THE ‘MYSTICAL’ PATH OF THE SATANISTS

Mujlisul Ulama

Tasawwuf  or  Sufi’ism  is  an  integral  constituent  of  Islam. Tasawwuf  which  has  been  erroneously  described  as ‘mysticism’,  is  the  product  of  the  Qur’aan  and  Sunnah. Tasawwuf  is  completely  subservient  to  the  Shariah.  Any  brand of  sufi’ism/tasawwuf  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  Shariah  is  Satanism. 

Elaborating  this  subject,  Hadhrat  Sayyid  Abdul  Qaadir  Jilaani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  classified  these  Satanists  into several classes.

1)  Hulooliyyah   or  the  Incarnationists:  They  believe  that it  is lawful  to  stare  at  a  woman  or  a  man  whether  they  happen  to  be wives  or  husbands,  daughters  or  sisters,  etc. They  intermingle and dance  together.

2)  Haaliyyah:  They  claim  to  be  in  ecstasy.  They  are  entranced  by  singing,  jumping,  shouting  and  clapping  hands. They  believe  that  their  sheikhs  are  above  the  laws  of  the Shariah

3)  Auliya-iyyah:  They  claim  to  have  achieved  divine proximity  of  the  loftiest  stage,  hence  all  the  injunctions  of  the Shariah  are  not  applicable  to  them.  They  also  claim  that  a  wali has  a  higher  status  than  a  Nabi.  They  believe  that  while knowledge  came  to    Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) via  Jibraeel  (alayhis  salaam),  it  comes  to  the  wali  directly  from Allah Ta’ala.

4)  Shamuraaniyyah:  These  heretics  believe  that  the  world  is eternal.  It  never  had  a  beginning  nor  will  it  ever  end.  They  consider  themselves  above  the  ahkaam  of  the  Shariah  which  they  believe  do  not  apply  to  them.  There  is  nothing  such  as  haraam  and  halaal  in  their  belief  concept.  Musical  instruments  are  used  in  their  so-called  religious  rituals.  They  do  not differentiate  between  man  and  woman  regarding  them  to  be  the  same.

5)  Hubbiyah:  They  believe  that  when  a  person  attains  the stage  of  ‘love’,  they  are  freed  from  the  obligations  of  the Shariah.  They  also  believe  in  nudism.  They  expose  their private  parts.

6)  Huriyyah:  They  seek  to  gain  ecstatic  experiences  by  means of  shouting,  singing  and  clapping  hands.  They  claim  to  having  sexual  relations  with  the  houris  of  Jannat.

7)  Mutakaasiliyyah:  Laziness  is  a  cardinal  article  of  their  faith.  They  beg  from  door  to  door  for  their  sustenance.  While  they  rot  in  their  laziness  they  claim  that  this  is  renunciation  of  the world.

8)  Mutajaahiliyyah:  They  deliberately  feign  ignorance,  dress immodestly  and  emulate  non-believers  (They  resemble  the  modernists  of  our  age.  –  The  Majlis)

9)  Waafiqiyyah:  They  claim  that  no  one  can  understand  and know  Allah  Ta’ala,  hence  they  deliberately  abandon  the  Shariah  on  the  basis  of  this corrupt  assumption.

10)  Ilhaamiyyah:  They  believe  in  ilhaam  (inspiration). Thus  they  abandon  knowledge  and  forbid  its  acquisition.  They believe  that  the  Qur’aan  is  a  barrier  for  them.  Poetry  and  music are  their  Qur’aan.  (On  the  occasion  when  Allah  Ta’ala expelled  Iblees  from  the  heavens,  he  supplicated  for  a ‘qur’aan’.  Granting  his  supplication,  Allah  Ta’ala  informed  him that  his ‘qur’aan  will  be  poetry   and singing.  This  group  of  Satanists  follow  him  in  this  aspect.  They  receive  their  ‘ilhaam’ (inspiration) from shaitaan. – The Majlis)

Besides  these  sects  of  Satanists,  there  were  many  others  as  well  such  as  the  Qalandaris  (wandering  beggars),  Haydaris (those  who  pretend  to  be  heroes)  and  Adhamis  (those  who  fraudulently  pretend  to  follow  Hadhrat  Ibraahim  Adham’s  path  of  renunciation. He  had  abandoned  the  throne of  Balkh).

A  very  prominent  sect  of  Satanists  in  our  era  is  the  Qabar  Pujaari  sect.  They  worship  the  graves  of  dead  saints  and  claim  to  ascend  to  lofty  spiritual  stages  via  the  avenue  of  ecstasy  while  in  reality  their  ‘ecstasy’  is   nothing  but  pure  hallucination,  the  product  of  smoking  dagga  (hashish)  and  opium.  Their  headquarters  are  always  located  at  the  graves  of  Auliya  which  they  have  converted  into  haunts  of  shirk  and kufr.

Hadhrat  Abdul  Qaadir  Jilaani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  states  in his  kitaab,  Sirrul  Asraar  that  there  are  two  signs  of  the  people of  Truth  who  follow  the  Sunnah  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  One  sign  is  zaahir  (external).  They  follow  the  ahkaam  of  the  Shariah  meticulously.  They  are  firmly fettered  to  the  Shariah.  The  other  sign  is  baatin  (internal  spiritual).  They  follow  the  Akhlaaq-e-Hasanah  (Beautiful Moral  Character)  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam). Thus,  they  are  firmly  anchored  to  the  Shariah  and  the  Sunnah. And,  this  is  the  Naaji  group  –  the  only   group  of  the  73  sects, which  will  attain  salvation in  the  Aakhirah.

Warning  Muslims  of  the  Satanist  trap  of  deception,  Hadhrat  Sayyid  Abdul  Qaadir  Jilaani  (rahmatullah  alayh)  says  in  his  kitaab:  “Beware, O  Traveller  in  search  of  the  Truth!  Beware of the  blind  leading  the  blind. Your  sight  should  become  so  fine  to enable  you  to  distinguish  between  the  slightest  particle  of  good  and  evil.”

The Killing Of Umm Qirfa and the False Propaganda of a Christian Liar

image

The moron (in the pic) has cut the context and tried to portray the early Muslims as ‘thugs’, this is the typical ‘art of deceiving’ the Anti-Islam morons apply to deceive unwary masses and create in their hearts the hatred aginst Islam. Here we will rebut his falsehood and expose his lie on this issue with solid proofs.

A brother has answered this nonsense propaganda in a detailed manner:

The way the story of killing of Umm Qirfa is presented by anti-Islamic polemicists is a perfect example of how they twist the facts.

The twisted story:

They (the Islam-haters like the one in the pic – islamreigns) give an impression as if she was a noble lady of great character and Muslims for no valid reason attacked her tribe and her killing in that specific manner, of tying her legs to two camels and driving them away and thus tearing her apart, was carried out on by the command of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself. They also allege that her head was brought to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and he ordered it to be paraded in Medina. Then they try to make an issue about her daughter who was taken as a prisoner and later gave birth to a child of Hazn bin Abu Wahb. They tend to convey as if she was raped. Indeed nothing can be far from truth then this.

Some issues with the narration:

First of all let me say that there is some confusion as to when was Umm Qirfa killed and who lead the campaign against her violent tribe. According to Baihiqi’s Sunan al-Kubra 8/204 and Sunan Darqutni (H.3249) she was killed during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (RA) while most of the books on Sirah (life and times of the Holy Prophet PBUH) put it somewhere in 6th year A.H. Further according to Sahih Muslim (H.3299) Abu Bakr (RA) led the campaign during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). But accounts in the books of Sirah give the notion as if Zaid bin Harith (RA) was the leader. Polemicists, mostly Christians, generally refer to the books of Sirah so we shall reply considering those particular narrations.

5- Further we learn that Umm Qirfa in her capacity of being the tribal leader plotted to harm the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum p.457). In Sirat Halabiyya it is stated that;

“Zaid bin Harith ordered the killing of Umm Qirfa for she used to revile the Prophet, on whom be peace and blessings of Allah, and because she had prepared thirty riders from amongst her children and grand children and had asked them to attack Medina and kill Muhammad (PBUH).” (Sirat Halabaiyya 3/251)

Facts and the Lies!

Now this clarifies certain points.

1- It was the Tribe of Fazara, which was headed by Umm Qirfa, who first attacked Muslims who were merely on trading journey.

2- They killed Muslims and took their merchandise.

3- Muslims made a counter attack to punish the trigger-happy tribe.

4- There is no authentic report whether Holy Prophet (PBUH) ordered her killing specifically. Infact it was Zaid bin Harith (RA) who ordered her killing as she was, being the leader of the tribe, responsible for all that happened. And we just read Zaid himself had seen their aggression and merely survived it.

5- Her killing was perfectly justified as she led her tribe to commit violence against Muslims. She was no innocent a woman and was rather a hostile enemy.

6- The manner she was killed was not ordained by the Prophet (PBUH) but was carried on by the people who had undergone the terror practiced by her men. It was a reaction by such people; nevertheless it goes against the mannerism taught by Islam. And though such a behavior is deplorable, it is Umm Qirfa herself who is to be held responsible for such a reaction.

7- No authentic report makes any mention of her head being brought to the Prophet (PBUH) and then paraded in the streets of Medina. This is a myth and a lie! The books these slanderers produce as a reference are no authority as they are not written by trustworthy people and no authentic report in any of the classical books gives even a hint to such a happening.

The Daughter of Umm Qirfa:

8- Now coming to the daughter of Umm Qirfa. There are two reports and these liars refer to both of them. According to Sahih Muslim, she was given to Salama bin al-Akwa’ and then Holy Prophet (PBUH) took her from Salama and she was given as a ransom for Muslim captives in Makkah. While according to Sirat Ibn Hisham etc she was taken from Salama and then given to Hazn bin Abu Wahb and later bore him a son, Abdul Rahman.

9. She was not raped: According to Sahih Muslim she was first given to Salama (RA) and he himself reports:

“…we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) met me in the street and said: ‘Give me that girl, O Salama!’ I said: ‘Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her.’ The next day, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) again met me in the street, he said: ‘O Salama, give me that girl, May God bless your father.’ I said: ‘She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah! I have not yet disrobed her.’ The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent her to the people of Makkah, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Makkah.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 3299)

Now one can observe that Salama (RA) said that he had not disrobed her when they reached Medina and again when the Holy Prophet (PBUH) met him in the street he told that he had not disrobed her. And even the next day, after the night having passed, when he was again asked for the girl, he testified that he had yet not disrobed her though she fascinated him.

This is enough proof that Salama didn’t forcefully lay with her as it was against the teachings of Islam. Islam does not allow a man to forcefully have sexual intercourse with his slave woman, otherwise no could stop Salama from sleeping with a slave girl who fascinated him. And if she later gave birth bore Hazn bin Abu Wahb (RA) a son then it must have been by her own consent. We have seen the conduct of pious companion Salama (RA) and there is no reason to say that another pious companion Hazn (RA) would have violated the Islamic injunction and forced the daughter of Umm Qirfa into the intimate relation.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES NOW!

Indiscriminate killing of women and children:

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Agreed that the Amalekites were accused of being violent to the Israel on their way out of Egypt but did Fazara, the tribe lead by Umm Qirfa, not do the same to Muslims who were merely on trading journey? But still there is difference. Muslims killed only those who fought and plotted against Muslims and even Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person, but why did the ‘loving Father’ in the Heavens above order the indiscriminate killing of men and women and even infants? Why infant and the suckling? No devil or saint can help the Christians come up with a justification for such cruelty.

Keep virgin women ‘for yourselves’!

Bible puts the following words into the mouth of Moses (PBUH) alleging that he was inspired by God:

“Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men. But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves:” (Numbers 31:17-18)

Again why kill children? Were they also accused of deceiving the people of Israel? Why kill even the little ones for your weakness of Faith? Even the learned men of Christianity find no way to justify this barbarism attributed to holy men. Adam Clarke in his commentary to this verse says:“The little ones were safely lodged; they were taken to heaven and saved from the evil to come.” What a justification! Reasoning and rationality can only mourn at it.

But ‘all the girls and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves!’ says the Bible attributing it to Moses (PBUH). What for? Were the virgin women not accused of deceiving the Israel while even the children were? I need not say that as you, the reader, can easily sense what the reason can be. And I urge you to give a verdict if it suits these slandering Christians to speak about Islam?

Kill the men, capture the women, and take the spoils!

“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

These verses are a slap on the face of all those evil mongers among the Christians who speak against the Islamic idea of Jihad, taking women as captives (remember, Islam allows this under some special circumstances governed by rules that guarantee rights of those taken as captives) and capturing spoils of war.It does not suit a person who dwells in a house made of delicate glass to throw stones at others!

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Analysis of the So-Called ‘Verses of Divinity’ of Jesus (‘Eesa Alayhissalaam)

The “I am” statements of the Gospel of John

It should be  noted that none, not a single one of these so-called “divine claims” of Jesus appear in  any way, shape, or form, in the synoptic gospels. This is certainly problematic since Christians  almost invariably point to these passages as undeniable proofs of the divinity of Christ. It should also be noted that the  Jesus Seminar (  decided unanimously that none of the “I am” statements are historically accurate. The facts are clear: 1) The Gospel of John was the last of the canonical gospels to be written, somewhere  around 90-100 CE.  2) The form, content, style, and chronology  of this Gospel is very  much in contrast to  the synoptic tradition. 3)  This book, as well as the synoptics, were anonymous books until about  the year 200 CE when they were pseudonymously  attributed  to  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 4)  None  of the four  canonical gospels were written down during  the lifetime of Christ (upon whom  be peace), nor  were they  written in his  mother tongue. There were countless  communities of first century Christians who never even heard of the Gospel of John or the mighty “claims” of Jesus within its pages. The oldest Greek New Testament text, the  Codex Sinaiticus, was not codified until the year 375 CE  and included an Epistle of St.  Barnabas that has since been expunged by the Church as a fabrication. After the infamous Council of Nicea in 325 CE, any Christian community that did not believe in the Trinity was deemed heretical and considered “lawful blood” for the Church hoards. Books were burned and entire populations were exterminated by Constantine and his cronies. 

Most Christians claim that John the son of Zebedee, a disciple of Jesus, wrote the Gospel that bears his name. To understand the sheer folly of such a claim, I will draw a similarity that you can easily follow. To say that John the son of Zebedee authored the Fourth Gospel is equivalent to saying that Zayd Ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him), the chief scribe of the Prophet Muhammad, decided to wait seventy years until after the death of his Master to write anything down on paper or papyrus about the Prophet and when he finally did, he wrote it using Chinese characters, not Arabic letters! Point out to your  Christian friend that Matthew was also a disciple of Jesus. He has no choice but to agree. Then ask him  why Matthew, an ear  and eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus did not record a single one of the “I am” statements that Christians often quote to prove  Christ’s divine nature?  In fact, Matthew decides to plagiarize 90% of Mark’s Gospel, a man who never even saw the historical Jesus!

The following  “I am” statements are found  only in the Gospel of John:

“I am that bread of life.” – John 6:48.

•  “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” – John 8:58.

“As long as I am in the world, I am  the light of the world.”  – John 9:5.

• “Then said Jesus unto them  again, Verily, verily, I say unto  you, I am the door of the sheep.” – John 10:7.

•  “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”   – John 10:11.

•  “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that  believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” – John 11:25.

• “Jesus saith unto him, I am  the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” – John 14:6.

•  “I am  the true vine, and my  Father is the husbandman.” – John 15:1.

How can Matthew miss all of these essential “divine” claims? 100% failure? Was Matthew truly inept or maybe he never heard of any of these statements? What about Luke and Mark? Do they put these words into the mouth of the Master? Nope, not once. St. Luke actually tells us why he wrote his Gospel:

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them  unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,  and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most  excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast  been instructed.”  – Luke 1:1-4.

In this introduction to his Gospel, Luke very candidly admits that his Gospel of Jesus is purely from hearsay traditions and that it “seemed good” for him to write since he is a physician and can  give a more orderly account than  a bunch of fishermen and tax collectors. He never claims that he is under the trance of the Holy Spirit and in fact, this Gospel is  actually  a letter  to a person named “Theophilus.” Basically what Luke is saying is the  following: “There have been many that have written about the life of Jesus that were there to witness his ministry. I think that it would be a good idea for me to write about him also since I know what I’m talking about. My book will  help you understand what we have been trying  lto convince  you of, Mr. Theophilus.”

John 1:1 – The Word was God

Never settle  for anything less than Jesus. In other words, don’t let the Christian quote you John  1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the  Word was God,”   and be content that he has gained mastery over you. John 1:1 are not the words of Jesus, but of  John, at best. We as Muslims  must demand as proof unequivocal statements of Jesus where he states “I am  God”  or “worship me.” In reality, there are  no such statements. John is not nearly good enough for  us.

We want to hear it from the Master himself.  But what about John 1:1? Will I simply dismiss it as an obvious Christian forgery? I wouldn’t call it forgery as much  as deception. In Exodus 7:1, we  are told that the Lord God of Israel sent the Holy Prophet Moses (upon whom be peace) as  “elohim,” meaning “God” (royal plural) unto Pharoah and Aaron as his Prophet. In Psalm 82:6, God tells His chosen Israelites: “I said: Ye are elohim, all sons of the  Most High.” In I Corinthians 4:4 Satan is called  “theos,” or God of this world. In all three of the above mentioned passages the  Christians have rendered the Hebrew and Greek as “god(s)” with a small “g,” yet insist on translating “el, Immanuel, and  theos” mentioned in Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 1:23, and John 1:1 as “God” with a big “g” because they  are, as they claim, referring to  Jesus! Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes in this matter. Inform your Christian friend that there are no capital letters in the original Hebrew and Greek and ask him why Christian authors have arbitrarily  decided to capitalize certain “key” words while leaving others alone.

A Christian may rebut, “There are no capital letters in Greek but there surely  is the  definite article.” This does not help his case however. In the first occurrence of the predicate noun “God,” it is preceded by  the definite article  “ton.”  Therefore,  the translation, “and the Word was with (the) God” is correct. The second occurrence of the predicate noun “God,” is not preceded by a definite article ton  yet the Christians continue to  render it as “and the Word was God” when in reality it should read, “and the word was a god.” According to Greek rules on grammar, however, a predicate noun that is preceded by a verb may be translated as definite according to context. For example in John 4:19  we  are told: “The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.” This verse  can also be translated as “I perceive that thou art the
Prophet,” because the predicate noun “prophet” is preceded by  the verb “ei,” or “art.” In John 1:21, the Jews ask John the Baptist, “art thou the Prophet?”   This is in reference to the Prophet of Deuteronomy  18:18, not just any prophet. The Jews are asking him a very specific question. The  woman in John 4:19 simply remarks that Jesus is a prophet. Again, the context is what determines the usage. Jesus never claims that he is God in the Bible and always considers himself subordinate to Him, so while the translation offered by Christians of John 1:1 is grammatically  correct, it is contextually incorrect.

