Saturday, 5 July 2025

Your Hour

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا سيدي يا نور الله

According to the Christian New Testament, Jesus Christ عليه السلام prophesied that the coming of the Kingdom of God and the “Son of man” shall occur within the lifetime of at least some of his own Disciples: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:27-28), “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1), “But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27).

The phrase γεύσωνται θανάτου geusontai thanatou “shall taste of death” attributed to the mouth of Jesus is interesting because it also occurs in the Holy Quran:

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ

Every soul shall taste death

(Surah 3:185; 21:35; 29:57)

Since none of Jesus’s Disciples are believed to have cheated death till today, and since apparently Jesus has not yet come with the Kingdom and Angels in glory, it is tempting to conclude this is surely a false prophecy. It is especially a problem for orthodox and fundamentalist Christians who believe everything in the Bible is inerrant and divinely inspired, especially the canonical Gospels.

But there is a similar prophecy narrated from the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم which some opponents and ignorant people have suggested is a false prophecy:

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ كَانَ رِجَالٌ مِنَ الأَعْرَابِ جُفَاةً يَأْتُونَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَيَسْأَلُونَهُ مَتَى السَّاعَةُ فَكَانَ يَنْظُرُ إِلَى أَصْغَرِهِمْ فَيَقُولُ ‏‏ إِنْ يَعِشْ هَذَا لاَ يُدْرِكْهُ الْهَرَمُ حَتَّى تَقُومَ عَلَيْكُمْ سَاعَتُكُمْ‏

A’ishah رضى الله عنها narrated that men from the rough, nomadic Arabs came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and asked him, “When is the Hour?” So he looked at the youngest among them and said, “If this one lives, old age will not overtake him until your Hour is established upon you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

While الساعة “the Hour” generally refers to the Resurrection and Final Judgment in Islamic terminology, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم suffixed it by saying ساعتكم or “your Hour”. A narrator of the Hadith, Hisham bin Urwah, commented on this, saying “it means their death”.

قَالَ هِشَامٌ يَعْنِي مَوْتَهُمْ‏

In other words, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was referring to, what would be for them, a minor Qiyamah and not the major Qiyamah at the end of time. A minor Qiyamah could be any cataclysmic event, including one’s own death. But in the prophecy attributed to Jesus Christ an equivocal term like “your Hour” has not been said but rather “the Son of man coming in his kingdom”.

Undoubtedly, both Jesus and Muhammad عليهما السلام were apocalyptic Prophets who were desperately warning their respective peoples about the imminent Doomsday. Cataclysmic events occurred shortly after their departure from this world. In the case of Jesus it was the First Jewish-Roman War which resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple, and in the case of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم it was the turbulent period associated with the first four civil wars that afflicted the Arabs.

Rafidi Shiite Redefining of Shirk

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا سيدي يا نور الله

Allah جَلَّ جَلَالَهُ says:

لَئِنۡ اَشۡرَکۡتَ لَیَحۡبَطَنَّ عَمَلُکَ وَلَتَکُوۡنَنَّ مِنَ الۡخٰسِرِیۡنَ

If you commit Shirk your deeds shall be rendered vain and you will surely be among the losers

(Surah 39, Ayah 65)

With us mainstream Sunni Muslims, the mortal sin of Shirk is to worship anyone or anything besides Allah—the one true God. But many heretical sects have redefined Shirk to mean something else. The Twelver Shi’ah claim that Shirk is to accept the government or Imamate of anyone besides Ali bin Abi Talib كرم الله وجهه who alone was divinely appointed to succeed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

Hence, in explanation of the Ayah cited above, the Rafidi Shi’ah attribute the following statement to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir رضى الله عنه

لئن أشركت بولاية علي ليحبطن عملك

If you commit Shirk in the Wilayah of Ali your deeds shall be rendered vain (Tafsir Furat al-Kufi, p.370)



This is merely one of countless instances in which the heretical Shi’ites have flagrantly suppressed the established and plain Islamic teachings for a sectarian motive.

