REJECTING THE SHARIAH OF THE QUR’AAN —THE KUFR OF THE ZINDEEQ
In the conflict between Haqq and Baatil — Imaan and Kufr — which is being played out in this earthly realm, there is nothing surprising when Shaitaan every now and again fields his forces. After all, this world is the arena for this conflict which commenced with the appearance of Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam). Shaitaan had on the occasion of his expulsion from the heavens sworn great oaths by the Greatness and Glory of Allah Ta’ala that he would leave no stone unturned in his conspiracy to deflect the Servants of Allah from Seeraatul Mustaqeem and lead them all into the bowels of Jahannum wherein he (Shaitaan) is destined to rot and suffer everlastingly.
HIS METHODS
Among the snares and methods of deflecting Muslims from the Straight and Divine Path (the Shariah of Allah), is the enlisting by Shaitaan of ignoramuses to present Kufr and Baatil (Falsehood) in Islamic hues. By painting his kufr with ‘Islamic’ colour, Shaitaan plans to deviate uneducated Muslims from Seeraatul Mustaqeem. Shaitaan employs mainly those who have pursued western education and have been schooled, indoctrinated and brainwashed by tutors of incorrigible kufr.
A SHAITAANI AGENT
One such shaitaani agent writing in the Durban newspaper, Daily News, presented a synopsis of the type of kufr which Shaitaan fabricates to deviate uneducated and unsuspecting Muslims from Seeraatul Mustaqeem. A non-entity, one Yusuf Ismail, has mushroomed from nowhere and has gorged out in his evil article, nothing but pure kufr. This zindeeq states in his article of Kufr that Allah’s Shariah (The Qur’aan) is the fabrication of the Ulama whom this mulhid describes as ‘a truncated minority’. The zindeeq should open his ears and listen: Shaitaan has succeeded to truncate your Imaan. Lest his immature and truncated brains cannot comprehend the meaning of truncated imaan, we spell it out for him —Truncated imaan is an euphemistic representation for Plain Kufr. In case he does not understand what ‘Plain Kufr’ means, we say to him that it is such Kufr which expels a Muslim from the fold of Islam. It renders him a murtad. May Allah Ta’ala save us all from this ultimate calamity which seals the doom of those who have been decreed KAAFIR in Azal (in the Eternal Knowledge and Command of Allah Ta’ala).
THE VILEST
The spiritual corruption and crass jahaalat which the zindeeq has gorged out in his article is about the vilest specimen of kufr which has polluted the community in recent times. While other agents of Shaitaan have been more guarded when discharging their kufr, this mulhid, lacking in entirety in fear for Allah and bereft of any knowledge of Islam, has employed audacity to the extreme. He flaunts his jahaalat so brazenly and with so much nudity that he proclaimed without the slightest bit of inhibition that the Shariah which is the direct product of the Qur’aan is:
* The implementation of medieval Judaic custom
* There is nothing divine about the Shariah of
Allah Ta’ala
* The Immutable Shariah of the Qur’aan is a
human construction
* The Divine Shariah of Islam is nothing more than
the legal opinion of classical jurists.
* Whenever the Shariah is applied today Muslim
societies acquire a medieval feel.
The drivel which the zindeeq has so rashly and unabashedly written in his article of kufr will one day be rued by him at a time when it will be of no avail to regret —at the time of Maut when this kufr will twist the tongue and choke the throat, and block the passage of the Kalimah Shahaadat from flowing from the tongue as it does from the Tongues of Imaan. If the zindeeq does not realise the folly of his kufr now, he will have cause to rue the day he was born on earth.
HIS KUFR DRIVEL
Beginning his essay of kufr, the mulhid states: “During the latter part of the 20th century about a decade ago, Professor Samuel Huntingdon predicted that humanity was heading for a clash of civilizations.”
This opening statement is in fact a testification that the source from whence the mulhid has acquired his ‘education’ and from whom he draws his opinions of kufr is kuffaar. The mulhid being a mutant of the kuffaar educational system and the libertine cult of the west finds that Islam—the Shariah of the Qur’aan — is the very antithesis of what he has been made to believe. He has at least comprehended that there can be no compatibility and no reconciliation between the two opposing forces of Haqq and baatil (Islam and his western ideology), hence the only alternative is to denounce and reject Islam. But being a member of Muslim society and lacking in adequate moral fibre (i.e. in courage) to openly renege from Islam, he has made the word, Shariah, his scapegoat. Under this subterfuge he rejects Islam, the Qur’aan and whatever is Immutable in the concept of the Deen which Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had delivered from Allah Ta’ala to mankind some 1400 centuries ago.
A Muslim who has some understanding of the Deen will or should begin any act with the Tasmiah, with Allah’s Name as commanded by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and gain support from the Qur’aan and the holy Statements of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But the author of the arrant nonsense could do no better than to cite as his source of inspiration an enemy of Allah — a tutor of kufr. Instead of beginning his article like a Muslim taking Allah’s Name, he takes the name of an agent of Shaitaan—the name of a kaafir. It is therefore not surprising that the mulhid spewed out nothing but kufr in his article which is conspicuous for its jahaalat and baatil.
When a professed Muslim draws support from an alien and presents the non-Muslim’s observations as the basis and fountain for his theorizing, he then confesses to his own ignorance of Islam. It is this ignorance acquired from western education and the indoctrination of kufr in universities of kufr from teachers of kufr which allows a man to so audaciously deny the Qur’aan and its Shariah as the mulhid is guilty of.
It is abundantly clear from the disjointed and inarticulate presentation of the kufr by the mulhid that he lacks in entirety in knowledge of Islam. His article of profligate kufr and his citation of his western masters betray the source of his inspiration.
If this person had any Islamic sense and any vestige of true Imaan, he would never have ventured to so brazenly trumpet the kufr which darkens every line of drivel he has written. His wildly ludicrous and baseless claims further betray the mental colonization he has suffered. Those who suffer the misfortune of having to pursue western education in immoral institutions invariably emerge after having been subjected to the process of mental colonization which is a necessary corollary of the western system of political colonization. Today while active political colonization is no longer the system, the process of mental colonization by means of which the Western kuffaar grip the minds of their underlings and surrogates and make them dance to their tunes of kufr is very much alive and functional. The mulhid who wrote his article of kufr is a typical specimen of the mental colonization of the west.
CLASH
Leaning on his master, some Professor Huntingdon, the mulhid speaks of a clash of civilizations towards which humanity was heading for. What a stupid observation to present in a theory postulated for rejecting the Immutable Shariah of Allah Ta’ala. What relevance does this impending clash of civilizations have with the Shariah of the Qur’aan? And, how stupid can one become! The clash of civilizations was initiated 14 centuries ago by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) when he appeared with the eternal message of the Qur’aan Shareef.
The clash of civilizations was by Divine Decree. It was a clash between Haqq and Baatil — between Imaan and Kufr. Stating this fact, the Qur’aan Majeed declares:
“We have created you. And among you are kaafir and among you are Mu’min.”
Allah Ta’ala created this world to be the stage for the conflict between Haqq and Baatil. The mulhid is blissfully ignorant of the clash and the havoc it has wrought in the history of mankind. He wakes up very very late and he is still hazy in his sleep of jahaalat, hence he speaks of an impending clash of civilizations which his tutor, the professor has drilled into his brains. The clash of civilizations is an integral part of life on earth. This clash has existed since time immemorial and it will continue until the Last Day.
Be that as it may. But what relevance does it have to the fact that the Shariah of Islam is in fact the Qur’aan. Any contrary view is denial of the Qur’aan. Any idea which denies this Qur’aanic fact is kufr which expels the renegade from the fold of Islam.
DISTORTED IMAGINATION
The mulhid claims that Islam “is presented through the filters of a distorted imagination because of the actions of a truncated minority”. We say to the zindeeq, that flaunting turgidity in expression is meaningless if it has no concrete basis. He has made a stupid remark. His statement is merely words put together to awe uneducated people. He has lumped together some words to awe illiterate persons and to convey the idea that he is an intellectual of some sort while in reality he is ignorant of Islam, ignorant of the Qur’aan and exceptionally ignorant of the Divine Shariah which springs from ONLY the Qur’aan.
It devolves on the mulhid to elaborate on the stupid idea he has attempted to propagate in the above-mentioned expression. Who is the ‘truncated minority’? Define the ‘distorted imagination’. In precisely which avenues of the Shariah has the zindeeq discovered distortion? Let him state the basis for his observation. It is not rational nor intellectual nor acceptable for a man to make a claim which is unsubstantiated. He has to necessarily explain and provide the proof and the basis for his idea of ‘distorted imagination’.
We want to know what distortion the mulhid has seen in the Shariah. We want to be informed by him of the conflicts which he has discovered between the Shariah and the Qur’aan. Along with the claims he has to produce rational, Qur’aanic, logical and historical evidences to back up his theories of kufr. We can claim vociferously without the slightest fear of contradiction that never will the zindeeq be able to present any Qur’aanic and Shar’i evidence for any of his claims of kufr. He has merely gorged out figments of a kufr imagination—an imagination heavily sedated with the indoctrination of western education. Truly, his mind has been demonised by the kufr influences of a kufr system of education, hence he so brazenly advertises his kufr.
THE DIVINE SHARIAH
The mulhid says in his drivel: “Many Muslims, for example, consider the Shariah to be divine. Yet there is nothing divine about the Shariah.”
Can a Muslim ever be so stupid as to venture such drivel and kufr as this? The Shariah teaches that five Salaat are Fardh daily; that to fast in Ramadhaan is obligatory; to pay the annual Zakaat is compulsory; to perform Hajj is incumbent; to believe in Tauheed is the basis of Imaan; to believe in the Finality of Rasulullah’s Risaalat is an integral part of Imaan; to believe in Qiyaamah, in the Malaaikah, in the Divine Reckoning, in Jannat, in Jahannum and in a thousand other things stated in the Qur’aan Majeed. Yet this mulhid claims brazenly that “there is nothing divine about the Shariah”.
Are these beliefs and practices not by Divine Command? Are these tenets of Islam not ordained by the Qur’aan? What is the meaning of ‘divine’ in the conception of the mulhid? Are the statements and directives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) not divine? If the mulhid denies this, then let him hear what the Qur’aan has to say:
“He (Muhammad) does not speak from vain desire.It (his speech) is nothing but Wahi (Divine Revela- tion) revealed to him.”
Every belief, every teaching, every practice and tenet of Islam as explained by the Shariah is Qur’aanic. Let the mulhid disprove this. It is not sufficient for him to make a sweeping claim that this and that is not part of Islam merely because there is no explicit reference to it in the Qur’aan. Such a claim lacks in entirety in basis because in terms of the Qur’aan whatever Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) presented is by Divine inspiration, and the inspiration of a Nabi is Wahi. It is therefore divine. It is Immutable. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not teach figments of ‘distorted imagination’ as the zindeeq implied. If the ‘truncated minority’ is a crack at the Ulama, then the zindeeq should understand that it is an attack against Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which implies an attack on Allah Azza Wa Jal. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, “The Ulama are the Heirs of the Ambiya.” Regardless of them being a so-called ‘truncated minority’, the zindeeq should understand that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the Ameer of this “truncated minority” which holds aloft the Standard of the Qur’aan —the Divine Shariah — and guards it against the unholy intrusions of zindeeqs and mulhideen.
