The Prophet (saws) and Muslim unity

by Zafar Bangash January, 2014

Merely verbalizing love for the noble Messenger (saws) will not bring glory to Muslims; emulating his noble example in practice will. A pre-requisite is to understand the Sirah in its totality, not through anecdotal episodes. There is no Muslim who does not have deep love for the noble Messenger (pbuh). This is Allah’s (swt) command to His faithful servants articulated in the majestic Qur’an. Muslims express their love for the Prophet (pbuh) in many different ways based on their level of understanding and commitment. Closely related to this is the aspect of unity among Muslims. Again, this is spelled out very clearly in the noble Book. Muslims are referred to as one Ummah (21:92; 23:52) with all its varied and important implications. In a set of ayat, the Qur’an says, O you have become firmly committed [to Allah]! Be on guard [against Allah’s corrective justice] as is due to Him, and do not pass on before you have surrendered yourselves to Him [become Muslims]. And hold fast, all together, to the bond with Allah, and do not separate from one another. And remember the blessings that Allah has bestowed upon you; how, when you were enemies, He brought your hearts together, so that through His blessings, you became brethren… (3:102–103).

Allah (swt) is addressing the committed Muslims (the category referred to as al-ladhina amanu in the Qur’an) telling them “…to hold fast to the bond of Allah and do not separate from one another.” He is also reminding them that previously, they were enemies but Allah (swt) brought their hearts together. Allah (swt) does not say He made them all of one ethnicity or language. Instead, He says their hearts were reconciled and brought together. This was done through the exemplary personality of the noble Messenger (pbuh) who was sent as a mercy to all the worlds (21:107). It was his mercy and grace that brought the warring tribes of Madinah together. His was a gentle personality that preferred compassion and justice instead of retribution. This was demonstrated at the time of Makkah’s liberation when all his former enemies and tormentors stood trembling before him. He could have ordered their execution but he chose instead to forgive them. He administered justice with compassion, and compassion with justice to all and sundry. His noble personality combined in it all the elements in perfect balance. He was chosen by Allah (swt) to be the last and final messenger to deliver His final message to all humanity. As a result of his exemplary character, he converted the savage tribes of the Arabian Peninsula into the best of human beings in a short span of 23 years. Muslims truly became one Ummah above tribe or class distinctions under the leadership of the noble Messenger (pbuh). His success has forced even non-Muslims (Alan Hart, for instance) to admit that he was the most brilliant leader humankind has ever known.

But we must ask: what has happened to the two billion Muslims today that hardly register on the global scene? Muslims are so badly divided along national, tribal and sectarian lines that the concept of the Ummah appears non-existent. Where is the Muhammadi Ummah, raised as the “best community” that is supposed to be a model for all humanity (3:110)? True, there is much external interference in Muslim societies but that is to be expected. The Muslims’ enemies are not there to foster unity among them but we must examine the Muslims’ own conduct. Why have some Muslims embarked on campaigns of denunciation of fellow Muslims as kafirs and even resorted to wholesale slaughter? Does declaring everyone we disagree with a kafir serve the interests of Islam and Muslims? Did the noble Messenger (pbuh) ever indulge in such behavior? Possibly, those involved in the indiscriminate killing of Muslims and non-Muslims through car and suicide bombings as well as gruesome beheadings also read the Qur’an and may even insist they love the noble Messenger (pbuh). On what basis do they justify their behavior then? Suppose these groups were to kill all the people they disagree with; would that establish justice and peace in society? Those Muslims that claim to be faithful to their social contract with Allah (swt) — that is, have made a faith-commitment to Him — must evaluate their behavior in light of the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh). Allah (swt) reminds us of our base social reality in His glorious Book: we were divided and disunited, and our psychological makeup was one of enmity and hostility yet through His ni‘mah (favor and prerogative), we became brothers and friends (3:103; 49:10). The attitude of some contemporary Muslims has reverted back to that of pre-Islamic peoples where dog-eat-dog attitude and the law of the jungle prevailed. Muslims will have to make the transition from a fragmented understanding of the Qur’an, and the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger (pbuh) to the consolidated meanings with all its socio-political implications to assume their rightful place in the world as the “best community.” Racism, tribalism and sectarianism have no place in this higher calling. No people in history have ever achieved progress through wholesale slaughter. True, they may have achieved temporary success but were quickly overpowered by others with more refined values. In these troubled times, only Muslims can provide the kind of leadership the errant humanity needs. That, however, will only be realized if Muslims are true to their din as explained in the noble Book and as exemplified by the noble Messenger (pbuh).

Acquiring political power: on whose terms and conditions?

