Saturday, 23 March 2019

Hindu Practice of Niyog (Adultery)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء والمرسلين
والعاقبة للمتقين

Having exposed the reality of gomutra – the drinking cow urine in Hinduism, I now move on to another bizarre practice known as niyog. According to the Manusmriti, a legal text for traditional Hinduism:

“On failure of issue (by her husband) a woman who has been authorised, may obtain, (in the) proper (manner prescribed), the desired offspring by (cohabitation with) a brother-in-law or (with some other) Sapinda (of the husband).” (The Laws of Manu; Ch. IX.59)

This is a well attested to practice within Hinduism, which has a radically different conception of sexual morality and honor than the Abrahamic tradition, especially Islam, which strictly forbids adultery. Furthermore, from our perspective this is clearly exploitation, degradation and disrespect of the honor and chastity of a woman to expect her to “cohabit” with another man other than her husband, such as her brother-in-law, for the purpose of procreating desired offspring.

According to a Hadith attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him & his family):

لِكُلِّ دِينٍ خُلُقٌ وَخُلُقُ الإِسْلاَمِ الْحَيَاءُ
“Every religion has its distinctive characteristic, and the distinctive characteristic of Islam is modesty.”
(Muwatta lil-Malik)

Here again some Hindu apologists may attempt to turn the tables and point to allegedly “Islamic” practices such as mut’a (temporary marriage) and nikah at-tahlil. But again, this is grasping for straws out of desperation out of a feeling of embarrassment and unease over an established aspect of traditional Hinduism which the Hindu is meant to embrace and own with pride and confidence.

Mut’a or temporary marriage is actually forbidden in Islam. It is only considered legal by the Twelver Shi’ite sect which we regard as heterodox and which I have devoted considerable effort to refuting.
عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، رضى الله عنه أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ وَعَنْ أَكْلِ لُحُومِ الْحُمُرِ الإِنْسِيَّةِ
Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Apostle of Allah (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) prohibited temporary marriage with women and the eating of the meat of domestic donkeys on the day of Khaybar.
(Muwatta lil-Malik)

As for nikah at-tahlil, or the practice of marrying a divorced woman with the intention of divorcing her thereby making her lawful for her previous husband to recontract a marriage with, this practice was also severely condemned and cursed by our Prophet (peace be upon him):

لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْمُحَلِّلَ وَالْمُحَلَّلَ لَهُ
“Curse of Allah be upon the one who marries a divorced woman with the intention of making her lawful for her former husband and upon the one for whom she is made lawful.”
(Sunan Abi Dawud)

The Prophet’s second successor, Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him) even declared that he would impose the punishment of adultery (stoning to death) on those guilty of practicing nikah at-tahlil, proving that it is a form of adultery and has no validity in Islamic law:

لا أُوتَى بِمُحَلِّلٍ وَلا بِمُحَلَّلَةٍ إِلا رَجَمْتُهُمَا
(Musannaf Abd ur-Razzaq; v.6 p.265, #10777):

Hindu Practice of Gomutra (Drinking Cow Urine)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء والمرسلين
والعاقبة للمتقين

For some time now it has been my intention to produce an academic criticism of Hinduism, particularly its most widespread and traditional conception, i.e., the Sanatan Dharm. A little over a century ago, the reformist Arya Samaj movement was at the forefront of challenging Islam. But it’s time came and went, and today it is an insignificant sect of little consequence. The field is now occupied by a more politically oriented assault on Islam represented by the forces of Hindutva such as the RSS and others. There can be no denying that social and political relations between Hindus and Muslims are at an all time low. It was only a matter of time before majoritarian democracy yielded an extremely bigoted and toxic political atmosphere in the “secular” and “diverse” Republic of India. This is because the underlying Hindu resentment toward Islam and the Muslims was finally given satisfactory expression of unabashed demagoguery. From the Hindu perspective, one can appreciate several grievances. Islamic empires subjugated the Hindu homeland one after the other. First came the Arabs with Muhammad bin Qasim’s conquest of Sindh. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. The subsequent Turkic, Turco-Mongol and Afghan invasions and conquests of north and central India has deeply affected the psyche of the Hindu in associating Islam with the humiliation of his nation. Again, this is the Hindu narrative and psychology that we must at least try to understand and appreciate even if it is a distortion. In fact, this narrative has been manufactured in order for Hindus to be given a single national consciousness, a relatively modern idea since such a unified Hindu national consciousness simply did not exist before the arrival of British colonialism. Another grievance in the collective mind of Hindu political consciousness is the partition of their homeland and the creation of Pakistan. This too is the consequence of Islam’s presence in their country–an unbridgeable divide that finally manifested in the vivisection of “Mother India”. In summary, an academic analysis of Hinduism vis-a-vis Islam cannot avoid the prevailing socio-political subtext of fragile Hindu-Muslim relations in contemporary India.