“Then We (Allah) established you on a Shariah regarding affairs (of the Deen). Therefore follow it (this Shariah), and do not follow the vain desires of those who lack knowledge (like the mulhideen and zindeeqs).”(Aayat 18, Jaathiyyah)
In this aayat, the Qur’aan Majeed itself states the Shariah which the Ummah has to follow. The Qur’aan commands that we follow the Shariah which Allah has established for us. That is the Divine Shariah which the zindeeq denies and which he labels as a concoction of the opinions of men.
Shariah means ‘way’ or ‘pathway’. The previous Ambiya too had their respective Shariahs. Some followed the Shariah of the Nabi preceding them while new Shariahs were revealed to others. This is confirmed by the Qur’aan:
“For everyone (i.e. for every Ummah) We have ordained a Shariah and a Way.” (Aayat 48, Surah Maaidah)
Who has the right to deny the Divine Shariah when Allah Ta’ala Himself makes explicit reference to the Shariah in the Qur’aan Majeed? Only a mulhid has the audacity and the callousness to refute what the Qur’aan declares emphatically. The Shariah is simply the Law of Allah Ta’ala. It is the Qur’aan Majeed. Denial of the Shariah is in fact denial of the Qur’aan because it is the Qur’aan which has established the Shariah.
If there was no Divine Shariah on which Allah Ta’ala has established this Ummah, He would not have said in His Qur’aan:
“Then We established you on a Shariah regarding affairs (of the Deen). Therefore, follow it and do not follow the vain desires of the ignoramuses (of the mulhideen and the zindeeqs).”
THE DIVINE SHARIAH
The Immutable Divine Shariah which is the Law of the Qur’aan, has two fundamental constituents:
Wahi Matlu’ (2) Wahi Ghair Matlu’.
The first kind of Wahi (Revelation) is the sacred text of the Qur’aan Shareef. The second kind of Wahi is the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) —his Sunnah. Denial of this second class of Wahi is open kufr which expels the criminal from the fold of Imaan. Attributing this second class of Wahi to Himself, Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed:
“He (Muhammad) does not speak of his vain desire.It (his speech/Hadith/Sunnah) is nothing but Wahi which is revealed to him.”
THE SUNNAH
The Sunnah comprising of the thousands of Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) derives its sanctity and immutability and divine status from countless Qur’aanic aayaat which command obedience to the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In a dozen verses, the Qur’aan issues the following identical command:
“Obey Allah and obey His Rasool…….”
What is the meaning of this double command? What does obedience to Allah and obedience to the Rasool mean? If there was no Shariah and no Sunnah to follow, and only the text of the Qur’aan to follow, the double command would be meaningless. It would be a redundant statement. But redundancy cannot be attributed to the Divine Word. It is full of meaning and has great significance.
Since the Sunnah of the Rasool constitutes an inseparable part of the Divine Shariah, the Qur’aan repeatedly commands obedience to the Rasool of Allah. If this was not the case, it would have sufficed to say: “Obey Allah or obey the Qur’aan.” Obedience to the commands of a Nabi was always compulsory in all Shariahs of all the Ambiya. Such obedience was never restricted to the sacred Scriptures of the Ambiya. Without following the Sunnah of the Ambiya, following the Scripture was never possible. Thus, Haaroon (alayhis salaam) admonishing Bani Israaeel said:
“O my people! Verily, you have been thrown into a trial with it (the golden calf). Verily, your Rabb is Ar-Rahmaan. Therefore, follow me and obey my command.”
(Aayat 90, Surah Taha)
Haaroon (alayhis salaam) did not say: “Follow your Rabb and obey His command.” Whatever the Nabi commanded was the Divine Shariah. It is simple to understand that the commands which Haaroon (alayhis salaam) issued to Bani Israaeel during the absence of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) were not Wahi of the first category, but were orders based on the principles of this Wahi and also products of the Divine Wisdom (Firaasat) Allah Ta’ala endows all Ambiya with. The commands of the Ambiya constituted integral constituent parts of their respective Shariahs. This system or Shariah attained its zenith in the Shariah of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Thus, the Shariah is primarily the sacred text of the Qur’aan Majeed (Wahi Matlu’) complemented by Ahadith-e-Nabawiyyah (Wahi Ghair Matlu’). To impress this divine dimension of the Shariah, viz., the Sunnah of the Rasool, the Qur’aan repeatedly commands obedience to the Rasool in addition to obedience to Allah Ta’ala. Some samples from the Qur’aan Majeed commanding this double obedience follow hereunder:
(1) “And, obey Allah and obey the Rasool….”
There are about a dozen identical verses commanding this double obedience.
“And, obey the Rasool so that mercy be shown to you.” (Aayat 56, Surah Nur)
In this aayat, mention of following Allah is not even made. The command is directly to obey the Rasool.
“Say (O Muhammad!): Obey Allah and obey the Rasool. If then you turn away (from this double obedience), then certainly on him is that which he has loaded, and on you is what you have loaded. And if you obey him (the Rasool), you will be on (the Path of) guidance. And, (the duty)) on the Rasool is only to deliver (the Message/Shariah of Allah).”(Aayat 54, Surah Nur)
This aayat emphatically states that hidaayat and Imaan are inextricably interwoven with obedience to the Rasool. Every Muslim understands that the Rasool expounded the concise commands stated in the Qur’aanic text. Thus, the Qur’aan commands only the institution of Salaat without any elaboration. The Hadith provides the elaboration and explains that the Salaat commanded by the Qur’aan is the institution of the five Fardh daily Salaat along with its number of raka’ts and the myriad of other masaail related to this Salaat commanded by the Qur’aan.
CONCISE
The concise command complemented by or elaborated on by the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) constitutes the Shariah which the Qur’aan mentions. Similarly, all the concise commands of the Qur’aan were explained and practically demonstrated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This whole, namely, the Qur’aan plus the sacred Sunnah (the Wahi Ghair Matlu’) constitutes the Immutable and Inviolable Shariah known as the Qur’aan.
The Sunnah is followed because the Qur’aan commands obedience to the Rasool in numerous aayaat.
“(Nuh said): Verily, I am sent unto you an Honest Rasool, Therefore, fear Allah and obey me.”(Aayat 107, Surah Shuraa)
The Rasool did not say here: “Obey Allah.” He said: “Obey me.” Thus obedience to the teachings of the Nabi is on account of such teachings being divine. And, these teachings of the Ambiya represent the Divine Shariah irrespective of their absence from the sacred texts of the Divine Scriptures. The Rasool does not teach figments of “distorted imagination” as the mulhid wishes people to believe. He teaches nothing but the Divine Shariah.
“We did not send any Rasool, but that he be obeyed with the permission of Allah.” (Aayat 64, Surah Nisaa’)
The example and the orders of the Rasool have to be compulsorily obeyed. The function of the Rasool was not restricted to merely recite and deliver the sacred text. The most important function of the Rasool was to explain and elaborate the sacred Qur’aanic text and practically demonstrate it. All these acts of the Rasool together with the Qur’aanic text constitute the Shariah, and this Shariah is nothing but the Qur’aan — the product of Divine Revelation. Hence this Shariah of Islam is Divine. Denial of its divinity is clear kufr.
(6) “Answer Allah and His Rasool when he (the Rasool) calls you to that ((Hidaayat/Shariah) which instills life in you….” (Aayat 24, Surah Anfaal)
The command is not to answer the Qur’aan or to answer Allah Alone. The command is to answer the Rasool as well. Thus, it is not possible to answer Allah without answering and obeying the Rasool because the Path to which the Rasool calls is the Divine Shariah about which the Qur’aan says:
“Then We established you on a Shariah...Therefore follow it and do not follow the vain desires of those who are ignorant.”
(7) “Verily, for you in the Rasool of Allah is a beautiful pattern of life , (but only) for him who has hope in (meeting) Allah and the Last Day and he remembers Allah much.” (Aayat 24, Surah Ahzaab)
That Uswah Hasanah (the Beautiful Life-Pattern) of the Rasool is an integral part of the Divine Shariah because the Qur’aan commands that Muslims adopt this Life-Pattern. It is thus divine.
(8) “Whatever the Rasool presents to you, adhere to it firmly. And, whatever he forbids you of, abstain (therefrom).” (Aayat 7, Surah Al-Hashr)
There are innumerable things which the Rasool presented to the Sahaabah and innumerable things from which he prevented them. All these presentations and prohibitions constitute part of the immutable Shariah. And, the Qur’aan commands obedience to this Shariah. The vast number of presentations and prohibitions of the Rasool does not appear in the Sacred Qur’aanic Text. But the general Qur’aanic command to obey the Rasool is the divine principle which underlies the Sunnah. Thus the Sunnah is an inseparable part of the Qur’aanic Shariah. It is precisely on this basis that the Qur’aan is so categoric in commanding obedience to the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The slightest trepidation displayed in this regard is kufr. Hence the Qur’aan declares:
“By your Rabb! They have not believed as long as they do not appoint you (O Muhammad!) to decide their mutual disputes. Then (after you have decided) they find no objection in their hearts regarding your decision, and they accept (your verdict) wholeheartedly.” (Aayat 65 Surah Nisaa’)
Rasulullah’s verdicts and decisions, his advices and admonition, his commentary and interpretation of the Qur’aan Majeed are all in his Ahadith. What the Rasool said and done is the Sunnah. Obedience to his Sunnah is incumbent by command of the Qur’aan. Any objection lodged against any verdict or act of the Rasool is kufr.
(9) “It is not lawful for a Mu’min nor for a Mu’minah that they have any choice whatsoever regarding their affairs when Allah and His Rasool have given a verdict in any matter.” (Aayat 36 Surah Ahzaab)
The aayat does not speak of the command of the Qur’aan nor of the command of only Allah Ta’ala. Allah categorically confirms the incumbency of accepting and following the verdict of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). All rulings and decisions of the Rasool are to be found in the Ahadith, not in the text of the Qur’aan Majeed. By Qur’aanic command, the Sunnah is imperative. Thus the Shariah consisting of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah is imperative. Minus the Sunnah there is no Islam. Denial of the Shariah is thus denial of the Qur’aan. The zindeeq dwells in colossal deception by believing that obedience to the Qur’aan is possible minus the Sunnah. The Sunnah is the one half of the Shariah while the Qur’aan is the other half. But strictly speaking the Shariah is ONLY the Qur’aan because it is the Qur’aan which commands following the Sunnah of the Rasool.
