Monday, 30 January 2017

Barelwi Kalimah: "Chishti Rasulullah"

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

In a previous post we examined how the Barelwis justified the incident of Shaikh Abu Bakr Shibli asking his potential disciples to recite a new Kalimah: لا الـه الا الله, شبلى رسول الله “There is none worthy of worship save Allah; Shibli is the Messenger of Allah”. The Barelwi scholar Maulana Shah Gul Hasan justified the uttering of this apparent statement of Kufr:

بات یہ تھی کہ جو شخص تعلیم و تلقین اور ہدایت و ارشاد کرتا ہے طالب کے لیے وہی رسول ہے اور رسالت الہی کا کام انجام دیتا ہے۔

“That person who teaches, preaches, and guides is a Rasul for the disciple, and carries out the function of being God’s Messenger.” (Tazkirat-e-Ghausiya; p.324)


Another a Barelwi scholar, “Qutb ul Aqtab” Khwajah Qutb Uddin Bakhtiar Kaki, in his book Fawaid-us-Salikin, mentions a similar incident concerning Hadrat Mu’in Uddin Hasan Chishti (popularly known as “Gharib Nawaz” whose tomb is in Ajmer, India) where a prospective disciple was asked to say and did say a new Kalimah:
   لا الـه الا الله, چشتى رسول الله

ایک شخص  باہر سے آیا اور بیعت ہونے کی نیت سے خواجہ صاحب کے قدموں میں سر رکھ دیا۔ آپ نے فرمایا بیٹھ جا۔ وہ بیٹھ گیا اور اس نے عرض کی کہ میں آپ کی خدمت میں مرید ہونے کے واسطے آیا ہوں! شیخ صاحب اس وقت اپنی خاص حالت میں تھے۔ آپ نے فرمایا کہ جو کچھ میں تجھے کہتا ہوں وہ کہو اور بجالا تب مرید کروں گا۔ اس نے عرض کی کہ جو آپ فرمائیں میں بجالا نے کو تیار ہوں۔ آپ نے فرمایا کہ تو کلمہ کس طرح پڑھتا ہے؟ اس نے کہا لا الہ الا اللہ محمد رسول اللہ۔ آپ نے فرمایا یوں کہو! لا الہ الا اللہ  چشتی رسول اللہ۔ اس نے اسی طرح کہا۔ خواجہ صاحب نے اسے بیعت کرلیا اور خلعت و نعمت دی اور بیعت کے شرف سے مشرف کیا پھر اس شحص کو فرمایا کہ سن! میں نے تجھے جو کہا تھا کہ کلمہ اس طرح پڑھو! یہ صرف تیرا عقیدہ آزمانے کی خاطر کہا تھا ورنہ میں کون ہوں؟ میں تو ایک ادنی سا غلام محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کا ہوں۔ کلمہ اصل میں وہی ہے لیکن میں نے صرف حال کی کمالیت کی وجہ سے یہ کلمہ تیری زبان سے کہلوایا تھا چونکہ تو مرید ہونے کیلئے آیا ہے اور تجھ پر یقین کامل تھا۔ اس لئے فورا‎ تو نے ایسا کہہ دیا اس لئے سچا مرید ہوگیا۔ اور در حقیقت مرید کا صدق بھی ایسا ہی ہونا چاہۓ کہ اپنے پیر کی خدمت میں صادق اور راسخ رہے۔


