|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 19, 2017 9:17:55 GMT
The Prophet's birth is the most significant and virtuous event in the history. Although it is significant, but this significance doesn't entail that by doing good acts on the Night of Mawlid one will get more reward than by doing good acts on the Night of Decree (Laylat al-Qadr). Such virtue and reward is not established for the Night of Mawlid as Mulla Ali Qari said in al-Mawrid al-Rawi, but extra reward is established for Laylat al-Qadr. The extra reward that is established for the Muslims on Laylat al-Qadr is a blessing but it is not a greater blessing than the coming of the Messenger of Allah to this world. Moreover, the blessing that Allah gifted to Muslims on Laylat al-Qadr is due to the Prophet's coming to this world. So, The Night of Mawlid is Afzal (superior) than Laylat al-Qadr but it doesnt mean that we will get more reward by doing good acts on the Night of Mawlid than by doing good acts on Laylat al-Qadr.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 18, 2017 15:35:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 18, 2017 15:14:47 GMT
Assalamu alaykum. I have a question regarding the supposed link between the Deobandis and Wahhaabis. I myself left the Salafi sect after looking into their teachings in more detail and comparing to the more classical texts. After I came to explore the Deobandi school, but there is something I can't comprehend. 1. I left the Salafi sect because it is essentially Wahhaabi and rely on the teachings of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab. Now some Deobandi scholars say that this man was actually praised, they use good words for him and don't consider him to have been astray. And I'm now talking about the modern Deobandi scholars, not the founding fathers. So I try my best to understand this but I can't, how is it possible they consider this man to have been a good scholar (even a bit)? 2. It seems to me that there is some sort of a split between the Deobandi scholars on the issue of the Wahhaabis. Some might consider them to be all fine, while others rebuke them harshly. Would this be correct to say? 3. I even read myself a fatwa that praises one of the main Salafi scholar, namely ibn Baz. They seemed to consider him to be also a good scholar. Ibn Baaz was a very staunch supporter of ibn Abd al-Wahhaab and he even encouraged others to spread his books. How do the Deobandis usually see the main Salafi scholars (ibn 'Uthaymeen, ibn Baaz, al-'Albani)? And is there some sort of confusion among the Deobandis about the teachings of these three? 4. I can understand that perhaps the founders of Deobandi school were mistaken about ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab or they didn't know completely what he was up to. However how can it be possible that the modern day scholars wouldn't know about him or his teachings, which are widely available in many languages? 5. Have the main leaders of Deoband condemned the Salafi / Wahhaabi doctrine? Can we say that the majority don't accept them? Do we have written Deobandi fataawaa that clearly say that ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab and his cult were astray? And if there is, are those views widely accepted among the school? It seems to me there is some mysterious and hidden link between Wahhaabis and Deobandis. Perhaps the more knowledgeable could clarify the issue? Jazakumullaahu khayr. Links: 1 - islamqa.org/hanafi/askimam/17554 (does Mufti Ebrahim Desai represent Deoband at all?) 2 - islamqa.org/hanafi/darulifta-deoband/788263 - darulifta-deoband.org/showuserview.do?function=answerView&all=en&id=5784 - darulifta-deoband.org/showuserview.do?function=answerView&all=en&id=7193The reason for many of our scholars praise of Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab Najdi is unawareness of his true Aqidah. They think that Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab adhered to the Hanbali Madhdhab and followed Sunnah. They think that he was against bid'ah and his Aqidah was correct. However, this is obviously wrong. Anyone who studied the Wahhabis knows their corrupt beliefs. Many Deobandi scholars at the same time refuted Albani and praised Bin Baz and Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. This surely shows their unawareness of their corrupt beliefs. May Allah save the Ummah from his Fitna.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 17, 2017 20:38:06 GMT
The Concept of Wahdat al-Wujud and Science
Wahdatul Wujood was defended by some leading Islamic scholars including Muhyiddin Ibn al-'Arabi. It is true that numerous significant Islamic scholars who described the concept of Wahdatul Wujood in the past did so by considering some subjects found in these books. Still, what is explained in these books is not the same as Wahdatul Wujood.
Some of those who defended the view of Wahdatul Wujood were engrossed by some erroneous opinions and made some claims contrary to the Qur'an and the doctrine of Ahlus Sunnah. They, for example, completely rejected the creation of Allah. When the subject of the secret beyond matter is told, however, there is definitely no such claim. This section explains that all beings are created by Allah, and that the originals of these beings are seen by Him whereas people merely see the images of these beings formed in their brains.
Mountains, plains, flowers, people, seas-briefly everything we see and everything that Allah informs us in the Qur'an that exists and that He created out of nothing is created and does indeed exist. However, people cannot see, feel or hear the real nature of these beings through their sense organs. What they see and feel are only the copies that appear in their brains. This is a scientific fact taught at all schools primarily in medicine. The same applies to the article you are reading now; you can not see nor touch the real nature of it. The light coming from the original article is converted by some cells in your eyes into electrical signals, which are then conveyed to the sight center in the back of your brain. This is where the view of this article is created. In other words, you are not reading an article which is before your eyes through your eyes; in fact, this article is created in the sight center in the back of your brain. The article you are reading right now is a "copy of the article" within your brain. The original article is seen by Allah.
In conclusion, the fact that the matter is an illusion formed in our brains does not "reject" the matter, but provides us information about the real nature of the matter: that no person can have connection with its original.
There Is Matter Outside of Us, But We Cannot Reach It
Saying that matter is an illusion does not mean it does not exist. Quiet the contrary: whether we perceive the physical world or not, it does exist. But we see it as a copy in our brain or, in other words, as an interpretation of our senses. For us, therefore, the physical world of matter is an illusion.
The matter outside is seen not just by us, but by other beings too. The angels Allah delegated to be watchers witness this world as well:
And the two recording angels are recording, sitting on the right and on the left. He does not utter a single word, without a watcher by him, pen in hand! (Surah Qaf: 17-18)
Most importantly, Allah sees everything. He created this world with all its details and sees it in all its states. As He informs us in the Qur'an:
… Heed Allah and know that Allah sees what you do. (Surat al-Baqara: 233)
Say: "Allah is a sufficient witness between me and you. He is certainly aware of and sees His servants." (Surat al-Isra': 96)
It must not be forgotten that Allah keeps the records of everything in the book called Lawh Mahfuz (Preserved Tablet). Even if we don't see all things, they are in the Lawh Mahfuz. Allah reveals that He keeps everything's record in the "Mother of the Book" called Lawh Mahfuz with the following verses:
It is in the Source Book with Us, high-exalted, full of wisdom. (Surat az-Zukhruf: 4)
… We possess an all-preserving Book. (Surah Qaf: 4)
Certainly there is no hidden thing in either heaven or Earth which is not in a Clear Book. (Surat an-Naml: 75)
Knowing the Real Essence of Matter
Those who contemplate their surroundings conscientiously and wisely realize that everything in the universe—both living and non-living—must have been created. So the question becomes, "Who is the Creator of all these things?"
It is evident that the creation that reveals itself in every aspect of the universe cannot be an outgrowth of the universe itself. For example, no insect could have created itself, nor could the solar system have created or organized itself. Neither could plants, humans, bacteria, red-blood cells, nor butterflies have created themselves. As this book explains throughout, any possibility that all these could have originated "by chance" is unimaginable.
Therefore, we arrive at the following conclusion: Everything that we see has been created, but nothing we see can itself be a "creator." The Creator is different from—and superior to—all that we see, a Superior Power Who is invisible to our eyes, but Whose existence and attributes are revealed in everything that He creates.
This is where those who deny Allah's existence are led astray. They are conditioned not to believe in Allah's existence unless they see Him with their own eyes, forced to conceal the actuality of creation manifested all throughout the universe, and to claim that the universe and all the living things it contains have not been created. In order to do so, they resort to falsehoods. Evolutionary theory is one key example of their lies and vain endeavors to this end.
The basic mistake of those who deny Allah is shared by many others who don't actually deny His existence, but have wrong perceptions of Him. These people, constituting the majority of society in some countries, do not deny creation openly, but have superstitious beliefs about Allah, most believing that He is only "up in the sky." They tacitly and falsely imagine that Allah is off behind some very distant planet and only occasionally interferes with worldly affairs. Or perhaps He doesn't intervene at all: He created the universe, and then left it to itself, leaving humans to determine their fates for themselves. (Surely Allah is beyond that.)
Still others are aware of the fact that Allah is "everywhere," as revealed in the Qur'an, but cannot fully understand what this means. Superstitiously, they think that Allah surrounds all matter like radio waves or like an invisible, intangible gas. (Allah is certainly beyond that.)
However, this and other notions that cannot clarify "where" Allah is (and unwisely deny His apparent existence perhaps because of this) are all based on a common mistake: They hold a groundless prejudice that moves them to wrong opinions about Allah.
What is this prejudice? It concerns the existence and nature of matter. Some people have been so conditioned to the mistaken ideas about the true nature of matter that they may have never thought about it thoroughly. Modern science, however, demolishes this prejudice about the nature of matter and discloses a very important and imposing truth. In the following pages, we will explain this great reality pointed to in the Qur'an.
Stimulations coming from an object are converted into electrical signals and cause an effect in the brain. When we "see", we in fact view the effects of these electrical signals in our mind.
The World of Electrical Signals
All the information we have about the world is conveyed to us by our five senses. Thus, the world we know consists of what our eyes see, our hands feel, our nose smells, our tongue tastes, and our ears hear. Many people never think that the external world can be other than what our senses present to us, since we've depended on those senses since the day we were born.
Even at the moment when we see the light and feel the heat of a fire, the inside of our brain is pitch dark and its temperature never changes.
Bundles of light coming from an object fall on the retina upside-down. Here, the image is converted into electrical signals and transmitted to the centre of vision at the back of the brain. Since the brain is insulated from light, it is impossible for light to reach this centre. This means that we view a vast world of light and depth in a tiny spot which receives no light whatsoever.
Yet modern research in many different fields of science points to a very different understanding, leading to serious doubt about the "outside" world that we perceive with our senses.
For this new understanding, the starting point is that everything we perceive as external is only a response formed by electrical signals in our brain. The information one has about the red of an apple, the hardness of wood—moreover, one's mother, father, family, and everything that one owns, one's house, job, and even the pages of this book—is comprised of electrical signals only. In other words, we can never know the true color of the apple in the outside world, nor the true structure of wood there, nor the real appearance of our parents and the ones we love. They all exist in the outside world as Allah's creations, but we can only have direct experience of the copies in our brains for so long as we live.
To clarify, let's consider the five senses which provide us with all our information about the external world.
How Do We See, Hear, and Taste?
The act of seeing occurs in a progressive fashion. Light (photons) traveling from the object passes through the lens in front of the eye, where the image is refracted and falls, upside down, onto the retina at the back of the eye. Here, visual stimuli are turned into electrical signals, in turn transmitted by neurons to a tiny spot in the rear of the brain known as the vision center. After a series of processes, these electrical signals in this brain center are perceived as an image. The act of seeing actually takes place at the posterior of the brain, in this tiny spot which is pitch dark, completely insulated from light.
Even though this process is largely understood, when we claim, "We see," in fact we are perceiving the effects of impulses reaching our eye, transformed into electrical signals, and induced in our brain. And so, when we say, "We see," actually we are observing electrical signals in our mind.
All the images we view in our lives are formed in our center of vision, which takes up only a few cubic centimeters in the brain's volume. The book you are now reading, as well as the boundless landscape you see when you gaze at the horizon, both occur in this tiny space. And keep in mind that, as noted before, the brain is insulated from light. Inside the skull is absolutely dark; and the brain itself has no contact with light that exists outside.
We see everything around us as coloured inside the darkness of our brains, just as this garden looks coloured from the window of a darkened room.
An example can illustrate this interesting paradox. Suppose we place a burning candle in front of you. You can sit across from it and watch this candle at length. During this time, however, your brain never has any direct contact with the candle's original light. Even while you perceive the candle's light, the inside of your brain is lightless. We all watch a bright, colorful world inside our pitch-dark brain.
We can explain this interesting situation with an example. Let us suppose that there is a burning candle in front of us. We can sit across from this candle and watch it at length. However, during this period of time, our brain never has any direct contact with the candle's original light. Even as we see the light of the candle, the inside of our brain is pitch dark. We watch a colourful and bright world inside our dark brain.
R. L. Gregory explains the miraculous aspect of seeing, which is taken so very much for granted:
"We are so familiar with seeing, that it takes a leap of imagination to realize that there are problems to be solved. But consider it. We are given tiny distorted upside-down images in the eyes, and we see separate solid objects in surrounding space. From the patterns of simulation on the retinas we perceive the world of objects, and this is nothing short of a miracle."1
The same applies to all our other senses. Sound, touch, taste and smell are all transmitted as electrical signals to the brain, where they are perceived in the relevant centers.
The sense of hearing proceeds in the same manner. The auricle in the outer ear picks up available sounds and directs them to the middle ear; the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations to the inner ear by intensifying them; the inner ear translates these vibrations into electrical signals and sends them to the brain. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing takes place in the brain's hearing center. The brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. Therefore, no matter how noisy it may be outside, it is completely silent inside the brain.
Nevertheless, the brain perceives sounds most precisely, so that a healthy person's ear hears everything without any atmospheric noise or interference. Your brain is insulated from sound, yet you listen to the symphonies of an orchestra, hear all the noises in a crowded auditorium, and perceive all sounds within a wide frequency, from the rustling of leaves to the roar of a jet plane. However, were a sensitive device to measure the sound level in your brain, it would show complete silence prevailing there.
All the things we see in our lives are formed in a part of our brain called the "vision center", which is only a few cubic centimetres in size. Both the book you are now reading and the boundless landscape you see when you gaze at the horizon fit into this tiny space. That is to say that when we look at objects, it is the interpretation of our brain which gives an idea of their size since, for obvious pysical reasons, the images formed of them in the centre of vision cannot be on the same scale as the objects themselves.
Our perception of odor forms in a similar way. Volatile molecules, emitted by vanilla extract or a rose, reach receptors in the delicate hairs in the olfactory epithelium and become involved in an interaction that is transmitted to the brain as electrical signals and perceived as smell. Everything that you smell, be it pleasant or repugnant, is only your brain's perception of the interactions of volatile molecules transformed into electrical signals. The scent of a perfume, a flower, any delicious food, the sea, or other odors you like or dislike, you perceive entirely in your brain. The molecules themselves never reach there. Just as with sound and vision, what reaches your sensory centers is simply an assortment of electrical signals. In other words, all the sensations that, since you were born, you've assumed to belong to external objects are just electrical signals interpreted through your sense organs. You can never have direct experience of the true nature of a scent in the outside world.
