This was put together on my behalf from the former imam of a masjid in response to many liberal-minded, unaware or just uneducated Muslims who alleged I have slandered the sahabah by referring to many of them being killers and unromantic men. What is written is for your information and I encourage you to use this and study more. However, do not read this and then start going out and robbing kufar, committing acts of violence, or taking sex slaves ( and I have known brothers right here in America to do all three).
For a further meaning to what all of this actually means consult learned Muslims such as Imam Suhaib Webb, Imam Abu Muslimah, Sheikh Muhammad Syed Adly, Sheikh Jamal Zarabozo, Sheikh Bilal Phillips, Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, etc.. I say these men because most of us do not have access to the ulama and these are brothers who speak our language and most are in our community.
Quote from Umar Lee
The Prophet {s.a.s.) was a warrior and many of the Sahabah that he loved were straight-up killers.
Some FACTS to back that up:
- Abu Bakr went to war and KILLED those who refused to pay zakaah
- Umar attacked and conquered the Persian and Byzantine Empires to establish Islamic rule in those lands with the aim of establishing Islam on the entire known earth
- Uthman was killed by Muslims
- Aisha and Ali went to battle against each other. Sahaabah were on both sides of the conflict.
- Talha and Zubair were killed fighting against other sahaabah
- Muawiyah and Ali went to war against each other. Sahaabah were on both sides of the conflict
- Ali was killed by Muslims
- The Sahaabah executed hundreds of Jews at Banu Qaynuqa
Umar Lee said:
Others were robbers (robbing the caravans of the kufar)
From Bukhari:
Narrated ‘Abaya bin Rafa’a bin Raft’ bin Khadij:
My grandfather said, “We were in the company of the Prophet at Dhul-Hulaifa. The people felt hungry and captured some camels and sheep (as booty). The Prophet was behind the people.
From Ibn Ishaq:
A caravan of Quraish carrying dry raisins and leather and other merchandise of Quraish passed by and we encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had.
Further there is an entire CHAPTER in the Qur’an called “WAR BOOTY”. They used to TAKE the possessions of those whom they had subdued
Umar Lee said:
Others took women and young girls as the booty of war.
Some Hadith on taking sex slaves
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150)
Another
“O Messenger of Allah! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
Umar Lee said:
Islam spread through jihad and was sustained by the sword of very masculine men.
According to seerah, the Prophet (saws) was in over 65 battles in just the last ten years of his life. The only negotiation was “Accept Islam and you will be safe” and he and the sahaabah took over the entire Arabian Peninsula before his death.
- Jews and Christians and every other non-Muslim were expelled from the Arabian Peninsula on instructions from the Prophet (saws) himself
- Within 200 years the Muslims had conquered much of the known world by the sword of jihad, from Spain and North Africa to Persia.
Quote from Umar Lee:
Romantically, the fairy tale “fluffy” version of love that is the norm today was also strange to the Sahabah and in the history of Islam, outside of Rumi (who many if not most consider to be a deviant) there is very little in terms of a history of romance being glorified by learned religious men.
Ibn Taymiyyah on the concept of “love”. From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (10/129):
Love is a psychological sickness, and if it grows strong it affects the body, and becomes a physical sickness, either as diseases of the brain, which are said to be diseases caused by waswaas, or diseases of the body such as weakness, emaciation and so on.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (10/132):
Loving a non-mahram woman leads to many negative consequences, the full extent of which is known only to the Lord of people. It is a sickness that affects the religious commitment of the sufferer, then it may also affect his mind and body.
(note: As I have been reminded the fitnah between the early Muslims is something that should bring great sadness to the heart of every Muslim and in general we should be discouraged from concentrating on this matter as it only brings fitnah. I also recognize that the Prophet ( s.a.s.) and the sahabah had a soft and gentle side and were kind to their neighbors and family. But, the soft side is all people are hearing today and this is done so they can conform Islam to Western norms; but the fact remains that Islam has always relied heavily on hard power and very strong men. To deny this is a complete denial of Islamic history or an abandonment of what has been established for the benefit of Westernization and cultural imperialism. )
80 responses so far ↓
burhan // January 22, 2009 at 9:44 pm |
Internet troll for sure.
Sabir // January 22, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
However, do not read this and then start going out and robbing kufar, committing acts of violence, or taking sex slaves ( and I have known brothers right here in America to do all three).
The problem with saying that the Sahabah were “straight up killers” and “robbers” is that it conjures up images of people who do exactly what you have warned against in the above statement. In my mind, a “straight up killer” or robber is a thug; someone who kills and robs out of anger, vengeance, greed, or simply for the love of killing and robbing, without regard for the time, place, and circumstances. In other words, a straight up killer or robber is someone whose defining characteristic is murderous violence or thievery. So why shouldn’t someone go out and start committing acts of violence and theft if they wish to emulate the Prophet (S)? Because violence and thievery were not the defining characteristics of the Prophet (S) and his Sahabah. They killed and robbed to accomplish strategic objectives and only when it was proper to do so, not just for the hell of it. They were warriors, but they were also statesmen. All of what you have quoted is accurate and correct; the Prophet (S) and his Sahabah indeed fought wars, killed men, robbed caravans, and didn’t tolerate nonsense from their enemies (it’s important to note that they only robbed caravans of the Quraysh, who had stolen much of their wealth during the Meccan period). But describing them as “straight up killers” and “robbers” based on these incidents implies that they did these things without good reasons.
I understand your frustration with progressives who portray the Prophet his Sahabah as pacifists or wimps. But describing them as “straight up killers” and robbers tends toward the opposite extreme. It would be more accurate to say that the Prophet (S) and his Sahabah were real men who lived in this world and were compassionate when they could be and violent when they needed to be.
BostonMuslim // January 22, 2009 at 10:46 pm |
I didn’t know they killed people who refused to pay Zakah – now that’s COLD. It’s like getting killed for not paying taxes
Khaalid M // January 22, 2009 at 10:49 pm |
Great post Umar! The problem is that many American Muslims are either embarrassed by what you mentioned above or they are completely ignorant and think that this deen is some kind of kumbuya holding hands with kufaar, lighting candles, singing and talking about snow white turtle doves.
Their vision of the Prophet (saws) and the Sahaabah are 1960’s hippies or Code Pink radicals. I get the feeling that if they knew the REALITY of the Prophet (saws) and his blessed Sahaabah that they would not only not like them at all – but they would be repulsed because of their Western brainwashing.
If they saw sex slaves being taken, they would complain of so called “women’s rights”. Many of them think that slavery itself is unislamic and even think that Islam calls for its banishment or some “abolition” movement. These same people would protest that the kufaar have to pay jiziyyah in the Islamic government. There was never any such movements in the history of Islam until the advent of Muslims learning values from the West. Then they insert their liberal teachings from the universities and superimpose them upon Islam and turn around and call Islamic actions “UnIslamic”
These people need to LEARN their deen instead of changing it. This is a deen of masculinity and trying to change it damages it
Ishaaq Mirza // January 22, 2009 at 10:56 pm |
The quotes from Ibn Taymiyyah make since because I saw guys crying over women claiming they were in love and being near suicide. The Western concept of love definitely has no place in Islam. The man and woman definitely have roles and marriage is more like a contract in Islam.
love - online rihla // January 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
[...] Umar Lee: Quote from Umar [...]
