Tuesday 26 September 2017

Reality of the Caliphate (Davidic and Fatimid)


Allah says:

يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ الْهَوَىٰ فَيُضِلَّكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ

“O David, verily, We have made you a Vicegerent in the land; so judge between mankind with the Truth and do not follow desires, as it will lead you astray from the Path of Allah.” (Sura 38: 26)
 
King David was granted the favor of becoming the King of Israel and his progeny ruled over Israel and Judea for many generations as kings, i.e., the Davidic dynasty. The Israelites had always wanted God to grant them a monarchy so that they could be strengthened. This is parallel to the contemporary Muslim yearning for the establishment of a Caliphate. This is why Allah refers to King David as a ‘Khalifa’ He had established in the Earth. The function of the Caliphate is to judge between mankind with truth and justice. So long as it fulfills this responsibility it will be favored by God, but once it descends into despotic behavior ‘following desires’ it will have become astray from the Path of God and then subject to a ‘severe punishment’ (Sura 38: 26). After King Solomon, the Israelite kingdom was divided in two, and the northern kingdom was destroyed by the Assyrians in the late 8th century BCE. The southern kingdom persisted, but it too came to an end during the Babylonian captivity at the head of the 6th century BCE and the last Davidic king of Judah was Zedekiah. The glad-tidings of a Messiah was given to the Israelites, someone through whom God would restore the Davidic dynasty and restore the glory remnicient of Kings David and Solomon (peace be upon them both). As Muslims we believe that Davidic Messiah, the ‘Branch of Jesse’ and ‘Lion of Judah’ was Jesus of Nazareth (peace be upon him). Yet the Jews, under the toxic influence of their corrupt religious leaders, rabbis and priests, rejected their Messiah. Likewise, Allah established the Caliphate for the Mohammedan dispensation through the Prophet’s right-hand man and senior most disciple, Abu Bakr. This caliphate was not hereditary, but it too was based on judging between mankind with truth and justice. However, this Caliphate upon the Prophetic Model, or Khilafat ‘alal-Minhaj al-Nubuwwa, only lasted a brief period – 30 years. Then the despotic Umayyads seized power, followed by the Abbasids, then various Turkic and Mamluk dynasties until the Muslims were overtaken by colonialism. Hence the promised ‘severe punishment’ (Sura 38: 26) visited the Muslims too, as it had visited the Israelites through the agency of the Assyrians, Babylonians and Romans. But for the Muslims, the ‘severe punishment’ was through the agency of the Turks, Mongols, Tatars (Gog & Magog), through the agency of the Crusaders, and most recently, through the agency of European colonialism. Muslims not only lost their Rightly-Guided Caliphate upon the Prophetic Model, but they even lost dominion over the land as the various Muslim dynasties, despite being despotic, were destroyed through the agency of the Golden Horde (Mongols) and through European colonialism. Now just as a Davidic Messiah was promised to restore the Davidic dynasty, so too a Fatimid Mahdi has been promised to the Muslims from the progeny of the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima (peace be upon them). In fact, the restoration of the Davidic caliphate through the Messiah of Nazareth is still a divine promise which is going to be fulfilled, but it will be for the benefit of the Muslim Believers and not the atheist and faithless Zionists. Likewise, a Fatimid and Alawite government will be established through the promised Mahdi some time before the second coming of the Messiah.

Emergence of Sufyani of Damascus


Is Bashar Assad the Sufyani? I believe so. In a Hadith the Prophet is reported to have said:

 

يَخْرُجُ رَجُلٌ يُقَالُ لَهُ : السُّفْيَانِيُّ فِي عُمْقِ دِمَشْقَ ، وَعَامَّةُ مِنْ يَتْبَعُهُ مِنْ كَلْبِ ، فَيَقْتُلُ حَتَّى يَبْقَرَ بُطُونَ النِّسَاءِ ، وَيَقْتُلُ الصِّبْيَانَ ، فَتَجْمَعُ لَهُمْ قَيْسٌ ، فَيَقْتُلُهَا حَتَّى لا يُمْنَعُ ذَنَبَ تَلْعَةٍ ، وَيَخْرُجُ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِي فِي الْحَرَّةِ ، فَيَبْلُغُ السُّفْيَانِيَّ ، فَيَبْعَثُ إِلَيْهِ جُنْدًا مِنْ جُنْدِهِ ، فَيَهْزِمُهُمْ ، فَيَسِيرُ إِلَيْهِ السُّفْيَانِيُّ بِمَنْ مَعَهُ ، حَتَّى إِذَا صَارَ بِبَيْدَاءَ مِنَ الأَرْضِ ، خُسِفَ بِهِمْ ، فَلا يَنْجُو مِنْهُمْ إِلا الْمُخْبِرُ عَنْهُمْ

