Refutation of “Of Aisha’s age at marriage” published by DAWN (Pakistan)

Clarification on the age of ‘A’ishah at the time of marriage

By Mawlana Abdul Azīm bin Abdur Rahman
Foreword by Mufti Ebrahim Desai: A person – Nilofar Ahmed – has published an article in the Dawn newspaper claiming Hadhrat ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her)’s age was at least eighteen during marriage.  This is substantiated with statements of muhaddithīn, Ayāt, and historical facts.

This research rebuts the claim and points out the inaccuracies and academic dishonesty in the article.  This is a research by Mawlāna Abdul Azīm, who is also a student in Takhassus Fil-Hadīth at the Darul Iftaa [Mahmudiyyah, Durban].  Read the article of the Dawn newspaper first [click here to read].  You will observe how a simple minded person can get easily convinced with the article.

The Rebuttal

Due to the limitations of the mind, there are certain issues that are not easily comprehended by everyone. Generally there are two approaches in addressing such issues. The first is an apologetic one. In this, one endeavours to hide a reality in order to earn the confidence and pleasure of others. Authentic facts are denied and replaced by apparently appealing information with the fear that the masses, especially non-Muslims will have a negative understanding of Islam if the factual situation is presented.

The second approach is to present the factual situation of the matter. The feelings and sentiments of people are not considered. It is done with the firm belief that Allāh will defend and preserve His dīn (religion). While the intention in the first approach is noble, it is dangerous. The consequences of twisting information to please people are too ghastly to consider. When research uncovers the truth, Islam will be blemished contrary to ones hope of presenting a noble picture of Islam. It is also academic dishonesty and against the spirit of honesty and truthfulness which are the hall marks of Islam.

The age of Hadhrat ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) during her marriage with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is often highlighted and negatively presented in the context of child marriage. In an attempt to avoid the accusation of child marriage in Islam, some people have adopted an apologetic approach and began distorting the factual situation of Hadhrat ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) age during marriage. This approach is dangerous and is based on a wrong premise. We have to be bold to claim that child marriage is not prohibited in Islam. However, there are rules that govern the issue to safeguard the interest of the child.

This article is a rebuttal of an essay written by Nilofar Ahmed that was produced in the Dawn newspaper on 17/02/2012. The essay is based on the following incorrect premises:

  • Prohibition of child marriage
  • Historical facts must be correlated with authentic narrations

The writer claims that the misinformation of ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) age at the time of her marriage being six led to the wrong view that child marriage has sanction of Islam. The second premise is that authentic narrations must correlate with historical facts. Both premises are incorrect. Child marriage is permissible. There is no difference of opinion on this from at least the four main schools of thought, Hanafī, Shafi’ī, Mālikī, and Hanbalī. Yes, there are rules that govern child marriage to preserve and protect the interest of the child.

Furthermore, historical facts are not accurate. They cannot be a measure to determine the authenticity of ahādīth, especially if the ahādīth themselves are clearly authentic. The guiding measure should be the ahādīth and not historical factors. Historical factors are subservient and subordinate to authentic ahādīth. This is a basic rule. No reliable scholar would ignore such basics. This brings to question the qualifications of the writer of the article in reference. Remember the golden advice: Be careful from who you take your dīn.

The proof for Hadhrat ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her)age during marriage is in Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim. Consider the following a hādīth:

حدثنا محمد بن يوسف، حدثنا سفيان، عن هشام، عن أبيه، عن عائشة رضي الله عنها:أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تزوجها وهي بنتست سنين، وأدخلت عليه وهي بنت تسع، ومكثت عنده تسعا (صحيح البخاري, ج 10، ص 466-467، دار البشائر الاسلامية)

“‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) reports that Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married her while she was six years old. She was sent to stay with Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) when she was nine and she lived with Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) for nine years.” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī)

وحدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، أخبرنا أبو معاوية، عن هشام بن عروة، ح وحدثنا ابن نمير، واللفظ له، حدثنا عبدة هو ابن سليمان، عن هشام، عن أبيه، عن عائشة، قالت: «تزوجني النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأنا بنت ست سنين، وبنى بي وأنا بنت تسع سنين (صحيح مسلم، ج 2، ص 1039، دار إحياء التراث العربي – بيروت)

“‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) says, “The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married me when I was six years old, and he started living with me when I was nine years old.” (Sahīh Muslim)

The Ummah has accepted the narrations that appear in Sahīh al-Bukhāri and Sahīh Muslim as authentic. ‘Allāmah Hāfidh bin Hajar al-Asqalāni (may Allah have mercy on him) states in Sharh al-Nukhbah that the ‘ulamā are unanimous in accepting Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim[1]. ‘Allāmah Sakhāwī states in Fath al-Mughīth that Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslim are the most authentic books of Hadīth. [2]

The writer of the article objects on the ahādīth of Sahīh al-Bukhārī and Sahīh Muslimsaying that there is weakness in one of the narrators, namely Hishām bin Urwah (may Allah have mercy on him). The writer further states, There is only one hadith by Hisham which suggests the age of Hazrat Aisha as being nine when she came to live with her husband.”

The writer incorrectly claims Hafidh Dhahabī (may Allah have mercy on him) has spoken about Hisham’s loss of memory in his later period. Hereunder are the actual wordings of ‘Allāmah Dhahabī (may Allah have mercy on him):

هشام بن عروة [ع] ، أحد الاعلام.

حجة إمام، لكن في الكبر تناقص حفظه، ولم يختلط أبدا، ولا عبرة بما قاله أبو الحسن بن القطان من أنه وسهيل بن أبي صالح اختلطا، وتغيرا.

نعم الرجل تغير قليلا ولم يبق حفظه كهو في حال الشبيبة، فنسى بعض محفوظه أو وهم، فكان ماذا! أهو معصوم من النسيان!

ولما قدم العراق في آخر عمره حدث بجملة كثيرة من العلم، في غضون ذلك يسير أحاديث لم يجودها، ومثل هذا يقع لمالك ولشعبة ولوكيع ولكبار الثقات، فدع عنك الخبط وذر خلط الائمة الاثبات بالضعفاء والمخلطين، فهشام شيخ الإسلام (مبزان الاعتدال)

“Hishām bin Urwah is one of the great luminaries, an authority and a leader. When he aged, his memory slightly decreased however he never became a mukhtalit (one who lost memory and errs in hadīth). There is no consideration for what some people have said regarding Hishām that he became a mukhtalit.

