Brief Response to the Claim: “Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was a Muhaddith & not a Faqih

Just like the post yesterday where we gave a short response on the claim that Imam Abu Hanifah was not a Muhaddith, an opposite claim is usually made upon Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahmatullahi alayh), some claimed that he was not a Faqeeh (Jurist) but only a Muhaddith (Hadith Narrator), the following is the testimony of the scholars who refute such contention.

Imam Abu Ubaid Qasim Bin Salam (rahimahullah) [d.224H] said:

“The knowledge of Hadith went to its apex in four scholars and Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) is the most learned Faqeeh of them.”

Imam Abu Thaur Ibraheem bin Khalid (rahimahullah) said:

“Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) was more learned Faqeeh than Sufyan Ath-Thauri (rahimahullah).” [Imam Adh-Dhahabi (rahimahullah), Tazkirat-ul-Huffaz, 2/16]

Ibn ‘Aqeel said:

“One of the most surprising thing that I have heard from the young and ignorant folk is their saying that Ahmad (bin Hanbal) is not a scholar of fiqh, but a scholar of hadeeth. And this is the limit of ignorance, since he had preferred sayings which he based upon Ahadeeth and are not known by most people, and he had things that were extra to that which the greater scholars had.”

Brief Response to the Claim: “Imam Abu Hanifah was not a Muhaddith”

By Abdul Wahab Saleem

It’s appalling to hear that some believe that Abū Hanīfah was not a muḥaddith (traditionist). He has *at least* 15 different musnads which were all collected by al-Khawārizmī in the seventh century in his book Jāmi‘ al-Masānīd.

He wrote this book when he heard some comments from some ignorant people in his time in which they belittled Abū Hanīfah’s abilities in ḥadīth saying, ‘He barely reported any prophetic traditions.’ To correct this misconception he gathered 15 of the musnads which had collected Abū Hanīfah’s reports.

It should also be noted that Abū Hanīfah didn’t permit reporting a prophetic tradition by meaning as opposed to the majority of the scholars of ḥadīth. This did decrease the number of traditions he narrated as unless he could remember the words verbatim he wouldn’t permit himself to narrate, but despite that decrease, al-Khawārizmī was able to find and collect 15 different musnads tracing back to him during the seventh century!


By Mujlisul Ulama

The coprocreep echoing the ghutha (rubbish) of his Salafi mentors, claims that Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) had on his deathbed forsaken his mission of defending the Ahlus Sunnah, and had adopted the way of the deviates masquerading as Hanaabilah. Copro-Salafis are at pains to enlist Imaam Ash’ari as a supporter of their Hashwiyyah religion of vulgar anthropomorphism. In the parlance of our age, the Salafi Hashwiyyah are referred to as Copro-Salafis.

Several centuries after the initiation of the Mujassimah/Hashawi sect of copro-anthropomorphists, Ibn Taimiyyah in the 7th century of the Islamic era undertook the satanic task of reviving the anthropomorphism preached by his predecessors – Ibn Hamid, Abu Ya’la and Zaaghooni who have been exposed by Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi Al-Hambali for their beliefs of tajseem..

The first copro-anthropomorphist (Hashawi) who had attempted to portray Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) as a supporter of Taimiyyi tajseem was Ibn Taimiyyah himself. In history he was the very first copro-anthropomorphist to claim that Kitaabul Ibaanah, a kitaab allegedly authored by Imaam Ash’ari supported the math-hab of the copro-anthropomorphists. The attempt of the Copro-Salafis, inspired by Ibn Taimiyyah, has been to create the idea that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash’ari’s final book. Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of Hashwis – the Copro-Salafis of our age – have latched on to Kitaabul Ibaanah to bolster their anthropomorphic math-hab despite the fact that Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis in general are in vehement criticism of Imaam Ash’ari.

As far as the book, Kitaabul Ibaanah is concerned, there appears this Copro-Hashawi, Ibn Taimiyyah, four centuries after Imaam Ash’ari to claim that this treatise was his last work whereas no one before Ibn Taimiyyah held the view that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash’ari’s final work. His final work was in fact Kitaabul Luma. There even exists sharp disagreement among Ash’aris regarding the author of Kitaabul Ibaanah. They are not agreed on authorship of the book, whether Imaam Ash’ari was at all its author.

There is a strong view that the Copro-Anthropomorphists (Hashawis) had fabricated this kitaab to create the impression that Imaam Ash’ari too was in support of their copro-beliefs. Nothing is furtherst from the truth than this contemptible fallacy and falsehood fabricated by Ibn Taimiyyah, the reviver of the Hashwiyyah religion in the 7th century. Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) was an implacable foe of anthropomorphism. If Kitaabul Ibaanah, assuming it is the work of Imaam Ash’ari, if it was his final kitaab, there would have been Ash’aris from amongst his close followers as well as contemporaries who would have confirmed this contention. But there is not a single Ash’ari who maintains that Kitaabul Ibaanah was his final work. It was the anthropomorphist reviver, Ibn Taimiyyah who had made this preposterous claim in the seventh century, four centuries after Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh).

The Math-hab of Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) is what is asserted in Kitaabul Luma and what the Ash’ari Ulama have propagated over the centuries. If Imaam Ash’ari had retracted his position at the end of his life as the Copro-Salafis and their Copro-Imaam claim, then surely such retraction would not have remained hidden for four centuries, and it would not have been left for an anthropomorphist 4 centuries later to proclaim the hallucinated retraction. Any retraction by Imaam Ash’ari would most assuredly have been adopted by at least a handful of Ash’aris, if not by the majority. But not a single Ash’ari has followed his Imaam in the supposed retraction hallucinated by Ibn Taimiyyah. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support the copro-contention of Ibn Taimiyya and his legion of Copro-Salafis. There is absolutely no support for the Hashwi doctrines which Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis propound.

Debunking Ibn Taimiyyah’s allegation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah and the hallucinated retraction of Imaam Ash’ari, and even rejecting the claim of Imaam Ash’ari even being the author of the book, the following appears in the book, The Attributes of God:

“A number of scholars of the past and the present have rejected the idea that Kitaab al-Ibaana was written by Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari. Amongst them is a contemporary by the name ‘Isaa ibn `Abd Allah Maani` alHimyari. This is what he says in his book, Tashih al-Mafaahim: ‘As for Kitab al-Ibaana ascribed to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, may God show his mercy, there is debate about that (ascription) for a number of reasons:

First: Ibn Furak and others of the companions of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari did not mention this book as being one of his works. Likewise, the rest of his pupils have not mentioned it to our knowledge;

Second: There is much discrepancy between the [different] copies and there is conflict in their texts; something that confirms the Hashwiyya’s meddling with this book;

Third: There are expressions in Kitaab al-Ibaana that contradict the apparent meanings of the texts of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari that he mentions in his other books, especially Kitaab al-Luma’ `al-Saghir and al-Kabir, which is the last of what he wrote. Likewise, it contains expressions that contradict the words of his pupils and the Imaams of his madhhab while they are those who have transmitted the madhhab from him;

Fourth: Some of the Mutamaslifa (“Salaf-s”) attempted to attribute the ‘aqida of anthropomorphism (tajsim) to Imaam al-Ash’ari but they were not able to, and I knew that one of the students of an esteemed Islamic university undertook this task but failed.’”

The explanation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah is in reality superfluous to the topic of our current Refutation of the coprocreep in view of the fact that the stupid diatribe of the Hashwi coprocreep is directed at the Ulama of Deoband and Imaam Maturidi.

Whether Kitaabul Ibaanah is the work of Imaam Ash’ari or not, or whether it was his first kitaab or his last kitaab, germane to the dispute between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Copro-Salafis, it is a peripheral factor which is not the determinant for any of the issues of dispute between the Ahl-e-Haqq (Imaam Maturidi and his followers) and the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and Baatil (the Copro-Salafis and their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyah).

Seven Messages For Those Who “Leave Islam”


There is an Arabic expression along the lines of, “aslamat Sāra, lā zād al-Muslimūn wa lā qalat al-nasārā”, which literally means: “Sara has converted (to Islām), neither increasing Muslims nor reducing Christians”. The expression is sometimes said when a person leaves Islām, as an idiomatic “who cares?”. In any case, it is not an entirely sensible expression. Entering or leaving Islām is not a matter to be taken lightly.

However in recent times, where boasting about leaving Islām is construed by pseudo-Islamic mannequins (called ‘think-tank’) as ‘very brave’,[1] even in a society beleaguered by Islamophobia and piled on anti-Islamic rhetoric, maybe there is some space for an aslamat Sāra attitude. So, if that bob of Īmān shakes at the news of pop stars no longer ‘convinced’ by an afterlife, below are seven points to help it settle.

I. Islām does not depend on its adherents, unlike other faiths and systems

Islām is not a reality that needs human validation. It is a reality that transcends above the universe and governs everything within it. In fact, there was a time when a single Muslim was called the ‘community’ all by himself,

“Ibrāhīm was a community (Ummah) in himself…”[2]

The message stood firm against the odds. Ibrāhīm ‘alayhi al-Salām did not see his singleness as an existential threat to the message of Islam as he knew his Lord was preserving it. Islam survived through the 11th century Crusades, the 13th century Mongolian campaigns and the 15th century Spanish inquisition. Numerous political doctrines, religions and strains died out with the demise of their adherents, save unadulterated, Abrahamic monotheism that remarkably survives.

In fact, there will be a time when there will be no Muslim on the face of the earth at all. This will come, as far as the age of the earth goes, moments before its end (the Day of Judgement). But the non-existence of Muslims who believe in the afterlife prior to the Day of Judgement will not stop it from happening. Even without adherents, the universal system of Islām endures.

II. Islām’s ‘Golden Era’ was when its adherents were fewest in number

Having many people on your side cannot be a bad thing, and Islām far from disparages huge numbers. In fact, the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam) says:

“Marry the one who is fertile and loving, for I will boast of your great numbers.”[3]

But quality has always been centralised in the few. It was a few who followed Nūh ‘(‘alayhī al-Salām), a few who crossed the river with Tālūt to meet Jālūt’s forces, and a few who were persecuted alongside ‘Īsā the son of Mary (‘alayhimā al-Salām). The Battle of Badr is by agreement the greatest battle of Islām, yet prior to the confrontation, the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam), supplicated,

“O Allāh! Bring about what You promised for me. O Allāh! If you destroy this band of adherents to Islām, you will not be worshiped alone upon the earth…”[4]

Here is Abu Bakr al-Siddīq (radiy Allāhu ‘anhu) with Iman weighing more than the Ummah’s masses combined,[5] Abū ‘Ubaydah b. al-Jarrāh (radiy Allāhu ‘anhu), whom ‘Umar later wished that everyone  would resemble, and al-Qa’qa’ b. ‘Āmr, whose voice and military contribution were more effective than 1000 men.[6]

In fact, ‘many’ has almost never been mentioned in the Qur’ān except with a form of dispraise. “Many of the People of the Book would love it if they could make you revert to being disbelievers after you have become believers.”[7] “Many of mankind are deviators.”[8] “Surely many  people are heedless of Our Signs.”[9] The list goes on.