John 8:58 – Before Abraham was, I AM

The Christians claim that Jesus uses the Divine Name “Yahweh” that God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:14 as referring to himself in  this oft-repeated verse. Let’s examine this claim more closely.  The New Jerusalem Bible has translated this phrase “I am that I am” from “Ehe’ye asher ehe’ye”  (Hebrew) as “I am He who is: Ego emi, Ho on” (Greek). The commentary of this verse states that this rendering of the original Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 is exactly  how the seventy translators of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) (i.e. A Greek translation of the Hebrew  Bible completed by seventy Greek-speaking Hebrew scholars  in Alexandria, Egypt, 250 BCE)  understood the meaning to be, and these were highly educated Greek-speaking Hebrew scholars. Essentially God is telling Moses that “He who is” or He that can never die has sent him unto Pharaoh. 

The Divine attribute is the  phrase  “Ho on” (He who is), yet Jesus in John 8:58 simply  says, “Before Abraham was, ego emi.”   He does not claim the divine attribute used in the Septuagint which educated Jews at the time of Jesus would have been aware of. Again, we have Christian word games being played here. The words in English are the same, namely “I am.”  The Greek of John, however, is different than the Greek of Exodus 3:14. Let’s look at the entire passage:

“Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a  man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have  not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him  not, I shall be a liar like unto you:  but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham  rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not  yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at  him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”   – John 8:52-59.

So what does Jesus mean by  “Before Abraham was, I am,” and why  do the Jews pick up stones?  Jesus is simply claiming his  legitimacy in a very clever way.  The Jews were so proud that  they were the progeny of Abraham, so he (Jesus) hits them  where it hurts most. He basically  says, “Before Abraham was born into this earthly existence, I was in the knowledge and Will of God. When we all existed before the  creation of the physical universe in spiritual form, Abraham longed to see my day, the day of the Messiah.” Jesus is saying that since God knew him and made him Christ before the creation of Abraham, he (Jesus) is just as legitimate as Abraham. God tells the Prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I  sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). This is precisely  what Jesus  meant when he said: “And now, O Father, glorify thou  me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). Is it unusual for a Prophet to speak like this? Did any  other prophets prove their “bona-fides” by suggesting their pre-existence in the Will and infinite knowledge of God? The best of creation, the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom  be peace and blessings) once said, “I am the seal the of the Prophets when Adam was in clay.” Surely this makes Muhammad  more worthy of being a god-incarnate since Adam predates Abraham chronologically. Alas, the fundamentalist Christian’s programmed mind can only see in black and white. 

Even the Baptist cousin of Jesus warns the Jews: “And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to [our] father: for I say  unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). Your Christian friend may  explode, “Then why do the Pharisees pick up stones?” The answer is because Jesus is  claiming to be genuinely sent from God and His anointed. We are told in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:20 that false prophets must be killed. Turn the tables on your Christian buddy  and ask him, “If the Jews truly believed that Jesus claimed to be God, then why don’t they use these ‘claims’ as evidenceagainst him in the religious High Court of the Sanhedrin?” We are told in Mark 14:55: “And the  chief priests and the whole council gathered together to find  evidence that would warrant  a death sentence,  but failed to find any” (Revised English Bible). They  couldn’t even get two witnesses to agree with each other! Having no reason to kill Jesus, the Jews pulled a “180” and changed their charge from blasphemy, a  religious crime, to sedition or treason, a political crime. Why?  Because they knew that Pilate, the Roman Procurator, would have little mercy on enemies of the state. After Pilate tells the hoards of Jews shouting for  Jesus’ execution that he finds no fault in Jesus, the Jews very  cleverly  answer, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s  friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar” (John 19:12). Therefore, Pilate had little choice but to  hand him over to be crucified.

The Christian will at this point be obstinate. He will cry, “No! They  killed him because he claimed to be God, not just a prophet!” Answer this by simply asking him  if any of the previous Hebrew prophets ever claimed to be God. He will say no. Then inquire as to  why they were killed by the Jews? Jesus lashes out against  his people: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,  [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not” (Matthew 23:37). Is it surprising that the Jews are constantly picking up stones against Jesus when many  of the previous prophets were stoned, and they never claimed to be God? 

Josh McDowell says in his book  More than a Carpenter whose cover boasts over 10,000,000 copies printed worldwide (emphasis mine): “An analysis of Christ’s testimony shows that he claimed to be 1) the Son of the Blessed One (God); 2) The One who would sit at the right hand  of power, and 3)  the Son of Man who would come on the clouds of heaven. Each of the affirmations is distinctively  messianic.” I agree. They were claims to be the Christ, not God.

John 14:6 – I am the way, the truth, and the life…

Certainly extremist Christians have abused this verse all throughout their 2000 years of   blood-stained history by using it to justify the killing of millions of innocents. You should know that  Bible-believing Christians are extremely exclusivist, meaning that they will never accept you until you not only believe as they do, but exactly as they do. Muslims often wonder why there are so many different denominations of Christianity. The reason is because fundamentalist Christians not only hate the “heathen,” as they  call them, but also hate each other. You will hear evangelist born-agains call the Pope the anti-Christ. You will hear Catholics call Protestants astray. You will hear Baptists call Jehovah Witnesses non-Christian. And you will hear almost all of them call Mormons “cultists.” Allah has given us the cause of this mutual Christian rancor: “From those,  too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a  covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done” (Qur’an 5:14)

This verse (John 14:6) reads in its entirety: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” Interestingly, we as Muslims should not take any exception to this verse. Belief in Jesus as a true Prophet, Messenger, and Messiah is an article of Islamic faith. Denial of this constitutes kufr, or unbelief. We can surely imagine  Moses mimicking these very words as he descended Sinai only  to find his “rebellious” and “stiff-necked” community worshipping a golden calf. Moses was the way,  the truth, and the life, while the calf was a false way, a false truth, and a false life. 

Let’s examine the verse in  its historical context. The Children of Israel at the time of Jesus were expecting the coming of three distinct luminaries, the second of which was Ha Mashiakh, or the “Anointed One” (We will discuss this in a separate post any other day Insha Allah). When Jesus arrives on the scene he finds the Jews clinging onto a myriad of customs and traditions that had nothing to do with the true teachings of the Torah as revealed through Moses (upon whom be peace). When the Gospel revelations attempted to abrogate many of these invented traditions, the Jews became filled with hatred for the nature  of Jesus’ teachings. The son of Mary  lashes out: “Ye serpents, ye  generation of vipers, how can ye  escape  the damnation of hell” (Matthew 23:33)?; “Woe unto  you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and  have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye  to have done, and not to leave the other undone.[Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:23-24). 

On another occasion he tells the self-righteous Jews: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no  man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). He is essentially saying: “Your little scruples and customs will not save you from damnation. The Anointed of God is here before  you and yet you reject him! How do you expect to attain salvation?” Let me draw an analogy that you can easily grasp: When the Prophet Muhammad began admonishing the Quraysh  of Makkah, he found success with great difficulty because the hearts and minds of the people were very much fixated on their idols of wood and stone. The Quraysh certainly believed in Allah, the most High God as they  called Him, but felt that He was too holy to be approached without the means of intermediaries. Obviously  believing in the messengership of Muhammad is the defining characteristic  of a Muslim,  and the  very  fact that the Quraysh felt that they didn’t need his guidance demonstrated their contentment with the religion of their Pagan fathers. Therefore, despite their belief in Allah, can any of the Quraysh expect to enter Heaven now that God’s Holy Prophet is among them in their very midst, and they reject him? Never!

The Christian may inform you that Jesus claimed to be “the truth,” or al-Haqq in Arabic, which is one of the Divine attributes of God  mentioned in the Qur’an. “He is using a divine attribute to refer to himself, an attribute found in  your scripture,” he will say. Inform him that the words Ra’uf and  Rahim, meaning Kind and Merciful respectively, are also attributed to God in the Qur’an. However, Allah reveals in Surah Tawbah, verse 128: “Now hath come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye  should perish: ardently anxious is  he over you: to the Believers is he  most kind and merciful” (Qur’an 9:128). The words that Allah has used in this verse to describe the  character of His Beloved are  Ra’uf and Rahim, two of the divine attributes! Does this make Muhammad God? Certainly not. He simply embodies many of the sacred attributes at a much smaller, human level. By the same token, we can say that Muhammad is Great, Noble, Generous, and Truth. He is not,  however, “the Creator,” or “the Giver of Life and Death.” These attributes are solely for God and nowhere does Jesus ever claim to be these things. 

You may also want to mention to  the Christian the story of the Sufi mystic known as al-Hallaj, who in a state of spiritual realization of his Lord exclaimed, “Ana al Haqq,” or “I am the Truth!” This is a level of Taqwa (divine awareness) that the Christian is vastly  ignorant of. 

John 10:30 – The Father and I are One

Christians regard this verse as the golden egg of divine claims. They almost always, however, take it completely out of context. What does Jesus mean when he says that he and the Father are One?  One in divinity? Let’s examine the entire passage and arrive at the truth.

“Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If  thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.  Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye  believe not, because ye are not of  my sheep, as I said unto you. My  sheep hear my voice, and I know  them, and they follow me: And I  give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave  [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father’s hand. I and [my] Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot  be broken; Say ye of him, whom  the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”  – John 10:24-36.

Notice Jesus, referring to his sheep, says that no man can pluck them out of  his hand. Then he says that His Father is greater than all, and no man is able to  pluck them  out of His Hand. He and the Father are one, yes, one in purpose! Their unity exists in the fact that they are protecting their sheep, not in their godhead,  as Christians claim. Jesus even prefaces his so-called “claim” by saying that the Father “is greater than all” so that there is no confusion in what he is saying  yet Christians remain confused. Christians needing to justify themselves, ridiculously claim  that Jesus in verse 29 is speaking of the person of the Father and not of His nature or essential being. However in the very next verse, they now claim that Jesus  is speaking of the nature and essence of the Father and equating himself to Him. This is  a classic case of Christians reading into the scripture something that is not there.

Ron Rhodes, author of  Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims, quotes the Athanasian Creed: (emphasis  mine, bashfully): “(Christ) is equal to the Father as touching his Godhood, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood”  (pages  154-155).  With statements like this, who needs the funny pages? 

We are then told that the Jews pick up stones and tell Jesus, b “for a good work we stone thee not;  but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a  man, makest thyself God.” Rhodes comments, “Notice that Jesus did not respond by  saying, ‘Oh, no,  you’ve got it all wrong. I was not claiming to be God. I’m just claiming unity of purpose with Him.’ Jesus did not offer a single correction because the Jews  understood Him exactly as He had intended to be understood.” Maybe Mr. Rhodes forgot to read  the remainder of the passage because Jesus does, most  definitely, correct the Jews misunderstanding of his claim. 

In verse 34, Jesus quotes Psalm  82:6: “Is it not written in your law: ‘I said, you are gods?’” He continues: “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.” So what exactly is Jesus claiming? He is claiming that he is receiving the word of God, and that since those who were bestowed this honor in  the Law are called “gods,” like Moses in Exodus 7:1, there is nothing blasphemous about him  saying that he is the “Son of God.” He is simply confirming previous scripture. 

McDowell says: “Greek scholar A.T. Robertson writes that the ‘one’ is neuter, not masculine, in the Greek, and does not indicate one in person or purpose but rather one in ‘essence or nature’” (page  16). However Jesus says about his disciples: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father,  [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that  the world  may believe that  thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). I don’t think any Christian will submit to believe that there is actually a fifteen-unit godhead consisting of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and twelve disciples which includes the “Satanic”  Peter, the doubting Thomas, and the traitor Judas Iscariot. The Greek for “one” in both verses (John 10:30, 17:21) is “hen.”  Again, oneness of purpose in meant here.

Correct your Christian friend’s misunderstanding of this  passages, just as Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) corrected the Pharisees. 

Science Can Not Disprove GOD’s existence.

There is actually no scientific basis that can tell you that God does not exist. It is not science’s domain to test whether there is God or not. Science is simply a tool to test what is empirically true. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observations. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can’t find. So how can Science disprove something which they can’t see and will never be able to. As GOD cannot be seen for sure. Because from Qur’an we know that GOD is unlike His creation [See Qur’an 42:11]. And, No vision can grasp Him  [see Qur’an 6:103]. Moreover, How can a Creator be a part of His Creation?

It is totally unreasonable for one to think in a scientific framework to put God as an extra element. Within scientific framework, it is true that an extra element is not needed, since we already made the assumption that everything is contained and confined within the universe and nothing can be lost. But this does not mean that science denies the existence of God. There is no reason to think that way. People has a distorted view of Science. Because some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. As Freeman Dyson says and I quote, “The public has a distorted view of Science because Children are taught in schools that science is a collection of firmly established  truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is continuing exploration of mysteries.”

There is no reason to consider God’s actions in a scientific framework and in the same time, there is no reason to consider that God does not exist based on scientific deduction. Scientific theories only propose that which is falsifiable. That means the scientific method can’t answer any questions but only shows what is a false answer out of innumerable possibilities. We should not try to apply science outside of the fields for which it is meant. Some take the position that if science doesn’t give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That’s simply the false assumption scientism. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. In this case, ”GOD’s existence”. There are many more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!  Science is not deficient in any way; but it’s just not the right way to find few particular kinds of truths. To try to do so would be like trying to ascertain whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it; it’s simply the wrong method!

I really do not understand why a scientist and let alone a non-scientist would have to throw away their religious identity over a scientific theory, which cannot be proven in a universal way. Of course if someone wants to become atheist it is their choice, but don’t ever think religious people are inferior. Religious people could be smarter than an atheist person, and religious people could cleverly manage their life so they can achieve many things without losing their religious identity.

And one more thing I wanna say that if any non-scientist reading this article of mine I would like to advice them that, before you ever accept or even think about a scientific result, try to think like a scientist for a while, in the correct way, not in the way that the atheistic propaganda wants you to think. Then make your decision based on your own thought, not theirs. They are also human, so they can be wrong and so can I.

Millat-e-Ibrahim: The Abrahamic Way & The Deviation Of Christians & the Jews from his Path

“And  who  turns  away  from  the  faith  of  Ibrahim  (Abraham)  except  the  one  who  has  debased  himself  in  folly.  And  indeed  We  have  chosen  him  in  this  world,  and  in  the  other  world  he  is  certainly  among  the  righteous.  When  his  Lord  said  to  him,  “Submit!”  He  said,  “I  submit  myself  to  the  Lord  of  the  worlds.”  And  Ibrahim  exhorted  the  same  to  his  sons,  and  so  did  Ya’qub:  “My  sons,  Allah has  certainly  chosen  for  you  the  Faith.  So,  let  not death  overtake  you  but  as  Muslims.”   [Surah Baqarah: 130 – 132]

The  above  verse  speaks  of  the  superiority  of  the  religion  of  Sayyidina  Ibrahim  alayhissalaam (Biblical  Abraham),  from  which  arises  his  own  spiritual  station  and  glory  in  this  world  and  in  the  other.  This  being  so,  anyone  who  turns  away  from  this  religion  only  displays  his  own  stupidity.  Anyhow,  the  point  is  that  only  he  can  turn  away  from  this  religion  who  does  not  possess  any  understanding,  or  has  totally  lost  it,  for  this  alone  is  the  religion  of  “Nature”,  and  no  one  can  deny  it  so  long  as  his  “nature”,  in  the  essential  and  integral  sense  of  the  word,  remains  intact.  The  superiority  of  this  religion  is  shown  by  the  simple  fact  that  Allah conferred  a  special  honour  on  Sayyidina  Ibrahim  alayhissalaam (Abraham)  in  this  world  and  in  the  next  on  account  of  this  very  religion.  As  for  the  honour  and  greatness  he  received  in  this  world,  everyone  knows  how  Namrud  (Nimrod)  with  all  his  might  failed  to  impress  him,  how  he  accepted gladly  to  be  thrown  into  the  fire  rather  than  give  up  the  worship  of  the  One  God,  and  how  the  Lord  of  the  worlds  changed  the  fire  into  a  garden  for  him,  so  that  believers  and  non-believers  alike  finally  came to  recognize  his  uprightness  and  his  unalloyed  faith.  The  associators  of  Arabia  were,  after  all,  his  progeny,  and  had,  inspite  of  their  idol-worship,  always  continued  to  hold  him  in  great  esteem,  and  even claimed  to  be  his  followers.  Certain  remnants  of  his  religion  were  still  present  among  them,  though  somewhat  distorted  by  their  ignorance  – for  example,  the  Hajj,  the  annual  sacrifice  of  animals,  hospitality  etc.  These  are  the  manifestations  of  the  special  divine  grace  which  had designated  “the  Friend  of  Allah”   (Khalilullah)  as  the  ‘Imam’  (Leader  of  the  True  Faith) of  people. (2:124)  So  much  for  his  greatness  in  this  world.  As  to  the  next,  Verse 130  has  announced  the  exalted  station  Allah  has  granted  him  in  the Hereafter.

It   defines  the  basic  principle  of  the  religion  of  Sayyidina Ibrahim  (alayhissalaam).  Allah  asked  him  to  submit  himself,  and  he  willingly  and  gladly  agreed  to  submit  himself  to  “the  Lord  of  the  worlds.”  Let  us  add  that  the  word  of  command  employed  in  this  verse  is  Aslim,  which  Surah  Al-Baqarah 2: 130 – 132  comes  from  the  same  root  as  the  word  Islam.  It  is  difficult  to  find  an  exact  English  equivalent,  for  the  word  signifies  “to  obey,  to  submit  oneself,  to  surrender  one’s  will.”  Anyhow,  we  should  notice  that  in  reply  to  the  divine  command,  he  did  not  say,  as  one  would  have  expected, “I  submit  myself  to  you,”  but,  more  elaborately: “I  submit  myself  to  the  Lord  of  the  worlds.” This  particular  form  of  reply  expresses  the  attitude  of  respect  and  awe  proper  to  the  occasion,  and  includes  the  praise  of  Allah  which  the  moment  of  receiving  the  honour  of  divine  address  demanded.  It  also  carries  a recognition  of  the  fact  that  in  submitting  himself  to  the  Lord  of  the  worlds  he  was  only  performing  the  essential  duty  of  a  servant  towards the  Master  of  All,  and  doing  it  for  his  own  benefit.  The  reply  makes  it  clear  that  the  basic  principle  of  the  religion  of  Sayyidina  Ibrahim  alayhissalaam  (Abraham),  and  its  very  essence  is  contained  in  one  word,  Islam,  which  signifies  total  obedience  and  willing  submission  of  oneself  to  Allah.  It  was  to  show  to  the  world  his  perfect  adherence  to  this  principle  that  he  was  made  to  pass  through  all  the  trials  before  attaining  his  exalted  station.  Islam,  or  submission  to  Allah,  is  what  the  world  has  been  created  for;  it  is  the  end  all  the  prophets  and  all  the  divine  books  have  been  sent  to  serve.

