Reality of the Saudi Kingdom

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نحمده ونصلى على رسوله الكريم

The ruling Saudi dynasty’s importance for Muslims lies in the fact that it possesses custody over the two most sacred Shrines; the Ka’ba in Mecca and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina.

The Saudi government takes pride in its role of custodian of these two sacred Shrines, and has for many decades maintained and renovated them. I compare the Saudi dynasty to the Jewish Herodian dynasty of antiquity. Herod the Great’s (d. 4 BCE) legacy to his people was in his colossal building projects throughout Judea and his expansion and renovation of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which became known as Herod’s Temple.

The Herodians were Roman client kings of Judea, much like how the Saudi Kingdom is a client state of Western imperial powers, first the British and now the Americans.

Like the Herodians two millennia ago, the present-day Saudis and the ‘Ulama under their patronization represent the religious establishment whose function is to monopolize the religious leadership and guidance of the Muslims. The Saudi ‘Ulama are comparable to the Jewish Sanhedrin composed mainly of followers of the elitist Sadducee sect. The role of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is quite comparable to the role of the Jewish High Priest who led the Sanhedrin during the time of the Herodian dynasty.

Of course, these striking similarities are not coincidental, but are in line with the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) prophecy:

لَتَتَّبِعُنَّ سَنَنَ مَنْ قَبْلَكُمْ شِبْراً بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعاً بِذِرَاعٍ حَتَّى لَوْ سَلَكُوا جُحْرَ ضَبٍّ لَسَلَكْتُمُوهُ ، قُلْنَا : يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ اليَهُودَ والنَّصَارَى ؟ قَالَ : فَمَنْ ؟

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “You will certainly follow the ways of those who came before you hand span by hand span, cubit by cubit, to the extent that if they entered the hole of a lizard, you will enter it too.” We said: “O Messenger of Allah, (do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?” He said: “Who else?” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1397; Muslim, 4822)

The Saudis are perhaps most criticized for their colossal building projects in the sacred city of Mecca. The recent construction of the nearly 2,000 feet tall Mecca Royal Clock Tower Hotel and other immense skyscrapers eclipsing the sacred Ka’ba is a source of great consternation for the Muslims:

 A comparison of the Sacred Mosque (Ka'ba) in Mecca in the 21st century with Herod's Temple in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus

The obsession of the Saudis and other Gulf rulers for building these immense buildings, hotels and skyscrapers is in fact a grand prophecy and Sign of the Hour that we come to know of from the Hadith of Gabriel: “When the shepherds of black camels start boasting and competing with others in the construction of higher buildings” (Bukhari).

However, this is not at all to be conceived as a positive development, contrary to what the Saudis or others might think. These skyscrapers and luxury hotels are signs of decadence and result in the transformation of Mecca as a spiritual sanctuary into yet another center of consumerism and worldly indulgence.

Because of the steep fall in the value of the oil market, and the creeping isolation of the Saudi state in the international community, the Saudis have increased their financial investment in their custody of Islam’s two most sacred Shrines. Their intentions are clear, to make the sacred town a source of dividends by transforming the Hajj from being a spiritual pilgrimage into money-making religious tourism. So while the outer form of Islamic worship remains, its inner spirit and power has become diminished. How ironic is it that the most sacred place on Earth has become a symbol of Dunya.

This is an illustration of the corruption of the present-day religious establishment in Islam, similar to the corruption of the Jewish religious establishment in the time of the promised Messiah of Nazareth (peace be upon him).

Like the Egyptian State’s utilization of the establishment ‘Ulama of Al-Azhar University in order to give the State a veneer of religious legitimacy in the eyes of the public, the Saudi State has an intimate bond with its patronized ‘Ulama and Shuyukh since the unique alliance was formed between Muhammad b. Saud and Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abdul Wahhab (Rahimahullah).

The function of the establishment ‘Ulama is to serve the interests of the State in the sphere of the religious education of the masses. The State recognizes that ordinary Muslims have a deep attachment and reverence for the ‘Ulama, and so seeks to maintain a degree of control over the modern institutions which are churning out ‘Ulama.

But what the Saudis and other fail to recognize is that the history of true Religion is a history of dissent from the religious establishment. For the reader to truly appreciate this fact, he or she must carefully consider the reality and function of a Prophet or Nabi. The Prophet’s authority is derived from his being directly chosen by and in contact with Allah: “That God alone appoints the prophet makes the prophet independent of all institutions and able to challenge them.” (Jewish Study Bible; p. 408)

Hence, the prophetic spirit is a spirit of challenging and dissenting from the religious establishment, frequently inviting the disdain and opposition of the latter, who accuse Prophets and Prophet-like figures of being a source of Fitnah (tribulation), discord and even deviation. Unlike the heads of the religious establishment, who are decked in expensive, elaborate and fine garments with intricate embroidery, etc., a Prophet-like figure is usually humble in appearance and dress and gives off an aura of piety and other-worldliness.

Undoubtedly, the promised Mahdi (peace be upon him), this messianic and Prophet-like figure, is someone who will be a source of discomfort for not only the religious establishment and pseudo-Ulama and pseudo-mystics, but also for the powerful ruling States among the Muslims, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan. We know that when the people pledge their allegiance to the promised Mahdi under the shade of the sacred Ka’ba in Mecca, an army will come up against him in the direction of the north which shall be destroyed only through a divine intervention. In all probability, that army which comes up to oppose the promised Mahdi will be the armed forces of the ruling Saudi State (Allah knows best).

In other words, whatever the merits and virtues of the Al-Saud dynasty, we see now that they are heading in the direction of being on the wrong side of history.