by Dr Perwez Shafi In Part 1 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi examines the peculiar evolution of Sunni political thought and its crippling impact on the contemporary Islamic movement. There are various aspects of Muslim awakening and changes that cannot be explained easily, logically and rationally. Observing the awakenings and changes, some uncomfortable questions arise: 1. How come certain personalities (civil or military) or families are able to rule in Muslim countries for so long? Why do those in power and those who oppose them rely only on violence and force? 2. Is there anything peculiar in their historical evolution that makes them prone to feudal and authoritarian rule? 3. Why is the US and the West supporting those who propose and push for awakening and Islamic changes in the Muslim world? 4. Why, in countries where changes have occurred, is there a business-as-usual relationship with the West and its corporations? 5. Why do Muslims keep falling into the trap of the US and the West, which simultaneously declare them as friends in one breath and terrorists in the next depending on their interests? 6. Why is the Western response to these awakenings and changes different in the Sunni world compared to others? And in turn, why is the Muslims’ response in general similar to that of the West? 7. Why have the revolutionaries not challenged Western domination of their societies, Western values and the global capitalist economic model? 8. Do Muslims have the intellectual clarity about their objectives and means to achieve them? In other words, is their intellectual worldview capable of initiating and generating awakening, mobilizing and organizing, and being led by muttaqi leadership, so as to achieve the objectives and goals by means which are also consistent with the Islamic view? 9. And finally on whose terms and conditions is political power acquired? Answers to these questions are contained in the worldview especially in political thought spread over the entire history of Islam. If Muslims have intellectual clarity about their worldview — their objectives and the means to achieve them — which is consistent and free of contradictions then one can answer all of the above questions. However, that is not the case. Lack of clarity shows ideological confusion that prevents Muslims from identifying their real enemy, forcing them to compromise at every turn on objectives and means, and still resigned to the fact that no meaningful change can occur without the consent of the West. Unfortunately this state of affairs regarding lack of clarity in worldview can be observed in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, the Gulf sheikdoms and now in Syria. If one takes a holistic and systemic approach to Muslim political thought and particularly Sunni political thought we discover where the problem lies. This writer and the Crescent International magazine have consistently stayed above sectarian considerations but if the problem lies in the ideology of a particular sect then simply ignoring or condemning it is not enough. Any attempt at Muslim unity will not be successful unless the problem is identified at the root of the particular sectarian ideology. This requires moral courage, intellectual honesty and awakening to deal with Sunni political thought — as the majority in the Muslim world adheres to it — that is a source of political confusion and contradiction in ideas and practices, hence a taboo subject even among revolutionaries. Phase I Change in the direction of Islam, decline and decay The above conclusion was drawn from the historical evolution of Sunni political thought, which can be divided into two phases. In the first phase up to the advent and domination of Western colonialism in the Muslim world by about the 17th century, Sunni political thought and worldview were stuck in tribalism, jealousy and competition to acquire political power; and authoritarianism. The pristine principles of Islam, which would have eliminated these vices, were never allowed to be practiced from the beginning. The change in the direction of Islam took place soon after the death of our beloved Prophet (pbuh). A number of mushrik leaders were killed in various battles waged against the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions. However, Abu Sufiyan survived till the liberation of Makkah and to save his skin he and his family reluctantly became Muslims. The Prophet’s (pbuh) attitude toward his enemies after they became Muslims was always cordial and kind. But in Abu Sufiyan’s case, the Prophet (pbuh) would turn his face away whenever he appeared and did not maintain close relations with him due to his severe opposition to Islam. Soon after the passing of the Prophet (pbuh) to heavenly company, Abu Sufiyan’s family and children acquired important positions in the Islamic State through nepotism and started consolidating their new found power. Thus, what Abu Sufiyan failed to achieve in direct confrontation with the Prophet (pbuh) he was able to achieve from within the Islamic fold. Abu Sufiyan’s children and grandchildren twisted key Islamic teachings in politics and governance of the Islamic State which enabled them to concentrate more power and somehow to acquire legitimacy. Through deceit, intrigue and open warfare, Mu‘awiyah became the absolute ruler of the Islamic State. He acquired the title of “Scribe of the Revelation” when in fact he never benefitted from the Prophet’s (pbuh) company for a single day. Within a year of the liberation of Makkah, the final wahy completed the message of Islam, followed by the death of the Prophet (pbuh). By distorting the teachings of Islam, Abu Sufyan sought to achieve two objectives — legitimacy for himself by generating fake hadiths and suppressing original ones, bestowing on himself and his cronies Islamic titles such as radiya allahu ‘anhu, changing the meaning of key Quranic ayat to suit his purpose, and deprived most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) dearest friends and families of their rightful and legitimate position. Those that opposed him were persecuted. Thus illegitimacy, instinctive reliance on force to counter any argument against their illegitimacy and persecution became the norm and part and parcel of Sunni political thought since that time. Most of the Prophet’s (pbuh) beloved Sahabah were not only deprived of their right to propagate true Islamic teachings by exposing the distortions and deviations but when they insisted, they were banished to far away lands, imprisoned, or poisoned leaving the field wide open to the power hungry clan of Abu Sufiyan to propagate their own imperial vision. Instead of the Islamic State, hereditary rule became the defining feature of political structure and ideology. When political and governance issues became strictly off limits to the public, they were confined to performing religious rituals. The great emphasis on rituals, devoid of any exhilarating and liberating feeling and spirit, became the norm which has continued to this today. The Islamic rules of acquiring political power and maintaining it were never allowed to gain a foothold. Vices of tribalism, mutual jealousy, the quest to grab power, persecution and authoritarianism became entrenched in Sunni political ideas, structure and practice. As a result, the Sunni political system based on Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas dynasties was never able to gain legitimacy. However, in the process they permanently eclipsed the true and egalitarian teachings of Islam in critical areas. In Islam the definition of politics was to acquire power in a legitimate manner as prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah (that is, masses select one for responsibility based on taqwa rather than anyone proposing or imposing himself and acquiring power by brute force or guile). The exercise of power was related to the maintenance of social justice, through a framework of collective decision-making to serve humanity. Thus, acquiring power by illegitimate or immoral means and spending immense financial resources are strictly forbidden. In short, Islam was reduced to rituals and practiced in an individual capacity. These unhealthy and illegitimate developments changed the direction of Islam permanently while its just, universal and egalitarian spirit was extinguished. Illegitimacy separated the interests, norm, values and belief system of the masses from power-hungry elites. For instance, military training has not been part of any Sunni society precisely because the elites’ illegitimacy leads them to distrust the masses. Thus illegitimacy, persecution and authoritarianism became the hallmark of Sunni political thought and structures. As a result, promotion of a new imperialistic version of religion in the name of Islam became the norm, which was maintained by coercion and persecution. In this version, Islam was deliberately reduced to a religion where rituals, devoid of spirit, gained paramount importance while their connection to the overall Islamic system was cut off. Values like the rule of law and social justice were abandoned from the early days. This version of Islam, mired in oppression, which Muslims follow without thinking or reflection even today is the basic reason why Muslims are unable to distinguish between friend and foe or between rightful, pious and legitimate leaders of a Muslim society and power-hungry opportunists; or how to legitimately acquire and exercise political power for the benefit of the masses. The door to intellectual pursuit, the right of pious and legitimate imams to lead the nascent Islamic society, and the door to ijtihad gradually became closed as imams, ‘ulama, scholars and the Muslim masses that supported them were persecuted. For this reason creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture, improvement in warfare techniques and equipment, explosion in scientific study and research methodologies, study of Greek and Roman ideas of rationalism, etc. To be sure, these intellectual developments were because of Islam, not due to Sunni political structures and systems or guidance, or funding and encouragement from Sunni governments represented by hereditary authoritarianism. It is not necessary to resolve all theological issues of early Muslim history to present as evidence in support of what has been said above. Rather decline and decay of Muslim civilization as recorded by Muslim and non-Muslim historians and scholars itself is a debilitating empirical evidence of illegitimacy and authoritarianism. Whether one agrees and accepts historical facts or rejects them, their effect has been devastating for the Muslim world. No one can deny the divisions, infighting, decline, decay and disintegration resulting in domination by others that had been going on for centuries up until the advent of Western colonialism. It was the great Islamic and political scholar Dr. Kalim Siddiqui who guided this writer during his dissertation to look first for decline and decay of Muslim civilization as evidence of distorted and dysfunctional Sunni political thought. Most of the muttaqi imams and ‘ulama with deep knowledge of Islam and capable of leading the society were brutally suppressed; others were bought or coerced to join authoritarian courts and governments and granted vast perks and benefits. The few that chose to challenge illegitimate rulers were poisoned or murdered as a warning to others. Some went into the countryside or faraway places to quietly spread and preach Islamic knowledge, emphasizing Sufism albeit without addressing burning political issues. Islam spread to Central Asia and the Indo-Pakisan subcontinent through these ‘ulama or Sufis and not by secular kings or warriors. Strong evidence of this is found in the desolate and barren mausoleums of famous and powerful kings and warriors of Muslim history where only stray dogs roam while ordinary people, millions of them, throng the mausoleums of the ‘ulama and Sufi saints. But in general they abandoned politics and implicitly accepted bifurcation: let the kings and warriors rule while they concentrated on preaching Islam and providing healing to the suffering masses through spirituality. While these depoliticized ‘ulama and Sufis provided great service to humanity in their individual capacity, they were no match against the organized power, logistics and resources of the state. Muttaqi leaders were there but they were not able to function as leaders of state. With time, persecution and bifurcation, the quality and number of muttaqi leaders also declined. And hence, this depleted Islamic society could not provide an effective Islamic or practical response to the onslaught of Europeans with superior scientific knowledge, better organizational and mobilizing capacity, and a spirit filled with adventurism, curiosity, greed and seeking domination of others. Pull quote: …creativity was channeled into non-political and non-theological areas like art, architecture… [and] explosion in scientific study and research methodologies... Part 2 In Part 2 of his analysis on the paralysis afflicting Muslim political thought, Dr Perwez Shafi examines the stifling influence of colonialism and neo-colonialism. In Part 2 of his article on the acquisition of political power, Dr. Perwez Shafi looks at how colonialism and neo-colonialism have kept Islamic political thought from evolving out of the dictatorship, autocratic paradigm. Phase II – European disintegration of the Muslim Ummah Phase two of Muslim history began when European colonialists were knocking at the door of the Muslim world around the 17th century to exploit its riches, and its defective political structures complicated by a weak and crumbling ideology. The Muslims’ diplomatic skills were unable to sense all dimensions or any long-term implications; their militaries were disorganized, divided and loyalties were for the highest bidder. Scientific and economic or industrial infrastructures were non-existent. While the Muslims were declining, the Europeans were the ascendant. It was not as if the European colonialists conquered the Muslim world after a good fight; rather, due to their decline and decay Muslims were barely conscious when the Europeans appeared like a mugger and robbed them. There was a qualitative difference between phase I and II. In phase I, as long as the masses did not challenge the rulers directly on political and governance issues they were largely left alone and creativity was allowed to flourish in other areas. The Europeans were driven by the same fear of illegal occupation and exploitation and they knew full well that once this sleeping giant (the masses) woke up their days of exploitation would be over hence they went one step further than mulukiyah. While the kings left the Muslim society as a single cohesive and socially strong body, the Europeans went about methodically dividind and disintegrating the Muslim Ummah to permanently cripple it. This was done first by dividing the Ummah along racial, ethnic, linguistic, economic and religious fault lines. These were further widened and exacerbated. Where they did not find any fault lines they created them. In the Arabian Peninsula, to weaken the Ottoman Khilafah from within, the British Empire promoted one Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab as a social and religious “reformer” of Islam in the late-18th century. In Confessions of a British Spy, the British agent Hempher has described in detail how Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was guided, exploited, funded and propped up by the British imperialists. The result is obvious and devastating. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s so-called reforms were turned into the sect of Wahhabism whose main target was to eradicate all historical and physical traces left by the Prophet (pbuh) and to reinforce the imperial version of their predecessor mulukiyah in the name of Islam. They hoped that the gullible and illiterate Muslim masses would not notice the great and systematic destruction of their Islamic and spiritual heritage in the midst of glittering five-star western hotels surrounding the Ka‘bah in Mak-kah and al-Majid al-Nabawi in Madinah. Similarly, in 19th century Persia, the British imperialists propped up Baha-ullah, who invented the Bahai faith to break Muslim unity. Nowadays both Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism and the Bahai faith are strongly supported by Western colonialists. In the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent the British imperialists had a field day during their 200-year occupation making every section of society dysfunctional by imposing a different identity and outlook, infusing it with either an inferiority or superiority complex. After the War of Independence in 1857, the British realized the danger of Hindu-Muslim unity that might liberate the country from the yoke of British colonialism so they embarked on inculcating nationalism among Hindus as well as Muslim communities. Later they created political parties — the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League — which divided the interests of both communities and led to the division of the sub-continent a hundred years later into two separate countries — India and Pakistan. But the British were not content with division only at the national level. Muslims had to be further divided from within. After the 1857 War of Independence, the Hanafi school of thought was further sub-divided. From the Orientalist reading of the Qur’an, they came up with inquisitive questions to “clarify” certain aspects of the Prophet’s (pbuh) personality and mission. The British encouraged heated debates among the ‘ulama’ whose respective positions crystallized into two major sub-schools of thought who later founded their headquarters in Deoband and Bareli, directly and indirectly, with British help. These groups are now known as Deobandis and Barelvis respectively. Deobandis were further divided into a number of other groups. On one extreme there is the passive Tablighi Jamaat that shuns jihad and politics, which in and of itself is a political decision, while on the other extreme are tribal people like the Taliban who are inspired by Saudi Wahhabism and routinely carry out suicide bombings to eradicate “shirk” taking place at various mausoleums. In addition, the British also promoted Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani who elevated himself to make a claim to prophethood in the late 19th century (nastaghfir-allah). After Wahhabism took hold in the Arabian Peninsula at the religious level, the British colonialists recruited Saudi tribes who used to roam the vast expanse of the desert in Najd robbing and looting Hajj caravans. In the early 20th century, the Saudi robbers and Sharif Husain of al-Hijaz agreed through various letters with the British to undermine the Ottoman Khilafah by launching a revolt. In turn, the British promised them power in the Arabian Peninsula. Both were paid huge sums of money. These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. The tragedy during the colonial phase was not so much the division and disintegration of the Muslim Ummah from within, rather its acceptance and internalization by the Muslims themselves. Whatever muttaqi leadership existed was further marginalized by the colonialists either through persecution, political intrigue or by turning it into an institution of peeri-mureedi (relationship of absolute domination of saint over his disciple). In addition, the colonialists encouraged the turning of mausoleums of ‘ulama’ and saints into shrines where ignorant and illiterate people would pray and worship, often bordering on shirk. On the other hand, the colonialists used the Deobandis and Wahhabis as a tool to keep attacking Barelvis resulting in constant low level warfare. The masjids and religious institutions were economically relatively independent with large agricultural lands and significant income derived from such holdings. The concept of running masjids on charity and dole was non-existent in phase I but in phase II the colonialists gradually stripped the masjids of these resources and forced them to live off charity. Thus, as Western-educated classes emerged, the masjids lost their vitality and instead of producing ‘ulama’ and learned scholars capable of leading society they started producing simpleminded mu’adhdhins, qaaris and maulvis, who with little or no self-esteem were relegated to perform simple rituals at birth or death. While the obscurantist religious establishment had little dynamism or knowledge of world sciences or capability of leading society, they performed an important and valuable function of keeping Islam alive at the most basic level and provided solace to the masses in that dark and hopeless era of colonialism. Neo-colonial phase The neo-colonial phase is not much different from the colonial phase except it is more intensified form of westernization, filled with deception while creating the illusion of independence. In the neo-colonial phase, starting after World War II, more than 50 or so countries were carved out of the single Muslim Ummah as a result of managed “national struggle” for independence marked by installation of local rulers; but intellectual, political and economic independence remained elusive. These so-called “Third World countries” were integrated into the global capitalist system whereby these countries at the economic level provide ready markets for Western goods and services, and as a source of raw material. But this required the local political and economic elites to be subservient to the West, the result of which was the suppression of their own populations. Since the victors of the Second World War wrote history as well as arrogated to themselves the right to set up global institutions like the UN, the World Bank, IMF, etc. in their own image to rule the world, Muslim countries were also made part of these illegitimate and illegal institutions by using local elites. Through these institutions the West gets any decision approved for its benefit and interest while giving the illusion of legitimacy. The rest of the suffering humanity merely uses these institutions as a forum to air their frustrations and to seek more Western aid for survival. During the colonial period, the West’s mission was to “civilize” humanity; in the neo-colonial phase the mission has morphed into spreading “democracy” and democratic values, norms and a belief system as the only sanctified ideology. In Western conception, the Greek word demo means human. Now the context has changed drastically. It now means that after the Renaissance (14th–17th centuries) and Industrial Revolution (1730–1850s), man has become the master of his own destiny through science and technology and has progressed and elevated to such heights that he no longer wishes to live or be constrained by Allah’s (swt) teachings, guidance and plan. In other words, God occupying the highest position in cosmological hierarchy has been replaced by man himself. In this context, Western democracy, not bound by divine order, is shirk of the highest order. In fact, democracy per se even from the Greek times — direct rule by the people — has never been practiced anytime in history. This is admitted even by Western political scientists and philosophers. In fact they shun it by calling it “mob rule” and don’t trust the raw human instinct. What is actually practiced is more precisely plutocracy — rule by the rich and wealthy class. Plutocracy controls the establishment providing a strong center and direction to the political system while capitalism serves as its economic engine. All other institutions work for or in tandem with the state. There is consensus among Western elites within society of the efficacy of this political philosophy and its associated structures. Plutocracy, democracy or any other philosophy has nothing to do with human values. In this dehumanizing system the rich can become richer only by exploiting the poor and their labor. The highest value of capitalism is “profit maximization,” a euphemism for greed and exploitation leading to inequality, class warfare and concentration of almost all the wealth in the hands of the less-than-1% plutocrats. That is why protest movements by 99% of the masses in the US is being waged, calling for human and egalitarian values. Political parties and elections are cosmetic and inconsequential in nature and their purpose is only to lure and keep people into the political system by them believing that “change is possible” when each party actually represents different shades of the same philosophy. Thus, deception and illusion are at the root of democracy whereby plutocracy can rule in the name of the masses; but in this departure from God, the interests, desires, and benefits accrued to each class are different and separated by a wide gulf. Since the West has 150 years of experience with population conditioning according to its requirements, even a highly exploitative system manages to survive despite its obvious imperfections. The ultimate goal or value of democracy is to make all human beings slaves of the rich and powerful. In contrast to mature plutocracies, the ex-colonial recently-independent states (whether ruled by military or civilians) have no strong center or establishment with a firm and deep-rooted philosophy. They are characterized as “weak states” as each institution — the military, bureaucracy, judiciary, executive and parliament — acts as different power centers with which the US and other imperialist powers maintain independent yet direct relationships. If any institution does not toe the US line it is checked by other institutions. The elite in Muslim states are trained in the West; they have inculcated Western values, norms, belief system and lifestyles. Their personal and collective interests are the same. If they refer to Islam at all, it is invoked only to fool the masses. The West allows no choice or alternative to native elites in choosing their political ideology. Their job is to keep their countries dependent on the West — materially and psychologically — while the local economies must be kept open for exploitation and integrated within Western markets. If the disease of westernization had infected only the secular elites, it would be understandable. Tragically, the entire religious establishment is also afflicted by it despite their knowledge of Islam. In the neo-colonial phase, the religious establishment has undergone greater transformation and actually started participating in the so-called democratic process without realizing that it is a deception. It contradicts the goals and means of Islam yet they adopt and participate in it in hopes of achieving Islamic goals of social justice, equity and the liberation of humanity from slavery. For religious, political and non-political parties, the short cut to power appears deceptively attractive and within reach. Under Western influence, they have come to believe the goal is to win an election (that is generally rigged by the military anyway). They assume that upon coming to power, Shari‘ah would be “imposed” resulting in the creation of an Islamic state. Their version of the Islamic state can still co-exist with the West, remain economically integrated with the