Category Archives: Ulama-e-Soo’


By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape





Allah Ta’ala commands: ‘And (O Women!) Remain firmly in your homes.’ (Surah 33 – Aayat 33) ‘And, when you (men) ask them (women) something (of need) then ask them from behind a screen. That (form of Hijaab of the separating screen) is purest for your hearts and their hearts.’ (Surah 33 – Aayat 53)

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Hayaa (Shame) is a branch of Imaan.” (Nasaai – Ahmed – Jaami’ul Usool – Ibn Majah – and many more Authoritative Kutub)

“Hayaa and Imaan are interlinked (the two coexist). If one is eliminated, so is the other.” (Mustadrak Haakim)

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Name him so that people are saved from (the Fitnah) within him.” This is amongst the beautiful advices Imaam-e-Aa’zam, Hadhrat Imaam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullah proffered to his illustrious student Imaam Abu Yusuf Rahimahullah. Such people are to be exposed!


Notwithstanding the piety and holiness of Rasulullah’s (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) household and the Honourable Sahaabah, the Qur’aan commands: “When they (the Sahaabah) ask you for something, they (the Sahaabah) should ask you from behind a screen.” (Aayat 53 Surah Ahzaab)

Even the Holy Wives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were ordered to remain within the confines of their homes, observing the laws of Hijaab. When there was a need for a Sahaabi to enquire about anything from the Wives of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), he had to do so from behind a screen. Yet Muslims of this age despise and even mock the Qur’aanic injunction of the segregation of sexes.

In this very same Aayat (No.53 of Surah Ahzaab) Allah Ta’ala states the reason for Hijaab: This (i.e. speaking from behind a screen) is purer for their (i.e. the Sahaabah’s) hearts and your heart (i.e. the hearts of the Holy Wives.)”

Now who can claim greater Taqwa and purity of heart than the Sahaabah and the Holy Wives of Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)? When purdah was obligatory in that noblest age on men and women of the highest degree of Taqwa and holiness, then what does the Aql (intelligence) demand in this regard in this age of total corruption and impiety? They should study Ma’aariful Qur’aan properly!

Hadhrat Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) narrates that he was with Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) when he (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “What is best for woman?” Hadhrat Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) said: “All the Sahaabah remained silent. When I returned to Faatimah (Radiyallahu Anha) I said to her: ‘What is best for women?’ She replied: “They should not look at men nor should men look at them.’ I [says Hadhrat Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu)] mentioned this to Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) who then exclaimed: ‘Fatimah is part of me.’ ” – (Daara Qutni)

In a Hadith which appears in Abu Dawood, Nasaai, Mishkaat, etc., a woman handed a letter to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) from behind a screen. This establishes that Hijaab was observed for even Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).


Hadhrat Umme Salma (Radhiyallahu Anha) narrates: “Hadhrat Maymoona and I (Radhiyallahu Anhuma) were seated in the company of Rasulullah (SallallahuAlayhi Wasallam) when Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umme Maktoom (Radhiyallahu Anhu) suddenly approached and entered the home. So Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam instructed us: “Adopt hijaab for him,” (i.e. withdraw from the place and go into seclusion).

Hadhrat Umme Salma Radhiyallahu Anha said: “O Nabi of Allah, isn’t he blind, (which means that) he cannot see us, (i.e. so why should we observe Hijaab)?”

Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Are both of you also blind? Can you not see him?” (Muslim – Tirmizi – Abu Dawud –Bayhaqi – Sunanul Kubra, Nasaai – Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan – Fathul Baari – Kanzul Ummaal – Mushkilul Aathaar – Mishkaat – Many more Kutub)


Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Allah curses the one who looks (at females) and the one to whom the gaze was directed (i.e. the woman who emerged unnecessarily from her home and thus caused men to glance at her).” (Bayhaqi – Kanzul Ummaal – Mishkaat)

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Woman is Aurah (i.e. an object of concealment). When she emerges (from her home) shaitaan casts surreptitious glances at her (to ambush her and manipulate her for fitnah). And undoubtedly the closest she is to Allah Ta`ala is when she is at the innermost corner of her house. ”

The following shameless Munkaraat (sins) also took place:

1. Molvis are addressing woman directly – no screen – no pardah – no curtain in between. Shamelessness piled upon crass shamelessness. Haraam piled upon filthy Haraam!

2. The speaker (Ex-Mufti Zubair Bhayat) shamelessly looking at women and Ex-Mufti Taqi Uthmaani looking at the female for the sake of Riba so-called ‘Islamic’ Finance!

3. The bare-faced women looking at the bald-faced Molvis.

4. Animate Photography and videoing. They legalized the Fitnah of TV, Videos, etc. So the very same Fitnah now rebounds on them and exposes them.

5. In another event where Zubair Bhayat hosted Fati Chohan, the men and women were mixed. Intermingling of the sexes and even Fati Chohan addressed the mixed gathering. The men could clearly see her and the other females in attendance, etc.

6. With their Haraam actions openly committed in public without any shame whatsoever, they are misleading the Ummat. What did they learn in Madrasah?

7. Taqi Uthmaani allows himself to be interviewed by a female. So much knowledge, but no fear for Allah. ‘Taqi’ means a person who has Taqwa. Looking at a woman is Fisq – not Taqwa. These Molvis should ponder over their names and then compare it with their flagrant acts of Fisq advertised to the whole world!

In light of the above, the actions of Zubair Bhayat and Taqi Uthmaani are clear acts of fisq. The Ahkaam pertaining to Fussaaq are applicable to them.

Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah Alayh) said: “Regarding the man of hawa (lust) who perpetrates it flagrantly in public and the faasiq who commits fisq flagrantly (in the public), there is nothing wrong mentioning these two along with their deeds.”

The faasiq mu’lin (the faasiq who himself exposes his sins in public) is bereft of honour, and he does his own naming and shaming. The basis for naming and exposing those who pose a danger to the Imaan of people is the Hadith: “Why do you desist from mentioning the faajir (an immoral person) with his indulgence (in fujoor)? Expose him until the people are aware of him. Mention him with his indulgence so that the people are saved from him. Mention him so that the people are saved from him, for there is no gheebat of him.” (The double mention of mentioning and exposing the Mudhil is emphasized in the Hadith)

Once when Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (Rahmatullah Alayh) was severely criticizing a narrator, someone admonishing him said: “O Shaikh! Do not make gheebat of the Ulama.” Imaam Ahmad responded: “O miserable one! This is naseehat, not gheebat.”

When Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak (Rahmatullah Alayh) had criticized a narrator, it was said to him: “You have indulged in gheebat.” He replied: “Shut up! If we do not explain (i.e. expose the deviate), how will the Haqq be distinguished from baatil?”

Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah Alayh) said: “Your naming a man who publicly sins and does not conceal it, is a virtue recorded for you.” A Hadith narrated by Imaam Muslim (Rahmatullah Alayh) states: “Everyone of my Ummah is forgiven except the mujaahiroon”. The mujaahiroon are those who advertise their sins thereby exposing what Allah has concealed for them. They make this lawful for no valid reason.

Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah Alayh), putting his life on the line, said to Hajjaaj, the brutal ruler of Iraq: “O Worst of the Fussaaq! O Worst of the Fujjaar! The inhabitants of the heavens are wrathful to you. The inhabitants of the earth curse you”. Then when he left the palace of Hajjaaj, Hadhrat Hasan commented: “Verily, Allah has taken a pledge from the Ulama to proclaim the Haqq, and not to conceal it.”



Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Soon will there dawn an age when nothing of Islam will remain except its name – nothing of the Qur’aan will remain except its text. The Musaajid will be elaborate (and ornate) structures, but bereft of guidance. The worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be the ulama. From them will emerge fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”



A Brother lamenting about the spread of Salafi’ism, writes:

“There is a current spread of Salafism in South Africa. What really irks us as Hanafi Muslims is that the Salafis are given lots of show and platforms by the so-called ‘our ulama’. For example, there is an organization of women called MAIDS OF DEEN (they have a website too), they host programmes teaching Salaah to women. However, they teach the women how to read Salaah like men. They use the name of Mr. Bham (Jamiat) in support of their activities.

Secondly, Nauman Ali Khan, the Salafi Shia hybrid ‘mufassir’, was also given lots of show by these very same so-called ‘our ulama’ like Mr. Ragie.

Thirdly, when Masajid were called to cancel the programmes of Luhaydan, the Salafi from Riyadh, many Masajid cooperated. However, Mr. Bham (Jamiat) took a uturn and hosted him in Newtown Masjid.

Fourthly, there is a well-known sportsman cyclist a so-called ‘maulana’ from Ermelo, Mr. Junaid Jasat, who encourages women to go out cycling with their husbands. He is also pushing the Salafi line in Ermelo. We have been teaching our children the basics of Deen for many years, and now he brings in Salafi aunties to poison our children’s minds. These are very distressing.

Mr. Bham of Jamiat pretends to have ‘lots’ of proof to back up his evil participation in attending sports matches, mixing with women, commentating on football matches and so on. I have not found any aayat or hadith to establish these evils.”

COMMENT (By Mujlisul Ulama):

The characters you have mentioned are signs of Qiyaamah predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They are such mudhilleen who are perhaps worse than Dajjaal. We say worse because Rasulullah ( Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had expressed greater fear for the ulama-e-soo’ than for even Dajjaal.

The scoundrels you have referred to mislead the ignorant and the unwary, hence they are termed ‘mudhilleen’ i.e. scholars for dollars who lead people to Jahannam. The manner in which they propound and enact their deviation for deviating the ignorant laymen, leads one to conclude that they are not Muslims. At a minimum, they are shayaateenul ins (human devils).

The ‘proofs’ which the cross-worshipper, Reverend Abraham Bham has, are shaitaani drivel of the type which Iblees stated when Allah Ta’ala commanded him to prostrate to Nabi Aadam (Alayhis salaam). The devil presenting his logical ‘daleel’ said: “You created me from fire and him from sand.” This is the kind of ‘proof’ all these  mudhielleen have for bolstering their fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr. They are rotten to the core.

Hamza Yusuf & The Sultan: Misreadings of History to Justify Obedience to Tyrants

[By Ibn Mosharraf]

As an Ummah we are in a strange situation today. Our social media is dominated by either endless stream of tragedies. Or teeth grinding controversy.

Over the last week a video of Hamza Yusuf that was recorded way back in 2016 went viral. Provoking rage and condemnations from Muslims and spurring on his ardent followers to defend their beloved Shaykh who has been involved in a string of controversies.

Amidst all the emotionally driven polemics there have been several academic responses attempting to highlight the problems with Hamza Yusuf’s arguments and his central praxis. (1)

While Hamza Yusuf does not state it outright, his idea of political activism is giving dawah to tyrants hoping that they will change and become more Islamic. This view rooted in his idea that Kings(any King) are divinely appointed and rebellion against them incites fitnah and bloodshed. He has an explicit preference of tyrannical order over any kind of anarchy. What complicates this issue is the fact that this view is seemingly rooted in the classical Sunni scholarly consensus.

The issue is a bit more complex. While one can find most Ulema of the Salaf to be not in favor of armed revolts, Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) was noted to have supported revolts against the Umayyads. (2)

This discrepancy exists due to a lot of reasons. However the main reason for the Ulema of the Ahlus Sunnah to become more wary of armed revolts was due to a series of tragedies that happened during the course of the Ummayad rule. Such as the rebellion lead by Ibn Al-Ash’ath where many scholars perished. (3)

This discussion is a complex matter which we hope to address at a later time.

For now we will focus on an essential point that is being missed in these conversations which we tried to address in our last article. (4)

We will attempt to expand on that in this article by focusing on two issues.

  1. The idea of political quietism.
  2. The context of the scholarly fatwas against rebellion.

In response to terror movements like AQ or ISIS, scholars have attempted to endear themselves to the West (and their proxies) by instituting a systematic normalization of the idea that we are in the Makkan phase and we should be law-abiding citizens perpetually. This line of argument is used to justify Hamza Yusuf’s controversial statements and his involvement in state sponsored programs. (5)

When one looks at these developments with a fresh and unbiased perspective after reading the Seerah, the arguments made by Hamza Yusuf and his followers will seem preposterous. And this so called fiqh of minorities is rather contentious to say the least.

Muslims in Makkah were actively calling upon the Polytheists to become Muslims and establish Dar Al Islam.

Prophet Muhammad(ﷺ) did not talk about how we should refrain from giving dawah because it might incite fitnah.

Neither did Isa(عليه السلام) when the Romans were cracking down on his followers.

Prophet Muhammad(ﷺ) did not hold interfaith dialogues with the Quraysh.

Hadhrat Ibrahim (عليه السلام) did the same with the Mushriks of his time.

Prophet Muhammad(ﷺ) did not say the Quraysh are a tolerant nation or a paragon of human values while they oppressed Muslims.

Neither did Nabi Musa (عليه السلام) endorse the Firaun when he was oppressing the Jews.

It’s one thing to decontextualize these fatwas and attempt an ad-hoc justification of certain positions such getting involved in state sponsored programs.

It’s another thing entirely when one looks at these fatwas within context.

Classical scholars lived under rulers who implemented the Shariah. At least that is our understanding from the readings of the texts we have at hand today.

Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatwas which are used by Salafi Jihadists specifically apply to Mongolian rulers who purported the Islamic faith but didn’t really practice or implement Islam. (6)(7) (8)

Similarly in Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah)’s case many Ummayad policies were not just questionable but outright oppressive. It is also likely that Imam Abu Hanifa’s views were influenced the Tābi’een scholars who were more in favor of dethroning tyrants.

By the time Imam Abu Hanifa’s students gained prominence the Abbasid “Revolution” had come to pass and Islamic rule was relatively stable. Additionally with the tragedies that had happened in the years prior, scholars were more inclined to discourage armed revolts. And even so, while scholars actively discouraged armed rebellions they also were quite wary about their involvement with the ruling class. It was only during the Ottoman Era when scholars started actively involving themselves in the state bureaucracy which subsequently had it’s fair share of issues. (9)

Regardless, the Maqasid of discouraging armed revolts lies in the desire to maintain unity and strength against external enemies.

