By Debi Brand
In article here, mother of this alleged hero and “lion” of the cause of Islam, crowns her son with honor and praise, for his handiness in the wielding of his butchering knife.
Attesting therein, her pride, her satisfaction, and her “joy” in the truth in the statement of “the Preacher.” Specifically this statement: “Teach a child to choose the right path, and when he is older he will remain upon it.” (Book of Proverbs, Hebrew Scripture, Living Bible Paraphrased, Tyndale, Chapter 22, Verse 6.)
Yes, indeed. Her boy, her cherished son, a child of the Ummah, thus, offspring of Qur’an and Sunnah, as this momma declared, “You are the pride of Islam!”
Thus, her boy, a child instructed, the right path to follow is the path of Jihad in the way of and for the cause of “Allah.” The path on which have been lain and imprinted, from all who have preceded him on that path, the footprints from the feet of those who ran and rushed to and on that path; clear lines displaying both love and hate, only for the sake of “Allah.”
Thus, this child was trained, groomed, and tailored for that path — to it, on it, dash.
Thus, this boy, this child of her womb, this investment of this momma’s heart, life, and soul, a product of the doctrines of the faith system this Palestinian momma holds dear. Doctrines that she, as a good Muslim mother, took great pains to inculcate into her children.
Thus, on a 21st century day, somewhere near the beautiful Magnificent Damascus Gate, attesting to the success of her labor in that effort spoken of above, was that that, by the hand and “handy-work” of her child, poured out or gushed out on, or fell to that city street of the City of Old Jerusalem.
Harvests, evidence of the doctrines of the faith she holds dear brought to “life” and color. Doctrines that hail from teaching and practices of the alleged beloved “Prophet” of the Islamic nation.
Doctrines such as, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him [—his Companions among the believers–] are fierce to the unbelievers, [and do not show mercy to them], merciful to one another.” (Surat al-Fath: [48] :29, al-Jalalayn.)
Doctrines that include, in the words of the esteemed Qadi Iyad, “the Necessity of Loving the Prophet.” That “necessity,” as Iyad provides, founded on the following:
Allah says, “Say, if your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your tribe and your possessions you have earned, commerce you fear may slacken, dwellings you love – if these are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and to struggle in His way, then wait until Allah brings his command.” (9:25 [in some renditions, vs.: 24.])
(Iyad, Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yasubi, , Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley translation, Medinah Press, Cape Town, South Africa, Seventh print, 2008, P. 223.)
Speaking to the same, ahadith echoing and buttressing the doctrine, the same authoritative source relates, the “Prophet” stated, “None of you will believe until I am dearer to him than his own soul.” So too, “Anas reported that the Messenger of Allah said, ‘None of you will believe until I am more beloved to him than his children, his father, and all people,’” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and an-Nasa’i).” So too, The “Prophet” asserted, “None of you will believe until I am dearer to him than himself.” (Ibid [Muslim and al-Bukhari].)
Why should the Muslim count this alleged prophet “dearer to him than himself” and “dearer to him than his own soul,” and “more beloved to him than his children, his father, and all people?”
Because, as the Qur’an declares, thus, as Qadi Iyad relates, “Allah” commanded, “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger ….” (24:54). Because, “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah…” (4:79). (Ibid, P. 215.)
For such reasons, the revered scholars of Islam expound, “He [Allah] has made obeying His Messenger tantamount to obeying Himself, and He placed obedience to Himself alongside obedience to His Messenger….” For such reasons, “He made it obligatory to obey the things that the Prophet commanded and to avoid those he prohibited.” (Ibid.)
Iyad further provides, “The commentators and Imams have said that obeying the Messenger means to cling to his sunna and submit to what he brought…. obeying the Messenger in his sunna is equivalent to obeying Allah in His obligations.” (Ibid.)
And the Messenger commanded, “When I forbid you to do something, avoid it. When I command you to do something, then do it as much as you are able.” (Ibid [from Muslim and al-Buckari], P. 216.)
For such reasons, the consensus of the scholars of Islam includes, as Iyad provides, “Soundness of belief is based on submission to the Prophet and satisfaction with his judgements and abandoning opposition to him.” (Ibid, P. 217.)
And for such reasons, as the Qur’an commands, “O you who believe, raise not your voices above the Prophet’s voice, nor speak loudly to him….”(49:2). That meaning, in the words of the revered scholars, “no Muslim is allowed to consider his judgement and opinion to be more sound and correct in comparison to the verdict of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him).”
(Sahih Muslim, By Imam Muslim, Rendered in English by ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Islamic Book Service, Fourth Edition, 2005, Vol. IV, P.94, FN.)
Hence the doctrine of love of sunna.
Because as Qadi Iyad, and others, relates, “the first sign” that one is loving the “Messenger of Allah” in the manner he is commanded to be loved is one “will emulate him.” Thus, continues Iyad, one will “apply his sunna, follow his words and deeds, obey his commands and avoid his prohibitions and take on his adab [ correct behavior, inward and outward ] in ease and hardship, joy and despair. Allah testifies to that, ‘Say: if you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you.’” (3:31.) (Ibid, Part Two, Section One of Chapter Two, P 223.)
As such, as Iyad cites, Ubayy ibn Ka ‘b said, “You must follow the path of Allah and the Sunna… See that your actions — whether they are striving or minimal — are on the path of the Prophets and their sunna….” Because, “A minimal course in the path of Allah and the Sunna is better than striving hard in a path contrary to the path of Allah and the sunna….” (Ibid, P. 220, 221, 220 respectively.)
We add to that, “ ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdu’l-‘Aziz said, “The Messenger of Allah made a Sunna and the people in command after him made sunnas. To adopt them is to confirm the Book of Allah and to act on them is to obey Allah….” (Ibid [P. 220].)
Central to that sunnah: “the Messenger of Allah said, ‘I was commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and believe in me and what I have brought. When they do that, their blood and property are protected from me except for a right (they owe). Their reckoning is with Allah.” (Ibid, P. 213 [Muslim and al-Bukhari].)
Likewise part of the said sunna of this “Messenger,” in the alleged records of how he judged, what he said, and practiced, the following: “Abu Sa ‘eed Al-Khurdi narrated that the Messenger of Allah was asked: ‘Which of the people are most virtuous?’ He said: ‘A man who take [sic] part in Jihad in Allah’s cause.'”
(At-Tirmidhi, Jami At-Tirmidhi, Darussalam, First Edition, 2007; Vol. 3, The Chapter of the Virtues of Jihad, P. 408, #1660.)
Footnotes thereat provide the following: “The Hadith tells us that one of the paths leading strait to Paradise is to take part in Jihad and confront the enemy fearlessly, under the shadow of swords and other weapons. (Ibid.)
Therefore, to serve that end, in Muhammad’s ummah, children are reared on and inculcated with the doctrine of love and hate for the cause of Allah. Whetted with hunger and thirst for the path of Jihad against the unbelievers, for the cause of “Allah” Thus, groomed, cultivated to kill and be killed, for the cause …
Ergo, “this Palestinian “child,” the featured “star” of this story, this “pride of Islam,” being nurtured and reared on the above basics of Islam, this Palestinian “child,” up to his dying breath, on the path of Jihad he remained.
For such reasons, it is indispensable; here in the U.S. we certify the right for the Muslims to inculcate in the children from their wombs, the tenets, and details of the “religion” and traditions of their alleged “Prophet of Islam.”
Because this story is just one more example among the countless thereof, of a Muslim, having learned well the tenets of his “religion,” thus, putting to practice the content and substance of the alleged “Book of Allah,” delivering a harvest of the tenets of the same.
Putting to practice, the teachings, and example of the alleged “Messenger of Allah.”
Part of those teachings, as is spoken to by ibn Qayyim, “How a Breach of an Agreement Should be Dealt With.” The details of it, borne out in the example/sunnah seen and noted in “the Declaration of Immunity For The People of Ayla,” people of Tabook.
(Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, Zad Al-Ma’ad, Provisions for The Afterlife Which Lie Within Prophetic Guidance, Translation: Ismail Abdus Salaam, Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmihay, 2010, Lebanon, 1st Edition; P. 480, P. 463.)
The background of that declaration is this: the alleged messenger reached Tabook. Once there, he negotiated peace with “a man of Ayla.” In that agreement, that man agreeing to and thus rendering his payment of jizyah. The people there of Jarbaa and Adhrah following suit. “As a result of” such, the alleged messenger “wrote a declaration of immunity for them.” (Ibid, P. 463 – 464.)
The substance, in part, of that declaration of immunity “from Allaah and the prophet and messenger to Yahna Bin Ru’ba and the people of Ayla,” was this: “Their ships and caravans are protected by Allaah and Muhammad the prophet …. However, if they breach this agreement, their lives and wealth will be free for the taking.” Because, as Ibn Qayyim provides, “one who breaches an agreement becomes an antagonist and is treated as such.” (Ibid, P. 464, 480 in that order.)
Thus, speaking of the lesson/sunna provided in the above declaration, Ibn Qayyim further relates, “when those who have agreed to a peace treaty,” (as, for example, had the Jews of Medina with Muhammad, shortly after Muhammad allegedly came into their city), “act in contrast to the dictates of an accord,” then, sunna is, that accord is thus thereby “nullified.” (Qayyim, P. 480.)
Moreover, once such a contract has been thus nullified, as Ibn Qayyim provides, because of the parties’ breach of trust, which triggered the subsequent nullification of that contract, “as a result, the Imam may execute them [the said guilty] and confiscate their wealth.” (Ibid.)
We note, in the alleged lifetime of the alleged prophet of Islam, he was that Imam. He was that religio-political leader. Therefore, for the believer, the lover of sunna, his would be the example all Imams after him would follow.
Additionally, Ibn Qayyim further relates, if for some reason the Imam himself is “incapable of doing so, then,” concerning such, for any believer able and willing do the deeds, concerning the said offenders, “their lives and wealth will be free for the taking.” (Ibid.)
Clearly, somewhere along the line, the present day Jews broke their agreement with “Muhammad and his Companions.” That being, their agreement to acknowledge the supremacy of Islam and its followers. Do so, rendering into the Islamic treasury, their agreed upon payment of Jizyah. Doing so, in a subdued and humbled state.
Obviously, if these present day Israelis were in such a state, there would be no State of Israel. No alleged “occupation.”
Therefore, given it is, according to Islamic doctrine, clear the Israelis have indeed broken the terms of peace with “Muhammad”; the Muslim knows, having learned it from his/her “prophet,” in the words of their alleged beloved prophet, for and to the believer, the lives and property of these Israelis are “free for the taking.” (Ibid, P. 464.)