DUA:Directed Brain Waves

DUA: DIRECTED BRAIN WAVES (Taken from the book —ISLAM) by Ahmed Hulusi “DUA IS THE WEAPON OF THE BELIEVER (mumin),” says RasulAllah! Are we really aware why it is so important to practice “DUA?” What is “DUA” and what is it for? As there is no god-out-there, beyond yourself, then to whom do you pray […]

DUA:Directed Brain Waves

Was The Prophet Muhammad Black?

by Alan Dixon

For Black History month this seems like a great place to start, considering the more accurate narrative of who Muhammad was and what happened to his family is steadily getting away from us. But first let’s deal with the nonsense, which, in this day and time, we must. Reflexively, people say, “why does it matter what color Muhammad was? Race or color doesn’t matter. What matters most are the prayers, the wisdom and the spiritual connection with the divine in Islam and in Muhammad’s teachings.” That is absolutely true, those aspects are more important, but that does not mean other aspects do not matter at all. Because one matters it does not automatically mean the other doesn’t. That’s a logical fallacy.


As many say, race has no real biological significance, it is largely a social construct. But that construct matters. Because of that construct certain groups of people amass immense power, wealth and influence which they exert over others who are mistreated, exploited, impoverished and marginalized. 


Nine times out of ten, the people who say race doesn’t matter are the ones to whom it matters most.  It’s the same as if two men walk into a room and find it full of stacks of cash and coins, and one man hits the other over the head, knocks him out and moves all the the coins and cash over to his side of the room. When the second man comes to he says, “hey let’s divide the money up fairly”, but the first man refuses. Then after several requests the first man replies, “it’s always money with you! Money doesn’t matter. That’s all you ever talk about.  It doesn’t matter. Come on, let’s go watch the football game.”


“Everything matters. Time is Precious.” ~ Jessica Hagedorn.


So let’s get into it, plain and simple. The (vague) perception we have of Muahmmad is that he was a pale/white arab similar to the Saudi we currently see today. But below is what is rarely mentioned. If you choose to casually mention Muhammad was black, you can always refer to this article, feel free:


The original Arabs are the same as Africans. The Prophet Muhammad was a black man from the Quraysh tribe.


Key keeper of the Kaaba from the Banu Shayba tribe/family (photo,1880). A subset of the Quraysh, the Shayba had been guardians of the Kaaba since before Muhammad’s time.

Robert F. Spencer remarked: “It is said that the Quraysh explained their short stature and dark skin by the fact that they always carefully adhered to endogamy.” (Endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, class, or social group.) Robert F. Spencer, “The Arabian Matriarchate: An Old Controversy,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 8 (Winter, 1952) 488.


Bertram Thomas, Cambridge educated historian and Finance Minister, reported in his work ‘The Arabs (New York, Doubleday 1937):
“The original inhabitants of Arabia…were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people.  A proto-‘negroid’ belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya.  This belt…(gave) rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India, and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula.  In the course of time two big migrations of fair-skinned peoples came from the north.”Also, “Where the grammar of the Arabic, now spoken by the ‘pure’ Arabs, differs from that of the north, it approaches to or coincides with the Ethiopians.  The general habits  of the people,-given to sedentary rather than nomad occupations, fond of village life, of society, of dance and music; good cultivators of the soil, tolerable traders, moderate artisans, have much more in common with those of the inhabitants of the African than with those of the western Asiatic continent.


Ibn Mandhor (1232-1311 A.D.) says in his book Lisan El-Arab:
 “Non-kinky hair is the kind of hair that most non-Arabs like the Romans and Persians have while kinky hair is the kind of hair that most Arabs have.”


“To the Cushite race belongs the oldest and purest Arabian blood, and also that great and very ancient civilization whose ruins abound in almost every district of the country. ..The south Arabs represent a residue of hamitic populations which at one time occupied the whole of Arabia.” John Baldwin, from ‘Pre-historic Nations Or Inquiries Concerning Some of the Great Peoples and Civilizations of Antiquity.’ Harpers (1869).


It should be understood that many of the names of Cushitic speaking tribes today in the horn of Africa – Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia/Eritrea – were also known in early Arabia. In Somalia such clans as the Yahar, Darood, the Mahra of Somalia and the Yemen, Makhar, Bin Sama’al or Somali(or Sam’al and El Sama of Yemen), Rahawein (ancient Rahawiyyin or Ru’ayn or Rahawi of Yemen) and smith clans such the Hubir (Heber), Yubir, Sabi, Tumal and Wubar (or Wabar) are mentioned in ancient times and through the early Islamic period as Himyarite and Sabaean tribes in South Arabian inscriptions. ~ “When Arabia Was Eastern Ethiopia”, Dana Marniche.

“Abd al-Muttalib, “fathered ten Lords, Black as the night and magnificent. One of these men was Abdallah, the father of Muhammad.” Al-Jahiz (b. 776 A.D.)


The prophet’s great, great grandmother was from the jet-black Banū Sulaym. Ḥāshim, the great grandfather, bore with Salmā bint ‘Amrū ’l-Khazrajī the prophet’s grandfather, ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib. This means that his paternal great grandmother was from the black Medinese tribe Banū Khazraj.  Daniel Martin Varisco, “Metaphors and Sacred History: The Genealogy of Muhammad and the Arab ‘Tribe’,” Anthropological Quarterly 68 (1995): 139-156, esp. 148-150.




“The Black Arabs kept close to their African Ethiopian roots. Trade and cultural exchanges were routine and marriage was contracted and conducted with the easiest of facility between Africans and Yemenis since there were no caste feelings between them.” ~   Ogu Eji Ofo Anu.


Al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) in his Jami’ al-Ṣāḥī reports on the authority of the famous Companion of the Prophet, Anas b. Malik:

“The Messenger of Allah was of medium stature, neither tall nor short, [with] a beautiful, dark brown-complexioned body (ḥasan al-jism asmar al-lawn). His hair was neither curly nor completely straight and when he walked he leant forward.” (VI:69 no. 1754)
We have been told in codified hadith (narratives) that he was white, some of them are here:

According to Sahih Bukhari Anas bin Malik (RA) reported that when a person inquired the companions about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- they pointed towards him saying; هَذَا الرَّجُلُ الأَبْيَضُ المُتَّكِئُ This white man (rajul al-abyad) reclining on his arm. Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat al-Kubra narrates from Abu Umamah that he described about the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, as: رَجُلًا أَبْيَضَ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ A man of white complexion with red tinge in it (abyad ta’luhu humrah).

Yemeni Children

However, in the context of human complexions, the term ‘abyad’ means ‘black’. In Classical Arabic there are several distinct ‘shades of blackness’ as noted by al-Tha‘labīb in his Fiqh al-lugha [82-82] Abyad/bayad is a particular shade or ‘type’ of blackness. According to the important Syrian hadith scholar and historian of Islam, Shāms al-Dīn al-Dhahabī in his Siyar a’lām al-nubalā’ [II:168]:

“When Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad),’ they mean a golden brown complexion with a black appearance.”
Al-Dhahbi wrote:
إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)

Ibn Man ūr (d. 1311), author of the most authoritative classical Arabic lexicon, Lisān alarab, notes the opinion that the phrase aswad al-jilda, ‘Blackskinned,’ idiomatically meant khāli al arab, “the pure Arabs,” “because the color of most of the Arabs is dark (al- udma).”In other words, darkness of skin among the Arabs suggested purity. The Syrian scholar and historian al-Dhahabī (d. 1348) too reported that Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Prophet Muhammad’s first cousin, and his son, Alī ibn AbdAllah, were “very dark-skinned.”Al-Dhahabī, Siyar, V:253.


Alī ibn Abu Talib, first cousin of the Prophet and future fourth caliph, is described by al-Suyuti and others as “husky, bald…pot-bellied, large-bearded…and jet-black (shadīd al-udma).”  Al-Suyåãī, Tārikh al-khulafā (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1975) 186.


 Al-Mubarrad (d. 898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition:
“The Arabs used to take pride in their brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawād) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-ḥumra waal-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.”
Ali’s son, Abu Jaffa , according to Bin Sad’s (d. 845), described Ali thusly: “He was a black-skinned man with big, heavy eyes, pot-bellied, bald, and kind of short.”  Abd Allah ibn Abbas was very black and tall. Those of Abu Talibs’s family, who are the most noble of men, are dark skinned, black and tall (sud).”  

In discussing the appearance of the Sharifs, I believe that it is appropriate for me to begin with the father of the Sharifs- Ali ibn Abi Talib (RAA). In his book Tarikh Al-Khulafaa (The History of the Caliphs), Imam Al-Suyuti described Ali ibn Abi Talib as follows:
و كان علي شيخا سمينا أصلع كثير الشعر ربعة إلى القصر عظيم البطن عظيم اللحية جدا قد ملأت ما بين منكبيه بيضاء كأنها قطن آدم شديد الأدمة
Ali was a heavyset, bald, hairy man of average height which leaned toward shortness. He had a large stomach and a large beard which filled all that was between his shoulders. His beard was white as if it was cotton and he was a black-skinned man.

Muhammad Ahmad Al Mahdi

There are certain names that we usually hear when the Sharifs or Sayyids – the family of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) are mentioned. We have all probably heard of Ali Zayn Al-Abadiyn the son of‫ ِAl-Husayn the son of Ali the son of Abu Talib. Though his mother was Persian, he is described as dark-skinned. Where did he get his dark complexion from?


From his father’s side of the family, of course. This Ali Zayn Al-Abadiyn, the son of ‫ ِ    Al-Husayn, the son of Ali, the son of Abu Talib married Fatima the daughter of Al-Hasan the son of Ali the son of Abi Talib.


Muhammad Al-Baqiyr- another name we hear when there is mention of the Sharifs, the family of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) – was the eldest son of Ali Zayn Al-Abadiyn and Fatima the daughter of Al-Hasan. He was nicknamed “He Who Resembles” because he looked so much like the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).

Lawrence Olivier

He was described as dark-skinned, kinky-haired, and of average height. Muhamad Al-Baqir married Umm Farwa, the great granddaughter of Abu Bakr Al-Saddiq and they had Jaafar Al-Saadiq. Jaafar Al-Saadiq is another name frequently heard when speaking of the family of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS). He was described as black-skinned, kinky-haired, and average height.
Among the Prophet Muhammad’s direct descendants was Muhammad Ahmad Al-Mahdi (b. 1845).

He is considered the father of modern Sudan, having established an independent state- throwing off British rule in 1885. A movie was made of him, “Khartoum” (1966), starring Charlton Heston as his British rival, Charles Gordon.

The Hollywood Version of Muhammad Ahmad (lol)

Above is an example of how if we are not careful perceptions of certain historical figures can gradually be co-opted and changed. Muhammad Ahmad was portrayed as a pale arab by the English actor Laurence Olivier.

However, Muhammad Ahmad was Sudanese, a black man, clearly.


Abdur-Rahman Al Mahdi, son of Muhammad Ahmad Al Mahdi

Finally, we have to keep in mind that Mecca during the time of Muhammad was part of the Empire and cultural sphere of the Ethiopian kingdom of Aksum.

“And certainly we did create man out of clay, from black mud fashioned into shape.”
~ Qur’an 15:26

http://www.innercivilization.com/2015/02/was-prophet-muhammad-black.html

Is Orthodox Islam True Islam? Parts 1 and Parts 2

By Alan Dixon

We’ve heard it referenced since Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam. Orthodox Islam is repeatedly referenced as True Islam, but how did Orthodox or Sunni Islam come about? What is it true to? Is it true to what’s in the Qur’an? Does it differ from what Muhammad taught?  Is Orthodox Islam really ‘true Islam?’



If you want to save some time, sadly, the answer is… no, it is not. Orthodox Sunni Islam cannot honestly or truthfully call itself ‘true Islam.’  

The explanation is in the article below, along with all of the evidence.
1. The Take Over 


In order to understand how we ended up with something called Orthodox or Sunni Islam we have to first look at a very important series of events surrounding the prophet Muhammad’s death. As we know, Seventh Century Arabian society had a deep kinship and tribal structure. Muhammad was able to transcend the deep tribal rivalries based on his message of the Oneness of the Creator and the oneness of people in particular. When he was nearing death he made clear who was to succeed him, explain the Qur’an and give spiritual guidance to the community. Mainstream historians and Orthodox Muslims claim that Muhammad didn’t name or leave a successor but they can only make this claim by ignoring or obscuring overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Most histories currently negotiate the succession of the prophet by noting on one side what Sunnis say and on the other what the what Shia believe. But that’s an odd way to discuss an historical event. Why not simply discuss what happened and draw conclusions from the evidence available? Especially considering there were no Sunni or Shia Muslims until over 100 years after this incident took place.

 Why would their views dominate the narrative? Much of the information that exposes and rebuts the current Sunni view is right in Sunni sources but is ignored or explained away with weak illogical arguments. Most of the information directly below will be coming from (hadith) narratives that are widely and independently corroborated. I’ll discuss the over reliance on hadith later, but I will use some now in order to help ascertain what happened and also because many of these narratives which have been passed down don’t necessarily support Sunni beliefs, which tend to make them somewhat more reliable.


Through out his life as prophet, Muhammad had a son, a brother, a son in law, a cousin, a defender, a right hand man, a student and a protege at his side. His name was Ali Ibn Abu Talib. Muhammad also had a daughter, Fatima, whom he cherished. She was from his longtime, beloved wife, Khadijah. Muhammad made it clear how he viewed Fatima. He is related to have said: “Fatima is the head of the women of Paradise.”1 “Fatima is part of me. Whatever harms her, harms me and whatever is against her is against me.” 2 The Prophet (s) said, “Fatima is the joy of my heart, and her sons are the fruit of my soul.”3  Of course, many men asked for her hand in marriage when she came of age but Muhammad would give her away to no one, except Ali. The Prophet said, “Verily Allah married Ali to Fatima.” 4


Thus, Ali and Fatima, the beloved daughter of the prophet were married and they had two sons, Hasan and Husayn. This family is regarded as Ahl Bayt (the Family of the House). They were closest to Muhammad in terms of blood as well as spirit. 
Throughout his life Muhammad referred to Ali as his successor. This began at the start of his mission. When Muhammad brought 30 or more of his family members to a feast and invited them to accept Islam and request support, they were all silent except fourteen year old Ali, who stood up and said that he would support the Messenger and share the burden of his work. Muhammad asked Ali to sit down as he sought older members of his clan to support him. After two more unsuccessful attempts Ali stood up again and expressed his unwavering support for Muhammad. This time Muhammad embraced him and declared Ali to be his brother, his heir and his successor.5

The following are various quotes Muhammad made about Ali throughout his career.

“What do you want from ‘Ali? ‘Ali is from me, and I am from ‘Ali, and he is the ‘Master of every believer after me.” 6

“I am the city of wisdom and ‘Ali is its gate.” 7 

“Ali is with the Qur’an, and the Qur’an is with ‘Ali. They shall not separate from each other ’till they both return to me by the Pool (of Paradise).”8 

[To Ali] “Are you not satisfied to be to me like Aaron was to Moses except that there shall be no Prophet after me?” 9 

“Loving ‘Ali is believing, hating ‘Ali is hypocrisy.”10


And finally, after returning from Mecca during a pilgrimage Muhammad stopped over 20,000 of his followers near a pond called Ghadir Khumm, he delivered a sermon in which he said “”O Muslims! I am a mortal like any of you, and I may soon be summoned into the presence of my Lord. My most precious legacy to you is the Book of Allah and the members of my family, as I have told you before. Now listen to this with attention that I am the Master of all of you – of all Believers.

All those men and women who acknowledge me as their Master, I want them to acknowledge (at this point he held Ali’s hand and lifted it high over his head) Ali also as their Master. Ali is the Master of all those men and women whose Master I am.”11


No Muslim scholar could ever cast any doubt in the documentation of the tradition of Ghadir Khum, for it has been narrated with as much as 150 authentic chains of transmitters by the Sunnis alone. So Sunni muslims either ignore this event or they try to trivialize it by interpreting ‘mawla’ as meaning ‘friend’. They mention that Mawla has over 20 different meanings, then settle on friend even though most meanings have to do with the position of leadership and guardianship. Only in one instance it could mean a friend. And even then it has a quality of authority and responsibility attached to it, as opposed to the idea of a ‘buddy’ or ‘pal’ as in the English language.  


But rather than squabble over the meaning of a word, we can do what is necessary to understand the event which is to look at its context.  The first thing to note is that once Muhammad decided to stop at Ghadir Khum, he called for all those who had gone ahead to come back and he waited for those trailing behind him to catch up. He then had a pulpit made of camel saddles. In addition to raising Ali’s hand in front of the crowd, after his declaration, Muhammad also took off his turban and gave it to Ali. Afterward Muhammad and Ali went to Ali’s tent and there, on Muhammad’s orders, Ali received the congratulations of the Muslims who acclaimed him as Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful). 

Among these well-wishers was Umar b. Khattab who said, “Well done Ibn Abi Talib! Today you became the leader (mawla) of all believing men and women.”13 But most importantly how did Ali himself view this event? Obviously it was clearly of import and meant to express some authority as he reminded others of the declaration at Ghadir at various times over the years. The most remarkable of these was Yawm al-Ruḥba (Arabic: يَوْم الرُحْبَة) the day in which Imam Ali (a) asked those people in al-Ruhba in Kufa who had witnessed the Event of Ghadir to testify about what Muhammad had declared. A number of the Prophet’s companions and companions of Imam Ali (a)—between twelve to thirty people—stood up and testified that they had heard the declaration at al-Ghadir from Muhammad.14 


Muhammad’s hope was that this young man, Ali who he had groomed since he was a child, and personally taught not only the apparent meaning of each revelation of the Qur’an, but the esoteric meaning as well, would be a living repository of knowledge and guidance in the generations to come. It was undisputed that besides Muhammad, no one knew and understood the Qur’an better than Ali Ibn Talib. This understanding was also bourn out in the nobility, generosity and charity of his manners and behavior.  But some of Muhammad’s followers didn’t share his vision or listen to his direction. Many were jealous of Ali and some hated him because of his earnestness in exacting justice and truth. In fact the sermon at Ghadir was partially prompted by an incident where a number of soldiers under Ali’s command in Yemen were angry at him and criticized and complained about him to Muhammad regarding the distribution of the spoils of that expedition.

Even after the speech at Ghadir it is narrated that Muhammad was approached by one of his followers, Harith Ibn Nu’man al-Fahri who said to him: “You commanded us to testify that there is no deity but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah. We obeyed you. You ordered us to perform the prayers five times a day and we obeyed. You ordered us to observe fasts during the month of Ramadhan and we obeyed. Then you commanded us to offer pilgrimage to Mecca and we obeyed. But you are not satisfied with all this and you raised your cousin by your hand and imposed him upon us as our master by saying `’Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla.’ Is this imposition from Allah or from You?”The Prophet (S) said: “By Allah who is alone in his oneness! This is from Allah, Mighty and the Exalted!”15

Muhammad was aware of the presence of a strong undercurrent of opposition among his companions against Ali. He must have sensed that a transfer of guidance and authority to Ali would be problematic because shortly before his death he ordered the mobilization of a large army to Syria under the leadership of 18 year old Usama Ibn Zayd (to avenge the murder of an emissary and the killing of his father Zayd Ibn Harithah three years earlier.)  He then ordered all his companions, with the exception of Ali and other members of Banu Hashim (his family), to report for duty to Usama, and to serve under him. These companions included the oldest, the wealthiest and the most powerful men of Quraysh such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas, Talha, Zubayr, Khalid bin al-Walid, and many others. Many of the leading companions complained to Muhammad about Usama’s young age, but Muhammad insisted they leave Medina with him. 16  Then Muhammad fell ill. 

 

http://www.innercivilization.com/2019/12/is-orthodox-islam-true-islam-pt-1.html

The appointment of Usama as general was not, however, the only reason why some of the companions did not want to go to Syria. There were some other reasons also why they believed it was absolutely essential for them to stay in Medina, regardless of the orders of the Messenger of Allah. Usama asked the Prophet if it would not be better to defer the invasion of Syria until his recovery from fever. But the Prophet said: “No. I want you to leave this very moment!” Whenever the Prophet felt slight relief from his fever and headache, he questioned those present if Usama’s army had left for Syria. He kept urging them, ‘Send off the army of Usama immediately.’ There is even a narrative that at one time Muhammad entered the masjid with his head still bandaged and cursed anyone who did not leave with Usama’s army. Yet, most of the senior companions lingered in the city;some to hear the news of Muhammad’s health. One historian notes:
“They stayed in the city out of their “love” for the Prophet since they did not have the “heart” to leave him at a time when he was critically ill.But these protestations of “love” and “solicitude” for his welfare did not impress the Prophet himself. The touchstone of their love for him was their obedience to his commands. He ordered them to leave for Syria but they did not. They disobeyed him during the last days of his life.”17

The Calamity of Thursday

At one point, Muhammad was on his deathbed. He opened his eyes and saw a group of people in his house, many of whom were supposed to have left with Usama’s army, including Abu Bakr and Umar. Decidedly he requested writing materials and said,  “[c]ome near, let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray.” Umar prevented others from complying with Muhammad’s wish and suggested, “possibly The Prophet is delirious. We have the Quran, and the Book of Allah is sufficient for us.” The people objected to Umar. Some of them demanded that pen and paper be given to the Prophet, while others supported Umar. When the noise increased, the Prophet instructed the people to leave him alone. And nothing was ever written. He died several days later. This is a well documented event. It was narrated by Bukhari, Tabari, Ibn Kathir among others. 18 The following is the typical narrative you’ll find as to what happened after the prophet Muhammad’s death.
“The Prophet Muhammad, who died in 632, did not leave a definite successor. When the news of the Prophet’s death came out, many Muslims were confused and stunned. ‘Umar himself was so overcome with emotion that he drew his sword and declared, “If anyone says that the Messenger of Allah is dead, I will cut off his head.” Muslims stayed in such a state until Abu Bakr arrived and gave his famous address: “O People! If anyone among you worshipped Muhammad, let him know that Muhammad is dead. But those who worshipped Allah, let them know that He lives and will never die. He quoted a verse from the Qur’an 3:144 “And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?”


Having shrugged off the shocking news of the Prophet’s death, Muslims realized that they need someone to fill the position of leadership amongst them.
The two main groups amongst Muslims were Muhajirun (refugees from Makkah), and Ansar (the people of Madinah). The Ansar gathered at the Thaqifah Bani Saydah their meeting place. Sa’ad ibn Abadah, the Ansar leader, suggested that the Caliph should be from amongst them. Although many refused saying that the Muhajirun in right have a better claim to Khilafah. When the news reached Abu Bakr, he quickly went to their gathering, fearing that confusion might spread once again, and said, “Both Muhajirun and Ansar have done great service to Islam. But the former were the first to accept Islam, they were always very close to the Messenger of Allah. So, O Ansar, let the Caliph be from amongst them.” After a short discussion, the Ansar agreed that they should choose the Caliph from amongst the Muhajirun, being from the tribe of Quraysh and being the first to accept Islam. Abu Bakr then asked people to choose between ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah. Hearing this, both men jumped to their feet and exclaimed “O Siddiq, how can that be? How can anyone else fill this position as long as you are among us? You are the top man amongst he Muhajirun. Thus, Abu Bakr became accepted as al-Amir al-Muminun (leader of the believers), which later would be called the “caliphate.” Many narratives are also sure to include that Muhammad in his last days asked Abu Bakr to lead the prayers at the mosque, which is considered a signal for his succeeding the prophet.


This is from SunnahOnline.com, for example: “During his last illness, the Prophet could no longer lead the prayers, he was too weak to go to the mosque, he therefore had to choose someone to fill such high position after him. Abu Bakr was the one who was honored to be chosen by the Prophet for such a task. Thus in the lifetime of the Prophet, Abu Bakr came to fill the highest position under Islam (leading prayers).” 19


Under somewhat closer scrutiny, this narrative that has been told for hundreds of years barely holds up and is misleading at best. The first aspect of this narrative that Muhammad didn’t choose a successor is completely false based on the information we’ve already seen above. Many won’t accept this as true because it means that the highly venerated companions of the Prophet usurped authority from Ali Ibn Talib. But the truth is, this seems to be exactly what happened. The assumption has been, that Umar refused to believe Muhammad was dead was a sign of grief and trauma at upon the news of his passing out of a deep love for his prophet. But he also actively kept others from believing Muhammad was dead as well. Some have commented that this was done to stall until Abu Bakr arrived and they could figure out how to proceed before any institutional, authoritative policies could be made by Ali who was busy during this time tending to the body of the prophet. Abu Bakr was just outside of Medina in a town named Sunh. Most narratives relate that when he heard the news he arrived a few hours later, so it’s safe to assume that a messenger was sent to give him the word. (Who sent this messenger?)

No one can definitively declare what was on Umar’s mind but upon Abu Bakr’s arrival Umar’s grief evaporated rather quickly, which makes any assertions of real trauma unconvincing. 


Most narratives will make it seem that the issue was between the Ansars (helpers from Medina) and the Muhajarun (those who emigrated from Mecca with Muhammad). The truth is that somehow Umar found out about a meeting the Ansars were having to decide who would lead them upon the contingency that there would be political unrest after Muhammad’s death and in case the authority transferred to Ali was ignored. And the truth is the Muhajirun were not present to assert any possible claims because Umar told only Abu Bakr and Abu Hurayrah about this meeting and no one else. The meeting was private and confidential until Umar and Abu Bakr invaded it and refused to allow the Ansar to choose their own leader. None of the other leading men among Muhammad’s companions were present and especially not his family, the Hashimites. So one has to wonder why not choose the leader of the Muslims by consensus among the whole community? Some say there was no time; but a final decision could have been delayed and reached the next day or later when the whole community of the believers were present or if nothing else, after the Prophet was buried.  

Many wonder if Abu Bakr wasn’t chosen by consensus why did so many accept his leadership? The answer is complicated but we can consider this for now: 1) Among the Ansar there was an old rivalry between the Banu (tribe) Aws and the Banu Khazraj, (which is another primary reason they were meeting – to determine how they would govern themselves now that Muhammad was no longer leader of the city.  When Umar presented Abu Bakr as caliph (successor), Bashir ibn Sa’d, the leader of the Aws, also took Abu Bakr’s hand as caliph. This was because the Aws feared that if any of the Khazraj were elected they would remain in power and mistreat them (the Aws). 2) Umar then took charge of securing the pledge of allegiance in the streets of Medina with the help of the Banu Aslam a fierce, loyal tribe who also supported Muhammad. So with the domineering personality of Umar, backed by the Ansar and Banu Aslam -many pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. 3) There were many who refused to give bayah (allegiance) to Abu Bakr.  Sa’ad Ibn Ubaydah, the elderly leader of the Khazraj refused to pledge loyalty to Abu Bakr. Umar pressed Abu Bakr to get the pledge by force, but after a discussion with other Ansar it was decided to leave him alone. He was assassinated in Syria soon after Umar became Caliph in 637. 

The historian Al-Yaqubi mentions in Tarikh al-Yaqubi: “A number of migrants and the helpers(Ansar) refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, inclined as they were to favor Ali ibn Abi TalibAl Abbas bin Abd al-Muttalib, Al-Fadi bin Al-Abbas, Al-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam, Khalid bin Said, Al MiqdadSalman the PersianAbu Zar GhaffariAmmar ibn Yasir, Al-Bara’a, Ubayy bin Ka’b were part of this group”. 20 Also among this list were many of the Ansar who specifically said they would only give allegiance to Ali Talib. 21 Muhammad’s daughter Fatima did not recognize Abu Bakr as caliph and refused to speak to him until her death. Umar actually threatened to burn her house down if she did not comply with his demands. 

‘Ali and his group came to know about Saqifa after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatimah’s house. Abu Bakr and Umar, fully aware of ‘Ali’s claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. ‘Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if ‘Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene grew violent and Fatimah was furious. 22


Other historians record that Umar declared: “O’ daughter of the Prophet! I didn’t love anyone as much as I loved your father, nor anyone after him is more loving to me as you are. But I swear by Allah that if these people assemble here with you, then this love of mine would not prevent me from setting your house on fire.” 23


Bilal, the renowned first Muw’adhin (one who calls to prayer) also refused to give allegiance to Abu Bakr. It is documented that when Bilal did not give bay’ah to Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab grabbed him by his clothes and asked, “Is this the reward of Abu Bakr; he emancipated you and you are now refusing to pay allegiance to him? Bilal replied, “If Abu Bakr had emancipated me for the pleasure of Allah then let him leave me alone for Allah; and if he had emancipated me for his service, then I am ready to render him the services required. But I am not going to pay allegiance to a person whom the Messenger of God had not appointed as his caliph.” 24


Finally, with regard to Abu Bakr being asked to lead the prayers by Muhammad, it is not clear that a direct order was ever given to Abu Bakr to lead prayer. There are a number of hadith about the subject and many of them conflict. In the oldest version of the story, Muhammad asked “someone” to lead the prayers and when Umar was chosen, Muhammad heard his loud voice, said “No, no no!” and asked “where’s Abu Bakr?” 


 Although many mainstream narratives will suggest how important leading the prayer is in this case, the truth is that there is a long standing tradition that any believing man can lead others in prayer. It is no exalted position of honor. For example, Abu Hurayra reports that the Apostle of God said that: “Prayer is a mandatory duty for you, and you can offer it behind any Muslim even if he is a fasiq (even if he commits major sins).” 24

According to this “tradition” a fasiq (sinner) is just as well qualified to be an Imam (prayer-leader) as a saint. So even if it’s true that Muhammad chose Abu Bakr to lead the prayer, it is only speculative that this indicated that he wanted Abu Bakr to lead Islam after his death. In fact, if this was such a decisive argument as is currently asserted, we have to wonder, why it was never considered or mentioned at Saqifah when arguing for leadership with the Ansaar? Also we have to acknowledge that this was never considered an important indicator for any future caliph. In fact, Umar never lead the prayers during Abu Bakr’s  reign as caliph and he assigned someone else to lead the prayers during his own reign (this person was never considered in the selection of the next caliph.)