BostonMuslim // January 22, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
Well Khaalid and Umar if you guys want to go ahead and start enslaving women to have sex with go ahead and i’m pretty sure you will be better muslims by doing that
Abdul Malik // January 22, 2009 at 11:17 pm |
Allah Most High says:
“The believers are but a single brotherhood. So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers, and fear Allah that you may receive mercy.” (Surah al-Hujurat, 10)
As Allah Most High says, “When Allah decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: ‘My mercy prevails over my wrath.’” This is the very first hadith in the collection of Hadith Qudsi, a very special compilation of hadiths which focuses on Allah Ta’ala’s mercy, love, and forgiveness for humanity.
Hope we can reflect more on this.
May Allah (swt) Guide us to the Truth.
Ameen
Jameel Abu Mu'aath // January 22, 2009 at 11:17 pm |
@ Boston Muslim
No it is not the same. Denying the zakaah is KUFR. And the penalty for kufr is death. That is why Abu Bakr declared war on the apostates. This story is a thorn in the necks of those who claim that there is no mandate to kill apostates in Islam.
One othe thing that has not been mentioned here is that Islam is not complatible with democracy or any system in which the kufaar are considered to be equal to the believers. Far too many muslims think that participation in “the system” is somehow beneficial to the Muslims when in fact we have our own divine and COMPLETE system of gov’t from top to bottom that we can live by.
MR // January 22, 2009 at 11:19 pm |
I’d love to hear from the above scholars (may Allah preserve them all) on their approval of this post.
:-D
These are some of their lectures which contradict this post by the scholar you have mentioned:
Shaykh Bilal Phillips:
http://www.halaltube.com/contemporary-issues-islam-and-terrorism
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi:
http://www.halaltube.com/progress-with-the-progressives
Shaykh Muhammad Syed Adly:
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/50950
May Allah (swt) forgive Umar Lee. May Allah (swt) increase his good deeds and erase his bad deeds. May Allah (swt) guide us all on the straight path. may Allah (swt) help all the innocent suffering people around the world. may Allah (swt) grant us all jannah. Ameen!
Daud // January 22, 2009 at 11:22 pm |
@ Boston Muslim
No one is saying to go out and take sex slaves, but there is no denial that it is a part of our deen and it is in the Book of Allah as well as the Sunnah of His Messenger (sal Allahu alayhi wa salam)
When the conditions exist, yes it is permissible for Muslim men to have women captured in was as sex slaves. If you have a problem with that, then you are committing kufr
Mustafa Abu Amr // January 22, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
@ MR
NONE of those people will deny what Umar has brought above.
I would like to see them flatly DENY anything above. Enough of the watering down. All of those people KNOW that Islam us supposed to be UPPERMOST on earth and the Muslims are to rule over the kufaar. For you to imply the opposite is dishonest akhee
abufatu // January 22, 2009 at 11:47 pm |
Brother Umar I read your blog often, I do not agree with everything you say, but on this topic you are saying what many muslims in this country belive. It seems that after 911 many so called muslim leaders started singing a new tune , they have been taken as leaders because this society props them up in the media or because they got invited to the white house ( the ulema of old detested being around rulers, most, not all feared being corrupted by people whom they saw as wordly, mind you this were muslim rulers, what about kafir rulers of today). The Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) is a mercy to humanity, his character as of all the prophets was impecable without blemish, he indeen was a warrior,husband,father,friend and leader for all humanity,we as muslims know this. There is a saying of Imam Ali (radiallahu anhu) while he was khalifa describing the companions : how they stood in prayer at night,fasted and fought jihad during the day……May Allah grant us their company on the day of judgment.
nausheenk // January 23, 2009 at 12:36 am |
Salams brother Umar,
You call anyone who thinks you spoke disrespectfully about the sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, liberal-minded, unaware or uneducated. I suppose to be aware, educated and orthodox people have to agree with you? And it’s equally insulting to pose the question are you a Muslim or a Zen Bhuddist to fellow Muslims, it’s nothing short of questioning their iman.
Most people have a high level of respect for the sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, and our scholars emphasize this greatly. The word “killer” generally carries the meaning of murderer or someone who is bloodthirsty and so on. Similarly the word “robber” is only ever used in a criminal context. To use such language in describing the sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, comes off as extremely disrespectful, thoughtless and totally bereft of the adab due to them.
YES, they killed people in battle, who would deny this? That was lawful combat. And yes they raided the caravan pre-Badr, but the scholars do not call them robbers or thieves, audhobilla, they put it in the correct context in regards the situation with the Quraysh (the boycott, the immigration, leaving their wealth/possessions, and this raid being the pretext to go to war with the Meccans).
People are not denying the historical accounts, rather they’re offended at your presentation of them and the disrespectful language and manner in which you talk about the sahaba.
It comes across as though you want your role models to be criminals (killers and robbers etc), perhaps to fit in with your own background and way of thinking so you paint the sahaba, radhiallahu anhum, in the ugly language that suits you regardless of the poor adab inherent to that way of speaking about them.
The issue here is not denial of the masculinity of the sahaba, radhiallahu anhum, or their having fought in battles and killed during them, or their having taken captives after war and it being permissible to have sexual relations with them. The issue is adab when talking about the greatest people to have ever lived, it is about using language that affords them the highest level of respect, since that is what is due to them.
Wa alaykum assalaam.
burhan // January 23, 2009 at 12:50 am |
Also, Bilal Philips? Really?
SarahG // January 23, 2009 at 1:55 am |
I have to thank Umar for being frank and open about the basic nature of his “religion” which is Barbarism. But please note before you take this “Kuffar” as a “sex-slave” that she has Rabbi Mossberg to protect her.
Hamdi // January 23, 2009 at 2:36 am |
While one should not dispute the facts which you provided, it can be questioned whether the terms you use to describe the Sahaba (“killers, robbers”) are appropriate. I mean, I know that if I heard a kafir describing the Sahaba like that I wouldn’t exactly nod my head in agreement; I’d be pretty upset. We know that there is a difference between thuggish violence and the legitimate actions of a state. It should be clear that when we are speaking about these things, the latter is the case. Generally speaking, things like these have to be put in a context, especially considering that some Muslims who may not be that knowledgable about the seerah and who are shaped by the Western mindset might be reading this. And for one thing, we all know that it is inappropriate to talk about the fitnah between the Sahaba just like that. At least it should be put into a context and explained so that we don’t get the wrong idea about them. Also don’t forget what the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said once when he was asked about why he didn’t want to implement capital punishment on a munafiq. He said, “I don’t want people saying that Muhammad kills his followers”. These things indicate that one shouldn’t present these things in a crude way and one should take into consideration what the reader might think when he sees, for example, a post such as this. I know that if I read this 5 or 6 years ago, I would develop serious shubuhat. The issue of warfare in Islam should be put into perspective, especially for a Western audience.