(10) “Say (O Muhammad!): If you love Allah, then obey me (i.e. Muhammad). Allah will then love you.” (Aayat 31 Surah Aal-e-Imraan)
OBEDIENCE
Love for Allah is securely coupled to obedience to the Rasool. Without obedience to the Sunnah of the Rasool, love for Allah Ta’ala is a figment of the distorted imagination of zindeeqs and mulhids. The Qur’aan unequivocally proclaims in this aayat obedience to the Rasool. It does not say: “Obey Allah!” It states explicitly: Obey the Rasool. The myriad of details and particulars expounded by the Rasool are not to be found in the sacred Qur’aanic text. The Sunnah is thus inseparable from the Qur’aan. It is in fact the incumbent extension of the Qur’aan, hence the repeated Qur’aanic emphasis on following the Rasool, i.e. to follow that Shariah on which Allah Ta’ala has established him…… “Then We established you (O Muhammad!) on a Shariah…” Who can now deny the Shariah? Only zindeeqs and mulhideen.
(11) “And, when it is said to them (the munaafiqeen, zindeeqs and mulhids): “Accept Imaan just as the people have accepted Imaan,” they (the munaafiqeen) say: ‘What, shall we believe as the ignoramuses believe?’ Know that verily, they are the ignoramuses, but (being too stupid) they do not know (of their own ignorance).”
(Aayat 13 Surah Baqarah)
The style of this aayat is very significant. It neither commands acceptance of Imaan in the way Allah Ta’ala commanded nor in the way the Qur’aan commands nor in the way the Rasool taught. Here the command is to accept Imaan — to believe in Islam — in the manner in which “The People” have accepted Imaan and believed in Islam. Who are these illustrious People who have been elevated to this lofty stage? Why does the Qur’aan set them up as the Criterion of Imaan?
The “People” mentioned in this aayat are those whom Allah Ta’ala has befriended. They are the People who basked in the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. In regard to this noble assembly of People, the Qur’aan Majeed says:
“Verily, Allah has become pleased with the Mu’mineen when they offered the Pledge (of Maut) to you (O Muhammad!) under the tree.”
(Aayat 18 Surah Al-Fatah)
SAHAABAH
The Mu’mineen mentioned here were the most perfect of this Ummah. They were the illustrious Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan commands that our Imaan should be like the Imaan of the Sahaabah. The way they believed and practised Islam is the only correct Way. They offered the highest standard of obedience to the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Their Imaan and their Deen were the most perfect.
These illustrious Sahaabah taught the Shariah to the Taabieen who in turn passed this Shariah on to the Tabe Taabieen, and they in turn transmitted it to the succeeding generation. In this way, by reliable and authoritative transmission from generation to generation, did the Divine Shariah of the Qur’aan reach us. Whoever denies this Divine Shariah is undoubtedly a murtad of the worst order.
(12) “Obey Allah, His Rasool and the Ulul Amr among you…”(Aayat 59, Surah Nisaa’)
ULUL AMR
Obedience in this aayat as well as in other verses is not restricted to Allah and His Rasool. The self-same Obedience is extended to the Ulul Amr (Those who are at the head of the affairs of your Deen). The very first repositories of this Qur’aanic title were the Sahaabah. Thereafter, all those who happen to be the true Heirs of the Nabi.
The Sahaabah taught the Shariah and we are commanded by the Qur’aan to obey them. Obedience to them is by divine command because they imparted the Knowledge of the divine Shariah and they occupied the highest pedestal of obedience to Allah and His Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
(13) “He who obeys Allah and His Rasool, verily he has attained a great success.”(Aayat 71 Surah Ahzaab)
SUCCESS
The ‘Great Success’ mentioned in this and other aayaat refers to the ultimate and everlasting success in the Aakhirah. This momentous achievement is possible only by following the Sunnah of the Rasool, and His Sunnah is one fundamental half of the Shariah.
Besides the few aayaat cited above, there are many Qur’aanic verses which firmly hinge obedience to Allah with obedience to His Rasool. If only the Qur’aan was the subject of obedience, the numerous Qur’aanic references to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and commanding obedience to him would have been superfluous. The Qur’aan does not distinguish between obedience to Allah and obedience to His Rasool. Both obediences are placed in the same category. These aayaat state this with great clarity.
If it was the Divine Intention to place the Qur’aan at the disposal of the brains of all and sundry, there would not have been any need for the plethora of Qur’aanic verses commanding obedience to the Rasool and following the way of the Mu’mineen (Sahaabah). While there are numerous commands in the Qur’aan to follow the Rasool and even the Mu’mineen, there is no aayat to command that we follow the Qur’aan. This is because the Qur’aan cannot be followed without the explanation and example of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). His explanation and example along with the Qur’aan are the constituents of the Divine Shariah which Allah Ta’ala has established for the Ummah.
The zindeeq says in his article of kufr: “Making a critical observation of all the 62 countries that comprise the Muslim world today, one can see how far Muslims have traveled away from the ideals and spirit of the Qur’aan.”
The degenerate state of the Ummah is the direct consequence of the abandonment of the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala. But those who have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by their western masters hopelessly fail to understand the cause of this degeneration. The noble ideals and lofty spirit of the Qur’aan are the effects of obedience to the Divine Shariah. These ideals cannot be wished into our bodies. The Ummah, the world over, has completely abandoned the Shariah and has substituted in its place the cults and cultures of the kuffaar west. How can we expect Qur’aanic spirit and ideals to be the effects of aping and emulating the enemies of Allah Ta’ala.
Without obedience to the Shariah, the Imaan of Muslims is a dead body. It is a lifeless being devoid of soul. Life will be injected into this degraded and degenerate Ummah only if they respond to the Call of the Qur’aan to follow the Sunnah of the Rasool — to follow the Shariah of the Qur’aan. The Qur’aan says:
“Answer (the Call of) Allah and the Rasool when he (the Rasool) calls you to that (Shariah) which will instill life in you.” (Aayat 24, Surah Anfaal)
When Muslims abandon the Shariah, they think like kuffaar, ape the kuffaar and look for guidance and aid in every field from the kuffaar. This is the way of life of all the zindeeqs and mulhideen who are holding sway in the lands of Islam.
IDEALS?
The Qur’aan is not a philosophical book to wile away the time. It is the Book of the Shariah. It is a Book whose teachings and Shariah have to be given practical expression by following the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in every sphere of life. We cannot dream of realizing the spirit and ideals of the Qur’aan when we have not only abandoned the Shariah, but have rebelliously rejected it in favour of adopting the culture of the West.
DEMONISING
The zindeeq writes: “It seems we have internalised all those false and contemporary Western representations of Islam that have been demonising us for centuries.”
What are these “representations” of the West which have been “internalised” by Muslims, and by which Muslims? The zindeeq does not explain the “Western representations that have been demonising us for centuries”. He has to outline these demonising representations and then explain just how the ‘truncated minority’ has accepted and “internalised” these.
Does the zindeeq perhaps enumerate Rajam (Stoning for adultery) as one of the “Western representations of Islam”? The kufr views this miserable mulhid has expressed on the issue of Rajam expose his stark apologetism, inferiority complex and his desperate endeavor to make Islam palatable and compatible with western thinking and concepts. Although he ostensibly purports to have an aversion for the West, he is in reality a slave of western mentality. His brains are anchored in the intellectual waste which he has acquired from his western intellectual masters. The mental imbalance of the zindeeq has constrained him to believe that every act/tenet/belief of Islam, which the West finds unpalatable and with which it has ‘demonised’ us, is necessarily alien to Islam. Thus, because the West shouts that Rajam is barbaric, the zindeeq claims that Muslims have ‘internalised’ Islam with an act which is barbaric because the West says that it is barbaric. And, because of western abhorrence for this Islamic act, it cannot be part of Islam in the shallow understanding of the mulhid. (The question of Rajam requires an elaborate discussion which we shall, Insha’Allah, present in another booklet.)
HIS STANDARD
The kufr drivel that the zindeeq wrote reveals that the test of authenticity of an Islamic act employed by him is western demonisation. If the West has demonised any act of Islam, then in the understanding of the zindeeq that act must necessarily be a figment of some ‘distorted imagination of the truncated minority”. His logic is queer to say the least. On the basis of this criterion which the zindeeq employs, the whole of Islam should be scuttled and refuted because the West has the greatest abhorrence for Islam. Islam itself has been demonised by the West. In fact, the zindeeq has precisely done this. He has in fact rejected the whole of Islam. But he subtly camouflages his rejection of Islam by avoiding the name, Islam. Instead, he directs his rejection to the Shariah and without the slightest inhibition he rejects the divine Shariah of Allah Ta’ala. Now instead of saying that Islam is a figment of the “distorted imagination of a truncated minority”, he claims that the Shariah is such imagination. But Islam and the Shariah are synonymous.
OUTBURSTS
In vindication of western outbursts against a fatwa which damned an evil woman who had blasphemed Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the zindeeq wrote in his article:
“And this brings me to the recent crisis in Nigeria, where Isioma Daniel has seen a fatwa imposed on her because of her unwarranted outbursts…”
Insulting Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is simply brushed aside with the comment, “unwarranted outburst”. If the zindeeq was not publicly associated with the Muslim community we can safely aver that even this mild criticism would have been lacking. In a truly Islamic state, a person slandering, abusing or blaspheming Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) will be executed. But since this militates against western concepts of ‘justice’, the zindeeq too is obliged to dissociate from this Islamic Ruling. It is time that he examines his Imaan if he believes that he is a Muslim.
STONING
Commenting on the Rajam sentence, the mulhid says: “Despite the fact that this (stoning) is not the punishment for adultery in the Qur’aan and is Biblical in origin, most Muslim governments have been shockingly silent over this violation.”
Only a man drowned in ignorance and totally bereft of knowledge of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, will venture this stupid claim. He implies that for fourteen centuries, from the age of the Sahaabah, the entire Ummah along with its thousands of Fuqaha and Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen who gained their Ilm from the Fountains of the Sahaabah, were marooned in an ocean of jahaalat and that the Law of Allah pertaining to punishment for married adulterers was not known. It is only in this belated century in the year 1423 Hijri that some non-entity—a zindeeq at that — unearthed from somewhere the true Islamic law on this issue. Only he and his western kuffaar masters are right in their averment that Rajam is not the Islamic punishment for married adulterers!
DEMONISE
Since the West has utilized the Rajam issue to ‘demonise’ Islam, the logic of the zindeeq constrains him to believe that Rajam is not Islamic and that the Qur’aan does not advocate it. Insha’Allah, as mentioned earlier, Rajam will form a separate discussion in a future publication. Here it will suffice to say that Rajam is the punishment ordered by the Qur’aan for married adulterers. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) imposed Rajam on such adulterers. It is a historical fact substantiated by Ahadith of the highest category of authenticity.
In the same way as performance of Salaat five times a day is Qur’aanic, and paying 2.5% annual Zakaat is Qur’aanic, and performing two raka’ts Fardh for Fajr, four for Zuhr, four for Asr, three for Maghrib and four for Isha are Qur’aanic, and wearing Ihraam garb is Qur’aanic, and eating with the right hand is Qur’aanic, and the myriad of other Islamic practices are Qur’aanic, so too is Rajam Qur’aanic. The Qur’aan commands: “Obey Allah and obey His Rasool.”
