The Big Debate?

Having watched the debate between Ustadh Abdur Rahman Hasan and Shaykh Asrar Rashid, I thought some comments were in order.

As a student of knowledge, controversial topics like Istighatha interest me and I would have been lying if I said I wasn't looking forward to watching this. I will be sharing some thoughts on the debate. It is a near impossibility to claim complete objectivity as we all have preconceived notions and influences, which either directly or indirectly impact our conclusions. This does not however, mean that we give up trying; all we can do is attempt to be open to other ideas while taking time to listen to the opposing views. Before commenting, it is necessary for a disclaimer to be made.

Although I was looking forward to the debate merely from an academic point of view, I believe that this debate was actually very counter-productive and in fact will have caused far more harm than any possible good. The claim is not that we should not engage, but we need to look carefully at our context and the topic being debated. As for our context, then it is clear that the sectarian lines run deep amongst large segments of the Muslim community and we have shown that we are still too immature (as a whole) for these debates to take place. So coupled with the fact that the topic is an age old dispute and a divisive one, one should consider these factors before we begin to engage. The topic of Istighatha should be debated by those who are able to do so. One should also understand that due to the debate being highly technical (regardless of how simple both sides may want to present it as being), on what basis will a layperson decide wherein the truth lies? The fact is that the vast majority of Muslims know hardly anything about the tens of authorities and books being cited such as al-Razi, al-Amidi, al-Raghib al-Asfahani, al-Ghazali and the list goes on. As for those who have heard their names, how many have actually attempted to read their books? Keep in mind that the average student of the Islamic sciences and even scholars struggle with the likes of al-Razi and al-Amidi. The amount of harm this debate has bought in the form of insults, backbiting, pride and sectarian cheerleading (coming from a Muslim community in Britain who is constantly attacked and in a fragile state), the benefit would be minimal.

My advice would be, that if one is interested in debating such topics, then they should be done on platforms where the audience has a grasp of the Islamic sciences, and if one believes that there is a need to get their view out to the public, then they should, after thorough research and with utmost sincerity, deliver a lecture or write an article. If one really wants to engage in public debates, then they should engage in topics from the Nawazil (new issues so as to save us from mere rehash of previous arguments) which actually impact Muslims in Britain - topics which have arisen such as Salah timings, Muslim engagement in politics, student loans etc.

Right now, seeing as the debate is already out there and having been asked to comment, I will attempt to highlight some points. In terms of my position, I agree with Asrar Rashid in this specific point, that going to the grave of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and asking him to make Du’a to Allah is permissible. Although I understand the position of prohibition, to allege that this is Shirk Akbar is pretty bizarre. It may seem as though I am biased towards Asrar (who knows, maybe I am) my criticism of Abdur Rahman Hasan is not based on his stance, but rather the specific arguments utilised. The purpose here is not to prove whether the act is right or wrong. For that, one can refer to the books of al-Subki and Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi on the topic and make up their own mind (as for contemporary works, see the writings of Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh who is pro, and Albani who is against). The issue here is that Abdur Rahman Hasan was academically dishonest which is different to supporting an incorrect view, as a person can hold a correct view yet make blunders in defending it. What follows are some of Abdur Rahman Hasan's blunders which I have noted.

Note: Part 1 and 2 are references to the videos by Abdur Rahman Hasan's side (they uploaded the debate in parts).


Part 1

Abdur Rahman Hasan began his opening speech with an accusation that Ash'aris do not accept the Qur'an and Hadith as Hujjah, he quotes Fakhr al-Din al-Razi from his Asas al-Taqdis and Sayf al-Din al-Amidi from his Abkar al-Afkar. He quotes al-Razi as saying:



When referring back to the original quote from Ahmad Hijazi’s edition, the text is different (p.198)



Assuming that the way he quotes it is accurate (although the printed edition says nothing of the sort), it is clear from the term تلك that al-Razi is referring to a specific evidence which he believes not to be definitive, not that textual evidence is not proof (the context of the sentence demonstrates this where he is negating Jihah from Allah). Likewise al-Amidi’s quote (1/280 from Muhammad al-Mahdi’s edition):


Again just the quote itself suggests that al-Amidi is referring to a specific set of textual evidences, not textual evidence in and of itself (likewise, the context also emphasises this point). This quote when read in its actual context, makes it impossible to suggest otherwise (if there are other places then I am open to correction). I then came across the following:

www.kulalsalafiyeen.com/vb/showthread.php?t=63174

In the above link, both quotes are mentioned exactly as Abdur Rahman Hasan quoted them - out of context. I seriously hope that he didn't merely rely on the above link, rather than an actual reading of the books.

At 53:00 Abdur Rahman Hasan equates Allah bestowing the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) with the ability to benefit his Ummah after his demise, with the impossibility of Allah creating a stone which he cannot himself move, a very basic false analogy between the two.

During the entire course of the debate, the term ‘ibadah was not defined. When does an act of reverence become an act of worship? What place does intent have in rendering an act of reverence into an act of worship? Alleging that someone who is claiming to not worship is in fact worshipping certainly requires a definition for worship. I will not further engage this point as the purpose was only to demonstrate a fallacy in argumentation.