We  also  learn  from  this  verse  that  the  religion  common  to  all  the  prophets  and  the  point  on  which  all  of  them  come  together  is  Islam.  Beginning  with  Sayyidina  Adam  upto  the  Last  Prophet  every  messenger  of  Allah  and  every  prophet  has  called  men  to  Islam  alone,  and  enjoined  upon  his  followers  to  keep  to  this  Straight  Path.  The  Holy  Qur’an  is  quite  explicit  on  this  subject:

“Certainly, in  the  eyes  of  Allah  the  only  religion  is  Islam”  (3:19) 

and 

”Whoso desires  a  religion  other  than  Islam,  it  shall  not  be  accepted  of  him.” (3:85) 

In  order  to  put  the  question  in  the  proper  perspective  as  also  to  avoid  the  risk  of  misunderstanding  let  us  add  a  few  remarks.  All  the  religions  which  different  prophets  brought  to  the  world  had  a  divine  sanction  behind  them,  were  essentially  instituted  by  Allah  Himself,  and  each  of  them  was,  in  its  own  time, “accepted”  in  the  sight  of  Allah.  Consequently,  each  of  these  religions  – whether  one  calls  it  Judaism  or  Christianity  or  something  else  –  must  in  its  essence  be  Islam  (Monotheism),  in  the  general  sense  of  the  word  –  namely,  total  submission  to  Allah.

But  the  religion  of  Sayyidina Ibrahim  alayhissalaam  (Abraham) is  distinguished  from  others  by  a  peculiar  characteristic  –  that  is,  he  gave  to  his  religion  the  name  of  Islam,  and  to  his  followers  the  name  of  Muslims.  We  have  seen  in  Verse  128  how  he  prayed  for  himself,  his  son  and  his  progeny:  “And, our  Lord,  keep  us  both obedient  (Muslimayn)  to  you,  and  make  of  our  progeny  a  people (Ummah)  obedient  (Muslimah)  to  you.” And  now  in  Verse  132  we  find  him  advising  his  descendants  not  to  die  without  being  sure  that they  have  been  Muslims.  After  him  this  distinction  of  being  specifically  called  Muslims  and  “the  Islamic  Ummah”  passed  on,  according  to  his  own  instruction,  to  the  Ummah  of  the  Holy  Prophet. Addressing the  Muslims,  the  Holy  Qur’an says:  “Be  steadfast  in  the  religion  of  your  father, Ibrahim.  He  named  you Muslims  before  this  as well  as  in  this  (the Holy  Qur’an).”  (22:78) When the  Holy  Qur’an  was  revealed,  the  Jews  and  the  Christians,  and  even the  idol-worshippers  of  Arabia  used  to  make  the  claim,  each  group  on  its  own  part,  that  they  were  the  followers  of  the  Abrahamic  religion,  but  the  Holy  Qur’an  and  its  followers  have  made  it  quite  evident  that in  this  last  phase  of  human  history  the  religion  of  the  Holy  Prophet,  and  this  alone,  is  the  religion  of  Sayyidina  Ibrahim  (Abraham) –  the  religion  of  quintessential  “Nature”  (fitrah).

In  short,  the  essence  of  all  the  divine  books,  all  the  shari’ahs  and  the  teachings  of  all  the  prophets  is  Islam  –  that  is,  turning  away  from  one’s  desires  in  order  to  obey  Divine  commandments,  and  giving  up individual  opinion  in  order  to  submit  oneself  to  Divine  guidance.  But  we  are  grieved  to  see  that  there  are  thousands  of  Muslims  today,  who  have  forgotten  this  basic  truth,  and  wish  to  pursue  their  own  desires  in  the  name  of  Islam.  What  appeals  to  them  is  that  kind  of  interpretation  (rather,  misinterpretation)  of  the  Holy  Qur’an  and  the  hadith  which  should  flatter  their  desires.  In  fact,  what  they  strive  to  do  is  to  distort  the  shari’ah  to  suit  their  fancies,  and  to  do  it  so  cleverly  that  the  idols  they  really  worship  should  appear  in  the  garb  of  religion.  Such  men  are,  indeed,  trying  to  be  clever  with  Allah  Himself  who  knows  every  particle  of  the  universe  and  who  can  look  into  the  deepest  recesses  of  the  human  heart  –  the  Almighty  before  whom  nothing  avails  but  complete  surrender  and  total  submission.

What  Islam  requires  of  man  is  that  he  should  set  aside  all  his desires  and  inclinations,  and  seek,  in  everything  he  does,  the  pleasure  of  his  Lord.  And  he  can  find  this  pleasure  only  when  he  knows  the commandments  of  his  Lord,  and  also  performs  these  tasks  exactly  in  the  manner  He  has  prescribed.  This  is  what  ‘Ibadah  or  worship  is,  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  the  perfection  of  this  total  obedience  and  submission  and  love  which  constitutes  the  final  stage  of  man’s  spiritual  development.  which  is  known  as  the  Station  (Maqaam) of ‘Abdiyyah  (Servanthood).  This  is  the  station  where  Sayyidina Ibrahim  alayhissalaam  (Abraham)  received  from  Allah  the  title  of  Khalilullah (the  Friend  of  Allah),  and  the  Last  of  All  the  Prophets  the  title  of:  ‘Abduna (Our  Servant). On  the  subsidiary  levels  of  the  Station  of  Servanthood  stand  the  Abdal,  the  Aqtal,  the  Awliya,  the  men  of  Allah  –  the  ‘saints’  of  the  Islamic  Ummah,  each  in  his  own  degree.  This  is  the  essence  of  Tawhid  (the  realization  of  unicity),  on  attaining  which  all  one’s  fears and  hopes  become  bound  with  Allah,  and  with  no  one  else.

Thus,  Islam  signifies  total  obedience  to  Allah,  and  this  obedience  is  possible  only  when  one  follows  the  Sunnah,  the  Way  of  the  Holy Prophet.  The  Holy  Qur’an  has  laid  down  the  principle  in  very  explicit  words:

“By  your  Lord,  they  will  never  be  true  Muslims  till  they  make you  the  judge  regarding  the  disagreements  between  them,  and  find  in  themselves  no  resistance  against  your  verdict,  and  surrender  themselves  in  full  submission.”  (4:65).

In  the  end  let  us  clarify  an  important  point.  As  reported  in  Verse 132,  Sayyidna  Ibrahim  alayhissalaam  (Abraham)  made  his  descendants  promise  that  before  they  died  they  should  make  sure  that  they  had  been  Muslims.  It  means  that  one  should  steadfastly  follow  the  teachings  of  Islam  throughout  one’s  life,  so  that  one  receives  the  grace  of  Allah  and  remains  a  Muslim  upto  the  last  breath.  A  number  of  Ahadith  too  say  that  one  would  die  in  the  state  which  one  has  maintained  in  one’s  life,  and  one  would,  on  the  Day  of  Resurrection,  rise  from  the  grave  in  the  same  state.  This  is  the  usual  way  of  Allah  with  men  –  if  His  servant  makes  up  his  mind  to  do  good  deeds  and  also  strives  in  this  direction  as  best  as  he  can,  Allah  helps  him  and  makes  the  task  easy  for  him.  This  principle  does  not  in  any  way  stand  in  opposition  to  what  has  been  said  in  another  hadith  to  this  effect:-

A  man  keeps  doing  the  kind  of  good  deeds  for  which  Paradise has  been  promised  and  it  seems  that  there  is  only  an  arms’s  length  between  him  and  Paradise,  and  then  all  of  a  sudden  his  destiny  overcomes  him,  and  he  starts  doing  what  would lead  him  to  Hell,  and  finally  he  reaches  Hell;  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  keeps  doing  what  would  lead  him  to  Hell,  and  it seems  that  there  is  only  an  arm’s  length  between  him  and  Hell,  and  then  his  destiny  overcomes  him,  and  he  starts  doing  what  would  make  him  worthy  of  Paradise,  and  finally  he  enters  Paradise.  We  have  said  that  there  is  no  contradiction  involved,  for  some  texts  of  this  hadith  mention  a  proviso  too  –  “as  it  appeared  to  people.”  That  is  to  say,  the  first  of  these  two  men  appeared  in  the  eyes  of  the  onlookers  to  be  performing  good  deeds,  while  in  fact  he  was  doing  just  the  opposite;  similarly,  the  second  man  had  from  the  outset  been  doing  what  would  make  him  worthy  of  Paradise,  though  people  thought  him to  be  a  sinner.  [Ibn Kathir]

We  conclude  this  discussion  with  the  remark  that  the  man  who  has  been  steadfast  in  doing  good  deeds,  should  trust  the  divine  promise,  rely  on  the  usual  way  of  Allah  with  His  creatures, and  hope  that  through  the  grace  of  Allah  he  would  depart  from  this world  in  this  blessed  state.

The Abrahamic Way and the People of the Book

O  people  of  the  Book,  why  do  you  argue  about  Ibrahim  (Abraham)  while  the  Torah  and  the  Injeel  were  not  revealed  until  after  him?  Have  you,  then,  no  sense? 

Look,  this  is  what  you  are  –  you  argued  about  what  you  had  knowledge;  why  then  do  you  argue  about  what  you have  no  knowledge?  And  Allah  knows  and  you  do  not  know.  

Ibrahim  (Abraham)  was  not  a  Jew,  nor  a  Christian.  But  he  was  upright,  a  Muslim,  and  was  not  one  of  those  who  associate  partners  with  Allah. 

The  closest  of  people  to  Ibrahim  are  those  who  followed him,  and  this  prophet,  and  those  who  believe.  And  Allah  is  guardian  of  the  believers. [Surah Aal-Imran 65-68]

The  argumentation  referred  to  in  verse  65  was  to  decide  whether  Sayyidna  Ibrahim   followed  the  way  of  the  Jews,  or  that  of  the  Christians.  The  futility  of  their  exercise  already  stood  exposed  as  both these  ways  in  religion  appeared  long  after  the  revelation  of  the  Old and  New  Testaments.  These just  did  not  exist  before  that.  How,  then, could  it  be  claimed  that  Sayyidina  Ibrahim  alayhissalaam  (Abraham) adhered  to  these  ways?

Verse  66  points  out  to  the  hollowness  of  their  approach  when  they  indulged  in  their  argumentation  on  the  basis  of  incomplete  knowledge.  That  they  would  venture  to  do  so  on  the  basis  of  no  knowledge  could  hardly  he  explained.  The  truth  is  that  only  Allah  knows  the  way  of  Ibrahim  alayhissalaam  (Abraham).

That  way  has  been  described  in  Verse  67:

Ibrahim  (Abraham)  was  not  a  Jew,  nor  a  Christian.  But  he  was  upright,  a  Muslim,  and  was  not  one  of  those  who  associate  partners  with  Allah.

How the Jews and Christians have Deviated from the Abrahamic Way??

Abraham  (Ibrahim  alayhissalaam’s)  seed  was blessed  through  him, the covenant  was  the  obedience  to Allah  and  to  be  the  guiding  light  to  other  nations,  ironically, the  Jews  disobeyed  this command  and  fabricated  the obligation  to suit  themselves  as  so-called  “chosen people”  and  all  the  other  nations  they considered  as  ‘animals  made  to serve  them”.  Add  to  this  their  history of  hatred  of  Prophets  and  malice  against  them. In  this  way,  the  Jews  deviated  from  the  true  way  of  Abraham  which  leads  to the  true  faith  of  the  Creator.

Other  the  other  extreme,  the Christians  deviated  from  the Way  of  Abraham  by  adding partners  to  the  Wahid  Allah  and  adding  pagan  heresy  to  the  message  of  ‘Eesa (alayhissalaam),  Abraham  was not  an  idolator  like  the  Christians  nor  did  he  despise  other  Nations  like the  Jews  and he  believed  in  One  Allah  and obeyed  his commands  without associating  any  partners  with  Him.

Verse  68  declares  that  the  closest  of  people  to  Sayyidina  Ibrahim  were  those  who  followed  him  during  his  time  and  now  the  closest  to  him  is  the  Prophet  of  Islam,  Muhammad  al-Mustafa (Sallallaahu  Alayhi  Wasallam),  and  so  are  the  believers  in  him  and  in  past  prophets.  These  believers  are  the  community  of  Muhammad  and  their  guardian  is  Allah and  He  will  reward  them  for  their  belief.

It  is  time  for  the  Christians  and  Jews  to  ponder  honestly  as  to  what  extent  do  they  follow  on  the  footsteps  of  Abraham  and  mend  their  ways.

The Pagan Origins of Birthday Celebrations

Islamically speaking, we have heard time and again why we should NOT celebrate birthdays. How instead we should be using the time for self-reflection and realize the fragile nature of life. Well, that’s one way of looking at it. The other way is to thank Allah for giving you an extra year to live. In which you have the chance to make amends as it were, for the previous year’s sins, rebelliousness or disobedience. If not that, then to increase in you good deeds.

In life there are always two ways of looking at things. You choose the way you want to look at things. This post is not about the pros and cons, the plus and negatives of celebrating birthdays. We have heard plenty of it. Even a 5 year old knows he where or she stands on this issue.
Hardly any, if not a few, know if the actual origins of the celebration of birthdays, i mean historically. We have heard all the religious customaries/reasons there is to hear about the innovation of birthday celebrations. What i will like to bring to the discussion is thehistorical origins of the celebrations of birthdays. Then leave it up to you to decide whether we should or should not celebrate birthdays.

image

Almost everybody, today, celebrates birthdays. Around the world, friends and relatives hold birthday parties, give gifts to the one being honored, and wish “Happy birthday!” to the one whose birthday is being celebrated. But why? Where did this universal custom originate?
In the World Book — Childcraft International says regarding “Holidays and Birthdays,

“For thousands of years people all over the world have thought of a birthday as a very special day. Long ago, people believed that on a birthday a person could be helped by good spirits, or hurt by evil spirits. So, when a person had a birthday, friends and relatives gathered to protect him or her. And that’s how birthday parties began.”

“The idea of putting candles on birthday cakes goes back to ancient Greece. The Greeks worshiped many gods and goddesses. Among them was one called Artemis.

“Artemis was the goddess of the moon. The Greeks celebrated her birthday once each month by bringing special cakes to her temple. The cakes were round like a full moon. And, because the moon glows with light, the cakes were decorated with lighted candles.”

This authority goes on:

“More and more, though, people the world over attach a certain magic to their actual date of birth. . . We may wear a ring with our birthstone in it for good luck. And when we blow out the candles on our birthday cake, we are careful to keep what we wished a secret. If we tell, of course, our wish won’t come true.

“In other words, we follow many of the old birthday beliefs. We pay attention to the meanings of old-time birth symbols. And we carry on the old celebrations. We don’t necessarily take them seriously. We do these things mainly for fun. But it is also possible that there is something deep inside us that wants to believe.”

Why do people say, “Happy birthday!” to each other? Says this authority, “For the good wishes of our friends and relatives are supposed to protect us from evil spirits.”

Noise making was employed as an additional measure for warding off the bad spirits. The working of magical spells was an integral part of living in ancient times. Giving birthday greets was a way of working a spell for protection as further shielding from evil spirits. They believed that the recipient was surrounded by his personal spirits, therefore more exposed to the power of the spell.
Party snappers, horns, bursting balloons, firecrackers, and other noisemakers are just one more way of trying to scare off any bad-luck spirits that may be hovering about. Although many would argue the celebrations of birthdays are now done purely for fun and not as a ritual. It is to wish the person good luck for the year to come. – If this is the sole purpose for celebrating birthdays, to wish good luck and to have fun, then can we not do this in other ways? Instead of adopting a pagan ritual act? Must we borrow ideas of ‘fun’ from pagan rituals? Now, many would also say, ‘most, if not all our religious traditions and customaries come from pagan origins. Take for example the kabah, the circumambulation of it, and Ramadan’. Frankly, this is absurd! In the original scheme of things. These acts were not pagan. It is the pagan religions which adopted these traditions into their rituals. Birthday celebrations, Christmas, Olympics and the like, originate from pagan religions. They do not go beyond the first emergence of paganism. That is, pagans did not adopt them from divinely revealed religious traditions. In other words, birthday celebrations, Christmas and Olympics were manufactured by paganists.
If a person MUST celebrate his birthday, then the best way of doing it is to keep a fast on that day. Just as the prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to do every Mondays – the day in which he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was born. Any act can be turned in a worship, even celebrations. So, if anyone wishes to celebrate his birthday and earn reward for doing so. then there is no better way to do it than keeping a fast on that day. Thanking Allah for the gift of another year in which you can get to worship him and live life. For the younger ones, to help them mold into the Islāmic way of life and the sunnah. A person can encourage them to learn a dua, and as a reward take to them to an amusement park.

Lastly, remember to have a balanced approach. Many Muslims do not know of the origins of celebrating birthdays. They have simply, like many others have adopted this custom blindly. The only way to enlighten people about issues such as this, is by applying wisdom. When or if you get invited to a birthday party, do not go there and start shouting ‘celebrating birthdays are haram!. You are gonna burn in hell. That child of yours is going to grow up and be the devils advocate!’. kindly, let them know why you cant attend your nieces, nephews or even a friend’s birthday party. Let them have all the facts and then let them decide why it is wrong to celebrate birthdays in the way they are doing it. Leave them a way to come out. Don’t leave them in the dark and say ‘celebrating birthdays is wrong. Give them an alternative, tell them the prophetic way of celebrating for instance.

Related Readings:
The Reality of Halloween – Worshipping Satan the Accursed

The Christian/Gregorian Calendar and its Pagan roots

Dajjalic Olympics Games -A Symbol of Pure Shirk

Flags and Symbols of Kufr

December 25: The Pagan-Occult Origins of Christmas

In Qur’an, Does Allah Promise Israel to Jews??