global capitalist system, and maintain a politically subservient relationship. This is an elitist top-down approach and is seriously flawed because it is not able to differentiate between means and objectives or between the Islamic and Western democratic systems. It seems not to bother them that this simplistic, naïve and deceptive model is against the Shari‘ah and the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). The noble Messenger (pbuh) did not win or opt for election or grab power by other means before implementing Islamic principles in society. The Sirah teaches us that by propagating and practicing Islam in all its dimensions (not focusing on one or the other aspect) he transformed the social structure of the tribal jahili society into an Islamic society. Once this social transformation had taken place, the road to the Islamic state opened by itself. Thus the goal of the Islamic movement is not to construct an Islamic state but to transform the social base of the ignorant society into an Islamic society; the Islamic state will then be the logical end result of such transformation. This is the bottom-up approach and from the Sirah it can be characterized as Islamic Revolution. In the neo-colonial phase, one of the most important catalysts for change are the ‘ulama’ and the institutions they have established. Ironically, they are also a major obstacle to change and the emergence of muttaqi leadership. One of the major reasons is that most of the Sunni ‘ulama’ and their establishments are heavily financed by the Saudi regime. Such funding ensures that the ‘ulama’ and their establishments keep following the obscurantist and deviant Sunni political thought where Mu‘awiyah and Yazid are praised and where nowadays attempts are underway to rehabilitate even Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, who gained notoriety for disfiguring the body of Hamzah (d) by chewing on his liver after the latter was martyred in the Battle of Uhud. The Prophet (pbuh) was greatly anguished by such disrespect for the dead, made all the more shocking because Hamzah was his uncle and close friend, the two being close in age. Friendship with and dependence on the West/Zionists is considered essential, and support for the Saudi monarchy flourishes in line with continuation of the mulukiyah/monarchical dynasties. If Saudi petrodollars keep the ‘ulama’ and “official” Sunni worldview on the path of praising the worst enemies of the Prophet (pbuh) and ignore or abandon those loved by the Prophet (pbuh), then the prospects for change are dim. Thus, muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue. For confusing goals and means, the religious elites and their political parties are continuously failing. Yet they do not want to allow change in their methodology or learn any lessons from the Sirah. But when one realizes that this democratic worldview of the religious establishment was superimposed on the decadent Sunni political thought of the mulukiyah, worldly challenges cannot be surmounted by using a crude mixture of both mindsets. Given this theoretical background to clarify Islamic goals and the means to achieve them through historical evolution, it enables us to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this article about recent developments in the Muslim world. Specifically, Egypt represents the best case in which a political party backed by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has made impressive gains in elections in the Muslim world; Turkey is another but dissimilar example. To be sure the Muslims’ yearning for independence from foreign domination and the awakening is genuine. But the US has been busy taming the MB and turning the transition away from its revolutionary spirit to bureaucratic changes in such a way that its leaders are given some government posts yet the real power is retained by the military and the old establishment, which ultimately means the US. The sequence of events themselves reveals the story of compromises and adjusting to “reality” by the MB, followed by the principle stated in parenthesis as discussed above (see paragraphs below). One year after the awakening of the Muslims started, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns earlier this year met with the MB’s high-ranking Deputy General Guide Khairat al-Shater, (the powerful presidential candidate before being disqualified by the Elections Commission on flimsy grounds). Burns promised financial aid of more than $20 billion from the IMF and the Gulf sheikhdoms if the peace treaty with Israel continued to be honored. The MB quickly agreed to maintain the status quo. The MB’s statements to the contrary were merely for public consumption (strategic compromise for tactical support, unable to distinguish between friend and foe). Two days before the presidential election, the judiciary and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), effectively ruling Egypt since president Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power in February 11, 2011, struck and cancelled the parliamentary elections already won by the MB who protested but to no avail so far (keeping in check one institution by using another). Shortly after becoming president and before Hillary Clinton arrived in Cairo, Muhammad Mursi visited Saudi Arabia on July 11 to answer demands by a Saudi academic close to the monarchy who wrote an article in the London-based al-Hayat newspaper titled “What the Gulfies want from Brotherhood’s Mursi?” He asked Mursi to provide public assurances on four major concerns of the Gulf sheikhdoms: 1. MB members and networks present in the sheikhdoms will not be used to interfere in their internal affairs; 2. support them against Iran; 3. to have strong relations with Saudi Arabia and its neighbors than with democratic Turkey; and 4.keep aloof from internal factional politics of Palestinians even though Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB. Within a week Mursi complied with all the demands through his statements. While in Saudi Arabia he affirmed Egypt’s policy of belonging to the “moderate Sunni” camp as he assured the Saudi monarch of Egypt’s strategic alliance with his country, as well as lending support to the regional balance of power in direct reference to the challenge posed by Iran to the Gulf monarchies. Like former Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf’s policy of “Pakistan first” Mursi assured his Saudi hosts that Egypt will continue to maintain an Arab first foreign policy approach rather than taking Turkish democratic germs too far. As demanded, Mursi also promised to maintain the same distance with Palestinian factions but more importantly he promised to side with Saudi and Israeli intelligence and security apparatuses against the Palestinian resistance (local elite not independent in their domestic as well as foreign policies but ultimately subservient to the US and its local Saudi agents; their narrow interest to gain political power at any cost forces them to act against their own brethren and side with the imperialist West and oppressive forces). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt to meet President Mursi. After the meeting, Clinton declared that the US “supports the full transition to civilian rule with all that entails.” The following day Clinton met with head of SCAF, Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi and prodded him to go along with the civilian set up and declared that the US would like to see the Egyptian military return to a “purely national security role.” In return, the military was also promised billions more in aid (US dealing independently with weak multiple power centers). The same corrupted Sunni political thought superimposed by the Western democratic model is unable to differentiate between friend and foe in Syria. All Muslim countries have ruthless dictators and Syria is no exception. But at least Syria has taken a consistently strong anti-Israel stand for the last four decades and supported various Palestinian resistance factions. That reason alone is sufficient not to destabilize the Asad regime which the US, Israel, Saudis and other sheikhdoms are trying hard to do. This raises another question. Why in Syria, as in Libya, the opposition instead of launching a public protest campaign as in Yemen and Bahrain, has suddenly resorted to armed struggle from the beginning? The reliance on violence and force is built-in to the Sunni political though stoked by Western, Saudi and Zionist arms and mercenaries. In Sunni political paradigm there has never been peaceful transfer of power since Mu‘awiyah came to power. One must either use overwhelming force to subdue rivals or prepare to be subdued and slaughtered; there is nothing in between and certainly there are no rules and regulations nor precedent. If the opposition wants to air their grievances they could certainly launch public protests like in Bahrain or Yemen rather than instinctively rely on overwhelming force. This all or nothing proposition is to keep rivals at bay. That is why ruthless dictators and their dynastic rule last for decades. This political mindset still prevails today (instinctive reliance on using overwhelming force against rivals is the secret of dictator’s longevity). In electoral politics, no country appears to have had as much success as Turkey, yet it has accepted US hegemony, its global and regional agenda, and maintained friendship with Israel, never challenging Washington’s strategic interests. The US has, therefore, felt comfortable in holding up Turkey as a democratic role model for other Muslim countries to emulate, if they ever get rid of their US-backed dictators. After a decade of experience with the Turkish religious political party approach, the US feels confident in managing the transition to democratic order in Egypt as well. At the other end, the US is ready to use oppression and persecution in Bahrain rather than respect human rights because toppling of the feudal monarchy would directly threaten its strategic interests (which country is allowed to have change and which is to be blocked depends on US strategic interests). The US/Zionists have no qualms in supporting those opposition forces from any group or ideology including al-Qaeda or known terrorists who want to overthrow any government not friendly to the West (the criteria is whether terrorist use serves US interests). Conclusion It is evident through historical evolution that the sectarian Sunni political thought as seen through the actions of the so-called “moderate Sunni” states is corrupt, decadent and needs re-evaluation and reform. The humiliation of decline and decay of Muslim states is obvious; one must, therefore, challenge the assumptions of its paradigm. It is not enough simply to acquire cosmetic political power, the real question is on whose terms and conditions: whether on Sunni-Western-Zionist terms and conditions with a democratic façade while remaining subservient to US/Zionist interests or on one’s own terms and conditions relying on the revolutionary spirit of the masses that must first be transformed into a dynamic Islamic society. Only a genuine Islamic movement, not a religious political party, can accomplish this task and only then it can go in an independent and Islamic direction. But the precondition is to challenge basic assumptions of our decadent worldview that has remained stagnant since mulukiyah’s times superimposed with Western democratic values and norms. As the Qur’an declares, “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of a people unless they are willing to change their attitude…” (13:11). Hence, the condition of a society does not change until it changes what is inside its heart. In other words, change in the worldview and mindset will lead to change in worldly conditions. We must cleanse the original historical contradictions introduced in Sunni Political thought to evolve to a higher paradigm of Muslim political thought. These reforms will take us to a true convergence point in time and history, to the time when the Prophet (pbuh) left this earthly abode, when sectarianism and mutual hostilities did not exist. The next logical step would be an open declaration of abandonment and rejection of the so-called “democracy” and short-cut democratic model to political power. Without both these changes, internalized and acted upon, violence will continue and any other kind of revolution may be possible but not an Islamic Revolution. Note in the above Qur’anic ayah that it takes a longtime to change and internalize and reform the existing defective and contradictory worldview within our hearts but once it is done through debate and an open mind, a very short time is needed to change the outer worldly conditions. This sense of timing is demonstrated from the Sirah of the Prophet (pbuh). Pull quotes: These days the Saudis are championing the cause of Abu Sufyan’s Sunnism against Iran, which they try to project at the sectarian level but at the beginning of the last century they had no qualms about revolting against their own Sunni brethren of the Ottoman Khilafah at the behest of Western imperialist forces. So instead of any argument or principle, naked self-interest and ad hocism was the rule and remains to this day. …muttaqi leaders can only emerge if Saudi funding is eliminated. Alternatively, new institutions free from sectarian and illegitimacy contradictions must be established to produce the caliber of muttaqi leadership needed for the struggle ahead. This intellectual struggle has to be waged as a first step by the genuine Islamic movement as “Islamic” political parties cannot hope to resolve this issue.

