By now the respected reader might have heard of, and your heart broken at the latest disrespect shown to Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) –  the shameful prancing of unclad women  in Rajab 1444 / Feb 2023 at his noble court, Masjidun Nabī (صلى الله عليه و سلم). I say latest because this incident is not isolated. One cannot divorce this incident from the intentional plots of  the Dajjāl of Riyāḍ, his demonic concerts in his capital, his bringing of naked models and tourists to Madāʿīn Ṣāliḥ, which Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) told us not to tarry at, his massacre of Muslims of Yemen, his imprisonment and torture of righteous scholars, and his assistance in murdering Khashoggi and Morsi.

Closer to the issue at hand, his so-called reforms have facilitated Israeli Jews entering Makkah in July 2022 and gloating about it on social media. This is in itself evidence that the issue is not simply of where non-Muslims are allowed or not, for they gloat in triumph, knowing that this is a matter of honour and respect to Allāh, His Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and His slaves. Jews have entered Uḥud and Sikhs wearing their garb have strolled by Masjidun Nabī (صلى الله عليه و سلم). Somehow these incidents are always “accidents” and those who reject Allāh and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) will still be allowed to visit, only that they will be kindly advised to behave better.

Anyone with minimal intelligence and awareness will understand that the Dajjāl of Riyāḍ pushes the Muslims daily, to see how far we shall tolerate his abuse and plot to turn Islām’s most sacred lands into another America or shall we say, “mini Yankistān”. These incidents are all connected thorns on a necklace of torture designed to strangle the spirit and life of Islām.

But Madīnah is NOT a Ḥaram!!!

Certain clever folk counter that “Madīnah is not a Ḥaram! Kuffār are allowed there!” Allāh knows best if such are genuinely naïve of the bigger picture facing Islām, or are they hypocrite allies of Dajjāl.

Firstly, yes, every educated Muslim knows that the sacred or Ḥaram status of Madīnatun Nabī (صلى الله عليه و سلم) is not the same as Makkah’s.

Secondly, every educated Muslim knows that to one degree or another, the jurists do allow entry into Madīnatun Nabī (صلى الله عليه و سلم) for the Kuffār (whom these people seem to love more than Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم)).

To summarise for the layman, one school focuses on historical reality, e.g. Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) receiving delegations in his city and conclude permissibility of entry. Other jurists focus on his instruction and conclude prohibition:

لأُخْرِجَنَّ اليهودَ والنصارى مِن جَزِيرة العرب حتى لا أدَعَ إلا مُسلما

I shall certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula until I leave none [in Arabia] but a Muslim.

Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim

Yet amongst these jurists there is consideration for non-Muslims to visit, based on reason, duration etc. In other words, in the letter of the law the jurists do allow entry, with a spectrum of differences on the degree allowed.

So there you have it. I have “confessed” to the amazing knowledge that the clever “not a Ḥaram!” folk throw. Yes, there is a juristic basis for what they say, and I am not going to deny or hide facts.    

 Islām does not end at the Letter of the Law

The Laws of Islām are central to the life of the Muslim who is slave to the Divine King (not to be confused with Dajjāl’s father in Riyāḍ). To deny or belittle the Sharīʿah makes one a sinner at best, possibly an apostate in Allāh’s Eyes. Simultaneously to confine religion to the letter of the law is the way of the Jewish Talmud, not the way of the Companions of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم). They (Allāh be pleased with them) understood the importance of love, context, spirituality, attuning the heart and polishing one’s respect and etiquette in matters which are not categorically spelt out in the letter of the law.

Consider the example of Qabāth (Allāh be pleased with him) which you can read here. He would not tolerate an ambiguous possibility of disrespect in words referring to Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم), let alone the disrespect that the Saʿūdī regime tolerates and facilitates.

Consider the narration of ʾal-ʾImām ʾAbū Dāwūd (Allāh’s mercy be upon him) in regards the behaviour of ʿUmm Khallād (Allāh be pleased with her). Her son was martyred and she ran to Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم), shouting, “What happened to my son!!!” She was clearly distraught and lacking in composure, yet she respectfully covered her face. The opposite of what transpired with those shameless females in our time, and which the clever ones defend. ʿUmm Khallād (Allāh be pleased with her) did not bother with what the letter of the law permits. She did ask the jurists for the different views on the face. She did not present her age, and mental discomposure as grounds for concession. She acted upon the requirements of love, modesty, and respect, whether obligated to or not.