Translation: A person from abroad came with the intention of giving the Bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) to Khwajah sahib [Pir Mu’in Uddin Hasan Chishti] and placed his head between Khwajah’s feet. Khwajah sahib said: “Sit down”. He sat down and said: “I have come to you for the purpose of becoming your disciple”. At the time Shaikh [Chishti] was in his particular [spiritual] state and said: “Whatever I say to you repeat it, only then I will make you into my disciple”. The man said: “I am ready to repeat whatever you tell me to say”. Khwajah sahib asked: “How do you read the Kalimah?” The man said: “La elaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah”. Khwajah sahib said: “Say like this: La elaha illa Allah, Chishti Rasul Allah”. The man said it like that. Khwajah sahib then accepted his Bay’ah and furthermore honored him with a gift and with the proximity of companionship. Then he said to that man: “Listen! When I told you to read the Kalimah like this, it was only for the sake of testing your aqidah, otherwise who am I? I am just an insignificant slave of Muhammad the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him. In reality that is the Kalimah, but I only made you recite this other Kalimah on your tongue because you came for the purpose of becoming a disciple and you possess perfect certitude. That is why you immediately repeated what I told you to say and became a true disciple. And in reality a disciple’s sincerity should be like this; he should be sincere to his Pir (spiritual guide) and cling to him.”


Reference: Fawaid-us-Salikin; p.23


This citation from a Barelwi text is highly problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, while Khwajah Chishti was apparently testing his prospective disciple, by accepting the man’s Bay’ah and rewarding him, it becomes clear that the disciple in fact passed the test; whereas according to the principles of Islam the man failed the test and should have been rejected by any true Saint or Guide. When asked to say a Kalimah of Kufr, a true Believer would not repeat that Kalimah but instead refuse to do so thereby demonstrating his faithfulness to Islam. However, Khwajah Mu’in Uddin Chishti (according to this story) revealed the fact that the purpose of the test was to determine the extent to which the man was willing to blindly follow him, which is why he stated that a disciple should be like that and cling to his Pir with such fanaticism and blindness. This shows the grave error of the Barelwis and their extreme form of Sufism in blindly following a Pir and showing greater loyalty to him over and above the teachings of the Islamic Faith and Shari’ah. I conclude that it is in fact the Barelwis who are opposing the principle of Khatam an-Nubuwwah (Finality of Prophethood) by teaching people to give precedence to their Sufi guides over and above the Prophet ().

Deobandi Belief: Prophet (ﷺ) Can Appear In Another Form; Came in Form of Ashraf Thanwi

