Islamic Dress Code According To The Sunnah

[By The Majlis]

Bismillah Hirrahmaan Nirraheem





























Choice of dress style is the effect of Imaan and kufr. It is precisely for  this  reason  that  the  Fuqahaa  have  ruled  that  adoption  of kuffaar  dress-style  is kufr. The dress itself is not kufr. But the attitude of the heart which constrains a Muslim to adopt a non Muslim  dress-style is kufr since it displays a preference and a desire for something which belongs to the kuffaar. This attitude  implies that the kuffaar style is better and more  preferable than the style of the Ambiyaa, Sulaha and the Ummah. This is the attitude which exposes a Muslim to the grave danger of kufr.

Qaadhi Baidaawi (rahmatullah alaih) in his Tafseer of the Qur’aan Majeed  states:

“Verily; wearing the clothes of aliens (kuffaar), tying  a zunnaar (the holy thread of idolaters or the crucifix)  and similar other  acts have been proclaimed kufr  because the acts display (or imply) rejection (of Islam).  Most assured,  a person who has accented  the Rasool (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) will obviously not be so audacious to commit these acts.”

Leaving  aside  the  technical  argument  pertaining to  haraam and Makrooh, the question which has to be  asked is:

Why  would  a  Muslim  give  preference  to  the  dress-style  of  the kuffaar?? Why would a Muslim love to walk around with a  bare head when 124 000 Ambiyaa, 120 000 Sahaabah and the entire Ummah of Islam from the very inception of this Deen, always covered their heads with a special type of headgear which belongs exclusively to Muslims??  If  your  Nabi  (Sallallahu  Alayhi  Wasallam)  and  his Sahaabah always covered their heads, why do you who claim to be their followers, love to bare your head in public like the kuffaar do??

A question for meditation is: Whose style is it to wander around bare-headed and whose style is it to cover the head in public? The barometer of a man’s Imaan is in his dress-style. For some it is a barometer for ascertaining the very validity of Imaan, and for others a barometer to test the quality of their Imaan. At the least, kuffaar dress-style is fisq.



When a modernist Muslim criticizes the dress style and appearance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah, we in this age in which kufr preponderates, are not surprised. Immersed in the kufr concepts and liberalism of the western kuffaar, it is just natural and logical for modernists to  denigrate every teaching of the Sunnah which conflicts with the tastes and hues of western culture. In fact, even Ulama have become so terribly desensitized with the kufr of the modernists as a consequence of their mutual association and their dubious and baseless policies of ‘hikmat‘ and diplomacy, that they (the Ulama) too have become chronic victims of the maladies of kufr and liberalism.

So while we cannot be surprised when modernists criticize, mock and sneer at the dress styles and appearance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah, there is not only surprise but shock when molvis  —products of Darul Ulooms –  who purport to be followers of the Ulama of the Sunnah, resort to labyrinthal arguments in order to justify styles which are in conflict with not only the practical example of the Nabi, but in diametric opposition to his explicit statements of prohibition pertaining to certain dress styles.


Every  molvi  is  aware  or  should  be  aware  that  ALL  the  Books  of Hadith contain  many authentic ahadith clearly explaining the style of Rasulullah’s izaar. There is absolutely no difference of opinion among any of the innumerable authorities of the Shariah from the very inception of Islam that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah always wore their izaar and trousers above their ankles.


In  addition  to their practical example, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah verbally propagated in explicit terms the prohibition of wearing the trousers below the  ankles. This style is  completely unrelated to age and time. There was no incumbency of the era to wear the trousers in this manner nor were there any physical or geographic restraints or factors which compelled the adoption of this style. On the contrary, the age and the people of the time demanded that the trousers be worn  below the ankles in exactly the same way as modernists, kuffaar and Muslim ashamed of the Sunnah Culture are advocating today.


In order to accommodate the liberal fancies of  the western kuffaar, molvis in this age of corruption, have hooked onto a legless and baseless argument to justify, propagate and even praise the kaafir style of wearing the trousers below the ankles—a style which is in clear opposition to the style and command of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

The modernist molvis of the liberal cult of westernism are arguing that the reason for the prohibition to wear the trousers below the ankles was pride.  Their argument goes that on account of pride, the style was prohibited.  But if  there is no pride then wearing the trousers below the ankles is permissible, in fact commendable by implication of their baseless  and  satanic  arguments  which they voice over their radio channels.

Why is it haraam for a Muslim to wear a crucifix around his neck or arm? Why should it be haraam for a Muslim to keep a small idol of Bhagwan or Buddha in his pocket or display it in his home. Why should this be haraam if the Muslim concerned has no beliefs of shirk or kufr. He simply regards these items as ‘artifacts’ and symbols of ‘history’. He does not believe in these idols. He does not worship them. But we can claim without fear of contradiction that even the modernist molvis have as yet not descended to the level of corruption which  will constrain than to say that keeping such idols is permissible if the reason is not shirk/worship. Although this is still the case presently, we know that there will soon come a time when keeping and admiring even these  instruments of shirk and kufr will be justified and made legal by the presentation of the argument that the reason for the initial prohibition was the belief of shirk which had not yet been completely eradicated from the hearts of the new converts to Islam.


When  the  Shariah  categorically  prohibits  an  act  or  practice,  the prohibition will endure regardless of the reason for which it was initially prohibited.  Reciting  the  qira’t  jahran  (aloud)  in Zuhr and Asr was prohibited initially on account of a particular reason which soon after the prohibition no longer existed. But inspite of the disappearance of the reason for the prohibition, the hukm of Sirri (silent) recitation will endure until the day of Qiyaamah.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that he who plays chess is like one who has dipped his fingers in the blood of a swine. Surely there was a cogent reason for this stern prohibition. Now, regardless of whether that reason exists  in some cases or not, the prohibition of playing chess will remain until the day of Qiyaamah. In fact, the prohibition has been taken further by the Fuqaha (the  Authorities of the Shariah). This prohibition has been extended to all similar games of the kuffaar.


We shall now present the relevant authentic Ahadith on the issue of the trousers below and above the ankles and then proceed to further refute and negate the utterly baseless and devious arguments tendered by modernists  molvis to beguile the Ummah.

(1)  Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whatever of the garment is below the ankles will be in the  Fire (of Jahannum).” (Bukhaari)

(2)  Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “Verily the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: Whoever hangs his garment in pride, Allah will not look at him (with mercy) on the day of Qiyaamah.” (Bukhaari and Muslim)

(3) Abu  Saeed  al-Kudri  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  “I  heard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying: The izaar of the Mu’min is halfway on the forelegs (i.e.midway between the knees and the ankles). There is no sin on him  in that which is between it and the ankles. And, whatever is below this is in the  Fire (of Jahannum). He (Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) repeated this statement) three times, and he said: Allah will not look (with mercy) at the  person who hangs his izaar in pride.” (Abu Dawood and Ibn Maajah)

(4)  Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “I passed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while my trousers was hanging (i.e.  below the ankles). He  then exclaimed: 0 Abdullah! Raise your izaar. I then raised it (a bit). Then he  (Rasulullah-  sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: Raise it more! I then raised it more. Thereafter I was always conscious of it” Some people asked: “Until where (did you raise it)?” He (Ibn Umar) said: “Until midway of the foreleg.”  (Muslim)
(5)  Ubaid Bin Khaalid (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: While I was walking in Madinah, (I heard) someone behind me say: “Raise your izaar! Verily it (raising  the  garment)  is  better  for  piety and preservation (of the garment).”  I then looked behind and observed that it was Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam). I then said: O Rasulullah! It is a simple (of inferior quality and price) garment. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commented: “What, is there not for you in me an example (to follow)?”  When I looked (at Rasulullah’s garment), his izaar was midway on his forelegs.” (Tirmizi)

(6)  Salmah  Bin  Akwa’  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  “Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) would wear his trousers midway on his forelegs, and he would say: ”So  was  the  izaar  of  my  Companion,  i.e.  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).”  (Tirmizi)

(7)  Huzaifah  Bin  Yamaan  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) took hold of the flesh of my foreleg  (or of his foreleg) and said: ‘This is the location for the izaar. If you are not satisfied (with this position),  then a bit lower. And if you are still not satisfied, than know that the izaar has  no right in the ankles.” (Tirmizi)

Commenting on these Hadith narrations, Hadhrat Shaikh Muhammad Zakariyya (rahmatullah alayh) writes:

“Severe warnings have been recorded for wearing the lungi, trousers, etc. below the ankles. That section (below the ankles) on which the garment hangs will be burnt in the Fire  (of Jahannum). In view of this type (of severe) warnings (of punishment) in the ahadith, special attention should be paid to this  matter. But, on the contrary in our age, the garments are specially (i.e.  intentionally) worn below the ankles. To Allah does  the complainer  (register his complaint).”


Inspite of the many unambiguous ahadith explicitly prohibiting the kuffaar style of wearing the trousers below the ankles, molvis in this age are  devoting  special  time on their radio channels to negate what Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) has commanded.


Any level-headed and unbiased Muslim in search of the truth will understand after a perusal of the aforementioned ahadith that wearing the trousers below the ankles is haraam.

In Hadith No. 5, Ubaid Bin Khaalid (radhiyallahu anhu) was wearing his garment below his ankles. He was walking in the streets of Madinah. When  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered him to raise his izaar above the  ankles. In this Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) presented two reasons for wearing the trousers above the ankles in this style (of the Sunnah), is greater piety in view of the fact that it firstly is in conflict with the style of the kuffaar. Secondly, when a Muslim consciously abstains from emulating the  style of the kuffaar, he rises in rank of taqwa. Following the method of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is an incumbent requirement of Taqwa,  hence he said that wearing the trousers above the ankles is ‘atqaa‘ (more  pious).  It thus flows from this reasoning presented by Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that wearing the garment below the ankles is not in conformity with taqwa. Whether we understand the relationship between this style and taqwa is of no significance.  Since Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has offered this explanation, it is the fardh duty of every Mu’min to  blindly accept it.

The second argument which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) presented for his command to wear the garment above the  ankles is that this style is  ‘abqaa’ for the garment. In other words the garment will be better preserved  against the dirt and filth of the road and in this way be better protected. The Mu’min’s trousers should not serve the function of the street-sweeper.

It is significant that in this Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not tender the argument of pride. Since he was aware that the Sahaabi was not wearing his garment below the ankles on account of pride, he did not mention pride on this occasion. However, when the Sahaabi did not understand the  argument, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) broached the subject from  another angle. He asked: “Is my example and way not sufficient?” In other words, for the Mu’min the acts, practices and example of the Rasool are more than adequate. There is no need to search  for reasons and wisdoms for the ahkaam (laws of the Deen).  The  example  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is compulsorily  imposed  on  Muslims  by  the  Qur’aan  Majeed.  There is no need to look elsewhere and further than this. It thus does not behove a  Muslim, least of all a learned man, to dig out technicalities and by distortion present these in justification of the endeavour to negate the style and custom of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

In Hadith No. 6 Hadhrat Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhu), the third Khalifah, long  after  the  demise  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) commented on the practice of wearing the trousers above the ankles. Everyone knows and  accepts that he had no pride. If the order to wear the trousers above the ankles was based on pride, Hadhrat Uthmaan and all the Sahaabah would not have  been so meticulous in observing this injunction. They would have worn their trousers below their ankles since they were bereft of pride. They had attained  the loftiest heights in the reformation of the nafs. There were no better, no more  pious and no humbler community on earth than the Sahaabah who were  thoroughly purified of all spiritual maladies by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Yet, inspite of their high stage of humility, they adhered meticulously to the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Everyone who has studied a bit of the history of the Sahaabah, is aware that  Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was such a staunch and ardent follower  of the minutest details of the Sunnah, that people believed that he would  become insane. Pride was never the reason for him  having  worn  his  trousers  below  his  ankles.  When  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw this, he  commanded him to raise his garment midway between the knees and the ankles.  The issue of pride never featured in his wearing his trousers below his ankles  nor in the argument of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on the occasion when he issued his instruction to this devotee of  the Sunnah.


In some narrations the reason for wearing the trousers below the ankles is stated as pride. While this was the actual reason in those times for this prohibited style, it was not always the case  with everyone who would wear his trousers below his ankles. Hence, we find Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) issuing stern warnings and threats of the punishment of the Fire for those  who wear their trousers in the fashion of the proud people. So whether one wears the trousers below the ankles for the sake of pride or not, one is undoubtedly, imitating the style of the proud ones and the style of the kuffaar.  Imitating the kuffaar by itself is a factor of prohibition.


Now the question to be asked is: Why would a molvi advocate a style which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had prohibited. He did not only  present pride as the reason for the prohibition. So why is there so much concern to negate a Sunnah style?? Leaving aside the technical questions and academic rulings, it can be simply understood that the permanent practice and style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah were to wear their garments above the ankles, not below their ankles.

That wearing the  trousers above the ankles is an irrefutable Sunnah practice  will be acknowledged by all Muslims, even the modernists and the liberal  molvis. On the assumption that it is not haraam to wear the trousers below the  ankles, then too, why should Muslims who claim to love Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) have a desire to scuttle this Sunnah practice and in its place  follow the style of the kuffaar?? Whose style is it to wear the trousers above the ankles?? And, whose style is it to wear it below the ankles??  What does the Imaan  of a Mu’min demand, follow the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the style of the kuffaar?? Why is there such a strong aversion in the ranks of the Muslims for the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?? What  goes on in the heart of a molvi who advocates a style abhorred by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?? Surely there must be some hidden  disease (mardh)  lurking  somewhere  in  such  a  heart.  It is inconceivable that a  Mu’min of healthy Imaan will ever stoop so low as to scrape the very bottom of the barrel of spiritual corruption. Remember that to negate a preference of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), to feel ashamed of the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and to present  devious  arguments  to  distort  and  deny  what  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded, are worse than consuming liquor, worse than fornication and worse than all the major sins put together. Such an attitude is kufr.


The solitary narration which the denigrators of Rasulullah’s practice are able to produce as ‘evidence’ is the Hadith in which it is mentioned that Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) allowed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) to wear his garment below his ankles. To present this Hadith in substantiation of the claim, the aim of which is to negate the style  of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), is ludicrous and utterly baseless.

The Hadith in question is very clear as for the reason of the permission granted  to  Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  who  was highly perturbed by his inability to maintain his garment above his ankles. He therefore, discussed this matter with Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam). Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) was a man with a  big stomach. Inspite of all his efforts to keep his garment in place, he failed. His  garment would repeatedly slide down over his ankles. The Hadith in question explicitly mentions this fact. In view of this condition and his inability to retain his garment in position above his ankles, he was exempted  from the prohibition. But he had a valid reason. What valid reason do the modernists and the liberal molvis have?? There are always exceptions to general rules. But the exceptions do not cancel out the law or  the rule. The  rule remains in place. Furthermore, why do the scoffers of Rasulullah’s style cast a blind eye to all the ahadith of prohibition and cling onto this solitary narration which in no way negates the prohibition stated  so  emphatically in the other narrations??


Like a drowning man, the modernist molvi tries to cling to every floating straw that passes his way. Entirely bereft of proper Shar’i arguments to bolster his corrupt view and enmity for Rasulullah’s dress style, the molvi claims  that  according  to  Imaam  Shaafi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  it  is permissible to wear the trousers below the ankles.

Let us for a moment assume that what the molvi tendered is correct. The question now is: Why does the Hanafi molvi resort to a view of Imaam Shaafi (Rahmatullah alayh), especially on an issue for which there is absolutely no need to adopt the view of another Math-hab?? If it was a critical issue or an emergency or some urgent need, then in terms of the principles of the Hanafi Math-hab, a pious and experienced Mufti will have  the right to issue a Fatwa on the basis of one of the other Mathhabs among the Four Math-habs. But in this case of wearing the trousers, there is absolutely no such expediency.

When a Hanafi molvi ignores the views and fatwas of  the authorities of his  own Mathhab and clings to an opinion of another Math-hab, it follows that there is no flexibility for his baseless view in his own Mathhab, hence he had to look elsewhere for aid. His act in itself is sufficient testimony for the  claim that according to the Hanafi Fuqaha and Ulama and Auliya, wearing  the trousers below the ankles is haraam.


