Category Archives: Ulama-e-Soo’

What Do I Do If I Find Out My Favorite Preacher Is Corrupt?

By Daniel Haqiqatjou

It is very traumatic to find out that the person you’ve been listening to for years has changed or is now expressing increasingly deviant views.

If you recognize this deviance, consider yourself one of the fortunate ones. Most of the fans of the person won’t even understand the problem because their entire source for learning Islam is the preacher himself. So these fans don’t even have an objective measuring stick needed to know what is or isn’t corruption. Their understanding of Islam completely depends on whatever the celebrity teaches. If he changes, they change.

I have gone through this trauma myself. People that I thought were upright scholars of deen that I loved and respected turned out to be unabashed sell outs. It wasn’t one or two “off the cuff” remarks that made me realize this, but an extended pattern of behavior, associations, and private correspondence. When I talked with the preachers in question about these issues, rather than assuage the worry, they compounded it by doubling down, excusing their behavior, making ugly accusations against me, accusing me of disloyalty, etc. 

What I have seen is that when fans of celebrity compassionate imams find out about corruption and deviance, they go through the 5 stages of grief.

Stage 1: Denial

The first thought is, “This is nothing.” The fans don’t want to hear anything bad about the preacher. So they ignore all the evidence and try to shield themselves from seeing anything incriminating so that they can maintain the pristine image of their beloved preacher. Sadly, many do not leave this stage, no matter how much evidence there is.

Stage 2: Anger

In this stage, the fan lashes out at anyone pointing out the corruption/deviance. It is very sad to see these individuals because you can hear it in their voice how tortured they are. They view the celebrity as a family member. Sometimes they love the preacher more than their own family members. But they also are confused and can sense that something is not right. This contradiction causes mental anguish and they release this frustration by lashing out at others and defending the preacher at all costs.

Stage 3: Bargaining

Eventually the fans cannot deny that there is something off with the preacher. By now, multiple independent sources have brought up the same problems and the preacher himself has done nothing to satisfactorily address the issues, much less resolve them. Sometimes he might even double down. The fans start to bargain with themselves: “Well, there has to be an explanation. It must have been out of context, it was an innocent slip,” etc. They tell themselves, “Ok, so maybe he did make a mistake. But so what? No one’s perfect!” They bargain with themselves, “I’ll just take the good and leave the bad. No problem.”

Stage 4: Depression

This stage hits like a ton of bricks. The previous stages of coping could not stop the inevitable realization. Now they have reached full-on grief and it can be very ugly. For some, their Islam is threatened. They have so closely associated Islam with this preacher that they transfer feelings of betrayal to Islam itself or ulama and scholarship as a whole. Some fans, in their grief, make dramatic pronouncements like: “I will NEVER listen to another scholar again!” This stage can last for weeks or months.

Stage 5: Acceptance

If Allah wills, the now ex-fans reach a stage of maturity. They now understand that not every preacher today is trustworthy, to say the least, and some of them may have the external trappings of traditional Islam when in reality, they are nothing more than faux-traditionalist wolves. They have moved past blind fandom and start to distinguish between the feel-good fluff version of Islam taught by compassionate imams from the kind of Islam taught by traditional scholars for centuries. They may have scars, but the healing process is well underway.

An excellent example comes from the Sahabi Salman al-Farsi. He spent his early adulthood leaving the religion of fire-worship to become Christian. He would find a Christian scholar to study with, learn all that he could until the scholar would die and then he would move to study with the next scholar. In some cases, he found out that one of the Christian scholars he was studying with was corrupt, literally stealing from people. He didn’t give up or say, “Well, we can only follow the dead!” He moved on and sought the truth. Eventually that led him to RasulAllah ﷺ and he became one of the greatest Companions, may Allah be pleased with them all.

Be like Salman. If one preacher burns you, there are many righteous scholars in our day and age who stick to the truth and don’t sell out. Seek them out and Allah will guide you to Him bi idhnillah.


Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Soon will an era dawn when nothing of Islam will remain except its name. Nothing of the Qur’aan will remain except its text. The Musaajid will be ornate (beautifully adorned) structures but devoid of Hidaayat. The worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be the ulama.