 

“There shall emerge a man called the ‘Sufyaani’ from the depths of Damascus. Most of those who follow him will be from Kalb (tribe). He will murder and even rip open the bellies of women and kill little children. Qays (tribe) shall gather against him, but he will kill them. And a man shall emerge from my Ahli Bait (Household) in Harra, and (news of it) will reach the ‘Sufyaani’. So he will send against him [Mahdi] a force from among his forces, but he [Mahdi] will defeat them. Then the ‘Sufyaani’ will march towards him accompanied by those who are with him, then when he is in a plain, they will be swallowed up by the earth and none of them will be saved except the one who will tell others about them” (Mustadrak al-Hakim)

 

Imam al-Hakim stated that this Hadith is authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim. Imam al-Dhahabi agreed with him in Talkhis.

 

This critical Hadith informs us that the time for the emergence of the promised Mahdi is at hand. As the civil war in Syria winds down and Assad consolidates his victory, we can expect the Mahdi to now appear in the Hejaz any minute now – In Sha Allah. This Hadith also accords with the more well-known prophecy of the awaited Fatimid Mahdi that he shall leave Medina for Mecca, where he shall be recognized and given the pledge of allegiance by the Muslims under the shade of the sacred Ka’ba. Then an army shall come up against him in the direction of the north but will suffer an amazing natural disaster as the Earth collapses under them before they can reach their target.

 

Coming back to the Sufyani, this is the title of an evil man who will slaughter many people, and commit horrible atrocities against women and children. Assad definitely fits this description as even the international community horrified by his unspeakable war crimes, massacring of innocent women and children, in order to strike fear into the hearts of the Syrians and maintain his harsh, despotic rule. The title Sufyani indicates that this evil dictator is an enemy of Islam, and enemy of the emerging Mahdi, and following in the footsteps of the Sufyanid Umayyads, particular Yazid, the grandson of Abu Sufyan. It should be remembered that the wretched Umayyad dynasty were based in Damascus, Syria. Assad’s Baathist regime is a Middle Eastern adaption of European fascism and highly influenced by the deeds of genocidal dictators Hitler and Stalin. Saddam of Iraq was also a Baathist known for his murderous treatment of the Iraqi Shi’ites, the ethnic Kurds, and all political opposition to his regime. But while Saddam was thankfully toppled in 2003 and Iraq liberated from his iron fist rule, Assad has survived the civil war largely by depending on support from Russia, Iran and so-called “Hizbullah” of Lebanon. Like Saddam before him, Assad has ruthlessly used chemical weapons against his own people, including little children, shocking the conscience of the whole world and fulfilling the dreadful prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad

 

But Muslims should not lose heart, because the prophecy has not yet been completely fulfilled. It was predicted that the Sufyani would decimate the opposite that initially gathered against him, described as people from the Qays tribe – referring to the largely Sunni rebels like the FSA. But this victory for the Sufyani will be short lived as the promised Mahdi will now soon rise up in Mecca and represent the hope for the oppressed and weak Muslims of the world.