Friday, 4 July 2025

Sectarian Demography of the Eastern Islamic World

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا سيدي يا نور الله

Back in December, 2024, when Syria was finally liberated from the terrible Baathist—Alawite regime, I wrote: “Whoever the new Syrian government is they would be wise to curtail the agency of the minorities in that country, as the minorities naturally sided with the brutal but secular dictatorship. An aggressive policy of Sunnification is required for Syria so as to ensure that such a situation of a heretical minority gaining power in that country is never again repeated. And we know that the Nusairi so-called Alawites were only empowered as a consequence of the policy of the French imperialist in the twentieth century. As I have explained, the heretical minorities naturally ally with the external enemies of Islam as they feel it is necessary to secure their own existence and prosperity at the expense of the Sunni Muslim majority.”

Now since the fall of the Assad regime, Alawites and pro-Assad elements in western Syria, particularly in the Latakia and Tartus regions, launched an insurgency in which they have ambushed and killed countless security forces of the new government and their allies. In response to this terrorism, the pro-government security forces moved in on the troubled regions to neutralize the Alawite threat. The sectarian conflict reached its zenith in March, 2025, but has since cooled down and law and order has been restored. Then in late April to early May, 2025, the Druze stirred dissension in southern Syria, rising up in open rebellion against the new Syrian government. The Zionist State backed their Druze pawns and launched several strikes against the new Syrian government.

All of this demonstrates the lethal danger posed by heretical groups, the Zanadiqah, such as the Nusayris (Alawites), Druze, Batinis (Isma’ilis), etc. In Syria, the Druze and the Kurdish Marxists are openly allied with the Zionist State, whose enmity to Islam and the Muslims is not hidden from anyone.

Whereas in the past God commanded, in the Torah and via some of the ancient Israelite Prophets like Moses, Joshua and Samuel, the eradication of various pagan nations from the Holy Land, in our time it is the extermination of the Zindiq sects that is divinely sanctioned. Yesterday it was the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites and Amalekites and today it is the Alawites/Nusayris, Druze, Ismailis/Batinis, Zikris, Bahais, Yazidis, Bektashis, Ahmadis/Qadianis, etc.

Certain parts of the Muslim World today are more prone to the threat of these and other heretical sects. The threat to the Sunni Muslims of Syria, who comprise four-fifths of the overall Syrian population, has already been laid bare.

In neighboring Iraq, the Twelver Shi’ah, Rafidis who blaspheme against the Prophet’s successors, wives and companions رضى الله عنهم and believe the Holy Quran has been corrupted, form the majority, about three-fifths, of that country. Since the Americans liberated Iraq in 2003 from the Baathist regime of Saddam, the Shi’ite clergy and Shi’ite religious parties have been totally empowered through the ballot. Since coming to power, the Shi’ite dominated government of Iraq, in coordination with Shi’ite militias backed by Iran, effected an ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslims from much of Baghdad. Today, the situation of the Sunnis in Iraq is precarious, and they have essentially been relegated to the status of second class citizens.

Moving east to Iran, the Twelver Shi’ites form the overwhelming majority of that country since the Safavids beginning in the 16th century imposed Shi’ism upon the Iranians who were once predominantly Sunni. Still, about one-tenth of Iran is Sunni, predominantly belonging to the Kurdish, Baloch and Turkmen ethnic minorities. They have been sidelined and marginalized, particularly since 1979 when Khomeini seized power and established Wilayat al-Faqih—a Shi’ite theocracy in which the clergy govern the country in the name of the mythic Twelfth Imam.

Further east to Afghanistan, the state of affairs is significantly better. The Taliban, or Islamic Emirate, have been in control since liberating Afghanistan from American occupation about four years ago. Despite considerable ethnic heterogeneity, the vast majority, about nine-tenths, is Sunni. The Hazara community, a Turco-Mongol ethnic group that settled in central Afghanistan centuries ago, are predominantly Twelver Shi’ah. Historically, they have posed a security threat to Afghanistan, but they were pacified during the reign of the great Emir Abdul Rahman Khan, and by the original Taliban in the 1990s. The restoration of Taliban governance ensures that the Hazara Shi’ites remain under necessary surveillance. Yet this community should not be underestimated. During Syria’s devastating civil war, tens of thousands of Hazara fighters, organized as the Liwa Fatemiyoun, had their entry facilitated into Syria by the Iranians, and were used as cannon fodder to cause much bloodshed against the Sunni Muslims.

