The unity of the Ummah: a state of mind above all else

The unity of the Ummah: a state of mind above all else

Perspectives by Iqbal Siddiqui


The unity of the Muslim Ummah is a reality proclaimed in the Qur’an, in the ayah “Verily this Ummah of yours is one Ummah…” (21:92) and numerous others. It is one of the key strengths of the Ummah at many levels, from the cultural to the political. It is the unity of the Ummah, the common understanding that all Muslims are brothers and sisters in faith, that makes Muslims feel at home wherever they may go in the Muslim world. However, translating this principle of unity into practical unity at a more functional level has always proved problematic; from the earliest days of Muslim history there have been differences and conflict within the Ummah, as Muslims have disagreed on fundamental issues of politics and fiqh.
In recent times, there has been a sustained campaign to promote sectarianism in the Ummah in order to isolate Islamic Iran and minimise its influence over the rest of the Ummah. One of the immediate results of the revolution was a massive outpouring of sectarian, anti-Shi‘i literature in the Sunni world, mainly funded by the Saudis and the Islamic institutions linked to them. The impact of this campaign has been immense, with many Sunnis, even those who have no truck with the Saudis, harbouring sectarian hostility towards Shi‘is, to the extent of explicitly or implicitly questioning whether they are even Muslims. Such attitudes are based entirely on ignorance and misunderstanding, albeit deliberately promoted, but are immensely damaging nonetheless. The sectarian violence seen in Iraq in recent years, in which both Sunnis and Shi‘is have been both perpetrators and victims of appalling atrocities, is a tragic example of the dangers of this approach. Even our Western enemies have recognised the potential for damage to the Ummah by emphasising sectarian issues; from the outset the Islamic Revolution was described and discussed as a Shi‘i phenomanon rather than an Islamic one.
We should recognise, however, that these campaigns were successful only because they appealed to receptive minds.  There has unfortunately been a tendency to sectarianism in the Ummah for a long time; there have always been ‘ulama and political leaders, Sunni and Shi‘i alike, who have preferred to emphasise differences between Muslims instead of what they have in common. This has been the case even among those whom Sunnis and Shi‘is recognise as Muslims of different schools of thought, rather than being outside the Ummah. It is the effect of this sort of attitude, reflected in ingrained cultural and social behaviour on both sides, that has, over decades and centuries, laid the ground for the sort of extreme sectarianism that has been deliberately cultivated in the last few decades. It is important to note, moreover, that this is not only a Sunni problem, although — because of the success of the Islamic Revolution — it has been whipped up among Sunnis in particular. There have been plenty of Shi‘i ‘ulama who have responded to the Saudi-financed campaign by choosing to emphasise their Shi‘ism and attacking Sunnis, which attitudes have played into the hands of Sunni sectarians, and have also laid the ground for the Shi‘i extremism in Iraq today. A sectarian sense of Shi‘i exceptionalism has also contributed to the fact that Islamic Iran has failed to reach out to the rest of the Ummah as effectively as it should have done.
Yet throughout Muslim history there have been voices in the Ummah that have sought to minimise differences and focus on what Muslims have in common, rather than focussing on differences and areas of disagreement. In recent years, Crescent has regularly reported on the work of the Majma‘ al-Taqrib bayn al-Madhahib Islami (Organisation for Proximity between Schools of Thought in Islam).
This was created after the Islamic Revolution, but is part of a long tradition of dialogue and cooperation that includes the Dar al-Taqrib al-Madhahib created as a result of the cooperation between senior ‘ulama at Al-Azhar in Cairo and Qum in Iran in the 1940s. This cooperation led to Mahmoud Shaltut, rector of al-Azhar, introducing the teaching of Shi‘i theology at al-Azhar in 1959. Muslims regularly show their instinctive understanding of the unity of the Ummah by supporting Hizbullah, a predominantly Shi‘i movement, and indeed the Islamic State of Iran. The relations between Hizbullah, Iran, and the Hamas resistance movement in Palestine, which is an off-shoot of the Ikhwan, is an example of unity in practice.

Unity is, first and foremost, a state of mind; we must make a conscious effort to realise the unity of the Ummah proclaimed by Allah (Â) by focussing on what we have in common rather than on our differences. At this crucial time in the struggle of the Islamic movement, it is essential that all Muslims, in all parts of the world, and of all schools of thought, rise above sectarian issues to stand united against the enemies of Islam.

pull quote:
Unity is, first and foremost, a state of mind; we must make a conscious effort to realise the unity of the Ummah proclaimed by Allah (Â), by focussing on what we have in common rather than on our differences.

Wahabism/Salafeesm & Tawheedsm are all innovations and Shirk

Wahabism/Salafeesm & Tawheedsm are all innovations and Shirk - I will prove all these gradually; but the question at hand is NAJD; lets go step by Step.

Since all of you say that “ONLY” what you believe is correct; Let me prove you wrong with Data which Wahabis can’t change or refute; All my evidence is of authentic orign- Lets talk about the following arguments;

(1) Nejd is in Arabia- what the prophet (sal) indicated. Not Iraq as Wahabis try to indicate through fabricated articles. Also forecasts of Nejd and its Shaithan ibn Al-Wahab, Wahabi prophesies (Hadees) of Holy Prophet (sal).
(2) The Birth Place of Mohammed Ibn Al-Wahab Al-Najdi is the same nejd in Arabia. Unless Wahabis say he was born in Iraq.
(3) That Wahabism is SHIRK or an innovation and was spread by Violence- Murder, Rape & Looting. It’s off-shoots the Salafism, Tawheesm,etc.

PART 1;

Let Me 1st Start with Nejd/Najd - Please read the article and then tell me whether you agree with me or not; If you disagree then prove me wrong without using wahabi biased websites/links & articles of of Wahabis/Salafee Jamath or Tawheeds Jamath;

(1)Najd – Nejd- Najdi: (also refer attached maps for better understanding what we're talking about)

Abdullah bin Umar (Radiallhu Anhu) narrates in Muslim Shareef: “The Holy Prophet (Sallal Laahu Alaihi Wasallam) once emerged from the room of his wife, Hazrat Ayesha (Radiallahu Anha) and pointing towards Najd exclaimed:‘This is the center of Kufr from where the horn of Shaitaan will rise’.”(Muslim Shareef Vol. ii, PP. 1394)

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet (s)said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The People said, “And also on our NAJD.” He said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! And also on our NAJD.” I think the third time the Prophet (s) said, “There (in NAJD) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan.” Sahi Bukhari (Book #88, Hadith #214)
Fact in Modern History: Najd is in Arabia Not In Iraq.
The Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd was established after the Kingdom of Hejaz had been conquered by Nejd in the mid-1920s. In January 8, 1926, the Sultan of Nejd, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, was crowned King of the Hejaz in the Grand Mosque of Mecca. On January 29, 1927 he also took the title King of Nejd, as opposed to the earlier Sultan. At the Treaty of Jeddah in May 20, 1927, Abdul Aziz's realm was recognized by the United Kingdom and was addressed as the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd. In September 23, 1932, the main regions Al-Hasa, Qatif, Nejd and Hejaz were unified and the kingdom got its name changed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd could pursue its expansionist policy by British arms supplies because of its close relations with the United Kingdom.
All of you’re trying to prove to me and the rest of Forum members that Nejd is in Iraq and you have quoted and given varies links of Wahabi based websites as well as Wahabi-Articles. These links don’t ‘wash with us’ as it is your own creation & fabrication of actual data. We must get independent analysis and independent authentic verifiable data to prove a point.

Many a times we meet ignorant wahabis in life who say that NAJD is Iraq. This statement ensures that the person has been reading Wahabi FABRICATED materials and has been brain washed by the wahabi speakers.If one does not have interest in reading, please analyze these evidence.

Let me prove it to you with a layman’s language that NEJD; the place where Holy Prophet Mohammed (sal) warned Muslims is none other than Nejd province of Arabia using independent and verifiable data.

Even the briefest glimpse at a modern atlas will show that a straight line drawn to the east of al-Madina al-Munawwara does not pass anywhere near Iraq, but passes some distance to the south of Riyadh; that is to say, through the exact centre of Najd. The hadiths which speak of ‘the East’ in this context hence support the view that Najd is indicated, not Iraq. (Refer attached map which speaks for iteself)

The etymological sense of the Arabic word najd, which means ‘high ground’. Again, a brief consultation of an atlas resolves this matter decisively. With the exception of present-day northern Iraq, which was not considered part of Iraq by any Muslim until the present century (it was called ‘al-Jazira’), Iraq is notably flat and low-lying, much of it even today being marshland, while the remainder, up to and well to the north of Baghdad, is flat, low desert or agricultural land. Najd, by contrast, is mostly plateau, culminating in peaks such as Jabal Tayyi’ (1300 metres), in the Jabal Shammar range.

Further evidence can be cited from the cluster of hadiths which identify the miqat points for pilgrims. In a hadith narrated by Imam Nasa’i (Manasik al-Hajj, 22), ‘A’isha (r.a.) declared that ‘Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) established the miqat for the people of Madina at Dhu’l-Hulayfa, for the people of Syria and Egypt at al-Juhfa, for the people of Iraq at Dhat Irq, and for the people of Najd at Qarn, and for the Yemenis at Yalamlam.’ Imam Muslim (Hajj, 2) narrates a similar hadith: ‘for the people of Madina it is Dhu’l-Hulayfa - while on the other road it is al-Juhfa - for the people of Iraq it is Dhat Irq, for the people of Najd it is Qarn, and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam.’

HadithBook 007, Number 2666: Sahih MuslimAbu Zubair heard Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) as saying as he was asked about (the place for entering upon the) state of Ihram: I heard (and I think he carried it directly to the Apostle of Allah) him saying: For the people of Medina Dhu'l-Hulaifa is the place for entering upon the state of Ihram, and for (the people coming through the other way, i. e. Syria) it is Juhfa; for the people of Iraq it is Dbat al-'Irq; for the people uf Najd it is Qarn (al-Manazil) and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam.

These texts constitute unarguable proof that the Prophet (s.w.s.) distinguished between Najd and Iraq, so much so that he appointed two separate miqat points for the inhabitants of each. For him, clearly, Najd did not include Iraq.

Independent Verifiable data from: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571297/najd.html

Najd, also Nejd, region in central Saudi Arabia. A plateau region, it is bounded on the west by the mountains of Al Ḩijāz (the Hejaz) and on all other sides by sand deserts. The region is sparsely inhabited except for a string of oases. The national capital, Riyadh, is located here. Najd became the center of the Wahhabi reform movement of Islam in the 18th century (see Wahhabis). The Wahhabi leader and sultan of Najd, Ibn Saud, began the consolidation of what was to become Saudi Arabia, with the capture of Riyadh in 1901.