Sunday 24 September 2017

Horn of Satan Rises from Najd


The present heart-breaking crisis in Yemen has served to expose the satanic nature of the criminal Saudi regime. For a long time now, the Salafis have been blindly defending the increasingly despotic, corrupt, repressive and un-Islamic Saudi ‘monarchy’. It is one thing to affirm the principle of the Sunna which forbids Muslims to create dischord and rebel against a Muslim ruler so long as he is establishing the institution of Salaat; but to praise this government and claim that they are the champions of Tawhid is not at all warranted. The truth is that for the love of wealth and the pleasures of this temporal world, the Saudi ‘royal’ family have betrayed the values of Islam and even worse are attempting to satiate their lust for Muslim blood by inflicting unspeakable atrocities against the people of Yemen, including outright murdering of women and children. As the reader may know, there is an epidemic cholera outbreak in Yemen and little children are literally starving and dying. Yet this does not at all move the stone-hearted Saudis to relent from their horrific attacks on our fellow Muslim brethren; it does not stir their hearts in the least or bother their conscience, which only serves to confirm the words of the beloved Prophet that they are:
رِجَالٌ قُلُوبُهُمْ قُلُوبُ الشَّيَاطِينِ فِي جُثْمَانِ إِنْسٍ
“Men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings” (Sahih Muslim)
The fact there this is a conflict between the Saudis of Najd, from the dispraised Tamimite tribe, and the Yemenis, should grab the attention of Muslims who are aware of Islam’s apocalyptic narrative. The Prophet said:
الْفَخْرُ وَالْخُيَلاَءُ فِي الْفَدَّادِينَ أَهْلِ الْوَبَرِ، وَالسَّكِينَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الْغَنَمِ، وَالإِيمَانُ يَمَانٍ، وَالْحِكْمَةُ يَمَانِيَةٌ
“Pride and arrogance are characteristics of the rural bedouins while calmness is found among the owners of sheep. Belief is Yemenite, and wisdom is also Yemenite” (Bukhari sharif)
جَاءَ أَهْلُ الْيَمَنِ هُمْ أَرَقُّ أَفْئِدَةً وَأَضْعَفُ قُلُوبًا الإِيمَانُ يَمَانٍ وَالْحِكْمَةُ يَمَانِيَةٌ السَّكِينَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الْغَنَمِ وَالْفَخْرُ وَالْخُيَلاَءُ فِي الْفَدَّادِينَ أَهْلِ الْوَبَرِ قِبَلَ مَطْلِعِ الشَّمْسِ
“There came the people of Yemen, they are tender of feelings and meek of hearts. The belief is that of the Yemenites, the sagacity is that of the Yemenites, the tranquillity is among the owners of goats and sheep, and pride and conceitedness is among the uncivil owners of the camels, the people of the tents in the direction of sunrise.” (Muslim sharif)
الإِيمَانُ يَمَانٍ وَالْكُفْرُ قِبَلَ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالسَّكِينَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الْغَنَمِ وَالْفَخْرُ وَالرِّيَاءُ فِي الْفَدَّادِينَ أَهْلِ الْخَيْلِ وَالْوَبَرِ
“The belief is among the Yemenites, and the unbelief is towards the East, and tranquillity is among those who rear goats and sheep, and pride and simulation is among the uncivil and rude owners of horses and camels” (Ibid)
 
Regarding the Najd (the homeland of the Saudis, and their capital ‘Riyadh’):
اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ لَنَا فِي شَأْمِنَا، اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ لَنَا فِي يَمَنِنَا ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالُوا وَفِي نَجْدِنَا‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ لَنَا فِي شَأْمِنَا، اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ لَنَا فِي يَمَنِنَا ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَفِي نَجْدِنَا فَأَظُنُّهُ قَالَ فِي الثَّالِثَةَ ‏"‏ هُنَاكَ الزَّلاَزِلُ وَالْفِتَنُ، وَبِهَا يَطْلُعُ قَرْنُ الشَّيْطَانِ
The Prophet said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The people said, “And also on our Najd.” He said, “O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The people said, “O Allah’s Apostle! And also on our Najd.” I think the third time the Prophet said, “There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the Horn of Satan.” (Bukhari sharif)
 
Najd lies directly to the east of Medina, where the Prophet was based. The Prophet often described it as the land in the direction from where the sun rises between the two horns of Satan. Furthermore, he often described the inhabitants of that region as the people of camels and tents, who are full of arrogance and are hard-hearted, in stark contrast to the description of the people of blessed Yemen, who are tender-hearted, meek, people of sheep, full of faith, wisdom and Sakina (spiritual tranquility). The Prophet blessed the lands of Sham and Yemen, but refused to bless Najd despite being implored to do so.
 
It should also be noted that the Saudi ‘royal’ family are descended from the Bani Tamim tribe, regarding which the Prophet said:
 
يَا بَنِي تَمِيمٍ، أَبْشِرُوا ‏‏‏.‏ قَالُوا بَشَّرْتَنَا فَأَعْطِنَا‏.‏ فَتَغَيَّرَ وَجْهُهُ، فَجَاءَهُ أَهْلُ الْيَمَنِ، فَقَالَ ‏‏ يَا أَهْلَ الْيَمَنِ، اقْبَلُوا الْبُشْرَى إِذْ لَمْ يَقْبَلْهَا بَنُو تَمِيمٍ
“O Bani Tamim! rejoice with glad tidings.” They said, “You have given us glad tidings, now give us something.” On hearing that the color of his face changed then the people of Yemen came to him and he said, “O people of Yemen! Accept the glad tidings, as Bani Tamim has refused them.” The Yemenites said, “We accept them” (Bukhari sharif)
 