The liberal molvi claims that according to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh) wearing the trousers below the ankles is permissible. His claim is baseless. Imaam Shaafi does not say that “it is permissible”. According to  the Shaafi Math-hab there are different degrees of prohibition for the style  of wearing the trousers below the ankles. Explaining this, Imaam Nawawi (a Shaafi authority) states in his Sharhul Muslim:

“It is not permissible to hang the garment below the ankles if it is for pride. If it is for a reason other than pride it is Makrooh.  The Mustahab requirement is midway of the calfs (the forelegs)  as it is stated in the Hadith of Ibn Umar. Midway of the forelegs is Mustahab. Below this limit until the ankles is permissible without it being Makrooh. What descends below the ankles is Mamnoo’ (prohibited). If it is for pride, then the prohibition is of the haraam category  (i.e.  Makrooh Tahrimi). And, if it is not for pride, the prohibition is of the tanzihi category (i.e.  Makrooh Tanzihi).”

Makrooh Tanzihi does not mean ‘permissible’. It remains a detestable act in the Shariah. In fact, persistence on a Makrooh Tanzihi act  transforms it into Makrooh Tahrimi which is sinful and a punishable offence. It makes a man a faasiq. Clutching at straws is not Shar’i evidence for a claim.


From the aforegoing explanation it will be understood that there are several factors  for the prohibition of wearing the garment below the ankles:

(a) It is the style of the kuffaar. Whoever imitates the kuffaar becomes of them.

(b) It is the way of the mutakabbireen (proud people). So whether one has  pride or not, is immaterial. The fact that the mutakabbireen’s style is  adopted is in itself a grave sin.

(c) The opposite style (wearing above the ankles) is ‘atqaa‘ and abqaa‘ according to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

(d)  Wearing the garment above the ankles is part of the Uswah-e-Hasanah  (Beautiful Life Pattern) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan commands adoption of this Sunnah.

(e)  The trousers has no haqq (right) on the ankles according to the explicit pronouncement of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

(f)  What is below the ankles will be in the Fire of Jahannum.

In view of all these factors of prohibition, the arguments of the modernist and liberal molvis have absolutely no validity. These molvis should also understand that in airing their liberal, modernist and baatil views, they do not have the support of a single one of our Akaabir Ulama. Our advice is that they should utilize their radio channels constructively to aid the Deen,  not to breakdown Islam and its Culture, for then, there will be absolute  justification for branding their organs of transmission as radio shaitaan and  channel shaitaan.



Style of dress is among the salient features (Sha-aair) of Islam. The Shariah accords great prominence to a Muslim’s way of dress. Detailed rules enacted by the great rulers of Islam among the Sahaabah, Taabieen and- their followers illustrate the emphasis which Islam lays on the dress of  a Mu’min.

Among the prohibited factors pertaining to dress is the emulation of non-Muslim dress styles.  In all ages of Islam such emulation has been regarded as among the major  (kabaair) sins. Tashabbuh bil kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar) is an evil with far reaching effect on the heart of a Muslim. Hence, Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whoever emulates a people becomes of them.”

In this article we propose to discuss one particular aspect of Islamic dressing, viz., headgear. In these times of intense ,kufr and dhalaal, when many Muslims have sacrificed their intelligence to become slaves of western  culture, there is a great desire among modernists to abandon the wearing of Islamic headgear. Among the styles of Islamic headgear is the popular topee which innumerable millions of Muslims have donned over the past centuries  of Islamic history. Now  in this belated century modernists are at pains to  discard this compulsory dress-style of Islam. Fallacious arguments are  fabricated to deceive innocent and unwary people  into  accepting  that  the  topee  or  Islamic  headgear has no relevance in the Shariah.

It  should be understood that the ways and styles of Islam did not originate  from dubious sources nor were its originators non-entities as are the votaries of western styles. Furthermore, Islamic dress-styles were inherited by the Ummah from generation to generation. Each successive generation obtained its Islamic dress-style from its preceding generation. In this way  the chain links up with the Sahaabah who disseminated nothing other than the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Headgear in Islam is  not a new development The villifier of the topi must present his proof toindicate the point in time in Islamic history when this headgear became an  accredited Islamic head-dress. If he contends that the topi has no Islamic relevance, let him prove his case with Islamic facts and Shar’i proofs. The assertion that many people presently in the Middle East pray without headgear is not Shar’i evidence for the fallacy that the topi has no Islamic status. What is presently being perpetrated in Muslim countries  cannot  becited  as  Islamic evidence for a claim. Only an ignoramus who suffers from colossal ignorance will advance such puerile and ludicrous ‘proof for his claim. When the weight of Islamic practice of the past fourteen hundred years upholds Islamic headgear as an integral and  incumbent  part  of  a  Muslim’s chess, then by what stretch of intelligent reasoning can any  Muslim decry and villify such head-dress? When all the illustrious authorities of Islam from the time of the Sahaabah emphasised the donning of headgear, not only for Salaat, but at all times, then it is only necessary to dismiss with contempt the arguments against the topi blustered out by the  enemies of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The topi is the head-dress which distinguishes a Muslim from a non- Muslim. The importance of this headgear is amply illustrated by the following  command  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam):“The difference between us and the mushrikeen  is turbans on top of qalaanis (topis).”


Even mushrikeen were in the habit of donning turbans. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) detested resemblance with them. Emulating non-Muslims is forbidden by Islam, hence Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that Muslims wear topis under their turbans even though  the topis are totally concealed and not visible from under the turbans. Even the style of headgear which the Muslim adopts should not resemble the  head-dress of the kuffaar, hence Shaikhul Islam Zakariyya (rahmatullah  alayh) states:

“In our  time it is not permissible to  wear green and yellow turbans” (Husnus Siyar of Dimyaati Shaafi).

Since green and yellow turbans were among the particular dress-styles of the Yahood and Nasaara of that time, the authorities of the Shariah banned  the wearing  of such turbans so that Muslims do not violate the Shar’I  prohibition of emulating kuffaar. The following verdict appears in Fataawa  Khaazin and Fataawa Hindiyah:

“A man will be proclaimed a kaafir for adopting the head-dress of the Majoos (fire-worshippers).”

The following verdict appears in the famous Maaliki Kitaab, Mukhtasarul Khaleel:

“A Muslim will be proclaimed a kaafir if he wears the hat of the Nasaara.”

Strutting about bare-headed is undoubtedly the style of western man who has discarded the norms  of true civilization.  It has never been the style of  any Muslim community, anywhere in the world, right from the time of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to emerge in public with bare-heads.  One  who  walks  around  bare-headed  is  mardoodushshahaadah, i.e. his testimony in an Islamic court is not  admissible. Those Muslims  who  are  desirous  of  abandoning  the  Islamic  topi  are undoubtedly influenced by western fashions and styles. The fact that they have opted for a kaafir style  at the expense of an Islamic style—a style which the Ummah has always accepted speaks volumes for their way of  thinking. It points to the  direction in which their hearts have inclined. Overtly they proclaim them-selves to be Muslims while covertly their hearts are saturated with love for  the styles of kufr. But, Allah Ta’ala warns them:

“Do not incline towards  the zaalimoon.”

Inclining towards the kuffaar is banned by Islam in all aspects. A Muslim is not allowed to unnecessarily adopt the ways, methods, institutions and styles of the kuffaar. Islam demands head-dress—Islamic head-dress—for its adherents. Western modernity demands a bare-head in order to confirm  to  western  standards  of  dress,  the  westernized  Muslim conjectures the most  baseless arguments to bolster his case against the ways of Islam. This  attitude borders on kufr and threaten the Imaan of such deviated modernists. Clarifying the Islamic ban of tashabbuh bil kuffaar, Hadhrat Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) despatched a detailed decree to  the Muslims of  Aazarbaijaan. Among the many prohibitions contained in  this Decree the following appears:

“The dress of your father Ismaa-il (alayhis salaam) is incumbent on you. Beware of the luxuries and the styles of the Ajam (non Arabs).”

Allaamah Ibn Hajar Haithami (rahmatullah alayh), in his Kitaab Azzawaa- jir an Iqtiraafil Kabaa-ir, records the following narration of Muhaddith Maalik Bin Dinaar (rahmatullah alayh):

“Allah revealed to one of his Nabis: Say to your nation: Do not wear the garments of My enemies for then you  will  become My enemies like they are my enemies.”

In  Tafseer  Ma-aariful  Qur’aan  Hadhrat  Mufti  Muhammad  Shafi (rahmatullah alayhi) the then Grand Mufti of Pakistan, explains in the exposition of the aayat:

“O!  The  Sons  of  Aadam!  Adopt  your  beauty  at  the  time  of every Salaat” (Aayat 31 Surah A’raaf)

“From this aayat it is obvious that just as the compulsion of concealing the satr  is  based  on  the  command in this verse, so too is based the significance  and merit of donning good and clean garments according to one’s means and  ability. Since only concealment of the satr is not adequate for Salaat, but the adoption of zeenat (beauty) is also commanded, therefore it will be Makrooh for a man to perform Salaat bare-head, bared shoulders and exposed elbows, whether he has donned short-sleeved shirt or has rolled up his sleeves.”

Islamic headgear is an integral part of the Sunnah, so much so, that a turban  will  be  described  as  Islamic  only  if  it is worn on top of a qalansawah (topi). Abandoning this Sunnah is a sign of Imaani disaster. It is indicative of the  Muslim’s drift from Seeraatul Mustaqeem. There can be no other meaning for a Muslim who detests or regards as insignificant and unimportant the donning of Islamic headgear. While abandonement of any Sunnah invites  the Wrath and Curse of Allah Ta’ala, adoption of the Sunnah brings in its  wake great rewards and creates vitality and Noor in the heart of the Mu’min.  In this regard, Rasulullah {sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whoever protects my Sunnah, Allah honours him with four qualities: He  becomes  endeared  to  pious  people,  evil  people  fear  him, increase in  Rizq and steadfastness in Deen” 

In Al-I’tisaam, Imaam Zuhri (rahmatullah  alayh) narrates that Imaam Maa-lik (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The  Sunnah  is  like a ship.  He who embarks on it is saved while be  who  remains  behind  (stranded  in  the  ocean)  will  drown.”

Thus, those who have adopted the process of abandoning the Sunnah will soon find themselves drowning in the raging ocean of kufr, immorality and baatil. Diversion from the Deen and abandonement of the Sunnah is an  incremental process. It commences with the  abandonment  of the Aadaab (etiquettes), progressing to the abandonment of Mustahab acts, then deteriorating to the  abandonment  of Sunnatul Muakkadah, then Waajib acts and finally it leads to the neglect of Fardh acts.

One’s very Imaan is exposed to the gravest dangers by the abandonment of  Sunnat acts. Such abandonment leads to the total distintergration of Taqwa  and Imaan. For this reason it is most dangerous for Muslims to view Islamic headgear as an insignificant item. Nothing in the Deen and Sunnah is  insignificant. Every act of the Sunnah, be it an Adab or a Mustahab act is  of great importance for the acquisition of the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala.  Every Mustahab act being part of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Uswah Hasanah (beautiful example)plays a vital role in the rising stages of Taqwa. Of such importance is Islamic headgear and all other aspects of the Sunnah that the authorities of the Shariah  have ruled:

“Using a Miswaak is Sunnat, but rejection of thefact that the Miswaak is Sunnat, is kufr.”

The  Qur’aan  Majeed  commands  Muslims  to  adopt  the  Sunnah  of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and to refrain from every act which the Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam} has forbidden:

“Whatever the Rasool has given to yon, take hold of it and  whatever he has forbidden you of refrain therefrom.” 

The Rasool has given us the way of dress which includes the Islamic  headgear. We are bound by the Qur’aanic command to adopt it and uphold  it. He has forbidden us from emulating the kuffaar. Muslims are, therefore,  under Qur’aanic obligation to abhor and refrain from the styles of the kuffaar. There is no gainsaying that a bare-head is among the styles of the  kuffaar. To strut about without headgear is undoubtedly the way of the  kuffaar, especially the libertine western kuffaar. A Muslim in whose heart  is embedded Islam cannot find pleasure in the adoption of a style of the  kuffaar. Every kufr emulation necessitates abandonment of a Sunnat. Thus, by adopting the kaafir style of walking about bare-headed and entering the Musjid bare- headed,  the  Sunnah  style  of  Islamic  headgear  is  abandoned. Like kuffaar enter their places of worship bare-headed and like the kuffaar  attach no significance to headgear, so too does the westernized Muslim who  follows in the footsteps of the enemies of Allah Ta’ala. In opposing the  Command of Allah Ta’ala, viz. the Sunnah, Muslims are invoking the  chastisement of Allah Ta’ala Who says in  the Qur’aan Shareef:

“Those  who  oppose  His Command should fear a disaster reaching them or that a painful punishment will overtake them.”

Spelling out the calamity of confrontation with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), the Qur’aan Majeed says: “Whoever opposes the Rasool after the guidance (of Shariah) has been made dear for him and he then follows a path which is not the way of the Mu’mineen, then we shall allow him to do as he pleases. And We shall cast him into Jahannam. Indeed it is an evil place.”

It is significant and noteworthy that in this aayat, the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem describes ‘opposition to the Rasool’ as being a path other than the path of  the  Mu’mineen.  Thus,  any  practice which the Mu’mineen have inherited from the Salf-e-Saaliheen is in  fact the Sunnah. An item of this practice is the Islamic headgear. Discarding this important item of Islamic dress is in fact  a path other than the path of the Mu’mineen. The Path of the  Mu’mineen  is  given  authority  and  Divine  sanction  in  the aforementioned Qur’aanic Aayat in view of the fact that it stems from the teachings, of the Sahaabah who were the first and the most authoritative expounders and upholders of the Sunnah. Diversion from this path of the Mu’mineen leads to Jahannum  according to the Qur’aan.

In the sphere of Islamic belief and practice, the Path of The Mu’mineen cannot be ignored. The Qur’aan Shareef explicitly declares Jahannum to be  the consequence of adopting a path other than the Path of The Mu’mineen. While all Muslims who truly believe in Allah, His Rasool and the  Divine  Law  are  Mu’mineen,  the  uppermost  echelons  of  The Mu’mineen are, undoubtedly the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and the Tab-eTaabieen  The  Mu’mineen of these three noble eras, described by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as the Khairul Quroon (the Noblest Ages), are undoubtedly the first of the Ummah whom we have to emulate and whose Path the  Qur’aan commands us to follow. Islamic headgear has come to us from  these illustrious Mu’mineen whose Path can be abandoned only at the peril  of Imaan.

In the satanic conspiracy to wean Muslims away from the Sunnah and Islam itself, the liberal influences of the western kuffaar are adopted in degrees. In  the initial stage of diversion from the Sunnah, the Muslim simply abandons  his  Islamic headgear in public, at home and on the streets. Still believing  that such headgear is necessary for only Salaat, its importance is diminished for other occasions and as a permanent item of Islamic dress. Later, when  his outlook has changed on account of having become habituated to strut  around bare-headed in public and he has become sufficiently audacious by  virtue of his Imaani conscience and Deeni convictions becoming paralysed,  he rebelliously steps into the Musjid without Islamic Headgear and in  this  abominable way performs his Salaat without even realizing that he has  despoiled the value of his Salaat. Salaat performed without headgear is  Makrooh. Such Salaat has to be compulsorily repeated within the confines  of the time. If it has not been repeated within the confines of that particular Salaat, the Fardh (i.e. the obligation) while having been discharged, is short of its rewards and blessings.  Such  defective  discharge  of  such  an  important  and fundamental institution of Islam will undoubtedly have far reaching consequences for Muslims in both this transitory world and in the   Aakhirah.

From the above mentioned discussion it will be clear that dress-style is of vital  importance  for  the  Muslim.  It  is  essential  for  his  spiritual development that the Muslim differentiates himself from non-Muslims by even his external appearance. His external appearance must testify that he is a  Muslim. A Muslim dressed in the style of the kuffaar cannot be recognised  as a Muslim by another Muslim who is not acquainted with him. A  Muslim  in western garb and western appearance can reasonably be mistaken for a  kaafir and he (the imitator of the kuffaar) is solely responsible for such a  serious mistake committed genuinely. In so far as the Shariah is concerned,  the topi or  any Islamic head-dress is essential for a Muslim in Salaat as well  as at all times. The arguments of the denigrators of the topi arise from kufr mentality and should be dismissed with contempt.


