hostile-shefaah (hostile-intercession)

In the Judgment Day (after resurrection), there is the high court.

Normally, a victim is paid by the guilty, but

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Allah said, 'I am the enemy (khaSm) of three [types of people] on the Day of Resurrection: a man who gave (covenant?) in My Name, but betrayed that pledge, a man who sold a free person (as a slave), then ate the payment, and a man who hired a laborer, and benefited from that, but failed to pay him his payment.'" (Sahih-ul-Bukhari, book34 "sales & trade")

This hadith is in cases where there have been victims, but there is hostility (and, naturally, punishment) from Allah, just as the case is in personal sins, and while those have some chance of seeing forgiveness, this hadith is telling of a category that is the vice versa. Therefore, the term hostile-shefaah sounds fitting -- as that is a shefaah (intercession) if outsiders try to lessen.


Today, no country has a law to support slavery. But effectively, probably all sorts of slavery exist.

The cover topic of the May 4, 1992 issue of Newsweek (International) was "Slaves." Millions of people, world-wide. Of those, Newsweek lists Islamic countries, too. But except the caseof Mauritania (where the state has offered to buy the slaves, but people have kept their centuries old slaves), and (possibly?) Sudan (in war), none is Islamic, truly. (The war-captive case is from the Torah/Bible, not new with Muhammed (s.a.s.), and if Sudan is not accepting the international laws, taking that basic code, is understandable. They need to keep the rest of the law (behaving good to slaves), too.)

Newsweek is not listing USA (or, Europe) where women (or, else) serve sex, to get money. In the massive loan crisis of (around) 2008, I've kept thinking about that point I was concerned of, for a long time. Thus, that crisis might have been a help from Allah, if otherwise, women would be singly pushed into the sex market upon not being able to pay their loans, but when that is en masse, the lousy-credit-giving banks went off.

To enslave people through trickery or oppression/kidnapping, is inviting the hostility of Allah.

Thus, conscientiously, that "slave" might defect. All that is left, is the practical fight.

The bad news is that, at gunpoint (or, under "debt"), some find that hard to get away.

People talk about women who were kidnapped in Hijaz (while there for hajj or umrah). I have no opinion about who exactly those women were (known to our family, in Turkey). But Allah knows that even the last shred of curse I might have the right to invoke, is what I would not spare. There, the hadith is so lovely. Allah expressing hostility, and even more lovely, if He is commanding Muhammed (s.a.s.) to that cause, too.

In 2004, I thought aforemaze (of armaze), after listening to that warning (when some women/girls would visit some foreign country). A hadith about ad-dajjal (the antichrist), tells us that the doors of Medina will be kept by "angels" then. That word, "melaiketu" has the sense of "highly sophisticated (technical, etc.) people," too. That foretold "future" of hadith, is in need of starting now, obviously. If the Mahdi (a.s.) will come in the next millenium, the hadith is not suggesting us to wait till then. (But, we need not take that as a command to have strictly seven doors. That exact count might happen in some future time.) What we need, is to protect muslims, who go to hajj or umrah.

Note that, aforemaze (camera/video logging, etc) is optimal for pinpointing who was walking/commuting through where, thus, good for locating the kidnappers -- although not necessarily optimal against terrorists. (But, a full roaming mediator would help.)

puppetizing assaults of satanical mess

A witch trouble is falling into the category of abusing your labor, too.

Both taking your time with their ugliness, and in case they carry back or forth some lobbying/knowledge of a person to another ("zeitgeist"), that is ugliness upon ugliness.

In fact, as far as the victim is ignorant, the witch assault is equivalent to a type of slavery, too -- because that is violating the free will of the victim. Thus, the hostile-shefaah is necessarily against the puppetizing/interactive sort of witchcraft, too.

The evil is obvious, when that is ibne-telepaths and/or industrial spies/thieves, but there is no way to be right while intrusive. The not so widely cursed "zeitgeist" is truly cursed. Not any exception to the rule. That is theft committed by the satans (or, witch gangs). Uninvited intrusive thought, especially if hey were stolen from elsewhere (or, from yourself to elsewhere, or both) is evil. I curse that category regularly, and happy with this hadith expressing hostility against labor-abuses & freedom-violations.

