Khomeini was an agent for the West

Khomeini’s Background & His British Father

With all bets off, the Iranian reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr, some 25-years ago, during a visit to Libya. The Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia, Imam Musa Sadr, was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world. He refused to accept Khomeini as an Ayatollah. With the influence Imam Musa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s political plans, and of those who supported the overthrow of the Shah and needed a despot like Khomeini to be their cat’s paw.

Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr’s mysterious disappearance in Libya – his body was never found- opened the way for Khomeini to invade Iran, which accurately describes the action of a foreigner like Khomeini taking over a country in which he (Khomeini) was neither born nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.

While one devout Iranian in California speaks of Khomeini reverently as a great man, similar to Hitler, other less friendly Persians liken him to an invader like Genghis Khan the Mongol scourge.

The cornerstone and founder of the Islamic Revolution of Iran was Ayatollah Khomeini and the structure which he put in place. However, there is compelling evidence that Khomeini was never an Iranian in the first place and had no right to impose his policies on the Iranian people. Nor was his elevation to the title of ayatollah anything more than a political, face-saving expediency to prevent his being hanged for treason in 1964. Considerable effort was made in 1979 to eradicate evidence of any record of either Khomeini’s non-Iranian origins and the source of his use of the title of Ayatollah.

One of the first actions which Khomeini took, within hours of his return to Iran after the Shah left, was to execute two prominent men who were living proof of his origin and also of his false Ayatollah status. One of these was Gen. Hassan Pakravan, Head of SAVAK, the Imperial Iranian national intelligence and security organization.

Furthermore he immediately tried to assassinate the highly-respected Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who, with Ayatollah Golpayegani, had in 1964 granted Khomeini the false title. They had agreed to allow Khomeini, then literally awaiting death on charges of treason, to be called an Ayatollah to save his life: it was forbidden to execute an Ayatollah. This took place in 1964 at the urging of the British Ambassador to Iran and Gen. Pakravan, when a face-saving legal reason had to be found not to hang Khomeini for treason. It is known that Pakravan had fought hard to avoid Khomeinis execution at that time.

Later, when the 1979 assassination attempt failed against Shariatmadari, Shariatmadari, far higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini, was placed, incommunicado and under house arrest, without the right to preach or receive visitors other than a handful of close relatives, whose anti-Khomeini statements could be easily impugned as biased.

Few contest that Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian, but even fewer Iranians or otherwise know his fathers origins or his real name. The late Iranian Senator Moussavi, who represented Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran, at the time of the monarchy, knew Khomeini’s father and his four sons well, looked after their needs, used his influence to obtain their Iranian identity cards with fictitious dates and places of birth to avoid military service. Sen. Moussavi died for this help, on Khomeini’s personal orders, immediately on Khomaini return from France after the 1979 coup.

SAVAK chief Gen. Pakravan, the man who saved Khomeini’s life in 1964, was taken that same night onto the roof of his house and shot to death for having compiled a complete background file on Khomeini. The SAVAK background file still exists, as a senior SAVAK official, who defected and joined SAVAMA (the clerics equivalent of the SAVAK) took possession of it. This same man was reportedly head of SAVAMA in the US for quite some time, and sources indicate that he has kept the file for a rainy day.

Why did Khomeini return to Iran with such a bloodthirsty mind set? It seems clear that it was to exact the revenge which he said he would have. Prior to his return to Iran in 1979, Khomeini openly stated that he would kill as many Iranians. He considered everyone in Iran guilty in advance as there were hairs on the head of his son, killed in a car accident, but in his mind killed by Iranian authorities.

Unable to provide an acceptable paternal background for Khomeini, a story was concocted to link his paternal heritage to that of his Kashmiri Indian mother and introduced an Indian-born father (also from Kashmir) but of Iranian heritage. In fact, no such person existed. But someone with similar and misleading characteristics certainly did, which could lend credence to this fiction of an Indian father.

Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. This detail is based on first-hand evidence from a former Iranian employee of the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (later known as British Petroleum- BP), who worked with and met the key players of this saga. This fact was supported by the lack of a denial in 1979 by Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, when interviewed on the subject at his home in County Cork, Ireland, by a British newspaper.

The then-78-year old Chisholm stated: I knew Haji [as Williamson was later known] well; he worked for me. He certainly went native but whether he is Khomeini’s father I could not say. Would not an outright, ridiculing denial have been the natural response, were there no truth to the British paternity? From someone who knew Haji [and thus the truth] well?

Chisholm obviously wished to avoid a statement leading to political controversy or possible personal retribution in the very year Khomeini took over in Iran. Nor as a former, experienced political officer himself would he be willing to drag Britain into the new Middle East conflict. But neither was he prepared to provide an outright lie instead of his no comment.

How it all happened:

A stocky, handsome, dark-haired Bristol boy, Richard Williamson ran away to sea at the age of 13 as a cabin boy, on a ship bound for Australia. However, he jumped ship before he got there. Little is known about him until he showed up, at the age of 20, in Aden at the Southern end of the Arabian Peninsula in South Yemen, where he joined the local police force.

His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Yousef Ibrahim, a relative of the Al- Sabah family, which rules Kuwait today.

A few points should be remembered about the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula area at that time. Regional countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth did not exist as sovereign entities and were artificially created about 70 years ago by the British and French governments when they partitioned the area. Iran, or Persia as it was called, was soon to be controlled by Russian Cossacks in the North and the British Army in the South, although technically it remained an independent monarchy under the largely absentee Qajar dynasty.

British military presence in Iran was under Lt.-Col. Sykes (later Sir Percy Sykes), based in Shiraz, but politically controlled by Sir Arnold Wilson in Khorramshahr (then called Mohammareh) with assistance from E. Elkington in Masjid-Suleiman and Dr. Young, based in Ahwaz. All three were cities in Khuzestan Province, which was later represented by Senator Moussavi. Col. T.E. Lawrence, who gained fame as Lawrence of Arabia, operated out of Basra in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Khorramshahr during this same period.

Oilfields, far beyond the technological capability of the Arab tribes (or Persia) to develop or appreciate as a valuable commodity, were being discovered and exploited by the British, including via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, formed to siphon off oil from Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran.

Kuwait, on the other side of the Persian Gulf was still not a country at the time. As the major player in the Middle East oil industry, Britain had to exert influence and control through its political and oil personnel. Haji Abdullah Williamson became one of these in 1924 when he joined British Petroleum as political officer. He retired under that same name in 1937, at the age of 65. Earlier, in what is now Kuwait, Richard Williamson had very quickly converted to Islam and adopted the first name of Abdullah. Family names were still unusual and son of the son of or son of a type of worker or craftsman was still commonly used to identify people. For 14 years he had lived among the Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula and in 1895 and 1898 he went on pilgrimages to Mecca, took on the rightful title of Haji and took on his first benefactors name of Fazl, adding Zobeiri to it as a distinguisher. Thus, William Richard Williamson became known as Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri.

During his service with British Petroleum in the Persian Gulf, Haji Abdullah took his vacations in Indian Kashmir, to rest from the relentless Gulf heat and in this timeframe married at least seven times to Arab and Indian women each under Muslim marriage rituals. He had 13 children of whom seven were boys and the rest girls with most of the children dying in early childhood. His repeated Kashmir excursions and Indian wives and use of the name Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri probably give rise to the Kashmir Indian father misconception.

With dark-haired Haji Abdullah a fanatically devout Muslim, a characteristic he imposed on his children, this fervent religious attitude and Arab nomenclature would not normally be an expected combination for a foreigner, especially an Englishman. He insisted his four surviving sons attend religious school in Najaf (in Iraq) under the tutelage of Ayatollahs Yazdi (meaning of the city of Yazd) and Shirazi (of the city of Shiraz). Two of them, Hindizadeh (meaning Indian born) and Passandideh (meaning pleasing or approved) studied well and eventually became ayatollahs in their own right.

The third boy, a troublesome young man, failed to make his mark in Najaf and went to the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he studied under Ayatollah Boroujerdi. When family names became a requirement by law under His Majesty Reza Shah, the young man chose the city of his residence, Khomein, as the designator and took on the name Khomeini (meaning: “from Khomein city”).

The fourth son hated theology and went across the Persian Gulf to Kuwait and opened up two gas (petrol) stations using the paternal family name of Haji Ali Williamson, though it is unclear if he ever performed the Haj pilgrimage. This in itself links Khomeini through that brother with Haji Williamson. Why, otherwise, would Rouhallah Khomeinis undisputed brother use the Williamson family name? The patriarch of this brood, Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri (aka Haji Abdullah Williamson in BP), was thrown out of Iran by Reza Shah along with three other British political officers for anti-Iranian activity and joined his son in Kuwait. Here he took on the duties of Oil Distribution for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

With his longstanding contacts in the Arab world and his Muslim religion, he forced a 50/50 agreement between US oil interests in Kuwait and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as well as in 1932 pursuing the exclusive exploration rights for British Petroleum in Abu Dhabi.

His lack of a formal education forced British Petroleum to send out Archie H. T. Chisholm (see above), a senior executive, to conclude the Abu Dhabi contract and together with Haji Abdullah’s political influence they overcame competition from Major Frank Holmes, Sheikh Hussein and Mohammad Yateen to successfully land the exclusive contract. Chisholm, as he said, got to know Khomeini’s father well. Back in Iran again in 1960, Khomeini saw an opportunity to exact revenge for his father having been thrown out of Iran and to impose his Islamic fundamentalist philosophy onto an Iran struggling with budget problems, caused mostly by its oil being in the control of foreign oil companies, which decided not Iran how much oil the country was allowed to produce and at what price it had to be sold.

With his own and his family’s theological background, Khomeni began to foment an anti-monarchy revolt through the mosques, which by 1964 resulted in imposition of martial law and finally with his arrest and his being sentenced to death by hanging. And consequently he was given the life-saving Ayatollah title which he had not earned.

After formally being exiled to Turkey, Khomeini ended up in Iraq where he wrote some philosophical and social behavior dissertations which were so bizarre by religious standards that, where possible, the tracts were bought up and destroyed by the Iranian Government when he took over in 1979. The most damning were in Arabic language versions and then later, cleaner versions appeared as edited translations in Farsi.

Some linguists, who studied his public speeches in 1979 and 1980, concluded his Farsi vocabulary to be less than 200 words, so not only did he not have Persian blood, he did not even speak the language. With the number of Iranians who have died because of him and his successors over the past 25 years going into the hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million if the death toll from the eight-year Iran-Iraq war is included, this Anglo-Indian may have had no love or compassion for Iranians either.

In the Iran Air aircraft flying Khomeini back from France to Tehran in early 1979, with cameras rolling, a journalist asked: What do you feel about returning to Iran? He replied: Nothing! The question was repeated, and again he replied: Nothing!

Summary of Khomeini’s Background

  1. In 1964 Ayatollah Shariatmadari and Ayatollah Golpayegani gave Khomeini the title of Ayatollah. Reportedly, they had done this to save Khomeini’s life, as Khomeini was facing a charge of treason against the Shah. And reportedly it was the UK ambassador who had urged that Khomeini be saved.

    2. Shariatmadari was higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini. In 1979, after Khomeini took over Iran, he placed Shariatmadari under house arrest.

    3. Reportedly, Khomeini was not Iranian. He “was neither born (in Iran) nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.” Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian. Reportedly, a story was invented that Khomeini had a Kashmiri Indian father with Iranian origins. The Iranian Senator Moussavi knew Khomeini’s real father. Reportedly Khomeini had Moussavi killed.

    4. Reportedly, Khomeini’s real father, was William Richard Williamson, born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. A witness to this was a former Iranian employee of the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company (later BP), who knew the Khomeini family. In 1979, when Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, was asked about this, he neither confirmed nor denied the story.

    William Richard Williamson’s biography was written in the early 1950s, by Stanton Hope, a British Journalist and writer who had met Williamson in his home near Basra in the late 1940s. The book title is: Arabian Adventurer: the Story of Haji Williamson

    5. Reportedly, Richard Williamson, at the age of 20, was working in South Yemen in the local police force.

    “His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Yousef Ibrahim, a relative of the Al- Sabah family, which rules Kuwait today.”

    6. In Iran at this time, the British were exploiting the oilfields. Williamson, now a Muslim, joined British Petroleum as political officer. He called himself Haji Abdullah Fazl Zobeiri.

    7. Williamson took holidays in Kashmir and married at least seven times to Arab and Indian women. His sons attended religious schools. Reportedly, one son went to the Iranian holy city of Qom and took the name Khomeini.

    8. In the early 1960s, Khomeini began to plot against the Shah. In 1964 Khomeini was sentenced to death. By becoming an Ayatollah, his life was saved.