It was when the ‘Ummah’ comprised of handfuls, not hundreds of millions, when the empires of the east and west bowed and surrendered. It was that small collective who heard the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam) saying to them:

“The best of mankind are my generation, then those that follow them, then those that follow them.”[10]

III. Our happiness when people convert is for them, not for us

Seeing someone ‘take their Shahādah’ is extraordinary. We push and shove to set our eyes on the spectacle. But in many cases, we may never see the brother or sister again. And though seeing someone embrace Islām often increases or reinforces our own Īmān, our happiness is primarily unselfish. It is for them. It is their past slate that is wiped clean, their life that has taken a momentous turn for the better and their hereafter that has been salvaged.  It is their ability to see past the centuries of sustained myths and propaganda required to keep them away from the otherwise irresistible Islām in the first place, that we admire about them.

We love it when people become Muslim not just because we desire to see in them what we failed to see in ourselves, but because one more person has saved  themselves from hell and absolved us from their complaints on the Day of Resurrection. In fact, materialistically, there is little in it for us but a duty to give long lessons in Ghusl and Wudū’,  along with a thought of that ‘student’ one day replacing us for our inadequacies, as Allāh says:

“If you turn away, He will replace you with a people other than yourselves and they will not be like you.”[11]

Seeing someone leave only hurts for precisely the opposite; that they failed at a hurdle, sold themselves short and flushed a long life down the drain; that they gave precedence to transient gratification over long-term success. It reminds us of the statement of Hudhayfah b. al-Yamān:

“The thing I fear most for this Ummah is that they give preference to what they see over what they know; and are thus misguided without realising.”[12]

IV. Challenges garble out the worst Muslims

Exams separate the best students from the worst. Difficulties bring out the real nature of people, those who can weather the storm and those who crack under the strain. The idea that leaving Islām is a ‘very brave’ thing to do is simply farcical. British Muslims face more than a thousand hate crimes a year, are lambasted by some 500 posts a day and are three times less likely to be considered for a job.[13]

Most challenges and difficulties in the world today are faced by Muslims. Muslim vilification has become the international media’s staple diet and the fad of new-age populists. ‘Very brave’ is to be a self-assured Muslim, not someone who acquiesces and attempts to join the ranks of the “dominant” race or class.

The Quraysh of Makkah thought they had outsmarted the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam) when, in the Tready of Hudaybiyah, they stipulated that Makkah-bound leavers from Madīnah will not be sent back to the Prophet. They forgot that when weathering a challenge, a leaver is precisely who you could do without. On another occasion, in the Battle of Uhud, a contingent of soldiers led by the hypocrite Abdullāh b. Ubay b. Salūl left the Prophet and the companions, heading home. Later, during the campaign of Tabūk, the hypocrites stayed behind altogether. But rather than outlining the vulnerability of what became a much smaller contingent of Muslims headed into the depths of Roman lands, Allāh said:

“If they had gone out among you, they would have added nothing to you but confusion.”[14]

They say “sometimes more is less”. The very word ‘Fitnah – yuftan’ comes from applying heat to an ore to bring out a base metal, removing impurities and purifying the precious metal. Like when Allāh says,

“Do people imagine that they will be left to say, ‘We have Īmān,’ and will not be tested (yuftanūn)?”[15]

It is this heat which particularly knocks off those Muslims sitting on the fence, very ready to blame their ineptitude on their dwindling religiosity, neither addressing the real causes of their failures nor ending up winning anything in the hereafter.

“Among the people there is one who worships Allāh right on the edge. If good befalls him, he is content with it, but if a trial befalls him, he reverts to his former ways, losing both this world and the Next World. That is indeed sheer loss.”[16]

Leavers of Islām should know full well that they leave behind nothing but a purer base, a surer assembly, and a firmer, better bonded core, ready to weather whatever dreary day or turn of fortune awaits ahead.

V. Being Muslim is not supposed to be a walk in the park

Altruism, charity, nurturing children properly, checking on your neighbour, resisting temptations, speaking out against wrong—the list goes on—is what a Muslim is first, and is hard work second. Islām is neither a fashion, mere identity, nor a material possession that assents to any of our ways and desires. It was sent to guide to what we know, and to what the distortions of an era have made us forget.

Some leave Islām after feeling they bit off more than they can chew. But what is better, to find a truth you voluntarily chose to follow difficult, or to capitulate to the very lusts that you left behind? Every Muslim finds one thing or another difficult, but why do some assume that Allāh’s greatest commodity, Paradise, is cheap and easy to attain?

A champion does not enter a ring intending to throw in the towel but insists on getting up after every knockout. Allāh says:

“O Mankind! You are toiling laboriously towards your Lord, but meet Him you will!”[17]

We boast about ‘keeping our noses in the grindstone’, ‘blood, sweat and tears’ and ‘burning the candle at both ends’[18] to save for a package holiday that could turn out boring and stressful. Why then do we think we can pioneer Islām, around our own tastes and fashions when it is our deliverer to eternal bliss and ultimate enjoyment?

VI. The majority of leavers do not leave Islām on ideological grounds

History and the contemporary have shown that there are no ideologies that can rationally compete with Islām. Islamophobes will happily jibe, mock and defame, but come a civilised debate and what a pity.

As such, the majority of leavers, observably leave due to some sort of bad experience either unrelated to the ideological framework of Islām, or fail to rationalise an Islamic teaching with a different ideology, a cultural norm, practice or premeditated craving of their own, many a time carnal. Those will validate what they long craved by ‘reforming’ Islām to follow suit or raise doubts about the religion itself. Let us get real, was it 15-billion-year-old observable evidence that made that leaver question the Qur’ān’s account of creation, or a new boyfriend?

The Shaytān knew it was Allāh’s order he disobeyed but wanted to validate a premeditated superiority complex, paying attention to what he thought validated that complex, “I am better than him, You (Allāh) made me from fire, and made him from clay.” But he (conveniently) paid no attention to the fact the order to prostrate came from Allāh himself. His intellectual gaffs were because he had no ideological leg to stand on. The reason he left was because his continued arrogance blighted his ability to be true to his fault of refusing to prostrate in the first place.

It is useful to remember this hierarchy of disagreement when considering the bulk of the attacks levelled against Islām’s foundations.


VII. Being a Muslim is not a favour to anyone but yourself

Imagine if I were to give you a pen. The following week I call asking for your help towing my car, “because I gave you a pen”, then I text you needing help with my shopping “because I gave you a pen”. Soon, I will find my pen in an envelope with a note reading “with thanks.” Imagine then if the receiver—youwas instead the person demanding favours and gratitude. It is madness. Imagine then if the gift was far better than a pen—Islām itself.

Some Bedouins embraced Islām near the 10th year of the Hijrah, long after the severe persecution of Makkah, the Hijrah, the Battle of Badr, Uhud, the startling Battle of the Trench and the testing pledge to avenge the blood of ‘Uthman rady Allahu ‘anhu they took with the Prophet under the tree (al Ridwan). Despite those latter Bedouins taking part in nothing of this, they felt that their Islām deserved the appreciation of the Messenger (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam), forgetting that it is them that ought to have shown gratitude to Allāh for His inimitable gift that came to them on a silver platter in far more comfortable days:

“They think they have done you a favour by becoming Muslims! Say: ‘Do not consider your Islām a favour to me. No indeed! It is Allāh who has favoured you by guiding you to Īmān, if you are telling the truth.’”[19]

Likewise, leavers should know that nobody felt that your Islām was disruptive, ground-breaking or a monumental rift in a Da’wah that is divinely preserved and administered by men and women who struggle against desires and weaknesses, for your departure to be disruptive.

A person’s Islām does not benefit Allāh for their departure to harm Him. Likewise nothing that Allāh obligated upon us benefits Allāh in the slightest. He was the Almighty, the Wise, the All-Powerful before everything in existence and our obedience did not increase Him in any of this.

Any individual obligation is likewise an obligation on the rest of society. Just as Allāh commanded you not to steal and to lower your gaze, He likewise commanded millions of others. So who ends up benefiting? You yourself. You, being the beneficiary—whether you realise it or not—of what is Halāl and what is Harām is enough a payment. So Allāh, through His rulings gave you and then rewarded you on top of what He gave.

When the messengers called their people to Allāh’s worship, did their people generally accept or reject their call? They rejected it. Almost all the prophets we have been informed about, however, told their people: “I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds.”[20] This is despite knowing well that their people were less than willing to pay for something they rejected to begin with! It is as if the prophets are telling them, ‘Since I am calling you to what is entirely your benefit, I would otherwise instinctively deserve to be paid for it, but the magnitude of that benefit I am bringing you is so great that none, save Allāh, can pay for it.’[21]

Islām is an inimitable privilege and blessing, and supreme way of life and salvation that attracts for every leaver, thousands of entrants. What is ‘supreme’, stays so, even if a person is as deprived and naïve as to throw it away for whatever petty return. Likewise, what is already supreme cannot be made better by its followers. It is entirely a privilege to them that they should fear losing, the same way as they would fear to be thrown into fire.

