“O you who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance and afterwards regret what you have done.” (Qur’an 49:6)
﷽
A recently started YouTube Channel called: Make Hijrah (which otherwise seemingly had good objectives) looks to promote sectarian strife in Muslim countries.
Now, in fairness and because Allah (swt) calls us to be just and to do justice there was an excellent interview here:
Also, to all Omani brothers reading this please note that the brother above, (brother Mustafa) has absolutely nothing to do with the sectarianism that the Make Hijrah channel promotes.
Also, I do want to bring attention to a Sunni Muslim brother that has an excellent website about moving to Muscat.
He is absolutely worth it to follow on X (Elon’s echo-chamber)
His X account is: https://x.com/movetomuscat and he has a website here: https://movetomuscat.com/ His name is Anwar. He has shown nothing but respect and love to Oman and the Omani people and I have only ever seen him speak respectfully about Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (h).
Please follow the brother below. Anwar@Move to Muscat. He is a respectful person and respects Oman’s diversity.
Dear readers by Allah (swt) in whose power is my life, there was an Omani brother that was going to do an interview with Make Hijrah YouTube channel about coming to Oman and living in Oman. However, this Make Hijrah channel flat out asked the brother, ‘Are you Ibadi’ to which he replied ‘yes’ and that was an issue for them!
What does being an Ibadi have to do with an interview about people coming to live in Oman?
So, instead the Make Hijra channel decided to make this blunder of a video:
So the title has: “Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.” And most likely Jr. (the one on the left) chose the thumbnail of someone in prayer standing with their arms at the side. Once again the Salafis showcase their deficiency in fiqh and over all ignorance of the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
These are not the 90s. These must be the only Salafis I have encountered that didn’t the memo that they were so thoroughly refuted on the issue of hand placement in prayer that one must have been living in an isolated village in Papua New Guinea that didn’t get the memo.
Listen to Shaykh Assim Al Hakeem explain here:
@ 1:51 “These are fiqhi differences, whether you put your hand here (on the chest) you put your hand here (below the navel)you don’t put your hands at all in salat.“
You would expect with a title like: “Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.” that these individuals might speak about hidden cost of living, or maybe there is bribery in the country, or perhaps there is a red light district that people do not know about. Maybe there is human trafficking going on.
Or maybe they had something controversial like Avicii’s death in Oman was not truly a suicide. They could have brought anything, but noooo, they had to focus on sectarianism.
Here it is:
“Is There a DARK SIDE to Moving to Oman.”
Jr speaks @3:15 “It then spread in Oman following the remnants of the Khawarijduring the Umayyad period.”
Senior speaks @3:20 “If you really want to know if the Ibadi are from the Khawarijor not it would require examining their statements from their original sources approved books and the words of their contemporary scholars. This is not for the average person. For common people and beginner students it’d be better to consult a person of knowledge you trust on this issue.”
Senior @4:24 “If you decided you want to move to Oman you can completely avoid that issueby just going to the south of the country and living among the Sunnis and in the Sunni cities.”
Jr speaks up @14:02 “Not one dude on the corner of the road praying like with his (out/down?)” This solicits laughter from Senior.
Jr. chimes in again @14:11 “It just wasn’t there like regular joint.”
So really the question for Jr. and Senior is as follows:
What is the issue in praying with the Ibadi or even behind an Ibadi Imam?
Let us say for the sake of argument that Ibadi are Khawarij or their descendants. Are Jr. and Senior more knowledgeable then the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw)?
They can feel free to consult the sources:
However, from the video it does not seem that Jr. and Senior are fluent in reading and writing Arabic. This means they make Taqlid to the Salafi school and make Taqlid to it’s scholars as they have neither the tools or the means to go to the sources directly.
The translation of the above Arabic text states:
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Source: (The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah-In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine By Ibn Taymiyya Abu Al Abbas Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim.-Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim Volume 5)
2. They (Jr & Senior mentioned that after eating camel meat the topic switched to jurisprudence (fiqh). So that is fiqh what about aqidah which to Salafis is the number one issue.
So my question for Jr & Senior is on what consistent basis can one pray behind an Ash’ari Shafi’i (whom they believe are deviant in aqidah but not pray behind an Ibadi) ???
Unless of course when they (Jr & Senior) say Sunni what they really mean is: “Their Salafi sect.”
So this should certainly alarm the Sunni Muslims in Oman (and indeed it has from the comments) because that means that ultimately these people would not just separate from the Ibadi but from the dominant Sunni Muslims as well!
Unfortunately all the Make Hijrah did was get the attention of the Omani government and immigration to look closer at their channel and scrutinized their intentions.
I would encourage the readers to listen to the interview between two Omanis, Sunni & Ibadi who speak about the video. Oman FM is listened all across Oman.
Listen to Religious Tolerance & Islamic Values – Shaykh Hatim Al Abdissalaam by Oman FM (English) on #SoundCloud
The only part where I would personally disagree with brother Shaykh Hatim on is where he said that in Oman they do not speak of these things or discuss them. Everyone’s upbringing is different in Oman. What Shaykh Hatim experiences is not the experience of another Omani.
What Shaykh Hatim may be speaking to is his own experience growing up and/or his own household and their particular priorities, and outlook.
There are Omani youth, 14 years of age that are very well acquainted with the conflicts that arose among the companions, and the history of the Ibadi school. This is widely discussed -because it is a right of a people to not be ignorant nor blur about their history.
