Say
‘Seal of the Prophets’ but do not say ‘there is no prophet
after him’
(Musannaf
Ibn Abi Shaybah; v.14, p.521, published by Dar Kunuz Ishbiliya)
In
his checking, Sa’d bin Nasir bin Abdul-Aziz Abu Habib ash-Shathri
declared this narration sahih.
But
it is argued that if the narration is authentic, the intention of
sayyidatuna A’ishah is merely to affirm the second coming of Jesus.
Those who make this argument point to the subsequent narration of
another companion, al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah رضى
الله عنه:
A
man said in the presence of al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah: “Blessing of
Allah upon Muhammad, Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after
him”. Mughirah said: “It is sufficient for you to say ‘Seal of
the Prophets’ for we were informed that Jesus shall come, so he is
both before him and after him.” (ibid):
Firstly,
the narration attributed to al-Mughirah رضى
الله عنه is
considered weak due to the weakness of the narrator Mujalid.
Secondly,
the fanatics of the so-called Khatm un-Nubuwwah movement claim
that the second coming of Jesus, a Prophet of God, does not violate
the finality of Muhammad’s Prophesy because Jesus was made a
Prophet prior to Muhammad عليهما
السلام
Yet
according to this narration, al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah rejected such
a feeble attempt at reconciling the two apparently contradictory
doctrines of the second coming of the Messiah and the finality of
Prophesy, when he said that Jesus is a prophet both prior to and
subsequent to the Prophet Muhammad صلى
الله عليه وسلم
From
the perspective of the fanatics of the Khatm un-Nubuwwah
movement, there is nothing wrong with the man’s statement “blessing
of Allah upon Muhammad, Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet
after him”, indeed, this is their very slogan. Then how do they
explain Mughirah’s رضى
الله عنه correcting
of the man and explaining to him that it is sufficient to simply say
that Muhammad is Seal of the Prophets without adding ‘there is no
prophet after him’?
There
are a number of dissident Christian denominations which believe that
there was a great apostasy in the early Church. This idea is markedly
held to by the LDS or Mormon movement founded by the false prophet
Joseph Smith. The JW movement likewise believe that a Great Apostasy
took place shortly after the Apostolic Age, when pagan beliefs
overtook Christendom, such as the Trinity doctrine.
The
Christian New Testament certainly predicts the Great Apostasy. The
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is traditionally attributed to
Paul of Tarsus, although modern scholars, like Bart Ehrman, question
that authorship. Nevertheless, it contains this passage which says
that there shall be an apostasy before the second coming of Jesus
Christ: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall
not come, except there come a falling away first” (2 Thessalonians
2:3)
The
King James Version translated the Greek word apostasia to mean
“a falling away”, although clearly what is meant is an apostasy.
Islam
likewise teaches that there was an apostasy among the professing
followers of Jesus shortly after his death:
And
I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since
Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them
(Surah
5:117)
The
Ayah suggests that in Jesus’s own lifetime his disciples and
followers hadn’t corrupted his Gospel – they did not worship him
and his mother Mary, nor did they believe he was God incarnate.
History bears witness to the fact that these heresies surfaced after
the time of Jesus, when the foretold false teachers and prophets had
risen among them, or entered into their flocks, and began teaching
false doctrines. We believe that Paul of Tarsus was one such “wolf
in sheep’s clothing” about whom Jesus had strongly warned
against. Paul never met Jesus, but began persecuting his followers,
the early Nazarenes, after Jesus’s death and spiritual ascension.
He then claimed to have seen a vision of Jesus and have converted to
the Faith, but introduced novel teachings that were in obvious
contravention of the Gospel.
One
of the objections against the Quran put forward by Christian
apologists is that it has misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity
as taught by Christianity.
I
have already answered, in a previous article, the objection that the
Quran accuses Christians of believing that Mary is the third person
of the Trinity.
Christians
quote an Ayah of the Quran which according to them implies that they
believe God has a wife:
The
Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when
He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has
knowledge of all things?
