LEADERSHIP AND SUCCESSION IN EARLY ISLAM: A JOURNEY THROUGH HISTORY, CONTROVERSY AND LESSONS — A RECAP BEFORE CONTINUING THE SERIES

By Professor Abdullahi Danladi

After a considerable period of pause in our journey through the series “Leadership and Succession in Early Islam”, I find it both necessary and appropriate to briefly revisit the path we have travelled before we proceed to the next stage of this intellectual engagement.

Every serious intellectual journey requires moments of reflection, not only to remember where it began, but also to understand the direction in which it is heading. This series was conceived not as a mere narration of historical events, nor as an attempt to reopen old controversies for the sake of argument, but as an effort to critically examine one of the most profound questions that has shaped Islamic history: the question of leadership, authority, and succession after the departure of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family).

The passage of time since our last discussion makes such a recap even more important. Many of the ideas, questions, and historical episodes that formed the foundation of this series deserve to be brought back into focus, so that both old and new members of this intellectual forum can appreciate the broader picture and follow the discussions that will unfold in the coming articles.

From the beginning, our objective has been to explore the events that surrounded the transition from Prophetic leadership to the post-Prophetic era, and to reflect on the various understandings that emerged regarding the nature of authority in Islam. The question was not simply about who assumed political leadership after the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), but a deeper question about what leadership itself represents in Islamic thought.

Is leadership merely an administrative arrangement necessitated by the needs of society? Is it a political institution whose legitimacy is derived from consultation and acceptance? Or does Islamic leadership carry a deeper spiritual and moral responsibility connected to knowledge, justice, guidance, and the preservation of divine principles?

These questions have occupied the minds of scholars, historians, and thinkers throughout Islamic history, and they continue to influence Muslim intellectual discourse until today.

From the beginning of this series, we reflected on the unique nature of the leadership of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). His role was not confined to delivering religious teachings alone. He was a guide, a teacher, a judge, a reformer, and a leader who transformed a fragmented society into a community united by faith, justice, and moral responsibility.

Therefore, the question that naturally emerged was: after such a leader departed from this world, how would his mission be preserved? Who would carry the responsibility of safeguarding the principles he established? Would leadership be understood primarily as political authority, or would it also encompass spiritual guidance and moral guardianship?

One of the most significant events that formed an essential part of our earlier discussions was the event of Ghadir Khumm, an occasion that occupies a central position in the discourse on leadership and succession in Islam. As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) returned from his final pilgrimage, he gathered the Muslim community at Ghadir Khumm and delivered a momentous declaration concerning Imam Ali (peace be upon him).

The event of Ghadir has been transmitted through numerous historical sources and has remained one of the most discussed subjects among Muslim scholars regarding its meaning, implications, and connection with the question of leadership after the Prophet.

For those who understand leadership after the Prophet through the concept of divine designation and spiritual authority, Ghadir represents a clear declaration of Imam Ali’s position as the successor and guide of the Muslim community. Others have approached the event from a different interpretative framework, understanding the Prophet’s statement primarily as an affirmation of Imam Ali’s virtue, closeness, love, and loyalty that Muslims owe to him.

However, beyond the different interpretations that have emerged throughout history, the importance of Ghadir as a defining moment in the discussion of Islamic leadership cannot be denied. It raises one of the most fundamental questions in this entire discourse: What was the Prophet’s vision for the future leadership of the Muslim community, and how should his words and actions be understood by subsequent generations?

It is this question that became one of the central themes of our series and one that continued to shape the intellectual and political developments of the Muslim community after the Prophet’s departure.

We have similarly touched on the prophet's final illness, The Army of Usamah, The Calamity of Thursday as reported by Abdullahi inn Abbas and may other issues.

The discussions that followed the Prophet’s passing, including the events surrounding Saqifah and the subsequent developments, became defining moments in Islamic history. Different interpretations emerged, each shaped by particular understandings of governance, authority, and the requirements of the Muslim community at that critical moment.

