“verily I see him a believer. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) [said]; (Nay, not so) but a Muslim.”

“verily I see him a believer. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) [said]; (Nay, not so) but a Muslim.” 

Seed thought: What is a Muslim? What is a believer? Is there a difference between the two? Additionally, what does Islam demand of the Muslim, the believer?

Following, the words of the men of wisdom in Islam, and the words of the alleged founder of Islam, so too, the words of a former Muslim, respond in full to the above queries:

Sa’d narrated it on the authority of his father (Abi Waqqas) who said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) distributed shares (of booty amongst his Companions). I said: Messenger of Allah! Give it to so and so for verily he is a believer.  The Apostle of Allah said: Or a Muslim? I (the narrator) repeated it (the word “believer”) thrice and he (the Holy Prophet) turned it back upon me (and substituted the word ) “Muslim”….

(Sahih Muslim, By Imam Muslim, Rendered in English by ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Islamic Book Service, Fourth Edition, 2005, Vol. I, Kitab Al-Iman, P. 124-125. [#150].)

The hadith that follows the above hadith reads this way:

It was narrated on the authority of Sa’d that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) bestowed upon a group of persons (things), and Sa’d was sitting amongst them. Sa’d said: The Messenger of Allah ignored some of them. And he who was ignored appeared to be more deserving in my eyes (as compared with others). I (Sa’d) said: Messenger of Allah! Why is it you did not give to such and such (man)? Verily I see him a believer. The Messenger of Allah (saw)said: Or a Muslim? I kept quiet for some time but I was again impelled (to express) what I knew about him. I said: Messenger of Allah!  Why is it you did not give to such and such (man)?  Verily, by Allah, I see him a believer. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: (Nay, not a believer) but a Muslim. He (Sa’d) said: I again kept quiet for some time but what I knew about him  again impelled me (to express my opinion) and I said: Why is it that you did not give (the share) to so and so: By Allah, verily I see him a believer. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) [said] ; (Nay, not so) but a Muslim.”  (Ibid, P. 125, [#150R1].)

Footnotes thereat provide the following exegesis on the above-cited ahadith: “ A muslim [sic] is he who makes profession of Islam, but the believer is one who  believes in Islam from the depth of his heart.” (Ibid.)

The exegesis further asserts, deducing from the ahadith, that not always is a muslim a believer, but always is a believer a muslim.

Hence this: “And if any fail to judge by the light of what Allah has revealed, they are no better than unbelievers.”  (Qur’an 5:47) In other words, if they fail to judge by what Allah has revealed they are not Believers but rather unbelievers.

Therefore this: “No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them, and then find no resistance, (nor any doubt or constriction), within themselves to what you decide but submit themselves completely (and will obey your judgments without question).

(An-Nisa [4:65], Tafsir Al-Jalalayn,  Jalalu’ D-Din Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Al-Mahalli and Jalalu’ D-Din as-Suyuti, Aisha Bewley’s Translation , Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. London, 2007.)

Hence this: “It is narrated on the authority of Al-‘Abbas b. ‘Abdul-Muttalib that he heard the Messenger of Allah saying: He relished the flavour [sic] of faith that who became pleased with Allah as Lord, with al-Islam as a code of life and with Muhammad as a Messenger (of Allah). (Muslim, Ibid. P. 57, [# 34].)

On behalf of the revered scholars of Islam, footnotes thereat read as follows:

Sincere attachment to Allah, Islam and the Holy Prophet is the sum and substance of faith….It is an attitude of mind which is formed by willing adherence to Allah, His Apostle and the code of life which he has given to the human race….

To be pleased with Al-Islam as the code of life implies that whatever Islam has laid down for a believer by way of spiritual guidance or practical legislation should be looked upon as the timeless expression of God’s will and should be willingly and cheerfully put into practice.

To be pleased with Muhammad (SAW) as the Messenger of Allah is indicative of the fact that it is through Muhammad that God’s will has been made known to us. He is the bearer of revelation and is, therefore, best fitted and divinely authorized to tell the human race how Allah is to be loved and obeyed and how his pleasure can be rightly sought for and how his laws can be applied in practical life. Thus without showing obedience to Muhammad and following him sincerely and earnestly we cannot obey our Lord. (Ibid. FN, #3, 4, 5, respectively.)