This doesn’t just apply to the Sultan’s subjects but the Sultan himself as well.

Scholars always advised the Rulers to have a reconciliatory approach towards rebels. Imam Muhammad Hasan Al Shaybani (rahimahullah) has a detailed treatise on the treatment of rebels. (10)

And it was adopted by many Sultans and Amirs of the Muslim provinces for the most part. Sultans would often try to reconcile with rebels by giving them rights and appointing them in government posts.

The deeper problem in our discourses today is the conflation of armed revolts with Revolutions.

Revolutions can be non-violent. The majority of the revolts in Muslim Emirates throughout history were not revolutionary in the truest sense. And what Prophet Muhammad(ﷺ) lead in Makkah can arguably be described as a revolution.

The intrigues, coups and revolts in Islamic history were not geared towards systematic change as much securing rights from an existing system.

Mamluks and Janissaries had notoriously lead many of these rebellions and coups. But they never sought to change the established order. Rather the aim was restoration of what was perceived to be an ideal Islamic order. Their respective orders were abolished by reformist Sultans instead who sought to modernize the state. The modern pattern of state crackdown on perceived rebels i.e. the pathological Madhkalism and dehumanization of rebels, can be traced to these events. The centralization and increasing dominance of the state institutions in many ways were more revolutionary than the armed revolts themselves. The elimination of the Mamluks and Janissary orders is widely celebrated for the dissolution of stagnant and outdated “institutions”. However, we tend to overlook how much dominance the state institution was establishing in the hearts and minds of people to the point where slaughter of Muslims(or Non-Muslims) is not only overlooked, but celebrated. (11) (12)

Many Muslim commentators today don’t realize the fact these measures actually paved a role in the Europeanization i.e. Colonization of Muslim societies.

And as fate would have it, these dynasties did not last long.

Taking Hamza Yusuf’s point about Allah humiliating people, it is probably because of their cumulative brutality is why neither the progeny of Ibrahim Pasha or Mahmud II managed to maintain their rule for long. Abd Al Malik Bin Umayr once said,

“I walked into the court of Ubaid Allah Bin Ziyad and I saw the head of Al Hussein. And not too long after I walked into the court of Mukhtar Al Thaqafi and I saw the head of Ubaid Allah Bin Ziyad and then I remember walking into the court of Musab Ibn Zubayr and I saw the head of Mukhtar Al Thaqafi and then I walked into the court of Abd Al Malik Ibn Marwan and I saw the head of Musab Inb Zubair.” (13)

The tyrant’s dynasty is always cursed for it’s injustice and eventually it faces humiliation for it’s deeds. And it’s probably why the progeny of the once great Mughal and Ottoman dynasties find themselves to be barely relevant in modernity. Something that we think our Ulema should be discussing more often when they give Naseeha to our modern day rulers.

All that aside, Hamza Yusuf’s public speeches and the rhetoric of his followers are always geared towards admonishing Palestinians or Syrians or the Ummah in general for their apparent lack of Imaan or Taqwa. There never has been any focused or targeted critique of Muhammad Bin Zayed and Muhammad Bin Salman and their collective policies to this day. The blame is always on the Muslims because we lack civil society or knowledge of fiqh.

This is not political quietism. This is active involvement in a certain kind of politics. And not the good kind.

And this is where we see the deficiency in our modern Ulema. They have internalized this narrative of victim blaming and have established the perpetual failure to understand the lessons to be taken from the political and strategic decisions made by Muslims as scholarly wisdom.

Theology and Fiqh should not be used analyze why Revolutions failed, at least Theology and Fiqh should not be the central part of our discussions. Analyzing the reasons for failure should be centered on geopolitics and military strategies. Theology and Fiqh should only be used to remind the Muslims of Qadr and to remind them that we cannot be merciless like our enemies.

The Ulema involved in the Syrian Revolution were just as qualified as Hamza Yusuf, if not more. Many Ulema including Hamza Yusuf backed the Syrian Revolution in it’s initial stages. (14)

No one was talking about lack of taqwa of lack of knowledge regarding fiqh at that time.

So why did the Syrian Revolution fail?

  • Brute force bombing by American coalition who claimed to fight ISIS.
  • Rebel Infighting fueled by the Salafi Jihadists and ISIS
  • Assassination of capable forward thinking Leaders

This is the shortest summary I can provide you for one of the most brutal, complex and downright depressing events of this Ummah. Right up there with Karbala and the Mongol Massacres.

Ilm, Taqwa, Imaan, etc are developed through a continuous process. It requires time and patience. But that doesn’t mean that we abandon everything and focus on personal development alone. Rizq comes from Allah. But we don’t just sit in the masjid and make dua, do we? We supplement our Ibadah with material efforts.

So taking all these things into consideration, one will be naturally confused as to how theology or fiqh, as defined by Hamza Yusuf—i.e personal development—fits into this discussion.

The First Fitnah, the Second fitnah, the Abbasid “Revolution”, the Ummayad conquests in Andalus, the eventual loss of Andalus and the establishment of the Ottomans and their eventual dissolution, existence of Civil Societies are merely incidental. They cannot be causes or effects of anything.

If one were to look at the contemporary accounts these societies at the time when Islamic dynasties established themselves, they will realize that those nomadic communities hardly had any hallmarks of an imagined Civil Society.

If anything scholars often accused civil society of engaging in decadence that brought about instability and weaknesses. This is quite clearly illustrated in Ibn Khaldun’s Cycle of Civilizations. (15)

Whether it’s the Andalusian Emirates or the Mughal Sultanate or the Ottoman realms during their twilight, civil society have shown themselves to be willing aiders and abetters of colonial powers.

Omar Mukhtar said during his trial “The people of cities hated me because I brought them bad luck, and I hated them because they did not help the cause of their religion, for which alone I fought”. (16)

It has held true throughout history. Whether it’s the slaughter of Imam Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), the Reconquista of Andalus, the Mongol onslaught into Muslim lands, the humiliation of the Mughal dynasty or the brutal assassination of Osman II, Selim III and Abdul Aziz.

And the abolishment of the Ottoman Caliphate itself.

Civil Society have always shown themselves to be weak in times of trial.

And all that aside, Modern Day Syrians and Palestinians are relatively civilized. Hamza Yusuf and his followers may point to the presence of bars and clubs, but anyone who lives in a Muslim Majority country knows that people who go these places are not representatives of the Muslim population at large. Furthermore these secular elitists are often Assad supporters or whatever tyrant is keeping their purses filled.

Some Muslims have appropriated the rhetoric of the Western Ideologues and often say something along the lines of Norway being comparable to the Caliphate of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz. (17)

But factually speaking, the Western Civil Societies we see today is built on top of colonialism, genocide and brutal civil wars.

Two perfect examples are the English civil wars in the 17th Century and the brutal French Revolution. Today England and France boast themselves to be among the representatives of modernity and progress. But how did they get to this point? Was their success really established through “civil societies”?

Not really.