Similarly, at the front of your tongue, there are four different types of chemical receptors that enables you to perceive the tastes of salty, sweet, sour, and bitter. After a series of chemical processes, your taste receptors transform these perceptions into electrical signals and transmit them to the brain, which perceives these signals as flavors. The taste you get when you eat chocolate or a fruit that you like is your brain's interpretation of electrical signals. You can never reach the object outside; you can never see, smell or taste the chocolate itself. For instance, if the nerves between your tongue and your brain are cut, no further signals will reach your brain, and you will lose your sense of taste completely.
The findings of modern physics show that the universe is a collection of perceptions. The following question appears on the cover of the well-known American science magazine New Scientist which dealt with this fact in its 30 January 1999 issue: "Beyond Reality: Is the Universe Really a Frolic of Primal Information and Matter Just a Mirage?"
An article titled “The Hollow Universe”, published in the 27 April, 2002, edition of New Scientist, said: “You're holding a magazine. It feels solid; it seems to have some kind of independent existence in space. Ditto the objects around you -perhaps a cup of coffee, a computer. They all seem real and out there somewhere. But it's all an illusion. Those supposedly solid objects are mere projections, emanating from a shifting kaleidoscopic pattern living on the boundary of our Universe.”
Here, we come across another fact: You can never be sure that how a food tastes to you is the same as how it tastes to anyone else; or that your perception of a voice is the same as what another's when he hears that same voice. Along the same lines, science writer Lincoln Barnett wrote that "no one can ever know whether his sensation of red or of Middle C is the same as another man's."1
Our sense of touch is no different. When we handle an object, all the information that helps us recognize it is transmitted to the brain by sensitive nerves on the skin. The feeling of touch is formed in our brain. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we perceive sensations of touch not at our fingertips or on our skin, but in our brain's tactile center. As a result of the brain's assessment of electrical stimulations coming to it from the skin, we feel different sensations pertaining to objects, such as hardness or softness, heat or cold. From these stimulations, we derive all details that help us recognize an object. Concerning this important fact, consider the thoughts of B. Russell and L. J. J. Wittgenstein, two famous philosophers:
"For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned and investigated. A lemon consists merely of a taste sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a color and shape sensed by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world." 2
It is impossible for us to reach the original of the physical world outside our brain. All objects we're in contact with are actually collection of perceptions such as sight, hearing, and touch. Throughout our lives, by processing the data in the sensory centers, our brain confronts not the "originals" of the matter existing outside us, but rather copies formed inside our brain. We can never know what the original forms of these copies are like.
The "External World" Inside Our Brain
As a result of these physical facts, we come to the following indisputable conclusion: We can never have direct experience of any of the things we see, touch, hear, and name "matter," "the world" or "the universe." We only know their copies in our brain and can never reach the original of the matter outside our brain. We merely taste, hear and see an image of the external world formed in our brain. In fact, someone eating an apple confronts not the actual fruit, but its perceptions in the brain. What that person considers to be an apple actually consists of his brain's perception of the electrical information concerning the fruit's shape, taste, smell, and texture. If the optic nerve to the brain were suddenly severed, the image of the fruit would instantly disappear. Any disconnection in the olfactory nerve traveling from receptors in the nose to the brain would interrupt the sense of smell completely. Simply put, that apple is nothing but the interpretation of electrical signals by the brain.
Also consider the sense of distance. The empty space between you and this page is only a sense of emptiness formed in your brain. Objects that appear distant in your view also exist in the brain. For instance, someone watching the stars at night assumes that they are millions of light-years away, yet the stars are within himself, in his vision center. While you read these lines, actually you are not inside the room you assume you're in; on the contrary, the room is inside you. Perceiving your body makes you think that you're inside it. However, you must remember that you have never seen your original body, either; you have always seen a copy of it formed inside your brain.
As a result of artificial stimulations, a physical world as true and realistic as the real one can be formed in our brain. As a result of artificial stimulations, a person may think that he is driving in his car, while he is actually sitting in his home.
The same applies to all other perceptions. When you believe you're hearing the sound of the television in the next room, for instance, actually you are experiencing those sounds inside your brain. The noises you think are coming from meters away and the conversation of the person right beside you—both are perceived in the auditory center in your brain, only a few cubic centimeters in size. Apart from this center of perception, no concepts such as right, left, front or behind exist. That is, sound does not come to you from the right, from the left, or from above; there is no direction from which sound "really" comes.
Similarly, none of the smells you perceive reach you from any distance away. You suppose that the scents perceived in your center of smell are the real ones of outside objects. However, just as the image of a rose exists in your visual center, so its scent is located in your olfactory center. You can never have direct contact with the original sight or smell of that rose that exists outside.
To us, the "external world" is a collection of the electrical signals reaching our brains simultaneously. Our brains process these signals, and some people live without recognizing how mistaken they are in assuming that these are the actual, original versions of matter existing in the "external world." They are misled, because by means of our senses, we can never reach the matter itself.
Again, our brain interprets and attributes meanings to the signals related to the "external world" of which people imagine they are in contact with the original that exists outside. Consider the sense of hearing, for example. In fact, our brain interprets and transforms sound waves reaching our ear into symphonies. That is to say, we know music as interpreted by our brain, not the original music that exists outside. In the same manner, when we see colors, different wavelengths of light are all that reaches our eyes, and our brain transforms these wavelengths into colors. The colors in the "external world" are unknown to us. We can never have direct experience of the true red of an apple, the true blue of the sky or the true green of trees. The external world depends entirely on the perceiver.
Even the slightest defect in the eye's retina can cause color blindness. Some people perceive blue as green, others red as blue, and still others see all colors as different tones of gray. At this point, it no longer matters whether the outside object is colored or not.
The World of Senses Can Occur Without Outside World's Existence
One factor which reveals that everything we see and experience exists in our brain and that we can never know the original of the matter that exists outside is that we do not need an outside world for senses to occur in the brain. Many technological developments such as simulators and also dreams are the most important evidences of this truth.
Science writer, Rita Carter, states in her book, Mapping the Mind, that "there's no need for eyes to see" and describes at length an experiment carried out by scientists. In the experiment, blind patients were fitted with a device that transformed video pictures into vibrating pulses. A camera mounted next to the subjects' eyes spread the pulses over their backs so they had continuous sensory input from the visual world. The patients started to behave as if they could really see, after a while. For example, there was a zoom lens in one of the devices so as to move closer the image. When the zoom is operated without informing the patient beforehand, the patient had an urge to protect himself with two arms because the image on the subject's back expanded suddenly as though the world was looming in.3
As it is seen from this experiment, we can form sensations even when they are not caused by material equivalents in the outside world. All stimuli can be created artificially .
The brain is a heap of cells made up of protein and fat molecules. It is formed of nerve cells called neurons. There is no power in this piece of meat to observe the images, to constitute consciousness, or to create the being we call "myself". The existence of the soul can clearly be seen from this.
The following question appears on the cover of the American science magazine New Scientist which dealt with this fact in its 30 January 1999 issue: "Beyond Reality: Is the Universe Really a Frolic of Primal Information and Matter Just a Mirage?"
"The world of senses" that we experience in dreams
A person can experience all senses vividly without the presence of the outside world. The most obvious example of this is dreams. A person lies on his bed with closed eyes while dreaming. However, in spite of this, that person senses many things which he or she experiences in real life, and experiences them so realistically that the dreams are indistinguishable from the real life experience. Everyone who reads a book will often bear witness to this truth in their own dreams. For example, a person lying down alone on a bed in a calm and quiet atmosphere at night might, in his dream, see himself in danger in a very crowded place. He could experience the event as if it were real, fleeing from danger in desperation and hiding behind a wall. Moreover, the images in his dreams are so realistic that he feels fear and panic as if he really was in danger. He has his heart in his mouth with every noise, is shaken with fear, his heart beats fast, he sweats and demonstrates the other physical affects that the human body undergoes in a dangerous situation.
A person who falls from a high place in his dream feels it with all his body, even though he is lying in bed without moving. Alternatively, one might see oneself slipping into a puddle, getting soaked and feeling cold because of a cold wind. However, in such a case, there is neither a puddle, nor is there wind. Furthermore, despite sleeping in a very hot room, one experiences the wetness and the cold, as if one were awake.
Someone who believes he is dealing with the original of the material world in his dream can be very sure of himself. He can put his hand on his friend's shoulder when the friend tells him that "it isn't possible to deal with the original of the world", and then ask "Don't you feel my hand on your shoulder? If so, how can you say that you don't see the original matter? What makes you think this way? Let's take a trip up the Bosphorus; we can have a chat about it and you'll explain to me why you believe this." The dream that he sees in his deep sleep is so clear that he turns on the engine with pleasure and accelerates slowly, almost jumping the car by pressing the pedal suddenly. While going on the road, trees and road lines seem solid because of the speed. In addition, he breathes clean Bosphorus air. But suppose he is woken up by his ringing alarm clock just when he's getting ready to tell his friend that he's seeing the original of matter. Wouldn't he object in the same manner regardless of whether he was asleep or awake?
When people wake up they understand that what they've seen until that moment is a dream. But for some reason they are not suspicious of the nature of the life (what they call "real") that starts with a "waking" image. However, the way we perceive images in "real life" is exactly the same as the way we perceive our dreams. We see both of them in the mind. We cannot understand they are images until we are woken up. Only then do we say "what I have just seen was a dream." So, how can we prove that what we see at any given moment is not a dream? We could be assuming that the moment in which we are living is real just because we haven't yet woken up. It is possible that we will discover this fact when we are woken up from this "waking dream" which takes longer than dreams we see everyday. We do not have any evidence that proves otherwise.
Many Islamic scholars have also proclaimed that the life around us is only a dream, and that only when we are awakened from that dream with "a big awakening," will people be able to understand that they live in a dreamlike world. A great Islamic scholar, Muhyiddin Ibn al-'Arabi, referred to as Sheikh Akbar (The greatest Sheikh) due to his superior knowledge, likens the world to our dreams by quoting a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (saas):
"The Prophet Muhammad [saas] said that, "people are asleep and wake up when they die." This is to say that the objects seen in the world when alive are similar to those seen when asleep while dreaming..."4
In a verse of the Qur'an, people are told to say on the Judgment Day when they are resurrected from the dead:
They will say, "Alas for us! Who has raised us from our sleeping-place? This is what the All-Merciful promised us. The Messengers were telling the truth." (Surah Ya Sin: 52)
As demonstrated in the verse, people wake up on the Judgment Day as if waking from a dream. Like someone woken from the middle of a dream in deep sleep, such people will similarly ask who has woken them up. As Allah reveals in the verse, the world around us is like a dream and everybody will be woken up from this dream, and will begin to see images of the afterlife, which is the real life.
Who is the Perceiver?
We can never have direct experience of the "external world" that many people think they inhabit. Here, however, arises a question of primary importance: If we cannot reach the original of any physical object we know of, what about our brain itself? Since our brain is a part of the material world just like our arms, our legs, or any other object, we can never reach its original either.
When the brain is dissected, nothing is found in it but lipid and protein molecules, which exist in other organs of the body as well. This means that within the tissue we call "our brain," there is nothing to observe and interpret the images, constitute consciousness, or to make the being we call "ourselves."
In relation to the perception of images in the brain, perceptual scientist R.L. Gregory refers to a mistake people make:
"There is a temptation, which must be avoided, to say that the eyes produce pictures in the brain. A picture in the brain suggests the need of some kind of internal eye to see it—but this would need a further eye to see its picture… and so on in an endless regress of eyes and pictures. This is absurd."5
This problem puts materialists, who hold that nothing is real except matter, in a quandary: Who is behind the eye that sees? What perceives what it sees, and then reacts?
Renowned cognitive neuroscientist Karl Pribram focused on this important question, relevant to the worlds of both science and philosophy, about who the perceiver is:
"Philosophers since the Greeks have speculated about the "ghost" in the machine, the "little man inside the little man" and so on. Where is the I—the entity that uses the brain? Who does the actual knowing? Or, as Saint Francis of Assisi once put it, "What we are looking for is what is looking."6
Any book in your hand, the room you are in—in brief, all the images before you—are perceived inside your brain. Is it the blind, deaf, unconscious component atoms that view these images? Why did some atoms acquire this quality, whereas most did not? Do our acts of thinking, comprehending, remembering, being delighted, and everything else consist of chemical reactions among these atoms' molecules?
There is no sense in looking for will in atoms. Clearly, the being who sees, hears, and feels is a supra-material being, "alive," who is neither matter nor an image. This being interacts with the perceptions before it by using the image of our body.
This being is the soul.
It is the soul that sees, hears, feels, perceives and interprets the copies in the brain of the matter existing on the outside.
The intelligent being reading these lines is not an assortment of atoms and molecules and the chemical reactions between them, but a soul.
The Real Absolute Being
We are brought face to face with a very significant question: Since we know nothing about the original of the material world and we only deal with the copy images in our brain, then what is the source of these images?
Who continuously makes our soul watch the stars, the Earth, the plants, the people, our body and everything else that we see?
Very evidently, there exists a supreme Creator Who has created the entire material universe, and Who ceaselessly continues His creation. This Creator displays a magnificent creation, and surely He has eternal power and might.
This Creator describes Himself, the universe and the reason of our existence for us through the Book He has sent down.
This Creator is Allah, and His book is the Qur'an.
The fact is, the heavens and the Earth—that is, the universe—are not stable. Their presence is made possible only by Allah's creation, and that they will disappear when He ends this creation. This is revealed in a verse as follows:
Allah keeps a firm hold on the heavens and Earth, preventing them from vanishing away. And if they vanished no one could then keep hold of them. Certainly He is Most Forbearing, Ever-Forgiving. (Surah Fatir: 41)
As we mentioned at the beginning, some people have no genuine understanding of Allah and so, as a result of terrible ignorance, they imagine Him as a being present somewhere in the heavens and not really intervening in worldly affairs. (Surely Allah is beyond that.) The basis of this corrupt logic actually lies in the mistaken thought that the universe is merely an assembly of matter and Allah is "outside" this material world, in a faraway place. (Surely Allah is beyond that.)
