King Amanullah Khan and His Wicked Wife

 

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

In Muslim history several kings and rulers emerged who either committed apostasy (like Akbar the Mughal emperor) or attempted to introduce some dangerous heresy. Beginning with Al-Ma’mun, Al-Mu’tasim and Al-Wathiq, Abbasid rulers who enforced the Mihnah (Inquisition) under influence of the heretical Mu’tazilites, the orthodox Sunni Muslim community, who comprise the vast majority of the Ummah, have had to suffer persecution and harm as a consequence of such evil rulers. In modern times, various secularist rulers arose who opposed the sacred Shari’ah, the likes of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and King Amanullah Khan in Afghanistan. The latter initiated an evil project to modernize and Westernize Afghanistan. His wife, the wicked Queen Soraya Tarzi, who had discarded the veil influenced Amanullah Khan to relinquish the Islamic strictures imposed upon women with regard to dress and traditional gender roles. The couple were quite reminiscent of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, the wicked Sidonian princess who influenced her husband to support the Cult of Baal in the Northern Kingdom of Israel and persecute the Israelite Prophets. In 1924, Pashtun tribesmen in Khost launched an uprising against Amanullah Khan. They were particularly incensed by Amanullah’s reforms for Westernization, involving a ban on polygamy, child marriage and encouraging things like women’s education and their discarding of the veil. Although this uprising was pacified, another one occurred in 1928, this time by the Shinwari tribesmen, again as a reaction to the misdeeds of Amanullah Khan, particularly his unholy reforms that opposed the Shari’ah. Simultaneously, the Saqqawists arose among the Tajiks north of Kabul led by a charismatic figure named Habibullah Kalakani (1891-1929), may Allah have mercy upon him.

Despite his ignoble background, Habibullah Kalakani had a fiery zeal for Islam and was incensed at the secularizing and Westernizing nature of the Amanullah Khan government. Due to the initial success of the uprising, in the beginning of 1929, the evil Amanullah Khan abdicated and fled Afghanistan. Kalakani then briefly ruled Afghanistan in 1929, until Nadir Khan, with the support of powerful Pashtun tribes, managed to depose the Tajik Kalakani and his Saqqawists. Kalakani was then executed by order of the new king, Nadir Khan. In the late 1970s, history repeated itself in Afghanistan when the Islamic forces rose up against the Communists who had managed to seize power and were, as Amanullah Khan before them, committed to enacting such social and economic reforms in Afghanistan that were plainly at odds with the sacred Shari’ah. The rise of Habibullah Kalakani against the evil Amanullah Khan reminds me of how Allah raised up the Prophet Moses against the tyrannical Pharaoh of Egypt. When the Prophet Moses arrived in the court of Pharaoh to deliver God’s Word to him, Pharaoh attempted to discredit him by reminding him that he had committed manslaughter:

وَفَعَلۡتَ فَعۡلَتَکَ الَّتِیۡ فَعَلۡتَ وَاَنۡتَ مِنَ الۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ

And you did the deed which you did, and you are among the ingrates

(Surah 26, Ayah 19)

Still, I believe that in instances where an apostate or heretical ruler seizes power in a Muslim country and begins to impose laws and customs that are contrary to the Shari’ah and to morality it is better for the Muslims to avoid launching an armed insurrection that may result in too much bloodshed and anarchy. Rather, the Islamic mystics and pious Ulama should rise up and speak with fire and brimstone against such an evil government in the spirit of the ancient Israelite Prophets like Elijah, Jeremiah and others.

والله ورسوله اعلم

And Allah and His Apostle know best!

