المؤمنون كرجل واحد إن اشتكى رأسه تداعى له سائر الجسد بالحمى والسهر
ʾan-Nuʿmābin Bashīr (may Allāh be pleased with him) narrates that Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ said, “The believers are like a single body. When his head complains, the entire body mutually calls out to him with fever and lack of sleep.” [Muslim]
There are many striking parallels between the Crusades, almost a millennium ago, and the current situation in Palestine. To mention but a few:
- The geography
- The suppression of ʾIslām
- The role of scholars in reviving ʾIslām’s fortunes e.g. ʿAlī bin Ṭāhir as-Sulamī (may Allāh’s mercy be upon him)
- Treason of the Rawāfiḍ
- Treason of supposedly Sunnī rulers who aligned with the Crusaders against ʾIslām (Damascus princes then, Egypt and the Saʿūd royals today)
A comparison I wish to highlight today, is the contemporary Zionist siege of Ghazzah, vs. the Crusader siege of ʿAkkā (Acre).
Ever since its conquest by the Noble Companion of Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , Suraḥbīl bin Ḥasanah (may Allāh be pleased with him), ʿAkkā had played a distinguished role in the history of ʾIslām, not least because of its position as a strategic port in the north of Palestine.
Following his decisive victory at Ḥiṭṭīn (4th July 1187), the Crusaders surrendered ʿAkkā to Ṣalāḥuddīn. However, on 28th August 1189, King Guy surprise attacked ʿAkkā and laid siege to it. On the sea, the siege was supported by Sicily (Italians), Danes and Frisians (Dutch). On land, troops from France, Flanders (Belgium), Germany, Italy and Armenia added to the Crusader host.
Ṣalāḥuddīn arrived with the Muslim army on 4th October and unsuccessfully attempted to break the siege. The Muslims were repulsed by the combined armies of Europe and the Ṣulṭān had to settle for pressuring the Crusaders by laying siege to them in turn. His fleet did however manage to break through and supply the besieged Muslims with food on the 30th October.
Crusaders are further reinforced
Ṣalāḥuddīn desperately tried to save the Muslims for 8 months, but was unsuccessful. Worse was to come from July 1190, when the armies of England, France, Germany and Austria even further strengthened the Crusaders. The following year even more troops arrived with the kings of France (Philip) and England (Richard). On the 12th July 1191 ʿAkkā surrendered and the flags of England, France and Austria flew over the city.
On the 11th August 1191 Ṣālāḥuddīn sent the first of three payments to ransom the Muslim prisoners held by the Crusaders. This was not fast enough for Richard. 9 days later he ordered 3000 Muslims to be sent to a hill called Ayyadieh. This was deliberately in full view of the Muslim camp, and in particular, Ṣalāḥuddīn’s headquarters. The Crusaders then proceeded to cold-bloodedly massacre the defenceless Muslims. Of course, Muslims are always terrorists, the ruthless barbarians who kill us are always the good guys.
The horrified Muslim warriors could see this bloodbath with their own eyes, this was no CNN broadcast. What emotion swept them, I cannot pretend to describe. They had fought close to two years to rescue their brethren. They had spent that time away from family and seen comrades fall to the enemy. The enemy had given its word and now causally killed 3,000 Muslim men, women and children. The broken Muslims attempted a final rescue but never made it up the hill. Allāh knows best how many joined the 3,000 martyrs in Paradise.
Tears vs Tweets
History records that ever since his repentance from his youthful lifestyle, Ṣalāhuddīn prayed every compulsory prayer 5 times daily with congregation, never alone. In addition, he never missed a single Tahajjud (optional night prayer). This was his constant lifestyle on the battlefield and on the rare occasion when he went home. History also records that his tender nature could not bear to see his Christian enemy suffer, let alone his fellow Muslims. Beyond the sweet pious Ṣultān, I would not venture to know how many Muslims spent the night after the massacre shedding tears. However many they may have been, they were certainly less than the tweets and retweets we emotionlessly broadcast in a few minutes. Yet, however few they may have been, I would dare venture that each tear was well received in the Divine Court, along with each drop of blood shed at Ayyadieh.
