Translation and Notes: Salvation of the Successors in Beliefs of the Predecessors (Najaat al-Khalaf)

This is a full translation of a short treatise on Athari creed written by the Hanbali scholar Uthman ibn Ahmad ibn Sa’eed An-Najdi or more popularly known as Ibn Qa’id. I have also included extensive footnotes based on the explanation of the book by Shaykh Ismail Hakamali and Shaykh Faris Falih

Shaykh Ismail only provided an explanation for half of the book unfortunately, so I plan to update the notes once he’s completed it insha’Allah. In my opinion, the explanation of Shaykh Ismail was more superior to that of Shaykh Faris. I wanted to wait until he finishes it but there is no immediate timeline if and when it will be completed.

About the Author

The author began his studies in Najd and then moved to Shaam where he studied with Abdul Baqi, the student of Imam al-Bahuti. Afterwards, he went to Egypt to study with al-Khalwati, the nephew of Imam al-Bahuti. Ibn Qa’id is considered from the golden chain of Hanbali scholars who are as follows from the latest to the oldest:

Ibn ‘Awadh -> Ibn Qa’id -> Al-Khalwati -> al-Bahuti

He also wrote a very important annotation on the Hanbali fiqh manual Muntahaa al-Iradaat. He has a number of other works as well.

The download link below is to the Google Docs file. You can download it as PDF from the Google Docs menu.

Seven Signs of Ignorance – The Thinking Muslim

Once in a while we come across certain type of people who portray themselves as highly knowledgeable about a particular subject but in reality are very ignorant. Usually such people are motivated through their ego and arrogance over their opponents. Sometimes they even think themselves to be some sort of authority over a subject, which they either no nothing about or know very little about.

I want to focus particularly on certain practicing Muslims who after learning a few things about their religion consider themselves as qualified for debates with those who differ with them. However, the reality is that their understanding of the religion is very limited to that of a beginner and are actually ignorant on the topic. Fortunately, there are some signs of ignorance that if a person shows during a debate or conversation can confirm that in reality this person is ignorant in his understanding of the subject:

  1. Contradiction – The person will contradict himself during the debate. He will say one thing at one point and say the opposite in another point of the same conversation or debate. For example, a person will say “It is haram to protest because it is an imitation of the kuffar!” but after the opposer mentions some benefits of it, he will say “Well it is permissible for men only not women.” A complete contradiction and a clear sign of ignorance.
  2. Personal Attacks – If a person starts going off topic and starts throwing personal attacks at you, then this is a clear sign of ignorance. This usually happens if that person cannot hold a strong argument or cannot refute an argument. Feeling helpless and defeated, he will usually throw personal attacks at you. During a religious debate, he’ll most likely point out the deficiencies in the opposer’s religious duties or personal beliefs.
  3. Make Random Statements – If a person starts to spit out random statements not related to the subject of the debate, then this is also a sign of ignorance. Usually in this case, the person is trying to flee from the topic as he is not knowledgeable enough to defend his position. So in order to keep his dignity and humbly admit “I don’t know” he will run into a different topic as a safe haven. This second topic will most likely be something else that the person differs with from his opponent. Usually the person tries to run into a topic he feels that he has strong arguments or proofs against his opponent. Again this is just an attempt by the ignorant person to regain his ego after a defeat on a topic he had no knowledge about.
  4. Change Opinions Often – If a person changes his opinions often without much thought, then most likely he is ignorant. In this case a person will hold one opinion today but in a few hours might change it completely to something else. This is a sign of ignorance and is usually associated with someone who is a “new candidate” to the game or someone who is not well grounded in his stances which goes to show that he isn’t someone who should be debating on things he himself is not sure about in the first place.
  5. Does Not Know Proofs – If a person cannot back his stances with proofs or his refutations of your views with proofs, then this is a sign of ignorance. Such a person will usually not be able to give you proof if you ask him for it. He will either ignore it or reinterpret some vague statement from the Quran and Sunnah to support his view. Notice I said reinterpret which means that the vast majority of scholars or the earlier scholars didn’t see it that way especially the companions. A person of this category will also use fabricated or weak reports to defend his arguments and refute yours which in reality are not proof.
  6. Dragging On Without Point – If a person drags on an argument without a point and does not let you speak or if so, then very rarely, then this is a sign of ignorance. Usually this person will quite often cut you off in mid-sentence and will not give you the right to make your point. And they will usually drag on an argument/debate unnecessarily without making any clear points. Basically, a person with knowledge can usually make his point in a few sentences very clearly but an ignorant has to drag on and on trying to make you THINK they’re making a point when in reality they are not! Usually such a person’s opponent starts to think to himself “What is he talking about? His conversation isn’t making any sense?!” A clear sign of ignorance.
  7. Lie – Believe it or not an ignorant person is not afraid to pull this move. If a person will lie flat to your face just to win the argument or make himself look superior to you so he can feed his ego, then this person is clearly ignorant. A good example in my personal life is when I asked a brother if he knew the Arabic language fluently and he answered with an immediate and confident “Yes!” Lo and behold after a few weeks he couldn’t use an Arabic word in a sentence! Not only that but he told me then that he was the same level in Arabic as I was and not fluent! So why did he lie before? Most likely just to make me feel inferior to him and have some sort of awe for him.

The above are not the only signs but a few which I personally have observed in ignorant people and/or have heard from people of knowledge on this subject. So if during a conversation or debate (provided your qualified), you find one of the above characteristics in a person, then do not waste your time because the person has no idea what he is talking about.

Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) Miracles – By Imam an-Nawawi

The Messenger of Allah possesses many manifest miracles and signs demonstrating [his veracity], reaching thousands and they are well known.

From amongst them was the Qur’an, the manifest and clear miracle and brilliant proof, falsehood cannot approach it from before it or behind it. It is a revelation from One Who is All-Wise and Praiseworthy. It incapacitated the most eloquent of people in the most eloquent of times to produce a single chapter that would be comparable to it, even if the whole of creation were to gather for that purpose. Allah, the Exalted says,

“Say: If the whole of mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they assisted each other.” [Al-Israa’ (17): 88]- It challenged them to this despite their large numbers, their eloquence and their severe enmity, and it challenges them to this day.

As for the other miracles, it is not possible to enumerate them all due to their huge number and renewing and increasing nature. However, I will mention some examples:

The splitting of the moon, water flowing from between his fingers, increasing the quantity of food and water, the glorification of the food, the palm tree yearning for him, stones greeting him, the talking of the poisoned leg [of roasted sheep], trees walking towards him, two trees that were far apart coming together and then parting again, the barren [and therefore dry] sheep giving milk, his returning the eye of Qatidah bin an-Nu`man to its place with his hand after it had slipped out, his spitting lightly into the eye of Ali when it had become inflamed and its being cured almost immediately, his wiping the leg of `Abdullah bin `Atiq whereupon he was immediately cured.

His informing of the places of death of the Day of Badr saying, ‘this is the place of such polytheists on the and-such a person.’ His informing of his killing Ubayy bin Khalaf, that a group of his nation would traverse an ocean and Umm Haram would be amongst them and this occurred. That all that was drawn together for him of the ends of the earth and displayed to him would be opened for his nation, that the treasures of the Chosroes would be spent by his nation in the Way of Allah, the Mighty and Magnificent. That he feared for his nation that they would be tempted by the wealth and allurement of this world and that the treasures of the Persians and Romans would be ours and that Suraqah bin Malik would wear the trousers of Chosroes.