Independent Verifiable data from:
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Najd
Najd or Nejd (Arabic: نجد Naǧd) is a region in central Saudi Arabia and the location of the nation's capital, Riyadh. Najd is a plateau ranging from 762 to 1,525m in height. The eastern section is marked by oasis settlements, elsewhere the region is sparsely occupied by nomadic Bedouins. An individual from Najd is called a Najdi in Arabic.
Independent Verifiable data from:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/najd.htm

Arabic: najdOther spelling: Nejd
Region in north-central Saudi Arabia, with about 7 million inhabitants (2003 estimate). It was a kingdom from 1902 until 1932. The geography of Najd is rocky plateau. It is bordered by the mountains of Hijaz in the south-west; Jordan and Iraq in the north; the Saudi coast of the Persian Gulf known as al-Hasa in the east; and the empty quarter of the Arabian peninsula, Rub al-Khali, in the south. Najd is politically the heartland of modern Saudi Arabia, as it was from here that the Saud family conquered the rest of the regions now making up the country.In modern Saudi Arabia Najd is called the Central Region, comprising 3 provinces; Ha'il, Buraydah and Riyadh.

The Hadith of Najd: The land of Najd, which for two centuries has been the crucible of the Wahhabi doctrine, is the subject of a body of interesting hadiths and early narrations which repay close analysis. Among the best-known of these hadiths is the relation of Imam al-Bukhari in which Ibn Umar said: ‘The Prophet (s.w.s.) mentioned: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and he said: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and I believe that he said the third time: “In that place are earthquakes, and seditions, and in that place shall rise the devil’s horn [qarn al-shaytan].”’This hadith is clearly unpalatable to the Najdites themselves, some of whom to this day strive to persuade Muslims from more reputable districts that the hadith does not mean what it clearly says. One device used by such apologists is to utilise a definition which includes Iraq in the frontiers of Najd. By this manoeuvre, the Najdis draw the conclusion that the part of Najd which is condemned so strongly in this hadith is in fact Iraq, and that Najd proper is excluded. Medieval Islamic geographers contest this inherently strange thesis (see for instance Ibn Khurradadhbih, al-Masalik wa’l-mamalik [Leiden, 1887], 125; Ibn Hawqal, Kitab Surat al-ard [Beirut, 1968],18); and limit the northern extent of Najd at Wadi al-Rumma, or to the deserts to the south of al-Mada’in. There is no indication that the places in which the second wave of sedition arose, such as Kufa and Basra, were associated in the mind of the first Muslims with the term ‘Najd’. On the contrary, these places are in every case identified as lying within the land of Iraq.The evasion of this early understanding of the term in order to exclude Najd, as usually understood, from the purport of the hadith of Najd, has required considerable ingenuity from pro-Najdi writers in the present day. Some apologists attempt to conflate this hadith with a group of other hadiths which associate the ‘devil’s horn’ with ‘the East’, which is supposedly a generic reference to Iraq. While it is true that some late-medieval commentaries also incline to this view, modern geographical knowledge clearly rules it out. Even the briefest glimpse at a modern atlas will show that a straight line drawn to the east of al-Madina al-Munawwara does not pass anywhere near Iraq, but passes some distance to the south of Riyadh; that is to say, through the exact centre of Najd. The hadiths which speak of ‘the East’ in this context hence support the view that Najd is indicated, not Iraq.On occasion the pro-Najdi apologists also cite the etymological sense of the Arabic word najd, which means ‘high ground’. Again, a brief consultation of an atlas resolves this matter decisively. With the exception of present-day northern Iraq, which was not considered part of Iraq by any Muslim until the present century (it was called ‘al-Jazira’), Iraq is notably flat and low-lying, much of it even today being marshland, while the remainder, up to and well to the north of Baghdad, is flat, low desert or agricultural land. Najd, by contrast, is mostly plateau, culminating in peaks such as Jabal Tayyi’ (1300 metres), in the Jabal Shammar range. It is hard to see how the Arabs could have routinely applied a topographic term meaning ‘upland’ to the flat terrain of southern Iraq (the same territory which proved so suitable for tank warfare during the 1991 ‘Gulf War’, that notorious source of dispute between Riyadh’s ‘Cavaliers’ and ‘Roundheads’).Confirmation of this identification is easily located in the hadith literature, which contains numerous references to Najd, all of which clearly denote Central Arabia. To take a few examples out of many dozens: there is the hadith narrated by Abu Daud (Salat al-Safar, 15), which runs: ‘We went out to Najd with Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) until we arrived at Dhat al-Riqa‘, where he met a group from Ghatafan [a Najdite tribe].’ In Tirmidhi (Hajj, 57), there is the record of an encounter between the Messenger (s.w.s.) and a Najdi delegation which he received at Arafa (see also Ibn Maja, Manasik, 57). In no such case does the Sunna indicate that Iraq was somehow included in the Prophetic definition of ‘Najd’.Further evidence can be cited from the cluster of hadiths which identify the miqat points for pilgrims. In a hadith narrated by Imam Nasa’i (Manasik al-Hajj, 22), ‘A’isha (r.a.) declared that ‘Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) established the miqat for the people of Madina at Dhu’l-Hulayfa, for the people of Syria and Egypt at al-Juhfa, for the people of Iraq at Dhat Irq, and for the people of Najd at Qarn, and for the Yemenis at Yalamlam.’ Imam Muslim (Hajj, 2) narrates a similar hadith: ‘for the people of Madina it is Dhu’l-Hulayfa - while on the other road it is al-Juhfa - for the people of Iraq it is Dhat Irq, for the people of Najd it is Qarn, and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam.’These texts constitute unarguable proof that the Prophet (s.w.s.) distinguished between Najd and Iraq, so much so that he appointed two separate miqat points for the inhabitants of each. For him, clearly, Najd did not include Iraq.
Najd in the HadithThere are many hadiths in which the Messenger (s.w.s.) praised particular lands. It is significant that although Najd is the closest of lands to Makka and Madina, it is not praised by any one of these hadiths. The first hadith cited above shows the Messenger’s willingness to pray for Syria and Yemen, and his insistent refusal to pray for Najd. And wherever Najd is mentioned, it is clearly seen as a problematic territory. Consider, for instance, the following noble hadith:Amr ibn Abasa said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) was one day reviewing the horses, in the company of Uyayna ibn Hisn ibn Badr al-Fazari. [...] Uyayna remarked: “The best of men are those who bear their swords on their shoulders, and carry their lances in the woven stocks of their horses, wearing cloaks, and are the people of the Najd.” But Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “You lie! Rather, the best of men are the men of the Yemen. Faith is a Yemeni, the Yemen of [the tribes of] Lakhm and Judham and Amila. [...] Hadramawt is better than the tribe of Harith; one tribe is better than another; another is worse [...] My Lord commanded me to curse Quraysh, and I cursed them, but he then commanded me to bless them twice, and I did so [...] Aslam and Ghifar, and their associates of Juhaina, are better than Asad and Tamim and Ghatafan and Hawazin, in the sight of Allah on the Day of Rising. [...] The most numerous tribe in the Garden shall be [the Yemeni tribes of] Madhhij and Ma’kul.’ (Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Tabarani, by sound narrators. Cited in Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami, Majma‘ al-zawa’id wa manba‘ al-fawa’id [Cairo, 1352], X, 43).The Messenger says ‘You lie!’ to a man who praises Najd. Nowhere does he praise Najd - quite the contrary. But other hadiths in praise of other lands abound. For instance:Umm Salama narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) gave the following counsel on his deathbed: ‘By Allah, I adjure you by Him, concerning the Egyptians, for you shall be victorious over them, and they will be a support for you and helpers in Allah’s path.’ (Tabarani, classed by al-Haythami as sahih [Majma‘, X, 63].) (For more on the merit of the Egyptians see Sahih Muslim, commentary by Imam al-Nawawi [Cairo, 1347], XVI, 96-7.)Qays ibn Sa‘d narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) said: ‘Were faith to be suspended from the Pleiades, men from the sons of Faris [south-central Iran] would reach it.’ (Narrated in the Musnads of both Abu Ya‘la and al-Bazzar, classified as Sahih by al-Haythami. Majma‘, X, 64-5. See further Nawawi’s commentary to Sahih Muslim, XVI, 100.)Allah’s Messenger said: ‘Tranquillity (sakina) is in the people of the Hijaz.’ (al-Bazzar, cited in Haythami, X, 53.) On the authority of Abu’l-Darda (r.a.), the Messenger of Allah (s.w.s.) said: ‘You will find armies. An army in Syria, in Egypt, in Iraq and in the Yemen.’ (Bazzar and Tabarani, classified as sahih: al-Haythami, Majma‘, X, 58.) This constitutes praise for these lands as homes of jihad volunteers.‘The angels of the All-Compassionate spread their wings over Syria.’ (Tabarani, classed as sahih: Majma‘, X, 60. See also Tirmidhi, commentary of Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Mubarakfuri: Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi bi-sharh Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, X, 454; who confirms it as hasan sahih.)Abu Hurayra narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘The people of Yemen have come to you. They are tenderer of heart, and more delicate of soul. Faith is a Yemeni, and wisdom is a Yemeni.’ (Tirmidhi, Fi fadl al-Yaman, no.4028. Mubarakfuri, X, 435, 437: hadith hasan sahih. On page 436 Imam Mubarakfuri points out that the ancestors of the Ansar were from the Yemen.)‘The people of the Yemen are the best people on earth’. (Abu Ya‘la and Bazzar, classified as sahih. Haythami, X, 54-5.)Allah’s Messenger (s) sent a man to one of the clans of the Arabs, but they insulted and beat him. He came to Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) and told him what had occurred. And the Messenger (s) said, ‘Had you gone to the people of Oman, they would not have insulted or beaten you.’ (Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahaba, 57. See Nawawi’s commentary, XVI, 98: ‘this indicates praise for them, and their merit.’)The above hadiths are culled from a substantial corpus of material which records the Messenger (s.w.s.) praising neighbouring regions. Again, it is striking that although Najd was closer than any other, hadiths in praise of it are completely absent.This fact is generally known, although not publicised, by Najdites themselves. It is clear that if there existed a single hadith that names and praises Najd, they would let the Umma know. In an attempt to circumvent or neutralise the explicit and implicit Prophetic condemnation of their province, some refuse to consider that the territorial hadiths might be in any way worthy of attention, and focus their comments on the tribal groupings who dwell in Najd.
The Generality of the Hadeeth Pertaining to the Fitna Coming from the East.
Al-Bukhaaree includes this hadeeth in the chapter: "The affliction will appear from the East"
212) From the father of Saalim: The Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, stood up besides the pulpit (and pointed towards the east) and said: "Afflictions are there! Afflictions are there! From where appears the horn of Satan" or he said, "the horn of the Sun"
213) From ibn Umar that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alyahi wa sallam, saying while facing the east: "Indeed Afflictions are there, from where appears the Horn of Satan."
Medieval Islamic geographers contest this inherently strange thesis (see for instance Ibn Khurradadhbih, al-Masalik wa’l-mamalik [Leiden, 1887], 125; Ibn Hawqal, Kitab Surat al-ard [Beirut, 1968],18); and limit the northern extent of Najd at Wadi al-Rumma, or to the deserts to the south of al-Mada’in. There is no indication that the places in which the second wave of sedition arose, such as Kufa and Basra, were associated in the mind of the first Muslims with the term ‘Najd’. On the contrary, these places are in every case identified as lying within the land of Iraq.
Nejd and its “Shaithan Wahabi” prophesies (forewarning Hadees)
The Prophet said, Peace be upon him:"They [Khawarij = those outside] transferred the Qur'anic verses meant to refer to unbelievers and made them refer to believers." This is exactly What Wahabis/Salafis & Tawheeds do. 100% fits their description.
"What I most fear in my community is a man who interprets verses of the Qur'an out of context." This is exactly What Wahabis/Salafis & Tawheeds do. 100% fits their description.
"The confusion [fitna] comes from there (and he pointed to the East = Najd in present-day Eastern Saudi Arabia)." This is exactly What Wahabis/Salafis & Tawheeds do. 100% fits their description.
"A people that recite Qur'an will come out of the East, but it will not go past their throats. They will pass through the religion (of Islam) like the arrow passes through its quarry. They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its course. Their sign is that they shave (their heads)."
"There will be in my Community a dissent and a faction, a people with excellent words and vile deeds. They will read Qur'an, but their faith does not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry. They will no more come back to the religion than the arrow will come back to its original course. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all creation. The one who kills them or is killed by them is blessed. They summon to the book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever kills them is closer to Allah than they. Their sign is that they shave (their heads)."
Also: "There will be people in my Community whose mark is that they shave (their heads). They will recite Qur'an, but it will not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its target. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all creation."
"The apex of disbelief is towards the East [Najd]. Pride and arrogance is found among the people of the horse and the camel [Bedouin Arabs]."
"Harshness and dryness of heart are in the East [Najd], and true belief is among the people of Hijaz."
"O Allah, bless our Syria and our Yemen!" They said: "Ya Rasulallah, and our Najd!" He didn't reply. He blessed Syria and Yemen twice more. They asked him to bless Najd twice more but he didn't reply. The third time he said: "There [in Najd] are the earthquakes and the dissensions, and through it will dawn the epoch [or horn] of shaytan."
A version has, "The two epochs [or horns] of shaytan." Some scholars have said that the dual referred to Musaylima the Arch-liar and to Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab.
Some books of history mention the following version in the chapters devoted to the battles against the Banu Hanifa:
"There will be towards the end of time a people who will say to you what neither you nor your forebears ever heard before. Beware of them lest they misguide you and bring you confusion."
"They recite Qur'an and consider it in their favor but it is against them."
"There will be Dajjals and liars among my Community. They will tell you something new, which neither you nor your forefathers have heard. Be on your guard against them and do not let them lead you astray."
"Some people will be standing and calling at the gates of hell; whoever responds to their call, they will throw him into the Fire. They will be from our own people [i.e. Arabs] and will speak our language [Arabic]. Should you live to see them, stick to the main body (jama`a) of the Muslims and their leader. (If there is no main body and no leader,) isolate yourself from all these sects, even if you have to eat from the roots of trees until death overcomes you while you are in that state."
On the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: "Verily in the wake of this time of mine comes a people who will recite Qur'an but it will not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry. They will kill the Muslims and leave the idolaters alone. If I saw them, verily I would kill them the way the tribe of `Aad was killed [i.e. all of them]."
"A shaytan will appear in Najd by whose dissension the Arabia will quake."
"At the end of times a man will come out of Musaylima's country and he will change the religion of Islam." Note: Most of the Khawarij were from the Najd area, from the tribes of Banu Hanifa, Banu Tamim, and Wa'il. Musaylima was from the Banu Hanifa, and Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab is from Tamim.
Abu Bakr said concerning the Banu Hanifa (the tribe of Musaylima the Liar): "Their valley [Najd] will not cease to be a valley of dissensions until the end of time, and the religion will never recover from their liars until Judgment Day," and in another version: "Woe to al-Yamama without end."
When `Ali killed the Khawarij, someone said: "Praise be to Allah Who has brought them down and relieved us from them." Ali replied: "Verily, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, some of them are still in the loins of men and they have not been born yet, and the last of them will fight on the side of the Dajjal/Antichrist."
"There will be a huge confusion within my Community. There will not remain one house of the Arabs except that confusion will enter it. Those who die because of it are in the fire. The harm of the tongue in it will be greater than that of the sword."
Only Wahabis shave their heads/Trim the hair very short as a rule.
I have now proved with Authentic Islamic Data, Historical Evidence and independently verifiable data that NEJD/NAJD is in Arabia; The Birth place of Shaithan Ibn Al-Wahab!