From the point Abu Bakr took charge of the community of the faithful, the nature of Islam changed. It was well known that Abu Bakr understood the tribes of Arabia and had a keen political mind. The mainstream narrative suggests that various tribes, became ‘apostates’ and  broke out in rebellion against “Islam” forcing Abu Bakr to put down this rebellion militarily -these were called the Ridda Wars (the Wars of Apostasy). But the truth is, most of the tribes involved wanted to meet and evaluate this new ‘ruler’ and negotiate their tax arrangementas they had done with Muhammad. They were still believers and had no problems being Muslim but had not made any arrangements with this new ‘Saqifah government’ which Muhammad did not appoint. One example was Malik Ibn Nuwayrah, who was a distinguished companion of Muhammad and was appointed by him to collect taxes for his tribe, the Bani Yarbu. Malik was also known for having a wife, Layla bint Minhal, who was one of the most beautiful and desired women on the Arabian peninsula. Upon hearing what had happened in Medina following the death of Muhammad, he gave back all the tax to his tribesmen, saying that “I will only pay taxes to the man chosen at Ghadeer” (Ali ibn Abu Taleb).25  


According to both major accounts, Abu Bakr, infuriated by Malik’s evident refusal to recognize him as the legitimate successor of Muhammad, instructed Khalid to kill him if he could lay his hands on him. Khalid declared Malik a rebel apostate and ordered his execution.Khalid bin Walid killed Malik ibn Nuwayra and married his wife, Layla bint al-Minhal.  Tabari writes in his History that when Khalid and his troops entered the Banu Yerbo territory, they said to the tribesmen: “We are Muslims.” They said: “We are also Muslims.” Khalid’s men asked: “If you are Muslims, why are you bearing arms? There is no war between us. Lay down your weapons so that we may all offer our prayers.”


The tribesmen put down their weapons. But no sooner they had done so, than Khalid’s warriors seized them, bound them, and let them to shiver in the cold night. On the following morning, they were all put to death. Khalid then plundered their houses, captured their women and children, and brought them as prisoners of war to Medina.  Abu Bakr went on to subdue the majority of the tribes of Arabia and bring most of Arabia under the control of his government by military force. 

Shrewdly, Abu Bakr knew that the bedouin tribes of Arabia were independent and fierce warriors so with every victory over a tribe he conscripted them into his growing army as they attacked any tribe who refused to pay allegiance to him. 
It cannot be overstated that this was a radical change from Muhammad’s practices and the principles of the Qur’an. Abu Bakr justified his actions by claiming it was his duty as Muhammad’s ‘successor’ to follow his path and demand the Arab tribes pay the taxes. However, during Muhammad’s lifetime, initially,  only a few loyal tribes were asked to pay the taxes. And as noted by Wilfred Madelung: “The enforcement of the alms-tax was probably also handled with caution and discretion on the part of Muhammad during the following, last, year of his life. There are no reports of any force used against tribes failing to pay, of which there must have been more than a few.”26

Yet Abu Bakr went way beyond this, going to war with all of the Arab tribes who didn’t pay the tax. Most importantly this goes completely against the teachings of the Qur’an revealed by Muhammad. To be clear, there is no verse in Qur’an calling upon a Muslim government to kill those Muslims who do not pay zakat. There is no tradition of the Prophet of Islam stating that the penalty for refusal to pay zakat is death. The Qur’an teaches fighting is only for self defense or during a battle where the faithful are not aggressors.

Many have wondered why if the Qur’an teaches self defense, how is it possible that Islam spread so widely through conquest. Abu Bakr was the catalyst. For political reasons, Abu Bakr, sought the support of the Meccan ruling elite who had fought Muhammad during his entire career and had only embraced Islam a year before his death, subsequent to the fall of Mecca. Although, in the interests of peace and forgiveness Muhammad never punished those Meccans who accepted Islam and generously gave some of them leadership positions. Abu Bakr went much further. Under him,’ the Islamic state was henceforth to be based on the rule of Quraysh over all Arabs. Their right to rule in the name of Islam derived from the claim that the Arabs would not obey anyone else.’ 27


Many have blamed the third caliph Uthman for putting too many of his kinsmen the Umayyad (a sub-clan of the larger Quraysh) in power positions, laying out the groundwork for the controversial Umayyad dynasty, but this began with Abu Bakr. With their support he firmly held his position as caliph and with his support the Umayad family were able to spread their rule to a vast territory covering much of the Arabian Peninsula and beyond. While Muhammad only maintained a loyal federation of Arab tribes surrounding Mecca and Medina, Abu Bakr by force had conquered the fiercely independent, militant arabs. And Abu Bakr knew that in order to keep these tribes under control he had to keep them busy. So with each new tribe added to his force they, in turn, were recruited to subdue the next tribe (with the promise of wealth and booty).

 This was the fuel to the rapid growth of the “Islamic” state. Meanwhile keep in mind that as pointed out by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, “Muhammad in fact did battle only three times in his entire life and the period of his involvement in these battles did not total more than one and a half days. He fought, let it be said, in self defense when hemmed in by aggressors, where he simply had no option.” 28 This also explains why the expansion of Islam was not an expansion of the faith, which usually came 100 years or so later spread by scholars and Sufi (mystics). The early Arab conquerors were political men in search of wealth and power, most of whom had only converted to Islam nominally, and only a year before Muhammad’s death.
“Most of the Arabs who went out of Arabia, after the death of the Prophet, were not Islam’s missionaries. They were plain conquerors. Most of them lacked the knowledge of Islam, and they lacked interest in spreading Islam. Most of them were born and bred in the pagan tradition, and they had been fighting against the Muslims only two or three years earlier.”


What is clear is that Muhammad’s nearest family the Hashimites were excluded from any positions of authority. This is no secret or conspiracy; it not only bears out in the facts of history but Umar himself acknowledged it. When discussing the honor, nobility of descent, and virtues of a particular clan with Ibn Abbas, Umar stated, “I do not know any other clan among the Quraysh to whom these verses can be better applied than the Banu Hashim, because of their relationship and superior claims to the Prophet, but the people did not like to allow both the Prophethood and the caliphate to be combined in your family, for with this you would feel arrogant and rejoice.” 29 And this is the crux of the whole matter, Muhammad wanted a man he groomed from childhood- Ali, and his grandsons Hasan and Husayn to carry the tradition of honor, wisdom, faith, honesty forward amongst the faithful, “but the people didn’t like it.” 

Muhammad made it clear: “”Indeed I am leaving two things among you, to which if you hold yourself, you will never go astray: the book of Allah (Qur’an) and my Ahl Al Bayt (household, my family). [Muhammad’s family refers to Ali ibn Abi TalibFatimah bint Muhammad (the daughter of Muhammad), their children and descendants.] 30  


Ali Ibn Talib was by all accounts the man who knew the Qur’an best besides Muhammad. Muhammad’s  mission was to reveal the message of the Qur’an- who better to preserve his message and purpose than the man he groomed to understand Quran essentially as well as he did? (For more on Ali’s unrivaled wisdom and scholarship see note 31.)31 But Abu Bakr, Umar and those with them felt “the people, the Quraysh” wouldn’t like it, and took over Muhammad’s legacy for themselves and the Orthodox Sunnis will support this until their death. They even refuse to acknowledge that Muhammad left the Qur’an and his Family for  guidance, rather (without authenticity) they claim Muhammad said he left “two weighty things, The Qur’an and my sunnah.” The foundation of their whole doctrine is based on this. But it has little, if any, credible support. 


Anything related to Muhammad’s clear instructions to look to Ali in order to understand Islam has been dismissed as Shia nonsense, although the whole narrative above -including the quote about the two weighty things- all come from so called ‘authentic’ Sunni sources. Hundreds of thousands of hadith have been fabricated, we will discuss this in detail in the following part of this article, but I used the hadith and sira (biographical history) about these events because they have been attested to by a number of independent sources and because they go against the interests of the Sunni narrative and therefore tend to be more credible.32 


Muhammad may have not appointed a caliph in the sense that we understand it today, a political ruler who presides over a consolidated empire or the temporal body of Muslims, called the Ummah, rather he wanted to insure there was an insightful, knowledgeable, sincere dedicated guide to teach Islam as Muhammad understood it, a spiritual state of Oneness and Peace. But how were Muhammad’s family treated? Fatimah’s house was attacked by Umar and she was disinherited by Abu Bakr of land Muhammad left her (Fadak); Ali was marginalized and eventually killed during a civil war with an Ummayyad governor who refused to acknowledge his authority, Hasan Muhammad’s grandson was forced to resign from any claims of leadership and later poisoned, and Husayn, Muhammad’s other grandson was killed attempting to assert his position by an Ummayyad caliph.


So by rejecting Muhammad’s direction to look toward his family as the guides preserving his message and legacy, Orthodox Islam instead took to relying on a growing and often fabricated body of Muhammad’s alleged sayings and practices (hadith) to define their own version of ‘Islam’, eventually even raising the hadith to the level of Qur’an, and ultimately higher. [This is not to say that the Hadith cannot be used as history or as pieces of evidence from which to draw a reliable picture of history together. (History being defined as what probably or most likely happened in the past.) If nothing else, hadith can give insight to what the people who actually wrote them, or fabricated them, were thinking. They should fall under the same scrutiny as other evidences of history which would include analyzing the text, checking it for its relationship to science, other artifacts of history, probability and reality. And we should always keep in mind that hadith fall under the broad category of hearsay. Hearsay is not allowed in court except under a few exceptions because it is by nature unreliable and cannot be verified by the person initially making the statement.] 


This will be discussed in Part Two.  

Part 2. Raising the Hadith to the level of Qur’an


“Memories grow dim, stories are changed in the telling, and not all who record them are truthful.” ~ Albert Hourani 


Anyone somewhat familiar with mainstream Orthodox Sunni Islam will hear about the Qur’an and Sunnah as the basis of the religion of Islam. The Qur’an is the revelation sent to Muhammad and the “Sunnah”, as it is currently used, relates to the statements, actions, approvals (and disapprovals) of the Prophet Muhammad. Also currently hadith is used interchangeably with the concept of the Sunnah.  In this sense Sunnah is defined as “anything narrated from or about the prophet.” Here’s a current example of the attitude of Sunni Muslims towards the Qur’an from the Islam Q&A site:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/93111/if-the-quran-is-perfect-and-complete-and-contains-everything-needed-for-the-laws-and-regulations-of-shareeah-what-need-is-there-for-the-sunnah


“[T]he Qur’an needs the Sunnah more than the Sunnah needs the Qur’an. As Imam al-Awzaa‘i (may Allah have mercy on him) said:The Book needs the Sunnah more than the Sunnah needs the Book. Al-Bahr Al-Muhiyt by az-Zarkashi (6/11); quoted by Ibn al-Muflih al-Hanbali in al-Aadaab ash-Shar‘iyyah (2/307) from the Taabi‘i Makhul.”

What are Hadith? Hadith originally meant, any “story”, “narrative” “speech” or “news.” But the term “hadith” has acquired, due to  Islamic scholars,  the very specific meaning of reports about what the Prophet Muhammad said, or did.
Most think the Qur’an and Sunnah go together as part of the religion. This is because of mainstream Orthodox Sunni teachings. But this wasn’t always the case. Sunni muslims began as a small group of hadith collectors almost 200 years after the prophet’s death. They claim authority now because they are in the majority but as we shall see, that position din’t come from the natural practices of earlier Muslims or the strength of their arguments but because of the circumstances of the time and their political realities.  Before then, hadith were rarely ever used and definitely did not enjoy the status they have today- amongst Sunni Muslims – as binding revelations and sources of law along with the Qur’an. 


When the Qur’an mentions hadith it is never in way that explicitly or implicitly refers to them as a source of law, or as guidance to follow. In fact, the Qur’an makes it clear that it is the only ‘hadith’ to be followed. 


[Qur’an 7:185] “Do they not consider the realm of the heavens and the earth and whatever things Allah has created, and that may be their doom shall have drawn nigh; what hadith would they then believe in after this?”


[Qur’an 45:6]  “These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what hadith after Allah and His verses will they believe?”


[Qur’an 31:6]  “And of men is he who buys baseless hadith to lead astray from Allah’s path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery; these shall have an abasing chastisement.”


[Qur’an 39:23]  “Allah has revealed herein the best hadith, a book consistent in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah’s guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him.”


If this isn’t clear enough as to the position of hadith in relation to the Qur’an, even the hadith themselves show how Muhammad felt about them. 
Abu Said Khudri: I requested permission from the holy Prophet to write down his Hadiths but he denied me such permission. Reference: Taqyid al-‘ilm P 36.
 Said Abu Khudri that Messenger of Allah said: “Do not write down from me any thing except Holy Quran, and if someone has already written down from me in addition to Quran, he must erase it”. Reference: Musanad Ahmad Bin Hanbal Vol: 5/14, No.11175, and also No.11101. 
Note: Please note, these two reports are given in almost all hadith books and are graded as Sahih.


“Do not write anything from me except Quran. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it.” [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Muslim, Zuhd, Book 42, Number 7147] 


It is narrated from abu Hurayrah who has said, “The holy Prophet (S) came to us when we were writing down Hadith. He asked us, ‘ what is this you are writing?’ We replied, “These are the matters that we have heard from you.” He then said, “Do you want a book other than the book of Allah? The nations before you were destroyed only for what they had written along with the book of Allah.” Reference: Taqyid al-‘ilm P 34. 


In the famous book, “Taq-yeed Al-Ilm”, Abu Hurayra said, the Messenger of God was informed that some people are writing his hadiths. He took to the pulpit of the mosque and said, “What are these books that I heard you wrote? I am just a human being. Anyone who has any of these writings should bring it here.” Abu Hurayra said we collected all these and burned them in fire.


[Qur’an 6:114] “Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers.”


[Qur’an 5:48] “And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you…” And what has Allah revealed?

Qur’an 4:105 “Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which Allah has shown you. And do not be for the deceitful an advocate.”  


One would think that would settle the matter but, over the years, hadith were still transmitted among a small portion of people. However, it was never a widespread practice.  The same goes for following the Sunnah of the Prophet. According to the scholars Harald Motzki and Daniel W. Brown the earliest Islamic legal reasonings that have come down to us were “virtually hadith-free”, but gradually, over the course of second century A.H. “the infiltration and incorporation of Prophetic hadiths into Islamic jurisprudence” took place. 1 


Although, the Qur’an mentions ‘Sunna’ fourteen times it never uses the term “sunna” in the sense of the way or practice of Prophet Muhammad. The phrases `the prophet’s hadith’ or the `the prophet’s sunna’ are never used in the Quran. This shows that these concepts did not exist in Arab society at the time of the Prophet. On the other hand, the phrases `tribal sunna’ or `the sunna of the people’ to mean `customs’, were in vogue. It is this concept of ‘sunna’ that was later transformed to mean the Prophet’s practice. 

In pre-Islamic Arabia, the term sunnah referred to precedents established by tribal ancestors, accepted as normative and practiced by the entire community. It is important to note that what later orthodox Sunnis would take or assume to be divine law or practices of Muhammad were simply the local customs of the people of his time whether they were Jewish, Christian, Pagan or even enemies of the faithful during Muhammad’s time. 

As noted by Ali Asghar Enigneer, the adaat (customs and traditions) of Arabs were used in the development of the sharia, and form an important part of it. They are very much not divine or immutable, and have no more legal justification to be part of the sharia than the adaat of Muslims living beyond the home of the original Muslim in the Arab Hejaz.  


This was pointed out by author, Kassim Ahmad:
“It is unreasonable and unthinkable that Allah would ask the Muslims to follow the prophet’s personal mode of behavior, because a person’s mode of behavior is determined by many different factors, such as customs, his education, personal upbringing and personal inclinations. The prophet’s mode of eating, of dress and indeed of general behavior cannot be different from that of other Arabs, including Jews and Christians, of that time, except regarding matters which Islam prohibited. If the Prophet had been born a Malay, he would have dressed and eaten like a Malay. This is a cultural and a personal trait which has nothing to do with one’s religion. So were the methods of the Prophet’s wars and his administration of the Medina city-state. The weapons he used, such as swords, spears, arrows and shields, were in accordance with the prevailing technology. Today, with the development of modern weapons, the Muslims obviously cannot fight with the medieval weapons used by the Prophet, although they must emulate his staunch faith in God and complete adherence to God’s teachings.” 

The early Muslims did not immediately concur on what constituted their Sunnah. Some looked to the people of Medina for an example, and others followed the behavior of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad.


In al-Ṭabarī‘s history of early Islam, the term “Sunnah of the Prophet” is not only used “surprisingly infrequently”, but used to refer to “political oaths or slogans used by rebels”, or “a general standard of justice and right conduct”, and not “to specific precedents set by Muhammad”, let alone hadith.


And one can see in the practice of the early Qadis, that the widespread use of hadith as a source of law was not in practice. (A qadi is a judge responsible for the application of Islamic positive law (fiqh). The office originated under the rule of the first Umayyad caliphs (AH 40–85/661–705 CE), when the provincial governors of the newly created Islamic empire, unable to adjudicate the many disputes that arose among Muslims living within their territories, began to delegate this function to others.) 

In this early period of Islamic history, no body of Islamic positive law had yet come into existence, and the first qadis therefore decided cases on the basis of the only guidelines available to them: Arab customary law, the laws of the conquered territories, the general precepts of the Qurʾān, and their own sense of equity. This is exactly what the Qur’an advises. 


[Qur’an 57:25] “Certainly We sent Our apostles with clear arguments, and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may conduct themselves with equity.”


 The early Islamic empire expanded into the heart of civilization itself. Islamic civilization is actually the civilization of all the peoples who became part of the new society. It had its roots in all the pre-Islamic civilizations of the same area. Islam and Arabic, Syriac, Persian, Indian, Egyptian and Greek cultural elements, formed the ancestral traditions of most of the Muslim population. The Umayyad rulers did not disrupt daily life in the conquered areas. The civil administration was maintained, the crafts, trades, industries and agriculture continued as before. 


During this early period, the interest of the early rational scientists and their patrons, the Caliphs, was partly practical; medical skill was in demand, and control of the natural forces could bring power and success. There was also a wide intellectual curiosity.  


There are around 750 verses in the Quran dealing with natural phenomena. Many verses of the Quran ask mankind to study nature, and this has been interpreted to mean an encouragement for scientific inquiry, and the investigation of the truth.  Historical Islamic scientists like Al-Biruni and Al-Battani derived their inspiration from verses of the Quran. Mohammad Hashim Kamali has stated that “scientific observation, experimental knowledge and rationality” are the primary tools with which humanity can achieve the goals laid out for it in the Quran.

The Qur’an urges muslims to use their intellect and reason to understand Allah and his creation.
Qur’an 13:4 “And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason.”


Qur’an 57:17 “Know that Allah gives life to the earth after its lifelessness. We have made clear to you the signs; perhaps you will understand.”


Qur’an 29:20 “Say: Travel in the earth and see how He makes the first creation, then Allah creates the latter creation; surely Allah has power over all things.”

Qur’an 3:190 “Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand.”


This inspired intellectuals in the 8th century to apply their knowledge of Greek logic and philosophy to build a system of Islamic principles based on a rational foundation.”


A broad collective of intellectuals and scholars developed called Mutazilites (those who stand apart). They were descended ideologically from the Qadirite movement who advocated the importance of free will in human affairs. 


Qur’an 5:101 “Oh you who believe! You have charge of your own souls. He who errs cannot injure you if you are rightly guided. Unto Allah you will all return; and then He will inform you of what ye used to do.

The Mutazilites insisted on a primary role for reason and logic in the pursuit of spiritual principles. They were more properly called Ahl Tawhiyd, the upholders of the Oneness of Allah. The Mutazilites believed the truth could be reached by using reason on what is given in the Qur’an.  As scientific knowledge and learning began to show it’s fruits in Islamic Civilization, the Mutazilite movement became universal with widespread support from the Abbasid Caliphs. 


Even the early hadith collectors, jusists and scholars like Imam Malik of Medina and Abu Hanifa in Kufa and their followers applied the concept of ra’y (‘common sense’ or ‘rational discretion’.) 


They advocated the use of reasoning to arrive at legal decisions. They also followed the Sunnah or the traditions and customs of the people in their respective locations. Imam Malik tried to adhere to the customs and practices of the people of Medina because that’s where the prophet Muhammad lived and he assumed Muhammad’s influence was a source of these practices. Abu Hanifa respected the customs and practices in Kufa because that’s where many of the original companions lived and he reasoned that they picked up their traditions from Muhammad himself. There were many other Ulema scholars throughout the Islamic territories and their decisions differed based on the sources of ‘authority they used – be it the Qur’an, a few accepted hadith, and local custom. 


This was fine with the Umayyad rulers (661-750AD)  because they allowed the people in their conquered territories to maintain their customs as long as they payed taxes. But the Abbasids who also claimed some spiritual authority set up a more centralized state and the rulings of the Qadis judges and their practices needed to be more uniform.  Imam Abu Abd’allah Ibn Idris Al -Shafi came along and tried to solve this problem, and with his solution he formulated a new doctrine of Islam. 

Hailing from Gaza, Palestine, Imam Shafi was a prodigy and a student of Imam Malik in Medina. According to tradition, he had memorized the Qur’an at a very young age as well as Imam Malik’s book the Muwatta. He then became obsessed with hadith and took to writing them anywhere and in any way he could. He said, he dedicated himself to hadith.2 He served as a jurist and a governor in Najran, Yemen. He also traveled to Baghad and Egpyt. During his travels Shafi experienced first hand that although reasonable decisions were being made by judges’, the decisions very often  disagreed with each other. 

Shafi’s solution was this: only the prophet Muhammad’s Sunna (as opposed the sunnah of  local customs and the “sunnah” of earlier Companions) had any authority. Nothing could supersede or set aside a tradition properly authenticated, which could be traced back to the prophet himself.  According to Shafi the traditions of the prophet have to be accepted without questioning and reasoning: If a tradition is authenticated as coming from the prophet, we have to resign ourselves to it, and your talk and the talk of others about “why and how” is a mistake.”3


By his assertion of the supremacy of hadith, Shafi placed it on par with the Qur’an itself, and when he made it the authoritative interpretation of the Holy, Qur’an he, in effect, gave it a higher authority.  Shafi emphasized the final authority of a hadith of Muhammad, so that even the Quran was “to be interpreted in the light of traditions (i.e. hadith), and not vice versa.”4


This was the core doctrine of a new conservative group identified with Shafi calling themselves Ahl al Sunna wa’l Jama’a, the People of the Sunna and the Collective. These earliest Sunnis held that, “the Sunnah rules over the Book of Allah, the Book of Allah does not rule over the Sunna.”5

According to this new set of principles formulated by Shafi, the only way to be Muslim was to adhere, exclusively to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Shafi’s former student, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who later developed his own school of thought, best exemplified this belief. He considered human reason to be a dangerous innovation, a bid`a. 

For him, the Koran and the Hadith must be taken literally. He refused to eat watermelons because there is no hadith showing that the Prophet had eaten them. For him, it was that simple.6 (It’s worth noting that his Hanbali School of thought is still followed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia today.)


As noted by Anjouar Majid, “after Muhammad ibn Idriss al-Shafi`i (d. 820) succeeded in elevating the Prophet’s life to a status of sacredness comparable to that of the Koran, everyone rushed to come up with a hadith to support his views or lifestyle and to criminalize difference of opinion.” 


Historian Alfred Guillaume pointed out, [i]f an individual or a group or sect wanted to establish its right to its beliefs or practices, it had to furnish proof that the prophet had authorized its course of action or attitude. In consequence, an enormous number of hadith soon found their way into circulation, and it soon became apparent that forgery on a large scale was at work everywhere.”7


Qur’an 6:50 -“Say, [O Muhammad], “I do not tell you that I have the treasures of Allah or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me.”


Before and especially after Shafi, the forgery of hadith grew exponentially. According one source, Ibn Hanbal reported that there were over 7 million `authentic’ hadiths and that he had writtien at least a million of them.8  If this were true, then working for 23 years at a pace of 18 hours a day, seven days a week, the Prophet would have had to produce one hadith every 77 seconds. There would definitely have been no time left at all for the Prophet to have done anything like living his life and carrying out his mission as a Prophet. 

To compound this problem, the rulers at that time depended very much on these scholars to advise them. More often than not, the opinions of a particular scholar who was eminent under a particular ruler became the established rule in that territory. Instead of being testimony to the dynamism of the Quran which allowed such diverse opinions to exist and thus serve as a catalyst for Muslims to continuously exercise their intellect, these differences of opinion gave birth to the rise of the likes of Imam Shafi`i (d. 820) who found it difficult to handle the freedom of thought and opinion that is allowed by the Quran. Imam Shafi`i came to view differences of opinion as a problem.

“Shafi’s doctrine never accounted for the historic past of various regions sanctioned by Muhammad’s silence on matters which that wise statesman left to his countrymen to settle by pursuing the customs of their forefathers and leaving their posterity to formulate laws to deal with problems as they arose.


The process of stiffening and hardening the legal system of was carried through. The old comparatively elastic regime of the Umayyads, which…faithfully represented the mild reasonableness of Muhammad’s rule, was replaced by a rigid unbending code of law which in spirit was opposed to the whole tenor of his life and thought, yet claimed, by the theft of his name, the authority of Allah himself.”  ~ Alfred Guillaume.


But mainstream Orthodox Sunni Islam still asserts this position that the Sunnah (hadith) are on par with the Qur’an. 

One may wonder, ‘why’?? In light of what’s written in the Qur’an and Muhammad’s own banning of hadith himself (as recorded in the very hadith they supposedly adhere to), how can they justify this? We will go through all of the arguments Sunni’s use to uphold hadith below. Many are the exact same arguments Imam Shafi made 1,200 years ago.

These arguments were weak then and they prove to be even more patently weak and fallacious now. Here they are:
1. The Lifted Prohibition
Considering the Qur’an asserts itself as the only revelation to be followed- “These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth; Then in what hadith after Allah and His verses will they believe?” Qur’an 45:6  And considering according to the hadith itself, Muhammad actually ordered that people not write down any hadith:  “Do not write down anything from me except the holy Quran and those who have written must erase it,” 9 


What could Sunnis come along and say after this? They assert  that Muhammad didn’t want anything written down because he didn’t want anything to get mixed up with the Qur’an. And that once most of the Qur’an was written he lifted the ban and allowed hadith to be written. They point out that the full hadith goes on to say, “narrate to others what you hear from me, and whoever deliberately attributes a lie to me; he should prepare his seat in the fire.”10

So they focus on the part where Muhammad instructs to “narrate from me” as evidence that the prohibition on writing the hadith does not negate their authority. Then they go on to explain that the ban was lifted later followed by a few hadith indicating Muhammad commanded people to write hadith. (These hadith will show Muhammad commanding people to write, but 1) we don’t have those writings 2) there is no chronology to any of these random commands to write, which means there is nothing to say they aren’t simply forged hadith intended to support hadith and contradict the commands prohibiting the writing of narrative traditions. Ultimately it shows limitless contradictions and forgeries that are inherent to hadith literature.)


The problem with this argument is first, the additional part about “narrate to others what you hear from me” was not included in any of the earlier texts regarding this hadith. They all say, do not write down anything from me except Quran and whoever has written down from me must erase it” and they stop there. The latter part only appears in modern hadith books which is clear evidence that it has been forged by hadith scholars along the way. 11 

Also, it does clearly show that Muhammad didn’t revere the authority of these traditions because obviously he would have known that any sayings he made that weren’t written down would get lost or distorted over time – as has happened anyway. Further, there are reports from Abu Huraira that the Prophet Muhammad forbade the writing of hadith and Abu Huraira had only been a companion of the Prophet during the last two years of his life when most of Qur’an had already been revealed 21 years earlier.


 It is narrated from abu Hurayrah who has said, “The holy Prophet (S) came to us when we were writing down Hadith. He asked us, ‘ what is this you are writing?’ We replied, “These are the matters that we have heard from you.” He then said, ‘Do you want a book other than the book of Allah? The nations before you were destroyed only for what they had written along with the book of Allah.”12


 We also see in history that all of the so-called rightly guided Caliphs from Abu Bakr to Ali Ibn Talib prohibited or restricted the writing of hadith. This goes to show the prohibition was never lifted or that if it was his closest companions never heard of it. Abu Bakr burned them; Umar burned them and actually jailed three men for spreading hadith.13

Most importantly, you can ask any Sunni Muslim to point to a narration where the ban is lifted and it is guaranteed they will no be able to produce a single one. This is just a fabricated history scholars made up with no evidence to support it. 


History bears this prohibition out. Hadith historian Joseph Schacht has pointed out: “There is no any evidence of legal traditions (Hadith and Sunna) before Year 722 A.D. in Islam and we can conclude that the Sunna or hadiths of the Prophet is not the words and deeds of the Prophet, but apocryphal material dating from later.”14 2. 

The Good Example
 The question is, how are the hadith revealed scripture or how is the Sunnah of Muhammad binding to the point where they define what Islam is or isn’t? The defenders of hadith will use Qur’an 33:21 as proof we are supposed to follow the Sunnah of Muhammad, as recorded in hadith.


H.Q. 33:21 “Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah a good example for him who hopes in Allah and the last day and remembers Allah much.”


However, if we look at the context of verse 33:21 quoted above, it is clear that it does not refer to every detail of the Prophet’s behavior, such as his eating, dress, sleeping and other personal habits. Actually, it refers to the Prophet’s faith in Allah’s help and victory. The verse is put in the middle of the account of the Battle of the Allies when the believers were really shaken and thought that the cause of Islam was lost. The Prophet Muhammad’s example was his strong faith in Allah and adherence to the Quran. 


We know it isn’t requiring us to follow Muhammad’s personal habits as described in hadith because the same quote is used for Ibrahim as well as those with him. 
Qur’an 60:4 “Indeed, there is for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him when they said to their people: Surely we are clear of you and of what you serve besides Allah…” 
Qur’an 60:6 “Certainly there is for you in them a good example, for him who fears Allah and the last day; and whoever turns back, then surely Allah is the Self-sufficient, the Praised.” 
The question here is if the good example in 33:21 means we have to find out how Muhammad entered the toilet and how he grew his beard and what position he slept in, should we also inquire about and follow the way Abraham entered the toilet, how he ate, if he had a beard, and in what position he urinated? The words in 60:4 mentions not only Abraham, but also those with him, they all set a good example for us. Should we thus inquire about and follow the individual habits of those who were with Abraham?15

The bottom line is that this verse is talking about Muhammad’s faith, steadfastness and courage. The Qur’an helps us develop those qualities and Muhammad, again, proves  to be a great example because he only followed the Qur’an. 


