Erroneous Redefining of Din

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

والعاقبة للمتقين

The distinction between Din and Madhhab is observed by modern political thinkers like A. A. Mawdudi, G. A. Parwez and Dr. Israr Ahmad. This idea that Islam is not merely a ’’religion’’ – in the traditional sense of the word – but a total system that encompasses all spheres of life, including social, political and economic, has deeply penetrated the minds of many Muslims who were nurtured on the writings and discourses of these 20th century Islamic ’’intellectuals’’. The modern political fikr is in fact a hotchpotch of various ideological currents including but not limited to Kharijism, Shi’ism, naturalist and materialist philosophies, modernism and Marxism. One can clearly see elements of all these in the warped understanding and approach to Islam by those who advocate this 20th century political fikr. The Shi’i element in particular strongly informs the political dimension of this fikr in the idea that the exact form of government that the Muslims must strive for has been legislated and ordained by Allah. Shi’i polemicists often argue that it is illogical that Islam gives us detailed guidance on apparently mundane matters as hygiene but that the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wa-aalihi wasallam) could have died without designating his successor. Likewise, the followers of the 20th century political fikr argue that it is critical to establish an Islamic state, because how it is possible that Islam is concerned with apparently routine matters as personal hygiene and dress but not governance or politics. Now in a previous article, I recognized the existence of a political narrative that is intrinsic to Islam, which is especially concerned with liberation of the weak and oppressed and the desire for a charismatic leadership of a saintly Imam, but this should in no way be confused with the modernist fikr of Mawdudi or Sayyid Qutb. Rather, the political narrative which I speak of as being intrinsic to Islam is better expressed in the movement of Mulla Omar’s anti-modernist Taliban (despite their shortcomings), historic Mahdist, apocalyptic uprisings, and the armed revolts of charismatic individuals from the Ahl al-Bayt against the tyrannical and impious Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties – such as the uprising of Imams Zayd, Nafs al-Zakiya, and Muhammad al-Sufi in Taliqan (may Allah have mercy on them). In other words, the political narrative which I subscribe to is apocalyptic, pietist and anti-modernist, in stark contrast to the materialist and modernist fikr of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Iqbal, Hasan al-Banna, Ali Shariati, ’’Ayatullah’’ Khomeini, Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani, Abul-Ala Mawdudi, G. A. Parwez, Dr. Israr Ahmad and Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi.

Returning to the revisionist distinction between Din and Madhhab, it is argued that other world religions, notably Christianity, are examples of madhahib, while Islam is unique in that it is a Din that is not only an alternative to Christianity and Judaism, but to communism, capitalism and other social, political and economic systems. But a distinction with this meaning is not evident in the Quran. The religion or cult of the idol-worshiping pagans, which lacks political, legal and economic dimensions, is nevertheless considered a Din:

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ

He it is Who has sent His Apostle with guidance and the Religion of Truth to manifest it over every Din, even if the polytheists hate it.

(Sura 9:33; 61:9)

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ

For you your Din and for me my Din

(Sura 109:6)

Addressing the people of the Scripture, particularly the Christians, Allah says:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ

O people of the Book, do not exaggerate in your Din

(Sura 4:171; 5:77)

Regarding the Jews and Judaism, He says:

وَغَرَّهُمْ فِي دِينِهِم مَّا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ

They were deluded in their Din by what they invented

(Sura 3:24)

It is argued that Islam does not observe the same dualism between spirit and matter as Christianity does. That is the dualism which allowed Christendom to accept secularism, the absolute separation of religion and state. Of course Islam rejects the notion that religion and state are to be kept totally separate, since our Religion has a strong legal dimension and expects the state to maintain morality in the public domain. Nonetheless, Islam does recognize a distinction between religious affairs and purely worldly affairs, as the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) stated:

إِنْ كَانَ شَيْئًا مِنْ أَمْرِ دُنْيَاكُمْ فَشَأْنَكُمْ بِهِ وَإِنْ كَانَ شَيْئًا مِنْ أُمُورِ دِينِكُمْ فَإِلَىَّ

’’If it is something from the affair of your world, then it is your matter, but if it is something from the affairs of your Religion, then refer to me.’’