The purpose of this series has been to examine these developments with intellectual seriousness and historical consciousness. It is important to recognise that history is not simply a collection of dates and names; it is a reflection of human choices, circumstances, ambitions, sacrifices, and struggles. Understanding history requires us to look beyond events themselves and examine the principles and consequences that emerged from them.

A major theme that has guided this series is the distinction between power and legitimacy. History has repeatedly demonstrated that political control does not always correspond with moral authority. The possession of power does not automatically make an individual a symbol of justice, wisdom, or righteousness. Conversely, those who uphold truth and moral principles may not always possess political dominance.

This dimension becomes particularly significant when examining the lives of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), especially Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and the events that later culminated in the tragedy of Karbala under Imam Husayn (peace be upon him). Their lives represent a profound understanding of leadership — one built upon knowledge, sacrifice, justice, patience, and unwavering commitment to truth.

Karbala, therefore, cannot be viewed merely as an isolated historical tragedy. It represents a continuation of the broader discussion about leadership and responsibility in Islam. It raises fundamental questions about the relationship between authority and morality, between obedience and justice, and between political power and spiritual integrity.

As we continue this series, our intention remains to engage with these historical questions through careful reflection, intellectual honesty, and respect for the seriousness of the subject. The objective is not to reduce history into slogans or emotional arguments, but to understand the lessons embedded within it.

The events of early Islamic history continue to speak to every generation because the questions they raise are timeless. What qualities should define a leader? What is the responsibility of those who hold authority? How should believers respond when power becomes separated from justice? These are not questions confined to the past; they remain relevant wherever human societies exist.

As we prepare to resume the series, I would like to sincerely appreciate the members of this forum for the remarkable patience, cooperation, and intellectual discipline demonstrated so far. The level of engagement, the thoughtful comments, and the respect shown towards discussions have contributed greatly to making this platform meaningful.

At the same time, I wish to make a humble appeal that we continue to preserve the character and purpose of this forum. The uniqueness of this group lies in its focus on the intellectual discussions arising from the series. While other postings, announcements, and materials may be valuable and worthy of appreciation, there are other social media platforms where they can receive wider attention and engagement.

Maintaining this focus will help members remain connected to the discussions and ensure that whenever a new article is posted, it receives the attention, reflection, and interaction it deserves. Without such collective discipline, even the most valuable intellectual efforts may gradually lose their visibility amidst numerous unrelated postings and eventually become like many other ordinary groups.

This appeal is not meant to discourage participation, but rather to protect the purpose for which this forum was created — a platform for learning, reflection, respectful discussion, and deeper understanding of one of the most important chapters in Islamic history.

The journey that began with questions will continue with deeper exploration. May Allah grant us sincerity in our search for knowledge, wisdom in understanding history, fairness in our discussions, and the humility to learn from the experiences of those who came before us.

The journey continues

THE FALLACY OF THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION: JUSTICE CANNOT BE BUILT ON STOLEN LAND

By Professor Abdullahi Danladi

----------------------------------------------------

Professor Abdullahi Danladi’s essay, “The Fallacy of the Two-State Solution: Justice Cannot Be Built on Stolen Land,” is a forceful, morally charged critique of the long-touted two-state framework. Written in eloquent, uncompromising prose, it dismantles the diplomatic pretensions surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and re-centers the debate on justice, history, and moral accountability.

Danladi’s argument is clear and intellectually consistent: peace cannot emerge from injustice, and no political arrangement can legitimize a crime rooted in dispossession and colonization. His writing draws from historical consciousness the Nakba, British imperial complicity, and ongoing apartheid to indict both Western hypocrisy and global moral complacency.

What distinguishes this piece is not only its rhetorical power but also its ethical clarity. It challenges the reader to move beyond political convenience and confront the foundational immorality of the occupation. The essay situates Palestine not as a diplomatic puzzle but as a litmus test of humanity’s collective conscience.