Hamdi // January 23, 2009 at 2:51 am |
SarahG – Watch out the rabbi doesn’t take you as a slave. Or does Judaism only allow the “goyim” to be taken as slaves? At least that’s better than being an Amalekite in proximity to the rabbi.
Safiyyah // January 23, 2009 at 2:55 am |
Salaams Umar:
Well there you have it (Sarah G). You forget that non-Muslims read your blog while you are going up against Muslims and scholars in this manner.
Also, I’m with “MR” when he says:
“I’d love to hear from the above scholars (may Allah preserve them all) on their approval of this post.”
You dig yourself deeper and deeper Umar. Perhaps the advice of some here for you to chill for awhile would be beneficial. I have always respectd you and have enjoyed reading your blog. I don’t know what has gotten into you.
And I dare to say that the Prophet (saw) and Aisha (ra) did have a “fluffy” type of love.
Ahmad // January 23, 2009 at 3:08 am |
I respected you Brother Umar when you came out with the RIMS article. I know people would have a go at you for mentioning Imam Hamza, but I didnt expect you to write this post which in my opinion is the opposite extreme of the watered-down sufi-buddhists version of Islam.
I think much what you said or describe is taken out of context. As brother Sabir mentioned quite clearly in his post, that ’straight up killers’ is a loaded and narrow interpretation of the Sahaba. I think we all know ALL of the things you mentioned are true and correct, I accept that. But there are reasons, situations, pressures and goals that came with every action they took. Everything has a context and you have simply plucked the least important (or even the least relevant) element and highlighted it.
I am no apologetic nor shy away from the truth of how the Sahaba or the Prophet were. But I know how to refer to them and their actions in the proper context and manner. I think your post just shows the opposite extreme of what you were commenting against. And most of the scholars you mentioned would sit right in the middle in their opinion, most likely.
Nadir // January 23, 2009 at 3:15 am |
Umar – Thank you for painting a highly inaccurate picture of the sahaba, in that it is highly one-dimensional and incidents have not been given in the correct contexts. What’s up with you brother? What’s with all the bitterness, the pseudo-”machoness”, and the controversy-mongering?
SaraG, I won’t stoop so low as to insult your religion. There are also a lot of good Jewish people around. But after the recent devastation that your beloved Israel brought to the civilians of Gaza, it’s a bit odd that you’re calling us barbaric.
Muslim // January 23, 2009 at 3:19 am |
Salam,
This is a good post, thanks.
How do you view the disputes between Sayyidina Ali and the other Sahaba after Umar’s khilafa? He had all kinds of problems with Uthman’s last 6 years, as did other sahaba. And then when Ali became khalifa, Aisha, Talha, and Zubayr had a problem with him and went to war, and the Mu`awiya and Abd Allah ibn al-As went to war with him too. But there were obviously all kinds of problem before hand too, dating back to the khilafa issue.
It’s important not to make “fluffy” that period because like our Prophet, they were humans and had many human issues and differences – resulting in wars, civil wars, and deaths of Muslims at Muslim hands.
Wa salam,
M.
Should I Be Embarrassed? « Ginny’s Thoughts & Things // January 23, 2009 at 4:55 am |
[...] been responsible for turning people away from this beautiful (and not harsh, and if that makes me a “zinn Buddhist” to some than so be it) religion of ours! What is the verse about speaking to people with beautiful [...]
Awesome // January 23, 2009 at 9:33 am |
Everything else aside, you have a really weird view of what masculinity is. You almost sound like someone who didnt have a dad and so got all his images of manhood from the marlboro man, john rambo and the terminator. To be a man requires both gentility and assertiveness, not one to the exclusion of the other.
Amatullah // January 23, 2009 at 10:10 am |
I don’t see how Yasir Qadhi’s lecture on Progress with the Progressives contradicts Umar’s post.
Umar Lee aka/ Double H // January 23, 2009 at 10:11 am |
Awesome,
Save your amateur psychology for the coffee shop. I never even heard of the Marlboro Man until I was an adult, hated Rambo even as a kid, and grew up with my father.
For some others you are right that is not a complete picture of the sahabah. They were also generous and giving. Gentle when the time was right. Kind to their wives and children and all of the rest. What I am saying is their soft-side has been over emphasized by many and their hard side is what these modern Muslims do not want to recognize.
Ahmad // January 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
Atleast, Br Umar, you concede that it is a partialy skewed picture. It would also be nice to refer to the Sahaba in a respectable manner.
It think it did more harm to your point when it was overpowered by a narrow presentation, out of context narrative you painted. But I believe you are right, I think too often people have rosey tinted glasses on and like to present our history as something very zen and buddhists – and that is what they want us to be like.
I think a more grounded, well writtent and calm follow up post to this will be more convincing to the masses. You are ready widely, use it to be balanced in your presentation so it is convincing – as no one beileves you are saying anything false, but just the way your saying it.
Falstaff // January 23, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
It’s refreshing to find a muslim who is honest about what their beliefs entail.
Anwar Usmani // January 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
This deen is strength. And I am very proud of you Umar for bringing out the truth. Enough of the punk Islam we have seen here in America
waziri // January 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
@ SaraG
If you want to imagine your future, imagine a Muslim boot, stamping on your face forever!
You can not stop the truth from destroying you and your filthy way of life
MR // January 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
Shaykh Bilal Philips (may Allah preserve him) said:
Watch the first 5 minutes, that’s all:
http://www.halaltube.com/contemporary-issues-islam-and-terrorism
MR // January 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
@Mustafa Abu Amr – May Allah bless you. Please forgive me if I have said anything wrong. I provided the links to the lectures which disagree with what Bro. Umar has posted. InshaAllah when you get time, please check out the links. JazakAllah khair.
waziri // January 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
@ MR
No one said that Islam should be forced on anyone. But Islam should be uppermost in the land and Muslims should rule and not be subservient to the kufaar
Samir // January 23, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
Br. Umar i respected many of your posts, but i just don’t see any purpose here, besides distorting the reputation of our sahaba. Unbelievable you would refer to the sahaba as robbers, so does this mean Rasul (SAW) should have applied the had of the theif to the sahaba?? Controversy-mongering, Br. Umar, i’m losing respect for your entire blog, what kind of service is this post to our ummah? Shockingly some brothers are jumping in; daring others to deny the facts you posted; what a bankrupt logic to defend such irrresponsible statements! Did it occur to anyone that events, actions depend on the historical context and circumstances? That Allah (SWT) says to us that piety is to “free the slave”, in Surah Al-balad? We all agree that the actions you mentioned are very specific to the circumstances; you didn’t care to mention those circumstances, only slander them as robbers and killers? Should they be with us today, Br. Umar, would you stand in the face of Abu Bakr, and label him as a killer?? Not sure what’s wrong with you brother.
Mustafa Abu Amr // January 23, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
@ MR
So basically you are accusing those speakers of kufr? Are you saying that they deny the place of offensive jihad, jiziyah, and slavery in Islam?