Now let us consider some of the misguided and extreme reactions to the Saudi State. Here I am referring to the dangerous tendency of Takfir which characterizes the present-day Takfiris, or Neo-Kharijites, i.e., groups like Al-Qa’ida and Da’ish (ISIS). These people regard the Saudi State as a Taghut (false god) and make Takfir of it. The Muslim mainstream, however, that is Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah, have disassociated themselves from these people and their extremist ideology of Takfir. In fact, their Takfir of the Saudis and extreme hatred for the latter is a result of their lust for political power and desire to overthrow the Saudi dynasty only to replace it with their own regime.

But the reader should be aware that the promised Mahdi will have no such underlying desire for power to launch any kind of political agenda or, God forbid, engage in acts of indiscriminate violence and terrorism. He will be guided by Allah in his mission and have no personal desire to rule or settle scores with any of the present-day ruling Muslim governments.

So while we Muslims, who eagerly await the advent of the Mahdi, should remain aloof from all of the present-day States and eschew important positions in any government, so as to avoid a dangerous conflict of interest when the promised Mahdi does arrive on the scene, we should not fall prey to the ideology of Takfir or even engage in political opposition or uprising against any present-day Muslim government. Rather, we should take guidance from the Words of the Holy Qur’an:

فَانْتَظِرُوا إِنِّي مَعَكُمْ مِنَ الْمُنْتَظِرِينَ

“So wait, verily, I too am with you in being from those who wait.”

So while a certain section of the Muslims, infected by the virus of Takfirism and Kharijism, have fallen prey to extremism in their political and personal reasons for bearing enmity to the Saudi government, there are those other vast majority of Muslims who have fallen prey to another form of misguidance. This is the misguidance of attachment to one’s State, nationalism, sentiments of patriotism and national pride etc. The reality is that many Muslims regard themselves as citizens of their respective countries first, and Muslims second. They take excessive pride in being Egyptians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc. For them, loyalty and devotion to their country has taken on a kind of disturbing religious fervor. Such people, in their present condition, can hardly be expected to express the pure Islamic anticipation and eagerness for the arrival of the Mahdi and the Messiah. This feeling of Islamic eagerness for the arrival of the Messiah is rooted in a deep love and attachment to Islam, and desire for the Kingdom of God to be established here on Earth, a heavenly Kingdom and Messianic State which will replace the present-day regimes, states and governments which no true Muslim can be satisfied with.

In conclusion, Muslims reading this should always keep this belief deeply ingrained in their hearts that the Saudi government has not been destined for greatness or permanence. The coming Mahdist or Messianic government is bound to imminently replace it. We ought to be spiritually and psychologically prepared for this huge change in the course of the near future which will be of cosmic proportions.

Nasibi Rejects Hadith of Safinah رضى الله عنه

One of the proofs for the veracity of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alaihi wa Aalihi wasallam) is his prophecy concerning the duration of his rightly-guided succession, or Khilaafat al-Raashidah.

According to Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) was succeeded by four rightly-guided successors who were given responsibility for governing the Muslim community. These four individuals (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali رضى الله عنهم) were the best of the Prophet’s companions and indeed the best of his Ummah.

Their period of governance is considered the golden era in Islamic history by Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah. The concept of the Mahdi in Islam is based on the idea that a great Islamic saint will lead the Muslim Ummah according to the Sunnah of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) remnicient of the Prophet’s Rightly-Guided Successors.

The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) prophesied:

الْخِلَافَةُ فِي أُمَّتِي ثَلَاثُونَ سَنَةً ثُمَّ مُلْكٌ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ

“The Khilaafah within my Ummah is for thirty years, then it shall be proceeded by monarchy”

(Tirmidhi)

خِلَافَةُ النُّبُوَّةِ ثَلَاثُونَ سَنَةً ، ثُمَّ يُؤْتِي اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ مَنْ يَشَاءُ أَوْ مُلْكَهُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ

“Khilaafah of Nubuwwah is for thirty years, then Allah will give kingship to whomsoever He wishes.”

(Abi Dawud)

The companion Safinah (Radiyallahu ‘anhu) is the narrator of this Hadith, and has himself explained it by calculating the period of the Rightly-Guided Khilaafah:

أَمْسِكْ خِلَافَةَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، ثُمَّ قَالَ : وَخِلَافَةَ عُمَرَ ، وَخِلَافَةَ عُثْمَانَ ، ثُمَّ قَالَ لِي : أَمْسِكْ خِلَافَةَ عَلِيٍّ ، قَالَ : فَوَجَدْنَاهَا ثَلَاثِينَ سَنَةً ، قَالَ سَعِيدٌ : فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : إِنَّ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّ الْخِلَافَةَ فِيهِمْ ، قَالَ : كَذَبُوا بَنُو الزَّرْقَاءِ بَلْ هُمْ مُلُوكٌ مِنْ شَرِّ الْمُلُوكِ

“Count the Khilafah of Abu Bakr,” then he said: “Count the Khilafah of ‘Umar and the Khilafah of ‘Uthman.” Then he said to me: “Count the Khilafah of ‘Ali.” He said: “So we found that they add up to thirty years.” Sa'eed said: “I said to him: “Banu Umaiyyah claim that the Khilafah is among them.” He said: “Banu Az-Zarqa lie, rather they are a monarchy, among the worst of monarchies.”

