LGBT Wrath: Fired for Using the Wrong Pronoun

By Abu Idris -December 20, 2018

Yet again, we witness another life ruined due to LGBT ideology. How many lives does the extreme LGBT ideology have to destroy before people wake up?


A Virginia high school teacher who refused to use a transgender student’s new pronouns has been fired.

News outlets report that the West Point School Board voted unanimously Thursday to dismiss Peter Vlaming after a four-hour hearing that drew an overflow crowd. The school system said in a statement that Vlaming was fired for insubordination.

Over the summer, the ninth-grade student’s family informed the school system of the student’s gender transition to male.

In simple terms, a teacher who has been teaching at a school for almost a decade was kicked to the curb because he chose not to participate in the gender-bending delusional fantasy of a 9th grader. Over the summer, a girl decided to be a guy and demanded that everyone else live in her fantasy world. Objective reality has become a thing of the past with the rabid progressives forcing us into a delusional realm of subjectivity based on whim and desire. For now, any resistance will see you stripped of your job. In the future, maybe you’ll have to serve prison time or worse.

The poor teacher, Mr. Peter Vlaming, even tried to appease the mentally-ill child by calling her by her made-up masculine name.

“I won’t use male pronouns with a female student that now identifies as a male though I did agree to use the new masculine name but avoid female pronouns.”

Unfortunately for him, there is no tolerance for even the slightest deviation from tranny dogma. You must obey your tranny overlords and forsake all other values, religious or otherwise. Mr. Vlaming, his wife, and little children are probably going to have to endure winter this year with unemployment checks and food stamps. Hopefully that is enough to pay the bills to keep the lights and heat on this cold winter season. And if not, oh well. That’s what that bigot and his family deserve for not reinforcing the psychological episodes of a poor child.

The question is, where does this end? If there are infinite genders and one can wake up one day and identify as a female and the next as a male, how can a society possibly function? Forget about language and basic daily communication. What about legal documentation? What about all manner of social norms that depend on a stable notion of biological gender?

Changing genders is just the beginning. Why can’t a person identify as a different race? Why can’t a person identify as a different height? Why can’t a person identify as a different species? Why don’t males identify as a half-African-American, half-Native-Indian female to take advantage of affirmative action policies and scholarships when applying for universities? Whoever refuses to acknowledge such possibilities must be a bigot.

I wonder what will happen when a Muslim teacher, physician, lawyer, etc., inevitably gets fired for not playing the tranny pronoun game. What will Muslim SJWs do when an elderly Muslima teacher (perhaps a Syrian refugee) gets canned for refusing to call little Tommy “Tammy?” Are they going to hold a protest and march in the name of “Islamophobia” and “refugee rights”? Will they give back their rainbow-colored pride hijabs, “equality for all” T-shirts, and don new colors? Or will they double down and tell that Syrian refugee she deserved it for being such a stupid bigot?

Sadly, many of these Muslim activists want us to accept this tyrannical dogma. If asked about such firings, the common answer from “woke” Muslims is that we should oppose discrimination and we should be empathetic to all. But, this is false. We should discriminate against wrongdoing. We should be discriminatory to that which causes harm and confusion and fasad in society. Allah says, “The male is not like the female” [Quran 3:36]. Will we forsake our values for acceptance? What a lovely Faustian bargain.

Muslims need to wake up because if we think we won’t be impacted, we would be dead wrong. The teaching of LGBTXYZZ curriculum in public schools is already mandatory in some states, like Illinois and New York, so Muslim kids are already impacted. The UK is planning to make it mandatory as well.

What are we going to do to stop this nauseating cultural shift? As Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said, “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” [Muslim].


The Threat of Islamophobia… Within the Muslim World!

The Independent published an article a while back called “Coverage of Muslims and Islam in UK media is mostly negative, study finds.” This article was based on a 162-page study:

The report by the Centre for Media Monitoring analysed more than 48,000 online articles and 5,500 broadcast clips from 34 media organisations that mentioned Islam and Muslims between 2018 and 2019.

The study, commissioned by the Muslim Council of Britain, found that almost 60 per cent of articles portrayed Islam negatively and one in five associated the faith with terrorism or extremism.

This is, of course, nothing new.

There have been many books and research articles compiled and published in relation to the Islamophobia industry, and while the majority of these focus on the US and especially the War on Terror, there have been specific studies pertaining to Islamophobia in the UK as well. One example is Leonie B. Jackson’s Islamophobia in Britain: The Making of a Muslim Enemy. Within this book, the author traces British Islamophobia back to colonialism and Orientalism (so way before 9/11), and she examines the issue mainly through the lens of Critical Race Theory.

Basically, everyone knows about Western Islamophobia, though timely reminders that often show up in the form of these studies are still very much welcome. Western Islamophobia could even be considered to be somewhat “expected” (since after all, Islam stands against their liberal world-system), but when have you ever seen anyone talking about the Islamophobia found… within the Muslim world?

“Indigenous Islamophobia”?

In 2018, Routledge released a book with an intriguing title: Islamophobia in Muslim Majority Societies. The book was edited by Farid Hafez and Enes Bayrakli. The work is a compilation consisting of chapters written by various authors, all pertaining to Islamophobia within different geographical locations in the Muslim world (Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Albania, and so on).

As we’re not doing a complete book review, we’ll just be presenting a select few representative excerpts.

In chapter 4, Syed Furrukh Zad Ali Shah writes about how Pakistan’s elite promotes blatant Islamophobia through their secular and modernist projects:

Pakistan, with a 97 per cent Muslim population and a declared Islamic Republic, has a smaller, yet formidable section of society that corresponds to Islamophobic currents. These Westernized secular power elites share similar anti-Islam sentiments, rooted in traditional Western discourses of secularism and modernity. Furthermore, modern resurgence of political Islamism and its conflation with violence also demonizes the religion in general, which is embedded in local cultural traditions and social customs. Religion that is seen as anti-modern and irrational has to be disposed of if society is to be reformed and modernized.[1]

And as the author demonstrates, this is not something restricted only to Pakistan. Rather, it extends to pretty much any Muslim country where the “post-colonial” elite ironically believes that “development” is attained by force, in the same way that colonialists tried to implement it.

To highlight a single example, think of the emphasis placed on “girls’ education.” And then there’s the fact that this “education” absolutely must take place in a secular setting—not a madrasah, never!—and obviously, following Western ideals and values.

RELATED: Become Feminists or Starve! The UN Pushes Girls Education in Afghanistan

In chapter 9, Sahar El Zahed examines the “internalized Islamophobia” in the Egyptian media.

You’d assume that such a thing wouldn’t happen in a country where around 90% of the citizens are Muslims, but the author shows how Islam is constantly associated in the mainstream media with “violence,” “backwardness,” etc., and this is something that has intensified significantly since Sisi usurped power in 2014.

In fact, one of the most Islamophobic quotes that she presents is from Sisi himself, from “a speech at Al-Azhar University during the anniversary of the Prophet” :

I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing – and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible! That thinking – I am not saying ‘religion’ but ‘thinking’ – that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sanctified over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants – that is 7 billion – so that they themselves may live? Impossible![2]

Consider the occasion. Consider the place. He couldn’t possibly have found a better time to describe Islam as a—if not the—source of all of humanity’s problems!

As a thought exercise, it may also be interesting to reproduce this notion of “indigenous Islamophobia” with secular rulers and “decolonial privilege.” Imagine a “White imperialist” using the exact words used by Sisi. He would be lambasted. But a Brown man with a name that sounds Islamic can somehow get away with openly saying such things; or banning the Hijab; or changing the language’s script, etc., all in the name of “modernity” (which is itself the product of the “White imperialist”). Yet for some reason, he’ll face no significant opposition. In fact, he might even be praised as a “leader” or as the “father of the nation”!

RELATED: Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: The Man Who Tried to Destroy Islam

Islamophobia is universal because liberalism has become universal as well (through “globalization”) and found willing allies (the loyal minions that are propped up as our so-called “elite”) within the Muslim world.

Allah says in the Noble Qur’an (4:137-140):

As to those who have believed, then disbelieved, then believed, then disbelieved, then increased in disbelief—never will Allah forgive them. Nor will He guide them to [the right] way.

Give [heavy] tidings to the hypocrites, [as well,] that for them there is a most painful torment [awaiting in the Hereafter.

For they are] the ones take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek from them the indomitable protection of might? For verily Allah possesses all might soever!

Moreover, [recall that] He has already sent down to you [a commandment] in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah being belied and mocked at [by people], then do not sit with them until they take up some other discourse. [For,] indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed, Allah shall gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hellfire, all together.


[1] Syed Furrukh Zad Ali Shah, “Post-coloniality, Islamization and secular elites: tracing Islamophobia in Pakistan” in Enes Bayraklı & Farid Hafez, Islamophobia in Muslim Majority Societies, Routledge, 2018, p.66.

[2] Sahar El Zahed, “Internalized Islamophobia: The making of Islam in the Egyptian media” in Enes Bayraklı & Farid Hafez, Islamophobia in Muslim Majority Societies, Routledge, 2018, p.151.


The Sinister Agenda Behind the Joyland Movie Being Pushed onto Pakistan’s Muslims

There is a movie called Joyland that has caused immense uproar among Muslims in Pakistan, mainly for being a movie made by liberal Pakistani filmmakers who, after winning a gay award at a pretentious film festival, aim to import this filth over:

Joyland is set in Lahore city in Pakistan’s eastern province of Punjab and depicts the story of a young man who falls in love with a transgender woman. It debuted at the Cannes festival earlier this year, where it received accolades, including the Jury Prize as well as the Queer Palm award.

The director of this movie, Saim Sadiq, is extremely liberal. And considering that he graduated from Columbia University School of the Arts, it’s easy to see why his worldview mirrors that of the average brainwashed liberal. He is specifically ‘inspired’ to make movies about transgenders. One of the main production houses behind this film was Khoosat Films, headed by a famous Pakistani actor, Sarmad Khoosat. This production company has been responsible for other popular liberal films in Pakistan. Examples include Motorcycle Girl, a movie promoting the feminist agenda; Zindagi Tamasha, a movie about a religious elderly man who, after being recorded dancing at a wedding, has his video go viral and faces ‘oppressive societal repression’ from Muslims; and Kamli, another film peddling feminism.

Let’s start by examining the actual plot of the movie, Joyland, so we can ascertain whether or not the severe criticisms against it are justified.

The movie revolves around the Rana family, which includes the old ‘patriarchal’ head of the family whose wife has passed away, as well as his two sons and their wives. The youngest son is impotent, due to which he is unable to please his wife. He goes on to join a theater as an erotic dancer and falls in love with a transgender ‘woman,’ i.e., another man. While the movie follows this gay relationship, the other members of the family are revealed as having forbidden urges of their own. The wheelchair confined patriarch starts a relationship with his neighbor, and the elder son does has an affair with his younger brother’s wife, which results in her becoming pregnant.

This perverted and dysfunctional family is the movie’s depiction of traditional Muslim households in countries such as Pakistan. The movie is basically saying this is what all our fathers and mothers; all our brothers and sisters; and all our husbands and wives are like.

I cannot even begin to fathom how any sane person would take any of this seriously or consider it to be an accurate representation of reality. On the other hand, since the content of a movie directly reflects the views and ideologies of its director and writer, this movie offers a great deal of insight into the inner workings of the mind of a liberal Pakistanis.