He informed us that Hasan bin `Ali would reconcile between two large warring parties of the Muslims, that Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas would live such that nations would benefit by him and others would be harmed. That an-Najashi had died on this particular day while he was in Ethiopia and that al-Aswad al-`Ansi had been killed on this particular day while he was in Yemen.

That the Muslims would fight the Turks who were described as having small eyes, wide faces and small, chiselled noses and that Yemen, Syria and Iraq would be conquered by the Muslims.

He informed us that the Muslims would comprise three armies, an army in Syria, and army in Yemen and an army in Iraq. That they would conquer Egypt, a land whose [unit of land measurement] was the Qirat, that they should deal with their people well for they have protection [being Copts] and ties of kinship [through Hajar]. That Awais al-Qarni would come to you from the auxiliaries of Yemen, he would be afflicted with leprosy and it would be healed except for the space of a dirham, and he indeed arrived during the rule of `Umar.

He informed us that a group of his nation would always be upon the truth and that mankind would become many in number and that the Ansar would diminish in number and that the Ansar would not be given their due [with regards distribution of wealth and leadership]. That mankind would keep on asking questions until they would say, “Allah created the creation…” [Referring to the hadeeth, “the people would continue asking until they say, ‘this is Allah Who created everything…but who created Allah?’” (al-Bukhari and Muslim)]

He informed us that Ruwayfi` bin Thabit would live a long life, that Ammar bin Yasir would be killed by the transgressing group, that this nations shall divide into sects and that they would fight each other.

He informed us that a fire would emanate from the land of Hijaz and the likes of this. All of this occurred exactly as he (sallallahu `alayhe wa sallam) said it would.

He said to Thabit bin Qays, “You will live being praised… and you will die as a martyr”, and he lived being praised and was martyred at al-Yamamah. He said to `Uthman, “He would be afflicted by a severe trial.” [The meaning of severe trial is his being imprisoned in his house and his being killed by the transgressors.]

He said about a person amongst the Muslims who had just fought a severe fight that”He would be from amongst the denizens of the Fire”, and later he committed suicide. Wabisah bin Ma`bad came to him in order to ask him about righteousness and sin upon which he asked, “Have you come to ask about righteousness and sin?”

He said to `Ali, az-Zubair and al-Miqdad, “Go to the garden of Khakh for indeed there is Dha`inah” who has a book with her. [Dha`inah is the woman with whom Hasib al-Balta`ah (radhiAllahu `anhu) sent a letter to the people of Mecca in order to inform them of the plans of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu `alayhe wa sallam) to fight them. It was concerning this that the first verses of Surah Mumtahinah were revealed.

The garden of Khakh is a place falling between Mecca and Madinah. Refer to Bukhari [no. 3983] and Muslim [no. 2494] and Tafsir ibn Kathir [4/344]]

They found her there but she initially denied having the book and then took it out from within her braids.

He said to Abi Hurayrah, when Satan had stolen some dates, “Indeed he shall return” and he did. He said to his wives, “The most prolific of you in giving charity will be the quickest of you to join me.” and it was so [Zaynab bint Jahsh (radhi Allahu `anha) was the most prolific of them in giving charity and was the first to die. Refer to Muslim [no. 2452].]

He said to ‘Abdullah bin Sallam, “You will remain upon Islam until you die.”

He (sallallahu `alayhe wa sallam) supplicated for Anas that his wealth and sons increase and that he should live a long life and it was so. He lived for more than one hundred years and not one of the Ansar was richer than he and one hundred and twenty of his children had already been buried before the arrival of al-Hajjaj [to Basrah]. This is detailed further in Sahih Bukhari and others. [Bukhari no. 1982]

He supplicated that Islam be strengthened through ‘Umar bin al-Khattab or Abu Jahl, and Allah strengthened it through `Umar (radiyAllahu `anhu). He supplicated against Suraqah bin Malik and the feet of his horse sank into the earth and he was thrown off, he called out asking for safe conduct and was granted it, then he asked the Prophet to make a supplication for him.

He supplicated that Allah remove feeling the bitter cold and heat from `Ali and so never did he feel cold or hot. He supplicated for Hudhayfah, the night that he sent him to spy on the Confederates, that he not feel the cold and he did not until he had returned. He supplicated for ibn `Abbas that Allah grant him understanding of the religion and it was so. He supplicated against `Utbah bin Abi Lahb… that Allah cause a dog from amongst his dogs to overcome him and he was killed by a lion at az-Zarqa`. [This is how it is in all of the printed editions; perhaps the author means `Utaybah bin Abi Lahb for this description fits him. As for `Utbah, he accepted Islaam in the year of the Conquest of Mecca.]

He supplicated for the descent of rain when they asked him to at the time of drought. There was not a single cloud in the sky, and then when he had supplicated, the clouds gathered like mountains and it rained until the next Friday. It rained so much that they had to come back and ask him to supplicate and stop the rain, so he supplicated and the rain stopped and they walked out into the glaring sun.

He (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) supplicated for Abu Talhah and his wife, Umm. Sulaym, that he bless them in the night they had spent together and she became pregnant and gave birth to `Abdullah. He had nine children and all of them were scholars.

He supplicated for the mother of Aba Hurayrah (radhi Allahu `anhu) that she be guided and Aba Hurayrah left to find her performing the ritual bath because she had accepted Islam. He supplicated for Umm Qays bint Muhsin, the sister of `Ukkasha, that she live a long life and we do not know of another woman who lived as long as she did. This was reported by an-Nasa’i the chapter concerning washing the deceased.

On the Day of Hunain he threw a handful of dirt at the disbelievers and said, “May the faces be disfigured”, and Allah, the Exalted, vanquished them, filling their eyes with dirt. He once went out to one hundred of the Quraysh who were waiting to do something horrible to him and he put dirt on their head and went on his way without their seeing him.

Refer also to Khayru-d-Din Wanili, Mu`jazat al-Mustapha [3rd ed., Maktabah as-Sawadi, Jeddah]. Consult this for the evidences for what is mentioned in this chapter.

Modernism in Islam – The Thinking Muslim

By Jamaal al-Din Zarabozo


We can relate, ideologically, the modernist movement spreading these days to one sect in the past. This sect is called the Muta’zila, which is dated back to the third Islamic century. Although those people accepted the Qur’an and Sunna they made ta’weel (their own interpretation of the Qur’an) and said ‘aql (intelligence) takes precedence over naql (guidance of the Prophet). However, this school died out. The modernist movement did not evolve from them, but they are very similar to them. The modernist movement actually originated in Europe (middle-ages). At the time when the scientific method came about in Spain, it was seen that what the church was teaching was not true. This led to a slow revolt. The basic view of modernism (in all religions)is that: the religion should change according to the circumstances, and that it is not fixed. There is no such thing as absolute truth. The Jewish and Christian modernist response in Europe tried to explain how the religion was still relevant for the people. They made innovations to keep people interested in the religion (such as singing in church, introduced only in the 1900’s). They tried to say the divine and the human is mixed in the Bible and that the parts that are true must be the ones that are not out of date. Also, the religion is improving over time and there is no absolute truth in the Bible. This is the time in history when many Muslims were looking to Europe. This led to three choices for those Muslims: accept the West; reject the West; or mix the two (reform Islam). Those who followed the third (the modernists) developed in, and focused on: Turkey – because it was under British influence; and Egypt – because Al-Azhar was the seat of Islamic knowledge. The people of this modernist movement judge Islam according to their ‘aql. Some of their faults in regards to it are:

1) use it for things which it can’t comprehend;

2) refer everything to it: accept what agrees with it, reject what does not;

3) judge the revelation by it. However, Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa’ believes that using the sound ‘aql should lead one to the conclusion that the Qur’an and the Prophet are true and that their teachings should take precedence over pure ‘aql.


