Tuesday, 25 May 2021

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 النَّبِيِّينَ وَلَا تَقُولُوا لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ

Say ‘Seal of the Prophets’ but do not say ‘there is no prophet after him’

(Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah; v.14, p.521, published by Dar Kunuz Ishbiliya)

In his checking, Sa’d bin Nasir bin Abdul-Aziz Abu Habib ash-Shathri declared this narration sahih.

But it is argued that if the narration is authentic, the intention of sayyidatuna A’ishah is merely to affirm the second coming of Jesus. Those who make this argument point to the subsequent narration of another companion, al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah رضى الله عنه:

قَالَ رَجُلٌ عِنْدَ الْمُغِيرَةِ بْنِ شُعْبَةَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ خَاتَمِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ قَالَ الْمُغِيرَةُ حَسْبُكَ إِذَا قُلْتَ خَاتَمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ فَإِنَّا كُنَّا نُحَدَّثُ أَنَّ عِيسَى خَارِجٌ فَإِنْ هُوَ خَرَجَ فَقَدْ كَانَ قَبْلَهُ وَبَعْدَهُ

A man said in the presence of al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah: “Blessing of Allah upon Muhammad, Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after him”. Mughirah said: “It is sufficient for you to say ‘Seal of the Prophets’ for we were informed that Jesus shall come, so he is both before him and after him.” (ibid):

Firstly, the narration attributed to al-Mughirah رضى الله عنه is considered weak due to the weakness of the narrator Mujalid.

Secondly, the fanatics of the so-called Khatm un-Nubuwwah movement claim that the second coming of Jesus, a Prophet of God, does not violate the finality of Muhammad’s Prophesy because Jesus was made a Prophet prior to Muhammad عليهما السلام

Yet according to this narration, al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah rejected such a feeble attempt at reconciling the two apparently contradictory doctrines of the second coming of the Messiah and the finality of Prophesy, when he said that Jesus is a prophet both prior to and subsequent to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم

From the perspective of the fanatics of the Khatm un-Nubuwwah movement, there is nothing wrong with the man’s statement “blessing of Allah upon Muhammad, Seal of the Prophets, there is no prophet after him”, indeed, this is their very slogan. Then how do they explain Mughirah’s رضى الله عنه correcting of the man and explaining to him that it is sufficient to simply say that Muhammad is Seal of the Prophets without adding ‘there is no prophet after him’?

The Great Apostasy

 باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

There are a number of dissident Christian denominations which believe that there was a great apostasy in the early Church. This idea is markedly held to by the LDS or Mormon movement founded by the false prophet Joseph Smith. The JW movement likewise believe that a Great Apostasy took place shortly after the Apostolic Age, when pagan beliefs overtook Christendom, such as the Trinity doctrine.

The Christian New Testament certainly predicts the Great Apostasy. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is traditionally attributed to Paul of Tarsus, although modern scholars, like Bart Ehrman, question that authorship. Nevertheless, it contains this passage which says that there shall be an apostasy before the second coming of Jesus Christ: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

The King James Version translated the Greek word apostasia to mean “a falling away”, although clearly what is meant is an apostasy.

Islam likewise teaches that there was an apostasy among the professing followers of Jesus shortly after his death:

وَ کُنۡتُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ شَہِیۡدًا مَّا دُمۡتُ فِیۡہِمۡ ۚ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّیۡتَنِیۡ کُنۡتَ اَنۡتَ الرَّقِیۡبَ عَلَیۡہِمۡ

And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them

(Surah 5:117)

The Ayah suggests that in Jesus’s own lifetime his disciples and followers hadn’t corrupted his Gospel – they did not worship him and his mother Mary, nor did they believe he was God incarnate. History bears witness to the fact that these heresies surfaced after the time of Jesus, when the foretold false teachers and prophets had risen among them, or entered into their flocks, and began teaching false doctrines. We believe that Paul of Tarsus was one such “wolf in sheep’s clothing” about whom Jesus had strongly warned against. Paul never met Jesus, but began persecuting his followers, the early Nazarenes, after Jesus’s death and spiritual ascension. He then claimed to have seen a vision of Jesus and have converted to the Faith, but introduced novel teachings that were in obvious contravention of the Gospel.