In tone and substance, this is more than a political commentary—it is a moral manifesto. It calls for historical rectification, not negotiation with injustice. In its closing appeal for a free and unified Palestine “from the river to the sea,” Professor Danladi articulates a vision grounded in universal principles of justice, equality, and human dignity.

#FreePalestine

--Emmanuel Markus.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The so-called two-state solution has long been presented to the world as a path to peace between Palestinians and Israelis, yet in truth, it is a deception, an insult to justice and a betrayal of history. It seeks to normalize what should never be accepted, to legitimize theft through the language of diplomacy, and to force the oppressed to negotiate with their oppressor over the fragments of what was once wholly theirs. For what is this two-state proposal if not the absurd suggestion that a thief and his victim should share the stolen property in the name of fairness? How can one confiscate your land, expel your people, destroy your homes, and then propose to divide the spoils of that crime as the price of peace? There is no morality, no justice, no dignity in such a proposition.

The truth is simple and undeniable: the land of Palestine was taken by force. The Zionist project, born not from coexistence but from colonization, came upon a land rich in culture, faith, and heritage and declared it “empty.” Under the shadow of British imperialism and with the backing of Western powers, the indigenous people of Palestine were uprooted in 1948 during the great Nakba (the catastrophe that turned villages into ruins and homes into memories). A people who had tilled the soil, prayed on the land, and built their civilization for centuries were scattered, while their tormentors raised the flag of a new Zionist state upon the ashes of their dispossession.

And yet, the world speaks of “two states”, as though the occupier and the occupied stand on equal ground; as though justice can be achieved by legitimizing the consequences of aggression. The two-state solution is not a formula for peace; it is a political anesthesia designed to numb the conscience of the world. It is a convenient illusion sustained by Western hypocrisy, it is a way to preserve Israel’s supremacy while pretending to seek fairness. They talk of negotiations, of borders, of mutual recognition, but they refuse to talk of the original sin: that Palestine was stolen, that its people were expelled, that the crime of occupation remains unpunished.

Today, what remains of Palestine is a shattered geography, fragments of land surrounded by walls, checkpoints, soldiers and littered with dead bodies. Gaza bleeds under siege, the West Bank suffocates under occupation, and the refugees remain in exile dreaming of a return that is their natural right. Yet the world dares to call this mutilation “a step toward peace.” No! Peace built on injustice is a mirage. True peace must begin with truth; it must begin with the acknowledgment that Palestine was taken by force and must be restored by right.

Let it be known to all who still have a conscience: the issue of Palestine is not a political dispute, it is a moral test for humanity. To stand with Palestine is to stand with truth; to support the so-called two-state solution is to stand with injustice disguised as compromise. There can be no peace while occupation stands, no justice while apartheid rules, no reconciliation while the victim is asked to forget his wound and embrace his oppressor.

Palestine does not need permission to exist, it existed before the occupation, and it will outlive it. The land, the olive trees, the stones of Jerusalem all bear witness to this enduring truth: that no colonial power, however armed or supported, can erase the identity of a people whose cause is rooted in justice. The two-state solution is a fallacy; the only just solution is the restoration of Palestine, free, whole, and sovereign, where Muslims, Christians, and Jews may live as equals, not as occupiers and occupied, but as children of a shared homeland cleansed of oppression.

Justice demands nothing less. History will accept nothing less. And the conscience of the free peoples of the world will rest for nothing less than the full liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea.

In Commemoration of the Second Year of the Gaza Genocide

October 2025

ISLAMIC MOVEMENT NIGERIA REFUTES FALSE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE

BY Professor Abdullahi Danladi

Resource Forum

Islamic Movement Nigeria

The Islamic Movement in Nigeria, under the leadership of Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky, has always stood firmly for peaceful coexistence, justice, and unity among all Nigerians, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, or political leaning. The Movement regards Islam and Christianity as two great faiths of divine origin that call humanity to righteousness, compassion, and justice. It believes that both Muslims and Christians have far more in common in their moral teachings than in the superficial differences that have been exploited for selfish political ends.