The experiential and ritualistic aspect of folk and popular Hinduism overshadows its textual, philosophical and academic faces. The cult of cow-worship has gone to such irrational heights that it is now common for Muslims to be publicly lynched in many parts of India on mere suspicion of transporting cattle for slaughter or having beef in their possession. Another facet of the cult of cow-worship is gaumutra, i.e., the drinking of cow’s urine for spiritual and medical benefit. It should be noted that this isn’t something obscure that one digs up out of desperation to ridicule Hinduism with. The practice of drinking cow’s urine is quite prevalent in India among devout Hindus who take Ayurvedic medicine seriously. According to Hindu mythology, this tradition of medicine was introduced by the “deity” Dhanvantari, one of the avatars of Visnu. One of these medical treatments is known as Panchagavya – a mixture of cow urine, dung, and milk, which is believed to be, among other things, a cure for cancer. But what may seem as laughable pseudoscience to the rest of us is taken quite seriously – quite religiously – by devout Hindus who really believe that there is blessing and benefit in consuming cow urine and dung, and actually practice what they believe. This being the real picture of Hinduism as practiced by hundreds of millions of Hindus, it should be quite understandable why it would be concerning to ignore it in favor of a purely academic discussion on differences of abstract theology and metaphysics between Hinduism and Islam.

Hindu apologists will undoubtedly point to the alleged Islamic prescription of drinking camel’s urine, but they should know that they are grasping at straws in desperation to counter the criticism of gaumutra. But it points to the fact that such Hindus are at least somewhat embarrassed and in a state of unease with an aspect of their religion that they are meant to embrace unapologetically with confidence and pride. As for the allegation of drinking camel’s urine, my simple and straightforward response is that it has no sanction in Islam. The Hadith in which drinking of camel’s urine has been mentioned is not a general prescription for all Muslims to practice, unlike the case of gaumutra in Ayurvedic medicine. Therefore, the phenomenon of drinking camel’s urine is non-existent in the Muslim world. It is at the most a theoretical debate concerning the true purport and interpretation of the Hadith which I shall be glad to delve into now.

Firstly, the most widespread and established school of law in Islam is the Hanafi one which I too am generally an adherent of. In this school the urine and stool of مأكول اللحم animals (animals that are halal or fit for consumption in Islamic law) is najas (impure) like that of haram animals. It is strictly forbidden in Islamic law to consume that which is impure. The proof for this position is the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
اسْتَنْزِهُوا مِنَ الْبَوْلِ
“Avoid urine”

Because this is a general prohibition, it is the legal evidence for our school that all urine is impure and must be carefully avoided. True, some other schools of law regard the urine and dung of clean or halal animals as being pure, but that is not a prescription to consume it.

At four different places in the holy Qur’an, Allah Most High instructs us to eat that which is
حَلَالًا طَيِّبًا
“Lawful, clean”

This is the general command in the Qur’an which is the basis for prohibiting the consumption of what would otherwise be a tediously long list of unlawful and impure food and drink that no doubt includes a prohibition of consuming any urine or dung. The context of the Hadith of sayyidina Anas bin Malik regarding camel’s urine makes it quite clear that it was not a general prescription, but a specific prescription to a group of eighty individuals from the tribe of Ukl that had come from Uraina and settled in Madina. Furthermore, they were not instructed to drink any camel urine, but the urine and milk of a specific flock of camels. Finally, it must be emphasized that those who drank the camel urine were indeed cured of their ailment but became apostates. They not only robbed the camels but cruelly butchered the innocent shepherd. To derive from this Hadith that Islam has unrestrictedly and unconditionally allowed the drinking of camel’s urine is a serious folly. The truth is that this was a one off incident and prescription restricted to a certain group of people in a certain time and place. It is by no means a universal medical prescription in Islam, unlike the Hindu practice of gaumutra. The vast majority of qualified and licensed Islamic scholars and jurists, past and present, declare drinking camel’s urine strictly forbidden. Can the same be said for the majority of Hindu pundits, swamis, gurus, sadhus, etc. regarding drinking of cow’s urine?