In Pakistan and other Muslim countries there appears no justification to hang on to the western dress in utter disregard of our own graceful costumes and derive a false sense of elevation with a rope around our neck  (necktie). The necktie is designed by the Christian world as a sign of the  Cross symbolizing Jesus’s crucifixion and thus is an insignia of the Christian faith.

Extract from Muslims in Alien Society, by Muhammad Samiullah of Pakistan In the footnotes of this book, the author presents the following information on the necktie:

“The practice of the necktie started at the insistence of the Pope in 1700. By 1850 all Christian nations had accepted and implemented this order of the Pope……..Necktie in reality is a symbol of the cross.” (Dr Akhtar Ali, Qaumi Tashakh-khus, pages 5-6)

Towards the end of the 19th century the Europeans omitted from dictionaries and encyclopedias the introductory phase about the necktie, that it is a symbol of the cross….lf one looks at the dictionaries and encyclopaedias  printed before 1898 one will find clear indication of the cross-symbol relationship in the meaning of the necktie/ (Ehsan Qureshi Sabri, Daily  Nawa-e-Waqat) (THE MAJLIS VOL.8 NO.6)


(Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi)

Acts which are considered to be signs and salient features of shirk, also fall  within the scope of shirk (polytheism). This is borne out by the command of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) when he saw Hadhrat Adi Bin  Hatim (radhiallahu anhu) with the crucifix around his neck. Hadhrat Adi who had converted to Islam from Christianity, once came into the presence  of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the crucifix around his  neck. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded:

“Remove this idol from your neck”
At this time Hadhrat Adi’s belief was already purified. He did not believe any longer in the cross. (The wearing of the crucifix was merely by force of  habit). However, Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) ordered its removal.  He considered it important to command abstention from displaying even  the external symbols of shirk. But, alas! Today, thousands of Muslims are, in defiance and audacity, donning this very symbol of the crucifix (viz., the necktie), thus making them guilty of the crime of shirk. [THE MAJLIS VOL 9 NO. 12]

One may well consider the claim of the tie being a form of the crucifix as being ludicrous, but consider the following:

The neck tie was designed by the Christian world as a sign of the Cross symbolising Jesus’s (Eesa AJS.)  crucifixion  and is an insignia of the Christian Faith. The practice of the necktie started on the insistence of the Pope In 1790. By 1850 all Christian nations had accepted and implemented this order of the Pope”. (Extracted from Encyclopaedia Britannica), Consider also the following discovery: Towards the  end of the 19th century, the Europeans omitted from dictionaries and Encyclopaedias the Introductory phrase about the necktie being a symbol of the cross. A glance of encyclopaedias printed before 1898 will confirm this point (E. Quraishi  Sabri).

Those with any vestige of Islamic dignity and honour will immediately abandon  such  flagrant  displays  of shirk. Keep in mind the severe reprimand  of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and let our love for him come to the fore. Those who derive a false sense of elevation and pride from aping the  dress of the West should consider what fools they are. They are feeling  proud about having a rope tied around their necks.
Editor. Al-Jamiat (South Africa) Nov 1995. Vol.2 No. 15


The Qur’aan Majeed says:

“O Son’s of  Aadam, adopt your  beauty at the time of every Salaat”

The validity of Salaat requires concealment of the satr (that portion of the body which has to be compulsorily covered). The satr for males is from the navel to just over the knees which have to be concealed. If any part of the  satr is exposed, the Salaat will not be valid.

However, apart from the validity of Salaat, Allah Ta’ala requires more from  His servants when they stand in His Presence. They have to be properly,  decently and Islamically clad  as is clear from the term zeenat (beauty)  which appears in the aforegoing Qur’aanic verse. Zeenat does not refer to  only the Satr. It refers to decent and Islamic dress. Salaat performed in garments which lack Islamic decency is Makrooh (detestable) and should be repeated.


During Salaat, the servant stands in the special presence of his Creator, Allah Azza Wa Jal. He is, therefore required to adopt dignity , reverence and  respect  He  cannot  act with an indifferent attitude. He is not allowed  to be immodestly and improperly dressed when performing Salaat.  When man visits a worldly king or has to be present in a court of law  presided  over  by  a  non-Muslim  judge  or  he has to attend a conference or any  other meeting which he regards to be of importance, he adorns himself, he  dresses in his best garments to present a proper and a decent image of himself. But, some people having more respect for worldly personalities,  have no regard for the Musjid and the Divine Presence. They come dressed shabbily in jeans, T-shirts, tight-fitting pants which reveal the form of the satr and of even the satr-e-ghaleezah (i.e. of the private Parts). They come  into the Musjid for Salaat with kuffaar Tshirts decorated with stupid  emblems and slogans in emulation of the kuffaar. In Ruhul Ma’aani it is  mentioned:

When Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)—the grandson of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)—engaged in Salaat, he would don his best garments. It was said to him: “O Son of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):  ‘Why  do  you  don  your  best  garments  He  replied: “Verily Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty. I, therefore adorn myself for my Rabb. It is He who says (in the Qur’aan) “Adopt your beauty at every Salaat.” I, therefore love to wear my most beautiful garments.”


The authoritative Book of the Shariah, Badaaius Sanaa’i states that for the purposes of Salaat, garments are classified into three categories:

(1) Mustahabb (preferable) It is Mustahab to perform Salaat in three garments:

Izaar(trousers),Qamees (kurtah-long shirt) and Ridaa (outer shawl). An Amaamah (Turban) or Islamic headgear is also included. Some authorities say that it is Mustahab to have at least two garments-  an upper  and a lower garment since both concealment of the satr and zeenat are  achieved.

(2) Permissible  without  any  Karaahat  (i.e.  without  it  being abominable in  any way): Performance of Salaat in two garments— Qamees and Izaar—is  permissible since both concealment of satr and zeenat are achieved. This is also described as Mustahab by some.

(3) Makrooh (Repugnant): Performance of Salaat in a single garment, viz., in only a trousers (saraaweel) or izaar (lower cloth covering from the navel until just above the ankles) is Makrooh even though the Salaat is validly discharged. The repugnance of performing Salaat in this way is on account  of  the  prohibition  stated  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  who prohibited performance of Salaat in a single garment. In Badaaius  Sanaa it appears as follows:

“Makrooh dressing is that a man performs Salaat in one garment(viz. a lower garment) while his shoulders are bare. Although satr-e-aurah is achieved, zeenat is not. Allah Ta’ala says in the Holy Qur’aan: “O Bani Aadam adopt your zeenat at (the time of) every Salaat.” It is narrated that  someone  asked Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) about performing  Salaat in a single garment. He responded: If I send you for some work will you walk in a single garment?” The man said: “No!” Abdullah Ibn Umar  replied: “Allah is more deserving that you beautify yourself for Him.”

Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Verily Salaat in one garment is the act of unjust (shameless) people. Salaat in detestable garments is worst than injustice, and Salaat in (two garments izaar and ridaa’  is among the noble qualities (of character).”(Badaa’i)

Mufti Muhammad Shafi says in Ma-aariful Qur’aan:  “Since, in Salaat, the only demand is not only covering of the satr, but the  command is to adopt zeenat as well, therefore it is Makrooh (abominable)  for a man to perform Salaat with bare-head or with his shoulders exposed or with elbows exposed whether it is a short-sleeved shirt or whether the sleeves are rolled up. In every case the Salaat is Makrooh.

Similarly (Salaat is Makrooh) if performed with a handkerchief tied around  the head. An intelligent man will not go in the presence of his friends and  others in this state. How then can be prefer to go into the presence of  Rabbul Aalameen in this state? The Salaat being Makrooh when performed with bare-head, bared shoulders and uncovered elbows, is substantiated on  the basis of the word zeenat mentioned in the Quraanic verse as well as  from the explicit statements of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)


The importance of correct dress for Salaat is stated in Hajjatullahil Baalighah by Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahlawi (rahmatullah alayh):

Know that wearing of clothes distinguishes man from all animals. It is among his best conditions…. In dress is the honouring of Salaat and observance of the respects of supplication with Rabbul Aalameen. It is an original incumbency. It has been decreed a condition for the perfection of Salaat…”

The importance of dress for Salaat does not refer to the minimum satr coverage necessary for the validity of the  Salaat. The reference is to correct  dress which is such dress considered Islamically to be respectable. Thus,  garments which are not regarded as respectable in Islamic culture are  Makrooh  and  the  Salaat  too  is  rendered  Makrooh. Salaat performed with sleeves rolled up or with the elbows exposed is considered disrespectful in Islam. It is not regarded as a decent form of dress. In Ahsanul Fatawa, the following is said in this regard:

“It is Makrooh Tahrimi to perform Salaat  with sleeves rolled up without valid reason.”

Ramali has said that Makrooh in this context refers to Makrooh Tahrimi which is a sinful act. The detestibility of performing Salaat with elbows exposed is mentioned in a number of Books of Fiqh.


Some people claim that there is nothing wrong in performing Salaat with sleeves rolled up, with T-shirts, with tight pants and with western shirts and ties because the Shariah has defined the satr to be only from the navel to the knees. This is a childish, silly and ridiculous argument. Those who  present such baseless arguments will not go into public or to court or to  their business places with only loin cloths covering only their satr. They adorn themselves and present a stylish image, adding perfume and lotion and powder, etc. to perfect their appearance. But, for Salaat, when they have to stand in the special presence of Allah Ta’ala they are able to tolerate  hooligan appearances.

If the requirement is only to cover the satr, then why on a hot day do they not come to Musjid with only a piece of cloth covering their satr?? Why do  they not wander around the streets in this nude fashion with only their satr  covered? They refrain from such semi-nudity because they know that they  may be rushed to the madhouse.

When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has prohibited performance of Salaat in a single garment, it testifies that the requirement for a perfect  Salaat is not mere covering of the satr. Dress plays an important role in the perfection of Salaat. Salaat performed in the indecent dress of the kuffaar is  Makrooh and has to be repeated. Defectively discharged Salaat is flung  back into the faces of the musallis.


Hadhrat Umme Salmah (radhiyallahu anhaa) narrates: “The most liked dress by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) was the qamees (kurtah).” (shamaa-il Tirmizi)

Qamees is a kurtah (the upper garment-a long shirt). The Qamees which  has  the  closest  resemblance  to  the  qamees  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  Sahaabah  is  the  kurtah adopted by our senior Ulama and Auliya, namely, the Ulama of Deoband.

The  Qamees  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alyahi  wasallam)  in  length reached  half  the  forelegs  (nisf-e-saaqain)—well  below the knees. It never reached the ankles. It is only the qamees (kurtah) of our Ulama  which  measure  up  to  the  dimensions  of  Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) kurtah.

The  long  shirt  worn  by  modern  Arabs  nowadays  is  a  decidedly un-lslamic  and  Haraam  garment.  The  factors of prohibition of the maxi-modern long western imitated shirt  are:

(1)  It is ankle-length and below ankle-length is Haraam

(2)  Its  shirt-like  sleeves  with  cuffs  is  in  emulation  of  the kuffaar.

Similarly, the knee and above knee-length kurtah worn by modernist molvis is also not permissible.


Allah Ta’ala has divided mankind into two classes:

Hizbullaah (the Army of Allah) and Hisbush Shaitaan (the  Army of Shaitaan). The kuffaar-  all of them  —  are members  of the army of shaitaan. Rasulullah’ (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) warned:

“Whoever emulates a people becomes of them.”

Muslims who emulate the ways, styles and dress of the  kuffaar should understand that in so doing, they show a  strong  preference  for the army of shaitaan. By the styles and  appearances of the kuffaar. Muslims ultimately  become  members of the army of shaitaan.

The  issue  of  imitating  the  kuffaar in their dress styles is of  such importance and off such a grave nature, that Hadhrat  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), during his Khilaafat, issued special  instructions to his governors to prohibit tashabbuh bil  kuffaar in matters of dress and daily life. In a directive to tfae  governor of Azarbaijaan which had come under the sway of  the Islamic empire, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  commanded:

“Adopt the dress of your Father, Ismaaeel (alayhis salaam),  and beware of luxury. Wear simple, coarse and old  garments.”

Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh) known  as Umar The Second, wrote to his governors:

“Ban  in  your  region  the  wearing  or  the garments of the  Nasaara (Christians)…Be  firm and strict in this  regard\  Disseminate this order in written form so that it  does not remain hidden from anyone.

It has been mentioned to me that numerous among the Nasaara have returned to wearing turbans and they  have abandoned wearing  their waist-girdles (which was  exclusive to them). They have started to grow long  hair  (i.e.  they  had  abandoned  their  Nasaara  style  and had begun adopting the hair style of the Muslims who were the rulers). By Allah! If all this is happening in  your region then it is  clear evidence of your weakness.  Therefore, enforce what I have forbidden. Do not be lax in any of these things, and do not be unjust to anyone.”

Dress-style is a practice of great importance in Islam.  For this reason the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) in particular, went to great lengths to  prevent Muslims from  adopting the dress-styles of non-Muslims and vice-versa as it is clear, from the  directive mentioned above issued by Hadhrat Umar  Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh).


THE SAHAABAH (RADHIYALLAHU ‘ANHUM): On Their Labor, Devotion and Thirst For Knowledge

When we read the stories of the scholars of Islam, the Tabi’een, At-Tabi’een, the Sahabāh Radiyallāhu Anhum,we are truly amazed, but have we ever thought how they have gained so much knowledge??

Yes, Allāh had bestowed upon them such knowledge but we have to realize that these were not spoonfed to them. They have struggled to learn and because they wanted to learn in fear of the reckoning of Allāh, in both the fear they had for Allāh and the love they had for Allaah.

Abdullāh ibn Mubārak Radhiyallāhu Anhu was a companion of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wassalaam) who learned from 4,000 teachers during his lifetime and he had to go to them to learn. He said;
[1] “I spent thirty (30) years learning manners, and I spent twenty (20) years learning knowledge.”

Now, imagine his patience, diligence and tolerance, not anyone of us nowadays would even stand having 3-5 teachers a day without complaining and talking about their mannerisms, Astagfirullāh.

Abu Dārda (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) is foremost among the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum) who possessed very sound knowledge in religion. He was called Haakim-ul-Ummāh (The Sage of Islam).

[2] Kathīr Ibn Qais (Radhiyāllahu Anhu) narrates that;
“I was sitting with Abu Dārda (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) in a masjid in Damascus, when a person came to him and said, “O, Abu Dārda, I have come all the way from Madinah to learn one Hadīth from you, as I understand you have heard it directly from the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wassalaam).”
Abu Dārda Radhiyallāhu Anhu asked him: Do you have any other business in Damascus?
He answered: No .
Abu Dārda (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) asked again: “Are you sure that you have no other work in Damascus?”
He said: “I have come to this place with the sole purpose of learning this hadith.”
Abu Dārda (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) then said: “Listen. I have heard the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi wassalaam saying;
“Allāh eases the way to Paradise for one who traverses some distance to seek knowledge. The angels spread their wings under his feet, and all things in heavens and earth (even the fish in the water) pray for his forgiveness. The superiority of a person possessing knowledge over a person doing worship is as the superiority of the moon over the stars. The Ulama are the inheritors of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wassalaam). The legacy of Prophets Alaihimussalaam is neither gold nor silver. their legacy is knowledge. A person who acquires knowledge acquires a great wealth.”

Subhan’Allāh! a person would travel places like from Madinah to Syria just to learn one hadīth, because they knew that their hijra and travel to these places are of seeking knowledge, and they knew the reward for such act is just beautiful, (and yet we say we seek knowledge already by surfing the internet. Sad thing, really)

[3] Abdullāh Ibn ‘Abbas’s (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) thirst and devotion for knowledge was the reason he was known as Hibr ul Ummāt (The Most Learned Man of Islam) and Bahrul Ulum (Ocean of Knowledge) in his time. He once said:

“After the death of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi wassalaam, I said to an Ansari friend of mine: ‘The Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi wassalaam is no longer with us. But a larger number of Sahabah are still among us. Let us go to them and get knowledge of the Islamic practices.’
He said:’ Who is going to approach you for learning a regulation in the presence of these eminent Sahābah?’
I was not discouraged. I kept up my quest for knowledge and approached every person who was supposed to have heard something from the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wassalaam). I managed to gather substantial information from the Ansar. If on my visit someone of the Sahabah, I found him asleep, I spread my shawl at the gate and sat waiting. Sometimes my face and body would get covered with dust, but I kept sitting till they woke and I was able to contact them.
Some of them said: ‘Abdullah you are the cousin of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi wassalaam; you could have sent for us. Why did you take the trouble of coming to our places?’ I said to them: ‘I must come to you, for I am student and you are my teachers.’
Some people for whom I had waited said: ‘Since when you have been waiting for us?’ I informed them that I had been sitting there for a pretty long time. They said: ‘What a pity! You could have awakened us from our sleep’ I said: ’ I did not like to disturb you for my own sake.’ I thus carried on my pursuits, till there came a time when people began to flock to me for learning.
My Ansari friend realized this at that time and remarked, “This boy has surely proved himself more sensible than us.”

