Category Archives: Shia/Raafidhi

Unity with the Shias – Is it Possible??


By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape

The following Malfooz (saying/words of advice) of Hazrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi Rahimahullah is undoubtedly some good food for thought, especially these days when some people are trying to force down our throats the issue of being united with Shias!


“When organizations unite on error or sin, opposition to them and dissociation from them become the demands of the Shariah. It is essential for Deeni conscious people, who have joined such organizations for the enactment of the transgression, to dissociate themselves.(The issue of Shiism is much worse. It is uniting on Kufr –JamiatNC)

Nowadays the condition of the people of the Deen is lamentable. While the irreligious people are firm on an issue (of error) on which they have taken a stand, the people of the Deen (the Ulama) are lax. What has happened to them? The irreligious people do what their desire commands them to do and whatever appeals to their opinion. (The Kufr of Shiism is clearer than daylight. Yet, some people are not interested in the truth – JamiatNC)

On the other hand the people of the Deen in spite of being aware that this particular activity is in conflict with their Math-hab or it is unlawful or the method is harmful or this activity is in conflict with the outlook and disposition of our Jamaat, then too they submit to the irreligious people for the sake of sustaining the unity. (How can we unite with the Shias who have several vile beliefs? Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhiyanwi – who was a very pious senior Mufti of Pakistan and who is acknowledged for issuing excellent Fataawa, has mentioned nineteen solid reasons why Shias could be declared as Kaafir. Thousands of Ulama have declared the Shias as Kuffaar, i.e. A shia is a ‘Kaafir’. Insha Allah articles on this will also be published – JamiatNC)

Subhaanallaah, The attainment of unity is from both sides.  (Attainment of unity with the Shias is almost impossible. Our pamphlet on Shiism which discusses Allah’s praise for Hazrat Ibraheem Alayhis Salaam’s disunity with the Kuffaar will shed more light on this issue Insha Allah – JamiatNC)

How do we unite with people who accuse our mother of Zina when Allah revealed Aayats proving the purity and chastity of Hazrat Ayesha Radhiyallahu Anha. This alone is enough to show the Shias rejection of the Qur’aan. By declaring Shias as Muslims, we are rejecting the Qur’aan and this will make us Kaafir.

On the contrary, it is Fardh for us to declare Shias as Kaafir. Insha Allah this will be explained in detail in another pamphlet – JamiatNC)

When the other side is not prepared to honour your stand (of Haqq), what type of unity is this? Rather say that you are being subservient to them. Nowadays mutual flattery is described as unity. They therefore fear to dissociate themselves (from baatil). They fear the criticism of the people. They fear being accused of disrupting the unity. (If Shias want unity and they want to be part of Islam, they must firstly declare as Kaafir all those Shia Scholars who wrote against the Sahaabah and also burn all their books – JamiatNC)

Why are you (O Ulama!) scared of such criticism? Proclaim boldly: “Yes, we have ruined the unity.” (We must say: ‘With Allah’s Fadhl, we will Insha Allah never unite with the Sahaabah-haters’. Those who hate the Sahaabah, hate Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. And obviously, we do not call for violence, despite us having no ‘unity’ with the Shayaateen. We are living in harmony, but Kufr being presented as Islam is totally unacceptable!

Furthermore, it is silly and ludicrous to expect the Ulama-e-Haqq (the real Ulama) to tolerate lies and hatred against the Sahaabah and to tolerate filth in the name of Islam – JamiatNC)

Unity in every circumstance is not desirable nor praiseworthy. In fact, sometimes disunity is desirable. When the Deen suffers by a unity, then disunity is the best course.” (End of Malfooz of Hakeemul Ummat)

The aforementioned Naseehat of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (Rahmatullah Alayh) should serve as sufficient advice and direction for those of our Ulama who have embraced the Ahl-e-Baatil (the modernists), the Ahl-e-Bid’ah (the Grave Worshippers) and the Shias on the Cape Accord issue.

All the arguments tendered by the Ulama for going to Shia temples, bringing Zindeeqs and Mulhideen from foreign countries to lecture the jaahil masses in South Africa to accept Sahaabah-haters as our brothers, participation in Al-Quds Day which originated from the Kaafir Khomeini, etc. are figments of their Shia-influenced imagination. When Shar’i principles are being violated, there is absolutely no good in the benefits which are being imagined. It is the duty of the Ulama to maintain a strong stand on the Haqq and Sunnah.

The doubtful benefits at the expense of sacrificing Islamic and Sunnah principles and practices and even Aqeedah, are to be confounded and rejected. It is our duty to guard the Shariah, not to woo people of deviation and Kufr.

It is our incumbent duty to proclaim the Haqq. By us remaining silent, Muslims are becoming Kaafir by embracing the Kufr of Shiism. How then can it ever be possible for us to remain silent??? The baseless arguments of sectarianism, unity, violence and terrorism by Pro-Shia supporters and symphatisers are all rejected with contempt. We never ever called for violence!!!

May Allah save us from the Kufr of Shiism. Aameen



By Mujlisul Ulama

There exists a huge misunderstanding among Muslims, even among the Ulama, regarding the predication of the Ahlus Sunnah designation. Due to this misunderstanding, it is generally said that the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah constitutes mainstream Islam.

In terms of this conception, Shi’ism is surreptitiously promoted onto the pedestal of Islam when in reality Shi’ism has no room in Islam. Shi’ism is alien to Islam just as Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism are alien.The designation, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is mentioned with reference to some deviant sects whom the Fuqaha have not excommunicated (made takfeer). In our current age, we have the deviant sects of the Salafis, the Barelwi Qabar Pujaari (Grave worshippers), Jamat-e-Islami, etc. Whilst these sects remain within the fold of Islam, they are beyond the confines of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.

Although during the Khairul Quroon era of the Salafus Saaliheen, there existed many authentic Math-habs of the Ahlus Sunnah, in our time the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is confined to the followers of the Four Math–habs (Hanafi, Shaafi, Maaliki and Hambali). Salafis,etc are not of the Ahlus Sunnah. Therefore, the term Ahlus Sunnah should not be juxtaposed with Shi’ism/Shiahs. In reference to Shiahs it should be said MUSLIMS and SHIAHS, NOT Ahlus Sunnah or Sunnis and Shiahs. This phraseology implies that Shiahs are Muslims. Just as Qadianism, Bahaiism, Bilalians etc. are not of Islam, so too, are Shiahs not of Islam.

The profession of Islam’s Kalimah by some Kuffaar religionists is satanically deceptive. A glaring example is the belief of the Bilalians (the followers of Elijah Muhammad of the U.S.A) that Allah Ta’ala appeared on earth in the form and body of Elijah Muhammad – Nauthubillah!  Recitation of the Kalimah does not in any way whatsoever bestow Imaan to such mushrikeen. Similar is the status of the Shiahs.

Piecemeal acceptance of Islamic doctrines does not confer the title of Muslim to the partial accepter. He remains a Kaafir. About partial acceptance, the Qur’aan Majeed States: “What! Do you believe in part of the Kitaab and commit Kufr with part? What then is the punishment for the one who commits so (commits Kufr), except disgrace in this world. And, on the Day of Qiyaamah he will be assigned to severest punishment”.  [Al-Baqarah, Aayat 85]

Washing or Wiping the Feet during Wudu?? – An Analysis

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem

All praises due to Allah.

May His mercy and blessings be upon Muhammad, his  family  and  companions.

This is a refutation of Shi’i contentions with regards to the act of washing the feet in Wudu. Shia say this is an innovation and against the command of Allah in Quran which is to wipe the feet.

This writing will be a refutation of all the arguments provided by Shi’ites including that by Shia scholar Abdul Husain Sharafuddin al-Musawi, the author of famous forged conversation “al-Muraja’at”, who has written against Sunni the viewpoint in his book “al-Masaail al-Fiqhiyyah” which is translated in English as “Juristic Questions”. This book can be accessed at Shia website

This refutation is broadly divided into two  sections:

1. Regarding the interpretation of the verse of Wudu

2. Regarding narrations related to washing and wiping of feet.


Here our discussion is particularly on the portion of the verse which speaks of wiping or washing of feet.

Abdul Husain said:

The evidence of the Shia for this matter was the Quranic verse (O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows and wipe your heads and your feet to the (two) ankles. 5:6).  

Imam ar-Razi sufficed us in showing the point of the argument in this verse when he declared: “The evidence of those, who thought that wiping the feet was obligatory, was based upon the two kinds of reciting the phrase (and your feet) mentioned in the verse of wudu’. Ibn Katheer, Hamza, Abu Amr an Aasim recited the phrase in genitive and Nafi’, ibn Aamir and Aasim recited it in accusative. Reciting it in genitive determined that (your feet) was coupled to (your heads) and then as it was obligatory to wipe the head it would be obligatory to wipe the feet. As for reciting it in accusative, it also determined that it was obligatory to wipe the feet because the saying (and wipe your heads) made (your heads) as object and (your feet) was coupled to (your heads) so both of them were objects of the verb (wipe)”

I say: Even though Fakhruddin Ar-Razi said it but he is not the only person to be looked at in matters of Qur’anic interpretations. In fact, wiping is not necessitated in case of any of the two recitations; with Jarr or with Nasb.

Basically there are three types of recitation of the phrase “wa arjulakum” two of which are Mutawatir and the third one is shaadh (unreliable):

1. With Nasb i.e. Wa arjulakum. This is the recitation of Nafi’, Ibn Amir, Hafs, Kisai and Yaqoob among the famous reciters of Qur’an.  

2. With Jarr i.e. Wa arjulikum. This is the recitation of Ibn Katheer, Abu Amr, Hamza and Abu Bakr from Aasim.

3. With Damma i.e. Wa arjulukum. This is attributed to Hasan. This is unreliable.


This is the most prevalent recitation as it is the recitation of Hafs who has narrated it from Aasim. The implication derived from this recitation is that the object ((your feet)) is linked with the command of washing as the I’arab it has is the I’irab of the body parts which are to be washed mentioned in the verse. This differs with the I’irab of portion asked to be wiped.

Hence, apparently this is a command for washing the feet. This is how early exegetes have interpreted it. However, some of the scholars, excluding Shia scholars, have claimed that even this recitation supports wiping because there cannot occur a third phrase between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih. This was the opinion of Ar-Razi and Ibn Hazm. However, this is not supported by facts as we shall see. Some examples of occurrence of a phrase between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih:

(1) Allah the Exalted says:


“but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram” [2:217]

Here “al-Masjid al-Haram” is ma’toof and “averting from the way of Allah” is ma’toof ‘alaihi and between them is the phrase “and disbelief in him”.

(2) Allah says:


“So exalted is Allah when you reach the evening and when you reach the morning. And to Him is [due all]  praise throughout the heavens  and the earth. And [exalted is He] at night and when you are at noon.” [Surat Ar-Room 17-18]

Here the portion “And to him due all praise throughout the heavens and the earth” occurs between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih and this is acknowledged in the Tafsir Kabeer (25/88).

There are many other examples mentioned by scholars like Mahmud al-Aalusi. It is also illogical to raise objection on this interpretation as early companions and Tab’een have interpreted it as such and they were the people of this language.

Here is the list of those scholars from Sahaba and Taba’een who have interpreted it as such, as opposed to the unreliable claims of Ibn Hazm and Ar-Razi:  

1. Abdullah bin Mas’ud

2. Ibn ‘Abbas, but there are also narrations stating otherwise

3. Urwah bin Zubair, one of the great seven Fuqaha among Taba’een

4. Mujahid, the great mufassir of Qur’an

5. As-Suddi

6. Ibrahim An-Nakha’i, the jurist of Kufa

7. Dahhak etc.

These scholars were masters of Arabic and Qur’an but they did not see any problem when a phrase exists between ma’toof and ma’toof ‘alaih. Besides them a huge number of early commentators of Qur’an also did not see it problematic. In conclusion, the objection raised on this interpretation is unreliable and that is why most of the scholars did not pay any attention towards it.


The second mutawatir way of reciting it is with the Kasra on Laam i.e. Wa arjulikum. Based on this recitation many scholars have interpreted it to mean wiping of the feet. The most apparent conclusion drawn from this recitation is that the feet should be wiped because the Arabic for feet takes the I’arab of the head and also coming in succession to it which is commanded to be wiped. Even though it is the first possibility with this recitation but it is not the only possibility with this recitation. We have to interpret a verse by looking at the practice and command of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam).

Reason for interpreting the particular reading against the most apparent meaning:

Both the recitations are Mutawatir and hence they can only interpret and cannot overrule each other, therefore interpreting one with washing and another with wiping in the same condition is not possible. Hence what we have to do is to look into traditions and which of the two interpretations are correct in light of the actions and sayings of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). As Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states in Qur’an:


“And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” [Surat An-Nahl 44]

Hence it was the duty of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) to interpret the Qur’an for us. So when we look at his actions and sayings we see that he always washed his feet and commanded to do so. Narrations of washing are so many that Tawatur can easily be claimed regarding it. On the other hand there is not a single authentic narration which shows wiping of the feet by Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). [Authenticity of different narrations will be discussed in the next section]

Since we are now sure about the interpretation given by the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam), hence we need to interpret the verse in light of it. We see that the recitation with Nasb and the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) both clearly supports washing, so the problem remains with the other recitation which is with Kasra. We now look at the possibility of interpreting it in light of other clear evidence. We find the following answers to the problem which are in line with language, logic and textual evidence:

1. The Kasra is due to its proximity with the nearby word. Or,

2. The “MasH” mentioned with regards to feet is light washing of them.

3. The wudu method, in this particular recitation, is regarding travellers and therefore wiping is prescribed over socks in this verse.

We will expand these answers one by one, Insha Allah.

