neo-Mu'tazili Yamin Zakaria attacks Salafis

[Brother_Mujahid]

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=190

His whole arguement is based upon broad and sweeping generalizations in which no evidence to support his claims is produced.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

interesting this ex-ht member writes for the International Institute of Peace, and attacks other muslims regurgitating from his "mentor" muhammad al-massari wa ALLAHU Musta'an!

Some HT ideas never disappear...

wa ALLAHU Musta'an!

[gag order]

he could have further elaborated on how the later uthmanis contributed to their own demise with their pre-occupation with all things allegorical. instead of pushing the boundaries of intellectual advancement in law and science, they fell into decline and gave way to frivolous amusements, whirling dervishes, grave worshipping and trying (in vain) to become 'one' with allah. then came the abandonement of jihad and dawah, in favour of political intrigue and meddling in europes affairs.

i agree with the overall premise of the article except where he fails to properly differentiate between the creed of the salaf and the prevailing methodology of al saud. these issues are not the same. he has confused and tied in unrelated matters such as madhab, taqleed, takfir, aqeeda and perhaps early wahhabism with the trecherous politics of the prevailing saudi regime.

similarly he failed to elaborate on and distinguish between the salafis who oppose american imperialism and focused on the 'saudi salafis' in a way that would leave an uninformed reader with the impression that only the saudi salafis are representative of the salafi creed and that all the salafi scholars are government scholars.

two notable salafi scholars openly spoke out against american intervention in the first gulf war and suffered greatly for it, but did they get a mention? now thats hardly objective!

[Brother_Mujahid]

Of course there are those like al-Ubaykaan and his ilk that are exactly as Yamin Zakaria described. That being said there is a large number of "Salafi" scholars that have been at the forefront of the Islamic revival and the struggle against the Western-Zionist plan for domination over the Muslims. Numerous scholars have issued fatawa in support of the mujahideen in Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Iraq. Many of these fatawa can be found on this very website.

I generally like the articles of Yamin Zakaria, but in this case he has made a fool of himself and shown his sectarian bigotry. He should recant this article and not bother to talk about thing of which he has no understanding.

[Logic lover]

I think Yamin Zakaria has spoken more truths than falsehood and I disagree that he has presented a sectarian view to the exclusion of facts:

''Therefore, the label ‘neo-con salafis’ or Saudi-Salafis is most appropriate for them. This also distinguishes them from the Jihadi-Salafis, who are far more consistent. ''

''This is why those planes should have been rammed against the palaces of these oppressors, instead of the WTC. Remove the snake inside your house, before you attempt to fight the bigger beast outside.''

''Therefore, the neo-con Salafis are also the Khawarij (neo-Khawarij) of today''

''Accordingly they criticised the Shi’ites in Lebanon for fighting the Israelis, a close friend of their American masters, and simultaneously remained silent towards the Shi’ites in Iraq who collaborated with the Americans''

''But then again, there are no Muslims unless one is a neo-Khawarij (Saudi-Salafi or neo-Con Salafi)! ''

''They say you should not follow the Scholars but only the Quran and Sunnah (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW). Which tacitly implies the previous Scholars did not do that''

''According to these neo-Khawarij, the solution to our problems means going back to the 14th century and continuing the philosophical/theological debate that was initiated as a result of encountering Greek Philosophy. In essence, when everyone becomes a neo-Khawarij, our problem will be magically solved!''

''It is easy to promote the above mentioned arguments, as the vast majority of the Saudi-Salafi followers are brain-dead, incapable of thinking independently and rationally about their situation.''

''The Saudi-Salafis talk, you must listen. You challenge them by the constructing your own thoughts then automatically you are reduced to a deviant innovator lacking in scholarly knowledge'' Unquote.

[Brother_Mujahid]

''Therefore, the label ‘neo-con salafis’ or Saudi-Salafis is most appropriate for them. This also distinguishes them from the Jihadi-Salafis, who are far more consistent. ''

This would mean that there is only two groups of "Salafis" and that all are bad, except a small minority, which even then only get credit for being "consistent". Someone like Shaykh Nasser al-'Omar isn't a "Jihadi-Salafi" yet is he a "neo-con Salafi"?

