Sharia advocate made Mardi Gras threat on Kyle and Jackie O Facebook page, court hear

[Musa]

Najashi was following the Shari'ah of 'Isa and when he learned of Islam he evidently accepted it there and then.

Did he say the shahadah, make ghusl and pray 2 raka'at? No.. But he was a Muslim, and this was evident from the first meeting he had with the Muslims of Makkah who migrated.

Either way, the point was that he was the one who helped the Muslims, not anybody else in Axum. Same with the Romans, only their emperor inclined towards Islam but did not become Muslim. After that the whole Empire became the enemies of Islam and the Muslims, and as we know they fought against the Islamic state led by the Prophet and battled with the companions of the Prophet on the battlefield.

This means, out of all of Axum, only 1 man was good towards the believers and he was in reality a Muslim anyway. Out of Rome there were 0. If you were alive then you sure wouldn't be kissing up to the disbelievers asking them for help or mercy.

[Abu Coburg]

The zanadiq and munafiqeen on this thread would do well to read the ahadith and rulings pertaining to jizyah and the ahl adh-dhimmah.

Lying, misrepresenting, spin doctoring and straw men seem to be their speciality.

No prize for guessing who said to the christians of Najran:

"To the bishop of Najran and the people of Najran. If you accept Islam, then I praise Allah Ta'ala on your behalf [for your acceptance] - the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, I invite you to worship only Allah and leave the worship of His slaves. I invite you to accept the Lordship of Allah Ta'ala from [your unlawful acceptance of] the sovereignty of His slaves. If you reject this [to become Muslim], then the jizyah shall be imposed upon you, and if you reject that [as well, that is, jizyah], then I proclaim war upon you. And peace."

Please see Madarij-un-Nubuwwah of Imam Bayhaqi and the Tafsir of Imam Ibn Kathiir under the verses 3:59-61 where this is reported, to cite 2 books from among many. Please do investigate the full context too. You'd be doing yourselves and the ummah a great favor in sha Allah. I guarantee.

These are the kind of narrations they cringe at when they see them.

[SammerTX]

“O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:118]



The ayah above is pretty clear to me. Allah swt is telling us that they hate us and that we shouldnt take them as our nearest and dearest. It doesnt mean we cant be nice to them, it just means that we should be aware of their feelings, and their belief and attitude towards Allah.

As for what Musa was saying in regards to the Ethiopian chrisitians, he is 100% right! I do not disagree at all. I am of Eritrean background (we are neighbours with ethipia) and my country is currently ruled by christians, and let me tell you they are doing a GREAT job of oppressing the people (muslims) and making sure that a muslim will NEVER rule the country. They hate us, clear and simple.

That's your personal experience sister and I'm sure many non Muslims have had terrible experiences with Muslims. What does that prove - that all or most Muslims are bad? It doesn't prove anything other than an individual experience.

That's different than collecting the available texts and examining them in their context.

Speaking of context, here is a verse speaking about The People of the Book that came came before the one you quoted:

"Not all of them are alike; a party of the People of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the verses of Allah during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma`ruf and forbid Al-Munkar; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well the Muttaqin (the pious). 3:113-115.

What are the reasons for revelation (azbaab al nizool) in the verses you cited? There's an entire science for this we must examine before we just say "they hate us" when the verse is specifically addressing a particular group of people.

[SammerTX]

There are many very clear ayat on the issue, so many. But Sammer always does this. Notice how he's not even arguing against an actual issue in this topic; namely us hating them. Since we do not hate except the oppressors among them and not just the merely misguided, it is unclear who he's even addressing in his post. Also his set of rules on how to be just with them don't even have anything to do with the ayat talking about their attitude. I don't know what it is with people and coupling completely unrelated things, it's such a waste of time. Fortunately though, the Qur'aan is very clean cut and clear on this issue, there isn't much room for slithering.

When the Qu'ran speaks about Jews and Christians in the context of their "attitude", is it speaking about every Jew and Christian that's ever existed and will exist or is it specifically referring to precise incidents that actually took place so that we may glean lessons from them?