    9. Reportedly, in 1979, Khomeini was flown from France to Iran, with the help of the British Intelligence Service, MI6. He took over Iran.

    In 1979, Imam (Ayatollah) Mussa Sadr disappeared during a visit to Libya. Imam Mussa Sadr was the Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia and he “was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world.”

Why was the Shah of Iran toppled by the CIA and MI6?

The mainstream media would like us to believe that the Shah was overthrown by People Power and that the CIA and MI6 were taken by surprise. However, there is evidence that the CIA and MI6 toppled the Shah because he had become too much of a nationalist, like Egypt’s President Jamal Abdul-Naser, and was not following instructions on oil or even opium.

The CIA did not want left-wing democrats taking over from the Shah as they might not be easy to control. So, reportedly, the CIA allowed the Ayatollahs to take over.

Radio Free Iran claimed that while at Qom, the Ayatollah Khomeini received a “monthly stipend from the British, and he is in constant contact with his masters, the British.”

On 19 January 1980, the International Herald Tribune reported that the Shah had said, two years before he was overthrown, that he had heard from two different sources connected with oil companies that the regime in Iran would change.

‘We believe that there was a plan to ensure less oil was offered to the world markets in order to bring down the price (of oil). One country was to be chosen for the sacrifice… It seems that the country chosen to drop its oil production was mine’ said the Shah.

According to the Guardian: “Shah- Oil Companies Helped to Oust Him”

The Shah’s nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more independent and more powerful. This worried the CIA and MI6.

1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown’s own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers. Over one and a half million people became land owners, thus ending the old feudal system.

2. The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.

3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.

4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

5. He began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British influence.

Former intelligence officer, Dr John Coleman, considers opium to be of prime importance in the toppling of the Shah (Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 – 6). Dr Coleman is sometimes described as being a conspiracy theorist.

Coleman believes that the U.S. government toppled the Shah of Iran. He writes:

Why was the Shah deposed…?

In a word, because of DRUGS. The Shah had clamped down and virtually put an end to the immensely lucrative opium trade being conducted out of Iran by the British. At the time that the Shah took over in Iran, there were already one million opium/heroin addicts.

This the British would not tolerate, so they sent the United States to do their dirty work for them in terms of the “special relationship” between the two countries.

When Khomeini took over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, arms sales by the United States, which had begun with the Shah, were not discontinued…

After 1984, Khomeini’s liberal attitude toward opium had increased the number of addicts to 2 million, according to United Nations and World Health Organization statistics.

Both President Carter and his successor, Ronald Reagan, willingly and with full knowledge of what was at stake, went on supplying arms to Iran even while American hostages languished in captivity…

The arms trade with Iran was sealed at a meeting between Cyrus Vance… and Dr. Hashemi, which resulted in the U.S. Air Force beginning an immediate airlift of arms to Iran, carried on even at the height of the hostage crisis the arms came from U.S. Army stockpiles in Germany and some were even flown directly from the United States with re-fuelling stops at the Azores.

This is The Real Story of Khomaini which the Iranian Regime hides from whole world.

A Brief Outline of the Shafi’i School’s Transmission

The School’s Founder: Imam Shafi’i

Between 150-204

Imam Shafi’i is himself just an inheritor of the Prophetic legacy.

Imam Shafi’i was born in Gaza in 150, the same year in which Imam Abu Hanifah passed. His mother, Fatimah, moved with her young son to Makkah so that his maternal family could raise him.

Before setting out on his first journey, to Medina, in pursuit of knowledge, Imam Shafi’i had already achieved a lot. He memorized the Qur’an at a young age, and took from Muslim b. Khalid, Sufyan b. Uyaynah, and others. He memorized Imam Malik’s Muwatta, which he borrowed from a friend, in seven nights. Upon setting out for the Holy City of Medina, his sole purpose was to take knowledge from the Imam of Ahl al-Hadith, Imam Malik b. Anas. Imam Shafi’i stayed there until Malik passed in 179.

Thereafter, Imam Shafi’i relocated to Yemen to take the position of judge there. He was in Yemen for a while until taken prisoner and extradited to Baghdad in 184. Here in Iraq, Imam Shafi’i would take the opportunity to write the books of Muhammad b. Hasan al-Shaybani, Abu Hanifah’s senior student. The duration of his stay in Iraq was probably at least a few years; as he wrote all of Muhammad’s books, debated, taught, and benefited the people there. At this point, in Imam Shafi’s first visit to Iraq, the Iraqi school formed.

After his stay in Baghdad, Imam Shafi’i returned to Makkah. There, he taught, having classes in the Haram. Then, Imam Shafi’i returned to Baghdad in 195. He again left Baghdad in 199 and relocated to Egypt. In Egypt, he established gatherings for learning and built his new School, the qawl jadid. His senior transmitters and students would be Buwayti, Muzani, Muradi, and others. They took his Madhhab and transmitted it from him after he passed away in 204.

Imam Shafi’s Direct Students: The Qadim and Jadid

Between 204-270

The Qawl Qadim: There are Four Transmitters of the Qawl Qadim

– Za’farani

– Ahmad b. Hanbal

– Abu Thawr

– Karabisi


Abu Ali Hasan b. Muhammad al-Za’farani al-Baghdadi was probably one of Imam Shafi’s most pivotal transmitters in regards to the qawl qadim. Him, Ahmad b. Hanbal, and Abu Thawr where present in a gathering with Imam Shafi’i; Za’farani was given the task of reading out Imam Shafi’s Risalah. As soon as he read the work, Imam Shafi’i asked him, “From which of the Arabs are you?” To which Za’farani relied, “I am not an Arab, I am just from a village named Za’faraniyyah.” To this Imam Shafi’i remarked, “Then you are the master of that village.” He passed in 260.

Ahmad b. Hanbal        أحمد بن حنبل

Imam Abu Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Baghdadi was another transmitter of the qawl qadim. Both Bukhari and Muslim narrate from him. It is quite possible that Shafi’s influence reached them via Ahmad. Bukhari is also a student of another individual who took from al-Shafi’i, Ishaq b. Rahaway. Imam Ahmad passed in 241.

Abu Thawr

Abu Thawr Ibrahim b. Khalid al-Baghdadi was another transmitter of the qawl qadim. If Ahmad b. Hanbal was asked regarding a legal issue he would sometimes say, “Ask someone else, ask Abu Thawr.” This was due to Abu Thawr’s status as a faqih. He is noted to have initially been a Hanafi, and when Imam Shafi’i entered Baghdad he departed from the Hanafi School and became a Shafi’i. He passed in 240.


Abu Ali al-Hasan b. Ali al-Karabisi al-Baghdadi was another transmitter. Similar to Abu Thawr, he was also a Hanafi, following the ways of Ahl al-Ra’yy, but when Imam Shafi’i began teaching in Baghdad he became captivated by the hadith-centered methodology; this ultimately influenced him to adopt the fiqh of Imam Shafi’i. He passed in 245.

The Qawl Jadid: The Primary Transmitters of the Qawl Jadid

– Buwayti

– Muzani

– Rabi b. Sulayman al-Muradi

– Rabi al-Jizi

– Yunus b. Abd al-Ala

– Harmalah

(Mention here is specific to the first three)


Imam Abu Yaqub Yusuf b. Yahya al-Buwayti was vested with leading the circles of learning after the demise of al-Shafi’i. Eventually he was tested by the mihnah and exiled to Baghdad, where he was imprisoned and eventually passed away in shackles. After his exile, Muzani took over the seat of teaching. Buwayti passed in 232.


Imam Abu Ibrahim Ismail b. Yahya al-Muzani wrote some famous and indispensible works like his Mukhtasar. From early on, this work gained prominence. He took over the seat of teaching after Buwayti. Eventually, he reached the level of absolute ijtihad; some of his opinions contradict the Madhhab, his ikhtiyarat. He passed in 264.

Rabi al-Muradi

Imam Rabi b. Sulayman al-Muradi is pivotal in transmitting Imam Shafi’s books. Ibn al-Athir in his commentary on Shafi’s Musnad mentions, “Shafi’i was based in Egypt for four years. During that time, Rabi’ wrote over one-thousand and five-hundred pages: one-thousand being Kitab al-Umm and the rest were al-Sunan amongst other things. All of that in four years!” Abu Dawud, Nasai, Ibn Majah, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, and others narrate from him. He passed in 270.

Transmission from Imam Shafi’s Students until the Two Tariqahs

Between 270-340

The Four Muhammads: 1, 2, 3, 4

These four individuals are part of the Ashab al-Wujuh, known to have reached the stage of absolute ijtihad. Individuals that reach a stage in their learning, being capable to make ijtihad, do not make taqlid of others. In his Tabaqat, Ibn al-Subki mentioned that this did not exclude them from being from the Ashab. At times they would operate by using the Imam’s usul, their ijtihad being like-minded to the Imam’s. Ibn al-Subki mentioned that while they were from the Ashab, their ijtihad would sometimes lead them to depart from the Madhhab.

1. Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari

Abu Jafar Muhammad b. Jarir b. Yazid al-Tabari was born in 224 in Tabrastan but resided in Baghdad. He started his quest for knowledge after the year 240, and traveled extensively for knowledge until he became an authority in Islam – a master of both the Quran and the Sunnah – whose opinion and view is taken. The judiciary was offered to him at different times; however, he refused to take the position. He authored a tarikh, a comprehensive tafsir, a work under the title Tahdhib al-Athar that he did not complete, and many other writings in the subjects of fiqh and usul. Ibn Jarir spent forty years writing at the pace of forty pages daily. He took from Muradi, Yunus b. Abd al-Ala, and Za’farani. He passed away in Baghdad in the year 310.

2. Muhammad b. Khuzaymah

Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Khuzaymah al-Naysaburi was born in 223. He took from both Muzani and Muradi. He was a hadith scholar par excellence, who combined fiqh and hadith. He stated, “I have not made taqlid of anyone since the age of sixteen.” He passed in 311.

3. Muhammad b. al-Mundhir

Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Mundhir al-Naysaburi resided in Makkah. He authored many relied-upon works including al-Ishraf fi Marifat al-Khilaf, al-Awsat, al-Ijma, al-Iqna, and others. He took from Muradi, and passed away in the year 319.

4. Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi

Abu Abd Allah Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi was born in the year 202 in Baghdad, but raised in Nishapur. He spent years traveling for knowledge and thereafter took residence in Samarqand where he passed in 294. He authored many books including al-Qasamah in fiqh of which Abu Bakr al-Sayrafi remarked, “If it was his only book, he would still be the most knowledgeable of the people.” He took fiqh from Imam Shafi’s students.

The As-hab al-Awjuh

Abu al-Qasim al-Anmati

Abu al-Qasim ‘Uthman b. Sa’id al-Anmati is from the senior figures in the Shafi’i School. He studied fiqh with both Muzani and Muradi. Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi mentioned that Anmati was pivotal in spreading the books and teachings of Imam Shafi’i in Baghdad. Ibn al-Subki related a similar statement from Abu ‘Asim in which Anmati is compared as an equal to Abu Bakr b. Ishaq al-Sibghi who spread the madhhab in Nishapur.

Ibn al-Subki goes on to mentioned in respects to who spread the madhhab, then the comparison is acceptable. However, he also points out that he considers Sibghi to have surpassed Anmati. The difference between them is also found in their students. The students of Anmati far surpassed those of Ibn Ishaq and had a more profound influence on the development of the Shafi’i School. Various scholars studied fiqh with Anmati, from them are the likes of Ibn Surayj, Abu Sa’id al-Istakhari, Abu ‘Ali b. Khayran, and others.

It should be noted that Abu ‘Asim’s statement is in fact qualified by them having spread the knowledge of Imam Muzani. Perhaps the reason for this is that the knowledge of Imam Shafi’i reached these areas at an earlier date. Ibn al-Subki mentioned that Abu Sa’id Ibn Marthad al-Asbahani, a student of Sufyan b. ‘Uyaynah, was the first to bring the knowledge of al-Shafi’i to Asbahan.

As well, Ibn al-Subki mentioned that Abu Muhammad ‘Abdan b. Muhammad al-Junujirdi, a student of Muzani and Muradi, was the first to bring a copy of Mukhtasar al-Muzani into the city of Marw where he was pivotal in establishing the Shafi’i School.

Abu al-Abbas Ibn Surayj

Abu al-Abbas Ahmad b. Umar b. Surayj al-Baghdadi is “Shaykh al-Madhhab.” He took fiqh from Anmati, and was pivotal in spreading the Shafi’i School far and wide. Notably, he also authored a commentary on Mukhtasar al-Muzani. He passed in 306.

Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi al-Kabir

Abu Ishaq Ibrahim b. Ahmad al-Marwazi took fiqh from Ibn Surayj and Istakhari. He became the foremost authority in the Madhhab during his era. Many who would become senior authorities benefited from him. The Madhhab spread by his teachings to all different parts of the Islamic world. He commentated on Mukhtasar al-Muzani and wrote al-Tawassut bayna al-Shafi’i wa al-Muzani. He passed away in Egypt in the year 340, and his grave is next to Imam Shafi’i.

The Iraqi and Khurasani Tariqahs, i and ii

Here, the students of Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi branch off into two channels of transmission: the Iraqi channel and the Khurasani channel.

i. The Transmission of the Iraqi Tariqah

Between 340-585

Abu al-Qasim al-Dariki

Abu al-Qasim Abd al-Aziz b. Abd Allah al-Dariki hailed from the village Darik, a village situated in Asbahan. He studied in Nishapur for some years and then relocated to Baghdad where he took the leadership position pertaining to religious knowledge. He took fiqh from Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi, and Shaykh Abu Hamid took it from him. If he considered a hadith authentic, he would give fatwa according to it regardless as to whether or not it contradicted the views of Abu Hanifah or Imam Shafi’i. He passed in 375.

Shaykh Abu Hamid al-Isfarayini

Shaykh Abu Hamid Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Isfarayini is the Imam of the Iraqi tariqah. He studied fiqh with Abu al-Qasim al-Dariki. He resided in Baghdad, and occupied himself with knowledge until he became unsurpassed in his era. He authored a Ta’liqah on Mukhtasar al-Muzani, which stretched into many volumes. Countless students and scholars attended his gatherings wherein the focus was expounding and commentating on Mukhtasar al-Muzani. His Ta’liqah was central for the Iraqi tariqah and some of the Khurasanis too. He passed in 406.

Today, Asfarayin, the place to which Shaykh Abu Hamid is ascribed is situated in Iran’s providence of Northern Khurasan.

Muhammad b. Ali al-Masarjisi

Qadi Abu Husayn Muhammad b. Ali al-Masarjisi is the teacher of Qadi Abu Tayyib. He was of the most knowledgeable pertaining to the Madhhab; he took fiqh from Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi, accompanied him to Egypt, and stayed with him until he passed away. Then, he went to Baghdad and taught there for a while; and then to Khurasan. He passed in 384.

Qadi Abu Tayyib al-Tabari

Qadi Abu Tayyib Tahir b. Abd Allah al-Tabari is one of the Madhhab’s key transmitters. The Iraqi’s took knowledge from him, and transmitted through his means. In Nishapur, he met Masarjisi, with whom he stayed in the company of for four years studying fiqh. Then, he traveled to Baghdad where he met Dariki’s student Abu Muhammad al-Khawarizmi. He also attended the gatherings of Shaykh Abu Hamid. He wrote various writings and commentated on Mukhtasar al-Muzani. He passed in 450.

Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi

Abu Ishaq Ibrahim b. Ali al-Shirazi is the author of al-Tanbih and al-Muhadhdhab. He was born in the Persian city of Firozabad in 393. He grew up in his hometown, and then moved to Shiraz. There, he studied with two of Dariki’s students Abu Abd Allah al-Baydawi and Ibn Ramin. Then, he entered Iraq, first to Basra, and then Baghdad. He reached Baghdad in 415. There, he took fiqh from Qadi Abu Tayyib. He authored many works, and passed in 476.

Qadi Abu Ali al-Fariqi

Qadi Abu Ali Hasan b. Ibrahim al-Fariqi studied fiqh in his youth and later traveled to Baghdad where he took from Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi. He stayed with him studying the Muhadhdhab until he had memorized it. He was the most knowledgeable of his era in the Madhhab. He was the judge in Wasit and its surrounding areas, which he subsequently abandoned. He stayed in Wasit until he passed away, teaching fiqh and narrating hadith. He passed in 528.

Ibn Abi ‘Asrun

Qadi Abd Allah b. Muhammad Ibn Abi ‘Asrun first studied fiqh with the scholars of Baghdad. Then, he traveled to Wasit and studied under Qadi Abu Ali al-Fariqi staying in his company. Toward the end of his life, he moved to Damascus and took residence there. He was the leading Shafi’i jurist of his era and a prolific writer. Some of his works include Safwat al-Madhhab, which is a work on Imam al-Haramayn’s Nihayat al-Matlab, Fawa’id al-Muhadhdhab wa al-Tanbih, and Nusrat al-Madhhab which he however did not complete. He passed in 585.

ii. The Transmission of the Khurasani Tariqah

Between 340-560

Abu Zayd al-Marwazi

Abu Zayd Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Marwazi is one of the leading transmitters of the Khurasani tariqah. A scholar who preserved the Shafi’i School, he took fiqh from Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi. He also heard Sahih al-Bukhari directly from Firabri and is thus one of its transmitters. Al-Qaffal al-Marwazi and the scholars of Marv took from him, as well as Hakim and Daraqutni. He passed in 371.

al-Qaffal al-Saghir al-Marwazi

Abu Bakr Abd Allah b. Ahmad al-Qaffal al-Saghir al-Marwazi is the Shaykh of the Khurasani tariqah. He took fiqh from Abu Zayd al-Marwazi. He passed in 417. It should be noted that from the Shafis are two Abu Bakr Qaffal’s, the one we have here is usually referred to as Qaffal al-Marwazi, he is the junior in age. There is also Qaffal al-Shashi, who is elder. Marwazi’s mention in the Shafi’s works of furu is much more frequent than al-Shashi. In fact, in Ghazzali’s Wasit, mention is not made of Shashi, not even once. Thus, ipso-facto, the Qaffal Ghazzli cites from is Qaffal al-Marwazi; in the books of the Khurasanis like Nihayat al-Matlab, Tahdhib, Ibanah, etc., the mentioned Qaffal is Qaffal al-Marwazi. In Shirazi’s Muhadhdhab, mention is made of him only once; that is in kitab al-nikah under the discussion of the grandfather’s marrying his son’s daughter with his son’s son. While in Imam Nawawi’s Rawdah, mentioned is made of him in a few instances. While, in the works of usul al-fiqh, Qaffal al-Shashi features much more frequently.

Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni

Abu Muhammad Abd Allah b. Yusuf al-Juwayni took fiqh from Qaffal. He resided in Nishapur where he taught and issued fatwas. He wrote various works. Perhaps he authored a commentary on Abu Bakr al-Farisi’s Uyun al-Masail, while Ruyani ascribes it to Qaffal. It could be that Abu Muhammad transmitted it from his teacher. Abu Muhammad is Imam al-Haramayn’s father. He passed in 438.

Imam al-Haramayn

Imam al-Haramayn is Abd al-Malik b. Abd Allah b. Yusuf al-Juwayni. He was the leading authority of the Shafi’is in Nishapur. He first studied with his father. When his father passed, he took over his place, teaching and issuing fatwa. He was twenty years old at the time. He went to Madrasat al-Bayhaqi and studied Usul al-Fiqh and Usul al-Din under the tutelage of Abu al-Qasim al-Isfarayini. During a period of strife, he migrated to Hejaz where he stayed for four years. During that time, he taught, gave fatwa, and wrote. Then, he returned to Nishapur and taught at the Nizamiyyah. He remained in that position for thirty years. Attending his lessons were about three hundred scholars daily. He authored an important commentary on Mukhtasar al-Muzani under the title Nihayat al-Matlab fi Dirayat al-Madhhab, a work he complied in the Hejaz and refined in Nishapur. He passed in 478.

Ilkiya al-Harrasi

Abu al-Hasan Imad al-Din Ali b. Muhammad al-Tabari took fiqh in his hometown and then traveled to Nishapur to take fiqh from Imam al-Haramayn. He reached a high stage in his knowledge, being one of Imam al-Haramayn’s most distinguished pupils. In the first volume of Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, under the discussion of vessels and containers, Imam Nawawi cites from him is a work under the title Zawiya al-Masail. This He passed in 504.


Abu Hamid Muhammad b. Muhammad al-Ghazzali is the author of very significant works in Shafi’i fiqh: the Basit, the Wasit, the Wajiz, and the Khulasah. He also authored the famous work Ihya Ulum al-Din. He took fiqh from Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, and passed in 505.

Abu al-Qasim Ibn al-Bizri

Jamal al-Islam Umar b. Muhammad Abu al-Qasim Ibn al-Bizri took fiqh from Ghazzali and Ilkiya al-Harrasi. He wrote a work on Ghazzali’s Wasit. No one preserved the Madhhab more than him during his time. Many benefited from him. He passed in 560.

The Two Tariqahs Begin to Merge


Salah al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Uthman

Ibn al-Salah’s father Salah al-Din Abu al-Qasim Abd al-Rahman b. Uthman b. Musa al-Kurdi took fiqh from both Ibn Abi ‘Asrun and Bizri, lived in Aleppo, and taught fiqh in al-Madrasat al-Asadiyyah. He passed in 618.

Ibn al-Salah

Abu Amr Uthman b. Abd al-Rahman b. Uthman b. Musa al-Kurdi al-Shahrazuri is Ibn al-Salah. He was a leading authority in both Shafi’i fiqh and as well hadith. He first studied fiqh under his father in Shahrazur; thereafter, his father and he relocated to the Northern Iraqi city of Mawsil. He studied the entirety of Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi’s Muhadhdhab at a young age. He studied hadith in Khurasan, where stayed for a while, before moving to the Levant where he remained there for a short period in order to teach. Thereafter, he relocated to Damascus, as soon as the building of Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyyah in Damascus completed, the lecturer post was his appointment. Many significant authorities in the Shafi’i Madhhab would hold this post after Ibn al-Salah, like Abu Shamah al-Maqdisi, Imam Nawawi, Hafiz Mizzi, Taqi al-Din al-Subki, and others. Ibn al-Salah wrote his Muqaddimah in hadith sciences, Adab al-Mufti wa al-Mustafti, a commentary on Ghazzali’s Wasit, and a collection of fatawa. He passed in 643.

Shaykhayn: Imams Nawawi and Rafi’i

600-677 (Approximately)

At this stage, the Madhhab had developed for around half a millennium. The amount of different writings and opinions contributed was significant. Two authorities undertook the task of tarjih, or assessing and weighing opinions to determine what is relied-upon. They are Imams Rafi’i and Nawawi, referred to collectively as “Shaykhayn.”

Imam Rafi’i

Imam Abu al-Qasim Abd al-Karim b. Muhammad al-Rafi’i took fiqh from his father. He is authoritative pertaining to tarjih in the Shafi’i School, along with Imam Nawawi. Imam Rafi’i studied under his father Muhammad. He wrote al-Sharh al-Kabir, which is a commentary on Ghazzali,’s Wajiz, al-Sharh al-Saghir, Muharrar, and other works. He passed in 623.

Imam Nawawi

Abu Zakariyya Muhy al-Din Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi was born in the Syrian village of Nawa in the year 631. He memorized the Quran when small, and traveled with his father to Damascus when he was nineteen years old. He studied at al-Madrasat al-Rawahiyyah for two years and during that time, his side did not lie on the ground even once. He memorized the Tanbih and Muhadhdhab. Imam Nawawi studied thirteen lessons daily in his student career, always occupied with knowledge. He performed Hajj with his father and visited Medina. When Abu Shamah passed away, he took charge of Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyyah. He remained in that position until he passed in 677. Imam Nawawi’s works are relied-upon for fatwa in the Shafi’i School. He wrote al-Tahqiq, Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, al-Tanqih Sharh Wasit al-Ghazzali, Rawdat al-Talibin, Minhaj al-Talibin, Sharh Sahih Muslim, Tashih al-Tanbih, a Fatawa, and other works.

The Muhaqqiqun’s Era

677-900 (Approximately)

Ibn al-Rif’ah

Abu al-Abbas Ahmad b. Muhammad Ibn al-Rif’ah al-Misri was born in 645, known as “al-Faqih.” He wrote two important works Kifayat al-Nabih, which is a commentary on Shirazi’s Tanbih, and Matlab al-Ali, which is a commentary on Ghazzali’s Wasit. Taqi al-Din al-Subki took fiqh from him. His vast knowledge of the Madhhab and ability to bring out opinions and transmissions from Imam Shafi’i and the Ashab al-Wujuh was unparalleled. Ibn Taymiyyah remarked regarding him that, “He had the nuqul [reports, opinions, transmissions] of the Shafi’yyah dripping from his beard.” He passed in 710.