''This is why those planes should have been rammed against the palaces of these oppressors, instead of the WTC. Remove the snake inside your house, before you attempt to fight the bigger beast outside.''

How about striking the head of the snake? Kill al-Salool and America has replacements ready. Get rid of America from the Middle East and then deal with the al-Salool regime, that is the intent of al-Qae'da.

''Therefore, the neo-con Salafis are also the Khawarij (neo-Khawarij) of today''

Throwing the word "Khawaarij" around in a very generalized manner, just like a follower of Rab'ee al-Madkhalee would.

''Accordingly they criticised the Shi’ites in Lebanon for fighting the Israelis, a close friend of their American masters, and simultaneously remained silent towards the Shi’ites in Iraq who collaborated with the Americans''

The scholars have always considered the Rawaafid Shee'ah to be mushrikeen.Thus the believe them to be worse in their kufr than the Jews and Christians. So when Shaykh Abu Baseer at-Tartusi, Shaykh Haamid al-Ali, Shaykh Safar al-Hawali, Shaykh ibn Jibreen, and Shaykh Nasser al-'Omar spoke against Hizb ul-Laat they were being totally consistant. Also the Hanafi Deobandi scholars in Pakistan and India believe the Shee'ah to be mushrikeen, so it isn't unique to the "Salafi" scholars.

''But then again, there are no Muslims unless one is a neo-Khawarij (Saudi-Salafi or neo-Con Salafi)! ''

That is a gross exaggeration if I ever heard it. The most pro-Saudi regime wing of the "Salafi" movement are extreme Murjee'ah.

''They say you should not follow the Scholars but only the Quran and Sunnah (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW). Which tacitly implies the previous Scholars did not do that''

That is bunk and not even really worth addressing. Every "Salafi" respects the scholars: Imaam Abu Haneefah, Imaam Maalik, Imaam ash-Shaaf'ee, Imaam Ahmad, Imaam ibn Hajr, Imaam an-Nawawi, Imaam ibn Taymiyyah, Imaam ibn al-Qayyam, Imaam ibn Katheer, etc.

''According to these neo-Khawarij, the solution to our problems means going back to the 14th century and continuing the philosophical/theological debate that was initiated as a result of encountering Greek Philosophy. In essence, when everyone becomes a neo-Khawarij, our problem will be magically solved!''

This is just a subtle way to belittle having the correct aqeedah.

''It is easy to promote the above mentioned arguments, as the vast majority of the Saudi-Salafi followers are brain-dead, incapable of thinking independently and rationally about their situation.''

The same could be said for Hizb ut-Tahrir or any other movement. This is just more baseless generalizations.

''The Saudi-Salafis talk, you must listen. You challenge them by the constructing your own thoughts then automatically you are reduced to a deviant innovator lacking in scholarly knowledge''

Again more generalizations, as almost all of this article consists of.

[Logic lover]

Salam brother Mujahid.

You have made some valid points as has Yamin Zakaria. In terms of generalisation - yes! what is being disussed is of general nature and hence general statements will be found. In fact, to make specific statements - one needs to do justice on individual Muslims (for example: one cannot point his finger to someone who claims himself to be 'Salafi' and call him 'Khawarij').


Quote:
''How about striking the head of the snake? Kill al-Salool and America has replacements ready. Get rid of America from the Middle East and then deal with the al-Salool regime, that is the intent of al-Qae'da.''

How about fighting the enemy who are near (in the light of Quran 9:123). I am not applying it to a specific country or regime?


Quote:

''The scholars have always considered the Rawaafid Shee'ah to be mushrikeen''

The issue raised by Yamin is not about the classification, but about being consistent in criticising them. Again, no specific name has been mentioned as this is a general disucussion.

Quote:

''The most pro-Saudi regime wing of the "Salafi" movement are extreme Murjee'ah.''

What about the moderately ''pro-Saudi Salafis''? They have some elements of Irja too and it is a question of the fundamentals.

Quote:

''Every "Salafi" respects the scholars..''