Some so-called ‘Salafis’ assert that the Hadith which condemn Najd as the place of the emergence of the Horn of Satan are in reality referring to Iraq and not the Najd of modern-day Saudi Arabia. The answer to this objection is that Najd is a broad region which definitely included parts of rural southern Iraq, but this does not negate the Najd of Saudi Arabia, which are in fact contingent regions divided by an artificial border. For example, the Punjab is a region whose western portion is in Pakistan and whose eastern portion is in India, while the Bengal’s western portion is in India and its eastern portion constitutes Bangladesh. Likewise, the Najd is a broad region, with part of it being in Iraq and another portion of it is in eastern and central Saudi Arabia. But having said this, one should still keep in mind that in general there is a distinction between the land of Iraq and the land of Najd which even the Prophet observed when describing the Meeqaat, thus decimating the argument of these deluded Salafis:
مُهَلُّ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مِنْ ذِي الْحُلَيْفَةِ وَالطَّرِيقُ الآخَرُ الْجُحْفَةُ وَمُهَلُّ أَهْلِ الْعِرَاقِ مِنْ ذَاتِ عِرْقٍ وَمُهَلُّ أَهْلِ نَجْدٍ مِنْ قَرْنٍ وَمُهَلُّ أَهْلِ الْيَمَنِ مِنْ يَلَمْلَمَ
For the people of Medina, Dhu'l-Hulaifa is the place for entering upon the state of Ihram, and for (the people coming through the other way, i.e. Syria) it is Juhfa; for the people of Iraq it is Dhat al-'Irq; for the people of Najd it is Qarn (al-Manazil) and for the people of Yemen it is Yalamlam (Muslim sharif)
 
This Hadith is an explicit proof that Najd and Iraq are in fact distinct, and that in the Prophet’s wording, Najd does not refer to Iraq, but rather the region directly east of Medina, i.e., the Najd of modern-day Saudi Arabia. And Allah knows best.

Don't Eat Horse Meat

There is a controversy among Muslims of whether or not horse meat is allowed in the Shari’a of Prophet Muhammad . Admittedly, the majority of Islamic jurists and scholars hold the horse to be Halal and cite several Ahadith to this effect:


نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ عَنْ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ، وَرَخَّصَ فِي الْخَيْلِ
Allah’s Messenger  forbade the flesh of donkeys on the day of Khaibar, but granted a concession with regard to horses
(Sahih al-Bukhari)
 
The wordرخص  ‘concession’ in this Hadith implies that this ruling may not have been a general or universal one, but is to be understood in the context of the state of the Muslims during the battle of Khaibar, where there was an acute shortage of food and possibility of starvation. Hence other narrations mention that people were in such dire need of food that they resorted to cooking the meat of donkeys. But the Prophet forbade them from doing so, yet gave them a concession with regard to horse meat. This only serves to prove that eating horse is better than donkey if one is in dire circumstances, but should not be understood as an overall license to eat horse meat under ordinary circumstances too. So while the Muslims are generally agreed (with the notable exception of the Shi’a) that donkey and mule are forbidden to eat, there seems to be a controversy over the horse. The position of Imams Abu Hanifa and Malik b. Anas (may Allah have mercy on them both) is that eating the horse is makruh (disliked) and so better to avoid. This view is based on the Holy Quraan:


وَالْأَنْعَامَ خَلَقَهَا ۗ لَكُمْ فِيهَا دِفْءٌ وَمَنَافِعُ وَمِنْهَا تَأْكُلُونَ

And the grazing livestock He has created for you; in them is warmth and [numerous] benefits, and from them you eat.

وَالْخَيْلَ وَالْبِغَالَ وَالْحَمِيرَ لِتَرْكَبُوهَا وَزِينَةً ۚ وَيَخْلُقُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

And [He created] the horses, mules and donkeys for you to ride and [as] adornment. And He creates that which you do not know.