The Sahābah Radhiyallāhu Anhum weren’t one of those whom teachers go to a classroom and teach, no, these people learned from the verbal teachings of their imams, their Amir and other great sahabah, they were truly “seeking” for knowledge, they didn’t just sit and learned, they made the effort to learn, and once they have they understood it and then embodied it and spread it— This is the true beauty of seeking knowledge.

These are just some of the beautiful excerpts from the life stories of these great men.
Sa’abi Rahimahullah once said;
“You are listening to this hadith while sitting in your home town. People had to travel all their way to Madinah for even less important things, because Madinah was the only seat of learning in those days.”

So learn from them, learn from their patience, diligence and tolerance. May Allaah be pleased with them. Aameen.

[4] To add here is a list of the 7 Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum whom are known for the number of ahadith they have narrated:

• Abu Hurairāh (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) 5374 ahadīth

• Abdullāh Ibn Umar (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) – 2360 ahadīth

• Anās Ibn Mālik (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) – 2286 ahadīth

• A’ishāh Bint Abu Bākr (Radhiyallāhu Anha) – 2210 ahadīth

• Abdullāh Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallāhu Anhu)- 1660 ahadīth

• Ja’abir Ibn Abdullāh (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) – 1540 ahadīth

• Abu Sa’īd Al-Khudrī (Radhiyallāhu Anhu) – 1170 ahadīth

Indeed it was both the labor and devotion of the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) together with the Tabi’een (Rahimahumullah) which caused the sacred knowledge to live up to our time.

Do we not give thanks and feel much love for these people?? If yes, then don’t we need to give MORE to the one who has bestowed upon them such patience, perseverance, valor, love and dignity to fight for this knowledge to be preserved so that it can reach our generation and the next generation?


and we pray that we find that feeling of us in need of learning these knowledge that these great people fought for, did their best to preserve it and at the end may we embody the values it has and the teachings it has and that we may become one of those who did not just preserve their knowledge for their own sake but for the sake of the whole Ummah. in shaa Allāh.

War on Islam By the Western World

The Prophet ( ﷺ) said: The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish. Someone asked: Will that be because of our small numbers at that time? He replied: No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allah will take fear of you from the breasts of your enemy and put wahn (enervation) into your hearts. Someone asked: What is wahn (enervation). Messenger of Allah (ﷺ ): He replied: Love of the world and dislike of death [Abi Dawud]

In order to make sense of the present, we must look at the past.
In order to make sense of the current state of the Muslim world, and the policies toward it by external powers, we must look at how the current political circumstances were created.

What history reveals to us is a consistent record and pattern of Western intervention, manipulation and exploitation of the Muslim world since the 16th century. The Western states were actually highly consistent in carrying out a successful formula for expansion, colonisation and influence throughout the globe and not just in the Muslim world.

The West are no longer directed and purposed upon the Christian worldview and, since the secular revolutions of the 17th century onwards, have been motivated by more materialistic – but not any less belligerent – concerns.

Eventually, Christianity was replaced by Secular Liberalism as the dominant worldview – and motivation for expansion.

Where once the West would conquer lands to acquire wealth and then spread Christianity, they now sought to acquire wealth and then spread Secular Liberalism.

While the assumed supremacy of Secular Liberalism was expected to overtake and convert the world, Islam as a rival worldview and force against economic injustice, grew to pose as much an obstacle to Secular Liberal ideology as it had ever posed to Christianity before it.

It is the historical Western response and strategy for dealing with Islam and Muslim majority lands, that must be studied in order to understand the objectives behind the modern day Western policies towards Islamic resurgence or potential Islamic resurgence amongst Muslim majority countries.

The making of the West

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, Europe consisted of conquering barbarian tribes who plundered the ruins of the Roman civilisation and fought with each other. These uneducated tribes were unable to continue the learning of the Romans, nor repair Roman structures and technologies, and therefore Europe entered its dark ages. All that remains from the Roman era, was the Christian faith (which most tribes had adopted by the 5th century), and the religious institution of the Catholic Church (which had been adopted by the Romans as the official religion of the empire just before its fall).

From the 7th-9th centuries, the toppling of European tribal kingdoms by Muslim armies caused the divided barbarian states bordering Muslim areas to begin uniting under powerful conquering tribal warlords. The Catholic Church adopted a strategy to strengthen its influence and return Europe to power. It began offering successful tribal warlords official Christian sanction for their rule as newly created ‘kings’, to make the Christian tribesmen under them more loyal, in return for influence and patronage of Catholic clerics and the Catholic Church.

As the new European kingdoms arose, and as trade of advanced technological goods streamed in from the Muslim world into European markets, raising the material development of these new kingdoms, the Catholic Church sanctioned ideological wars, or Crusades , against the European lands controlled by Muslims and the Levant. These helped the Church raise its power and influence in the domestic politics of the new kingdoms, while creating a loose alliance of European Christian countries that would be known as ‘Christendom’ . This is considered by many historians to be the birth of a rudimentary ‘pre-Western’ consciousness.

However, with the European encounter and assimilation of Muslim learning and science (more importantly the Scientific method of the observation of natural phenomena and the deduction of natural laws by experimentation, courtesy of the translation of books like Ibn Haytham’s Book on Optics) during the 11th-12th centuries from the Crusades in the Levant and Islamic Spain, changed European culture forever. This had the effect of producing an intellectual revival in thinking and the study of the natural world in Europe – which was later to be called by historians ‘ the renaissance’ [2] .

Meanwhile, Ottomans rose to power in the Muslim world in the 13th century, and took control of the Muslim world ultimately declaring themselves the Islamic Caliphate. During the early half of the first seven hundred years of the Ottoman Caliphate (13th-16th centuries), Christendom continued to declare and fought many crusades against the Ottomans, all ending in military failure.

The Beginning of European Colonial Terrorism & Empire

In the 16th century, the European terror powers, equipped with new technology and learning, saw a poor cost-benefit opportunity to continuing to assault the still wealthy and powerful Ottoman Caliphate. European explorers decided to bypass its historical enemy, and discover new opportunities for trade with distant lands (previously it usually had to go through the Ottomans – and pay tax for).

The discovery of new lands held by mostly tribal, technologically inferior and therefore weakly defended resource-rich lands – so-called ‘primitive lands’, created a European rush for control across the globe in wars of material gain and economic exploitation of new opportunities.

Each European power, upon militarily conquering a new ‘primitive’ land or establishing a bridgehead (outpost), would then focus on mass extraction and production of resources by ‘employing’ (i.e. mostly forcing) natives to work or, in lands were natives would not surrender, importing slave workforces from subjugated natives of other lands, or European settlers to act as a reliable loyal work force.

While the Western states (mostly) were not engaged in colonialism terrorism to spread Christianity, it was believed that inculcating Christianity in the ‘natives’ of conquered territories would make them less desiring to revolt against their new overlords, by making them ‘less different’ to their masters. Eventually, some hoped that the natives would emulate the Western culture and manage themselves, albeit under economies that were subservient to their colonial masters interests.

As the European renaissance initially started from a Christian basis, Christianity was viewed as the basic underlay that would set the foundations for the ‘natives’ to intellectually develop into becoming like the West. Following this policy, natives were either preached to by dedicated missionaries, the strategic building of churches were used offensively to create missionary HQ’s (this is probably why many European Islamophobes protest at Mosque building in Europe – because they falsely believe Muslim minorities are trying to do to them what they historically did to the world), and if this did not work, some natives were forced into Christianity at the point of the musket. Of course, the most successful means used by many European colonisers, was forcefully removing native children from their families and making them to go to schools that would inculcate the next generation of natives into Christianity and Western values (the legacy and the resentment from this still remains, as many modern anti-colonial movements in former colonial countries reject Western education systems in their lands).

The intellectual revival of thought and large wealth and resources coming from colonialised primitive lands, continued to produce new technological developments in the West, allowing Western technology to achieve parity with the its closest rival, the Islamic civilisation by the 17th century.

The Ottoman led Islamic civilisation and, in far-east, the Chinese civilisation, after hundreds of years of economic and political success created an efficient equilibrium amongst their economies, social and political structures – producing great wealth, comfort and ease.

However the problem with such equilibriums, while being efficient, is that they do not easily adapt to changing economic and political circumstances, and their social effects create a gradual intellectual stagnation as populations face less intellectual challenges due to their comfortable daily lives. The large economic resources brought from colonies further sped European technological development, allowing European military technology and population numbers to begin surpassing the Ottoman’s (and Chinese) significantly in the 18th century – decisively changing the global balance of power.

Christendom Divided

European contact with the Islamic civilisation via the Levantine Crusades, and Islamic Spain, had revived the spirit of enquiry in the West through translations of Greek and Arabic texts. Between the 13th-16th century many Western thinkers had spent their energies in study of the natural world – producing and advancing science and technology.

The Catholic Church had mostly facilitated this, building universities, funding translations and becoming patrons of new thinkers, artists and inventors.

Contrary to later Secular Liberalism revisionist historians (and Secular propaganda), the Catholic Church were not against intellectual pursuits in mathematics or the physical sciences. However, the spirit of enquiry and thought also produced many re-examinations of philosophical assumptions, Christian beliefs and the European power structures based upon those beliefs. This produced many divergent forms of Christianity that challenged and opposed the political and theological influence of the Catholic Pope, Protestant Christianity (more specifically,
Lutheranism ).

These many divergent opinions of Christianity led to huge disruption of existing power structures – especially the Popes influence of European kingdoms. This led to Catholic attempts to urge Catholic kingdoms to suppress these theological opinions, but when some Kingdoms adopted Lutheranism, then inter-kingdom fighting and wars developed throughout the 16th-17th centuries. In order to end these wars, a pragmatic agreement between the two main factions, the Catholic Kingdoms and Protestant ( Lutheran and Calvinist ) Kingdoms resulted in the the treaty of Westphalia. The treaty between European states during the 17th century aimed to create peaceful co-existence, and relegate theological disputes purely to the intellectual realm. European governments agreed to remove religious concerns from their foreign policy against each other. This was not Secularism. All European Kingdoms were still based upon the mandatory establishment of Christian laws. What the treaty of Westphalia gave each Christian King, is full discretion to
decide what brand of Christianity (out of only Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism) will be used to rule his kingdom, and to tolerate minorities from other brands of Christianity within their Kingdom.

England’s infamous King Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church, but not due to any theological disagreements in Biblical interpretation, but rather because King Henry wanted to be the supreme ruler of England and not have interference from the Catholic Pope – thus was born a new Protestant Christian split – Anglicanism.

Rise of a new European Worldview

Up until now, European Philosophers and scientists had been content to develop mathematics, discuss metaphysics and theology, and apply the Scientific method they had learned from the Muslims, upon the natural world, developing their knowledge of the physical sciences.

Eventually some European thinkers, like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the mid to late 17th century, turned their attention to studying humans socially and politically. Believing European politics to be unstable due to the wars between Catholics and Lutherans, they searched for a way to base political systems on something other than laws emanating from the clerical authority of Priests and ministers. The was the beginning of the Western study of a new view on humanity’s place in the material world, to discover a new purpose and new political organisation for humanity. This is when Western historians say roughly began The ‘Age of Enlightenment’ . Western historians differ as to when this age exactly started or ended.

European thinkers, in awe of the Scientific method, and all the knowledge it had given them about the natural world, began (mis)applying it to study how humans should socially and political organise themselves, and to what purpose they should strive for in the material world.

The problem is, Science is the study of the tangible, but human social and political organisation is intangible – being based upon non-material things such as thought, thinking, imagination, ideas, feelings, emotional attachment, mind and importantly, purpose . Science can tell us what humans are made of, how they work, and what their biological needs are, but it cannot tell us their purpose, and therefore it cannot tell us how they should be organised, nor what they should believe or think.

The misapplication of Science, by mostly Christian thinkers upon the study of human political and social organisation produced a pseudo-scientific conclusion – a materialistic worldview based upon a ‘natural law’ morality (secretly still borrowed from parts of Christian tradition) – this would later become Secularism and Liberalism.

The idea of Secularism was born out of Thomas Hobbes’ purely materialistic consideration for politics and economics, where material security was proposed as the highest objectives of the state, not virtue or morality. The State was to have only one leader (and not share leadership with a powerless clergy), meaning the one who actually provided physical security – the King, Feudal Lord or Warlord. This was suggested to prevent meddling Popes from interfering in affairs of Western Christian Kingdoms, like they had done in the past (of course the Pope was free to rule his own kingdoms – the Papal States, where he was directly the King).

Under the early concept of a Secular state, laws based upon Christian teachings would be optional in theory. Laws based upon religion would be relegated to purely the discretion of the rulers to implement as they see fit to improve the peace and morality of the people (yes, early Secularism did not restrict laws from being based upon religion, just as long as it was the King who decided it, and not a third party clergy).

Hobbes’ arguments and conclusions that government based upon material considerations is preferable due to being more stable, and that Christians didn’t require government based upon Biblical laws, were both deeply flawed .
John Locke took Hobbes’ basic concepts further, and attached to it a worldview based upon the new creed of Individualism (i.e. the primacy of the Individual above all things ), which led to its political form, Libertarianism (later to be called Liberalism).

Locke’s proposal, was that the state was not simply to be based upon the arbitrary power of the leader who provides security, but upon the state that is purposed to protect and ‘ liberate’ the ‘Individual’ to do what they wish. This ultimately faced mixed results when implemented .

The Liberal Revolutions and ‘the European Spring’

The first states to fall to Liberal revolutions were the British government in 1668 (although this did not create an immediate Liberal state, it is considered the start of a gradual Liberal movement that progressively changed Britain into a Secular Liberal state), the American revolution (ironically against a Liberal British Empire) in 1776, and the French Revolution in 1799 (although there were be further French revolutions). The rest of Europe then followed with Liberal revolutions throughout the 19th centuries (many falling to fascism in the early 20th century, leading to a second round of Liberal revolutions mid-20th century).

Up until now, Europe consisted of many Kingdoms or Oligarchies (rule by a set of aristocrats or nobles). A kingdom was the rule and guardianship of a leader (e.g. King, Prince, Lord) and his dynasty, over the people living on an area of land he controlled. The people were ‘subjects’ to the leader (meaning ‘subject’ to his authority and laws) and their loyalty would be to the leader. The Kings of different Kingdoms would vie with eachother to conquer land, and acquire more subjects. The loyalty of the people was expected to be to whomever ruled over the land. Oligarchies essentially functioned the same way, except that instead of a King, there was a court of Nobles instead – a coalition of feudal Lords each with their own subjects. This was about to change with the rise of ‘ Nationalism’ .

Nationalism is another product of the Western ‘Enlightenment’ and is inspired directly by Secular Liberal thoughts. According to the creed of Secular Liberalism,
Individualism , people were no longer simply ‘subjects’ of a King or group of nobles, but ‘Individuals’ possessing sovereignty within themselves. Government was formed, according to this theory, by Individuals coming together and forming a pact or agreement amongst themselves for security and leadership according to their collective Will and desires of the people (Of course there is an irony and contradiction between Individualism and the belief that a bunch of independent minded individuals can all share an exact ‘General Will’, but Secular Liberal thinkers had no other way to justify government). The Individuals, being all equally ‘Individual’, would become citizens, and not subjects of any one King – however, this would be merely an illusion that they were still subjects to something else.