The idea of sexual liberation is one of the primary tenets of liberalism. It is for this reason that unsuspecting liberals have been indoctrinated into believing that suppression in the form of religious taboos naturally leads to everyone living within a religious society being sexually corrupt to their very core; and that they are always thinking and acting upon various forbidden and degenerate fantasies. Every other person’s son is a homosexual who loves trans ‘women,’ i.e., men, and every other man lusts for his brother’s wife. This metanarrative is present at the heart of liberal movies and mainstream media, and it is an attempt to justify a degenerate society by pointing at a pure society and saying:

“You may act pure, but deep down, we know you’re just like us! We might not have any actual proof whatsoever to back up such a claim, but we’ll go ahead and make endless movies about it regardless!”

It’s the liberal world’s way of seething and expressing their hatred for pure, traditional Islamic communities. And unfortunately, the Muslims that have been indoctrinated into this worldview also end up believing that the only natural solution to this non-existent problem is for a sexual revolution to take place, just like the one experienced by the Western world decades earlier.

RELATED: How “Sexual Revolution” Gave Rise to Nazism

If everyone was allowed to mix freely with the opposite gender and act upon every sexual fantasy they had; and if society didn’t condemn and censure these immoral and degenerate actions and behaviors, then the world would be a much better place, and no one would be depressed or unhappy.

And the reason they don’t recognize these acts and behaviors as being immoral and degenerate is because of another one of liberalism’s core tenets: you can do whatever you want, as long as you’re not harming anyone. The reality however, is that these liberals don’t realize how they themselves don’t abide by this principle. There are numerous examples of things where no harm is involved which they would not tolerate. Things such as bestiality, necrophilia, incest and a consensual relationship between a child and an adult. When it comes to such scenarios, the ‘love is love’ principle is quickly thrown out the window, and their inner moral compasses awaken.

However, this may not be the case for much longer, since the degeneracy is increasing at an alarming rate with the constant social engineering and brainwashing taking place. They only tolerate the immorality that the liberal world has normalized thus far. Things like homosexuality, premarital and extramarital sex, orgies, etc., are all okay because the liberal culture one day decided it’s okay. This is the deep rooted hypocrisy that the liberal mind fails to perceive.

And while they push for a sexual revolution to take place in Muslim countries, they’re completely oblivious to the damage it caused in the West, where you now have a hedonistic satanic society filled with all kinds of deranged fetishes; where marriage is at an all-time low, the existing ones end in divorce; where homosexuals are allowed to adopt children; where transgenders are allowed to get close to children and explicitly explain their filthy lifestyle to them, often even putting on a perverted and disgusting performance or wearing clothes that reveal their genitals; and where parades filled with all kinds of sexual deviants walking the streets naked are praised as being ‘brave.’ This society, with all its sexual perversions and its consumerist lifestyle, has plunged itself deep into the depths of depression, where the only thing keeping them going is a steady stream of alcohol and antidepressants. This is the lifestyle that these liberals hide but are ultimately pushing for, in ‘the name of art,’ when they defend and promote movies such as Joyland.

Preventing and stopping such filth is precisely the purpose of the societal shunning of immorality and degeneracy. This is an inherent behavioral action that humans implement in order to bar indecent things from taking place, or from spreading within society. If you don’t want people to steal, you depict thieves in a negative light. You teach kids that stealing is wrong and harmful, and society looks down upon thieves. You also include a punishment to discourage the act further. This is why Islam is the perfect model for mankind. Not only does it forbid immoral sexual acts, it mandates public punishments for those who indulge in them. This then discourages their occurrence from society in the most effective way possible. Cheating on spouses, Zina, rape, false allegations and homosexuality would be at the lowest possible level if the Shari’ah were to be implemented fully and correctly. It would ensure that the greater good is achieved for society.

Then the liberals always fall back on sexual needs. Yes, humans have intimate and sexual needs. Men need women and women need men. That’s basic biology. Marriage fulfills this need. And not only does marriage fulfill this need, it enhances it by committing the husband and wife to each other. He has to lower his gaze from non-Mahram (marriageable) women and she has to cover herself up and not interact with non-Mahram (marriageable) men, in addition to staying within the home. They both fulfill their God-given gender roles, have children, and they all thrive as a result of this. This only deepens their love and brings them closer to each other. This natural way of life, one that has existed for all of human history, has been completely warped in the minds of liberals. They see it as nothing more than a social construct which leads only to oppression and misery. This warped image has been disseminated through years of social engineering, through movies and media. Just look at the disgusting way in which marriage is portrayed within this movie as well as all the forms of modern media that we consume today.

You’ll see depictions upon depictions of wives being compared to caged birds and described with derogatory terms such as ‘baby making machines’; the portrayal of husbands being unrepentant alcoholic wife beaters who don’t care about their wives and are completely incapable of pleasing their wives in anyway whatsoever; and the struggle of the wife to break free from all this fictional oppression. The modern scantily clad prostitute is depicted as being better than a traditional housewife. It is shown that there could be nothing worse than a woman being a traditional housewife, living in a traditional marriage. Consumption of such content has turned a ceremony that was once eagerly awaited by youngsters—especially young women—into a prospect that now terrifies them instead. In fact, getting a liberal education, consuming mainstream media and watching modern movies and documentaries is directly correlated with fear of marriage. And then these same liberals, after being afflicted with this agenda, have the audacity to claim that such movies harbor no agendas against Islam or family values.

RELATED: An Orthodox Muslim’s Review of ‘The Lady of Heaven’: A Shia Propaganda Film

When the elites want something to happen, they simply pay for it. The biggest proof of the dark agendas behind Joyland lies in its funding. And it is no surprise that Joyland is the first Pakistani movie to have an all American funding. When foreign investors actively push for a movie about liberal values and sexual degeneracy to be made and released within a Muslim country, what does that tell you? Does it not reek of the well-known liberal formula of indoctrination through mainstream media and entertainment? And for those who all-out reject the notion of media as a tool of social engineering, just take a look at what Israel’s former PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, has to say:

Citing the hundreds of thousands of satellite television dishes in Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu told the House Government Reform Committee that the United States could incite a revolution against the conservative Iranian clergy through the use of such Fox Broadcasting staples as “Melrose Place” and “Beverly Hills 90210” — both of which feature beautiful young people in varying states of undress, living, glamorous, materialistic lives and engaging in promiscuous sex.

In the past this kind of brainwashing was difficult to achieve because you had to actually conquer or infiltrate a land before being able to influence its youth. But now, in the age of technology, the internet and social media are very easy to manipulate avenues in order to spread liberal ideologies. Especially when it’s the liberal world order that controls what constitutes mainstream internet, where they can promote what they want and censor what they want.

In addition to all of this, the infamous Malala Yousafzai has now joined the Joyland team as an executive producer. For those who don’t know, executive producers are responsible for dealing with the legal, financial and marketing aspects of a project. Yes, this Western puppet who pushes for feminism in order to eradicate family values from Muslim societies is responsible for this movie’s financing. The amount of Fitnah this person has generated among young Muslim women by blindly leading them into the pit of toxic feminism is unreal. I highly urge reading this article by Muslim Skeptic in order to get an idea of the extent of the damage that she has done. So, when someone like this finances a filthy movie like Joyland, it should be very clear that the agenda is to turn Muslims into liberals that will eventually leave Islam altogether; and to spread Fitnah and corruption among Muslims. This movie is exactly what Malala denies it being: activism posing as art.

It’s also worth mentioning that it seems to be too much of a coincidence that this movie comes out just a short while after the Transgender Bill in Pakistan suffered well-deserved backlash from Muslims after being brought into the public eye. Feminism was already being heavily pushed in Pakistan, but now the wealthy elites hiding behind the scenes seem to have a particular obsession with pushing transgenderism and homosexuality. It makes sense, as both feminism and homosexuality go hand in hand. Both are meant to make men more feminine and women more masculine, with the ultimate goal being the breaking down of the family unit so both can be controlled more easily.

RELATED: How Hollywood and Bollywood Are Negatively Impacting Our Societies

This brings me to the next point, which is the backlash. And Alhamdulillah, once again, many Muslims both within and outside of Pakistan showed that their Fitrah and their desire to defend Islam is alive and well. They took Twitter by storm with the hashtag #BanJoyland, rightfully admonishing the movie and its makers; and sharing verses and reminders of the punishment that was sent on Qawm Lut, warning of the consequences that Pakistan might face if this movie is released. And this outrage wasn’t just confined to Twitter. Many complaints were sent directly to Pakistan’s Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC):

“A surge of applications and petitions were received [against Joyland],” Aurangzeb said. “When petitions are received, it is binding to review them,” she added.

“To my surprise, I was told by the censor board that they were [applications] received from middle-class people and parents,” the minister said.

And as a result, the movie was banned from screening. The Information Ministry of Pakistan declared it to be “repugnant to the norms of decency and morality,” and it was ruled as uncertified for screening in cinemas. But, as usual, the vocal liberal minority erupted and took to screeching about it on Twitter, now with the hashtag #ReleaseJoyland. If they were alone in this, the matter would’ve been settled, but they had the backing of not only mainstream media but the government of Pakistan itself. Articles by popular Pakistani mainstream media such as Dawn and Tribune have published articles vehemently defending Joyland, writing sob stories about how sad it is that all this so-called art is being suppressed. Oh my god, homosexuality won’t be aired in theaters and we can’t glue the eyes of Muslims to the screen and feed them this filth—I mean, art—how very SAD! The filmmakers behind Joyland will certainly gobble all of this up and play the victims.

Here’s a tweet from a journalist who attempts to use the intentional confusion inserted into the trans bill, where intersex and transgenders are defined under the same umbrella, to defend the movie:

RELATED: Pakistan’s Transgender Bill: How Liberalism Is Being Forced Onto Muslim Society

This confusion has been one of the two main arguments utilized by liberals in their attempts to defend this movie. It seems like they just pick up whatever arguments the mainstream media is making, without actually thinking for themselves. Intersex people are those who are born with ambiguous sexual genitals and characteristics, but can still be classified as being one specific gender. It’s common knowledge that people who are born intersex are extremely rare because the genetic mutations that lead to such conditions are extremely rare. Their sex is officially assigned very early on depending on a number of factors. The majority of the Khwaja sira community consists of transgenders, i.e., men pretending to be women that are simply imitating women. This is something that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) has cursed.

’Abdullah ibn ’Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates:

Allah’s Messenger ﷺ cursed the women who imitate men and the men who imitate women. (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi)

As for their other main argument that they’re flaunting about, it is the same as when the Trans Bill controversy arose. They say that since a transgender woman is not a man, for a transgender woman to have a relationship with a man is not homosexuality. To those select few who actually believe this, I suggest reading any elementary level biology textbook; an actual book of Islamic law; and maybe try making use of this great thing called common sense. This is not even a point worth refuting, but I mention it here only to demonstrate the blind absurdity that some of these liberals are submerged in.

Here’s another tweet. This one is from the Human Rights Comission of Pakistan (HRCP), calling the Pakistani government “rabidly transphobic” for banning Joyland:

In fact, even the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shahbaz Sharif, couldn’t sit still at the thought of all the oppression and hate these ‘artists’ were facing for their supposed ‘art’:

Pakistan’s prime minister has ordered a review of the ban on the country’s Oscar entry, the movie Joyland, days after the measure was imposed, one of his advisers said.