Initially, there is nothing in Surah Al-Israa or Bani Israel to justify that Palestine belongs to the Jews; and not anywhere in the Qur’an. In Surah Al-Israa, Allah is telling us at the beginning that Bani Israel will corrupt twice in the Earth. At the end of the chapter, it says that Allah will bring them forth from everywhere; we read what means:

{And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture: indeed you would do mischief in the land twice and you will become tyrants and extremely arrogant!} (17:4)

{And We said to the Children of Israel after him: “Dwell in the land, then, when the final and the last promise comes near [i.e. the Day of Resurrection or the descent of Christ [‘Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) on the earth], We shall bring you altogether as mixed crowd (gathered out of various nations). (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi,)} (17:104)

Scholars have concluded that the second mischief must be during our current time since the Jews did gather from everywhere as Allah told us above, in the state of Israel.

In summary, Allah asked the Jews who were in Egypt with Moses (peace be upon him) to enter Palestine but they refused until later generation when David (peace be upon him) did. At that time, the people who lived in it were ruthless invaders; They themselves were invaders of the land.

The point here is that Allah told the believers from Bani Israel (the word Jews was invented later) to enter Palestine and drive those invaders out and not the original inhabitants.

The prophets who ruled were David and Solomon both prophets of Islam since all prophets from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all) preached Islam.

Allah mentions about this subject mainly in Surah Al-Baqarah, the second chapter in the Quran. For details, you need to read the articles referenced at the end.

At this point in time, Palestine belongs to Israelis. Before the second world war it belonged to Palestinians.

If you ask me as a Muslim, Palestine belongs to Muslims, Christians and Jews because there is history in this land for all these three religions.

However, currently there is oppression from the Israelis side because both Muslims and Christians are deprived from certain areas of the land; in addition to the expansion of Israeli settlements on the account of the original inhabitants.

There are no shortages of opinions on this matter. Human rights abuses occur all around us and some of these problems are easy to resolve. Unfortunately, some problems, like the topic of Palestine/Israel, are much more complicated now than they were when they began.

I don’t want to get into an in-depth history lesson here, so suffice it to say that for the greatest part of Islamic history, from Prophet Muhammad’s time to today, even before that actually, the name of that region was known to all as Palestine, and the vast majority of its inhabitants were Muslims.

Historically Palestine belongs to Muslims. In the past century, there was a struggle of control between Arabs and Zionists. Currently, there is a struggle for Palestinian survival and identity as most of their land has been occupied and taken away by “settlers”.

In the beliefs of some Jews and Christians this land was called Israel based on scriptures. However, their books, as we know, have been tailored with.

The only time that Palestine was under the control of Israel’s descendants, the 12 tribes of Prophet Jacob, peace be upon him, was during the time of Prophets David and Solomon, peace be upon them.

Since they were prophets of God and did no injustice to anyone, they are both, along with their followers considered to be Muslims in the religious sense, but Jews in ethnicity.

Most of the early history of the 12 tribes of Israel/Jacob, of which Moses, peace be upon him, was a member, was spent in the land of Egypt, not Palestine.

Since the time of David and Solomon, peace be upon them, there has been very minimal presence or power over the land by any Jewish government until the last 70 years or so.

If we believe that land belongs to those who are in control of it, lived there for a significantly long period of time (centuries?) then the best claim to Palestine is with people who have lived there for centuries. This includes Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other person.

To say that this land belongs to Jews exclusively disregards the rights of inhabitants of other ethnic backgrounds or religious beliefs whose history on that land goes back hundreds of years.
Control of Palestine, except for about 100 years of Crusader occupations, was continuously and firmly under control of Muslim governments.

It is only in the last 100 years or so that outside influence, namely British/French/American/Zionist forces have struggled to take control of this land from its Palestinian inhabitants.

Prior to that, it was the Ottoman Caliphate that governed Palestine continuously for over 700 years. Christians and Jews were guaranteed their rights to their lands and property. Control of lands by Caliphates and Muslim governments over the centuries has primarily been characterized by respect to properties of non-Muslims.

That is why the earliest churches and Jewish temples still exist in Palestine, and why Christians and Jews with centuries of history in Palestine still live there.

The problems that exist today in Palestine are a result of Zionists trying to force Palestinian Christians and Muslims off of their ancestral lands in order to make way for non-Palestinian Jews.

Palestine has been the home of Christian, Muslim and Jewish families since the beginnings of each. To chase people off their ancestral land is unjust, especially when based merely on religious beliefs.

Further Reading:
Refuting the Jewish Claim of Their So-Called ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine

[Part-2] Refuting the Jewish Claim of Their So-Called ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine

Picture-Making and the Trash Arguments of Miscreant Muftis

[Majlisul Ulama]

INTRODUCTION

By  halaalizing  television,  video  and  digital  pictography,  Mufti Taqi  Uthmaani  and  Mufti  Rafi  Uthmaani,  in  addition  to  having committed  the  fatal  blunder  of  making  permissible  what  Allah  Ta’ala  has  made  haraam,  have  perpetrated  a  great  disservice  to  their  illustrious  father,  Hadhrat  Mufti  Muhammad  Shafi  (Rahmatullah  alayh).  It  appears  that  in  their  insane  desire  to  keep  pace  with  western  modernity,  they  have  in  entirety  ignored the  solid  dalaa-il  which  their  august  father  had  presented  in refutation  of  the  permissibility  of  photography  which  the  liberal  Arab  sheikhs  had  halaalized  on  the  basis  of  the  stupid  and  putrid  ‘reflection’ argument.

Having  lapped  up  the  fallacious  disgorgement  of  the  liberal, modernist,  deviated  Arab  sheikhs,  the  two  aforementioned  Muftis  have  also  crawled  into  the  ‘lizard’s  hole’  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  by  baselessly  halaalizing  haraam  pictography.  For  this  haraam  exercise  they  have  failed  to  present  a  single  valid  Shar’i  daleel.  It  will  serve  them  infinite  goodness  which  will  benefit  them  infinitely  in  this  dunya  and  in  the  Aakhirat  to  study  with  an  open  mind  the  book  on  the  hurmat  of photography  written  by  their  august  father,  Hadhrat  Mufti Muhammad  Shafi  (Rahmatullah alayh).

The  dalaa-il  which  Hadhrat  Mufti  Shafi  presented  in  his  book some  decades  ago  hold  100%  good  for  television  and  digital  pictures.  Only  morons  or  those  whose  brains  have  become  satanically  corrupted  are  capable  of  not  understanding  the  simple  arguments  which  confirm  without  a  shadow  of  doubt that  television,  video  and  digital  pictures  are  haraam  tasaaweer.  In  fact,  the  simple  intelligence  of  laymen  and  of  even  children  understands  that  it  is  ludicrous  to  claim  that  these  pictures  are  not  pictures  and  that  they  are  reflections  like  the  mirror  reflection.  Indeed  shaitaan  has  manipulated  the  brains  of  those  molvies  and  sheikhs  who  venture  the  stupidity  of  the  television,  video  and  digital images  not  being  pictures.

Those  who  make  this  preposterous  and  ridiculous  claim  are  plain  stupid.  They  are  totally  ignorant  of  the  method  of  production  of  these  pictures.  They  make  laughing  stocks  of themselves  with  their  jahaalat  which  they  exhibit  so  stupidly  and  shamelessly.  Lacking  in  entirety  fear  for  Allah  Ta’ala,  they miserably  fail  to  understand  the  consequences  of  their  shaitaani halaalization  of  pictography.    What  has  happened  to  their  Aql?  Do  they  not  understand  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  Ummah,  including  dumb  and  stupid  village  folk  are  all  entangled  in  the satanic  web  of  pornography  and  the  filth  of  immorality  attached  to  internet,  video,  digital  and  television  picture-making?  Even  if  their  clogged  brains  intransigently  believe  that  these  pictures  are  not  pictures  but  are  ‘reflections’,  they  should  at  least  have understood  that  the  consequences  of  these    ‘reflections’  are  the  ruin – total ruin – of Akhlaaq and even Imaan.

The  Ummah  is  embroiled  in  the  cauldron  of  television  and video  vice  and  immorality.  If  ‘reflections’  are  the  stepping stones  and  the  introduction  for  vice  and  immorality,  then  by what  stretch  of  Shar’i  logic  can  such  vile  ‘reflections’  be declared  halaal.  Mufti  Rafi  has  insulted  his  own  knowledge  and made  a  mockery  of  himself  with  the  averment  that  as  long  as  the  television,  video  and  digital  images  are  not  printed,  they  are  halaal  ‘reflections’  which  are  excluded  from  the  ambit  of  tasweer.  In  so  doing  he  gives  impetus  to  the  immorality  which  is destroying  the  morality  of  the Ummah.

The  Qur’aan  Majeed  warns:  “Do  not  approach  near  to  zina.” This  Aayat  is  in  the  category  of  a  principle.  On  the  basis  of  this  principle,  all  the  stepping  stones  leading  to  haraam  are  likewise  haraam.  Pictography,  especially  the  pictures  of  television  and  videos,  are  the  introductory  steps  to  zina  and  every  kind  of  imaginable  sexual  perversion  which  these  shaitaani  devices promote,  and  which  the  maajin  muftis  of  this  era  have  legalized  in  flagrant  and  intransigent  rejection  of  every  Qur’aanic  and Hadith  daleel  which  confirms  the  prohibition  of  pictures.  The fisq  and  fujoor  of  these  maajin  muftis  are  worse  than  the immorality  of  the  masses  whose  Imaan  they  have  pillaged  and ruined  with  their  stupid  nafsaani  fatwas  which  promote satanism.

We  have  explained  and  conclusively  demolished  the ‘reflection’  argument  of  the  stupid  muftis  and  sheikhs  who maintain  the  permissibility  of  haraam  pictography  on  this stupid,  baseless,  convoluted  reasoning  spawned  by  brains   corrupted  by  shaitaani  urination.  Shaitaan  has  urinated  in  their  brains.  This  is  the  only  construction  one  can  give  to  an  issue  which  ulama  fail  to  understand,  but  which  children  and  even  kuffaar  understand.  The  producers  of  these  modern  pictures laugh  at  the  stupidity  of  the  averment  that  the  images  produced by  modern  technology  are  not  pictures.  No  producer  of  these pictures  say  that  these  pictures are  reflections.

Our  arguments  negating  the  stupidity  of  the  ‘reflection  daleel’  have  been  published: Critical Review of Mufti Taqi’s Television Fatwa    

THE TRASH ARGUMENTS OF THE HALAALIZERS OF HARAAM PICTURES

QUESTION

The  following  is  an  excerpt  from  the  speech  of  Mufti  Rafi Usmani  in  which  he  avers  that  digital  and  television  pictures are  permissible.  What  is  the  Shariah’s  ruling  on  this  issue? Mufti  Rafi  Uthmaani  said  in his  talk:

“I  see  many  cameras  here  (in  this  Press  Conference).  You  are permitted  to  record,  transmit  (on  the  web)  or  by  using  mobiles.  However,  if  you  print  (this)  then  it  will  not  be  permissible  (by  me).

I  see  many  journalists  here  and  I  welcome  all  of  you  and  pray  that  Allah  Ta’ala  gives  you  Taufeeq  to  write  (the  Truth)  and  I  advise  you  that  if  you  need  to  print  pictures  then  print  in  a  manner  that  facial  features  are  blurred,  if  you  can  get  away  with  not  printing pictures  that  will  be  even  better.

As  far  as  TV  stations  are  concerned,  there  is  a  large  number  of  Scholars  who  have  permitted  (transmission)  and  the  conditions  (for  permissibility)  are:

*  There  is  nothing  unIslamic  in the  images.

*  The  world  media  is  busy  –  full  throttle  –  in  defaming  Islam and  to  disparage  Muslims.  Therefore,  in  this  time  (of  need  and  trial)  we  need  to  be  ready  to  defend  on  each  platform  (which  is  used)  for  propaganda.  Ulama  have  deliberated  this  matter  many times  on  many  occasions  and  as  far  as  Darul-uloom  Karachi  is  concerned,  those  who  are  associated  with  it  and  those  who  trust  it  and  those  who  are  consulted  have  all  agreed  that  images  on  TV  or  images  on  mobile  or  images  on  Internet  are  not  considered “Tasweer” pictures  until  they  are printed.

Since  they  are  not  considered  “Tasweer”  (pictures)  until  they are  printed  then  their  legal  status  will  be  the  same  as  if  they  were  in  (real  life).  For  example  if  an  image  is  permissible  in  real  life  then  it  will  be  permissible  in  this  state  of  (digital  imagery). (End of excerpt).

ANSWER

The  view  expressed  by  Mufti  Rafi  Usmani  is  blatantly  baatil.  It is  not  befitting  a  man  of  Knowledge  to  disgorge  such  drivel  which  is  in  flagrant  conflict  with  the  explicit  Hadith  Nusoos  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  with  intelligence.  Denial  of  the  television/digital  picture  being  a  real  picture  (tasweer)  is  moronic.  Such  moronism  while  lamentable  when  it  issues  from  the  mouth  of  a  senior  Aalim,  is  nevertheless  to  be  expected  in  this  age  which  is  in  such  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah.

This  is  an  era  devoid  of  the  slightest  vestige  of  Taqwa.    Even for  the  senior  Ulama  of  this  age,  Taqwa  is  an  alien  concept. Their  minds  and  hearts  are  overwhelmed  by  the  satanic  glitter  of  western  civilization,  hence  the  ahkaam  of  the  Shariah  are brutally  mutilated  by  the  tongues  of  the  ulama  to  force  them  to conform  with  western  kuffaar  norms.  The  stupid  and disgraceful  emulation  of  kuffaar  by  Muslims  has  reached  the predicted  ‘lizard’s  hole’.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  had  predicted  the  dawning  of  an  age  when  the Muslims  will  follow  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  into  the  “lizard’s hole”,  and  believe  it  to  be  honourable,  respectable  and progressive.

It  is  in  this  baboonic  culture  that  the  ulama  have  become miscreants  and  misguides  for  whom  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  had  expressed the  following  fear: 

“Verily, I fear for my Ummah the aimmah-e-mudhilleen.”

The  ulama  of  these  times  are  the  mudhilleen  (leaders  who  lead  the  Ummah  astray).  The  legalizers  of    haraam  television,  video  and  internet  pictography  are  among  the    mudhilleen  cabal.  They  are  the  ulama-e-soo’  who  have  harmed  Islam  more  than  even  the  kuffaar.  They  search  for  stupid  arguments  to  justify  all  the immoral  filth  of  the  West  with whom  they  are  enamoured.

Mufti  Rafi  Usmani,  Mufti  Taqi  Usmani  and  all  those  deviant Ulama  who  claim  digital  and  television  pictures  to  be  halaal have  slipped  from  Siraatul  Mustaqeem.  The  arguments  which  they  proffer  to  justify  the  haraam  pictography  are  ludicrously  stupid.  They  are  bereft  of  any  logical,  Shar’i  and  sensible  argument  to  bolster  their  stupid  fatwa  of  permissibility.  They  stupidly,  weirdly  and  laughably  maintain  that  a  digital  picture  and  a  television  picture  are  not  pictures,  but  are  reflections  such as  the  reflection  in  a  mirror.  Those  who  understand  the  production  of  pictures  by  these  modern-day  devices  laugh  at  the  puerility  and stupidity  of  this  silly  argument.

We  have  responded  and  refuted  in  detail  this  silly  argument  in  four  books.  Those  interested,  may  write  for  these  publications. Hitherto,  not  a  single  one  of  these  aimmah  mudhilleen  has  been able  to    logically  refute  the  dalaa-il  we  have  presented  in  negation  of  the  weird  and  stupid  view  proffered  by  Mufti  Rafi  and Mufti  Taqi  in  justification  of haraam  pictography. 

It  is  indeed  lamentable  that  they  have  failed  miserably  in understanding  this  simple  issue  –  that  a  television  or  a  digital picture  is  indeed  a  haraam  tasweer.  It  is  never  a  reflection.  Mufti  Rafi’s  only  ‘daleel’  –  and  which  is  a  stupid  argument  –  is  that  a  large  number  of  scholars  have  permitted  television  pictures.  This  is  not  a  daleel.  Stupid  laymen  disgorge  such  trash believing  it  to  be  ‘daleel’.  The  molvies  of  today,  deficient  in academic  expertise,  and  bereft  of  Roohaaniyat,  follow  like dumb  animals  any  senior  who  speaks  the  language  of  their  nafs.  Synchronized  acquiescence  by  a  mob  of  molvies  of  this  age  is  never  a  daleel.  If  their  senior  Ustaadh  says  that  a  haraam  act  is  halaal,  they  follow  like  sheep  and  monotonously  sing  the  same song  without  understanding  head  or  tail  of  the  issue.  In  such  aping,  they  come  within  the  purview  of  the  Qur’aanic stricture:

“They  take  their  ahbaar  (molvies)  and  ahbaar  (buzrugs)  as  gods  besides  Allah……………”.  
This  is  the  ‘large  number  of  scholars’  which  constitutes  Mufti  Rafi  Usmani’s  daleel.

We  have  presented  the  logical  and  Shar’i  dalaa-il  for  the  hurmat  of  all  forms  of  pictures  of  animate  objects  irrespective  of  the  methods  of  production.  It  devolves  as  an  incumbent  obligation  on  the  halaalizers  of  haraam  pictography  to  present  their  arguments  in  refutation.  The  only  thing  they  are  capable  of  is  to  attempt  to  awe  and  bamboozle  ordinary  folk  with  numbers  and  names. 

The  ‘agreement’  of  the  molvies  of  Darul  Uloom  Karachi  is  of no  consequence.  Their   agreement  is  baatil.  They  are  bereft  of  Shar’i  dalaa-il  for  their  convoluted  view  of  permissibility.  If  they  had  applied  their  Aql  correctly  and  maintained  their  focus on  Allah  Ta’ala,  and  tried  to  understand  the  objective  of  life  on  earth,  they  would  not  have  stupidly  and  satanically  opened  a  wide  avenue  for  filth,  pornography  and  every  kind  of  immorality disseminated  via  television, the internet  and  videos. 

Even  if  one  should  stupidly  assume  momentarily  that  television  and  video  pictures  are  not  haraam  tasweer,  then  too,  a  Mufti  whose  brains  have  not  been  vermiculated  by  shaitaani  urination,  should  be  able  to  understand  that  even  these  so-called  ‘reflections’  are    the  primary  cause  for    television  and  internet immorality  which  has  destroyed  the  morals  of  Muslims  and kuffaar  alike.  If  their  brains  have  become  so  stultified  as  to  fail  comprehending  the  hurmat  li-aini  ruling  for  these  haraam  pictures,  then  at  least  their  Aql  should  have  constrained  them  to issue  a  fatwa  of  prohibition  in  terms  of  hurmat  li  ghairihi.  But westernism  has  gripped  their  minds  and hearts.  Hence  they  have  given  the  Shariah  a  back  seat  or  shoved  it  into  some  dark  corner  out  of  view  to  enable  them  to  bamboozle  and  mislead  an  ignorant  and  a lustful  public.

