A Historic Lecture of Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu-Anhu) concerning the superiority of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu- Anhu) and Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu-Anhu)

Hadhrat Suwayd bin Ghaflah narrates that he once passed by a group of persons who were degrading the status of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu) and Hadhrat Umar (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu). When he reported this to Hadhrat Ali (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu), he said: “May Allah Ta’ala Curse those who harbour anything besides good towards the two illustrious men. They were the brothers and extremely close companions of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam).” Hadhrat Ali (Radiy-Allahu-anhu) then mounted the pulpit and delivered an eloquent lecture in which he said:

“What is the matter with some people who speak about the two leaders of the Quraysh and the two fathers of the Muslims in a manner that I would never. I absolve myself of what they say and shall punish for it. I swear by the Being Who splits the seed and Who creates the soul that it is only the Allah-fearing Mu’min who loves these two men and only the sinful outcast who dislikes them. They were both true and loyal companions of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) who enjoined good, forbade evil, punished criminals and never trespassed the ways of Rasulullah (sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) in any matter. Rasulullah (sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) never valued any opinion as he did theirs and did not love anyone as he loved them. Rasulullah (sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) passed through this world well pleased with them and the people were just as pleased. Abu Bakr (Radhiu-Allahu-anhu) was appointed (by Rasulullah Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) to lead the salaah and when Rasulullah (Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) passed away, the Muslims entrusted the task of leading the salaah with him and also handed over their zakaah to him because these two (salaah and zakaah) are always coupled (mentioned together in the Qur’aan Shareef). I was the first from among the progeny of Abdul Mutallib to nominate him (as Khalifah). He however did not like to assume the post and wanted one of us to rather fill the post for him. By Allaah! He was the best of those left after Rasulullah (Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam), the most compassionate of them, the kindest, the wisest in his piety and the first to accept Islam. Rasulullah (Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) likened him to Mika’eel (Alaihis-salaam) in his kindness and mercy and to Ibraheem (Alaihis-salaam) in his forgiving nature and reputation. He walked the path of Rasulullah (Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) until he passed away. May Allaah Ta’ala shower His Mercy on him.”

Hadhrat Ali (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu) continued, “With the consultation from the people, Abu Bakr (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu) appointed Umar bin Khattaab (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu) as his successor. While some people disapproved and others approved, I was amongst those who approved. By Allaah! Before he left this world, Umar (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu) won the approval of all those who had disapproved (of his appointment). He managed affairs in the manner that Rasulullah (Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) and his companion (Hadhrat Abu Bakr Radhiy-Allahu-anhu) managed affairs and he followed in their footsteps just as a foal follows in the footsteps of his mother. By Allaah! He was the best of all those who remained (after Hadhrat Abu Bakr Radhiy-Allahu-anhu). He was compassionate and merciful and helped the oppressed against the oppressor. Allaah brought the truth on his tongue to the extent that we actually thought an angel spoke with his tongue. Allaah strengthened Islam by his entering its fold and his migration was a bolster for the Deen. While Allaah Ta’ala filled the hearts of the Mu’mineen with love for him, Allaah Ta’ala also filled the hearts of the Munaafiqeen with fear for him. Rasulullah (Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) likened him to Jibra’eel (Alaihis-salaam) in his sternness and austerity towards enemies and to Nooh (Alaihis-salaam) in his admonishment and frustration towards the Kuffaar. Which of you can compare to the two of them? Their heights cannot be reached without having love for them and following in their footsteps. Whoever loves them loves me. On the other hand, whoever dislikes them dislikes me and I am absolved of such a person. Had I warned against reviling the two of them previously, I would have certainly given the most severe punishment for it. Now after this proclamation of mine if anyone says anything like this, he will be punished as a slanderer is punished. Take note! The best person of this Ummah after its Nabi (Sall-Allahu-alaihe-wasallam) is Abu Bakr (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu) and then Umar (Radhiy-Allahu-anhu). Allaah knows best where the best person is after them. I have now made myself clear and seek Allaah’s pardon for myself and on your behalf”.


In The Footsteps Of Nabi Ebrahim (Alayhis Salaam)

Pearls Of Taqwa

(Abu Muslim Al-Khawlaani [rahimahullah] #1)

Towards the end of the blessed life of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), there was a man named Aswad ‘Anasi who took over Yemen by force and proclaimed prophethood. Among the people that he summoned was Abu Muslim Al-Khawlaani (rahimahullah).  

When Abu Muslim (rahimahullah) stood before him, he asked him, “Do you testify that Muhammad (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) is the Rasul of Allah?” Abu Muslim (rahimahullah) replied, “Yes.” Aswad ‘Anasi next asked him, “Do you testify that I am the Rasul of Allah?” To this question, Abu Muslim (rahimahullah) replied, “I cannot hear.”

Aswad ‘Anasi thereafter repeated the same two questions to Abu Muslim (rahimahullah) for a second and third time and received the exact same answers. Aswad ‘Anasi was now frustrated and had realized that Abu Muslim (rahimahullah) would not accept his self-proclaimed prophethood. He thus issued the command for a large fire to…

View original post 513 more words



In a misleading article, captioned ‘IF ONLY SOMEONE ELSE SAID IT’, Karaan vainly attempted to draw an analogy between our strident criticism of all kufr of the munaafiq cartel and the manner in which Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had acquitted himself in response to Hadhrat Ubaidah (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was in disagreement with Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) for not visiting the plague-stricken region.

When Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had decided to return to Madinah without going to Amawaas where a plague had broken out, the Commander of the Islamic army, Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah who is one of the Ashrah Mubash-sharah, objected. He said: “Are you fleeing from the Qadr of Allah?” Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) responded: “Would that someone else had said so.”

With this episode, Karaan seeks to mislead Muslims. Karaan’s deception is twofold: (1) He implies that fleeing from a region ravished by a plague is justified by Hadhrat Umar’s action. (2) His response to Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah was extremely mild and shorn of acrimony.

With this episode Karaan seeks to divert attention from the core issues we have criticized. This is a red herring attempt in which the people of baatil such as MJC, NNB and bogus uucsa are adept.

Firstly, Karaan has not presented Hadhrat Umar’s decision to return to Madinah with honesty. He has concealed certain facts. In his article, Karaam says: “Umar called the commanders of his Syrian armies into conference. Along with the senior Sahaabah who had come with him from Madinah, they took their seats on the ground……….Opinions differed. Some felt that the journey should go ahead, while others thought it undesirable that the Muslim leadership should enter a land in which plague was spreading. Umar listened attentively. When the time came to decide, all fell silent. Everyone’s eyes were fixed on Ameerul Mu’mineen. “I and those with me will return to Madinah.”

The smattering of imagery and flowery expressions Karaan uses in his article does not add to the truth. With such expressions he seeks to impress morons.

The factual scenario on the occasion was not as flowery as Karaan presents in his red herring. Karaan has conveniently omitted an important aspect of the conference. It was not one conference. There were three conferences attended by different personalities. It is not the way Karaan has deceptively paraphrased the detailed account of the Hadith.

All did “not fall silent” as Karaan alleges. In fact, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu) anhu ordered the groups of the first two conferences to “get away”. “All eyes” were not “fixed on Ameerul Mu’mineen” in the stupid flowery expression of Karaan. The fact is that the groups with opposing views clung to their respective opinions, hence Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was unable to formulate a decision on the basis of certitude. He therefore called for a third conference in which none of the participants of the earlier two conferences were called.

The issue as described in the Hadith kutub was as follows:

“Umar Bin Al-Khattaab (Radhiyallahu anhu) departed for Shaam. At Sargh he met the leaders (commanders) of the armies: Abu Ubaidah Bin Al-Jarraah and his companions. They informed him (Hadhrat Umar) that a plague has broken out in Shaam.”

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was in a quandary. He felt the need to consult others on the issue. Thus, he instructed:

“Call the First of the Muhaajireen.” They were called. Then he consulted with them. He informed them about the plague in Shaam. They differed among themselves. Some said: “You have left (Madinah) for a mission. We do not view (it proper) for you to return.”

Some of them said: “With you are others and the Ashaab of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). We do not regard it proper for you proceed with them to this plague.”

The difference of opinion was annoying to Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). He therefore ordered: “Get away from me!” Then he said: “Call the Ansaar.” The Ansaar were called. They too differed as the Muhaajireen had differed. Umar ordered: “Get away from me!” Then he said: “Call for me from the elders of the Quraishi Muhaajireen who are here.” They were called. Not even two persons among them differed (There was unanimity among them). They said: “Our view is that you should return with the people and do not proceed towards this plague.”

On the basis of the unanimous decision / advice of the senior Quraishi Muhaajireen, did Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) decide to return and not proceed to Amawaas. Initially, it was not his decision as Karaan deceptively attempts to trade. The unanimous advice of the Quraish elders was bolstered by a Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which was narrated by Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was not present during the initial discussions. The Hadith states:

“Verily, I heard Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying: ‘When you hear of a plague in some region, then do not go there. And, if it occurs in a region where you are, then to not flee from there.”

Thus, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) neither fled from the plague nor did he go to the region of the plague because this was the command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which he had understood even before the confirmation by Hadhrat Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf (Radhiyallahu anhu). His understanding was the effect of two factors:

(1) The unanimous advice of the senior Muhaajir Quraishi Sahaabah.

(2) Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “If a Nabi had to come after me, it would have been Umar.”

His firaasat was such that Wahi would arrive to confirm the correctness of his view, i.e. during the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

In this episode there is not the slightest shred of justification for the load of kufr rubbish and shaitaaniyat disgorged by Karaan, the MJC, the NNB, bogus uucsa and the myriad of munaafiqueen who have gone haywire in their satanic effort to bolster and justify the kufr theories of the atheists pertaining to plagues.

What motivated Karaan to write about this episode which has absolutely no bearing and no relationship with the kufr of:

Suspending Jumuah Salaat
Prohibiting the daily Fardh Jamaat Salaat in the Musaajid
Closing the Musaajid
Pleading with the kuffaar court to retain the ban on the closure of the Musaajid and on Jamaat Salaat
Introducing hordes of shayaateen into the Musaajid with the ‘social distancing’ measure of the atheists. The satanic wide gaps are filled with devils according to the Hadith.
Prohibiting musaafahah and muaanaqah (handshaking and embracing)
Isolating even healthy people
Donning niqaabs of the Shayaateen (the horrible masks of the atheists).