(Sura 16: 5, 8)

 
These Verses of the Holy Quraan differentiate between the purpose of grazing livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, etc.) as having been created for food, and horses, mules and donkeys, which were created for riding upon. Based on this, Imam Malik said:

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ : أَنَّ أَحْسَنَ مَا سَمِعَ فِي الْخَيْلِ وَالْبِغَالِ وَالْحَمِيرِ ، أَنَّهَا لَا تُؤْكَلُ

Yahya related to me from Malik that the best of what he had heard about horses, mules, and donkeys was that they were not to be eaten
 
Reference: al-Muwatta of Imam Malik
 
 
Likewise, Imam Abu Hanifa held horse meat to be Makruh Tanzihi.
 It is reported from Khalid b. Walid (Allah be pleased with him) that:


نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ لُحُومِ الْخَيْلِ ، وَالْبِغَالِ ، وَالْحَمِيرِ

Allah’s Messenger forbade the flesh of horses, mules and donkeys (Abi Dawud, Nasa’i and Ibn Maja)
 
Although there is some weakness in this Hadith, it seems to accord with the implication given in the Holy Quraan that horses, mules and donkeys were created for riding and adornment, unlike the An’aam (grazing livestock) which were created to be eaten. And Allah knows best.

Reality of Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan

In a previous entry some time ago on this blog I wrote about the reality of one of the worst tyrants and oppressors to have walked on the face of the Earth, namely, Yazid son of Mu’awiya, the second ruler of the Umayyad dynasty, who opposed the Prophet’s beloved grandson Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) resulting in the latter’s tragic martyrdom at Karbala, who sent his forces to Medina to put down the armed uprising of Abd Allah son of Zubair (Allah be pleased with him) resulting in the desecration of Medina for three days, and who had the sacred city of Mecca besieged and attacked, resulting in the sacred Ka’ba, Islam’s holiest shrine, being burnt. Yet the responsibility of Yazid being placed in this position of authority over the Muslim empire rests squarely with his father Mu’awiya son of Abi Sufyan, who appointed his wretched son as his heir before his death. Mu’awiya himself, despite being a companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him & his family), opposed the Prophet’s fourth successor sayyidina Ali (Allah honor his face) and faught against him in the Battle of Siffin. Though we cannot say anything against Mu’awiya personally, since he was a disciple and companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him & his family), nevertheless, it has to be admitted that Mu’awiya was upon the rebellious side during Islam’s first civil war, as the Prophet said:
وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ ، يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ
“May Allah be merciful to Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious group. He will be inviting them to Paradise and they will be inviting him to the Hellfire.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)
In another narration:
عَمَّارٌ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ
“Ammar will be inviting them to Allah and they will be inviting him to the Hellfire” (Ibid)
 
Ammar son of Yasir was a beloved disciple and companion of the Prophet Muhammad but he was martyred at the Battle of Siffin by the forces of Mu’awiya. Thus this prophetic Hadith was fulfilled and proves that Mu’awiya and his camp were the rebellious, transgressing group, and that they were on the side that was inviting to the Hellfire, while the camp they opposed, sayyidina Ali son of Abi Talib and his partisans, were upon the truth and were the ones inviting to Allah and to salvation.
 
Abdur Rahman b. Ma’qil narrates that he was praying with sayyidina Ali (Allah be pleased with him) in the Fajr prayer, during which sayyidina Ali read the Qunut, and invoked Allah against Mu’awiya and his partisans and Amro b. Aas and his partisans, saying:

 

اللَّهُمَّ عَلَيْكَ بِمُعَاوِيَةَ وَأَشْيَاعِهِ ، وَعَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ ، وَأَشْيَاعِهِ ، وَأَبِي السُّلَمِيِّ ، وَعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ وَأَشْيَاعِهِ

 

Reference: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba; v. 3 p. 273

 

Commanding Virtue and Forbidding Vice (Vigilantism in Islam)

The institution of Amr bil-Ma’ruf and Nahi ‘anil-Munkar (commanding virtue and forbidding vice) is very important in Islam and mentioned throughout the Suhuf-e-Mutahhara (Quraan) as an integral characteristic of true Believers. This practice is the birthright of every Muslim, whether in a position of authority or not. But its manifestation among those Muslims not in a position of political or administrative authority is restricted to being non-violent. Here by non-violent I mean short of shedding blood or causing serious injury. The Prophet Muhammad said:
 
مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الإِيمَانِ
 
Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then [let him change it] with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart - and that is the weakest of faith.
(Sahih Muslim)
 