(Surah
6:101)
In
light of this Ayah, it is also argued by some Christians that the
Quran implies that the Christian doctrine of divine sonship of Jesus
is biological or else such that it logically requires there to be a
mother along with a father.
The
simple answer to these objections is that the context of 6:101
clearly indicates that it is not a polemic against Christianity but
against the Pagan Arabs. The preceding Ayah states:
And
they hold the jinn to be partners with Allah, although He created
them; and they falsely ascribe to Him sons and daughters without any
knowledge. Holy is He and exalted far above what they attribute to
Him
(Surah
6:100)
The
belief that the jinn are partners with Allah, and that He has sons
and daughters, is specifically a Pagan Arab belief, so obviously the
polemical refutation of this belief as it occurs in the proceeding
Ayah is specifically a response to the Pagan Arabs and not
necessarily the Christians. That the Pagans do ascribe a consort for
Allah, and that their conception of God having sons and daughters is
quite different from the standard Christian concept of the divine
sonship of Jesus, must be acknowledged and therefore logically
validates the answer given in 6:101 where children – sons and
daughters – are negated for Allah because a female consort is
negated for Allah.
Some
misguided so-called Muslims who deny the virgin birth of Jesus, and
assert that Joseph the Carpenter or someone else was Jesus’s
biological father, also quote this Ayah to back up their argument.
This is especially true of the Lahore Ahmadiyya sect, whose writers
wrote books such as Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad. In
it he argues: “The absolute fixity of this particular law may be
judged from the fact that the Qur’an advances it as a refutation
against the Christian doctrine of the Divine sonship of Jesus: ‘How
can there be a son to God while He has no mate?’ (6: 102). This
again emphasises the law of procreation through pairs, so much so
that even in the case of God it is not possible for a son to be born
to Him unless He takes someone for His mate.” (p.2)
But
as I have already demonstrated, 6:101 [which Dr. Basharat Ahmad
references as 6:102 with the Basmalah numbered as an Ayah whereas I
use the standard numbering system for the sake of convenience] is
not, contrary to Dr. Basharat Ahmad’s premise, a refutation of the
Christian doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus. The fact is that
the Pagan Arabs did ascribe a consort for Allah, and so 6:101 is a
negation of that specific heresy and not a proof that there can be no
exception to the general phenomenon that the birth of a human child
requires the agency of both father and mother.
At
most it could be argued based on 6:101 that children cannot be
birthed through the agency of a father without a mother, and that is
the polemic being employed against the Pagan Arabs who believed Allah
had biological sons and daughters. If those Pagans said that Allah
took a consort in order to have children, then it is denied that He
has a consort, or if it is interpreted to mean that the Pagans
ascribe such kind of children to Allah without Him having a consort,
then it is rhetorically asked how He can have such kind of children
without a consort.
The
recent flare up in the Holy Land has rekindled an interest in Islamic
apocalypticism and eschatology. The Ulama and other preachers are
acquainting the Muslims with certain traditions of the Prophet صلى
الله عليه وسلم which
speak of the centrality of Jerusalem in the End Times, for instance:
A
faction of my Ummah will not cease to fight at the gates of Damascus
and its vicinity, and at the gates of Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and
its vicinity. The criticism of the critics shall not harm them. They
shall prevail until the establishment of the Hour
“A
faction of my Ummah will not cease to be upon the Religion manifest.
Those who oppose them shall not harm them until the order of Allah
comes and they are like that.” They said: “O Apostle of Allah,
where are they?” He said: “At Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and
around Bait al-Maqdis” (Musnad Ahmad)
I
previously quoted narrations from the Prophet صلى
الله عليه وسلم in
which he prophesied that the Believers shall fight the Dajjal at the
River Jordan, and that the Believers will be at the East Bank and
they – the Dajjal and his forces – at the West Bank.