Moving north into Central Asia, the former Soviet Republics, while the population is predominantly Sunni, many are only nominally so. Since the early eighteenth century, the Russians had been conquering and colonizing Muslim Central Asia. Thus, centuries of Russian colonial rule, and then brutal Soviet repression, coerced the Turkic Muslim peoples of Central Asia to secularize and become detached from their Faith. When the USSR collapsed, the Central Asian Republics attained independence but their rulers were former Soviet agents, part of a Russified elite class who maintained the repressive atheistic policies. In summary, the state of affairs for Islam in the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia is quite dismal at the moment. While there is not a problem of sectarian heresy there per se, there is an equally if not more dangerous presence of secularists and atheists whom the sincere Sunni Muslims have to contend with.

The dynamics in Pakistan are radically different. Firstly, it has a massively large population of about 250 million people. The vast majority of Pakistanis are Sunni Muslims, but there is a significant minority of Twelver Shi’ah, and other heretical sects like Isma’ilis, Ahmadis/Qadianis, Zikris, Nurbakhshis, and a rapidly growing number of Hadith-rejecters. Though most parts of Pakistan Sunni Muslims are in the majority, there is one area where non-Sunnis predominate, namely, Gilgit-Baltistan. This administrative area has a crucial location, bordering China and Indian occupied Kashmir, and a small population of about two million. Sunni Muslims are less than one-third of the population, while two-fifths are Twelver Shi’ah, a quarter are Isma’ili, and about six percent belong to the obscure Nurbakhshi denomination. The sectarian demography of Gilgit-Baltistan is concerning in light of active efforts by the Indian intelligence agencies to destabilize the region. Non-Sunni sects and heretical groups are easily manipulated by the external enemies of Islam and foreign powers to cause a headache to the State and central government. The manner in which the Zionists have made the Druze their pawns in southern Syria could potentially be replicated by Hindu India vis-à-vis the Shi’ite sects in Gilgit-Baltistan. Already their are stirrings of separatism in Gilgit-Baltistan and growing anti-State sentiments among the non-Sunnis there. It would be wise for the Pakistani State to revive the policy of the pious Zia-ul-Haq رحمة الله عليه who facilitated the settlement of Sunni Muslims into the Northern Areas from mainland Pakistan, in order to dilute the native Shi’ites there. As for the Ahmadis/Qadianis, a sect that believes in the false prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, since they were officially declared a non-Muslim minority in 1974, the internal threat they posed to Pakistan has been drastically reduced. Due to the passionate efforts of the Sunni Ulama, the Pakistani masses socially boycott the Qadianis and keep them in check. This has motivated the Qadianis to covertly back social and political trends in Pakistan that seek to secularize the state and society. The Qadianis remain behind the scenes while employing useful idiots on their behalf to do the dirty work of campaigning for secularity and actual secularism. Large numbers of Qadianis have fled Pakistan and sought asylum abroad, especially in Europe, where they lobby European and American governments to go against Pakistan’s interests. Perhaps the most dangerous flashpoint in Pakistan is the backwater province of Baluchistan, where there is an ongoing separatist insurgency which is increasingly using methods of terrorism targeting civilian settlers from other provinces like Punjab. The Baluch separatists are rabid in their hatred for the Pakistani State. They tend to have a Marxist and secular outlook, despite some of them nominally professing Sunni Islam. These Baluch separatists are openly supportive of Hindu India and Zionism. They also have a soft corner for the heretical Zikris, since the latter are “fellow” Baluch ethnics, and follow a religious understanding that is indigenous to the area. This sect should therefore be strictly monitored, and like Gilgit-Baltistan, there should be a policy of aggressive Sunnification, through both proselytism and settlement of conservative and loyalist Sunni Muslims from other provinces.