Modernist are saying that the West and the world has changed, and that Islam must become “civilized”. Modernism has spread the most in the U.S. because:

1) there are no scholars available to refute them, or they won’t refute them because people don’t want to criticize them;

2) it allows Muslims from overseas to become part of American society and they do not have to be recognized as Muslim. Also, new American Muslims will not have to change their old lifestyle;

3) much of the literature, scholars, and institutions in the U.S. reflect the modernist thinking.

In tafseer, Yusuf Ali is the most popular translator of the meaning of the Qur’an, even though he denies what the ‘aql can’t see (of the unseen). In seerah, one book is saying the Prophet is like anyone else. Another tries to say the sunna is not for the shariah and that sometimes we have to throw away the hadith because Allah did not correct the Prophet’s mistakes when he made ijtihaad. In Fiqh, modernists say interest is permissible, menstruation women can pray, and Muslim women can marry kaafir men. They say the face of women was not covered until 150 years after the time of the Prophet, even though it existed in his time, and that women should always pray in the mosque, even though hadith only show women in the mosque at Ishaa and Fajr because they could not be recognized in the dark. They also say the hadith that a people with a woman ruler will not succeed is not true today and polygamy is forbidden except under certain conditions (which do not exist). Finally, it should be mentioned that this movement is organized and has resources such as magazines, television, conventions, and literature.


Modernists influence the thinking of people, and that person spreads their views on unknowingly. Their way of thinking is the most dangerous thing about them. None discuss aqeedah (belief) because it is not important to them (‘aql judges naqal). They are also trying to remove the sunna and say that the system of the old muhadditheen is insufficient. Most say (as do critics of the Bible) that we need a “higher criticism” of hadith and the earlier conclusions (ijmaa) of scholars are not sufficient, yet they give no new way to judge hadith. However, we as Muslims understand that the Prophet was guided by Allah and that we may not be able to understand everything in the hadith with our ‘aql. It is common for the modernists to question the role of the sunna in the shariah. One said all of the sunna is of this world and not deen, even in the Prophet’s time, therefore it is all a matter of shoora (consultation) and ijtihaad (therefore changeable). Another says we need to make ijtihaad for what is to be followed, and changes of time and place make sunna difficult to use. All of this is mentioned to weaken the view of the sunna. The Jews and Christians tried to differ the human from the divine. Modernists try to point out the differences between the Messenger as a human and as a Prophet. They also avoid following the sunna by dividing his life into parts (imam, judge, military leader, prophet, etc.), saying some are not divine teachings and not law. Some say everyone is free to make ijtihaad, and later restrictions on it were imposed by the people. Another said a ruling may change even if it is from the Qur’an and Sunna.


The observer can easily point out the following points as the driving force for this trend:

1) Their premises and assumptions are wrong Modernists look to the West and try to reinterpret the “old religion” with modern science and modern times. They assume that:

a) the present situation is advanced or different (i.e. “this is not the Prophet’s time!”). However, the idea of progress and that things are better now is Marxian and Hegelian. It is against the hadith, as the Prophet said each generation is getting worse. They must prove that there has been progression (no definition of it given). Islamically the advanced society is the one that comes closer to Allah, and understands and applies Islam better (such as the sahaaba). In fact, the current societies have the things of the old societies (such as homosexuality, etc.) as mentioned in the Qur’an;

b) religion is relative to time and place (i.e. “therefore we need to judge Islam in light of modern science”). Modernists are “people of science” and judge Islam according to modern science. They think that the West is based on science, but they fail to notice that not all science is based on fact. In reality, much of science is only hypothesis (not a fact). Also, every science has its own philosophy, which will lead to its own conclusions;

c) the way of thinking of a society is based on (is a product of) its enviroment. Modernists say most of religion is from the people and their environment and it can be judged by later times, and hadith are related to that time only. However, there is no proof for the modernist hypothesis that religious truth is relative. Allah says the Qur’an is Haq (truth). Modernists are saying (by inference) that if the Qur’an is not true now, then it was never true.

2) The methodology they use is wrong. The methodology of the modernists is the way they mislead people to the wrong conclusions. They claim to be scientific, but they are usually inconsistent or have no proof or foundation for their beliefs. Some of the means and principles they use include:

a) Sunna and Hadith. They claim the Qur’an is authentic and they only follow “authentic” hadith. This implies that they have a way to judge hadith (different from that of the traditional scholars), yet most give no new way to judge hadith, and are using their ‘aql (intelligence) to determine this (like the female ruler hadith). Modernists especially dislike hadith which have specific meanings and prefer ones which only have general principles.

b) Use of weak hadith to help their points and arguments (while they are calling for the use of authentic hadith). For example, in the area of women in Islam (the two areas the modernists try to change the most are the sunna and women) they like to quote two stories from the time of Umar: 1) when Umar was giving a Khutbah he tried to restrict the amount of dowry, a woman opposed, and Umar corrected himself and thanked the woman, and 2) Umar appointed Umma Shifaa as a market-regulator (used by modernist to say women can work in the government). However, both of these stories are not authentic.

c) Use vague terms without defining them. Modernists use terms like democracy, freedom, and equality, but they do not define what they mean by them. The danger in using vague terms is that a knowledgeable person will pass over the word or concept, thinking they meant the Islamic or acceptable definition while in fact they did not, while others may believe what they are saying is true.

d) Do not present all of the relevant information that is available on the subject. That is, from Qur’an, sunna, etc. They only present that which will support their views. This tactic is used to avoid unliked beliefs, so they just do not mention them.

e) Force their interpretation onto the text. This is what the Muta’zilla did, when they said ‘aql takes precedence over what is from the Prophet. Many modernists say Islam is the “rational” religion. This is true if you mean everything is from Allah and there is no contradiction, but to say that we can study everything in Islam by judging it with only our intellect is unacceptable and there is also no proof for this. To avoid implementing what the Qur’an and sunna says, the modernists say we need to follow the “spirit” of Islam and not worry about the laws specifically. But it is clear from the Qur’an and Sunna that we are to take both. They will argue that the text of the Qur’an only says for women to dress modestly and they do not like to talk about the specific details of hijaab and say we only need to follow the “spirit” of the law.

f) They tend to oppose scholars by saying they meant something else. They say that the door to ijtihaad is open, which is something accepted by the Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa’. However, it is not open to everybody on any subject. Modernists claim that anyone would make ijtihaad until Imam Shaffie narrowed the qualifications (not true), and today anyone can do it. In one magazine, on the question of polygamy and divorce, some said that these two can be restricted by ijtihaad. They often misquote scholars and give their own meanings for what they said.

g) Often follow strange and rejected opinions. They try to revive some of the old opinions because they like it and say that this writer said it in the past. Modernists try to open the door to these opinions and choose what is the most suitable and easy to follow. However, we are supposed to look for the fiqh opinions that are the closest to the truth. They usually bring bad hadith such as “The differences in my Ummah is a mercy” or reject authentic hadith such as the one about the breakup of the Ummah into 73 sects.

h) Follow their desires. They often make rulings and fatawa without permissible daleel (evidence). One said music is permissible because he did not see something wrong with it, so it is halal. But he did not check what the Qur’an and the sunna say about this subject.


Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa’ believes that there is only one true Islam. This is proven in Qur’an and Hadith. One hadith shows the straight line as leading to Allah, and branching paths leading off it with a devil at each one calling to it. Also, the umma will break into 73 sects, and the true way is the one who follows Muhammad and his companions. Modernists are differing from Ahl As-Sunna Wal-Jamaa’ in:

1) everything in accordance with Qur’an and Sunna is Haq (truth) and what disagrees with it is false (some modernists disagree with this). Also, statements consistent with the Qur’an and Sunna are accepted;

2) Ijmaa (consensus) of the sahaaba (and early generations) is a hujja (proof) for all Muslims. Modernists say sahaaba are men and we are men, and even matters agreed on by them are open to ijtihaad;

3) anything in the Qur’an and Sunna cannot be opposed by ‘aql, rational thought, opinion, or qiysas. This is supported in the Qur’an and is not open to discussion or vote. One modernists said the cutting of the hand of the theif is a “Khomeni Islam” and is unethical;

4) there are constants in Islam related to belief, worship, etc. and these are good, sound, proper, and correct for all places and times. This view is accepted by the Ahl Sunna, but not by many of the modernists, saying that all truth is relative and there is no constants. However, these constant principles are basic aspects of the Ahl Sunna and are traced to the Qur’an and Sunna and Sahaaba. They are not questionable or changeable things. In many of these things, modernists say we need ijtihaad and tajdeed.


1) Many are influenced by it and do not know it. Also, their views are unacceptable and should be refuted.

2) Many people do not recognize it as a movement of munkar or bida’ and do not evaluate its writings and speeches, so they try to defend it. Many of their writings are from rationalization (which has no end or conclusion), and the effects of this are seen in the Christian church (that is, they now have no relationship to their religion, and it has no practical value or purpose).

3) This group is also playing into the hands of the kuffar. They are happy with is because their effort is to bring the Muslim women out of the home to change them. The last 200 years has been a colonialist and orientalist attack on the position of the woman in Islam (to destroy her and the society).


1) The modernists movement as a whole (what it is based on) is from Bida’ (innovation). They have their own principles and ways, which contradicts that of Ahl-Sunna. They say we want ijtihaad in the basic principles of the deen (religion) which are constant.

2) They are very willing to reject and contradict the ijmaa of the sahaaba on clear points (such as stoning of the adulterer and the apostate is to be killed) and hadith are dealt with as if they are not important (women ruler hadith is common).

3) One of the main points of modernism is to change the role of women. They say it is permissible to mix men and women and to not wear hijaab. The modernists are impressed by the West and their conclusions always seem to agree with the views of the West.


Most of the information used for this article is from a seven part cassette series which is available from: Dar Makkah: 2040 S. Oneida #2A. Denver, CO 80224. The speaker frequently pointed out that his purpose was to warn about the dangers and mistakes of this movement and not to defame individual Muslims. Also, his information came from their writings, speeches, and discussions with these individuals, and not from what he heard from other people.

Reduce Socialization and Choose the Right Friends


The following is an excerpt taken from the book The Manners of the Knowledge Seeker by Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad Sa’id Raslan

People have always been greatly divided over the issue of mixing and seclusion. So, some went with the opinion that one should always mix with the people, and some went with the opinion that one should always seclude himself from the people, and everyone is satisfied with his point of view.

And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have Mercy on him) touched upon this issue and clarified the dispute, saying:

“This issue – even though the people have differed over it, either partially or completely – the reality of it is that mixing with the people is sometimes obligatory or recommended. The same individual can sometimes be obligated to mix with others, and can at other times be obligated to separate form them.

The way to properly reconcile between these two stands is to realize that mixing, if it involves cooperation upon good and piety, is obligatory, and if it involves cooperation upon sin and transgression, is forbidden. Mixing with the Muslims for the purpose of congregational acts of worship, such as the five prayers, the Friday prayer, the ‘Id prayer, the eclipse prayer, the prayer for rain (istisqa’), etc., is from what Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) commanded. Such is also the case when mixing with the people during the Hajj, to fight the disbelievers, Khawarij, and rebels, even if the leaders of and participants in such activities are corrupt. This is also the case with a gathering in which the worshipper can increase his faith – either because of it benefiting him, or he benefiting it.

And a person must have time alone to engage in supplication, remembrance, prayer, reflection, take himself to account, and rectify his heart. These are issues that nobody else can participate with him in, and these are affairs that need to be seen to on an individual basis, whether at home or otherwise, as Tawus said: “How excellent of a refuge is the home! In it, one can restrain his gaze and his tongue.” So, it is incorrect to mix with people unrestrictedly, and it is incorrect to seclude yourself from people unrestrictedly. As for exactly how much every person needs of each, and what is best for him at all times, this is something that requires further investigation.

What is best is that one sometimes pick from the various types of worship based on their inherent virtue (prayer is in itself better than recitation of the Qur’an, and recitation is better than dhikr, and dhikr is better than supplication), and sometimes based on what time of day he is in (recitation, dhikr, and supplication after Fajr and ‘Asr are preferred over prayer), and sometimes based on the physical position he is in (dhikr and supplication in bowing and prostration are legislated instead of recitation of the Qur’an, and dhikr and supplication during tawaf is legislated by consensus, while recitation of the Qur’an during tawaf is differed over), and sometimes based on his location (what is legislated at ‘Arafah, Muzdalifah, at the Jamar, and at Safa and Marwah is dhikr and supplication instead of prayer, etc. and tawaf of the Sacred House for the visitor is better than prayer, and prayer is better for the inhabitants of Makkah), and sometimes based on the appropriateness of the worship for the person (Jihad for men is better than Hajj, while the jihad of women is Hajj, and obedience to the husband is better than obedience to the father for the married woman, as opposed to the single woman who is commanded to obey her father), and sometimes based on the capability of the servant, as the worship he is capable of is better for him than the worship he is incapable of, even if what he is incapable of is inherently better. This is a point where many people go to extremes and follow their desires: some people who see a certain action as being better for them due to their own circumstances, or due to it being more beneficial to their heart and a better way to obey their Lord, wish to then make this the best action for everyone around them, and proceeds to command them to do the same.

And Allah sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) with the Book and Wisdom, and made him to be a mercy and guide for the servants, commanding each person with what is best for them. So, the Muslim should be a well-wisher to every person, wanting what is best for them.”112

And the scholars – may Allah be Pleased with them – would mix with the people and teach them while simultaneously being the most careful of people of wasting their time, and Ahmad (may Allah be Pleased with him) was the most patient of people upon being alone, despite the fact that he was the imam of the world during his time. His son, ‘Abdullah, said: “My father went out to Tarsus on foot, performed Hajj two or three times on foot, and he was the most patient of people upon being alone. Bishr, despite his status, was unable to remain by himself, and would always go out to see this person and that.”113

So, mixing and socialization should not be with one who has a dead heart, as he is like a highway robber. Rather, it should be with one who will increase you in faith and action.

Ibn al-Qayyim said:

“The one with a dead heart will make you feel lonely. So, take advantage of his absence as much as possible, because you will not feel lonely except when he is with you. If you are put to trial with him, give him your outer attention, wander from him with your heart, separate your inner self from him, and do not let him distract you from what is more deserving of your attention.

Know that the greatest of losses is for you to be preoccupied with one who will bring you nothing but a loss in your time with Allah – the Mighty and Majestic – and being cut off from Him, wasting of your time on him, weakening of your energy, and dispersing of your attention. So, if you are tested with this – and you must be tested with this – deal with him according to how Allah would wish, and be patient with him as much as possible. Get closer to Allah and His Pleasure by way of this person, and make your getting together with him something to benefit from, not something to incur a loss from. Be with him as if you are a man who is on a road who was stopped by another man, who then asks you to take him on your journey. Make sure that you are the one who gives him a ride, and that he is not the one giving you the ride. If he refuses, and there is nothing to gain from traveling with him, do not stop for him, bid him farewell, and do not even turn back to look at him, as he is a highway robber regardless of who he really is.

So, save your heart, be wary of how you spend your days and nights, and do not let the Sun set before you arrive at your destination.”114

“So, the student of knowledge should abandon socialization, as this is from the most crucial things that he can do, especially in regards to members of the opposite gender, and especially with those who spend most of their time in amusement and little of their time in thought, as the nature of others can rob you of your own. The harms of socialization include the passing of your life without any benefit, as well as the decline of your wealth and religious commitment if this socialization were to occur with the wrong people.

The student of knowledge should not mix except with those who he can benefit or can benefit from. If he is offered the friendship of one who will waste his time with him, will not benefit him, will not benefit from him, and will not assist him in reaching his objective, he should politely end the relationship from the start before it progresses to something deeper, as when something becomes established, it becomes more difficult to change it. There is a phrase that is constantly on the tongues of the scholars: ‘Repelling something is easier than removing it.’

If he requires someone to befriend, let that person be righteous, religious, pious, wary, intelligent, full of benefit, having little evil, good at complying and rarely conflicting, reminding him if he forgets, cooperating with him when he is reminded, helpful if he is in need, and comforting if he is in distress.”115

Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have Mercy on him) said:

“Know that not everyone is suitable to be your friend. You must verify that this potential friend has the necessary characteristics that make friendship with him something to be desired. The one you seek to befriend must have five characteristics:

• He must be intelligent. There is no good in befriending an idiot, as he will only harm you when he wants to benefit you. By intelligent, we mean one he understands things as they are on his own or if they are explained to him.

• He must have good manners, and this is a must. One who is simply intelligent might be overcome by anger or desire, and obey his desire. Thus, there would be no benefit in befriending him.

• He must not be a fasiq. Such a person would not fear Allah, and whoever does not fear Allah cannot be trusted.

• He must not be an innovator, as there is a fear of being overtaken by his innovation.

• He must not be an innovator, as there is a fear of being overtaken by his innovation.

• He should not be eager for the dunya.

‘Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be Pleased with him) said: “Stick with your true brothers. You can live in comfort with them, as they are a delight in times of ease, and you can lean on them in times of hardship. Assume the best about your brother until he comes with something that should alarm you from him. Avoid your enemy, and beware of befriending anyone but the trustworthy, and there is no trust for the one who doesn’t fear Allah. Do not befriend the corrupt, as he will teach you his corruption, and do not reveal your secrets to him, and only consult those who fear Allah, the Exalted.”

Yahya bin Mu’adh said: “A friend is the one who you don’t have to remind to remember you in his supplication, and that you don’t have to flatter and impress, and that you don’t have to apologize to.”

And Abu Ja’far said to his companions: “Can any of you put his hand in the pocket of his brother and take what he wants?” They replied: “No.” He said: “Then you are not brothers as you claim.”


112 ‘Majmu’ al-Fatawa’ (10/425)
113 ‘Tarjamat al-Imam Ahmad’ (p. 18)
114 ‘al-Wabil as-Sayyib’ (p. 45)
115 ‘Tadhkirat as-Sami’ wal-Mutakallim’ (p. 83)

Only Human Ever Killed by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) With His Own Hands

Many people accuse the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of killing many people with his own hands, however, the reality is that it is not reported anywhere that he ever killed anyone with his own hands except what follows in the incident below in self defense during the battle of Uhud.

Ibn Ishaq related that: “When the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] was going up the hillock, he was followed by Ubai bin Khalaf who was saying: ‘Where is Muhammad [pbuh]? Either I kill him or I will be killed.’ The Companions of Muhammad [pbuh] said: ‘O Messenger of Allâh, do you mind if one of us combats with him?’ But the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] said: ‘Leave him!’ So when he drew nearer, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] took the spear from Al-Harith bin As-Simma. He shivered violently in such a way that made all of them scatter in all directions violently and impulsively. Then he faced him, observed his clavicle through a gap between the wide opening of the armour and the part of his neck enclosed by. He speared him in that spot. The effect of the stroke was so strong that it made him roll off his horse over and over. When he returned to Quraish, they found that he had only had a small scratch in his neck. So when blood became congested he said: ‘By Allah, Muhammad has killed me.’ Hearing him say so, they said: ‘By Allâh you are afraid of death. By Allâh, you are possessed by a devil.’ He replied: ‘He had already told me when we were in Makkah: ‘I will kill you.’ By Allâh, had he spat on me, he would have killed me.’ Eventually, the enemy of Allah breathed his last at a place called Sarif, while they were taking him back to Makkah.” [Ibn Hisham 2/84; Za’d Al-Ma’ad 2/97]

In a version by Abul-Aswad, on the authority of ‘Urwa: He was lowing like a bull and saying: “By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, if (the pain) I am suffering from now were distributed among the people of Al-Majaz, it would cause them to die.” [Mukhtasar Seerat Ar-Rasool p.250]

Source: The Sealed Nectar by Safi ur Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri

The Heart is Never Void of Thoughts – Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah

When you reject an idea that comes to you, that which is after it would be rejected. But when you accept it, it would be a wandering thought, then it would prey upon the will, and with the help of the thought, they would use the body. If it is difficult to be used, they would both turn to the heart with hope and lust, and you would direct it to what is desired.

It is a well known fact that reforming ideas is easier than reforming thoughts, and reforming thoughts is easier than reforming will, and reforming will is easier than amending the evil of a deed, and amending it is easier than putting an end to habits.

The best medicine therefore, is to preoccupy yourself with things that concern you, away from that which does not concern you, because thinking about things that do not concern you is the beginning of all evil things. Whoever thinks about that which does not concern him, would miss that would concerns him, and he would be preoccupied with something that contains no good, far away from the best thing for him.

Therefore, thoughts, ideas, will and intention are the best things you should reform in yourself, because they are your characteristics and your reality, with which you can be closer to or away from your Lord, without whose nearness and Pleasure, you would never find happiness. And all misfortunes are because of your being away from Him and His displeasure with you. Whoever is low and despicable in his ideas and the domain of his thoughts, would be the same in the rest of his concerns.

