Foreword by the Saker: It is a real pleasure for me to submit to you a most interesting article about the history of Islam in general, and about a form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia which is rarely discussed or even mentioned. Being a Christian myself, a take no position on any of the view presented in this article other than welcoming an informed discussion. What I am absolutely sure of, however, is that the AngloZionists are deliberately trying to create a “clash of civilizations” and that they are trying to present Islam as a monolithic threat to “the western world”, the “Christian West”, “freedom and democracy”, etc. etc. etc. Oh sure, there is a very real threat out there: the type of Wahabi Takfirism which Daesh embodies nowadays. But Daesh is, first and foremost, a mortal threat to all other forms of Islam and this is why treating all of Islam as a monolithic threat is just about the dumbest thing we – westerners or Christians – could do. Intelligent choices can only come from a good understanding of the nature of the reality surrounding us. This is why understanding Islam as much as we can ought to be a goal for each one of us. I am deeply grateful to Hamza Haidar for allowing us a glimpsed into a world that most of us know little about.
After the Prophet
by Hamza Haidar
Who I am: A student of Islam
I am an ordinary Muslim (albeit a weak one at that). I am not a religious scholar. I am not a scholar of any type. I live in the West and am originally from Egypt.
Being Egyptian by birth, you can say that I grew up a Sunni although I really was just brought up as simply a Muslim, yet of course a lot of the history we were taught and took for granted to be correct was according to the Sunni view.
About 5 years ago I discovered the Ahlul Bayt school of thought. Ahlul Bayt literally means the family of the Household (i.e. the Prophet’s Household). The Shia school of thought (or Mazhab) is the Ahlul Bayt school of thought. Shia literally means “followers of or supporters of”.
I came to the Shia view intuitively, through reflection on the condition of the Muslim world. I recall wondering why, for a people that have the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet from amongst them, why the Muslim world is in the backward, incompetent, destructive and enslaved condition that they are in. This bothered me greatly.
As a result, I came to the conclusion that something must have gone wrong. Then I started researching what happened after the Prophet departed from this world. I came to the conclusion, which to me seemed as clear as the sun, that the Muslim world and the organized Religion must have been hijacked after the Prophet.
Then the Shia school of thought very clearly and succinctly explained this. Whilst I whole heartedly subscribe to the views and knowledge of history of the Shia’s, I nevertheless am still just a Muslim. Albeit a Muslim who have had his view of history corrected. This is the crucial point to highlight, the difference between Sunni and Shia is really one of knowledge of, or rather acknowledgement of, history.
Why am I writing this:
Through following the wonderful articles on the Saker’s blog, it became clear to me that whilst the audience / readers of this wonderful blog were open minded, free and intellectual folks, searching for truth in a world of deceitful narratives, it nevertheless dawned on me that their understanding of Islam was in need of development.
Especially upon seeing the Saker’s great interview with Sheikh Imran Hossein I realised from the questions asked to Sheikh Imran Hossein about things like punishment for Apostasy in Islam for example, that non-Muslims actually believed that these so called punishments were somehow related to Islam or the Holy Quran.
Of course Sheikh Imran Hossein addressed all these questions and addressed them very well and set the record straight. The Sheikh’s view is not controversial nor unique; it is the view of most Muslims.
However, I also felt that there was a need to explain where these misconceptions about Islam came from in the first place and what the scholars of Islam really think. Where did these Sunni “Hadiths” that very clearly contradict the Quran come from?
The key message is that most Muslims (excluding Wahhabi’s) understand that a lot of the Hadiths are wrong – most Muslims understand that there is no worldly punishment for Apostasy for example.
Most Muslims understand that there is no room for “Takfir” or the labeling of others as Kaffir in Islam (even if you’re referring to a self-confessed Atheist).
It is absolutely un-Islamic to label others as “Kaffir” or “unbelievers”, as Islam compels the sincere Muslim to look at him/herself and persist in their own self struggle (the highest form of Jihad – Jihad literally means struggle) to better themselves. The “unbeliever” for example may be a far better person than the Muslim labeling him a Kaffir and may have been sincere in searching for truth during their lifetime and may thus be more worthy of Heaven than the Muslim labeling them a Kaffir who might not be upholding the universal values that form the basis of the Quran.
Most Muslims understand that there is no “stoning” in Islam and that this was a Jewish practice that was practiced by the Arab Jews that lived in Arabia in the Prophet’s time.
Our Christian brothers and sisters would also know that this was a Jewish practice as the Holy Bible very clearly tells us so. I even recall in the Book of Leviticus (Old Testament) that the punishment for a Priest’s/Rabbi’s daughter that commits adultery is to be burnt to death. Does this have anything to do with real Judaism? Does it have anything to do with the real message of Moses and all the Prophets that came down to the Jews? The penalty for the various types of adultery in the various books in Old Testament (and certain books of the New Testament) seems to be death.
Certainly, this is absolutely not the case in the Quran though. There is nowhere in the Quran that stipulates the death penalty for adultery.
Most Muslims also understand that Aggression is strictly forbidden, no matter the reason.
Sunni supposedly means followers of the Sunnah (or the Prophet’s way/tradition). It was a name that was created after the Prophet for political reasons.
Very simply put, the main difference of Sunni versus Shia is as follows:
- Sunni’s are the followers of (or Shia’s of) the so called Companions of the Prophet.
- Shia’s are the followers of (or Shia’s of) the Prophet’s House Hold.
- Salafi – a branch within Sunni’s – the Salaf are the first community of Muslims – i.e. those who lived in the days of the Prophet – of course that is the proper name – although today the Salafi’s as a group are more influenced by Wahhabism. So, in theory those that claim to be Salafi’s, pretend to emulate the first community of Muslims. In practice today, the name is used interchangeably with Wahhabi due to the infiltration of the Wahhabi views into the Salafi line of thought, therefore making Salafism and Wahhabism one and the same.
- Wahhabi – is a (colonial) political ideology created recently – having nothing to do with Islam – very much the same as Zionism is a political ideology that has nothing to do with Judaism
- Hadiths are the supposed sayings of the Prophet. There are literally many thousands of these. A lot are correct but an overwhelming majority are fabricated. Sunni’s have their Hadiths and Shia’s have their Hadiths – although there are many that are in common and agreed to be correct by both schools of thought
- The Sunni Hadiths are largely traced back to the Companions, whereas the Shia Hadiths are largely traced back to the Prophet’s House Hold
Sheikh Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki
Sheikh Hassan is a great scholar and sheikh who resides in Saudi Arabia.
He was born into the Salafi / Hanbali school of thought. He nevertheless does not share the view of Salafi’s and does not believe in associating any other name with Islam, i.e. Whether Sunni or Shia as he rightly claims that in the Quran, the only proper name is Muslim.
He certainly does not share the Salafi line of thought and fights through impeccable wisdom and articulate debating techniques, what he describes as the extremism of Salafism.
He is a scholar of the Quran and the Hadiths. He has spent his past 25 years studying the Quran and the Hadiths.
When asked whether he is a Sunni or Shia, his answer is that if what you mean by “Sunni” is today’s definition of Sunni, then I am not a Sunni – as today’s definition is a sectarian based definition having nothing to do with the real meaning of the word. If by Sunni you mean really a follower of the Prophet’s tradition, then I am a Sunni. As to whether I am a Shia, his answer is that if what you mean am I a follower of the Prophet and his House Hold, then I am a Shia.
Of course he says that Sunnis would declare themselves followers of the Prophet’s tradition but he very clearly makes his point that no, they are followers of the man-made sect that pretends to be followers of the Prophet’s tradition.
Scholars of Islam who know Sheikh Hassan describe him as a person whose great efforts within Saudi Arabia are trying to save Islam and especially the Salafi/Wahhabi influenced youths, to try to bring them back to the real Quranic teachings, rather than the sectarian based / false-Hadith based teachings.
Hassan Bin Farhan’s view (which is shared by many Sunni scholars) is that indeed the Muslim world was hijacked after the Prophet by the very enemies of the Prophet who fought the Prophet all his life.
That is the tribe of Quraysh, under the leadership of Abu Sufyan (the Umayyad’s), the Prophet’s arch enemy, who conveniently declared himself a Muslim only at the 11th hour when the Muslims came in to Mecca victorious.
This group of people who declared themselves Muslims when Mecca was taken by the Prophet and his followers are called Al Tulaqaa – there was 2,000 of them. This is not dissimilar to the Khazars who accepted Judaism for political convenience and for subversion from within.
It should be noted that when the Quraysh tribe was fighting the Prophet, his message and his followers in the early days of Islam, Abu Sufyan’s wife, Hend, had the Prophet’s uncle Hamza (Peace be Upon Him) killed in the battle of Uhud and then cut him up and ate his liver.
This is worth noting as it largely explains the “symbolism” behind the liver eating Wahhabi’s/Takfiri’s in Syria. There was nothing coincidental about the liver eating ways of the Wahhabi Takfiri’s, in my humble view, it was deliberately designed to repeat history through powerful images. I can just imagine the Hollywood hand at play here in alliance with the intelligence services handlers of these zombified Takfiri tools.
That’s why the modern day Takfiri’s/Wahhabi’s are referred to as Sufyani’s by some Shia’s.
In spite of all this enmity and hatred towards the Prophet and his followers, the Prophet had mercy on Abu Sufyan and all of the Tulaqaa – and made sure that no harm happened to him when the Muslims came into Mecca finally.
Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki has been very active in debating Wahhabi’s, Salafi’s, Sunni’s and has appeared on many tv shows for these debates.
The Wahhabi’s are furious with him and do not know how to debate him as he uses the Quran to expose their misguided and extreme ways. He has even been kicked off a tv show as one of the leading Wahhabist clerics was infuriated by his own inability to address Sheikh Hassan’s questions.
He basically destroys their arguments so much through use of the Quran that their only resort is to curse him and avoid answering his questions and throw barrage of personal attacks. It is a delight to watch.
He also has his own website (in Arabic).
He has been instrumental in destroying the Wahhabi arguments of hate and intolerance by simply referring to the Quran.
Some have called him a follower of Quranic Islam, others have called him a Shia, and others have labelled him an unbeliever. He refers to himself as simply a Muslim.
His point is that Muslims should be followers of, or Shia’s of, the Quran – rather than the Hadiths or this camp or the other. Of course he also makes his point that to follow the House Hold of the Prophet is to follow the Prophet and the Quran as they (the House Hold) were not corrupted and are the beacon to guide the Muslim world and the rightful leaders to be followed.
In one of his famous appearances, he declares his congratulations to the Shia’s, for they are truly the followers of the Prophet and that in spite of centuries of oppression, they maintained their love and following for the House Hold.
He has paid a heavy price for his views in the land where such views could have you jailed or beheaded (Takfiri style).
One only has to see how any dissent is brutally suppressed in this state whose rulers have given their family name to this holiest of lands to all Muslims, to understand the perils that face someone like Sheikh Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki.
So what does Sheikh Hassan say?
- The Muslim world was indeed hijacked by the enemies of Islam immediately after the Prophet, which is when the gradual corruption started (during the first 3 so called Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, may God forgive them and have mercy on them)
- The Umayyad’s took over officially during the 3rd Caliph who was an Umayyad. Prior to that they had unofficial takeover via their fierce lobbying to ensure the deviation from the Prophet’s governance model
- This corruption grew exponentially especially by the time of the 5th Caliph (Muwiya – the son of the Prophet’s arch enemy, Abu Sufyan) and then Muwaiya’s son Yazid – at which point Imam Hussein, the Prophet’s grandson (and 3rd Imam) launched his revolution to save the real Islam
- This hijacking of organized religion resulted in the creation of many thousands of “fabricated” Hadiths that were falsely attributed to the Prophet for political reasons
- That the organized religion of Islam is different to the Prophet’s Islam, which is why Sheikh Hassan advocates the return to the Quranic Islam as opposed to the man-made sectarian (or Hadiths-based) Islam
- That the rulers of the Muslim world deliberately overlooked the supreme values/commands of the Quran, like Justice, Truth, Intellect, Human Rights, Equality, Non-Aggression, Freedom of Religion, Gnosis, Piety, Thankfulness etc.… and made the people focus only on the acts of worship, he describes this as turning the pyramid upside down – as the acts of worship are only for the ultimate purpose of upholding these supreme values or principles
- That sectarian (or Hadith-based) Islam is not the Prophet’s Islam
- That the definition of Sunni has nothing to do with following the Prophet’s way, rather, it is about following the artificial, man-made sect
- That the Shia’s are truly the followers of the Prophet (that’s not to say that Sunni’s are not)
- That the Shia view of history is indeed the accurate view of history
- That the mainstream Muslims were led down the path of following authority of the power of the time
- That the Shia Muslims did not fall in that trap as they followed the rightful heirs of the Prophet (i.e. his Household / offspring – the Imams) as their guides to real Islam
- That the false Sunni Hadiths were introduced by the rulers as a means for oppression to control the masses and to punish whoever opposed their rule – he mentions how the handful of crimes that had physical punishment (he identifies 5) were increased to 100+ under the various Caliphs (even as early as the second Caliph, Umar) in contradiction to the Quran
- He very clearly mentions that things like stoning had absolutely no basis in Islam and were in fact a Jewish practice which was practiced by Jews in Arabia during the Prophet’s time
- That the methods of authentication for the validity of Sunni Hadiths is flawed, for example, if you know someone is a proven liar/corrupt person or a hater of the Prophet and his family, you surely would not believe him as a valid source of narration for something that the Prophet allegedly said
- That a very large percentage of Hadiths are indeed fabrications (he says you can assume up to 90% of them are fabricated)
- That the Prophet very clearly had a governance model that was divinely revealed to him for the governance of the Muslim world after his departure, which he very clearly informed his people of – and this is also present in Sunni books such as Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
- That the leaders or companions of the Prophet deliberately deviated from the path i.e. neglected the will of the Prophet
- That this abandonment of the Prophet’s will and Divinely decreed governance model is the root cause of all the turmoil in the Muslim world as it made the majority of Muslims easily exploited by their corrupt leaders
- That the Quran very clearly said in Surat (Chapter) Yaseen, that the truth was revealed to them, yet the majority will not believe (which was specifically addressed to the people of Quraysh) – yet Hadiths books would have us believe that they all accepted Islam, so Sheikh Hassan’s question to Wahhabi’s and Muslims in general is, who do you believe, Allah or Bukhari (compiler of a lot of Hadiths)?
- That the Quran very clearly mentions that it will be deserted by the Prophet’s Muslims
- That this desertion is in fact already happening since a lot of Muslims refer back to Hadiths before the Quran – when the only way is to refer to the Quran and to only accept hadiths that are in agreement with the Quran and dismiss as false, any Hadiths that contradict the Quran
- That Muslims should get to know Islam properly before calling others to explore it
- That non-Muslims are not un-believers (of course Jews, Christians and Muslims are all people of the book)
- That even people that are called Atheists cannot be regarded as un-believers (Kaffirs) but rather, simply people, because in his definition a non-believer (Kaffir) is someone who knows the truth but then deliberately through arrogance tries to hide it or suppress it (for example someone who witnessed the miracles of Jesus yet still went against Jesus, someone who witnessed the miracles of Moses yet still went against Moses, someone who witnessed the miracles of Muhammad yet still went against Muhammad) – in that sense he mentions that Muslims – especially some of the early companions and rulers have a lot in common with this definition as they have no excuse for their betrayal
- He says, if someone is a good person who upholds the universal values of Justice, Truth, Equality, Kindness to fellow man etc…but does not find the truth in his lifetime (whatever one’s definition of truth is), he cannot be a classified a non-believer, as he will be judged by his actions against these universal principles
- That many of the so called conquests of Islam were for empire, for example the unholy conquest of the Holy City of Constantinople and had nothing to do with Islam which very clearly forbids aggression for any reason and against anyone and only permits fighting for self defense or for defense of oppressed peoples.
The example of that noble Muslim (Crimean Tatar) Imam who was interviewed (and which was uploaded on the Saker blog) fighting in the trenches with his Orthodox Christian brothers from Donbass against the oppression of the Ukro-Fascists is a very clear example of fighting for the oppressed.
So what happened and how?
According to the Shiekh and also according to many Sunni scholars (and all Shia’s) including various Sunni scholars from the Al Azhar in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world, the problem traces its roots to the infamous event of “Saqifa” (and even earlier – on the Prophet’s final moments on his bed where he tried to write down his will yet was denied so by his companions some of whom accused him of hallucinating due to his illness). The Saqifa event is where the so called companions of the Prophet gathered immediately after his departure from this world and very quickly and haphazardly chose a so called successor to rule the Muslim world contrary to the Prophetic and divine instruction.
This meeting was attended by approximately 20 people and excluded the very person that the Prophet had very clearly identified as his successor (Imam Ali, who was burying the Prophet with his wife, the Prophet’s daughter, our Lady Fatima Al Zahraa, Peace be Upon Her).
The Prophet had clearly made his successor known in various instances, the most prominent of which was the instance of the Prophet’s farewell pilgrimage (or final pilgrimage to Mecca) – this is the event of al Ghadeer Khum (which is also well documented in Sunni books and accepted as “genuine” by all Sunni scholars).
The Prophet had also very clearly said that “for whomever I am his master, this Ali, is also his master, may God support those that support Ali and fight those who fight Ali”.
The Prophet had also very clearly said that “Ali to me is like Aaron to Moses, except that there will be no Prophet after me”. The Quran tells us that upon Moses’s request, God made Aaron (Moses’s brother) a Prophet also, to support Moses in his message.
Yet, it was decided to go against the will of the Prophet. The lobbying was led by Abu Sufyan and the aim was to ensure the rule of the Umma moved away from the Prophet’s House Hold.
The Sheikh explains that as a result of these corrupt rulers (the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties) who hijacked the religion, the highest principles of the Quran (Justice, Truth, Non-aggression, Intellect, Human rights, Equality, Freedom of religion) were neglected and the focus was reduced to simply the acts of worship, to ensure people were reduced to simply worshipping without being involved in or concerning themselves with matters of the Umma (or Muslim Community).
Also, he confirms that Hadiths were introduced by these rulers that absolutely go against the very principles of the Quran (i.e. killing of apostates – while the Quran very clearly articulates that there’s no compulsion in religion).
Sheikh Hassan reminds Muslims that “do you not think?” is mentioned in the Holy Quran more times than “do you not believe?”. Yet there’s nothing in any of the Sunni Hadith books that talk about intellect.
Similarly, Justice and Non-Aggression is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran as supreme values/principles, yet the so called Sunni Hadiths do not have any sections dealing with Justice.
The companions were a mixed bag consisting of:
- Real followers of and supporters of the Prophet
Shia’s differentiate between the righteous companions and the hypocrite companions and the non-believing companions, yet Sunni’s generally have been taught to not do so.
Wahhabism was a recent creation which was introduced by Abdel Wahhab in conjunction with the House of Saud (who were chosen to rule the Holy lands by none other the English) to give some sort of religious facade to otherwise barbaric folks. Hence they felt the need to show that they are the protectors of Islam by being the most extreme. Wahhab was inspired by Ibn Taymiya, who is the source of the Wahhabi’s demonic view of the world.
Most Sunni’s denounce Wahhabism, they see it as a scourge on humanity – yet Wahhabi’s have used their abundance of wealth to spread their extreme and satanic views to the Muslim world through money and books – prime example is Pakistan – of course they prey on the uneducated (and unfortunately the Muslim world has lots of uneducated/illiterate people).