Jarr ‘ala al-Jiwar

This means a word accepts Kasra or Jarr of the nearby word even if technically it should not have been Majroor (affected by Jarr). Many of the scholars have admitted its possibility in Arabic language while some have objected to it. Those who pointed out its possibility include the grammarian al-Akhfash and Abu Ubaidah. Besides them other scholars who have pointed out its possibility include  As-Samarqandi, Al-Baghwi, al-Bayhaqi, An-Nasafi, Ath-Tha’albi, Jalal al-Muhalli, Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Katheer, Al-Aalusi, Ash-Shinqiti etc. [Refer to their Tafaseer under the commentary of the verse of wudu]

Ar-Razi was one of those who totally denied any existence of it in Qur’an and so he was quoted by the Shi’as like Abdul Husain. Following are the objections of Ar-Razi:

1. Such usage in Arabic is considered Lahn (weakness in speech).

2. It is done only when there is  no possibility of confusion for readers.

3. It occurs without ‘Atf. (i.e. waw)
4. Interruption between ma’toof and ma’toof alaih by a non-relevant phrase or sentence is disliked even in common speech.

Scholars like Mahmud al-Aalusi and Muhammad Amin Ash-Shinqiti have answered these claims in detail. I’ll be presenting the summary of their response here point by point, Insha Allah.

1. The great grammarians like Al-Akhfash, Abul Baqa and all the specialists of Arabic language have approved of the existence of it and no one denied it except Az-Zajjaj. His denial after his affirmation of the existence of Jarr ala al-Jiwar in their speeches indicates the lack of research from his side.

2. To claim that it is from the condition of Jarr ’ala al-Jiwar that the matter is not confused, is not accepted as the grammarians have not mentioned any such rule. Yes, some of them have mentioned it as a condition for the beauty in Kalam (speech) with the condition which is fulfilled here, and that is this portion which is asked to be wiped is limited with the ankles and wiping do not occur with limit in Arabic speech.

3. Scholars have pointed out its occurrence even with Atf. See the Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani by the Mufti of Baghdad Allama Mahmud al-Aalusi and Adwa al-Bayan by Allama Shinqiti for examples of such usage in Arabic.

4. It causes effect only when the interpolated portion is totally irrelevant which is not the case here is. Besides, examples have already been given of such usage while discussing the recitation with Nasb.

MasH here means washing

Another answer which many of the commentators of Quran have pointed out that مسح in reference to feet means (a little) washing. This was pointed out by Abu Zaid al-Ansari and Abu Hatim As-Sijistani among the scholars of Arabic language.

If it is said that how could a single word in a sentence have two meanings? How مسح for head is wiping and for feet is washing in the same verse? The answer is, it is possible that real meaning of a word and its metaphorical meaning be combined in a single sentence. Qur’an mentions:


“O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer]…”   [Surat An-Nisa 43]

In the above verse, a same word الصلاة (salaah) is used once for prayer and secondly for Masjid.

It is also to be noted that the verse of Wudu was revealed years after the Wudu was prescribed, and hence there was no possibility for confusion. Besides the limit prescribed in the verse for the feet which is till ankles, supports this view as in Arabic limits are not given for wiping. See Tafaseer mentioned earlier.

The Wiping is over Socks

Many scholars have mentioned this. This is very much plausible considering the fact that a verse when comes with different mutawatir readings then both readings, by rule, are separately taken as two different verse while deriving the rulings. Hence, with Nasb it is for person under normal condition while with Kasra it is for those travelling while wearing socks.

If it is said, what is the basis for this, the answer would be: The basis is all those narrations which mention washing for normal condition and wiping over socks, which are explicit and they are not singular reports which could be rejected by calling them mistakes or forgeries.

Also, the basis is the verse itself where if the المسح is taken in general then it will contradict the other proven recitation. And Allah knows best.


Discussion on Narrations

In this section, we shall analyse the narrations regarding washing and wiping the feet. This will be done in following steps:

1. Authenticity and Tawatur of narrations regarding washing.

2. Narrations which indicates wiping of feet.

3. View of Ali bin Abi Talib (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

4. Logical conclusion

Narrations of Washing

Narrations of washing of feet (which is a portion from detailed description of Wudu) are so many that it can easily be termed Mutawatir. Following is the list of companions who have reported this from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). I have avoided severely weak or rejected narrations even though some slightly weak narrations may have been included.

Umar bin Khattab: Muslim

Uthman bin Affan: Agreed upon

Ali bin Abi Talib: Abu Dawud,
Tirmidhi, Nasai

Abu Hurairah: Agreed upon

Aisha Umm al-Mumineen: Muslim

Mustawrid bin Shaddad: Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Tahawi.

Abu Jubair al-Kindi: Ibn Hibban, Tahawi

Abdullah bin Harith bi Jaz’:  Ahmad, Ibn Khuzaima

Jabir bin Abdullah: Ibn Majah, Ahmad

Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Aas: Agreed upon

Ibn Abbas: Bukhari

Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan: Abu Dawud

Abu Rafi’: Tahawi

Rubayyi’ bint Mu’awwidh: Abu Dawud

Abdullah bin Zaid bin Aasim: Agreed upon

Amr bin ‘Absah: Ibn Khuzaima, Hakim, Tahawi.

Abu Malik al-Ash’ari : Ahmad, Ibn Abi Shaibah

Abu Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi: Bazzar

Anas bin Malik: Abu Dawud, Ibn Khuzaimah

Bara bin Azib: Ahmad.

Narrations used in Support of Wiping

(1). Abu Dawud (858), Nasai (1136) and Ibn Majah (460) narrate through Hammam from Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Talha from Ali bin Yahya bin Khallad from his father from Rifa’ah bin Rafi’ that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said to the person who was constantly offering his salaah in wrong manner, “Indeed the prayer of any of you will not be accepted until he completes his Wudu as it is prescribed by Allah; hence he washes his face and hands till elbow, and wipes over his head and his feet till ankles…” And then he mentioned full description.

The narrators of this narration are reliable and hence the isnad of this is apparently authentic. However when we give it a closer look we see that portion describing the method of Wudu has been reported from Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abu Talha only by Hammam. 

Let us compare the Asaneed (chains) of this tradition. This narration is narrated through Ali bin Yahya bin Khallad from his father from Rifa’ah bin Rafi’ from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). From Ali bin Yahya this was narrated by the following:

➡ Muhammad bin Ajlaan: Ahmad (18997), Nasai (1313), Ibn Hibban (1787)

➡ Dawud bin Qais: Musannaf Abdur-Razzaq (3739), Nasai (1314), Tabrani (4520).

➡ Muhammad bin Ishaq: Abu Dawud (860)

➡ Muhammad bin Amr bin Alqamah: Ahmad (18995), Abu Dawud (859), Ibn Hibban (1787).

➡ Shareek bin Abi Nimr:

➡ Yahya bin Ali bin Yahya: Musnad Tayalisi (1469), Abu Dawud (861), Tirmidhi (302), Nasai (667).

➡ Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abu  Talha

None of the above narrators narrates it with the wording commanding to wipe the feet except for Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abu Talha. Even from Ishaq only Hammam mentions it while Hammad bin Salmah do not mention it as it is reported by Abu Dawud (857) and others.

Now if we look at the narration  of Hammam then it appears that some narrator have included the verse of Qur’an after the statement “Do Wudu as commanded by Allah…”. This addition is not part of the hadith but rather someone (either Hammam or Ishaq himself) has included the modified form of the Quranic verse as an interpretation of the statement of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).

(2). Tahawi (1/35) through Shareek from As-Suddi from Abd Khair from Ali regarding wiping.

Even though Shareek is weak but still this narration doesn’t support wiping over feet in Wudu. The complete version of this has been narrated by Ahmad in Musnad (943) through the same chain of Shareek but it mentions that “This is the Wudu of the person who is still the state of purity (Wudu)”.

This is how it was also narrated by Sufyan Thawri from As-Suddi with the same meaning. Imam Ahmad narrated it in Musnad (970), Ibn Khuzaimah in his Sahih (200). Tahawi narrated the short  version which caused the  confusion.   

(3) Al-A’mash narrates from Abu Ishaq from Abd Khair from Ali. But Hafs bin Ghiyath narrates it from al-A’mash, and Hafs was one of the most reliable person while narrating from him, with the wording “If the religion was based on analogy then the upper side of the socks were more worthy to be wiped than the bottom of it.” Yazeed bin Abdul Aziz also narrates it in similar fashion.

But Wakee’ narrates it without mentioning “socks” although he did interpret it to mean “over the socks”. See Sunan Abu Dawud (no. 162-164)

What we conclude from above is that there is a huge conflict (Idhtirab or إضطراب) in the apparent wording of this version of hadith. The hadith is normally rejected when there is significant conflict in the wording or Isnad of hadith and if we literally take this narration then this has to be rejected as well. But when the reconciliation is possible between different wordings then the hadith is not classified as weak. Here, in the above version in which wiping over feet is mentioned, reconciliation is possible as scholars, including  Waki’ bin Jarrah, have pointed out. They say it means the feet when it is covered by socks. This is the most plausible explanation in light of the famous opinion of Ali bin Abi’ Talib (which shall be  discussed soon).

The scholar of Hadith, Imam Daarqutni said after discussing  differences in the wording and Isnad of this particular narration:


“The correct version from all these is that which has the wording “I used to consider the bottom of the socks more worthy to be washed than the top of it…” And this is how Hakeem bin Zaid narrate it from Abu Ishaq.”

He further said:


“This view is supported by the narration reported by Khalid b. Alqama, Abdul Malik bin Sala’, Hasan bin Uqbah Abu Kairan and others from Abd Khair that Ali washed his feet thrice and said, “This is how I saw the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) doing”.” See Al-‘Ilal by Ad-Daarqutni (4/45-46)

(3). Tahawi (1/35) reports through Ibn Abi Fudaik from Ibn Abi Dhi’b from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar:


“While performing Wudu, with his shoe covering his feet, he would wipe over the back of his feet with his hands. He used to say, ‘The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) used to do it in this way’.” 

Ibn Khuzaimah (199) narrated it with a different chain.

Apparently this is authentic as all of its narrators are reliable. Scholars have different explanation regarding it. According to Imam At-Tahawi it was abrogated later on. Al-Bazzar said that this is for person renewing his Wudu.

In any case, there is no evidence in it to support wiping over feet as this narration is for wiping over shoe. Scholars such as Ibn Khuzaimah interpret that all of the narration which mentions wiping over feet with shoe are regarding that person who already has his Wudu. This is the most plausible explanation in light of authentic narrations quoted earlier which explicitly mentions that Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) wiped over his shoe when he was in state of purity. Allah knows best.

Besides all these, there is evidence that Ibn Umar himself used to wash his feet during Wudu as it has been reported by Tahawi (1/41-42) through Abu Awana and Shu’bah both of who narrate it from Abu Bishr from Mujahid from Ibn Umar. Similarly, Tahawi narrates it through Ibn Majishoon from Abdullah bin Dinar from Ibn Umar. So it is illogical that Ibn Umar publically attribute something to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and then goes against it.

(4) Tahawi (1/35) narrates through Ibn Lahee’ah from Abul Aswad from Abbad bin Tamim from his uncle regarding wiping. Ibn Khuzaimah (201) has narrated it with another chain.

Here the uncle of Abbad bin Tamim is Abdullah bin Zaid. His description of Wudu is well famous and agreed upon by all scholars and it mentions washing of feet. (See the list of companions who have narrated the washing of feet) 

So this particular and short version, if it is authentic, has to be understood and interpreted in the light of agreed upon and detailed version of Abdullah’s hadith.

Wudu of the person with Wudu:

If a person is in state of Wudu and want to renew it then as per the view of Ali bin Abi Talib he just need to wipe on his parts of wudu instead of washing them. This has been reported by Sufyan Thawri and Shareek al-Qadhi from Ismail As-Sudd  from Abd Khair from Ali as mentioned earlier. It was also narrated by Abdul Malik bin Maisirah from Nazzaal bin Saburah from Ali as in Musnad Ahmad (583, 1005, 1173), Sunan Nasai (130), Sahih Ibn Khuzaima (16, 202), Sahih Ibn Hibban (1057, 1340, 1341, 5326) and others. 

However in Sahih Bukhari this narration is recorded with incomplete wording which caused ignorants like the author of shiapen to claim that this was done for hiding the truth. The complete version does say that the method mentioned in this hadith is for those who are in state of purity (with Wudu). However in their ignorance they have also quoted the Musnad Tayalisi (141) which does mention the portion:


“This is the ablution of those who have their Wudu”

View of Ali bin Abi Talib

There is no doubt that Ali bin Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) used to wash his feet. Among his companions following people reported to have seen him washing his feet during wudu:

Husain bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

Ibn Abbas

Zirr bin Hubaish

Abd khair

Abu Huyyah al-Kharifi

The narration of Husain (radhiyallahu anhu) Imam Nasai records in Sunan (95):


Ibn Juraij narrates that he heard from Shaiba from Abu Jafar al-Baqir from Ali bin Husain from his father from Husain that his Ali bin Abi Talib called him with the vessel having water for ablution…until the end of hadith which describe the ablution including the washing of feet. Finally he stood and drank the remaining water of the vessel. At the end Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) said to Husain, “Do not be astonished, for I have seen your father (the Messenger of Allah) doing just as you have seen me doing…”

This chain is authentic. Here is a brief analysis of its narrators:

Ibn Juraij was Thiqah, Faqih and Virtuous. He would do Tadlees but in the above narration he has clearly pointed out his hearing through the term “Haddathani”.

Shaibah bin Nasaah was the Qadi  of Madinah. Ibn Numair, Ibn Maeen, Ibn Hibban, Nasai, Ibn Saad have declared him Thiqah. [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (12/609)]

All other narrators above them were reliable with agreement of scholars and they were from the Imams of Shia Imamis. 

The hadith of Ibn Abbas from Ali is recorded by Abu Dawud (117) which mentions the washing of feet. There is some dispute regarding its isnad. al-Albani considered it Hasan.

The hadith of Zirr bin Hubaish is in Abu Dawud (114) through Rabi’ah al-Kinani from Minhal bin Amr from Zirr bin Hubaish from Ali bin Abi Talib. Its narrators are reliable and the hadith was declared sahih by Al-Albani and Shuaib Arnaut.

The hadith of Abd Khair is reported in Sunan and other books. Abu Dawud (111-113) and Nasai (92-94) report it through Khalid bin Alqamah from Abd Khair from Ali. Tirmidhi narrates it in Sunan (49) through Abu Ishaq from Abd Khair. This narration is authentic without any doubt.