This Hadith proves that forbidding vice with one’s own hand is not the sole prerogative of the State, but every Muslim is authorized to do so if he is able. The only qualification is that this dispensation for vigilantism has to be non-violent, and as I have already mentioned, non-violence means short of actual bloodshed or causing serious injury. A perfect example of this is the Nass which delegates authority to a husband to physically strike his wife guilty of ill-conduct (Sura 4: 34). So for example, if a group of Muslims, armed with sticks, use rough force to break up a sinful music concert or close down a shop selling liqor, etc., they do not require prior authorization from the State since they have already been authorized to do so by Allah Himself in the Holy Quraan, i.e., the institution of Amr bil-Ma’ruf and Nahi ‘anil-Munkar. But keep in mind that this is the extent of vigilantism allowed in Islam; for otherwise only the State is authorized to implement the Hudud of the penal code of the Shari’a and to execute those deserving of capital punishment through the sword or by means of crucifixion.
 
However, one should beware that the institution of Amr bil-Ma’ruf and Nahi ‘anil-Munkar can and does become suspended depending on external circumstances. This is based on the Prophetic Hadith:
 
بَلِ ائْتَمِرُوا بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنَاهَوْا عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ حَتَّى إِذَا رَأَيْتَ شُحًّا مُطَاعًا وَهَوًى مُتَّبَعًا وَدُنْيَا مُؤْثَرَةً وَإِعْجَابَ كُلِّ ذِي رَأْىٍ بِرَأْيِهِ وَرَأَيْتَ أَمْرًا لاَ يَدَانِ لَكَ بِهِ فَعَلَيْكَ خُوَيْصَّةَ نَفْسِكَ وَدَعْ أَمْرَ الْعَوَامِّ فَإِنَّ مِنْ وَرَائِكُمْ أَيَّامَ الصَّبْرِ الصَّبْرُ فِيهِنَّ مِثْلُ قَبْضٍ عَلَى الْجَمْرِ لِلْعَامِلِ فِيهِنَّ مِثْلُ أَجْرِ خَمْسِينَ رَجُلاً يَعْمَلُونَ بِمِثْلِ عَمَلِهِ
“Enjoin good upon one another and forbid one another to do evil, but if you see overwhelming stinginess, desires being followed, this world being preferred (to the Hereafter), every person with an opinion feeling proud of it, and you realize that you have no power to deal with it, then you have to mind your own business and leave the common folk to their own devices. After you will come days of patience, during which patience will be like grasping a burning ember, and one who does good deeds will have a reward like that of fifty men doing the same deed.”
قِيلَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَتَى نَتْرُكُ الأَمْرَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَالنَّهْىَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ قَالَ ‏ إِذَا ظَهَرَ فِيكُمْ مَا ظَهَرَ فِي الأُمَمِ قَبْلَكُمْ‏ ‏ قُلْنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا ظَهَرَ فِي الأُمَمِ قَبْلَنَا قَالَ ‏ الْمُلْكُ فِي صِغَارِكُمْ وَالْفَاحِشَةُ فِي كِبَارِكُمْ وَالْعِلْمُ فِي رُذَالَتِكُمْ قَالَ زَيْدٌ تَفْسِيرُ مَعْنَى قَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ وَالْعِلْمُ فِي رُذَالَتِكُمْ ‏‏.‏ إِذَا كَانَ الْعِلْمُ فِي الْفُسَّاقِ
It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, when should we stop enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil?” He said: “When there appears among you that which appeared among those who came before you.” We said: “O Messenger of Allah, what appeared among those that came before us?” He said: “Kingship given to your youth, immorality even among the old, and knowledge among the base and vile.” (Sunan Ibn Maja; Kitab al-Fitan)

Leadership within the Muslim Diaspora

The Muslim diaspora is very large. It is estimated that as much as a quarter of the total Muslim Umma live as minorities in non-Muslim majority countries. India is the most prominent example, but millions of Muslims live as minorities elsewhere too, e.g. China, Russia, Israel, Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas. The dilemma for Muslim minorities revolves around leadership of the community. The community, of course, is diverse and divided into numerous sects, schools of thought, ethnic groups, parties and organizations. But at the most broad level, the Muslim minorities generally do not possess a single leadership to guide them while living in countries that are dominated by non-Muslims and where the law of the land is un-Islamic. Even more alarming is that a growing number of Muslims do not have any political or social leadership whatsoever. They simply adapt the individualist approach and regard the non-Muslim State itself as the only authority they are subject to. I argue that the Muslim diaspora minority communities are required to have an Amir to lead them. In a Hadith narrated by both Abu Huraira and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with them both), the Prophet is reported to have said:

إِذَا خَرَجَ ثَلاَثَةٌ فِي سَفَرٍ فَلْيُؤَمِّرُوا أَحَدَهُمْ

“When three are on a journey, they should appoint one of them as their Amir (commander).”