For such reasons, with confidence, the so-called Messenger of Allah declared, “None of you is a believer till I am dearer to him than his child, his father, and the whole of mankind.” (Ibid, P. 62, [#44R1].)

Therefore, this exegesis on the above just-cited hadith from the men of knowledge in Islam:

“…the Holy Prophet ….in his personality … we can know the will of the Lord….He has been, therefore, made for us the focus of loyalty because it is through him that we have learnt the true concept of God, the real implications of Tauhid, the role of man …. In fact the whole of the religion. It is Muhammad (SAW)… He is [sic] central figure in Islam: that is the reason why the Qur’an says, “ If you love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you….” (Ibid, FN #1.)

Therefore this command: “O you who believe, raise not your voices above the Prophet’s voice, nor speak loudly to him….”(49:2.)

Therefore, this exegesis on that just-cited Qur’anic verse: “ The scholars of Islam have stated in connection with this verse that here voice also means opinion and judgement and 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). (Ibid. Muslim, Vol. IV. P.94, FN.)

Hence, the Qur’an instructs, “Obey Allah and the Messenger so that perhaps you will gain mercy.” (3: 132.) It tells us, “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (4:80.) It warns, “Those who [disagree and oppose] Allah and His Messenger will be subdued and overcome as those before them were also subdued and overcome [when they opposed their Messengers before]…. The unbelievers will have a humiliating punishment.” (58: 5)

(Tafsir Al-Jalalayn,  Jalalu’ D-Din Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Al-Mahalli , Jalalu’ D-Din as-Siyuti, Aisha Bewley’s Translation, Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. 2007.)

Hence, with confidence, the Messenger of Allah asserted, “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah.”  (Sahih.)

(Sunan Ibn Majah, English Translation, Compiled by: Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, Ahadith edited & referenced by: Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’I, Translated by: Nasiruddin al-Khattab [Canada], Final review by: Abu Khaliyl [USA], Darussalam. Vol. 4, P 101, #2859.)

That provided, we move forward: last week, on Mark’s Levin’s show, I heard him interview Andy McCarthy. In that interview, McCarthy made solid arguments in defense of the “Trump Call” with respect to Muslims.

Having heard Mark mention an article McCarthy had written on the subject, having great respect for both, McCarthy and his work, I chased the article down (link to it provided below). Read it. Agreed with it in many instances.

However, with respect to the idea McCarthy seems to support, what I call the myth of two Islams--one that the “extremist” follow, the other, the one the Moderates follow; therefore, the myth that, with respect to Believers in the way of Muhammad, there are Moderates and Extremist—that I strongly disagree with. 

Because as long as we allow that myth life; then here in our nation, Islamic  schools will teach the children the of the “Believers” the tenets of the only Islam there is, which is the Islam I have studied since 9/11, the Islam the “sacred Texts” of Islam disclose, the Islam the “Prophet Muhammad” brought, lived and defined.

Therefore, as is always so, to check my thoughts against not only the best-versed on Islam, but also against one born and raised in both an Islamic nation and community, I was thankful to have at e-mail’s length, the input of my mentor in Islam, former Bangladeshi Muslim, “Abul Kasem.” He is one born and raised in the faith he now—as he has done for the past two decades of more—with his “pen, and, I note, his needed pen-name, via the net, teaches and exposes true basic Islam. And to stay alive, with the recent chopping to death of “anti-Islam” Bangladeshi former Muslim bloggers, AK dares not visit his homeland.

Many readers of Jihad Watch very likely have read his work at Islam Watch: the work of “Abul Kasim.”

Because AK is not only my mentor in Islam, but has also become a friend I cherish, one whose input on Islam I count as second to none, I quickly sent him the above-mentioned article, requested he comment on it.

Here follows, those comments:

Dear DL;

I am replying in a hurry, because we are going on a holiday trip.

The shortest answer will be:

It is impossible to have moderate Muslims in the absence of a moderate Quran.

Those who claim to be moderate are actually hypocrites and opportunists, dishonest and practice takiyya and kitman. Actually, they are more dangerous than the Jihadists.

Good Muslims are the ones who are honest, and truly live by the words of the Quran and Sunna.

Those veering from the above tenets are bad Muslims--or not Muslims at all. But they are afraid to declare their apostasy for fear of facing the wrath of good Muslims.

 Much of what is stated the in the essay is true and shows the scope and ferocity of Islam.