If you think I'm wrong then prove yourself with evidence, not just waste our time with more of Wahabi articles.


"King is always Right! "

King is of Ahl al Sunnah wal Jamaah so the King Can't go wrong!

A Muslim is Never a Wahabi/Salafee Jamath or Tawheed Jamath as these are innovations in Islam & Shirk!

Ibn Al-Wahab is the Shaithan who killed Muslims, Raped & Looted Muslims just for Power! Please read part 2 for historical evidence showing Al-Wahab as an Enemy of Muslims & Islam!

A Muslim is a Muslim just as Allah & Rasool(sal) wanted us to remain - We dont need to call ourselves anything else!

Kind regards
Sabry
King@sol.lk

The House of Saud’s crisis of legitimacy

The House of Saud’s crisis of legitimacy

by Khalil Osman
The aftermath of September 11 has focused attention once more on the House of Saud and its ability to survive. There are growing indications that the genie of waning popularity, which the Saudi dynasty has long feared and tried to control by a legion of gimmicks, has again escaped. True, the Saudi clan is still established in the corridors of power, but an important pillar of its position seems to be seriously eroded.
The crisis has taken the form of a storm of criticism from a number of Saudi ulama, warning the government not to side with the US against a Muslim country. At least seven ulama have reportedly issued fatawa (juristic rulings) condemning the US and Britain for their attacks on Afghanistan. In a series of rulings in September and October, Shaykh Hammoud bin ‘Uqla al-Shu’aybi declared that "whoever supports and backs the infidels against Muslims is considered an infidel." Shu’aybi, a former head of the department of theology at Imam Muhammad bin Saud University, is one of the most prominent and learned ulama in the kingdom. He comes from Najd, the traditional power base of the royal family, and lives in Buraydah, a town north of Riyadh. Buraydah has been a centre of religious opposition to the royal family for a decade; Shu’aybi was imprisoned in the mid-1990s for publicly criticising the ruling family’s policies during and after the Gulf war. He has recently been called in for questioning by the authorities on at least two occasions, but has consistently refused to be silenced.
Similar fatawa issued by Shaykhs Sulayman ‘Alwan and Ali Khudayr, two young ulama with links to Shu’aybi, rule that those supporting the US war against Afghanistan "by hand, by tongue, or by money" are automatically excommunicated from Islam. Other fatawa refer specifically to the country’s rulers as "infidels."
These rulings demonstrate the growing rift between the House of Saud and elements of the Wahhabi establishment. They indicate that cracks are emerging in the 256-year pact between the House of Saud and the followers of Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1793). The deal of 1744 between Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and Muhammad bin Saud, then chieftain of the town of Dar’iyyah in Wadi Hanifah, produced a double-headed political entity that challenged the Ottoman state. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and the ulama exercised religious authority while the Saudi rulers exerted political authority.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab got most of his inspiration from the distinctive political views of Taqiy al-Din Ahmad bin ‘Abd al-Halim bin Taymiyyah al-Harrani (1263-1328), who denied the necessity of the khilafah, arguing that the true khilafah ceased to exist after the four rightly-guided khulafa. Instead of the political unity of the khilafah, he accepted plurality of Muslim states. Ibn Taymiyyah emphasised the importance of cooperation between the de facto rulers and the religious establishment for the implementation of the Shari’ah. He interpreted the Qur’anic phrase "those of you who are in authority" (uli al-amr minkum, 4:59) to mean the ulama and the amirs. The ulama interpret the Shari’ah and have the authority to administer it, mainly as judges, working in conjunction with the amirs.
It can be argued that Ibn Taymiyyah tried to increase the influence of the ulama. His theory was a departure from the classical Sunni view exemplified by Abu al-Hassan ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib al-Mawardi (974-1058), which accepts the legitimacy of de facto rulers, provided that their authority is recognized by the khalifah. Instead, for Ibn Taymiyyah governance and religious learning are combined into a whole whereby shawkah (force, might) becomes dependent on carrying out the objectives of the Shari’ah under the supervision of the ulama. However, in practice the division of power and authority into spiritual and temporal, religious and political, succumbs to an irremediable dualism whereby Shari’ah and deen are subordinated to the exigencies of raison d’etat and politics.
It was through Wahhabism that the political theory of Ibn Taymiyyah found its practical expression. Unlike other reformist movements in the history of Islam, where the ultimate authorities were vested in the leaders of these groups, the duality and bifurcation of religious and political leadership figure prominently in Wahhabism. After the alliance between Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Saud, the conquests of the Saudi-Wahhabi forces spread the Saudis’ dominion and the Wahhabi doctrine simultaneously. As such, Wahhabism provided the Saudi state with legitimation, an acceptance of the House of Saud’s right to rule and their subjects’ obligation to obey them. The Wahhabi ulama became an ideological elite, helping to maintain and legitimize the political system and government.
But Ibn Taymiyyah’s division of authority results in political contradiction. The absolute monopoly of shawkah is bound to clash eventually with the supervisory role of the ulama. Suspended between these two poles, the political system is prone to instability. The arrangement is a double-edged sword. It fosters political dissent on religious grounds. The relative openness of the religious institutions enables them to play a leading role in voicing political grievances.
The main impression that transpires from a cursory examination of Saudi history is that it is the shawkah of the House of Saud, rather than the theological and juristic epistemology of the ulama, that has been setting most of their agenda. The crushing of the Ikhwan fighters, the Wahhabi political force that helped king Abd al-’Aziz to extend his sway throughout the Arabian peninsula in the first quarter of the twentieth century, demonstrated this primacy of the shawkah of the Saudi royal family over the religious institutions in the country’s political life. Oil wealth, which enabled the state to provide the ulama with handsome salaries, social status and positions of importance, supported the royal family’s efforts to absorb the religious institutions of Islam, such as mosques, schools, courts and awqaf (religious endowments), into the state apparatus. By and large, the role of the ulama was reduced to providing institutional support and legitimation for the regime, and engineering the people’s consent.
Yet the 1990-91 Gulf crisis and subsequent war brought this extended honeymoon to an end, as Islamic radicals and ulama began to voice their opposition to the presence of American troops on the Arabian peninsula, and also their dissatisfaction with the royal family’s corrupt and dictatorial rule. A number of prominent ulama, notably Safar al-Hawali, dean of the department of Islamic studies at Umm al-Qura University, Makkah, and Sulayman al-’Udah were quick to denounce the decision of king Fahd bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz to seek western help to confront Saddam Hussein.
The distrust between religious circles and the government over the presence of foreign forces in the kingdom continued after the war. The government’s efforts to obtain religious sanction for its policies through fatawa from the kingdom’s highest religious authorities were in vain. A number of university lecturers and ulama have since castigated the government for adopting policies that they deem to be unIslamic. Audiotapes of many critical lectures circulated around the country; memoranda of advice (naseehah), calling for an independent consultative assembly, an independent judiciary, government accountability and a crackdown on corrupt officials, were addressed to the king.
On the heels of these developments came the establishment of organized opposition groups such as the Committee to Defend Legitimate Rights and the Movement for Islamic Reform. These movements added renewed vigour to non-violent political opposition. They embarked on wide-ranging campaigns using fax, email and toll-free numbers. Unlike earlier episodes, in which dissent erupted into public confrontation, such as the takeover in 1979 of al-Haram al-Shareef in Makkah by Juhayman al-’Utaybi and his followers, this time dissent seems to have wide support. The demonstrations in Buraydah demanding the release of jailed ulama (1994) underline the popularity of the movement.
There has also reportedly been increasing support for Usama bin Ladin. A tape distributed last summer, showing fighters performing urban and guerrilla-warfare games in their camps while bin Ladin criticised the US and Israel, shook the authorities. The tape’s great popularity prompted the police to round up dozens of people suspected of distributing it, and to interrogate them about their links with bin Ladin and his network. The rate of arrests increased dramatically after September 11.