((To quote (what I had independently thought) from Abraham Lincoln: "No person is so high to be entitled to keep another person as slave." Not to mention that, a witch is most likely a piece of nothing (or, charlatan) who is trying to trick/control people. But I point out the general rule first, because that is hard to "convince" some greedy stupids about their worthlessness. They knew that in some way, and need bugging a victim.))

The hadith is reflecting the elegant, wise system of Allah. The point that "agreed, then not paid" is expressly pointing out that, a witch/satan is not in the "laborer" category. There is no such poking right. That unsolicited thought-control "work" is entirely in the offense category, totally punishable. Nothing vice versa. The witch is getting no right, but the vice versa. Any puppetizing witch will face hostile-shefaah from Allah. No help.

his (s.a.s.)?

The hadith is probably widely understood as the hostility of Allah, in His first person, against abusers. But a less thought style of interpreting, might fit, too. That "first person" might be Muhammed (s.a.s.), as Allah froretold him (s.a.s.), that as a command (or, news/prophecy).

That is lovely. If you are so concerned, so hateful about some offense, then you would like your love to oppose that, too. Allah knows how shefaah-intending Muhammed (s.a.s.) is. Thus, pre-emptively, He might have cast him (s.a.s.) to this hostility role.

Honestly, I might have thought this, thanks to how I have cursed, for years. Specifically, "Let all those who have leniency to thought-control gangs go to hell along with those." Naturally, I was thinking only people of our times, but that hadith is shockingly lovely, as Allah has kept even Himself, and presumably casting him (s.a.s.) to the job, too.

The style I state that curse, is equivalent to requesting that only-the-maximal-evil-people/genies-might-show-leniency-to-such-satans. That is the separation of sides.

This does not retract any of the sense of the hadith understood as attributed to Allah, Himself.

All of the law is Allah's. Is Allah stressing the issue specifically (because of the importance)? The case of mercy/wrath favoring the victim actively, against the guilty.

If Muhammed (s.a.s.) is assigned by Allah, to think/talk that way, then that might sound like the inspiring to bee, in the Quran. Then, it is the most natural thing for him (s.a.s).

The covenant in his (s.a.s.) name? That is not probably a sworn statement, but serious.

If people pledge with mentioning their respect to Muhammed (s.a.s.), that is because his (s.a.s.) identity as the Islamic prophet, not a sports star. Thus, the theme is Islamic.

Besides, the first thought sense (that is, pledge by the name of Allah) is surely all the more indicated to be evil to break, if pledge by the name of Muhammed (s.a.s.) is so.

Thus, the way I like to interpret is not lessening the respect to their names, but vice versa, affirming both (as they are not separable, in truth). Who else is Muhammed (s.a.s.), if not the prophet of Allah? Why is a covenant taken in his (s.a.s.) name, otherwise? Thus, that has to be taken serious by the pledge-making person, too.

Abusing his (s.a.s.) name to rob/trick people, might truly cause losing shefaah, I think.

In contrast, there is no aplicabillity of the ugly "pledge" of "talaq-ul-muallaq".

With or without mentioning His or his (s.a.s.) name, if you would abuse some covenant, that is almost (or, exactly) equivalent to the labor-abuse, if robbing people.

That is targeting the hypocrites, too. They lie, they violate their covenants.

Forum: . . (Fair Menu . . . . . Fault Report? . . . . . Remedy for your case . . . . . Noticed Plagiarism?)

Referring#: 0.0.1
Last-Revised (text) on June 10, 2009 -- J.akhir 17, 1430
new link on Aug.27,2009 (Ramazan 7, 1430)
Written by: Ahmed Ferzan/Ferzen R Midyat-Zila (or, Earth)
Copyright (c) 2009 Ferzan Midyat. All rights reserved.