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
In a previous post we looked at how the Deobandis believe that the Prophet () came to someone in a dream in the form of Deobandi mulla Rashid Ahmad Gangohi. The reason this is considered blasphemous and so objectionable is because the Prophet Muhammad () is the most beautiful and illuminated personality that it is inconceivable he would appear to someone in the form of anyone else. The Prophet () said: “Whoever sees me in a dream will see me when he is awake; the Shaytaan cannot take my shape.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6592; Muslim, 2266). For this reason, if anyone claims to have seen the Prophet () in a dream, it is essential that the person describe precisely the image he saw in order to determine whether that is indeed the Prophet () or not: We have narrated it with a complete isnaad from Ismaa’eel ibn Ishaaq al-Qaadi from Sulaymaan ibn Harb – who was one of the shaykhs of al-Bukhaari – from Hammaad ibn Zayd from Ayyoob who said: If a man told Muhammad (meaning Ibn Sireen) that he had seen the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) [in a dream], he would say, “Describe to me the one whom you saw.” If he gave a description that he did not recognize, he would say, “You did not see him.” Its isnaad is saheeh, and I have found another report which corroborates it. Al-Haakim narrated via ‘Aasim ibn Kulayb (who said), my father told me: I said to Ibn ‘Abbaas, “I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a dream.” He said, “Describe him to me.” He said, “I mentioned al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali and said that he looked like him.” He said, “You did indeed see him.” Its isnaad is jayyid. Fath al-Baari, 12/383, 384. These traditions establish the fact that the Prophet () can only be seen in his own Surah (form) and it is impossible that the Prophet () should appear to anyone in another form apart from his own. The wisdom behind this is that since it is impossible for Satan to appear in the form of the Prophet () it would be very easy to determine whether a person really saw the Prophet () in a dream or not. But if the Prophet () appears to people in various forms it would become difficult perhaps even impossible to determine whether the dreamer really saw him or not.
But contrary to this, the Hakim-ul-Ummat of the Deobandi sect, Ashraf Ali Thanwi asserted that it is possible for the Prophet () to be seen in the form of someone else:
حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم کا کسی کی شکل میں نظر آنا ممکن ہے: حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم کا خواب میں کسی دوسری صورت میں بوجہ کسی تعلق خاص کے نظر آنا ممکن اور واقع ہے۔ ایک شخص نے خواب میں دیکھا کہ اس کے سامنے حضرت مولانا کلید مثنوی ہاتھ میں لۓ پڑھ رہے ہیں اور قرینہ سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ پڑھ کر بتاتے ہیں کہ تم پڑھو اس نے غایت ادب سے سکوت کیا تو حضرت مولانا نے کلید مثنوی اس کے ہاتھ میں دی اور فرمایا لو پڑھو۔ یکا یک معلوم ہوا کہ حضرت مولانا نہیں ہیں حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم ہیں۔ اس خادم نے یہ خواب حضرت مولانا سے عرض کیا تو نہایت خوش ہوۓ اور فرمایا وہ حضور صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم ہی تھے اور یہ علاوہ باتوں کے ان شا‍‎ء اللہ کلید مثنوی کی مقبولیت کی دلیل ہے۔
Translation: It is possible for the Prophet () to appear in the form of someone else: For the Prophet () to appear in some other person’s form, due to a particular spiritual relationship with him, is possible and something that actually transpires. A person saw in a dream that before someone Hadrat Mawlana [Ashraf Thanwi] is reading the book Kalîd-e-Masnawi, and while reading it says “you read it”. With utmost politeness he remained silent, so Hadrat Mawlana [Ashraf Thanwi] placed Kalîd-e-Masnawi in his hand and said: “Here, read it”. Suddenly it became known that this is not Hadrat Mawlana [Ashraf Thanwi] but it is the Prophet (). That servant informed Hadrat Mawlana [Ashraf Thanwi] about this dream and the latter became extremely happy, saying: “That was indeed the Prophet (), and this, despite other things, is In Sha Allah a proof for the good reception of Kalîd-e-Masnawi.”
Reference: Malfûzât Hakîm-ul-Ummat; v.29 p.46


Punishment of Stoning for Adultery

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

 The issue of Rajm or stoning to death for the crime of adultery is a controversial one in the present age. Because Western, secular civilization has been ascendant for some time, immorality and corruption, manifested through such crimes as adultery for example, has become widespread; to such an extent that people are uncomfortable to hear that in the Islamic Shari’ah the punishment for committing adultery is stoning to death.

Some modern-day Muslims deny Rajm and claim that the command to stone the adulterer to death is nowhere found in the Holy Qur’an, which only institutes the punishment of flogging with a hundred stripes the man and woman found guilty of Zina (fornication). They further argue that the Islamic tradition of stoning for adultery was wrongly imported into the Religion from Judaica.

Historically, the first group of Muslims to deny the legality of Rajm was not these “modernists”, but an ancient Kharijite sect known as the Azariqah named after Nafi’ b. al-Azraq (d. 685 C.E). They were the first to deny stoning to death for adultery as they too claimed it is a punishment that is not found in the Holy Qur’an, despite the fact that the rest of the early Muslim community subscribed to the view that Rajm is the necessary penalty for those found guilty of adultery.