Here’s the tweet where this adviser, by the name of Salman Sufi, revealed this information:

I’m astounded as to how amidst all the flooding and displaced homes that have taken countless lives in Pakistan; amongst all the corruption and increasing crime; poverty; inflation; and rapidly declining value of the Pakistani rupee, its government makes sure to divert their time and resources towards what according to them is apparently the REAL problem, i.e., preventing the suppression of art. To all the liberals reading this, ask yourselves, why does the government care so much about releasing this film in their country? Who is controlling them? Is the agenda still not obvious enough?

As a result of the government’s intervention, and despite all the strong opposition to it, it was re-reviewed by the censor board committee and surprisingly enough, the ban against Joyland was lifted. However, the backlash still continued, and many authorities who aren’t having their strings pulled, still realize just how wrong it is for this movie to be aired. Thus the movie was once again banned by the Punjab government, and a petition seeking the banning of the film has also been filed by the Peshawar High Court (PHC). The situation remains in this shaky back-and-forth state, but it is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Pakistan have completely denounced this filthy, degenerate film and want absolutely nothing to do with it.

With information technology rapidly progressing and with these powerful groups finding newer ways to attack Islam, it is reassuring to see many young Muslims waking up to the dangers surrounding them and strongly opposing it, because it’s the Muslim youth today that are going to be role models for Muslims of the next generation. Whether it be the Aurat March, the Domestic Violence Bill, the Transgender Bill, or Joyland, Allah will expose all of their plots, and with Allah’s permission, the Muslims will remain vigilant, in sha Allah.

RELATED: Latest Arab Youth Survey: Less Democracy and More Shariah Please!


2022 FIFA World Cup: Deception and Distraction

By Mufti Abdullah Moolla -November 22, 2022

Misdirection is a word used commonly by lay people. In relation to art and magic it is a term used by entertainers, tricksters, magicians, and sorcerers. The common person mistakenly assumes this word ‘misdirection’ to imply ‘distraction.’

For example, a common person will shout out ‘hey’ on the street, and while their target is distracted, the very same person who shouted ‘hey’ snatches the wallet, bag, money, purse, or phone off their distracted target. Then you have the entertainer, who will distract their audience and carry out their trick or act of entertainment while the attention of the onlookers is focused elsewhere.

One of the potent methods employed by entertainers, magicians, tricksters, storytellers, and media houses is to tell the audience a story that they can tell themselves, pacify their consciences and promote to others, without really knowing that they were distracted. The entertainers and magicians offer some sort of explanation to their thrilled audiences, but the tricks are played upon the minds of the audiences and not the objects themselves. If the evidence according to the senses is believed, then the ‘magic’ in the mind is made real.

‘Misdirection is the cornerstone of nearly all successful magic’ – TA Waters

In the same way, within this modern and refined age, non-Muslims whose religions frown upon magic and sorcery, are now embracing magic and sorcery wholeheartedly as part of the package of misdirection employed by scientists. The scientists narrate their stories in light of scientific ‘evidence,’ whilst the reality lies somewhere else. An example of the misdirection offered to the world is the Theory of Evolution. While millions (including misdirected Muslims) believe in the scientific ‘evidence’ presented to them, it is a far cry from the truth. In fact, it is simply a lie against Allah Ta’ala, the Noble Qur’an, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and the religion of Islam.

In essence, the refined society of the twenty-first century has fallen for more refined sorcery and magic.

As we write this, the entire world seems to be engulfed in pacifying their consciences, telling themselves that everything is well and good while they are kept entertained by a ball being kicked around a pitch. What makes matters worse is when highly educated people and scholars fail to recognize the misdirection that they have fallen prey to.

The misdirection being offered to Muslims is of the host country (Qatar) providing various means and methods to propagate Islam and calling to the faith. This is nothing but misdirection. We are told that the Ahadith will be displayed in all corners, Muezzins have been employed to call the Adhan beautifully, and it will be relayed and heard in stadiums and so on.

RELATED: Why is US National Soccer Antagonizing Qatar with Pro-LGBT Crest?

Let us look at a few basic examples of the misdirection being explained. Firstly, it is not permissible for the Adhan to be called out and for the Noble Qur’an to be recited in the restroom, or in a sewage facility. This is severe disrespect to the words of Allah Ta’ala and His blessed name. A ring that has the name of Allah Ta’ala engraved upon it cannot be taken into the toilet, and books of Islam and the Sirah cannot be distributed inside a nightclub. In the same way, it is utter and gross disrespect to the entire religion of Islam for the Adhan to be relayed in stadiums, where every vice is perpetrated.

No Muslim in his right sense of mind can imagine justifying the sorts of vices that are done during major sporting tournaments such as the World Cup. Yet, we find misdirected Muslims and misdirected Muslim scholars who feel the need to appreciate the da’wah work being done during the course of the World Cup. We find it difficult to understand how Qatar saw the need to provide this misdirection service to the millions of people who have come to their country for entertainment, drinking and adultery.

We do not appreciate this kind of da’wah work, as it is not a call to pure and pristine Islam, but it is simply a ruse to pacify the suffering Muslim Ummah. Qatar has fallen to the pressure and has bent over backwards to entertain the vices of the entire non-Muslim world. This is while Muslims look on in horror as they see their homes being torn down; their mothers and sisters raped; and their sons slaughtered by the very same visitors they want to please. Qatar is only promoting the Liberalized version of Islam that the football body will be pleased with. This is the misdirection that Qatar is responsible for. For this reason, Qatar does not deserve any du’a or sympathy from the Muslim Ummah.

RELATED: Qatar: How the World Cup Is Being Used to Spread Liberalism to Muslims

We rue the immense wastage of money on a tournament that brings nothing but destruction in its wake.

Think for a moment before an outburst upon what you have just read. Reflect. Have you not been misdirected by all the hype around the World Cup too?

Our du’a and plea is to Allah Ta’ala, we beg Him for His aid and help. And we call for one and all to look deeper into the misdirection that they have been fed, and to refrain from promoting this misdirection any further.

RELATED: Western World Cup Fans Demand Beer: Are They More Astray Than Animals?

Follow Mufti Abdullah on Twitter: @MuftiAMoolla


Western World Cup Fans Demand Beer: Are They More Astray Than Animals?

This current FIFA World Cup (in Qatar) has witnessed Westerners making the most of their opportunity to recycle many Orientalist clichés, however there’s a particularly telling and recurring complaint that seems odd even by their own standards: the ban on beer (or at least the public consumption of alcohol, as there seem to be “designated fan zones” where alcohol consumption is permitted).

Numerous news outlets consider this to be absolutely outrageous and something beyond comprehension. How could Qatar have taken such drastic measures? For instance, the New York Times discusses it as part of some sort of “culture clash.”

Our focus in this article won’t be the dangers posed by alcohol or ethanol to our health. There are already countless articles on this particular issue.

Let’s instead evaluate the Western inability to live without alcohol. It is simply astounding that there’s an entire civilization that can do without God, without parents, etc., for most if not all of their lives. But here they are, completely unable to swallow the possibility that they may have to live without alcohol for less than a single month.

And why is it that they need and depend on alcohol so much?

Is it because they want to be “rational” (while accusing Muslims of being irrational)?

Is it because they want to “defend women’s rights” (while accusing Muslims of being misogynists)?

The answer to these questions is a pretty straightforward no. In fact, alcohol conflicts with all of the above and more. It transforms people into mindless brutes with no notion of self, consciousness, identity, and so on—basically everything that makes us human.

We could even say that it mutates them into animals or something more astray than animals.

The reason I would use such phraseology is because it is actually what we find in the Qur’an (7:179):

Indeed, We have destined many jinn and humans for Hell. They have hearts they do not understand with, eyes they do not see with, and ears they do not hear with. They are like cattle. In fact, they are even less guided! Such ˹people˺ are ˹entirely˺ heedless.

This is a “controversial” verse for many (if not most) of the disbelievers. However our point here is precisely this. Their entire civilization is obsessed with transforming humans into something more astray than animals.

Counter-intuitively, just to show how this actually goes much deeper, we’ll avoid delving into the most obvious intellectual animalization movement of the modern West that is neo-Darwinian evolution, with its ape-fetish.

Animalization in Philosophy

In modern Western philosophy, the two main philosophical traditions are known as rationalism and empiricism. The former is represented by René Descartes and the latter by British thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, and others.

For rationalists, the basis of their epistemology—or the means by which one may access certain knowledge—is human reason.

For empiricists on the other hand, the basis of their epistemology is the senses, through seeing, etc., and basing their epistemology on the senses led them to comparing humans with animals. After all, animals have senses too.

It is thus no wonder that Étienne Bonnot de Condillac (Locke’s main disciple in France) is described as “blurring of the oppositions distinguishing man and animal,” as noted in an academic article (p. 70). Then you have the aforementioned David Hume (one of the main empiricist thinkers), who proclaimed that “no truth appears to be more evident, than that beast are endow’d with thought and reason as well as men.”

After all, if access to truth is gained through the senses, then animals exploring their natural habitats are also seeking truth through experimentation.

Some two centuries later, this equating humans with animals would lead Peter Singer (one of the West’s most popular philosophers and “the father of the animal rights movement”) to try and justify bestiality (sex with animals). After all, they’re “just like us” right?

RELATED: Qatar: How the World Cup Is Being Used to Spread Liberalism to Muslims

Animalization in Economics

Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith is often considered to be “the father of modern economics” because of his 1776-essay, The Wealth of Nations.

Yet many place another name before his: the relatively unknown Dutch physician, merchant, and philosopher Bernard de Mandeville. This is someone that Adam Smith was indebted to and someone whose main essay also includes a reference to animals, The Fable of the Bees (published in 1714).

Mandeville can be described as being the father of liberal economics for having anticipated notions such as free-market and laissez-faire. And when applying these to morality, it becomes a paradigm that is not only centered around notions of egoism, selfishness, and ruthless competition but also as a rebuttal of any form of religious morality.

An article summarizes the book as follows:

In the poem, Mandeville imagines a hive of bees that copies in its every detail and activity everything seen in human society. Greed, selfishness, the pursuit of material profit and pleasure dominate everyone in their activities and in their conduct toward others.

No regard is shown for others in market conduct, with each one following their own defined self-interest for personal gain and enjoyment for the fulfillment of their earthly desires. Yet, out of these “vices” of materialistic self-interestedness comes industry, innovation, a mass of goods and services that generate a life of material and culture comfort and ease that benefit all, even though it was no one’s intention, design, or purpose.

In other words:

Acting evil is not only good, but also necessary “for the economy.” (It should also be noted here that according to Mandeville, bees don’t often appear as evil as they should, unlike humans.)

Those who want to personally evaluate the conclusions of such a liberal, individualist, and utilitarian approach to the economy can read a book by Austrian School economist, Walter Block: Defending the Undefendable (published 1976). Within this book, he basically defends drug dealers, pimps, etc., on the basis that they are, from a purely materialistic perspective, “important” economic actors that are “contributing” to society.

I mean, how would many women “generate wealth” that is “contributing to society” if they didn’t become prostitutes? At the end of the day, all of these “contributions” increase the country’s GDP!

Just let that crazy line of thought sink in for a moment.

RELATED: Will Muslim Feminists Justify Online Prostitution Next?

Animalization in Psychology

In psychology there was a strong trend towards animalization too. We could argue that part of this was with Freud’s overt sexualization, but it was mainly manifested by the behaviorist movement, which was very influential after WWI up until the late ’50s when Noam Chomsky dismantled it (and empiricism as a whole), enacting the so-called cognitive revolution.