(Tirmidhi)

It is historically proven that Abu Bakr was successor for two years, followed by ‘Umar who led for ten years, followed by ‘Uthman who led for twelve years, and then followed by ‘Ali who led for five and a half years. ‘Ali was succeeded by his son al-Hasan (the Prophet’s grandson), who remained as Khalifah for six months. In fact, al-Hasan’s Khilafah is an extension of ‘Ali’s Khilafah and included within it, otherwise all five of them are regarded as Rightly-Guided Caliphs by Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah (and may Allah be pleased with them all). The total is therefore 30 years, thus literally fulfilling the grand prophecy of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam).

Notice also how the companion Safinah (Allah be pleased with him) repudiated the notion that the Umayyad dynasty was to be considered as a Caliphate, rather they were the worst government that ever governed the Muslims in our entire history!

However, the wretched and filthy Nasibi sect, who bear enmity toward the Ahlul Bait (Prophet’s Household), especially Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib and his progeny, and who have excessive love for the Umayyad dynasty including Mu’awiyah, Yazid, Marwan, Walid b. Abdul Malik, are threatened by this Hadith.

The Nasibis regard this Hadith of Safinah which states that the Prophetic Caliphate will last for 30 years as a thorn in their necks. It is for this reason that the Nasibis cast doubt on the authenticity of this Hadith. The contemporary Nasibi mulla Hakim Faiz Alam Siddiqui went so far as to allege that this Hadith is in fact fabricated! He said:

اسی موقعہ کے لیے کسی من چلے نے حدیث سفینہ ^رض گھڑی جسے امام مسلم نے اپنی صحیح میں درج کر کے دنیائے رفض کے ہاتھ میں ایک بہت بڑا ہتھیار تھمادیا۔

“Someone fabricated the Hadith of Safinah^RA which Imam Muslim inscribed in his Sahih thereby handing over a great weapon to the Rawafid.”

Reference: Haqiqat-i-Madhhab-i-Shi’ah; p. 24

Photograph of Hakim Faiz Alam Siddiqui

In fact, Faiz Alam has made a huge blunder and exposed his ignorance by claiming that this Hadith is recorded in Sahih Muslim. Although the Hadith is undoubtedly authentic, and we have already cited above two of its references, it is not recorded in Sahih Muslim. One is astounded how such an ignorant Mulla who does not even know the correct reference for this Hadith has the audacity to criticize his authenticity.

Secondly, Faiz Alam ignorantly claims that this Hadith is a weapon for the Rawafid, meaning those Shi’ah who abuse and bear enmity towards the Prophet’s Companions.

But this is yet another example of Faiz Alam’s woeful ignorance and stupidity, because the reality is that this Hadith of Safinah demolishes the Shi’ah doctrine. This Hadith reveals the virtue and correctness of the caliphates of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. How can Faiz Alam or anyone else conceivably claim that this Hadith is a weapon for the Rawafid or Shi’ah, a sect which rejects the legitimacy of the above three mentioned Caliphs (Allah be pleased with them)?

Furthermore, the Twelver Shi’ah claim that the true Imamate did not end after thirty years, but rather continued for many generations until the alleged occultation of their twelfth Imam in the 9^th century C.E. (mid-3^rd century of the Islamic calendar).

On the same page, Faiz Alam makes another pathetic attempt to cast doubt on the truthfulness of this Hadith by arguing:

حضرت علي ^رض کی شہادت اگر 41ھ میں نہ ہوتی اور مزید چند برس زندہ رہتے تو خلفا‌‎ئے راشدین کے زمرہ سے نکل جاتے

“If Hadrat Ali^RA was not martyred in year 41 H, but remained alive for a few more years, then he would have been removed from the category of the rightly-guided Caliphs.”

The simply answer to this baseless objection is that Faiz Alam has committed the logical fallacy known as hypostatization. He is missing the point, perhaps intentionally, that precisely because the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alahi wasallam) made this prophecy about the caliphate lasting for only thirty years that Ali b. Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him) died at the time he died. Faiz Alam, like a typical Nasibi, exposes not only his deviation of rejecting authentic Hadith, but his deviation in his conception of Qadr or Taqdir (destiny, divine decree).

The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alahi wasallam) has repudiated the fallacy of Faiz Alam by saying: “If anything befalls you, do not say ‘If only I had done (such and such), the such and such would have happened,’ rather say: ‘Allah has decreed and what He wills He does,’ for ‘if only’ opens the door to the work of Satan.” (Sahih Muslim)

In conclusion, we see how Nasibism exhibits the tendency to reject sound Hadith and employ weak arguments which are in fact forbidden theologically, all due to its satanic enmity toward the Prophet’s Ahl-ul-Bayt (peace be upon them).

Khaatam al Awsiyaa (Seal of Inheritors) and the Names of the Mahdi عليه السلام

Throughout my blog I have explained the significance of Khaatam-an-Nabiyyeen (Seal of the Prophets) as meaning that the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is the one in whose essence all of the prophetic qualities and excellences find their ultimate culmination.

Followers of the Ithna Ashari sect of Shi’ism dispute this explanation, despite the fact that within their own books Amir-ul-Mu’mineen ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (Radiyallahu ‘anhu) has been referred to as Khaatam-ul-Awsiyaa’ (Seal of the Inheriters):

 عن النبيّ صلّى اللَّه عليه و آله قال انا خاتم الأنبياء و انت يا عليّ خاتم الأوصياء

The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa Aalihi) said: “I am the Khaatam al-Ambiyaa and you, O ‘Ali, are Khaatam al-Awsiyaa”

Reference: Tafsir al-Safi; v. 4, p. 193

It is evident that according to this narration, Khaatam cannot mean last absolutely in a chronological sense, otherwise it will have to be admitted that Amir-ul-Mu’mineen Ali b. Abi Talib (Radiyallahu ‘anhu) is the last Wasi (Inheritor) absolutely in a chronological sense.

