Skip to main content

Propagandists in the Guise of Advice and Dawah on Twitter Find These Reiterated Clarifications Bitter to Swallow

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

 

The Plans and Plots to Harass Others Through General or Ambiguous Statements

Whenever they desperately seek to intimidate others with vague, general or ambiguous statements of this or that important personality under the guise of knowledge or advice, we say to them: Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

  وعـلـيك بالتفصيل والتبيين فالإجمال والإطلاق دون بيان
قد أفسدا هذا الوجود وخبـطا الأذهان والآراء كل زمـان

“It is obligated to you to provide detailed explanations and clarifications, as generalisations and unrestricted (speech) without elaboration (clarification) have corrupted the existence and confused minds and opinions throughout all times”.

Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, may Allah preserve him, stated:

There has to be a detailed explanation. The one who is not proficient in giving details should keep quiet because benefit is not acquired from his speech. And every time an error occurs, its cause is due to an absence of detailed explanation regarding truth and falsehood. There has to be detailed explanation and distinction and not mix-up. Indeed, it may be that there is something of truth and falsehood in an opponent’s statement, so all of it is neither deemed to be false nor true; rather there has to be a distinction between its truth and falsehood. All of it is neither rejected nor accepted; rather a distinction is made regarding the truth and what is correct and the falsehood and error in it. And if you are not proficient in giving details, then you should not enter into this field. [1]

 

The Plan and Plot to Use The Status of The People of Knowledge to Force Others to Accept Their Views Without Proof

When they desperately seek to force others by utilising the status of the people of knowledge, whether through propaganda or by pursuing specific agendas, and insist in repeating the same claims without any clear proof, we say to them: Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih Al-Uthaymin, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Pay attention to this principle; it is a very beneficial principle: “The statements of scholars are not (merely) utilised as proof, but proof is (provided) for them (to substantiate them)”. Due to this if one says, “So-and-so said such-and-such”, we respond: “Where is his proof, so that we establish our acts of worship based upon the guidance of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him”. O noble brother, who intends to come to Allah’s House (the Kabah) and the Masjid of His Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, take note of this. There is no one among the creation besides Allah’s Messenger whose speech is never proof against Allah’s servants regardless of his status. Regardless of his status in the sight of his people, he is not a proof with regards to Allah’s Speech and the speech of His Messenger. Lend an ear to the verse:

فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر

And if you disagree among yourselves over anything then refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allāh and the Last Day. [An-Nisaa 59] https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/search/4_59

Therefore, anyone who wants that one to be referred back to be someone other than the Messenger; anyone who wants the thing to refer back to be other than the Book and the Sunnah, then indeed he has not believed in Allah and the Last Day. This is because Allah said:

إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر ذلك خير وأحسن تأويلا

if you truly believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is better (conduct) and (leads to) the most excellent outcome. [An-Nisaa 59] https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/search/4_59

That is better at present and “That is better (conduct) and (leads to) the most excellent outcome”- meaning, its final result is the best in the Afterlife. And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah (He is the ruling Judge). Allah made it known (clarified for us) saying:

ردوه إلى الله والرسول إن كنتم تؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر

Refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allāh and the Last Day.

And on the day of resurrection, Allah will not ask you: “What did you respond to so and so”, rather He will say: “What response did you give to the Messengers?” [2]

 

The Plot and Plan to Overcome Others With Numerous Statements, Either Through Evasion, Exaggeration or In a Haphazard Manner, Showing That Their Goal Is Not to Reach The Truth.

When they desperately seek to overcome others with numerous claims, exaggerations about this or that individual or matter, engaging in psychological projection, desperately transmitting any new statement they think might be useful to them in their useless pursuit to overcome others, or providing them with a deceptive sense of victory by initiating doubt or ambiguities among people, or at the very gives them time to evade responsibility, conceal their objectives and blame others, we say to them:

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “The loftiest ambition in pursuit of knowledge is to acquire knowledge from the Qur’an and the Sunnah- to be granted understanding by Allah [i.e. blessed to acquire sound knowledge and act upon it] and through the Sunnah of the Messenger, and acquaint oneself with the boundaries of the revelation [i.e. neither going into excess nor being lackadaisical]. And the most baseless ambition of the students of knowledge is to confine their ambitions in following the bizarre affairs and that which has neither occurred nor has it been revealed, or acquainting (oneself) with the differences of opinion and pursuing the statements of the scholars, whilst having no ambition to acquaint oneself with what is correct among those statements. Little is there to benefit from the knowledge of these people”. [3]

 

The Pursuit of Concessions Without Justification and Seeking to Force Others to Accept Their Views

When they seek after concessions to evade responsibility, we say to them:

Imam Ash-Shaatibe, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated regarding the attitude of the unjustified pursuit of concessions: “This arises from following one’s desires. Desire leads to a too easygoing attitude and the pursuit of concessions for oneself and others. So, you see him adopting that for himself or passing that judgment for his relative or friend, which he would not do for another person due to the desire of that relative and friend”. [4]

Imam Ash-Shaatibee, may Allah have mercy upon him] also said, “If a Mukallaf [i.e. the sane one who has reached the age when the obligations of the Shariah are obligated on him or her] seeks after concessions in the Madhabs in every affair that is difficult for him and every statement that agrees with his desires, then he will remove himself from the firm handhold of piety and persist upon the pursuit of desires”. [5]

 

Pursuit of Odd Matters and Refuse to Adhere to Clarity

When they seek after the odd matters and refuse to adhere to clarity, we say to them:

Ibrahim Ibn Abee Ablah (died 152AH – may Allah have mercy upon him) said, “He who carries the odd affairs of knowledge carries a lot of evil”. [6]

Abdur Rahman Bin Mahdi (died 198AH – may Allah have mercy upon him) said, “The one who pursues the odd affairs of knowledge cannot be an Imam in knowledge”. [7]

Imam Ash-Shaatibee [may Allaah have mercy upon him] said, “If desires enter (a person), it leads to following the ambiguous matters out of being eager to prevail and become victorious through establishing excuses in issues related to difference of opinion (or differing); but rather it leads to splitting, disharmony, enmity, and hatred due to the different desires and lack of (sound) agreement; however, the Shariah came to curtail (vain) desires completely. If some of the premises of the evidence were not established except through desires, it would not result except in following desires and that is contrary to the Shariah, and opposing the Shariah is not from the Shariah at all. Therefore, following desires concerning what one may regard to be adherence to the Shariah is tantamount to misguidance.”. [8]


[1] An Excerpt from “at-Ta-leeqaat Al-Mukhtasar Alaa Al-Qaseedah an-Nooniyyah” 1/216

[2] https://www.alathar.net/home/esound/index.php?op=codevi&coid=116826 [A paraphrased excerpt]

[3] An Excerpt from Al-Fawaa’id. Page 99

[4] Al-Muwaafaqaat. 5/84

[5] Al-Muwaafaqaat. 3/123

[6] Siyar A’laam An-Nubula 6/324

[7] At-Tamheed 1/64 by Ibn Abdil Barr

[8] Al-Muwaafaqaat 5/221

“Excavating for Influence” – Brief Observation into Goals Behind the Recovery of Forefathers’ Artefacts

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Haadee al-Madkhalee, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

The attention given to artefacts (or relics) – in this era – in the manner pursued by the Archaeologists was not known during the era of the Prophet’s companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and the pious predecessors, may Allah have mercy upon them, but rather the Muslims blindly followed the Europeans and Americans whose greatest goal in studying artefacts (or relics) in the land of the Muslims is to revive (the traits of) pre-Islamic nationalism, such as Pharaonism, (Pan) Babylonianism, Phoenicianism etc. And they succeeded to a great extent in actualising many of these goals, thus arose – in the Muslim lands – the (traits) of pre-Islamic national pride and taking pride in these nationalisms.

Indeed, I am amazed by the example of yours [i.e. the person the Shaikh was refuting] regarding the towns of (Prophet) Salih and Ukhdud, which are places (that earned) Allah’s anger!! Imam Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “Abdullah Bin Muhammad Al-Jufee narrated to us that Abdur Razzaaq narrated to them from Az-Zuhree who narrated from Salim, who narrated from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, who said, ‘When the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, passed by Al-Hijr, he said, ‘Do not enter the dwelling places of those people who were unjust to themselves unless you enter in a weeping state lest the same calamity as of theirs should befall you’. Then he covered his head and made his speed fast till he crossed the valley”. Yahyah Bin Bukayr narrated to us who said that Malik narrated to us from Abdullah Bin Deenaar who reported from Ibn Umar, who said, “Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said to his companions who were at Al-Hijr, ‘Do not enter upon these people who are being punished, except in a weeping state, lest the same calamity as of theirs should befall you'”. [Al-Bukhari. 4419 and 4420]

The two Prophetic reports show the danger of entering the places of those who incurred Allah’s anger and He destroyed them due to their disbelief, denial of the prophets and their message. The Prophet did not permit entry into them except for one who fears Allah and fears His punishment, so he enters when in need while weeping. It is feared for the one who enters the dwellings of those who were punished that he would be afflicted with the punishment that afflicted them. It is legislated for the one who approaches those dwellings to go past quickly while covering his face to follow the example of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Do the Muslim possess understanding – and amongst them the Archeologists and those who encourage them – of what is in this Prophetic guidance that came from one who does not speak out of his own desires [i.e. the Prophet -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him]? Also, Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, legislated for the one who goes past the valleys of Muhassar to hurry because Allah destroyed the people of the Elephant over there [i.e. the story of the people of the Elephant – Surah Al-Feel].

Therefore, those who excavate the artefacts (relics) of the people of Aad, Thamud, the Ashaab Al-Ukhdud, the Pharoanic and Babylonian artefacts (or relics), do they act based on the guidance of Allah’s Messenger, or do they blindly follow the enemies of Allah who set up partnership of exploration for them from the artefacts (or relics) of the destroyed nations in order to entice (them) towards (traits) of pre-Islamic ignorance. Indeed, I and other than myself have read the numerous boasting of Muslims or those who ascribe to Islam, such as the statement of some of them, “O Misree (i.e. Egyptian)! Be proud of the builders of your glory when people were sleeping”. He boasts about the Pharoanic artefacts (relics) such as the pyramids and other than them. (1)

Why Ponder Upon The Story of The Nations of Old?

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

Allah, The Most High, said: [قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ سُنَنٌ فَسِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ – Many similar mishaps [troubles, problems] of life were faced by nations that have passed away before you, so travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who disbelieved]. [Aal Imran. 137]

Indeed, there were nations like yourselves before you, so look to their evil end. You have to know that the reason behind their evil end was due to their disbelief in the revelations of Allah and disbelief in Allah’s Messengers. They were the forefathers and you are the descendants. The main affair that connects you to each other is your disbelief and the ruling on that disbelief is destruction. (2)

Imam Muhammad Bin Salih Al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: If it is said, “What is the benefit in narrating to us the stories of the destroyed nations despite the fact that this Ummah will not be completely destroyed in a manner similar to the destruction of the previous nations before it?'”.

The Answer: Indeed, this has two benefits: The first benefit is a clarification of Allah’s blessings upon us that the occurrence of a complete destruction is removed from us, and that were it not for Allah’s Benevolence we would have been deserving of it. Second, the likeness of the punishment they received may occur in the hereafter for the one who did what they did, if punishment was not received in the worldly life. And this may be understood from the statement of Allah: “Such is the Seizure of your Lord when He seizes the population of towns while they are doing wrong. Verily, His Seizure is painful and severe. Indeed in that (there) is a sure lesson for those who fear the torment of the Hereafter.” So what is apparent from this verse is that what is similar to the punishment they received will happen in the Hereafter, and Allah knows best. (3)


[1] Baraa’atus Sahaabah Al-Akhyaar Min At-Tabarruk Bil Amaakin Wal-Aalathaar. Pages 11-14. Slightly paraphrased
[2] I’laam Al-Muwaqqi-een: 1/181
[3] Al-Muntaqaa Min Fawaa’d Fawaa’d 123-124

Verify, Be Just, and Explain—You or Your Fathers Were Once Like Them

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah, The Most High, said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَتَبَيَّنُوا وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَنْ أَلْقَىٰ إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَامَ لَسْتَ مُؤْمِنًا تَبْتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فَعِندَ اللَّهِ مَغَانِمُ كَثِيرَةٌ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ كُنتُم مِّن قَبْلُ فَمَنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَتَبَيَّنُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا

O you who believe! When you go (to fight) in the Cause of Allah, verify (the truth), and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islam): “You are not a believer”; seeking the perishable goods of the worldly life. There are much more profits and booties with Allah. Even as he is now, you (yourselves) were like that before; then Allah conferred on you His Favours (i.e. guided you to Islam), therefore, verify. Allah is Ever Well-Aware of what you do. [An-Nisa 94]

He (Allah), The Most High, commands His believing servants that when they proceed for Jihad upon His path and seeking His pleasure, they should seek clarification and verification regarding the ambiguous matters. For indeed, the affairs are of two categories: those that are clear and those that are unclear. The clear and evident matters do not need verification and clarification because that is self-evident. As for the ambiguous matters – the unclear matters, then indeed, a person needs to verify and clarify regarding them in order to know whether to pursue or not. For indeed verification in these matters bring many benefits and prevents great evils by way of which is known the (upright) religion of a person, his intellect and self-possession, as opposed to the one who rushes into matters at their onset before their their rulings are clarified for him, for indeed this leads to that which is not befitting (or permissible) as happened to those whom Allah admonished in the verse when they failed to verify and killed those that greeted them with the salutation of peace- who had spoils of war in their possession or someone else’s wealth- thinking that it was justified to kill them. This was a (grave) mistake and due to this, Allah reproached, saying:

وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَنْ أَلْقَى إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَامَ لَسْتَ مُؤْمِنًا تَبْتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فَعِنْدَ اللَّهِ مَغَانِمُ كَثِيرَةٌ

And say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islam): “You are not a believer”; seeking the perishable goods of the worldly life. There are much more profits and booties with Allah.

Meaning: Do not let the transient and little things (of this worldly life) make you commit what is not permissible (or befitting), thus, you miss out on the abundant, everlasting rewards that Allah are with Allah, for that which is with Allah is better and everlasting.

In this is a demonstration that it is obligated to a servant of Allah that when he perceives the urges of his soul inclining towards a state wherein it desires (something), while it is harmful for his soul, he should remind it regarding that which Allah has prepared for the one who forbids his soul from its (vain) desires and and gives precedence to Allah’s Pleasure over the pleasure of his soul, for indeed in this is an encouragement for the soul to fulfil Allah’s command, even if that is difficult for it. Then He (Allah- The Most High) reminded them of their initial situation before they were guided to Islam: [كَذَلِكَ كُنْتُمْ مِنْ قَبْلُ فَمَنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ- you (yourselves) were like that before; then Allah conferred on you His Favours (i.e. guided you to Islam).

Meaning: Just as He (Allah) guided you after your (state of) misguidance, similarly He can guide others. And just as guidance came to you little by little, similarly is the case for other than yourselves. Thus, the observation of the person- who has accomplished the obligatory and recommended aspects of faith- regarding his initial deficient state, his dealing with the one who is in a similar situation based on what he knows regarding his initial situation, and calling him to (guidance) through wisdom and fine admonition, is one of the greatest means of benefiting himself and the other person. Due to this, He (Allah) repeated the command [فَتَبَيَّنُوا – Therefore, verify].

When it is the case that one who embarks upon Jihad in the path of Allah and to strive against Allah’s enemies – having prepared in various ways to confront them- is commanded to verify when someone greets him with the statement of peace, while there is a strong indication that he (merely) greeted with peace in order to protect himself from being killed and out of fear for himself, then indeed this demonstrates the command to verify and seek clarification in all situations where there is some type of ambiguity, so the person verifies in this situation until the matter becomes clear to him and what is upright and correct is clarified.

إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا
Allah is Ever Well-Aware of what you do.

He will recompense everyone according to their actions and intentions. [1]

 

Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated in Al-Usul ath-Thalatha, “I’lam, Rahimakallaah – Know, may Allah have mercy upon you”.

“Rahimakallaah” is a supplication made for the student of knowledge. The Shaikh (Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab) supplicates for Allah’s Mercy upon the students of knowledge, that Allah has mercy upon them. Therefore, in this there is gentleness from the teacher towards the student. Indeed he begins with a good statement and a righteous supplication so that it has an effect and thereby making the student incline towards his teacher with acceptance. But if he begins with a harsh statement or a statement that is not deemed appropriate, this would make him flee. Therefore, it is obligated to a teacher and the one who calls to (the path of) Allah, and the one who enjoins good and forbids evil, that he is gentle with the one he addresses – through supplication for him, commendation and soft speech, because this urges towards acceptance. However, as for the stubborn wilful, opposer, this one is to be addressed differently. Allah said: [وَلَا تُجَـٰدِلُوٓاْ أَهۡلَ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبِ إِلَّا بِٱلَّتِى هِىَ أَحۡسَنُ إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُواْ مِنۡهُمۡ‌ۖ – And argue not with the people of the Scripture unless it be in a way that is better, except with such of them as do wrong]. [29:46]

Those who do wrong among the people of the scripture- willfully opposing and are haughty- are not addressed with what is better; rather they are addressed with what would prevent from their (harm and misguidance). Allah said:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ جَـٰهِدِ ٱلۡڪُفَّارَ وَٱلۡمُنَـٰفِقِينَ وَٱغۡلُظۡ عَلَيۡہِمۡ‌ۚ وَمَأۡوَٮٰهُمۡ جَهَنَّمُ‌ۖ وَبِئۡسَ ٱلۡمَصِيرُ

O Prophet (Muhammad)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell,-and worst indeed is that destination]. [9:73]

Striving against the hypocrites is not carried out with weapons, rather it is carried out with proofs, statements, refutation against them with harshness that will prevent (them from propagating their misguidance and harm) and to keep the people away from them. Allah said about them: [وَقُل لَّهُمۡ فِىٓ أَنفُسِہِمۡ قَوۡلاَۢ بَلِيغً۬ا – But admonish them, and speak to them an effective word to reach their innerselves] [4:63]

Therefore, there is a specific type of speech that is prescribed for these people because they are wilful opposers and people afflicted with pride. They do not want the truth, rather they want to misguide the people. So, they are addressed in a way they deserve. As for the seeker of guidance, this one is addressed with gentleness and mercy. This is because he wants the truth, knowledge and something beneficial. [2]

In the beginning of all the three principles, Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab, may Allah have mercy upon him, started by supplicating for the learner. In the first principle, he said: [اعلم رحمك الله – Know, may Allah have mercy upon you]. In the second principle, he began by saying [اعلم رحمك الله – Know, may Allah have mercy upon], and in the third principle, he began by saying [اعلم ارشدك الله لطاعته – Know, may Allah guide you to His obedience].