The Saudi government’s reluctance to allow the US to use the Prince Sultan Air Base in Dhahran in its bombing campaign against Afghanistan shows the increasingly difficult predicament it faces: a strong alliance with the US under the present conditions could foment even more serious trouble at home. In fact, internal pressures are more important in explaining the muted Saudi support for the US’s "war on terrorism" than Washington’s pro-Israel bias.
The escalating tension between the Wahhabi ulama and the House of Saud could be explosive. It effectively undermines the religious aspect of the Saudis’ dynastic legitimacy. The claim of legitimacy is an important part of a government’s ability to sustain the consent of the majority of the population, that is their acceptance of that government’s authority over them. No government can long operate without inspiring in its populace an emotional faith in its legitimacy in this sense. Without this it will be increasingly compelled to function by coercion and inducements. Combined with other weaknesses, such as deepening socioeconomic distress, the intensifying crisis of legitimacy could make the cumbersome apparatus of the Saudi state a political Titanic, a ship headed straight for icebergs.
Source:
by courtesy & © 2001 Crescent International & Khalil Osman

Beruwala mosque tragedy

Beruwala mosque tragedy
Assalaamu ‘Alaikum

A disgrace indeed, and one cannot agree more with that remark!

However, all those who protested seem to have missed out one or two very relevant points -

1. When 9/11 took place, we were all shocked by the reaction of the west. We were wondering why
the west did not do a soul searching and ask itself the question "why did 9/11 happen". In beruwela
also, those who write to the newsletters are following the knee-jerk reaction of the west; no attempt
to prevent such occurrences in the future by asking the question "why did this happen?" As long as this
question is not addressed, we will continue to have more such incidents

2. One of those who wrote to these newsletters lamented about the burning of "Allah's Palace". We never saw any such lamentation when "Allah's Palaces" were bombed by saudi-backed extremists in iraq. Are mosques “Allah’s Palaces” only if they are situated in Sri Lanka? Why this peculiarity?

3. Again, soon after the beruwela incident, a moulavi was abducted by the thau in ottumavadi. I have still to see a single letter in these forums condemning it. Are the lives of the thaus of greater import than the lives of the moulavis who differ from them in their views? Upto now NOT A HUM. No crying out by kind ladies to Al-Adel to wreak vengeance – nor any newsletters beginning with heart-rending cries of Oh God – Ya Rab by concerned citizens of our community!! Again, why this difference?

3. Let us face it - the so-called tauhid is backed by funds from saudi. I understand that already in certain
areas of kattankudy or kalmunai (i cannot remember which place), there is a "taliban-style" rule being enforced. Do we want this all over sri lanka? Place your palms over your hearts and reply - do we really want this? Give these guys an inch - they will take a mile.

4. Thuggery has become part and parcel of the various jamaaths in SL; and everybody has been turning a blind eye to it because those who were at the receiving end are those who follow the various thareeqas (sufi orders); now, finally, the worm has turned. Enough is enough, some felt. It has resulted in the most unfortunate and lamentable deaths and we are lamenting as if thuggery in sri lankan islam is something totally new. Pls dont tell me I am wrong. Just walk into the Waqf Board and study the archives there.. Records of violence are there – ingrained!

5. When the body of pailwan (EP) was dug up from the cemetery and dumped on the road (an atrocious act by any standards) and burnt (an act which is the prerogative of Allah) by the wahhabis, those who wrote to the newsletters were chortling and gloating over it! Not a single word of disgust! It is our silence which has resulted in tyranny taking control of sri lankan Islam.

6. As mentioned earlier, the worm has turned! Those who have been at the receiving end for so long have finally decided to hit back! This does not mean that the deaths are justified, but "hakidha dunya" - this is life!

7. We heard a lot about a sheikh (sheikh Prabakaran?) who said “hawla paai” and most of his mureeds jumped into the hawl. To the credit of those mureeds, it must be said they jumped into a hawl of water; yes, they can be classified as fools. The thau guys are those who have jumped into pools of blood and come out of it, because that is the example set by their sheikh – hence, we can safely classify the thaus as dangerous fools.

8. Just as much as a close scrutiny of the bukhary taika Sheikh was in order, it behoves all of us to study the sheikh of these thaus, which was very conveniently omitted by all the brothers who have been contributing to the forum on this subject. According to history, their sheikh was born in najd – and considering what happened subsequently in Islamic history, it is safe to say that he is sheikh qarn al-shaitaan (sheikh of the shaitaan’s two horns). He went by the name of abdul wahhab.

9. Why is abdul wahhab referred to as shaitaan? Because this is what the Prophet (Sal) had to say: Sahib Bukhari: Volume 2, Book 17, Number 147:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
(The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People from Najd said, "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again, "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said, "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan."

10. This wahhab was kicked out by his father and elder brother, and on his travels, he met with ibn saud – and the shrewd wahhab saw the potential behind this man. Wahhab played to the lust of saud by enticing him with his daughter, and then they signed an agreement euphemistically (?) referred to by the muslim world as the “devil’s alliance”

11. What then followed was a veritable bloodbath in the Arabian peninsula. They joined hands with the British and attacked the khilafat which finally led to its collapse, and the establishment of the Saudi dynasty with a bunch of yellow-bellied weak-kneed ulemas who were falling upon one other to issue fatawa which would not be deemed offensive to the house of sauds.

12. What about the bloodbath? The Wahhabi ikhwaan were the most important part of the saudi army. The ferocity of the wahhabi ikhwaan did tend to demoralise a foe. All enemy males, of whatever age, were slaughtered, while the wahhabi ikhwaan also had the un-Arab reputation of killing all women and children if they overran an enemy encampment.

13. So, it is now obvious that the thau sheik has ordered them to jump into hawls of blood – they have absolutely no compunction about killing women and children, as can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan – although, killing women, children, old men and destroying the environment are expressly forbidden in Islam.

14. What happened at Beruwala must be the cue the thaus are waiting for… that they are hell-bent on vengeance is very clearly seen from the remarks made by Mohamed Fazly, a devotee of the Thawheed group, who said, "We are trying to ensure Islam is followed in its proper way and in the purest form. We will deal with those who carried out the savage attacks." This is adding fuel to the fire.. Has any on the concerned citizens of our community who have been bending backwards to accommodate the thau ever wrote a single word in any newsletter condemning this barbaric sentence? NONE !! Again, I ask, why this difference? Why are we molly-coddling and pampering the thaus?

15. If we do not take action now to root out the menace of the neo-talibans, sri lanka faces the prospect of becoming another Afghanistan or iraq. May Allah protect this nation and its citizens from such a calamity. Aameen.

16. My final words to the thau brothers and those who are supporting them – either blindly, or due to ignorance or due to some other reasons: let us always bear in mind Newton’s Third Law!

Wa ‘alaikum as-salaam

Abu Aisha

Mankind’s Need for Religion and Spirituality

Mankind’s Need for Religion and
Spirituality
www.mahjubah.com
By Dr. Zahra Mostafavi
Associate Professor, Faculty of
Theology, University of Tehran
Humans inherently tend
to accept religion and
shape their lives
according to religious doctrines. On
this basis, we can say that religion
is born with the human being.
Having this in mind and attending
to man’s history, we can infer that
humans bring the essence of
religion with themselves, without
the help of any messenger. This
essence is a bunch of their beliefs
which is manifested as a series of
customs and ceremonies. Man is
innerly conscious that no creature,
even himself, is independent and
standing on his own.