How great of a person was Hishām! His memory only weakened slightly and did not remain as it was in his youth. Hence he did forget and err on certain occasions. So what? Is he not human that he is protected from forgetfulness!

When he arrived in Irāq towards the end of his life, he narrated many Ahādīth. Amongst the many Ahādīth narrated, only a few were not said perfectly. But this was also the situation with the likes of Imām Mālik, Imām Shu’bah, Wakī’, and other great giants of Islām. Therefore, leave your incorrect uproar! Don’t mix up the strong, reliable narrators with the weak ones because Hishām is Shaykh al-Islām.” (Mīzān al-I’tidāl)

From the above quotations, the writer’s distortion of facts is clear. Such an attitude disqualifies one from academic merit. The words of ‘Allāmah Dhahabī (may Allah have mercy on him) were stated in support of Hishām bin Urwah (may Allah have mercy on him) and the writer created an image that ‘Allāmah Dhahabī (may Allah have mercy on him) does not accept Hishām’s narrations. Furthermore, Hafidh bin Hajar says in the introduction of his great commentary to Sahīh al-Bukhārī that all the experts of hadīth consider Hishām’s ahādīth to be authoritative and sufficient to be used as evidence. [3] Also, Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim considered Hishām to be very strong. That is why they included his narrations in their books of Hadīth.

Nevertheless, for argument’s sake, even if we do consider Hishām’s narrations to be weak, there are other narrations without Hishām in their chains that prove ‘Aisha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) age to be six at the time of marriage and nine at the time she started to reside with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Imām Muslim narrates the following hadīth in which Hishām is not in the chain:

حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، وإسحاق بن إبراهيم، وأبو بكر بن أبي شيبة، وأبو كريب، قال يحيى، وإسحاق: أخبرنا، وقال الآخران: حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن إبراهيم، عن الأسود، عن عائشة، قالت: «تزوجها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهي بنت ست، وبنى بهاوهي بنت تسع، ومات عنها وهي بنت ثمان عشرة (صحيح مسلم، ج 2، ص 1039، دار إحياء التراث العربي – بيروت)

“‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) reports that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married her when she was six years old, he started living with her when she was nine years old, and he passed away when she was eighteen years old.” (Sahīh Muslim)

In Sunan al-Nasaī, a narration with a similar meaning is mentioned without Hishām in the chain. The hadīth is mentioned with the chain:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ سَعْدِ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ بْنِ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَمِّي، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ أَيُّوبَ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُمَارَةُ بْنُ غَزِيَّةَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ: «تَزَوَّجَنِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهِيَ بِنْتُ سِتِّ سِنِينَ، وَبَنَى بِهَاوَهِيَ بِنْتُ تِسْعٍ (سنن النسائ، ج 6، ص 131، مكتب المطبوعات الإسلامية – حلب)

“‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) relates that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married me while she was a six years old girl and he lived with her when she was nine years old.” (Sunan al-Nasaī)

Also if we look at the date of ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) demise and her age when she passed away, it becomes clear that her age at the time of her marriage with the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was indeed six. In Mawāhib al-Laduniyyah, ‘Allāmah Qastalānī (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions that ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) passed away fifty seven years after the migration and at that time she was sixty six years old. [4] ‘Allāmah Qastalāni also mentions that she was married to Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) three years prior to the migration. [5] When all of these facts are put together, we identify that ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her)’s age at the time of her marriage was six.

A second objection presented by the writer is that the Qur’ān sets puberty to be the minimum age of marriage. To back up her claim, the writer brings Ayah number six of Surah al-Nisā. Hereunder is the Ayah:

وَابْتَلُوا الْيَتَامَى حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغُوا النِّكَاحَ (سورة النساء، رقم الاية 6)

“And test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age.” (Surah al-Nisā)

The writer uses a general Ayah to support a specific claim. It is similar to one claiming wine is permissible and supports that with the permissibility of drinking water! The intent of this Ayah is to explain that children, well before they reach puberty should be tested through small assignments of buying and selling in order to determine their ability to conduct themselves in transactions on their own. This process of practical experimentation should continue till puberty. This is the time of special assessment. Now it should be determined if they have become smart and self-reliant in their affairs. Once this is sensed as “dependable”, it is time to hand over their property to them.

This is a clear misunderstanding by Ibn Ishāq (may Allah have mercy on him) especially when it contradicts authentic narrations and other books of sīrah. And Ibn Ishāq (may Allah have mercy on him) did not provide a chain of hadīth to support his claim.

Another objection by the writer is that in Musnad Ahmad, Khawla (may Allah be pleased with her) uses the word bikrun to refer to ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her). The writer further claims that the word bikrun which means virgin is only used for unmarried girls who have passed the age of puberty.

One answer to the objection is that bikrun can be used for girls who have not reached puberty also. Lisān al-Arab, a famous dictionary on the Arabic language, has the following meaning for bikrun:

(البكر: الجارية اللتي لم تفتض(لسان العرب)

“A female who has not been deflowered.” (Lisān al-Arab)

Mu’jam Lughat al-Fuqahā, a dictionary on words used by the jurists, defines bikrun as:

الفتاة العذراء التي لم تزل بكارتها بوطء (معجم لغة الفقهاء)

“One who has not lost her virginity through intercourse.” (Mu’jam Lughat al-Fuqahā)

From the above-mentioned definitions, it is obvious that the word bikrun is not confined to a mature lady rather includes any female who is virgin whether she has reached puberty or not.

A second and more obvious answer to the objection is that in the same hadīth, ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) age is mentioned to be six.[9] The writer only objected to the word bikrun but failed to mention that later on in the same hadīth, it is clearly stated that ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was six. This clearly indicates that Sahābah also used the word bikrun for any virgin female, regardless of whether she reached puberty or not. Hereunder are the words of this Hadīth:

فَزَوَّجَهَا إِيَّاهُ وَعَائِشَةُ يَوْمَئِذٍ بِنْتُ سِتِّ سِنِينَ (مسند احمد)

“Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) married ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) off to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) while she was only six years of age.” (Musnad Ahmad)

The writer further objects stating, Some scholars think that Hazrat Aisha was married off so early because in Arabia girls mature at an early age. But this was not a common custom of the Arabs at that time. According to Allama Kandhulvi, there is no such case on record either before or after Islam. Neither has this ever been promoted as a Sunnah of the Prophet. The Prophet married off his daughters Fatima at 21 and Ruquiyya at 23. Besides, Hazrat Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, married off his eldest daughter Asma at the age of 26.”