“Our Lord, do not make our hearts swerve aside after You have guided us. And give us mercy from You. You are the Ever-Giving.”[22]


Posted by: Ahmed Hammuda



[2] Qur’an 16:120

[3] Sunan an-Nasa’I on the authority of Ma’qil bin Yasar

[4] Jami` at-Tirmidhi on the authority of ibn ‘Abbas

[5] Bayhaqi, Mawquf on ‘Umar rady Allāhu ‘anhu

[6] Ibn al-Atheer – Asad al-Ghaabah

[7] Qur’an 2:109

[8] Qur’an 5:49

[9] Qur’an 10:92

[10] Muslim on the authority on Abdullah ibn Mas’oud rady Allāhu ‘anhu

[11] Qur’an 47:38

[12] Recorded in Hilyat al-Awliyā’, Abū Nu’aym al-Asbahānī0


[14] Qur’an 47:47

[15] Qur’an 29:2

[16] Qur’an 22:11

[17] Qur’an 84:6

[18] Meaning to get little sleep

[19] Qur’an 49:17

[20] See chapter 26

[21] Reflections based on Sheikh al-Sha’rawi’s Tafsir of al-Hujuraat

[22] Qur’an 3:8

Brief History of the Shi’ite Safawid Dynasty

[By Hadhrat Muhammad Ishaq Sindhelwi (Rahimahullah)]

It is an established fact that Iran was a Sunni nation until the tenth century of the Hijri calendar. During this period, Iran produced thousands of scholars in every discipline; the most salient of these facts is that the six most authentic Hadith books (i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nasai, Ibn Majah & Tirmidhi) were written by scholars from Iran, or scholars who received their education in Iran.

However, when the Safawid Shi’ites took control, they established their government on the skulls of the Sunni scholars and jurists. This was one of the reasons for the evacuation of the large cities that were the foremost centres of the Islamic sciences, such as Tabriz, Isfahan, Ray and Tus. Many Sunni Muslims were murdered, forced into Shi’ism and compelled to flee to the mountains, leaving Iran as a centre for conspiracies against Islam and the Muslims.

Ferdinand, the ambassador to the Austrian King, remarked, “Had it not been for the Safawids in Iran, we would have been reading the Qur’an this day like the Algerians,” meaning that his nation would have been introduced to Islam by the Ottomans. However, the Safawids conspired with the crusaders and the imperialists to halt the Islamic expansion into France and Vienna.

The rise of the Safawid dynasty started in 905 A.H in Iran and Khurasan. While under the rule of the Mongols, in the 1200s (596 A.H), the Persians had given up on politics and militarism and had submerged themselves in ibaadah. During this time, Iran was constantly visited by Mongol and Turkish immigrants who adopted the Persian language and Persian customs. In the 1300s (699 A.H), a dynasty founded by a grandson of Genghis Khan, Halaku Khan, ruled in Iran. Meanwhile a heretical Shi’ite order, the Safawids, appeared with their homebase at Ardebil – west of the Caspian Sea.

By 1500 C.E (905 A.H), the Safawids had implemented the Dogmas of the Ithna Ashari Shi’ite sect. Safawid males wore red headgear for identification (representing their beliefs in the twelve Imams), and they were eager to advance Shi’ism by any possible means.

In the year 1500 C.E (905 A.H), the thirteen-year old son of a recently deceased Safawid leader set out to conquer territory. By 1501 C.E (906 A.H), the Safawids seized Tabriz and made it their capital. They also butchered their way into Armenia, Azerbaijan & Khorasan. The Safawids became the strongest force in Iran, and their leader, Isma’il (905 A.H – 930 A.H) now fifteen, was declared “Shah” (King).

Shah Isma’il descends from the lineage of Shaykh Safiuddin 1334 C.E (734 A.H), the student and son-in-law of Shaykh Zaahid Gilani 1300 C.E (699 A.H). Amongst the primary teachings of Shaikh Saifuddin was the notion of fanatical love for the ‘Ahlul Bayt’. They believed that the Ummahatul Mu’mineen, the noble wives of Nabi are not included in the ‘Ahlul Bayt’. On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah firmly believe that respect and love for all the family members of Nabi  is an integral part of Imaan.

In the Shi’ite terminology love for the ‘Ahlul Bayt’ is termed as ‘Tawalla’ and hatred for the Ummahatul Mu’mineen and the Sahaaba (whom the Shi’ite consider the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt) is termed as ‘Tabarra’.

It was this very spark of ‘pretentious love for the Ahlul Bayt’ that established the foundation of Shi’ism. There were also seven Turkish tribes (Istaajilo, Turklo, Biharlo, Dhul Qadr, Shaamilo, Qaachar and Afshaar) who assisted the Safawids in their ascent to kingship. These tribes were influenced and brainwashed by the Safawid fake Sufis, who indoctrinated their beliefs with Shi’ism.

When the Safawids established their rule, they realised that their own beliefs with regards to the hidden Imam will become an unnecessary impediment. They needed to find a ruse to allow their governors to rule upon the masses as the Imams would have as the Shi’ites believed that only the Imams were innocent and were lawmakers.

Once, Isma’il went out of Tabriz with his ministers and friends. Upon reaching a stream he ordered his companions to wait for him whilst he entered the cave. A few hours later he emerged from the cave and announced that he met with the hidden Imam of the Shi’ites who had granted him permission to become his representative on earth and the time for his (the hidden Imam) appearance is near.

Thereafter, he declared that he saw Sayyidina Ali bin Abi’ Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) in a dream who ordered to gather his followers in the Grand Masjid of Tabriz. They should all be armed  and ready to oppose those who are against Shi’ite ideologies and the establishment of a Shi’ite state. After these declaration he began oppressing the Sunnis, forcing the to accept Shi’ism.

In 1510 C.E (915 A.H), Isma’il Safawi waged war against Shaybani Khan who was a sunni ruler. A bloodbath ensued at Merv where unfortunately Shaybani Khan was defeated. Isma’il Safawi severed his head and filled it with jewels.

Thereafter, Isma’il Safawi began to instigate his followers to crush the Ottoman Empire. Eventually, Sultan Selim I responded to this mischief. A great war ensued near Tabriz where by the grace of Allah Ta’ala, Isma’il Safawi was defeated. It is mentioned no one ever saw Isma’il Safawi smiling after his disgraceful defeat by Sultan Selim I.

Evil Habits and Traits of the Safawids

⚫ The Safawids believed that the Persians were the chosen people of Allah 7000 years prior to Islam. The basis for them believing that they were the most noble of people is because, Sayyidina Hussain ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu) married the daughter of Yazdgerd (a Persian), from whom Sayyidina Zainul Abideen (rahimahullah) whom the Shi’ites regard as one of their Imams was born. This is why, Isma’il Safawi declared himself as the representative of Allah, the Khalifah of the twelve Imams and the representative of the hidden Imam on earth.

⚫ The grandfather of Isma’il Safawi had married his daughter to Zaahid Kasaani, an individual who had claimed prophethood.

⚫ The Safawid kings consumed alcohol, punished whomsoever they wanted whenever they wanted and were involved in all sorts of wrongdoings.

⚫ Isma’il Safawi enforced the ritual and compulsory cursing of the first three Khulafah, Sayyidina Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu Anhu), Sayyidina ‘Umar (radhiyallahu Anhu) and Sayyidina Uthman (radhiyallahu Anhu) as usurpers, from all the Masajid, disbanded Sunni groupsand seized their assets, used state patronage to develop Shia shrines, institutions and arts and imported Shia scholars to replace Sunni scholars.

⚫ They introduced the statement Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan Waliyallah (I bear witness that Ali is the delegate of Allah) in the Adhan.

⚫ The Safawis shed Sunni blood and destroyed and desecrated the graves and Masajid of the Sunnis. The Ottoman Sultan Bayazid II advised and asked Isma’il Safawi to stop the anti-Sunni actions. However, Isma’il was strongly anti-Sunni, ignored the Sultans warning and continued to spread the Shia faith by the sword.

⚫ In 1512 C.E (917 A.H) all the Sunni scholars of Iran who opposed the imposed dogmas of the Safawids were slained and butchered. Two-thirds of the population of Tabriz was forced into Shi’ism. Over one million Sunnis were slained and butchered. Streams of blood ran along the streets of Tabriz.

⚫ As soon as Isma’il Safawi has established his kingdom he ordered his clerics to educate the masses with one belief only, and that is Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan Waliyallah, whilst every other important beliefs of Islam should be discarded.

⚫ No Sunni scholar was allowed to lecture or deliver a Khutbah on the day of Jumu’ah. The Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah were slaughtered, so much so that the bones of great scholars who had passed away (such as Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah), Qadhi Hamdani (rahimahullah and Allamah Nasruddeen Baydawi (rahimahullah), were dug from their graves and burnt in public.

⚫ Islamic literature, books and manuscripts with authentic Islamic sciences were seized and burnt.

⚫ The Safawid dynasty destroyed all existing Islamic literature and encouraged the propagation of Shi’ism forcefully because prior to the rise of the Safawid dynasty the majority in Iran were Hanafi Sunni Muslims.

⚫ With the establishment of the Safawid rule, there was a raucous and colourful, almost carnival-like holiday on the 26th of Dhul-Hijjah exhibiting their happiness for the martyrdom of Sayyidina Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu). The highlight of the day was making an effigy to be cursed, insulted and finally burned.

⚫ In 1501 C.E (906 A.H), Isma’il invited all Shi’ite adherents livinh outside Iran to settle in Iran and be assured of protection from the Sunni majority.

⚫ The early Safawid rulers took a number of steps against the Sunni Ulama’ of Iran. These steps included giving the Ulama the choice of conversion, death or exile.

Coalition of the Safawid Dynasty and the Imperialists against the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire had established a true Islamic Nation. Sultan Muhammad Fatih had conquered Constantinople. His conquest and valour had overawed the hearts of the Europeans. Upon his demise, the grand pope declared that the Roman Catholics should celebrate thanksgiving for three continous days. 

The Safawi Shi’ites were known for conspiring against the Ottoman Empire, with the aim of hindering the progress and expansion of Islam. The Shi’ites had signed an agreement with the disbelievers that they will assist them against the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, that is the Ottoman Empire.

A German historian, Brookman writes: “From 1588 C.E to 1619 C.E (996 A.H – 1038 A.H) the Safawid dynasty was expanding exponentially. Shah Abbas Safawi had received all the assistance he needed from the British to expand his tyrannical conquest. The British fervently assisted the Safawids in their efforts to destroy the Ottoman Empire; and the Safawids returned the favour by comimg to their aid against the Austrians.

A coalition between the Safawids and the Crusaders was created during the lifetime of Isma’il Safawi. Isma’il met with Leo, Maximillan and King Charles the fifth and made an agreement to assist them against the Ottoman Empire.

Innovations and Mischief of the Safawids

⚫ Isma’il Safawi declared that he is sinless and that there is no difference between him and Hadhrat Mahdi (alayhis salaam)

⚫ He claimed that Sayyidina Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was a Nabi and he would prostrate to Sayyidina Ali

⚫ Sultan Tehmasep Safawi was a drunkard whose son was in love with a young lad. He passed away in the house of the same lad.

