Imam Husain's Offer To Pledge Allegiance to Yazid

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

سبوحٌ قدوسٌ

Holy Holy

Those misguided people who argue that revolution and armed uprising against the government is allowed in Islam most frequently cite as evidence for their position the martyrdom of Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, at Karbala.

According to this narrative, Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, launched an armed revolt against the government of Yazid bin Mu’awiyah, and was subsequently killed by the forces of Yazid which intercepted him at Karbala.

However, the truth is that Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, due to the corrupt and wicked character of the latter, at the time when Yazid’s establishment over the throne was still incomplete or uncertain.

But when Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, reached Iraq and witnessed for himself that the people of Kufah had betrayed him and had been won over to Yazid, he had a change of heart.

Yazid’s governor in Iraq, the cursed Ibn Ziyad, dispatched Umar bin Sa’d to fight Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him.

But Umar bin Sa’d was a somewhat reasonable man who was willing to negotiate with Imam Husain, whom he was reluctant to fight due to his status as a great Imam and the Prophet’s grandson.

It was during those negotiations that Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, made the following offer:

اختاروا مني خصالا ثلاثا إما أن أرجع إِلَى المكان الَّذِي أقبلت مِنْهُ وإما أن أضع يدي فِي يد يَزِيد بن مُعَاوِيَة فيرى فِيمَا بيني وبينه رأيه وإما أن تسيروني إِلَى أي ثغر من ثغور الْمُسْلِمِينَ شئتم فأكون رجلا من أهله لي مَا لَهُمْ وعلي مَا عَلَيْهِم

“Choose one of three options for me: either I return to the place from which I came [Mecca], or I place my hand in the hand of Yazid bin Mu’awiyah and he decides what is between us, or you send me to any of the frontier posts of the Muslims you wish, and I will be one of its people, with the same rights and obligations as them.” (Tarikh al-Tabari, Dar al-Mu’arif, v.5, pp.413-414)

Umar bin Sa’d conveyed Imam Husain’s offer to Ibn Ziyad in a letter, but Ibn Ziyad, counseled by the cursed Shimr bin Dhi il-Jawshan, rejected the proposal. These damned criminals were thirsty for the blood of Imam Husain and were committed to killing him at all costs.

Yet, the offer of Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, disproves the narrative of those who sanction rebellion against a corrupt or tyrannical government.

Once Imam Husain, may Allah be pleased with him, realized that the people had gathered upon Yazid and accepted him as their ruler, he abandoned any intention of establishing his own Imamate in Kufah, to avoid dissension and bloodshed. 

Along with the options of peacefully returning back to Mecca, or accepting exile to one of the far off frontiers of the empire, Imam Husain even offered to pledge allegiance to Yazid!

This fact totally demolishes the narrative of those misguided groups and individuals, especially the Shi’ites, that Imam Husain was committed to a political revolution against the central government in Damascus.

And Allah and His Apostle know best!

We Do Not Rebel Against Our Rulers

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

سبوحٌ قدوسٌ

Holy Holy

Allah says:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اَطِیۡعُوا اللّٰہَ وَاَطِیۡعُوا الرَّسُوۡلَ وَاُولِی الۡاَمۡرِ مِنۡکُمۡ

O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle, and those in authority among you

(Surah 4, Ayah 59)

Obedience to the government and the ruler is one of the fundamental teachings of Islam.

Sunni orthodoxy highly emphasizes obedience to the Muslim government, even if that government is corrupt or tyrannical. This is because anarchy is worse than tyranny.

The political philosophy of Islam may indeed be characterized as Hobbesian if we want to use modern terminology.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

تَسْمَعُ وَتُطِيعُ لِلأَمِيرِ وَإِنْ ضُرِبَ ظَهْرُكَ وَأُخِذَ مَالُكَ فَاسْمَعْ وَأَطِعْ

“You are to hear and obey the Emir [ruler], even if he beats your back and takes your wealth; hear and obey!”

(Sahih Muslim)

The Sunni Muslims are in consensus on this point that the Believers are required to hear and obey the government, and never raise the sword against it—meaning not to rise up in armed revolt—even if the government is tyrannical.