In other words, man’s
understanding reached a point at
which he could feel a Supreme
Power and then accept it, and this
power is the Unique God. Man
understood God and pondered over
His nature, and through this he
found himself an inseparable part
of this spiritual entity and this is the
way in which an effective and
piercing instrument seems to be
necessary to interact with God.
Some people believe that this
medium is the heart and spirit; some
others claim this to rituals be
wisdom and intellect. Another
group considers to be sufficient.
They believe that it is enough to
perform religious customs and
prayers. But it is obvious that
anywhere this belief comes from, it
has its roots in religion.
Therefore the history of religions
is an important and mysterious part
of man’s history, because mankind,
after passing the primitive stage of
its history and attaining the best
levels of civilization, has been in
search of a truth beyond himself
and the universe around him. He
does this with the help of prophets
and his own understanding and
inquisitive nature.
With the advent of prophets in
various ages and their heavenly
mission, the human being, the
wonder of creation, gradually
became able to adopt a specific
approach towards the facts of
creation and the things around him,
and ultimately surrendered to
religion, a strong and extensive
chain which was inspired by the
prophets, from Adam to the Seal
of Divine Messengers, Prophet
Muhammad (SAW). Man found it
irresistible to praise and revere the
everlasting truth.
While the human being got to
know himself through the help of
the prophets, and could establish a
wider relationship with his
environment, he had no other
recourse than pondering on the
Creator’s work. Although heretic
beliefs, in their primitive stages,
were a trial of man and enabled him
to pave the way for knowing the
truth, they could not satisfy the
curious human soul.
Thus the inborn longing for the
advent of a messenger forms that
everlasting source of truth, who has
a repository of knowledge and
compensates the human ignorance,
comprises a part of the history of
human development all through the
history.
In each age and according to the
specifications of time and place,
the grounds became suitable for the
advent of a prophet. Worshiping the
idols and the tendency toward
praising the nature, cruelty and lack
of justice, poverty and
discontentment, ethical corruption,
disobedience, and a lot of other
factors brought about the coming
of a prophet in each era.
History shows that the consistent
advent of prophets is not just due
to the atrocity of man over man,
but it peruses a greater goal: wiping
out the custom of worshiping
several gods or idols and inviting
mankind to appreciate the unique
Lord.
Prophets came to remind man of
his promise to God, to awaken the
latent intellects, and to tear out the
shrouds of ignorance and
superstitions, and the chains of
slavery. And that is the mystery of
the human mind’s enlightenment and
wisdom which became fertile by the
help and teachings of prophets.
Modern man, with all his ability
and success in material
achievement, has not been able to
replace spirituality with any
mundane or material concept. That
is why human inclination towards
religion and spirituality is
exceedingly increasing.
The man, who thought if he can
accomplish all his material needs
and have a total license to do
anything he wishes, will be happy
and prosperous thereafter, has now
come to the conclusion that only
God and religion can quench his
thirst.
Marxism and materialism, with all
their atheist slogans and utter
materialism, were unsuccessful for
both this world and the world to
come. Their attempt to protect the
flimsy materialistic structure has
been unsuccessful. They tried for
70 years, but now their theory which
was weaker than a cobweb, has
been destroyed.
Imam Khomeini, in his famous
letter to President Mikhail
Gorbachev, before the
disintegration of the Soviet Union,
states this situation in the best way:
“Mr. Gorbachev, you should turn
to reality. The main problem of your
country is not economics,
ownership, or liberty. Your problem
is lack of faith in God; the same
problem which led the West to
corruption and destruction. Your
major drawback is the war you have
waged against God and the source
of life and creation.
“Mr. Gorbachev, everybody
knows that from now on we should
look for communism in the museums
of political history; since Marxism
can satisfy none of the human
genuine needs; since it is a
materialistic school, and materialism
cannot save humanity from lack of
spirituality, which is the most
essential human affliction in the East
and the West.”
As the late Imam states in this
part of his letter, the most crucial
problem of the modern man is
atheism and lack of faith in
spirituality. This lack of faith has
brought about a discomfort and
inconvenience to human soul, in
spite of all the welfare which
technology has availed man of.
Humans still feel that something is
missing.
Psychological ailments, family
disconcertment, murder, and
thousands of other problems human
beings face in the present age.
Shrouds of ignorance have veiled
the heart, ear, and eye of the modern
man, so that he is quite alienated
from himself, and cannot reflect on
himself, which is the micro
universe. That is why surveying the
major world has not been able to
remind him of God, Who is beyond
this world.
It seems however that this
disillusionment has caused humanity
to turn to spirituality at the onset of
the 21st century. For this reason
many western intellectuals believe
that religious beliefs will become
rampant in this century. They
consider the 21st century the era
in which religion penetrates all
aspects of human existence. They
present some figures and statistics
to prognosticate that the new
century is a period of religious
enthusiasm, and the expectations
of people will drastically increase
in this respect.
Many western critics believe
that the religious tendency will be
stranger than what is imagined.
They announce that at present,
there is no social power stronger
than religion in the world.
Emphasizing the fact that people
are increasingly turning to God,
religion, and spirituality (in the East
and the West), experts have
demonstrated that the view of
returning to secularism has come
to an end. The hallucination that
materialism is exterminating
religions and nothing can prevent
it, is a groundless one. Despite all
promises, harbingers, ambitions,
and attempts of modern civilization
for the well-being of human race
and despite its success in the way
of procuring all the means for the
welfare and comfort of man
(which nobody can deny), the
civilized and seemingly modern
view is being severely challenged.
In fact the new civilization has
contradictory results, that is,
negative and positive
consequences are abundant in it.
Among the negative outputs of this
crisis and are: emotional gaps,
mental disorders, family eruptions,
social disintegrations, dangerous
ecological crises, political crises,
exploitation of the third world
countries, genocides and world
wars, class distinctions, and the
like.
Intellectuals and religious critics
in the East and the West believe
that problems and crises of the
modern world are due to humanistic
doctrines and the alienation of man.
Modern humanistic civilization looks
for all the prosperity, success,
salvation, and futurity in the world
outside and in utilizing its facilities
and assets, and through this wants
to develop human capacities. But
ignoring the ethics and the soul on
the whole, resulted in a condition in
which people cannot establish a
good relationship with their self,
other people, or the environment.
For these critics, such “selfnegligence”
and crisis, and
complications resulting from it, are
ultimately related to forgetting the
root of mankind, and also related to
man’s disregard of his
responsibilities.
The ethical crisis of the
contemporary man is to the extent
that men are coming to this
conclusion: The only hope for the
survival of the world is that faith to
religious criteria and values
becomes dominant in the world. The
universal ethics can only rely on the
main tenets which are common
among great religions, since only
religion can offer values which are
absolute and based on truth, and
practical.

The writer of the article is
Imam Khomeini’s (RA)
daughter. She is not only a
professor at University of
Tehran, but also she is a woman
activist. Her responsibilities are
as follows:
Secretary General of Women
Society Islamic Republic of Iran.
Secretary General Union of
Supporting the Palestinian
Rights.
Head of the Society for
Defending the Palestinian
Nation.
Translated by Mahdi Havashki

Zafar Bangash on the true purpose of Hajj and its despoilment under the Saudi regime

Zafar Bangash on the true purpose of Hajj and its despoilment under the Saudi regime


December 2007


This month, an estimated 2 million Muslims will gather in the Hijaz for the Hajj, the annual gathering of the Ummah in accordance with the orders of Allah swt. and the Seerah of the Prophet. But the Hajj they perform, ZAFAR BANGASH, Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) says, is far removed from what it is supposed to be.


If the past is any guide, an estimated two million Muslims will perform Hajj this year as well. There is another tradition that will be followed to the letter: Hajj will be performed in a mechanical way without most hujjaj ever realising why Allah wants them to go through such a physically and financially demanding exercise. Is there any other purpose beyond visiting the House of Allah for a specified number of days? No doubt visiting the Masjid al-Haram in Makkah is a richly rewarding experience in itself; how many of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims will have this honour in their lifetime?
But it behooves us to ask what the real purpose of Hajj is, and why it is not realized at present. What factors are involved in preventing Muslims from understanding the real purposes and significance of Hajj, based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the life-struggle of Prophets Ibrahim and Muhammad, upon them both be peace and blessings, whose Sunnah the Muslims are trying to follow by performing Hajj?