⚫ It was compulsory to celebrate the martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

⚫ Christian rituals were introducted it their religious gatherings

⚫ They introduced the sentence ‘Hayya Alaa Khayril Amal’ in the Adhan

⚫ Performing Sajdah on tablets of sand (dedicated to the land of martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain radhiyallahu anhu)

⚫ Performing Sajdah to their leaders and clerics

⚫ Changing the Qiblah of the Masjid in Iran

⚫ Burying their dead in coffins and caskets

⚫ The Safawid Shi’ite clerics toom possession of the Awqaf system. They believe that they have the right to make that which is haraam, as halal whenever it suited them. For example, when the Moghul king Khudabanda issued three divorces to his wife, Ibn Mutahhir Halli (a Safawid Shi’ite cleric) stated that such a divorce is baseless.

⚫ The Safawid clerics went to the extent of stating that only Sayyidatuna Fatima (radhiyallahu anha) was the daughter of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The other daughters of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from Sayyidatuna Khadijah (radhiyallahu anha) were from her previous marriage.

⚫ They also negated Sayyidatuna Aisha and Hafsa (radhiyallahu anhuma) as being the noble wuves of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam.

⚫ The Safawids would celebrate the 10th of Muharram as a day of mourning for Sayyidina Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Abbas Safawi would wear black clothing only and he would apply mud on his face to express his grief.

⚫ The Shi’ites would lash and cut themselves with daggers on the day of Ashurah. Such actions have no basis in Islam. Even their British and Western allies have commentated that they have not seen such animosity and ignorance anyone else.

Mulla Baqir Majlisi

Muhammad Baqir Ibn Muhammad Taqi Ibn Mansur al-Majlisi, also known as Mulla Baqir Majlisi is considered as the most renown and reliable scholar of the Shi’ite faith. He was the grand cleric of the Safawid Dynasty.

He is the same person who invented and promoted the beliefs regarding Mut’ah, Raj’at and reincarnation. He has fabricated numerous accusations against the first three Khulafah, the Sahabah and the Umaahatul Mu’mineen and he promoted these fabrications as authentic Ahadith. An example of his heresy as he writes in his book ‘Jila al-Uyun’:

Ali (alayhis salaam) narrates that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is a coffin in Jahannum in which twelve individuals are imprisoned. Six of them are from the previous nations and six are from my nation. This coffin is at the bottom of a well filled with lave and fire. It has been closed with a huge boulder. When Allah will intend to set Jahannum ablaze, he will order the Angels to remove this huge boulder and the lava and fire of this well will consume Jahannum.

The narrator then asked Sayyidina Ali (alayhis salaam) ‘who are these twelve individuals?’ And he answered, “the six accursed individuals from the previous nations are:

1. Qabil
2. Namrud
3. Fir’awn
4. The person who killed the Camel of Nabi Salih (alayhis salaam)
5. The two individuals who misguided the Bani Isra’eel after the demise of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam)

And the six individuals from this Ummah are:

1. Dajjal
2. Abu Bakr
3. Umar
4. Abu Ubaidah al-Jarrah
5. Saalim Mawla Hudhaifah
6. Sa’d al-‘Aas

May Allah Ta’ala protect us from such utterances.

In another narration, he states that Iblis said, “When Allah cursed me and I was driven out of Jannah, I asked Allah if there is anyone more accursed than me. The angel in-charge of Jahannum was ordered to take me to the farthest section of Jahannum where I was shown those who are more accursed than me. The fire and punishment of that place was of such an extent that I thought I would die. I saw two individuals who were shackled and were being punished. I asked the angel, “Who are they?” He replied, “Didn’t you read what was written on the Arsh 2000 years ago before the creation of Adam. Iblis said, “It is written “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger and I (Allah) assisted Muhammad through Ali”. These two, who ae shackled in flames are the enemies of Ali, they are Abu Bakr & Umar.”

These are the some of the beliefs and teachings that were promoted by the Safawid Shi’ite clerics. Even the Shi’ite scholars have attested that the Safawids have drifted against humanity, reason and Islam.

Today, the same ideologies have been implemented by the stooges of Khomeini who regard every Sunni to be a disbeliever. These sons of the Safawids have picked up exactly where their forefathers left off. Chastising the Ummahatul Mu’mineen and noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) is a part of their religion.

Did you Know?

⚫ Although there are around 2 million Sunnis living in Tehran, there is not a single Masjid where they can perform their Jumu’ah but Tehran is home to 40 Christian Churches and a cemetry for the Baha’is.

⚫ The publication of Sunni books are illegal in Iran.

⚫ A third of the population of Iran are being deprieved of their most basic rights.

⚫ Sunnis living in Iran are not allowed to name their children as they like. There is a book of permitted names at civil registers, and no one can pick up a name that is not in this book. For instance, Iranian authorities do not allow people to name their children Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Aisha. Civil registers will not put these names on ID cards.

⚫ On the day of the martyrdom of Sayyidina Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the Shi’ites hold a ceremony called Jashn-e-Umar Koshan (the celebration of the killing of Umar). An effigy is erected. Dirt and other filthy things are thrown on it. This ceremony is still held in the south of Tehran and other parts of the country.

⚫ Schools in predominantly Muslim regions teach Shi’ite beliefs.

Today, Muslims in Iran number approximately 15 million. The above facts clearly prove that in the past centuries and currently there is ongoing oppressive Shi’ite sectarian discrimination in Iran against the Muslims.

May Allah Ta’ala guide us all and protect the Ummah from the scrouge of Shi’ism and other mischiefs. May Allah Ta’ala elevate the status of the Sahabah in this world and the hereafter.

Demolishing the Stupid Claim of “Saheeh Hadeeth” by the Ahle Hadees / Salafi Group

By Maulana Abu Huzaifa bin Adam

The foolish claims and statements made by the “Ahle Hadees” sect are many, but in this article we shall briefly refute just one.

Since the time of al-Albaani and his botched, miserably failed attempt at re-grading the Sihaah Sittah and other Kutub of Hadeeth, an attempt in which he ended up contradicting himself several times in the grading of just a single Hadeeth, sometimes declaring it to be Saheeh, other times declaring it to be Hasan, other times declaring it to be Dha`eef, Dha`eef Jiddan, etc., his ventures in the field of Hadeeth and Jarh wat-Ta`deel and the books written by him in those subjects, which in subsequent years were made available online, on websites, available for download as programs, and later on available as apps for mobile, led to the rise of Juhhaal in contemporary times who reject Ahaadeeth on the basis that, “It’s not in Saheeh Bukhaari”, or “It’s not a Saheeh Hadeeth” (and by that they mean it was not graded as Saheeh by al-Albaani, even if illustrious Muhaddithoon of the past had graded it to be Saheeh), and in this manner they reject great Kutub of Deen with contempt, averring: “It’s filled with Dha`eef Hadeeths”. Most of these people are not even aware of the meaning of those terms and have not even heard of Mustalahul Hadeeth or Jarh wat-Ta`deel. They are happy to blindly follow (make Taqleed of) al-Albaani whilst hypocritically condemning those who follow the Four Madhaahib of Haqq.

In this brief article, what we would like to clarify is: “Are all Dha`eef Ahaadeeth to be rejected? Are Dha`eef Ahaadeeth to be treated as Mawdhoo` (fabrications)? When can Dha`eef Ahaadeeth be accepted and quoted?”

We shall therefore be presenting some statements from the illustrious `Ulamaa of the past on this topic so that the readers may understand what the correct stance has been for over a thousand years.

Imaam `Ali al-Halabi said in Insaan-ul-`Uyoon fee Seeratil Ameenil Ma’moon: “It is not hidden that the (books) of biographies (history) encompasses that which is Saheeh, that which is Saqeem, that which is Dha`eef, that which is Mursal, that which is Munqati` and that which is Mu`dhal, but not that which is Mawdhoo` (fabricated). Imaam Ahmad and others from the A’immah had said: ‘When we narrate concerning Halaal and Haraam, we are strict (severe), but when we narrate concerning Fadhaa’il (virtues) and such matters, we are lenient.”

This statement is also narrated by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi in al-Kifaayah.

Mulla `Ali al-Qaari رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Hazzhul Awfar fil Hajjil Akbar, after mentioning the Hadeeth: “The most virtuous of days is the Day of `Arafah. When it falls on the Day of Jumu`ah, then it is better than 70 Hajj.” (After quoting this, he says) “It is reported by Razeen. As for what the Muhadditheen have mentioned regarding the Isnaad of this Hadeeth, that it is Dha`eef, then, even if it is so, it does not harm the objective, because a Dha`eef Hadeeth is accepted when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (the virtues of deeds), and this is so according to the majority of the `Ulamaa.

He also writes in “al-Mawdhoo`aat“, after mentioning the Hadeeth: “Masah (wiping) of the neck is a protection from shackles (i.e. from being shackled on the Day of Qiyaamah).” (He says) “A Dha`eef (Hadeeth) is acted upon when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (virtues of deeds), and this is according to Ittifaaq (consensus). For this reason, our A’immah (of the Hanafi Madh-hab) have said that Masah of the neck is Mustahabb or Sunnah.”

Imaam as-Suyooti writes in at-Ta`zheem wal-Minnah fee Anna Abawayi Rasoolillaahi صلى الله عليه وسلم fil-Jannah: “I gave the Fatwaa that the Hadeeth mentioning that Allaah brought back to life the mother of (Rasoolullaah صلىالله عليه وسلم) is not Mawdhoo` despite what a group among the Huffaaz (of Hadeeth) had claimed; rather, it is from the category of Dha`eef, and there is permission to narrate (Dha`eef Ahaadeeth) when it comes to Fadhaa’il (virtues).”

Speaking on this same issue of the Hadeeth that mentions that the parents of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم were brought back to life and accepted Islaam, Imaam as-Suyooti رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Maqaamatus Sundusiyyah fin Nisbatish Shareefatil Mustafiyyah: “The people of `Ilm and Hadeeth, both in the times of old and now, they narrate this report and place it amongst the specialities and Mu`jizaat (of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم), and they count it as being from his Manaaqib (virtues) and honours, and they held that the Dhu`f (weakness) present in the Isnaad (of this Hadeeth) is forgiven, and that it is accepted to narrate that which is not Saheeh when it comes to Fadhaa’il and Manaaqib.”