However, in response to this, the Shi’ites argue that this narration is referring to the fact that ‘Ali (Radiyallahu ‘anhu) is the last and final Wasi with Wasi being a specific office of the one who succeeds a Prophet. In other words, just as Prophet Muhammad is the last and final Prophet, likewise, Ali is the last and final person to inherit leadership from a Prophet. Since no other Prophet will come in the future, therefore, no other Wasi or person will come to inherit leadership from a Prophet.

On the surface, this seems like a solid argument. However, the reality is that there are other books of the Ithna Ashari sect of Shi’ism which state that in fact it is the Mahdi (‘alayhis salaam) who is Khaatam al-Awsiyaa.

The eminent Shi’i scholar Mirza Hussain Nuri Tabarsi (1838-1902) has mentioned that the Mahdi is also named as Baqiyat-ul-Ambiyaa (lit. “Remainder of the Prophets”):

Reference: Al-Najm-ul-Thaqib; v. 1, pp. 177-178

This means that the Mahdi shall possess what remains of Nubuwwah, an allusion to the Hadith that nothing remains of Nubuwwah (Prophecy) except al-Mubashshiraat meaning good and pious Visions:

لَا نُبُوَّةَ بَعْدِي إِلَّا الْمُبَشِّرَاتِ

“There is no Nubuwwah (Prophecy) after me except the Mubashshiraat”

(Musnad of Imam Ahmad)

لَمْ يَبْقَ مِنَ النُّبُوَّةِ إِلَّا الْمُبَشِّرَاتُ

“Nothing remains from Nubuwwah except the Mubashshiraat.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

The word Illa as it occurs in this Hadith means that there is a specific exception to the general principle of the termination of Nubuwwah (Prophecy).

Interestingly, the same book mentions the title Masih al-Zaman (“Messiah of the Time”) and al-Ghulaam (“Servant”) as names of the promised Mahdi, and that from among the people he shall most resemble Jesus son of Mary in both appearance and behavior:

Reference: Ibid; v. 1, pp. 202, 218, 272

Iqbal's Book "Islam and Ahmadism" Refuted (Part 6)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نحمده ونصلى على رسوله الكريم

Continuing in our series on Iqbal’s book Islam and Ahmadism, we now come to a fresh issue which is Iqbal’s conception of Islam as civilization: “Thus in the year 1799 the political decay of Islam in Asia reached its climax. But just as out of the humiliation of Germany on the day of Jena arose the modern German nation, it may be said with equal truth that out of the political humiliation of Islam in the year 1799 arose modern Islam” (p. 27).

Pay close attention, dear reader, to the wording which Iqbal is using. He does not speak about the political decay of the Muslims or the Ummah, but rather the “political decay of Islam” and the “political humiliation of Islam”. The point to be noted is that Iqbal conceives of Islam as a civilization, whereas we Muslims of (the real) Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama’ah conceive of Islam as a Religion. If the Muslims are practicing Islam properly, and that is evident by the existence of an abundance of saintly and pious, righteous personalities among them, and the common Muslims too focus on the study of the Holy Qur’an and strict adherence to the laws of the Shari’ah, etc., then it can be said that Islam is in a good condition. If the opposite is true, it means that Islam is fading away and the Muslims are in a pitiable and bad condition.

However, we see from the words of Iqbal that he judges the condition of Islam as being contingent to civilizational power. If the Muslims are masters of vast and powerful empires, and they have an abundance of wealth and wordly power, then according to Iqbal Islam itself is in a good condition, otherwise not.

So the reader should keep this important difference between the orthodox conception of Islam as religion and the Iqbalian conception of Islam as civilization or dominion in mind as we examine what Iqbal has to say next:

“the function of Ahmadism in the history of Muslim religious thought is to furnish a revelational basis for India’s present political subjugation” (p. 31).

Whatever the merits of Iqbal’s claim that Ahmadism is a movement that aims to reconcile the Muslims to their subjugation to the British on a “revelational basis”, it must be pointed out that even if this is true, Iqbal has failed to demonstrate how the Muslims being in a state of political subjugation to a foreign power is, in it of itself, the raison d’etre for Islam being in a bad condition. While it is certainly true that if the Muslims become decadent and negligent in their observance of the teachings of Islam, the inevitable result will be all sorts of calamities, political, social and economic, for the Muslims, it is quite something else to posit that the condition of Islam is dependent upon a notion of political ascendancy. In other words, teaching the Muslims to resign themselves to their political subjugation to a foreign, non-Muslim power is not heresy insofar as Religion is concerned. One can legitimately argue whether such a teaching is beneficial or not from a political perspective, but from the religious perspective, such a teaching is not a deviation from Islam, let alone such a major deviation (in Iqbal’s view) as to constitute a major challenge and threat to Islam.

Iqbal’s folly, as we have suggested, is based on his wrong conception of Islam as being a civilization or dominion, and thus his purely political approach to the Religion. It is not surprising that the so called “Islamic” political thinkers like Mawdudi and Dr. Israr Ahmad were so influenced by the wrong ideas of Iqbal. They too view the real danger of Ahmadiyyah as not theological but political. This is why Iqbal claims that the Ulama who opposed Ahmadiyyah at its inception did so because of theological differences, but failed to appreciate it as the source of a dangerous political threat to the solidarity of the Ummah: “The Indian Ulama, therefore, took it to be a purely theological movement and came out with theological weapons to deal with it. I believe, however, that this was not the proper method of dealing with the movement” (pp. 25 – 26).