The First Letter of the Law People

ʿAlī accepted arbitration of ʾAbū Mūsā and ʿAmr bin ʾal-ʿĀṣ in the dispute with Muʿāwiyah (may Allāh be pleased with all four). The murderers of ʿUthmān (Allāh be pleased with him), the Shīʿah, were displeased. Whilst ostensibly followers of ʿAlī (Allāh be pleased with him), a group of them went from the Shīʿī extreme of over-veneration of ʿAlī (Allāh be pleased with him), to the Khārijī extreme of abusing ʿAlī (Allāh be pleased with him). They proclaimed as their slogan the literal letter of ʾal-ʾAnʿām:57, “Rule only belongs to Allāh,” as if the two spiritual and intellectual giants did not understand how to apply the Qurʾān. ʿAlī (Allāh be pleased with him) declared, “A word of truth by which falsehood is intended.”

In our times the allies of Dajjāl present a word of truth that entry to Madīnatun Nabī (صلى الله عليه و سلم) is permitted to non-Muslims. Yet in service of the Dajjāl of Riyād and ignoring the context of war against Islām and removing the respectful Islāmic atmosphere of Madīnatun Nabī (صلى الله عليه و سلم), falsehood is intended, not the true intent of the jurists of Islām. If you regard the jurist or school that you follow as intending their rulings to be vehicles for the music, nudity and other desecrations of the land of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم), then you have slandered Allāh’s friends. 

Since when does Permission Equate to Compulsory Implementation?

Since when does the permissibility of something mean that it has to be done? Does permission not by definition mean that there is leeway to application?

It is permissible to eat apples. I have not had an apple in perhaps months. Is Allāh angry with me for that, or has His Permission given me the leeway to weigh the context of my life and decide when I want to and if it is wise to have apples. Have you eaten an apple today?

Suppose you are a female reader with one husband. He has permission to marry another three. Why have you not demanded that he fill the three slots. It is permissible! There is no prohibition!

Surely the Muslim with the least bit of intelligence can understand that a juristic view of permission does not equate to obligation of implementation, especially in the context of the permission being used against Islām and has already shown to manifest as disrespect to Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

Jurists by the definition of their vocation discuss theoretical rulings that may or may not have practical application in the future. Their job is to provide the legal framework for application of events that might occur, not to command application for the permissible. Take the issue of an illegitimate daughter. She is not the legal daughter of her fornicator father and thus does not inherit from him nor can she be in privacy with him. Yet if she is not his daughter in the eyes of the law, and they became separated and as strangers they married, what would be the status of their offspring? There are jurists who ruled that since they are legally strangers, their marriage and its results would be valid in law despite the biological relationship. Does that mean that those  jurists actually encourage such unions or that letter-of-the-law modern Khawārij should cite such opinions to promote such marriages? Yes? No? Be consistent!

Legal Permission with Spiritual Damnation

Allāh blessed me to visit Madīnatun Nabī (صلى الله عليه و سلم) once. The nights were quiet. I could visit Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) and greet him with ease. One night was so empty I stood right by his resting place and wrote the final lines of my one book.

Now in the context of attire in his presence…. All jurists agree that as a male, I am permitted to expose what is above my navel. What does the letter of the law say had I started stripping in his sacred presence to intentionally stand bare chested, is it entirely juristically permissible? But what does the heart of the believer say to such disrespect, can someone, who within the ambit of the letter of the law, shows intentional disrespect, with full presence of mind still even be a Muslim?

The honour of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم) is a delicate matter. The Satanists of Riyāḍ have assaulted his dignity time and time again. They wage war against his religion and the battle escalates. Get out of your bubble of ignorant comfort and research what is happening in the Ḥaramayn.

There is no middle ground. Choose Allāh and His Messenger (صلى الله عليه و سلم).

سليمان الكندي
TWITTER: @sulayman_kindi