Haafiz al-`Iraaqi رحمة الله عليه writes in Sharh Alfiyyatil Hadeeth: “As for those narrations which are not Mawdhoo` (i.e. those that are Dha`eef), then they (the `Ulamaa) have permitted leniency in its Isnaad and also narrating it without explaining its Dhu`f (weakness), when it is not with regards to issues of Ahkaam (rulings) or `Aqaa’id (beliefs), but rather in issues of encouraging people (to do good), warning them, admonishing them, stories, virtues of deeds, etc. As for when it is with regards to Ahkaam of the Sharee`ah such as Halaal and Haraam, or with regards to `Aqaa’id such as the Sifaat of Allaah Ta`aalaa, etc., then they did not permit leniency in that. From the `Ulamaa who explicitly mentioned this are `Abdur Rahmaan ibn Mahdi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, `Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak and others.”

Imaam an-Nawawi writes in at-Taqreeb: “According to the people of Hadeeth (i.e. the Muhadditheen) it is permissible to have leniency with regards to the Asaaneed that are weak and to report that which is not Mawdhoo` (fabricated), and acting upon it without explaining its Dhu`f (weakness) when it is not (Ahaadeeth) pertaining to the Sifaat of Allaah or Ahkaam.”

Imaam al-Kamaal ibn al-Humaam رحمة الله عليه writes in Kitaab-ul-Janaa’iz in Fat’hul Qadeer: “Istihbaab (something being Mustahabb) is also established from that which is Dha`eef, but not from that which is Mawdhoo` (fabricated).”

Imaam an-Nawawi رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Adhkaar: “The Muhadditheen and the Fuqhaa have stated that it is permissible – in fact, Mustahabb – to make `amal (act) upon a Dha`eef Hadeeth when it comes to issues of Fadhaa’il (virtues), exhortations, warnings, as long as it is not Mawdhoo` (fabricated). As for when it comes to Ahkaam such as Halaal and Haraam, business, marriage, divorce, etc., then in such cases one does not act except upon a Hadeeth that is Saheeh or Hasan, unless it is out of precaution in one of those issues (i.e. if there is a Dha`eef Hadeeth urging caution regarding something, so one abstains as a precautionary measure).”

Imaam ibn Hajar al-Makki al-Haytami رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Fat’hul Mubeen: “The `Ulamaa have Ittifaaq (consensus) regarding the permissibility of acting upon Dha`eef Ahaadeeth when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (the virtues of deeds), because if the Hadeeth is Saheeh in and of itself, then it has been given its right by us acting upon it, and if it is not (Saheeh) then too in practicing upon it no harm has ensued such as Halaalizing something which is Haraam or prohibiting something that is Halaal, nor the loss of any person’s Haqq.”

It is mentioned in al-Qowlul Badee` and elsewhere that the Madh-hab of Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه is that a Dha`eef Hadeeth is better than Ra’i (opinion) and Qiyaas (analogy), when a (Saheeh) Hadeeth is not found regarding that particular issue.

Imaam ibn Mahdi رحمة الله عليه said, as is narrated from him by Imaam al-Bayhaqi رحمة الله عليه in al-Madkhal: “When we narrate from Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم regarding Halaal and Haraam and the Ahkaam, then we are severe with regards to the Asaaneed (chains of narrations) and in criticising the Rijaal (narrators), but when we narrate regarding virtues, reward and punishment, then we are lenient regarding the Asaaneed and the Rijaal (narrators).”

The Muhaddithoon have also stated that when the Ummah has accepted a particular Dha`eef Hadeeth and acted upon it all the years (meaning, all the years the Fuqahaa had accepted a particular Hadeeth and acted upon it), then we will act upon that Hadeeth as though it is Saheeh (i.e. the fact that the Fuqahaa had accepted it all the years raises it to this level).

We shall suffice with this amount from the quotations of the A’immah. For those with some knowledge of the history of Islaam, they will know that the names of the A’immah we have mentioned above are not lightweights; these were all giants in the Deen.

This should be sufficient to debunk the ridiculous claim that if a Hadeeth is not found in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, it must be rejected. Many of these people are ignorant of even Masaa’il pertaining to Istinjaa, but they are bold in throwing forward their views when they are entirely devoid of any `Ilm of Deen, some of them being unable to read even a single word of Arabic. Thus, you will hear them making ridiculous statements such as, “The book‘Hayaatus Sahaabah’  must be rejected because it’s filled with Dha`eef Ahaadeeth.” Any person who has actually studied Hadeeth even to a minute extent would know how laughable their claims are.

We would like to end this article by listing some important points:

When it comes to the grading of Ahaadeeth, we follow the illustrious Muhadditheen of the past, not a person who passed away in 1999 like al-Albaani. The Ahaadeeth have already been graded long ago by such Muhadditheen whom Allaah Ta`aalaa has honoured and elevated, that for all the years of Islaam their Kutub have been taught and accepted by the entire Ummah at large.

It is the height of hypocrisy to condemn a person for following one of the Four Madhaahib of Haqq, and then blindly follow a man who passed away the other day. Addressing these people, we say: “Yes, you are making Taqleed of him regardless of your denial. When it comes to Hadeeth grading, why do you blindly believe that a Hadeeth is Saheeh, or Hasan, or Dha`eef, or Mawdhoo`, simply because he said so? Have you studied Hadeeth yourself, studied Mustalahul Hadeeth, Jarh wat-Ta`deel, `Ilm-ur-Rijaal, Usool-ul-Hadeeth, etc., and thereafter analysed the Asaaneed of those Hadeeth to know whether or not they are Saheeh? The majority of those who quote him today quote him from English translations because they are not even capable of reading the original Arabic texts.

The `Ulamaa have cited Ittifaaq (consensus) on the permissibility of quoting and acting upon Dha`eef Ahaadeeth when it comes to Fadhaa’il (virtues). Thus, to reject a Kitaab like Fadhaa’il-e-A`maal on the basis that, “It’s filled with weak Hadeeth”, is stupid. The author, Hadhrat Shaykh Zakariyya رحمة الله عليه, was an `Aalim with greater knowledge and understanding of Hadeeth than these “Ahle Hadees” would have even if they lived several times over.

May Allaah Ta`aalaa grant us the correct understanding, Aameen.

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

“Abrahamic” Religions – My Retraction

Few days back I had post an article: What is Eschatology?, my respected friend had an issue about the term “Three Abrahamic Faiths” in the aforementioned post, he had inquired about “what does the phrase Abrahamic Faith means?” As a commoner I had replied that:

“As far as I understand, the term “Abrahamic Faiths” refers to Judaism, Christianity & Islam. The common reason is maybe because Judaism, Christianity & Islam rever Nabi Ibraheem Khalilullah (alayhis Salaam).

But it is only Islam which not only respects Nabi Ibraheem (alayhis salaam) and his progeny, it represents his (alayhis Salaam) beliefs &; monotheism in every way.

This has been discussed in the following:- Millat-e-Ibrahim: The Abrahamic Way & The Deviation Of Christians & the Jews from his Path –

If there is some error in my understanding then I am eager to be corrected in this regard.” (End Quote)

The brother had replied me and corrected my misunderstanding of this term and after reading it I felt that this should be shared in a post so that this phrase in understood in its reality.

Here I am going to share an eye-opening explanation of the brother about this phrase “Abrahamic Faith:

Abrahamic Religions

As salaamu alaikum

When I see or hear the term Abrahamic religions I cringe. If Ibrahim (alayhis salaam) was the father of three religions who were the mothers? The trinity keeps repeating itself. Below is from the Wikipedia regarding the meaning.
At the end I bring two ayaats from the Quran that show it’s bull-shit what the Muslims are saying along with the kufaar. Allah says the the only religion with Allah is Islam. And if you seek another religion other than Islam it will not be accepted from you. 

When the Christians came to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) they claimed to be believers before us (the muslims). They were told they worshipped the cross, ate the pig, and said Allah had a son, so they could not be believers. Now it’s clear Ibrahim (alayhissalaam) was not the father of that rubbish.

It is the biggest lie told on that great prophet the one the Qur’an says named us Muslims.

I don’t know why the Muslims in the West rely on this principle of interfaith dialog by telling a lie on prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salaam). I couldn’t read more of that article after I read these words. Take a look:

The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic. The term derives from patriarch Abraham, a major biblical figure from The Old Testament, which is recognized by Christians, Muslims, and others.[1]

Abrahamic religion spread globally through Christianity being adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century and Islam by the Islamic Empires from the 7th century. Today the Abrahamic religions are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).[2] The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism (the base of the other two religions) in the 7th century BCE,[3] Christianity in the 1st century CE, and Islam in the 7th century CE.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the Abrahamic religions with the greatest numbers of adherents.[4][5][6] Abrahamic religions with fewer adherents include the faiths descended from Yazdânism (the Yezidi, Yarsani faiths), Samaritanism,[7] the Druze faith,[8] Bábism,[9][self-published source] the Bahá’í Faith, and Rastafari.[10][11]

Quran 3:65

O People of the Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Then will you not reason?

67. Abraham was not a Jew, nor a Christian; but he was one pure of faith and Muslim (who submitted to God with a sound heart). He was never of those who associate partners with God.

13. The Jews claimed that their religion was the true religion and, therefore, Abraham, upon him be peace, was considered to be a Jew, whereas the Christians claimed that their religion was the true one and, therefore, Abraham, upon him be peace, was considered to be a Christian. Naturally this is impossible. While they could not agree on several matters contained by their Books and matters like that of Jesus, upon him be peace, it was completely senseless that they would make claims and dispute about matters about which they had no knowledge. It is impossible that Abraham, upon him be peace, should be a Jew or a Christian, because both the Torah and Gospel were revealed centuries after Abraham, upon him be peace. Historically, Judaism and Christianity are the names given to the religions revealed to Moses and Jesus, upon them be peace, respectively by either their followers or opponents centuries later. So, Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but a Muslim, one who submitted to God wholly or who followed Islam – the Religion of submission to God.

Heeding the brother’s opinion, I hereby retract from my comment about Abrahamic Faiths.


[By Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng]

Maulana Rumi (Rahmatullah Alaih) states:

“It is a well known fact that the fox is noted for its cowardice.”