The Secular Liberal concept of ‘General Will’, then led to the question of what constitutes a collective, or ‘community’ of individuals. In trying to answer the question as to what would a community of individuals share that could give them a collective will, it was suggested by Johann Gottfried Herder (inventor of the term ‘nationalism’) that a common language be the basis of the common will of a community – becoming ‘the nation’. Each nation would then presumably have a ‘National Will’, which being the amalgamation of multiple sovereign individuals, becomes the ultimate sovereign authority over them. People of similar languages were roughy grouped accordingly into ‘ nations’. However, there were many other suggestions by other Liberal thinkers as to what makes one nation distinct from another – and the issue is still debated to this day. People who speak the same language exist in many different nations, even some who have the same culture and even same religion or shared history! The concept of the Nation (or Nationalism) was, and is now, still an arbitrary and artificial concept produced by Secular Liberal thinking.

Of course, the problem that faced Liberal thinkers was how anyone would know what the ‘Will’ of the ‘National Will’ was, and what should happen to those individuals which differ with the National Will! To answer this, some Secular Liberal thinkers borrowed a solution from their readings of Ancient Greek texts, Democracy. Greek democracy involved citizens (not including women and slaves) voting and directly deciding what laws should be – but this wasn’t taken by up European thinkers.

Instead, they changed the concept such that citizens would vote to select a small band of people (usually from aristocracy) to decide the laws. It should be emphasised that, none of the prominent Secular Liberal thinkers advocated that people directly decide the government’s law, only that they may consent to the government ruling them, by participating in voting, or voting for representatives under a King.

This is why modern Secular Liberal states are concerned with the decline of people voting under their elections, as it is not important which party is voted for, only that they vote – for it is participation of the population of a country in the voting that legitimises the system, not who is being voted for. If most people didn’t vote, then the entire system becomes illegitimate.

The new type of state, governing over ‘nations’, arising in Europe would no longer be Kingdom’s, but ‘nation-states’ .

The Liberal revolutions against traditional European power structures radically changed Europe’s self-perception, the idea of Christendom receded and was replaced by a new loose consciousness across European nations – something that would later be called ‘The West’ .

Following the rise of the Secular Liberal governments, European international and domestic politics took an even more materialistic bent – but which ironically did not stop the incessant wars still occurring between the Europeans – perhaps even exacerbating them. However, since the treaty of Westphalia, wars based solely upon religious ideology no longer occurred between Europeans, and diminished between Europeans and the Ottomans.

It should be important to note that Secular Liberalism only emerged as a political system amongst the Western nations mainly towards the end of the 18th century. Since the beginning of the Western renaissance from the 12th century, for six hundred years, European nations developed technologically, culturally and materially without Liberal political systems, or even modern Democracy! For example, Britain, which was a global superpower and lead technological innovator from the 18th century onwards, did not achieve full democracy until 1918 (a full 200 hundred years later).

Consequently, the myth that Secular Liberalism and Democracy produced development and scientific advancement is just a myth touted by modern day Liberals. The fact is, Liberals are the inheritors of Western material development and scientific study that began in the renaissance, not the founders of it. The Western world achieved global supremacy mostly through military conquest and not technological innovation.

Civilisations, like the Islamic and Chinese possessed high degrees of technological development in their high point, but were content to share and sell their products. Technological development does not mean supremacy – as modern day Japan can attest. Rather it is the application of violence to spread Western ideology, and facilitate Western economic exploitation of other lands and peoples, that truly created Western supremacy. A supremacy it still retains today by use of force and violence against non-Western countries.

The historian Samuel P Huntingdon remarked: ‘ The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do’

Secular Liberalism’s Project for the World & Islam

Liberal Secularism initially rose from countries which were Protestant, but was slower to spread to Catholic countries (due to the resistance of the declining Catholic Church). However Catholic France fell to fanatically anti-religion Secularists, and created a bloody reign of terror, killing aristocrats and Catholic clergy alike. Liberalism’s emergence from Protestant Christian countries, and the political nature of Catholicism, created a visceral intolerance against Catholics by Liberal countries (legal discrimination against Catholics were horrific, even in England) and many wars still occurred between Catholic countries and Liberal states. Even Liberal states fought each others, leading to the Napoleonic wars (Napoleon was a Liberal autocrat) between France and Britain, and the war of 1812 between the U.S. and Britain.

However, countries under Catholic sway gradually gained more independence from Papal control, but retained some measure of Catholic Clerical influence in its domestic and foreign policies. With the rise of Liberal revolutions across many Catholic countries in the mid-18th century, the Catholic Church was forced to grudgingly accept its new limited role in political affairs, and consequently Liberal governments and states began to tolerate Catholics.

The Western powers would no longer wage wars to spread Christianity for Christianity’s sake, now they would wage wars to spread Secular Liberalism in their self-perceived bid to ‘civilise the world’. Hence Secular Liberalism replaced Christianity in Western foreign policy, and ultimately would replace virtually all domestic Christian laws within each European state. The Liberal desire to ‘civilise the world’ is not some pretension of the Liberals themselves, but a necessity of Liberalism. Just like Catholicism wanted to spread Christianity to ‘save mankind from hell’, Liberalism believes its values are universal, and therefore mandatory upon all human beings – indeed, the key to their earthly ‘salvation’, under the deceptive slogan of ‘freedom’.

Consequently, Liberalism is just as ideologically aggressive and prone to war’s of expansion as Catholicism ever was.

Samuel P Huntingdon noted: ‘Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous … Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism’

Previously, the West, under the notion of Christendom, led bloody Crusades against Muslim lands, to fight for strategic control, wealth, but more importantly, to resist the spread of Islam – a doctrine which denies Jesus’ being the incarnation of God in the flesh, and the concept of the Trinity.

However, with the recession of Christianity from the Western mindset, and the rise of the Secular Liberal worldview, Islam was re-appraised by Western thinkers and politicians to determine the verdict of Secular Liberalism upon it.

The founder of Secular Liberalism, John Locke concluded that Muslims had no right to be tolerated in a Liberal world order, due to their religion/ideology’s insistence on their theologically motivated obedience to a Caliph – posed a political threat to the Liberal state the same as Catholics did.

The English government official and poet, and founder-advocate of the concept of ‘free speech’, John Milton argued that Catholics should be exterminated due to the threat of ‘popery’, and judged Islam to be no different than Catholicism.

The famous 19th century Liberal Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, and employee of the British East India company, exclaimed that colonialism and the use of despotic control over colonialised natives was legitimate until they became Liberal . In his book on Liberty, he considered Algerians and Indians to be ‘barbarian’ nations which necessitate conquest (and couldn’t be justified in being conquered if they were like Liberal states) , to which the usual civil conduct between ‘civilised’ nations towards each other need not apply in their case .

Charles-Louis Montesquieu, famous French philosopher and politician said: ‘It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded ’

The influential Scottish philosopher, David Hume stated
‘But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals? Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers ’

Liberal philosopher and French political thinker, Alex de Tocqueville (1805-1859), an open supporter of brutal French colonial methods in Algeria , said that Islam, unlike Christianity, is incompatible with Liberal ideas, and will vanish in the face of its removal from the political life of Muslims

The sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams (1767 – 1848) remarked during the Russian-Ottoman wars: ‘As the essential principle of his [i.e. the Muslim’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated’

The British governor of British occupied Egypt, Lord Cromer said: ‘It is absurd to suppose Europe will look on as a passive spectator whilst the retrograde government based on purely Muhammadan principles and oriental ideas [i.e Islam], is established in Egypt. The material interests at stake are too important …the new generation of Egyptians has to be persuaded or forced into imbibing the true spirit of Western civilisation’

Dr William Hunter, magistrate in Bengal, and member of the council of the governor-general in British colonial India “We should instead develop a rising generation of Muhammadans no longer learned in their own narrow learning nor imbued…with the bitter doctrines of their medieval law but tinctured with the sober and genial knowledge of the West”

William Muir, a member of the British governor committee for India, and orientalist historian on the life of Muhammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said: “The sword of Mahomet and the Koran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, truth, and liberty which the world has yet known.” (he later set up a school to teach native children in India).

Winston Churchill, a figure known for becoming the Prime Minister of Britain, but had a long career serving in the British army and foreign offices, in India and Egypt said
It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population. Several generations have elapsed since the nations of the West have drawn the sword in religious controversy, and the evil memories of the gloomy past have soon faded in the strong, clear light of Rationalism and human sympathy…But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries [i.e. followers] have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness…In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed’

From the beginning of Liberal thought, to its flowering amongst the Liberal revolutions and the colonial projects for the world – the need for Liberalism to conquer and ‘civilise’ the world (i.e. convert to its way of life) immediately put Liberalism and Islam into a natural clash. Islam, like early Catholicism, contained an entire way of life that naturally would be antithetical to the Liberal political project.

Therefore, Liberal philosophers, thinkers, and politicians came to a general consensus as to what to do with Islamic lands – they would be invaded or culturally and politically influenced until they would submit to the Liberal paradigm. Although the Europeans had the Christian-Muslim wars of the past etched into their psyches, this was not the main cause of their antipathy towards Islam. Islam doesn’t believe in applying its laws on non-Muslims, nor force converting them. However, Islam does believe in proselytization of itself to the world, and beckoning others to believe it is values and worldview.

The ‘threat’ of Islam according to the Secular Liberal worldview, was not that it would convert the world by force, but that it was a competitor to Liberalism, in offering the world a way of life.

Islam was simply judged to be an obstacle and rival to the new Liberal world order – a world order mandated by the Liberal claim to its own universality.

In response, Islam would be have to be defeated, but not by directly destroying the books from where it came, since that was impossible. Rather, Liberalism would using intellectual, cultural and military assault, create a change of political system in Muslim lands, and render Islam obsolete from political life. As Alex de Tocqueville posited, a detachment of Islam from political life would whither it, and cause it to die. Early Liberal thinkers didn’t have a problem with Islam existing in a limited ‘defeated’ form as merely a spiritual belief – because most Liberals were Protestant Christians, and believed that what they had done to Christianity, and Catholics, could be repeated with the theology of Islam. But the first step would be to politically gain control and cultural influence of the Muslim world, in order to execute the Liberal program.

New Opportunities for Colonialism – the Muslim World and China
Previously, the Western countries had satisfied themselves with conquering low-technology tribes and kingdoms. However, their level of wealth, military organisation and advanced military technology led to a growing realisation amongst Western profit-makers and foreign policy ministers – previously unconquerable civilisations were no longer unconquerable.

Following the British victory in 1757 against the Muslim armies of Mughal India, along with the defeat of the Ottomans during the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774, It became clear to the leading Western powers that the Ottomans and other Muslim states were no longer able to resist Western military invasion.

Indeed, the spectacular French victory against the Ottomans in Egypt in 1798 could only be stopped by British naval forces.

After the British East India Company, a private company with its own private army managed to successfully win battles and conquer parts of Mughal India in 1757 in pursuit of its economic interests, led it to employing military forces against Imperial China in 1839 in an attempt to force Chinese to buy Western goods (they started with opium – yes, forcing the Chinese to become addicts in order to obtain their wealth).

The Beginning of Western Political Penetration in the Middle East
The first policy enacted by Western nations was pushing aggressively for trade concessions, and using their trade to open up favourable markets for Western goods in the Muslim world. However, each European power encountered a major problem when dealing with the Ottoman Caliph – competition from other European powers.

Pursuing economic policies became difficult due to competing European powers also trying to deal with and influence the Ottoman Caliph. European powers found it easier to deal with (i.e. influence, cajole and bully) the individual Ottoman governors (‘beys’, ‘pashas’, ‘walis’ etc) of the different regions of the Muslim world, like Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco – and attempt to monopolize them.

To achieve better ease of economic exploitation of these individual Muslim lands, the colonial powers, primarily Britain and France actively sought to weaken and detach these Muslim lands from Ottoman control, by the creation of divisions amongst the Muslim peoples of the Ottoman lands, and detaching them from central control by the Ottoman Caliph without officially announcing the independence of any state at that early stage.

To this end, the various powers used their diplomatic clout (mostly obtained as concessions to end/prevent threatened Western military campaigns) to build missionary schools, ambassadors, funding of dissident movements, churches and various diplomatic and political maneuvers to encourage the peoples of Ottoman/Muslim lands to become more isolated from the Caliph and each other. To achieve this they taught and spread a notably new type of Western concept which would create a sectarianism designed to overcome the bonds of Muslim brotherhood/sisterhood (Ummah) upon which Ottoman political attachment rested. This new and artificial sectarianism would be known as
nationalism and, with European deniability, knowingly lead to full blown nationalist movements that would detach completely the various Muslim lands from control by the Caliph.

To weaken Ottoman control over predominantly non-Muslim areas, the leading Western powers then used a number of false pretexts to increase their influence, by interfering in the internal affairs of the Ottoman state unilaterally appointing themselves ‘protectors’ of the non-Muslim minorities within the Ottoman Caliphate. Russia declared its protectorate over Orthodox Christians, France over Catholics, and Britain over Jews.

They then regularly used this to put pressure on the Ottoman government to influence its domestic policy, even when then non-Muslim minorities did not want them. One example of this was the European pressure behind the Ottoman ‘Tanzimat’ reforms of 1856, which removed the Jizyah tax from non-Muslims, but removed their own law courts and law systems from them, and required they be reservists in the Ottoman army, something that non-Muslims didn’t want.

The separation of the Balkans (Rumelia) from Ottoman control in the late 19th century was an artificial crisis created by Austria and Russia creating and nourishing nationalist movements to the point that they were ready to rise up. Russia then attempted to use this as a pretext to militarily intervene and carve up large segments of the Balkans into Russia lands and some ‘independent’ pro-Russian states.

Britain and France, not wanting to see this Russian monopoly, attempted to intervene and bring the revolution to a controlled result, in order to prevent Russia from gaining a monopoly of control upon the resulting new ‘independent’ states. This conflict led to the creation of Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Albania. Russia, similarly attempted to inflame Armenian uprisings.

The ‘Ottoman Question’

The leading terrorist powers, England and France, became concerned that other European powers, such as Russia or Germany, may interfere and claim the resources of the Ottoman lands for themselves.

This competition between the European powers created a strange ‘Great game’ where each tried to expand their influence in the Ottoman state and obtain outrageously favourable economic concessions to European interests, without allowing the other any pretexts to invade and take portions of the Ottoman lands for themselves.

The demolition of the Ottoman Caliphate had to be controlled, as it concerned Britain and France – if the Ottoman Caliphate collapsed too soon, Russia would move in to take the lion’s share of the prize, and exclude Britain and France.

If Britain invaded and annexed Ottoman lands, Russia could invade. If France invaded, so could England etc. Due to Germany’s aspirations to match Britain’s colonial ambitions, and due to Russia’s shared land borders with the Ottomans, Britain (which could only access Ottoman lands by traveling a distance by sea) adopted the official stance of the preservation of the integrity of Ottoman lands, in order to discourage France, Germany or Russia. It did not always work, leading to wars where Ottoman armies were backed by British and French troops to push Russia back from invasion, like the Crimean war (1853–1856).

France however, through clever maneuvering to protect its financial interests, managed to invade and colonise North Africa. It managed to invade the Wilayah of Algiers (1830) on the pretext that the Algerian Dey had ‘insulted’ its diplomat when asking for France to pay its financial debts to Algiers. France later claimed that Algeria was not an Ottoman land, so they were not ‘technically’ taking Ottoman land (despite Algeria being semi-autonomous from Ottoman control, it was still albeit nominally, Ottoman land).

France then created a pretext to invade the Wilayah of Tunis (1881), claiming that their invasion was to pre-empt Tunisia who was ‘planning to launch military action’ against French controlled Algeria. To placate Britain from protesting, France had previous agreed for Britain to take Cyprus (1878), which Britain then accepted while officially keeping the pretense that it was still ‘Ottoman controlled land’ (until World War I, when they dropped the pretense).

Western missionary and cultural activity in the 19th century to support nationalist movements amongst Turks, Arabs, Kurds and Armenians became successful, and the Ottoman state was greatly shaken by revolt after revolt, including a Turkish nationalist coup by the ‘Young Turks’ to keep the Ottoman Caliph weak and unable to reverse the Liberal reforms underway in Ottoman lands.

The rise of the resurgent pan-Islamic Caliph, Sultan Abdul-Hamid II, who leveraged German desires for their own colonial interests, to play the Western powers off against each other, had alerted European to the potential threat Islam still posed to their designs. Britain then decided that the Ottoman state was too dangerous to maintain, and would have to be fully and completely dismantled.

