Hobbes’ Folly: The Creation of Secularism and a new Intolerance


[By Abdullah al Andalusi]

Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679 AD) is renowned in Western history as being the father of modern Western Political Philosophy. His seminal book ‘Leviathan’ established the foundational ideas and concepts for what would later be called Secularism and Liberalism. Hobbes argues that the purpose of government is exclusively material, namely, the prevention of in-fighting and disorder between people.

Government was required because, according to Hobbes, ‘the time that men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man’ (‘Leviathan’).

In Hobbes’ time, Christianity was heavily dominant in politics, with wars between kingdoms fought over different interpretations of Christianity – mainly on the question of whether or not the Catholic Church and Pope should have spiritual authority over Christians, and Christian kings.

Hobbes sought to find a solution to this by creating a philosophy derived from what he thought was universal observations of human nature, to establish politics upon a non-religious, material basis.

Thomas Hobbes, argued pragmatically that fallible priests can bring a bad reputation to religion, and basing a state on religion (or priests) would cause instability. People, he argued, would over time become disillusioned with Catholicism due to instances of corruption amongst priests, as well people falling into differences of interpretation, heresies and splinter factions. Hobbes argued that religion changes over time, but the state always stays the same, and so for the interest of maintaining the stability of the state, government should not be founded or justified by religion.

Hobbes argued that since religion causes controversies in society, the state should be founded on civil authority justified only by the material purpose of preventing fighting between people and disorder (this is called the ‘Argument from controversy’).

Therefore Hobbes basis is: if a ruler has power, he has authority and the right to obedience from his subjects, whether he is religious, Christian or not.

The Four Arguments of Thomas Hobbes

To effect his goal of giving Christians a purely material basis for obedience to government, Hobbes invoked the Bible claiming that only the Jews could have a ‘Kingdom of God’ ruled by religion.

But since the advent of Jesus, and his ascension to heaven, Christians were to wait for Jesus to return to establish a ‘Kingdom of God’ with him being the ruler of all Christians. In the meantime, before Jesus’ re-appearance, Hobbes argued that Christianity was merely ‘good counsel’ (advice), and should only be limited to persuading people to do good and be saved, not governing them (this is called ‘the Kingdom of God argument’).

Hobbes also argued that belief cannot be forced, and that people have no control over their own opinions, and must be convinced first through argument. Hobbes argued that forcing people to do good, would make many act hypocritically, and therefore be pointless as it still could not ‘save’ their souls. He argued it was better to not rule by religion, and therefore only the sincere of heart would answer the call to faith (this is called ‘The Argument from Hypocrisy’).

For the final main argument for Secularism, Hobbes invoked the fact that early Christians were commanded by Paul (who was not a companion of Jesus! ‘Eesa alaihissalaam) to obey their leaders and kings – who at the time of early Christianity would have been the non-Christian Pagan Roman kings (this is called the ‘Give unto Caesar argument’).


Consequently, based upon those four arguments, Hobbes claimed Christianity does not have a special right to government, nor does a government need to be Christian to be justified, but rather the material purpose of government, to prevent in-fighting and disorder, is the only purpose and justification for it.

That being said, Hobbes never prohibited government from implementing Christian laws, but rather he argued that the implementation of Christian law was at the discretion of the ruler and optional. Whether the ruler ruled with Christian law or not, or was himself a Christian or not, did not invalidate his right to rule – which is established his power, and the purpose of preventing in-fighting and chaos between the people.

Hobbes and the argument from Controversy

Hobbes was clearly a product of his time, and unfortunately based his conclusions on generalising the particular circumstances of his time e.g. English Civil War etc. He argued for the absolute authority of the ruler to enforce, by use of iron fist if necessary, people to live peacefully with each other.

Unfortunately, this does not take account of all factors which cause conflict.

Hobbes considered only what causes conflict between humans in a state before a society comes into existence (i.e. in a state of anarchy), and how differences in religion may cause wars. Hobbes, however, did not adequately address the other much more common causes of conflict within society. Factors which cause conflict include mostly materialistic-oriented things like pride, competition, greed, lust, desire for power, unjust economic system, corrupt government, oppression, factionalism, racism, fascism etc. Hobbes’ solution did not provide any means to regulate, restrain or replace this problems.

Strangely, Hobbes does not consider any way to prevent inter-state wars between countries. Most of the religious wars that occurred in Hobbes’ time were not civil wars excited by religion, but wars between kingdoms. In essence, Hobbes picked the fly and ignored the elephant.

Hobbes’ argument that religion changes, but the state does not, is not accurate. The state changes too, rulers change, culture changes, power and fortune changes, and people may split off into differing political factions and fight each other in civil wars for purely non-religious motives.

Unfortunately, since Hobbes was surrounded by religious wars, this really affected his thinking. Kind of like if a man has a bad experience in a relationship, he might be foolish to think that all women are bad.


Hobbes’ conclusions really don’t apply outside of Christianity (which he admitted). In Islam, the political leader, the Caliph, is viewed as a fallible human, and no one ever connected a Caliph to a manifestation of Islam, except where the Caliphs actions were in accordance with Islam. In Islam, the Caliph is not an intercessor between man and God, nor is the post divinely guided or sinless.

The wisdom of Islam, is that it does not give authority to one group of scholars or Imams over another to dictate and enforce doctrine (like Catholicism does). There is no established Church. This means that no one can ‘own’ Islam, for Islam is (to use a computer programming term) ‘open-source’, accessible and interpretable to anyone educated enough to do so.

This meant that the Ummah (Muslim community) always looked towards scholars who were not in the pay of the government, as being the most trusted ones to protect the intellectual continuation of Islam.

Scholars who were in the pay of government were never trusted as much as independents.


Islamic thought and jurisprudence is separated from any monopolised control by government, and the government is not under obligation to follow one particular Islamic school of thought over another. This means that Islamic government focuses only on the implementation of Islamic law, not enforcement of a particular doctrine (which leads to religious wars). It is free to adopt any interpretation of Islamic law on only political or social issues, or another, without requiring the Muslim community to believe in it – leaving the Caliphate’s policies open to public debate, constructive criticism and revision.

Of course, there were three Caliphs of the Mutazilah sect which tried to force their doctrines on people – but they were the exception (their sect was heavily influenced by European-Greek thought – enough said).

In conclusion, because Islam does not consider Caliphs, Islamic scholars as infallible, or intercessors between man and God, no one can harm the idea of Islam, but people can only harm their own reputation by failing to live up to Islamic ideals.

Thus, Islam demonstrates that Hobbes contentions are not universally true, which therefore render void his conclusions about religion in general.

Historically speaking, the longest running states and civilizations based upon some form of religious tradition, philosophy or belief, whether the Ottoman Caliphate, the Chinese civilization, the Persian civilisation have never faced the kind of schisms and wars, emanating from religion that europe experienced – but rather have always experienced political causes for strife. This fundamental fact, renders Hobbes’ generalisations – based upon his experience of the peculiar circumstances of renaissance Europe’s religious wars, a clear error.

Hobbes and his ‘Argument from Hypocrisy’

Although Hobbes admits that (his interpretation of) Christianity is the most suitable religion for the detachment of religious authority from government, it follows that his conclusions could not apply to other religions. For example, Islam isn’t merely ‘good counsel’ but also a ‘mercy to mankind’ by providing solutions for the causes of conflict within a society as well.

Islam aims to create an environment that appeals to the higher nature in man, and does not leave society free to appeal, encourage and reward man’s lesser natures – i.e. hypocrisy.

Islam actively aims to remove public corruption, not by focusing only on hypocrites, but by helping the majority of people who are not hypocrites, who desire to be good, but fail due to human weakness, and inadvertently affecting others.

A society organised to liberate the virtuous, is a society based on virtue. A society organised to liberate hypocrites, is a society based on hypocrisy.

What Hobbes misunderstood in his observations, is that revelation came not to guide hypocrites, but help good and sincere people.

Therefore, it does not compel hypocrites to become sincere, nor does it force non-Muslims to become Muslim, instead Islam creates an environment conducive to, and encouraging of virtue, while preventing hypocrites corrupting others in the society [i.e. the public sphere].

‘They [the Hypocrites] wish that you reject (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like them). So, take not Auliya (protectors or friends) from them’ [Quran 4:89]

Islam’s solution, permits hypocrites to do what they like only in the private sphere of their homes (the penal system does not punish sins done in private), but in public, the environment is conditioned to help and encourage the majority who sincerely believe and desire to do good but are weak humans beings, prone to mistakes and temptations.

‘Allah desires that He should make light your burdens, [for] man is created weak ’ [Quran 4:28]


Lastly, Hobbes assumed that sincere people wouldn’t exist in a religious state, as they would in a materialistic-based state. The reality is that sincere people and hypocrites would exist in both states – however, while a religious based state would be more likely to promote excellence in sincere people, the materialistic-based state would reward people who have the least scruples and the most self-centered ambition (i.e. hypocrites), and force sincere people to compromise some of their virtues in order to compete.

Hobbes’ and his ‘Kingdom of God argument’

Hobbes argues that Jesus did not intend to rule the world during his lifetime, nor urge Christians to do the same. Christians, according to Hobbes, are to wait for the return of Jesus where he will establish his direct rule of the world. In the meantime Christians are merely meant to convert people to the faith and increase their numbers, and preach to fellow Christians, to become righteous. For this reason, Hobbes argued, Christianity does not have a right to rule, or obligation to attain government.

This argument misrepresents the New Testament, and Catholic doctrine. The term ‘Kingdom of God’ (or ‘Kingdom of Heaven’) has many meanings and uses in the Bible, from an earthly kingdom, to a state of mind, to Jesus himself, or a state of existence for a Christian community. The Catholic Church has always viewed itself as aiming at fully realising the Kingdom of God, which doesn’t need Jesus to actively be present to rule (since the ‘Holy Spirit’ was claimed to be guiding the Church). The Catholic Church’s aim was to prepare the way of his return to ‘active leadership’.

‘When…appeared as the one constituted as Lord, Christ and eternal Priest, and He poured out on His disciples the Spirit promised by the Father. From this source the [Catholic] Church, equipped with the gifts of its Founder and faithfully guarding His precepts of charity, humility and self-sacrifice, receives the mission to proclaim and to spread among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God and to be, on earth, the initial budding forth of that kingdom. While it slowly grows, the Church strains toward the completed Kingdom and, with all its strength, hopes and desires to be united in glory with its King’. [Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, article 5]

The Catholic Church based this points quite credibly on a number of verses of the Bible, such as the command for Christians to actively seek the Kingdom of God:

‘But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you’. [Matthew 6:33]

Other verses of the Bible say the ‘Kingdom of God’ as an era, has already arrived!

‘If I cast out devils by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you’. [Luke 11:20]


Temple Priest leads the faithful in worship in the Ancient Kingdom of Israel

Furthermore, Hobbes’ argument that the Kingdom of God is only for when Jesus returns, cannot apply to Islam (or Judaism of which does not consider the right to rule of the laws of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam), abrogated), since the Islamic concept of Caliphate (Arabic: Khilafah, lit. Vice-regency or Successorship) is a Kingdom of God, where God holds the position of king over the believers, and through his expressed Will (contained in the Qur’an and hadith), Muslims enact the laws and directly govern on his behalf as his vicegerents (khulafah).

‘Just think when your Lord said to the angels: Lo! I am about to place a vicegerent [i.e. man] on earth…’ [Quran 2:30]

‘The sovereignty of the skies and the earth belongs to Him [God] alone’ [Quran 9:116]

‘Verily, His [God’s] is the Creation and the Command’ [Quran 7:54]

The nature of Islam, Judaism and Catholic Christianity, runs contrary to premises of Hobbes’ arguments, which were based upon his protestant (anti-catholic) opinions.

As such, Islam, Judaism and Catholicism (in its original form) believe in a continuing and present need for a kingdom of God, and do not take away God’s sovereign right to govern government, society and individuals for the betterment of man in this life and the next.

Hobbes and his ‘Give unto Caesar argument’

Hobbes argues in his book ‘De Cive’ [‘On the citizen’] Chapter 11, that because Jesus told the Jews who asked him about paying roman taxes, that they should ‘give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God’s’ – that this means that Christians are subject to non-Christian authorities, as they are subject to Christian ones. Thereby arguing that religion has no justification to the ruler, and by implication no special right to rule.

This is easily refuted by a consideration that God’s owns the heavens and the earth, and the pagan Caesar has no authority over a Christian, that ever can be greater than God’s authority over him. So whatever a Christian owes a pagan leader, then he can give it to him, but only as long as he does not give what is God’s right alone.

Christians have argued that ‘give unto Caesar…’ is merely a clever answer by Jesus to speak the truth while avoiding the Roman occupation force from arresting him for rebellion. Either way, it is not an argument for Secularism – for the Jews at the time of Jesus lived under the revealed Law of Moses.

The Romans permitted this, because they were just interested in taxes, not spreading or imposing roman beliefs. And Rome wasn’t a secular state either – their pagan religion was part of their culture and informed their laws.

Hobbes argues that because Paul commanded Christians in the Christian New Testament to obey their rulers (who were pagan roman emperors), this means that Christianity does not have a special right to govern. Hobbes used this conclusion to argue that all Christians must obey the ruler, no matter what his doctrines, or what law he commands them with.

‘Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves’. [Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 13]

However, Hobbes didn’t consider that Peter, which the New Testament describes as an actual companion of Jesus, disobeyed the Jewish ruling authorities who had prohibited him from preaching, and preached in public against their orders, justifying it by saying:
“We must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]

The mainstream Christian understanding (which is still Catholic) was that Christians are to be obedient to all rulers – unless they command Christians to go against God’s command. However, even then, Christians are never commanded to rise up and depose the leaders, but merely to not obey specific unjust commands.

That Christians can be non-violent under pagan rule, does not negate a ruler who converts to Christianity, having the
obligation to rule with the laws, values and principles found in the Bible. This is because, according to the New Testament, everything a Christian does must be for God, and based upon divine guidance.

Therefore Hobbes is incorrect to argue that Christianity has no right to government according to Christian teaching.

Suffice to say, due to it being based upon the Christian New Testament, the ‘give unto Caesar argument’ is meaningless outside of Christianity (and especially meaningless to Jews, who repeatedly rebelled against the Romans, to liberate their lands).

Hobbes’ and making religion conform to a new material world order (or The Origin of Secular Intolerance)


In Hobbes’ detachment of religion’s right to government, he left a problem which still haunts secular government and states till this day.

The problem was that for Hobbes’ secularism to work, religious people had to agree with Hobbes’ new role for religion, that the government derives its authority only from ruling, not implementing divine law.

But what if a sizeable population believed that God’s law should continue to be active in government? What if people disagreed with Hobbes’ arguments? How could they be ruled by a materialistic-based political authority who may not find divine law in their interest?

Hobbes answer was simple, the government in the interests of the ‘public good’, could control and restrict the beliefs and doctrines of its people:


‘It is annexed to the sovereignty to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing to peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how far, and what men are to be trusted withal in speaking to multitudes of people; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they be published’ [Leviathan, Chapter 18]

He continues with a justification:

‘For the actions of men proceed from their opinions, and in the well governing of opinions consists [in] the well governing of men’s actions in order to their peace and concord. And though in matter of doctrine nothing to be regarded but the truth, yet this is not repugnant to regulating of the same [in the interests of] peace…It belonged therefore to him that hath the sovereign power to be judge, or constitute all judges of opinions and doctrines, as a thing necessary to peace; thereby to prevent discord and civil war’ [Leviathan, Chapter 18]

At first glance, Hobbes’ arguments seem sensible – some doctrines can be controversial – however who can really judge that? What peace is being protected? Say if a religious doctrine runs rejects the practices of an unjust ruler, or rejects the policy of invading and attacking other countries for materialistic gain, or what if the ruler believes that ‘religion is poison’ (like Chairman Mao), or that a religious doctrine is a ‘threats’ because it undermines the Secular and Liberal culture? All religions that have doctrines contradicting these positions could be deemed a threat to ‘peace’ – Secular peace that is. Lastly, how is this different to the medieval Catholic Church’s approach to heretics, who by dint of their heresy, were also deemed ‘threats to the peace’ or ‘threats to the public good’, and needed to be controlled?

Catholicism’s heretics have now become Secularism’s ‘extremists’.

In Chapter 18 of Hobbes’ book, he considers that doctrines, even true ones, need to be regulated by the sovereign, if the sovereign deems that these doctrines are not conducive to civil peace. Of course, civil peace is defined by the ruler, and consequently, even if beliefs do not incite war, but merely hold the potential to cause community tensions, or run against the commonly accepted values underpinning a state, they can be viewed as a ‘threat’ by a secular ruler, and suppressed.

Hobbes’ was concerned that religions which may object to the rules and values of materialistic-based government, may disobey rules they deem unjust, which in Hobbes’ viewed, constituted a ‘threat’ to the state. He proposed that rulers are in effect the ultimate spiritual authority for all their citizens, since the citizens must accept the values of the ruler or ruling system – and it is the ruler, according to Hobbes, who authorises which beliefs and which doctrines are acceptable, and which are not [1] . The irony (again) of this is, while Hobbes’ advocates government to be detached from religious authority, he then re-attaches it again, but in the other direction, with religious given to government authority!

Hobbes’ insistence on the ruler controlling doctrines and beliefs, led to the problem that this would mean many religious believers would be forced to profess in public doctrines and beliefs they do not believe in or do things that go against what they believe in, or force them to hide their beliefs and keep them secret. To this Hobbes’ posited that there is no problem with that, as the ruler can’t force people to change the ideas in their heads – and doesn’t have to, as long as they keep those ideas only in their heads [2] . This ends up with the ironic position where Hobbes’ forces (sincere) people to become hypocrites! The very thing he argued that his solution (Secularism) would eliminate! As can be seen from history of Secularism since Hobbes, many religious communities and minorities have had to hide their beliefs in secret, or express their interests hiding the true reasons for them.

It is no wonder, that in the modern day, most Secular governments around the world have various means of controlling the doctrines and beliefs of its citizens. These can include creating a regional Church, like the Catholic Church of China, limiting platforms for religious speakers, restricting religious charities, arrests, fines, to funding religious organisations promoting state-approved interpretations of religion in many european countries, and middle-eastern countries.

People reading Hobbes may wonder if an alternative exists to controlling people’s doctrines and beliefs. The answer is that there have existed alternatives for thousands of years. In the Islamic Caliphate, the Islamic system granted autonomy to non-Muslims, and permitted non-Muslims to live under their own law systems, and be free from having any duty to obedience to the Caliph (whose authority is only over Muslims).

The only requirement from non-Muslims was abstaining from violence against Muslims, and for males to pay a tax to fund the border-military for their protection (which could be waived if they volunteered as a reservists).


The problem the Catholic Church faced with heretics, was the issue of the independent challenge to their authority. If someone could differ with established Church doctrines, then they were outside its authority, and therefore outside their political authority. This led the Catholic Church to expunge heresy where it could, in order to preserve their spiritual authority and therefore their political authority.

The Islamic Caliphate is not a spiritual authority for Muslims, but rather more of an obliged institution for the implementation of Islamic law. It cannot enforce opinions or doctrines beyond the commonly-agreed minimum required to be a Muslim (e.g. belief in God, Qur’an and in Muhammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam as the final Prophet of God).

As such, the Caliphate were not allowed by Islam to interfere with or oppress heretical sects merely for their beliefs – it was left up to Islamic scholars to refute heresies amongst themselves by force of argument.

The problem that the Catholic Church faced was that there were no explicit texts in Christian scripture granting the Church political authority over Christians.

This caused power struggles when it was challenged by the Protestants (and some irritated Catholic kings), as Christians could legitimately deny the Catholic Church’s political authority, without need to reject any explicit texts of scripture.

Although the question of which particular candidate could be Caliph had been contested at times throughout history, the institution of Caliphate has not, as it is a fundamental doctrine of Islam, of which all sects and schools of thought acknowledge as having legitimate political authority (only) over the Muslim community. Thus there was no need for the Caliphs to determine what doctrines were taught, and give permission to them, since whatever any Muslim believed, heretic or not, political obedience to the Caliph has always been an uncontested doctrine of Islam, being enunciated clearly in the teachings of the Muhammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) [3]

The ancient Kingdom of Israel which ruled by Mosaic law, is in Judaism, similar in nature to the institution of a Caliphate, and also held as a fundamental doctrine of Judaism.

In summary while Islam and Judaism permitted citizens to believe and practice without government interference, Hobbes’ secular government does not.

In Summary

As we have seen, Thomas Hobbes is a product of his time, and his idea to found ruling on a purely material basis was borne out his scepticism of religious institutions and an attempted pragmatic solution to religious wars – which didn’t stop wars from continuing.

These formative ideas of Hobbes would later be known as Secularism, and provide the basis for the development of Liberalism.

However as has been shown, the conclusions of Hobbes are based upon a multitude of observational errors and inaccurate prejudices. The errors of Hobbes’ thinking are:

1. Hobbes’ argument assumes a purely material purpose for the state, i.e. material security, and neglects its other purposes. Whereas virtually all religions and Eastern and Greek philosophers argued that the purposes of government were also the protection and encouragement of virtue.

Historically, most religions and ancient philosophies do not coerce non-believers to embrace their beliefs. However, amongst a community of fellow believers, religion did successfully create a legal, social and political environment conducive to the attainment of its goals.

2. Hobbes’ belief that material-based authority of the ruler should be the basis for state because it is stable – is false. Consequently he neglects solving the most common cause of wars and strife, which historically have not been religion. The most common causes of wars have been greed, prejudice, access to resources, poverty, tyranny, international relations, political factionalism, political rivalry etc. Hobbes’ argument that states based upon religion, or a religious culture are unstable, belies history, where such states or civilisations have endured for hundreds or even thousands of years.

3. Much of Hobbes’ Biblical interpretation is a kind of Protestantism, and would consequently only be accepted by a section of protestant Christians. This means that Hobbes’ arguments are only applicable to some strands of Protestant Christianity, not Catholics or the other Abrahamic religions like Islam – or most other religions and ancient philosophies for that matter.

4. Hobbes’ use of the bible is a unstable basis to use as an authority for Christians to accept material government. There are so many ways to interpret the New Testament’s approach to political authority, which means Hobbes’ arguments are highly subjective and that it would not a stable enough basis to expect all Christians to agree with Hobbes. Hobbes argues that religion is not a stable basis for a state, because it can be interpreted in different ways and is prone to change, yet he too then uses his interpretation of a religion to justify to its adherents his new political order! The question is, what does Hobbes’ do if people don’t agree with his interpretations?

5. Hobbes’ arguments would (and have) still caused wars and civil wars as religious believers resisting his new world order would face oppression. As a consequence of 3) and 4), civil wars and civil strife would still occur as Hobbes grants permission to the ruler to control doctrines and beliefs he feels are not conducive to the ‘public good’ or that would challenge his authority or interests (even if the challenge was not a political threat). This again leads to oppression of minorities (or majorities) who do not embrace Hobbes’ newly assigned place for religion. This also leads to the wars between states that are religious and ones that are materialist.

6. Hobbes’ makes sincere people into hypocrites and hypocrisy open to influence the people. As mentioned, a state with a religious community that holds beliefs and doctrines which are deemed to challenge the values or authority of the secular state (even if the religious community are non-violent), have to hide their beliefs for fear of persecution, or seek their interests pretending it is for some other reason than their religious morality.

All the while those who are not hindered by the same morality, or are moved only to pursue self-centred may freely display their activities and beliefs – as long as they accept the ruler’s rule over them (which they would happily do). This flaw in Hobbes’ thought, actually refutes on the very reasons he put forward for a Secular state – namely the elimination of hypocrisy!


Hobbes’ resentment at the Catholic churches wars and suppression of Christian heretical factions, led to him trying to find a material basis for politics. As a result, he merely replaced religious-based authority with a materialistic-based political authority – which would war against and suppress religious adherents who refuse to accept Hobbes’ new role for religion. In essence, Hobbes’ merely swapped the position of the Catholic Church and elevated in its place, materialist political authorities. And so with great irony, the suppression of non-Catholic Christians was replaced with a broader suppression of virtually all religious communities who reject Hobbes’ materialistic political system (Secularism), and dare to preserve the political aspects of their religions.

Coming after Hobbes’, it is no surprise to find that the founders of the doctrine of ‘Free Speech’ and Secular Liberalism like John Milton [4] and John Locke [5] , and American founding fathers, John Jay [6] , and John Adams
[7] who are all famous for their advocacy of tolerance, would only permit toleration of protestant sects, but would outright declare the necessity the intolerance towards Catholics, or some discrimination against them.

In the end, Hobbes created a new classification of heretics to be oppressed and warred against. And today, it is no surprise that many Secular states exert some control, regulation and restriction over which beliefs and doctrines are taught within religious communities residing in Secular states. Secular authorities typically label those who hold opinions contrary to Secular Liberal morality as being ‘extremists’, which usually is a prelude for implementing a variety of suppressing measures. It is fair to say, the persecution of Medieval Catholicism’s ‘heretics’ has now moved on to the modern-day persecution of Secularism’s ‘extremists’.


And so Hobbes’ folly would go down in history, as not just the origin of Secularism’s totalitarian monopoly over politics, nor as the full unfettering of hypocrisy in society, but also as the birth of a new intolerance.