Since Hasina’s Awami League government collapsed in Bangladesh in early August, 2024, the forces of secularism and atheism in that country have been on the defense. Thankfully, Bangladesh is an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim country, though about eight percent of Bangladeshis are Hindu. The Hindu presence is concerning since they would naturally be more loyal to India and also fiercely opposed to the project of political and cultural Islamization of Bangladesh. Nevertheless, the lack of any significant presence of heretical sects means Bangladesh’s transition to becoming more Islamic is potentially smoother.

Like Bangladesh, the Muslim countries of Indonesia and Malaysia are probably lacking any significant internal armed conflict because the populations are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim with no significant presence of heretical sects, particularly Shi’ites. There are some New Age cults that are expanding their presence in Indonesia, and the schools of Ulama there are generally liberal. The conservative and traditionalist Sunni Muslims should look to Afghanistan and Pakistan for strategies to wage the all important culture war against the diabolical forces of liberalism, pluralism and feminism.

Ibn Saba the Original Shi'ite Heresiarch

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا سيدي يا نور الله

The infamous Yemenite Jew, Abdullah bin Saba, pretended to convert to Islam as a scheme to infiltrate the community of Believers and sow seeds of discord from within. He instigated the people against the Prophet’s third successor, Uthman bin Affan رضى الله عنه which led to the latter’s assassination and martyrdom. He was not only a heresiarch, teaching doctrines that became associated with the Shi’ah, especially the extremist Ghulat thereof, but also a false prophet. In modern times, some Shi’ite apologists and others claim Ibn Saba is a fiction invented by the Sunnis as a polemic to discredit Shi’ism. However, such a claim is easily demolished when we refer to Shi’ite literature which not only acknowledges the existence of this evil individual but also lays bare his heresies and his fate at the hands of Amir ul-Mu’minin Ali bin Abi Talib كرم الله وجهه

حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ قُولَوَيْهِ الْقُمِّيُّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي سَعْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي خَلَفٍ الْقُمِّيُّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُثْمَانَ الْعَبْدِيُّ عَنْ يُونُسَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ سَبَإٍ كَانَ يَدَّعِي النُّبُوَّةَ وَ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّ أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع هُوَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى‌ عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع فَدَعَاهُ وَ سَأَلَهُ فَأَقَرَّ بِذَلِكَ وَ قَالَ نَعَمْ أَنْتَ هُوَ وَ قَدْ كَانَ أُلْقِيَ فِي رُوعِي أَنَّكَ أَنْتَ اللَّهُ وَ أَنِّي نَبِيٌّ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع وَيْلَكَ قَدْ سَخِرَ مِنْكَ الشَّيْطَانُ فَارْجِعْ عَنْ هَذَا ثَكِلَتْكَ أُمُّكَ وَ تُبْ فَأَبَى فَحَبَسَهُ وَ اسْتَتَابَهُ ثَلَاثَةَ أَيَّامٍ فَلَمْ يَتُبْ فَأَحْرَقَهُ بِالنَّارِ وَ قَالَ إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ اسْتَهْوَاهُ‌ فَكَانَ يَأْتِيهِ وَ يُلْقِي فِي رُوعِهِ ذَلِكَ

Abu Ja’far (Imam Muhammad al-Baqir) narrated that Abdullah bin Saba claimed prophethood and asserted that the Commander of the Faithful (Ali) was Allah. Exalted be He! Regarding this, the Commander of the Faithful heard of it, so he summoned him and questioned him. He (Ibn Saba) acknowledged it and said, “Yes, you are He. It has been suggested to me that you are Allah and that I am a prophet.” The Commander of the Faithful said to him, “Woe to you! Satan has mocked you, so turn away from this, may your mother be bereaved of you, and repent.” But he refused, so he imprisoned him and gave him a chance to repent for three days, but he did not repent, so he burned him with fire. And he said that Satan had tempted him, so he used to come to him and instill that in his mind.

حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ قُولَوَيْهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي سَعْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ وَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع يَقُولُ وَ هُوَ يُحَدِّثُ أَصْحَابَهُ بِحَدِيثِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَبَإٍ وَ مَا ادَّعَى مِنَ الرُّبُوبِيَّةِ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ فَقَالَ إِنَّهُ لَمَّا ادَّعَى ذَلِكَ فِيهِ اسْتَتَابَهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع فَأَبَى أَنْ يَتُوبَ فَأَحْرَقَهُ بِالنَّارِ

Abu Abdullah (Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq) said while he was telling the story of Abdullah bin Saba and what he claimed of divinity for the Commander of the Faithful Ali bin Abi Talib, so he said that when he claimed that about him, the Commander of the Faithful told him to repent but he refused to repent, so he burned him with the fire.

حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ قُولَوَيْهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي سَعْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ وَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَهْزِيَارَ عَنْ فَضَالَةَ بْنِ أَيُّوبَ الْأَزْدِيِّ عَنْ أَبَانِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع يَقُولُ‌ لَعَنَ اللَّهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَبَإٍ إِنَّهُ ادَّعَى الرُّبُوبِيَّةَ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع وَ كَانَ وَ اللَّهِ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع عَبْداً لِلَّهِ طَائِعاً الْوَيْلُ لِمَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَيْنَا وَ إِنَّ قَوْماً يَقُولُونَ فِينَا مَا لَا نَقُولُهُ فِي أَنْفُسِنَا نَبْرَأُ إِلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ نَبْرَأُ إِلَى اللَّهِ مِنْهُمْ

Abu Abdullah (Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq) said, “May Allah curse Abdullah ibn Saba, for he claimed divinity for the Commander of the Faithful, while by Allah, the Commander of the Faithful was an obedient slave of Allah. Woe to those who lie about us, for there are people who say about us what we do not say about ourselves. We disassociate ourselves from them before Allah. We disassociate ourselves from them before Allah.”

قَالَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ ع لَعَنَ اللَّهُ مَنْ كَذَبَ عَلَيْنَا إِنِّي ذَكَرْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ سَبَإٍ فَقَامَتْ كُلُّ شَعْرَةٍ فِي جَسَدِي لَقَدِ ادَّعَى أَمْراً عَظِيماً مَا لَهُ لَعَنَهُ اللَّهُ كَانَ عَلِيٌّ ع وَ اللَّهِ عَبْداً لِلَّهِ صَالِحاً أَخُو رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ص مَا نَالَ الْكَرَامَةَ مِنَ اللَّهِ إِلَّا بِطَاعَتِهِ لِلَّهِ وَ لِرَسُولِهِ وَ مَا نَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص الْكَرَامَةَ مِنَ اللَّهِ إِلَّا بِطَاعَتِهِ

Ali bin al-Husain (Imam al-Sajjad) said, “May Allah curse whoever lied upon us! I mentioned Abdullah bin Saba and every hair on my body stood on end. He claimed a great matter that he did not have. May Allah curse him. By Allah, Ali was a righteous slave of Allah, the brother of the Messenger of Allah. He did not attain honor from Allah except through his obedience to Allah and His Messenger, and the Messenger of Allah did not attain honor from Allah except through his obedience.”

Commenting on these narrations, Muhammad bin Umar al-Kashshi says:

بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ‌ أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ سَبَإٍ كَانَ يَهُودِيّاً فَأَسْلَمَ وَ وَالَى عَلِيّاً ع وَ كَانَ يَقُولُ وَ هُوَ عَلَى يَهُودِيَّتِهِ فِي يُوشَعَ بْنِ نُونٍ وَصِيِّ مُوسَى بِالْغُلُوِّ فَقَالَ فِي إِسْلَامِهِ بَعْدَ وَفَاةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ص فِي عَلِيٍّ ع مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ وَ كَانَ أَوَّلَ مَنْ شَهَّرَ بِالْقَوْلِ بِفَرْضِ إِمَامَةِ عَلِيٍّ وَ أَظْهَرَ الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْ أَعْدَائِهِ وَ كَاشَفَ مُخَالِفِيهِ وَ أَكْفَرَهُمْ