Did Ghulam Ahmad Claim Prophesy (Part 11)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء والمرسلين
والعاقبة للمتقين
Having introduced the text of Eik Ghalati Ka Izala written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian with the purpose of clarifying and elucidating once and for all the reality of his controversial claim of prophesy, we now continue with a careful analysis of the this text in order to demonstrate that he in fact did not put forward a claim to nubuwwa or risala. He writes:
سو اگر یہ کہا جاۓ کہ آنحضرتص تو خاتم النبیین ہیں۔ پھر آپ کے بعد اور نبی کس طرح آسکتا ہے۔ اس کا جواب یہی ہے کہ بیشک اس طرح سے تو کوئی نبی نیا ہو یا پرانا نہیں آسکتا۔ جس طرح سے آپ لوگ حضرت عیسی علیہ السلام کو آخری زمانہ میں اتارتے ہیں اور پھر اس حالت میں انکو نبی بھی مانتے ہیں۔ بلکہ چالیس برس تک سلسلہ وحی نبوت کا جاری رہنا اور زمانہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے بھی بڑھ جانا آپ لوگوں کا عقیدہ ہے۔ بیشک ایسا عقیدہ تو معصیت ہے اور آیت ولکن رسول اللہ وخاتم النبیین اور حدیث لا نبی بعدی اس عقیدہ کے کذب صریح ہونے پر کامل شہادت ہے۔ لیکن ہم اس قسم کے عقائد کے سخت مخالف ہیں۔ اور ہم اس آیت پر سچّا اور کامل ایمان رکھتے ہیں جو فرمایا کہ ولکن رسول اللہ وخاتم النبیین
“Thus if someone were to ask how it is possible for another Prophet to come after the Holy Prophetsa who is Khaatamun Nabiyyin, the simple answer is that no Prophet–new or old–can come in the manner in which you people seek the descent of Jesusas in the latter days, while you also believe that he will be a Prophet and that he will continue to receive Prophetic revelation for forty years, and will thus surpass the period of the Holy Prophet’ssa Prophethood. Such a belief is undoubtedly sinful. The verse ‘But he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets’ and the Hadith ‘There is no Prophet after me’ categorically testify that this belief is totally false. I myself am strongly averse to such beliefs and I resolutely believe in the verse ‘But he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets’.” (Eik Ghalati Ka Izala p.3):

The irony is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian had an even stricter belief in the finality of prophesy than the clerical forces of orthodoxy which have wrongly accused him of denying this fundamental doctrine of Islam. The very basis for his denying the idea that Jesus of Nazareth shall come down in the capacity of an actual prophet and receive divine revelation from Heaven for a period of forty years–exceeding the period of Prophet Muhammad’s prophesy–was his resolute conviction in the finality of prophesy. Otherwise, the apparent meaning of certain Hadith does give credence to the idea that the coming Messiah shall literally be a Prophet of God and receive the revelation of prophesy:

ثُمَّ يَأْتِي عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ قَوْمٌ قَدْ عَصَمَهُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْهُ فَيَمْسَحُ عَنْ وُجُوهِهِمْ وَيُحَدِّثُهُمْ بِدَرَجَاتِهِمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ فَبَيْنَمَا هُوَ كَذَلِكَ إِذْ أَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَى عِيسَى إِنِّي قَدْ أَخْرَجْتُ عِبَادًا لِي لاَ يَدَانِ لأَحَدٍ بِقِتَالِهِمْ فَحَرِّزْ عِبَادِي إِلَى الطُّورِ
“Then a people whom Allah had protected would come to Jesus, son of Mary, and he would wipe their faces and would inform them of their ranks in Paradise and it would be under such conditions that Allah would reveal to Jesus these words: ‘I have brought forth from amongst My servants such people against whom none would be able to fight; you take these people safely to Tur’.”
(Sahih Muslim)

This authentic Hadith gives two clear examples of the promised Messiah receiving the divine revelation of prophesy. Firstly, he shall inform a people of their ranks in Paradise. This is a matter of the unseen, and as the Qur’an states, Allah only reveals the unseen to a Messenger (Sura 72:26-27). Secondly, Allah shall reveal direct speech to the coming Messiah, informing him of the imminent approach of Gog and Magog and instructing him to take his people to the mountain for safety. And here the words اذ أوحى الله إلى عيسى leave no room for misunderstanding that he shall indeed receive prophetic revelation from Allah. Thus, orthodoxy must at the very least admit that the window of prophetic revelation is still open after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The same Hadith refers to the promised, expected Jesus as نبي الله four times.