It was founded in the United States by Watson and in the Soviet Union by Pavlov, and this was for discernible reasons:

America was going through Fordism (the idea of standardized mass production), and the Soviet Union itself was totalitarian. Thus both civilizations essentially needed a “mechanical,” soulless individual. And behaviorism, which desired to study humans as animals in terms of deterministic laws and conditioning, was obviously the perfect psychological tool.

Just as Pavlov famously conditioned his dogs (for which he’d receive the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1904), behaviorism aimed for the conditioning of individuals in the same way—as valueless workers in Communist Russia or as brainless consumers in Capitalist America.

RELATED: Synthetic Babies: A Generation of Slaves for the Modern Machine

The most famous of the American behaviorists, B.F. Skinner, would regularly try and remind us that humans and animals aren’t that different.

So, Are They More Astray Than Animals?

This kind of animalization in philosophy, economics, and psychology wasn’t to be kept in the books of a few select individuals. Instead, it would define the nature of Western civilization, something William Davies calls The Happiness Industry (within his book, named as such).

It is basically the godless civilization of soulless individuals who seek some elusive happiness through their hedonistic lifestyles.

This explains the latest episode in Western behavior with what’s going on in Qatar:

They no longer have God, family, values, etc., but for some reason they’re outraged at not having a beer for a few weeks while watching some silly and completely inconsequential football matches.

Is getting drunk—and temporarily annihilating the very “reason” they try to employ against Muslims—really that important and vital to their existence?

Contrast this with the very purpose of our creation:

And [know that] I have not created [either] jinn or human beings [for any other end] but to [know and] worship Me [alone]. (Qur’an, 51:56)

They are more astray than animals.

Animals at least submit to Allah.

RELATED: The Genius of Islam | Episode 1, The Modern Human Condition


The Impending Civil War: Trans Activists vs. Feminists

It seems there are now some significant internal disputes (did someone say heresy?) taking place among the woke folks.

National Review recently reported on violent clashes that had transpired between trans activists and feminists:

Trans activists disrupted a protest to preserve women’s spaces at New York City Hall on Monday morning, threatening the assembled feminists and scuffling with police.

“Females are not a gender identity, get it through your damn heads,” a feminist protester said into a microphone behind the wall of police.

Bio sex is real and immutable. That is now a criminalized statement. Did you know that there is a law on the books in New York City where you can be fined $250,000 for misgendering? It was passed by deBlasio and it has yet to be repealed,” Karen Davis, an African-American woman who joined the rally in support of defending women’s spaces, told National Review. She has a Youtube channelYou’re Kidding, Right?, that she calls an “exercise in sanity” amid today’s “Gender Fracas.”

In 2015, the New York Commission on Human Rights released a new set of guidelines, applying to employers and landlords, banning “misgendering,” or addressing a person with the wrong pronouns. It also barred preventing people from using bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity as well as gender-specific specific dress codes. Penalties range from up to $125,000 for ordinary violations to up to $250,000 for “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”

It was only a matter of time before these conflicts erupted. It was inevitable.

The reason for this is that trans activism revolves around “gender fluidity,” while feminists still believe in “gender essentialism” in the sense that they believe that what it means to be a “woman” is defined by a fixed set of factors.

And this is the reason why, historically, many radical feminists have crusaded against trans rights.

RELATED: Will “Libs of TikTok” Ever Criticize the Transgenderism Within Judaism?

Trans Activism as Male Conspiracy

There’s an entire sub-group of radical feminists that class themselves as TERF or “trans-exclusionary radical feminists.”

In brief, they argue that trans activism is some kind of male conspiracy designed to perpetuate discriminatory gender dynamics in favor of male power and authority.

Feminist lesbian “theologian” Mary Daly, who passed away in 2010, wrote a book in 1978 called Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, where she wrote the following:

Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophilic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.

But perhaps the most sustained attack from a feminist against trans activism came from Mary Daly’s doctoral student, Janice Raymond.

RELATED: Feminism and the Death of Christianity: A Warning for Muslims

She wrote a book in 1979 called The Transsexual Empire. This book serves as a deconstruction of trans activism from the perspective of feminism, delegitimizing the entire psychiatric and medical discourse surrounding it, and it also portrays it as perpetuating “gender stereotypes.”

(After all, when a man “feels” like he’s a woman, or vice-versa, he or she still subscribes to the traditional image of what a man or a woman is—for instance “acting girlish” or “being macho.”)

Thomas Szasz was someone who dedicated his whole life towards fighting against mainstream psychiatry and the narratives pertaining to “mental illness.” Within a 1979-article for The New York Times, he summarizes the message of the book and its main ideas as follows:

Clearly, not all desires are authenticated in our society as diseases. Why the desire for a change in sex roles is so authenticated is analyzed with great sensitivity and skill by Janice Raymond in “The Transsexual Empire.” Arguing that “medicine and psychology … function as secular religions in the area of transsexualism,” she demonstrates that this “condition” is now accepted as a disease because advances in the technology of sex‐conversion surgery have made certain alterations in the human genitals possible and because such operations reiterate and reinforce traditional patriarchal sex‐role expectations and stereotypes. Ostensibly, the “transsexers” (from psychologists to urologists) are curing a disease; actually, they engage in the religious and political shaping and controling of “masculine” and “feminine” behavior. Miss Raymond’s development and documentation of this thesis is flawless. Her book Is an important achievement.

In fact, we could easily argue that this feminist position regarding trans activism was the norm until the rise of the so-called “third-wave feminism” of the 90s, when Judith Butler normalized “gender fluidity” within the feminist discourse.

Here are a couple of examples:

  • Australia-born Germaine Greer, one of the main public figures of the so-called “second-wave of feminism,” has been accused of transphobia.
  • Julie Bindel, one of the UK’s most active radical feminists, has also taken an active position against trans activism within numerous publications. This is because her goal is to see the end of the very notion of gender, while trans activists obviously maintain it, even if they deem it to be “fluid,” subjective or whatever else.

We can thus see that the differences and grievances that exist between these two combatting factions of wokism are inescapable, and there’s a very high likelihood of civil war breaking out in Wokistan.

RELATED: Trans Rights vs. Common Sense: Rejecting the Blessings of Allah


Why is US National Soccer Antagonizing Qatar with Pro-LGBT Crest?

The United States’ men’s national soccer/football team are proudly putting their love, tolerance, respect, inclusiveness and acceptance on full display. How, you ask? By forcefully pushing gay values onto a conservative Muslim country that wants nothing to do with them, of course.

The team has gone as far as redesigning their crest to include seven colored stripes, replacing their usual red stripes, to be used in their training facility and media center in order to show their support for the so-called “LGBTQ community” ahead of the FIFA World Cup.

According a recent Daily Mail article:

“The United States’ men’s national team have made a huge statement at the World Cup in Qatar by redesigning their crest to incorporate the rainbow flag, in a bid to show solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community.”

The USMNT’s Chief Communications Officer, Neil Buethe, stated to the Daily Mail:

“Our rainbow badge has an important and consistent role in the identity of U.S. Soccer.

As part of our approach for any match or event, we include rainbow branding to support and embrace the LGBTQ community, as well as to promote a spirit of inclusiveness and welcoming to all fans across the globe.”

What about showing “solidarity” with the Muslim country that is hosting you? This is a country where these ideas are not welcome and are rejected outright. Where is your love, respect and tolerance for their religion, beliefs, culture, customs, laws, wishes and so on? Is your love, respect and tolerance reserved only for the LGBTQ?

These people claim to be the most tolerant, respectful and inclusive of all, yet, the reality is that they refuse to tolerate anything that opposes their own beliefs and ideals. They are the biggest bigots on the face of the earth.

RELATED: The Fake Tolerance of Liberalism

If you don’t abandon your beliefs, culture, laws, etc., they’ll even put a target on your back and invade your country, or impose sanctions to try and starve you all to death.

This is all despite the fact that Qatar has actually gone as far as stating that all are welcome, including people from the LGBTQ community, only that they would need to adhere to the laws of the country regarding public displays of affection. But this is simply not enough for Modern-Day Qawm Lut, as they demand not only be accepted, but praised and celebrated for their “identity.”

Hopefully the American team will face some backlash regarding their new rainbow branding. The good news is that they will not be featuring their “special” rainbow crests during matches.

RELATED: Qatar: How the World Cup Is Being Used to Spread Liberalism to Muslims


The Concept of Khilāfah in Islam

By Mufti Intizāmullāh Shihābī & Mufti Zayn-ul-‘Ābidīn Mirthī[1]

Translated by Mufti Abdullah Moolla

In Islām, khilāfah refers to the divine government which bears the responsibility of granting success to the creation in this world and the hereafter. It is established upon the law of Allāh Ta’ālā. It sweeps away the rubbish of oppression and inequity, thereby cleansing every corner of the earth and makes it the envy of Jannah through the glittering and sweet smelling flowers of justice and equity.

The head of this divine government is called the khalīfah because he is the deputy of Allāh Ta’ālā on the earth, and this is precisely the meaning of khalīfah. In the Noble Qur’ān, khilāfah of the earth is described as a great bounty. This is given to the pious and obedient servants of Allāh Ta’ālā who have the ability to fulfill its responsibilities.

هُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَكُمْ خَلَائِفَ فِي الْأَرْضِ

He is the One who has made you successors on the earth[2]

وَاذكُرُواْ إِذْ جَعَلَكُمْ خُلَفَاء مِن بَعْدِ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ

And remember when He made you successors after the people of Nūh[3]

يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً فِي الْأَرْضِ

O Dāwūd, We have made you a vicegerent on earth[4]

وَلَقَدْ كَتَبْنَا فِي الزَّبُورِ مِن بَعْدِ الذِّكْرِ أَنَّ الْأَرْضَ يَرِثُهَا عِبَادِيَ الصَّالِحُونَ

And We have written in the Zabūr after the advice that the land will be inherited by My righteous slaves[5]

After the migration to Madīnah Munawwarah, the Muslims were surrounded by enemies. On the one side, the Makkans were sharpening their weapons in order to go to Madīnah Munawwarah to attack the Muslims. On the other side, the Jews and the hypocrites of Madīnah Munawwarah were laying new traps in order to catch the Muslims. In this extreme state of worry, Allāh Ta’ālā granted them consolation:

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا

Allāh has promised those of you who believe and do good deeds that He will certainly make them (His) vicegerents in the land, as He made those before them, and will certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them, and will certainly give them peace in place of fear in which they were before.[6]

This promise of Allāh Ta’ālā was subsequently fulfilled very soon. Ten years after migration, the oppressed, downtrodden and ill equipped Muslims planted the flag of the government of Allāh over the entire Arabian Peninsula. On one side they were a threat to the power of Kisrā (Chosroes) and on the other they were attacking the power of Qaysar (Caesar).

The first khalīfah of this new era of the Islāmic Khilāfah was Muhammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The second khalīfah who acquired the honour of being the first khalīfah of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam is Sayyiduna Abū Bakr Siddīq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu. However, the word khalīfah in Islāmic history is generally used in the meaning of the khalīfah (successor) of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, thus Sayyiduna Abū Bakr Siddīq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu is regarded as the first khalīfah.