Neither of these countries were examples of civil societies and even today their virulent racism, brutality and intolerance often comes to the surface.


The idea of obedient citizens who abide by law can eliminate oppression is problematic. This has never been the case in history at any point in time.

If the Germans were more disobedient rather than obedient citizens, the massacre of the Jews probably could have been averted. Today, if Indians didn’t let their conscience be drowned the meta-narrative of national integrity or whatever, Kashmiris wouldn’t be in the situation they are in today. Neither would be the Assamese or the other minorities who are increasingly at risk in India today.

And the idea that Syrians and Palestinians are not capable of forming bus lines is not only offensive but reveals deeply prejudiced perceptions of the Eastern World. Further exacerbated by diaspora Muslims who have internalized a lot prejudices against their countries of origin.

Hamza Yusuf might have stated this as a rhetoric. But it is still deeply offensive and reveals his deficiency in not only understanding politics but his inability to recognize modern social trends. It is a consistent pattern. (18)

Another thing that gets overlooked by Hamza Yusuf’s followers is consistent attempt at normalizing secularism in Muslim discourses. He has been quite virulent in his opposition to the Caliphate. (19)

It all circles back to the defensive stances that scholars have adopted to distance themselves from ISIS. And honestly, it’s an illustration of the fact that our modern Ulema had lost the war long before it even began.

We end this article with these questions.

  1. Why is the Iman and Taqwa of the oppressed that is always scrutinized?
  2. Dictatorships didn’t come to power through civil society. None of the modern States did including United States of America. Why and How is Civil Society a precursor for any Revolution?
  3. Has there been any instance of Hamza Yusuf or any Western Ulema systematically lobbying for the freedom of scholars who are being jailed by the Saudi regime(or any other autocratic regime)?
  4. Are the Ulema who are attending the state sponsored programs really following the Sunnah?
  5. What dividends have these Peace Conferences brought forth other than token charities?
  6. What will learning fiqh and theology do if there is no concerted effort at political change?
  7. Why is Hamza Yusuf’s attempt at normalizing Western(i.e. kufr) Concepts of governance overlooked by his followers?

Works Cited

  1. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf And The Question of Rebellion In The Islamic Tradition available at:
  2. Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 148 A.H.) – Regarding Rebellion Against Unjust Rulers available at:
  3. The revolt of ‘Abd Al-Rahman Ibn Al-Ash’ath: It’s nature and causes. Available at:
  4. Hamza Yusuf & The Sultan: A Case Study in the Misuse of Prophetic Traditions. Available at:
  5. On the Theology of Obedience: An Analysis of Shaykh Bin Bayyah and Shaykh Hamza Yusuf’s Political Thought. Available at:
  6. Jihad and the Mongols available at:
  7. Ibn Taymiyyah: His Anti-Mongol epistle post the second campaign of Mahmud Ghazan Khan available at:
  8. The Mongol Invasions of Bilād al-Shām by Ghāzān Khān and Ibn Taymīyah’s Three “Anti-Mongol” Fatwas. Available at:
  9. Guardians of Faith in Modern Times: ʻulamaʼ in the Middle East. p.37
  10. The Status of Rebels in Islamic Law. Available at :
  11. Mamluks in the Modern Egyptian Mind: Changing the Memory of the Mamluks, 1919-1952 p.27
  12. Osman’s dream. Pg 359
  13. Karbala: Myths and Reality. Available at:
  14. Profiles of Syrian Sunni Clerics in the Uprising. Available at:
  15. Ibn Khaldun on Luxury and the Destruction of Civilizations. Available at:
  16. Libya:
    The Secret Proceedings in the Italians Trial of Libyan Mujahed Omar al-Mukhtar. Available at:
  17. Concept of Islamic State is a fantasy | Sh. Hamza Yusuf Available at:
  18. U.S. Muslim cleric Hamza Yusuf calls Trump ‘a servant of God’ during racist rant against Black Lives Matter. Available at:
  19. Hamza Yusuf: Islam Does not Need a Khilafah. Available at:

Hamza Yusuf & The Sultan: A Case Study in the Misuse of Prophetic Traditions

[By Abdullah Feras]

In the past few days, footage from Hamza Yusuf in a Sufi retreat in 2016 was widely circulated on social media, resulting in significant backlash and outrage from the Muslim community. In the clip, Hamza could be seen criticizing the Syrian revolution, claiming that the “humiliation” the Syrian people were experiencing was directly consequential to their humiliation of the ruler, Bashar Al-Assad. To justify such a deplorably preposterous political outlook, Hamza cites an alleged Prophetic tradition where he quotes the Prophet saying: “If you humiliate a ruler, God will humiliate you.” He goes on to say: “That’s a hadith! In Tirmiḏī.”

Though Hamza has recently issued an apology regarding his tone and the pain he has caused others over his comments, he has not addressed his actual position expressed in the video, which is arguably much more problematic than his mere tone or attitude. Similarly, Hamza’s appeal to the aforementioned hadith is left unchallenged as many prepare to forgive him after his latest apology, which was nothing short of a mere emotional appeal. A careful analysis of the said Prophetic tradition, however, is sufficient to demonstrate Hamza’s problematic framework when dealing with Prophetic traditions in several regards. It is a classical example of the abuse and misuse of Prophetic authority amidst various discussions pertaining to Islam and the Muslim community. The defectiveness of Hamza’s appeal to the hadith revolves around two main points:

  1. The authenticity of the said hadith.
  2. The misquotation of the said hadith.

The Tradition’s Authenticity

Before discussing the ḥadīth’s wording and implications, it is important that we first discern it’s authenticity. The tradition in question today is a ḥadīth ascribed to the companion of the Prophet, Abū Bakrah al-Thaqafī. I have outlined the ḥadīth’s chains of transmission in figure 1 below:

Figure 1. A schematic outlining the transmission of this ḥadīth from Abū Bakrah

As seen in figure 1, the ḥadīth’s chains of transmission ultimately converge to a single strand of transmitters: Ḥumayd b. Mihrān → Sa’d b. Aws → Ziyād b. Kusayb → Abū Bakrah → The Prophet. Prior to the evaluation of each individual transmitter in the isnād, several preliminary observations regarding the trasnmission of this report must be made:

1. The ḥadīth’s transmission remained exclusively singular (gharīb) up till the late second century, where it eventually became more widely circulated by the students of Ḥumayd b. Mihrān.

Though this point is not necessarily direct evidence for the ḥadīth’s weakness, it is indeed a very peculiar phenomenon, considering that the isnāds of authentic traditions tended to branch out much earlier than that (usually between the late first century and early second century.) The relatively late exclusive transmission (gharābah) in this isnad is indeed the first indicator of a potential problem in the transmission of this ḥadīth. Thus, al-Bazzār (d. 292), after transmitting the report, commented saying: “Wording similar to that of this ḥadīth has been transmitted from the Prophet ~ through several chains, and we do not know of anyone who transmitted this ḥadīth with this wording from the Prophet except Abū Bakrah, Ḥumayd b. Mihrān, Sa’d b. Aws, and Ziyād b. Kusayb; and they are all Baṣrans.” (al-Bazzār 9:121)

Al-Tirmiḏī (d. 279) similarly made note of the gharābah in the ḥadīth, where he described it in his Jāmi’ saying: “This ḥadīth is ḥasan gharīb.” (al-Tirmiḏī 4:72)

2.The ḥadīth was excluded from all early ḥadīth collections that aimed to compile authentic reports, such as the Ṣaḥīḥs of al-Bukhārī and Muslim and later more lenient collections such as the Ṣaḥīḥs of Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibbān, and the Muntaqā of Ibn al-Jārūd etc.