Ibn al-Attar

Abu al-Hasan Ala al-Din Ali b. Ibrahim Ibn al-Attar was born in 654. His father was Jewish and a perfume merchant by trade. The agnomen, “al-Attar”, is retained from his father’s profession. He travelled extensively to seek knowledge. During his travels, he took knowledge from over two hundred teachers. He was appointed as chief lecturer at Dar al-Hadith al-Nuriyyah in 674; he remained studiously occupied there until his death. He was Imam Nawawi’s most senior student, and the appellation given to him, namely, “Mukhtasar al-Nawawi,” confirms this. He authored a biography of his teacher under the title Tuhfat al-Talibin. This was most probably the first biographical work on Nawawi. In 701, his health began to suffer because of a hemiplegic condition. Although he was carried on a stretcher due to the severity of his condition, he never gave up his teaching career. He taught at the Nuriyyah up until his passing in 724.

Taqi al-Din al-Subki

Abu al-Hasan Taqi al-Din Ali b. Abd al-Kafi al-Subki was born in 683. He studied under his father and Ibn al-Rif’ah. When Qadi Jalal al-Din al-Qazwini passed on in Damascus, Subki took his place. He executed the affairs of the judiciary in a most excellent and just manner. He lectured in the Umayyad Mosque and took the seat of teaching at Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyyah. He began to write a completion of Imam Nawawi’s Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, but passed before finishing it, he also authored Ibtihaj a commentary on Minhaj al-Talibin, he wrote fatawa which have be compiled. He passed away in 756.

Taj al-Din al-Subki

Taj al-Din Abd al-Wahhab b. Ali b. Abd al-Kafi al-Subki al-Misri is the son of Taqi al-Din al-Subki i.e. “Ibn al-Subki.” He was born in Cairo in 720. He studied with his father, Mizzi, Dhahabi, Ibn al-Naqib, and others. He wrote Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyyah al-Kubra and many other works. He passed in 770.

Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi

Jamal al-Din Abu Muhammad Abd al-Rahim b. Hasan al-Isnawi, according to Imam Suyuti he is al-Asnawi, was born in 704. He wrote many works including his Muhimmat which he finished writing in the year 760, al-Ashbah wa al-Nazair, Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyyah, a commentary on Nawawi’s Minhaj, and others. He passed in 772.

Shihab al-Din al-Adhra’i

Shihab al-Din Abu al-Abbas Ahmad b. Hamdan al-Adhra’i was born in 708. He studied with Imams Dhahabi and Mizzi. He studied much in Damascus, studied with Ibn al-Naqib, and stayed in the company of al-Fakhr al-Misri. He wrote a commentary on Minhaj al-Talibin under the title al-Qut and al-Tawassut wa al-Fath bayna al-Rawdah wa al-Sharh. Zarkashi took fiqh from him. He passed in 783.

Siraj al-Din al-Bulqini

Qadi Siraj al-Din Muhammad b. Umar b. Ruslan al-Bulqini was born in 757. He moved to Damascus with his father while an adolescent and took fiqh from the scholars there. He took fiqh from his father, Jamal al-Din al-Isnawi, and others. His father handed down the position of the military court’s judge to him. He passed in 791.

Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi

Abu Abd Allah Badr al-Din Muhammad b. Bahadir al-Zarkashi took fiqh from Isnawi, Siraj al-Bulqini, and Adhra’i. He wrote many works, completing Isnawi’s commentary on Minhaj, he wrote Khadim al-Sharh wa al-Rawdah which is written on the arrangement of Adhra’i’s Tawassut, and other works. He passed in 794.

Ibn al-Mulaqqin

Siraj al-Din Abu Hafs Umar b. Ali is Ibn al-Nahwi or Ibn al-Mulaqqin, and was both born and passed away in Cairo. His father moved to Cairo from Andulus and passed away only a year after his son was born in 723. Ibn al-Nahwi took fiqh from Taqi al-Din al-Subki. He wrote over three hundred books. From amongst them are: al-Badr al-Munir which is an extensive takhrij on Rafi’is al-Sharh al-Kabir, he wrote takhrijs on Muhadhdhab and Wasit, two commentaries on Minhaj, a commentary on Tanbih, a commentary on al-Hawi al-Saghir, and other works. He passed in 804.

Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi

Abu al-Fadl Zayn al-Din Abd al-Rahim b. Husayn al-Iraqi was born in 725. He memorized the Tanbih and remained busy with fiqh. He traveled extensively for knowledge. In fiqh, he took from Isnawi who named him “Hafiz al-Asr.” Both his son Wali al-Din and Hafiz Ibn Hajar took from him. He wrote [istidrak] on Isnawi’s Muhimmat and a takhrij on Ghazzali’s Ihya. He passed in 806.

Ibn al-Imad

Shihab al-Din Abu al-Abbas Ahmad b. Imad al-Aqfahsi is Ibn al-Imad. He studied under Isnawi, Bulqini, and others. He read the Muhimmat with Isnawi himself and wrote a commentary on Minhaj, al-Ta’aqqubat ala al-Muhimmat, Tashil al-Maqasid li Zawar al-Masajid, al-Ma’fwuat, and other works. He passed in 808.

Wali al-Din al-Iraqi

Abu Zur’ah Wali al-Din Ahmad b. Hafiz Zayn al-Din al-Iraqi was born in 762. He took from his father, Isnawi, and Ibn al-Naqib. He wrote al-Nukat ala al-Mukhtasarat al-Thalathah, therein he gathered between Ibn al-Subki’s Tawshih, Ibn al-Nahwi’s Tashih al-Hawi, and added to them from Bulqini’s commentary on Rawdah and from Isnawi’s Muhimmat. He also summarized Isnawi’s Muhimmat. He passed in 826.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani

Hafiz Abu al-Fadl Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. Ali Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani was born in Egypt in 773 and his father passed in his infancy. He took fiqh from Bulqini and Ibn al-Nahwi. He authored a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari under the title Fath al-Bari and other works. He passed away in 852.

The Era of the Commentators on Imam Nawawi’s Minhaj

900-1000 (Approximately)

Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari

Shaykh al-Islam Zayn al-Din Zakariyya b. Muhammad al-Ansari was born in 823. He took from Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. Ibn Hajar, Ramli, and Khatib took from him. He authored many works including Asna al-Matalib, a commentary on the Bahjah, Manhaj al-Tullab a summarization of Minhaj, and a commentary on it under the title Fath al-Wahhab, a fatawa, and others. He is “Shaykh al-Islam.” He passed in 926.

Shihab al-Din al-Ramli

Shihab al-Din Ahmad b. Hamzah al-Ramli is the father of Shams al-Din al-Ramli. He took fiqh from Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya. He authored a commentary on Ibn al-Imad’s al-Ma’fwuat, a commentary on Sharh al-Rawd, a commentary on Safwat al-Zubad, and a fatawa, which Khatib and al-Shams al-Ramli compiled and transmitted. He was also the sole individual who Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya would allow to rectify errors in his works, both before and after his passing. Shihab mended a significant amount of places in Shaykh al-Islam’s commentary on the Bahjah and his commentary on Rawd al-Talib. He became the primary reference for legal queries in Egypt. During his era, it was rare that students would take fiqh besides from him. Ibn Hajar, Ramli, and Khatib took from him. He passed in Cairo in 957.

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami

Shihab al-Din Abu al-Abbas Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ali b. Hajar al-Haytami was born in the year 909 in Egypt. He memorized the Qur’an when he was small; thereafter he memorized al-Imam Imam Nawawi’s Minhaj. He took from Shaykh al-Islam and Shihab Ramli. The depth and profundity that Ibn Hajar obtained in the subject of jurisprudence rendered him a specialist in the field, ceaselessly occupied with the subject. He performed Hajj several times, and took residence in Makkah. There, he authored many beneficial works, taught jurisprudence in the Haram, and gave fatwa. His status increased until his verdicts became preponderant pertaining to the Shafi’is of the Hejaz, Yemen, and other areas as well. Along with his colleague, Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Ramli, Ibn Hajar’s views are relied-upon for fatawa in the Shafi’i School. He authored a commentary on Nawawi’s Minhaj under the title Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, a commentary on Muzajjad’s Ubab under the title I’ab, a commentary on Ibn al-Muqri’s Irshad under the title Imdad and under the title Fath al-Jawwad, a commentary on BaFadl’s Muqaddimah Hadramiyyah under the title al-Minhaj al-Qawim, and fatawas. He passed in the Makkah in 974.

al-Khatib al-Shirbini

Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Khatib al-Shirbini is the author of the work which we are here setting out to study, Mughni al-Muhtaj. Biographical source material does not mention Khatib’s date of birth; thus, it is unknown.

Khatib received his education at al-Azhar University, where he also taught. Among his teachers are Shihab al-Din al-Ramli, Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari, and others.

Khatib is renowned for commenting on Shirazi’s Tanbih, Nawawi’s Minhaj al-Talibin, and Abu Shuja’s al-Ghayat wa al-Taqrib.

Khatib first authored his commentary on Tanbih, and then after, his commentary on Minhaj. Khatib refers to material that he brought forth in the commentary on Tanbih in Mughni al-Muhtaj. Additionally, in the introduction to Mughni al-Muhtaj, Khatib mentioned that he completed his commentary on Tanbih and that some of his colleagues requested him to write something similar on Imam Nawawi’s Minhaj.

In 963, Khatib completed Mughni al-Muhtaj.

His commentary on al-Ghayat wa al-Taqrib, al-Iqna’, was completed after Mughni, he finished it in the year 972.

Therefore, Khatib’s works chronologically feature with his commentary on Tanbih first, then Mughni al-Muhtaj, and then al-Iqna.

Khatib passed away in 977.

Shams al-Din al-Ramli

Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Ramli was born in 919. He is “al-Shafi’i al-Saghir.” He studied under his father. He took from Shaykh al-Islam, and that would have been when he was very young, thus it was likely by way of ijazah – and Allah knows best. He authored a commentary on Imam Nawawi’s Minhaj under the title Nihayat al-Muhtaj that is one of the reference works for fatwa in the Shafi’i School. He passed in 1004.

From Them to the Later Era: How it Reached Today i, ii, iii

1000- (Approximately)

i. How it Reached Today

Ibn Hajar, Ramli, and Khatib

Nur al-Din Ali b. Yahya al-Zayyadi

Nur al-Din Ali b. Yahya al-Zayyadi was born in Cairo. He authored a commentary on Imam Rafi’i’s Muharrar and Shaykh al-Islam’s Fath al-Wahhab. He passed in 1024.

Nur al-Din Ali b. Ibrahim al-Halabi

Abu al-Faraj Nur al-Din ‘Ali b. Ibrahim b. Ahmad al-Halabi al-Qahiri was born in 975. He commented on Fath al-Wahhab and on Mahalli’s Sharh al-Waraqat. He passed in 1044.

Sultan al-Mazzahi

Sultan b. Ahmad al-Mazzahi was born in 985. He authored a commentary on Fath al-Wahhab and passed in the year 1075.

Ahmad b. Abd al-Latif al-Bishbishi

Ahmad b. Abd al-Latif al-Bashbishi was born in 1041. He studied under Sultan al-Mazzahi and spent time with him, taking fiqh and hadith from him over a duration of fifteen years. He passed in 1096.

Ahmad al-Khalifi

Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Khalifi took from Inani and Bishbishi. He passed in 1127.

Muhammad b. Salim al-Hifni

Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Salim al-Hafni or al-Hafnawi was born in 1101. He wrote a hashiyah on Suyuti’s al-Jami’ al-Saghir and Bulaq printed it in two volumes in 1290. In addition, he wrote a hashiyah on Ibn Hajar’s Sharh al-Hamziyyah, which was printed in the margins of al-Minah al-Makkiyyah. He studied at al-Azhar University and eventually became Shaykh al-Azhar. He passed in 1181.

Abd Allah b. Hijazi al-Sharqawi

Abd Allah b. Hijazi al-Sharqawi al-Azhari was born in 1150. He memorized the Quran in his hometown before he set off to study at al-Azhar University. He became Shaykh al-Azhar in the year 1208. He wrote al-Tuhfat al-Bahiyyah fi Tabaqat al-Shafiyyah, a commentary on Sharh al-Tahrir, and Tuhfat al-Nazirin fi man Walla Misr min al-Wulat wa al-Salatin. He passed away in 1227.

Uthman b. Hasan al-Dimyati

Uthman b. Hasan al-Dimyat was born in the city of Dimyat in the year 1196. He stayed in Dimyat for twelve years studying with the local ulama. Then, he traveled to Cairo where he took from many senior ulama including Abd Allah b. Hijazi al-Sharqawi. He remained in Egypt until the year 1248 when he relocated to Makkah where he stayed until he passed away in the year 1265.