فَيَمْكُثُ فِي الأَرْضِ أَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً ثُمَّ يُتَوَفَّى فَيُصَلِّي عَلَيْهِ الْمُسْلِمُونَ
“He (Jesus) will stay on the Earth for forty years then die*. The Muslims will pray over him.”
(Sunan Abi Dawud)

*Incidentally, the Prophet (peace be upon him) used the word يتوفي to mean death.
The reader should not be under the impression that Ghulam Ahmad outright rejected the Hadith in Sahih Muslim where the promised Jesus is named ‘Prophet of Allah’ and shall receive prophetic revelations. Instead, he interpreted the Hadith as referring to the figurative prophesy.
In summary, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not make a fresh claim to prophesy in 1901 with the publication of Eik Ghalati Ka Izala. Instead, he reaffirmed his belief in the finality of prophesy and simply explained that he has been named ‘prophet’ in divine inspirations. Whether one accepts that Ghulam Ahmad was a recipient of inspiration is not the point. My intention is only to clarify that this individual did not make a claim to prophesy in the real and technical sense, such a claim undoubtedly constituting rejection of Islam and Khatm un-Nubuwwa.

Friday, 22 March 2019

Greek Philosophers Were Not Prophets

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء والمرسلين
والعاقبة للمتقين
Allah says:
وَلِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولٌ ۖ فَإِذَا جَاءَ رَسُولُهُمْ قُضِيَ بَيْنَهُم بِالْقِسْطِ وَهُمْ لَا يُظْلَمُونَ
And for every nation is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged
(Sura 10:47)
وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّـهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ
And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], ‘Worship Allah and avoid the Taghut.’
(Sura 16:36)
وَإِن مِّنْ أُمَّةٍ إِلَّا خَلَا فِيهَا نَذِيرٌ
And there was no nation but that there had passed within it a warner
(Sura 35:24)

These verses establish the fact that every nation from among humanity had at least one apostle of Allah sent to them in the past. However, some omnist interpretations of Islam have taken this as a license to take for granted that every famous world religious figure was a prophet. The Qur’an acknowledges that it only mentions some of the many messengers who were sent by Allah (Sura 40:78). Therefore it cannot be said with certainty that any famous world religious figure of the past whose name is not mentioned in the Qur’an or whose prophesy was not confirmed by Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) was a prophet. Those who insist that well known religious figures such as Krisna, Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, etc. should be acknowledged as prophets in Islam use the verses in the Quran which speak of messengers having been sent to every nation as their justification. But the logic doesn’t follow. Just because there was a famous religious figure who may have founded a world religion or otherwise had a great impact on history doesn’t necessarily mean he was a true prophet and apostle of God. It is better to remain silent and neither affirm or deny whether a figure like Zoroaster, for example, was actually a prophet. Allah knows best and we are not responsible for determining the identity of every prophet and messenger that was sent in the past but who isn’t explicitly mentioned by name in our sacred texts. It is sufficient to say we believe in all the prophets and apostles of Allah including those whose names and identities we are not aware of.

Nevertheless, there are certain historical figures regarding whom it can be said for certain that they were not prophets. Certain Greek philosophers, great kings and emperors, poets, mystics, etc., had a great impact on history and contributed to the development of human thought. Nevertheless, they were not prophets of God. In many instances, they were polytheists, misguided and/or had flaws in their character. The scholar of the Ahl ul-Hadith sect in the Indian subcontinent, Wahid uz-Zaman, wrote that Socrates was among the prophets. Likewise, the fourth caliph of the Ahmadiyya sect, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, stated in his magnum opus concerning Socrates: “Readily, he gave up his life with such peace of mind and tranquility of soul, on the altar of his conviction in the Unity of God, as behoves any great prophet of God...It is this great Greek philosopher of a prophet, who is paradoxically described as ‘the father of Western Philosophy’.” (Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth, p.79)

“Yet among them, there was born in 470 BC a monotheist philosopher whose name was Socrates. He was a prophet among philosophers and a philosopher among prophets.” (ibid, pp.174-175)

Ironically, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, himself rejected the notion that Socrates and the other well known Greek philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, etc.) were prophets of God (Chashmah-i-Maarifat p.401):

The Greek philosophers were not ‘monotheists’ according to the Islamic conception of monotheism. Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Islamic theology based on the teachings, revelations and visions of the true Prophets, including the Seal of Prophets Muhammad (peace be upon him & his family).

While Allah Most High sent a messenger and warner for every nation in the past, it was particularly the Children of Israel whom He blessed with the institution of prophesy such that a large number of prophets were raised up among them, one after the other, at times multiple prophets being raised up among them simultaneously. And the vast majority of prophets related in the holy Qur’an were the Israelite prophets (Moses, Aaron, Job, Jonas, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elias, Elisha, Zechariah, John, Jesus). As for the warners and apostles of God that were sent to other nations, perhaps their identities and accounts have been lost to history, as they were rejected by their nations which persisted in idolatry and polytheism. It is no use claiming that Krisna, Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, etc., were prophets. Among these, perhaps Zoroaster is most worthy of being considered an actual prophet, but even that is mere speculation and not based on any definite proof. The heresy of omnism has popularized the idea that these and other well known major world religious figures must have been prophets. It is motivated by a desire to validate and unite all the religions of the world. So-called Islamic evangelists like Dr. Zakir Naik quote from Hindu scriptures in an attempt to demonstrate that the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is predicted in Hinduism. Such proofs and efforts are dubious at best, since the Hindu scriptures are extremely suspect, full of polytheism and misguidance. This approach of the omnists, modernists and so-called experts of comparative religion is only for point scoring and is not academic or sincerely thought out.

Friday, 15 March 2019

Fadlur Rahman Ganj Muradabadi: Khidr in British Army

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله العلي العظيم
The Deobandis and others accuse certain Muslim individuals and groups of having betrayed Islam and the Muslims by siding with the British during the ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ of 1857, which they regard as India’s first war of independence and even a Jihad in the path of Allah!
The truth is, however, that the rebellion of 1857 was a false endeavor that had no justification in Islam or in our Shari’a. In reality, this was a rebellion in which the vast majority of the rebels were Hindus! According to what logic can a rebellion in which majority of the rebels are Hindu idol worshipers be considered a Jihad in the path of Allah?!
This rebellion brought about great harm and destruction for the Muslims of India, officially ending the rule of the last Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar. The British crushed the rebellion and carried out retributions against the Muslim Ulama suspected of having taken part in the mutiny. For this reason, more responsible Ulama such as Nadhir Hussain of Delhi, his student Muhammad Hussain of Batala and others condemned the mutiny and declared it forbidden to raise arms against British rule.
As for the Deobandis, one of their venerated elders, Fadl ur-Rahman Ganj Muradabadi apparently abandoned the the battle in 1857, fleeing in retreat:
اچانک ایک دن مولانا کو دیکھا گیا کہ خود بھاگے جارے ہیں اور کسی چودھری کا نام لے کر جو باغیوں کی فوج کی افسری کر رہے تھے کہتے جاتے تھے کہ لڑنے کا کیا فائدہ خضر کو تو میں انگریزوں کی صف میں پارہا ہوں۔
“Suddenly, one day Maulana (Fadl ur-Rahman Ganj Muradabadi) was seen fleeing and calling out to some Chaudhry who was an officer in the army of the mutineers, saying, ‘What’s the use of fighting? I see Khidr in the ranks of the English!’” (Sawaneh Qasimi v.2 p.103):


Hadith: "I am Last of Prophets and My Mosque is Last of Mosques"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله العلي العظيم
My pure-hearted Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) said:
فَإِنِّي آخِرُ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ ، وَإِنَّ مَسْجِدِي آخِرُ الْمَسَاجِدِ
“Verily, I am the Last of the Prophets, and my Mosque is the Last of the Mosques.”
(Sahih Muslim)