Christian Doctrine of Divine Sonship and Lahore Ahmadi Denial of Virgin Birth (Surah 6:101)

باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

One of the objections against the Quran put forward by Christian apologists is that it has misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Christianity.

I have already answered, in a previous article, the objection that the Quran accuses Christians of believing that Mary is the third person of the Trinity.

Christians quote an Ayah of the Quran which according to them implies that they believe God has a wife:

بَدِیۡعُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لَہٗ وَلَدٌ وَّ لَمۡ تَکُنۡ لَّہٗ صَاحِبَۃٌ ؕ وَ خَلَقَ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ ۚ وَ ہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ

The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?

(Surah 6:101)

In light of this Ayah, it is also argued by some Christians that the Quran implies that the Christian doctrine of divine sonship of Jesus is biological or else such that it logically requires there to be a mother along with a father.

The simple answer to these objections is that the context of 6:101 clearly indicates that it is not a polemic against Christianity but against the Pagan Arabs. The preceding Ayah states:

وَ جَعَلُوۡا لِلّٰہِ شُرَکَآءَ الۡجِنَّ وَ خَلَقَہُمۡ وَ خَرَقُوۡا لَہٗ بَنِیۡنَ وَ بَنٰتٍۭ بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍ ؕ سُبۡحٰنَہٗ وَ تَعٰلٰی عَمَّا یَصِفُوۡنَ

And they hold the jinn to be partners with Allah, although He created them; and they falsely ascribe to Him sons and daughters without any knowledge. Holy is He and exalted far above what they attribute to Him

(Surah 6:100)

The belief that the jinn are partners with Allah, and that He has sons and daughters, is specifically a Pagan Arab belief, so obviously the polemical refutation of this belief as it occurs in the proceeding Ayah is specifically a response to the Pagan Arabs and not necessarily the Christians. That the Pagans do ascribe a consort for Allah, and that their conception of God having sons and daughters is quite different from the standard Christian concept of the divine sonship of Jesus, must be acknowledged and therefore logically validates the answer given in 6:101 where children – sons and daughters – are negated for Allah because a female consort is negated for Allah.

Some misguided so-called Muslims who deny the virgin birth of Jesus, and assert that Joseph the Carpenter or someone else was Jesus’s biological father, also quote this Ayah to back up their argument. This is especially true of the Lahore Ahmadiyya sect, whose writers wrote books such as Birth of Jesus by Dr. Basharat Ahmad. In it he argues: “The absolute fixity of this particular law may be judged from the fact that the Qur’an advances it as a refutation against the Christian doctrine of the Divine sonship of Jesus: ‘How can there be a son to God while He has no mate?’ (6: 102). This again emphasises the law of procreation through pairs, so much so that even in the case of God it is not possible for a son to be born to Him unless He takes someone for His mate.” (p.2)

But as I have already demonstrated, 6:101 [which Dr. Basharat Ahmad references as 6:102 with the Basmalah numbered as an Ayah whereas I use the standard numbering system for the sake of convenience] is not, contrary to Dr. Basharat Ahmad’s premise, a refutation of the Christian doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus. The fact is that the Pagan Arabs did ascribe a consort for Allah, and so 6:101 is a negation of that specific heresy and not a proof that there can be no exception to the general phenomenon that the birth of a human child requires the agency of both father and mother.

At most it could be argued based on 6:101 that children cannot be birthed through the agency of a father without a mother, and that is the polemic being employed against the Pagan Arabs who believed Allah had biological sons and daughters. If those Pagans said that Allah took a consort in order to have children, then it is denied that He has a consort, or if it is interpreted to mean that the Pagans ascribe such kind of children to Allah without Him having a consort, then it is rhetorically asked how He can have such kind of children without a consort.

Monday, 24 May 2021

You Will Fight the Dajjal at the River Jordan

 باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

The recent flare up in the Holy Land has rekindled an interest in Islamic apocalypticism and eschatology. The Ulama and other preachers are acquainting the Muslims with certain traditions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم which speak of the centrality of Jerusalem in the End Times, for instance:

لَا تَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يُقَاتِلُونَ عَلَى ‌أَبْوَابِ ‌دِمَشْقَ ‌وَمَا ‌حَوْلَهُ وَعَلَى أَبْوَابِ بَيْتِ الْمَقْدِسِ وَمَا حَوْلَهُ لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ خِذْلَانُ مَنْ خَذَلَهُمْ ظَاهِرِينَ إِلَى أَنْ تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ

A faction of my Ummah will not cease to fight at the gates of Damascus and its vicinity, and at the gates of Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and its vicinity. The criticism of the critics shall not harm them. They shall prevail until the establishment of the Hour

(Mu’jam al-Awsat)

لَا تَزَالُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ أُمَّتِي عَلَى الدِّينِ ظَاهِرِينَ لَعَدُوِّهِمْ قَاهِرِينَ لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمْ إِلَّا مَا أَصَابَهُمْ مِنْ لَأْوَاءَ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَهُمْ أَمْرُ اللهِ وَهُمْ كَذَلِكَ قَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ وَأَيْنَ هُمْ؟ قَالَ ‌بِبَيْتِ ‌الْمَقْدِسِ ‌وَأَكْنَافِ ‌بَيْتِ ‌الْمَقْدِسِ

A faction of my Ummah will not cease to be upon the Religion manifest. Those who oppose them shall not harm them until the order of Allah comes and they are like that.” They said: “O Apostle of Allah, where are they?” He said: “At Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and around Bait al-Maqdis” (Musnad Ahmad)

I previously quoted narrations from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in which he prophesied that the Believers shall fight the Dajjal at the River Jordan, and that the Believers will be at the East Bank and they – the Dajjal and his forces – at the West Bank.

However, there is a version of the Hadith with different wording to the effect that the Believers will in fact be at the West Bank of the Jordan, and the Dajjal along with his forces on the East Bank:

لَا تَزَالُونَ تُقَاتِلُونَ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ بَقِيَّتُكُمُ الدَّجَّالُ بِالْأُرْدُنَّ أَنْتُمْ مِنْ غَرْبِيِّهِ ‌وَهُمْ ‌مِنْ ‌شَرْقِيِّهِ

You will not cease to fight until your remainder fights the Dajjal at the Jordan. You will be at its west and they will be at its east

(Musnad ash-Shamain; p.369, #638):

It is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that a narrator made a mistake by switching the position of the Believers to the west instead of the east, and the Dajjal to the east instead of the west of the River Jordan.

Presently, the State of Israel has been established in the Holy Land west of the River Jordan, whereas east of the River Jordan is the Hashemite Kingdom under Muslim control. In an apocalyptic war with the Zionists, it is not difficult to imagine how the Muslims on the East Bank will be fighting the False Messiah and his Jewish forces that are currently entrenched in the land west of the Jordan. The other Ahadith which speak of the Believers slaying the Jewish forces of the Dajjal after the latter’s destruction, when the trees and rocks shall extraordinarily speak and inform the Believers as to the position of the Jews concealing themselves behind them reinforce this general understanding.

However, this version of the Hadith is significant in that it suggests that when the Dajjal appears, and as other Ahadith make clear, he shall emerge from the east, from the land of Khorasan, making his way west to the Holy Land from there, the Believers will have already established themselves in the Holy Land, and control that which lies to the west of the River Jordan. Perhaps at that time the State of Israel will have been defeated and dismantled.

Incidentally, in these narrations, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to the Dajjal with the plural pronoun “they”. Perhaps it is because the followers of the individual Dajjal are represented by him, or because the Dajjal is not simply an individual, but in a sense it is the actual system and forces of the End Times that shall be aligned against Islam.

Dajjal Emerges from this Ummah

 باسمك اللهم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا محمد

Many Muslims don’t realize that the coming Masih al-Dajjal, or the Antichrist, shall appear from among the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad.

They imagine he is an external agent, an Israeli Jew, who shall openly reject Allah and His Last Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم

This is the same argument that was put forward by Ibn Sayyad when some of the Sahabah suspected he was the major Dajjal:

يَا أَصْحَابَ مُحَمَّدٍ أَلَمْ يَقُلْ نَبِيُّ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‌إِنَّهُ ‌يَهُودِيٌّ وَقَدْ أَسْلَمْتُ

O companions of Muhammad, did not the Prophet of God, peace be upon him, say “he [the Antichrist] is a Jew” but I have accepted Islam?