Donald Trump's idea deserves some merit.  The only point is that he should distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims. I think, US should only accept very bad Muslims--. Allowing these bad Muslims protection for their apostasy. They will be allies. The US must stop admitting the good and moderate Muslims.

Sincerely;

AK

         

Thank you, Abul. To our peril we disregard his words.

That stated, to the above and to this conversation I add the following:

Too often among us, well-intended regard-worthy individuals, but individuals, nonetheless, less then deep-versed on Islam, assert—in the words of the inimitable regard-worthy American treasure, Mark Levin—“Shari ‘ah Law is incompatible with a constitutional Republic,” which is a categorical correct indisputable provable assertion; but they fail to realize Shari ‘ah is Islam.

Islam is Qur’an and Sunnah, and the consensus of the scholars, as long as that consensus agrees in full with the former; congruently—as in “coinciding on all points when superimposed”--Shari ‘ah is Qur’an and Sunnah, and the consensus of the scholars, as long as that consensus agrees in full with Qur’an and Sunnah. Failing that accordance there is no consensus, there is no Shari ‘ah.

Islam is Shari ‘ah, Shari ‘ah is Islam.

And of Shari ‘ah Levin additionally accurately asserted, not only is it “incompatible with a constitutional Republic,” but, “Shari ‘ah must be used to impose the will of that faith on all countries and on all peoples.” (Levin show, 10 December 2014: 47:20.)

Yes, Indeed, Levin, and Shari ‘ah is Islam—there is no daylight, between them because they are one and the same.

Hence this Qur’anic exegesis from revered Islamic works:

The Authority of the Holy Prophet extends to all times …. The verdict of the sacred Law left by him, is nothing but his own verdict. Therefore, the rule reigns supreme right through the Last Day, the rule that guidance should be sought by turning directly to the Holy Prophet, during his blessed lifetime, and after him, one must turn to his Shariah which is, in all reality, a return to him, may Allah bless him for ever and ever.

(Mariful Qur’an, A Comprehensive commentary on the Holy Qur’an, By Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi, translated by, Muhammad Shamim and Muhammad Wali Raazi, Revised by Maulana Muhammad Taqi ‘Usmani, Fourth Edition, 2007, Maktaba-e-Darul- ‘Uloom, Karachi, 14 Pakistan. Vol. 2, P. 487)

“Moderates,” “Reformers” assert they reject the doctrine of stoning for adultery. They reject the doctrine of death for the apostate to Islam, they reject violent jihad, they reject the doctrine of the Caliphate, the ruling of Shari ‘ah, and on and on, naming one after the other of the doctrines and traditions of the “prophet of Islam”—Sunnah! Sunnah that Islam claims is equal to Qur’an, part of “what Allah has revealed.”

Surely, these “Moderates” and “Reformers” know, rejecting sunnah, Islam asserts, is tantamount to apostasy. It is repudiating Islam in its entirety.

Self-claimed so-called “Moderates” and/or “Reformer” Muslims state, the Qur’an, and their “prophet,” in numerous passages and incidents, provide good peaceable guidance. Indeed, no argument there--where the guidance in the Qur’an and the same in the sunnah of their “prophet” provides guidance and instructions from the unaltered teachings of the Hebrew Scripture and of the New Testament, such is indeed, minimally, good guidance.

The problem is Islam disallows the believer to choose which words, practices, and judgments of their “prophet” they wish to follow and which they elect to repudiate and disregard. 

Once more, heed the words of the revered scholars of Islam:

“The explanatory role of the Sunnah in relation to the Qur’an has been determined by the Qur’an itself, where we read in an address to the Prophet in sura al-Nahl (16:44): ‘We have sent down to you the Remembrance so that you may explain to the people what has been revealed to them.”

(Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Dr. Mohammad Hasim Kamali, The Islamic Texts Society, UK, 2003, p. 81)

Tasfir Al-Jalalyn renders and amplifies the just cited allegedly Allah to Muhammad communication this way: “We have sent down the reminder [(The Qur’an)] to you so that you may make clear to mankind what has been sent down to them [regarding the lawful and unlawful--] so that perhaps they will reflect [on that and take note].

In other words, according to Qur’anic teaching, Allah  elected to use the life of “his messenger” Muhammad to show “believers” the actions Allah wanted to see in and from his body of Believers, which were actions seen and enacted in the life of “His Messenger, Muhammad”; acts of others praised by the same.