That is if he is really a Salafi. The 'Saudi-Salafis' give themselves the title, some of them even add the title (Salafi) to their name. Some of them identify themselves with that title and look down on those who do not seem to take from certain Sheikhs of the recent era.

Quote:

''The same could be said for Hizb ut-Tahrir or any other movement.''

The description and the methodology would be different for other groups. This group is more influential as they have a sponsored scholarship behind them.


I maintain my position that it is more difficult to deal with a 'Saudi Salafi' than an 'HT' - I do not belong to neither of these group.

Allah knows best.

[Brother_Mujahid]

You have made some valid points as has Yamin Zakaria. In terms of generalisation - yes! what is being disussed is of general nature and hence general statements will be found. In fact, to make specific statements - one needs to do justice on individual Muslims (for example: one cannot point his finger to someone who claims himself to be 'Salafi' and call him 'Khawarij').

No, generalizations without explict clarification is dangerous and in this case misleading.

How about fighting the enemy who are near (in the light of Quran 9:123). I am not applying it to a specific country or regime?

I'm not arguing this or that, merely I was stating what the stragity of al-Qae'da is.

The issue raised by Yamin is not about the classification, but about being consistent in criticising them. Again, no specific name has been mentioned as this is a general disucussion.

Hence why I pointed out the problem with random generalizations.

What about the moderately ''pro-Saudi Salafis''? They have some elements of Irja too and it is a question of the fundamentals.

What about them? I was merely questioning the assertion that the "Saudi Salafis" are Khawaarij and takfeeri fanatics. Rather they are extreme Murjee'ah, though I admit they do display from time to time attributes comparable to the Khawaarij.

That is if he is really a Salafi. The 'Saudi-Salafis' give themselves the title, some of them even add the title (Salafi) to their name. Some of them identify themselves with that title and look down on those who do not seem to take from certain Sheikhs of the recent era.

Such is the nature of hizbiyyah. You will find every party and hizb with the same attitude (some in an even more extreme form) nowadays. Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jama'at at-Tabligh, the neo-Soofi Zaytuna Institute\Hamza Yusuf crew, and al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen are all equally quilty of this.

The description and the methodology would be different for other groups. This group is more influential as they have a sponsored scholarship behind them.

Here is the problem, we are never told who the "Saudi-Salafis" are. Is it merely "Salafi Publications" (i.e. Talafi Fabrications) and TROID, in which case I don't think they have as much influence as they used to and are not worth bothering with (and Zakaria should have just called them out and saved us all the trouble). Or is he speaking in a broader sense? The problem is we don't know.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_YaminZakaria.pdf

refutation

[Intoodeep]

http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/Sala...minZakaria.pdf

refutation

Its funny how these unemployed ex-street robbers from brixton (AKA as extreme madkhalis of brixton mosque) have several disparaging remarks to say about this forum and its owner Abuz Zubair in their publications. Yet dont have the bottle to come and openly debate the issues they have.

In their 2nd footnote in this document they also note that Yamin lost a debate against a murtad that is soo untrue. the debate was actually put up by Yamin on the net after the murtads lost. Pity these madkhalis waste the ample time they have defending the tawagheet and never defending islam from the attacks of its enemies.

[waziri]

For all the apparent faults in Yamin Zakaria's article it is still far better than this sickening attempt at a refutation by the filthy madakhila.

[Abu Faaris As-Sumalee]

what is "azaamee"

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

The refutation has some good defenses against Imaam 'Abdul-Wahaab(rh) but I haven't read much else, and some of what I have read is just in support of the Saudi Regime.

The point that many of these HTites and those who follow them in their criticisms of the salafiiyyah is that (as has been mentioned on this thread) there is a big difference between the da'wah najdiyyah before and the "da'wah najdiyyah" now.