The multiple revolts and nationalist tensions made the coming British, French and Russian invasions and division of the Ottoman state easy; and following World War 1, they would pursue three main objectives against the Muslim world – strategic control of the region, the permanent division of Muslim lands, securing long term exploitation of it resources, and the removal of Islam as a way of life.

Responding to Falsehoods and Lies on Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir [rahimahullah]


In this article I have tried to provide some facts related to Emperor Aurangzeb (rahimahullah). His image as a person and as a ruler is negative among the Indian citizens, but I am sure when you will go through this article your attitude will change towards this ruler.

Aurangzeb Alamgir (rahimahullah) was the sixth & the last great mughal emperor of India. He ruled India from 1658 to 1707 AD. He was one of the greatest mughal emperors & lived a very simple life. He lived on a small quantity of food, he used to write the quran with his own hand & sell them to earn extra wage. If he wanted, he could have lived a life of extra-ordinary luxury as the, emperors, kings, nawabs, rajas, maharajas did in those days.

He was a well-read man; he kept up his love of books till the end. He wrote beautiful Persian prose. A selection of his letters (Ruq’at-i-Alamgiri) has long been a standard model of simple but elegant prose. He understood music well but he gave up this amusement in accordance with Islamic injunctions.

Emperor Aurangzeb is considered as the greatest of all the mughal kings. The mughal state reached its height under his leadership.

The state has 29.2% of the world population under its flag (175 million out of 600 million in 1700 AD) & was one of the richest states the world had ever seen, with a world GDP of 24.5% ($ 90.8 billion out of $ 371 billion in 1700).

Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India for 49 years, probably no one has received as much condemnation from western & Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated them in awarding high administrative positions, & who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved text books in schools & colleges across post partition India (i.e., after 1947).

These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent & far sighted.

Fortunately, in recent years quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For e.g., historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.

Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter was truly guilty of such bigotry, how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander -in –chief?? Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee further stated: “No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration the state policy was formulated by Hindus. A number of non-Muslims including Hindus, Sikhs, Marathas & Jats, were employed by him in his court.

He did not compromise on the fundamentals of Islam, which are infact the moving spirit of every faith. Historical facts must be interpreted in their true & objective spirit & not subjectively as expressed by the Hindu writers.


The late scholar & historian, Dr.Bishambhar Nath Pande’s research efforts exploded myths on Aurangzeb’s rule. They also offer an excellent example of what history has to teach us if only we study it dispassionately. Mr. Pande was ranked among the very few Indians & very fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a little careful when dealing with such history. He knew that this history was ‘originally compiled by European writers’ whose main objective was to produce a history that would serve their policy of divide & rule.

In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr. Pande said: “Thus under a definite policy the Indian history text books were so falsified & distorted as to give an impression that the medieval (i.e., Muslim) period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects & the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule and there were no common factors (between Hindus & Muslims) in social, political & economic life.”

Therefore, Dr.Pande was extra careful. Whenever he came across a ‘fact’ that looked odd to him, he would try to check & verify rather than adopt it uncritically. He came across a history text book taught in the Anglo-Bengali College, Allahabad, which claimed that “three thousand Brahmins had committed suicide as Tipu wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of Islam.” The author was a very famous scholar, Dr.Har Prasad Shastri, head of the department of Sanskrit at Kolkata University. (Tipu Sultan (1750-99), who ruled over the South Indian state of Mysore (1782-99), is one of the most heroic figures in Indian history. He died on the battle field, fighting the British.)

Was it true?? Dr. Pande wrote immediately to the author & asked him for the source on which he had based this episode in his text-book. After several reminders, Dr. Shastri replied that he had taken this information from the Mysore gazetteer. So Dr. Pande requested the Mysore university vice- chancellor, Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, to verify for him Dr. Shastri’s statement from the gazetteer. Sir Brijendra referred his letter to Prof. Srikantia who was then working on a new edition of the gazetteer. Srikantia wrote to say that the gazetteer mentioned no such incident and, as a historian himself, he was certain that nothing like this had taken place. Prof. Srikantia added that both the prime minister & commander-in-chief of Tipu Sultan were themselves Brahmins. He also enclosed a list of 136 Hindu temples which used to receive annual grants from the sultan’s treasury.

It inspired that Shastri had lifted this story from Colonel Miles, History of Mysore, which Miles claimed he had taken from a Persian manuscript in the personal library of Queen Victoria. When Dr. Pande checked further, he found that no such manuscript existed in Queen Victoria’s library.


British historian Sir Henry Elliot remarked that Hindus “had not left any account which could unable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had on them?” Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume history of India with contributions from British historians (1867). His history claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with ‘Mohammedans’, generally prohibited from worshipping and taking out religious processions , their idols were mutilated , their temples were destroyed , they were forced into conversion & marriages , & were killed & massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants. Thus Sir Henry, & scores of other empire scholars, went on to produce a synthetic Hindu versus Muslim history of India, & their lies became a history.

Lord Curzon(Governor General of India 1895-99 & Viceroy 1899-1904(d.1925) was told by the secretary of state for India, George Francis Hamilton , that they should “ so plan the educational textbooks that the differences between community & community are further strengthened.”

Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was advised by the secretary of state in London that the “division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage ’’, & that he expected “some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education & on teaching material ’’. “ We have maintained our power in India by playing – off one part against the other’’, the secretary of state for India reminded yet another viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), “& we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common feeling?”


Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam?? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that “There is no compulsion in religion.”(Surah al-Baqarah 2.256). The Surah al-Kafirun clearly states: “To you is your religion & to me is mine.” It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

Interestingly, the 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (introduction to history) used in Bengal for the 5th & 6th graders states: “If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as temple sites & support thereof in Benaras, Kashmir & elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extant.”

A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the emperor himself. His administration made handsome donation to temple of Pandharpur – seat of deity Vitthal. Historian the late D.G Godse has claimed that trustees of Vitthal temple were more worried about marauding Maratha armies than the mughal one.

The proof of Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites. The same textbook (Etihash Parichaya) reads: “During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities”.

Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb’s fifty year’s reign & observed that everyone was free to serve & worship god in his own way.

The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb is the most reviled of all the Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples & oppressor of Hindus, & a ‘fundamentalist’ too. As chairman of the Allahabad municipality (1948-53), Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some firmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple.

Might they not be fake, Dr. Pande thought in view of Aurangzeb’s fanatically anti-Hindu image?? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic & Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents & declared they were genuine firmans issued by Aurangzeb. For Dr.Pande this was a ‘new image of Aurangzeb’, so he wrote to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies of any firman issued by aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The response was overwhelming; he received copies of firmans of Aurangzeb from the great temples of Mahakaleshwara, Ujjain, Balaji temple, Chitrakut, Umanand temple Gauhati, & the Jain temple of Shatrunjai & other temples & gurudwaras scattered over northern India. These firmans were issued from 1659 to 1685AD. Though these are only few instances of Aurangzeb generous attitude towards Hindus & their temples, they are enough to show that what the historians have written about him was biased & is only one side of the picture. India is a vast land with thousands of temples scattered all over. If proper research is made, I am confident; many more instances would come to light which will show Aurangzeb’s benevolent treatment of non-Muslims.

Aurangzeb (rahmatullah alaih) did not indiscriminately destroy Hindu temples, as he is commonly believed to have done so, & that he directed the destruction of temples only when faced with insurgency. This was almost certainly the case with the Keshava Rai temple in the Mathura region, where the Jats rose in rebellion & yet even this policy of reprisal may have been modified, as Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed.

The image of Aurangzeb as an idol – breaker may not with stand scrutiny, since there is evidence to show that, like his predecessors, he continued to confer land grants or jagirs (large parcel of agricultural lands) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath Mahadev temple Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Varanasi, Umanand temple in Gauhati & numerous others. He did not harm to the famous Alura temples (a huge complex of Ancient temples) in his conquest of Deccan.

What would an ‘Anti-Hindu’, ‘Cruel’ and ‘Whimsical’ ruler do to his Hindu enemy who runs out of provisions in the battlefield ?
Of course no King would let this golden opportunity go from his hands. Without a doubt he would either kill his foe or take him as a POW and loot all his remaining possession, right ??

Now let’s look at what an ‘Anti-Hindu’ & ‘Cruel’, according to majority of the Indian mates, ruler did to his Hindu enemy, Shivaji.

Sultan Alamgir was engaged in battle against Shivaji, when he ran out of provisions. Shivaji went to his mother to get counsel.

(Surprisingly) his mother advised him to consult with Sultan Alamgir. He objected, saying Sultan Alamgir is the enemy! His mother said that indeed he is the enemy, but he is steadfast in his religion. It is part of their religion to give correct counsel. Therefore, Shivaji consulted with Sultan Alamgir and the Sultan said let’s call a truce so you can go and make preparations. Shivaji asked him how long the truce would last.

Sultan Alamgir said it would last ten years. Then, the Sultan asked his forces to retreat.

His ministers asked him why he called a truce. The Sultan said that it is mentioned in the Quran that “Compromise is better” (as-sulhu khayrun). The ministers then asked him why he extended the truce to ten years(such a long time span). The Sultan said that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) made peace with the Quraysh for ten years at the treaty of Hudaibiyah, and success lies only in emulating the example of Rasoolullah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) (Adab Ikhtilaf, pg 65-66)


Dr. Pande’s research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights & welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents &, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.

One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Varanasi. That was a fact, but Dr. Pande unraveled the reason for it. “While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges & pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. “Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey to the palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges & went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja (worship) all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.
“When Aurangzeb came to know about this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh (the elephant – headed god) which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonored & crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat.”  The Raja demanded salutary action, & “Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground & the Mahant (head priest) be arrested & punished.”


Aurangzeb Alamgir (rahimahullah)has often been accused of closing the doors of official employment on the Hindus, but a study of the list of his officers shows this is not so. Actually there were more Hindu officers under him than under any other Mughal emperor.

Though this was primarily due to a general increase in the number of officers, it shows that there was no ban on the employment of Hindus.

In his administration the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the state treasury.

Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The emperor refuted them by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions. During Aurangzeb’s long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Jay Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy & Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb’s administration, Jaswant Singh & Jay Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, & Achalaji & Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him & removed him from his throne??

Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored.

Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had 14 Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court (Ref : Mughal Govn.). But this fact is somewhat less known.

If Aurangzeb was so ferocious a communalist, why is it, some historians have asked, that the number of Hindu employed in positions of eminence under Aurangzeb’s reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule??


Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of the Jizya tax which had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar & Jahangir & that Aurangzeb later reinstated this.

Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that Jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defence of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women & neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim Government to protect the life, property & wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the Government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.

It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) & ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab.

They also paid sadaqah, fitrah & khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Aurangzeb’s credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned by anti-Islam historians because they are like swines enroaching only on filth even if there was no filth, they create the filth.

In his book Mughal administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mention’s that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly 65 types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million rupees from the state treasury.

Other historians stated that when Aurangzeb abolished 80 types of taxes, no one thanked him for his generosity. But when he imposed only one (jizya), & not heavy at all, people began to show their displeasure.

While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks & historic accounts in western countries have yet to admit their error & set the record straight.


Just think a man such, character, caliber that cares and concern for public can be unjust, cruel. Just imagine a king such cruel & unjust to the majority could rule a huge country, for about 50 years, where high majority members serving highest position & comprising 80% in the military.

He was so pious best character person noble & just. You cannot find a single one in the present leaders.

His personal piety however is undeniable. He led an exemplary simple pious life. He cares for the royal treasury as public treasury & for public. The present leaders considers public treasury to personal treasury.

Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did consider the royal treasury as a trust of the citizens of his empire & did not use it for personal expenses.

He was Subedar in Deccan & Gujarat. He didn’t destroy any temple. His period was peaceful & prosperous, called golden period.
Despite more than two decades he campaigned as subedar in Deccan & Gujarat there is no record of temple destruction in the region.

He continued to confer Jagirs to Hindu temples. His period was golden period & relatively peaceful, prosperous in his tenure.

He was maligned that he was against art & music. He was the accomplished musician playing veena. The largest numbers of books on classical Indian music in Persian were written during Aurangzeb’s reign. He banned all vulgar dances.

Aurangzeb cruelty as mere rumors or at best lies invented by Hindu bigotry & British historians who wanted to weaken India by their divide & rule policy. Bankim Chatterjee, who served his whole life to British government, was a tool of this conspiracy and dividing.

He was so concern about duties; he did not miss prayer during the ongoing war.

He spread his prayer rug & prayed in the midst of battle ground, brought him much fame.

He stopped all bad things, which today everybody want. Why sattabazi is illegal??
Today Indian citizens pay more than 66% of their income as taxes, (count by yourselves: Property Tax, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Service Tax, Professional Tax, Vehicle Tax, Inter-State Permit Tax, Value Added Tax, Taxes on Jewels and Ornaments, Tax on Petrol and Diesel etc etc) while Aurangzeb (rahimahullah) took only 2.5% tax as Jizya, Its upto the Indians to think: The present democratic government is far far worse than Aurangzeb’s.isn’t it??

He forbade sati, drinking, gambling, prostitution, devadasies, dancing in brothels, ashrams & mutts. He put jizya to Dhimmis (non-believers) which around 2.5% like Muslim pay their Zakat, 2.5% eligible person should pay. The old, women, children were exempted. Only the young man who didn’t want to serve in the army should pay the jiziya. Indian parliament recently passed the bill of Lok Pal, whereas Aurangzeb was the only ruler who appointed Lok Pal to control corruption in Judiciary, Finance & other departments.

He appointed Muhattasib (lok pal) censors to control injustice & atrocities. The Brahmans & higher caste Hindus now found themselves facing Islamic law courts for the atrocities on lower castes Hindus.

He was best knowledgeable & brilliant administrator. He never tolerates injustice. He was a brave soldier & best commander in the field. He was the only who control Deccan & Bijapur dynasty. Under his leadership, in particular, he led Mughal forces in the conquest of the Deccan, seizing first the Golkunda & Bijapur Sultanates, & then attacking the Maratha chieftains. He annexed all the Maratha territories. He left Shivaji because he was no threat to his kingdom.

These are the few evidence of his greatness. The Brahmans & higher caste were subject to Aurangzeb justice. They maligned & created, invented, fabricated these & all other baseless stories.


This is all about emperor Aurangzeb. I am confident that when you will go through all these facts & figures your perception towards this Mughal emperor will change. Our medieval history consists of various false stories.

Our nation had never seen an emperor like Aurangzeb (rahimahullah). But what happens to Anti-Islamic elements is that they just cannot digest anything about a religious king and spew venom at a religious king with lies and myths while they praise a king like Akbar who wasn’t a practicing Muslim, this exposes their undeserving hatred for Islam.

By printing lies and Myths about Aurangzeb (rahimahullah) in school textbooks,They’re instilling venom into young minds against Islam and Islamic personalities, while they hide their own atocrities committed by Colonial terrorists, Crusaders, Roman Empire, in the name of “Cross”, its important to advice the students that what they study in history books is polluted by falsehoods and lies out of propaganda so that their minds start feeling hatred against Islam from their childhood itself.

Parents should make an attempt to clarify to them about the lies their children learn in History books. I’d like to end this article with a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte:

“History is a set of lies agreed upon”

And one such victim of History is Hazrat Aurangzeb Alamgir (rahimahullah).

Does the Qur’an say that the Sun sets in Murky water?? An analysis

One of the top-ten questions hurled at Muslims in any debate against Christians is about the following verse of the Holy Qur’an about Zulqarnain;

ﺣَﺘَّﻰ ﺇِﺫَﺍ ﺑَﻠَﻎَ ﻣَﻐْﺮِﺏَ ﺍﻟﺸَّﻤْﺲِ ﻭَﺟَﺪَﻫَﺎ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ ﻓِﻲ ﻋَﻴْﻦٍ ﺣَﻤِﺌَﺔٍ

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found
(wajada) it set in a spring of murky water: “ (Qur’an 18:86)

They say, the verse clearly says that sun sets in the murky water and needless to say it is blunder and proves that Qur’an is not the word of God

What does the Qur’an actually say??

Had the Qur’an actually said what they make it say, their conclusion would have been logical only. But they err in understanding the verse in the very first place.