The only real absolute being is Allah. That means that only Allah exists; matter is not absolute being. The material world on the outside is one of the works of Allah's sublime creation. Allah is surely "everywhere" and encompasses all. This reality is explained in the Qur'an as follows;
Allah! There is no deity but He,—the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep can overtake Him. His are all things in the heavens and on Earth. Who can intercede in His Presence except as He permits? He knows what (appears to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall man grasp anything of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the Earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them, for He is the Most High, and the Supreme (in glory). (Surat al-Baqara: 255)
The facts that Allah is not bound by space and that He encompasses everything are stated in another verse as follows:
To Allah belong the East and the West: Wherever you turn, there is the Presence of Allah. For Allah is all-Pervading, and all-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 115)
The fullness of faith consists of understanding this truth, avoiding the mistake of associating others with Allah and acknowledging Allah as the One Absolute Being. Someone who knows that, apart from Allah, everything is a shadow existence, will say with certain faith (at the level of Haqq-al yakin – truth of certainty) that only Allah exists and there is no other deity (or any being with strength) besides Him.
The materialists do not believe in the existence of Allah, because they cannot see Him with their eyes. But their claims are completely invalidated when they learn the real nature of matter. Someone who learns this truth understands that his own existence has the quality of an illusion, and grasps that a being which is an illusion will not be able to see a being which is absolute. As it is revealed in the Qur'an, human beings cannot see Allah but Allah sees them.
Eyesight cannot perceive Him but He perceives eyesight... (Surat al-An‘am: 103)
Certainly, we human beings cannot see the Being of Allah with our eyes but we know that He completely encompasses our inside, our outside, our views and our thoughts. For this reason, Allah reveals Himself in the Qur'an as "controlling hearing and sight" (Surah Yunus: 31) We cannot say one word, we cannot even take one breath without Allah's knowing it. Allah knows everything we do. This is revealed in the Qur'an:
Allah – Him from Whom nothing is hidden, either on Earth or in heaven. (Surah Al ‘Imran: 5)
Some people accept that when they touch a bus, they feel the cold metal in their brains. On the other hand, they do not accept that the feeling of pain at the moment the bus hits them forms in the brain. However, a person will feel the same pain if he sees himself falling under a bus in his dream.
When people observe the copy world in their brains, imagining that they are dealing with the original matter, that is, as they lead their lives, the closest being to us is clearly Allah. The secret of the verse "We created man and We know what his own self whispers to him. We are nearer to him than his jugular vein" (Surah Qaf: 16) is hidden in this fact. Allah has encompassed man all around and is eternally near to him.
That Allah is eternally near to human beings is also revealed in this verse: "If My servants ask you about Me, I am near (to them)..." (Surat al-Baqara: 186) In another verse the same reality is expressed, "Surely your Lord encompasses mankind round about." (Surat al-Isra': 60).
Many people continue to err by thinking that the nearest thing to themselves is themselves. However, Allah is closer to us even than we are to ourselves. Allah reveals this fact in these verses: "Why then, when death reaches his throat and you are at that moment looking on—and We are nearer him than you but you cannot see" (Surat al-Waqi‘a: 83-85). But as revealed in the verse, because people do not see it with their eyes, some of them are ignorant of this extraordinary reality.
Some people are unaware of this great fact. They accept that Allah created them, but think that the work they do belongs to them. However, every action performed by a human being is created with the permission of Allah. For example, a person who writes a book writes it with the permission of Allah; every sentence, every idea, and every paragraph is composed because Allah wills it. Allah reveals this very important principle in several verses; one of these verses is, "... Allah created both you and what you do?". (Surat as-Saffat: 96) In the verse "... when you threw; it was Allah Who threw... ," (Surat al-Anfal: 17) Allah reveals that everything we do is an act that belongs to Him.
A person may not want to concede this reality; but this changes nothing.
What we have described so far is one of the most profound truths that you have heard in your whole life. We have shown that the whole material world is really a shadow, and that this is the key to understanding the existence of Allah, His creation, and the fact that He is the one absolute Being. At the same time, we have presented a scientifically undeniable demonstration both of how helpless human beings are and a manifestation of Allah's wonderful artistry. This knowledge makes people assured believers making it impossible for them not to believe. This is the main reason why some people avoid this truth.
Footnotes
1. Walter, Metnez, cnas.ucr.edu/ -bio/faculty/metznar.html 2. National Geographic, 1995 , September, pg 98
3. Bilim Ve Teknik, January 1990, pp 10-12
4. David Attenborough, Princeton University Press, 1998, pg 47
5. James Gould, Carron Gitant Gould, Life at the Edge, W.W Freeman and the Company. 1989, pp 130-136
6. David Attenborough, The Private Life and Plants, Princeton University Press, 1995, pp 81-83
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 13, 2017 19:12:33 GMT
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, A name spoken of throughout the Muslim world, but who is he? What are his teachings? Are they really in accordance to the Sunnah[4] of our Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم)? What do we really know about him? Is he a reviver of the religion of Islam as some people claim or is he one of the thirty dajjal’s[5] and a reviver of the accursed cult known as the Khawaarij? In order to understand such questions it is essential that we look to the biography of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab to gain a fair understanding of what his life and mission was all about. Therefore we shall look at his life from birth to death, and the impact that he had on the Muslim world to this very day. Birth and Birthplace
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, Born 1115 AH in the village of Uyainah of al-Yamaamah, in the Najd province of central ‘Arabia northwest to “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” [6] Riyaadh. This is the exact same location that gave home to Musaymiyah the liar. [7] His Said Education
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab grew up in the house of his father, the great Sunni [8] orthodox Shaykh ul-Islam, ‘Abdul Wahhab Ibn Sulaymaan an-Najdi. He studied Hanbali Fiqh under his father. His stubbornness in learning was noticed at a very young age by his father to the point where Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was forced to look for other teachers whilst his father placed his main focus on the humble soon to be Shaykh ul-Islam Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. It is said that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab travelled back and forth from Makkah and Madinah in attempt to find suitable teachers that was able to satisfy his lust of bad opinion. Therefore he sat with many Shuyukh, [9] but never completed his studies with them being unsatisfied with their doctrine. In Makkah he studied with a Shaafi’ scholar by the name of ‘Abdullah Ibn Saalim al-Basri who was the leading scholar of ahaadeeth in the hijaaz at the time [10] He also studied under the great Hanbali jurist, Abu al-Muwahhib al-Baali [11] it is also said he studied under other authorities such as ‘Ali al-Daghstani, Ismaa’el al-Ajaluni, the great scholar of ahaadeeth and Hanbli jurist ‘Abdullah Ibn Ibraheem al-Saif, [12] a subcontinent scholar from Indo-Pakistan Muhammad Hayaat as-Sindi, Muhammad Ibn Sulaymaan al-Kurdi and maybe more. With Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s non contentment with valid scholarly authority, his dissatisfaction drove him to obtain studies in ‘Iraq. In this time Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab became heavily influenced by the creedal works of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Imaam Ibn Qayyum. In fact many areas in which these two Imaam’s had only theorised by pen, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab would later bring into practice. It was not the habit of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah to destroy graves and demolish domes and kill anybody he deemed to be a mushrik, even though he made suggestions that extreme measures should be enforced to prevent people from doing shirk. To the lack of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s knowledge, Imaam Ibn Taymiyah later repented from such views after he was defeated in a series of debates ranging from many issues, theological and in areas of jurisprudence. [13] Despite having studied under Hanbali, Shaafi’ and Hanafi teachers, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab declared war against the four traditional madh-habs [14] under the pretext it was “haraam”[15] to blindly follow and trust any scholar as noted “he forcibly contradicted the blind following of any scholar”[16] Thus he thought he knew better than all previous scholarship, or yet was rather over satisfied with the opinions of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn Qayyum. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was eventually drove out of ‘Iraq by the local learned scholars due to Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s sickness of referring to unknowledgeable seekers of knowledge as mushriks, simply for not knowing enough about Islam. He was forced to leave ‘Iraq in the heat of the day and almost died of thirst. He found himself begging for money to get to Syria, however after such a God decreed defeat, his humiliation made him to return to Najd. Though Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab had obtained studies from a variety of scholars in different locations in the learned Muslim world, he did not, however, reach his discipline, nor obtain any senate to teach in any science from any of the above mentioned scholars. Moreover, none of his former teachers supported the doctrine he was soon to espouse and it is proven from the texts of historians that his teachers spoke of him with much negative critique. Such as Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sulaymaan al-Kurdi and Shaykh Muhammad al-Sindi who both recognized his stubbornness and refusal to respect scholarly authority and said about him “Allah will allow this one to be led astray, miserable are the ones who are mislead by him [Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab]. Both of these teachers eventually combined with the brother of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab [Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab] to write the classical text al-Sawaa’iq al-Ilahiyah fi ar-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyah in which his teacher wrote “Dall mudlil”, i.e. he [Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab] is “misguided and misguiding”. [17] Even a Wahhab scholar wrote about the Shaykh in a Saudi published biography: “It seems that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was very attracted to reading – again, especially the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyum (his teacher) al-Ajilaani even said that most of his knowledge was self taught”!![18] So it is seen from the presented facts that he was unqualified to act as an authority, nobody gave him senate and he was self taught, brainwashed in the misguided opinions of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah. Upon his return, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab would often attempt to debate great theologians which eventually caused him to be expelled and banned from many towns and villages. He even tried to debate his own father which led to a huge argument. His father’s eyes flowed with tears after reading the filth and bad opinions packed into the theological fast food sandwich, “Kitaab ut-Tawheed. His father soon after died in 1153 AH never again having spoken to Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab since. Although before his death he would repeatedly tell the people “You will see much evil from my son Muhammad”! Since his father passed away, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab felt more free to publicize his deviant teachings more openly, although, underestimating the increase of knowledge of his own brother Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab whom his father had trained in his absence. His father had trained young Sulaymaan well, giving him senate in ‘Aqeedah, [19] Fiqh [20] and other related sciences. Though Sulaymaan indeed had a difficult task ahead of him, he was all the more ready. Meanwhile, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab began to gain support of highway robbers and other criminals from around Najd, he was even given a small army of six hundred men. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s rise to power spelt death and destruction, with his so called religious justifications. He permitted the shedding of blood of people who say the Kalimah, thus making it permissible to take their property and place their wives and children in captivity. He said in his Kashf ash-Shubbahaat: “The people that ask for intercession through the Prophets and Angels, calling upon them and making supplication through their waseelah in attempt to draw nearer to Allah are committing the greatest of sins. Thus it is permitted to kill them and take their property” [21] Even a modern committee of Wahhabi scholars admitted to this and confirmed this view when it was said: “He [Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab] also made clear [to us] – the true meaning of tawheed [22]…and that it is not simply pronouncing the testimony of faith “la ilaha illallah” (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah); indeed, a person might be a disbeliever whose blood is permissible to shed and whose property it is permissible to take and he might pronounce the testimony of tawheed” [23] It is clear that the kalimah [24] will not save a person from their sword. They will kill Muslims regardless. This statement mirrors the very same creed that the earlier Khawaarij [25] held, that its permissible to take the blood of those who pronounce the Kalimah, but yet disagree with their views Many ahaadeeth [26] prove that the kalimah is sufficient for one to be a Muslim believer, we shall quote them in a another chapter and address this belief that strongly implies that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab believed in a deeds based salvation as opposed to the Sunni stance of not despairing the Mercy of Allah. His very first act was to march into a village with his six hundred or so bandits to demolish the grave of Zaid ibn al-Khattab. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab personally took an axe and took it to the grave like a raving mad vandal. This was the first earthquake as the people of the village stood in fear from the aftershock. Never before had they faced anything like this. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab continued to pillage the neighbouring territories such as Zabir, Ahsa, Huraimala, and his hometown ‘Uyainah, indiscriminately killing Muslim men women and children if they refused to accept his call. Those who did accept his call were forced to shave their beards and their heads under the pretext it was the hair of kufr. [27] He did not even spare the women from this ruling. When the Khalifah [28] of the Muslims Sulaymaan Bin Urair’ar heard of this, they came with an army to meet challenge the Wahhabi threat, in which made Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and his gang of vigilantes flee to Darriyah, fearing for their lifes. The Pact With Ibn Sa’ud
Impressed with the religious doctrine and actions Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, the ruler of Darriyah, Muhammad Ibn Sa’ud knew that he could use Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and his doctrine to his own advantage, giving him the religious justification he so needed to eventually take over the Hijaaz [29] and seat himself as the king of ‘Arabia. As one Wahhabi scholar admitted: “What was indeed extraordinary was the coincidence of the ‘Alim’ and the “prince”, Muhammad Ibn Sa’ud, who felt the need for each other, and saw the wedding of idea to arm [with weapons, by force] as a key to a new age of Islamic history” [30] They knew that the only way to take over the neighbouring villages was by force of doctrine by threat of violence. Thus they prepared military wise. It even said by some historians that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab replaced the traditional swords with rifles supplied by the British government. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, now together with the Sa’udi reinforcements and a much larger army raided Muslim territories regardless of hearing the Azaan.[31] The fact was, according to Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, their Shahaadah [32] was not sufficient, thus he would make a habit of plundering Muslim territories whilst allowing pagans to freely pass through ‘Arabia without any attempt to convert them. In fact he never once raided a pagan village. His Kharijite traits became more apparent as he led rebellions against the Muslim rulers, killing believing men, enslaving women and children, demolishing graves and places of important heritage [making some into public toilets] all under the pretext that he was calling the people back to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and “the 800 year old lost teaching” tawheed. He even had a blind man executed for simply sending peace and blessings on the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) after he had made the call of Azaan. He did this under the pretext that he needed to preserve the purity of tawheed for the people as the action of the blind man may have led to shirk. [33] Much of the historical manuscripts of the scholarly works were destroyed by the Wahhabi cult, as libraries were burnt to the ground, and even Qur’anic texts were even scattered around on the streets and trampled on without a care. From the year 1159AH, the central ‘Arabia was never to be the same. “Jihaad” [34] was declared against any Muslim who did not accept the Wahhabi call. It was the case of: you either join us or die. This is exactly what the Khawaarij did to anybody that disregarded their theology. Like the Sahaabi [35] Khabaab who was martyred fro simply quoting a hadeeth in defence of ‘Ali. Not only did they kill him, but they killed his wife and unborn child by slicing open her stomach and letting the contents fall to the floor. The contemporary scholars that lived to see the Wahhabi threat and re-emergence of the Khawaarij documented works concerning his corrupt theology, including his own his own brother Shaykh ul-Islam Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. They are first hand witnesses to the historical happenings that have all documented the same truths concerning the Wahhabi cult and its call. Shaykh ul-Islam Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab said to his own brother “The horn of Shaytaan that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) referred to is you” [Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab]. [36] As the abundance of historical facts demonstrate, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was no reviver of Islam. Infact the movement denied eight hundred years of Islamic revival! The I.I.F.S.O translation of Kitaab ut-Tawheed informs us in the preface “The movement was born out of a “realization” that Muslims had far too long been on a decline” [37] Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s arrogance knew no bounds as he opined that the great majority of scholars that predated him were mushrikeen [idolators] and thus kuffar [i.e. disbelievers]. He therefore rejected eight hundred years of authentic scholarship as being upon misguidance and innovation. The claim is that he is [second to Ibn Taymiyah] the only reviver Allah has sent in eight hundred years of scholarship which contradicts the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam is which he said: “Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.” [38] However, amongst the known revivers of each century who have been well documented, none of them [39] ever spoke of the same ideologies as Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, or his forefather in creed Imaam Ibn Taymiyah. For example, who before Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyah, felt the need to divide and categorize tawheed into two, three or four parts? There was none! The same can be said in the many areas of creed in which Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and Imaam Ibn Taymiyah have contradicted the consensus of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Implicit claim to Prophet-hood