However, the fox that has a lion as a support behind its back saying to him: “Fear not, my hand is upon your back”, in spite of lacking courage, becomes very brave indeed. His new-found bravery is of such a nature that he will not hesitate to attack a leopard. He now has the support of a lion at his side, he will show no fear for a leopard. Similarly, is the case of the chosen servants of Allah Ta’ala. In spite of their apparent weakness and distressed position, they show no fear in the face of a multitude of evil forces. These saintly ones do experience some natural fear of physical hurt or injury, but at heart, they have no fear of anyone besides Allah Ta’ala. A Sufi says:

“O people! Look not upon my weakly countenance for I have legs of iron. Do you know that within my heart I am connected to the King of kings.”

In this regard, Maulana Rumi (Rahmatullah Alaihe) tells the story of Hazrat Jaafar. Once Hazrat Jaafar (Radhiallahu Anhu) attacked a fortress all by himself. His attack was so fierce that it seemed that the fortress would soon become a prey to the hoofs of his horse. The inmates of the fortress were so struck by awe that they closed the gates of the fortress and no one dared to come out to engage in battle with him. The king discussed with his Wazir as to what line of action to adopt. The Wazir advised him thus:

“The best line of action is to cancel all plans of making war against the man. It is best to take your shroud and your sword, go to him and lay down your weapons”. The king replied: “But this man is all alone. How is it that you give me such advice?” The Wazir informed him: “Do not underestimate his being one man only. Open your eyes and look at the fortress and see how it trembles like quicksilver. Look at the inmates of the fortress, and see how their heads are bent downwards like sheep. Even though the man is alone, the heart that he has in his bosom is not like the hearts of ordinary men. Look at his courage. In the face of a vast multitude of opponents, he challenges them into battle with a naked sword in his hand and in a confident and victorious manner, calls them to fight. It seems that all the battle forces of the East and West are with him. One man alone, but he appears like hundreds of thousands.

Do you not see that whichever soldiers are sent out to fight him are soon seen lying under the hoofs of his horse? After seeing the valor of this solitary man, O king, I have realized that the multitude of soldiers, which are with you, will not be able to do anything against him.

Do not rely upon numbers. The main thing is the unity of the heart and this is actually what is so striking about the heart of this man. In this respect, he has been endowed endlessly with it. This is a gift from Allah Ta’ala, which is attained through the acquisition of contact with Him and through rigorous spiritual exercises. This connection you will not be able to attain while you are in this state of Kufr. Hence, it is best for you to throw down your weapons in defeat before the courageous believer and to open the gates of the fortress, because your numerous soldiers are of no use.”

Then Maulana Rumi (Rahmatullah Alaihe) gives examples in which the majority becomes useless in front of minority:


Millions of stars are shining and produce light, but at the rising of the sun, their light becomes non-existent.


If a thousand mice were to attack a weak and sickly cat, it would appear that they would be victorious in their endeavor. A few of them can grab him by the neck. One or two of them can then take his eyes out. One or two of them can tear off his ears with their teeth. One or two of them can make an opening at his side, enter and begin chewing the internal organs. It would appear to be a reasonable plan. However, experience proves otherwise. As soon as the weak and sickly cat utters one “meow” the whole multitude of mice become awestruck and one by one, they flee to safety. The moment they hear the “meow” they become convinced of being vanquished and visualizing the actions of the cat’s teeth and paws makes them flee.

The main reason for this is the difference between the hearts in the breast of the mice and the heart in the breast of the cat. The unity of the heart in the cat and the courage lying in it, is not found in the mice. Hence, the mice becoming confounded and defeated in the presence of the cat, is proof thereof that the cat possesses unity of heart and courage. Otherwise, it would appear that if a large number of mice should attack the cat, it will be impossible for the cat to escape. Hence, we conclude that even if the number of mice were a hundred thousand, still, seeing a weak and sickly cat will cause all of them to run away. This proves that numbers mean nothing. The main thing is unity of the heart and courage.


Sheep and goats may be numerous in number but in the face of the knife of the butcher, that number is of no consequence.


Sleep comes along and causes many thoughts and imaginations to vanish.


The lion in the forest courageously attacks a multitude of animals with horns and he alone gets the upper hand over them. Furthermore, whichever animal he chooses from among them, he eats.


Allah Ta’ala, the King of kings, is the One who grants this unity of heart and such courage. This unity of the heart is of two kinds. One is natural, or common possessed by the non believers, polytheists, and even animals. The other form is that which is granted by Allah Ta’ala and comes about through the blessings of close contact with Allah Ta’ala. This is what the Sufis term as “Nisbat”, for which one has to strive. It is a great favor from Allah Ta’ala to have contact with Him. And there is only one way of attaining this contact and that is by following the Shari’at.

Source: Ma’aarif- e -Mathnawi

What is Eschatology?

[By Muslim Debate Initiative]

In short Eschatology is a part of Theology concerned with Death, Judgement Day and the Final Destination of the Human Soul.

In Abrahamic Faiths Eschatology has a common theme with fairly distinct differences in their respective narratives.

Why does eschatology matter for Muslims?

Eschatology matters because it is one of the major events that a Muslim MUST have faith in. The Judgement Day is culmination of the mankind’s journey before Akhirah. The Quran and Hadith is filled with verses where Allah promises due compensation for all of our deeds.

Allah says in the Quran:

““Truly pious are those who believe in Allah and the Last Day.” [Al Baqarah:177]

Now for over a millenia the Final Hour has been a topic of fascination for the scholars and laity alike and many books and essays have been penned regarding them.

And throughout the millenia and through many crisises people have prematurely predicted the Final Hour and as such many Ahadith had been fabricated, attributed and exaggerated.

Some scholars do it to captivate their followers. To instill Imaan in them.

– There have been cases where documentaries with wild conspiracy theories and fabricated Ahadith had changed many people into becoming more practicing. Example: The Arrivals.
Some do it to incite people into rebellion.

– In more recent times Juhayman Al Otaibi incited some Muslims to rebel against Saudi regime by telling them that the end times are upon us. He took over the Masjid Al-Haram and claimed that he had the Mahdi with him. Much violence and bloodshed followed.

– On more than one occasion the Al-Qaeda had been hailed as the fabled army of Mahdi from Khurasan by certain activists. Their speeches were so convincing that it duped many Muslims into looking past the atrocities perpetrated by these organizations.

Some do it to legitimize the action of certain regimes.

– Back in the day it was to defend the reign of the Ummayads against the Abbasid insurrection.

– Nowadays it’s certain scholars (self-proclaimed or otherwise) attempting to put their own spin in the Syrian Civil War. Some tried to legitimize the actions of ISIS. Some tried to legitimize the actions of the Syrian-Russian coalition.

Regardless of how Eschatology is used it has a powerful effect on Muslims and religious people in general. And that is why it is extremely important for Muslims to have a proper understanding of the Islamic perspective on Eschatology so that we don’t fall into the traps that are often employed by certain individuals.

When the Final Hour will come, Allah knows best. It is important that we remain true to our Islamic ethos and not make rash decisions simply because someone says, “the hour is nigh.”

The Origin of the Qur’an: Demonic or Divine?

By Abu Zakariya

A popular attack against the  Qur’an is the claim that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was inspired by occult forces such as the Devil or demons. This claim is typically put forward by Christian apologists and missionaries. Now the obvious response is to point out that such an argument is self-defeating, as Muslims can easily make the same lazy accusation against the Bible. However, with this article I wanted a unique approach to refuting this claim, one that involves comparing the Qur’an to a real work associated with the occult. This is a practical approach that will highlight just how wrong such a claim really is.


Aleister Crowley was an English ceremonial magician and poet. By the time of his death in 1947, he was the world’s leading occultist. A prolific writer, he published numerous works on the theory and practice of magic over the course of his life. He is most famous for the text known as The Book of the Law. Although it was Crowley’s own hand that penned the work, he never claimed to be its author. Crowley claimed that during his travels to Egypt in 1904, a supernatural entity that called itself Aiwass made contact with him. Aiwass, described by Crowley to be a being of intelligence far beyond that of human beings, proceeded to dictate The Book of the Law directly to him over the course of three days. After this experience, Crowley identified himself as a prophet and claimed that he had been entrusted by the gods to guide humanity into a new spiritual age. He went on to found the religion of Thelema, which he based on the principles of The Book of the Law.

What makes Crowley’s book the ideal candidate for comparison against the Qur’an is that Crowley’s claims mirror that of Prophet Muhammad, in the sense that he also claimed to be divinely inspired with revelation and appointed as a prophet to enlighten mankind. Before we get into the details of The Book of the Law, it’s important to note that in Islam it is strictly prohibited to dabble in magic. The Prophet Muhammad said:

“Avoid the seven deadly sins.” People asked, ‘What are they?’ The Prophet replied, “Polytheism, magic, unlawful killing of a person, living on money from interest, usurping an orphan’s wealth, retreating at the time of battle and accusing an innocent married woman of fornication.”[1]

Be reassured that The Book of the Law is not a book of magic, but rather a book on philosophy and morality for Crowley’s religion of Thelema. Now what follows is an analysis of some verses of The Book of the Law. This will not only give us an insight into the teachings of a real occult work, but will also make us appreciate just how radically different its philosophy and morality is compared to the Qur’an:

Had! The manifestation of Nuit. [Chapter I, verse 1]

The Book of the Law begins in the name of two ancient pagan Egyptian deities, Had and Nuit. Had, was believed to be the lord of the sky and was depicted in the form of the winged disk of the Sun. Nuit was believed to be a goddess and was depicted as a naked woman covered with stars. The twin pairing of the male and female divine aspects is very common in pagan and occult religions. The praising of pagan deities occurs throughout The Book of the Law, as well as Crowley’s own personal writings. Contrast this with the Qur’an, which begins in the name of God Almighty:

In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful   [Qur’1:1]

The Qur’an teaches that Allah (the Arabic name for God Almighty) is the only true God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, the One who inspired prophets such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus. The Qur’an expressly forbids for worship to be directed to anything other than Him and renounces idolatry, the worship of false gods, in all its forms. Pagan and occult religions tend to deify nature, a practice that the Qur’an rejects in the following verse:

And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship. [Qur’an 41:37]

We can see that from the very first verse, both books could not be more different when it comes to worship and the concept of God.

Every man and every woman is a star. [Chapter I, verse 3]

This is a typical example of how The Book of the Law engages with its reader. It commonly appeals to the arrogance and pride of people – in fact it encourages such traits. This is typical of occult religions, with their extravagant costumes, lavish ceremonies and elaborate rituals.