One  of  the  stupid  arguments  Mufti  Rafi  proffered  to  justify television  is  the  media  attacks  on  Islam.  Regardless  of  such attacks,  it  remains  impermissible  to  employ  a  haraam  institution  to  defend  Islam.  All  the  criticism  and  propaganda  of  the  kuffaar cannot  harm  Islam  in  any  way.  No  one  has  harmed  and tarnished  Islam  as  much  as  Muslims  themselves  have.  We  are  required  to  cultivate  Taqwa,  then  the  attacks  of  the  kuffaar media  will  not  harm  us  in  any  way.  The  Qur’aan  Majeed  says:

“If  you  have  sabr  and  adopt  taqwa,  then  their  plot  will  never  harm  you  in  the  least.  Verily,  Allah  encompasses  whatever  they  (the  kuffaar)  are  perpetrating.”  

We  are  not  to  emulate  the  kuffaar  in  their  haraam  ways.    We  have  to  utilize  only  halaal  methods,  and  Allah  Ta’ala  will suffice  for  us.  This  stupid  ‘daleel’  has  been  sucked  out  of someone’s  thumb.  It  is  never  a  Shar’i  daleel.  It  is  the  baatil opinion  of  one  who  has  missed  the  boat  –  of  one  who  has  failed  to  apply  his  mind  –  of  one  who  is  over-awed  by  western  technology  and  the  false  glitter  of  western  civilization,  hence  the  drunken  desire  to  follow  the  kuffaar  into  the  “lizard’s hole.”.   

QUESTION

An  internet  character  who  poses  as  a  mujtahid  supporting those  ulama  who  claim  digital  and  television  pictures  of being permissible, presents the following argument:

“Digital  Images  are  NOT  TASWEER  and  our  Ulama  have missed  the  Boat  on  leading  from  the  front.  If  you  look  at  the  Arab  Media  there  are  tons  of  legitimate  (Islamic)  Channels  with  legitimate  Ulama  (alongside  JUNK  and  POISON)  while  we  got  nothing  (quality)  even  from  those  Ulama  who  don’t  consider  digital  images  to  be  Haraam  because  for  decades  we  have  been  held  back  due  to  internal  debates  and  discussions  while  Baatil  has  marched  on.

Our  Ulama  opposed  Maulana  Maududi  (RA)  and  it  didn’t  really  work  and  he  remains  influential  (globally).
Our  Ulama  opposed  Dr  Israr  Ahmed  (RA)  and  it  didn’t  really work  and  he  remains  influential  (globally).
Our  Ulama  opposed  Dr  Farhat  Hashmi  and  it  didn’t  really  work  and  she  has  serious  influence  among  young  Asian women.
Our  Ulama  opposed  Dr  Zakir  Naik  but  it  was  BJP  led Government  which  put  a  stop  to  it,  otherwise  nothing  much  was  happening.
In  the  West  our  Ulama  opposed  Mufti  Menk  and  Nauman  Ali  Khan  and  look  where  they  are  to  the  point  where  Deobandi  Media  is promoting  them  now.

As  I  have  been  saying  for  over  a  decade  these  FATWAAS  DO NOTHING  unless  and  until  you  have  a  unified  position  and everybody  is  on  the  same  page  (which  Deobandees  are  not).  

Is  there  any  Shar’i  validity  in  what  this  self-styled  mujtahid says?

ANSWER

What  this  internet  paper  ‘mujtahid’  has  disgorged  is  trash.  In  presenting  his  stock  of  flapdoodle,  he  omitted  to  say:  Our Ulama  opposed  Iblees,  but  he  remains  globally  extremely  influential.  And  the  moron  ‘mujtahid’  forgot  to  add:  All  the  Ambiya  (Alayhimus  Salaam)  opposed  shaitaan,  but  he  remains  strong  and  globally  influential  with  the  largest  number  of  followers.”

If  this  internet  character  had  any  valid  understanding  of  the Shariah,  he  would  not  have  uttered  his  rubbish  ‘daleels’.  Of what  consequence  is  the  global  influence  of  the  agents  of  Iblees,  of  murtads  and  the  followers  of  shaitaan  regarding  the  Shariah’s  stance  on  the  hurmat  of  pictography?  In  which  way  does  the  global  influence  of  the  agents  of  Iblees  negate  the  Dalaa-il  of  the  Shariah?  This  fellow  dwells  in  zulmat  piled  on zulmat,  hence  he  is  capable  of  disgorging  such  flotsam stupidities  which  have  absolutely  no  relationship  with  the  mas’alah  under  discussion.

Iblees  will  always  have  the  greatest  number  of  followers  and  agents.  The  Qur’aan  Majeed  confirms  this  irrefutable  fact. Hadhrat  Nooh  (Alayhis  salaam),  despite  his  Tabligh  of  nine  centuries,  managed  to  gain  only  about  70  or  80  followers. Whilst  Nabi  Nooh  (Alayhis  salaam)  opposed  the  followers  of shaitaan  for  so  many  centuries,  they  were  still  the  most  influential  and  they  predominated.  When  the  Malaaikah  came  to  destroy  the  sodomites,  they  found  only  one  home  –  one  small  family  –  the  family  of  Nabi  Loot  (Alayhis  salaam)  –  following the  Haqq.  The  sodomites  held  the  greatest  influence.  But  despite  Nabi  Nooh’s  opposition,  they  remained dominant.

The  dominance  and  influence  of  kufr  and  baatil  is  not  a  sign  of  Haqq  or  rectitude  of  argument  or  daleelHaqq  was  always  on the  side  of  the  tiny  minority.  This  is  the  Sunnah  of  Allah  Azza Wa  Jal  for  which  there  is  no  change.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“There  will  ever  remain  a  group  of  my  Ummah  (a  small group)  fighting  on  the  Haqq.  Those  who  oppose  this  group  or  who  abstain  from  aiding  them  will  not  be  able  to  harm  them. (And  this  group  will  remain  on  the  Haqq)  until  the  Command (Qiyaamah)  of  Allah  arrives.”

The  Fataawa  of  the  Ulama-e-Haqq  are  immensely  pleasing  to Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  The  stupid  claim  that  these  Fataawa  are  of no  benefit,  is  akin  to  claiming  that  Hadhrat  Nooh’s  nine  century  Da’wat  ‘did  nothing’  and  were  ‘useless’.  The  paper  ‘mujtahid’  has  in  fact  unconsciously  likened  the  Fataawa  of  the  Ulama-e-Haqq  with  the  Fataawa  of  the  Ambiya  (Alayhimus  salaam)  who were  rejected  by  the  vast  majority  of  their  respective   nations.

The  criterion  of  the  Haqq  is  not  in  having  numerical  superiority. The  Haqq  is  that  which  is  based  on  the  Dalaa-il  of  the  Shariah,  not  the  drivel  and  effluvium  percolating  from  the  nafsaani  opinions  of  the  ulama-e-soo’.  All  those  molvies  who  aver  that  television  and  digital  pictures  are  permissible,  have  become  entrapped  in  the  snare  of  Iblees.  They  have  become  agents  of  shaitaan  intentionally  or  unintentionally  regardless  of  their  seniority  and  popularity.  No  one  enjoys  greater  popularity  and  no  one  has  a  greater  following  than Shaitaan,  Iblees,  La-een.  

QUESTION

This  same  internet  character  in  his  endeavour  to  refute  the views  of  our  Akaabir  Ulama, says  the  following:

“RESPONSE  TO  FATWAS  OF  SENIOR  ULAMA  OF  DEOBAND

Shaykh  (Maulana)  Ashraf  Ali  Thanwi  (RA)  [1863-1943]: Passed  away  in  1943,  puts  a  real  perspective  on  the  issue doesn’t  it?

Our response:  

Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  passed  away  fourteen  centuries  ago.  This  puts  real  and  greater  perspective  on  the  issue,  doesn’t  it?  The  moron  has  simply  advertised  his  moronity  and  jahl-e-murakkab  by  implying  that  Hadhrat  Thanvi’s  fatwa  was  incorrect  because  he  died  in  1943.  In  terms  of  this  ludicrous  stupidity,  the  Fataawaa  of  all  the  Aimmah  Mujtahideen  and  the  Sahaabah  should  likewise  be  relegated  to  antiquity.  The  fellow  has  merely  displayed  his  jahaalat.

The  moron  ‘mujtahid’  says:

“Shaykh  (Allamah)  Yusuf  Binori  (RA)  [1908-1977]:   When Allamah  Abd  al-Fattah  Abu  Ghudda  [1917-1997]  arrived  in Pakistan  to  attend  Islamic  conference,  he  landed  in  Karachi (from  Damacus)  with  a  Yashica  Camera  hanging  in  his  neck. (Like  a  dog  tied  with  a  chain  –  The  Majlisul  Ulama).  He  asked Allamah  Binnori  (RA)  to  pose  for  a  collective  picture  of  Ulama,  Hazrat  (RA)  refused  saying  it  was  Haram.  Allamah  Abd  al-Fattah  Abu  Ghudda  (RA)  famously  put  the  Camera  away,  stuck his  hand  out  and  asked  for  a  Daleel  Every  Daleel  of  Allamah  Binnori  (RA)  was  refuted  (publicly).  

In  the  end  Allamah  Binnori  (RA)  had  to  admit  that  photography is  not  Haram  but  against  Taqwa  and  this  is  when  Allamah  Abd al-Fattah  Abu  Ghudda  (RA)  said  you  can  stick  to  that  (if  that’s  your  opinion)  but  if  you  say  its  Haram  (then  you  will  have  to  give  me  evidence).

If  none  of  you  know  who  Allamah  Abd  al-Fattah  Abu  Ghudda [1917-1997]  is  and  his  rank  in  the  Madhab,  I  suggest  you  look  it  up.

This  incident  is  very  well  known  but  here  is  Dr  Israr  Ahmed (RA)  narrating  it  by  one  link.  Mufti  Muhammad  Yusuf Ludhianvi  (RA)  [1932-2000]:

See  above  about  his  teacher  and  he  was  aware  of  this.”

Our  Response:  

If  the  narrative  above,  is  factual,  and  not  a  blatant  lie,  then  too,  it  is  devoid  of  Shar’i  significance  regardless  of  the stature  and  status  of  Shaikh  Abu  Ghudda  and  Hadhrat Maulana  Yusuf  Binnori.    The  very  fact  of  a  Shaikh  with  a camera  strung  around  his  neck  like  a  faasiq  lout,  renders  him  persona  non  grata.  His  desire  (if  reported  correctly)  for  taking  a  collective  picture  of  the  Ulama  exhibits  his nafsaaniyat  and  diversion  from  the  Goals  of  the  Aakhirat.

If  Hadhrat  Binnori  had  failed  to  adequately  answer  Shaikh Ghudda,  it  does  not  follow  therefrom  that  pictures  of animate  objects  are  halaal.  The  Shaikh  had  in  fact  missed the  boat  on  this  issue  and  lacked  in  foresight,  hence  he paraded  around  with  a  device  to  which  some  of  the  worst sins  of  immorality  are  attributed.

The  episode  between  the  aforementioned  two  Ulama  is NEVER  a  Shar’i  daleel  for  permissibility  of  the  major  sin  of  pictures  of  animate  objects.  The  propounders  of  the permissibility   view  should  present  their  dalaa-il  and logically  in  terms  of  Shar’i  principles  refute  our  dalaa-il. Only  then  will  it  be  possible  to  accord  attention  to  what  is being  said.  If  Hadhrat  Binnori  was  silenced  –  which  is  difficult  to  believe  since  the  words  of  fussaaq  are  not acceptable  –  it  does  not  mean  that  others  too  can  be  silenced by  stupid  counter  arguments.  The  ‘reflection’  argument  is  a massive  deception  and  a  stunt  of  shaitaan  which  has befuddled  many  short-sighted  Ulama  who  fail  to  correctly apply  their  minds.  The  story  presented  by  the  paper ‘mujtahid’  entity  is  simply  not  a daleel  of  the  Shariah.  

The  paper  ‘mujtahid’  says:

“Maulana  Saleemullah    Khan  (RA)  [19xx-2017]:  Tons  of  his students  agree  with  digital  photography  including  Mufti  Rafi  Taqi  Usmani  (DB),  are  you  telling  me  that  in  the  entire  city  of  Karachi  where  he  taught  for  60-70  years  he  only  found  “29” Ulama  to  agree  with  him?  

Our  Response:  

This  is  another  stupid  averment  of  a  stupid  self-proclaimed  ‘mujtahid’.  Even  if  the  honourable  Maulana  Sahib  had  not  found  a  single  Molvie  to  agree  with  his  view  of  prohibition,  it  would  not  have  detracted  from  the  Haqq  proclaimed  by  Maulana  Saleemullah  Khan.  The  Haqq  is  not  reliant  on  numbers,  especially  when  it  is  a  Qur’aanic  fact  that  the  vast majority  will  always  be  those  who  plod  the  path  of  baatil. Thus,  the  ‘tons’  of  molvies  who  surrendered  their  brains  to the  dictates  of  the  mudhilleen  are  morons.  Tons  of  chaps believing  in  the  permissibility  of  haraam  pictography  are  not  a  Shar’i  daleel, even  if  the  tons  happen  to  be  molvies.  

This  episode  ‘argument’  is  bereft  of  even  an  iota  of  daleel.  It  is  never  a  daleel.  It  is  the  flotsam  outpouring  of  a  moron  who  is  academically  bankrupt.  Even  a  mediocre  Molvie  should  understand  what  a  daleel  constitutes  of.  Story-telling  is  not  a  daleel.  The  ‘tons’  of  imbecile  molvies,  the  baseless  argument  of  Sheikh  Ghudda  and  the  alleged  silencing  of  Hadhrat  Binnori  are  not  Shar’i  dalaa-il.

The  paper  ‘mujtahid’  says:

“Mufti  Rasheed  Ahmed  Ludhyanwi  (RA)  [1922-2002]:  Many  Ulama  in  his  time  and  even  now  disagree  with  him.  Isn’t  AzanTV  (Karachi)  run  in  consultation  with  some  of  the  Ulama  who  were  his  students?” 

Our  Response:   

The  “many  ulama  who  disagreed  and  even  now  disagree with  Mufti  Ludhyanwi,  and  the  “Azan  TV”  stupidity  are not  Shar’i  dalaa-il.  The  moron,  paper  ‘mujtahid’  should  present  the  dalaa-il  of  the  ‘many  ulama’  to  enable  us  to  place  these  in  the  glare  of  scrutiny  to  correctly  assign  their  dumb and  stupid  daleels  to  the  sewerage  gutters  of  jahaalat.

Mufti  Rashid  Ludhyanwi  had  presented  dalaa-il  which  the many  moron  molvies  have  failed  to  demolish.  Being  ‘many’ is  never  a  daleel.  And,  the  filth  of  Azan  TV  is  never  a  daleel for  permissibility  of  the  kabeerah  sin  of  haraam pictography.

The internet character says:

“I  had  a  discussion  with  a  “Super  Deobandi”  and  I  asked  him  for  an  example  of  where  there  is  unanimous  opinion  amongst  Ulama  (no  disagreement)  from  the  highest  authority  of  the  (Hanafi)  Madhab  on  the  matter.  He  quoted  “Taliban”  and  said  that  judgment  of  Ameer  overrides  the  differences  of  Ulama.  His statement  is  true  but  his  facts are  false.

Our Response: 

Assuming  that  there  is  no  unanimity  of  the  Ulama  on  the prohibition  of  television  and  digital  pictography,  it  will  not detract  from  the  validity  of  the  hurmat  of  these  pictures.  The hurmat  is  the  effect  of  Shar’i  daleel,  not  ‘unanimity’, especially   when   unanimity  is  sought  from  liberal  molvies  of deficient  academic  expertise  such  as  the  ‘tons’  of  molvies  parading  as  Ulama  in  this  era  in  close  proximity  to  Qiyaamah.

Furthermore,  even  if  unanimity  cannot  be  secured,  it  does not  follow  that  those  who have  based  their  case  of  hurmat  on solid  Shar’i  grounds,  should  submit  to  the  baatil  of  the liberals  as  has  been  allegedly  attributed  to  Hadhrat  Maulana Binnori  by  the  paper  internet ‘mujtahid’.

It  should  also  be  noted  that  there  is  Ijma’  of  all  our Akaabireen  of  Deoband  that  all  forms  of  pictures  of animate  objects,  including  television  pictures,  and  pictures  which  will  be  manufactured  by  technology  in  the  future,  are HARAAM.  The  Molvies  of  Deoband  of  the  current  time  are  not  necessarily  Ulama  of  Deoband.  Salafi’ism,  liberalism, modernism  and  worldly  objectives  are  diseases  which  are  gnawing  at  the  Imaan  and  Maslak  of  Deoband.  Most Madaaris  which  are  nowadays  aligning  themselves  to Deoband,  have  extremely  little  in  common  with  the  Darul Uloom  and  Maslak  established  by  the  Akaabir  more  than  a century  ago.  In  fact,  innumerable  of  these  fictitious ‘deobandi’  madrasahs  are  in  the  field  for  the  pecuniary  and nafsaani  objectives  of  their  founders.  Thus,  the  true  Ilm  of the  Deen  is  smothered  and  even  extinguished  in  these institutions  which  are  manned  by  corrupt  mercenaries.  Ilm  is  no  longer  being  imparted  for  the  Aakhirat,  hence  Taqwa  is  a strange,  alien  and  even  abhorred  concept  to  them.

All  of  the  Molvies  who  claim  television  and  digital  pictures halaal,  are  the  agents  of  Iblees  without  exception.  They  are  the  very  same  evil  cabal  of  ulama-e-soo’  who  produce ‘halaal’  riba  products  for  the  riba  capitalist  banks,  and  they are  the  same  miscreants  who  halaalize  carrion.  They  are  the aimmah  mudhilleen  for  whom  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  had  expressed  dread  and  fear,  for  they  are  the agents  of  shaitaan  who  have  destroyed  the  masses  of  the Ummah.  They  are  the  “Devils  in  human  bodies”  who  harm and  undermine  the  Deen.  They  are  worse  than  ordinary  fussaaq  who  shave  their  beards  and  drink  liquor.

The  paper  internet  ‘mujtahid’  further  exhibits  his  stark ignorance  by  agreeing  with  the  ‘super  deobandi’  that  the “judgment  of  the  Taliban  Ameer  overrides  differences  of  the Ulama.”  On  what  basis  did  this  moron  claim  that  this statement  is  ‘true’.  Firstly,  in  matters  of  Ilm,  the  pivot  is Shar’i  Daleel,  not  the  authority  of  the  Ameer. 