Some scholars even noted that he made an implicit claim to Prophet-hood, though not claiming prophet-hood verbally. The following factors help demonstrate this point: 1. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab named the people of Najd that chose to follow him [either by force or free will] the Ansaar [i.e. the helpers] Just as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) called the people of Madinah the Ansaar for helping the Muhajireen. Likewise Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s non Najdi followers was labelled the Muhajiroon. The message sounded very clear as Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab opined Makkah and Medinah to be in a deep state of kufr with all the “grave worship” happening there so much so that he deemed the Hijaaz [Makkah and Medinah] to be dar ul-Kufr and his hometown Najd to be dar ul-Mumineen. Even Najd [al-Yamaamah] became to be spoken of as the “heart” of all ‘Arabia as Wahhabi follower Jamal Zarabozo stated in his biography of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab “al-Yamaamah is the heart [not Makkah or Madinah] of the entire ‘Arabian peninsula” [40] In this age they have called it Riyaadh and still classify it as “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” [41] their disregard to the two holy sanctuaries can clearly be seen in this point. With his authority he did not act like a ruler [Qadi] or even a humble scholar. He acted like a Prophet as Muslims would be executed for simply questioning his “divinely inspired wisdom in deriving judgements”. 2. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab made it very clear that he deemed anybody who rejected his mission as a disbeliever, almost as if they had denied a Prophet! He would instruct “new believers” to his cult to witness against themselves that they were previously kuffar [disbelievers] and that their parents was also kuffar before they could be considered as true Wahhabi believers. This is despite them previously saying the testimony of faith [i.e. the Shahaadah] “la ilaha illa Allah” – there is no deity except Allah! As Muhmmad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab has claimed in a number of his works, that the Shahaadah is not sufficient for one to enter paradise! If a Muslim was to reject his call, they would be beheaded on the spot. 3. He commanded men and women to shave their heads as he deemed it the “hair of kufr”. This was his misinterpretation of a hadeeth that spoke of the hair underneath the armpits and the genital hairs. This action was unique to his call and the Prophet forewarned us of this sigh when he said “their sign is that they will shave their heads”. 4. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab “abrogated” much of the ahadeeth about fighting in the hijaaz [which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forbade] yet Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab considered himself such an authority to permit the killing of Muslims, even by the side of the Ka’bah. This is the most greatest point. When the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam entered Makkah and destroyed the idols, Allah sent down the ayah “Verily the truth has come and falsehood has perished”. This meant that idolatry had been totally obliterated in the Hijaaz and that Shaytaan lost all hope of misguiding the Muslims to worship taghut. This happening was a great sign and symbol of Prophet Muhammad’s [sal allahu alayhi wasallam] Risaalah, yet Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd ul-Wahhab claimed that the hijaaz was riddled with idol worship and that he had been sent with a mission to destroy the idol worship in Arabia, thus he implicitly called to his own message, thus he is nothing more than a false Prophet. These are amongst the few indictors of his implicit claim to prophecy. His followers can also be seen giving him the status of a Prophet throughout many Wahhabi works, such as The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo who states in the chapter entitled “Motivation Behind This Work” was to “Defend the honour and truth of their religion, their Prophet, and their brethren” [42] This really refers to the cult of “Salafism” the “Salafi Prophet” Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and their “Salafi” brethren! In one translation of Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul, more praise and attention is given to introducing Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, than the little that is spoken of regarding the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) himself: “After Imaam Muhammad bin Sa’ud Islamic university had decided to hold a conference in the name of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab [not in the name of Allah, or his Rasul], it formed a committee to prepare for this conference and to provide a detailed concept of it and then to implement it. The committee began its work by restating its general objective for the conference, which was to inform people about the Shaykh [not Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but the Shaykh] and reveal the truth about his da’wah [not the Prophet Muhammad’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) da’wah, but the da’wah of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab]”
A few points can be seen from this above statement 1. This is a book that is supposed to be talking about the biography of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), yet the opening credits somehow go to Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab 2. A conference is held, not in the name of Allah nor His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but yet in the name of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. Would the shoe been on the other foot, the Wahhabis would have been all to quick to accuse of of shirk for having a conference in the name of a Sufi Shaykh, etc. 3. Whilst the great majority of Muslims around the world hold conferences in celebration of the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) birth and gather together to speak about his birth etc, Wahhabis are all to quick to slam us with the charges of innovation and heresy, but yet here they are celebrating “Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab week. This exposes their hypocrisy. 4. The general objective as seen from above is not to promote the da’wah of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but to specifically promote the da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. 5. As long as Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab occupies a position of doctrinal authority in the hearts of Wahhabis, they are to be considered a cult, a new religion. One regular visitor to the hijaaz – having seen the golden ages of the Sunni era – noted that a new religion had begun with the appearance of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. [43] His DeathHe died a miserable death at the age of ninety-two years old in 1792 AD and was buried in an unmarked grave, nobody could visit him or pray for him nor place twigs in his grave which is a prophetic Sunnah that one may receive the mercy of Allah. Where ever his grave might be, it is unknown. His grave is also a bid’ah, to bury somebody in an unknown and unmarked grave is indeed an innovation. We all know where the Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam and his blessed companions are buried, and this is because they did not command their followers to bury them in unknown graves. Further more, it is noted: “By the time of his death, he had seen his teachings spread throughout all of Najd and much of al-Ahsaa. Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab had also seen the first signs of its potential against the leaders of the hijaaz” [44] His death led to a brutal raid on the holy sanctuaries , Makkah and Madinah in which many orthodox scholars was put to the sword. This demonstrates again that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and his followers are the modern day Khawaarij and they did Kharuj [45] against the ameers and Khalifah’s of the hijaaz. Plus Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab permitted fighting by the side of the Ka’bah, when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) clearly said: “Allah and not the people has made Mecca a sanctuary. So anybody who has belief in Allah and the Last Day (i.e. a Muslim) should neither shed blood in it nor cut down its trees. If anybody argues that fighting is allowed in Mecca as Allah’s Apostle did fight (in Mecca), tell him that Allah gave permission to His Apostle, but He did not give it to you. The Allah allowed me only for a few hours on that day (of the conquest) and today (now) its sanctity is the same (valid) as it was before. So it is incumbent upon those who are present to convey it (this information) to those who are absent.” [46] The Books Of Fitan He Left Behind
From some of the thirty or more books he has authored are 1. Kitaab ut-Tawheed 2. Al-Usul ul-Thalatha 3. Kashf ash-Shubahaat 4. Kitaab al-Kabaa’ir 5. Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم) Many books of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab have not yet seen a publishing house and are still in manuscript form, let alone translated. They all expose the creed of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab as being from the Khawaarij if one is to carefully examine the texts for his theology. With this chapter alone I have demonstrated how the modern day Wahhabi cult are none other than the re-emergence of the end of times Khawwarij prophesised in the ahaadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم). However will shall continue and cover every angle. Footnotes
[1] Encyclopedia Britanica Micropedia vol. X, p. 511 [2] Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad [Sufficiency in Creed] The Wahhabi version, p. 185 [3] I have utilized books such as Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab – His Life and Mission by Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz; A Breif History of the Wahhabi Movement by Jamal Effendi, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine vol.1, pp. 188-197 Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul, the translation which also begins with the mention of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and “his mission”. The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo, Encyopedias and other types of historical reference works. [4] The creed, speech and actions of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) [5] One of the thirty liars that have been prophesized to emerge in the last days of time. [6] The reader may wonder at why I have chosen to put this sentence in inverted commas. It is important to note that my ‘Aqeedah is that ‘Arabia is called Jazeerat ul-Arab, as it was called in the Holy Prophets (صلى الله عليه وسلم) time and not the “Kingdom of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” as described today. Reason being it is wrong to name such holy lands after a tyrant, plus innovation. If anything the country should have been called the Kingdom of the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), however due to the Prophet’s known character of much humility, he would most likely tell me to call it Jazeerat ul-Arab. Secondly, it is my ‘Aqeedah that the capital city, or cities rather, in ‘Arabia are Makkah and Madinah and not Riyaadh! The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did not like Riyaadh as it is a source of great fitaan. Thus, for this sentence, inverted commas. See Darussalam’s The Concise collection on Creed and Tawheed, p. 13 for “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” Riyaadh. [7] Musaymimah the liar. He claimed to be a Prophet of Allah after Muhammad and composed his own poetry attempting to compete with the Qur’an. One verse read “O beautiful cat, what nice fluffy ears you have” however, despite his stupid claims and poetry he managed to build a following of thirty thousand and planned to attack Makkah and Madinah upon hearing about the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) passing away. Abu Bakr sent Khaleed Ibn Waleed and an army to Najd which is famously known as the batlle of Yamaamah, where many huffaz died. Washee was the one honored by Allah to redeem himself by killing Musaymimah the liar with his spear. Washee was the slave of Abu Sufyaan’s wife Bint and was responsible for the martyrdom of Hamza before his conversion to Islam. [8] Sunni is a western derived term from a person who follows the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. It is important to note here that there are ignorant Muslims in this day of age promoting the creed that we should not be Sunni’s, Shi’a, Wahhabi’s, Deobandis etc, but we should be Muslims. Although there is a correctness hidden within their falsehood the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) has commanded us to be Sunnis in the following hadeeth: “Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khalifahs that come after me. Bite upon it with your molar teeth [nawaakhidh] and beware of newly invented matters [in creed, and actions] for certainly every newly invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a misguidance” Musnad of Imaam Ahmad narrated by al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah, hadeeth no. 17145, Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitaab us-Sunnah, hadeeth no. 4607 Imaam Nawawi’s Forty Hadeeth, hadeeth no. 28; and is classified as a Saheeh hadeeth. The one who follows the Sunnah as commanded is known as a Sunni. Please refer to the appendix in my translation of Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad Who Are the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah? [9] Plural of Shaykh [10] P. 19 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [11] P.17 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [12] P. 17 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [13] The repentance of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah is documented, however many Ash’ari scholars of Egypt had doubts about his repentance and still kept him imprisoned. See Encylopedia of Islamic Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 65. In the best opinion, he died a Sunni Muslim upon the creed of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah after repenting from his corrupt views, although not being able to correct them by way of writing as his writing materials was taken away from him. Upon his death, the very same scholars that condemned him, and those who debated him prayed over him at his Janaazah, which strongly implies that he was considered and buried as a Muslim believer. [14] The four schools of Islamic law known as the Hanafi madh-hab, Maaliki madh-hab, Shaafi’ madh-hab and the Hanbali madh-hab named after four great respected Sunni scholars, who are known for their excellence and ability in deriving from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. [15] Haraam, the ‘Arabic terminology for anything prohibited strictly by revelation [16] P.16 of The Concise Collection of Creed and Tawheed, Darussalam Publishing [17] This book is presently being translated by Shaykh Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali and is promised to be a devastating blow to the Khawaarij Wahhabi Cult. We should expect this text to be released via the Hanbali Text Society 2010 www.htspub.com[18] P. 20 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [19] ‘Aqeedah, the Mu’tazilah innovated terminology to refer to creed. The true ‘Arabic word is al-I’tiqaad. However for easy comprehension have used ‘Aqeedah as many Muslims are now over familiar with this word. [20] Jurisprudence, Islamic law relating to hygiene and worship, charity and hajj, etc. [21] Kashf ash-Shubuhaat [22] Tawheed as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and is companions taught is the testimony that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. Anybody who testifies to this should not be killed. This can be seen from the hadeeth where the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said “”I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Saheeh al-Bukhaari, vol. 1, hadeeth no. 387 this hadeeth serves as an evidence against Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab who was taught it was permissible to kill people who testified to the Kalimah, more will be said of this in following chapters. Therefore tawheed is synonymous with the kalimah which is to testify there is no god but Allah. This is tawheed. [23] Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul p. 18 [24] Literally means a word or statement, but in the context of ‘Aqeedah its linguistic reference is to tawheed, testifying to Allah’s Oneness and His Messenger Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) [25] A group that is known to rebel against valid Muslim authority until they eventually exit out of the fold of Islam by killing Muslim believers [26] The plural of hadeeth which in its singular form means a saying or action of the Holy Prophet. (صلى الله عليه وسلم) [27] The hair of disbelief [28] Ruler, valid Muslim authority [29] The true heart of ‘Arabia, i.e. the two holy sanctuaries [30] P. xvii in the preface to Kitaab ut-Tawheed written and translated by Isma’il R. al-Furuqi [31] The Muslim call to prayer [32] Shahaadah, literally means to witness, a synonymous term for the Kalimah [33] Polytheism, i.e. associating partners with Allah’s divinity. [34] Military warfare [35] Companion of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), I dedicate this book to him and others that met with the sword of the Khawaarij [36] The Divine Thunderbolts: as-Sawaa’iq al-Ilahiyah. [37] I.I.F.S.O translation of Kitaab ut-Tawheed, p. xv [38] Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Sunan Abu Dawud, hadeeth no. 2011 [39] None of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s family or Sunni teachers ever taught the same doctrine that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab would later teach and force the people to believe. [40] P.7 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [41] See Darussalam’s The Concise collection on Creed and Tawheed, p. 13 for “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” Riyaadh. [42] P. 3 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [43] Travels Through ‘Arabia and Other Countries in the East, vol. 2, p. 131, by C. Neibuhr [most likely a convert to Islam as he travelled in and out of the Hijaaz without any restrictions, even visiting Shuyukh in Makkah and Madinah and was a first hand witness to the rise of the Khawaarij Wahhabi cult.] [44] P. 54 Again his teachings and not the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) this can be seen simply from the hadeeth in which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) says “The harshness of heart and sternness is in the East and faith is among the people of the Hijaz. Saheeh Muslim, Kitaab ul-Imaan, hadeeth no. 72; also found within Mishkaat ul-Masaabeeh, Kitaab ul-Fitaan, hadeeth no. 4 [45] Rebellion against the Muslim leaders which he Prophet forbade [46] Saheeh al-Bukhaari, vol. 1 hadeeth no. 104 also in Saheeh al-Bukhari vol. 1 hadeeth no. 114 with the following words “Beware! (Mecca is a sanctuary.) Verily! Fighting in Mecca was not permitted for anyone before me nor will it be permitted for anyone after me. It (war) in it was made legal for me for few hours or so on that day. No doubt it is at this moment a sanctuary… also in vol. 3, hadeeth no. 58; hadeeth no. 60; vol. 4, hadeeth no. 412; vol. 5, hadeeth no 603; and volume 9, hadeeth number. 19. Thus there is no ambiguity to the authenticity and strength of this hadeeth, having numerous chains of isnaad.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 13, 2017 19:05:52 GMT