The hadith of Abu Hayya is also narrated in Sunan. Abu Dawud (116), Tirmidhi (49), Nasai (96, 115) and Ibn Majah (456) through Abul Ahwas and others from Abu Ishaq from Abu Hayyah bin Qais from Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).

Abu Hayyah is disputed narrator. Al-Dhahabi said he was not known, while Ibn Hajar said he was maqbool which means his narrations are acceptable if backed by other narrators. On the other hand Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqaat and Ibn Jarud quotes from Ibn Numair that he was Thiqah. Ahmad bin Hanbal called him “shaykh”. See  Tahdheeb.

All these indicates that Abu Huyyah is a considerable narrator in light of other narrations.

After this there remains no doubt that washing the feet was the opinion of Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) not wiping. And Allah knows best.

Logical Conclusion

We have proved in the previous section that Qur’anic verse do not necessarily support the practice of wiping over the feet during ablution. One of the two famous recitations clearly supports washing of feet while the other recitation may or may not support washing. But based on other internal and external factors we can be sure that it doesn’t rule out washing. This has been proven in enough details in the first section. 

When we look at the second source of Islamic laws then we see that washing was a prevalent practice during the time of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and after him. There are so many witnesses to it that it cannot be claimed that it was a false attribution on the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). Only very selected narrations have been reported about wiping as a Sunnah but they have their defects which doesn’t qualify them to stand against a practice which was reported in Mutawatir form. I have clarified it in the second section.

Also Read: Masah Alal Khuffain – Law regarding making Masah on Leather Socks

Refutation of the “Cape Accord”


By Mujlisul Ulama

Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem


“What is the matter with them for turning away from the  admonition (of the Qur’aan) as if they are wild donkeys fleeing from a lion?” [Al-Muddath-thir,  Aayaat 49, 50,51]

A cartel of modernists zanaadaqah had abortively attempted to mislead the Muslim community with a scrap paper ‘accord’ which they dubbed ‘The Cape Accord’, but which has culminated in nothing other than discord. It has also exposed the Shiah element lurking in the Muslim community in the guise of Muslims. These are the munaafiqeen who are working from within the Muslim community to undermine Islam.

In this brief treatise we have analyzed every point mentioned in their scrap document which has been rejected by the Ulama and the Muslim community of South Africa. The Shariah with its Qur’aanic terminology and strident form of admonition have been branded ‘hate speech’ by the modernist cartel. They insinuate that the Qur’aan fosters ‘hate speech’. These people flee from the Shariah in the manner described by the Qur’aan Majeed in the  above mentioned Verses.

Describing them, the Qur’aan says that “they are like wild donkeys fleeing from a lion.” When the Shariah is mentioned to them, they regard it as a lion, and they flee pell-mell in disarray and confusion like wild donkeys. That is on account of the kufr lurking within their hearts. That is precisely why Qur’aanic terms such as kuffaar, munaafiqoon, zaalimoon, mushrikoon, etc. are regarded as ‘hate speech’ by the modernist deviates who have lost their Imaan.

Their ‘accord’ paper is an accord of Kufr. Every provision percolates with kufr which they have polished and deceptively adorned with flowery language to deceive and appease the authorities and others who entertain inimical attitudes for Islam and Muslims, The type of deceptive flowery language in which they camouflage their kufr is called Zukhruful Qawl in the Qur’aan. It is shaitaani inspiration about which the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Thus, have We appointed for every Nabi enemies (who are) human and jinn devils (shayaateen). They whisper to one another (zukhrufal qawl) satanically polished and adorned statements for deceiving.” [Al-An’aam, Aayat 112]

Of course, for the munaafiqeen and zanaadaqah this castigation is also “hate speech”.

The Makkah Accord

The Mushrikeen of Makkah too had attempted to strike a ‘Makkah Accord’ with Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to prevent him from criticizing their ideology of shirk and their idols. The ‘Makkah Accord’, in the attempt to buy the silence and co-operation of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), had offered him wealth, women and leadership if only he would agree to the type of co-existence and harmony which the shaitaani cape accord advocates. Its advocacy is compromise with baatil – baatil which has as its cardinal article of faith that kufr/atheism/denial of the Haqq of Islam, is a basic human right which must be respected. Thus, despite a man professing to be a ‘Muslim’, his basic human right according to the ‘Cape Accord’, is to subscribe to kufr and to propagate it as if it is part of Islam.

The Quraish met to discuss how to deal with the propagation of the Deen of Tauheed by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). “Let us send the most versed among us in sorcery, soothsaying and poetry to this man who has disunited us, caused discord among us and reviled our religion (with hate-speech).

They sent Utbah Bin Rabee’ah. He came to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and said: “O Muhammad! Are you better or Abdullah (the father of Rasulullah Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)?”

Utbah: “Are you better or Abdul Muttalib (the grandfather of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?” Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) kept quiet.

Utbah: “If you take them to be better than you, they worshipped the idols which you have reviled (with your hate-speech). And if you think that you are better than them then speak so that we can listen to what you have to say. Verily, Wallah, we have not seen a junior more unfortunate to his people than you. You have disunited us, caused discord among us (with your  hate-speech), reviled our religion (with  your hate-speech) and disgraced us among the Arabs…”

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked: “Are you finished?” Utbah: “Yes.”

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) then started reciting Surah Haa Meem Sajdah from the beginning till he came to the Aayat:

“If they turn away then say: ‘I warn you lot of a Saa’iqah (Allah’s punishment in the form of a destructive screech) like the Saa’iqah of the Aad and Thamud (which utterly destroyed them).”

Utbah, terrified, put his hand on the mouth of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and implored him to stop.

This episode confirms that the originators of “Accord” stunts were the Mushrikeen. The objective of this initial “Makkah Accord” was to undermine Islam, but it was absolutely rejected by Allah Ta’ala. For confirming this rejection of the “Makkah Accord”, Allah Ta’ala specifically revealed more than a dozen Aayaat of Surah Haa Meem Sajdah.

In another narration it appears that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) recited till the Sajdah Aayat of this Surah and made Sajdah to practically demonstrate this Message of Tauheed which does not tolerate the slightest vestige of compromise with baatil.

On another occasion renewing their attempts to forge an accord the Mushrikeen said to Abu Taalib: “Verily, Wallah, we cannot tolerate his (Muhammad’s) hate-speech against our forefathers and our gods and him labelling us as morons. Hence you should stop him.”

From this narration it is quite clear that the Munaafiqeen of the “Cape Accord” are following in the footsteps of the Mushrikeen of Makkah. Just as these Mushrikeen had endeavoured to silence Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from the Haqq by enlisting the aid and support of the most senior chief of his tribe (the government), in the same manner the Munaafiqeen of this “Cape Accord” are plotting to enlist the support of the government in a bid to silence the Ulama-e-Haqq from proclaiming what Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had proclaimed more than 14 centuries ago.

When Abu Taalib spoke to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) about this, Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) responded: “O My Uncle! If they place the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand for me to abandon this Deen, I shall not desist from it.”

This is the Ta’leem of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam); for the Ulama-e-Haqq not to compromise with this satanically-inspired accord in abandonment of the propagation of the Haqq of Islam.

On yet another occasion in pursuit of forging an accord of compromise the Quraish dangled in front of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the chimera of wealth, women and kingship only if he compromises and abstains from hate-speech against their idols and their religion.

Alternatively, the ingredients of the compromise would be similar to the objectives of the kufr interfaith movement which the “Cape Accord” promotes. This interfaith type compromise with baatil entails acceptance of this kufr movement’s cardinal article of faith, namely, all religions and ideologies are on par. Thus the “Makkah Accord” required that the Muslims worship the gods of the Mushrikeen for one year and reciprocating this concession the Mushrikeen for one year will worship Allah Ta’ala as Islam requires. Categorically rejecting this Satanism, Allah Ta’ala revealed Surah Kaafiroon. In this Surah of the Qur’aan, with great clarity in such speech which the Cape Accord Munaafiqeen term “hate speech” (Kaafiroon), Allah Ta’ala confirmed that there is absolutely no scope for tolerating and compromising with kufr:

“Say (O Muhammad)! O Kaafiroon! I do not worship what you worship and you do not worship Who I worship. I will not worship what you worship and you will not worship Who I worship. For you is your religion and for me is my Deen.”

This Surah unequivocally rejects any form of accord which conflicts in any way with Qur’aanic Tauheed, and this rejection is stated explicitly in the Aayat: “For you is your religion and for me is my Deen.”



The noble Mashaaikh of Islam say that for understanding a venture’s direction, whether Haqq or Baatil, the originators should be examined. If those who initiate an organization are Men of the Sunnah, then the venture will be of the Haqq. On the other hand, if the originators are men of Baatil, then most certainly, the organization will be Baatil.

Those who have put together the scrap paper ‘cape accord’ are a group of non-entities  from the Islamic point of view. The members of this cape accord cartel are all people of baatil – modernists, Shiahs/hidden  Shiahs/Shiah supporters, bid’atis zanaadaqah and anti-Sunnah. There is not a single Islamically creditable person associated with the ‘cape accord’. Precisely for this reason is their founding statement filled with drivel full of sound and fury signifying bunkum. It is devoid of practical reality, and from the Islamic perspective it is plain garbage. In Qur’aanic language, they are “wild donkeys fleeing from a lion.” They flee from the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Let us examine the drivel in their statement.


(a) It is mentioned in the ostentatious statement:

“…unwarranted attacks on foremost figures, by individuals and groups within our broader faith community….”


What are these “unwarranted attacks” and who are these “foremost figures”, and who are these “individuals”? The supposed ‘accord’ is initiated with discord by these unwarranted remarks.   The initiators of the scrap accord with their ambiguous remarks and cracks begin their hallucinated accord with discord with these baseless and false comments. It is necessary that they mention with clarity what exactly is the meaning of these ambiguities.

Every criticism by the Ulama-e-Haqq on the baatil beliefs of kufr of the Shiahs, Munaafiqeen and Zanaadaqah is a warranted ‘attack’ intended for the guidance of the Muslim community, and to save the unwary and ignorant from the deceptions of these mudhilleen

They dare not elaborate for fear of their hidden kufr being exposed. The claimed “unwarranted attacks” consist of nothing other than the proclamation and dissemination of the Haqq Aqeedah of Islam as enshrined in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and as believed by the Ummah since the age of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).  

For example, stating that those who revile the Sahaabah are kuffaar, and labelling such villains as kuffaar are deemed as “unwarranted attacks” on those who propound and disseminate the kufr.


(b) The statement mentions:

“eradication of extremists”


Who are these “extremists” and what is their extremism? The ambiguity conceals the hidden meaning and agenda of the juhala who disgorge such garbage. They will not explain with clarity because they know that their nifaaq and kufr will be exposed.   These terms are monotonously sung by the deviates and agents of Iblees to deceive stupid audiences who do not have the haziest idea of the meaning of these ambiguities.

In which way do these juhala plot to eradicate the proclaimers of Allah’s Haqq? The plot envisages silencing the Ulama-e-Haqq by the authorities. The endeavour is to convince the authorities that certain Qur’aanic Truths are tantamount to ‘hate speech’, hence the Ulama who state the Haqq should be silenced.


(c) The following contention is indeed laughable for its portrayal of the stupidity and insipidity of the thinking of these modernist juhala:

“AND WHEREAS, such an alliance fosters greater connectivity, increases collaboration, promotes comprehension and enhances contribution to the attainment of the higher objectives of the shariah.”

Full of sound and fury signifying nothing. It is a meaningless statement which may impress only morons. They should elaborate these ambiguities. The collaboration and connectivity are in fact with Shaitaan who has inspired these deviates to plot alliances against the proponents of the Deen – the Deen which was handed to the Sahaabah by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – the Sunnah which  these munaafiqeen and zanaadaqah brand as extremism belonging to some hallucinated ‘dark age’. This is their conception of the Glittering Shariah of Islam. It is a product of some ‘dark age’ in their belief system – their system of kufr.

The chap who drafted the stupid ‘accord’ scrap paper mentions the conundrum of the “higher objectives of the shariah”. He does not have the haziest idea of these objectives of the Shariah. The highest objective of the Shariah is the Ibaadat of Allah Ta’ala for which He has created us. Stating this objective, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“I have not created jinn and man except that they worship Me.”

The higher and the only objective of the Shariah is to secure mankind’s everlasting salvation in the Aakhirah, and this is possible only by acceptance of Islam and adoption of the Sunnah. It can never be attained by interfaith accords and such collaboration which compromise and even eradicate the Aqaaid and A’maal of Islam.

Islam, not the corrupt conception of Islam of modernists, is the sole repository of salvation. All other ideologies are baatil and Jahannami, and are not acceptable to Allah Ta’ala. Stating this fact with emphasis, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Whoever searches for a deen (accord/religion/ideology) other than Islam, never ever will it be accepted from him.”

Those who seek accords in conflict with Islam and its Shariah are doomed for everlasting perdition in Jahannam. And, this proclamation of Qur’aanic Truth is ‘hate speech’ for those who collaborate with Iblees to forge accords which have no validity in the Shariah.

The objectives of the Shariah do not pertain to worldly prosperity and success although these transitory earthly gains may be acquired in the wake of obedience to Allah Ta’ala via His Shariah and adoption of the Sunnah.

All the ahkaam of the Shariah are designed for the attainment of the success and salvation of the Aakhirah via the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. Islam does not have worldly prosperity as an objective. The fellow who spoke about the objectives of the Shariah in all probability is ignorant of the rudiments of Tahaarat and Salaat, hence he shoved the ‘higher objectives of the Shariah’ into the effluvium of a stupid earthly scrap paper fabricated for the appeasement of a shaitaani alliance which has no relationship with the Islam taught to us by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

Any person who has a proper understanding of the higher objectives of the Shariah will never strike up an alliance nor collaborate with such elements   who are the very antithesis of   the Objectives of Allah’s Shariah. Minus the Sunnah of the Sahaabah there is not the remotest possibility for the attainment of any of the objectives of the Shariah.

This dunya is ‘jeefah’ (carrion), said Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is never among the objectives of the Shariah.