The punishment of Rajm did not begin with, nor is it unique to Islam. This punishment comes down from the Torah as revealed to Prophet Moses:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 22:22)

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:21)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die (Deuteronomy 22: 23 – 24)

It is often argued that the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to lapidation. Christians cite a story of Jesus forgiving a woman found guilty of adultery, whom the Jews wanted to have stoned to death. This is a Biblical passage found only in the Gospel of John known as the Pericope Adulterae. It is a fabrication not found in the earliest manuscripts, and this is the general consensus of impartial Bible scholars and historians. However, what the Pericope Adulterae reveals to us is that in the time of Jesus, the Jews understood that according to the law of Moses those found guilty of adultery are to be stoned to death:

“They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned” (John 8: 4 – 5)

According to an authentic Hadith:

The Jews came to Allah’s Messenger () and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Messenger () said to them, “What do you find in the Torah about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, “we announce their crime and lash them.” ‘Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. ‘Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet () then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Bukhari)

This Hadith has a number of benefits: 1. The Jews considered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a fair and just person; and perhaps they knew in their hearts that he was truly a Prophet, so they went to him to have him judge them and resolve their disputes. 2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) judged the Jews in accordance with the Torah (the Laws of Moses) 3. The Jewish scholars had historically tried to subvert the Laws of Moses and like modern-day Muslims, become lax in their implementation of the divine Laws, even distorting the divine Laws, 4. The Prophet (peace be upon him) consulted with ‘Abdullah b. Salam, a rabbi who converted to Islam, regarding what was actually written in the Torah.

Those who deny the punishment of Rajm (lapidation) for adultery claim that the Holy Qur’an has only instituted the penalty of flogging with a hundred stripes (Surah 24: 2). The answer to this objection is that the word Zina is general in referring to any kind of illegal sexual intercourse, including both premarital and extra-marital relations. We come to know from the Sunnah that there is a specific punishment for extra-marital adultery which is simply not mentioned in the text of the Holy Qur’an. The command of the Holy Qur’an is therefore not at all abrogated or contravened by the practice from the Sunnah to put to death those found guilty of extra-marital adultery through lapidation. The reality is that the Sunnah has only added a punishment for a specific crime, whereas the text of the Qur’an has ordered a punishment for a general crime. Therefore, according to Islamic law, if someone is found guilty of premarital relations, he or she is to be flogged with a hundred lashes only. But if someone is found guilty of extra-marital relations, he or she is to be flogged with a hundred lashes in compliance with the Qur’anic command that is general, and then subsequently stoned to death in accordance to the practice of the Sunnah for having committed a specific form of Zina. This is the explanation of the Lion of God, Sayyidina ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him):

أَنَّ عَلِيًّا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ حِينَ رَجَمَ الْمَرْأَةَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ ، ضَرَبَهَا يَوْمَ الْخَمِيسِ ، وَرَجَمَهَا يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ ، وَقَالَ : " أَجْلِدُهَا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ ، وَأَرْجُمُهَا بِسُنَّةِ نَبِيِّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

Ali (Allah be pleased with him) had a woman stoned from the people of Kufah. He lashed her on Thurday and stoned her on Friday, and said: “I flogged her according to the Book of Allah (Qur’an) and stoned her in accordance to the Sunnah of Allah’s Prophet peace be upon him.” (Musnad Ahmad)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad affirmed Rajm (lapidation) as the punishment for adultery:

 اللہ تعالی چور کے ہاتھ کاٹنے کے لۓ اور زانی کے سنگسار کرنے کے لۓ قرآن کریم میں صاف حکم فرماتا ہے

“Allah Most High clearly commands in the Holy Qur’an that the hand of the thief be cut and the adulterer stoned.”

Reference: Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 6, p. 252

Similarly, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s son and second successor, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote:

 اسلامی حکومتوں میں اس وقت حدود ترک ہیں – اِلَّا مَاشَآءَ الله – ترکوں کی حکومت میں، عرب میں، مصر میں، ایران میں بلکہ خود جناب ہی کے بلاد میں زانی کو رجم کی اور چور کو قطع ید کی سزا نہیں دی جاتی