Beginning with the word اعلم in this treatise and in his other treatises is employed when discussing important and great subjects , and due to this you find that in the Qur’an this word اعلم is mentioned in the great subjects and important commandments, such as the statement of Allah: [فَٱعۡلَمۡ أَنَّهُ ۥ لَآ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهُ – So know (O Muhammad ) that Laa ilaaha ill-Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah)]. In the Qur’an, there are over 30 verses with this word that is mentioned in connection with Allah’s Names and Attributes, or in the affirmation of Tawhid and other important and great subjects. It is a word that is mentioned so that the reader’s or listener’s attention is captured.

Also supplicating for others is a sign of sincere advice and it is the path of the sincere advisers, for indeed the sincere adviser combines – for the one who is being advised – beneficial, gentle clarification and with sincere supplication. He teaches him in a beneficial, and gentle manner and supplicates for him whilst hoping that Allah will benefit him through this knowledge. This is a matter that must be given importance – that a scholar, the one who nurtures others, an admonisher or a khatib supplicates for the people, that Allah benefits, guides and shows them mercy. This supplication emanates from the mercy in the adviser’s heart, the eagerness in his heart and his great desire that Allah benefits those who are being advised or called to Islam. Sometimes the word رحمة is mentioned on its own and sometimes it is a mentioned alongside المغفرة. When they are mentioned together, Al-Maghfirah means forgiveness of one’s previous sins in the past, and Rahma means asking Allah to protect, aid, forgive and guide a person towards righteous deeds and statements. And if one of them is mentioned alone, the meaning of the other is included in it. [3]

We ask Allah: [اللهم كما حَسَّنْت خَلْقِي فَحَسِّنْ خُلُقِي – O Allah! Just as You made my external form beautiful, make my character beautiful as well]. [4]


[1] An Excerpt from Tafsir As-Sadi. Slightly paraphrased

[2 An Excerpt from ‘Sharh Usool Ath-Thalaatha. page13-15 By Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, may Allah preserve him.

[3]Sharh Usul ath-Thalatha Lesson 1. Masjid An-Nabawiy. Date: 22/08/1434. By Shaikh Abdur Razzaaq Al-Badr, may Allah preserve him.

[4] https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2021/07/31/o-allah-just-as-you-made-my-external-form-beautiful-make-my-character-beautiful-as-well/

[2] Brief Biographies of Some Prominent Contemporary Scholars – Al Allamah Ali Nasir Al-Faqihi

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

He, may Allah have mercy upon him, was born in the village of Al-Manjarah, situated in the Jazan region, in the year 1354 AH. He spent his formative years there, where he completed his primary and secondary education.

From an early age, he engaged in numerous educational circles and studied under various scholars at the institutions established by Shaikh Abdullah Al-Qarawi in the southern region, with Shaikh Hafiz Al-Hakami, may Allah have mercy upon him, being one of his prominent instructors.

He pursued his academic endeavours diligently, ultimately earning a doctorate, specifically in Aqeedah, at King Abdul Aziz University, Makkah branch (now known as Umm Al-Qura University) in the year 1399 AH.

He entered the professional realm and occupied several significant positions throughout his academic journey, including:

– Dean of Library Affairs at the Islamic University of Madinah.

– Secretary-General of the Islamic University.

– Chairman of the Council for Islamic Advocacy.

– Faculty member in graduate studies.

Additionally, he served as a consultant at the King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran and as an instructor at the Prophet’s Mosque.

He actively participated in numerous conferences both domestically and internationally, such as:

– The conference on intoxicants and drugs held at the Islamic University.

– The conference commemorating the 15th Hijri century in the year 1400 AH, which was conducted in Sudan.

He has authored a collection of published research, printed works, and edited books, including:

كتاب الإيمان – لابن منده – ثلاثة مجلدات – تحقيق.

– كتاب التوحيد – لابن منده – مجلدان – تحقيق.

– الرد على الجهمية – لابن منده – جزء ـ تحقيق.

– الأربعين في دلائل التوحيد ـ للهروي ـ تحقيق.

– الإمامة والرد على الرافضة ـ لأبي نعيم ـ مجلد ـ تحقيق.

– الصفات والنزول ـ للدارقطني ـ تحقيق.

– الحيدة ـ للكناني ـ تحقيق.

– الصواعق المرسلة ـ لابن القيم ـ الجزء الأول ـ تحقيق بالاشتراك.

– منهج القرآن في الدعوة إلى الإيمان ـ تأليف.

– الفتح المبين ـ تأليف.

– الرد القويم البالغ على الكتاب المسمى بالحق الدامغ ـ تأليف.

– سلسلة الوصايات في الكتاب والسنة.

Alongside several research studies and articles that have been published in “the Islamic University Journal”.

Source: https://www.mimham.net/che-38

Al-Allamah Abdullah Al-Bukhari, may Allah preserve him stated: Today, Al-Allamah- the Murabbi (an Erudite Scholar who nurtures and guides the Ummah to the right path), the one who defended the religion ordained by Allah against the distortions of those who go beyond bounds, the distortions of falsifiers, and the (false) interpretations of the ignorant – has passed away. May Allah grant him forgiveness and elevate his status in Paradise alongside the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous, and excellent are those as companions. May Allah grant his family and children patience and solace, as well as Ahlus Sunnah.  “Indeed, we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return”.

https://x.com/dr_albukhary/status/1825800292023071117?t=Nq2sOW6cuOuxYuTkf23A_g&s=08

Salafi Ideologies – a brief reminder to Ohad Merlin

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah, The Exalted, said:

إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى ٱلْأَنفُسُ

They follow but presumption and what their souls desire. [1]

The Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt.” [2]

In an article published at Jerusalem Post on January 18, 2024, and updated the following day, the writer named a particular individual, noting that this person “also faces attacks from anti-Islamist [refer to footnote a] actors who reject Salafi ideologies and based their disdain on his roles in several al-Qaeda offshoots”. [end of quote]

First, it is necessary to examine the definition of the term “ideology”. Whoever researches will find that deology, is a form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones- a system of “ideas” that aspires both to explain the world and to change it; or a set of “opinions” or “beliefs” of a group or an individual. It can also refer to a set of “political beliefs” or a set of ideas that characterise a particular culture. Capitalism, communism, socialism, and Marxism are ideologies.

Secondly, every person with some knowledge of the infallible divine revelation- the Qur’an and Sunnah, as understood and implemented by the Sahabah – knows that the ideas of philosophy, theory, opinions, capitalism, communism, socialism, and Marxism originate from the inherently flawed nature of human thought. Thus, they are inherently debatable, with their inconsistencies and shortcomings clearly visible to everyone acquainted with them.

Thirdly, as for “belief”, it may be either fabricated or innovated by individuals who stray from the teachings of the Prophets, or they may be rooted in the pure, infallible final revelation – the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, when the word “belief” is mentioned without clarifying its foundation, it becomes ambiguous. This is why we scrutinise the language and terminology used by ideologues, demagogues, journalists, or provocateurs when they seek to impose their flawed interpretations or judgments on Salafiyyah. Salafiyyah can never be categorised as an ideology or a set of ideas, as these can be contested, debated, or labeled as right or wrong. Instead, Salafiyyah represents the path of infallible revelation—the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood and practiced by the companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Those who assert that ideology encompasses belief and then assess Salafiyyah by the same criteria as other beliefs either lack understanding of Salafiyyah or deliberately use ambiguous language to sow confusion. Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

“The basis of Banee Adam’s misguidance is as a result of general terms and ambiguous meanings, especially if they come in contact with a confused mind, so how about when desires and misguided enthusiasm is added to that? Therefore, ask the One Who keeps the hearts steadfast [i.e. Allah] to keep your heart firm upon His Religion and not allow you to fall into this darkness. [3]

One of the core principles in Islam is the understanding that words or terms fall into two categories: those found in the Qur’an and Sunnah, which every believer is required to affirm, and those that are negated by Allah and His Messenger. The terms affirmed by Allah represent the truth, while those He has negated are also rejected as false, since Allah speaks only the truth and guides us along the right path. The terminology of Shariah is sacred, and it is essential for one to seek the accurate meanings intended by the Messenger to affirm what he affirmed and reject what he negated. It is our duty to believe in and testify to everything he has conveyed and to follow his commands. Regarding terms that do not appear in the Qur’an or Sunnah, and where the early scholars have not reached a consensus on their affirmation or negation, individuals are not obligated to side with those who affirm or deny them until their intended meanings are clarified. If the intended meaning aligns with the revelations and commands of the Messenger, it is accepted; if it contradicts his teachings, it is dismissed. [4]

Salafi ideology, or rather the notion of multiple Salafi ideologies, does not exist. What truly exists is Salafiyyah, a path rooted in the infallible teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, as interpreted and practiced by the Prophet’s companions. Any deviation from this path—whether in creed/belief, worship, or methodology—cannot be considered part of Salafiyyah, regardless of the claims made by various groups, individuals, or the author of the article in question. While innovations in religion are linked to ideologies, opinions and ideas of men, Salafiyyah is anchored in divine revelation as understood by the Prophet’s companions. Therefore, it is important that the author seeks knowledge before making statements. The sincere seeker of truth must refer to the following links:

The Salafi Call and Methodology- By Shaikh Abu Iyaad, may Allah preserve him.
http://www.salafis.com/index.cfm

What is Salafism? Read about the most important aspects of Salafiyyah- By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him.
https://abukhadeejah.com/what-is-salafism-and-salafiyyah/

A response to Western academics who categorise Salafis into Quietists, Politicos and Jihadists – and why this is a false categorisation.

The Ideological Origins of Al-Qaeda
https://abukhadeejah.com/the-evils-of-modern-day-terrorism-and-its-roots-al-qaeda-isis-the-nusra-front-etc/


Footnote a: https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2024/12/07/political-islam-and-islamists-the-manipulation-of-terminology-by-ideologues/

[1]https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/verse/53/23

[2]https://www.nawawis40hadith.com/nw/hadith/11/leaving-doubt

[3] An Excerpt from ‘As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mursalah Alal Jahmiyyah Wal Mu’attilah’ 3/927

[4] An Excerpt from ‘Al-Haqeeqatus Shar’iyyah Fee Tafseeril Qur’aan Al-A’dheem Was-Sunnatin Nabawiyyah’ page 17

The Sunni–Shia Divide Revisited: A Rebuttal to David Ben Basat at Jerusalem Post

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

As the (true) followers of the Prophets are characterised by their knowledge and commitment to justice, therefore, the discourse of the adherents of Islam and the Sunnah regarding disbelievers and those who engage in bidah must be grounded in knowledge and justice, rather than conjecture and desires. Due to this, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, stated, “There are three types of judges; one will enter Paradise, while two will enter the fire. A man who knows the truth and judges accordingly will enter Paradise; a man who knows the truth yet judges contrary to it will enter the fire, and a man who judges for the people based on ignorance will enter the fire”. When it is case that one who adjudicates matters of wealth, life, and honour is (threatened with) entry into the fire for failing to be a just scholar, then, what about the one who renders judgments without knowledge, particularly ahlul bidah, who address issues of faith, the core tenets of Iman, and knowledge regarding Allah, His Names, Attributes, and Actions, as well as other profound matters of knowledge. [1]

This article serves as a brief response to the assertions made by David Ben-Basat, who sought to articulate his understanding of the distinctions between Sunni and Shia, at least as reflected in this above post of his at the Jerusalem Post. However, it is imperative to emphasise that a more fitting title would be “the Distinction Between Islam and the Beliefs of the Rafidah”. This distinction arises from the fact that the tenets and practices of the Rafidah religion diverge significantly from those of Islam.

David stated: The conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims remains one of the central features shaping the political and religious dynamics of the Middle East.

Rooted in Islamic history since the 7th century, this divide has evolved into a broad political and ideological battle, exploited by regional powers such as Iran and Turkey to extend their influence, fueling clashes between the two sects. Islam is divided into two main branches: Sunni Muslims, who make up about 85% of the Islamic world, and Shia Muslims, who represent around 15%. [end of quote]

Response: The conflict between Islam and the religion of the Rafidah was first initiated by Abdullah Bin Sabah, a Jew from Yemen. Shaikh Shamsuddeen Al-Afghani, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

The enemies of Islam, recognising their inability to eradicate this religion (Islam), strategically infiltrated it with disbelieving agents- individuals who masqueraded as Muslims, aiming to sow confusion, trials, and tribulations, while promoting polytheism by elevating the status of the righteous and venerating their graves (through beliefs and practices) not sanctioned by Allah. Consequently, the Ummah faced trials stemming from the schemes of Abdullah Bin Saba, who asserted that Ali Ibn Abee Talib, (the Prophet’s cousin), deserved worship alongside Allah. The followers of Abdullah Bin Saba became known as the Saba’iyyah, and later as the Rawaafid (Shiites), Ismaaliyyah (Shiites), Nusayriyah (Shiites), among others within the Baatiniyyah sect. [Footnote a] They engaged in the veneration of graves and their occupants, constructing places of worship and shrines at these sites. Through such actions, they revived the corrupt practices of those (particular) Jews, Christians, and idol worshippers who strayed from the true path of the Prophets of Allah. This illustrates how the worship of graves emerged within this Ummah through the practices introduced by the Rawaafid (Shiites). [2] Read: http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/bmfjr-a-brief-overview-of-the-doctrines-innovated-by-abdullah-bin-saba-al-yahudi-which-became-the-foundational-beliefs-of-the-sects-of-the-shia.cfm

Al-Allamah Muqbil Bin Hadi Al-Wadi’i, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The Saba’iyyun are the companions of Abdullah Bin Saba, who said to Ali, “You are.. you are”- meaning, “You are the deity”. Hafidh Adh-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “Abdullah bin Saba was from the extremists amongst the heretics- misguided and misguiding others”. Ibn Asakir, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “He was originally from Yemen- a Jew who manifested Islam, travelled around the Muslim lands to turn them away from obedience to their leaders and to bring about evil between them, and he entered into Damascus for that reason”. Abu Ya’laa, may Allah have mercy upon him, reported in his Musnad from Al-Jalaas who said, “I heard Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, saying to Abdullah Bin Saba, “Indeed, there will be thirty liars at the approach of the hour and you are one of them”. Abdullah bin Saba had followers and they were called the Saba’iyyun. They believe that Godhead is with Ali. Indeed Ali burnt them with fire during his Khilaafah. And do not think that the followers of Abdullah Bin Saba have perished, (rather) there is that leader of misguidance -khumeini, who displays (so called) jealousy for Islam, yet he destroys its pillars. Some of the ignorant ones among the Ikhwan al-Muslimoon were deceived by Khumeini, and they used to mention him on the pulpits; but when the Book titled: Jaa’a Dawrul Majoos appeared, they were shaken. They kept quiet and did not praise Khumeini. Perhaps the Muslims will take a lesson from the story of Abdullah Bin Saba and be warned against the machinations and filth of the Rafidah because their call is based on deception.[3]

Furthermore, the assertion that Islam is bifurcated into two primary branches is fundamentally erroneous. The essence of the religion remains unified; guidance stands apart from misguidance, and truth is clearly delineated from falsehood. Therefore, any notion of division within the faith is unfounded. It is, in fact, those who have strayed from the righteous path who have caused fragmentation. Conversely, those who faithfully adhere to the authentic teachings of Islam remain united in their belief and methodology. It is imperative for those who have deviated from the true teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah to renounce their misguidance and return to the path of truth. Thus, anyone who innovates into the religion is rebutted and he is guilty of splitting. Al-Allamah Zaid Bin Hadi Al-Madkhali [may Allah preserve him) said:

The innovator in religious matters is the cause for the splitting, because splitting is connected to innovation in religion and unity is connected to the Sunnah. The obligation of refuting an opposer of the truth is not lifted from the scholar due to anticipation of harm, unless it is harm he is not able to bear, so (in this case) Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. The earth is not devoid of people of knowledge who will carry out refutation against an innovator in religious affairs and one who opposes the truth”. [4] For further insights on the various sects, please read below:

https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2024/12/28/all-in-the-fire-except-one/ [Footnote b]

David said: Conservative Sunni rhetoric often regards Shias as heretics and even infidels, citing accusations like those against Aisha, the wife of the prophet Mohammed, of betrayal and attributing superhuman qualities to Shia imams, elevating them to a status comparable to that of the prophet himself. [end of quote]

Response: It is essential to recognise that dismissing the judgments against the Rafidah as mere rhetoric is a grave error, rooted in either misguidance or ignorance. These judgments are not mere expressions of persuasive language or the artful manipulation of words; they do not stem from the superficial techniques employed by rabble-rousers, demagogues, ideologues, or Zionists, nor do they represent eloquent discourse devoid of substance. Such a characterisation is more fitting for those who have introduced innovations into the sacred teachings of the Prophets, subsequently deriving their conclusions from these alterations. This path is reminiscent of those who strayed from the righteous ways of the noble Prophets Musa and Isa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them, as well as those who have introduced erroneous beliefs and practices, including the Rafidah and the Khawarij. Rhetoric, therefore, is more aptly associated with these groups than with the judgments rendered by the upright scholars of Islam, which are firmly anchored in the infallible verses of the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Furthermore, David’s stance raises questions about his honesty; he is either misrepresenting Ahlus Sunnah as those who unjustly accuse the Rafidah or he is exercising unnecessary caution due to his lack of understanding of Rafidah beliefs, leading him to label valid refutations as rhetoric and accusations. Regardless of David’s intentions, if the Rafidah come across his statements, they might either appreciate his assistance in their Taqiyyah or regard him as poorly informed. The Rafidah are well known for disparaging Aa’Isha, may Allah be pleased with her, and their contempt for most of the Prophet’s companions, all while deifying the Prophet’s family—a belief innovated for them by the Yemeni Jew Abdullah Bin Saba. [Footnote c]

David stated: Sunni conservatives base their views on classical fatwas, such as those by 13th-century theologian Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah, who declared Shias/Shi’ites to be more heretical than Jews, Christians, and idolaters, likening them to the Crusaders and Mongols of his era. These ideological differences have spiraled into political struggles, with each side vying to dominate the region’s key states. [end of quote]

Response: David’s statement clearly highlights his ignorance of the topic at hand. Indeed, scholars who lived centuries before Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him and all of them, denounced the Rafidah and labeled them as heretics. Some even went so far as to declare the Rafidah as disbelievers, asserting that their beliefs are deemed apostasy, polytheism, and disbelief according to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Since Abdullah Ibn Saba concocted the beliefs and methodology of the Rafidah, the erudite scholars from each generation prior to Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah have confronted the Rafidah. Here are some significant examples.