From them will emerge fitna, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

Today that era predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has dawned. A Brother from Pakistan writes:

“The shameful character the Deobandi ulama of Pakistan have adopted in this corona virus episode is absolutely disgusting. Even the Barelwi Mufti Muneeb- ur-Rahman showed more ghairat (honour) than mufti Taqi Usmani and the rest of the Deobandi gang. (They are not Deobandis. They are cranks and bogus ‘deobandis’. They are worse than the Barelwi Qabar Pujaaris. They are traitors. They have sold Islam down the sewerage drain for the carrion of the dunya. They are the worst specimens of creation under the canopy of the sky. –The Majlis)

The ulama have finally accepted that Government has equal authority to Allah and His Rasool. Whatever the government says should be accepted. (They are ulama-e-soo’ of the worst kind. They are the agents of Iblees. They are bootlickers and lap up the najaasat-e-ghaleezah of the kuffaar rulers. The Pit in Jahannam known as Jubbul Huzn is the abode of these stercoroceous vermin who are an absolute disgrace to Islam and the Ummah. –The Majlis)

Thousands of Masjids have been literally locked. Supermarkets, bazaar and other places are open but Masjids are closed. The molvis accepted it. (The la’nat of Allah Ta’ala, of His Malaaikah and of mankind and animal-kind is on these shayaateenul ins –The Majlis)

The extent to which the molvis bootlick the government and have Imaan on science and doctors is also amazing. (They are not Muslims. They have no Imaan. Their nifaaq has been exposed by the corona Athaab of Allah Ta’ala. Their outer façade of the Deen is to hoodwink the masses and to parasitically extravsate money from people to fill their haraam coffers. Their Madrasahs and Deeni institutions are used by these vermin for worldly objectives. They are Signs of Qiyaamah. – The Majlis)

The worst thing is they have towed the WHO line and issued a fatwa that people older than 50 should not come to the Masjid. (They are munaafiqeen.  They are in the pursuit of haraam boodle, hence the kuffaar have become their ‘muftis’- The Majlis)

I was listening to these fatwas and press conferences of these molvis, no where do they ever mention death that those who are 60+ are already living a bonus life. They should come to Masjid, and if they die they will die as Shaheeds. But no! Molvis are heard saying that saving life is very important and I heard a senior molvi saying ‘jaan hai to jahan hai.’ (If you have life, then you have the world.)

(This scoundrel molvi is a zindeeq or perhaps an atheist. Life and death are the prerogatives of Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan Majeed says: “No person will die except at the appointed time with the command of Allah.” These scoundrel molvis have no Imaan on the Qur’aan. They have traded the Deen for the dunya for an extremely miserable price. – The Majlis)

I met a Tablighi who is over 75 years of age, in the Masjid wearing a mask. I said salaam and extended my hand for musafaha but he said: “No! No musafaha sorry.” I said to him its sad that at this age you are fearing death. If we young people fear death its somewhat understandable but you at this age and for 30+ years you have been teaching people “Imaan ki mehnat”.   It’s sad indeed.

(Although sad and lamentable, it is not surprising. The abject putrefied condition of the Ulama was predicted by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The molvis of today are the materialization of Rasulullah’s prediction. They are the worst destroyers of the Deen. They have placed shaitaan on vacation. –The Majlis)

When our Masjid was still open, 90% of the old people 60+ had vanished. They are sitting in isolation and quarantine as if they will never die. Even the regular namazis have vanished. (Dictated to by the kuffaar, they bootlick and demonstrate their kufr. This is the proof for their lack of Imaan. All these hidden kuffaar are now surfacing – The Majlis)

I am attaching the press release of the government regarding Masjids and a diagram how people will stand 6ft apart. And Mufti Taqi Usmani’s twitter statements, and how he is happy that WHO (World Health Organization) has released guidelines for Masjids. (On the Day of Qiyaamah they will be resurrected with these WHO kuffaar whom they are today bootlicking. The Taqi character is the arch-bootlicker and mudhil in the world. –The Majlis)

These ulama are happy that they feel that they have succeeded in ‘opening’ Masjids and that they have won.  In fact, they have utterly disgraced the Muslims by accepting stupid conditions. (The kuffaar prescribed conditions are an utter disgrace. These molvis have no shame. Truckling at the boots of the kuffaar is for them honour and respect. – The Majlis)

My questions are:

(1)  Should I go to the Masjid and pray in this 6ft part style? It seems like making fun of Namaaz and Masjid. I feel its better to pray alone rather than praying in this stupid fashion which I believe invokes the la’nat of Allah Ta’ala.

(2) Secondly, should I pray Taraweeh in this stupid fashion or pray at home?

JazakAllah khair.  Was-salaam”


May Allah Ta’ala protect our Imaan.  We do not know what the morrow holds for us. The Mashaaikh say: “Imaan is suspended between fear and hope.”

“Disgusting” is too mild a term to describe the khanaazeer molvis mentioned by you. In fact, they are worse than khanaazeer. Pigs do not harm our Imaan, but these human devils ruin and destroy the Imaan of the juhala (ignoramuses). Thy are rotten bootlickers of the kuffaar. They are NOT Deobandis. They are worse than the Qabar Pujaaris. They are the illegitimate progeny of Iblees.