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, A name spoken of throughout the Muslim world, but who is he? What are his teachings? Are they really in accordance to the Sunnah[4] of our Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم)? What do we really know about him? Is he a reviver of the religion of Islam as some people claim or is he one of the thirty dajjal’s[5] and a reviver of the accursed cult known as the Khawaarij? In order to understand such questions it is essential that we look to the biography of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab to gain a fair understanding of what his life and mission was all about. Therefore we shall look at his life from birth to death, and the impact that he had on the Muslim world to this very day. Birth and Birthplace
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, Born 1115 AH in the village of Uyainah of al-Yamaamah, in the Najd province of central ‘Arabia northwest to “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” [6] Riyaadh. This is the exact same location that gave home to Musaymiyah the liar. [7] His Said Education
Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab grew up in the house of his father, the great Sunni [8] orthodox Shaykh ul-Islam, ‘Abdul Wahhab Ibn Sulaymaan an-Najdi. He studied Hanbali Fiqh under his father. His stubbornness in learning was noticed at a very young age by his father to the point where Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was forced to look for other teachers whilst his father placed his main focus on the humble soon to be Shaykh ul-Islam Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. It is said that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab travelled back and forth from Makkah and Madinah in attempt to find suitable teachers that was able to satisfy his lust of bad opinion. Therefore he sat with many Shuyukh, [9] but never completed his studies with them being unsatisfied with their doctrine. In Makkah he studied with a Shaafi’ scholar by the name of ‘Abdullah Ibn Saalim al-Basri who was the leading scholar of ahaadeeth in the hijaaz at the time [10] He also studied under the great Hanbali jurist, Abu al-Muwahhib al-Baali [11] it is also said he studied under other authorities such as ‘Ali al-Daghstani, Ismaa’el al-Ajaluni, the great scholar of ahaadeeth and Hanbli jurist ‘Abdullah Ibn Ibraheem al-Saif, [12] a subcontinent scholar from Indo-Pakistan Muhammad Hayaat as-Sindi, Muhammad Ibn Sulaymaan al-Kurdi and maybe more. With Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s non contentment with valid scholarly authority, his dissatisfaction drove him to obtain studies in ‘Iraq. In this time Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab became heavily influenced by the creedal works of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Imaam Ibn Qayyum. In fact many areas in which these two Imaam’s had only theorised by pen, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab would later bring into practice. It was not the habit of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah to destroy graves and demolish domes and kill anybody he deemed to be a mushrik, even though he made suggestions that extreme measures should be enforced to prevent people from doing shirk. To the lack of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s knowledge, Imaam Ibn Taymiyah later repented from such views after he was defeated in a series of debates ranging from many issues, theological and in areas of jurisprudence. [13] Despite having studied under Hanbali, Shaafi’ and Hanafi teachers, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab declared war against the four traditional madh-habs [14] under the pretext it was “haraam”[15] to blindly follow and trust any scholar as noted “he forcibly contradicted the blind following of any scholar”[16] Thus he thought he knew better than all previous scholarship, or yet was rather over satisfied with the opinions of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah and his student Ibn Qayyum. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was eventually drove out of ‘Iraq by the local learned scholars due to Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s sickness of referring to unknowledgeable seekers of knowledge as mushriks, simply for not knowing enough about Islam. He was forced to leave ‘Iraq in the heat of the day and almost died of thirst. He found himself begging for money to get to Syria, however after such a God decreed defeat, his humiliation made him to return to Najd. Though Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab had obtained studies from a variety of scholars in different locations in the learned Muslim world, he did not, however, reach his discipline, nor obtain any senate to teach in any science from any of the above mentioned scholars. Moreover, none of his former teachers supported the doctrine he was soon to espouse and it is proven from the texts of historians that his teachers spoke of him with much negative critique. Such as Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sulaymaan al-Kurdi and Shaykh Muhammad al-Sindi who both recognized his stubbornness and refusal to respect scholarly authority and said about him “Allah will allow this one to be led astray, miserable are the ones who are mislead by him [Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab]. Both of these teachers eventually combined with the brother of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab [Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab] to write the classical text al-Sawaa’iq al-Ilahiyah fi ar-radd ‘ala al-Wahhabiyah in which his teacher wrote “Dall mudlil”, i.e. he [Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab] is “misguided and misguiding”. [17] Even a Wahhab scholar wrote about the Shaykh in a Saudi published biography: “It seems that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was very attracted to reading – again, especially the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyum (his teacher) al-Ajilaani even said that most of his knowledge was self taught”!![18] So it is seen from the presented facts that he was unqualified to act as an authority, nobody gave him senate and he was self taught, brainwashed in the misguided opinions of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah. Upon his return, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab would often attempt to debate great theologians which eventually caused him to be expelled and banned from many towns and villages. He even tried to debate his own father which led to a huge argument. His father’s eyes flowed with tears after reading the filth and bad opinions packed into the theological fast food sandwich, “Kitaab ut-Tawheed. His father soon after died in 1153 AH never again having spoken to Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab since. Although before his death he would repeatedly tell the people “You will see much evil from my son Muhammad”! Since his father passed away, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab felt more free to publicize his deviant teachings more openly, although, underestimating the increase of knowledge of his own brother Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab whom his father had trained in his absence. His father had trained young Sulaymaan well, giving him senate in ‘Aqeedah, [19] Fiqh [20] and other related sciences. Though Sulaymaan indeed had a difficult task ahead of him, he was all the more ready. Meanwhile, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab began to gain support of highway robbers and other criminals from around Najd, he was even given a small army of six hundred men. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s rise to power spelt death and destruction, with his so called religious justifications. He permitted the shedding of blood of people who say the Kalimah, thus making it permissible to take their property and place their wives and children in captivity. He said in his Kashf ash-Shubbahaat: “The people that ask for intercession through the Prophets and Angels, calling upon them and making supplication through their waseelah in attempt to draw nearer to Allah are committing the greatest of sins. Thus it is permitted to kill them and take their property” [21] Even a modern committee of Wahhabi scholars admitted to this and confirmed this view when it was said: “He [Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab] also made clear [to us] – the true meaning of tawheed [22]…and that it is not simply pronouncing the testimony of faith “la ilaha illallah” (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah); indeed, a person might be a disbeliever whose blood is permissible to shed and whose property it is permissible to take and he might pronounce the testimony of tawheed” [23] It is clear that the kalimah [24] will not save a person from their sword. They will kill Muslims regardless. This statement mirrors the very same creed that the earlier Khawaarij [25] held, that its permissible to take the blood of those who pronounce the Kalimah, but yet disagree with their views Many ahaadeeth [26] prove that the kalimah is sufficient for one to be a Muslim believer, we shall quote them in a another chapter and address this belief that strongly implies that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab believed in a deeds based salvation as opposed to the Sunni stance of not despairing the Mercy of Allah. His very first act was to march into a village with his six hundred or so bandits to demolish the grave of Zaid ibn al-Khattab. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab personally took an axe and took it to the grave like a raving mad vandal. This was the first earthquake as the people of the village stood in fear from the aftershock. Never before had they faced anything like this. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab continued to pillage the neighbouring territories such as Zabir, Ahsa, Huraimala, and his hometown ‘Uyainah, indiscriminately killing Muslim men women and children if they refused to accept his call. Those who did accept his call were forced to shave their beards and their heads under the pretext it was the hair of kufr. [27] He did not even spare the women from this ruling. When the Khalifah [28] of the Muslims Sulaymaan Bin Urair’ar heard of this, they came with an army to meet challenge the Wahhabi threat, in which made Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and his gang of vigilantes flee to Darriyah, fearing for their lifes. The Pact With Ibn Sa’udImpressed with the religious doctrine and actions Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, the ruler of Darriyah, Muhammad Ibn Sa’ud knew that he could use Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and his doctrine to his own advantage, giving him the religious justification he so needed to eventually take over the Hijaaz [29] and seat himself as the king of ‘Arabia. As one Wahhabi scholar admitted: “What was indeed extraordinary was the coincidence of the ‘Alim’ and the “prince”, Muhammad Ibn Sa’ud, who felt the need for each other, and saw the wedding of idea to arm [with weapons, by force] as a key to a new age of Islamic history” [30] They knew that the only way to take over the neighbouring villages was by force of doctrine by threat of violence. Thus they prepared military wise. It even said by some historians that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab replaced the traditional swords with rifles supplied by the British government. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, now together with the Sa’udi reinforcements and a much larger army raided Muslim territories regardless of hearing the Azaan.[31] The fact was, according to Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, their Shahaadah [32] was not sufficient, thus he would make a habit of plundering Muslim territories whilst allowing pagans to freely pass through ‘Arabia without any attempt to convert them. In fact he never once raided a pagan village. His Kharijite traits became more apparent as he led rebellions against the Muslim rulers, killing believing men, enslaving women and children, demolishing graves and places of important heritage [making some into public toilets] all under the pretext that he was calling the people back to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and “the 800 year old lost teaching” tawheed. He even had a blind man executed for simply sending peace and blessings on the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) after he had made the call of Azaan. He did this under the pretext that he needed to preserve the purity of tawheed for the people as the action of the blind man may have led to shirk. [33] Much of the historical manuscripts of the scholarly works were destroyed by the Wahhabi cult, as libraries were burnt to the ground, and even Qur’anic texts were even scattered around on the streets and trampled on without a care. From the year 1159AH, the central ‘Arabia was never to be the same. “Jihaad” [34] was declared against any Muslim who did not accept the Wahhabi call. It was the case of: you either join us or die. This is exactly what the Khawaarij did to anybody that disregarded their theology. Like the Sahaabi [35] Khabaab who was martyred fro simply quoting a hadeeth in defence of ‘Ali. Not only did they kill him, but they killed his wife and unborn child by slicing open her stomach and letting the contents fall to the floor. The contemporary scholars that lived to see the Wahhabi threat and re-emergence of the Khawaarij documented works concerning his corrupt theology, including his own his own brother Shaykh ul-Islam Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. They are first hand witnesses to the historical happenings that have all documented the same truths concerning the Wahhabi cult and its call. Shaykh ul-Islam Sulaymaan Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab said to his own brother “The horn of Shaytaan that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) referred to is you” [Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab]. [36] As the abundance of historical facts demonstrate, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab was no reviver of Islam. Infact the movement denied eight hundred years of Islamic revival! The I.I.F.S.O translation of Kitaab ut-Tawheed informs us in the preface “The movement was born out of a “realization” that Muslims had far too long been on a decline” [37] Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s arrogance knew no bounds as he opined that the great majority of scholars that predated him were mushrikeen [idolators] and thus kuffar [i.e. disbelievers]. He therefore rejected eight hundred years of authentic scholarship as being upon misguidance and innovation. The claim is that he is [second to Ibn Taymiyah] the only reviver Allah has sent in eight hundred years of scholarship which contradicts the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam is which he said: “Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.” [38] However, amongst the known revivers of each century who have been well documented, none of them [39] ever spoke of the same ideologies as Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, or his forefather in creed Imaam Ibn Taymiyah. For example, who before Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyah, felt the need to divide and categorize tawheed into two, three or four parts? There was none! The same can be said in the many areas of creed in which Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and Imaam Ibn Taymiyah have contradicted the consensus of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Implicit claim to Prophet-hood
Some scholars even noted that he made an implicit claim to Prophet-hood, though not claiming prophet-hood verbally. The following factors help demonstrate this point: 1. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab named the people of Najd that chose to follow him [either by force or free will] the Ansaar [i.e. the helpers] Just as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) called the people of Madinah the Ansaar for helping the Muhajireen. Likewise Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s non Najdi followers was labelled the Muhajiroon. The message sounded very clear as Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab opined Makkah and Medinah to be in a deep state of kufr with all the “grave worship” happening there so much so that he deemed the Hijaaz [Makkah and Medinah] to be dar ul-Kufr and his hometown Najd to be dar ul-Mumineen. Even Najd [al-Yamaamah] became to be spoken of as the “heart” of all ‘Arabia as Wahhabi follower Jamal Zarabozo stated in his biography of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab “al-Yamaamah is the heart [not Makkah or Madinah] of the entire ‘Arabian peninsula” [40] In this age they have called it Riyaadh and still classify it as “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” [41] their disregard to the two holy sanctuaries can clearly be seen in this point. With his authority he did not act like a ruler [Qadi] or even a humble scholar. He acted like a Prophet as Muslims would be executed for simply questioning his “divinely inspired wisdom in deriving judgements”. 2. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab made it very clear that he deemed anybody who rejected his mission as a disbeliever, almost as if they had denied a Prophet! He would instruct “new believers” to his cult to witness against themselves that they were previously kuffar [disbelievers] and that their parents was also kuffar before they could be considered as true Wahhabi believers. This is despite them previously saying the testimony of faith [i.e. the Shahaadah] “la ilaha illa Allah” – there is no deity except Allah! As Muhmmad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab has claimed in a number of his works, that the Shahaadah is not sufficient for one to enter paradise! If a Muslim was to reject his call, they would be beheaded on the spot. 3. He commanded men and women to shave their heads as he deemed it the “hair of kufr”. This was his misinterpretation of a hadeeth that spoke of the hair underneath the armpits and the genital hairs. This action was unique to his call and the Prophet forewarned us of this sigh when he said “their sign is that they will shave their heads”. 4. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab “abrogated” much of the ahadeeth about fighting in the hijaaz [which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) forbade] yet Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab considered himself such an authority to permit the killing of Muslims, even by the side of the Ka’bah. This is the most greatest point. When the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam entered Makkah and destroyed the idols, Allah sent down the ayah “Verily the truth has come and falsehood has perished”. This meant that idolatry had been totally obliterated in the Hijaaz and that Shaytaan lost all hope of misguiding the Muslims to worship taghut. This happening was a great sign and symbol of Prophet Muhammad’s [sal allahu alayhi wasallam] Risaalah, yet Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd ul-Wahhab claimed that the hijaaz was riddled with idol worship and that he had been sent with a mission to destroy the idol worship in Arabia, thus he implicitly called to his own message, thus he is nothing more than a false Prophet. These are amongst the few indictors of his implicit claim to prophecy. His followers can also be seen giving him the status of a Prophet throughout many Wahhabi works, such as The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo who states in the chapter entitled “Motivation Behind This Work” was to “Defend the honour and truth of their religion, their Prophet, and their brethren” [42] This really refers to the cult of “Salafism” the “Salafi Prophet” Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and their “Salafi” brethren! In one translation of Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul, more praise and attention is given to introducing Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, than the little that is spoken of regarding the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) himself: “After Imaam Muhammad bin Sa’ud Islamic university had decided to hold a conference in the name of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab [not in the name of Allah, or his Rasul], it formed a committee to prepare for this conference and to provide a detailed concept of it and then to implement it. The committee began its work by restating its general objective for the conference, which was to inform people about the Shaykh [not Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but the Shaykh] and reveal the truth about his da’wah [not the Prophet Muhammad’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) da’wah, but the da’wah of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab]”
