Good, bad and ugly side of Tak­firi evan­ge­lism

Daily Trust - - OPINION - By Mah­fuz Mun­dadu

The piece un­der the name Muham­mad Qad­dam Sidq laboured so hard to per­suade the gullible minds into believ­ing that Shia and by as­so­ci­a­tion, Iran are the two en­e­mies all must hate with pas­sion. Since time im­memo­rial this has been a re­cur­ring dec­i­mal in the his­tory of Tak­firi “Evan­ge­lism”.

In the said piece, Muham­mad Qad­dam Siqd as­sumes the role of the pros­e­cu­tor, the wit­ness, the judge and the ex­e­cu­tioner all at the same time. What comes to mind is the “trial” of Fadak in Saqeefa. Yet his ar­gu­ment is any­thing but log­i­cal. In the piece I am mak­ing ref­er­ence to, Muham­mad Qad­dam Sidq made si­mul­ta­ne­ous ac­cu­sa­tions against the Is­lamic re­pub­lic of Iran as well as Shia.

For God’s sake, Iran lost 465 of its peo­ple in this mishap, and it’s the high­est, shouldn’t it say any­thing? Haba! We should be just!

Muham­mad Qad­dam Sidq con­sid­ers it a crime that the Is­lamic Re­pub­lic of Iran de­mands to play a role in the man­age­ment of Hajj op­er­a­tions. For ar­gu­ment sake, let us as­sume this nar­ra­tion is cor­rect. If Hajj is an act of good deed, and it is, then what is wrong in seek­ing to be a party to or­gan­is­ing of good deeds? And Iran did not say they alone should be in­volved, but all Mus­lim coun­tries should con­trib­ute ideas and help in im­ple­ment­ing them in any­way that could be al­lowed. What’s wrong with that? Re­mem­ber it is the Almighty Al­lah (SWT) that com­mand all be­liev­ers to help one an­other in dis­charg­ing good deeds. Yet ac­cord­ing this author be­ing obe­di­ent to di­vine com­mand is a crime. Muham­mad al­leged that “… ac­cord­ing to Shia doc­trine, which is its (Is­lamic Re­pub­lic of Iran’s) of­fi­cial reli­gious ide­ol­ogy, Makkah is in­fe­rior to Kar­bala in terms of ho­li­ness…”. In part 2 of the same piece he added: “In one of their thou­sands of fab­ri­cated nar­ra­tions at­trib­uted to Imam Ja’afar As-sadiq, he was re­ported to have said “He who pays homage to the grave of Hus­sain on an or­di­nary day (not Eid) believ­ing in his (i.e. Hus­sain’s) priv­i­leged sta­tus, Al­lah will give him the same amount of re­ward earned from per­form­ing ac­cepted Hajj and Um­rah twenty times…” One won­ders what then were they do­ing at the Hajj in such big num­bers as to war­rant sus­tain­ing the high­est ca­su­alty? A quick one; a na­tion can not look down on some­thing and yet con­tinue to record such a highly im­pres­sive roll call.

All the same time have this one from me. The is­sue can be han­dled from three dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives. First be­ing that the Ha­dith is a fab­ri­cated one. If it is so then, throw it away! Se­condly if it is a fab­ri­cated Ha­dith found in the books of Shia. As such Shia is guilty of a wrong do­ing. It can’t be so. This is be­cause fab­ri­cated Ha­diths are equally found in Sunni au­thored books. And it will tan­ta­mount to aca­demic fraud and in­tel­lec­tual in­com­pe­tence to con­demn Sunni Schools of thoughts be­cause of such. And if you in­sist that Shia is guilty be­cause of a fab­ri­cated Ha­dith found in their books, then read what I lifted from Tariykh Tabari Vol­ume 2 Pages 75 -76:

“It is said that the chiefs of Qu­raysh like Walid, Aswad and Umayyah met the Prophet and re­quested that both par­ties should ac­knowl­edge the gods of each other. At that mo­ment ‘Su­rah al-Kafirun’ was re­vealed in re­ply to their pro­posal and the Prophet was or­dered to speak thus: “I do not wor­ship that which you wor­ship, nor do you wor­ship Him whom I wor­ship.”

How­ever, one day as the holy Prophet was sit­ting near the Ka’bah and recit­ing Su­rah alNajm aloud, he reached th­ese two verses. “Have you thought on al-Lat and al-Uzza and thirdly on Manat?” Satan sud­denly made him ut­ter an­other two sen­tences viz: “th­ese are ‘Gha­raniq’ who are high in po­si­tion and their in­ter­ces­sion is ac­cept­able”, and then he re­cited the re­main­ing verses. When he reached the last verse of the Su­rah the Prophet him­self as well as all oth­ers present, whether Mus­lims or idol­aters, per­formed Sa­j­dah be­fore the idols…

Please be re­minded that some Sunni au­thors of Qur’anic com­men­tary equally quoted same in their books. In al­leg­ing that the devil “tricked” the Holy prophet into wor­ship­ping idols, the foundation of Is­lam comes to naught. Now shall we ac­cuse the Sunni world of plot­ting against Is­lam? Never! So what ap­plies here shall and must ap­ply there.

The third pos­si­bil­ity is that the Ha­dith is au­then­tic. Then does that im­ply that Mecca is in­fe­rior to Kar­bala, even ac­cord­ing the au­thors ac­count? Here him one more time: “the same amount of re­ward earned from per­form­ing ac­cepted Hajj and Um­rah twenty times” How can you be this naïve? Where is the word in­fe­rior? For in­stance, Tir­midhi re­ported a Ha­dith: “Whoso­ever reads Sura Ya-seen in Ra­mad­han will re­ceive the same amount of re­ward earned from read­ing the whole Qur’an ten times”.

Qad­dam Sidq ac­cused the Is­lamic Re­pub­lic of con­demn­ing the United States and Is­rael for their end­less atroc­i­ties against Is­lam and the Mus­lim and he does not seem to be happy with that. Well…birds of the same feather flock to­gether. For us we are happy be­ing in the “bad” books of the gang­sters. That is a charm­ing cos­met­ics. A medal of hon­our. Yes, it can not for the chicken-hearted. The ac­cu­sa­tion of in­vad­ing the Grand Mosques is as laugh­able as it is ridicu­lous. Qad­dam Sidq ac­cused Iran of se­cre­tive al­liance with its pur­ported en­emy. But how do you know if it is re­ally se­cre­tive?

The author sug­gests that chant­ing Ya-Hus­sein is unIs­lamic. This is my take on that. The usual proof ad­vanced in­clude verse 18 in Su­rat AlJinn: “And that the mosques are Al­lah’s, there­fore call not upon any­one be­sides Al­lah”. The last verse in Su­rat Al-Yunus says: “And do not call be­sides Al­lah on that which can nei­ther ben­e­fit you nor harm you.” Any­body that con­sid­ers “Dua” to be syn­ony­mous to wor­ship­ping should as well ex­plain this; “He (Prophet Noah) said: my Lord! I have called (“Da’autu” from “Dua”) my peo­ple night and day” (71:5). Does that mean Noah has been wor­ship­ping his peo­ple night and day? Ab­so­lutely not! With this we come to ap­pre­ci­ate the fact that there is noth­ing wrong in a ser­vant call­ing an­other ser­vant for help. Now the ques­tion is that Hus­sein is in his grave and he is as such d***. Never, be­cause he is mar­tyr. And in the Glo­ri­ous Qur’an we were warned again not only say­ing but even think­ing that a mar­tyr is dead. So we are call­ing on a glo­ri­ous ser­vant of Al­lah (SWT) that is live and alive. Inna haaz­i­hiy tazkira. Fa­man shaaat tak­haza ilaa Rab­bi­hiy sabiyla…

mah­fuz­mundadu@gmail. com, 08172140670 (text only).

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Nigeria

© PressReader. All rights reserved.