Clerics forbid takfir

Jordan - July 07th, 2005
AMMAN - (JT) - Leading clerics on Wednesday endorsed fatwas (religious edicts) by top Muslim authorities forbidding the declaration of any Muslim an apostate (takfir). Concluding their three-day International Islamic Conference in the presence of His Majesty King Abdullah, the clerics issued a joint statement that forbids declaring any adherent to any one of the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence an apostate.
Top clerics endorse fatwas forbidding takfir Following is the full text of the statement issued by the International Islamic Conference on Wednesday:
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon our master Mohammad and his Family
“O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul...” (Al Nisa', 4:1)
In accordance with the fatwas issued by the honourable and respectable Grand Imam Sheikh Al Azhar.
The Grand Ayatollah Al Sayyid Ali Al Sistani, the honourable and respectable grand mufti of Egypt, the honourable and respectable Shiite clerics (both Jaafari and Zaydi), the honourable and respectable grand mufti of the Sultanate of Oman.
The Islamic Fiqh Academy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the grand council for Religious Affairs of Turkey.
The honourable and respectable grand mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the respectable members of its National Fatwa Committee, and the honourable and respectable Sheikh Dr Yusuf Al Qaradawi;
And in accordance with what was mentioned in the speech of His Majesty King Abdullah during the opening session of our conference; And in accordance with our own knowledge in sincerity to Allah the Bounteous; And in accordance with what was presented in this our conference by way of research papers and studies, and by way of the discussions that transpired in it;
We, the undersigned, hereby express our approval and affirmation of what appears below:
1) Whosoever is an adherent of one of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafite, Malikite, Shafite and Hanbalite), the Jaafari (Shiite) school of jurisprudence, the Zaydi school of jurisprudence, the Ibadi school of jurisprudence.
Or the Thahiri school of jurisprudence is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible.
Verily his (or her) blood, honour and property are sacrosanct. Moreover, in accordance with what appeared in the fatwa of the honourable and respectable Sheikh Al Azhar.
It is not possible to declare whosoever subscribes to the Ashaari creed or whoever practices true Sufism an apostate.
Likewise, it is not possible to declare whosoever subscribes to true Salafi thought an apostate. Equally, it is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.
2) There exists more in common between the various schools of jurisprudence than there is difference.
The adherents to the eight schools of jurisprudence are in agreement as regards the basic Islamic principles.
All believe in Allah the Mighty and Sublime, the One and the Unique; that the Noble Koran is the Revealed Word of Allah; and that our master Mohammad, may Blessings and Peace be upon him, is a Prophet and Messenger unto all mankind.
All are in agreement about the five pillars of Islam: The two testaments of faith (shahadatayn), the ritual prayer (salat), almsgiving (zakat), fasting the month of Ramadan (sawm), and the Hajj to the Sacred House of Allah.
All are also in agreement about the foundations of belief: Belief in Allah, His Angels, His Scriptures, His Messengers, and in the Day of Judgement, in divine providence — good and evil. Disagreement between the ulama is only with respect to the ancillary branches of religion (furou) and not the principles and fundamentals (usoul).
Disagreement with respect to the ancillary branches of religion is a mercy. Long ago it was said that variance in opinion among ulama “is a good affair.”
3) Acknowledgement of the schools of jurisprudence within Islam means adhering to a fundamental methodology in the issuance of fatwas.
No one may issue a fatwa without the requisite personal qualifications which each school of jurisprudence defines.
No one may issue a fatwa without adhering to the methodology of the schools of jurisprudence. No one may claim to do absolute ijtihad and create a new school of jurisprudence or to issue unacceptable fatwas that take Muslims out of the principles and certainties of the Sharia and what has been established in respect of its schools of jurisprudence.
4) The essence of the Amman Message, which was issued on the Blessed Night of Power in the year 1425 Hijri and which was read aloud in Masjid Al Hashimiyyeen, is adherence to the schools of jurisprudence and their fundamental methodology.
Acknowledging the schools of jurisprudence and affirming discussion and engagement between them ensures fairness, moderation, mutual forgiveness, compassion and engaging in dialogue with others.
5) We call for casting aside disagreement between Muslims and unifying their words and stances; reaffirming their mutual respect for each other.
Fortifying mutual affinity among their peoples and states; strengthening the ties of brotherhood which unite them in the mutual love of Allah.
And we call upon Muslims to not permit discord and outside interference between them.
Allah the Sublime says:
“The believers are naught else than brothers. Therefore make peace between your brethren and observe your duty to Allah that haply ye may obtain mercy.” (Al Hujurat, 49:10)
Praise be to Allah alone.
The eight schools, or Madhahib, are Sunni Shafite, Malikite, Hanbalite and Hanafite as well as Shiite Jaafari, Ibadi and Zaydi in addition to Thahiri.
Signed by scholars and clergy of the eight schools, the statement, the first of its kind, also limited the issuance of religious edicts to qualified Muslim clerics in the eight schools.
The endorsement was based on fatwas by Grand Imam of Al Azhar (the top Sunni authority) Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Sistani, (the top Shiite authority in Iraq).
Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Jumaa, Shiite authorities from the Jaafari and Zaydi schools, Grand Mufti of Oman Ahmad Khalili, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Saudi Arabia.
The Grand Council for Religious Affairs of Turkey, the Grand Mufti of Jordan Izzeddine Tamimi, and the Kingdom's National Fatwa Committee, in addition to leading cleric Yusuf Qaradawi.
Other elements of the statement were drawn from King Abdullah's address to the conference, which urged more than 170 scholars and clerics from the different schools of Islamic thought to unify the global Muslim community against threats to its integrity from both Muslims and non-Muslims.
The King said divisions within the global Islamic community, acts of violence and terrorism, and accusations of apostasy and the killing of Muslims in the name of Islam violate the spirit of Islam and generate global turmoil.
Because they give justification to non-Muslims to judge Islam according to acts that Islam disavows, and subsequently interfere in Muslims' affairs.