“A change connected with the time of the Promised Messiah, and mentioned by the Holy Prophet, is the abrogation of penalties prescribed by the criminal law of Islam. Hazrat Ali has narrated according to Dailmy, that one sign of the latter days would be the abrogation of statutory penalties. The sign has been fulfilled. In all Islamic governments today Islamic penalties have disappeared. In Turkey, Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, and even in Afghanistan, ‘stoning for adultery’ and ‘cutting off the hand for theft’ are no longer recognized punishments. Some Muslim governments have agreed to their abrogation under treaty agreements with other countries. This is a clear and a significant sign. When Muslim governments were prosperous and Islamic ideas prevailed, nobody could think that Islamic penalties would ever be set aside. Nobody could imagine that there would arise such a general prejudice against the use of Islamic penalties that even those Islamic governments who wished to retain these penalties would be unable to do so.”

Reference: Da’wat ul Amir; p. 417

Saturday, 28 January 2017

The Seer is a Kind of Prophet

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

 For those who believe that Nubuwwah (Prophethood) has been terminated absolutely; seeing of visions is a characteristic or part of Nubuwwah which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) explained as something that remains among his Ummah after him:

 لَمْ يَبْقَ مِنَ النُّبُوَّةِ إِلَّا الْمُبَشِّرَاتُ ، قَالُوا : وَمَا الْمُبَشِّرَاتُ ؟ ، قَالَ : الرُّؤْيَا الصَّالِحَةُ

“Nothing remains from Prophethood except the Mubashshiraat.” They said: “And what are the Mubashshiraat?” He said: “Pious Visions”


الرُّؤْيَا الصَّالِحَةُ مِنَ اللَّهِ

“The True Vision is from Allah”


" لَا نُبُوَّةَ بَعْدِي إِلَّا الْمُبَشِّرَاتِ " قَالَ : قِيلَ : وَمَا الْمُبَشِّرَاتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ؟ قَالَ : " الرُّؤْيَا الْحَسَنَةُ " ، أَوْ قَالَ : " الرُّؤْيَا الصَّالِحَةُ "

“There is not Prophethood after me except the Mubashshiraat.” It was asked: “And what are the Mubashshiraat O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “Good Visions” or he said: “Pious Visions”


It is not correct to understand the Ru’yah mentioned here as simply a “dream”. The word Ru’yah literally means “vision”, and can be applied to visions seen while asleep as well as visions seen while awake or in a state midway between wakefulness and sleep. In fact, this prophetic Ru’yah that continues among the Ummah is a form of Wahi (divine revelation):

 عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أُمِّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ أَوَّلُ مَا بُدِئَ بِهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مِنَ الْوَحْىِ الرُّؤْيَا الصَّالِحَةُ فِي النَّوْمِ، فَكَانَ لاَ يَرَى رُؤْيَا إِلاَّ جَاءَتْ مِثْلَ فَلَقِ الصُّبْحِ، ثُمَّ حُبِّبَ إِلَيْهِ الْخَلاَءُ

Narrated Aisha (the mother of the faithful believers): The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah’s Messenger () was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright daylight, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. (Bukhari)

A pious Believer who frequently sees Visions is a “Seer” and is in fact a kind of Prophet, as he has inherited one of the fundamental characteristics of a complete Prophet. This is why in the former Scriptures it is mentioned that a Prophet was referred to as הָרֹאֶ֖ה Rô’eh and חֹזֶ֜ה Chozeh

Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer. (1 Samuel 9:9)

Therefore, a saintly person within the Ummah who frequently sees true Visions that come true is a partial Prophet because he exhibits one of the forty-six parts of Prophethood.