But some people will never learn and as you can see here:

http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=4388#4388

they think as their imaam nabhani did, that Imaam 'abdul-wahaab(rh) was a conspirator with the British

wa ALLAHU Musta'an

[Brother_Mujahid]

Both the original article and the proceeding "refutation" were garbage and full of malicious sectarian lies and distortions. I have already spoken at lengths about the original article by Yamin Zakaria, so I feel no need to say anything further. As for the Madkhalee article, well it was nothing more than an opportunity to attack people like Shaykh Abu Baseer at-Tartusi, Shaykh Abu Qatada al-Filistini, and the brothers like Abuz Zubayr (the "Azzamee", lol). Also there was the very weak attempt to prove that the Saudi government has always aided the oppressed Muslims, by misrepresenting private Saudi citizens giving donations to Palestinians or the Saudi government providing money to its cronies in Lebanon after the Israeli bombing. One who has some knowledge of current affairs would know that Saudi Arabia has stood by as the Israelis devestated Gaza and Lebanon (raising the image of the Rawaafid Shee'ah) and has either directly or indirectly supported the American attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

i agree, but i liked some of the points on shaykh muhammad(rh), dats all.......seriously.......;)

[ali]

http://www.iiop.org/index3.php?recordID=190

His whole arguement is based upon broad and sweeping generalizations in which no evidence to support his claims is produced.

humm

reminds me kinda like when you follow him in calling the people of Allah and the Sunnah s "neo-con salafis"

[ali]

I think Yamin Zakaria has spoken more truths than falsehood and I disagree that he has presented a sectarian view to the exclusion of facts:

''Therefore, the label ‘neo-con salafis’ or Saudi-Salafis is most appropriate for them. This also distinguishes them from the Jihadi-Salafis, who are far more consistent. ''

''This is why those planes should have been rammed against the palaces of these oppressors, instead of the WTC. Remove the snake inside your house, before you attempt to fight the bigger beast outside.''

''Therefore, the neo-con Salafis are also the Khawarij (neo-Khawarij) of today''

''Accordingly they criticised the Shi’ites in Lebanon for fighting the Israelis, a close friend of their American masters, and simultaneously remained silent towards the Shi’ites in Iraq who collaborated with the Americans''


''But then again, there are no Muslims unless one is a neo-Khawarij (Saudi-Salafi or neo-Con Salafi)! ''

''They say you should not follow the Scholars but only the Quran and Sunnah (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW). Which tacitly implies the previous Scholars did not do that''

''According to these neo-Khawarij, the solution to our problems means going back to the 14th century and continuing the philosophical/theological debate that was initiated as a result of encountering Greek Philosophy. In essence, when everyone becomes a neo-Khawarij, our problem will be magically solved!''

''It is easy to promote the above mentioned arguments, as the vast majority of the Saudi-Salafi followers are brain-dead, incapable of thinking independently and rationally about their situation.''

''The Saudi-Salafis talk, you must listen. You challenge them by the constructing your own thoughts then automatically you are reduced to a deviant innovator lacking in scholarly knowledge'' Unquote.

damn, you must of pulled that out of the twilight zone huh. but then again, the abode of kharijism is the twilight zone.

[Brother_Mujahid]

humm

reminds me kinda like when you follow him in calling the people of Allah and the Sunnah s "neo-con salafis"

I never called the people of Allah and the Sunna "neo-con Salafis." Show me one instance where I called Ahl as-Sunna scholars like Sh. Safar al-Hawali, Sh. Nasir al-'Umar, Sh. Sa'ad al-Qahtani, Sh. 'Abd ar-Rahman 'Abd al-Khaliq, Sh. 'Abd ar-Rahman al-Barrak, Sh. 'Abdullah bin Jibrin, Sh. Salih al-Munajjid, Sh. Harith adh-Dhari, etc. neocons. The only people I call neocons are people like you.

[aboo ayaat al hindee]

there is some confusion in differentiating between the various salafi sub-sects. so when one labels himself with salafiyyaah or exhibits some characteristics of those who label themselves with salafiyyaah, people become very apprehensive of him and rightfully so.

the salafiyoon are all in agreement that they are upon the haqq and every non-salafi is upon falsehood and are given the title ahl ul bida'a. there is no distinction between the salafi sub-sects in this issue. for instance they will say that the sinful salafi is better than the pious non-salafi even if he is a mujahid. as if all his deeds have been negated by not adhering 100 percent to the creed of the salafi ulema. it is a distinction they make between themselves and 'ahl ul bida'ah' that allaah has made between the believers and the disbelievers. so they are very much like the khawarij in this aspect.

i go back to the hadeeth about the 73 sects that is ingrained in every salafi's brain since this is the foundation of their creed and dawah and ask:

are the 72 sects that are in hell still muslims who will be punished for their going astray and then taken out of hell or will they remain in hell forever?

are the people of the saved sect guaranteed their place in jannah or will they have to face allaah on the day of judgement and be punished for their sins as well?

is being upon what the prophet (saaw) and his companions were upon in creed only or do actions play some role in this as well?

here is a tricky one...if one has some deviance in his creed are all his actions null and void even if they are done with sincerity and in accordance with the sunnah? if not is it possible that a maturidi will enter the jannah before the salafi?

[Miqdad]

i go back to the hadeeth about the 73 sects that is ingrained in every salafi's brain since this is the foundation of their creed and dawah and ask:

are the 72 sects that are in hell still muslims who will be punished for their going astray and then taken out of hell or will they remain in hell forever?

They are Muslims as Rasoolullaah had said,
"My Ummah will divide into 73 sects..."

So the astray ones are still Muslims and have minor innovations. The mention of hellfire doesn't imply eternally damned, rather it's understood as a form of punishment until Allaah wills to end it. Anyone who dies upon a mustard seed size of Eemaan is a Muslim and will be taken out of the hellfire.


are the people of the saved sect guaranteed their place in jannah or will they have to face allaah on the day of judgement and be punished for their sins as well?

The saved sect are those whom Rasoolullaah said:

..."The one that follows what I and my Companions are upon right presently."

And they had three distinct features, the were believers, they would migrate and do Jihaad.


is being upon what the prophet (saaw) and his companions were upon in creed only or do actions play some role in this as well?

Absolutely both are involved. Eemaan is what is uttered and actions. Having the correct creed theoretically doesn't necessarily mean a person is a Muslim, he can still be a kaafir.

"Nay, but whoever submits his face to Allaah while being a good-doer." - al-Baqarah verse 112


here is a tricky one...if one has some deviance in his creed are all his actions null and void even if they are done with sincerity and in accordance with the sunnah? if not is it possible that a maturidi will enter the jannah before the salafi?

What matters is if a person has Eemaan or not. If the person has a deviated creed which doesn't involve major disbelief, the person is still a Muslim. Allaah knows who will enter Jannah first or last.

Sadly many of those who ascribe to piety, by giving themselves names have fallen into one of the ways of the kuffar. Allaah informs of them saying:

"No one will ever enter Paradise except for those who are Jews of Christians." - al-Baqarah verse 111

One of the peaks of arrogance is "Salafis are the saved sect!" as the person has guaranteed himself a place in Jannah.

[Abiumar]

there is some confusion in differentiating between the various salafi sub-sects.

We do not agree with the notion that Salafiyyah has sub-sects (i.e subsects that contradict each other) and here I wish to clarify a few things for the noble reader:

Salafi is a label just like the label Sunni, it is used to differentiate from the followers of the opposing deviant sects who follow a way other than the way of the believers. This label has been used by the Imaams of as-Sunnah throughout the history of Islam to refer to the muslims who are from the saved sect which is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah also referred to as Ahlul Hadeeth, the sect that abandons innovation in the Deen and clings onto the Kitaab of Allah, the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam).

Saying this, its important to highlight that not everone who claims to be a Sunni or a Salafi is true to his claim, so we see in our present time that the Quburiyoon, the Ahlul Qaboor from the various Sufi orders who have taken the inhabitants of graves as lords besides Allah (wa laa hawla wallah quwata illah billah) have taken this label 'Sunni' to refer solely to themselves and everyone who rejects their blatant Kufr and Shirk is labelled as a wahhabi amongst other labels that are used in a derogatory way.

The same can be said for the label Salafi which we see those who are afflicted with the madhab of Irjaa' from the contemporary Murji'ah using it solely for themselves. They have indeed used this word Salafi in a most evil and vile way which has never been witnessed before in the history of Islam. They have used this label to split up the Muslims and throw disrepute on anyone who does not agree with their perverse and corrupted views while at the same time using it to refer to those who are the most evil in manners and haughtiness with the vilest of tongues who are not even worthy of carrying this label.