It is quite apparent that we must understand the Prophet Muhammad being ‘Last of the Prophets’ in precisely the same sense we understand his Mosque in Medina as being the ‘Last of the Mosques’. Obviously, the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina is not chronologically the last and final mosque to ever be built for all time. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of mosques built after it till this day, and will continue to be built till Judgment Day. Mawdudi has explained the meaning of ‘Last of the Mosques’:
“The words of the Prophet (PBUH) meant that no Prophet would come after him, hence there would be no fourth mosque after the last Masjid-i-Nabawi (a mosque of the last Prophet). It follows, therefore, that no other mosque should bear such sanctity” (Finality of Prophethood, footnote 3)
In the same vein, I say that after the last and final prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam), ‘no other prophet should bear such sanctity.’ In other words, the classification of types of prophesy and the cessation of the technical prophesy that bears a special sanctity may be derived from a nuanced and logical understanding of this Hadith. But as for a minor form of prophesy which is based on the linguistic meaning and is in reality the institution of sainthood within this Umma is not negated by the words ‘I am the Last of the Prophets’, just as the establishment of numerous mosques after the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina does not negate the words ‘my Mosque is the Last of the Mosques’.
According to another narration, sayyida A’isha (radi Allahu anha) says that the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) said:

أَنَا خَاتَمُ الأَنْبِيَاءِ ، وَمَسْجِدِي خَاتَمُ الْمَسَاجِدِ
“I am the Seal of Prophets and my Mosque is the Seal of Mosques.”
(Akhbar Makka lil-Fakihi; v.2 p.94, Hadith #1192):

Although this particular narration is weak due to Musa bin Ubaida and because Dawud bin Mudrik is unknown, it serves to confirm the meaning of the authentic Hadith in Sahih Muslim as I have explained, and Allah knows best!

Deobandi Ahmad Ali Lahori: "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Was Really a Prophet"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله العلي العظيم

A well known Deobandi mulla, Ahmad Ali Lahori (1887-1962) apparently wrote:
مرزا غلام احمد قادیانی اصل میں تو نبی ہی تھے لیکن میں نے ان کی نبوت کشید کرلی اور یہ نبوت اب مجھے وحی کی منفعتوں سے نوازتی ہے۔

“Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was really a prophet, but I took his nubuwwat (prophethood), and this nubuwwat is now benefitting me with wahi (revelation)” (Tajalli, Deoband. January 1957, p.21):


Hadith: "Abu Bakr RA is the Best Except if a Prophet Comes"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله العلي العظيم

According to a Hadith, it is reported that Abu ad-Dardaa (radi Allahu anhu) narrated that the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) said:

مَا طَلَعَتِ الشَّمْسُ وَلا غَرَبَتْ عَلَى أَحَدٍ أَفْضَلَ أَوْ أَخْيَرَ مِنْ أَبِي بَكْرٍ إِلا أَنْ يَكُونَ نَبِيٌّ
“The sun has never risen nor set on anyone superior or better than Abi Bakr, except if a Prophet comes.”
(Musnad Abd Bin Hamid p.200, Hadith #212):

There is some slight criticism of the chain of this Hadith due to the alleged tadlis of Ibn Jurayj who is narrating ‘an’an from Ataa bin Abi Rabah. Furthermore, there seems to be some confusion over the narrator Abu Sa’id al-Bakri, whether he is Abd Allah bin Shayba bin Khalid or someone named Aban, as Ibn Asakir has stated (Tarikh Dimashq v.30 p.208):

Abu Sa’id Aban bin Taghlib al-Bakri, although he was a Shi’ite, was nonetheless authenticated by the muhaddithin, the likes of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Yahya bin Ma’in and Abu Hatim ar-Razi (Mizan ul-I’tidal v.1 p.5):

Imam Ahmad has in fact brought out another chain for this Hadith in his book Fada’il us-Sahaba
مَا طَلَعَتِ الشَّمْسُ عَلَى أَحَدٍ أَفْضَلَ مِنْ أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، إِلا أَنْ يَكُونَ نَبِيُّ
The sun has not risen on anyone more excellent than Abi Bakr, except if a prophet comes
(p. 352, Hadith #508):

However, the narrator narrating from Ibn Jurayj, a certain Abu Bakr, is unknown. Nevertheless, this certainly strengthens the narration in the Musnad of Abd bin Hamid.