It should be noted that Wahhabi’s also deem most Sunni’s to be Apostates – it is not just the Shia’s and Sufi’s that they hate (although the Shia’s are their number 1 target). They basically hate everyone, except for their US and Zionist masters of course.
If we take Egypt as an example, during the Sadat years, when the economy was destroyed by his “free market”, a lot of Egyptians would go to work in the Gulf (mainly Saudi) to earn a living and support their families. Upon returning years later, they naturally had been influenced by the Wahhabi/Salafi views. Not to mention Sadat played a key role in the empowering of Salafist Islamists known as Jama’a Islamiya in Egypt to counter the popular Nasserite movement. He let them out of jails and allowed them to congregate in universities to preach their extreme views as he was insecure by the legacy of Nasser which the Islamists looked at as a socialist kaffir. Ultimately they killed Sadat.
Wahhabi’s destroyed all the shrines of the Prophet’s family and companions and actually tried to destroy the Prophet’s mosque in Madina in the early 1920’s – if not for the uproar in the Muslim world, they would have done it. Such is the Wahhabi evil; they have no loyalty to the Prophet of Islam even though they claim to be Muslims and protectors of the two holy sites (Mecca and Madina). Very much like the Umayyad’s that took over the Muslim Umma after the Prophet.
Of course the English empire is complicit in the creation of and empowering of this Wahhabi scourge on humanity. It is also worthy of noting that the Zionist entity and the Saudi entity were created around a similar time. One entity occupied the two holiest sites for the Muslim world (Mecca and Medina) and the other entity occupied the 3rd holiest site for the Muslim world (Al Aqsa Mosque in Al Quds). The cancers were set right in the heart of the Muslim world; just like in 1453 the cancer was set in the heart of the Orthodox world via the Constantinople conquest.
Sheikh Hassan says that approximately 40% of Saudi’s are under the influence of Wahhabism. In other Persian Gulf states, the number is less. In the rest of the Arab countries, this Wahhabi thought is disguised as Salafism and there are various branches of Salafism but it is fair to use the term Salafi and Wahhabi interchangeably as they are also adherents of the Takfir ideology. The percentage is far less than the Gulf countries however.
Sheikh Hassan also says that amongst Salafi’s, increasing numbers are accepting the Shia view, i.e. becoming Shia’s – which is why in Sunni countries they do not teach much nor emphasise on the history and the plight of the Prophet’s Household. It’s an inconvenient truth.
The Sunni Mufti of Syria has a famous speech where he talks about how in all his years as a Sunni student, the truth of Ashura was never really taught, as the fear was that upon learning the truth, Sunnis would become Shia’s.
Many Sunni scholars have come out and said the same. Many Sunni scholars know this privately too.
It should also be noted that this is a major concern of Sunni institutions/countries, i.e. that Sunni’s will start accepting the Shia view. Of course, geopolitics has a driving force role to play here, as most Sunni countries are US vassals and therefore the narrative is that Iran is the enemy and is trying to spread Shi’ism into the Arab lands, which is a preposterous claim.
Even though Al Azhar of Egypt officially recognizes the Shia view as another legitimate school of thought, it nevertheless has made it a mission to try to prevent and oppress the Shia’s and deny them their own mosques, commemoration of their religious events in Egypt. This is simply politics, as a number of Al Azhar scholars know that the Shia’s have truth in their view of history.
I have had the pleasure of speaking with an Al Azhar scholar who confirmed that most Al Azhar scholars know the truth but politics dictates their not publicizing it. This was a discussion which was had in the presence of a Shia Scholar also and it was enlightening to witness first-hand the naturally unity brought about by sharing in truth.
This is why Ashura, Karbala and the oppression of all of the Prophet’s descendants are not really taught extensively in Sunni countries. If they were, naturally most Muslims would accept the Shia view.
Keep in mind that institutions like Al Azhar in Egypt for example are not independent as the Government appoints the head of Al Azhar.
Various Sunni’s views on the Shia / Sunni perspectives:
The Sunni’s have various views ranging from:
- Many Sunni scholars and ordinary Sunni’s agree with the Shia view of history wholeheartedly and use the Quranic revelations and the non-corrupted Hadiths to reflect this
- Many Sunni scholars know the truth but do not publicize it
- Some Sunnis believe there is no way that any of the Companions would have betrayed the Prophet’s will – it’s too inconvenient a truth for them to swallow but they do not consider those that do think that as Kaffirs (as they deem it as simply political difference)
- Many Sunnis believe that it was left to consensus or “democracy” to choose the successor – all you have to do is look at the savage and dictatorial history of the Arabs/Muslim world after the Prophet, to see how laughable this notion is.
- Some Sunnis (and scholars) believe that to say the closest companions (for example the first 3 Caliphs) betrayed the Prophet’s will, is questioning the Prophet’s leadership – of course this argument dismisses the Quranic precedents of the various Prophets who could not lead their own companions and even family members to the right path – for example Abraham’s father, Noah’s sons, Lot’s wife, Jesus’s disciples (some of whom also betrayed him or as the Bible tells us “forsook him and fled”) etc.…are we to question these great Prophets’ (Peace be Upon Them All) leadership also? Of course not, it is simply that God guides whomever he pleases to the path and that some people no matter what miracles of Prophets they witnessed first-hand, their hearts were still unpenetrated with truth – the Quran refers to those people as having hearts harder than rocks, because even rocks can be penetrated by water.
- Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki’s view is that the evidence is very clearly there that the companions deviated from the path. He refers to the catastrophes of some of the early companions like Umar (who took it upon himself to increase the number of offenses punishable by death even in contradiction with the Quran and the Prophet)
- Many Sunni’s believe “what difference does this make today, 1400 years later?” – Sheikh Hassan describes what took place using the analogy of splitting a laser, at the immediate point of split the difference in the paths of light may not be big but over a long distance, the difference would be huge. That is the breakdown in governance from the outset has resulted in a significant deviation of the two paths over time. Same concepts are applied in project management where at the outset, if governance is not implemented effectively, over the life of the project the impact would be significant.
- Wahhabi’s believe that anyone who questions any of the companions is a Kaffir, i.e. an Apostate. Such is the level of indoctrination. They disregard the Household (and even hate them) and focus on the Companions and admire all of them even (and especially) the ones that were very clearly corrupt, murderous, deviant and that murdered the Prophet’s family to abolish any memory of them and any beacon to guide the Muslims to the Prophet’s true Islam.
- Wahhabi’s hate the Shia’s with a passion. Of course this is very much political, prime example is that when Iran was under the Shah (the USA’s police dog in the region), him and the House of Saud were allies and there was not the Shia / Sunni conflict that you see now. What they had in common was that they were both subservient tools for the USA. In fact the Saudis were even subservient to the Shah! Even though he was at least in name, a Shia Muslim.
Just to illustrate my point about the level of indoctrination:
I was recently speaking to someone who is a Wahhabi who lived in Saudi for 10+ years (of course he did not confess to being Wahhabi although he tried to defend Wahhabism.
We were talking about Takfiri’s and I said how these monsters label anyone who disagrees with them as a Kaffir, for example they label Shia’s as Kaffirs, Sufi’s as Kaffir and even many Sunni’s of other schools of thought as Kaffirs not to mention others from other religions.
To this he replied, “but the Shia’s are Kaffirs”. I asked why he thinks that and asked him to demonstrate that to me.
To my absolute astonishment, one of the reasons he gave me was that “do you believe they don’t use the name Yazid?” – now for those that don’t know Yazid, he is the corrupt, hypocrite and murderous ruler (grandson of Abu Sufyan and son of Muawiya) that was responsible for the most savage murder of Imam Hussein (The Prophet’s grandson and the son of Imam Ali and the 3rd Imam) and his entire family (i.e. the Prophet’s family) in Holy Karbala (Iraq) in the catastrophic event known as Ashura (the first revolution in Islam, led by Imam Hussein against tyranny and oppression). Yazid also imprisoned the women of the Prophet’s household, a fact known by most Muslims.
That’s like saying that someone is an unbeliever because he refuses to call his son “Satan” or “Shaytan”. Or that’s like saying a Christian is a non-believer because he refuses to name his son Judas!
How can you reason with such hate filled ignorance? And where does such ignorance come from? It comes from the fabricated hadiths and the legacy of worship of men/authority that very quickly developed after the Prophet departed from this world by the very same corrupt rulers that wanted to abolish the spirit of the Prophet and his Household from the narrative.
It should be noted that even Sunni Scholars (real scholars of course, not simply anyone with a beard) are unanimous in condemning the cursed Yazid (and even his father, Muawiya), yet the Wahhabi’s / Salafists of today look at him as some sort of a great leader of Islam, who was justified in his murderous ways (simply because he and his father expanded the empire)…the historical record tells us that when Yazid murdered the Prophet’s family in Karbala, he was quoted as saying “this is revenge against Bani Hashem (the Prophet’s tribe/family) for the battle of BADR” – the first battle that the Prophet and his followers had and won against those that were oppressing them.
Islam is not exclusive to Muslims. The Holy Quran is not exclusive to Muslims.
Similar to all the monotheistic great religions, the organized religion of Islam (as opposed to real Islam / the Prophet’s Islam) also has suffered from corrupt rulers whose thirst for power has superseded everything else and has corrupted people’s understanding of the true message. In that sense, like any empire that approached its conquests, destruction, and oppression in the name of whatever religion and there are many such examples across all religions and empires throughout history. After all, George W Bush (Jr) did launch his wars of “terror” in the name of religion if you recall his famous state of the union address where he said that God speaks to him
Yet, the truth still prevails amongst those that use their intellect and whose hearts are pure enough to absorb it.
So, if you are a non-Muslim and you sincerely want to know about Islam, read the Quran and ponder it slowly, understanding the context of each of the verses, and try to see what real scholars say.
Do not make the same mistake that some Muslims do, and simply refer to a Hadith that you dug up on Wikipedia or from any Hadiths books (whether Bukhari or Sahih Muslim) to try to score a point in a debate or argument with a Muslim (because that is the Wahhabi way and will not give you knowledge of Islam if that is indeed what you seek).
Most of the Hadiths are fabricated and deliberately too, so do not fall in that trap. Unless you have a strong knowledge of the Quran, do not refer to the Hadiths as you will not know which were truly sayings of the Prophet and which were not. The Prophet does not and did not ever contradict the Quran.
An analogy here would be for a non-Christian to try to learn about Christianity from a book written by Judas articulating what he refers to as the message of Christ.
Finally, real Islam stipulates that there is no compulsion in faith or religion and that whoever wants to believe can do so and whoever does not want to, can do so. Whether you are a Muslim who left Islam to become an Atheist or to join in another faith, is strictly a relationship between you and God.
The Quran very clearly refers to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike as the People of the Book, i.e. People of the Divine revelations.
The Sheikh’s view and the view of real Islam is that we (the people – i.e. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists and whatever else) are all brothers and sisters in humanity and someone’s belief or lack thereof in God is simply his/her personal relationship with God Almighty and no one can interfere.
In Islam, aggression is strictly forbidden against anyone (whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist or any other) and for any reason.
Whether it’s the unholy conquest of Holy Constantinople or the unholy Spanish Inquisition or George Bush’s unholy war of terror (inspired by God as he said), none have anything to do with the noble messages of the great Religions. It’s simply empires doing what empires do and justifying their evil by whatever means to mobilize the masses.
The Wahhabi scourge we see today is designed to keep the Umayyad (demonic) view of Islam alive to justify the existence of the House of Saud (at least to these crazed Wahhabi home base) and to propagate the destruction of Islam from within to serve their masters. That was always the intention behind the creation of this vile ideology.
The breakdown in governance after the Prophet in the so called Sunni world has been a key driving force behind the calamities inflicting the Muslim world until today.
Peace and blessings be on all the Prophets.
Addendum 1: videos
Obsession with False Hadith Culture Is Corrupting Islam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Can Atheists go to Heaven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Interview with Sheikh Hassan Farhan al-Maliki: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
A Syrian Mufti discusses the Ashura: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
For my essay I have used the image of the noble men of the Hezbollah resistance (an elite unit) who were sent to protect the shrine of our lady Zainab (Imam Hussein’s sister and the Prophet’s granddaughter) in Damascus even before the resistance went into proper into Syria. These men were surrounded by takfiris who kept attacking the shrine with the aim to destroy it.
Zainab (peace be upon her) was at Karbala witnessing the slaughter of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) by an army numbering between 20,000-30,000. She witnessed the beheading of her brother and all her male relatives (it was 72 men all up) against that army and she was imprisoned with all the other female members of the family and made to walk in chains watching the heads of the male members of her family on spears. She then had a very powerful speech which she gave to yazid in his palace – there is English subtitled versions of this speech. This is only 50 years after the Prophet by so called ‘Muslims”…
Good morning Saker,
Now that you have gone an published a minority point of view, will you allow me to reply in detail as a Non-Shia.
Unlike the author, I am neither a bad Muslim, nor uninformed, nor reactionary.
If you decide that you cannot accommodate a different point of view, more power to you.
Here is something for you Author to consider: 30:32 from Al-Qur’an.
مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ
Those who wish to, can read Surah 30, named Al-Room.
Unlike the author, I am neither a bad Muslim, nor uninformed, nor reactionary.
If you say so
Those who wish to, can read Surah 30, named Al-Room.
Indeed. I also recommend Sheikh Imran’s commentary of that Surah :-)
So, will you allow me to present an informed rebuttal?
I think that this article is an organized part to smear Islam: as you can see from description of Islam as an organized religion, and then it becomes a hit job. I think it will be good to provide your readers with an alternative point of view.
I know you like Surah Al-Room :-), because it validates your own beliefs. I share those beliefs, but I stop short of any predictions of the doomsday–there is absolutely no support for that in Qur’an. And no, Sunni (I abhor this word) are not Shia of any human. It is not about Caliphs! It is about Dynastic rule, entitlement, and other such views which sets Islam (Qur’anic) apart from people’s attempts to install hierarchical clerical rule and “monetize” it just all all organized religions including Shiaism. (Yes, I know Sheikh Hussein does not like the word cleric as well, whatever he maybe, he is still a decent man) as with all other organized religions.
I await some indication of your willingness to allow me to present a majority view to rebut the smears by the author and point out his fallacies, misrepresentations, and pandering.
Agree Sir. But all religions are “organised.” Islam more so than others.
I thought someone will try to look up what شِيَعًا means.
It has the tri-consonant root, شِ يَ عً which everyone can look up. I think the author, if he is Egyptian and speaks or reads Arabic, can clearly see that Al-Qur’an refutes his entire article, and his proclaimed faith of being “Shia Muslim” is an oxymoron according to Qur’an, As are Sunni Muslim, and any xxx+ Muslim.
I hope that he was not fibbing about his Sunni roots.
About parsing words: Let me say that author of this article never claims that he is familiar with Qur’an. He declares himself to be ” A Student of Islam”, which is not the same as “A Student of Al-Qur’an”. Therefore, rightly his entire article is based on hearsay about Qur’an, and is based on other people’s views and smears. It is interesting that he never mentions any support for his article from Qur’an itself.
Shia are allowed to engage in something called Taqqiyah (sp?), which is same as Kol Nidre, the permission to lie and deceive. It is a really cool concept, well-suited for swarming.
I wish he could clarify his sources: this is not a literature appreciation class, this is serious business: like a physics or a math class.
an absolute enlightening read . kudos to Mr.Hamza and thanks The Saker for posting this
Thank you very much indeed for this splendid, clear and easily understood explanation! I cannot tell you how relieved I am to see, finally, how enlightened and tolerant Islam really is. And the idea that a single person (and a learned scholar at that) can say he is both Sunni and Shia (according to the proper definitions) is amazing.
This document should be read by everyone, worldwide.
I am delighted that it was of benefit to you. It is an absolute pleasure.
If you want an accessible authoritative account of the emergence of Islam then suggest “Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources” by Marin Lings who was “…also known as Abu Bakr Siraj ad-Din, was an English writer and scholar, a student of Frithjof Schuon and a Shakespearean scholar.
Agreed! This is an excellent suggestion. Some time back, someone published an excellent reading list which included this book.
Agreed. Great read and very insightful. Prof. Martin Lings is from the Sufi school of thought.
Of course the Sufi school of thought also shares the view of the fundamental role the Imams (Prophet’s Household) play as the governance model to the Muslim world.
The great Muslim scholar Ibn Arabi has written extensively on this.
Ibn Arabi is considered the great scholar of Sufi school of thought, from the days of Andalusian Spain.
Last Sunday Jan 24 meeting
US Vice President Joe Biden has said the US-led campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has been making progress, attributing recent successes to greater engagement by Turkey and European countries.
“The president has finally got the attention of Europeans to pony up because they haven’t been doing much of anything,” Biden, in Baltimore for a three-day retreat, told US House of Representatives Democrats on Thursday. “I spend too much time probably with [Turkish] President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan, but Erdoğan has seen the Lord. Things are changing because of self-interest,” he said.
Biden’s an idiot.
Just a few comments on the essential:
Re: “the gradual corruption started (during the first 3 so called Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman…”
No orthodox Muslim will allow this notion. Not without reason are the first four Caliphs, including ‘Ali, therefore, called the “rightly guided” (ar -rashidun). The Shia practice of cursing them is deplorable, (Sh. Imran Husein agrees with this, as do such Shia scholars such as Seyyed Hosein Nasr).
Re: “,,,deviation from the Prophet’s governance model…” There is no Quranic injunction regarding the right or the necessity of governance by the Prophet’s descendents.Traditionally, governance was by “consultation amongst themselves” (‘amruhum shura baynahum). It is true, however, that Mu’awiya broke with this tradition and injunction, and established hereditary government, which is non-Quanic. At any rate, none of the first Caliphs expounded the idea of hereditary monarchy. Moreover, unlike what this author believes, there is no universal agreement regarding the hadith (precisely!) regarding the household, nor is there a Quranic injunction regarding the governance of the Islamic community (Umma). One has to remember that Islam began among small groups of people, not among large urban populations, which require administrative complexity, chains of command, a bureaucracy, and so on.
Re: “That the Shia’s are truly the followers of the Prophet (that’s not to say that Sunni’s are not.”
This logically makes no sense, as should be evident.
At any rate, the descendents of the Prophet (“nobles” = shurafa’) have always been considered a kind of aristocracy within all of the Islamic world, and treated with great respect. Many of them, owing to their personal qualities and sanctity, have indeed governed in Islamic communities, for example, Mulay Idris, in Morocco.
Re: “That the Shia view of history is indeed the accurate view of history…That the mainstream Muslims were led down the path of following authority of the power of the time.”
This is debatable, to say the least, as well as implausible, humanly speaking. At any rate, The Shia perspective is a providential possibility, as is the Sunni position, and both agree on the essential doctrine of Islam, namely, the Shahadah, and the other 4 Pillars of Islam. There have been great saints and sages in both camps.
It is impossible to recommend a large reading list here, but the Wikipedia articles on the Caliphate and on Mu’awiya are not bad.
You say the following:
” Re: “That the Shia’s are truly the followers of the Prophet (that’s not to say that Sunni’s are not.”
This logically makes no sense, as should be evident. ”
Pls. understand that if by “Sunni” you mean real followers of the Sunnah and by Shia you mean real followers of the Prophet and his Household, then the statement makes perfect sense as both Shia’s and Sunni’s would thus be real followers of the Sunnah.