A lecture by Shaykh Ahmad Deedat

A lecture by Shaykh Ahmad Deedat


The Following speech By Shaykh Ahmad Deedat, who is a world renowned Sunni scholar from South Africa was made following his trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran on 3 March , 1982.
INTRODUCTION
In the Holy Quran, Allah (SWT) says "It is he who has sent his apostle with guidance and the religion of truth so that he may make it prevail over all religions even though those who worship false Gods may detest it" (Quran 9:33). Even though the United States, Russia and all the superpowers may detest it. Allah's promise is not conditional on the strength of the superpowers. In its widest sense the Islamic movement spans the entire ummah, in its narrowest it represents that part of the ummah which is most advanced in its struggle towards establishing Islam as a total way of life.
A few years ago one could not recognize a single leading edge in the Islamic movement. This was the bleak outlook which faced the ummah as history moved into the final decade of the 14th century Hijra. But the world was unaware of the Islamic movement in Iran. Iran under the ex-shah was beyond the pale of Islam. Iran was a blind spot. We were Sunni and our age old ignorance was deep and total, and thus when the Islamic revolution in Iran began to make headlines in early 1978. The bulk of Muslims, who called themselves Sunni, were caught unaware. The Shah's propaganda had then blamed the Islamic masters. The western media, and the Muslim media manipulated by the west, and the alienated regimes of Muslim countries had then dismissed the events in Iran as insignificant. All of us were slow in recognizing the new reality in Iran. There has been a systematic attempt at smearing Islamic Iran. And the western media deliberately promoted false accounts of the events of the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini who was indeed the founder of the revolution, and the leader of the Islamic republic of Iran.
This campaign against Iran is nothing new. Right from the beginning vested interests have carried on an unending campaign against the Islamic revolution in Iran. this evening our guest speaker, Mr. Ahmad Deedat who is a distinguished scholar of Islam, who hardly needs any introduction to the public and who has just returned from his trip to Iran, will present to us his first hand account on Iran. I now call upon Mr. Ahmad Deedat to speak to you.(applause).
Shaykh Ahmad Deedat
I seek refuge in the accursed Satan, In the name of God the Beneficent the Merciful.
The Holy Quran says:
"And if you turn away (from Islam and the obedience of Allah), He will substitute you for some other people, and they will not be like you." Quran 47:38
Mr. chairman and brothers: While we are looking skeptically of the miracle of a nation reborn. Allah's inexorable decree is finding its fulfillment in the rise and fall of nations which is mentioned in the verse I have just read to you from Surah Muhammad. In the last section of the last verse Allah(swt) reminds us, and warns us that if ye turn back from your duties and responsibilities if you do not fulfill your obligations then he will replace you with another nation.
Our urdu speaking brethren use these words so beautifully when they describe some mishap that occurs in the community in talking about that other nation that can replace them. It is actually Quranic. And this really has been happening throughout history again and again. Allah (swt) first chose the Jews, the Bani Israel as he tells it in the holy Quran: "O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I preferred you to all other nations."(Quran 2:47). That favor was that they should become the torchbearers of the knowledge of God to the world. This was the honor, this was the privilege that was at first given to the Jews But because they did not fulfil their end of the obligation, a Jew amongst the Jews Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) as recorded in the Christian gospels told them "That the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."(The Bible, Matthew 21:43). And that nation, we will happily own up is the Islamic ummah. It was taken away from the Jews and given to the Muslims. The Muslims then, among them who were the Arabs at first, were given by Allah (SWT)the privilege that they became the torchbearers of light and learning to the world , but when they relaxed and failed to bring forth the fruits, Allah(swt) replaced them with another nation. In history, we remember the Turks and Mongols destroyed the Muslim empire and when they accepted Islam they became the torchbearers of light and learning to the world.
As Iqbal beautifully describes this situation: "O' you Muslims, you will not perish if Iran or the Arabs perish, that the spirit of the wine is not dependent on the nature of it's container." The container is our nations, our boundaries and the spirit of Islam is not dependent on our geographical boundaries or national limitations. So this is what Allah (swt) does again and again, he chose the Jews then he chose the Arabs then when they became lax he chose the Turks and when they became lax another people and so on and this is a continuous process. If you don't do the job, Allah(swt) will chose another people who will. In the world today there are a thousand million Muslim, that is ,one billion we boast! And 90 percent of this one billion happens to be the Sunni branch. We have stopped delivering the goods so Allah(swt) chooses a nation that we have all been looking down upon. The Iranians! The Shias! History has been very unkind to our brethren in Iran that the shah happened to be the ruler, and his name happened to be Muhammad. Imagine, that this mans name happened to be Muhammad and he really wasn't a believer. It's hard for us to imagine today, but once you go to that country and you go into the details and find out what was going on. That this Iranian the shah it seems to be,that he was a foreigner. If Hitler conquered this land and oppressed them, then we could understand. If the Russians conquered the people, we can understand. But here is a man who is an Iranian, speaking Persian, whose name was Muhammad, and look at what he was stooping to. For sixteen years he had forbidden Jummah prayers. Sixteen years. We had been equating Iran with the shah and the shah with Iran. To us they were synonymous terms. But when you go into details we learn that the shah and the Iranian people were both apart. They were in reality foreigners to one another.
Now about this visit of mine to Iran and my impression. Let me begin with the place where I had the first fragrance of this Iranian brotherhood of ours and it happened to be in Rome. First I smelled it, and then some of my companions had smelled it in the Rome airport. We were waiting to get on the plane, and we had some problems with visas and one of our men was given the responsibility of overcoming these problems. So he goes to the Iran air office and he tells our problem to a young lady wearing full Islamic attire with her body well covered. It was Beautiful, Just beautiful to look at. And I mean that when you look at these people in this attire you see that they are beautiful people. So there was a lady in Rome and you brothers should have seen the way she handled these problems. And someone came to me and told me, man if you want to see a real Iranian Muslim girl you should come over and I went and some others went and we saw. And that was the first whiff we had of the Iranian ummah in Rome.
When we landed in Iran, we were taken to a five star hotel which was there before the revolution known as the Hilton hotel but is now known as Hotel Istiqlal. And we were taken around. to places of interest and I will relate to you some of the things we saw and I will try to describe the feelings one has. If I remember correctly, the first thing we visited was the Behesht Zahra cemetery. Behesht means paradise in Persian and Zahra is the title of Fatima Al-Zahra (AS) who was the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (saw). And Zahra means the radiant one. So it was called Radiant paradise. And before arriving in Iran, I had read about the Behesht Zahra cemetery. And I remember when Imam Khomeini had arrived in Tehran he made a trip to the cemetery. And I'm thinking why does one go to the cemetery? To make du'a? Yes. For the departed souls? Yes. And when you think of cemeteries here in South Africa you think of Brookstreet and Riverside. You cant imagine that this cemetery is square kilometers by square kilometers. You Just cant imagine. It is a big open ground where about a million or two million people can be accommodated. And people gathered here because it is the easiest place where people can release their emotional and spiritual baggage because there you have the martyrs. Their were 70,000 or so people who were martyred in this revolution and 100,000 maimed. Unarmed people with only the slogan "Allahu Akbar" as their weapons had toppled the mightiest military force in the middle east. So we went to this cemetery There were about a million people there. There were men and women and children and we were greatly inspired by the enthusiasm and the feeling of our brothers and sisters there. It was mid winter there, and the men and women and children were sitting on the cold ground for hours on end. In mid-winter on the ground with no carpets or chairs! A nation that could endure that discipline for hours on end , you can only imagine what destiny Allah(swt) has planned for them. A day or 2 later on my program I read Behesht Zahra cemetery, again. The first time we went for a lecture, but we had seen the graves people reciting poems of sorrow and reciting dua' and I thought this second visit would be redundant. Why should one go a second time? I've seen what a cemetery is. But all my companions were going and I thought if everyone else was going, it wouldn't be good for me to stay in the hotel relaxing when all my companions are going in these buses to a cemetery. But I went and I became very happy. And the second time I went it was a Thursday afternoon and Thursdays in Iran is like Saturdays for us. And tens of thousands of people were in the cemetery. This was a custom. It was like Eid. Tens of thousands are there, for what else, but to charge their spiritual batteries. It was a constant reminder to not forget. "My son gave his life for Islam" or "my father gave is life for Islam " that they gave their life for Islam. With that kind of system, Every Thursday is a spiritual injection and reminder that they are willing to give their life for Islam.