Alqamah Ibn Qays An-Nakha’i [62AH], may Allah have mercy on him, a student of the Sahabi Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

Indeed, this Shia sect has exaggerated in their veneration of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, just as the Christians have exaggerated in their veneration of Jesus, son of Mary, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” [5]

Talhah Ibn Musarraf [112 AH], may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“The women of the Rawaafid are not to be married, nor are their sacrifices permissible to eat, for they are people of apostasy.” [6]

Imam Malik Ibn Anas [179AH], may Allah have mercy on him, stated:

“Those who insult the companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, do not have a share or portion in Islam.” [7]

Imam Malik also said:

“Whoever insults the companions of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has no right to the spoils of war. Allah, the Exalted, said:

[للفقراء المهاجرين الذين أخرجوا من ديارهم وأموالهم يبتغون فضلاً من الله ورضواناً – (And there is also a share in the booty) for the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking the bounty of Allah and His pleasure]. These are the companions of Allah’s Messenger who emigrated with him. Then Allah said: [والذين تبؤوا الدار والإيمان- And those who, before them, had homes (in Al-Madinah) and had adopted the faith]. These are the Ansar. Then Allah further stated:

[والذين جاءوا من بعدهم يقولون ربنا اغفرلنا ولأخواننا الذين سبقونا بالإيمان – And those who came after them, say, “Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethen who have preceded us in Faith].

The spoils of war are for these three groups. Therefore, whoever insults the companions of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, does not belong to any of these three groups and has no right to the spoils. [8]

Imam Abu Yusuf, may Allah have mercy upon him, the student of Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “I will not pray behind a Jahmi, nor a Rafidi, nor a Qadari.” [9]

Imam Ash-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

“I have not seen anyone among the people of vain desires more deceitful in their claims or more prone to false testimony than the Rāfidah.” [10]

Imam Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Al-Firyabi [212AH], may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“I see the Rāfidah and the Jahmiyyah as nothing but heretics.” [11]

Imam Al-Qasim Ibn Sallam [224AH], may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“I have interacted with people and engaged with the scholars of theological rhetoric, yet I have never encountered a group more repugnant, more despicable, weaker in argument, or more foolish than the Rawaafid. During my tenure as a judge in the border regions, I expelled three individuals from among them: two Rawaafid and one Jahmi, asserting that individuals like you should not reside among the inhabitants of the borders.” [12]

Imam Ahmad Ibn Yunus [227AH], may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“We do not consume the sacrifice of a man who is a Rafidi, for in my view, he is an apostate.” [13]

Imam Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi [264 AH], may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“If you see a man disparaging any of the companions of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, know that he is a heretic. This is because for us the Messenger is truth and the Qur’an is the truth. The Qur’an and the Sunnah have been conveyed to us by the companions of Allah’s Messenger. Those who seek to undermine our witnesses aim to invalidate the Book and the Sunnah, and it is more appropriate to disparage them; they are indeed heretics.” [14]

Abdur Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim, said that he inquired of his father, Abu Zur’ah, regarding the path of the Sunnah and the beliefs which the scholars have encountered in all regions. Among their remarks was: “Indeed, the Jahmiyyah are disbelievers, and the Rafidah have rejected Islam.” [15]

Imam Al-Barbahari [329AH], may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

“Be aware that all deviant beliefs are reprehensible, leading to violence. The most despicable and heretical among them are the Rāfidah, the Mu’tazilah, and the Jahmiyyah, for they seek to lead people towards negation (of Allah’s Attributes) and heresy.” [16]

Imam Ibn al-Jawzi [597], may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

“The excessive veneration of the Rāfidah for Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, led them to fabricate numerous hadiths extolling his virtues, many of which are detrimental and offensive to him. They have also introduced various jurisprudential opinions that are innovations in religion that contradict consensus. In numerous issues, which would require extensive elaboration, they have violated the consensus, and Satan has deceived them into fabricating these claims without relying on authentic sources or sound analogical reasoning. The repugnant (beliefs and practices) of the Rāfidah are too numerous to count.” [17]

The above are very few verdicts of the scholars, including the students of the Sahabah, throughout various generations that oppose the heretical Rafidah before the time of Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Therefore, David ought to have conducted his research with integrity or chosen to avoid revealing his ignorance, as the adage states: “Silence beautifies the scholar and hides the ignorance of the ignoramus.”

David said: IRAN, AS the Shia stronghold, sees itself as the ideological leader of Shia Muslims worldwide. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, it has sought to expand its influence by creating a “Shia crescent” that includes Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. However, Iran’s heavy investment in supporting Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite regime in Syria has largely gone to waste, undermining its efforts. [end of quote]

Response: The term Shia Muslim remains a myth until the reality is established. Thus, we’ll quote a clarification by Al-Allamah Rabee in that regard. The Shaikh was asked: Our Shaikh, may Allah preserve you. The questioner says: What is the ruling on the common people of the Rawafid and how do we deal with them?

The Shaikh replied: The questioner differentiates between the common people and other than them. This is a good approach. The common people who neither speak ill of the wives of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, nor do they declare the companions to be disbelievers, nor do they believe that the Qur’an is distorted; however, they have some Rafd [i.e. beliefs of the rafidah] and some hatred for the companions without declaring them disbelievers and what is similar to (these deeds), these ones are misguided innovators in religious matters and we do not declare them disbelievers. (But) whoever joins their heretics in declaring the companions of Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to be disbelievers, speaking ill of the wives of Allah’s Messenger, and the filthy belief that the Qur’an has been distorted, and that there is an addition and deficiency in it, this (person) is a disbeliever similar to the disbelievers of the Yahud and Nasara. There is no distinction between their common people and their scholars (in this affair).

Then the Shaikh was asked: How do we deal with them? He replied: Answer: If dealing with them is with regards to a worldly affair—business transactions and what is similar to that— it is permissible to trade with a Jew, a Christian and a Rafidi. However, as for co-operating with them in issues of religion, no. [وَلَا تَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى ٱلۡإِثۡمِ وَٱلۡعُدۡوَٲنِ‌ۚ – Do not help one another in sin and transgression. [5:2] Instead, their scholars and callers are boycotted and they are warned against. [18]

It is evident, upon careful consideration of the preceding facts, that the so-called Islamic revival in Iran under Khomeini was, in truth, a mere Rafidah revolution. This upheaval elevated the Rafidah and their beliefs, which diverge significantly from true Islam. Khomeini and his fellow Rafidah leaders can be characterized as disbelievers and heretics. Allow me to elaborate:

Ayat Al-Shaytan Khomeini: Seeking Aid From the Dead (And Stones and Mud) Is Not Shirk

http://www.ikhwanis.com/articles/jmfhm-ayat-al-shaytan-khomeini-seeking-aid-from-the-dead-is-not-shirk.cfm

Reality of The Rafidah – By Al-Allaamah Salih Al-Fawzan and Al-Allamah Rabee

Footnote a:
http://www.shia.bs/series/the-founder-of-the-shia-sect-is-abdullah-bin-saba-al-yahudi.cfm

Footnote b:
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles/oeotc-glimpses-into-the-splitting-of-the-muslim-ummah-part-1.cfm
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles/vqlrf-the-splitting-of-the-muslim-ummah-part-2.cfm
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles/hxnhe-the-splitting-of-the-muslim-ummah-part-3.cfm
https://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles/flqoi-the-splitting-of-the-muslim-ummah-part-4.cfm

Footnote c:

http://www.shia.bs/series/doctrines-of-the-shia-from-their-own-words-and-books.cfm

http://www.shia.bs/articles/tyxepnv-a-glimpse-upon-core-rafidi-doctrines-the-devils-deception-of-the-shia.cfm

The Devil’s Deception Of The Rafidah Shi’ah — Know Their Beliefs From Their Own Source References

http://www.shia.bs/articles/tzwqsen-the-virtues-of-aaishah-al-siddiqah-daughter-of-abu-bakr-part-1.cfm

http://www.shia.bs/articles/bjjffuj-the-virtues-of-aaishah-al-siddiqah-daughter-of-abu-bakr-part-2.cfm

http://www.shia.bs/articles/hofiyav-the-virtues-of-aaishah-al-siddiqah-daughter-of-abu-bakr-part-3.cfm


[1] Al-Jawab As-Sahih 1/107-108]

[2] Juhud Al-Ulama Al-Hanafiyyah Fee Ibtal Aqaa’id Al-Quburiyyeen 1/19-25

[3] An Excerpt from Ilhaadul Khumeini Fee Ardil Haramayn. Pages 125-140

[4] Al Ajwibah Al Mukhtasar Alaa As’la Al-Ashrah. p.43-44

[5] As-Sunnah 2/548 By Abdullah Ibn Imam Ahmad

[6]Al-Ibanah As-Sughra page 161 By Ibn Battah

[7] Al-Ibanah As-Sughra 162 and As-Sunnah 1/493 by Al-Khallal

[8] Sharh Usul Al-Ittiqad 7/1268-1269

[9] Sharh Usul Al-Ittiqad 4/733

[10] Sharh Usul al-Ittiqad 8/1457

[11] Sharh Usul Itiqad 8/1457

[12] As-Sunnah 1/499 by Al-Khallal

[13] Sharh Usul Al-Ittiqad 8/459

[14] Al-Kifayah 49

[15] Sharh Usul Al-Ittiqad 1/178

[16] Sharh al-Sunnah. 54

[17] Talbis Iblis. 136-137

[18] Adh-Dhari’ah ilaa Bayan Maqasid Kitab Ash-Shariah 3/595

The current discussion among some Muslims about Ath’thaqafah

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Some very important points not to overlook in discussions among some Muslims about Ath’thaqafah (culture and cultural reformation) in Africa and other places

Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, said that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “The most hated people to Allah are three: a person who deviates from right conduct [i.e. an evil doer] in the Haram [sanctuaries of Makkah and Madinah]; a person who seeks that the traditions of the pre-Islamic era Period of Ignorance should remain in Islam and a person who seeks to shed somebody’s blood without any right”.

Al-Allamah Zaid Bin Hadi Al-Mad’khali, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

These three deeds are from the major sins. The first major sin is Al-Ilhad Fil Haram [i.e. deviating from right conduct in the sanctuaries of Makkah and Madinah]. Ilhad means to deviate from the truth [and enter into] falsehood, and supporting falsehood in order to obliterate the truth. Allah [The Mighty and Majestic] censured the Mulhideen Fil Haram [i.e. those who deviate from right conduction in the sanctuaries of Makkah and Madinah], saying: [وَمَن يُرِدۡ فِيهِ بِإِلۡحَادِۭ بِظُلۡمٍ۬ نُّذِقۡهُ مِنۡ عَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ۬ – And whoever intends evil actions therein or to do wrong (i.e. practice polytheism and leave Islamic Monotheism), We shall make him taste a painful torment]. [Surah Al-Hajj. 25]

Allah promised them [a severe punishment] due to the mere fact they intend evil actions therein [i.e. in the sanctuaries of Makkah and Madinah], then how about perpetrating such deed! Indeed that would be a more severe sin, a more frightening state and a more severe punishment. This is a proof regarding the virtue of the sanctuaries of the Haram- that it is a sacred land chosen by Allah and He made it a place where virtuous acts of worship are performed, [such as] the Hajj which is one of the pillars of Islam. Allah gave this place virtues that cannot be enumerated, such as the increased reward attached to good deeds [performed in Makkah and Madinah] and gave this land virtue over all other lands of the earth.

The second major sin is committed by the person who wants that the pre-Islamic traditions should remain in Islam, as if he gives precedence to the pre-Islamic traditions – the evil customs that were followed during that period and the misguided deeds- over the Islamic practices, Iman, Ihsan, their virtue and virtue of the Sunnah. He is guilty of committing a major sin, and this includes giving precedence to Bidah over [the authentic] Sunnah that guides to the straight path.

The third major sin is to seek to shed somebody’s blood without any right – meaning: seeking to shed the blood of a Muslim without right and doing so based on oppression and animosity. Shedding the blood of a Muslim is a great crime, just as the Prophet said, “The extinction of the whole world is less significant to Allah than killing a Muslim [i.e. unlawfully]”. And he, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, stated regarding the rights of the Ka’bah, “How great you are and how great is your sanctity! But the sanctity of a believer is greater than yours in the sight of Allah”. It is not permissible to transgress against the Muslims and the believers – males and females- in the sanctuaries of [Makkah and Madinah] or in other places due to the great sin and punishment which results from that. [1]

Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzaan, may Allah preserve him, said:

Indeed, (acts and beliefs) that are tantamount to ascribing partners to Allah have become rife in this Ummah due to the people being distanced from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, blindly following their forefathers without guidance, exaggerating the status of the dead people (i.e. either pious people or those whom they consider being pious), building (shrines and tombs over their) graves, and being ignorant of the (true) Islam which Allah commanded His Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] to convey, as Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “Verily, the (firm) foundations of Islam will be destroyed one after the other when there arises in Islam a people who do not know what Jahiliyyah is [i.e. the acts and beliefs that were prevalent during the pre-Islamic era]; and due to the spread of Shubhah [doubts that are made to resemble the truth but are falsehood in reality] and stories that have misguided the majority of the people. One of these [Shubhah- doubts made to resemble the truth but are falsehood in reality] is what the people of Shirk of the past and those in this Ummah – at present – utilise as proof that they follow the path of their fathers and ancestors, and that they inherited this creed [i.e. polytheistic beliefs and practices] from them, as Allah [The Exalted] said:

وَكَذَٲلِكَ مَآ أَرۡسَلۡنَا مِن قَبۡلِكَ فِى قَرۡيَةٍ۬ مِّن نَّذِيرٍ إِلَّا قَالَ مُتۡرَفُوهَآ إِنَّا وَجَدۡنَآ ءَابَآءَنَا عَلَىٰٓ أُمَّةٍ۬ وَإِنَّا عَلَىٰٓ ءَاثَـٰرِهِم مُّقۡتَدُونَ

And similarly, We sent not a warner before you (O Muhammad) to any town (people) but the luxurious ones among them said: “We found our fathers following a certain way and religion, and we will indeed follow their footsteps”. [Az-Zukhruf Ayah 23]

Everyone unable to establish proof for his claim returns to this proof, even though it is useless proof that does not carry any weight in (sound) discussion because those ancestors they blindly follow were not upon (upright) guidance. Therefore, whoever (follows this path), it is not permissible to follow and take him as an example. Allah [The Most High] said: [أَوَلَوۡ كَانَ ءَابَآؤُهُمۡ لَا يَعۡلَمُونَ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا وَلَا يَہۡتَدُونَ – Even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever and no guidance]. [Al-Ma’idah. 104]

Allah [The Exalted] said: [أَوَلَوۡ كَانَ ءَابَآؤُهُمۡ لَا يَعۡقِلُونَ شَيۡـًٔ۬ا وَلَا يَهۡتَدُونَ – Even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided?] [Al-Baqarah. 170]

Following ancestors is only praiseworthy if they were upon the truth. Allah [The Most High] said that Yusuf, peace be upon him, said:

وَٱتَّبَعۡتُ مِلَّةَ ءَابَآءِىٓ إِبۡرَٲهِيمَ وَإِسۡحَـٰقَ وَيَعۡقُوبَ‌ۚ مَا كَانَ لَنَآ أَن نُّشۡرِكَ بِٱللَّهِ مِن شَىۡءٍ۬‌ۚ ذَٲلِكَ مِن فَضۡلِ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيۡنَا وَعَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَڪۡثَرَ ٱلنَّاسِ لَا يَشۡكُرُونَ

And I have followed the religion of my fathers, – Ibrahim (Abraham), Ishaque (Isaac), and Ya’qub (Jacob), and never could we attribute any partners whatsoever to Allah. This is from the Grace of Allah to us and to mankind, but most men thank not (i.e. they neither believe in Allah nor worship Him). [Surah Yusuf’ Ayah 38]

Allah [The Most High] said: [وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَٱتَّبَعَتۡہُمۡ ذُرِّيَّتُہُم بِإِيمَـٰنٍ أَلۡحَقۡنَا بِہِمۡ – And those who believe and whose offspring follow them in Faith, to them shall We join their offspring [i.e. in paradise]. [Al-Tur. 21] [2]

Imam Ash-Shatibee, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated that customs are many different types- some are good and others are corrupt. The good customs are those that neither oppose the Shariah texts nor lead to losing an affair deemed to be beneficial by the Shariah, nor lead to an affair that the Shariah deems to be corrupt. As for the corrupt customs, they are those that oppose the evidence in the Shariah or some of the principles of the Shariah, such as some of the customary dealings in usury and those deeds deemed to be evil by the Shariah which the people engage in during occasions of happiness (or rejoicing, etc). [3]

Imam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: It is obligated on every Muslim that he does not depend on custom; rather he presents it to the pure Islamic legislation [to be judged], so whatever the Islamic legislation affirms is permissible and whatever it does not affirm is impermissible. The customs of the people are not proof to determine the lawfulness of anything. All the customs of the people in their countries or tribes must be presented to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] for judgment, so whatever Allah and His Messenger made permissible is permissible, and whatever they forbid, then it is obligatory to abandon it even if it is the custom of the people. [4]

Imam Muhammad Bin Salih Al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: The customs cannot make something that is not legislated (in the divine revelation) as something legislated, because of Allah’s statement:

[وَلَيۡسَ ٱلۡبِرُّ بِأَن تَأۡتُواْ ٱلۡبُيُوتَ مِن ظُهُورِهَا – It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, etc.) that you enter the houses from the back] [Surah Al-Baqarah. Ayah 189], even though it was something they took as their custom and considered it to be an act of righteousness. Whoever takes something as a custom and believes that it is an act of righteousness, then it should be presented to Allah’s divine legislation. [5]

Imam Muhammad Bin Salih Al-Uthaymeen, may Allah have mercy upon him, also said: Extremism about customs is stringent adherence to old customs and not diverting to what is better than them. If the customs are equal in benefit [i.e. the ones judged to be permissible by the divine legislation], then a person remaining upon what he is upon would be better than going along with the new (or emerging) customs. [6]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: Hardship is only encountered by the one who abandons the Ma’loofaat and Awaa’id [i.e. those habitual things, deeds, practices, customs etc] for other than the sake of Allah. As for the one who abandons them truthfully and sincerely from the bottom of his heart- for the sake of Allah alone- then indeed he does not encounter any difficulty due to abandoning them except in the beginning, in order that he is tested as to whether he is truthful or untruthful in abandoning them? If he exercises a little bit of patience, its [i.e. that abandonment] will alternate into pleasure. Ibn Seereen said that he heard Shurayh swearing by Allah that “A servant does not abandon anything for the sake of Allah and finds a loss in that.” And their statement [i.e. the people of knowledge] that ‘whoever abandons something for the Sake of Allah, Allah will replace it with what is better.” This is true. This compensation is of different types and the best of that which a person is compensated with is: the desire and yearning to get close to Allah, seeking after Allah’s pleasure, love of Allah, and the heart granted-by way of it- tranquility, strength, enthusiasm, happiness and being pleased with its Lord [The Most High]. [7]

The Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

I have left you with two matters; you will not go astray as long as you hold fast to them: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet. [Al-Muwatta 2/899]

The Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

The devil has despaired of being worshipped in your land (i.e. The Arabian Peninsula); however, he is content to be obeyed in other matters that you may consider trivial in your actions. Therefore, be cautious. I have left witrh you that which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet”. [Sahih at-Targhib 40]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Whoever ponders upon the state of affairs of the world will find that every affair of rectification is due to Tawheed, singling out Allah in worship and obedience to His Messenger (Muhammad). And every evil in the world, trial, affliction, scarcity (in livelihood), being overpowered by an enemy and other than that is due to (our) opposition to the Messenger and the call to other than (the way of) Allah and His Messenger. Whoever truly ponders upon this and examines the state of affairs of the world- since its beginning and until the time Allah will take it away and those upon it- he will realise this affair regarding himself and others, in general and specific (circumstances). And there is no Might or Power except with Allah –The Most High, The Most Great. [Badaa’i Al-Fawa’id 3/525-526]

Imam Al-Lalaka’ee, may Allah have mercy upon him said:

Indeed, the most obligated matter to a person is to understand the creed of the religion and that which Allah has imposed on His servants regarding the comprehension of His oneness and attributes; the affirmation of (belief) in His Messengers (and what they have conveyed) through evidence and certainty, the means to access its paths and using them for proofs and evidences. The mightiest of statements and the clearest evidence is the Book of Allah, the unequivocal truth, followed by the sayings of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and his righteous companions, then that which the pious predecessors agreed upon (consensus) and then adherence to all of them until the Day of Judgment, while avoiding Bidah and not lending an ear to it, which has been initiated by the misguided ones.