The character who had pretended to be the ‘grand mufti’ of Pakistan is a sell-out, a vile traitor who has betrayed Allah Ta’ala, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Ummah. The dunya and shaitaan have embraced him totally. This Taqi character is a great danger for the Imaan of the ignorant masses. They are accursed vermin, the worst under the canopy of the sky.  The answers to your questions are:

1) The kuffaar-advised spacing of the Salaat sufoof is HARAAM. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded: “Taraas-soo” (Stand shoulder to shoulder). Even a small gap between two musallis is filled by shaitaan.  The kufr spacing has brought in numerous shayaateen into the Musaajid. Every musallis has several devils alongside him.

This spacing is not only haraam. It is kufr since the kuffar-advised system has been acquired from the kuffaar and has been adopted to displace the Waajib Masnoon practice. The Salaat performed in the clownish manner is a mockery and is NOT VALID.

2)   Perform Salaat at home. Do not demean yourself standing stupidly like a devil and a clown in the kuffaar style. It is a kufr mockery of Salaat.  If you are able to call some brothers, then perform Jamaat at home. If not, then perform alone.

3)  Taraaweeh too should be performed at home. Do not join the stupid, devilish mockery in the Musjid. During the day time when all the devils  have left, i.e. before the Salaat times, go to the Musjid, sit in Nafl I’tikaaf for a few minutes, and perform some Nafl so that on the Day of Qiyaamah the Musjid will testify regarding your presence in the Musjid.

Brother, we are yet to see worse kufr, fisq and fujoor in the Musaajid. The Musaajid invoke the La’nat of Allah Ta’ala on these vile vermin.



Is the following view of Mufti Taqi correct:

According to him if the Muslim ruler in a Muslim country suspends Jumuah prayers because of some strong reason such as a medical reason or something like it, then the ruling of the Sultan applies. He says that it is written in Fataawa books such as Alamghiri that if the Muslim ruler suspends Jumuah prayer, then you have to pray Zuhr at home. Only those people are allowed to pray Jumuah at home who are living in non-Muslim countries where Jumuah is suspended at Masjids.” Is this view correct?

ANSWER (By Mujlisul Ulama):

Mufti Taqi has taken up residence in the domain of dhalaal (deviation) hence he has become adept in issuing one cent bunkum fatwas which he substantiates with Fiqhi and Hadith texts by misinterpretation to suit the whims of kuffaar rulers with whom he associates and whom he bootlicks.

The texts in Alamghiri and other Kutub are not applicable to the kufr scenarios prevailing today in the context of the virus plot of the kuffaar.

Pakistan has a decidedly kuffaar government. This kaafir government is not like a Sultan who governs by the Shariah. Furthermore, never in Islam’s history has any Sultan abolished Jumuah Salaat. No Sultan has suspended Jumuah as Mr.Taqi seeks to convey by deception to the ignorant masses.

Mr.Taqi is satanically mis-applying the text of Alamghiri to provide kufr cover for the kufr shenanigans of the Pakistan government regarding the current virus panic. While according to the Shariah the kufr decree of the government has no validity, people will automatically abstain from Jumuah, not because of obedience to the kuffaar government, but on account of fear for the brutal persecution and oppression which will follow in the wake of defying the evil rulers whom Mr.Taqi is supporting at the cost of ruining his Imaan.

There is no need for a fatwa to convince people to abstain from Jumuah in Napakistan or in any other country where Jumua has been banned, Fardh Salaat has been banned and the Musaajid closed down. A fatwa to abstain from Jumuah is superfluous and stupid. People of their own accord will not go to the Musaajid for fear of the brutality of the oppressive rulers and tyrants.

The motive of these munaafiq molvis and stupid  once cent ‘muftis’ for issuing fatwas to justify abstention from Jumuah and Fardh Salaat in the Musjid is only to curry favour with rulers and governments. They most disgracefully lick the boots of the kuffaar for the attainment of despicable nafsaani objectives.

The ‘medical’ reason posited by Mr.Taqi is satanically spurious. There is absolutely no Shar’i validity for this bunkum reason urinated into the brains by the devil.

The suggestion to perform Zuhr is another stupidity. Every Muslim, even the fussaaq and fujjaar, with the exclusion of the zindeeqs and munaafiqeen, is aware that when he is compelled by governmental oppression to forego Jumuah, he has to perform Zuhr since there is no other alternative.

The stupid, kufr averment that “only those people are allowed to pray jumuah at home who are living in non-Muslim countries where jumuah is suspended at Masjids” clearly displays the malfunctioning of Mr.Taqi’s brains.

In Pakistan/Napakistan where Jumuah has been banned by the kuffaar government on account of the virus bogey, the kuffaar rulers have done so in submission to their kuffaar, conspiratorial masters. So far, the haraam kufr order is the closure of the Musjids. The law has not banned performance of Salaat – any Salaat – at home.  It is therefore satanically stupid for Mr.Taqi to claim that Jumuah Salaat while valid in homes in non-Muslim countries will not be valid in Pakistan. He displays egregious stupidity in this satanic ‘fatwa’.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Verily, I fear for my Ummah, the aimmah mudhilleen.”