Contrast this with the Qur’an, which reprimands those who have such characteristics:

Allah loves not the arrogant, the vainglorious. [Qur’an 4:36]

Arrogance and pride are considered to be negative traits in Islam, in fact major sins. The Qur’an provides the perfect antidote for those inflicted with this disease – it humbles us by reminding us of our lowly origins:

Does man not consider that We created him from a [mere] sperm-drop – then at once he is a clear adversary? [Qur’an 36:77]

The Bible also shares a similar outlook to the Qur’an in this regard:

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. [Proverbs 16:18]

The Qur’an highlights the danger of such traits when it relates the story of the downfall of Satan, whose arrogance and pride prevented him from obeying Allah’s command to prostrate to the first human being, Adam:

[Allah] said, “What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?” [Satan] said, “I am better than him. You created me from fire and created him from clay.” [Qur’an 7:12]

Christians readers should note that the Bible also highlights arrogance and pride as Satanic traits:

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.” [Isaiah 14:12-14]

From the perspective of both the Qur’an and the Bible, The Book of the Law  is diabolical in its methodology when it appeals to and encourages such traits, which as we can see are Satanic in essence.

Every number is infinite; there is no difference. [Chapter I, verse 4]

The Book of the Law is filled with such seemingly nonsensical statements. Here are some more examples:

The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none! [Chapter I, verse 45]

In the sphere I am everywhere the centre, as she, the circumference, is nowhere found. [Chapter II, verse 3]

Let’s analyse Crowley’s commentary on verse I.4:

It must be understood from the beginning that this book contains the keys of all the knowledge necessary for the operation of the Magical Formulae of the world during the Aeon which it initiates. In this very early verse is already given a Master Key to mathematics and metaphysics. On applying this to current problems of thought, it will be discovered that the long-fast doors fly open at a touch. [2]

As Crowley states, this apparently nonsensical statement is one of the keys of knowledge in his religion. Now, even if one tries to make sense of it by taking some metaphysical interpretation, there is a wider problem at hand. His new religion is supposed to enlighten mankind, but very few can grasp such concepts. Contrast this with the Qur’an, which also claims to be a guide for mankind, but whose message can be understood by everyone. It uses simple speech rather than metaphysical, and employs analogies which are universal in application in order to help us to understand its arguments.

Let my servants be few & secret: they shall rule the many & the known. [Chapter I, verse 10]

Secrecy is another hallmark of the occult, which operates in the shadows. Very little of what goes on behind closed doors is known to the public. Outsiders are offered glimpses in order to lure them in, but it’s only when one is initiated into the occult and rises through its ranks that one gains access to all its teachings. Elsewhere The Book of the Law states:

But she said: the ordeals I write not: the rituals shall be half known and half concealed: the Law is for all. [Chapter I, verse 34]

By contrast, the Qur’an encourages Muslims to make themsleves known:

And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, “Indeed, I am of the Muslims.” [Qur’an 41:33]

In Islam there is no such thing as hidden knowledge, in fact it condemns those who have knowledge and conceal it from others:

Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture – those are cursed by Allah. [Qur’an 2:159]

There is no secret knowledge, no requirement to rise through the ranks for access to information. Islam’s teachings are freely available to all who wish to acquire it.

Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look but close into the word. For there are therein Three Grades, the Hermit, and the Lover, and the man of Earth. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. [Chapter I, verse 40]

“Do what you want” is the central tenet of the religion of Crowley’s religion. There are no restrictions, no rules, it is the religion of lawlessness. Do you want is the essence of Satanism, and in fact it debases human beings to the lowly position of animals, for what are animals other than creatures of desire, acting on impulse with no regard for what is morally right or wrong. By comparison, the Qur’an is not in line with the whims and desires of human beings. It commands us to do that which is good and beneficial, and forbids that which is evil and harmful. To sacrifice and forego our bestial instincts for the sake of God elevates us to a position that is higher than the angels, for angels lack free will and have no choice but to worship God. The Book of the Law commands the Thelemite to worship the self, the Qur’an commands Muslims to do what is just and right, even if it means going against one’s own self-interests:

O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. [Qur’an 4:135]

Even from a societal point of view, there are major problems with the philosophy of The Book of the Law. Doing whatever you want is counterproductive to a healthy and functioning society. If everyone did whatever they want, then it will result in anarchy. We can see that the origin of The Book of the Law, be it demonic, the Devil, or other than that, is only concerned with the here and now; it does not have concern for the long-term flourishing of humanity. Whereas Islam created a society that established justice in all the lands it ruled and the greatest empire the world had ever seen at the time, exactly what we’d expect if its origin is God.

Another problem with “do what you want” is that it is inherently contradictory. What happens when there is a conflict of wills among its followers? Does the will of one trump the other? The Book of the Law states that its followers, here referred to as a Kings, should not infringe upon one another’s rights:

Beware lest any force another, King against King! Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath. [Chapter II, verse 24]

Since compromise is in order, then it means one is prevented from following one’s own will. Suppressing one’s own will goes against the central tenet of Crowley’s religion, “do what you want”. We can see that as a philosophy it is not scalable, the more it spreads among people, the greater the chance of a conflict of wills, and thereby a forced compromise on one’s own will.

The word of Sin is Restriction. O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart! There is no bond that can unite the divided but love: all else is a curse. Accursed! Accursed be it to the aeons! Hell. [Chapter I, verse 41]

Here, The Book of the Law takes the concept of sin as it is defined in Abrahamic religions and inverts it; to restrict oneself is a sin. Crowley makes some interesting comments on this verse in light of sex and violence:

The sexual act is a sacrament of Will. To profane it is the great offence. All true expression of it is lawful; all suppression or distortion is contrary to the Law of Liberty. To use legal or financial constraint to compel either abstention or submission, is entirely horrible, unnatural and absurd. Physical constraint, up to a certain point, is not so seriously wrong; for it has its roots in the original sex-conflict which we see in animals, and has often the effect of exciting Love in his highest and noblest shape. Some of the most passionate and permanent attachments have begun with rape. Rome was actually founded thereon. Similarly, murder of a faithless partner is ethically excusable, in a certain sense; for there may be some stars whose Nature is extreme violence. The collision of galaxies is a magnificent spectacle, after all… [3]

This is the inevitable result of the philosophy of The Book of the Lawwhen taken to its logical conclusion. There will be Thelemites who incline towards extreme acts such as rape and murder, and in his comments Crowley implies that if this be their will then so be it. Interestingly, in his commentary on later verses, he expressly forbids acts such as rape:

“As ye will.” It should be abundantly clear from the foregoing remarks that each individual has an absolute and indefeasible right to use his sexual vehicle in accordance with its own proper character, and that he is responsible only to himself. But he should not injure himself and his right aforesaid; acts invasive of another individual’s equal rights are implicitly self-aggressions. A thief can hardly complain on theoretical grounds if he is himself robbed. Such acts as rape, and the assault or seduction of infants, may therefore be justly regarded as offences against the Law of Liberty, and repressed in the interests of that Law. [4]

So here we can see that Crowley forbids acts such as rape on the grounds that it violates the rights of others. Yet in his commentary on the very next verse, he makes rape permissible on the grounds that it can produce positive results:

To bring down this doctrine to a practical rule for every man or woman by which they may enjoy, in perfection, their sexual life and make it what it rightly is, the holiest part of the religious life, I say ‘holiest’ because it redeems even physical grossness to partake with spiritual saintship, the intention of this Book of the Law is perfectly simple. Whatever your sexual predilections may be, you are free, by the Law of Thelema, to the star you are, to go your own way rejoicing. It is not indicated here in this text, though it is elsewhere implied, that only one symptom warns that you have mistaken your true Will, and this, if you should imagine that in pursuing your way you interfere with that of another star. It may, therefore, be considered improper, as a general rule, for your sexual gratification to destroy, deform, or displease any other star. Mutual consent to the act is the condition thereof. It must, of course, be understood that such consent is not always explicit. There are cases when seduction or rape may be emancipation or initiation to another. Such acts can only be judged by their results.[5]

What should we make of such contradictory reasoning? Crowley’s followers today may argue that these are only Crowley’s personal ramblings and are therefore not binding. But The Book of the Law itself makes Crowley an authority for its commentary:

My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes, shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of Ra-Hoor-Khuit. [Chapter I, verse 36]

In fact, Crowley forbade Thelemites from even interpreting the book for themselves, all must refer to his own writings. In the closing remarks of The Book of the Law, Crowley wrote:

All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.

When it comes to contradictions, the Qur’an gives us an objective principle by which we can judge the origin of any scripture:

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. [Qur’an 4:82]

In other words, if a scripture is from a source other than God – whether it be demon, the Devil or other than that – then it will contain contradictions, because only God Himself is perfect and inspires perfection. This is exactly the problem that we’ve seen withThe Book of the Law and the authoritative commentary of its prophet Crowley, the presence of glaring contradictions. By comparison, the Qur’an is free of such issues, so clearly they do not share the same origin.

One final point worth discussing is Crowley’s attitude toward women. From his point of view, the natural sexual state of women is one of absolute depravity. In his commentary on verse I.41 he wrote:

…Blind asses! who pretend that women are naturally chaste! The Easterns know better; all the restrictions of the harem, of public opinion, and so on, are based upon the recognition of the fact that woman is only chaste when there is nobody around. She will snatch the babe from its cradle, or drag the dog from its kennel, to prove the old saying: ‘Natura abhorret a vacuo. For she is the Image of the Soul of Nature, the Great Mother, the Great Whore. [6]

While the reader will no doubt recoil with horror at such a view, Christians should reflect on their own doctrine of Original Sin. The New Testament claims that all human beings have inherited the sin of Adam and Eve when they ate from the forbidden fruit in the garden. Christian theologians say that as a consequence of this, mankind is considered to be in a state of “total depravity” or “pervasive depravity”, which is the inability to refrain from evil. Crowley may have put it in more vulgar terms, but both are making the same essential point, that depravity is the natural state of women.