Aboo Abdillaah U // January 23, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
@ Samir
Sh Saleh Al-Fawzan has AFFIRMED that slavery IS a part of Islam and that it was NEVER abolished. You need to learn your deen and stop with the watering down. May Allaah guide you
The fact is that the sahaabah did what MEN had to do which included killing and taking of slaves when necessary
MR // January 23, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
@waziri – Forgive me if I read this wrong, but bro. Umar Lee said:
Sh. Bilal Philips refuted this statement.
waziri // January 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
@ MR
The letters the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent had the statement “accept Islam and you will be safe”
The kufaar had three choices.
#1 – Accept Islam
#2 – Pay the Jiziyah and live under the rule of the Muslims
#3 – Fight and be humiliated
The facts bare Umar out and Sh. Bilal knows this as well. This is a lack of understanding on YOUR part. It still does not mean one forces a conversion. They are free to pay the jiziyah and still live under our dominion. No contradiction at all
You see now? The thing about living “side by side as equals” is COMPLETE nonsense. The Kufaar are to live under us and their filthy status is below ours. Period.
MR // January 23, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
@waziri – I agree. I mistakenly understood what Umar was saying that they had 2 choices: “Accept Islam or die by the sword.”
MR // January 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
Continuation from my above comment, I still think Sh. Bilal disagrees with what Umar said.
Please listen inshaAllah and then tell me what sh. Bilal says:
http://www.halaltube.com/contemporary-issues-islam-and-terrorism
Samir // January 23, 2009 at 3:53 pm |
@ Abu Adbillah – thank you for the response, but i would say you need to stop the grandstanding, and ask Allah to give you Hikmah. It seems you are lacking this.
waziri // January 23, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
@ MR
There are no classical scholars that will contradict what Umar said. If you look at the early history of Islam, you will see that the Muslims continued to expand the abode of Islam with the goal of bringing the entire known world under the heel of the Muslims. It is not until now that you see people reinterpreting this and trying to say that we can live “side by side” with the kufaar as co-equals.
Consider the following:
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [9:29]
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they do a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)
Also in Bukhari
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya; and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Nu’man for delaying the attack and) An-Nu’man said to Al-Mughira, “If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah’s Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah’s Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386)
The text is clear and the classical scholars have been clear on this matter as well as it is normal for them to put an entire chapter dedicated to jihad in their books and the obligation of making Allah’s word uppermost in the land
Hamdi // January 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
This comment isn’t aimed at anyone in particular:
Does anyone in his right mind really feel that Islam encourages a type of gang mentality where the other “filthy” side is to be below us? As if that is a goal in and of itself! And to start telling people things like “accept the concept of sex slavery or you have commited kufr” and to “dare” them to deny it is just horrible. Do you really think this is the way Allah wants us to do da’wah? Whatever happened to wisdom? I don’t like the extreme sufis/feminine men/modernists anymore than the next guy, but have some sense people! Violence isn’t a goal in and of itself. The ultimate goal is the worship of Allah. What if ones narrow presentation of Islam just ends up putting people of from the worship of Allah?
MR // January 23, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
@waziri – Jazakallah khair for these ahadith. I am not denying that Umar has a point and daleel to back it up. My issue is that he is claiming scholars are in agreement with him when I hear different from their own words. I’d like you to please listen to the lecture by Sh. Bilal and tell me what he says if I am misunderstanding it. Shurkan ya akhi.
Jameel Abu Mu'aath // January 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
@ Hamdi
The text is what it is sir. We should pray that Allah makes us love it in its entirety. We can’t pick and choose what we like and do not like from this blessed way of life. All of the things you mentioned are from deen and if a person does not like it, then they are taking issue with divine orders
Sabir // January 24, 2009 at 12:31 am |
Jameel & Daud,
It’s true that the text is there and no one can deny it. But the process of interpreting the text and deriving legal rulings from it (fiqh) is a complex endeavor that should only be undertaken by specialists. To a person untrained in the sacred sciences, even some of the rulings of the most eminent scholars from our tradition might seem to contradict seemingly unambiguous ahadith (for instance, in the Maliki madhab, the practice of the early Muslims of Medina can sometimes override an authentic hadith).
That’s why it’s very dangerous for people to say things like “[w]hen the conditions exist, yes it is permissible for Muslim men to have women captured in wars as sex slaves. If you have a problem with that, then you are committing kufr.” Islam did not create slavery. Rather, slavery was a norm of international relations and a known consequence of war that already existed in seventh-century Arabia prior to Islam. Islam merely prescribed laws that regulated it. Today, slavery has essentially been abolished by international consensus. The question of how slavery should be regarded under Islamic law today is therefore not as simple or clear-cut as you make it out to be.
AbdulHaq al-Ashanti // January 24, 2009 at 10:14 am |
Honest article, Umar just review what you write when discussing some of the fitan which took place among the Sahaabah, as it is from the ‘aqeedah of Ahl us-Sunnah not to discuss that.
Also in regards to jihaad then we should forget also that there are regulations and rules which have to adhered to and there have been voluminous works on the subject such as Kitaab ul-Injaad fee Abwaab il-Jihaad by Imaam Ibn ul-Munaasif, which has been edited and published by Shaykh Mashhoor Hasan Aal Salmaan.
Hamdi // January 24, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
@ Jameel
You completely missed my point. It wasn’t at all about picking and choosing (God forbid). What I’m saying is that we have to differentiate between the basics of Islam on the one hand, such as the worship of Allah which is a goal in and of itself, and peripheral issues on the other. Also, to completely focus on certain texts with disregard for or ignorance of the overall goals of the Shariah is not the best thing to do if you are a layman. But above all, what I’m saying is that one has to be careful when presenting Islam to others. If someone grew up in a Western environment and becomes a bit shocked upon hearing about slavery in Islam, it is extremely unwise to “dare” such a person to accept sex slavery or otherwise step out of the fold of Islam. Don’t you think that there are sincere Muslim readers here who might be taken aback by such a portrayal of Islam and the Sahaba? Frankly, I don’t feel that it is an accurate portrayal of them at all. Things have been taken out of context and, in my view, been misrepresented. The facts are facts, I’m not denying them. But to use those facts to portray them as killers and robbers (basically, criminals) is awful and it is wrong to portray Islam as if it came to spread violence, because the opposite is true. No one disputes that Islam calls for order and peace, and above all the worship of Allah (the former is a result of the latter). I don’t think that any scholar would approve of making violence out to be a good thing as opposed to a means to an end (including such things as martyrdom, weeding out the munafiqs from the believers, etc).
As for having issues with violence and fighting, how is that sinful when Allah Himself told us in the Qur’an that human nature hates fighting? Fighting IN AND OF ITSELF isn’t a good thing.
D.S. // January 26, 2009 at 6:54 am |
Weird thought, because I have read some of the Qur’an but not nearly enough for full understanding (does anyone ever attain that?) and I’m not a believer. But here goes. How is it that the Qur’an, or Allah (swt), ORDERS Muslims to take sex slaves? That makes no sense. Shouldn’t men be happy with their wives? And Islam allows you up to four! Rather, it sounds more like these verses you mention explain when and how sexual contact is acceptable, so that if you ALREADY have a slave who is married, it is acceptable for you to have sex with her.
How you’re reading that as “God said I could have a sex slave” I really don’t know. But maybe you should remember that there are many Muslims who come from backgrounds of slavery themselves, particularly African-Americans, who will be very put off by what you’re claiming here and you don’t even appear to be using good logic or reading comprehension.
And that is not to say I don’t agree with some of what you say. Sometimes war is necessary, a lot of people wanted to murder the Prophet (saws) for his beliefs and teachings, and he had to defend himself somehow. And sometimes the best defense is a good offense. And men will be warriors (sometimes women will too!) when faced with certain challenges like having their lives threatened. There is no value in suicide, and refusing to defend yourself is suicide.
And I don’t get why people want to water down any religion. It’s not like there aren’t random weird people out there who make up their own religions all the time–can’t someone who wants to practice a faith tradition make up their own if they don’t like what’s out there? Why corrupt traditions that already exist? It makes no sense.
Hugh Slaman // January 26, 2009 at 9:01 am |
Oviously, Islam is not a pacifist religion. There is a place for violence in Islam, but it is a just and noble place.
There is no excuse for using such degrading language about the blessed Sahaba: to call them “straight-up killers” is to put them in the same category as the thugs and criminals currently being glorified in the worst excesses of hip-hop, whereas they fought for noble causes and under a strict legal and ethical discipline. Allah says “Fighting is prescribed for you and you *dislike* it”.
To call them “robbers” is equally offensive and insulting, and again puts them in the category of criminals. To anyone who studies the context, using a term like “robbers” is the height of ignorance.
If you want to defend masculinity in Islam, do you really need to insult the Sahaba while you are at it? Islam is a religion of adab, of courtesy and respect. Please do not try to drag the noble Sahaba down to the level of your own base inclinations.
Debating Sucks: Who the Hell Does This Dude think He is? — A Concerned Muslim // January 26, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
[...] to be a man who listened. Then, I realized, there is not much worth listening to anymore. Recently Umar Lee went on some stupid rant about Hamza Yusuf and those like him being supposed fronts for the elitist [...]
eliza // January 29, 2009 at 2:21 am |
“Just and noble violence?” Oh, by all means, fight and be humiliated.
know yourself // January 30, 2009 at 12:34 am |
It is the way it is said which could be considered soo adab bad manners in how you described the sahabah.
It was not “robbery” in those conditions. You do not find those types of words used to describe what happened in the books. You dont describe booty as “sariqah”. Never.
The sahabah ridwhan Allah alayhim fought and took booty and took women as slaves. That is not called being robbers and killers. It’s irreverant descriptions.
know yourself // January 30, 2009 at 12:40 am |
Honestly. why have this blog at all? That’s a problem I notice here in America. People do not place enough emphasis on qualification to speak.
In academina people just spin theories and then when people become muslim the next thing they know they are being encouraged to write books and get in over their heads.
Speak about your experience as a muslim. Your experience growing up and coming to islam.
But when it comes to anything other than that, we need to learn our place. There are people who have devoted their entire lives to learning and teaching, and if we spent the rest of our lives reading what they wrote we would not finish a fraction of it.
Why must we have so much to say?
sonofmountainwarrior // January 30, 2009 at 2:52 am |
Salams Umar
Thankyou Umar and the rest for proving once and for all for everyone with that inclination that our religion is a racist, supremacist, expansionist vile tirade of hatred.
You think being a man is spouting shit out like the Prick you and some of these posters are ( waziri), be proper men and deny your base nature and stop projecting the sickness in your own hearts upon our traditions.
Personally I am not going to be told what my predecessors were from a complete and utter Prick like you.
I am sorry I could factually and intellectually destroy you because you walk upon thin scholarly ice but I get the impression this has to do with your internal turmoil more than anything, and you will not listen to any tempering arguments.
I am sorry for my lack of eloquence and cursing but this is all your so called ” essay” deserves.
Lets not forget the we are the Khilafa of Allah SWT on earth, and as representatives we must advocate our lords principles and we all know the guiding principle and the prism from which we must view this world is RAHMA ( mercy), re read your rants and assess how much Rahma is found within them. I pray you finally find some peace and hope your views have not done to much damage to our deen and brothers and sisters.
Brother // February 1, 2009 at 12:10 am |
asSalaamu Alaikum,
Maintaining respect, in every way possible, to our beloved Rasul (S) and his companions is a must.
It is extremely dangerous to one’s Iman to use words as “straight-up killers”, “robbers”, etc. in regards to them as it is very disrespectful, regardless of whether or not you mean it in the true sense of the word or not. One can refer to any pious Islamic figure of the past and say, “He was a ‘player’,” referring to his multiple wives. However, although you would not mean it in the actual sense of the word “player,” it is still very, very, to the nth degree, disrespectful and due to which one would be playing with his Iman….. heading towards a direction away from Iman, na`uoozhubillahi min zhaalik. Any deed which we may say is “minuscule” may actually be one’s door out of Islam. So we have to be very, very cautious of the words we use when discussing our Nabi (S), the Sahaabah (R), and any other pious/knowledgeable Muslim of the past or the present.
[Also, for the record, defeating one's enemy in battle does not make him a killer; attacking one's enemy caravans who persecuted and kicked him out of his home does not make him a robber].
Another issue one should keep in mind is the face one is showing to non-Muslims, as this is a blog open to everyone across the world. The terminology of this post is 1) inappropriate, and 2) wrong and inaccurate in many ways. Non-Muslims don’t know Islam or its history, and will easily use something like this post to spread false allegations that Islam is a religion of violence, intolerance, robbing and killing. And how would you be able to blame them, when a Muslim writes a post like this? All they would need to do is provide a link to this post and there is the so-called “evidence” and confession coming from a Muslim himself.
The post states: “Islam spread through jihad and was sustained by the sword”
Every one of our words are being recorded by the Kiraaman-Katibeen. Making a statement like this, once again, is inappropriate, inaccurate, and only a means of providing support to the claims of non-Muslims. Islam did NOT spread by the sword. Islamic governance and the Khilaafah, yes, to an extent THAT spread by the sword. A huge difference. The land of the Muslims, and the power of the Khilaafah to rule over certain lands and people, yes, to a certain extent, THAT was sustained by the sword (by wars and battles whose victories allowed the Islamic government to continue its rule over certain areas/people). Huge difference.
Remember, EVERY WORD uttered/written is on our accounts, and to haphazardly use words referring to our beloved Nabi (S) and his Sahaabah (R) who were leaders, Mu’Allimun, Mujaahidun, and much more is immature and dangerous… dangerous in many ways. We all have to be very careful.
Finally, in regards to the “fluffy love”:
There is a problem of Muslims becoming very apologetic. At the same time, there is a problem at the other end of the spectrum at which other Muslims are becoming very hateful, incite-fully aggressive, and abandoning the love & gentleness that is part of Islam.
That is why this Deen is a Deen of the middle path, moderation. It encompasses both war & peace, love & hate, and much more. And it’s very simple as to why these opposites exist in one box: because all of it is for Allah (SWT). When He says fight, we fight; when He says make peace, we make peace; when He says love or hate, then we do that which we are ordered to do.
To quote Imam Ibn Taymiyya (ra) and possibly misrepresenting it may be tantamount to false testimony. In what context was the Imam referring to love? One cannot just take it and apply it in any way, as was done in this post. Shaykh Rumi (ra)’s portrayal of the gentle aspect of the Sahaabah (R) is a fact [Also for the record, it is NOT the majority that claims deviancy upon Shaykh Rumi (ra). We have to be honest with our words, especially when addressing others. So please be careful]. Masculinity is not void of love and gentleness. The disbelieving Quraysh used to mock our beloved Nabi (S) because he would outwardly show love (I assume hugs and kisses) to his children, which the disbelievers thought to be feminine. The Sahaabah (R) had their share of soft-heartedness. Just look at the influence of poetry upon them, along with so many other things. So to push the “fluffy love” to the side is also inappropriate, as love and gentleness, kindness and tolerance is part of our Deen as well.
I apologize if one or more of the 55 comments above mine already addressed the issue. I only read through a few of them. Also, Brother who runs this blog, please don’t take offense to anything I said. It is pure naseeha which I wished to articulate; but unfortunately I often lack adab in my words, and writings pose the problem of not relaying the accurate tone of the writer/speaker.
Take care,
salaam.
Brother // February 1, 2009 at 12:14 am |
Forgot to mention that the purpose of the naseeha was so that either:
1) The post is deleted
or
2) The post is edited to ensure utmost respect and accuracy of the personalities and lives of Rasulullah (S) and the Sahaabah (R).
salaam.
eliza // February 1, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
Non muslims do not need Umar’s remarks here. All one has to do is read Islam’s scriptures and observe the murder mad train wreck going on in various muslim societies.
know yourself // February 1, 2009 at 10:10 pm |
Assalaamu alaykum
I’m not a good man and nobody to judge anybody else may Allah forgive me and you all.
I’m off of blogs and most of the internet now but on my way out I really do want to say that I fear this is causing more harm than good.
What benefit is there in opening a forum for all the back and forth or wtiting these articles anyway?
What made it incumbant upon you to write or publish anything in the first place?
Now you’re fanous and people refer to the rise and fall all over the english speaking world but what good did it do? Giving people yet another platform to speak ill what good did that do either?
Let’s all get back to the books and ask Allahh elevate ourselves in sha Allah.
There is enough written by people who knowand in a style worthy of them to clarify everything, wether old questions or warning againts modern dat dangers and individuals.
Let us all learn our humble place and not try to add onto what does not need us.
And Im out.
Wassalaamu alaykum
Musa // February 2, 2009 at 8:14 am |
Islaam Spread by the Sword
Indeed Arabs “lofted” the Byzantine (Eastern Rome) and Sassanian (Persians) Empires simualtaneously. But did they force them into Islaam by the sword?
We are not talking about modern warfare, where you can send planes overhead or missiles and rockets and bombs from a boat. There were no tanks or Humvees to rapidly travel over land from whence you could shoot a gun 200 to 500 yards and kill an opponent. How many Arabs would be needed to come from Arabia on horseback or camel back, then from Spain to modern day Russia subdue armies, then the people to force them to accept Islaam by the sword?
The truth is this, the Arabs were the descendants of the “Cushites”. These were the “Ethiopians of the Ancient Greeks”. The Romans and Sassanian at the time of Muhammad had conquered and took over Cushite territory. They even wished to conquer the Arabian Pennisula. Alexander failed and this is what the “Battle of the Elephant” was all about when they Persians via Abyssinia tried to posses “Ba-ka” and to end the Hajj and trade. The Arab armies “lofted” both of the “armies” of these empires when the Arabs were reunited, not all through “belief in Allah” but truthfully through WAR! Byzantine and Sassianian were already enemies of the Arabs and constantly attempted to intefer with the affairs of the Arabia. Look up in a Lexicon the meaning of the Arabic word “Zurqan” that is found in Surah 20:102. But the Arabs were too small in numbers to “force” entire populations to accept Islaam by the sword. Swords and horses do not offer the military advantage of guns and horses, tanks and bombs, and planes where a few can reign down terror on the many.
Furthermore, the Arabs did not even mix with the “regular populations” of these places. They set up “Garrison Towns”. Essentially military posts. The collectors of money remained the same locals who simply paid the Jizya to the Arabs as opposed to the former “King” or “Governor”. So in these lands that Arabs conquered, it took Islaam a long time to spread among the people. In fact, Arabic did not even become the official language of the government until the reign of Abdul Malik. Arabic coins were not even struck until his reign. Before this, Greek was the official language since it was the language of government in Syria. Abdul Malik was the 9th leader or Ameer Al-Mumineen ruling some 50 years after Umar.
A quick aside, Muslims need to study the “Conquest” very carefully. The Roman armies and peo ple pretty much ran back to Rome or Constantinople. But…the Sassanians or Persians did not. In Khurasan, the Arabs did not have a Garrison Town, and mixed in with the Persians. Persians became clients or mawlas, and over time, the Persians held positions of Great influence in the Umayyad and later Abbasid dynasties. The Persians were a very “proud” people and hated the Arabs!!!!! The Arabs actually called the Persians the “ahmar” people or red, and referred to themselves as the “aswad” people or Black. But guess who your scholars of hadith are and Islamic history? Bukhari, Tabari, Tirmidhi, et. al. Persians and not Arabs. The names that these scholars had actually come from the cities that they lived in. As such, here is where the majority of your hadith come from, isnads via Iraq. The Muwatta of Malik, who was an Arab living in Medina, written before all of the “Sahih” does not even have all of the hadiths and isnads of the “Sahih” collections. In fact, Malik’s mantra was, if a hadith is not in harmony with the “sunnah” of the people of Medina, it must be rejected on the basis that the Prophet lived in Medina and not in the Iraq!
Slavery and Women
Allah has revealed:
[4.19] O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.
[4.23] Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers’ daughters and sisters’ daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[4.24] And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
[4.25] And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprun g) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[24.32-33] And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing. And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world’s life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.221] And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and certainly a believing slave is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do not=2 0give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly a believing slave is better than an idolater, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be mindful.
Slavery in Islaam does need to be learned by us alot better. But let us be clear, there is NO comparison to European chattel slavery! Slaves were not seen as “subhuman”! Slaves have a higher moral status than idol worshippers. The Qur’aan encourages “marriage” to slaves, not forcing them into being whores or prostitutes. The laws of America “forbid” marriage of whites to slaves. And understand this, they did not have prisons during the times of Islam or the Jahiliyya. If somebody stole, or killed, or indeed was on the losing side of some conflict, they were not imprisoned or put in a place like Gitmo Bay. They became slaves and sometimes as a means of paying off their debts. Hence the ayaah …if a slave ask for you a writing of freedom, give it to them if you know any good in them. If they believed or in some cased paid off their debt and repented, then they were to be let go or freed. And futhermore in Islamic fiqh, you will see that the time of slavery was limited and there was NEVER a concept of a perpetual life of slavery as a result of being born of slave parents or of being of a c ertain race. In fact, the number of WHITE Slaves outnumbered the Black Slaves. Until the White Slaves, the Mamlukes, actually took over the realm and leadership of Islaam in the 1200’s.
Islaam forbids aggression of those who have not fought you. But here is where Muslims erred, they fought against others under the guise of them not being Muslim, these “Jihad” campaigns. Indeed, this is incorrect and I happen to thing the Muslim world still suffers today in part because of such actions.
Musa // February 2, 2009 at 8:15 am |
Wa-a’laikum-as-salaam:
Another quick note. People need to understand that the people the Arabs fought most often were themselves! This is what made the “Crusades” possible. The Crusaders were not fighting the entire Muslim populace, just a branch I think the Fatimid Khalifah. The Abbasid were not even effected by the Crusades one bit.
That we still have the Qur’aan in and of itself is a miracle when you consider all of the fighting going on. Similar to words of a popular song, once it becomes so popular it becomes difficult if not impossible to change the it without changing what is in the memory of all those who loved it. Although, this in no way implies that such a change is impossible because persons memorized it, but if such a change was attempted, you would think there would have been fighting and disagreement over it. And not reported by one sect, but reported by more than once sect as the ummah certainly had many factions at such an early age. The Greatest protection is that of Allah, and we have faith that the Qur’aan is so protected. But we must also realize the our “faith” and “rationalizations” and “historical arguments” are not equivalent to a measurable and observed fact of proof. But the “ghaib” or unseen or unproven is the essential element of “faith” and “belief”. That which “Be” does not need the confirmation of our observation for it to “Be”. But it should not offend reason and intelligence either.
English Naat Muslim Childs Prayer | IslamLecture // February 2, 2009 at 9:34 am |
[...] Are Your a Islamic or a Buddhism Buddhist? Because the Prophet (S.A.S. … [...]
Sufinadeem // February 2, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
Imaam Bukhari (rahmatullahi alayhi) has written the book “Adab Al-Mufrad”. Adab is a part and parcel of every Muslim. Abu Bakar and Umar were not our age mates. Now when addressing your Salafi Scholars you are use the following language: “…Imam Suhaib Webb, Imam Abu Muslimah, Sheikh Muhammad Syed Adly, Sheikh Jamal Zarabozo, Sheikh Bilal Phillips, Sheikh Yasir Qadhi”. Why didn’t you say Jamal, Bilal Phillips, Yasir, Abu Muslimah, Adly and Suhaib. You stripped the sahaba of all respect and put the rope of respect on contemporary scholars? No doubt you are following in the footsteps of your teacher Albani who wrote the book called “Sahih Adab Al-Mufrad”. Meaning Imam Bukhari is NOT an Imam of Hadith so Albani had to Fix Bukhari’s mistakes by stamping Imam Bukhari’s book with a new title “Sahih Adab Al-Mufrad”. Amazing, to see where you learn your language of respect. Not only that but the respect you give to the contemporary scholars who collectively can not reach the “maqaam” of Abu Bakr Siddiq (radhi Allaho anho) and Umar ibn Khattab (radhi Allah ho anho). Didn’t the prophet (sallaho alayhi wa sallam) warn us “Allah, Allah fi As-haabi…”. Brother Umar say what you have to say but don’t lose sight of the fact that the Sahaba were described as “radhi Allaho anho wa radu anh”. If Bilal Phillips can be respected with the title Sheikh the Sahaba deserve it more than Mr.Phillips! Disrespect for our elders and salafus Saliheen is unacceptable.
eliza // February 2, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
Perhaps we should consider Umar’s residence in Missouri, the “Mother of Outlaws”. Maybe it gives one an affinity with Jesse James. J.J. decorated his depredations with ideas of justice and revenge. So did the Weathermen. Somehow fighting for justice involves murder and robbing banks.
'Abdu l-Ghaffur // February 3, 2009 at 11:08 am |
As-salamu alaykum,
JazakuLlah khayran, Musa, for your post. I agree with most of it.
However, Umar’s posts are nothing but creators of fitnah amongst Muslims; and it is fascinating that people–who, of course, have no scholarly weight at all–are replying with statements of takfir, accusing others of kufr as if they even have the RIGHT to do so.
Today, when it comes to our Religion, everyone has a voice, no matter how ignorant they are of it. Many are mujtahidun, fuqaha, with the right to exercise his or her independent judgement; if not that, they will at at least spread their “personal views” and opinions on the Internet (often claiming mashhur, consensus, and the like).
Tragic.
I wonder if people who have never been to medical school are creating blogs and sites about medical procedures and treatments, who the best surgeons are, quoting medical books, and so forth?
anonymous // February 4, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
@’Abdu l-Ghaffur:
I agree wholeheartedly.
This is one of the issues with blogs nowadays. Numerous “Nobodies” voice their opinion to emphatically and with such conviction and confidence through these blogs. It has become a tragedy, really. That is why many ‘Ulama actually advise NOT to have blogs, because it makes a person feel as if he is important although in reality he isn’t, and this pompous attitude then results in a person feeling authoritative enough, on his own whim to establish his opinions and remarks in fields where he absolutely does not belong.
anonymous123 // February 6, 2009 at 3:52 am |
Saying that the companions were “straight-up killers” is wrong!!!!
Jay kactuz // February 8, 2009 at 7:49 am |
Well, well, well….. After years of reading Muslim sites, this is the first time I have seen one that even begins to reflect honesty of the hate and violence in Islam and the traditions. What a surprise. I hadn’t been to Umar’s site for quite some time.
Yes, Mohammad attacked, raided, killed, plundered, tortured, enslaved and let his men rape women. He beat Aisha. These are very clear and easy to find. Eveytime I hear a Muslims say “preace be upon him” I wonder about their morals — or their knowledge of Islam.
Muslims want to pretend these things didn’t happen, or if they did, they have nothing to do with Islam and/or current events today.
Listen, Muslims readers, it is not because of this post, or those like it (if there are any) that non-muslims will “use something like this post to spread false allegations that Islam is a religion of violence, intolerance, robbing and killing” – it is because Muslims DO practice violence, intolerance, robbing and killing. You do these things and when we (non-Muslims) point it out you want to silence us (one way or another) so you don’t have to consider the evil that you do. These are not “false allegations” – they were written by friends and followers of your dear prophet, not his enemies. Yet we see so many comments here that refuse to accept what their own writings say.
Remember, truth is never your enemy.
Thank you, Umar Lee, even if your message is mixed.
Kactuz
Hugh Slaman // February 9, 2009 at 12:27 am |
Kactuz,
Most of your accusations have already been addressed by others.
But this one: “He beat Aisha” is bizarre and manifestly false, since Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, specifically mentioned that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, never hit a woman or servant. Do you think you know better than Aisha did?
Sincerely,
Hugh
Tawfique Choudury - That which no eyes have seen! islamic lecture about Jennah paradise PART 5 | IslamLecture // February 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
[...] Are Your a Islamic or a Buddhism Buddhist? Because the Prophet (S.A.S. … [...]