However,
there is a version of the Hadith with different wording to the effect
that the Believers will in fact be at the West Bank of the Jordan,
and the Dajjal along with his forces on the East Bank:
You
will not cease to fight until your remainder fights the Dajjal at the
Jordan. You will be at its west and they will be at its east
(Musnad
ash-Shamain; p.369, #638):
It
is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that a narrator made a
mistake by switching the position of the Believers to the west
instead of the east, and the Dajjal to the east instead of the west
of the River Jordan.
Presently,
the State of Israel has been established in the Holy Land west of the
River Jordan, whereas east of the River Jordan is the Hashemite
Kingdom under Muslim control. In an apocalyptic war with the
Zionists, it is not difficult to imagine how the Muslims on the East
Bank will be fighting the False Messiah and his Jewish forces that
are currently entrenched in the land west of the Jordan. The other
Ahadith which speak of the Believers slaying the Jewish forces of the
Dajjal after the latter’s destruction, when the trees and rocks
shall extraordinarily speak and inform the Believers as to the
position of the Jews concealing themselves behind them reinforce this
general understanding.
However,
this version of the Hadith is significant in that it suggests that
when the Dajjal appears, and as other Ahadith make clear, he shall
emerge from the east, from the land of Khorasan, making his way west
to the Holy Land from there, the Believers will have already
established themselves in the Holy Land, and control that which lies
to the west of the River Jordan. Perhaps at that time the State of
Israel will have been defeated and dismantled.
Incidentally,
in these narrations, the Prophet صلى
الله عليه وسلم referred
to the Dajjal with the plural pronoun “they”. Perhaps it is
because the followers of the individual Dajjal are represented by
him, or because the Dajjal is not simply an individual, but in a
sense it is the actual system and forces of the End Times that shall
be aligned against Islam.
O
companions of Muhammad, did not the Prophet of God, peace be upon
him, say “he [the Antichrist] is a Jew” but I have accepted
Islam?
(Sahih
Muslim)
Yet
some of the Sahabah, like sayyidina Umar رضى
الله عنه and
Jabir bin Abdullah رضى
الله عنه swore
on oath that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. Abu Sa’id al-Khudri also
suspected or was not fully persuaded by Ibn Sayyad’s argument. This
indicates the fact that although Ibn Sayyad outwardly embraced Islam,
the Sahabah did not feel it was sufficient to totally discount him as
being the Antichrist.
That
the Prophet صلى
الله عليه وسلم informed
us that the Antichrist is a Jew does not contradict the fact that the
Antichrist shall emerge from his Ummah. It may be that the Antichrist
is of Jewish descent while apparently being from the Ummah. In this
way his affair resembles that of one of the minor antichrists who
appeared before him, namely, Abd Allah bin Saba. It is reported that
Amir al-Mu’minin Ali bin Abi Talib رضى
الله عنه addressed
Ibn Saba, saying to him:
I
heard the Apostle of Allah, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, say, “before
the Hour shall come thirty liars” and you are one of them
(Musnad
Abi Ya’la; v.1, pp.349-350):
This
prophecy from the Prophet Muhammad صلى
الله عليه وسلم about
thirty liars and antichrists, which has multiple attestation, is
significant because the Prophet explained that each of these thirty
or so pretenders shall arise from within his Ummah:
There
shall be, in my Ummah, thirty liars, each of them claiming to be a
Prophet
(Sunan
Abi Dawud)
In
another version of this Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad صلى
الله عليه وسلم revealed
that the Masih al-Dajjal, the major Antichrist which is known as
al-’Awar or the One-Eyed Dajjal, is the last of these thirty
pretenders:
By
Allah, the Hour will not be established until there come thirty
liars, the last of whom is the One-Eyed Dajjal, whose left eye is
concealed like the eye of Abu Yahya – or Abu Tahya – an elder of
the Ansar. He will claim to be Allah. Whoever believes in him,
confirms him and follows him, nothing of his previous good deeds
shall profit him, and whoever disbelieves in him and belies him,
nothing from his previous deeds shall hold him to account. He shall
prevail upon the entirety of the Earth except the Haram and Bait
al-Maqdis [Jerusalem]
(Sahih
Ibn Khuzaymah #1397):
As
I have explained in previous articles, the fact that the Dajjal
emerges from Khorasan, which today is an exclusively Muslim region,
and that he is followed by Turkic peoples who today are almost
exclusively Muslim, and that he is such a great trial for the Muslims
in particular, are all indications that he emerges from this very
Ummah.