(Sunan Abi Dawud; Kitab al-Jihad)

Now if even three Muslims who are simply travelling are required to appoint one among them as an Amir to command the rest, then how much more necessary is it for the millions of Muslims living as minorities in the diaspora to appoint leaders for themselves? Those who say that the non-Muslim and secular State itself is the only authority that the Muslim minorities should be subject to do not realize that Allah Most High has commanded that the Believers are to obey Him, His Messenger Muhammad and those in positions of authority from among you (Sura 4: 59). In other words, the people in authority that Believers must obey are from among themselves, i.e., Believers themselves. Now this does not imply that Muslim minorities are not required to obey the “law of the land” in the non-Muslim majority countries they reside in, but that Muslims should always have an Amir, required to be a Muslim himself, to whose authority they are subject. In a non-Muslim majority country, this takes on, though quite loosely, something that may somewhat resemble what is generally called a “state within a state”.
 
In accordance with the teachings of the Shari’a, the various Muslim dynasties in the medieval period afforded non-Muslim minorities this arrangement. For example, the Jewish community living in the Muslim world had the institution of the Exilarch which was formally recognized by the Muslim government and rulers. The Exilarch, or رأس الجالوت ‘Rosh Galut’ was considered the leader of the Jewish community who represented their interests. Likewise, Jewish and Christian communities under Muslim rule were afforded their own parallel legal systems and courts of law. Regrettably, with the emergence of the modern and secular nation state, and ideas about a uniform civil code, the Muslim diaspora communities are generally not afforded this arrangement of having a “state within a state”, a formally recognized leadership that works in liaison with the State, or an “exilarch”-like figure. Hence, whatever kind of possible leadership that takes charge of the Muslim minority community in a non-Muslim majority country will not be formally recognized by law, but rather an informal arrangement whose power is based on social influence only. Nonetheless, this “informal” leadership or exilarch-like figure should be given the Bay’a (pledge of allegiance) by the Muslim community and recognized as its Amir. He should operate as a head of state as much as possible within the obvious confines of the law, except that instead of ruling a state he is only administering the affairs of the community. The more social influence this Amir exerts over the community, and the greater the number within the community recognizes the authority of this Amir and practically obeys and follows him, it will result in the political leadership, parties and politicians of the country affording him more regard, and in this way the Muslim political voice will be amplified to its benefit.

Seafood is Haram except Fish

Many Muslims follow the opinion of some of the Islamic jurists that all manner of seafood is Halal, such as lobster, shrimp, oyster, clam, etc. This is apparently the ruling of the Maliki, Shafi’e and Hambali schools of law in particular, while the Hanafi school is notably different in this matter. Among the Shi’a, the Ja’fari school concurs with that of the Hanafi that not all seafood is Halal, with the exception of fish. But while the Hanafis declare any kind of fish to be Halal, the Ja’fari school, in being the closest to the Mosaic Law in this matter, considers only that fish which has scales to be Halal. Thus fish which do not have scales, such as the shark for example, is considered Haram in the Ja’fari school of law followed by most of the Shi’a community. In this entry, I will discuss the proofs from the Holy Qur’an and Sunna to support my agreement with the Hanafi school in this matter that apart from fish, all seafood is Haram.
 
Firstly, I will examine the proof of the opposing side. They quote the Ayat:
 
أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ صَيْدُ الْبَحْرِ وَطَعَامُهُ مَتَاعًا لَّكُمْ وَلِلسَّيَّارَةِ ۖ وَحُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ صَيْدُ الْبَرِّ مَا دُمْتُمْ حُرُمًا
 
Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food as provision for you and the travelers, but forbidden to you is game from the land as long as you are in the state of Ihram.
(Sura 5: 96)
 