Qur’an 46:9 “Say: I am not the first of the apostles, and I do not know what will be done with me or with you: I do not follow anything but that which is revealed to me, and I am nothing but a plain warner.” 


3. Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger 
 The next argument asserted by Sunni hadith supporters is found in some form twenty five  times in the Qur’an. Qur’an 4:59 “O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.”


The assumption here is that to obey Allah is to follow the Qur’an and to obey the messenger is to follow his words and instructions as found (of course) in the hadith traditions. So they say this verse in the Qur’an makes hadith binding. But all that would do is present additional contradictions.

If the Qur’an says it is the only source to follow, how could it then say (or imply) that we follow or use hadith as a source?   Qur’an 6:114 “Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.”


Muhammad was to be obeyed here along with Allah because he was delivering a message (the Qur’an). It’s important to note that in the 25 times this phrase is mentioned it always refers to the messenger, never Muhammad by name. Qur’an 64:12 “Obey Allah and obey His messenger; but if ye turn away, then the duty of Our messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly.

Qur’an 5:99 ” The duty of the messenger is only to convey (the message). Allah knoweth what ye proclaim and what ye hide.”
Also, to think that Muhammad’s every word and deed is supposed to be a divine sacred part of Islam that we are obligated to follow goes against what we read in the Qur’an. He was not infallible. 

Qur’an 18:110 “Say: I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me that your Creator is one, Allah, therefore whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and not join any one in the service of his Lord.”

 Qur’an 34:50 “Say: If I err, I err only against my own soul, and if I follow a right direction, it ?s because of what my Lord reveals to me; surely He is Hearing, Nigh.
Muhammad made mistakes but was corrected by Allah in the Qur’an see 80:1-10; also in 66:1, 8:67; 9:42. This shows his every word and deed wasn’t perfect or to be followed. No such distinctions are made in the hadith literature. 

Finally, we know the Qur’an didn’t intend the phrase “Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger” as the foundation of the Qur’an and Sunnah of Muhammad doctrine, because the Qur’an says in 4:65 “”We sent not a messenger but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah.” 

Orthodox Sunni Muslims never mention obeying other Messengers besides Muhammad, although a major tenet of Qur’anic Islam is that we make no distinctions between any of the prophets. 


Qur’an 2:136 “Say, “We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to him we are Muslims.”
4. 

The Qur’an and the Wisdom 
Qur’an 62:2 “He it is Who raised among the inhabitants of Mecca an Apostle from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, although they were before certainly in clear error.”
Qur’an 2:231 (in part) “And remember the favor of Allah upon you and what has been revealed to you of the Book and the Wisdom by which He instructs you.”

This argument comes directly from Imam Shafi. He interpreted the Arabic word hikmah (Wisdom) in above verse, and in similar verses, as meaning `sunna’ or `hadith.’ “In his major work, al-Risala, he stated: 

So, God mentions His scripture, that is the Quran, and wisdom, and I have heard from those who are knowledgeable in the Quran — those whom I agree with — say that wisdom is the traditions of the Prophet. This is the same as the Word [of God Himself]; but God knows better! Because the Quran is mentioned, followed by Wisdom; then God mentions His blessing to mankind by teaching the Quran and wisdom. So, it is not possible that wisdom means other things than the traditions of the Prophet … (Emphasis added). 

Shafi`i’s interpretation of the word hikmah as meaning the Prophet’s tradition cannot but give rise to grave doubts. Was he justified in doing so? He did not produce any support from the Quran for such an interpretation. He merely reported the view of “experts” whom he concurred with. Who these “experts” were and what their reasons for advancing such a view Shafi`i did not say. In the quotation above, we notice that Shafi`i jumped from a statement of the status of ‘probability’ to a statement of the status of certainty without giving proper proofs to enable the probable view to achieve the status of certainty. This is unacceptable in any scientific discourse.” 16


Imam Shafi is saying that the Quran (Book) and the Wisdom are two different entities. However, if you look at the Arabic in 2:231 after mentioning the Book and the Wisdom it says, “…with it (bihi) he instructs you.” This is in the singular pronoun form. If this verse were referring to two separate items it would have said “with them he instructs you.”
In the style of the Qur’an there are other times where ‘wa’ (‘and’) is used to highlight a particular aspect of the whole. Not only is ‘wa’ used in the Quran to denote something separate or additional, it is also used to elucidate an existing statement by defining it or clarifying it.
For example, we note in Holy Qur’an 55:68

“In them both are fruits, and date-palms and pomegranates.”
Here the conjunction ‘wa’ (and) when used with date-palms and pomegranates only clarifies the ‘fruits’ and is not read as separate from the category of fruits (fakihatun).

Another good example is in Qur’an 15:87 where we read, 
  The seven oft repeated verses are verses from Surah Fatiha which are repeated with each rakah during each of the prayers.  However, by Shafi’s logic these would be two different things although we know that Al Fatiha is not a separate entity from the Qur’an but is contained within the Qur’an – just as Wisdom is contained in the Qur’an. 


Qur’an 31:2 “These are verses of the Book of Wisdom”
So wisdom means, just that wisdom; not the Sunnah or the hadith. 
It is also important to note that as mentioned in the Qur’an, other prophets received wisdom as well and it is referring to wisdom. Or else, by Shafi ‘s reasoning we would be obligated to follow the hadith of other prophets as well. 


Qur’an 3:48 “And He will teach him (Jesus) the Book and thewisdom and the Taurat and the Injiyl.”


Qur’an 46:16  “And certainly We gave the Book and thewisdom and the prophecy to the children of Israel, and We gave them of the goodly things, and We made them excel the nations.”


This is the same wisdom mentioned here:  Qur’an 2: 269  “He gives the Wisdom to whomsoever He will, and whoso is given the Wisdom, has been given much good; yet none remembers but men possessed of minds.”

5. Without Hadith How Would We Know How To Pray?
The answer to this question is direct and simple: the same way prayer had been maintained before the compilation of hadith; by tradition and custom.  It is not as though all prayer stopped after Muhammad died in 632 A.D.  People learn prayer from their, parents, their relatives and from the communities in which they live. Human history is a testament to the fact that in cultures across the globe, customs and practices are passed down for centuries and millennia this way – and most often without the aid of writings.


There is a misconception prevalent in Orthodox Islam that prayer came from the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad as a brand new practice. Many throughout the West have echoed the belief that the prayer made by the faithful is a Muslim prayer, that Qiyam (standing), ruku (bowing) and sajdah (prostration) are exclusive to Islamic prayer .However, there is much evidence that the same positions and forms of prayer practiced during Muhammad’s time are a continuation of prayers going all the way back to Abraham’s time.


Qur’an 14:35, 40  “(And when Abraham said)…My Lord! make me keep up salat (prayer) and from my offspring (too), O our Lord, and accept my prayer.

Qur’an 2:135 “[In part]  Say: Nay! (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not one of the polytheists.”


Genesis 17:3 “And Abram fell on his face (prostration) and God talked with him, saying…”


Numbers 14:5 “Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.” 


Nehemiah 8:5-6  “And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.”


Matthew 26:39 – “And he (Jesus) went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed…”

The prayer kept up to Muhammad’s time before his call to prophecy. The Hanif (the upright ones who refused to worship idols) during the early Sixth Century A.D., performed ritual prayer (salat). According to Ibn Habib and Muslim, Abu Zar and Qus Saida were among those who prayed during the ‘Age of Ignorance.’17

One of the hanif, Zayd Ibn Amr was well known among the Quraysh. He died in 607AD,  just before Muhammad began his mission. There are several traditions indicating Zayd prayed facing the Kaaba. He used to say, “I follow the religion of Abraham and I prostrate myself towards the Kaaba which Abraham built.”18.
Qur’an 3:95 “Say: Allah has spoken the truth, therefore follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright one; and he was not one of the polytheists.


Other aspects of salat had been in existence for centuries before Muhammad’s arrival. The Sabeans (of Yemen) have five prayers similar to the five prayers of the Muslims. Others say they have seven prayers, five of which are comparable to the prayers of the Muslims with regard to time [that is, morning, noon, afternoon, evening and night; the sixth is at midnight and the seventh is at forenoon]. ” Ziyad ‘ibn ‘Abihi (d. 672 AD) who was the governor of Iraq during the first Umayyad caliph Mur awiyah wrote: The Sabians believed in prophets and prayed five times daily. 19


The Falasha tribe of Ethiopia or Beta Israel with traditions going back to at least 586 BC, have always held their service in the masgid (from the Ge’ez language meaning place of prostration) whichconsists primarily of the recitation of prayers ( Ge’ez: salot) and reading of the Torah.  In the traditional Islamic prayer, muslims send peace (salaam) to the angels the right and left of each shoulder.  According to the Falasha’s ‘Book of Angels’ …
“There are two angels (at our side), one on the right and oneon the left. They record all the good and the bad deeds we do.The Angel of Light records the good deeds, the Angel of Darkness  records the [bad] deeds; they vie with one another until[our] death. When the time arrives for the departure of man from this world, they bring the books before God. Michael and Berna’el place the books (that record) the good and the bad actions which man has done on the scales before God.” 20


History demonstrates that the traditional ‘Muslim prayer’ has been in existence for at least one thousand years before Muhammad’s arrival. Of course small changes in form take place cumulatively over time and in different regions, as well as the worship of idols.  And while the hadith literature seems concerned with form and specific body movements that nullify the prayer, the Qur’an appears to be concerned with making sure Allah alone is worshipped, without partners. The idea is that prayer assists in removing negative energy and for opening the heart to the remembrance of Allah.  

So based on the Qur’an’s teachings, the answer to the question “how do we pray?” is simply – to Allah alone. 


Qur’an 72:18, 20: “And that the mosques are Allah’s, therefore call not upon any one with Allah: Say: I only call upon my Lord, and I do not associate any one with Him.”


Qur’an 29:45: “Recite that which has been revealed to you of the Book and keep up prayer; surely prayer keeps (one) away from indecency and evil, and certainly theremembrance of Allah is the greatest, and Allah knows what you do.”


Here’s the dilemma, the Qur’an states that it is complete and explains everything.
Qur’an 6:38 “…We did not leave anything out of the Book…” 

We brought the Book down to you providing explanations for all things, guidance, mercy, and good news for those who submit. 16:89


However, orthodox, mainstream muslims look at all of the details currently involved in making salat (prayer) the way Muhammad did- from the times of prayer, to when and how to takbir, to where to place one’s hands in qiyam (standing position) to ruku (bowing) to what to say in sadjah (prostration) and jalsah (sitting), and they say by following the Qur’an alone without the hadith, its impossible to know how to pray properly.

Muslims are also proud of the fact that because of the Sunnah (found in the hadith) wherever they are in the world, they can pray uniformly in congregation. 
It must be acknowledged that there are a tangle of assumptions going on here. The first is that people actually read the hadith in order to find out how to pray,  another is that the uniformity in prayer naturally comes from hadith, there is a related assumption that the prayer is exactly how Muhammad prayed and finally, mixed in with all these is the assumption that anyone if they chose would be able to follow the hadith and get a coherent understanding of prayer.

Let’s deal with that aspect first. Here are two sahih quotes from Bukhari concerning washing (ablution) before prayer. 
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet performed ablution by washing the body parts only once.  Sahih Bukhari 1:4:159
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zaid: The Prophet performed ablution by washing the body parts twice. Sahih Bukhari 1:4:160
“Narrated Humran: (the slave of ‘Uthman) I saw ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan asking for a tumbler of water (and when it was brought) he poured water over his hands and washed them thrice…then he washed his face and forearms up to the elbows thrice, passed his wet hands over his head and washed his feet up to the ankles thrice.”
Which one do we follow? These are all graded Sahih (good, authentic).


Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 0762: Malik b. Huwairith reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) raised his hands apposite his ears at the time of reciting the takbir (i.e. at the time of beginning the prayer) and then again raised his hands apposite the ears at the time of bowing and when he lifted his head after bowing he said: Allah listened to him who praised Him, and did like it (raised his hands up to the ears).

Yet, Bra Ibn Aazib narrates that: when the messenger of Allah (pbuh) would begin the prayer, he would raise his hands up to his ears, then not do so again.
One version of this narration adds: “only once” (i.e. he would raise them only once), and another adds: “then he would not raise them again until completing the prayer”
(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 1:159, Sunnan Abi Dawud 1:109,Sunan Kubra Bahqi, Darqatni, Tahawi, Musnad-e-Hamidi, Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, Nissbur raiyh).


As noted by one writer: Bukhari does not give the methods of prayer in a coherent form. It is only after searching through a large number of hadiths that we can find what perhaps we are meant to say while performing the set of postures from standing to bending and then in prostration but only, it should be emphasized, after a wide search, and not without variations and contradictions. So one can quite clearly see that Hadith does not give any organized or co-ordinated methods of prayer that can be followed universally. Bukhari does not give the format of the prayers that we perform today and that the format of all our prayers underwent substantial changes before it was finally established in its overall present form, and that most of these changes took place well after the death of the Prophet. 21
“Do they not ponder on The Qur’ān? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.” (Qur’ān 4:82)
Here’s another example, regarding where to place one’s hands during Qiyam (standing positon). 

The Third Hadith of Wail Ibn Hajar, he says, “I saw Nabi (Sallallahu Aalaihi Wasallam) placing his right hand over his left hand, below the navel.”
(Ibn Abi Shaiba Vol. 1 Pg. 390 The chain of narrators is authentic, Atharus Sunan)
 Narrated that Waa’il ibn Hajar,  said: I prayed with the Messenger of Allah and he placed his right hand over his left hand on his chest. 
Ash-Shawkani said, there is nothing in this chapter thats more authentic than the Hadith of Waa’il ibn Hajar. Classed as Sahih by al-Albaani in Tahqiyq Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah (479) also in Al-Bayhaqi.


Do the hands go on the chest or below the navel? It may not make a difference because it is likely that practice was added after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. As far as the children and the grandchildren of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) are concerned, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) never held his hands on his belly/chest while praying.22

Before the hadith were the main source of Sunnah, Imam Malik of Medina would base his Sunnah on the practices of the people of Medina where Muhammad lived. Imam Malik, regarding the clasping of hands, “I don’t know of that in the obligatory prayer”.23


The student of al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah, Allamah Muhammad Muiyn Lahori writes in Dhursuth al Beeb, p. 34 (Lahore edition 1868) writes:

“In my opinion the acts of the people of Medina are a major proof, and Imam Malik deemed the ijmaa of the people of Medina to be proof, which is why the Maliki scholars would pray with open hands by relying on the action of the people of Medina. It’s important to note there are historical narratives that this tradition of folding hands on the chest actually began later with Umar. 


Al-‘Allamah Muhammad Hassan Najafi says in Jawahir al-Kalam: “It was said about ‘Umar that when they brought him the prisoners from the non-Arabs (‘Ajam), they did Takkatuf (placing right over left) in front of him, so he asked about it and they told him that they did this as a sign of submission in front of their Kings, so he saw that it was good to do it for Allah in prayer.

Al-‘Allamah Najm-ul-Deen al-Tibsi says in Al-Irsaal wal-Takkatuf bayn al-Sunnah wal-Bid’ah pg.18-19: “It was said that it Takkatuf was innovated by the Caliph ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, he took it from the non-Arab prisoners.”




When Anas ibn Malik, a companion of the Prophet (s.a.w.), went to Syria, he wept and said: “I do not see here anything which I used to see in the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.), except this prayer and that too is disfigured.”

– Sahih al- Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 507

There is evidence that this position of holding hands on the chest in prayer is a very ancient Persian tradition. Many statues of priests standing in that position have been discovered in the area of Mesopotamia. It was a sign of respect. 

So what did scholars did when faced with of all of the variations and contradictions in the supposed sunnah and Sahih “authentic” hadith literature, is say that all of these (contradictory) practices are ‘permissible.’ This distracts from the original question as to whether the Prophet Muhammad actually prayed one particular way or another.


The overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims say “Amiyn” during the prayer at the end of the recital of the Qur’anic verse. There is no hadith on that records this practice, yet all Muslims do this uniformly. How did muslims all learn this part of the prayer since we need hadith to know how to pray correctly? The same is true for the fact that muslims pray with their eyes open rather than closed. Where does that practice come from? It’s not in any of the hadith. Yet, according to Sunni muslims we wouldn’t know how to pray without hadith. 


Finally, the argument that “we need the hadith to know how to pray” is really a non-issue. If the question is are the hadith revelation with the same authority as the Qu’ran (or more) saying we need them to know how to pray doesn’t make them anymore authentic or authoritative. 24  

The bottom line is that if Muslims wanted to record how to pray for future believers, they would have simply had to pen a prayer book so the practice wouldn’t be forgotten and then ask muslims to follow it, not because the instructions  come from the heavens, with divine authority but rather for the sake of uniformity and common practice. (Essentially all Muslims learn prayer from personal instruction or from prayerbooks anyway). Further, even if hadith were ‘needed’ for prayer how does that validate all the other nonsense, the impossible prophecies, fantasy and irrelevant rules and minutiae contained in the hadith? 

Ridiculous hadith example:  Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.” 

Sahih Bukari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 447:
Example 2:  Reference : Sahih Muslim 2767 a In-book reference : Book 50, Hadith 57 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 37, Hadith 6665
Burda narrated that his father said the Messenger of God said; “Every time a Muslim man dies, God puts in hell fire a Jew or a Christian.” 

Compare with:
Quran 5:69  “Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good– they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.”


 How does the single “need” to know the details on how to pray open the door and authorize all hadith as something Muhammad wanted us to consider part of Islam? Did he want us to follow him to the bathroom to imitate how he relieved himself?  That certainly doesn’t appear likely. 


The Prophet ﷺ would take so much care to seclude himself that Al-Mughīrah ibn Shu’bah said, “I was travelling with the Prophet. When he needed to relieve himself, he went far away from me.” Tirmidhi 20.


But this never stopped the hadith narrators.;..and the contradictions continue…

The Prophet never urinated in a standing position.(Masnad Hanbal, 6/136, 192, 213) · 

   The Prophet urinated in a standing position. (Bukhari, 4/60, 62)
Also even if all of this can be explained, none of the scholars can give a spiritual, psychological or moral reason any of these positions, and arm and hand movements are done in the first place.

Besides (allegedly) mimicking the prophet Muhammad, why are they done? Why is it so important to get each movement and position exactly right? Do they increase the remembrance of Allah or has all of this bickering over minute details, argument, and discussion over the past 1,300 years been a huge distraction taking away from the remembrance of Allah?


Qur’an 12:111:  “This is not a fabricated hadith but a confirmation of what exists. It (the Quran) is a detailed account of  everything and a guide and mercy for those who have faith.”

6. The misinterpretation of Qur’an 4:65
Qur’an 4:65 “But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in truth) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission.”


This is a primary verse presented by Sunnis (Ahl Hadith – People of Hadith) as evidence that the Qur’an asserts we must use Sunnah and hadith associated with the Prophet as guidance in Islam.


But this one is simple. The meaning comes from reading the verse in context beginning at 4:60 and determining who “they” are. ‘They’ refers to a specific group of people Muhammad was dealing with at that time. It wasn’t referring to “all believers.” Verses 4:60 – 4:68 indicate that “they” are not good people and “they” are not people who believe and obey what Allah gave them to use; “they” worshiped deities; “they” lied to and deceived the Prophet Muhammad. And why will they not believe unless the Prophet intercedes? Because “they” are a people who accept no responsibility for their actions “they” want a scapegoat, someone or something to be able to blame every decision made that goes bad or wrong. “they” want an intercessor. 25


And again there is a big assumption made by those who argue that this as a mandate to follow hadith. The assumption is that referring issue to Muhammad for his judgment while he was alive is similar to referring to the hearsay of hadith, and the other assumption is that the hadith actually reflect his words and his judgments. 

Qur’an 4:105 “Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you; and be not an advocate on behalf of the treacherous.”
7. Muhammad’s Final Sermon: “I leave you the Qur’an and My Sunnah.”
This is one of the most popular quotes in Sunni Islam. The full wording is here:   “I have left with you two things which, if you follow them, you will never go astray: the Book of God and the sunna of His Prophet” (Muw., 2:899). 


The problem is that by the Sunni’s own standards this quote is far more weak than the quote referring to the Quran and the Ahl Bayt that it was most likely substituted for. 

“Indeed I am leaving two things among you, to which if you hold yourself, you will never astray: the book of Allah and my ahl al-bayt (household), my ‘itra (family).  [Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan, hadith:3876]


The Qur’an and Sunnah quote came from Imam Malik who’s reference was…”I heard” with no isnad – no sources. All of the other Qur’an and Sunnah narrations go back to him or are weak for additional reasons.[see note].25
It is also difficult to justify the authority of hadith with a hadith (especially one so characteristically contradictory). 




8. The Misinterpretation of Qur’an 53:3.
Qur’an 53: 2-4 “Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred. Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed. ” 


Promoters of hadith try to suggest that the words “It is but a revelation that is revealed” refer to words spoken by the prophet Muhammad besides the Qur’an, from the time he started receiving the revelation until his death, as being divine revelation! As a result they preach that all Muslims must obey every word spoken by the prophet, whether it is Quran or his personal sayings (hadith).


We read in 53:4 the words: “Inn huwa ila wahyun yuha” 53:4. Which is translated as “It is but a revelation that is revealed”  or  “it is but an inspiration being inspired.” The word “huwa” (it) is a key word in this verse. The word ‘it’ in English does denote a gender. The word ‘it’ could refer to a masculine or a feminine noun equally. However, in Arabic the word “huwa” refers to the masculine, while the word ‘hiya’ refers to the feminine. The word “huwa” in this verse refers to the Quran which is masculine in gender.

What this means is that in this verse, Allah is specifically speaking about the inspiration of the Quran to Muhammad not every word spoken by him. Also the hadith, his sayings would be plural, they hadn’t been collected into one body of work at that time. And “huwa”can’t be talking about ‘his sunnah’ because the Sunna is feminine, while the verse is referring to a masculine noun [revelation] which is precisely the Qur’an.

9.   “Take what the Messenger Gives You And Abstain From What He Forbids You.”
This is a quote from Qur’an 59:7 used by Imam Shafi as authorization to follow hadith and put it on par with Qur’an. 

The problem is, this is completely taken out of context and authorizes no such thing. Here’s the whole quote:
“Whatever gains Allah has turned over to His messenger from the inhabitants of the villages belong to Allah, the messenger, kinsfolk, orphans, the needy, and the traveler. This is explained so that you do not just circulate it among those of you who are rich, take what the messenger gives you and abstain from what he forbids you. Be mindful of Allah, Allah is severe in punishment.” (Qur’an 59:7)
It is clear that the portion:

“take what the messenger gives you and abstain from what he forbids you-“

is referring to the booty of war recovered which the messenger was to distribute to those in need. It’s not referring to a book of his alleged sayings and actions. We also know this is true because he didn’t give us the hadith.  They weren’t mentioned in the Qur’an except to say the Qur’an was the best of hadith or that after the Qur’an what hadith would we believe?  There is not a single hadith in current existence that anyone can point to which was clearly authorized by Muhammad. 


There’s no need to continue further. This was a patently weak argument. It does make one wonder however, how much appreciation and respect for the meaning of the Qur’an many of the Ahl Hadith actually have. And to what extent they will twist and distort the truth in order to support the doctrines to which they’ve stubbornly attached themselves.


Final Thoughts


Finally, Sunnis will argue that all the Hadith have been thoroughly criticized, analyzed and graded in terms of reliability using Hadith “Science.” (The science is based on assessing the truthfulness and character of the person narrating the hadith, which is subjective, the complete opposite of science which is based on objective measurements and facts.)  But if there is no clear evidence that either Allah or Muhammad authorized or required the adherence to the hadith as part of Islam, trying to make sense out of the hundreds of thousands of fabricated, contradictory hadith isn’t going to change that.

Equally it makes very little sense to believe that the hadith which are full of contradictions are going to “help” explain the Qur’an which has no contradictions at all. 
“One difference between history and imaginative literature … is that history neither anticipates nor satisfies our curiosity, whereas literature does.” [Guy Davenport, “Wheel Ruts,” 1996]


So if this is so clear and obvious, why do so many muslims and the overwhelming number of Islamic Scholars adhere to the Sunni doctrines and dogma? 


The answer to this question is rooted in the political dynamics in which Sunni Islam arose. This dates back to the period of the Early Abbasid Empire (9th Century) around two hundred years after Muhammad’s death. As with many empires, explorations into nature and science yielded many incredible technological advances beneficial to the ruling administration. 

The  Haruwn Al- Rashid, the fifth Abbasid Caliph employed scholars to translate Greek, Chinese, Sanskrit and Persian works in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Philosophy, Geography, and other disciplines into Arabic. With these works, Al Rashid built his imperial library. Over time the center of the empire, Baghdad, became a haven for scholars from all over the world. The quest for scientific achievements accelerated during the reign of Al Ma’mun, the seventh Abbasid ruler. He converted Baghdad’s imperial library into ‘The House of Wisdom”, and thus established a formal center of learning. Well educated and with a considerable interest in scholarship, al-Ma’mun promoted the ‘Translation Movement’, the flowering of learning and the sciences  in Baghdad, and the publishing of al-Khwarizmi’s  book now known as “Algebra”.  As time passed the accumulation of knowledge flourished greatly throughout the realm. 



As mentioned above the Mu’tazilites were the primary collective school of thought during this early period of Abbasid rule. They were influenced by Greek rationalism and the philosophy of Aristotle in particular in terms of using logic to discover truth. The Mu’tazilites maintaned the importance of man’s creative free will, the unity of Allah and the rational understanding of the Qur’an.  

In the year 833AD, Al Ma’mun, a scholar himself, impressed by the Mu’tazila doctrine and intending to centralize religious authority in the caliphate, tried to impose Mutazilism as the official creed of his realm. To this end, he imposed minha (an inquisition), under which those who refused to profess their allegiance to Mu’tazilism were punished by flogging and imprisonment.  One of the scholars who refused to change his beliefs was the traditionalist Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. He was part of a small but growing group of jurists and their followers called the Ahl al Sunnah wa’l Jama’a, who asserted that all a believer needed to know about faith was in the literal  reading of the Qur’an and Hadith.  Ibn Hanbal was tortured and imprisoned and some other scholars were killed for refusing to adhere to Mutazilism. 

Although being banished, beaten, imprisoned, and tortured for years, Ibn Hanbal outlasted three khalifs, eventually becoming a popular folk hero because of the strength of his convictions. The minha caused upheaval in Baghdad, and in 847, the new Caliph, Al Mutawakkil seeking popular support for his rule, let Ibn Hanbal out of prison and supported increasingly popular  Sunni doctrines. As noted by Jonathan Brown, 
[Mutawakkil] brought the leading Sunni scholars out of prison and sent them to the great cathedral mosques of Baghdad. There they narrated hadiths to the crowds, reciting their full isnads back in time through the chains of great scholars to the Messenger of Allah…Although they began as a small conservative and ideologically xenophobic network of scholars obsessed with collecting and evaluating Hadith, the Sunni mantra of the primacy of ‘revealed text’ over reason would attain a paramount place among the populations of cities like Baghdad.—Seated in sprawling mosques in Baghdad, Isfahan and Samarkand, narrating the words of the prophet to their enraptured audiences, the Sunni scholars had terrifying popularity among the masses.” 27


Ultimately, there was a backlash against Mutazilism which was now associated with the cruelties of the minha. Yet, over time though the Abbasid Empire began to destabilize. But this did not hinder the intellectual process. Since education and art had become part of the fabric of Islam, many of the powerful regional dynasties continued their patronage of scholars.  As a result, brilliant intellectuals emerged all over the Islamic world. Among them was Al Farabi, a scientist,philosopher, cosmologist, mathematician, music scholar and jurist who wrote in the fields of political philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, and logic. Ibn Haytham, the father of optics and the modern scientific method who was also a philosopher, theologian, physicist, astronomer, and mathematician. Many of the great minds  of the islamic golden age were also fierce critics of the literal interpretation of the Qur’an. For example Al Biruni, who calculated that the earth revolved around the sun and rotated on its axis, challenged the literal creed by Ibn Hanbal by insisting that it was essential to question everything including from religion to philosophy.  The debates between the literalists and the rationalists or free thinkers went on for decades. In the tenth century Al Ashari found a middle ground between Mu’tazilite rationalsim and Hanbalite literalism, using rationalist methods championed by the Mu’tazilites to defend the tenets of the traditionalist doctrine. 


In 1011, the twenty fifth Abbasid Caliph, Al Qadir condemned critical thought and ordered his subjects to distance themselves from the philosophers and free thinkers of the Mutazila. Al Qadir outlawed the Mutazila creed and endorsed the theology of the Ashari as well as the jurisprudence of Ibn Hanbal. This is despite the fact that Allah through Muhammad in the Quran requires the faithful to think and reflect. Historians believe that the decree by Qadir was based on the unstable political situation. He believed that the Ashari predestination would stabilize the realm and make the common folk more content with the injustices, famine and corrupt authorities because these were supposedly part of “Allah’s plan.” 

Whereas the Mutazilites  asserted of the primacy of human free will which inspires critical thought,  which Al Qadir believed tended to incite rebellions and political  unrest.   To enforce his policy Al Qadir passed a law of apostasy, making it easier to condemn and punish dissidents, skeptics and minorities.  Muslim rulers altered the curricula of state regulated (Madrassas) schools. Under these circumstances the Mutazila teachings gradually disappeared from the educational system while the Ashari sources focusing on Shariah law, Fiqh, Arabic, Hadith scholarship, grammar, Quranic recitation, etc., became the basis of mainstream Sunni Islam. Al Qadir’s reign lasted fifty years.