(Sunan Ibn Maja #2471)

The Hadith proves that the secular affairs of the Dunya are not included in the Din of Islam. In such matters, the people do not have to refer back to their Religion for detailed instructions. Allah Most High has gives his great creation, humanity, the gift of the intellect. He does not intend to spoonfeed and dictate to us every detail of our worldly life, which would render the use of our own intellect redundant. The detailed instructions of Islam are primarily regarding how we should worship Allah, and ethical, moral issues of right and wrong, allowed and forbidden. In our secular, temporal affairs of this world, Allah says we should conduct them through shura (mutual consultation), and in doing so our decisions will be blessed by Him and yield positive results.

Dr. Israr Ahmad and "Establishing the Din" (42:13)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

والعاقبة للمتقين

Continuing from the previous entry, here I shall examine in depth the ideology and program of the Tanzimi Islami founded by Dr. Israr Ahmad (d. 2010). Like the HT, Tanzimi Islami is dedicated to establishing a Khilafa. But it has a more balanced and moderate approach than the HT or Mawdudi’s Jama’ati Islami. According to Dr. Israr Ahmad, the Tanzimi Islami considers spiritual rectification and reformation as an essential prerequisite for the members of its organization in order to better prepare and arm them for the struggle of establishing a Khilafa. In his book The Call of Tanzeem-e-Islami, Dr. Israr Ahmad outlines his ideology and objectives regarding the issue of the Khilafa. He quotes the Quran:

أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ

That you are to establish the Din

(Sura 42:13)

In Dr. Israr Ahmad’s interpretation, the order to establish the Din means establishment of the Islamic state, the Khilafa. However, both the context and the classical understanding of this Ayah point to the fact that it means the Believers are commanded to establish Tawhid, the worship of Allah alone. This is why the Ayah states that it is the same order that was given to the previous Apostles of Allah mentioned therein: Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Furthermore, after ordering that the Din be established and that there be no division therein, Allah says that this is a matter that is an enormity for the mushrikin. Hence the context reveals that ’’establish the Din’’ means establishing of Tawhid, the worship of Allah alone. It should also be kept in mind that none of the prophets mentioned by name in the Ayah (Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus) ever succeeded in establishing a state or polity with temporal authority. As I’ve said, this is the classical interpretation of the Ayah by the exegetes, for example, as found in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

{ شَرَعَ لَكُم مِّنَ ٱلِدِينِ مَا وَصَّىٰ بِهِ نُوحاً } هو أوّل أنبياء الشريعة { وَٱلَّذِى أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ أَنْ أَقِيمُواْ ٱلدّينَ وَلاَ تَتَفَرَّقُواْ فِيهِ } هذا هو المشروع الموصى به، والموحى إلى محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو التوحيد { كَبُرَ } عظم { عَلَى ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ } من التوحيد { ٱللَّهُ يَجْتَبِى إِلَيْهِ } إلى التوحيد { مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِى إِلَيْهِ مَن يُنِيبُ } يُقْبِلُ إلى طاعته

In the initial pages of Dr. Israr Ahmad’s book, he reveals the strong influence of Iqbal and Mawdudi on his mind. While Iqbal awakened within him a sense of Muslim nationhood and the desire for a restoration of Muslim power and dominion, it was Mawdudi who ’’filled in the details left bare by by Iqbal’s general outline’’ (p. 11). Dr. Israr absorbed into his own psyche and ideology the novel re-interpretation and re-definition of the terms Ilah, Ibada and Din. It is the redefining of these terms which forms the basis of Mawdudian thought and separates it from the orthodox understanding and approach to Islam. Although clearly influenced by Mawdudi and having formerly been a member of the Jama’ati Islami’s student wing, Dr. Israr’s break with the JI is significant in that it reveals a major flaw with the latter. The JI, under the direction of Mawdudi, entered into mainstream, electoral politics, but till this day has never succeeded in forming a government. Dr. Israr, however, rejected participation in the system, noting that it is rigged to maintain the power of the feudalists and capitalists. It seems, then, that his organization seeks to bring about the establishment of the Din, as it understands it, by working outside the system, at a grassroots level, thereby not having to compromise its core values, unlike the JI which has entirely immersed itself in the dirty game of electoral politics, thereby sapping its initial dynamism and appeal. Nevertheless, the Tanzimi Islami, which Dr. Israr founded in 1975, has been even less successful in gaining support of the masses or bringing about an Islamic state than the JI. Having a talent for explaining the Quran, many Muslims simply tuned in to hear Dr. Israr’s discourses on the Scripture, but never really showed any interest or willingness to go further and join Dr. Israr in launching a dynamic movement to establish the Din. His ’’movement’’, therefore, remained restricted to lectures, discourses and discussions, and has never been able to reach the next critical step of its own agenda. I therefore coldly conclude that the Tanzim has been a failure. It certainly did not acquire the help or blessing of Allah Most High in attaining its stated objective, or even coming close to that. It is not even particularly successful in being a simple educational and religious organization, judging by the increasing lack of followers and enthusiasm among its current members. And since the death of Dr. Israr, the Tanzim has lost the only individual it had who exhibited at least some charisma and name recognition.