Be careful not to make it possible for Satan to control your thoughts and will for he would ruin them for you to the extent that it would be very difficult for you to make them right. He would throw upon you all kinds of harmful scruples and thoughts. He would come in between you and your thoughts and that which benefits you. And what is more, it is you who would be helping him against yourself, by making it easy for him to possess your heart and your ideas; so he gains control of them over yourself.

Your likeness to him is as the likeness of the owner of a mill in which, good grain is ground. Then a man came to him with a load of soil, dung, coal and scum in order to grind them in his mill. If he rejects him and does not make it possible for him to throw that which is with him in the mill, he would be able to continue grinding that which is useful for him. But if he makes it possible for him to throw them into the mill, they would ruin the grain that is in it, and the mill itself would be ruined.

That which Satan throws into the heart is usually one of the following thoughts: thinking about things that exist, if they were other than the way they are now. About things that have not existed, if they were to exist, how they would be. About things that can be thought about such as immorality and prohibited things. Illusory imagination that has no reality at all or about null and void things. That which cannot be perceived like the kinds of things that have been kept secret from his knowledge. He would throw these ideas into him that would not come to an end, and make them the center of his concern an thought.

The remedy for this is to preoccupy your thoughts with knowledge and concepts that are useful for you, regarding the Oneness of Allah and His Rights, and about death and its aftermath like Paradise and Hellfire. Also it is important to preoccupy yourself with learning the problems of deeds and the ways to avoid them.

You should preoccupy yourself with will and intention and that which is useful for you and reject that which harmful.

According to the most knowledgeable people of Allah, wishing for treason and preoccupying yourself with it, is more harmful to the heart than treason itself. You can find this is the example of a king. Among the King’s retinues and servants is one who would like to betray him and his heart and thoughts are full of this, yet at the same time he serves him and performs his duties. If the kings comes to know his secret and intention, he would hate him so profoundly that he would punish him with what he deserves.

He would be more hated to him than a man who is far away from him, and has committed some crime, but whose heart is with the king, and does not contain any wish for treason. The first one leaves it due to being weak and busy with that which he is doing, while his heart is full of it, but the second one commits these crimes, while his heart is void of any treason or desire to do it. Therefore, he is better than the first one.

In general, the heart is never void of thought. It is either concerned with a duty concerning the Hereafter or worldly pleasures.

We have previously mentioned that the mind is like a mill that runs with that which is thrown into it. If some grain is thrown in, it would run with it. And if glass, pebbles, or dung is thrown in, it would run with it too. It is Allah, the Almighty Who is the Lord, the Owner and Manager of that mill. He has appointed an angel to throw in it that which is beneficial to run with it and Satan throws that which harms it.

The angel visits it one time, and Satan visits it at another time. The grain that the angel throws is an indication of goodness and belief in the promise. And the grain that Satan throws is an indication of evil and disbelief in the promise.

The mill runs according to the grain. And the owner of the harmful grain would not be able to throw it except if he finds the mill void of useful grain, and the one who is running it has neglected it and turned away from it. By then, he would take the initiative to throw that, which he likes.

In general, if the one who runs the mill abandons it and gives up taking care of it by not throwing useful grain, the enemy would find the way to ruin it and run it with that which he has. And the way to reform this mill is by being preoccupied with that which concerns you. And as for its destruction, it is by being preoccupied with that which does not concern you.

How excellent the statement of a wise man is, as he put it: when I found that worldly pleasures are more likely to spoil that Hereafter, and saw that it is bound to be ruined, I turned away from it all to that which people of understanding do not differ in opinion.

Shafiq bin Ibrahim said,

“The door of success has been closed against the creation due to six matters:

  1. Their being preoccupied with grace without being grateful.
  2. Their interest in knowledge and neglecting action.
  3. Rushing to sin and delaying repentance.
  4. Being attracted by the company of the righteous but failing to follow their deeds.
  5. This worldly life is turning away from them, while they strongly desire it.
  6. The Hereafter is drawing near to them, while they are turning away in heedlessness.”

I Say, the source of that is lack of desire for (Paradise) and lack of fear of Hellfire, as well as weakness of certainty and insight and disgrace and lowness of the self, and exchanging that, which better for that which is lower. Otherwise, if the self was truly noble and great, it would not accept such lowness.

Therefore, the source of all good with success is from Allah and His Will. And this is also the source of nobility of the self and its greatness. And the source of evil is its lowness and pettiness. Allah, the Almighty said in the Glorious Qur’an:

Indeed he succeeds who purifies his ownself. And indeed he fails who corrupts his ownself” (Qur’an 91:9-10)

That is to say that the successful one is he , who honors it, invests it by obeying and performing all that Allah ordered. And the unsuccessful one is the one who belittles it and degrades it by disobeying what Allah has ordered.

Therefore, honored servants are only pleased with the highest, best and most praised matters. But the inferior servants hover about lowness and fall upon them just as a fly falls upon the dirt.

The honored and high self does not accept wrongdoing or immorality, theft or treason, for it is greater and higher than them. And the despised and low self is the opposite of that, for every self inclines to that which suits and resembles it. The following verse illustrates this fact:

Say (O Muhammad to mankind): Each one does according to Shakiltihi (i.e. his way or his religion or his intentions, etc.) (Qur’an 17:84).

That is to say that everyone performs deeds according to that which suits and corresponds to him. He performs deeds according to the way that coincides with his character and nature. Everyone follows his way, his faith and habits that he got used to and was created with.

Therefore, the immoral person performs deeds according to that which resembles his way of life, as repaying grace with sins, and turning away from the Benefactor. And the believer performs deeds according to his way of life, as being grateful to the Benefactor, showing his love and praise to Him, making himself loved by Him, being shy of Him, observing Him, glorifying Him and exalting Him.

Source: Al-Fawaid by Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah
Pg. 292 – 297

Why Ibn Taymiyyah Focused on Principles of Islam

Umar bin Ali al-Bazzar narrates that Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah be Pleased with him) wrote a lot about the principles of Islam as opposed to the branches of it. I asked him about this, and requested that he write a Fiqh book compiling all of his chosen and preferred opinions to be a main reference for issuing verdicts. So, he said:

“The branches of the Religion are easy to understand, and it is allowed for whoever follows one of the scholars to simply act on his fatwa as long as there is nothing to make him believe the fatwa to be incorrect. As for the principles, I see the people of innovation and misguidance – the philosophers, the Batinis, the heretics, those who believe that Allah is everywhere, the Dahris, the Qadaris, the Nusayris, the Jahmis, the deniers of Allah’s Names and Attributes, those who say He has a physical body, the Mushabbihah, Rawindis, the Kullabis, the Sulaymis, and other innovated groups – creating a crisis with their misguidance, and it is clear to me that their intent in this is to destroy the holy Shari’ah of Muhammad which dominates over all religions, and that most of them dragged the people into doubts regarding the principles of the Religion. Because of this, I rarely see someone turning away from the Qur’an and Sunnah and going for their opinions except that he becomes a heretic, and falls into doubt of his own religion and beliefs.

When I saw all of this, it became clear to me that whoever is able to repel their doubts and fabrications is to focus all of his efforts in exposing them and responding to their false beliefs in defense of the pure Religion and lofty, authentic Sunnah, and I never saw anyone write regarding this subject who claimed himself to be knowledgeable except that he actually helped demolish the foundations of Islam with his words. This is because of their aversion to the clear truth, their turning away from what the noble Messengers brought from the Lord of the worlds, and their following the path of the philosophers in using their terminology and referring to them as ‘wisdoms and logic,’ while they are in reality ‘stupidity and misguidance.’ They stick with this and turn away from everything else until it completely takes over their intellects, and it confuses them until they are no longer able to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Allah is too generous with His slaves to not provide them with minds that accept the truth and reject falsehood. However, lack of guidance and abundance of desires cause one to fall into misguidance.

Allah – the Exalted – made the intellect to be a scale for the slave to filter out falsehood from truth, and He did not send the Messengers except to those with intellect, and none are tasked with any obligations except those with intellect and logic, such that he stops and says: ‘This contradicts what the noble Messengers conveyed from Allah. This is falsehood that anyone with intellect sees,’ and whoever is not granted light from Allah will have no light.

So, this is why I focused all of my attention to writing about the principles of the Religion, and this is what caused me to collect all of their statements and reply to them with what Allah has blessed me of textual and logical arguments.”

I say that in everything he has written, he clarified the truth from falsehood, and Allah helped him to respond to their innovations, misguided opinions, deceptions, and desires with textual proofs and in a logical manner. He did this to the point that he answered each and every doubt of theirs with such clarity that anyone with a sound mind would understand and agree to his correctness. So, praise be to Allah who blessed us with the chance to see and befriend him, as Allah has made him a proof upon the people of his era, most of whom were busy with the worldly pleasures in exclusion to the matters of the Hereafter, and there is no might nor power except with Allah. However, Allah – the Mighty and Powerful – guaranteed the preservation of this Religion until the end of time, and made it dominate over all other religions. So, praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.


Batinis: A group that emerged in the 3rd century during the era of al-Ma’mun. They believed that the Qur’an was merely a commentary from the Prophet (peace be upon him), that it has hidden meanings that are known only to a few, and that homosexuality and incest are permissible. Those who inherited their beliefs include the Qaramitah and Isma’iliyyah in earlier times, and the Qadiyanis and Baha’is in later times. They caused great harm to the Muslims until they were wiped out by the ‘Abbasid leader al-Muktafi in 300 H. See ‘al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq’ (p.

Dahris: A group who believe that there is no afterlife, and that the cycle of existence repeats every 36,000 years, and they say that nothing can destroy them except time (ad-dahr). See Ibn Kathir’s ‘Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim’ (4/190).

Qadaris: The ones who claim that the slave creates his own actions, and that Allah has no control over the Creation. The first who called to this was Ma’bad al-Juhani, and it was also said that it was Ghaylan ad-Dimashqi or Sawsan an-Nasrani. This innovation first emerged in the later part of the first century, and some of the Qadaris denied Allah’s Knowledge of events before their occurrence. However, they have died out, as an-Nawawi said. See al-Lalika’i’s ‘Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad’ (1/23 and 3/534 onwards) and ‘Sharh Sahih Muslim’ (1/153-154).

Nusayris: The followers of Muhammad bin Nusayr al-Basri, a slave of Bani Numayr who was originally from Persia. The sect was founded in the third century. They prefer to be called ‘Alawis, attributing themselves to ‘Ali bin Abi Talib. This name was given to them by the French during the time of their colonial occupation of Syria in 1920 to hide the sect from the other Muslims who declared them disbelievers. They believe that ‘Ali was the incarnation of Allah, that the Islamic texts have a hidden meaning, and in reincarnation. They were declared to be disbelievers by Ibn Taymiyyah in ‘Majmu’ al-Fatawa’ (35/149), Ibn al-Qayyim in ‘Ighathat al-Lahfan’ (2/247-249), Ibn Hazm in ‘al-Muhalla’ (13/139), ad-Daylami in ‘Bayan Madhhab al-Batiniyyah wa Butlalanuh’ (p. 71), and al-Ghazzali in ‘Fada’ih al-Batiniyyah’ (p. 37).

Jahmis: The followers of Jahm bin Safwan Abi Muhriz as-Samarqandi at-Tirmidhi, who was killed 128 H. He took his innovated beliefs of denying Allah’s Attributes from al-Ja’d bin Dirham and added to it the belief that Allah compels the slaves in their actions, that faith is simply knowledge, and that Paradise and Hell are not eternal. They are further divided into eight sects. See ‘Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad’ (1/30-31).

Mushabbihah: Those who go to extremes in confirming Allah’s Attributes, to the point that they liken Him to His Creation, and they are from the extreme Shi’ah. Those who were famous for this were Dawud al-Jawarbi and Hisham bin al-Hakam the Rafidi. Some of the innovators accuse Ahl as-Sunnah of being Mushabbahah, and they are free from this. See ash-Shahrastani’s ‘al-Milal wan-Nihal’ (1/103 onwards) and al-Ash’ari’s ‘Maqalat al-Islamiyyin’ (p. 221, 491, 518, 521, and 564).

Rawindis: The followers of al-Qasim bin Rawand. They believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had appointed al- ‘Abbas bin ‘Abd al-Muttalib as his successor, and that the Muslims all apostated from Islam by preventing al-‘Abbas from becoming the leader. They further believe that the right of leadership belongs only to those descended from al-‘Abbas, and that the Mahdi will be from his family.

Kullabis: They were the followers of ‘Abdullah bin Sa’id bin Kullab al-Qattan al-Misri, one of the philosophers who lived during the time of al-Ma’mun, and died in 240 H. He would affirm for Allah the seven Attributes of Knowledge, Power, Will, Life, Hearing, Sight, and Speech based on logic, and would deny the rest. One of his followers was Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, who later abandoned these beliefs for those of Ahmad bin Hambal, while the current day Ash’aris resemble the Kullabis of old. See ‘Lisan al-Mizan’ (3/290).

Source: The Lofty Virtues of Ibn Taymiyyah by Imam Abu Hafs Umar bin Ali al-Bazzar p. 13-15

Jesus’s Concept of Divinity Adopted From Paganism?

The Vatican was built upon the grounds previously devoted to the worship of Mithra (600 B.C.). The Orthodox Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version. Virtually all of the elements of Orthodox Christian rituals, from miter, wafer, water baptism, alter, and doxology, were adopted from the Mithra and earlier pagan mystery religions. The religion of Mithra preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years. Mithraic worship at one time covered a large portion of the ancient world. It flourished as late as the second century. The Messianic idea originated in ancient Persia and this is where the Jewish and Christian concepts of a Savior came from. Mithra, as the sun god of ancient Persia, had the following karmic similarities with Jesus:

Identical Life Experiences

Mithra was born on December 25th as an offspring of the Sun. Next to the gods Ormuzd and Ahrimanes, Mithra held the highest rank among the gods of ancient Persia. He was represented as a beautiful youth and a Mediator. Reverend J. W. Lake states: “Mithras is spiritual light contending with spiritual darkness, and through his labors the kingdom of darkness shall be lit with heaven’s own light; the Eternal will receive all things back into his favor, the world will be redeemed to God. The impure are to be purified, and the evil made good, through the mediation of Mithras, the reconciler of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Mithras is the Good, his name is Love. In relation to the Eternal he is the source of grace, in relation to man he is the life-giver and mediator” (Plato, Philo, and Paul, p. 15).

He was considered a great traveling teacher and masters. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras also performed miracles.

Mithra was called “the good shepherd, “the way, the truth and the light, redeemer, savior, Messiah.” He was identified with both the lion and the lamb.

The International Encyclopedia states: “Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world … The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part.”

Chambers Encyclopedia says: “The most important of his many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixed — against all evidence — as the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals. The ceremonies observed in the initiation to these mysteries — symbolical of the struggle between Ahriman and Ormuzd (the Good and the Evil) — were of the most extraordinary and to a certain degree even dangerous character. Baptism and the partaking of a mystical liquid, consisting of flour and water, to be drunk with the utterance of sacred formulas, were among the inauguration acts.”

Prof. Franz Cumont, of the University of Ghent, writes as follows concerning the religion of Mithra and the religion of Christ: “The sectaries of the Persian god, like the Christians’, purified themselves by baptism, received by a species of confirmation the power necessary to combat the spirit of evil; and expected from a Lord’s supper salvation of body and soul. Like the latter, they also held Sunday sacred, and celebrated the birth of the Sun on the 25th of December…. They both preached a categorical system of ethics, regarded asceticism as meritorious and counted among their principal virtues abstinence and continence, renunciation and self-control. Their conceptions of the world and of the destiny of man were similar. They both admitted the existence of a Heaven inhabited by beatified ones, situated in the upper regions, and of a Hell, peopled by demons, situated in the bowels of the Earth. They both placed a flood at the beginning of history; they both assigned as the source of their condition, a primitive revelation; they both, finally, believed in the immortality of the soul, in a last judgment, and in a resurrection of the dead, consequent upon a final conflagration of the universe” (The Mysteries of Mithras, pp. 190, 191).

Reverend Charles Biggs stated: “The disciples of Mithra formed an organized church, with a developed hierarchy. They possessed the ideas of Mediation, Atonement, and a Savior, who is human and yet divine, and not only the idea, but a doctrine of the future life. They had a Eucharist, and a Baptism, and other curious analogies might be pointed out between their system and the church of Christ (The Christian Platonists, p. 240).

In the catacombs at Rome was preserved a relic of the old Mithraic worship. It was a picture of the infant Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, while on their knees before him were Persian Magi adoring him and offering gifts.

He was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

McClintock and Strong wrote: “In modern times Christian writers have been induced to look favorably upon the assertion that some of our ecclesiastical usages (e.g., the institution of the Christmas festival) originated in the cultus of Mithraism. Some writers who refuse to accept the Christian religion as of supernatural origin, have even gone so far as to institute a close comparison with the founder of Christianity; and Dupuis and others, going even beyond this, have not hesitated to pronounce the Gospel simply a branch of Mithraism” (Art. “Mithra”).

Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected. His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day.” The Mithra religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.”

The Christian Father Manes, founder of the heretical sect known as Manicheans, believed that Christ and Mithra were one. His teaching, according to Mosheim, was as follows: “Christ is that glorious intelligence which the Persians called Mithras … His residence is in the sun” (Ecclesiastical History, 3rd century, Part 2, ch. 5).

More info – I do not agree with the title that Jesus never existed.

“I am a star which goes with thee and shines out of the depths.” – Mithraic saying

“I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.” – Jesus, (Rev. 22:16)


Islamic Polygyny vs Western Mistresses

Once in a while I come across certain non-Muslims who love to pick on the topic of polygyny, having multiple wives at a time, in Islam.  And as expected, they attack the religion with it and try to show how degrading Islam is towards women by allowing him to be with more than one woman in a marriage.  However, if someone were to really think about this topic in detail, you would realize how hypocritical and misinformed the west is towards this particular issue.

Polygyny in Islam

There is no doubt that Islam allows up to four wives maximum at a time as evident by the following Qur’anic verse:

Marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one (An-Nisa 4:3)

As clarified by the verse above that the default is just one and more than that are permissible provided one can be just.  And contrary to popular belief, having more than four wives at a time is not permissible in Islam.  This is further evident due to a narration by Imam Ahmad in which he recorded that Ghilan bin Salamah Ath-Thaqafi had ten wives when he became Muslim, and the Prophet said to him, “Choose any four of them (and divorce the rest)” (Tafsir ibn Kathir). So, what is it mean to be just?  Well let’s look at how the prophet of Islam (pbuh) defined “just” as he is the ideal implementor of the Qur’an by unanimous agreement of all the scholars and Muslims.

Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever has two wives and favours one of them over the other, will come on the Day of Resurrection with one of his sides leaning.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1141), Abu Dawood (2133), al-Nasaa’i (3942) and Ibn Majaah (1969). Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Targheeb wa’l-Tarheeb (no. 1949).

One of his wives, Aisha, said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not favour one of us over another with regard to division of his time and how long he stayed with us, and there was rarely a day when he did not go around to all of us, and he would draw close to each wife without having intercourse, until he reached the one whose day it was, then he would stay overnight with her. Narrated by Abu Dawood (2135); al-Albaani said in Saheeh Abi Dawood: (it is) hasan saheeh.

What the above narrations show is that a man should be able to treat them fairly with regard to spending, staying overnight and providing accommodation. If he knows that he is unable to do that or that it is most likely that he cannot do so, it is not permissible for him to marry more than one wife.  In Islam men are obligated to spend on their wife’s clothing, housing, food, medical expenses and Islamic education.  Even if she has her own job and makes more money than him, he has no right to demand anything from her of it except if she gives it to him out of her own free will without force.  Therefore, even if she is richer than him, he still has a duty and an obligation in Islam to spend on her basic living expenses without her needing to spend even a penny of her own wealth.  This is so important that once the the Prophet (pbuh) told a woman to refuse a proposal because the man was too poor:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) advised Faatimah bint Qays, when Mu’aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) proposed to her, not to marry him. He said, “He is a pauper and has no money.” Narrated by Muslim, 1480.

So in Islam polygyny is not a form of womanizing but a great responsibility on the man.  He has to be able to make sure that he can treat them equally with justice especially when it comes to their basic living expenses.  And he must “live with them in kindness” (An-Nisa 4:19) as mentioned in the Qur’an.

Mistresses in the West

Every now and then there comes a news story of some public figure having affairs outside of their marriage.  These figures include political figures as well as entertainment stars.  Just like the recent Tiger Woods story where many voices in the west were calling to leave the story alone as this is his personal life and we should simply not get involved.

What is a mistress really?  What is her role in a married man’s life?  Generally, a mistress has no role whatsoever except a secret extramarital sexual relationship with the man.  He is not obligated to pay for her food, clothing, housing, medical expenses or take care of her in any form except what is necessary for him to continue or engage in the affair.  It is a relationship based purely on lust and desire and asks for no responsibility on his part towards this mistress.

Link Between the Two?

How is there a link between these two very opposite ways of life?  In the former case, the man is obligated to take care of her, provide for her and treat her with justice, fairness and live with her in kindness.  It demands a sense of responsibility towards his wives to the extent that if he thinks that he will not be able to do so, then he should marry just one woman.  In the latter case, the man is not obligated to take care of her, provide for her or even feel any need to be responsible for his mistress.  The relationship only demands the responsibility to be able to engage in the sexually exclusive affair without getting caught.  As evident to anyone with a rational mind, the two have completely opposite roles and goals.