(d) The drivel accord mentions some incongruent ‘spirit of the Amman Accord’. This too is a shaitaani accord which has no validity in the Shariah. The life of Muslims is governed by the Sunnah not by some modernist ‘amman accord’ which is also one of the scrap papers signifying drivel.`

Imagining themselves to be the leaders of the global Ummah, the morons of the baatil ‘ammaan accord’, making a mockery of themselves, state in their scrap accord:

“AND WHEREAS, such Amman Accord, constitutes a global and universal principle of persuasive and binding effect upon all Muslim Societies”

These wayward liberals with bloated egos are labouring in a state of intellectual concussion to believe that the global Ummah assigns any importance to their drivel ‘principle’ of which 99% of the Ummah is not even aware.   The only universal principle for the global Ummah is the Shariah as enshrined in the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Muslims do not accept any other western-tutored principle/accord forged and frauded by the liberal humur about whom the Qur’aan says:  “(They are) like wild donkeys fleeing from a lion”. They flee from the Shariah just as wild donkeys flee from a lion.

With their liberal western-influenced attitude the humur of these stupid paper accords seek to impress their western kuffaar masters who have firmly fitted their brains with the straightjackets of zandaqah and kufr. That is precisely why these humur incline towards and always propagate western kuffaar values in flagrant conflict with Islam, and that is why Qur’aanic and Hadith terminology is ‘hate speech’ for them. The only spirit which true Muslims understand is the spirit which ensues as an effect of the adoption of the Sunnah.


(e) Satanically disguising their hatred for the Qur’aan, the munaafiqeen, disgorge in their scrap paper:

“AND WHEREAS, we, the representatives of Communities United Against Hate Speech, Division and Discord, in the Republic of South Africa;”

Firstly, the cape accord characters do not represent Muslim communities in South Africa. They are a handful of zanadaqah and munaafiqeen representing themselves. They lack in entirety the support of the Ulama of all persuasions. Even the   miscreants and mudhilleen of the MJC and the NNB jamiat felt constrained to withdraw their initial veiled and guarded support for the baatil ‘accord’ of the deviates. The distancing from this ‘cape accord’ by even members of bogus ‘uucsa’ and even pro-Shiah Radio Ansar (Ansaarush Shaitaan) should send a clear message to the fabricators of the haraam ‘accord’ of discord – that their plot is doomed for failure.

Their theme of ‘hate speech’ disgorged with insipid monotony only reveals their hatred for the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and exposes their Shiah tendencies. The only so-called ‘hate speech’ which these juhala are able to attribute to the Ulama-e-Haqq is their proclamation of the ahkaam, of the Shariah couched in Qur’aanic terminology. But cowards are unable to declare their kufr, hence they seek to camouflage their kufr with the designation of ‘hate speech’ which is quite palatable to the authorities of the state whose ears they are dinning with the garbage of their sinister plot against Islam.

While they vociferously trumpet their slogan of ‘hate speech’, they have hitherto not elaborated on the supposed ‘hate’ content of the speech they have in mind. They dare not present any elucidation of their concept of ‘hate speech’, for they know that it will expose their hidden kufr. There is not a single statement made by the Ulama which comes within the purview of ‘hate speech’ as understood by the kuffaar authorities. But for these cape accord munaafiqeen, Qur’aanic terminology which is anathema for the Shiahs constitutes ‘hate speech’.

They lack intelligence because Allah Ta’ala has cast RIJS (filth) on their brains. In a statement which will be typical ‘hate speech’ for the munaafiqeen, the Qur’aan states:

“He (Allah) casts RIJS on those who lack intelligence.” [Yoonus. Aayat 100]

“Those in whose hearts is Rijs – their rijs is compounded with (more) rijs, and they will die whilst they are kaafiroon.” [At-Taubah, Aayat 125]

This is the type of ‘hate speech’ – Qur’aanic speech – with which the Ulama castigate those who profess to be Muslims but   conspire to undermine and destroy Islam for promoting Shi’ism in the guise of Islam.

The pollution which has deranged the intelligence of those who promote hatred for the Sahaabah is described in the Qur’aan as RIJS (filth) which for the ilk of the cape accord characters is ‘hate speech’ to be banned. Allah Ta’ala says in this regard:

“(O Muhammad!) Say: ‘Verily RIJS has been cast on you (munaafiqeen and haters of the Sahaabah) from your Rabb. What! Do you dispute  with me…..?” [Al-A’raaf, Aayat 71]


(f) In their endeavour to obfuscate the issue of ‘hate speech and hatred’, the juhala of the shaitaani cape accord aver in their scrap paper:

“RECOGNISING the Prophetic Command: “The Believer is never one who taunts, curses; nor is indecent nor abusive.” [Tirmidhi, Bayhaqi]  

In a nut-shell, the Qur’aanic response which is ‘hate speech’ for these munaafiqeen is: “Behold! The LA’NAT (CURSE) of Allah is on the zaalimeen.”   [Hood, Aayat 18]

In the context of the Qur’aan Majeed, ‘zaalimeen’ refer to the kuffaar. According to the Qur’aan there is no greater oppression than kufr, hence the kuffaar are described with the term, ‘zaalimeen’ (oppressors). Curses and taunts are Qur’aanically justified when the need for such invocation develops.

This Hadith has been torn from its context to defend those evil ones who curse, taunt and acquit themselves indecently. Who are the targets of these people for their curses, taunts and abuse?

The targets of vilification and abuse are Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, Hadhrat Aishah and almost 124,000 Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu  anhum). And, those who disgorge the curses, taunts, abuse and the worst hate speech against the most illustrious and noblest of mankind are the Shiahs. Their books of theology loudly testify to this villainy. Yet, the shayaateen of the cape accord deem it appropriate to present the Hadith against those who are defending the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Their vindication of Sahaabah-Haters speaks volumes for their kufr and nifaaq.

And, why would people target the Sahaabah for vilification? Answering this question, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that they do so because “they hate me”. The cape accord deviates should understand that this Hadith of Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) places the seal on their nifaaq, for they are defending those who hate and vilify the Sahaabah, and they seek kuffaar aid to silence Muslims from proclaiming the Haqq. But they must fail. Their end will be miserable. Allah Ta’ala will apprehend them with His whip.

“We shall let them taste the severe punishment because of the kufr they perpetrated.” [Yoonus, Aayat 70]


(g) Piping the kufr theme of the kuffaar interfaith movement, the juhala of the cape accord say in their scrap paper:

“ACKNOWLEDGING that we live in a world of religious pluralism;”

This acknowledgement further testifies to their nifaaq and kufr. The meaning of acknowledgement in the context of this argument is palpable acceptance of other religions as ideologies of truth and repositories of salvation. But this is a violent rejection of Tauheed – Qur’aanic Tauheed.

According to Allah Ta’ala the worse scum in creation are those who reject Tauheed – Qur’aanic Tauheed. In the following Aayat which is ‘hate speech’ for the humur mustanfirah of the shaitaani cape accord of discord, Allah Ta’ala states:

“Verily, the worst of animals by Allah are the (spiritually) deaf and dumb, those who have no Aql (they lack intelligence).” [Al-Anfaal, Aayat 11]

Deaf, dumb, the worst of animals, bereft of intelligence, the enemies of Allah, the kaafiroon, jaahiloon, zaalimoon, faasiqoon, etc., etc. are all Qur’aanic terminologies which constitute ‘hate speech’ for the munaafiqoon of the cape discord. They should state with clarity which are the terms of ‘hate’ the Ulama are using and to whom are they directing these Qur’aanic epithets employed by Allah Ta’ala to describe the kuffaar.

Every moron on earth is aware of the existence of a plethora of religions and other ideologies of atheism. What is the need for having incorporated this stupid acknowledgment into a scrap paper which has greater value and significance than the Qur’aan for these juhala and mudhilleen from whose faces drip nifaaq?

While Islam accepts the existence of a multitude of religions, it came to abolish religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is the recipe for everlasting perdition in Jahannam. Stating this Divine declaration, the Qur’aan Majeed emphasizes:

“Whoever searches for a deen (religion) other than Islam, never ever shall it be accepted from him, and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.” [Aal-e-Imraan, Aayat 75]

“Verily, Allah is not pleased with people who are faasiqoon (kaafiroon/munaadiqoon).” [At-Taubah, Aayat 96]

These Aayaat and many other Qur’aanic verses emphatically reject acknowledgement of religious pluralism. This is a kufr postulate of the kufr interfaith movement with which all these munaafiqeen have an accord in flagrant denial of the Qur’aan. Further rejecting ‘religious pluralism’ and the interfaith movement, the Qur’aan states:

“This, MY PATH is Straight. Therefore follow it, and do not follow different ways (accords and ideologies), for then it will split you (into satanic accords and sects) and deviate you from His Path. This is what He (Allah) has commanded you (to acknowledge and submit to) so that you may gain taqwa.” [Al-An’aam, Aayat 153]

For Muslims there is no religion other than Islam. There can be no compromise with beliefs which are in conflict with Islam. But to interpret our Islamic attitude to mean ‘hatred’ and ‘hate speech’ is the effect of the evil ideology of the accord characters who profess to be Muslims when in reality they are munaafiqeen.

The hatred Muslims are commanded by Allah Ta’ala to have for kufr does not breed violence. Its effect is only dissociation and to refrain from fraternizing with kuffaar whom the Qur’aan labels as the enemies of Allah because of their kufr.   Muslims are prohibited from fraternizing and praying for those who reject the Tauheed of Allah Ta’ala. The following Aayat which according to the munaafiqeen will undoubtedly be ‘hate speech’ and the advocate of hatred and violence, states:

“It is not befitting for the Nabi and the Believers to seek forgiveness for the Mushrikeen even if they are close relatives after it has been clarified that they are the companions of the Fire (of Hell).” [At-Taubah, Aayat 113]

“When it was made clear to him (Ibraaheem) that his father (because of kufr) was the enemy of Allah, he (Ibraaheem) dissociated himself from him.” [At-Taubah, Aayat 114]

The munaafiqeen of the scrap cape town accord should now state with clarity if this aayat and innumerable other Qur’aanic verses are ‘hate speech’ and if this is advocacy of hostility and violence by the Qur’aan.

Numerous episodes in the life of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah voluminously and vociferously testify to the fact that the Qur’aan’s prohibition of fraternizing and socializing with the kuffaar does not promote hatred for them. We shall mention just two of these numerous incidents to confirm this fact.

Almost every intelligent Muslim is aware of the sternness of Ameerul Mu’mineen Umar Bin Khattaab (Radhiyallahu anhu) who is known as Saahib-Durra (the Man with the Whip). On one of his supervisory excursions of Madinah he found an old and blind Yahudi begging. Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) asked him why he was begging. Responding, the Yahudi said: “Destitution and payment of the jizyah tax.”

Hadhrat Umar, gently taking hold of the Yahudi, led him to the Baitul Maal. After presenting him with a quantity of provisions, Hadhrat Umar ordered the public treasurer of the Baitul Maal to exempt this Yahudi and all other destitute non-Muslims from the jizyah tax, and he furthermore commented something to the effect that it is unfair for us Muslims to take jizyah tax from the old and destitute.

The second episode pertains to Sultan Salaahuddeen (Rahmatullahi alayh). In the midst of a crucial battle a Muslim soldier on horseback succeeded in dropping King Richard of England from his mount. The king continued the combat from the ground with the Muslim soldier on horseback.

Sultan Salaahuddeen was viewing the scene from a distance and he commented: “It is unfair for such a brave fighter to be at such odds.” Overcome emotionally with chivalry, Sultan Salaahuddeen promptly sent his own horse to the king. King Richard mounted the horse and continued the fight. An exaggerated emotion of fairness and chivalry had overwhelmed the intellect of Sultan Salaahuddeen (Rahmatullahi alayh) at that moment, hence he sent his horse to the king and in so doing the pious sultan committed a fatal blunder and a disservice to Islam and the Mujaahideen on the battlefield because the consequence of this kind and chivalrous act of the Sultan was the death and martyrdom of numerous Muslim soldiers and defeat for the Muslim Army. In fact, the Sultan for his kind and chivalrous act was worthy of being court-martialled.

There are numerous such acts of kindness and affection displayed by Muslims for non-Muslims since the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) throughout the  history of Islam.

It were the Muslims who gave the Jews refuge during the dark Middle Ages when the Christian Church had invented equipment to torture and rip apart the bodies of Muslims and Jews. The Christian Spanish Inquisition is notorious for such brutality condoned and promoted as acts  of worship by the Christian  Church.

Muslims in North Africa and the sultan of the Ottoman Empire gave the Jews safe haven. All this kindness and affection to non-Muslims by Muslims was despite the Qur’aanic prohibition of socializing and fraternizing with the kuffaar. The objective of this prohibition is to save Muslims from being assimilated into kuffaar lifestyles as is the case today, and thereby destroying their salvation in the Hereafter.

The bigotry of these accord chaps dictates to them to infringe on the freedom of religion and freedom of expression which the constitution of the country grants all people. To achieve their diabolical objective they are at pains to hoodwink the authorities with their claim of ‘hate speech’. But hitherto, they have not yet expounded what exactly the terms of ‘hate’ are of which they accuse the Ulama.

Why have even the liberals and others who are in diametric opposition to the Ulama-e-Haqq withdrawn from this false accord which has produced nothing but discord? What has constrained them to withdraw? The real hate speech of the Shiahs which the cape accord supports has compelled even the liberals and modernists to disembark from the diabolical Cape Discord. Islam’s rejection of religious pluralism is not based on hatred nor is it hate speech as the deviates of the ill-fated cape accord contend.


(h) Stating a superfluity, the accord gang says:

“APPRECIATING that South Africa is a state model of multi-culturalism and diversity of faiths;”

It is their penchant for nonsense which constrained them to include drivel in their scrap accord paper. Of what benefit does this statement serve? No sane person has ever claimed that there is no diversity of faiths and cultures in South Africa. Just what is their stupid or ulterior point in making this redundant statement?


(i) Uttering kufr, the proponents of the scrap accord say:

“NOTING that the right to follow one’s faith or conscience is among the basic human rights that underpins our South African Constitution;”  

This idea is palpably to impress the authorities. If these fellows of the scrap accord had true Imaan, never would they have uttered this statement of kufr. The constitution of the country is secular and has no relationship with The Almighty Creator, hence such provisions of kufr are understandable for a secular state. However, from the Islamic perspective, if the faith is not Islam, adopting it is not a basic human right as the cranks contend.