That being said, they are also taught by the Mufti, May Allah (swt) continue to bless us by him, that we as Muslims need to live together in tolerance and respect for each other. This is certainly instilled in them as well.
In Oman all Muslims live together and they do not want the ghettoization of their country! So for those who want to come and live in Oman, you have something to contribute and you can live there in peace and coexistence Oman will welcome you with open arms.
However, anyone who wants to go to Oman and spread fitna or sectarianism and has that mindset, Oman does not want you, Oman certainly does not need you and the people of Oman are free from you nor are you welcomed!
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 3: 103)
﷽
The following PDF file upload is an article written by Amr Osman a Professor from Qatar University about the Sunni doctrine of Adalat Al Sahaba.
We cannot hide the fact that over all we are dissapointed with the paper.
We feel one does not get into the meat until page 33 and 34 and even then it is designated to a mere footnote 145.
We feel the author could have done more to give concrete Murji’ sources rather than that which is held in dispute.
He could have elaborated examples of the Murji’ making use of the same hadith that Sunnis in general use for justification of all the companions being just.
The other point we disagree with is the contention that Adalat Al Sahaba is some how a Sunni doctrine. This is something we have come to learn is simply not true. It is simply not true because it is well known that the Umayyads had cursing of Ali at the pulpits. So, if there was such a doctrine it was either blatantly ignored (a highly contentious position) or simply was not developed as of yet (which is what we contend).
It would be correct to say that Adalat Al Sahaba is an Abbasid Sunni doctrine. Yes, this we would agree. But we certainly would not hold this doctrine to be contemporaneous with the Umayyads.
In fact it is a real missed opportunity to show why the growing Sunni Abbasid imperium would develop such a doctrine that would do it’s level best to try and bridge the gap between Umayyad, Alid and other factions of the Muslims. Especially when it came to the contentions civil wars of the early companions.
This would have given a great deal of thrust to the article and indeed show the readers ‘how the sausage is made‘ so to speak.
The other point in the article is the tired oft repeated and lazy claims concerning the so called “Khawarij.”
“Other 4th/10th-century writings reflect more aspects of the emerging doctrine. Defining the proper attitude towards the Companions as a middle way between excessive hate (similar to that of Harigis towards ‘Ali b. Abi Talib and Mu’awiya b. Abi Sufyan who fought each other during the schisms) and excessive love (like that of Si’is towards ‘Ali).”
1) You have to wonder on what basis is the claim being made. Source material for example?
2) The Ibadis are the one’s who went to Umar Abdul Aziz and asked that they stop cursing Ali at the pulpits. This is hardly the marker of people who hate an individual.
The other eye opening take away from the PDF article below, is that practically every study done by orientalist you will find one of them contradicting the findings of other other.
One of them strongly disagrees with the perspective of the other. This simply shows that they do not have a consistent ontology nor a consistent epistemology either. They often critique traditional views as speculative only for the avid reader to find out that they (orientalist) offer speculation as well. Albeit with the wide eyed claim of not having any presuppositions.
What we can show is that the doctrine of everyone’s ijtihad is correct, even if it leads to the separation of the Muslim Ummah, and killing; is demonstrably a false doctrine.
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you—by His grace—became brothers. And you were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be ˹rightly˺ guided.” (Qur’an 3: 103)
Hold firm to the rope of Allah and do not be divided.
You were enemies and Allah united your hearts.
By the unification of your hearts you became brothers.
By being divided and being enemies you were at the bring of a fiery pit.
By being being united and being brothers you avoid this fiery pit.
This whole idea that everything the companions did is simply a matter of ijtihad even if it leads to killing each other flies in the face of this very verse of the Qur’an!
Meeting on a field and killing each other does not result in being united and not being divided.
Killing each other’s sons and father’s does not unite a person’s heart and make one have the feeling of brotherhood.
In fact, those Sunnis doing Daʿwah in Hyde Park United Kingdom and other venues throughout the world would get destroyed in a discussion on logic.
You see if person A says that an Elephant has a tail and person B says that an Elephant has four legs these are not mutually exclusive points.
It is both possible that a person A and person B are correct.
However, if person B says that an Elephant has four legs and person A says that an Elephant has two legs we have a problem. One of them is in clear error.
So on this point, those who engage with these people can point out that Sunnis do indeed believe that contradictory information can indeed be acceptable.
Now, it is one thing to believe that contradictory information is acceptable, and quite another thing, altogether to say contradictory information that leads to separation and division and killing is acceptable.
Those that believe that ijtihad that leads to killing and strife among the believers and on top of it gets rewarded even if they are upon error is such a surprising doctrine.
Narrated Ibn `Umar:
I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, “Do not revert to disbelief after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another.”
“So, set your face toward the religion in uprightness. That is the “Fitrah” of Allah, upon which He has created mankind. Let there be no changing of Allah’s creation.” (Quran 30:30)
“If they do not want beards, then let them be castrated, because the eunuch does not grow a beard, so they cut off/undergo castration and he does not grow a beard and they are freed from it[growing a beard], because they are no longer men, but rather resemble women.”
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. ” (Qur’an 39:67)
﷽
So Shaykh Uthaymeen was asked about Allah’s blanket.
The questioner says, can we say it is a metaphor?
Uthaymeen is agitated. “Will you say to Allah on judgement day that he doesn’t have a blanket?!”
If you want to perfect your aqidah (your creed) in accordance with this bizarre sect then if it is affirmed that Allah (swt) has a blanket are you going to deny this?!
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Hikmetle ve güzel öğütle Rabbinin yoluna çağır ve onlarla en güzel biçimde mücadele et. Kuşkusuz Rabbin, işte yolundan sapanları en iyi bilen O’dur ve O, yola gelenleri de en iyi bilendir.” (Qur’an 16:125)
﷽
Son dönemde, Diyanet İşleri Başkanı Ali Erbaş’a yönelik sosyal medyada ciddi bir algı operasyonu yürütülmektedir. Erbaş, yaptığı açıklamalarda, Kur’an’a dayalı olarak Hz. İsa’nın (a.s.) öldüğünü ve Mehdi’nin beklenmemesi gerektiğini ifade etmiştir. Bu görüşler, özellikle Mehdi inancını İslam’ın temel inançları olarak gören sufi tarikatlar tarafından tepkiyle karşılanmıştır. Erbaş’a yönelik eleştiriler, İslam’ın temel ilkeleri çerçevesinde yapılan değerlendirmeler, Arapça bilmemesi eleştirileri ve Diyanet kurumuna karşı duyulan muhalefet üzerinden şekillenmektedir.
Bazı sosyal medya kullanıcıları, Ali Erbaş’ı eleştirirken, özellikle İslam’ın temel ilkesi olan Kelime-i Şehadet üzerinden tartışmalar yürütmektedir. Erbaş’ın Arapça bilmemesi de gündeme getirilmekte ve bazı eleştirmenler, bunun onun dini otorite olarak yeterliliğini sorgulayan yorumlar yapmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, Diyanet kurumuna karşı olanlar ve Diyanet’in kapanmasını destekleyen kitleler de Erbaş’ı eleştirmektedir. Ayrıca, Erbaş’ın “abduhu” kelimesini kullanmadığı gerekçesiyle sert eleştiriler yapılmakta, bazıları ise onu mürtedlikle suçlamaktadır. Ancak, bu eleştiriler genellikle dini terimler ve İslam’ın temel öğretileri hakkında eksik bilgiye dayanmaktadır. Örneğin, Türkiye’deki beş vakit ezanda da “abduhu” kelimesinin yer almadığı göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, eleştirilerin çoğu bilinçsizlikten kaynaklanmaktadır.
Sufi tarikatçılar ve Diyanet karşıtı kesimler, Erbaş’ı eleştirenler arasında yer almaktadır. Bu durum, sosyal medyada yayılan yanlış bilgilendirmelerin, özellikle dini konularda bilgi eksikliğinden kaynaklandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu noktada, dini tartışmaların daha derinlemesine ve bilgi temelli bir şekilde ele alınması gerektiği açıktır.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.” (Qur’an 5:75)
“There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
“There is no comparison to His absoluteness.” (Qur’an 112:4)
﷽
I used to think that the Salafi/Athari were people who had subtlety in their doctrine. And people who at least claimed to take the apparent meaning of a text. They would claim that Allah (swt) is not like his creation and that they do not liken Allah (swt) to the creation.
I couldn’t have been more wrong!
I am now of the view that the God of the Salafis is one that has a form or a shape. This is from THEIR understanding of certain text.
It was narrated that Abu Umamah Al-Bahili said:
“The Messenger of Allah (saw) addressed us, and most of his speech had to do with telling us about Dajjal. He warned about him, and among the things he said was: ‘There will not be any tribulation on earth, since the time Allah created the offspring of Adam, that will be greater than the tribulation of Dajjal. Allah has not sent any Prophet but he warned his nation about Dajjal. I am the last of the Prophets, and you are the last of the nations. He will undoubtedly appear among you. If he appears while I am among you, I will contend with him on behalf of every Muslim, and if he appears while I am not among you, then each man must fend for himself and Allah will take care of every Muslim on my behalf. He will emerge from Al-Khallah, between Sham and Iraq, and will wreak havoc right and left. O slaves of Allah, remain steadfast. I will describe him to you in a manner in which none of the Prophets has described him before me. He will start by saying “I am a Prophet,” and there is no Prophet after me. Then a second time he will say: “I am your Lord.” But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed, and written between his eyes is Kafir. Every believer will read it, whether he is literate or illiterate.”
Notice that the text that is attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw) does not even remotely begin to refute the idea that Allah could be in the form of a human being.
The text only gives the following assurances.
Your Lord is not One-Eyed.
You will not see your Lord until you die.
In other words it is not at the core of one’s innate fitra or it is not innate to the mind that Allah (swt) is not something that takes on forms and shapes!
To have such an assurance tied to this particular hadith, of which the multitude have not even heard of!?
The proof is irrefutable.
The Prophet (saw) said, “Allah did not send any prophet but that he warned his nation of the one-eyed liar (Ad-Dajjal). He is one-eyed while your Lord is not one-eyed, The word ‘Kafir’ (unbeliever) is written between his two eyes.”
Now those who follow the Neo-Salafi Athari school will use the above text to claim that Allah (swt) has two eyes. Although that is pure speculation. Saying that the Dajjal has eye one does not necessitate that Allah (swt) has two eyes. Or saying that Allah (swt) isn’t defective in one eye does not entail Allah (swt) has more than one eye. You could say that a spider has 8 eyes and that it does not have a defective eye and both statements could be true.
