PDA

View Full Version : Was Prophet Sulaymān a Terrorist?


Brother_Mujahid
13th May 2007, 10:54 PM
Was Prophet Sulaymān a Terrorist?

By Shaykh Dr. Muhammad ibn Tarhūnī

Trans: At-Tibyān Publications

All praise belongs to Allāh, and prayers and salutations upon the Messenger of Allāh…

At a place furthest south (of the Arabian Peninsula)… in the land of Yemen, there was a peaceful kingdom – Allāh bestowed upon them from His many blessings, and abundant bounties… its people lived calmly and peacefully, under a democratic leadership, ruled by an intelligent and prudent queen, who was chosen by her people to be their commander in chief at this time.

Indeed, it is the Kingdom of Saba’, which was ruled by Queen Bilqīs, regarding whom Allāh mentioned:

“… and she has been given all things that could be possessed by any ruler of the earth, and she has a great throne.” (An-Naml: 23)

This queen – without delving into the details of her appointment over her people, or her relation to the Jinn from one of her parents – she never used to make any decision, without seeking the advice of her respected People’s Congress, as Allāh mentioned regarding what she said:

“… I decide no case till you are present with me.” (An-Naml: 32)

And similarly, her people loved her, so they placed all their affairs into her hands and entrusted her regarding the decisions and whatever she felt was good – as Allāh mentioned regarding what they said to her:

“… but it is for you to command; so think over what you will command.” (An-Naml: 33)

And she and her people were living in safety and security, and power and authority, as Allāh said:

“… We have great strength, and great ability for war…” (An-Naml: 33)

They had never transgressed against anyone, nor did they interfere in the affairs of their neighboring countries, let alone the countries which are far away…

Then, suddenly, without any warning- a small bird stopped by their land, looking for some water or such…

Indeed it was the Hoopoe – the Hoopoe of Sulaymān, peace be upon him- which came to them from the furthest north (of the Arabian Peninsula), passing through the wastelands and deserts which separate its land from the People of Saba’… he came from Shām, where they had heard of a mighty king there, named Sulaymān – peace be upon him… Allāh bestowed upon him strength, authority, proof, knowledge, and faith…

This Hoopoe looked around, and found these people- people who do not worship Allāh, the One Who brings to light what is hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knows what they conceal and what they reveal- Allāh, besides Whom none has the right to be worshipped, the Lord of the Supreme Throne… but they worshipped the sun, rather than the One worthy of being worshipped, this All-Wise Creator.

So it flew across the deserts and lands with this strange news, this true news… And it then landed at the assembly of Sulaymān – peace be upon him – at the furthest north land (of theArabian Peninsula), and it said:

“I have grasped (the knowledge of a thing) which you have not grasped and I have come to you from Saba’ with true news.” (An-Naml: 22)

And then he narrated all that he witnessed…

But Sulaymān – peace be upon him – immediately sought to verify this information which he had just learnt… so he sent a short message with the Hoopoe on a small piece of paper, which did not contain many words…

“Verily! It is from Sulaymān, and verily! It (reads): In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful; Be you not haughty against me, but come to me as Muslims (true believers who submit to Allah with full submission).” (An-Naml: 30-31)

SubhānAllāh! Just like that, simple and directly to the point…

Then Sulaymān ordered the Hoopoe to deliver this small, short letter to them, and then to withdraw back, and observe what their response is…

So the queen could not do anything, other than gather her special congress together, and seek their advice regarding this matter… and she mentioned to them that wars come with destruction, desecration, and devastation, as she said:

“Verily! Kings, when they enter a town (country), they despoil it, and make the noblest of its people into the lowest (i.e. humiliated).” (An-Naml: 34)

So then she resorted to a diplomatic peace solution, by sending great gifts to Sulaymān – peace be upon him… in an attempt to prove their peace and harmony with them, and to show that they will not interfere in his internal affairs, gifts displaying their earnest love and pacifism…

But…

… Sulaymān – peace be upon him – rejected this friendly deed, and refused this positive reaction from this peaceful kingdom…

… He refused, except that he interfere in their internal affairs, and that he humiliate its people after they were in honour, and that he throw them into disgrace and shame…

… He refused, except that he declare such a war, in which he will not be lenient with even those who never warred against him for even a blinking of an eye, nor did they ever harm him nor his people in any way whatsoever, nor did they show any obstruction to the Da’wah from being spread in their kingdom…

Rather, his – may salutations be upon him – reply was sharp, unwavering, dignified, shocking, and terrifying; as he rejected the gifts from the ambassador, he said:

“Will you help me with wealth!? What Allah has given me is better than that which He has given you! Nay, it is you who rejoice in your gift! Go back to them, and be sure that we shall come to them with such armies they will never be able to resist; and we shall indeed expel them from there in disgrace, and they will be humiliated.” (An-Naml: 36-37)

Words, like lightning which petrifies and terrorizes…

… Refusing the ambassador by issuing him a command, after having rejected his gift and mocked it…

… Then using the words, “be sure that” and “we”, when he said, “and be sure that we shall come to them…”

… Then his mentioning of the plural “armies”, and how he said, “they will never be able to resist…” – and what this contains of threat and terror…

… Then he mentioned what the outcome of the war would be – even before the war began- as if it was a plain basic reality…

But what was the outcome that he mentioned?

