells you about these twelve Imams?” Of course it is not a coincidence! It is the Shia who based their deviant beliefs in our Hadith, and so it is very queer of them to then further our Hadith as proof of their beliefs! This is very backwards and circular logic! It is placing the carriage before the horse, reversing cause and effect!

In fact, had the Sunni Hadith stated that there were eleven Caliphs instead of twelve, then the Shia would have claimed that their Imams were eleven in number. And once again, they would have come to us with incredulous looks on their faces, saying what a “miracle” it was that their beliefs can be “proven” from our books. Had it been thirteen Caliphs mentioned in the Sunni books of Hadith, then the Shia would have ended the Imamah at the number thirteen. The proof for the termination of the Shia Imamah was based from Sunni Hadith, so there is therefore no surprise at the concordance between the number of Caliphs in Sunni Hadith and the number of Shia Imams.
Indeed, the Shia in actuality did not have twelve Imams, but eleven of them. The eleventh Imam, Hasan al-Askari Rahmatullah Alaih,passed away without leaving behind a son to succeed him. In fact, Hasan al-Askari’s own family were completely ignorant of the existence of any child of his, and Hasan al-Askari’s estate had been divided between his brother Jafar and his mother (instead of any to the son). Moojan Momen writes in “An Introduction to Shi’i Islam” (London, 1985, p. 162) that, “Jafar remained unshakeable in his assertion that his brother (Hasan al-Askari) had no progeny.” We read:

The majority of the Imamites…denied his birth or even his existence, and mocked those who believed in him. According to al-Nu’mani the bulk of these groups abandoned their belief in the hidden Imam. In fact those who continued to hold a firm belief in his Imamate were a small minority belonging to the circles of narrators, like Ibn Qubba and al-Nu’mani himself, who based their belief on the traditions of the Imams (i.e. Hadith about twelve Imams).
Many scholars shared the perplexity of the Imamite masses over the prolonged occultation of the twelfth Imam.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.143)

Indeed, if Hasan al-Askari Rahmatullah Alaih really had a child, then why did his own family not give a share of the inheritance to him? To deal with this inconsistency, the Imami Shia of the time denounced Jafar as being “al-Kadhab” (the Liar), and they came up with the fantastic story that the eleventh Imam had a son but that this son was hidden from view (i.e. in occultation).

In order to “prove” the existence of this mysterious son, the Imami Shia actually brought forward the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others similar to it, in order to somehow prove that the Imamah could not possibly have ended at eleven persons but must be twelve in number. Nonetheless, such fantastic explanations did not fool the vast majority of the Imami Shia who “apostatized” from Imamiyyah Shi’ism in order to embrace Sunni Islam or other branches of Shi’ism. In fact, the Shia movement split into at least fifteen different sects after the eleventh Imam’s death, some of these sects claiming that the Imams were only eleven in number (and ended with Hasan al-Askari).

These sects were defeated and denounced by the Imami Shia safir (representative) who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs–along with an intensive propaganda campaign–to silence any who opposed the idea of there being exactly twelve Imams; it was because of this very Hadith that these other Shia groups–who believed in eleven Imams–fell into non-existence. We read:

Although the Imamites split into fifteen groups and held different views concerning the successor of al-Askari at the time of the first safir , the teaching and the underground activities of the second safir met with success. His followers (al-Imamiyya al-Qat’iyya) carried out intensive propaganda to prove the existence of the twelfth Imam…thus the teachings and doctrine of the followers of the second safir dominated Imamite circles, whereas other groups disappeared.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.139)

And we read how many Shia used this Hadith to limit the number to twelve:

He also mentions traditions (Hadith) which point to the fact that the number of the Imams would end with the twelfth Imam and he would be al-Qa’im.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.4)

So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs was instrumental in determining how many Imams the Shia decided upon having. Had, for example, the tenth Imam died without leaving behind a successor, then the Shia would have said that there were two Imams in occultation or perhaps they would have nominated a brother of the Imam’s to be one of their Imams or perhaps they would claim that Fatima ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ) was one of the twelve, etc. Whatever the case, no matter what, the Shia would make sure that their Imams would add upto twelve in number, in order to establish legitimacy through the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs. It is therefore very pretentious that they should now use this as a proof against us.