Some of the people of knowledge said that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who converted to Islam and supported Ali. He used to say, while he was upon Judaism, that Joshua son of Nun was the executor of Moses’s will, with exaggeration. So he said the what is like it in Islam after the passing away of the Apostle of Allah about Ali. And he was the first to mandate the Imamate of Ali and to manifest disassociation from his enemies, to expose his (Ali’s) opponents and to make Takfir of them. (Rijal al-Kashshi, v.1, pp.84-85)





What has been reported by al-Kashshi confirms the Sunni narrative, that the hypocrite and heretic Ibn Saba was the first to declare that Amir ul-Mu’minin Ali رضى الله عنه was divinely appointed an Imam. He has also reported that Ibn Saba taught that Amir ul-Mu’minin رضى الله عنه is Allah Himself and that he (Ibn Saba) was a prophet! Amir ul-Mu’minin رضى الله عنه imprisoned Ibn Saba and told him to repent from such blasphemy, though he refused. Amir ul-Mu’minin رضى الله عنه then had Ibn Saba executed by immolation. He has also reported that the great Imams of Ahl al-Bayt like Imam Ali al-Sajjad, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir and Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq رضى الله عنهم cursed and denounced Ibn Saba.

Ibn Saba’s claim of being a prophet ought to be understood in the sense of being a prophet of the Imam (Ali), whom he considered God Himself. It became a precedent for later Ghali Shi’ite heresiarchs who claimed prophethood in the sense of being a prophet of an Imam: Hence, al-Mukhtar bin Abi Ubayd al-Thaqafi claimed to be a prophet calling the people to the Imamate of Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah.

Bayan bin Sam’an claimed to be a prophet, calling the people to the Imamate of Abu Hashim Abdullah bin Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah.

Al-Mughirah bin Sa’id claimed to be a prophet, calling the people to the Imamate of Muhammad bin Abdallah, Nafs al-Zakiyah.

Abul-Khattab claimed to be a prophet, calling the people to the Imamate of Ja’far al-Sadiq.

Hamdan Qarmat bin al-Ash’ath claimed to be a prophet, calling the people to the Imamate of Muhammad bin Isma’il bin Ja’far.

Muhammad bin Nusayr claimed to be a prophet calling the people to the Imamates of Ali al-Hadi, Hasan al-Askari and the supposed Twelfth Imam.

Many Different "Christianities"

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا سيدي يا نور الله


The Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

وَافْتَرَقَتِ ‌النَّصَارَى ‌عَلَى ‌ثِنْتَيْنِ ‌وَسَبْعِينَ ‌فِرْقَةً فَإِحْدَى وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ وَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ

The Christians split into seventy-two sects. Seventy-one are in the Fire and one is in Paradise (Sunan Ibn Majah)

In Arabic idiom, the number seventy simply indicates a multitude and not necessarily the number seventy literally. That the Muslim Ummah was destined to split into seventy-three sects would therefore mean that it would have slightly more division in its ranks than the number of divisions Christendom experienced, whose division into seventy-two sects means it in turn experienced slightly more fragmentation than the Jews who split into seventy-one factions. Like the Jews, there was a single sect of the Christians which was upon the truth, in its time, and is therefore given the glad tidings of Paradise. From our Islamic perspective, these would have been the early followers of Jesus, especially the Disciples and Apostles, who were pure unitarians, which unlike most other Christian churches, did not deify the Christ.