These inherited and followed advices- preserved and transmitted narrations (on creed, worship, methodology, manners, dealings etc) established paths of truth, well-known and evident proofs, and compelling arguments that were acted upon by the companions and their successors, as well as by both the distinguished men of piety and their folk among the Muslims, were held as belief by them- as proof between them and Allah, the Lord of the worlds. Furthermore, those who emulate them among the guided Imams and those adherents who followed in their footsteps, striving to follow the path of the pious, are counted among those who are truly righteous and the good doers. Those who embark on such a path and consistently adhere to these proofs in accordance with the path of the Shariah will find security in their religion in both this life and the hereafter, and will hold firmly to the trustworthy handhold -(none has the right to be worshipped except Allah) – that will never break. [8]

Imam Al-Hasan al-Basri, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

I swear by the One (Allah) besides whom there is no deity worthy of worship but Him! The Sunnah is between the extremes of those who are excessive and those who are neglectful. Therefore, be patient upon it (the Sunnah) – may Allah have mercy on you- for the people of the Sunnah were the fewest among the people in the past, and they remained the fewest among those who remained. Neither did they go along with the excessive ones in their excesses nor with the proponents of Bidah in their Bidah, while remaining steadfast in their adherence to the Sunnah until they met their Lord. Thus, if Allah wills, let it be the same for you. [9]

Imam Muhammad Ibn Sirin, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

They (the pious predecessors) held as their belief that the right path is what is based on the authentic narrations of the Prophet and his companions. [10]

Imam Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, may Allah have mercy on him, stated:

Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and the leaders who succeeded him (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali) established matters based on the pure revelation; adhering to them is an affirmation of Allah’s Book (the Qur’an), complete obedience to Allah, and strength in the religion ordained by Allah. No one has the authority to alter or change these practices, nor substitute them in opposition. Whoever follows these practices is rightly guided, and he who seeks assistance will be assisted (through them). Whoever opposes them and pursues a path other than that of the believers (the companions of the Prophet), Allah will leave him to what he has chosen and cast him into Hell, and what an evil destination. [11]

Imam Az-Zuhri, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

Those who preceded us among our scholars used to say: “Adhering to the Sunnah is salvation and that knowledge is rapidly taken away. The presence of knowledge is the stability of both the religion and worldly affairs, and with the loss of knowledge follows the loss of all of that (i.e. the emergence of corruption).” [12]

Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Whoever introduces a bidah in Islam and considers it to be good, he has implied that Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has betrayed his mission. This is because Allah says:[اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم – “This day I have perfected your religion for you]. Therefore, anything that was not part of the religion at that time cannot be considered part of the religion today. [13]

Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Whoever becomes acquainted with the path of truth, it has been made easy for him to follow. And there is no proof for adhering to the path of Allah except through emulating the Messenger, peace be upon him, in his conduct, statements, and deeds.” [14]

Ibn Ataa, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Whoever commits himself to the etiquettes of the Sunnah, Allah will illuminate their heart with the light of knowledge, and there is no status more noble than following the beloved (Prophet) in His commands, actions, and manners.” [15]

Imam Ibn Abi Al-Izz, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Acts of worship are to be based on the authentic Sunnah, neither vain desires nor Bidah”. [16]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Whoever adheres to the Book and the Sunnah, distancing himself from his vain desires and that of others, and turns to Allah with his heart, he is truthful and upon what is correct”. [17]

Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Whoever abandons the evidence will stray from the path, and there is no evidence except that which has been brought forth by the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him”. [18]

Saudi King Abdul Azeez Bin Abdir-Rahman, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The foundation of the Islamic Creed is the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] and that which the Sahabah were upon; then the pious predecessors after them, and then after them the four Imams of the Muslims- Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad and Imam Abu Hanifah. The creed of these people is one in the foundation of the religion and that is the three categories of Tawheed- the Oneness of Allah in His Lordship, the Oneness of Allah in that He (alone) has the right to be worshipped and His Oneness in His Names and Attributes”.

It is obligatory that we adhere to the Rope of Allah  [i.e. the Qur’an, Sunnah etc] and that which the Salafus Saaleh [pious predecessors] were upon. If we adhere to this, we will be callers to Allah  [i.e. Callers to Tawheed, the Sunnah and everything Allah has commanded], establish our affairs based on what Allah has revealed, speak and establish our economic affairs based on Taqwaa [i.e. fear of Allah by fulfilling everything Allah has commanded and keeping away from everything Allah has forbidden], so that Allah may show us kindness. However, if we do not do so and we are abandoned to our own selves, then we might become like what Ali  [may Allah be pleased with him] that Allah said: [نَسُوا اللَّهَ فَنَسِيَهُمْ – They have forgotten Allah, so He has forgotten them]”. [Al-Anfal. 67]

O Muslims! It is obligatory that we hold onto the Rope of Allah (i.e. the Qur’an), follow the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger Muhammad [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him], follow the guidance of the Messenger, act on Allah’s orders and keep away from what Allah has forbidden. Indeed, every speech that is not followed by action is false. There can be no rectification for the Muslims except through their unity upon singling out their Lord in [His Lordship, Names and Attributes and worshipping Him alone and associate none to Him as a partner in Worship]. And during every differing that leads to splitting and division, the Religion commands us to hold onto Allah’s Shariah, enjoin one another with the truth and patience, just as Allah [The Most High] commanded us in the Qur’an. We should be truly acquainted with our Lord and seek His Aid and Assistance. We do not fear except the (consequences of) our sins and it is obligated on the Muslims to follow Allah’s Religion and obey all that Allah has ordered, practically. In this is the (means of) rectifying their worldly affairs and the upright establishment of all their (other) affairs”.

Deeds that are in opposition to the Shariah can never be beneficial for anyone and all harm (is found) in following other than the foundation brought by our Prophet Muhammad [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him].

Indeed, the progress and advancement of the Muslims is among those affairs we (pursue) – we call to it by the will of Allah. (However), there cannot be advancement for the Muslims without a return to their religion, adherence to their sound creed and holding onto the Rope of Allah (i.e. the Qur’an and the Sunnah). The path towards this is clear and provided for the one who wants to follow it, and that is to single out Allah in worship – to be free from shirk and bidah- and act on that which the religion has commanded us, for indeed there is no benefit in speech if not (accompanied) by action. [19]

Saudi Imam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz [may Allah have mercy upon him] said:

The latter part of this Muslim nation will not be rectified except through that which rectified its early part”, just as the people of knowledge and sound faith have stated. This is a statement of Imam Malik [may Allah have mercy upon him]- the well-known scholar of sound understanding and piety. Many other people of knowledge reported this statement during and after his era and they all agreed that the latter part of this Muslim nation will not be rectified except by way of that which rectified its earlier part. This means that the path followed by its earlier generations -the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His noble Messenger – is what will rectify its future generations until the Day of Judgement. The one who wishes to rectify an Islamic society or any other society in this worldly life through other than the path and practical steps that rectified those who have preceded, then such a person is mistaken and has spoken untruth. There is no path other than the path (of the Messenger and his companions). The only path of rectification and uprightness is the one that was followed by our Prophet and his noble companions, and then those who follow them exactly in righteousness till this era of ours. And this necessitates:

-To give close attention to the Great Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger and convey them to the people.

-To acquire understanding of the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah and convey both of them with knowledge and clear-sightedness.

-To clarify the rulings found in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, including – first and foremost – the sound creed and the views that must be accepted by the Islamic society. On the other hand, one should clarify the forbidden creeds and views that are to be avoided.

-To clarify the boundaries of Halaal and Haraam that have been legislated by Allah and His Messenger, so that they are not violated. Allah [The Mighty and Majestic] said: [تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ فَلَا تَقْرَبُوهَا – These are the limits (set) by Allah, so approach them not] [Al-Baqarah. 187]

These limits are the unlawful deeds forbidden by Allah because they lead to sins. And just as Allah forbade mankind from going beyond the boundaries of Halaal and Haraam, He also legislated acts of worship and rulings in the religion. [20]

Imam Abu Shamah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “When the command to adhere to the Jamaa’ah (the main body) is (mentioned), then the intent behind it is to adhere to the truth, even if those who follow it are few and those who oppose it are numerous. That is because the truth is that which the first Jamaa’ah was upon- the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] and his companions [may Allah be pleased with them]- and one does not give consideration to the numerous people of falsehood”. [21]

Imam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Let every Muslim be careful of being deceived by the great numbers [of people upon such and such idea, view, belief, way of life, etc], whilst saying, “Indeed, the people have become such and such, and have become accustomed to such and such, so I am with them”. This is a great calamity, for indeed many people of the past were destroyed due to this [i.e. blindly following the majority]. Therefore, O sensible one! It is obligated on you to examine yourself; take account of yourself and adhere to the truth, even if the people abandon it. Beware of what Allaah has forbidden, even if the people do it, for indeed the truth is more worthy of being followed, just as Allaah [The Most High] said:

[وَإِنْ تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّه ِ -And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah’s Path. [Surah Al An-aam Ayah 116]

And Allah [The Most High] said: [ وَمَآ أَڪۡثَرُ ٱلنَّاسِ وَلَوۡ حَرَصۡتَ بِمُؤۡمِنِينَ-And most of mankind will not believe even if you desire it eagerly]. [Surah Yusuf Ayah 103] [22]

Al-Allamah Muqbil Bin Hadi Al-Waadi’ee, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

If numbers are the scale by way of which you judge, then the majority are mostly blameworthy; and if persuasive speech and eloquence is the scale by way of which you judge, then indeed Allah described the Munaafiqoon that they have tongues that utter beautiful speech. Allah said: [وَإِن يَقُولُواْ تَسۡمَعۡ لِقَوۡلِهِمۡ – And when they speak, you listen to their words]. [Al-Munaafiqoon. 4]

Therefore, what is given consideration is that one knows the people of truth by their characteristics – that they call to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, his family, and companions], and they neither desire reward from the people nor seeking to be thanked. [23]

Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, may Allah preserve him, stated:

A large number of people around a person is not proof that such a person is virtuous because some of the Prophets were only followed by a few people. “A Prophet will come on the day of judgment with a few followers and a Prophet will come with no followers”. [Bukhaari 5705]. Therefore, does this mean that such a Prophet is not virtuous? Absolutely not! A person does not look at the large number of people who are present because the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] said to Ali, “If Allah gives guidance to a single man through you, it is better for you than possessing red camels”. [Bukhaari 3009]

The Shaikh, may Allah preserve him, also stated, “Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah is not harmed by those who oppose them. If you are with them- all praise is due to Allah, they are pleased with this because indeed they want good for the people. If you oppose them, you cannot harm them and due to this the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “There will not cease to be a group of my Ummah who will be manifest upon the truth- not harmed by those who forsake them until the command of Allah comes to pass (i.e. the day of judgment) whilst they are (still) upon that (truth)”. The one in opposition does not harm except himself. What is given consideration is not the great numbers; rather what is given consideration is to agree with the truth, even if a small number of people were upon it. And even if in some eras there is only one person (upon truth), then he is the one upon truth and he is the Jamaa’ah. The Jamaa’ah does not necessitate great numbers; rather the Jamaa’ah is what is in agreement with the truth – in agreement with the Book and the Sunnah, even if those upon it are few. However, if many come together and (upon) truth, then – all praise is due to Allah- this is strength. But if the majority oppose it (i.e. the truth), then we side with the truth even if only a few are upon it”. [24]

Al-Allamah Ahmad Bin Yahyah An-Najmi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Know that the truth is that what (has been revealed by) Allah and (given to) His Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him in the Book and the Sunnah, even if its adherents and those who embrace it are few. What is conveyed in the Islamic legislation is the truth one is commanded to follow, even if the majority of the people free themselves from it and those who follow it are few. Allah stated:

ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَاكَ عَلَىٰ شَرِيعَةٍ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ فَاتَّبِعْهَا وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
إِنَّهُمْ لَنْ يُغْنُوا عَنْكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا ۚ وَإِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ ۖ وَاللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ

Then We have put you (O Muhammad) on a plain way of (Our) commandment [like the one which We commanded Our Messengers before you (i.e. legal ways and laws of the Islamic Monotheism)]. So follow you that (Islamic Monotheism and its laws), and follow not the desires of those who know not. Verily, they can avail you nothing against Allah (if He wants to punish you). Verily, the Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, etc.) are Auliya’ (protectors, helpers, etc.) to one another, but Allah is the Wali (Helper, Protector, etc.) of the Muttaqun (pious). [Al-Jaathiya. 18-19]

Therefore, O slave of Allah! Be eager to follow the truth, follow the straight path and the path of early pious predecessors- the companions of the Messenger, and do not feel lonely due to the small numbers of those who follow it and the large numbers of those who oppose it, for indeed Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was an Imaam on his own and with Allah lies all success. [25]

Read article by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him:

The State of the Ummah: Causes that led to its Weakness and the Means of Rectification (eBook)

We ask Allah:

اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ الثَّبَاتَ فِي الْأَمْرِ، وَالْعَزِيمَةَ عَلَى الرُّشْدِ

O Allah! Indeed, I ask You for steadfastness in this affair (regarding sound adherence to the religion) and firm resolve to adhere to the path of guidance. [26]

اللّهُـمَّ رَبَّ جِـبْرائيل ، وَميكـائيل ، وَإِسْـرافيل، فاطِـرَ السَّمواتِ وَالأَرْض ، عالـِمَ الغَيْـبِ وَالشَّهـادَةِ أَنْـتَ تَحْـكمُ بَيْـنَ عِبـادِكَ فيـما كانوا فيهِ يَخْتَلِفـون. اهدِنـي لِمـا اخْتُـلِفَ فيـهِ مِنَ الْحَـقِّ بِإِذْنِك ، إِنَّـكَ تَهْـدي مَنْ تَشـاءُ إِلى صِراطٍ مُسْتَقـيم

O Allah! Lord of Jibraa’eel, Meekaa’eel, and Israafeel, Creator of the heavens and the Earth, The Knower of the seen and the unseen. You judge between Your slaves regarding in that which they differ. Guide me to the truth regarding that in which there is differing, by Your Will. Verily, You guide whomever you will to the straight path. [27]

اللَّهُمَّ بِعِلْمِكَ الْغَيْبَ وَقُدْرَتِكَ عَلَى الْخَلْقِ أَحْيِنِي مَا عَلِمْتَ الْحَيَاةَ خَيْراً لِي وَتَوَفَّنِي إِذَا عَلِمْتَ الْوَفَاةَ خَيْراً لِي، اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ خَشْيَتَكَ فِي الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ كَلِمَةَ الْحَقِّ فِي الرِّضَا وَالْغَضَبِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ الْقَصْدَ فِي الْغِنَى وَالْفَقْرِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ نَعِيماً لَا يَنْفَذُ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ قُرَّةَ عَيْنٍ لَا تَنْقَطِعُ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ الرِّضِا بَعْدَ الْقَضَاءِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ بَرْدَ الْعَيْشِ بَعْدَ الْمَوْتِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ لَذَّةَ النَّظَرِ إِلَى وَجْهِكَ وَالشَّوْقَ إِلَى لِقَائِكَ فِي غَيْرِ ضَرَّاءَ مُضِرَّةٍ وَلَا فِتْنَةٍ مُضِلَّةٍ، اللَّهُمَّ زَيِّنَّا بِزِينَةِ الْإِيمَانِ
وَاجْعَلْنَا هُدَاةً مُهْتَدِينَ

O Allah! By Your Knowledge of the unseen and by Your Power over creation, let me live if life is good for me, and let me die if death is good for me; O Allah! I ask You to grant me (the blessing of having) fear of You in private and public, and I ask You (to make me utter) a statement of truth in times of contentment and anger, and I ask You for moderation when in a state of wealth and poverty, and I ask you for blessings that never ceases, and I ask You for the coolness of my eye that never ends, and I ask You (to make me pleased) after (Your) decree; and I ask You for a life of (ease, comfort, tranquillity, etc) after death; I ask You for the delight of looking at Your Face (i.e. in the Hereafter) and yearning to meet You without any harm and misleading trials (coming upon me). O Allah! Adorn us with the adornment of Iman, and make us (from those who are) guided and guiding (others). [29]

اللَّهُمَّ أَصْلِحْ لِي دِينِي الَّذِي هُوَ عِصْمَةُ أَمْرِي
وَأَصْلِحْ لِي دُنْيَايَ الَّتِي فِيهَا مَعَاشِي
وَأَصْلِحْ لِي آخِرَتِي الَّتِي فِيهَا مَعَادِي
وَاجْعَلِ الْحَيَاةَ زِيَادَةً لِي فِي كُلِّ خَيْرٍ
وَاجْعَلِ الْمَوْتَ رَاحَةً لِي مِنْ كُلِّ شَرٍّ

O Allah! Rectify my religion for me, which is the safeguard of my affairs; rectify my worldly [affairs], wherein is my livelihood; and rectify my Afterlife to which is my return; and make life for me [as a means of] increase in every good and make death for me as a rest from every evil. [29]