Allah Ta’ala has ordained Islam for every human being. Thus, the Hadith states very clearly that every child is born on FITRAH, i.e. Islam which is the intrinsic, natural demand of the Rooh (Soul). Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicitly mentioned that the parents corrupt this Fitrah. The parents corrupt this Allah-bestowed Fitrah with baatil religions and ideologies. 

The basic human right is Tauheed – Islamic Tauheed – which Allah Ta’ala has embedded in every Soul. The Souls of all mankind had testified to Tauheed in the celestial realm. Mentioning this Pledge given by all Souls, the Qur’aan refers to that occasion when Allah Ta’ala had assembled all the Souls of entire mankind and asked them: “Am I not your Rabb?” In unison, the vast multitude of Souls responded: “Yes (O, our Rabb!)”.

This Pledge taken from the Souls in the celestial realm long long prior to the creation of our physical bodies is revived here on earth by Muslims when they recite the Athaan and Iqaamat in the ears of the newborn babe on the very first day after its birth, as soon as it has been cleansed.

The baby is not as ignorant as these accord and discord munaafiqeen. The Athaan and Iqaamat refresh the memory of the baby, reminding it of the Pledge. The baby possesses greater intelligence than munaafiqeen. Therefore, Allah Ta’ala has commanded the parents to remind their newborn baby of this basic human right of Tauheed. This Pledge of Tauheed and Imaan is the basic human right. Kufr is never a basic human right. It is an artificial ‘right’   fabricated by the kuffaar and adopted by the munaafiqeen who masquerade as Muslims.

Kufr is not a ‘basic human right’ as contended by the cape accord munaafiqeen. Yes, it is aconstitutional right. Man-made constitutions bestow this right. In a true Islamic governed region by the Shariah, the kuffaar citizens will enjoy a ‘constitutional’ right, not a basic human right, to practise their kufr religion.

In South Africa it is our constitutional right to practise our religion. For this right we firstly express our profoundest Shukr to Allah Ta’ala for granting us this freedom. While we are extremely appreciative of this constitutional right, the Muslim community should not abuse it in the manner they are currently doing. The objective for guiding the authorities to grant us the right to practise the Deen is to enable us to adhere to the Sunnah and to make maximum use of this right to submit to Allah’s Shariah. But the reality is that the Muslim community, the vast majority, has thrown the Deen behind their backs. Instead of fulfilling Shukr to Allah Ta’ala for this favour, Muslims have abandoned the Sunnah and have adopted the life style of the western kuffaar in every sphere of life. The lamentable consequence of this treachery is that Allah Ta’ala will inspire the kuffaar authorities to revoke this constitutional right. Then we shall be denied even our basic human right as has happened in many countries. The freedom of religion and expression currently enjoyed by Muslims will be snatched away by Allah Azza Wa Jal as a punishment for our treachery.

Every atom and iota are in Allah’s control. Not a leaf drops from a tree, but it is with His intervention and command. It is of the Sunnah of Allah Azza Wa Jal to snatch away rights and impose oppression on a treacherous community. The Muslim community today is guilty of treason against Allah Ta’ala. The community is awash with fussaaq, fujjaar, zanaadaqah and munafiqeen. Such a community will not escape Divine Chastisement. Kufr is never a basic human right.


(j) “AFFIRMING that such right resonates with the Maqasid of the Shariah in promoting the welfare and goodness of the human being;”  

Those who subscribe to this dastardly blasphemous idea of kufr can never be Muslims.

They are unadulterated munaafiqeen and kuffaar. This belief is kufr which violently militates against the Maqaasid of the Shariah. The juhala who have frauded this kufr drivel do not have the haziest idea of the meaning of the Maqaasid of the Shariah. They have stupidly utilized this terminology to convey Shar’i expertise whilst they are dwelling and drowning in a cesspool of jahaalat and kufr which percolates from every  aperture of their bodies.

Islam came to eradicate every vestige of kufr and shirk. But here in this garbage accord of discord are characters professing to be Muslims whilst promoting blatant kufr. Affirmation of kufr being a basic human right is blatant kufr which expels such a proponent from the fold of Islam. The claim that even kufr which the shayaateen are hallucinating as a ‘basic human right’, achieves the objective of the welfare and goodness of human beings is a blatant denial of the entire Qur’aan. These miserable agents of Iblees are blatantly denying every command of Allah Ta’ala pertaining to the eradication of kufr for which all the battle campaigns of the Sahaabah were waged and for which the Qur’aan was revealed, and for which Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was raised as the Final Nabi of Allah Ta’ala.

This villainous idea of brazen kufr is the very antithesis of Qur’aanic Tauheed. It is the effect of shaitaani insanity to aver that this vile idea of  kufr ‘resonates with the Maqaasid of the Shariah’. On the contrary, it resonates with the maqaasid of shaitaaniyat. It is pure Satanism urinated into their brains by Iblees-in-Chief.

This convoluted kufr, satanic conception which will doom its proponents to everlasting perdition in Hell-Fire resonates and reverberates with the objectives (maqaasid) for which Allah Azza Wa Jal has created Shaitaan. These fellows should apprize themselves of the rudiments of Istinja before venturing in a domain which is beyond their intellectual grasp. They are bereft of any understanding pertaining to Maqaasid of the Shariah. They have only advertised their hidden state of kufr with this corrupt satanic belief.

What human welfare and m goodness can there be in a belief which culminates in man’s ruin and destruction everlasting chastisement in Jahannam? The entire theme of the Qur’aan is anti-kufr. Nothing is as evil as kufr and shirk for which there is no forgiveness if the mushrik perishes prior to having made Taubah. Yet the juhala and munaafiqeen of the haraam Cape Discord affirm goodness for it. Their status in terms of the Shariah is worse than that of the mushrikeen idol-worshippers.


(k) “ASSESSING the critical importance of social stability and peace for the promotion and material welfare of South African Civic Society;”  

This is simply another drivel disgorgement to impress the authorities. It is a drivel utterance devoid of significance and valid meaning. It is calculated to charm and impress with figments of hallucination.

Social stability and the like are the obligations of the government. The breakdown of law and order, the anarchy and the shocking crime rate affirm the failure of the authorities in the domain of social stability and the welfare of society. But a stupid so-called accord by a handful of deviates cannot in any way whatsoever contribute towards the attainment of social stability in the country. The very sinister motive of the haraam Shiah accord is a plot for silencing the Ulama of Islam. It is unable to contribute even an iota towards the stability of society.

The objective of this shaitaani accord of discord is nothing other than to influence and dupe the authorities for achieving the pernicious aim of silencing the Ulama-e-Haqq to enable the Shiahs to propagate their baatil religion without any hindrance of the Haqq.


(l) “DECLARING our firm resolve to dissuade and/or engage and/or take appropriate legal action within the framework of the South African Constitution and the Chapter 9 Provisions against any individual or group who abuses the higher ethical principles of Islam as the basis for a deliberate and unwarranted attack on the dignity of a fellow South African citizen or group or entity with malicious intent, publicity and incitement to harm;”

The formulation of drivel resolutions such as the aforementioned claptrap is an empty threat. It is a toothless mongrel dog. This stupidity has been designed by a stupid conglomerate of munaafiqeen to intimidate the Ulama-e-Haqq in a bid to scare them into silence and abstention from Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar. If they had the slightest idea of the meaning of “the higher ethical principles of Islam”, they would not have acquitted themselves with the puerility which they have displayed in their scrap accord paper. They would have been recluses from whom Tawaadhu’, Sidq, Ibaadat and Taa-at would have exuded. They would not have acquitted themselves with the arrogance they have displayed in their silly scrap accord paper nor would they have been western bootlickers.

Those whose lives were conducted in terms of the higher ethical principles of Islam were the Sahaabah and the Auliya. Men who lap up western concepts of kufr and who emulate the lifestyles of the western kuffaar and who think with brains fitted and strapped with the straitjackets of western indoctrination can never even dream of the meaning of the higher ethical principles of Islam. They disgorge trash, for it is trash that they think.

There is adequate provision in the secular law for instituting haraam legal action against the Ulama if the human-devils (Shayaateenul Ins) are able to establish valid grounds for such haraam action in terms of the laws of the kuffaar. A genuine Muslim does not display this type of sewerage mentality which is inherited from the western masters whom these munaafiqeen bootlick.

A Muslim whose life is conducted in terms of the higher ethical principles of Islam believes and consciously feels in his heart that he is the most contemptible creature of Allah Ta’ala, more contemptible than even a dog. This is the teaching of the higher ethical principles of Islam. But those who are the victims of western kufr indoctrination to which they were subjected to at the kuffaar universities over brim with pride and arrogance. They are unable to bear criticism, especially if it emanates from the Qur’aan and Sunnah, hence they seek the aid of kuffaar courts. They fail to understand that salvation also requires the belief of being more despicable than even the lowly animals. And, this is the teaching of the higher ethical principles of Islam of which the western bootlickers do not have the haziest idea. The following anecdote will illustrate what is meant by the higher ethical principles of Islam.

One day while crossing a narrow bridge, a dog approached from the other side. To avoid brushing against the dog, Baayazid pulled his cloak towards himself. The dog spoke: “Why did you do this? If I am dry, there is no harm in your garment touching me. If I am moist, a little water can cleanse your cloak. But, even the seven oceans cannot purify you of your pride.”

Baayazid said: “You have spoken the truth. While there is zaahiri (external) impurity in you, there is baatini (spiritual) impurity in me. Come live with me so that I may be purified.”

The dog: “We cannot live together. You are the Maqbool (accepted) and honoured) leader of mankind while I am mardood (accursed and buffered). Secondly, I do not hoard a bone for the next day while you hoard food for tomorrow.”

Baaayazid lamented: “Alas! When I am not deserving of the company of even a dog, how can I gain Allah’s Proximity?”

Any sincere Muslim who has been tricked into joining the haraam shaitaani accord, after being apprized of this anecdote will, Insha-Allah, gain a valid understanding of the higher ethical principles of Islam, and he will also realize the Imaani danger in which he has become involved with the miserable accord crowd of munaafiqeen. There are innumerable similar anecdotes of the Auliya who were the highest paragons of Islamic virtue, moral character and ethics – of Akhlaaq-e-Hameedah of which munaafiqeen lack the ability of even hallucinating.


(m) “DO HEREBY, by our signatures hereunder…SOLEMNLY AFFIRM the spirit of the Amman Message and strive to uphold the dignity of Muslims and the positive image of Islam and call upon all South African Muslims to protect, promote and advance this image as commanded by our Prophet Muhammed (Upon Whom Be Peace).”

The Amman message is another specimen of a drivel message. The fact that they have dubbed their ideas the ‘amman accord’ displays their lack of Islamic understanding. Despite the motley of supposedly religious elements at this so-called amman accord professing to be religious personnel they were too stupid to understand that for the Ummah there is only one Accord, and that is the Qur’aan and Sunnah.

These miserable westernized characters searched all over the   show for guidance but could find no direction in the Qur’aan and Sunnah, hence they felt constrained to fabricate and fraud a puerile document which would appease the tastes of the western kuffaar whose boots they are ever ready to lick. Lapping up the vomit of western concepts and ideas, these miscreants forge ‘accords’ of kufr couched in deceptive flowery language termed in the Qur’aan as zukhruful qawl, i.e. satanically adorned speech whispered into convoluted brains by shaitaan.

The only spirit Muslims have to incumbently infuse in themselves is the spirit of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this spirit has been extinguished by the Ummah in the wake of the insane emulation of the lifestyle of the West. True Muslims have no affinity and absolutely no desire for a spirit which is a waste product of some kufr ideology such as the amman accord and of the even more ludicrous cape accord.

The positive image of Islam is portrayed only when Muslims adhere to the Qur’aan and Sunnah as did the Salafus Saaliheen. Only these illustrious personalities had displayed the positive image of Islam. The positive image can never be expected to be portrayed by munaafiqeen and Shiah supporters or by western bootlickers and by Muslims who emulate the western way of life. The positive image of Islam is displayed only when all departments of the Deen are implemented in practical life in conformity with the precepts of the Shariah.

Furthermore, the positive image of Islam is not displayed by a desire to impress others. When Muslims submit fully and wholeheartedly to the Shariah and the Sunnah in all aspects of life, then Allah Ta’ala displays the wonderful image of Islam on the adherents of Islam. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Allah elevates the one who adopts humility for the sake of Allah.”  

The Mu’min does not adopt humility or the attributes of moral excellence for gaining elevation or for impressing others. He is completely oblivious of such objectives. His only intention is the attainment of Allah’s Pleasure. When he succeeds in the rectification of his niyyat and his focus is on only Allah Ta’ala, then he is elevated by Allah Ta’ala,  and then he displays the positive image of Islam which guides people towards the destination of the Aakhirat. The objective of this fleeting life on earth is success and salvation in the Aakhirat, not worldly and material prosperity and perfection. This conception of Islam is alien to the western bootlickers who formulated the scrap cape accord designed for only discord.

The call by these votaries of the haraam accord is rejected by the Ummah. Only Shiahs, Shiah supporters and western bootlickers will be receptive to the haraam drivel forged into the scrap paper. But the Ummah has no inclination towards a piece of garbage which has been cunningly but stupidly designed to undermine Islam and to promote Shi’ism with the plot of passing off Shi’ism as Islam. The Ummah rejects the haraam accord in entirety.


(n) “EARNESTLY APPEAL to our communities to be tolerant of the differences of opinion between Muslims and not to escalate intra-faith hostilities between Sufi/Salafi, Sunni/Shi’a, Hanafi/Shaf’i, Barelwi/Deobandi, and Liberal/Conservative schools of thought… “  

What is their conception of toleration? As far as Muslim are concerned there is no tolerance for kufr. This ‘intolerance’ does not promote hate or violence in any manner whatsoever. Its demand is to dissociate from those who promote kufr and deny Tauheed. It precludes us from becoming the bosom friends of kuffaar without advocating hatred for them. And, how is it possible for Islam to promote hatred when the focus of Tabligh and Da’wat is the kuffaar?