If of course you mean the sectarian definitions of today then that is a different story and I am certainly not using these definitions in this point.
The followers of the Prophet and his Household do not give themselves the right to say that Sunni’s are not followers of the Prophet.
This article and Sheikh Hassan clearly describe the difference between real Sunnah followers (i.e. that put Quran before hadith) from sectarian Sunni’s that place more emphasis on hadiths.
I thought I would also share the below links with you, which again is from Sunni (Al Azhar) scholar: Sheikh al Nady Al Badry.
So, when you say that this is not the view of “Orthodox Islam”, please at least take into consideration what various Sunni scholars much more knowledgeable I are actually saying.
I apologise to the non-Arabic speaking readings as these links do not have English sub-titles. The point is that the divine revelation that discusses the will and orders the Prophet to reveal it to his people is very clearly addressed by many Sunni scholars.
Whether or not you agree is not the point, rather, that this is very clearly addressed by many Sunni scholars.
Each of us can then form their own view based on their intellect.
Thank you for this article Hamza Haider and the Saker.
I think the “shia” standpoint on Muawiyah and his son are the correct one, Sheikh Imran Hosein and many other scholars agree on this. This is clear and is very important to speak about and remember and teach.
However, it seems that brother Hamza Haidar wants to do more than explaining a correct vision of islam, the correct methodology (e.g. Sheikh Hassan al Maliki has it as well as sheikh Imran Hosein).
Namely, that the shia are right on the political issue about which by definition sunni and shia differ. I think to bring this discussion up here is pointless if you want to clarify things more to people, unless there is clear evidence that the first three khulafaa made big mistakes (remember that no companion nor family of the prophet pubh was ma3soom (without sin)). I am a Muslim and have a humble knowledge of certain things, and can make points to say that the corruption through leadership of the Islamic community started after the leadership of Ali (r.a.).
Ofcourse agression is not allowed in Islam, however using violence can be Quranic obligatory. I think you (Hamza Haider) agree with this.
God Knows Best.
Thanks for your comments.
I need to clarify. Corruption starting during the first 3 caliphs is referring to the deviation from the will. That there was a will is not simply my view – there is a huge body of work by Sunni scholars about this topic.
If indeed there was a will and it was deliberately ignored, then that is in its own right a form of corruption. That is not to say that the first 3 Caliphs had evil intent but that through various external pressures they were forced to deviate from the will of the Prophet.
This is not just my view, but the view of many Sunni scholars, including Sheikh Hassan. I felt it was important to share the view of scholars like Sheikh Hassan.
That’s not to say that the first 3 were worthy of being cursed like the commenter Rafiq accuses the Shia of doing – it is absolutely un-Islamic to curse the first 4 caliphs. Or that they were, God forbid, un-believers – no, they just did not act on the will due to immense political pressure.
Of course you don’t have to agree with that, but I was simply putting out there that many sunni scholars do agree with this (and God knows best).
Sheikh Hassan simply says (so does sheikh Al Nady al Badry from Al Azhar and many others by the way – really there are lots of Sunni scholars with this view) that the pressure on the first 3 Caliphs by the elders of Quraysh was immense and thus they deviated.
I can send you his interviews on this topic if you like but if you are fluent in Arabic, it should be easy to find. If you cannot, pls. let me know so I can send to you – the only reason I did not attach in this article is because they are not with English sub-titles.
He also reminds us that in the Quran, God mentions that had He not solidified the stance of the Prophet that the Quraysh would have influenced his stance. Imagine then after the Prophet, surely the pressure on the first 3 Caliphs (being not Prophets) would have been huge.
As for infallibility (what you referred to as ma3someen / or without sin) of the Imams, first let’s agree that the Caliphs are not infallible (which you correctly mentioned). They are human and not Prophets and make mistakes like humans do.
The infallibility of the Imams was not even mentioned here. Sheikh Hassan does clearly say that
he disagrees with the notion of infallibility and that this is one thing he addresses with the Shia’s.
Yet, he believes (and so do many other Sunni scholars) that they are (The House Hold) non-the-less, the rightful leaders to be followed (has nothing to do with infallibility). When the Quran tells us that they have been purified, then even if we do not believe them to be infallible, surely they are still be most worthy of following.
You are correct in questioning why I raise this. As lots of Sunnis scholars (even who completely agree by the way) also recommend that we start the discussion from the 5th Caliph so as to foster unity between Muslims. But history I believe is important and needs to be told.
Especially to non-Muslims who must be wondering why such hate and destruction is emanating from the so called Muslim world. It’s important to show the views of the scholars from various parts of the Muslim world.
I raise this for diversity of perspectives, as for too long the Muslim world has treated history as something that is taboo – especially if/when referring to the Caliphs.
In my view governance is important. In Sheikh Hassan’s view governance is important. In many Sunni scholars’ view, governance is important.
What is obvious is that there has been a governance breakdown in the Muslim world, which the heikh argues and with evidence leads back to the Saqifa. The body of work on this is huge.
As for your point about aggression versus violence – these are 2 separate things, with two different words in Arabic as you would surely know, let me explain.
War is violent full stop – if you must go to war for self-defence (resisting someone invading you for example) then you are naturally engaging in a violent act but for valid reason. The word for violence in Arabic is (U’nf)
Aggression on the other-hand is different – in Arabic it is (I’tidaa) – aggression is unjust war / unjust violence / unjust invasions which are absolutely un-justifiable etc.…does this make sense?
I know the definitions of aggression and violence, and their clear differences. However, I appreciate your explanation and the arabic translation. The reason I brought that up was because when you mentioned that aggression is not allowed, it looked like you were talking about punishment by violence.
I want to be honest with you, since I did not do a thorough research on what scholars said about the first 3 khulafaa’, I will not comment much on it, excuse me. My intent was not the hide the real history after the prophet’s pubh dead, not at all. Nothing is better than the TRUTH. I honestly cannot imagine that one of the three kulafaa will leave a clear will of the prophet. I am still curious to see a clear proof of this. You can direct me to an English tekst (I am not fluent in arabic).
However, it is sad that many shia (maybe you can give a percentage of shia scholars doing this and provoke it) really curse the first three khulafaa and the prophet’s dearest wife. This gives me always trouble when I am speaking to non-shia muslims, and trying to convince them that shia muslims are our brothers. When they bring that cursing up, I reply to them (based on the hadith) that the one who says that abubakr radiallahu 3anu is a kafir is himself a kafir etc., he is not my brother in Islaam. What do you (honest shia muslims) think about this? I can pray behind someone who thinks abubakr made a mistake, but not behind someone who says abubakr r.a. was a kafir (God forbid).
Salam Brother Mohamed Ahkim,
Since your question is to brother Hamza, I will leave him to reply you. A Tafkiri is a ignorant person who call other human beings Kafir. Believe me there are ignorant people in all religions, sects, countries, cultures, etc.
I am from Oman, and in Islam we have six Madhabs, and each one prays a little bit differently. In our Masjids (Mosques) we all pray in Jamat accommodating all the six Sharias.
Continue onto a journey of TRUTH, with internet you are very lucky. As a starter, brother Hamza did mention the two hadiths. The hadith of Calamity of Thursday which is in Sahih Bukhari/Muslim and the Hadith of Ghadir. There are other events too.
A good book to read is called, “Peshawar Nights”. Several night debate between a Shia Ulema with Sunni Ulemas. The book has all the references from the Sunni sources.
A higher level one is called, Al-Muraja’at an exchange of letter between a Shia Ulema and Head of al-Azhar University, the highest Sunni Ulema. It is a meaty reading.
I used to hear that all the time, that the shia’s curse the 3 khalifa’s.
Dont go by what you hear dear brother, experience is the best teacher.
With all sincerity i have not once come across that ever.
Scholars absolutely dont. Are there some ignorant Shias that do? Maybe, but i have also not come across it.
That would be ignorance and unislamic.
If you are a true follower of Ahlul Bayt, this is not the way to behave.
Nor do scholars refer to any of the first 3 Khalifs as Kuffar, God forbid. Have never heard even ordinary people say that. But again that does not mean that some igorant people dont.
Dont take my word for it pls go to a shia mosque and experience for yourself.
Scholars do not even label Yazid as a kaffir.
The point of my article about not labelling anyone a kaffir is that only God knows what is inside someone’s heart.
If you noticed in my article not even Yazid is described as a kaffir.
Oppressor, murderer yes, hypocrite yes. That is, by his outwardly visible crimes.
Even when our lady Zaynab addressed him in his palace after his most savage crime, she did not label him a Kaffir.
Even whilst he was poking at the severed head of Imam Hussein with a stick.
She said “the day will come when the caller will call: may the curse of God be upon oppressors” –
The Ahulul Bayt example to their followers is strictly followed by shia scholars.
This relates back to governance and noble behaviour.
I hope this answers your question.
Brother Hamza, you have answered my question. I always thought it must be propaganda and I definitely wish to visit a shia mosque. Dajazaka Allahu khayran!
This was very informative.After reading this I feel that I understand Islam,Midle East and what is unfolding there a lot better.
Same as Catholics waging war on Russia all these centuries.I guess truth always comes out.
Now,just imagine the consequences to Anglo Zionist west if Muslim world united in same definition of Islam and sitting on all that oil.
Same thing happened to Christianity with Russia.All those riches and they can’t have it.
Classical case of devide and concor.
I enjoyed the article, though I wish there were more comments because I enjoy them too. Since I am Christian, when the notion of religion being hijacked was brought up, I was reminded of the passage in Revelation addressed to the church in Pergamon (2:12-17). I am not entirely sure what exactly were the false teachings described, but is is easy to imagine that there have been, are, and will be people willing to make use of religion.
Excellent article here:
Editorial: Looking Beyond Islamophobia: Three Case Studies
I’m glad that there are reformist followers of Islam.
Others, outside of Islamic reform camp, have also taken a look.
The scientific method, of doing statistical analysis, then looking at actual history, strips away subjective opinion and what remains is objective fact.
Hamza Haidar does not broach the subject of abrogation. This most important element is overlooked. No reform of Islam is possible unless abrogation is grappled with.
Any discussion of Islam that ignores abrogation, is noise.
Quote from Dr. Bill Warner:
“The Koran recognizes its contradictions and even gives a rule to resolve the contradictions. The
later verse abrogates (supercedes) the earlier verse. This does not mean, however, that the
earlier verse is wrong or in error. This would be impossible since the fundamental hypothesis is
that Allah created the Koran and, hence, the earlier verse must be true or Allah would be wrong.
Abrogation has an impact on the arguments about the true nature of Islam. At endless interfaith
dialogs, the early tolerant verse is quoted to show the nature of Islam as being peaceful. When
both verses are quoted and then abrogation is applied, we see that the later verse trumps the
earlier tolerant one. Jihad abrogates tolerance.
In general, the Medinan Koran abrogates the Meccan Koran. In the two verses above, tolerance is abrogated by jihad against the Christians.
But, the earlier verse is true and still used. Abrogation does not negate the early verse. Indeed,
the earlier “peaceful” verse that is abrogated is the one most apt to be used in public discourse.
This creates a logical problem, since if two things contradict each other, at least one of them
must be false. This is a fundamental element of Western unitary logic. In Koranic logic, two
statements can contradict each other and both are true. This is dualistic logic.
An alternative explanation is that the early verse is first stage in a process, like a seed, and the
later verse is a second stage, like a plant. There is truth to this, but the process model does not
take into account the fact that both truths are available at the same time. To go back to the
analogy, you don’t have the seed and the plant at the same time. The verses contradict each
other and are both true at the same time. This is dualistic logic.
The contradictions are usually explained by abrogation, the classical doctrine, but the principle
of abrogation is limited to the Koran. Duality includes the special case of abrogation and it
explains how the entire doctrine of Koran and Sunna work. It is not just the Koran that is
contradictory, but all of the Sunna. “
In the Holy Quran, we are told that there are two types of verses:
1. Muhkamat (statutory / very clear verses / straight forward verses that are the “heart” or foundation of the Book as the Quran tells us)) and
2. Mutashabehat (allegorical – i.e. not so clear and requiring interpretation) – this is where those with ill intent manipulate the meanings of the allegorical verses to justify their desires.
Things to do with punishment, belief in the unity of God for example all statutory (very clear/straight forward) therefore requiring no interpretation, i.e. the punishment for crimes.
In 3:7 (the Chapter of Al Imran, or the Household of Imran – our lady Mary’s father, may the peace and blessings of God be upon them and upon the entire Household of Imran) we read:
“He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses – which constitute the essence of the scripture – as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who have perversity in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning.”
If we take the example of the Takfiri’s, they use these allegorical verses to attempt to give justification to their evil and perversity.
As for contradictions, I humbly suggest that as a Muslim, I do not agree but I can understand why a non-Muslim may think that. I will give you an example:
Drinking of alcohol:
At the start of the revelation and in the early chapters of the Quran, Muslims are commanded to: “not approach prayers while under the influence of alcohol”.
Yet later chapters completely forbid drinking completely. Is this a contradictions? No, here is why:
When the revelation came down to the Prophet, the Arabs were a hedonistic bunch, renowned for their drinking and drunkenness, womanising, burying the first born alive if it was a female etc…a real barbaric bunch of people.
So, if the revelation told them to stop drinking immediately, a lot of the people would not have accepted this and the religion would not have gathered momentum with the people.
So, the verse that first came down was “do not approach praying while under the influence” as religion is meant to be easy for people to follow.
Then as the faith was entrenched enough in the first community to accept Islam, the verse then came down to not drink period.
The Quran tells us that religion should be is Yusr (ease) and not Usr (hardship). If the Arabs were commanded to stop immediately, this would have been a hardship and would not have worked as God knows his creatures best.
The same concept applies if you want someone to quit smoking, drinking. If it is to be effective, you start by asking the person to cut down. Then eventually, stop.
Keep in mind that the revelation came down over a period of 23 years, rather than in one day (which God could have done if he so wished).
I hope this addresses your point.
I do appreciate people who are in Logos; who want to do the right thing. We can probably agree on much.
Unfortunately, if you put Islam into chronological order, and then apply Abrogation, then the follow on verses overturn the previous. In English, the saying is this: Exceptions don’t make the rule. A few contrary examples, will not overturn the totality.
Dual Logic used in Islam is also something alien to Western mentality… where two things can be true simultaneously, and if there is contradiction we wave our hands and use an abrogation filter.
Abrogation is at the heart of Salafi/Takfiri doctrine. For example, the new testament supersedes the old testament, making the old “less relevant.” In Islam, Medinan theology and its attendant political Islam overturn/supersede Meccan. Supersession in Christianity, is a single logic, where the old is advisory but overturned/completed by the new.
In Islam, both the new and old are true simultaneously, but the new is more right than the old.
In my opinion, abrogation cannot be overcome, because what comes later in Islam is much worse than what came before. Using Meccan verses to woo people into Islam, then gotcha— now you have to submit to Medina, has an evil smell.
I get that Suffis, many Shites, and many others are kind people.
They want to do the right thing, and CHOOSE to do it, despite their doctrine, not because of it.
I also get that the West is post Christian, really Talmudic in behavior, and is targeting Islamic’s and/or using them as dupes. This also smells bad of psychopathology with humans in the grip of Mammon and bad thought constructs.
However, when investigating both Talmudism, and Islam, I find many commonalities.
I’m not pleased with what I see.
I suggest you start with a scientific analysis of the three books of Islam. See the material at the link provided.
Greetings MEFOBILLS, Stuart here.
MEFOBILLS: “Abrogation is at the heart of Salafi/Takfiri doctrine. For example, the new testament supersedes the old testament, making the old “less relevant.””
Stuart: “Your sarcastic right? Your humoring me?”
“The new testament supersedes the old testament, making the old “less relevant.””
First off, “‘thee old testament’ is not ‘Testimony’, it’s ‘Faith’; and ‘the new testament’ is not ‘Testimony either’, it’s ‘Witnessing’.
Now Witnessing without Judges may mirror Testimony (ye be the Judge, Jury, and the Executioner).
In (some of) Genesis, “Testimony” : are : “Just Acts” :.
The Five Books of Moses are also referred to as The Book of Baal; which means the five books are included in The One Book.
So, what’s my point? If you want your opinion to be taken seriously in the future, do not refer to ‘The One Book’ , as redundant, since both truths apply; and this is not a dualistic argument in favor of both opinions. This is a regal argument, suggesting different and differing Realms that don’t coexist, intermingle, dance, frolic or play together, reflecting two differing Causal Events. IMHO.
Two Different Universes: Faith & BaAl : “and” : Science and Facts.
Remember MEFOBILLS, a banana reflects yellow; Yet in “substance” or source is blue. Nature’s ‘green’ is ‘Faith’s Magenta’. Both real to the believer in both Faiths. One is transcendent, one is perceptual. Your choice, is to choose the one that will love you in return. There is no argument between them. Two different Universes. Logic does not separate them. Reality does!
As time approaches eternity, the two parallel lines meet in the distance, which is the same as saying, “at infinity is eternity”, and if your in eternity, your with Allah and The Saints and no one asks by which “dalet” or ‘door’ you arrived!! All Are Welcome!!
The ‘name’ of “Baal’ is taken from the first letter of Genesis a “Bet” and the last letter of the last word in The Holy Bible, a “Lamed”. Ancient texts were always booked (named) this way. First letter and last letter.
Bravo, thank you brother for clearing that up.
Btw, it is a known fact that if an alcoholic/heavy drinker were to stop drinking suddenly , it could very easily lead to death. Just wanted to make an observation here.
I am a Muslim, born into a Sunni family, and except for the rather small minority of Wahabi’s and hard-core Salafi’s we can put aside our differences (which I believe are old, petty ones than don’t really make a difference today) for the betterment of the’ Umma’ (Islamic society).
It is my belief that Sunni-Shia schism is being perpetrated by Anglo-Zionists mainly. Take for example Iraq; inter-marriages between Sunni-Shia was/ is very common.
Anyways, my belief is this schism/’Fitna’-discord rose to the surface mainly during/after the ill-fated 2003 Iraq invasion.
Who stands to benefit most from this discord ; who wants to really see a World-wide clash of civilizations?
Thank you Saker, Hamza and all.
Peace be upon you all.
Thank you for this wonderful article on how religion should unite and not divide people, on how religion should work for the universal principles of humanity.
Satanic ISIS, British 1710 Secret Agent Hempher Salafism and Saudi Arabian Wahhabism
The Satanic British Empire Masonic leaders, whose genealogy goes back to the Satanic Babylonian Empire, embarked on a plan to subvert Islam from within, and to distort the Islamic world and render it predisposed to a confrontation with the West. Key to this strategy was the creation of the Salafi movement, which was an outgrowth of the emergence of the Egyptian Freemasonry of Cagliostro, which today is closely aligned to the Secret Agent Hempher created Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.
According to their devious strategy of “divide and conquer”, the Satanic British Empire deliberately created the Wahhabi movement in order to destroy the Ottoman Empire and take the Petroleum by putting in a Saudi Satrap. At the height of its power, between the seventh and the sixteenth centuries, the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents, controlling much of Southeastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. It stretched from the Strait of Gibraltar in the west to the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf in the east, and from the edge of Austria, Hungary and parts of Ukraine in the north to Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia and Yemen in the south.