Likewise,
Uthman bin Affan [radi Allahu anhu] was truthful in Firasah. Anas bin
Malik [radi Allahu anhu] says that he entered in the presence of
Uthman bin Affan [radi Allahu anhu] and that he had seen a lady on
the road, admiring her beauty. So Uthman [radi Allahu anhu] said:
“One of you has entered upon me and there is a trace of Zina
apparent in his eyes.” So I said: “Is there Wahi after the
Apostle of Allah [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam]?” He said: “Rather,
it is vision, proof, and true Firasah.”
Our
interpretation of La Nabi Ba'di to mean no prophet that is in
opposition to the Shari'ah of the Prophet and is not his follower in
totality is not extraneous, it can be derived strictly from the plain
wording itself.
Ba'd
is usually translated in English "after" but that does not
encompass its full meaning, nor is it necessary that ba'd always
means after in the sequential sense.
It
is perfectly legitimate in Arabic language to interpret the word Ba'd
to mean that which is in contrast to, in opposition to - as opposed
to that which accords with and is in conformity with.
A
perfect example of this from the Holy Quran:
فَبِاَیِّ
حَدِیۡثٍۭ بَعۡدَہٗ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ
In
what discourse then, after this, will they believe?
Incidentally,
the Quran-only heretics consider this Ayah their most devastating
weapon in their arsenal in repudiating the following of the Ahadith.
The Quran refers to itself as Hadith, and is apparently asking a
rhetorical question that in which Hadith after this [Quran] will you
believe, meaning don't believe in any Hadith other than the Quran. On
the surface it seems like a pretty solid argument for the
Quranists/Hadith-rejecters.
But
the correct interpretation of this Ayah, based on an alternative but
bona fide meaning of the word ba'd is essentially not to believe in
any opposing or contrary narrative to the Quran, not that every
narration subsequent to the Quran in chronology and sequence is false
even if that narration is in accord with the Quran and falling under
its overall authority.
Likewise,
the statement "There is no Prophet after me" really and
truly means don't believe in any Prophesy-claimant after me who
doesn't conform to me, who isn't subordinate to me, and who doesn't
recognize me as supreme - I am the Seal of the Prophets.
Malicious
Christian apologists quote the following Ayah of the holy Quran and
contend by it that Prophet Muhammad [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] did
not possess certainty as to what would happen to him in the
Afterlife—specifically whether he
would attain salvation:
وَ
مَاۤ اَدۡرِیۡ مَا یُفۡعَلُ بِیۡ وَ لَا
بِکُمۡ
Nor
do I know what will be done with me or with you
(Surah
46:9)
Incidentally,
the Deobandi elder, Rashid Gangohi, in his Fatawa Rashidiya
issued a fatwa declaring that it is proven that it is possible for
Allah to lie and proceeded to cite this very Ayah as a proof. He
stated that although Allah has declared that the Prophet Muhammad
[sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] is ultimately forgiven, there is the
possibility of him not being forgiven in the Afterlife because of the
words of this Ayah ‘I do not know what will be done with me’
(Fatawa Rashidiya p.237; Ta'lifate Rashidiya p.99):
Killing
two birds with a single stone, I have answered this doubt raised by
the Christians and by the Deobandis in the following video on my
YouTube channel:
In
summary, I quoted Tafsir al-Jalalayn in explanation of this Ayah,
which makes it plain that the statement ‘I do not know what will
happen to me’ is in reference to this worldly life and not the
Afterlife:
وَمَآ
أَدْرِى مَا يُفْعَلُ بِى وَلاَ بِكُمْ
}
في
الدنيا أأخرج من بلدي، أم أقتل كما فعل
بالأنبياء قبلي أو ترموني بالحجارة؟ أم
يخسف بكم كالمكذبين قبلكم
“Nor
do I know what will be done with me or with you in this world
will I be made to leave my native land or will I be slain as was done
with some prophets before me or will you stone me to death or will
the earth be made to swallow you as it did deniers before you?”
Now
it is clear that Imam Jalal ud-Din as-Suyuti [rahimahullah] believed
this Ayah is referring to the absence of certain knowledge of the
Prophet [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] concerning what will happen to
him specifically in this world, and likewise what will happen to the
people he is addressing in this world.
Al-Wahidi
has explained the circumstances for the revelation of this Ayah in
his Asbab an-Nuzul:
لَمَّا
اشْتَدَّ البلاء بأصحاب النبي صلى اللَّه
عليه وسلم رَأَى فِي الْمَنَامِ أَنَّهُ
يُهَاجِرُ إِلَى أَرْضٍ ذَاتِ نَخْلٍ
وَشَجَرٍ وَمَاءٍ فَقَصَّهَا عَلَى
أَصْحَابِهِ فَاسْتَبْشَرُوا بِذَلِكَ
وَرَأَوْا فِيهَا فَرَجًا مِمَّا هُمْ
فِيهِ مِنْ أَذَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ
إِنَّهُمْ مَكَثُوا بُرْهَةً لَا يَرَوْنَ
ذَلِكَ فَقَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّه
متى تهاجر إِلَى الأرض التي رأيتها
فَسَكَتَ رسول اللَّه صلى اللَّه عليه
وسلم وأنزل اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَمَا
أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَلُ بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ
يَعْنِي لَا أَدْرِي أَخْرُجُ إِلَى
الْمَوْضِعِ الَّذِي رَأَيْتُهُ في منامي
أولا
Al-Kalbi
reported from Abu Salih that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “When tribulations
faced by the Companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him
peace, intensified, The Prophet saw in his dream that he migrated to
a land that had palms, trees and plenty of water. He related this
dream to his Companions and the latter took it for a good omen and a
harbinger of relief from the harm of the idolaters which they faced.
After a while, when they saw that nothing had happened, they said: ‘O
Messenger of Allah! When are you going to migrate to the land which
you saw in your dream?’ The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and
give him peace, did not answer them, but Allah, exalted is He,
revealed (…nor know I what will be done with me or with you…),
i.e. I do not know whether or not I am going to move to the place
which I saw in my dream.
Something
I didn’t cover in my video response to this Christian and Deobandi
doubt is the Hadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari about
the death of sayyidina Uthman bin Maz’un [radi Allahu anhu]. An
Ansari lady, Umm al-’Ala [radi Allahu anha] reportedly said in the
presence of the Prophet [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] regarding
Uthman bin Maz’un:
Certainty
[death] came to him. By Allah, I too wish him good, but by Allah, I
do not know what will be done with me though I am Allah's Messenger.
Although
the context of this statement is in reference to Uthman bin Maz’un’s
death and whether or not Allah has truly honored him in the
Afterlife, the Prophet’s statement ‘I do not know, though I am
the Messenger of Allah, what will be done with me’ does not
necessarily have to be interpreted as referring to what will be done
with him in the Afterlife. His purpose is only to convey that despite
being a Prophet and Apostle of God he has not been given the totality
of the knowledge of the unseen.
One
of the ‘godfathers’ of the Deobandi sect, Rashid Gangohi,
considered by them to have the status of a Prophet, used to praise
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad—founder of
the Ahmadiyya movement—saying:
کام
تو یہ شخص اچھا کر رہا ہے
"This
person is doing good work" (Tadkirat ur-Rashid; v.2, p.228):
Several
months ago I explained in an article the idea that based on
indications from the holy Quran, and also rational arguments, the
punishment of Gehinnom (Hell) isn’t infinite or everlasting,
rather, it is extremely lengthy to the point it may be described as
everlasting figuratively.
Recently,
in a discussion with a social media religious activist by the name of
‘Amir Haq’, he asked me to answer a common
objection raised against the endless perpetuity of Hell that how can
there be an infinite punishment for a finite crime. I explained my
position that Hellfire may be an extremely lengthy sentence but it is
not infinite. Amir Haq was taken aback by this answer and
quoted the following Ayah of the Quran in an attempt to prove the
everlasting perpetuity of Hell:
And
whoso kills a believer intentionally, his reward shall be Hell
wherein he shall abide. And Allah will be wroth with him and will
curse him and will prepare for him a great punishment
(Surah
4:93)
Amir
Haq drew my attention to the word khālidan in this Ayah which
is generally understood to mean unending perpertuity. In my answer, I
said that khuld in the Arabic language can mean both unending
perpetuity but also used to describe an extremely lengthy duration,
and gave the example of how the Arabs refer to mountains as khawālid
because mountains, while not perpetually abiding, are nevertheless
objects that are long lasting and durable. However, Amir Haq disputed
this reason for why the Arabs name mountains khawālid and also the
possibility of extremely lengthy duration as one of the meanings of
khuld in the Arabic language. He challenged me to prove my assertion.
At the time I told him that I shall properly research the issue and
get back to him, which I am glad to say I have done and shall now
share my findings on this blog.
Firstly,
the Ayah which Amir Haq quoted is concerning the threat of punishment
for one who is guilty of premeditated murder of a Believer, a most
serious crime in the sight of Allah. However, while this threat of
punishment in Hell is certainly there for someone who intentionally
murders a Believer, it should also be remembered that Allah may, if
He wishes and by His grace, forgive someone all of their sins,
including the sin of premeditated murder:
Surely,
Allah will not forgive that any partner be associated with Him; but
He will forgive whatever is short of that to whomsoever He pleases
(Surah
4:48; 4:116)
The
Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) narrated the story of
a man who murdered a hundred innocent people but was forgiven by
Allah because of his intention to sincerely repent:
"Amongst
the men of Bani Israel there was a man who had murdered ninety-nine
persons. Then he set out asking (whether his repentance could be
accepted or not). He came upon a monk and asked him if his repentance
could be accepted. The monk replied in the negative and so the man
killed him. He kept on asking till a man advised to go to such and
such village. (So he left for it) but death overtook him on the way.
While dying, he turned his chest towards that village (where he had
hoped his repentance would be accepted), and so the Angels of mercy
and the Angels of punishment quarrelled amongst themselves regarding
him. Allah ordered the village (towards which he was going) to come
closer to him, and ordered the village (whence he had come), to go
far away, and then He ordered the Angels to measure the distances
between his body and the two villages. So he was found to be one span
closer to the village (he was going to). So he was forgiven."
I
do not quote this Hadith with the intention of mitigating the
severity of the crime of murder. Indeed, after idolatry itself it is
the worst sin, and there are frightening threats throughout the
Scripture and the traditions of the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi
wasallam) for the sin of murder.
If
it is argued that should Allah refuse to forgive a murderer—someone
guilty of having deliberate murdered a Believer—then
his punishment in Hell is perpetual and unending as per Surah 4:93,
based on this particular interpretation of the word khālidan,
then consider the following Hadith:
"Whoever
said ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in
his heart good equal to the weight of a barley grain will be taken
out of Hell. And whoever said ‘none has the right to be worshipped
but Allah’ and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of
a wheat grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said, ‘none
has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in his heart good
equal to the weight of an atom will be taken out of Hell."
The
Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) explained that the only
condition for someone to be taken out from Hell is that they have an
atom’s weight of good in their heart and said ‘La elaha illa
Allah’—there is none worthy
of worship except Allah. If even a serial killer of Believers
fulfills this condition, he too shall one day be taken out of Hell,
if Allah wills.
As
for khuld, according to the Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic
Usage published by Brill, the trilateral root KH-L-D connotes:
“mountains, rocks; to remain put for a long time”. From this root
we get the imperfect verb takhlud which means “to remain,
last, endure for a long time” and the word khālid
which means “one living or remaining forever or for a long time”
(p. 275).
According
to the classical Arabic lexicon Taj ul-Urus
الخَوَالِدُ
(الجِبَالُ
والحِجَارَةُ)
والصُّخورُ
لطولِ بَقائها بعد دُرُوس الأَطلالِ
Al-Khawalid:
mountains, stones and rocks, because of the length of their lasting
(v.8, p.63):
Al-Raghib
al-Isfahani has mentioned the same in his Mufradat (pp. 291-292):
British
imperial rule over the Muslims is resented by and large by our people
due to spread of poisonous ideologies, having their roots in the
anti-colonial movements themselves, like nationalism and leftism. It
is an indisputable fact that the condition of the Muslim world under
European colonialism, and particularly the British, was preferable to
the present state of affairs although Muslims are by and large
autonomous. The truth is foreign rule and domination is often
superior to native, self-rule. To the ordinary subject it shouldn’t
really matter whether there is a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen in
government buildings and offices, or a portrait of a brown man
wearing a red fez. What really matters is the quality of governance,
not the identity of the governor. Look back at the height of British
imperial power, we Muslims have a lot to be grateful for. These are
the people who liberated the Punjab from the Akali tyranny through
the Anglo-Sikh wars of the mid 19th
century. During the Akali tyranny, the impotent Muslims of Punjab
were forbidden the rite of cow sacrifice—on
pain of death. Mosques were desecrated and calling the adhān
was likewise proscribed. Incidentally, today in the Punjab province
of Pakistan, the moronic government and other cultural institutions
celebrate Ranjit Singh as a hero and part of their heritage. There
are even statues [idols] of that indecent tāghūt
that have been erected relatively recently to honor his memory.
Likewise, there is a growing trend in the Punjab province of Pakistan
to celebrate the murderer Bhagat Singh, considered a martyr by some,
especially in India among the Sikhs. Upon liberating Punjab from the
Akali thugs, the British fully restored the religious liberty of the
Muslims. The change in political atmosphere allowed for various
Islamic movements, reformist and traditional, to flourish.
Regrettably, the rise of Indian nationalism and its general demand
for self-rule affected many of the Muslims who shockingly joined
hands with idolatrous Hindus to oppose the ‘White Man’. This
solidarity with idolatrous Hindus and Sikhs, as an expression of
subcontinental ‘Desi’ nationalism has only served to worsen the
condition of Muslims who remained behind in India after the
Partition. The present rise of Hindutva chauvinism is not hidden from
anyone and exonerates the narrative of those who rejected Indian
nationalism in favor of Muslim communalism during the height of the
Swaraj
movement. In the Mideast, the British installed client monarchies.
Many of them were later overthrown by nationalists and leftists. For
example, the Free Officers Movement overthrew the client monarchy in
Egypt in 1952. Since then Egypt has been an extremely authoritarian
and autocratic state. The revolution of 1952 used the slogans of
nationalism and leftism that eventually brought the despicable Nasser
to power. In 1958, something similar happened in Iraq when
nationalists overthrew the British installed Hashemite monarchy. Ever
since Iraq has gone from bad to worse. In 1969, another devil,
Gaddafi, through a coup removed a pro-British monarchy and seized
power in Libya. These Arabs may imagine they have gained something
through native rule and independence but the opposite is true. They
have destroyed themselves and been sucked into a vacuum of perpetual
tyranny, corruption, inefficient government, autocracy and injustice.
It is narrated that the Prophet Muhammad صلى
الله عليه وسلم said:
السُّلْطَانُ
ظِلُّ اللَّهِ فِي الأَرْضِ
The
Sultān
is the shadow of God upon the Earth
(Musnad
al-Bazzar)
The
meaning of the Hadīth
does not discriminate between a Muslim or non-Muslim sovereign, let
alone a foreign or native one. The British Crown at the height of its
imperial power was therefore the ‘Shadow of God’. It was a
blessing and a divine favor for the Muslims who were under its shade.
Don’t forget it was the British imperialists who partitioned Bengal
in 1905 as a means of addressing the Hindu industrialist’s
exploitation of underdeveloped, predominantly Muslim East Bengal,
despite the fury it evoked among the Bengali Hindu. Of course, the
final parting gift from the British was the creation of Pakistan.
Those who imagine Pakistan was achieved solely through the political
struggle the Muslim League led by Jinnah and his associates are
living in a delusion. Pakistan could not have come to fruition
without British approval. Consequently, two-thirds of the
Subcontinent’s Muslims owe a debt of gratitude to the British. Yes,
perhaps it can be said that the British rewarded the Muslim Pakistan
in recognition of their loyalty to the Crown in supporting the war
effort against the Axis, whereas the Hindu led Congress of Gandhi and
Nehru boycotted the war effort, and other Indian nationalists like
Bose actually went to the extent of fighting on the side of the
Japanese, hoping the latter would liberate them from British rule.
For the Muslims at least, British rule of India proved to be the
‘Shadow of God upon the Earth’. In the aftermath of World War II,
the United States of America emerged as the successor to British
imperialism. It waged a Cold War against the evil Soviets and the
spread of communism around the globe. A large number of Muslims were
duped into viewing the US negatively because of this. Leftism had
deeply penetrated much of the Muslim Ummah during this period.
Combined with nationalist and anti-colonialist sentiment, it became a
toxic mix. In the 1970s, communism managed to take over Afghanistan,
otherwise one of the more traditional and conservative Muslim
countries. Many Afghan Muslims rose up against the communists,
provoking the Soviets to invade Afghanistan in 1979. We must be
grateful that the Americans, through their CIA, materially assisted
the Afghan Mujāhidīn
in resisting the Soviet invader, who were eventually driven out in
humiliation, by the grace of Allāh
عزّ
وجلّ.
In 1990, Baathist Iraq led by the tāghūt
Saddam invaded Kuwait. The latter were rescued and liberated by the
US, who taught Saddam a lesson in humility. Then in the 1990s, Muslim
populations in the Balkans—Bosniaks
and ethnic Albanians of Kosovo—were
the victims of a ghastly genocide perpetrated by the Christian Serbs.
They too were rescued by a US led military intervention. In 2003, the
US went into Iraq to liberate the country once and for all from
Saddam’s tyranny and terror. The US practically handed Iraq freedom
on a silver platter. But the subsequent chaos and bloodshed was not
at all the fault of the Americans. Iraq’s immediate neighbors—Iran,
Saudi Arabia and Syria—were
alarmed at the prospect of a free and democratic Arab state in the
midst succeeding. That success would likely result in calls for more
freedom and democracy in their own countries. They therefore had a
critical interest in destabilizing and sabotaging the democratic
experiment in Iraq. They did this by infiltrating the country with
sectarian militias, terrorists, insurgents and Jihadists. The Iraqis
themselves proved the proverb ‘Arabs never miss an opportunity to
miss an opportunity’ perfectly true when they elected unsavory
politicians into office who immediately went about marginalizing the
Sunnis and looting the coffers. For their part, the Sunnis foolishly
remained loyal to the overthrown Baathist regime and launched an
insurgency against the Americans. Al-Qaeda emerged in Iraq, and under
their agent al-Zarqawi, they decided to provoke a sectarian war by
bombing Shi’ite processions and shrines. The US tried its best to
restore law and order to the country, but in the end Iraq proved to
be a hopeless case. Meanwhile, in 2011, when the people of Libya rose
up against the cruel dictator Gaddafi, inspired by the success of the
‘Arab Spring’ in neighboring Tunisia, a US-led intervention
helped them overthrow Gaddafi. But once again, certain Arab states
couldn’t stomach the prospect of Libya becoming a free and
democratic state. The Egyptians and Emiratis in particular sought to
undermine and disrupt peace in Libya by backing the warlord Haftar,
who seeks to become another Gaddafi, thus plunging that country into
a civil war. So we see a recurring theme of the US intervening
militarily to liberate various Muslim countries from tyranny, only
for other Muslim states to sabotage and undermine them.