[ 1]: at-Taleeqaat Al-Maleehah Alaa Silsilah Al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah. 1/429-430

[2] Muhaadaraat Fil Aqeedah Wad-Da’wah’ page 18-20

[3]Al-Muwaafaqaat 2/283

[4]Majmoo Al-Fataawas 6/510

[5]Tafseer Surah Al-Baqarah 2/299

[6]Majmoo Al-Fataawaa 7/7

[7] Al-Fawaa’id page 166

[8] Sharh Usul Al-Ittiqad Ahl As-Sunnah Wal Jama’ah 1/7

[9] Ighatha Al-Lahfan 1/70

[10] Sunan Ad-Darimi 1/66

[11] Ighatha Al-Lahfan 1/159

[12] Al-Darimi 1/5

[13] Al-I’tisam 1/28

[14] Madarij As-Salikin 2/486

[15] Madarij As-Salikin 2/486

[16] Majmoo Al-Fatawa 4/170 (Ibn Taymiyyah)

[17] Madarij As-Salikin 2/487

[18] Miftah Dar As-Sa’adah 1/85

[19] An Excerpt from  “Haqeeqah Manhaj Al-Mamlakah Al-Arabiyyah As-Su’oodiyyah”. Pages 26-33]

[20] An Excerpt from ‘Awaamil Islaah Al-Mujtama’ah pages 1-2]

[21] Al-Baa’ith Alaa Inkaaril Bid’ah Wal-Hawaadith’ page 22

[22] An Excerpt from ‘Majmoo Al-Fataawaa 12/ 412

[23] قم المعاند – 2/547

[24] An Excerpt from ( لمحة عن الفرق الضالة )– pages 14 -15

[25] An Excerpt from Irshaad As-Saaree Fee Sharh Sunnah Lil-Barbahaaree page: 47

[26] Irwaa al-Ghaleel 1/115

[27] Saheeh Muslim 770

[28] As-Saheehah Number 1301

[29] Sahih Muslim. 2720]

Contextual Integrity at Risk

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah, The Most High, said:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٲمِينَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ شُہَدَآءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِكُمۡ أَوِ ٱلۡوَٲلِدَيۡنِ وَٱلۡأَقۡرَبِينَ‌ۚ إِن يَكُنۡ غَنِيًّا أَوۡ فَقِيرً۬ا فَٱللَّهُ أَوۡلَىٰ بِہِمَا‌ۖ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ ٱلۡهَوَىٰٓ أَن تَعۡدِلُواْ‌ۚ وَإِن تَلۡوُ ۥۤاْ أَوۡ تُعۡرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرً۬ا

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah; even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do. [An-Nisaa. 135]

[وَإِن تَلۡوُ ۥۤاْ أَوۡ تُعۡرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرً۬ا – and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do]- meaning, Allah [Glorified be He and free is He from all imperfections] mentions two reasons that will inevitably lead to concealment of truth then He warned against them and issued a threat: the first of them is distortion and the second is to turn away from giving truthful witness. That is because when a proof that supports the truth is manifested and the one who wants to repel it finds no way of doing so, he refrains from mentioning it and thus becomes a silent devil, and sometimes he distorts it. Distortion is of two types -distorting words and meanings. Distorting words occur when one utters a word in a context in which it does not establish the truth – either adding to the word, omitting something from it, or substituting it with something else to the extent that the listener is made to believe something, whilst something else is intended, just as the Yahood [i.e. those Yahood who disbelieved in the Prophet and hated him in Madeenah] used to distort words when giving Salaam to the Prophet [i.e. saying As-Saamu Alayka (death be upon you), instead of saying Assalaamu alaykum)]. This is one type of distortion. The second type of distortion is related to meanings – distorting the wording, giving it an interpretation that is not intended by the one who uttered it and pretending not to know its unintended meaning; or dropping other meanings intended by it. Allah [The Exalted] said: [وَإِن تَلۡوُ ۥۤاْ أَوۡ تُعۡرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرً۬ا – and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do] [1]

Beware of kadhib, as it corrupts one’s ability to teach people as well as one ability to illustrate information based on how it should actually be. The liar presents what is present as something non-existent and what is non-existent as something present; misrepresents the truth as being something false and falsehood as being something true; misrepresents the good and the evil, so he corrupts his conception and knowledge, which subsequently results in his punishment. Then he portrays what is not true to the one who has been duped by him – the one who is drawn to him – and therefore corrupts his conception and knowledge.

The soul of the liar turns away from existing reality, preferring the non-existent, and falsehood. And when his conception and knowledge is corrupted, which is the basis of every wilfully chosen deed, his deeds become corrupt and marked by lies, so those deeds would emanate from him just as lies emanate from the tongue- neither benefits from his tongue nor his deeds (i.e. in relation to the specific affair). Because of this, lying serves as the foundation of immorality, as the Prophet [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him] said, “Indeed, lies lead to immorality (or wickedness), and indeed, immorality (or wickedness) leads to the fire.” [Bukhaari 2606/2607]

Lies first emerge from the heart and then on the tongue, corrupting it; then they transfer to the limbs and corrupt their deeds, just as they corrupt statements of the tongue. As a result, lying prevails over his utterances, deeds, and state of affairs; corruption gets deeply ingrained in him, and its disease leads to destruction if Allah does not grant him recovery with the medication of truthfulness, which uproots the source (or basis) of the lies. This is why the basis of all deeds of the heart is truthfulness, and the basis of their opposites is lies, such as boasting, self-amazement, pride, being glad (with ungratefulness to Allah’s Favours), conceitedness, boastfulness, insolence, weakness, laziness, cowardice, disgrace, and others.

Every righteous deed, whether done privately or publicly, is founded on truthfulness. And the source of every corrupt deed, whether private or public, is lies. Allah punishes the liar by preventing him (i.e. due to his own chosen evil) from those things that will bring him well-being and benefit, while He rewards the truthful one by granting him the ability to attain the beneficial things of the worldly life and Afterlife. There is nothing comparable to truthfulness in terms of how it brings about the affairs of well-being in this life and the next, and there is nothing comparable to lying in terms of how it corrupts and harms one’s worldly and Afterlife affairs.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَكُونُوا مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ

O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah, and be with those who are true (in words and deeds) [9:119]

هَٰذَا يَوْمُ يَنْفَعُ الصَّادِقِينَ صِدْقُهُمْ ۚ

This is a Day on which the truthful will profit from their truth. [5:119]

فَإِذَا عَزَمَ الْأَمْرُ فَلَوْ صَدَقُوا اللَّهَ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ

And when the matter (preparation for Jihad) is resolved on, then if they had been true to Allah, it would have been better for them. [47:21] [2]

Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

It is incumbent that the expression conveys the intended meaning through the appropriate terminology. Should the term be explicit or evident, the objective is achieved. However, if the term possesses dual interpretations—one valid and the other erroneous—the intended meaning must be clarified. In instances where the term suggests a flawed interpretation, it should only be employed with an explanation that mitigates any potential misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the term may mislead certain listeners into grasping an incorrect meaning, it should not be used if it is known to carry such implications, as the primary aim of communication is clarity and understanding. Conversely, if the term accurately reflects the intended meaning but some individuals remain unaware of its significance without any negligence on the speaker’s part, the responsibility lies with the listener, not the speaker”. [3]

Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The basis of Banee Adam’s misguidance stems from ‘General Terms’ and ‘Ambiguous Meanings’ (terms, meanings, statements) that can be interpreted as either truth or falsehood when not clearly defined). This issue is exacerbated when they interact with a confused mind, particularly when coupled with misguided desires and enthusiasm. Thus, seek the guidance of the One who stabilises hearts, asking Allah to strengthen your heart in His Religion and protect you from falling into this darkness”. [4]

He, may Allah have mercy upon him, also said:

“If the speaker falls short in his clarification and addresses the listener with vague terms that may encompass various interpretations, and the listener remains uncertain of the intended meaning; if this arises from the speaker’s inability, the listener is given from the speaker’s inability rather than his intent. If the speaker possesses the ability and he does not do so while it is obligated to him to do so, he gives the listener from his evil intent”. [5] [end of quotes]

The violations of the aforementioned clarifications is evidently observable on social media. Certain deceivers on social media have persistently endeavored not only to detach the context of statements but also to isolate the circumstances surrounding incidents, thereby misleading both the inattentive observer and those who have not witnessed prior events that would enable them to identify and compare with current occurrences. Indeed, one must not be oblivious of the fact that context is of paramount importance in our statements and stances, which encompass the necessity of elucidating meanings, defining word connotations, providing specificity, dispelling misconceptions, rectifying erroneous interpretations, and avoiding contrived ambiguities and psychological projections. Rather than adhering to honesty, which is typically characteristic of a believer, some individuals deliberately resort to a form of communication that initially lacks clarity and necessitates further explanation. This approach misleads numerous readers, leaving them to navigate aimlessly in their quest for contextual hints to discern the intended message. Consequently, they deliberately aim to make an individual unable to determine whether the truth resides at the beginning, middle, or end of the discourse. This situation often neglects the essential function of context.

Some of the discussions prevalent on social media, along with the diverse agendas of those disseminating tweets, are so concerning that they necessitate a cautious approach, urging individuals to avoid jargon and only share tweets and retweets that they can comprehensively understand within their context. Due to deceptions and ambiguity prevalent on social media, one must engage with clarity, while consciously avoiding ambiguity and assumptions, as well as ensuring that the person’s words are timely if the topic is very controversial. Therefore, one should not allow themselves to be swayed by the ornate rhetoric of any orator to the point of overlooking the discrepancies between the discourse and its surrounding context, especially when the speaker neglects to offer concrete evidence.

We encounter individuals who tackle contentious matters regarding others, yet intentionally neglect to weave in crucial aspects such as situational nuances or contextual elements, alongside other influences like historical background when appropriate. The orator is aware that his apparent eloquence or compelling rhetoric falls short of effectively communicating the desired message, having omitted the external contexts of the dialogue and all active participants in the communicative exchange; yet, he fixates solely on the favorable assumptions held about him by the audience, even as he deceives them.

Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge that the importance of discourse is intricately tied to the context in which it takes place. Upon encountering individuals who intentionally disregard the etiquettes of honest dialogue, we commit ourselves to disregard the utterances of anyone engaging in a controversial discussion who subsequently attributes statements to others without credible evidence. Thus, one should not permit himself to be misled or influenced by interpretations that lack context, whether through the construction of speech or the arrangement of words, unless they are substantiated by contextual evidence and the assertions or viewpoints of the individual being referenced or critiqued. In the realm of social media, the absence of context renders it impossible to elucidate ambiguities while revealing the intended meaning of statements and claims whose implications remain unclear and can only be understood through context.

Furthermore, neglecting to consider context and isolating an individual’s true circumstances invariably leads to misinterpretations of the entire discourse or its elements. This behavior has led some to deliberately sever the original meaning at the time of its inception from the meaning derived from interpretation. The quantity of retweets, the accompanying comments, or the status of the statement’s author is, in our perspective, a mere illusion when it contravenes the principles of honest discourse. No amount of propaganda, fervent appeals on behalf of their statements, or the most robust support received will blind us to the reality that the speaker has deceived, concealed, misrepresented, lied, and waged war against the accurate context.

Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, reported that Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “Indeed, I am only a human being and you people come to me with your disputes. And it may be that one of you can present his case more eloquently than the other and I consider him truthful, and judge in his favour. So if I ever judge and give the right of a brother to his brother, then it is a piece of hellfire and let him not take it”.

Some Benefits Derived From This Hadeeth:

The Ummah [i.e. the scholars and judges] have been commissioned to judge based on what is apparent, but the (mere) judgement of a judge cannot prohibit the lawful and allow the unlawful [i.e. because it cannot be taken if proven erroneous].

This Hadeeth contains a refutation against those who say that the Messengers possess knowledge of the unseen. This hadeeth also shows that speech can be seen to be true based on what is apparent, but it is truly falsehood concerning what is hidden within it.

This hadeeth shows that the one who receives a judgement in his favour is more aware than every other person as to whether he is entitled to it or whether he is a falsifier. So, he takes it if he is entitled to it or leaves it if he is a falsifier because, in reality, a judgement cannot change an affair from what it was in origin [i.e. the original truth in the affair before its distortion or concealment].

This hadeeth shows the sinfulness of the one who argues based on falsehood until he receives what he wants publicly, whilst he is upon falsehood.

In this hadeeth is proof that a scholar can make a mistake and it is a refutation against those who say that every Mujtahid is correct. This hadeeth shows us that the Mujtahid is forgiven (when he makes a mistake).[6]

And Allah knows best.


[1] An Excerpt from ‘Badaa’i At-Tafseer Al-Jaami Limaa Fassarahu Al-Imaam Ibn Al-Qayyim. 1/300-303

[2] Al-Fawaa’id’ pages 202-203

[3] Ar-Radd Alaa Al-Bakri 702-703

[4] As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mursalah 3/927

[5] As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mussalah 2/503

[6] Saheeh Al-Bukhaari -Kitaab Al-Ahkaam (Book of Judgements): Chapter 29: Hadeeth Number: 7181 with Fat’hul Baari]

The Development of Christian Zionism in America Since the Puritan Settlement

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah [The Exalted] said:

وَإِذَا قُلۡتُمۡ فَٱعۡدِلُواْ وَلَوۡ ڪَانَ ذَا قُرۡبَىٰ‌ۖ

And when you testify, be just, even if (it concerns) a near relative.

When you testify by way of a statement to judge between people, differentiate between them in a discourse, and speak regarding matters and circumstances, be just in your speech, adhere to truthfulness regarding those you love and those you hate, be fair and do not conceal what needs to be made clear because it is forbidden and tantamount to injustice to divert (from justice and fairness) when speaking against the one you hate. [Tafsir  as-Sadi]

Therefore, we remind ourselves of the fact that not all Jews are engaged in the actions of the Zionists, as Shaikh Abu Iyaad [may Allah preserve him] stated, “It is important to note that not all Jews are involved in these intrigues and the Jews as a population have, throughout history, been subject to the whims and desires of their religious and political leaders, and have been made to undergo much persecution as a result”. Must read below:

https://abuiyaad.com/w/king-faisal-zionism?s=35

Christian Zionism moved from its beginnings to the United States of America

The Puritans were the first to arrive in America with Zionism, rather they were the founders and initiators of its first ideas, and they worked hard to bring about changes in all fields in favour of their Zionist calls in the senior positions of power and the official administrative departments. They established the settlement of Massachusetts in the year 1630, and during the following decade, more than twenty thousand Puritans migrated to this place. They brought the Hebrew language to the settlement, printed the books of the Old Testament, and translated it into Latin. Perhaps the most important thing they practiced in their new settlement was the establishment of the idea of ​​a “covenant” or contract similar to the “covenant between Prophet Musa [peace be upon him] and Jehovah”, or between “the Lord and Prophet Ibrahim [peace be upon him]”, as they claimed. In the same way that the Jews left Egypt and went to a new land that the Lord promised them, as stated in the books of the Old Testament, the “Puritans” of Christian Zionism saw themselves as the new chosen people and the new world as the new Israel. As a result, they made an imaginary covenant with the Lord, saying, “If the Lord secures our departure to the new world, we will establish a society governed by divine laws”. John Winchester, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, likened the colony to a city “on the hill,” that is, a virtuous city and an example to be emulated by the world.

The imaginary covenant between the early Puritan Christian Zionists and God had a significant political, religious, and social impact on American thought. As a result, Americans believed that they had been bestowed with a specific mission from God, to be an example to be emulated in all regions of the world, and from this thought arose another concept known as the principle of “Manifest Destiny”, meaning that America’s destiny, which God has destined, is to prepare the world, and the principle of “Progressive Imperialism”, meaning the colonisation of other peoples to bring progress to them, and the spread of Christian Zionism among them, and the principle of “Liberal Internationalism”, which is referred to as President Wilson’s fourteen points, and the principle of “Improving the World”, as are the claims of “Kennedy” and “Johnson”, or the principle of “Human Rights” as it is claimed by Carter and Clinton.

(First), the idea of the “Covenant with God” influenced the political structure of the United States of America, therefore when the first founders prepared the “Declaration of Independence”, the concept of the contract was an important concept. The theological covenant evolved into civil social contracts, as defined by John Locke, in which individuals enter into a contract with the government, agreeing to submit to its rule in exchange for the preservation of their established rights. It should be noted that Covenant theology predated the work of John Locke and Rhema, and it may have influenced his thinking about the social contract between citizens and government. There is no doubt that covenant theology has prepared people to think about the social contract, that is, it has prepared them to think that obedience to obligations related to God and the members of society are matched by benefits that accrue to everyone in society. The social contract changed the Puritan theological covenant from one between God and people to one between individuals and the government, and therefore the idea of the Puritan religious era was represented in the democracy of the American political system. The first Puritans were “Congregationalists,” and “bishops” who chose their pastor, and all parishes were linked to an ecclesiastical organisation in which each “diocese” enjoys autonomy and makes decisions in the future. Parishes had specific practices that were democratically established by church members, and thus all “Diocese” later influenced notions of American democracy. According to the Puritan “Zionist Christian” covenant, church members elected the government, and those who were allowed full membership in the church and had a say in the civil government were: the civil government that had authority over all members of society, but it was regulated by only those who could prove their spiritual superiority and supervised by those who were full members of the church.

(Second), the belief of Christian Zionism (Puritanism) in the duality of human nature, that is, spiritual transcendence on the one hand and inferiority (since the first sin) on the other, had an impact on the principle of separation of powers, as well as the idea of control and balance between Congress and the presidency in order to prevent corruption of the political system. Humanity (in their view) is susceptible to corruption, and absolute authority corrupts it completely, thus each authority must be checked and balanced by the other authority. This negative view of human nature, the first sin, and human corruption as a reality of life found its way into American political thinking; therefore, the first founders developed the American Constitution based on this vision, when they preferred a government bound by restrictions, controls, and separation of powers.

The Christian Zionists (Puritans) arose in the new world and believed to be God’s chosen people with a specific mission – the new world represented by the new Israel, whereas the old world is represented by ancient Egypt. They believed that the covenant with God, which they had concluded, would serve as the foundation for constructing a divine society (a city above The Hill) that would be the centre of the world’s attention, and that the covenant with God would take on a secular, civil character, transforming into a social contract between individuals and the government. Because they were Congregationalists who held that the government is chosen democratically by the holy members of the Church, and because they were Puritans, they cemented a negative view of human nature in American political thinking which imposed the choice of a government bound by restrictions, controls, and the separation of powers.