However, at the same time, the Satanic British Empire were beginning to encroach upon former Muslim territories, in particular, making significant inroads into India. Nevertheless, they continued to have designs on the various parts of the Ottoman Empire, and worked to aid in its collapse by fomenting rebellion from within.
Part of their strategy – not including the invasion of the Emperors harem with women secret agents, Secret Agent Mazzini’s creation of the masonic Young Turks.. and the promotion of Satanic Sabbatean Frankist Kemal Attaturk – was focused on the creation of the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia. Today, the Wahhabis insinuate themselves as legitimate members of the Sunni body of Islam. They will even reject the appellation, claiming there is no such thing as a “Wahhabi”. However, what they retain in common is an adherence to the so-called reforms of their founder, Mohammed Abdul Wahhab. And while the Wahhabis employ various tactics to defend the legitimacy of their ideology, the most incriminating facts against them lie in their history in the subversion of the Islamic world.
Here is that reading list again:
What Does Islam Mean in Today’s World?: Religion, Politics, Spirituality–William Stoddart
Islam and the Destiny of Man–Charles Le Gai Eaton
Vision of Islam (Visions of Reality)–Sachiko Murata
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources–Martin Lings
The Book of Hadith: Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad from the Mishkat al Masabih–Charles Le Gai Eaton
The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary–Seyyed Hossein Nasr
Kashf al-Asrar: The Unveiling of the Mysteries (Great Commentaries of the Holy Qur’an)– William C. Chittick
Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legact–Jonathan A.C. Brown
Islam, Fundamentalism & the Betrayal of Tradition, Revised–edited by Joseph E. B. Lumbard
Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations–Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi
Recollecting the Spirit of Jihad–http://www.amaana.org/ikhwan/rezajihad.htm
Do Muslims and Christians Believe in the same God?–http://faith.yale.edu/sites/default/files/shah-kazemi_final_paper_0.pdf
Emir Abd el-Kader: Hero and Saint of Islam–Ahmed Bouyerdene
I would also highly recommend Frithjof Schuon’s “Understanding Islam,” as the most profound book on this religion. But for initial reading see the first three books of the list.
Thank you Hamza, very enlightening article. As a Sunni Muslim, I encourage other Sunni readers to approach this with an open mind as many Sunni scholars share a similar view. This isn’t about Shia v Sunni, simply history and the hijack of Islam – which is obvious when you consider how Islam is misused today.
I liked where the author spoke about universal principles of truth, justice, love, etc.
Why isn’t that enough? Why do we need schools, books, bibles, gods and God? It causes nothing but confusion and wars of all sorts.
Power, that’s why. Where these universal values are lacking, power rushes in to fill the vacuum for the powerful and powerless alike.
The powerful herd the powerless into churches, mosques, synagogues, schools, city halls and computer screens with beliefs in order to impede thinking, particularly when it might diminish their own power.
Thinking about universal values is a difficult road so most take an easier way. Believe in power and submit to it.
In my experience of 76 years, belief and thought are useful tools but only to the degree they are governed by immutable universal principles.
I choose to be governed by love which includes truth, justice, etc. I do so because for me love is a commonly understood term embodying common needs like affection.
This vineyard has a universal appeal as demonstrated by its positive regard for Islam while retaining an owner-operator Christian belief system. It is a “little Russia” insofar as it has respect for all traditions except for terrorist ones.
To be fair, the US also protects freedom of religion. Prompted by Scott’s Appalachian Mountain Man anecdote, I said I was proud to be an American. A commenter kept asking how I could make that statement. I think I just got his or her point. I am also ashamed to be an American because of its actions that run contrary to its on-paper ideals. This will have to serve as my answer since I don’t feel like going back into the old thread.
Anything I say contains a contradiction. It’s the new probability reality of quantum mechanics. I read and write here to hone my thinking and question my beliefs.
The stated purpose of this site on the masthead is “to stop the Empire’s war on Russia.” I try to do my part by practicing universal values and discarding particular ones that are out of date.
The author used lasers as an example. Quantum mechanics has replaced worn-out beliefs in science, and led to lasers and the computer I’m using.
There are many beliefs and schools of thought that have outlived their time. We were warned about trying to put new wine into old wine-skins.
For me, this vineyard produces the best of wines. When I drink them I don’t need drugs, beliefs or even thoughts. I call this kind of ambrosia love because it has a long proven tradition of full life rather than the half-lives of belief and thought.
Thank you for your personal insight as to the origins of Islamic conflict. I have been reading from time to time a collection of Hadiths from this website here (see: http://hadithcollection.com/ ).
It seems to me in my limited comprehension the Hadiths are similar in Islamic scholarly work and interpretation as the Jewish orthodox study of the Talmud (see: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2537389/jewish/Talmud.htm ). The Talmud are essays and commentaries by venerated Rabbi’s throughout history on how Jews should conduct their daily life to guide them on the correct path to keep the 613 commandments that God has given to his chosen people as written in the Tanach (Jewish Bible). In some Jewish sects the Talmud is placed higher in religious value than the Torah.
Both the Hadiths and the Talmud are not considered the written word and as such are not in the Holy Quran nor in the Tanach. They are oral dissertations that come from the human mind which concerns me since man as God’s creation is impure and always subject to the whisper of temptation.
As a Christian I am fascinated by the word of our God of Abram whether found in the Quran here (see: http://www.alislam.org/quran/about-quran.php ) or in the New Testament here (see: http://www.devotions.net/bible/00new.htm ). It gives me courage that in this day and age despite all the despotism and avarice around us, the LORD remains in our hearts; all we need to do is ask for guidance. He has never forsaken his faithful.
Peace be upon you.
Dear Poke the Truth,
You are most welcome.
The Holy Quran tells us that Adam, Noah and the offspring (Household of) Abraham and the offspring (Household) of Imran (our Lady Mary’s father and Jesus’s grandfather) were purified by God almighty above the whole of humanity, some of them from amongst each other, i.e. the Prophetic lineage from Abraham through to Muhammad. Peace and blessings be unto them all and peace be onto you.
I wonder whether you are seriously believing that Mary the Mother of Jesus was the sister of Moses and Aron, daughter of “Imran”, as the Quran seems to imply.
Absolutely not and the Quran absolutely does not imply that. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
The Qur’an mentions them as descendants of Abraham. The lineage of Abraham (peace be upon them all).
@the Quran absolutely does not imply that
There are Suras that do exactly that: confusing Mary the mother of Jesus [Miriam in Hebrew] with Miriam the sister of Aaron and Moses, and daughter of Amram which is about 1400 years off.
“When the wife of Imran said, ‘Lord, I have vowed to Thee, in dedication, what is within my womb. Receive Thou this from me; Thou hearest, and knowest.’ And when she gave birth to her she said, ‘Lord, I have given birth to her, a female.’ (And God knew very well what she had given birth to; the male is not as the female.) ‘And I have named her Mary, and commend her to Thee with her seed, to protect them from the accursed Satan.’ S. 3:35-36
“Then she brought the child to her folk carrying him; and they said, ‘Mary, thou hast surely committed a monstrous thing! Sister of Aaron, thy father was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother a woman unchaste.’ S. 19:27-28
And Mary, Imran’s daughter, who guarded her virginity, so We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and she confirmed the Words of her Lord and His Books, and became one of the obedient. S. 66:12
It is true that Yusuf Ali in his footnote 375 to Sura 3:35 simply invented a ‘second `Imran’ by claiming that “by tradition Mary’s mother was called Hannah … and her father was called `Imran (when we know that he was called Joakim)
It is anyhow what Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, “the Mother of the believers” believed. Muhammad himself seems to have made the same blunder, that he might have corrected when confronted. Al-Tabari relates that “the people of Najran [who were Christians, btw] said, ‘Doesn’t your prophet claim that Harun the brother of Mariam (Mary) is the brother of Moses?’ “. Muhammad retorted that he used the term metaphorically. But it is clear that he had a rather sketchy knowledge of the Old Testament and confused Mary with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Amran! The Prophet was not that infallible! Didn’t he believe that the sacred scriptures of the Christians were a ‘book’ like the Quran, called Injil, given to the prophet Isa in the same manner that the Quran was given to Muhammad, and his followers to these days perpetuated this mistake.
In any case, Mary was not from the priestly lineage of Aaron but of the kingly lineage of David, i.e. of the tribe of Judah.
Your allegation is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not know the difference between:
• Maryam – Mother of Jesus
• Miriam – Sister of Harun and Moses
Even though they were 1300 years approx. apart.
The Holy Quran says in surat Maryam (Mary):
‘O sister of Harun, your father was not a man of evil nor was your mother un-chaste” – you are coming from such a noble family. Moses and Harun were the Imams of the Bani Israel – noble ancestory.
A Muslim and specifically an Arab knows that this is a respectful way of speaking. To do with identifying the noble lineage.
However, let’s humour your allegation for a moment.
The answer to your question/problem can be found in your own Book – the Holy Bible:
In the first book of New Testament in chapter 1 verse 1:
What does it say?
“The Genealogy of Jesus Christ”
Jesus is the son of Abraham,
Jesus is the son of David.
Then, in the Book of Saint Luke: 3:23
Jesus is the son of Joseph the Carpenter.
Then, in the Book of Mark:
Jesus is the son of God.
So, according to your Holy Bible, Jesus is the son of Abraham the son of David, the son of Joseph, the son of God.
That is, four fathers – what do you call that? What does it mean? The Christian brother/sister will then provide the same explanation as the Muslim explanation above.
As Jesus says “Judge not that ye be not Judged”.
The explanation to your “problem” is the explanation that you would give for the above from your own Holy Bible.
Peace be unto you, Hamza
Should I draw your attention that you make that impermissible mistake in an argument of quoting truncated passages of “our Holy Bible”, in order to show that we Christians are a tad stupid to be confused about our “own Book”. This is called a “straw man”.
The ” Book of Saint Luke: 3:23″ does not say: Jesus is the son of Joseph the Carpenter”, but “He was the son (as was thought, hoos enomizeto) of Joseph son of Heli, son of Mattar, etc)”. No carpenter whatsoever in the text.
Same in the “first book of the New Testament” (why not call it the Gospel of St. Matthew?): “the genealogy of Jesus the Christ, the son of David, [who was] the son of Abraham”. David was the son of Abraham!
Mark does not say: “Jesus is the son of God”, but “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”.
The “four fathers” are a figment of your imagination.
I would not infer that you are stupid or that our Christian brothers and sisters are stupid.
The Holy Quran orders us to be gentle and reasonable when talking to People of the Book, so pls. do not put words in my mouth.
If you notice I am very respectful to what you hold sacred, so pls. reciprocate even if you do not agree.
You seem to want to go down the theological debate/clash between Christianity and Islam and I really had and have no intention to go down this path. I think it is pointless and I admire your belief in your faith.
The explanation was given about the use of the words in Arabic to describe the noble lineage metaphorically. You don’t agree, fine.
I do not want to debate Christianity versus Islam as that was certainly not my intent when I decided to write this article.
As Saker very eloquently put it, there are irreconcilable differences and we should focus on what we have in common.
Making comments that the Prophet making a blunder is not really in the spirit of the universal values of respecting the other. I respect your view and you should mine, even if we disagree.
Peace be unto you.
@Making comments that the Prophet making a blunder is not really in the spirit of the universal values of respecting the other.
In other words, one should never emit any critical view of the Prophet.
I provided your response to your question. I just realised that my name did not come up. Just wanted to let you know that it was me who responded to you.
Dear Haider, you missed his point that Hadith the Islamic equivalent of clerical undermining of the word of God by they clerics, Just like Talmud is to Torah.
Please comment on it.
It is not Haider who missed the point, it is you that missed the point of Haider’s article. The Word of Prophet Mohammad (saws) is the Word of Allah. Haider, did mention the Hadith where the Prophet wanted to make a will, but the second caliph Omar answered him that the Book of Allah is sufficient for them.
It was the first three caliph who intentionally burned the Hadiths of Mohammad. Have you wondered why?
The equivocation of world of Allah to the alleged word of mortal men (This includes Muhammad the Messenger of Allah, as well as all other human beings, caliphs or otherwise–man is not God), is the issue at hand.
Also, I find it really telling that the author of the above article, Mr Haider, goes into great detail into breaking down structure of Qur’an, rules, history, and everything which a literature student will do: except he does not provide a single Ayah from Qur’an to support his assertions.
There is no mention of all these people that he talks about in Qur’an, so by definition they Ali, Osman, Omar, Abu Bakr, and other characters are not necessary to understanding of the Qur’an and following it as Muslims are supposed to do.
If Allah does not provide any reference to them, we cannot be sure that they are not just fictional, besides being useless for living the Islamic way of life, and Islam is not a religion it is a way of life. Religion is ritualistic, Deen is not. Working as a secretary in an office is a job, farming is a way of life! Engineering is a profession, but teaching Engineering is a way of life.
There is so much misunderstanding about Qur’an, and most of it is due to Shia efforts to impose dynastic theocratic rule on people. For those who don’t know the shining start of the Site “Iran” has Sharia law being practiced, by clerics. This iron grip on people’s throat is okay, but Independence giving, liberating, and empowering Sharia described in Qur’an is is used by mothers to scare their kids.
If we cannot think, we are not human. Enough with theocracy. Qur’an does not require theocracy, it does not force anything on anyone, it is for all humans, not exclusive to self-proclaimed Muslims. It empowers the individual, it is not restrictive at all, it does not say that people who believe in other religions will go to hell, there are no 72 virgins.
I can provide support from Qur’an for every single point that I mentioned, and ask for a rebuttal from Qur’an if someone can prove differently. However, using essays about Qur’an instead of Qur’an itself is disingenuous. History is made up, the Hadith can be purely fabrication, I challenge anyone to show me mention of any of the historical people that are supposed to be the root of the problem according to the author. So they may be fabrications for all I know.
No Hamza is mentioned in Qur’an, no Haidar is mentioned in Qur’an, the only persons other than Muhammad (the Messenger of Allah) which is mentioned in Qur’an is Zaid, and Abu-Lahab. Two contemporaries, and they are used for a purpose, which does not require one to know the history to understand the name of their use. Qur’an is completely self-contained. It does not need a Talmudic equivalent to understand it.
I am not Salam Nazir, I am Muhammad A Nasir.
It is simple elementary my dear Nasir Sahib. You told you that the Quran is from Allah (swt) and these chapters and verses in the Quran is from Allah. And, the simple answer is?
The Word of Moses (as); the Word of Jesus (as) and the Word of Mohammad (saws) is The Word of Allah. Even though all these three are slaves and servants of Allah, they are abdi of Allah,
Slave and Servant of Allah (Another name of Mohamed is Abd-Allah)
So you do not believe in Qur’an to be the “literal word of God”.
Is Ali or any of these people that the author talks about mentioned in Qur’an? Please provide a yes or no reply.
If you receive a phone call, do you really care about the phone or the message. Qur’an requires people to believe that is it literal word of God–and Muhammad was used to communicate it to the humanity. So in this role, Muhammad was equivalent to a HiFi phone. He was a messenger, and not a Prophet as the Title of the article misstates.
Is that a considered Shia claim? Abd-Allah simply means” human of God’s creation”. Since all Humans are God’s creation, I find this to be stating the obvious. So it is completely superfluous. Except when God wants to make a distinction that Muhammad is just his creation, not his plenipotentiary representative. Muhammad only recites things which are revealed to him verbatim by God, and makes distinction between what is from God and what is his own human (thus fallible) opinion.
This is not the case of Pygmalion, that is just fantasy. I hope people can tell the difference between fact and fiction.
Lastly, one can find several diverse versions of Bible and Torah, but Qur’an is the only text which is identical. Is that is a mere coincidence? People can believe what they want to believ, but if you want to comment on Qur’an, it is best to use its Ayahs to refute it. Here it is 2:2
ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لا رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ
Qur’an is unequivocal about who wrote it. See Surah Al-Hijar (Chapter 15) in its entirety,but the main claim of Allah’s authorship and protection is Ayah 15:9
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
I am deliberately not providing translations, I will leave it to those who seek the truth, to use the root system of Arabic to understand the meaning, or look up various translations with a grain of salt.
I had last used HTML or any such formatting over 20 years ago. However, I will get up to speed quickly. So expect more Quranic Ayahs along with provision of roots of each word so that we may all speak from the same source.
So instead of speaking of what other have said, let’s go to the primary source. I will even help with translation, but not provide translation. This will make sure that people find their own meaning, and agree or disagree with it in their personal capacities. It is not my role to preach, I just want to prevent red herrings and misinformation/disinformation and smearing of what is said in Al-Qur’an, instead of quoting this scholar or that Mufti. Again it is for all humanbeings, not only Muslims.
Who said that Holy Quran is not the literal Word of Allah. Every Word of Moses, Jesus, Mohammad is a literal Word of Allah.
At my age I am aware of Quran Only Muslims who are Rashad Khalifa followers. The number 19 man. Mostly these followers are Pakistanis and like you, who don’t know the language but they think they do through Lexicon.
They don’t know that Mecca was called Becca in old times. They believe that Prophet Mohammad was not born in Becca, Arabia now Saudi Arabia but in Becca, Syria.
Quran mentions the two mountains of Safa and Marwa in Becca, Arabia. Of course, Proper Names are not to be translated. I remember about twenty years ago I caught the translation of Quran of FreeMinds with their pants down.
They changed the translation quickly again, but still believe that Prophet Mohammad (saws) was born in Becca, Syria.
P.S. Since being followers of Rashad Khalifa, they never say Salam, nor like Takfiris they believe in Two Shahadas (Shahadatan). One has to simply take a look at ISIS flag.
Thank you for showing you propensity for making assumptions. Where did you dine me as a Pakistani? People do all sort of things, I am not responsible for any ignorance. I am not engaging in a hateful polemic.
There is a very clear distinction of what people may believe, and what is said in Qur’an.
Wikipedia is not a good source of information. Read the scriptures, and then tell me if the Written Bible (OT or NT) that we read today, is claimed to be authored by God himself, and not claimed to be inspired by it. If you keep company with the suicide bombers but have never read the Qur’an yourself, then your situation is unfortunate. The experiences are compromised, unless you try to ascertain the truth by your own effort.
Let me give you a food for thought: Islam is not only not an organized “religion” it is not a religion at all: it is the rules for living a life. Nowhere the word “religion” is used in Qur’an to describe Islam. The word used for Islam is” د ين ” which has the root “ د ي ن ” which mean to lend, lending also requires borrowing, so it means transactions, or affairs of life. Or the way of life.
Your age or your company that you keep have no bearing on the Ayahs of Qur’an, they cannot meaning something different, they are invariant just like mathematical tensor are invariant under any transformation.
In this section of comments section write the following title for a book recommendation:
“What Does Islam Mean in Today’s World?”
It is just like asking,
What Does “commonsense” Mean in Today’s World?
What do “laws of nature mean” Mean in Today’s World?
What does “water” Mean in today’s’ World?
And the answer is that these are invariant, they mean the same, and will continue to mean the same in perpetuity.
I will appreciate honest critique or question, but throwing red-herrings and playing the same game which has been played for a long time is not going to make any more difference now than it did in the past. You cannot expect different results by repeating the same distractions over and over.
Please do not suppose or assume anything about my person. This will cloud your judgement. I you want to know something relevant, ask me. For example, my mother’s name is not pertinent to anything here.
Those who want to question or ask questions about Qur’an, are welcome. Those who just want to be perverse shall not be entertained by me. You will find that I am not an apologist for Muslims(anyone can call himself a Muslim) or historical figures, or defend God and his Messenger that is not my duty. But I will defend Qur’an against any smears with all the ability God had granted me. For example, those cartoons of Muhammad do not bother me in the least bit: they only thing I have to say about them is that. Salman Rushdi does not bother me at all, more power to him. Charlie Hebdo, go for it. It is the Shia who sanctioned a hit on him, a binding hit by their religious leader. Allah does not need to be defended by his creature. Muhammad His messenger is dead.
Palestine is not an issue for followers of Qur’an, Al Aqsa, mean nothing according to Qur’an. However, it does mean a lot to Shia, Christians, and Jews all believers in a Messiah, and those who believe in the end-times. It is a purely secular issue for Palestinians, and a religious for Shia, Jews, and Christians.
I invite anyone to disprove it by using Qur’an.
Let’s elevate the exchange from hateful smearing to actual use of facts, not what people might believe incorrectly due to their laziness. The other day I saw the first part of a movie Starring Tommy Lee Jones, and Samuel L Jackson, in which the debate started withe Mr Jones character finally admitting that he had never actually read the Bible, even though he claimed to know it in the beginning. It is absolutely reasonable to believe that few non-Muslims have read Al-Qur’an, and a few Muslims (usually by birth ones) have read it, of them very few have thought about it.
There is no doubt that self-proclaimed Muslims have been misguided just like other people, but it is their own fault. You cannot become a practitioner of medicine without having studied and having understood medicine, similarly it is not not sufficient to claim to be a follower of Qur’an without knowing what it says, and having read it without understanding it.
Here’s another take on the fundamental differences between Salafis and mainstream Sunni Islam according to widely recognized scholars: http://sunnah.org/articles/Wahhabiarticleedit.htm
To be accepted in Western society, Muslims need to declare their willingness to respect our culture and people, rather than arrogantly demanding accomodation. This gentleman appears to be one of those people. My hat’s off to him!
yes, but that goes both ways! The west need to respect the ways and means and religion and culture of the Islamic World (which btw the West has a horrible record of doing).
In the year 201 5alone , the U.S. of A dropped 23,144 bombs on Muslim majority countries, never mind the rest like England, France etc.
think about it….so if Muslims are terrorists like the MSM would have you believe, there would be thousands of ‘terror ‘ acts here in the good ole U.S. of A. And lets not forget that Obama won the Noble(sic) Peace Prize…what a joke, if it wasn’t so sad.
Peace be upon you.
Oxalá este texto e debate possam ajudar ao correcto entendimento destas questões
Deus o proteja
I hope this text and debate can help to the right understanding of these issues
May God protect you
Dear Álvaro Aragão Athayde,
Thankyou. May God protect and bless you too.
Thank you, Mr Haidar for this message.
These are very difficult matters. The obsession with hadiths while overlooking the basic teachings is a great misfortune. According to President Sisi (hoping I’ve understood him correctly), this kind of approach and the body of ideas or thought that has developed as a result, “has [now] thrown the entire world into turmoil… and that is unacceptable”:
That thinking—I don’t mean the “religion” but the “thought”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world.”
Was Sisi in effect asking the scholars at Al Azhar (in April 2015) to return to the fundamentals of the faith – “the supreme values/commands of the Quran” – and set aside the corpus of teachings that has mushroomed from centuries of hadithic extrapolations? Many have interpreted this in that sense.
At any rate, he admitted himself that this would require a revolution: “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution.” And for this revolution to happen, the scholars – and the entire Umma – must first attempt to break out of their traditional mindset, and, as it were, serve themselves from a distance:
“All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within his words in that sense. mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.” After which they should get to work, sorting the grain from the chaff. And if they are not able to achieve this self-distancing and self-observation, then they will have to accept responsibility for the destruction of the Umma, of the religion, and of the world as a result:
“I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.” http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/01/president-sisis-speech
I suppose Sheikh Hassan was happy to hear Sisi, but doubtful as to his success in convincing the scholars and ulema at Al Azhar – let alone getting them to act. And I understand the call was not generally well received, and even among those who like, many did so for the wrong reasons…
At any rate, these are the words of a courageous man – although he may in fact not have meant the revolution to go as far as Sheikh Hassan would like to go.
Would Mr Haidar know whether the Sheikh had any reaction to this speech?
Thanks for your comments.
I am sorry I do not know if Sheikh Hassan had heard or reacted to this speech. I am so sorry that I cannot be of help in answering this question.
Interesting to contrast the views of the author with those of the respondents in the comments section. This is not atypical amongst religionists. It occurs throughout the “great” religions (which in fact are anything other than great, being completely uncivilised and unfit for Man) and also between them.
One religious believer posits that God wants him to do A while another religious believer says God wants him to do non-A. They both believe in God and they believe that God is omniscient, omnipotent and all good. They both believe God wants them to do something OR ELSE. The trouble is that it is not the same thing that God wants them to do. In the end there is no compromise possible, after all God has instructed each of them and God is to be obeyed. This necessarily leads to violent conflict and barbarism as neither believer can get around his particular instructions from God. There is no compromising for whenever one were attempted, then God is being disobeyed by someone. It would mean that God is wrong for ordering A or for ordering non-A or both. Some or all of his instructions would have to be discarded. A serious, consistent religionist is not going to accept that! He will ultimately resort to coercion and violence. He’ll do it because blind belief is unavailable to reason. He’ll do it to protect God and his works. He’ll do it to defend an intellectual and emotional investment in religion. And what he will do will not be civilised or even peaceful.
To the extent that religion has been relegated to irrelevance in the daily life of individuals civilisation improves. To the extent it is taken seriously and applied in the daily life of individuals civilisation declines toward barbarity.
Jesus said, “In my father’s house there are many mansions.” Pascal said “The heart has its reasons which reason alone cannot understand.”
Thank you, Mr. Haidar. God bless you.
Hamza, thank you for assisting me; with wise, baby-steps, into the gentle shallows of the Vast Oceanic Global Reef that is Islam. The Great Current of Islamic Life, with sundrenched shallows, offers only sea breezes of the Islamic surf – thus, the deeper waters of Islam are coying me in – to paddle, towards The Reef, where The Great Current of Islamic Life swims…Hamza, A Great Work of Art.
Two comments: While, “the monotheistic great religions” such as The Abrahamic Religions, “claim” they are ‘mono-theistic’, they are delusional schizoid in this issue. Let me explain:
In each of the three viral strains: Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim, both: God and God’s Spirit exist and are independent & interdependent Beings. Which means, that when any Prophet is engaged in Prophecy, they are listening to God’s Spirit without defect – for it should be reminded here, that Prophecy is not Revelation from God. A Prophet does not mean, “one who listens to God”. A Prophet is one who can hear God’s Sprit, the Holy Spirit, our inner conscience. Listening to God directly is not Prophecy. This is Revelation…and the Revealed word is not schizoid.
Now, if our conscience is one and the same as God’s Spirit of Advice and Counsel, IMHO, then anyone who listens to their conscience is also a Prophet, functionally. Now, other considerations apply to the label ‘Prophet’, such as outer behavior, exemplified in : “The Moral Orders” : as, up-righteousness, IS.
Both Order and Function apply to Prophecy; Yet, functionality is preferable to being “ordinary, though upright”.
Thus, ‘Pure Phophecy’ also involves Moral Conduct. Ergo, one may listen to their conscience and do otherwise, and thus not realize their intrinsic potential (Prophecy)!
We are all [potential] Prophets, and the reinterpreted for modern times quote from Muhammad The Prophet would read, “Ali to me is like Aaron to Moses, except that there will be no Prophet[ic Guide, like Ali was to me, after me, for after me, the Holy Spirit will be your Prophetic Guide: preaching and teaching you to become, like Ali was to me], after me”.
Your words are a wonderful source of wisdom and inspiration for me.
Your comment alone makes the effort worth it. I appreciate your wisdom and your intellect profoundly.
May God bless you.
It is with resplendent pleasure, that i receive your sincerity as a genuine friend.
Thank you for your reply,
And – May Allah & His Host(s) Bless All Your Harvests of Plenty (Cornucopia),
AAA+ Post. Rambo Approves.
“Most Muslims understand that there is no “stoning” in Islam and that this was a Jewish practice that was practiced by the Arab Jews that lived in Arabia in the Prophet’s time.”
I always knew that the House of Saud were a bunch of crypto-jews.
The Syrian film director (Najdat Anzour) made a film called “King of the Sands” worth watching if you want to know more of the impact the House of Saud had on Islam.
For the pirates out there its gonna be a hard one to find but you’ll manage. Damn KSA and its money seems to be able to get these things off real fast.
Nonsence shia propaganda
Islam is a religion, Christianity is a religion. Both claim to be revelations from God. But which one is really from God? Is there a criterion to ascertain which one is from God? Perhaps it is good to know the point of view of the Christians as well and make a judgement ourselves (what you’ll see are injunctions to search and make a judgement and of course, a choice).
1 John 2, 18-25
“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.”
1 John 4, 1-6
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.”
John 1, 1-14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not….And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth”.
Very enlightening. Thank you.
I read the Koran almost 10 years ago. I deliberately selected a translation which was published before the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and before the creation of the House of Saud. It was translated by an Indian, who would now be considered a Pakistani, and who would now be considered a Sunni, I guess.
No attempt was made by the translator to distinguish between Sunni and Shiite in the copious notes, upon which I relied heavily in order to comprehend the significance of what I was reading. No mention was made by the translator of the schism, which occurred at the time of the Prophet’s death.
Perhaps the conflict between Sunni and Shia was not so drastic a century ago as it has become recently.
That’s all based on the English translation you read. If you are able to read Arabic you will realise that Shia and their problems existed before this particular English translation.
Since This schism business is product of power grab after Qur’an had been revealed, you will not find anything except admonition not produce schisms. The word Shia is used in Qur’an as admonition, Sunni is not used at all. Of course Qur’an is the only authentic source of any knowledge about its own understanding and if a person is convinced by its truth in following it.
People, as is in our nature, always try to engage in political power grabs, that is the source of all these sects. None of this nonsense is permitted in Qur’an.
I am glad that you at least read it. Personally, I think that Muhammad Asad’s (Lepold Weise) translation is very good. However, one has to be careful as he was trained in a Yashiva, so he can stretch the matter unknowingly at times. Indoctrination and teaching leaves a mark on people. Talmud is all about logical interpretation of Torah, when you read Talmud you learn the art of argument (logical) well. This is why most lawyers and Judges are Jews. There is nothing wrong with it. Jews are good folks just like all people. Any individual no matter what his religious background, if he engages in deception is bad. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and others can all be good and bad. Qur’an is not only for Muslims, it is for all humanity. It is meant for people who can discern–thus it simple means that all those people who can distinguish between right and wrong; who are capable of individual thought instead of group-think and not intellectually lazy are righteous people–therefore anyone who lives and acts fairly and learns the difference between right and wrong, and exercises it is a Muslim. The ritual is not important, it is the way one lives their lives.
Salam Dear Brother Saker,
Congratulations, you have found a GEM in the person of Hamza Haidar. He is a very good writer and I would like to see some more articles from him on your lovely blog. Especially, since he captured the Islamic Governance with truth, therefore I would like to see something why Shia are called, “Rafidi (Rejectionist). That all these corrupt leaders (governance) were NOT appointed by the Will of God.
Since, the writer is from Egypt, I would like something on Rafidi and Hassan al-Banna, founding Father of Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan al-Banna was a great Sunni Scholar, so his grandson Tariq Ramadan, who is the lead author on Press TV of a weekly show called, “Islam in Life”. Since, Muslim Brotherhood was a threat, therefore it had to be inflated and turned into a so called terrorist organization.
I am a very optimistic person. God is TRUTH. In all these chaos, more and more people within Islam and outside Islam are questioning The Truth and the behavior of Muslims. The more the Truth comes out in open, the more sectarian is being thrown out the window between Sunni and Shia. And, more and more the Muslim world is being united in the Muslim countries.
As the famous sayings of Imam Ali (as) which is from the Holy Quran, after hardship comes the ease…
You are too kind and your comments are very humbling.
I sincerely hope I can live up to a mere fraction of what you said about me.
To me it is simply history and common sense.
May Allah bless you.
Many thanks for your blessings. Allah to bless you too and all His creation, showing us the straight path so that we all can live in peace.
In the beginning a question
About something being
Sacred was asked
Someone stood up and said ‘No!’
And the whole world gasped
A long line of people
Then began standing up saying ‘No!’
Until there wasn’t much of a gasp
At which point
Someone stood up and said ‘Yes!’
Which brought a murmur of approval
And made it go back
To like it was in the beginning
Except less so
Which meant there was
Less of a gasp when they
Went back to saying ‘No’ again
And so on and so forth to
And fro all the way
Down the line to us
Has anybody here seen my old friend, the prophet John?
Fascinating article stressing the ability of Power to corrupt everything and the truth.
Yet any book, Bible, New testament, Quram are all man made. They are good tools to help you work your way towards the Truth that gives some sense to your life here.
But when you take that path, you walk mainly in dakness with sometimes a flash. You know that what you are doing is what has to be done and it cannot be for achieving a special status,or access a marvellous seat somewhere, no it is just to fulfill the objective of your life.
Those books should be understood as words for you as an individual and not as a member of a syndicate. There are in those books some indications as to how escape the Hell where we are living and to participe to the objective of the Creation.
A heart felt thank you for a wonderful and insightful essay. As a fellow muslim, this is music to my ears. Certainly, the Saker community has attracted many great analysts and writers who have honoured us with their writing and wisdom – be it on religious or non-religious matters – and provided us with excellent essays over the years . This piece you’ve written is certainly one of them. As we are all humans and contradict we must on a few matters, I’d like to say a few things.
However, allow me to first say that the deplorable and hopeless reality we (people in general; religious people in particular; and Muslims in this case) find ourselves in can only be understood and dealt with by a visit – albeit not physically – to the past. “He who controls the past controls the future” I remember reading somewhere. And by Allah, the AngloZionists have rewrote, twisted and corrupted history. Not just that part of it to do with Islam but the whole of it. And it is only tradition their Wahabbi/Salafi servants waged their greatest ‘jihad’ on history and the books of history. But you’ve already dealt with it in your essay so, suffice to say, their time will come. Their (any wicked, bloodsucking, arrogant, oppressor of any skin colour, continent or religion) time will come. And as they do and will stand together, so shall we (any truth seeker who values universal principles of goodness, justice, equality and freedom of belief; those of us who refuse to be herded down like cattle; who refuse to stand idly whilst injustice and oppression reigns) stand together side by side proudly showing our different skins; humble in our differences in religion or the lack there of; respectful to each other’s way of life and culture. Them, the guardians of everything evil and wicked; us, the guardians of that which is beautiful and good in man and the world we live in. There’s a saying in my native tongue, “the staff (stick) of truth may get thinner but it’ll never break. ” So I salute you, my dear Hamza and the Saker for your absolutely wonderful essay.
I’ve learnt a lot today and I hope to read it many more times in the future. In reading the essay I found myself agreeing with most of the arguments made there. Although, I must confess, I’ve never heard of sheikh Hassan; it sounds like he’s a man of wisdom. I pray to Allah to learn more from the sheikh.
In discussing the right of ruling (becoming a caliph) in Islam you argued that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was the rightful ruler according to divine revelation. However, this divine revelation, which – I’m sure you’ll agree with me – is of utmost importance to Islam and the Ummah, isn’t to be found in the Muhkammat verses of the Quran. If verses dealing with lesser things are dealt with on these verses then it is only logical, if I may say so, that out Creator The All-Wise would clarify as clear as day light the matters of governance after the Prophet (peace be upon him). Allah knows His creation well, He knows the single most dangerous threat to His servants is division. Hence, divide and conquer.
But such a verse isn’t to be found in the Holy Quran. I understand there are hadiths that deal with the subject but, as you argued before one must put away the hadiths that are in conflict or are not in conjunction with the Quran.
I understand and agree that our TV sets, radios and news papers are full of propaganda robots (language, dress code and facial hair may change to suit the audience) who obediently read AngloZionists rubbish be it in Washington, London, Paris or (enter holy city of your choosing) but one must follow one’s chosen path to find truth and apply the same rule to all issues that arise. Many questions we could ask to Muawiya and his son Yazid. One of which would be, “why did you attack Rum (Byzantine) in aggression? Why paticularly Rum?” Many questions to out master Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), “what are the reasons for the decision to move the capital from the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) city to Baghdad?) Alas, we can’t! But we can, and are commanded to, judge all using the same scale. When we do that we find that there was something sinister about Muawiya’s aggression again Rum and him starting the first caliphate based on blood and not shura (discussing and reaching an agreement of the people amongst themselves)
In conclusion, our master Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was equally great and steadfastly – to his best ability – followed the footsteps of the Prophet ( peace be upon him); as those caliphs who came before him. As for the right to rule; we have been commanded to choose one who is of us not one who is appointed to us simply because they carry the noble blood of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Even if Ahlul-Bait have been, rightly so, elevated above the rest of us as Allah elevates whom He wishes as he has done so with our father Abraham’s (peace be upon him) progeny.
P.s. The point I raised has already been done so by a previous commentator however, unless I’m mistaken (I’m reading from my rather small screen of my mobile phone) wasn’t dealt with by our brother Hamza.
Thank you and may Allah bless you for your efforts :-)
Thanks for your comments and for your question.
In The Holy Quran, in Surat (Chapter) of Al Imran, in the verse of (Ayat) Al Mubahala – all scholars agree that the one that represented the Prophet’s self (nafs al Rasoul) is Imam Ali (peace be upon them).
“then whoever argues with you about this knowledge has come to you say “come let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves….” (3:61)
Also, there is Ayat al Tableegh – that descended on the day of Al Ghadeer (the farewell pilgrimage)
“O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people.” (Qur’an 5:67)
Upon receiving the verse, the Prophet [s] stopped on that place (the pond of Khumm) which was extremely hot.
Then he sent for all people who have been ahead in the way, to come back and waited until all pilgrims who fell behind, arrived and gathered.
He ordered Salman (may God be pleased with him) to use rocks and camel toolings to make a pulpit (minbar) so he could make his announcement.
It was around noon time in the first of the Fall, and due to the extreme heat in that valley, people were wrapping their robes around their feet and legs, and were sitting around the pulpit, on the hot rocks.
On this day the Messenger of Allah [s] spent approximately five hours in this place; three hours of which he was on the pulpit.
He recited nearly one hundred verses from The Holy Quran, and for seventy three times reminded and warned people of their deeds and future. Then he gave them a long speech.
Then the Prophet continued:
“Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”
People cried and answered:
“Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”
Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of ‘Ali as the leader of the Muslim Ummah. The Prophet [s] held up the hand of ‘Ali and said:
“For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), ‘Ali is his Leader (mawla).”
The Prophet continued:
“O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him.”
thanks and may peace be unto you,
Your Translation of 3:61 is not only wrong it is also incomplete.
فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنْفُسَنَا وَأَنْفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَلْ لَعْنَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ
This is about asking God to smite whoever is wrong, not anything more or less than that.
Here is 5:67
يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ وَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ
Allah ask his Messenger to go and share the truth revealed to him by Allah, and that Allah will provide his protection against harassment.
Notice that Allah does not ask him to start preaching his own views.
Where id you get the rest of the story? It is interesting, but how do you know what he did afterwards? Did he stop and eat before, did he take a nap, perhaps he bought his groceries, or made a pit-stop? The point is that there is no need for anyone who wants to read/follow the Qur’an needs to know the circumstances or historical underpinnings. All one needs to know that is what is commanded of Muhammad, and surprise we have Qur’an available now. The most we can deduce from it is that whatever was shared by Muhammad was the word of Allah not his own philosophies.
I hope you will at least make an attempt to keep the argument honest.
“we (the people – i.e. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists and whatever else) are all brothers and sisters in humanity and someone’s belief or lack thereof in God is simply his/her personal relationship with God Almighty and no one can interfere.
In Islam, aggression is strictly forbidden against anyone (whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist or any other) and for any reason.”
In theory, all religions agree on this point. In practice, apparently and unfortunately, do not agree. And atheists disagree with religion partly because they don’t believe in a higher being, and partly because there is so much fighting between believers themselves, not to mention ‘non believers’ over what is the perceived ‘Truth’, that that alone undermines the idea of an absolute truth, at least as understood on the human phenomenal level.
Otherwise, why has there been so much fighting within every single organized religion?
So, since people can’t agree, leave it to the individual to work it out for him/herself.
but there will always be some who are determined to decide for others how or what they should believe, which seems to be an intrinsic flaw in human consciousness.
IN 1999, I was having lunch with someone who told me the 2nd Coming would occur in 2000. I posed the question: If there is a true believer in (whatever sect he belonged to) and who happens to be a serial killer. And on the other hand, someone who rejects whatever it is my interlocutor believes in, but engages in humanitarian projects, never kills, steals, lies, harms others and so on, which one goes to Heaven?
His answer: Good Question.
A crypto Shia advocating his confused views and Saker providing the platform.
For some reason Saker is inclined more favorably to a Shia version of Islam and I guess the reason is the absolute nonexistence of a Sunni Dawla (prefer to use Dawla instead of state) based on traditional Sunni islam. (Dawla is a military political economic zone where usury is prohibited and only non-monopolized trade is permitted. All structures of the Dawla are geared toward the preservation of this basic principle. There is no taxation except what the sharia advocates)
If you do some sincere research you will come to the conclusion that it was those who called themselves the followers of Hazrat Ali (or the Shia of Ali) who martyred the noble household of the holy Prophet (Imam Hussein and the Ahl Bayt) at Karbala on the outskirts of Kufa (a Shia stronghold).
As for its inception the shia heresy is a subversion of mainstream Islam – an effort to scuttle the ship from within. Hazrat Ali and the ahl Bayt were related by marriages to the Khulafa and companions. There was no enmity between them.
As for the real shia it is the sufi sunnis the majority of whom through the major part of history were members of Tariqas or spiritual brotherhoods led by the scholars and saints in a continuous chain going all the way to Hazrat Ali and most of the times these saints were members of the household of the holy prophet (the Ahl Bayt)
Thus to provide you an example I am a sunni Muslim and on an average I spend several hours in reciting spiritual litanies composed by the Ahl Bayt saints on a daily basis. This is true for the vast majority of sunnis who try to follow traditional islam.
Better stick to your geopolitics and areas where you have some bearing.
Thanks for your articulate response.
May God give us all the strength of research that you seem to have mustered.
It is hard to know who is right and who is wrong about things that happened so long ago.
It is hard to understand complex theology also.
But you know what? There is an easy empiric way: you know the tree by its seeds.
I don’t know (and actually I don’t even care) who is right about first imams and all that.
But I CAN see by MYSELF what people are doing NOW; what are their true acts.
And I see what Iran and Hezbollah do, for example.
And I see what Saudi Arabia do, for example.
Then, based on my own sense of what is good and what is evil, I can make my own idea.
And then, based on current facts, and based on my own principles, the conclusion is absolutely clear for me.
Very well said.
I recall wondering why in the whole Muslim and Arab world, why it is only the Shia’s that resist US/Zionist hegemony and sincerely help Palestine 9who are Sunnis by the way).
There are 22 Arab countries (what a joke they are mostly).
Yet, it takes a handful of dedicated men from the south of Lebanon to secure what the Saker (and I) call divine victory against an enemy that has been humiliating 22 Arab countries for 65+ years.
Then you look at what most of the so called Arab countries have achieved by selling their sold to the devil.
Then, you compare that to what Iran has achieved in the midst of 36 years of international isolation.
The story reveals the truth even if looked at from a geopolitical perspective only:)
Yes, it’s true that we don’t see any organized resistance groups, from the so called Sunni world, that is actively opposing the Zionists. And Iran has shown more courage and integrity to stand up to the Zionists. However, we should not forget that many people who are not following Wahhabi ideology (not the governments or people in position of power) of those so called Sunni countries oppose the Zionists, but will not be allowed to actively do so by their governments. We should not forget that Palestinians and Syrian Arab Army (Majority Sunni) are resisting the Zionists. Also, if you allow me, I think that Zionists tacitly allowed a Shia Power to emerge in the Region to use it to its own advantage in advancing its strategy for greater Israel. I think Shia-Sunni sectarian divide is being used and will be used to create more chaos in the Middle East and I hope I am wrong.
I agree with you about the people versus governments. I never said that the Sunni people are the issue. Rather, its the states, the systems, the institutions.
Of course, the noble Palestinians resist and it is only the Shia’s within the Arab/Muslim world that help them if I can be direct.
Of course the noble Syrians resist and again it is only the Shia’s (within the Arab/Muslim world) that help them if I can be direct.
I do however respectfully disagree with your second point. I believe it is very clear that it is the Resistance axis (within the Muslim world) led by Iran that is the key hurdle for the greater Zionist entity project.
It is Iran and the resistance axis that has successfully so far at least prevented this project and the 2006 divine victory in Lebanon played a key role.
If you feel like some Arab countries do, that all of a sudden the west wants to talk to Iran, it has more to do with the fact that they realise they cannot treat Iran like the way they treat Arab countries and get away with it. They have tried everything else and failed, so they talk to it. Iran is powerful, and bullies respect power.
Iran will not stand for subservience or humiliation and is ready and able to fight back, unlike the Arabs countries or the other Muslim countries.
It has not to do with some sort of a plan to empower Iran by the West. That’s where the example of Imam Hussein (I believe) plays a key role, in his famous phrase “humiliation for us, how remote!”
Simply put, unlike other countries in the Muslim world, Iran is prudent, powerful and cannot be threatened nor bought, hence they have no choice but to recognise that and negotiate with it. Of course in doing so, they will continue trying to subvert and infiltrate it.
Ofcourse the Sunni-shia divide is being used to create chaos and instability in the Middle East and asia and you are very much right in this. Israeli agenda IS to keep its neighbours busy fighting one another while it continues to marginilise the Palestinians and weaken any concept of Islamic unity.
That’s why God WARNS in the Quran NOT to create sects but hold fast onto the ‘rope of Allah ‘i.e. the QURAN (Surah Al Imran 3:103) But who among the Muslims is paying heed?
For that matter, Muslim leadership past and present has shown little respect for God’s simple and straightforward instruction and instead has engaged in a patriarchal , quest for power and domination conveniently forgetting that sovereignty over man is the preserve of GOD and GOD ALONE.(If you accept that GOD being the CREATOR OF man then it is a fairly logical concept that ONLY GOD can claim rule over HIS own Creation ) Therefore, meaning that in Islam, no one person has the right or authority to claim superiority or command over another. All are subservient to GOD and to GOD ALONE. That I believe is the truly liberating principle in Islam,(freedom from man-made tyrannical rule), apart from the the clear statement ‘That there is NO Compulsion’ (Surah 2:256)(freedom of conscience) and the constant exhortation from GOD in the Quran to use the senses to observe, to question , to reflect to arrive at the TRUTH of any matter.(freedom of enquiry)
But his very fundamental idea of Divine Rule as opposed to Man-made rule is offensive to the average male ego who rankles at the thought of giving up traditional control over others without realising the true mission of this life is to instead achieve control over oneself/ himself . Which makes QURANIC ISLAM revolutionary.
That’s why the Gulf Royals want to supress any free expression and debate In Islam that is a threat to their traditional tribal rule .But the fact is, that all the Prophets that came and went bringing the DIVINE message were Revolutionaries .They were natural rebels in a sense. They all had to challenge the status quo and man-made , oppressive power structures and pave the way for social justice and enlightenment on moral values and human evolution.
don’t be fooled by this argument. Look at what what 4 million jews achieved.
your argument is no criterion.
I too have the same background, i was brought up in a traditional sunni view,
and i have seen a creeping wahabisization of people around me.
I even noticed my thinking to be subverted, this can happen if you are bombarded with wahabi/salafi
propaganda day in day out,
more than 90% of published material on islamic religion are published by printing houses owned by saudis, and they flood the world.
They own nearly all TV/Sattelite stations in the middle east and the only place where you will find competing views is online, or personal interaction.
I believe that the shia view of history is closer to the truth,
there are some critical aspects of shiasm that i object to, namley the infallibilty of imams
and batiniya ideology that aspects of the quran are hidden and can only be accessed by the imams.
I think Imam Ghazali already addressed this early on.
The salafis/wahabis have driven a wedge between traditional sunni and the shia
when we have so much in common.
From the Salafi vew they appear to be a different religion.
May allah save as all from evil
Thank you Hamza for this most interesting article and thank you Saker for publishing it. Some of the comments are also quite interesting to read.
I am an outsider but genuine admirer of Islamic culture and art, having worked in the Middle East for about five years. My overall impression is that the evolution of Muslim thought followed, in concept and practice, the evolution of Christianity. The original Chrisian tenets, with which anyone could hardly disagree, became mixed with the Roman imperialist mentality, leading to the (practical) substitution of the Emperor with a Pope – who still embodies the supreme patriarchal view of the world, is the prime minister of God and is surrounded with all the accouterments of power.
The horrors of imperialist Catholicism led to the logical split between Catholicism and Orthodoxy – and in this Plutarchian parallelism, the Catholics may be thought as the “Sunnis” and the “Orthodox the “Shias,” with all the customary reservations, etc.
All three monotheistic religions are eminently patriarchal. Attempts at reducing the “patriarchality”, notably by writers (Russian classics on top) have failed in the West and were only briefly attempted in the East, against the hatred and resistance of the rest of Europe and western world.
Furthermore, from this confused cauldron of ideas and ideologies, has recently emerged, and clearly dominant, the supreme patriarchal pseudo-religion of Zion, with all the consequences we know of.
Why don’t we start at the beginning and work from there.
God started with Adam and Eve. Soon their children Cain and Abel, had lost their way.
God, seeing how his children had lost their way, gave Noah a shot. And soon they had lost their way.
Then God gave Moses a shot, and later they too, had lost their way.
Frustrated, God decided to go for it all, and created his own son. Unfortunately, they too had lost their way.
So God said, “well that didn’t work”, and gave Mohammad a shot. But they too had lost their way.
So God asked “What am I doing wrong? Maybe I should stop with the leaders and start a country instead.” But America too has lost its way.
I’d say it’s about time for another one, I hope.
Dear Hamza, very Interesting and thoughful article.
I would like to make few points though.
1) You mention that First 3 Khulafa may not have evil intentions, however they corrupted the Religion by ignoring the will of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) on Ali (RA) as successor. Then why didn’t Ali (RA) openly revolt against them as Hussein(RA) did against Yazid? Also, is there any reference in the Holy Quran about succsession that it is divinely ordained? In that case also, Ali(RA) would have revolted against the first 3 Khulafa for going against the divine will, right.
2) You mention that we should not call any individual un-bielever, which I tend to agree. Then why do the Shias (if they are following the true Religion) consider some of the companions as un-believers?
There are some points I want to make
1. If you believe the hadiths were fabricated during the time off the caliphs there is also a possibility of fabrication within the quran.
2. How come the first caliphs Abu Bakr Umar Uthman (RA) who were praised by the Prophet (PBUH) and who stood with him in the most difficult times Islam became corrupt after the death of prophet.
3. As far as Yazid is considered no one regards him as a saint every sunni curses him for his actions.
Look we sunni ans shia are brothers and we both want Islam to triumph the problem arises when one group starts accusing the other group as Kafirs.
I am a muslim and I hate it when shia the so called followers of our Prophet (PBUH) curse the very companions who stood with the Prophet ( Abu Bakr Umar (RA)) when they speak ill about our mother Aisha (RA) people who gave their lives for Islam.
No one claimed that the hadiths were fabricated during the times of the first three caliphs. The claim is that they burned the hadiths books and forbade people from narrating hadiths. The fabrication took placed during and time of fifth caliph and onward.
As far as Quran is concerned, Imam Ali (as) presented the first caliph with the chronological Quran, with Tafsir and with proper Classical Arabic (Quranic Arabic). This was taught to Imam Ali, by his master Prophet Mohammad (saws) and the Prophet used to make Ali write everyday for hours. The first caliph rejected this Quran.
The Quran we have today is called the “Osman Mushaf (Codex)”. The third caliph set up a committee to put the Quran together. This Quran is not in the chronological order, nor the ayas (verses) in the suras (chapters) are in chronological order. Also, originally this codex was written in Old (Modern) Arabic and not Classical Arabic (Quranic Arabic). When Imam Ali become the caliph, he taught bunch of his students the Classical Quranic Arabic. Especially, one of his student called, abu Aswad. Seventy after the death of the Prophet the Holy Quran was fully converted from Old (Modern) Arabic which lacks grammar to fully grammatical Classical Quran Arabic.
The grammatical Classical Quran Arabic is one of the miracle of our Prophet. From this grammatical Classical Quran Arabic all the Jewish Books such as Torah, TaNaKh, Talmud and so forth were then fully grammartised from 12th to 15th centuries.
As far as Ummat-al-Momineen Aisha and Hafsa are concerned, the compete chapter 66 called, Tahrim of the Holy Quran is sufficient with the proper Tafsir and not the cooked Tafsir of Honey.
Now as the Quran is also not same as compiled by Imam Ali (RA) as you believe then there is no source of guidance left for the muslims, When everything has been faked or destroyed according to you then We can do as we want . When there are no original teachongs theen there is no IS
I didn’t say the Quran is not the same. What I said the Quran we have today which is called the Osman Codex is not compiled in chronological order of the ayas (verses) revealed.
This simple fact is not known by most Muslims. Maybe, it is known to you.
The following verse which is one of the last verse is in chapter 5.
“This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.”
No need to be apologetic.
Anyone who offends the noble companions, the noble mother of the believers Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa RA, in reality offends the holy Prophet upon whom be peace and blessings.
These so called shia don’t even spare the holy Quran. The quran has been interpolated they say – certain verses have been taken out they say.
And the tenet of Imamate as understood by the shia creates a parallel prophethood, not one but twelve prophets only called Imams to delude the masses.
Hazrat Ali these so called shia say practiced Taqiyya and Qitman (that is bluff and lies) his whole life trying to save himself from the other noble companions lest they find out that he held opposite views inside they say.
A parallel Islam-a jewish creation by the jew Abdullah bin Saba. Why are we even discussing it
Thank you for your reply.
I still don’t see how – clearly – it was mentioned in the Quran (Al-Imran) or any other surah where a line of succession is mentioned. Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) Household and thus has more right over us than we have over ourselves. But that right isn’t right to rule. Otherwise, it’d become a bloodline monarchy; not so different than what we have now and the past. Kings and emperors have always claimed to been divinely appointed. So whether their leadership is according to the Law or not the people can not replace them as they are divinely appointed. This is a safe haven for any injustice to be unleashed by a power hungry oppressor. There could be hundreds of years of righteous rule and it takes one ‘black sheep’ of the Household to destroy that as the Household too aren’t ma3sumeen from sin.
As for Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) being the leader of whomever the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the leader of; this is a hadith not a Quranic verse. If we were to take the above hadith as declaration of succession then how shall we deal with the following. In the last days of his blessed life the Prophet (peace be upon him) he ordered the people around him to have someone else lead the prayer as he was physically unable to do so. Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him ) went out to find Abubakr but when he was unable to do so he asked Umar to lead the prayer. Umar thinking it was the Prophet himself (peace be upon him) who ordered Bilal to choose him went and lead the people in prayer (may Allah be pleased with them).
Upon discovering that wasn’t the case he became crossed with Bilal and Bilal’s response was that the Prophet never mentioned any names but rather said ‘someone’, and that Bilal thinking the most worthy of the companions was Abubakr and because he couldn’t find Abubakr he told Umar – the next person worthy of the honour in Bilal’s opinion. After the prayer was done and the Prophet (peace be upon him) upon hearing Umar’s voice asked who had led the prayer and was told it was umar. He (peace be upon him) said “Nay, that isn’t how Allah wishes it to be”; he ordered for Abubakr to be found so he can lead the prayer and it was done so. The people prayed behind Abubakr again (in bold). Leading a prayer during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a task for ‘the’ leader if he be present at that particular place and time. Scholars agree this isn’t a fabricated hadith. If we were to subject this hadith to the same rule above then it can be claimed that Abubakr was the divine appointee. But that isn’t the case. Abubakr was chosen by the people themselves, so were Umar, Outhman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them).
Many scholars may agree that the nefs of the Prophet (peace be upon him) but it still isn’t a verse that is of the Muhkammat. Neither is the the line of succession. Avoiding division and bloodshed is of greatest importancr. Greater than the issues of alcohol consumption, fornication, inheritance and the likes. Revelations of those issues and others that have caused this Ummah a much less destruction and division are dealt with in the Quran crystal clear. But not the one point that has been and still is the core problem of the desolation we’re in. This isn’t the way of The Wise God!
Peace be upon you.
I disagree with the argument that the khilafa of Imam Ali would have led to bloodline monarchy.
You dont provide any evidence to prove this assertion and its just an assumption.
Moreover, there’s no ayah in the Quran that forbids the passage of governance from a prophet to their own bloodline, main example being succession of Solomon after David.
Lets not confuse ourselves with the message here. Hamza has raised valid points.
We know what happened after the prophet and esp after Imam Ali’s assassination. The religion as well as the Government was kidnapped by the house of Umaya who destroyed all that was preached by the prophet, attacked other countries and plundered their wealth and killed the prophet’s household in a massacre that still has no parallel in human history. Muawiya had people fabricate Hadith in his praise to raise his status as they couldnt find any fault in Ali’s character. The Ahlbayt were persistently persecuted even after the Karbala massacre which is evidenced by the deaths of nearly all Imams by assassination.
Umayads ruled for over 150 years and damaged Islam so much that its still reeling from the effects.
The political structure and model of governance was destroyed and corruption, bribery and Zulm proliferated. This was made possible by the khilafat of Usman (RA) who appointed Umayads to key government posts and provinces.
During the Umayad and Abbasid dynasties, Shiyan-e-Ali stood up against the oppression and defended the oppressed such as the prophet’s household. They were the followers of the true spirit of Islam.Ahlsunnat closed their eyes, filled their pockets and provided a lip service to Islam whilst all this was going on and the process continues on till this date.
This is precisely the reason we see Iran and shiites fighting for the Palestinians and Syrians and Saudis and other sunni muslims competing against each other in building useless skyscrapers in deserts.
a one minute message from Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Dear brother Hamza,
You may not be a scholar, but clearly have a didactic qualities you should not miss to spread the truth about Islam, so necessary in these troubled times, and in such a clear and loving way you do here with this beautiful essay. I’m getting your essay to all the people I can, but, especially, to some very near and dear friends who have a completely wrong idea about Islam and with whom I argue a lot every time we talk about this or I am leaving home to a Muslim country; they get very angry and quarrel me, but I remain going anyway…..
I could fit into the category of “unbelievers” seekers of truth and who have not yet found it in this world….. In fact, I was moved to tears reading your story. I did not know there were people like Sheikh Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki in Saudi Arabia. He looks like a very good and honorable man and have much courage to say the truth in that country. May Allah protect him. These people are essential.
As a traveler of many years in the countries of Islam, I always knew that the message of Islam could not lock anything as bad as some believe or want others to believe, because I always found, in most Muslims in the countries I have visited, goodness, compassion, honesty, respect, acceptance, brotherhood and also felt peace standing among them That is why, at some point, I felt inclined to study Islam, but in the end, for lack of time, I have not done yet.
I also have always felt a special attraction for the Holy Places and Places of Pilgrimage of Islam, and I try always to visit them on my travels, because for me they have a special atmosphere, and so I was able to visit the Mosque of Kairouan in Tunisia, the Mausoleum of Mevlana in Konya, Al Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the Umayyad Mosque and the Mausoleum of Sayyidah Zeynab in Damascus, the Mausoleum of Fatima in Qom and the Mausoleum of Imam Reza in Mashhad …. Unfortunately, thanks to the warmongers in USA I can not visit Najaf or Karbala, also thanks to the Sauds can not visit Mecca and Medina, nor Jerusalem, thanks to the Zionist government in Israel…. maybe someday ….
Brother Hamza, as an Egyptian, I wanted to ask you why in Al Azhar they do not let non-Muslims to get in? I confess that I had to lie to get in…. a Muslim friend said that I was his wife and also a Muslim…. I hope that Allah can forgive us both…… But in Iran is allowed the entry to the mausoleums and mosques, whenever you wear the chador…. This also has to do with the Shi’a, which is more tolerant in this regard?
I do not think that the real Islam, especially now after reading your story, do so many differences between men, nor between men and women…..
Thanks a lot, Hamza, you are doing a great job with this.
Imam Alí ( A.S) said:
My Dear Sister Elsi,
Thankyou for your beautiful and inspiring words. Thankyou for your vote of confidence.
If I may make a suggestion as your brother – i would argue that you are a “person” seeking truth.
I am confident that you will find whatever represents truth for you as your words provide an insight into your beautiful soul.
Thanks for sharing with me some of the places you have been to, very impressive list of destinations.
Thanks also for sharing the Imam Ali quotes in the below post – they are beautiful – if you have not already read Nahju Al Balagha, I very highly recommend that you do. It contains wonderful sermons and quotes from Imam Ali (Peace be Upon Him).
I wish I could have visited Sayeda Zainab in Syria too or Imam Reza and Fatima Mausoleum – one day I hope, God willing.
To answer your question about Al Azhar not allowing non-Muslims in, I really dont have an answer for that other than I dont see why they would not or why they should not allow you in.
Understand if it is during praying time but even then if you want to partake in praying to sincerely experience it, then i still would wonder why that would be an issue.
And peace be unto you my sister.
Wa alikum al salam.
The depressing thing about this article is the sheer amount of time and mental energy devoted to rehashing squabbles amongst a group of Arabs 1400 years ago.
It is mentally crippling when the examination of every issue must begin with the question: What would the Arab tribals from a small town in Hejaz 1400 years ago think?
Let it go.
Thank you Mr. Haidar for your informative and thought-provoking article. I can’t help feeling a little disappointed with the history you expose, though I am not surprised in the slightest. I had read the rise of Islam, from what was predominately a Christian (Orthodox) region, as a reaction to the Council of Nicea. The Islamic tenants against idols, the Trinity and the lack of an organised Church told me that Islam was trying to repair the damage done to the Christ’s message through imperial subversion. To hear that so soon after the Prophet’s death (PBUH) that his message was subverted in the name of power is no surprise, religion always plays this role in imperial structures. This explains why Islam has not been the light upon the world it should be, as always power has corrupted. I know what I am about to say is blasphemy to Muslims, but this tells me that the Prophet may not be the last, as we still live in an evil world. The search continues to discover that Truth that will break Power’s hold over humanity.
There are two images, one from Christianity and one from Islam, which I believe offers direction. One aspect of the Christ (which I subscribe to) is his role as the Prince of Peace, the empty throne. I am an atheist so I don’t believe in a literal Son of God (unless we all are), but placing Power on an empty throne it cannot corrupt. In this case Law rules. A similar vision is offered by Islam. Rather than a priesthood bloated and corrupted with power subverting the liberation contained in the Christ’s message, Islam places their Truth not in a person but in a Book. While the message can be misinterpreted (and has been), a book cannot be corrupted either; the Koran is Law too. Like the ancient Hebrews, we need a society run by Law, not people.
I have a different interpretation of the second coming of the Christ/Mahdi. As the human soul cannot handle concentrated Power, the second coming is not the return of a Savior, but the realisation that we are our own salvation, that Power must be divided and returned to each of us individually to be safely wielded to our collective benefit. The last Prophet will be this truth, and once we have evolved socially, morally and spiritually to see this, we will be free.
As-salamu alaykum friends
Thanks for raising some good points.
1. The family of Muawiya hijacked the khilafa – agreed.
2. Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) tried to prevent that and was murdered as a result – agreed
3. The khilafa under the bloodline of Muawiya became aggressors and plundered countries and people of their wealth – agreed
4. Muawiya had people fabricate hadith to raise his status – can’t argue this point as I don’t have enough knowledge but wouldn’t be surprised if it was so.
You mentioned there’s no proof the khilafa would be a bloodline succession after our master Ali. Now I’m confused! As I understood the the arguments brother Hamza had raised; the Household are divinely appointed to continue leading the people after the Prophet (peace be upon him). Not just Ali until his death and then it’s passed onto another man outside the Household. If this is the case, then I’d like to be enlightened further about the reasons for it.
But if the argument is otherwise then, it’s simply logical to say it’d have been a bloodline succession. Ali passes it to his son/s; they in turn to their son/s; continues down to another son/brother/cousin/uncle; whoever would take up the khilafa, they would be of the same house and thus same blood. Thus bloodline succession. I didn’t use the the term bloodline strictly for a father to son succession although that could have been the case in regards of the khilafa under Household. That’s how it happened during the Ummayads, Abbasids and Ottomans.
You also mentioned that there isn’t a verse in the Quran to prohibit the passing down of leadership to the Ahlul-Bait. Fair point. But that argument works both ways. To repeat the point I’ve discussed in my previous two comments, there isn’t one that does either. You gave an example of prophet Solomon succeeding David; however Solomon was a prophet and a king at that (peace be upon them) and there’s no prophet after Muhammad (peace be upon him). Finally, if there isn’t a verse that deals with succession then one must go to the verses that deal with leadership. And in these verses one finds that we must make a shura and appoint one of us. Not simply come to the conclusion that it wasn’t dealt with because it’s plainly obvious that the Household are to take up the leadership. The Wise God doesn’t leave such things to ambiguity.
One more thing I’d like to say is that it’s not wise to accuse the other khilafa al-rashideen to have made it possible, whether knowingly or unknowingly, for the Ummayads to perform a coup d’etat. I’d personally stay away from that subject. That being said, I acknowledge your good intentions. Similarly, to smite the whole of sunnis with the same sword really isn’t the way to deal with this. Many of the sunnis had and still are, as you said, closing their eyes and filling their pockets; and that the Shia, especially post revolution Iran, have been leading the fight against the AngloZionists and their brethrens in oppression before them. Post revolution Iran has also been the only one who backed it’s support for the Palestinian cause with some action, albeit – understandably so – quite limited. That doesn’t mean that all or the majority of sunnis are traitors to the cause and way of the Prophet (peace be upon him). There are many sunnis whose actions show otherwise.
(May Allah be pleased with all the companions)
Salam brother Faud,
It is bloodline and a certain family from Adam to Mohammad (saws) to his bloodline.
1. It is in Sahih Bukhari that the Prophet said that after me there will be 12 Imams. The word is used Imams and not caliphs. Shia can name you their 12 Imams, but no Sunni can name 12 Imams.
2. All Muslims agree that Mehdi will be from Prophet’s bloodline.
3. Brother Hamza Haider has already quoted from the Holy Quran in chapter 3, the verses for this bloodline.
4. In chapter 2, after Abraham sacrifices his son with his approval and Allah substitutes a goat. Allah, then makes Abraham the Imam for all Nations, and Abraham prays that all future Imams to be from his bloodline. Allah replies him, not from your evil children, meaning only from your good children.
5. Jesus traces his lineage to Jacob (Yacob) and the Prophet Mohammad traced his linage to Ishmael.
6. The first three caliphs claimed lineage to the Prophet by marriage of daughters. It was a considered necessary that the caliphs should be from bani Hashim.
7. The Omayyad claimed their lineage to bani Hashim through Quraysh.
8. The Abbasid claimed their lineage through the Prophet’s uncle Abbas.
9. The Fatimid claimed their lineage through the Prophet’s daughter Fatima.
10. The Ottoman claimed their linage through the third caliph Ottoman (Usman, Osman).
All the linage and bloodline were allowed and accepted but the real bloodline and lineage of 12 Imams was rejected. Sheikh Imran N. Hosein claims that Imam Hosein fought Yazid due to caliphate becoming lineage of Omayyad and that the Shia believe in bloodline and lineage. He demeans Imam Hussein, because the Imam fought Yazid due to corruption and the death of Islam.
All these bloodline and lineage is accepted but the real lineage of 12 Imams in Bukhari is rejected.
Here is a point wise rebuttal, all humans are related to Adam.
1. Sahih Bukhari is not Qur’an.
2. There is no mention of Mehdi in Qur’an, and no not all Muslims believe it
3. And it has been replied adequately. You cannot take things out of context. For example, homosexuality is only mentioned in the sense that the people of Lot were asked not to practice Homosexuality, but they disobeyed. So the punishment was for disobedience. It is an example. Like Muslims are forbidden from eating pork. It is not for us to question it. Those who claim that homosexuality is prohibited in Qur’an are wrong.
3. & 4. are told in the context of by giving such powers or permitting such requests, things did not end well for humanity. Hence Qur’an was revealed to forestall such things.
5. That Muhammad (Allah’s messenger) traced his lineage to any one is absurd.
6., 7., 8., 9., and 10 are completely irrelevant to Qur’an.
I don’t know that Muhammad had a daughter named Fatima. I find your spellings of “Ishmael” quite interesting coupled with your own spellings of “Mohamed”.
Not a single point out of the ten you mentioned is accurate.
I wish you would stop distorting Qur’an, and stop smearing people who follow it: which happen to be all righteous people who live honest lives, do not engage in deception, are fair in their actions, and who an think for themselves.
With due respect brother, We do not necessarily need to agree and accept each others’s views on everything to live as brothers. We know who the real enemies are: the Zionists and the followers of wahhabi ideology. So, let us unite against our enemies rather than condemning Scholars with something they did not say or mean. We have very few real scholars left who are standing up against the Zionists and calling for unity among Ummah. Sheikh Imran did say that Imam Hussein (RA) rose up against the family rule. But he emphasized that Imam Hussein (RA) stood up against the corruption of Religion and oppession. He praised Imam Hussein (RA) for his Bravery, Integrity and matchless courage. So, I am not sure in what way he demeaned Imam Hussein (RA).
Selam to you too my brother Mohamed,
Suffice to say that I agree with almost all your points.
Yes, the Ummayads, Abbasids, Fatimads and the Ottomans claimed lineage to the prophet (SAW). All futile claims, whether they be valid or not, when one takes into account that lineage to the prophet doesn’t mean a free run at the Khilafa (leadership). They all did for political reasons and those who were foolish enough to support them based on that particular point will be accounted for their support.
Yes, our father Ibrahim (SAW) had asked that the future Imams would be from his lineage and was Allah accepted his wish. Thus, the last prophet (SAW) was from that lineage as were those who came before him. We can also say that, to make things more complex, so were the Ummayads, Abbasids and Fatimids related to Ibrahim (SAW). Even those crooks that have the cheeks and arrogance to name the Arabian peninsula after their family name (Saudi) are related to our father Ibrahim (SAW). All Jews and Arabs are. But all that is irrelevant to claiming leadership. If we go down that road then the next step is one group tryint to claim their lineage to the prophet (SAW) is closer/purer/more important than another group’s.
All nonsense, in my opinion. Afterall, the true message of our prophet (SAW) on that matter is that we should not think ourselves worthy of being leaders, rather we should be aware of responsibility that comes along with it and refrain from considering ourselves ‘fit to rule’. However, in regards to the first 3 khulafa, I must – respectfully – disagree. Their relation to the prophet (SAW) by marriage had nothing to do with them being chosen by the people as to lead. For them, that relation was an honour and priviledge. Any muslim or muslima (woman) wouldn’t think twice if given the opportunity to be related to the prophet (SAW) by marriage.
Yes, our brother Hamza in dutifully provided a verse from the Quran (chapter 3) related to the lineage. But it still isn’t a muhkam verse! That’s my point! No verse in the muhkamat part of the Quran ever deals with a line of succession to be followed in taking up leadership of the ummah. Ahl-ul-Bait have been oppressed by many corrupt leaders in the past when they should have occupied centre stage in electing and being elected for the leadership. Their status gives them the right to occupy the centre stage to lead Muslims whether as khulefa or scholars/ministers/people of important position in society. But that right stops when the passing down of leadership to the next khelifa begins. They too have to be chosen by the people to lead.
As for Imam Mahdi, all Muslims do agree that he’ll be from the lineage of the prophet (SAW). However, a point of critical importance to remember is that he too will be chosen by the people to lead. He won’t put himself forward as an Imam simply due to his lineage.
As for your point on the 12 Imams (RA), I don’t have enough knowledge on the subject whether it is from the Sunni or Shia perspective so I’m afraid I can’t comment on it. The only thing I could say is I hope to learn more on the subject in the future.
In regards to Sheikh Imran Hosein, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. He never demeans our master Hussein (RA). Rather, he praises him as he should.
To repeat the point I’ve been making since I began commenting on the subject is that all the critically important issues have been dealt with clearly in the Quran in the form of muhkamat verses so that no confusion could arise from them (except of course from the dumb, deaf and blind). As our brother Zahir Ebrahim argued, we’ve been given a path to follow on certain things and an ‘open way’ for other things where we make shura to reach a decision. The issue of succession belongs to the latter.
Finally, I’d like to say that I sincerely love and appreciate the way the discussion on this subject has been dealt with by all the people (except a few) who’ve commented on it and presented differing points; and a special due credit goes to the our brother Hamza and yourself Mohamed. I believe – for now at least – we will agree to disagree on this matter. Nevertheless, it certainly has been encouraging and enlightening.
Look the only point I want to make is The sunni and Shia can only live together if we follow certain rules.
1. The Shia should respect the love of sunni for the Sahaba that inludes the first rightly guided caliphs and Ummehetul momineen . Look I do agree that there were mistakes done by some sahabas but there love for Islam and for Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) is unquestionable. Thus the Shia should not speak ill of them .
2. The Sunni should come out and speak for the Family of prophet about the crimes which were done against them by Yazid and Mawwiya . We should openly criticize Yazid for his actions.
We have to accept our brothers with differences . We should not impose our will upon others and try to learn from each other. We both have our mistakes it is time accept those mistakes and come together for strong and beautiful Ummah as our Prophet always wanted to see the Ummah as One (No Shia No sunni).
Leaving the ignorant aside from both sides, there is very good harmony in Muslim Countries. When Salmon Rushdie demeaned Umm al-Moumineen Aisha and rest of the Prophet’s wives beside Umm al-Moumineen Khadija, it was Khomeini who demanded his dead. Satanic Verses is nothing but filth.
In my country there are six Madhabs, six Sharias, and six different ways of doing Salat. We have found a way that in Jamat we all do our own Salat in six different ways, as the differences are minor and can be accommodated for each Madhab. Harmony, within One Ummah.
One of the problems is that people are not that much educated and often do things as told by their sheikh or imams in mosque which are basically educated in madarsas which follow a strict fiqh and course and thus even if they know of things that are wrong but they do not educate people on sheer problems such as lack of publicity and money. Even the Mullas have Houses to run. What we need is schools who have teachers of all fiqh and have more and more discussion . You must have heard of Jamaat Islami there schools teach religion from all perspective providing you with thoughts from shia hanbali shafii, barelvi thus the people get a more insight about religion and our always open to discussion. One of my famous schoars have been maulana maududi who has done to bridge the sunni shia gap.
It’s also interesting to see how Saudi Arabia has been removing those parts of the cultural heritage which are politically inconvenient. Remains of the Ottoman (nowadays one would say: Turkish) occupation, for instance. Or tearing down the house of the prophet’s first wife to make place for public toilets. For those who want to see “before and after” pictures of Mecca:
Is it just a coincidence that your name seems to be a Shia name? Did you change it after you changed your views? — or maybe, as they say, one’s name is one’s destiny.
The enemies of Allah swt and Muhammad (saws) are in both „sunni“ and „shia“ camp. Entering heated discusions and arguments about who is right and who is wrong means playing the game made by those who reject Allah’s Word. A muslim is instructed to „hold fast to the rope of Allah“ and preserve unity of ummah – no matter what! No imam or shaikh or whoever has the right to saw discord among muslims.
What do we gain by advertising „sunni“ or „shia“? Nothing, but Allah’s swt displeasure. The pure heart will easily ascertain the truth – neither „sunni“ nor „shia“ are completelly right or wrong.
Hussein, Allah be well pleased with him, though warned against it, trusted those liars in Kufa and was betrayed. They betrayed his father Ali ibn Abi Talib, r.a. earlier – too! Traitors from both camps conspired to erase the seed of our Prophet, salallahu aleyhi we sellem, but in vain.
I believe they hoped to prevent the emergence of Mahdi a.s. by doing that.
Why should anyone curse AbuBakr as-Siddik or Umar ibn ul-Khattab or Uthman ibn Affan, Allah be well pleased with them? Without them, would we have as preserved the Qur’an as we have today? They have nothing to do with Abu Sufyan or Mu’awia or Yazid! Never forget how much they all suffered because of Abu Sufyan!
And, His Eminence Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the most revered shia religious scholar, has issued the fatwa AGAINST insulting any of the companions of the Prophet, saws, or his wife Aisha, radiallahu anhuma. May Allah swt reward him for that!
Thank you very much for this perceptive article. I am glad you found it within yourself to express your transformation so eloquently. I am always keenly interested in people who change their religion, belief system, outlook, worldviews, all artifacts of socialization.
The transformation, which the Greeks called “metanoia”, through sheer due diligence of both mind (cognitive and emotional) and spirit, regardless of the change from what to what, the act of change itself, to move away from one’s inheritance, indoctrination and culture of socialization, is surely among the most difficult things for human beings to accomplish. You are a rare person.
I once met a scholar from Tunis, Sheikh Tijani Samawi, while he was visiting California and unlike yourself, he said he used to be a prominent Sunni scholar previously in Tunisia, and when he too had become exposed to history from a different point of view, quite by chance initially on an ocean voyage, and subsequently by immersing himself in deep study, he too had experienced metanoia similar to yours:
“This is the crucial point to highlight, the difference between Sunni and Shia is really one of knowledge of, or rather acknowledgement of, history.”