We see that for Iqbal, heresy or deviation from Islam is not theological in nature. Indeed, as we have shown previously in this series, Iqbal claims that Islamic theology is synthetic, meaning, it has evolved over time to combine and mesh together ideas of distinct sects and schools of theology which were initially at variance and conflict with each other. For Iqbal, the real heresy or deviation from Islam is political dissent from what he considers to be the national interests of the Muslim community.

To be continued ان شاء الله

Jama'at-ul-Muslimeen: Forbidden to Call Anyone as "Mawla" Apart from Allah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نحمده ونصلى على رسوله الكريم

Among the galaxy of misguided groups and parties are the followers of Syed Masood Ahmad (d. 1997), who arrogate for themselves the name Jama’at-ul-Muslimeen. This group considers all other Muslims who are not members of their insignificant Jama’at as being Kuffar (unbelievers). As such, they are simply to be understood as yet another manifestation of the Takfiri Kharijites who have deviated from the true path of Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah.

This sect is characterized by excessive literalism and an underlying failure to understand and comprehend the wisdom behind the meaning of Islamic texts.

For example, they claim:

اور نہ کسی کو مولی کہہ کر پکارنا چاہئے۔ "مولانا" یا "مولائی" کے الفاظ صرف اللہ  تعالی کے لئے استعمال کرنے چاہئیں، کسی دوسرے کے لئے نہیں۔

باقی رہا یہ کہ قرآن وحدیث میں بعض جگہ غیر اللہ کے لئے لفظ مولی کا استعمال ہوا ہے تو اس کا جواب یہ ہے کہ ہمیں جو حکم ملا ہے ہمیں اس کی تعمیل کرنی چاہئے۔

“No one should call another as Mawlaa. The words Mawlaanaa or Mawlaa’i should only be used for Allah Most High, not for anyone else. As for the word Mawlaa being used for other than Allah in some places in the Qur’an and Hadith, then the answer to this is that we should only act upon the command which we have been given.”

Reference: Tauhid-ul-Muslimeen; p. 117 – 118

It is quite noteworthy that this deviant sect on one hand acknowledges the fact that the word Mawlaa has been used in the Qur’an and Hadith as referring to persons other than Allah, yet in its blind obstinance, the so-called Jama’at-ul-Muslimeen claim it is forbidden to call anyone other than Allah with the name and title Mawlaa.

One must understand the fact that the Arabic words Mawlaa and Walee have a multitude of different meanings. With respect to Allah تعالى the meaning of Mawlaa that is unique and restricted to Him is that of ultimate ‘Guardian’, ‘Protector’, ‘Master’, and ‘Helper’. Apart from Allah, we have no other Guardian or Helper.

However, Mawlaa can also mean friend, ally, and beloved one. It is with this connotation that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ

“Whoever I am a Mawlaa to, then Ali is his Mawlaa too.”

(Hadith Mutawatir)

Mawlaa is also the term used to describe someone’s freed-slave. For example, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)  said to Zaid b. Harithah:

أَنْتَ أَخُونَا وَمَوْلاَنَا

“You are our brother and our Mawlaa”

(Bukhari)

These and many other examples prove that it is allowed to refer to respectable Muslims with the title Mawlaaya, Mawlawi, Mawlaana, and Mawlaa, as has been the widespread custom of Muslims from generation to generation. It was only with the emergence of the very recent and modern group, so-called “Jama’at-ul-Muslimeen” that this issue became controversial, when they declared it forbidden to call anyone besides Allah as “Mawlaa”.

The Imam al-Mahdi: Historical Claimants

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نحمده ونصلى على رسوله الكريم

The figure of Imam al-Mahdi (Allah be pleased with him) has raised quite a storm of controvery in our day and age among the Muslim community. On the one hand, there are those modernists and materialists who dislike the concept of a future messianic figure whose purpose will be to restore justice in the world and rejuvenate Islam. Many so called “Islamic” sects and parties outright deny the concept of the Mahdi, claiming it is a Shi’ite concoction that has no basis in the Holy Qur’an. This is especially true of the so called Ahl-al-Qur’an (“Qur’anist”) sects who without exception deny the concept of the Mahdi.

Some Muslim states, regimes and governments are also fearful of the concept of a Mahdi, and this has been historically true of tyrannical Muslim dynasties like the Umayyads. In their systems of education they downplay or altogether omit the mention of the promised Mahdi. They are fearful that this idea may lead to religious uprisings against the tyranny of the regime centered around a charismatic figure whom the public may rally around understanding him to be the Mahdi or Messiah. At present, the Saudi royal family which rules over Arabia is perhaps most fearful of the concept of Mahdi, particularly considering what happened in 1979 when the “Mahdist” cult associated with Juhayman al-Utaibi seized control of the sacred Ka’ba in order to bring about the downfall of the Saudi regime.

The establishment ‘Ulema likewise seek to maintain their monopoly over the religious and spiritual leadership of the Muslim Ummah and are nervous about Mahdi claimants who cause disruption and schisms among their blind-followers.

Nevertheless, the creed of the true Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah is that the idea of the Mahdi is true, and there are numerous authentic Hadith which predict his advent and describe his characteristics. These Hadith when examined closely collectively (and not in isolation of each other) give us a clearer picture about the Mahdi. We know that he is to be from the Ahl al-Bayt (Prophetic Household), from the Prophet’s progeny through his beloved daughter Fatima (Allah be pleased with her). He is described as having a broad forehead and an aquiline nose, differing from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in physical appearance, but resembling him in character and personality traits. Furthermore, he will come to spread justice in an unjust world full of tyrannical and oppressive governments.

