Thursday, 28 February 2019

Problem with MSAs and Their Affiliation with Ikhwan al-Muslimun

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين
وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين
During my first year at college, I began offering my prayers at the multipurpose chapel or prayer room in York University. Naturally, this space was dominated by Muslims because of our religious obligation to pray several times throughout the day and night. Nevertheless, it was not a space in the custody of any single organization or sect of Islam. Once, I was approached by a black Muslim brother who instructed me to stand up and read a Hadith to the congregation after one of the prayers. I printed off some Hadith regading the virtue of charity and intended to read it aloud after one of the congregational prayers, but I was beaten to it by a member of the Muslim Student Organization (MSA) who stood up immediately and stated something the content of which I have long since forgotten. Only after he finished his statement did I share a Hadith and give a general exhortation to the Muslim worshipers present about offering donations. Before I departed the facility, I was approached by a member of the MSA who politely told me that I was in the wrong for publicly addressing the congregation without authorization from his organization. As I was too young and immature to realize I had done nothing wrong, I did not argue with him but merely pointed to the black Muslim brother and told this MSA member that it was that individual who had instructed me to do so. The MSA member then immediately turned his attention toward that person and approached him, no doubt to chastise him instead, letting me off the hook. Now, over a decade later, having remembered this incident, I am writing to connect it to a broader problem that we have in our community with the MSA phenonemon and the various so-called “Islamic” organizations that presume to represent us. It is well known that the MSA is a gateway to the Ikhwan al-Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood), an organization I am deeply critical of because of its attempt to monopolize the narrative of Islam, and to politicize our beautiful Religion for its own narrow, self-interests. The attitude of the Muslim Brotherhood, and likeminded groups which are often closely or loosely affiliated with it, is that the organization alone represents Islam in every way, and only it is authorized to organize and discharge religious activities, especially preaching, collecting donations, and the like. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood and its brand of Islam essentially states that the very objective of our Religion is to establish a state, which naturally shall be lead by the organized leadership of the Brotherhood. After the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, where the Brotherhood originated and is strongest, it easily formed a government and won the presidency through democratic elections. However, the Brotherhood, true to its nature, began empowering itself and focusing on cementing its domination over the country rather than solving the social and economic issues for which the people voted them into power. This is sadly what gave ammunition to secular forces within Egypt to launch a coup and overthrow the democratically elected government. Consequently, for the past several years Egypt has been suffocating under the repressive military dictatorship of General Sisi, a far worse figure than the old and ailing Hosni Mubarak, the original target of the “Arab Spring”. The Brotherhood is extremely intolerable of any alternative Islamic narrative that opposes its own. Likewise, our local MSAs that operate on campuses across North America and Europe insist that they alone represent the Muslim students and their Religion on campus, and so naturally they overstep their bounds in seeking to dominate spaces to the exclusion of any other group or narrative within Islam, including any individual effort or religious activity directed to the congregation at large. True to their Ikhwani affiliation, the MSA pushes a very toxic political narrative on all the Muslim students. For example, they strongly focus on the Palestine issue, regularly organizing demonstrations and seminars around it and expecting all the Muslims to participate in this so-called Palestine movement as an expression of religiosity. Connected with this issue is the boycott of certain products like Coca Cola that are allegedly funding the State of Israel. The authoritarian and exclusivist streak within the Ikhwan and MSAs effectively results in any “dissident” from their policy being treated worse than an innovator who innovates into the Religion. If the principle of adhering to the Jama’a of the Muslims and their Imam is invoked, it proves that the Ikhwan considers itself the Jama’a, and its murshid al-aam or “general guide” as the Imam. The truth is, after the caliphates of Abi Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar al-Faruq (radi Allahu anhuma), while the Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum) remained attached to the institution of Khilafa, individuals among them, in the effort of Islamic revival, acted individually and independent of the institution of Khilafa. A great example of this is sayyidina Abi Dharr al-Ghifari (radi Allahu anhu), whose individual effort against the corruption and greed of Muslims in Syria and elsewhere was independent of the caliphate of sayyidina Uthman (radi Allahu anhu). Tragically and regrettably, the latter had the eminent sahabi Abu Dharr exiled into the desert for his independent ministry of religious and moral revival. This set a bad precedent which lasts till this day. The idea that there can be no “privatization” of Islam has done great damage to the faith community known as Muslims. Ironically, in Egypt and other parts of the Arab world, the Ikhwan itself is the victim of statist Islam. In principle, the Ikhwan has no right to protest the persecution it suffers in parts of the Arab world, because it would seek to do the same to other religious streams within the world of Islam if it had the opportunity. For this reason, I strong discourage Muslim students from joining the MSA or any other student organization using the name of Islam or Muslims which operates in this way or which is affiliated with the Ikhwan and its false narrative. There is no such rule or principle in Islam which forbids Muslims in their individual capacity to engage in any genuine and true religious activity, independent of the established organization or system, including the system of Khilafa. In fact, the institution of the Mujaddid proves the contrary, i.e., that Muslims should be encouraged to openly question and express protest against the “official” and “sanctioned” practice of Islam in the spirit of prophetic revivalism. This has been exemplified by such revivalists as Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, Sulayman bin Surad al-Khuza’i, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibn Taymiya and so many others. In our own time, “official” or “sanctioned” Islam, usually associated with the state or with powerful “Islamic” organizations in the lands where we are a minority, are the most corrupt and far from what is true and genuine Islam. The work of revivalism is never aligned with or authorized by the official religious establishment.

Friday, 22 February 2019

Ibn Taymiya and Death of Jesus

Shaikh ul-Islam, Ibn Taymiya [rahimahullah], has written concerning the wafat or death of Jesus of Nazareth [alayhis-salam], putting it in the same category as the death of the great prophet Moses [alayhis-salam], whom all Muslims are agreed died and the Prophet Muhammad [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] even knew the location of his grave. Thus it becomes apparent that Shaikh ul-Islam, Ibn Taymiya, believed in the wafat of the Messiah, as he wrote:
وما أنزله الله هو ما تلقوه عن المسيح فأما حكايته لحاله بعد أن رفع فهو مثلها في التوراة ذكر وفاة موسى عليه السلام ومعلوم أن هذا الذي في التوراة والإنجيل من الخبر عن موسى وعيسى بعد توفيهما ليس هو مما أنزله الله ومما تلقوه عن موسى وعيسى بل هو مما كتبوه مع ذلك للتعريف بحال توفيهما وهذا خبر محض من الموجودين بعدهما عن حالهما ليس هو مما أنزله الله عليهما ولا هو مما أمرا به في حياتهما ولا مما أخبرا به الناس
[Majmu al-Fatawa v.13 p.58]:

 

Weak Hadith: "Death Will Come to Jesus"

Previously, I briefly touched on one of the narrations presented by those Ulama who believe the promised Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, is alive and did not die:

أَلَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ رَبَّنَا حَيٌّ لا يَمُوتُ ، وَأَنَّ عِيسَى يَأْتِي عَلَيْهِ الْفِنَاءُ
“Do you know that our Lord is living and does not die, while death will come to Jesus?”

I intend to dedicate this entry to a comprehensive discussion on this narration, which I believe to be weak and rejected for a number of reasons. I have previously mentioned that there are two chains for this Hadith allegedly attributed to the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam). One has been brought by Imam Ibn Abi Hatim ar-Razi in his tafsir, and the other by Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari in his well known tafsir. As for the latter, Ibn Jarir narrates from a certain al-Muthanna bin Ibrahim al-Aamili, who is majhul al-hal, i.e., unknown. In the former, Ibn Abi Hatim narrates from his father, Abi Hatim Muhammad bin Idris ar-Razi, from the narrator Ahmad bin Abdir-Rahman bin Wahb bin Muslim al-Qarshi. This Ahmad bin Abdur-Rahman has been declared weak by the muhaddithin. In fact, the great muhaddith, Imam Ahmad bin Shu’aib an-Nasa’i, has declared him a kadhdhab “liar” (ad-Du’afa wal-Matrukin; p.60, no.73):


The actual narrator of this Hadith is ar-Rabi’ bin Anas, who was not a companion of the Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam]. The narration is mursal on this basis. Furthermore, two other narrators of this Hadith, Abdullah bin Abi Ja’far and his father, Abi Ja’far Isa bin Mahan ar-Razi, are both problematic, to say the least, according to several muhaddithin. In summary, this Hadith is full of problems with regard to its sanad and by no means can it be said to be a sound Hadith from the Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam].
As for the content of the narration, it too is problematic. It describes a discussion between the Prophet Muhammad [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] and some Christians regarding Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Christians believe to be divine. In order to refute this false doctrine, the Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] allegedly argued: “Do you not know that our Lord is living and does not die, while death will come to Jesus?”, to which the Christians confess بَلَى meaning, “yes, certainly”. But the problem is that in Christian dogma, Jesus of Nazareth, after his alleged resurrection, has eternal life and will never die again. It is inconceivable that any group of Christians would admit in a debate that they believe death will come to Jesus some time in the future, as the majority of Muslims believe. On this very basis, the narration is extremely suspect. On the contrary, according to al-Wahidi, the Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] actually said:

أَلَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ رَبَّنَا حَيُّ لَا يَمُوتُ ، وَأَنَّ عِيسَى أَتَى عَلَيْهِ الْفَنَاءُ
“Do you know that our Lord is living and does not die, while death came to Jesus?”
[Asbab an-Nuzul p.97]:




Here the verb أَتَى is in the past tense, meaning death already came to Jesus of Nazareth. This makes more sense, as the Christians also believe that Jesus died or perished, though by means of crucifixion and was resurrected thereafter. But the point is that if this narration is sound, it means the Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] argued that Jesus could not be the Lord because the Lord is living and never dies, while according to Christians themselves, Jesus died, at least temporarily. Therefore, if anything, this narration proves that Jesus died and is not alive if it is authentic from the Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam].

Tuesday, 19 February 2019

Mawdudi: "Obedience to Ghayr Allah is Shirk"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين
The twentieth century political fikr has done great harm to the cause of Tawhid. The preaching of Tawhid al-Uluhiya, which was the Tawhid preached by the Prophets and Apostles of Allah, and by great revivalists within the Umma, the likes of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Shah Isma’il of Delhi رحمة الله عليهما, was having an effect on the Muslim world. Educated and sincere Muslims were beginning to turn their backs on the shirk of grave worship and supplicating to the deceased. But then Mawdudi came along and introduced a new idea that the real shirk of our time is the shirk in Hakamiya. According to his twentieth century political fikr, greatly influenced by revolutionary Marxism, in order to establish Tawhid in the Earth, Believers must seize power from the various rulers and governments in the name of Allah’s absolute sovereignty. According to Mawdudi, this is the true effort of Tawhid and waging of war against shirk. The truth is, however, that Mawdudi’s redefining of Tawhid diverted and divided the original tendency of establishing Tawhid al-Uluhiya and combating the shirk of grave worship. In order to justify this, Mawdudi claimed:
اگر کوئی شخص اللہ کے حکم کی سند کے بغیر کسی کے حکم کو واجب الاطاعت سمجھتا ہے تو وہ ویسا ہی شرک کرتا ہے جیسا کہ ایک غیر اللہ سے دعا مانگنے والا شرک کرتا ہے۔
“If someone, without the chain of authorization from Allah, considers the order of someone else as an obligation to obey, then he is committing shirk just as someone commits shirk by supplicating to other than Allah.” [Quran Ki Char Bunyadi Istilahain p.36]:


Of course, whether it is right or wrong to consider obedience to anyone without authorization from Allah obligatory, it is certainly not shirk on the same level as praying or supplicating to other than Allah. It should be clarified that absolute obedience is due only to Allah, and as the Prophet Muhammad [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] said:

لاَ طَاعَةَ فِي مَعْصِيَةِ اللَّهِ إِنَّمَا الطَّاعَةُ فِي الْمَعْرُوفِ ‏
“There is no obedience to that which is disobedience to Allah. Verily, there is no obedience except in the good.”
[Sahih Muslim]

In other words, there is no unconditional or absolute obedience to anyone but Allah. However, to obey anyone besides Allah, including without authorization from Allah, and obedience to that which is disobedience to Allah, is not shirk. It may be sinful, but to declare it shirk, as Mawdudi has done, is false. As for considering obedience to anyone as necessary without authorization from Allah, this too is not shirk, though it may be wrong, especially if that obedience entails disobedience to Allah. Therefore, Islam enjoins children to be obedient to their parents, wives to obey their husbands, slaves to obey their masters, and subjects to obey their worldly rulers. This is in fact the fitra, or natural disposition. It is wrong to define worship as merely obedience to commands. Worship is much broader as I have explained previously.

Monday, 18 February 2019

Truth is Not With the Majority

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على أشرف الانبياء والمرسلين

Some misguided groups such as the Barelwis/Quburis and Asharis/Maturidis, claim they are upon the truth because they form the majority or a plurality within the Umma. However, Allah Most High declares in His Book that the majority are misguided:

إِنَّهُ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ
Indeed, it is the Truth from your Lord, but most of the people do not believe
[Sura 11:17]

And if it is argued that this and other Ayat refer to humanity as a whole, and not the majority of those who believe in Allah, then the answer is in this Aya:
وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُم بِاللَّـهِ إِلَّا وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ
And most of them believe not in Allah except while they associate others with Him
[Sura 12:106]

Therefore, Believers are enjoined not to follow the majority. Indeed, to follow the majority of the people is a cause of misguidance, as Allah says:

وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ
And if you obey most of those upon the Earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah
[Sura 6:116]
As for the Sawad al-A’zam, which is usually but incorrectly translated to mean “the great majority”, it actually means the great blackness. According to a Hadith:
إِنَّ أُمَّتِي لَنْ تَجْتَمِعَ عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ فَإِذَا رَأَيْتُمُ اخْتِلاَفًا فَعَلَيْكُمْ بِالسَّوَادِ الأَعْظَمِ
“Verily, my Umma will not unite upon misguidance. So if you see differing, then follow the Sawad al-A’zam”
[Sunan Ibn Maja #3950]

But this Hadith is extremely weak due to the two narrators Mu’an b. Rifa’a and Abu Khalaf Hazim b. Ataa, the latter a confirmed liar. And if the term ‘Sawad al-A’zam’ is indeed authentic from the Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam], it does not mean the majority of the Umma in all times and places.

Those who insist that the majority is upon the truth cite other Hadith which speak of adhering to the Jama’a of the Muslims, for example:

عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْجَمَاعَةِ وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَالْفُرْقَةَ فَإِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ مَعَ الْوَاحِدِ وَهُوَ مِنَ الاِثْنَيْنِ أَبْعَدُ مَنْ أَرَادَ بُحْبُوحَةَ الْجَنَّةِ فَلْيَلْزَمِ الْجَمَاعَةَ
“Adhere to the Jama’a, beware of separation, for indeed Satan is with one, and he is further away from two. Whoever wants the best place in Paradise, then let him stick to the Jama’a”
(Jami at-Tirmidhi, #2165)

يَدُ اللَّهِ مَعَ الْجَمَاعَةِ
“Allah’s Hand is with the Jama’a”
(ibid, #2166)

In explanation of the term ‘Jama’a’, the compiler of these narrations, Abu Isa al-Tirmidhi [rahimahullah] said:
قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَتَفْسِيرُ الْجَمَاعَةِ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ هُمْ أَهْلُ الْفِقْهِ وَالْعِلْمِ وَالْحَدِيثِ ‏.‏ قَالَ وَسَمِعْتُ الْجَارُودَ بْنَ مُعَاذٍ يَقُولُ سَمِعْتُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ الْحَسَنِ يَقُولُ سَأَلْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ مَنِ الْجَمَاعَةُ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ ‏.‏ قِيلَ لَهُ قَدْ مَاتَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ ‏.‏ قَالَ فُلاَنٌ وَفُلاَنٌ ‏.‏ قِيلَ لَهُ قَدْ مَاتَ فُلاَنٌ وَفُلاَنٌ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ أَبُو حَمْزَةَ السُّكَّرِيُّ جَمَاعَةٌ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى وَأَبُو حَمْزَةَ هُوَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مَيْمُونٍ وَكَانَ شَيْخًا صَالِحًا وَإِنَّمَا قَالَ هَذَا فِي حَيَاتِهِ عِنْدَنَا
“The explanation of the Jama’a, according to the people of knowledge, is the people of fiqh, knowledge, and Hadith.” He said: “I heard al-Jarud bin Mu’adh saying: I heard Ali bin al-Hasan saying: ‘I asked Abdullah bin al-Mubarak: Who is the Jama’a?’ So he said: ‘Abu Bakr and Umar.’ It was said to him: ‘Abu Bakr and Umar have died.’ He said: ‘So-and-so.’ It was said to him: ‘So-and-so, and so-and-so have died.’ So Abdullah bin al-Mubarak said: ‘Abu Hamza as-Sukkari is a Jama’a.’” [Abu Isa said:] “Abu Hamza is Muhammad bin Maimun, he was a righteous Shaikh, and he only said this about during his life, according to us.” [ibid, #2167]
In other words, the term ‘Jama’a’ does not always refer to the majority of the Muslims. In explanation of the Prophet’s [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] Hadith:

كَيْفَ أَنْتَ إِذَا كَانَتْ عَلَيْكَ أُمَرَاءُ يُؤَخِّرُونَ الصَّلاَةَ عَنْ وَقْتِهَا أَوْ يُمِيتُونَ الصَّلاَةَ عَنْ وَقْتِهَا ‏ قَالَ قُلْتُ فَمَا تَأْمُرُنِي قَالَ ‏‏ صَلِّ الصَّلاَةَ لِوَقْتِهَا فَإِنْ أَدْرَكْتَهَا مَعَهُمْ فَصَلِّ فَإِنَّهَا لَكَ نَافِلَةٌ
“How would you act when you are under the rulers who would delay the prayer beyond its prescribed time, or they would make prayer a dead thing as far as its proper time is concerned?” I [Abu Dharr] said: “What do you command?” He said: “Observe the prayer at its proper time, and if you can say it along with them do so, for it would be a supererogatory prayer for you.”
[Sahih Muslim]

سَيَلِي أُمُورَكُمْ بَعْدِي رِجَالٌ يُطْفِئُونَ السُّنَّةَ وَيَعْمَلُونَ بِالْبِدْعَةِ وَيُؤَخِّرُونَ الصَّلاَةَ عَنْ مَوَاقِيتِهَا ‏ فَقُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنْ أَدْرَكْتُهُمْ كَيْفَ أَفْعَلُ قَالَ ‏ تَسْأَلُنِي يَا ابْنَ أُمِّ عَبْدٍ كَيْفَ تَفْعَلُ لاَ طَاعَةَ لِمَنْ عَصَى اللَّهَ
“Among those in charge of you, after I am gone, will be men who extinguish the Sunna and follow innovation. They will delay the prayer from its proper time.” I [Ibn Mas’ud] said: “O Messenger of Allah, if I live to see them, what should I do?” He said: “You ask me, O Ibn Umm Abd, what you should do? There is no obedience to one who disobeys Allah.”
[Sunan Ibn Maja #2865]

Sayyidina Ibn Mas’ud [radi Allahu anhu] said:
إنما الجماعة ما وافق طاعة الله وإن كنت وحدك
“The Jama’a is none other than that which complies with the obedience of Allah, even if you are alone.”
[Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahl us-Sunna wal-Jama’a lil-Lalika’i; #160]:


 

إن جمهور الجماعة هم الذين فارقوا الجماعة الجماعة ما وافق الحق وان كنت وحدك
“The majority are those who split off from the Jama’a. The Jama’a is that which agrees with the Truth, even if you are alone.”
[Tahdhib al-Kamal  lil-Mizzi v.22 p.264]:


The great muhaddith, Nu’aim b. Hammad [d. 228 H] likewise said in explanation of this Hadith:
إذا فسدت الجماعة فعليك بما كانت عليه الجماعة قبل أن تفسد وان كنت وحدك فإنك أنت الجماعة حينئذ
“If the Jama’a becomes corrupt, then you must adhere to its practice before it became corrupt. Even if you are alone, then you by yourself would be the true Jama’a.” [ibid, p.265]:

In explanation of the term Sawad al-A’zam, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya [rahimahullah] wrote:
واعلم أن الإجماع والحجة والسواد الأعظم هو العالم صاحب الحق وإن كان وحده وإن خالفه أهل الأرض
“Know that the Ijma [concensus], Hujja [proof], and Sawad al-A’zam is the scholar, man of the Truth, even if he is alone, and even if the people of the Earth oppose him.” [I’lam al-Muwaqi’in v.5 p.388]:


Then he brings the example of the great Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal [radi Allahu anhu]:
وكان الإمام احمد وحده هو الجماعة
“And the Imam Ahmad alone was the Jama’a” [ibid, p.389]:

During the Mihna, or the tribulation of khalq al-Quran, the vast majority of the Ulama, out of fear of the Abbasid ruler, either kept silent or pronounced the false creed that the Quran is a created thing. It was only Imam Ahmad who remained steadfast and courageously proclaimed the truth that the Quran is the uncreated Speech of Allah. Thus, at that time, the truth was represented by Imam Ahmad alone, he was the Jama’a of the Muslims.
The fact of the matter is that only during the time of the Sahaba and the Salaf were the majority of the Muslims upon the truth. The Prophet [sall Allahu alayhi wasallam] predicted that in the latter days the majority of the people will be corrupt and those who remain upon the Truth will be the Ghuraba. The Hadith point to the fact that in the latter days, the Umma will have declined significantly, and become divided into numerous, astray sects. They will largely be negligent of the Sunna, but those whom the Prophet [alayihis-salam] praised in that time will be a revivalist tendency that is estranged from the majority of the people:

طُوبَى لِلْغُرَبَاءِ ، فَقِيلَ : مَنْ الْغُرَبَاءُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ قَالَ : أُنَاسٌ صَالِحُونَ ، فِي أُنَاسِ سُوءٍ كَثِيرٍ ، مَنْ يَعْصِيهِمْ أَكْثَرُ مِمَّنْ يُطِيعُهُمْ
“Tuba is for the Ghuraba.” It was said: “Who are the Ghuraba, O Apostle of Allah?” He said: “A righteous people in the midst of the numerous evil people. Those who disobey them are more then those who obey them.”
[Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal]

Sunday, 17 February 2019

Resist Assimilation (Part 1)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين
وعلى اهل بيته الطيبين الطاهرين المظلومين
والعاقبة للمتقين
 
According to a recent report from The Economist: “Horst Seehofer, the German interior minister and then-leader of Bavaria’s Christian Socialist Union, was in a conciliatory mood. Addressing a conference of Muslims in Berlin last November, he publicly reversed his earlier position that Islam did not belong in Germany. It could belong, he told his audience, as long as it embraced German, not foreign, values. His call for assimilation was underlined by the bill of fare at the official reception that evening, which included riesling wines and pork-topped canapés. If Muslims did not like the country’s nudity and alcohol, tutted an official, they could go elsewhere. The drive to integrate Islam on Germany’s terms is the brainchild of Markus Kerber, a top civil servant at the interior ministry and founder of the Islam Conference, a gathering of Muslim representatives that Germany has been holding intermittently since 2006. He wants to wrest control of the country’s mosques from foreign hands, a task he likens to that of Otto von Bismarck, Germany’s first chancellor, when he tried to prise the Catholic church from the Vatican’s clutches in the 19th century. Instead of relying on foreign support, Mr Kerber thinks, mosques in Germany could be funded in the same way as Christian and Jewish places of worship: through a voluntary religious levy on registered members of the faith. Foreign imams should be replaced by German ones, who would be trained at the new Islamic-theology departments that some of the German Länder have established at a handful of universities. Within a decade, Mr Kerber hopes, imams will need German certificates to be able to officiate.”
The conspiracy against Islam and Muslims that has come out in the open not merely in Germany, but throughout Western Europe, should be a matter of grave concern for our community. The governments of these countries are committed to forcing Muslims to “assimilate” into European culture and society. They undoubtedly see certain beliefs and practices associated with traditional, orthodox Islam, as a barrier to the nefarious project of assimilation. As the article itself mentions; “nudity and alcohol” are what stand out as examples of “German, not foreign, values”. The article has also hinted at the fact that part of what is meant by “assimilation” is that Muslims will have to start enjoying German cuisine, i.e., wine and pork, which was purposely served at the seminar in which Muslims were invited to participate for discussions on the project for assimilation. The Muslims of Western Europe, particularly Germany and France, need to awaken to the insidious conspiracies being hatched against their faith. It is my firm conviction that Muslim minorities in Europe and America must do everything in their power to avoid assimilation and even integration into the host society, in order to protect their faith and ensure the continuity of the faith among future generations of Muslims in this part of the world. The key to this is to maintain the independence of our religious institutions, our mosques and our imams or ulama, from the control of the government. The plan of our enemy is to require all our imams and preachers be certified from theological seminaries and academies run by the government. In other words, in order for someone to serve as an imam or sermonizer at any mosque in Europe, he must be a graduate of a government institution. Their aim is to prevent the ‘importing’ of imams and preachers from Muslim countries. If this evil project is realized, there will be a radical transformation in how Islam is taught and practiced in the West. Indeed, Islam will be entirely unrecognizable if this happens. The new series of imams will be nothing but government functionaries, completely indoctrinated into homosexualism, feminism, secularism and other anti-Islamic ideas. Muslims in Europe and America have to be urged now to recognize the conspiracy and take prelimary steps to frustrate it. We must, now more than ever, remain attached to our traditionalist imams, preachers and scholars. Their role in our midst must constantly be expanded so that their influence spreads further, especially among the youth. The vast majority of the Muslim youth today are lost and easy prey for any kind of nefarious intent against Islam. Part of the resistance to integration into European society is for Muslim immigrants and their children to maintain their native language. We also have to become more ‘ghettoized’, i.e. live in Muslim enclaves centered around the mosque, where we can preserve our separate religious character and there is less chance of being completely assimilated into the host society. We have to send our children to non-government, private Islamic schools and madaris. All Muslim children should be getting their education from private Islamic schools, but there is a particular need to produce more traditionally trained ulama, therefore, the madrassa serves a critical role for the maintainance of a strong and vibrant Muslim identity in the West.

Friday, 15 February 2019

Declaration of My Faith

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين
وعلى اهل بيته الطيبين الطاهرين المظلومين
والعاقبة للمتقين
تقریباً بارہ برس قبل میں، محمد عبد القادر، نے احمدیہ جماعت عرف قادیانیت سے عليحده ہوا تھا۔ اس وقت سے لیکر ان دنوں میں میں نے اسلام پر کچھ تحقیق کیا ہے اور اللہ جلّ شانہ کا فضل سے اس نتیجہ پر پہنچا ہوں کہ حقیقی اسلام وہی ہے جس کو اہلسنت والجماعت کہتے ہیں۔ میرا کامل یقین ہے کہ اللہ کے سوا کوئی معبود نہی ہے اور سیدنا ومولانا محبوب کبریاء حضرت محمد مصطفی صلوات اللہ وسلامہ علیہ آخری نبی و رسول ہے۔ آپ علیہ السلام کے بعد نہ کوئی نبی ہے اور نہ کوئی رسول۔
 
لا اله الا الله
محمّد رسول الله

Thursday, 14 February 2019

Warning Against False Prophets

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين
والعاقبة للمتقين
Some Christian fundamentalists say that the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth (peace be upon him), warned the people that false prophets will appear after him, and one of those false prophets is – God forbid –  our beloved master Muhammad, the Apostle of God (peace be upon him):

“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:11)

Logically, however, a warning against false prophets does not necessarily mean that every claimant of prophesy after such a warning is a liar. That could only be the case if Jesus said that all of the claimants of prophesy after him will be liars, but there exists no such statement. In fact, the warning against false prophets strongly implies that the door of prophesy is still open. Out of all the prophets of God, it was only the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who made a claim of finality, as it occurs in the Qur’an:
مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَـٰكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّـهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and Seal of the Prophets
(Sura 33:40)

And our blessed Prophet said:
وَإِنَّهُ سَيَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِي ثَلاَثُونَ كَذَّابُونَ كُلُّهُمْ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ نَبِيٌّ وَأَنَا خَاتَمُ النَّبِيِّينَ لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي
“Verily, there shall be in my Umma thirty liars; each claiming that he is a prophet, but I am Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after me.” (Hadith)

So like Jesus of Nazareth, our blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) warned about the rise of false prophets after him, but the crucial difference is that while Jesus of Nazareth never denied that a true prophet may rise after him, our blessed Prophet Muhammad said that every claimant to prophesy after him is necessarily a liar, as he is the last prophet. In fact, far from stating that no prophet will be sent by God after him, Jesus of Nazareth gave glad tidings of someone who shall come and guide the people into the full truth: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13)
Christians claim that this prophecy is in reference to the Holy Spirit, who is the “third person” of the triune godhead according to them. But on closer inspection, it becomes clear from this text that the Pneuma tes Aletheias is not a person of the so-called “godhead”, but a prophet of God who does not speak of himself “but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak”, as stated in the Torah: “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Hence, Allah Most High says about our blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ ﴿٣﴾ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ
Nor does he speak from his own inclination. It is but a revelation revealed.
(Sura 53:3-4)

It is worth noting here that some sects of Christianity like the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, but rather: “The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force...the Bible shows that the holy spirit is not a person”. This is all the more reason for Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular to consider the prophetic words of Jesus in John 16:13, because the ‘Spirit of Truth’ spoken of there is clearly a person. According to another statement attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John, the Parakletos (Paraclete), which means ‘advocate, intercessor, consoler, comforter, helper’  (Strong's Concordance) could only come after the passing away of Jesus: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7) If Christians insist that the Paraclete is none other than the Holy Spirit and not a future prophet, they will have no choice but to confess that the Holy Spirit was not present with Jesus, but only came after the passing away of the latter. This, however, is clearly contrary to the Gospels which speak of the presence of the Holy Spirit throughout Jesus’s ministry. According to the Christian New Testament, a false prophet does not persist for long: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1) Among the clear signs of a false prophet is that he calls people to heresy and rejection of God, like the false prophets and oracles of Baal and other idols. Such false prophets are in reality soothsayers, and they do not prophesy in the Name of the One, True God. The Book of Acts describes one such false prophet, Barjesus, a Jewish sorcerer (Acts 13:6). In our own time, there have risen various Christian false prophets, like Joseph Smith. He founded an openly polytheistic cult, known as Latter-Day Saints or Mormons. The teaching of polytheism is a definite sign of a false prophet, while the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are radically monotheistic and unitarian, affirming belief in the same God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the succeeding Israelite Prophets.

Sayyidatuna Aishah (RA): Say He is Seal of Prophets But Don't Say 'No Prophet After Him'

  باسمك اللهم اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد The Mother of Believers, sayyidatuna A’ishah سلام الله عليها reportedly said: قُولُوا خَاتَمُ الن...