It is only the Qur’an that speaks of mankind’s natural state in positive terms, it says that our natural disposition, known as the ‘Fitrah’, is one of Godliness:

So [Prophet] as a man of pure faith, stand firm and true in your devotion to the religion. This is the natural disposition God instilled in mankind… [Qur’an 30:30]

The Fitrah is the pure state that we are born in, and the Prophet Muhammad explained that it is outside influences such as our parents that take us away from this natural state of devotion to God:

Every child is born according to the Fitrah and then his parents make him Jewish, Christian or Magian. [Sahih Muslim]

I am the Magician and the Exorcist. I am the axle of the wheel, and the cube in the circle. “Come unto me” is a foolish word: for it is I that go. [Chapter II, verse 7]

Here The Book of the Law mentions magic in conjunction with exorcism. The common link between the two is demons, for demons are summoned by magical ritual and banished by exorcism. The invocation of demons was a common practice of Crowley and is the mechanism by which magic works. The Qur’an strictly prohibits the practice of magic in all its forms. In fact, it is considered to be a sin that takes one out of the fold of Islam, such is its severity:

And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say, “We are a trial, so do not disbelieve [by practicing magic].” And [yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew. [Qur’an 2:102]

These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk.

Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.

We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live. Now let it be understood: If the body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure ecstasy for ever. Nuit! Hadit! Ra-Hoor-Khuit! The Sun, Strength & Sight, Light; these are for the servants of the Star & the Snake. [Chapter II, verses 18-21]

The Book of the Law has a callous attitude toward the vulnerable. Showing compassion to the poor and weak, who are spoken of in dehumanising terms, is said to be a vice. The irony is that later in life, Crowley himself became the very thing that these verses despise. At a young age Crowley inherited a small fortune from his father, but due to his lavish lifestyle he very quickly squandered his wealth. His final years were spent in poor health, drug addicted and penniless. One can’t help but wonder if this irony dawned on the prophet while he lay on his deathbed.

The Qur’an takes a very different attitude to the vulnerable. Compassion toward the poor and weak is considered one of the greatest virtues. In fact, every Muslim who has in their possession a certain amount of wealth is required on an annual basis to give away a small portion in charity. One wisdom behind this is that it prevents people from hoarding excess wealth and ensures that it circulates throughout society, reaching those that are in need of it.

I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, & be drunk thereof! They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self. The exposure of innocence is a lie. Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this. [Chapter II, verse 22]

The Book of the Law promotes vices such as promiscuous sex, alcohol and drugs. Such ethics are exactly what we would expect of an evil source such as demons or the Devil. By comparison the Qur’an warns us against such vices and tells us not to follow in the footsteps of the Devil:

O mankind! Eat of that which is lawful and wholesome in the earth, and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you. [Qur’an 2:168]

The Book of the Law encourages a lifestyle that is harmful not only to the individual but also wider society. Promiscuous sex, alcohol and drugs bring with them a whole host of issues such as disease, unwanted pregnancy, addiction and financial ruin. So the claim that such things are not harmful is absurd. From a psychological perspective, it’s interesting that The Book of the Law happens to condone the very vices that Crowley indulged in before he was a prophet. As far back as Adam and Eve, Satan has used temptation as a means to deceive man, so from this perspective The Book of the Law is devilish in its methodology.

By contrast Islam wants believers to be strong in mind, body and spirit. Anything that is harmful to the individual or wider society is prohibited. The Qur’an points out that immorality is the handiwork of Satan himself:

Satan threatens you with poverty and orders you to immorality, while Allah promises you forgiveness from Him and bounty. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing. [Qur’an 2:268]

Unlike The Book of the Law, the Qur’an does not condone the harmful vices that the seventh century pre-Islamic Arabs indulged in; it prohibited them. This shows us that the one behind the Qur’an prioritises the well-being of mankind over our whims and desires.

I am the Master: thou art the Holy Chosen One. [Chapter II, verse 65]

Such grand claims are typical ofThe Book of the Law, it frequently asserts its authority and Crowley’s prophethood without putting forward any kind of evidence or means of verification. We are just expected to blindly accept its credentials. Whereas the Qur’an puts forward objective arguments for its divine origin, for example:

Say, “If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants.”   [Qur’an 17:88]

Lift up thyself! for there is none like unto thee among men or among Gods! Lift up thyself, o my prophet, thy stature shall surpass the stars. They shall worship thy name, foursquare, mystic, wonderful, the number of the man: and the name of thy house 418. [Chapter II, verse 78]

Notice how this verse glorifies Crowley, virtually deifying him. By contrast the Qur’an emphasises the humanity of Prophet Muhammad:

Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful. [Qur’an 3:144]

Prophet Muhammad himself warned Muslims against deifying him:

Do not exaggerate my praises as the Christians have done with the son of Mary. Verily, I am only a servant, so refer to me as the servant of Allah and his messenger.[7]

The Qur’an even corrects Prophet Muhammad in instances where he made mistakes, for example:

The Prophet frowned and turned away. Because there came to him the blind man, [interrupting]. But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that perhaps he might be purified. Or be reminded and the remembrance would benefit him? As for he who thinks himself without need, to him you give attention. And not upon you [is any blame] if he will not be purified. But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge]. While he fears [Allah], from him you are distracted. [Qur’an 80:1-10]

What should we make of this lofty claim that Crowley’s stature “shall surpass the stars”? In light of the historical record thus far, it’s debatable as to whether this has been fulfilled. On the one hand, Crowley is revered within the world of the occult and magic. He became a cultural icon in the 1960s, with his libertine attitude to sex and drugs striking a chord with the counter-culture movement. However on the other hand, it has been over a century since The Book of the Law was first written, and over half a century since Crowley’s death, yet his religion is still not mainstream. Now if we interpret the claim that Crowley’s stature “shall surpass the stars” in light of the preceding statement of the same verse, that “there is none like unto thee among men or among Gods”, then this prophecy is an abject failure. Crowley has always had a tiny following and his impact on the world stage is negligible when compared to other religions and movements that emerged contemporary to him.

This is just one example of a problematic prophecy in The Book of the Law, it is filled with ambiguous and inaccurate predictions. We can conclude that whatever entity inspired this book, be it demons, the Devil or even Crowley’s own mind, what we know for certain is that it is not the product of a divine being. This is because divine beings have knowledge and control over the future. By comparison, the Qur’an and teachings of Prophet Muhammad are filled with accurate prophecies about the future.

What this shows is that the one who inspired the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad has knowledge of the unseen which is a characteristic of God, not His creation such as demons or the Devil. Even according to the Bible, accurate knowledge of the future is a sign that someone has been genuinely inspired by God:

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. [Deuteronomy 18:21-22]

The Book of the Law fails to fulfil this biblical standard, whereas the Qur’an more than satisfies it.

For perfume mix meal & honey & thick leavings of red wine: then oil of Abramelin and olive oil, and afterward soften & smooth down with rich fresh blood.

The best blood is of the moon, monthly; then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven; then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers; last of some beast, no matter what.

This burn: of this make cakes & eat unto me. This hath also another use; let it be laid before me, and kept thick with perfumes of your orison: it shall become full of beetles as it were and creeping things sacred unto me. [Chapter III, verses 23-25]

This section of The Book of the Law goes into detail about the offerings that should be made by it followers. We can see that the emphasis of the ritual is blood, the verses go into great detail in specifying a hierarchy of blood. By comparison, the Qur’an tells us that when animal offerings are made by Muslims, it’s not the blood that matters to Allah, but rather the pious act of obedience in performing the sacrifice:

And the camels and cattle We have appointed for you as among the symbols of Allah; for you therein is good. So mention the name of Allah upon them when lined up [for sacrifice]; and when they are [lifeless] on their sides, then eat from them and feed the needy and the beggar. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may be grateful. Their meat will not reach Allah, nor will their blood, but what reaches Him is piety from you. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you; and give good tidings to the doers of good. [Qur’an 22:36-37]

Sacrificing an animal for the sake of Allah is said to be a way of showing gratitude to Him for the numerous blessings He has bestowed upon us, as well as a righteous act in feeding the poor and needy. These are the purposes behind the animal offering, the spilt blood is of no value in and of itself. It’s important to note that human sacrifice is prohibited in Islam, only animals can be offered. When it comes to the occult and pagan religions in general, rituals involving human blood have been used throughout history. We’ve seen that The Book of the Law informs its followers that human blood – be it menstrual, the blood of children, or the blood of one’s enemies – is of higher value than animal blood.

I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.

Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!

With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.

I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.

With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.

Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.

Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you! [Chapter III, verses 49-55]

One of the roles of religious scripture is to highlight the falsehood of beliefs that are contrary to its own teachings. Guidance is not just about stating what is correct, but also about negating that which is incorrect. The Book of the Law  does not do this in any meaningful way. These verses mention the likes of Jesus and Muhammad, but instead of intellectually dismantling the teachings of these prophets, it instead insults them in a very petty manner that comes across as insecure. This is quite unbefitting of religious scripture, and certainly not what one would expect were its author a divine being.

By comparison, the Qur’an respectfully engages with the beliefs of those it deems to be upon falsehood. Muslims are commanded to refrain from insulting the gods of other religions:

And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. [Qur’an 6:108]

The Qur’an commands believers to engage with non-believers in a respectful and dignified manner:

Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. [Qur’an 16:125]

When it comes to dismantling the theology of false religion, the Qur’an uses intellectual arguments, never petty insults. The prophets of the Jewish and Christian scriptures are acknowledged as genuine prophets, and are even mentioned more times by name in the Qur’an than Muhammad himself. This is an indication that the one who authored the Qur’an and inspired Muhammad is the same entity that inspired the prophets of old like Abraham, Moses and Jesus.


To argue that the Qur’an is the product of some unknown force of unknown motives would be tantamount to invoking the existence of any unknown entity to explain anything. From this perspective, the Christian claim that the Qur’an was inspired by occult forces such as the Devil or demons is an intellectual cop-out. Everything can be reduced to absurdity by attributing it to occult forces, so this is also a self-defeating scepticism as it means that nothing can be true.

In this article we have tackled this claim by taking the unique approach of comparing the Qur’an to The Book of the Law, a typical occult work. After doing a detailed comparison we’ve seen that they share very little in common, which is contrary to the claim that they come from the same source. Not only are they opposites in terms of their theology and morality, but it is only the Qur’an that puts forward objective evidence to support its claims of divine origin. Crowley himself was a master occultist and would have had access to the same dark forces that allegedly inspired Prophet Muhammad. Yet we’ve seen that The Book of the Law pales in comparison to the phenomenon that is the Qur’an, both in terms of its content and impact on the global stage.


1 – Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim.

2 – Aleister Crowley, The Law is for All, see commentary on verse I.4.

3 – Ibid., see commentary on verse I.41.

4 – Ibid., see commentary on verse I.51.

5 – Ibid., see commentary on verse I.52.

6 – Ibid., see commentary on verse I.41.

7 – Sahih Bukhari.