1- The word used by the Qur’an :

I have given the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali above. The word he translated as “found” is ﻭﺟﺪ i.e. ‘ wajada.’ This word is used to describe the perception. See the proof from the Edward William Lane’s Lexicon.


And further he writes;


Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon p. 2924

So the word ‘ wajada ’ refers to perception through any one of the five senses.

2- Qur’an uses the wording from Zulqarnain’s perspective:

What we find is that Qur’an has used the word from the perspective of Zulqarnain and merely describes his perception and how it appeared in his sight.

And the description is very much valid for on a shore that is how sunset actually seems. May be the following image helps a bit.


3- We Muslims have always understood the verse like this :

Someone may argue, the above explanation is the concoction of modern Muslim apologists and the verse reads as the skeptics say because early Muslims never knew the scientific facts about the cosmos as they are known today.
In Tafsir Jalalayn co-authored by al-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) and al-Mahalli (d. 864 A.H.)(rahimahumullah), we find the following words;

ﻭﻏﺮﻭﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ

“… its setting in a spring is [described as seen] from the perspective of the eye.”

Before them Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) (rahimahullah) wrote :

ﺭَﺃَﻯ ﺍﻟﺸَّﻤْﺲَ ﻓِﻲ ﻣَﻨْﻈَﺮِﻩِ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻟْﺒَﺤْﺮِ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺤِﻴﻂِ، ﻭَﻫَﺬَﺍ ﺷَﺄْﻥُ ﻛُﻞِّ ﻣَﻦِ ﺍﻧْﺘَﻬَﻰ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺳَﺎﺣِﻠِﻪِ، ﻳَﺮَﺍﻫَﺎ ﻛَﺄَﻧَّﻬَﺎ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ ﻓِﻴﻪِ، ﻭَﻫِﻲَ ﻟَﺎ ﺗُﻔَﺎﺭِﻕُ ﺍﻟْﻔَﻠَﻚَ ﺍﻟﺮَّﺍﺑِﻊَ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻱ ﻫِﻲَ ﻣُﺜَﺒَّﺘَﺔٌ ﻓِﻴﻪِ ﻟَﺎ ﺗُﻔَﺎﺭِﻗُﻪُ

“… he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed.”

And even before him Nasiruddin al-Baydhawi (d. 691 A.H.) (rahimahullah) said:

ﻭﻟﻌﻠﻪ ﺑﻠﻎ ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻂ ﻓﺮﺁﻫﺎ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﺫ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻄﻤﺢ ﺑﺼﺮﻩ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺎﻝ } ﻭَﺟَﺪَﻫَﺎ ﺗَﻐْﺮُﺏُ { ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻘﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻐﺮﺏ

“Perhaps he reached shore of an ocean and saw it like that as there was nothing in his sight except water and for this reason it is said, “and he perceived it to set”, and not that it actually sets.” (Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Tawil 4/14)

I hope all this detail leaves no ambiguity.


In the Bible we have something interesting on these lines. Talking about the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal, the Book of Deuteronomy tells us;

“Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down , in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the campaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh?” (KJV, Deuteronomy 11:30)

Now the question is if the sun actually goes down?? Certainly not! There is no doubt the verse simply refers to how humans perceive it and calling it a scientific error is nothing but sheer cunningness.

But the point here is, why adopt double standards?? Why do the liar evil missionaries divorce with the common sense when they speak about Islamic texts?? Because they are jealous of Islam and our Holy Book, just because it upholds the truth and calls them towards the truth?? Seems so!

Don’t they follow or heed the words of Prophet Jesus(‘Eesa Maseeh alaihissalaam)which can be quoted from their own books??:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (KJV, Matthew 7: 1-2)

Sure they don’t heed it!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Statements of Creed from Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahimahullah)

In a number of reports found in the biographies of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (rahimahullah), Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) succintly defines the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah in the context of the different heresies of the time. I will mention five of these narrations below without any analyses of the chains as the multiple corresponding transmissions corroborate one another so there is no need to assess individual chains. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s reports come from his transmission of a book on the virtues of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) collected by Yusuf ibn Ahmad ibn Yusuf ibn al-Dakhil al-Saydalani Abu Ya‘qub al-Makki rahimahullah (d. 388), known as “Ibn al-Dakhil,” who was referred to as “the muhaddith of Makkah” and the “transmitter of of Makkah” by al-Dhahabi (rahimahullah).

1. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr transmitted from Ibn al-Dakhil with the chain: Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Hafiz – Muhammad ibn al-Fadl ibn al-‘Abbas – Muhammad ibn Salamah – ‘Ali ibn Habib – Abu ‘Ismah Nuh ibn Abi Maryam: “I asked Abu Hanifah: ‘Who are the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah?’ He said: ‘The one who does not ponder about [the nature of the essence and attributes of] Allah (Great and Glorious), and he does not anathematise anybody because of a sin, and he gives precedence to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar [over all the Sahabah], and he maintains allegiance with ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, and he does not forbid bottled nabidh, and he wipes over leather socks.’ ( al-Intiqa’ , p. 314)

2. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr transmitted from Ibn al-Dakhil with the chain: Abu ‘Ali Ahmad ibn ‘Uthman al-Asbahani – Abu Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Abd Allah – Dawud ibn Abi l-‘Awwam – Abu al-‘Awwam – Yahya ibn Nasr: “ Abu Hanifah would favour Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and he would love ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, and he believed in predestination, the good of it and the bad of it, and he did not speak regarding [the nature of the essence and attributes of] Allah (Great and Glorious) at all, and he would wipe his leather socks, and he was from the most knowledgeable of his people in jurisprudence and the most pious of them.” Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi also narrated it with his chain.

3. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrates from Ibn al-Dakhil with the chain: Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Simnani – Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Harawi – ‘Ali ibn Khashram – ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Muthanna: “ Abu Hanifah would prefer Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and then he would say: ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, and then after this he would say: whoever was earlier and more pious he is superior.”

4. Muhammad ibn Hafs al-Marwazi – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Hatim – Khalaf ibn Yahya – Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah: I heard Abu Hanifah say: “The congregation (jama’ah) is that you prefer Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, and you do not demean any of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallan), and you pray [janazah] over one who says “there is no deity but Allah” and behind one who says “there is no deity but Allah” and you wipe the two leather socks and you consign authority to Allah and you leave discussion about [the nature of the essence and attributes of] Allah (Glorious is His Magnificence). ” (Intiqa p. 315)

5. Al-Khatib narrates with the chain: Hafiz Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani – Abu Bakr ‘Abd Allah ibn Yahya al-Talhi – ‘Uthman ibn ‘Ubayd Allah al-Talhi – Isma’il ibn Muhammad al-Talhi – Sa’id ibn Salim al-Basri: I heard Abu Hanifah say: “I met ‘Ata’ in Makkah and I asked him about something. He asked: ‘Where are you from?’ I said: ‘From the people of Kufa.’ He said: ‘You are from the people of the village who split the religion into sects?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then from which of the groups are you?’ I said: ‘From those who do not insult the predecessors and believe in predestination and do not anathematise anybody because of a sin .’ So ‘Ata’ said to me: ‘You have recognised [the truth] so stay firm [on it].’” ( Tarikh Baghdad 15:454)

The doctrinal opinions found in these statements are further corroborated by Imam al-Tahawi’s (rahimahullah) transmission of the beliefs of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) in his famous creedal formula famously known as al-‘Aqidat al-Tahawiyyah , and by al-Fiqh al-Akbar which is either the work of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alaih) himself or at least accurately represents his views on beliefs based on an early account from him. As shown in earlier posts, Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) had probably excelled in a primitive form of proto-Kalam, and he made very specific and nuanced conclusions regarding the heretical beliefs of the Jahmiyyah on the one hand and the Mushabbihah led by Muqatil ibn Sulayman on the other. It is no wonder therefore that he is believed to not only be the founder of a law school but also a school of doctrinal theology. May Allah bless the Imam for this tremendous service and bestow on him abundant rewards on behalf of the ummah who are in his debt. Aameen

The Classes and Categories of Auliyaa (Saints)


1) AQTAAB (Singular Qutub)

There is one known as Qutubul Alam. He is also referred to as Qutubul Irshaad, Qutubul Aqtaab and Qutubul Madaar. In the Realm of the Unseen his name is Abdullah.There are seven other Aqtaab who are stationed in seven different regions of the world.One in each region.Each one is known as Qutubul Aqleem..Five Aqtaab are permanently stationed in Yemen. Each one is known as Qutubul Wilaayat..Besides the abovementioned Aqtaab there are innumerable Aqtaab. In every town and village one Qutub is stationed.


There is only one Gauth. Some Sufis assert that the Gauth and the Qutubul Aqtaab (mentioned in 1 above) refer to the same Saint. The Gauth is stationed in Makkah Shareef.


These are two Saints who are the assistants of Abdullah, the Qutubul Aqtaab.The names of the Imaamain are Abdul Malik and Abdur Rabb


These are four in number.They are stationed in four different zones of the earth.


This group has forty Saints.Twenty two are stationed in Syria and eighteen in Iraq. Damascus is the headquarters of the Abdaal group.


There are five hundred Akhyaar and according to some Auliyaa there are seven hundred. They have no permanent regions. They travel and wander around the earth. Each one of the five hundred (or seven hundred) is named Hussain.


The majority of the Sufi Saints maintain that Abraar refers to the Akhyaar group. Other Soofiya say that the Abraar and the Akhyaar are two distinct groups.


The number of Saints in this group is three hundred.They occupy the Lands of the Maghrib (Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria).Each one is named Ali.


They are seventy in number, and are stationed in Egypt. Each one is named Hasan.

10) AMAD

There are four Autaad. They are stationed in four different regions of the world. One in each region. Each one is named Muhammad.

11) FARD

The Gauth (mentioned in class no. 2) progresses until he reaches the rank of FARD.


There is only one. Should the one die the vacancy is immediately filled. Their identities are concealed from ordinary people as they are in charge of such duties and tasks which are mystifying and beyond the layman’s grasp of reasoning and understanding.Allah Ta’ala has endowed them with considerable supernatural or miraculous powers. In matters ofminutes they are able to journey thousands of miles.The numerous statements of the Auliyaa establish beyond any doubt the existence of these secret Saints.

Regarding the secret order of Auliyaa known as Abdaal, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There are forty Abdaal in my Ummah. Twenty two of them are stationed in “Shaam” (Syria) and eighteen in Iraq. Whenever one among them dies Allah Ta’ala appoints another to occupy his (the Deceased’s) place. Close to Qiyaamah they all will disappear.”

Hadhrat Ibn Mas’ood (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that there are three hundred such servants of Allah Ta’ala whose hearts are all like the heart of Aadam (alayhis salaam); forty such servants whose hearts are like the heart of Nabi Ibraaheem (alayhis salaam); five such servants whose hearts resemble the heart of Jibraeel (alayhis salaam), three such servants whose hearts resemble the heart of Mikaaeel (alayhis salaam). One such servant whose heart resembles the heart of Israaeel (alayhis salaam).These Auliyaa are in fact responsible by the Command of Allah Ta’ala, for the functioning of the affairs of the universe.

December 25: The Pagan-Occult Origins of Christmas

”The pains of labor drove her towards Date-Palm, She [Bibi Maryam (Mary)] said:’Oh if only i had died before this or i wish i would have been something forgotten or discarded’ then a voice called out to her from under her: ‘Do not grieve,your Lord has placed a stream under your feet and shake the trunk of the palm towards you and fresh ripe dates will drop down unto you, eat and drink and delight your eyes” [Surah Maryam: Verses 23-26]

25th December, the so-called ‘Christmas’ is celebrated by Pauline Christians and even many people other than Christians celebrate it as the so-called birth day of Prophet Jesus (Qur’anic ‘Eesa Alaihissalaam) but Quran just proves that how wrong it is!!!
Hazrat ‘Eesa Bin Maryam Alaihissalaam wasn’t born in December at all!

During December, Its winter season all over the Northern Hemisphere and its severely cold in certain places including Palestine were Hazrat
Nabiyana Eesa Maseeh Alaihissalaam (Biblical Jesus the messiah) was born.

Look at the Quranic Verses 23 to 26 of Surah Maryam above dear readers, it explains the Holy event of the birth of ‘Eesa Alaihissalaam (Jesus), it explains that Bibi Maryam at the time og delivery was under a
Date-Palm and it was said to her from a voice to shake the Trunk and Fresh,ripe dates (Khajoor) will be available for her and she can eat them.

Now as we all know that Dates are yielded on trees only during Late
Spring till Early Summer (i.e. From Mid February till April),  The DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus birth on March 28, then how
come ‘Eesa Maseeh Alaihissalaam (Jesus) took birth on 25th of

Our Islam and Our Quran is enough to separate the truth from the man-made lie! SUBHAN ALLAH!

Then the question arises….


Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration, In the 4 th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians, The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25 th, to be Jesus’ birthday however,Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.”

The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.” [  The Battle for Christmas: A Cultural History of America’s Most Cherished Holiday , New York: Vintage Books, 1997, p. 4.  ]

Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681. However, Christmas were and still is celebrated by most Christians.

We all know that Present-Day Christianity has been corrupted by beliefs and books, and one of its examples is the celebration of so-called Christmas on December 25th, Actually this Festival 25th of December Pre-dates hundreds of years before the Era of Prophet ‘Eesa Alaihissalaam (Jesus), 25th of December was celebrated in Iran as the Birth of Iranian Deity named Mithras who was a Sun God, it was believed that The
Sun of God took birth during this day, we can clearly see how this
idolatrous belief was mixed within Christianity.

Therefore as we can see, The Romans Celebrated this 25th of December as the day of Jupiter and Saturnalia deities before the Era of ‘Eesa Alaihissalaam, Now when Roman Pagan-Christian King Constantine took Christianity as the religion of Roman Kingdom he put the Birth of Eesa Alaihissalaam for the Idolatrous festival of 25th of December! This is one example of the corruption of the Islam of Eesa Alaihissalaam.

The Origins of Christmas Customs

Just as early Christians recruited Roman pagans by associating Christmas with the Saturnalia, so too worshippers of the Asheira cult and its offshoots were recruited by the Church sanctioning “Christmas Trees”. [7] Pagans had long worshipped trees in the forest, or brought them into their homes and decorated them, and this observance was adopted and painted with a Christian veneer by the Church.

Bible itself prohibits Christmas trees! But Pagan-Christians are blind!

”This is what the Lord says: Do not learn the practice of (Idolatrous)
nations nor get terrified by the signs in the sky, for the customs of the (Pagan) peoples are worthless. The cut a tree out of forest and the craftsmen carves it with his chisel, they adorn it with Gold and Silver, and Hammer it with Nails below so that it doesn’t fall” (Jeremiah1:verses 2-4)

The Origin of Mistletoe

Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the fem
ale Nanna. Druid rituals use mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim. [8] The Christian custom of “kissing under the mistletoe” is a later synthesis of the sexual license of Saturnalia with the Druidic sacrificial cult.[9]

The Origin of Christmas Presents

In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January). Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace. The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas (Miles, pp. 276-279)

The Origin of Santa Claus

Nicholas was born in Parara, Turkey in 270 CE and later became Bishop of Myra. He died in 345 CE on December 6 th . He was only named a saint in the 19th century.

Nicholas was among the most senior bishops who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and created the New Testament.

In 1087, a group of sailors who idolized Nicholas moved his bones from Turkey to a sanctuary in Bari, Italy. There Nicholas  supplanted a female boon-giving deity called The Grandmother, or Pasqua Epiphania, who used to fill the children’s stockings with her gifts. The Grandmother was ousted from her shrine at Bari, which became the center of the Nicholas cult. Members of this group gave each other gifts during a pageant they conducted annually on the anniversary of Nicholas’ death, December 6.

The Nicholas cult spread north until it was adopted by German and Celtic pagans. These groups worshipped a pantheon led by Woden –their chief god and the father of Thor, Balder, and Tiw. Woden had a long, white beard and rode a horse through the heavens one evening each Autumn. When Nicholas merged with Woden, he shed his Mediterranean appearance, grew a beard, mounted a flying horse, rescheduled his flight for December, and donned heavy winter clothing.

In a bid for pagan adherents in Northern Europe, the Catholic Church adopted the Nicholas cult and taught that he did (and they should) distribute gifts on December 25th instead of December 6 th.