Hadith Exploited by Deviant Sects

A fact unknown to lay-persons is that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is exploited by not only the Imami Shia but by many other deviant sects. Interestingly, many of these deviant sects have a more convincing argument for their claims over that of the Imami Shia! For example, the Ibaadis–the descendants of the Khawaarij–use the Hadith of twelve Caliphs in order to validate the claims of their leaders, who were twelve in number. The Ibaadis claim that this Hadith is a “shining proof” for their twelve Caliphs, which include: Abu Bakr ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ), Umar ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ), Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Kindi, and the nine Ibaadi Imams of the Rustamid Dynasty.

It is interesting that the racist cult known as the Nation of Islam, headed by Elijah Muhammad, also uses the hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to validate their sect. Elijah Muhammad, their supposed Messenger, claimed that their founder, W.D. Fard, was one of the twelve Imams:

Now there are twelve (12) Imams or Scientists, who have been ruling all the time, and one of the twelve is always greater than the other eleven (11)
(Muhammad Speaks Newspaper)

If a deviant group like the Nation of Islam can use the hadith of the twelve Caliphs, then we are not at all surprised when the twelver Shias use it as as a “proof”.

Another deviant sect which did in fact lay claim to the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and use it to bring themselves to power were the Zaydis. We read:

The Zaydites also used these traditions (Hadith) in their attempts to gain control
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154)

A group from amongst the Zaydis revered twelve Imams, but they believed in a different set of twelve Imams than the Imami Shia. These Zaydis believed in the first four of the Imams of the Imami Shia, but they disagreed with the Imami Shia as to who the other eight of them were. This group of Zaydis, like the Sunnis, believed that the Caliphate was not limited to twelve, but the Zaydis argued that the twelfth would be Al-Qa’im and he would lead an armed and political insurrection. A similar view was held by another heretical sect, namely that of the Ismailis who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order to further their own set of Imams. And there were many other deviant groups who used the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs–and other Hadith in regards to Imam Mehdi–in order to bring themselves to power. We read:

(These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18)

So we see that the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs and others like it were well-known by all Muslims back then and that deviant groups often used them in order to advance themselves politically. We read:

But political rivalry amongst the Muslims encouraged some people to exploit this hope and to distort these Prophetic traditions (Hadith) in order to use them in their struggle for power.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18)

We read:

The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21)

And we read, right from the mouth of this Shia historian himself, the following:

These traditions (Hadith) were used by many Shi’ite groups to back up the claims of their leaders who aspired to power
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.2)

The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is so vague and obscure that it allows almost any group to exploit it and use it to further their own cause; it simply necessitates allocating a group of twelve leaders and then saying that the Hadith refers to them. We read:

This obscurity allowed some ‘Alids to use these traditions (Hadith) to support their own political aims
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.154)

The exploitation of this Hadith was not at all limited to Imami Shia. We read:
Like the Imamites, the Ismailis had reported the (same) Prophetic traditions (Hadith)…however, they interpreted some of these traditions (Hadith) in a manner which would support their struggle to gain immediate success in North Africa. Furthermore they applied other traditions (Hadith) narrated by the Imamites about al-Qa’im al-Mahdi to their own concealed leader
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.111)

The Hadith was also exploited by a group known as the Qaramita. We read:

The Qaramite use of the Prophetic traditions (Hadith)…in their struggle to gain immediate political success…
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.116)

In fact, it was not only the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs which were exploited by the Shia but also many other Hadith which prophecized the coming of Imam Mehdi.
We read:
He also traces the use of the prophetic traditions (Hadith) regarding al-Qa’im al-Mahdi by these groups in their struggle for power
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.11)
We read further:
Between the years 245-260/859-874 the Imamite and Zaydite traditionists were relating traditions stating that al-Qa’im would be the twelfth Imam and urging people to join his side when he rose.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29)