[1] ‘And first, we are to remember that the right of judging what doctrines are fit for peace, and to be taught the subjects, is in all Commonwealths [i.e. states] inseparably annexed…to the sovereign power civil, whether it be in one man [Autocracy] or in one assembly of men [Democracy]. For it is evident to the commonest capacity that men’s actions are derived from the opinions they have of the good or evil which from those actions redound unto themselves; and consequently, men that are once possessed of an opinion that their obedience to the sovereign power will be more hurtful to them than their disobedience will disobey the laws, and thereby overthrow the Commonwealth [i.e. state], and introduce confusion and civil war; for the avoiding whereof, all civil government was ordained. And therefore in all Commonwealths of the heathen [pagan/non-Christian], the sovereigns have had the name of pastors [spiritual leaders] of the people, because there was no subject that could lawfully teach the people, but by their permission and authority. This right of the heathen kings cannot be thought taken from them by their conversion to the faith of Christ..or…be deprived of the power necessary for the conservation of peace amongst their subjects and for their defence against foreign enemies. And therefore Christian kings are still the supreme pastors [spiritual leaders] of their people, and have power to ordain what pastors they please, to teach the[ir] Church, that is, to teach the people committed to their charge’. [Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 18]

[2] ‘ But what, may some object, if a king, or a senate, or other sovereign person forbid us to believe in Christ? To this I answer that such forbidding is of no effect; because belief and unbelief never follow men’s commands. Faith is a gift of God which man can neither give nor take away by promise of rewards or menaces of torture. And, if it be further asked, what if we be commanded by our lawful prince to say with our tongue we believe not; must we obey such command? Profession with the tongue is but an external thing, and no more than any other gesture whereby we signify our obedience; and wherein a Christian, holding firmly in his heart the faith of Christ, hath the same liberty which the prophet Elisha allowed to Naaman the Syrian. Naaman was converted in his heart to the God of Israel, for he saith, “Thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon; when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.” [II Kings, 5. 17, 18] This the Prophet approved, and bid him “Go in peace.” Here Naaman believed in his heart; but by bowing before the idol Rimmon, he denied the true God in effect as much as if he had done it with his lips. But then what shall we answer to our Saviour’s saying, “Whosoever denieth me before men, I will deny him before my Father which is in heaven?” [Matthew, 10. 33] This we may say, that whatsoever a subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to in obedience to his sovereign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of his country, that action is not his, but his sovereign’s; nor is it he that in this case denieth Christ before men, but his governor, and the law of his country. If any man shall accuse this doctrine as repugnant to true and unfeigned Christianity, I ask him, in case there should be a subject in any Christian Commonwealth that should be inwardly in his heart of the Mahomedan religion, whether if his sovereign command him to be present at the divine service of the Christian church, and that on pain of death, he think that Mahomedan obliged in conscience to suffer death for that cause, rather than to obey that command of his lawful prince. If he say he ought rather to [defy the prince and] suffer death, then he authorizeth all private men to disobey their princes in maintenance of their religion, true or false: if he say he ought to be obedient, then he alloweth to himself that which he denieth to another, contrary to the words of our Saviour, “Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, that do ye unto them” [Luke, 6. 31] and contrary to the law of nature (which is the indubitable everlasting law of God), “Do not to another that which thou wouldest not he should do unto thee.’ [Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 42]

[3] Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, ‘The tribe of Israel used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.’ The people asked, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?’ He said, ‘Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.’ (Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 661)”

It should be noted that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) requested that Muslims give a pledge of allegiance, not belief in the Caliph, or that the Caliph is infallible.

[4] ‘ Yet if all cannot be of one mind, as who looks they should be? To this doubtless is more wholesome, more prudent, and more Christian that many be tolerated rather than all compelled. I mean not tolerated popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpates all religions eeeand civil supremacies, so itself should be extirpate, provided first that all charitable and compassionate means be used to win and regain the weak and the misled: that also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or manners no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw itself’ [John Milton, Areopagitica]

Note, in this work he urges no toleration to Catholicism, but while making no specific comments about Islam, does equate Islam and Catholicism being the same.
‘nay it was first establisht and put in practice by Antichristian malice and mystery [i.e. Catholicism] on set purpose to extinguish, if it were possible, the light of [Protestant] Reformation, and to settle falshood; little differing from that policie wherewith the Turk upholds his Alcoran’ [John Milton, Areopagitica]

He was makes a passing remark about look at ancient Athenian society, which he remarked, had a government which was intolerant to Atheists.

‘But lest I should be condemn’d of introducing licence, while I oppose Licencing, I refuse not the paines to be so much Historicall, as will serve to shew what hath been done by ancient and famous Commonwealths, against this disorder, till the very time that this project of licencing crept out of the Inquisition, was catcht up by our Prelates, and hath caught some of our Presbyters. In Athens where Books and Wits were ever busier then in any other part of Greece, I finde but only two sorts of writings which the Magistrate car’d to take notice of; those either blasphemous and Atheisticall, or Libellous’ . [John Milton, Areopagitica]

[5] ‘That Church [e.g.. Catholicism] can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a foundation that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince [e.g. the Pope]. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration [John Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration]

[6] ‘Except the professors of the religion of the church of Rome, who ought not to hold lands in, or be admitted to a participation of the civil rights enjoyed by the members of this State, until such a time as the said professors shall appear in the supreme court of this State, and there most solemnly swear, that they verily believe in their consciences, that no pope, priest or foreign authority on earth, hath power to absolve the subjects of this State from their allegiance to the same. And further, that they renounce and believe to be false and wicked, the dangerous and damnable doctrine, that the pope, or any other earthly authority, have power to absolve men from sins, described in, and prohibited by the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ; and particularly, that no pope, priest or foreign authority on earth, hath power to absolve them from the obligation of this oath’. [John Jay, Proposal for amendment of the New York Constitution, 1777]

[7] The famous founding father John Adams, although tolerating Catholics, made the requirement of Catholics to say an oath before taking any government position:
‘no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentiate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, superiority, pre-eminence, authority, dispensing, or other power, in any matter civil, ecclesiastical, or spiritual, with this commonwealth: except the authority and power which is, or may be, vested by their constituents in the congress of the United States’ [Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780]

[8] After the fall of many Catholic countries to Secular Liberalism and Secular Fascism, the Catholic Church later reined back their political influence, and grudgingly accepted the Secular world order – eventually allowing Catholics to be fully tolerated in Secular countries.

The Only Qur’anic Aayah that was Revealed Inside The Holy Ka’abah

Do you know which is the only Aayah in the Qur’an that was revealed inside Ka’abah, that is Masjid al Haraam, the Sacred Mosque or Baitullah, the House of Allah??

Today let us learn about this Aayah, understand the amazing reason for which it was revealed, and also appreciate the miracle that exists to this day!!

In pre-Islamic times (that is, before Allah conferred Nubuw’wah, Prophethood, on Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), the Arabs used to regard the sanctity of Ka’abah but in their own way. During the days of Hajj, the services of providing water to the pilgrims was entrusted to Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), the uncle of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam).

The custodial duty of keeping the keys to the House of Allah and, of opening and closing it during fixed days had been given to ‘Uthman ibn Talhah.

After the conquest of Makkah, when Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) took the keys of the door of Ka’abah from Uthman ibn Talhah, opened its door and entered Ka’abah, Allah revealed this aayah instructing His beloved Messenger to return the trust (in this case, the Key) to its rightful trustee:


“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Indeed, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.” (Surah An-Nisaa 4: 58)

Let us first understand the historical background:

According to a personal statement of ‘Uthman ibn Talhah, the Ka’abah was opened every Monday and Thursday during the period of Jahilliyah and people would use the occasion to have the honour of entering the sacred House.

Once before Hijrah, the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) came with some of his Companions in order to enter the Ka’abah. ‘Uthman ibn Talhah had not embraced Islam until that time. He stopped the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) from going in, displaying an attitude which was very rude. The Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) showed great restraint, tolerated his harsh words, then said: ‘O ‘Uthman, a day will come when you would perhaps see this key to the Baitullah in my hands when I shall have the power and choice to give it to anyone I choose.’

‘Uthman ibn Talhah said: ‘If this happens, the Quraysh will then be all uprooted and disgraced.’

He (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said: ‘No, the Quraysh will then be all established and very honourable indeed.’ Saying this, he went into the Baytullah.

After that, says Talhah, when I did a little soul-searching, I became convinced that whatever he has said is bound to happen. I made up my mind that I am going to embrace Islam then and there. But, my own people around me vehemently opposed the idea and everybody joined in to chide me on my decision. So, I was unable to convert to Islam. When came the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) called for me and asked for the key to Baitullah, which I presented to him.’


The area in white (in the above image) is the spot inside the Ka’abah where the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallal) is believed to have prayed after entering it

So he went into the Baitullah, offered his prayers there, and when he came out, he returned the key to Talhah saying: ‘Here, take it. Now this key will always remain with your family right through the Last Day. Anyone who will take this key from you will be a tyrant.’ (By this he meant that nobody has the right to take back this key from Talhah)

He also instructed him to use whatever money or things he may get in return for this service to Baitullah in accordance with the rules set by the Shari’ah of Islam.


              The key of the Ka’abah

‘Uthman ibn Talhah says: ‘When I, with the key in my hand, started walking off all delighted, he called me again, and said: “Remember ‘Uthman, did I not tell you something way back? Has it come to pass, or has it not?’ Now, I remembered what he had said before Hijrah when he had said: ‘A day will come when you will see this key in my hand.’

I submitted: ‘Yes, there is no doubt about it. Your word has come true.’ And that was the time when I recited the Kalimah and entered the fold of Islam.’ (Mazhari, from Ibn Sa’d).

Sayyidna ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab (radhiyallaahu anhu) says: ‘That day, when the Holy Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wasallam came out of the Baitullah, he was reciting, this very verse …… ﺇِﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠَّـﻪَ ﻳَﺄْﻣُﺮُﻛُﻢْ ﺃَﻥ ﺗُﺆَﺩُّﻭﺍ ﺍﻟْﺄَﻣَﺎﻧَﺎﺕِ ﺇِﻟَﻰٰ ﺃَﻫْﻠِﻬَﺎ I had never heard him recite this verse before this.’

Obviously, this verse was revealed to him inside the Ka’abah exactly at that time. Obeying the Divine command in the verse, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) called ‘Uthman ibn Talhah again and made him the trustee of the key. This was the background in which this verse was revealed.

At this point let us bear in mind an important rule on which there is consensus. The rule is that even if a Qur’anic verse is revealed in a particular background, the rule laid down by it in general terms must be taken as of universal application and must not be restricted to that particular event.
(The above explanation is taken from the commentary, Maa’riful Qur’an, by Mufti Muhammad Shafi)

The key of the door of Ka’abah is still in the possession of the family of the original Key-Bearer, Uthman ibn Talhah (radhiyallahu anhu).

Even the king of Saudi Arabia needs permission from this blessed family to have the key to enter Ka’abah. Subhanallah!

Another point we learn from this aayah is that apart from commanding us to fulfill our trusts, we are also instructed to judge between people with justice.

The ayah concludes by reminding us that Allah Hears all that we say and Sees all of our actions, and that nothing is hidden is from Him.

May Peace, Mercy and Blessings of Allah be upon Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), his family and companions.

Source: https://yassarnalquran.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/the-only-ayah-that-was-revealed-inside-kabah/

Shattering the Myth that Shah Isma’il Shaheed rahimahullah was a Wahhabi

[By Saad Khan]

A salient feature of the innovators of this age is to hurl charges of “Wahhabism” against the great scholar, muhaddith[1], sufi, reformer and mujahid, ‘Allamah Shah Muhammad Isma’il Shaheed Dehlwi (rahmatullah alayh). It is interesting to note that when in 1821 Shah Isma’il Shaheed and Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (rahimahumullah) left for Hajj[2] along with 757 of their followers, the Holy Lands were under Ottoman rule and the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab had already been driven out. They had managed to control the Holy Lands for only a short amount of time. It would be contrary to logic and analogy to argue that Shah Isma’il Shaheed and Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (rahimahumullah) were influenced by a movement whose influence did not prevail in the Hijaz and the Holy Lands. Rather, the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab were vilified and defeated.

It is unlikely therefore that in such an atmosphere the two respected shaykhs were influenced by an ideology which not only lacked influence in the region but was at the same time ostracized and demonized.

To show the fallacy of this claim, it would be beneficial to list those issues over which there is difference between Shah Muhammad Isma’il Shaheed and what the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab generally believe. It will become clear to the readers that these charges of Wahhabism have no basis.


In Taqwiyat al-Iman, Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) strongly condemned practices prevalent amongst the laymen where they would seek help from the saints by uttering statements such as “O Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir Jaylani! Give me something for the sake of Allah” – this is istighathah and completely impermissible.

Regarding such a practice he writes, “one should refrain from such statements which reek of shirk and are disrespectful towards Allah Most High” (Taqwiyat al-Iman, p.123).

However, regarding tawassul Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) states: “But if it is said, ‘O Allah, give me for the sake [i.e., for the sake of his close relationship to You and his virtuous deeds] of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir’, then this is allowed” (Taqwiyat al-Iman, p.123). He has also discussed the permissibility of tawassul in his book, Mansab Imamat.[3] Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and most of his followers are, however, against this type of tawassul through the pious servants of Allah.

Sufi Orders

Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) was bay’ah in the Naqshbandi tariqah whereas many followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab are against tariqah-based tasawwuf. He gave bay’ah to Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (rahimahullah) at the advice of his uncle Imam Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz Dehlwi (rahimahullah).

The Kitab al-Tawhid Myth

An unsubstantiated claim, by the likes of Maulvi Fadl Rasul Badayuni[4], is that Taqwiyat al-Iman is a commentary of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s Kitab al-Tawhid. Maulana Muhammad Manzur Nu’mani (rahimahullah) mentions that only a person who has not read Kitab al-Tawhid can make such a bold and baseless claim. He adds that Taqwiyat al-Iman was written for the laymen of the subcontinent in a very simple and easy language but with Faruqi[5] grandeur; whereas the readership of Kitab al-Tawhid were those scholarly men from Najd, Hijaz, the Levant, Iraq, etc. whose minds were not clear regarding tawhid and shirk or they were supporters of some polytheistic or seemingly polytheistic practices.

Kitab al-Tawhid is an academic work unlike Taqwiyat al-Iman, which is aimed at laymen. The approach of Taqwiyat al-Iman is to list some verses of the Qur’an, few hadiths from Mishkat al-Masabih with an easy translation and a brief commentary. On the other hand, the commentary of the Qur’anic verses and hadiths in Kitab al-Tawhid is academic and much more detailed. Maulana Nu’mani mentions that keeping this in mind, a commentary of Kitab al-Tawhid in the language of Taqwiyat al-Iman would have exceeded more than 10 volumes ( Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab aur Hindustan kay ‘Ulama Haq, p.65-68).

While some, like Maulwi Ahmad Rida Khan, have claimed even more preposterously that Taqwiyat al-Iman is a translation of Kitab al-Tawhid! Any serious scholar can easily glean from reading the above two books that Molwi Ahmad Rida Khan had only heard the name of Kitab al-Tawhid but had not read it.

The issue of Wahdat al-Wujud

Al-‘Abaqat (Diffusions of Perfume), by Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah), is one of the most comprehensive works on tasawwuf. ‘Allamah Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani writes, “We have not found an elaboration of the laws of tajalli (divine manifestation – in Sufi terminology) and a realization of its essence in a manner the heart finds rest and by which the chest expands, in spite of an extreme search and intense investigation in the books of the Folk (i.e. Sufis), except what the magnificent ‘Allamah, the noble Gnostic, the incomparable [scholar] of his time and amongst his contemporaries, my master and my support, Muhammad Isma’il al-Shahid al-Dahlawi (Allah sanctify his soul) verified in his book Al-’Abaqat… an extremely rare book that has no equal.” (Fath al-Mulhim, 2:315) In this work, Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) discusses at length one of the most burning issues of tasawwuf, namely Wahdat al-Wujud and Wahdat al-Shuhud.

In this book Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) has reconciled the two views, and has shown that the difference is one of perception, arising from the difference in spiritual stations (maqamat). He has also differentiated between those Wujudiyyah Sufis who are orthodox Sunnis and those false Wujudiyyah who say, “there is actually nothing except this sensible universe characterized by existence”. He refers to them as “infidels, mischievous, heretics and the dirt of all the atheists”.

Good opinion of Shaykh al-Akbar

Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahomahullah) refers to Muhyi al-Din ibn al-’Arabi (rahimahullah) as Shaykh al-Akbar and exonerates him from the view that he believed in the real unity between the Creator and the created. He writes in Al-’Abaqat, “They are the chiefs of the sufis and the leaders of the saints. At first sight, some utterances of the followers of the Shaykh seem to bear resemblance to the utterances of those who believe in the real unity (between the Creator and the created, ‘ainiyyah), but when all their utterances are examined thoroughly such resemblance vanishes.” On the other hand, followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab did not have a good opinion of the Shaykh al-Akbar and go as far as declaring him a heretic.

Baseless charges of Anthropomorphism

Certain vile persons accuse Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) of anthropomorphism (tajsim) in the same way they accuse the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. This is indeed a great slander against the Shaykh who was martyred in the path of Allah.

He states about Allah Most High, “By the perfection of His attributes, He is Independent of the praise of the praisers, and by the dignity of His essence (dhat), is above the description of the describers. The deep thoughts are burnt by the majesty of His Essence and the hard speculations are vanished under the dominion of His eminence. None is His partner in the attribute of Being and nothing is His co-sharer in the state of establishment (thubut).
The most eloquent failed to cover the field of His attributes and the master grammarians went astray in traversing the extensive regions of His essence. By the vastness of His essence He transcends both space (ihatah) and limitedness (taqyid)”. (Al-’Abaqat, XIV)

He writes in another place, “It has also been proven that the Necessary in relation to the possibilities cannot be characterized by attributes, such as, direction, the nearness and farness of place, conjunction and disjunction. It is also confirmed that there is no distance whatsoever finite or infinite between the Necessary and the possible” (Al-’Abaqat, p.43). He writes further, “By this tajalli (manifestation), it is proven, for the Divinity that it (Divinity) exists in the external, is neither confined to any direction (jihah) nor to any place. He is neither connected with anything nor is separate from it. He transcends the change in attributes, such as, the new knowledge and the will” (Al-’Abaqat, p.152). In other words, He is free from change in His attributes, because change occurs in relation to time and He is free of time.

Ash’aris and Maturidis are the people of truth

Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) referred to the Ash’aris and Maturidis as the people of truth. He writes, “It is also worth remembering that the learned in every science became divided and differed among themselves. That happened in two ways. One way was that the difference took place between the adherents of falsehood and the followers of truth. This difference is similar to the one found between the jurists of the Shi’ah and those of the Sunnis. Or it is like the difference seen between the Mu’tazilah and the Ash’aris. Or it is like the one observed between the atheists, who have identified Allah with [as] the Universe (Wujudiyyah Malahidah), and those wise ones [i.e., people of truth] who believe that Allah transcends the universe and the being (wujud) which is common to all existing things, [and that created beings are] simply a shadow of the real being (Wujudiyyah ‘Ufara’).

” … the other kind (second kind) of difference is one which is seen between the followers of truth themselves, such as, between the four Imams, or is found between the Ash’aris and Maturidis. … or is like the difference seen among the mystics of different paths. The decision in such cases is that each one of these groups is on the right path in many of the problems. ‘For everyone there is a direction to which he turns his face. Strive, then, to excel each other in good deeds.’ (Qur’an 2:148). He who followed any one of them succeeded in attaining his object.” (Al-’Abaqat, p.252-253)

Love of the Auliyah

Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) acknowledged different categories of the pious and the saints. He writes regarding these virtuous men, “But you all are, however, well aware that all the believers know for certain, that there are some persons who are named as the faithful witnesses of the truth (siddiqiyun) and the substitutes (abdal) in spite of the fact that, the Lawgiver has not formed any rule for the acquisition of the ranks of such persons, and has not invited the people to acquire them nor had held out any promise to the effect that by doing this action of by observing that litany, that rank will be achieved. It is believable that there are some other forms of perfection, the existence of which is supported by the mystical unveilings of the learned. Thus, to acknowledge them is a virtue and a sign of beauty…” (Al-’Abaqat, p.275) He has also discussed the existence of abdal, awtad, aqtab, nujaba‘ and ruqaba‘ in Mansab Imamat.

‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri’s (rahimahullah) defense of Shah Isma’il Shahid (rahimahullah)

Lastly, it would be beneficial to quote the statement of Imam Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahimahullah) regarding the lofty status of Shah Isma’il Shaheed and his works.

A Barelwi scholar wrote Izalat al-Khifa’ regarding the ‘ilm al-ghayb (knowledge of the unseen) of Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam). Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri(rahimahullah) penned a refutation titled Sahm al-Ghayb fi Kabd Ahl al-Rayb (The Arrow of the Unseen in the Heart of the People of Doubt)[6]. He writes in the prelude directly addressing the author of Izalat al-Khifa’, “Know that you cannot eliminate anything through which Allah guided the people at the hands of the Shaykh, the ascetic, the pious, the martyr, Mawlana Shah Isma’il. Do you think you can eradicate the mention of the one whose great life was certified by Allah? (indicating to the verse that the martyrs are alive) … Do you think anyone would abandon Taqwiyat al-Iman and Sirat Mustaqim[7] and follow an opinion whose stench returns to you like flatulence?”(Sahm al-Ghayb, p.2)

It should be obvious that the main cause behind these allegations of Wahhabism was Shah Isma’il Shaheed’s (rahimahullah) efforts to stamp out polytheistic practices and other innovations that had become widespread among the Muslim community. The innovators of the age described them as Wahhabis to tarnish their image among the Muslim community and halt the reformative work they were carrying out.



Al-’Abaqat (Diffusions of Perfume) – Shah Isma’il Shahid

Karwan Imam wa ‘Azimat – Abul Hassan ‘Ali Nadwi

Majmu’ah Rasa’il Chandpuri – Sayyid Murtada Hassan Chandpuri

Mawlana Muhammad Isma‘il Shahid aur un kay Naqid – Ikhlaq Husayn Qasimi Dahlawi

Sayyid Ahmad – Muhammad Hedayetullah

Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed say Hajji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki kay Ruhani Rishtay- Sayyid Nafis Shah al-Husayni

Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab aur Hindustan kay ‘Ulama Haq – Muhammad Manzur Nu’mani

Taqwiyat al-Iman – Shah Isma’il Shaheed


[1] During their two year stay in Hijaz, many scholars were granted khilafah by Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (rahimahullah). Some of them include, (1) Shaykh Muhammad ‘Umar – ustadh of Shaykh ‘Abdullah Siraj, (2) Shaykh Sayyid ‘Aqil, (3) Shaykh Sayyid Hamza, (4) Shaykh Mustafa al-Hanafi, (5) Shaykh Shams al-Din al-Misri, (6) Shaykh Muhammad ‘Ali Hindi, (7) Khawaja Almas – a great saint from Madina, and (8) Shaykh Ahmad ibn Idris of Maghrib who had memorized whole of Sahih al-Bukhari with sharh of Al-Qastallani by heart. During their stay in Makkah, Shah Isma’il (rahimahullah) would give dars of Hujjat Allah al-Balighah and Mawlana ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi, khalifah of Sayyid Ahmad Saheed and son in law of Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz al-Dahlawi (rahimahumullah), would give dars of Mishkat al-Masabih.

[2] The author of Nuzhat al-Khawatir , Hakim Sayyid ‘Abd al-Hayy Lukhnawi al-Hussaini (rahimahullah), writes, “One of his [Shah Isma’ils’] books is Mansab Imamat in which he has discussed the post of prophethood and imamah ; this book is unparalleled of its kind.”

[3] Mawlana Hakim Sayyid ‘Abd al-Hayy Hussaini (rahimahullah) writes regarding Molwi Fazl Rasul Badayuni, “He was a faqih who was argumentative and very biased in his beliefs, he was in constant opposition of the ‘ ulama , most far away from the Sunnah and an aid to bid’ah, he encountered the people of
haqq with his lies and innovations and was a lover of the world. He made takfir of Shaykh Shah Isma’il ibn ‘Abd al-Ghani Dahlawi and he accused Shaykh Shah Waliullah al-Muhaddith Dahlawi of being a Nasibi Khariji. And he accused and spoke ill of Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Ahad al-Sirhindi [Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani] who was the imam of the Mujaddidiyyah and he [Fazl Rasul] would say, ‘All of them are deviated and are leading others astray’.” (Nuzhat al-Khawatir , p.1065

[4] Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) inherited this from Imam Shah Waliullah Dehlwi (rahimahullah). The Imam’s lineage traces back to Sayyiduna ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) from his father’s side and to Sayyiduna ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from his mother’s side.

[5] Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah also talks about this booklet of Imam Kashmiri (rahimahullah). He specifically mentions that it was written in refutation of Barelwi ‘ aqidah that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) has the knowledge of ‘what was and what shall be’ (ma kana wa ma yakun ). (See Majmu’ah Rasa’il al-Kashmiri, p.24)

[6] Sirat Mustaqim is a record of the sayings of Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (rahimahullah), compiled by Shah Isma’il Shaheed (rahimahullah) and Mawlana ‘Abd al-Hayy (rahimahullah). The book was originally compiled in Persian and first published in 1823; it was later translated into Urdu. It was translated into Arabic by Mawlana ‘Abd al-Hayy (rahimahullah), at the request Shaykh Hassan Efindi, the deputy sultan of Egypt, during their two year stay in Makkah and widely circulated among the ‘ ulama of Hijaz.

Did Haji Imdadullah Al-Makki (rahimahullah) Create a “Deobandi Recipe On How To Become Allah”??

QUESTION: Some Salafi websites are accusing Hadhrat Haji Imdaadullah Muhaajir Makki (rahmatullah alayh) of shirk. They say that Haji Imdadullah advised his mureeds of a ‘recipe to become Allah” – Nauthubillah. Levelling their accusation, they say:

“And what these (deobandis) interested in? To make Allah!!! He, Imdaadullah says: And after this he should be engrossed in Dhikr “Hoo Hoo” so much so that the one doing Dhikr becomes the Mazkoor i.e. Allah himself.” (End of verbatim translation of the Salafi atrocity of stupidity).

Please explain this conundrum.

ANSWER: Let us momentarily forget what Hadhrat Haji Imdadullah (rahmatullah alayh) wrote in his kitaab, kulliyat e imdadia. Let us see what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself said about the Thaakir (the one who makes thikr) and Mathkoor (the One whose thikr is made, i.e. Allah Azza Wa Jal).