So how do contemporary Muslims react?
Ghazzah, the southern Palestinian port, receives a different reaction from contemporary Muslims as opposed to the reaction of our forebears to ʿAkkā, the northern Palestinian port. For one, no Muslim army has as yet been despatched to rescue Ghazzah, despite her siege being way longer than that of ʿAkkā. Of course, the sophisticated Muslim will be able to educate me on the realities of modern politics and enlighten me why that would be a naïve endeavour. Yes, I am not sophisticated, but what is quite simple for me to understand is that ʿAkkā was besieged by those who openly disbelieved in Allāh and His Allāh’s Messenger صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , while Ghazzah is besieged by those who claim to be Muslim!
It is utterly hypocritical of the Muslim ʾUmmah at large, and activists in particular, to condemn and campaign against the Jewish blockade to the north, and quietly ignore their allies, the Egyptians, who besiege Ghazzah from the south.
Very easy to condemn the Zionist enemy, but no Muslim state, organisation or institute mention Sisi’s blockade, which is financed by the other Satanic regime of the region, the House of Saʿūd. How disgusted would the scholars who accompanied Ṣalāḥuddīn on his campaigns be, if they had known that the scholars of today either actively whip up support for these two murderous regimes, or maintain a “pious” silence for fear of losing financial backing or not being allowed an annual visa to Arabia. Their finances and annual pilgrimages take priority over speaking the truth and liberating the holy cities from regimes hostile to Islām. Perhaps I am wrong and there is great virtue and priority in multiple pilgrimages, when so many Muslims are starving, being killed and are besieged. Our contemporary scholars will be able to boast of their elevated position on the Day of Resurrection, and look down on Ṣalāhuddīn. Ṣalāḥuddīn, never knew a time to rest to even perform the compulsory pilgrimage, let alone annual voluntary pilgrimages. These scholars should also strongly rebuke the scholars who fought alongside Ṣalāḥuddīn, such as Qāḍī Bahāʾuddīn, or those who advised him, such as the Muḥaddith, ʾIbn ʿAsākir, for allowing him to fight for the sake of Islām and Muslim lives, instead of going on annual pilgrimages. Silly fellows!
Instead of rescuing Ghazzah, Egypt and her Saʿūdī paymasters actively besiege Ghazzah, to the extent of destroying Palestinian crops. To the eternal shame of Islām! There may have been other stinking traitors in the history of Islām, but I know not of anything as shameless as the Egypt-Saʿūd surrender. So enthusiastic as they are they to besiege Ghazzah, that Egypt joyfully evicts thousands of her own citizens along the Ghazzah border and allocates 79 square km of the lands of Islām to further tighten the noose around the Muslims of Ghazzah! For shame! And shame on the Muslims who remain quiet on this! Ghazzah vs ʿAkkā? There is no comparison.
You smugly declare that you do not buy dates from occupied Palestine, but do not care that your own Muslim governments stop food from Ghazzah.
You righteously tweet that unlike some Muslims, you do not buy a Jewish owned iced coffee powder, but do not care that your own Muslim governments stop medicine from Ghazzah.
Food? Medicine? A welfare worker told me that so many people are maimed in Ghazzah, they begged him to try and bring them adult diapers as they no longer have control over their bodies. Of course, your time-shares in Makkah and your shopping sprees there for the latest “Islamic” fashion and perfumes should always have priority.
Your forebears at ʿAkkā should not spit on you. You are not worthy of their of their spit.
A comment on my article on the abuse of Muslim woman
Assalamu ‘Alaykum wa Rahmatullah Hadhrat,
You addressed an excellent point, which concerns me for a long time now. Maybe you can help me further expand my thoughts on it. Whenever Muslims are faced with any type of criticism, we witness too often that the first reaction is complete denial. Rather than acknowledging that the global Muslim community are really plagued by serious issues. Often we hear in our communities defensive arguments like “When a Muslim does a crime Islam is blamed and when a Jew/Christian does the same his religion is not made an issue.” There definitely exist people in whos interest it is to portray Islam in a bad and evil way and install hatred for Islam and Muslims, but is this situation not (partially) also our fault? Muslims today after committing most heinous crimes, take the cheap letout of abusing Islam to defend themselves and their crime. This trend according to my limited observations is only common amongst lay Muslims – not Jews or Christians.
I wish we as a Muslim community could rise up to the challenge and tell the rest of the world, that we are able to sort out the black sheep amongst us ourselves. We are not in need of their false understanding of liberty and freedom to solve our own issues. Maulana, so what was the way the Ummah used to sort out the black sheep amongst them in the past? I really wish you can further elaborate on this point…
Wa ‘alaykumus salām wa Raḥmatullāhi wa Barakātuhu
Although the problem you refer to is collectively found in the global Muslim community, ultimately every collective problem has individual roots. If Muslims individually refuse to acknowledge their errors – which is the first step in repentance – such an attitude will obviously reflect on a collective basis. If one chooses to look at matters the other way around, and say that it is a top to down problem, that having leaders with such an attitude problem will reflect upon the community, I would reply that leaders do not come out of a void. The community produces the scholars and leaders. I have witnessed people of knowledge placing far greater emphasis on their home values and traditions (which might even be good values) to a far greater extent than what they place on the commands of Allāh and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم . Then there are issues of ego and human weakness which we all suffer from and which lead to the current discussion. Perhaps this quality of being honest when wrong is a quality Muslims should consider when choosing their leaders. Thus it still boils down to individuals choosing the right or wrong paths.
In response to your question on how Muslims acted in the past, the fact is that Muslims have acted correctly in this regard and also incorrectly. Obviously I cannot mention great details, so shall suffice with the examples of those whom we should follow.
Since the dawn of time
There have always been personalities and leaders who have erred. Some immediately admitted their errors; whilst others vilified and opposed those who spoke the truth. This is not just in our recent history, but since the dawn of time. The first to rebel against Allāh was Satan when he refused the command to bow to our father, Ādam عليه السلام . The door to repentance was not closed. Yet Satan showed an example which our leaders and community still follow – justify the wrong!
قال أنا خير منه خلقتني من نار وخلقته من طين
He said, “I am better than [Ādam]. You created me from fire and You created him from earth.” [al-A‘rāf]
It is our father, Ādam عليه السلام who showed us the correct example of what to do when we commit a mistake. We admit it!!!
قالا ربنا ظلمنا أنفسنا وإن لم تغفر لنا وترحمنا لنكونن من الخاسرين
[Ādam and his wife] said, “O our Cherishing-Lord! We have certainly wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy upon us, we shall surely be amongst the losers.” [al-A‘rāf]
Which example do the Muslims follow? Self-justification or admission of wrong?
(A slight diversion – neither the Qurān nor even the Christian scriptures mention what Ādam عليه السلام ate. The myth of the apple was popularised in European art. This is just another example of our mental subservience).
For the Qurān to give us a single example should suffice. Yet the point is emphasised not just in commands to repent, but through several examples of the pure Prophets. These elevated personalities committed no sin. Yet even upon uttering a word or acting in a way less to their station, they immediately turned to Allāh in repentance. For example, Nūḥ عليه السلام interceding for his disbeliever son when all the disbelievers had been condemned and Yūnus عليه السلام leaving the people of Nineveh without explicit instruction from Allāh.
The greatest Prophet
The biography of Muḥammad صلى الله عليه و سلم shows an example to the Muslims of a leader who is not shy to declare that his decision might not have been the best. For example, he was advised that there was a better placement for the Muslim camp at Badr than what he had commanded. Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم agreed and changed his decision. Similarly his inviting the chiefs of Quraysh to Islām, when an ordinary Muslim sought his attention was no wrong deed, but ‘Abdullāh bin Umm Maktūm رضى الله عنه had far greater status in the sight of Allāh and Allāh revealed ‘Abasa.
It is only the arrogant, who do not admit to mistakes, that will think that these incidents detract from the status of Muḥammad صلى الله عليه و سلم . They are blind to the fact that his humility in admitting when there was a better option to his first choice, only adds to his status and to him being the perfect paragon for all mankind.
He also taught us to help others when wrong.
عن أنس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ” انصر أخاك ظالما أو مظلوما ” . قيل : يا رسول الله ، هذا نصرته مظلوما ، فكيف أنصره ظالما؟ قال : ” تمنعه من الظلم ، فذاك نصرك إياه “
Allāh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “Help your brother whether he is the oppressor or the oppressed.”
“O Messenger of Allāh,” someone asked, “He is to be helped when oppressed, but how do I help him when he is an oppressor?”
He replied, “Prevent him from oppression. That indeed is your help to him.” [al-Bukhārī]
‘Umar رضى الله عنه commanded that a woman be stoned to death and ‘Alī رضى الله عنه advised him that that decision was wrong. ‘Umar رضى الله عنه did not react the way we do, but remarked, “If not for ‘Alī, ‘Umar would surely have been destroyed.” This incident does not prove him a weak leader as the Rawāfiḍ would like us to believe, but shows him to be a human leader, capable of erring, but also humble enough to rectify himself as per the example he learnt from his master صلى الله عليه و سلم . Note also his use of the word, “destroyed.” He openly admitted that his hereafter could have been destroyed, and his appreciation to another Muslim who pointed out his error.
I do not know of any similar incident in history to the following incident of Mu‘āwiyah رضى الله عنه . During the final days of a truce with the Byzantines, he began advancing towards their territory with the intention of attacking as soon as the truce expired. Enemy territory was thus captured. An old man rebuked him that the march, even without attacking troops, was a violation of the word of the Muslims. Mu‘āwiyah رضى الله عنه immediately admitted his error in interpretation and ordered a withdrawal, abandoning all the territory which had been acquired.
A Rāfiḍī once “cursed” me, “You will be resurrected in the company of ‘Uthmān and Mu‘āwiyah.” I ask every reader to say Āmīn to that “curse”.
I do not see a change happening in the near future to the arrogant leadership Muslims live under. What we can do is adopt the attitude taught in the Qurān and Sunnah and which the pious inculcated in their lives.
- The Rāfidā Mahdi will rule with the Law of David.
- He will speak Hebrew.
- His reign will initiate a massacre of Arabs and Sunnis.
- He will demolish al-Masjid an-Nabawi and revere Karbala instead.
- They joined hands with the Crusaders against Islām.
- Their plots drew in the Mongols who massacred hundreds of thousands of Sunnis in Baghdad whilst sparing the Rawaafid. [A study comparing contemporary Baghdad might be in order].
- Persia was majority Sunni (Shaafi’ee). The Rawāfiḍ enforced conversion at the point of the sword in 1502. This is why the borders, where the army’s reach was weaker, are still Sunni. Again , the hundreds of thousands of Sunnis butchered meant nothing to them.
- To this day, Sunnī Masājid are demolished in Iran, whilst Jews are accorded full respect. “Khomeini” was one of the greatest deceptions of the past half century. A good starting point to discover the truth would be this link.
- Many more events expose the Rawāfiḍ. It should also be mentioned that if one examines the ancestry of the “Young Turks” whose coup was directly designed to destroy the Ottoman Empire and hand over Palestine to the Zionists, everyone of them will be found to be descended from the elder brothers of the Rawāfiḍ, the Jews.