(Sahih Muslim)

Yet some of the Sahabah, like sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه and Jabir bin Abdullah رضى الله عنه swore on oath that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal. Abu Sa’id al-Khudri also suspected or was not fully persuaded by Ibn Sayyad’s argument. This indicates the fact that although Ibn Sayyad outwardly embraced Islam, the Sahabah did not feel it was sufficient to totally discount him as being the Antichrist.

That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم informed us that the Antichrist is a Jew does not contradict the fact that the Antichrist shall emerge from his Ummah. It may be that the Antichrist is of Jewish descent while apparently being from the Ummah. In this way his affair resembles that of one of the minor antichrists who appeared before him, namely, Abd Allah bin Saba. It is reported that Amir al-Mu’minin Ali bin Abi Talib رضى الله عنه addressed Ibn Saba, saying to him:

وَيْلَكَ مَا أَفْضَى إِلَيَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ شَيْئًا كَتَمَهُ أَحَدًا مِنَ النَّاسِ وَلَقَدْ سَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ إِنَّ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ السَّاعَةِ ‌ثَلَاثِينَ ‌كَذَّابًا ‌وَإِنَّكَ ‌لِأَحَدُهُمْ

I heard the Apostle of Allah, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, say, “before the Hour shall come thirty liars” and you are one of them

(Musnad Abi Ya’la; v.1, pp.349-350):

This prophecy from the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم about thirty liars and antichrists, which has multiple attestation, is significant because the Prophet explained that each of these thirty or so pretenders shall arise from within his Ummah:

سَيَكُونُ فِي أُمَّتِي كَذَّابُونَ ثَلاَثُونَ كُلُّهُمْ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ نَبِيٌّ

There shall be, in my Ummah, thirty liars, each of them claiming to be a Prophet

(Sunan Abi Dawud)

In another version of this Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم revealed that the Masih al-Dajjal, the major Antichrist which is known as al-’Awar or the One-Eyed Dajjal, is the last of these thirty pretenders:

وَاللَّهِ لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ ثَلَاثُونَ كَذَّابًا ‌آخِرُهُمُ ‌الْأَعْوَرُ الدَّجَّالُ مَمْسُوحُ الْعَيْنِ الْيُسْرَى كَأَنَّهَا عَيْنُ أَبِي تَحْيَى أَوْ يَحْيَى لِشَيْخٍ مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ وَإِنَّهُ مَتَى يَخْرُجُ فَإِنَّهُ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ اللَّهُ فَمَنْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَصَدَّقَهُ وَاتَّبَعَهُ فَلَيْسَ يَنْفَعُهُ صَالِحٌ مِنْ عَمَلٍ لَهُ سَلَفَ وَمَنْ كَفَرَ بِهِ وَكَذَّبَهُ فَلَيْسَ يُعَاقَبُ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ عَمَلِهِ سَلَفَ وَإِنَّهُ سَيَظْهَرُ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ كُلِّهَا إِلَّا الْحَرَمَ وَبَيْتَ الْمَقْدِسِ

By Allah, the Hour will not be established until there come thirty liars, the last of whom is the One-Eyed Dajjal, whose left eye is concealed like the eye of Abu Yahya – or Abu Tahya – an elder of the Ansar. He will claim to be Allah. Whoever believes in him, confirms him and follows him, nothing of his previous good deeds shall profit him, and whoever disbelieves in him and belies him, nothing from his previous deeds shall hold him to account. He shall prevail upon the entirety of the Earth except the Haram and Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem]

(Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah #1397):

As I have explained in previous articles, the fact that the Dajjal emerges from Khorasan, which today is an exclusively Muslim region, and that he is followed by Turkic peoples who today are almost exclusively Muslim, and that he is such a great trial for the Muslims in particular, are all indications that he emerges from this very Ummah.

Thursday, 13 May 2021

Firasah of Third Caliph Uthman b. Affan رضى الله عنه

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله تعالى على خاتم النبيين

وَكَذَلِكَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عَفَّانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ صَادِقُ الْفِرَاسَةِ وَقَالَ أَنَسُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلْتُ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَكُنْتُ رَأَيْتُ امْرَأَةً فِي الطَّرِيقِ تَأَمَّلْتُ مَحَاسِنَهَا فَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَدْخُلُ عَلَيَّ أَحَدُكُمْ وَأَثَرُ الزِّنَا ظَاهِرٌ فِي عَيْنَيْهِ فَقُلْتُ أَوَحْيٌ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ ‌وَلَكِنْ ‌تَبْصِرَةٌ ‌وَبُرْهَانٌ وَفِرَاسَةٌ صَادِقَةٌ