It is reported that one of the signs for the appearance of the Mahdi will be seen in the heavens, such as a lunar and solar eclipse occurring in the holy month of Ramadan.

Some Hadith suggest that the Messiah (second coming of Jesus) and the Mahdi are synonymous. For example the Hadith recorded in the Sunan of Ibn Maja:

لَا الْمَهْدِيُّ إِلَّا عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ

“There is no Mahdi except Jesus son of Mary”

Although there is weakness in the Sanad of this Hadith, an authentic Hadith confirms that Jesus in his second coming is described as the Mahdi:

يُوشِكُ مَنْ عَاشَ مِنْكُمْ أَنْ يَلْقَى عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ إِمَامًا مَهْدِيًّا ، وَحَكَمًا عَدْلًا ، فَيَكْسِرُ الصَّلِيبَ ، وَيَقْتُلُ الْخِنْزِيرَ ، وَيَضَعُ الْجِزْيَةَ ، وَتَضَعُ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا

“Whoever lives (long) among you will meet Jesus son of Mary, Imam, Mahdi, a just arbiter. He will break the cross, slay the swine, abolish the Jizya and put an end to war”

(Musnad of Imam Ahmad)

The eminent Tabi (student of the Sahaba), and exegete, Mujahid b. Jabr (d. 722 C.E) likewise stated:

الْمَهْدِيُّ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ

“The Mahdi is Jesus son of Mary”

(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba; Kitab-uz-Zuhd)

To summarize this point, as we have repeatedly proven elsewhere on this blog concerning the natural death of the original Jesus of Nazareth, the prophecy of his second coming is best understood as the appearance of a righteous person from within this Ummah who will be his resemblance. The above-cited Hadith and reports suggest that it is the figure of the promised Mahdi, a man from within the Ummah and from the progeny of the Prophet, who will fulfill the role of Jesus’s second coming.

Apart from those confused and mistaken Muslims, usually modernists, who deny altogether the concept of the Mahdi, there are those on the opposite end of the spectrum who have mythologized the Mahdi. They are the Shi’ites along with some extreme and esoteric Sufis. They often describe the Mahdi as having supernatural abilities. For example, the Ithna Ashari sect of Shi’a believe that the Mahdi is Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-‘Askari. According to them, the eleventh Imam, al-Hasan al-Askari, had a son who was born in secrecy to protect him from the tyrannical Abbasid government. The Twelver Shi’a believe he went into Ghayba (occultation), but is still alive, even though a millenia has passed without his having re-appeared.

However, many scholars and historians seriously doubt the existence of a son born to the eleventh Imam. For example, a faction of the Imamiyah Shi’a disavowed the Imamate of the eleventh Imam al-Hasan al-‘Askari because he died without a son. They therefore claimed that he was not a true Imam, but that the true eleventh Imam was his brother Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Hadi.

According to the admission of the Twelver Shi’a themselves:

“Having noted these two things, it must be pointed out that it was certainly decreed by God that in such a threatening environment and in such a home of importance a son had to be born to Imam Hasan 'Askari who should remain protected from all sorts of dangers. It was for this reason that all necessary precautions had to be taken. Hence, to begin with, according to the related accounts, there were no signs of pregnancy in his mother. Moreover, Imam Hasan 'Askari did not reveal her real name. In addition, at the time of the delivery only Hakima Khatun, and probably some slave girls were present. This is despite the fact that usually in such circumstances assistance is sought from a midwife and other experienced women. In fact, nobody knew whether Imam Hasan 'Askari was married or not and, if he was married, no one knew the identity of his wife.”

(http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3411)

Now it is quite interesting that on one hand the Twelver Shi’a admit that there were no signs of pregnancy in the eleventh Imam’s alleged wife and mother of the so called twelfth Imam, and on the other hand, a faction of the Imamiya Shi’a at the time rejected the Imamate of al-Hasan al-‘Askari because he died without issue. These are just some of the many compelling reasons to strongly doubt the existence of the so called twelfth Imam Muhammad b. al-Hasan. Rather, what appears to be the case is that the story of the birth of a son to al-Hasan al-‘Askari was invented by influential leaders within the movement, who, claiming to be his agents, collected the Khums from the Shi’a community on his behalf.

The concept of the Ghayba (occultation) of the Imam al-Mahdi has no basis in Sunni tradition. Rather it was invented as a justification to deny the death of various Imams that were absent. For example, the Kaysaniya Shi’a sect first made use of this idea of Ghayba when the Imam Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya died. A faction of the Kaysanites denied that Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya (Rahimahullah) had died, instead claiming that he had gone into occultation on Mount Radwa near the sacred city of Medina. Likewise, a faction of Shi’ites denied the apparent death of Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (Rahimahullah) and believed he had gone into occultation. Known as the Tawusiya, they attributed the following saying to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq: “If you see my head rolling to you from the mountain, you should not believe that, for I am your Sahib.”

Likewise, the infamous Waqifa sect of Shi’a claimed that the seventh Imam, Musa al-Kadim (Rahimahullah) did not die but went into occultation.

The Tayyibi subsect of Isma’ili Shi’a believe that their twenty-first Imam, al-Tayyib b. al-Mansur, did not die but went into occultation. They are still in existence, though divided into many branches such as the Bohra communities. They are governed by the office of the Da’i al-Mutlaq who acts as an agent of the twenty-first Imam for the duration of his occultation.