When the Qu'ran states the Jews say Uzair is the son of Allah, we find there was indeed a section of Jews in Arabia at the time that made this assertion. Do Jews today say this? No. Is the Qu'ran wrong then? Absolutely not because it's not referring to all Jews.

My point is there are many ayat in the Qu'ran talking about all sorts of issues and just quoting one or two at the expense of the rest that would better contextualise it is a tad hasty.

[Musa]

Speaking of context, here is a verse speaking about The People of the Book that came came before the one you quoted:

"Not all of them are alike; a party of the People of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the verses of Allah during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma`ruf and forbid Al-Munkar; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knows well the Muttaqin (the pious). 3:113-115.

Why did you fail to quote the earlier verses? Let's see what Allah says about Ahlul-Kitab just a few verses before those that you quoted:

كنتم خير أمة أخرجت للناس تأمرون بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر وتؤمنون بالله ولو آمن أهل الكتاب لكان خيرا لهم منهم المؤمنون وأكثرهم الفاسقون

You are the best nation produced for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.

Most of them.. This is the reality of what Allah is saying. So don't bother saying "But some of them are good, I know them personally!" because we already know some are good. The reality though is that most are not.

Yet the most striking ayah comes a few verses later which says:

ها أنتم أولاء تحبونهم ولا يحبونكم وتؤمنون بالكتاب كله وإذا لقوكم قالوا آمنا وإذا خلوا عضوا عليكم الأنامل من الغيظ قل موتوا بغيظكم إن الله عليم بذات الصدور

Here you are loving them but they are not loving you, while you believe in the Scripture - all of it. And when they meet you, they say, "We believe." But when they are alone, they bite their fingertips at you in rage. Say, "Die in your rage. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of that within the breasts."

To get the full context of these amazing verses here they are in full:

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.

They will not harm you except for [some] annoyance. And if they fight you, they will show you their backs; then they will not be aided.

They have been put under humiliation [by Allah ] wherever they are overtaken, except for a covenant from Allah and a rope from the Muslims. And they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah and have been put under destitution. That is because they disbelieved in the verses of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That is because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed.

They are not [all] the same; among the People of the Scripture is a community standing [in obedience], reciting the verses of Allah during periods of the night and prostrating [in prayer].

They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous.

And whatever good they do - never will it be removed from them. And Allah is Knowing of the righteous.

Indeed, those who disbelieve - never will their wealth or their children avail them against Allah at all, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.

The example of what they spend in this worldly life is like that of a wind containing frost which strikes the harvest of a people who have wronged themselves and destroys it. And Allah has not wronged them, but they wrong themselves.

O you who have believed, do not take as intimates those other than yourselves, for they will not spare you [any] ruin. They wish you would have hardship. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason.

Here you are loving them but they are not loving you, while you believe in the Scripture - all of it. And when they meet you, they say, "We believe." But when they are alone, they bite their fingertips at you in rage. Say, "Die in your rage. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of that within the breasts."

If good touches you, it distresses them; but if harm strikes you, they rejoice at it. And if you are patient and fear Allah , their plot will not harm you at all. Indeed, Allah is encompassing of what they do.

[SammerTX]

The zanadiq and munafiqeen on this thread would do well to read the ahadith and rulings pertaining to jizyah and the ahl adh-dhimmah.

Lying, misrepresenting, spin doctoring and straw men seem to be their speciality.

No prize for guessing who said to the christians of Najran:

"To the bishop of Najran and the people of Najran. If you accept Islam, then I praise Allah Ta'ala on your behalf [for your acceptance] - the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, I invite you to worship only Allah and leave the worship of His slaves. I invite you to accept the Lordship of Allah Ta'ala from [your unlawful acceptance of] the sovereignty of His slaves. If you reject this [to become Muslim], then the jizyah shall be imposed upon you, and if you reject that [as well, that is, jizyah], then I proclaim war upon you. And peace."