At the heart of the Movement’s message is the conviction that Nigeria’s crisis is not religious but moral and political it is a crisis born of corruption, greed, and a deliberate manipulation of the masses by a morally bankrupt elite. While Muslims and Christians are often incited to hate and suspect each other, the real enemies of the nation are those who plunder its resources and perpetuate injustice but remain united in their corruption. As Sheikh Ibraheem Zakzaky has repeatedly declared, “The poor Christian and the poor Muslim have no conflict; their common enemy is the unjust system that enslaves them both.”

It is against this backdrop that the Islamic Movement views with deep concern and disapproval the recent allegations by U.S. President Donald J. Trump, who accused the Nigerian government of allowing or supporting “genocide against Christians,” and threatened to redesignate Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern.” Trump’s claims, echoed by a few pro-war voices in the U.S. Congress, suggest that “radical Islamists” are carrying out “mass slaughter” of Christians in Nigeria, and that U.S. troops might be deployed to protect them.

The Islamic Movement in Nigeria categorically rejects these allegations as false, inflammatory, and dangerous, describing them as a continuation of Western propaganda designed to sow discord and justify foreign interference in African affairs. Such sweeping and unfounded accusations ignore the complex socio-political realities of Nigeria and reduce its multifaceted challenges to a simplistic and divisive religious narrative.

In reality, both Muslims and Christians have been victims of insecurity, banditry, terrorism, and government repression in equal measure. Villages in the predominantly Muslim North have been wiped out by armed groups just as churches and Christian communities have suffered attacks elsewhere. These tragedies are not the result of an Islamic war against Christianity, but the consequence of a failed political order that thrives on corruption, poverty, injustice, and impunity.

The Islamic Movement finds it deeply hypocritical that Western politicians who have supported wars, occupations, and bombings in Muslim countries, killing millions of innocent people now pretend to be defenders of human rights and religious freedom in Africa. The Movement believes that the so-called concern for Christians in Nigeria is not born out of compassion, but out of a geopolitical agenda to divide Nigerians, weaken their unity, and pave the way for foreign manipulation of the nation’s resources and policies.

Supporting this position, the Nigerian government itself, through a statement by Kimiebi Imomotimi Ebienfa, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has rejected the U.S. President’s claims, affirming that “Nigerians of all faiths have long lived, worked, and worshipped peacefully.” The government reaffirmed its commitment to “fighting terrorism, strengthening interfaith harmony, and protecting the lives and rights of all its people.” The Islamic Movement welcomes this official stance and urges the government to complement words with sincere action by ensuring justice, fairness, and equity across the nation. These are conditions which are indispensable for genuine peace.

The Islamic Movement in Nigeria further warns that foreign powers have historically used religion as a weapon to destabilize nations and create excuses for intervention. The labeling of Nigerian Muslims as “radical Islamists” is part of a long-standing Western narrative that equates Islam with violence and demonizes Muslim communities globally. This narrative not only misrepresents Islam but also endangers interfaith relations, as it fosters suspicion, fear, and hostility among ordinary citizens who have lived peacefully side by side for centuries.

For decades, the Movement has worked tirelessly to promote interfaith dialogue and mutual respect. Its members have visited churches during Christmas and Easter, and Christian leaders have been received at Islamic Movement gatherings in gestures of brotherhood and solidarity. The Movement has condemned every attack on churches, just as it has condemned attacks on mosques and processions. Its guiding principle remains that any attack on innocent lives, regardless of religion, is an attack on humanity and a violation of divine law.