Ahmad b. Zayni Dahhlan

Ahmad b. Zayni Dahhlan was born in Makkah to a house of scholarship and piety in the year 1232. He grew up in Makkah and took from Uthman b. Hasan al-Dimyati, Kazbari, Muhammad b. Husayn al-Alawi, and others. He persisted in the pursuit of knowledge until he became the mufti of the Shafi’is in Makkah during his era. It was in his time that the first printer was established in Makkah, so his articles and works became published and circulated thereby. He was the Shafi’i mufti of Makkah during his time. He passed away in Medina in 1304.

Abu Bakr b. Muhammad Shata

Abu Bakr Uthman b. Muhammad Shata al-Bakri al-Dimyati was born in the year 1266. He resided in Makkah and authored I’anat al-Talibin ala Hill Alfaz Fath al-Mu’in and al-Durar al-Bahiyyah amongst other works. He passed in 1310.

The name Shata, often features with a doubling of the letter ta’; thus Shatta. Shata is from the suburbs of the Egyptian city of Dimyat, it sits just outside Dimyat on the road to Port Said. During the French occupation of Egypt there was a castle built in this specific area. The French word for castle is ch-a-tu. Or something like that, I am not at all French speaking. The local Egyptians assimilated this word into their spoken Arabic. Thus, Shata finds its origins in the French. In the local Arabic the word is most frequently pronounced without a doubling of the ta’.

Muhammad Mahfuz al-Tarmasi

Muhammad Mahfuz b. Abd Allah al-Tarmasi was born in the Central Javanese city of Tarmas in 1275, during this time his father was away in Makkah. Thus, his mother and maternal uncles raised him. He studied fiqh and memorized the Quran in the local madrasah; then in the year 1291, his father sent for him to come to Makkah. He stayed in Makkah with his father studying books, and then returned to Java with his father. Thereafter, he returned to Makkah, studying under the senior ulama, including Abu Bakr b. Muhammad Shata. He also studied Muhammad Said BaBusayl. He authored a large commentary on Ibn Hajar al-Haytami’s al-Minhaj al-Qawim under the title Mawhibat Dhi al-Fadl fi Hashiyat Sharh Muqaddimat BaFadl and other works. He passed in Makkah in 1338.

Umar BaJunayd

Umar b. Abi Bakr BaJunayd was born in Hadramawt, Yemen in 1263. He memorized the Quran at a young age, and traveled with his father to Makkah where he would reside. He taught in the Haram and was the Shafi’i mufti of Makkah during his time. He took from Ahmad Zayni Dahhlan, from Sh. Said BaBusayl, and Ahmad b. Alawi al-Saqqaf. He passed away in 1354.

Yasin al-Fadani

Abu al-Fayd Muhammad Yasin b. Muhammad Isa al-Fadani was born in Makkah in the year 1335. He first studied under his father and his uncle Mahmud al-Fadani. Thereafter, he enrolled in al-Madrasat al-Sawlutiyyah. He studied in Dar al-Ulum al-Diniyyah, beginning his studies there in the year it was founded. There, he completed his studies, and would soon be the institute’s principal; a position that he held until his passing. He is this era’s Musnid, having over four-hundred different teachers. He took Shafi’i fiqh from the Shafi’i mufti of Makkah, Umar BaJunayd. Umar BaJunayd took directly from Ahmad Zayni Dahhlan. Sh. Yasin also took from many of Muhammad Mahfuz al-Tarmasi’s students, as mentioned in his edition to Tarmasi’s thabat, Kifayat al-Mustafid. His students are numerous. He passed away in Makkah in the year 1410.

ii. How it Reached Today

Ahmad b. Zayni Dahhlan

Muhammad b. Abd al-Rahman al-Ahdal

Muhammad b. Abd al-Rahman al-Ahdal was a student of Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abd al-Bari al-Ahdal of whose collection of fatawa he abridged into a work under the title Umdat al-Mufti wa al-Mustafti. Muhammad b. Yahya took from him as well as his own son Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad al-Ahdal, from whom Abd Allah b. Said al-Lahji took. He passed in 1352.

Muhammad b. Yahya al-Ahdal

Muhammad b. Yahya al-Ahdal was born in 1321. His parents raised him, and then he moved to the region in Yemen of Marawi’ah, the Ahdal clan’s center. He studied a vast array of subjects and took from the eminent scholars of his era, including Muhammad b. Abd al-Rahman. Ismail Zayn, Muhammad b. Alawi al-Maliki, and others took from him. He passed away in 1402.

Ismail Uthman al-Zayn

Ismail Uthman al-Zayn was born in the year 1352 in Yemen. The ascription “al-Zayn” is to al-Zayn b. Ismail b. Muhammad al-Hadrami. During his early years, he only slept for about thirty minuets daily. He moved to Makkah in the year 1380 where he taught in the Haram, al-Madrasat al-Sawlutiyyah, al-Madrasat al-Tawhidiyyah, and from home too. At times, he would teach from forty books daily in different subjects. He was the Shafi’i mufti of Makkah during his time. Students from all over the world took knowledge from him. From his works are a fatawa and a thabat. He passed away in Makkah in the year 1414.

iii. How it Reached Today

Abd Allah b. Salim b. Abd Allah al-Basri

Abd Allah b. Salim b. Abd Allah al-Basri was born in 1048. He was born in Makkah where he also passed away and raised in Basrah. He wrote a three-volume commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari and has a thabat under the title al-Imdad. In this work, he mentioned that he took from his father < Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Babili < Zayyadi < Yusuf b. Abd Allah < Suyuti < Salih b. Umar al-Bulqini < Siraj Bulqini < Mizzi < Imam Nawawi. In addition, he mentioned that he took from his father < Babili < Ali b. Ibrahim al-Halabi < Shams al-Din al-Ramli < Shaykh al-Islam.  He passed in 1134.

Eid b. Ali al-Numrusi

Eid b. Ali al-Numrusi was an Azhari scholar who took from Abd Allah b. Salim al-Basri and others. Muhammad b. Salim al-Hifni took from him. Towards the end of his life, he moved to Medina where he taught in the Prophet’s Mosque. He passed in 1140.

Muhammad Said Sunbul

Muhammad Said b. Muhammad Sunbul taught Shafi’i fiqh and gave fatwa in the Hejaz. He relates from Abu Tahir al-Kurani, Eid b. Ali al-Numrusi, Ahmad al-Nakhli, and others He passed away in 1175.

Muhammad b. Sulayman al-Kurdi

Muhammad b. Sulayman al-Kurdi was born in Damascus in 1127 but raised in Medina. He was the mufti of the Shafi’is in Medina in his time. He authored three commentaries on Ibn Hajar al-Haytami’s al-Minhaj al-Qawim a large commentary under the title al-Mawahib al-Madaniyyah, a medium commentary under the title al-Hawashy al-Madaniyyah, and a small commentary under the title al-Maslak al-Adl. He also has a fatawa and a work that discusses in detail the giving of fatwa in the Shafi’i School under the title al-Fawaid al-Madaniyyah. Muhammad b. Sulayman narrated from both Muhammad Said Sunbul and from Abu Tahir al-Kurdi al-Kurani. Abu Tahir narrated from his father Ibrahim b. Hasan who has a thabat under the title al-Umam li Iqaz al-Himam and therein he relates many of the works of the School with his asanid. Muhammad b. Sulayman passed in 1194.

i.v. How it Reached Today

BaJunayd, Abu Bakr Shata, Sahib Bughyat al-Mustarshidin Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad, and Others

Sayyid Abd Allah b. Umar al-Shatiri

Shaykh al-Islam Sayyid Abd Allah b. Umar al-Shatiri is a senior figure in an Islamic institute located in Hadramawt, Yemen, namely, Ribat Tarim. He was born in the year 1290. He studied extensively in Hadramawt and other areas of Yemen. Then, he traveled to Makkah in the pursuit of knowledge. There, he took from Abu Bakr Shata, BaBusayl, BaJunayd, and others. In Makkah, he was very diligent as a student, only sleeping two hours out of each day, the rest of his time was engaging the 13 classes that he was taking daily. He returned to Tarim in 1314. He then occupied all of his effort and time to the teaching effort at Ribat Tarim. Countless numbers of scholars benefited from him. He passed away to his Lord’s mercy and grace in the year 1361.

Source: Shafiifiqh site.

The Spread of Liberalism and the Extermination of Religion

It is an obtrusive, vigorous force which will stop at nothing to reach its goals; obliterating anything and everything that stands in its way, whether it be a regime, a political movement, a universal concept, a religious belief, even the free-thinking mind.

Many people are now aware of Globalization; or as I like to call it, Glob-liberalization. The idea of seeing a global society where people from all walks of life – irrespective of religious belief, culture, race or ethnicity, embrace one ideological political and social system has empirically become our reality. The reality of liberal democracy where liberal concepts dominate the norms of society.

Liberalism, Secularism and Democracy are the all offspring of Capitalism, which originated back in the mid-seventeenth century, after 30 years of war between European powers and the Roman Church. The war ended with the “Westphalia Treaty” which united Europe under the principles of secularism, i.e., separation of religion from state.

It was after the “Westphalia Treaty” that state-sponsored religion started to decline rapidly in society and in people’s affairs. People in Europe during the late 16th century began to embrace anti-religious movements emphasising human reason, freedom, individualism, and scepticism about religious views.

Ironically, such a movement was defined as: “The Age of Enlightenment”. Although the Age of Enlightment materialistically pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages, it also spurned atheism, and raised sentiment against religious views due the oppression and exploitation Europeans faced in the name of religion – thanks to the Roman Catholic Church.

The newly established secular Europe managed to eradicate religion from most western societies; however, it still faced a grave threat from the Ottoman Caliphate, which had previously swept southern and Eastern Europe under the religion of Islam.

Apolitical Islam

Britain and France countered the threat, not by military confrontation, but by attacking the Ottoman Empire’s greatest treasures which were the thoughts and concepts of Islam which Muslims politically and intellectually possessed.

This was executed strategically by planting western missionaries in the Muslim world whose objectives were to:

1. Interchange the Islamic thoughts and concepts with secular and liberal philosophies.

The Ottoman caliphate was disbanded in 1924

2. Detach Muslims from the political, social and economic regulations of Islam.

3. Instigate nationalistic conflicts between Arabs and the Ottomans.

Eventually the Ottoman Caliphate was officially abolished on 3 March 1924, and a secular Turkish state was established, while the Caliphate lands were divided and acculturated by secular colonial powers.

The map of the Middle East we see today is the work of the Sykes-Picot agreement where the British and French foreign ministers Mr Sykes and Mr Picot drew the national borders of the modern day secular-Muslim nations.

Islam as a comprehensive political system is no longer applied today because the Muslim world has adopted the same secular-liberal tenets which toppled the Roman Catholic Church and the Ottoman Caliphate.

These secular-liberal concepts are now inculcated universally throughout the world. They are praised and promoted by politicians, public figures, news networks, cartoons, and even so-called Islamic scholars and local imams who fervently hasten to show western-liberal powers that they have adhered and conformed to the global political ideology of liberalism.

Gay marriage

In the UK, some religious personal and commentators have come out publicly announcing unequivocal support for the right of men to marry men, i.e., conforming to the liberal political position. One has to question why these religious figures would approve of such a notion if it’s clearly antithetical to the religion they follow. Did they just make a simple mistake, or have they embraced the secular-liberal ideology which views same-sex marriage as a basic human right?

The secular-liberal ideology has no tolerance for religion in state affairs, and will not accept any individual who uses religion as the premise for deriving laws and concepts of life. As the world has been witnessing in recent years, liberal society seems to be moving towards eradicating the effect of religion in people’s lives.

Richard Dawkins, an atheist and hardcore proponent of secular-liberalism, publicly calls for the abolishment of religion from education and even declared it as “illegal” and as “child abuse.” It’s not a coincidence that most atheists are liberal; however, in accordance with the global trend, we now also see that more and more religious clerics, scholars and Imams are embracing the liberal dogma and are propagating it every chance they get.

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who many view as a “spiritual reviver of Islam” has publicly denounced the association of religion and state. In a lecture he delivered in 2013, he stated: “the vast majority of Islamic history had relatively secular-states, they weren’t really Islamic states. The whole concept of an Islamic state is a fantasy.” He also said: “Religion really has little to do with the running of a state”.

We are also coming to find out that liberal societies will stop at nothing to defame and discredit any person who seeks to shape his life in accordance with divine laws.

On April 6, of this year, The Telegraph published an article with the headline: “extremist working as psychiatric for NHC”. The article attempted to defame Dr Imran Waheed for being a member of an Islamic political group that seeks to establish a political system in the Muslim world based on the religion of Islam. The article labelled Dr Imran as an “extremist” and a “radical” because he is against the state of Israel and against same-sex marriage.

It seems liberal societies prefer a male doctor who is gay, than a Muslim who adheres to his religion peacefully and is against such sin. It is important also to note that choosing to be gay is not just part of a citizen’s freedom, it has become part of his/her basic rights in the liberal word.

Secular-liberal powers such as the US, will not even tolerate Uganda’s law to ban homosexuality which was passed by President Museveni. The US Secretary of State has publicly condemned the anti-gay law and has mentioned that it is similar to anti-antisemitism. John Kerry even went to the extent of sending “Homosexuality Experts” to convince Uganda’s president to change the law – which he passed after medical experts convinced the Ugandan President that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality.

The Huffington Post quoted the US Secretary of State as saying the following: “I talked personally to President Museveni just a few weeks ago, and he committed to meet with some of our experts so that we could engage him in a dialogue as to why what he did could not be based on any kind of science or fact, which is what he was alleging.”

In September of 2012, The Telegraph published an article with the title: “Teachers face sack for refusing to endorse gay marriages”. The article mainly stressed that if teachers refuse to teach same-sex marriage textbooks, they could statutorily be fired. The paper also imparted that parents would not be able to withdraw theirs kids from any same-sex marriage sessions in school.

For people of faith, this is indeed startling, whether you are a Muslim, Christian, Catholic or Jewish.

Irrespective of religion, people who practice any of the mentioned faiths, holistically, teach their kids to abstain from greats sins such as killing, fornication, intoxication and homosexuality.


Children who live under a religious roof are taught to shape their lives accordingly with their faith. So why has liberal society suddenly decide to radically impose homosexuality as a universal common norm, which everyone must accept, and which every religion must conform to?

Why should people of faith and their communities kneel before an arrogant anti-religious political system that demands explicit, unequivocal adherence? A system that will zealously rush to defend those who engage in sacrilegious invectives against God and his Prophets under free speech, and on the other hand, label those who get offended as extremist, undemocratic, close-minded and trying to suppress freedom.

How does religion maintain any effect in society if its virtues and moralities contradict the very law? In such a society, religion ultimately faces extermination; thanks to the aid of religious scholars, clerics, local imams, public figures, and activists who for years programmed the youth to believe that religion should not get involved in politics.

By default, if you hold the opinion that religion shouldn’t get involved in politics, you have indirectly embraced the most basic principal of secular-liberalism. And in such a case, any religious view you hold or try to live by, is not welcomed by law.

Ironically, the sternest secular society is not in the West; it is actually in the last base of the Islamic Ottoman Empire-modern day Turkey.

Source: 5pillarsuk blog

Ibn Sayyaad – Dajjaal?

By Mujlisul Ulama

Is Ibn Sayyaad, the Yahoodi mentioned in the Hadith, the Dajjaal who will appear during the time of Imaam Mahdi (Alayhis salaam)? It appears that some Sahaabah were of the understanding that Ibn Sayyaad was Dajjaal. 

Ibn Sayyaad also known as Ibnus Saa-id was a Yahoodi. There is much mystery surrounding this character. Once when Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) met him, Hadhrat Umar for some reason gained the impression that this was Dajjaal. He sought permission from Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to kill Ibn Sayyaad. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “If he is indeed Dajjaal, then you have not been appointed to kill him.” In other words: You will not be able to kill him because Isaa (Alayhis salaam) has been appointed by Allah Ta’ala to slay Dajjaal. 

Thus, this clarification by Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the killing by Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam), Dajjaal’s appearance during the age of Imaam Mahdi (Alayhis salaam), Hadhrat Tameemud Daari (Radhiyallahu anhu) and other Sahaabah having personally seen and met the giant Dajjaal on an island where he was chained, Dajjaal being unaware at that time that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had already appeared, and his expressing joy when he was informed by the Sahaabi that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had already appeared, all of this confirm that Ibn Sayyaad was not the real Dajjaal mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to appear in close proximity to Qiyaamah.

One explanation for the understanding or misunderstanding of Ibn Sayyaad being the promised Dajjaal is that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had said that before the actual Dajjaal’s appearance a number of small dajjaals will appear. He was one such ‘dajjaal’ just as the Tariq Jameel dajjaal in our current era. There have been similar dajjaals throughout the history of Islam. Another mini dajjaal is the mickey-mouse dajjaal known as ‘mufti’ Menk as well as others of his ilk.

Another fact is that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had said that Dajjaal will not be able to enter Makkah and Madinah. But Ibn Sayyaad was in Madinah and he went to Makkah for Hajj or Umrah. Adding to the mystery is the disappearance of Ibn Sayyaad from the scene.

Furthermore, there is a host of signs and acts mentioned in the Hadith about the actual Dajjaal. None of these were demonstrated by Ibn Sayyaad. Also, the actual Dajjaal will appear during the era of Imaam Mahdi (Alayhis salaam) in close proximity to Qiyaamah while Ibn Sayyaad lived during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Although there is some mystery about him, there is certitude that he is not the actual Dajjaal who will appear during the time of Imaam Mahdi. It will be Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) who will kill him.

This is a brief account of Ibn Sayyaad. There is further academic discussion and other narratives on this issue, but for the sake of brevity we have dispensed with it.


By Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi

Cleanliness and purification is one of the great privileges of Islam. It has evolved a wonderful system that encompasses Muslim life on individual and social levels. Islam places great emphasis on cleanliness, in both physical and spiritual terms. The attention to hygiene is the aspect which is an unknown concern in any other religion or philosophy before Islam. While people generally consider cleanliness a desirable attribute, Islam insists on it, making it an indispensable fundamental of faith. Cleanliness is an essential part of Islamic life and in fact the meaning and spirit behind the concept of cleanliness is much beyond the superficial concept of the conventional cleanliness.

In the Holy Quran, there are a number of verses which shed light at the importance of cleanliness: “Truly, Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.” (Al Baqarah 2:222) At another place Allah says: “In it (Masjid) are men who love to clean and to purify themselves. And Allah loves those who make themselves clean and pure.” (9:108) Cleanliness and purity has been emphasized by various means in hundreds of Hadith of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. In a Hadith Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: Cleanliness is half of faith. (Sahih Muslim Book 2, Number 0432)

The importance of cleanliness can be estimated from the fact that the books of Hadith as well as the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) start with a chapter on cleanliness. There are two terms used in Islamic literature: taharah and nazafah. Taharah (Cleanliness from physical impurities) is required by Islam to be observed by each and every Muslim in his and her daily life while nazafah (neatness) is a desirable attribute.

There are two kinds of cleanliness; physical and spiritual. As far as physical cleanliness is concerned, it is of two types. One which is related to human body and the other is related to environment, water, house, road and public places. Muslims are required to observe cleanliness from forms of excretions and require compulsory modes of cleanliness. Muslims wash their after passing urine and secretion. Muslims are also enjoined to use water, not paper or anything else after eliminating body wastes.

A Muslim is obliged to make ablution if exposed to minor impurities. This means he must wash off those parts of the body (like hand, feet, face, nostrils etc) which are commonly exposed to dust, dirt and environmental pollution. Before every prayer (at least five times a day) and before recital of the Quran, Muslims are asked to perform this ablution. Likewise, Muslims are enjoined to have a Ghusl (bathe) for certain excretions and secretions. While at many other occasions, bathing is recommended as for Friday prayer, festival days, in Hajj etc.

Muslims are duty bound to keep the nails clipped and to remove unwanted hair as a matter of routine practice. Islam has directed attention in taking care of mouth by using any purifying agent like miswak. Brushing the teeth (once or twice a day) is very recent development of near past, but Muslims are accustomed this herbal brush for the past 1400 years, five times a day with each ablution. There are a number of Hadith that lay special stress on cleaning the teeth, hands and hair.

Apart from the body, Islam requires a Muslim to keep his clothes, houses and streets clean. In fact a Muslim cannot offer his prayers with an unclean body, clothes or using dirty premises. They are asked to use clean water and keep it safe from impurities and pollution. The particular chapter of taharah starts with the classification of water and goes on to describe how water gets impure or polluted.

Moreover, Islam instructed Muslims to maintain the cleanliness of the roads and streets. This is considered a charity to ridding the streets of impurities and filth. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam strictly warned against it and considered it one of the reasons to provoke Allah’s curse and the people’s curse, saying: “Beware of the three acts that cause others to curse you: relieving yourselves in a watering place, on foot paths or shaded places.” (Abu Dawud, No 26)

Apart from physical cleanliness, Islam emphasizes on spiritual cleanliness. This means that one is free from polytheism, hypocrisy and ill manners, love of wealth, love of fame and other carnal desires. The emphasis in Islam is more on the cleanliness of the inner-self that is heart, mind and soul. The external cleaning process and rituals in reality are the preparatory ground work to obtain the more important task and that is cleanliness of the inner-self, which is the ultimate goal of the religion. Islam requires the sincere believer to sanitize and purify his entire way of life. The directives of Zakah (alms) and fasting are nothing but to purify ones wealth and soul.

Cleanliness is the pathway to health and strength. Islam wants a healthy and strong Muslim society which is immune against infectious diseases and is capable of understanding and applying Allahs’s message and carrying it away to the whole world. The Holy Quran says: You are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing In Allah. (Surah Aal-Imran, 3/110)

In view of the significance of cleanliness in Islam, Muslims should have the highest standard of cleanliness and personal hygiene of all the people in the world. But, it is highly regrettable that the heap of garbage has become an identity of Muslim homes and localities. The Muslim majority areas are marked with unhygienic and unhealthy conditions.



A Brother who is a regular Musalli at the Musjid in the Nizaamuddin Musjid, the former Tabligh Jamaat markaz, narrating his experiences regarding the deviation and shenanigans of Sa’d who has usurped the leadership of the Tabligh Jamaat, writes:

AsSalaamu Alayqum

Al-Hamdulillãh, by the grace of Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’ala a few months ago I had  the  opportunity to move to Delhi.  I live 5 minutes, away by walking distance to Nizaamuddin Markaz. 

Whenever I came for Salaah to the Musjid, I have heard the Hadith of how meritorious and rewarding it is to be in the first saff and that too very close to the Imam. I, like hundreds who come there to attain the Barakat of this once soulful place (i.e. a place of roohaaniyat and piety – The Majlis), come an hour early so that we can be in the first saff just as the Sahaabah would do. But there is now a different scenario at the Nizaamuddin Musjid. 

What happens in reality is, that the khadims of Ml Saad, 10 minutes before the Jamaat Salaat time, come with prayer a musalla specially for Ml Saad. The musalla is specially cleaned in front of all people present, and  spread as if they are laying down a red carpet for a celebrity.  The khadims shove away the musallis in the first saff, about 3 prayer musallas to the right and left behind the imam to give way for Ml Saad’s close confidants/guests and trustees. 

The other thing that baffles me is that the whole Masjid is layered with one single carpet but the 5/6 musallas to right and left behind the imam are to show that these are special spots for special people. The special people could be old or young but whoever they are, they have no right to shove and chase musallis for the sake of  awarding special and specific places in the first saff because of their closeness to Ml Saad or whatever their reasons may be for such selection. This is just as it prevails  in Hindu temples where the wealthy are given preference to be first in line to do puja. 

I saw this happening a few times and I could not hold it back any longer. Therefore I questioned their Bid’ah practice, and reminded them that this is a Masjid, and that the person who comes first to the spot takes that place on first come first served basis, and that it is not permissible to evict them from  their places. The person then in turn asks me how much time  did I  spend in tabligh. He said: “If you did, you would not be asking such a question. I was dumbfounded!! I told him to explain what the relationship is between my question and my going out in tabligh. I told him that he was in conflict with the adab and rules of the Masjid, and that  this practice is not found in the Sunnah. 

He then tried to justify it by giving me some fatwa on how something which is Haraam is practiced by so-called Alims. I was wondering what is the relevance of what he is saying and what I’m asking. Then an elderly gentleman cames in and asked me: “What do you want?” I tell him the same thing, he said that I should meet him after Salaah. 

Then the personality himself (i.e.Ml Saad) enters from the door like a king makes an entrance. Everyone stands up on his arrival. He smiles and gives Salaam or replies to Salaams. I am flabbergasted at what I’m seeing. 

What’s happening with these people. I see personality-worship (extreme ghulu) and politics at play. Is it proper to perform Salaah behind Ml Saad or in this Masjid where such Bid’ah practice takes place?

COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

The act of reserving places in the Musjid for anyone even if he happens to the Ameerul Mu’mineen of the Ummah in a valid Khilaafat is haraam. Reserving places in the Musjid for Sa’d and his goondas is an aggravated haraam act. Evicting musallis from their places is a kabeerah sin.

The manner of entry into the Musjid by Sa’d exhibits his jahaalat, riya and takabbur. He appears to be drunk with self-aggrandizement – ujub and takabbir, hence he acquits himself like a clown performing to the gallery of juhala.

You have correctly mentioned that he is in emulation of the Hindus who reserve places in their temples to enable the wealthy and the prominent ones to do their idol-puja first. Similar haraam exhibitions are perpetrated in the Haram Shareef by the fussaaq/fujjaar Najdi rulers of Arabia. They shunt and shove and evict all the Guests of Allah Ta’ala to enable fussaaq, fujjaar and zanadaqah celebrities and rulers to make mock tawaafs, etc. in comfort.

Sa’d is acting like these kuffaar. He lacks shame, and he displays his crass jahaalat by ordering the shunting, shoving and eviction of musallis from their rightful places. No one has such haraam rights in Islam. The one who occupies a spot first in the Musjid is the master of that spot as long as he is there. No one has the right to evict him.

The Tabligh Jamaat, especially Sa’d’s faction, has degenerated into a deviant sect. The Deen is no longer the objective. They are led on by the nafs and shaitaan who has adorned for them their haraam ghulu’. It appears that Sa’d does not understand that Maut is hovering over his head. A man who understands the meaning of Maut, Qabr, Aakhirat, Hisaab and Jahannam will not conduct himself like a kaafir. These actions demonstrated by Sa’d and his gang of goondas create the impression that they are totally bereft of Deeni understanding. They were born as Muslim, hence continue proclaiming themselves to be Muslims. But in reality, there is very little of Islam in them.

When fear for Allah Ta’ala is lacking, then everything haraam becomes ‘halaal’. Then a man acts stupidly like a clown making a fool of himself. This is exactly how Sa’d acquits himself when he shoves his snout into the Musjid from the door to attract maximum attention for finding freeplay for his ujub and riya.

Regarding Salaat behind this fellow, the mas’alah is that Salaat behind even a faasiq is valid. You will, Insha-Allah, obtain your full thawaab for performing Salaat with Jamaat regardless of the Imaam being a faasiq.

Response to the Hadith Rejectors’ Contention: “Is Saheeh Bukhaari a Revelation from Allaah that it cannot contain a Mistake!!?”

By Haafidh Muhammad Zubayr

Whenever the topic of defending the Hadeeth comes, this is the question that often gets asked by the Rejectors of Hadeeth.

So the very first thing to note here is that, whatever is between the two covers of Saheeh Bukhaari is not a revelation from Allaah, and no one has claimed it so! Rather the right phrase is to say, “the revelation of Allaah is found in Saheeh Bukhaari, but Saheeh Bukhaari itself is not the revelation of Allaah”.

Second and a more important thing to note is that, “Hadeeth” is what we call revelation, not Saheeh Bukhaari. Saheeh Bukhaari CONTAINS that hadeeth, but not every single thing Saheeh Bukhaari contains is a Hadeeth! Hadeeth refers to that narration which contains the sayings, actions, or approvals of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), while Saheeh Bukhaari also contains the sayings of the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een as well as the A’immah.

Third and even more important thing is that, no one ever refers to the Hadeeth as a “literal revelation”, on the contrary, Hadeeth is an “interpreted revelation”. Hence, the “meaning” of the hadeeth is a revelation from Allaah, but its “wording” is that of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), if it is a Qawli Hadeeth. Similarly if it is a Fi’li Hadeeth (action of the Prophet) or a Taqreeri Hadeeth (Approval of the Prophet), then in that case the wording is that of a Sahaabi (Companion of Allaah’s Messenger). Now even though a lot of effort has been put in preserving the exact wording of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the reality is that it is only his “meaning” that is preserved.

The rejectors of hadeeth do not usually take these key things under consideration when casting doubts on Ahaadeeth. Like, for example, they object on Saheeh Bukhaari by saying that it contains a story which says a monkey committed fornication and his fellow monkeys did rajam on him. Now Imaam Bukhaari has narrated this incident from Amr bin Maymoon, a taabi’ee, and it is him who says that I once saw such and such thing happening in Yemen. Now this is not even a Hadeeth, even though it is narrated in Saheeh Bukhaari.

Now as far as critiquing Saheeh Bukhaari is concerned, then the Imaams and experts of this field have already critiqued it and the Imaam and experts have also replied to those critiques. And now after all the criticisms and their answers, it has been clarified and made clear as to what those places are where criticism can possibly be done and what their answers are. And this conclusion has been reached after over a thousand years of practice. Now you cannot create a new objection on Saheeh Bukhaari, while those that were made in the past have already been answered.

That is why after all the extensive criticisms and their answers on Saheeh Bukhaari and Muslim, all those places in these books have been pointed out where any Ilal (Defect) are found, and the status of those Ilal has also been clarified as to whether those Ilal are Qaadiha (harmful) or not?

Now if someone tries to criticize a hadeeth of Saheeh Bukhaari or Saheeh Muslim basing it on the research of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni or any other Muhaddith from the A’immah of Salaf, then this criticism of his on Saheehayn will not be considered an independent criticism, and such a criticism has already been answered with a sufficient and convincing reply from Muhadditheen of the A’immah of Salaf themselves.

And if someone criticizes such a narration of Saheehayn which was not even criticized by anyone among the A’immah Salaf, then such a person is opposing the Ijmaa of Muhadditheen, because the narrations which the Muhadditheen did not lay a criticism on, proves that those were agreed upon to be Saheeh near all the Muhadditheen. Hence criticizing on those narrations simply means challenging the claim and Ijmaa of all the Muhadditheen. Such a criticism itself is not worth paying attention to, let alone doing its Tahqeeq.

The Unsheathed Refutation on the Cursed Dajjal Imran Hosein’s Lies on Ayasofya

By brother Umar Rumi

The Shi`ah-Russian asset, conspiracy theorist, Muslim-genocide cheering dajjal going under the name of Imran Hosein popularized this idea of poor cute Byzantine dhimmis being oppressed by the turning of Ayasofya ex-church into a masjid..

And when confronted with the fiqh of it, he replied “*put that fiqh in the garbage*”.

Yet this Russian-shiah-axis sellout is invited to mosques for talks and respected even by some “madrasah-graduates” (I refuse to call these people “`Ulama”)

I got seriously tired and sick of reading comments by ignorant and bad-informed people crying over the supposed zulm Sultan Muhammad Fatih committed on the “cute byzantine rainbow teddy-bears” by turning their lovely church into a masjid, just repeating Imran Hussain’s baseless nonsense, so I contacted a Mufti and asked him the following question:
“Imran Hussein popularized some pro-Russian filo-“orthodox”-christian anti-Ottoman propaganda with regards to Sultan Fatih converting Ayasofya cathedral into a masjid. And now many people raise objection on how that was supposedly an act of zulm on the poor cute lovely byzantine dhimmis. Could you please shed some light on the actual hukm on dhimmi’s places of worship in case of fath of their countries by Muslims?

More specifically, is it ja’iz for the Muslims to convert their churches into mosques if their cities are conquered by fath (as opposed to their handing over their cities or any other situation, in case such differences are relevant)”.
Respected Mufti Sahab’s reply:

“I would advise reading Shurunbulali’s risala on the topic:

If a town is liberated by force, then the places of worship can be removed, converted etc.

If liberated by agreement (sulh) and part of the agreement includes allowing them to use their churches etc., then existing places of worship cannot be destroyed. Any new places of worship that are erected must be destroyed”.

*So, time to put Imran Hosein and his fanboys in the garbage*.



The following is a faithful reproduction of an article which should be ample for preventing you from devouring the chips which SANHA, MJC and the other haraam scoundrel entities have halaalized.

Please see below a very interesting article regarding a very very common food additive E631 flavour enhancer. The important point to note here in the article is the line that states, ‘You could try writing to manufacturers to ask exactly where it comes from. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a definitive answer‘. I have personally for the last 2 weeks been trying to get a clear answer on some similar ingredients from the company Simba (who has SANHA approval) and get no joy, they keep beating around the bush and simply dont give straight answers. Perhaps they have something to hide.


Can you tell me about the source of flavour additive E631 which is used in some potato chips/crisps. I cannot tell from anything I’ve read whether it comes from pig’s fat, another animal – or indeed sardine oil? It’s important to many people to avoid products extracted from pigs.


Thanks for sending in your question. The E number known as E631 (or sodium inosinate) is an additive that is used in many products to act as a flavour enhancer and make foods taste good. As well as enhancing other flavours, it’s used frequently in products such as potato crisps as it also helps to reduce the amount of salt needed (and reducing salt intake has become quite a big health concern in recent years, with manufacturers vying to get their levels of salt in products down).

Sodium inosinate comes from inosinic acid, an acid that is naturally found in a variety of animals, such as pigs or fish, such as sardines. In some cases it can also be produced from bacterially fermenting some sugars.

As far as commercial use goes, most manufacturers do source their E631 from animals and fish, whilst a few may use the fermentation method. The tricky bit is if you want to specifically avoid E631 that comes from pork, as most products will not say on their ingredients list exactly where it comes from.

You could try writing to manufacturers to ask exactly where it comes from. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get a definitive answer, but it’s always worth a try and, you never know, some might be receptive and willing to give you the facts. However, if it’s an issue that really concerns you and you don’t want to find yourself unknowingly consuming food with E631 sourced from pigs, probably the best move is to avoid the products completely.

It’s hard work sometimes trying to avoid these pesky E numbers, especially with so many hidden in the foods and drinks we enjoy, but if you really do need or want to avoid certain numbers, scouring the ingredients lists before you buy products is the best way of ensuring you’re not getting more than you bargained for.

We realise the importance for many people of avoiding products extracted from pigs, which is why we’ve published articles such as this one on – E numbers not suitable for a Halal diet – if you’re looking to avoid other E numbers with links to pork products, then you may find this to be a useful read.

The Earliest Da`wah Methodology

By Syed Iqbal Zaheer

It is noticeable from the study of early Muslim history after the Prophet, that the earliest Muslims did not make any special effort to invite peoples of the conquered territories to Islam. Neither was there any official apparatus for this purpose, nor individuals seemed to have formed groups or organizations to systematically present Islam to the non-Muslims residing in territories subdued by force.

Most of the territories of the early Islamic period: Persia, Central Asia, the Caucasian territories, Asia Minor, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc., were brought to control through conquest. The offer in the battle-fields was: (a) become Muslim, (b) remain non-Muslim but pay Jizyah (c) or fight it out.

Almost always the non-Muslims of these areas chose to fight it out, and almost always they were defeated. When they were defeated, Muslims entered their territory, established a new government, and imposed Jizyah. The defeated armies and leaders had expected a grand scale plunder, loot, rape and slaughter: as every army did. But nothing of that sort happened at the time of the Companions and their immediate followers. That left the peoples of the conquered territories in a mild shock accompanied by gradual relief. At that moment they would give anything in return of what they thought was the puzzling behavior of the Muslim army.

Therefore, when the terms of Jizyahwere announced, which were five to ten times less mild in any case (as against the then prevalent 25-50% of all land produce and merchandise for the conqueror – after all that looting, raping and mass murdering),  a new government was in place, Muslims and non-Muslims went about with their business of life, as usual.

Days passed by and nothing was happening. No courts were conducted, and no citizens were ordered to present themselves to attend the court, with folded hands, before the Governor, Army Chief, or anyone else (as was the Roman and Persian custom); nor were there any Abu Ghuraib-like prisons, or Guantanamo type of torture centers (as in our civilized times).

There were no check posts, no raiding of homes to un-earth insurgents, no regular slaughter of civilians to warn the rest how they would be punished if they resisted occupation; nor were there any patrolling by fully armed soldiers, murdering every day, numerous merchants, peasants, men women and children, on the pretext of going after a terrorist; which has been the practice and the way of conducting war of all Jahiliyy societies and all modern so-called civilized, but behind the mask, cavemen’s way of wars. No wonder Israel threatens the neighbor that it will reduce their countries to stone-age (just as Iraq has been reduced to stone-age through proxy war). Those of the stone-age mentality can only reduce others to stone-age, if given the gun.

But no such thing was happening to the Jahiliyy peoples the Muslims had conquered. Many would have thought that perhaps the Muslims were waiting for a command from the center, to begin behaving like the 7th century cavemen (like the 21stcentury civilized men of stone-age). But days passed by and there was no sign of any action.

This weakened those insurgents who were lying low, trying to organize themselves, to strike when an opportunity arose, for, the resentment was there, no matter how the occupiers behaved. All occupiers are hated. But, since, as some fair-minded Western historians have noted (most of them are outright dishonest) Muslim occupation was benign, and so, the resentment was not great. And, without good amount of resentment spreading among the masses, organizing a powerful insurgent activity was not easy. Obviously, there were many sons-of-the-land who were loyal to their former rulers, highly patriotic to their country and indignant towards the Muslims. Such elements did succeed in some areas, in raising a quick army to revolt; but generally, Muslims were able to subdue them.