Secondly,  it  is absolutely  ludicrous  and  laughable  to  believe  that  the  Ameer  of  the  Taliban  has  the  authority  to  override  the  Fataawa  of  the Ulama.

Thirdly,  the  Taliban  is  a  political  entity  fighting  a  Jihad against  the  kuffaar.  It  is  not  an  Ilmi  institution.  The  Ameer of  the  Taliban  is  not  a  man  of  Ilm.  He  has  no  maqaam  in  the firmament  of  Shar’i  Uloom.  In  fact,  these  ameers  in  terms of Knowledge  are  laymen.

Fourthly,  the  Ameer  of  the  Taliban  while  having  the authority  to  override  the  differences  among  his commanders  and  subordinates  in  the  Jihad  field,  has  no such authority  in  the  dimension  of Ilm.

Fifthly,  even  an  AalimMujtahid  and  Allaamah  of  the stature  of  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  does  not  have  the  authority  to  utilize  his  seniority  to  override  the differences  in  Ilmi  matters  of  his  subordinate  Ulama.  Thus, we  find  innumerable  differences  of  opinion  between  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  and  his  August  Students.  Seniority  has  not  been  invested  by  the  Shariah  with  the authority  to  silence  other  Ulama  who  base  their  fataawa  pertaining  to Shar’i  ahkaam  on  solid  Shar’i  Dalaa-il.   Dalaail  can  be  neutralized  by  only  valid  Shar’i  Dalaa-il,  not  by  any  Aalim’s  amaarate  (leadership)  nor  by  the  Khalifah  of  the  entire  world  of  Islam.  The  stupidity  of  the  internet  paper  ‘mujtahid’ should  thus  be  manifest.

The paper character says:

“Taliban  permitted  photography  on  passports  and  when  you crossed  the  border  you  were  issued  ID  cards  (with  Photos)  for  Journalists,  Visitors…How  else  will  you  check  that  Muadh  Khan  is  actually  Muadh  Khan  when  you  are  visiting  a  country?  

Our Response: 

To  recognize  ‘Muadh  Khan’  is  ‘Muadh  Khan’,  there  is  no imperative  need  for  haraam  photos.  Passport  and  visa photos  are  acts  of  the  kuffaar.  There  is  no  compulsive  reason  for  adopting  this  practice  in  a  genuine  Islamic  state.  If  Muadh  Khan  is  an  imposter  or  a  zindeeq  or  a  munaafiq, etc.,  he  will  be  recognized  without  the  need  of  a  haraam  photo.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: “Beware  of  the  firaasat  of  the  Mu’min,  for  verily,  he  looks with the Noor of Allah.” 

And,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  says:  “If  you  have  Sabr  and Taqwa,  never  will  their  plot  harm  you  in  any  way.”  Allah  Ta’ala  suffices  for  those  who  have true  tawakkul  on  Him. 

The  actions  and  ideas  of  the  Taliban  are  NOT  Shar’i  dalaail.  But  the  moron  is  too  dim  in  the  brains  to  understand  this simple  fact. 

The  Jaahil  internet  paper  ‘mujtahid’  says:

“There  is  no  doubt  that  there  are  “individual  Fatwaas”  of Ulama.  For  every  individual  Fatwa  there  are  Fatwaas  and examples  of  Ulama  (on  the  opposite).  The  bodies  of  Islamic Scholars  (worldwide)  on  the  other  hand  have  a  fairly  settled opinion  as  I  have  quoted.”  

Our Response:

That  which  the  jaahil  terms  ‘individual  fatwaas’,  are  in reality  the  Fataawa  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam),  of  the  Sahaabah,  of  the  illustrious  Fuqaha  of  all Four  Math-habs  and  of  all  the  Ulama  who  had  flourished  on this  earth  for  almost  fourteen  centuries.  It  is  only  recently that  the  flotsam  and  jetsam  ‘fatwas’  of  the  agents  of  Iblees have  surfaced.

The  ‘fairly  settled  opinion’  to  which  the  moron  refers,  is  the inspiration  of  Iblees.  It  is  the  absolutely  baatil  opinion  of  the permissibility  of  the  organs  of  shaitaan  –  television,  video, digital  pictures.  It  is  the  plot  of  shaitaan  urinated  into  the brains  and  hearts  of  those  who  halaalize  what  Allah  Ta’ala has  made  haraam.  The  Devil-in-Chief  is  manipulating  all  these  modernist,  liberal    ulama-e-soo’  for  destroying  the  Imaan  and  Akhlaaq  of  the  Ummah  by  the  trap  of   halaaizing  the  institution  of  pictography  which  is  the  fundamental  basis  of  pornography  and  a  host  of  other  evils  all  leading  to zina and  sexual  perversity.

The  miserable  paper  character  says:

“Also  notice  the  era  of  the  Ulama  whose  opinions  are  being quoted.”

Our Response:

This  Averment  is  a  subtle  rejection  of  the  Finality  of Nubuwwat.  It  is  a  stratagem  of  shaitaan.  The  ‘era’  has absolutely  no  bearing  on  the  issue  of  pictography.  The moron  has  implied  that  Islam  is  out-dated,  in  fact  antique and  should  be  assigned  to  the  museum,  hence  the  moron  is  stressing  the  ‘era’  of  the  Akaabir  of  Deoband.  Simply because  Hadhrat  Thanvi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  has  issued  his  Fatwa  in  the  1940’s,  the  moron  internet  character      seeks  to convey  the  idea  that  it  is  out-dated.  If  the  truth  of  this  Deen  is  reliant  on  the  views  and  stupid  opinions  of  the  stupid  ulama-e-soo’  who  abound  in  our  midst,  then  the  moron  should  boldly  proclaim  a  complete  overhaul  of  Islam  as  the modernist  zindeeq  kuffaar  university  shayaateen  are  calling for. 

The  Fatwa  of  prohibition  of  pictography  is  not  at  all  reliant on  ‘era’  and  ‘age’,  just  as  Salaat  and  Saum  are  not depended  on  era  and  age.  There  is  no  difference  between the  hurmat  of  zina  and  the  hurmat  of  pictures.  Liquor  will perpetually  remain  haraam  regardless  of  the  most  advanced  technological  methods  of  production.  Liquor  will  not  become  halaal  on  the  basis  of  the  methods  of  production  of  this  age  being  different  and  technologically  advanced  than  the  method  of  production  fourteen  centuries  ago.  In  exactly  the  same  way,  the  modern  and  technological  methods  of  producing  pictures  will  not  render  the  haraam  pictures  permissible.  Only  the  followers  of  Iblees  whose  brains  are  soaked  with  insoforia  are  capable  of  such  stupid,  irrational  and  haraam  reasoning  which  transforms  haraam  into ‘halaal’.  

We  say  to  all  these  haraam  halaalizers  in  the  words  of  the Qur’aan  Majeed:

“Bring  forth  your  proof  —   In  fact  most  of  them  do  not  know  the  Haqq,  hence  they  turn  away  (into  error  manifest.)”  

Further Reading:
Critical Review of Mufti Taqi’s Television Fatwa

Hadhrat Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (Rahmatullah Alayh)

[Shaykh Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (rahimahullah)]

UMAR   BIN  ABDUL  AZIZ  (Al  Khalifat  As-Salih)

Born:  61  or  63  AH  (680  or 682  AD)  At  Halwan  in  Egypt

Father:  Abdul-Aziz  Governor  of  Egypt  and  son  of  Marwan  I  the  forth  Umayyad  Khalifah

Mother:  Umm  ‘Asim  daughter  of  Asim,  the  son  of  Umar  bin  Khattab (radhiyallahu  anhu)

Wife:  Fatima,  daughter  of  Abdul  Malik  the  4th  Umayyad Khalifah

Education: in  Madinah  from  his  uncle  Abdullah  bin  ‘Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu)

Governor  Madinah:  706  AD for  two  years  during  the  Period  of  Walid  bin  Abdul  Malik  the  5th  Umayyad Khalifa

Contemporaries:  Abdullah Ibn  Zubayr,  Hasan  Al-Basri, Hajjaj  Ibn  Yusuf,  Umayyad Khalifahs  Abdul  Malik, Waleed  Ibn  Abdul  Malik, Suleiman  Ibn  Abdul  Malik.

Khalifah:  717  to  720  AD  the 8th  Umayyad  Khalifah  for  2 year  and  5  months.

Died:  720  AD  by  poisoning instigated  by  Umayyad  clan  due  to  his  austerity  measures  in  all  aspects  of  life.

Reformist  Endeavours  of  the  First  Century A.H

Soon  after  the  Khilafat-E-Rashidah  (the  rightly-guided  Caliphate)  came  to  an  end  and  the  Umayyad  Empire,  which  was  more  Arab  than  Islamic,  consolidated  itself,  the  need  for  reformation  and renovation  in  Islam  was  felt  keenly. Customs,  traditions  and remembrances  of  the  pagan  past,  which  had  been  discredited  under  the  impact  of  the  prophet’s  teachings,  began  to  re-assert  themselves  among  the  new  Arab  converts  to  Islam.  The  then  government  was  not  organised  according  to  the  dictates  of  the  Quran  and  the  Sunnah – its  guiding  lights  were  Arab  diplomacy. Expediency  and  interest  of  the  State,  Arab  racialism,  tribal  pride,  partisan  spirit  and  nepotism,  regarded  as  unpardonable  sins during  the  days  of  the  Khilafat-E-Rashidah,  became  the  hall-mark  of  the  new  aristocracy.

The  extravagant  rulers,  surrounded  by  dissolute  parasites  who  flocked  to  the  capital  demoralised  the  society  and  produced  an  aristocracy  resembling  the  pagan  Arab  wastrel  of  the  age  of  ignorance  in  moral  and  behaviour.

Religious  Teachers  of  the  Umayyad  Period

However,  the  masses  had  still  not  forsaken  the  moral  values and  deference  for  Islamic  teachings.  The  regard  for  moral  worth  and  tenets  of  Islam  was  due  mainly  to  those  scholars  of impeccable  worth  and  ability  who  were  held  in  high  esteem  by  the  masses  for  their  moral  and  spiritual  excellence,  selflessness  and  piety.  The  person  most  respected  and  loved  during  the  period  was  Ali-Bin-Husain  (Zainul  Abdin).

Other  highly  reputed  religious  scholars  of  outstanding  piety during  the  Umayyad  period  were  Hasan-al-Muthanna,  his  son  Abdullah  al-Mahadh,  Salim  ibn  Abdullah  ibn  Umar,  Qasim  ibn  Muhammad  ibn  Abu  Bakr,  Saeed  ibn  Musayyib  and  ‘Urwah  ibn Zubair.

The  demoralisation  that  had  set  in  owing  to  the  immoral conduct  of  the  ruling  elite  was  undoubtedly  on  the  increase  but  the  moral  influence  wielded  by  these  persons  on  the  masses  was  not  without  a  salutary  effect,  their  pure  and  simple  life  was  a  standing  reproach  to  the  unprincipled  this – worldliness  of  the  rulers,  which  made  people  think  of reforming  their  intemperate  life.
The  Umayyad  power  was,  however,  entrenched  in  such  a firm  military  strength  that  it  was  not  possible  to  dislodge  it,  nor  there  existed  any  internal  or  external  force  which  could  dare  to  challenge  it.  It  appeared  as  if  the  fate  of Muslims  had  been  sealed  for  a  fairly  long  time.  It  required  a  miracle  alone  for  the  Islamic precepts  to  find  an  expression  again  in  the  political  law  guiding  the  community’s  behaviour.

Accession  of  Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz

The  miracle  was  the  accession  of  Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  to  the throne  in  99  A.H.  (717  A.D.).  He  was  a  grandson  of  Marwan and  his  mother,  Umm  Asim,  was  grand-daughter  of  Umar  I,  the  second  Caliph.

Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  was  born  in  61  A.H.  He  was  a  cousin of  the  preceeding  Caliph,  Sulaiman  ibn  Abdul  Malik  and  had  been  posted  as  Governor  of  Madinah  since  the  time  of  Walid  ibn Abdul  Malik,  the  Caliph  before  Sulaiman.  The  life  led  by  him  as  Governor  was  entirely  different  from  that  he  adopted  as  a  Caliph.  He  was  known  as  a  polished  and  decorous aristocrat  of  refined  taste. Anybody  could  tell  from  the fragrance  of  perfumes  he  used that  Umar  had  passed  that  way.  He  was  all  the  rage  for the  fashionable  youths  of  his day.  Except  for  his  integrity  of character  and  righteousness there  was  nothing  to  suggest that  he  was  destined  to perform  a  memorable  task  in the  history  of  Islam.

But  he  proved  to  be  a standing  miracle  of  Islam.  The  very  way  he  ascended  to  the  Caliphate  was  miraculous,  for,  nobody  could  have  predicted  the  dramatic  turn  that  the  events  took  in  bringing  him  to  the  throne.  He  could  not  have hoped  to  be  anything  more than  a  viceroy  under  the hereditary  custom  of  accession  to  the  Caliphate,  but  God  had  willed  otherwise.  Sulaiman ibn Abdul  Malik  fell  seriously  ill  and  lost  all  hopes of  recovery.  He  was  anxious  to  leave  the  throne  to  one  of  his  sons  who  were  still  minors.

In  his  dreadful  agony,  he  cast  a  pathetic  glance  over  his  sons  and  said  “He  is  really  fortunate  who  has  grown-up  sons”. Reja  ibn  Haiwah  happened  to  be  present  at  the  time  and  he promptly  proposed  Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  as  the  successor  to  the  throne.  Caliph  Sulaiman  accepted  the  suggestion  and  thus,  by  his  timely  intervention,   Reja  rendered  yeoman  service  for  the revival  of Islam.

Character  of  Umar  II

Immediately  upon  his  accession,  Umar  dismissed  provincial governors  known  to  be  cruel  or  unjust  to  the  people.  All  the jewellery  and  valuable  presents  brought  before  him  on  accession  to  the  throne  were  deposited  in  the  state  treasury.
He  was  now  a  completely  changed  man.  He  considered himself  a  successor  to  Caliph  Umar  I,  son  of  Khattab,  rather than  to  Sulaiman  ibn  Abdul  Malik.  Slaves  of  the  royal  household  were  emancipated.  The  royal  court  modeled  after  Persian  and  Byzantine  Royal  patterns  was  now  marked  by  an  austere  and  primitive  simplicity.  He  returned  to  the  State  not  only  his  ancestral  fief  but  even  the  valuables  and  jewellery  his  wife  had  received  from  her  father  and  brothers.  He  was  the  ruler  of  the mightiest  empire  of  his  day  but  he  did  not  have  enough  money to  perform  the  Hajj.

‘Umar  II  was  careful  not  for  his  person  alone.  He  always exhorted  the  state  officials  to  be  extremely  cautious  in  their dealings  involving  the  state  property.

Not  only  that  extreme  caution,  moderation,  simplicity  and unaffected  piety  were  the  feature  of  Umar’s  character,  he transformed  the  view-point  of his  government,  making  the  will of  the  people  the  sole  object  of  administration.

The  historic  dictum  of  ‘Umar  II  that  ‘Muhammad  was  sent  as  a  prophet  and  not  as  a  collector’,  adequately  illustrates  the objective  he  had  set  before  the  state  under  him.  In  truth  and reality,  during  the  entire  period  of  his  Caliphate  he  sought  to translate  this  idea  into  practice.  He  always  preferred  principles, moral  dictates  and  demands  of  the  faith  to  political  expediency and  never  cared  a  whit  for  financial  loss  suffered  by  the  state  if  the  policy  commended  by  religion  entailed  it.  During  his  reign  the  non-muslims  were  embracing  Islam  in  ever-increasing  numbers  which  meant  a  dwindling  income  from  the  poll-tax.  As  the  sharp  fall  in  revenues  posed  a  danger  to  the  financial  stability  of  the  State,  Umar’s  attention  was  drawn  towards  it. But  his  reply  was  that  the  situation  was  eminently  in  accord  with  the  objectives  underlying  the  prophet-hood  of  Muhammad (sallallaahu  alayhi  wasallam).  To  an  official  he  wrote  “I  would  be  too  glad  if  all  the  non-Muslims  embrace  Islam  and  (owing  to  the  drying  up  of  income  from  poll-tax)  we  have  to  take  up  cultivation  for  earning  our living.”  A  fixed  amount  of  land  revenue  was  to  be  remitted  by the  provincial  Government  of  Yemen  every  year  whether  it  had  a  favourable  crop  or  not.  Umar  II  ordered  that  the  revenue  should  be  assessed  in  accordance  with  the  agricultural  production  every  year.  He  added  that  he  would  willingly  accept  it  even  if  a  handful of  grain  were  to  be  received  in  pursuance  of  his  order.  He discontinued  levy  of octroi (i.e. Octroi  is  a  tax  levied  at  the  gate  of  a  city  on  articles  brought  in)  throughout  the  kingdom  saying  that  it  was  prohibited  by  the  Qur’an.

Umar  II  used  to  say  that  people  have  made  octroi  lawful  by changing  its  name.  Barring  the  few  taxes  allowed  by  the Shari’ah,  he  abolished  all  taxes  and  duties  levied  by  his predecessors.  All  the  land  and  sea  routes  were  opened  for  trade  without  any  embargo  whatsoever.

Far-reaching  reforms  were  introduced  in  the  administration of  the  kingdom.  Some  of  the  steps  were  that  officials  were precluded  from  entering  into  any  business  or  trade,  unpaid  labour  was  made  illegal,  pasture-lands  and  game-preserves  reserved  for  the  royal  family  or  other  dignitaries  were  distributed  to  the  landless  cultivators  or  made  public  property,  strict  measures  were taken  to  stop  illegal  gratification  of  state  employees  who  were  forbidden  to  accept  gifts,  all  officers  holding  responsible  posts  were  directed  to  afford  adequate  facilities  to  those  who  wanted  to  present  their  complaints  to  them  in  person,  a  proclamation  was  made  every  year  on  the  occasion  of  pilgrimage  that  any one  who  would  bring  to  the  notice  of  administration  any  maltreatment  by  a  state  official  or offer  a  useful  suggestion  shall  be rewarded  100  to  300  dinars.

Solicitude  For  Moral  Reformation

After  the  khilafat-e-Rashidah  came  to  an  end,  the  Caliphs  began  to  consider  themselves  simply  as  monarchs  and  administrators;  they  were  neither  capable  nor  had  the  time  to  bother  about  the moral  and  social  conditions  of  their  subjects.  ‘Umar  ibn  Abdul Aziz’  did  away  with  this  dichotomy  and  proved  himself  to  be really  a  successor  of the  Prophet  as  his  office  implied.  No  sooner did  he  ascend  the  Caliphate,  he  sent  out  quite  lengthy  letters and  directives  which  dealt  with  religious  and  moral  reforms more  than  with  the  so-called  administrative  affairs.