Muslims have lived for centuries in South Africa alongside the kuffaar without the slightest perpetration of violence or hatred. Although we adhere to our Deen, never can it be shown that Muslims have ever advocated hatred and violence.

Tolerance for the munaafiqeen of the baatil cape accord is to abandon the proclamation of the Truth. Tolerance for them means that Muslims, especially the Ulama, should refrain from informing Muslim of the kufr which the Shiahs and other modernists are cunningly disseminating among the unwary and ignorant Muslims. Tolerance for these modernist juhala is to maintain silence when the Sahaabah are insulted or when Shi’ism is propagated as Islam.   For the cartel of deviates tolerance is to accept the kufr differences of false religions and ideologies, all the kufr, and to refrain from stating the Haqq which the Qur’aan declares regarding kufr. Tolerance in their understanding means that we all should clamber aboard the kufr interfaith wagon and submit to the kufr articles of faith of this shaitaani ideology.

The averment of ‘intra-faith hostilities’ is a filthy canard. Proclaiming the Truth does not initiate hostility. However, the bigoted modernists and munaafiqeen are the criminals who display lack of tolerance. Since they refuse to listen to the Truth of the Qur’aan which is unpalatable to the Shiahs and other sinister cranks and crooks lurking in the Muslim community, they seek to hoodwink the authorities with their falsehood of hostilities.

There is no Hanafi-Shaafi’ hostility despite the differences. The differences of the Math-habs are honourably accepted. There never ever was any Hanafi-Shaafi’ hostility in South Africa, and to the best of our knowledge elsewhere in the world. Hanafis and Shaafi’s perform Salaat together. The Imaam of the one Math-hab leads the followers of the other Math-hab. The attempt to trade the idea of Hanafi-Shaafi’ hostility in South Africa, is a despicable LIE. We challenge these agents of Shaitaan to produce just one anti-Shaafi’ statement issued by a Hanafi Aalim or vice versa. On the contrary, we have always resolutely propagated that the followers of a Math-hab should zealously adhere to their Math-hab and not become freelancers and slaves of desire as are the modernists who recklessly and ignorantly abandon the Math-hab. The attempt to create the impression of Hanafi-Shaafi’ hostility conspicuously displays the falsity and dishonesty of the accord cartel of deviant modernists.

There is also no Sufi-Salafi hostility in South Africa. These modernist liars are simply compounding their lies. Strident  academic debate is not hostility nor hatred. The debate pertains to academic and doctrinal issues. The parties in the dispute tender their respective arguments. But this is not hostility as the liars of the accord seek to convey. Salafis, Hanafis and Shaafis perform Salaat in the same Musaajid all over the world. There has never been physical hostility in South Africa between the followers of the Math-habs and Salafis as is falsely alleged by the liars of the cape accord. Let them produce their evidence for all their despicable canards.

In fact there is no Muslim-Shiah hostility in the meaning which the modernist juhala munaafiqeen are portraying. The debate pertains to the realm of Amr Bil Ma’roof, and the strident method of acquittal of the Ulama is not hostility. These deviates should elaborate and explain exactly their concept of hostility and how and when did the Ulama ever incite violence.

Hostility emanates from the modernists who label themselves as the ‘liberal school’ in opposition to what they term the ‘conservative school’. There is no liberal and no conservative school of thought in Islam. There is only one Islam – the Sunnah of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Any precept, belief or practice which is in conflict with the Sunnah is not of Islam. There is no room for a liberal school of thought in Islam. Islam is the one and only Islam about which the Qur’aan declares:

“This Day have I (Allah) perfected your Deen for you, and completed for you My Favour, and chosen Islam for you as your Deen.”

The Deen of Islam was perfected more than 14 centuries  ago. The Qur’aan confirms this irrefutable reality. Precepts and opinions which are the products of liberal opinion are kufr. Liberalism is the teaching of the western kuffaar who are the tutors of the deviant liberals who were born in Muslim homes but who abandoned Islam as a consequence of western indoctrination. Proclaiming the modernist deviates such as the cape discord zanaadaqah and munaafiqeen is not an incitement to violence. It is the presentation of the Truth in the manner in which the Qur’aan addresses such issues. The manner is Qur’aanic and the terminology is Qur’aanic.

It is impossible for the Ulama to resort to LIES by pretending that kuffaar, murtaddeen and munaafiqeen are above board when the Qur’aan categorically proclaims them as the inmates of Jahannam. We cannot socialize and fraternize with those whom Allah Ta’ala regards as His enemies. This fact is proclaimed with clarity for the benefit of the zanaadaqah – the modernist deviates and liberals – to induce them to reflect and save themselves from everlasting damnation in Jahannam with their kufr. Their claims regarding hostility are absolutely baseless.

Incidents such as the violence at the Shiah temple in Verulam and the Musjid in Cape Town have no relationship with the Amr Bil Ma’roof of the Ulama.


(o) “ACKNOWLEDGE that we can agree to disagree without disrespect to each other.”  

It is not possible for the Mu’mineen to agree with kufr. This type of agreement is a kufr principle of the western kuffaar. It is not an Islamic principle. Agreement on baatil is haraam. It is incumbent for the Ulama to proclaim the Haqq regardless of its unpalatibility, and no matter how undigrable it may sound. The Qur’aan Majeed states:

“And, the Haqq has arrived and falsehood has perished, for falsehood (by its very nature) must perish.”  

“We strike the Haqq against baatil. Then it smashes out its brains.”

Those bereft of Imaan can find agreement with the variety of forms of kufr, for all breeds of kufr is reality one breed. Al-kufru millatun waahidatun. All persuasions of kufr are in an alliance against Islam. That is why the U.S.A. has succeeded in imposing the cult of Islamophobia on almost the entire kuffaar nations of the world whether they are African, Asian, Arab or European. For all of them the profile of a terrorist is a true Muslim who dresses in Sunnah attire, has a beard, performs Salaat and proclaims the Haqq. And, the munaafiqeen who profess to be Muslims have also joined this league of Shaitaan. Despite overtly reciting the Kalimah and performing mock acts of worship, they cherish an inveterate hatred for the Sunnah and the adherents of the Sunnah. But Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has informed us of these times. He said:

“Then there shall dawn an age when holding on to the Deen will be like holding onto a glowing ember (a red hot coal).”  

Furthermore, for the adherents of the Sunnah, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) announced Glad Tidings from Allah Ta’ala:

“Islam began ghareeb (forlorn and as a stranger). Soon will it return to that state of forlornness. Therefore, Glad Tidings for the Ghuraba (those who practise the Deen when the entire world has turned against them).”


(p) “Communities United Against Hate Speech and Discord.”  

This is the very initial, opening statement of the cape town haraam, bogus accord of discord. The handful of misguided modernist Shiahs or Shiah supporters had made a dishonest attempt to trade the idea that Muslim communities all over the country are in support of this haraam accord. However, they were soon divested of their hallucinatory ‘importance’. They soon discovered that Muslim communities and organizations, far from supporting their hate programme, were opposed to this baatil so-called accord.

There is no ‘hate speech’ against which Muslims are required to unite. Only deviates, munaafiqeen and modernist zanaadaqah require to unite against the Qur’aan and Sunnah. We call on this company of mudhilleen and munaafiqeen to elaborate on their false claim of ‘hate speech’. Since they are embroiled in stirring up hatred with their ‘hate speech’ slander it devolves on them religiously, morally and legally to expound their slander and to pinpoint exactly which are the terms of ‘hate speech’ against which they are seeking a stupid accord. We await their elucidation.

Currently they wander aimlessly in riddles designed to hoodwink and deceive. They will not be inclined to elaborate for fear of their hatred for the Qur’aan being exposed.

Their opening statement confirms that the only motive for the baseless ‘accord’ attempt was to gain support against the Ulama, and that too, a small group of Ulama-e-Haqq who is holding aloft the Banner of Haqq in the ocean of baatil, fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr.

There never was the intention of engaging honourably and with sincerity with Muslims. Therefore the deviant zindeeq cartel of modernists did not even attempt to engage liberals in the Muslim community such as the NNB jamiat, bogus uucsa, Darush Shaitaan and similar other ‘Dumb Devils’.

It is of imperative importance to inform the Muslim community that we are dealing with characters who are not Muslims. Despite professing to be Muslim, they are munaafiqeen. For them is their religion and for us is our Deen. And this is Qur’aanic Speech and Qur’aanic Command which will obviously be ‘hate speech’ for the shayaateenul ins.

From the Islamic Perspective the consequence of embracing the “Cape Accord” consisting of diabolical characters is spiritual haemorrhage causing spiritual, moral and intellectual concussion culminating in eternal perdition and doom in the Hereafter.

The platitude of harmony and co-existence piped by these diabolical characters with insipid monotony is kufr because the type of harmony and co-existence which they preach is among the fundamental articles of kufr of the kufr interfaith movement.

KUFR is the worst form of ZULM (OPPRESSION) as mentioned in the Qur’aan Kareem:

“Verily Shirk (Kufr) is Colossal Zulm”.


By Mujlisul Ulama

“That Day (of Qiyaamah when Allah will resurrect them all, then they will take oaths before Him just as they are taking oaths before you (here on earth) whilst they labour under the impression that they are on something valid (i.e. on rectitude). Behold! Verily, they are liars.

Shaitaan has overwhelmed them, and he has made them forget the Remembrance of Allah. Indeed they are the legion of Shaitaan. Behold! The legion of Shaitaan are the losers (in this dunya and in the Aakhirah).

Verily, those who oppose Allah and His Rasool, verily they are in utter disgrace.

Allah has ordained: ‘Verily I and My Messengers will most certainly be victorious. Verily, Allah is Most Powerful and Mighty.

You will not find people who believe in Allah and the Last Day befriending those who oppose Allah and His Rasool even if they (the opponents) are their fathers, or their sons or their brothers or their families. Indeed they are those in whose hearts Allah has engraved Imaan and He aids them (the true Mu’mineen) with a Rooh from Him. He will enter them into Gardens beneath which flow rivers wherein they shall dwell forever. Allah is well-pleased with them, and they are well-pleased with Him. Indeed they are the   LEGION of Allah. Behold! It is the Legion of Allah which will be victorious.” [Surah Al-Mujaadalah, Aayaat 21 – 22]

These gracious Aayaat of the Qur’aan-e-Kareem sum up the status of the mudhilleen and the mudhalleen of the Accord of Dhalaal which is being advertised by munaafiqeen and murtaddeen as the ‘cape accord’. This shaitaani accord consists of opportunists and bootlickers. These spineless fence sitters bereft of Imaan, whilst professing to be Muslims, are today vociferously and jubilantly proclaiming support for the ANC government, for this suits their vile tastes of opportunism. Tomorrow if there happens to be a DA government in power or a government of another persuasion, then these self-same opportunists will swiftly shift their fickle support to the new regime.

In their inordinate quest for contemptible worldly and nafsaani objectives they behave like chameleons, searching for hollow honour. About such trash, Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed:  

“(The munaafiqeen are) those who take as friends the Kaafireen besides the Mu’mineen. What! Are they searching for honour from them? Verily, all honour belongs to Allah.” [An-Nisaa, Aayat 139]

Their nifaaq confirms their fickleness and total unreliability. Munaafiqeen are always contemptible fence sitters and this is confirmed by the Qur’aan Majeed. In this category fits the MJC and its cohorts. Whilst this outfit dubs itself a ‘Muslim’ judicial council, it lacks in valid understanding of the fundamental rudiments of valid Imaan, leave alone the plethora of Masaa-il regulating the lives of  genuine Muslims – those Muslims upon whom Allah Azza Wa Jal lauds glowing praise in the aforementioned  Aayaat as well as in other Aayaat of the Qur’aan Majeed.

The miscreants of this phantom accord, the ‘cape accord’, have nothing of Islam to present. They only monotonously trumpet some political clichés to appease the politicians and the rulers, and they display their nifaaq by branding the Haqq of the Qur’aan stated by the Ulama-e-Haqq as ‘hate speech’. In terms of their concept of ‘hate speech’, the Qur’aan Majeed and the Ahaadith are replete with ‘hate speech’. Thus they (these modernist, zindeeq miscreants of the shaitaani ‘accord’) are on the same wave length as the French enemies of Islam who are calling for the expungement from the Qur’aan Majeed of all such verses which they deem ‘hate speech’.

Let it be clearly understood that the Qur’aan Majeed is replete with such Aayaat which according to the modernist zanadiqah and the kuffaar are all ‘hate speech’. What these miscreants are saying – the modernist miscreants who profess to be Muslims – is that the Qur’aan promotes violence and hate. This is because they are hidden Shiahs who believe that the Qur’aan Majeed is a fabrication of the Sahaabah who according to them are all murtaddeen.

Shiahs, contrary to their deceptive taqiyah professions, do not believe in the authenticity of the Qur’aan which Muslims have with them today. How is it possible for them to believe in the authenticity of the Qur’aan Majeed when they believe that this Qur’aan which we Muslims have was compiled and fabricated by such a group of people who were all murtaddeen?

Just what do they mean by ‘hate speech of extremists’? And who are the extremists who propagate this ‘hate speech’? They speak with considerable ambiguity designed to beguile and deceive, and to trap the authorities in their canard of ‘hate speech’. Furthermore, the propagation of this canard is the penchant of the modernist, munaafiq Shiah sympathizers and even hidden murtads who have become Shiahs but remain within the folds of the community to undermine Islam in furtherance of the Shiah agenda.

It devolves upon them to refrain from these despicable riddles and to state exactly who are the ‘extremists’ and which of their statements are ‘hate speech’ in the meaning of the secular law of the country, which render them ‘extremists’. In reality, their monotonous slogans of ‘hate speech’ and ‘extremists’ are pure bunkum calculated to beguile the authorities. The motive being the pernicious plot of silencing the Ulama-e-Haqq from stating the Haqq of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and to accord official Islamic status to Shiahs who are NOT Muslims. They have their own, separate, distinct religion which is the antithesis of the Islam delivered by Jibraaeel (Alayhis salaam) to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Islam about which the Qur’aan explicitly and emphatically states:

“This Day have I perfected for you your Deen, and completed upon you My favour, and I have chosen Islam as the Deen for you.”

Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan: “Whoever searches for a religion other than Islam, never ever shall it be accepted from him.” Now when we proclaim that those who do not believe in Islam are doomed to everlasting perdition in Jahannam, is this ‘hate speech’? If it is, then all Christians and all Jews should also be accused of hate speech. It is their belief that Muslims are doomed for Hell-Fire. We do not    believe in the kufr/shirk concept of trinity and that ‘Christ died for our sins’, and in all the other doctrines of kufr of the other religions. They too should be accused of ‘hate speech’ for condemning Muslims to Hell-Fire.

Islam teaches that Islam is the sole repository of salvation. Does the MJC and the other modernists and zanadaqah of the MJC’s ilk accept this fundamental doctrine of Islam? They should speak up and proclaim what is concealed in their hearts. At functions such as their haraam ‘iftaar’ party and munaafiq ‘cape accord’ functions, they acquit themselves with flowery speeches to beguile non-Muslims. With their dubious, forked-tongue speeches they seek to convey the idea that Islam accepts all religions to be on the same pedestal. But this is a despicable canard. When the truth is proclaimed, they label it as ‘hate speech’. The Haqq of the Qur’aan when proclaimed is presented as the cause for anarchy such as the atrocity at the Shiah temple in Verulam. Any Muslim of intelligence who has no satanic agenda can understand that what had happened at the Shiah temple was not the deed of Muslims.

There are sinister forces who have a pernicious agenda for abominable perpetrations of this type. All over the world the sinister forces of the West are  creating destabilization to entrench their presence in these lands to enable them to siphon off the wealth and natural resources of these so-called ‘third world’ countries which in reality are the richest lands. They are rich in natural resources in which the West is generally lacking, but the West has succeeded in blinding the peoples and the regimes of these countries convincing them that they are the beggars of the world who cannot survive without western aid.

They have destabilized the extremely wealthy state of Nigeria by creating and fielding Boko Haraam. Now they are busy unfolding the very same conspiracy in the richest province of Mozambique. They have created a phantom ‘Al-Shabaab’ to destabilize the country, and this destabilization will entrench the foothold of the western sinister forces to enable them to become the masters and ‘protectors’ of the natural gas wealth and of the regimes. They will not leave this wealthy country of South Africa in peace.

But it is sad and lamentable that the regimes and the intelligence agencies of these countries have miserably failed to understand these western plots. On the contrary, the West has succeeded in duping them with the ‘jihadist’ phantom. Every atrocity which the West commits is attributed to Islam.

In fact, even vagabonds of the MJC ilk, either on account of   shocking stupidity or calculated design, are attributing such misdeeds to Islam by implication. They too are the victims of western snares. They also subscribe to the utterly ludicrous falsehood that outfits such as Boko Haraam are ‘fundamentalist’ Muslims waging their type of ‘jihad’. Neither are these outfits genuine Islamic organizations nor are they engaging in Jihad as ordained by Islam. 

Let these miserable munaafiqeen and zanadaqah state their belied with clarity on the numerous issues on which Islam clashes violently in belief with Shiahs, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., etc. What does the MJC say about those who propagate that:

1) Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) had committed adultery – Nauthubillah -.

2) The Qur’aan is a false book fabricated by the Sahaabah who, according to Shiahs, have reneged from Islam (committed irtidaad)?

3) Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhum) had usurped the Khilaafate thereby denying the right of Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu)

4) That almost all the Sahaabah, including the Ashrah Mubash-sharah, will be the inates of Jahannam.

5) That Imaam Mahdi will appear with the true Qur’aan which he has with him in concealment in some cave.

6) That the Shiah Imaams are infallible, sinless and even higher than Ambiya.

7) That Jibraeel (Alayhis salaam) brings Wahi to the Shiah imaams.

8) That Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) had erred in delivering the Wahi of Allah Ta’ala. Instead of delivering it to Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), he mistakenly delivered it to Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).  

9) And, worst of all – Allah Ta’ala has also committed errors – Nauthubillah! One such example is that Allah Ta’ala erred when He proclaimed in the Qur’aan that the Sahaabah will be in Jannat. This was a Divine error – Nauthubillaah!

Stating these Truths is ‘hate speech’ for the MJC and the ‘cape accord’ cartel. And, they din the ears of the president and the authorities with this falsehood of ‘hate speech’ seeking to convince them that the Haqq stated by the Ulama-e-Haqq is ‘hate speech’ which culminates in atrocities.

These are simply a couple of their virulent beliefs of kufr which Muslims have to compulsorily expose especially in the current scenario where Shiahs and their hidden sympathizers are clandestinely propagating these beliefs of kufr to ignorant Muslims.

While according to the secular constitution of the country it is the right of any person to accept these extremely noxious and repugnant Shiah beliefs, it is our right to conspicuously highlight   and proclaim to our community the kufr of these beliefs. When others propagate kufr, it is not hate speech. But when the Ulama state the truth, then suddenly this is hate speech emanating from extremists.

The formation of the phantom ‘cape accord’ designed for discord is another scrap paper outfit whose only activity is to rant and rave against those who uphold Islam and proclaim the Deen which we have inherited from the Sahaabah. This shaitaani ‘accord’ is well in accord with Shiahs and evilly disposed towards Muslims. They are in bed and at home with Shiahs, but Muslims are aliens to them. This by itself is a revelation of the nifaaq lurking in their hearts. Our statement pertaining to their nifaaq, will also be in their list of ‘hate speech’. But this is the truth.

They are at home with those who denigrate the Sahaabah and deny the Qur’aan while they find those who honour the Sahaabah and uphold the Qur’aan to be aliens. Having befriended Shiahs, they have become alienated from Muslims regarding us as strangers. This is also one of the ways in which the following prediction of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is attaining materialization:

“Islam began Ghareeb (forlorn, regarded as a stranger). Soon shall it return to that (initial stage of) forlornness. Therefore, glad tidings for the Ghuraba (those who adhere to true and original Islam).”

Among the vilest opportunists in the Muslim community is the MJC. Besides carrion-halaalizing for the acquisition of millions of rands in haraam fees and making grandiose senseless statements to hoodwink the audiences, it performs no valid Deeni function. It has miserably failed in handling even marital issues. The MJC is an entity devoid of principles, hence its stances are ludicrously incongruent. 

The MJC’s handling of the Ahmedi issue testifies to this shaitaani incongruency which stems from its religiosity. In its vicious stance against the Ahmedi kuffaar in Cape Town, the MJC had waged its so-called ‘jihad’ on different levels. In addition to the legal battle, violence was employed to evict Ahmedis from the Musjids. It had displayed considerable venom against the Ahmedis. Yet these kuffaar had not denigrated the Sahaabah. The Ahmedis do not subscribe to the host of evil beliefs which constitute Shi’ism. Yet, the MJC is in bed with the Shiahs. It is desirous of an accord with those who disgorge the vilest form of abuse on the Sahaabah.

This pro-Shiah stance despite the intolerable kufr of Shi’ism is the effect of the MJC’s craving for the boodle which is readily available from Iran for its cronies and supporters. It is the monetary lust which formulates volatile ‘principles’ and stances for the MJC. It has long ago traded its Imaan for the jeefah of this dunya.

For the Muslim community in the Western Cape, the MJC is in reality a curse. Perhaps the MJC is Allah’s Athaab for the gross transgression of the Muslim community of that region just as the likes of the NNB fraudulent jamiat with its reverend and pundit is a form of Divine Punishment for the Muslim community of Gauteng and environs. According to the Hadith, the leaders are generally the reflection of the deeds of the people.

Despite the real and literal hate speech and hate tactics which the MJC had adopted for the Ahmedis, the miserable clowns and coons of the MJC are today propagating that the Qur’aanic  Aqaaid which the Ulama-e-Haqq are presenting in refutation of the evil Shiahs are ‘hate speech’.  Supportive of the Shiah accord for despicable ulterior motives, the vile kufr of Shi’ism has become acceptable to the MJC whilst the comparatively lesser kufr of the Ahmedis was so much intolerable that it had justified hate speech and physical violence against Ahmedis. Their haraam opportunism and shaitaaniyat are quite conspicuous for men of intelligence. 

The MJC portrays itself as the leader and representative of the Muslim community of the Western Cape. This image which the MJC always seeks to project of itself is a massive deception. The government has become the victim of this deception. Generally, the Muslim community in the Western Cape does not follow the MJC. The MJC has not been an asset for the community.  Whilst the MJC projects itself as a supporter of the ANC, it is unable to procure votes for the ANC.   Despite such a large majority of Muslims in Cape Town, the DA is in power. Most voting Muslims in the Western Cape vote for the DA. They do not heed the call of the phantom self-proclaimed ‘leader’. The government should study the scenario and not become the victim of MJC deception. The MJC is a phantom which does not represent the Muslim community.

The so-called ‘cape accord’ which in reality is an entity of Discord, is haraam for Muslims. The bigoted modernists and munaafiqeen label this statement as ‘hate speech’. When we say that trinity is kufr and its believers are destined for Jahannam, they say it is ‘hate speech’. When we say that worshipping idols is kufr and its worshippers will everlastingly languish in Jahannam, they say it is ‘hate speech’. In short, the whole of Islam is ‘hate speech’ for the munaafiqeen Shiah sympathisers. In their understanding, a substantial portion of the Qur’aan should be expunged, and Qur’aanic terminology should not be   mentioned. Shar’i facts should not be labelled with the appropriate Qur’aanic terminology as prescribed by Allah Azza Wa Jal. This is their conception of the satanic cape accord’ which has absolutely no room for acceptance in the Shariah.

The only accord acceptable to Muslims is the Divine Accord stated in the Qur’aan Shareef.   Commanding this Accord, Allah Azza Wa Jal states:

“He who denies taaghoot (the devil and his agents) and believes in Allah, verily, He has held on to a powerful Accord.?????????????

The Qur’aanic Accord demands dissociation from kufr and all accords of kufr. It demands Imaan. But the ‘cape accord’ is structured on kufr with which Muslims cannot have any truck.

Dissociation from a kuffaar accord fabricated by Shiah supporters  is not hatred nor hate speech.

Co-existence and harmony are possible for Muslims within the confines of the Shariah. The requisite for such co-existence is that those who pretend to desire co-existence should not attempt to shove kufr down our throats nor should they expect us to honour and forge friendship with those who revile the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat and the Sahaabah. For them is their religion and for us is our religion. If they learn to tolerate the Haq we state, there will be no need for a stupid accord.

The actual motive for the ‘accord’ plot is to promote Shi’ism to unsuspecting and ignorant Muslims, and for the modernist munaafiqeen to hoist themselves as the leaders of the Muslim community. But they were too dim in the brains to understand that their stupid attempt would be doomed for failure just as the attempt by bogus ‘uucsa’ to   elevate itself to the pedestal of Muslim leadership and to trade the idea of it being the sole  representative of the Ulama and the community of South Africa. All such dishonest and fraudulent exercises end in failure with greater discord.

For the MJC and its ilk, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“What! Do you search for honour by them? (Know that) all honour belongs to Allah.”

Precisely what is the conception of toleration and co-existence which the MJC propagates in its bootlicking of the Shiahs and the political leaders? Muslims have co-existed with Shiahs and lived in harmony for over a thousand years in the various Muslim countries. The Ulama had not preached violence against them. When the Taliban established  themselves as the rulers of Afghanistan, they did not maltreat the Shiahs. Not a single Shiah temple was demolished by the orthodox Taliban. There was   co-existence and harmony. Of course, the Shiahs understood that they had to behave themselves and keep their villainous attitudes and beliefs to themselves. They did not antagonize Muslims by propagating hatred for the Sahaabah. But these stupid modernist munaafiqeen of the scrap cape accord satanically give out the message that our proclamation of the Shiahs as kuffaar is hate speech. This is Islam’s belief. This is the belief of the Ummah, and we should not be expected to submit to the satanic ideologies of Shiahs and their munaafiq supporters hiding in the folds of the Muslim community.

The unity of the Ummah is dependent on the Qur’aanic Accord which Allah Ta’ala describes as Hablullaah (The Rope of Allah).

“Hold on to the Accord of Allah (Hablullaah) and do not split up.”  

Without adhering to the Sunnah, there will never be unity among Muslims. Unity with Shiahs cannot be expected in our wildest dreams nor be hallucinated in any way. But this is not propagation of violence nor hate speech. It is the reality to which Muslims subscribe, and which no haraam ‘accord’ of any kind can ever abrogate. It is essential that all these opportunists and munaafiqeen understand this message clearly. They may fabricate their accord with the Shiahs, but should not seek to hoist it on Muslims. They will miserably fail.

A detailed analysis of the baatil terms of the cape accord shall be published soon, Insha-Allah.

An Analysis of the Shia Maghrib Prayer Timing


It is commonly accepted among the Shias today that Sunnis are praying the Maghrib prayers before the time that has been stipulated by the Shari’ah.

According to Sunnis, as long as the actual sun’s disc disappears, the time is Maghrib. As for Shias, they maintain that the time of Maghrib is when the redness of the East is no longer visible, which occurs around ten to fifteen minutes after the actual sun disappears (and perhaps even longer depending on the region). This is especially significant in Ramadan, since Shias argue that Sunnis are breaking their fast before Maghrib time, and thus, their fasting is not accepted. To support this belief, Shias often bring forth multiple narrations to support this position.

However, the Imams, in many occasions, also stated that Maghrib occurs when the sun’s disc disappears.