The Mutazila had been banned for political reasons, but pockets of Mutazila still existed all over the muslim world. This was a time of confusion and political fragmentation in the Muslim world.


 People were in need of divine revelation. And Asharite Al Ghazali stepped up to the forefront. He believed that violence could not subdue the rival Mutazila school. It required the battle of intellect. As such in one of his most acclaimed works, “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” Al Ghazali argued that rational thought was incompatible with Islamic teachings. Scientific study useful as long as it was pursued for religious purposes. Religious studies he considered paramount because the brought people closer to Allah. He supported reason only to the extent he could use it as an instrument to undermine his opponents. His  work sealed the attitudes the attitudes towards science in the Islamic world. Academics considered him the most influential figure in Islam after Muhammad.

He further fostered conservative, literal Ashari beliefs into the mainstream culture of Islam. 


Although Ghazali emphasized intellect and denounced violence, his supporters singled out and condemned great thinkers such as Al Farabi, Bitoni, Al Rawandi, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Sina. Their studies and properties were confiscated, their teachings were deemed heresy, their achievements were twisted and their books were burned.  Anyone who expressed sympathy with the Mu’tazila was either imprisoned, tortured or banished. 

Centuries earlier the Mu’tazila had lit the flame of enlightenment and had paved the way for a vibrant and innovative community of scholars. Some of the greatest minds in the world came from this movement. They demonstrated the potential for the seemingly boundless capacity of the human mind for learning, ingenuity, growth and creativity. But following Ghazali, in the Islamic world, the human mind was stifled and only the literal words of the Qur’an were to be studied …but not their implications.  It is key to note that this outcome was largely the result of political considerations. 

The relationship between state and religious authority can sometimes be obscure. The political authorities supported traditionalist thought in order to subdue the population and keep them from thinking, while the conservative scholars in alliance with the authorities increasingly regulated almost every  aspect of their behavior through the Sunnah. 




“We should not be ashamed to acknowledge truth from whatever source it comes to us, even if it is brought to us by former generations and foreign peoples. For him who seeks the truth there is nothing of higher value than the truth itself.”~ Islamic Philosopher, Al Kindi 28                                              

  So, instead of studying the whole of earth and nature (Allah’s creation), these traditionalists began to limit their focus to the words of the Qur’an and Muhammad’s (alleged) sayings and actions…(even though the words of the Qur’an encourage the investigation of nature and the universe.) It is similar to someone choosing to ignore what a guides’ finger is pointing to, and instead focused only on the finger itself. In other words, they are valuing the signposts over the divinity and the reality of the natural world to which the signposts are pointing.


In fact the Qur’an is saying the real signs are in nature.
Qur’an 2:164 “Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.”


Qur’an 20:53,54 “(Allah is) the One Who has made for you the earth like a cradle and inserted roads into it for you. He sent water down from the sky and thereby We brought forth pairs of plants, each separate from the other. Eat! Pasture your cattle! Verily in this are Signs for people endued with intelligence.”


From this point on (ca.1200),  students of these traditionalist orthodox schools were taught “mainstream” Islam without ever being taught how this version became mainstream. As pointed out by Albert Hourani in The History of the Arabs
“Those who studied fiqh in the Madrassa also studied the basic tenets of religious belief, although the process by which they had evolved and the ways in which they could be defended do not seem to have played a large part in the curriculum. By the time the system of schools was fully grown, the great discussions through which the Sunni creed has been defined had largely come to an end.” 29


So over time it was assumed that Sunni Islam was the official standard of Islam, although for over 300 years after the death of Muhammad it had not been.

Limiting Human Thought


Sunni Muslims are responsible for closing the minds of a large segment of humanity for over 1000 years. They have done this through a number of means. Besides effectively limiting study and investigation among muslims to so-called “religious” matters as noted above, I will point out four additional doctrines (among many others) that stifle the thought of those who follow the way of Sunni Muslims, all of which are far off base from anything Muhammad taught in the Qur’an. Keep in mind this is all part of Sharia or a legal system that has become an essential component of orthodox Islam although there is no mention of such a legal system of Sharia in the Qur’an or during Muhammad’s time. These doctrines came about two hundred years or so after the Islam in the Qur’an had been completed. 

Qur’an 5:3

This day have I perfected for you your  diyn (‘religion’) and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a diyn.”

Keep in mind most of Sunni Islam was invented by jurists who were working with the caliphate to uniformly apply a legal system on the populace of its dynastic territory. Somehow this body of law became identified as synonymous with the ‘religion’  (diyn) or with ‘Islam’ itself.


Ijma – Ijma is a term referring to the consensus or agreement of Ulama scholars on a point of doctrine. Various schools of thought within Islamic jurisprudence may define this consensus to be that of the first generation of Muslims only; or the consensus of the first three generations of Muslims; or the consensus of the jurists and scholars of the Muslim world, or scholarly consensus. As noted in one Sunni article: “It will surprise many to know that the most definitive proof in Islamic law is NOT the Quran [emphasis in original] , nor is it the Sunnah (the prophetic tradition), it is the consensus (ijma) of the body (or Ummah) of Muslims.” 30  “Whenever the Ijma on an issue is made certain, then it is obligatory to turn to it and it is not lawful to oppose.” 31  ῾ 

In Arab culture, in pre-Islamic practices and in the developments that followed the birth of Islam during the first century AH., ‘Ijma῾ was in fact a widespread tribal custom in pre-Islamic Arab society, a “living tradition,” to which clan leaders referred to  in order to ensure approval of their decisions and to determine collective action. Over the course of that period, ijma῾ was admitted first of all as a practice that had no real legal formulation: As observed by George Hourani “It is probable that neither the Qur᾽ân nor any genuine Tradition contains such a formulation.” It is only in the second century AH (eighth century CE), with the development of the legal theory of fîqh (the science of Islamic jurisprudence), that the fûqaha established a legitimate and legal foundation for ijma῾ as the third source of law. 32 

So basically Ijma is saying that whatever the scholars say is law is, in fact, law and Muslims must follow it. But where do they get the authority to say this? 

Imam Shafi was once asked this question. He was asked for a quote from the Qur’an to support this doctrine. His response was that he needed three days time to think.

After three days all he could come up with was Qur’an 4:115 “And whoever opposes (acts hostilely toward) the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.”

This usage is hardly adequate or pertinent on it’s face and there’s no need (for sake of brevity) to explain why. But of course the hadith can come to the rescue! And thus, the most used quote is below. 


“Verily Allah will not make my Community — or Muhammad’s Community — agree on error, and Allah’s hand is with the largest Congregation.” 33  


“My Community shall never agree upon misguidance, therefore, if you see divergences, you must follow the greater mass or larger group.” 34 


It is important to highlight that for most Sunnis once scholars of the earlier generations have decided on a matter the average believer has no authority to read the material and come up with his own understanding on anything in the Qur’an. One is obligated to follow the majority.  But what does Allah say clearly in the Qur’an about following the majority?


Qur’an 6:116 “And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah’s way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie.”


It is one thing to make legal decisions on the basis of custom, tradition or reasoning- that’s part of human governance. But it’s another to pass those decisions off as divine or an obligatory part of the diyn or of Islam. Modern Scholar Dr. Naim Abdallah has pointed this out in relation to helping the Muslim community free itself from medieval rulings in the face of obvious human rights violations. He explains how no matter how hard scholars try to make it divine, Shariah Law is the product of human effort and human conceptual development which is always subject to change with time. 35.


The Closing of Ijtihad – Ijtihad is the use of discretion, reasoning or creative thought in circumstances not directly addressed by the Qur’an [or the Sunnah]. During the early period, ijtihad referred to the exercise of one’s discretionary opinion (ra’y) on the basis of the knowledge of the precedent (‘ilm). As the practice of ijtihad transformed over time, it became the religious duty of a mujtahid to conduct legal rulings for the Muslim society. Mujtahid is defined as a Muslim scholar that has met certain requirements including a strong knowledge of the Qur’anSunna, and Arabic, as well as a deep understanding of legal theory and the precedent; all of which allows them to be considered fully qualified to practice ijtihad

Around the beginning of the 10th century, most Sunni jurists argued that all major matters of religious law had been settled, allowing for taqlid (تقليد), “blindly following the established legal precedents and traditions,” to take priority over ijtihād (اجتهاد). Over time, individuals’ qualifications to exercise ijtihād were organized into ranks ranging from the absolute mujtahid, who was bound by no precedent and free to develop his own interpretive principles, to the absolute muqallid (“follower,” “layperson”), who was required to follow authoriative jurists unquestioningly.


This was part of the Jurisprudence created by Imam Shafi. Thus, as observed by Kassim Ahmad, 
“To solve this problem Shafi came up with his neat little idea to freeze everything as it were. In other words, he came to the view that all opinions existing at that time would be acceptable, but nothing more than that – no new thinking could be allowed. The status quo would be set in stone with no possibility of new participants. Thus the idea of ijma’ first and ijtihad later was crystallized and given an official authority. Conformity became the norm. This was followed by the passivity and blind obedience that had to be fostered to maintain this conformity. The conformity and the passivity soon fused together to breed the pessimism and the fatalism which is a natural result of dead intellect.”


With the victory and general acceptance of Shafi`i’s jurisprudential theory where the hadith was given a position of almost equal importance with the Quran (the formula is “second primary source”), the use of creative thought or ijtihad for all practical purposes was abolished. This came to be known later as `the closing of the door of ijtihad’ and the beginning of the regime of taqlid or blind imitation of the great masters, a period beginning from about the fourteenth century till the end of the nineteenth or beginning of the twentieth centuries AD.

Finally, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that these matters are not about what the Qur’an and Sunnah does address which would plausibly be the jurisdiction of religious scholars. But now they are saying that they have the authority to make decisions for people relating to matters the Qur’an (or “sunnah”) doesn’t even address. 

Taqlid 
Taqlid 
literally means “to follow (someone)”, “to imitate”. In Islamic legal terminology it means to follow a mujtahid in religious laws and commandment as he has derived them.  The person who performs taqlid is termed muqallid. It is the the unquestioning acceptance of the legal decisions of another without knowing the basis of those decisions. Many Sunnis believe they are obligated to forgo their own thinking for that of another. In the third Islamic century (9th century CE) and subsequent centuries, with the emergence of legal schools formed around some of the most significant scholars, it came to be widely believed that all important questions of law had been dealt with and that the right of independent interpretation had been withdrawn for future generations.

Henceforward, all were to accept the decisions of the early authorities—i.e., to exercise taqlīd toward them. This doctrine is usually expressed as “the closing of the gates of ijtihād.” 37  

So under this scheme lay people (muqalid) were not allowed to engage the sources of Islamic doctrine at all and the scholars transitioned from engaging with the sources of Islamic thought directly, to engaging solely with the opinions and standard texts of their respective schools of thought madhabs (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali). 


They basically took the Qur’an, its interpretation and its meaning from the hands of the faithful and also tried to replace it with hadith.  As further noted by Kassim Ahmad:
“Any careful reading of the Quran and any serious discussion would definitely point out the errors of the hadith. So, how did the ulama handle this potential threat to their hadith? Very simple. They sought to cut off all intellectual discussion and inquiry in Islam. They came up with the not-too-original but effective idea that only the ulama, the priestly class, would be allowed to handle all matters pertaining to the religion. They would teach people that they were the inheritors of the Prophet’s mission.38 

Despite the fact that Islam never allowed any priesthood, the ulama would go on to successfully set up not only a priestly class but a whole hierarchy of priests.”
Any sincere muslim who grows up in ‘Islam’ or converts to ‘Islam’ is told the Qur’an is the most revered book on earth, that it is the absolute word of Allah, and that it is sacred. Then they are told they can never understand the Qur’an without the hadith. Then they are told they will never understand the hadith without the scholars interpretation. So now, instead of having a scripture which leads Muslims to the remembrance, awe and power of Allah, the scholarly system of jurisprudence (fiqh) has used the Qur’an to usurp Allah’s power for themselves. Now people are in awe of the scholars and follow them. The shift is subtle but no less profound. 


Sufyan on Fiqh: Hadith cause misguidance, except for scholars of Fiqh
Al-Qayrawani reported: Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (d. 814 AD), may Allah have mercy on him, said, “The prophetic Hadith cause misguidance, except for the scholars of Fiqh.” [Source] al-Jāmi’ fī al-Sunan wal-Ādāb 1/118 
The scholars may wish to guard the Qu’ran for their own use, but the Qur’an is for the people.
Qur’an 7:52 “And certainly We have brought them a Book which We have made clear with knowledge, a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe.” 

Bi la Kayf – Bi la kayf (literally “without asking how”, or “without how”) is the doctrine articulated by the Ashari’s in response to the rational thought of the Mutaliza. (The Mutazila believed the attributes and names in the Qur’an were allegorical, i.e., references to Allah were not literal such as Allah having, hands eyes a face, or his rising above the throne.  Bi la kayf is the rejection of speculative and even critical thinking, captured in their slogan “don’t ask how.” For Sunnis, we are to believe Allah rose over the thrown – without questioning or asking how or even worrying about the underlying meanings. The doctrine began with Hadith scholar, Imam Malik’s view that all anthropomorphic expressions of the Qur’an i.e., references to Allah must be believed without questioning how (bi la kayf). And it has progressed into current times.


This is from a current Sunni website: The way of Ahlus Sunnah is to never question the Kayfiyyah [Howness] of how Allah does things. 40 The idea was to cut off all rational thought and reason as was being advocated by the natural philosophers and science minded of the time. But the actual Qur’an is a book of science, deep wisdom and nature. What does it say about investigation into the how-ness of Allah’s creation?

Any plain reading of the Qur’an flatly contradicts what the Sunni Hadith Scholars have been trying to get their followers to believe. The contention of the Hadith scholars was that scientific investigations would never reveal theological truth or insight into the nature of Allah. But the Qur’an is asking us to do just that. We, of course, will never have complete understanding and grasp of Allah, but every investigation into the wonders of the universe reveal even more about his majesty, expansiveness and infinite wisdom than written words could ever inspire. 


Qu’ran 50.6 -“Do they not then look up to heaven above them how We have made it and adorned it and it has no gaps?”

Qur’an 71.15 -“Do you not see how Allah has created the seven heavens ,~ one above another.”

Qur’an 88.17 – “Will they not then consider the camels, how they are created?”


Qur’an 88.18 – “And the heaven, how it is reared aloft.”
Qur’an 88.19,20 – “And the mountains, how they are firmly fixed, And the earth, how it is made a vast expanse?”


Qur’an 25:45 -“Have you not considered (the work of) your Lord, how He extends the shade? And if He had pleased He would certainly have made it stationary; then We have made the sun an indication of it.”

Qur’an 26.7 – “Do they not see the earth, how many of every noble kind We have caused to grow in it?”

Qur’an 29.19 – “What! do they not consider how Allah originates the creation, then reproduces it? Surely that is easy to Allah.”

Qur’an 29.20- “Say: Travel in the earth and see how He makes the first creation, then Allah creates the latter creation; surely Allah has power over all things.”

Qur’an 16.48- “Do they not consider every thing that Allah has created? Its (very) shadows return from right and left, making obeisance to Allah while they are in utter abasement.”

Conclusion
The question has been whether Orthodox Islam is true Islam.  First, let’s be clear. Orthodox means correct opinion. An opinion is an opinion. Some may be more informed than others but if the Qur’an is the divine guide and the criteria and it’s available for all people, beyond the Qur’an, who has the authority to say their opinion of Islam more correct than others?

It’s an opinion. So, there is also the notion of ‘true Islam‘. Well, what is the Sunni version of Islam true to? The problem is the scholars tried to codify, legislate and give solid form to something divine and natural which cannot be crystalized.

Muhammad’s legacy is that he left a book of wisdom and guidance meant to inspire the heart and fill it with a pure, simple but firm faith. Muhammad wasn’t trying to create a structure of hard and fast authoritative rules, he was more interested in trying to create a shift in consciousness.  That’s the contradiction. As much as the scholars tried to establish hard, tangible rules, the more they made a simple faith unnecessarily complex, complicated and authoritarian. 

And this has had devastating, dangerous effects. Let’s look at  the punishment for Apostasy (commonly defined as the conscious abandonment of Islam by a Muslim in word or in deed.”)   For example, in Islamic law (sharia), the view among the majority of classical jurists was that a male apostate must be put to death  A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi’a scholars.” It is largely based on this hadith: “A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.” — Sahih al-Bukhari9:89:271 (Of course there are also contradictory hadith where there no was carried out punishment for apostasy.)


However, the Qur’an doesn’t require anyone to be punished for apostasy at all. Rather, it says.
Qur’an 2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.


Qur’an 5:54 “O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shalllove them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah’s way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah’s Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.”

Yet, to this day in Saudi Arabia and a few other countries, thelaw by consensus of the jurists is that ‘Islam’ imposes the death penalty on apostates. And apostasy law and the death penalty are actively enforced in Saudi Arabia.


The phenomenon of priests and scholars taking the simple and pure commandments of Allah and building immense, detailed structures of additional traditions, customs and formal laws has a history. The scriptures record prophets continually warning against the inclination of men inventing their own concepts and over-pious traditions on top of the clear, simple guidance and wisdom given by the prophets. 


Isaiah 29:13 “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.”


Isa (Jesus) addressed the same problem in his encounter with the Pharisees and scribes. 
Mark 7:5-9
“Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”

Muhammad was fully aware of this problem as well and clearly warned about it in the Qur’an.
Qur’an 9:31, 34
“They have taken their doctors of law (scholars) and their monks as Lords besides Allah…They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse….
O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah’s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah’s way, announce to them a painful chastisement.”

It is clear that Muhammad never intended Islam to be an enterprise under the authority of scholars and doctors of law. But that nevertheless is exactly what happened. That is, if one calls the religion of the Jurists …Islam.  True Islam however appears to be something quite different. What is true Islam? It is not defined by five pillars. The Qur’an doesn’t mention any structure with five pillars called Islam. In fact the only mention of pillars relates the structure of the universe which functions without any pillars that can be seen. 


Quran 13:2 “Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you see, and He is firm in power and He made the sun and the moon subservient (to you); each one pursues its course to an appointed time; He regulates the affair, making clear the signs that you may be certain of meeting your Lord.”


Muhammad was trying to express the principle of Tawhiyd (Oneness). This was the overwhelming understanding he received in his enlightenment. This has been mistakenly translated as monotheism, but rather Muhammad was trying to relate an ancient understanding, that ‘all is one.’ All the gods are actually One, there is unity in the diversity in nature, and we as human beings are all one with each other.  All is bound together.

He called this oneness ‘Allah’; the ultimate reality.
Qur’an 38:5  “Has he made all the gods a single, One (Allah)? Indeed, this is a curious thing.”
The most cutting edge discoveries and observations in physics realize the same conclusion.
“A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. Quantum theory thus reveals a basic Oneness of the universe.” (Erwin Schrodinger/Fritjof Capra, 1975)


With this understanding of Oneness he saw all the prophets and all of the scriptures as teaching this same basic principle and naturally in teaching the same truth- no distinctions should be made between any of them. Islam was not meant to be a faith based on Muhammad. However, with the addition of the Sunnah as a mandatory part of Islam (in the Sunni Version) this is exactly what happened. Some Sunni Muslims will actually say Muhammad was the best of the prophets (basing that claim on hadith.) 40


Qur’an 2:136 “Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.”


Muhammad made it clear that he was not to be the focal point of Islam. Students have a natural tendency to focus their devotion on their spiritual teacher. The mark of a true teacher is that he will redirect that devotion to its source. Allah is mentioned in the Qur’an 2,584 and Muhammad is mentioned by name in the Qur’an 4 times. Islam is about the the oneness of Allah; the infinite and the indivisible. 
Human beings are an aspect of the indivisible nature of Allah. We are part of the oneness. The servant has a tendency to set himself up as a ‘Self’ apart from the ‘Divine Self’. But ultimately, we are not separate entities or even working ‘parts’ of Allah, we may better be thought of as features of Allah himself. 

This is why prayer is important.  Qur’an 20:14 “… [A]nd keep up prayer for My remembrance.


Prayer or Spiritual meditation is the pathway to Divinity. It is the mystic ladder that begins to dissolve the sense of separation between the person and the Divine whole. Allah is not simply the Oneness we see externally. Allah is within as well.

Qur’an 50:17 “And certainly We created man, and We know what his mind suggests to him, and We are nearer to him than his life-vein.”


Qur’an 57:4 “...[A]nd He is with you wherever you are.”

The Qur’an makes it clear that Allah is not a separate entity in the sky. 
Qur’an 6:3 “And He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth; He knows your secret (thoughts) and your open (words), and He knows what you earn.”


This encourages the understanding that the inner self is the Divine’s infinite self. There is no other self other than the Divine’s infinite being. This is the ground of our being; Peace. 


At the root of the word Islam in Arabic is the word ‘Salaam’ (Peace). From it’s root tongue, Ge’ez, sälam (ሰላም) it means “whole, safe, intact, unharmed, to go free, without blemish”. It is the same as in ancient Hebrew, where the verb shalam literally means to make whole or complete.


Through prayer, charity, and other practices which remind them they are more than the separate self, Muslims -are those who strive to attune themselves with their true nature, which is peace. 


This Peace is also Allah. It is one of his attributes or qualities.
 Qur’an 59:232 “He is Allah, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, (I-salaamu) the Peace, the Faithful, the Guardian, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of every greatness Glory be to Allah from what they set up (with Him).


“Our self – luminous, empty Awareness – knows no resistance and is, therefore, Peace itself; it seeks nothing and is, thus, happiness itself; it is intimately one with all appearances and is, as such, pure love.” ~Rupert Spira. 


“He who knows own self, knows Lord.”41


The Qur’an seeks to join man back with his Lord through his heart. Allah is within, but man has a tendency to look outside of himself for guidance to attach himself to, something tangible an edifice, a relic, a crystallized material object. This is reflected in the human history of ‘idol worship’ or shirk in all of it’s subtle and exoteric forms. But the Heart is the guide and the Qur’an appeals to and connects with the heart and the conscience.  There’s no set rule or path that can be laid out as to what to do in every situation. We have to trust the universe as conveyed through our senses, trust our minds, and trust our nature, the very ground of being itself. 

Qur’an 41:53 “We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?”


Diyn -(which has been translated as religion) means “a way of conduct, judgment, a custom, self governance.”  In this sense, the ‘religion of Islam’ is better understood as ‘a way towards peace.’ This Islam has no beginning, and no end. It is a state of peace; a peace that transcends time and space. 

It is not something meant to be imposed or forced on any one, that is the way of oppression. 


Qur’an: 28:83 “As for that Abode of the Hereafter We assign it unto those who seek not oppression in the earth, nor yet corruption. The sequel is for those who ward off (evil).”

What the Sunni jurists did was create a religion where they tried too hard to control belief, conduct, behavior and knowledge. For all of Imam Shafi’s efforts to craft a jurisprudence that would ensure uniformity and erase division and uncertainty, even more division erupted. The same is true for Abu Bakr who sudued all of Arabia and the Umma by force, and dispossessed the family of Muhammad to “keep the Ummah” together.


At some point you have to teach the truth as best you can, then let go and trust.  The more you trust, the more you realize the inseparable identity of self and other.  This is called true faith.This was the ‘way’ Muhammad exemplified. He gave the Qur’an and did not Lord it over anyone. This is the way of nature, the way of the universe, and the way of True Islam.


Qur’an 6:104 “Indeed there has come to you enlightenment (insight) from your Lord; whoever will see, it is for his own soul, and whoever will be blind, it shall be against himself;  And I am not a keeper (guardian) over you.”

1. Sahih Al-Bukhari, v. 3, Kitab Al-Fadha’il, Chapter on the Virtues of Fatima, p. 1374. 2. Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, v. 3, Chapter on the Virtues of Fatima, p. 240. 3. Yanabi^ Al-Mawadda, v. 1, ch. 15, p. 243. 4. Al-Sawaiq Al-Muhariqa, p. 173. 5. Ibn Ishaq. From Rubin, Uri “The Eye of the Beholder: The life of Muhammad as viewed by the early Muslims, P.131 (1995)Princeton, New Jersey. 6. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. V, pg. 356, Matba’ah al-Maymaniyyah. 7. Al-Tirmidhi, Sahih, Vol. 2, p. 299. 8. Al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Vol. 3, Pg. 124 9. Sahih Al-Bukhari, part 6 p. 3. 10. Sahih Muslim, v1, p48; Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p. 643; Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128 11. (The tradition of Ghadir Khum, has been narrated with as much as 150 authentic chains of transmitters by the Sunnis alone. Among the historians who have recorded the events of Ghadir-Khumm are Athir-ud-Diyn in his book Usudul-Ghaba; Halabi in his Sira-tul-Halabiyya; and Ibn Hajar in his al-Sawa’iq-al-Muhriqa. Among the traditionalists who have mentioned the events of Ghadir ­Khumm are Muslim, Nasai, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maja; Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Hakim. 12. Vaglieri, Laura Veccia (2012). Ghadir Khumm, Encyclopædia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online. 13. Ibn Hanbal, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal b. Hilal b. Asad, Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Shaybani al-Marwazi. Manaqib ‘Ali b. Abi Talib  Manuscript. 14. Ḥalabī, al-Sīra al-Ḥalabīyya, vol. 3, p. 308. (Other occaisions https://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/narrations.htm). 15. Tafsir al-Tha’labi, by Is’haq al-Tha’labi, commentary of verse 70:1-3 from two chain of narrators. 16. Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 745: 17. Betty Kelen, Muhammad Messenger of God, T. Nelson; 1st edition (1975). 18. Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 468 and Volume 7 hadith 57319. https://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/305-abu-bakr-as-siddiq 20. Tarikh al-Yaqubi2. p. 114. 21. The History of al-Tabari Vol. 9: The Last Years of the Prophet p.1118/186. 22. (See Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri in his , v1, pp 582-586; Tarikh Ya’qubi, v2, p116; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20) 23. History of Tabari, in the events of the year 11 AH Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, beginning of the book, and pp 19-2024. Riz̤vī, Sayyid Sa’eed Ak̲h̲tar. Slavery: From Islamic & Christian Perspectives. Richmond, British Columbia: Vancouver Islamic Educational Foundation, 1988. (See also Ibn Abd’l Barr for Sunni reference).  24. Sunnan Abu Dawud: Book 14: 2527 25. Ahmad Bin Yahya Bin Jabir Al-Baladhuri , “Kitāb futūḥ al-buldān”  The Origins of the Islamic State, Book no.,1., p 107. 26. Wilfred Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad p.48, Cambridge University Press (1997).  27. Ibid, p.44 28. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, the True Jihad, Goodword Books, (2002). 29. Tabari, I, p.2769 30. Al-Nasa’i, al-Sunan al-kubra, hadith:8148 Al-Tabarani, al-Mu’jam al-kabir, vol.5 p.18,  Al-Tirmidhi, Sunan, hadith:3876, Niyshaburi, al-Mustadrak, vol.3 p.110 Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol.4 p.371; see also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Sy6dKXyCg&t=1903s 31. http://balaghah.net/old/nahj-htm/eng/id/imam-ali/8/11.htm 32. “During the reign of Umayyad dynasty the family and descendants of Imam ‘Ali were heavily oppressed and the Imam ‘Ali was cursed from the pulpits of the mosques. Nevertheless, the hadith literature of the Sunni tradition of Islam has preserved numerous statements of the Prophet Muhammad where he praises the virtues, excellence and spiritual pre-eminence of Imam ‘Ali. These hadiths, either taken individually or collectively, make it abundantly clear that the Prophet had indeed appointed Imam ‘Ali as his spiritual and religious successor and as the legitimate authority for the interpretation of Islam after him. It is highly unlikely that Sunni hadiths and transmitters would have forged such statements especially given the fact of the widespread opposition to Shi‘ism. Indeed, the presence of such statements about the Imam ‘Ali’s exalted status even in Sunni literature lends support to the notion that ‘Ali was the true and legitimate successor of the Prophet Muhammad.” https://ismailignosis.com/2015/07/07/imam-ali-declared-the-successor-of-prophet-muhammad-in-sunni-hadith-literature/
Part 2. 1. Harald Motzki, “The Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani as a Source of Authentic Ahadith of the First Century A.H.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 50 (1991):21  Brown, Daniel W. (1996).Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought. Cambridge University Press.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyp9nDUhL90&t=2315s
3. (Ikhtilaf al Hadith, Ikh339)
4. Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (1964), Supra note 5, at 47.
5. Al Darimi, Sunan, 1:153; See also –  [Al-Shafii ‘’Kitab al-Risala’’, ed. Muhammad Shakir (Cairo, 1940), 84]
6. https://www.tingismagazine.com/editorials/islam-without-hadith/
7. Alfred Guillaume, Islam (1954).
8. Ibn Al Jawzi, The Virtues of the Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (2013).
9. Taqyid al-‘ilm P 29-31, Musnad Ahmad vol. 3 P 12, 21, 39, Sunan al-Darimi vol:1.10. Sahih Muslim Vol. 2 P. 414 11. https://factszz.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/true-history-of-hadiths-and-sunna-a-must-reading-for-all-muslims-and-non-muslims-who-are-interested-in-theology/
12. Taqyid al-‘ilm P 34.
13. https://raseef22.com/article/1076059-the-secret-history-of-hadith-the-prophet-refused-it-and-abu-bakr-burnt-it
14. Joseph Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1950).
15. http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/manipulation_of_33:21_(P1249).html
16. Kassim Ahmad,  Syed Akbar Ali; Hadith: A Re-Evaluation (1997).
17. Ibn Habib, Abu Ja´far Muhammad, Kitab al-Muhabbar, Beirut, trs, pp.171-172; Muslim, IV, 1920.
18. Irving Zeitlin, “The Historical Muhammad”, Polity Press, (2007).
19. Bulugh al-‘Arab fi Ahwal al-Arab, Muhammad Shukri al-Alusi, Vol 1, p 121-122, Muslim.
20. FALASHA ANTHOLOGY   TRANSLATED FROM ETHIOPIC SOURCES WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY  WOLF LESLAU  BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY  NEW HAVEN  YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS  LONDON • GEOFFREY CUMBERLEGE • OXFORD UNVERSITY PRESS]  Copyright, 1951, by Yale University Press   Halevy, Teezdza Sanbat, French synopsis, pp. xvii-xvm; Ethiopia text, pp. 51-56.
21. http://astudyofquran.org/wp/
22. See Abu Dawud, vol. 1 Chapter 327, etc.
23. The Maliki Argument for not Clasping the Hands in Salat, By Abdullah bin Hamid Ali.  http://lamppostedu.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SADL_1.pdf
24. The Hanafis, Imam Malik, and most theologians maintained that the Qur’an can be abrogated by a Sunna that is established by multiple-chain transmission [mutawatir] or by a Sunna that is well-known [mash’hura], “well-known” according to the Hanafis meaning a prophetic report that is accepted and implemented by the vast majority of jurists such that it is akin to multiple-chain transmission.
25. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-steward/465-the-most-miss-quoted-verse/1289911337848738/
26. This narration was reported in the following sources: 1.     In Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The narration is invalid because it had no isnad (no chain of transmitters). 2.     In Sirat ibn Hashim: The narration is also invalid because it had no isnad (no chain of transmitters). 3.     In Mustadrak al-Hakim al Nisaboori: He reported two isnads. The first chain of narrators contains Ismaiil bin Abi Owais, Abi Owais and leads to Abdullah ibn Abbas. Several renowned scholars have regarded Ismaiil and his father as weak narators and unreliable. Al-hakim has regarded this narration as strange and has acknowledged the version with the Ahlul Bayt as sahih. The second chain contains Saleh bin Musa Al-talhe and Ishaq bin Musa Al- talhe who are also weak and unreliable narrators in the view of renowned Sunni and Shia’a scholars. 4.     al-Bayhaqi in Sunnan al-Kubra: There are two narrations. One was transmitted by Saleh bin Musa Al-talhe and the other by Ishaq bin Musa Al- talhe. Both of them are weak and unreliable. 5.     ibn abdel-barr: Two isnads: the first one contains Saleh bin Musa Al-talhe, who we already rejected for obvious reasons. The second is Katheer ibn abdullah who is considered weak and unrelliable. 6.     The narration of al-Qaddi A’ayadd in al-Ilma’a: Narrated by Shua’ayb ibn Ibrahim: who is also considered an weak/unreliable narrator by many scholars. 7.     Sharh al-Jami’i al-sagheer by al-Suyuti: He reported it from Mustadrak al-Hakim which we have already discussed. 8.     Kanz al-U’ummal by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi: He reported the same narrations as some of the ones above, which are all unreliable. 27. Jonathan A.C. Brown, “Misquoting Muhammad” (2014), pp. 47-48.
28. Abu Yusuf Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi (ca. 800–870 CE) was the first self-identified philosopher in the Arabic tradition. He worked with a group of translators who rendered works of Aristotle, the Neoplatonists, and Greek mathematicians and scientists into Arabic. 
29. Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples,  Grand Central Publishing New York (1991), p. 166.  30. https://austrolabe.com/2006/06/14/my-ummah-will-never-agree-on-error/
31.  Talib Jaleel, “Notes On Entering Deen Completely: Islam as its followers know it.” (2015) P. 346 32. George F. Hourani, “The Basis of Authority of Consensus in Sunnite Islam,” Studia Islamica 21 (1964): 16.
33. Tirmidhi said: “And the meaning of “jama`a” according to the people of knowledge is: the people of jurisprudence, learning, and hadith. Tirmidhi (gharib) #2256, Cairo ed. `Aridat al-ahwadhi (11:9)
34.  Ibn Majah (2:1303 #3950) Ahmad narrates it mawquf through three sound chains to Abu Umama al-Bahili and Ibn Abi Awfa. Bayhaqi in al-Madkhal narrates something similar from Ibn `Abbas. 35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259546004_Human_Rights_Universality_and_Sovereignty_The_Irrelevance_and_Relevance_of_Sharia
36. Kassim Ahmad, Hadith:  A re-evaluation (1997) [Translated from the Malay original by  Syed Akbar Ali.]
37.  See, “The obligation to follow the opinion of those more knowledgeable than us is reported by Ibn Qayyim on his discussion of the different kinds of taqlid. He said: “There is an obligatory (wajib) taqlid, a forbidden taqlid, and a permitted taqlid… The obligatory taqlid is the taqlid of those who know better than us, as when a person has not obtained knowledge of an evidence from the Qur’an or the Sunna concerning something.” 
Shaykh Hisham Muhammad Kabbani  Ijma`, Taqlid and Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha http://sunnah.org/wp/2010/11/03/ijma-taqlid-and-ikhtilaf-al-fuqaha/
38. https://www.al-feqh.com/en/the-hadith-the-scholars-are-the-heirs-of-the-prophets
39. https://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/134303743-islam-evolution.html
40. https://www.onepathnetwork.com/ten-reasons-prophet-muhammad-%EF%B7%BA-was-the-best-prophet-of-all-time/
41. Mizan al-Hikmah, hadith 12223 [urdu trans.] quoting from Ghurar al-Hikam Safinat al-Bihar, vol 2, page 603. 42.  Islam Alfred Guillaume.