This is another baseless and non-academic opinion. It is quite clear from narrations that some marriages at a young age took place in the era of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the Sahābah (may Allah be pleased with them), and those Muslims that came soon thereafter. For example, Hāfidh bin Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) quotes in his al-Isābah that Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) got Salmah bin Ibī Salmah (may Allah be pleased with him) married to Umāmah bint Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with her) while none of them had reached puberty.[10] Also consider the following narration from Sahīh al-Bukhārī:

وقال الحسن بن صالح: «أدركت جارة لنا جدة، بنت إحدى وعشرين سنة (صحيح البخاري، ج 5، ص 562، دار البشائر الاسلامية)

“Hasan bin Sālih (may Allah have mercy on him) said: I came to know of my neighbour who became a grandmother at the age of twenty one.” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī)

This indicates that the woman must have been married when she was nine, gave birth when she was ten, and the same situation took place with her daughter.

The writer’s claim about the age of Hadhrat Fātimah and Hadhrat Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with them) at the time of marriage is also inaccurate. Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married Hadhrat Khadījah (may Allah be pleased with her) at the age of twenty-five. His first daughter born from the marriage was Zainab (may Allah be pleased with her).[11] According to most of the ‘ulamā, Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with her) is the second daughter of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). [12] And in al-Isābah, Hāfidh bin Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates on the authority of Ibn Sa’d (may Allah have mercy on him) that Utbah bin Abī Lahab married Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with her) before the nubuwwah (prophethood). [13] The Messenger of Allah’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) age was forty at the time ofnubuwwah. Hence, it is clear that Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with her) was thirteen years old or younger at the time of her marriage and not twenty three years.

After the nubuwwah of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), Abū Lahab ordered his son Utbah bin Abī Lahab to divorce Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with her). Thereafter, ‘Uthmān (may Allah be pleased with him) married Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with her).

Even Ruqayyah’s (may Allah be pleased with her) marriage with ‘Uthmān (may Allah be pleased with him) took place well before she was twenty three years of age. ‘Uthmān (may Allah be pleased with him) and Ruqayyah (may Allah be pleased with her) migrated together to Ethiopia in the fifth year after nubuwwah. kunyah.” So The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “Keep yourkunyah according to your son’s name (meaning nephew’s name) Abdullāh. Hence, herkunyah became Umm Abdillāh.” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd)ِ

This proves that the kunyah was given to ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) after she started to reside with Rasūllullāh (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Hence, she was at least nine years old if not older when she was given this kunyahand not six years old as the writer has suggested.

Furthermore, the writer did not provide any reference for the adoption of Abdullāh bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him). The mere fact that ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) kunyah was attributed to his name does not necessitate that she had adopted him. Also, the writer suggested that the kunyah was given to ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) because she gave up on having a child. However, from the hadīth of Sunan Abī Dāwūd, it is clear that the reason why ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was given the kunyah was because she expressed her desire to have a kunyah, as the other wives of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) had one.

Making another objection, the author writes, Hazrat Aisha’s nephew Urwah once remarked that he was not surprised about her amazing knowledge of Islamic law, poetry and history because she was the wife of the Prophet and the daughter of Abu Bakr. If she was eight when her father migrated, when did she learn poetry and history from him?”

Again there is no reference whether this saying of Urwah (may Allah be pleased with him) is authentic or not. However, even if we accept this to really be Urwah’s statement, it is normal for young children to learn very quickly. Even these days we see small children learning very complicated information. In fact, so many children before the age of eight memorize the entire Qur’ān. And it is well known that children in the past had memories far greater than the memories of children in today’s times.

And even if Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) migrated to Medinah when ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was only eight, she also migrated to Medinah. Just because she was staying with Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) in Medinah does not necessitate that she stopped learning from her father.

In the final objection, the author writes, “There is consensus that Hazrat Aisha was 10 years younger than her elder sister Asma, whose age at the time of the hijrah, or migration to Madina, was about 28. It can be concluded that Hazrat Aisha was about 18 years old at migration.”

The writer’s claim of consensus here is incorrect and the writer does not even provide reference for the claim. In the book Usd al-Ghābah, ‘Allāmah Jazrī (may Allah have mercy on him) quotes Abū Na’īm saying that Asmā (may Allah be pleased with her) was born twenty seven years prior to migration. And in al-Isābah, Hāfidh bin al-Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says that ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was born four or five years after the nubuwwah of Allah’s Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). This proves that Asmā (may Allah be pleased with her) was eighteen or nineteen years older than ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) and not ten years older as was claimed by the writer. Hence ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) age at the time of migration was eight or nine years of age and not eighteen.

In conclusion, for information to be valid and authentic, it must be passed down from generation to generation through a valid chain of narrators. Hence, there is an authentic chain in Sahīh al-Bukhārī and other books of hadīth that prove ‘A’isha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) age to be six at the time of marriage. So any claim made against this through certain historical arguments holds no weight, especially when it is not supported by an authentic chain.