Please see Madarij-un-Nubuwwah of Imam Bayhaqi and the Tafsir of Imam Ibn Kathiir under the verses 3:59-61 where this is reported, to cite 2 books from among many. Please do investigate the full context too. You'd be doing yourselves and the ummah a great favor in sha Allah. I guarantee.

These are the kind of narrations they cringe at when they see them.

Just a couple of things.

Firstly, we were discussing the incident of the Muslims migrating to Abyssinia. You have cited an incident were the Christians of Najran came in a delegation to Madinah to debate with the Prophet about who Jesus (pbuh) was.

And secondly, I looked at Imam Ibn Kathir's tafsir of the above verses like you suggested and the above quote was nowhere to be found.

[from water]

When the Qu'ran speaks about Jews and Christians in the context of their "attitude", is it speaking about every Jew and Christian that's ever existed and will exist or is it specifically referring to precise incidents that actually took place so that we may glean lessons from them?

It speaks about incidents as well as `alal itlaaq, meaning in general. And it's not "one or two", it's dozens. One or two are the ayat you use, which you don't contextualize. Moreover there were times when there were Christians holding on to what little light they had from previous prophets. You're using verses referring to those to refer to Christians from countries where you know they believe in trinities and sons of God and commit every sin. Ithhab, go play somewhere else.

Edit: There you go, Musa's post highlighting who's playing with contexts and who's hiding. How many times do the covers need to be pulled on you before you realize your game's not working?

[SammerTX]

FW - wrong akhi. Those verses are not speaking about general at all, they are referring to very speicifc incidents. If you are saying it is general, then be consistent and apply this generality to the whole Qu'ran which simply cannot and has never been done.

Rather than get sidetracked and accuse me of not contextualising verses, I have referenced not only verses but direct words from the prophet Muhammad himself disproving what you stated. Those words were conveniently ignored because they didn't fit a particular view.

The verses Musa quoted are contextualised within conflict. Thanks for further highlighting my point.

Here's the tafsir:

"This is what occurred, for at the battle of Khaybar, Allah brought humiliation and disgrace to the Jews. Before that, the Jews in Al-Madinah, the tribes of Qaynuqa`, Nadir and Qurayzah, were also humiliated by Allah. Such was the case with the Christians in the area of Ash-Sham later on, when the Companions defeated them in many battles and took over the leadership of Ash-Sham forever. There shall always be a group of Muslims in Ash-Sham area until `Isa, son of Maryam, descends while they are like this ﴿on the truth, apparent and victorious﴾. `Isa will at that time rule according to the Law of Muhammad , break the cross, kill the swine, banish the Jizyah and only accept Islam from the people."

So extracting this and juxtaposing it as "the position" when many other verses, ahadith and incidents throughout our religion show otherwise isn't honest.

EDIT: If you could also clarify exactly what you are arguing since you appear to have backtracked, it would help the discussion. Fill in the blank: "Most Jews and Christians (as in the vast majority of Jews and Christians today)_________________" ?

[from water]

So a hadith speaking about dealing justly disproves ayat about kuffar's views on us. Okay sure buddy, it's on your head that you use the Prohet 's words in this manner, and you will answer for it. Today it's words without accountability, tomorrow it's the opposite.

Also what the heck is "azbaab al nizool"? I thought you spoke Arabic, so how does a seen become a zai? Also it's nuzool. The point is not that I'm nitpicking, but I don't feel like someone who speaks Arabic can go and make a mistake like that.

[SammerTX]

So a hadith speaking about dealing justly disproves ayat about kuffar's views on us. Okay sure buddy, it's on your head that you use the Prohet 's words in this manner, and you will answer for it. Today it's words without accountability, tomorrow it's the opposite.

Also what the heck is "azbaab al nizool"? I thought you spoke Arabic, so how does a seen become a zai? Also it's nuzool. The point is not that I'm nitpicking, but I don't feel like someone who speaks Arabic can go and make a mistake like that.

haha, nice one. Azbaab AL Nizool, Azbeb il Nuzool or Azbaab Al Nazgul...ya know what I mean.