But the divergences within early Christianity were so fundamental that a modern day scholar on the subject, Bart Ehrman, uses the plural of Christianity, namely, “Christianities” to more accurately describe the situation: “The wide diversity of early Christianity may be seen above all in the theological beliefs embraced by people who understood themselves to be followers of Jesus. In the second and third centuries there were, of course, Christians who believed in one God. But there were others who insisted that there were two. Some said there were thirty. Others claimed there were 365. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that God had created the world. But others believed that this world had been created by a subordinate, ignorant divinity. (Why else would the world be filled with such misery and hardship?) Yet other Christians thought it was worse than that, that this world was a cosmic mistake created by a malevolent divinity as a place of imprisonment, to trap humans and subject them to pain and suffering. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that the Jewish Scripture (the Christian “Old Testament”) was inspired by the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by the God of the Jews, who was not the one true God. Others believed it was inspired by an evil deity. Others believed it was not inspired. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus was both divine and human, God and man. There were other Christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (For them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: God can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) There were others who insisted that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by God to be his son but not himself divine. There were yet other Christians who claimed that Jesus Christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, Jesus, and a fully divine being, Christ, who had temporarily inhabited Jesus’ body during his ministry and left him prior to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath. In the second and third centuries there were Christians who believed that Jesus’ death brought about the salvation of the world. There were other Christians who thought that Jesus’ death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world. There were yet other Christians who said that Jesus never died.” (Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, p.2)

The shocking disagreement of early Christians on the number of gods is a reference to the likes of Marcion and his followers, the Marcionites, who made a distinction between the benevolent God of the Gospel and the malevolent “god” of the Hebrew Bible. Basilides of Alexandria, and his followers known as the Basilidians, believed that the Jewish God was inferior to the 365 “Archons”, each ruling over a separate heaven.

The Rock of the Holy House (Dome of the Rock at Masjid al-Aqsa)

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا سيدي يا نور الله


According to the Holy Torah, the Patriarch Abraham عليه السلام was to sacrifice his son Isaac عليه السلام upon a mountain in the region of Moriah (Genesis 22:2). Some Muslims argue that Moriah is in reality Marwah, a hill in Mecca mentioned in the Holy Quran:

اِنَّ الصَّفَا وَالۡمَرۡوَۃَ مِنۡ شَعَآئِرِ اللّٰہِ

Verily, al-Safa and al-Marwah are among the symbols of Allah

(Surah 2, Ayah 158)

However, the Bible identifies Mount Moriah as the site upon which the Temple of Solomon was constructed (2 Chronicles 3:1). The Foundation Stone upon the Temple Mount is traditionally believed to be the site upon which the Patriarch Abraham عليه السلام bound his son Isaac عليه السلام intending to sacrifice him, which in Islamic terminology is referred to as the Manhar, or place of sacrifice. It is also traditionally believed to be the location of the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant was placed. Only the High Priest was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year on Yom Kippur.

When Sayyiduna Umar رضى الله عنه arrived at Jerusalem, he consulted Ka’b al-Ahbar رضى الله عنه on where exactly he should offer prayers upon Masjid al-Aqsa (the Temple Mount):

عَنْ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ آدَمَ قَالَ

سَمِعْتُ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ يَقُولُ لِكَعْبٍ أَيْنَ تُرَى أَنْ أُصَلِّيَ فَقَالَ ‌إِنْ ‌أَخَذْتَ ‌عَنِّي ‌صَلَّيْتَ ‌خَلْفَ ‌الصَّخْرَةِ ‌فَكَانَتِ ‌الْقُدْسُ ‌كُلُّهَا ‌بَيْنَ ‌يَدَيْكَ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ ضَاهَيْتَ الْيَهُودِيَّةَ لَا وَلَكِنْ أُصَلِّي حَيْثُ صَلَّى رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَتَقَدَّمَ إِلَى الْقِبْلَةِ فَصَلَّى ثُمَّ جَاءَ فَبَسَطَ رِدَاءَهُ فَكَنَسَ الْكُنَاسَةَ فِي رِدَائِهِ وَكَنَسَ النَّاسُ

Ubayd bin Adam narrated that he heard Umar bin al-Khattab say to Ka’b, “Where do you think I should pray?” He said, “If you take it from me, you will pray behind the Rock and all of Jerusalem will be before you.” Umar said, “You are imitating the Jews. No, but I will pray where the Apostle of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم prayed.” So he advanced toward the Qiblah and prayed. Then he came and spread out his cloak and swept the rubbish in his cloak and the people swept the rubbish (Musnad Ahmad, v.1, p.277, #261)




We Muslims believe the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم stepped foot, during the Isra, upon Masjid al-Aqsa, the Temple Mount, and offered his prayers in the area that is now covered by the silver domed Musalla al-Qibli or the Qibli Chapel. Sayyiduna Umar رضى الله عنه constructed a simple wooden structure on this area, which was renovated and improved upon by later Muslim rulers. As for the Rock, it is sacred to the Muslims because it was the original direction of prayer, or the Qiblah, which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the first Muslims رضى الله عنهم faced:

قَدْ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أمِرَ ‌بِاسْتِقْبَالِ ‌الصَّخْرَةِ ‌مِنْ ‌بَيْتِ ‌الْمَقْدِسِ فَكَانَ بِمَكَّةَ يُصَلِّي بَيْنَ الرُّكْنَيْنِ فَتَكُونُ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ الْكَعْبَةُ وَهُوَ مُسْتَقْبَلٌ صَخْرَةَ بَيْتِ الْمَقْدِسِ فَلَمَّا هَاجَرَ إِلَى الْمَدِينَةِ تَعَذَّر الجمعُ بَيْنَهُمَا فَأَمَرَهُ اللَّهُ بِالتَّوَجُّهِ إِلَى بَيْتِ الْمَقْدِسِ

The Apostle of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was commanded to face the Rock of the Holy House. So, in Mecca, he used to pray between the two corners, with the Ka’bah in front of him while he faced the Rock of the Holy House. When he migrated to Medina, it was impossible to combine the two, so Allah commanded him to face the Holy House (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

The great Imam al-Ghazzali رحمة الله عليه has also mentioned that it was precisely the Rock which was the original Qiblah:

وَقد كَانَ رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم يسْتَقْبل ‌الصَّخْرَة ‌من ‌بَيت ‌الْمُقَدّس مُدَّة مقَامه بِمَكَّة وَهِي قبْلَة الْأَنْبِيَاء وَكَانَ يقف بَين الرُّكْنَيْنِ اليمانيين إِذْ كَانَ لَا يُؤثر استدبار الْكَعْبَة فَلَمَّا هَاجر إِلَى الْمَدِينَة لم يُمكن استقبالها إِلَّا باستدبار الْكَعْبَة

The Apostle of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم used to face the Rock of the Holy House during his stay in Mecca, which is the Qiblah of the Prophets. He used to stand between the two Yemeni corners, as he did not prefer to turn his back to the Ka’bah. When he migrated to Medina, it was not possible to face it except by turning his back to the Ka’bah (al-Wasit fil-Madhhab, v.2, p.58)



The Umayyad ruler Abd al-Malik bin Marwan constructed the beautiful Dome of the Rock. A confused Jewish writer, authoring a prophetic text in the name of Shimon ben Yochai, attributed the construction of the Dome of the Rock to Sayyiduna Umar
رضى الله عنه
, “The second king who will arise from Ishmael will be a friend of Israel. He will repair their breaches and (fix) the breaches of the Temple and shape Mt. Moriah and make the whole of it a level plain. He will build for himself there a place for prayer upon the site of the ‘foundation stone,’ as Scripture says: ‘and set your nest on the rock’ (Num 24:21). He will wage war with the children of Esau and slaughter their troops and capture a large number of them, and (eventually) he will die in peace and with great honor.” (Nistarot of R. Shimon b. Yohai)

Today, some misguided so-called Muslims are questioning the status of the Rock or Foundation Stone in Islam. It is part of a broader but evil trend of attempting to distance Islam from Jerusalem and Masjid al-Aqsa. This is especially true of the heretical Shi’ah, but also the so-called Ahmadiyyah or Qadianis, and the Hadith-rejecters. Recently, the Rafidi pig Ammar Naqshawani, in his eighth Muharram majlis for the year 2025/1447 titled “The Glorious Umayyads: Shaam to Jerusalem” said, “Bani Umayyah’s poison. You’ve seen in Palestine there’s this mosque with the big gold dome. This is all Umayyad nonsense this place.” This conspiracy to distance Islam and the Muslim from Jerusalem, and rejection of the Dome of the Rock as a sacred Islamic shrine is strongly backed by the Zionists.

Your Hour

  بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله وعلى آلك...