The Position of Khilāfah

Majority of the Muslims are unanimous that it is compulsory (wājib) upon the ummah to appoint a khalīfah. However, there is a difference of opinion regarding the form of compulsion. One group states that it is compulsory from the perspective of the sharī’ah. These are the proofs:

  1. Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية

He who dies while his neck is free from the yoke of (pledging allegiance to the khalīfah of the time) has died a death of ignorance.[7]

2. After the demise of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, all the Sahābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum unanimously understood it to be necessary to appoint a khalīfah. In fact, they deemed it to be so important that they fulfilled this duty even before the burial of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

3. Whatever the sharī’ah has made compulsory upon the Muslims, such as enforcing the boundaries and punishments laid down by the sharī’ah, etc., cannot be done without a khalīfah. It is an accepted rule that everything a compulsory action entails also becomes compulsory.

The second group says that it is compulsory based on logical reasoning, not in terms of the sharī’ah. This is because every group needs a power which can and will execute its laws. He should solve the arguments amongst the individuals of the ummah and assume the responsibility for establishing peace and safety. It is for this reason that a ruler is required for the sake of the needs of the society.

Both these opinions are correct in their places and it is also possible to reconcile them. The reality is that both the intellect and the sharī’ah are in agreement upon the need for appointing a khalīfah. The intellect demands that there be an independent ruler who will overlook the system of the nation and command them. The sharī’ah requires a fine example of high calibre to lead in religious affairs, and the fountainhead of his strength is the strength of the ummah, not his personal rank and grandeur.

Ibn Khaldūn raḥimahullāh has also mentioned a third group in his Muqaddimah. This group states that it is not necessary to appoint a khalīfah in terms of the sharī’ah or in terms of logical reasoning. Asam from the Mu’tazilah as well as some of the Khawārij are included within this group. They are of the view that it is necessary for the laws of Allāh Ta’ālā to be practiced within the ummah, but when these laws are adopted as customary and there is peace and safety in the country or land, then the need for a ruler or khalīfah does not remain. The consensus of the ummah is in conflict with the position of this third group. After the rightly guided khulafā’, weaknesses in ethics and character ensued as a result of being affected by government and rulership. These people adopted their stance as a result of being affected by this [weakness].

The crux of this discussion is that the scholars are unanimous [in their agreement] that it is necessary for the Muslims to appoint a khalīfah or ruler (also called imām), so that the organization of the ummah can be collective and its status as a group or nation can remain. Similarly, they should not fall prey to differing views and evil actions and thereby face completely destruction.[8]

RELATED: A Response to Supposed “Islamic” Objections Against Khilafah

The Conditions of Khilāfah

The intellectuals of every country and nation of the world accept the principle that the king of the country and leader of the nation should be a person who is sane, mature, free, masculine, brave, intelligent, influential and authoritative. Islām has added the following conditions to the ones that are necessary from a logical point of view:

It is necessary that the khalīfah of the Muslims be:

  1. A Muslim.
  2. Knowledgeable⁠—so that he can understand the connotations of the Noble Qur’ān (which is the constitution of the Islāmic government) and he can solve its details in the light of the Sunnah of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
  3. Just⁠—so that he can be the best example for those upon whom it is necessary to have this quality.
  4. Qurayshī, i.e., he should be from the Quraysh tribe.

All the scholars of the ummah are unanimous upon the first three conditions but there is a difference of opinion regarding the fourth. Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

الائمة من قريش

The imāms are from the Quraysh

Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said:

قدموا قريشا ولا تقدموها . بيهقى وطبرانى

Place the Quraysh first and do not go before them

In the light of these aḥādīth and others like them, there is debate regarding the condition of (the khalīfah) being from the Quraysh. Those who reject this condition say:

1. Allāh Ta’ālā sent His messenger as a standard bearer for the equality of man, and He wiped out all the man-made marks of class and family. So, how is it possible that he ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam confined khilāfah to the Quraysh and kept up these non Islāmic characteristics and signs?

2. Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

اسمعوا واطيعوا وإن ولى عليكم عبد حبشى ذو زبيبة

“Listen and obey, even if an Abyssinian with a lowly figure is made your leader.”

Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu said:

لو كان سالم مولى حذيفة حيا لوليته

“If Sālim, the freed slave of Hudhayfah were alive, I would have made him the governor of the time.”

From these statements we come to know that neither Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam nor Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu regarded the condition of being from the Quraysh to be necessary.

It is a resolute law of the universe that the world is perpetually in the cradle of change.

وَتِلْكَ الأيَّامُ نُدَاوِلُهَا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ

Such days We rotate among the people[9]

The Quraysh are not excluded from this law. So, how can it be possible that the sharī’ah has restricted the khilāfah to the Quraysh in every era whether or not they possess the ability to fulfill its responsibility? Why should this heavy responsibility be placed on their necks?

3. The first ḥadīth is not a command or prescription of the sharī’ah. It is a prophecy of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding khilāfah. The second ḥadīth clarifies the link of the ruling of khilāfah.

Qādī Abū Bakr Bāqillānī⁠ raḥimahullāh—the imām of the Ashā’irah⁠—and Allāmah Ibn Khaldūn raḥimahullāh are of this view.

Those who state that being from the Quraysh is a condition (for khilāfah) argue the following:

  1. Undoubtedly Islām is the standard bearer of equality amongst man. However, it does not mean that every person is equal to the next in every respect and that there is no type of difference in rank and status. In terms of the rights of man, there is equality amongst them. For example, in commands, prohibitions and the limits set down by the sharī’ah, etc., and in terms of differences of qualities, Islām accepts the differences in rank. For example, the higher rank of the scholars over the masses and men over women is proven from the clear text of the Noble Qur’ān.
  2. The family link of the Quraysh to Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam is a source of pride for them. Together with having honour for dīn, they are honoured in terms of lineage. Undoubtedly, the progress of the dīn of Muḥammad ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam is their progress. Therefore, if the khilāfah is given to them, they will be able to fulfill the duties of being the vicegerents of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the best way.
  3. The Noble Qur’ān was revealed in the dialect of the Quraysh. Most of the laws of Islām are in accordance with the habits of the Quraysh. Therefore, they are the best ones who would be able to understand the sharī’ah of Muḥammad ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. By practicing upon it, they would be the best example for others.
  4. When a difference of opinion arose regarding khilāfah in Saqīfah Banī Sā’idah and the anṣār explained that they had the most right, then Sayyiduna Abū Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu narrated this ḥadīth (“The imāms are from the Quraysh“) and extracted the ruling accordingly therefrom. Everyone yielded before the ḥadīth of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Therefore, we learn that the ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum accepted this ḥadīth as a command and did not classify it as a prophecy.
  5. The condition of being from the Quraysh is accepted with the other conditions. It is not sufficient on its own. Therefore, under the divine law of “Such days We rotate among the people” there is no overextension here.
  6. The ḥadīth regarding obedience to an Abyssinian slave does not deal with choosing the khalīfah. What it demonstrates is what the modus operandi should be if someone unworthy seizes the khilāfah. The statement regarding Sālim the freed slave of Hudhayfah is that of a sahābī, i.e., Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu. Therefore, it cannot stand as proof. Most of the great scholars like Qādī Iyād raḥimahullāh, Allāmah Nawawī raḥimahullāh, Ḥāfiz Ibn Hajar raḥimahullāh and Ḥāfiz Jalāl ud Dīn Suyūtī raḥimahullāh have supported the condition that the khalīfah should be from the Quraysh. It is also the view of Shāh Waliyyullāh raḥimahullāh.[10]

The reality is that the condition of being from the Quraysh is not a condition of determination or validation. It is a condition that establishes the most worthy. What this means is that if the ummah chooses a khalīfah based on consultation, and a person of the Quraysh and one who is not of the Quraysh are equal, then the person of the Quraysh will be given preference. Take the imāmah[11] in ṣalāh for example. The jurists have explained that if two people are equal in all the requirements but one is more honourable in terms of lineage, then he will be given preference, and he will be made the imām. So, if lineage is considered in relation to the smaller form of imāmah,[12] then what is the problem of it being considered with regard to the greater form of imāmah?[13] However, since it is a condition which establishes who is most worthy and not a condition of validation, thus even if it is overlooked, it will not create any deficiency in the establishment of khilāfah. Just as in the case of ṣalāh, if it is overlooked, the validity of the ṣalāh will not be affected. In this case, there would be no need for the interpretation or specification of the ḥadīth regarding the imām being from the Quraysh, nor would there be a need for any other explanation for the narration from Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding Sayyiduna Zayd Ibn Ḥārithah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu or the statement of Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu regarding Sālim, the freed slave of Ḥudhayfah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, both of which discuss khilāfah.[14]

Method of Selection

The person in whom these conditions of khilāfah are found can be the khalīfah when the general Muslims select him or he is selected by the representatives of the Muslims referred to as the Ahl ul Ḥalli wal ‘Aqd. The term Ahl ul Ḥalli wal ‘Aqd refers to those who are the leaders, generals of the army and guides of the ummah that have the qualities of knowledge, practice, understanding, deep thought and concern for the ummah. In addition to this, they are people to whom the Muslims refer their general matters.

One group [of scholars] are of the view that if the khalīfah selects a certain person or names a few people from among whom one should be selected, then he will also become the khalīfah, just as was the case when Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and Sayyiduna Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu were selected.

However, the research scholars do not accept this form for the ruler of the time. Their proofs are as follows:

  1. The Noble Qur’ān has explained the method to be adopted in communal matters:

وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ

And whose affairs are (settled) with mutual consultation between them[15]

The most important matter in the communal life of Muslims is the matter of choosing the khalīfah. If this clear principle is abandoned here, then of what use is it?

2. To pledge allegiance to a second khalīfah during the life of [an already existing] one is in reality pledging allegiance to two leaders during the same era, which is baseless in the sharī’ah. Subsequently, when Sayyiduna Abdullāh Ibn Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā was urged to pledge allegiance to Yazīd, he clearly rejected and said:

لا ابايع لاميرين

I will not pledge allegiance to two leaders in one era[16]

3. It is incorrect to claim that Sayyiduna Umar Al-Fārūq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and Sayyiduna Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu were selected by a naming process. The leader, Sayyiduna Abū Bakr Siddīq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu felt it appropriate to decide on the matter of khilāfah towards the end of his life in order to save the initial stages of the nurturing of the ummah from arguments based on differences. However, he did not decide on the matter based on his personal opinion. He discussed the matter with the senior ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum separately. He removed the doubts of anyone who had any. Then, for general consultation, he presented the name of Sayyiduna Umar Al-Fārūq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum to the general Muslims. When all of them accepted, he then appointed him the ‘khalīfah-to-be’ and advised him in the best way. It is clear that this method of selection can in no way be called a ‘naming’ or ‘nomination.’

Similarly, Sayyiduna Umar Al-Fārūq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu did not nominate anyone to be the ruler. He named six senior ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum (who were the finest embodiments of the conditions of khilāfah) from among whom one was to be chosen. Who were these? They held the status of the central group of the Muslims. They were the ones who were given the responsibility by Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam to make others adopt the teachings of the Noble Qur’ān. They are:

وَالسَّابِقُونَ الأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالأَنصَارِ

The first and foremost of the emigrants (muhājirīn) and the supporters (anṣār)[17]

The Noble Qur’ān announces regarding them:

رَّضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواْ عَنْهُ

Allāh is pleased with them and they are pleased with Allāh[18]

Thus, can the Muslims have any doubt or misgiving regarding accepting the decision of the group whose decision is liked and announced by the Noble Qur’ān? Was their decision not the decision of the group of Muslims? In addition, it is also a historic reality that when this group of ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum handed the responsibility over to Sayyiduna Abdur Raḥmān Ibn Awf raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, then continuously for three nights, without sleep, he consulted with the influential ones among the muhājirīn and anṣār. Then, in accordance to the general opinion of the ummah, he announced that Sayyiduna Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu had been selected.