The Movement continues to stress that true peace cannot exist without justice. Nigeria’s leaders must abandon the politics of deceit and division and focus on eradicating corruption, poverty, and insecurity. The people must realize that religious conflict serves only the interests of those who loot public funds and exploit national disunity. When the masses are divided, the corrupt elite remain secure in their power; when the masses unite, tyranny crumbles.

In conclusion, the Islamic Movement in Nigeria calls on both Muslims and Christians to reject the poisonous narratives being promoted by foreign powers and local opportunists. Nigerians must refuse to be pawns in the game of global politics. Instead, they should draw strength from their shared faith in God, their common suffering under bad governance, and their collective hope for a just and peaceful nation.

The Movement’s message is clear: our unity as Nigerians is stronger than the falsehoods that seek to divide us. The real war is not between Christians and Muslims, rather it is between truth and falsehood, justice and corruption, sincerity and deceit. And until we unite to confront that reality, the cycle of manipulation will continue. The Islamic Movement stands firmly for peace, justice, and unity, rejecting every attempt be it foreign or local to turn Nigerians against one another in the name of religion.

Britain, the House of Saud, and the Betrayal of the Ottoman Order.

Salim Mohamed Badat

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century reshaped the Muslim world. For centuries, the Ottomans had been the protectors of the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah, as well as the political centre of Sunni Islam.

Yet when World War I erupted in 1914, the Ottoman Empire allied with Germany against Britain and France. What followed was a carefully engineered campaign of subversion, promises, and betrayal that saw Britain dismantle Ottoman rule and install pliant monarchies across the Middle East.

The British and the House of Saud.

Long before the Ottomans’ final collapse, Britain had cultivated relations with the emerging power of the House of Saud in central Arabia. The Saudis, allied with the puritanical Wahhabi religious movement since the 18th century, had ambitions to expand their control over the Arabian Peninsula. Britain, seeking to weaken Ottoman authority and secure its imperial trade routes to India, saw the Saudis as a useful ally.

British officials in the Persian Gulf signed treaties with the Al Saud in the 19th and early 20th centuries, providing them with recognition and, eventually, material support.

During the First World War, while the Ottomans were struggling on multiple fronts, the British saw in Abdulaziz Ibn Saud a potential partner to counterbalance the influence of the Hashemites of Makkah.

By the 1920s, with British arms and indirect backing, Ibn Saud conquered large swathes of Arabia, including the Hijaz, and laid the foundation for what would become the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

The Sharif of Makkah: Promises and Betrayal.

At the same time, Britain was courting another Arab leader: Sharif Hussein ibn Ali, the Hashemite ruler of Makkah and a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).

In a series of letters exchanged with Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sharif Hussein was promised an independent Arab kingdom if he launched a revolt against the Ottomans.

This correspondence, known as the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence (1915–16), assured him that after the defeat of the Ottomans, the Arabs would be free to rule over their own lands.

Believing these promises, Sharif Hussein launched the Arab Revolt in 1916, with British military support, including the famous figure of T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”).

His forces attacked Ottoman garrisons and played a crucial role in weakening Ottoman control in Arabia and the Levant.

Yet even as Britain was making promises to Sharif Hussein, it was secretly negotiating with France in the infamous Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916). This agreement divided the Ottoman Arab provinces into British and French zones of control, directly contradicting the assurances given to Hussein.

To make matters worse, Britain had also issued the Balfour Declaration (1917), promising a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, land Sharif Hussein believed would be part of his promised Arab kingdom.

When the war ended, Sharif Hussein discovered the extent of the betrayal. Instead of receiving an independent Arab state, the Middle East was carved up into artificial borders under British and French control. Palestine fell under British mandate, paving the way for the later creation of Israel.

The Hashemite Kings and British Engineering.

Although Sharif Hussein himself was cast aside, Britain did not abandon the Hashemites entirely. To maintain influence, the British installed his sons as monarchs in newly created states.

Faisal ibn Hussein was briefly made King of Syria in 1920, but after French intervention he was expelled. Britain then installed him as King of Iraq, a role he kept until his death in 1933.

Abdullah ibn Hussein was made ruler of Transjordan (later Jordan) in 1921, under British mandate. His reign established the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which continues to this day under his descendants.

Meanwhile, Sharif Hussein himself declared himself “King of the Arabs,” but he was eventually defeated by Ibn Saud, with Britain shifting its support decisively to the Saudi family.

By 1925, the Hashemites had lost the Hijaz, including Makkah and Madinah, to the Saudis.

The New Middle East Map.

The outcome of these maneuvers was the political map of the Middle East we know today , a patchwork of artificial states under monarchs and governments loyal to London and Paris.

Among them:

Iraq (Hashemite monarchy under King Faisal, later overthrown in 1958).

Jordan (Hashemite kingdom under Abdullah and his descendants, still ruling today).

Saudi Arabia (under Ibn Saud and the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance, heavily supported by Britain and later the United States).

Palestine (under British mandate, leading to Zionist colonization and displacement of Palestinians).

Syria and Lebanon (under French mandate at that time).

Conclusion.

The destruction of the Ottoman Empire was not merely the result of its own internal decline but also of calculated British and French strategies to dominate the region.

By playing Arab leaders against one another, making false promises, and installing compliant rulers, Britain ensured that the heart of the Muslim world remained fragmented and under Western influence.

The legacy of this betrayal is still felt today, in the partition of Palestine, the rise of the Saudi state, the survival of the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan, and the enduring artificial borders that continue to divide the Arab and Muslim world.

Salim Mohamed Badat

Writer exploring the intersection of faith, politics and justice.

Abu Dharr al-Ghifari: The Lonely Voice Against a World Drunk on Wealth.

By Salim Mohamed Badat

There are men who bend with the world, and there are men who force the world to confront itself. Among the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) , few stood as uncompromisingly as Abu Dharr al Ghifari (RA) a man whose life was a living protest against greed, excess, and the slow corruption of the soul.

He came from Ghifar, a tribe feared in the deserts, known for ambushing caravans and surviving on the margins of morality. Yet even there, before revelation reached him, Abu Dharr rejected idols. There was already a fire within him—a rejection of falsehood, a refusal to bow to anything unworthy of worship.

When news of the Prophet (saw) reached him, he did not wait. He traveled alone across the desert, driven by something deeper than curiosity. When he finally stood before the Messenger of Allah (saw), it was not just a meeting, it was recognition.

The Prophet (saw) saw in him a rare truthfulness, and affirmed it with words that would echo through generations:

“Neither the green sky nor the dusty one has borne, nor has the earth borne, anyone more truthful in speech than Abu Dharr.”

This hadith, places Abu Dharr al-Ghifari among the most truthful of human beings in speech and character, a man whose tongue never bent to power, wealth, or fear. Truth, however, is rarely welcomed.

Amongst the Few to Proclaim His Faith Openly

In the earliest days of Islam, when believers concealed their faith to survive the brutality of Quraysh, Abu Dharr stepped into the open and proclaimed the shahadah publicly.

During the caliphates of Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) , he found no contradiction to challenge. Leadership was simple, accountable, close to the people. But history shifted.

Syria: When Wealth Became a Religion

When Abu Dharr traveled to Syria under Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, he witnessed something that shook him.

He saw Muawiyah constructing a palace (Green Palace), with many laborers working on it. Abu Dharr said:

“If this palace is built from the public treasury, it is betrayal; and if from your own wealth, it is extravagance.”

Palaces rose where simplicity once lived. Gold accumulated where humility once walked. A class of Muslims emerged who spoke of piety but lived in luxury.

He spoke openly, reciting Quranic warnings against hoarding. He confronted elites, even companions, when he saw comfort replacing consciousness. His voice became too uncomfortable to ignore.

From Muawiyah to Uthman: Truth Exiled

Unable to contain him, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan sent him to Madinah, to Uthman ibn Affan (RA) .

Eventually, he was exiled to al Rabadhah, far from the centers of influence. Truth was not answered, it was removed.

The Companion We Don’t Speak About

Abu Dharr unsettles the comfortable. He does not fit into a religion that comforts the wealthy while asking patience from the poor.

He forces us to confront something we would rather avoid: that wealth, when it dominates the heart, corrupts even the language of religion.

The Prophecy Fulfilled: Alone in the Desert

Far from power, the words of the Prophet (saw) came to life: “May Allah have mercy on Abu Dharr. He walks alone, will die alone, and will be resurrected alone.”

In al-Rabadhah, he lived in isolation. When death came, there were no crowds, no state, no wealth, only his wife and a life that never compromised.

So poor was he that when he passed away, there was not even sufficient cloth to properly shroud his body. Yet even then, he was at peace.

A small caravan from Madinah eventually arrived, among them the Sahabah Abdullah ibn Masud (RA). When he saw him, he wept, remembering the words of the prophet (saw) regarding Abu Dhar dying alone and what he represented: a life of uncompromising truth.

They buried him. The prophecy was fulfilled in every detail. He died as he lived, alone, but truthful.

If Abu Dharr Walked Among Us Today

If Abu Dharr al-Ghifari were to walk through the Gulf or any modern Muslim city today, what would he see?

Corruption of these governments. Cities of glass and steel. Palaces that stretch beyond imagination. Luxury displayed openly, cars, wealth, lifestyles curated for admiration.

He would not be impressed by skylines. He would recite the same warnings he once recited in Syria:

“Say, [O Muhammad], if your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and striving in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.” Surah At-Tawbah (9:24)

And just as before, he would be unwelcome.

If Abu Dharr Came to Visit Us

He would see masjids rising in grandeur beside shanty towns. He would see people who pray, but do not always see.

He would question how a masjid can rise in elegance while hunger lives in its shadow. Why we compete in architecture but not in charity.

He would see employers who claim Islam yet pay workers wages that cannot sustain dignity. And he would ask: what kind of Islam is this, where the one who works eats last?

He would see caste divisions amongst us, speaking, subtle hierarchies dressed in culture. And he would reject it completely, because Islam came to erase such distinctions, not preserve them.

Social Media, Status, and the Illusion of Worth.

If Abu Dharr al-Ghifari were to witness our social media age, he would not be impressed. He would see lives curated for display and opulence, luxury trips, dining, possessions turned into symbols of status.

And he would ask: is this gratitude, or arrogance? He would remind us that dignity is not in what you own, but in how you answer to Allah.

Wealth, to him, is not forbidden, it is an amanah, a trust. But when it becomes a source of pride or superiority, it becomes corruption.

Contradictions Within Islamic Movements and Gatherings.

If he were to observe some of our so called Islamic movements today, he would see layers of contradiction that sit uneasily with the spirit of Islam.

He would notice how people are quietly valued according to lineage, inherited caste and wealth , where the first questions asked are your surname to determine your caste and profession to determine your wealth, used as a way to place someone in a hierarchy of respect.

And to him, this would not be a minor cultural issue, but a distortion of the equality Islam came to establish.

He would also witness so called Islamic gatherings where food is served and consumed in abundance, where scholars are given separate seating and multi course meals as a mark of status, while just beyond those spaces people are struggling with hunger and deprivation.

In the shadow of Gaza, where suffering and starvation are real and ongoing, such displays of excess would weigh heavily on his conscience. Abu Dharr would not be impressed by the formality or grandeur, he would be deeply unsettled by the disconnect between comfort inside and suffering outside.

And his response would be ,how can a community honour knowledge and faith in celebration, while remaining indifferent to the pain of the Ummah beyond its walls?

Weddings and Displays of Excess

If Abu Dharr al-Ghifari were to walk into our weddings today, he would not see joy rooted in gratitude, but excess dressed up as celebration. He would see halls glittering with vanity, tables burdened with wasted food, and families competing not in righteousness but in display.