This point has been enshrined in the text of Al-Tahawiyyah, which is the most authoritative text of creed in Sunni Islam upon which all Sunnis are in agreement:

وَلَا نَرَى الْخُرُوجَ عَلَى أَئِمَّتِنَا وَوُلَاةِ أُمُورِنَا وَإِنْ جَارُوا وَلَا نَدْعُو عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا نَنْزِعُ يَدًا مِنْ طَاعَتِهِمْ وَنَرَى طَاعَتَهُمْ مِنْ طَاعَةِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَرِيضَةً مَا لَمْ يَأْمُرُوا بِمَعْصِيَةٍ وَنَدْعُو لَهُمْ بِالصَّلَاحِ وَالْمُعَافَاةِ

“We do not rebel against our leaders or those in charge of our affairs, even if they are tyrannical.

We do not supplicate against them, nor withdraw from obedience to them. We view obedience to them as from obedience to Allah glorified, an obligation, as long as they do not order disobedience to Allah. We supplicate on their behalf for righteousness and wellness.”

This is a point that plainly distinguishes orthodox Sunni Islam from most of the schismatic factions and sects that broke away, such as the Kharijites, Shi’ites, Murji’ites, Qadarites, Mu’tazilites, Zaydis, Ibadis, Isma’ilis, Wahhabis, Takfiris, and the modern so-called “Islamist” parties.

All of these disparate sects and parties share the common denominator of holding it permissible and at times obligatory to raise the sword against a tyrannical government.

The modern day terrorism, civil wars, and chaos that is witnessed around much of the Muslim world is due to the activity and propaganda of these non-Sunni sects and parties. Only orthodox Sunni Islam, if understood and practiced correctly, can be a force for stability and order in the Ummah.

Sammaniyyah and the Mahdist Movement of Sudan

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

سبوحٌ قدوسٌ

Holy Holy

We previously discussed reformist “Sufis” like Ahmad bin Idris al-Fasi, who influenced subsequent reformist orders like the Khatmiyyah in Sudan, the Sanusiyyah in Libya and the Salihiyyah in Somalia.

Another reformist order is the Sammaniyyah attributed to Muhammad bin Abd al-Karim al-Samman (1718-1775). A descendant of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and born in Medina, he was initially in the Khalwatiyyah Sufi order and a disciple of the eminent Shaykh Mustafa Kamal al-Din al-Bakri of Syria.

Regrettably, despite his noble pedigree and background, al-Samman left the traditional Sunni way and founded a Sufi new order—Sammaniyyah—which is somewhat problematic. 

The researcher Abdulgalil Abd Allah Salih has written a paper on the Sammaniyyah entitled “The Sammaniyya: Doctrine, History and Future”. I have relied on this paper extensively to acquire a deeper understanding of al-Samman and the Sammaniyyah order.

According to it, al-Samman was “opposed to the traditional veneration of saints.” Regarding the practice of taqlid, that is confining oneself to a single Madhhab in fiqh, “Al-Samman did not confine himself to only one Madhab. He put more emphasis on ijtihad.”

According to the research paper, one of Samman’s teachers was “Muhammad Higat al-Sindi” but this is probably a reference to Muhammad Hayat al-Sindi. The latter was also the initial influence on Ibn Abd al-Wahhab of Najd in rejecting veneration of Saints, and the practice of intercession. It is quite plausible that the “reformist” streak within the Sammaniyyah in this regard originates in the influence of al-Sindi on al-Samman.

Now the false Mahdi of Sudan, who was initiated into the Sammaniyyah order, was encouraged and supported by some of the elders and members of this order, particularly Shaykh al-Qurashi, “Shaykh al-Qurashi sat on the carpet of the Sammaniyya tariqa in Sudan, for more than forty years, as a true guide and instructor, after the passing away of Shaykh Ahmad al-Tayyib bin al-Bashir. He had played a vital role in the emergence of the Mahdiya in Sudan, when he joined the Mahdi and his disciples into the Sammaniyya, and hinted to him that he is the awaited Mahdi.”