Because, as spoken to in earlier citations herein, “it is through Muhamad that God’s will has been made known to us,” assert the revered Islamic scholars. “He is the bearer of revelation and,” therefore, teaches, via his life, the believer what acts earn “Allah’s pleasure” and approval, and “how his laws can be applied in , practical life. “ (Muslim. Vol. I, FN.)

For that reason, this assertion and warning in the revered work of Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’s, Mariful Qur’an tasfir, expounding on that same verse, under the heading, “ Hadith is Necessary to Understand Qur’an: The Rejection of Hadith is Really the Rejection of the Qur’an."

He follows that warning up with the following:

“And We sent down the Message (adh-dhikr: The Qur’an) so that you explain to the people,” means, by consensus, the Holy Qur’an—and, in this verse, the Holy Prophet has been given the assignment of explaining the meaning of verses revealed to him before people. Herein lies an open proof that the correct understanding of the realities, insights and injunctions of the Holy Qur’an depends on the statement of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad al-Mustafa…..

In Al-Muwafqat, Allamah Shatibi has provided detailed proof that the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, the whole of it, is the explanation of the Book of Allah because the Qur’an has said about the Holy Prophet (And surely you are at the height of a sublime nature [64:4]) and which was explained by Sayyidah ‘Aishah by saying: (The Qur’an was his sublime nature). Thus, the outcome is that every word and deed which provenly [sic] issued forth from the Holy Prophet is nothing but what was said by the Qur’an….This is because according to  the clarification of the Qur’an nothing he says is prompted by his personal desire, instead, it is a Wahy (revelation) from Allah Ta ‘ala: (and nor does he talk from desire. It is nothing but a revelation revealed—[ 53: 3-4]) This tells us that all acts of worship, dealings with people, personal morals and habits of the Holy Prophet were, all of them, through Divine revelation and have the same authority as that of the Qur’an. 

(Mariful Qur’an,Vol. 5, [16: 43-44], P. 363-364.)

In other words, as the Qur’an bears out, according to Islam, Muhammad was sent to explain that in the Qur’an to humanity; to provide, via his life, words, approval, and disapproval; clarity on all messages and tenets contained in the Qur’an. We find most of those clarifications and object lessons in ahadith, sira, and tafsir. Also in fiqh—jurisprudence, because the Qadis and Scholars that have contributed to that in Islamic Jurisprudence, have only been allowed to contribute to Islamic Law (Shariah) that which agrees in full with that found in the former sources—Qur’anic, ahadith, sira, tafsir.

For that reason, “No, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you their judge in the disputes that break out between them, and then find no resistance, (nor any doubt or constriction), within themselves to what you decide but submit themselves completely (and will obey your judgments without question). (An-Nisa [4:65],Tafsir Al-Jalalayn.)

For such reasons, as spoken to in the opening line of this post, “verily,” asserted Sa’d ibn Waqqas, “I see him a believer. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) [said] ; (Nay, not so) but a Muslim.” 

“No, by your Lord, they will not believe until they ask you to judge between them in what they disagree about and then they shall find in themselves no impediment touching your verdict, but shall surrender in full submission.” (4:64)

Thus this addition, per Muhammad ibn at-Tirmidhi: “ ‘To take the Messenger as a model means to emulate him, follow his sunna and abandon opposition to him in either word or action.’ Several commentators said words to that effect.”

(Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yasubi, Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley translation, Medinah Press, Cape Town, South Africa, Seventh print, 2008, 1429H, p. 217.)

Endless are the texts from authoritative Islamic sources that substantiate and corroborate my above assertions. Nonetheless, for the sake of brevity here, in this post, aiming to wind this up, I limit that from the established word of Qur’an and Sunnah to the following example of the indispensable necessity for all believers to accept, to the negation of all other opinions and rulings, the judgement, the guidance, the opinion of the “prophet.”

Why such focus on this man’s life?

For the reasons borne out above: if we are to know what to expect from the life of believers in the “religion” of Muhammad that live among us and elsewhere, we must study and know Muhammad’s actions, because, it is those actions, all of them, every believer is Allah-ordered to obey and mimic.

Therefore, to what I call, “Object Lesson, Bishr.”

As narrated “from Sayyidna ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas as narrated by Tha ‘labi and Ibn Abi Hatim,” the incident of Bishr and  Sayyidna  Umar ibn al-Khattab.

“Bishr [‘who called himself a Muslim’] … got into a dispute with a Jew,” the report states and “The Jew said, ‘let us go to Muhammad and let him settle our dispute.’”  (Mariful Qur’an, Vol. 2, p. 481.)

The narrative relates Bishr (whom the narrative calls “a pretending Muslim”) then posed a “counter-proposal” to the Jews suggestion, suggesting they rather seek the judgment of Jewish tribal chief, Ka ‘b ibn Ashraf, who was, no less, “a sworn enemy of the Holy Prophet and his Muslim followers.” After further discussion on the matter, the two men finally agreed upon the original suggestion of the Jew—seek the verdict of the “Prophet.”

Thus, they did just that. The “Prophet” gave his decision in the favor of the Jew. That, of course, left Bishr dissatisfied. His dissatisfaction thereat spurred him to suggest yet another option: take the case to Umar, one well known for his harshness on unbelievers.

Tafsir tells, the two “reached Sayyadna Umar.”  The Jew relayed all the details of the case to Umar, as well as informing him, they had already submitted the case to the Prophet, received his verdict on it, but how Bishr was dissatisfied with the Prophet’s verdict.

Upon hearing such, Umar “asked Bishr, ‘Is this what really happened?’” Bishr confirmed such was so. At that point, Umar instructed the two to wait right where they stood. Turning on his heels, he went to his house, and tafsir provides, Umar returned “with a sword which he swung to finish the hypocrite off, saying: ‘this is the decision for him who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Holy Prophet.’” (ibid, p.482.)

(Tafsir al-Jalalayn relays the same account, stating, “so ‘Umar killed him.” Tafsir ibn Kathir puts Umar’s actions in highlight here this way: “’Umar … struck the head of the man who rejected the Prophet’s decision with the sword and killed him.”

[TAFSIR IBN KATHIR [ABRIDGED] V. 4, ABRIDGED BY A GROUP OF SCHOLARS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF SHAYKH SAFIUR-RAHMAN AL-MUBARAKPURI, DARUSSALAM, Riyadh, Second Edition, 2003, Vol. 2, p. 506.])

The narrative goes on to tell, how when the relatives of Bishr heard about the incident, they filed a suit against Umar accusing him of wrongfully killing a Muslim—“without adequate legal authority as admitted by the Shariah of Islam.” (ibid.)

The narrative tells that in time, after Bishr’s defenders presented all their arguments in the court of the Prophet, Allah revealed, all those were simply “an exercise in lying,” and the fact that Bishr rejected the prophets verdict  proved Bishr not only a hypocrite but a clear apostate. Thus, “his being killed by Sayyidna Umar became all the more justified.” (ibid.)

That narrative goes on to provide, Umar was absolved of any wrong doing, because, Allah provided  the grounds of justification on which Umar killed the so-called Muslim—the fact that Bishr rejected the verdict of the Prophet proved Bishr not a true Muslim but rather an apostate. Thus, the treatment Umar gave him qualified as Umar simply carrying out Allah’s orders.

It goes on to state, when Allah thus revealed, “Those are the ones Allah knows what is in their hearts. So ignore what they are and give them good counsel and speak to them about themselves,” (ibid, vs 63) in that, Allah instructed the Prophet to “ignore their excuses and reject their charge of excess against Sayyidna Umar.”

Again, in Umar’s above actions, “Allah,” via “the Prophet” clearly exonerating Umar of any wrongdoing. (MQ, V. II, PP. 481 – 485.)

Additionally, using, if you will, the Bishr object lesson, Allah then instructed his Messenger to advise them, warn them (“the rest of the hypocrites”), should they ever be inclined to do as Bishr had done and bypass, reject, be dissatisfied with the judgment of the Prophet, they too “might as well meet the same fate as did Bishr, the hypocrite.” (ibid.)

Thus the next verse revealed buttresses those cited above, with Allah warning and declaring, “We did not send any Messenger but to be obeyed by the leave of Allah” [4: 64]. Tafsir provides the following clarification for the verse:

It means that any Messenger who was sent by Allah was sent so that everyone obeys the rules set by him in accordance with the command of Allah Almighty. In that case, the inevitable consequence [of rejecting those rules] will be that anyone who opposes the rules set by the Messenger will be dealt with in the manner disbelievers are dealt with.