In 1809, the novelist Washington Irving (most famous his
The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle ) wrote a satire of Dutch culture entitled Knickerbocker History . The satire refers several times to the white bearded, flying-horse riding Saint Nicholas using his Dutch name, Santa Claus.

Dr. Clement Moore, a professor at Union Seminary, read
Knickerbocker History , and in 1822 he published a poem based on the character Santa Claus: “Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse. The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in the hope that Saint Nicholas soon would be there…” Moore innovated by portraying a Santa with eight reindeer who descended through chimneys.

The Bavarian illustrator Thomas Nast almost completed the modern picture of Santa Claus. From 1862 through 1886, based on Moore’s poem, Nast drew more than 2,200 cartoon images of Santa for Harper’s Weekly. Before Nast, Saint Nicholas had been pictured as everything from a stern looking bishop to a gnome-like figure in a frock. Nast also gave Santa a home at the North Pole, his workshop filled with elves, and his list of the good and bad children of the world. All Santa was missing was his red outfit.


We can clearly see that whatever people today who call themselves Christians are following are clearly Idolatrous “Paganized” practices and it has no basis in the true beliefs of God and His Prophets!. This is how Christianity Has been Corrupted for centuries!, They don’t even follow what is said in their own books but follow what their pagan ancestors did!.

Consistency of the Deobandi Akaabir Regarding the Mawlid

[By Maulana Zameelur Rahman]

The Deobandi view on Mawlid consists of the following ingredients:

1. To discuss, commemorate and mention the birth of Rasulullah (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is in itself rewarding and recommended just as commemorating any other aspect of his person (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam)

2. The commemoration that is observed at the time of Rabi’ al-Awwal is customarily attached to and inseparable from a number of innovated or unlawful conditions, like specifying it to the date of the 12th and narrating fabricated reports.

3. These conditions make the commemoration impermissible, bid’ah or makruh

4. As this commemoration-with-unawful/innovated-conditions is the common and widespread (murawwaj) form of “mawlid” functions held in Rabi’ al-Awwal, a general fatwa of impermissibility ought to be given to prevent the ‘awamm from falling into evil. This is known as “Sadd adh-Dharaa’i” (blocking the means), a principle proven from rulings of Hanafi fiqh.

Such a position is self-consistent.

There is nothing inherently contradictory in this position. If all these ingredients are kept in mind, then one will be able to make sense of all pronouncements on mawlid made by the Akabir of Deoband.

It is often insinuated by Barelwis that Deobandis are inconsistent, or even coy and deceptive, in their views about Mawlid. For instance, it is claimed that there is a contradiction between what Mawlana Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri (rahimahullah) wrote on the Mawlid in al-Muhannad (in 1325 H/1907), after the death of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahimahullah) to the Arabs, and what he wrote in al-Barahin al-Qati’ah (in 1304 H/1887 CE) with the approval of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahimahullah), to the Indians.

In fact, what was mentioned in Muhannad is almost identical to what is found in al-Barahin al-Qati’ah.

On p. 8 of al-Barahin al-Qati’ah, it clearly states:

ﻧﻔﺲ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﻓﺨﺮ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻛﻮ ﻛﻮﺋﻰ ﻣﻨﻊ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﻛﺮﺗﺎ ﺑﻠﮑﮧ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﺁﭖ ﺹ ﻛﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺩﯾﮕﺮ ﺳﻴﺮ ﻭﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﻨﺪﻭﺏ ﮨﮯ ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﮧ ﻳﮧ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻓﺘﻮﯼ ﻣﻮﻟﻮﯼ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﯿﺼﺎﺣﺐ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺳﮩﺎﺭﻧﭙﻮﺭﯼ ﻣﯿﮟ ﺻﺮﺍﺣۃ ﻣﺬﮐﻮﺭ ﮨﮯ

“We make no prohibition of the essence of commemorating the birth of the Pride of the World, upon him peace. Rather commemorating his birth, just like commemorating his other conditions and states, is praiseworthy. Thus, this matter is mentioned explicitly in the fatwa of Mawlawi Ahmad ‘Ali Sahib Muhaddith Saharanpuri.” (Al-Barahin al-Qati’ah, p. 8)

In Muhannad, he says, reiterating this same message:

“Commemorating the states which have the least connection with the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is from the most desirable of recommended acts (ahabb al-mandubat) and the greatest of preferable acts (a‘la l-mustahabbat) according to us, whether it is the commemoration of his noble birth or commemoration of his urine, faeces, standing, sitting, sleeping and waking as is stated clearly in our treatise called Al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah at various junctures therein.”

He also refers to the fatwa of Mawlana Ahmad Ali Saharanpuri (rahimahullah) in Muhannad. The fatwa states that if the commemoration of the birth is free of impermissible activities, like narrating fabricated narrations, missing obligatory prayers, introducing polytheistic and innovated practices, giving it greater importance than it has, restricting its timing, then it is a rewardable practice. Mawlana Saharanpuri adds to the impermissible activities: free-mixing, extravagance and the belief in its obligation.

However, in Muhannad, he adds that the mawlid gatherings of India are rarely found to be free of these impermissible practices. Therefore, based on the principle of Sadd adh-Dhara’i, , the fatwa will be of general impermissibility.

For details on this, one may refer to the 2nd and 3rd principles discussed here: Mawlid, Deoband and Hanafi Fiqh and this article: The Principles of Blocking the Means .

Similarly, Al-Barahin al-Qati’ah says:

ﺍﻟﺒﺘﮧ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﮧ ﺟﻮ ﺍﺱ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺎﺗﮫ ﺿﻢ ﮨﻮ ﮔﺌﮯ ﮨﯿﮟ ﺍﺱ ﻛﻲ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺳﮯ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﮧ ﭘﺮ ﺑﺪﻋﺖ ﻭﻣﻨﻜﺮ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻛﺎ ﻳﺎ ﺷﺮﻙ ﻭﺣﺮﻣﺖ ﻛﺎ ﻟﮕﺎﻳﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ﮨﮯ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻳﮧ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻥ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﮧ ﮐﮯ ﮨﮯ ﻧﮧ ﺑﻮﺟﮧ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺫﻛﺮ ﮐﮯ

“However, those unlawful things that have become attached to them (i.e. Mawlid functions), due to this, a ruling is given to the sum-total of being bid’ah and abomination or of shirk and prohibition. And this ruling is by consideration of those unlawful restrictions, not because of the commemoration itself .” (p. 8)

Keep in mind that these are passages from al-Barahin al-Qati’ah, the book written by Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri (rahimahullah) and approved by Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahimahullah)

It is clear from this passage from al-Barahin and the answer in al-Muhannad, that there is essentially no difference in what they say.

From reading all of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s (rahimahullah) fatwas on this issue, and not looking at only some of them selectively as Barelwis usually do, we get the same message. Thus in one fatwa, he explicitly says:

ﻧﻔﺲ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻭﻻﺩﺕ ﻣﻨﺪﻭﺏ ﮨﮯ ﺍﺱ ﻣﻴﻦ ﻛﺮﺍﻫﺖ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﮐﮯ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺁﺋﻲ ﮨﮯ

“The birth-commemoration itself is recommended, and its reprehensibility is a result of the [innovated] restrictions [in the general Mawlid functions].” (Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p. 258)

Furthermore, in several places of the Fatawa, Mawlana Gangohi (rahimahullah) clearly qualifies the prohibition with the “widespread” ( murawwajah) Mawlid functions.

For example, on p. 174, he says:

“The widespread mawlud function is bid’ah, and because of being mixed with reprehensible matters it is prohibitively disliked.” On p. 270, it explicitly states that because most mawlid and ‘urs functions are not free of bid’ah (innovated restrictions) and unlawful practices, all of them should be avoided.

There are other fatwas that give the general ruling of impermissibility. This is not a contradiction as one who understands the above-mentioned principles will appreciate. This ruling reflects the general condition of the Mawlid functions of that time for which the fatwa of impermissibility was given, regardless of whether the unlawful aspects are present in the specific function in reference or not. Those that are free of the impermissible activities are not excused from the fatwa for the principle of blocking the means (sadd adh-dhara’i’); that is, to prevent the public from falling into the impermissible aspects that such functions could could lead to.

Hence, there is no inconsistency between what is found in Fatawa Rashidiyya, al-Barahin al-Qati’ah and al-Muhannad on the issue of the Mawlid, if all are read in context.

In sum, Barahin and Fatawa Rashidiyyah clearly states that the essence of the birth-commemoration is permissible and desirable. Mawlana Gangohi’s (rahimahullah) fatwas in general opposition are based on the principle that even those gatherings free of the impermissible activities that have become associated with them could eventually lead to these abominations and evils.

There is, therefore, no contradiction in the Deobandi view regarding the Mawlid as expressed by Mawlana Gangohi and Mawlana Saharanpuri (rahimahumullah).

One may summarise the Deobandi position in one sentence as follows:

The birth-commemoration in its essence is praiseworthy, but because the Mawlid functions held in Rabi’ al-Awwal have become inseparable from impermissible and innovated aspects, the fatwa is given of general impermissibility, to prevent the masses from falling into sin and to block the means to these evils.


One of the worst accusations it is possible to make against someone these days is to label him/her an “anti-Semite”. Once this label has been attached to someone, his/her livelihood and life have the potential of being ruined. So it is logical to ask what it means to be an anti-Semite.

Although most people probably think the answer is obvious, let’s see what a dictionary definition of “Semite” is. The first definition at is:

“1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.” Another dictionary definition (also given at site linked to above), from the British Dictionary, is :

“1. a member of the group of Caucasoid peoples who speak a Semitic language, including the Jews and Arabs as well as the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Phoenicians.”

A more extended ‘definition’ of “Semite” is provided by the website :

In linguistics and ethnology, Semitic (from the Biblical “Shem”, Hebrew: שם ) was first used to refer to a language family, initially native to West Asia (the Middle East), but which spread to Asia Minor, North Africa, The Horn of Africa and Malta, now called the Semitic languages. This family includes the ancient and modern forms of Ahlamu, Akkadian (including Assyrian and Babylonian dialects), Amharic, Amalekite, Ammonite, Amorite, Arabic, Aramaic/Syriac, Canaanite (Phoenician/Carthaginian/Hebrew), Assyrian, Chaldean, Eblaite, Edomite, Ge’ez, Old South Arabian, Modern South Arabian, Maltese, Mandaic, Moabite, Proto-Sinaitic, Sutean, Syriac, Tigre and Tigrinya, and Ugaritic, among others.

“As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution.[1] Today, the word “Semite” may be used to refer to any member of any of a number of peoples of ancient Middle East including the Akkadians, Assyrians, Arameans, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Jews), Arabs, and their descendants”.
Plainly, then, in reality the term Semite includes quite a number of different “peoples”. In terms of the Biblical (Old Testament) stories, not only were the people of Judea and Samaria “Semites”, but the Assyrians and Babylonians who conquered them were also “Semites”! So if one were pro-Babylonian he couldn’t be properly labeled “anti-Semite” even though he perhaps hated the Judeans.

In modern times, the term “Semite” includes Jews, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, and Arabs. Does that come as a surprise? That’s certainly not the way the term is most often used, is it? This brings us to the second dictionary definition of “Semite” (from ): “2. a Jew.” And the British Dictionary definition is the same: “2. another word for a Jew.”

The second definition, although given in those respected dictionaries (and no doubt many others) is plainly a false definition. There is simply no legitimate way in which a term which has such a wide meaning can be restricted and limited to one specific subset of the proper definition. How then did such a limitation come to be? And how did it come to be that in popular usage the illegitimate second meaning of the term came to be the primary (indeed practically the only) meaning attached to the term?

The explanation is supreme Jewish arrogance – as they like to call it, “chutzpah” – and the amazing ability of supremacist Jewry to hoodwink the vast majority of non-Jews into submitting to their insane ideas of “chosenness”. To the Judaic mind, as informed by their atrocious Torah and Talmud, the Jews are the only people that truly matter. Everyone else is simply unimportant. In fact, no other “people” actually exist! All others (besides Jews) are animals, disguised in human form to make it less offensive to the Jews to have to live among them! Therefore the Jews do not recognize any other “Semites”; and they have managed to ‘hornswoggle’ most “Gentiles” into believing that nonsense.

This attitude is also evident in the “Holocaust” (“Shoah”) propaganda. When we think of the word “Holocaust”, we have been programmed by Jews and their collaborators to think only of one event: the purported murder of 6 million Jews by the Germans under Hitler in World War 2. (And we have been so browbeaten by “Holocaust” advocates that in many countries it is a criminal offense to even question any of the claims made for that event – not to mention the ‘evil’ of having the audacity to actually deny the reality of the “Holocaust” in general, or any of the specifics included under that term.)

Yet there have been many “holocausts” throughout the centuries and millennia of human existence, and the supposed “holocaust” of Jews in the Second World War is relatively insignificant in comparison to some others. To give just one example: the “Red Holocaust” as the result of the Communist Revolution in Russia/the Soviet Union. Most of its victims were Christians and Muslims; Jews were not killed (at least, not for being Jews). There is good reason for that, since most of the leaders of that revolution were themselves Jews. This was a “Holocaust” committed by Jews (as of course was and is the case of the massacres of Christians and Muslims in Palestine).

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia on the “Red Holocaust”:

Mass killings under Communist regimes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] …
Comparison to other mass killings
Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century Communist regimes “have killed more people than any other regime type.”[52] Other scholars in the fields of Communist studies and genocide studies, such as Steven Rosefielde, Benjamin Valentino, and R.J. Rummel, have come to similar conclusions.[2][26][53] Rosefielde states that it is possible the “Red Holocaust” killed more non-combatants than “Ha Shoah” and “Japan’s Asian holocaust” combined, and “was at least as heinous, given the singularity of Hitler’s genocide.” Rosefielde also notes that “while it is fashionable to mitigate the Red Holocaust by observing that capitalism killed millions of colonials in the twentieth century, primarily through man-made famines, no inventory of such felonious negligent homicides comes close to the Red Holocaust total.”[53] [Emphasis mine.]

My point is not to argue whether 6 million Jews died, or 600,000, or somewhere in between. It’s also not my point to argue whether all or any of those killed died by gassing. The point is that even granting everything claimed for the Jewish “Holocaust”, it pales before other “Holocausts”. Yet the Jews in their arrogance have managed to blind us to everything except what was done to them. That is because, once again, the Jews believe that no one else matters; in fact they don’t even exist as “people”.

It’s high time we started ignoring the arrogance of Jewish supremacists, and even started laughing at their nonsense. I don’t even try to hide the fact that I despise Zionism, the “Jewish State of Israel”, and the Judaism that provides the basis for them. But if I am accused of being “anti-Semitic” because of that, I will just laugh and reply: “Of course I’m not anti-Semitic; I love Palestinians – and Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, and Arabs!” To accuse me of “anti-Semitism” is as absurd as saying someone who for some reason has something against Ethiopians, is “anti-Black” – despite the fact that he is favorably disposed to people from Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria, the Congo, etc.

To define “Semite” as “a Jew” is as absurd as defining “Black Person” as “an Ethiopian”. It’s the same as the old saying that while it is correct to say a dog has 4 legs, it is not true to say an animal with 4 legs is a dog! (Cats, horses, sheep, lions, tigers, etc. all have 4 legs, but are certainly not dogs). A Jew may be a Semite (though there is considerable debate as to whether the majority of present day Jews are in fact Semites), but it is definitely NOT correct to say that a Semite is a Jew – no matter how many dictionaries give that as one of the definitions of “Semite”.

And a person is not an “anti-Semite” just because he despises the religion of Judaism, or its ‘fruits’ of Zionism and “Israel”.
It is no more ‘evil’ to be anti-Judaism than it is to be anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, etc. There can be no legitimate law outlawing dislike for – or even hatred for – any particular religion, or religion in general.

While citizens of the illegitimate State of “Israel” may be required to be loyal to that “State”, no other citizen of any other country in the world may be legitimately required to be loyal to or even like that criminal regime – any more than it can be required of any non-German or non-Iranian citizen to be loyal to or like those countries and their governments.
Let’s use our heads, think reasonably and critically, and repudiate Jewish myths and lies – and especially Jewish supremacism (as well as all other supremacist ideologies such as “white supremacism” and “black supremacism”).