Dr. Tijani subsequently went on to write several books outlining his new discoveries. Easy to find.
The issue that I am interested in is really how you felt when you were presented with new set of facts, perspective, outlook, analysis — did you experience psychological discomfort, i.e., cognitive dissonance? I can’t imagine you not experiencing it… and your resolution to it was to adopt the new ideas, to transform yourself.
The key to metanoia, to any transformation, say from being a Zionist to non-Zionist, or Shia to Sunni, or Sunni to Shia, or Christian to Muslim, or Holocaust believer to seeing it as a big lie, Osama Bin Laden attacked America with box cutter knives on 9/11 to seeing it as a big lie, etc. etc., meaning, not just giving up a prior world view to become an atheist or agnostic because one is no longer persuaded by those beliefs or theology or worldview or indoctrination, but to adopt the new worldview directly due to the fact that one is presented with compelling evidence that one’s previous worldview is deficient, incorrect, mistaken, misperceived, false, or an outright lie.
I hope you can speak of your internal state of emotional disquiet as you went through your most profound journey of metanoia. This is most educational for every seeker of truth and I thank you in advance.
As for your transformation itself from Sunni world view to Shia world view, just as there is positive in your statement:
“This is the crucial point to highlight, the difference between Sunni and Shia is really one of knowledge of, or rather acknowledgement of, history.”
there is also its negative.
History is not religion. In my view at least. But people are free to believe whatever they want. But let’s assume that one want to really know what Islam is, what it teaches. Where should one go?
Like your good self, I am not a scholar. I am also not a very good Muslim. And like yourself, a most ordinary student of Islam. I too, like yourself, took up the pen when compelled by my inner state to do so. And I have explored this aspect of faith vs. socialization at some length. You seem to have acquired your new face of the religion of Islam from the study of history. But Islam has a sacred text which all Muslims believe is untampered by the hand of man. Why did you not derive your beliefs as a Muslim directly from the Holy Qur’an? This is a question. The layered perspective for this question perhaps will only become perceptively apparent if you can find the time to review my book: Hijacking The Holy Qur’an and Its Religion Islam.
Very briefly, history is written by the pen of man. It does not matter whose history, whether it is holocaust history, history of the Jews, or history of the Christians, or history of the Muslims. Unlike Jews and Christians, Muslims are fortunate to have a scripture among us that itself claims that every word of it is the Word of God. And Muslims agree that there is no ‘thareef” in that word, meaning no addition, and no substraction, and the Good Book itself states that it the religion of Islam is perfected and completed: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion;” ( Arabic الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Maida 5:3). Meaning, there is no room in it for additional specification, modification of specification, or removing of specification.
No such statement can be made for the literary works of history writers, narrators, compilers, regardless of how pious or virtuous. They are all error prone, given to their own socialization biases, their own natural bent of mind, psychology, and intellectual acumen. No to reasonable people can always agree — no scientists always agree. For even as empirical a subject as the science of global warming: is there or isn’t there global warming? The US senate has a report signed by 1000 scientists which disagrees that there is global warming. (see ) How can you get scholars to agree for something that is so spiritual and emotional a subject a faith, belief, and its elements? And only when we go to history is when we actually become Shia, Sunni, etc., for we each gravitate to what appeals to us from their pen. And those who grow up in Muslim homes adopt that version of history that is their inheritance by way of socialization. That really is an empirical fact. It is self-evident. Instead of parsing history with the rubric, standard, yardstick, of the Holy Qur’an, we try to parse the Holy Qur’an by using history. That’s putting the cart before the horse. Wouldn’t you say so?
So does it not make sense to derive one’s first understanding of religion directly from its own Sacred Scripture? That would be a truism for any religion, any philosophy, any theology, even science. Go to the primary source first for what you seek. Secondary sources only become meaningful when primary source is comprehended directly, without using the Cliff Notes version from history and the hand of man. Imagine trying to comprehend the Mind of God from the mind of man…. that just is a non-sequitor, especially when the Mind of God is believed to be penned in His Own Words in His Own Book, the Holy Qur’an, and preserved to this day in its pristine state or revelation. Again, because Muslims believe it to be the Word of God as is, then don’t you think we are inconsistent when we seek the pen of man to parse the Pen of God. Just basic philosophical truth. Quite self-evident.
So, if you read the Sacred Scripture directly, you will see what it itself says about Wilayah, about the Ahlul Bayt, and about Imammat – the topic that primarily differentiates Shia and Sunni understanding of Islam’s theology as Guidance to mankind. It becomes quickly apparent what the Holy Qur’an says Determinately, and what it leaves open as an Indeterminate. These abstractions are defined in my book.
If you follow this path of honest discovery without preconceptions and presuppositions, suddenly a whole new metanoia is seeded. Try it. You will see that the Good Book unequivocally says that only God appoints Imams, Guides for mankind, that the Ahlul Bayt are special, that they do not err, that their love is made incumbent upon Muslims, that the Prophet of Islam does not err, that ulul-amr have certain defining characteristics because of which they are to be obeyed absolutely in the same way that God and His Prophet are to be obeyed, that some believers at the time of the Prophet, momineen and mominaat, companions of the Prophet of Islam, were clearly on the wrong path, etc. etc. All this analysis is in my book with verse citations.
If you try to understand your religion from the Holy Qur’an directly, and then parse history using its yardstick, the al-Furqaan, the criterion by which to judge, you don’t end up in this debate of who is right and who is wrong in history, who is rightly guided and who isn’t, etc…. there is no reason for debate any longer, because the criterion makes it manifestly apparent. It is like a law book giving you the criterion by which to judge and to be able to easily separate the fallible mind and pen and act of man from the Infallible Mind of God. Like separating chaff from wheat — only possible to do accurately when you know what wheat looks like!
You will be surprised to discover on this journey of the Holy Qur’an that while the belief that there is no “tahreef” in the text of the Holy Qur’an from the day of its revelation is not just the faith of Muslims, but empirical evidence too from the earliest sources also attests to that fact, there is indeed tahreef on what its message means. Shia theologians interpret Islam differently from Sunni theologians, and each of their subsects do the same. Meaning, everyone understands that same text differently. That is a problem partly caused by socialization, incestuous self-reinforcement among scholars, and history, not to mention self-interest, prejudice, and presuppositions. Meaning human factors. But it is also caused partly because the Holy Qur’an itself is Indeterminate in many of its concepts. It does not spell some key things out. Leaves some things open ended, like algebra variables rather than constants. What does that mean? You have to review the book as this comment is already too long.
Here is link to my book:
or reference it with tinyurl.com/Islam-Reader-2015
Lastly here is a link to a pertinent article whose title makes its subject plain:
Averting Shia-Sunni World War: print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2016/01/averting-shia-sunni-world-war-by-zahir.html
Which is why, at least in my view, instead of trying to be divisive among Shias and Sunnis by arguing whose beliefs are better, greater, more accurate, more hi-fidelity, etc., endeavor to gather around the Holy Qur’an and see for oneself which of our beliefs are actually in the Holy Qur’an. Each person may do that analysis, soul searching, seeking, for themselves instead of telling each other you are a moron. Just to put it mildly — for this is not the epoch to bring out the Shia-Sunni skeletons from the closet. It only helps those who are neither Shia nor Sunni.
Thank you very much once again for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you also to the owner of this website. This is my first visit here I think. Someone sent me a link to this article saying it was right up my alley. Thanks!
Comment for: thesaker.is/after-the-prophet/
February 02, 2016
Dear Zahir Ebrahim, you are too humble. Of course you sir are not only a scholar, but a well funded one, not by just by anyone, but the great Agha Khan’s organization itself.
I took the opportunity yesterday to read your recommendation, and then I took it upon myself to read you article about Ayatollah Khomeini’s attempt at power grab. I like how you take your Irani brothers to mat.
Here is your article:
I find it cool that Shia’s will fight among themselves, one has their Imam in hiding, the others split off because their person who was the older brother did not get appointed by his father, however after a few hundred years, the Father himself did not get appointed. Of course his prince-hood is largess of the British empire, which may not choose to give such titles to the next in line. Yet you tear the Ahmedyia people a new one in the same article. What a nice dynastic faith.
Your first book, a scholarly 1100 page opus magus, demonstrates your deep command of at least 7 languages, which is really impressive. However, the book then goes on and defines its own language, it own meaning, and goes through rather impressive but deceptive arguments to make it mean what you want to mean, If you define the color of sky green, you have an absolute right to do it. However, you cannot make others believe it too, except those who are blind, who are incarcerated in sky less dungeons, and those who have taken leave of reason.
Your central proposition, “Why Qur’an is so easy to hijack?” is completely absurd. It refutes Qur’an itself. With a premise like this you can prove anything.
But welcome. I encourage others to read articles at your site: as an exemplar of how to construct specious arguments.
No matter what you say, you are indeed anything but just a humble student of Islam. You are one of the premier propagandists. So please don’t sell yourself short.
I am very impressed by your command of various subjects, especially linguistics.
Here’s a much deeper and more scholarly article about the origins of Islam.
Thanks Sakar for posting this article. Clarified many doubts. In many respects true teachings of Prophet are similar to the prophets and saints of other religions.
In one of the verses of Geeta, a Hindu holy book, Krishna, a god incarnate, says to Arjuna, on the eve of a great battle: it doesn’t matter who the men believe in, whether, deities, or saints or whatever else, for they all live in me.
Of course, when Geeta was written, there was not much awareness of other religions. But the spirit of the discourse is the same. Over the course of human history Prophets have strived to evolve a civil code of conduct between human beings and give it a spiritual basis.
That’s why hate those who use religion to divide humanity
One has to understand Islam as an ideology, which brought on of the biggest socio-ecnomic change in the history of the arab world 1400 years ago.
It was a socio-ecnomical phenomenon which was made possible by incredible leader called Mohammed and his companions !!!!
If one take out the theological ethos attached to it and study it as a students of history, without any biase and prejudice , then one can understand the whole process in a scientific way!!!
1400 years ago, there exist a society which is riddled socio-ecnomic injustices. A man from a very humble and gentle background stands up against it , forms a political party based on ideology and establishes and restores order to the disorganised society !!!! When he passes away, his companion , by the noble norms of the time , chooses a leader to lead the movement, like any political revolutionary movement will do. They ALL are the true followere , there is no true evidence of their personal gain. They are ofcourse prone to commit mistake , but unintentional one, with the main drive of “good will” behind there action.
Hamza has done a good job but has not done justice to the topic . He should have seen the historical events through a rational, scientific scopes rather then falling for skewed view of particular group. The other problem the attempt to unnecessarily bend and twist the fact to accommodate the Eurocentric view of Islam. Ofcourse Muslims have responsibly to present the true human face iof Islam but responsibility also lies with rest of the world . They should also endeavour to find the truth rather then sitting back and grilling muslim intelligentsia for the actions committed in their name!!!!!
„Shia“-„sunni“ split and conflict has nothing to do with islam. In the heart of it is the age old hatred between Arabs and Persians (Sassanid). It is pure nationalism, camouflaged as teological difference, which thru time evolved and translated itself on many groups of Arabs, disillusioned by the corruption of their „sunni“ leaders and shepherds-turning-kings. (Hence Arab killing Arab, with or without the support of Iran; forgetting the qibla (the direction that should be faced when a muslim prays).
Persian nationalists (and ironically along with them the most of shia clergy!) cry day and night, how the “arabs” attacked and occupied Iran. They seem to have forgotten that prior to the islamic conquest of Persia, it was the (the then America of the world!) Persian empire that occupied endless lands of non-Persians (up to India!) AND Arab lands. Exactly, prior to the Islamic conquest of Persia, the Persian Sassanid Empire occupied the entire east of Arabia, parts of Hijaz, Oman and Yemen (the birthplace of the Arabs).
So the Persian Empire conquered half of the world, including the Arab world, yet, they did it for the sake of the expansion of their empire (like all empires do), whereas the students of Muhammad (saws), the noble sahabah r.a. (btw, with the absolute OK of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, he even send his sons to fight!) went to conquer the oppressive Sassanid empire to liberate people from the corrupted priests (they were similar to Shia Rafidah priests today) of the Majoos (fire worshippers) and the Hindu-like caste system of the Persian society.
Rabi’a ibn ‘Amir (radiallahu ‘anhu) went to the leader of the Persians. The leader asked him, “Why are you coming to our lands? If you are coming for money then we will pay everyone of you a salary so leave us alone.” But Rabi’a said, “That is not why we are here. We are sent to free the Creation from being slaves of one another to being slaves of Allah the Creator of the creation and from the oppression of religion to the justice of Islam and we want to deliver people from the narrowness of this world to the vastness of this world and the Afterlife.“
I am not taking sides here, I am neither Arab nor Persian. (Similar tendencies are present inside the Arabic world.)
Back to „shia“ – „sunni“ split. It is what is termed in the arabic language as „’assabiyyah“ – tribal partisanship.
In the saying of the Prophet saws, ‘assabiyyah was explained by him as “helping your own people in an unjust cause”, where the Prophet says, “He is not of us who proclaims the cause of tribal partisanship; and he is not of us who fights in the cause of tribal partisanship; and he is not of us who dies in the cause of tribal partisanship”. When the Prophet was asked by the Companions about the meaning of ‘assabiyyah (tribal partisanship), he explained :“(It means) your helping your own people in an unjust cause”. Interestingly, the term ‘assabiyyah used by Ibn Khaldun in his theory of social development has been translated in various ways by recent scholars.
Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty or civilization has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires and use the much stronger `assabiyyah present in those areas to their advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership. This implies that the new rulers are at first considered “barbarians” by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful, and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the centre of the empire. The `assabiyyah dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew.
AZ the point you make would appeal to many people, but it is underhanded. You are trying to set people up who are misguided and do not understand “Al-Qur’an”.
Muhammad had the good fortune that he was picked by Allah to relay Qur’an to humans. In this regard he was lucky–just like some people are luckier than others by the accident of birth. However, if he was doing what he was with divine guidance, he cannot claim or be praised for his political or leadership skills.
Don’t get me wrong, he was a commendable human, who was chosen by God to do one of the most important task. However, it was Allah and not Muhammad personally, who brought about all the change.
This just like saying that wen Joseph, on the order of Allah, stopped from proceeding further in his sexual escapade, it was owing to his own will power of restraint. The truth that if you the God wants to to stop, no matter who you are you will stop. Indeed the tale of Jacob and Joseph is a cautionary tail, which demonstrates when Allah gives people any power they abuse it. Joseph with the favor of God, failed to be fair, and in the end favored and rewarded his family which has tried to kill him over those who had rescued him, and used the blessing of God, to endear himself to the King, subvert him, and ended up imposing tax, enslaving people, with selling them back what had been taken by them fro free. It is the first incidence when a TAX was imposed in the history /. While he with his family took over the government.
It was for nothing that Israelite’s, had to get the hell out of Egypt, people in a few generations had figured out who was the real perpetrator of crimes against them, so they took back what was rightfully their. Moses had to hightail it out of Egypt for those misdeeds. Of course, Joseph had stabbed the people, who saved him, in the back. SO in Qur’an it is a cautionary tail. Just like the Aaron’s prophet hood granted on Moses’s request, was a failure.
The Qur’an does not tell these stories to entertain, it tells us the reasons why favoring blood over benefactors, why misuse of foreknowledge, and nepotism is bad. In Qur’an Allah, remedies these.
Moses had murdered a person without justification because he was engaged in a fight with an Israelite. When he discovered the next day that his blood kin was not only wrong but was engaged in another such spat next day. He was also an ingrate, because he was raised as a prince, by his adopted father, on whom he turned due to reasons which were race based (racism is another name for blood kinship).
I wonder why these people who argue in favor of racism, do not see that Qur’an is the scripture which prohibits racism. However, Shia and others are still touting racism in the guise, of their purported love for Muhammad (the messenger of Allah).
Jews are a race, so are the Shia concept of blood-line dynasty.
Too many words Hamza . For me, and for full disclosure I am a Christian, it comes down to something more simple. Mohammed and his followers killed people who did not submit to his revelation and authority. Jesus and his followers killed no one. This is the fundamental difference in the soil that nurtures the roots that grows the tree that produces the fruit that we eat from our respective beliefs.
False religion is from satan no matter how sweet and pretty it presents itself, satan is the enemy of god and his children, a murderer and liar is satan and islam is one of his suits, zero tolerance.
Very true. To understand anything we need to know the cause which creates. Mohammed and his followers spread their beliefs by the power of the sword. Jesus and his followers spread theirs by the power of the spirit.
Thanks so much Saker!
As all of you know, Maliki is in jail and prosecutors are seeking his death.
You hardly find any notion on him in the net. Even wikipedia has only two outdated articles in Arabisc and Farsi.
And the petition of Avaaz was signed not more than 260 times by now, although it was published more than two years ago.
But you will find thousands of articles and even tv reports on Rusiian or Chinese people arrested for expressing their opinion or even for tax fraud when they are supporting western mainstream mind.
I know, majority of Sunni Muslims are not in favour with Malikis ideas. It is too confusing to them and endangering their simple-minded beliefs. E.g. they accept the meeting in saqifa – where less then ten men gathered immediately after Prophet Muhammad’s death and determined Abu Bakr als first caliph – as “shura”, i.e. as communitarian decision. Whom did theay ask? Who authorized them? Such questions are not asked. This is only one example. There are dozens of them.
Therefore most of Sunni Muslims ignore Maliki or have never heard of him. Although his arguments are purely the Koran itself and some of the most authentic best hadiths (like thos on the ghadir khom event).
It is the bigotry of the mindset of so many muslims that makes them unable to open their minds for such opinions and analyses like those of Maliki. And it is this bigotry that Maliky idetifies as one of the most influential idols mentioned so often in the Koran. Today you would say MAINSTREAM. It is not easy for people to renounce mainstream. You may risk to loose friendships and even to loose your job. It is so much more comfortable to participate in the mainstream thinking whether in Western politics or in Muslim religious thinking. But this is what according to Maliki is required by the Koran itself if you really want to seek to dedicate yourself to God, i.d. to practice Islam, to practice la ilaha illa Allah.
Talking this way, you will immediately hear hundreds of scholars sayings.
Maliki asks you to read the Koran by yourself and to trust on it, to believe that it is clear and enlightning. To trust that God can speak to you without needing scholars to translate for him. This needs trust in God and in yourself, it needs sense of responsibility for yourself and conciousness, it needs thinking and re-reading the Koran and discussing on it with yourself and your bestfriend, “to stand up for God in twos and alone” as Koran puts it in another context.
It is so thick a cover that makes impossible for most of Sunni Muslims (I don’t know about the situation with the Shiis) to follow the advice of Maliki although it sounds so easy and obvious. You don’t need to end up with same conclusions as Maliki does, but it needs that you enter into honest reading of God’s word and hinest contemplating about it. Actually, it not the advice of Maliki, it is the requirement of the Koran itself.
Of course, Maliki is uttering a minority point of view, like some comments put it. So what! If not, he would not have been arrested. He is challenging the majority. He is CHALLENGING the MAINSTREAM of scholars and ordinary islam students.
Sorry for writing like a preacher, but I am just putting some thoughts of Maliki himself.