How, in the Bishr object lesson was this disbeliever dealt with? With the sword--wacked to death.

Thus, tafsir adds, “Therefore, whatever Sayyidna Umar did turned out to be correct.” (ibid.)

Did we get that?

Umar killed the man that was dissatisfied with the verdict of Muhammad;  Allah and his Messenger exonerated Umar in that murder. On the heels of it, Allah further advised his Messenger to use this incident to warn others perhaps inclined to do as Bishr had done. Thus, the ummah has as their pattern and guide on what to do with such “offences,” this Umar example, which Allah, the Prophet, thus Qur’an, Sunnah, and thus Islam, declare correct and thus assert Umar righteous in his act therein.

Some may argue, but the danger of earning the “Bishr reward” for rejecting the verdict of the Prophet ended with the Prophet’s death. Not so.

Tafsir is clear on that. So too, Qur’an and Sunnah. As spoken to above, as we will re-read here shortly.

For that reason the Qur’an states, just a few verses after those spotlighted above, “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah. (vs. 80.) That precept the Qur’an and ahadith echo throughout. One can in fact state, absent that basis precept, Islam collapses.

In other words, Islam is just that—following the judgments, teachings, advice and examples of the Arabian Prophet. And that is precisely what Muslims who are also Believers in the way of Muhammad do.

Once more in closing: “So never, by your Lord, never shall they become believers unless they make you the judge in the disputes which arise between them, then find no discomfort in their hearts against what you have decided and surrender to it in total submission. (4: 65)

Tafsir provides clarification on that stating, “Not accepting the decision of the Prophet is Kufr.”

(kufr: disbelief, to cover up the truth, to reject Allah and refuse to believe that Muhammad is His Messenger.)

(A Glossary of Islamic Terms, Aisha Bewley, Ta-Ha Publishers, LTD, 2009, p. 13.)

Tafsir further clarifies, “Allah Almighty proclaims that nobody can become a Muslim unless he accepts the verdict of the Holy Prophet willingly, calmly, and fully to the extent that there remains even in his heart not the slightest strain because of this verdict.” (Mariful Qur’an, ibid [Vol.II], p. 487.)

 

That seems rather clear. 

Tafsir goes on to state, because the “Holy Prophet is not only the ruler of the state, he is a Messenger of Allah, protected against sins by Him,” as such, the believer, if a true Muslim at all, is “duty bound to make the Holy Prophet the arbitrator and judge and have him give the final verdict.” Then it adds, “And once the verdict has been given by him, let them all accept it whole-heartedly [sic] and act accordingly.” (Mariful Qur’an, ibid, p. 487.)

As mentioned above, one may argue the authority of the “Prophet’s” verdicts ended with his death. As stated above, not so. As Qur’an and Sunnah assert consistently. Once more therefore to Qur’anic tafsir:

The Authority of the Holy Prophet extends to all times …. The verdict of the sacred Law left by him, is nothing but his own verdict. Therefore, the rule reigns supreme right through the Last Day, the rule that guidance should be sought by turning directly to the Holy Prophet, during his blessed lifetime, and after him, one must turn to his Shariah which is, in all reality, a return to him, may Allah bless him for ever and ever. (MQ, V. 2, P. 487)

The above presented, I name just a few high-profile examples we have of Good Muslim, Believers in the way of Muhammad: Osama bin Ladin, Nidal Hasan, the SB killing-couple;  the Leaders, soldiers, scholars and patrons of Islamic State, just to name a few.

Why did the above named commit the acts of Jihad they committed? Because they were, are, good Muslims, true believers in the way of Muhammad, thus, obedient to the dictates and tenets of Islam, thus conformers to Sunnah. 

Concluding here, I so re-citing these words of my friend Abul:

Good Muslims are the ones who are honest, and truly live by the words of the Quran and Sunna. Those veering from the above tenets are bad Muslims--or not Muslims at all. But they are afraid to declare their apostasy for fear of facing the wrath of good Muslims.

 ………………..

Donald Trump's idea deserves some merit.  The only point is that he should distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims. I think, US should only accept very bad Muslims--. Allowing these bad Muslims protection for their apostasy. They will be allies. The US must stop admitting the good and moderate Muslims.

To our peril we disregard Abul’s advice.

(http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428201/donald-trump-muslim-immigration-policy-discussion?target=author&tid=900151)