There was a town hall that accommodated 16,000 people, compared to the biggest town hall in South Africa which is the Good Hope Center in Capetown for 8,000. This was built by the shah to boast his own "Aryan myth". He was boasting not only that he was the shahanshah or king of kings, but also that he was the aryamehr, light of the Aryans. What is this Aryan sickness? Remember Hitler bragging about being Aryan because the Germans are Aryans. And the Hindus boasting we are Aryans. If my people, the Gujarati people, weren't Muslims we'd be boasting about being Aryans as well. The ex shah claimed to be the light of Aryans and he built this monument as a tribute. He built another monument spending millions to commemorate his ancestor Cyrus the great, a pagan, a mushrik and squandering the wealth of this nation for this project. In 1984 he was supposed to have the world Olympics in Tehran to boost his ego even further. In this town hall we saw athletics, gymnastics, acrobatics. Unfortunately we Muslims here in South Africa are like jellyfish, that is we have made ourselves into jellyfish. Our young men do not participate in that kind of activity. Who here does athletics, gymnastics, acrobatics we do not do that here. It's not for us. Who does jogging, You know the young people here, when I meet them I shake hands with them and they are like jellyfish. Almost every young man you meet in Iran appears to be an athlete. They are doing sports on a world standard and it makes one feel so happy because there they are not projecting Iran. They are not talking about Iran "we are Iranians, we are Aryans" instead they are talking about Islam, about Islam, about Islam. There was not one semi-naked girl, not a single girl who was half naked there. If the shah had his way, if he was alive and organized it, there would have been semi-naked girls for everyone to stare at and feast upon.
In Iran everything is Islamic to strengthen the morality of the people, boosting the men and women by the thousands. We were thrilled , we were thrilled to see our children, we felt as if theses were our children, our own brothers and sisters, we were really thrilled. We saw these as things that our children can do. Then we went through a military parade with different groups of Iranian men and there was no shortage of man power. You know, some people want to go and help our Iranian brethren. Alhamdulilah there is no shortage of man power they only want the tools, and the weapons. If the Iranians had the military weapons that the Israelis had, the whole of the middle-east would be free from every kind foreign intervention in no time. This is a nation that can do it. The spirit is there, the spirit of Jihad is there in each and every man and woman in the nation. It seems that the whole nation is involved in promoting Islam. We are talking about 20 million people that they can put into the field. If they had the weapons and the materials, every man woman and child would can go and do jihad.
Then we visited the Iraqi prisoners of war. As you know when this war started Iraq attacked Iran. The whole country was in turmoil. Iraq felt that the Jews did it to the Arabs in 6 days, then they will do it to the Iranians in 3 days and the whole world thought that in one weeks time, Iran would crumble to pieces. And do you know how long it has been now? It's been a year and a half, and even more. And in the beginning there were twenty to one odds against them in men and materials and the Iranians turned the tables and brought the odds to 3 to one still against them. And they were able to push them back. They recaptured all their land and a hill that was named Allahu Akbar. Before I went to Iran Dr . Kalim Siddiqui from the UK jokingly remarked that "you guys have half a chance of becoming martyrs (shahid).." It was a joke and it nearly became true. While we were coming out of a city on the war front there was a field of tanks. And our young men came out of the buses and started to climb onto the tanks taking pictures to show people back home. Then one of the tanks in the courtyard came out for a training demonstration on how it works and suddenly we hear gunfire and in the distance we saw smoke coming from a few places and some of our young men got scared and started hiding behind bushes., and it turns out that we were under attack from the Iraqis. And there were bombs exploding all around us and Allah (swt) saved us. And remember Khaled had said that was half a chance that we would become martyrs, well it almost became a full chance. (laughter).
We visited those wounded in the war and no one was complaining about what had happened to them. One man had his leg amputated, and there were no tears, I never saw a single tear from anyone, and they were asking if it was possible to go back to the front. Their regrets were not about their injuries but why they can't go back to the front to fight and become shahid, this is the ambition of each and every Muslim there. When we visited the prisoners of war the Iranians had captured 7000 prisoners of war and they looked healthy, well clothed, well fed. One of my friends was interested in finding out what the Iraqi prisoners felt about their condition first hand. And anyone he asked said that they were being looked after very well. Then I had an idea. Some were here for over a year and others for a few months and I was wondering how many people had committed suicide. And I asked each group of the prisoners of war and asked each group how many people committed suicide. They said not one. I then asked the next group and so on. Not one single person committed suicide amongst the 7800 prisoners of war. And if we look at our so called civilized western country of South Africa, 46 people committed suicide in our prisons this year alone and they are well fed well clothed have their own cells and 46 committed suicide so far. And if people are not well treated some are going to want to find an easy way out but there was not one single person who committed suicide amongst the 7800 prisoners of war.
We went to visit the Imam, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. There were about forty of us who waited for the Imam and the Imam came in and was about ten meters away from where I was, and I saw the Imam. He delivered the Lecture to us for about half an hour, and it was nothing but the Quran, the man is like a computerized Quran. And the electric effect he had on everybody, his charisma, was amazing . You just look at the man and tears come down your cheek. You just look at him and you get tears. I never saw a more handsome old man in my life, no picture, no video, no TV could do justice to this man, the handsomest old man I ever saw in my life was this man. There is something unique to his name, too. First he is called Imam Khomeini. The word Imam is to us a every cheap word. Wherever we go somewhere we ask who is the Imam of the Masjid here. To the Shia there is only one Imam in the world and he is the Twelfth Imam , they believe in the concept of Imamate and that the Imam is the spiritual leader of the ummah. And the first Imam according to the school of Imamate is Hazrat Ali(RA). Then comes Imam Hassan who is the second Imam, Imam Hussein the third Imam all the way until the twelve Imam, Imam Mohammad who disappeared at the age of 5 and they are expecting his return. They use the term "occultation" something like a spiritual hibernation like the Ashab Al-cahf. And that he is expected to come back and he is the only one in the world who can be called Imam. Most of their scholars are called mullah, and Ayatollah means Allamah And Ayatollah Khomeini is called Imam out of respect but they are waiting for the real Imam to come. Ruhollah is the name his father gave him and do you know what it means? Ruhollah means the 'word of God' and this is the title of Hazrat Isa(as) in the Quran. Then he is Ayatollah which is another title of Hazrat Isa(as) in the Quran. Al-Musawi is from the family Musa and from the city of Khomein which is where his last name Khomeini comes from. ...(break in audio at 41: 05 seconds). But they are waiting for the Mahdi, and not Khomeini. They want to clean the stables and make preparations for the Mahdi to come. In the Sunni world we are also waiting for the Mahdi to come but we want him to clean the stables for us, make us masters of the world and to make us sit on the thrones. The Sunni world is just passively waiting. Until then we can carry on with all our petty little squabbles, whatever we are carrying on now. And it is only the Imam Mahdi which can clean the world for us. This is the Sunni line of thinking. Khomeini on the other hand tells his followers that we must help prepare the way so that when he does come everything is already set up for him to act on. While we, the Sunni world are waiting for Imam Mahdi to pull the chestnut out of the fire for us, the Shias are preparing the world for his arrival.
You know there were many people with us from all over the world. And I found types and types and types of sick people, a mental sickness that is. I came across an alim from Pakistan Mauna Sahib and he thought that there was something wrong with our Shia brothers. You see in Iran when someone is lecturing and the name Khomeini is mentioned people stop and everyone says durood on the Prophet(S) three times. But when the name Mohammad is mentioned they send durood once. And this alim from Pakistan says " look at these people just look at them. What kind of Muslims are these people. When the name Mohammad is mentioned they send durood on the Prophet(s) once but when the name Khomeini is mentioned they send Durood on KHOMEINI three times."
I said " What do they say , what do they say in this so called 'durood on Khomeini'. "
He said: Peace be upon Mohammad and the family of Mohammad.
I said " Who is Mohammad? Khomeini? Who named Khomeini as Mohammad. Their durood is on Prophet Mohammad(s) and you say it is on Khomeini."
You know it's a sickness. There are many learned men but their minds are so prejudiced. They are just looking for faults. [1]