According to a Hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) described the Mahdi as having the name Muhammad son of ‘Abdullah, when he said:

اسْمُهُ اسْمِي وَاسْمُ أَبِيهِ اسْمَ أَبِي

“His name is my name, and his father’s name is my father’s name”

(Sunan Abi Dawud)

This Hadith has been cited as evidence for the identity of the Mahdi as being the great Imam Nafs al-Zakiya, Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah, a descendant of the Prophet’s beloved grandson al-Hasan al-Mujtaba (Allah be pleased with him). He led an uprising against the tyrannical Abbasids in the holy city of Medina in the mid-8^th century, C.E.

A faction of Imamiya Shi’a known as the Fathiya or Aftahiya considered the legitimate seventh Imam to be ‘Abdullah b. Ja’far al-Aftah. He apparently died without issue, resulting in most of his followers rejoining the Shi’a mainstream under the leadership of Imam Musa b. Ja’far. However, a faction of the Fathite Shi’a believed that Imam ‘Abdullah had a son named Muhammad, and claimed that he was the Mahdi, as he bore the name Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah. It is interesting to see how another faction of Shi’a (the Fathites) before today’s Ithna Ashariya emerged, had likewise invented a son for an Imam who apparently died without issue, and then claimed that that son (also named Muhammad) was the hidden Imam and Mahdi and is in occultation.

More recently, Sayyid Muhammad Ahmad, son of ‘Abdullah, (1844 – 1885), and a descendant of the Prophet (peace be upon him) through his grandson al-Hasan, claimed to be the Mahdi and led an insurrection against the British in the Sudan.

However, his rebellion was crushed, and six months after the British captured Khartoum, he died of typhus. He instead became the founder of a new Silsilah known as the Mahdiya or “Mahdists”, who till this day have an influential position in Sudanese society.

Yet another “Mahdist” sect are the followers of Syed Muhammad Jaunpuri (1443 – 1505). His father’s name was ‘Abdullah, and he was a descendant of the Prophet (peace be upon him) through the progeny of Imam Musa al-Kadim. His movement is still in existence, including the Zikri sect found in the province of Baluchistan.

In modern times there have been many Mahdi claimants, most of them inconsequential, though some having made an impact on history. We have already mentioned in brief the seizure of the sacred Ka’ba in 1979 by Juhayman al-‘Utaibi, who claimed that his brother in law, Muhammad b. ‘Abdullah al-Qahtani, was the awaited Mahdi.

Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908 C.E), founder of the successful Ahmadiyyah movement, likewise claimed to be the Mahdi, and cited the occurrence of the lunar and solar eclipse in the month of Ramadan in the year 1894 as a great Heavenly Sign for the veracity of his claim. Nevertheless, his claim of being the Mahdi (lit. “guided one”) was more in a linguistic sense from the meaning of the title, and focused more on his claim of being the Promised Messiah. For this reason, Ghulam Ahmad stated:

 میرا یہ دعوی نہیں ہے کہ میں وہ مہدی ہوں جو مصداق

من ولد فاطمة ومن عترتی وغیرہ ہے

“I do not claim to be that Mahdi for whom it is said ‘from the children of Fatima and from my progeny’, etc.”

Reference: Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 21, p. 356

Regarding the advent of such a Mahdi as described by the literal purport of the Hadith, Ghulam Ahmad said:

اور ممکن ہے کہ امام محمد^ص کے نام پر بھی کوئی مہدی ظاہر ہو

“It is possible that a Mahdi with the name Imam Muhammad (S) will appear”

Reference: Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 3, p. 379

To be continued ان شاء الله

The Apostasy of Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan of Patiala

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

نحمده ونصلى على رسوله الكريم

Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan of Patiala was initially a follower of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Dr. Abdul Hakim is famous for having made the first English translation of the Holy Qur’an by a Muslim, in 1905. However, Dr. Abdul Hakim began to express un-Islamic ideas as a result of which he was excommunicated from the Ahmadiyyah Jama’at. In fact, the novel doctrine of Dr. Abdul Hakim was such that it constitutes apostasy from Islam.

Regrettably, the anti-Ahmadiyyah mullahs hail Dr. Abdul Hakim for his opposition to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They claim that Dr. Abdul Hakim accurately predicted, on the basis of his Ilham (divine inspiration) the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

Before we address the veracity of Dr. Abdul Hakim’s prediction, the hypocrisy of the mullahs must be pointed out. Dr. Abdul Hakim believed that it is not necessary for a person to accept the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in order to be saved from eternal damnation. According to him, the only criterion for salvation is to believe in Tawhid (the Oneness of God), and acceptance of any prophet, including Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not essential for salvation.

Dr. Abdul Hakim stated:

الغرض تمام قرآن مجید حمد الہی سے گونج رہا ہے اور توحید وتزکیہ نفس کو ہی مدار نجات قرار دیتا ہے نہ کہ محمد پر ایمان لانے کو

“So the entire Qur’an Majid is filled with the praise of God, and has made Tawhid and purification of the soul as the basis for salvation, and not embracing faith in Muhammad”

Reference: Al-Zikr al-Hakim No. 4; p. 12, footnote

*Note: This idea of Dr. Abdul Hakim constitutes apostasy from Islam as it is rejection of one of the fundamental Articles of Faith. Even the so called orthodox anti-Ahmadiyyah “mullahs” have no choice but to confess that Dr. Abdul Hakim committed apostasy from Islam, something they refuse to do because it will inconvenience them in their blind assault on the the personality of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Ahmadiyyah Movement.

Islam and Iman (Faith) are based on Six Articles of Faith as elucidated in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. They are (i) belief in Allah, (ii) belief in His Angels, (iii) belief in His Scriptures, (iv) belief in His Apostles, (v) belief in the Hereafter, and (vii) belief in the Divine Decree.