On numerous occassions did groups of Shia exploit the Sunni Hadith in order to claim for themselves political supremacy. We read:
The spread of such narrations (Hadith) encouraged the Imamites to expect the rise of al-Qa’im in the near future and to link his rising with Abbasid rule. Some of them applied these traditions (Hadith) along with others concerning the signs of the rise of al-Qa’im to the circumstances surrounding the ‘Alid revolt which broke out in 250/864. Ibn ‘Uqba relates that the leader of the rebellion, Yahya b. Umar, was expected to be al-Qa’im al-Mahdi, since all the signs concerning the rise of al-Qa’im al-Mahdi related by al-Sadiq occurred during the revolt.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.29)
We read further:
It appears, however, that the Abbasid oppression did not deter the Shi’ite ambition to reach power. Many historians like al-Isfahani report that ‘Alid revolts broke out in 250-1/864-5 in the areas of Kufa, Tabaristan, Rayy, Qazwin, Egypt, and Hijaz. These might have been directed by one group, or to be more accurate, by one leader. It is beyond the scope of this work to deal with the details of these revolts, but it is worth mentioning that the rebels employed the Prophetic traditions (Hadith) concerning al-Qa’im al-Mahdi and the signs of his rising to achieve immediate political success.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.52)

This game of playing with Hadith was also played by Caliph al-Mansoor, who named his son “Muhammad al-Mahdi”. We read:
Moreover he (Caliph al-Mansoor) invested his successor Muhammad with the epithet “al-Mahdi” in order to turn the attention of his subjects from the ‘Alid family toward the family of Abbas.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.28)

Elaborating on this point, the Shia author states:

It is reported that the Prophet said, “The Mahdi is from my progeny. His name is similar to mine.” (al-Tirmidhi)…perhaps al-Mansur took this point into account when he called his son, “Muhammad al-Mahdi” (al-Bidaya)
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.165)

What is interesting is that at first many of the Shia referred to Hasan al-Askari’s mysterious son by the name “Ali” as opposed to “Muhammad”. However, the Shia later decided to switch to “Muhammad” so that it would more fully apply to the mainstream Muslim collection of Hadith which state that Muhammad is the name of Imam Mehdi. We read:

They thought that he (the eleventh Imam) had left a successor whose name was not Muhammad but Ali. They said that al-Askari had no son except Ali, who had been seen by his father’s trustworthy followers.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.63)

So we see that the Imami Shia were very adamant about lining up their beliefs so that they would find legitimacy in Sunni Hadith. It is therefore all too convenient that the Shia can now point to these Hadith as some sort of proof for Shi’ism.

The twelve Caliphs cannot be the twelve Imams

The Hadith in question declares that the Imams will be from the Quraish. It is in fact this part that negates both the Shia and Ibaadi claims. It is well-known that amongst the three groups (i.e. Sunnis, Shia, and Ibaadis), it is only the Sunnis that necessitated that the leadership be confined to the Quraish after the Prophet’s death. The Sunnis argued that the leadership of the Muslims must always be given to that party which makes up the majority group. Based upon the principle of majority rule, it was only fair that the leadership be given to the Quraishis who at the time of the Prophet’s death made up the majority group from amongst the Muslims.

On the other hand, the Shia claim that the leadership must be confined to the Ahlel Bayt whereas the Ibaadis claim that the leadership can be given to any Muslim regardless of if he belongs to a minority group un-representative of the majority desire. Therefore, if this Hadith were truly in relation to the Shia Imams, then it should have stated that the twelve Caliphs would be from the progeny of the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) instead of using the term “from Quraish”. Indeed, this is a fact that the Shia were well-aware of and it was based upon this that they blamed the Sunnis for having “distorted” the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs, accusing the Sunnis of altering it from “Ahlel Bayt” or “Bani Hashim” to “Quraish.” Some Shia even refer to the Sunni Hadith of the twelve Caliphs as a “censored” or even “chopped up” version of the Prophet’s real words. The Shia then refer us to the “un-censored” version of the Hadith which is available in Shia books, as follows:

“(There will be) from my descendants eleven leaders (who will) be noble and receive and understand (knowledge). The last of them will be al-Qa’im, who will fill the world with justice after it had been filled with tyranny.”