Underlying Karaan’s citation of Hadhrat Umar’s episode is the evil motive of hoodwinking the unwary and the ignorant regarding the Islamic stance pertaining to epidemics / plagues. Karaan’s attempt is actually to peddle the idea that even Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu) supported the ‘contagion’ theory of the atheists. But this notion is the furthest from the truth.

There is absolutely no contention regarding avoidance of a region where a plague has broken out. The command of the Shariah in this regard is clear and concise. Outsiders may not go to such a place. But those in that region should not flee believing that they will perish in consequence of the plague apprehending them. Anyone who is earmarked by Allah Ta’ala for apprehension by the plague will not escape his fate whether he is inside or outside the plague-ravished area.

Furthermore, we are not interested – Muslims should not be interested – with the rationale for the command not to flee from the plague area and not to go there. As Muslims we have to submit to the Commands without questioning the rationale and wisdom of the instructions of the Shariah. The Deen is not the product of our thinking and understanding. It is the Product of Wahi.

The target of our criticism is the aformentioned list of kufr acts in which Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) does not feature.

While Mr. Karaan seeks to capitalize on the mild reaction of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) to the objection of Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah (Radhiyallahu anhu), and with which he (Karaan) thinks he has scored some points over us on account of the manner of our criticism, he either conveniently overlooks or is blissfully ignorant of the general and permanent attitude of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu).

Hadhrat Umar’s whip is famous and he is famed as the ‘Man of the Whip’. He walked the streets of Madinah with whip in hand ever ready to enforce the Shariah on recalcitrants and villains of the MJC and NNB type. The episodes of his ‘harshness’ for the sake of the Deen and the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala are numerous. If Allah Ta’ala grants us the taufeeq, we may compile a book with all such episodes of Umar’s ‘harshness’ for the benefit and intellectual edification of Karaan’s brains. His fierce and ‘harsh’ attitude in defence of the Haqq was such that people would flee from him. Hence, our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) supplicated to Allah Ta’ala:

“O Allah! Have mercy on Umar. The Haqq has not left a single friend for him.”

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) mentioned that even Iblees was so scared of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) that he (Iblees) would not walk in the street in which Hadhrat Umar was walking. The devil would make a wide detour to avoid crossing paths of Ameerul Mu’mineen Sayyiduna Umar Bin Al-Khataab (Radhiyallahu anhu).

Senior Sahaabah were stricken with fear when they realized that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu), the First Khalifah, during his final illness, was about to appoint Hadhrat Umar to succeed him as the Khalifah. They were fearful of his ‘harshness’.

The true nature and attitude of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) is not correctly nor honestly portrayed by the episode which Mr. Karaan highlights for scoring stupid and silly points.

If Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was today present to witness the kufr and shaitaani shenanigans of Karaan, MJC, Reverend Bham, NNB jamiat and all the other bogus and munaafiq entities and characters, his famous Durrah (Whip) would have taken adequate care of the cartel of enemies of Allah, and the Friends of the Kuffaar Court – the Fiends of Allah who abhor the Houses of Allah, hence their licking the boots of the atheists to retain the ban on the closure of the Musaajid.

Now that the government has granted permission for houses of worship to partially open, the munaafiqs are seeking to take credit for this crumb offered by the authorities in terms of their laughable and oppressive levels. The munaafiqeen are now pretending to be pleased with the partial opening of the Musaajid. Since they have lost considerable support in the Muslim community and have become aware of the disgust of Muslims, they (the munaafiqeen) are seeking to appease Muslims with their belated hollow support for the Musaajid.

In the episode of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) cited by Karaan, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to bolster the host of haraam and kufr acts of the munaafiqeen (MJC, NNB jamiat, bogus uucsa). Some of the worst munaafiqeen are the medical doctors who have blatantly demonstrated their true kufr colours. They are true kuffaar scoundrels.

Did Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) order the Musaajid to be closed during the plague? Did he order suspension of Jumuah Salaat? Did he prohibit the daily Jamaat Salaat in the Musaajid? Did he prohibit Tilaawat of the Qur’aan in the Musaajid? Did he instruct observance of kilometre gaps in the Salaat sufoof thereby inviting droves of shayaateen into the Musaajid? Did he prohibit musaafahah and muaanaqah? And what was the attitude and the action of the Jamaat of Sahaabah during any plague? Did they don the devil’s niqaab during the plague? Did they observe even a single kufr act which the munaafiqeen are propagating at the behest of the atheists?

Karaan’s motive underlying his deceptive citation of Hadhrat Umar’s episode is to create the idea that his departure from the plague-stricken zone or his abstention from visiting the place is justification for the host of kufr acts introduced by the munaafiqeen during this bogus pandemic.

“And, who is a greater oppressor than the one who prevents the thikr of Allah’s Name in the Musaajid, and who strives in the destruction of the Musaajid?