A few points can be seen from this above statement: 1. This is a book that is supposed to be talking about the biography of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), yet the opening credits somehow go to Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab 2. A conference is held, not in the name of Allah nor His Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but yet in the name of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. Would the shoe been on the other foot, the Wahhabis would have been all to quick to accuse of of shirk for having a conference in the name of a Sufi Shaykh, etc. 3. Whilst the great majority of Muslims around the world hold conferences in celebration of the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) birth and gather together to speak about his birth etc, Wahhabis are all to quick to slam us with the charges of innovation and heresy, but yet here they are celebrating “Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab week. This exposes their hypocrisy. 4. The general objective as seen from above is not to promote the da’wah of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم), but to specifically promote the da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. 5. As long as Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab occupies a position of doctrinal authority in the hearts of Wahhabis, they are to be considered a cult, a new religion. One regular visitor to the hijaaz – having seen the golden ages of the Sunni era – noted that a new religion had begun with the appearance of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab. [43] His Death
He died a miserable death at the age of ninety-two years old in 1792 AD and was buried in an unmarked grave, nobody could visit him or pray for him nor place twigs in his grave which is a prophetic Sunnah that one may receive the mercy of Allah. Where ever his grave might be, it is unknown. His grave is also a bid’ah, to bury somebody in an unknown and unmarked grave is indeed an innovation. We all know where the Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wasallam and his blessed companions are buried, and this is because they did not command their followers to bury them in unknown graves. Further more, it is noted: “By the time of his death, he had seen his teachings spread throughout all of Najd and much of al-Ahsaa. Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab had also seen the first signs of its potential against the leaders of the hijaaz” [44] His death led to a brutal raid on the holy sanctuaries , Makkah and Madinah in which many orthodox scholars was put to the sword. This demonstrates again that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and his followers are the modern day Khawaarij and they did Kharuj [45] against the ameers and Khalifah’s of the hijaaz. Plus Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab permitted fighting by the side of the Ka’bah, when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) clearly said: “Allah and not the people has made Mecca a sanctuary. So anybody who has belief in Allah and the Last Day (i.e. a Muslim) should neither shed blood in it nor cut down its trees. If anybody argues that fighting is allowed in Mecca as Allah’s Apostle did fight (in Mecca), tell him that Allah gave permission to His Apostle, but He did not give it to you. The Allah allowed me only for a few hours on that day (of the conquest) and today (now) its sanctity is the same (valid) as it was before. So it is incumbent upon those who are present to convey it (this information) to those who are absent.” [46] The Books Of Fitan He Left Behind
From some of the thirty or more books he has authored are: 1. Kitaab ut-Tawheed 2. Al-Usul ul-Thalatha 3. Kashf ash-Shubahaat 4. Kitaab al-Kabaa’ir 5. Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul (صلى الله عليه وسلم) Many books of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab have not yet seen a publishing house and are still in manuscript form, let alone translated. They all expose the creed of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab as being from the Khawaarij if one is to carefully examine the texts for his theology. With this chapter alone I have demonstrated how the modern day Wahhabi cult are none other than the re-emergence of the end of times Khawwarij prophesised in the ahaadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسلم). However will shall continue and cover every angle. Footnotes
[1] Encyclopedia Britanica Micropedia vol. X, p. 511 [2] Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad [Sufficiency in Creed] The Wahhabi version, p. 185 [3] I have utilized books such as Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab – His Life and Mission by Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz; A Breif History of the Wahhabi Movement by Jamal Effendi, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine vol.1, pp. 188-197 Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul, the translation which also begins with the mention of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab and “his mission”. The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo, Encyopedias and other types of historical reference works. [4] The creed, speech and actions of the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) [5] One of the thirty liars that have been prophesized to emerge in the last days of time. [6][6] The reader may wonder at why I have chosen to put this sentence in inverted commas. It is important to note that my ‘Aqeedah is that ‘Arabia is called Jazeerat ul-Arab, as it was called in the Holy Prophets (صلى الله عليه وسلم) time and not the “Kingdom of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” as described today. Reason being it is wrong to name such holy lands after a tyrant, plus innovation. If anything the country should have been called the Kingdom of the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), however due to the Prophet’s known character of much humility, he would most likely tell me to call it Jazeerat ul-Arab. Secondly, it is my ‘Aqeedah that the capital city, or cities rather, in ‘Arabia are Makkah and Madinah and not Riyaadh! The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did not like Riyaadh as it is a source of great fitaan. Thus, for this sentence, inverted commas. See Darussalam’s The Concise collection on Creed and Tawheed, p. 13 for “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” Riyaadh. [7] Musaymimah the liar. He claimed to be a Prophet of Allah after Muhammad and composed his own poetry attempting to compete with the Qur’an. One verse read “O beautiful cat, what nice fluffy ears you have” however, despite his stupid claims and poetry he managed to build a following of thirty thousand and planned to attack Makkah and Madinah upon hearing about the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) passing away. Abu Bakr sent Khaleed Ibn Waleed and an army to Najd which is famously known as the batlle of Yamaamah, where many huffaz died. Washee was the one honored by Allah to redeem himself by killing Musaymimah the liar with his spear. Washee was the slave of Abu Sufyaan’s wife Bint and was responsible for the martyrdom of Hamza before his conversion to Islam. [8] Sunni is a western derived term from a person who follows the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. It is important to note here that there are ignorant Muslims in this day of age promoting the creed that we should not be Sunni’s, Shi’a, Wahhabi’s, Deobandis etc, but we should be Muslims. Although there is a correctness hidden within their falsehood the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) has commanded us to be Sunnis in the following hadeeth: “Adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khalifahs that come after me. Bite upon it with your molar teeth [nawaakhidh] and beware of newly invented matters [in creed, and actions] for certainly every newly invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a misguidance” Musnad of Imaam Ahmad narrated by al-‘Irbaad Bin Saariyah, hadeeth no. 17145, Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitaab us-Sunnah, hadeeth no. 4607 Imaam Nawawi’s Forty Hadeeth, hadeeth no. 28; and is classified as a Saheeh hadeeth. The one who follows the Sunnah as commanded is known as a Sunni. Please refer to the appendix in my translation of Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad Who Are the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah? [9] Plural of Shaykh [10] P. 19 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [11] P.17 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [12] P. 17 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [13] The repentance of Imaam Ibn Taymiyah is documented, however many Ash’ari scholars of Egypt had doubts about his repentance and still kept him imprisoned. See Encylopedia of Islamic Doctrine, vol. 1, p. 65. In the best opinion, he died a Sunni Muslim upon the creed of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah after repenting from his corrupt views, although not being able to correct them by way of writing as his writing materials was taken away from him. Upon his death, the very same scholars that condemned him, and those who debated him prayed over him at his Janaazah, which strongly implies that he was considered and buried as a Muslim believer. [14] The four schools of Islamic law known as the Hanafi madh-hab, Maaliki madh-hab, Shaafi’ madh-hab and the Hanbali madh-hab named after four great respected Sunni scholars, who are known for their excellence and ability in deriving from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. [15] Haraam, the ‘Arabic terminology for anything prohibited strictly by revelation [16] P.16 of The Concise Collection of Creed and Tawheed, Darussalam Publishing [17] This book is presently being translated by Shaykh Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali and is promised to be a devastating blow to the Khawaarij Wahhabi Cult. We should expect this text to be released via the Hanbali Text Society 2010 www.htspub.com[18] P. 20 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [19] ‘Aqeedah, the Mu’tazilah innovated terminology to refer to creed. The true ‘Arabic word is al-I’tiqaad. However for easy comprehension I have used ‘Aqeedah as many Muslims are now over familiar with this word. [20] Jurisprudence, Islamic law relating to hygiene and worship, charity and hajj, etc. [21] Kashf ash-Shubuhaat [22] Tawheed as the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and is companions taught is the testimony that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger. Anybody who testifies to this should not be killed. This can be seen from the hadeeth where the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said “”I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Saheeh al-Bukhaari, vol. 1, hadeeth no. 387 this hadeeth serves as an evidence against Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab who was taught it was permissible to kill people who testified to the Kalimah, more will be said of this in following chapters. Therefore tawheed is synonymous with the kalimah which is to testify there is no god but Allah. This is tawheed. [23] Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s Mukhtasar Seerat ur-Rasul p. 18 [24] Literally means a word or statement, but in the context of ‘Aqeedah its linguistic reference is to tawheed, testifying to Allah’s Oneness and His Messenger Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) [25] A group that is known to rebel against valid Muslim authority until they eventually exit out of the fold of Islam by killing Muslim believers [26] The plural of hadeeth which in its singular form means a saying or action of the Holy Prophet. (صلى الله عليه وسلم) [27] The hair of disbelief [28] Ruler, valid Muslim authority [29] The true heart of ‘Arabia, i.e. the two holy sanctuaries [30] P. xvii in the preface to Kitaab ut-Tawheed written and translated by Isma’il R. al-Furuqi [31] The Muslim call to prayer [32] Shahaadah, literally means to witness, a synonymous term for the Kalimah [33] Polytheism, i.e. associating partners with Allah’s divinity. [34] Military warfare [35] Companion of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), I dedicate this book to him and others that met with the sword of the Khawaarij [36] The Divine Thunderbolts: as-Sawaa’iq al-Ilahiyah. [37] I.I.F.S.O translation of Kitaab ut-Tawheed, p. xv [38] Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Sunan Abu Dawud, hadeeth no. 2011 [39] None of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s family or Sunni teachers ever taught the same doctrine that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab would later teach and force the people to believe. [40] P.7 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [41] See Darussalam’s The Concise collection on Creed and Tawheed, p. 13 for “the capitol of Sa’udi ‘Arabia” Riyaadh. [42] P. 3 The life, Teachings and Influence of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab by Jamal Zarabozo [43] Travels Through ‘Arabia and Other Countries in the East, vol. 2, p. 131, by C. Neibuhr [most likely a convert to Islam as he travelled in and out of the Hijaaz without any restrictions, even visiting Shuyukh in Makkah and Madinah and was a first hand witness to the rise of the Khawaarij Wahhabi cult.] [44] P. 54 Again his teachings and not the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) this can be seen simply from the hadeeth in which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) says “The harshness of heart and sternness is in the East and faith is among the people of the Hijaz. Saheeh Muslim, Kitaab ul-Imaan, hadeeth no. 72; also found within Mishkaat ul-Masaabeeh, Kitaab ul-Fitaan, hadeeth no. 4 [45] Rebellion against the Muslim leaders which he Prophet forbade [46] Saheeh al-Bukhaari, vol. 1 hadeeth no. 104 also in Saheeh al-Bukhari vol. 1 hadeeth no. 114 with the following words “Beware! (Mecca is a sanctuary.) Verily! Fighting in Mecca was not permitted for anyone before me nor will it be permitted for anyone after me. It (war) in it was made legal for me for few hours or so on that day. No doubt it is at this moment a sanctuary… also in vol. 3, hadeeth no. 58; hadeeth no. 60; vol. 4, hadeeth no. 412; vol. 5, hadeeth no 603; and volume 9, hadeeth number. 19. Thus there is no ambiguity to the authenticity and strength of this hadeeth, having numerous chains of isnaad.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 13, 2017 18:45:59 GMT
Statement of the Hanbali Mufti of Makkah in Explaining The Reality of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab: The Shaykh of the Wahhabis The Hanbali Mufti of Makkah, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdillah al-Najdi al-Hanbali (d. 1295 H/1878 CE), stated in his book, al-Suhub al-Wabilah fi Dara’ih al-Hanabilah, under the biography of the father of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman, the text of which is: He is the father of Muhammad, founder of the “ Da‘wah” (Call), the sparks of which spread throughout the world. However, there is a difference between the two, although Muhammad did not proclaim the Da‘wah until after his father’s death. Someone I met reported to me from one of the people of knowledge, from one who was a contemporary of this Shaykh Abd al-Wahhab, that he was angry at his son Muhammad since he was not satisfied with engaging in Fiqh like his predecessors and those of his region; and he foresaw that something [grave] will come from him, and thus would say to people: “Oh what evil you will see in Muhammad!” Thus Allah ordained that he will turn out to be what he became. Similar was his son Sulayman, the brother of Muhammad. He opposed him in his Da‘wah, and refuted him with an excellent rebuttal using verses and reports since the one being refuted wouldn’t accept anything besides them and would pay no attention to the teaching of any scholar, whoever he may be, be he early or late, besides Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim; since he regarded their statements as documentary texts not susceptible to any interpretation, and he would impose it on the people, even if their statements meant something different to what he understood. Shaykh Sulayman called his rebuttal of Muhammad: Fasl al-Khitab fi l-Radd ‘ala Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab; and Allah saved him from his evil and his plotting, in spite of his massive assault that terrorised all sides: since, if anyone differed with him and refuted him, and he was not able to kill him openly, he would send someone to assassinate him in his bed or in the marketplace at night, as he was of the view that whoever opposes him is regarded a disbeliever and thus killing him is permissible. It is said there was a maniac in the city who habitually used to attack whoever he confronted even if it was with a weapon, so Muhammad ordered a sword be given to him and that he be granted entry upon his brother, Shaykh Sulayman while he was alone in the masjid. Thus the maniac was granted entry upon him, and when Shaykh Sulayman saw him, he became frightened from him. The maniac threw down the sword from his hand, and started saying: “Oh Sulayman, do not be frightened, you are safe,” repeating it several times. No doubt, this was a miracle.