So we see that while the Shia have historically used Sunni Hadith to back their claims, they end up having to distort these Hadith in order to make them apply more correctly to the Shia paradigm. The fact that the Shia need to “mend” the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs in order for it to work for the Shia belief is proof enough that the Hadith cannot be used as a proof against the Sunnis.

A lay-person may argue that the Bani Hashim are within the clan of Quraish and therefore the Hadith still supports a Shia view. But such a person would be altogether ignorant of Arabic Balagha which necessitates that ascribing the Caliphs to the Quraish means that not all of them are from one particular clan of Quraish but rather they are from different groups from amongst the Quraish; otherwise, there was absolutely no reason that the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) did not say that the Caliphs will be from Bani Hashim.

Having stated that, ignorant Shia youth arguing over the internet will insist that the Hadith can still be applied to the twelve Imams of the Shia since Bani Hashim is part of the Quraish. We simply ask these youths to be honest with themselves: why did the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) use the vague wording that the Caliphs will be from the Quraish, as opposed to clearly stating that the twelve
Imams would be from his descendants of the Ahlel Bayt? Common sense dictates that there is no reason that the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) would have used the word “Caliph” as opposed to “Imam”, when in fact the Shia literature always refers to the twelve Imams , not the twelve Caliphs. Additionally, only two of the Imams served as Caliphs whereas the rest never became Caliphs. Furthermore, if the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) was willing the leadership to his descendants, then should he not state that specifically instead of saying that it was a position open to all the Quraish?

We see that the Shia paradigm can only be forced upon this Hadith through brute intellectual force. A similar approach do we see from Qadianis who take our collection of Sunni Hadith and try to prove that their leader is the Mehdi. The truth of the matter is that the Shia would only have a clear argument if the Hadith stated that there would be twelve Imams from the Prophet’s descendants. Instead, the Shia have an “obscure Hadith” in which they are trying to force upon it their own interpretation, much in the same way that Qadianis do with many a Hadith.

The Identity of the Twelve Caliphs
Almost all the deviant sects (including the Imamis, the Zaydis, the Ismailis, the Ibaadis, the Nation of Islam, etc.) claim to know exactly who the twelve Caliphs are; they state with certainty who are the twelve Caliphs, they forge false Hadith to name these Caliphs, and then they say that whoever does not follow these twelve is deviant. This methodology differentiates the sects from the mainstream Muslims who do not claim to know exactly who are the twelve Caliphs. The Prophet’s prophecies were vague, and nobody can know exactly who or what they refer to.

The Shia propagandists will oftentimes attack the Sunnis by asking us “who are the twelve Caliphs” and then they will laugh with joy when we cannot answer them with any certainty. And yet, this is nothing particular or peculiar about our lack of certainty with regards to this one specific prophecy, but rather we are similarly uncertain about the bulk of the Prophet’s prophecies. In another Hadith, the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) has stated that a mujaddid (reviver of the faith) would appear after every century; if we ask the Sunni scholars to name who were all the mujaddideen of the Ummah throughout the centuries, we find that they will not be able to name them. In fact, there is no way that anybody can know for certain even a single of these mujaddideen, namely because to say something like that with absolute certainty would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah, which is considered a sin.
Therefore, it is not fair for the Shia to demand for us to say for certainty who the twelve Caliphs are, when in fact our doctrine necessitates that we cannot talk about this with certainty as it being a thing only Allah knows.

The vagueness of the Prophet’s prophecy is not at all limited to this one particular Hadith but can be seen in many other Hadith, such as the prophecy about Gog and Magog. Throughout the ages, people have guessed as to who Gog and Magog refers to, some saying that it refers to the Turks while others saying it refers to the Mongols, some say Gog and Magog have already come, whereas others say that they are yet to come–but nobody knows with certainty.