It was the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had commanded Rajam and who had practically meted out this punishment. There is therefore absolutely no question of Rajam not being Qur’aanic punishment.
The zindeeq stupidly says: “The only thing legitimately divine in Islam is the Quran.”
What basis does the zindeeq have for this conclusion? On what authority does he make this claim? His only ‘authority’ is his corrupt opinion and the demand of his nafs. The zindeeq should provide his proof for this claim. Does the Qur’aan postulate this baatil? From which aayat of the Qur’aan Majeed did the mulhid acquire this figment of his distorted imagination? Whatever Allah Ta’ala commands is divine. The command of Allah Ta’ala has made obedience to the Rasool obligatory. Thus following and obeying Rasulullah’s Sunnah are on account of the Sunnah being divine. Is obedience to Allah Ta’ala by way of divine command or by way of man’s personal opinion? Even the zindeeq has to concede that the divine command of the Qur’aan makes such obedience obligatory. The very same divine Qur’aan commands obedience to the Rasool and following his Sunnah. Following the Rasool does not mean following him in his physical act of walking in the road. It simply means following his Uswah Hasanah (Beautiful Life-Pattern) as stated in the Qur’aan. This Uswah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is his Sunnah which is divine, and his Sunnah constitutes a vital chapter of the divine Shariah.
If his Sunnah was not divine, rejection of the five daily Salaat or rejection of just one facet of this Salaat, e.g. denial of the fardhiyat of two raka’ts of Fajr, would not have been kufr expelling the denier from the fold of Islam. If the Sunnah was not divine, Qur’baani of animals on the occasion of Eidul Adha would not have been obligatory.
Acts, practices, beliefs and teachings are obligatory only by divine command, not by human opinion. The Rasool is not the lawmaker. He merely delivered the divine laws and explained them to mankind. It is precisely for this reason that the Qur’aan states:
“He (Muhammad) does not speak of his desire, It (his speech/Sunnah) is nothing but Wahi which is revealed to him.”
The Qur’aan thus testifies that the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is divine. But the zindeeq says that it is not divine. His opinion has absolutely no credibility in Islam. His opinion is a figment of his distorted imagination which is the effect of a truncated Imaan, stunted and ruined by the poison of western education.
SHARIAH
The entire edifice of the Shariah structured on the Qur’aan is divine. If the Shariah is not divine, it implies that a new Nabi with a new divine law are necessary for the guidance of mankind because a fourteen century Shariah which is not divine will necessarily be antiquated and cannot serve the needs of the ever-changing circumstances of mankind and the world. The very Finality of Nubuwwat refutes this kufr opinion of the mulhideen.
Nubuwwat was terminated by Allah Ta’ala. In His eternal wisdom the Shariah on which He has established the Rasool and the Ummah accommodates all expediencies and circumstances which will develop until the Last Day. Only a divine Shariah can claim this distinction and attribute.
HUMAN CONSTRUCTION?
The mulhid says: “The Shariah is a human construction in an attempt to understand the divine will in a particular context. This is why the bulk of the Shariah consists of jurisprudence which is nothing more than the legal opinion of classical jurists.”
Let the zindeeq produce his evidence for these baatil and kufr claims. Does he expect the Ummah to believe and accept the unsubstantiated figments of his distorted imagination and reject that divine Shariah which has come down authoritatively and reliably from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Does he really believe that he possesses the ability and authority to override the fourteen-century divine Shariah constructed on the divine Base of the Qur’aan? Only a mind demented by the spell of shaitaan will imagine that the claims which the zindeeq has made here have any validity. The kufr is stark and raw.
DIVINE BASIS
Every act of the Shariah has a divine basis sanctioned by the Qur’aan. If there is no direct textual reference in the Qur’aan for an act, it will be found in Rasulullah’s Ahadith which are awarded divine status by the Qur’aan. If there is no direct textual reference for an act in the divine Sunnah, it will have a basis on a divine principle evolved from the divine Qur’aan or the divine Sunnah. Hence, everything of the Shariah is divine. It is the Immutable Law of Allah Ta’ala.
It is utterly fallacious to claim that the Shariah is an attempt to understand the divine will in a particular context. On the contrary, the ‘particular context’ or the expedient will be viewed in the light of the Divine Will as revealed in the Qur’aan and the Ahadith. The absurdity of the fallacy posited by the zindeeq in his claim is self-evident.
ALLAH’S LAW
If the Shariah is an attempt to understand Allah’s Will in a particular context as the zindeeq contends, it logically follows that nothing of Islam is divine because in terms of this absurd kufr view of the zindeeq, all the ahkaam (laws) hitherto accepted as Allah’s Laws, and for which there is no Qur’aanic textual reference, were attempts to understand the divine will in a particular context. Thus, the institution of the five daily Salaat with all its related masaa-il, cannot be obligatory because the Qur’aan is silent on the vast volume of Salaat ahkaam which have no textual reference in the Qur’aan. In terms of the shaitaani logic of the zindeeq, the entire institution of Salaat will at most be “an attempt to understand the divine will in a particular context”.
PARTICULAR CONTEXT
In relation to Salaat, the particular context will be the then Arab society. The Qur’aan simply commands Salaat. Of the various meanings of the term Salaat, none means the ritual act of Salaat as known to the Ummah from Rasulullah’s age. Literally Salaat has many meanings, but not ritual Salaat. With changing circumstances, the method and style of the ritual act of worship known as Salaat may now also be changed and a new form of Salaat be introduced to accord more with the times of westernism, modernism and convenience. Benches can now be introduced in the Musaajid in emulation of the Christian kuffaar. The need to remove shoes, and go through the procedure of ruku and sajdah may be dispensed with since the old style of Salaat no longer suits the ‘particular context’ in which we happen to be living.
And, even if the prevailing ‘particular context’ has not changed and has remained static, then too there can be no dispute with anyone who wishes to abandon the popular method of Salaat known to the Ummah for the simple reason that according to the zindeeq’s claim nothing besides the Qur’aanic text is divine. When this is the zinddeeq’s averment, then in terms of his lop-sided shaitaani logic, all the ahkaam of Islam could be displaced, changed, cancelled, etc. and new ideas, methods and practices originated on the basis of the fancy of every ignoramus. This is the logical conclusion of the shaitaani call for re-interpretation and for change to be effected in relation to the figment of imagination the zindeeq calls ‘particular context’.
If there was any scope for this kufr process in Islam, the Deen would not have remained intact in its purity. It would today have been in the same category as the lost religions of the previous Ambiya. May Allah Ta’ala save the Ummah from the kufr and baatil of the agents of shaitaan which prowl the streets in profusion in this age.
THE QUR’AAN
The zindeeq will agree, albeit illogically, that the Qur’aan is the Divine Will. What is his proof for such an arbitrary claim? The proof should be extraneous from the Qur’aan and appealing to the rational mind. It is absurd in the “particular context” of the present ‘progressive’ world of atheism, science and technology to present proof for the divinity of the Qur’aan from the Qur’aan. Such an argument will be like running in a circle adinifintum.
If the Sunnah is excised from the divine fabric of the Shariah, there is absolutely no way in which to prove the divinity of the Qur’aan. Some zindeeq can argue that the compilation of the Qur’aan was done by humans and the Qur’aanic text was acquired from their breasts, their memories and their tongues. What is the divine basis for the Qur’aan in this “particular context”? Let the zindeeq answer.
The zindeeq has truly blurted out so much trash that the logical conclusion of which is denial of the divinity of the Qur’aan itself. If nothing besides the Qur’aan is divine, then the very divinity of the Qur’aan is baseless in terms of the shaitaani logic of the mulhid because all evidence for the claim of the Qur’aan’s divinity is extraneous and human, and what is human is not divine. The zindeeq should reflect, fear Allah and repent for the raw kufr he is guilty of.
THE OPINION
The zindeeq should understand that the very Opinion which asserted the divinity of the Qur’aan, proclaimed the divinity of Rajam, of Salaat, with its particulars and the divinity of all the masaail and ahkaam of Islam known collectively as the Shariah. That Opinion is the opinion of the Sahaabah. It is purely on the strength of the contention of the Sahaabah that we claim the divinity of the Qur’aan. It is now illogic to contend that this very Opinion which proclaims the divinity of the Qur’aan is wrong when it declares the divinity of the Sunnah and of all the ahkaam of Islam — in short, the divinity of the Shariah, which is confirmed by the aayat:
“Then He established you on a Shariah…..”
The zindeeq further avers: “When Muslim jurisprudence acquired its systematic legal form in Spain during the zenith of Islamic civilization……….”
The zindeeq has conspicuously displayed his ignorance of even historical facts pertaining to the advance of the Islamic political empire and the development of ‘jurisprudence’, yet he has sought to set himself up as some authority in this field. These modernists simply lap up whatever bunkum the orientalists and their other modernist kuffaar masters gorge up. They then present such bunkum in flowery language to impress readers and to convey the impression of them being members of an enlightened intelligentsia.
Let him explain the basis for the claim that Fiqh acquired its systematic legal form in Spain during the supposed “zenith of Islamic civilization”. We shall pursue this fallacious contention about the zenith of Islamic civilization later, Insha’Allah. Firstly, let us discuss the claim that the Shariah or its Fiqh which the zindeeq describes as ‘jurisprudence’, acquired its systematic legal form in Spain when Islam had reached its ‘zenith’.
Spain, its developments and upheavals which wracked that luckless land played NO role in the evolution, systematization and formulation of Fiqh. Long before the Muslims landed in Spain, Fiqh was already a highly systematized Branch of Shar’i Uloom. The Shariah was formulated into a systematic Knowledge and form in the very age of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha of the Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen age. The Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and Fuqaha who were either the Students of the Sahaabah or the Students of their Students had already put the Shariah into a systematic form long before Spain and far from Spain. But the systematic formulation of Fiqh or of the Shariah did not introduce any new dimension into Islam. The systematization simply followed the pattern of the systematic compilation of the Qur’aan Majeed during the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu). The systematization of the Qur’aan or of Fiqh added nothing new to the corpus of the Divine Shariah. And how is it possible for there to be any new accretion to Islam when the Qur’aan emphatically declares:
“This Day have I perfected for you your Deen and completed upon you My Ni’mat and have I chosen for you Islam as your Deen.”
Any accretion to the Deen comes squarely within the ambit of bid’ah about which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“Beware of bid’ah! For verily, bid’ah leads to sin…..”
“He who introduces into this Deen of ours anything which does not belong to it, verily, he is accursed (and the bid’ah is rejected).”
The division of Fiqh into systematic chapters was the product of the teaching of the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha who were their Students. All this occurred long before Spain had reached its zenith in the political and social fields. The development of Fiqh into a systematic form was executed by the Fuqaha whose Masters, the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen were of the Taabieen era. This was accomplished in Medinah, Baghdad, Basrah, Kufa and Damascus, not in Cordova and Granada. Spain had no share in the development of the Uloom of the Shariah.
Whatever intellectual and academic activity in the Deeni field prevailed in Spain was not a higher development in this domain. It was rather the simple study of what the Aimmah Mujtahideen and their Students had accomplished.
ZENITH?
The other myth which the modernists have lapped up from some propagandists in the western world is that the zenith of Islamic civilization was in Spain. Since they are downright materialists, anchored to the world and its goals, they equate progress and perfection with material advancement. The comparative material grandeur and prosperity of Spain has been understood by these deviants to be the zenith of Islamic civilization. On the contrary, the seeds of the decline of the Islamic civilization had been sewn simultaneously with the Muslim conquest of Spain. These conquests were not accompanied by the piety which had adorned the Jihad campaigns of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen. While the Jihad of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen were campaigns conducted purely to raise the glory of Allah’s Deen and to subjugate the territories of the kuffar for the attainment of goals of the Aakhirah, the opposite is true for the later conquests which were executed for worldly gains and motives.
In every field of life necessary for the mundane and spiritual well-being of Muslims, Islamic civilization had attained its pinnacle during the Khilaafat of Ameerul Mu’mineen Hadhrat Umar Bin Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu), the Second Khalifah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Politically, socially and economically, the Islamic Empire was rich and strong. It dominated the world scene and its march was one of advance and offense. It was not in the defensive in any sphere. It had humbled the might of the two world powers — the Roman and the Persian empires.
DECLINE
In fact, the decline set in with the demise of this redoubtable Khalifah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) predicted that the door of fitnah (anarchy and strife) will open in the Ummah with the disappearance of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). So did it happen. That door has never since been closed. In fact the gap has widened with the time and the fitnah which rushed in from the open doorway ultimately destroyed the Islamic Empire.
It is palpable nonsense to aver that Islam had reached its zenith in Spain. Only Men of Allah had the spiritual and moral fibre to deliver Islam to its zenith. These men were only the Sahaabah.
EXPANSIONIST?
In his attempt to sully and negate the divinity of the Shariah of the Qur’aan, the zindeeq postulates that the Shariah is the product of the “particular context” which prevailed in Spain long after the Sahaabah. He tries to attribute worldliness to the Shariah, hence he claims in relation to the Spanish era:
“Muslim history was at its expansionist phase and it incorporated the logic of Muslim imperialism of that time.”
Besides the factual blunder of this claim, the statement is full of ambiguity. What is his idea of ‘Muslim imperialism’ of that age? And, what precisely was its logic? And what role did this ‘logic’ play in the formulation of the Shariah? The zindeeq must produce his evidence for his stupid claims. He must show where, by whom and when was the Shariah or its Fiqh systematized into a legal form during the era of Muslim domination in Spain? Prior to Spain what was the form of Fiqh? Who were the supposed Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of Spain? What influence and change did Spain exercise to the Fiqh of the Four Math-habs? Was any of the Four Imaams and their Works consequences of the Muslim conquest of Spain? In which field did Spain flourish and attain prosperity? If the zindeeq cannot correctly respond to these questions, then he should understand and concede his inability and stupidity in the domain of Shar’i Uloom. He should understand that his theories about the Shariah are simply shaitaani figments of his distorted imagination which stems from a “truncated” imaan which in turn is the product of kufr secular education acquired from the masters of atheism.
FALSE
It is far from the truth that when the Muslims entered Spain, “Muslim history was at its expansionist phase”. Expansionism of Islam is a vital tenet of Islam. It is a command of the Qur’aan. Thus, the history of Islamic Expansionism was initiated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). By the time of his departure from this earthly realm he had subjugated the entire Arabian Peninsula. During his very lifetime, the Nabi of Allah had spun the fabric for this Expansion. He wrote letters of Da’wah to emperors and kings. Everyone who is cognizant of Islamic Da’wah as envisaged by the Qur’aan will understand that the logical consequence of this command is Jihad and the subjugation of the territories ruled by the kuffaar. This is no secret. It is a command of the Qur’aan and it was given the highest degree of practical expression by the Sahaabah.
ABU BAKR
In faithful compliance to the Qur’aanic command of Expansionism, Ameerul Mu’mineen Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique (radhiyallahu anhu), the First Khalifah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) set in motion the process of Islamic Expansionism. The driving force for this Expansionism was the Command, not the ideal or spirit, of the Qur’aan:
“O People of Imaan! Fight those among the kuffar who are on your borders, and let them find in you might (and power). And, know that Allah is with the Muttaqeen.” (Aayat 122, Surah Taubah)
“Fight those who have no Imaan on Allah and the Last Day.” (Aayat 29 Surah Taubah)
In obedience to this divine Command, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) resolved to attack Shaam (Syria) as early as 13 Hijri. He despatched Hadhrat Usaamah Bin Yazeed (radhiyallahu anhu) on a Jihad expedition to Shaam. He turned his attention to Iraq and sent Khalid Bin Walid (radhiyallahu anhu) to bring that land under Islamic Sway. In addition, he dispatched his armies in different direction to wage Jihad for the Sake of Allah Ta’ala —to establish the Deen on earth. This is the maqsad (goal) of Jihad and the Expansionism of Islam.
UMAR
Damascus was conquered during the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). In 14 A.H. Hims was taken. In 15 A.H. was the famous Battle of Yarmuk. Jerusalem was conquered in 16 A.H. In 20 A.H. Egypt was annexed to the Islamic Empire. In 22 A.H. there were a string of victories. Hamdaan, Rai, Azerbaijaan, Jurjaan, Baab and other territories fell to Islam — all in line with the Qur’aanic command to expand Islam.
UTHMAAN
In 20 A.H. Ameerul Mu’mineen Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu), The Third Khalifah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered the attack on territories in Africa. By 40 A.H. Islam had reached the Atlantic shores in the west.
After the African victories, Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) turned his attention to Spain which was subjugated in 27 A.H. In 28 A.H. Qabras, an island off the coast of Syria was taken. In 29 A.H. Persia was conquered. In 30 A.H. Tabrastan fell to Islam.
In 23 A.H. Kinan and Sistan Provinces were conquered. In 17 A.H. Khozistan between Iraq and Persia was annexed.
MUAAWIYYAH
In 32 A.H. Hadhrat Muaawiyyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) army reached Constantinople. By 31 A.H. Tripoli (Libya), Barca and Cyprus were conquered. By 40 A.H. Balkh, Herat, Kabul and Ghazni (all in Afghanistan) were conquered.
By 60 A.H. Sind and other parts of India were conquered. By 95 A.H. the whole of Central Asia and Asia Minor were under Islamic domination. The conquest of Spain was completed in 92 A.H. About two years later, Portugal was conquered. In 116 A.H. Sardinia fell and in 122 A.H. Syracuse was conquered.
By 125 A.H. the Islamic Empire had reached its limits. In Europe, France and the whole Iberian Peninsula were under Islamic domination. A dozen islands in the Mediterranean were part of the Islamic Empire. In Africa the Empire stretched from Gibraltar to Suez, and in Asia to Mongolia.
THE END
It will be seen from the pattern of conquests beyond the confines of Arabia which was initiated by Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) that Spain was not “the expansionist phase of Muslim history”. Rather it was the end of that glorious era of Expansion which the Khulafa-e-Raashideen had not only initiated, but had carried it to the limits which the Islamic Empire had reached.
In relation to the victories achieved by the Qur’aanic Expansionist Policy of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, the conquests in the Spanish era were insignificant. Spain simply marked the beginning of the end of Islamic Expansionism — an Expansionism commanded by the Qur’aan. However, since the motive of the later expansions was no longer Allah Ta’ala and His Deen, the Muslims became stagnated. They had abandoned the divine Shariah, not in belief like the zindeeqs of this day, but in practical life, hence their advance was blocked. The Muslims had cheated themselves of establishing Islamic domination throughout the world.
IMPERIALISM
A phase which came to a halt can hardly be described as an expansionist one. The political conflagrations and upheavals in Spain and elsewhere in the Islamic World had no impact on the formulation of the Shariah. The Aimmah Mujtahideen were detached from the political realm. Their efforts were devoted to the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and it was in this field that they made their contribution. These illustrious Souls of Islam who gave the Branches of Shar’i Uloom a systematic form were not the products of so-called ‘Muslim imperialism’ of the Spanish era. They were the products the Noor of Risaalat which had adorned them via the agency of the Sahaabah. They influenced events. It was not the other way around. It is therefore a great lie for the zindeeq to attempt to show that the Shariah was a human construction when in fact it is a Divine Construction being the direct product of the Qur’aan.
BLATANT KUFR
In his claim of blatant kufr, the zindeeq alleges:
“Moreover, since Jews and Christians formed a holistic part of Muslim Spain, playing an active role in society, laws pertinent to the Judeo-Christian tradition were incorporated into the corpus of what we called today the Shariah.”
SHARIAH
Firstly, the zindeeq should understand that the term ‘Shariah’ was not introduced “today”. The Law of Allah is described as the Shariah in the Qur’aan. The term having its origination in the Qur’aan and Sunnah endured in the Ummah until this day and will endure until the Last Day.
LAWS?
In view of the zindeeq’s unsubstantiated claim, it devolves on him as an obligation to furnish evidence for the allegation that laws of the Yahood and Nasaara were incorporated into the Shariah during the era of Spain. Which such laws were incorporated? The zindeeq should enumerate them and substantiate his fallacies with narrational and rational proofs.
He has made one such attempt by criticizing Rajam to appease his western masters. But to make a claim without proof or basis is a fallacy. Similarity with a law in another culture or religion is not evidence for the claim that such a law has been incorporated into the Shariah from another tradition/religion. The existence of Rajam in the Taurah does not mean that Islam or the Shariah acquired its law of Rajam from the Taurah. Although laws of the Shariah of Hadhrat Musa (alayhis salaam) are also to be found in the Shariah of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Nabi of Allah did not extract these laws from the Taurah. The incorporation of such laws into the Shariah of Islam is the product of Wahi.
The zindeeq who has claimed that Rajam or any other law of the Shariah has been taken from Judaeo-Christian tradition should provide his evidence for this claim. Rajam, as will be shown in another booklet to be published, is the punishment for married adulterers. This punishment was first meted out by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhiwasallam). Will the zindeeq say now that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had introduced these forms of punishment into the Shariah simply because they are part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition?
TRADITION
The Jews believe in the Oneness of the Creator. Is Islam’s belief of Tauheed an incorporation into the corpus of the Shariah from Jewish tradition? If not, then why distinguish between Rajam and Tauheed? What is the basis for the distinction between the two? If the zindeeq says that the basis of Islamic Tauheed is in the Qur’aan, someone can respond and arbitrarily claim that the bulk of the Qur’aan has been incorporated into the corpus of the Shariah from Judaeo-Christian tradition which was a “particular context” in Medinah where senior Ulama of the Yahood lived with their community. Some zindeeq can go further and venture that Hadhrat Abdus Salaam (radhiyalllahu anhu) who was a very senior Jewish Rabbi prior to his acceptance of Islam was the source of the numerous Qur’aanic verses related to the episodes of Bani Israael and Taurah.
QUR’AANIC CONFIRMATION
Many of the laws of the Taurah are incorporated in the Qur’aan. But this is not the result of any “particular context” in which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) found himself — a context in which the Yahood Ulama were held in high esteem by even the Mushrikeen of Makkah. It is undeniable that the Qur’aan contains laws of the Tauraah as well. In fact, the Qur’aan explicitly confirming this states:
“And We revealed to you (O Muhammad!) the Kitaab (Qur’aan) with the Truth testifying to (the truth of) the Scriptures (Tauraah and Injeel) before it, and as a Guard over them (i.e. guarding the truth of what Allah had revealed in these Scriptures). Therefore decide among them (Ahl-e-Kitaab) with that (Law) which Allah has revealed to you. And, do not follow their vain desires deviating from the Truth which has come to you. For every (Ummat) We have established a Shariah and a Way………” (Aayat 48 Surah Maaidah)
The Qur’aan Majeed categorically confirms the Truth which Allah had revealed in the Scriptures of the previous Ambiya. If, therefore, there is any law which is common to both Islam and Judaism or Islam and Christianity, it will be the height of absurdity to claim that the said law has been incorporated into the corpus of the Shariah as an effect of Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Anyone who presents such a postulate has the obligation of furnishing his evidence. Confirming the Qisaas law of the Tauraah which the Qur’aan incorporates into the corpus of the Shariah, Allah Ta’ala says: “We had decreed on them in it (i.e. in the Tauraah), a life for a life; an eye for an eye; a nose for a nose; an ear for an ear and a tooth for a tooth.”(Aayat 45, Surah Maaidah)
This is the Law of the Tauraah, and this is the Law of our Shariah. Did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) incorporate this law into the corpus of the Islamic Shariah from Judaeo-Christian tradition? If some mulhid other than the particular zindeeq with whom this article is contending, claims that the Shariah’s eye for an eye law has been incorporated from Jewish tradition, how will the zindeeq disprove him when like this mulhid he too is totally bereft of any viable Shar’i proof for his kufr contention?
What is the difference in the rationale for Rajam and Qisaas (the eye for an eye law)? Both are laws of the Tauraah. Both are pertinent to Judaeo-Chrisian tradition. The very basis which the zindeeq employs to denounce Rajam can apply to Qisaas. The argument of there being Qur’aanic textual reference for Qisaas is not valid for creating a difference between the two Tauraah laws because some mulhid can argue that: (1) He does not accept the Qur’aan, hence it is not a common basis for argument. (2) The Qur’aan too or the bulk of it is the product of Judaeo-Christian tradition. In fact, this was the claim of the Mushrikeen of Makkah fourteen centuries ago, and now even the zindeeq makes this claim with regard to certain laws of the Shariah, in fact with regard to the whole of the Shariah. (3) The rationale which constrains the refutation of Rajam is exactly the same for Qisaas.
Needless to say that all such spurious arguments to support kufr have no validity. But in terms of the logic which the zindeeq employs they are valid, just as ‘valid’ as his argument for the rejection of Rajam.
For the allegation that the Shariah is heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian tradition. Independent and rational proof is imperative. Similarities in different systems are not evidence for this utterly baseless and kufr allegation.
The zindeeq claims:
“However since the framers of the law were not by this stage managers of society, the law remained purely theoretical, and inherent flaws could not be easily detected.”
Every claim postulated by the zindeeq is spurious and devoid of not only Shar’i substance, but of historical credibility as well. In addition, his claims are words lumped together to impress ignoramuses of his ilk, who can applaud him for his bunkum.
Who are these “framers of the law”? If these phantom “framers” were not as yet “managers of society”, then at what stage did the “framers” become “managers of society” (i.e. governments)? When later, possibly decades or centuries after the event of the framing of the law, the “framers” became “managers of society”, then did they introduce the Judaeo-Christian corpus which had already been framed by the early “framers” or was a new corpus with a new Shariah framed by these “framers” who became the “managers of society”?
It is simple to understand that none of the Islamic rulers, kings and Sultans were “framers” of any law. They were only “managers of society”. They were not both framers of law and rulers (“managers of society” in the words of the zindeeq). They managed society in terms of laws framed by others. Now who were these “framers of law”?
MATH-HABS
If the zindeeq has a little knowledge of Islamic history he will have to concede that regardless of the time era, all respective Islamic rulers governed the lands of Islam in terms of the same Shariah which the Four Math-habs espouse. Some Sultans adopted the Hanafi Code, while others the Shaafi. Others again adopted the Maaliki or the Hambali Math-hab. The Law of the Shariah offered by the Math-habs governed the lands of Islam and regulated Islamic society from the very inception. After the epoch of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, one of the Math-habs became the state Math-hab, depending on the persuasion of the then Ruler.
THEORETICAL
It is therefore a palpable falsehood to claim that in the beginning when the Shariah was codified and systematized it remained “purely theoretical”. The Shariah was the Law of ALL Islamic governments from the beginning until the end when the Khilaafat was abolished in 1914 by the kuffaar. There was no other law other than the Shariah. Regardless of the moral depravity of rulers, at least they were not zindeeqs and mulhids. Their very legitimacy as rulers of an Islamic land and empire depended on the implementation of the Shariah which was “framed” by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen on the authority of the Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The logical conclusion of the zindeeq’s claim in this regard is that the “inherent flaws of the Shariah” (Nauthubillaah!) surfaced later—much later—when it emerged from its hibernation in its theoretical cocoon. Who does he thinks he has succeeded in duping? While zindeeqs of his ilk can be deceived by the drivel he spews out, intelligent people and those having some knowledge of Islamic history will dismiss the nonsense with contempt.
DETECTION
If the detection of the “inherent flaws” of the Shariah is dependent on management of society in terms of this Shariah, then let the zindeeq understand that society was managed by this self-same Shariah with its assumed “inherent flaws” right from the inception, i.e. from the time of Ameerul Mu’mineen Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). The very laws “pertinent to Judaeo-Christian tradition” governed Muslim society from the inception of Islamic rule. Let the zindeeq produce his evidence to refute this contention.
SURFACE
At what stage in Islamic history did the alleged “inherent flaws” of this Qur’aanic Shariah surface? What were these flaws? Who pointed out these flaws? The zindeeq has to answer these questions. It is only in this belated age in close proximity to Qiyaamah that the Shariah has become theoretical. Never before was the Shariah in a theoretical stage. Only after the abolition of the Khilaafat in 1914 did the Shariah lapse into the state of theory and the process of scuttling and destroying the divine Shariah by a shaitaani process the mulhideen dub ‘re-interpretation’, was initiated. The increase in the ranks of the mulhideen as a direct result of kufr secular education acquired from atheists has dramatically accelerated the process of the destruction of the Shariah by the myriad of shayaateen in human form which have emerged and are emerging from the institutions of atheism, kufr and immorality—the kuffaar universities.
This is the only age in the history of Islam that the “managers of society” have jettisoned the Shariah out of Muslim life and have substituted it with the law of shaitaan —kufr and immorality which are enshrined in constitutional law to regulate the lives of people. This is the type of law which appeals to zindeeqs.
RULINGS
In another specimen of his drivel, the zindeeq alleges:
“When Muslims describe the Shariah as divine, they actually provide divine sanctions for the rulings of the bygone classical jurists.”
The rulings which the “classical jurists” (the Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon era) issued were not devoid of their divine basis. For their rulings the Fuqaha did not rely on imaginary “divine sanctions” which posterity will adduce. It is absurd to claim that the Fuqaha presented rulings without providing the divine basis. Secondly, the zindeeq on account of his ignorance of Fiqh, is unaware of the divine basis which the Fuqaha provided for each and every ruling they issued. In the system and methodology of the Fuqaha, every ruling, every mas’alah formulated has a divine base. The rulings of the Fuqaha are not dependent on the rationale which later generations may posit for their rulings for their divine status. It is inconceivable that the Fuqaha issue a Shar’i ruling without having a divine basis. The kutub of Fiqh are ample rectification for the divine basis which the Fuqaha presented for every ruling and mas’alah. Only stupid people are ignorant of this unique and unparalleled methodology of the illustrious Fuqaha in general, and of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen in particular.
When Muslims say that the Shariah is divine, they do NOT provide any divine sanction for the rulings of the Fuqaha. To do so would be a redundant exercise because the rulings come along with their divine sanction like the shadow following the body.
It is imperative for the zindeeq to prove his fallacious contention with examples of Muslims providing divine sanction for the rulings of the classical jurists of bygone times. Whatever divine sanction will be provided will be the very same daleel which the Fuqaha had presented for their rulings.
The zindeeq, furthermore, has not provided any example of the so-called ‘inherent flaws of the Shariah”. He speaks of the “inherent contradictions in the Shariah” but the best example he could manage is his averment:
“That is why whenever the Shariah is applied today……Muslim societies acquire a medieval feel.”
He has indeed scraped the bottom of the barrel in his jahaalat. Is the supposed “medieval feel” then the “inherent contradiction” and the “inherent flaw” of the Shariah? In which way does this imagined “feel” constitute an “inherent contradiction and flaw” in the Shariah? The zindeeq should come up at least with something more intelligible then the bunkum of his “medieval feel”.
THE “FEEL”
The zindeeq also has to inform us of this real existence of this attribute he describes as “medieval feel”. Just which Muslim societies are affected by this feeling of spiritual constipation? In Nigeria where some semblance of the Shariah has been applied, we do not see or experience this stupid “medieval feel” imagined by the zindeeq. On the contrary, the Muslim society of that country went on rampage to defend the Shariah which the zindeeq describes as “human construction”. If there is any “medieval feel” when the Shariah is applied it is in the ranks of zindeeqs, modernists, products of kuffaar universities and those quasi-Muslims brainwashed by the western media.
In general Muslims, even the non-practising ones, derive pleasure and are delighted whenever they hear of the implementation of Shariah law anywhere in the world. Consequently, we find Muslims who indulge in music, pictures, who do not observe proper Purdah, who have televisions in their homes, etc. all offering support for the so-called ultra-orthodox Taaliban. Besides zindeeqs and munaafiqeen, no one in the ranks of Islam was averse to the Taaliban on account of their rigid enforcement of aspects of the Shariah. The disease of ‘medieval feel’ is a special product of kufr. Those who have kufr in their hearts suffer from the disease of ‘medieval feel” because of their inherent aversion for Allah’s Law.
The zindeeq postulates:
“Many Muslims are aware that critical reasoning to develop the law is no longer a feature of Islamic legal training.”