That which no eyes have seen! - Tawfique Choudury - islamic lecture about Jennah paradise PART 1 | IslamLecture // February 16, 2009 at 7:17 am |
[...] Are Your a Islamic or a Buddhism Buddhist? Because the Prophet (S.A.S. … [...]
That which no eyes have seen! - Tawfique Choudury - PART 4 | IslamLecture // February 19, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
[...] Are Your a Islamic or a Buddhism Buddhist? Because the Prophet (S.A.S. … [...]
That which no eyes have seen! - Tawfique Choudury - PART 2 | IslamLecture // February 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm |
[...] Are Your a Islamic or a Buddhism Buddhist? Because the Prophet (S.A.S. … [...]
Islamo-insanity? « the T.R.A.S.H. bin // March 22, 2009 at 9:39 pm |
[...] Islamo-insanity? March 23, 2009 Posted by stumblingmystic in Extremism, Islam, Islamo-Romanticism. trackback This traditional Muslim blog (belonging to an American guy btw) is quite “charming”. This is a fine example of how with someone people, criticism is totally redundant because they bury themselves simply by opening their mouths. Even satire seems to be unnecessary as they caricature themselves without abandon. So I am just going to be posting quotes from this blog, specifically from a post entitled, Are Your [sic] a Muslim or a Zen Buddhist? Because the Prophet (S.A.S.) And Those He Loved Were a Me…. [...]
Also Anonymous // March 30, 2009 at 10:47 pm |
Hugh,
Regarding the prophet (saws) hitting a woman, there is hadith in Muslim narrated by Aishah that the prophet punched her in the chest and that it hurt. It is actually a famous hadith, but for some reason, people today leave out this part of her testimony. That is saheeh, and it is narrated by her. Do you think you know better than her? Ask your local aalim what it is supposed to mean in the context of Shariah and his character and how you treat women today.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127
The Legal Punishments for Highway Robbery // April 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm |
The Legal Punishments for Highway Robbery
The legal punishments highwaymen are to receive differ according to their crimes as follows:
1. Whoever kills and seizes peoples property (of a Muslim) is to be killed and crucified until his crime is well-known. Such a person must not be pardoned according to the consensus of Muslim scholars as stated by Ibnul-Mundhir.
2. Whoever kills without seizing any property (of a Muslim) must be killed without being crucified.
3. Whoever seizes property (of a Muslim) without commiting murder, his right hand and his left leg are to be cut off at one time, then the bleeding is to be stopped and then he is to be released.
4. Whoever just terrorizes Muslims on the way without commiting murder or seizing property, must be exiled from the land causing him to be homeless. He should not be allowed to stay in any country but should be expelled.
Thus the punishments the highwaymen receive differ according to the degree of their crimes. In this respect, Allah, Exalted be He, says:
إِنَّمَا جَزَاء الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُواْ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُواْ أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْاْ مِنَ الأَرْضِ ذَلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَهُمْ فِي الآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. (Al-Ma’idah 5:33)
According to the opinion adopted by the majority of the Salaf ( early Muslim scholars ), this noble verse was revealed regarding the highwaymen, and this the base on which they founded their judgements. With regard to this, Imam Ash-Shafa’i related tha Ibn Abbas ( may Allah be pleased with him) said:
” If the Highwaymen kill and seize people’s properties, they must be killed and crucified. If they kill but do not seize properties, they must be killed without being crucified. Moreover , if they seize properties without killing, their hands and feet are to be cut off from opposite sides. If they only terrorize people on ways without seizing their properties, they are to be exile from the land.”
If some highwaymen commit murder, the death sentence must be passed on them all. If some commit murder and others seize the property, all of them are to be killed and crucified.
If one of such bandits repents before being apprehended, the penalties prescribed concerning his crime, such as exile, amputating a hand and a foot and inevitability of killing , are to be annulled. However, the rights owed to humans must be redeemed, be it a soul, limb, or a property ( as fulfillment of qisas i.e. legal retribution), except if the bandit is pardoned by the rightful claimers. This is based on the Noble Quranic verses in which Allah Exalted be He says:
إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ تَابُواْ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَقْدِرُواْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allâh is OftForgiving, Most Merciful. (Al-Ma’idah 5:34)
In this respect , Shaykul Islam Ibn Taymiyah ( may Allah have mercy upon him) said:
” Except for those who return before you overcome them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
A Summary Of Islamic Jurisprudence
Ash Shaykh Saalih Al Fawzaan
Vol.2
Pg 626-627
Jamil // April 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
All of this foolishness with the Hadith is what is destroying Islam. Period. Absolutely NOTHING positive comes from these man made books. Whether some of it is true or not, as we Muslims claim to be non-believers of man made creations why are we so quick to put “man-made hadith” in the same context as the Koran? Argue what you want brothers but here is NOTHING in the Koran that says that we should follow man made books as well as the Koran. NOTHING. And trust me I have heard all of the arguments. “Obeying the messenger” does not mean obey what somebody said, that somebody, said that somebody said the messenger said. THE KORAN IS A COMPLETE BOOK! We argue this and at the same time say that we need Hadith to clarify the Koran! Muslims are we that blind! This is why the Muslim world is in such a devestating state because we are so divided over MAN-MADE BELIEFS! WAKE UP MUSLIMS!!! We can memorize the Koran but still are blind to the word of God telling us that his book is complete. Still blind to God telling us not to be divided. Still blind to God telling us that he DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES. IF THE HADITH WERE FROM GOD WE WOULD NOT HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT VARIATIONS! WAKE UP!
Ilyas // January 16, 2010 at 8:31 pm |
Subhan Allah. Mr. Umar Lee is quoting isolated facts and narrations out of context. He is not following the principles of the religion or a scholarly methodology. Reading this thread is a sickness. May Allah increase our faith and good deeds.
jamil // January 31, 2010 at 10:58 pm |
oh no .. here we go again … the true inner meaning of zen involves letting go of form, engaging in meditation through life acts … like muslim believers who consecrate every act as dhikr – remembering Allah through observing and respecting all Creation & activity … truth is difficult for hardheads to accept, and especially those who lock into some version of Islam shared within a sect or self-defining & self-limiting group .. just be a Muslim in your own heart and life, watch out for packaged rhetoric claiming to have the true insight into any aspect of Islam,
bottom line!
its an individual thing, each Muslim communicating as directly as possible with the Sustainer and learning from life and observations … the Qur’an is a collected recitation of signs (ayats) that live in the human heart, and help guide us to understanding our role within a vast and complex planet and universe
WesternandJesuitEducatedMuslimFemale // February 2, 2010 at 7:39 am |
“Warrior” isn’t the best term to describe Muhammad (pbuh), as it has a singular connotation. He was someone who went to war, but fighting was not his only or even primary purpose. To say that the sahabah were “killers” is also misleading. There is a difference between enlisted people who fight to defend themselves, their way of life, and their interests and vigilante murdering. War booty belongs to the victor; they aren’t stolen goods. The distinctions I’m bringing out are not semantic games; they are real. By the way, as any well-informed individual could tell you, Islam was established in foreign lands centuries AFTER the armies left, and you should look to the life and words of the last messenger to find example of romance in Islamic history, not lonely crackpots.