The above was taken and translated from here: mobile.souhnoun.tn/roudoud.php?id=71 How can a Muslim kill his own brother.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 11, 2017 12:21:04 GMT
Mawlid is not only permissible, but indeed it is from he greatest of the acts if it is done in a way that is correct. al-Suyuti said:
"The legal status of the observance of the Mawlid – as long as it just consists of a meeting together by the people, a recitation of apposite parts of the Qur’an, the recounting of transmitted accounts of the beginning of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace – and the wonders that took place during his birth, all of which is then followed by a banquet that is served to them and from which they eat, whereupon they take their leave without doing anything else – is a good innovation, for which one is rewarded because of the esteem shown to the position of the Prophet – may God bless him and grant him peace -, that is implicit in it, and because of the expression of joy and happiness on his – may God bless him and grant him peace - noble birth. "
Shah Abd al-Aziz ad-Dehlawi wrote:
"The Barakah of Rabi ul Awwal is due to birth of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) in this month, the more this Ummah sends Darud and Salaam and arrange for (sadaqa for the poor), more will they be blessed" [ Fatawa al Azizi 1:123]
The Shaykh al-Islam and hadith Master of his age, Ibn Hajr Asqalani was asked about the practice of commemorating the birth of the Prophet, and gave the following written reply:
"As for the origin of the practice of commemorating the Prophet's birth, it is an innovation that has not been conveyed to us from any of the pious early muslims of the first three centuries, despite which it has included both features that are praisweorthy and features that are not. If one takes care to include in such a commemoration only things that are praiseworthy and avoids those that are otherwise, it is a praise worthy innovation, while if ones does not, it is not. An authentic primary textual basis from which its legal validity is inferable has occured to me, namely the rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet came to Medina and found the Jews fasting on the tenth of Muharram `Ashura ' So he asked them about it and they replied: "It is the day on which Allah drowned Pharaoh and rescued Moses, so we fast in it to thanks to Allah Most high," which indicates the validity of giving thanks to Allah for the blessings He has bestowed on a particular day in providing a benefit, or averting an affliction, repeating one's thanks on the anniversary of that day every year, giving thanks to Allah taking * any various forms of worship such as prostration, fasting, giving charity or reciting the Koran. Then what blessing is greather than the Birth of the Prophet, the Prophet of Mercy, on this day? in light of which, one should take care to commemorate it on the day itself in order to confrom to the above story of moses and the tenth of Muharram, [but] those who do not view the matter thus do not mind commemorating it on any day of the month, while some have expanded its time to any of day the year, whatever exception bay e taken at such a view. I have derived the permissibility of Mawlid from another source of the Sunna [besides Ibn Hajar's deduction from the hadith of `Ashura'], namely :The hadith found in Bayhaqi, narrated by Anas, that "The Prophet slaughtered a `aqiqa [sacrifice for newborns] for himself after he received the prophecy," although it has been mentioned that his grandfather `Abd al-Muttalib did that on the seventh day after he was born, and the `aqiqa cannot be repeated. Thus the reason for the Prophet's action is to give thanks to Allah for sending him as a mercy to the worlds, and to give honor to his Umma, in the same way that he used to pray on himself. It is recommended for us, therefore, that we also show thanks for his birth by meeting with our brothers, by feeding people, and other such good works and rejoicing." This hadith confirms the aforementioned hadith of the Prophet's emphasis of Monday as the day of his birthday and that of his prophethood. [Husn al-Maqsad fi Amal al-Mawlid Page No. 64-65]
Allama Qastallani wrote:
"The Night of Prophet (Peace be upon him)'s birth is superior due to 3 reasons
First: He (salallaho alaihi wasalam) arrived (in this world) on the Night of Mawlid whereas Night of decree was granted to him (afterwards), therefore the arrival of Prophet (Peace be upon him) is greater than what has been granted to him, hence night of Mawlid is higher in virtue.
Second: If Night of decree is vitreous night because Angels descend in it, then Night of Mawlid has the virtue of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) being sent to world. The Prophet (saw) is superior to Angels, therefore night of Mawlid becomes superior.
Third: Due to night of decree, the Ummah of Muhammad (salallaho alaihi wasalam) was given imminence, whereas due to Night of Mawlid all creations were given Fazilah, as Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) is sent as Mercy to worlds/creations (Quran 21:107), hence the blessing was made general for all creations. [Imam Qastallani in Al Muwahib al Laduniya Volume 1, Page No. 145, Also Imam Zarqani in his Sharah of Al-Muwahib, Volume 1, Page Nos 255-256]
Imam Qastallani also said:
"May Allah have mercy on the one who turns the nights of the month of the Prophet's birth into celebration in order to decrease the suffering of those whose hearts are filled with disease and sickness."[Al-Muwahib- Volume 1, Page No 148]"
Imam Shams ad-Din Damishqi wrote:
"It is proven that Abu Lahab's punishment of fire is reduced on every Monday because he rejoiced on brith of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) and freed the slave-woman Thawba (RA) When Abu Lahab, whose eternal abode is hell fire and regarding whom whole surah of Tabat Yada (i.e. Surah Lahab) was revealed, he gets Takhfif in his Adhaab every Monday then Imagine the situation of a (momin) who has spent his life in rejoicing over birth of Prophet (saw) and died as a Mawhid [ Mawrid as Sadi Fi Mawlid al Hadi by Imam al-Dimishqi and Imam Suyuti in Hassan al Maqsad fi Amal al Mawlid, Page No. 66]"
Imam Ibn Jawzi, the most strict scholar in al-Jarh wa't Tadeel, even he wrote a complete book on Mawlid where he said:
"In Haramayn (i.e. Makkah and Madina), in Egypt, Yemen rather all people of Arab world have been celebrating Mawlid for long. Upon sight of the moon in Rabi ul Awwal their happiness touches the limits and hence they make specific gatherings for Dhikr of Mawlid due to which they earn immense Ajr and Success.[Biyan al Milaad an Nabwi, Page No. 58]"
Shah Waliullah ad-Dehlawi wrote:
"I took part in a gathering of Mawlid inside Makkah where people were sending Darood and Slaam upon Prophet (Peace be upon him) and mentioning the incidents which took place during the time of your birth (before and after) and those which were witnessed before you were appointed as a Nabi (such as Nur eliminating from Bibi Amina RA, she seeing Nur, woman proposing to Abdullah RA on sight of Nur on his forhead etc...) suddeny I saw Nur to have enveloped one group of people, I don’t claim that I saw this with my bodlily eyes, nor do I claim that it was spiritual and Allah knows the best regarding these two, however upon concentration on these Anwaar a reality opened upon me that these Anwaar are of those Angels who take part in such gatherings, I also saw Mercy to be decending along with Anwaar of Angels [Fuyoodh al Haramayn, Pages 80-81]
Mulla Ali Qari in his Sharah Mishkat wrote:
"Allah said: There hath come unto you a messenger, (one) of yourselves (9:128), In this It is pointed towards honoring the time when Prophet (saw) arrived amongst us, therefore one should do dhikr (of Quran) to thank Allah. As for Samah and playing is concerned then that which is Mubah (i.e. allowed) could be made part of Mawliddue to happiness without any harm [Muallah Ali Qari in his Al Mawlid an Nabi, Page No. 17]"
Haji Imdad al-Allah Muhajir al-Makki (or Hakeem al-Ummah Ashraf Ali at-Thanawi) wrote:
"If one considers Mawlid an-Nabi to be Mustahsan (Praisworthy) for at all times but fixes 12th of Rabi al-Awwal for the ease of continuity from one year to the next, then it is Mubah (Permissible)"
Allama Khalil Ahmed Saharanpuri wrote:
“We do not consider commemoration of the birth of the Pride of the World, upon him peace, itself, prohibited. Rather, commemorating his birth, just like commemorating his other conditions and states, is praiseworthy. Thus, this matter is mentioned explicitly in the fatwa of Mawlawi Ahmad ‘Ali Sahib Muhaddith Saharanpuri.” (Al-Barahin al-Qati’ah, p. 8)
And he wrote:
"“Commemorating the states which have the least connection with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is from the most desirable of recommended acts (ahabb al-mandubat) and the greatest of preferable acts (a‘la l-mustahabbat) according to us, whether it is the commemoration of his noble birth or commemoration of his urine, faeces, standing, sitting, sleeping and waking as is stated clearly in our treatise called Al-Barahin al-Qati‘ah at various junctures therein.”
Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanawi and Mawlana Ahmad Ali Saharanpuri wrote fatwas in defence of Mawlid too. They deemed only the Mawlid with wrongs to be impermissible. As, in Barahin Qat'ia, Khalil Ahmed Saharanpuri wrote:
“However, due to the unlawful things that have become attached to them (the Mawlid functions), a ruling is given to the combination of it being bid’ah and abomination, or of shirk and prohibition. And this ruling is by consideration of those unlawful restrictions, not because of the commemoration itself.” (p. 8)"
Mawlana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi wrote:
“The birth-commemoration itself is recommended, and its reprehensibility is a result of the [innovated] restrictions [in the general Mawlid functions].” (Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p. 258)
Furthermore, in several places of the Fatawa, Mawlana Gangohi clearly qualifies the prohibition with the “widespread” (murawwajah) Mawlid functions. For example, on p. 174, he says: “The widespread mawlud function is bid’ah, and because of being mixed with reprehensible matters it is prohibitively disliked.” On p. 270, it explicitly states that because most mawlid and ‘urs functions are not free of bid’ah (innovated restrictions) and unlawful practices, all of them should be avoided.
If Mawlid in the month of Rabi al-Awwal is conducted with the belief that it is always recommended but because of a specific reason it is conducted specially on 12th, then it will be permissible.
For Example, The great scholar of Hadith and Hanbali jurist Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (Allah have mercy on him) has compiled a detailed work on the merits and virtues of each of the twelve Islamic months titled ‘Lata'if al-Ma’arif fi ma li Mawasim al-Am min al-Waza’if’. In the section on Rabi’ al-Awwal, he has multiple entries on the birth events of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) – the first being, ‘The mention of the birth of the Messenger of Allah (Allah have mercy on him) ( Al majlis al awwal fi dhikr mawlid rasul Allah)’.
The great scholar of Hadith and Hanafi jurist Imam Abdul-Hayy al-Lakhnawi (Allah have mercy on him) has compiled a very useful work for Imams and Khatibs comprising of many sample Friday sermons to be delivered throughout the entire year titled, ‘Al-Lata’if al-Mustahsanah’. In the first sermon of Rabi’ al-Awwal, he says:
“This month of Rabi’ al-Awwal has come unto you; a month in which the beloved of Allah, the intercessor and the most complete one (Allah bless him & give him peace) was born – according to the correct position. As such, increase Salawat on the best of creation in this month and obey his commands in regards to the unlawful and lawful….” ( Al-Lata’if al-Mustahsanah p: 27)
Although, their is some kind of specification in discussing the Mawlid during the friday sermons in the month of Rabi al-Awwal. But it is permissible because the reason for specification is correct.
Moreover, the impermissiblity for Mawlid was for the Indian Muslims only not for the non Indians. Even students of Rashid Ahmed Gangohi attended Milad (when not in India). For the ease of continuity from year to year, it will be allowed but it should not be given more importance then it deserves. The greatest of the scholars, the leader of the Ulema, Sayyid al-Shaykh al-Allama al-Alawi al-Maliki (May Allah bless him) said:
"“Gathering for the purpose of the noble prophetic birth is nothing but a customary practice, and is not at all part of worship, and this is what we believe and take as our religion before Allah Most High.”
And he (May Allah bless him) said:
"We announce that specifying one night besides another for this gathering is the greatest estrangement from the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace).”
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 11, 2017 11:03:54 GMT
Shaykh Allama Abd al-Ghani An-Nabalusi Shaykh ′Abd al-Ghani ibn Isma′il al-Nablusi (an-Nabalusi) (19 March 1641 – 5 March 1731), an eminent Muslim scholar and Sufi, was born in Damascus in 1641 into a family of Islamic scholarship. His father, Isma'il Abd al-Ghani, was a jurist in the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam and a contributor to Arabic literature. He was orphaned at an early age. Abd al-Ghani did not trace his descent to the city of Nablus as some laymen think, hence his surname Nabulsi has nothing to deal with the city of (Nablus). Before the age of 20 he was teaching and giving formal legal opinions (fatwa). He joined both the mystical orders Qadiriyya and Naqshbandi. He then studies in isolation in his house for 7 years studying divine experiences.[1] He taught in the Umawi Mosque in Damascus and the Salihiyya Madrasa, becoming renowned throughout the region as an accomplished Islamic scholar. He travelled extensively, seeing Istanbul (1664), Lebanon (1688), Jerusalem (1689), Palestine (1689), Egypt (1693), Arabia (1693), and Tripoli (1700). He died and was buried in Damascus in 1731 at 90 years of age. His Works:
He wrote over 300 books and monographs. His views on religious tolerance towards other religions were developed under the inspiration of the works of the Andalusian Sufi master, Muhyi al-Dīn al-Maghribī. 'Arabness', concern was the impoverished conditions of Islamic communities, was influenced by the writings of the jurist Najm al-Din al-Ghazzi (1570-1651). He made two visits to Palestine, in 1690, and 1693-4, visiting Christian and Jewish sites, as well as sacred Muslim shrines, and he enjoyed there the hospitality of local Christian monks.[4] Subjects he wrote about include Sufism, Rihla, agriculture, and poetry. He also wrote ethnographic works based on his travels to Tripoli, Egypt, Jerusalem, Lebanon and other areas of the Middle East. 1.'Idâh al-Maqsud min wahdat al-wujud (Clarifying What is Meant by the Unity of Being) 2. Sharh Diwan Ibn Farid (Commentary on Ibn Farid's Poem) 3. Jam'u al-Asrâr fi man'a al-Ashrâr 'an at-Ta'n fi as-Sufiyah al-Akhyar (Collection of the secrets to prevent the evils castigate the pious Sufis) 4. Shifa' al-Sadr fî Fada'il Laylat al-Nisf Min Sha'bân wa Layllat al-Qadr (Curing the heart on the Virtues of the night of Nisfu Sha'ban and The Night of Qadr) 5. Nafahat al-Azhar 'Ala Nasamat al-Ashar, a badī‘iyya in praise of the Prophet, 'no doubt' inspired by 'A'isha al-Ba'uniyya's al-Fatḥ al-mubīn fī 6. madḥ al-amīn (Clear Inspiration, on Praise of the Trusted One); both writers accompanied their respective badī‘iyyas with a commentary. 7. al-Sulh bayn al-ikhwan fi hukm ibahat al-dukhan, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Dahman (Damascus, 1924). 8. Ta‘tir al-anam fi tafsir al-ahlam, ed. Taha ‘Abd al-Ra’uf Sa‘d, 2 vols. (Damascus, n.d.) 9. al-Haqiqa wa al-majaz fi al-rihla ila bilad al-sham wa misr wa al-hijaz, edited by Ahmad ‘Abd al-Majid al-Haridi (Cairo, 1986) is the longest rihla. This rihla also goes by the title al-Rihla al-kubra and covers over 500 folios in minuscule. The journey began on Muharram 1005/ September 1693 and ended with the Hajj 388 days later. 10. al-Hadra al-Unsiyya fî al-Rihla al-Qudsiyya, also called al-Rihla al-wustd focuses on al-Nablusi's trip to Palestine, specifically Jerusalem and 12. Hebron. 13. Nihayat al-murad fi sharh hadiyat Ibn al-‘Imad, ed. ‘‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Halabi (Limmasol, 1994). 14. al-Hadiqa al-nadiyya: Sharh al-tariqa al-muhammadiyya, 2 vols. (Lailbur, 1977). 15. Hillat al-dhahab al-ibriz fi rihlat Ba'albak wa-al-Biqa' al-'aziz, often known as al-Rihla al-Sughrd, was the first of al-Nabulsi's rihla. It describes a 15-day journey to Lebanon in AH 1100/ AD 1688. 16. al-Tuhfa al-Nabulusiyya ft 1-rihla al-Tarabulusiyya was his second rihla, describing a 40-day trip across Lebanon to Tripoli 17. Kitab 'ilm al-malahah fi 'ilm al-falahah 18. Book of Dreams Kitab al Mandm.
|
|
|
Post by SyedMuhammadIbnAlAfaq on Mar 8, 2017 19:24:19 GMT
Jazaakum Allaahu 5airan. I very much appreciate the depth of the answer, and the sources. Now my eemaan is shook though. This is a Aqidah question, and I therefor don't know whether this is where it belongs, but since we are already on the topic; Is it the view of ahlussunnah wal jamaa3a, that the prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was without mistakes? It has for a long time been a notion of mine, that flawless human beings remains the problem of christians and shiites. However, now I am finding an increasing number of religious people saying this, and in my heart I believe only Allaah سبحانه وتعالى is free of flaws and mistakes. I understand, that the Messenger saws makes mistakes for our benefit, so that we may learn from him, what to do when we commit mistakes or so that he may establish sunnahs. But is he raised above mistakes per se? I believe he صلى الله عليه وسلم is sinless, however I have not had incentive to believe that he is flawless until now. In extension, can the other prophets AS commit mistakes (obviously not sins)? My problem is the words of the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, when he has allegedly said: كل بني آدم خطاء وخير الخطائين التوابون. Am I sinful for having believed otherwise? Prophet's Infallibility:Ibn al-Juwayni (Imam al-Haramayn) said in al-Irshad (p. 298-299): “As for sins that are considered small, according to specificity as we shall explain, the minds do not deny them [as possible for Prophets]. I did not come upon a categorically explicit transmitted proof either negating them or asserting them [as possible]. For explicitly categorical proofs come either from explicit texts (nusus) or from consensus (ijma’) and there is no consensus [either], since the ulema differ over the possibility of small sins for Prophets. The explicit, unambiguous or un-interpretable texts that would categorically establish the principles pertaining to this issue are simply not found. So if it is said that since the matter is conjectural, what is the strongest conjecture in the matter in your opinion? We say: Our strongest conjecture is that they are possible. The stories of the Prophets in many a verse of the Book of Allah Most High bear witness to that [conjecture]. But Allah knows best what is right.”Imam al-Ghazzali said the same in substance in al-Mankhul (p. 223), a youthful work consisting of his class-notes from Imam al-Haramayn. But Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki said in his Qasida Nuniyya: “ They said Allah precludes small sins from Prophets
and in our [Ash’ari] School are two positions.
Preclusion is narrated from the Master(*) and al-Qadi
Iyad, and it is the strongest position.
It is the position I take and was that of my father
exempting their rank from any defect. Al-Ash’ari is our Imam but in this we differ with him
one and all.
And we say that we are on his path but his companions
are split in two parties over the matter.
Some Ash’aris even said Prophets are completely free
of forgetfulness.
Yet all are considered al-Ash’ari’s followers. This
dissent does not expel them from that status. ”
(*) The Master = Abu Mansur `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, author of Usul al-Din, al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq, and other important works of doctrine.
Source: Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:387-388).
So the conjecture of Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478) and his student Hujjat al-Islam (d. 505) was NOT retained by later Ash’aris nor earlier ones other than al-Ash’ari himself. Instead, the majority of the ulema including the Imams of the Four Schools of Law followed what they considered to be the stronger position, namely that Prophets are protected even from small sins. Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifa writes in Fiqh al-Akbar:
"The prophets (upon them be blessings and peace) are all free from minor sins, enormities, unbelief, and wicked acts. However, some slips and mistakes have escaped them."
[ Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar: An Accurate Translation pg 37 ghayb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Al-Fiqh-Al-Akbar-An-Accurate-Translation.pdf ]Thus al-Amidi said in al-Ihkam (1:171) that all but the Khawarij concur Prophets are protected from the minor sins if the latter bear on their character. If, however, it comes to a rare word spoken out of anger, then the majority of the Ash’aris and Mu’tazilis allow it. Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa’ said that the Jumhur of the Jurists from the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from all minor sins because one is required to follow them in the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that this is obligatory to believe. Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini’s (d. 418) position was "No sin great or small issues from Prophets whether deliberately or by mistake and this is also our position.” (Taj al-Din al-Subki Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Wusta as cited in the Kubra (4:260)). Imam al-Zarqani said in his monumental commentary on al-Qastallani’s al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya (5:361) [Al-Qastallani’s original text is in parentheses): <<(And among his Mu’jizaat [stunning miracles] is that he is immune from sins) before Prophethood and after it (both great and small, both by deliberate commission and by mistake) according to the soundest view, outwardly and inwardly, in secret and in public, in earnest and in jest, in contentment and in anger. And how not, when the Companions were unanimous in following him and faithfully imitating him in all his acts? (As were the Prophets) Al-Subki said: “The Umma concurs on the true immunity (’isma) of Prophets, in what pertains to conveyance and other, from grave and small, contemptible sins as well as persistence in small sins but there is disagreement over small sins that do not detract from their rank. The Mu’tazila and many others allow them. The preferred view is that they are precluded because we have been ordered to follow them in what issues from them; how then could something inappropriate occur on their part? As for those that deemed it possible, they did not do so on the basis of any textual stipulation or proof.” That is, they only clang to externalities which, if they followed their logical conclusions, would lead them to violate consensus and take positions no Muslim takes, as expounded by `Iyad [in al-Shifa’].>>They concurred that a necessary attribute of Prophets is absolute trustworthiness (amana): “And essential for them [Prophets] is absolute trustworthiness”
(Jawharat al-Tawhid, verse 59)
which necessitates true immunity (’isma) or from haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts (khilaf al-awla) (and even some of the mubah or indifferently permitted) except for a necessity of legislating a law, because Allah Most High made them our qidwa – obligatory paradigmatic model to follow without exception – and He does not want us to follow any haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts. {Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much} (33:21).Further, Allah Most High praised and literally exalted the Prophet’s character in no uncertain terms: {And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature} (68:4).
The apparent counter-examples found in the Qur’an all without exception have interpretations that confirm the over-riding principles derived from the above verses and the conclusions of the majority of scholars (jumhur) I have just documented. For example, our liege-lord Adam’s disobedience (upon him peace) meant forgetfulness, or he was given Prophethood after he was forgiven. The consensus is that Prophets were sinless but were not necessarily created so nor made so from the very beginning of their Prophetic mission. Yet such verses are a mercy from Allah Most High and His confirmation of other verses to the effect that the Holy Prophet is one of mankind, not an angel, and so were previous Prophets, so that mankind will have no excuse such as the claim that he and they were impossible to imitate or understand etc. – and Allah Most High knows best. The closest text to this issue is probably the following explanation of the hadith of the removal of the black clot from the heart of the Prophet, upon him peace. I came across this beautiful passage in Ibn al-Subki’s Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al- Kubra (10:266-267): “I heard my father – Allah have mercy on him – say, when he was asked about the black clot that was removed / from the heart of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him in his childhood, at the time of the splitting of his breast, and the statement of the angel to him, ‘This is Satan’s lot from you (hadha hazhzh al-shaytani minka)’:
<<This clot Allah created in the hearts of human beings as naturally fit (qabilatan) for whatever Satan casts into it and it was removed from his heart – Allah bless and greet him – so that no place remained in it fit for anything Satan could cast. This is the meaning of the hadith. There was no lot for Satan in the Prophet whatsoever. What the angel threw out was only a matter present in all human constitutions. That capacity was removed but its presence did not [in the first place] necessitate that anything had been cast into the heart. If you asked, “Why was that capacity created in that noble person when it was possible to create it without it?” I say, Because it is part of the human constituents. So its creation is part of the completion of human creation and is indispensable, while its removal is a Divine command that took place later on.>>
“I saw in the hand-writing of my brother, our Shaykh the Imam Abu Hamid Ahmad, Allah save him, that he saw my father in dream on top of a high mountain lush with magnificent gardens. In my brother’s hand was a lantern by the light of which he was reading to my father the text of the above discussion. He then thought that the lantern had gone out and began to repeat to my father, ‘The lantern is out’, several times. My father raised his head and told him, ‘No’. My brother looked and saw that it was as my father said; ‘But,’ he said, ‘there were lights on my father many times stronger than the light of the lantern and this is why I had thought it went out. In my sleep it came to my heart that those lights were because of the blessings of this research.’” End of the text from Ibn al-Subki.The writer of these lines heard another moving explanation of the black clot removal related from the great Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, namely, that the clot consisted in the portion of the disbelievers at whose eternal doom, had it not been removed, the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) would have felt unbearable mercy on the Day of Judgment because he was created and sent as a mercy for the universes. Even so, the Prophet shall include them in his intercession at the time all creatures stand in wait under the sun for the Judgment to begin! So Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions until the end of time and for all eternity. The purification of the heart of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, as a young boy is also a proof that he received `Isma even before his Nubuwwa, and Allah knows best. See on this topic, in addition to the above sources:
– Al-Razi, `Ismat al-Anbiya’ (`Ilmiyya p. 28, top)
– Al-Laqani, Jawharat al-Tawhid verse 59.
– Al-Laqani, Ithaf al-Murid (p. 179-180).
– Al-Bajuri, Sharh al-Jawhara.
– Al-Sawi, Sharh al-Jawhara (p. 280).
– Al-Rifa`i, al-Ma`rifa (p. 77-78).
– Al-Hashimi, Miftah al-Janna (p. 204)
– Nuh `Ali Salman, Sharh al-Jawhara (p. 124-125).
– Al-Maliki, Muhammad (sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) al-Insanu al-Kamil
– Siraj al-Din, Sayyiduna Muhammad (sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam), etc.
See also al-Shatibi’s Muwafaqat (3:265).
As a general note unrelated to this particular question, it is advisable not to approach the status of Prophethood with inquiries except with the highest good manners. Prophets are the elect of the Creator and like or above the angels in rank. We should take care, also, to focus on what is vital to our salvation and relinquish pursuits that are not only irrelevant but actually damaging to faith and works. Qur'an says : "Know, then, that there is no god except Allah, AND ASK FORGIVENSS FOR YOUR SIN and for the believing men and believing women." (47:19)
If it is said that this verse of Qur'an is against the our belief because it commands the prophet to ask forgiveness and the Prophets are free from sin so this is not possible. Then this does not negate his (Allah bless him and give him peace) infallibility or that of the other Messengers (Allah bless them and give them all peace). The definition of trustworthiness (amana) is: “Allah’s protection of the inward and outward of the Prophets from committing something prohibited, even if only disliked, and even during their childhood. And this is termed `isma (being preserved from sin).” [al-Dardir, Sharh al-Kharida al-Bahiyya]
The belief of Ahl al-Sunna is that the Prophets (Allah bless them and give them all peace) are protected from major and minor sins, before and after prophethood. Regarding this, Imam Munawi, author of the brilliant Fayd al-Qadir Sharh Jami` al-Saghir, comments: “i.e. ‘All of that is possible (i.e. present), so forgive me for it.’ He said this out of humility, or intending it for that which happened forgetfully or unintentionally, or before prophethood, or simply to set a precedent for his community.”
Abu al-Su`ud Effendi was one of the Grand Muftis of the Ottoman Empire, and a master exegete of the Qur’an producing one of the finest works in the field, Irshad al-`Aql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Kitab al-Karim. At the relevant part of the verse above, he comments that this was perhaps from that which was sub-optimal for the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and that Allah referred to it as a “sin” in view of his exalted rank. How could it be otherwise when the good deeds of the righteous (abrar) are sins of those brought near (muqarrabin)! Biqa`i mentioned that because the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) was continually rising in degrees to higher stations, the previous, lower station in relation to the higher station was akin to a sin with respect to him. And others have said that his seeking forgiveness was simply to establish a sunna for his community as he (Allah bless him and give him peace) was free and exalted from sin. [Biqa`i, Nazm al-Durar fi Tanasub al-Ayat wa al-Suwar; al-Suyuti/al-Mahlli, Tafsir al-Jalalayn]
In summary, the answer to your question is that Prophets are all free from minor sins, enormities, unbelief, and wicked acts. However, some slips and mistakes have escaped them. This is the answer to the objection regarding the saying of the messenger of Allah: كل بني آدم خطاء وخير الخطائين التوابون May Allah give us the tawfiq to show due veneration to our Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and all of the Prophets and Messengers (Allah bless them and give them all peace), and recognize their exalted rank as perfected slaves of Allah.
|
|