[fwt1]RE: REFLECTIONS ON IMAM MAHDI (I) Category: Opinion Published on Thursday, 28 August 2014 05:00 Written by Hamzah Muhammad Lawal Hits: 70 ‘He who knows not and knows that he knows not can be taught; teach him; He who knows and knows that he knows is a teacher; follow him; He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; shun him’.—An adage We are told that diversity of opinion among scholars is a sign of advancement of the Ummah. This column is carrying a rejoinder by Sheikh Hamzah Muhammad Lawal, the leader of Al thaqalayn Foundation. Hajia Bilkisu On 15th June, 2014, I delivered what Hajiya Bilkisu mni would call a pre-Ramadan lecture at the Gamji Gate Theatre, Kaduna. Actually, it was organised to mark the 15th day of the Lunar month of Sha’baan, 1435 A.H., which incidentally happens to be a very important day, spiritually speaking, for Muslims all over the world. It admittedly has an added importance to the Shi’ah Muslims because they believe Imam Mahdi (AS) was born on that day in 255 A.H. I tried as much as possible not to allow my lecture to be too sectarian, choosing rather to emphasise on the common aspects of the concept of Mahdism as understood by all Muslims in general. In fact, I had very clearly indicated, that I did not want to divert attention to the issue of whether Imam Mahdi has already been born or will be born sometime later. I delivered a modestly lengthy lecture, and tried to relate the expected appearance of Imam Mahdi to the contemporary situation of Muslims around the world. I discussed, inter alia, the theory of the positive, directed and guided expectation of the awaited Imam. On 14th August, Hajiya Bilkisu reflected on that lecture in her column in the Daily Trust newspaper, and highlighted some part my presentation. The following week, on 21st August, she did a good job of comparing that lecture with what her Study Group teacher said on the same subject. Her Study Group teacher referred her to a book written by Sheikh Uthman bn Fodio called Tanbihul Ummah. There was nothing contradictory between what I said in June and what Hajiya Bilkisu gathered from her teacher. Then, on 22nd August, a rejoinder from one Mohammad Qaddam Sidq Isa appeared in the same Daily Trust newspaper, in which the writer forcefully brought in the sectarian card, freely attacked the Shi’ah, made many funny claims and assumptions about them, and even attempted to ridicule Hajiya Bilkisu who was just reporting events. I have read the writings and opinions expressed by Mohammad Qaddam Sidq Isa. I have read him on one occasion when he attempted to attack Malam Adamu Adamu, probably because of his mistaken belief that that Malam Adamu Adamu symbolises Shi’ism, to which Qaddam is apparently averse. He seems to be intolerant to points of view that he does not share, especially if they are from people he categorises as Shi’ah. I remember when Malam Adamu Adamu wrote an article titled ‘In defence of the Sheikh’, he immediately wrote a counter article titled ‘In defence of Islam’, as if Malam Adamu Adamu and the Sheikh had done something un- Islamic. I also remember him describing the Shi’ah scholars as ‘turbaned priests’, which is reminiscent of Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah’s disrespectful and uncharitable style. I also heard this same Mohammad Sidq Isa on BBC Hausa Service about two times expressing his admiration for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. I can also cite other examples. I have always dismissed Mohammad Qaddam Sidq Isa as a person who disrespects diversity. He seems to believe that he will become relevant by attacking other people. His hostility is often directed at those who stand on stronger and firmer grounds of intellectual discourse than the shaky one on which he obviously stands. I therefore have never considered it necessary to respond to him. In fact, I recall that I once advised Malam Adamu Adamu to ignore him. He still deserves to be confined to that status; but with this recent development, it becomes imperative to communicate and inform our readers while refraining from addressing him directly. Our readers have a right to know about the effect of inferiority complex on people who venture into issues without the relevant knowledge. I honestly and genuinely believe that Mohammad Qaddam Sidq Isa is deficient in the field he has gate- crashed into. When ignorance gains ground, people dabble into any subject and are oblivious of the fact that they do not know. This is different from those who suffer from simple ignorance because they know that they do not know and are willing to learn. The first proof of Mohammad Qaddam Sidq Isa’s deficiency is that he does not know how to spell and/or pronounce his own name. Everybody knows that he should call himself Muhammad and not Mohammad. But that is not the most important and challenging part of the issue; rather it is the Qaddam Sidq that he has chosen to call himself. First, the letter d in Qaddam should not be emphasised or strengthened by way of doubling it in accordance to the rules of the Arabic language. It is supposed to be a simple, single d, because it literally means a leg and metaphorically means footing or standing or station or position. Since it is a compound name that should be taken as one, it must have a connecting possessive pronoun and written as Qadamusidq or Qadamu Sidq or Qadm- u-Sidq as the case may be. He has omitted the attaching u in his name. This must invariably be the case if one were to adhere to the Arabic rule of the governing and governed words (Mudaaf and Mudaaf ilaihi ). To buttress my point, let me refer our respected readers to a verse in the Holy Qur’an – from where he must have gotten his name – in Chapter Jonah, where Allah the Glorious and Exalted says: “What! Is it surprising that We have revealed to a man from among them, saying: ‘Warn the people and give good news to those who believe that theirs is surely a footing of truth with their Lord’?” (Jonah, 10:2). Of course one notices that, in the verse under review, although the connecting letter or article has been used between the qadam and the sidq, it happens to be ‘a’ and nod not ‘u’ as we have suggested. That is neither problematic nor unacceptable, as it is the natural linguistic consequence of the occurrence of the emphatic ‘anna’ (surely) which has that effect on nouns when it precedes them.
Posted on: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:29:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015