Again, this point alone is not necessarily sufficient to dismiss the authenticity of this ḥadīth. However, it, along with the previous point, is a noteworthy phenomenon that may be cumulatively indicative of the defectiveness in the transmission of this report. We know that al-Bukhārī, for example, was well aware of this ḥadīth, since he referenced it in his seminal biographical work, al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (Al-Bukhārī 3:366).

After these preliminary observations, we can proceed to evaluate the transmitters of this ḥadīth. As seen in figure 1, there is a bottleneck at several points in the isnād: (1) Ḥumayd b. Mihrān, (2) Sa’d b. Aws, and Ziyād b. Kusayb. These multiple pivots in the isnād contextualize the aforementioned peculiarities in the transmission of this ḥadith: Sa’d b. Aws was a criticized transmitter and Ziyād b. Kusayb was an obscure unknown transmitter.

Sa’d b. Aws al-Baṣrī’s reliability (not to be confused with the Kūfan Sa’d b. Aws):

  • Yaḥya b. Ma’īn said: “Sa’d b. Aws is a weak Basran.”
  • Al-Sājī said: “He is truthful.”
  • Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in his work, al-Thiqāt. However, this is not necessarily tantamount to an endorsement on his part as well-known. What further attests to this is that Ibn Ḥibbān had fully excluded Sa’d b. Aws from his Ṣaḥīḥ.

Source: Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb 3/467

There is no conflict between Ibn Ma’īn and al-Sājī’s statement, for a truthful transmitter may simply be of bad retention, hence his description as a weak transmitter by Ibn Ma’īn.

Ziyād b. Kusayb’s reliability:

Ziyād was an obscure transmitter who’s reliability was not endorsed by a single early ḥadīth critic. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in Kitāb al-Thiqāt, and that, for reasons similar to the aforementioned ones, is not tantamount to an endorsement.

Thus, we have a report exclusively transmitted by a criticized transmitter, from an unknown transmitter, from Abū Bakrah, and it is clearly inauthentic. What is further indicative of the weakness of this report is another redaction of this ḥadīth found in Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ‘Aṣim with the following isnād:

Muḥammad b. ‘Alī b. Maymūn informed us:  Mūsā b. Dāwūd informed us: Ibn Lahī’ah informed us, from Abū Marḥūm, from a man from Banī ‘Adiyy, from ‘Abdurraḥmān b. Abī Bakrah, from Abū Bakrah: “Whoever honors the Sulṭān of Allah in the Dunyā, then Allah shall honor him in the ‘Akhirah.” (Ibn Abī ‘Aṣim 2:492)

This other redaction of the ḥadīth presents the report as a statement of Abū Bakrah himself, not the Prophet. This redaction, however, is severely weak, as its isnād contains Ibn Lahī’ah, a disparaged transmitter, and two anonymous men. There is no way to ascertain the independence of the two redactions of this ḥadīth. Similarly, there is no way to dismiss the possibility that Sa’d b. Aws or Ziyād b. Kusayb may have actually acquired the ḥadīth from one of these anonymous transmitters and then erroneously (or intentionally) redacted it with a different chain of transmission. Either way, the ḥadīth is evidently inauthentic: the initial redaction of this report is transmitted with a weak isnad, and the second redaction does not even present it as a Prophetic tradition.

Al-Bazzār, as quoted earlier, noted that there are other isnāds to this tradition with different wordings. A question one may ask is: can these other reports strengthen the aforementioned ḥadīth of Abū Bakrah? The answer to that question lies in the analysis of those reports. There are two other companions from the Prophet from whom similar traditions are transmitted: (1) Ibn ‘Abbās and (2) Ḥuḏayfah.

Let us evaluate the transmission of Ibn ‘Abbās’ report, which is outlined in figure 2 below:

Figure 2. A schematic outlining the transmission of this ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās

Before evaluating the the individual transmitters in this chain of transmission, it is important to note that this report, like the report of Abū Bakrah, was excluded from every single ḥadīth collection that sought to compile authentic traditions. Moreover, all chains of transmission converge to two main transmitters whom were both abandoned in ḥadīth and even accused of forgery, (1) Ḥusain b. Qays and (2) Ḥamzah al-Naṣībī.

Ḥusain b. Qays’ Reliability:

  • Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal said: “His transmission is worthless, and I transmit nothing from him.” He also said: “He is abandoned and weak in ḥadīth.”
  • Yaḥya b. Ma’īn weakened him.
  • Al-Bukhārī said: “He is severely disapproved in ḥadith, and his transmission should not be transcribed.” Al-Jawzajānī made a similar statement.
  • Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said: “He is weak and abandoned in ḥadith.” He was then asked: “Did he used to lie?” Abū Ḥātim replied saying: “I ask Allah for safety.”
  • Al-Nasā’ī said: “He is abandoned in ḥadīth.” He also said: “He is not reliable.”
  • Ibn Ḥibbān said: “He used to distort reports and ascribe the transmission of weak transmitters to reliable transmitters.”

Many others criticized him as well.

Source: Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb 2:365

Ḥamzah al-Naṣībī’s Reliability:

  • Ibn Ma’īn said: “He is not worth a cent.” He also said: “His transmission is worthless.”
  • Al-Bukhārī and Abū Ḥātim said: “He is disapproved in ḥadīth.”
  • Abū Dāwūd said: “He is worthless.”
  • Al-Nasā’ī and al-Dāraquṭnī said: “He is abandoned in ḥadīth.”
  • Ibn ‘Adiyy said: “He fabricates ḥadīth.” He also said: “Most of what he transmits are disapproved fabrications, and he is implicated in their transmission.”
  • Al-Ḥākim said: “He transmits fabricated reports.”

Many others criticized him as well.

Source: Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb 3:29

Thus, it is is evident that this report simply has no basis from Ibn ‘Abbās and that it was most likely acquired from other sources and then falsely ascribed to him by the disparaged transmitters.

Ḥuḏayfah’s report, on the other hand, is perhaps the most insightful of them all, as it may possibly lead us to the actual origin of this entire sentiment. I have outlined the transmission from Ḥuḏayfah in figure 3 below:

Figure 3. A schematic outlining the transmission of this report from Ḥuḏayfah as a Prophetic Tradition

Before evaluating the authenticity of this report, one must ask: can it even strengthen Abū Bakrah’s earlier report cited by Hamza Yusuf? It simply cannot. The ḥadith’s wording is fundamentally different to that of Abū Bakrah. In this report, Ḥuḏayfah is quoted by Ibn Shabbah and al-Maḥāmilī saying, in response to a group of individuals from the tribe of Banī ‘Abs who aspired to revolt against  ‘Uthmān b. ‘Affān, “The Messenger of Allah said: The first band to march towards the Sultan [of Allah] to humiliate him shall be humiliated by Allah on the Day of Judgement.”