Next, Dr. Israr falsely claims that the divine punishments that the Muslims have had to face in modern times, specifically what happened and is continuing to happen in places like Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan, etc., is due to their failure to strive for and establish the Islamic state: ’’put bluntly, we are being punished by the Heavens because we have failed to fulfill the duty of establishing Islam on earth’’ (p. 15). As I have explained previously, Muslims are not obligated to establish the Khilafa or Islamic state, as these are in fact divine favors and compensation for the righteousness of the Muslims. In other words, it is the prerogative of Allah Himself to establish for us the Khilafa. Our duty is to worship Allah alone and be righteous, observing all His commandments and strictly avoiding His prohibitions. According to the Ayat al-Istikhlaf, Allah has promised to establish the Believers in the land as He established those who came before them on the condition that they have faith, perform good deeds, worship Him, not associate any partner with Him, establish the Salat, pay the Zakat and obey the Apostle Muhammad – peace be upon him (Sura 24: 55-56). Therefore, the cause for the present humiliation and degradation of the Muslims, undoubtedly a divine punishment, is our spiritual and moral corruption, and our failure to fulfil the conditions that have preceded as outlined in the Ayat al-Istikhlaf.

To be continued  إن  شاء الله

Reality of Khilafa (Part 5)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

والعاقبة للمتقين

Months ago I wrote an article detailing my view on the significance of the institution of Khilafa and my understanding of Ayat al-Istikhlaf. In the first line of that article I articulated my thesis: ’’The institution of Khilafah is not a fundamental component of the Religion of Islam but instead a manifestation of Allah’s favor and blessing upon the deserving community of Muslims.’’ Consequently, the fact that the Muslims today are bereft of Khilafa is a sign that we have lost some favor in the sight of Allah, due to our corruption, and are therefore not deserving of it. The Children of Israel before us were given their version of Khilafa in the land, the monarchy beginning with kings Saul, David and Solomon (peace be upon them). But when the Israelites became corrupt, that institution, an example of God’s divine favor upon them, was gradually eroded and finally terminated altogether at the hands of Nebuchadnezzer in 589 BCE. If we examine the history of our Umma, we were originally blessed with the Rightly-Guided Khilafa, the four righteous caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). However, following the same pattern as the Israelites before us, that divine blessing and institution of Khilafa was eroded into dynastic rule of tyrannical and impious kings, and then terminated altogether at the hands of Hulagu Khan in 1258 CE.

A false understanding of the reality of Khilafa crept into the Muslim world in the 20th century, championed by a certain Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani, founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir. According to this new ideology, the Khilafa is not only essential for the practice of Islam, it is its most important component without which there can be no Islam. It is this erroneous idea that motivated other groups (al-Qa’ida, Islamic State and others) to pick up arms and even commit acts of terrorism in order to establish the Khilafa. Other groups that adhere to this ideology are apparently non-violent, and advocate the establishment of the Khilafa through peaceful means. Most, however, are only non-violent and unwilling, for the moment, to pick up arms for their cause as a matter of strategy and not creed. HT itself seeks to establish the Khilafa through stealth. It works to secretly indoctrinate military officers of various Muslim states, aiming to motivate a coup d’état that will be the basis for establishing the Khilafa. This top down approach that HT aims for was no doubt inspired by the various Arab military coups in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya during the 20th century. It also reveals the fact that HT is not really a religious, Islamic organization. It resembles more the Ba’ath Party and bears so many fundamental characteristics of fascism and revolutionary Marxism.