Many of the prophecies of the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) were vague and we can only guess at their exact meaning; such is the nature of prophecies. So when we Sunnis are vague with who are the twelve caliphs in the Hadith, we are vague with all the prophecies in general, because we do not wish to speak about the Unseen without knowledge. Allah warns in the Quran:
“Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are…saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.”
(Quran, 7:33)
And Allah warns against Dhann (conjecture), saying:

“But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture!”
(Quran, 45:25)

And Allah says further:

“Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only.”
(Quran, 6:116)

Allah warns again and again against conjecture on such matters:

“Do not follow that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed the ear, the eye, and the heart each will be questioned.”
(Quran, 17:36)

The Shia who claim that they know with certainty the names of the twelve Caliphs are only conjecturing and only doing this in order to follow their own desires to bolster their polemical stance against the Sunnis. Allah says:
“They follow but conjecture and that which they themselves desire.”
(Quran, 53:23)

We have only been given the knowledge that there will be twelve Caliphs but we cannot say for certainty who they are, as Allah says:
“You have been given but little knowledge.”
(Quran, 17:85)

The Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) made all sorts of prophecies, and the examples we could cite are numerous. In one Hadith, the Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) says:
“By Him in Whose hand is my soul, the Hour will not come until…a man speaks to his whip or his shoe, and his thigh will tell him about what happened to his family after he left.”

This has led some people to postulate that this Hadith refers to cell-phones, because cell-phones are placed in a man’s pockets next to his thigh. People have further guessed that the “whips” were an attempt to describe wires. Whatever the case, we can only guess at the exact meaning, and this is the case for most of the Prophet’s prophecies–including the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs.
Therefore, the Sunni scholars hold that we do not know for certain who are the twelve Caliphs referred to in the Hadith.

Furthermore, it is speaking without knowledge to claim to know for certain who they are; unlike the Shia and other deviant sects who forge Hadith to back their own list of twelve Caliphs, the Sunnis resort to saying “Allahu Aalim” (Allah knows Best). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar Rahmatullah Alaih says about the Hadith of the twelve Caliphs:
“No one has much knowledge about this particular Hadith”
(Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, Fath al-Bari 16:338)

The truthful scholars of Sunni Islam can only therefore guess at who the twelve Caliphs are, and it should be understood that these are guesses at best; only deviants manipulate the Word of Allah claiming certainty: the Imamis are adamant about their twelve, the Zaydis are adamant about their twelve, the Ibaadis (descendants of the Khawaarij) are adamant about their twelve, the Ismailis are adamant about their twelve, etc. We shall let these deviant groups bicker amongst each other about who the twelve Caliphs are. We urge our Sunni brothers not to fall into the traps of the Shia propagandists who demand to know who the twelve Caliphs are, and then they enjoy to see the Sunnis replying with varying lists from different scholars, as if this is some sort of proof against Sunni Islam! Like all other prophecies, we cannot know for certain who or what it refers to; it is not only that we do not know, but rather even more than that, namely that we cannot possibly know for certain who the twelve are, as this would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah. This is a doctrinal view and it is what differentiates the mainstream Muslims from the deviant sects.

Various scholars have furthered their own guesses as to who the twelve Caliphs must be, but these guesses cannot be taken with absolute certainty, and due to this fact, any contradiction in various lists is not a sign of weakness but rather it is a natural result of a doctrinal view that forbids speaking with certainty on such matters. Therefore, no scholar would say that these are
definitely without a doubt the twelve Caliphs, but rather he will speculate as to whom he thinks it may refer to.

The Rightly Guided Caliphs

Perhaps the best guess is that the twelve Caliphs refers to al-Khulafaa al-Rashidoon (the Rightly Guided Caliphs). There is Ijma (consensus) on the fact that the first four Caliphs were Rightly Guided Caliphs and the term is most often used for them. However, in addition to these four, we say that Ali’s son, Hasan ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ), was one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) said:

“The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the rule of His Kingdom to whomever He wills.”
(Sunan Abu Dawood)

Indeed, the rule of the first four Caliphs lasted twenty-nine years and six months; Hasan ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ) ruled for another six months bringing the rule of the Rashidoon to thirty years in conformity to the Prophet’s prophecy.
Umar ibn Abdul Aziz ( ﺭﺿّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ) is also included amongst the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Therefore, the twelve Caliphs refer to:

1. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq
2. Umar ibn al-Khattab
3. Uthman bin Affan
4. Ali ibn abi Talib
5. Hasan ibn Ali
6. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz

This means that six of the twelve have come to pass, and six more will come to pass before the Day of Judgment, the last of whom will likely be Imam Mehdi.