FW, you just stated the verses are general in meaning.

I quoted a verse earlier saying the closest to the Muslims in love are those who say "We are Christians" in 5:82. Then Musa quoted another verse above saying most of them are fasiqun.

So going on your premise of generality here you cannot have both.

Which leads me to my point: To judge an entire people based on very specific historical incidents isn't right. If we look at their contexts, then yes - everything becomes that much clearer.

But just shooting out verses like this befuddles more than anything.

So we really should collate a more comprehensive collection of material across a plethora of sources before making claims about a few billion people.

[from water]

All your points have been replied to in this topic and the 300 or so before it. What I'm still bothered about though is that you still don't get that there should not have been a z in asbaab in "asbaab an-nuzool" in the first place, and yet I remember you claiming to know Arabic. That should rub you the wrong way, as it clearly did me.

[SammerTX]

Okay, no worries.

Thanks for the discussion!

[from water]

Wallahi I wonder if you even speak Arabic.

[Abu Coburg]

Firstly, we were discussing the incident of the Muslims migrating to Abyssinia.

Firstly, [mod]

Secondly, I know my geography well and know which hadith talks about which place

You have cited an incident were the Christians of Najran came in a delegation to Madinah to debate with the Prophet about who Jesus (pbuh) was.

Thirdly, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that kuffar should be treated harshly. What is also relevant is that the zanadiq and munafiqeen of this forum are unaware of the ahadith and rulings pertaining to jizyah and ahl adh-dhimmah, not; in fact they try to make other people kafirs like themselves by spin doctoring.

But in any case, you accept that there is harshness to be shown to those who insist on believing in the trinity.

And secondly, I looked at Imam Ibn Kathir's tafsir of the above verses like you suggested and the above quote was nowhere to be found.

Don't embarrass yourself with these pathetic trashy lies.

It is well and truly in there, in all Arabic manuscripts, as well as online on various Arabic Ibn Kathir tafseer sites. I don't know if the "abridged" English translations have it or not.

Here, paste that into google, and you will get a truckload of Arabic Ibn Kathir websites that have it:

إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كتب إلى أهل نجران قبل أن ينزل عليه طس سليمان : "بِاسْم إلَهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وإسْحَاقَ ويَعْقُوبَ ، مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ الَّنِبيِّ رَسُولِ اللهِ إلَى أسْقف نَجْرانَ وأهْلِ نَجْرانَ سِلْم أَنْتُم ، فإنِّي أحْمَدُ إلَيْكُمْ إلَهَ إبْرَاهِيمَ وإِسْحَاقَ ويَعْقُوبَ. أَمَّا بَعْدُ ، فإنِّي أَدْعُوكُم إلَى عِبَادَةِ اللهِ مِنْ عِبَادَةِ الْعِبَادِ ، وأدْعُوكُمْ إلَى وِلايَةِ اللهِ مِنْ وِلايَةِ الْعِبَادِ ، فَإِنْ أَبَيْتُمْ فَالْجِزْيَةُ ، فَإِنْ أَبَيْتُمْ آذَنْتُكُمْ بِحَرْبٍ والسَّلامُ".

La'natullahi 'alal kaadhibeen.

[Abu Coburg]

in asbaab in "asbaab an-nuzool" in the first place

It's good to know of the asbaab an-nuzool of the verses.

However, what is pertinent in deriving a ruling is the hukm that comes from an ayah.

It is very easy for innocent Muslims to be misled by shayatin dancing around asbaab an-nuzool without realizing that asbaab an-nuzool are only connected to the specific historical circumstances surrounding the revelation of a verse, and of course they are a factor in the derivation/formulation of a ruling, but they are not the be all and end all in the formulation/derivation of a hukm - and what eventually matters is the hukm that comes forward from a verse.

Things like if the hukm is general or specific or extant or abrogated, and so on.