"Red Maulana" Bhashani

 

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

In the 20^th century the Muslim World’s embracing of many un-Islamic, Western philosophies and ideologies accelerated. Many Muslims thirstily pounced upon the European ideology known as socialism. The basic principle of socialism is that the people collectively own the means of production, managed through the institution of the State. But in essence and practice it is nothing more than a kind of statism. As I have explained previously, the European ideology of socialism is contrary to Islam, which holds private property sacred and inviolable, as the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

كُلُّ الْمُسْلِمِ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِ حَرَامٌ دَمُهُ وَمَالُهُ وَعِرْضُهُ

Everything of the Muslim is sacred upon the Muslim; his blood, his wealth and his honor (Sahih Muslim)

Private property, acquired through lawful means, is inviolable as per the Islamic Shari’ah. The socialist call for land reforms in which the land of its owner is forcefully seized from him, then divided up and redistributed among the landless, and likewise the seizing of factories and other means of production from their private owners and corporations, is totally contrary to the sacred teachings of Islam. It is therefore shocking that many Muslims embraced the evil European ideology of socialism, even arguing that modern socialism is in accord with the spirit of social justice that is undeniable within Islam. But Islam has prescribed the institutions of Zakat and Ushr (agricultural tithe), meaning that the needy have a right to a specified share of the accumulated wealth or profits of the wealthy, never to the actual ownership of their land and property. If the only means to effect justice in society is to have collective ownership of the means of production then Allah Most High would have surely legislated that. By embracing socialism, a Muslim is, in his ignorance, questioning the ultimate wisdom of Allah and the perfection of the Shari’ah. It is therefore disturbing that some so-called Ulama, even those from a deeply conservative and traditional school as Deoband, were proponents of socialism. Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani (1880-1976) was one such Deobandi cleric who was a lifelong socialist.

He reportedly said, “The state should abolish all private ownership, and should distribute things in equal proportions, on the basis of need” (Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, p.701, by Sayyid Abul Maqsud, 1994). Having concluded his studies at Deoband in 1909, Bhashani proceeded to Assam were he partook in stirring up peasants against both the British government and some Zamindars (wealthy landowners). He was known as the “Red Maulana”. Though he joined the Muslim League and was initially in favor of the establishment of Pakistan, he was not really communal but called for Muslim-Hindu unity and for them to direct their ire against the British. Some ten years after the establishment of Pakistan, in 1957, Bhashani helped form the leftist National Awami Party (NAP). In 1967, this political party split into two, with Bhashani leading the pro-Chinese faction, and Abdul Wali Khan (s/o of the Pashtun nationalist and traitor “Frontier Gandhi” Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan) leading the pro-Soviet faction. By the time of Pakistan’s civil war in 1971, Bhashani had become a full blown secessionist and rebel. The breakup of Pakistan in that year was a bitter tragedy, a painful injury to the cause of Islam, Muslim solidarity and strength. Treacherous Muslims like Bhashani, blinded by foreign ideas originating in Europe such as socialism, but also Bengali ethnic nationalism, were instruments of dissension within the Ummah. Orthodox Sunni Islam clearly prohibits any call to ethnic nationalism which it describes as Jahiliyyah (barbarism or pre-Islamic ignorance) and likewise prohibits armed insurrection against any established Muslim government. Both these prohibitions were violated by the Bengali separatists who rebelled against the Pakistani State in 1971, as a consequence of which Bangladesh came into being. Though the supposedly “reactionary” so-called “Islamists” were also influenced by European ideas like socialism, Marxism and Leninism, they are certainly preferable to the leftists and socialists of the Muslim World, like Maulana Bhashani and his followers. Those “Islamists” like the Jama’ati Islami of Maududi ought to be lauded for remaining loyal to the Pakistani State in 1971. In East Pakistan they formed volunteer (Razakar) paramilitaries like Al-Badr, Al-Shams, etc., to counter the separatist Mukti Bahini rebels. Sadly, several of these loyalist leaders (Abdul Qadir Mulla, Muhammad Qamar-uz-Zaman, Chaudhry Mu’in-ud-Din, Ali Ahsan Muhammad Mujahid, Mati-ur-Rahman Nizami) affiliated with the Jama’ati Islami were later hanged by the Bangladeshi government. Then again, these so-called “reactionary”, “Islamist” factions, along with various Salafis and of course us mainstream Sunni Muslims, ought to be lauded for participating in the Jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s. Despite my considerable differences with the Ikhwanis, Salafis and likeminded groups, I find them preferable to the socialists and leftists, who openly backed the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan that had come to prop up the Communist traitors.

In conclusion, the socialists and leftists among the Muslims have, throughout the twentieth century, proven to be a force for harm to the interests of the Muslims. They were generally tools of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Due to their treachery, the Muslim World was harmed, parts of it coerced into godless secularism and Russian, European cultural imperialism. Many of the leftists in the Muslim World were also fluidly ethnic nationalists and separatists, due to whom much of the Muslim world was broken up, further divided and having to suffer armed insurrection and terrorism.

Shi'a Blasphemy: "Ali is the Beast"

 

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, Holy and Exalted is He, says concerning the Beast that shall emerge in the End Times:

وَاِذَا وَقَعَ الۡقَوۡلُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ اَخۡرَجۡنَا لَہُمۡ دَآبَّۃً مِّنَ الۡاَرۡضِ تُکَلِّمُہُمۡ ۙ اَنَّ النَّاسَ کَانُوۡا بِاٰیٰتِنَا لَا یُوۡقِنُوۡنَ

And when the word is fulfilled against them We shall bring forth for them a Beast from the Earth, speaking to them, because the people, of our Signs, were not certain

(Surah 27, Ayah 82)

I argue that the Beast spoken of here is an evil king that shall blaspheme against the Lord God, and has been mentioned in Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:11-17.

Incidentally, the Twelver Shi’a also acknowledge that the Beast is a speaking human, but they have identified him as none other than Amir ul-Mu’minin Ali bin Abi Talib!

Hence, the Shi’ite jurist and commentator of the Quran, Ali bin Ibrahim al-Qummi, relates the following “Hadith” (falsely) attributed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq and the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him:

أما قوله وإذا وقع القول عليهم أخرجنا لهم  دابة إلى قوله بآياتنا لا يوقنون فإنه حدثني أبي عن ابن أبي عمير عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال انتهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله إلى أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وهو نائم في المسجد قد جمع رملاً ووضع رأسه عليه فحركه برجله ثم قال له قم يا دابة الله فقال رجل من أصحابه يا رسول الله أيسمى بعضنا بعضاً بهذا الاسم فقال لا والله ما هو إلا له خاصة وهو الدابة التي ذكر الله في كتابه وإذا وقع القول عليهم أخرجنا لهم دابة من الأرض تكلمهم أن الناس كانوا بآياتنا لا يوقنون

As for His (Allah’s) saying, “And when the word is fulfilled against them We shall bring forth for them a Beast” until His (Allah’s) saying, “for they did not have certainty in Our Signs”, then verily my father related to me, from Ibn Abi Umair, from Abu Basir, from Abu Abdullah (Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq) peace be upon him, he said, reaching the Messenger of Allah, blessings upon him and his family, that he (the Prophet) went to Amir ul-Mu’minin (Ali), peace be upon him, while he was sleeping in the Mosque, having placed his head upon a mound of sand, moved it with his foot then said, “Get up, O Beast of Allah!” So a man from his Companions said, “O Messenger of Allah, can some name others with this name (beast)?” So he (the Prophet) said, “No, by Allah, it is none but for him (Ali) specifically, he is the Beast that is mentioned by Allah in His Book, “And when the word is fulfilled against them We shall bring forth a Beast from the Earth, speaking to them, for mankind was, of Our Signs, not certain.” (Tafsir al-Qummi, pp.746-747)

It is problematic for the Twelver Shi’a to believe that Mawla Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, is the Beast for the term beast or animal is derisive when employed to describe a human, especially one so noble and elevated as Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah honor his face. Furthermore, the Beast is surely an evil king, who is called a beast by God in the Old Testament, New Testament and Final Testament (Quran) to emphasize that king’s wickedness.

The Samiri in the Quran

 

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

As I explained concerning the idols worshipped by the corrupt people of Noah being referred to with the names of five idols worshipped by the pagan Arabs (Wadd, Suwa, Yaghuth, Ya’uq and Nasr) in the sixth century CE, a similar answer may be given to the objection concerning a character called the Samiri as mentioned in the Holy Quran:

قَالَ فَمَا خَطۡبُکَ یٰسَامِرِیُّ

He (Moses) said, “So what do you have to say, O Samiri?”

(Surah 20, Ayah 95)

Opponents and skeptics claims this is an error of anachronism in the Quran, for the Samaritans did not exist in the time of Moses. And the land of Samaria is named after the ancient town of Samaria, which was the capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel, established long after the time of Moses. Yet the Torah itself says that the patriarch Issachar, after whom the tribe of Issachar is named, had a son named Shimron (Genesis 46:13). It is possible that the Samiri spoken of in the Quran was therefore a descendant of this Shimron. And it is also quite possible that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has referred to him with the name Samiri to indicate that the ancient dwellers of Samaria, from among the northern Israelites who worshipped the golden calves constructed by the evil King Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:28), were following in the footsteps of the wicked man who constructed the original golden calf that the Israelites worshipped while Moses was absent having ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah. The Christians shouldn’t object to this explanation for in their Scripture there is mention of a character named Jezebel of Thyatira, a town in Asia Minor during the first century CE: “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.” (Revelation 2:20, KJV)

Now Jezebel was the name of the wicked wife of King Ahab, during the ninth century BCE. She was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians and was a fanatic for the false god Baal, having slain in his name the Israelite Prophets that called upon their people to worship God alone. But the cult of Baal did not exist in Asia Minor during the first century CE. It is unlikely there was an actual woman with the name Jezebel in that time and place. It seems that the Book of Revelation calls a false prophetess who was leading the Church in Thyatira astray with the name Jezebel in order to liken her to the original Jezebel, wife of King Ahab. Hence, Jezebel becomes a name of disdain, associated with women who wickedly call unto idolatry and other evils, especially sexual immorality. Albert Barnes and many other Christian theologians and commentators have put forward this explanation: “Who the individual here referred to by the name Jezebel was, is not known. It is by no means probable that this was her real name, but seems to have been given to her as expressive of her character and influence.” (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

Imperative of Utmost Respect and Etiquette with the Prophet عليه السلام

 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 سبحانه وتعالى says:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَقُوۡلُوۡا رَاعِنَا وَقُوۡلُوا انۡظُرۡنَا وَاسۡمَعُوۡا ؕ وَلِلۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ عَذَابٌ اَلِیۡمٌ

O you believing ones! Say not ‘Ra’ina’ but say ‘Unzurna’ and listen. And for the Unbelievers is a painful punishment

(Surah 2, Ayah 104)

Initially, the blessed Sahabah رضى الله عنهم would address the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saying ‘Ra’ina’ meaning “see us” with the intention of utmost reverence. However, the Jews were amused by this and would say the same words to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم when addressing him since it sounds similar to the Hebrew word רַע (ra) which means evil. Having unlimited jealousy for His Prophet, Allah سبحانه وتعالى forbade the Believers from continuing to say ‘Ra’ina’ and instead commanded them to say ‘Unzurna’ meaning “look upon us”. Volumes of precious teachings and lessons for the Believers may be derived from this single blessed Ayah relating to how to properly revere the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه

Tragically, today some Muslims do not display proper etiquette and respect when speaking about the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

This is especially true of the Wahhabis and Salafis whose literature contains some belittlement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and who shamelessly object to the mainstream Sunni style of revering the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

It is sadly not uncommon for those affected by the ideologies of Wahhabism and Salafism to simply say “Muhammad” when referring to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم without adding the salutation of blessing and peace upon him, or any other words of veneration. It pains the hearts of the Sunni Muslims to hear statements from them like “Muhammad is dead”. The Prophet’s first successor Abu Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه spoke those words in a specific time and place, when there was a fear of the people deviating from the theology of monotheism, and to make plain a fact lest the people go astray concerning the correct creed. Otherwise, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه was the most respectful and humble when speaking and interacting with the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم such that he was known to repeatedly say:

فَدَيْنَاكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ بِآبَائِنَا وَأُمَّهَاتِنَا

May our fathers and mothers be ransomed for you, O Apostle of Allah!

Yet today if any Sunni Muslim, out of love and reverence, addresses the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم with these beautiful words, the Wahhabis and Salafis are quick to judge him an innovator and even a polytheist!

The Hadith-rejecters, who call themselves Quranists or Ahl al-Quran, are perhaps the worst offenders when it comes to disrespecting the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and belittling his lofty status. They equate expressions of reverence toward the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم with idolatry.

The evil Engineer Mirza of Jhelum, who used to be a traditional Sunni Muslim but later deviated by embracing the narrative of the Wahhabis and the Shi’ites, has issued numerous statements that plainly disrespect the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and are outright blasphemous, such as his following statement I am quoting with a heavy heart:

کوئی پیغمبر کوئی فرشتہ کوئی بزرگ کوئی بابا شے کوئی نہی

توحید کا تو مطلب یہی ہے کہ کوئی انسان اپنا پیشاب بھی نہیں روک سکتا خواہ وہ پیغمبر ہو یا ہم انسان ہو

Any Prophet, Angel, Saint or Patriarch is nothing!

Tawhid (monotheism) means that any human can’t help but to urinate, whether he is a Prophet or us (ordinary) humans

معاذ الله

نقل كفر كفر نیست

God forbid! Is this how a Muslim speaks about the Prophets of Allah? If saying such words are necessary to stress Tawhid upon the minds of the people, why hasn’t Allah سبحانه وتعالى said anything like it in the Holy Quran–the Scripture of Tawhid?!

In my encounters with some of the so-called “students” of Eng. Mirza Jhelumi, they shamelessly defend his aforementioned statement by saying that it is merely a fact. Whether it is a fact or not isn’t the issue. The issue is one of having proper Adab or etiquette with the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم when speaking about him. When the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم would initially address the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم with the word ‘Ra’ina’ it was with a pure intention of reverence, and the word itself is not disrespectful. Nevertheless, Allah سبحانه وتعالى forbade them from continuing to say it merely because it resembled a word in another language that has a bad meaning. Therefore, one can’t even begin to imagine how grave is the blasphemy committed by the evil Eng. Mirza of Jhelum. There is no question that by saying such evil words a person annihilates his faith and all his good deeds, as Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَرۡفَعُوۡۤا اَصۡوَاتَکُمۡ فَوۡقَ صَوۡتِ النَّبِیِّ وَلَا تَجۡہَرُوۡا لَہٗ بِالۡقَوۡلِ کَجَہۡرِ بَعۡضِکُمۡ لِبَعۡضٍ اَنۡ تَحۡبَطَ اَعۡمَالُکُمۡ وَاَنۡتُمۡ لَا تَشۡعُرُوۡنَ

O you believing ones! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not be loud with him in speech as you are loud with one another, lest your deeds be nullified while you are unaware

(Surah 49, Ayah 2)

It is mentioned that after this blessed Ayah was revealed, some of the Sahabah, especially Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه would speak so softly in the presence of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم that he could barely hear and understand him!

Waning Influence of the Ulama

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

اِنَّمَا یَخۡشَی اللّٰہَ مِنۡ عِبَادِہِ الۡعُلَمٰٓؤُا

Verily, it is only the Ulama who [truly] fear Allah

(Surah 35, Ayah 28)

This is a remarkable excellece for the Ulama (Islamic scholars) which the ordinary Muslims should take note of. The Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

وَإِنَّ الْعُلَمَاءَ وَرَثَةُ الأَنْبِيَاءِ

Verily, the Ulama are the heirs of the Prophets (Sunan Abi Dawud)

Ideally, the Ulama should lead the Muslim Ummah, in both formal offices of leadership, and informally in the sense of religious guidance and influence. The Prophet’s rightly-guided Caliphs رضى الله عنهم were all well versed in the sciences of Islam; they are the highest ranking Ulama of the Ummah in its entirety. But when the formal leadership of the Muslims was grabbed by ignorant, corrupt men, the vitality of Islam in society began to suffer. While the Ulama are jealous for Allah and His Apostle صلوات الله والسلام عليه and are guardians of the sacred Shari’ah, they are also moderate and tempered in contrast to the laymen who are propelling various so-called “Islamist” movements and parties. The “Islamist” laity, by turning away from the guidance of the traditionalist Ulama, fell into the snare of violent extremism and Takfir. They inflicted irreparable damage to the cause of Islam, at least in our generation and for the foreseeable future. The ignorant, sinful masses of this Ummah are becoming more distanced from the Ulama with each passing day, as cultural secularity and modernity have enveloped them. While they loudly lament the corruption and dishonorable conduct of the current Muslim rulers, they fail to realize that the inability of the Ulama to influence our corrupt rulers is a consequence of their failure to rally around the Ulama. If the people would appreciate and hold up the Ulama to the position they deserve one would surely witness betterment of our societies. Instead, the heedless laity have gravitated to the trash of society; singers, musicians, actors, supermodels, athletes and social media influencers. It is observed that the youth have little regard for the men of religion and piety. This state of affairs within the mainstream Sunni community is most pronounced. Among the Twelver Shi’ah, their Mullas wield greater power and influence in that community, due to several factors. One of those major factors is the institution of Khums, a religious tax in which one-fifth of surplus wealth is received by the Shi’ah Mullas from their flock. So when the Shah of Iran was toppled in 1979, the Revolution was easily hijacked by Khomeini and those close to him among the Mullas, establishing a Shi’ite theocracy that has persisted for nearly half a century. Likewise, when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, liberating that country from the tyranny of Saddam and his Baathist Party, the immediate beneficiaries were the Shi’ite clergy. They managed to transform their massive religious influence among the Shi’ah community into political power, especially the two clerical dynasties; the al-Hakim family and the al-Sadr family. The chief Mulla in Iraq, Ali al-Sistani, though preferring to remain behind the scenes, also wielded remarkable political influence in Iraq since millions there and worldwide consider him their Marja, or reference point for Taqlid. There is simply no equivalent today in the world of Sunni scholarship. The Taliban have successfully and incredibly restored their rule over Afghanistan after an armed struggle of two decades and so are the unique exception to the general phenomenon of Sunni Ulama being powerless and increasingly losing influence over the society. Maulana Fazl ur-Rahman and his Jami’at Ulama-e-Islam (JUI) has some influence among the Pakhtuns of Pakistan, and would manage to acquire a seat at the table with almost every government, though in the latest elections his party was virtually decimated. The next best thing, in lieu of the Ulama directly governing the Muslims, is for them to have the ear of the rulers. Yet this state of affairs too is essentially nonexistent today.

Divine Name Rahman

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

نحمده ونصلى ونسلم على رسوله الكريم

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

قُلِ ادۡعُوا اللّٰہَ اَوِ ادۡعُوا الرَّحۡمٰنَ ؕ اَیًّا مَّا تَدۡعُوۡا فَلَہُ الۡاَسۡمَآءُ الۡحُسۡنٰی

Say, ‘Call upon Allah or call upon the Rahman; whichever Name you call, His are the most beautiful Names.’

(Surah 17, Ayah 110)

Like the name Allah, Rahman is a personal name of God. It should therefore be left untranslated. Some ignorant Muslims, especially from Pakistan, name their boys Rahman. This is incorrect, and essentially no different than naming a boy Allah, since it is an exclusive, personal name of God. Rather, as the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

‌إِنَّ ‌أَحَبَّ ‌الأَسْمَاءِ ‌إِلَى ‌اللَّهِ ‌عَبْدُ ‌اللَّهِ ‌وَعَبْدُ ‌الرَّحْمَنِ

Verily, the most beloved names to Allah are Abdullah and Abd ur-Rahman

(Jami at-Tirmidhi)

The pagan Arabs were unfamiliar with the divine personal name Rahman:

وَاِذَا قِیۡلَ لَہُمُ اسۡجُدُوۡا لِلرَّحۡمٰنِ قَالُوۡا وَمَا الرَّحۡمٰنُ

And when it is said to them, ‘Prostrate to the Rahman,’ they say, ‘And who is the Rahman?’

(Surah 25, Ayah 60)

When the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was dictating the wording of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, he began with the Basmalah بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم in the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful, but Suhail bin Amru رضى الله عنه who was still an unbeliever at that time objected, saying;

لَا أَعْرِفُ الرّحْمَنَ اُكْتُبْ كَمَا نَكْتُبُ بِاسْمِك اللهُمّ

I do not know the Rahman. Write as we write, ‘In your name, Allahumma.’

So while the pagan Arabs did not know the name Rahman, it was known to the South Arabian, Himyarite Jews and Christians, which was Rahmanan in their tongue.