The Shī’ah Perspective

The Shī’ah perspective on khilāfah and leadership is different. The Imāmiyyah sect are of the view that khilāfah is not from amongst the general needs that should be left to the opinion of the ummah. They believe that it is in fact a fundamental aspect of religion and the foundation of dīn; that it was the obligatory duty of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam to solve such an important matter in light of divine revelation before leaving this world. Consequently, they claim that he ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam did this and appointed Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu as his khalīfah and leader, and after him Sayyiduna Hasan raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu was appointed by Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, and thereafter Sayyiduna Husayn raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu was appointed by Sayyiduna Hasan raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu. In this way they believe that, one after the other, 12 imāms from the progeny of Sayyidatuna Fātimah radiyallāhu anhā were the khulafā’ or imāms, based on clear instruction. The Imāmiyyah allege that Shaykhayn[19] were usurpers because they did not act in accordance with the command of Allāh Ta’ālā and Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam and that they seized the khilāfah from Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu.

The Zaydiyyah say that Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam did specify the khilāfah of Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu after him, but this appointment was not by name but in terms of characteristics. The ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum fell short in relating these characteristics in their circumstances and places and rather than giving it to Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, they gave it to others. They do not speak ill of Shaykhayn, but they take Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu to be more virtuous than them. In addition, they opine the permissibility of their khilāfah in the presence of the one who is the most virtuous. According to them, the conditions for being the leader are the same as mentioned previously. However, instead of ‘being from the Quraysh,’ they insert the condition that the khalīfah must be from the progeny of Sayyidatuna Fāṭimah raḍiyallāhu anhā. Another condition introduced by them is that it is necessary for the khalīfah or imām to lay claim to the khilāfah.

There are many other sects among the Shī’ah that have different thoughts regarding the matter of khilāfah.[20] The Shī’ah take their imāms to be sinless (ma’sūm) like the anbiyā’. They hold the belief that an imām cannot commit a minor or major sin.

RELATED: Shi‘ism: A Persisting Enemy of Islam and Muslims

Method of Appointment

All that has been written regarding the conditions and the method of selection will be worthy of practice when the system of the sharī’ah together with its collective soul is present in the Muslims. The ummah is free to choose its leader when the question of who to choose as their khalīfah comes before them. However, it is the misfortune of the Muslims that this system of sharī’ah did not remain after the rightly guided khulafā’. What will be the form of establishing the khilāfah after the system of the sharī’ah fell into disarray? This is a separate subject. The Islāmic sharī’ah has also clarified this in detail. This is the reason why, after the demise of Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu⁠—when the Umayyad government was established⁠—the ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum did not have the slightest worry about what path of action to adopt.

There are two forms of establishing the khilāfah after the system of the sharīʿah falls into disarray. Complete control and Islām, i.e., if a Muslim takes control of the position of khilāfah through his power and following; and his government is established, then it will be compulsory upon every Muslim to accept him as the khalīfah and to fulfill the conditions of obedience. Now, no matter how much right or virtue another person has, it will not be permissible for him to reject the khilāfah and open up the doors of corruption and trouble among the Muslims. The expediency of this ruling is totally clear. Even now, if it is made necessary to consider all the conditions, then every person with whom there are four others can assert himself to be better than the others and lay claim to the khilāfah. Then the system of the sharī’ah will break down. Who will make the decision regarding who is the most virtuous and who is worthy or unworthy? The making of this decision will necessitate that the tongue comes into the field of the sword, the fire of trouble and corruption will be ignited and rivers of blood will flow. Peace and safety in the country will be destroyed, and the unity of the Muslims will be shattered.

عن عبادة بن الصامت قال بايعنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على السمع والطاعة في منشطنا ومكرهنا وعسرنا ويسرنا وأثرة علينا وان لا ننازع الامر أهله إلا أن تروا كفرا بواحا عندكم فيه من الله برهان . متفق عليه

Sayyiduna Ubādah Ibn as Sāmit raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu narrates, “We pledged allegiance at the hands of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam to listen and obey, whether the conditions are pleasing or displeasing, in difficult or prosperous circumstances and that we shall not dispute the ruler except if you see clear and open disbelief and there is a proof (for this) from the book of Allāh.”[21]

The ḥadīth about obedience to the Abyssinian slave quoted above deals with the same issue.[22]

If this appointed khalīfah and leader does not come onto the lowest level of religiousness and he commits open sins and crimes, then too it will not be permissible to oppose him. However, his wrong will be taken to be so and if he commands the disobedience of Allāh, then one should reject carrying out the command.

خيار ائمتكم الذين تحبونهم ويحبونكم وتصلون عليهم ويصلون عليكم وشرار ائمتكم الذين تبغضونهم ويبغضونكم وتلعينهم ويلعنونكم قال قلنا يا رسول الله أفلا ننابذهم عند ذلك قال لا ما أقاموا فيكم الصلوة الا من ولى عليه وال فرآه يأتى شيأ من معصية الله فليكره ما يأتى من معصية الله ولا ينزعن يدا من طاعة . مسلم

The best of your leaders is the one whom you love and he has love for you. You make du’ā’ of mercy for him and he makes du’ā’ of mercy for you. The worst of your leaders is the one whom you take as an enemy and he takes you as an enemy. You curse him and he curses you. The companions asked, “O Rasūl of Allāh, should we not fight such leaders?” He ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “No, as long as he establishes ṣalāh amongst you, you should obey him. Yes, the one who witnesses some impermissible action being done by the leader, he should take it to be so but he is not beyond obedience to him.”[23]

Khalīfah and Shūrā

At this point, another discussion arises. Is it necessary for the khalīfah or imām chosen by the Muslims to consult with the Ahl ul Ḥalli wal ‘Aqd in the matters of khilāfah? If it is necessary, then is it necessary in every matter or only in important matters? Then, after taking their views, is it necessary to act in accordance with them or does the khalīfah have a choice with regard to implementing their views? The basis of this discussion is the verse of the Noble Qur’ān:

وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الأَمْرِ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللّهِ

Consult them in the matter and, once you have taken a decision, place your trust in Allāh.[24]

From this verse it is clear that it is necessary for the khalīfah to take the views of the Ahl ul Ḥalli wal ‘Aqd. Ḥasan al-Basrī raḥimahullāh and Sufyān al-Thawrī raḥimahullāh say that Allāh Ta’ālā gave the command of consultation to His messenger ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam so that others may follow him in it and so that this Sunnah would endure within his ummah. It also becomes clear that this consultation is necessary in important matters, not in minor issues. This is because the verse itself was revealed regarding the battle of Uḥud.

The third part of the discussion is that after consultation, is it necessary for the khalīfah to practice on the view of the members of the consultation committee (whether it be by majority or consensus)? The scholars have two views regarding this:

  1. The first view is that after consulting about important matters, the khalīfah is not bound to the view of the Ahl ul Ḥalli wal ‘Aqd. The status of the action is only consultation and the khalīfah has a choice to either accept their counsel or to not to accept it.
  2. The second view is that after taking the views from the Ahl ul Ḥalli wal ‘Aqd, the khalīfah will be bound to act in accordance with it, and it is not permissible for him to avoid doing so.

In reality, this difference of opinion is based on specifying the meaning of ‘Azm. Those who hold the first view say that the meaning is ‘firmness in intention’ and ‘contentment of one’s nature.’ In this case, the verse will mean: ‘first consult, and after consultation, make an intention on that upon which the nature is firm, then place your reliance in Allāh and do it.’ Support for this meaning is found in the explanation of some of the mufassirīn mentioned below:

فاذا عزمت اى عقيب المشاورة على شيئ واطمأنت به نفسك فتوكل على الله في امضاء أمرك على ما هو أرشد وأصلح فان ما هو أصلح لك لا يعلمه إلا الله لا أنت ولا من تشاور . روح البيان ٤/١١٦

After consultation, when you make a firm intention to do something and your heart is firm upon it, then place your reliance on Allāh in adopting the best and most suitable path. This is because Allāh alone knows what is best for you. You do not know, nor does the consultant.[25]


اى فاذا عقدت قلبك على أمر بعد الاستشارة فاجعل تفويضك فيه الى الله تعالى فانه العالم بالاصلح لك والارشد لامرك لا يعلمه من أشار عليك وفي هذه الآية دليل على المشاورة وتخسير الرأى وتنقيحه والفكر فيه . البحر المحيط ٣/٩٩

After consultation, when you set your heart firm on something, then consign the matter to Allāh. This is because Allāh alone knows what is best for you and what is most suitable, not your consultant. This verse is proof for the necessity of consultation, firmness of opinion, enquiry as well as pondering and thinking over it.[26]

Those who take this view state that the objective of consultation carried out by the khalīfah should be that the different angles regarding the issue are presented before him, and then he should adopt a plan of action while having conviction and contentment in it. The plan of action of the rightly guided khulafā’ also adds weight to this view. Some of them are mentioned hereunder:

  1. When the fitnah of turning renegade arose, Sayyiduna Abū Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu consulted with his companions. Most of the ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum were of the view that the issue should not be taken up immediately with those who had stopped giving zakāt. They said that the matter should be settled by adopting softness, and this was also the view of Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu. However, Sayyiduna Abū Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu vehemently rejected this view and extinguished the fire of this fitnah with the water of the sword.
  2. Similarly, in order to bring the fitnah of the Sabā’iyyah under control, in 34 A.H, Sayyiduna Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu called an important consultative meeting. In it, almost everyone was of the view that severe action be taken against those who were involved in the fitnah. However, Sayyiduna Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu refused to act in accordance with this, and he gave preference to a policy of softness and forgiveness.

Those who hold the second view state that ‘Azm is not something separate from shūrā, but the intention to act upon the shūrā is ‘Azm and that it refers to the intention to see the task to completion.

The great commentator of the Noble Qur’ān, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr raḥimahullāh writes:

عن على قال سئل صلى الله عليه وسلم عن العزم قال مشاورة اهل الرائ ثم اتباعهم . ابن كثير ٢/١٣١

It is narrated from Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu that Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam was asked about the meaning of ‘Azm. He replied: [It is] to consult with people of sound judgement and to then act accordingly.

In his unpublished work, Mawlānā Ḥifz ur Raḥmān Sewhārwī raḥimahullāh has collected the following proofs for this view. With gratitude to Mawlānā, we present them here.

  1. In Majma’ uz Zawā’id: Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu narrates from Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam that he asked the latter, “O Rasūl of Allāh, if something is not found in the Qur’ān and Sunnah, then what should we do?” Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “Consult with the understanding worshippers of Allāh and do not execute the view of a specific person.”
  2.  In the Mustadrak of Al-Hākim: It is narrated from Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu that he said, “If I had to appoint someone as the khalīfah without consultation, then I would appoint Ibn Umm Abd.” i.e., Sayyiduna Abdullāh Ibn Mas’ūd raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu. (However, it is known that he did not do this.)
  3. It is stated in the Tabaqāt of Ibn Sa’d that some Sahābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum asked Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, “What should we do regarding that which we do not find in the Book of Allāh and the Sunnah of His messenger ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam?” Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu replied, “Practice on that which most of the people of sound judgement incline.”
  4. Hāfiz Ibn Hajar raḥimahullāh writes in his commentary of Ṣaḥīḥ al Bukhārī regarding ‘When Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam decided on a matter’ that the objective of Imām Bukhārī raḥimahullāh here is to show that after consultation, when Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam decided firmly on a matter, then it is not correct for anyone to give another view contrary to it.

This second view is closer to the majority view of Islām. However, it should be clear that the present method of voting in democratic organizations where, by means of canvassing, every type of moral and material effect is placed on the opinion of the opposing party; and where it is necessary to back leaders even if their claims are totally baseless. This can never be on the level of Islāmic shūrā. Islām has stipulated a number of etiquettes for shūrā for the members of the shūrā. It is a primary condition to adhere to these etiquettes. Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

المستشار مؤتمن

Someone who is consulted is in a position of trust.

(I.e., if he does not give correct counsel, then he has betrayed this trust.)

من اشار على أخيه بامر يعلم ان الرشد في غيره فقد خانه . أبو داؤد

The person who gives counsel to his brother knowing that the right way is in something else, then he has betrayed his brother.[27]

Therefore, whatever decision is made in opposition to this foundational condition of Islāmic shūrā, no matter how many of the members of the shūrā back it, it will be baseless in light of the sharīʿah. In addition, according to every group of scholars, it will not be worthy to be practiced upon.

Khilāfah Rāshidah

If the Islāmic government is truly a divine government⁠—the laws of Islām are practiced; the punishments are executed; the principles of dīn are propagated; the knowledge of the sharī’ah is spread; disputes are settled; peace and safety are established according to the Sunnah of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam; its system is based on shūrā and its leader has the all-encompassing (attributes) of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam; he is a mujtahid mutlaq in terms of teaching; he is a complete saint in terms of advising; a just judge in court and a brave warrior in the battlefield⁠—then he is a true representative of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam in terms of possessing all the perfections in knowledge and practice of religion and government. Such a khilāfah is referred to as khilāfah rāshidah or khilāfah ‘alā minhāj an nubuwwah.

By looking at the way of life and the achievements during their khilāfah, it becomes as clear as looking into a mirror that the era of the rightly guided khulafā’ (Sayyiduna Abū Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, Sayyiduna Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, Sayyiduna Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) was the era of the khilāfah rāshidah.

Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

الخلافة بعدي ثلاثون عاما ثم ملك بعد ذلك

“After me, khilāfah will be for thirty years, then there will be kingdom.”

Khilāfah in this Hadīth refers to the khilāfah of the perfect level, i.e. khilāfah rāshidah. In essence, the khilāfah rāshidah is the completion and termination of the stage of nubuwwah.

Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

كانت بنو اسرائيل تسوسهم الانبياء كلما هلك نبى خلفه نبى وأنه لا نبى بعدي وسيكون خلفاء . متفق عليه

“The Banī Isrā’īl were governed by their messengers. When a messenger passed away, another took his place. The reality is that there will be no messenger after me. However, there will be khulafā’.”[28]

It is for this reason that the Sunnah of the rightly guided khulafā’ has been stipulated as an example to be followed by the ummah, like with the Sunnah of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The ummah has also been commanded to follow the rightly guided khulafā’.

Deducing from this ḥadīth (“after me, khilāfat will be for thirty years“), most of the scholars have made apparent the view that the chain of khilāfah rāshidah came to an end after the four rightly guided khulafā’. However, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr raḥimahullāh holds a different view in Al Bidāyah wan Nihāyah. He writes that the meaning of this ḥadīth is that the continuous and enduring era of khilāfah rāshidah will be thirty years. After this, on account of (other forms of) government, this continuity will break. However, there will still be khulafā’ rāshidūn now and then. It does not mean that it will never exist again. In support of this view, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr raḥimahullāh quotes the following ḥadīth of Sayyiduna Jābir Ibn Samurah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, narrated in the ṣiḥāḥ books with various chains:

لا تزال هذه الامة مستقيما امرها ظاهرة على عدوها حتى يمضى اثنا عشرة خليفة كلهم من قريش

The government of this ummah will remain established and enduring and they will be dominant over their enemy until there are twelve khulafā’ among them who are all from the Quraysh.

After quoting this ḥadīth, he quotes the following text of the Tawrāt for further corroboration:

‘Allāh Ta’ālā gave glad tidings of Sayyiduna Ismā’īl (‘alayhi as-salām) to Sayyiduna Ibrāhīm (‘alayhi as-salām). He also said that He will let the progeny of Ismā’īl prosper and He will create twelve leaders from among them.’

He then quotes his teacher Hāfiz Ibn Taymiyyah:

‘These leaders are the same khulafā’ about whom glad tidings were given in the Hadīth of Jābir Ibn Samurah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu. They will emerge at different times according to the need of the ummah. It should remain clear that the twelve imāms of the Shī’ah can never be meant by these twelve because besides Sayyiduna Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and Sayyiduna Ḥasan raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, none of (their imāms) were able to become a person of authority and rank.’[29]

May Allāh Ta’ālā bless us all with the correct understanding of this matter, and may He save us from falling into deviation. Āmīn.

RELATED: Is Wanting a Return of the Caliphate Misplaced Idealism?


  1. Adapted & Translated from: Tārīkh e Millat part 2 
  2. Sūrah Fātir (Originator) 35:39 
  3. Sūrah al A’rāf (the Heights) 7:69 
  4. Sūrah Sād 38:26] 
  5. Sūrah al Anbiyā’ (the Prophets) 21:105 
  6. Sūrah an Nūr (the Light) 24:55 
  7. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 
  8. As Siyāsah ash Shar’iyyah, Abdul Wahhāb Khallāf 
  9. Sūrah Āl ‘Imrān (The Progeny of ʿImrān) 3:140 
  10. Dā’iratul Maʿārif vol.3, Chapter on Khilāfah, Hujjat ullāh al Bālighah and Muqaddamah Ibn Khaldūn p.166 
  11. Leadership position 
  12. Smaller form of imāmah refers to leading the salāh 
  13. Greater form of imāmah refers to being the khalīfah 
  14. From the works of Mawlānā Āshiq Ilāhī Mīrthī raḥimahullāh 
  15. Sūrah Ash Shūra (the Consultation) 42:38 
  16. Fath ul Bārī 
  17. Sūrah at Taubah (Repentance) 9:100 
  18. Sūrah at Taubah (Repentance) 9:100 
  19. Shaykhayn, i.e. the two masters. Referring to Sayyiduna Abū Bakr Siddīq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and Sayyiduna Umar Al-Fārūq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu 
  20. For details see Muqaddamah Ibn Khaladūn, Section on the stance of the Shī’ah regarding the ruling of imāmah and Dā’iratul Maʿārif, Bustānī, vol.7, discussion on khalīfah 
  21. Sahīh al Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim 
  22. Fath al Bārī vol.13 p.104 
  23. Sahīh Muslim 
  24. Sūrah Āl Imrān (the Progeny of Imrān) 3:159 
  25. Rūḥ al Bayān vol.4 p.116 
  26. Al Baḥr Al Muḥīṭ vol.3 p.99 
  27. Sunan Abī Dāwūd 
  28. Sahīh al Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim 
  29. Al Bidāyah wan Nihāyah vol.7 p.48 

Follow Mufti Abdullah on Twitter: @MuftiAMoolla


Human Rights: A Tool for Governing Muslims

Most Muslims are unaware of the huge role the so called “universal” Human Rights have had on the Muslim way of thinking. Human Rights have in fact played both a secularizing and governing role in the lives of Muslims. In a recent article, Professor Aria Nakissa states that liberalism developed a “distinctive policy for governing Muslim populations” from the colonial era until today.[1]

During the colonial era, Western states came to dominate and occupy territories all over the world in a project they called the “civilizing mission,” i.e., they saw it as their mission to occupy the rest of the world and ‘teach’ them Western liberal values. As we know, this ‘civilizing’ mission led to the ethnic cleansing of local populations like the Aborigines and the American Indians. Yet, to this very day, we are still being told that the Europeans were the civilized ones, and the conquered people were the “barbarians.”

The Western colonizers developed distinct policies for governing Muslim populations known as “Muslim Policy.” Today this policy continues to exist, but it does so under the guise of “human rights,” “religious reform” and “counterterrorism.” We often think that Western rule over Muslim lands ended with the decolonization after World War II. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Imperialism in a New Form

During the colonial era, Western occupation was very direct. Foreign troops were present, you could see the occupier, and you knew exactly who was doing the oppression. Western elites travelled to Muslim lands and colonized the ‘Orientals.’ After World War II, a decolonization of former imperial territories took place, and nations were given ‘independence.’

This has led to the misconception that we no longer have imperial rule. That 300 years of empire and colonization has somehow not left its mark on the former colonies. The age of empire may be over, but this has given way to a new form of imperialism, a subtle, more elusive form of indirect rule.

RELATED: Qatar: How the World Cup Is Being Used to Spread Liberalism to Muslims

One of the successes of the liberal ideology is that it has forged an image for itself as being against imperialism, authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, and racism. In fact, liberal ideology encourages these things, especially in former colonies where the local populations are deemed as being too unruly and unfit to manage their own affairs.

Until they have become completely ‘civilized’ and adopted liberal values wholesale, they cannot rule themselves. Thus authoritarianism, dictatorship and military rule is needed to keep them in place until they have fully surrendered their “premodern” ways. This is why we have dictatorship in Muslim lands.

World Governance

The UN promotes itself as a philanthropic project tasked with the selfless act of facilitating progress and development in the world. With such admirable sentiments as ‘eradicating poverty,’ ‘saving the planet’ and ‘ending hunger,’ the UN has created an image of itself as being an apolitical body trying to do good in the world.

The UN is in fact a world governing body created by the Western powers after World War II with the purpose of bringing former colonies into a system of nations where ultimately the weakest are controlled by the strongest.

RELATED: The UN Chooses Not to Investigate China’s Crimes Against the Uyghurs

The first attempt at a ‘United Nations’ was made after World War I when the victors in the form of the Western Allies created the League of Nations. The idea was to create a new world order, where the old empires (German Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire) were transformed into nation states competing in an international system of sovereign states. One could even argue that the very purpose of the First World War was facilitating the tearing down and dismantling of the Ottoman and German empires, subsequently paving the way for a new world order to take the helm.

The League of Nations failed, but owing to the Second World War, in 1945 the Allies were successful in creating the United Nations. Since then, the UN has been structured in such a way that it grants special influence to Western states who hold a superior position within the UN security council. Moreover, the UN headquarters is located in New York.[2]

Human Rights as a Tool for Governing Muslims

Shortly after the creation of the UN, the “Universal” Human Rights were declared. In the liberal ideology, human rights are considered to be constantly changing and “progressing.” What was once deemed abhorrent or repulsive may now be seen as “normal” and as a “human right.” For instance, LGBT rights are recognized today as human rights based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights treaties.

In order to be part of the international system, Muslim states are expected to “gradually adjust their constitutions and legal codes to incorporate UN human rights legislation.”[3] Pressure is applied upon Muslim states to comply, and this is done via NGOs and economic coercion. Western states can apply pressure on ‘rogue’ states who are in non-compliance with UN Human Rights so that they ‘get in line’ with the agenda. As Nakissa writes in his article:

Threating harms and offering benefits, Western states demand that non-Western states comply with evolving UN norms, allow NGOs to operate within their borders, cooperate with these NGOs, and heed NGO recommendations. Many scholars have argued that modern global governance resembles colonialism, especially as it relates to Muslims.