Many a time, the exact asbaab an-nuzool are disputed upon by the masters of tafseer but that is irrelevant to the hukm that comes from a verse. For example, verse 5:51, as stated by various scholars, the specific asbaab an-nuzool are disputed upon, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the hukm is general and universal to Muslims in all times and places.

Of course the various ahkaam coming forward from verses have been explained by the Prophet to the sahaba and by them to the scholars of the ummah. So it's not just a case of one person's word against another person's, at least on usuli issues. As we all know, on furoo'iy issues, the sahaba and the scholars differed on some matters and that's why the 4 madhhabs of the Ahlus Sunnah differ only on furoo' but not on usul.

Please do not be fooled by the shayatin who dance around asbaab an-nuzool, ignoring many other aspects of tafseer and other Quranic sciences.

For excellent resources on the ahkaam derived from various Quranic verses,

Hanafis, see Ahkaam Al-Quran of Imam Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas
Shafi'iys, see Ahkaam Al-Quran attributed to Imam Ash-Shafi'iy
Malikis (and all Sunnis in general), please see Jaami' Al-Ahkaam Al-Quran of Imam Al-Qurtubi.

among many others.

You will immediately see the fallacies of such people crumble like a house of cards!

[from water]

Thanks for the explanation, yes I know that asbaab an-nuzool is not the sole thing used for the ayah, because the Qur'aan speaks in absolute truth. Meaning if it is saying something in general, even if it was revealed after a specific event with a specific group of people, its truth in general explains why it occurred in the group of people in the first place. And I am not using a book to say this, it's simply common sense. My trouble with sammer is actually not nearly as deep as all this, it is that I'm suspecting that he actually doesn't know Arabic like I seem to remember him claiming he does. If that is really true, then it is fishy.

[SammerTX]

Firstly, [mod]

Akhi, I have been a Muslim my entire life allahmdulilah. If you feel I am not, I really can't do anything about that.

Thirdly, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that kuffar should be treated harshly. What is also relevant is that the zanadiq and munafiqeen of this forum are unaware of the ahadith and rulings pertaining to jizyah and ahl adh-dhimmah, not; in fact they try to make other people kafirs like themselves by spin doctoring.

Which kuffar should be treated harshly? If you believe that, I would agree there is a time and place to treat certain kuffar harshly. But as a general rule, no; I do not believe that is correct. I would not stare down a stranger in the elevator for no other reason than him not being a Muslim. That's being rude and unpleasant and not an example of our religion. Allah (swt) specifically instructed his Messenger not to be harsh with his people. That I feel, is a better approach.

But in any case, you accept that there is harshness to be shown to those who insist on believing in the trinity.

Don't embarrass yourself with these pathetic trashy lies.

I believe those who believe in the trinity are mistaken and not in accordance to what God revealed. So if we wish to show them something we feel is correct, the solution is not to be harsh with them. We are told to invite in the best way right? So being harsh is exactly what Allah (swt) told his messenger (pbuh) NOT to be like, otherwise people will simply rebel.

[SammerTX]

It's good to know of the asbaab an-nuzool of the verses.

However, what is pertinent in deriving a ruling is the hukm that comes from an ayah.

It is very easy for innocent Muslims to be misled by shayatin dancing around asbaab an-nuzool without realizing that asbaab an-nuzool are only connected to the specific historical circumstances surrounding the revelation of a verse, and of course they are a factor in the derivation/formulation of a ruling, but they are not the be all and end all in the formulation/derivation of a hukm - and what eventually matters is the hukm that comes forward from a verse.

Things like if the hukm is general or specific or extant or abrogated, and so on.

Many a time, the exact asbaab an-nuzool are disputed upon by the masters of tafseer but that is irrelevant to the hukm that comes from a verse. For example, verse 5:51, as stated by various scholars, the specific asbaab an-nuzool are disputed upon, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the hukm is general and universal to Muslims in all times and places.

Of course the various ahkaam coming forward from verses have been explained by the Prophet to the sahaba and by them to the scholars of the ummah. So it's not just a case of one person's word against another person's, at least on usuli issues. As we all know, on furoo'iy issues, the sahaba and the scholars differed on some matters and that's why the 4 madhhabs of the Ahlus Sunnah differ only on furoo' but not on usul.

Please do not be fooled by the shayatin who dance around asbaab an-nuzool, ignoring many other aspects of tafseer and other Quranic sciences.

For excellent resources on the ahkaam derived from various Quranic verses,

Hanafis, see Ahkaam Al-Quran of Imam Abu Bakr Al-Jassaas
Shafi'iys, see Ahkaam Al-Quran attributed to Imam Ash-Shafi'iy
Malikis (and all Sunnis in general), please see Jaami' Al-Ahkaam Al-Quran of Imam Al-Qurtubi.

among many others.

You will immediately see the fallacies of such people crumble like a house of cards!

That doesn't really conflict with what I've said. I've always maintained reasons for revelation (asbab al nuzool) are A not THE factor.

What has transpired here though in this thread is one or two out of context verses were put forth and positioned as "God tells us Christians and Jews hate/have bad attitudes towards Muslims".

Now think about this logically for a moment.

God created Christians and Jews and predisposed them to hating Muslims. That poses a mountain of theological as well as textual problems with other sources.

If we are to be consistent in our application of a selected methodology, this is one thing. But to only selectively apply it when it "fits" is not right.

[SammerTX]

Thanks for the explanation, yes I know that asbaab an-nuzool is not the sole thing used for the ayah, because the Qur'aan speaks in absolute truth. Meaning if it is saying something in general, even if it was revealed after a specific event with a specific group of people, its truth in general explains why it occurred in the group of people in the first place. And I am not using a book to say this, it's simply common sense. My trouble with sammer is actually not nearly as deep as all this, it is that I'm suspecting that he actually doesn't know Arabic like I seem to remember him claiming he does. If that is really true, then it is fishy.

I think you're perhaps focusing on the wrong issue here akhi. Whether I know Arabic or Tagalog doesn't have to do with anything in this thread as we are communicating in English. You can believe whatever makes you most comfortable, I'll roll with whatever you choose.

Now you mentioned the "Qur'aan speaks in absolute truth. Meaning if it is saying something in general, even if it was revealed after a specific event with a specific group of people, its truth in general explains why it occurred in the group of people in the first place."

The Qu'ran does speak in absolute truths, yes. That does not mean when He says in Surah 9 "The Desert Arabs are the worst in hypocrisy" that He is referring to all of today's Arabs now...does it?

Because the verse is specifically referring to the Bedouins at the time. So I learn from this hypocrisy transcends race. You can be the most eloquent Arab or polished European and still be a hypcorite. I feel that gives a closer reflection of reality than just read it literally and say, khalas shut the book - never trust an Arab.

Another example is the one I cited earlier. When God revealed those closest to Muslims in love are those who profess to be Christians, then according to what you have mentioned, this means all Christians for all times. Therefore today's Christians bombing the crap out of Afghanistan are "closest in love" to us.

It doesn't fit because the pieces are wrong.

Now seeing this verse was referring to the Christians of Najran who wept when the Prophet spoke to them about Islam and how sincere they were and open to the truth, I would take a more holistic approach to this verse over the literal meaning. It also better helps me understand our own history that since not all Christians during the Prophet's time were the same, we have the same situation today.

Some are sworn enemies and some are very close to us and decent people. Those sincere Christians, spiritual folks, well mannered people trying to practice their faith and recognise the truth when Islam is explained to them would all fall under this category. The Crusaders would not.

I just do not understand why we take exception when others mass generalise about us but somehow feel entitled to do the same to others.

[Ansari]

Not the first sheikh to be accused of this sort of thing

Obviously because he is not a sheikh to begin with... The cause of sharia & the khilafah will go on despite this man.. If what he has done is proven to be as such.. than we should not show sympathy with him, but initially a persons sins should not be revealed unless it is for the benefit of the public or their protection.