Now those who argue that all seafood is Halal use this Ayat of the Holy Qur’an as their primary and essential evidence. But a closer inspection of this Ayat and its context will reveal their their position is weak. Here Allah Most High has said that the “game of the sea” and its food is lawful or Halal, but has not defined what constitutes the “game of the sea”, at least in this Ayat itself. Therefore it is a mistake to think this is a proof that all seafood is Halal. But those who quote this Ayat as evidence usually do not read or cite the rest of the Ayat which clarifies the context. Allah goes on to say that the “game of the land” is forbidden while you are in a state of Ihram. Now this is a specific ordinance that applies to the state of Ihram, when hunting is land-game is forbidden. But out of Ihram hunting land-game is Halal. But the point which is glossed over is the fact that while this Ayat implies that land-game outside of Ihram is allowed to be hunted for food, no one can infer from this that all land animals are therefore Halal. Other divine texts of the Holy Qur’an and Sunna make explicitly clear that there are certain land animals which are forbidden to eat, the most obvious being the swine, but also beasts of prey, animals that feed on filth, donkeys, etc. Therefore just as the phrase “game of the land” does not refer to all land animals, therefore it must be conceded that “game of the sea” does not necessarily refer to all seafood.
 
Now those who argue that all manner of seafood, not simply fish, are Halal say that the general rule is that all food is Halal with the exception of that food which has been explicitly declared Haram through divine revelation of Qur’an and Sunna. Therefore, the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate that Allah or His Prophet declared any of the seafood apart from fish as Haram, otherwise it will have to be conceded that they are Halal.
 
This line of reasoning is sound, so I will now proceed to present our proofs from Qur’an and Sunna that all seafood with the exception of fish are Haram. So Allah Most High says:
 
إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ
Verily, carrion is forbidden to you
(Sura 2: 173)
 
حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ
Forbidden to you is carrion
(Sura 5: 3)
 
See also Sura 6: 145; 16: 115
 
The term ‘Mayta’ or carrion refers to any meat that comes from an animal that wasn’t slaughtered. The standard Islamic method of slaughter means cutting the animal’s throat, esophagus, blood vessels and trachea with a sharp knife, until it bleeds to death. Therefore, any animal for which it is not possible to slaughter in this way will be considered Haram under the general meaning of the Ayaat which forbid eating carrion. This is in fact one of the wisdoms behind why the pig is Haram, because it does not really have a throat and cannot be properly slaughtered in the method I have described. Likewise, any living creature which cannot be slaughtered according to the standard Islamic method is Haram. The meat of such animals is to be considered carrion. All of the marine animals which people consider as ‘seafood’ is therefore to be considered Haram and its meat carrion, such as the lobster, clam, octopus, eel, oyster, etc. Likewise, this rule applies to any living creature that is on dry land or flies in the air, such as insects, vermin, rodents, reptiles, amphibians, etc.
 
At this juncture one will ask that according to this definition of carrion, fish must be considered Haram too, yet all Muslims without exception consider fish as Halal. The answer is that fish too is technically carrion, but its exemption is based on an authentic proofs from the Qur’an and Sunna. For example, the Holy Qur’an mentions that the Prophet Moses and his disciple Joshua son of Nun took a fish with them to eat during their journey (Sura 18: 61). But if anyone argues that this cannot be construed as a proof insofar as the Shari’a of Prophet Muhammad is concerned, the answer to this is that the Ayat which has already been quoted as a proof by those who say all seafood is Halal (Sura 5: 96), though I have demonstrated cannot logically be interpreted to mean all seafood without exception, nevertheless it must be logically conceded that there has to be at least some sort of seafood that is Halal. The Prophet Muhammad has clarified that while eating fish is technically eating carrion based on the definition of carrion I have already described, he explicitly exempted it as a concession to the general rule:
 
عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ , أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , قَالَ : " أُحِلَّتْ لَنَا مَيْتَتَانِ وَدَمَانِ , فَأَمَّا الْمَيْتَتَانِ فَالْحُوتُ وَالْجَرَادُ , وَأَمَّا الدَّمَانِ فَالْكَبِدُ وَالطِّحَالُ
 
“Two kinds of dead meat and two kinds of blood have been permitted to us. The two kinds of dead meat are fish and locusts, and the two kinds of blood are the liver and spleen.” (Sunan Ibn Maja; 3314)
 
So while the general rule, as per the verdict of the Holy Qur’an, is that both carrion and blood are Haram, the Prophet has made two important exceptions for each category, and the exceptions for carrion are fish and locusts, but he did not mention any other kind of seafood apart from fish. This Hadith proves that, like fish, all other seafood is to be considered carrion, but that the concession of being Halal is only for the fish. To conclude, all seafood is therefore Haram on the basis that it is carrion with the important exception of fish.

Mawdudi's Ignorant Examples to Explain الرحمن الرحيم

  بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الكريم Mawdudi’s tafsir of the holy Quran is filled with errors and ...