The concept of the Thaakir ‘becoming Mathkoor’, is fully within the confines of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. It is endorsed in the following Hadith-e-Qudsi.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), reporting a Hadith Qudsi, said that Allah Ta’ala said:

“Whoever bears animosity for My Wali, verily, I issue to him an ultimatum of war. There is nothing more beloved to Me for a servant gaining My proximity than that which I have made obligatory on him. The servant incrementally gains My proximity with Nawaafil until I love him. Then when I love him, I become his ears with which he hears; his eyes with which he sees; his hands with which he touches, and his feet with which he walks.” (Bukhaari)

In another narration, reported by Abdul Waahid, it also appears: “And (I become) his heart with which he thinks and his tongue with which he speaks.”

Another Hadith also affirming the correctness of the Sufiya’s concept is the following Hadith:
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, on the Day of Qiyaamah Allah Ta’ala will say to a man: ‘O son of Aadam! I was sick, but you did not visit Me.’ The man will say: ‘O my Rabb! How could I visit you whilst you are Rabbul Aalameen?’ Allah Ta’ala will say:

‘Don’t you know that My certain friend was sick and you did not visit him? Don’t you know that if you had visited him, you would have found Me by him?’

‘O son of Aadam! I asked food from you, but you did not feed Me.’ The man will say: ‘O my Rabb! How can I feed You whilst You are Rabbul Aalameen?’ Allah Ta’ala will say: ‘Did you not know that a certain friend of Mine had asked you for food, but you did not feed him? Did you not know that if you had fed him, you would have found Me by him?’

‘O son of Aadam! I had asked you for water to drink, but you did not give it to Me.’ The man will say: ‘O my Rabb! How can I give You water to drink when You are Rabbul Aalameen?’ Allah Ta’ala will say: ‘A certain friend of Mine asked you for water, but you did not give it to him. If you had given him water to drink, you would have found that by Me.” (Muslim)

Similarly, as Hadhrat Thaanvi (rahimahullah) has elucidated, in the second Hadith (above) Allah Ta’ala explicitly states that He becomes the ears, eyes, heart, hands and feet of His devotee, and that it is He who is doing all the actions emanating from His devotee. Despite this unification expressed in the Hadith, there is no real or actual unification or hulool of Allah Ta’ala into the person or into any of His creation. The extreme and lofty level of Divine Proximity which the devotee is bestowed with by virtue of his love and obedience for Allah Ta’ala, is in fact the meaning of Hajji Imdaadullah’s (rahimahullah) statement which the moron Salafis fail to understand due to their spiritual barrenness and moral depravity. It means nothing else other than to signify obliviousness of self and permeation with Allah’s Remembrance. The true thaakir becomes an embodiment of Divine Remembrance, and that is all what Haaji Imdaadullah’s (rahmatullah alayh) statement means, but which morons and deviates distort and kick up a lot of stinking dust. It does not refer to the kufr concept of hulool or incarnation or of Allah’s pervasion in insaan or in any aspect of His creation.

Likewise, in the third Hadith, Allah Ta’ala attributes the devotee’s sickness to Himself, saying that He was sick, and He was hungry and He was thirsty. Any Muslim in possession of some brains not deranged by stupidity and Salafi deviation, will understand that these are metaphorical expressions denoting the lofty state of Divine Proximity (Qurb-e-Ilaahi) and Divine Acceptance (Maqbooliyat) which the devotee enjoys. It is this metaphorical ‘unity’ which is termed Wahdatul Wujood of the Sufiya-e-Kiraam, which the spiritually barren baboons of crass materialism have interpreted to mean divine hulool/incarnation/pervasion, but such conception of kufr did not dawn in the pure Souls of the Auliya of Allah Azza Wa Jal.

It is a technical term having a methaphorical connotation. Never did the Sufiya intend thereby hulool ( i.e. the pervasion/incarnation of Allah Ta’ala physically into the being of the devotee) Nauthubillaah!

Now the deviate moron Salafis are free to accuse Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of having uttered ‘shirk’ since he ‘equated’ Allah Ta’ala with created man. He said that Allah Ta’ala becomes the heart, mind, eyes, ears and limbs of created man. In otherwords, man has become Allah – Nauthubillaah! But in terms of Salafi moronic logic, this is the logical conclusion of applying literal connotations to figurative expressions.

The thaakir becoming Mathkoor is a figurative expression to convey total absorption in Divine Remembrance resulting in the state of self-obliviousness. It means nothing else.

By Maulana Ahmad Sadiq Desai D.B

The End Of Islamic Garnata

After a series of negotiations and assurances that the Christians would safeguard the agreement that was about to be signed, the Garnata Capitulations were signed in 1491, (otherwise known as The Treaty of Garnata), and in 1492 the Christian forces took over the city, and thus Islamic rule of Andalus ended after almost 780 years of continuous rule. Albeit this did not mean that 1492 marked the end of the Muslim presence in Andalus, as they remained for another hundred or more years or so. As for Abu Abdullah he ended up dying in obscurity fleeing from Andalus to Morocco.

Islam flourished in Andalus, but due to our disunity and worldy desires, we lost Andalus in a mere 780 years, wherein not even a trace of it exists in modern day Spain. The rulers then were not unlike the rulers now and likewise the people of those lands not unlike us. However, the history of Andalus that we’re interested in, in this project is not the above history. Nay, it is actually what happened after the Treaty of Garnata that is of interest to us, in that it applies to many a situation of Muslims today, be it the first, (or second), generation western Muslim who are living in Dar Al Kufr , by virtue of birth or immigration due to economic reasons, (and even political asylum seekers), and of those Muslims in ‘Muslim’ countries, and their thoughts in relation to their rulers and their view of the Kuffaar.

The Muslims of Andalus were assured by the Christian Kings that all treaty capitulations shall be upheld and Muslims could continue to practice as they wish, run their Shariah courts and in general have freedoms that, by today’s standards, would seem magnanimous on the part of Christian conquerors.

However, within ten years they broke the treaty by creating their own pretext and thus began forcefully converting Muslims, destroying Arabic books, (including the Quran), banning the Arabic language and finally killing or imprisoning people that violated any of their bans on Islam by way of the Inquisition and its Inquisitorial courts which bear an uncanny resemblance to the CIA created ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ program and its protocols, (wherein people would disappear all of a sudden, taken to an unknown location , without habeas corpus rights being granted to the families of the detainee, and were detained for extended periods of time while subjected to psychological and physical torture for alleged acts of ‘terrorism’). Muslims had to increasingly use
Aljamiado (Al Ajamiyya), to communicate instead of Arabic and lie to Christians about their faith while secretly maintaining their Salat, fasting, Zakat and even Hajj during these trying times.

At this juncture, it would be fitting to discuss Al Ajamiyya or Aljamiado. In our context, Aljamiado refers to writings which utilizes the Arabic script for transcribing Romance languages such as Spanish. The most common reason for its increasing popularity in the 16 century is thought to be due to the restrictions placed upon the use of Arabic from the mid 16 centuries, Muslims had to adapt to these restrictions by using Castillian.

However, this explanation by itself would be inaccurate. It cannot be stressed enough that Ajamiyya had been in use since the 14 and 15 , (perhaps even earlier), century due to the fact that Muslims that were living anywhere other than Garnata, (such as Arghun (Aragon), Valencia and Castile), started forgetting their Arabic and acclimatizing gradually, but increasingly, to Spanish. Some of the works that have been unearthed in Spain and elsewhere in Ajamiyya are for the most part meant for the common people and serve an educational role to educate the Muslims of Spain about Islam, usually in a summarized format, (therefore making these books easy to hide from the prying eyes of the Inquisitors). Some of the non Islamic works in
Ajamiyya that have been found are as follows:

“Prose narratives (divisible into romances, short stories, and legends): Rekontamiento del rey Alisandere (Story of King Alexander), Historia de los amores de París y Viana, Libro de las batallas, Leyenda de ‘Ali ibnu abi Talib y las cuarenta doncellas (Legend of ‘Ali ibnu abi Talib and the Forty Damsels), El baño de Zarieb, and Leyenda de Yuçuf (Legend of Joseph).

Eschatological texts: Estoria del día del juicio (Story of the Day of Judgment) and Ascención de Mahoma a los cielos
(Ascension of Muhammad to the Heavens). Biblical legends:

La leyenda de Ibrahim (The Legend of Abraham), Historia del sacrificio de Ismael (Story of the Sacrifice of Ishmael), Las demandas de Muça (The Questions of Moses), Leyenda de Muça con la paloma y el halcón (Legend of Moses with the Dove and the Falcon), Muerte de Muça (Death of Moses),
Historia de Ayub (Story of Job), Recontamiento de Çulayman
(Story of Solomon), Nacimiento de Iça (Birth of Jesus), Jesús resucita a Sem hijo de Noe (Jesus Resuscitates Shem, Son of Noah), and Historia del rey Jesús (Story of King Jesus).

Travel literature: Itinerario de España y Turquía (Itinerary of Spain and Turkey) and Avisos para el caminante (Warnings for the Walker). Didactic prose: Los castigos de ‘Ali (The Moral Teachings of ‘Ali), Los castigos de Alhaquim a su hijo
(The Moral Teachings of al-Hakim for His Son), Los castigos
del hijo de Edam (The Moral Teachings of the Son of Edam),
Libro y translado de buenas doctrinas y castigos y buenas
costumbres (Book of Good Doctrine, Moral Teachings, and Good Habits), and Libro de predicas y examplos y doctrinas para medecinar el alma y amar la otra vida y aborrecer este mundo (Book of Preachings, Exempla, and Doctrine to Heal the Soul, Love the Life to Come, and Abhor This World).

Treatises on popular beliefs and superstitions: Libro de dichos maravillosos (Book of Marvelous Sayings), Libro de las suertes
(The Book of Fortunes), and Libro de los sueños (Book of Dreams).

Anti-Christian and anti-Jewish polemics: Disputa contra los judíos y disputa contra los cristianos (Dispute against the Jews and Dispute against the Christians) and
Preguntas de unos judíos a Muhammad (Questions of Some Jews to Muhammad)… Poetic works: Poema de Yuçuf, Almadha de alabança al annabi Muhammad (Poem of Praise for the Prophet Muhammad), Historia genealógica de Mahoma
(Genealogical History of Muhammad), and Coplas en alabança del-adín del-aliçlam (Verses in Praise of the Religion of Islam), (Barletta, 8).”

One of the more famous Muslim scholars of the Mudajjan and ‘Morisco’ period is Isa Al Shaadhili. He was a faqih and the
qadi of the Jama’a of Al Shaqoubiyah, (Segovia), in Castile, during the middle of the 15 century CE. He was one of the Ahl Al Dajn, as were the rest of the community that was with him in Castile. He was Maliki by way of his fiqh as was virtually everyone in the Maghrib and Andalus, (until the Uthmani forces took control during the 16 century CE, wherein the population of Ahnaaf/Hanafis began to increase). As is evident from his name he was a Sufi of the Shadhiliyya order which is the most prevelant in the Maghrib today and was then too, along with the Tijaniyya order.  In 1462 CE, he wrote his most famous book, Breviario Sunni , (‘Introduction to the Sunnah’), which was a manual designed to aid Muslims in their daily practice of Islam. He also had the infamy of having cooperated with the Christian authorities of Segovia to translate the Quran from Arabic to Castilian.

As for the religious works that were translated into Spanish were:

1. Tafsir of Ibn Ali Zaminin

2. Tafsir Ghareeb Al Quran of Al Sijistani

3. Ibn Salama’s work on Ayaat that are mansukh , (abrogated)

4. Some works on different modes of Qiraat, even some that argue the difference between Warsh and Qaloon

5. Kitaab Fihi Tafseer Mukhtalif Al Hadith by Ibn Qutayba

6. The Forty Hadith of Imam Ghazali

7. Kitaab Shihab Akbar by Al Quda’i

8. Kitab Anwar Al Saniyya by Ibn Juzayy

9. B’ad Al Khalq Wa Qisaas Al Anbiya by Al Farisi

10. Kitab Al Anwar by Abu Al Hassan Al Bakri

11. Rai’ Al Durar by Al Qazwini

12. Al Risaala by Ibn Zayd Al Qayrawani 1

3. Kitab Al Istadhkaar by Abd Al Barr Al Namari

14. Kitab Al Iqtisaad fee Al Itiqaad by Imam Ghazali

And many more. Below is an example of Ajamiyya text, (the following is a Spanish translation of the Quran written in Arabic script):


In other contexts, the word aljamiado is sometimes used for other non-Semitic language written in Arabic letters. For example, some Serbo-Croatian, Bosnian and Albanian texts written in Arabic script during the Ottoman period have been referred to as aljamiado.

A very interesting example of the principle of writing another language in Arabic script is
Xiao’erjing , which is the method by which Hui Chinese Muslims use to write Mandarin Chinese in Arabic script. Formerly the Dungan descendants of these Chinese Muslims in Central Asia also used this method of writing until the Soviet Union banned it by enacting writing reforms which forced the Dungan people to replace Xiao’erjing with a Roman script and later a Cyrillic one, which they continue to use until today. However, in our discussion, we are only referring to Spanish written in Arabic script.


Returning to the Muslims of Andalus, it must be clear, and it will be discussed, that Christians in their treachery had deliberately designed a method by which the Muslims in Andalus would not be able to escape to the Maghrib and would thus, by their calculations, have to accept Christianity and enlarge the number of Christian followers in the land. One hundred and fifty years later from the Treaty of Garnata, after two major insurgencies, the resilience of Muslims holding on to their faith and their refusal to become Murtad , (apostate), (even when their nobles were the first in line to apostasize and safeguard their wealth), the Spanish decided to expel all the Muslims, (by now they were called Moriscos), and admit their defeat at the hands of a few hundred thousand oppressed souls.

A mention should be made of an issue that deserves our attention, and that is the question that is on the mind of most Muslims when they touch this topic, that if they converted, then how can they be Muslim (speaking of the period of 1502 where Mudajjan status had ended all over spain and everyone was forced to convert and called Morsico’s)? It is a question which scholars have tussled over and were tussling with at the time over how to rule on this question. In hindsight and availability of documents, it was seen that what was imposed on the Muslims of Andalus, (who either wanted to leave and weren’t able to due to poverty and not able to afford the transport off the peninsula or were captured before reaching the ports, and not those who deliberately desired to stay in Andalus, unless they were attempting to regroup and lead an insurgency to liberate Andalus from the Kuffaar), by its very definition was Ikrah in its textbook definition, (i.e. compulsion and coercion).

Therefore if we look at what the scholars have said in regard to a situation like this, we can see that there were grounds for them to pretend to convert, while still being Muslim, ( Taqiyyah or dissimulation). Imam Nawawi in his Arba’ain in Hadith number 39:

ﻋَﻦِ ﺍﺑْﻦِ ﻋَﺒَّﺎﺱٍ ﺭَﺿِﻲَ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻋَﻨْﻪُ ﺃَﻥَّ ﺭَﺳُﻮﻝَ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻭَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﻗَﺎﻝَ :
ﺇﻥَّ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪَ ﺗَﺠَﺎﻭَﺯَ ﻟِﻲ ﻋَﻦْ ﺃُﻣَّﺘِﻲ ﺍﻟْﺨَﻄَﺄَ ﻭَﺍﻟﻨِّﺴْﻴَﺎﻥَ ﻭَﻣَﺎ ﺍﺳْﺘُﻜْﺮِﻫُﻮﺍ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ
‏( ﺣَﺪِﻳﺚٌ ﺣَﺴَﻦٌ، ﺭَﻭَﺍﻩُ ﺍﺑْﻦُ ﻣَﺎﺟَﻪ، ﻭَﺍﻟْﺒَﻴْﻬَﻘِﻲُّ “ ﺍﻟﺴُّﻨَﻦ ‏)

Ibn Abbas, (radiyAllāhu ‘anhu) , reported that the Messenger of Allāh, ( ﺻﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠَّﻢ ), said:
“Truly Allāh has for my sake pardoned the mistakes and forgetfulness of my community, and for what they have done under force or duress.” [1]

The Ulema cite in support of this Hadith, (Along with Surah Al Ahzab, Ayah 5 and Surah Baqarah, Ayah 286), cite this
ayah :

ﻣَﻦ ﻛَﻔَﺮَ ﺑِﺎﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻣِﻦ ﺑَﻌْﺪِ ﺇﻳﻤَـﻨِﻪِ ﺇِﻻَّ ﻣَﻦْ ﺃُﻛْﺮِﻩَ ﻭَﻗَﻠْﺒُﻪُ ﻣُﻄْﻤَﺌِﻦٌّ ﺑِﺎﻹِﻳﻤَـﻦِ ﻭَﻟَـﻜِﻦ ﻣَّﻦ ﺷَﺮَﺡَ ﺑِﺎﻟْﻜُﻔْﺮِ ﺻَﺪْﺭًﺍ ﻓَﻌَﻠَﻴْﻬِﻢْ ﻏَﻀَﺐٌ ﻣِّﻦَ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻭَﻟَﻬُﻢْ ﻋَﺬَﺍﺏٌ ﻋَﻈِﻴﻢٌ 2

Whoever disbelieves in Allāh after his belief – except one who was forced while his heart is at peace with the faith – but whoever opens their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allāh, and theirs will be a terrible torment

Ibn Kathir States in the Ayah regarding “except one who was forced while his heart is at peace with the faith:”

“ This is an exception in the case of one who utters statements of disbelief and verbally agrees with the Mushrikin because he is forced to do so by the beatings and abuse to which he is subjected, but his heart refuses to accept what he is saying, and he is, in reality, at peace with his faith in Allāh and His Messenger. The scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse, as Bilal did when they were inflicting all sorts of torture on him, even placing a huge rock on his chest in the intense heat and telling him to admit others as partners with Allāh. He refused, saying, “Alone, Alone.” And he said, “By Allāh, if I knew any word more annoying to you than this, I would say it.” May Allāh be pleased with him. Similarly, when the Liar Musaylimah asked Habib bin Zayd Al-Ansari, “Do you bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh” He said, “Yes.” Then Musaylimah asked, “Do you bear witness that I am the messenger of Allāh” Habib said, “I do not hear you.” Musaylimah kept cutting him, piece by piece, but he remained steadfast insisting on his words. It is better and preferable for the Muslim to remain steadfast in his religion, even if that leads to him being killed, as was mentioned by Al-Hafiz Ibn ‘Asakir in his biography of ‘Abdullah bin Hudhafah Al-Sahmi, one of the Companions. He said that he was taken prisoner by the Romans, who brought him to their king. The king said, “Become a Christian, and I will give you a share of my kingdom and my daughter in marriage.”

‘Abdullah said: “If you were to give me all that you possess and all that Arabs possess to make me give up the religion of Muhammad even for an instant, I would not do it.” The king said, “Then I will kill you.” ‘Abdullah said, “It is up to you.” The king gave orders that he should be crucified, and commanded his archers to shoot near his hands and feet while ordering him to become a Christian, but he still refused. Then the king gave orders that he should be brought down, and that a big vessel made of copper be brought and heated up. Then, while ‘Abdullah was watching, one of the Muslim prisoners was brought out and thrown into it, until all that was left of him was scorched bones. The king ordered him to become a Christian, but he still refused. Then he ordered that ‘Abdullah be thrown into the vessel, and he was brought back to the pulley to be thrown in. ‘Abdullah wept, and the king hoped that he would respond to him, so he called him, but ‘Abdullah said, “I only weep because I have only one soul with which to be thrown into this vessel at this moment for the sake of Allāh; I wish that I had as many souls as there are hairs on my body with which I could undergo this torture for the sake of Allāh.”

According to some reports, the king imprisoned him and deprived him of food and drink for several days, then he sent him wine and pork, and he did not come near them. Then the king called him and asked him, “What stopped you from eating” ‘Abdullah said, “It is permissible for me (under these circumstances), but I did not want to give you the opportunity to gloat…”

So as Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) says, “It is better and preferable for the Muslim to remain steadfast in his religion, even if that leads to him being killed…” indicating a preference to be steadfast and be put to death, (as in the case of Habib bin Zayd Al Ansari), than apostasizing. However, as we see in the case of Abdullah Hudhaifa Al Shami, he says, “It is permissible for me (under these circumstances), but I did not want to give you the opportunity to gloat.” So it can be ascertained doing things such as eating pork and drinking wine are permissible under compulsion but not the preferable mode of action as the first recourse.

Another view or category is the distinction between speech and actions. In terms of speech, a person might be forced and allowed to say something that is not allowable. The scholars say he should not practice taqiyah . Taqiyah means to say or do something which you do not believe in and are not satisfied with. This only applies to sayings and not actions. Regarding this issue there is an agreement among the Muslim scholars. They say that whoever is forced to say something that is not allowed in shari’ah , then he will be allowed to say it – he will not be regarded or considered as ‘saying’ it. There is another condition that the scholars set.

They say that whenever a person is put into ikrah or duress, the duress should be definite and most likely to happen and not just something the person imagines or assumes. He has to be sure. Through proofs such as these Scholars who understood the situation of the Andalusis issued fatawa stating that, (if the Muslims are truly under ikrah as mentioned above), they can state that they are christian but in their heart not believe, play with words to make statements that are favorable to Christians but neither are outright shirk and kufr . These ahadith and ayaat are, if you will, part of the camp of people that did not, or could not resist the Christians or were unable to leave the land due to genuine Ikrah .

However, on the other hand in Surah Al Nisaa,’ ( Ayah 97), Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) clarifies the conditions of remaining in mushrik lands without putting oneself into a sinful position:

ﺇِﻥَّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳﻦَ ﺗَﻮَﻓَّﺎﻫُﻢُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻶﺋِﻜَﺔُ ﻇَﺎﻟِﻤِﻲ ﺃَﻧْﻔُﺴِﻬِﻢْ ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮﺍْ ﻓِﻴﻢَ ﻛُﻨﺘُﻢْ ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮﺍْ ﻛُﻨَّﺎ ﻣُﺴْﺘَﻀْﻌَﻔِﻴﻦَ ﻓِﻲ ﺍﻷَﺭْﺽِ ﻗَﺎﻟْﻮَﺍْ ﺃَﻟَﻢْ ﺗَﻜُﻦْ ﺃَﺭْﺽُ ﺍﻟﻠّﻪِ ﻭَﺍﺳِﻌَﺔً ﻓَﺘُﻬَﺎﺟِﺮُﻭﺍْ ﻓِﻴﻬَﺎ ﻓَﺄُﻭْﻟَـﺌِﻚَ ﻣَﺄْﻭَﺍﻫُﻢْ ﺟَﻬَﻨَّﻢُ ﻭَﺳَﺎﺀﺕْ ﻣَﺼِﻴﺮًﺍ 3

Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) clarifies this Ayah by stating:

Al-Bukhari recorded that Muhammad bin ‘Abdur-Rahmān, Abu Al-Aswad, said, “The people of Al-Madinah were forced to prepare an army (to fight against the people of Ash-Sham during the Khilafah of Abdullah bin Az-Zubayir at Makkah), and I was enlisted in it. Then I met ‘Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, and informed him (about it), and he forbade me strongly from doing so (i.e., to enlist in that army), and then he said to me, ‘Ibn ‘Abbas told me that some Muslims used to go out with the idolators increasing the size of their army against the Messenger of Allāh . Then, an arrow would hit one of them and kill him, or he would be struck on his neck (with a sword) and killed, and Allāh sent down the Ayah,

ﺇِﻥَّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳﻦَ ﺗَﻮَﻓَّـﻬُﻢُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻠَـﺌِﻜَﺔُ ﻇَـﻠِﻤِﻰ ﺃَﻧﻔُﺴِﻬِﻢْ

‘Verily, as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves’

Ad-Dahhak stated that this Ayah was revealed about some hypocrites who did not join the Messenger of Allāh but remained in Makkah and went out with the idolators for the battle of Badr. They were killed among those who were killed. Thus, this honorable Ayah was revealed about those who reside among the idolators, while able to perform Hijrah and unable to practice the faith. Such people will be committing injustice against themselves and falling into a prohibition according to the consensus [emphasis is mine] and also according to this Ayah,

ﺇِﻥَّ ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳﻦَ ﺗَﻮَﻓَّـﻬُﻢُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻠَـﺌِﻜَﺔُ ﻇَـﻠِﻤِﻰ ﺃَﻧﻔُﺴِﻬِﻢْ

“Verily, as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves,” by refraining from Hijrah,
ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮﺍْ ﻓِﻴﻢَ ﻛُﻨﺘُﻢْ

They (angels) say (to them): ‘In what (condition) were you’
meaning, why did you remain here and not perform Hijrah

ﻗَﺎﻟُﻮﺍْ ﻛُﻨَّﺎ ﻣُﺴْﺘَﻀْﻌَﻔِﻴﻦَ ﻓِﻰ ﺍﻻٌّﺭْﺽِ

They reply: ‘We were weak and oppressed on the earth.’
meaning, we are unable to leave the land or move about in the earth,

ﻗَﺎﻟْﻮﺍْ ﺃَﻟَﻢْ ﺗَﻜُﻦْ ﺃَﺭْﺽُ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻭَﺳِﻌَﺔً

They (angels) say: ‘Was not the earth of Allāh spacious enough for you’

Abu Dawud recorded that Samurah bin Jundub said that the Messenger of Allāh said:

ﻣَﻦْ ﺟَﺎﻣَﻊَ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺸْﺮِﻙَ ﻭَﺳَﻜَﻦَ ﻣَﻌَﻪُ ﻓَﺈِﻧَّﻪُ ﻣِﺜْﻠُﻪ

“Whoever mingles with the mushrik and resides with him, he is just like him.”

In essence Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) explains the ayah by saying that those who have the ability to make hijrah , (i.e. they were able to leave the land or able to traverse the earth without prohibition), and do not do it, and have an inability to practice their Islam, will be falling into a prohibition according to the concensus of scholars. The issue directly applies to the Muslims in Andalus after 1492, as many Muslims, (who had the ability to make hijrah ), chose to stay behind in the misguided notion that if they stayed they could reclaim Andalus from the Christians with the help of the Fatimi / Mahdi, (when clearly they neither had the force inside Andalus or in the Maghrib to help them achieve that. Furthermore, Uthmani help never came until much later in a very meager form. The best solution would have been to regroup in the Maghrib in order to regain Andalus), or simply that, they had an attachment to the land and didn’t want to leave, even if it meant hardship, slavery or even feigned or real apostasy to Christianity.

It is clear according to the scholars how grave the issue of living among the Mushrikeen is, as, Imam Ibn Katheer cites a hadith from Abi Dawood that whosoever lives and mingles with the mushrikeen, is like him (i.e. a mushrik ). Moreover a hadith is narrated where “some munafiqeen who did not join the Messenger of Allāh but remained in Makkah and went out with the mushrikeen for the battle of Badr. They were killed among those who were killed.” Imam Ibn Kathir explains that the Ayah applies to those who were able to make hijrah, unable to practice their Islam and resided amongst the
mushrikeen. However the hadith adds that those Muslims, who fought under the mushrikeen at Badr against the Prophet ( ﺻﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠَّﻢ ), and were killed, died in a state where they would be wronging themselves. It is a stark reminder especially to those living in countries ruled by kafirs such as in those of the Americas and Europe.

Their armies have come to do nothing short of occupation and the manipulation, if not annihilation, of the Deen of Islam and Muslims. Many Muslims fight in these armies and put themselves at great peril.

As for those who still are obstinate and choose to remain in kafir lands when they have the wherewithal to leave, they are at risk of being drafted into the armies of kafir host countries and put their aakhirah [hereafter] in peril.

Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) proceeds to provide the exeptions to this Ayah by clarifying the proceeding Ayah :

ﺇِﻻَّ ﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﺘَﻀْﻌَﻔِﻴﻦَ

‘Except the weak’ until the end of the Ayah, is an excuse that Allāh gives for this type of people not to emigrate, because they are unable to free themselves from the idolators. And even if they did, they would not know which way to go. This is why Allāh said,

ﻻَ ﻳَﺴْﺘَﻄِﻴﻌُﻮﻥَ ﺣِﻴﻠَﺔً ﻭَﻻَ ﻳَﻬْﺘَﺪُﻭﻥَ ﺳَﺒِﻴﻼً

“Who cannot devise a plan, nor are they able to direct their way,” meaning, they do not find the way to emigrate, as Mujahid, ‘Ikrimah and As-Suddi stated.

Allāh’s statement,

ﻓَﺄُﻭْﻟَـﺌِﻚَ ﻋَﺴَﻰ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﺃَﻥ ﻳَﻌْﻔُﻮَ ﻋَﻨْﻬُﻢْ

“These are they whom Allāh is likely to forgive them” means, pardon them for not migrating, and here, ‘likely’ means He shall…

Allāh’s statement,

ﻭَﻣَﻦ ﻳُﻬَﺎﺟِﺮْ ﻓِﻰ ﺳَﺒِﻴﻞِ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻳَﺠِﺪْ ﻓِﻰ ﺍﻻٌّﺭْﺽِ ﻣُﺮَﺍﻏَﻤﺎً ﻛَﺜِﻴﺮﺍً ﻭَﺳَﻌَﺔً

“He who emigrates in the cause of Allāh, will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by.” this encourages the believers to perform Hijrah and abandon the idolators, for wherever the believer emigrates, he will find a safe refuge to resort to. Mujahid said that,

ﻣُﺮَﺍﻏَﻤﺎً ﻛَﺜِﻴﺮﺍً

“many dwelling places” means, he will find a way out of what he dislikes. Allāh’s statement,

“and plenty to live by” refers to provision. Qatadah also said that,

ﻳَﺠِﺪْ ﻓِﻰ ﺍﻻٌّﺭْﺽِ ﻣُﺮَﺍﻏَﻤﺎً ﻛَﺜِﻴﺮﺍً ﻭَﺳَﻌَﺔً

“…will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by” means, Allāh will take him from misguidance to guidance and from poverty to richness.

Allāh’s statement,

ﻭَﻣَﻦ ﻳَﺨْﺮُﺝْ ﻣِﻦ ﺑَﻴْﺘِﻪِ ﻣُﻬَـﺠِﺮﺍً ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻭَﺭَﺳُﻮﻟِﻪِ ﺛُﻢَّ ﻳُﺪْﺭِﻛْﻪُ ﺍﻟْﻤَﻮْﺕُ ﻓَﻘَﺪْ ﻭَﻗَﻊَ ﺃَﺟْﺮُﻩُ ﻋَﻠﻰَ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ

“And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allāh and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely, incumbent upon Allāh.” means, whoever starts emigrating and dies on the way, he will acquire the reward of those who emigrate for Allāh. The Two Sahihs, along with the Musnad and Sunan compilers, recorded that ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Messenger of Allāh (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said:

ﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﺍﻟْﺄَﻋْﻤَﺎﻝُ ﺑِﺎﻟﻨِّــﻴَّﺎﺕِ، ﻭَﺇِﻧَّﻤَﺎ ﻟِﻜُﻞِّ ﺍﻣْﺮِﻯﺀٍ ﻣَﺎ ﻧَﻮَﻯ، ﻓَﻤَﻦْ ﻛَﺎﻧَﺖْ ﻫِﺠْﺮَﺗُﻪُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﻭَﺭَﺳُﻮﻟِﻪِ، ﻓَﻬِﺠْﺮَﺗُﻪُ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪِ ﻭَﺭَﺳُﻮﻟِﻪِ، ﻭَﻣَﻦْ ﻛَﺎﻧَﺖْ ﻫِﺠْﺮَﺗُﻪُ ﺇِﻟﻰ ﺩُﻧْﻴَﺎ ﻳُﺼِﻴﺒُﻬَﺎ، ﺃَﻭِ ﺍﻣْﺮَﺃَﺓٍ ﻳَﺘَﺰَﻭَّﺟُﻬَﺎ، ﻓَﻬِﺠْﺮَﺗُﻪُ ﺇِﻟﻰ ﻣَﺎ ﻫَﺎﺟَﺮَ ﺇِﻟَﻴْﻪ 4

The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions, and every person will be rewarded according to what he has intended. So, whoever emigrated to Allāh and His Messenger, then his emigration is for Allāh and His Messenger. And whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration is for what he emigrated for.

This Hadith is general, it applies to Hijrah as well as every other deed …

In this the exception is clear, in that, the only ones excused are those that are:

1. Unable to free themselves from the idolators

2. And those, even if they were to free themselves, would not know which way to go, or find the way to emigrate.

In addition, many Muslims after the Treaty of Garnata, exclaimed that the reason they didn’t want to go to the Maghrib was because life was rough there and there was no living to be made in Andalus, (as an Andalusi Muslim had asked Imam Wanshirisi during the 1500’s).

However Allāh ( ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻠﻰ ) states clearly the muhajir who emigrates fee sabillilah [in the cause of Allāh], “…will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by.” So Allāh ( ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻠﻰ ), is not saying there is a possibility of sustenance or shelter, rather, He is saying that there will be shelter and sustenance for those who immigrated in His path.

Hand in hand with the previous verses, the people mentioned here are those who were put to trial and were under oppression, and could not leave the land, but when they opportunity arose, they emigrated in His path and waged
Struggle as Allāh ( ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻠﻰ ), states in Verse 110 of Surah Al Nahl:

ﺛُﻢَّ ﺇِﻥَّ ﺭَﺑَّﻚَ ﻟِﻠَّﺬِﻳﻦَ ﻫَـﺠَﺮُﻭﺍْ ﻣِﻦ ﺑَﻌْﺪِ ﻣَﺎ ﻓُﺘِﻨُﻮﺍْ ﺛُﻢَّ ﺟَـﻬَﺪُﻭﺍْ ﻭَﺻَﺒَﺮُﻭﺍْ ﺇِﻥَّ ﺭَﺑَّﻚَ ﻣِﻦ ﺑَﻌْﺪِﻫَﺎ ﻟَﻐَﻔُﻮﺭٌ ﺭَّﺣِﻴﻢٌ

Then, verily, your Lord for those who emigrated after they were put to trials and then struggled in His Path, and were patient, – after this, your Lord is indeed Forgiving, Most Merciful.

About this Ayah , Ibn Kathir States:

“This refers to another group of people who were oppressed in Makkah and whose position with their own people was weak, so they went along with them when they were tried by them. Then they managed to escape by emigrating, leaving their homeland, families and wealth behind, seeking the pleasure and forgiveness of Allāh. They joined the believers and fought with them against the disbelievers, bearing hardship with patience.
Allāh tells them that after this, meaning after their giving in when put to the test, He will forgive them and show mercy to them when they are resurrected.”

This Ayah fits in perfectly of those Muslims who after hiding their faith for a number of years and safeguarding it, managed to escape Andalus and subsequently managed to join up with the Ghazis of the Uthamani navy such as Khair Al Deen, (in the West he is called Barbarossa, or Red Beard), to raid Christian vessels to terrorize the enemies of Allāh and wage battle in His Path. This dichotomy is a perfect way to understand the Muslims of Andalus after 1492, but in its own way, it is a way to understand Muslims in the West today, and even those living under tyrannical Muslim regimes in the ‘east.’



[1] A Saheeh hadith related by Ibn Majah, Al-Baihaqi and others

[2] Surah Nahl, Ayah 106

[3] Surah 4 Ayah 97

[4] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith #: 1

Following A Madhab

[By Shaikh Muhammad Ilyas Faisal,
Madinat al-Munawwara]

Very often the following question is posed to many people: “Do you follow the Deen of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) or the Deen of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)?”

“Obviously the Deen of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam),” comes the instant reply. The second question is then posed: “Why then do you call yourself a Hanafi?” The person not well versed is perplexed by this question. Doubts are then created in his mind. He soon starts gradually drifting towards the abandoning of taqleed i.e. following one of the four illustrious Imams viz. Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh), Imam Shafiee (rahmatullah alayh), Imam Malik (rahmatullah alayh) and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahmatullah alayh).

By means of the type of questions that have been mentioned above, a deliberate attempt is made to create a misconception in the minds of the unwary — that if you are a Hanafi, you are following the Deen of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah), NOT the Deen of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

This is an absolute fallacy. Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah), Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) and the other Imams did not invent any Deen of their own. They strictly followed the one and only Deen — the Deen of Islam brought by Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). Their followers are hence also following the same Deen — the Deen of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

Why Follow an Imam??

The question that arises here is that why then should one follow any of the four Imams?? This can be answered by posing a counter-question: “Do you know all the various laws of Deen?? Are you capable of extracting and deriving the laws pertaining to wudu, salah, zakah, etc. directly from the Qur’an and Hadith??

Do you know which Hadith has abrogated another?? Do you have the ability to reconcile between the various Ahadith which apparently contradict each other?? Do you know which verses of the Qur’an are general in their application and which verses are qualified by other texts?? etc., etc.”

If one does not have the knowledge of these aspects, then one definitely does not have the ability to derive the laws directly from the Qur’an and Hadith. In that case the following aayah applies directly to oneself:

“Ask those of knowledge if you do not know .” Hence when we do not have the enormous amount of knowledge and expertise that is necessary to derive the laws directly from the Qur’an and Hadith, we have opted to follow one of those great people who had attained that distinguished mastery in this field, among whom is Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh). Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) is a Tabi’i (one who has seen a Sahabi).

He attained the knowledge of Hadith from approximately 4000 teachers. His piety was such that for 40 years he performed fajr salah with the wudu of Isha salah (i.e. he did not sleep the entire night) [Tareekhul Baghdad]. His knowledge, brilliance and righteousness was such that all the great scholars of his time attested to his mastery. Thus one can be well assured that such a person is absolutely capable of deriving the laws directly from the Qur’an and Hadith.

Another reason for adopting one of the Imams as a guide is the following aayah of the Qur’an: Allah Ta’ala says: “And follow the path of those who turn to me” (31:15). In order to “turn” to Allah Ta’ala, two aspects are basic requisites — knowledge and practicing according to that knowledge. In this regard the four Imams were in an extremely high category. Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) was regarded by various Ulama of his time as being the most knowledgeable of the people of that era (footnotes of Tahdheebut Tahdheeb vol. 1 pg. 451). Makki bin Ibrahim , who was one of the renowned teachers of Imam Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari (rahmatullah alayh) , was a student of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatillah alayh). Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh) compiled a book of Hadith entitled “Kitabul Aathaar” from among 40,000 Ahadith. Thus those who follow such a guide can be satisfied that they are strictly following the commands of Allah Ta’ala and His Rasul (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

Difference of Opinion

At this point somebody may ask: “If all the Imams deduced the laws directly from the Qur’an and Hadith, how is it possible for them to differ on various aspects??” In order to understand the reality of these differences, we will have to go back in history right upto the time of the Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum).

Once Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) had just returned from a battle when he ordered the Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum) to immediately proceed to the place of Banu Quraizah — a clan of Jews who lived on the outskirts of Madina Munawwarah. The purpose was to lay a siege upon them for having broken the pact that they had made with the Muslims. In order to impress the urgency of the matter upon the Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum), Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said to them: “None of you should perform your salah al-Asr except in Banu Quraizah.”

While the Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum) were still en-route, the time of Asr arrived. Some Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum) felt that they should perform their Asr immediately. They regarded the instruction of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) as actually being a command to proceed very swiftly to their destination. It did not imply that the Asr salah could not be performed en-route. They thus performed their salah there.

Another group of Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum.) viewed the instruction literally. They therefore continued and only performed their Asr salah after having reached Banu Quraizah. Later when Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) was informed about this, he did not rebuke either group. [Sahih Bukhaari]

Thus we find that the difference arose from a point of interpretation. However, this difference of interpretation is only entertained when it comes from a person who has in-depth knowledge of Deen and has attained a mastery in the Qur’an and Hadith and the other related aspects. At times a difference of opinion occurs due to the different narrations that are found with regards to a particular aspect. One Imam gives preference to one narration on the basis of various criteria while the other Imam, in the light of his knowledge, prefers the other narration. This is basically the manner in which these differences occur.

However, just as Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) did not rebuke either of the two groups in the incident mentioned above, similarly since the Imams have attained the status of a mujtahid (one who is capable of deriving the laws directly from the Qur’an and Hadith), they will not be blame worthy even if they have erred.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) is reported to have said:

“When a haakim (ruler) passes judgement, and after having exerted his utmost effort he arrives at the correct solution, he gets a double reward. And if he errs after having exerted his utmost ability, he gets one reward.” (Bukhari vol. 2 pg. 1092).

Ibn al-Munzir (rahmatullah alayh) while commenting on this Hadith writes that a ruler will only get this reward if he has thorough knowledge and in the light of his knowledge he passed judgement. (see footnotes of Sahih Bukhari; ibid). The four Imams had the ability and necessary knowledge to practice ijtihaad. Thus they fall under the ambit of this Hadith.

Following One Imam Only

Another point that often comes up is the following: Why is it necessary to follow one Imam only?? Why can one not follow a certain Imam in one aspect and another Imam in another aspect??

The simple answer to this is: On what basis will one pick and choose, especially since one does not have the knowledge required to derive the laws. Thus one will not be in a position to evaluate the deductions of each Imam. Hence it will obviously be on the basis of what suits one. This is nothing but following one’s desires — regarding which Allah Ta’ala has issued severe warnings in the Qur’an. Following one’s desires sometimes even leads a person to kufr. Thus great jurists of latter times, among them Shah Waliullah (rahmatullah alayh), have reaffirmed that it is wajib for the masses to follow one Imam only.


More deceptive questions posed by Ghair Muqallideens to a Lay-Person and Its Answers:

Question by the Ghair Muqallid :

“Tell me, why are you called Hanafi and not Muhammedi?? So, are you a Hanafi or a Muhammedi??

Answer by the Hanafi:
“Today you have mimicked the wahaabis and said good-bye to your brain!

Question by the Ghair Muqallid:
“How is that?”

Answer by the Hanafi :
“Your question is like my asking you whether it is Saturday or January; or is it Wednesday or February? Any intelligent person would be astounded, for if there were any conflict (in meaning) between January and Saturday, only then would this question be sensible.
When today can be the Saturday and also be January then there is no difference between the two. Rather, the question should be, is today Saturday or Sunday? Is it the month of January or that of February? A day will oppose another day, and a month would oppose another month.

I can also ask you questions like yours. Are you a ghair muqallid or a human? Are you an AhleHadith or a human? Are you Pakistani or Panjaabi? Just as these questions are incorrect in your opinion, the question of being a Muhammedi orHanafi is incorrect.

Should your question be correct, would you kindly answer the above three questions of mine?? The answer to such questions would just be swearing.

Now listen, if someone asks as to why you are referred to as Panjaabi or Laahori and not Pakistani, you would say we are referred to as Pakistanis when compared to those living in countries outside Pakistan and as Panjaabis when compared to those living in Sindh or Baluchistan. In the same way when a non-Muslim asks who you are, you would say youre a Muslim and Muhammedi.

This means that the words Muslim and Muhammedi are used when compared to non-Muslims, and Hanafi is used when compared with Shafis, Maalikis, etc.

You do accept that being called a Panjaabi does not negate being a Pakistani, nor does being an Ahle Hadith negate being a human, why would being a Hanafi negate being a Muhammedi??”

Question by the Ghair Muqallid:

“Should we accept that which the Nabi (S.A.W) says, or that which an Ummati says?”

Answer by the Hanafi:
“When that which the Ummati says is contrary to that which the Nabi says, then, only that which the Nabi says would be accepted.
When that which the Ummati says does not contradict what theNabi says, but only appears to be contrary, then, you yourself may specify the cure for that.

The explanation of this has been given by Shah Waliullah (R.A) in the following words;
We do not follow the Imams except for the fact that they are more knowledgeable than us as regards the book of Allaah and the teachings of His Rasul. (Hujjatullahil-baaligah)

The munkireen-e-Hadith also ask if one should accept that which the Creator says or that which the creation says?? The person answering will definitely say that one should accept that which the Creator says. As soon as he says this, the munkir-e-Hadith will say, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu-Dawud, Tirmizi, ibn-Majah, Nasai are all the works of the slave and the only book of the master is the Qur’aan, one has to accept it only and practice on it, not on the books of the slaves.

My brother, you have now adopted the way and manner of the munkireen-e- Hadith. They confused matters by saying Creator and creation and made the people discard the Hadith of Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam). You are confusing matters by saying Nabi and Ummati in an effort to make people discard the Fiqh of the fuqaha. This is also a question you have stolen from them. You call yourself Ahle Hadith and they call themselves Ahle Quraan.”

Question by the Ghair Muqallid :

“One should follow only and only Nabi (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), not an Ummati, whereas you accept the Fiqh of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahmatullah alayh).”

Answer by the Hanafi :
“We follow and obey only Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but with guidance of Imam A’zam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah alayh)”

The Qur’aan and Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech

[By: Shaykh Abu Adam]

Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech

Aļļaah’s Speech is a necessary and eternal attribute of perfection, which pertains to what He knows, by which He tells, orders, promises and threatens. It would be imperfection for the Creator not to have an attribute by which He tells, orders, promises and threatens. That is why we do not believe it has a beginning, or that it is an action, such as our speech, because that would mean that Aļļaah needed to create for Himself a Speech to achieve perfection.

Moreover, it is imperfection to be attributed with the attribute of expressing what one knows serially (i.e. consecutively, one piece of information after another, or by letters or words). This is because speech that consists of serial expressions must have a beginning and because there will be a delay in informing all that one knows.

Words and letters are created speech

Speech consisting of words and letters is the speech of creation. For this reason one cannot say that Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech is letters and sounds, because Aļļaah said:

“ ﻟَﻴْﺲَ ﻛَﻤِﺜْﻠِﻪِ ﺷَﻲْﺀٌ ”

Meaning: “Absolutely nothing resembles Him.” (Al-Sħuuraa, 11)

Accordingly, when Ahlu-s-Sunnah, the Asħˆariyys and the Ĥanafiyys, say that the “Qur’aan is not created” they are referring to Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of speech that is not sound or letters. In other words, the Speech that the book of the Qur’aan refers to.

This is the correct belief, because the Arabic language, just like all languages, was created by Aļļaah. Accordingly, if Arabic is a creation, how can Arabic speech be anything but a creation? After all, what is composed of created things, in this case the sounds of Arabic and their representing letters, is clearly created.

Moreover, speech that is letters and sounds must have a beginning and therefore be a creation. Why?? Because words and letters have a beginning. So in “bismillaah”, for example “i” comes after “b”, so when you say bismillaah, the sound “i” only becomes existent after “b” ’s non-existence. This means “i” has become existent after non existence, which means that it needs a creator to exist. Nothing can come into existence without a creator, all Muslims must believe that.

The two meanings of the word “Qur’aan”

The saying of Ahlu-s-Sunnah is that the words and letters in the printed copies of the Qur’aan refer to Aļļaah’s eternal Kalaam, and tell us in Arabic what He said eternally without letters, sounds or words. It is therefore correct to say that “ the Qur’aan is not created ,” because the word “Qur’aan” actually refers to what Aļļaah tells us, and His speech is not created. It is not correct, however, to say that the words, letters, and sounds associated with the book are not created, because words and letters need a creator, and because the Arabic language, the language of the book, is a creation.

An example to clarify is that the word “Aļļaah” refers to Aļļaah. We do not worship these letters, or the sounds of uttering this word.

Rather, we worship the one they refer to. In the same sense, the words, letters and Arabic in the book are not themselves Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech, but refer to that attribute; they tell us what Aļļaah said with His eternal Speech.

The two aspects of speech: meanings and expression

This can be clarified more with another example as follows: Let us say that Obama made a speech today at a White House press conference. Then the reporters wrote down what was said and published it in the Washington Post under the title “Obama’s Speech.”

Now, if someone came and said, “This is not Obama’s Speech! This is just paper and ink!” Would you consider this person sensible? Of course you would not. Why? Let us first look at the concept of speech and the meanings of the word “speech” in this example.

If we were to imagine the events surrounding the press conference, we can imagine that before even saying anything, Obama had something in his heart that he wanted to say. These unexpressed meanings that he wanted to say is the speech inside that he wants to make. This is called a speech, as we just did when we said, “the speech that he wants to make,” but it is not letters or sounds. Rather it is a collection of meanings that words can be used to express. Words, after all, are just collections of sounds that refer to meanings that we want to express. Yet, we refer to collections of words put together in sentences by someone as “his speech,” even if it translated to another language that this someone does not even know.

The word “speech” then, has at least two meanings. The first is the meanings that we want to express. The second is the expression of these meanings in words and letters, body language, or some other mode of expression. The reason why the expression is simply called “his speech” or “her speech” is because the expressed form of it is an expression of what the person wanted to say.

From this it is easy to understand that the word “Qur’aan” has two meanings. The first is the eternal Speech of Aļļaah that the words and letters of the book of the Qur’aan refer to, and that is not itself words, letters, language or sequence. Note that we do not call this “inner speech”, because Aļļaah’s speech is not like our inner speech, and because Aļļaah is not said to have an inside, as He is not a body.

The second meaning of the “Qur’aan” is the book, the organized and sequential Arabic words and letters that express in Arabic what Aļļaah said eternally, without letters or sounds. This book is called Aļļaah’s Speech, because it refers to what Aļļaah said eternally, and one cannot say that it is not Aļļaah’s speech, because that entails denying Aļļaah’s eternal speech.

To clarify further using the example of Obama’s speech: if it was translated to Arabic we would still call it “Obama’s Speech.” This is because they refer to the meanings he originally expressed in English based on the meanings he wanted to convey, which is his inner speech. Accordingly, if someone said about the Arabic translation, “This is not Obama’s speech!” people would understand from this that he did not express those meanings, not that he did not say it in Arabic. In fact, if the one that claimed it is not Obama’s speech clarified what he meant and said, “He spoke English, not Arabic!” people would consider him a fool. The reason is that they understand Obama’s speech to be the meanings that he expressed, irrespective of how it is expressed.

Likewise, when Muslims hold the muşĥaf up and say, “this is Aļļaah’s Speech,” they mean the meanings that Aļļaah said eternally, not the paper or ink, or the letters and their sounds. That is why if someone translated an aayah of the Qur’aan to English and stated before it “Aļļaah said….” people will not object and say, “Aļļaah did not say that,” unless he disagreed with the translation. Alternatively, they mean the Arabic expression of Aļļaah’s eternal speech in particular, which can be considered the second meaning of the word “Qur’aan,” which the scholars refer to as an-naţħm, or “the structure.”

Deviant sayings regarding Aļļaah’s speech

Since speech that consists of words and letters is created, there is no difference between saying “Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech is words and letters,” and saying “Aļļaah’s Speech is created.”

The first is the saying of the Ĥuruufiyyah [1] , and the second is that of the Muˆtazilah. It does not help the Ĥuruufiyyah try to escape by saying that it is “uncreated.”

The Muˆtazilah said it is created because it is letters and sounds, and letters and sounds have a beginning, so they must be created. The Ĥuruufiyyah take this one step further in deviation by denying the obvious, which is that anything with a beginning, such as letters, is a creation.

The only difference between the Muˆtazilah and the Ĥuruufiyyah is that the latter called this “emergent speech brought into existence by Aļļaah according to His specification” an “uncreated attribute,” whereas the Muˆtazilah called this very same “emergent speech brought into existence by Aļļaah according to His specification” a “created non-attribute.” They only differ about what to call it, and that is not a real difference, and thus not what the Salaf were concerned about when they refuted the Muˆtazilah.

What the Salaf understood from “create”

The Salaf spoke Arabic. In other words, by looking up the definition of create, we can tell what the Salaf meant when they said, “the Qur’aan is not created.” Did they mean that it is an event and was brought into existence, but not created, as the Ĥuruufiyyah claim? Or did they mean that the Qur’aan is not brought into existence, because it is not an event, thus has no need for a creator?

The authoritative imam of Arabic linguistics Ibn Faaris [2] said in Maqaayiisu-l-Lugħah: “(The root) kħ-l-q has two basic meanings (that all its derived words, such as kħalaqa – to create – come from) one of them is to specify , the other is
smoothness[3] .” [4]

The linguists Ibn Manţħuur [5] in Lisaanu-l-ˆArab [6] , and Az-Zabiidiyy [7] in Taaju-l-ˆAruus [8] narrate from the imaam of Arabic, Al-‘Azhariyy: “Among the attributes of Aļļaah is “the Creator” (Al-Kħaaliq and Al-Kħallaaq), and He is the one that brought everything into existence after it being non-existent, and the root meaning of the word kħalq is specifying, so He is in the sense of what gets existence from Him the one that specified it , and in the sense of
bringing into existence according to the specification, the one that created it[9] .”

In the Arabic language then, to create is to bring into existence according to specification. Clearly then, there is no difference between saying “created” or “event,” because whatever did not exist must be brought into existence to become and event. Otherwise it would remain non-existent. The Ĥuruufiyyah want to convince us that Aļļaah brings sounds into existence in Himself and then lets them out. They want to convince us that bringing something into existence with the specification of “in the world” is called “created”, while specifying in “the the Creator for this,” is called “event.” But there is no difference here except the specification, and creating is to bring into existence according to specification in Arabic, so this is a baseless claim.

Being an event and being created is the same

The Ĥuruufiyyah insist that Aļļaah’s attribute of Kalaam/Speech is sounds and letters, and has a beginning, but is not created. They have the curious idea that not all events are created. This has no basis in the Arabic language or the terminology of the Salaf; they saw no difference between saying “event” and “created.” In this regard, Al-Bayhaqiyy [rahimahullah] narrated in Al-Asmaa’ Wa-ş-Şifaat that Wakiiˆ said: “The Qur’aan (i.e. what the Arabic words and letters refer to) is the Speech/ Kalaam of Aļļaah (i.e. His eternal attribute), and it is not created. So the one that says it is created has disbelieved in Aļļaah.” In another narration he said, “The one that says the Qur’aan is created has said it has a beginning, and the one that says it has a beginning has blasphemed
[10] .” The same was narrated by Adħ-Dħahabiyy [rahimahullah] [11][12] .

For those who do not know who Wakiiˆ is, it was stated by Adħ-Dħahabiyy [rahimahullah] in Siyar ‘Aˆlaam An-Nubalaa’: “The Imaam, the Ĥaafiţħ, the Muĥadditħ of ˆIraaq, …. He was born in 129 after the Hijrah (9/140-141).” He said that Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal [rahimahullah] used to glorify Wakiiˆ and say about him, “I have never met anyone more aware in his knowledge than Wakiiˆ, or anyone that has memorized more [13] (9/144).” In short, Wakiiˆ is one of the greatest ĥadiitħ masters in history and here we find him making takfiir for those who say that the the Qur’aan (i.e. the eternal attribute of Aļļaah that the book refers to) is an event, but not created.

The same statement was also made by Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal. Adħ-Dħahabiyy and others [rahimahumullah] narrated that he said: “The one who says that the Qur’aan is something with a beginning is a kaafir [14] . [15] ”

Another famous scholar of the Salaf generation, Abuu Jaˆfar Aţ-Ţabariyy said: “The one that objects to what we have stated, it is said to him: Tell us about the speech that you described as created, and that the Beginninglessly Eternal speaks with, did He create it, as it is created according to you, in Himself, or in something else, or is it something existing in itself? If he says, ”in Himself” then this necessitates that He would be something that created things exist in and this is blasphemy according to everybody[16] .[17] ”

Asħ-Sħawkaaniyy affirms that the Salaf made takfiir for the one who says “the Qur’aan is an event.” He says in his book Fatĥu-l-Qadiir, under the explanation for Al-‘Anbiyaa’, 2: “The imaams of the Sunnis were right in their forbiddance in answering the call to the saying ‘the Qur’aan is created’ or ‘emergent’.” Notice how he does not see a difference between created and emergent, then he said, “Aļļaah protected the nation of His prophet’s followers from a bad innovation through them. They went beyond that, however, and said that the Qur’aan is eternal and did not stop at that, but said that the one who says it is emergent is a kaafir [18] …. [19] ” This means that the Ĥuruufiyyah are kuffaar in the eyes of the Salaf.

There is no difference then, between saying “event” and “created.” Both words mean “brought into existence,” and the Salaf were against saying “the Qur’aan is an event” just as much as they were against saying that it is created. Accordingly, any Arabic speech is created, because it did not exist and then existed, which makes it an event and in need of a creator to bring it into existence.

As for the claim that Al-Bukħaariyy [rahimahullah] called the Qur’aan an event, this is not the case. Al-Bukħaariyy [rahimahullah] was speaking of the revelation of the Qur’aan when he commented on the saying of Aļļaah:

ﻣَﺎ ﻳَﺄْﺗِﻴﻬِﻢْ ﻣِﻦْ ﺫِﻛْﺮٍ ﻣِﻦْ ﺭَﺑِّﻬِﻢْ ﻣُﺤْﺪَﺙٍ ﺇِﻻَّ ﺍﺳْﺘَﻤَﻌُﻮﻩُ ﻭَﻫُﻢْ ﻳَﻠْﻌَﺒُﻮﻥَ ‏[ ﺍﻷﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ : 2 ]

Meaning: “Whenever new remembrance from their Lord comes to them, they listen to it mockingly.”

Isĥaaq ibn Raawayh was asked about this Aayah, he said: “Eternally of Aļļaah, new to Earth.” Al-ˆAsqalaaniyy commented: “this is the precedent of what Al-Bukħaariyy said [20] .” This must clearly be the case, lest Al-Bukħaariyy [rahimahullah] be a non-Muslim deviant in the view of the likes of Wakiiˆ and Aĥmad, as discussed above.

Abuu Ĥaniifah [rahimahullah] on the meaning of “the Qur’aan is not created.”

Abuu Ĥaniifah [rahmatullah alayh], who is definitely among the Salaf, explains that the meaning of “the Qur’aan is not created” is that Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of speech is not created.

In his book Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, he said:

“The Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah (Taˆaalaa), written on pages (muşĥafs), preserved in hearts, recited on tongues, and revealed to the Prophet r. Our utterance of the Qur’aan is created, and our recitation of the Qur’aan is created, but the Qur’aan is not created [21] .” [22] .

He means by “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah” that the word “Qur’aan” refers to Aļļaah’s eternal speech that is not letters (thus not language or sounds – as letters are symbols that represent sounds.) I.e. there is no difference between saying “Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech” and “the Qur’aan;” they are synonyms. He makes this clear when he says a few paragraphs later:

“Aļļaah speaks, but not like our speech; we speak by means of instruments (vocal cords, limbs, etc.) and letters, but Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters. Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created[23] .” [24] .

In conclusion, Abuu Ĥaniifah [rahimahullah] says, “the Qur’aan is the Speech of Aļļaah,” and “Aļļaah speaks without instruments or letters,” then he emphasizes this further by saying, “Letters are a creation, and Aļļaah’s Speech is not created.”

The judgment on saying that the Qur’aan is created.

The word Qur’aan is a name for Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech, as has been clarified earlier. It can also, however, refer to the Arabic book of the Qur’aan – the revealed letters – like when someone says, “please give me that Qur’aan on the shelf”. When the Salaf said, “the Qur’aan is not created,” they obviously meant the first meaning, not the second.

But what about if someone said, “the Qur’aan is created,” intending the book? The Salaf said that saying that the Qur’aan is created with this sense (i.e intending yhe book) in mind – the revealed letters of the book – is bidˆah, an ugly innovation. They considered it ugly because it may mislead someone to think that Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech is created. Ibn ˆAabidiin in his Ĥaasħiyah says, “The bottom line is that what is not created is the Qur’aan in the sense of Aļļaah’s Speech, that is, the (eternal) attribute that is affirmed to His Self, not the sense of revealed letters. It is not said that the Qur’aan is created, however, so that no one will think that the first meaning is meant [25] . [26] ”

Note however, that some later scholars allowed this expression for teaching purposes, because they found it necessary to use this expression to explain that Aļļaah’s eternal speech is not language or letters. In fact, today it is probably the case that most people understand from the word Qur’aan the revealed letters only, and not the attribute of Aļļaah. For this they allowed the expression “the Qur’aan is created” for teaching purposes, so that no one would think that the letters in the book are uncreated.

The late Asħˆariyys’ permission of saying “the Qur’aan is created”

As for when some of the later Asħˆariyys spoke of the permissibility of saying “the Qur’aan is created,” they were referring to the Arabic expression, not Aļļaah’s Speech. They said that this statement may be used in a classroom setting. The reason is because over time the word Qur’aan is mainly understood as referring to the expression of Aļļaah’s eternal Speech in Arabic words and letters.

They were afraid that some people would understand from the expression, “the Qur’aan is not created,” that the Arabic expression is not created, which is far more dangerous than saying “the Qur’aan is created,” if one means the Arabic expression (not Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech). After all, the latter meaning is sound, because Arabic expressions have a beginning and cannot be eternal, and if they are not eternal, then they must have been specified and brought into existence by Aļļaah. In other words, they must have been created. The only bad side of this would be that this expression is a bidˆah in religion, so they restricted it to a classroom purposes, because this is where the setting of religious necessity applies. That is, the necessity of preventing the kufr belief that Aļļaah speaks in letters and sounds, which is far more important than avoiding a dubious innovation.

The principle of those who claim that letters may not be created, and their status in FakħrudDiin Ar-Raaziyy’s [rahimahullah] view

An Arabic utterance is a creation exactly because it is an event. It has to be, since Arabic itself is created, so one can only wonder why some would want to say that, “not every event is created.” The answer is that they believe that Aļļaah is a physical entity located above the ˆArsħ. According to this philosophy, when something is created outside of that body, it is called creation, and when it is created inside that body, it is not a creation. That is why they consider the saying “the Qur’aan is created,” as a deviant statement, because to them this means that the Arabic letters and sounds written in the muşĥaf were not first created inside the physical entity, or idol, that they worship, and invalidly call “Aļļaah.” In other words, “He does not resemble anything,” means to them, in the context of the attribute of Speech, “His speech has a different location.” Based on this concept of physical location, you can understand a lot about what they mean when they are talking about Aļļaah’s attributes.

FakħrudDiin Ar-Raaziyy said, “Proofs tell us that the who says that God is a body is a disbeliever in God (who is greatly above and clear of flaws). The reason is that the God of the World exists, and He is not a body, or stationed in a body. So if the one who believes that God is a body denies this non-bodily existence, then he has disbelieved in God Himself. This means that the disagreement between the one that believes that God is a body, and the monotheist (i.e. in the Islamic sense, namely that God does not have a partner, part or a like in His self of attributes), is not based on a disagreement regarding attributes, but regarding the self (i.e. the identity of the one attributed with godhood.) It is sound to say then, that the one who believes that God is a body does not believe in Allah….
….As for the Ĥuluuliyyah (those who believe that Allah settles in created things, such as the sky or a human body) and Ĥuruufiyyah (those who believe that Allah’s attribute of Kalaam/Speech consists of letters and sounds) sects, we say that they are unequivocally disbelievers. This is because Allah declared the Christians blasphemers for believing that Allah’s speech entered into Jesus, whereas the Ĥuruufiyyah believe that it settles in the tongue of all those who recite Qur’aan, and in all physical things that the Qur’aan was written on. Accordingly, if the belief in its settlement in one single body (Jesus) is blasphemy, then it is even more blasphemous to believe that it settles in all shapes and bodies
[27] .” [28] .

What is the response if someone asked, “who said alif laam miim?”?
The answer is therefore that Aļļaah said alif-laam-miim, without His speech being words, letters or language. The letters in the muşĥaf tell us what He said eternally. The expression “alif-laam-miim” is not different than other words or letters in the muşĥaf in this regard. They are letters that refer to the meaning of what Aļļaah said eternally without letters of sounds.

Abuu Faraj Ibn Al-Jawziyy[29] said in his commentary on the Qur’aan Zaadu-l-Masiir:

“The commentators on the Qur’aan have specified 5 different sayings regarding alif-laam-miim: One of them is that it is one of the aayahs that are ambiguous in meaning, and only Aļļaah knows its meaning, as has been explained earlier. The second is that it means, “I, Aļļaah, know”. This was narrated by Abuu Ađ-Đuĥaa from Ibn ˆAbbaas, and this is also the saying of Ibn Masˆuud and Saˆiid ibn Jubayr. The third is that it is an oath, this was narrated by Abuu Şaaliĥ from Ibn ˆAbbaas and Kħaalid Al-Ĥadħdħaa’ from ˆIkrimah. The fourth is that they are letters of names, and there are two sayings about that, the first is that Alif refers to Aļļaah, the laam to Jibriil and miim refers to Muĥammad. This was stated by Ibn ˆAbbaas…. The second (saying regarding names) is that the Alif refers to Aļļaah, the laam to Laţiif and miim refers to “Majiid” (these are all names of Aļļaah,) and this was stated by Abuu ˆaaliyah. The fifth is that it is a name of the Qur’aan, as stated by Mujaahid, Asħ-Sħaˆbiyy, Qataadah and Ibn Jurayj [32] . ” [31] ”

Some will insist further, and say, “who’s utterance is alif laam miim?” The answer is that the one that utter an utterance is its utterer, because it is a matter of sound. People differ in their utterance of the Qur’aan, so one person’s utterance is different from another’s, for example. The best is the utterance of Jibriil. As for the words, the words are Aļļaah’s. Not in the sense that He uttered them, but in the sense that no one authored them, and that it is an expression of His eternal Speech, which is not letters, sounds or sequence.

It is obvious that the letter Alif is created, because it is an alphabetic symbol referring to the sound “LLL…” All alphabetic letters are written symbols that refer to sounds that we make with our voices.

It is impossible that the eternal speech of Aļļaah should be letters, because His speech is not sound. His speech is not sound because it is eternal, and therefore does not have a beginning. Wakiiˆ said : “The one that says the Qur’aan is created has said it is and event, and the one that says it is an event has blasphemed.”

What is the difference between the Qur’aan and Ĥadiitħ Qudsiyy, Prophetic Ĥadiitħ?

The ĥadiitħ qudsiyy is the Prophet’s [sallallaahu alaihi wasallam] words, but he says “Aļļaah says…” Moreover, the ĥadiitħ qudsiyy has no challenge of inimitable eloquence. The prophet [sallallaahu alaihi wasallam] spoke in his own words in ĥadiitħs. All of these texts are holy, because they are all revealed from Aļļaah. All of them are rewardable in reciting and studying with the correct intention. This is because Aļļaah has willed it to be so. We get credit and blessings for what Aļļaah has willed for us to get it for. No act or thing causes one to gain credit, except by the will of Aļļaah.

Since the Qur’aan consists of revealed words, they cannot be changed, or altered. This is to preserve the revelation, and the inimitability of the book, which is a miracle and a lasting proof of the prophethood of Aļļaah’s messenger.

The eloquence of the Qur’aan is inimitable because Aļļaah has willed it. No one can do against His will, not in this, and not in anything else.

It is impossible that Aļļaah should lie
Al-Aamidiyy [33] states in ‘Abkaar Al-‘Afkaar: “I do not know of any disagreement among those who say that Aļļaah is attributed with Kalaam/ Speech, that lies are impossible in His Speech, whether it be the eternal attribute of His Self (as the Sunnis say), or the one (as the Muˆtazilah and Anthropomorphists believe) that is sounds and letters SayfudDiin Al-Aamidiy, Abkaar Al-Afkaar , 2nd ed. (Kairo, Egypt: Maţbaˆah Daar Al-Kutub Wa-l-Watħaa’iq Al-Qawmiyyah, 1423), 2/83..

As-Sanuusiyy in his book ˆUmdatu ‘Ahli-t-Tawfiiq says, “Are miracles as proof of the truthfulness of the Messengers of Aļļaah proofs in the mind’s eye, or by convention, or by normal necessity according to the relevant indications ? There are different sayings. According to the first two (the mind’s eye and convention), it is impossible for a liar to have a miracle, because for the first it would lead to contradicting the sound mind, and for the second it would lead to saying that there is a flaw in what Aļļaah has informed, jalla wa ˆalaa, because to affirm the truthfulness of a lie is to lie, and it is impossible that Aļļaah should lie, since His Speech agrees with His Knowledge….” “Moreover, if He was attributed with lying, and His attributes are all eternal, then it would be impossible for Him to be attributed with being truthful (in His Speech,) while it is correct that He is attributed with it, since He must be attributed with Knowledge.
This would mean that what is correct would become impossible. [34] ” Then he points out that the first two sayings are about the same[35] . In explaining the details of all this he mentions the proofs for why it is impossible that Aļļaah could lie he says, “Third, it has been established that Aļļaah is attributed with complete perfection, and truthfulness is an attribute of complete perfection which’s opposite is a flaw, and it is impossible that Aļļaah should be attributed with a flaw, so He must be truthful. [36] ”

The third perspective mentioned by As-Sanuusiyy states that miracles are proof of truthfulness according to what is normally necessarily true, i.e. that it would be normally impossible for someone with a miracle to tell a lie. This is because the rule throughout history is that someone with a miracle, with all of its requisite conditions intact, never happened to a liar. Regarding this As-Sanuusiyy states, “and our saying that lying is possible in the mind’s eye alone, for someone telling the truth, does not put a doubt in his truthfulness once we are sure he is telling the truth. This is because the possibility in the mind’s eye only means that if it happened instead of being truthful, then that would not lead to an impossibility in the mind’s eye. It does not mean that it is possible that Aļļaah could lie. [37] ” In other words, it is not impossible in the mind’s eye, because it does not lead to saying that Aļļaah could lie, as As-Sanuusiyy showed with proofs and refuted any objections prior.

Then he goes on to explain the third perspective on the proof of truthfulness in miracles, “It happens a lot that we know something to be absolutely and necessarily true, even though we say that its opposite is possible in the mind’s eye, such as our knowledge of our own existence. No sound minded person doubts it, even though we say that if we had continued to not exist at all, then this would not have been impossible in the mind’s eye. It (the possibility of our non-existence in the mind’s eye) does not mean that we could be non-existent while being existent.
[38] ” More specifically, “The sign of the truthfulness of the Prophet (şalla-ļļaahu ˆalayhi wa sallam) is the occurrence of certain knowledge in us due to miracles, so once this certitude occurs, there is no possibility of lying any longer.
[39] ”

What all this means is that Aļļaah could have created a world full of miracles happening to liars and truthful people alike, so the proof of truthfulness in a miracle is in the fact that they occur only in the case of truthfulness, not that miracles could not have been for anybody else in the mind’s eye. It may be said that all these three perspectives on miracles are really complementary, because the reason why a miracle is a sign of truthfulness by convention or by reason is that it only occurs to those truthful in the claim of prophethood, and this way we know that this is the convention for knowing that someone is a prophet, and that if a miracle happens to someone claiming prophethood, then Aļļaah’s creating this miracle is a reference to Aļļaah’s eternal Speech by which we know that He is telling us that his slave is truthful in his claim of prophethood. That is, the miracle, which is an extraordinary event coupled with the claim of prophethood, and not possible for opponents to imitate, is a conventional sign from Aļļaah which tells us that He affirms that claim, just as that Arabic letters and words of the book of the Qur’aan tell us what Aļļaah says.

Asħ-Sħahrastaaniyy says, “So the preponderator for truthfulness (in the claim of prophethood) is the group of circumstances which occurs by the gathering of many elements, such as the extraordinary event coupled with the claim of prophethood, and the non-existence of any effective challenge to it from an opponent. All these factors as a group tell us that the claimer is truthful, and take the place of a saying as an affirmation of his truthfulness . [40] ”

So As-Sanuusiyy says that lying is impossible for Aļļaah in the mind’s eye, unlike some people claim. In fact, he considers it a premise of all the three perspective on miracles as a proof of truthfulness. For the record, it is the second perspective that As-Sanuusiyy mentions in his book “Aş-Sugħraa,” and “Al-Wusţaa.” In the explanation of Aş-Şugħraa, he says, “It is impossible that Aļļaah could lie, because His Speech/Kalaam must agree with His Knowledge, and speech in agreement with knowledge cannot by but truthful. [41] ”



[1] Ĥuruufiyyah, or “those pertaining to letters” is a name for any person that believes Aļļaah’s eternal Speech is letters and sounds.

[2] Ibn Faaris (329-395 AH/ 941-1004 AD) Aĥmad ibn Faaris ibn Zakariyyaa, Al-Qazwiiniyy, Ar-Raaziyy, Abu-l-Ĥusayn is among the imams of language and literature. Several authors of great eloquence studied from him. He is originally from Qazwiin, but moved to Ar-Rayy and died there. Among his works are the dictionaries Maqaayiisu-l-Lugħah and Al-Mujmal. (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 1/193).

[3] ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻻﺑﻦ ﻓﺎﺭﺱ – ‏( 2 / 213 ‏) : ‏( ﺧﻠﻖ ‏) ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻑ ﺃﺻﻼﻥ : ﺃﺣﺪﻫﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ، ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣَﻼﺳَﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ .

[4] Ibn Zakariyyaa ibn Faaris and ˆAbdusSalaam Haaruun,
Maqaayiisu-l-Lugħah (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Fikr), 2/213.

[5] Ibn Manţħuur (630-711 AH/ 1232-1311 AD) Muĥammad ibn Makram ibn ˆaliyy, Abu-l-Fađl, JamaaludDiin, Al-Anşaariyy, Ar-Ruwayfiˆiyy, Al-‘Ifriiqiyy, the author of the famous, encyclopedic dictionary Lisaanu-l-ˆArab, was an imam of linguistics. He was born in Tripoli in today’s Libya, and was appointed judge there for some time. He authored around 500 books, many of them summaries of books in literature. (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 7/108).

[6] Ibn Maţħuur Al-‘Ifriiqiyy, Lisaanu-l-ˆArab (Beirut, Lebanon: Daar Şaadir), 10/85.

[7] Murtađaa Az-Zabiidiyy (1145-1205 AH/ 1732-1790 AD) Muĥammad ibn Muĥammad ibn Muĥammad ibn ˆAbdirRazzaaq, Al-Ĥusayniyy, Az-Zabiidiyy, Abu-l-Fayđ, known as Murtađaa, was a great scholar of language, ĥadiitħ, narrator biography, and genealogy. He was also a great author. His family origin is from Iraq, but he was born in India, grew up in Yemen, and settled and died in Egypt. He became very famous during his lifetime, to the extent that kings wrote him and sent him gifts. Among his most famous works are Taaju-l-ˆAruus, his commentary on the renowned dictionary Al-Qaamuus, and Itĥaafu-s-Saadati-l-Muttaqiin, his commentary in Al-Għazaaliyy’s ‘Iĥyaa’ ˆuluumi-d-Diin. (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 7/70).

[8] Murtađaa Az-Zabiidiyy, Taaju-l-ˆAruus min Jawaahiri-l-Qaamuus (Daar Al-Hidaayah), 25/251.

[9] ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ – ‏( 10 / 85 ‏) : ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻷَﺯﻫﺮﻱ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻼَّﻕ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺠﻮﺯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻷَﻟﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻟﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ ﻭﺟﻞ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃَﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻷَﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃَﻥ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻭﺃَﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺑﺎﻋْﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﺟُﻮﺩُﻫﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻟﻺِﻳﺠﺎﺩِ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭَﻓْﻖِ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ . ﺗﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻭﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻣﻮﺱ – ‏( 25 / 251 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺎﻝَ ﺍﻷﺯْﻫَﺮِﻱ : ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟّﺬِﻱ ﺃﻭْﺟَﺪَ ﺍﻷﺷْﻴﺎﺀَ ﺟَﻤِﻴﻌَﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪَ ﺃَﻥْ ﻟَﻢْ ﺗَﻜُﻦْ ﻣَﻮْﺟُﻮﺩَﺓً ، ﻭﺃﺻْﻞُ ﺍﻟﺨَﻠْﻖِ : ﺍﻟﺘَّﻘْﺪِﻳﺮ ، ﻓﻬُﻮَ ﺑﺎﻋْﺘِﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻣِﻨْﻪُ ﻭﺟﻮﺩُﻫﺎ ﻣُﻘَﺪِّﺭٌ ، ﻭﺑﺎﻻﻋْﺘِﺒﺎﺭِ ﻟﻺِﻳﺠﺎﺩِ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭَﻓْﻖِ ﺍﻟﺘﻘْﺪِﻳﺮِ ﺧﺎﻟِﻖٌ .

[10] Abu Bakr Al-Bayhqiyy (458 AH), Al-Asmaa’ Wa-ş-Şifaat li-l-Bayhaqiyy , 1st ed. (Jedda, Saudi Arabia: Maktabah Al-Sawaadiyy), 1/608-609.

[11] SħamsudDiin Adħ-Dħahabiyy, Siyar ‘Aˆlaam An-Nubalaa’ (Beirut, Lebanon: Mu’assasatu-r-Risaalah, 1413), 9/166.

[12] ﺍﻷﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺒﻴﻬﻘﻲ – ‏( ﺝ 1 / ﺹ 609-608 ‏) -547 ﻭﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ ، ﻭﺃﺑﻮ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ، ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻏﺎﻧﻲ ، ﺣَﺪَّﺛَﻨَﺎ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻭﻛﻴﻌﺎ ، ﻳﻘﻮﻝ : ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻤﺨﻠﻮﻕ ، ﻓﻤﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻭﺯﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺎﻋﻲ ، ﻋﻦ ﻭﻛﻴﻊ ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ، ﻭﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﻔﺮ
ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( ﺝ 9 / ﺹ 166 ‏) : ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺑﻮ ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺎﻋﻲ : ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﻭﻛﻴﻌﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ : ﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ، ﻭﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﻔﺮ .
[13] ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( ﺝ 9 / ﺹ 141-140 ‏) : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ * ‏( ﻉ ‏) ﺍﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺮﺍﺡ، ﺑﻦ ﻣﻠﻴﺢ، ﺑﻦ ﻋﺪﻱ، ﺑﻦ ﻓﺮﺱ، ﺑﻦ ﺟﻤﺠﻤﺔ، ﺑﻦ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ، ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺭﺙ، ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻭ، ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﻴﺪ، ﺑﻦ ﺭﺅﺍﺱ، ﺍﻻﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻓﻆ، ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ، ﺃﺑﻮ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺍﺳﻲ، ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻓﻲ، ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻻﻋﻼﻡ . ﻭﻟﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻊ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﺌﺔ، ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ . ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﻫﺎﺭﻭﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺣﺎﺗﻢ : ﻭﻟﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ . ﻭﺍﺷﺘﻐﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺮ . 4 ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( ﺝ 9 / ﺹ 144 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ : ﻣﺎ ﺭﺃﻳﺖ ﺃﺣﺪﺍ ﺃﻭﻋﻰ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺃﺣﻔﻆ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻛﻴﻊ . ﻗﻠﺖ : ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﻳﻌﻈﻢ ﻭﻛﻴﻌﺎ ﻭﻳﻔﺨﻤﻪ . ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻴﺼﻲ : ﺳﺄﻟﺖ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ ﺃﺣﺐ ﺇﻟﻴﻚ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ؟ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ، ﻗﻠﺖ : ﻛﻴﻒ ﻓﻀﻠﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ، ﻭﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﻭﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻔﻆ ﻭﺍﻻﺗﻘﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻭﻛﻴﻊ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺎ ﻟﺤﻔﺺ ﺑﻦ ﻏﻴﺎﺙ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ، ﻫﺠﺮﻩ، ﻭﺇﻥ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺎ ﻟﻤﻌﺎﺫ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﺫ، ﻓﻠﻤﺎ ﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﺀ، ﻟﻢ ﻳﻬﺠﺮﻩ ﻳﺤﻴﻰ
[14] ﺳﻴﺮ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ – ‏( 11 / 288 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺇﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻣﺬﻱ : ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ، ﻳﻘﻮﻝ : ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ : ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ، ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺎﻓﺮ .

[15] Ibid., 11/288.

[16] ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺼﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ – ‏( ﺹ ٢٠٢ ‏) : ﻣﻦ ﺃﺑﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻗﻴﻞ ﻟﻪ : ﺃﺧﺒﺮﻧﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺻﻔﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ، ﺃﺧﻠﻘﻪ – ﺇﺫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻙ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ، ﺃﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ، ﺃﻡ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ؟ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺯﻋﻢ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ، ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻭﺟﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﺤﻼ ﻟﻠﺨﻠﻖ، ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻛﻔﺮ .

[17] Abu Jaˆfar Aţ-Ţabariyy, At-Tabşiir fii Maˆaalim Ad-Diin, 1st ed. (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Daar Al-ˆAaşimah, 1416), 202.

[18] ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺮ ـ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﻄﺒﻮﻉ – ‏( 3 / 397 ‏) : “ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻬﻢ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ” ﻣﻦ ﻻﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻝ ﺑﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﺤﺪﺛﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺃﺟﻴﺐ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻧﺰﺍﻉ ﻓﻰ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻣﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﻓﺎﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﺗﻨﺰﻳﻠﻪ ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﺍﻉ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺃﻋﻨﻲ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺛﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺑﺘﻠﻰ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻀﻞ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺄﻣﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﺼﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﺛﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﺮﻯ ﻟﻺﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺒﺲ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻞ ﻭﺿﺮﺏ ﺑﺴﺒﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻖ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺨﺰﺍﻋﻲ ﻭﺻﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﺘﻨﺔ ﻋﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﻃﺎﻟﻊ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺣﻨﺒﻞ ﻓﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﻟﻤﺆﺭﺥ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺃﺋﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺑﺎﻣﺘﻨﺎﻋﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺨﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺛﻪ ﻭﺣﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻬﻢ ﺃﻣﺔ ﻧﺒﻴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﺪﺍﻉ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺭﺣﻤﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺟﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻡ ﺑﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻛﻔﺮﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺪﻭﺙ ﺑﻞ ﺟﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻔﻈﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺑﻞ ﺟﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﻒ ﻭﻟﻴﺘﻬﻢ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺠﺎﻭﺯﻭﺍ ﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﻮﺏ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻨﺔ ﻭﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻓﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺷﺊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﻻ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺄﺫﻳﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻠﻰ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻠﻮﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻃﻮﺍﺋﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻪ

[19] Muĥammad ibn ˆAliyy Asħ-Sħawkaaniyy, Fatĥu-l-Qadiir (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Fikr), 3/397.

[20] ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﻱ – ﺍﺑﻦ ﺣﺠﺮ – ‏( 13 / 497 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻬﺮﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻭﻕ ﺑﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺳﺄﻟﺖ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ ﺑﻦ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻨﻈﻠﻲ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺭﺍﻫﻮﻳﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﺗﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻬﻢ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻗﺪﻳﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﺓ ﻣﺤﺪﺙ
ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺨﺎﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ

[21] ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ‏( ﺹ . 5 ‏) : ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺣﻒ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ , ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻮﺏ ﻣﺤﻔﻮﻅ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻟﺴﻦ ﻣﻘﺮﻭﺀ , ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻣﻨﺰّﻝ , ﻭﻟﻔﻈﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺋﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ .

[22] Abuu Ĥaniifah (80-150 AH/ 699-767), Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar , vol. 1 (Ĥaydar Aabaad, India: Majlis Daa’iratu-l-Maˆaarifi-n-Niţħaamiyyah, 1342), 5.

[23] ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻪ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ‏( ﺹ . 6 ‏) : ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻻ ﻛﻜﻼﻣﻨﺎ ﻭﻧﺤﻦ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻵﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻼ ﺁﻟﺔ ﻭﻻﺣﺮﻭﻑ . ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻗﺔ ﻭﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ .

[24] Ibid., 1:6.

[25] ﺣﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎﺭ – ‏( 4 / 14 ‏) : ﻭﺣﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻻ ﺑﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺰﻟﺔ، ﻏﻴﺮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﻟﺌﻼ ﻳﺘﻮﻫﻢ ﺃﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ .

[26] Muĥammad-Amiin Ibn ˆAabidiin, Ĥaasħiyatu Raddi-l-Muĥtaar (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Fikr, 1415), 4/14.

[27] ﻣﻔﺎﺗﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺐ ‏( 16 / 24 ‏) : ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺩﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻨﻜﺮ ﻟﻺﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺠﺴﻢ ﻭﻻ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺴﻢ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﻧﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻧﻜﺮ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﺎﻟﺨﻼﻑ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻓﺼﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺴﻢ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﻜﻴﺘﻤﻮﻫﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﻓﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺇﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺮﻭﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻜﻔﺮﻫﻢ ﻗﻄﻌﺎً ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻛﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﺎﺭﻯ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪﻭﺍ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ ﻭﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪﻭﺍ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻳﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻓﻸﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻠﻮﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻖ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﻣﻮﺟﺒﺎً ﻟﻠﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻜﻔﻴﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻭﻟﻰ
[28] FakħrudDiin Al-Raaziy, Mafaatiiĥ Al-Għayb , 1st ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 1421), V. 16/ P. 24.

[29] Abu-l-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawziyy (508-597 AH/ 1114-1201 AD), ˆAbdurRaĥmaan ibn ˆAliyy ibn Muĥammad Al-Jawziyy Al-Qurasħiyy, Al-Bagħdaadiyy was probably the greatest scholar of history and ĥadiitħ of his time. He was born and died in Bagħdaad. He wrote some 300 books (Al-‘Aˆlaam, 3/316).

[30] ﺯﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺮ – ‏( 1 / 22 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺁﻟﻢ ﺑﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻻ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ ﻭ ﺟﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺑﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺬﺍﺀ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻜﺮﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺣﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺛﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﻮﻻﻥ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻓﺎﻥ ﻗﻴﻞ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺣﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻛﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺧﺮ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﻓﺎﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻭﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﺍﻧﺨﺘﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺰﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﺮﻭﻓﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻴﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻲ ﻭﻗﺘﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺞ .

[31] Abu-l-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawziyy (508-597 AH/ 1114-1201 AD), Zaadu-l-Masiir , 3rd ed. (Beirut, Lebanon: Al-Maktab Al-Islamiyy, 1404), 1/22.

[32] ﺯﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺮ – ‏( 1 / 22 ‏) : ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺴﺮﻭﻥ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺁﻟﻢ ﺑﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻻ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﺰ ﻭ ﺟﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺃﻋﻠﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺑﻪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﺴﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﺤﺬﺍﺀ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻜﺮﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺣﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺛﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﻮﻻﻥ ﺃﺣﺪﻫﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﻓﺎﻥ ﻗﻴﻞ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺣﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻛﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺧﺮ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﻓﺎﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻭﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﺍﻧﺨﺘﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺰﻳﻞ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﻤﻪ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﺮﻭﻓﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻗﺮﺃﺀ ﻓﺘﻨﻮﻭﻝ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻴﺪ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻗﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺠﺎﻫﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻲ ﻭﻗﺘﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺟﺮﻳﺞ .

[33] ﺍﻷﻋﻼﻡ ﻟﻠﺰﺭﻛﻠﻲ – ‏( 4 / 332 ‏) ﺳﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻵﻣﺪﻱ ‏( 551 – 631 ﻫـ = 1156 – 1233 ﻡ ‏) ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺎﻟﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻠﺒﻲ، ﺃﺑﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ، ﺳﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻵﻣﺪﻱ : ﺃﺻﻮﻟﻲ، ﺑﺎﺣﺚ . ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺁﻣﺪ ‏( ﺩﻳﺎﺭ ﺑﻜﺮ ‏) ﻭﻟﺪ ﺑﻬﺎ، ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺎﻡ . ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ، ﻓﺪﺭﺱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺷﺘﻬﺮ . ﻭﺣﺴﺪﻩ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﻌﺼﺒﻮﺍ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺷﺘﻬﺮ . ﻭﺣﺴﺪﻩ ﻳﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﻬﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﻌﺼﺒﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﻧﺴﺒﻮﻩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻄﻴﻞ ﻭﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ، ﻓﺨﺮﺝ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﻔﻴﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ” ﺣﻤﺎﺓ ” ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ” ﺩﻣﺸﻖ ” ﻓﺘﻮﻓﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ . ﻟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺼﻨﻔﺎ، ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ” ﺍﻻﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻻﺣﻜﺎﻡ – ﻁ ” ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ، ﻭﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮﻩ ” ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻝ – ﻁ ” ﻭ ” ﺃﺑﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﻓﻜﺎﺭ – ﺥ ” ﻓﻲ ﻃﻮﺑﻘﺒﻮ، ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻨﻪ، ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ، ﻭ ” ﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻻﻟﺒﺎﺏ ” ﻭ ” ﺩﻗﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺋﻖ ” ﻭ ” ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﻷﻋﻼﻡ ﻟﻠﺰﺭﻛﻠﻲ – ‏( 4 / 332 ‏) ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻜﻠﻤﻴﻦ – ﺥ ” ﻛﺮﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ، ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺪﻣﺸﻖ ‏( 1 ).
SayfudDiin Al-Aamidiyy (551-631 AH/ 11561233 AD) ˆaliyy ibn Muĥammad ibn Saalim At-Tagħlabiyy was a scholar of belief and fiqh methodology and an authenticator from Aamid in today’s northern Kurdistan. He was born there, but studied in Bagħdaad and Syria. Then he moved to Cairo, where he became famous and became subject to much envy, to the extent he had to leave and go to Syria where he eventually died and is buried. Az-Zirikliyy, Al-‘Aˆlaam (2002) (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar El-Ilm Lil-Malayeen, 1423), 4/332.

[34] Muĥammad ibn Yuusuf As-Sanuusiyy (896 AH), Sħarĥu-l-Muqaddimaat , 1st ed. (Maktabatu-l-Maˆaarif, 1420), 245.

[35] Ibid., 247.

[36] Ibid., 248.

[37] Ibid., 250.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ – ‏( ﺝ 1 / ﺹ 236 ‏) : ﻓﺈﺫﺍً ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﺢ ﻟﻠﺼﺪﻕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺃﻣﻮﺭ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﻕ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻘﺮﻭﻧﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻋﻮﻯ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻼﻣﺘﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻓﺎﻧﺘﻬﻀﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺑﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻋﻲ ﻧﺎﺯﻟﺔ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺃﻋﻨﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻝ .

[41]Muĥammad ibn Yuusuf As-Sanuusiyy, Ĥaasħiyatu-d-Dusuuqiyy ˆalaa Ummi-l-Baraahiin wa Sħarĥuhaa (Beirut, Lebanon: Al-Maktabah Al-ˆAşriyyah, 1426), 280.

Source: Sunnianswers.wordpress.com

The Fall of the Murabitun, Muwahiddun and The Christian Crusade Upon Garnata

However, in a short span of less than a hundred years, the
Murabitun had been wrestled from power both in the Maghrib and Andalus by Muwahhidun [1] who accused the Murabitun of becoming lax in their application of the
Shariah while claiming they had come to purify the region of its Bida’ . In fact by 1147, victory was almost complete for the Muwahhidun , but that certainly stopped the tempo of raids into Muslim territory by Christian forces. As it became clearer to later observers, each successive wave of internal ‘regime change’ undertaken, had resulted in lesser territory in Muslim possession as compared to the regime before. In other words, the internal tumult led only to more land falling into the hands of the Christians. If we look at the map on the next page, (The Spanish mangled the Arabic word ‘Al Muwahiddun’ into Almohad), we can see the state of the world and the Muslim holdings in the Maghrib and Andalus around 1200 CE. Notice how Portugal was no longer under Muslim Control as it had been taken as a result of the Reconquista campaign of the Christians.

In any case, The Muwahiddun captured and lost territory to the Christians, with a see saw like struggle taking place, where the Christians, being united and without the high level of strife present in the Muslim camp, were beginning to tilt the momentum towards themselves. This momentum was violently tilted towards the Christians side at the Battle of Las Navas De Tolosa, (or ﻣﻌﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺏ /The Battle of punishment/retribution), in 1212 CE where the Muwahiddun sustained, some historians say, 100,000 casualties resulting in crushing loss and the end of the Muwahiddun power over Andalus. In fact, between 1217-1252 CE, Fernando the III, (King of the Kingdoms of Castille and Leon), conquered all Muslims kingdoms, (including Qurtuba), leaving Garnata as the sole independent Muslim Kingdom. Therefore it can be said that by 1252 CE, the end of Islam in Andalus was nigh. This period marked sporadic uprising by local Muslims against their kafir occupiers but this memory is marked by treachery by Muslim rulers who worked openly with the
kuffaar to safeguard their kingdom, while lying to their people about events unfolding. A great example of this is of Mohammad Ibn Al Ahmar, (who was the founder of the Banu Nasr dynasty that ruled Garnata till its fall in 1492). In addition, the Muslim lands and populations that came under Spanish control became ‘Mudejars,’ (or Mudajjan ), or Muslims who lived under the Christian rulers and obeyed them while, the Spanish King promised to safeguard the
Shariah and Sunnah and not meddle in its application and the Islamic practices of the populations. This designation ended in the beginning of the 16 century, as all Muslims, Garnati and others, were either expelled, imprisoned, expelled, killed, or baptized by force/coercion.

When Ferdinand III of Castile captured Qurtuba in 1236, Ibn Al Ahmar knew what was coming his way and approached Ferdinand to propose that in return for cooperating in the conquest of Muslim Seville, Garnata would be granted independence. Fernando agreed and took Seville. On returning to Garnata, Ibn Al Ahmar announced “there is no victor but Allāh” ( ﻭ ﻻ ﻏﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻻ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ), which can be seen inscribed all over the Al Hamra’ palace, (one can surely see the absurdity of his proclamation after what Ibn Al Ahmar did, but this is not the place to get into that debate). As agreed, Ibn Al-Ahmar continued to pay the required tribute to Ferdinand III of Castile in exchange for the independence of Granada. Subsequently Ibn Al Ahmar lost his other holdings to Castille and was left with the city of Garnata only. Ofcourse the populace was kept in the dark about his backdoor deals, although rumours were rampant. It almost seems reminiscent of Muslim rulers of the 21 century, who use religion to justify their misdeeds while keeping their populace in the dark about their policies whether at home or abroad, and most importantly, about who is really controlling the nation. Clever public relations tricks are the soup de jour for Muslim elites as one might want to give the example of a nation that flouts hundreds of court scholars that write lengthy treatises of how allowing Kaffir troops on their land is wrong in principle, but is needed now due to maslaha or the fact that it actively and passively assists Kaffir armies to murder Muslims.


Garnata continued its policy of abating the Christians of paying them to leave them alone for almost 250 years, while increasingly mounting pitched battles to defend against ever ambitious Christian armies who realized that it was more useful to simply conquer Garnata and confiscate its wealth, populace and lands at once, than to keep it alive and bleed its populace to death. Thus the last ten years of Andalus, (1482-1491 CE), were years where Andalus was in a state of economic and military exhaustion due to the continuous raids against them by the Christians. The state of disarray of affairs in the Maghrib did not allow for substantial reinforcements to help them, while in the Muslim world at large, the aftermath of the Crusades and the Mongol Invasion still loomed large, while the Savafid Shia’s would later divert a large chunk of the Ummah’s energy. The Uthmanis, to the detriment of the Garnatis, were later preoccupied with this menace. The Uthmanis were indeed the hope the Garnatans looked towards after the glourious opening of Constantinople in 1453 CE, and hoped they would aid them.

Abu Abdullah Muhammad, (Boabdil in Spanish), the 12 became the Emir of Garnata in 1482 by way of leading a coup against his father, (whom he expelled). At the Battle of Sharqiya in 1483 CE he was caught by Spanish forces. While under detention, the King of Castille, (Ferdinand), with his council deliberated on what to do with Abu Abdullah. Rodrigo Ponce De Leon summed up the then adopted strategy as such, “release Boabdil; grant a short truce, and accept any tribute offered, including the release of Christian prisoners. All that did not preclude prosecuting the war once the truce came to an end, when Castile itself would be in a stronger position. (Harvey, Islamic Spain 1250 to 1500: 1250 to 1500, 281).” The strategy was agreed upon to release him in order to free prisoners and extract payment from the Muslims, but to also make Abu Abdullah feel indebted to the Spanish for freeing him, and thus have their ‘man’ at the helm of Garnata. Rather, Abu Abdullah consented to hold Garnata as a tributary kingdom under Ferdinand and Isabella. The plan worked as in Abu Abdullah’s mother agreed to Ferdinand’s terms by paying “…12,000 Doblas and the release of sixty prisoners a year for five years, and in addition ten noble youths (Boabdil’s son Ahmad among them), were to pass into Castillian hands as hostages (Ibid, 282).” In 1485 he was released, and by 1486 he was in Garnata again. But the people were incensed at this deal as is reflected by a fatwa that survives in Wanshirisi’s Kitab Al Mi’yar Al M’urib regarding the hostage swap wherein, the chief Qadi of Garnata Ibn Al Azraq, The
Mufti Al Mawwaq, Qadi Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Barr and others joined in to condemn the deal. They stated that there was no Islamic grounds for dropping allegiance to Abu Hasan, (the current commander and leader of Garnata), in favor of Abu Abdullah, and anyone who does so, does it in rebellion against Allāh and The Prophet ( ﺻﻠَّﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺳﻠَّﻢ ).

As it turned out, the Castilian move did not work, as people did not switch their allegiances to Abu Abdullah.

Abu Abdullah tried winning people over by offering “…a promise that districts loyal to him would be spared the ravages of war, (Ibid, p. 288).” Simply put he was a pascifist looking to bring back peace and stability. This was a message that appealed to traders and countryside folk, which led to renewed in fighting amongst the rival Garnatan factions. Abu Abdullah continued to be the thorn in the side of the mujahideen under Emir Abu Hasan, dividing up the populace into two factions, (people that wanted peace and negotiations with Ferdinand and those that wanted to continue the Jihad Al Difaa’ or defensive
jihad ). In fact by 1485, this strategy reaped rewards as the distracted and divided mujahideen at the city of Ronda were besieged by Ferdinand leading to the martyrdom of Emir Abu Hasan, leading to the succession of Abdullah Al Zagal or otherwise named Muhammd Bin Sa’ad, (Abu Abdullah’s uncle), as Emir of Garnata and the Mujahideen. By October of 1486, Abu Abdullah had managed to muster troops to fight Al Zagal’s forces in the city of Garnata, all the while, (according to Christian Sources), being in contact with the Spanish Monarchs in order to coordinate their efforts better.

In fact, Hernando de Pulgar, (a Spanish writer and Councilor of State at the time in Spain), wrote in his ‘Brief report on the Great Deeds of the Excellent Renowned Great Captain ‘:

“The King and Queen favored this young king [Abu Abdullah] with a safeconduct and peace which they extended to those of his realm who supported him, such as the people of Albaicin [Al Bayyazin], who constantly with their merchants entered Andalusia for bread and oil and necessary provisions. These merchants were well treated by the people on the frontier and the guards. Since Illora is the nearest pass to Granada, and since they were well treated there, that was where they always crossed” (Ibid, 291)

He goes on to say:

“He [Abu Abdullah] sent to the king and queen to beg them to order the captains and governors on the frontier to increase their military pressure because by squeezing the city in that way he would be enabled to sustain his position in the Albaicin [Al Bayyazin] better. When the orders reached the frontier to as Boabdil [Abu Abdullah] had requested, Gonzalo Fernandez [i.e., the future Great Captain] took pleasure in pleasing and being of service to this young man in Albaicin [Al Bayyazin], where inhabitants were beginning to waver because they saw the old king’s [Abu Abdullah] party was ever stronger in the city.” (Ibid, 292)

In other words what is alleged is that Abu Abdullah asked the Spanish to increase pressure on Al Zagal on his front line while he would then attack his rear line. The predicament for Emir Muhammad Al Zagal was indeed dire, in that he had to balance defending the city against the Spanish while keeping Abu Abdullah’s forces in check. The important town of Loja/Lawsha was beseiged by the Spanish crusaders along with foreign mercenaries from all over Europe. The town did subsequently fall, but as a result, embarrisingly enough, the Spanish agent, King Abu AbdAllāh was recaptured by the Spanish, only to be speedily re-released once again, (to avoid people getting the right idea that the Spanish were using Abu Abdullah to subdue the Muslims from within). As a result of the Spanish victory, they were able to move in from the west towards the countryside of Garnata.

In 1487, the Spanish decide to move onto to siege the key city of Maalaqa, (Malaga), on the western coast line, by first going through Balsh-Maalaqa, (Velez Malaga). It was an essential city for the Garnatans as it was their main life-line of supplies from North Africa, and if cut, it severly hurt Garnata in terms of supplies and any hope of receiving reinforcements in the future, (albeit no state in North Africa was in a position to send anything to help them due to their division and in fighting).

Reportedly, (from Hernando Pulgar’s writings), we learn that the Fuqaha of Garnata were pleading with Emir Al Zagal to come to a truce with Abu Abdullah and concede his throne in order to safeguard Garnata from Spanish attack and to present a united front for the mujahideen and for the opposing Spanish army. Pulgar states the Fuquha allegedly: “….him [Al Zagal], saying that if what he wished was to be king, of what country did he wish to be king, if it was all to be lost? In addition they told him that it would have been better if all the fighting which was taking place between his brothers and members of his family…had taken place in defense of the country, against its enemies rather than inflicted on friends, and this they preached all through the city. They ought to grieve, they said, to see homes which they had built being taken over by the Christians, the fruits of trees planted by their fathers and their grandfathers being gathered by them, to see their brothers and relatives exiled from their own land, which had been held by their forefathers for so long. Their blood had been shed to win it, now blood was being shed to lose it” (Ibid, 293).

Pulgar continues by saying the Emir Al Zagal, in order to avoid fitna, offered to step down as Emir and fight under the command of Abu Abdullah, but Abu Abdullah refused.

This resulted in Emir Al Zagal leaving with the mujahideen towards Balsh-Maalaqa (Velez-Malaga) to liberate it. However, on the way there, he received news that Abu Abdullah had successfully taken control of Garnata which meant it was pointless struggling for Maalaqa without his rear base or any good chance of victory at Velez-Maalaqa. Thus he fled with the Mujahideen to the Alpujarras, (or in Arabic, Al Busharaat ), a mountainous area east of Garnata to regroup. The Spanish arrived at Maalaqa for the key battle that was one of the last in series of battles that led to the destruction of Garnata.

The mujahideen under their commander at Maalaqa, Ahmad Al Thagri, were not in a mood to surrender or negotiate. In fact he contemptuously rejected the offer of a negotiated settlement, (Ibid, p.294), and so stiffed his garrison of troops with Berber reinforcements. To make sure that if the
Mujahideen did not achieve victory and their City walls[2] were breached by the Spanish, they destroyed all the houses and buildings near the wall so that the Spanish could not take anything from them nor make it any easier for them, (Ibid, 295), while the Christian account of the siege stated that:

“[The Muslims] seemed to have a greater desire to kill Christians than to preserve their own lives. The fighting went on for six hours, and the sound of trumpets, the shouting, the alarms, the clash of weapons, the noise of the matchlock guns [3] and of the crossbows on both sides were so loud that the hillsides reechoed…So great was the desire for vengeance that it predominated over the desire to gain, and nobody made any attempt to take prisoners, only to kill and to maim” (Ibid, 295-296).

The Christians did eventually breakthrough, but they regressed further into the defensive fortifications of the city and were not looking to give up. Only Shahada or victory was sufficient for them.

Even though there are no Muslim accounts available of the defenders in Maalaqa, Christian accounts spell out clearly that the mujahideen were not looking to give up:

“Although they [the mujahideen] had no food supplies inside, and could hope for none from outside, although they saw their fellows fall dead and wounded in the fighting, it was worthy of not how bold this barbarous folk was in battles, how obedient to their commanders, how hard-working as they repaired the fortifications, how astute the ruses of war, how constant in the pursuit of their objectives” (Ibid, 297)

Emir Al Zagal heard of the siege of Maalaqa, and sent a relief coloumn of Istishadeyeen (Martyrdom seekers), who, in the words of a Christian account of the battle:

“believing that if they did manage to get in to Malaga, that would be a mighty exploit, and if they did not that would save their souls [attain Shahada ], so they resolved to die or enter the city” (Ibid, 298)

In the meanwhile, Abu Abdullah reported these troop movements to King Ferdinand, and he, (Abu Abdullah), subsequently intercepted these brave mujahids and routed them, leaving the remainder to retreat back to Emir Al Zagal.