Insurgency, however, was not a frequent occurrence. Muslims allowed the conquered people to attend their temples, live by their Personal Law, and drink wine and gamble as they would, so long as they did not indulge in these beastly activities publicly.

Yet of course, the apprehensive mood of the conquered people lasted quite a while, and they waited to see what would happen next, quite suspicious that the Muslims were merely showing kind faces before they would launch murderous attacks. After all, hadn’t they been told by their former rulers that the Arabs were blood-thirsty people who would slaughter their children and drink off their blood right in front of their mothers? So, the fears and apprehensions lasted quite a while. (Said an American soldier who raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl, and killed her entire family with the help of other soldiers, “I never thought the Arabs were humans”).

But the prolonged wait-and-see situation was also cooling down the atmosphere, defusing the tension, and lowering the apprehensions. This, as said before, stifled the insurgency efforts. As time drifted on, and the apprehensive non-Muslims gradually began to interact with the conquerors, the fears were reduced. Ultimately, the conquered peoples knew that their fears were baseless, and that these Muslims were a different class of occupiers. As a result, a situation arose in which most would oppose any insurgency, and a few actually offered their services to the Muslims in their battles against their former rulers: Romans, Persians or others.

What made things easy was that the conquered people gradually realized that their new masters had not come for wealth, agricultural products, minerals or other resources of the land. They were not even interested in the wealth of their wealthy men, but rather, were always there to offer a little here, or a little there, to their poor, i.e., the non-Muslim poor. To them, this was amazing. Soldiers of occupying armies are well-known for knocking down a passer by and knocking off his money. (The invaders looted the Iraqi Museum). In contrast, the Muslims were sometimes even feeding their needy – not handing out their left-overs – but right on their own dinner tables.

Further, to their discovery, Muslim soldiers were, by any measure, well civilized, who accorded much respect to their women, (allowing them freeway in the narrow lanes with downcast eyes), occasionally lifting a child and kissing it, or innocently asking the merchant in the market whether they could take the goods now and pay up later, perhaps the next day, and then, amazingly turning up the next day and paying up the merchant in full. These were little things happening everyday that changed the perception of the occupied people over time.

Again, the Muslim soldiers were homogeneous, i.e., every one of them was almost of the same quality, same behavior, same manners and decorum. So, their behavior was predictable: no harm expected any time.

Compare and contrast today’s Western armies with the Muslim armies that conquered millions of acres of land along with millions of hearts of the sons-of-the-land, while the Westerners have neither conquered an inch of Islamic territory, nor the heart of (let alone Muslims), millions of Europeans, including the British, who are in one voice (at the intellectual level) in contempt of their leaders, and condemnation of the invasions. This comparison will explain how the Da`wah machinery functioned in those early days of Islam.

To mark the difference, a few soldiers in the Western armies are fanatics, pure and simple. They believe in the Judeo-Christian fantasy that a turbaned Anti-Christ is just around the corner, about to drop a bombshell with his appearance, and that since he would – according to the Bible experts – pop up in the Middle-east, any, and every Muslim, can be killed now. A few soldiers hold, no less a fantastic belief that Muslims brought down the twin towers, and, therefore, any, and every Muslim, can be shot at sight. A few other soldiers are there because they have no jobs and the only way they can feed their families is by shooting or dropping bombs at anyone the commander signals. A few others know that they are used by their country as mules to be sacrificed for the gangster-politicians, bankmen, corporate owners, Jews, war industry representatives, and other elements. And yet a few who know that if they went back home minus a limb, they will neither find a job nor a shelter, nor yet receive an artificial limb without paying from their own pockets, and so, are full of resentment at being so roughly treated by their own leaders; and therefore: “Fire, Fire.”

In other words, they are not a homogenous group, but disparate elements, hired men and women, who will just deliver what they are expected to deliver, and get the hell out as soon as possible with enough dollars in pockets that will last for a while back home. Except that they unanimously believe that they can kill any one, any time, with complete impunity, they share no other opinion among themselves. This makes these disparate elements, quite a few of whom are disenchanted, disillusioned and frustrated, quite unpredictable and dangerous. They are remnants of the Roman armies that the Muslims encountered early on, the difference between that situation and what prevails now is that today’s Muslims are not allowed to encounter today’s Roman armies.

This comparative study is essential to realize how Muslims of the earliest times penetrated into the hearts of the people, without the use of power of weapons, media, political machinations, buying up politicians, assassinating opposing individuals, installing puppet regimes, provoking extremist reactions, planting terrorists, organizing inside jobs of destruction, etc.

It is not possible to go into greater details of comparison at this point. It is an issue which requires Muslim intellectuals (are there any left around?), to take up as a task of thorough research. Our objective is to point out to the Da`wah workers of today (a misnomer anyway) that it was men and methods that made the difference and not the weapons, in the conversion of millions of people to Islam at its first encounter with a vast number of non-Muslims. The Muslim soldier of those times was the member of a homogenous group: of one faith, one character and one opinion: “We have come here to release you from the slavery of men and bind you to the slavery of God:” words said, words kept.

The strangest of facts, for the (so-called) Da`wah workers of today (with apologies), is that the Muslims of the earliest times were not even offering their religion to the conquered populations. They were not going about distributing copies of the Qur’an; nor were their preachers working among the masses, (openly or surreptitiously as the clergy in soldier’s garbs working in Iraq and Afghanistan). They were not handing out leaflets about Islam, delivering lectures at street-corners, or debating with the Jews, Christian, or Roman Pagan religious leaders demonstrating ‘beyond any doubt’ how Islam was a superior religion, the Religion of Truth, and how those others were false and their holy literatures cock and bull stories of the past. This was not the way of the earliest Muslims. These are sure methods of creating resentment, plugging the ears, and shutting the eyes.

What then were their methods? The answer is, none. That is, no methods were adopted at all. Adopting a method means being artificial, affective, and pretentious. But rather, they stayed natural: natural men and women except that they were Muslims. And that’s what had its impact. They were Muslims, honestly and sincerely. They did not know that the best way of demonstrating the Truth is to live by it. They knew no philosophy and disliked philosophizing. ‘That the best way of presenting the Truth is to live by it,’ is what we learn from them without they having attempting it consciously.

Being Muslims honestly and sincerely made them different from peoples of all times. They did not have to speak about Islam. Their faces, gestures, smiles (or even the famous Arab scowls), were all natural. When a non-Muslim complained of the hard times he was facing (for any of his personal reason), then the exclamation on the face and the sincerity of the gesture, and an ‘Oh’ of the mouth, told him that the conqueror shared his difficulty. When a non-Muslim said thanks for a little service offered by a Muslim, and he said in return, ‘That was your right,’ then the sincerity of the tone sent a cool current into his heart. When at the evening someone knocked at the door, the non-Muslim opened it to find a twittering little girl, and a littler boy, with a little plate covered with a piece of cloth, saying coyly, ‘Uncle, my mother said, give this to auntie,’ then the man was already bowled half over by Islam. Let alone the effect of the gift, when was it last that any foreign child had addressed him as, ‘Uncle?’

When a non-Muslim went to a Muslim state-official complaining against a Muslim, and the official told him, “Look my friend. It is obvious from your explanation that your case is not too strong against the man you are accusing. But it seems you are in some sort of problem. So, let me suggest something. We go together to this Muslim of your mention, and persuade him. We will tell him: ‘Right or no right, you ought to look at this more sympathetically;’” and when the non-Muslim asked, “But what happens when the man refuses? My problem remains,” the Muslim replied, “Well, there is nothing we can do to force the man. After all, it is not his fault. But, if he cannot be persuaded, then I’ll find some other way to help you out. We cannot bank on that man, but you can bank on me. So, let’s go to him first and see what happens.” When the non-Muslim heard these words, he felt convinced that the Qur’an must contain some good things, although he hadn’t seen a copy of the Qur’an yet.

Or, another scenario: A Muslim inquires a non-Muslim acquaintance carrying a sickly child on his shoulder and is told that he is going to such and such a doctor. (That ‘such and such a doctor’ is a Muslim). The Muslim replies, “Well, if you have trust in him, go ahead. But I personally believe that ‘the other guy’ is better qualified.” The non-believer says about the ‘other guy’, “But he is a Jew, and, moreover, so expensive.” The Muslim answers, “I know he is a Jew. I also know that his charges are quite a bit on the higher side. But he is definitely a better doctor, and honest in his trade.” That sort of advice left a strong impression on the non-Muslim acquaintance about what this religion Islam stood for.

If one was a slave, he was eager to be owned by one of the occupiers of his lands. He knew that the day of the occupier buying him was the day of freedom: the next meal would be at his master’s table. Almost hundred percent of second and third generation scholars of Islam were new-Muslims, former slaves, converted in the house of their occupying masters who had vowed that even if set free, they’d not part company with their masters: “Never in my life,” one of them would say.

These, and innumerous such minor incidents that took place as months and years rolled by created the currents of acceptability of the invaders and their religion – which didn’t seem to be too bad after all. (Its full scale grace and beauty were realized only after the faith was embraced).

The above was at the individual level. But it might not be imagined that the exposure was great, for the individual Muslims among the local populations were few; hardly one in fifty. But, the visibility was great. That is, one in fifty outshined the forty-nine if he came into view. Any encounter left an impression of sorts, favorable to Islam. And the same thing was visible in another individual Muslim, so, the impression only got further confirmed. That is the homogeneity we spoke about earlier.

The state and administration did their own Da`wah work of the kind and class identified above. They weren’t talking of Islam. They were demonstrating Islam; not through any scheme worked out for the occupied territories, but rather administrating it, naturally, inartificially, by Islamic principles. No bribes, no gifts, no commission, no myriads of men to circle through before reaching the high official, no paper work, no swearing, no witnessing. If you spoke the truth, the administration believed in you and gave you your right, but if you lied you got severely punished. That was Islamic administration: simple, fast, effective.

When a non-Muslim went to a state official, he did not lecture him on Islam, nor condemn his Jewish, Christian, Magi or Pagan religion. He administered justice. In most cases it was a rough-faced bedouin, rough-tongued man, who looked least friendly, in most cases with a scowl, but he gave the complainant what was his due and told him, “This is your due, no more and no less,” and dismissed him with, “God be with you.” No gesture, no smile, no hypocrisy.

Had the non-Muslim subject ever received “his due” anytime in previous administrations? Did he get anything at all without bribing the officials in between? Had it ever happened anytime during the civilized Roman, Persian or other administrations, that when a pitcher of water was brought in the court, and the Judge signaled to the attendant to pass it through the men sitting around, including the tipsy non-Muslim litigant, before the Judge would drink in the end, with a sigh and the remark, “This is a hot day!” The Judge never said to the litigant, “You are equal to us.”

As simple the Islam, that simple was the administration. When a woman sought help from an official, she did not even know that it was the Governor she was speaking to. There were no sign-boards, no nameplates, no sentries, no personal guards, and no (female) office secretaries because there was no office – so to say. So, when he told her that she could go to the Treasurer and say that I, naming himself, have asked him to give you 10 Dinars, she thought that because she was a non-Arab, he was making fun of her. When she looked at him, quite in askance, with not so bemused eyes, he repeated his words in all earnestness. Ultimately, when she got the money, she turned to the heaven and blessed the new rulers. She couldn’t have got one-tenth of the money from her pervious rulers in 10 days, what she got in one hour. She also got something else that day. When she went back to thank him he remarked, “That was your right. By the way, don’t you have a male in your house: husband, son, someone?” When she said yes, he said, “It would have been sufficient if you had sent one of them. As a woman, you don’t have to take all this trouble.” She knew immediately, what queens those women were who went about in the streets in hijab. “Yes my son,” she muttered to herself as she left, “I didn’t have to go about in this my frail age, if we had a religion like yours.”

True, those who fear Islam have done a good job of scaring the people they enslave, away from Islam and Muslims. They have spread good amount of hatred, suspicion, and apprehension. They are aware that their masses feel disillusioned about the religious, social, political, and economic system, and that Islam may be looked at as an alternative by those whose dignity they trample as they line them up for free food. They have created a mental barrier between their disillusioned people and Islam.

No doubt, this makes presenting Islam in its true color a pretty difficult task. Yet, the difference must be realized between then and now. And the difference is that the earliest Muslims were not saying, like the modern-day preachers, Da`wah workers, speech-makers, seminar lecturers, article writers, debaters, and now a million Islamic Websites: “Islam, Islam, Islam” – with little or no effect.

What was visible to the non-Muslims of the earliest times was, “Islam, Islam, Islam.”