Islam, Slavery and Black People Pt. 2: A Comment From Chancellor Williams

By Alan Dixon

Adal Sultantate, Ethiopia 1430 AD

For well over fourteen hundred years Africans have been living Islam. They have used it to inform their African dress, music, diet, social structures, their self governance, their learning and sciences. By their own volition Africans have been Muslim for approximately as long as Anglo Saxons and Germans have been Christian. This heritage runs deep. Most of the great West African Empires and cities were Muslim, including Timbuktu, Djenne, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Fouta Djallon, the Sokoto Sultanate in Nigeria and Niger, and Kanem-Bornu; not to mention the powerful East African States such as the Ajuran Empire, the Adal Sultanate and the Mahdiyya in Sudan.  When Africans were brought to America their connection with this past was  essentially cut off. We had no clue all this had been going on.
As awareness grew in the 1960’s and ’70’s, many African Americans began to reflect this awareness in their  their thinking as well as in their names. Then something happened in the early 90’s. The paragraph below is a reflection of the change. This article will examine the single paragraph below by Chancellor Williams.


“The Blacks in the United states seem to be more mixed up and confused over the search for racial identity than anywhere else. Hence, many are dropping their white western slave master’s names and adopting – not African – but their white Arab and Berber slavemaster’s names! For the Arabs themselves are a white people, the semitic division of Caucasian and therefore blood brothers of the Jews against whom they are now arrayed for war.”
 The Destruction of Black Civilization, Chancellor Williams, pp. 22-23.

Ok, let’s start with the first two sentences. “The Blacks in the United states seem to be more mixed up and confused over the search for racial identity than anywhere else. Hence, many are dropping their white western slave master’s names and adopting – not African – but their white Arab and Berber slavemaster’s names!” 

Are we really mixed up about our ‘racial identity’? We’re black,(or “blacks” as Chancellor said.) It’s that simple, because “racial identity” is a simple, superficial category and it is as vague as it is simple. Because as we all know race and blackness are social constructs that can mean a lot of things, depending on an individual’s perspective, presumptions, and the norms and stereotypes of the society at the time.

But we are not simply a race, we are a people, an African people with an array of distinct cultural, historical and ethnic lineages and heritages. Many of them go back to the Fulani, the Wolof, the Soninke, the Jallonke, the Mandinke, the Jakhanke, the Mandé etc. The majority of these people have been Muslim for as long as their oral histories can recall, approximately one thousand years. They have names like Karim, Malik, Kadir (Qadir), Fatima, Khadijah or Amina. 

So, if I, for example, through DNA, trace my lineage back to Mali, and find many people in my region are named Kadir and I change my name to Kadir, how exactly am I mixed up? Am I not re-connecting with my actual heritage? Am I mixed up because Kadir is originally an Arabic word? If that’s the case Williams should take that up with the people of West Africa and forty seven generations of our ancestors there who have been Muslim and have used Kadir and similar names.

And further, how is that different from a European-American naming himself Michael*, Joseph, John*, or James? Those are all originally North African, Middle Eastern, Hebrew/Aramaic names.  (*Ex. Michael from Hebrew:  Mīkhāʼēl מִיכָאֵל “like *El” (the *Powerful One) and John, from Yohanan (יוֹחָנָן‎), “Graced by Yah”).  Not to mention that Arabic (along with Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian) is an Afroasiatic language with an ancient prototype that originated in Ethiopia. Chancellor Williams may not have known this during his time, but now we know.

Next he says, we are- “adopting our white Arab and Berber slavemaster’s names!”


First, plain and simple, not one of the African empires, nations and people in history had an ‘Arab slave master.’ They were a free and independent people. Although slavery did exist, the overwhelming majority of Africans weren’t sold or taken as slaves by Arabs, and the vast majority of Arabs didn’t buy or take slaves, so why would this be the defining theme when referring to ‘Arabs’ or Muslims?
(The answers lies in the motives and biases of 18th and 19th century Western Christian Orientalist scholars, but we’ll discuss that later.)  
See also, http://www.innercivilization.com/2017/12/islam-black-people-and-slavery-pt-1.html

Most of us are literally in America because the non-islamic ‘traditional African’ Empires of the Ashanti, the Fon, the Oyo (Yoruba), the Kong, the Kingdom of Benin, the Kingdom of Koya, the Kingdom of Khasso, the Kingdom of Kaabu, the Fante Confederacy and the Dahomey enslaved us and sold us here. Does that mean all Africans are our slave masters? Why don’t we say the ‘African slave master’ when dealing with any Africans? Because all Africans didn’t enslave us. 








This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is mailempire.jpg






Second, it appears that Chancellor Williams is assuming the Berbers were white. However, the vast majority of ‘berbers’ are a black people. This point has been made clear by scholars like Dana Marniche Reynolds. See, http://afroasiatics.blogspot.com/2014/03/ ; also http://afroasiatics.blogspot.com/2016/01/

Third, and probably most importantly. The huge assumption in this paragraph made by Williams is that we took on these names simply to rebel against the ‘white slave- master’ or purely for cultural identity or socio-political reasons. While those may be factors, the central reason was because of their spiritual significance and meaning. This is aptly explained by Elijah Muhammad, the one man primarily responsible for the adoption of these names. 


“The Black man from the root beginning is from a Black Father. The Black man (so-called American Negro) is a member of the family and a direct descendant of the Creator who made the Heavens and the Earth. Therefore the son should be called by the name of his Father and not called by the name of an alien. The white race is an alien people to the Black Man. So many times you have heard that God has 99 names or attributes. The 100th name or attribute is Allah. Many of his attributes refer to names such as Power (Qadir), The Mighty (Al Aziz) , The Wise (Al Hakim) , the Most Merciful (Ar-Rahim), The Maker (Al-Bari), the Fashioner (AL Musawwir), the Knower (Al-Alim), the All -Hearing One (As-Sami), the All Seeing One(Al- Basiyr). So many of these names that we should have are pertaining to our Father.”
~ Elijah Muhammad, Our Savior Has Arrived, (1974).

This is the same as assuming Africans throughout the centuries were forced to convert to Islam at sword point or that they had to convert to do business. The problem is that (aside from ignoring the actual history) this view ignores the agency, and undermines the dignity, of the African mind. Islam spread to Southeast Asia, Iran, India, Afghanistan, etc., yet we don’t assume they were forced to convert. Why when it comes to our own African people we assume they were victims and not intelligent, conscious actors with their own sense of determination and preferences? What Western scholars and their students have overlooked is the possibility that Africans appreciated the principles and the aesthetics of the Qur’an as well as the way it sounded to their ears and to their hearts. In fact, the word ‘baneex’ in the West African Wolof language, meaning pleasure andsatisfaction, is traditionally used to describe the experience of learning the Qur’an.

Finally, let’s deal with the last sentence in William’s paragraph:  “For the Arabs themselves are a white people, the Semitic division of Caucasian and therefore blood brothers of the Jews against whom they are now arrayed for war.”
To begin with, this phrase ‘semitic division of Caucasian’ has no valid meaning in current anthropology. Semitic is not a race.* It is more of a language designation, now called Afroasiatic because it originated in Africa and eventually branched into Asia.  Caucasian is a false category. It’s a fabrication made up by 18th Century Europeans and has no real scientific meaning. See, http://www.innercivilization.com/2014/11/a-myth-of-epic-proportions.html .

*(Also, the pale, white Jews we see today aren’t ‘Semitic’, North African or even Middle Eastern, they primarily Khazars from Eastern Europe who converted to Judaism between 740 A.D. and 920A.D.) See Golden, Peter B. (2007b). “The Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism”. In Golden, Peter B.; Ben-Shammai,, Haggai; Róna-Tas, András. The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives. Handbook of Oriental Studies. 17. BRILL. pp. 123–161. ISBN 978-90-04-16042-2. Retrieved 13 February 2013.
‘Arab’ is not a race either. There have been a number of different ethnic groups on the Arabian peninsula. But we do know the original Arabs were black. 

Here’s a description of the Arabs from an early source, before the Northern Saudi takeover.
“They are African in character, often in identity. Indeed, the dialect commonly used along the south-eastern coast hardly differs from that used by the Somali Africans on the opposite shore. it is remarkable that where the grammar of the Arabic, now spoken by the “pure” Arabs, differs from that of the north, it approaches to or coincides with the Abyssinian.The pre-Islamitic institutions of Yemen and its allied provinces-its monarchies, courts, armies, and sergs-bear a marked resemblance to the historical Africo-Egyptian type, and even to the modern Abyssinian. The physical conformation of the pure-blooded Arab inhabitants of Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and the adjoining districts-the shape and size of the head, the slenderness of the lower limbs, the comparative scantiness of hair, and other particulars- point in an African rather than an Asiatic direction. The general habits of the people,-given to sedentary rather than nomad occupations, fond of village life, of society, of dance and music; good cultivators of the soil, tolerate traders, moderate artisans, but averse to pastoral pursuits-have much more in common with the inhabitants of the African than with those of the western Asiatic continent. The extreme facility of marriage which exists in all classes of the southern Arabs with the African races; the fecundity of such unions; and the slightness or even absence of any caste feeling between the dark “pure” Arab and the still darker native of modern Africa-conditions different from those obtaining almost everywhere else-may be regarded as pointing in the direction of a community of origin.”  ORIGIN OF THE ARABS – ENCYCLOPEADIA BRITANNICA 1902
“The original inhabitants of Arabia…were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people.  A proto-‘negroid’ belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya.  This belt…(gave) rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India, and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula. Bertram Thomas, Cambridge educated historian and Finance Minister, reported in his work ‘The Arabs” (New York, Doubleday 1937).

What about the Arabic language? This is the heart of the matter. Those names Chancellor Williams was concerned with were Arabic, so where do these names and the language originate? The answer is Africa, plain and simple. The spoken language is older but the written forms can be traced back to the 9th century B.C. See below:
“The ancient South Arabian script (Old South Arabian ms’nd; modern Arabic: المُسنَد‎‎ musnad) branched from the Proto-Sinaitic script in about the 9th century BC. The earliest inscriptions in the alphabet date to the 9th century BC in the Northern Red Sea Region, Eritrea (Africa).”  (Fattovich, Rodolfo, “Akkälä Guzay” in Uhlig, Siegbert, ed. Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: A-C. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz KG, 2003, p. 169.)

This becomes more clear when comparing Arabic with some of the words in the Ge’ez language. Geez is is an ancient South Semitic language and is a member of the Ethiopian Semitic group. The language originated in southern regions of Eritrea and the northern region of Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa.
–>

For example, the word Sigd is Ge’ez for “prostration” and is akin to the Aramaic seged.  The root letters s-g-d are also the same as in Mesgid (etymologically related to Masjid in another Semitic tongue – Arabic (s-j-d), and identical to the Hebrew root s-g-d, or “worship”).
 This is not an attack on Chancellor Williams at all. His work was indeed a well written, well researched attempt to explain African history. But Chancellor was born in 1893, Bennettsville, South Carolina. His formal education was based on Western Orientalist materials with many built in biases and distortions. We are only now sorting them out. It’s one thing to adopt Western names but it’s another to adopt Western classifications, categories and concepts of thought without questioning them. Otherwise, you’ll be seeing the world through their eyes, or even worse, through eyes they’ve trained to see what they want you to see. Chancellor Williams also admitted to being a devout Christian (another European thought construct. See, http://www.innercivilization.com/2014/07/is-christianity-white-mans-religion.html), so it wouldn’t be reckless to assume that his Christian sentiments influenced his views on anything relating to Islam. Nevertheless, it’s our job to expand our understanding of reality, transcend self imposed limiting belief systems and try to respect the diverse genius and understanding of our ancestors in Africa and beyond. 

Sudanese Ansar, Mahdist State 1898A.D.

 “And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (it).”
Qur’an 2:42.

http://www.innercivilization.com/2017/12/islam-slavery-and-black-people-pt-2.html

Islam, Black People and Slavery Pt. 1

By Alan Dixon

Islam, Black People and Slavery Pt. 1

In the last thirty years or so there has been a campaign to ‘expose’ Islam by highlighting the East African or Arab Slave trade and making it equivalent with Islam. This is, obviously a tactic used to smear and slander, but it is very effective. Obviously, Islam cannot be reduced to slavery, quite the same way black people or the whole of black experience cannot (and should not) be reduced to slavery. But, if any black person tries to, fully understand, explain, or put this affair in context, he is automatically said to be defending ‘his Arab slave master’. No more history has to be investigated; no actual culprits named, no tribes, people, dynamics, motivations or even a causal connection between the teachings of Islam and the slave trade has to be made. 

Apparently all we need to know is that Arabs came from outside of the African continent, subjugated its inhabitants and put Africans in slavery. Period.  Our attitudes get locked in emotionally, and this narrow loop continues indefinitely. This is how myths are made. And even more sadly, this is how ignorance perpetuates and grows.

Such a narrative answers very few questions. How did over 70% of West Africa become Muslim? How did Somalia, which is 99% muslim, get into Islam? Why are Nubians, Sudanese and Fulani muslim? Why are countries in Africa like Djbouti, Niger,  Mali, Mauritania, Senegal all over 94% muslim? How long have they been this way? What is an Arab? What is slavery? What exactly is Islam? Is it even a religion? We have direct ancestors that arrived here on slave ships from Guinea, Gambia, Senegal, etc., who had been muslim going back over 900 years, why don’t we know anything about them or their culture, or even care?
And here is the central question to ask: Did Islam, or the teachings of Islam condone the East African slave trade? If so, exactly which teachings?
One huge step towards true independence comes when we make up our minds to refuse to entertain any limiting beliefs, or refuse to embrace any approach that encourages us to dismiss or reject information – whatever the subject matter. We are a mature people, there’s no information we can’t handle. We should be able to take a step back from our emotions – survey any history, facts or subjects, analyze the data, process the information and then make balanced judgments that will help further our interests and deepen our understanding of the world and reality. If we can’t do this, we might as well throw in the towel, right now, and accept servitude to the other peoples of the world who have developed their insight and perception this way.
This short article simply seeks to clarify a few basic matters.
What is Islam?

Ayé la bá ‘Màle Islam is as old as life” -From an African Yoruba saying.
Islam was never defined by Muhammad in the Qur’an but its roots and meaning go back many centuries before he existed. Muhammad never claimed to invent ‘Islam’ but rather he sought to make more explicit a reality which has always existed in human consciousness. If we were to ask what is the name of the faith and way of life of all the prophets, wise men, and sages of the world,  many may call it ‘truth’, ‘righteousness’,  or ‘peace’.  Muhammad called it ‘peace’ (salaam). It cannot be invented by a person. This truth or reality has always been here and will always be here. It is only our perception of it that changes, based upon language, time, place and depth of understanding.

This concept existed going back to at least 1700 B.C.  (S-L-M) The root meaning translates to “whole, safe, intact, free (of evils of any kind), reconciled (with)”. The same root and meaning appears in Ge’ez: ሰላም S-L-M. (Ge’ez is an ancient Ethiopian/South Arabian language). The same root word appears in ancient Hebrew. From Strong’s concordance: Peace- salam/salem/shalam = to be safe, sound, healthy, perfect, complete. It signifies a sense of well-being and harmony both within and without; – completeness, wholeness, peace, health, welfare, safety, fullness, rest, harmony.

Jesus was called “the Prince of (Salam) Peace… رئيس السلام”

The name ‘Solomon’ is also a derivative of this word, from שָׁלוֹם‏ (shalom, “peace”).
Keep in mind this is somewhat different than the meaning we are familiar with, currently. ‘Peace’ in English is derived from the latin ‘Pax’ which means the cessation of violence and was meant to designate the short periods between the many Roman wars. 
 In English, the word “peace” conjures up a passive picture, one showing an absence of civil disturbance or hostilities, or a personality free from internal and external strife. However, the ancient African and Middle Eastern verb root-‘slm’ conveys both a dynamic and a static meaning 1)”to be complete or whole” and also 2) “to live well.” 
Psalms 34:14 “Depart from evil, and do good; seek (slm) peace, and pursue it.”
Isaiah 32:17
“And the work of righteousness shall be (slm) peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.”

Luke 1:79
 “…To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into ‘the way of (slm)’ peace.
 Muhammad spoke of Islam in terms of ‘diyn’* meaning ‘way of conduct’,  judgment, self governance. *(Diyn has been mistranslated as religion). So in other words, his teachings were about ‘the way of peace’, or the way towards developing judgment, balance, peace, harmony and wholeness.

Qur’an 5:16
 “Allah guides those who seek his pleasure to ways of peace, and brings them forth out of darkness into light by his leave, and he guides them to a straight path.” 

It has been said that Islam came to Africa and subjugated black people.
But, obviously, “wholeness, or wellness” couldn’t have come into Africa and have subjugated or enslaved black people. 

So what is meant by Islam in this context? There are additional meanings of Islam that we have to be aware of.  It’s important for our understanding to distinguish between the way of life of peace, wellness and wholeness as taught by Muhammad and the wise sages of the ancient past,  and Islam in its contemporary usage. ‘Islam’ can currently mean all of the trappings, material artifacts, scholarly pronouncements, and the multitude of traditions attached and associated with the ‘Islam’ Muhammad tried to name. Islam can also refer to any history that took place in North Africa and the Middle East for the past fourteen hundred years. Any history; the Caliphate, domed Mosques, dhikr beads, Shariah Law, the Islamic conquests, the Islamic Empire, fundamentalism, Sunnism,  Shi’ism, so-called orthodox Islam, Hadith literature, the Star and crescent, the Ulema, etc., are all associated with Islam but did not exist during the prophet Muhammad’s time and were not part of his teachings. 
So a distinction should be made between Islam and ‘Islamic History’ or the ‘Islamic Empire’; they are related but they are not the same. This becomes more clear as we look at the difference between Muhammad’s teachings on slavery and the East African Slave Trade.’

What was Muhammad’s and the Qur’an’s view on slavery?


Before Muhammad’s time in Arabia, free men and women would be taken into slavery because of debt, by the whim of powerful tribal chiefs, by powerful fathers who sometimes sold their children,  through kidnapping and slave raids,  and as prisoners or war.
Muhammad spoke out and ended all of these practices with one restricted exception, the faithful were allowed to take prisoners of war in defensive wars only; (the Qur’an forbids any form of military aggression.)   
This was an old custom also practiced throughout Africa. The idea was that instead of killing those who lost the war, their lives would be ransomed as a debt to be paid off by service. Once the debt was paid off, the person was to be integrated into society. This was a more humane approach and minimized senseless killing.

“In Islam the principle is based on freedom and not slavery. Historical researches show that a step by step policy adopted in early Islam to depreciate the phenomenon of slavery gradually so its effects and consequences would not disturb the society. On the other side, regarding the non-existence of the prison organization in early Islam, because in wars there was no specific organization for protection of captives and prisoners, therefore this responsibility was distributed among people who were mostly rich in the society by sale of captives to them.”

 ‘Slavery in Islam: An Islamic Sufi Approach’ Bijan Bidabad1 Mehdi Tabatabaei.

Additionally, there was pressure to free any other slaves. 

This was made clear in the Qur’an.

But he hath not attempted the Ascent –
And what will make you comprehend what the ascent is?
(It is) freeing the slave.”
[Qur’an 90:10-14].

For information on the true appearance of the prophet Muhammad, see: http://www.innercivilization.com/2015/02/was-prophet-muhammad-black.html


Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “Whoever frees a believing slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave.” 

“Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west. Righteous are those who believe in God, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveller, the beggars, and to free the slaves…” [Qur’an 2:177].




Our next issue is treatment of the slaves, or rather captives.
Here it becomes important to define slavery. As noted above, during Muhammad’s time, ‘slavery’ was a process designed to integrate prisoners of war back into society. In America, as black people, when we hear the word slavery it triggers thoughts of murder, rape, torture, dehumanization, absolute control, the selling away of children, and exploitation. 

But if we look at Muhammad’s instructions as to the treatment of “slaves”, we see the description of a different kind of relationship. 

Man from the Banu Hawazin tribe considered to be the descendants of Hawazin son of Mansur son of Ikrimah son of Khasafah son of Qays ʿAylān son of Mudar son of Nizar son of Ma’ad son of Adnan son of Aa’d son of U’dud son of Sind son of Ya’rub son of Yashjub son of Nabeth son of Qedar son of Ishmael, or Ishmaelites, son of Abraham. The Hawazin were pastoral nomads that inhabited the steppes between Mecca and Medina during Muhammad’s time.

These are his words: “Your servants and your slaves are your brothers. Anyone who has slaves should give them from what he eats and wears. He should not charge them with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them.”

Source: Bukhari, Iman, 22; Adab, 44; Muslim, Iman, 38–40; Abu Dawud, Adab, 124

“Not one of you should [ when introducing someone ] say ‘This is my slave’ , ‘This is my concubine’. He should call them ‘my daughter’ or ‘my son’ or ‘my brother’.”

Source: Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 2 ,4


“If anyone separates mother from her child then Allah will separate him on the Day of Resurrection from his dear ones. Sayyidina Abu Ayyub reported that Allah’s Messenger ﷺ said.”
-[Ahmed 23558]

“(Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess.”

Qur’an 4:36.



Samurah (RAA) narrated that The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever kills his slave we shall kill him, and whoever cuts the nose of his slave we shall cut off his nose.” Related by Ahmad and the four lmams. At-Tirmidhi graded it as Hasan. Abu Dawud and An-Nasa’i added the following, “and whoever castrates his slave we shall castrate him.” Al-Hakim graded this addition as Sahih. The concern for the respectful treatment of human beings even in servitude traces all the way back to Ancient Kemet. It is written in the many of the 42 negative confessions. 
(From the Papyrus of Nu, Brit. Mus. No. 10477, Sheet 22)

I have not vilified a slave to his master. I have not [attempted] to direct servants. Or ( I have not domineered over slaves).”
Muhammad also spoke out against the slave trade or the institution of trading in slaves.  “The worst of men is he who sells men.” ~Muhammad.
[Related by Jabir Ibn Abdallah. Dr. S.M. Mohiuddin Habibi, ‎Syed Ahsan Habibi The Anti-slavery Reporter, June 1884, p.135]
Muhammad was aware that the kidnapping, sale and mistreatment of human beings amounts to oppression, which he also spoke against, plainly: 

“As for that Abode of the Hereafter We assign it unto those who seek not oppression in the earth, nor yet corruption. The sequel is for those who ward off (evil).” HQ 28:83

Allah’s Apostle (pbuh) said, “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “By preventing him from oppressing others.”
 Volume 3, Book 43, Number 624:Sahih Bukhari.

So what happened? Put simply, after Muhammad died, some of his followers, seized power for themselves, killed and marginalized his family (Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn), subdued by force all of the Arabs on the Peninsula who opposed them and launched a series of aggressive military campaigns, even though the Qur’an only allows fighting in self defense. (Muhammad only fought defensive battles). The result was ‘the Islamic Empire’ stretching from Portugal and Spain across North Africa to as far as India. The kindness, dignity, peace and respect that Muhammad taught still managed to exist, but it existed within the larger framework of this Empire. And it was the Empire that developed the slave trade in violation of Muhammad’s teachings. Specifically, in one of the great ironies of history, it was Mu’awiyah I, the son of  Abu Sufyan, Muhammad’s and Islam’s sworn enemy, who took control of power in 661 A.D., built a powerful Dynasty for his family the Umayyads and they authoritatively controlled the Islamic world for almost one hundred years. The Umayyads built an expansive worldly kingdom all too often at the expense of spiritual concerns – a development that disturbed many of the faithful Muslims. They were seen as “tyrannical, anti-Islamic and godless”.  In fact, the Umayyad caliphate is often referred to as the first secular state in the world.   [Umayyad dynasty/Islamic History Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-03-26.]
As noted by this scholar: “The mutilation of the human body was also explicitly forbidden by Mohammad, and the institution which flourished both in the Persian and the Byzantine empires was denounced in severe terms. Slavery by purchase was unknown during the reigns of the first four Caliphs,  ‘the legitimate Caliphs’ as they are called by the Sunnis. There is, at least, no authentic record of any slave having been acquired by purchase during their tenure of office. But with the accession of the usurping house of Ummayya a change came over the spirit of Islam. Mu’awiyah was the first Muslim sovereign who introduced into the Islamic world the practice of acquiring slaves by purchase. He was also the first to adopt the Byzantine custom of guarding his women by eunuchs. We see that the earnest attempt of Islam to stop its followers from acquiring new slaves was foiled by family of Umayyah.” 
[Ameer Ali, Muhammadan Law, vol. 2, pp. 31-2.]
Ultimately, this empire expanded and created the great demand for slaves and servants. 
What did black people have to do with all of this?