Wasa’el Al-Shia 4/177-183 provides a large list of the narrations that support the view that Maghrib starts when the sun’s disc disappears:

Al-Tahtheeb: Al-Jarud said: Abu Abdullah (as) said, “I now pray it (Maghrib) when sun’s disc has fallen.”Al-Kafi/Al-Tahtheeb: Abdullah bin Sinan said: I heard Abu Abdullah (as) say, “The time of Maghrib is when the sun sets and the disc disappears.”Al-Kafi/Al-Tahtheeb: Zurarah said: I heard Abu Ja’afar (as) say, “Maghrib is when the disc disappears.”Man La Yahtharhu Al-Faqeeh: Abu Ja’afar (as) said, “Maghrib is when the disc disappears.”Man La Yahtharhu Al-Faqeeh: Al-Sadiq (as) said, “If the sun disappears, then it is time to break the fast and prayer becomes obligatory. ”Man La Yahtharhu Al-Faqeeh: Jabir (Al-Ju’fi) narrated from Abu Ja’afar (as) that he said, “The Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) said: If the disc disappears, he who fasts eats, and the time of prayer has begun.”Amali Al-Saduq: Dawud bin Abi Yazeed said: Ja’afar Al-Sadiq (as) said, “If the sun disappears, the time of Maghrib has occurred.”Amali Al-Saduq: Al-Rabee’ bin Sulaiman, Aban bin Arqam, and others narrated that Ja’afar Al-Sadiq (as) prayed while sunlight was noticeable. When asked, he said, “If the sun sets, the time of prayer has occurred.”Al-Tahtheeb/Amali Al-Saduq/Ilal Al-Shara’i’: Ja’afar Al-Sadiq (as) was asked about the time of Maghrib. He said, “When the kursi disappears.” He was asked, “What is its kursi?” He replied, “Its disc.” He asked, “When does the disc disappear?” He said, “If you look at it and cannot see it.”Al-Tahtheeb: Isma’eel bin Al-Fadhl Al-Hashimi narrated from Ja’afar Al-Sadiq (as), who said, “The Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) prayed Maghrib when the sun sets, when the edge disappears.”Al-Tahtheeb: Abu Baseer said that Ja’afar Al-Sadiq (as) said, “The time of Maghrib is when the sun disappears.”Al-Tahtheeb: Amr bin Abi Nasr said that he heard Ja’afar Al-Sadiq (as) say about Maghrib, “When the disc disappears, it is time for prayer, and (time to) eat.”

Shia Explanation

Arguing against the authenticity of these reports does not occur since the above reports are plenty in number. Furthermore, some of them are indeed authentic according to Shia hadith standards, like the hadiths of Abdullah bin Sinan, Zurarah, and Dawud bin Abi Yazeed. Due to this, Shias focus on reconciling these reports with others that speak of Maghrib occurring when the redness of the East disappears.

Note: It is important to be aware that there are more authentic reports the support the view that Maghrib starts when the disc disappears than the reports that supports the view that it starts after the redness of the East disappears.

Excuse #1: Reconciliation

The argument is that these reports speak of one of the two conditions of Maghrib, which is the disappearance of the disc of the sun. The other condition is the disappearance of the redness of the East. In other words, the claim is that the followers of the Imam need to place these narrations together and to hold the view that Maghrib occurs after both these conditions are met.

This argument is very flawed, since it means that the reports provided above are incomplete in nature, and result to a false understanding of the time of Maghrib. Take the following scenario as an example:

If we had two reports, one saying that the Imam stated that the time of Maghrib is after 6pm and the other saying that it is at 6:15pm, then according to this rationale, breaking the fast at 6:15pm is the correct view since 6:15pm occurs after 6pm. Obviously, our response is that everyone that follows the first hadith and breaks the fast from 6:01-6:14pm has invalidated their fast due to the incomplete information provided by the Imam.

Excuse #2: Taqiyyah

The go-to excuse that is provided by every Shia scholar in cases of contradictions is the handy taqiyyah card. The argument is: Since Sunnis break the fast upon the disappearance of the disc, it is only natural to assume that the Imams they practiced taqiyyah to appeal to Sunnis.

The dangers of this belief are devastating. It suggests that the Imams, that were sent as guides for humanity, falsely taught people to break their fast at an invalid time. This disastrous belief goes against the very reason for the existence of the Imam: Guidance.


The explanations that are provided to solve the issue of the contradicting reports fall short. It becomes obvious that the Imams either truly contradicted themselves or that these are false attributions to them by their companions or by Shia narrators in general.

Objective Shias are perhaps left without a resolution to this contradiction, since there are no external evidences to support either position. However, this dilemma isn’t restricted to this fiqhi topic alone, but can be found in all sections of Shia Shari’ah, which is one of the major issues with Shia hadith and the failure of their hadith grading system.

The Martyrdom of Hadhrat ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (Radhiyallahu Anhu)

Iraq/Iran in the light of the narrations

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) has narrated that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The centre of kufr is towards the East” [Muslim]

Hadhrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) mentioned, ‘I saw Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pointing towards the East and saying:

Trails shall come from there! Trails shall come from there!”  [Sahih ibn Hibban]

In an attempt to pinpoint the exact area intended in this narration, scholars have provided a few possibilities, but the one that has attracted the attention of the Jamhur (majority) is Iraq/Iran, which includes Kufa, Basrah, Baghdad, Khurasan, etc. This area was the capital of the Persian Empire, and was famous as the stronghold of the majus (Zoroastrians/ Parsis/ Aag Pujaris). It was from this area that the majority of the early conspiracies against Islam were planned.

The Ahadith and statements of the Sahabah (ridhwanallahu anhum) and Tabi’een which indicate that ‘East’ refers to the area of Iraq/Iran are many. From amongst them are the following:

➡ Hadhrat Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) has narrated that he witnessed Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) pointing towards Iraq, saying:

Listen well! Fitnah (trails and tribulations for the Ummah) shallcome from there! (Rasulullah repeated this thrice) It is there that the horn of shaitan shall rise!”  [Musnad Ahmad]

➡ Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) once made dua for the land of Sham and Yemen. When the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) asked for dua for Najd (a famous raised area of Iraq mentioned by Khattabi and Bahili), Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) replied,

That is the area of tremors and trials, and it is there that the horn of shaitaan rises/shall rise!”  [Sahih al Bukhari]

Explaining the meaning of the rising of ‘qarn-us-shaitaan‘ (the horn of Shaitaan), the scholars have mentioned various possibilities, viz.

* Shaitaan really has horns, and it is in this land that he arises / shall rise to make his attacks. [e.g Dajjal will rise from the city of Isfahan, Iran]

* It is metaphoric; referring to evil power, i.e from this land shaitan’s power shall spread. [e.g. This can referred to the Saud Dynasty rising in the Najd area of Arabia came to power with the help of the Dajjalic British]

* It refers to the army/ helpers of shaitaan, i.e this area shall be their capital/headquarters.

* The word ‘Qarn’ refers not to ‘horns’, but rather to ‘generation’. The meaning of the narration shall then be ‘In this land, evil shall continue springing up. Every time one generation comes to an end, another shall rise.’

➡ Speaking of the Haruriyyah (i.e the Khawarij), Hadhrat Sahl ibn Hunayf (radhiyallahu anhu) explained that he had heard Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, ‘From there, (pointing towards Iraq), that group shall emerge who shall recite Qur’an, but it shall not pass their throats (i.e it shall not affect their hearts at all). They shall be exiting Islam as an arrow leaves its bow” [Musnad Ahmad]

It was from this very area (i.e Iraq and its neighbouring areas) that:

1. The killer and the parties responsible for the assassination of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) came. Abu Lulu was a fire-worshipper.

2. The killers of Hadhrat Uthman (radhiyallahu anhu) came [tariq al Islam Adh-Dhahabi]

3. The battle of Jamal occurred in this area, i.e near Basrah which was perhaps one of the greatest trails for the Ummah. [Tariq al Islam Adh-Dhahabi].

4. The rise of the Khawarij occurred in this area. Many of the soldiers of the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) participated in the Battle of Siffin (between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma)) were from Kufa. After the Battle, when the truce was finally reached, these soldiers showed their true colours by abandoning Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and settling in Harurah (a district in Kufa). Their abandoning Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) at this stage clearly showed that their purpose behind the war was never to establish justice, but rather to keep the ummah fighting amongst each other. This group became famous as the Khawarij, regarding whom Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) many years previously warned the ummah about saying:

“From the East, there shall emerge a sect, whose Jihad, Salah and Saum shall amaze all, but in reality they shall be exiting from Islam as an arrow exits from a bow (i.e with great speed), amongst them shall be a man whose forearm shall bulge out like a breast of a woman. The group at that will which will be closest to the truth, shall stand up against them“

Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), after witnessing the emergence and rise of this sect, which in a short span of time had reached numbers of up to twelve thousand, waged a severe war against them, and with the Divine Aid of Almighty Allah, destroyed their backbone. At the end of the battle Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) even sent his soldiers in search of the one who had been described by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). After an extensive search he was located hidden under some dead corpses. He was dragged in front of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), affording all the opportunity to see the truth of the words of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

5. The martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) occurred in Kufa, and those behind the assassination were all from the Khawarij sect, whose roots where in Iraq.

6. The martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) known as the incident of Karbala, occurred in Iraq. The murderers and the ones who had plotted his death and brought him over were all from Iraq. The first claims of the Shia were made by a Jew who portrayed himself as a revert to Islam, viz. Abdullah bin Saba (also known as ibn Saudah). Although he came from Yemen, the area he chose to lay the foundation of his false creed was none other than Iraq (Kufa and Basrah) and Egypt.

The Assassins of Hadhrat ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) was from Iraq/Iran. The Killers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) also hailed from Iraq and Egypt. The hypocrites who ignited the wars of Jamal and Siffin were men from Iraq/Iran, who later took the name as Khawarij. Now, when it came to the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), who else one could expect to step forward  for this heinous deed, except the one from Iran/Iraq.

After a few more encounters between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhum), a truce was finally concluded, which demanded that the in-fighting be brought to an immediate halt. The hypocrite enemies of Islam realized that their only hopes for re-igniting the flames of war amongst the Muslims now lay in the assassinations of Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah and Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhum). Three men from the Khawarij met to lay out the plans for the co-ordinated strike upon these three luminaries at one and the same time.

The Martyrdom of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

It was decided that Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim will martyr Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Bark ibn Abdullah will slay Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Amr ibn Bark will kill Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu). The 17th of Ramadhan, 40 A.H was the day set to carry out this task.

Many years previously, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had asked Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) if he was aware of who the wretched man was, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had replied that it was the man who stood up to slaughter the camel of Nabi Salih (alayhissalaam), in lieu of the few nights of enjoyment with a women renowned for her beauty. Hadhrat Ali’s (radhiyallahu anhu) answer was derived from the verse of Surah Dhuha, wherein Allah Almighty states:

“Then the most wretched man stood up (intending to slaughter the camel of Salih alayhissalaam)”

Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then asked Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) if he was aware of who the second most wretched man is. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed ignorance, upon which Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself gave the answer with the following sentence:

The man who shall murder you!”
[Abi Ya’la]

To assist with the assassination, ibn Muljim brought two other Kharijis; Shabeeb ibn Najdah Haruri and Wardan into the plot. On Friday night, 17th of Ramadhan 40 A.H, the three of them hid in the Jami’ Masjid of Kufa. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) entered the Masjid at the time of Fajr and began awakening the people for salah as usual. Shabeeb ibn Najdah Haruri came out and struct Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) with his sword causing him to fall in the mihraab. Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim came forward and dealt a second blow with his sword. The beard of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) became soaked in blood. He shouted, “Catch my killers”, Wardan and Shabeeb ibn Najdah Haruri fled but Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim was caught. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought to his home and Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim was presented before him. He said, “if I die, then kill him, If I remain alive, I shall mete out an appropriate punishment myself!”.

Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had infact described the details of the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to such an extent that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) himself, just a few days before his assassination was found saying:

“What is keeping the ‘most wretched’ back? Why is he delaying? By Allah! Soon this beard of mine shall be drenched with the blood of my neck”

When hope of his life came to an end, he called his sons and made a bequest to them regarding taqwa (piety), good deeds and service to religion. Someone asked, “O noble one! Shall we pledge allegiance at the hands of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) after you?” He replied, “I do not command you to do so, nor do I prohibit you. Do what is appropriate!”

He (radhiyallahu anhu) was reciting the following verse when he passed away:

Whoever does any good act (even) to the weight of a particle, he shall surely see it!

And Whoever does evil (even) to the weight of a particle, he shall surely see it!

He was sixty-three years of age and he held the post of the caliphate for approximately 4 years and 9 months. The Janazah Salah was performed by Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) and according to the preferred narration of Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah), he was buried in the inner part of the Dar al Khalifah, Kufa. May Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him.

Note: Shias think that the grave of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) is in Najaf. Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) has classified this view to be baseless. He then narrates from Khatib Baghdadi (rahimahullah) that the grave in Najaf attributed to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) is actually that of Hadhrat Mughira ibn Shu’ba (radhiyallahu anhu). Besides this, there are various regarding the place of burial of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). See Al Bidayah Wan Nihayahvol 3 pg. 329-330, Qadhi Zain ul Abidin Meerthi).

After the demise of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) called for Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim. Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim said, ” I took a promise to also kill Mu’awiyah. If you permit, I want to carry this duty out as well. I promise that if I remain alive, I shall definitely come to you.”

Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) rejected his request and told Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu) to kill him.

Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim had so much conviction on his baseless belief that at the time of his execution he was reciting Surah Alaq and he was saying, “I do not want to keep my tongue negligent of the remembrance of Allah at this time!”

The friend of Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim, Bark ibn Abdullah reached Damascus. The very same day, at the same time, he attacked Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), when he emerged from the Masjid after Fajr. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was slightly injured but recovered quickly. Bark ibn Abdullah was caught and killed. After this incident, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) got a room made for himself in the Masjid and appointed a guard that would be on duty at the time of Salah.

The other friend of Abdur Rahman ibn Muljim, Amr ibn Bark, reached Egypt and he too attempted to fulfil his promise at the appointed time. Coincidently, that day, on account of illness, Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) could not come to the Masjid. Kharijah ibn Abu Habibah came instead and led the salah. Amr bin Bark thought that Kharijah bin Abu Habibah was Hadhrat Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) and attacked him lethally. ‘Amr ibn Bark was caught and killed.

After the assassination of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), the people of Iraq pledged allegiance to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), whilst the people of Sham pledged their allegiance to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) held the post of Caliphate for about 6 months, and thereafter made a decision to hand the Caliphate totally over to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). This decision of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) shocked all, but through it the Ummah was re-united, the doors for Islamic conquests re-opened, the many evils that had, because of the in-fighting, had crept into the Ummah,  were now pushed back, the Muslims power strengthened and the hopes of the hypocrites were shattered.