In another narration, our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) expressed greater fear for these deviate muftis and molvis – greater than fear for even Dajjaal.

The Cancellation of Salaah and the Baseless Excuse of a Munaafiq

Whenever Allaah Ta`aalaa sends down any test upon the Muslims, there are those who pass this test with flying colours and there are those who fail this test miserably, being flung on account of it into the pit of Jahannam. Throughout the history of Islaam and right until the time when Allaah Ta`aalaa takes the very last Muslim away from this Dunyaa, there will be tests. These Tests separate the wheat from the chaff; they separate the sincere Muslims (`Ibaadallaahil Mukhlaseen) from the munaafiqeen; they separate those who truly believe in Allaah Ta`aalaa from those who are only “Muslim” in name.

One of the most recent tests is that of the coronavirus (COVID-19), and this test from Allaah Ta`aalaa has truly exposed the munaafiqeen most thoroughly. It has exposed the fact that most of the so-called “Ulama” do not – and have never – truly believed in Allaah Ta`aalaa. Their Imaan is as flimsy as a cobweb. Their tawakkul is in America.

They may outwardly deny this, but in reality, in the back of their minds they know this to be true: they laugh at the belief that it is Allaah Ta`aalaa Who controls both sickness and cure. They hypocritically claim to believe this, but they know as well as we do that they do not truly believe that. They consider this belief to be stupid, backwards, regressive, old-fashioned, dangerous and something which “puts Muslims in a bad light in the eyes of the non-Muslims”.

That is a major disease in the hearts of these “Mozlems”: they are forever worried about “what the non-Muslims will think about us”. They care more about the “judgement” of the so-called “non-Muslims” than the Judgement of Allaah Ta`aalaa. They are always “apologising” to the so-called “non-Muslims” on behalf of Allaah Ta`aalaa, wal-`Iyaadhu Billaah. They feel that they need to apologise to the “non-Muslims” for Allaah Ta`aalaa having revealed this “oppressive, fundamentalist, backward, old-fashioned, terrorist religion” known as Islaam.

This “coronavirus (COVID-19)” has brought every last munaafiq “scholar” in the world out of the woodwork, and Shaytaan would be proud of them. The Arab Kaafir regimes were in the forefront to close down the Masaajid and ban the Salaah, and their grovelling, bootlicking munaafiq “scholars” were quick to defend it.

Never in the past has Iblees had it as easy as he has it today. He can comfortably retire. The Ulamaa-e-Soo are striving to outdo both him and Dajjaal in spreading kufr and munkar throughout the world. With one “coronavirus”, they have gotten rid of Islaam in entirety. Long ago already the munaafiqeen had “interpreted” away Jihaad as either: a) being some “ancient” part of Islaam that was abrogated centuries ago and which must be apologised for, or b) that Jihaad actually means “to strive hard in politics, to have a democratically elected president,” or “to strive hard in advocating human rights”, which to them refers to feminism and gay rights, thus in their minds a “mujaahid” is someone who joins the “gay pride” marches, protesting and “striving hard in advocating LGBTQ+ values and freedom of expression”.

Munaafiq Menk would happily be at the forefront, raising high the “gay pride” flag and marching. These Munaafiq “scholars” will soon march with the cross as well.

صورته اليوم هو في أول الطابور, يحمل الصليب الضخم الكبير ويسير…

Thus, long ago already had they done away with Jihaad, and now with the coronavirus they have done away with Salaah, Hajj, `Umrah and the Sunnah in one go. Already they are having discussions about cancelling Sawm (fasting) as well, because they believe that it will lower the person’s immune system and put them at greater risk of “contracting the coronavirus and dying”, thus, according to their fabricated principles, “it is your duty to not fast”. They have never been giving Zakaat so that does not even factor, thus in one go there is no longer Salaah, Zakaah, Sawm (fasting), Hajj, `Umrah, Jihaad or the Sunnah, because acting on the Sunnah results in people contracting and spreading the coronavirus, according to them.

All of the munaafiqeen organisations have thus come out to cancel Islaam: the “Jamiats”, the MJC (Murtadd Juhalaa Council), etc., as well as the Munaafiqeen-In-Chief like Munaafiq Menk, Taha Karaan, Yasir (Yes-Sir) Qadhi, etc. The kuffaar governments had not even brought in any laws yet when the munaafiqeen rats, the “Tujjaar-ud-Deen”, the “Dajjaalian Scholars” had begun squawking like parrots in the trees, ever eager to please their masters (America and its allies), ever eager to grovel, ever eager to bootlick, to kowtow, to snivel, ever yearning for “acceptance” from the kuffaar.