Since its establishment, Christian Zionism attempted to meddle in decision-making channels and influence elections in the United States of America, so that the candidate would be loyal to it and defend its principles and ideas; rather, they sought to ensure that the presidential candidate was an evangelical fundamentalist who embraced and supported Christian Zionism’s ideals. The Christian Zionist inclination can be found in several of America’s first presidents and examples of this can be found in their words and actions, such as:

[I] George Washington, the first American president, whose presidency was from the year 1789 to 1797 AD, was deeply religious, of course, based on distorted Christianity. He declared his sanctification for Jewish rites and rituals, and the sacred history “contained in the Old Testament”, and this appears in many of His speeches, including that he sent two letters to two Jewish leaders in his country, following his assumption of office of President, in which he expressed his hope that the Lord, the miracle worker, who saved the Hebrews in ancient times from the oppression of their Egyptian oppressors, and planted them in the Promised Land, would continue to water them from the shade of heaven.

[II] John Adams, who assumed the American presidency from 1797 to 1801 AD, was clearly pro-Zionist. A complete century before Herzl, he expressed the sincere desire for the Jews to return to the land of Judah (Palestine), as an independent nation. In a letter sent to the president who succeeded him as president of America, Jefferson, he said, “Even if I were an atheist, and believed blindly in fate that is eternally dispose of based on human activity, I would be free to believe that fate decreed that the Jews would be the agent – the greatest and most effective essential, in making the nations of the world civilized nations”. He expressed “Jefferson’s proposal that the official emblem of America be a drawing of the image of the children of Israel, emerging from Egypt, under the leadership of Prophet Musa [peace be upon him] with the Lord Jehovah leading them in the form of Two pillars, a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire”.

[III] Thomas Jefferson assumed the American presidency from the year 1801 to 1809 AD, and he was the third American president. This president submitted a proposal to Congress proposing that the symbol of America be represented in the form of the children of Israel, led by a cloud during the day, and at night a pillar of fire instead of an eagle, and this is consistent with the text From the Old Testament, as follows, “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to guide them on the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they might walk day and night”.

[IV] James Madison: He served as president from 1809 to 1817 and was the first American president to appoint a Jew to a diplomatic position. He appointed the active Jew Mordechai Noah, Consul General in Tunisia. Madison was deeply religious, fluent in the Hebrew language and the writings of the priests and the Jewish rabbis.

[V] Stephen Grover Cleveland: he assumed the presidency from 1885 to 1889 AD, and from 1893 to 1898. He was the last American president to assume the presidency before the establishment of the Jewish Zionist Organization. When he assumed the presidency, he sent a letter to the Jewish Masonic organization, called “B’nai B’rith”, which means “Children of the Covenant”, supported the Jews in his letter, expressed his support and closeness to them, and appointed them to important political positions at home and abroad.

Following the failure of Jewish Zionism supporters in Europe to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, they tried to establish a temporary state in the United States of America at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Mordechai Noah, a politician, journalist, and writer who served as the United States of America’s consul in Tunisia, made a valiant effort, so on his route to Tunisia, he stopped in Paris in 1815 CE, where he met Abgar Yejuwar, who informed him of the failure of the Jews in France in organising a state for themselves in Palestine with Napoleon Bonaparte. He (Mordecai Noah) was also distressed by the circumstances of Jews in Tunisia, and when he returned to the United States of America, he declared himself the chief judge of Israel and called for the establishment of a Jewish state on “Grand Island” on the Niagara River and “Buffalo” in New York, and asked Jews in Europe, particularly in France, to assist him in gaining legitimacy for his Jewish state. He also intended to seek a statute establishing the Jewish state under the name “Ararat” from the New York State Legislative Council. The State Legislative Council reassured him that state law protects the rights of Jews wishing to live on the Island. He stated that his goal was not to establish a Jewish state on Grand Island but rather to gather Jews from all over the world in preparation for their migration to Palestine when the time was right because Palestine at the time was under the preservation and care of the Islamic Ottoman empire, which the Jews did not have access to.

A great celebration was held in Buffalo to temporarily lay the foundation stone of the Jewish state, but it fell and did not succeed because this (initiative by Mordechai) was in contrast to many European Jews’ belief who held that Ararat was an American idea, and that when the Messiah arrives, he would be able to construct the Jewish state, and that establishing a Jewish state prior to the arrival of the Messiah was impossible. This idea persisted in their midst, even among staunch proponents of the construction of a Jewish state, particularly after the emergence of the Jewish Zionist concept at the end of the nineteenth century.

The main thought that stimulated culture and politics in the United States of America, especially in its belief in the necessity of establishing a Jewish state on the Land of Israel in Palestine, nurturing that state, and protecting it as a religious and cultural adherence through politics, was the “Puritan” Christian Zionism and the millenarian doctrine it carries, and the like. Warder Cresson, the first American consul to Jerusalem in 1844, declared that he sought to do the Lord’s work by establishing a national homeland for Jews in the Promised Land through his work in Palestine. He wrote some letters to Washington officials and even made contact with officials in the Ottoman Empire, but his efforts were futile, so he relocated to Palestine. He encouraged American Christian Zionists to follow in his footsteps, and this is exactly what transpired. In 1850, a group of American Zionists led by Zionist Clorinda Minor went to Israel to await the arrival of Christ the Saviour, but they waited for a long time and returned to their homeland after seven years. In the year 1866, 150 American Christian Zionists attempted to establish themselves in Palestine in order to await the arrival of Christ the Saviour. When Christ did not appear, they rationalised their failure by claiming that Christ had been delayed because the chosen people had not all gathered in the “Promised Land.”

William Blackstone, a Christian Zionist, was one of America’s wealthy missionaries. He wrote extensively and advocated work for the return of Christ and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. As a result, his call influenced numerous politicians, including rulers, States, and representatives in Congress. In 1888, he travelled to Palestine and was dismayed by what he viewed as “the anomaly that Palestine was thus left as land without a people, instead of giving it to a people without a land.”

In 1891, he petitioned US President Benjamin Harrison, requesting that America act to return Jews to Palestine. The petition was signed by 413 prominent American Christians, including John Rockefeller, patriarch of the Rockefeller family and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a large number of Senators, and a number of editors-in-chief of major newspapers. He stated in his petition, “In accordance with the Lord’s distribution of his land to the nations, Palestine remains the homeland of the Jews and their inalienable property. They were evicted by force, so why don’t the great powers, who handed Bulgaria to the Bulgarians and Serbia to the Serbs respond by giving Palestine to the Jews?” In his petition, he quoted an Old Testament text about the Persian “Cyrus,” who (according to him) was anointed by the Lord Jehovah in the Book of Isaiah. He said that Cyrus’ Christianity was blessed by the Lord Jehovah, who held Cyrus’ hand and trampled over kingdoms and rulers before him. He smashed and opened the gates in front of him, and he made the doors not close….” Blackstone hoped to persuade President Harrison to be the Lord’s anointed one, who would, like Cyrus, return the Jews to Palestine. He focused on the necessity of sending Jews to Palestine for two reasons: The first reason was to practise the millenarian doctrine and prepare for the coming of Christ the Saviour. The second reason was the fear that Jews would flock to America, just as they had done in Russia in 1881. As a result, he was to achieve the desired result, which is that guaranteeing the establishment of the State of Israel would secure America’s power and greatness, which the Lord would bless if he assisted, protected, and stood by the Jews. These two reasons, particularly the first theological doctrinal one, motivated America to work hard to assist Jews and establish a state for them in Palestine. This is why Christian Zionism has been and continues to be more forceful in this affair. And this is why Theodor Herzl, the founder of Jewish Zionism, did not object to the British government when it proposed to him the establishment of a Jewish state in Al-Arish, on the Egyptian border, and then suggested that it be established in Cyprus, then in Uganda, and he did not object. The Zionist Christians, on the other hand, criticised Herzl for not protesting and emphasised the importance of establishing it in Palestine rather than elsewhere. He sent a letter to Herzl blaming him for this and attempted to persuade him that the chosen homeland belongs to the chosen people.

When the British Foreign Secretary issued the Balfour Declaration to the Jews in 1917, American President Woodrow Wilson ratified the promise in a letter to the American Jewish Zionist leader Rabbi Stevie Wise, saying: “I have observed with sincere and profound interest Weizmann’s constructive work in Palestine at the request of the British Government, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my satisfaction with the progress of the Zionist movement in the United States of America and the allied countries, since Mr. Balfour’s announcement in the name of his government in agreement to establish a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, and promised that the British government would make every effort to facilitate the fulfilment of this goal”.

It is important to note that President Wilson descends from parents who belonged to the Christian Church, Christian Zionism, and was raised on Protestant teachings, from which Christian Zionism emerged, and he declared that his religious feelings were the motivation for him to work to help return the sacred Land to its people. The fact that Congress endorsed the Balfour Declaration, as several American writers have pointed out, illustrates the penetration of Christian Zionism into decision-making channels in America- amazingly, with Zionist and Hebrew themes. They quote as an example of Congressional Zionism the words of Indiana Representative William A. Cox, who said, “Just as Moses delivered the Israelites from slavery, the Allies are now delivering the Jews from the clutches of the ugly Turks, which is the appropriate conclusion to this world war. Judea must rise up as a nation, independent, with the power to govern itself, advance, and achieve its ideals in life. I feel that I am expressing the thoughts of the American people, and certainly the thoughts of those with whom I discussed this issue. That is, the government of the United States of America must exercise its appropriate powers to see this Jewish state established, and formed to spread the ideas and traditions of ancient Judea”.

In 1922, Henry Cabot Lodge, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in Boston, “It seems to me appropriate and laudable that the Jewish people, in all parts of the world, should desire that members of their own race should have the right to return to their lands, which was their cradle, and in which they lived and struggled for thousands of years. Indeed, I can never bear the thought of Jerusalem and Palestine falling under the control of the Mohammedans; that Jerusalem and Palestine, sacred to the Jews and the relatively sacred land of all the great Christian nations of the West, would remain in the hands of the Turks had seemed to me for years like a stain on civilization’s forehead that must be removed”.

In June 1922, the Senate approved the Balfour Declaration, deciding that the United States of America supported the establishment of a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, in accordance with the conditions included in the British government’s November 1917 promise, known as the Balfour Declaration. Then the House of Representatives authorised a more Zionist formulation in the same month, as indicated in its decision made on June 30, 1922, the text of which is as follows: “Whereas the Jewish people have been looking forward for many centuries and longing to rebuild their ancient homeland, the Jewish people must be able to re-establish and organise a national homeland, in the land of its forefathers, thus providing the House of Israel with the opportunity that it has been denied for so long -the restoration of Jewish life and culture in the ancient Jewish homeland.”

After US President Woodrow Wilson signed the Balfour Declaration, his successors committed to working to fulfil that promise, and showed active sympathy for Jewish Zionism, in order to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, and then American Zionist presidents committed to protecting and defending that state after it occupied Muslim countries (i.e. Palestine, Golan Heights).

Following Wilson, President Warren Harding stated unequivocally on June 1, 1921, “It is impossible for those who serve the Jewish people not to believe that they will one day be returned to their historic national homeland where they will begin a new phase, but rather a phase greater than their contribution to the progress of humanity”, and he declared his support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Then came President Calvin Coolidge after him, who declared his belief in a national Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1924, his support for its establishment, his admiration for the Zionist movement, and its efforts to make Palestine accept Jewish immigrants. Next in line was President Herbert Hoover, who conveyed his satisfaction with the progress made by the Jewish community in Palestine. In 1928, he commended the Jewish Zionist Organisation for their “great achievement in Palestine” and emphasised the need to continue working towards the realisation of the concept of Jewish re-emergence in Palestine. Then there was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served from 1933 to 1945. During his rule, the Jewish Zionist star, also known as the Star of David and Solomon, was adopted and given an official emblem for mail departments, helmets used by soldiers in the Sixth Division, and American Navy seals, on the print of the new dollar, the Presidential Medal, the police guards in Chicago, and the chest badge worn by the mayor in many areas. He declared at the beginning of his presidency that he was a pragmatist working for America’s interests with the Arab countries, but in reality, he submitted to Zionist influence, both Jewish and Christian. During his presidency, the Zionists were incredibly active, with their activity centred on creating a Jewish majority in Palestine in preparation for the foundation of an independent Jewish state there.

In 1939, Britain passed a resolution known as the “White Paper” that specified immigration to Palestine. In the same year, America announced its rejection of the White Paper, putting pressure on Britain to remove it, and launching Jewish immigration under the control of the Jewish Zionist Agency. Zionist, Jewish, and Christian pressure on President Roosevelt mounted, particularly following the formation of the American Palestinian Committee, which included 200 members of the House of Representatives and 68 members of the Senate. The committee aimed to support the Baltimore Conference’s 1942 program of establishing a Jewish-Palestinian Commonwealth. As a result, Roosevelt declared in his presidential campaign program in 1944 that he supported opening the gates of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration and settlement, as well as any strategy that would lead to the development of a commonwealth – “a free Jewish democracy, and that he is certain that the American people will support this goal, and if he is re-elected, he will help achieve this goal”. However, Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, and President Harry S. Truman succeeded him. His presidency lasted from 1945 to 1953, and he sought to meet the Zionists’ aspirations. As soon as he took office, he released a statement saying, “The official American view regarding Palestine is to allow the largest number of Jews into it as much as possible,” including the potential of establishing a Jewish state there. In 1947, Truman also announced his endorsement of the partition decision and even requested that other governments put pressure on those who were hesitant and stopped voting on the partition. On May 14, 1948, he announced his recognition of the newly constituted Jewish state in Palestine in his name and in the name of the United States of America and took the initiative to assist it and provide loans. He gave it a loan of one hundred million dollars, followed by subsequent loans, including a loan of 35 million dollars in 1950. There is no doubt that Truman “belonged to and worked for Christian Zionist doctrine, and this is what prompted him to hasten to announce America’s recognition of the Jewish state,” in addition to Christian Zionists’ penetration of government councils and international organisations. President Truman belonged to the conservative Baptist faith, which believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible and believes that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine is clear evidence of the fulfilment of biblical prophecies. Clark Clifford, advisor to President Truman and then Secretary of Defence during the John F. Kennedy administration, stated at the White House that Truman studied the Torah himself, and as a student of the Torah, he believed in the historical justification for a Jewish national homeland and was convinced that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 fulfilled the ancient hopes and dreams of the Jewish people. He frequently quoted Old Testament passages about the Jewish desire for Zion and said that the Talmud was his favourite book. Moshe Davis mentions in his book “America and the Holy Land” that when Truman was presented in a Jewish theological temple to those present as the man who helped create the State of Israel, Truman responded, saying, “I am Cyrus… I am Cyrus, and who is that?” Who forgets that Cyrus was the one who returned the Jews from their exile in Babylon to Jerusalem.

It must be emphasised that American President Truman had a significant influence on the events that culminated in the foundation of the Jewish state in occupied Palestine. He was the one who demanded that the British government allow 100,000 Jewish immigrants to enter Palestine promptly during its mandate for Palestine. Additionally, he exerted pressure on the UN to decide to partition the nation, and he was also the one to recognise the Jewish state as soon as it declared its independence, just minutes after it was established at midnight on May 15, 1948, and he worked on the call in international forums to defend and protect it. Then, from 1953 to 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, and he had close ties with Zionist preacher Billy Graham, leader of the Christian Zionist “Youth of Christ” organisation. He also maintained a close relationship with some Jewish Masonic organisations, and he asserted that America’s interests are inextricably connected to Israel’s. Christian Zionism became a valuable asset for the state more than before at the start of the twentieth century when the “Christian Right” led a campaign against communism. This paved the way for Christian Zionists to rise to power and precise political practices that served the interests of their doctrine.

When the United States held presidential elections following Eisenhower’s presidency in 1960, one of the candidates was the Catholic John F. Kennedy. The Christian Zionists became angry at the possibility of his victory, and the fanatical Zionist supporter Billy Graham sent a letter to Richard Nixon, the Vice President, warning against the Catholics nominating the Catholic Democrat, and suggesting that the Republican Party nominate a popular Protestant figure for the presidency, namely Waltergood, a member of Congress, who worked as a missionary in China before entering Congress, especially since he was one who shared Nixon’s hostility to communism. When Catholic candidate John F. Kennedy saw that the Protestants were abandoning him, he declared in his program that he was committed to the separation of church and state, opposed government funding for religious schools, and would not send an American diplomatic mission to the Vatican. This drew Protestants and liberal Jews to his side. However, at a conference in Washington in 1960, the National Union of Evangelicals, the Christian Zionists, led a campaign against Kennedy, emphasising that Kennedy’s nomination “represents a dangerous interference by the Vatican in American politics” and that if he wins the presidency, he will become a “puppet” of the Catholic Church. He did, however, start to emphasise the need to safeguard, defend, and assist Israel. He said, “America has made explicit commitments to protect Israel, and it is in our interest, as Americans, to implement what we have committed to”. He stated before the Zionist Organisation of America, after speaking about the founding of the State of Israel, “It was not born to disappear; Truman was the first to recognize Israel, and I will continue on this route.” Then he reiterated on several occasions that “the Lord Jehovah” is the one who protects and secures the United States of America. Following that, Kennedy was elected President of the United States of America from 1960 to 1963, and immediately after taking office, he worked to allay the fears of Protestants, so he and a number of his White House aides attended the annual breakfast prayer with the Evangelical Protestants in greater numbers than former President Eisenhower, and before his trip to Latin America in 1962, he invited the Protestant pastor, Billy Graham, to the White House, and told him, “I will be your Apostle John”, he joked.

In 1962, the Evangelical Protestants launched the first voting project for the Christian Right, under the name “The Christian Citizen,” with the goal of training Evangelical Christian Zionists in electoral campaigns, and they were able to recruit two thousand members of an organisation to study electoral commissions in 17 American states. In 1963, the Christian Zionist Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the presidency of the United States, and during his reign, America became embroiled in the Vietnam quagmire, and the focus returned to Anti-communism. Johnson often said that his Christian religion was derived from the Jewish religion, therefore, it cannot be separated from them. One of the key reasons for Johnson’s great support for the Jewish state of “Israel” was his Christian faith in God’s plan and control over the entire existence and humanity. He articulated these views numerous times in a period of seven years. In a book titled “My Brother Lyndon,” released in 1970, his brother, Sam Houston Johnson, stated, “Lyndon’s aunt was always giving him religious advice.” In a letter to Sam, the aunt once said, “I want you to tell Lyndon something more about me. Inform him that since Jews are God’s chosen people, you should always stand by them and never do anything to harm them. You should never doubt what the Bible itself says about it, as you are aware. Establishing the state was the greatest accomplishment of Harry Truman’s life. When Israel embarked on that work, it guaranteed certain success next elections”.

As for Richard Nixon, he was one of the deepest in his thoughts and theorists of Zionism among American politicians, and he was an evangelical Zionist. He used to say, “I gave the order to begin a massive airlift of supplies and equipment during the 1973 war, which allowed Israel to halt Syria’s and Egypt’s assault on two fronts. Our commitment to the survival of Israel is a deep commitment. We are not official allies, but something binds us together stronger than any piece of paper. It is a moral commitment. It is a commitment that no president in the past has ever broken, and every president in the future will faithfully fulfill. America will never allow Israel’s enemies to harm it by achieving their goal of destroying it”.

Many social and political developments have occurred, resulting in a watershed moment in the formation of the Christian right. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam War created a schism in American society, as well as a deeper schism among Christian Zionism and its trends. The liberals focused on sit-ins and other forms of protest, whilst the conservatives focused on religious influence on individual conscience. Overall, these social developments in America resulted in a Christian Protestant renaissance in response to societal issues such as women’s equality with men, sexual freedom, abortion rights, homosexuality, and so on. As a result, in the face of political and social transformations, the “Christian Right” turned to political activity more than ever before, resulting in its ascent as a powerful phenomenon to political influence in the 1970s and beyond.

President Jimmy Carter, who belonged to the Evangelical Zionist Christian Sect, declared in 1976 that his slogan was “belief in the doctrine of being born again.” In March 1979, he told the Israeli Knesset, “Seven American presidents believed, and embodied this belief, that the United States of America’s relationship with Israel is more than a special relationship, but rather a unique relationship because the idea that Israel and the United States of America were founded by pioneer immigrants and that we share the Torah’s legacy is ingrained in the conscience, morals, religion, and beliefs of the American people themselves. Brzezinski, his national security advisor, affirmed that American-Israeli relations are personal and rooted in history, both historical and spiritual. Many newspapers referred to 1976 as “the year of fundamentalist evangelicals,” and it began with strong, supportive political and popular enthusiasm for the sake of Christian Zionism. It is worth mentioning that in his election statement, President Carter stated that “the establishment of modern Israel is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy”. The fervent Zionist, Billy Graham, said about him, “The president goes to church every Sunday, and he and his wife read passages from the Torah before going to sleep, and he does not drink alcohol in the white house.”

During his presidency from 1976 to 1980, he accomplished much for the benefit of the Jews in Palestine and the Zionist organisation in general, and his stances were founded on a theological belief in the Jewish state and a commitment to protect and support it forever. His accomplishments in the interests of the Jewish state were numerous, the most significant of which were the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel in 1978, and his provision of military and economic aid to Israel, more than any previous American president. During his presidency, Israel received $10 billion in aid, and he was the first American president to establish a presidential commission in 1978 on the subject of the “Holocaust,” or the burning of Jews during the Nazi era, as well as the first American president to push for an American anti-boycott law to deal with Arab countries’ boycott of Israel in 1977. He declared that anyone who accused Jews of murdering Christ was guilty of “anti-Semitism.” The director of religious affairs at the Zionist organisation known as the “American Jewish Committee” then stated, “For the first time in American presidential history, an American president issued a direct announcement about an unfair issue against Jews with traditional historical religious roots.”

Since 1980, the alliance between the Christian Right and the New Right has emerged as the most powerful force on the American political scene, as the Christian Right entered the Republican Party and allied with the political right. This relationship, which established an active political Zionist movement for the American presidency, was intensified and became visible following Ronald Reagan’s nomination for the American presidency in 1980. In a statement he delivered at a clergy meeting following his nomination conference, he declared his support for the beliefs and ethics of the Christian right. Consequently, the Moral Majority Organisation was established “With intense activities in favour of Reagan’s candidacy. This Zionist organisation, which symbolises the core of the Christian Right, mobilised three million voters in the presidential and legislative elections, and thus the Christian Right became an influential force in Reagan’s victory”. Since the Christian Right had grown to be a powerful force in the Senate and House of Representatives, several members of the Zionist and Christian right ascended to prominent political roles.

Reagan was an avid Zionist in the service of international Zionism, and he was greatly affected by his mother, who believed in salvation and read the Bible frequently. Her kid son grew up going to churches and was raised on the Bible, which he learned at Sunday schools, as Reagan used to say. Similarly, he would sit with his Dispensational Zionist pals, particularly the fanatical Billy Graham, with whom he would frequently discuss the theory of the second coming of Christ and salvation, as well as other Christian Zionist principles. During Reagan’s campaign for a second term as governor of California in 1970, the Zionist Reverend George Otis paid him a visit and they discussed – with those present – the biblical prophecies and the possibility of their fulfilment for America during Reagan’s presidency, which Otis had prophesied to him. Either way, Reagan visited and engaged with Christian Zionists on a regular basis until he embraced the principles of Christian Zionism and worked for them. Rather, he frequently used those concepts as evidence with Old Testament texts, predicting the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ during his administration, or its close appearance. In an interview with the Zionist pastor Jerry Falwell in 1981, he stated that President Reagan informed him that “the destruction of the world could happen soon. He asserted that Russia was Gog and Magog and that it would be the one that would invade Israel, then the nuclear battle of Armageddon would occur”. He addressed the United Nations three times (1982, 1983, and 1984). Religious broadcasters confirmed his conviction about the nearness of Armageddon and the second coming of Christ according to the Lord’s will, as described in Bible predictions, he said. He predicted in 1986 that the Land of Israel would be besieged by armies of infidel nations, with Libya among them, and that Armageddon was not far away.

Pat Robertson, an advocate of Zionism, declared in 1988 that he would run for president from the Republican Party; however, he was not successful in winning the nomination. Consequently, he established the “Christian Coalition” organisation, which served as the foundation for the Christian right and played a significant role in the victories of George W. Bush, several members of Congress, and state governors in the 1988 elections, then expanded at the state level through city councils and school boards. Christian Zionist and Republican Ralph Reed, who also served as the director of the Christian Coalition, stated, “We feel that the Christian community has lost its way in a number of ways by concentrating only on the White House and Congress when most issues that affect evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics are decided in state legislatures, school boards, and local councils.

Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Christian Zionists disseminated propaganda claiming that Saddam Hussain was the Antichrist and that the Russians would back him in the war against Israel. This set the stage for the Armageddon conflict between the forces of good, led by America, Israel, and their allies, and the forces of evil, represented by the Arabs and Russians, which would culminate in the return of Christ and the end of the world.  In 1982, some Arab newspapers, citing the Israeli periodical “Kivunim” published a report from the World Zionist Organisation in Jerusalem under the title “Israel’s Plan in the Eighties,” and it was stated in the report, “As for Iraq, it is rich in oil and prone to internal conflicts, and dismantling it will be more important for us than dismantling Syria because Iraq represents the most dangerous threat to Israel in the short term, and a Syrian-Iraqi war will help destroy Iraq internally before it is able to help in the Arab disintegration.” [Footnote a]

US President George H. W. Bush had close ties with Christian Zionist organisations. He also had a close acquaintance with the evangelical Zionist priest Billy Graham, president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the most powerful Zionist priest in American and international public opinion. The other fanatical Zionist priest, Jerry Falwell, campaigned for the election of George Bush senior to the presidency, and therefore some writers have stated that Jerry Falwell’s support and that of his followers was the main reason for George Bush winning the presidency. Also, during the war on Iraq, this president used to sit with Christian Zionist clerics, and he incurred huge sums for settling Soviet Jews in Palestine, as well as committed criminal acts during the Gulf War. Christian Zionism grew into a political force. In America, white Protestant evangelicals accounted for 25% of registered voters, ten times the votes of Jews, four times the votes of non-religious people, and three times the votes of African Americans. Christians, who are the most educated, wealthy, and employed among Americans, controlled 31 of the Republican Party’s congressional seats in 1994.

During the election campaign for US President Bill Clinton, he sent a message to voters asking for their support and swore to them, saying: “If I am elected president, I will never disappoint Israel”. John Duke, head of the National Council on Arab-American Relations, said about him, “55% of his advisors are Jews, and the first advisors in the White House were Australian-Israelis”. During his presidency, he was close to the Jews, to the point that the National Security Council had seven of them. The Jews included eleven members, in addition to other positions allocated to the Jews. As for George Bush Jr, he – as analysts wrote about him – has a Christian-Zionist culture from which his actions and statements emerge. He made numerous statements indicating this, including – for example – that during the presidential election campaign, in which Vice President Al Gore and Texas Governor George Bush were competing, the two candidates appeared in a debate on a television program on 10/11/2000, and one of the questions they were asked, regarding foreign policy, was a question about their position on the Middle East conflict. Al-Gore stated, “Syria must release the three Israeli prisoners, Arafat must issue orders to stop the violence, and Iraq remains a threat.” He added, “Israel must feel secure at all times. Our relationship with Israel is one of the two countries’ strongest ties. Our relationship with Israel is contractual and deep, and it is not transitory and changes in response to changing situations”. George Bush Jr said, “Israel will always be our ally, and we will always stand by Israel,” George Bush stated. Arafat must issue orders to put an end to the violence”. Then, he declared that if he won, he would begin to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and he would not send the American military to any war unless America’s essential interests were jeopardised. Then he added, “Israel’s security is America’s vital interest”.

Zionist lobby: Paul Findley worked as a member of the US Congress for 22 years and left it in 1982. He was opposed to the Zionist lobby on American policy and wrote two books on the subject of Zionist pressure means controlling American decisions. The two books are, “They Dare to Speak Out” and “Deliberate Deceptions”, translated into Arabic, and he established the National Interest Council for the same purpose. The two books provide an in-depth study of Zionist lobbying in politics and American society.

The Christian-Zionist lobby, or influential pressure from Christian Zionists, appeared in the United States of America before the Jewish-Zionist lobby, and it became increasingly influential in the nineteenth century CE because it infiltrated the Republican Party, which has controlled the House of Representatives since 1994. There is no doubt that the Christian Zionist lobby plays a powerful and significant role in the American political system and political processes by attempting to influence decision-makers in the political system. These organisations use various means, including pressure, to carry out their activities. “Lobby” means the dissemination of information with the goal of persuading and influencing the decisions of others, especially in the two institutions, legislative and executive, as well as influencing the masses through their influence on the individual’s direction, opinion, and political positions, as well as on other collective organisations, and influence to support the election victory of candidates. These forceful Christian Zionist organisations began gradually in America many years ago, penetrating the decision-making spheres, until they attained their goal in the last few years. The Jewish Zionist lobby consists primarily of the “American Israel Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC,” which was founded in 1959, and the Conference of “Heads of Jewish Organisations,” which was also founded in 1959, as well as political action committees, the most important of which is the “National Committee for Political Action,” in which 300 Jewish organisations are active, and was established in 1982, and there are many more in this field in the United States of America. It’s important to note that Christian Zionism did not stop at influencing and permeating the ideas of American presidents; rather, it spread to numerous influential political forums, including the Senate and the House of Representatives, which influenced American policy. An illustration of this was the formation of the “American Palestinian Committee,” a group of non-Jewish politicians in America, in May 1932. In addition to numerous government officials in the Council of Ministers, ten members of the House of Representatives and eighteen members of the Senate were among its founders. This committee’s objectives were to coordinate Christian Zionists’ efforts to collaborate on Jewish issues and the formation of public opinion in the USA among non-Jews about the objectives, accomplishments, and activities of Zionists in Palestine. In 1941, it announced its main principles, which included the following: “The American Palestine Committee is dedicated to upholding the values outlined in the Balfour Declaration, which have been reaffirmed by the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the statements made by the President of the Republic. We believe that the Jewish national homeland in Palestine will play a significant and vital role in the universal system, which must ultimately result in victory”. Along with being among the first to ratify the Balfour Declaration, the American Federal Labour Federation likewise acknowledged the “legitimate demands of the Jewish people” based on the right to self-government.

An Excerpt from “As-Sahyuniyyah An-Nasraaniyyah, Diraasah Fee Daw’i Al-Aqeedah Al-islaamiyyah”. pages pages 298-330

The Early Development and Evolving Impact of Christian Zionism on Some Prominent European Political Elites

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Allah [The Exalted] said:

وَإِذَا قُلۡتُمۡ فَٱعۡدِلُواْ وَلَوۡ ڪَانَ ذَا قُرۡبَىٰ‌ۖ

And when you testify, be just, even if (it concerns) a near relative.

When you testify by way of a statement to judge between people, differentiate between them in a discourse, and speak regarding matters and circumstances, be just in your speech, adhere to truthfulness regarding those you love and those you hate, be fair and do not conceal what needs to be made clear because it is forbidden and tantamount to injustice to divert (from justice and fairness) when speaking against the one you hate. [1]

It is essential to recognise and clarify that not all individuals or groups that ascribe to Judaism support the notion of returning to Palestine as a land bestowed on the Jews specifically, nor do they endorse the oppression, killing of Palestinians, land appropriation, or acts of violence. Similarly, as Muslims, we reject the killing of unarmed civilians and non-combatants under the leadership of Netanyahu, regardless of whether such actions are perpetrated under the guise of Jihad. Furthermore, we do not support vigilante justice in the UK or any other nation, irrespective of the provocations posed by certain groups and parties across the globe, regardless of their religious or ideological affiliations. Read article by Shaikh Abu Iyaad titled: Just Rules of Fighting in the Sharīʿah of Islām Compared to Genocidal, Ethnic-Cleansing, Tribal-Vengeance Doctrines and Excesses of Trojan-Horse Muslim Extremists: https://abuiyaad.com/a/amalekite-genocide-doctrine-gaza

Furthermore, this article serves only as an excerpt from the research of a Muslim researcher, delving into the early emergence of Christian Zionism and its gradual entrenchment within Western political spheres. This exploration is vital, particularly as some of us find ourselves perplexed by the apparent inaction of certain Western nations in the face of ongoing atrocities against Palestinians, a plight that has persisted for seventy years. By recognising that part of this inaction is rooted in the historical connections between Christian Zionism and political agendas, we gain a better understanding of this phenomenon. Furthermore, it is essential to acknowledge that the challenges faced by the Ummah and its vulnerabilities have been astutely addressed by the contemporary Imams of the Sunnah, including Imam Abdul Aziz Bin Baz, Imam al-Albani, and Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih al-Uthaymin. Thus, it is not our place to propose solutions to these issues; rather, we should turn to the wisdom of the senior scholars of our time, such as Al-Allamah Salih Al-Fawzan, Al-Allamah Abdul Muhsin Al-Abbad, and Al-Allamah Salih Aala Ash-Shaikh.

A Brief Analysis by a Muslim Researcher on the Initial Rise and Impact of Christian Zionism On Some European Political Decision-makers

The Protocols of the Elder Figureheads of Zionism

The term “the Protocols of the Elder Figureheads of Zionism” refers to the content of a lecture given by a Zionist leader to an assembly of Zionists, intended for their guidance and implementation. It seems that these protocols were introduced to Zionist leaders during the conference convened in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. This conference saw the participation of approximately three hundred dedicated Zionists, who represented fifty Jewish organisations; however, the identity of the individual who initiated these protocols remains unknown. The intent of these protocols was to provide guidance to the Zionists on how to exercise governance upon attaining power. They were uncovered in 1901 when a French woman encountered them during a meeting with a prominent leader of the Zionist movement at a Masonic lodge in Paris.

This woman successfully acquired several documents and managed to escape with them. These documents eventually came into the possession of Alex Nikolaevich, a prominent figure in Eastern Russia during the Tsarist period, known for his vehement campaign against the Jewish population (he perceived as adversaries). Upon reviewing the documents, he recognised their significance for his nation and the broader global context. Consequently, he entrusted them to a friend, a Russian author named Sergei Nilus. Nilus examined the contents and understood their implications, subsequently translating them into Russian and providing an introduction that forecasted the collapse of Tsarist Russia due to anarchist communism, the nature of its authoritarian governance, and its role as a base for inciting turmoil—aiming to dismantle the Islamic Caliphate, establish the State of Israel in Palestine, and bring down monarchies across Europe.

In 1902, a book was published for the first time in the Russian language, produced in limited quantities. The Zionists reacted vehemently upon its release, initiating intense campaigns to discredit the book. Despite their efforts, the claims linking the book to them were accurate. In response, Tsarist Russia undertook a severe campaign against the Zionists, resulting in the deaths of ten thousand individuals in a single massacre.

The book underwent a reprinting in 1905, which quickly sold out in an unusual and covert manner, as Zionist groups procured copies from the market and incinerated them. A subsequent edition was released in 1911, but, similar to the earlier instance, copies vanished. In 1917, another printing occurred, yet it was seized by the communists following their ascension to power in Russia and the overthrow of the tsarist regime. A copy of the 1905 Russian edition found its way to the British Museum in London, where it was stamped in 1906. This copy remained largely overlooked until the communist coup in Russia in 1916 prompted the “Morning Post” to request updates from its correspondent, Victor Madson, who then examined various Russian publications. He dedicated his efforts to translating the work into English, subsequently publishing it in that language. The book saw five printings, the most recent occurring in 1921, yet no publisher in either Britain or America was willing to take on the project. Despite the efforts of Zionists to suppress the book, it was published in various languages, such as German, French, Italian, and Polish. The English edition from 1921 served as the basis for its first translation into Arabic, which was released in 1951. [2]

The rise of Christian Zionism has been characterised by its ambition to infiltrate various decision-making institutions, first in Europe and subsequently in America. In Europe, since the sixteenth century CE, in the opinion of some writers, a peculiar alliance appeared between the policies of the English Empire and a form of Christian Zionism, which became increasingly evident in English policy in the subsequent generations.

In 1523 CE, Henry VIII, the King of England, authored a treatise against Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, which garnered admiration from the Pope, who subsequently referred to him as “The Protector of Religion.” A few years later, Protestant “Christian Zionists” endeavored to align King Henry VIII with their movement. However, in 1533 CE, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church opposed King Henry VIII regarding certain personal matters related to his reign, resulting in the withdrawal of papal approval. This led Henry to declare his separation from the Pope’s religious authority, thereby transferring the Pope’s powers to himself and establishing his position as the supreme head of the Church of England. Consequently, the separation from Rome was finalised, and during his reign, England experienced a gradual shift towards Protestantism.

In the year 1537 CE, the King sanctioned the translation and publication of the Torah in the English language. Following this, in 1538 CE, he issued a royal edict to all churches in England, mandating the cessation of the priestly association with their Bible. This initiative fostered an environment conducive to the proliferation of Christian Zionism, Protestantism, and Jewish teachings, leading some historians to characterise this era as one marked by a Hebrew incursion and a significant alteration of the Old Testament’s role in England. Jewish historian Barbara Tuchman noted in her work ‘The Bible and the Sword’ that when the King of England decreed in 1538 that the Torah be translated into English and made accessible to the public, he was effectively integrating Jewish history, customs, and laws into English culture, thereby exerting a profound influence on this culture for the subsequent three centuries. The translated Torah came to be recognised as England’s National Torah, exerting a greater influence on the essence of English life than any other publication. The author contends that, in the absence of this Torah legacy, it is uncertain whether the Balfour Declaration would have been proclaimed by the English government in 1917, or whether its mandate over Palestine would have been established, notwithstanding the strategic factors that later came into play.

At the onset of the seventeenth century CE, England experienced the Puritan Revolution, during which the Puritans and Christian Zionists urged the government to recognise the Torah as the foundational constitution of English law. They asserted that the Old Testament, in accordance with its stipulations, represented the divine guidance for national governance and provided a clear framework of laws that humanity must adhere to; failure to comply would result in evident and unavoidable consequences. By the mid-seventeenth century, Christian Zionists began drafting documents asserting that all Jews should migrate from Europe to Palestine. Oliver Cromwell, a staunch supporter of the Puritans and their advocate in Parliament, proclaimed, in his role as the patron of the British Commonwealth, that the presence of Jews in Palestine was essential for facilitating the second coming of the Messiah.

In 1649 CE, two Christian Zionists based in Amsterdam submitted a petition to the English government, which expressed the desire for “the people of England and the inhabitants of the Netherlands to be the first to transport the sons and daughters of Israel on their vessels to the land promised to their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as their rightful inheritance.” In 1654 CE, Oliver Cromwell assumed the role of President of the Republic in England and demonstrated clear support for the Christian Zionist movement. Prior to this, in 1621, Henry Finch, who served as the legal advisor to the King of England, authored a work titled “The Great Universal Restoration,” in which he urged Christian rulers to unite their efforts to restore “the empire of the Jewish nation.” Some writers regard this as the initial English initiative aimed at reclaiming Palestine for the Jewish people.

France proposed, for the first time, a plan to establish a Jewish “commonwealth” in Palestine, in exchange for Jewish loans to the French government, and the Jews’ contribution to financing Napoleon Bonaparte’s campaign to occupy the Arab Levant, especially Palestine. Perhaps Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), the French Emperor, was the first European statesman to officially propose the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, in the year 1799, that is, about 118 years before the Balfour Declaration. During his presence in Syria, as part of his major campaign against the East, he issued a statement In which he called on the Jews to fight under his banner, to restore the “ancient Jewish” Kingdom of Jerusalem, and his speech regarding this is as follows:

“From Napoleon, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the French Republic, in Africa and Asia, to the legitimate heirs of Palestine. O Israelis, O unique people, whom the forces of conquest and tyranny could not rob them of their name and national existence, even if they only robbed them of the land of their ancestors. Those who are conscious and impartial observers of the destinies of peoples, even if they do not have the gifts of Prophets, such as Isaiah and Joel, have realized what these people prophesied with lofty faith. They realized that God’s freedmen would return to Zion singing, and joy would be born in their possession of their inheritance, without annoyance, always joy in their souls. O deportees! Arise with joy. A nation is waging a war the likes of which history has never witnessed, in defence of itself, after its enemies took its land, which they inherited from their ancestors, as spoils that should be divided among them, according to how they desire. France presents to you the legacy of Israel, at this particular time. My army, which is sent with Divine Providence, led by justice and accompanied by victory, has made Jerusalem my headquarters. O legitimate heirs of Palestine! The nation that does not trade in men and nations, as those who sold their ancestors to all peoples did, invites you not to seize your heritage, but to take what has been annexed and keep it, guaranteeing it and supporting it against all intruders. Hurry, this is the appropriate moment, which may not be repeated for thousands of years, to demand the restoration of your rights that were stolen from you for thousands of years, which is your political existence, as a nation among nations, and your absolute natural right to worship (Yahweh) according to your faith, publicly, and forever”.

Napoleon’s statement was considered a recognition of the right to the national presence of the Jews in Palestine, and granted it to them, to establish a state for them there. This “Napoleon” is a Christian Zionist. He supports his statements with passages from the texts of the Old Testament, the Bible, according to the Christian Zionist Jews. Perhaps he was aiming, in his speech, to include the Jews in his army during his campaign against the Levant, in order to exploit them in his colonial plans, but Allah praise be to Allah, he was defeated at Acre in May 1799 and retreated from Palestine to Egypt. There is no doubt that Napoleon Bonaparte’s call, and others similar to it later, took the idea of ​​settling Jews in Palestine as a means of intervention in this region, and worked to harness this idea to serve their political goals, colonial interests, and to attract Jewish groups in European countries through attempts at colonial expansion in the Arab homeland, and control its wealth and resources.

Christian Zionism was strengthened even more during the time of the French Emperor Napoleon III- Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, during the days of his French Empire 1852-1870, when its main representative, Napoleon’s private secretary, was a fanatical Christian Zionist called Arendt Laharan. That is why, in the year 1860, Laharan published a book entitled: “The Eastern Jewish Question: The Egyptian and Arab Empire and the Revival of Jewish Nationalism”, in which he spoke with great admiration about the Jewish people, saying about them, “The Jewish people have paved a main road and other new side roads to civilisation. Since it is not possible to save the crumbling civilisation of the Middle East with the introduction of European civilisation, all of Europe must help take Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and give it to the Jews”.

Actually, Christian Zionism, through its penetration into the French political decision-making, did not produce immediate results in its favour, but it did arouse the enthusiasm of the Christian Zionists in Britain, which had a greater share in embodying the Zionist claims in working to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Christian Zionism in England was clearly revived politically and culturally at the hands of the advocates of the Puritan sect, especially during the reign of Queen Victoria 1819-1900. The most prominent Christian Zionist at that time of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury. Indeed, he was the chief Christian at that time, and in 1838 he wrote an article titled, “The State and Future Prospects for the Jews”, in which he urged all Jews to migrate to Palestine, and in which he expressed his interest in the Hebrew element, opposing the idea of ​​assimilating into other societies, on the basis that the Jews would remain strangers in all countries where others live. He stated in his book that the Jews had a major impact on the divine plan for the second coming of Christ, stressing that the texts of the Old Testament indicate in their literal form that the second coming of Christ will be achieved when the Jews return to live in Israel and that Christians and their governments in Europe must help the Lord to achieve the divine plan by transferring all Jews to Palestine. Therefore, he did his best to convince the English that the Jews were the cornerstone of the Christian hope of salvation.

The Earl of Shaftesbury said that the divine plan to end history and the world requires their return to Palestine, which they claim is a nation without a people for a people without a nation. It is a slogan that Jewish Zionism later transformed into “A land without a people for a people without a land”. Shaftesbury used to say that he placed great hopes on excavating the antiquities of Palestine to prove the truthfulness of the Bible and the authenticity of what was stated in it and that he prays every day for the surrender of Al-Quds, and always referred to the Jews as “the ancient people of God”, and therefore, he (Shaftesbury) occupied a prominent place in the history of Christian Zionism. He saw in the Jews a vital asset in strengthening the Christians’ hope for salvation, and thus the work for the migration of the Jews to Palestine and the establishment of a state for them over there became a European demand and an English political wish, for which active work must be done because of its religious and colonial political interests.

Lord Viscount Henry John Temple Palmerston (1784-1864) – England’s War Secretary and then Foreign Secretary 1830-1841 and then Prime Minister – was influenced by the claims advocated by the Earl of Shaftesbury, in particular the call to transfer the Jews to Palestine and help them establish a state for them there. He was influenced by that call, which agreed with his Protestant Zionist ideas. So, due to the encouragement of his nephew, the Earl of Shaftesbury, he approved the opening of a British consulate in Jerusalem in the year 1838. He used to say that the revival of the Jewish nation would give power to English politics. In August 1840, Palmerston sent a letter to the British ambassador in Istanbul urging him to urge the Sultan and the Ottoman government to help the Jews and encourage them to settle in Palestine. He said in his letter, “The revolutions that the Jews will bring with them will certainly increase the Sultan’s resources, as the return of the Jewish people, with the protection, encouragement, and invitation of the Sultan, will prevent the implementation of any future projects undertaken by Muhammad Ali or his successors, and I strongly ask you to persuade the Ottoman government to provide all the necessary encouragement for the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine”.

In the year 1841, the British Zionist Charles Henry Churchill, the British staff officer in the Middle East, wrote a letter to the Jewish Zionist, Moses Montague, head of the Council of Jewish Representatives, in London, in which he said that he could not hide his fervent desire for the Jewish people to achieve their existence once again in a Jewish state with the help of European powers. In the year 1844, the Zionist priest Bradshaw issued an appeal in which he proposed to the English Parliament to grant four million pounds, in addition to another million pounds from the churches, to contribute to “returning the Jews to Palestine”. In the same year, a committee was formed in London with the goal of “returning the Jews to Palestine”. The Speaker of Parliament, Reverend Tully Krayback, said, “England must secure for the Jews all of Palestine from the Euphrates to the Nile, and from the Mediterranean to the desert”.

In the year 1845, Edward Muntiff Red, from the Colonial Office in London, presented a plan to follow British policy in the Middle East. This plan included working to create a Jewish nation in Palestine, to be a protected state, first under British guardianship, then settling them permanently to become an independent country. Also in 1845, John Goller, the first governor of the colony of South Australia, proposed establishing Jewish colonies in Palestine, gradually, under British protection, until the Jews were finally granted self-rule, under British protection. One of the political Christian Zionists in Britain, working on behalf of the Jews, was a member of Parliament and Minister of Foreign Affairs at his time, Lawrence Oliphant 1829-1888. He travelled several times to Istanbul and spoke to Jewish and non-Jewish businessmen and industrialists.

The Zionist Christian priest, William Hechler, 1845-1931, was sent by the British government in 1882 to Istanbul to meet the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid and tried to convince him of the issue of settling the Jews in Palestine. He made great efforts in that, and so the Zionists described him as “the Christian lover of Zion” because he said that Israel existed in Jerusalem, and ruled from there, as king of kings, for a thousand years. When he was a chaplain at the British embassy in Austria, in early 1886, he got to know Herzl, and deep connections developed between them. Through this friendship, Herzl got to know many European leaders, especially Grand Duke of Baden, Frederick. The first is that Hechler was a private tutor for his son, and this helped to establish links between Herzl and the German Frederick Kaiser. Hechler was the first to present to Herzl a map of Palestine, with its borders – in the view of the Jews – from the Euphrates to the Nile. He also came to the Basle Conference in 1897, accompanied by Herzl, considering himself the secretary of the Messiah, and then he chanted loudly when they entered Herzl into the meeting hall, saying: “Long live the king, long live the king”, meaning “Herzl”. He spoke at the conference, asking the Jews to wake up because God – as they claimed – called them to return to their ancient homeland.

(Theodor) Herzl had several meetings with both the Christian Zionist Lawrence Oliphant and the Christian Zionist William Hechler in the long series of cooperation between Jewish and Christian Zionism, as Jewish Zionism emerged as an open organization, starting from its first conference in August 1897. Its conference approved the Zionist political program, which does not differ in some of its provisions from the calls of the Christian Zionists, especially regarding the settlement of the Jews in Palestine and the establishment of a state for them therein, recognized by the countries of the world. Thus, Jewish and Christian Zionism have agreed together, until today, to work to transform Muslim Arab Palestine into a Jewish state.

Furthermore, the colonial politician Joseph Chamberlain 1836-1914, who was a member of Gladstone’s government, then resigned from it and assumed the Colonial Ministry from 1895-1903, held a meeting with the founder of Jewish Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in London, and proposed to him the establishment of a Jewish state in Al-Arish or Uganda. One of the most enthusiastic Europeans in serving global Zionism, seeking after their interests and ambitions was Arthur James Balfour (1848-1930), who held several political positions in Britain. He was Minister of the Exchequer, then Prime Minister from 1902-1905, then Minister of War from 1915-1916, then Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1916-1922, where he issued in this capacity his famous declaration, and after the Balfour declaration on November 2, 1917, when it was stipulated that the British government pledges to establish a nation for the Jews in Palestine.

His niece, the biographer of his life, Blanche Dugadel, says, “(Arthur) Balfour was influenced from an early age by studying the Torah in the church, and the more he became accustomed to it, the more his admiration for Jewish philosophy increased, and he always spoke with interest about it, and I still remember that, in my childhood, I quoted from him the view that Christianity and its civilization owe a lot to Judaism, but they have befouled this religion in the ugliest image”. One of the Zionists spoke about the life of Balfour and described him as saying that his most prominent Biblical beliefs that he inherited in his childhood, and upon which he was raised in one of the Scottish Evangelical churches, are “God’s chosen people, their right to the Promised Land, and the fulfillment of prophecy, by gathering the Jews, in the State of Israel in Palestine”.

In the year 1906, he [Balfour – the Christian Zionist] met with the Jewish Zionist Chaim Weizmann in a Manchester Hotel and stressed to him the need for Christianity to provide all its capabilities to the Jews, in order to achieve the opportunity to return to their homeland. Peter Grosz -a Christian Zionist, one of the employees of the Planning Committee at the Ministry of State, during the era of US President Jimmy Carter, and Director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, in New York – said about him, “Balfour had a better understanding of Zionist ambitions than Herzl. It is reported that Balfour used to say, “If a homeland must be found for the Jewish people, it is futile to search for any place other than Palestine”. Balfour announced after his departure from Washington, in May 1917, saying, “I am a Zionist”. This was after he finalised the declaration named after him, following his meeting with American President Wilson and his meeting with the Jewish Zionist judge Louis Brandeis.

There was another Christian Zionist who aided Balfour and aided him in issuing his Zionist promise to the Jews [i.e. those Jews that ascribe to Zionism], and that was the Christian Zionist David Lloyd George, who became Prime Minister of England in 1916. Indeed, he clearly stated that his knowledge of the history of the Jews, and the names of Jewish places in Palestine, is more than his knowledge of the history of his country. His admiration for (Balfour) directed him towards Zionism.

Indeed, the importance of the Balfour Declaration from a Zionist political point of view sits tight on Britain’s official recognition of the existence of a nation for Jewish people. This was internationally recognised after the consolidation of the pledge through the process of the English Mandate over Palestine, after its approval at the San Remo Conference in 1920, and through the guarantee of the League of Nations in 1922. The Jewish Zionist Chaim Weizman said, “Do you think that Balfour was responding to us when he gave us the promise of establishing a national homeland in Palestine? No, the man was responding to religious belief by way of the teachings of the Old Testament”. The promise was a letter sent by Balfour to the Jew Rothschild. It was expressed on November 2, 1917, in the text as follows: “Dear Lord Rothschild, it pleases me a lot to finalise with you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following statement: “In our close affinity with the wish of the Jews and Zionism, which have been presented and approved by the Council of Ministers, His Majesty’s Government considers with special privilege the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, and will do everything possible within its power to facilitate the achievement of this goal, and it shall be clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may infringe on the civil rights of non-Jewish groups resident in Palestine, or the rights and legal status enjoyed by Jews in any European country. I owe you a debt of gratitude if you would communicate this statement to the Union. The loyal Zionist Arthur Balfour”.

This is why Chaim Weizman said, “Britain embraced the Zionist movement and took it upon itself to fulfil its idea”. It is worth bearing in mind that this statement proclaimed by Britain was with the knowledge and approval of the Allies – officially approved by France in February 1918 and Italy in May, and preceded by negotiations in London between Jewish leaders, Britain, the French, and Italian governments. And regarding the promise to the Jews to establish a homeland in Palestine, it was officially approved in London, Paris, and Rome, and the publication of this approval was delayed until late October 1917. Also, the government of the United States of America hastened to honour this promise.

The Balfour Declaration

Historians of that period mention that it was the Jewish Zionist Chaim Weizman who drafted the wording of that pledge (i.e. the Balfour declaration) and presented it to British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, who in turn presented it to the British government, which ratified it, in exchange for international Zionism supporting the “Allied War Effort”, and involve America on the side of the allies, and for Balfour’s biblical doctrine and his government. The Balfour Declaration affirmed the British Mandate under the supervision of the League of Nations, which is the basis from which the United Nations developed and remains to this day. [Footnote a] The main body of this organisation was under the control of the Christian and Jewish Zionists, and the Supreme Council of Political Leaders held in San Remo in the year 1920 approved the draft Mandate.

The British agreement on Palestine, which was formulated by the Jewish Zionists in cooperation with the Christian Zionists, and the British Mandate included the following: “Palestine will be placed in administrative, political, and economic conditions that guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national homeland. The Mandate will encourage Jewish migration to Palestine and the settlement of Jews in the Palestinian territories. The government will pledge to form a Jewish organisation to look after the affairs of the Jews in Palestine and throughout the world, and monitor the formation of the national homeland provided that the Jewish organisation when granting project concessions gives precedence to investing the natural wealth in Palestine”, and the fanatical Zionist Herbert Samuel was made the High Commissioner for the Mandate in Palestine by the League of nations.

When Britain’s mission to strengthen the Jews in Palestine ended, it transferred the matter to the United Nations so that the Christian and Jewish Zionists could take over. It announced in a historical memorandum that it was abandoning the Mandate and was leaving Palestine on May 15, 1948. And (prior to that) when the matter was presented to the United Nations in 1947, they decided to divide Palestine between Arabs and Jews, and that the ​​Jerusalem and Bethlehem areas were to be regarded as international zones. The major Zionist countries (at the time), America, Britain, France, and Russia, agreed to this. This division gave the Jews the fertile lands and brought them to Umm al-Rashrash on the Gulf of Aqaba, in order to disconnect the Arab and Muslim lands in Asia and Africa from it. Certainly, the British Christian Zionists began the practical implementation with the support of the United Nations regarding that promise it made to the Zionists and then through the mandate for Palestine- facilitated the migration of the Jews to it and assisted them in controlling it. They seized and handed it over to them under the protectorship of the United Nations, and announced the establishment of a Jewish state on May 15, 1948, with the support of Europe and America. This is why the Zionist Chaim Weizman, who served as the first president of the State of Israel after its establishment in 1948 chose London as the Global Headquarters of Zionism with exhortation from all British political circles.

It is worth noting that Theodor Herzl stated before Weizmann, saying, “The first moment I joined the Zionist movement, my eyes turned to England because of the general circumstances I saw that England was the fulcrum that could move the crane” (i.e. the main country to promote the Zionist Movement). Nevertheless, the Christian and Jewish Zionists had a very strong influence in Britain, therefore, this political union (i.e. the UK) had a very great and major impact in establishing a state for the Jews in Palestine, protected and defended it – in the past – in many plans and events, and this is still present and its increase is clearly manifest in recent years. [3]


[1] An Excerpt from Tafseer as-Sadi

[2] An Excerpt from “Diraasaat Al-Adyaan Al-Yahudiyyah Wan-Nasraaniyyah. pages 127-130

[3] An Excerpt from “As-Sahyuniyyah An-Nasraaniyyah, Diraasah Fee Daw’i Al-Aqeedah Al-islaamiyyah. pages 279-297