Dönmeh, Crypto-Jews, Atatürk and Secularism

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

How did a heretical Kabbalist and Messianic Jewish movement in the 17^th century come to influence the spread, or rather imposition, of secularism in Turkey? In 1648 Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676) proclaimed himself the Jewish Messiah. This led to the emergence of the Sabbatean movement, a new Jewish sect, heavily entrenched in Lurianic Kabbalah, the mystical teachings of Isaac Luria (1534-1572), and centered on the person of Sabbatai Zevi as the Messiah. The movement spread like wildfire in the Jewish community with Jews all over the world flocking to Zevi. Lurianic Kabbalah lays stress on messianism, so the Kabbalist Nathan of Gaza (1643-1680) became the most enthusiastic promoter of Sabbatai Zevi. Nathan of Gaza claimed to be a prophet of Sabbatai Zevi, not unlike the role of the false prophet in calling mankind to the Beast as predicted in the Book of Revelation. It was in fact Nathan of Gaza who suggested to Sabbatai Zevi that he proclaim himself the Messiah but only after some effort at persuasion did Zevi accept. The Sabbatean movement sparked controversy throughout the Jewish community. On one hand the Rabbis were deadly against it, excommunicating the Sabbateans, while on the other hand many Jews, motivated by Kabbalah mysticism and Messianism, were flocking to Sabbatai Zevi. The commotion was perceived as a potential danger by the Ottoman government, at the time ruled by Sultan Mehmed IV, and so Sabbatai Zevi was arrested and given the choice to either convert to Islam or be executed. Shocking his followers, he then announced his conversion to Islam. Nathan of Gaza continued to defend Sabbatai Zevi and proclaim that he was indeed the Messiah, but that the redemption would be brought about in an unexpected way in light of this unexpected turn. Now when Sabbatai Zevi converted to Islam under duress so did a number of his Jewish followers who became known as the Dönmeh. These crypto-Jews outwardly pretended to be Muslim while in reality continued in the Kabbalistic worldview, secretly holding on to various Jewish beliefs and practices. The Dönmeh were based in Thessalonica, modern-day Greece. Over the centuries they became less conspicuously Judaic, but remained heterodox nonetheless and like an infection in the Muslim body. Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938), known as Atatürk, was born in Thessalonica. Because Thessalonica had a large Dönmeh community during that time under the Ottomans, it is quite possible even probable that Mustafa Kemal was from that community. Brutally imposing secularism upon Turkey after gaining power was certainly in keeping with the mindset of the Dönmeh.

Emphatic Sunnah of the Rawatib

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

My beloved master the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

فَمَنْ رَغِبَ عَنْ سُنَّتِي فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي

Whoever turns away from my Sunnah then he is not of me

(Sahih al-Bukhari wa Sahih Muslim)

The Holy Prophet صلوات الله والسلام عليه regularly offered the Ratibah prayers; four rakaat before Zuhr, two after Zuhr, two after Maghrib, two after Isha and two before Fajr for a total of twelve,

مَنْ ثَابَرَ عَلَى ثِنْتَىْ عَشْرَةَ رَكْعَةً مِنَ السُّنَّةِ بَنَى اللَّهُ لَهُ بَيْتًا فِي الْجَنَّةِ أَرْبَعِ رَكَعَاتٍ قَبْلَ الظُّهْرِ وَرَكْعَتَيْنِ بَعْدَهَا وَرَكْعَتَيْنِ بَعْدَ الْمَغْرِبِ وَرَكْعَتَيْنِ بَعْدَ الْعِشَاءِ وَرَكْعَتَيْنِ قَبْلَ الْفَجْرِ

Whoever persists in offering twelve rakah from the Sunnah, Allah will build for him a house in Paradise; four rakaat before Zuhr, two rakah after it, two rakah after Maghrib, two rakah after Isha and two rakah before Fajr (Jami al-Tirmidhi)

If a person frequently skips these prayers he has certainly turned away from the Prophet’s regular and emphatic Sunnah and is therefore censurable and sinful.