29 Muharram 1442 – 18 September 2020



“Most assuredly, We shall give them to taste of the lesserPunishment, not the Greater Punishment, for perhapsthey will return (to Siraatul Mustaqeem and the Sunnah).”(Qur’aan)
Muslims themselves, by their wanton transgression and rebellion against Allah’s Shariah, have been the cause for the the defeats the Ummah suffered at the hands of the kuffaar, and for the ultimate loss of the entire glorious Empire established by Ameerul Mu’mineen Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (Radhiyallahu anhu).
Whatever sovereignty, respect and honour Muslims had were snatched away and the Ummah has laboured and trundled the trajectory of utter defeat and humiliation for centuries. The only spectacles of dignity and little independence left were our Musaajid and Darul Ulooms where we had enjoyed much freedom and the right to worship and teach the Qur’aan and Hadith as ordained by the Shariah.
However, in recent years, added to the cesspools of inequity, fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr of the Muslim community among whom the worst culprits are the molvis and sheikhs, the Musaajid and Darul Ulooms have been pillaged, plundred and desanctified by Muslims themselves. The Musaajid became transformed into halls where najis tourists, men and women, were allowed to enter and pollute. Qawwaali, bid’ah jalsahs such as so-called ‘seerat’ jalsahs, women entering the Musaajid for Salaat, mass merrymaking I’tikaaf, fussaaq qaaris, allowing zindeeqs the Musjid platform, using the Musaajid as staging platforms for kuffaar sporting teams, introducing shayaateen en masse by means of the haraam spacing, etc., etc., are all acts which defiled the Musaajid.
In addition, one of the worst acts of pillage, is the non-attendance of 90% of the community for the daily Fardh Jamaat Salaat. Another villainous misdeed of the community is to allow absolute scoundrels to be the trustees and committees of the Musaajid. The Fajr and Isha attendance is the evidence for this percentage. These are the times when generally all persons are at home.
The villainy of Muslims have made the Musaajid ornate structures devoid of Deen. About our Musaajid of these times, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There shall soon dawn an era when nothing of Islam will remain but its name. Nothing of the Qur’aan will remain but its text. The Musaajid of the people will be ornate structures devoid of guidance. The worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be their ulama. From them will emerge fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”
These Musaajid and the Darul Ulooms were the last remnants of our Islamic heritage. These were our little ‘empires’ where we held sway. But, Alas! Allah Azza Wa Jal has now snatched away from us these little dominions because we, with our own hands, have abused and defiled the sanctity of the Musaajid and transformed the Madaaris into mercenary and nafsaani institutions totally bereft of the Noor of Ilm. Imagine a Darul Uloom which is supposed to imbue in it the spirit and ethos of Ghaar-e-Hira, having a kuffaar sportsground.
These Musaajid, according to the Hadith, have invoked the La’nat of Allah on us, hence Allah Ta’ala has closed down the Musajid. Just imagine! You can go to the mall to acquire rubbish. But if on the way or next to the mall there is a Musjid, you are not allowed to enter and offer two raka’ts Tahyatul Musjid. This is a lamentable commentary on our own villainy.
The oppression of the government is in fact a mild form of Divine Chastisement. It is Allah Azza Wa Jal Who has empowered the government to evict us from our Musaajid. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “If entire mankind unites to benefit you in any way whatsoever, they will be able to benefit you only to the degree prescribed by Allah, and if entire manking unites to harm you, they will be able to harm you only to the degree prescribed by Allah.”

If Muslims will continue with their drunken stupor of fisq, fujoor, bid’ah and kufr, the Greater Punishment (Al-Athaabul Akbar) mentioned in the Qur’aan will overtake us. Today we have lost the Musaajid and the Madaaris. Tomorrow it can be our homes. Allah forbid! Beware! Look at Burma, Palestine and Syria, and open your brains and heart for Muraaqabah.

“Beware of such a FITNAH (Punishment) which will not be restricted to only the transgressors among you.” (Qur’aan)
The Ulama and the Buzroogs will all be swept away in its onslaught. May Allah Ta’ala have mercy on us.