It is clear that this report is specifically referring to the murderers of ‘Uthmān, and it specifically refers to the first band to humiliate the Sultan of Allah. Moreover, there are various reasons to doubt the authenticity of this report as a Prophetic tradition, which I see no need to delve into. There is conflicting transmission from Ḥafṣ b. Ghiyāth that has implications on the connectivity of the isnād (shown in red and blue in figure 3). Similarly, al-Bazzār’s redaction converges to Kathīr b. Abī Kathīr, a contested transmitter. Another major piece of evidence that hints to the inauthenticity of this report as a Prophetic tradition is that it is authentically redacted in several sources as a statement of Ḥuḏayfah himself, not the Prophet. The chains of transmission for these other reports can be seen outlined in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4. A schematic outlining the transmission of this report as a statement of Ḥuḏayfah himself

The transmission of this redaction of the report is much more refined than the aforementioned redactions: Ibn Abī Shaybah’s isnād is authentic, and the other redaction from Abū Isḥāq is decent and is further corroborated by Ibn Abī Shaybah’s report. Thus, what most likely happened is that this tradition, as authentically reported in multiple sources, originally was a statement of Ḥuḏayfah himself regarding the first rebels against ‘Uthmān. Eventually, that statement of his was mistaken for a Prophetic tradition by some later transmitters. This phenomenon was a very common error that used to occur during the transmission of ḥadīth, and past ḥadīth critics often weakened reports for this reason.

Thus, it can be seen that the report cited by Hamza Yusuf in the video is evidently weak. To formulate political positions on the basis of such inauthentic Prophetic traditions is definitely problematic, let alone to implicate millions of Muslims in a crime they never committed. It is not acceptable for such reports to be ascribed to the Prophet. Similarly, it is not acceptable for them to be disseminated to the Muslim public without any clarification on their authenticity.

The Misquotation of the Hadith

Asides from the fact that Hamza’s appeal primarily stems from an unreliable Prophetic tradition, what is further concerning is that Hamza seems to have drastically misquoted that report and misrepresented its contents. He translates the tradition, which he alleges is in Jāmi’ al-Tirmiḏī, saying:

“If you humiliate a ruler, God will humiliate you.”

“That’s a hadith! In Tirmiḏī.”

If we were to refer to al-Tirmiḏī’s Jāmi’, we would find that Hamza’s wording is slightly off and out of context. Al-Tirmiḏī redacted the report in the following manner:

“عن زِيَادِ بْنِ كُسَيْبٍ الْعَدَوِيِّ، قَالَ: كُنْتُ مَعَ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ تَحْتَ مِنْبَرِ ابْنِ عَامِرٍ، وَهُوَ يَخْطُبُ وَعَلَيْهِ ثِيَابٌ رِقَاقٌ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بِلَالٍ: انْظُرُوا إِلَى أَمِيرِنَا يَلْبَسُ ثِيَابَ الْفُسَّاقِ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرَةَ: اسْكُتْ، سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ  يَقُولُ: ” مَنْ أَهَانَ سُلْطَانَ اللَّهِ فِي الْأَرْضِ أَهَانَهُ اللَّهُ

Ziyād b. Kusayb said: I was with Abū Bakrah beneath the pulpit of Ibn ‘Amir as he was giving a sermon wearing thin clothes. Abū Bilāl (A Kharijite) thus interjected: “Look at our ruler wearing the clothes of the fussāq!” Abū Bakrah thus replied: “Be silent, for I have heard the Messenger of Allah say: Whoever humiliates the Sultan of Allah in the land, then Allah shall humiliate him.” (Al-Tirmiḏī 4:72)

The word used by Abū Bakrah in this hadith is: “Sultan of Allah”, which evidently is of slightly different implications than “ruler.” The context of this report similarly alludes to this reality: a just Muslim governor appointed by ‘Uthmān was interrupted by a Kharijite amidst a sermon for no valid reason. Can the report be cited to undermine the Syrian people’s demand for their God-given rights as the reason why they are being “humiliated” today?

A careful assessment of this report in other sources demonstrates that it was never intended to mean what Hamza Yusuf derived from it. Al-Tirmiḏī’s redaction of this ḥadīth is abridged and concise. The complete redaction of this report, however, can be found in several sources, such as the Musnad of Aḥmed. In his Musnad, Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal redacts the report as follows:


” مَنْ أَكْرَمَ سُلْطَانَ اللَّهِ فِي الدُّنْيَا، أَكْرَمَهُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ، وَمَنْ أَهَانَ سُلْطَانَ اللَّهِ فِي الدُّنْيَا، أَهَانَهُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ “

“Whoever honors the Sultan of Allah in the Dunyā, then Allah shall honor him on the Day of Judgement; and whoever humiliates the Sultan of Allah in the Dunyā, then Allah shall humiliate him on the Day of Judgement.” (Ibn Hanbal 34:79)

As evident, this redaction is of drastically different implications:

  1. It asserts that Allah’s consequent humiliation of the individual who humiliates His Sultan will take place on the Day of Judgement. Thus, the ḥadīth simply cannot be cited to explain the tribulations faced by the Syrian people today for merely demanding their rights.
  2. The report mentions the honoring of the Sultan, and it entices Muslims to do so. It is clear that the Prophet was not enticing Muslims to honor and revere oppressive criminal tyrants who openly defied Allah, such as Bashar Al-Assad etc. The context of the ḥadīth simply is fundamentally different than the one promoted by Hamza Yusuf when appealing to this tradition.

In fact, several early authorities presented a drastically different interpretation of the ḥadīth than the one promoted by Hamza. Several scholars have held that it was referring to just and righteous rulers who enforced Allah’s commands and prohibitions.

Al-Suyūṭī, in his commentary on the Jāmi’ al-Tirmiḏī, said:

In his book, نزهة الأخيار في شرح محاسن الأخبار, Ibn al-Khāzin said: “What is meant in the hadith is that Allah appointed the Sultan to fulfill his commandments. Thus, if a person honors him, then he has honored the One who has appointed him, and Allah shall honor him; and vice-versa. Humiliating him (the Sultan) is in disobeying his commands to do acts of righteousness.” (al-Suyūṭī 2:535)

ِAl-San’ānī explains the hadith saying:

What is meant by the Sultan is the evidence and proof, and the Sultan of Allah in the land is the Quran. Thus, whoever humiliates it and refrains from acting upon it and fulfilling its obligations, then Allah shall humiliate him with all types of humiliation.

It is also possible that it was referring to the Caliph, since the muḥaddithīn referenced the report in this context. Thus, it would mean that the Sultan here is the Sultan of Truth whose obedience is obligatory.  Humiliating him is to refrain from carrying out was is necessary, such as abiding by his commands and avoiding his defiance; and to avoid revolting against him and break the unity of the Muslims; that is what the story behind the ḥadīth hints to… (ِAl-San’ānī 3:736)

There are various other interpretations of the ḥadīth, but these examples shall suffice to demonstrate that Hamza Yusuf’s understanding of the ḥadīth simply is not a universal understanding among Muslim scholarship. Not only is his quotation of the ḥadīth inaccurate, but his interpretation of it is, at best, contestable.