Friday, 27 January 2017

Biblical Prophecy of Conquest of Mecca and Ten Thousand Saints (Deut. 33:2)

One of the most important events in the history of Islam was the Conquest of Mecca in the sacred month of Ramadan, 8 A.H., corresponding to 11 January, 630 C.E. This victorious event, after years of persecution and exile, was prophesied in the Holy Qur’an (for example Surah 48). During this event, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) entered into Mecca accompanied by ten-thousand of his companions:

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَرَجَ فِي رَمَضَانَ مِنَ الْمَدِينَةِ، وَمَعَهُ عَشَرَةُ آلاَفٍ، وَذَلِكَ عَلَى رَأْسِ ثَمَانِ سِنِينَ وَنِصْفٍ مِنْ مَقْدَمِهِ الْمَدِينَةَ، فَسَارَ هُوَ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إِلَى مَكَّةَ

The Prophet () left Medina (for Mecca) in the company of ten-thousand (Muslim warriors) in (the month of) Ramadan, and that was eight and a half years after his migration to Medina. He and the Muslims who were with him, proceeded on their way to Mecca

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

In fact, this event of the Prophet (peace be upon him) entering into Mecca eight and a half years after having been driven out from his homeland, accompanied by ten thousand of his companions, was prophesied in the Torah: 

וַיֹּאמַר, יְהוָה מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ--הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן, וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ; מִימִינוֹ, אשדת (אֵשׁ דָּת) לָמוֹ

“The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” (Deuteronomy 33:2, KJV)

The word used in the Torah is רְבָבָה Rebabah, which means “multitude, myriad, ten thousand” (Strong’s Concordance; 7233)
In Deuteronomy 33:2, the word is used in this form מֵרִבְבֹ֣ת mê·ri·ḇōṯ meaning “from the midst of ten thousand” or “with ten thousands”, and likewise in Psalm 3:6.

The passage in the Torah describes the Prophet’s Companions who accompanied him during the Conquest of Mecca as “holy ones” or “saints”.

Mount Paran is in the wilderness of Paran; a geographic area whose exact location is uncertain for Bible scholars; but is the the region of Hijaz or Tihamah in Arab tradition (called Faran), where the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina are situated. In the Torah, the wilderness of Paran is associated with Ishmael (Genesis 21:21), progenitor of the Ishmaelite Arabs.

Interestingly, the region of Seir is also mentioned in this verse. Seir is a mountain range in Edom (Strong’s Concordance; 8165), and throughout the Hebrew Bible, Seir is the hill country associated with Edom.

Hence, the mention of three locations (Sinai, Seir, and Paran) corresponds to three different dispensations or nations (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Sinai, associated with Moses, where he met God and received the Torah. Seir associated with Edom, which in Jewish tradition refers to Roman civilization and Christendom. And finally Paran, associated with Ishmael and the Arabs.

The prophecy of Deuteronomy 33:2 is therefore a perfect and succinct prophecy regarding the Prophet Muhammad and ten thousand of his holy and saintly companions.

Was Jesus Resurrected from the Dead (Part 3)

The New Testament account of Jesus’s supposed resurrection on the third day mention the fact that the wounds of the crucifixion were still present on Jesus’s supernaturally, resurrected body:

 “But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20: 24 - 27)

The Greek word τύπον (typon) means “mark”, in this context referring to the marks on Jesus’s body, specifically his hands and his side, that resulted from the nails being driven into those parts of his body during the crucifixion.

However, in Christian theology, the dead are supernaturally resurrected into an altogether different body, as Paul of Tarsus explained:

“But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” (1 Corinthians 15: 35 - 52)

Paul’s own theology, which today’s orthodox Christians adhere to, is that the supernaturally resurrected body is not a body of flesh and blood, but a spiritual or celestial body, which is “glorious” and “incorruptible”. Although man is born with a terrestrial, flesh and blood body, in the resurrection he shall be changed into a celestial, spiritual body. This concept of Sôma Pneumatikon (“spiritual body”) obviously conflicts with the idea that when Jesus was resurrected from the dead, he still had the “marks” or “imprint” of the wounds he received during the crucifixion.

 And we see that no exception can be made for Jesus of Nazareth’s resurrection in Paul’s theology, since he cites Jesus in his example of the “last Adam” who is not an earthly body, but a Pneuma (“spirit”).

So if it true that Jesus did in fact appear to his disciples days after having supposedly died on the cross, and appeared to them with his flesh and blood earthly body, then according to Christian theology itself that body could not have been a supernaturally resurrected body. And this is what we Muslims believe; that Jesus was not supernaturally resurrected, but rather survived the crucifixion and recovered from his wounds, which is why the “marks” and “imprint” of his wounds were still visible on his body.

Likewise, the Gospel of Luke explicitly states that Jesus was not resurrected with a Sôma Pneumatikon  (“spiritual body”), but he appeared with a flesh and blood body:

“And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” (Luke 24: 36 – 43)

According to this account, when Jesus appeared to his disciples after his supposed death on the cross, naturally they were alarmed and imagined that they were seeing a spirit. But Jesus dispelled that notion emphatically, by stating “for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”. He even ate a broiled fish and honeycomb right before their eyes to dispel the notion that he was a spirit.

Christians can therefore:

(a) discard Paul’s theology of the resurrection being the change of the earthy, flesh and blood body into a spiritual body, or

(b) discard the belief that Jesus was supernaturally resurrected from the dead

Friday, 20 January 2017

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Prayers Are Not Answered Literally

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) was a neo-Mu’tazilite and modernist thinker who founded the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College (now the Aligarh Muslim University), and was an apostle of modernism and English education among the Muslim community.


According to Sir Syed, the meaning of Allah hearing and answering prayers is that He accepts the act of worship from His servant. Sir Syed argued that the doctrine of pre-destination or the divine decree is incompatible with the idea that a person’s prayers to Allah could result in a divine intervention or a positive change in his life. Sir Syed claimed that when a person prays to Allah, for example, to grant him a son, his prayer does not actually contribute to Allah granting him a son, because it has already been pre-determined whether he will have a son or not, and no amount of prayers or petitions to God can change the pre-determined outcome. Therefore, whenever the Holy Qur’an speaks of God hearing and answering prayers, the meaning is that God is accepting the worship. Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian in his book Barakat ud-Du’a beautifully refuted this absolutely erroneous concept promulgated by Sir Syed, and decisively proven that Allah does indeed hear and answer people’s prayers, and that their prayers benefit them in the sense that Allah grants them in both this life and the hereafter the things which they pray and ask Allah for. Sir Syed summarized his view by stating:


پس اگر استجابت دعا کے معنی سوال کا پورا ہونا قرار دیے جاویں تو خدا کا یہ وعدہ کہ

اَدْعُوْنِى اَسْتَجِبْلَكُمْ

ان سوالوں پر جنکا ہونا مقدر نہیں ہے کسی طرح صادق نہیں آسکتا۔


“If the meaning of answering of prayer is the fulfilment of supplication, then God’s promise ‘call upon Me, I shall answer you’ concerning those supplications whose fulfilment has not been pre-determined, will in no way be truthful.”


Reference: Ad-Du’a wal-Istijabah; pp. 4-5


However, when confronted with examples from the Holy Qur’an where it is explicitly stated that a Prophet prayed to Allah to grant him a son, especially in extraordinary circumstances, and Allah answered the prayer by actually granting him a son (such as the examples of Prophets Abraham and Zechariah), Sir Syed Ahmad claimed that Allah only said He answered their prayers in a metaphorical sense, because it was already pre-destined that they would have sons.

Reference: Ibid; p. 6

Iqbal: "I Admire Iblis"

It is very regrettable that millions of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent hail Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) as a formidable Islamic thinker, and heap praises upon his alleged services for the Religion. I have proven repeatedly on my blog that Iqbal swerved from orthodox Islamic beliefs and principles, and introduced dangerous concepts into the Faith due to being influenced by modernist and foreign ideas.

Photograph of Muhammad Iqbal

Sadly, many people who praise Iqbal are not in the least acquainted with his blasphemous words, for example, he wrote: “I have a certain amount of admiration for the devil. By refusing to prostrate himself before Adam whom he honestly believed to be his inferior, he revealed a high sense of self-respect; a trait of character, which, in my opinion, ought to redeem him from his spiritual deformity, just as the beautiful eyes of the toad redeem him from his physical repulsiveness” (Islam as a Moral and Political Ideal; pp. 36-37)

A Beast from the Earth (27:82)

Regarding the reality of the Beast, the Holy Qur’an says:

وَإِذَا وَقَعَ الْقَوْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ أَخْرَجْنَا لَهُمْ دَابَّةً مِنَ الْأَرْضِ تُكَلِّمُهُمْ أَنَّ النَّاسَ كَانُوا بِآيَاتِنَا لَا يُوقِنُونَ

And when the Word is fulfilled against them, We shall bring out from the earth a Beast to them, which will speak to them; because mankind believed not with certainty in Our Signs

(Sura 27:82)

The phrase “beast of the Earth” is mentioned in several places throughout the Holy Qur’an (6:38; 11:6; 11:56; 16:49; 16:61; 34:14; 35:45; 42:29), and, generally speaking, these are references to land animals.

However, what makes Sura 27:82 so unique is that it is a prophecy of the coming out of a “Beast from the earth”, which is not an ordinary beast, as it will possess the capacity for speech, and speak to the people. In other words, the “Beast” spoken of here is in fact a human being, who due to certain “beastly” characteristics, has been described as a “Beast of the Earth”. There has been much controversy over the reality of this “Beast” among the Muslims. Many of them, generally speaking, attribute fanciful notions to this “Beast” without understanding apocalyptic language.

Let the reader ponder over the special quality mentioned regarding this “Beast”, which is that he shall speak. This “Beast” is therefore not some four-legged animal, or some kind of mythical or monstrous creature. He is an evil human being, or in Qur’anic terminology, a beast that has the ability to speak, and thus deceive people with his tongue.

The Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation discuss quite extensively the reality of the “Beast of the Earth”. I believe it is no coincidence that the Holy Qur’an has used the same phrase “Beast of the Earth” in referring to this apocalyptic figure. The Hebrew Bible mentions four such Beasts: “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth” (Daniel 7:17). The fourth of these four beasts is particularly terrifying, described as devouring and breaking to pieces (Daniel 7:19). The attribute of speech is likewise associated with this fourth beast: “And he shall speak great words against the most High” (Daniel 7:25). The Christian Book of Revelation elaborates: “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:11-17)

Apparently confirming the Book of Revelation, Islamic prophecy tells us about two eschatological figures: the Dajjal (Antichrist) and the Beast of the Earth. Apparently, these two figures are associated with each other, one being an agent for the other, perhaps serving as his “false prophet”.

The Mark of the Beast is something confirmed in various Ahadith, for example:

تَخْرُجُ الدَّابَّةُ فَتَسِمُ النَّاسَ عَلَى خَرَاطِيمِهِمْ , ثُمَّ يَغْمُرُونَ فِيكُمْ حَتَّى يَشْتَرِيَ الرَّجُلُ الْبَعِيرَ , فَيَقُولُ : مِمَّنْ اشْتَرَيْتَهُ ؟ فَيَقُولُ : اشْتَرَيْتُهُ مِنْ أَحَدِ الْمُخَطَّمِينَ

“The Beast will emerge and will mark the people on their noses. Then those who are marked will live among you until a man buys a camel and will be asked, ‘From whom did you buy it?’ He will say, ‘From one of those who are marked on the nose.’”

(Musnad Ahmad)

This Hadith reveals the fact that the mark which the Beast of the Earth places on the faces of people is for the purpose of buying and selling, like in the Book of Revelation: “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark”.

Sayyidatuna Aishah (RA): Say He is Seal of Prophets But Don't Say 'No Prophet After Him'

  باسمك اللهم اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد The Mother of Believers, sayyidatuna A’ishah سلام الله عليها reportedly said: قُولُوا خَاتَمُ الن...