The “Cacophonous” Response of the Ahlus Sunnah

The Shia claim that the Sunni response to who the twelve Caliphs are is “cacophonous” due to the fact that scholars do not agree as to who the twelve Caliphs are. This may in fact be true, but the Shia would be lying if they were to say that they were always united as to who were the twelve Caliphs. We read:

The Imamate during the life of the last six Imams of the Twelver Imamites (al-Imamiyya al-Ithna ashariyya) was distinguished by the many splits which occured after the death of each Imam, who was considered by the Imamites as one of the twelve Imams, over the recognition of his successor.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.56)

In fact, after the death of each Imam, the Imami Shia ran around like headless chickens trying to figure out who was the next Imam; absolute confusion would descend into their ranks as to who was the next of the twelve Imams. After the death of each Imam of the Shia, numerous Shia sects emerged, each claiming that another person was the Imam! So if the Shia of today would like to laugh at the Sunnis for not knowing who the Imam is, let them also laugh at their own ancestors who did not know who the Imam was!

The only reason that the Shia of today have some sort of unanimity with regards to who the twelve Imams are is because Shah Ismail I, the ruler of the Safavid Empire, forcibly enforced–by the sword–his brand of Shi’ism upon the masses of Persia. By thus doing so, he succeeded in converting the masses to one strain of Shi’ism all of which followed one set of twelve Imams. And yet, even today there exist some minority sects of the Shia–such as the Zaydis–who believe in a different set of twelve Imams.

It is in fact impossible for the mainstream Muslims to say who the twelve Caliphs are when it is likely that the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled! Once the twelve Caliphs have all come and passed, only then will it become clearer to the Muslims as to whom they are. To give an analogy, the Muslims living in the time of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate did not know exactly who the Rightly Guided Caliphs (i.e. the Caliphate of Prophecy) would be; would it have been fair to ask them who is being referred to in the Hadith which says that the Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years?? Of course, at that time they would not have known since the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled! Only after the prophecy was fulfilled was it possible to pinpoint who “the Caliphate of Prophecy” referred to.

Another Twelve in Sahih Hadith
It is altogether too easy to haphazardly apply vague Hadith in order to further one’s own cause. If the Shia insist upon doing this, then let us point them to another twelve people mentioned in Sahih Muslim. The Prophet ( ﺻﻠّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺁﻟﻪ ﻭﺳﻠّﻢ ) said:

“In my Ummah, there would be twelve hypocrites and they would not be admitted to Paradise and they would not smell its odor, until the camel would pass through a needle’s hole.”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 38, Number 6689)

The Khawaarij or the Nawaasib could argue that the twelve hypocrites here refer to the twelve Imams of the Shia. Do the Shia see how easy it is to twist vague Hadith in order to further one’s own cause?


Shi’ism is an off-shoot of mainstream Islam, and many of the concepts of mainstream Islam were borrowed and incorporated. Not only this, but the Shia–like deviant sects of any religion–have always sought to justify their own deviant beliefs by basing them, albeit loosely, in the books of the mainstream. At the time of Hasan al-Askari’s death, the Hadith in regards to the twelve Caliphs was well-known amongst the Muslim masses. We read:
(These traditions were used by) numerous Islamic groups, particularly the Zaydites, in their struggle for power during the Umayyad period (which) shows that these traditions (Hadith) were well-known among the Muslims of that period.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.18)

Thus, the Shia terminated their Imamah at the number twelve in order to conform to the Hadith of twelve Caliphs, and therefore it is not at all surprising that the Imams are twelve in number just as the Sunni Hadith says. We read:
The Prophetic traditions concerning the twelve Imams related by the Sunnite and the Zaydite traditionists were also narrated by the Imamites. They applied these traditions to their twelve Imams and added traditions of the Imams themselves.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.21)

The truth of the matter is that the Sunni belief in the twelve Caliphs and in Imam Mehdi differs dramatically from the Shia conception: the Sunnis do not believe that these Caliphs are infallible, nor are they appointed by God, nor are they superior to the Prophets, etc.

Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi from