“Adab Cards”, Explained

By Umar Rumi

If I’m publicly committing something haram, and someone refutes me for that, and my only reaction is complaining about his lack of “adab” (due to misconceptions about its real meaning), am I not implicitly admitting that his accusations against me are correct…?

What about retorting to his factual objections with “where have you studied??”

Alright, then what about capitalising on my 300 years of efforts for Islam and the billions of people guided by my ultra-beneficial eloquent emotional speeches? Will that constitute a shield from any criticism and a guarantee from any deviancy for all the rest of my life…?

It wouldn’t work, you’re saying?

Alright, why is it the case, then, that eager fanboys always punctually show up with these very same 4-5 pre-packed answers whenever their favourite “eloquent speaker” get refuted on his mistakes?

The reason is simple: these are nothing but deflection tactics those clowns use against valid criticism against their distortions. They never ever address the substance of the arguments raised at them, only engage in deflective tactics such as “slander!! Adab! Where did you study?? Shaykh xyz did a lot for Islam while you weren’t even born! Do you know what it means to wage war against a wali of Allah?” etc.

And quite ironically, the fact that those about “adab & co.” aren’t real genuine concerns (but rather, merely deflection tactics) can be gauged by the very colourful, offensive language and under-the-belt tactics they themselves engage in against their critics. Suddenly all the concerns about “adab”, “slander”, the “need to advise in private” (may it never be that I might lose some of my precious hijabeez followers!) disappear when it’s the moment to gang up and literally insult, nickname and ridicule the person who dared trying to ruin their show!

“Are you denying we should have good manners?”

No, there is no denial of the importance to have good manners, in a general sense.

But:
1. That’s not the point of the post.
2. “Good manners” is not synonymous with the posh effeminate Californian pseudo-traditionalist Sîdî-culture (as their own reactions against any criticism perfectly show).
3. In some cases, harshness is actually desired and required in the Shari`ah, and there are countless examples of that from the time of the salaf right until that of our Akabir.

“Iman does not Increase and Decrease” – Understanding the Creed of Imam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh)

By brother Abu Yusuf (@truthunveiled)

I have already discussed this issue in great detail, yet many people still run around on the line trying to squeeze out bogus claims which have been refuted for years.

I will not hold back from giving an aggressive response as the claim maker is too brain dead.

Let’s have a look at the statement:

In Kitab al-Wasiyyah, he states:

“Iman does not increase and decrease, because it describes one’s decrease with the increase of Kufr and one’s increase with decrease in Kufr, so how can one be a believer and disbeliever at the same time?!”

Many will now look at this statement and think to themselves “How can you not believe in increase of decrease of Iman?!”

They may refer to the Ayah from the Qur’an where Allah states:

“The believers are only those who, when Allah is mentioned, their hearts become fearful, and when His verses are recited to them, it increases them in faith; and upon their Lord they rely”

There is a clear indication of the increase in Iman here.

However, the reality of this thought by the reader is not as such, he must refer to the books of the Ahnaf and what they meant by this. Imam Abu Hanifah, speaking in his complexity; the reader must be made aware that he was not in a safe region.

Therefore, such deeply collective statements were made by the Imam. What is meant by “safe”, is that there was a lot of Bid’ah in his region – The Murji’ah, the Khawarij, and Jahmiyyah & Qadariyyah.

What is meant by this statement?

When Iman is discussed, it is usually parted into two sections by the Ahnaf:

1-That which you believe in (Mu’man Bihi)

2-The state of the belief (Haal)

The first type refers to the set-out articles of faith, for example, the belief in Allah, His angels, His prophets, His books, and e.t.c.

The second type refers to the howness of that belief. Does strongly believe in these things? Does the person sometimes feel weaker in belief (this is not referring to doubts). For instance, if one were to always carry out good deeds, we would assume that his Iman is strong as he seems more God-fearing and convinced. In other words, we would say, ‘with good deeds Iman increases and with bad deeds, it decreases.’

When the great Imam would say; Iman doesn’t increase nor decrease, this was not the type he was referring to, rather it was the first type (Mu’man bihi). He states; “How can one be Mu’min and Kafir in one state?!”

Surely, he was referring to the conviction and not Mu’man Bihi. If he was referring to Haal, then he would suddenly be in agreement with the Khawarij and this would oppose Irjaa’, this is already where the argument breaks. The Khawarij would believe that one cannot be a sinner and believer in one state.

And when we read ahead in the creed of Imam Sahib this point will prove even more, he uses the following as evidence in exceptions to Iman:

“A believer is a true believer, and a disbeliever is a true disbeliever. There is no doubt in faith (for a believer) just like there is no doubt in disbelief (for a disbeliever). Like the saying of The Most High, “They are true believers” [Surah Anfal: 4] and, “They are true disbelievers” [Surah Nisaa:151]. The Sinners are all from the Ummah of the prophet (may peace be upon him) and they are not the disbelievers.” [Wasiyyah Al-Imam Abu Hanifah, Page 2]

I say: Since Abu Hanifah said, the sinners are all from the Ummah of the prophet ﷺ while they are believers, this shows when he said, a believer is a true believer and a disbeliever is a true disbeliever, that he was referring to the articles of faith if we connect it back to the statement of “Iman does not increase and decrease”. This is proven because in the last sentence he states:

“The Sinners are all from the Ummah of the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and they are not the disbelievers.”

The fact that he mentions the sinners, shows that one can be a Muslim while having some weakness (not doubts). So in fact, Imam Abu Hanifah would say that everyone sins, which shows that we can become weaker and stronger at times in our Iman; thereafter he mentions, one cannot be a believer and disbeliever in one state, meaning you cannot believe and disbelieve in some things at the same time, as Allah states in Surah Nisaa:

“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, “We believe in some and disbelieve in others,” and wish to adopt a way in between – They are true disbelievers” [Surah Nisaa:150-151]

This is also from the verse the Imam cited in the statement. Therefore, it becomes evident that he was referring to the articles of faith, not the howness of the belief in them.

Finishing this stupid claim about the Imam, I will cite Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yusuf who were the direct companions of Imam Abu Hanifah, and how they split Iman into these two sections –

Imām Abu Yusuf:

“I am a true believer, and I am a believer in the sight of Allah. I do not say: My Iman is like the Iman of Jibrīl & Mīkā’īl peace be upon them”

Imam Muhammad:

It is Makrūh for a man to say: My Iman is like the Iman of Jibrīl. But we do say, I believe in that what Jibrīl & Mīkā’īl believes in. (i.e. the articles of faith). And we do not say: My Iman is like the Iman of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) However, we do say: I believe in that which Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) believes in.”

The fact that Imam Abu Yusuf and Muhammad state that the Iman is not like the Iman of the angels and Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) proves that they meant howness or conviction in the belief and not the beliefs themselves. Whereas, when they said Iman doesn’t increase nor decrease, they meantthe articles of Iman do not increase and decrease as Imam Abu Yusuf and Muhammad state, we believe in the same thing as Jibrīl & Mīkā’īl and Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu).

[Bustān al-‘Ārifīn Page 125 – Abu Layth as-Samarqandi]

THE KUFR OF ‘UNITY OF ALL RELIGIONS’

A Brother from India writes:

Last Friday I was on a safar (journey) towards Kochi (a city in India) to deliver some goods and I was passing through another city named Mangalore. But since I was crossing this city highway at the time of Jumu’ah, I intended to stop at a mosque in Mangalore. A khateeb was delivering a speech regarding religious tolerance. This place (Mangalore) is a hotbed for communal clashes and there is lot of oppression and fitnah going around here all the time. So this kind of topic about religious tolerance for speech was certainly acceptable. (No, it was not acceptable. The fitnah against Muslims in India is Hindu oppression and brutality. Muslims in India do not initiate clashes. They are all spineless. Only Hindus with the active connivance of the Hindu security forces brutalize Muslims who are all sitting ducks bereft of any physical and spiritual mettle. They do not even stand up in their own defence, They allow the Hindu barbarian, mushrik cow worshippers and consumers of cow urine and cow dung to terrorise and brutalize them. The moron khateeb’s stupid talk regarding “tolerance” was therefore misdirected. He should present his stupid advice to the Hindus whose boots he is licking.- Mujlisul Ulama)

But the deviancy started at the point of his speech when he used the term “Wahdat al-Adyaan” which he translated as “Unity of Religions”. This made me uncomfortable and I thought that how can there be “unity” with baatil?

Later he elaborated briefly on this term “Wahdat al-Adyaan” calling it a Sufi “concept”. He went on to quote Ibn ‘Arabi (rahimahullah) first, claiming that he (Ibn ‘Arabi) opined that “all religions are one,” then he jumped on to describing an incident involving Mansoor Hallaaj (rahimahullah) and someone he called as Abdullah bin Tahir.

Abdullah bin Tahir was quarreling with a Jew in the market of Baghdad, and he blurted out (to the Jew) “Dog!” Passing then by his side was Mansoor Hallaaj who showed his anger at Abdullah and told him: “Don‟t make your dog bark!”, and he withdrew in haste.

When the quarrel ended, Abdullah went to find him at his (Hallaaj’s) home, but he looked away from him. Abdullah apologized and he calmed down. Then Hallaaj said to Abdullah: “My son, the religious faiths, all of them, arise from God the Most High. He assigned to each group a creed, not of their own choice, but of His choice, which He imposed on them. I would have you know that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the other religious denominations may have different names and contrasting appellations, but their Goal, Himself, suffers neither difference nor contrast.”

The Khateeb after presenting this story went on to say: “look! This is a saint who is showing love to other religions and this is what the Awliya called as “Wahdat al- Adyaan”. Later after the salaat it was announced in the mosque that there is going to be an Interfaith meeting with some local Christians pastors at some location on Sunday. This Interfaith programme announcement gave me the context of the speech he delivered and I left the place to resume my journey.

The following questions came to my mind and these questions have made me worried:

1. What is this “Wahdat al-Adyaan”? I have heard about a state of fana called wahdat al-wujood but I have never heard of this term, wahdatul adyaan or concept ever before. Pardon my ignorance, can you please explain me what is Wahdat al-Adyaan?

2. If Wahdat al-Adyaan means “Unity of Religions” then are these inter-faithers justified to use this as a “proof” to justify their mock sense of “interfaith” jaahiliyyat?

3. I fear that these people will start quoting the above-mentioned incident of Mansoor Hallaaj (rahimahullah) to befool the unaware masses. What has Wahdat al- Adyaan got to do with the incident of Mansoor Hallaaj?

4. Please explain the lofty status of Islam in comparison of all other baatil religions.
(End of the Brother’s letter)

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama):

The type of “tolerance” promoted by the khateeb is kufr inspired by Iblees. In Islam there is no such satanic concept as “wahdat al-adyaan” (unity of religions). In fact Islam came to eradicate all religions (Hadmul Adyaan). Stating this concept of the destruction of all religions besides Islam, the Qur’aan Majeed declares: “Verily, the Deen by Allah is only Islam.” The one who propagates the kufr concept of “unity of religions” is a murtad if he professes to be a Muslim.

The claim that the Sufiya (Auliya) propounded this concept is a dastardly shaitaani LIE. It is monstrously false to attribute this kufr-shirk concept to the Sufiyaa. These Auliya had written innumerable Kitaabs on Deeni issues. They did not propound the shirki conceopt which has been falsely ascribed to them. There never was a single Wali of Allah Ta’ala who had ever propagated the kufr concept promoted by the murtad khateeb. Hadhrat Ibn Arabi (Rahmatullah alayh) was a great Wali of Allah Ta’ala. Statements of the Sufiya uttered during haalaat (spiritual states of ecstacy) are mutilated with kufr and shaitaani interpretation by the people of Baatil.

Statements of Ibn Arabi (Rahmatullah alayh), Mansur Hallaaj and other Sufiya (Rahmatullah alayhim), which are in conflict with the Shariah, may not be cited and presented as daleel for the rubbish kufr concept of “unity of religions” which the current shaitaani interfaith movement is also propagating.

The jahaalat and kufr of the khateeb are conspicuous and its butlaan (invalidity) is glaringly manifest. To promote his kufr, the fellow brings as daleel an episode of dispute between a Muslim and a Jew and the comment of Mansur Hallaaj. How can a loose statement blurted out by a person centuries after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) abrogate the Qur’aan – cancel the Fundamentals of Islam? How can statements of people ever nullify the Islamic concept of Tauheed structure on the basis of the Qur’aan and Sunnah?

Mansur Hallaaj is not the name of any Source of the Shariah. His statement is not a daleel for formulating any belief or practice. Islam was completed and perfect within the very lifetime of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is satanic ignorance to attempt to introduce in Islam a concept which is excessively repugnant to the Tauhid propagated by Rasulullah (Sallalalhu alayhi wasallam).

Assuming that the statement has been reliably attributed to Mansur, is shall be set aside, rejected as baatil. Mansur was not a Nabi come to abrogate any belief, tenet or teaching of Islam. In all probability, the statement has been fabricated and erroneously attributed to Mansur Hallaaj. It was on account of certain statements of kufr that Mansur Hallaaj (Rahmatullah alayh) was executed, and the correctness of the execution was confirmed by his Shaikh, Hadhrat Junaid Baghdaadi (Rahmatullah alayh) who was Imaamus Sufiya.

Statements of the Auliya which conflict with the Shariah have no validity. It is kufr to fabricate any belief based on such statements which are in stark conflict with the Shariah.

Showing love for the religions of baatil as the murtad khateeb proclaimed is kufr. How can a Muslim show love for baatil religions for which Allah Ta’ala Himself registers His Abhorrence in the Qur‟aan Majeed? The Qur’aan Majeed is replete with Aayat recording Divine Abhorrence for religions other than Islam, especially for the type of idolatry – Hindu idolatry – which demands worship to stone idols manufactured by the worshipper himself. Addressing the ignorant followers of other religions, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“Say (O Muhammad, to the believers of false deities): “What do you command me (Muhammad) to worship (deities) other than Allah! O you JAAHILOON!” Verily, it was revealed to you and to those before you that if you commit shirk (Hindu-Puja of idols), then most certainly your (good) deeds will be destroyed, and most assuredly you will be among the losers (destined for Jahannam).” [Az-Zumar, Aayats 64, 65]

Nabi Hood (Alayhis salaam) said to his idol-worshipping people: “I make Allah as my Witness, and you (idol-worshippers) also testify that verily, I am free of (the idols) which with which you commit shirk (by worshipping them) besides Allah…” [Hood, Aayats 54/55]

In rejection of the false religion of the Christians, Nabi Isaa (Alayhis salaam) said: “What! Do you worship besides Allah such (deities) which neither harm nor benefit you while Allah is The One Who Hears and Who Knows? Say (O Isaa!): “O People of the Book! Do not commit excesses in your deen which is niot the truth, and do not follow the vain desires of people who have most certainly gone astray from aforetime, and who have misled numerous people, and they deviated from the Straight Path.” [Al-Maaidah, Aayat 77]

Dissociating from the false religion of his father, Nabi Ibraahim (Alayhis salaam) said: “O my people! Verily, I am free from the (idols) with which you commit shirk (ascribe partners to Allah)…… I am not among the mushrikeen” [Al-An’aam, Aayats 78/79]

While this murtad khateeb advocates love for the shirk and idols of the Hindus whom he is bootlicking, the Qur’aan Majeed commands:
“Verily, they (the Mushrikeen) have taken the shayaateen (devils) as friends besides Allah while they think that they are guided.” [Al-A’raaf, Aayat 30]

While the jaahil khateeb promotes love for Hindu idolatry, the Qur‟aan commands hatred for their false religion of idolatry. Thus, Allah Ta‟ala states:

“Verily for you (O Muslimeen!) there is a Beautiful Example in Ibraaheem and those who were with him (the Mu‟mineen). Remember when he said: to his people: “Verily, we are free from you and also from the idols you are worshipping besides Allah. We reject you and enmity and hatred has developed between us and you (Mushrikeen) for all time, until such time that you (come on to the Truth) and believe in Allah, The One..” [Al-Mumtahinah, Aayat 4]

These are a few Aayaat randomly taken from the Qur’aan Majeed which command abhorrence for all religions besides Islam. The Qur’aan Majeed is loaded with Verses condemning all religions as falsehood, and excoriating all worshippers of false religions, in particular idol-worshippers. The khateeb was obviously bootlicking the Hindus. In the process of his despicable bootlicking he eliminated his Imaan.
His ignorance is shockingly lamentable. How can a Muslim promote love for kufr and shirk when the Qur’aan, the Ahaadith and the Ijma’ of the Ummah so vehemently castigate and refute idol-worship, cow-worship and all forms of religions besides Islam.

Rejecting with emphasis and greatest clarity all religions besides Islam, the Qur‟aan Majeed states:

“Whoever follows a religion other than Islam, never ever will it be accepted from him, and in the Aakhirah he will be among the losers………These (musrikeen— their punishment is that on them is the LA’NAT (CURSE) of Allah, and of the Malaaikah, and of entire mankind. Therein (i.e. in Hell-Fire) will they dwell forever. The punishment shall not be decreased for them, nor will they be given any respite.” [Aal Imraan, 85, 86, 87]

The answers to your numbered questions are as follows:

Question 1: What is this “Wahdat al-Adyaan”? I have heard about a state of fana called wahdat al-wujood but I have never heard of this term, wahdatul adyaan or concept ever before. Pardon my ignorance, can you please explain me what is Wahdat al- Adyaan?

Answer: There is no such concept as “wahdatul adyaan” in Islam. This is a concept of kufr and shirk of deviates. It is slanderous to attribute this kufr idea to the Sufiya (Auliya). Deviates have deliberately misinterpreted ambiguous statements of some Sufiya who had made seemingly un-Islamic statements during states of ecstasy. Any such statements which are in conflict with the Shariah are set aside or given a suitable interpretation to bring them in line with the Shariah. Some of the statements of ostensible kufr have also been falsely ascribed to the Sufiya.

Question 2: If Wahdat al-Adyaan means “Unity of Religions” then are these interfaithers justified to use this as a “proof” to justify their mock sense of “interfaith” jaahiliyyat?

Answer: Since there is simply no such concept of kufr in Islam, the deviates have no Islamic basis for their unity of religions fabricated false concoction. There is absolutely no basis for them in Islam to justify their rubbish concept of kufr and shirk.

Question 3: I fear that these people will start quoting the above-mentioned incident of Mansoor Hallaaj (rahimahullah) to befool the unawary masses. What has Wahdat al-Adyaan got to do with the incident of Mansoor Hallaaj?

Answer: Let us momentarily assume that Mansoor Hallaaj did utter statements which lead to the idea of “unity of religions”. On the basis of this assumption there is no Muslim whose Imaan is valid and healthy who will accept that the Qur’aan and the Ahaadith can be abrogated/cancelled by an utterance of a man in ecstatic intoxication some centuries after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Many deviates and hypocrites had dotted the history of Islam. It does not flow from their preachings and concepts of kufr and shirk that the Islam of the Qur’aan becomes cancelled. Only such people who are destined to be fuel for Jahannam with renounce their Imaan and allow themselves to be ensared into the trap of Iblees. True Muslims believe in the Qur‟aan, not in the utterances and concepts of men who appeared after the finalization and perfection of Islam.

The murtad khateeb had promoted his concept of kufr to bootlick the Christian interfaithers. While he may be at pains to cunningly promote Christian shirk and kufr, the Qur’aan Majeed rejects and condemns with much emphasis the Christian concept of trinity. Now how is it possible for Islam to unite with a religion which has the doctrine of trinity (three gods in one) as its pivotal belief. Condemning the Christians, the Qur’aan Majeed says that the Nasaara claimed that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) was the “son of Allah”, and condemning the Yahood, the Qur‟aan states that the Jews claimed that Uzair (Alayhis salaam) was the “son of Allah”.

The Qur’aan has only criticism and condemnation for all religions other than Islam. How can there be “unity of religions”; when the Qur’aan states with great clarity and emphasis that the mushrikeen will dwell in Hell-Fire eternally?

Question 4: Please explain the lofty status of Islam in comparison of all other baatil religions.

Answer: You should have asked to explain the despicable status of baatil religions. All Muslims know that Islam is the Absolute Truth. It is the Deen which emanated from Allah Azza Wa Jal. It was transmitted by the Chief of the Malaaikah, Hadhrat Jibraeel (Alayhis salaam), and the Recipient of the noblest and highest of Allah’s creation, Hadhrat Nabi Muhammad (Sallalalhu alayhi wasallam). He was the last and final Rasool of Allah Ta’ala. He was the Seal of the long Chain of Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam).
Anyone who impugns the Absoluteness of Islam’s Absolutism with any absonant in any of its (Islam’s) spheres commits kufr and denudes himself of his Imaan. The staus of all religions and ideologies besides Islam, according to the Qur’aan is GHUTHA (RUBBISH).

The Curious Case Of Daniel Haqiqatjou

Why do some “traditional” people dislike him?

By Mufti Muin Hassem

I’m just an old-fashioned, orthodox Muslim scholar. Normal and average. From South Africa, even though national identity and citizenship is meaningless Islamically speaking; but I say so for the sake of context.

An American, senior religious guide made statements on social media where he says “as muslims we recognise the rights of LGQBT people“. Daniel Haqiqatjou criticises him for this statement and clarifies a whole list of problems that he’s identified from this famous American Sheikh. Now I understand that perhaps this Shaikh is a senior and perhaps he has even done a lot of good for the people. Perhaps also some people might disagree with Daniel Haqiqatjou’s style of critique.

Regardless of all of that you would expect that Muslims, especially other scholars would (at the very least) agree with the condemnation of the statement “as Muslims we recognise the rights of LGQBT people“? Surely! What rights does Islam give them? The right to execution under Sharia Law! Perhaps some might feel some pressure to say this so then you would expect muslims, especially scholars to at least quietly agree with the condemnation! But how curious is the case and what do we see instead?

One scholar (who was very amazed by a fictional TV show creating “Nisbah with awliyaa“) went on a social media rampage criticising Daniel for his lack of Adab, and lack of scholarship and lack of deeni khidmah – while not even mentioning any condemnation of recognition of lgbxyza rights!

Another Modernist deformist who believes himself to be a mujtahid and mujaddid who wants to change what he calls medieval Islamic laws, who believes himself to be so academic yet he has admitted to having doubts in his heart about Quraan because he couldn’t find answers to the ignorant objections made orientalists (LOL!), this same deformist having a whole programme celebrating this American Shaikh – yet no condemnation of the lgbxyza stories?!?

What is actually happening here? Why are people so triggered and angered by Daniel Haqiqatjou? Is their hatred for the man skewing their priorities. They’ll rather let LGBT and other Liberalisms/Modernisms spread amongst the Muslims just to hate on the man? How’s about objectivity, sincerity towards Allah Taala and His Deen?