First, it should be understood that Muslims enslaved as many  Europeans as they did Africans (possibly even more). Europeans don’t like to discuss this point, but it’s true. (This also accounts for the lightening up of the complexion of many Arabs over the centuries.) At this time it’s important to understand what an Arab is.  ‘Arab’ is not a race, or an ethnicity. There are a number of ethnic groups that have resided in the Arabian peninsula and an even larger number of ethnic groups who are considered Arab based on the definition of ‘Arab” as a language group rather than a race of people. For example the Original Arabs were black, Cushitic Bejas or Ethiopian. They crossed over the Red Sea and settled on the peninsula in ancient times. Later, northern, more pale people migrated south and became Arabized by the darker, original Arabs. The Arabic language itself is part of the Afroasiatic language family (along with Amharic and Ancient Egyptian) and originated in the region of Ethiopia. In fact, in Arabic, the root word for ‘black’, ‘aswad’ means chief, lord, master. Muhammad was from the Hijaz, the southwest region of Arabia, closest culturally and geographically to Nubia and Ethiopia. See, https://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/the-original-black-african-arabs-of-arabia-part-1/


Nevertheless, the image we get is of pale Arabs invading and Africa, taking slaves and forcibly converting the African people by the sword. What is often said is that the Arabs or “Islam” invaded Africa, but what’s never made clear unless one goes beyond this superficial view, is that these Arabs were at war with the Byzantine Empire which was European. The Byzantines were in control of Egypt and North Africa, and this is who the Arabs invaded and conquered. *(To add more complexity to the picture, Amr Ibn Aas, the Commander who initiated the campaign against Egypt was half Ethiopian. Ibn Kathir says in his book Al-Bidaaya Wa Al-Nihaaya: “He (Amr ibn Al-Aas) was black-skinned, tall, and bald. May Allah be content with him.” وكان أسمر، شديد السمرة، طويلا، أصلع رضي الله عنه)


Contrary to the popular myth, the Arabs never invaded and conquered any Sub-Saharan African people. Many scholars (including African scholars) have stressed this point but the myth in America persists among  misinformed black American Afrocentric lecturers.  

Children from the South Arabian Bedouin tribes of  the Shahara and Kathir.




“Much has been made of Arab invasions of Africa: they occurred in the North, but in Black Africa they are figments of the imagination. While the Arabs did conquer North Africa by force of Arms, they quite peaceably entered Black Africa. From the time of the Umayyad setbacks in the eighth century, no Arab army ever crossed the Sahara in an attempt to conquer Africa. The Arabs in these areas, who became great religious leaders, arrived as everywhere else individually and settled in peacefully. The Arab conquests dear to sociologists are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality.”
Pre-Colonial Black Africa, Cheikh Anta Diop, 1987: 101-102, 162, 163.

“No external conquest brought Islam to sub Saharan Africa. The work of spreading Islam was carried out by teachers and scholars who embodied Islamic knowledge and inscribed it into disparate communities across West Africa.”

– Rudolph Ware III, professor of History, University of Michigan.




“Islam was brought to Sub-Saharan Africa in the first place via the trade routes from the Arab countries and North Africa. The African Muslims have always maintained quite close links with the Arab world, from which a number of its reformers came. But Islamisation was essentially carried out by Africans themselves, who shared the same life, spoke the same language, and lived in the same cultural world entirely. There is no doubt that, for African Muslims, “Africanicity” and Islam are in no way opposed. For them Islam is not an imported religion. For many, abandoning the Muslim religion is equivalent to the rejection of all their family and tribal traditions, so intermingled are the two socio-religious universes.” Josef Stamer, Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa, Estella, 1995, pp. 121-125.

Muhammad saw himself at the end of a long line of prophets and wise men who lived in Africa and the Middle East and taught what he described as ‘the way of peace.’ He made it clear that he was not new, or a founder of any new religion, although this is what is told to us in comparative religion and by modern mainstream, so-called Orthodox Muslims. They erroneously say: The religion of Islam began in 610 A.D., following the first revelation to the Prophet Muhammad at the age of 40.
But Muhammad himself said in the Quran:

Qur’an 46:9 “Say: ‘I am not an innovation (anything new) among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.

What he taught was that ‘peace’ was an aspect of the Creator and the nature of our souls, and that once we peel away veils of fear, ignorance, greed and agitation we will return to that state of peace. 

Qur’an 30:30 
“Then set your face upright for the ‘diyn’ (way of judgment) in the right state– the nature made by Allah in which He has made mankind; there is no altering of Allah’s creation; that is the upright ‘diyn’ (way), but most people do not know.”
So the slave trade was (and is) a violation against Africa but also against Muhammad’s teachings as well.   Yet, the truth remains. 



We can think of Islam as water. If someone poisons a glass of water, a well, or even a lake, does that mean all the water everywhere is poisoned? No,of course not. Can you accurately assert the generalization that “water is toxic”? No. 
In fact poisoned or polluted water cannot actually be considered water. Water is H20. Anything added to it would technically make it a different compound.
 And would all this now mean we no longer need (pure) water or that water is no longer an essential part of our biological nature or system? No.
Likewise, if Islam was corrupted in specific times and places by specific nations of people that hardly means all of Islam is forever corrupt. The pure clarity, truth and power of Islam still remains for all who seek to understand it and experience it. 
It is our nature. 


“The essential concept of Islam is not a description of an absolute material entity.It’s actually a description of potentialities;a realm of possibilities more in the mental realm and the heart than the physical.Islam refers to a path, or possibilities for experiences. And it cannot be overstated that a very important role is played by the observers of this path.
The way it plays out in the physical realm and in the future is relative to the observers of the path.”


And say: The truth has come and the falsehood has vanished; surely falsehood is a vanishing (thing).
Qur’an 17:81

http://www.innercivilization.com/2017/12/islam-black-people-and-slavery-pt-1.html

Linguistic Analysis of term Allah

By Badar Kanwar

We are lead through, with a careful linguistic analysis, to a conclusion that the word from Al-Qu’ran اللَّهِ is not the proper noun (name) of our Rabb. It actually stands for allathe الذي = who, La لا = not and finally, alahun ألْهٌ. This would mean “One who is not alahun”.

If one were to incorporate the real meanings of the word “alahun” into the translation; this word, which actually is a sentence would mean “One who doesn’t engage in worship”.

This sounds so radically different. Who am I to say this? What are my credentials?

Why should we trust this non-sense?

These are all defensive of held belief, so valid and legitimate questions.

Let us instead of worrying about the credentials of the informer of this information; just explore the language of the Qur’an that is presented from the Qur’an itself.

First of all let us analyze what traditionalists interpret this word to be?

And why they are wrong?

The word is thought to be a combination of a definite article Al ال = in English “The” and illaha إلاه, meaning “God” but in reality “a deity for adoration and worship”.

Although, in actuality this “Al” here is a contraction of the word الذي and legitimately could be written as “Al” ال. Can we trust this assertion despite clear references from the Lexicon of Lane 1 and Grammar of William Wright 2.

Let us turn to Qur’an itself for more evidence. In Arabic script as well in the Qur’an, where a preposition “Lee” is added in to a word beginning with a definite article “Al” ال. Alif is dropped and so Lam of the definite article “Al” joins with “Lam” of preposition. Let us illustrate this point with some word examples from Qur’an itself.

1. 2:1 لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ Alif of “Al” gone, lam is present and preposition “Lee” added.

2.. 4:7 and 4:32, لِّلرِّجَالِ is the word same concept.

However, for the word اللَّهِ when the same preposition is added. We find that the “Lam” of the supposed definite article “Al” also disappears. However, following the examples above it should have been written as لِلْاله (in reality one cannot type this so called word using an Arabic type writer).

Example, 1:2 لِلَّهِ and 115 more places 2:22, 2:98 and on and on, in total 116 occurrences.

Whereas, allathe being a different word its whole contraction disappears. This also proves that this word by no means is a proper name as there is no definite article “Al”. As if there would have been an “Al”, it should look like this in script ألإلاه and not اللَّهِ

Furthermore, although both Lane and Wright cite the contraction of الذي as ال. Can we find an example in the current translation of Quran for such a contraction? Of course, we can, not one time, but multiple times.

6:77 فَلَمَّا رَأَى الْقَمَرَ بَازِغًا قَالَ هَـذَا رَبِّي فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَئِن لَّمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لَأَكُونَنَّ مِنَ
الْقَوْمِ الضَّالِّينَ
Yousuf Ali: When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: “This is my Lord.” But when the moon set, He said: “unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among those who go astray.”

7:99 أَفَأَمِنُواْ مَكْرَ اللّهِ فَلاَ يَأْمَنُ مَكْرَ اللّهِ إِلاَّ
الْقَوْمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ

Yousuf Ali: Did they then feel secure against the plan of Allah?- but no one can feel secure from the Plan of Allah, except those (doomed) to ruin!

Other examples are at 62 different places, 5:26, 25, 5:67. Any place word الْقَوْمُ is used, it is at most places translated in meaning of “allathe”.

Let us, continue to analyses this word further. In the middle there is “alif” like mark (highlighted in red) with a Shadda mark and another alif above. اللَّه (In newer, print version the “alif” above Shadda is taken a fathah shape instead of ‘alif” like in this example as well. The “alif” above Shadda, is called a “dagger alif” and is written over many other words instead being included in these words in the text of Quran. Since here it is written over Shadda, implying there are two “alifs”.

Shadda has several uses in script. We will only discuss the relevant ones here. One use is to indicate the doubling of a consonant. It is also used to indicate such a doubling only to facilitate pronunciation in the “Sun letters of the Arabic alphabets”. This would be a apparently plausible defensive case for the traditionalist.

Let us analysis why it is wrong. If it were to be correctly understood, then there would be no reason to keep this Shadda in place once the “Al”, if it were really “Al” of definite article. As in the phrase is gone اللَّهِ, as in the example above of لِلَّهِ. However, we find in the Qur’an that this is not the case. Hence, this Shadda is not due to “Al” of a definite article coming before the اله word to make it a proper noun, but contraction of allathe. Although, even if it were to be the case, as illah has already “alif” at the start which is not considered a “Sun letter”. Hence no Shadda would be have been added as cited above.

Let us, further show in Arabic script, how this concept could be explained? First, all three words are written separately, then allathe written as contracted and finally first to “lams” and subsequent “alif” combined, due use of Shadda, to make Allah.

ألذَّي لا ألْهٌ
ال لا ألْهٌ = اللَّه

This clearly, further shows that the persistence of this Shadda is due, not to the Shadda of “Al”; but in reality it indicates a real doubling of the consonants.

This means inescapably, that one was to follow the order of pronunciation of, this word. It actually is a sequence of words, a phrase, not just a word. Allathe (written as a contraction in script as “Al”), La and alahun. This would further imply that the middle Shadda is suggesting “two lams” and two alifs”.

Hence, if translated word for word, this word or more accurately sentence would mean “One who doesn’t engage in worship”.

1. Lexicon of Arabic Language; Edward W Lane; 1968, Vol. 1, page 74.
2. A Grammar of the Arabic Language; William Wright. Revised 3RD Edition, Dover Edition 2005: Vol. 1 page 269 D.

CURRENT ISLAM IS “MANICHAEISM” WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QURANIC ISLAM BROUGHT BY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH)

By Dr Kashif Khan

Before the advent of Islam of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the forefathers of Arab pagans were running their Dark Aged pagan religion by falsely linking them with Prophet Ismail (pbuh) and they were practicing their pagan rituals in the name of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) whom they falsely declared the builder of their pagan shrine “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” (the forbidden mosque) but they still did not have any book of God to get their religion recognised nor were they considered as people of the book among the nations of earlier prophets. Despite, their claim that the “House of their gods” (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) was actual “House of god” that was ever built on the earth by Adam and rebuilt by Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) and his son Prophet Ismail (pbum), no prophet from Adam to Ibrahim and from Ibrahim to Isa (Jesus) ever visited this “House of god” (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) nor did they perform any ritual facing towards it. Whereas, many well-known prophets such as Yaqub (Jacob), Yusuf (Joseph), Ayyub (Job), Shuaib (Jethro), Musa (Moses), Harun (Aaron), Da’ud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ilias (Elijah), Younis (Jonah), Zakria (Zechariah), Yahya (John) and Isa (Jesus) came after Prophet Ibrahim and his sons Ismail (Ishmael) and Ishaq (Isaac) but no one ever mentioned about this so called “House of god” (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) neither visited it nor they performed any ritual on it. In fact this “House of god” (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) was not existed in the time of all above stated Prophets including Prophet Isa (pbuh). This is because all above stated prophets (pbut) were given the central task of encountering paganism, its deities and their shrines. The verse 71:23 “وَقَالُوا لَا تَذَرُنَّ آلِهَتَكُمْ وَلَا تَذَرُنَّ وَدًّا وَلَا سُوَاعًا وَلَا يَغُوثَ وَيَعُوقَ وَنَسْرًا” mentions pagans’ deities in which “وَدًّا” was a deity of the time of the Prophet Noah, which was the Minaean moon-god and black Snakes were associated with this moon-god deity “وَدًّا” and its symbols were snake and a great man. A temple of Wadd existed in Dedan in which this deity was also worshipped by Minaean colonists in Dedan (modern-day Al-`Ula). Prophet Noah (pbuh) destroyed the temple of this deity “وَدًّا” together with the other associated deities. All subsequent Prophets (pbut) destroyed pagans’ deities and their worshipping shrines.

The pagans’ Temple dedicated to the deity of moon-god Wadd (“وَدًّا”) was demolished on orders of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as mentioned on page 191 of the publication of University of Virginia, “Islamic culture”, volume 9, by William Pickthall, Marmaduke (1967). ISBN 978-1-142-49174-1, and also mentioned on page 48 of Princeton University Press publication “Kitab al-asnam” (Book of the idols) by ibn al Kalbi, Hisham.

Following Allah’s commandments given in the Quran Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has also spent his life encountering paganism and he eventually destroyed the centre of paganism the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ).

Hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 3, Hadith 68 also indicates the intention of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of demolishing Kabaa in which “Aisha (RA) told that once the Prophet (ﷺ) said, ‘O `Aisha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka`ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same, when he occupied Makkah in Umayyad’s time.

“حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُوسَى، عَنْ إِسْرَائِيلَ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنِ الأَسْوَدِ، قَالَ قَالَ لِي ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ كَانَتْ عَائِشَةُ تُسِرُّ إِلَيْكَ كَثِيرًا فَمَا حَدَّثَتْكَ فِي الْكَعْبَةِ قُلْتُ قَالَتْ لِي قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏

“‏ يَا عَائِشَةُ، لَوْلاَ قَوْمُكِ حَدِيثٌ عَهْدُهُمْ ـ قَالَ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ بِكُفْرٍ ـ لَنَقَضْتُ الْكَعْبَةَ فَجَعَلْتُ لَهَا بَابَيْنِ باب يَدْخُلُ النَّاسُ، وَبَابٌ يَخْرُجُونَ ‏”

‏‏.‏ فَفَعَلَهُ ابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ‏.‏”

I am not aiming to prove this Hadith right or wrong but as it is believed that this is a Sahih (true) Hadith of the book of Shahih Hadith- Al Bukhari then who believe in Hadith they should note that this Hadith shows the concerns and reservations of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) upon keeping the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) and its connected rituals and worship.

However, after the death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the pagan state authorities reconstructed ‘Kabaa’, the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) and restarted pagan worship and rituals around it and facing towards this forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ), which has been made a centre of modified Islam for likeminded modern time pagans.

These pagan authorities knew that the followers of God alone were always their enemy who came time to time with God’s message to destroy their paganism and this time Islam brought Muslims out to destroy them through another Prophet of God Muhammad (pbuh) with another Book of God, the Quran. They also knew from the history of their pagan forefathers that sending a new revelation and its bearer after a certain time is God’s continuous practice since beginning which cannot be changed. As about 575 years after the New Testament (Injeel) the next book of God the Quran was revealed, and a gap of about 400 years is recorded between Malachi (the Book given to Prophet Uzair), the last revelation of the Old Testament (Torah) and the Gospels (Injeel) of the New Testament.

The sixteen prophets, Isaiah (ذوالكفل) to Malachi (عزیر), whose books have also come down to destroy the paganism during the four centuries, from 800 to 400 B.C.

It’s well-known that Adam came to birth for at least 6000 years ago and soon after that Prophets such as Idris (Enoch), Nuh (Noah), Hud (Eber) and Saleh (Salah), started coming with their Devine Books.

Then Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) was born around 1996 B.C, who lived for 175 years. Propjet Moses (pbuh) was born around 1571 BC, he lived for 120 years and died around 1451 B.C.

It means the time gape between the death of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) and the birth of Prophet Moses (pbuh) is about 250 years.

Whereas, Prophet Da’ud (pbuh) was born around 1085 B.C. He lived for 71 years and died around 1014 B.C.

Therefore, the time gap between Prophet Moses (pbuh) and Prophet Da’ud (pbuh) was about 366 years.

Prophet Isa (Jesus) was born about 1400 years after Prophet Da’ud (pbuh) and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was born about 530 years after Isa (pbuh.

According to Luke 1:27-28 the wife of Prophet Zachariah (pbuh) was in the 6th month of her pregnancy with Prophet Yahya (pbuh) when God sent the angel Gabriel to Mary with greetings and highly favoured with good news of having a son, Jesus (pbuh). Therefore, the gap between Prophet Yahya (pbuh) and Prophet Isa (pbuh) is not considered more than 6 months. According to Mark, Prophet John (Yahya) was arrested before Jesus (Isa) began his ministry (Prophethood/start of preaching) and Luke 3:23 states that Prophet Jesus (Isa) was about thirty years old when he began his ministry (start of preaching/prophethood). So, both Prophets Isa and Yahya (pbut) were sent to encounter the paganism about the same time as Prophet Musa his brother Harun and their sister Prophetess Miriam (pbut) were sent together to tackle the paganism. Pentateuch were given to them and Mandaean (Drasa Yaḥya) a Hebrew book (דרשא דיחיא) in Mandaic Aramaic was given to Prophet Yahya (John) and The Gospel (Injeel) was given to Prophet Isa (Jesus). Prophet Zechariah (pbuh), the father of Prophet Yahya (pbuh) was given his own Book of Zechariah and Malachi (the Book given to Prophet Uzair/Malachi) also came in between to fill the gap. Then there is a long list of Books and Prophets before Zechariah, i.e. Younis (Jonah), Alyasa (Elisha), Ilias (Elijah), Sulaiman (Solomon), Da’ud (David), Ezekiel, Harun (Aaron), Musa (Moses), Shuaib (Jethro), Ayyub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Yaqub (Jacob), Is’haq (Isaac), Ismail (Ishmael), Lut(Lot), Ibrahim(Abraham), Saleh(Salah), Hud(Eber), Nuh (Noah) and Idris (Enoch) found since the man existed on the earth about 6000 years ago. The purpose of sending Books and Prophets was to stop paganism and bringing back mankind to its prescribed direction and to follow God Alone.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was born in 570 AD. In 609 AD, when he was about 40 the Quran was revealed to him and his ministry (Prophethood/preaching the Divine orders) was set up and concluded in 632 AD, the year of his death. Like his predecessor Prophets, Muhammad (pbuh) was also given the task of encountering the paganism spread by the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) and its followers.

Therefore, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to pay visits to the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) to stop people following the rituals of the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ). He used to attend Umrah and Hajj gatherings as well, not to perform Umrah or Hajj but to demonstrate the truth and to establish the arguments “الحجة” against these pagan rituals due to which he was pushed back so many times and eventually stopped going to the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) anymore and pagans alliance turned against him for his interference in their rituals performed in and around the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) migrated to Medina with his companions, reinforced his strategy to encounter the paganism of the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) and tried to go back to the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) with his companions in 629 AD but he was stopped at Hadaybia outside Makkah and pagans did not let him enter the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ). His aim of going to the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) was not performing any Umrah but to start demonstrate the reality and to enter the arguments “الحجة” against the pagan rituals. Had the prophet (pbuh) come to perform Umrah he was not stopped by pagan leadership because pagans used to think it a great sin to stop anyone from performing Hajj, Umrah, prayer, animal sacrifice and performing other rituals at their central mosque  (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ). In fact like today’s Hajj and Umrah the pagan leadership used to facilitate pilgrims and serve them with water, foods and camping being their religious duty. However, from Hadaybia Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions went back to Medina, reinforced them with new strategy and entered the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) next year in 630AD and took control of whole Makkah including to the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ). Then he demolished the centre of paganism (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) together with its idols. Some scholars argue that Prophet (pbuh) demolished all idols and images from the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) but he did not demolish the sanctuary of Kaaba. However, they totally forgot the well-known historical fact that the images of idols including paintings of Mary and Jesus were engraved in the walls of Kaaba (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ), which were not possible to be removed without demolishing the whole sanctuary of Kaaba that was itself a statue of the idol al-Alat and a sign of pagans’ deity as Arab pagans are historically notorious for worshipping square and cubic stones and Kaaba was itself a cuboid which is also a sign of the Nabataeans deity Dushahra worshipped throughout the Arabian Peninsula. This lord Shahr (الشھر), i.e. Dushahra was the only god known for certain to have been worshipped throughout the polytheist religions and was associated with the Greek gods Zeus and Dionysus. Dushahra was represented in the form of a stone cube or more generally in the form of cuboid architecture which can be seen throughout the remains of the Nabateans’ city, Petra (البتراء) which is a historical and archaeological city in southern Jordan and famous for its rock-cut architecture. Dushahra is also a popular festival in Hinduism which is celebrated in respect of the same deity called “الشھر الحرام” (the forbidden moon-god) in the Quran but in the interpretations of the Quran it is falsely translated to mean ‘Sacred Months’.

Anyhow, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), His revealed Book the Quran, his way or his secular religion Islam and his true followers Muslims had once again destroyed the dark aged pagan religion and its forbidden centre (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) and handful Muslims started ruling over the Arab pagans in the great leadership of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Quran which was actually the leader (امام) of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his life it was remained the leader (امام) of the true companions of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his true Caliphs after Prophet’s death.

Now, Arab pagans were actively seeking the permanent solution of their continuous destruction by coming one after another revelations and Prophets of God because God’s revelations and God’s Prophets were their actual enemies, who ruined them whenever they came. These pagans also remembered that once their forefathers had a sigh of relief when Jewish declared Prophet Uzair (Malachi) to be their last and the final prophet came at the end of a long series of their Prophets and Revelations.

That time pagans were thinking that their enemies have been capped and permanently stopped coming to condemn their paganism but their dreams were shattered when Prophet Yahya (John) and Prophet Isa (Jesus) appeared with their Books and once again they stood against the paganism to abolish it. However, hopeless pagans had a good relief when Mandaeans (المندائيون‎), also called “الصابئة”, declared Prophet Yahya (John) to be the Seal of the Prophets and the last and final Prophet. These Mandaen were related to the Nabateans who were also pre-Islamic pagan Arabs of the territory extended into southern Iraq. They were originally native speakers of Mandaic, a Semitic language that evolved from Eastern Middle Aramaic, and switched to colloquial Iraqi Arabic and Persian. The Mandaeans used to honour Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch (Idris), Noah, Shem, Aram, and especially Yahya (John), but rejected Abraham, Moses and Jesus (pbut).

On the other side Christians also declared Prophet Isa (Jesus) to be the last and the final Prophet, son of god and their lord who will return to the world once again on or around the final Day of Judgment to give them salvation.

Mani, the founder of the Persian faith Manichaeism, had already claimed to be the Seal of the Prophets and the last and the final prophet of not only Manichaean but all other religions including Buddhism, Hinduism and Chinese religions.

These declarations, from big religions and especially from the people of the Book that they will have no more Prophets and the Books coming from God, highly fixed the pagans and gave them a free hand to bring back and establish their dark aged paganism.

This was the actual time when “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” (the forbidden mosque) was founded and its sanctuary Kaaba was built to practice the paganism. Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar wrote on the pages 18-19 of his book “Muhammad the Holy Prophet” that about 400 years before the birth of Muhammad (pbuh), a man named ‘Amr bin Lahyo bin Harath bin Amr ul-Qais bin Thalaba bin Azd bin Khalan bin Babalyun bin Saba’, who was descended from Qahtan and was the king of Hijaz (main Land of Saudi Arabia) had placed a Hubal idol onto the roof of the Kaaba “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ”. This idol was one of the chief deities of the ruling tribe Quraysh. As the temple is called “الْمَسْجِدَ َ” (Masjid) in Arabic language therefore, the Quran uses the phrase “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” for this pagan temple and declares it forbidden, prohibited and unlawful with one word “الْحَرَامَ” that is falsely translated to mean “sacred”.

This “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” (the forbidden mosque) is complete polytheist pagan centre as the name ‘Kaaba’ (كَعْبَة) of its cuboid structure literal means “cube” which is the symbol of the goddess al-Lat, worshipped in the shape of a square stone, al-Uzzah, the ‘mighty goddess’ identified with the morning star and worshipped as a slab of granite used in its construction of this sanctuary and the long axis of this sanctuary “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” (the forbidden mosque) is aligned with the rising of the star Canopus toward which its southern wall is directed, while its minor axis (its east-west facades) is aligned with the sunrise of summer solstice and the sunset of winter solstice to offer a complete polytheist package of worship of Sun, Moon, Stars and rest of the celestial bodies. Manat, the ‘goddess of Destiny’ or the ‘fateful one’, worshipped as a black stone and the moon god, Hubal, is also connected with the black side of moon, the symbol and the idol of which namely “الحجرالاسود” (the black stone) has been installed in the Eastern corner of the sanctuary of “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” (the forbidden mosque).

These deities have signified “divine beings” which are not represented by realistic statutes in this pagan shrine “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” but tactfully installed in the construction and also represented by large standing stones such as large standing cage of foot imprint “Maqaam Ibrahim” and idols of Asaf and Nyla hidden in the so called mountains of Assafa and Marwah and arrows of Hubal in the shape of signs of start to end the tawaf (circumambulation) of the sanctuary, similar to those were in use among the ancient Canaanites.

The black cover, kiswah, of the sanctuary of “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” (the forbidden mosque) is the symbol of zodiacal planet Saturn which is anointed with the perfume or scent in the same way as the worship (puja) of idol of the Saturn is perceived with the radiance of black clothes and fragrance in Hinduism and other similar polytheist religions. The black stone (الحجرالاسود) is also anointed with scented oil and the same scented oil is used to anoint the metal cladding outside the Black Stone (الحجرالاسود) and stone cladding inside the Kaaba, where three pillars stands with so many idols and a small altar similar to table set used for the placement of perfumes or other items of havan (way of using fragrance in Hindu idol worship at temples or in house).

The ‘Ganga Jal’ (traditional holy water of polytheists’ temples) made available right outside the sanctuary of “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” and wearing Ihram (two white un-hemmed sheets/ white robes of pilgrimage) also came from ancient polytheist pagans who used to wear it before going to worship their gods. Hindus still wear the same Ihram when they go to their idol pilgrimage (yatra) at their central temple in Haridwar, and literal meaning of “HariDwar” is also a “sacred house of god” as “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” (Kaaba) is believed the “sacred house of god” in modified current Islam. Rest of the rituals of this so called “house of god” such as completing 7 circumambulations, each of them started with pointing by raising hand towards the black stone deity (الحجرالاسود), chanting mantra, i.e. specific words used to reconnect with god affirming the bondage and speaking to god to erase all sins, and to remove sufferings, troubles, blockages, pain and difficulties, drinking holy water (Zamzam), running to and from particular idols such as Safa and Marwah, shaving heads, following gathering of worshippers on different places, staying with them under open sky, attending joint pray and speech of the priest, stoning devils, offering blood to god and paying final greeting circumambulations are quite common in Hinduism and their pilgrimage. Here, I fail to understand why Hindus and Muslims fight with each other if they worship the same gods at Haridwar and Makkah?

Anyway, after having the declarations from all main religions that their seal of prophets, last and final prophets and last and final revelations of God have come and God has closed the doors of prophethoods and His revelations, Arab pagans resettled their paganism and organized their pagan centre “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” without any more fear of coming Allah’s Prophets and His Books.  However, Allah encountered them once again, with His nonstop, never ending and never changing Sunnah (practice), by sending His great Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and His exalted Book, the Quran. The noble Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) defeated pagans and ruined their paganism once again.

After this defeat the polytheist Arab pagans changed their way and bowed down in the feet of Islam. Arab leaders, their army chiefs, heads of their tribes, their unconvincing ridged scholars, their fundamental clergy, their trade tycoons, their adamant rulers and their cruel administration who were strongly opposing Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and were severe enemies of his Muslim companions, and had extreme hatred towards Islam till a day before now, they have easily accepted Islam and became Muslim without any complaint or reservations. Our ignorant scholars and their likeminded followers call it a miracle but they don’t know why this miracle did not happen when the same prophet (pbuh) and his exalted companion Abu Bakr (RA) were hiding in the cave Thwr from the same Arab pagans. No such miracle was occurred when Khalid ibn al-Walid, brought chaos to the Muslim ranks in which Many Muslims were killed, and Muhammad (pbuh) himself was badly injured and the Muslims had to withdraw from the fight of Uhud which was lead and commanded by the leader of the Qureysh and leader of Makkah, Abu Sufyan. It was the same army chief Abu Sufyan who stopped Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions at Hudaybiyyah and did not let them go to Makkah. At that occasion no such miracle was happened and Prophet (pbuh) had to go back to Medina with his followers but next year when they conquered Makkah the most powerful man of Arab pagans their army chief Abu Sufyan did not resist Muslims and accepted Islam on the spot. Khalid ibn Walid and all other warriors accepted Islam and joined the troupe of Islam and brought the whole city of Makkah under Islam together with their families and whole Arab population.

It was not a miracle but a game, a trick and a stratagem of Arab pagans to deal with Islam on permanent basis by sitting in its roots as a parasite.

EARLY ISLAM CONSPIRACY:

Arab pagans, the sitting parasites in the roots of Islam were actively involved in Islamic administration. The revelations of the Quran were indicating them and the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (pbuh) was also giving warnings to his companions and made them aware of the hypocrites (المنافقین) but sadly the term of life of our dearest Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ended as soon as he completed his mission of destroying the paganism and its centre the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ).