To reject any one of these Articles of Faith is Kufr that expels a person from the fold of Islam. Consequently, no person can obtain salvation from Hell if he or she rejects belief in any of Allah’s Messengers, especially the Seal of the Prophets and chief among them, Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam).

Furthermore, Dr. Abdul Hakim falsely claims that:

آپ نے یہ کبھی نہیں فرمایا کہ جو یہود و نصاری خدا پرست اور نیک چلن ہیں۔ اگر مجھ کو نہیں مانیں گے تو وہ نجات نہیں پائیں گے۔

آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے کہیں نہیں فرمایا کہ عام دنیا میں جس قدر موحد خدا پرست اور نیک بندے ہیں وہ سب کے جہنمی ہیں۔ جب تک مجھ پر ایمان نہ لائیں۔

“He (the Prophet) never said that if any Jew, Christian, worshiper of God, righteous person does not accept me then he will not attain salvation…The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) never said anywhere that all of the worshipers of God and righteous people are Jahannami (going to Hell) until and unless they believe in me.”

Reference: Ibid

First of all, let the reader beware that Dr. Abdul Hakim has simply lied upon the Prophet (peace be upon him), who emphatically stated:

وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ ، لَا يَسْمَعُ بِي أَحَدٌ مِنْ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ يَهُودِيٌّ ، وَلَا نَصْرَانِيٌّ ، 

ثُمَّ يَمُوتُ وَلَمْ يُؤْمِنْ بِالَّذِي أُرْسِلْتُ بِهِ ، إِلَّا كَانَ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّارِ "

“By the One in Whose Hand is the Soul of Muhammad, not one of this nation, Jew or Christian, will hear of me and will die without having believed in that with which I have been sent, but he will be one of the dwellers of Hell fire.” (Sahih Muslim)

According to the narration of Abi Musa al-Ashari (Allah be pleased with him), the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

لا يَسْمَعُ بِي أَحَدٌ مِنْ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ ، وَلا يَهُودِيٌّ ، وَلا نَصْرَانِيٌّ ، وَلا يُؤْمِنُ بِي ، إِلا كَانَ مِنْ أَهْلِ النَّارِ

“Not one of this nation, Jew or Christian, will hear of me without having believed in me but he will be one of the dwellers of the Hellfire.” (Musnad Abi Dawud al-Tayalisi)

Furthermore, Allah Most High says in the Holy Quran:

Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messenger and wish to discriminate between Allah and His Messengers and say, “We believe in some and disbelieve in others,” and wish to adopt a way in between. Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment. (Surah 4: 150 – 151)

Now that we have clearly established the apostasy of Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan of Patiala because of his doctrine of Kufr that belief in Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not necessary for salvation, let us move on to his so-called prediction concerning the death of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

It should be borne in mind that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad began receiving divine inspirations from Allah revealing to him that his death was near before Dr. Abdul Hakim began making his predictions.

Nevertheless, the opponents of Ghulam Ahmad and a certain section of bigoted Mullahs allege that Dr. Abdul Hakim accurately predicted the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, proving that the latter was an imposter and “cursed by God”.

Without going into too much detail, the reader should be aware that Dr. Abdul Hakim did not make a single prediction, but a series of predictions concerning this matter, with each proceeding prediction nullifying the preceding one.

The bigoted Mullahs, however, conveniently ignore this and claim that Dr. Abdul Hakim prophecised that Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian would die anytime before the 4^th of August, 1908. Now Mirza Ghulam Ahmad passed away on the 26^th of May, 1908, and so, according to the bigoted Mullahs, Dr. Abdul Hakim’s prediction turned out true.

However, the reality is that Dr. Abdul Hakim’s prediction that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would die before the 4^th of August, 1908, was not his final word. He in fact annulled that prediction as well, when he later announced that Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad would die on the actual date of 4^th of August, 1908, of a fatal disease, and that an important woman from Mirza’s family would would also die with on on that date. (Paisa Akhbar, Lahore and Ahle Hadith, Amritsar: 15th May, 1908)

It is also quite noteworthy that both the editor of the Paisa Akhbar as well as Mawlana Sana Ullah of Amritsar (another opponent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) lamented the fact that Dr. Abdul Hakim had once again altered his prediction. He wrote:

“But, we expected this to happen soon, as had been announced by Dr. Abdul Hakim of Patiala. The doctor had stated, ‘My revelation concerning Mirza of Qadian, which may kindly be published, is that:  (1) The Mirza will die on the 21st day of Saavan, 1965 (4th August, 1908) of a fatal disease. (2) A distinguished woman of the family of Mirza shall also die.’ [Weekly Ahle Hadith: 15.5.1908]. However, we cannot refrain from saying what is true. Had the doctor stopped at what he had stated before, that is, his prediction of Mirza's death within fourteen months and not fixed a specific date as he has done then those objections could have never been raised as are being raised today by the Paisa Akhbar of the 27th, wherein it is stated that had the prophecy been left as, ‘up to the 21st of Saavan’ and not altered to, ‘on the 21st of Saavan’ it would have, indeed, been wonderful. But alas, his revelation that Mirza will die on the 21st of Saavan, that is 4th of August, has been published in the Ahle Hadith issue of 15th May, 1908. We wish that he would have left his earlier revelations unaltered, without giving a specific date. Then there could have been no excuse.”

(Ahle Hadith, 12 June 1908)

So by Sana Ullah of Amritsar’s own admission, the prediction of Dr. Abdul Hakim failed and turned out to be a cause of humiliation for the opponents of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad!