Religions, Politics and Human "Nature" In the Greater Middle East

[Hervé]

The difference between Islam and clericalism in the Greater Middle East

by Thierry Meyssan

Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 28 June 2017

français Español Türkçe русский

A politician may be an atheist, an agnostic or a believer. The fact that he pretends to serve God does not make his political party a Church. © Voltaire Network

It is fashionable in the West to talk about the "compatibility of Islam and democracy" or "Islam and secularism". These issues suggest that by nature Islam is clerical, and therefore not a religion, but a political current. Consequently, the most "radical" Muslims are terrorists and vice versa. And yet, for the last month, the Greater Middle East, with its mostly Muslim population, is dividing between the faithful followers of this religion and the partisans of a political system which is manipulating them.

Some of our our readers misunderstood a previous chronicle concerning the evolution of the Muslim world. I shall therefore clear up the questions concerning Islam before describing as precisely as possible its current situation.

In the first place, if you have a clear-cut idea about Islam, this means that you know only one of its forms, since the religion differs widely between Morocco and Xinjiang. Whether on the liturgical or the legal level, there is hardly any resemblance between the Islam of Sharjah and the Islam of Java.

This religion may be approached by a literal reading of the Quran, or by a contextualised reading, or even by an appraisal of the authenticity of the current Quranic text.

During the first four centuries of Islam, all Muslims agreed on the necessity of interpreting the Quran, which led to the elaboration of four distinct legal systems (Hanafite, Malekite, Shafiite and Hanbalite), depending on the local culture. But at the end of the 10th century, noting the expansion of this religion and fearing that it would lead to division, the Sunni caliph forbade further interpretation. Only the Shiites continued their investigations. Since then, Islam has adapted as best it could to the demands of its time.

Despite appearances, if one refuses to interpret the text, it cannot be understood as it was first written, but only through the prism of one's own culture. Aware that Mahommet had lived in Arabia, the Saudis considered as given that they would spontaneously be able to understand the meaning of the Quran, as if their society and their language had not evolved for 1,400 years. For them, as in the 18th century for Mohammed ben Abdel Wahhab, Mahommet had consolidated the values of nomadic tribalism. These are the "Wahhabites". For example, the Quran condemns idols - thus the Wahhabites destroy statues of the antique gods, which Mahommet never did, but which corresponds to their Bedouin culture. Similarly, in the 8th century, the Byzantine Christians had to deal with the Saudi "iconoclasts" who destroyed, in the name of Christ, the decorations of the churches.

Nomadic tribalism does not even recognise the notion of History. The Wahhabites destroyed the house of the prophet in Mecca, because it had become a site of pilgrimage, and thus, according to them, a place of idolatry. But they did not stop there. Over the last few years, they have destroyed all of the magnificent ancient city of Mecca, since they recognise no cultural interest in what they see as heaps of old stones.

If one refers to the literal reading, one is a "fundamentalist", and so, generally, tries to live like the companions of the prophet. In that case, one is known as a "Salafist", because one is trying to live like the holy ancestors (the "Salafs"). This movement, born in 19th century Egypt, was developed in reaction to Wahhabism, and was extremely liberal. However it has since become very repressive.

For example, most of today's Salafists forbid the consumption of alcohol, but some sheikhs, on the contrary, affirm that it is lawful to drink in moderation. All of them draw their arguments from the Quran, which contains three apparently contradictory passages on the subject.

All religions are confronted with this impossibility of reproducing a passage that no-one can reconstitute. For example, in the 20th century, the Christian charismatic movement gave rise to conflicting understanding of sexuality, according to whether they based their case directly on the Gospels, or on the morality of Paul's epistles.

Over the last few years, under the influence of the work done by the European exegetes concerning the writing of the biblical texts, a few authors question the authenticity of the Quranic texts
.
In the first place, in order to affirm his authority, the caliph of Damascus demanded the collation of the texts attributed to Mahommet, from which he constituted the Quran, and then ordered the burning of all the other anthologies. However, the word "Mahommet" does not indicate a specific person, it is a title awarded to wise men. It is therefore possible that the Quran reproduces the words of several prophets, which seems to be corroborated by the presence of different literary styles in the canonical texts. Archaeologists have discovered Quranic texts which are anterior to the canonical version. There are differences, sometimes significative, between these texts written with distinct alphabets. Indeed, the canonical Quran was written with a simplified alphabet which was only completed later, during the 8th century. This transcription is in itself an interpretation, and it is possible that it was sometimes mistaken.

Evidently, certain suras of the Quran reproduce older texts used by the Christians of the region. They were not written in Arabic, but in Aramaic, and certain original words have been conserved in the definitive text. Their contemporary reading is the object of numerous misunderstandings. Thus - with apologies to the kamikazes of Daesh, who hope for their reward in Paradise - the word "houri" means "white grapes", and not "wide-eyed virgins".

So far, things seem simple enough - Islam is the religion of the Quran. However, the tradition gives almost equal importance to the golden legend of the prophet, the Hadiths. These are works written often hundreds of years later by people who could not have witnessed the facts they present. These assertions are far more numerous than could occur in the space of a single lifetime. They illustrate very diverse and opposing opinions. Some of them display an appalling level of intellect and could serve to justify anything at all. The unwarranted credit accorded to these fantastical writings has profoundly deformed the transmission of the Quranic message.

In pratice, all these discussions mask another, essential - if religion is what attempts to link mankind to God, it is obviously the source of all chicanery. Indeed, how can we pretend to know God if He is of a radically different and superior nature than our own? And, even supposing that He actually expressed Himself through the prophets, how can we pretend to understand what He told us? We should note that from this perspective, the question of the existence of God - that is to say a conscience superior to our own - has no meaning. This is, for example, the idea supported by the Christian saints Gregory of Nazianzus or Francis of Assisi.

Still from this perspective, people who attempt to approach God - that is, not to apply His Law, but to help the evolution of human nature to make it more conscious - have a tendency to share their experience and thus to found churches.In order to function, these churches have a tendency to form permanent staff, priests or imams. In Christianity, this function only appeared as from the 3rd century - several generations after the death of Jesus. In all religions, these clerics wind up enjoying an intermediary status between the lay community and God. But none of the founders of the great religions ever created a church or formed a clergy.

Just as Europe experienced a massive step backward with the great invasions which destroyed the Roman Empire (the Huns and the Goths), so the Muslim world also experienced a step backward with the Mongol invasions (Genghis Khan and Timur). While this trauma lasted only three centuries in Europe, it was artificially prolonged in the Arab world by the Ottoman and European colonisations. Although that had nothing to do with the history of Christianity, nor that of Islam, there are enough clerics who pretend that these steps backward are the consequences of a state of sin which has become generalised. In order to reclaim the golden age, we only have to follow their teaching, and not to rebuild.

Inexorably, the clerics became involved in politics, and aspired to impose their vision of things in the name of God. The result is a rivalry between the clergy and the lay community. So, in France, once the traumatism of the great invasion was over, and although it existed by "divine right", the secular royalty entered into conflict with the clerical papacy. In the Arab world, which is a minority within the Muslim world, this conflict blew up with decolonisation and the independence movements. The nationalist leaders (Nasser, Ben Barka) found themselves in conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood. During the Cold War, the former were supported by the Soviets and the latter by NATO. The dissolution of the USSR weakened the nationalist camp and led to a wave of Islamism. Furthermore, the "Arab Spring" was a NATO operation intended to definitively eradicate the nationalists to the profit of the Muslim Brotherhood. The crowds who supported these movements were in no way attempting to install democracies. On the contrary, they were persuaded that by putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power, they would be creating an ideal society and a new Islamic golden age. They have changed their minds since then.

"I am Daesh" The political party of the Muslim Brotherhood was reconstituted in 1951 by the British secret services on the ruins of Hassan el-Banna’s organisation of the same name. It is the matrix of terrorism in the Muslim world, having formed every one of the heads of the terrorist organisations, from Oussama Ben Laden to Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi. The political party and its armed organisations work in collaboration with the imperialist powers. There is nothing religious about it.

It is important to understand that the Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadist organisations, Al-Qaïda and Daesh, are not radicalised Muslims as the West pretends. These are political and not religious movements. The fact that they quote passages from the Quran all day long does not make them religious. They are no more than clerics.

The reaction against the "Arab Spring" began in June 2013 in Egypt, where 33 million citizens demonstrated for five days against the dictatorship of Brother Mohamed Morsi and for the re-establishment of constitutional order by the army. Every political party - without exception - and all the religious organisations united around the army against the Muslim Brotherhood, in other words for secularism and against clericalism. In the months that followed, the head of the armies, General Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, who harboured the ambition of being elected President, transmitted to Saudi Arabia documents which had been seized at the headquarters of the Brotherhood. They attested to the fact that certain members of the Brotherhood were preparing the overthrow of the Seouds, from Qatar. Riyadh's reaction was immediate - the arrest of several members of the Brotherhood in Arabia, attacks in Qatar and unconditional support for the election of General al-Sissi.

The situation of the Seouds was all the more complicated in that -

• not all of the Brotherhood was implicated in the plot;
• since 1961, they have been the sponsors of the Brotherhood via the Muslim World League;
• and that their régime was based on Wahhabism, and therefore clerical, like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Seouds gave the Nayefs free reign to repress the putschists and re-establish order. They acted as they had in 1990 during the Sururist revolt. At the time, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Surur, had managed to convince the Saudi Wahhabists to take power. It took five years to put down the rebellion [1].

This was the situation which blew up again when, in May 2017, President Donald Trump came to Riyadh to demand that the Muslim powers end their association with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Seouds decided this time not only to split with the Brotherhood, but also to abandon political Islam. This must be understood - the fact of adopting a secular position in no way changes the fact of being fundamentalist, Salafist. The monarchy of King Salman found itself in the same position as the French monarchy of Philippe le Bel. In order to accompany this decisive evolution, the Seoud family council accepted, by 31 voices to 4, to prepare the abdication of King Salman, to put an end to the Adelphic rule for succession to the throne, to skip two generations and designate Prince Mohammed ben Salman as their next king.

From their side, Qatar and the Brotherhood immediately contacted Turkey and Pakistan. Above all, they allied themselves with Iran, despite the fact that they are still fighting the Revolutionary Guard on the battlefields of Syria and Yemen, and the government of Sheikh Rohani shares their clerical conception of Islam.

This about-face by Iran demonstrates the opposition between its political power and its military power. It is based on the pact concluded between Hassan el-Banna, the founder of the original Muslim Brotherhood, and the young Ayatollah Khomeiny. This was an agreement according to which the Brotherhood would not start a religious war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, an agreement which was smashed by Daesh. Above all, it was based on the ambiguities of the Revolution of 1979, at once an anti-imperialist secular movement and a search for clerical identity, and on the evolution of the function of the Guide Ali Khamenei, at once leader of the world Revolution and local politician charged with maintaining the balance between the factions.

Considering the thirteen stipulations transmitted by Saudi Arabia and Egypt to Qatar, it is unlikely that the conflict between the lay community and the clerics will be resolved quickly. The question is whether the Western powers will understand what is actually playing out in the "Greater Middle East". They are the ones who presented President Ahmadinejad as a cleric; they according to whom Brother Morsi did not rig his election and was overthrown by a coup d’état; they who pretend that Libya and Syria were not attacked from the exterior but were the theatre of a democratic revolution. If you keep lying to yourself, you lose contact with reality.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation: Pete Kimberley

[Hervé]

After the Prophet

The Saker, January 30, 2016 127 Comments


Foreword by the Saker:

It is a real pleasure for me to submit to you a most interesting article about the history of Islam in general, and about a form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia which is rarely discussed or even mentioned. Being a Christian myself, I take no position on any of the view presented in this article other than welcoming an informed discussion. What I am absolutely sure of, however, is that the AngloZionists are deliberately trying to create a “clash of civilizations” and that they are trying to present Islam as a monolithic threat to “the western world”, the “Christian West”, “freedom and democracy”, etc. etc. etc. Oh sure, there is a very real threat out there: the type of Wahabi Takfirism which Daesh embodies nowadays. But Daesh is, first and foremost, a mortal threat to all other forms of Islam and this is why treating all of Islam as a monolithic threat is just about the dumbest thing we – westerners or Christians – could do. Intelligent choices can only come from a good understanding of the nature of the reality surrounding us. This is why understanding Islam as much as we can ought to be a goal for each one of us. I am deeply grateful to Hamza Haidar for allowing us a glimpsed into a world that most of us know little about.

The Saker

——-
After the Prophet

by Hamza Haidar


Who I am: A student of Islam

I am an ordinary Muslim (albeit a weak one at that). I am not a religious scholar. I am not a scholar of any type. I live in the West and am originally from Egypt.

Being Egyptian by birth, you can say that I grew up a Sunni although I really was just brought up as simply a Muslim, yet of course a lot of the history we were taught and took for granted to be correct was according to the Sunni view.

About 5 years ago I discovered the Ahlul Bayt school of thought. Ahlul Bayt literally means the family of the Household (i.e. the Prophet’s Household). The Shia school of thought (or Mazhab) is the Ahlul Bayt school of thought. Shia literally means “followers of or supporters of”.

I came to the Shia view intuitively, through reflection on the condition of the Muslim world. I recall wondering why, for a people that have the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet from amongst them, why the Muslim world is in the backward, incompetent, destructive and enslaved condition that they are in. This bothered me greatly.

As a result, I came to the conclusion that something must have gone wrong. Then I started researching what happened after the Prophet departed from this world. I came to the conclusion, which to me seemed as clear as the sun, that the Muslim world and the organized Religion must have been hijacked after the Prophet.

Then the Shia school of thought very clearly and succinctly explained this. Whilst I whole heartedly subscribe to the views and knowledge of history of the Shia’s, I nevertheless am still just a Muslim. Albeit a Muslim who have had his view of history corrected. This is the crucial point to highlight, the difference between Sunni and Shia is really one of knowledge of, or rather acknowledgement of, history.

Why am I writing this:
Through following the wonderful articles on the Saker’s blog, it became clear to me that whilst the audience / readers of this wonderful blog were open minded, free and intellectual folks, searching for truth in a world of deceitful narratives, it nevertheless dawned on me that their understanding of Islam was in need of development.

Especially upon seeing the Saker’s great interview with Sheikh Imran Hossein I realised from the questions asked to Sheikh Imran Hossein about things like punishment for Apostasy in Islam for example, that non-Muslims actually believed that these so called punishments were somehow related to Islam or the Holy Quran.

Of course Sheikh Imran Hossein addressed all these questions and addressed them very well and set the record straight. The Sheikh’s view is not controversial nor unique; it is the view of most Muslims.

However, I also felt that there was a need to explain where these misconceptions about Islam came from in the first place and what the scholars of Islam really think. Where did these Sunni “Hadiths” that very clearly contradict the Quran come from?

The key message is that most Muslims (excluding Wahhabi’s) understand that a lot of the Hadiths are wrong – most Muslims understand that there is no worldly punishment for Apostasy for example.

Most Muslims understand that there is no room for “Takfir” or the labeling of others as Kaffir in Islam (even if you’re referring to a self-confessed Atheist).

It is absolutely un-Islamic to label others as “Kaffir” or “unbelievers”, as Islam compels the sincere Muslim to look at him/herself and persist in their own self struggle (the highest form of Jihad – Jihad literally means struggle) to better themselves. The “unbeliever” for example may be a far better person than the Muslim labeling him a Kaffir and may have been sincere in searching for truth during their lifetime and may thus be more worthy of Heaven than the Muslim labeling them a Kaffir who might not be upholding the universal values that form the basis of the Quran.

Most Muslims understand that there is no “stoning” in Islam and that this was a Jewish practice that was practiced by the Arab Jews that lived in Arabia in the Prophet’s time.

Our Christian brothers and sisters would also know that this was a Jewish practice as the Holy Bible very clearly tells us so. I even recall in the Book of Leviticus (Old Testament) that the punishment for a Priest’s/Rabbi’s daughter that commits adultery is to be burnt to death. Does this have anything to do with real Judaism? Does it have anything to do with the real message of Moses and all the Prophets that came down to the Jews? The penalty for the various types of adultery in the various books in Old Testament (and certain books of the New Testament) seems to be death.

Certainly, this is absolutely not the case in the Quran though. There is nowhere in the Quran that stipulates the death penalty for adultery.

Most Muslims also understand that Aggression is strictly forbidden, no matter the reason.

Definitions
Sunni supposedly means followers of the Sunnah (or the Prophet’s way/tradition). It was a name that was created after the Prophet for political reasons.

Very simply put, the main difference of Sunni versus Shia is as follows:

• Sunni’s are the followers of (or Shia’s of) the so called Companions of the Prophet.

• Shia’s are the followers of (or Shia’s of) the Prophet’s House Hold.

• Salafi – a branch within Sunni’s – the Salaf are the first community of Muslims – i.e. those who lived in the days of the Prophet – of course that is the proper name – although today the Salafi’s as a group are more influenced by Wahhabism. So, in theory those that claim to be Salafi’s, pretend to emulate the first community of Muslims. In practice today, the name is used interchangeably with Wahhabi due to the infiltration of the Wahhabi views into the Salafi line of thought, therefore making Salafism and Wahhabism one and the same.

• Wahhabi – is a (colonial) political ideology created recently – having nothing to do with Islam – very much the same as Zionism is a political ideology that has nothing to do with Judaism

• Hadiths are the supposed sayings of the Prophet. There are literally many thousands of these. A lot are correct but an overwhelming majority are fabricated. Sunni’s have their Hadiths and Shia’s have their Hadiths – although there are many that are in common and agreed to be correct by both schools of thought

• The Sunni Hadiths are largely traced back to the Companions, whereas the Shia Hadiths are largely traced back to the Prophet’s House Hold

Sheikh Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki
Sheikh Hassan is a great scholar and sheikh who resides in Saudi Arabia.

He was born into the Salafi / Hanbali school of thought. He nevertheless does not share the view of Salafi’s and does not believe in associating any other name with Islam, i.e. Whether Sunni or Shia as he rightly claims that in the Quran, the only proper name is Muslim.

He certainly does not share the Salafi line of thought and fights through impeccable wisdom and articulate debating techniques, what he describes as the extremism of Salafism.

He is a scholar of the Quran and the Hadiths. He has spent his past 25 years studying the Quran and the Hadiths.

When asked whether he is a Sunni or Shia, his answer is that if what you mean by “Sunni” is today’s definition of Sunni, then I am not a Sunni – as today’s definition is a sectarian based definition having nothing to do with the real meaning of the word. If by Sunni you mean really a follower of the Prophet’s tradition, then I am a Sunni. As to whether I am a Shia, his answer is that if what you mean am I a follower of the Prophet and his House Hold, then I am a Shia.

Of course he says that Sunnis would declare themselves followers of the Prophet’s tradition but he very clearly makes his point that no, they are followers of the man-made sect that pretends to be followers of the Prophet’s tradition.

Scholars of Islam who know Sheikh Hassan describe him as a person whose great efforts within Saudi Arabia are trying to save Islam and especially the Salafi/Wahhabi influenced youths, to try to bring them back to the real Quranic teachings, rather than the sectarian based / false-Hadith based teachings.

Hassan Bin Farhan’s view (which is shared by many Sunni scholars) is that indeed the Muslim world was hijacked after the Prophet by the very enemies of the Prophet who fought the Prophet all his life.

That is the tribe of Quraysh, under the leadership of Abu Sufyan (the Umayyad’s), the Prophet’s arch enemy, who conveniently declared himself a Muslim only at the 11th hour when the Muslims came in to Mecca victorious.

This group of people who declared themselves Muslims when Mecca was taken by the Prophet and his followers are called Al Tulaqaa – there was 2,000 of them. This is not dissimilar to the Khazars who accepted Judaism for political convenience and for subversion from within.

It should be noted that when the Quraysh tribe was fighting the Prophet, his message and his followers in the early days of Islam, Abu Sufyan’s wife, Hend, had the Prophet’s uncle Hamza (Peace be Upon Him) killed in the battle of Uhud and then cut him up and ate his liver.

This is worth noting as it largely explains the “symbolism” behind the liver eating Wahhabi’s/Takfiri’s in Syria. There was nothing coincidental about the liver eating ways of the Wahhabi Takfiri’s, in my humble view, it was deliberately designed to repeat history through powerful images. I can just imagine the Hollywood hand at play here in alliance with the intelligence services handlers of these zombified Takfiri tools.

That’s why the modern day Takfiri’s/Wahhabi’s are referred to as Sufyani’s by some Shia’s.

In spite of all this enmity and hatred towards the Prophet and his followers, the Prophet had mercy on Abu Sufyan and all of the Tulaqaa – and made sure that no harm happened to him when the Muslims came into Mecca finally.

Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki has been very active in debating Wahhabi’s, Salafi’s, Sunni’s and has appeared on many tv shows for these debates.

The Wahhabi’s are furious with him and do not know how to debate him as he uses the Quran to expose their misguided and extreme ways. He has even been kicked off a tv show as one of the leading Wahhabist clerics was infuriated by his own inability to address Sheikh Hassan’s questions.

He basically destroys their arguments so much through use of the Quran that their only resort is to curse him and avoid answering his questions and throw barrage of personal attacks. It is a delight to watch.

He also has his own website (in Arabic).

He has been instrumental in destroying the Wahhabi arguments of hate and intolerance by simply referring to the Quran.

Some have called him a follower of Quranic Islam, others have called him a Shia, and others have labelled him an unbeliever. He refers to himself as simply a Muslim.

His point is that Muslims should be followers of, or Shia’s of, the Quran – rather than the Hadiths or this camp or the other. Of course he also makes his point that to follow the House Hold of the Prophet is to follow the Prophet and the Quran as they (the House Hold) were not corrupted and are the beacon to guide the Muslim world and the rightful leaders to be followed.

In one of his famous appearances, he declares his congratulations to the Shia’s, for they are truly the followers of the Prophet and that in spite of centuries of oppression, they maintained their love and following for the House Hold.

He has paid a heavy price for his views in the land where such views could have you jailed or beheaded (Takfiri style).

One only has to see how any dissent is brutally suppressed in this state whose rulers have given their family name to this holiest of lands to all Muslims, to understand the perils that face someone like Sheikh Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki.

So what does Sheikh Hassan say?

• The Muslim world was indeed hijacked by the enemies of Islam immediately after the Prophet, which is when the gradual corruption started (during the first 3 so called Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, may God forgive them and have mercy on them)

• The Umayyad’s took over officially during the 3rd Caliph who was an Umayyad. Prior to that they had unofficial takeover via their fierce lobbying to ensure the deviation from the Prophet’s governance model

• This corruption grew exponentially especially by the time of the 5th Caliph (Muwiya – the son of the Prophet’s arch enemy, Abu Sufyan) and then Muwaiya’s son Yazid – at which point Imam Hussein, the Prophet’s grandson (and 3rd Imam) launched his revolution to save the real Islam

• This hijacking of organized religion resulted in the creation of many thousands of “fabricated” Hadiths that were falsely attributed to the Prophet for political reasons

• That the organized religion of Islam is different to the Prophet’s Islam, which is why Sheikh Hassan advocates the return to the Quranic Islam as opposed to the man-made sectarian (or Hadiths-based) Islam

• That the rulers of the Muslim world deliberately overlooked the supreme values/commands of the Quran, like Justice, Truth, Intellect, Human Rights, Equality, Non-Aggression, Freedom of Religion, Gnosis, Piety, Thankfulness etc.… and made the people focus only on the acts of worship, he describes this as turning the pyramid upside down – as the acts of worship are only for the ultimate purpose of upholding these supreme values or principles

• That sectarian (or Hadith-based) Islam is not the Prophet’s Islam

• That the definition of Sunni has nothing to do with following the Prophet’s way, rather, it is about following the artificial, man-made sect

• That the Shia’s are truly the followers of the Prophet (that’s not to say that Sunni’s are not)

• That the Shia view of history is indeed the accurate view of history

• That the mainstream Muslims were led down the path of following authority of the power of the time

• That the Shia Muslims did not fall in that trap as they followed the rightful heirs of the Prophet (i.e. his Household / offspring – the Imams) as their guides to real Islam

• That the false Sunni Hadiths were introduced by the rulers as a means for oppression to control the masses and to punish whoever opposed their rule – he mentions how the handful of crimes that had physical punishment (he identifies 5) were increased to 100+ under the various Caliphs (even as early as the second Caliph, Umar) in contradiction to the Quran

• He very clearly mentions that things like stoning had absolutely no basis in Islam and were in fact a Jewish practice which was practiced by Jews in Arabia during the Prophet’s time

• That the methods of authentication for the validity of Sunni Hadiths is flawed, for example, if you know someone is a proven liar/corrupt person or a hater of the Prophet and his family, you surely would not believe him as a valid source of narration for something that the Prophet allegedly said

• That a very large percentage of Hadiths are indeed fabrications (he says you can assume up to 90% of them are fabricated)

• That the Prophet very clearly had a governance model that was divinely revealed to him for the governance of the Muslim world after his departure, which he very clearly informed his people of – and this is also present in Sunni books such as Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

• That the leaders or companions of the Prophet deliberately deviated from the path i.e. neglected the will of the Prophet

• That this abandonment of the Prophet’s will and Divinely decreed governance model is the root cause of all the turmoil in the Muslim world as it made the majority of Muslims easily exploited by their corrupt leaders

• That the Quran very clearly said in Surat (Chapter) Yaseen, that the truth was revealed to them, yet the majority will not believe (which was specifically addressed to the people of Quraysh) – yet Hadiths books would have us believe that they all accepted Islam, so Sheikh Hassan’s question to Wahhabi’s and Muslims in general is, who do you believe, Allah or Bukhari (compiler of a lot of Hadiths)?

• That the Quran very clearly mentions that it will be deserted by the Prophet’s Muslims

• That this desertion is in fact already happening since a lot of Muslims refer back to Hadiths before the Quran – when the only way is to refer to the Quran and to only accept hadiths that are in agreement with the Quran and dismiss as false, any Hadiths that contradict the Quran

• That Muslims should get to know Islam properly before calling others to explore it

• That non-Muslims are not un-believers (of course Jews, Christians and Muslims are all people of the book)

• That even people that are called Atheists cannot be regarded as un-believers (Kaffirs) but rather, simply people, because in his definition a non-believer (Kaffir) is someone who knows the truth but then deliberately through arrogance tries to hide it or suppress it (for example someone who witnessed the miracles of Jesus yet still went against Jesus, someone who witnessed the miracles of Moses yet still went against Moses, someone who witnessed the miracles of Muhammad yet still went against Muhammad) – in that sense he mentions that Muslims – especially some of the early companions and rulers have a lot in common with this definition as they have no excuse for their betrayal

• He says, if someone is a good person who upholds the universal values of Justice, Truth, Equality, Kindness to fellow man etc…but does not find the truth in his lifetime (whatever one’s definition of truth is), he cannot be a classified a non-believer, as he will be judged by his actions against these universal principles

• That many of the so called conquests of Islam were for empire, for example the unholy conquest of the Holy City of Constantinople and had nothing to do with Islam which very clearly forbids aggression for any reason and against anyone and only permits fighting for self defense or for defense of oppressed peoples.

The example of that noble Muslim (Crimean Tatar) Imam who was interviewed (and which was uploaded on the Saker blog) fighting in the trenches with his Orthodox Christian brothers from Donbass against the oppression of the Ukro-Fascists is a very clear example of fighting for the oppressed.

So what happened and how?
According to the Shiekh and also according to many Sunni scholars (and all Shia’s) including various Sunni scholars from the Al Azhar in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world, the problem traces its roots to the infamous event of “Saqifa” (and even earlier – on the Prophet’s final moments on his bed where he tried to write down his will yet was denied so by his companions some of whom accused him of hallucinating due to his illness). The Saqifa event is where the so called companions of the Prophet gathered immediately after his departure from this world and very quickly and haphazardly chose a so called successor to rule the Muslim world contrary to the Prophetic and divine instruction.

This meeting was attended by approximately 20 people and excluded the very person that the Prophet had very clearly identified as his successor (Imam Ali, who was burying the Prophet with his wife, the Prophet’s daughter, our Lady Fatima Al Zahraa, Peace be Upon Her).

The Prophet had clearly made his successor known in various instances, the most prominent of which was the instance of the Prophet’s farewell pilgrimage (or final pilgrimage to Mecca) – this is the event of al Ghadeer Khum (which is also well documented in Sunni books and accepted as “genuine” by all Sunni scholars).

The Prophet had also very clearly said that “for whomever I am his master, this Ali, is also his master, may God support those that support Ali and fight those who fight Ali”.

The Prophet had also very clearly said that “Ali to me is like Aaron to Moses, except that there will be no Prophet after me”. The Quran tells us that upon Moses’s request, God made Aaron (Moses’s brother) a Prophet also, to support Moses in his message.

Yet, it was decided to go against the will of the Prophet. The lobbying was led by Abu Sufyan and the aim was to ensure the rule of the Umma moved away from the Prophet’s House Hold.

The Sheikh explains that as a result of these corrupt rulers (the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties) who hijacked the religion, the highest principles of the Quran (Justice, Truth, Non-aggression, Intellect, Human rights, Equality, Freedom of religion) were neglected and the focus was reduced to simply the acts of worship, to ensure people were reduced to simply worshipping without being involved in or concerning themselves with matters of the Umma (or Muslim Community).

Also, he confirms that Hadiths were introduced by these rulers that absolutely go against the very principles of the Quran (i.e. killing of apostates – while the Quran very clearly articulates that there’s no compulsion in religion).

Sheikh Hassan reminds Muslims that “do you not think?” is mentioned in the Holy Quran more times than “do you not believe?”. Yet there’s nothing in any of the Sunni Hadith books that talk about intellect.

Similarly, Justice and Non-Aggression is repeatedly mentioned in the Quran as supreme values/principles, yet the so called Sunni Hadiths do not have any sections dealing with Justice.

The companions were a mixed bag consisting of:

• Real followers of and supporters of the Prophet

• Hypocrites

• Non-believers

Shia’s differentiate between the righteous companions and the hypocrite companions and the non-believing companions, yet Sunni’s generally have been taught to not do so.

Wahhabi’s
Wahhabism was a recent creation which was introduced by Abdel Wahhab in conjunction with the House of Saud (who were chosen to rule the Holy lands by none other the English) to give some sort of religious facade to otherwise barbaric folks. Hence they felt the need to show that they are the protectors of Islam by being the most extreme. Wahhab was inspired by Ibn Taymiya, who is the source of the Wahhabi’s demonic view of the world.

Most Sunni’s denounce Wahhabism, they see it as a scourge on humanity – yet Wahhabi’s have used their abundance of wealth to spread their extreme and satanic views to the Muslim world through money and books – prime example is Pakistan – of course they prey on the uneducated (and unfortunately the Muslim world has lots of uneducated/illiterate people).

It should be noted that Wahhabi’s also deem most Sunni’s to be Apostates – it is not just the Shia’s and Sufi’s that they hate (although the Shia’s are their number 1 target). They basically hate everyone, except for their US and Zionist masters of course.

If we take Egypt as an example, during the Sadat years, when the economy was destroyed by his “free market”, a lot of Egyptians would go to work in the Gulf (mainly Saudi) to earn a living and support their families. Upon returning years later, they naturally had been influenced by the Wahhabi/Salafi views. Not to mention Sadat played a key role in the empowering of Salafist Islamists known as Jama’a Islamiya in Egypt to counter the popular Nasserite movement. He let them out of jails and allowed them to congregate in universities to preach their extreme views as he was insecure by the legacy of Nasser which the Islamists looked at as a socialist kaffir. Ultimately they killed Sadat.

Wahhabi’s destroyed all the shrines of the Prophet’s family and companions and actually tried to destroy the Prophet’s mosque in Madina in the early 1920’s – if not for the uproar in the Muslim world, they would have done it. Such is the Wahhabi evil; they have no loyalty to the Prophet of Islam even though they claim to be Muslims and protectors of the two holy sites (Mecca and Madina). Very much like the Umayyad’s that took over the Muslim Umma after the Prophet.

Of course the English empire is complicit in the creation of and empowering of this Wahhabi scourge on humanity. It is also worthy of noting that the Zionist entity and the Saudi entity were created around a similar time. One entity occupied the two holiest sites for the Muslim world (Mecca and Medina) and the other entity occupied the 3rd holiest site for the Muslim world (Al Aqsa Mosque in Al Quds). The cancers were set right in the heart of the Muslim world; just like in 1453 the cancer was set in the heart of the Orthodox world via the Constantinople conquest.

Sheikh Hassan says that approximately 40% of Saudi’s are under the influence of Wahhabism. In other Persian Gulf states, the number is less. In the rest of the Arab countries, this Wahhabi thought is disguised as Salafism and there are various branches of Salafism but it is fair to use the term Salafi and Wahhabi interchangeably as they are also adherents of the Takfir ideology. The percentage is far less than the Gulf countries however.

Sheikh Hassan also says that amongst Salafi’s, increasing numbers are accepting the Shia view, i.e. becoming Shia’s – which is why in Sunni countries they do not teach much nor emphasise on the history and the plight of the Prophet’s Household. It’s an inconvenient truth.

The Sunni Mufti of Syria has a famous speech where he talks about how in all his years as a Sunni student, the truth of Ashura was never really taught, as the fear was that upon learning the truth, Sunnis would become Shia’s.

Many Sunni scholars have come out and said the same. Many Sunni scholars know this privately too.

It should also be noted that this is a major concern of Sunni institutions/countries, i.e. that Sunni’s will start accepting the Shia view. Of course, geopolitics has a driving force role to play here, as most Sunni countries are US vassals and therefore the narrative is that Iran is the enemy and is trying to spread Shi’ism into the Arab lands, which is a preposterous claim.

Even though Al Azhar of Egypt officially recognizes the Shia view as another legitimate school of thought, it nevertheless has made it a mission to try to prevent and oppress the Shia’s and deny them their own mosques, commemoration of their religious events in Egypt. This is simply politics, as a number of Al Azhar scholars know that the Shia’s have truth in their view of history.

I have had the pleasure of speaking with an Al Azhar scholar who confirmed that most Al Azhar scholars know the truth but politics dictates their not publicizing it. This was a discussion which was had in the presence of a Shia Scholar also and it was enlightening to witness first-hand the naturally unity brought about by sharing in truth.

This is why Ashura, Karbala and the oppression of all of the Prophet’s descendants are not really taught extensively in Sunni countries. If they were, naturally most Muslims would accept the Shia view.

Keep in mind that institutions like Al Azhar in Egypt for example are not independent as the Government appoints the head of Al Azhar.

Various Sunni’s views on the Shia / Sunni perspectives:
The Sunni’s have various views ranging from:

• Many Sunni scholars and ordinary Sunni’s agree with the Shia view of history wholeheartedly and use the Quranic revelations and the non-corrupted Hadiths to reflect this

• Many Sunni scholars know the truth but do not publicize it

• Some Sunnis believe there is no way that any of the Companions would have betrayed the Prophet’s will – it’s too inconvenient a truth for them to swallow but they do not consider those that do think that as Kaffirs (as they deem it as simply political difference)

• Many Sunnis believe that it was left to consensus or “democracy” to choose the successor – all you have to do is look at the savage and dictatorial history of the Arabs/Muslim world after the Prophet, to see how laughable this notion is.

• Some Sunnis (and scholars) believe that to say the closest companions (for example the first 3 Caliphs) betrayed the Prophet’s will, is questioning the Prophet’s leadership – of course this argument dismisses the Quranic precedents of the various Prophets who could not lead their own companions and even family members to the right path – for example Abraham’s father, Noah’s sons, Lot’s wife, Jesus’s disciples (some of whom also betrayed him or as the Bible tells us “forsook him and fled”) etc.…are we to question these great Prophets’ (Peace be Upon Them All) leadership also? Of course not, it is simply that God guides whomever he pleases to the path and that some people no matter what miracles of Prophets they witnessed first-hand, their hearts were still unpenetrated with truth – the Quran refers to those people as having hearts harder than rocks, because even rocks can be penetrated by water.

• Hassan Bin Farhan Al Maliki’s view is that the evidence is very clearly there that the companions deviated from the path. He refers to the catastrophes of some of the early companions like Umar (who took it upon himself to increase the number of offenses punishable by death even in contradiction with the Quran and the Prophet)

• Many Sunni’s believe “what difference does this make today, 1400 years later?” – Sheikh Hassan describes what took place using the analogy of splitting a laser, at the immediate point of split the difference in the paths of light may not be big but over a long distance, the difference would be huge. That is the breakdown in governance from the outset has resulted in a significant deviation of the two paths over time. Same concepts are applied in project management where at the outset, if governance is not implemented effectively, over the life of the project the impact would be significant.

• Wahhabi’s believe that anyone who questions any of the companions is a Kaffir, i.e. an Apostate. Such is the level of indoctrination. They disregard the Household (and even hate them) and focus on the Companions and admire all of them even (and especially) the ones that were very clearly corrupt, murderous, deviant and that murdered the Prophet’s family to abolish any memory of them and any beacon to guide the Muslims to the Prophet’s true Islam.

• Wahhabi’s hate the Shia’s with a passion. Of course this is very much political, prime example is that when Iran was under the Shah (the USA’s police dog in the region), him and the House of Saud were allies and there was not the Shia / Sunni conflict that you see now. What they had in common was that they were both subservient tools for the USA. In fact the Saudis were even subservient to the Shah! Even though he was at least in name, a Shia Muslim.

Just to illustrate my point about the level of indoctrination:
I was recently speaking to someone who is a Wahhabi who lived in Saudi for 10+ years (of course he did not confess to being Wahhabi although he tried to defend Wahhabism).

We were talking about Takfiri’s and I said how these monsters label anyone who disagrees with them as a Kaffir, for example they label Shia’s as Kaffirs, Sufi’s as Kaffir and even many Sunni’s of other schools of thought as Kaffirs not to mention others from other religions.

To this he replied, “but the Shia’s are Kaffirs”. I asked why he thinks that and asked him to demonstrate that to me.

To my absolute astonishment, one of the reasons he gave me was that “do you believe they don’t use the name Yazid?” – now for those that don’t know Yazid, he is the corrupt, hypocrite and murderous ruler (grandson of Abu Sufyan and son of Muawiya) that was responsible for the most savage murder of Imam Hussein (The Prophet’s grandson and the son of Imam Ali and the 3rd Imam) and his entire family (i.e. the Prophet’s family) in Holy Karbala (Iraq) in the catastrophic event known as Ashura (the first revolution in Islam, led by Imam Hussein against tyranny and oppression). Yazid also imprisoned the women of the Prophet’s household, a fact known by most Muslims.

That’s like saying that someone is an unbeliever because he refuses to call his son “Satan” or “Shaytan”. Or that’s like saying a Christian is a non-believer because he refuses to name his son Judas!

How can you reason with such hate filled ignorance? And where does such ignorance come from? It comes from the fabricated hadiths and the legacy of worship of men/authority that very quickly developed after the Prophet departed from this world by the very same corrupt rulers that wanted to abolish the spirit of the Prophet and his Household from the narrative.

It should be noted that even Sunni Scholars (real scholars of course, not simply anyone with a beard) are unanimous in condemning the cursed Yazid (and even his father, Muawiya), yet the Wahhabi’s / Salafists of today look at him as some sort of a great leader of Islam, who was justified in his murderous ways (simply because he and his father expanded the empire)…the historical record tells us that when Yazid murdered the Prophet’s family in Karbala, he was quoted as saying “this is revenge against Bani Hashem (the Prophet’s tribe/family) for the battle of BADR” – the first battle that the Prophet and his followers had and won against those that were oppressing them.

In conclusion
Islam is not exclusive to Muslims. The Holy Quran is not exclusive to Muslims.

Similar to all the monotheistic great religions, the organized religion of Islam (as opposed to real Islam / the Prophet’s Islam) also has suffered from corrupt rulers whose thirst for power has superseded everything else and has corrupted people’s understanding of the true message. In that sense, like any empire that approached its conquests, destruction, and oppression in the name of whatever religion and there are many such examples across all religions and empires throughout history. After all, George W Bush (Jr) did launch his wars of “terror” in the name of religion if you recall his famous state of the union address where he said that God speaks to him
Yet, the truth still prevails amongst those that use their intellect and whose hearts are pure enough to absorb it.

So, if you are a non-Muslim and you sincerely want to know about Islam, read the Quran and ponder it slowly, understanding the context of each of the verses, and try to see what real scholars say.

Do not make the same mistake that some Muslims do, and simply refer to a Hadith that you dug up on Wikipedia or from any Hadiths books (whether Bukhari or Sahih Muslim) to try to score a point in a debate or argument with a Muslim (because that is the Wahhabi way and will not give you knowledge of Islam if that is indeed what you seek).

Most of the Hadiths are fabricated and deliberately too, so do not fall in that trap. Unless you have a strong knowledge of the Quran, do not refer to the Hadiths as you will not know which were truly sayings of the Prophet and which were not. The Prophet does not and did not ever contradict the Quran.

An analogy here would be for a non-Christian to try to learn about Christianity from a book written by Judas articulating what he refers to as the message of Christ.

Finally, real Islam stipulates that there is no compulsion in faith or religion and that whoever wants to believe can do so and whoever does not want to, can do so. Whether you are a Muslim who left Islam to become an Atheist or to join in another faith, is strictly a relationship between you and God.

The Quran very clearly refers to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike as the People of the Book, i.e. People of the Divine revelations.

The Sheikh’s view and the view of real Islam is that we (the people – i.e. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists and whatever else) are all brothers and sisters in humanity and someone’s belief or lack thereof in God is simply his/her personal relationship with God Almighty and no one can interfere.

In Islam, aggression is strictly forbidden against anyone (whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, Atheist or any other) and for any reason.

Whether it’s the unholy conquest of Holy Constantinople or the unholy Spanish Inquisition or George Bush’s unholy war of terror (inspired by God as he said), none have anything to do with the noble messages of the great Religions. It’s simply empires doing what empires do and justifying their evil by whatever means to mobilize the masses.

The Wahhabi scourge we see today is designed to keep the Umayyad (demonic) view of Islam alive to justify the existence of the House of Saud (at least to these crazed Wahhabi home base) and to propagate the destruction of Islam from within to serve their masters. That was always the intention behind the creation of this vile ideology.

The breakdown in governance after the Prophet in the so called Sunni world has been a key driving force behind the calamities inflicting the Muslim world until today.

Peace and blessings be on all the Prophets.


Addendum 1:
videos
Obsession with False Hadith Culture Is Corrupting Islam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQGOaNvLSU
Can Atheists go to Heaven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj3JrYLYCQ8
Interview with Sheikh Hassan Farhan al-Maliki: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68V44Jgl60g
A Syrian Mufti discusses the Ashura: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjTnrcNHZyk

Addendum 2: Zainab
For my essay I have used the image of the noble men of the Hezbollah resistance (an elite unit) who were sent to protect the shrine of our lady Zainab (Imam Hussein’s sister and the Prophet’s granddaughter) in Damascus even before the resistance proper went into Syria. These men were surrounded by takfiris who kept attacking the shrine with the aim to destroy it.

Zainab (peace be upon her) was at Karbala witnessing the slaughter of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) by an army numbering between 20,000-30,000. She witnessed the beheading of her brother and all her male relatives (it was 72 men all up) against that army and she was imprisoned with all the other female members of the family and made to walk in chains watching the heads of the male members of her family on spears. She then had a very powerful speech which she gave to yazid in his palace – there is English subtitled versions of this speech. This is only 50 years after the Prophet by so called ‘Muslims”…

============================================

I also posted another article (here) which documents that the most widely published and available version of the Quran is the one financed by Saudi Arabia's Wahhabis.

Another brew which came out of that general geographic area concerns that "'Old' Testament" which is now being demonstrated as having been concocted out of a plan designed by Plato... so much for the "'Word' of God"... which "Plan" Constantine followed the blue print of, to a T.