Daniel Haqiqatjou is criticised for lacking in Adab by the very people who then go on criticising him with no Adab (just check their Twitter). He’s accused of not being a scholar yet he is studying Deen and has a better understanding of Islam in terms of Liberalism and Modernism than so many other Scholars. He’s accused of not serving Islam, yet his service to Islam is stellar when it comes to very crucial aspects of aqeedah which hardly any other Ulama are dealing with…

So as an outside observer to this curious case, I can’t help but wonder why? Why so much anger towards the man? Is it because he is critical of our friends and buddies? Is it because he is working independently of people who see themselves as THE voice of “American Islam” is it because he is working against their agenda (and very effectively as well) of a liberal Islam?

Allah Taala knows best exactly people’s intentions. And maybe some might try and dismiss this however they can; but when I see what kind of people are angered by him I think to myself “you might call yourself a scholar with many ijaazaat, but I can’t help but side with Daniel on this one.”

THE CELLPHONE CURSE IN THE MUSAAJID

COMMENTS AND NASEEHAT OF A BROTHER

I have noticed 2 things openly prevalent in our local Musjids recently –

1. Alhamdolilah, there is no shortage of printed Qurans in the Musjids, yet
some musallis are putting their cellphones on silent, and using their cellphones inside the Musjid to read Quran. And messages, calls can come through when this same phone is on silent. In addition, there is a very high probability that animate pictography, icons and other peoples messaging profile pictures (commonly animate pictures) are downloaded and stored on these phones. Furthermore, impermissible pictures or profile photos can appear automatically on the screen in these devices inside the Musjid (for example, when a new message is received).

I (a layman) was surprised, observing an Imam reading a Jumuah khutbah in the Musjid from his own smartphone…now how does someone tell the person sitting next to him to switch his phone off, when this is the example set by the Imam himself…

2. Instead of being switched off, some cellphones are put on silent and being openly used for instant messaging (generally have a high content of animate pictures) by both adults and teenagers in our local musaajid immediately before and after fardh salah. This texting has become so common and ‘brazen’, that it appears that answering cellphone calls will become the next norm in the Musjids.

Most people do not even understand the effect of harmful radiation these devices emit or receive at close proximity to the human body, let alone subjecting the person sitting next to them and the Musjid to it. In my simple opinion, there could also be great spiritual harm associated with this type of radiation.

While reading the Quran on a cellphone could be permissible outside of the Musjid, it sets a precedent of being able to use the cellphone for other purposes inside the Musjid simply by others observing some musallis reading Quran on it.

Most of the local Musjids already have ‘switch off or no cell phone’ signage, but this doesnt seem to work because people are still using their cellphones ignorantly.

Perhaps, what used to be done back in the day, needs to be re-introduced. And, that was the regular reminder by our older Imams who would announce before each salah to switch off all phones completely (and not on silent).

If you feel it is appropriate to address this on your website or other communication, then please feel free to edit and post as you need, for the sanctity of our Musjids, and for our communities benefit. (The Musjid could curse such people for introducing animate pictures into the Musjid and for partaking in futile instant messaging conversations in the Musjid).

JazakAllah khairan (End of the brother’s comments)

Comment by Mujlisul Ulama

(1) It is not permissible to load the Qur’aan Majeed on cellphones in which haraam matter is stored, e.g. pictures, etc.

(2) It is not permissible to recite the Qur’aan Majeed from a cellphone in which haraam and rubbish are stored.

(3) It is improper and unbefitting of a Mu’min to recite the Qur’aan Majeed from a cellphone in the Musjid when copies of the Mushaf are available.

THE UNTOLD HISTORY OF BLUE JEANS, INDIGO, AND SLAVERY

Denim and especially denim in the form of “blue jeans” is often thought of as the American contribution to fashion worldwide, but the story of how this came to be leaves out the hefty contributions of enslaved people. This more complex, less whitewashed story was told during a panel discussion called “Denim & The African Diaspora: A Legacy Untold” at Denim Days, a celebration of all things denim that took place on June 8 at Manhattan’s Metropolitan Pavilion.

Moderator Whitney R. McGuire, an attorney for Creative Entrepreneurs and Co-Founder of Sustainable Brooklyn, launched the talk by saying that denim is more than “cotton, indigo, and rivets.” “Denim is a symbol of American idealism,” she said, and yet the contributions of people of color to its development often go unrecognized. “The descendants of enslaved Africans have created this beautiful fabric of culture and experience for the entire world to partake in.”

And of course, denim did not start out as what we think of as fashion. Activist and creator of Harlem-based sustainable denim brand Oak & Acorn Miko Underwood traced the origins of denim, which was originally a poor quality cloth, most often made of cotton, linen, or hemp that was used by slaveholders to clothe the enslaved. This cloth was sewn into simple but durable work wear by slaves themselves. ” At that time, explained Underwood, this cloth was known as “Negro Cloth” or “Slave Cloth” and was “unfit for anyone else to wear except for slaves.”