He, who lived a life of radical simplicity and truth, would be struck by how wealth is paraded while the cries of the poor echo from places like our own country and beyond, where hunger, loss, and hardship are daily realities.

He would not simply question our spending; he would question our hearts. How did a Ummah once defined by sacrifice become one obsessed with image?

Why do we compete in extravagance while others struggle for survival? In his presence, our justifications would fall silent, and the weight of our heedlessness would be impossible to ignore.

Those Who Embody Sincerity and Justice

At the same time, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari would also witness something that would bring him relief and approval. He would see other scholars and teachers who treat people with consistent dignity and respect, regardless of their wealth or social standing.

In their presence, the poor are not diminished, and the wealthy are not elevated; everyone is met with the same basic honour that Islam demands. And in those moments, he would be reassured.

He would recognise in them a sincerity that reflects the true spirit of Islam, the message the Prophet (saw) came to establish: a community grounded in justice, humility, and equal worth before Allah.

Quiet Builders of the Ummah: Wealth as Trust, Service, and Sincere Giving.

Amongst us, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari would also witness people who embody the spirit of selfless giving, those who quietly uplift the poor, support families in need, and invest their wealth into building infrastructure and community institutions that benefit society at large.

He would see how, across South Africa, many of these individuals and groups have played a real role in establishing schools, masjids, welfare projects, and services that continue to serve generations.

And in seeing this, he would feel a sense of approval. Because this, too, reflects something deeply rooted in the prophetic message: wealth being used as a trust to serve others, not as a means of pride or superiority.

In such people, he would see a practical expression of Islam’s moral vision, where giving is not occasional, but habitual; not performative, but sincere; and where wealth becomes a means of mercy rather than division.

The neglect of Dawah .

When Prophet Muhammad sent Abu Dharr back to his people after he embraced Islam, he did not hesitate or delay. He returned to the tribe of Banu Ghifar, and through sincerity and conviction, he called them to Islam until many embraced the faith.

Not stopping there, his influence reached the neighboring tribe of Banu Aslam, who too accepted Islam. Later, Abu Dharr came to the Prophet accompanied by delegations from both tribes, and the Prophet rejoiced at their acceptance, honoring Abu Dharr’s effort and steadfastness.

If he were to look at us today, he might ask uncomfortable questions: you who lived for centuries in India, where Muslims held power and influence, why did the majority remain untouched by Islam? What prevented you from conveying its message?

And here in South Africa, after generations of presence, why have you not carried Islam meaningfully to the indigenous majority? He would ask not only why have you neglected dawah , but also why have you neglected solidarity with the poor indigenous people?

The Champion of the Marginalised

If there is a companion whose legacy belongs to the poor, the forgotten, and the oppressed, it is Abu Dharr (RA)

He is the voice of those unseen. The dignity of those dismissed. The conscience of inequality.

From the palaces of power to the slums and refugee camps, his message remains: your worth is not your wealth.

Abu Dharr and Marx: A Question of the Soul

Many turn to Karl Marx to understand inequality. But Abu Dharr spoke of it long before him. Marx saw systems. Abu Dharr saw souls.

Marx called for revolution. Abu Dharr called for accountability. One changes structures. The other changes hearts. And without the second, the first collapses.

A Mirror We Cannot Escape

If Abu Dharr were alive today, he would not be celebrated, he would be resisted.

Because he would ask uncomfortable questions about wealth, justice, and sincerity.

He would hold up a mirror to every class of society. And that mirror would ask: What has wealth done to your Islam?

Abu Dharr al-Ghifari is not just a companion of the past. He is a mirror for the present. And the question is no longer whether we admire him, but whether we are willing to change when we see ourselves in that mirror.

Salim Mohamed Badat

Writer exploring the intersection of faith , politics and justice