Though there is a lot to be said about Hamza’s problematic political views and affiliations, this scenario provides us with a live example of how Prophetic authority may be abused and misused to justify various ideas and ideological predispositions. This abuse of Prophetic authority by Hamza manifests in several main issues:

  1. His appeal to an inauthentic Prophetic tradition to justify his political outlook.
  2. His decontextualization of that inauthentic Prophetic tradition.
  3. His provision of contestable commentary on that inauthentic and decontextualized ḥadīth which, contrary to what is implied, is not universally accepted among Muslim scholarship.

It is unfortunate that a man who is seen as a scholar of the Islamic faith by many would fall prey to such problematic behaviors and practices. Nevertheless, so as long as Hamza opts to remain silent about the actual content of his talk, it is incumbent upon us to respond to his claims, clarify the Truth, and advise him and the rest of the Muslim community. It is about time that we, as a community, stand up against the misuse of Prophetic authority to justify defective ideologies and practices that have plagued the Ummah for many years, and it is about time that Hamza is held accountable for his morally defunct views and positions and for his meddling with the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ.

Works Cited

Al-Bazzār, Aḥmed b. ‘Amr. Musnad al-Bazzār. 1st ed., Maktabat Al-Ulum Wal-Hikam, 2009.

Al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl. Al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, Da’irat Al-Ma’arif Al-‘Uthmaniyyah.

Al-Tirmiḏī, Muḥammad b. ‘Isā. Al-Jāmi’ Al-Kabīr. Dar Al-Gharb Al-Islami, 1998.

Al-San’ānī, Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl. Al-Taḥbīr li-Iḍāḥ Ma’ānī al-Tafsīr, 1st ed., Maktabat Al-Rushd, 2012.

Al-Suyūṭī, ‘Abdurraḥmān. Qūt al-Mughtaḏī ‘alā Jāmi’ al-Tirmiḏī, Umm Al-Qura University, 1424.

Ibn Abī ‘Aṣim, Abū Bakr. Al-Sunnah. 1st ed., Al-Maktab Al-Islami, 1400.

Ibn Ḥajar, Aḥmed. Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb, 1st ed., Matba’at Da’irat Al-Ma’arif Al-Nizamiyyah, 1326.

Ibn Ḥanbal, Ahmed. Musnad al-Imām Aḥmed. 1st ed., Mu’assasat Al-Risalah, 2001.


A Brother from Pakistan, lamenting the villainy and evil of molvis of the likes of Dajjaal Tariq Jameel, says:

“Tariq Jameel, in a bayaan about some incidents mentioned in Fazaail-e-A’maal, labelled them as extremism and unfit for being presented as Deen. (Pandering to the Arab Salafis and the modernist Zanaadaqah – The Majlis)

Another notorious Youtube ‘mufti’ is also calling to get Fazaail-e-A’maal replaced by Muntakhab Ahaadith (authored by Molvi Sa’d). (Part of a satanic conspiracy to placate Salafis – The Majlis)

Basically what they are saying is: For years they have been calling people towards a ‘baatil extremist deen’ and now they have hit their epiphany and realized that it was all wrong. (From one ghulu’ to another ghulu’. The Tabligh Jamaat’s gravest malady is its ghulu. It is this evil malady which has ruined the Jamaat by deflecting it from the Straight Path of the Shariah. – The Majlis)

Do they even realize what they are telling the public? They stood on a mountain of sand all these years? Nobody realizes, not even their close aides, and no one bothers to ask them. So for all these years you were wrong and now you realize you are right? How can we trust you? (The proof of untrustworthiness is conspicuously portrayed by the two factions standing with daggers drawn to slit each other’s throat. They have cast off their mask of deceptive passivity by demonstrating their true nature par excellence in Bangladesh and elsewhere. – The Majlis)

I feel even though they are giving 2-3-4 bayans daily, and taking Allah’s name on youtube, facebook, videos, tv, in reality they have forgotten Allah, so Allah has made them forget themselves.

The book that brought millions towards deen should be replaced now.

Why is it that when these maulanas and muftis become celebrities, their views start to change, they adopt a moderate ‘deen’; a lot of haraam becomes halaal.   They start to believe they are divinely inspired and they know everything because they are dealing with public, because they are ‘famous’. They refuse to listen to anyone.

Like the incident of Tariq Jameel with Aamir Khan, the actor you wrote about. The ulama told him: Hazrat this is your field you know best what to reply.” Then Tariq Jameel was ‘divinely’ inspired while engaging in wudhu. (They are Devil-Incarnate, hence Rasulullah –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) –  feared  these ulama-e-soo’ more than Dajjaal – The Majlis)

Did the ulama around him feel any shame in saying “this is your field”. What have you ulama been doing all these years? What did you do in Madrasah for so many years? (They are shayaateenul ins. Devils, especially human devils are bereft of even a vestige of shame. –The Majlis)

The result is that Tariq Jameel believes no one knows the public, the actors, the film industry, musicians, politicians, rulers better than him, and no one can give them dawah better than him.  He will sit with Imran Khan and his wife on the same table and have ‘iftaar’ and dinner, and ulama will clap and kiss his forehead(What else can be expected from an Agent of Dajjaal – The Majis)

When Tariq Jameel’s mistakes are pointed out, the usual defence is that he is a ‘khateeb’. Does being a khateeb mean that you are not a Muslim? You won’t be answerable on Qiyaamat day? You are free to say anything you want to, and that the Shariah doesn’t apply on you?

(This dajjaal is an atheist – The Majlis)

I read a hadith along the lines that the safest person in times of fitnah will be the one who nobody knows. When he shifts from one place to another nobody asks about him in the previous neighbourhood.  It seems that the maqsad of these people is to make everything halaal, undermine ibadaat, nafl ibadaat, taqwa, zuhd, and indulge in all kinds of haraam, futility, haraam and mushtabah food, facebook, youtube, movies, make everything halaal and ridicule those who want to live a life of taqwa. (Nothing surprising. Agents of Iblees have no other occupation other than the profession of undermining the Deen. – The Majlis)

The fatwa you posted from Jamiat-ur-Rasheed in which they stated that watching the Turkish drama is permissible, is a prime example of their hearts being sealed. These muftis have become so blind that they don’t even realize that Allah has made them blind. Therefore, they are unable to differentiate between halaal and haraam.  They make everything halaal in the guise of ‘dawah’. Their logic is make deen ‘easy’; don’t make deen difficult.  They ridicule even the semblance of Taqwa  which other sincere Ulama have – the Ulama who are firm on Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar.   Please comment.