Regrettably, in our time, there are false teachers, pretending to be scholars and preachers wearing the gown of knowledge and using social media to disseminate their poison throughout the Ummah, such as the antichrist Mirza of Jhelum, who instead of motivating the people to increase their worship of Allah and adherence to the Sunnah tells them it is not necessary. He lied when he said the Prophet never used the term “Sunnah” for prayers, nor is there any Hadith that uses the term, and that it is an invention of the later jurists, when in fact in the Hadith quoted above the Prophet said “twelve rakah from the Sunnah”. Those who teach it is not necessary to observe the Rawatib whatsoever often quote the Hadith about the Bedouin who said

الَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لاَ أَزِيدُ عَلَى هَذَا

By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, I will not add to this [meaning to the five mandatory Salah called Maktubat, paying Zakah and fasting in Ramadan], to which the Prophet عليه السلام responded

مَنْ سَرَّهُ أَنْ يَنْظُرَ إِلَى رَجُلٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ فَلْيَنْظُرْ إِلَى هَذَا

Whoever would like to look at a man from the people of Paradise then look at this one (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Yet if one goes strictly by the wording of this Hadith then the mistaken result could be that we are not obligated to perform Hajj, though it too is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. The fact of the matter is that when this Bedouin came to the Prophet عليه السلام the entirety of the divine commandments had not yet been revealed, especially the obligation of Hajj once in a lifetime for the one who possesses the capacity. One must interpret and derive understanding from the Hadith holistically, and this is the work of the scholars and jurist, not ignorant laymen.

Concerning the Rawatib, I have personally experienced that their regular performance brings light into the heart and makes one feel something of the Sakinah. Undoubtedly, a person who trivializes the Rawatib and other worship that hasn’t been technically obligated is serving the agenda of Iblis.

Injunction of Veiling (33:59)

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ

O you Prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the Believers to draw their veils upon themselves

(Surah 33:59)

Veiling of women is a critical ordinance of Islam—one that has been passionately criticized by many non-Muslims but hypocrites too who are apparently within the Muslim milieu. The basic rationale of veiling of ladies is that it is necessary for modesty and having a holy and clean society that is centered on worshipping Allah and attaining nearness to Him. As we shall see, the concept of modesty is mirrored in the other so-called “Abrahamic” religions (for us Muslims only Islam is a true Abrahamic Faith) and at a deeper level the sense of shame is part of the uncorrupted human nature. Yet there are religions and philosophies out there—more appropriately described as cults and devil worship—in which nudity is celebrated and considered a sign of spiritual enlightenment. Christian heretics known as Adamites practiced nudity while rejecting the sacred institution of marriage. They lived communally, practicing “free love”, believing they were restoring the original innocence of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. It is noteworthy and quite embarrassing for today’s conservative Christians that their early coreligionists were baptized naked. Today there are small groups of Christian naturists who believe nudity is not shameful or sinful. They cite the alleged divine revelation to the Prophet Isaiah in which he was commanded to go about naked for three years to symbolize a prophecy that the Egyptians and Ethiopians shall be taken captive by Assyria in a state of nakedness (Isaiah 20:2-3). Among the Hindus are the Naga Sadhus who go about naked but with their bodies smeared in ashes, and the Digambara (meaning skyclad) Jain monks who likewise go about entirely naked. Some Wicca and Neopagan practitioners practice skyclad rituals. It is well-known that practitioners of witchcraft perform certain blasphemous rituals naked. Here I have not even addressed an entire world of non-religious nudism, which is currently gaining momentum in the West. All of this is satanic, for Allah سبحانه وتعالى says

يَا بَنِي آدَمَ لَا يَفْتِنَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ كَمَا أَخْرَجَ أَبَوَيْكُم مِّنَ الْجَنَّةِ يَنزِعُ عَنْهُمَا لِبَاسَهُمَا لِيُرِيَهُمَا سَوْآتِهِمَا

O children of Adam, do not let the Satan put you to trial as he had your parents expelled from the Garden, stripping them both of their raiment to make visible to them their shame

(Surah 7:27)

The Bible also teaches modesty and that women should cover their heads, “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered” (1 Corinthians 11:5-6), “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” (1 Corinthians 11:13). But this instruction of their “Apostle” Paul goes unheeded by virtually all Christians today, with the exception of some obscure, Anabaptist denominations like the Mennonites and Amish, whose women wear bonnets. Catholic nuns are known to wear veils or headscarves, and Catholic iconography of the Virgin Mary always depicts her with her head covered by a veil. Very few women from some other conservative Christian churches may also cover their head, but only at the church while worshipping as per Paul’s teaching in his epistle to the Corinthians. The early and prolific Christian theologian Tertullian, incidentally the first to introduce the concept of the Trinity, wrote On the Veiling of Virgins in the early 3^rd century in which he called for Christian women, both married and unmarried to regularly cover their heads out of modesty and submission to God. So disturbed was Tertullian with the moral laxity of the Church in his time that he ended up converting to the heresy known as Montanism, which attracted him due to its rigorism. It is claimed that Montanus, the eponymous founder of the sect, was originally a priest for the pagan cult of Cybele before he converted to Christianity and claimed to be a prophet. Now let us turn to Judaism. According to the Talmud, the hair of a woman, along with her voice, is ervah, meaning nakedness which ought to be covered (Berakhot 24a). Ervah is the Hebrew equivalent of what Islam terms awrah—that part of the body which is required to be concealed. But unlike in the Islamic Shariah, Jewish law apparently does not mandate that unmarried women cover their heads, only married women. In Haredi Jewish communities today married women shave or cut their hair extremely short then cover it with a wig. Often the hair for such wigs is collected from India, sometimes that hair has been shaved off a Hindu woman as part of a vow or offering to one of their idols at a temple. But in our Islamic Shariah wearing wigs and false hair is strictly forbidden. The wigs of these Haredi and Ashkenazi women, made from the lush hair of Indian women, can be so luxuriant and attractive that it basically defeats the whole purpose. Nevertheless, there are other communities of Orthodox Jews, though a small minority, whose ladies do properly cover themselves and dress modestly. This was especially true of those Jewish communities that lived in the Muslim world, in countries like Yemen. Yemeni Jewish ladies would even veil their faces with the niqab and wear clothing which is commonly called burqa. The women of a new and tiny Jewish sect called Lev Tahor, accused of being a cult and having courted much controversy, are indistinguishable from observant Muslim ladies in that they too observe the hijab in our manner and style.

Sadly, the observance of veiling by the ladies of our Muslim community is in steep decline. The poisonous influences of modernity, Western culture, fashion and feminism has corrupted the hearts and minds of too many of our women. Although the Hanafi school does not interpret the obligation of veiling to include the face, the traditional Hanafi Ulama of our time have issued fatawa requiring it nonetheless due to the prevalence of moral decay and fitnah. There can be no doubt that if face veiling is technically not obligatory it is at the very least highly encouraged and emphasized. Now it is observed that the ladies of the younger generations have taken to social media by storm, uploading images and videos of themselves dressed immodestly and performing shameful and vulgar acts of dancing, etc. The full embrace of modernity and liberalism by their parents’ generation has facilitated this evil. A generation that ridiculed the traditionalist Ulama, rudely calling them “Mullas”, and believed integration into Western society and cultural norms was absolutely necessary for progress. Those of our womenfolk who do wish to return to their Religion and observe the hijab end up doing so in a highly modified manner which is contrary to both the letter and spirit of this divine ordinance. Hijab is not merely modest dress but encompasses a mindset and lifestyle too. How does it make sense for a woman who is dressed modestly to still act flirtatiously or without a bashful demeanor, or to spend much of her time in public view? Do we not realize that much of the punishment that befell the Israelites in ancient history was due to the corruption and immodesty of their women?

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ انْهَوْا نِسَاءَكُمْ عَنْ لُبْسِ الزِّينَةِ وَالتَّبَخْتُرِ فِي الْمَسْجِدِ فَإِنَّ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يُلْعَنُوا حَتَّى لَبِسَ نِسَاؤُهُمُ الزِّينَةَ وَتَبَخْتَرْنَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ

O people, forbid your women from wearing adornment and from showing off in the Mosque, for the Children of Israel were not cursed until their women wore adornment and showed off in the places of worship

(Sunan Ibn Majah)

The Prophet Isaiah prophesied, “Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty (Isaiah 3:16-24)

It is the venom of feminism that has seduced many of our ladies to discard the veil and the practices of seclusion and gender segregation.

The Prophet has more right to the Believers than their selves (33:6) and Hadith al-Ghadir

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

Allah, Holy and Exalted is He, says

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ

The Prophet is more entitled to the Believers than their own souls

(33:6)

To understand this Ayah it is profitable to refer to the narration of al-Bara bin Azib, may Allah be pleased with him, who said

كُنَّا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي سَفَرٍ فَنَزَلْنَا بِغَدِيرِ خُمٍّ فَنُودِيَ فِينَا الصَّلَاةُ جَامِعَةٌ وَكُسِحَ لِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَحْتَ شَجَرَتَيْنِ فَصَلَّى الظُّهْرَ وَأَخَذَ بِيَدِ عَلِيٍّ ضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ فَقَالَ أَلَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا بَلَى قَالَ أَلَسْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي أَوْلَى بِكُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ قَالُوا بَلَى قَالَ فَأَخَذَ بِيَدِ عَلِيٍّ فَقَالَ مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ ‌اللهُمَّ ‌وَالِ ‌مَنْ ‌وَالَاهُ ‌وَعَادِ ‌مَنْ ‌عَادَاهُ قَالَ فَلَقِيَهُ عُمَرُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ لَهُ هَنِيئًا يَا ابْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ أَصْبَحْتَ وَأَمْسَيْتَ مَوْلَى كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ وَمُؤْمِنَةٍ

We were with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on a journey. We stopped at Ghadir Khumm, and the call was made to prayer in congregation. A place was swept for the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, under two trees. He prayed the Zuhr prayer and took Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, by the hand and said: “Do you not know that I am more entitled to the Believers than their own souls?” They said: “Why not!” He said: “Do you not know that I am more entitled to every Believer than his own soul?” They said: “Why not!” Then he took Ali’s hand and said: “Whoever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla. Allahumma, befriend whoever befriends him and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him.” Then Umar met him after that and said: “Congratulations, O son of Abu Talib. You have become and gone to bed the master of every believing male and believing female.” (Musnad Ahmad, v.30, p.430, #18479)

This wonderful and blessed Hadith clarifies the status and rank of Mawla Ali, may Allah honor his honorable face. As the Ayah says that the Prophet, peace be upon him, is more entitled to the Believers than their own selves, likewise this is the rank of Mawla Ali, who is also more entitled to the Believers than their own selves. The Shi’ah argue that this refers to the entitlement of rulership, since the entitlement of Allah and His Apostle over the Believers refers to the rulership of Allah and His Apostle. However, rulership is not intended by the Ayah “the Prophet is more entitled to the Believers than their own selves”. This entitlement or right that the Prophet has over the Believers is exemplified in the entitlement of kinship over each other, as mentioned in the rest of the Ayah

وَاُولُوا الۡاَرۡحَامِ بَعۡضُہُمۡ اَوۡلٰی بِبَعۡضٍ فِیۡ کِتٰبِ اللّٰہِ مِنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ وَالۡمُہٰجِرِیۡنَ اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ تَفۡعَلُوۡۤا اِلٰۤی اَوۡلِیٰٓئِکُمۡ مَّعۡرُوۡفًا

And blood relations are more entitled to one another in the Book of Allah than the [other] Believers and Emigrants, except that you do good to your friends

(33:6)

Obviously, the entitlement or right which kinship related by blood have over each is not the entitlement of rulership or government. Hence, the Prophet, peace be upon him said, in explanation of this Ayah

مَا مِنْ مُؤْمِنٍ إِلاَّ وَأَنَا أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِهِ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ

There is no Believer except I am, of the people, more entitled to him in this world and in the Hereafter (Sahih al-Bukhari)

By mentioning his entitlement over the Believer as extending into the Afterlife, the Prophet, peace be upon him, has differed from the Shi’ah in their claim that his entitlement over the Believers as mentioned in the Ayah refers to rulership over them in this temporal world. He also said,

وَمَنْ تَرَكَ دَيْنًا أَوْ ضَيَاعًا فَلْيَأْتِنِي فَأَنَا مَوْلاَهُ

Whoever left behind debt or destitute offspring, let him come to me for I am his Mawla (ibid)

Here the Prophet, peace be upon him, has explained in what sense he is the Mawla of the Believers, he has obligated himself with the responsibility of covering the debt and protecting and caring for the destitute family members of the deceased Believer—who have become destitute as a consequence of his death.

The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm that I have quoted also clarifies that it is not the Wilayah of rulership that is meant but rather of love, friendship and protection. Hence, as the Prophet is dearer to the Believers than their own souls in terms of love and attachment, likewise this must be for them the position of Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah honor his face. And as the Prophet, peace be upon him, is a Mawla to the Believers in the sense of being responsible for their well-being, protecting them, paying off their debts, etc., likewise this is the character of Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah honor his face. This sense of Wilayah, the sense of love and attachment, is again made plain when the Prophet supplicated, “Allahumma! Befriend whoever befriends him [walahu] and have enmity to whoever has enmity to him!”

By contrasting the wilayah of Ali with adawah (enmity), it becomes plain that the meaning of his wilayah is friendship and love and not rulership.

As for Umar al-Faruq congradulating Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with them both, on becoming the Mawla of every Believer, it is Mawla in the sense of friend and being loved and not ruler. The Prophet peace be upon him was still manifestly alive at the time and it is not possible for there to be two rulers at one, or that Mawla Ali was a partner with the Prophet in his rule over the community.

And Allah and His Apostle know best!

Sects and Individuals Denying the Resurrection

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الامين

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Belief in the bodily resurrection is one of the fundamental articles of Faith in Islam,

إِنَّكُم مَّبْعُوثُونَ مِن بَعْدِ الْمَوْتِ

Verily, you are raised after death

(11:7)

وَأَنَّ السَّاعَةَ آتِيَةٌ لَّا رَيْبَ فِيهَا وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ مَن فِي الْقُبُورِ

And verily the Hour is coming—there is no doubt about it—and verily Allah raises those in the graves

(22:7)

أَيَحْسَبُ الْإِنسَانُ أَلَّن نَّجْمَعَ عِظَامَهُ

بَلَىٰ قَادِرِينَ عَلَىٰ أَن نُّسَوِّيَ بَنَانَهُ

Does man think We will not assemble his bones?

Verily, We are capable of fashioning his very fingertips!

(75:3-4)

It is evident the Quran teaches a literal, bodily resurrection, in which man shall come out of his grave. According to the Quran, it is the unbelievers and the pagans who not only reject the Resurrection but ridicule it,

أَيَعِدُكُمْ أَنَّكُمْ إِذَا مِتُّمْ وَكُنتُمْ تُرَابًا وَعِظَامًا أَنَّكُم مُّخْرَجُونَ

هَيْهَاتَ هَيْهَاتَ لِمَا تُوعَدُونَ

إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا نَمُوتُ وَنَحْيَا وَمَا نَحْنُ بِمَبْعُوثِينَ

Does he promise you that when you have died and become dust and bones that you will be brought out?

How far, how far is that which you are promised!

It is but our life of this world. We die and we live, but we are not to be raised up

(23:35-37)

The Jewish sect of Sadducees were infamous for denying the Resurrection. In the time of the early Church, at Ephesus, some heretics had appeared who denied the Resurrection, “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already” (2 Timothy 2:17-18). This probably means that the two heretics were teaching that the Resurrection was not literal, rather something figurative which had already transpired. The heresy of Gnosticism denies bodily resurrection too. Due to the influence of Platonism they considered matter evil, something created by the Demiurge. They conceived of the Resurrection as spiritual only, not a return to a physical body which they considered evil and an obstacle to salvation. For them that salvation was gnosis, meaning self-realization and discovery of the inner light. Max R. King, a theologian of the Churches of Christ (Restorationist movement that emerged in 19^th century America), followed in the footsteps of Hymenaeus and Philetus in proclaiming that the Resurrection has already happened, as has the Second Coming of Christ and the Final Judgment. He taught a spiritual conceptualizing of these matters, and that they pointed to the end of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant, which had become apparent through the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The teaching of Max King has been called full preterism, but also pantelism.

In 1164, the Nizari Isma’ili Imam, Hasan II, based in Alamut, announced that the Qiyamah had occurred. This meant that Isma’ilis did not believe in a physical, bodily Resurrection, but like the false teachers Hymenaeus and Philetus and the later heretical Gnostics had spiritualized the concept. It was this false doctrine, that the Qiyamah had already occurred, which became their basis for abolishing observance of the Islamic Shari’ah. The heretical naturalists like Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Ghulam Ahmad Parwez likewise deny a literal, bodily resurrection. All of these sects and individuals have denied a core and fundamental doctrine of Islam.

Christianity and Pork

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الامين

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Allah, Holy and Exalted is He, forbids pork in four different verses of the Holy Quran, for instance,

إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ

He has forbidden upon you carrion, blood, pork and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah

(16:115)

The prohibition of pork is also a well-known law in the Torah (Leviticus 11:7; Deuteronomy 14:8). Although the Torah and the Islamic Shari’ah forbid other unclean animals, the prohibition on pork holds a special significance. Unlike those other unclean animals, pork is commonly consumed in most cultures of the world. China by far is the biggest consumer of pork, but it is also a popular meat among other East Asians along with Americans and Europeans. The ancient Israelites refraining from eating pork is one of the main things which differentiated them from all the surrounding cultures and populations. Archaeologists have noted an almost complete lack of pig bones in ancient Judahite settlements in stark contrast to the settlements of their neighboring populations and cultures. In our time, the strict avoidance of pork is one of the prominent matters which sets Muslims apart from non-Muslims. The rationale behind the prohibition of pork is that as it is a most unclean animal, it is not fit to be consumed by any people that seek holiness and purity, requirements for communion with God. The Prophet Isaiah prophesied that God is particularly angry with and shall punish those who eat pork, “I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels” (Isaiah 65:2-4), “For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 66:15-17)

Yet Christianity apparently teaches that all animals and food are clean, including pork. Hence, pork consumption is universal among Christians, with the exception of the Seventh-Day Adventists and a few other obscure denominations. Christians argue that Jesus declared all food clean, quoting Mark 7:19 “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean”, yet these are the words and conclusion of the author or a scribe and not of Jesus himself. They also quote the supposed vision of Peter in which he saw a sheet descend from Heaven containing all manner of animals and he heard a voice say, “Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (Acts 10:13-15). Yet this was a vision which was to be interpreted, and Peter himself initially struggled to understand its meaning, “Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean” (Acts 10:17). The chapter goes on to explain that the meaning of the vision was that Peter, an observant Jew, should not consider keeping company with the Gentiles, represented in the vision as all manner of unclean animals, to be unlawful, “And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Nevertheless, the Christian Church went astray and declared all food clean and lawful including pork. Now the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, prophesied that when the Messiah Jesus comes,

فَيَكْسِرَ الصَّلِيبَ وَيَقْتُلَ الْخِنْزِيرَ

He will break the cross and slay the swine

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

The cross and the swine are the main symbols of Christianity, with the cross symbolizing its pagan theology (doctrines of the trinity, divine incarnation, and atonement for mankind’s sins through the crucifixion of Jesus) and the swine symbolizing its antinomianism, exemplified in its having declared all food clean and lawful including the abomination of pork. When Jesus himself returns he will go out of his way to repudiate such falsehood that was adapted in his name and shall break the cross and kill the pig, thus falsifying Christianity and confirming the Truth of Islam.

Iblis or the Serpent?

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الامين

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

ِAllah, Holy and Exalted is He, says,

فَاَزَلَّہُمَا الشَّیۡطٰنُ عَنۡہَا فَاَخۡرَجَہُمَا مِمَّا کَانَا فِیۡہِ

But the Satan caused them both to slip by means of it [the Tree] and drove them out of the state in which they were

(2:36)

فَوَسْوَسَ لَهُمَا الشَّيْطَانُ لِيُبْدِيَ لَهُمَا مَا وُورِيَ عَنْهُمَا مِن سَوْآتِهِمَا وَقَالَ مَا نَهَاكُمَا رَبُّكُمَا عَنْ هَـٰذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ إِلَّا أَن تَكُونَا مَلَكَيْنِ أَوْ تَكُونَا مِنَ الْخَالِدِينَ

But the Satan whispered to them both to make apparent to them both that which was concealed from them both of their shame. He said, “Your Lord did not forbid you both from this tree except that you become two angels or become of the immoral”

(7:20)

فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَّا يَبْلَىٰ

Then the Satan whispered to him, he said, “O Adam, shall I direct to the tree of eternity and a kingdom that never decays?”

(20:120)

These passages are referring to the episode in which the Satan, Iblis, deceived Adam and Eve, who succumbed to his temptation and ate the fruit of the forbidden tree. The story is told at the beginning of the Bible, “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:15-17), “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:1-5)

Now one of the stark differences between the Quranic and Biblical narratives is that a snake is never mentioned as the creature that tempted them to eat from the forbidden tree. Is it possible the Bible refers to the Devil as a snake figuratively? The Book of Revelation identifies the serpent as none other than Satan, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Revelation 12:9), “And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan” (Revelation 20:2)

One of the difficulties is that the Quran says that Iblis, Satan or the Devil, was cast out of Heaven when he refused to prostrate to Adam (7:13; 15:34; 38:77). How then was he able to re-enter Paradise and tempt Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden tree? The Muslim scholars and exegetes offer various opinions. Some say Iblis was not physically present there but has the ability to whisper into the hearts of men from a distance, and the Quran does confirm that Satan was “whispering” to them (7:20; 20:120). But the early Muslim scholar, Wahb bin Munabbih, narrated a version of events that closely aligns with the Biblical account, that Iblis entered into the body of a snake and that is how he managed to gain access to the Garden he was previously expelled from:

نا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ قَالَ أرنا عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ دُرِّيَّةَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ وَهْبَ بْنَ مُنَبِّهٍ يَقُولُ لَمَّا أَسْكَنَ اللَّهُ آدَمَ الْجَنَّةَ وَزَوْجَتَهُ نَهَاهُ عَنِ الشَّجَرَةِ وَكَانَتِ الشَّجَرَةُ غُصُونُهَا يَتَشَعَّبُ بَعْضُهَا فِي بَعْضٍ وَكَانَ لَهَا ثَمَرٌ تَأْكُلُهَا الْمَلَائِكَةُ لِخُلُودِهِمْ وَهِيَ الشَّجَرَةُ الَّتِي نَهَى اللَّهُ آدَمَ وَزَوْجَتَهُ ‌فَلَمَّا ‌أَرَادَ ‌إِبْلِيسُ ‌أَنْ ‌يَسْتَزِلَّهُمَا ‌دَخَلَ ‌فِي ‌جَوْفِ ‌الْحَيَّةِ وَكَانَتِ الْحَيَّةُ لَهَا أَرْبَعُ قَوَائِمَ كَأَنَّهَا بُخْتِيَّةٌ مِنْ أَحْسَنِ دَابَّةٍ خَلَقَهَا اللَّهُ فَلَمَّا دَخَلَتِ الْحَيَّةُ الْجَنَّةَ خَرَجَ مِنْ جَوْفِهَا إِبْلِيسُ فَأَخَذَ مِنَ الشَّجَرَةِ الَّتِي نَهَى اللَّهُ عَنْهَا آدَمَ وَزَوْجَتَهُ فَجَاءَ بِهَا إِلَى حَوَّاءَ فَقَالَ انْظُرِي هَذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ مَا أَطْيَبَ رِيحَهَا وَأَطْيَبَ طَعْمَهَا وَأَحْسَنَ لَوْنَهَا فَأَكَلَتْ مِنْهَا ثُمَّ ذَهَبَتْ بِهَا إِلَى آدَمَ فَقَالَتِ انْظُرْ إِلَى هَذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ مَا أَطْيَبَ رِيحَهَا وَأَطْيَبَ طَعْمَهَا وَأَحْسَنَ لَوْنَهَا فَأَكَلَ مِنْهَا آدَمُ فَبَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا فَدَخَلَ آدَمُ فِي جَوْفِ الشَّجَرَةِ فَنَادَاهُ رَبُّهُ يَا آدَمُ أَيْنَ أَنْتَ قَالَ هَأَنَذَا يَا رَبِّ قَالَ أَلَا تَخْرُجُ قَالَ أَسْتَحِي مِنْكَ يَا رَبِّ قَالَ مَلْعُونَةٌ الْأَرْضُ الَّتِي خُلِقْتَ مِنْهَا لَعْنَةً تَتَحَوَّلُ ثِمَارُهَا شَوْكًا قَالَ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ شَجَرَتَانِ أَفْضَلَ مِنَ الطَّلْحِ وَالسِّدْرِ ثُمَّ قَالَ يَا حَوَّاءُ أَنْتِ الَّتِي غَرَّرْتِ عَبْدِي فَإِنَّكِ لَا تَحْمِلِينَ حَمْلًا إِلَّا حَمَلْتِهِ كُرْهًا فَإِذَا أَرَدْتِ أَنْ تَضَعِي مَا فِي بَطْنِكِ أَشْرَفْتِ عَلَى الْمَوْتِ مِرَارًا وَقَالَ لِلْحَيَّةِ أَنْتِ الَّتِي دَخَلَ الْمَلْعُونُ فِي جَوْفِكِ حَتَّى غَرَّ عَبْدِي مَلْعُونَةٌ أَنْتِ لَعْنَةً تَتَحَوَّلُ قَوَائِمُكِ فِي بَطْنِكِ وَلَا يَكُونُ لَكِ رِزْقٌ إِلَّا التُّرَابَ أَنْتِ عَدُوَّةُ بَنِي آدَمَ وَهُمْ أَعْدَاؤُكِ حَيْثُ لَقِيتِ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ أَخَذْتِ بِعَقِبِهِ وَحَيْثُمَا لَقِيَكَ شَدَخَ رَأْسَكِ قَالَ عُمَرُ فَقِيلَ لِوَهْبٍ وَهَلْ كَانَتِ الْمَلَائِكَةُ تَأْكُلُ قَالَ يَفْعَلُ اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاءُ

Narrated to us Abd al-Razzaq: He said: from Umar bin Abd al-Rahman bin Durriyyah. He said: I heard Wahb bin Munabbih say: When Allah settled Adam and his wife in Paradise, He forbade him from the Tree. The Tree had branches that branched out from one another, and it had fruit that the Angels would eat for their immortality. It was the Tree from which Allah forbade Adam and his wife. So when Iblis wanted to make them slip, he entered the belly of the snake, which had four legs, like a camel, one of the most beautiful creatures that Allah had created. When the snake entered Paradise, Iblis came out of its belly and took from the tree that Allah had forbidden Adam and his wife, and brought it to Eve and said, “Look at this Tree, how pleasant is its smell, how pleasant is its taste, and how beautiful is its color!” So she ate from it. Then she went with it to Adam and said, “Look at this Tree! How pleasant is its smell, how pleasant is its taste, and how beautiful is its color!” So Adam ate from it, and their private parts became apparent to them both. Then Adam entered the belly of the Tree, and his Lord called to him, “O Adam, where are you?” He said, “Here I am, O Lord.” He said, “Will you not come out?” He said, “I am ashamed of You, O my Lord.” He said, “Cursed is the earth from which you were created, a curse. Its fruits turn into thorns.” He said there were not in Paradise or on the earth two trees better than the Talh and the Lote tree. Then He said, “O Eve, you are the one who deceived My servant. For indeed, you do not bear a burden except that you bear it unwillingly. So when you desire to give birth to what is in Your belly, you have been on the verge of death repeatedly. And He said to the snake, “You are the one into whose belly the accursed one has entered until he has deceived My servant. You are cursed, you are a curse. You will slither on your belly and you will have no provision except dust. You are the enemy of the children of Adam, and they are your enemies. Wherever you meet one of them, you seize him by the heel, and wherever he meets you, he smashes your head.” Umar said, “So it was said to Wahb, Did the Angels eat?” He said, “Allah does what He wishes” (Tafsir Abd-ul-Razzaq al-San’ani, v.2, pp.76-77, #892)

I generally agree with the idea that Iblis tempted Adam and Eve by whispering into their minds, which could even be a kind of telepathic communication. But it also seems that he physically appeared to Eve in the form of a snake. The Garden in which Adam and Eve had been placed is not necessarily the celestial Paradise of the Afterlife, but a place that was on this Earth, explaining how Iblis was able to enter it. It was called Paradise because it is described as a place where there was no hunger or excessive heat,

إِنَّ لَكَ أَلَّا تَجُوعَ فِيهَا وَلَا تَعْرَىٰ

وَأَنَّكَ لَا تَظْمَأُ فِيهَا وَلَا تَضْحَىٰ

Indeed, for you, wherein you will not hunger nor be naked

And indeed, you will not thirst therein nor suffer the heat

(20:118-119)

Allah and His Apostle know best!