Compilation  of  Traditions

The  study  and  cultivation  of  religious  sciences  did  not  escape  attention  of  Umar  Ibn  Abdul  Aziz.  Drawing  the  attention  of  an  eminent  man  of letters  of  his  time,  Abu  Bakr  ibn  Hazm,  towards  compilation  of  the  traditions  of  the  Holy  Prophet,  he  wrote:

“Reduce  into  writing  whatever  traditions  of  the  Holy  Prophet  you  can  collect,  for  I  fear  that  after  the traditionists  pass  away,  the  knowledge  will  also perish.”

Defender  of  the  Faith

The  unalloyed  Islamic  thought  and  spirit  of  religion  that  ‘Umar ibn  Abdul  Aziz  tried  to  infuse  among  the  Muslims  and  give  a  practical  shape  through  the  State  he  presided  over,  can  be  gauged  from  the  letters  and  edicts  he  issued  from  time  to  time  to  the  different  functionaries  of  his  government.

It  was  once  reported  to  him  that  certain  tribal  chiefs  and Umayyad  aristocrats  had  revived  the  pagan  custom  of entering into  alliance  and  were  giving  a  call  to  one  another  in  the  name  of  tribal  solidarity  during  their  fights  and  forays.  This  custom  cut  at  the  very  root  of  Islamic  concept  of  brotherhood  and  the  social  order  it  wanted  to  bring  into  existence.  ‘Umar  ibn  Abdul Aziz,  being  fully  alive  to  the  pernicious  implications  of  the  practice,  issued  an  order  to  Dahhak  ibn  Abdur-Rahman  for  curbing  the  evil  forthwith.

The  directives  sent  by  ‘Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  to  the commander of  a  military  expedition  illustrate  the  extent  to  which  he  had  imbibed  the  Qur’anic  mode  of  thought  and  view-point, and  how  he  differed  diametrically  from  other  rulers  and  emperors  of  his  time,  in  one  of his  edicts  to  Mansur  ibn  Ghalib  he  wrote:

“whereas  the  commander  of the  faithful  has  charged  Mansur  to  wage  war  against  those  who  might  oppose  him,  the  latter  is  also  instructed  to  inculcate  awe  of  God  since,  it  constitutes  the  best  of  provisions,  the  most  effective  strategy  and  the  real  power.  For  sin  is  even  more  dangerous  than  the  ruses  of  the  enemy,  The  commander  of  the  faithful  bids  upon  Mansur that  instead  of  taking  fright  of  his  enemy,  he  should  fear  transgressing  the  limits  of  God.  We  can  not  deploy  troops  in  the  same  numbers  as  our  enemies  can  do  nor  do  we  possess  the  equipments  they  have  got.”

Behold,  if  we  are  not  able  to  gain  ascendancy  over  our  enemies on  account  of  our righteousness,  we  would  never be  in  a  position to  defeat  them  through  our  might.  We  need  not  keep  an  eye  upon  anything  more  than  the  enmity  of  our  own  wickedness  nor  do  we  have  to  hold  in  leash  anything  more  than  our  own  viciousness.  Never  consider  yourselves  superior  to  your  enemies,  nor take  your  victory  for  granted  because  of  the  sinfulness  of  your  foes,  for  many  a  people  worse  than  his  enemy was granted  ascendancy  in  the  past. Therefore,  seek  the  help  of  God  against  your  own temptations  in  the  same  way  as  you  desire  the  succour  of God  against  your  opponent.

“Commander  of  the Faithful  also  bids  Mansur  ibn  Ghalib  that  he  should  treat  his  men  with  leniency”.

“For  giving  rest  to  his  men  and  the  beast  of  burden  and  also for  getting  his  armaments  repaired.  The  commander  of  the Faithful  orders  Mansur  ibn  Ghalib  to  break  his  journey  on  every  Friday  for  the  whole  day  and  night  thereof.  He  is  also  ordered  to  encamp  far  away  from  the  habitations  which  have  entered  into  treaty  relations  with  us,  and  allow  none  from  his  troops  to visit  their  dwellings,  markets  or  gatherings,  only  those  of  this men  who  are  firm  in  faith  and  trustworthy  and  who  would  neither  be  ill-disposed  nor  commit  a  sin  against  the  people  could  be  allowed  to  visit  such  habitations  for  collection  of  lawful  dues. You  are  as  much  bound  to  guarantee  their  rights  as  they  are enjoined  to  fulfill  the  duties  devolving  on  them  i.e.  you  have  to  honour  your  obligations  to  them  so  long  as  they  do  theirs.  You  should  never  try  to  gain  an  advantage  over  your  enemy  through  persecution  of  those  who  have  come  under  your  protection,  for  you  have  already  got  a  share  (in  the  shape  of  Jeziah  or  poll-tax)  in  their  earnings  and  you  neither  need  to  increase  it  nor  they  are  bound  to  pay  more.”

“I  bid  you  to  be  cautious  and  God-fearing  in  all  the  affairs  of  your  obligations,  perform  that  which  has  been  ordained  by God  and  desist  from  the  acts  prohibited  by  the  Shari’ah.”

Propagation  of  Islam

The  efforts  of  ‘Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  were  not  limited  to  the enforcement  of  the  Shari’ah,  as  the  law  of  the  land,  and reformation  of  the  Muslim  only.  He  also  paid  attention  towards spreading  the  message  of  Islam  among  the  non-muslims  and  his  endeavours  were  also  successful  on  account  of  his  personal  example  of  simple  life,  unaffected  piety,  unswerving  uprightness  and  immaculate  sincerity.

Financial  Reforms

The  financial  reforms  embarked  upon  by  ‘Umar ibn  Abdul  Aziz viz.  remission  of  numerous  taxes  and  tithes  disallowed  by  the  Shari’ah  did  not  result  in  pecuniary  difficulties  or  deficits  in  the  State  income.  On  the  contrary,  people  became  so  much  well-off  that  it  became  difficult  to  find  destitute  and  beggars  who  would accept  the  poor-due  (zakat).

Apart  from  the  prosperity  of the  masses,  which  is  invariably a  by-product  of  the  Islamic  form  of  government,  the  more important  change  accomplished  by  the  regime  of  ‘Umar  ibn Abdul  Aziz  was  the  diversion  in  inclination  and  aptitude,  mood and  trend  of  the  populace.  His  contemporaries  narrate  that whenever  a  few  friends  met  during  the  regime  of  Walid,  they  used  to  converse  about  buildings  and  architecture  for  that  was the  rage  of  Walid,  Sulaiman  was  fond  of  women  and  banquets,  and  these  became  the  fad  of  his  days,  but,  during  the  reign  of ‘Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  the  prevailing  demeanour  and  subjects for  discussion  were  prayers.  supplicatory  and  benedictory, obligatory  and  supererogatory.

The  guiding  light  for  ‘Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  and  the impelling  force  behind  his  endeavours  were  his  unflinching  faith, the  love  and  awe  of  the  Supreme  being  and  conviction  of accountability  on  the  day  of  Resurrection.

If providence  had  only  granted  Umar  the  span  of rule  enjoyed by  his  predecessors,  the  world  of Islam  would  have  witnessed  a  complete  and  lasting  revolution  changing  the  course  of  its  history.  But  the  Umayyads  who  had  been  hit  hard  during  the  reign  of  ‘Umar ibn  Abdul  Aziz  and  who  saw  power and  influence  slipping  out  of  their  hands,  openly  regretted  the  day  when  the families  of  ‘Umar  ibn  al-Khattab  and  the  Umayyads’  had maritally  been  united.  They  could  not  endure  the  ordeal  any longer  for  it  was  against  their  grain,  and  they  soon  found  a  way to  get  rid  of the  most  virtuous  Muslim  of  their  times.  ‘Umar  ibn  Abdul  Aziz  died  in  the  middle  of  101 A.H.  after  a  rule  of  only  two  years  and  five  months.  There  are  reasons  to  believe  that  a  slave  in  the  employ  of  the  caliph  was  commissioned  by  his  family  to  administer  poison  to  him.

[From the Book: Saviours of Islamic Spirit]

[Part-2] Refuting the Jewish Claim of Their So-Called ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine

Continued from ➡ Refuting the Jewish Claim of Their So-Called ‘Divine Right’ to Palestine

The Stone Which the Jews Rejected

Luke 20:9 And he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants and went into another country for a long while. Luke 20:10  When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, so that they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Luke 20:11  And he sent another servant. But they also beat and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. Luke 20:12 And he sent yet a third. This one also they wounded and cast out. Luke 20:13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son (servant the Messiah); perhaps they will respect him.’ Luke 20:14  But when the tenants saw him, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, so that the inheritance may be ours.’  Luke 20:15 And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? Luke 20:16  He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!” Luke 20:17  But he looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Luke 20:18  Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” [English Standard Version]

How did the Jewish people come to occupy Palestine originally? According to their own Scriptures, it was done by vicious murder and genocide. They conquered a land already occupied by indigenous peoples. Supposedly this was done by the command of God; but God also warned them that if they departed from Him and His commandments, He would drive them out of the land again, and “curse” them. According to their Scriptures and history, God did indeed drive them out by means of the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Then God permitted them to return again to Judea and Jerusalem, but he also gave a prophecy to Daniel (9:24-27) that they would once again violate God’s covenant, and a ‘decreed end’ would come upon the nation of Israel. Within a period of 490 years (“70 weeks” of years – 70×7 years) “Messiah” would appear and then be “cut off” from them; and after that the “people of the Prince” would come and thoroughly destroy the city and Temple.

Again history tells us that this did indeed occur when the Roman army conquered Judea and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (in A.D. 70). Many orthodox Jews recognize that this destruction was the punishment of God for their sins; they maintain that they have a commandment from God to submit humbly to God’s punishment and not take any steps, particularly military, to remove themselves from the punishment and reinstate themselves in their “ancestral land”. They must live peacefully in whatever lands to which they have been dispersed by God’s retribution, and pray for the peace and welfare of those lands. They totally repudiate Zionism, and say that the only hope for peace in the Middle East is for the Israeli government to be disbanded and government of the whole land restored to the Palestinian peoples (including the Muslims, Christians, and Jews who lived there before Zionist Israeli occupation took place). They say that no Zionist can be a true Jew, and no true Jew can be a Zionist.

Those who are Christians should repudiate Zionism, because Jesus himself – in the parable related in Matthew 21:33-46 – explicitly stated that as a result of their rejection of him (“Messiah the Prince”) and his message, the kingdom of God would be taken away from the Jewish nation and given to another nation which would – unlike the Jewish people – bring forth appropriate ‘fruit’ for the kingdom. Mat 21:42  Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Mat 21:43  Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people  (“ethnos” – which means “nation”; the Jews use it to refer to nations other than the Jews, and it is frequently translated “Gentiles”) producing its fruits. Mat 21:44  And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”  There is simply no room in that prophecy for a revived “kingdom of the Jews” in the sight of God. When God brought the Roman army on Jerusalem, it signified “the end” for Jewish leadership in God’s kingdom. The Jewish people no longer occupy a special place in God’s favor (if they ever did), and have no ‘Divine right’ to any piece of real estate.

We Muslims of course recognize in this prophecy of the Prophet Jesus that the other nation to which the kingdom would be given – instead of the Jewish nation – is that other branch of the Abrahamic family which God promised to make a great nation: the family of Ishmael. This is the “stone” which the Jewish builders rejected, but God has made the “chief cornerstone” in His kingdom.

Despite all of this, however, the Zionist movement arose in the late 19th Century, calling for the Jewish people to retake Palestine and establish a Jewish nation there. In the 1940s they accomplished their mission, with the help of several ‘western’ governments, by means of terrorism and military violence. Their slogan was “A people without a land for a land without a people”. What could be more vicious than that slogan and the attitude it represents? It was either an outright lie – that Palestine had no occupants, so who could object to Jews moving to a vacant territory? – or it was, even worse, a statement that the Palestinians who were at that time inhabiting the land were sub-human, not even worthy to be considered people! Who could object to the Zionist Jews slaughtering a bunch of animals in order to retake their land?

While one could hope that they were ‘only’ telling an outright lie, the only real conclusion that can be reasonably reached based on the actions and statements of Israeli leaders since then is that the second alternative is the correct one. The Zionists don’t consider the Palestinians to even be people. No wonder what the Satan Netanyahu can state, without blushing in shame, that the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers in “Judea and Samaria”. How can you be foreign occupiers in a land which was previously inhabited only by animals?

Is it that those innocent  Palestinians shouldn’t object at all to being violently driven from their houses and lands???

The traditional Christian understanding of “the stone which the builders rejected” is that it refers to Jesus Christ himself. It’s the interpretation which the Christians accept.  In fact, it seems so obvious to them that it never occurred that there might be any other possible understanding of the reference. We Muslim interpreters insist that the “stone” was in fact the Arab people descended from Ishmael, to whom the Message of the Qur’an was given through the Prophet Muhammad – and from whom a ‘mountain’ has arisen which fills the whole earth (Daniel 2:35 in the ‘Old Testament’ of the Bible).

Because it was so obvious to the Christians that the “stone” was Jesus Christ himself, they will naturally think that this Muslim interpretation is absurd – an evidence of Muslims trying too hard to find Islam and Muhammad in Biblical prophecy. They definitely will not just immediately exclaim: “That’s right! Why couldn’t we see that before?”

However, they should continue to give it consideration, and seek out Muslim writers who could give a clear explanation of why they understood the prophecy in this way. This should ‘opened their eyes’; but this explanation now will seem clear and simple to them.

The whole point of the parable, of course, was to reach the conclusion that the Jewish “tenants” of the “vineyard” (God’s kingdom) had failed so miserably in their duty, and had proven to be so treacherous toward God, that their honored position in the kingdom would be removed from them and another people would be given that position – another people who would produce the ‘fruit’ of the kingdom and render it up to God. That is the inevitable conclusion of the parable, and in Matthew’s account the listeners themselves were so taken in by the parable that they themselves rendered the verdict that the “tenants” would be destroyed by the owner of the vineyard and others would get the lease.

By the way, this is an example in the Gospels that clearly shows the Bible is not inerrantly ‘inspired’. In Matthew’s Gospel, when Jesus asked the question  “What will he do to those tenants”, it was the listeners who responded with the verdict that those “wretches” would be killed and the vineyard leased to others. In Mark and Luke, though, it was Jesus who answered his own question. In fact, in Luke, the listeners were so far from rendering the verdict themselves that they responded “surely not” when Jesus gave the verdict. (I love the way the King James Version renders the phrase: “God forbid!”  However, “surely not” is actually a closer rendering of the phrase. “God” is not present in the Greek phrase. More literally, it would be “Let it not be”.) However, this is also a good example to show that while the details of the story may vary (and in fact are technically contradictory), the point of the story is not affected.

Notice, then, that it is in support of this verdict that the tenants are to be replaced with other more faithful people that Jesus refers to Psalm 118:22: “What then is this that is written: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’?” The point of the parable was not that one of the emissaries of the owner would be restored in order to collect the rightful ‘fruit’ – not even the “son” who had been killed – but that the tenants themselves would be replaced. The point of Jesus’ quotation of the Psalm was that the Jewish Scriptures themselves declared this very thing.

In Matthew, this is clear in that immediately following the listeners’ verdict that the treacherous tenants would be killed and replaced, Jesus said  “Have you never read in the Scriptures…?” In other words, it’s as if he had said “Isn’t that precisely what the Psalmist said?” Then Jesus followed up the quotation with his own conclusion: Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” He did not say “Therefore I tell you, the son (servant) whom you will treacherously try to slay will be resurrected to inherit the kingdom.” Then, immediately after saying that another nation/people will be given the kingdom of God, he says “And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.” There is nothing in the statements of Jesus to indicate that the stone was a person rather than a “people/nation”, and everything to indicate that the “stone” and the “nation” were one and the same.

If possible, this conclusion is even clearer in Luke’s account of the parable. In his account, the listeners had exclaimed “surely not” when Jesus said that the tenants would be destroyed and the vineyard leased to others. Jesus responded by saying  “What then is this that is written…?” Nothing could be clearer than that Jesus was asking how they could object to his conclusion, since the Psalmist had said the same thing: the Jewish nation which was currently the “cornerstone” in God’s kingdom – but which had failed miserably in its duty to bring the kingdom to all nations according to the promise to Abraham that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3) – would be replaced by another “stone” which the Jewish builders had rejected; and that “stone” would produce the intended “fruit”.

Who that other nation/stone was should have been obvious to those who were familiar with the Hebrew Torah and the promises made to Abraham. God not only promised to make a great nation or nations from the seed of Abraham’s second son Isaac, but he promised that he would produce a great nation from the seed of Ishmael (Genesis 17:20 and 21:13 and 18). The Jewish “builders” weren’t too pleased with that, though. Although they did not entirely delete God’s promise concerning Ishmael from their Scriptures, they tried to obscure and cover it up as much as possible. After the Genesis 17:20 promise that God would bless Ishmael and make him fruitful, making a great nation of him, He then proceeded to say in verse 21 “And [or also] I will establish my covenant with Isaac…” But the Jews (and Christians) have, without any logical reason at all, read that as But I will establish my covenant with Isaac”; as if it were being said “but My blessing of Ishmael is really inconsequential; my real blessing and covenant will be with Isaac.”

Although Isaac was never at any time Abraham’s “only son”, they nevertheless inserted Isaac into the story  of Abraham’s near sacrifice of his “only son” as if Ishmael didn’t exist (Genesis 22:2 ff) . When God promised to bless Ishmael and make him fruitful, He said (Genesis 16:12) “He shall be a fruitful man, his hand with every man and every man’s hand with him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his kinsmen.” However, to show their hatred of Ishmael, the Jews (and Christians following in their footsteps) distorted that by claiming “fruitful man” should be read “wild ass of a man”, and “with” should be read “against”. (We will post on it later)

When Sarah (in Genesis 21) became upset at Ishmael’s laughter, the Jews have interpreted that laughter to be laughing at (mocking) Isaac (although the text itself only says that Sarah saw Ishmael laughing – not laughing at anyone or anything). The Christian apostle Paul even interpreted this to mean that Ishmael was persecuting Isaac (Galatians 4:29). The Ishmaelites don’t figure much in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures because the Jews figured they were at best unimportant. At worst, the Jews despised the Arab descendants of Ishmael.

Who else, then, could the nation/stone which the Jewish “builders” rejected be but that great nation descended from Abraham’s firstborn son Ishmael? The promise of God to Abraham had been that in him all nations would be blessed. When the descendants of Isaac were rejected by God, then the descendants of that other son replaced them. God raised up a prophet from the seed of Ishmael; his Arab brothers embraced his/His message; and instead of thinking that they should hoard God’s blessing to themselves (as the Jews did), they fulfilled the duty of God’s covenant by bringing the message of God to all the nations.

The Christian Church did indeed keep alive the name of Jesus Christ, and expanded greatly. But while doing so, it distorted the message so greatly that it can hardly be recognized for “the way” that Jesus proclaimed. When Christianity became allied with the Roman Empire, it was more a defeat for the “Christian” version of the kingdom of God than a triumph. Rome conquered Christianity rather than vice versa. Only the Message of God through Muhammad, originally delivered to the nation descended from Ishmael, has spread the message – in its purity – of God’s kingdom throughout the earth. This “nation” has indeed been a faithful and fruitful “cornerstone” in the kingdom of God.

I would like to say more about the intriguing nature of the use of the word “stone” for the Islamic “nation”.

The Stone That the Builders Rejected

I presented reasons why I have come to believe that Jesus’ quotation of Psalm 118:22, 23 had reference to the Muslim “nation” beginning with Muhammad and his Arab kin – the “great nation” which God promised Abraham from the descendents of his son Ishmael.

Here, I want to explain why I believe the use of the concept of a “stone” to refer to the descendents of Ishmael as the “foundation” of God’s kingdom on earth is very appropriate – and also answer an objection to my interpretation of the prophecy.

Perhaps we don’t think of it very much, but the use of stones as altars to serve as focuses in the worship of the One God was common among the “fathers” of Judeo-Christian faith. Genesis 12:8 tells of Abraham building an altar at Bethel. Genesis 28:18, 19 tells of Abraham’s grandson Jacob taking a single stone which he had used as a pillow, making it a pillar, anointing it with oil, and making a vow to the LORD – which also is said to have taken place at Bethel. In Joshua 4 we are told that the Israelites, by God’s command, gathered 12 stones to set up as a remembrance after crossing the Jordan River.

As I’m sure is well known, Islam also has a very famous Black Stone which is a centerpiece in the Ka’ba in Mecca. The Qur’an explains that Abraham and Ishmael built the Ka’ba as a House of God in the place now known as Mecca, and set up the Black Stone. This stone is said by tradition to have come down from heaven. Some believe it is meteorite stone, though I don’t believe that has been officially confirmed.

Now despite the fact that no one seems to think Abraham, Jacob, or the Israelites were guilty of idolatry when they used stones as holy altars, anointed them with oil, and used them in their worship of God, many Jews (and Christians) delight in ridiculing Muslims as idolaters for their reverence for the Black Stone as ‘part’ of their worship of the One God. Quite literally, this is a stone which the Jewish builders rejected. And that is why it was so apropos that the Psalmist and Jesus should refer to a stone when prophesying that another nation would replace the Jews as the cornerstone in the kingdom of God. The Jewish ‘builders’ rejected the nation descended from Ishmael, and they rejected the center of worship in Mecca, with its Black Stone. Therefore, the “stone” is properly a metonym for the people and religion with which it is associated.

There have been various theories as to the origin of this stone. Some believe it is a meteorite or a fragment of one; others believe it might be volcanic rock. Whatever its origin, it was definitely not hewn by human hands from a mountain or quarry. Therefore, it fits beautifully with Daniel’s interpretation of the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:31-45. In that dream, Nebuchadnezzar had seen a huge statue. Dan 2:32  The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, Dan 2:33  its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. Dan 2:34  As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Dan 2:35  Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”

The different metals in the statue represented 4 different kingdoms or empires, with the 4thbecoming divided (iron mixed with clay). Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian kingdom were represented by the golden head. The silver chest and arms represented the Medo-Persian Empire which followed Babylon. Afterward came the bronze middle and thighs, which represented the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. Finally, the legs and feet of iron mixed with clay represented the Roman Empire – which became divided into Eastern (Byzantine) and Western sections.

But Nebuchadnezzar saw a stone cut out without human hands which struck the feet of the statue, which were a mixture of iron and clay. This caused the statue to collapse and be destroyed, and the stone itself became a great mountain filling the earth. This stone which destroyed the statue and became a great mountain is interpreted by Daniel to mean a great kingdom which the God of heaven would set up “in the days of those kings”. This kingdom would destroy the other kingdoms, and would itself never be destroyed or left for another people.

So here we are presented with 4 consecutive Empires or Kingdoms beginning with Babylon, with no break in between them; and then a 5thkingdom or Empire which arises “in the days of those kings”  – specifically, in the last days of the 4th kingdom when it was in a weak state. It seems hard for me, now, to avoid the understanding that the 5th kingdom, set up by the God of heaven and represented by a stone cut out without human hands, is none other than the religion and Empire of Islam which originated with the Arabian descendents of Ishmael and spread out to “the whole earth”. It is a kingdom which in point of fact did arise in the last days of the weakened Roman Empire, and wound up putting the finishing touch to that Empire (and indeed the whole ‘statue’) when it conquered Constantinople (the Capital of the Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, Empire – present day Istanbul) in 1453 A.D.

This “kingdom” remains intact to this day. Despite some parts of that vast kingdom having been conquered by invaders from time to time, it remains distinctively Muslim (submitted to the One God) in character. Even the Mongol hordes converted to Islam after they conquered Islamic nations. The conquerors were themselves ‘conquered’ by the religion of the One God. This kingdom has indeed not been left to another people.

Now this prophecy of the “stone cut out without hands”  in Daniel fits very well with Jesus’ prophecy of “the stone which the builders rejected”. As Daniel had predicted that the kingdom would never be destroyed or left to another people, Jesus said that “Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him”  (Luke 20:18). In Psalm 118, from which the quotation about “the stone that the builders rejected” is taken, the context is of a victorious conqueror. “(7) The LORD is on my side to help me; I shall look in triumph on those who hate me… (10) All nations surrounded me; in the name of the LORD I cut them off!… (15) Hark, glad songs of victory in the tents of the righteous: ‘The right hand of the LORD does valiantly’…”

In Daniel 2:44, the stone which crushes the statue is specifically said to be a kingdom, not a king. This goes hand in hand with Jesus’ prophecy, confirming that “the stone that the builders rejected” is the people/nation which replaced the Jews as the ‘cornerstone’ in God’s kingdom, not the ‘son’ and ‘heir’ of the kingdom whom the ‘tenants’ killed.

All of these things fit so well together! The nation and kingdom which replaced the nation and kingdom of the Jews as the cornerstone of God’s kingdom is that ‘great nation’ which descended from Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael, which has filled/is filling the earth. And this kingdom is very fittingly represented by a “stone cut out without hands…which the builders rejected”.

This leaves us with the objection that the apostle Peter specifically ascribes to Jesus himself the honor of being “the stone that the builders rejected” (Acts 4:11, and 1 Peter 5:7). Nothing could be more explicit than the statement in Acts 4:11: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.”  What can I say to this? Doesn’t this undermine my whole argument which I have gone to such great lengths to establish?

If Peter and the other apostles were in fact the infallible spokesmen that many Christians claim them to be, then it would certainly be true that Peter by that one simple statement completely destroyed my argument. However, that’s simply not the case. The Biblical authors and apostles are atrocious interpreters of the “Old Testament”. Take as an example ‘Matthew’s’ statement in Matt. 2:15 that the infant Jesus was taken by his parents to Egypt, and then brought back to Galilee and Judea, in order to fulfill Hosea 11:1 – “Out of Egypt I called my son”. When one actually looks up that ‘prophecy’ of Hosea, he/she discovers that Hosea was not making a prediction about a future Messiah; instead he was making a reference to the deliverance of the Jewish people (whom God is said to call “My son”) from Egyptian slavery hundreds of years before Hosea wrote his prophecy. Hosea is pointing out the ungratefulness of the Jewish nation for the blessings they had received from God, not predicting that a baby way off in the future would spend a short period of time in Egypt before being brought back home.

Another example can be found in the letter named “Hebrews” in the New Testament. In 2:13, the author quoted Isaiah 8:18 –  “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.”  The writer of Hebrews would have us believe that the speaker in Isaiah’s prophecy was Jesus Christ, and the “children whom the LORD has given me”  were the children of God whom God gave to Jesus as his brothers. Yet that is clearly not the case. Isaiah was talking about himself and his own children. God had given him those children, and told him to give them very symbolic names (like “a remnant shall return”, “haste, haste to the spoil”, and “God is with us”), so that they would serve as signs and symbols for the Jewish people. The writer of Hebrews in fact winds up making a mockery of the prophetic Scriptures by the way he used them. By that system of “hermeneutics” (interpretation), one can make statements mean anything one wishes. I could use God’s commandment to Abraham to leave his country and kindred, and go to a land that He would show him, as a “prophecy” about Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt by the command of the angel!

There are plenty of other examples of such clearly wrong “interpretations” of the Old Testament by New Testament writers. Consider the examples of Peter himself in Acts 1:20 – where he refers to short excerpts from Psalm 69 (verse 25) and Psalm 109 (verse 8 ) to find guidance for replacing Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus Christ. I won’t deal with it here; just check it for yourself and see if by any stretch of the imagination those little snippets have anything to do with Judas and the apostles’ duty to replace him.

So I have no difficulty at all in acknowledging that Peter’s interpretation of “the stone that the builders rejected” is in error. It is understandable, inasmuch as the Jewish ‘builders’ did indeed reject Jesus (as they did many other prophets before him); but Peter is clearly in conflict with Jesus’ interpretation of the Psalm. I’ll accept Jesus’ interpretation over Peter’s.

Of course, one is free to question whether either Jesus or Peter got it right. Perhaps they’re both wrong, and the Psalmist was speaking only of himself. But I’m quite willing to believe that David was indeed a prophet, and he was speaking – by the Spirit of prophecy – of things future to him when he wrote that Psalm. The “I” in the Psalm was the coming deliverer who would bring God’s kingdom to the earth. The “stone” was the nation/kingdom of Ishmaelite descendents which he represented, and who would become the first followers of his God-given message.

The fact that the New Testament writers and apostles made errors in their handling of Old Testament Scriptures does not, of course, necessarily mean that they were always wrong – or even usually wrong. It does mean, though, that the exhortation of the apostle Paul is always relevant: “1Th 5:20 Do not despise prophecies, 1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 1Th 5:22 Abstain from every form of evil”(1 Thessalonians 5:20-22). No ‘prophet’ gets a free pass, giving him exemption from testing.

The Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom(s) of This World

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another peopleIt shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end,  and it shall stand forever, Dan 2:45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.

Luke 20:15 “And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? Luke 20:16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When they heard this, they said, “Surely not!” Luke 20:17 But he [Jesus – peace be to him] looked directly at them and said, “What then is this that is written: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Luke 20:18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

John 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. John 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:  John 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; John 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; John 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (Quotations from the English Standard Version of the Bible).

Some people may think that the title of this sub-topic is inappropriate. They will say that there is no opposition between God’s kingdom and human government. They’re 2 entirely distinct “kingdoms”, each having its own sphere; and the 2 must never meet. God’s sphere is that which is “spiritual”, and only that; while the sphere of human government has to do strictly with the material world. God is not concerned with matters of human government and society, and human government is not concerned with the things of God and spirituality. So why should I speak as if they were in conflict with each other? As long as we don’t try to mix the 2 spheres, there’s no conflict. Right?

Well, actually that’s quite wrong. Anyone who is consistently a believer in the Almighty, Infinite, and Ineffable One must acknowledge that the Creator of all things is also the Sustainer and Governor of all things. It is quite untrue to say that God’s “sphere” is restricted to the “spiritual” as opposed to the material.

Ultimately, the problems societies face are the result of seeking to ignore God in political, social, and generally “every day” affairs – and consequently substituting other authorities in the place of the King of all the earth. An individual assumes the role of ultimate authority in government, or a group of men do, or “the people” are seen as the ultimate authority. Basically speaking, that is simply atheism; but many supposed “theists” rationalize this by establishing those “categories” or “spheres”.

Those who truly worship the LORD their God, and serve Him only, realize that the only human government which is good, honorable, and just is that government which is in submission to the law of God – Who rules over all things and all “spheres” of life. They pray and work for the “coming” of God’s kingdom to earth in such a way that the will of God will be done by humanity as willingly and voluntarily as it is done by the angels of God in heaven.

Even those Deists – such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – who drew up the founding documents of the government of the United States of America recognized this fact. They may not have believed in infallibly inspired Prophets and Revelations, but they nevertheless believed in the law of God which can be found in nature and can be discerned by human reason and intuition. For them, the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” were the ultimate laws which supersede even the “will of the people”. Of course, “the people” may refuse to follow the laws of God; but the result will be unjust government.

Those theists, though, who do believe that God has not left it entirely up to human reason and intuition (which are very fallible) to discern correctly God’s law – and that He has sent Prophets from time to time with Revelation to shine light on the darkness of the human mind and reason – find that God has promised that the day would come when He would establish His own righteous government in the earth. He would shatter and crush all ungodly governments.

The Biblical statements quoted at the beginning of this article are examples of this promise of God, and hope of His people. Daniel, for instance, had interpreted a dream of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in which he had seen a giant statue representing human government throughout the ages – beginning with his own government. It was one statue or government, yet it was divided into four segments or kingdoms. Looking back historically, we can see that the four kingdoms which constituted one “statue” were Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

Then Nebuchadnezzar had seen a stone “cut out without human hands” which struck the statue on its toes (which were part of the fourth kingdom, Rome), and caused the whole statue (representing ungodly human government) to collapse. Then the stone itself grew to where it encompassed the whole earth – meaning the kingdom or people whom God would raise up as a godly kingdom would overthrow all the previous corrupt governments (which were in fact only one corrupt government in various forms) and establish God’s kingdom in their/its place.

I have now come to the conclusion that this “stone” which was “cut out without human hands” ( and which Jesus –peace be to him – called “the stone which the builders rejected”, referring to Psalm 118) is the “great nation” promised to Abraham through his son Ishmael – or rather beginning with that Ishmaelite nation, and then spreading to people throughout the earth. Just as Daniel had said that the stone would crush ungodly empires, so Jesus said that the stone would break and crush all its opponents.

Having said that concerning the nation/stone which would replace the nation of Israel as the cornerstone in God’s kingdom – and which would “bring forth the fruits” of that kingdom – he also spoke of a Prophet (“helper”, “counselor”, or “comforter”) who would come for the good of men after Jesus (peace be to him) departed. One of the reasons for the coming of this other Prophet was to “convict the world … concerning judgment because the ruler of this world is judged”. This “ruler of this world” is none other than the great statue, representing ungodly world government, which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream and which the Prophet Daniel explained. As there were 4 parts to the statue, so there were several manifestations of the “ruler of this world”; but the coming of the Prophet whom Jesus Christ predicted would indicate God’s judgment of this ruler (whether the ruler is a literal evil spirit named Satan, or a general evil principle pervading all government not submitted to the law of the One Creator and Sustainer of the worlds).

The great characteristic of the Religion of God, whose last Prophet was Muhammad, is simply that it proclaims the greatness and kingdom of God over all, and calls men to submit to God. The “kingdom” of Islam (submission to God) is that kingdom which “the God of heaven” has set up.

This “Muhammadan” Islam is not intended to be a separate religion from previous religions such as Judaism and Christianity, and in conflict with them. Rather the “Muhammadan” revelation is a continuation of, and fulfillment of, those religions. In fact, they all constitute the one “Religion of God” which is Islam (submission to the One God). The revelation given to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be to him and his family) just confirms the others, and ‘rescues’ them from corruption which had set in.

When God said to Muhammad,  “it is He who has sent forth His Apostle with [the task of] spreading guidance and the religion of truth, to the end that He make it prevail over all [false] religion, however hateful this may be to those who ascribe divinity to aught but God” (Qur’an 61:9, Muhammad Asad version), the “religion of truth” spoken of is not “Islam” as opposed to Judaism, Christianity, or other monotheistic religions. It is the one “Islam” which pervades all those true religions, but which has reached its perfection in the revelation given to Muhammad.

Many Christians have fallen into the snare of thinking that because Jesus the Messiah/Christ/Anointed One said that his kingdom was “not of this world”, and that the kingdom of God is “within you”, we should not be concerned with seeking and establishing righteous and godly human government. They have fallen for the “separate spheres” mode of thinking. But Jesus Christ himself denied the correctness of that conclusion.

Yes it is true that God’s kingdom must begin within people, and spread outward. And it is true that Jesus himself was not the one appointed by God to smash and destroy ungodly human governments. But he said that another Prophet and Leader of another (non-Jewish) nation would come after him who would effectively demolish ungodly government and establish God’s kingdom in human society.

Those whose “eyes and ears are open” to God, and who love His kingdom, should be delighted to see God fulfilling His promise of His glory filling the earth as the waters cover the sea! But so many people are deathly afraid of the spread of Islam (submission to God) and “Shariah” (God’s law). As the Qur’an says in 24:48 –  When they are summoned to God and His apostle, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come).   [Yusuf Ali English Version]. Why is that? Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? or do they doubt, or are they in fear, that God and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? [Verse 50] I’m afraid that there is an underlying doubt of God’s goodness and trustworthiness in many people who are afraid of the “triumph” of the Religion of God. Such a doubt is of course in reality atheism or agnosticism. Those of us who claim to believe in the God of all the earth (and of all the worlds) should check ourselves carefully to make sure such a doubt of God does not lie secretly within us.

For myself, I can say that I am delighted to see the continued spread of Islam (submission to God) throughout the earth – even in the midst of tremendous opposition – because this is the spread of the Religion of God and the Kingdom of God; the Kingdom which the God of heaven has set up and which will certainly prevail over all false religion and government (religion and government which establishes other ‘gods’ or authorities beside the One) no matter how much those who serve other authorities than God may hate it. I believe, with Abraham, that “the Judge of all the earth will do right” and I have no fear of His religion as my rule and authority – though I certainly want to make sure whatever rule asserts itself to be “of God” is really what it claims to be. 

One of the basic premises of this Divine Revelation in the Qur’an is “freedom of religion”.  For instance: [2:256] There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing.  [10: :99]  And [thus it is:] had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe..? As shown in the “Muhammadan” manifestation of the Religion of God, Islam (submission to God), is both multicultural and religiously pluralistic.

May God cause His light to shine upon us; and may His rightly guided leader (“Mahdi”) appear soon to lead us fully out of the mess we have  made of things and into a truly godly society with godly government.