One can now clearly discern a pattern. These reformist “Sufi” orders, characterized by a rejection of taqlid and traditional veneration of saints, are often embraced by delusional militants as a springboard to launch a violent insurrection, usually against a colonial power. The “Mad Mulla” of Somalia and the “Mahdi” of Sudan are examples of this phenomenon.

Sunni Muslims should beware of so-called “reformist” Sufism, such as the Idrisiyyah, Khatmiyyah, Sanusiyyah, Salihiyyah and Sammaniyyah orders, and instead stick to the traditional Sufi orders, like the Naqshbandiyyah, Qadiriyyah, Suhrawardiyyah, Chishtiyyah, Rifa’iyyah, Shadhiliyyah, Khalwatiyyah and Kubrawiyyah orders.

In Sudan, the Mahdist movement persists in the form of the so-called Ansar and the Umma Party. But there is no doubt that Muhammad Ahmad of Sudan was a false Mahdi, who was deluded by some of the Sammani elders teaching that the Mahdi would emerge from their order. One should not join any movement, organization or party that is associated with this false Mahdi of Sudan. 

Black Clothing and Shi'ism

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Mirza of Jhelum, one of the hideous barking dogs and squealing pigs of our time makes it a point to regularly wear black clothing and teaches a new doctrine that wearing black is a Sunnah and it is the most preferable color with regard to clothing. 

This donkey from Jhelum combines in his rhetoric a strange mixture of Wahhabism and Rafidi Shi’ism. Because wearing all black is generally associated with the Shi’ites, the pig from Jhelum is eager to promote this trend as a way of annoying Sunni Muslims, especially the pious thereof who generally wear all white.

Yet, the verdict of the Holy Quran is that white is certainly superior to black, as Allah Most High says:

یَّوۡمَ تَبۡیَضُّ وُجُوۡہٌ وَّتَسۡوَدُّ وُجُوۡہٌ ۚ فَاَمَّا الَّذِیۡنَ اسۡوَدَّتۡ وُجُوۡہُہُمۡ ۟ اَکَفَرۡتُمۡ بَعۡدَ اِیۡمَانِکُمۡ فَذُوۡقُوا الۡعَذَابَ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ تَکۡفُرُوۡنَ

وَاَمَّا الَّذِیۡنَ ابۡیَضَّتۡ وُجُوۡہُہُمۡ فَفِیۡ رَحۡمَۃِ اللّٰہِ ؕ ہُمۡ فِیۡہَا خٰلِدُوۡنَ

The Day some faces will be whitened and some faces will be blackened. So as for those whose faces will be blackened, “Did you disbelieve after your Faith? Now taste the punishment because of your disbelieving!”

And as for those whose faces will be whitened, so they are in the mercy of Allah. In it they will abide eternally

(Surah 3, Ayah 106 & 107)

Some of the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, with regard to this passage in the Holy Quran, rightly interpreted the white faces as a reference to the Sunnis and the black faces as a reference to the people of innovation and misguidance—such as the Shi’ites, Kharijites, etc.

Now the pig of Jhelum, in arrogantly declaring that black clothes are preferable to white, blatantly contradicts the Hadith of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him:

الْبَسُوا الْبَيَاضَ فَإِنَّهَا أَطْهَرُ وَأَطْيَبُ وَكَفِّنُوا فِيهَا مَوْتَاكُمْ

“Wear white, for indeed it is purer and cleaner, and shroud your deceased in it.” (Jami al-Tirmidhi)

Engineer Mirza, the hideous, black barking dog from Jhelum, shamelessly slanders the Sunni Ulama by alleging that they discourage the laity from wearing black clothing by saying it is the clothing of the inhabitants of Hell.

The irony is that such narrations to the effect that black clothing is associated with the cursed Pharaoh and the inhabitants of Hell is derived from Shi’ite literature, not Sunni. Hence, it is reported in Yaqub al-Kulayni’s book Furu al-Kafi, under the chapter heading:

لبس السواد

Wearing Black

قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام أما إني ألبسه وأنا أعلم أنه لباس أهل النار

Abu Abdullah [Imam Ja’far], peace be upon him, “I am wearing it and I know that it is the clothing of the people of the Fire.” (Furu al-Kafi, v.6, p.282)

It is similarly narrated from Amir ul-Mu’minin, Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, according to the Twelver Shi’ite scholar Shaykh al-Saduq, that he said:

لا تلبسوا السواد فإنه لباس فرعون

“Do not wear black for indeed it is the clothing of Pharaoh.”

(Man La Yahdarah ul-Faqih, v.1, p.251)

Keep in mind we Sunni Muslims rejects these narrations from the Shi’ite literature, and regard it as completely permissible to wear black for both men and women.

I only quote these narrations to point out the irony and the hypocrisy of the Shi’ites who frequently wear black from head to toe, such that is has become a symbol of their religion, and to repudiate the donkey Mirza of Jhelum who falsely accuses the Sunnis of spreading the idea that black clothing is associated with the inhabitants of Hell.

So while it is permissible to wear black, and other colors, Sunni Muslims are highly encouraged to prefer all white clothing, as that is the true Sunnah, and the wearing of all white is especially today almost exclusively associated with Muslims. This is one of the wonders of Allah that out of so many different cultures, religions and populations, the wearing of all white is almost universally recognized as exclusively Islamic.

It is lamentable that Muslims today are abandoning the wearing of all white flowing garments for the European style coat and pants which tend to be black or other dark colors. The immoral celebrities and influencers of the Kuffar who wear all black are being copied by our stupid, senseless youth. All of this is taking them away from the Religion. They should instead emulate the style of our pious saints, scholars and elders who wear flowing white garments, and cover their heads with white skullcaps or turbans.

One of the reasons Twelver Shi’ites wear all black is to symbolize their mourning, especially in the sacred month of Muharram (the month in which this article is written). But the association between mourning and the color black has no basis in Islam. The custom of wearing black to funerals comes from European Christians, itself originating in the custom of Pagan Rome. It is totally alien to us Muslims, who are encouraged to frequently wear white, and shroud our deceased in it. We should make it a point to wear white to funerals as a symbolic rejection of the vain European custom. Even the Bible does not associate wearing black with mourning, but instead wearing sackcloth and ashes.

Till this day, wearing all black is not only associated with Twelver Shi’ites, especially their clergy, but also the Christian clergy, especially Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian clergy. It is also strongly associated with the Haredi and Hasidic Jewish sects.

But as for wearing all white, the Sunnah of my Master the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Angels, it is till this day universally associated with the Muslims and may it continue to be so till the end of time. Amin!

Now some people might question why I have used such harsh language in this article against Engineer Mirza of Jhelum. This is an individual who has committed blasphemy against the Saints of Allah, and rude, disrespectful language and tone of voice against my Master the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and many of his Companions. This is an individual who day and night seeks to destroy Islam with his heretical ideas and notions, and deceives the youth with his anti-clerical narrative, and his rabid hostility to Sufism. Simultaneously, he glazes the enemies of Islam, both external and internal, including heretics and innovators like Ghamidi. The Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, said:

مَنْ وَقَّرَ صَاحِبَ بِدْعَةٍ فَقَدْ أَعَانَ عَلَى هَدْمِ الْإِسْلَامِ

“Whoever honors an innovator has surely aided in the destruction of Islam!” (Shu’b al-Iman, #9018)

Abortion is Murder

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Allah says:

وَلَا تَقۡتُلُوا النَّفۡسَ الَّتِیۡ حَرَّمَ اللّٰہُ اِلَّا بِالۡحَقِّ

And do not kill a soul that Allah has made sacred, except by right

(Surah 17, Ayah 33)

On Judgment Day Allah will ask the following question to the child who suffered infanticide:

بِاَیِّ ذَنۡۢبٍ قُتِلَتۡ

For what crime were you killed?

(Surah 81, Ayah 9)

Islam teaches that Allah sends an Angel to breathe the Ruh (spirit) into the fetus of every unborn child while it is still in the womb of its mother. This happens 120 days after conception. Hence, deliberate abortion after this period of time is nothing but a euphemism for baby murder. However, an abortion may be performed for a valid reason, meaning, if the mother gives birth it will likely cause her to die. In this unique and extreme scenario the principal life of the mother is given precedence over the life of the unborn child.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught that the unborn child is a person. According to a Hadith, it is reported that he said:

إِنَّ السِّقْطَ لَيُرَاغِمُ رَبَّهُ إِذَا أَدْخَلَ أَبَوَيْهِ النَّارَ فَيُقَالُ أَيُّهَا السِّقْطُ الْمُرَاغِمُ رَبَّهُ أَدْخِلْ أَبَوَيْكَ الْجَنَّةَ فَيَجُرُّهُمَا بِسَرَرِهِ حَتَّى يُدْخِلَهُمَا الْجَنَّةَ

Indeed, the miscarried fetus will contend with his Lord if his parents entered Hellfire. It will be said, “O you miscarried fetus that contends with his Lord, enter your parents into Paradise.” So he will drag them by its umbilical cord until he causes them to enter Paradise (Sunan Ibn Majah, #1608)

According to the Shari’ah, if someone unintentionally causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, he or she is liable to pay the appropriate blood money. These facts establish that Islam considers the unborn child to be a person, and its abortion is totally prohibited.

Some foolish people among the Muslims, usually influenced by feminism, argue that abortion is unrestrictedly permissible before ensoulment of the fetus, meaning before 120 days of pregnancy. Even if technically the fetus has no spirit at that time, it is still alive. It may not technically be considered murder, but that is not a license to abort it. Rather, the sin of aborting a fetus before ensoulment, and without a valid excuse such as the mother’s life being jeopardized if she carries it to term, is like the sin of cutting off one’s limb or doing permanent damage to one’s organs. 

According to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, while abortion prior to 120 days does not entail the same gravity of sin and evil as abortion subsequent to the ensoulment of the fetus, it is nonetheless prohibited. Allamah Ibn Abidin al-Shami has mentioned a discussion on this point in his famous commentary of Durr al-Mukhtar:

وَفِي كَرَاهَةِ الْخَانِيَّةِ وَلَا أَقُولُ بِالْحِلِّ إذْ الْمُحْرِمُ لَوْ كَسَرَ بَيْضَ الصَّيْدِ ضَمِنَهُ لِأَنَّهُ أَصْلُ الصَّيْدِ فَلَمَّا كَانَ يُؤَاخَذُ بِالْجَزَاءِ فَلَا أَقَلَّ مِنْ أَنْ يَلْحَقَهَا إثْمٌ هُنَا إذَا سَقَطَ بِغَيْرِ عُذْرِهَا قَالَ ابْنُ وَهْبَانَ وَمِنْ الْأَعْذَارِ أَنْ يَنْقَطِعَ لَبَنُهَا بَعْدَ ظُهُورِ الْحَمْلِ وَلَيْسَ لِأَبِي الصَّبِيِّ مَا يَسْتَأْجِرُ بِهِ الظِّئْرَ وَيَخَافُ هَلَاكَهُ وَنُقِلَ عَنْ الذَّخِيرَةِ لَوْ أَرَادَتْ الْإِلْقَاءَ قَبْلَ مُضِيِّ زَمَنٍ يُنْفَخُ فِيهِ الرُّوحُ هَلْ يُبَاحُ لَهَا ذَلِكَ أَمْ لَا اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ وَكَانَ الْفَقِيهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُوسَى يَقُولُ إنَّهُ يُكْرَهُ فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ بَعْدَمَا وَقَعَ فِي الرَّحِمِ مَآلُهُ الْحَيَاةُ فَيَكُونُ لَهُ حُكْمُ الْحَيَاةِ كَمَا فِي بَيْضَةِ صَيْدِ الْحَرَمِ وَنَحْوُهُ فِي الظَّهِيرِيَّةِ قَالَ ابْنُ وَهْبَانَ فَإِبَاحَةُ الْإِسْقَاطِ مَحْمُولَةٌ عَلَى حَالَةِ الْعُذْرِ أَوْ أَنَّهَا لَا تَأْثَمُ إثْمَ الْقَتْلِ وَبِمَا فِي الذَّخِيرَةِ تَبَيَّنَ أَنَّهُمْ مَا أَرَادُوا بِالتَّحْقِيقِ إلَّا نَفْخُ الرُّوحِ وَأَنَّ قَاضِيَ خَانْ مَسْبُوقٌ بِمَا مَرَّ مِنْ التَّفَقُّهِ وَاَللَّهُ تَعَالَى الْمُوَفِّقُ

And regarding abortion before ensoulment being prohibitively disliked, in the Khaniyyah: “I do not say it is permissible, since if a pilgrim in Ihram breaks game eggs, he is liable for them because they are the origin of the game. Since he is held accountable for the penalty, then at the very least, sin will befall her here if it falls without a valid excuse.” Ibn Wahban said: “Among the excuses is that her milk ceases after the pregnancy becomes apparent, and the father of the child has no means to hire a wet nurse. And he fears its death.” It was reported in the Dhakhirah that if she wanted to expel it before the time had passed when the soul would be breathed into it, is that permissible for her or not? They differed on this. And the jurist Ali bin Musa used to say that it is prohibitively disliked, for the water, after it has fallen into the womb, its destiny is life, so it has the ruling of life, as in the case of the egg of game hunted in the sanctuary and the like. In the Zahiriyyah, he said, Ibn Wahban said: “The permissibility of abortion is based on the condition of a valid excuse, or that it does not constitute the sin of murder.” And what is in the Dhakhirah makes it clear that what they truly intended was nothing other than the breathing of life into the fetus, and that Qadi Khan was preceded by what has been mentioned regarding the understanding of jurisprudence. And Allah the exalted is the One who grants success. (Radd ul-Muhtar, v.4, p.336)

In fact, all Four Schools are in unanimity that abortion after 120 days is totally forbidden and is tantamount to murder. The Maliki school is strictest in prohibiting abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, including prior to ensoulment. There is difference of opinion in the Shafi’i school regarding abortion prior to 120 days, some say it is permitted but other prohibit it. The Hanbali school permits abortion only in the first 40 days of pregnancy.

From a moral standpoint there is no justification for abortion of an unborn child due to rape, adultery, fornication, let alone inconvenience to the mother such as shame for being unwed or being a financial burden, etc. Why should the child be punished for the crime of its parent? Allah says in the Quran not to kill your children for fear of poverty, for He is the Provider Who provides sustenance for you and your children, and that the killing of children is a mortal sin (Surah 17, Ayah 31).

It is to the ultimate shame of Canada, my country of birth and residence, that abortion at any stage in the pregnancy is totally legal.

The crime of abortion will most certainly be among those which God judges at the Resurrection. In fact, He will first reckon will all matters of bloodshed before any other matter, as my Master, peace be upon him, said:

أَوَّلُ مَا يُقْضَى بَيْنَ اَلنَّاسِ يَوْمَ اَلْقِيَامَةِ فِي اَلدِّمَاءِ

“The first matter to be judged between mankind on the Day of Resurrection is concerning bloodshed.”

Let the unrepentant who have committed this horrible crime of infanticide, of either their born or unborn children, beware! You have blood on your hands and you will have to answer to your Maker; for what crime of this little one did you butcher her?

On that Day my Lord and my God will be in a state of fury the like of which has never been manifested before. Therefore, repent and start to make amends by calling for the criminalization of abortion.

Now see the consequences of allowing this abortion. Spiritually dead societies like China aborted millions of girls during the One-child policy. God is retributing them with a severe imbalance in their demographics, in terms of age and sex. An aging society with no sufficient replacement to sustain the economic and infrastructural machinery. The same state of affairs is true in most of the so-called developed world, which is permissive of abortion.

Though the United States is to be lauded for suddenly slamming the breaks on this evil when its Supreme Court rightly overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

But I emphasize my message to my fellow Muslims and to the Muslim states of this world. Beware! Do not tolerate the legality of abortion in your societies in those places where it is legal. Nor fail to speak out and act in those places where it is common or overlooked despite the law, lest the punishment of Allah rain down upon us for our moral failure to respect and uphold the sanctity of human life.