Kimberly M. Jenkins, an educator and researcher affiliated with Parsons School of Design and the curator of The Fashion and Race Database Project, described how, at different times, in different regions of the United States, denim was even looked down upon as an “unrespectable” thing to wear until it was eventually reclaimed as a symbol of solidarity with the worker. It was worn by those protesting for civil rights, and now it has become a staple of streetwear and hip hop culture.

african diaspora denim daysL to R: Jonathan M. Square, a Harvard scholar and founder of Fashioning The Self; Kimberly M. Jenkins, fashion researcher and the curator of The Fashion and Race Database Project; activist and creator of Harlem-based sustainable denim brand Oak & Acorn Miko Underwood. Photo by Anita Irlen.

Denim is an integral part of African American history, and as such, also an integral part of the history of enslaved people, the people who even today are often the ones producing “fashion.” “Forced labor is a really important driver of the fashion industry then and now,” said Jonathan M. Square, a Harvard scholar and founder of Fashioning The Self. It was slavery that resulted in the spread of “blue gold” and the love of cloth dyed with indigo worldwide.

Even the blue indigo color that we think of when we envision denim has surprising origins. It is from a natural dye from the indigofera tinctoria plant that’s indigenous to West Africa. In the 1700s, as the slave trade grew, knowledge of the plant and its cultivation traveled from West Africa to the United States with the enslaved. Before sugar, before cotton, indigo was the most profitable crop in parts of the South, so much so that it was once even used as currency. The slave trade, as the panelists described, was fed on both denim and indigo. And thus the history of the iconic blue jean is forever connected to slavery and the history of the African Diaspora.

The slave trade, as the panelists described, was fed on both denim and indigo.

June 14, 2019

My Allergy to the Word “Jamāt Khāna”

By Mawlana Sulayman al-Kindi

ذَٰلِكَ وَمَن يُعَظِّمْ شَعَائِرَ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّهَا مِن تَقْوَى الْقُلُوبِ

One who honours the symbols of Allāh does so because of the Taqwā in the hearts.

ʾal-Ḥajj: 32

Alamut, Iran, the ultimate origin of Jamāt Khāna

Synopsis

Some use the word Jamāt Khāna in place of Muṣallā (prayer place without the official status of a Masjid). The word is neither Arabic nor Islamic and has connotations of disbelief. Its increasing usage amongst Muslim masses is disappointing and the silent acceptance by scholars is symptomatic of intellectual malaise.

History

Some years back the Jamʿīatul ʿUlamāʾ KZN published a poster encouraging South African Muslims to say Muṣallā, and not Jamāt Khāna. However, it did not give much explanation (perhaps due to lack of space) and I am not aware of anyone amongst the public who took the message to heed. This piece seeks to explain the term, its origins and why we should not use it.

The term originates with Gujerātī Shīʿahwho morphed the Arabic jamāʿah(congregation) and Persian khānah (place) into Jamāt Khāna (place of congregating). This was not a mere linguistic difference for Muṣallā. Jamāt Khāna has a vastly different and heretical meaning. This heretical meaning will be better understood if we first understand the history and theology behind it.

Iran & India

The Shīʿah Ṣafawiyyah conquest of Iran in 1502 had ramifications well beyond its borders. India in general, and Gujerāt in particular, would suffer the ignominy of a much larger Shīʿahdemographic than it has today, and they may even have become the majority. We can never be grateful enough to ʾash-Shaykh ʾAḥmad Sirhindī, Shāh ʿAbdul ʿAzīẓ Muḥaddith Dahlawī and Mawlānā ʿAbdush Shakūr Lucknowī who were instrumental during their respective eras in reversing the Shīʿāh tsunami in India, and bringing Indian Muslims firmly back to the fold of the Sunnah.

We cannot deny that Muslims in India sometimes have customs and beliefs inherited from Hinduism by descent, or are influenced through proximity. Similarly some customs and ideas of some Sunnis have Shīʿah origins. One of these is the term Jamāt Khana adopted from the ʾĀgā Khānis of Gujerāt.

ʾĀgā Khānīs

The ʾIthnā ʿAshariyyah sect is currently the main sect of the Shīʿah. They dominate Iran and Iraq.

A millennium ago the ʾIsmāʿīliyyah sect dominated not just the Shīʿahs, but ruled the almost the entire west of the lands of Islām. Ṣalāḥuddīn ʾal-ʾAyyūbī destroyed their evil before he could confront the Crusaders. You will therefore never hear the Shīʿah praise this hero of Islām. The sect has fragmented into tiny sub-sects, such as the Nuṣayriyyah of Syria (may Allāh extinguish them and their oppression) and the ʾĀgā Khānīs of Gujerāt and Mumbai.

The ʾIsmāʿīliyyah are also known as the Bāṭiniyyah (the Esoteric or Inner Ones) because of their habit of presenting a supposed inner meaning of the Qurʿān, contrary to the plain, obvious meaning which Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and his Companions taught us.

Strangely in our times it is someone who claims to be a Sunnī who spreads more Bāṭinī interpretations than the Bāṭiniyyah themselves. May Allāh save us from the heresies of Imrān Ḥusayn and his ilk whose Bāṭinī interpretations have made Russia a god besides Allāh.

The Great Resurrection

A prime and most significant example of such tampering with the Qurʾān is their belief that the ʾIsmāʿīlī ʾImām, Ḥasan had already esoterically conducted Qiyāmah (Resurrection) in ʾAlamūt in Iran. Their Resurrection is not the future physical event which Muslims believe in. The following passage is taken from ʾIsmāʿīlī sources:

Mowla’na Ima’m Hasan Ala’Zikrihis Salaam declared the Youm-el-Qiya’ma, the Day of Resurrection, which was held on the nineteenth of Ramaza’n, 559 a.h. (10th of August, 1164). Thousands upon thousands of Ismai’ilis came from all corners of the world to attend this important day of resurrection of the holy faith. The Holy Ima’m declared…

“Today I have explained to you the Law [shari’at] and its meaning. I make you free from the rigidity of the Law and resurrect you from the bondage of the letter to the freedom of the spirit of the Law. Obey me and follow my farma’n [command]…. Break your fast and rejoice. This is the day of utmost happiness and gratitude.”

ʾIsmāʿīlī missionary, Abualy A. Aziz, entitled A Brief History of Ismailism, p.73

…it was a Friday in the holy month of Ramadhan. Hasan descended from the minbar (pulpit), offered two rak’at of prayers and asked his followers to break their fasts in the middle of the day and join him in the afternoon banquet, which included drinking of wine. Followers broke their fasts and joined Hasan in merrymaking. The Shari`ah laws were abolished from that day, and every year the 17th (19th, according to Abualy) of Ramadhan was celebrated as ‘id-i Qiyamat, the Festival of the Resurrection.

[Akbarally Maherally, A History of the Agakhani Ismailis, p.32]

Jamāt Khāna is born from that Filth

Muslims too believe that post the Resurrection there is no longer obligations of fasting, prayer, etc. The ʾIsmāʿīlīs abolished the laws and practices of Islām with their filthy inner interpretation of Resurrection. With Ṣalāh abolished what need is there for a Masjid?

In time, their demonic leadership must have realised that they had shot themselves in the foot. Every religion needs a communal ritual and communication amongst the followers. Thus in Gujerāt, the Bāṭiniyyah or ʾAgā Khanī leadership concocted rituals to be performed in a place of congregation, i.e. Jamāt Khāna.

You may click on this link to see what a real Jamāt Khāna is about (after completing this reading of course). Consider that the Qurʾān declares honouring the symbols of Allāh to be a sign of Taqwā. Do you persist in calling a place where Allāh is worshipped by a name with such pagan meaning?

Muṣallā

Ignoring the debauched history narrated above, why do you and your scholars prefer this term above the word originating from Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم), i.e. Muṣallā? Granted that few devote themselves to learning history as I do. We all have different fields and specialities (although the state of knowledge of Sīrah of some of our scholars is embarrassing, to put it politely). Also granted that few had the opportunity as I did to learn about Sḥiasm, directly, individually and closely from the master-polemicist of our time, Mawlānā Ṭāhā Karān. However, how much knowledge is required before one questions that why is a non-Arabic word used for an Islāmic institution and why is the word we read in books of Ḥadīth overlooked? Yes, we are people who hear and obey, but since when does the Qurʾān command us to commit intellectual suicide and always accept things from previous generations without question?

Are we no better than the idolaters who said:

بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون

We found our forefathers doing thus. [ʾash-Shuʿārā: 74]

Muṣallā (مصلٰى) a word from the Sunnah, is so foreign to some scholars that when I ask why they spell it “Musallah” they offer an incorrect Arabic spelling (مصلة).

My point is not to be pedantic about spelling, and yes, even I admit that using Jamāt Khāna does not mark the end of our religion. What I do worry about is that we have access to so much information these days, yet vast sections of Muslim still robotically act on ancestral customs without question, with no thought on bettering themselves. Worse, the scholars go with the flow. They do not correct the public and fear losing popularity. These I hope you can agree, are serious issues. I can give more serious examples, but enough said for now.

سليمان الكندي

Twitter: @Sulayman_Kindi

Source: https://kindi313.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/my-allergy-to-the-word-jamat-khana/