Development of Islamic Law never was an institution in the history of Islam. No one, not even Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), was a developer of Islamic Law. The Rasool who occupies the highest strata and rank in Islam merely delivered and explained the Law in the way Wahi (Divine Revelation) directed him to do. Hence the Qur’aan Majeed repeatedly says: “On us (the Ambiya) is only to deliver the clear message (Divine Shariah).”
The Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) outlined and explained the divine Law in the light of Wahi which was either delivered to him directly by Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) or by the Special Inspiration exclusive with Ambiya.
COMMENT
The Qur’aan is emphatic that no Muslim has the right to critically examine and comment adversely on any aspect of the Law of Allah Ta’ala. Muslims are taught by the Qur’aan the lesson of “We hear and we obey”. Whatever of the Divine Law that has been transmitted to us by authoritative and reliable transmission, we accept and we cast our personal logic and reasoning into the dustbin. We utilize critical reasoning only to neutralize the poison of mulhids and to demolish and lay to waste the kufr of zindeeqs masquerading as Muslims.
In Islam reason cannot be employed to denigrate any aspect of the Divine Law. It has no licence to operate in the domain of Divine Law with a view to detract from it or to change it for forging a compatibility with the shaitaani concepts of the day. Reason shall be employed within the parameters of the principles structured on the Divine texts of the Qur’aan and Ahadith only for the extension of Divine Decrees to particular developments which did not exist in the age of Nubuwwat. Then the product of such extension will be divine because the basis is divine. We are here referring to the system of Qiyaas in the Shariah– not to unbridled reasoning of zindeeqs and mulhid philosophers who were simply another breed of juhala.
NO LONGER
The claim that: “critical reasoning to develop law is no longer a feature”, presupposes that at one stage it was a feature. It behoves the zindeeq to explain when exactly this imagined “critical reasoning to develop law” (i.e. Islamic law) was a facet of Islamic legal training. He should cite some examples of laws of the Shariah which were formulated by this imagined methodology.
While critical reasoning was fully employed to ascertain the authenticity of narrational evidences, it was never part of any imagined process to develop law. The Law—the divine Shariah— was handed to the Ummah in its perfected and completed form. It is precisely for this reason that Nubuwwat came to an end with Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is the height of kufr to subject the Qur’aan and Sunnah to critical reasoning for the purpose of developing some law. The product of man’s critical reasoning in a methodology to develop law is not part of the divine Shariah. Such consequences are man-made laws which are within the preserve of kuffaar.
DALAAIL
Another sphere where the Fuqaha employed critical reasoning is in their presentation of the rationale for the divine commands. Since the Rasool of Allah did not venture into this field, the Fuqaha subjected the rationale, not the divine commands, to a process of critical reasoning But, to this day no Muslim has claimed that the ghair mansoos and aqli dalaail (rational evidence unbacked by divine sanction) of the Fuqaha have divine status. The contention of the zindeeq is thus disposed with contempt.
NARRATION
It is essential to understand that the divine Shariah is the product of Wahi (revelation), not the consequence of human reason. The only requirement for confirming the divine status of any Deeni mas’alah, is the narrational evidence which consists of Qur’aanic textual reference, Ahadith or Principles formulated on a divine premise. Regardless of any conflict between Reason and Revelation, the latter will be accepted and confirmed on the basis of narration, not reason.
PHILOSOPHY?
Expounding his theory of critical reasoning, the zindeeq says:
“Critical thought directed to the philosophy of Islamic jurisprudence and its development fell into abeyance some centuries ago.”
There never was any subject such as “philosophy of Islamic jurisprudence”. Nor was there any type of development in the Divine Shariah. As mentioned earlier, the Shariah was presented to the Ummah in a perfected and completed form. It cannot be subjected to development nor was it ever subjected to development by the Fuqaha. The Fuqaha, however, systematized the chapters of the Shariah for the ease of posterity. They did not develop new laws. It is a brazen lie to make such a claim of kufr and attribute it to the Fuqaha.
One Faqeeh would critically examine the proofs and the arguments which another Faqeeh presented for a law. A flaw in the evidence was possible, not in the actual law of the Shariah. Once the law has been confirmed, the rationale is of no significance. There was the process of critical analysis of the proofs, and this was necessary for ascertaining the authenticity of the claim that a particular law is of divine origin.
This system of critical analysis of the evidences should not be confused with the stark kufr of ‘reinterpretation’ or ‘review’ of present-day zindeeqs and mulhids who subject the Qur’aan and Hadith to their whimsical fancies and opinions, and then forge meanings to fabricate a compatibility with the liberal views and attitudes of the western world. The alleged abeyance of critical thought some centuries ago is a pure figment of the distorted imagination of the zindeeq. When there never existed a process of critical thought in an imagined system of development of Islamic jurisprudence, the question of it having fallen into abeyance is superfluous.
The epitome of the zindeeq’s kufr is reflected in the following statement he makes:
“The whole corpus of what we today “consider” to be the Shariah requires review and intellectual and social effort on the part of scholars and the Muslim community alike.”
Some zindeeqs and mulhideen call it reinterpretation. Some call it review like this zindeeq. The common motivation is to destroy Allah’s Deen. But it has to be executed subtly and in the guise of religion. The Yahood and Nasaara have achieved these nefarious and despicable goals. But their counterparts who parade around in Muslim colours will not have the same measure of success because the Qur’aan declares:
“They (the zindeeqs and the mulhideen) intend to extinguish the Noor (Shariah) of Allah while Allah will complete His Noor (Shariah) even though the kaafiroon abhor it.”
No matter how much shaitaan may harness his forces and present his plots to destroy Islam in different forms, the whole miserable lot, including the MPL crowd, will end up in the dumps of history as miserable failures and robbers of Imaan.
They speak ambiguously of review and reinterpretation of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. They should define with precision what aspects of Islam should be reviewed. What is their authority for demanding such kufr? Review or reinterpretation of the Shariah implies rejection of the Qur’aan and Sunnah — that Shariah which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) presented and which the Qur’aan commands:
“Then We have established you (O Muhammad!) on a Shariah. Follow it, and do not follow the vain desires of those who have no knowledge.”
The actual target of the zindeeqs and munaafiqeen is Islam itself. Since the western way of life which they have adopted cannot be accommodated by Islam, they have deemed it expedient to eliminate Islam. But this they cannot do openly for lack of courage. They therefore camouflage their evil designs and say that the “the whole corpus of the Shariah” needs to be reviewed and reinterpreted implying thereby a new set of laws which would be compliant with western civilization.
HUMAN CONSTRUCTION
In the attempt to gain legitimacy and support for their ill-conceived scheme of kufr, they woo ignorant modernists with the propaganda that the Shariah of Islam is a human construction and that there is nothing divine about it. They first plot to negate the concept of the Immutability of the Shariah. So they propagate the idea of reforming the Shariah while in actual fact the attack, review and reinterpretation are directed against Islam, and Islam is the Qur’aan and the Sunnah.
If the Shariah is a human construction then simply throw out the whole corpus. There will then be no need for any review and reinterpretation. If the Shariah is thrown out, what then remains of Islam? Absolutely nothing. The Shariah in fact is Islam and Islam is the Shariah. There is no difference whatsoever. Any zindeeq who thinks of challenging this position should explain the difference between the Shariah and Islam, and define the articles of the Shariah and the articles of Islam to clearly present the difference between the two.
ISLAM
The Shariah is man-made according to the zindeeq. But he has to concede that Islam is divine, albeit such a concession will be illogic on his path.
If the zindeeqs throw out the Shariah, then they will still have ‘islam’, whatever that conception of ‘islam’ may mean to them. If the whole corpus of the Shariah is a human construction as the mulhid avers, then why bother with reviewing it? You consider yourself qualified to present a new ‘shariah’, albeit a shaitaani one. If the zindeeq believes, even deceptively to dupe Muslims, that the Qur’aanic Aayat proclaiming the perfection of Islam is true and divine, then there can be no imperative need for any man-made system of laws. The zindeeq should now outline the system to be adopted for believing in Islam. Minus the divine Shariah, what of Islam does the zindeeq propose to hoist on the Ummah? If he presents any reinterpretation of the existing so-called man-made Shariah, then that reinterpretation will likewise be a human construction which cannot claim divine status. As such it cannot be imposed on anyone. It should be borne in mind that the zindeeq pleads for a review of the existing Shariah which he has branded as a human construction.
Any reinterpretation of the existing human construction will not enhance the new illegitimate consequence. The reinterpreted ‘shariah’ will be a worse specimen of a human construction. It is a supreme deception to substitute one human construction with another human construction and then label the latter ‘Islam’.
It is imperative for the zindeeq to first define Islam. What is his concept of Islam? What will be the fundamental doctrines of the new brand of islam—an islam minus its divine Shariah? From whence will the zindeeq derive the doctrines, beliefs and practices of Islam if there is no recourse to the existing Shariah which is divine beyond the slightest vestige of doubt? If he presents a set of doctrines and practices on the basis of interpretation of the Qur’aanic text, this new system will be thrown out and the charge of it being another human construction will be directed to it. Where will this circle end?
If the Shariah is a human construction, then the divine Islam should be presented. What is the divine Islam? Does Islam also need reinterpretation and reviewing? If yes, then who should do the reinterpretation? Then what exactly has to be reviewed of Islam after the Shariah has been deleted? And, will the reinterpreted view of Islam be a divine Islam or a human construction? The zindeeq by putting forward the kufr proposal of reviewing the Shariah will find himself trapped in an adinfinitum circle. Each time he searches for an answer to these questions, the equation will be a ‘human construction’. In short, there is then no divine Islam — Nauthubillaah!
ISLAMIC LAW?
The zindeeq further says:
“What is certain is that Islamic law must be exercised as a procedure of justice.”
What does the zindeeq mean by ‘Islamic law’? Where is this law? Does it already exist or does it have to be introduced? Either it exists or not? But in the interpretation and stupid understanding of the zindeeq, this law cannot be the corpus of the Shariah because according to him the Shariah is a human construction. Now where does one search for Islamic law after the Shariah has been thrown out? Will the Qur’aan be used to formulate a new system or a new shariah or whatever the kufr mind may designate it? Assuming that the world of Islam unites to appoint this miserable zindeeq to interpret the Qur’aan and come up with a system which could be called ‘Islamic law’, will this product of the zindeeq’s interpretation be a divine system? Will such ‘Islamic law’ be divine or will it be a human construction?
Even if all the scholars and juhala unite to reinterpret, to fabricate a system on the basis of the Qur’aan to produce ‘Islamic law’, will such ‘Islamic law’ be divine or will it be a human construction? Every sane and unbiased person will concede that whatever system of law is produced by man’s interpretation will be a human construction for which divine status cannever be claimed. The farce that reviewing and reinterpretation will produce is nothing but plain kufr which renders the zindeeq a murtad.
When the consequence of an interpretation of a human construction, (namely the divine Shariah in the zindeeq’s view), cannever be divine, then it will be a huge deception and a colossal falsehood to label such a system of law as ‘Islamic law’.
Thus, there will be no divine Islamic law to “exercise as a procedure of justice”. Then what is the status of this imagined procedure of justice? Is it divine or human? When there is no divine Islamic law, obviously the procedure of justice cannot be divine. It will be a procedure derived by human interpretation. It will be exactly in the same category of the variety of kufr law systems which abound in the world. All such systems are human constructions. Islam is the only exception. Its Shariah is divine, hence its justice is divine.
INTERPRETIVE?
The zindeeq says: “It is only when one has an interpretive source of Islam, most notably the Quran, that one can apply it within the context and social milieu in which we are living.”
The implication of what the zindeeq says here is that with the changing circumstances of the world and whenever the “social milieu” changes there is a need for a new ‘shariah’ which has to be formulated by interpreting the Qur’aan to conform to the bogey called ‘social milieu’. This in turn implies that the Shariah of which the Qur’aan speaks and which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explained and handed down to the Sahaabah is obsolete; that it has outlived its utility; that it was applicable to only the ‘social milieu’ in which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah lived.
The logical conclusion of this concoction of the zindeeq is that Allah Ta’ala -Nauthubillaah! - erred in having finalised Nubuwwat; that the Qur’aanic declaration of the perfection and completion of the Deen during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is false. If the existing Shariah of the Qur’aan is obsolete and no longer applicable to the corrupt ‘social milieu’ preponderating with immorality and kufr of this age, then there is an imperative need for a new Nabi to bring a new divine Shariah in the same way as Allah Ta’ala had sent new Messengers in bygone times before Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). With each change of ‘social milieu’, a new Rasool had appeared.
PALPABLE KUFR
All these conclusions stemming from the claim of reinterpretation to conform to the ‘social milieu’ are palpable kufr. Any person who subscribes to this theory cannot be a Muslim. If he was one at birth, he cannot remain a Muslim any longer unless he hastens with Taubah and retracts his kufr.
If the Shariah has to be displaced and a new ‘shariah’ forged with each passing ‘social milieu’, there can then never be a divine Shariah. In other words Islam will then not be divine because it will be the consequence of human interpretation. History will then be cluttered with a variety of shariahs each one differing from the other in proportion to the degree of difference in the ‘social milieu’.
VALIDITY
This concept had validity prior to the Khaatamul Ambiya (The Seal of the Ambiya) and the Qur’aanic Shariah. But with the advent of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Qur’aan, this concept was abrogated for all time until the Day of Qiyaamah. The Shariah which the Qur’aan presented will comprehensively and fully apply and be adequate for all developing contingencies regardless of the ‘social milieu’ right until the Day of Qiyaamah.
The concept which the zindeeq has proposed is conspicuously kufr and there is no room for it in the Qur’aan or in Islam. Any attempt to fabricate a new ‘shariah’ to satisfy the vain desires of zindeeqs and mulhids living in the ‘social milieu’ of this time, will be a new, baatil and kufr religion similar to Qaadianism or the many other isms which have come and disappeared.
LAWMAKERS
In this theory of interpretation the Qur’aan becomes the toy of every Tom, Dick and Harry. Every nafs bloated with shaitaaniyat and inebriated with vain desires is an authority and a founder of the new kufr ‘shariah’ which the kufr theory contemplates. The whole world of baboons and slaves of immorality become equal players in the fabrication of the new kufr ‘shariah’ in terms of the absurd theory of ‘interpretative Qur’aan’ postulated by the zindeeq. He therefore says:
“The whole corpus of what we today “consider” to be the Shariah requires review and intellectual and social effort on the part of the scholars and the Muslim community alike.” (Emphasis ours)
What type of law is fabricated when a million dumb members of a community sit as lawmakers?
This new ‘shariah’ which will be fabricated by so-called scholars and the dumb community— will it have divine status? Or will it be simply another human construction to be dumped when the ‘social milieu’ changes? Obviously, it will be a human construction which will have to be unceremoniously discarded in some waste dump when the immoral designs of the nafs of some new zindeeqs consider that the time is ripe for fulfilling the inordinate desires they crave for. But, this divine and sacred Shariah of the Qur’aan– this Immutable Shariah which Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) handed to Man and Jinn - this Inviolable Shariah which Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) brought from the Heavens– this glittering Shariah which will outlive all time and every stupid ‘social milieu’ will never be discarded. It will remain for as long as Allah Ta’ala wishes, and this Divine Wish according to the Qur’aan extends until the Last Day.
The Muslim community, including its scholars, have absolutely no say and no right of tampering with the Shariah. No Muslim scholar, i.e. no Aalim of the Deen, will or can ever sit in a shaitaani conspiracy to scuttle the Shariah of the Qur’aan. Zindeeqs who have prepared thesis of kufr for their doctorate degrees which some kufr university will be awarding, are not scholars of Islam by any stretch of imagination notwithstanding their craving to be known as such. Their stupid thesis to gain scrap university degrees does not qualify them as Scholars of Islam. They nevertheless qualify to be scholars of satanism and baatil.
MOSAIC LAW
Concluding his article of kufr (which appears to be a bit of debris of some stupid kufr thesis submitted to gain a kaafir doctorate degree), the zindeeq states:
“What is clear from recent events is that the Muslim world needs to re-evaluate its methodology and modus operandi of implementing medieval, Judaic customs derived from Mosaic law…”
If the zindeeq had even a child’s knowledge of the Qur’aan and Islam, he would not have ventured this ludicrous comment. He is entirely ignorant of the fact that the Qur’aan upholds ‘Mosaic Law’. The Qur’aan categorically proclaims that it (the Qur’aan) upholds Mosaic Law, i.e. the Law of the Tauraah which is just as sacred as the Qur’aan. The only difference between the Qur’aan and the Tauraah (the Original Tauraah) is that the former abrogates the Shariah of Hadhrat Musaa (alayhis salaam) — that divine Shariah which the zindeeq describes as ‘Mosaic law’.
While the divine Shariah of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) has been abrogated as a whole by Allah Ta’ala, The Lawmaker and The Author of the Tauraah, aspects of it have been incorporated into the corpus of the Divine, Immutable Shariah of the Qur’aan. This incorporation was by Allah’s Command. The Same Allah Who revealed and abrogated the Tauraah, then revealed the Qur’aan, then established Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on the Divine Shariah, ordered this incorporation. Notable acts of Law which the Qur’aan’s Shariah has incorporated from the Shariah of Hadhrat Musaa (alayhis salaam) - Mosaic Law— are the law of Rajam and the law of Qisaas.
The only gain - worldly gain - for the zindeeq from his kufr essay is that it will win for him an accolade from the enemies of Allah. They will present him with the much coveted doctorate degree of kufr. But at the time of Maut the zindeeq’s eyes will open and in the Aakhirah there is nothing but the Fire of Jahannum for him—that is, if he dies without having made taubah and without having renewed his Imaan.
May Allah Ta’ala save all Muslims from the disaster of kufr which has befallen this and many other zindeeqs and mulhids who were born in Muslim homes. Imaan, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, dangles between hope and fear.
KAAFIR: Every person who is not a Muslim is described in the Shariah as a Kaafir.
THE TYPES OF KAAFIR: Munaafiq, murtad, kitaabi, mushrik, dahriyyah, muattil and zindeeq. A zindeeq is also known as baatini and mulhid.
MUNAAFIQ: One who verbally claims to be a Muslim, but in his heart is not so, is termed a Munaafiq.
MURTAD: A Muslim who renounces Islam is termed a murtad.
MUSHRIK: One who subscribes to or believes in more than one Divine Being is termed a mushrik. One who associates another as a partner with Allah is also termed a mushrik.
KITAABI: One who follows a previously revealed, Divine religion which has been abrogated, is termed a kitaabi, e.g. Jews and Christians.
DAHRIYYAH: One who believes in the eternity of time and ascribes creation to time is termed dahriyyah.
MUATTIL: One who denies the existence of the Creator is termed a Muattil (atheist).
ZINDEEQ: Zindeeq is a person who acknowledges the Nubuwwat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and accepts the shiaar (salient features, e.g. Salaat, Haj) of Islam, but at the same time adheres to beliefs which are unanimously branded as kufr in the Shariah.
According to this definition the term Zindeeq will apply to all persons who proclaim themselves to be Muslims while at the same time prescribing to kufr beliefs. The majority of baatil sects fall in this category of kufr.
In some quarters there exists the misconception that rejection of a teaching of the Shariah by way of ta’weel (interpretation) is not kufr. A ta’weel which rejects or alters in any way any of the Dhurooriyaat-e-Deen (Essentials of Deen) is baatil (baseless). Such interpretations produce kufr. For example:
Belief in the fact that Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) is alive and that he was physically raised into the Heaven is among the Dhurooriyaat-e-Deen. Denial of this belief by any form of interpretation whatever, is baatil and kufr.
The belief in Khatme-Nubuwwat (finality of the Nubuwwat of Rasulullah—sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is among the Dhurooriyaat-e-Deen. Denial of this belief on the basis of interpretation is baatil and kufr.
Belief in the physical resurrection of humanity in the Aakhirah is among the Dhurooriyaat-e-Deen. Denial of this belief by way of interpretation is baatil and kufr.
Belief in the Mu’jizaat (Miracles) of the Ambiyaa (alayhimus salaam) is among the Dhurooriyaat-e-Deen. Whoever interprets the Mu’jizaat to mean anything other than what the Ummah has understood it to be for the past fourteen centuries, commits kufr.
There are four kinds of kufr, viz. Kufr Jahl, Kufr Juhood, Kufr Shakk and Kufr Ta’weel. The one guilty of any of these types of kufr is described as a kaafir in the Shariah.
KUFR JAHL:
This means kufr occasioned by ignorance. Islam or the teachings of Islam are denied on the basis of ignorance. The rejector believes that the claim of Islam is false. This was the type of kufr of Abu Jahl and his compatriots.
KUFR JUHOOD:
This means deliberate kufr. The denial of Islam or its teachings is occasioned deliberately, inspite of realising its truth. This type of kufr is the result of rebellion and obstinacy. This was the type of kufr of the Ahl-e-Kitaab (the Jews and Christians). This is also the kufr of Iblees (shaitaan).
KUFR SHAKK:
This means kufr occasioned by doubt. The denier doubts the truth of Islam.
KUFR TA’WEEL:
This means kufr by way of interpretation. The kufr is not committed by outright rejection, but is rendered by means of interpretation. A belief or teaching of Islam is distorted or given an interpretation or meaning other than what was the meaning ascribed to it by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Of the four types of kufr, the last viz. Kufr Ta’weel is the most common nowadays among those who were born Muslim. Corrupt interpretation is widely employed by Muslims to distort the true beliefs and teachings of Islam. By such baatil ta’weel (baseless and corrupt interpretation), Qur’aanic verses and Ahaadith are given meanings which conflict with their true and original meanings explained by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). By means of this type of kufr, numerous born Muslims have become kaafirs.
“In mankind are such men who dispute in the aayaat of Allah without having any knowledge, and they follow every rebellious shaitaan.”(Qur’aan)