There is another version of this Hadith narrated through the companion Salama bin al-Akwa’ (radi Allahu anhu):

أَبُو بَكْرٍ خَيْرُ النَّاسِ إِلا أَنْ يَكُونَ نَبِيًّا
“Abu Bakr is the best of the people except if a Prophet should come.”
(Akhbar Isbahan of Abu Nuaym al-Isbahani)

However, a certain narrator, Isma’il bin Ziyad, has been criticized. Nevertheless, the narration of Salama bin al-Akwa’ strengthens that of Abu ad-Dardaa (radi Allahu anhuma).

As for the significance of the Hadith, it proves that a prophet shall appear in the future who shall be greater in rank than sayyidina Abi Bakr as-Siddiq (radi Allahu anhu), and perhaps it is pointing to the coming of the promised Messiah, who is a prophet but under the obedience of Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam), and Allah knows best.

"If Jesus Were Alive He Would Have to Follow Me"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله العلي العظيم

According to the exegete, Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah):
وفي بعض الأحاديث [ له ] : لو كان موسى وعيسى حيين لما وسعهما إلا اتباعي
In some Ahadith (from the Prophet): “If Moses and Jesus were alive they would have no option except to follow me.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir v.2 p.68):

Similarly, the Grenadan exegete, Abu Hayyan, copied this Hadith in his tafsir (Bahr ul-Muhit v.6 p.139):

And it has been repeated by Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya (Madarij us-Salikin v.2 p.496):

Finally, Mulla Ali Qari has attributed this saying to the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam):
لو كان عيسى حيّاً ما وسعه  إلا اتَّباعي
“If Jesus was alive he would have no option but to follow me.” (Sharh Fiqh ul-Akbar p.325):

Some editions of Sharh Fiqh ul-Akbar have altered the text, replacing Jesus with Moses. But this is clearly a distortion since the context of the quote is regarding Jesus and not Moses.

Thursday, 14 March 2019

Weak Hadith: "Ali, You Are My Khalifa After Me"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
ولا حول ولا قوة الا بالله
The astray Shi’a believe Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) designated sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib (radi Allahu anhu) his successor, but that the majority of the Sahaba were either heedless of this fact or turned apostate by electing sayyidina Abi Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) as the Prophet’s successor upon the latter’s death and pledging their allegiance to him. Some Shi’ite apologists present the following Hadith and argue that it is a proof that the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) explicitly designated sayyidina Ali (radi Allahu anhu) as his successor and leader of the community of Believers after his death:
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِعَلِيٍّ : أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى ، إِلا أَنَّكَ لَسْتَ نَبِيًّا ، إِنَّهُ لا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ أَذْهَبَ إِلا وَأَنْتَ خَلِيفَتِي فِي كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ مِنْ بَعْدِي
Ibn Abbas narrates that Allah’s Apostle (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) said to Ali: “You are to me in the position of Aaron to Moses, except that you are not a prophet, and you are my khalifa [successor] for every believer after me.”
(as-Sunna of Ibn Abi ‘Asim #1188)

Incidentally, the contemporary muhaddith, al-Albani, declared this narration hasan (sound) in its isnad:

However, this was a questionable grading of the Hadith to say the least because of the presence of the narrator Abi Balj Yahya bin Sulaym. He has been criticized by the likes of Imam al-Bukhari, the Amir ul-Mu’minin in Hadith, and also Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal who declared his reports ‘munkar’ or rejected, as well as Ibn Hibban who said he makes errors, and al-Jawzjani who said he is not a trustworthy narrator. Finally, Imam adh-Dhahabi has written that the narrations of Yahya bin Sulaym from Amru bin Maymun from Ibn Abbas from the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) are rejected, and incidentally this very narration is based on this rejected sanad (Mizan ul-I’tidal v.4 p.384):

However, if this narration is accepted as sound for the sake of argument, it still isn’t a proof for the Shi’ite argument that the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) designated sayyidina Ali (radi Allahu anhu) as his successor to succeed him and lead the Believers after his death. Rather, this narration is simply another version of the Hadith al-Manzila. In other words, the context proves that the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) stated that sayyidina Ali (radi Allahu anhu) is his successor during his temporary absence for the expedition of Tabuk.

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...