Let us compare this with another obligatory duty of Muslims: the five-times daily salah. If an average Muslim were asked to describe it, the likely explanation would include the following: to be in a state of tahara (cleanliness), perform wudu, make the niyah, and the mechanics of how salah is performed. Some might even mention that since it is one of the faraid (compulsory acts of ibadah) it has to be performed regularly. All these descriptions and explanations are correct, but they do not reflect its true significance. The word salah is derived from the Arabic root sila, meaning link. Thus, salah is the renewal of our link with Allah by our standing before Him. When we utter the takbir al-ahram to start our salah, we turn our backs on the world around us and initiate direct communication with Allah, praising and thanking Him for what He has bestowed upon us and beseeching Him for His help and guidance. There are two other aspects that must be kept in mind: salah is a great leveller, and is meant to instill discipline. When we stand for salah, all distinctions of class, position and authority are obliterated; whether rich or poor, big or small, official or layman, all are equal before Allah; the only thing that counts is our taqwa.
Like salah, Hajj too has been reduced to a few rituals without appreciating its true meaning or significance. Allah subhanahu wa ta‘ala says in the noble Qur’an: “And people owe Allah [the obligation of] Hajj to the Sacred House; [that is] for those who have the means and the ability to undertake the journey” (Q. 3:97). The “means” and “ability” refer to both financial and emotional as well as physical ability to fulfil the task.
Hajj is the re-enactment of the struggles of Ibrahim and Ismail (as). But we must also remember that Ibrahim (as) was a rebel against the power of taghoot in his native land. For rejecting his people’s false gods, he was thrown into the fire by Nimrod but miraculously saved by Allah. Are we prepared to rebel against the taghoots of our time, or we are content with simply indulging in the rituals of Hajj without understanding the struggle of Ibrahim (as) or reliving it?
There are two other aspects of Hajj that demand attention. First, Hajj is the grand annual assembly of the Ummah, unmatched by any other event in history. It is meant to reflect the unity of the Ummah. Although Muslims gather from all over the world for Hajj, the vast majority come and go quite oblivious of the plight of their fellow Muslims. This is a great opportunity wasted. Allah wants us to get to know each other; Hajj provides a perfect occasion for us to do so, and yet most Muslims perform Hajj in the company of millions of fellow Muslims but remain totally oblivious of their problems or suffering.
This is not accidental; such behaviour has been deliberately cultivated. To understand how Muslims have fallen into this, we need to examine recent history. At the beginning of the last century, the British and French competed for control of the Middle East. The British had realized the significance of the Hijaz, especially the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah that were administered by the Uthmaniyya khilafah. These are important places for mobilizing Muslims. A British officer, Captain R.F Burton, later to become famous as Sir Richard Burton, had expressed concern as early as the 1850s that Makkah and Madinah could be used to propagate ideas that are hostile to Britain, which had colonised large parts of the Muslim world. This was spelled out even more clearly by the British Consul General in Jeddah, a person named Zohrab. In a message to the Foreign Office in London in 1902, he wrote: “The point of real importance to England politically, I believe is that Hijaz is the focal point of Muslim thought and the nucleus from which radiate ideas, advice, instructions and dogmatic implications… The Hijaz is also a point of much political importance to England and its relations with India… [Certain persons] I am persuaded proceed on the Hajj for political reasons. Makkah being free of European intrusion is safe ground on which gatherings can be held, and ideas exchanged. Up to the present time we have kept no watch on those who come and go… Thus meetings may be convened at Makkah at which combinations hostile to us may form without our knowing anything till the shell bursts in our midst… If this Consulate could have a trusted Mussalman agent in Makkah, I believe a great deal of valuable intelligence could be obtained.”
The British consul general’s warning and advice were taken so seriously in London that soon Britain had not one but two trusted “Mussalman” agents serving it in the Arabian Peninsula. One was Sharif Husain ibn Ali of Makkah, who had been appointed by the Turks as governor of the Hijaz in November 1908; the other was Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, founder of the present-day kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Both were paid £5,000 sterling per month and a lump sum of £20,000 annually, according to a statement by Winston Churchill, then British secretary for the colonies, in the House of Commons on March 2, 1922. The two British agents first undermined Turkish rule in the Arabian Peninsula, and later fought each other for control of the Hijaz. Abdul Aziz ibn Saud with his Bedouin hordes turned out to be more ruthless and was successful in driving Sharif Husain out of the Hijaz.
In order to placate Husain, the British carved out Trans-Jordan from the Turkish province of Palestine (which they had occupied in 1918) and placed one of Sharif Husain’s sons, Abdullah, on its throne; his other son, Faisal, was handed control of Syria. Faisal was driven out of there but the British made him king of Iraq, which they also controlled. Even that did not last long; Iraqi Ba‘ath nationalists murdered his grandson Faisal II and the hopes of Husain’s family ruling the entire Arabian Peninsula were dashed. It was left in control of Jordan only, where it continues to this day, under the pompous title of “the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan”, though it is little more than a US-zionist colony serving the interests of the enemies of Islam.
The brigand Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, who had made his mark by robbing pilgrims’ caravans, had consolidated his grip on the entire Arabian Peninsula, including the Hijaz, by 1932, thanks to British military and financial help. He named it “Saudi” Arabia in complete violation of the Prophet’s Sunnah; he (saw) had named this blessed land the Arabian Peninsula. Abdul Aziz and the Aal-e Saud continued to act as British agents until the second world war and then switched to serving American interests once the US emerged as a major power on the world stage. As part of its duties, the House of Saud prevents any activity at the time of Hajj that would lead to criticism of US policies. The Saudis serve their American masters rather than Allah subhanahu wa ta‘ala. This explains why Muslims are prevented from using Hajj as a unifying force for the Ummah or as an occasion to find solutions for its many problems.
We should also bear in mind that while the House of Saud treats the Arabian Peninsula, including Makkah and Madinah, as family property, refusing to heed Muslim advice on the status and administration of the Haramain, this was not always the case. Until 1957 the Nawab of Hyderabad Deccan paid an annual subsidy of £25 million for the maintenance of Makkah and Madinah and for services to the hujjaj. Oil had been discovered in the Arabian Peninsula much earlier, but Western oil-companies paid such a pittance for it that the House of Saud could not afford proper maintenance of the Haramain (Makkah and Madinah) without outside help. It was only after 1957 that they started to bear the costs on their own. What this shows is that the Ummah has never recognised the Haramain as the private property of Aal-e Saud; they are illegal occupiers of these holy places and have caused much damage to them.
Under the pretext of providing “better services” to the hujjaj, the historic sites of Makkah and Madinah have been systematically destroyed. In their place have emerged Western-style concrete buildings—five-star hotels, shopping plazas with such western food-chains as Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken and grease-filled McDonald hamburgers that cater to the tastes of Westernized Muslims but despoil the spiritual environments of Makkah and Madinah. Throughout the world people preserve their historic sites as cherished monuments; the House of Saud is busy obliterating the holy sites of Islam. Today there is no trace of the house where the Prophet (saw) was born or of the house where he lived with Umm al-Mu’mineen Khadija (ra) in Makkah. Madinah’s historic sites have suffered similar destruction. By contrast, relics that promote and project the history of the House of Saud are carefully preserved.
In addition to the physical destruction of Makkah and Madinah, there is an equally serious attempt underway to empty the Hajj of its true divine content and meaning. Allah subhanahu wa ta‘ala commands in the Qur’an that during Hajj, Muslims must proclaim their dissociation (bara’a) from the mushrikeen (Q. 9: 1-18). These ayaat were revealed in the ninth year of the hijrah, when the Muslims, led by Abu Bakr Siddiq (ra), had already left Madinah for Makkah to perform Hajj. The Prophet, upon whom be peace, immediately dispatched Imam Ali (ra) to proclaim these ayaat at the time of Hajj. This open and clear dissociation from the mushrikeen is a Qur’anic command, yet under the weight of official dogma and historical perversion it has been abandoned and almost totally forgotten. One must ask why so few ulama draw attention to this important command of the Qur’an. In fact, these ayaat are seldom or never mentioned in the context of Hajj. Why? Are Muslims not suffering grievously at the hands of the present-day mushrikeen—the rulers of America, Britain, France, Israel, India and the like? If the answer is yes (and there is no other possible answer), why is the occasion of Hajj not used to mobilise the Ummah to defend Muslims from the crimes of these enemies of Islam? How much more suffering must Muslims endure before the Hajj can be restored to its proper role: a unique annual focal point for asserting the unity of the Ummah, commitment to the cause of Allah, and our determination to stand against all the oppressive forces in the world, in line with Divine command and the example of Allah’s Messenger (saw)? The plight of the people of Palestine and the continued occupation of al-Quds by the zionists, the horrendous crimes being perpetrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya, and other atrocities elsewhere, make it imperative that the Hajj be used as an occasion to mobilise Muslims against the enemies of Islam and the Ummah.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the ritualisation (and therefore trivialisation) of the Hajj and the imposition of Western-style architecture on the sacred environment of the Haramain. Both are meant to keep Muslims distracted by mundane things — rituals at Hajj and consumerism of the worst kind in the marketplace — so that the Muslims have no time or attention left for reflection or to find solutions to the problems facing the Ummah. Exposing the enemies of Islam would also expose the House of Saud as agents of the mushrikeen; that would hardly be conducive to their continued control of the Haramain. Their determination to prevent implementation of a divine command is in total violation of Islam’s law and is the worst kind of bida‘ imaginable. Are we Muslims willing to change all this, or shall we continue to ignore the most important aspect of Hajj and thus make ourselves guilty of violating Allah’s command?

Did Muhammad Receive Revelation by Mistake?!