Another example is that the Shia brothers when they make salat, they have a piece of clay (turbah) that they do sajjdah on. And he says "see what they are doing here. This is shirk. They are worshipping a piece of clay. " I said why don't you ask them why they place their foreheads on a piece of clay and learn the logic behind this. You see, the first time I experienced this was in Washington D.C., the Iranian students there had invited me to give a lecture there at the university where they were studying in America. At that time, it was time for Isha and we made salat. And everyone was given a piece of clay. I at the time thought it was so funny, so I put it aside and I made my salat with the Iranian students. And after salat I wanted to know about this and I asked them. Why do you carry this clay tablet everywhere you go in your pocket. They said " we are supposed to do sujood on Allah's earth with our foreheads touching the earth. We say "subhanna rabia Allah" three times with our foreheads touching the earth." So the Shia want to actually touch the earth with their foreheads and not a manmade carpet. They want to be true to the expression of praying with the forehead actually touching Allah's earth. You see they don't worship the clay tablet as many wrongly think. And this is always something that we Sunnis are always making fun of and mock the Shia, but on my way out from Tehran across the plane in the aisle were two Shias and when prayer time came one of them took his clay tablet out of his pocket and, Allahu Akbar, performed salat right there on the plane in his seat, and when he finished he gave this to his neighbor and he performed salat. And this may seem like a joke to us. Isn't it? And there were dozens of Sunnis on the plane and out of those dozens of Sunnis only one young man did the salat, and I tell you that young man wasn't me. But we are laughing at the other Guy. He is sitting there and doing something better than we are and we make fun of them and sit in judgement. He may not as polished and refined as we are in South Africa. You know we Muslims in South Africa are very polished and refined in our salat. The Arabs are no match for us, the Iranians are no match for us, the Americans bilalans, the Negroes they are no match to us. With the Arabs you are bowing down in ruku and the guy next to you pushes you aside to make space.(laughter) Who knows brothers, maybe it is valid, we don't know. You know, between the four Sunni mazhabs the Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafei there are over two hundred differences in salat alone. Did you know that? Two hundred. But we take it for granted. The Shafei says amin loudly and we say it silently, they say bismillah loudly we say it silently and there is there is no problem. A s a child my father would repeat the famous formula that he in turn learned from his father. : "all the mazhabs are equally valid and the truth for them is in the hadith and the Quran." And so we accept it. When it comes to the Shafei, Hanbali, Hanafi and Maliki we are tolerant but when it comes to the Shia you see he is not in the formula that we are taught as a child, so what ever little idiosyncrasies there exists between us and them we cant tolerate and reject we say that he is out because we are programmed to believe in only the four. But we accept the idiosyncrasies between the four.
I say why cant you accept the Shia brothers as a fifth madhab. And the astonishing thing is that he is telling you that he wants to be one with you. He is not talking about being Shia. He is shouting "there is no Sunni nor Shia there is one thing, Islam." But we say to them "no you are different you are Shia." This attitude is a sickness of the devil. He wants to divide us. Can you imagine we Sunnis are 90% of the Muslim world and the ten percent who are Shias want to be partners and brothers with you in faith and the 90% are terrified. I cant understand why should you the 90% be so terrified. They should be the ones terrified. And if you just knew the feelings that they have for you. During Jummah prayers in Iran, there are a million people. And you should see the way they look at you when you pass by, they recognize that you are a foreigner and not one of them and tears start rolling down their cheeks. This is the feeling that they have for you, but you say no, you want to keep them out, afraid that they will absolve you. You can only be absolved if there is something better than what you have. I don't know, maybe some of you think I am a Shia, but I'm still with you all here. What is all this Shia-Sunni tensions? It is all politics. These antagonisms we have are all politics now. If a Sunni brother somewhere does something wrong you say oh the individual is not being very Islamic, he is a kaffir, But if a Shia does something wrong you want to condemn the whole Shia community, the whole nation of millions, and say they are all rubbish just because one Shias actions are not very Islamic. At the same time where we look the other way if one of your relatives does something serious because he is your father or your uncle. One group of Sunnis says to another "you are not a Muslim" another group of Sunnis says "you are not a Muslim you are a kaffir" look that's among us, and we fight among ourselves. And some of us do funny things.
I met one brother who told me when you go to Newcastle go visit Mr. So and so and inshallah everything will be taken care of for you. So I went to the man and exactly as I was told he took me home for lunch and when I'm sitting at the table I see on the wall 'burat' you know what burat is? A donkey like animal with the face of a woman its supposed to provide electrical force. I told him this is not right. Allah(swt) created electrical force, you can not create it with a statue of a donkey with a woman's face. Oh and he was so upset. But he's a Sunni, he was a brother and is still my brother. This Sunni-Shia tensions is the work of the devil to divide us.
Let me say something about Iran. What I found was that everything is islamically oriented. The whole nation is geared towards Islam. And they are talking about nothing but the Quran. I have never had a single experience with an Iranian when the man contradicted me when I'm talking about the Quran. Whereas our Arab brethren again and again you quote them the Quran and they try to contradict you with the Quran. They are Arabs, they are supposed to know the Quran better than us, but the Iranians seem to be on the wavelength of the Quran. Everything he is doing everything he is thinking about is the Quran. You remember Tabas[2] when the American people wanted to free the hostages. The mightiest most technologically advanced nation on earth, a nation that can land a man on the moon and bring him back, a nation which tells you which part of the moon they will land and bring them back, they send mars and Jupiter probes. A nation that warned Pakistan about the tidal wave tragedy and they didn't heed the warning. They warned the Israelis in 1973 that the Arabs were on the move, they didn't heed the warning. That nation couldn't land in Iran. Imagine they went there with their helicopters and crashed them selves and got themselves killed. Imagine. A nation that lands on the moon and comes back cant land in Iran. And the Iranian people were not in any position to do anything to them. The Americans could have gone and done what they wanted to do. I went and saw the American embassy and you think that its just a big building, but man its acres and acres right in the center of Tehran. They could have easily gone in and gotten these people out, even if they lost a few men. They could have achieved their goals. It was very well planned. But you know what happened? Fiasco, retreat failure, the Imam Khomeini is told what has happened. He doesn't say Subhananla, he doesn't say Alhamdulilah, you know what he said. He quotes the Quran : "Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the companions of the elephant?" 105:1 These are the words that came out of him. I tell you he is a Quranic computer.
You know what they call those huge helicopters? Jumbo helicopters, and those big planes are called jumbo planes. You know what jumbo means in Swahili, Elephant. It's a Swahili word. That's where they got the name. So these elephant sized helicopters go and the Imam says: "Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the possessors of the elephant? Did He not cause their war to end in confusion," Quran 105:1-2
But we are so skeptical, the Muslim world has become so skeptical we don't believe in the Quran anymore. You don't really believe in the Quran, for most people it is all for entertainment, for the good spiritual feelings that you get when reciting the Holy Quran. But the directives that Allah(swt) gives, nobody seems to care. May Allah (swt) make these brothers of ours, the torchbearers and light of learning today to the Muslim world . And here is a nation geared to do the Job. When you look at them the earnestness that is in them, a nation that is not afraid, when you look at them with the enthusiasm they have. They are not afraid to say "marg bar amrika" death to America.. Then say "marg bar shuravi " death to USSR. Imagine that! (laughter from the audience). And death to Israel." Can you imagine a nation doing that and not in the least afraid. This is not the Islamic spirit that is in us here, but the Iranians are all heart and mind. They don't say "this is an Iranian revolution "or "we are Iranians". They are talking about Islam, an Islamic Revolution. This is not an Iranian revolution but that this is an Islamic revolution. It's a revolution for Islam and little wonder why the nations of the world cant stomach it because it is Islam that they cant stomach. So my dear brothers and sisters I have taken so much of your valuable time already. And with these words I take leave of you to sit down and to take your Questions.
[1] " O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as FIND FAULT. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things." Quran 5:54

Suyuti, the famous commentator, in his Durr al-Mansur

Suyuti, the famous commentator, in his Durr al-Mansur


Suyuti, the famous commentator has narrated in his Durr al-Mansur that Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari said, "We were in presence of the prophet, when Imam Ali arrived there. As soon as the prophet saw him he said,`UPON HIM, TO WHOSE HANDS LAYS MY LIFE, ALI AND HIS SHIITE (SECTARIANS) WILL HAVE SALVATION IN DOOMSDAY'Then the prophet; `added the narrator, `recited the above mentioned verse. After that, whenever Imam Ali came to a gathering of prophet, we used to say: `The best of God's creatures is come.


"The above tradition with a little difference is also narrated by: IBN _ ABBASS. ABU BARZEH. IBN _ MARDOOYED and also ATTIYEH _ UFI.