2 Shawwaal 1441 – 26 May 2020


Before the president announced the lockdown, the imaam of the Robertsham Musjid made the announcement of closing the Musjid. He justified the closure of the Musjid by saying that during the famine in Madinah, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had waived the penalty of cutting the hands of thieves. The imaam said that because of the famine Hadhrat Umar decided to override the law of cutting off the hand of a thief. Thus, according to the imaam at certain times because of the circumstances the Law of Allah can be overridden. Is this correct?
It is kufr bunkum which the moron sucked out of his thumb to bootlick the government. The Qur’aan cannot be overridden. Overriding the Qur’aan is Kufr. It is unthinkable that Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had overridden the Qur’aan.
The moron is too stupid. He has not understood what he read in the kitaab. If indeed he does understand the statement of Hadhrat Umar, but tore it out of its context to offer bootlicking appeasement, then it is worse than stupidity. Perhaps stupidity may be a mitigating factor. But deliberate mutilation of the ahkaam and misuse of the Ahaadith are acts of kufr. The lesser of the evils to be adopted in favour of this moron imaam is to say that he is plain stupid and ignorant, lacking in the ability to even understand the texts in the Kutub.
It should be understood that all the ahkaam of the Shariah have conditions. The hukm applies when the conditions are found. In the absence of the conditions, the hukm will not apply. For example, Salaat is valid only with wudhu. If it is said to a person without wudhu that he may not perform Salaat, only a moron will conclude that Salaat has been suspended for him.
When it is said to a musaafir that whilst on the journey he may abstain from fasting, it will not be concluded that the Faqeeh has suspended Fasting due to circumstances. The Faqeeh has merely stated the hukm of the Shariah. He does not override the Qur’aan because the Qur’aan itself grants the concession.
Similarly, if in dire straits of life-threatening starvation a person consumes a bit of pork to save his life, it will not be said that he has overridden the Qur’aan because the Qur’aan itself allows for this concession. The hukm of cutting the hand for theft, has not been left to the opinion of morons. There are rules, conditions and restrictions applicable for the validity of this Hadd (prescribed penalty).
According to the Shariah, Sarqah (Theft) has a specific technical definition just as zina has. Theft which produces the consequence of cutting the hand does not bring every kind of theft within its purview. Stealing fruit and vegetables, stealing any valuables on display, stealing from a partnership business, stealing when driven by hunger, stealing from close relatives, etc. are all exempt from the penalty of cutting the hand. If a man steals anything which is not under lock and key, his hand cannot be cut off. All these exceptions have been explicitly mentioned by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Now only a moron says that Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) has overridden the Qur’aan’s Law with his opinion on the basis of the circumstance of the famine. Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had not stated anything new. He did not introduce a new law to override the Shariah or the Qur’aan. He merely stated the Law as Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had taught.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is no cutting (of the hand of a person who is driven to steal) by the pangs of hunger.”
Presenting the tafseer of this Hadith, Shamsul Aimmah Sarakhsi states in his Kitaab, Al-Mabsoot:
“The penalty of cutting does not apply during famine because Dhuroorah (dire need) renders permissible eating from the wealth of another person a quantity sufficient for the need. Thus, this (the famine) prevents cutting. Makhool narrated that Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is no cutting (the hand) when the pangs of hunger prevail.”
Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:
“We do not cut (the hand) over (the theft of) meat, nor during a famine.”
This is the hukm of the Shariah. It was not the qiyaas (reasoning/opinion) of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). It was not a concession introduced by him on the basis of the circumstances. It was a law of the Shariah pronounced by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The moron imaam is too stupid to understand a simple mas’alah.
Qata’ yad (Cutting the hand) not being the punishment for stealing food, meat, vegetables, and the like, is not restricted to famine and dire straits of hunger. In normal circumstances too, the hand is not cut for theft of these products. Thus, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) did not enact any new law. He merely informed of the Shar’i Hukm. There was therefore no need for Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) to resort to Ijtihaad for enacting a law for the exigency during the famine. The law already existed. But the moron Imaam being a member of the league of the Satanist Munaafiqeen, stupidly utilized his silly ‘ijtihaad’ in his ludicrous and abortive attempt to camouflage his kufr with some Islamic appearing veneer.
Of greater villainy than his stupidity is his attempt to elevate himself to the status of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). Assuming that Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) did temporarily suspend a Shar’i hukm because of dire circumstances, it would be perfectly acceptable and it would constitute a Law of the Shariah. Regarding Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu), our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “If a Nabi had to come after me, it would have been Umar.”
Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Hold on firmly with the jaws to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa (i.e. the Four Khulafa).” Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) equated the Sunnah of his Khulafa after him to his own Sunnah the observance of which is Waajib. Thus, the addition in the Fajr Athaan, the ruling of three Talaaqs issued in a single statement being three, banning women from the Musaajid, and the 20 raka’ts Taraaweeh being performed in Jamaat as we do, are the introductions of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) which enjoy the Ijma’ (Consensus) of all the Sahaabah.
The moron imaam has attempted to elevate himself to Hadhrat Umar’s lofty status. The jaahil reasoned that since Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) had resorted to ijtihaad regarding the cutting of the hand mas’alah, he (i.e. this moron imaam) also enjoys similar authority which entitles him to resort to ‘ijtihaad’ on the basis of which the Musjid can be closed to appease the kuffaar when even the government had not ordered the closure.
Firstly, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) did not override the Qur’aan. He merely stated the Law as Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had laid it down. Secondly, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) placed the seal of authority on the validity of the Ijtihaad and enactment of ahkaam of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu). Thirdly it is absolutely contumacious, self-conceited and the portrayal of ludicrous jahaalat for this jaahil imaam to believe that he has the same authority of resorting to ijtihaad as Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu).