Did Muhammad Receive Revelation by Mistake?! The following article is adopted from the "Shi'ites Under Attack" byMuhammad Jawad Chirri with some modification. ======================================================Do the Shi'ite Muslims Say that the Revelation Came toMuhammad by Mistake, and that it Was Intended for Ali?======================================================This [false accusation is] widely spread in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and otherArab countries in order to discredit the followers of the members of theHouse of the Prophet. This accusation was made during periods ofoppression against the Shiites. The rulers of the periods of the Omayadsand Abbasids used to consider every follower of the Members of the House ofthe Prophet revolutionary and dangerous. They conspired against theseShiites and accused them of heresy and disbelief in order to encourage theMuslims to shed their blood and usurp their rights and wealth. The centuries of oppression passed with all their injustices and terrors.It was expected that during the new period of freedom, the mistakes of thepast would be corrected. It was hoped that Muslim scholars would make aserious study in order to see if there is any justification for suchterrible accusations. It is very easy to know the truth. There are hundreds of books written by Shiite scholars about their beliefs.Had the Sunni scholars read any of these books, they would have found thatthe Shiite beliefs are in full agreement with the Book of God and the well-known statements of the Prophet. We are living in the era of speed and easy movement. It is easy for Muslimscholars to have conferences, discuss problems, and find solutions. The simplest principle of justice is to follow the commandment of the HolyQur'an: "Oh you who believe, if a transgressor comes to you with news, try to verify it, lest you inflict damage on people unwittingly; then you may consequently regret your hasty action" (ch. 49, v.6) The Almighty commanded us to try to find out whether an accusation is trueor false, and that we ought not to try people and convict them withoutquestioning them. We do not know of any court in the world in which the judge convicts aperson before interviewing him, provided the accused is available andhonors the summons. In spite of the ease with which one can find the correct informationnowadays, we find that those who accuse and spread hatred among Muslims donot take one single step in order to find the truth which may unite theMuslim world. While writing these words, I recollect that the Egyptian government duringthe fifties sent the late Dr. Mohammad Bisar to Washington, D.C., asdirector of the Islamic Center there. I went to visit him and he receivedme kindly and informed me of the knowledge that he had acquired concerningAmerican Muslims. He initiated a dialogue between us, saying: "Some of the Muslims in this country asked me about the various Islamic sects. I declared to them that all Muslim sects are good except the Shiite Ithnashari." I immediately realized that R. Bisar did not know the meaning of ShiiteIthnashari. Otherwise, he would not have been rude enough to say that tome while I am a Shiite Ithnashari (meaning The Twelvers). Thus, we had thefollowing dialogue: Chirri: What is wrong with the Ithnashari? Bisar: They believe in things opposed to Islam. Chirri: Give us an example of their wrong belief. Bisar: They say the revelation came to Mohammad by mistake, and that Ali Ibn Abu Talib was supposed to receive the revelation. Chirri: How did you learn that? Bisar: I read it in the book of al-milal and al-nihal by al-Shahristani. Chirri: Have you asked any Shiite scholar about this subject? Bisar: No, I have not. Chirri: Then you have convicted millions of Muslims and considered them "kafir" without asking any of them about this serious accusation. Did the Almighty command you to do that? And did Egypt send you to propagate such [an unjust] message? A year after our meeting in Washington, I met Dr. Bisar in Philadelphia atan Islamic conference. He informed me that he re-examined the book of al-milal and al-nihal by al-Shihristani and found that what was attributed toShiites, that the revelation came to Mohammad by mistake, was not thebelief of the Ithnashari Shiite school of thought. It was rather, a sectwhich existed and disappeared hundreds of years ago. Hearing that fromhim, I accepted his apology. Yet, I was amazed that it took him a wholeyear to re-read the book and discover the truth. I spent years studying hadith and Islamic history in books which werewritten by Sunni and Ithnashari scholars. I NEVER FOUND IN ANY SHIITE BOOKA HADITH OR A HISTORICAL REPORT INDICATING THAT ALI IBN ABU TALIB WASHIGHER THAN OR EQUAL TO MOHAMMAD. As a matter of fact, I found only theopposite. The Shittes consider Ali to be the best man after the Messengerbecause he was the most obedient to him. One of the hadith which the Shiites pride themselves upon is a hadithattributed to the Messenger of God: The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said to the tribe of Wolai-ah: "Bani Wolai-ah, you must change your attitude, or I shall send to you a man who is from me to punish you severely." Some of the people who were present asked the Prophet "Who is the man you are going to send to them?" The Prophet replied: "He is the man who was patching the sole of my shoes." They looked around and found Ali patching the sole of the Prophet's shoes. Sunni references:- Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p634- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p571, Tradition #966- al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v3, p152- Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v1, p349- Matalib al-'Aliyah, v4, p56- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p163 It is inconceivable that the Shiites can be proud of the fact that Ali wasthe patcher of the Prophet Mohammad's shoes and claim that the Imam ishigher than or equal to the Prophet. Therefore, I do not find anyjustification for directing such an accusation at the Shiites who glorifythe Prophet the most. The Shiites say that the highest honor that Imam Ali acquired is that hewas chosen by the Prophet to be his brother. When the Prophet commandedevery two Muslims to become brothers, he held Ali's hand and said, "This ismy brother." Thus, the Messenger of God, the highest Messenger, the Imamof all righteous people, the one who had no equal among the servants ofGod, made Ali his brother. (Al-Seerah Al-Nabawiyah, by Ibn Hisham, part 1,p505). =============Side Comments=============A Wahhabi mentioned that: There was a sect that claimed Gibreel (Alaihi Alsalam) erred in delivering the message. This sect were called the "Sheeah Ghurabiah". They might no longer exist by that name -- and they are a different sect than the Twelvers sect. ... Dear friend, the Ghurabiyyah and similar sects are fictitious sects createdby some story tellers such as al-Shahrastani and Abdul-Qahir Ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi, etc. Nonetheless, we do not deny that there existed some extremist sects (al-Ghulat) who departed from the body of Shia, who believed Ali is God, orthose who believed in incarnation (Hulool). The reason was that they foundso many virtues in Imam Ali, and by their narrow-minded-brain, they couldnot believe that a human can possess all such virtues. As a result of that,they believed in the deity of Ali. Surely they have gone astray. Thanks toGod that they have perished in the course of History in a great deal.However the leaders of such extremist groups and other deviated groups fromShia (whose leaders falsely claimed to be Imams) were not as simple mindedas their followers. Those leaders were agents of the tyrranical rullers andtheir activities were purely political. The Imams of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers disassociated themselves fromthese groups who were being established by the governments of each era todeviate the followers of Ahlul-Bayt and to destroy their path by keepingthem away from the Imams and moving them toward the puppets of governments.But these groups were melting down few months after their appearance, sincepeople soon recognized the falsehood and ignorance of their leaders andtheir connection with the rulers, and thus people did not subscribe tothese groups. A group without followers can not live for long, and itsleader becomes out of business shortly after. Allah, Exalted He is, said inQuran: "... and in this way, Allah strikes the examples of truth and falsehood. Then, as for the bubbles, it passes away (like disappearance of scum/foam upon the banks), while that which is for the good of mankind, remains in the earth..." (Quran 13:17) What remained from these artificial groups was just a history written bythose officials (who created those groups in the first place) which alsoincludes fictitious stories. We do not call such bankrupt groups Shia. From the demise of Prophet tilltoday, the followers of Imam Ali (AS) are The Twelver Shi'ites. There arehowever few Zaydis and Ismailis around the world. Although the majority ofscholars believe that they are Muslims (except those of them who abandonedthe Islamic practices), yet we consider them out of the circle of Ahlul-Bayt. All other groups such as Alavi (or Nudhayri), etc. are NOT Shia forsure, and their emergance did not have anything to do with the Shia. To bea Shia one should meet all the following specifications: 1. Believing in all the articles of faith. These are comon amongst Muslims.2. Believing that Imam Ali is the immediate successor/executor of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF), appointed by Allah.3. Believing that one should follow the genuine Sunnah of Prophet, and this Sunnah is transmitted by Ahlul-Bayt who are pure and sinless according to Quran. Furthermore, the instructions of the twelve Imams of Ahlul-Bayt are binding since they are in fact the instructions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).4. Believing that Imam Mahdi (AS), the son of the 11th Imam is the Imam of our time and is living (contrary to the majority of Sunnis who believe he will be born later). If any of the above conditions is missing for a person, he is notconsidered to be a Shia. Also in contrary to the rumors, to curse any ofthe companions is not a part of our belief. The wahhabi contributor further mentioned: The muslims who say one of the beliefs of shia is the above are not wrong; therefore, because the Ghurabi sect is a part of the shiaah herecy throught the history - but to attribute this claim to the Ithnaasharis "official" beleifs is not just to say the least. It is interesting to see that the above writer forgot that many deviantgroups departed from the body of Sunnis such as Nation of Islam who believeGod was a human, yet I haven't heard of any Shia to say: The muslims who say one of the beliefs of Sunni is the above are not wrong, because the Nation of Islam parted from the Sunnis - but to attribute this claim to the "official" beleifs of Sunnis is not just to say the least. You may replace the "nation of Islam" with "Ahmadis", "Qadianis", ... andthe followers of Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab, and you can see how silly theabove statement is going to be. Thanks to God that Shia do not attributesuch things to the four Sunni schools.