These pagan parasites did not raise their heads in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) but as soon as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) passed away they secretly became active and tried to create serious conflicts among the closest companions of the Prophet (pbuh) and also tried creating hindrance when Abubakr (Radhi Allah Anhu) was taking the Pledge of Allegiance for the first Caliph of the Prophet (pbuh) to run his Islamic state. It was Umar (RA) who acted sensibly and made it possible for Abubakr to make his Caliphate. Pagans remained involved in making Abubakr’s Caliphate unsettled by spreading their agents in the administration of Islamic Caliphates but their actual target was Umar (RA). When Umar bin al-Khattab (Radhi Allah Anhu) became Caliph the Arab pagans knitted a conspiracy against him working together with the anti-Islam Persian ousted establishment who was already turned against Islam and its Caliph Umar bin al-Khattab (Radhi Allah Anhu) since Iran was conquered. This anti-Islam nexus of Arab pagans and Manichaean Zoroastrian Persians achieved their first and ever biggest success by assassinating the most powerful pillar of Islam Umar bin al-Khattab (Radhi Allah Anhu) through their Persian Christian agent Feroz.

Their second target was the third Caliph Usman ibn Affan (Radhi Allah Anhu) whose Caliphate was internally hijacked by Marwan ibn al-Ḥakam ibn Abiʾl-ʿAs ibn Umayya, who was sneakily slipped into the vacuum and became the secretary of third Caliph Usman ibn Affan (Radhi Allah Anhu) and slowly assumed more control and relaxed many administrative restrictions before his murder.

Arab pagans and their Manichaean Persian alliance wanted to sort out Islam on permanent basis by demolishing the pillars of Islam one by one and gradually resuming in house power. Therefore, after assassinating Usman ibn Affan they brought Ali ibn Abi Talib (Radhi Allah Anhu) into Caliphate and made him the 4th Caliph of Islam but the administration of Caliphate was controlled by the same officials who already had resumed power in the office of the 3rd Caliph Usman ibn Affan before his assassination. Now, they changed their game and set up a strong opposition against the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Radhi Allah Anhu) by employing their agents to incite hatred against the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Radhi Allah Anhu) uprising the conflicts among Muslim nation. They made the grounds for public riots and started civil war to get Muslims killed by their own Muslim brothers.

On the other hand, according to their evil policy of killing Islam by its own followers, the in house political advisors and anti-Islam establishment of Caliphate played an active role in shifting the capital of Caliphate to Kufa, where the last pillar of Islam Ali ibn Abi Talib (Radhi Allah Anhu) was assassinated together with his both sons Hasan (Radhi Allah Anhu), who was poisoned by his Persian agent wife and Hussain (Radhi Allah Anhu) was targeted in a planned army action against anti-state revolutionists.

Marwan bin al Hakam the secretary of 3rd Caliph, who was previously slipped in the vacuum of Caliphate of Usman and relaxed the restrictions he was now appointed as Governor of Medina in return of his loyalty with the Arab pagan forces and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn was given a free hand to take over the Caliphate left by Ali ibn Abi Tali following his murder.

So, Muawiyah established the Umayyad Dynasty the face of which was totally different to the Caliphate coming from the first Caliph of Islam Abu Bakr (Radhi Allah Anhu).

Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn was said to be one of the scribe of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), fought the Battle of Yarmouk in Syria as a second in command of one of the wings under Khalid ibn al-Walid during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (Radhi Allah Anhu) and became governor of Syria in the Caliphate of Umar bin al-Khattab (Radhi Allah Anhu). Therefore, he was okay in the eyes of left over Muslims and was also ideal for anti-Islam Arabs because his roots in Islam were not as strong as of the first four Caliphs.

Although Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn, Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali ibn Abi Talib shared the same great-great grandfather Abd al Manaf bin Qusay, who had four sons, Hashim, Muttalib, Nawfal and Abdu ash Shams amongst them Hashim was the great grandfather of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Muhammad (pbuh). Whereas, Umayyah bin Abdu ash Shams was the great grandfather of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn and Abu-Sufyan; father of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn, who struggled against Islam until Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) demolished Kaaba and its idols in 630 AD, just 50 years ago.

Therefore, comparing to the first four Caliphs, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn was not difficult for the nexus of anti-Islam Arabs and Manichaean Persian ousted dynasty, as the remaining members of Muawiyah’s family were opponents of the Muslims and were members of the hunting party of his maternal uncle Walid bin Utbah that pursued Muhammad (pbuh) during this migration to Medina, when Muhammad (pbuh) and Abu Bakr (RA) had to hide in the cave al-Thwr. Also, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn was from Banu Umayya sub-clan of the Banu Abd-al-Shams clan of the Quraysh tribe. The Quraysh used to control the city of Makkah including their religious shrine “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” and the Banu Abd-al-Shams were among the most influential of its citizens. So, in 680 AD behind the scene anti-Islam Arabs considered Muawiyah the strength of their arms and contrary to continue the Caliphate their decision of establishing the Umayyad Dynasty was actually meant to hand over the keys to their kingdom in the same hands of the Quraysh tribe who were once managing Makkah and its pagan shrine “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ” before 630AD, when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) conquered Makkah and over thrown this forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ) together with its cuboid sanctuary (Kaaba) and its idols.

Furthermore, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyn was already emasculated by marrying a Christian woman Maysum, mother of Muawiyah’s son Yazid. Muawiya’s wife Maysum (Yazid’s mother) was a Jacobite Christian whose marriage to Muawiyah was politically motivated, as she was the daughter of the chief of the Kalb tribe that was a large Jacobite Christian Arab tribe in Syria and by marrying Maysum, Muawiyah used the Jacobite Christians, against the Romans. Therefore, prominent positions in the emerging governmental structures were held by Christians. The employment of Christians was constituted in the policy necessitated by the presence of large Christian populations.

Anti-Islam Pagan forces had a sigh of relief, fundamental beliefs of Islam were modified, Quran was written in Kufi transcript and case markers were added on the words of the Quran to twist them for whatever meanings. Anti-Islam agents in disguised of exalted scholars of Islam started emerging to amend the bases of Islam and a task of writing fake Sunnah (Prophet’s saying and practice) was given to them and Maliki Fiqah came into existence. Hadith were written with the authority of Muawiyah, who is reported to have said on the mimber (post of sermon) “I observed the Messenger of Allah perform Wudhoo (ablution) and when he finished, he looked at me and said; ‘O Muawiyah! If you get to rule then fear Allah and be just to the people”.

This was the time when Arab pagans forfeited Islam and eliminated actual Muslims, by the end of 4th Caliphate, they decided to permanently block the way of Islam by renaming themselves as Muslims and renaming their Manichaean paganism as Islam. Now, it was necessary for them to give different meaning to the Arabic words of the Quran. Thus to preach the Quran they invented a new language, other than Arabic and made it viral.

However, leftover suppressed true Muslims became more stressed and raised their heads against this bizarre modifications in Islam. Tempers in Medina were raised and conflict between Umayyads and their citizens turned into a real civil war. Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr, the son of first Caliph, Abdullah ibn Umar, the son of second Caliph, Abdullah bin Al-Zubair, the grandson of Abu Bakr and Saeed bin Usman bin Affan, the son of 3rd Caliph and Abdullah ibn Abbas, the cousin of 4th Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib were highly criticizing on Umayyads. Hussein, the son of Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was preparing an army against Umayyads was already killed. Umayyads summoned each one of the five aforementioned individuals and threatened them. Abdurrahman bin Abu Bakr was very firm and addressed Umayyads sharply, while Abdullah bin Umar bin al-Khattab was the most soft spoken amongst them. Both of them were mid-level Muslim commanders at the Battle of Yarmouk that took Syria. Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr’s sister Asma’ bint Abu Bakr also fought in the Battle of Yarmouk and strongly opposed Umayyads.

In 683 AD, independent occupant ruler of Makkah, an ex-soldier of the army of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and soldier of the first and the second Caliphates, Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr built Kaaba in ‘D’ shape with two separate doors of entrance and exit and said that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to say if he had money he would have built the hollow Kaaba with two doors to come in and go out. However, this ‘D’ shape Kaaba was bombarded with stones in 692 by Umayyad army led by al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf and Abd-Allah ibn al-Zubayr was killed. In 693 AD, Umayyad ruler ʿAbdul-Malik had the remnants of al-Zubayr’s Kaaba erased, and rebuilt a new cube shaped Kaaba on the foundations set by the pagan Quraysh and  Kaaba returned to the cube shape as it was before the arrival of Islam.

Umayyads were going through the hard times due to the conflicts and civil war in which majority of true Muslims were killed and left over Muslims were pressed and kept quiet by state power. However, despite moving their capital and using state power Umayyads could not control rebellions in their rule, especially when Kharijite’s rebellion broke out and third Arab civil war prolonged for about two years Umayyads went into a critical situation. Then anti-Islam Persian Manichaeus Zoroastrian alliance working in the background devised a wicked plan for their survival.

In their Arab empire with Umayyad’s these Persian Manichaean Zoroastrian were already ruling over an overwhelmingly non-Arab and primarily non-Muslim population but now they have tremendously increased the population of Non-Arabs and non-Muslim Arabs, who were previously regarded as second class citizens. When these Persian Manichaean Zoroastrian realised that Umayyads will not stay in power anymore, they took an advantage of long term civil war and made themselves in their own Umayyad Caliphate’s rebellions, who tactfully overthrown Umayyad rule and took control of Caliphate as Abbasids in which Persian Manichaean Zoroastrian and Manichaean Buddhist council of cabinet ministers, the Bramikids was formed to run Abbasid Caliphate and they gave the title of Abbasid Caliphs to those likeminded Arab pagans who were actually the followers of Buddhist’s and Iranian’s religion Manichaeism and their Prophet “Mani”.

Therefore, this is a complete misconception that Abbasid Caliphate was an Islamic Caliphate or Abbasid Caliphs were Muslim by their faith or belief.

Oxford University Studies in the Abrahamic Religions “The Making of the Abrahamic Religions in Late Antiquity”, published in Oxford by Oxford University Press, 2015, mentions that Islamic authors ascribed to Mani the claim to be the Seal of the Prophets. In reality, for Mani the expression “seal of prophecy” refers to his disciples, who testify for the veracity of his message, as a seal does. Mani’s scriptures was original Aramaic writings which is actually part six of the “Book of Enoch” (Book of Prophet Idres) relating to the book of Enoch (Book of Prophet Idres) also called the “Book of Giants”. This book was quoted directly, and expanded on by Mani, becoming one of the original six Syrian writings of the Manichaean Church found with the discovery in the twentieth century of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Judaean Desert and the Manichaean writings of the Uyghur Manichaean kingdom in Turpan. Mani, was brought up and spent most of his life in a province of the Persian Empire, and his mother belonged to a famous Parthian (Parsi) family. Mani presented a dualistic interpretation of the world in terms of light and darkness and duality in God in term of the creator and its opposite power the Satan, in combination with elements from Christianity. Manichaean belief that Angels are the highest deities of light transformed into the names of Zoroastrian yazatas, the highest Manichaean deity of Light “Abba dəRabbuṯa”, i.e. the Father of Greatness. Following the same Manichaean belief Angels are considered a highest creature of “noor” (light) and have a power of intercession, in other words angels are the deities of intercession. Whereas, the Quran nowhere said that Angels are created with light or they have any power of intercession but this Manichaean belief of intercession of angels and their creation from light has been inserted in the translation of the Quran.

Buddhist influences were significant in the formation of Mani’s religious and Persian Zoroastrian Manichaean tried to assimilate their Manichaean religion along with Islam in the Arab Islamic Caliphates. During the early period of the Arab Islamic Empire, Manichaeism attracted many followers. It had a significant appeal among the Muslim society especially among the so called Muslim leaders. Due to the appeal of the teachings of Manichaeism, Muslims adopted the ideas of its theology and even Muslims became Manichaean dualists. An apologia for Manichaeism ascribed to Ibn al-Muqaffa, defended its phantasmagorical cosmogony and attacked the fideism of Islam and other monotheistic religions. The Umayyad caliph Al-Walid II was a follower of Mani and his religion Manichaeism because the Persian Manichaeans had sufficient structure to have a head of Muslim community.

The Abbasid Caliphs, of the so called golden era, Harun al-Rashid and Mamun al-Rashid tolerated the Manichaean. Harun al-Rashid was himself Persian by birth, who was born in Rey, present-day Tehran Province, of Iran. Caliph Harun al-Rashid’s wife Zubaida, mother of Mamun al-Rashid, was also an Iranian woman, chosen and trained by Harun al-Rashid’s mother ex-slave girl Khizrian, who was actually running the Caliphate as a powerful state women, titled Malika (Queen). Khizrian was the one who formed ministry of Bramikids and willed the Barmekids to manage the fate of the whole empire till her death. The Barmakids were Persians, from Balkh that dated back to the Barmak a hereditary Buddhist priest of Nava Vihara, who became very powerful under Khizrian’s husband, the 3rd Abbasid Caliph al-Mahdi. Khizrian was the actual ruler during the Caliphate of al-Mahdi and his father Al-Mansur, who was the second Abbasid Caliph succeeding his brother Abu al-Abbas al-Saffah. However, Al-Mansur is generally regarded as the real founder of the Abbasid Caliphate, who moved the capital so close to Persia due to growing reliance on Persian bureaucrats, the Barmakids, to govern the territories conquered by Arab Muslims. Persian customs were broadly adopted by the Abbasid ruling dynasty. Abbasid caliphs were relegated to a more ceremonial role than under the Umayyads, as the viziers (Bramakid ministers) began to exert greater influence, and the role of the old Arab aristocracy was replaced by a Persian bureaucracy (the Bramakids).

Khizrian’s actual power was the council of Barmekid ministers and Bramikid bureaucracy. Following the will of his mother Malika Khizrian, Harun al-Rashid appointed Yahya the Barmakid as a vizier (chief minister) for the administration of the whole empire, with full executive powers, for seventeen years, Yahya the Barmakid, Yahya’s sons and other Barmakids controlled the administration.

They were all followers of Manichaeism, who sponsored the Translation Movement under the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur, and formed a committee, made up of Syriac-speaking Christians and Persian speaking Zoroastrian Manichaean. It was a literary movement which expressed their Manichaean belief, the superiority of Persian art and culture and canonized Parsi (Old Iranian) Manichaeism in Islam. They translated the Quran according to their Manichaean beliefs and brought Manichaeism in Islamic literature.

Arab pagans wholeheartedly accommodated Persian Manichaean, who spread in the Caliphate in different shapes. Some of them became the mistresses of pagan rulers, some became the decoration of their harems and some entered their chambers and courts as scholars to preach Manichaean Islam but all of them were on their actual mission of destroying the Islam which was brought by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) through the Quran. Under this Persian Manichaean and Arab pagans’ rule the fake terminologies were invented for the words of the Quran, such as Quranic word “شرك” was falsely made a terminology of “making partners with Allah” and its noun “مُشْرِك” was made a terminology of ‘polytheist’, ‘nonbeliever’ and of those who make partners with Allah. The Quranic word “الْحَرَامَ” (unlawful/prohibited/forbidden) was redefined to mean “sacred” and terminologies of the “sacred mosque”, “بیت اللہ” or “house of god” were invented for Quranic phrase “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ”. The Quranic word “الحج” has been actually used in most of the Quranic verses to mean the ‘demonstration’, ‘conducting argument’ and ‘convincing’ people to bring them back to Allah’s Message condemning their pagan beliefs and polytheist rituals which they used to perform at the forbidden mosque (الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ). Also, the same word “الحج” has been used in some verses to mean the pagan ritual of Hajj only for the reason of stopping people from performing Hajj, detail of which will be seen in the next articles on Hajj. However, the nexus of pagan Arabs and their Persian Manichaean partners have changed the meaning of Quranic word “حج” into the terminology of pre-Islam annual gathering of polytheist pagans to perform pagan rituals of “حج” (Hajj). Likewise, the Persian terminology of polytheists’ prayer offered in Parsi (Iranian) religion “Namaz” and contact prayer of Arab pagans which they used to perform at “الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ”, in front of their gods, were termed as “صلاۃ” and wherever this word “صلاۃ” was revealed in the Quran it was made a terminology of “Namaz” or “Contact Prayer”. Quranic word “صوم” was actually used in the Quran to mean “determination” and “stand still on your purpose or aim without listening anyone” but “صوم” was converted into a fake terminology of “fasting” following the pre-Islam pagan ritual of fasting for moon-god. Quranic word “زکاۃ” (Zakat) was converted into a terminology of pre-Islamic polytheist tradition of nominal annual charity, which was given by Arab pagans and other polytheists in the month of their moon-god in Ramadan. Whereas, “زکاۃ” (Zakat) was not an annual charity in the Quran but it was an essential obligation of generous disbursement from our provision throughout the year, 24 hours, 7 days and 52 weeks throughout our life since we start earning.

When the said nexus of Arab pagans and Persian Manichaean brought all their paganism and Manichaeism incorporated in the modified Islam they took further key decisions to protect their paganism forever from God’s revelations which used to come down to shatter them together with their dark aged pagan religion. Hence, they stole the wording “Seal of the prophets” from the literature of their prophet Mani of Manichaeism religion, modified the interpretation of the Quran and announced, on behalf of God, that Prophet Muhammad was the Seal of the prophets and the Quran is the last and the final revelation of God and no more revelation will come down till the last day of the world, when Qiyamah (القيامة) will occur. To fulfil their spurious aims they invented a new terminology of “القيامة” to mean the Day of Judgment of the whole world, the Last Day of the whole world and the end of the whole world. Whereas, “القيامة” was actually described in the Quran to mean “ساعة الموت” (the time of individual’s death), which has nothing to do with the end of the whole world.

However, the Quran nowhere mentions that God has stopped His revelations or if the Quran is the last and the final Book of God but in fact in the beginning of the Quran, in the verse 2:4 of Surah Al-Baqrah, inclusively accepting the present revelation, which was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), i.e. the Quran and accepting revelations before him and accepting the next revelations has been made essential for “لِّلْمُتَّقِيْنَ” (2:2) who have firm belief and called Muslims or true followers of Islam brought by the Quran.

وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ” (2:4)

Particle “وَ” is the conjunction (حرفِ ربط) of continuity which links two statements or two clauses of a long statement but it keeps them separate within the same context. So, in the nominative case the subject pronoun “الَّذِينَ” together with conjunction “وَ” is treated as personal pronoun and used as the subject of a verb, which is the same “مُتَّقِيْن” that is the subject of previous verses 2:2 and 2:3 respectively. In the verse 2:4 the next word “يُؤْمِنُونَ” is passive voice present verb to mean “be convinced”, “who have trust”, “who are believer”,  “who have accepted”. “بِمَا” is a combined phrase of relative pronoun “مآ” + “بِ”. This combined phrase “بِمَا” means: “inclusive”, “included”, “including”, “through”, “overall”, “whatever”, “global” and “universal”. “أُنزِلَ” means caused to reveal and revelation (Elative noun) Revelation. “إِلَيْكَ” is a combined phrase of second person singular objective pronoun “كَ” to correctly mean ‘your/yours’ + “إِلَيْ”, which is the preposition to mean: towards, to, into, at, on, upon. So, “إِلَيْكَ” correctly means “on/upon/to yours”. This Arabic preposition “إِلَيْ” in the presence of “يُؤْمِنُونَ” grammatically works in the same way as we say in English who “believe in” or “believing in something or someone” to the extent of acceptance without doubt. Thus, according to the recognised linguistic rules the word “يُؤْمِنُونَ” of the verse 2:4 has been used to mean those who undoubtedly believe and accept the mentioned “objects of faith” inclusively.

Therefore, the first clause of this verse 2: 4 “وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ” says: “And those who believe/accept inclusively to your revelation” 

The next clause of the same verse 2:4 “وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ” again starts from the conjunction “وَ” to link this clause of speech with the previous clauses but at the same time it keeps them independent within the same context of revelation. Particle “مَا” is a relative pronoun (اسم موصول) to mean that/which/what “أُنزِلَ” means caused to reveal and revelation (Elative noun) Revelation. The preposition “مِن” means “from/ of” and “قَبْلِكَ” is the combination of second person masculine singular objective pronoun “كَ” to correctly mean “your/yours” and “قَبْلِmeans “before”. So, the words “وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ” say: “And including revelation from before yours

The last clause “وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ” of the same verse 2:4 also begins with the conjunction “وَ” in the same pattern as we have seen before in its predecessor classes of speech, to link this clause with the same context of revelations discussed in all previous clauses of speech of this verse 2:4. The prefixed “بِ” with “بِالآخِرَةِ” is a preposition to mean: with, by, along with and including. The definite noun “الآخِرَةِ” means “the next of its”, “the other of its”, “the coming behind of its”, “the forthcoming of its”. The possessive pronoun “ةِ” at the end of the definite noun “الآخِرَةِ” clearly refers to the revelation (أُنزِلَ), which is being discussed in both previous clauses of speech since the beginning of this verse 2:4 and the definite article “ال” with “الآخِرَةِ” makes it “the next of the same thing or coming behind the same thing which is being mentioned in the previous clauses of this statement (verse) 2:4”. This definite article “ال” is a synonym of “the” in English language which is used in English exactly in the same way as “ال” is used in Arabic, such as if someone says in English, “I missed my flight and took the next/the other one”. It is said in Arabic in the same way: “فاتني رحلتي وأخذت الآخرۃ” in which the definite article “ال” of the phrase “الآخرۃ” refers to the flight that is mentioned before and “ة” in the end of this phrase “الآخرۃ” is an objective pronoun of the same thing which is mentioned before. Therefore, “ة” of “الآخرۃ” once more confirms that this clause of this verse 2:4 is certainly talking about the same thing which was mentioned before and coming behind or next to it. Likewise, in English sentence “I missed my flight and took the next or the other one” the definite article “the” with “next or other” automatically refers the “flight” which is being discussed in the beginning of this sentence. Hence, there is no chance of going wrong in Arabic sentence because in Arabic the same thing is confirmed with the definite article “ال” and then reconfirmed by using the pronoun “ۃ” of the same thing which is mentioned before. Therefore, this unique grammatical formation of Arabic sentences eliminates any doubt or any chance of any error or mistake in the correct understanding or translation from Arabic to other languages. However, dishonesty and evilness has been used in the translation of straightforward and simplest statements (verses) of the Quran to invent their false meaning according to the false beliefs of the nexus of the Manichaean and Arab pagans. The grammatical structure of this verse 2:4 clearly refers to the revelations of God coming behind the Quran and abrupt insertion of the words of “hereafter” instead of “the next revelations” is complete satanic invention in the translation of this verse 2:4. The next word is the third person objective plural pronoun “هُمْ” to mean “them/their/those” and “يُوقِنُونَ” is a passive voice present verb to mean “those who are certain, undoubted, sure, confident, reliable and firm in belief”, “who accept with trust”, “who are dead sure”, who unquestionably accept” and “those who definitely accept”.

So, the words “وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ” of the verse 2:4 say: “And the next are accepted by them with trust.

Hence, the correct translation of the verse 2:4 is as under:

وَالَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ” (2:4)

And those who believe/accept inclusively to your revelation and including revelation from before yours and the next accepted by them with trust” (word to word correct translation of verse 2:4)

To hide this essential belief of our faith in which accepting and believing in further revelations of God was made necessary for Muslims to believe and accept, the nexus of Arab pagans and their Persian Manichaean alliance falsely modified the last clause “وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ” of the above verse 2:4 in the interpretation to mean “believing in the hereafter” and subsequent so called scholars of the Quran and their ignorant disciples copied the fake translation of the Manichaean pagans and conveyed us a totally wrong message of the Quran. No one ever looked at the Arabic text of this verse nor did anyone bother to realise how can the word “hereafter” suddenly come in the context of the “revelations” of God?

The Quran-only scholars cashed, this abrupt jump of the “revelations to the hereafter” to discard Hadith and other Islamic literature and they have been using this verse 2:4 to preach that nothing can be revealed after the Quran therefore, the books of Hadith, Fiqah (Jurisprudence) and Tafseer (exegesis) are not revealed by Allah. This false preach of the Quran-only scholars and their disciples is not even justified from the belief and point of view of traditional scholars who never claimed that Hadith, Fiqah and rest of the Islamic literature were ever revealed by Allah on someone after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Therefore, both the Quranist and the Traditional scholars have been making us fools by imposing their false and non-Quranic dogma. However, in reality they have been actually preaching and publishing the same misleading interpretation of the Quran which was given by Arab pagans and their Persian Manichaean alliance in which they have purposely closed the door of further revelations of God to protect their paganism and Manichaeism.

Whereas, Allah Himself confirms in the verse 17:77 of the Quran that Allah’s practice of sending His message is not shifted. 

سُنَّةَ مَن قَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِن رُّسُلِنَا وَلاَ تَجِدُ لِسُنَّتِنَا تَحْوِيلاً” (17:77) “It is practice of always Our sending before yours from our Message and does not form to Our Practice a shift/modification” (word to word correct translation)

Fluent Translation of the above verse 17:77

It is our regular practice of sending Our Message, before yours and to Our Practice no modification is formed(correct fluent translation)

In support of Paganism and Manichaeism our infidel scholars have forgotten how did Allah change His always running practice of sending His message, for Arab pagans and their Manichaean alliance?

The following verses of the Quran are also going against their non Quranic pagan belief:    

سُنَّةَ اللَّهِ فِي الَّذِينَ خَلَوْا مِن قَبْلُ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا” (33:62) “Practice of God which was in release from before and never forms to God’s practice a change” (word to word correct translation)

سُنَّةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلُ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا” (48:23)

Practice of God which had been always running from before and never forms to God’s practice a change” (word to word correct translation of the verse 48:23)

Overview of conventional translations of the above verse 48:23

(Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah already in the past: no change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah” (Translation of Yousuf Ali, 48:23)

[This is] the established way of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in the way of Allah any change” (Translation of H/K/Saheeh, 48:23)

This is the tradition of God which existed before, and you will never find any change in His tradition” (Translation of Sarwar, 48:23)

Such has been the course of Allah that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah’s course” (Translation of Shakir, 48:23)

Such has been the practice of Allah in the past; and you shall find no change in the practice of Allah” (Translation of Malik, 48:23)

Such is God’s way with those who have passed away before, and you will not find any change in God’s way” (Translation of Free Minds, 48:23)

This is the Law of Allah which has been in force since older times. And never will you find any change in Allah’s Law” (Translation of Quran Expert QXP Shabbir Ahemd, 48:23)

The above conventional translations of this verse 48:23 serve the purpose of your understanding that God’s practice, which was existed before, never changes. However, the words in the brackets are not part of the Arabic text of this verse but falsely inserted in the translations to keep, this universally applicable practice of God, limited to a particular context.

The following verses also make it clear that initial Practice of God never changes, never shifted and never modified, which is universally applicable on everything including Allah’s practice of sending His revelations.

فَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا” (35:43) “Indeed never forms to God’s practice a change and never forms to God’s practice a shift” (word to word correct translation).

سُنَّتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي قَدْ خَلَتْ فِي عِبَادِهِ وَخَسِرَ هُنَالِكَ الْكَافِرُونَ” (40:85)

Practice of God which always had been running among His servants and ruined/destroyed therein the concealers” (word to word correct translation)

Allah Also says: “لاَّ مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ” (6:115 and 18:27) “His words are not changeable” (correct translation).

In the following verse 15:13 Allah has exposed the lies of Manichaean pagans and their follower scholars.

لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ وَقَدْ خَلَتْ سُنَّةُ الْأَوَّلِينَ” (15:13)

They do not believe in the Truth and they exactly follow the tradition of the ancient (unbelievers)” (Translation of Sarwar, Surah al-Hijr 15: 13)

That they should not believe in the (Message); but the ways of the ancients have passed away” (Translation of Yousuf Ali, 15:13)

The above verse 15:13 has revealed the false belief of deviated people who follow those Manichaean pagans whose ancestors falsely declared in the past that Malachi (عزیر) was the last of the Biblical prophets in Judaism with God’s final revelation, John (Yahya) was the last prophet in Mandaeanism with God’s final revelation, Jesus (Isa) was the last Prophet in Christianity with God’s final revelation and Mani was the Seal of the Prophets and the last prophet in Persian Manichaeism with God’s final revelation.

The revelation of the Quran itself proves all of them wrong who were previously believing that the doors of God’s revelations had been closed.

Therefore, the terminology “Seal and Last and Final”, also came from the Persian faith Manichaeism, in the fake translation of the Quran and other Islamic literature. This is because Mani, the founder of the Persian faith Manichaeism claimed to be the “Seal of the Prophets and the last Prophet”.

For more details you can study Persian prophet Mani and the Persian faith Manichaeism and compare their literature and beliefs with our current beliefs and our false Islamic literature and fake translation of the Quran.

Those who are unable to study the literature of Persian prophet Mani, Persian faith Manichaeism and its followers Persian Manichaean, they can type on google or any internet search engine Mani, Manichaeism and Manichaean to find more about them. They can also find the Manichaean beliefs of so called Muslim Caliphs, an example of which can be seen on the following link of “wikipedia” in which it was reported that even the Umayyad caliph Al-Walid II was a follower of Mani.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism

If Umayyad Caliphs were following the Persian prophet Mani and believing in his Iranian religion Manichaeism how can we say that Umayyad and their successor Caliphates were Islamic Caliphates and their Caliphs were Muslims, sincere followers of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and true followers of the Quran?

Also what is the status of that Islam and its followers which came to us through non-Muslim believers of Mani and his Manichaean religion Manichaeism?

In fact during the Umayyad period, the majority of people living within the caliphate were not Muslim, but Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Manichaean and followers of other religions.

It is notable that the Umayyad caliphs referred to themselves not as khalifatul Nabi (successor of the Prophet of God), but rather as khalifatul Allah (deputy of God). The distinction seems to indicate that the Umayyads “regarded themselves as God’s representatives at the head of the community”.

Their successor Abbasids were pure Buddhists Manichaean of followers of ancient Persian religion Manichaeism. How were they classed as Muslim if they were following a religion other than Islam?

Anyhow, non-Muslim Manichaean Pagans were very much scared of Islam and knew that Islam came to wipe their paganism and Manichaeism. Therefore, they modified Islam and falsely declared that their religion Islam will last till the end of the world so that no one can make any rectification in their Manichaean Pagan religion, which they had restarted in the name of Islam.

However, God’s practice and procedure never ever changed and according to His practice sooner or later God will definitely encounter Manichaean Paganism and make the necessary rectification to bring up His true way of practice as mentioned in the Quran and earlier revelations of God.