None of the munaafiqeen have presented any scrap of true daleel to justify the widespread shutting down of the Masaajid, the cancellation of Jumu`ah, Jamaa`ah, Taraaweeh and possibly Eid as well if their masters have not yet given them the “green light” to go ahead with it by that time.

Recently, “Yes-Sir” Qadhi (groveler-in-chief) presented a so-called “daleel” for closing down the Masaajid. Now, Yes-Sir Qadhi is not someone whose words hold any weight for true Muslims. His words are only meant to be printed on toilet roll and used by someone who has had a bad case of diarrhoea. Nevertheless, because some Muslims asked us about this so-called “daleel” of his, we shall briefly respond to it, إن شاء الله.

Yes-Sir Qadhi quotes the following passage from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah of Imaam ibn Katheer رحمة الله عليه:

فلمّا مات استخلف على الناس عمرو بن العاص فقام فيهم خطيباً فقال:

أيّها الناس، إنّ هذا الوجع إذا وقع فإنّما يشتعل اشتعال النار، فتحصّنوا منه في الجبال. فقال أبو وائل الهذلي: كذبت والله لقد صحبت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأنت شرّ من حماري هذا. فقال: والله ما أردّ عليكم ما تقول، وايم الله لا نقيم عليه. قال: ثم خرج وخرج الناس فتفرّقوا ودفعه الله عنهم.

قال: فبلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب من رأى عمرو بن العاص فوالله ما كرهه

This passage is on the chapter of the Plague of `Amwaas wherein 25,000 people died, according to Imaam al-Waaqidi رحمة الله عليه, or 30,000 people according to others. Many great Sahaabah died in this plague, including:

  1. Hadhrat Abu `Ubaydah ibn al-Jarraah رضي الله عنه
  2. Hadhrat Abu Maalik al-Ash`ari رضي الله عنه
  3. Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه
  4. Hadhrat Yazeed ibn Abi Sufyaan رضي الله عنه
  5. 5. Hadhrat Haarith ibn Hishaam رضي الله عنه

In fact, both Hadhrat Abu `Ubaydah رضي الله عنه and Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه died from the plague after asking Allaah Ta`aalaa to give them that sickness so that they would die from it.

Nevertheless, the above passage from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah states that after Hadhrat Mu`aadh ibn Jabal رضي الله عنه passed away and Hadhrat `Amr ibn al-`Aas رضي الله عنه was placed in charge, he told them that this plague spreads like fire, thus they must “seek shelter” in the mountains, and the narration then states that they تفرّقوا (dispersed) and Allaah Ta`aalaa removed the plague. When the news of this was taken to Hadhrat `Umar رضي الله عنه, he did not dislike it.

“Yes-Sir” Qadhi then makes the following baseless statement:

“It is reasonable to assume that the prayers were suspended.”

This is the apex of his “daleel”: “it is reasonable to assume.”

“To assume.”

Since when has there been an addition to Usool-ul-Fiqh? Has anyone heard about this? We certainly have not. We know that the Ahkaam of Sharee`ah are derived from four sources: two of them being primary and two being non-primary. The two Primary Sources are Qur’aan and Sunnah. The two non-primary sources are ijmaa` and qiyaas, that being qiyaas done by a Faqeeh, and there are no Fuqahaa today.

Where do “assumptions” fit in?

Perhaps we need to rewrite the Kutub of Usool-ul-Fiqh to make this very important change: Qur’aan, Sunnah, Ijmaa`, Qiyaas and the Assumptions of Yasir Qadhi. There are now five sources of istidlaal.

فإلى الله المشتكى وهو المستعان…

A few points to briefly debunk his ridiculous “assumption”:

1) As stated above, we have established sources of istidlaal. History books are not one of those sources. Daleel is Qur’aan and Sunnah, and for those who are not Mujtahideen, they refer to the Kutub of Fiqh. The Kutub of taareekh as not used for daleel for a very simple reason: tahqeeq has not been done for most of the Kutub of taareekh. Hence, you can find baseless or weak narrations in many Kutub of taareekh. Shias commonly go through the books of taareekh to dig out baseless narrations which they feel are in support of Shi’ism and which “paint a bad picture of the Muslims”.

However, the narrations they present are mawdhoo`aat, baseless lies. Hence, we state emphatically: Ahkaam of Deen are not derived from history books.

In fact, according to the Hanafi Madh-hab, if an Aayah of the Qur’aan gives a particular ruling, then a person cannot add onto that ruling with even a Hadeeth if that Hadeeth is from the Aahaad (solitary narrations), as stated by Fakhrul Islaam al-Bazdawi رحمة الله عليه and others.

Let alone naskh (abrogation), even ziyaadah `alan-nass is not permissible unless the Hadeeth is mutawaatir, or mash-hoor as stated by Imaam ibn Ameer Haajرحمة الله عليه in at-Taqreer wat-Tahbeer.