Hernando Pulgar states that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella “…lavished their favors on Abu Abdullah in gratitude for this, (Ibid).” Other attempts were made to come to the aid of Maalaqa by Ibrahim Al Jarbi, (from Jerba in Tunisia), who was actually a resident of Wadi Ash, (Guadix). He formulated a plot to assinate Ferdinand and Isabella. He rallied some 400 people to his cause, according to Pulgar. They made an unsuccessful attempt to attack the Christians leading to the martyrdom of many whereas Ibrahim Al Jarbi decided to lead the assassination attempt on his own by standing outside of the city of Maalaqa, in an attempt to get arrested by the guards, to be subsequently taken into the Christian camp. There was the danger that the guards would kill him on the spot and not take him close to the King and Queen, but he stuck to the plan and had
Tawakkul , (reliance), on Allāh. The plan worked and the soldiers captured him and took him to Rodrigo Ponce De Leon, Marquis of Cadiz at the time, to be interrogated. He baited Rodrigo by saying that he had a revelation about the war, but told him that he would only reveal it to the King and Queen. After hesitation, he was taken to see them and placed in a waiting tent with other Spanish nobles eager to see what this supposed holy man had to say.

Unfortunately for Ibrahim, he spoke no Castillian and therefore assumed when he saw the ornately dressed Alvaro De Portugal and his wife Felipa, that he reached his target. He attacked with ferocity but failed to kill either, and was subsequently caught and was “…cut into pieces. (Ibid, 299).” The barbaric Christians then catapulted this brave mujahid’s body parts over the city walls to intimidate the Muslims. The Muslims instead decided to stitch his body together and gave him an emotional funeral. In retaliation, Muslims killed a high ranking Christian Prisoner and mounted his body on a Donkey towards the Christian camp.

SubhaanAllāh ! Look at the iman and love for martyrdom and the hatred of humiliation and defeat! People that literally were commiting suicide, by western standards, to make the Word of Allāh uppermost inspite of hunger, lack of reinforcements and the overwhelming strength of the enemy. The story of Abu Abdullah is one that has many allegories in the 21 century in the Muslim world, wherein if we looked at Iraq, we would have seen how the leaders were propped by the United States and its Coalition of The Willing to create the Majlis Al Sahwa , (or Awakening Councils), and subsequently, the Abna’a Al Iraq, (Sons of Iraq), while allowing them enough latitude to criticize America and cloaking themselves in Islamic ideology only to divide the mujahideen and to betray them and steal the fruits of their Jihad. And what is their return on this bargain? They get to rule Iraq in any subsequent government that would be formed if they were to defeat the real mujahideen . If we were to look at Afghanistan and their struggle against Russia, we would see that the blood and sweat put into that Jihad was derailed by the machinations of the international community and, more importantly, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who took it upon themselves to create a nationalist unity government with no mention of Shariah or its establishment, which was the very goal which many
Mujahideen from all over the world gave the ultimate sacrifice for.

People such as Abu Abdullah attempted to gain worldy power while risking their hereafter by allying with the kuffaar , betraying and killing the Muslims. Allāh (ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻠﻰ ) says:

ﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳﻦَ ﺀَﺍﻣَﻨُﻮﺍْ ﻳُﻘَـﺘِﻠُﻮﻥَ ﻓِﻰ ﺳَﺒِﻴﻞِ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ ﻭَﺍﻟَّﺬِﻳﻦَ ﻛَﻔَﺮُﻭﺍْ ﻳُﻘَـﺘِﻠُﻮﻥَ ﻓِﻰ ﺳَﺒِﻴﻞِ ﺍﻟﻄَّـﻐُﻮﺕِ

Those who believe, fight in the cause of Allāh, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of the Taghut. So fight against the friends of Shaytan; ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaytan. [4]

In 1489, the Spanish headed towards the town of Basta, (Baza in Spanish), in order to mop up the remainer of Garnatan resistance under Emir al Zagal. The commander at Basta was Sidi Yahya Al Najjar and predictably, he didn’t offer to surrender, just as the Maalaqan commander did. However, as the siege ground on, Yahya wrote to the king and his commanders to begin negotiations to surrender and by the end of the month, they had reached an agreement. However the agreement made no mention of how the Muslims of the city would be treated but rather dealt with how the Muslim elite of the city would survive and “…the subterfuges that would permit Sidi Yahya…to transmogrify himself safely and profitably into Don Pedro de Granada Venegas, (Ibid, p. 302).” In other words, he had made arrangements to convert to Christianity, but you may wonder why such an abrupt turn of events? This agreement was a good way in which to look at how the Garnatan nobles and leaders were willing to become murtad (or at least to pretend to do so), to safeguard their lands and wealth, even if that meant selling out the mujahideen under them and their citizens. As a result of the agreement:

1. Yahya became Ferdinand’s Vassal

2. He became a Christian, and would be baptized in the King’s own chamber, but this conversion was to be kept secret until Basta was surrendered

3. He was confirmed in possession of his lands, “towns. Fortresses, and villages” (i.e. he was to be lord of his own domain)

4. He was exempted from the duty of lodging royal troops (always thought of as a humiliating obligation).

5. He was exempted from certain taxes, including the

6. He was entitled to keep an armed escort

7. Various financial settlements were made to his advantage, and if Basta was surrendered, but not until then, he was to receive and extra gratuitity of ten thousand reales .[5] (Ibid, p. 302-303)

After concluding his secret deal, Yahya headed off to Wadi Ash to persuade Emir Al Zagal to stand down and surrender. Yahya was successful and Emir Al Zagal gave up his resistance and handed over Wadi Ash and Almeria, (King Ferdinand offered him his very own domain in the Alpujarras or Al Bushra . The Emir had no intention of following Yahya’s path, and thus sold the holdings offered to him and crossed over to the Maghrib with his fellow Mujahideen .

However, an alternative reason is presented by an anonymous writer, who was present in Garnata during the last years of its existence, in Akhir Ayyam Gharnatah Nubdhat al- Asr fi Akhbar Muluk Bani Nasr , (The Last Days of Garnata: A synoposis of the era of news of the Kings of Bani Nasr/( ﺁﺧﺮ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﻏﺮﻧﺎﻃﺔ ﻧﺒﺬﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺧﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻠﻮﻙ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻧﺴﺮ )):

“All the knights and commanders of the Emir Muhammad b. Sa’d [Al-Zagal], accepted the dhimma [protection of the King of Castille] and began to help him against the Muslims…

Many people assert that Emir Muhammad b. Sa’d [Al-Zagal] and his commanders sold these villages and districts ruled by them to the ruler of Castille, and that they received a price for them. All of this was with a view to taking revenge [ intiqam] on the son of his brother Muhammad b. Ali [Boadil/Abu Abdullah] and on his commanders who had remained in Garnata, with just the city under their government and with benefit of a truce from the enemy. By his action [Al-Zagal], wanted to cut Garnata off, so as to destroy it in the way the rest of the country had been destroyed, (Ibid, p. 304-305).”

Why did he want to destroy Garnata? He simply wanted revenge upon his rival, Abu Abdullah, according to the writer. Shortly afterwards, Abu Abdullah sent out his wazir
to enter into talks with the Spanish to surrender, and as by orchestration, his wazir arrives back in Garnata with two Spanish officers sent by King Ferdinand to negotiate on Spain’s behalf. These men were Gonzalo de Cordoba and Martin de Alarcon and both were known to Abu Abdullah very well and likewise they knew him well. The only people who were not familiar with the nature of these relationships were the people of Garnata and Abu Abdullah’s
Shura . Martin de Alarcon had been in charge of the “…arrangements for Boabdil’s [Abu Abdullah’s] detention when he was first held by the Castilians, at Porcuena in 1483.

From that point on Boabdil had been a tool of Castilian policy, (Ibid, p. 307).” It has to be assumed that perhaps Ferdinand picked Alarcon for psychological reasons as perhaps, during Abu Abdullah’s incarceration, there developed a detainee-jailor relationship, wherein Martin could assert his own will upon Abu Abdullah easier. Gonzalo de Cordoba was the man who, in 1486, had completed an operation inside Garnata to support Abu Abdullah against Emir Al Zagal and was known to Abu Abdullah.

However, in a strange twist of events, Abu Abdullah refused to negotiate reinitiated hostilities against the Spanish. One may assume that perhaps he had a sudden change of heart after his series of betrayals. However, it is perhaps more realistic, (and certainly we can only guess at his intentions), in light of the past and what was to happen at the end of hostilities, that he planned to keep up the ruse and make it appear as if he was the heroic Emir who would not bow down to the Spanish and would fight them till the end, (to dispel rumours that he was in league with the Spanish from the beginning or that there was a secret ‘deal’ between them). The idea was to reach a point wherein Garnatans who, were in no position to fight, had their supply lines cut and were short of trained men who were still able to, or were alive to fight, to want to call for peace themselves, with Abu Abdullah then regretfully having to call for a surrender and mercy for his beloved people. It was the Middle Ages equivalent of Madison Avenue spin-doctoring that the US Defense department would be proud of, since Abu Abdullah had agreed to surrender Garnata and the surrounding kingdoms from the day he was first captured by the Spanish! He was only making his people ask for negotiations over a matter that already, years before had been decided in secret! In fact, that indeed did happen, when the powers in the Maghrib didn’t come to their aid, supplies were short and morale was lowered due to continuing Spanish besiegement. In fact in Akhir Al Ayyam Gharnata , it was stated thus:

“Many people alleged that the Emir of Garnata and his ministers and military chiefs had already made an agreement to hand over the city to the Christian King who was invading them, but they feared the common people, and so kept them duped, and simply told them what they wanted to hear. This was why, when they [the people] came saying what the king and his ministers had been keeping secret from them, they pardoned them on the spot. This was why military operations had been suspended at the time, to give scope for them to find a way of introducting the idea to the common people. So when they sent to the king of the Christians, they found he readily agreed, and was happy to grant all their requests and all their stipulations, (Ibid, p. 311).”

As for the composition of the Spanish armies during this long, arduous and vicious campaign against the Muslims, the allegation that the army was purely Spanish rings hollow. Evidence is presented from the archives in the former royal archives of Aragon, in the Spanish book of essays, ‘Gente del siglo XV,’ which shows that Christians from all over the world showed up during the 1480’s to the end of the campaign, eager for a fight against the Muslims. The numbers that are present in the finding, (Which are included in full in Appendix Z), are startling as there were at least 24 Swiss, 20 French, 17 English, 1 Scottish, 1 Portuguese, 1 Dutch and 23 German Soldiers listed. There are even reports of Italian knights showing up to fight, serving both on the ground and at sea in the service of the Spanish, (Edwards, 124). Do remember this is not even the real total of foreign fighters but simply a glimpse that proves the presence of foreign crusaders fighting the Muslims. In fact the Briton, Edward Woodville, (who is listed in the statistics), led his own band of men to Spain to fight the ‘Saracens.’ After all, the Pope had declared that the war being waged against the Muslims of Garnata was a Crusade as John Edwards says:

“The fact that Ferdinand and Isabella’s campaigns against the emirate of Granada were designated as ‘crusades’ brought troops from outside the Spanish kingdoms to fight in the royal armies. Papal interest in the Spanish frontier against Islam and the Reconquista had already rekindled in the 1430’s. Martin V and Eugenius IV made successive grants of crusading indulgences to those who fought, and gave the traditional two-ninth’s share of the Spanish Church’s tithes…to the respective rulers of Castile and Aragon, (Ibid, 122).”

Edwards continues by stating England’s role in this Crusade at a royal level:

“Henry IV [the King of England at the time] did mount campaigns against Granada between 1455 and 1458, as well as capturing Archidon [Arshidona] and Gibralter [Jabal Tariq] in 1462, (ibid, 123).”

Edwards speaks of a notorious English crusader, Edward Woodville, and his story. His army had:

“…approximately 300 archers together with supporters, left…England at the end of February 1460…The army which Edward Woodville assembled in the Isle of Wight included not only local men but also troops from Scotland, Ireland, Brittany and Burgundy, as well as other parts of England…Isabella [Queen of Spain]…designated him as leader of the foreign knights…Woodville’s company…was said to have acquitted itself well in the fighting which ended in the capture of the town [of Loja/Lawsha] on 28-29 May 1486 [6] , (ibid, 127).”

As for Edward’s men, some of them were captured and rightfully enslaved and sent to Fas/Fez to be traded and sold while others were killed by the mujahideen . As for the role of soldiers other than Edward Woodville:

“…other troops from the British Isles, who are known to have participated in the 1486 and 1487 campaigns are William Marston, who is recorded as a groom of Henry VII’s chamber, and Hubert Stanton, who was said to be from Ireland, (ibid).”

The role of the Pope and the Vatican is also described:

“Pope Sixtus IV issued the first crusading bull for war against Granada in November 1479, only two months after signing of the treaty of Alcacovas between Castile and Portugal…Sixtus IV’s lengthy bull of 10 August 1482 was addressed to ‘the universal Christian faithful…, fighters and warriors and other assistance (pugnatores et bellatores aliaque auxilia ), both from Spain…and from other nations,’” (Ibid, 123).

The Activities of the Mercenaries varied by the countries they came from:

“…it is certain that companies of Swiss, and some German, mercenaries continued to gain employment in the successive Granada campaigns. They were present in 1482, staying in Alhama until two years later, and are to be found in the documents once again in 1491, when some of them received letters of commendation from the king” (Ibid).

I will expound further on the role of foreign fighters and mercenaries in Christians armies and the inherent irony of their use during the Crusade in Garnata, the jihad in Bosnia, The Spanish Civil War and the so called ‘War on Terror’ today, in the conclusion.



[1] Berber dynasty, (mostly consisting of Masmuda tribesmen), that was founded in the 12th century, and conquered all northern Africa as far as Libya, together with Al Andalus.

[2] Cities during these periods were fortified usually by a high external stone city wall with built in citadels and other defensive devices in order to allow the city defenders to have the maximum ability to defend the city in the case of an invasion. In fact, within the city there were internal city walls as to allow a secondary position of retreat for the defenders in the case that the attackers had penetrated the first wall.

[3] By 1394, the Garnatan army had already used handguns in the field against Christian troops and were the first to do so in the Jazirat al Andalus (Andalusi peninsula)

[4] Surat al-Nisa’ verse 76

[5] Unit of Spanish currency at the time. The first real was introduced by King Pedro I of Castile at a value of 3 Murabitun/Maravedies, (gold dinars minted by the Murabitun). This rate of exchange increased until 1497, when the real was fixed at a value of 34 maravedíes. The famous Peso de a Ocho (“piece of eight” is referred to the value of 8 Reales = 1 Silver Peso) also known as Spanish dollar, was issued that same year, and it later became widespread in America and Asia.

[6] The battle at Lawsha in 1486 was a key battle and was battle where Abu Abdullah the traitor was recaptured by the Spanish and key Spanish military men proved their mettle. One of these men was Gonzalo Fernandez De Cordoba, who, during the battle had fought effectively with his group of 120 Lancemen. This was the same Gonzalo Fernandez De Cordoba that was sent by King Ferdinand to help Abu Abdullah the traitor to fight the brave Emir Al Zagal in Al Bayyazin and also the same person who King Ferdinand had sent in 1491 to negotiate on Spain’s behalf for the surrender of Muslims forces in the city of Garnata.

A Comparative Study on the Status of Women According to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and The Holy Qur’an

[By Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem]

In the  West, Islam is  believed to be the  symbol  of  the  subordination  of  women  par  excellence.  In  order  to  understand  how firm  this  belief  is,  it  is  enough  to  mention  that  the  Minister  of  Education  in  France,  the land  of  Voltaire,  had  ordered  the  expulsion  of  all  young  Muslim  women  wearing the  veil  from  French  schools!  A  young  Muslim  student  wearing  a  headscarf  is  denied  her right  of  education  in  France,  while  a  Catholic  student  wearing  a  cross  or  a  Jewish  student wearing  a  skullcap  is  not.  The  scene  of  French  policemen  preventing  young  Muslim women  wearing  headscarves  from  entering      their  high  school  is  unforgettable.  It inspires  the  memories  of  another  equally  disgraceful  scene  of  Governor  George  Wallace of  Alabama  in  1962  standing  in  front  of  a  school  gate  trying  to  block  the  entrance  of black  students  in  order  to  prevent  the  desegregation  of  Alabama’s  schools.  The  difference between  the  two  scenes  is  that  the  black  students  had  the  sympathy  of  so  many  people  in the  U.S.  and  in  the  whole world.  President  Kennedy  sent  the  U.S. National Guard to  force the  entry  of  the  black  students.  The  Muslim  girls,  on  the  other  hand,  received  no  help from  any  one.  Their  cause  seems  to  have  very  little  sympathy  either  inside  or  outside France.  The  reason  is  the  widespread  misunderstanding  and  fear  of  anything  Islamic  in the  world  today.  What intrigues the most is this question. Do  Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Islam  have  the  same  conception  of  women?? Are they  different  in  their  conceptions?? Do  Judaism  and  Christianity,  truly,  offer  women  a better treatment than Islam does??  What is the Truth??

It  is  not  easy to search for and find answers  to these  difficult questions. The  first difficulty is  that  one  has  to  be  fair  and  objective  or,  at  least,  do  one’s  utmost  to  be  so.  This  is  what Islam  teaches.  The  Qur’an  has  instructed  Muslims  to  say  the  truth  even  if  those  who  are very  close  to  them  do  not  like  it:

  “Whenever  you  speak,  speak  justly,  even  if  a  near relative   is  concerned”  (6:152) 

“O  you  who  believe  stand  out  firmly  for  justice,  as witnesses  to  Allah,  even  as  against  yourselves,  or  your  parents  or  your  kin,  and  whether  it be (against) rich or poor” (4:135).

My  goal  from this post is  only to  vindicate  Islam  and  pay  a  tribute,  long  overdue  in  the  West,  to  the  final  truthful Message  from  Allah to  the  human  race.  my  concern  in this article,  mainly,  the  position  of  women  in  the three  religions  as  it  appears  in  their  original  sources  not  as  practised  by  their  millions  of followers  in  the  world  today.  Therefore,  most  of  the  evidence  cited  comes  from  the Qur’an Kareem,  the  sayings  of  Prophet  Mohammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) ,  the  Bible,  the  Talmud,  and  the  sayings  of some  of  the  most  influential  Church  Fathers  whose  views  have  contributed  immeasurably to  defining  and  shaping  Christianity.  This  interest  in  the  sources  relates  to  the  fact  that understanding  a  certain  religion  from  the  attitudes  and  the  behaviour  of  some  of  its nominal  followers  is  misleading.  Many  people  confuse  culture  with  religion,  many  others do not know what their religious books are saying, and many others do not even care.

EATING FROM THE TREE OF JANNAH. WAS IT  JUST HAWWA’s (radhiyallahu anha) (Biblical Eve) FAULT??

The  three  religions  agree  on  one  basic  fact:  Both  women  and  men  are  created  by  Allah (God), The  Creator  of  the  whole  universe.  However,  disagreement  starts  soon  after  the  creation of the  first  man,  Adam (alaihissalaam),  and the first  woman,  Eve (Ammi Hawwa radhiyallahu anha).  The  Judaeo-Christian conception  of the creation  of  Adam  (alaihissalaam) and  Eve  (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) is  narrated  in  detail  in  Genesis  2:4-3:24.  God prohibited  both of  them  from  eating  the  fruits  of  the  forbidden  tree.  The  serpent  seduced  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) to  eat  from it  and  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha),  in  turn,  seduced  Adam (alaihissalaam) to  eat  with  her.  When  God  rebuked  Adam  for  what  he did,  he  put  all  the  blame  on  Eve, “The  woman  you  put  here  with  me  –she  gave  me  some fruit  from  the  tree  and  I  ate  it.” Consequently,  God  said  to  Eve:  “I  will  greatly  increase your  pains  in  childbearing;  with  pain  you  will  give  birth  to  children.  Your  desire  will  be for  your  husband  and  he  will  rule  over  you.”   To  Adam  He  said:  “Because  you  listened  to your  wife  and  ate  from  the  tree  ….  Cursed  is  the  ground  because  of  you;  through  painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life…”

The  Islamic  conception  of  the  first  creation  is  found  in  several  places  in  the  Quran,  for example:

“O  Adam (alaihissalaam) dwell  with  your  wife  in  the  Garden  and  enjoy  as  you  wish  but approach  not  this  tree  or  you  run  into  harm  and  transgression.  Then  Satan  whispered  to them  in  order  to  reveal  to  them  their  shame  that  was  hidden  from  them  and  he  said:  ‘Your Lord  only  forbade  you  this  tree  lest  you  become  angels  or  such  beings  as  live  forever.’ And  he  swore  to  them  both  that  he  was  their  sincere  adviser.  So  by  deceit  he  brought them to their  fall: when  they tasted the  tree their  shame became manifest to them  and they began  to  sew  together  the  leaves  of  the  Garden  over  their  bodies.  And  their  Lord  called unto  them:  ‘Did  I  not  forbid  you  that  tree  and  tell  you  that  Satan  was  your  avowed enemy?’  They  said:  ‘Our  Lord  we  have  wronged  our  own  souls  and  if  You  forgive  us  not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost’ “(7:19:23).

A  careful  look  into  the  two  accounts  of  the  story  of  the  Creation  reveals  some  essential differences.  The  Qur’an,  contrary  to  the  Bible,  places  equal  blame  on  both  Adam (alaihissalaam) and  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) for  their  mistake.  Nowhere  in  the  Qur’an  can  one  find  even  the  slightest  hint  that  Eve (Hawwa radhiyaĺahu anha) tempted  Adam (alaihissalaam)  to  eat  from  the  tree  or  even  that  she  had  eaten  before  him.  Eve  in  the Qur’an  is  no  temptress,  no  seducer,  and  no  deceiver.

  Moreover,  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha)  is  not  to  be  blamed for  the  pains  of  childbearing.  Allah,  according  to  the  Qur’an,  punishes  no  one  for  another’s faults.  Both  Adam (alaihissalaam) and  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) committed  a  sin  and  then  asked  Allah  for  forgiveness  and  He forgave them both.

The  image  of  Eve (Hawwa radhiyallahu anha) as  temptress  in  the  Bible  has  resulted  in  an  extremely  negative  impact on  women  throughout  the  Judaeo-Christian  tradition.  All  women  were  believed  to  have inherited  from  their  mother,  the  Biblical  Eve,  both  her  guilt  and  her  guile.  Consequently, they  were  all  untrustworthy,  morally  inferior,  and  wicked.  Menstruation,  pregnancy,  and childbearing  were  considered  the  just  punishment  for  the  eternal  guilt  of  the  cursed female  sex.  In  order  to  appreciate  how  negative  the  impact  of  the  Biblical  Eve  was  on  all her  female  descendants  we  have  to  look  at  the  writings  of  some  of  the  most  important Jews  and  Christians  of  all  time.

  Let  us  start  with  the  Old  Testament  and  look  at  excerpts from  what  is  called  the  Wisdom  Literature  in  which  we  find:  “I  find  more  bitter  than death  the  woman  who  is  a  snare,  whose  heart  is  a  trap  and  whose  hands  are  chains.  The man  who  pleases  God  will  escape  her,  but  the  sinner  she  will  ensnare….while  I  was  still searching  but  not  finding,  I  found  one  upright  man  among  a  thousand  but  not  one  upright woman among them all” (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

In  another part  of the  Hebrew literature which is found  in the  Catholic  Bible  we  read: “No wickedness  comes  anywhere  near  the  wickedness  of  a  woman…..Sin  began  with  a  woman and  thanks  to  her  we  all  must  die” (Ecclesiasticus  25:19,  24). 

Jewish  Rabbis  listed  nine curses inflicted on women as a  result of  the  Fall:   “To the  woman He  gave nine  curses  and death:  the  burden  of  the  blood  of  menstruation  and  the  blood  of  virginity;  the  burden  of pregnancy;  the  burden  of  childbirth;  the  burden  of  bringing  up  the  children;  her  head  is covered  as  one  in  mourning;  she  pierces  her  ear  like  a  permanent  slave  or  slave  girl  who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything–death.”

2. To  the  present  day,  orthodox  Jewish  men  in  their  daily  morning  prayer  recite “Blessed  be God  King  of  the  universe  that  Thou  has  not  made  me  a  woman.” The  women,  on  the other  hand,  thank  God  every  morning  for  “making  me  according  to  Thy  will.” 

3  Another prayer  found  in  many  Jewish  prayer  books:  “Praised  be  God  that  he  has  not  created  me  a gentile.  Praised  be  God  that  he  has  not  created  me  a  woman.  Praised  be  God  that  he  has not created me an ignoramus.” 

The  Biblical  Eve  has  played  a  far  bigger  role  in  Christianity  than  in  Judaism.  Her  sin  has been  pivotal  to  the  whole  Christian  faith  because  the  Christian  conception  of  the  reason for  the  mission  of  Jesus  (Qur’anic ‘Eesa alaihissalaam)  on  Earth  stems  from  Eve’s  disobedience  to  God.  She  had sinned  and  then  seduced  Adam  to  follow  her  suit.  Consequently,  God  expelled  both  of them  from  Heaven  to  Earth,  which  had  been  cursed  because  of  them.

  They  bequeathed their  sin,  which  had  not  been  forgiven  by  God,  to  all  their  descendants  and,  thus,  all humans  are  born  in  sin.  In  order  to  purify  human  beings  from  their  ‘original  sin’,  God  had to  sacrifice  Jesus,  who  is  considered  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  on  the  cross.  Therefore,  Eve  is responsible  for  her  own  mistake,  her  husband’s  sin,  the  original  sin  of  all  humanity,  and the  death of  the Son  of God.  In  other words,  one woman  acting  on her  own caused  the fall of  humanity!

5  What about  her  daughters?? They are sinners  like her  and have to  be treated as  such.  Listen  to  the  severe  tone  of  Paul  in  the  New  Testament:  “A  woman  should learn  in  quietness  and  full  submission.  I  don’t  permit  a  woman  to  teach  or  to  have authority  over  a  man;  she  must  be  silent.  For  Adam  was  formed  first,  then  Eve.  And Adam  was  not  the  one  deceived;  it  was  the  woman  who  was  deceived  and  became  a sinner” (I  Timothy  2:11-14).

Tertullian  was  even  more  blunt  than  Paul,  while  he  was  talking  to  his  ‘best  beloved sisters’  in  the  faith,  he  said:  “Do  you  not  know  that  you  are  each  an  Eve?  The  sentence  of God  on  this  sex  of  yours  lives  in  this  age:  the  guilt  must  of  necessity  live  too.  You  are  the Devil’s  gateway:  You  are  the  unsealer  of  the  forbidden  tree:  You  are  the  first  deserter  of the  divine  law:  You  are  she  who  persuaded  him  whom  the  devil  was  not  valiant  enough to  attack.  You  destroyed  so  easily  God’s  image,  man.  On  account  of  your  desert  even  the Son of God had to die.”

Augustine  was  faithful to the legacy  of his predecessors,  he wrote  to a friend:  “What is the  difference  whether  it  is  in  a  wife  or  a  mother,  it  is  still  Eve  the  temptress  that  we  must beware  of  in  any  woman……I  fail  to  see  what  use  woman  can  be  to  man,  if  one  excludes the  function  of  bearing  children.” 

Centuries  later,  Thomas  Aquinas  still  considered women  as  defective:  “As  regards  the  individual  nature,  woman  is  defective  and misbegotten,  for  the  active  force  in  the  male  seed  tends  to  the  production  of  a  perfect likeness  in  the  masculine  sex;  while  the  production  of  woman  comes  from  a  defect  in  the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”

Finally,  the  renowned  reformer  Martin  Luther  could  not  see  any  benefit  from  a  woman but  bringing  into  the  world  as  many  children  as  possible  regardless  of  any  side  effects:  “If they  become  tired  or  even  die,  that  does  not  matter.  Let  them  die  in  childbirth,  that’s  why they are there”

Again and again  all women  are denigrated  because of  the  image  of  Eve  the temptress,  thanks  to  the Biblical Genesis  account. 

To  sum  up,  the  Judaeo-Christian  conception  of women  has  been  poisoned  by  the  belief  in  the  sinful  nature  of  Eve  and  her  female offspring.

If  we  now  turn  our  attention  to  what  the Noble Qur’an  has  to  say  about  women,  we  will  soon realize  that  the  Islamic  conception  of  women  is  radically  different  from  the  Judaeo-Christian  one.  Let  the  Qur’an the Word of Allah Ta’ala speak  for  itself: 

“For  Muslim  men  and  women,  for  believing men  and  women,  for  devout  men  and  women,  for  true  men  and  women,  for  men  and women  who  are  patient,  for  men  and  women  who  humble  themselves,  for  men  and women  who  give  in  charity,  for  men  and  women  who  fast,  for  men  and  women  who guard  their  chastity,  and  for  men  and  women  who  engage  much  in  Allah’s  praise–  For them  all  has  Allah  prepared  forgiveness  and  great  reward”  (33:35). 

“The  believers,  men and  women,  are  protectors,  one  of  another:  they  enjoin  what  is  just,  and  forbid  what  is evil,  they  observe  regular  prayers,  practise  regular  charity,  and  obey  Allah  and  His Messenger.  On  them  will  Allah  pour  His  Mercy:  for  Allah  is  Exalted  in  power,  Wise” (9:71).

  “And  their  Lord  answered  them:  Truly  I  will  never  cause  to  be  lost  the  work  of any  of  you, Be  you a  male  or  female, you are  members one  of another” (3:195).

“Whoever works  evil  will  not  be  requited  but  by  the  like  thereof,  and  whoever  works  a  righteous deed  -whether  man  or  woman-  and  is  a  believer-  such  will  enter  the  Garden  of  bliss” (40:40).

“Whoever  works  righteousness,  man  or  woman,  and  has  faith,  verily  to  him/her we  will  give  a  new  life  that  is  good  and  pure,  and  we  will  bestow  on  such  their  reward according to the best of their actions” (16:97).

It  is  clear  that  the  Qur’anic  view  of  women is  no different  than that of  men. They, both, are Allah’s  creatures  whose  sublime  goal  on  earth  is  to  worship  their  Lord,  do  righteous  deeds, and  avoid  evil  and  they,  both,  will  be  assessed  accordingly.  The  Qur’an  never  mentions that  the  woman  is  the  devil’s  gateway  or  that  she  is  a  deceiver  by  nature.  The  Qur’an,  also, never  mentions  that  man  is  God’s  image;  all  men  and  all  women  are  his  creatures,  that  is all.  According  to  the  Qur’an,  a  woman’s  role  on  earth  is  not  limited  only  to  childbirth.  She is  required to  do  as  many  good  deeds  as  any  other  man is required  to  do.  The  Qur’an  never says  that  no  upright  women  have  ever  existed.  To  the  contrary,  the  Qur’an  has  instructed all  the  believers,  women  as  well  as  men,  to  follow  the  example  of  those  ideal  women such  as  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  Pharoah’s  wife:

  “And  Allah  sets  forth,  As  an  example  to those  who  believe,  the  wife  of  Pharaoh:  Behold  she  said:  ‘O  my  lord  build  for  me,  in nearness  to  you,  a  mansion  in  the  Garden,  and  save  me  from  Pharaoh  and  his  doings  and save  me  from  those  who  do  wrong.’

And  Mary  the  daughter  of  Imran  who  guarded  her chastity  and  We  breathed  into  her  body  of  Our  spirit;  and  she  testified  to  the  truth  of  the words of her  Lord and of  His  revelations  and was one  of the  devout” (66:11-13).  

Adopting Western Secularization: The Cause of Downfall of The Original Caliphate

[By Majlisul ‘Ulama of South Africa]

            WHAT IS KHILAAFAT??







“…When  We empower  them  on earth  (to rule),  they (the Mu’mineen) establish Salaat, pay Zakaat, command righteousness, and prohibit  evil” (Surah Hajj, aayat 41)

The  system  of  government  which  Allah  Ta’ala  has  ordained  for Muslims  long  before  creation  of  man  is  called  Khilaafat (Vicegerency).  In  this  system  Muslim  Man  has  been  divinely appointed  the  Vicegerent  (Representative)  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal. Man  is  termed  the  Vicegerent  or  the  Khalifah,  the  Representative of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal  on  earth,  for  his  obligation  is  the administration  of  Allah’s  Law  on  earth  to  the  servants  of  Allah Ta’ala. 

Announcing  the  appointment  of  His  Vicegerent,  Allah  Azza  Wa Jal,  declared  to  His  Angels: “Verily,  I  shall  create  on  earth  a Khalifah.”  Allah’s  first  Khalifah  on  earth  was  Hadhrat  Aadam (alayhis  salaam).  Subsequently  all  those  who  had  administered Allah’s  Law  on  earth  were  His  Khulafa  (plural  of  Khalifah).  In relation  to  the  Ummah  of  Islam,  the  first  four  Khulafa  via  the agency  of  being  Rasulullah’s  representatives,  were  the  Khulafa  of Allah Ta’ala. The  system  of  administration  of  Allah’s  Law  on  earth  is  called Khilaafat.  True  and  perfect  Khilaafat  relative  to  this  Ummah consists  of  only  the  Khilaafat  of  the  first  Four  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  and  of  the  Khilaafat  of  Hadhrat  Umar  Bin  Abdul Azeez  (rahmatullah  alayh)  who  is  known  as  Umar  The  Second. Whilst  the  Bani  Umayyah (Ummayads),  Abbaasi  (Abbasids)  and  Uthmaani (Ottoman)  Khilaafats  were  Islamic  systems  of  rule,  they  were  mere shadows of the real Khilaafat of the aforementioned Five Khulafa.

Thus,  when  Muslims  speak  of  Khilaafat,  the  only  model  which  is intended  and  which  comes  to  mind  is  the  Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  It  is  not  the  khilaafat  of  the  Bani  Umayya  nor Abbaasi  reign  nor  the  rule  of  the  Ottomans  despite  the  validity  of their  Khilaafat.  Although  in  theory  the  Shariah  was  the  law  of these  three  Khilaafats,  the  Shariah  and  the  Sunnah  did  not dominate  government  as  it  had  during  the  Khilaafat  of  the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  And  in  the  latter  days  of  the  Ottoman empire  the  Shariah  was  being  incrementally  displaced  and substituted by a policy of kufrization.

One  modernist  miscreant  known  as  Ishtiaq  Husain,  representing some  organization  of  deviation  called  Faith  Matters,  propagating his dystopian idea, writes in an article:

“Islamists  often  present  the  Ottoman  Empire  as  the  most  recent historical  precedent  of  their  dystopian  vision:  according  to  them  it was the perfect Islamic society with a model political system.”

The  miscreant  commenced  his  article  with  this  fundamental  error which  has  no  basis  in  the  Khilaafat  concept  of  those  who  ardently desire  and  pray  for  the  restoration  of  this  divine  system  of governance.  Since  his  very  first  fundamental  premises  on  which  he developed  his  corrupt  argument  is  a  fallacy,  the  entire  quotient emerging from the baseless premises is fallacious.

When  “Islamists”  speak  about  khilaafat,  the  reference  is  to  the Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  not  to  the  khilaafat  of  Bani Umayyah  nor  the  khilaafat  of  Banu  Abbaas  nor  to  the  Ottoman khilaafat.  The  only  model  for  true  Muslims  is  the  Sunnah,  and  the only  Khilaafat  which  governed  according  to  the  Sunnah  was  the Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  and  obedience  to  these Khulafa  is  a  Fardh  command  of  Islam.  In  this  regard  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  “Make  incumbent  on  you  my Sunnah  and  the  Sunnah  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.”  The Ottoman  Empire  or  the  system  of  law  and  governance  of  the Ottoman  Empire  is  not  to  be  equated  to  the  Sunnah  or  to  the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.

In  his  misconceived  dystopia,  Mr.  Ishtiaq  Husain  avers:

“…..This  assertion  is  then  used  to  support  the  general  Islamist vision  within  which  the  establishment  of  an  Ottoman-style  empire, in  the  form  of  a  Caliphate,  or  ‘Khalifah’,  is  presented  as  being viable, achievable and much needed.” 

The  writer  has  spoken  in  riddles.  What  does  he  mean  by  an ‘Ottoman-style  empire”??  The  ideal  of  Muslims  is  not  an  ‘Ottoman-style  empire’  whatever  this  ambiguity  may  connote.  The  ideal  is the  Sunnah  which  is  encapsulated  in  the  Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  By  no  stretch  of  Islamic  imagination  do  the  Ottoman Sultans    constitute    models  for  the  Ummah.    Our  models  are  Abu Bakr,  Umar (read this),  Uthmaan  and  Ali  (radhiyallahu  anhum),  not  the Ottoman  Sultans,  especially  the  final links  in  the  chain  who  were eliminated by Allah Ta’ala. 

When  a  reign  becomes  morally  corrupt,  Allah  Ta’ala  removes such  rulers  from  power.  The  fact  that  the  Ottoman  Empire disintegrated  and  was  finally  eliminated    is  the  evidence  for  Divine Chastisement  which  had  settled  on  the  Ottoman  rulers  who  had veered  sharply  from  the  Shariah  and  the  Path  of  true  Khilaafat. Stating  this  fact,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  says:  “And,  if  you  turn  away (from  the  Deen),  He  (Allah)  will  substitute  you  with  another nation. Then they will not be like you.” (Muhammad, aayat 38)

The  writer  of  the  article  says:  “…..rather    than  implementing  the Shariah,  the  Ottomans  were  actually  attempting  to  secularise  their laws  and  state  institutions.  Secular  reforms  in  the  Ottoman  Empire can  be  traced  back  to  the  17th  century.  However,  this  paper focuses  on  the  period  of  reformation  better  known  as  the  Tanzimat (1839-1876).  During  this  period,  as  will  be  demonstrated, customary  and  religious  laws  were  either  abolished  or  repealed  in favour of secular European ones.”

The  Kufr  ‘Tanzimat’  interpolation  which  the  writer  discusses  is the  evidence  for  Allah’s  Wrath  and  Curse  which  ultimately eliminated  the  Ottoman  reign.  Since  the  ‘Tanzimat’ brought  the Ottomans  within  the  purview  of  the  following  Qur’aanic pronouncement,  the  Athaab  of  Allah  Ta’ala  humiliated  and destroyed them: “Those  who  do  not  rule  according  to  that  (Shariah)  revealed by Allah, verily they are the kaafiroon.”

Continuing  with  his  drivel,  the  writer  says:  “Islamist  activists  of various  stripes  seek  to  resists  reform  and  modernisation  in  the political  sense  by  employing  distorted  historical  facts  to  further their restrictive ideological goals.”

Here  the  writer  disgorges  absolute  drivel.  He  fails  to  understand the  nonsense  he  has  blurted  out.  Which  aspects  of  ‘modernisation’ do  the  Islamists  resist?  What  does  the  writer  mean  by  ‘reform’? For  his  benefit,  we  should  inform  that  the  Islamists  resist  western immorality,  atheism  and  crass  materialism  which  obliterates  the attitudes  of  altruism  and  moral  excellence    of  humanity.    These  are vices  spawned  by  westernism.  If  ‘modernization’  means  the adoption  of  western  culture,  then  undoubtedly,  all  Islamists vigorously    resist  such  Satanism.  Can  the  writer  cite  a  single Islamist  movement    who  resists  reform  and  modernization  in  the technological  and  industrial  spheres??  Do  the  Mujaahideen  and  all those  who  clamour  for  Khilaafat  resist  modern  technological equipment,  technological  progress  and  all  the  modern  amenities  of life  provided  by  technology??  What  precisely  are  the  reforms  and modernization  which  the  Islamists  resist??   With  such  ambiguity  the modernist  deviate  attempts  to  pull  wool  over  the  eyes  of  unsuspecting and unwary readers.

We  can  emphatically  maintain  that  there  is  not  a  single  Islamist who  resists  meaningful  reform  and  modernisation.  All  Islamists utilize  all  the  equipment  of  ‘modernization’.  However,  Islamists reject  and  resist  the  kufr  concepts  which  underlie  the  assertion  of the  writer.  By  ‘reform’  and  ‘modernization’  he  actually  means abandonment  of  the  Sunnah,  re-interpretation  of  Islam,  and  the adoption  of  western  culture  with  all  its  evils  and  vices.  That  is  the meaning  of  reform  and  modernization  which  the  writer  has  in mind.  It  is  the  Waajib  obligation  of  every  Muslim  to  vehemently resist  all  such  kufr  reforms  and  modernization  which  the  modernist munaafiqeen  propose.

The  writer  says:    “During  the  16th  century,  the  Ottoman  Empire was  at  its  peak  as  a  world  super  power,  but  by  the  mid-18th Century  it  had  considerably  weakened.  It  suffered  increasing losses  on  the  battlefields  and  its  territories  began  to  shrink. Internal  and  external  revolts  became  commonplace  and  the empire’s  collapse  seemed  imminent.  These  realities  pushed reformist  Sultans  and  influential  thinkers  to  look  for  new  solutions to the empire’s problems.”

Did  any  of  the    ‘new  solutions’  save  the  empire  from  collapse and  disintegration??    Or  did  any  of  the  ‘new  solutions’  instituted  by the  reformists  even  stem  the  tide  of  the  Ottoman  Empire’s  final demise??  (Also read: THE SAUD-ZIONIST-BRITISH ALLIANCE IN THE DESTRUCTION OF [REAL] KHALIFATE)

Allah Ta’ala states in His glorious Qur’aan:

“  Say:  ‘O  Allah!  It  is  You  (and  only  You)  Who  bestows  Mulk (political  power)  to  whomever  You  wish,  and  it  is  You  Who snatches  away  sovereignty  from  whomever  You  wish.    It  is  You Who  gives  honour  to  whomever  You  wish,    and  it  is  You  who humiliates  whomever  You    wish.  All  goodness  is  (only)  in  Your Hand, Verily You have power over all things.”  

Commensurate  with  the  extent  of  reformist  policies  and  laws  was the  disintegration  of  the  Ottoman  empire.  Far  from  saving  it  from its   demise,  the  kufr  reforms  hastened  its  demise.  There  is  no Islamist  who  desires  to  emulate  the  un-Islamic  governance  policies and ways of the  Ottomans.

With  the  increase  in  the  move  away  from  the  Shariah,    the    social and  political  problems  of  the  Ottomans  became  more  complex  and intractable  in  the  abyss  of  disintegration  and  demise  into  which they  were  sliding.  Far  from  applying  the  brakes  to  their  rapid decline,  the  reforms  only  hastened  the  doom  of  the  Ottoman empire.    Depicting  such  a  state  of  affairs,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  says:

  “If  Allah  aids  you,    no  one  can  conquer  you,  and  if  He  withholds aid  from  you,  then  who  is  there  besides  Allah  who  can  help you??”

The  Europeanization  of   the  army  and  other  spheres    of  life  by the  Ottoman  rulers  ultimately  led  to  the  obliteration  of  Ottoman rule  by  the  Europeans  whom  the  Turks  were  emulating  and  aping. On  the  contrary,  we  see  the  old-fashioned  Taliban  fighting  and defeating  the  combined  might    of  the  super  powers  and  the  armies of  50  countries in  their  primitive  style.  That  is  because  they  have with them the nusrat (help) of Allah Ta’ala.

Justifying  the  setting  aside  of  Islam’s  Hudood  punishments,  the writer  stupidly  cites  Hadhrat  Umar  (radhiyallahu  anhu),  the  Second Khalifah of Islam.  Thus he falsely  contends: “Putting  aside  the  Hadd  (Islamic  punishments)    was  not  wholly unprecedented  for  the  Ottomans.  In  fact,  the  Hadd  punishment  for  stealing  had  been  suspended  before  by  the  2nd  Caliph  (leader)  of Islam  Umar  ibn  al-Khattaab,  a  companion  of  the  Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).”

This  is  a  blatant  LIE.  Ameerul  Mu’mineen,  Hadhrat  Umar (radhiyallahu  anhu)  did  not  set  aside  or  abrogate  the  Hadd  for stealing.  The  Hudood  are  governed  by  many  conditions.  A  Hadd punishment  cannot  be  meted  out  in  the  absence  of  the  fulfilment  of the  imperative  conditions  for  the  validity  of  Hudood.  In  any  case where  the  Hadd  was  not  applied,  it  was  on  account  of  the  absence of  the  imperative  conditions. Furthermore,  a  principle  governing all  Hudood  punishments  is  established  by  the  following  statement of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu  alayhi wasallam): 

“Hudood  are  warded  off  by  doubts.”    A  doubt  introduced  in  the case  cancels  the  Hadd  punishment.    Abstaining  from  issuing  the Hadd  sentence  in  a  specific  case  may  not  be  interpreted  as  ‘setting aside  the  Hadd  punishment.”  However,  such  cancellation  in specific  cases  should  not  be  misconstrued  and  understood  to  mean abrogation.

Every  abolition of  a  Shar’i injunction by  the  Ottomans was  an  act of  kufr  which  expelled  such  rulers  from  the  pale  of  Islam.  Thus  the abolition  of  Jizyah  and  the  Dhimmi  status  of  non-Muslim  citizens, and  all  other  laws  introduced  in  conflict  with  the  Shariah  were  all acts  of  kufr  which  ensured  the  ultimate  obliteration  of  the  Ottoman  reign.  The  Ottoman  reign  had  ceased  being  a  valid  Shar’i Khilaafat.  Hence,  in  Allah’s  Wisdom  there  was  a  need  for  its obliteration.    Abolition  of  the  Shariah  brought  about  the  ruin  and abolition of the Ottoman empire.

The  writer  of  the  article  states  about  the  Islamists:    “Their literature  portrays  the  Ottoman  Empire  as  a  shining  example  of  an Islamic  state,  due  to  its  apparent  adherence  to  fundamental  scriptural edicts.”

This  portrayal  is  undoubtedly  highly  erroneous.  The  Ottoman rule  in  its  era  of  decay  never  was    a  ‘shining  example  of  an  Islamic state’.  If  it  was,  Allah  Ta’ala  would  not  have    displaced  and eliminated  it.  Its  obliteration  is  the  effect  of  Allah’s  Wrath  which was  the  consequence  of  the  kufrization  policy  of  the  Ottoman rulers as is evidenced by the Tanzimat and other kufr reforms.

Any  ‘Islamist’  who  portrays  the  decadent  Ottomans  as  a  ‘shining example  of  an  Islamic  state’  is  an  ignoramus.  There  is  no  need  to present  the  Ottomans  for  the  ideal  of  KhilaafatKhilaafat  is  only the system  of  governance  established  by  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  We  have  no  need  to  look  beyond  the  confines  of Khilaafat-e-Raashidah  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  There  is  no better  system  of  government  for  the  world  than  the  system  of  the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.  The  reforms  which  advocate  a  parliament of  a  hundred  baboons  and  donkeys  is  a  shaitaani  system. There  is no  room  in  Islam  for  the  corrupt  systems  of  government  of  the kuffaar

The  writer  in  his  article  has  shown  that  the  Ottoman  empire, especially  in  its  era  of  decadence  and  demise  was  not  an  Islamic system  modelled  along  the  lines  of    the  Khilaafat    of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen.   In this respect he  has achieved  his  objective. We  are in  agreement  with  him  on  this  score.  If  there  are    ‘Islamists’  who present  the Ottoman  rule  as a  ‘shining  example  of  an  Islamic  state’, then  it  is  due  to  lamentable  ignorance.  The  writer’s  criticism    of such ignorant ‘Islamists’ is correct.

The  lesson  for  Muslims  to  learn  from  Turkey’s  kufrization policies  is  that  it  did  not  save  the  empire  from  being  obliterated.  The  Ottomans  had  turned  their  backs  on  the  Shariah,  so  Allah Ta’ala  removed  them.  They  had  failed  to  understand  that  the  very Shariah  in  vogue  during  the  era  of  the  Khilaafat    of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen  was  valid  for  their  era  and  will  remain  valid  until  the Day  of  Qiyaamah.  This  failure  brought  about  the  annihilation  of the  Ottoman  empire  which  was  not  a  true  Khilaafat  in  its  later stage.  The  Ottomans  had  sealed  their  own  doom  with  the displacement of  the Shariah and their  secularization.


“Allah  has promised those  who have  Imaan  among you and those who practise  virtuous deeds that   He will  most certainly make  then  khulafa on  earth   just as He had   made  those before  them  khulafa, and He will  certainly powerfully  establish  for  them  their Deen  which  He   has chosen for them, and He will replace  their fear   with peace. They worship Me and they do not associate anything with  Me (i.e. they  do not commit shirk). And those who commit  kufr thereafter, verily  they  are  the faasiqoon. (Surah Noor, aayat 55)

For  this  Ummat-e-Muslimah,  Allah  Ta’ala  had  beautifully fulfilled  His  promise.  During  the  Khilaafat  of  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  within  a  short  period  of  a  couple  of  decades,  the denizens  of  the  desert,  the  Sahaabah,  had  raised  the  Standard  of Islam  on  the  hilltops  of  the  world.  A  vast  area  of  the  world  was brought  under  Islamic  domination.  The  Khilaafat  was  the  Rule  of Allah on earth.

After  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  moral  decline  set  into the  Ummah.  Muslims  surrendered  themselves  to  opulence, extravagance,  indolence,  and  they  abandoned  the  objective  of  life which  is  the  Aakhirah.    With  their  moral  decadence,  they  drifted far,  very  far  from  Siraatul  Mustaqeem .  They  abandoned  the Sunnah  and  became  intellectually  stagnated.  In  fact,  they retrogressed  intellectually  and  morally.  In  their  state  of  advanced intellectual,  moral  and  spiritual  decomposition  they  failed  to understand  what  was  the  original  cause  of  their  glorious  success and victory.

When  their  Islamic  moorings  were  destroyed,  fear  overcame them.  They  began  losing  control  of  the  lands  they  once  dominated with  power  and  glory  in  the  name  of  Islam  and  on  behalf  of  Allah Azza  Wa  Jal.  The  Shariah  was  either  ignored,  interpolated  or banished.  Rudderless,  Muslims  looked  at  aliens  for  a  direction. When  they  saw  the  worldly  prosperity  and  progress  of  the  kuffaar, especially  the  western  kuffaar,  they  (the  morally  rotten  Muslims) began  to  believe  that  the  means  and  ways  of  the  kuffaar  were  the only road for success. 

Thus,  Muslims  looked  askance  at  the  West  for  direction  and directive.  They  appointed  the  Western  countries  to  be  their  leaders. Hence  Allah  Ta’ala  made  the  West  our  rulers.  The  Ottomans  and all  other  Muslim  entities  adopted  secularization  which  is  another name  for  kufrization.  The  Shariah  was  abandoned,  and  the Ottoman  Empire  sealed  its  doom  with  its  secularization  and westernization.  They  tried  to  westernize  and  secularize  Islam  and the  Ummah.  In  the  wake  of  this  satanic  policy  of  kufrization,  the Ottomans  lost  and  committed  suicide.  Allah  Ta’ala  terminated  the reign  of  the  Ottomans.  Ignominy  and  humiliation  were  their  end, and to this day the Ummah grovels in ignominy and humiliation. 

Despite  the  miserable  failure  of  westernization,  secularization and  kufrization  to  extricate  the  Ummah  from  its  morass  of  disgrace,  ‘Muslims’  still  remain  blind  to  the  causes  of  their  decline and  defeat.  This  is  because  they  are  no  longer  Muslims.  They  all come within the  scope  of  the Hadith:

“There  will dawn a time  when people will  gather in their Musaajid and perform  Salaat  while  not a single  one  (in the  crowd)  will be a Mu’min.”

It was  Kufrization  that  had destroyed the  Ottoman Empire.