… That he will expel them from their country, their homes, and their residences which they own, where they were born, where they grew up, where they played and enjoyed… their land, and the land of their fathers and mothers… And he – peace be upon him – said that the expulsion will be from there, even though it was already obvious from his statement, “and we shall indeed expel them,” – but he assured it and made clear that indeed the expulsion will be, “from there,” – not anything less…

But was he – peace be upon him – satisfied enough with this?!

No, he was not satisfied enough yet… He then mentioned in what state they will be when he will be driving them out of their lands… That indeed he, “shall indeed expel them from there in disgrace,” – they were a people who had honour, power, and bounties, and they had enough prosperity… But he emphasized their disgrace and shame with several assurances… He assured how their condition would be when they are leaving their lands, in disgrace… Then, he again informed, and said, “humiliated”… It was possible for him to phrase it as, “in disgrace, and humiliated” – but instead, he said, “in disgrace, and they will be humiliated.” To show that they are wearing the garments of humility, completely and in all detail, and they are continuously in that state and they are tied to it…

And what happened to this kingdom, of its surrendering and submitting to Sulaymān – peace be upon him – happened, and we will not elongate and delve into its details here now…

But there remains some questions…

What happened to “leadership should be in the hands of the people of the land”?!

What happened to “international law”?!

What happened to “don’t interfere in the affairs of other nations”?!

What happened to “respecting the borders of sovereign nations”?!

What happened to “freedom of faith and ideology”?!

What happened to (the twisted misunderstanding of the verse) “There is no compulsion in religion”?!

What happened to “fighting is only permissible as a defense, to repel an aggression”?!

What happened to “as long as the Da’wah is not obstructed, then there can be no fighting”?!

And everything which was done by Sulaymān – peace and salutations be upon him – was done because of the Hoopoe informed him that it saw these innocent civilians worshipping the sun instead of Allāh… meaning, the matter is about “beliefs” and “personal liberty”, as some people like calling it…

So was Sulaymān – peace be upon him – a terrorist due to these things?!

The answer: Indeed it is the honour, dignity, and power of Islām, and the humiliation of kufr… it is the reality of this great Dīn…

Alas! The scale has been turned upside-down, and the teachings of this Dīn have been forsaken, and the weakening of the Muslims, and the haughtiness of the infidels…

Umm
14th May 2007, 09:08 AM
It's an informative article Masha'Allah, but..isn't there a rule of fiqh that we cannot use the shari'ah of the previous anbiya as legislation for actions? Unless it is confirmed by the sunnah of rasoolullah (SAW)?

Brother_Mujahid
14th May 2007, 10:03 AM
Shaykh Tarhuni wasn't discussing acts of legislation, he was refuting the apologetic modernists and their defeatist version of jihad. He is merely highlighting the actions of the Prophet Sulaymān and comparing them with the claims of the apologetic types.

Umm
14th May 2007, 12:54 PM
Alas! The scale has been turned upside-down, and the teachings of this Dīn have been forsaken, and the weakening of the Muslims, and the haughtiness of the infidels…

That kinda implies that his article is using the aforementioned incidents to illustrate that they are "teachings of this deen". Whereas nowadays, we do not have a khalif who could order such actions.

ykhan
14th May 2007, 02:39 PM
That kinda implies that his article is using the aforementioned incidents to illustrate that they are "teachings of this deen". Whereas nowadays, we do not have a khalif who could order such actions.

Can anyone confirm the correctedness of the oft quoted principle that, 'offensive jihaad' [jihaad ul fath] must have a state and emeer etc, where as defensive jihaad does not...?

Jazaaka Allahu khairan

supermalt
18th May 2007, 11:02 PM
http://www.thepathtoparadise.com/Books/defence.pdf:D

supermalt
18th May 2007, 11:08 PM
as slamm alkum

from page 14 to 22:cool:

bariq allah feeq

supermalt
18th May 2007, 11:10 PM
That kinda implies that his article is using the aforementioned incidents to illustrate that they are "teachings of this deen". Whereas nowadays, we do not have a khalif who could order such actions.

and umm there is no need for a khalif in defensive.....please clik on the link posted

jazkallah khair

Umm
18th May 2007, 11:13 PM
The jihad of Sulayman (AS) which was posted in the 1st post, wasn't that offensive jihad? They were not under attack from the Queen of Saba.

ykhan
19th May 2007, 12:02 AM
Can anyone confirm the correctedness of the oft quoted principle that, 'offensive jihaad' [jihaad ul fath] must have a state and emeer etc, where as defensive jihaad does not...?

Jazaaka Allahu khairan

anyone...?

supermalt
20th May 2007, 02:13 PM
sorry i thou8ght you was talk about defensive

baraiqallah feek

ykhan
20th May 2007, 03:01 PM
sorry i thou8ght you was talk about defensive

baraiqallah feek

dayng buddy.........

you sure your signature is green enough...?

MosDef
23rd June 2007, 03:06 PM
Jazaak Allaahu khayran

Mustafa al-Muhaajir
23rd June 2007, 03:13 PM
akh Mos Def, who is that in your avatar ?
I can't help but ask.

Abu Sabaya
23rd June 2007, 07:54 PM
That would be Malcolm ibn X.

MosDef
23rd June 2007, 07:55 PM
Yes its Ibn X :)

Hamza
7th March 2008, 02:54 PM
“Verily! Kings, when they enter a town (country), they despoil it, and make the noblest of its people into the lowest (i.e. humiliated).” (An-Naml: 34)