Now, the Jumu`ah Salaah is Fardh-e-`Ayn according to the Hanafi Madh-hab, and the one who denies it is a Kaafir, as stated in Radd-ul-Muhtaar `alad-Durril Mukhtaar, and the daleel for this is the Aayah:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نُودِيَ لِلصَّلاةِ مِنْ يَّوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَاسْعَوْا إِلَى ذِكْرِ اللهِ وَذَرُوا البَيْعَ

{“O you who have Imaan! When the nidaa (call) for Salaah is made on the Day of Jumu`ah, then hasten to the Dhikr of Allaah (the Khutbah and Jumu`ah Salaah) and leave off trade…“}

[Soorah Al-Jumu`ah, 62:9]

These munaafiqeen want to cancel something that is Fardh-e-`Ayn, established as qat`iyy (definitively proven and undeniable) by the Qur’aan Kareem, on the basis of an “assumption” made by a “Yes-Sir Qadhi” because of something he dug out of a history book? Because they are munaafiqeen, they take the Deen of Allaah Ta`aalaa as a joke, but the true Muslims happily give their lives for this Deen. In fact, a true Muslim happily gives his life for the protection of a single Sunnah from the Sunan of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

2) Even if this narration is accepted as Saheeh, nowhere does it state that Salaah was “suspended” as the munaafiq claims. The munaafiq also claims that the Sahaabah spent months in this condition, but this too is not mentioned. It is another “assumption” from his own side. This is a person who has based his entire religion upon “assumptions”.

Another person can “assume” that تفرّقوا means this: those who were healthy separated from those who were sick, and those who were healthy performed Jumu`ah together, and those who were sick performed Jumu`ah together. Why is that assumption not “reasonable” as well?

Istidlaal is not done using a history book, especially not when the incident cited has multiple ihtimaalaat (possibilities).

Anyone who has studied taareekh (history) and knows the ways of the mu’arrikheen knows that the method of the old mu’arrikheen was to compile all narrations concerning a particular incident, and they would present these incidents in their kutub, because they focused primarily on jam` (collecting) and not on tahqeeq.

A well-known example of this is the case of Imaam al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi رحمة الله عليه with Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه: a person who reads through the books of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi will find so many narrations insulting Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه that he would think that there must have been some enormous enmity on the part of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi towards Imaam Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi Madh-hab. Yet, if he reads those very same kitaabs, he will also find many narrations praising Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه very highly.

Hence, the `Ulamaa have explained that Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi simply gathered everything he had heard regarding Imaam Abu Haneefah and presented these in his Kitaab, regardless of whether those narrations were authentic or not. These mu’arrikheen expected those who came after to do tahqeeq of those kutub of taareekh, sorting out what is authentic from what is not authentic.

Now, if a person were to adopt the methodology of Yes-Sir Qadhi and the other Ulama-e-Soo who try to look for daleel for their baatil views in the books of taareekh, then this person will come across these kitaabs of Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi and arrive at the conclusion that Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه was not even a Muslim – والعياذ بالله – and that the Ahnaaf are “like Christians”, thus he uses this as “proof” that the other three Madhaahib are on Haqq and the Hanafi Madh-hab is on Baatil, when in reality those narrations are nothing more than baseless lies.

Thus, matters of `Aqaa’id and Ahkaam are only taken from rigorously authenticated sources.

3) If the Fuqahaa and `Ulamaa of Islaam were in the habit of closing down the Masaajid and cancelling Salaah each and every time there was a plague or pandemic, it would be well-known. There would be no need to hunt through the kutub of taareekh to pull out an incident which 1) he cannot prove as being saheeh, qat`iyy-uth-thuboot and 2) which has multiple possibilities. The very fact that he had to labour to scratch out this incident shows that this “cancellation of Salaah” is not something well-known among the `Ulamaa for 1,441 years. There have been many plagues over the years; this is not the first.

4) If the people had completely cut off from each other, like he claims, not even performing Salaah together, then what happened to those Muslims who died? Did each person simply die by himself and lay where he was, rotting away, not being buried? There was no janaazah Salaah and no burial?

If he says that there was burial and Janaazah Salaah, that means they had to come together. If they could congregate for Janaazah Salaah – which they would have to be doing very frequently, because people were dying every day – why could they not congregate for Jumu`ah Salaah which is only once a week? Does that make sense to any person with `aql (intellect)?

5) Why restrict this cancellation of Salaah to only the coronavirus (COVID-19)? Why not also cancel Salaah for the flu, TB, AIDS and the many other “contagious” illnesses?

Currently, approximately 15,496 people have died from this COVID-19 according to, but WHO puts the number of deaths from the common flu each year at somewhere between 290,000 to 650,000. That is significantly higher than COVID-19, to say the least.