12 Sha’baan 1441 – 6 April 2020




The Munaafiq fraudsters and liars of the NNB jamiat of Fordsburg, in an abortive attempt to sustain their satanic plot of destroying Islam with their fraud and chicanery, state in a copro-statement:
“After his appointment, Amr bin al’Aas addressed the people saying: “Oh people! (sic!) When the plague strikes, it spreads like wildfire, so seek shelter from it in the mountains (isolation).”
Suffering from stercoraceous brains vermiculated by the evil manipulation of Shaitaan, these NNB jamiat munaafiqeen as well as other munaafiqs of similar ilk are desperately struggling to obfuscate and mislead the ignorant masses of the Muslim community with downright lies and chicanery of the worst kind. Their satanic presentation of falsehood is of the worst kind since it aids their kufr of having banned the daily Fardh Jamaat Salaat and Jumuah Salaat. They further desperately manipulate their falsehood to justify closure of the Musaajid, a devilish act which had NEVER been enacted in the history of Islam since its very inception.
In the desperate bid to gain acceptance for their kufr by the Muslim community, these Khanaazeer and Shayaateenul Ins have presented a smattering of an episode of the Plague of Amwaas in which Hadhrat Amr Bin Al’Aas (Radhiyallahu anhu) features. On the basis of the Ijtihaadi (intellectual) misunderstanding of Hadhrat Amr (Radhiyallahu anhyu), the munaafiqeen are desperately labouring to extravasate a semblance of ‘proof’ for their dastardly kufr of having committed the worst acts of treason in terms of the Qur’aan Majeed. These munaafiq devils have closed the Musaajid and banned Jamaat and Jumuah Salaat weeks prior to the government’s lockdown order. They further introduced the kufr spacing of musallis in the saff, rendering the Salaat invalid, when this was not a compulsory demand of the government. They went down into the dregs of the sewer gutters where sewer rats dwell to lick the boots of the kuffaar by indulging in their exhibition of jaahiliyyah to show that they are the most faithful lackeys of the government. These munaafiq villains introduced such shaitaani measures which are at variance with the Shariah. Non-compliance with the silly shaitaani measures did not constitute a crime since such measures were not decreed as law by the government.
Regarding the narration pertaining to Hadhrat Amr Bin Al’Aas (Radhiyallahu anhu), the truth and reality are as follows:
(i) The advice of Hadhrat Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) was an error of judgment or a misunderstanding. This fact shall be pursued further on.
(ii) The advice of Hadhrat Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) was in conflict with the Qur’aan and the explicit and authentic Ahaadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
(iii) Senior Sahaabah vigorously criticized Hadhrat Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) for this grave error of judgment.
(iv) Hadhrat Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) had acknowledged his error, hence retracted it.
The munaafiq NNB jamiat characters are either stupid and unaware of these facts or they have deliberately, but stupidly attempted to conceal the truth by presenting a quarter truth in the hope that their chicanery would not be detected. These moron munaafiqs believe that others too are morons like themselves.

Last Updated on Friday, 03 April 2020 11:03 



Please provide a brief commentary on the following Hadith:

Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) has said: The intelligent person is the one who subjugates his soul/takes account of himself, and works for what is after death and the incapable is the one who follows his desires and thereafter entertains hopes in [the mercy of] Allah.


See the reference for this Hadith here

In the Hadith above, Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) has stated that a truly intelligent and successful person is he who subjugates himself to the worship, obedience, and decree of Allah Ta’ala.

A very effective way to do this is to constantly take account of one’s self for every action, both good and bad. One should ponder over every statement and movement, along with every scenario or situation and how he reacted and/or conducted himself therein. If he finds that he has engaged himself in good praiseworthy actions then he should express his gratitude to Allah Ta’ala and praise Him [for it is only through Allah’s kindness that He gives a person the ability to do good].

On the other hand, if he finds himself having done wrong [unpraiseworthy actions], then he should repent and rectify himself accordingly. The intelligent one is he who after taking stock of himself, rectifies himself in the worldly life and strives to earn good deeds drawing towards him the mercy of Allah Ta’ala for the Hereafter.

Sayyiduna ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘anhu) has summarized it so beautifully saying: ‘Take account of yourself before your accountability is taken by Allah!’.

Many a times things are better understood in light of their opposites [for example, darkness is understood better after a person experiences light]. Therefore, after describing the truly successful and intelligent person, Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) described the unintelligent unsuccessful person. Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) described this person as being unable and incapable of correctly using the faculty of the mind and brain that he was blessed with. Instead of using this faculty to understand the reality of the Hereafter and prepare himself to the best of his ability, he uses it to chase after his whims and desires thinking that Allah Ta’ala will simply forgive him for everything despite the absence of any attempts to repent or rectify himself. Such a person has become a slave to his carnal desires and continues to feed it again and again. He has failed to understand the reality of the Hereafter and the system of Allah Ta’ala.

There are many verses in the Quran along with Hadiths to show that -as per the justice system of Allah Ta’ala- a person will not be forgiven unless he repents and attempts to rectify himself. Indeed, it is possible that Allah Ta’ala can still forgive such a person being the All Merciful, but from the above Hadith itself Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) has explained that to continue sinning without any attempts at repenting and rectifying one’s self whilst still hoping for forgiveness is absurd. The commentators of Hadith have mentioned that the word تمنى, depicting [farfetched] hope, was specifically used in the narration to allude to the fact that such a person is hoping for something which is near impossible.

May Allah Ta’ala make us all amongst the intelligent ones thereby granting us the ability to take stock of our actions and rectify ourselves accordingly before it is too late.

(References for all of the above: Mirqat, Hadith: 5289; Also see Faydhul Qadir, Hadith: 6469)

And Allah Ta’ala knows best

Approved by: Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar

The importance of wearing a topi

Q: I had always been taught that the topi is the crown of a believer and part of the Sunnah attire. However, I was recently told by a close friend that the topi is not part of the Sunnah attire and has no basis in Deen. It was merely worn in the time of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) as a traditional dress. Is this true? Similarly, I would like to know whether the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) wore the topi at the time of Salaah.

A: Wearing the topi is a Mubaarak Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and a salient feature of Islam. In every era of Islam, commencing from the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), special importance and significance was afforded to the topi. It is reported in authentic Ahaadeeth that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) wore the topi.

During the Khilaafah of Hazrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the kuffaar began wearing topis and turbans in order to deceive the Muslims and receive the same recognition in society which was afforded to the Muslims in the Islamic state. When Hazrat Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu) perceived this, he immediately prohibited them, and drew up a constitution which was governed by the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). He enshrined in the constitution the distinguishing characteristics and salient features of Islam and thus prohibited the kuffaar from adopting these codes of conduct. Similarly, he prohibited the kuffaar from adopting the Islamic attire and from wearing the topis and turbans of the Muslims.

It is reported in the Hadith of Bukhaari Shareef that the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) performed Salaah with their topis.

قال الحسن كان القوم يسجدون على العمامة والقلنسوة (صحيح البخاري، باب السجود علي الثوب في شدة الحر 1/56)

Hazrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) said, “The Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu Anhum) would make sajdah during Salaah on their turbans and topis.”

And Allah Ta’ala (الله تعالى) knows best.

إن أمير المؤمنين عمر رضي الله عنه في الصحابة رضي الله عنهم ثم عامة الأئمة بعده وسائر الفقهاء جعلوا في الشروط المشروطة على أهل الذمة من النصارى وغيرهم فيما شرطوه على أنفسهم أن نوقر المسلمين ونقوم لهم من مجالسنا إذا أرادوا الجلوس ولا نتشبه بهم في شيء من ملابسهم قلنسوة أو عمامة (قاله ابن تيمية رحمه الله في كتابه اقتضاء الصراط المستقيم وقال بعد نقل الحديث رواه حرب الكرماني بإسناد جيد 1/363)

حدثنا ابن جريج قال أخبرني نافع أن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما كساه وهو غلام فدخل المسجد فوجده يصلى متوشحا فقال أليس لك ثوبان قال بلى قال أرأيت لو استعنت بك وراء الدار أكنت لابسهما قال نعم قال فالله أحق أن تزين له أم الناس قال نافع بل الله فأخبره عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أو عن عمر رضي الله عنه قال نافع قد استيقنت أنه عن أحدهما وما أراه إلا عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال لا يشتمل أحدكم في الصلاة اشتمال اليهود من كان له ثوبان فليتزر وليرتد ومن لم يكن له ثوبان فليتزر ثم ليصل (شرح معانى الآثار 1/259)

Answered by:

Mufti Zakaria Makada

Checked & Approved:

Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)

Are You a Man Who Menstruates?

Kharshah bin al-Hurr narrated:

I saw Umar bin al-Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) while a young man passed by him, who had his lower garment hanging (below his ankle) and he was dragging it. So he (Umar) called him and said:

“Are you one who menstruates?”

He replied

O Ameer ul-Mu’mineen, does a man menstruate?”

He (Umar) replied:

So what is the matter with you having your lower garment (trousers) hang down upon your feet?” (ie. only women are permitted to do so)

Then he (Umar) called for a knife, gathered the hem of his trousers and cut what was below the ankles.

Karshah (the narrator) said:

It is as if I (can still) see the threads (from the professionally amputated trousers) trailing upon his heels.”

(Recorded in the Jaami’ of Sufyan ibn Uyayna. Ibn Abi Shaybah also narrates a shorter version of this incident with a Saheeh chain.)

ﻭﺃﺧﺮﺝ ﺳﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻴﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺧﺮﺷﺔ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺤﺮ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﺭﺃﻳﺖ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ ﺭﺿﻲ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻣﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺘﻰ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﻞ ﺇﺯاﺭﻩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺠﺮﻩ، ﻓﺪﻋﺎﻩ ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ: ﺃﺣﺎﺋﺾ ﺃﻧﺖ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻳﺎ ﺃﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻳﺤﻴﺾ اﻟﺮﺟﻞ؟ ﻗﺎﻝ: ﻓﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﻠﺖ ﺇﺯاﺭﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺪﻣﻴﻚ؟ ﺛﻢ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺑﺸﻔﺮﺓ ﺛﻢ ﺟﻤﻊ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺇﺯاﺭﻩ ﻓﻘﻄﻊ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺳﻔﻞ اﻟﻜﻌﺒﻴﻦ، ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺧﺮﺷﺔ: ﻛﺄﻧﻲ ﺃﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ اﻟﺨﻴﻮﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﺒﻴﻪ. ﻛﺬا ﻓﻲ اﻟﻜﻨﺰ

Beyond Elected Government. Just Government

“If a dog dies of thirst at the bank of Euphrates, how shall I answer for that to Allah.”
By Khalid Baig

“Surely, Allah commands you to fulfill trust obligations toward those entitled to them and that when you judge between people, judge with fairness.” [An-Nisa 3:58]

This is an essential verse of the Qur’an to be consulted by anyone who wants to understand Islam’s teachings about governance and government. While it talks about discharging trust obligations and being just in all situations, it has special implications for staffing and running public office.

Amanah (discharging one’s trust obligations) and Adl (Justice) are highly stressed attributes of believers. Sayyidna Anas, Radi-Allahu unhu, says: “It must have been a rare sermon in which the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, did not say the following words: ‘One who has no amanah has no iman (faith) and one who breaks promises has no religion.’ ” Yet these all important qualities become even more so when a person is occupying a position from where he can affect other people’s lives. Thus, Ulema explain that this verse specifies that all positions of authority are a trust to be given to those who are qualified for them. Further it specifies that whenever a Muslim is in a position to adjudicate a case between any two parties, he must do so with justice and fairness.

The conduct of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, in this regard and his numerous sayings on the subject further highlight the importance of this command. According to one hadith, if a person who has been charged with some responsibilities relating to the general body of Muslims gives an office to someone simply on the basis of friendship or connection of some sort without regard to the capability or merit of that person, the curse of Allah falls on him. None of his acts of worship are accepted, whether mandatory (fard) or voluntary (nafl).

We can discern some very important principles from the above.

First, the selection of people for positions of authority, and their behavior once in office, is a religious matter. Islam does not recognize the separation of religion and state.

Second, these positions are not a right of the people but a trust from Allah to be discharged according to His commands with utmost concern for justice for all. Third, the people so chosen must be good, for the good of the society depends on that.

From this we can begin to see the difference between Islam and that immensely advertised political system called democracy. Democracy is concerned with the mechanism for selecting people for government. Islam is concerned with the outcome of that selection. Democracy makes a huge virtue of its mechanism— the electoral process. But, mechanisms can and do change with time and circumstances. The two leading models of democratic government, England and the U.S.A., have different systems for electing the head of the government and the legislators, and their systems have also changed over time. Further, anyone overly impressed with the outer trappings of American Democracy may do well to remember a little known historic fact: Many in the U.S. wanted to make George Washington the King of America, but it was the distaste of the Revolutionary days for things English that kept monarchy away from the leading democracy of the world.

What matters most is what sort of rulers and managers of public life result from the process. Yet democracy is silent about it. It wants an elected government. Islam goes much further. It wants a just government.
What if corrupt people get elected through fair elections? Democracy offers no serious answer to this question. Early leaders, like James Madison, claimed: “People will have the virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom.” But more than two centuries of history have made nonsense of this proposition. Just recently a convicted liar and known sex-offender occupied the highest office in the U.S., and the public was not even concerned. So much for “men of virtue.”

What if democracies turn into tyrannies and the elected people commit atrocities against mankind?

It is sufficient to glance at the historic record of the last century. The only use of atom bombs was made not by a rogue dictatorship but the leading democracy in the world. The atrocities committed by European powers against each other in the two world wars were mostly the works of democratic governments. Just recently we saw with horror what happened in Bosnia, and Kosova. Yet the Serb leader had been an elected one. In Kashmir, where Indian atrocities are no less serious but are much less publicized, the democratic world is quite happy that India is a democracy. We are constantly reminded that Israel— a zionist apartheid country built on stolen land and sustained through constant oppression, torture, and treachery against the people whose land was stolen — is the only democracy in the Middle East. Well, what does that say about the system of government called democracy?

Democracy’s record on the home front is equally unenviable. It is no secret that in the U.S. real power lies with big corporations and wealthy people. Manufactured consent replaces informed public opinion and provides the façade for the “government by the people.” One result: Pockets of abject poverty in the richest nation in the world. In a country that grows so much food that it does not know what to do with all of it, there are thousands of people who go hungry or eat off the trash. What is more, nobody thinks the system of government has anything to do with it. Nobody loses sleep over it, not the least the elected rulers. Now contrast this with the Islamic Khilafah, where Sayyidna Umar, Radi-Allahu unhu, worries: “If a dog dies of thirst at the bank of Euphrates, how shall I answer for that to Allah.”

The widespread popularity of democracy indicates the yearning people have for justice, righteousness, and fairness that democracy promised but never delivered. Democratic movements had started out with the noble intentions of ending the tyranny of autocratic rulers. However, as with all other efforts aimed at reforming human society that were free from divine guidance, they could not reach their goal. The world needs to know that it will find it in Islam. But before that the billion Muslims living in the world today also need to discover that fact.

Unfortunately, our preoccupation with the vocabulary of democracy has shifted our focus to the electoral process and away from the requirement for establishing a just government.. The sooner we realize our mistake, the better.