Allāh will preserve His dīn and the respect of our beloved Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) with the fact that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married our mother Hadhrat ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) at the age of six and started living with her when she was nine years old. Let us preserve the facts and let Allāh preserve His dīn.[19]

[1]  لا اتفاق العلماء بعدهما علي تلقي كتابيهما باالقبول (شرح النخبة، ص 62،دار البصائر)

[2]  وباالجملة فكتاباهما اصح كتب الحديث (فتح المغيث، ج 1، ص 53، مكتبة دار المنهاج)

[3]  وقد احتج بهشام جميع الائمة (هدي الساري، ص 598، دار الحديث)

[4]  وماتت باالمدينة سنة سبع وخمسين. وقال الواقدي: ليلة الثلثاء لسبع عشرة خلت من رمضان سنة ثمان وخمسين, وهي ابنة ست وستين سنة (المواهب اللدنية, ج 1, ص 497، المكتبة التوفيقية)

[5]  وتزوجها بمكة في شوال سنة عشر من النبوة قبل الهجرة بثلاث سنين (المواهب اللدنية, ج 1, ص 495، المكتبة التوفيقية)

[6] Ma’ariful Qur’an, Vol. 2, Page 322, Maktaba-e-Darul-‘Uloom

[7]  وبلوغ النكاح. أن يحتلم لأنه يصلح للنكاح عنده، ولطلب ما هو مقصود به وهو التوالد والتناسل (الكشاف، ج 1، ص 473، دار الكتاب العربي – بيروت)

[8]  الصغر: اما الصغر فقال الجمهور منهم أئمة المذاهب الاربعة، بل ادعي ابن المنذر الاجماع علي جواز تزويج الصغيرة من كفء (الفقه الاسلامي وادلته، ج 7، ص 183، دار الفكر)

[9]  حدثنا محمد بن بشر، قال: حدثنا محمد بن عمرو، قال: حدثنا أبو سلمة، ويحيى، قالا: لما هلكت خديجة، جاءت خولة بنت حكيم امرأة عثمان بن مظعون، قالت: يا رسول الله ألا تزوج؟ قال: ” من؟ ” قالت: إن شئت بكرا، وإن شئت ثيبا؟ قال: ” فمن البكر؟ ” قالت: ابنة أحب خلق الله عز وجل إليك عائشة بنت أبي بكر، قال: ” ومن الثيب؟ ” قالت: سودة بنت زمعة، آمنت (3) بك، واتبعتك على ما تقول “، قال: ” فاذهبي فاذكريهما علي “، فدخلت بيت أبي بكر، فقالت: يا أم رومان ماذا أدخل الله عز وجل عليكم من الخيروالبركة؟ قالت: وما ذاك؟ قالت: أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخطب عليه عائشة، قالت: انتظري أبا بكر حتى يأتي، فجاء أبو بكر، فقالت: يا أبا بكر ماذا أدخل الله عز وجل عليكم من الخير والبركة؟ قال: وما ذاك؟ قالت: أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخطب عليه عائشة، قال: وهل تصلح له؟ إنما هي ابنة أخيه، فرجعت إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فذكرت ذلك له (1) ، قال: ” ارجعي إليه فقولي له: ” أنا أخوك، وأنت أخي في الإسلام، وابنتك تصلح لي “، فرجعت فذكرت ذلك له، قال: انتظري وخرج، قالت أم رومان: إن مطعم بن عدي قد كان ذكرها على ابنه، فوالله ما وعد وعدا قط، فأخلفه لأبي بكر، فدخل أبو بكر على مطعم بن عدي وعنده امرأته أم الفتى، فقالت يا ابن أبي قحافة لعلك مصبئ (2) صاحبنا مدخله في دينك الذي أنت عليه، إن تزوج إليك، قال أبو بكر للمطعم بن عدي: أقول هذه تقول، قال: إنها تقول ذلك، فخرج من عنده، وقد أذهب الله عز وجل ما كان في نفسه من عدته التي وعده فرجع، فقال لخولة: ادعي لي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فدعته فزوجها إياه وعائشة يومئذ بنت ست سنين، ثم خرجت فدخلت على سودة بنت زمعة، فقالت: ماذا أدخل الله عز وجل عليك من الخير والبركة؟ قالت: ما ذاك؟ قالت: أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخطبك عليه، قالت: وددت ادخلي إلى أبي فاذكري ذاك له، وكان شيخا كبيرا، قد أدركته (3) السن، قد تخلف عن الحج، فدخلت عليه، فحيته (4) بتحية  الجاهلية، فقال: من هذه؟ فقالت: خولة بنت حكيم، قال: فما شأنك؟ قالت: أرسلني محمد بن عبد الله أخطب عليه سودة، قال: كفء (1) كريم، ماذا تقول صاحبتك؟ قالت: تحب ذاك، قال: ادعها لي فدعتها، فقال (2) : أي بنية إن هذه تزعم أن محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب قد أرسل يخطبك، وهو كفء (3) كريم، أتحبين أن أزوجك به، قالت: نعم، قال (4) : ادعيه لي، فجاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إليه فزوجها إياه، فجاءها أخوها عبد بن زمعة من الحج، فجعل يحثي على (5) رأسه التراب، فقال بعد أن أسلم: لعمرك (6) إني لسفيه يوم أحثي في رأسي التراب أن تزوج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سودة بنت زمعة، قالت عائشة: فقدمنا المدينة فنزلنا في بني الحارث من (7) الخزرج في السنح، قالت: فجاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فدخل بيتنا واجتمع إليه رجال من الأنصار، ونساء فجاءت بي (8) أمي وإني لفي (1) أرجوحة بين عذقين ترجح بي، فأنزلتني من الأرجوحة، ولي جميمة ففرقتها، ومسحت وجهي بشيء من ماء، ثم أقبلت تقودني حتى وقفت بي عند الباب، وإني لأنهج حتى سكن من نفسي، ثم دخلت بي فإذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جالس على سرير في بيتنا، وعنده رجال ونساء من الأنصار، فأجلستني (2) في حجره، ثم قالت: هؤلاء أهلك فبارك الله لك فيهم، وبارك لهم فيك، فوثب الرجال والنساء، فخرجوا وبنى بي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيتنا، ما نحرت علي جزور، ولا ذبحت علي شاة، حتى أرسل إلينا سعد بن عبادة بجفنة كان يرسل بها إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، إذا دار إلى نسائه وأنا يومئذ بنت تسع سنين (مسند احمد, ج 42، ص 501-504،مؤسسة الرسالة)

[10]  وقال ابن إسحاق: حدثني من لا أتهم عن عبد اللَّه بن شداد، قال: كان الّذي زوّج أم سلمة من النّبي صلّى اللَّه عليه وسلم سلمة بن أبي سلمة ابنها فزوّجه النبيّ صلّى اللَّه عليه وسلم أمامة بنت حمزة، وهما صبيّان صغيران، فلم يجتمعا حتى ماتا، فقال النبيّ صلّى اللَّه عليه وسلم: هل جزيت سلمة! (الاصابة، ج 1، ص 752، دار المعرفة)

[11]  قال أبو عمر: لا أعرف خلافا أنّ زينب أكبر بنات النبي صلّى اللَّه عليه وسلّم (الاصابة، ج 4، ص 2506، دار المعرفة)

[12]  واختلف في رقية وفاطمة وأم كلثوم، والأكثر أنهنّ على هذا الترتيب (الاصابة، ج 4، ص 2506-2507، دار المعرفة)

[13]  وقال ابن سعد: بايعت رسول اللَّه صلّى اللَّه عليه وسلّم هي وأخواتها، وتزوجها عتبة بن أبي لهب قبل النبوة، فلما بعث قال أبو لهب: رأسي من رأسك حرام إن لم تطلق ابنته (الاصابة، ج 4، ص2507، دار المعرفة)

[14]  الموسوعة الميسرة في التاريخ الاسلامي، ج 1، ص 17، مؤسسة اقرأ

[15]  واختلف في سنة مولدها، فروى الواقديّ، عن طريق أبي جعفر الباقر، قال: قال العبّاس: ولدت فاطمة والكعبة تبنى، والنّبيّ صلّى اللَّه عليه وآله وسلّم ابن خمس وثلاثين سنة، وبهذا جزم المدائنيّ.

ونقل أبو عمر عن عبيد اللَّه بن محمد بن سليمان بن جعفر الهاشمي- أنها ولدت سنة إحدى وأربعين من مولد النّبيّ صلّى اللَّه عليه وآله وسلّم. وكان مولدها قبل البعثة بقليل نحو سنة أو أكثر (الاصابة، ج 4، ص2596، دار المعرفة)

[16]  ومن طريق عمر بن عليّ، قال: تزوّج عليّ فاطمة في رجب سنة مقدمهم المدينة، وبنى بها مرجعه من بدر، ولها يومئذ ثمان عشرة سنة. (الاصابة، ج 4، ص2597، دار المعرفة)

[17] وتزوّجها عليّ أوائل المحرم سنة اثنتين بعد عائشة بأربعة أشهر، وقيل غير ذلك. وانقطع نسل رسول اللَّه صلّى اللَّه عليه وآله وسلّم إلا من فاطمة. (الاصابة، ج 4، ص2596، دار المعرفة)

[18]  (فَلم يجزه) أَي: فَلم يمضه وَلم يَأْذَن لَهُ فِي الْقِتَال (عمدة القاري، ج 17، ص 177، دار إحياء التراث العربي)

[19]See the following article, The Young Marriage of Ayesha R.A., click here to access.


Are Jibran Nasir and Civil Society using Peshawar Martyrs as propaganda tools? Or do they stand for justice?

Taken from

The tragic Peshawar attack carried out by TTP on 16th December 2014 triggered a highly angry response from all corners of Pakistani society. It drew condemnation from, religious and political leaders both national and international. As a result Pakistan saw massive protests against the TTP and the murders.
One group led by a pakistani lawyer Jibran Nasir directed their protests towards the Red Mosque, which they claimed supports the TTP and that the Mosque’s leader Maulana Abdul Aziz did not condemn TTP’s massacre and refused to call the students who died there as martyrs [1]. The ‘vigil moevement’ launched via social media has so far succeeded in producing an unbailable arrest warrant for Maulana Abdul Aziz [5] but, as of the time of writing of this article, he has not been arrested.
It has been claimed by those who side with Lal Masjid’s stance that the ‘Vigil Movement’ led by Jibran Nasir is part of a wider movement to secularize Pakistan and it’s Mosques, using the martyrs of Peshawar tragedy as a propaganda tool. This article will study claims of both sides and present the reader with evidence and a conclusion with which they are free to disagree with.

The claims
1. The movement started with the claim by the ‘Vigil Movement’ that Maulana Abdul Aziz refused to condemn TTP’s massacre and refused to call the students who died there as martyrs. Lal Masjis claims Maulana did condemn the attacks. The clip presented in [2] is given as evidence by both sides to support their claims. The exact words of Maulana in the clip are: “This is a sad incident, a heart-wrenching incident and a black day in the history of Pakistan”. He next says that “I do not condemn one side only. If you wish to condemn, then condemn those [implied: Pakistan Army] too who kill innocent tribesmen. Further condemnation by Maulana Abdul Aziz can be seen in [3].

2. The movement claimed that Maulana refused to call the martyred students as martyrs. There is no evidence given by the “Vigil Movement’ except Jibran Nasir’s word. Lal Masjid produced this video as evidence that their claim is false (see [4])

3. The movement alleged that Maulana is a supporter/apologist of TTP; indeed this has been at the core of the movement. However evidence exists that shows Maulana’s differences with TTP. In [6] he is asked about the killing of his associate Khalid Khwaja of the ISI at hands of TTP in 2010, to which he replies that he “does not know why he [khalid khawaja] was killed, but the perpetrators are wrong”, and also adds later that “Khawaja’s confession was staged”. The Civil Society has not been able to as yet show any evidence of Maulana Abdul Aziz’s direct association with TTP. Maulana Adbul Aziz has also stated that he and the Jamia are not affiliated with either Afghan Taliban or Islamic State [21].

4. Lal Masjid alleged that Jibran Nasir is using the martyrs of Peshawar as an excuse for spreading his personal interpretation of Islam and asking government to impose that on Mosques throughout Pakistan. As evidence they point towards [7] , a public post from his personal profile (now hidden from public, but screenshot captured) that indicates he considers Qadianis as Muslims. Pakistan’s Constitution, and the consensus of Muslim scholars, state that Qadianis are non-Muslims because they reject the Finality of the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W). It is also a crime to refer to the Qadianis’ place of worhsip as a Mosque as Mosque is specific for Muslims only. However Nasir has called the Qadiani place of worship as a Mosque in [9], captured screenshot from his page submitted by Lal Masjid page is given as evidence. There is no comment by Nasir or the Civil Society as to whether they consider Qadianis as Muslims. Nasir advocates for the second amendment, which recognizes Qadianis as non-Muslim, to be repealed and advocates LGBT rights in pakistan. Here is an excerpt from his article published in Dawn Newspaper’s website (see [20]):”…For example, I feel strongly about having non-Muslim parliamentarians contest for the office of the Prime Minister along with their Muslim colleagues; for thesecond amendment to be repealed; for Hindus and Sikhs to have their personal marriage laws; for LGBT(Lesbian, Fay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender) rights to be recognised. ….”

The second amendment is reproduced as under:”A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.”
Lal Masjid also point towards [8], in which Nasir is shown celebrating the Hindu festival Holi. By consensus it is not possible for Muslims to attend religious festivals of non-Muslims [10]. Ibn Taymiyyah (May Allah be pleased with him), one of the top Muslim jurists of all time has stated: “”Imitating them in some of their festivals implies that one is pleased with their false beliefs and practices, and gives them the hope that they may have the opportunity to humiliate and mislead the weak.” [11].

5. Lal Majid alleges that Jibran Nasir and Civil Society have backing of Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Pakistan led by self-exiled leader Altaf Hussein. While Nasir categorically denies having membership of MQM [12], evidence has emerged of his association with members of MQM and speaking at their rally (see [13] and [14]).
MQM is a terrorist nationalist racist organization which is funded and trained by India’s intelligence agency RAW. This was confessed by one of their target killers Ajmal Pahari in a video under police interrogation [15]. Law experts from pakistan also say that Altaf Hussein is a criminal [17].

6. Lal Masjid alleges that Jibran Nasir and Civil Society have a sectarian pro-shia bias which contradicts their secular claims. The evidence given is this speech (see [16]) in which a Shia Hazara rallies people to stand behind the Shia outside Lal Masjid during one of the protests, and while Nasir has denounced militant groups in which a Shia group was also named [18] no protests or social media drives were launched by Nasir or any of the activists of Civil Society against the insults and hate speech regularly spewed from Shia Majalis from the mouths of their preachers. No protests were launched by them when Shia extremists admitted on video to attack Masjid Taleem ul Qur’an in Rawalpindi in November 2013 [38]. For a brief study of hate speeches done by Shia, in their books and speeches, see [19].

Selective Humanity?
There have been claims that Civil Society nurtures selective humanity. Civil society on the other hand claims to be against the killing of innocents. However, to date, neither the Civil society nor Nasir have protested outside US Embassy nor campaigned against the use of CIA drones inside Pakistan. The Bureau for Investigative Journalism lists an estimated 416-959 civilians, 168-204 children killed in CIA strikes inside Pakistan between 2004 and 2014 out of an estimated 2400-3888 killed [22]. The Bureau also provides evidence of CIA targeting rescuers and funerals in the aftermath of a drone strike [23]. Also see [31]. Leaked Pakistani report confirming high civilian death-toll in such strikes is presented in [24]. A video showing the aftermath of a drone strike is presented in [25].
Not Civil Society nor Nasir have protested outside GHQ in Rawalpindi for their complicity in drone strikes [26], or for indiscriminate bombing of civilian population in KPK province of Pakistan and F.A.T.A (see [27], [28] [29] and [30]). There was no outrage shown by Civil Society when a US drone killed 83 students of a religious a seminary in Bajaur, in 2006 [32]. What the Civil Society has achieved however, apart from the unbailable arrest warrant against Maulana Abdul Aziz, is to unleash secular extremists who can be seen in [33] throwing abusive words at “bearded people” and not just at Lal Masjid administration, and making tall claims against Lal Masjid but not providing any evidence except their own word [34].

The Civil Society and Nasir are silent over threats made by Shia extremist Faisal Raza Abidi [35] and MQM leader Altaf Hussein to extra-judicially burn down Lal Masjid. Abidi has even called upon terrorist Shia organization Hezbullat to come to Pakistan and burn Lal Masjid. Civil Society are silent over the crimes of CIA and Pakistan Army. They are silent over the crimes of the Shia scholars and shia extremist organizations.. Even when they have taken action against someone other than Lal Masjid administration it is against Aamir Liaquat [36] in whose show remarks were passed against Qadianis. Nasir has linked these remarks to killing of a Qadiani in Gujranwala on December 27th 2014. The link is not proven, however what is to be noted is that action was taken against Aamir Liaquat for remarks against Qadianis but no action was taken by Civil Society when Liaquat made derogatory remarks himself against Companions of the Prophet (S.A.W) [37].
Therefore the conslusion drawn by the author of this article is that civil society show double standards and selectively condemn crimes. By their own logic they are apologists for crimes of CIA, Pakistan Army, Shia scholars and Shia extremists. Their allegations against Lal Masjid proved to be false and were based on what they ‘perceived’ as opposed to what Maulana Abdul Aziz actually said. Nasir is going against Islam and Pakistani Constitution by promoting Qadianis as Muslims and advocating for them to be labelled Muslims. Therefore he should be arrested. The Civil Society is shown to have selective humanity in this article and that they, and Nasir, are using the martyred children as propaganda to further their desire for secularized Mosques. Their vigil is not based on love for humanity or justice rather for personal gains. The author requests sincere members of the vigil who have come out against TTP to notice that they are being duped in the name of ‘peace’ and that association with people who shamelessly exploit peshawar tragedy is a travesty in itself. If you wish to condemn one tragedy you must condemn all tragedies so that you can be taken seriously.

[11] Iqtidaa’ al-siraat al-mustaqeem mukhaalifat ashaab al-jaheem

Junaid Jamshed did not commit blasphemy…but these people did…

Social media in Pakistan is raving with video of Junaid Jamshed mentioning a narration which contains a true incident between the Prophet (PBUH) and Hazrat Ayesha (RA). His phrasing of the incident could have been better but it certainly did not constitute blasphemy since the narration is authentic. The references are:
Musnad Ahmad 6/228
Ibn Majah 1465
Abdur Razzaq 9754
Bayhaqi 7/168, among others.

Junaid Jamshed has issued an apology too:

But a certain sectarian group called the Barelvis have been active on social media, bent on convincing people that this is blasphemy. See this: Some have gone so far as to suggest the murder of Junaid Jamshed. While the killing of those who commit blasphemy is indeed sanctioned in Islam but it is a proper procedure of Islamic law which cannot be carried out because the other person just happens to be from the rival Deobandi school of thought, and did not even commit blasphemy.

However, it is interesting to note that the Barelvis are aligned politically with the Shia who consider most of the Companion (RA) to be apostates (naudhubillahi min dhaalik) and reserve the worst form of tabarrah (cursing and bad language) for Hazrat Ayehsa (RA).

Yet, never do we hear any protest from mainstream Barelvis or their laymen, nor any cases filed against Shia as was done with Junaid Jamshed (


The barelvis are a sectarian group that believe the Wahhabis are worse then actual non-Muslims. Hence in this hate they side with Shia to achieve political supermacy over Deobandis.

This post is to outline the actual blasphemy done against Rasul Allah (SAW), the Companions (RA) and the Mothers of the Believers (RA) which the Shia do and it is conveniently ignored by Barelvis and cleverly discredited by the infamous Shia Taqayyah. Here are some examples to open the minds of people:

Shia zakir (preacher) committing blasphemy against Rasul Allah (SAW):

Shia scholar saying ‘Aisha is in Hell hanging by her feet, eating her own flesh’:

Shia scholars encouraging the abusing and cursing of Companions (RA):

Shia scholar calling Hazrat Umar (RA) a homosexual:

Shia celebrating the death of Hazrat Ayesha (RA):

Shia doing tabarrah in a Muharram procession:

Shia calling Companions (RA) apostates:

Naudhubillahi min dhaalik

Shia as usual will claim that not all shia believe in this but in reality Taqayyah is a part of their religion as can be seen in this video:

I await your outrage on the social media and the police stations while you file a case against these people.

“Intolerant Muslim forces homeless man to wear his shoes defying freedom of expression!”


“Intolerant muslim terrorist forcing his opinion over another ‘brother in humanity’. ok what if he did not wish to wear shoes? he had made a choice which should have been respected and it is the 21st century where freedom of…*20 lines later*…hence Muslims are a cancer to society and everyone must become liberal and secular. “


sounds familiar?

now why dont these bloody Mullah show the same mercy and compassion to poor canadian soldiers fighting in afghanistan?


The lies and deception in “The Arrivals”


Arrivals of Deception

Having heard much about, “The Arrivals,” I finally watched the series. I thought I could learn something, but then realized that something was amiss. I write these words to awaken the overly trusting to points which might have been overlooked.

  • Unauthentic “Research”

Certain “facts” are in fact plain conjecture. Other facts which can easily be researched are simply copied and pasted without verification. For example, quotations are simply extracted from the audio, From the Shadows, including the most glaring error claiming that the Freemasons realized their error in France when they lost control of Napoleon. They therefore made certain that when they later inspired the American Revolution that they installed a Freemason, George Washington.

The producers make much of their “research” yet as Americans, they should know a basic fact that the Treaty of Paris terminating the Independence War was signed in 1783, which is 16 years before Napoleon came to power in 1799. Did the Masons then invent a time travel machine to install George Washington back in 1775? Incidentally Washington died in 1799, the year Bonaparte came to power and broke away from Masonic control. How could the French Revolution possibly have been before the American Revolution?

If these widely available facts are mysteries to these great researchers, why should we trust them on their novel, obscure claims?

  • Brazen distortion of Qurān and Ḥadīth

Our interpretation of Qurān and Ḥadīth is what Allāh and His Rasūl (pbuh) taught us, via the chain of the Ṣaḥābah (R.A), Mufassirūn and Muḥaddithūn. Aḥādīth warning against personal interpretations are well known.

Perhaps the most detailed Ḥadīth describing ad-Dajjāl is narrated by an-Nawwās bin Sam‘ān in al-Imām Muslim’s Ṣaḥīḥ, Chapter on the Mention of ad-Dajjāl. It is quite lengthy, but based on the print version where it covers 16 lines; the producers conveniently only quote a half-a-line to suit their purpose. Due to the length I only mention the relevant parts below:

ن النواس ابن سمعان…… انه خارج خلة بین الشام و العراق ….قلنا یا رسول الله و لبثه فى الأرض قال أربعون یوما یوم كسنة و یوم كشهر و یوم كجمعة و سائر أیامه كأیامكم قلنا یا رسول الله فذلك الذى كسنة أ تكفینا فیه صلاة یوم قال لا اقدروا له قدره

An-Nawwās bin Sam‘ān (r.a) narrated…. [Rasūlullāh (pbuh) said that ad-Dajjāl] will emerge on the road between ‘Irāq and Syria….We asked, “O Rasūlullāh,” How long will he stay on earth?”He replied, “Forty days. A day like a year, and a day like a month, and a day like a week, and the rest of his days will be like your days.”“O Rasūlullāh,” we asked, “That which is like a year, will the Ṣalāh of a day suffice us in it?’“No,” he replied, “Calculate for it according to its extent.”

The producers make the following claims:

* Ad-Dajjāl has already emerged.

* The first day represents his rule in England, starting in 900 of the Christian era.

* The English monarchy started in 900. The second day represents his rule in America, starting in 1917.

* The third day represents his rule in Palestine, starting in 2001.

The unbiased will realize:

* England and “between Iraq and Syria” cannot be the same.

* The continuous monarchy of England is dated from the reign of Egbert in 829. Is Arrivals deliberately lying to get their date of 900?

* The question of the Ṣalāh, clearly shows that the Ṣaḥābah (RA) understood the prophecy to mean that a normal 24 hour day will be extended to a year.

* This is in line with the clear, uncomplicated Dīn which Rasūlullāh (pbuh) brought us.

* The esoteric UK-US theory seems more in line with Masonic thinking.

Let the unbiased ask, “Has there been a single day since 900, when the day had to be shortened to 24 hours and divided into 5 for Ṣalāh purposes?” Obviously this has never happened in the general world, except for the poles, which is a permanent feature. If we accept the producers’ theory, we must accept one of two possibilities: Rasūlullāh (pbuh) did not know the real meaning of his prophecy, but the producer did! The stupidity of such a belief is self-evident. Rasūlullāh (pbuh) knew the real “sophisticated” meaning but chose to toy with the Ṣaḥābah (RA) when they made their “simple” interpretation.

Allāh save us from having either of these filthy thoughts against Rasūlullāh(pbuh). We must however ask, “The producers omitted the question of Ṣalāh which tears down their argument. Was this an oversight, coincidence or something more sinister?”

  • Exaggeration

A conspiracy of evil forces certainly exists, but exaggeration only serves the evil cause by making opponents seem false. This is in line with the very accusation of Arrivals against Zeitgeist – mention some truths mixed with falsehood, and the truth seems false.

An example of exaggeration is the clip showing an artist drawing, what appears to be sexual organs, but are mere curves in cartoons. The clip is well-known and the artist’s intentions are plain. His humour – however poor in taste it may be – is to shock the viewer to think he is drawing a private part and then continues to draw a bear etc. He is open about it, and there is no conspiracy. To claim otherwise, is either naïveté, dishonesty or something more sinister.

  • Sacrilegious depiction of sacred personalities

What kind of a Muslim depicts, not once, but repeatedly, the Mahdī as a magician from Lord of the Rings!!! In all their research did they never read Sūrah al-Baqarah, from which they would have understood that magic is Kufr?

If that is not bad enough, Arrivals has the audacity to state that Muslims are “hurt” by the Council of Nicea declaring Jesus to be God. Is it plain stupidity or hypocrisy that they portray ‘Īsā as the Kāfir king of the same movie! What are these people’s motivations?

  • Vilification of the Ṣaḥābah (r.a)

O Muslims, protect your faith against all sly attacks. Know that he who bears rancour against the Ṣaḥābah (RA) has cut himself from Rasūlullāh (pbuh) and has already lost the battle. Arrivals repeats the filthy lie of the Rawāfiḍ [Shī‘ah] that Mu‘āwiyah (RA) killed al- Ḥasan (RA). When it is convenient they quoted Tirmiẓī, but are silent of the du‘ā’ of Rasūlullāh (pbuh) for Mu‘āwiyah(RA) in the same book. Will you prefer a video clip over the Ḥadīth of Rasūlullāh (p.b.u.h)?

Other Rawāfiḍ beliefs The Arrivals cleverly draws one in, with facts and half-truths and then draw in the unwary with the Rawāfiḍ beliefs on the Mahdī. Yes, we believe that the family of Rasūlullāh (pbuh) has a special position of honour. Yes, we must confess that just like our other responsibilities, we have failed in this. Yes, the Mahdī will be of the sacred progeny. The Arrivals however makes no substantiation for interpreting this duty as recognising the fairy-tale Rawāfiḍ belief of the Twelve Imāms. Furthermore why these twelve, are there not other sects which follow Seven? To accept ‘Alī (RA) as First Imām is declaring Abū Bakr (RA) to be illegitimate and a usurper. The two beliefs cannot be reconciled. Arrivals opens the door to other filthy beliefs, such as the Alteration of the Qurān [Taḥrīf] and ‘Āishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā being an adulteress.

  • Music

Even ignoring the issue whether music is permissible or not, it is ironic that Arrivals which purports to warn against the Dajjāl uses one of his main weapons – music. Is it just ironic or something more, that there is almost non-stop music? The chosen medium uses audio and video. Other documentaries will have used the audio aspect for verbal explanations. Arrivals forces the viewer to read all explanations on the screen. Audio is almost completely devoted to music. Even when the Qurān is shown, music is being played. Even when clips with some dialogue are shown, the dialogue is blurred with music. Why?

At certain places Arrivals seems to explain the evil of some music videos. Fine, but why play it at such length after the point has already been made?

  • Immodesty

Arrivals deceives us to believing that some evil must be shown for educational purposes. It labels those who disagree as “extremist.” Why then does it go to extremes like showing the almost nude woman washing a vehicle and showing pose after pose of erotic stances? One thinks that the point has been made, and it will stop, but no such luck. Arrivals deceives one to believing one is Islāmically educating oneself. One wonders how many parents might have shown it to their children in the belief that they are being warned and educated. Had there been a dialogue (already discussed) Arrivals could have mentioned how almost everything is western society is sexualised; and anyone living on this planet would have understood. If they believed that depiction was necessary, then why such excess?

Arrivals declares women not dressed according to the Qurānic junctions as “moderate” according to the teachings of Rasūlullāh (pbuh)! Allāh knows their hearts best, but whoever falls for this video has weakened towards the Dajjāl.

  • Infiltration

Arrivals makes much about how religions have been infiltrated, but only harps on Christianity. Its quite strange that they are basically silent on infiltration in Islām. There are two forms of infiltration – individuals and groups. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī writes in Fathūl Bārī that ad-Dajjāl will undergo three phases. In the first phase he will present himself as a pious Muslim and will deceive even the genuinely pious into following him. Thus even senior figures in the community can be in the service of others. As we cannot read hearts, we cannot accuse (although when a senior figure can show non scruple at lying, one wonders…)

Parallel methods exist in infiltration on a group level. On this matter Arrivals makes a valid point that for the conspiracy to be implemented over centuries, a continuous Hidden hands is required. That Hidden Hand is none other than the Devil himself.

Note how he used a Jew, Saul, to pretend to convert to Christianity. He then turned a faith preaching about One God, into a different faith preaching Three gods and elevating Jesus to godhood, above his true station of Prophethood. It is no coincidence that The Jew, Ibn Saba’, pretended to convert to Islām. He managed to cleave a new religion out of Islām which cast doubt in the Ṣahābah and the Qurān as being authentic. He raised ‘Alī (RA) to godhood, above his true station of Companionship.

The Rawāfiḍ today (although most do not take ‘Alī (pbuh) as god) oppress the Ahlus Sunnah in Irān, but confer full respect on their brothers, the Jews. History testifies how at critical moments, they always assisted the enemies of Islām, such as the Crusaders and Mongols. Even if they are supposedly great warriors in freedom struggles today,consider: How they treat us once in power – investigate Irān.

If a Communist Atheist fights oppression, does that make him a Muslim? Similarly the kufr beliefs of Rawāfiḍ are not excused by war rhetoric. The Ḥadīth mentions Dajjāl’s supporters coming from Iṣfāhān. Guess where Isfāhān is? When ad-Dajjāl reaches al-Madīnah, an earthquake will expel all hypocrites who will go to him. Did you know that there are many Rwāfiḍ living in al-Madīnah?

Arrivals is correct that there is infiltration. They are just slyer than many expect.

Submitted via email from:Sulaiman al-Kindi