The final big issue with the first part of the video was again to do with Ash'arism. At around the 2:01 mark Abdur Rahman Hasan makes the claim that Ibn Hajar, al-Nawawi and even al-Bayhaqi before them, were all ‘defenders of the sunnah’ and not Ash'aris. Now without attempting to even demonstrate their ‘Ash'arism’, basic academic honesty would require him to concede that the main contentions he has with Ash'arism were views that these three scholars held, the main two issues being; understanding of Allah's Sifat and the usage of Kalam. Yes they did not work within the field of Kalam as al-Razi and al-Amidi did, and it is very likely that they even had a distaste for deep engagement in such a field, yet it does not negate the fact that they disagreed with the view advocated by Abdur Rahman Hasan. He even makes the basic schoolboy error of claiming that Ash'arism began in the 4th century and hence the Salaf were not Asharis, a claim not befitting a student of knowledge.

He then states that he has counted only 21 Ash'aris throughout history! This is a major claim which requires some serious evidence to back it up. I will not even attempt to correct him on this until he clarifies what he meant by it.


Part 2

From the 4th minute onwards, Asrar Rashid makes a fair assessment of the main point of contention, namely that if the opponents consider any form of Istighatha after the demise of the Prophet as major Shirk, then this point needs to be substantiated. The point of Muhal ‘Aqlan and Shar’an was put forth time and time again, a point which it seems Abdur Rahman Hasan did not understand. The intent here is not to say that Asrar’s definition was correct, but that he at least brought forth a definition and challenged the opponent who was unable to respond.

An interesting point was made by Asrar which Abdur Rahman misunderstood (from 20:00). The vast majority of the audience watching are laypeople who have no clue regarding the technicalities of authenticating and weakening Hadith. Considering that much of the debate (especially for Asrar’s arguments) hinges on the authenticity of certain narrations, it makes it an impossible task for the average viewer to assess what is correct and puts a big question mark on the rationale behind having this debate in public.

From 29:00 Asrar mentions the green dome Fatwa of Muqbil Ibn Hadi al-Wadi’i (and shared by various other Salafi Ulama). I believe Asrar generally conducted himself well during the debate where he stuck to an initial Usuli (principled) approach, which then moved onto mentioning the specific narrations and he attempted to refrain from digression. This was one instance where I thought that he produced an irrelevant point and made a plea to the emotions of the audience, a tactic practiced throughout by Abdur Rahman Hasan.

From 47:00 the discussion moves to the Taqsim al-Tawhid (division of Tawhid). The implications of this Taqsim are where the dispute lies and not necessarily the Taqsim itself. Asrar made this point even in the previous meeting. Thus having Abu Hanifa, al-Tabari and whoever else mention some form of Taqsim for Tawhid is irrelevant. Just on the point of Abu Hanifa, then this citation is found in al-Fiqh al-Absat which is transmitted (assuming we say it is Abu Hanifa’s book) via Abu Mut’i al-Balkhi. Based strictly on the statements of the Ahl al-Hadith (meaning the early Hadith scholars which Abur Rahman Hasan ascribes himself to) this book would be unreliable.

Those who did not understand Asrar’s argument on this very topic (the Mushrikin of Makka doing Shirk in Rububiyya) can refer to Uthman al-Nabulsi’s book on the topic. English readers may refer to Mufti Zameel’s article here: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/459/mushrik-quraysh-affirm-taw-biyya

At 53:00 Abdur Rahman mocks Asrar for mispronouncing the name فورك and then questions his ‘Ash'ariness’ based on this along with the point on al-Razi and al-Amidi mentioned above. Asrar pronounced it as Ibn Furak (with a Dhamma on the ‘fa’) whereas Abdur Rahman Hasan stated that it is Ibn Fawrak (with a Fatha on the ‘fa’). This is despite the fact that both are accepted as valid ways pronounce the name (see Ibn Khallikan’s ‘Wafayat al-A’yan’ 4/273 for the Dhamma on ‘fa’ and al-Zabidi’s ‘Taj al-‘Arus’ 7/167 for the Fatha on ‘fa’, Ibn Jama’ah further adds: Fawrik; see Hashiyat Ibn al-‘Ajami on Tadrib 2/158)

At 1:24:00 The Hadith of the 73 sects is mentioned by Abdur Rahman and the fact that it mentions only one will enter paradise whereas the Ash'aris/Maturidis are two. Again I believe that this is a point not befitting a student of knowledge.

Asrar’s last turn to speak was when he presented the different narrations supporting his position. Abdur Rahman, in his response states that he was ‘waiting for this’. It is clear that this was what Abdur Rahman had prepared for and Asrar should have rightly brought it up in the beginning if Abdur Rahman believed it to only be Haram and not Shirk/Kufr. This is because the one who states it to be Haram can argue that the Hadith are weak and then state that due to the absence of evidence, we stick to Hurmah. Whereas the other side would attempt to establish these narrations as authentic. However, due to that fact that he claimed it was major Shirk/Kufr, and thus a discussion about these terms are in order, this was something Abur Rahman was not prepared for.


These are some of the points of contention I had which are evidently on the most part, against Abdur Rahman. Some generic criticism is that the term Ijma’ was being thrown by both parties but at no time was Ijma’ defined, demonstrated or even discussed. As for the actual title of the debate, then I have deliberately stayed clear of that for the simple fact that there have been extensive books written on this topic, especially in modern times. I take a stance but cannot see myself adding anything new to the debate so would just refer to what has already been written.

Winning a debate does not necessitate that the winning side is on the truth and could simply be due to the fact that the losing side’s representative was incompetent or ill prepared. So for laymen/laywomen to shout that the haqq has prevailed are mere hollow and sectarian claims; for the layperson to even pick a winner is meaningless. The above was written with the intent that some of the misunderstandings may be cleared, and even then only because it was a public and well-advertised debate; otherwise preparation for Ramadhan with an increase in Ibadah would be more ideal.

Allah knows best.