Whoever has concerns on this issue can raise their objections only on the ground of linguistic rules and from the Quran. However, baseless dogmatic objections against the clear words of the Quran will be taken as howling of deviated Manichaean pagans.

In the end I would like to clarify that I am a truly follower of exalted Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the noble Quran that was revealed on Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). My extensive research in the Quran and the earlier revelations of God proves the evilness of those false and complete liars who claimed that they were prophets of God after Muhammad (pbuh). This is not because of their claims but due to the fact that they could not encounter the paganism from Islam and also together with their followers they were themselves involved and practicing the same pagan rituals in the name of Islam, which are clearly forbidden in the Quran. They neither brought out the correct interpretation of the Quran nor was anything revealed on them to bring people back to Allah’s true commandments. If they were the true prophets or falling in any such category they would have rectified our beliefs and disengaged Islam from the evil jaws of Manichaean pagans seizing all anti-Quran practices of Manichaeism, which they have incorporated in the current Islam and left for us to blindly believe in them and practice them till the end of the world, if we want to be a believer or Muslim.

https://quranguideblog.wordpress.com/current-islam-is-manichaeism-which-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-quranic-islam-brought-by-prophet-muhammad-pbuh/

Being Black and Muslim: Dispelling afrocentrist doubts

This is an article reposted from Blackdawahnetwork.com named ‘A Summation of the Arguments and Rebuttals to the Afrocentric Criticisms of Islam in Africa’ Black Dawah Network is an initiative set up in America to help to Bring Islam to oppressed Black communities. All rights belong to the author of the article Professor Shareef Muhammad and Black Dawah Network. Link to original article: http://blackdawahnetwork.com/2019/02/a-summation-of-the-arguments-and-rebuttals-to-the-afrocentric-criticisms-of-islam-in-africa/

In this article by Professor Shareef Muhammad, he summarizes arguments and rebuttals to Afrocentrist criticisms of Islam in Africa.

1.) Afrocentrist myth: Islam are that it spread by the sword, undermined traditional African cultures, and that the Arab Slave Trade depopulated Africa and destabilized those African societies. They alleged that both conquest and slavery were the principal means by which Arabs introduce Islam to Africans.

Response: These assertions are hyperbolic and not supported by either the African sources or the external Arab sources that make up the corpus of literature that are the core source of information on the subject. The events in question have been inflated to gain ground in the identity politics of the diaspora. The Arab Slave Trade was never a defining issue on the continent of Africa but was part of the normal state practices of that time. In fact, Walter Rodney in his esteemed work How Europe Underdeveloped Africa said that the term Arab Slave Trade was a misnomer since its used to describe bilateral trade agreements across a myriad of ethnic groups in which Africans had full agency.

Metanarrative: Islam south of the Sahel was an indigenous affair in which Africans controlled the terms on which Islam was adopted and practiced. It’s proselytizing, practice, and politics were entirely African. This is evinced in how unique Islam was in the sub-Saharan from Islam in the Levant and North Africa. Even in North Africa where Islam did spread by force the Arabs never made it across the whole of North Africa leaving the assimilation and practice of Islam entirely to the Berbers. Berber attitudes and behavior towards the sub-Sahara were Berber not Arab or determined by Arabs.

2.) Afrocentrist myth: The Almoravid were Arab invaders who toppled Ghana in 1076 ACE and this is how Islam was introduced to the region.

Response: This event is controversial because there is no unambiguous mention in the Ghanaian oral traditions or the chronicles of the Arab writers of this time (11th century) nor is there a scholarly consensus that this invasion happened. At most the primary sources point only to a correlation between the spread of Islam throughout the western sub-Saharan and the Almoravid efforts at doing so through what we know were missionary work not a military invasion. David Conrad and Humphrey Fisher wrote an exhaustive treatment of the Arabic sources and African oral accounts called The Conquest That Never Was. They concluded that they could find “nothing in the traditions to indicate any conquest of the eleventh-century Sahelian state known to Arab geographers as “Ghana.”” Yet, this remains a controversy among actual scholars. So, let us explore the position that the Almoravid conquest did take place. All of the sources that describe the Almoravids in sub-Saharan relate them as an African contingent of the movement that originated in Senegambia. Cheikh Anta Diop who takes the stance that there was an invasion and that they seized Aoudaghast and Ghana saying on page 163 of Precolonial Black Africa that “This was the only time white troops attempted to impose Islam through violence.” The “white” Berber to which Diop is referring took up a retreat in Senegal where he attracted Senegalese who converted and aided him in this military campaign to spread Islam through force. But their victories were confined to only the northern part of the Ghana, Sijilmasa and the Maghreb. They did not succeed in West Africa, to the east and west. The conversion of these regions was the work of autochthonous marabouts (West African Sufis) who were preaching the religion. So, even if we take the theory of an invasion we see that even that is described as an indigenous affair. The fact that the Ghanaian oral sources point to draught instead of northern conquerors as the cause of Ghana’s fall at the least minimizes this event. Diop goes on to say that “The primary reason for the success of Islam in Black Africa, with one exception, consequently stems from the fact that it was propagated peacefully at first by solitary Arabo-Berber travelers to certain Black kings and notables, who then spread it about them to those under their jurisdiction.” pg. 163.

3.) Afrocentrist myth: The Arab Invasion Destroyed Egypt and Enslaved the Native Black Population.

Response: Ancient Kemet was destroyed and compromised over a millennium prior to the 640 A.C.E when the Muslims invaded. The Kemet that Afrocentrists romanticize had been long gone. When the Muslims arrived they were entering a thoroughly Hellenized, and Romanized Egypt whose native population was an amalgam of black African, Phoenician, Greek, Roman and Eastern European. Whole population of Italians and many Vandals and Goths moved into North Africa during the time of Augustine. The Berbers were made lighter when Europeans moved into North Africa since as far back the Ice Age. The Hyksos colonization of Northern Egypt didn’t help either. The further west you went in North Africa the lighter the population. Alfred J. Butler’s The Arab Invasion and the Last 30 Years of Roman Dominion. The Baqt Treaty exposes the lie that the Arabs introduced the enslavement of black Africans. Its pertinent to this controversy because it was the first time the Arabs tried to invade sub-Sahara and they failed. The Baqt Treaty was an agreement in which the Nubians who were the victors set the terms of peace and offered to pay the Arabs slaves as a peace offering. The point here is that like everywhere else in Africa up till the 1800 sub-Sahara African states negotiated with outsiders from a position of strength and autonomy. This contradicts the Afro-centrist version of African history which insists on portraying Africans as eternal victims. They had full agency during these transactions and their encounters with Arabs who were numerically and technologically inferior to the Africans they encountered. To understand their decision to give slaves to foreigners requires that we look at African states and politics as they were and not as we want to for the purposes of our petty arguments cultural authenticity.

4.) Afro-centrist myth: Islam is an Arab not an African religion.

Response: What is the point being made here? This is a strange criticism setting aside for now whether its valid. Did Africans view themselves as African first or as their tribe first? There is no single African religion there are African religions and they do not equivocate. So, while they share similarities they have very pronounced differences. The religious practices of the Dogan would have been perceived just as foreign to the Xhosa as Islam. You cannot change tribes and therefore you cannot change tribal religions which are tied exclusively to the tribe. Since Islam was not being forced on them by outsiders and because African rulers accepted the religion on African terms and not Arab terms the indigenization of the religion was faster and more natural. However, the fact remains that Islam as a religion debuted in the Arabian Peninsula with its Prophet being an Arab, and the official language being Arabic. I suppose you could make a surface argument that based only on these facts that it’s an Arab religion. However, if you are going to look at the 30 years of Seerah (life of the Prophet (saws)) during his mission as a Prophet then one would honestly have to emerge with a different picture. Why can’t we reduce Islam to being an Arab religion?

  1. The Arabs were the first and most vehement enemies of Muhammad (saws)’s when Africa was welcoming. The first hijra into Ethiopia led to the first free practicing Muslim community. Islam was settled peacefully in Africa before Arabia. If Islam was an Arab religion then why were the Arabs so hostile?
  2. Many of the early companions of the Prophet (saws) were not Arab but African, Persian, and European. From Bilal to Salman al Farsi (may Allah grant them Jinnah). Most of them had been slaves within Arabia. If you were to ask them they would have said that they do not see Islam as an Arab or slave religion.
  3. The Prophet (saws) is reported to have said in a hadith that the person who stammers trying to read the Quran because Arabic is not their native tongue receives more blessings for their struggle than the native who speaks with fluency. This is the most explicit denial of Arab supremacy.
  4. The Prophet (saws) said in his final sermon that there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab over an Arab. This is an even more explicit rejection of Arab supremacy.
  5. In another hadith the Prophet (saw) is reported to have said that you must obey your ruler even if he be an Abyssinian slave with the head of a raison. Everyone is so focused on the phrase “head of a raison” that they completely missed the meaning of the statement. He said obey your Black African ruler. He is foretelling the rule of Africans.
  6. The difference between Arab and West African is as vast as the difference between West African and East African and the similarly between East African and Arab is as much as the similarity between those on the coast of West Africa and those in the interior of West Africa. In other words the foreignness of Arabs depended on where in Africa you were and what part of Arabia you were from. Yemeni has more in common with Ethiopians and Somalis than Kuwaitis. The Arabness of Islam is less of a barrier to the Africans in the 11th century than it is to black people in the Diaspora who have been Westernized. Ironically the same Afrocentrists who cite the foreignness of the Arab are even less familiar with African cultures than they’d like to admit which is one of the reasons why they focus such much on ancient Egypt. It’s not a present reality (culturally) that they have to deal with.

5.) Afrocentrist Myth The Arab Slave Trade. The Arabs introduced the enslavement of Africans that paved the way for European enslavement of Africans.

Response: The trans-Saharan Trade and more significantly the Indian Ocean Trade predate the rise of Islam by thousands of years with the Indian Ocean Trade dating back to 2500 B.C.E. The spread of Islam simply made Arabs the new participants in something that was old. Africans were equal partners in their commercial relations and more often operated from a position of strength. In both the trans-Saharan Trade and Indian Ocean Trade slaves were never the central item traded. Slaves was part of a wider trade in gold, ivory, and soapstone. The Indian Ocean Trade in particular was already thousands of years old and had been controlled by different ethnicities in that region when the Arabs first came into possession of it. Why not call it the East African Slave Trade, the Greek Slave Trade, the Roman Slave Trade, the Gujurat Slave Trade, the Garamante Slave Trade, or the Persian Slave Trade? Why not call it the gold trade, the soapstone trade, or the ivory trade? Why is there only an interest the Arab period? To call the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean Trade the Arab Slave Trade when it was practiced for thousands of years before the Arabs took possession and slaves were not even their central focus is a political decision not scholarly one.

6.) Afrocentrist myth The Indian Ocean Trade depopulated East Africa and ravaged the continent. It proves that the Arabs were the first enslavers of Africans and laid the foundation for the European enslavement of Africans.

Response: The Indian Ocean Trade predated the Arab involvement. It goes back as far as 2500 B.C.E. Before it was the Arab slave trade it would have been the Indian slave trade, the Persian slave trade, the Greek slave trade, and the Roman slave trade. It was only the Arab slave trade during the Abbasid period. During this time slave raiding occurred in fits and starts, spikes and periods but there were also places where it didn’t happen at all. The Zanji Uprising was larger and more impactful than the slave trade itself. Historian M.A. Shaban argues that the majority of participants were not slaves but free blacks and Arabs with some runaway slaves. There would not have been enough slaves to do the kind of devastation that happened. The irony is that it did more damage to Iraq than it did to the East African states that traded with them voluntarily. The aggressive slave raiding that is so often referred to belongs to the 1800s and has much to do with European activities in India and the Middle East at this time as the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was practically over. The scramble for Africa accelerated the slave raiding in Southeast Africa. After the Abbasid period ended the Arabs were simply the face of Islamic power which had passed to the Turks. This brings up to very significant facts about Arabs, Islam, and slavery: the majority of the slaves in the Arab world were white and Persian who overthrew their Arab masters and subjugated them and eventually took African slaves from Indian and African middle men. There was no organized enterprise that principally targeted Africa for slaves to build up Arab countries. African slaves were used on an as needed basis but for the most instrumental slave labor the Arabs relied on whites.

Note: The majority of African slaves were used as servants (guards). This function would not have required millions of slaves such as was the case with the military whom the Arabs relied upon for their military campaigns that were directly responsible for their building up of wealth. Hence, there is some doubt about the number of African slaves being in the millions that are found in secondary sources on the zanji trade.

7.) Afrocentrist Argument: Arabs are just as racist towards Africans if not more than Europeans.

Response: The inferior status of Africans only appears when we examine Arab-African relations within Arab societies but between Arab nations and African nations going all the way back to Abyssinia we see that Africans were in a position of political superiority and when the Arabs interacted with sovereign African nations they did so with diplomacy and deference. African sovereignty did not make Africans or Africa vulnerable to outside opinions.

8.) Afrocentrist Myth: The Hamitic-hypothesis is the rationale that the Arabs relied on for their inferior view of Africans and it has given African’s who’ve embraced Islam a negative view of other Africans.

Response: Some Arabs involved in the enslavement of Africans employed this theory but it was not widespread either among the Arabs or the Africans. Africans who did use this used it to disparage other tribes with whom they did not get along with. This was not a consequence of the Hamitic-hypothesis but rather their decision to use this was a consequence of tribal conflicts. Ham does not appear in the Quran or Hadith. He is not a part of Islamic hagiography. The story of Ham only appears in Judeo-Christian sources and the story itself flies in the face of what Islam demands we believe about the Prophet’s like Noah. The usedof Hamitic curse to justify the subjugation of Africans began with a Syrian Christian and it was adopted by Arabs and Africans with no religious scruples. Its proliferation and impact of religious thinking in the continent was negligible. Those who in West Africa who were using it as part of the rationale for their tribal wars that predated the rationale itself were brought under control by Uthman don Fodio when he established the Sokoto Caliphate.

9.) Afrocentrist myth: Islam did more harm to Africa than good. It devastating the continent.

Response: This is a personal opinion. However, during the time of this supposed devastation Africa reached its last great renaissance. Even Chancellor Williams ruminates in The Destruction of Black Civilization when he writes: “It may not be without significance that the Renaissance in Africa occurred at the same time it did in Europe, between the 15th and 16th centuries, and that in both Europe and Africa Islamic sources were the catalyst.” So, even Chancellor Williams had to concede this point. Islam impacted sub-Saharan West Africa in two significant ways:

1.The spread of Islam brought the major overland trade routes that connected Asia with Africa and Europe. This enlarged the scope of the trans-Saharan Trade which then transformed Ghana from a local kingdom to an empire. The conversion to Islam by West African kings and notables brought these West African empires into an international association of an established trade network that made these West African empires the wealthiest of the entire continent. Mansa Musa is the heir to this reality.

2.The West African Kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai were successively more Islamic, more literate, more erudite, politically more sophisticated, and economically more powerful concomitantly.

Islam was the catalyst for both of these as can clearly be established when comparing them to their non-Muslim counterparts. Those who wish to say that the religion of Islam was a force of bad can only do so by denying these facts.

Professor Shareef Muhammad has taught history at Georgia State University and Islamic studies at Spelman University. <img class="i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer" alt="" role="presentation" aria-hidden="true" src="data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,” style=”max-width: 100%; display: block !important;”>He has a masters in history at Kent State University with his thesis on The Cultural Jihad in the antelbellum South: How Muslim slaves preserved their religious/cultural identity during slavery.

The Blinding Light Of Islam Extinguished !!

The Blinding Light Of Islam Extinguished !!

” The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind. ” -Abdun Nur J ——-

Written by Abdun Nur J

44:58 Thus, then, (O Mohammad) We have made this Qur’an easy to understand, in your own human language, so that people might take it to their minds and hearts.

The Qur’an is the example of Mohammed.

Mohammed without exception destroyed Hadith on sight, as did the first four true Caliphs.

Islam is simple. Hadith is complicated.

Religion needs Hadith,

Islam does not need religion.

All Hadith is unmitigated conjecture.

The Qur’an is a complete book; you need no other guide

Hadith creates division, forming sects.

The Qur’an creates unity, the brotherhood of Adam.

Hadith creates miracles, contradiction, mysticism, and confusion.

The Qur’an creates clarity, without contradiction.

Hadith makes the guidance of the Qur’an hard to understand.

The Qur’an free of the confusion of Hadith is easy to understand.

Hadith has extinguished the blinding light of Islam from the world.

Only true Muslims can rekindle the light and guide the family of Adam back to the illuminating light.

The confusion of Hadith has allowed the Christianisation of Islam.

The return of the Qur’anic Islam is the future. Religion is without value and must be disregarded, as there is no God, without which you can have no religion.

Worship is a Christian concept; ask yourself, why would the conscious energy of unity need the worship of anyone or anything.

Allah needs nothing but you need Allah.
To be in submission to the concepts and principles as expressed within the Qur’an is not for Allah’s benefit, it for yours.

The Qur’an is a guide for you, not for you to placate Allah.

I’m glad you are taking the time to read words, a rare thing indeed, most seem to see but not look, hear but not listen, speak but not act, feel but not empathise, and sadly, live without purpose, understanding, enthusiasm, knowledge or interest in such things.

I view Islam through the Qur’an alone, as an evolving guide, without contradiction or misdirection, a collection of concepts and principles to follow and understand, this is how I view it, not as verses to memorize, or historical events to reminisce over, and so I wish to express a sad and reprehensible realization.

I have come, (along with many other I would suspect), to the sad conclusion the blinding light of Islam is almost, if not completely extinguished, the name Muslim, is just a name, no longer with meaning and power, all the many
facets, founded in reason, manifest through ‘submission’, are lost.

A religion has taken the place of a Deen, blind faith has taken the place of belief, ignorant ritualistic worship has taken the place of reason, the blind lead the blind in a mockery of the Qur’an, ignorance of the principles and concepts so carefully and completely expressed, rendered to gibberish by the Christianised Muslims.

It must be understood; it would take brave, even fearless individuals to rekindle the light, not a task for a Christianised Muslim. An example of fearlessness would be Mohammed in the establishment of the light of Islam, he was such a fearless and powerful Muslim, and if the Qur’an was understood and followed we would in the world today have engendered true paradise on Earth. This is a very important point, and I wish you to ponder this, if Muslims existed, meaning a person in submission to the concepts and principle as expressed within the Qur’an, why is a form of hell now engendered on Earth?
Why are the people living in misery, exploitation, depravity, hatred, war, starvation; why are they indoctrinated and conditioned, confused by perverted education and tricked by a compulsively mendacious media, convincing you of lie after lie; why do they defend the propaganda, even against themselves; why have the rituals and ignorance returned to the world, that Mohammed fought so hard to remove?

You may call yourself Muslim, yet you do not live in submission to Allah, I know this for a fact, as nobody on earth is today able to exist in this state, no light burns, no soul is free, all are enslaved, even the people that believe themselves to be the slave masters are enslaved, whether they are aware of it or not.

Now I have made the existing situation clear, how can it be remedied?

At the moment a few Muslims are guided, but as a man in a black thunderstorm, in the dead of a moonless night, walking a narrow path, danger on either side, he can only see each time the lightening flashes and can move forward just a little, but if a light were kindled, he would be
guided easily, so the establishment of a single light in the entire world is all that is required.

This on the surface sounds simple, but unfortunately the forces that stand against Islam are very aware of this fact, even if the Muslims are ignorant, they endeavor to extinguish even an ember, they have declared open war on Islam, even though the ignorant Muslims are oblivious of this, they have intentionally and with malice of forethought engineered the eradication of Islam, over the last 1400 years, in its pure and natural structure; unconcealed war is raging around the world, in the final extermination of any glimmer of the glorious freedoms, as expressed within Islam, the natural scalar network system, free of any centralised government, and any leadership structures, died with Mohammad, immediately they ignorantly elected a leader, an office was created and the seeds of the end of Islam were sown. A Caliph is not an office of power; it is simply the succession of a thing, the next evolution.

So we have socially devolved, and the only way to establish a succession of this system is to establish a light, you may not know what a light w
ignorant historical deviations; to seek the truth and gain the understanding of all things of interest or value to you. You, and the Muslims with you, would be a community, living in submission to the Qur’an; simple you may think, no.

A few depraved people control the world, they will not allow this to exist, and this means to create such a community would require very brave Muslims, fearless and determined.

The elite demand sovereignty, and so upon the first step you stumble; as this freedom is absolutely denied, no sovereignty is given to any man, living or dead, the only sovereign would be Allah, who’s sovereignty is expressed comprehensively within the Qur’an.

They demand payment to exist, usury in its many forms, so on the second step you fall to your knees, under the pressure from usurious taxation in tribute to their sovereignty.

They poison the people around you, using their tools of media and propaganda, so on the third step you fall to your hands, having the
communities around you agitated and confused.

They would demand you deny many truths or be imprisoned, so on the fourth step you are on your belly; by refusing their sovereignty and tribute you would incur their punishment, the demands of the elite will never end, their constant pressure will bare down, they hold all the power of their contrived establishments, but a true Muslim knows in this transient world Allah is the true power, only that firm belief would over come these obstacles.

On the fifth step, you would be metaphorically on your face, they intimidate and threaten you with the artificial and iniquitous laws, created to subjugate and control the enslaved peoples; the honourless and voracious, usurious appetite of the legal profession, (more accurately; illegitimate and unethical occupation, been neither legal nor professional), these parasites would be unleashed without obstruction.

These people and their artificial institutions given no authority, no respect, just contempt by every fearless Muslim in unity; as without them being conferred any sovereign power, they can be given no consideration.
Under this assault most would fold and acknowledge defeat, but Allah’s servant will ignore the lies, refuse the commands of iniquity and attempt to rise to their feet and mount the next step, no matter the hardship.

Now as you see it is not such a simple task. The creation of an Islamic community, self sufficient and reliant, able to educate and feed, build and take care of the people of the community, independent of the elites sovereignty and influence is not easy.

I propose that such an undertaking be established, the creation of a new light, if extinguished, another light be established, if extinguished another, until the light burns out without hindrance or let, to make the people see what they can have, what Islam truly is, not what they have got, but what they can escape to; from the example follows the founding of a working model that cannot be denied, but marveled at, and emulated.

This of course doesn’t mean religious dogma, social repression, enforced abstinence, ritual or insanity of human decree, no doctrine should prevail or even exist except the Qur’an’s guidance, there is no co
The rejection of any fiat money, within the community, refusal to make any transaction with this method of settlement, only exchange of value for value, a chicken for a metal pan for example, or a Durham or Dinar as the basis of exchange, the comprehensive understanding of usury made universally understood, and trade undertaken usury free, the exchange of fiat money for silver and gold been the province, (not exclusive) of the central council, a council that command no sovereignty, allowing them to exchange the fiat money for silver and gold on the open world market, so exchanging the certificate of debt, ( paper money), for physical money of intrinsic value, for as long as this deception of money exists.

The establishment of an Islamic community is a task facing Muslims, not a task facing Christianised Muslims, who cannot transcend the misconceptions of Christianity, or Hadithian Muslims who cannot transcend the confusion of Hadith, the comprehension of Islam as explained clearly within the Qur’an is the first hurdle, from that point the light will be ignited, this is undeniable whether now or far off in the future, this is up to the people with the ability to think. There is no compulsion in Islam, and complete freedom is the prevailing concept and foundation.
Wouldn’t be, it is simple; to live in submission to the Qur’an, free of Hadith, religion,
The details and intricacies of the concept could easily be worked out and an Islamic community could be initiated, the most important aspect, as a starting point would be the creation and acceptance of a pledge, an oath so binding it would transcend this life, a pledge to refuse sovereignty to any living person, institution or establishment, upon a critical mass of people signing the pledge, around 5% of the population would be enough, bearing in mind we are only six degrees of separation away from every human being in the world. I have written such a pledge, and will happily provide it to anyone.

4:97 As for those who wrong their own “Self” by not striving until the angels (the Universal Laws of death) approach them, they are asked, “What kept you occupied?” They say, “We were weak and oppressed in the land.” The angels say, “ Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to migrate?” As for such, their habitation will be Hell, a miserable destination. —

The teacher who is indeed wise does not bid you to enter the house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your mind.

Does The Divine Truth Ever Worship?

Does The Divine Truth Ever Need Our Worship?

Whether you know that your reality is the manifestation of the Divine Being or not, your mere existence in reality is His creation.

But even with this awareness and understanding, no change ever takes place within your structure.

The only thing is that, with this understanding, you only comprehend and hence perceive the reality of your existence. Nothing ever changes within your structure at the material world at all!

Your life still continues with this knowledge, even though you are living in this dimension, so you can fulfil the purpose of your existence and experience the conditions of this present dimension at the same time.

Since your physical body is the product of the Divine Truth and the fact that it is still in need of eating, drinking and sleeping, then feeling this need does not simply reveal that your physical body constitutes an obstacle for the Divine Truth. What is more, feeling this need gives rise to this longing.

Similarly, certain activities carried out under the name of worship, such as prayers, fasting and Islamic meditation, does not conflict in any way with the creation of your structure, which comes into existence by the power of the Almighty Being.

Furthermore, all these religious practices are designed purely for the purpose of providing the brain as well as the spiritual body made of frequencies, which we name the Ruh, with the energy and the power it needs in the afterlife realm, because this will be absolutely necessary for that environment.

Even though the physical body continues its survival with the energy that it receives from the Divine Truth, it is still in need of eating and drinking and this of course does not mean that the physical body does not belong to the Divine Truth. Similarly, the spiritual body often referred to as the light body also needs the energy that these religious practices known as prayer, fasting and meditation will eventually provide in the afterlife realm.

It is because of this absolute necessity that the religious practices known as worship are commanded.

Let us imagine for a moment that you are fully aware of the fact that your existence depends on His existence, but even though this is the case, your physical needs are always in effect.

In the same way, your spiritual body made up of frequencies as well as your brain would need this divine energy in the life hereafter as well because of the conditions that are in force in that environment.

However, this energy can only be produced by the power of the brain and it is obtained while here in this world, living in the physical body.

If the energy that is essential in the future cannot be obtained here in this world, then it is impossible to acquire it in the life hereafter as well. This is because the brain in this dimension has a structure that is made up of frequencies; therefore, it is the spiritual body in that environment. Thus, the brain that is within the spiritual body can no longer produce energy.

Because they will be unable to produce this energy, each of the inhabitants of that environment would then say:

‘I wish we could go back to the world again and perform all the good deeds which we had neglected while we were there!’

Here, the prime purpose of returning to the world is of course to obtain the opportunities that were once available while in the world. In other words, it is about returning to the biological brain which helped the individual to produce the required wave frequencies while living in the world. However, this is absolutely impossible!

For this reason, even though there are so many people who have very successfully managed to comprehend the reality of this matter, they are destined for hell, because they did not perform the necessary tasks and therefore became occupants of hell.

It is for this reason the Sufi author Abdul Karim al-Jili writes in his book entitled ‘The Perfect Man’ (Insan-ul-Kamil) that he has seen Plato (Aflatun) in hell, even though he is a man who has gained considerable insight into the reality surrounding the issue of creation.

In fact, many people who have reached the pinnacle of this spiritual awareness are still in hell. These are only some of the mysteries pointing to this reality.

On the other hand, Muhammad (SAW) says that ‘The people of paradise are mostly populated by naive people’.

This is because going to paradise does not depend on a person’s deeds.

They have heard from the Rasulullah Muhammad (SAW):

‘None amongst you can get into Paradise by virtue of his deeds alone!’

They replied: ‘Oh, RasulullahMuhammad , not even you?’

Thereupon he said, ‘Yes, not even me, but that Allah wrapped me in His Mercy’.

What this means is that ‘My creation took place in such a way that He had preordained my destiny as a person who belongs to paradise and therefore I was born into this world as a blessed person, so I will enter paradise’.

If the person was destined as one of the people of paradise, he will then perform the good deeds of the blessed people, because doing this will be made easy for him.

The people who are eternally blessed perform deeds such as prayer, fasting or meditation and they live for the sake of others by sacrificing all their personal desires so that others can benefit from this. However, carrying out all these deeds should never put them into the state that their prime goal is to compete with the others for the pleasure of exercising their ego on them rather than sacrificing their souls for their benefit. They should lead such a life so that they can be helpful to those people at all times, which in turn would increase the energy they will need in the afterlife realm known as paradise.

Because of this reason, the main purpose here is not only to obtain the knowledge of the Truth, but soon after attaining it, the person involved also has the responsibility to perform certain actions so that both the physical body and the spiritual mind can be stored with the divine energy. This is how gnosis can be attained after the Truth is perceived. Of course, this can only be achieved if it is destined to be made easy on that person. Pay attention, I am not blaming the person who is negligent in performing this act. I am simply trying to explain how the system works.

If, however, the person is created for the purpose of manifesting the divine qualities within himself and living with this reality in the environment we call paradise, then knowledge of the Truth as well as knowledge of spiritual truths known as gnosis is bestowed on him.

As a result of experiencing this direct knowledge, the person has been given the opportunity to realise certain realities, such as how did the system he presently lives in come into existence, how does it work and what actions does he have to perform as a consequence of living in this system.

From then on, the person is not only fully aware of the knowledge of the Truth himself, but he will also be able to carry out all the actions which need to be displayed on the outside in the right manner.

The following verse from the Koran says:

That Allah may forgive (cover/conceal) your past and (in spite of the conquer) future misdoings (concealment resulting from corporeality) and complete His favor upon you and guide you to your reality (essence). [48. Al-Fath: 2]

Indeed, Allah has forgiven all the sins of Muhammad (SAW), including all the faults of the past and those to follow.

In spite of this fact, the Koran has addressed the Rasulullah Muhammad (SAW) in the following way:

And pray during part of the night (awaken from your slumber), which will benefit you, and it is expected that your Sustainer will resurrect you to a praised station (He will activate within you the qualities pertaining to this station… {And he already has, in respect of the verse ‘Inna fatahnalaka}) [17. Al-Isra: 79]

This is because; “And never will you find in Sunnatullah (Allah’s creation system, laws) any change.” [48. Al-Fath: 23]

source:
http://www.ahmedhulusi.org/en/articles/truth-ever-worship.html