Those who argue that Islam cannot be practiced without the institution of Khilafa point to things like the collection of Zakat, the establishment of Islamic courts, the organizing and commanding of armies for waging Jihad, and even the appointment of prayer leaders and sermonizers. In short, it becomes impossible for Muslims to practice much of their Religion, including very fundamental parts of it, in the absence of a Khilafa. My answer to this argument is twofold. Firstly, it is not necessarily impossible or even problematic to practice or implement many of these things in the absence of a Khilafa. Secondly, if, theoretically, there is something in our Religion which cannot be implemented without the institution of Khilafa, then it is certainly not a fundamental part of it and definitely not obligated upon us. Although the world of Islam is currently bereft of a unified Khilafa, the Muslims are nonetheless under the authority of numerous states, republics, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates and sheikhdoms. Although this division of the Muslim Umma into these multiple polities is not ideal, nor are their particular forms of government ideal from Islam’s perspective, they are nevertheless valid and Muslims are obligated to acknowledge their temporal authority and be in a state of obedience to them. These polities have the authority to discharge necessary functions like collecting the Zakat, establishing Islamic courts, waging Jihad in defense of the Religion, etc. Furthermore, in scenarios in which a Muslim community does not even have an autonomous state, such as if they are under colonial rule or foreign occupation by the non-Muslims, or living as minorities in non-Muslim states, they still possess the authority to organize voluntary collection of Zakat and establishment of voluntary or unofficial tribunals to execute Islamic family laws. By voluntary, I mean that Muslims are obligated to pay the Zakat as a religious duty, but in the absence of a state that will discharge the duty of collecting and distributing Zakat, Muslim individuals and families voluntary discharge their religious obligation by entrusting their Zakat to a non-government Islamic organization that will distribute it on their behalf, or they directly give their Zakat to individuals who are worthy of receiving it. In all these scenarios, the religious duty of paying Zakat will be fulfilled. It is my thesis that far from being obligated to establish a unified, global Khilafa, Muslims are not even obligated to establish a state or polity. Of course it is ideal that Muslims have a state or polity to ease and facilitate the practice and propagation of Islam. When sayyidina Hubab b. al-Mundhir (radi Allahu anhu) proposed, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam), that the Ansar and Muhajirin go their separate ways and establish two separate polities, he was not proposing something that was haram or forbidden by our Religion. His proposal was rejected because it was not ideal, and it was superior to have a single polity under a unified Khilafa for the entire Umma to better facilitate the practice and propagation of Islam. In those critical days, the establishment of the unified, rightly-guided Khilafa through which Islam spread far and wide, and the Muslims enjoyed temporal power to be able to conquer Jerusalem, Damascus, Egypt, Iran, North Africa, Transoxania, etc., that was a takwini affair, the manifestation of Allah’s will, and not tashri’i, meaning something legislated by Allah that the Muslims were obligated to do.

Love for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على أشرف الأنبياء والمرسلين

نبينا محمد وعلى آله وأصحابه أجمعين

والعاقبة للمتقين

When Pakistan’s Supreme Court ruled that the Christian woman, Asiya, was not guilty of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, and ordered her immediate release, massive protests broke out throughout the country. Undoubtedly, Pakistan is a nation of devoted lovers of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم who said:

‏ لاَ يُؤْمِنُ أَحَدُكُمْ حَتَّى أَكُونَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ وَالِدِهِ وَوَلَدِهِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ ‏

’’None of you has faith until I am more beloved to him than his father, his children and all of humanity.’’

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

‏ لاَ وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ حَتَّى أَكُونَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ نَفْسِكَ

’’No! By the One in Whose Hand is my soul. Until I am more beloved to you than your own self.’’

(ibid)

This zeal and passion which every Muslim must have for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is unlike anything else in the world. This is why non-Muslims consider Muslims fanatical and irrational, because they cannot understand how we can love someone who lived and died centuries before we were born, whom we never met, more than our own parents, children, spouse and siblings. That is the status which Allah Most High has granted to the one who is most beloved and close to Him. The disbelievers can never understand this, because their hearts lack even an iota of faith and are therefore dead.