Tawassul Resorting to Intermediary

Tawassul Resorting to Intermediary


Some people claim that asking for help to other than god is polytheism.Such people should never go to doctor when they becomes sick because thisis polytheism (shirk)! Their going to doctor is a type of seeking a helpfrom a specialist even though they do not say by their tongue that they aregetting help from the doctor. Acting shirk is enough. Also they should notask any question from anyone or request anything from any one because allthese are shirk. Furthermore, they shouldn't eat any food because theyshould not help themselves by any other than God! If they say that we do all these because Allah told us to do so, then basedon their own doctrine Allah is also polytheist (Mushrik). Na'udhu Billah! Here is what they are missing: If we get help from any body, we do it withthe understanding that he by his own can not help us. He can not benefit usunless Allah wishes to. If one calls Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) or Imam Ali(AS) for help, he is, in fact, calling Allah for help through intermediaryof the Prophet or the Imams, and he does that with the understanding thatthe Prophet or the Imams doe not have any independent power, but ratherwhat they have (which many others lack) is that they have CREDIT in frontof Allah and that Allah does not put down their requests if they pray toAllah on my behalf. Imam Ali and all the martyrs are alive as Quran clearlytestifies, though they are not on the earth. So please do not treat them asdead. Allah states in Quran: Think not of those who are martyred in the way of Allah as dead. Nay! They are living, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord." (Quran 3:169) In fact all of our Imams except Imam Mahdi were martyred either by sword orby poison. Moreover, there are quite strong proofs in both Shia and Sunnithat the Prophet himself was also poisoned by a Jew in the battle ofKhaibar, and the poison slowly worked on his body till it finally killedhim. I just bring two traditions from Sahih al-Bukhari: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.551 Narrated Abu Huraira: When Khaibar was conquered, a (cooked) sheep containing poison, was given as a present to Allah's Apostle. Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.713 ... Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." So they should not be called dead since they are alive according to Quran.Thus we can make Tawassul to them the same way that the Shia of Moses madeTawassul to Moses: "And he (Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his Shia and the other being his enemy, and the one who was of his Shia cried out to him for help against the one who was of his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ enemy" (Quran 28:15) Two things which distinguishes Tawassul and Shirk should be noted here.First, we do not believe that the Prophet and Imams have any independentpower from Allah. Second, Allah is the one who assigned the intermediate.The idol worshipers used a wrong intermediate, and that was another reasonwhy it was condemned. Moreover, the idol worshippers believed that theidols can cause harm or render a benefit. Muslims are monotheists and theyknow that only Allah can cause harm or render a benefit. But calling theProphet and Imams with the understanding that they could only be anintermediary to Allah, is not polytheism. ALL Muslims agreed on this pointfrom the time of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) up to the present day, exceptWahhabis. They contradict all Muslims with their new creed and accusedMuslims of blasphemy; they never let any body touch the blessed grave ofProphet (PBUH&HF). The Holy Quran further supports intermediary for approaching toward Allahwhere it states: "O' you who believe! Be mindful (of your duties) to Allah, and seek the means of approaching toward Him." (Quran 5:35) ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ : . : : : . T . 4__,_w q_ 4_,_ q_e_,_,q 4__ q_o_, q_,_o . _, ]__8_, _, : / : / . / / / (_): : : Quran tells us that there exists a means of approaching "al-Wasilah" for usin each era, which is different than Allah and we should seek him if wewant to approach toward Allah. In fact, both Tawassul and Wasilah are fromthe same root. When we make Tawassul, it means that we seek the Mercy ofAllah by resorting to a connection who was more obedient toward Allah and,as a result, Allah answers his/her prayers faster than us. Allah mayforgive us for the credit and the honor of that man/woman. It is true everywhere that doing a job (specially if it is asking for a big courtesy)without any connection is difficult or might be impossible. Approving sucha courtesy needs credit, and the one without it should resort to the onewho has the credit and the connection. This credit has been acquired byabsolute obedience of Allah. Nonetheless, approving any intercession stilldepends on Allah: "Who can intercedes with Him except the cases that He permits?" (Quran 2:255) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "They (i.e., prophets and Imams) do not say anything until He orders, and they act (in all things) by His command. He knows what is before them and what is behind them and they (i.e., those saints) offer no intercession except for anyone whom Allah accepts, and they ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are in awe and reverence of His (glory)." (Quran 21:27-28) As you see there are exceptions. Some specific people can intercede withAllah by His permission. But this is not granted to every people. Now, I would like to give also more references from Sunni Hadithcollections in this regard. The first reference is on the Tawassul of IbnAbbas (RA) to Imam Ali (AS). Please note that Ibn Abbas spoke the followingwords after the martyrdom of Imam Ali. Thus he did ask for intermediary ofwhat you called a dead person. "When the death time of Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) approached, he said: `O Allah! I seek to approach toward you by means of Wilayah (accepting the mastery) of Ali Ibn Abi Talib.'" ^^^^^^^^^^^ Sunni references:- Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p662, Tradition #1129- al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v3, p167- Manaqib Ahmad : : . .. . o_8__ : _o o _9 q_ w _,_c . _, 4__]_,_c .__, ,_p_7 _o_( (_ / (_/ . (_). . / : / : : . .__,__D _, . _, __c 4_, _q_, (__)_,_ .__, _o_, _, . (_S. (_). (_S : /. : . / (_S Please note that Ibn Abbas died in 68/687 which was 28 years after themartyrdom of Imam Ali (AS). If resorting (Tawassul) to a dead wasconsidered association (shirk), then Ibn Abbas would not dare to say so,and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal would not have recorded it. As for resorting to alive, al-Bukhari reported that Umar used make Tawassulto al-Abbas for rain: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.59 Narrated Anas: Whenever there was drought, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to ask Allah for rain through Al-'Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib, saying, "O Allah! We used ^^^^^^^ to request our Prophet to ask You for rain, and You would give us. Now we request the uncle of our Prophet to ask You for rain, so give us rain." And they would be given rain." Another related question is that: Is kissing the grave of the ProphetShirk (association)? Is honoring the belongings of Prophet association?Sahih al-Bukhari tells us it is NOT Shirk: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 1.373 Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I saw Allah's Apostle in a red leather tent and I saw Bilal taking the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ remaining water with which the Prophet had performed ablution. I saw ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the people taking the utilized water impatiently and whoever got some ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ of it rubbed it on his body and those who could not get any took the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ moisture from the others' hands. Then I saw Bilal carrying an 'Anza (a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ spear-headed stick) which he planted in the ground. The Prophet came out tucking up his red cloak, and led the people in prayer and offered two Rakat (facing the Ka'ba) taking 'Anza as a Sutra for his prayer. I saw the people and animals passing in front of him beyond the 'Anza. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 7.750 Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I came to the Prophet while he was inside a red leather tent, and I saw Bilal taking the remaining water of the ablution of the Prophet, and the people were taking of that water and rubbing it on their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ faces; and whoever could not get anything of it, would share the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ moisture of the hand of his companion (and then rub it on his face). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As we see, the great companions were honoring the drop of water which hadtouched the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Sayyid Sharafuddin, a famous Shia scholar, went on pilgrimage to theHouse of Allah during the reign of King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud. He was one ofthose who were invited to the King's palace to celebrate the Eid of al-Adh'ha. When his turn came to shake the King's hand, he presented a leatherbound Quran to the King. The King took the Quran and placed it on hisforehead and then kissed it. Sayyid Sharafuddin said: "O' King! why doyou kiss and glorify the cover which is made of a goat's skin?!" The kinganswered: "I meant to glorify the Holy Quran, not the goat's skin." SayyidSharafuddin said: "Well said O' King! We do the same when we kiss thewindow or the door of the Prophet's Chamber, we know that it is made ofiron, and could not harm or render a benefit, but we mean what is behindthe iron and wood, we mean to respect the Messenger of Allah in the sameway as you meant with the Quran when you kissed its goat's skin cover." The audience was impressed by his speech and said: "You are right." TheKing was forced to allow the pilgrims to ask for blessings from theProphet's relics, until the order was reversed by the successor of thatKing. The issue is not that they are afraid of people associating others withAllah, rather, it is a political issue based on antagonizing Muslims inorder to consolidate their own power and authority over Muslims, andhistory is the witness to what they have done.************************************************************************** ____________________________________ o_,_7 _ . _o_7 _ 4__ o_w_, ( : / (_) / ( . ____________________________________ Evidence for Tawassul by a Sunni Writer From: mas@cadence.com (Masud Khan)Date: 3 Jul 1994 22:55:34 GMT There has been a lot of discussion about intercession recently,and a few ill-informed people have issued "fatawa's" condeming thepractice as "shirk". If, as some individuals say, tawassul is"shirk" then from from the evidence available it seems thatThe Prophet (pbuh) taught a man to commit "shirk" and so didthe Rightly Guided Khalifa 'Uthman ibn Affan! (May Allah be our refugefrom such thoughts). wa'asalaam Mas'udTawassul - Supplicating Allah through and Intermediary.======================================================= Definition: Supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be aliving person, dead person, or a name or attribute of Allah Most High. Yusuf Rifa'i: I here want to convey the position, attested to by compellinglegal evidence, of the orthodox majority of Sunni Muslim on the subject ofsupplicating Allah through an intermidiary (tawassul), and so I say (andAllah alone gives success) that since there is no disagreement amongscholars that supplicating Allah through an intermediary is in principlelegally valid, the discussion of it's details merely concerns derivedrulings that involve interschool differences, unrelated to questions ofbelief or unbelief, monotheism or associating partners with Allah (shirk);the sphere of the question being limited to permissibility orimpermissibility, and its ruling being that it is either lawful orunlawful. There is no difference among groups of Muslims in their consensuson the permissibilty of three types of supplicating Allah through anintermediary (tawassul): 1 tawassul through a living righteous person to Allah Most High, as in theHadith of the blind man with the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant himpeace) as we shall explain; 2 the tawassul of a living person to Allah Most High through his own gooddeeds, as in the hadith of the three people trapped in a cave by a greatstone, a hadith related by Imam Bukhari in his Sahih [Ref: vol 3 no 418]; 3 and the tawassul of a person to Allah Most High through His entity(dhat), names, attributes, and so forth. Since the legality of these types is agreed upon there is no reason to setforth the evidence for them. The only area of disagreement is supplicatingAllah (tawassul) through a righteous dead person. The majority of theorthodox Sunni community hold that it is lawful, and have supporting hadithevidence, of which we will content ourselves with the hadith of the BlindMan, since it is the central pivot upon which the discussion turns. The Hadith of the Blind Man=========================== Tirmidhi relates, through his chain of narrators from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf,that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)and said, "I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah forme." The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Go makeablution (wudu), perform two rak'as of prayer, and then say: " 'O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, theProphet of Mercy; O Muhammad [Ya Muhammad], I seek your intercession withmy Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: "for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me"].'" The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) added, "And if there issome need, do the same." Scholars of Sacred Law infer from this hadith the recommended character ofthe need, in which someone in need of something from Allah Most Highperforms such a prayer and then turns to Allah with this supplicationstogether with other suitable supplications, traditional or otherwise,according to the need and how the person feels. The express content of thehadith proves the legal validity of tawassul through a living person (asthe Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was a alive at the time).It implicitly proves the validity of tawassul through a deceased one aswell, since tawassul through a living or dead person is not through aphysical body or through a life or death, but rather through the positivemeaning (ma`na tayyib) attached to the person in both life and death. Thebody is but the vehicle that carries that significance, which requires thatthe person be respected whether alive or dead; for the words "O (Ya)Muhammad" are an address to someone physically absent - in which state theliving and the dead are alike - an address to the meaning, dear to Allah,that is connected with his spirit, a meaning that is the ground oftawassul, be it through a living or a dead person. =============================The Hadith of the Man in Need=============================Moreover, Tabarani, in his al-Mu`jam al-saghir, reports a hadith from'Uthman ibn Hanayf that a man repeatedly visited 'Uthman ibn 'Affan (Allahbe well pleased with him) concerning something he needed, but 'Uthman paidno attention to him or his need. The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained tohim about the matter - this being after the death of the Prophet (Allahbless him and grant him peace) and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and'Umar - so 'Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collectedhadiths and were learned in the religion of Allah said: "Go to the place ofablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform tworak'as of prayer therein, and say, " 'O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad, theProphet of Mercy; O Muhammad [Ya Muhammad], I turn through you to my Lord,that He may fulfill my need,' "and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph'Uthman]." So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of'Uthman ibn 'Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, tookhim by the hand, brought him to 'Uthman ibn 'Affan and seated him next tohim on a cushion. 'Uthman asked, "What do you need?" and the man mentionedwhat he wanted, and 'Uthman accomplished it for him and then said, "Ihadn't remembered your need until just now," adding, "Whenever you needsomething, just mention it." Then the man departed, met 'Uthman ibn Hunayf,and said to him, "May Allah reward you! He didn't see to my need or pay anyattention to me until you spoke with him." 'Uthman ibn Hunayf replied, "ByAllah, I didn't speak to him, but I have seen a blind man come to theMessenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and complain tohim of the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant himpeace) said, 'Can you not bear it?' and the man replied, 'O messenger ofAllah, I do not have anyone to lead me around, and it is great hardship forme.' The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told him, 'Go to theplace of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then pray two rak'as ofprayer and make these supplications.' " Ibn Hunafy went on, "By Allah, wedidn't part company or speak long before the man returned to us as ifnothing had ever been wrong with him." This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion provingthe legal validity of tawassul through the dead. The account has beenclassed as rigorously authenticated (SAHIH) by Bayhaqi, Mundhiri, andHaytami. (Muhammad Hamid - a leading Hanafi scholar of this century:) As for callingupon (nida') the righteous [when they are physically absent, as in thewords "O (Ya) Muhammad" in the above hadiths], tawassul to Allah Most Highthrough them is permissable, the supplication (du'a) being to Allah MostGlorious, and there is much evidence for its permissibility. Those who callon them intending tawassul cannot be blamed. As for someone who believesthat those called upon can cause effects, benefit, or harm, which theycreate or cause to exist as Allah does, such a person is an idolator whohas left Islam - Allah be our refuge! This then,and a certain person haswritten an article that tawassul to Allah Most High through the righteousis unlawful, while the overwhelming majority of scholars hold itpermissable, and the evidence that the writer uses to corroborate his viewpoint is devoid of anything that demonstrates what he is trying to prove.In declaring tawassul permissable, we are not hovering on the brink ofidolatory (shirk) or coming anywhere near it, for the conviction that AllahMost High alone has influence over anything, outwardly, is a convictionthat flows through us like our very lifeblood. If tawassul were idolatory(shirk), or if there were any suspicion of idolatory in it, the Prophet(Allah Most High bless him and give him peace) would not have taught it tothe blind man when the latter asked him to supplicate Allah for him,though in fact he did teach him to make tawassul to Allah through him. Andthe notion that tawassul was permissible only during the lifetime of theperson through whom it is done but not after his death is unsupported byany viable foundation from Sacred Law (Rudud 'ala abatil wa rasa'il al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid). Mostly taken from "Reliance of the Traveller" (Umdat as-Salik) by Ahmad ibnNaqib al-Misri [b. 702/1302 d. 769/1368] translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller.