Skip to main content

[27] The Ascent and Decline of The Ottoman Empire: [Emergence of The First Saudi State]

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

Sultan Mahmud II [1223 – 1255 AH /1808 – 1839 CE]

He ascended to the throne at the age of twenty-four and gained valuable insights during his house arrest with Salim III, who acquainted him with various reform initiatives. Initially, he was forced to acquiesce to the demands of the Janissaries, resulting in the annulment of all reforms to placate them until a more favourable time for their execution.. He demonstrated patience, biding his time to free himself from the Janissaries, who represented a considerable threat to the Ottoman state. Regrettably, this opportunity eluded him for several years, particularly as his reign was characterised by wars and significant events that consumed much of his energy and resources.

The War With Russia

A peace treaty was concluded with England in 1224 AH / 1809 CE, and efforts were made to forge a similar agreement with Russia; however, these attempts were unsuccessful, culminating in a conflict between the two nations. The Ottomans suffered defeat, resulting in the Russians seizing several strategic positions. As a consequence, Grand Vizier Dhiya Yusuf Pasha was dismissed and succeeded by Ahmad Pasha, who successfully repelled the Russians and reclaimed the occupied territories. Concurrently, relations between France and Russia soured, edging them toward war. In light of this, Russia sought to establish peace with the Ottoman Empire, leading to the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest in 1237 AH / 1812 AD. This treaty ensured that Wallachia, Moldavia, and Serbia would remain under Ottoman sovereignty. The resulting peace enabled Sultan Mahmud to pursue various reforms and address the revolts and insurrections occurring within the empire. Upon learning of the Treaty of Bucharest and their reestablished subjugation to the Ottoman Empire, the Serbians launched a rebellion. Nevertheless, the Ottoman military quelled the uprising with considerable force, leading the movement’s leaders to seek refuge in Austria. Among these leaders, Theodore Futch exhibited allegiance to the Ottomans and accepted their dominion, which resulted in him being granted special privileges by the state.

The Abolition of the Janissaries: The Janissaries experienced a decline in their character, their ethical standards shifted, and their original mission was altered, ultimately rendering them a source of disaster for the state and its subjects. They began to meddle in governmental affairs, driven by an insatiable desire for power, engaging in indulgent and illicit behaviours. They were forced to march through the harsh winter, imposed with royal tributes, and gravitated towards looting and pillaging during their military campaigns. They strayed from the foundational purpose of their establishment, succumbing to excessive alcohol consumption. Their actions led to military defeats, as they neglected religious laws, doctrines, and principles, distancing themselves from the true elements of success. They played a pivotal role in the deposition and assassination of sultans, including Uthman II. Throughout the reign of Sultan Murad IV, they persisted for a decade in their misguided ways, deeply entrenched in their oppressive rule. They were instrumental in his ascension to the throne, thereby seizing control over governance. They also suffocated Sultan Ibrahim I when he sought to liberate himself from their dominance. Their conduct plunged the state into disorder, as they eliminated sultans and placed their young heirs, such as Sultan Mehmed IV, on the throne. This chaos enabled foreign powers to seize portions of the territory, prompting the Grand Vizier and scholars to step in and remove him from power.

During the reign of Sultan Salim II, the Janissaries revolted, leading to enemy forces invading and occupying parts of the state. The Janissaries deposed several sultans, including Mustafa II, Ahmed III, and Mustafa IV, until Allah granted Sultan Mahmud II the opportunity to rid the state of their influence in the year 1241 AH. The Sultan summoned a meeting of the state’s dignitaries and high-ranking Janissary officials at the residence of the Grand Mufti. During this gathering, Grand Vizier Salim Ahmad Pasha articulated the diminished and disreputable condition of the Janissaries, while stressing the urgent need for modern military reforms. His persuasive discourse resonated with the attendees, leading the Mufti to issue a fatwa that authorised measures against the insurgents. While the Janissary officers publicly voiced their concurrence, they privately nurtured dissent. Recognising the impending threat to their privileges and the possible restriction of their activities, they began to strategise a rebellion, seeking support from segments of the general populace.

On the 8th of Dhu al-Qi’dah in the year 1241 AH, a faction of the Janissaries initiated harassment against the soldiers during their training sessions, which soon escalated into a full-scale rebellion. In response, the Sultan summoned the scholars to discuss the situation, who urged him to take decisive action against the uprising. Consequently, he ordered the artillery to prepare for engagement, balancing a conciliatory stance with concerns over the potential intensification of the rebels’ hostility. On the morning of the 9th of Dhu al-Qi’dah, the Sultan proceeded with the artillery units in tow, accompanied by scholars and students, towards the At Meydani square, where the insurgents had congregated to foment disorder.

The artillery encircled the battlefield and seized the elevated positions, targeting the Janissaries with their shells. In a desperate attempt to charge the cannons, the Janissaries encountered a relentless barrage that compelled them to take refuge in their barracks to avoid certain death. However, these shelters were set ablaze and ultimately collapsed upon them, including the Bektashi lodges, resulting in their defeat. The following day, a royal edict was issued to eliminate their ranks, uniforms, terminology, and name from the state. Those who survived and fled to the provinces faced either execution or exile. Consequently, Hussain Pasha, who was instrumental in their destruction, was appointed as the Commander-in-Chief (Serasker), signaling the onset of a new military system.

Sultan Mahmud subsequently acquired the autonomy to enhance his military forces, aligning with the principles of Western military. He replaced the traditional fez with the turban and adopted European clothing, mandating this style as the official uniform for all military and civilian state personnel. Additionally, he instituted an order known as the Order of Distinction, becoming the first Ottoman sultan to do so. The measures implemented by Sultan Mahmud, including the replacement of the fez with the turban and the enforcement of European attire among military ranks, signify his deep sense of psychological defeat. We will examine the underlying reasons for this, InShaAllah.

Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt:

Muhammad Ali was a figure known for his infamous reputation, characterised by his brutality and stern disposition. The Ottoman Empire sent him to enforce discipline in villages that were slow to fulfill their financial responsibilities. He would establish his camp with his punitive troops around the village, partaking in acts of plunder, theft, and instilling terror among the defenseless inhabitants. As a result, the villagers frequently determined that it was more advantageous to pay the required amounts, despite the considerable strain it placed on them. His fixation on opulence approached the realm of insanity. He entered Egypt leading a group of Rumelians with the objective of driving out the French troops. Utilizing his astuteness and strategic thinking, he successfully earned the confidence of the Egyptian scholars. He resorted to underhanded and deceptive tactics to remove his competitors for the governorship of Egypt, ultimately achieving the title of Wali on the 20th of Rabi’ al-Awwal in the year 1220 AH, corresponding to June 18, 1805 CE.

Muhammad Ali showed strong eagerness to act as a devoted servant to the Sultan, frequently articulating sentiments of submission and respect towards both the Sultan and his rulership. Nevertheless, the Sultan began to grasp the potential consequences of these declarations, which raised his concerns about this new governor. As a result, he commanded Muhammad Ali’s transfer from the governorship of Egypt. However, the intervention of scholars prompted the Sultan to issue a subsequent decree reaffirming Muhammad Ali’s authority in Egypt on the 24th of Sha’ban in the year 1221 AH, which corresponds to November 6, 1806 CE. He began to strengthen his personal position and consolidate the authority within his own lineage. This raises numerous questions that require answers, such as: What was the true nature of Mohamad Ali’s role in serving French and British interests? Who was responsible for the downfall of the First Saudi State and the annexation of the Levant to Egypt? These are inquiries we seek to address through a thorough historical study.

The historian Abdur Rahman Al-Jabarti describes Muhammad Ali: Al-Jabarti described Muhammad Ali “as a deceitful individual, characterised by dishonesty and false oaths. He is depicted as unjust, devoid of integrity and accountability, and filled with malice, all while exercising oppression and tyranny under the guise of promising justice. Consequently, some have likened Muhammad Ali to Machiavelli or suggested that he was influenced by Machiavellian principles, which assert that the ends justify the means”. He was intent on enhancing his image in the eyes of the West and followed their lead in modernisation, even claiming to think with a “European mind while wearing the Ottoman cap.” On behalf of France, Britain, Russia, Austria, and other European nations, Muhammad Ali dealt significant blows to the Islamic direction in Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and the Ottoman Caliphate. These actions contributed to the preparation of the Islamic world for Western ambitions. After consolidating his power, he surrounded himself with a cadre of advisors, including Greek and Armenian Christians, as well as scribes from the Copts and Jews. He also recruited Mamluks to serve as governors of the provinces. Al-Jabarti described this situation by stating, “He opened his doors to the Christians from the Greeks and Armenians, allowing them to take the lead, while the lower classes were elevated. He had a penchant for control and dominance, showing little tolerance for opposition.” He confiscated land from farmers, imposed a tax known as the “shakra,” or an alternative tax. He significantly increased the prices of essential goods, imposed unbearable taxes, and monopolised all economic activities. This led to widespread resentment among the people.

The implementation of this policy resulted in a profound animosity among the peasants towards him and his associates, leading many to abandon their agricultural lands and flee their villages in response to the oppressive measures. Consequently, there was a notable reluctance to enlist in his army, with reports indicating that in the year 1831 alone, approximately six thousand peasants had escaped. In urban areas, particularly in Cairo, al-Jabarti notes that when Muhammad Ali tasked the populace with the reconstruction of the city, ten vices emerged among the people. These included sorcery, exploitation, labour costs, humiliation, degradation, the tearing of garments, monetary demands, the gloating of enemies, disruption of their livelihoods, and the fees for public baths. Al-Jabarti was a contemporary of the oppressive policies enacted by Muhammad Ali against the Muslim population in Egypt, who suffered the loss of their rights and resources. He opened the doors wide for European traders to enter Egypt and dominate its economy, transforming the country into a farm that supplied European markets with agricultural products. This led to a significant cultural and commercial connection between Egypt and Europe. The emerging merchant class in Egypt became economically and politically dependent on European markets, while proponents of European culture gained control over intellectual life, effectively stifling advocates of Islamic ideals. This shift was further exacerbated by the cessation of religious-based educational curricula, a move aligned with Napoleon’s Masonic policies. This situation was corroborated by the English historian Arnold Toynbee, who stated that Muhammad Ali was a dictator capable of turning Napoleonic ideas into effective realities in Egypt. European colonialism achieved its objective of exploiting the facilities and material reforms instituted by Muhammad Ali. Meanwhile, the Muslim population of Egypt was engulfed in despair, paying a heavy price that far exceeded the extent of any reforms, namely the destruction of its cultural identity shaped by Islam, which had distinguished its role throughout the Islamic eras. The call for nationalism and patriotism was initiated, while simultaneously imposing restrictions on advocates of Islam among scholars. This approach aligned with efforts aimed at achieving independence for Egypt, thereby distancing it from the ties to the Islamic Caliphate. This direction received support from Masonic lodges, which viewed this movement as integral to their objectives.

Salafi Call By (Imam) Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, masy Allah have mercy upon him:

Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Ibn Sulayman Ibn Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rashid al-Tamimi was born in the year 1115 AH / 1703 CE in the town of Al-Uyaynah, located approximately seventy kilometers north of Riyadh, or roughly that distance to the west. He grew up with a passion for knowledge, pursuing it from a young age, and exhibited remarkable talent and distinction. He memorised the Quran and studied Hanbali Fiqh, Tafsir and the science of hadith. He was greatly influenced by the works of (Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, in jurisprudence, creed, and opinions, and he held them in high regard. Additionally, he was inspired by the writings of (Imam) Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Urawah al-Hanbali, and other prominent figures from this Salafi fountain. In his quest for knowledge, he traveled to Makkah, Madina, Basra, and Al-Ahsa, where he faced numerous trials when he openly expressed his views in Iraq, before eventually returning to Najd. Upon his return to Huraymilah in Najd, he commenced his mission by promoting virtue and prohibiting vice, engaging in scholarly pursuits, education, and advocating for the pure creed of Islamic monotheism. He cautioned against polytheism, its dangers, and its various forms. He faced an assassination attempt from certain individuals in Huraymilah. Subsequently, he moved to his hometown of Al-Uyaynah, where the local ruler welcomed him and encouraged his efforts in the call to faith. He established Islamic law, enforced legal penalties, and dismantled shrines. His stay in Huraymilah was brief due to pressure from the Amir of Al-Ahsa on the Amir of Huraymilah to eliminate Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, prompting him to leave on foot to Al-Dariyah.

The alliance with Muhammad Bin Saud: Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab successfully formed an alliance with Prince Muhammad bin Saud, who utilised his wealth and resources to support the call for monotheism. This partnership was established on solid foundations, enabling the Shaikh to continue his mission through education, correspondence, and preaching. He diligently taught, wrote letters, and fortified his arguments with evidence and reasoning to substantiate his claims. His efforts included advocating for the eradication of wrongdoing, the dismantling of grave structures, the prevention of idolatry, and the affirmation of servitude to Allah alone. The call remained peaceful and measured, gently reaching out to hearts and inviting people to the path of Allah with wisdom and good counsel. He continued to educate those who attended his lessons, clarifying his beliefs and explaining the principles of his call to all, regardless of their background. However, he recognised that gentleness was often met with harshness, truth with falsehood, and good counsel with conspiracies.

Consequently, it became necessary to enter a phase of Jihad and to confront wrongdoing with strength. The Shaikh, with the assistance of Prince Muhammad bin Saud, began to prepare the necessary resources, including men and weapons, to mobilise the fighters from Diriyah beyond its borders. The aim was to spread the call and solidify its foundations both within the island and beyond. The Shaikh personally oversaw the training of the men, the organisation of the armies, and the dispatch of smaller units, all while continuing his studies, teaching, corresponding with the people, and receiving and bidding farewell to guests. Allah granted him knowledge, prestige, dignity, and authority after a prolonged struggle. He possessed keen political insight and extensive experience in matters of war and governance.

The conflicts between the supporters of the call and their adversaries persisted for many years, with the proponents of the call often emerging victorious. Villages fell one after another. In the year 1178 AH / 1773 CE, Riyadh was captured under the leadership of Prince Abdul Aziz Muhammad bin Saud, while its previous ruler, Dhahham bin Dawwas, fled. Dhahham was a tyrannical ruler who repeatedly oppressed the callers to Tawhid and violated the agreements he had made with those leading the call. Following the conquest of Riyadh, the territory under the influence of the call expanded significantly, and many people willingly accepted the call to Tawhid. The obstacles that had previously hindered their acceptance were removed, leading to a period of relief after hardship, with prosperity following adversity. Wealth increased, conditions improved, and the people found security under the nascent Islamic state, which had deprived them of the blessing of safety during its absence.

Following the death of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, the call ontinued, receiving strong support from the Al Saud family, who wielded significant authority. They shifted their focus to the Hijaz region, which was under the control of Sharif Ghalib bin Musaid. The Sharif initiated military and religious attacks against the Saudis. This conflict persisted until the year 1803, when the Saudis entered Makkah without facing any resistance from Sharif Ghalib, who chose to flee to Jeddah. Two years later, the Saudis captured Madina. The influence of the Salafi call extended across much of the Arabian Peninsula, prompting Britain to recognise the threat this posed to its interests. The First Saudi State established its dominance over the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea, bringing the Qawasim in the Arabian Gulf under its control. Its influence reached into southern Iraq, affecting the overland route between Europe and the East. Moreover, the religious foundations upon which this state was built made it impossible for Britain to manipulate or negotiate agreements with it, as opposition to foreign influence in the region was one of the primary objectives of this state. The Qawasim, supported by Saudi strength, were able to deliver significant blows to the English fleet in 1806, resulting in their control over the waters of the Gulf. During the reign of Saud bin Abdul Aziz, the state reached its political zenith, extending its influence to Karbala in Iraq and Hauran in the Levant, with the entire Arabian Peninsula coming under its authority, except for Yemen.

Conspiracies Against The Salafi Call: The malevolent minds among the European descendants contemplated the consequences of the continued existence of the First Saudi State. They recognised that its persistence would undermine their interests in the East as a whole. Consequently, they deemed it essential to dismantle this state, employing various insidious methods to eradicate the influence of the Salafi call, including:

First: There was a concerted effort to sway public opinion within the Islamic state against the teachings of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Those who adhered to Bidah and superstitions, mistakenly believing them to be integral to Islam, actively opposed the Shaikh’s call. This resistance was not limited to a single faction or group; rather, it emerged from various quarters and individuals. It was particularly pronounced among scholars who relied on the influence granted to them by the general populace and the uneducated, seeking to preserve their practices rooted in Bidah and superstitions, which they erroneously considered part of the faith. These individuals included caretakers of graves and those who profited from offerings, as well as those who thrived on the food and funds provided during commemorations of the deceased. They also believed that Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab introduced a new religion that contradicted their established customs. This opposition was widespread throughout the Ottoman Empire and across the entire Islamic world, exacerbated by the dissemination of fatwas issued by corrupt scholars, which were propagated by the English and French, adversaries of Islam, to discredit the teachings of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Secondly: There was a campaign of intrigue and discord between the call of Shaikh and the leadership of the Ottoman Empire. The British, French, and others instilled in Sultan Mahmud II the belief that Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab’s movement aimed for the independence of the Arabian Peninsula, a separation from the Ottoman Caliphate, the unification of the Arab world, the seizure of the banner of the caliphate, and the establishment of an Arab caliphate. Sultan Mahmud II succumbed to the malicious whispers of his adversaries, a course of action that was unwarranted. It would have been more prudent for him to question this deceitful counsel and to dispatch trustworthy officials to investigate the matter. The Sultan of the Muslims failed to recognise the peril of believing this fabricated news regarding a genuine Islamic call and acquiesced to the enemies’ suggestions to eliminate it before it could gain strength, resulting in significant expenditures of both resources and manpower to suppress it.

The Ottoman Empire devised a strategy to combat the First Saudi State, intending to delegate this responsibility to the governors of neighboring regions. This approach aimed to achieve two objectives: first, to eliminate Saudi expansion in the Arab East, and second, to weaken these governors and deplete their resources, ensuring their continued subservience to the Empire. Initially, the focus was on the governor of Baghdad, as he was the closest to Najd. However, this governor was preoccupied with local disturbances in his province, and his military forces were too weak to confront the Saudis effectively. He faced multiple failures in repelling their incursions along the Iraqi borders. Consequently, the Empire turned to the governor of Syria, hoping he would succeed where the governor of Iraq had failed, but his outcome was even more disastrous. After losing faith in the capabilities of the governors in Baghdad and Syria, the Empire directed its attention to Egypt, requesting Governor Muhammad Ali in 1807 to launch a campaign against the Arabian territories to reclaim the holy sites from Saudi control and restore the Empire’s authority, which was waning in the Arabian Peninsula. However, Muhammad Ali did not respond to the Empire’s request until 1811, after he had dealt with the Mamluk beys in the Citadel massacre.

The followers of the Salafi call did not seek the caliphate, nor did they express any objections to its authority. However, the disagreement was confined to two main issues. The first was the Salafis’ insistence on the necessity for pilgrims to adhere to the principles of Islam and to refrain from any actions that would contravene them. The second issue was the Ottoman Empire’s sense of embarrassment and vulnerability in light of the control over the holy cities in Hijaz by the helpers of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, as they recognized that this situation undermined their prestige and political standing. Al-Jabarti indicated that the stance of the helpers of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab regarding the pilgrims from the Levant was that they should only come under the conditions they imposed, which included arriving without the palanquins, drums, flutes, weapons, or any other items that contradicted Islamic law. Upon hearing this, the pilgrims returned without performing the pilgrimage and did not abandon their objectionable practices. He also noted a similar position regarding the Egyptian pilgrimage procession.

The decree issued by the Ottoman Sultan, which called for war against the Saudis at the behest of Muhammad Ali and influenced by the letters from the Sharif of Jeddah, as well as encouragement from the British, was limited to the objectives of reclaiming the sacred cities. This request was reiterated, focusing solely on the liberation of the sacred sites. Following the military’s successful conquest of the Hijaz, after enduring several defeats against the followers of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, Sultan Mahmud II sent a decree to Egypt to be read in mosques, announcing the restoration of the sacred cities. This indicates that the Ottoman Sultan’s primary aim was the reestablishment of Ottoman sovereignty over the Hijaz.

The war could have concluded at this point, as Muhammad Ali’s forces had taken control of the cities in Hijaz. Muhammad Ali appointed a new Sharif for the region, who was compelled to travel there and subsequently expelled Sharif Ghalib, who had supported his forces and facilitated their entry into Hijaz. Additionally, the leaders of the Saudi Salafi call proposed a peace agreement; however, Muhammad Ali imposed conditions that were exceedingly difficult to fulfill for the acceptance of peace. In his response to the peace request, he included a threat, as narrated by al-Jabarti, stating: “As for the peace, we do not reject it under conditions that require us to be reimbursed for all expenses incurred for the troops from the beginning of the war until this date, and to return all that was taken and received from the treasures and supplies that were in the sacred chamber, as well as the value of what was consumed. After that, he must come and meet with me, and we will formalise our peace agreement. If he refuses to do so and does not come, we will proceed to him.”

The Reality of Muhammad Ali’s Campaign in Hijaz and Najd: The conflict between Muhammad Ali and the followers of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was not a war between two forces both adhering to Islam, nor was it an Arab war, as some may describe it. Rather, this conflict represented a struggle between a Saudi Islamic force, which had no political ambitions but demonstrated a fervent commitment to returning to the fundamental principles of Islam, and an opposing force sent by the governor of Egypt. This opposing force was not Egyptian in nature; it primarily consisted of Albanians, some Turks, Christians, and a few French officers. Most of its leaders bore only the name of Islam. The historian al-Jabarti illustrates the nature of this force through the account of a pious and devout observer, who witnessed the initial defeat of these troops at the hands of the followers of the Salafi call: “The question of our victory arises, especially when many of our soldiers do not adhere to our faith. Among them are those who do not practice any religion or follow our creed. They are accompanied by containers of alcohol, and there is no call to prayer in our midst, nor are the obligatory prayers performed. The faithful gather in orderly lines behind a single Imam, demonstrating humility and reverence. When the time for prayer arrives, even amidst the chaos of battle, the Mu’adh-dhin calls for prayer, and they perform the prayer of fear. One group advances to engage in combat while another remains behind to pray. Our troops are astonished by this practice, having neither heard of it nor witnessed it before. They call out in their camp, urging one another to confront the polytheists, those who shave their beards, indulge in fornication and sodomy, and consume alcohol. Upon examining many of the fallen soldiers, they discovered that they were uncircumcised. When they reached Badr and took control of it, along with the surrounding villages and territories inhabited by the best of people and learned individuals, they plundered them, seizing their women, daughters, and children, as well as their books”.

Muhammad Ali did not adhere to the Shariah in his warfare; rather, he acted in opposition to divine commandments, transgressing the boundaries set by the Almighty and showing disregard for Islamic rulings. His army engaged in killing, destruction, plundering, and violating the rights of the monotheistic Muslims. In the Battle of the Camel, Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, instructed his companions: “Do not pursue a commander, nor finish off the wounded, and whoever lays down his weapon is safe.” He also cautioned: “Beware of women, even if they insult your honor and curse your leaders, for a man may strike a woman with a stick or a club, and he will be reproached for it, as will his descendants thereafter.” Abu Umamah Al-Bahili, may Allah be pleased with him, reported: “I witnessed the Battle of Siffin, where they did not finish off the wounded, nor did they kill those who turned to flee, nor did they loot the slain.”

The Ottoman Sultan was primarily concerned with the submission of the Hijaz to his rule, and the attack on Dariyah was not an urgent or necessary demand for the Ottoman state. Muhammad Ali was inflexible in his terms for peace, indicating his desire to prolong the conflict; his objective in this war was to further his expansionist ambitions within the framework permitted by British political goals in the region. The Saudi state had become a significant threat to British interests across the entire area, including the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf, and the overland route through Iraq. Consequently, Britain felt a genuine threat to its interests in the East, which justifies the characterisation of this campaign as a crusade cloaked in Islamic guise.

When Tosun Pasha, under Muhammad Ali, was defeated by Prince Abdullah bin Saud, resulting in the destruction of half his army, Muhammad Ali personally ventured to the Hejaz in 1813. He apprehended Sharif of Makkah Ghalib bin Musaid, accusing him of conspiring with the Saudis. Muhammad Ali confiscated all of Ghalib’s possessions, including his wealth, furniture, and belongings, effectively making the Sharif an employee of Muhammad Ali in the Hejaz. Subsequently, in January 1815, Muhammad Ali achieved victory over Saudi forces, a conflict regarded by some as one of the most significant events and a crucial battle in the military history of Egypt.

Muhammad Ali did not remain in the Arabian Peninsula to oversee the victory he had achieved; instead, he returned to Egypt, leaving his son Tosun in Hijaz. Soon after, Tosun succeeded in inflicting a new defeat on the Saudis for the first time and quickly advanced into the northern region of Najd, reaching the city of Al-Rass. He then occupied Al-Shabiyah, thereby opening the route to Al-Dariyah. In response, Prince Abdullah hastened to request the initiation of negotiations to prevent bloodshed and protect the towns and villages. Negotiations commenced between the two parties regarding a peace agreement under the following condition

1 – The occupation of the Egyptian forces in Diriyah. 2 – Prince Abdullah is to place himself at the disposal of Tosun Pasha, traveling to the location he deems appropriate. 3 – Prince Abdullah must ensure the safety of the pilgrimage routes and remain subject to the governance of the city by Muhammad Ali until an agreement on the peace terms is reached.

These conditions, if agreed upon, shall not take effect until they are ratified by Muhammad Ali. However, these conditions were not accepted by Prince Abdullah, who decided to send a delegation to Egypt to negotiate directly with Muhammad Ali regarding the terms of peace, but the delegation’s efforts were unsuccessful due to the pasha’s rigidity, and the Saudis prepared for war and combat. Consequently, Muhammad Ali dispatched a new campaign in 1816, led by his son Ibrahim Pasha.

Ibrahim Pasha advanced his forces from Hijaz towards Najd, successfully capturing the cities of Unayzah, Buraydah, and Shuqra, thereby subjugating the entire Qassim region. In his campaign, Ibrahim employed a conciliatory approach towards the tribes, a strategy that endeared him to many in Najd. He frequently convened councils and distributed gifts to the populace, initially adopting a method that appealed to the tribes by prohibiting looting and pillaging. With the assistance of his French military advisors, he continued his advance until he laid siege to Dir’iyyah, which was known for its strong defenses. This siege lasted from April 6 to September 9, 1818, culminating in the surrender of Prince Abdullah bin Saud and Ibrahim’s entry into Dir’iyyah. From there he dispatched the Saudi prince under heavy guard to Egypt, who was subsequently sent from Cairo to Istanbul. In Istanbul, Prince Abdullah was publicly displayed for three full days before being ordered to be executed by hanging. The truth of his execution will be revealed on the Day of Judgment. He had called for peace among the people of the island through a message sent by Shaikh Ahmad al-Hanbali to Tosun, in which they acknowledged the authority of the Ottoman Sultan and affirmed their loyalty to the caliphate. Therefore, why was there a persistent insistence on directing forces to the Arabian Peninsula? Thus, the lives of Muslims were lost at the hands of one another, a consequence of the machinations of their enemies. The inhabitants of the island supported the Muslims of Egypt during the French occupation; therefore, what is the reason for this deliberate aggression? Muhammad Ali was able, through the leaders associated with Islam, to persuade many ordinary people that their actions were in compliance with the orders of the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah to whom they owed their obedience and allegiance. However, the issue of loyalty and disavowal was entirely absent in the actions of Muhammad Ali. This is evidenced by his allegiance to the enemies of Islam, allowing them to lead him and guide the nation towards its demise.

The joy in Britain was immense upon learning of the fall of Dir’iyyah, the capital of the First Saudi State, to the forces of Ibrahim Pasha. This state was a Salafi entity that had supported the Qawasim in their struggle against British interests in the Arabian Gulf, which posed a threat to British interests in India. It is pertinent to consider, particularly in light of the events that unfolded in the Islamic world during its modern history, what might have transpired had the armies of Muhammad Ali and the Ottoman Empire collaborated with the First Saudi State instead of opposing it. Together, they could have stood against European ambitions in general, and British interests in particular. Such a collaboration could have altered the course of history, especially since the Saudi state was a Muslim entity founded on the correct Salafi principles, which the Islamic world desperately needed at that time. Regardless, Britain recognised the potential benefits of this situation and quickly extended congratulations to Ibrahim Pasha, motivated by its own self-interests. Captain George Forster Sadler was dispatched to convey these congratulations to Ibrahim Pasha for his conquest of Dir’iyyah while also seeking to establish a framework for coordination between Pasha’s land forces and the British naval forces for a joint military operation against the Qawasim, followers of the First Saudi State.

The relationship between Britain and Muhammad Ali is longstanding. At the onset of his rule, he engaged in negotiations with them that lasted four months, during which he demonstrated his seriousness and sincere desire to establish a connection with them. He even requested to place himself under their protection. This is corroborated by the report from Fraser, who was responsible for the negotiations. Their eventual acceptance of his proposal led to their abandonment of their alliances with the Mamluks. The report prepared by Fraser, who negotiated with Muhammad Ali’s envoys and sent to General Moore on October 16, 1807, outlined the key aspects of these negotiations. It stated: “I hope you will allow me to clarify for you the essence of a conversation that took place between the Pasha of Egypt, Major General Shryock, and Captain Philows during their mission with His Excellency. I have reason to believe that this conversation, along with many other private communications I had with him, indicates that he is earnest and sincere in his proposals. Muhammad Ali Pasha expressed his desire to place himself under British protection, and we promised to relay his suggestions to the leaders of the British forces, so they could present them to the English government for consideration. In return, Muhammad Ali committed to preventing the French, Turks, or any army from another state from entering Alexandria by sea, and he pledged to maintain Alexandria as an ally.”

The French consul, Drugeti, commented on the information he received regarding the agreement between Muhammad Ali and the British, suggesting that this treaty represented a type of agreement that, if concluded, would fulfill the objectives the British sought by sending their campaign to Egypt. However, its impact might exceed what they anticipated from this military expedition. The British chose not to disclose all the terms of this agreement following its signing, the evacuation of Alexandria, and its handover to the Pasha of Egypt. Britain deemed it necessary to exercise caution in this regard due to the explicit declaration of hostility towards the Ottoman Empire contained within the agreement, as it supported a ruler seeking independence at a time when British diplomacy had significant interests with the empire and aimed to benefit from its new ally to extend its influence in the region, if possible. [An Excerpt from “Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awamil An-Nuhud Wa Asbab As-Suqut 6/375-400]

Read: The State of the Region of Najd, Arabia in the Time of Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb and the First Saudi State- By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him. https://abukhadeejah.com/the-state-of-the-region-of-najd-arabia-in-the-time-of-ibn-%CA%BFabdul-wahhab-and-the-first-saudi-state/

Did Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhāb rebel? The First Saudi State. https://abukhadeejah.com/did-shaikh-muhammad-bin-%CA%BFabdul-wahhab-rebel-the-first-saudi-state/

Must accept the reality that one will hear what he hates

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

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

Everyone will face afflictions, for indeed a person is a social being who has to live with people. The people have wants and perceptions, and will seek to make him agree with them. If he disagrees with them, they harm and punish him; but if he agrees with them, sometimes they harm him and at other times he is harmed by others. [1]

Imam As-Sadi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Among the beneficial things to know is that the harmful (statements) of the people directed towards you—particularly evil speech —doesn’t (really) harm you, instead it harms them, unless if you preoccupy yourself by giving it importance, thus it consumes your emotions, then it can harm you just as it harms them. It will not harm you in anyway if you do not pay attention to it. [2]


[1] An Excerpt from ‘Al-Fawaa’id. page 295
[2]Al-Wasaa’il Al-Mufeedah. page 30

The boundaries of steady moral qualities

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

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

Moral character has boundaries. Going beyond these boundaries leads to transgression while falling short results in deficiency and humiliation.

Anger:

Anger is commendable when it is within the boundaries of bravery and a dislike for despicable and poor (behaviour). However, crossing those boundaries leads to oppression, while insufficient anger results in cowardice and a lack of aversion towards despicable actions.

Eagerness:

Eagerness should be balanced to achieve what is necessary in life and to work towards those goals. A lack of eagerness leads to humiliation and a waste of (valuable time and missed opportunities), while excessive eagerness leads to vehement greed and unpraiseworthy desire.

Envy:

The boundaries of envy lie in (praiseworthy or healthy) competition for excellence and improvement, without wishing ill upon the other person. Going beyond these limits leads to negative feelings of envy and oppression, where one desires that the envied should be deprived of blessings and is eager to harm him. (However), if one lacks (what is required of this matter), it leads to a lack of self-esteem and ambition. The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “There is no envy except with regards to two (people): a person whom Allah has given wealth and he spends it in the right way, and a person whom Allah has given wisdom (knowledge) and he judges by it and teaches it to others”. This type of envy is competition between people and the one with benign envy seeks to emulate the one he envies whilst not harbouring the despised envy which is to wish that the blessings bestowed on the envied should cease.

Permissible Desires:

They are a means of relaxation for the heart and mind after dedicating oneself to acts of obedience and striving to achieve virtuous deeds. Yet, if one indulges excessively, it results in intense and difficult-to-control emotions and immoral behaviour, causing the individual to sink to the level of animals. On the other hand, if a person lacks desire and does not (use leisure as a means) of pursuing excellence and virtue, it leads to weakness, helplessness, and degradation.

Relaxation:

It provides a renewed strength to the self and enhances one’s cognitive capacity, enabling them to perform acts of obedience and achieve virtuous deeds, and to avoid being weakened by labour and fatigue. Nevertheless, exceeding one’s limits results in apathy, idleness, squandering and the loss of many advantageous opportunities.

Furthermore, insufficient relaxation damages one’s strength and may leads to weakness.

Generosity

Exceeding its boundaries results in excess and wastefulness. Conversely, a lack of generosity leads to stinginess and penny-pinching.

Bravery:

Exceeding one’s boundaries results in recklessness, while a lack of courage leads to cowardice and vulnerability. Knowing when to act and when to abstain is the key to staying within its limits.

Protective Jealousy:

Going beyond one’s limits results in false accusations and (unfounded) suspicion against an innocent person. Similarly, lacking protective jealousy leads to carelessness and a disregard for one’s own reputation.

Humility:

Going beyond one’s boundaries results in disgrace and embarrassment. Conversely, a deficiency in humility leads to pride and boasting.

Honour:

Going beyond one’s boundaries results in pride, whilst a lack of honour leads to humiliation and indignity.

Justice ensures an upright balance in all matters, requiring individuals to follow the balanced path set by the Islamic legislation, which is free from exaggeration and negligence. All beneficial things of the worldly life and the Hereafter depend on this (balance). Physical well-being cannot be attained without it, as any imbalance in the body’s elements – whether through excess or deficiency – will lead to a loss of well-being and strength. Similarly, engaging in natural activities like sleep, eating, and socialising in moderation is considered balanced.

However, veering towards extremes in any of these activities will result in deficiencies and negative outcomes. One of the most noble and advantageous fields of knowledge is the acquaintance with the limits (boundaries in different matters), particularly the divine limits, the commands and prohibitions. The most knowledgeable are those who possess the most knowledge of these divine limits, hence they neither exceed them nor fall short of them. As Allah, The Exalted, states:

ٱلۡأَعۡرَابُ أَشَدُّ ڪُفۡرً۬ا وَنِفَاقً۬ا وَأَجۡدَرُ أَلَّا يَعۡلَمُواْ حُدُودَ مَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ

The Bedouins are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits (Allah’s Commandments and His Legal Laws, etc.) which Allah has revealed to His Messenger. [at-Tawbah 97]

Therefore, the most just, balanced and upright people are those who stay within the limits of moral character, the actions and deeds legislated in the Islamic legislation- in knowledge and practice.

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.


Source: An Excerpt from ‘Al-Fawaa’id page 207- 209

Auschwitz – a brief dialogue with Hagay Hacohen

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

Abdullah Ibn Amr, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “Whoever would love to be delivered from Hellfire and admitted into Paradise, let him meet his end while believing in Allah and the last day, and let him treat people as he would love to be treated”. [Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim 1844]

Hagay Hacohen’s article touches on the harrowing history of Auschwitz, therefore, we say without any reservation that those events represent a profound tragedy. The victims of such atrocities deserve our deepest sympathy. As Muslims, we are guided by the teachings of the seal of the Prophets, Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that we treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. None of us would wish for our loved ones to endure the horrors faced at Auschwitz. The perpetrators of these crimes, the Nazis, must be condemned for their actions until the end of time. It is also crucial to remember that such atrocities echo in the current suffering of the Palestinian people, who have faced Zionist brutality for over seven decades. Just as we denounce the Nazis for their violence against innocent civilians, we must also speak out against those Zionists as well as any group of Muslims when they harm non-combatants. In our pursuit of justice for all in recent times, we should reflect on the wise words of Prince Turki Al-Faisal, may Allah protect him, which remind us of our duty to reject excess and injustice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3-cWyFcK5w

We understood from Hacohen’s mention of antisemitism that it highlights its role as a driving force behind the persecution of Jews that took place in Germany and beyond. As Muslims, we unequivocally assert that antisemitism is strictly prohibited in the final revelation, and we must actively fight against it, leaving no space for those who perpetrate such hatred. [Footnote a] We equally denounce the extreme violence and land theft perpetrated by Zionists for over 70 years. [Footnote b]

Hagay Hacohen noted in the article:

Comment: It is essential to confront fear, hate speech, rising nationalism, and those who seek to eliminate any group, regardless of their faith—be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or others. Just as we firmly reject and condemn any non-Jew who advocates for the eradication of any race, we also stand against any Jew who makes statements promoting genocide. This condemnation applies universally; no individual, whether Jew or non-Jew, is exempt. There have been notable Zionist figures, including Netanyahu, whose rhetoric mirrors that of those who incite extreme violence and injustice. We have provided examples of such statements made by certain Zionist leaders in the following links:

https://abuiyaad.com/a/amalekite-genocide-doctrine-gaza

https://abuiyaad.com/a/slaughtering-children-holy-war/print

https://www.abuiyaad.com/a/pharoah-slaughtering-babies

Must take a look at what is happening in their own backyard first

When we commit to the important task of addressing any speech that suggests the destruction of a race, it is essential that we hold accountable all those who make such remarks or encourage others to do so. Our condemnation must be impartial and not self-serving; we should not prioritise our own interests over the rights of others, regardless of whether we can evade consequences through manipulation, concealment, or downplaying the struggles of others to promote our agenda. It is crucial that we do not become overly focused on our own emotions at the cost of others’ rights. We must consistently evaluate our priorities to avoid falling into arrogance or a sense of entitlement that disregards the rights of others, as this can warp our perception of reality and diminish our awareness, open-mindedness, and empathy. Such an attitude only exacerbates violations, conflicts, misunderstandings, and distrust among individuals. This is why the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, remind us to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. The events that transpired at Auschwitz are well known and will be constantly condemned. In a parallel vein, the ongoing plight in Palestine, marked by over 70 years of Zionist brutality, will similarly face relentless condemnation. The link provided offers a brief overview of certain atrocities perpetrated by Zionists, both in the past and last year.

North African Jews- Brief dialogue with Ohad Merlin

We unequivocally denounce the atrocities that occurred at Auschwitz, as well as all who seek to oppress the servants of Allah. Our stance on this matter is unwavering. Allah said:

مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا

If anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. [Al-Ma’idah. 32]

Imam As-Sadi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

If a person is bold enough to kill someone who does not deserve to be killed, this implies that he does make a distinction between the one he killed and other than him; rather he would commit this act whenever his evil calls him to that. Therefore, his bold attitude that led him to kill is as if he has killed all humankind. On the other hand, if a person saves a life and does not kill – whilst his soul calls him to do so – due to fear of Allah, this is as if he has saved the lives of all humankind because the fear of Allah he possesses stops him killing one who does not deserve to be killed. [1]

Abdullah Bin Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, said that Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “The first (thing) that will be decided among people on the Day of Judgment will pertain to bloodshed”. [2]

Imam An-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

This hadith shows the severity of bloodshed and that it will be the first thing that will be judged between people on the Day of Resurrection because of its greatness and extreme danger. This hadith does not contradict the well-known hadith in the Sunan that the first thing a person will be questioned about is the prayer because this hadith is about a matter between Allah and the person, whereas the first hadith (i.e. judgement in matters related to bloodshed) is an affair between the people. [3]

As for those who question why participation in events commemorating historical occurrences is not legislated in the pure Shariah, they may find clarity in the words of Imam Abdul Aziz Bin Baz, may Allah have mercy upon him, as stated below:

Indeed, it has become the custom of many Islamic countries in this era to specify – by way of an order- a period of three days of mourning, or less or more, for the kings and leaders together with the cessation (of work) in government departments and flags flown at half-mast. There is no doubt that this act is contrary to Muhammad’s Shariah… It has been reported in the authentic hadiths – transmitted from Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that prohibit specifying days of mourning and cautioning against it, except in the case of a wife because she mourns her husband for four months and ten days. As for other than this in relation to specifying days of mourning, it is not allowed by the Shariah, and there is nothing in the perfected Shariah that allows it to be done for a king, leader, or other than them.

Indeed, during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, his son Ibrahim, his three daughters and other individuals died, but he did not specify days of mourning for them. During his time, leaders were killed, but he did not specify days of mourning for them, such as Zaid Bin Haritha, Jafar Bin Abi Talib and Abdullah Bin Rawahah.

Then the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, died- and he was the most honorable of the creation, the best of the Prophets, the master of the children of Adam, and the calamity that afflicts humankind because of his death is the greatest of calamities, but the Companions did not specify days of mourning for him. Then Abu Bakr As-Siddiq died – and he is the best of the Companions, and the most honorable of creation after the Prophets, but days of mourning were not specified for him. Then Umar, Uthman and Ali were killed, and they are the best of creation after the Prophets and after Abu Bakr, but days of mourning were not specified for them. And likewise, all the Prophet’s companions passed away, but days of mourning were not specified for them. The Imams of Islam and the leaders of guidance amongst the scholars of the Taabi’in and those after them died, such as Sa’eed Ibn al-Musayyib, Ali Ibn Al-Husayn Zain Al-Aabideen and his son Muhammad Bin Ali, Umar Bin Abdil Azeez, Az-Zuhree, Imaam Abu Haneefah and his two companions, Imaam Maalik Bin Anas, Al-Awzaa’ee, Ath-Thawree, Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee, Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Ishaaq Ibn Rahaawayh and other than them amongst the Imaams of knowledge and guidance; but days of mourning were not specified for them. (4)

It is essential to recognise that engaging in events that lack Shariah endorsement and denouncing the offenses perpetrated by either Muslims or non-Muslims are fundamentally distinct matters. Furthermore, abstaining from commemorative events does not imply a rejection of the heinous acts committed; our condemnation of the offenders remains unwavering and unequivocal. However, we refrain from participating in any activities that contradict Shariah principles. Additionally, we are instructed to coexist with non-Muslims in a manner characterised by exemplary conduct. Please refer to the information below.

https://abukhadeejah.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Living-with-Non-Muslims.pdf

http://www.shariah.ws/articles/duviqgl-shaykh-salih-al-fawzan-the-islamic-shariah-provides-security–for-muslims-and-non-muslims-and-those-who-violate-it-are-kh257rijites-who-are-to-be-fought-and-severely-punished.cfm

http://www.shariah.ws/articles/szsumlh-the-foundation-of-muslim-relations-with-non-muslims-who-do-not-show-aggression-and-hostility.cfm

http://www.shariah.ws/articles/nmsdfkp-islam-and-the-muslims-are-free-and-innocent-of-the-kharijite-extremists.cfm

———————————————–

Footnote a:
https://abuiyaad.com/sn/muslims-antisemitism
https://abuiyaad.com/w/antisemitism-ernest-renan
https://abuiyaad.com/a/muhammad-semitic-prophet

Footnote b:

The Promised Land: A Brief Examination from a Religious and Historical Perspective


(1) Tafsir As-Sadi

(2) Sahih Muslim 1678

(3) Sharh Sahih Muslim 11/139

(4) Majmu Fatawa 22/229

North African Jews- Brief dialogue with Ohad Merlin

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. Ayah 135]

In the above article, Ohad Merlin references a Jewish historian to illuminate the profound effects of colonialism and the pervasive antisemitism [Footnote a] of that era, particularly regarding its repercussions for North African Jews. It is equally important to acknowledge that beyond the egregious actions of the Colonialists against the indigenous populations in North Africa and elsewhere, [Footnote b] there existed influential Colonialists among Christian Zionists, wielding significant global political power. These figures later extended their support to Zionist movements in European nations, contributing to the gradual marginalisation of the Palestinians. This complex evolution encompasses various dimensions, some of which are briefly discussed in the following links.

The Initial Rise and Gradual Impact of Christian Zionism on Some European Political Decision-makers

An Overview of Christian Zionism in America Since the Arrival of The Puritans

https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2025/01/13/islamic-identity-crisis-brief-rebuttal-to-samuel-j-hyde/

American Christian Zionists’ Media Initiatives Aimed at Influencing Public Opinion, With a Brief Mention of The Concept of Greater Israel

Nevertheless, regardless of the support that certain notable European Christian Zionists later extended to the Jewish Zionists residing in Europe and in territories governed by the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, we unequivocally condemn any form of injustice or antisemitism encountered by Jews in North Africa and beyond, for injustice must be recognized solely as what it is: an affront to humanity. The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said that Allah said: “Allah Almighty said: O My servants, I have forbidden injustice for Myself and I have forbidden it among you, so do not oppress one another”. [Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim 2577]

Any factual evidence of oppression faced by North African Jews during that period will be recognized without any embellishment or dramatization. Nonetheless, conversations about the oppression of Jews should also include a reminder of the similar struggles being endured by Palestinians at the hands of Zionists over the last 70 years.

Some Instances of Historical Zionist Brutality Towards Palestinians

The Deir Yassin Massacre: Took place on April 9, 1948, near Jerusalem, during which between 107 to 254 Palestinians were massacred at the hands of the extremist “Stern” gang.

The Nasr al-Din Massacre: Took place in April 1948. Al-Lajjun Massacre: Took place on April 13, 1948, in a Palestinian Arab village in the Jenin District, where the Zionist Haganah gang attacked it and killed 13 people.

The Saliha Massacre: Took place in May 1948, during which 75 Palestinians were massacred.

The Abu Shusha Massacre: Took place on May 14, 1948, near the village of Deir Yassin, and claimed the lives of (50) citizens, including women, men, children, and the elderly.

The Beit Daras Massacre: Took place in northeastern Gaza on May 21, 1948.

The Tantura Massacre: Took place on May 22, 1948, in the occupied city of Haifa, and claimed the lives of about (200) Palestinians.

The Lydda Massacre: Took place on July 12, 1948, in the occupied city of Lydda, and resulted in the massacre of about (500) Palestinians, including (150) who were massacred inside the city’s Grand Mosque. The Zionists threw many of them alive into the town’s wells.

The Dawayima Massacre: Took place on October 29, 1948, when a battalion from the terrorist “Lehi” organization led by Moshe Dayan attacked the village and then began searching homes and shooting at its residents. Entire families were exterminated in the massacre, which resulted in the killing of 200 men, women, and children.

The Zionist massacres did not stop after the Nakba of 1948, but rather their frequency, intensity, and brutality increased in light of the use of more lethal and destructive weapons. Among the most prominent of these massacres were: The Sharafat Massacre, which took place in February 1951, in which 11 Palestinians were massacred, and the rest of the village’s people were displaced. The Bethlehem Massacre took place in January 1952, in which 10 Palestinians were massacred. The Qibya Massacre took place on October 14, 1953, in the village of Qibya, east of Jerusalem, during which (67) Palestinians were massacred, most of whom were women and children, and during which 56 homes were destroyed. The Qalqilya Massacre took place on October 10, 1956, when the occupation forces attacked citizens in the city of Qalqilya in the West Bank, during which about seventy citizens were massacred.

The Kafr Qasem Massacre took place on October 29, 1956, in which 49 Palestinians were massacred, including 11 children, when they were all returning home from work. The Khan Yunis Massacre took place on November 3 and 12, 1956, in which between 280 and 500 Palestinians were massacred.

In 1970, Zionist aircraft struck Bahr al-Baqar Primary School and Abu Zaabal factories, killing more than 150 Egyptian students and workers. In 1980, the extremist Jewish organization Kach attempted to blow up Al-Aqsa Mosque, and a shipment of explosives weighing 120 kg was discovered. The Sabra and Shatila massacre took place in September 1982. This massacre lasted three days, and its direct perpetrators were members of the Lebanese Phalange forces allied with the Zionists led by Ariel Sharon. The Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre took place on February 25, 1994, when a Zionist named “Barog Goldstein” stormed the Ibrahimi Mosque in the city of Hebron, and fired bullets and bombs at the worshipers. This massacre resulted in the massacre of 29 Palestinians. The Qana Massacre took place on April 18, 1995. [Compiled from various old Arab Newspapers]

Recent developments following the October 7 attack by Hamas have drawn significant criticism from various international organizations regarding the severe retaliation executed by Netanyahu’s military forces. Reports indicate that Netanyahu and his allies have engaged in actions that violate the Genocide Convention, aiming to systematically eliminate the Palestinian population in Gaza. This includes not only killings but also inflicting serious physical and psychological harm, as well as imposing living conditions designed to lead to their physical annihilation. Month after month, the actions of Netanyahu’s military have dehumanised Palestinians in Gaza, treating them as a group devoid of basic human rights and dignity, clearly signaling an intent to eradicate them.

During the height of the conflict, various international organisations reported a harrowing two-month period where the population was under siege, grappling with starvation, displacement, and the threat of annihilation amidst relentless bombardments and crippling restrictions on essential humanitarian aid. Additionally, they highlighted that for several months, the forces under Netanyahu’s command engaged in acts that could be classified as genocidal, fully cognizant of the irreversible damage being inflicted on the Palestinian people in Gaza. This continued despite numerous warnings regarding the dire humanitarian crisis and binding resolutions from international entities demanding that Netanyahu and his associates take immediate action to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.

They stated in their reports that Netanyahu and his associates have consistently maintained that their actions in Gaza are lawful, claiming justification through their military objective of eliminating Hamas. However, the notion of genocidal intent can exist alongside military objectives and does not have to be the only aim. The context of dispossession, apartheid, and unlawful military occupation in which these actions have taken place has led to a singular, reasonable conclusion: that Netanyahu and his associates intended the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, either in conjunction with or as a means to achieve their military goal of dismantling Hamas. Furthermore, while acknowledging the horrific crimes committed by Hamas and other armed groups on October 7, 2023, including unlawful killings and hostage-taking, it is crucial to understand that these actions cannot justify Netanyahu’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The military response from the Zionist army following the attacks on October 7 has pushed Gaza’s population to the brink of disaster. This relentless offensive has resulted in the deaths of over 42,000 Palestinians, including more than 13,300 children, and has injured upwards of 97,000, with many casualties stemming from direct or indiscriminate attacks that have obliterated entire families. The scale of destruction is unprecedented, occurring at a pace and intensity not witnessed in any other 21st-century conflict, decimating entire cities and devastating essential infrastructure, agricultural lands, and cultural and religious sites. As a result, vast areas of Gaza have become uninhabitable.

They also highlighted that Netanyahu’s government created dire living conditions in Gaza, resulting in a lethal combination of malnutrition, hunger, and disease, effectively subjecting Palestinians to a slow and calculated demise. Furthermore, hundreds of Gazans have been subjected to incommunicado detention, torture, and other forms of mistreatment. The total siege imposed on Gaza cut off essential resources such as electricity, water, and fuel. Over nine months during the conflict, Netanyahu’s administration enforced a stifling and illegal blockade, severely restricting access to energy and failing to ensure meaningful humanitarian aid within Gaza. This obstructed the importation and distribution of critical supplies, particularly in the northern regions. Consequently, the already dire humanitarian crisis worsened. The extensive destruction of homes, hospitals, water and sanitation systems, and agricultural land, coupled with mass displacement, led to catastrophic hunger levels and a rapid increase in disease. The effects have been particularly devastating for young children and pregnant or breastfeeding women, with serious long-term health implications.

Through its repeated “evacuation” orders, Netanyahu’s government issued numerous “evacuation” orders, resulting in the displacement of nearly 1.9 million Palestinians—90% of Gaza’s population—into increasingly confined and perilous areas, often under dire conditions, with some individuals being forced to relocate as many as ten times. This relentless cycle of forced displacement rendered countless people unemployed and profoundly traumatised, particularly given that approximately 70% of Gaza’s inhabitants are refugees or descendants of those who were uprooted from their homes during the 1948 Nakba. They stated that Netanyahu’s administration showed a troubling unwillingness to implement measures that could have safeguarded displaced civilians and addressed their fundamental needs, indicating a deliberate choice to ignore their plight. They consistently denied displaced individuals the opportunity to return to their homes in northern Gaza or to seek temporary refuge in other areas of the Occupied Palestinian Territory or lands under Zionist control. This refusal continued to violate the rights of many Palestinians to return to the areas from which they were uprooted in 1948, as recognised by many nations. The administration was fully aware that there were no safe havens for Palestinians in Gaza.

The above information, derived from reports by various international organisations, has faced denial from Zionist factions, despite being evident in daily life. While Ohad Merlin highlights the plight of North African Jews, it pales in comparison to the brutality faced by Palestinians over the past 70 years. It is crucial to remember that the roots of this conflict do not lie with the Palestinians, who did not instigate it, but rather with the colonial figureheads that supported the Zionists in creating the circumstances over 70 years ago. [Footnote c]

We would like to emphasise, once again, the strong insights shared by Prince Turki al-Faisal, may Allah safeguard him, which can be found in the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3-cWyFcK5w

In addition, some Zionists figureheads have also employed genocidal rhetoric against Palestinians. [Footnote d]

——————————————-

Footnote a: https://abuiyaad.com/sn/muslims-antisemitism

Footnote b:
https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2024/11/16/the-uncivilised-third-world-and-developing-countries/

Footnote c:
https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2024/11/13/the-initial-rise-and-gradual-impact-of-christian-zionism-on-some-european-political-decision-makers/

An Overview of Christian Zionism in America Since the Arrival of The Puritans

American Christian Zionists’ Media Initiatives Aimed at Influencing Public Opinion, With a Brief Mention of The Concept of Greater Israel

Footnote d:
https://abuiyaad.com/a/slaughtering-children-holy-war/print

https://abuiyaad.com/a/amalekite-genocide-doctrine-gaza

https://www.abuiyaad.com/a/pharoah-slaughtering-babies

Must take a look at what is happening in their own backyard first

Admonition when Shariah schools began to emerge in Baghdad

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

Al-Allamah Siddeeq Hasan Khan, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

(You) should know that sound knowledge does not contain any harm. Conversely, ignorance does not hold any benefits. This is because every piece of sound knowledge has a benefit that is connected to matters of the Afterlife, the life (in this world), or human perfection. However, in certain sciences, it may be mistakenly assumed that harm can arise or that the knowledge is not beneficial due to a failure to consider the necessary conditions that must be observed in acquiring knowledge and by the scholars, because every branch of knowledge has its boundaries, and these boundaries should not be exceeded. It is erroneous to believe that knowledge can surpass its intended purpose, just as it is incorrect to assume that mainstream medicine can cure all ailments. In reality, certain diseases cannot be cured through (medical) treatment. [I] Among them (the people) is one who thinks that (some specific) knowledge is above its rank, just as one thinks that jurisprudence is the most honourable of all sciences without exception, but this is not the case, as the knowledge of pure Islamic monotheism is more honourable without exception. [II]

Among them is (one) intending through knowledge other than its purpose, such as the one who learns for the sake of wealth or prestige. The purpose of sciences of the religion in and of themselves is not to earn wealth, but rather acquaintance with facts and refining morals. Therefore, he who pursues knowledge of the religion for the sake of professionalism is not a scholar, but rather he is someone who feigns resemblance to the scholars. [III] The scholars of Transoxiana revealed and stated this when they were informed of the construction of schools in Baghdad; so, they held gatherings of religious knowledge and stated: “The people with lofty aspirations and the pure souls used to preoccupy themselves with it, whose goal behind the pursuit of knowledge was because of its nobility and perfection (attained) through it, thus, they came to the scholars to benefit from them and their knowledge. However, if it becomes a means of earning, the mean (vile) and lazy people will approach it and this will be a reason for its disappearance, thus the sciences of wisdom are abandoned, even though they are noble in and of themselves”. [IV] [1]

—————————————————–

[I]https://abukhadeejah.com/what-are-the-principles-of-medicine-with-the-scholars-of-islam/ https://abukhadeejah.com/why-i-post-health-articles-on-my-site-and-top-12-tips-for-cancer-prevention/

[II]Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Haai Al-Mad’khali, may Allah preserve him, stated: The Muslims have to be acquainted with the knowledge of Tawheed and Shirk. Shirk is the gravest sin that can be committed in disobedience to Allah. The Prophets brought the greatest (aspect) of knowledge, and that is the knowledge of Tawheed, and they warned against the greatest wrong-doing, which is to ascribe partners to Allah. [ إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٌ۬ – Verily! Associating partners to (Allah in worship) is a great wrong indeed]. [Luqman. 13]

This is an affair that many of the callers to Islam have turned away from at present and do not give importance. The knowledge of Tawheed is the first thing they snub and flee from, (and) Shirk is the first thing they decline (to address) when seeking to guide the Ummah. Neither do they warn the people nor caution them against this greatest danger known to mankind [i.e. Shirk]. Tawheed is the greatest (knowledge) brought by Prophets as glad tidings, but they (i.e. many of the callers) do not convey it; rather the greatest affair to them is modern politics. The knowledge of Tawheed is the affair by way of which this Ummah is distinguished. Neither is there anything more impure (i.e. corrupts the heart, deeds, manners, thoughts, ideas, intentions, goals, aims, etc) nor filthier than shirk, so why do we not purity the Ummah from this impurity and filth? Why do those callers to Islam deliberately feign ignorance of this impurity, in which the people wander blindly and belittle its severity, even though there is nothing equal to its (filthiness and impurity)? It is obligated to the Muslims to free themselves from the filth of shirk and sincerely worship Allah alone so that they become the cleanest people and purest [i.e. in creed, deeds, thoughts, views, intentions, goals, aims, etc]. And through this, they will be distinguished [in every virtuous trait]. If the mosques of the Muslims in the Islamic world are filled with graves- even though the Messenger severely cursed those who turn graves into places of worship- and those callers to Islam have not taken any steps to confront this filthy practice, then there can be no betrayal and deception -against the ummah- greater than this.

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُمُونَ مَآ أَنزَلۡنَا مِنَ ٱلۡبَيِّنَـٰتِ وَٱلۡهُدَىٰ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ مَا بَيَّنَّـٰهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِى ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ‌ۙ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ يَلۡعَنُہُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَلۡعَنُہُمُ ٱللَّـٰعِنُونَ

Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers. [Al-Baqarah. 159]

The greatest clear proof is Tawheed and it is the guidance that will remove the people from shirk. Therefore, O callers to Islam! Fear Allah, safeguard the Muslims from this greatest danger, and raise them to the highest station in this worldly life – the station of Tawheed because there is no station loftier than the station of Tawheed. Tawheed is the greatest station in the entire universe and Shirk is the lowest. [2]

[III] https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2025/01/04/certificates/

[IV] Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy upon him,  said: I saw that solely being preoccupied with studying Fiqh and listening to hadeeth is not enough to rectify the heart, except combined with (the authentic narrations concerning the) softening of the hearts, and looking into the biographies of the pious predecessors. As for knowing Halal and Haram only, it does not have a great strength in softening the heart; rather the softening of the heart is (attained) by mentioning the Ahadith on the subject matter and the stories of the pious predecessors. That is because they (i.e. the pious predecessors) grasped the intent behind narrating, demonstrated the tangible obligated actions by way of them, practical encounter with their meanings, and the goals behind them. And there is nothing that will make you experience this, except after cultivation and experience. That is because I find that the ambition of the majority of the Muhadditheen and the students of hadeeth is (focused on acquiring hadeeth that has the closest chain of transmission from the Prophet and gathering numerous authentic Ahadith on a particular subject matter in the religion. And the majority of the jurists (focus on) the science of debate and that which gives one the upper hand, so how can the heart be softened through these affairs? Indeed, a group of pious predecessors aspired to see that a righteous slave should look to his character and upright guidance and not (merely) the knowledge he has acquired. That is (because) his character and upright guidance are the fruits of his knowledge. So understand this! The students of Hadeeth and Fiqh should combine (seeking after hadeeth and fiqh) with studying the lives of the pious predecessors and the Zuhhaad so that it can be a means to soften the heart. Indeed, books have been compiled regarding the affairs and manners of each one of those well-known outstanding men (of piety). A book has been compiled regarding the affairs of Al-Hasan [Al-Basri], Sufyaan Ath-Thawri, Ibraaheem Bin Ad-ham, Bishr Al-Haafiy, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Ma’roof and other than them amongst the scholars and the Zuhhaad. [6]

It is necessary that the seekers of Hadeeth should have the most perfect (behaviour, manners, etiquette, etc) amongst the people, be the most humble amongst the people, the greatest in their impartiality and adherence to the religion, the least in (deviating from good conduct) and (being overcome with) anger because they constantly listen to the narrations that gather the excellent manners and etiquettes of Allah’s Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him], the lives of the virtuous pious predecessors, the path of the scholars of Hadeeth and the virtues of the (pious ones and scholars) who have passed away; so they adhere to the purest and excellent (aspects of those traits, etiquettes, manners, etc) and turn away from the most despised and lowly (traits, behaviour, manners, etiquettes, etc). [7]


[1] An Excerpt from “Abjad Al-Ulum” 1/77-78. slightly paraphrased

[2] An Excerpt from “Marhaban Yaa Taalibal Ilm”. pages 104-106. slightly paraphrased

[3] Sharh Hilya Taalib Al-Ilm..page:22. slightly paraphrased

[4] An Excerpt from ‘Saydul khaatir’ Page 171. Daar Ibn Rajab. 1st edition 2003

[5] Source: An Excerpt from ‘Jaami Bayaan Al-Ilm 1/78. By Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadi

Destructive Self-sufficiency

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

Allah, The Exalted, said:

كَلَّآ إِنَّ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنَ لَيَطۡغَىٰٓ
أَن رَّءَاهُ ٱسۡتَغۡنَىٰٓ

Nay! Verily, man does transgress all bounds, because he considers himself self-sufficient.

[كَلَّآ إِنَّ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنَ لَيَطۡغَىٰٓ – Nay! Verily, man does transgress all bounds]- Meaning, Abu Jahl, who used to be insolent and boastful about his clothing, riding beast and food when he earned more wealth. [1]

[أَن رَّءَاهُ ٱسۡتَغۡنَىٰٓ – because he considers himself self-sufficient]- Meaning, due to the human being’s ignorance and wrongdoing when he considers himself self-sufficient, he transgresses, rebels, haughtily turns away from guidance, forgets that he will be returned to his Lord and does not not fear the recompense; rather, he might reach such a state that he abandons guidance and calls others to abandon it and tell others not to perform the prayer which is the most virtuous deed of Iman. [2]

Allah did not (solely) state that he (this human being) became self-sufficient; rather, He indicated that tyranny arises from the perception of his self-sufficiency. But He did not mentioned this perfection in Surah Al-Layl; instead, He stated:

وَأَمَّا مَنۢ بَخِلَ وَٱسْتَغْنَىٰ

وَكَذَّبَ بِٱلْحُسْنَىٰ

فَسَنُيَسِّرُهُۥ لِلْعُسْرَىٰ

But as for he—( Umayyah bin Khalaf)—who is miserly (with respect to his wealth and Allāh’s right upon him) and considers himself self-sufficient (from his Lord). And rejects al-Ḥusnā (the statement of monotheism) (or: the obligations of prayer, fasting and charity) (or: the promise of Allāh) (or: Paradise and its reward). Then We will make easy for him (the path to) evil (or: Hellfire). https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/verse/92/8

This, and Allah knows best, is due to the cause of his arrogance, which stems from his perception of his own self-sufficiency.

Surah Al-Layl elucidates the factors contributing to his downfall and the lack of ease in his affairs, stemming from their belief that they do not need their Lord by abandoning obedience and servitude. Had they genuinely relied on Allah, they would have endeavored to draw nearer to Him through the prescribed acts of worship, akin to a servant who cannot do without his Lord even for a moment and adhering to His orders. For this reason, this is linked to his miserliness, which reflects his failure to fulfill his obligations in speech, actions, and wealth, as well as his rejection of Al-Husna [Footnote a] which is promised those who perform good deeds, as stated by Allah: [لِلَّذِينَ أَحْسَنُوا الْحُسْنَى وَزِيَادَةٌ – For those who have done good is the best (reward, i.e. Paradise) and Ziyadah]. [Footnote b]

The purpose of this discussion is that the perfection of not needing Allah is the cause of the downfall of a servant of Allah and is the root of all difficulties. His perfection of not being in need of his Lord is the cause of his transgression and downfall, both of which stand in stark contrast to the dependence on Allah and servitude (to Him). [3]

The creation find themselves within two types of neediness. The first type of neediness is inevitable. It is a type of neediness which every everyone (cannot do without) – the righteous and the wicked. It neither necessitates praise nor dispraise, and neither reward nor punishment; rather it is solely due to the fact that the creation are created beings [i.e. absolutely in need and completely dependent on their Creator in every way].

The second type of neediness is one based on choice from which emanates two noble aspects of knowledge. The first one is the servant’s knowledge and awareness of his Lord and the second is knowledge and awareness of oneself in reality. As soon as one acquires these two types of knowledge, it brings about a type of neediness that becomes a person’s distinguished and most precious source of wealth, and the means to success and happiness in (this life and the next). The people’s different stations in this type of neediness depends on their different stations in these two affairs of knowledge.

The one who knows that his Lord (Allaah) is the Self-Sufficient One [absolutely free from all wants and to Whom everyone and everything depends, and none can do without Him in the twinkling of an eye], then he will know that he is completely in need.

The one knows that his Lord (Allaah) is alone the Possessor of Perfect Ability [possessor of All-Encompassing Ability and able to do all things], he will know that he is completely unable [cannot do anything in the twinkling of an eye without the help of] his Lord.

The one who knows that his Lord (Allaah) is The All-Mighty, he will know that he is one completely in a state of [complete poverty, weakness and want unless his Lord provides for him etc]. The one who knows that his Lord (Allaah) is the possessor of All- Encompassing knowledge and Wisdom, he will know that he is ignorant.

Allah brought the person out of his mother’s womb while he knew nothing- not able to do anything and owned nothing; neither able to give nor take, and neither able to harm nor benefit. This state of neediness – until he reached a more perfect state – is something witnessed and tangible for everyone (to see), and it is well known that this is the very essence of the human being and he remains upon that state. He does not move from this state and enters into a state of Lordship – a state in which he becomes absolutely self-sufficient and not need of anyone and anything; rather he does not cease being a slave, a needy one to his Rabb [Allah the Creator, All-Provider and the Only One Who Controls and Sustains Everything] and His Fatir [Allah, The Originator and Creator of Everything].

However, after the human being was granted blessings, shown mercy, granted the means to reach a more perfect state, and Allah -out of His Perfect Kindness and Generosity- granted him apparent blessings [i.e. to recognize the Messengers who were sent with Islamic Monotheism, granted him the lawful pleasures of this world, including health, good looks, etc.] and the hidden blessings [i.e. granted him the innate disposition to recognize his Lord when the Messenger calls him to Iman, and granted him knowledge, wisdom, guidance for doing righteous deeds, and also the pleasures and delights of the Hereafter in Paradise, etc.], granted him hearing, sight and a heart, and taught him [i.e. gave him the means to knowledge], granted him ability, subjugated things to him, granted him [the desire and enthusiasm to pursue what is beneficial, and take action], enabled him to receive the service of those of his kind [i.e. gave him authority over other humans], subjugated to him horses and camels, gave him the ability to capture the animals in the sea, drop birds from the sky, subjugate wild animals, dig wells [irrigate water etc.], plant trees, dig the earth, learn how to build, acquire the things that are of benefit to him, guard against and protect himself from that which is harmful to him; then the Miskin [i.e. this absolutely poor, dependent human being] thinks that he has a share of authority and claims – for himself – a kingship [or authority] similar to that of Allah [Glorified be Allah and free is Allah from all imperfections, partners, coequals, similarities etc.], and begins to see himself in a manner other than what he was at first, forgets his (prior) state of non-existence, poverty and neediness, until he becomes as if he was not that poor and needy thing. [4]

——————————————————–

Footnote a: al-Ḥusnā (the statement of monotheism) (or: the obligations of prayer, fasting and charity) (or: the promise of Allāh) (or: Paradise and its reward). Then We will make easy for him (the path to) evil (or: Hellfire). https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/verse/92/8

Footnote b:

“‏زيادة‏”‏ وهي النظر إلى وجه الله الكريم، وسماع كلامه، والفوز برضاه والبهجة بقربه، فبهذا حصل لهم أعلى ما يتمناه المتمنون، ويسأله السائلون

The word Ziyadah in this verse means to see Allah’s face, hear His Speech, attain His pleasure etc, (on the Day of Judgement). [Tafsir Sadi]


[1] An Excerpt from Zaadul Maseer Fee Ilm at-Tafseer. By Imam Ibnul Jawzi [may Allaah have mercy upon him]
[2] An Excerpt from Tafsir As-Sadi
[3] An Excerpt from Tariq Al-Hijratayn 13 By Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him.
[4] An Excerpt from Tariq Al-Hijratayn. pages 9-10

Satirizing the suffering of others – A brief dialogue with the Jerusalem Post.

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

Allah said: [وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَن تَذْبَحُوا بَقَرَةً – And (remember) when Musa (Moses) said to his people: “Verily, Allah commands you that you slaughter a cow]. [قَالُوا أَتَتَّخِذُنَا هُزُوًا – They said: Do you make fun of us?]

[قَالَ أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ – He said: I take Allah’s Refuge from being among Al-Jahilun (the ignorant ones or the foolish)].

This is because the ignorant individual is one who engages in speech devoid of benefit and mocks others. In contrast, the sensible person recognises that one of the greatest flaws, both in terms of religion and intellect, is to ridicule another human being. Even if they may be favoured (with something) over him (i,.e. the one being mocked), such favour should inspire gratitude towards the Creator and compassion towards fellow beings. Thus when Musa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon hi, said to them:

[أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ – I take Allah’s Refuge from being among the ignorant ones and the foolish ], they knew that (what he commanded them) was truth, thus, they said: [ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لَّنَا مَا هِيَ -call upon your Lord for us that He may make plain to us what it is!]. [Tafsir As-Sadi. Al-Baqarah 67-68]

Excerpts from Jerusalem Post

In the aforementioned article from the Jerusalem Post, it is articulated that certain anti-Zionists engage in mockery directed at Jews. Should the assertions made be verified and confirmed without resorting to exaggeration or sensationalism, and provided that the claims of antisemitism are grounded in fact rather than unfounded allegations, it follows that, once the evidence is laid bare and the statements of those accused are accurately represented, there can be no doubt that such derision must be unequivocally condemned. The perpetrators must be informed that their actions are intolerable, and any individual possessing a modicum of decency should unequivocally distance themselves from such behavior, irrespective of any perceived advantages associated with the agenda of the mockers. Nonetheless, it is imperative to ensure that they are indeed culpable of such reprehensible conduct.

Jerusalem Post also quoted the accused who said:

It is essential to remind the Jerusalem Post that it is truly disheartening to witness individuals who find a twisted pleasure in mocking others, especially considering the recent atrocities perpetrated by Zionists in Gaza. This behavior stems from a profound ignorance and a deep-seated insecurity. Those who partake in such malevolence exhibit a lack of maturity and an inability to resolve conflicts within the framework of divine principles. Over the past year, as the world has borne witness to the harrowing genocide in Gaza, certain pro-Zionist factions have callously mocked the immense suffering endured by the Palestinians, who were besieged and deprived of essential resources such as water, electricity, and adequate food supplies. As the brutality escalated, some of these individuals resorted to a particularly vile form of mockery on social media, utilizing a song from a 2005 comedy to trivialize the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza. Disturbingly, some Zionist soldiers even appeared on camera, donning face paint and traditional Palestinian attire in a grotesque attempt to deride the Gazan populace. Others joined in this disgraceful display, sharing images of devastation with laughter, and some even involved their innocent children in this abhorrent act, dressing them in headscarves and encouraging them to dance mockingly. This behaviour is an inheritance from the disbelievers of old. Allah said:

زُيِّنَ لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ ٱلْحَيَوٰةُ ٱلدُّنْيَا وَيَسْخَرُونَ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّقَوْا۟ فَوْقَهُمْ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ وَٱللَّهُ يَرْزُقُ مَن يَشَآءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ

Beautified is the life of this world for those who disbelieve, and they mock at those who believe. But those who obey Allah’s Orders and keep away from what He has forbidden, will be above them on the Day of Resurrection. And Allah gives (of His Bounty, Blessings, Favours, Honours, etc. on the Day of Resurrection) to whom He wills without limit. [Al-Baqarah 121]

We emphasise once again that the anti-Zionist Jew mentioned by the Jerusalem Post is not to be considered guilty without clear evidence. If proven otherwise, an apology would be necessary. On the other hand, the actions of certain pro-Zionist groups on social media, which involve mocking the suffering of Palestinians, are undeniably evident. We have decided to refrain from including those videos in this post out of respect for the Palestinians who were being ridiculed. May Allah relieve their suffering and reward them immensely for their patience Amin. Finally, we strongly denounce anyone who inflicts harm on non-combatants, as clearly expressed by Prince Turki Al-Faisal, may Allah preserve him, in this video.

A case illustrating how poisonous ideas permeated minds of certain people within the Ummah.

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

Shaikh Shamsuddeen Al-Afghaanee As-Salafi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The books of Greek Philosophy, which encompassed notions of grave and idol worship, were translated into Arabic, thus, many who identified with Islam, such as Al-Farabi, (a) Ibn Sina Al-Hanafi, (b) and Nasir at-Tusi, an advocate of disbelief and shirk, (c) and others among who played tricks Islam, akin to how Paul manipulated the tenets of Christianity, busied themselves with these books. They were influenced by the ideas of the Greek philosophers, particularly the veneration of graves, transforming them into proponents of such practices. The practices of these people were rife amidst the ranks of the proponents of theological rhetoric among the Hanafi Maturidiyyah (d) and the Ash’ariyyah Kullabiyyah, as they immersed themselves in the writings of these philosophers, thus, influenced by the creed of grave worship. They emerged as advocates for grave worship and the creed of the Jahmiyyah at the same time, exemplified by the likes of Taftazani Al-Hanafi, a philosopher of the Maturidiyyah and a proponent of grave worship, alongside Jurjanee Al-Hanafi, who was a caller to superstition.

[a] Al-Faraabee said that Philosophy is more perfect than Prophet hood. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said about him: “Misguided, a disbeliever”. Ibn Sina adopted his books and ideas of disbelief. [For further details concerning Al- Faraabee, See Majmoo Al-Fataawaa 2/67—86] [Dar At-Ta’aarud 1/10] [Ighaathatul Luhfaan 2/372-373].

[b] Ibn Sina: Imam Ibnu Salah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “He was a devil amongst the human devils”. [See Fataawaa Ibn Salaah 1/209] [Also see: ‘Ar-Radd Alal Mantaqiyyeen’ by Shaikh Al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah 278-279] [Ighaatha Al-Lahfaan’ by Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim 2/373-380] [Al-Bidayah Wan-Nihaayah’ by Imam Ibn Kathir12/43]

[c] Nasir at-Tusi: He was a magician and a minister of the Tartars. He rejected the ‘resurrection’. For further details, see: As-Sawaa-iq Al-Mursalah of Imaam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) 2/790; 3/1077-1078]

[d] Al-Maturidiyyah: Followers of the Jahmi Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi Al-Hanafi [Al-Maturidiyyahby Shaikh Shamsuddeen Al-Afghani 1/205—376] [1]

Revival of The Authentic Sunnah Every Hundred Years

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah will raise for this Ummah at the end of every hundred years the one who will revive its religion for it”. [2]

“Allah will raise for this Ummah”- Meaning the Ummah Ijabah [i.e. the Muslims]. “At the end of every hundred years”- Meaning at the end of every hundred years when there is little knowledge of the Shariah and the authentic Prophetic Tradition, whilst ignorance and religious innovation is rife. “One who will revive its religion for it”- Meaning a scholar who is alive and well known. He will clarify the authentic Prophetic Tradition and distinguish it from the religious innovations. knowledge will be abundant again and its adherents will be aided, and the proponents of religious will be overcome and degraded. This reviver is non else but a scholar who has sound understanding of the religious sciences that deal with acts of worship, the underlying wisdoms of the religion and the texts that deal with beliefs of the heart. [3]

Imam Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “A group amongst the scholars- including Ahmad Bin Hanbal – stated that Umar Bin Abdul Azeez was alive at the end of the first hundred years and he is more worthy and entitled to be entered into this category of people due to his leadership and striving to establish truth”. [4]

There will not cease to be a group of people upon the Truth and Sunnah’ – Sharhus-Sunnah al-Barbahārī by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him.

https://www.salafisounds.com/there-will-not-cease-to-be-a-group-of-people-upon-the-truth-and-sunnah-sharhus-sunnah-al-barbahari-by-abu-khadeejah/https://www.salafisounds.com/there-will-not-cease-to-be-a-group-of-people-upon-the-truth-and-sunnah-sharhus-sunnah-al-barbahari-by-abu-khadeejah/


[1] An Excerpt from Juhud Ulamaa Al-Hanafiyyah Fee Ibtal Aqa’id Al-Quburiyyeen. 1/ 19-25

[2] Sahih Sunan Abee Daawud. Hadeeth Number 4291.

[3]An Excerpt from Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Abee Daawud. Vol 11. Pages 259-260. Publisher: Daaer Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah. 1st Edition 1419AH (Year 1998). Slightly paraphrased]

[4]Al-Bidaayah Wan-Nihaayah. 9/303-309. Publisher: Maktabah Al-Ma’aarif and Daar ibn Hazm. 9th Edition. 1414 AH (1994)

Self-destruction

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

Imam Ibn Battah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Know, O my brothers! I have pondered over the reason that expelled a people from the Sunnah and the Jama’ah, compelled them to bidah and ignominy, opened up a door of trial to their hearts and prevented them from the light of truth that enables a person to make good judgements; thus, I found that (coming) from two angles: (Unnecessary) research and debate, asking too much concerning that which is of no benefit- (matters that are) neither harmful to an ignoramus nor beneficial to the believer’s understanding. The other (reason) is sitting with (a person) whose Fitnah one is not safe from and (is a cause of) corrupting the heart of the one who accompanies him.

Al-Ibanah Al-Kubra 1/390