Hence, we pose this question to them: “If the Masaajid must be closed down and Salaah cancelled because of COVID-19, why must the same thing not be done in the case of the common flu? More people have died from the flu than from COVID-19. According to, approximately 100,657 people have recovered from COVID-19. The very kuffaar that you people worship claim that most of those who die from COVID-19 are old people who were already suffering from other illnesses.

If the Masaajid must be closed due to the risk of contracting the coronavirus, why must they not be closed due to the risk of contracting the flu, or TB? You could be performing Salaah in the Masjid next to someone who has TB, and he is coughing next to you the entire time, and thus you contract TB. Why, then, must the Masaajid not also be closed to prevent the risk of getting TB?”

Every single argument they present in favour of closing the Masaajid and cancelling Salaah due to COVID-19 applies in the case of the flu.

They believe that we must reject the command of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم to “stand shoulder to shoulder” and instead stand two meters apart, due to the risk of contracting COVID-19. Why must a person not do the same due to the risk of catching the flu from the next person?

In fact, there is always some risk or the other involved in performing Salaah next to people in the Masjid, as you do not know what illness the next person has, so why not permanently shut down all Masaajid and cancel Jamaa`ah Salaah, Jumu`ah, Taraaweeh, `Eed, etc., indefinitely? Why “take the risk”? Is the “principle of saving lives” not more important than Jamaa`ah Salaah?

Why run the risk of getting the flu or TB on account of performing Salaah in Jamaa`ah, instead of performing it individually at home? Why is it okay for a person to run the risk of getting the flu and dying, or getting TB and dying? Why, in the case of the other “contagious” illnesses, is it okay to run the risk of contracting them due to performing Salaah next to other people, using towels in the Masjid that other people have used, shaking hands with people, eating out of the same plate with people (as is the Sunnah), etc.?

We want them to answer these questions.

6) As stated earlier, the Kuffaar claim that 15,496 people so far have died from COVID-19. Compare this to the plagues of the past:

  • The Black Plague, known also as the Great Plague, the Great Bubonic Plague, Pestilence, the Great Mortality and the “Black Death”, killed 200 million people worldwide. It wiped out 60% of Europe’s population. It took Europe over 200 years to recover from the Black Plague. Some places, like Florence, only recovered in the 19th century despite the Black Plague having broken out in the 14th century.
  • The Cocoliztli epidemic, in the 1500s, killed 15 million people.
  • The Spanish flu, which broke out in 1918, killed 50 million people.
  • The Asian flu, which broke out in 1957, killed 1.1 million people.
  • The Swine Flu, which broke out just a few years ago in 2009, infected 1.4 billion people around the world and killed up to 575,400 people, according to the CDC, and, unlike COVID-19, it killed mainly those younger than 65.

These are just a handful of plagues. There have been many more in the past.

Take just the Black Plague, for example, which killed 200 million people: why did the `Ulamaa at that time, in the 14th century, not call for the Masaajid to be closed down and Salaah to be cancelled? Why did Salaah continue like normal? 200 million people versus 15,496: that is a massive difference. Did the `Ulamaa back then not understand Islaam? Did they not know about the “Maqaasid-ush-Sharee`ah” and the “principle of saving lives”? Did they not know the Aayah:

ولا تلقوا بأيديكم إلى التهلكة

{“Do not throw yourselves, by your own hands, into destruction…“}

(This Aayah, as a matter of fact, refers to abandoning Jihaad. The Qur’aan says that those who abandon Jihaad are throwing themselves into destruction by their own hands.)

Did they not know about this incident from al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah which Yes-Sir Qadhi has quoted? The difference is simply that the so-called Ulama of today are severely lacking in Imaan and Tawakkul. They do not believe in the Power of Allaah Ta`aalaa. They believe only in the so-called “power” of the West.

Yes, the Fuqahaa of the past stated that those who are sick are exempted from coming to the Masjid, but never did they call for the closure of the Masaajid and the suspension of even Hajj itself.

7) Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

من ترك ثلاث جمع تهاوناً بها طبع الله على قلبه

“Whosoever abandons three Jumu`ahs due to taking it (the matter of Jumu`ah) lightly, Allaah will place a seal on his heart.”

[Narrated in Sunan Abi DaawudSunan at-Tirmidhiand Sunan an-Nasaa’i.]

Explaining this Hadeeth, Imaam al-Munaawi رحمة الله عليه states in Faydh-ul-Qadeer that “placing a seal on his heart” means:

يصير قلبه قلب منافق

“His heart will become the heart of a munaafiq.”

Obviously, the governments will impose restrictions: that is entirely expected. The governments are not Muslims, thus they do not rule according to the Laws of Islaam. Hence, they will act according to what they believe is most suitable for the welfare of the people. It is expected for them to impose restrictions, but it is not befitting for the so-called “Ulamaa” to have out of their own decided to shut down the Masaajid, cancelled the Hajj, cancelled Salaah, imposed the haraam, Baatil “two meter distance” in the Masaajid, etc. That they did from their own side – they were not compelled to do so. Hence, they will have to answer for that on the Day of Qiyaamah.

Finally, to those who believe in throwing out the Sunnah simply on the basis of flimsy excuses: know that when people abandon a Sunnah, Allaah Ta`aalaa takes away from them the Tawfeeq to act upon it thereafter, even if they want to. They will have to bleed in order to act upon it once again.


يا مثبّت القلوب ثبّت قلوبنا على دينك

ربّنا لا تزغ قلوبنا بعد إذ هديتنا وهب لنا من لدنك رحمة إنّك أنت الوهّاب

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتمّ وأحكم

– Muhammad Huzaifah ibn Adam Aal-Ebrahim

Ulama-e-Soo’ – The Enemies from Within

By Hadhrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thaanwi (rahmatullah alayh):

This is the age in which Fitnah is in the form of ilhaad and zindaqah (the professing Muslim who holds beliefs or follows practices contrary to the central orthodox Islam. a zindiq is perceived to be incorrigibly disloyal to the tenets of Islam)

Besides the open enemies of Islam, there are numerous enemies lurking within (the Muslim nation) pretending to be the friends of Islam. From within they give effect to their plots. Their plots come within the purview of the aayat: “Verily, their plots are such that even mountains will be eliminated.”

However, Allah Ta’ala has  given the assurance: “Verily, We have revealed the Thikr (the Deen), and most certainly We are its Protectors.” Accordingly, Allah Ta’ala has created a group to defend His Deen. In this regard, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There will ever remain a group in my Ummah  who will be aided on the Haqq until the Day of Qiyaamah.”  Thus Allah Ta’ala establishes the Ulama-e-Haqq to neutralize all the clamour and deception of the people of baatil.

The reformers and so-called friends of Islam of this age are in reality enemies of Islam whose salient feature is to mutilate the ahkaam (laws) of Islam.

‘Mujtahids’ like Rain-frogs 

Nowadays, like rain-frogs, numerous  ‘mujtahids’ have  mushroomed. Their outstanding feature is to mutilate and distort the ahkaam (laws) of the Deen. This is their occupation night and day. They have made the ahkaam of Islam a target for practice. They expend their entire intellectual ability to nibble at the Deen. Undoubtedly, these claimants of Islam cause greater harm to Islam and the Ummah than aliens (the kuffaar).

These people (the modernist zindeeqs) masquerading as ‘friends’ of Islam and Muslims are in reality enemies. Under guise of Islam, they engage in the destruction of the Deen and the Ummah. While they conspire to destroy the Deen, they are in fact destroying themselves. Islam will remain pure forever.

They say that they understand the Qur’aan and Hadith better than the Ulama. On the basis of this corrupt understanding they interpolate and transmogrify the Shariah. The changes they wrought in the meanings and concepts of Islam are worse than the changes which a total ignoramus effects in the text of the  Qur’aan. In this manner with their interpolation they destroy their Aakhirat. May Allah Ta’ala bestow righteous intellect to them.

Source: Malfoozaat of Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi


Question: I notice a growing trend among students studying in Ulooms. After becoming Aalims they pursue higher secular education, e.g. science, accounting, law. In most cases they give preference to the secular studies and the concomitant careers. Is this trend tenable in Islam?

Answer (by Mujlisul Ulama):

They are not ‘Aalims’. They are Jaahils. These students are Signs of Qiyaamah. Among the Signs of Qiyaamah mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is that “the dunya will be pursued and acquired with the amal of the Aakhirat.” Also, a Sign is “that the knowledge of the Deen will be acquired for purposes other than the Deen.”

They are the similitude of khanaazeer (pigs) mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “He (i.e. the Ustaadh) who imparts Ilm (higher Deeni Ilm) to unfit persons is like one who garlands khanaazeer with pearls, diamonds and gold.”

They are vile mercenaries. They are like the disgruntled and rebellious Yahood who complained to Nabi Musaa (Alayhis salaam) about the Mann and Salwa which Allah Ta’ala daily made available for them miraculously whilst they were wandering in confusion and bewilderment, lost in the Valley of Teeh for 40 years. Instead of valuing and appreciating this food which came to them from the Heaven, they demanded lentils and onions. Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) reprimanded them: “What! Do you want to exchange that which is best for that which is inferior?”

These morons parading as Aalims, are worse than those Yahood who were tired of consuming the heavenly Mann and Salwa. These miserable molvis who should regret the day they were born, are exchanging the Deen, not food as Bani Israeel had done, for the carrion of the dunya. The Deen with its sacred Qur’aanic Ilm is a hobby for them. They are truly the khanaazeer mentioned in the Hadith.


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.