However, when Allah (swt) opened my eyes to something deeper and more sinister. That the Neo-Salafi believe that the above text is trying to teach a theological point!
So what they are saying and think about this…what they are saying is that the way to DISTINGUISH Allah (swt) from the dajjal, is that the dajjal has ONE EYE and ALLAH DOES NOT HAVE ONE EYE.
What about the fact that the very hadith says, “THE WORD KAFIR IS WRITTEN BETWEEN HIS TWO EYES.”? Wouldn’t that be a big tale tell sign that THIS IS NOT Allah (swt)?
But even more bone chilling and down right frightening is that this flawed analogy leads one to think what seems to be THE ONLY thing that distinguishes Allah (swt) from the dajjal? Wouldn’t it be OBVIOUS that if a PERSON, ANY PERSON were to claim to Allah (swt) that we as Muslims would KNOW that this person is a charlatan, simply on the basis of:
Allah (swt) cannot be and is not a man/human being.
Allah (swt) cannot and does not assume form/shape.
Allah (swt) cannot be and is not a person.
However, if one is to take the Neo-Salafi perspective apparently not! Think about this good people.
What if you were to find a person that does amazing feats of magic, or breaks the laws of physics or does the unexplained. Would YOUR criteria as a Muslim be, well the person has two eyes, 20/20 vision, so maybe, possibly it COULD be Allah?
REALLY?
If the Neo-Salafi do not understand this hadith as the Blessed Messenger (saw) simply informing that Allah (swt) is not unaware and has full grasp, and has no defects than brothers and sisters, dear readers…
WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!
We have a big problem because nothing else is obvious; like the fact that the dajjal is:
human
has eyes.
has hands.
has feet.
has curly hair.
has a mouth.
most likely eats food (Qur’an 5:75) thus answers the call of nature.
has mass.
occupies space.
needs to have an army to effect change. Where as Allah (swt) gives the command ‘Kun faya kun’ (be and it is) ?wouldn’t ALL THESE BE A DEAD GIVE AWAY THAT THIS IS NOT ALLAH? According to the Neo-Salafi, NOPE!
But one way to POSSIBLY TELL THAT IT IS NOT ALLAH IS THIS: Is the person blind in one eye?
Imagine being brought up with this belief and you are out on police patrol one night in Saudi Arabia and you spot someone with one eye. “Hello, headquarters this is dispatch. Suspect has one defective eye. Possibly Dajjal, Definitely not Allah.”
So according to the Neo-Salafi the above hadith has come to teach us a theological point concerning Allah (swt). That being don’t be fooled because dajjal has one eye (one eye is defective) and your Lord does not have a defective eye.
This is what lead me to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people believe that Allah (swt) has a form, and can even come in the form of a human being!
Saying that the Lord is not one eyed is not an affirmation that he has two eyes!
“The Originator of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has no mate? He created all things and has knowledge of everything.” (Qur’an 6:101)
This is a negation that Allah (swt) could not have children as he has no companion. So does this entail the opposite? If Allah (swt) had a companion he could have children? How bizarre is this type of thinking! That Allah (swt) would need anything in order to accomplish what he wants is not the belief of the Muslims.
Subhan’Allah!
May Allah (swt) rescue the Muslims and save the Muslims from perversion in their faith!
“Oh, Mankind! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know one another. Truly, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, All-Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)
﷽
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said: “That whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black.”
One of our team members was in a discussion with someone named ‘Rider’ who had commented on the recent post titled “Are Arabs superior to Malays and everyone else? Imam Shafi’i and Ibn Taymiyyah think so!”
Rider seems to suggest that it is quite fine to treat African Americans differently from Caucasians in the United States as long as, ultimately, we are all treated spiritually equal (by our creator).
So those Muslim converts, rather than being converts from the Dalit in India, or our African American sisters and brothers coming to Islam expecting not to be treated in a prejudiced manner, may need to reassess the reasons for which they came into Islam.
Now coming to this statement.
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said: “That whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black.”
If we were an apologist for “classical scholarship” we would reply and say, this whole text was really aimed at those who falsely attributed something to the Blessed Messenger (saw) that is not true. Thus, the issue is not whether the Blessed Messenger (saw) was ‘black’ or not, but rather whether someone attributed a false ascription to him. That is what our defending “classical scholarship” at all costs response would be.
However, our rationale is we are no longer prepared to defend this kind of nonsense says, “That is all fine and well except that the person could have simply stated, ‘falsely ascribing anything to the Prophet (saw) is punishable by death’.”
It must have been such an issue for this particular point (ascribing blackness) to be highlighted.
Seems like it may even have some merit in it and Allah (swt) knows best.
Lastly, it still does not answer the point. Why would death be issued against anyone who made false physical descriptions of the Blessed Messenger (saw)? Like if they said he (saw) was 5 9in instead of 5–8 in? Or if they said that he (saw) had a broad forehead instead of around one?
Seems like correcting someone would be in order rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction like this.
So this drives home the point that this statement seems embedded in some of the more racist elements in the Muslim ummah. Racism is a disease of the heart. So, ironically, even a classical text called “Al Shifa” (Healing, Purification, Cure) didn’t seem to be free of this. Wallahu ‘Alim!
However, we now understand that Muslims like Rider may understand “Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him.” to mean that, yes, we are equal in the sight of Allah. However, the understanding of Islam that they have is that some people, even among Muslims, can be given preference and special treatment simply based upon their ethnic-racial origins.
It is now a curiosity of ours about how they would interact with the Brahman philosophical schools that give sound arguments to the caste system, or maybe they wouldn’t try to approach from that angle, seeing that Islam can, from Rider’s perspective, share some strong similarities with the Brahman caste system.
Or how appropriate these teachings may not be in a nation like Singapore that teaches meritocracy not based upon purported notions of racial superiority. Should a nation like Singapore not only be on guard against certain aspects of the Salafi movement, but equally should nations like Singapore and others engage more robustly with such concepts coming from ‘traditionalists?’.
We were wondering how this bias may cause prejudice among our local Imams, Shyookh, or even Professors when it came to their interaction with people of other races, even judging their term papers. For example: Let us say that these professors or teachers had this concept that the Arabs are superior to non-Arabs. How might this affect a situation where the Chinese student is performing better than the Arab student in a particular field? Assuming that this is true and that we have some elements in our Muslim community who hold this position on what consistent basis, they should be allowed to hold teaching positions or positions of authority over other ethnic groups.
This is a grave matter that any society that has a growing Muslim population needs to look at quite seriously and earnestly. Allah (swt) knows best and Allah’s help is sought.
Interesting times we live in.
Recently, an Ex-Qadiani convert to Sunni Islam, who embraced the Hanafi-Barelvi-aligned school of thought used this verse of the Qur’an to disparage Muslims that have more melatonin.
“On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): “Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith.” (Qur’an 3:106)
It really says more about what is in this individual’s heart. However, being from the Sub Continent where the caste system is still operative and being inundated with a belief in a racial and genetic hierarchy (You will find this among the Zaydi, Shi’i, and Sufi’) in particular.
“It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abdullah al-Bajali that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
One who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to his just cause), who raises the slogan of family or supports his own tribe, dies the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.
This individual and those like him are reminiscent of Iblis, who defiantly says in the Qur’an:
“He said, “Never would I prostrate to a human whom You created out of clay from an altered (hama-in)black mud.” (Qur’an 15:33)
Here clearly Allah (swt) honoured this particular pigment, the pigment black, and our All-Wise, All-Knowing Creator deemed it fit to create the progenitor of the human race out of black mud.
The way this lost individual states that: “The Salafi interpreted this Ayah as white faces referring to Sunnis and black faces referring to Kharijis.”
As no sources are cited, we are inclined to believe this individual received this suggestion from the one who whispered (and we seek protection with Allah from that).
Secondly, let us say that there was such a source. The Qur’an does not say this.
To draw the type of bizarre conclusion that this individual did would be akin to condemning a great many Caucasians on account of simply having blue eyes? Or anyone who has blue eyes, for that matter.
“(The) Day will be blown in the Trumpet, and We will gather the criminals, that Day, blue-eyed.” (Qur’an 20:102)
“It’s usually the negro that is attracted to Kharijism. Remember the prophecy about there being a black man among the Khawarij whose arm is like a woman’s breast. Why? It is a sickness of having hasad towards the Elite of our community.”
So here he is saying that usually the negro is attracted to “kharijism”.
Our response to this individual (who clearly suffers from an inferiority complex himself) is that Allah (swt) has illuminated the hearts of people who have more melatonin in their skin to the truth than surely that is a favour from Allah (swt)!
That there is a prophecy about a black man among the Khawarij.
Presumably he is talking about the following hadith in which the Ahl Sunnah attack one of the companions of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
That, ultimately, the Negro has hasad (jealousy) towards the Elite (which seemingly are those with less melanin in their skin).
It is a wonder to me those who are blinded by tribalism and racism and the idea of hereditary supremacy based upon family and clan in the face of the light of the Qur’an.
The light of the Qur’an is such that it blinds not the eyes, but illuminates the heart.
“Indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but it is the hearts in the chests that grow blind.” (Qur’an 22:46)
Adam (as) had two sons. One of which murdered the other. How does being a descendant of a Prophet (saw) guarantee righteousness?
As regards the proper understanding of the verse:
“On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): “Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith.” (Qur’an 3:106)
The verse is self-explanatory. This is the day of judgement. People are being distinguished by their piety and deeds; rather, they held fast or became among those who rejected faith.
It has nothing to do with the amount of melatonin an individual has.
“And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors. Surely in this are signs for those of ˹sound˺ knowledge.”(Qur’an 30:22)
﷽
This will be a page dedicated to information about the Ibadi school in other languages.
اباضی کون ہیں؟ مکتبہ اباضیہ کے بارے میں مزید معلومات کے لیے
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
Al hamdulillah. All praise be to Allah (swt) for the right guidance. Whomever Allah guides no no one can misguide them. Whomever Allah allows to stray no one can guide them.
Now, there are Muslim sects as well as Pseudo-Islamic sects that are willing to assert that our creator Allah (swt) is ignorant of the Jewish penal system. May Allah (swt) guide them and us!
Among such groups are basically, the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari.
Their views are unnecessarily convoluted and have caused unnecessary confusion on this matter.
These same groups without even a shred of evidence will look at the following text of the Qur’an and some how imagine and insert Romans and Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets* without right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
The above text certainly is not talking about Christians at all!
There are no records of Christians killing their prophets. The only Prophets of the Christians are Yahya (John) & Esau (Jesus).
Also, Christians would never utter against Mary a false charge. In the sense of saying saying demeaning of her (Allah has honoured her in this life and in the life to come!)
Read the Qur’an dear brothers and sisters.
Read it from Qur’an 4:153-157.
Now just on reading that text alone where are the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani/ The Ismail-Nizari, and the entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah conjuring up Romans from?
The fact, is all of these groups, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani, the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, and the Ismaili Nizari have to depend upon extraneous material and information outside of the Qur’an and the Sunnah to assert their rather baseless claims that some how when we read this text we must imagine it speaking about Romans!
The Arabic word for Romans is not something unfamiliar to the Qur’an.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:2) غُلِبَتِ ٱلرُّومُ ghulibati l-rūm
This is akin to Muslims reading Surah Ikhlas, the 112th chapter of the Qur’an and looking at the Arabic text and imaging it speaking about Greeks and the Trojan War.
This would come across to any sane Muslims as something very wacky! It is very left field.
Jews and Judaism unnecessarily get left out in the cold.
Imagine Christians and Jews debating about an issue concerning Muslims and Muslims were not even invited to the table?! It would be quite rude. However, this happens with the Jews and Judaism by us Muslims virtually all…..the…..time!
So I reached out to chabad.org and I thought I would ask practicing Jews what Jews believe. Who would have thought? Such a novel concept right? I will share the short but very polite and insightful e-mail exchange with Rabbi Dov Stein
Here is a comparison/contrast of four views that one may come across today.
Traditionally Sunni view.
Modern Sunni view that adopted the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani view.
The Ismail Nizari/Todd Lawson view.
All four of the above views have the following in common.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is some how speaking about Romans.
All four posit (without any evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah) that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross).
All four get the basis for their views from Isrā’īliyyāt material.
All four use this Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose a view upon the Qur’anic text.
All four posit a a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum (Cross) as historical reality with them differing on rather or not Jesus was placed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not. Rather he was killed on a Patibulum (Cross) or not.
Imami Shi’a tradition.
Want to know who does not speak about Qur’an 4:157?
The following:
Muhammed al Baqir. al-Hasan al-‘Askari. Furat ibn Ibrahim al-Kufi. ali ibn Ibrahim-al-Qummi & Muhammed ibn Mas’ud al-Ayyashi.
“Of some interest is also the fact that there is not even any mention of the verse (Qur’an 4:157) in the voluminous collection of Shi’i traditions, Usul al-Kafi, complied by the Twelver scholar al-Kulayni. Indeed, it is not until the first major tafsir work of Twelver Shi’ism by Abu Ja’far al-Tusi that the problem is broached at all.”
Source: (The Crucifixion and the Qur’an pg. 75 Todd Lawson)
The one thing all four views have in common is that they indirectly by their own ignorance of the Jewish penal system attribute to Allah (swt) ignorance of the Jewish penal system!
Insh’Allah will explain how and why that is the case.
So, I had sent an e-mail to Chabad.org and I received a very cordial and swift reply.
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
This is very important admission by the respected Rabbi because lays to bed the idea that Jews crucify people. It is simply not part of their penal system.
Our, the Ibadi view is a very simple plain reading of the text. We let the text stand on it’s own without it being interpreted in light of the Isrā’īliyyāt material.
What is that simple conclusion? The very simple basic conclusion for anyone who has even a modicum of Arabic reading comprehension skills is that Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of the Jews from the Children of Israel.
The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from the heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We pardoned that. And We gave Moses a clear authority. (Qur’an 4:153)
“But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us Allah outright,” This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And We cursed them for their breaking of the covenant and their ingratitude towards the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophetswithout right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their ingratitude, so they believe not, except for a few. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (Qur’an 4:155-156)
and their killing of the prophets without right As this is a continuation of the theme it neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. This neither refers to Christians or to Romans.
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
So let us explore the key passage of this text:
“Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him.”
It cannot refer to Christians. Christians would not kill Jesus. Nor would they make a claim that ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary.’
It cannot refer to Romans simply because the passage does not say so. There is no Arabic word for Romans any where in the text.
The whole theme of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the Children of Israel.
So it should be beyond evident that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not addressing Romans nor Christians.
So now let us look at another key text:
“And they did not kill him nor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)”
So virtually everyone translates the text as
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him.”
Even the Hafs Qur’an Only religion* disappointed me. Here I was hoping they might show a little initiative but no. They had to go and follow the others.
* Refers to (those who platform a Qur’an only approach)
So let’s go with that for a moment. “nor did they crucify him.”
We have already established that the context of Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking about a group of Jews from the children of Israel.
So now Qur’an 4:153-157 is reupdating the claims of this group of Jews with:
And for their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him.”
However, the good Rabbi has informed us:
“Capital punishment in Judaism does not involve crucifixion.“
In fact, in a follow up e-mail with the respected Rabbi, Dov Stein we are informed:
“as they are hung after being executed.”
“where the body was positioned after stoning.”
You have to be a very gullible person to imagine Jews boasting: “Yeah we killed Christ Jesus the Son of Mary by a method of execution not sanctioned by the Torah ha ha ha!”
Now if you notice in the first e-mail exchange the respected Rabbi gave me two links.
“I.e. after they have been executed, they are hung publicly. The person is hung up just before sunset and taken down immediately thereafter. See Hilchos Sanhedrin 15:6-7.”
It is a positive commandment to hang a blasphemer and an idolater after they have been executed, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:23: “A person who is hung is cursing God.” This refers to the blasphemer. With regard to an idolater, Numbers 15:30 states: “He blasphemes God.”
A man is hung, but a woman is not hung, as implied by Deuteronomy 21:22: “When a man has sinned and is condemned to die, after he is executed, you shall hang him….”ו
How is the mitzvah of hanging carried out? After the convicted is stoned, a beam is implanted in the ground with a rafter protruding from it. The two hands of the corpse are intercrossed and he is hung close to sunset.
He is released immediately. If not, a negative commandment is transgressed, as Ibid.:23 states: “Do not let his corpse tarry overnight on the beam.”
Now the commentary that you have seen above is by the legendary Rabbi, Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). That commentary was on the following text of the Torah:
“If any party is guilty of a capital offense and is put to death, and you impale the body on a stake, you must not let the corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury it the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that your God יהוה is giving you to possess.”
“If a man commits a sin for which he is sentenced to death, and he is put to death, you shall [then] hang him on a pole. But you shall not leave his body on the pole overnight. Rather, you shall bury him on that [same] day, for a hanging [human corpse] is a blasphemy of God, and you shall not defile your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you as an inheritance.”
Now is there anything with in the sacred sources of the Jews that the Qur’an may be refuting or interacting with?
“At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.” (John 8:59)
“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” (John 10:31-32)
“But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (Qur’an 61:6)
Recall that the Qur’an mentions a double denial or a double negation.
Simply stating: They didn’t kill him would be sufficient. It covers every mode or method of death known to mankind.
Yet the Qur’an deliberately gives us a double denial/double negation.
Recall that the Jews do not crucify people but they do hang/impale them after stoning them to death. In other words a post mortem suspension humiliation.
Recall the words of the Torah:
“For an impaled body is an affront to God.”
“And they did not kill himnor did they impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ )”
The double negation certainly rules out the Ismaili Nizari /Todd Lawson position.
That is because they understand the part of the text: “they did not kill him” (as a reference to Jesus soul). However, they do assert (without a shred of evidence) the things the other 3 groups hold to as asserted in my points: 1-5 above.
This is indeed a glaring problem for the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson position. The Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson assert that a crucifixion happened.
Remember, that neither the Nizari/Todd Lawson do not assert the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani interpretation of Crucifixion as ‘crucified to death’.
You see dear respected readers. All of these groups: The entirety of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiyani movement as well as the Ismaili Nizari/Todd Lawson have made Qur’an 4:153-157 so unnecessarily convoluted. They are astray because they do not use the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the foundation. Rather, they rely upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
The Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah faltered because they relied upon the Isrā’īliyyāt material to impose meaning upon the Qur’an. They have never been able to substantiate their view from the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The Imami Shi’i , the Ismaili-Nizar faltered because they did not check the base presuppositions of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. They relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions. However, they assumed the base points that the Sunni assumed.
The Ahmadiyyah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) faltered because he too did not check the base presuppositions of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah. He relied upon those presuppositions but came to different exegetical conclusions.
The latter Sunnis who adopted the Ahmadiyyah position as it was useful for debates: (Ahmed Deedat, Shabir Ally, Yusuf Ismail, Yusuf Buccas). However, there has to be more credit given to them because at the very least they found issue with the prevailing dominant Sunni position on the issue. Where they faltered was because they did questioned some of the assumptions of the Isrā’īliyyāt material that informed that tradition, but did not think to question it in total.
Certainly with all these groups as with any who do good their reward is with Allah (swt). There is no doubt about that. Those views may have been helpful in the past. We have a better way.
There is a very simple solution to all of this. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
When we do this. We can see that: Qur’an 4:153-157 is speaking to a group of Jews from the Children of Israel. No Romans or No Christians any where in the text.
We can also see that if we do a textual analysis of Ṣād-lām-bā’: ṣalb and ṣallab refer to a bone from the upper body to the waist [i.e., the backbone]
We will clearly see the above text: Qur’an 4:153-157 (especially given that it relates to Jewish claims) does not refer to a Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross)!
Think about it!
The Qur’an when dealing with the Christians speaks about the alleged deity of Jesus and his allegedly being the Son of Allah.
So what is the implication of the double negation (not killing or impailing) being directed towards a group of Jews from the Children of Israel?
You did not kill him.
You did not impale him. This is especially important because: For an impaled body is an affront to God
Look at this different translations of 1 Corinthians 1:23
This whole text Qur’an 4:153-157 has noting at all to do with Romans.
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus dying physically on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but not his soul!
We don’t have to get fancy schmancy and start talking about Allah creating Christianity because he made someone else look like Jesus and that someone else was killed on a Roman Patibulum (Cross).
We don’t have to get all fancy schmancy and start talking about Jesus was indeed put on a Roman Patibulum (Cross) but was taken down alive, presumably after he swooned, fainted or passed out.
“He is is going forth to be stoned.” وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ they did not kill him
He was hanged (impaled) on the even of the Passover. وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ they did not impale him.
Very simple very easy to understand. Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. No need to use the Isrā’īliyyāt to impose meaning upon the Qur’an.
Well, for those of you who want to believe in the crucifixion of Jesus or not believe he was crucified Knock yourself out! The idea of Roman Crucifixion via a Patibulum(Cross) is alien to the Qur’an. It neither affirms it nor negates it.
Final Thoughts.
What are the implications?
This deals a final nail in the coffin of the Ahmadiyyah/Qadiani movement. The information contained in this article is a death blow to their movement. Mirza Ghulam is evidently a false Prophet. He was not aware that Qur’an 4:153-157 is not speaking about the Romans.
We don’t have to deal with missionary claims that the Qur’an denies a supposed ‘historical fact’. It is simply irrelevant to the Qur’an.
That a purist approach to interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an makes the most sense.
We don’t have to follow the Salafi Manhaj, the Dawatus Salafiyyah, the Ahmadiyyah, the Nizari Ismail and whoever else believe in Isrā’īliyyāt material with no sanad, no connected chains going back to the claimed source material.
We don’t have to imagine the creator, Allah (swt) being unaware of the Jewish penal code. Astaghfirullah.
The Jews can no longer be called Christ Killers, because the Qur’an exonerates them of the charge.
“My Lord! Increase me in knowledge.” (Qur’an 20:114)
﷽
Most people, when they think of Turkey, do not think of it as a bastion of Shi’ism.
What makes obtaining numbers difficult in the case of Turkey is that they conduct census based only on religion, not on sects, races or ethnicity because according to the law, only religions are recognized, not sects. Additionally, another law states that everyone living in Turkey is considered a Turk.
Did you know that the Alevi Shi’a community is estimated to be between as low as 4 million and as high as 20 million of Turkey’s 80 million citizens?!
In fact, did you know that the bulwark of the Ottoman Military Machine, the famed Janissaries, were not Sunni Muslims?!
They cursed Muaviya, and they believed in the 14 infallibles, The Blessed Prophet (saw), Fatima (ra) and the 12 imams! They held that Ali was superior to the other companions. They were Shi’i; however not in the traditional sense. They were part of a Sufi order that was strongly influenced by Shi’i ideas and beliefs.
Bekta-Shism: A Sufi order that originated in Anatolia in the 13th century and named after their Saint: Haji Bektsah Veli.
Yeniçeriler gelsin!
Once that Shofar horn is blown, the only thing that awaits the opponent is swift and merciless death.
We don’t know if it was genius or mischievous of the Ottomans to send people who had heterodox views to be shock troops knowing they would take the brunt of the causalities. In a sense: canon fodder.
It must have been terrifying for Christian armies to see legions of soldiers basically dressed like Orthodox Christian Bishops coming to kill them! Just an unstoppable juggernaut chanting Allah, Allah, Allah, Allah has they charge forth.
Genius or diabolical would be a matter of perspective here.
Psychology is just as much a part of war as the weapons we wield!
The Daily Sabah says:
“Alevis, who make up the second-largest religious community in the country with approximately 20 million followers.”
“The number of Alevis is a matter of contention. Estimates from different sources range considerably – from around 10 percent to as much as 40 percent of the total population – but recent figures suggest Alevis number in the region of 20 to 25 million.”
Not surprising is that Sunni Muslims opposed to Shi’ism altogether would opt for polls or data that suggest that their population is not divided.
Recently, on X (Twitter), one Turkish Muslim we engaged with on the subject favoured KONDA Research, which suggests a very low 4% of the Turkish population to be Alevi Shi’a.
“Leaders of the Alevi Foundation estimate Alevi Muslims comprise 25 to 31 percent of the population. KONDA Research and Consultancy estimates the Alevi community at approximately 6 percent of the population, almost 5 million individuals. The Shia Jafari community estimates its members make up 4 percent of the population.”
Curious as to why that individual quoted KONDA research, we asked the individual what he thought about Tarhan Erdem’s view that Turkey was responsible for the genocide of Armenians, of which he offered no engagement on the question.
Turkey is allies with Shi’a Azerbaijan against Christian Armenia and Shi’a Iran.
Azerbaijan facts:
Religions:
Shi’i Muslim 97.3%, Christian 2.6%, other <0.1, unaffiliated <0.1 (2020 est.)
Why many Turks unfortunately feel sour about Palestine and Palestinians.
Why do many Turks unfortunately feel sour about Palestine and Palestinians?
We have had many religiously observant Turkish Muslim friends express to us that they felt betrayed by Palestine.
One Turkish brother shared with us a picture from X (Twitter) that says: “I stand with Armenia forever. From Palestine.
To which he replied: “This is what makes me angry. My people and my nation support them. Going against Israel and having economic problems. And these shameless people support our enemies! Brother, there are Turks who support Israel, but those Turks are not Muslims. But these Palestinians claim to be Muslim and oppressed but still support Armenia and China. I have not seen a single Palestinian or Pan-Arab or supports other Muslims. Those oppressed in Myanmar, China or elsewhere.”
A Palestinian had said in response to such sentiment:
“I’m sorry for the Turks. We need to kiss their feet because we lived with Armenians in our neighborhoods when we were kids. And they were good people. I’m so sorry, Brother Turk, you have every right to feel sour and not care about us being subject to genocide. Empires rise and fall. The Turks betrayed the Ottoman Empire way before any Arab did.”
As you can see, our brothers from Turkey and Palestine equally have valid points. My point to the Turkish brother is that the Palestinians as a whole should not be made to suffer because of the statements or actions of Mahmoud Abbas or those in the past.
This unfortunately is the sad state of our Muslim Ummah.
If we had a word of caution for my brothers in Turkey it would be this.
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
This seemingly innocuous Bekta-Shism state being carved out of Albania (with EU approval) might not be as innocent as one thinks.
Prima Quran 