So the point here is that the Haqq is one, they (the deviants who use these lofty labels) are in one stream while Ahlus Sunnah is in another, saying you are upon the Haqq does not make you upon it just like saying fire does not burn the tongue of the one saying it.

so when one labels himself with salafiyyaah or exhibits some characteristics of those who label themselves with salafiyyaah, people become very apprehensive of him and rightfully so. Our hatred for the people of innovation and misguidance who use these labels should not lead us to be unjust and blind in our anger, whether this means looking down at anyone who attaches himself to this label (even if they are true to it) or whether this is in the form extreme hatred which leads one to act unjustly with the people of innovation and negate all good from them which they may say even if it be from the truth.

''So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice'' (surah an-nisa, 135)

the salafiyoon are all in agreement that they are upon the haqq and every non-salafi is upon falsehood and are given the title ahl ul bida'a. there is no distinction between the salafi sub-sects in this issue.

I say:

Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah are all those who are upon that which the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and his Companions were upon. Whoever opposes the 'aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah enters into the fold of the 72 sects i.e. Ahlul Bid'ah.

for instance they will say that the sinful salafi is better than the pious non-salafi even if he is a mujahid. as if all his deeds have been negated by not adhering 100 percent to the creed of the salafi ulema. it is a distinction they make between themselves and 'ahl ul bida'ah' that allaah has made between the believers and the disbelievers. so they are very much like the khawarij in this aspect. I say:

Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (rahimahullah) said:

“If the servant were to meet Allah having committed every sin except Shirk, that would be better for him than if he were to meet Allah with some deviant belief.” (The checker of the book Sharh as-Sunnah of al-Barbahaaree mentioned it and attributed it to al-Bayhaqee in Al-‘Itiqaad)


Imaam Ahmad (rahimahullah) said:

“The graves of sinners from People of Sunnah is a garden, while the graves of the pious ascetics from the People of Innovation is a barren pit. The sinners among Ahlus Sunnah are the Friends of Allah, while the pious among Ahlul Bid’ah are the Enemies of Allah.” (Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah 1/184)

As for the negation of all good deeds then this is only concerning someone who dies upon Kufr and not Bid'ah (so long as the bid'ah is not a mukafirah).

i go back to the hadeeth about the 73 sects that is ingrained in every salafi's brain since this is the foundation of their creed and dawah

This statement is grossly unjust, the foundation of the creed of a muslim is tawheed, although the group your referring to have major deviations we should not go overboard and exaggerate our criticism of them.

and ask:

are the 72 sects that are in hell still muslims who will be punished for their going astray and then taken out of hell or will they remain in hell forever?

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (rahimahullah) said:

''The one who says that each of the seventy-two sects is guilty of kufr that puts one beyond the pale of Islam is going against the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the consensus of the Sahaabah (radiallahu 'anhum), and the consensus of the four imams and others. None of them regarded any of the seventy-two sects as kafirs, rather they regard one another as kafirs. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa 7/218)

are the people of the saved sect guaranteed their place in jannah or will they have to face allaah on the day of judgement and be punished for their sins as well?

The people of the saved sect will have to face Allah 'azza wa jall on yawm al-Qiyamah just like anyone else, it will be for Allah ta'ala to punish them or forgive them for their sins (we ask Allah ar-rahman ar-raheem to shower us with his mercy)


is being upon what the prophet (saaw) and his companions were upon in creed only or do actions play some role in this as well?

It is in both 'aqeedah and action.

here is a tricky one...if one has some deviance in his creed are all his actions null and void even if they are done with sincerity and in accordance with the sunnah? if not is it possible that a maturidi will enter the jannah before the salafi?

As for your question then the answer is given to us in the Qur'an by Allah the most high who informs us:

''Verily! Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that'' (surah an-nisa, 116)

Lastly I advise myself first and then you to leave this argumentation in the Deen and occupy yourself with learning the Deen, hasten to do good before we are overtaken by death.

Wa akhir ud-da'wana anil hamdulillahi rabil 'alameen.