Some Muslims with incomplete faith are likewise puzzled on this matter. They think of the crime of blasphemy as purely a legal matter, whereas our love and jealousy for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم transcends jurisprudence. Sayyidina Ibn Abbas رضى الله عنهما narrates that a blind man stabbed to death his consort with a dagger because she blasphemed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. He did this act in the heat of the moment without thinking about the legal repercussions. Afterwards he confessed his act before the Prophet, expecting to be punished. But the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم declared that there was no penalty (Sunan Abi Dawud #4361; Sunan an-Nasa’i #4075). That was an act of religious zeal and love for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم which is righteousness in the sight of Allah, so how could it be punished?

Therefore, killing a blasphemer of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the spot is acceptable and there is no liability for such an act. It is an expression of religious zeal which is only for Allah and His Apostle, as sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq explained in the Hadith of Abi Barza رضى الله عنهما (Sunan Abi Dawud #4363)

The Prophet’s Companions رضى الله عنهم would frequently address him with the words ’’may my mother and father be sacrificed for your sake, O Apostle of Allah!’’ A true Believer and Muslim values the honor of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم more than his own life.

If the secularists and so-called humanists insist that there should be no anti-blasphemy legislation or capital punishment for the crime of disparaging the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم then they should realize that zealous Believers will insist on killing and dispatching such blasphemers straight to Hell without any regard for the law of the land. When one is willing to sacrifice his own life for the honor of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, the law of the land hardly matters at that point. One is in a spiritual state of passionate rapture and has no concern for anything else. These hypocrites take great offense when they or their family members are insulted, but speak of excusing the one who disparages the Prophet of Allah!

Some of those Muslims who say they have been driven to commit acts of terrorism against various foreign powers or their own oppressive governments do so not for religious zeal but a false political ideology that merely uses the name of religion. If they were truly zealous for Allah and His Apostle, they would express infinitely more wrath and fury against those who blaspheme the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. What is the big deal if our land is occupied by a foreign power or our governments deny us human rights compared to having to bear even the slightest rude remark against our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم whose honor we value infinitely more than our own lives?

Returning to the situation in Pakistan, it is established that this cursed woman (Asiya) disparaged our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. She confessed before a public assembly, and was found guilty by the courts in which she was tried. However, due to international pressure from Europe and the pedophile Catholic Church, the disgraceful Supreme Court judges of Pakistan ruled in favor of Asiya’s appeal, reversing the death sentenced and ordering her immediate release. Because of this irresponsible judgment by the so-called Supreme Court, those who harbor enmity to our Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and to Islam have been emboldened. It was necessary that the Muslims of Pakistan express their contempt for these hypocritical, secular-minded judges, and send a message to the world that we are prepared to lay down our lives for the defense of the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم honor.

Males Forbidden to Wear Solid Red

نحمده وصلى ونسلم على رسوله الكريم

For Muslim males to cover their head is not merely a cultural custom, but a Sunna of Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله وسلامه عليه that has largely been abandoned in our time. Going bare headed only became widespread in the Muslim world during European colonialism. The Europeans, being Christians, bare their heads because of the false teaching of the deceiver Paul of Tarsus: ’’Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head...for a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.’’ (1 Corinthians 11:4,7)

Now it is evident that those Muslims who refuse to cover their head, especially during worship, are following a Christian innovation. Did not Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله وسلامه عليه say:

لَتَتْبَعُنَّ سَنَنَ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلَكُمْ شِبْرًا شِبْرًا وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ، حَتَّى لَوْ دَخَلُوا جُحْرَ ضَبٍّ تَبِعْتُمُوهُمْ

’’You will follow the ways of those who were before you, span by span, cubit by cubit, until if they entered the hole of a lizard, you would follow them.’’

When asked if the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه was referring to the Jews and Christians, he answered:

فَمَنْ

’’Who else?’’ (Sahih al-Bukhari)

So this irreligious practice of uncovering one’s head is an emulation of the Christians, who originally bared their heads because of Paul’s false, idolatrous teachings.

According to a Hadith, sayyidina Anas bin Malik narrated:

رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَتَوَضَّأُ وَعَلَيْهِ عِمَامَةٌ قِطْرِيَّةٌ

’’I saw Allah’s Apostle – sall Allahu alayhi wasallam – perform ablution, and he had a Qitri turban on him.’’ (Sunan Abi Dawud #147)

The Hadith is slightly weak due to the narrator Abi Ma’qil. Nevertheless, it is correct to act upon it, and revive the Sunna of wearing a Qitri turban. According to the Sharihin a Qitri turban is made from a fabric that comes from eastern Arabia, in the Gulf region, the land known as Bahrain and Qatar. It is a heavy material, red in color but containing designs and patterns so that it is not solid red:

According to other Hadith, the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه would wear a full suit made from this red, Qitri fabric (Sunan Abi Dawud #520; Jami al-Tirmidhi #1213)

These days, the grave worshiping sect, so-called ’’Da’wate Islami’’ led by Ilyas Qadiri, have begun wearing various colored turbans, including solid red, thinking they are following the Prophet’s Sunna. Another religious group, the Majlise Ahrar, wear solid red shirts, claiming it is their uniform. They claim that the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه wore red, citing the Hadith of al-Baraa bin Azib رضى الله عنه:

رَأَيْتُهُ فِي حُلَّةٍ حَمْرَاءَ

’’I saw him in a red hulla’’

However, as the Sharihin (commentators of Hadith) have explained, this red, Yemeni cloak was striped or had designed and patterns, as is well known from the Yemeni garment, and was certainly not solid red.

Sayyidina Ibn Abbas رضى الله عنه narrated:

نُهِيتُ عَنِ الثَّوْبِ الأَحْمَرِ

’’I was forbidden from red clothing.’’ (Sunan an-Nasa’i #5268)

Therefore, Muslim males should avoid solid red clothes. It is not befitting to wear solid red because it is a feminine characteristic and reeks of immodesty.

Mahdi is Appointed and Sent by Allah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

آمين يا رب العالمين

Like the Nabi (prophet) and Mujaddid (religious reformer), the office of the promised Mahdi is a divine appointment. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

لَوْ لَمْ يَبْقَ مِنَ الدَّهْرِ إِلاَّ يَوْمٌ لَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ رَجُلاً مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِي يَمْلأُهَا عَدْلاً كَمَا مُلِئَتْ جَوْرًا

’’If there was nothing left of time except a day, Allah would raise a man from my household who would fill (the land) with justice as it was filled with tyranny.’’ (Sunan Abi Dawud #4283)

The promised Mahdi is مبعوث من الله ’’sent by Allah’’, like the Prophets and the Mujaddidin. In fact, the promised Mahdi عليه الصلاة والسلام is the Mujaddid of his time, and has within him some of the characteristics of Nubuwwa. When Allah does send the promised Mahdi, he will have the divine right to rule over the Umma. Unlike an ordinary caliph or ruler, the Umma is not able to appoint someone to the office of the Mahdi through mutual consultation. Allah Himself shall appoint and send the Mahdi, and guide him directly:

الْمَهْدِيُّ مِنَّا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ يُصْلِحُهُ اللَّهُ فِي لَيْلَةٍ ‏

’’The Mahdi is from us, Ahl al-Bayt. Allah will rectify him in a (single) night.’’ (Sunan Ibn Maja #4085)

When the promised Mahdi does appear, undoubtedly there will be some Muslims, especially the oppressive rulers, regimes and governments of the time, who will not only reject him but seek to fight him. They will have to answer to Allah Himself for having opposed the one whom Allah appointed and sent for the rectification of this Umma. The name Mahdi means the guided one. He will be guided by Allah and it is not permissible for any Muslim to reject or oppose him. Those who do so will jeopardize their faith and are answerable to Allah Most High.

The cancer of nationalism and patriotism is spreading in the Muslim body. It is quite foreseeable that when the promised Mahdi does emerge, those so-called Muslims who oppose and reject him will likely do so on the basis of their nationalism and attachment to these nation states. Likewise, those who have been infected with the virus of secularism and liberalism will likely reject the promised Mahdi who will be sent by Allah Most High to establish a pure Islamic state based on the Shari’a and the Sunna of Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله وسلامه عليه

Promised Mahdi will Conquer Constantinople

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على اشرف الأنبياء والمرسلين

وعلى اهل بيته الطيبين الطاهرين المظلومين

One of the incredible achievements of the Mahdi al-Muntadhir عليه الرضوان will be his conquest of Constantinople, which is modern day Istanbul. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

لَتُفْتَحَنَّ الْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ ، فَلَنِعْمَ الْأَمِيرُ أَمِيرُهَا ، وَلَنِعْمَ الْجَيْشُ ذَلِكَ الْجَيْشُ

“You shall conquer Constantinople. What an excellent emir will its emir be, and what an excellent army will that army be.” (Musnad Ahmad)

Now many believe that the prophecy of the conquest of Constantinople has already come to pass. According to this preterist view, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, in this Hadith, praised the Ottoman Turks and their leader, Mehmed II known as Fatih Sultan Mehmet. He conquered Constantinople in 1453 CE, and ever since the city has remained in the possession of the Turks, who are Muslims.

However, I believe that such an interpretation is a mistake. I do not believe that the Prophet praised the Ottoman Turks or Mehmed II, who were not particularly known for their piety or dedication to pure, orthodox Islam. In my estimation, this Hadith is another prophecy regarding the promised Mahdi عليه السلام.  But if Constantinople was already conquered by the Muslims and has remained in their possession since the late 15th century, how do we make sense of a prophecy which apparently indicates a future conquest of the same city. Firstly, it is quite possible that some time in the near future the modern day city of Istanbul will be retaken by a non-Muslim force, perhaps the Russians. But a second possibility is that the Hadith about the conquest of Constantinople refer to a battle that shall take place between the army of the promised Mahdi عليه السلام and the forces of the Republic of Turkey. At present, Turkey’s government led by Erdogan is moving in the direction of Islamization, but it is quite foreseeable that the project will ultimately fail and Turkey will remain on the path of ignorant nationalism and secularism. Whatever the case may be, the fact that at present Istanbul is a city in Turkey in the possession of Muslims does not negate the future conquest of that city by the promised Mahdi  and his righteous army.

According to a Hadith that is slightly weak due to the narrator Qays b. al-Rabi:

لَوْ لَمْ يَبْقَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا إِلاَّ يَوْمٌ لَطَوَّلَهُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ حَتَّى يَمْلِكَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِي يَمْلِكُ جَبَلَ الدَّيْلَمِ وَالْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةَ

“If there was only a single day left of the world, Allah Azza wa Jall would lengthen it until a man from my Household took possession of the mountain of Dailam and of Constantinople.” (Sunan Ibn Maja 2779)

This strengthens the view that it is the promised Mahdi عليه الرضوان who shall conquer Constantinople.

According to a Hadith in Sahih Muslim which describes the Malhama, in which the Muslims shall engage the Roman Christians and defeat them, a third of that army shall go on to conquer Constantinople:

وَيَفْتَتِحُ الثُّلُثُ لاَ يُفْتَنُونَ أَبَدًا فَيَفْتَتِحُونَ قُسْطُنْطِينِيَّةَ

“The third who would never be put to trial would win and they would be conquerers of Constantinople.” (Sahih Muslim)

I believe it is this army which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم described as an excellent army, with an excellent emir, i.e., the promised Mahdi عليه السلام.

According to a report, the great scholar and tabi, Wahb b. Munabbih, stated:

فَإِذَا كَانَتِ الْمَلْحَمَةُ الْكُبْرَى فُتِحَتِ الْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ عَلَى يَدِ رَجُلٍ مِنْ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ

“When the Great Malhama happens, Constantinople will be conquered at the hand of a man from Bani Hashim.” (Sunan al-Waridatu fil-Fitan of ad-Dani)

Messiah Will Pray Behind Mahdi

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الكريم

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

The promised Mahdi عليه السلام والرضوان is about to come out any minute now. Watch the situation in Saudi Arabia closely and be prepared for a radical, Islamic revolution the like of which the world has never seen. Time is quickly running out for the Saudi regime and other oppressive tyrants throughout the Middle East. Now when the promised Mahdi does finally appear, the descent of the Messiah son of Maryam عليه الصلاة والسلام is sure to follow. Our lovely Prophet Muhammad prophesied that the promised Messiah shall pray behind the Amir of the Muslims at the time of his descent:

فَيَنْزِلُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَيَقُولُ أَمِيرُهُمْ تَعَالَ صَلِّ لَنَا ‏.‏ فَيَقُولُ لاَ ‏.‏ إِنَّ بَعْضَكُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ أُمَرَاءُ ‏.‏ تَكْرِمَةَ اللَّهِ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةَ

So Jesus son of Mary صلى الله عليه وسلم will descend and their Amir will say, “Come, lead us in prayer”, but he will say, “No. Verily, some of you are leaders of others. This is the honor from Allah for this Umma.” (Sahih Muslim: Kitab al-Iman)

According to the Hadith of Abi Umama al-Bahili رضى الله عنه the Prophetصلى الله عليه وآله وسلم  said:

هُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ قَلِيلٌ وَجُلُّهُمْ بِبَيْتِ الْمَقْدِسِ وَإِمَامُهُمْ رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ فَبَيْنَمَا إِمَامُهُمْ قَدْ تَقَدَّمَ يُصَلِّي بِهِمُ الصُّبْحَ إِذْ نَزَلَ عَلَيْهِمْ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ الصُّبْحَ فَرَجَعَ ذَلِكَ الإِمَامُ يَنْكُصُ يَمْشِي الْقَهْقَرَى لِيَتَقَدَّمَ عِيسَى يُصَلِّي بِالنَّاسِ فَيَضَعُ عِيسَى يَدَهُ بَيْنَ كَتِفَيْهِ ثُمَّ يَقُولُ لَهُ تَقَدَّمْ فَصَلِّ فَإِنَّهَا لَكَ أُقِيمَتْ ‏.‏ فَيُصَلِّي بِهِمْ إِمَامُهُمْ

On that day they (Arabs) will be few, and most of them will be in Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), and their Imam will be a righteous man. When their Imam has stepped forward to lead them in Subh prayer, Jesus son of Mary will come down to them. That Imam will step backwards so that Jesus can come forward and lead the people in prayer, but Jesus will place his hand between his shoulders and say to him: “Go forward and pray, for the Iqama was given for you.” Then their Imam will lead them in prayer. (Sunan Ibn Maja 4077)

According to what is apparent from this Hadith, the Messiah shall descend to Jerusalem, though other Hadith say he will come down to the east of Damascus near the white minaret. Of course Allah knows best, but there certainly is a white minaret at the Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, and quite possibly that is the minaret near which the Messiah shall descend. Perhaps the narrator made an error in reporting the town to which the Messiah shall descend as being Damascus instead of Jerusalem in the other Hadith. The reader should beware that the case of Hadith is not at all the same as the Quran. The Quran is the literal Word of Allah which has been granted divine protection in every letter and syllable, while the essence of what is found in the authentic Hadith is correct but not necessarily free from the human error of its various narrators.

Another Hadith states that the Messiah himself shall lead the people in prayer at the time of his descent:

إِذْ أُقِيمَتِ الصَّلاَةُ فَيَنْزِلُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ فَأَمَّهُمْ

When the iqama of Salat is made, Jesus son of Mary will descend and lead them. (Sahih Muslim)

However, what seems most correct is that the Messiah عليه السلام shall pray the Fajr prayer behind the Imam and Amir of the Muslims when he initially descends, as the Iqama will have already been made. But being a Prophet of Allah, it is the Messiah who shall then lead the Muslims in prayer thereafter. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ إِمَامًا مَهْدِيًّا

Jesus son of Mary, Imam, Mahdi (Musnad Ahmad)

It is generally understood and agreed that the Amir and Imam behind whom the Messiah shall pray Fajr when he initially descends is none other than the Mahdi عليه السلام والرضوان. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is reported to have said:

مِنَّا الذي يُصَلِّي عيسى ابنُ مريمَ خلفَهُ

He is from us behind whom Jesus son of Mary will pray

The muhaddith, Albani, has authenticated this Hadith (Silsila as-Sahiha 2293) and the proceeding narration too (ibid 2236):

يَنْزِلُ عيسى ابنُ مَرْيَمَ فيقولُ أميرُهُمُ المهديُّ تَعالَ صلِّ بنا فيقولُ لا, إنَّ بعضَهُم أَميرُ بعضٍ تَكْرُمَةُ الله لهذه الأمَّةِ

Jesus son of Mary will descend, so their Amir, the Mahdi, will say, “Come, lead us in prayer”. But he will say, “No, verily some of them are commander over some. Allah’s honor for this Umma.”