In order to not be placed under sanctions⁠—and for the flow of knowledge, technology and loans from the IMF⁠—Muslim states have succumbed to the pressure of the international system. This is why we are witnessing so much change within certain ‘conservative’ Arab countries with “visions” for 2030. The West does not mind authoritarian regimes who keep their populations in check, as long as they liberalize and open up their society to western cultural influence, i.e., “human rights.”

RELATED: How Western NGOs Use Aid to Attack Islam and Re-Engineer Muslim Society

We need to be aware of the game that is being played and the ‘reformed’ and watered-down Islam that it is producing. An Islam that is becoming a tool for the elites to utilize as they please to control the masses and not an Islam that is a threat to the corrupt and wicked.



[2] Nakissa, A. (2022). Liberalism’s distinctive policy for governing Muslim populations: Human rights, religious reform, and counter-terrorism from the colonial era until the present. History Compass, 20(9), e12748.

[3] Ibid.


Destroying the Myth of the Islamic Golden Age

The title of this article may come across as somewhat provocative, and rightfully so. After all, it’s one of those intellectually lazy banalities used by critics of Islam, who allege that:

  • Everything good coming from the Muslims is of course always despite Islam; and
  • Everything bad coming from the Muslims is most certainly always because of Islam.

Obviously our perspective on the matter will be quite different.

We’ll be exploring whether or not there even was a “Golden Age” to begin with; and why in actuality the whole thing is very problematic.

The “Golden Age” and Eurocentric Materialistic History

The most obvious problem with the expression “Golden Age” is that it sequences history.

If there is a “Golden Age,” then by default there is something prior which is not as good and something later which is not only not as good but also infers some form of decay or decadence.

Worse yet, this so-called “Golden Age” is equated with achievements in science and technology. It is assessed using modernist Western standards.

For Muslims, the term “Golden Age” would perhaps be more appropriate for describing the period extending from the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions up to the rightly guided caliphs. Others may also include the early Umayyad conquests. The point is, this would be a purely Islamic perspective, not a Eurocentric one which judges a civilization’s worth based upon “progress” and “development” through scientific and technological “advancements.”

Of course there’s nothing wrong with appreciating individual figures in mathematics, physics, and so on. However, from an Islamic perspective a triumphant society isn’t one full of mathematicians and physicists and especially not one full of “philosophers” who are infatuated with Greek thought.

RELATED: Why Would We Trust Science Over Islam?

As explained above, by labelling the late Abbassid era as the “Golden Age,” this not only serves to create a perceived depreciation of the prophetic era, it also deems everything that follows this supposed “Golden Age” as having become decadent.

And guess who took advantage of such a historiography?

Well, the liberal-reformists of course.

Influenced by Orientalists, they argued that because they lived in a decaying society, the best way to “progress” was to imitate the European colonialists. After all, they only had what the Muslims were acknowledged for during the so-called “Golden Age”—science and technology.

If being a “Golden Age” were to be judged on the basis of science and technology then these liberal-reformists, who admired (and feared) Europe’s military prowess, weren’t entirely wrong.

US-based Palestinian-Christian academic Joseph Massad writes in the collective work, Islam and the Orientalist World-System (2015):

Influenced by the Orientalist judgment that Arab culture had “degraded” to an age of “decadence” under the Ottomans, most Arab writers since the middle of the nineteenth century were overcome with a sense of crisis concerning a sort of malady afflicting the Arab present, its “culture,” its “language,” its political and economic orders, its “traditions,” its views of its own “heritage,” even “Islam” itself, in short, a malady afflicting the whole of Arab Islamic “civilization.” The diagnosis would echo Orientalist judgment, including “backwardness,” “decadence,” “moral decline,” “irrationality,” and most of all “degeneration,” resulting from centuries of Ottoman rule caracterized by stasis at best or retardation of things Arab (and sometimes Muslim) at worst. This understanding of Ottoman rule would become one of the main mobilizational factors in the emergence of the nascent anti-Ottoman Arab nationalism.

Such a philosophy of history infected liberal-reformists all over the Muslim world. They had embraced the idea of Muslims having reached their “Golden Age” when they were at the forefront of scientific and technological progress. And now that colonial Europe is the leader in these fields, what better approach is there than to adopt their way of life—liberalism and all its branches (secularism, feminism and so on)?

Prof. Dr. Jamal Malik (a Pakistani academic teaching in German universities) has also joined the dots between this notion of “Golden Age” and European colonialism in the introduction to his book, Islam in South Asia: A Short History, pp. 4-5:

This image usually envisions an Islamic Golden Age, followed by a decline, followed by a revival, or by an increasingly militant Islam. It is also in line with long standing Orientalist perceptions which see a gradually improving Islamic high culture swept away by the Mongols in 1258, followed by a long dark-age and stagnation culminating by around 1750 when enlightenment came to flourish in Europe while barbarism and despotism reigned in the Orient. This mirror image is complemented by the idea of a deep colonial kiss to awaken the sleeping beauty resulting in an Islamic revival in the nineteenth century. This effective and memorable image is unfortunately also believed by many a Muslim. The underlying essentialism is based on “orientalist empiricism” and was continuously pursued in colonial and nationalist historiography, producing quite a number of orientalist studies.

It is thus no wonder that, as per Edward Saïd, the very expression “Islamic Golden Age” is in fact an Orientalist product.

Some Gold After the “Golden Age”?

We’ve already explained why we stand against the idea of this “Golden Age.” In short, it is a Eurocentric approach towards history and is intended as a trap to be weaponized against Muslims.

However, there’s actually more.

This notion of the “Golden Age” may even be wrong according to their own approach and standards.

The “Golden Age” is generally characterized as being between the 9th century—when Abbassid caliph Al-Ma’mun established the Bayt al-Hikmah (“House of Wisdom”) and launched the translation movement of foreign (mainly Greek) texts—up to 1258, with Hulagu Khan sacking of Baghdad.

But it’s not that simple.

Elias Muhanna (an American academic who specializes in medieval and early modern Islamic history) released a work in 2017 titled The World in a Book.

It’s basically the study of Al-Nuwayri, an Egyptian-Muslim civil servant from the 14th century who compiled an Islamic encyclopedia where you find everything from Islamic sciences to astronomy and zoology, etc.

Muhanna argues that such encyclopedism was common during the Mamluk period within Egypt and also Syria (what “decadence”!).

But the usual reasoning is that Muslims began to embrace encyclopedism as a way to protect and preserve all the knowledge they could after the supposed Mongol onslaught. And this is precisely what Muhanna refutes.

We read in the aforementioned book, on pp. 16-17:

The rise of encyclopedic literature in Egypt and Syria during the period following the Mongol conquests has often been attributed by historians to a fear among Mamluk compilers that all knowledge would be lost as a result of the destruction of libraries. The sense of terror that this catastrophe provoked has been seen as a principal factor behind the work of al- Nuwayrī and his contemporaries, who ostensibly aimed to preserve the intellectual achievements of the Islamic golden age in the form of manuals, dictionaries, commentaries, and other types of composite sources.
The Mongol conquests brought about dramatic transformations in the Near East but did not seem to trigger cultural trauma in the field of book production. The famous description of Baghdad’s libraries being emptied into the ink-clouded Tigris is almost certainly a topos that emerged in later historiography. Local sources and other early accounts make no mention of it. And while it remained the capital of the Abbasid Empire, Baghdad had long ceased to be the glorious cultural hub it once had been during the days of Hārūn al- Rashīd. As Michael Cooperson has shown in an examination of literary reports about Baghdad and the various tropes that crystallized within them, the city seemed to have devolved into a backwater long before the Mongols sacked it. The Andalusian traveler Ibn Jubayr visited Baghdad three quarters of a century before Hülegü arrived and described it as resembling nothing so much as “a vanished encampment or a passing phantom.”

In brief:

The Mongol “destruction” of Baghdad did not have any long-lasting effects on the intellectual history of Muslims.

So, if the very foundations of the “Golden Age” mythology are biased, we should be able to present examples of “achievements in science and technology” which came after 1258, right?

RELATED: [WATCH] What Is the Place of Science in Islam?


For example, George Saliba (Lebanese-Christian academic based in the U.S.) says that the “Golden Age” of astronomy not only came after 1258 but ironically due to Hulagu Khan himself. He had patronized the construction of the Maragheh observatory in 1259 (in today’s Iran) where many influential astronomers would work.

Saliba also mentions Ibn al-Shatir, the 14th-century Syrian astronomer linked to Damascus’ famed Umayyad mosque and whose models and drawings are suspiciously similar to those of Copernicus, who came a few centuries later.

In the field of mathematics you have Ibn Hamzah al-Maghribi from the 16th-century, born in Algeria but working in the Ottoman Empire and someone who quite possibly invented the concept of the logarithm decades before Napier.

In philosophical theology or Kalam you have many academics such as Robert Wisnovsky highlighting the richness of the Islamic intellectual tradition after the so-called “Golden Age.”

Wisnovsky says that the reason we don’t have a clear picture of the post-classical or post-“Golden Age” Islamic intellectual history is because there are simply far too many manuscripts which remain unstudied.

Muzaffar Iqbal opines the same in his The Making of Islamic Science, pp. 144-146:

We cannot pronounce a general death sentence to all branches of science in all regions of the Muslim world at a specific date. The need is to carefully study available data (with the understanding that we do not possess all manuscripts and instruments) pertaining to different branches of natural science in different regions of the Muslim world, look at the evidence from within each branch of science to determine its high and low points of productivity, and then categorize a time period during which its study declined. This is a task for historians of science who have adequate linguistic and scientific expertise.

Even then this judgment will be provisional until a substantial number of new manuscripts have been studied, for, as King has pointed out, so far we only know of about 1000 Muslim scientists who worked between the eighth and the eighteenth centuries; there are thousands more about whom we have no information or of whom we merely know the names and their works’ titles.

There are over 200,000 manuscripts in Iran alone, of which about three-quarters are as yet uncatalogued. “In 1994,” King writes, “during my research on the first world-map, the index to a 21 volume catalogue of over 8,000 manuscripts in the public library of Âyâtallah al-Uzma Ma‘rashi Najafi in Qum landed on my desk. There are over 400 titles relating to mathematics and astronomy, including some of the works hitherto thought to be lost” (King 1999, 4, n. 4 and 5). King’s book alone cites 9,002 instruments, over 80 manuscripts, and 38 pages of bibliography.

The Islamic manuscripts in the Arabic language alone literally number in the millions, and this is not even counting those in the various other languages used by Muslims. For this reason, painting a fair and objective portrait of the reality will remain difficult. However it’s clear that something was definitely happening after the so-called “Golden Age.”

In conclusion, we’ve basically seen that the expression “Golden Age” is a Eurocentric idea produced by Orientalists and one full of modernist assumptions.
But even if you do accept it, we’ve also seen how you shouldn’t even be speaking of a “Golden Age” when you’re unaware of what happened after. Especially when it likely isn’t the “decadence” once widely claimed and which is now being refuted by Western academics themselves.

Keeping Things Clear

As Muslims, we know that the true Golden age was the age of the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions, then the next generation, and then the next. We don’t need materialists to tell us otherwise.

Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported: The Prophet ﷺ said, “The best people are those of my generation, then those after them, then those after them.”

RELATED: Is Studying the Natural Sciences Virtuous for Muslims? Sh Muhammad `Awwamah Explains