(End of the Brother’s lament)


The following Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is adequate comment for the villainy, filth, fisq, fujoor and kufr of the vast majority of molvis and bunkum muftis of this age:

“An age will dawn when nothing of Islam will remain, but its name. Nothing of the Qur’aan will remain, but its text. The Musaajid will be ornate structures devoid of hidaayat. Their Ulama will be the worst under the canopy of the sky. From them will emerge fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

A Buzroog commented that: under the canopy of the sky there are even the Yahood, Nasaara, Mushrikeen apes and pigs.” Thus these types of fraud molvis and dajjaali muftis are worse than even the kuffaar, apes and swines. Apes and swines do not tamper and destroy Allah’s Deen. But this Ibleesi task has fallen to the lot of these ulama-e-soo’ who have surpassed the ulama-e-soo’ of the Yahood and Nasaara in villainy and kufr.

They are absolutely bereft of the slightest vestige of Khauf-e-Ilaahi. That is why they are able to so brazenly and flagrantly trample on the Sunnah and undermine the Shariah most recklessly and shamelessly. With their shaitaaniyat they convey the idea that they will not die – there will be no accountability for them. Deep in their hearts is embedded nifaaq. These shaitaani molvis and muftis are in fact worse than the juhala westernized zanaadaqah who parade as Muslims. The harm of these shaitaani molvis and muftis far exceed the damage caused to the Deen by the Zanaadaqah modernists – the secularists who have set themselves up as ‘mujtahideen’.

The scenario is not set to improve. We are on a head-on collision with Qiyaamah. The Signs of Qiyaamah mentioned by our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have to materialize. The cartel of Dajjaals such as Tariq Jameel, Menk, Suliman Moolla and numerous other Apes and Khanaazeer will incrementally preponderate in the world while Islam and the true Muslims will come within the purview of the Hadith:

“Islam began ghareeb (forlorn and friendless). Soon will it return ghareeb. Therefore glad tidings for the Ghuraba.”

In this Hadith are the glad tidings of Allah’s Pleasure for those who struggle and remain firm on the Sunnah during the times of Fitnah. While we may lament and grieve over the satanic developments engineered by these followers of Dajjaal and Iblees, we should not be surprised. It is to be anticipated.


Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Soon will there dawn an age when…..the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be the ulama. from them will emerge fitnah and the fitnah  will rebound on them.”

A Shaikh commenting on this Hadith said that “under the canopy of the sky” are also the Yahood, Nasaara, Mushrikeen, apes and pigs. These vile ulama (molvis and sheikhs), these mercenaries and villains are in fact worse than all creation “under the canopy of the sky”.

Tariq Jameel, Menk, Sulliman Moolla and a multitude of other shayaateenul ins (human devils) come within the scope of the “worst of people under the canopy of the sky”.

A Brother from Pakistan, commenting on the exceptionally evil state of these villains who masquerade as Ulama, writes as follows. We are reproducing his letter verbatim without the slightest alteration:

Assalam Alaikum, 

(NOTE: I don’t watch these youtubes. I just know the story from reading about it and listening to the owner of message tv). 

Ulama are stooping to new lows day after day. It seems that the most corrupt segment of the society today is Ulama. A new incident has surfaced. 

This time it is a fight for haram money from youtube. There is a youtube channel called Message TV. I believe they also have a tv channel but I’m not sure. This message tv has been broadcasting bayans of ulama. The owner of the channel has come in public about the conflict he had with the people from the “Official Tariq Jameel’ channel on youtube. They are ulama from “Jamia Hasnain” – tariq jameel’s madrasah in Faislabad. 

The conflict is that this message tv has been recording and uploading videos of M Tariq Jameel for many years on their channel. They are earning from those videos on youtube. They have a whole team working on it. 

The people from tariq jameel’s madrasah opened their own channel named “official tariq jameel”. So they claimed copyright to all videos and pictures of tariq jameel on youtube. In youtube there is a system of giving strikes if someone else steals your videos. 

So what happened was, this official channel people striked message tv’s videos of tariq jameel. Then they threatened them with more strikes and they called them to the madrasah and wrote an agreement and forced them to sign it. Senior Ulama (according to the message tv guy) were involved by him and they acted as middle men to talk to m tariq jameel’s gang in faislabad madrasah. So the message tv was forced to take off all videos of m tariq jameel from their channel. Hand over all videos that they have ever made in all the prior years. And sign a statement saying that all these videos are property of the official channel of tariq jameel. They will never record any more videos of tariq jameel and will never upload it on their channel. 

Message tv guy has gone public with all these details because according to him he stuck to the contract and handed over everything but official channel did not abide by the contract and still gave them strikes and now his channel is about to shut down and all the earnings all the team will stop making his team jobless. 

They even have a contract written and signed. I am not sending you the contract as it is a waste of time. 

The point is that these two people, the ulama gang of tariq jameel and the message tv supposed deeni guy doing great service of deen are fighting over haram money from youtube and they have no shame at all. 

The biggest munafiqat of all these molvis I have come across is that they use pirated software, pirated windows, pirated publishing software, and then they become champions of copyright. They give fatwas that copyright is halal and they force it on others when their own books are being copied. 

The message tv guy said, that I have known tariq jameel for so many years around 10 and I have been uploading his videos and recording them. If he himself has just called me and told me to hand over everything I would have happily done it. 

In his own word, m tariq jameel never called. This is enough to show him what kind of akhlaaq these merceneries have. And they have been promoting them for so long. 

The message tv guy was also it it for money so it also serves him right.

Ulama-e-Soo’ – The Helpers of Iblees

[By Mujlisul Ulama]

Every age has its breed of ulama-e-soo’ who are among the worst enemies of Islam and the staunchest assistants of Iblees. Commenting on the ulama-e-soo’ of his era, Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (Rahmatullahi Alayh) said:

“The entire world is drowned in the ocean of bid’ah. They are deriving comfort in the darknesses of bid’ah. Who has the courage (in this day) to oppose bid’ah and to criticize it? The majority of the ulama of this age are the promoters of bid’ah and the eliminators of the Sunnah.

A relative saw in a dream the accursed shaitaan sitting comfortably and confidently. He was in total readiness to deceive and mislead. This relative asked shaitaan the reason for his composure and confidence. Shaitaan Laeen responded: “The ulama of this age are adequately aiding me. They have set me free from this onerous task (of deceiving and misleading).”

In reality all the deeni lethargy and weakness/ corruption which are conspicuous in the Ummah in this age, are the effects of the corruption of the ulama-e-soo’ and the corruption of their motives.……….

Since these deceits and frauds have as their objective their personal desires, they attempt to entrap the masses. The masses generally become trapped by such worshippers of lust.

They rarely gain the opportunity of linking up with genuine and honest Men of Allah.” (End of Hadhrat Mujaddid’s comment)

In our present era this self-same scenario of fraudster molvis and crank khaanqah sheikhs prevails. The ocean of bid’ah has vastly increased. Molvis and sheikhs who profess to be ‘deobandi’ are the ulama-e-soo’ who innovate bid’ah and mislead the ignorant masses. They have polluted the entire Ummah with their bid’ah. They have become adept in presenting new acts of bid’ah which they adorn with deeni colours. Then they present stupid shaitaani-inspired arguments to vindicate their bid’ah. All of them are the agents of Iblees.