Likewise, Uthman bin Affan [radi Allahu anhu] was truthful in Firasah. Anas bin Malik [radi Allahu anhu] says that he entered in the presence of Uthman bin Affan [radi Allahu anhu] and that he had seen a lady on the road, admiring her beauty. So Uthman [radi Allahu anhu] said: “One of you has entered upon me and there is a trace of Zina apparent in his eyes.” So I said: “Is there Wahi after the Apostle of Allah [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam]?” He said: “Rather, it is vision, proof, and true Firasah.”

(Madarij us-Salikin; v.2, p.455):

Thursday, 6 May 2021

There is No Prophet After Me. Meaning of بعد

Our interpretation of La Nabi Ba'di to mean no prophet that is in opposition to the Shari'ah of the Prophet and is not his follower in totality is not extraneous, it can be derived strictly from the plain wording itself.

Ba'd is usually translated in English "after" but that does not encompass its full meaning, nor is it necessary that ba'd always means after in the sequential sense.

It is perfectly legitimate in Arabic language to interpret the word Ba'd to mean that which is in contrast to, in opposition to - as opposed to that which accords with and is in conformity with.

A perfect example of this from the Holy Quran:

فَبِاَیِّ حَدِیۡثٍۭ بَعۡدَہٗ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ

In what discourse then, after this, will they believe?

Incidentally, the Quran-only heretics consider this Ayah their most devastating weapon in their arsenal in repudiating the following of the Ahadith. The Quran refers to itself as Hadith, and is apparently asking a rhetorical question that in which Hadith after this [Quran] will you believe, meaning don't believe in any Hadith other than the Quran. On the surface it seems like a pretty solid argument for the Quranists/Hadith-rejecters.

But the correct interpretation of this Ayah, based on an alternative but bona fide meaning of the word ba'd is essentially not to believe in any opposing or contrary narrative to the Quran, not that every narration subsequent to the Quran in chronology and sequence is false even if that narration is in accord with the Quran and falling under its overall authority.

Likewise, the statement "There is no Prophet after me" really and truly means don't believe in any Prophesy-claimant after me who doesn't conform to me, who isn't subordinate to me, and who doesn't recognize me as supreme - I am the Seal of the Prophets.

Tuesday, 6 April 2021

"I do not know what will be done with me" (46:9)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Malicious Christian apologists quote the following Ayah of the holy Quran and contend by it that Prophet Muhammad [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] did not possess certainty as to what would happen to him in the Afterlife—specifically whether he would attain salvation:

وَ مَاۤ اَدۡرِیۡ مَا یُفۡعَلُ بِیۡ وَ لَا بِکُمۡ

Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you

(Surah 46:9)

Incidentally, the Deobandi elder, Rashid Gangohi, in his Fatawa Rashidiya issued a fatwa declaring that it is proven that it is possible for Allah to lie and proceeded to cite this very Ayah as a proof. He stated that although Allah has declared that the Prophet Muhammad [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] is ultimately forgiven, there is the possibility of him not being forgiven in the Afterlife because of the words of this Ayah ‘I do not know what will be done with me’ (Fatawa Rashidiya p.237; Ta'lifate Rashidiya p.99):

Killing two birds with a single stone, I have answered this doubt raised by the Christians and by the Deobandis in the following video on my YouTube channel:

In summary, I quoted Tafsir al-Jalalayn in explanation of this Ayah, which makes it plain that the statement ‘I do not know what will happen to me’ is in reference to this worldly life and not the Afterlife:

وَمَآ أَدْرِى مَا يُفْعَلُ بِى وَلاَ بِكُمْ } في الدنيا أأخرج من بلدي، أم أقتل كما فعل بالأنبياء قبلي أو ترموني بالحجارة؟ أم يخسف بكم كالمكذبين قبلكم

Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you in this world will I be made to leave my native land or will I be slain as was done with some prophets before me or will you stone me to death or will the earth be made to swallow you as it did deniers before you?”

Now it is clear that Imam Jalal ud-Din as-Suyuti [rahimahullah] believed this Ayah is referring to the absence of certain knowledge of the Prophet [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] concerning what will happen to him specifically in this world, and likewise what will happen to the people he is addressing in this world.

Al-Wahidi has explained the circumstances for the revelation of this Ayah in his Asbab an-Nuzul:

قَالَ الْكَلْبِيُّ عَنْ أَبِي صَالِحٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ

لَمَّا اشْتَدَّ البلاء بأصحاب النبي صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم رَأَى فِي الْمَنَامِ أَنَّهُ يُهَاجِرُ إِلَى أَرْضٍ ذَاتِ نَخْلٍ وَشَجَرٍ وَمَاءٍ فَقَصَّهَا عَلَى أَصْحَابِهِ فَاسْتَبْشَرُوا بِذَلِكَ وَرَأَوْا فِيهَا فَرَجًا مِمَّا هُمْ فِيهِ مِنْ أَذَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ إِنَّهُمْ مَكَثُوا بُرْهَةً لَا يَرَوْنَ ذَلِكَ فَقَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّه متى تهاجر إِلَى الأرض التي رأيتها فَسَكَتَ رسول اللَّه صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم وأنزل اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَمَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَلُ بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ يَعْنِي لَا أَدْرِي أَخْرُجُ إِلَى الْمَوْضِعِ الَّذِي رَأَيْتُهُ في منامي أولا

Al-Kalbi reported from Abu Salih that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “When tribulations faced by the Companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, intensified, The Prophet saw in his dream that he migrated to a land that had palms, trees and plenty of water. He related this dream to his Companions and the latter took it for a good omen and a harbinger of relief from the harm of the idolaters which they faced. After a while, when they saw that nothing had happened, they said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! When are you going to migrate to the land which you saw in your dream?’ The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, did not answer them, but Allah, exalted is He, revealed (…nor know I what will be done with me or with you…), i.e. I do not know whether or not I am going to move to the place which I saw in my dream.

Something I didn’t cover in my video response to this Christian and Deobandi doubt is the Hadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari about the death of sayyidina Uthman bin Maz’un [radi Allahu anhu]. An Ansari lady, Umm al-’Ala [radi Allahu anha] reportedly said in the presence of the Prophet [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] regarding Uthman bin Maz’un:

رَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكَ أَبَا السَّائِبِ فَشَهَادَتِي عَلَيْكَ لَقَدْ أَكْرَمَكَ اللَّهُ

May Allah be merciful to you, O Aba as-Sa'ib! I testify that Allah has honored you”

In response to this, the Prophet [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] said:

أَمَّا هُوَ فَقَدْ جَاءَهُ اليَقِينُ وَاللَّهِ إِنِّي لَأَرْجُو لَهُ الخَيْرَ وَاللَّهِ مَا أَدْرِي وَأَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ‌مَا ‌يُفْعَلُ ‌بِي

Certainty [death] came to him. By Allah, I too wish him good, but by Allah, I do not know what will be done with me though I am Allah's Messenger.

Although the context of this statement is in reference to Uthman bin Maz’un’s death and whether or not Allah has truly honored him in the Afterlife, the Prophet’s statement ‘I do not know, though I am the Messenger of Allah, what will be done with me’ does not necessarily have to be interpreted as referring to what will be done with him in the Afterlife. His purpose is only to convey that despite being a Prophet and Apostle of God he has not been given the totality of the knowledge of the unseen.

Monday, 5 April 2021

Deobandi Elder Rashid Gangohi's Praise for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

One of the ‘godfathers’ of the Deobandi sect, Rashid Gangohi, considered by them to have the status of a Prophet, used to praise Mirza Ghulam Ahmadfounder of the Ahmadiyya movementsaying:

کام تو یہ شخص اچھا کر رہا ہے

"This person is doing good work" (Tadkirat ur-Rashid; v.2, p.228):

Monday, 29 March 2021

Perpetuity of Hellfire (Part 2)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله تعالى على خاتم النبيين

Several months ago I explained in an article the idea that based on indications from the holy Quran, and also rational arguments, the punishment of Gehinnom (Hell) isn’t infinite or everlasting, rather, it is extremely lengthy to the point it may be described as everlasting figuratively.

Recently, in a discussion with a social media religious activist by the name of ‘Amir Haq’, he asked me to answer a common objection raised against the endless perpetuity of Hell that how can there be an infinite punishment for a finite crime. I explained my position that Hellfire may be an extremely lengthy sentence but it is not infinite. Amir Haq was taken aback by this answer and quoted the following Ayah of the Quran in an attempt to prove the everlasting perpetuity of Hell:

وَ مَنۡ یَّقۡتُلۡ مُؤۡمِنًا مُّتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَآؤُہٗ جَہَنَّمُ خٰلِدًا فِیۡہَا وَ غَضِبَ اللّٰہُ عَلَیۡہِ وَ لَعَنَہٗ وَ اَعَدَّ لَہٗ عَذَابًا عَظِیۡمًا

And whoso kills a believer intentionally, his reward shall be Hell wherein he shall abide. And Allah will be wroth with him and will curse him and will prepare for him a great punishment

(Surah 4:93)

Amir Haq drew my attention to the word khālidan in this Ayah which is generally understood to mean unending perpertuity. In my answer, I said that khuld in the Arabic language can mean both unending perpetuity but also used to describe an extremely lengthy duration, and gave the example of how the Arabs refer to mountains as khawālid because mountains, while not perpetually abiding, are nevertheless objects that are long lasting and durable. However, Amir Haq disputed this reason for why the Arabs name mountains khawālid and also the possibility of extremely lengthy duration as one of the meanings of khuld in the Arabic language. He challenged me to prove my assertion.

At the time I told him that I shall properly research the issue and get back to him, which I am glad to say I have done and shall now share my findings on this blog.

Firstly, the Ayah which Amir Haq quoted is concerning the threat of punishment for one who is guilty of premeditated murder of a Believer, a most serious crime in the sight of Allah. However, while this threat of punishment in Hell is certainly there for someone who intentionally murders a Believer, it should also be remembered that Allah may, if He wishes and by His grace, forgive someone all of their sins, including the sin of premeditated murder:

اِنَّ اللّٰہَ لَا یَغۡفِرُ اَنۡ یُّشۡرَکَ بِہٖ وَ یَغۡفِرُ مَا دُوۡنَ ذٰلِکَ لِمَنۡ یَّشَآءُ

Surely, Allah will not forgive that any partner be associated with Him; but He will forgive whatever is short of that to whomsoever He pleases

(Surah 4:48; 4:116)

The Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) narrated the story of a man who murdered a hundred innocent people but was forgiven by Allah because of his intention to sincerely repent:

انَ فِي بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ رَجُلٌ قَتَلَ تِسْعَةً وَتِسْعِينَ إِنْسَانًا ثُمَّ خَرَجَ يَسْأَلُ فَأَتَى رَاهِبًا فَسَأَلَهُ فَقَالَ لَهُ هَلْ مِنْ تَوْبَةٍ قَالَ لاَ‏‏ فَقَتَلَهُ فَجَعَلَ يَسْأَلُ فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ ائْتِ قَرْيَةَ كَذَا وَكَذَا‏‏ فَأَدْرَكَهُ الْمَوْتُ فَنَاءَ بِصَدْرِهِ نَحْوَهَا فَاخْتَصَمَتْ فِيهِ مَلاَئِكَةُ الرَّحْمَةِ وَمَلاَئِكَةُ الْعَذَابِ فَأَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَى هَذِهِ أَنْ تَقَرَّبِي‏‏ وَأَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَى هَذِهِ أَنْ تَبَاعَدِي‏‏ وَقَالَ قِيسُوا مَا بَيْنَهُمَا‏‏ فَوُجِدَ إِلَى هَذِهِ أَقْرَبُ بِشِبْرٍ فَغُفِرَ لَهُ

"Amongst the men of Bani Israel there was a man who had murdered ninety-nine persons. Then he set out asking (whether his repentance could be accepted or not). He came upon a monk and asked him if his repentance could be accepted. The monk replied in the negative and so the man killed him. He kept on asking till a man advised to go to such and such village. (So he left for it) but death overtook him on the way. While dying, he turned his chest towards that village (where he had hoped his repentance would be accepted), and so the Angels of mercy and the Angels of punishment quarrelled amongst themselves regarding him. Allah ordered the village (towards which he was going) to come closer to him, and ordered the village (whence he had come), to go far away, and then He ordered the Angels to measure the distances between his body and the two villages. So he was found to be one span closer to the village (he was going to). So he was forgiven."

I do not quote this Hadith with the intention of mitigating the severity of the crime of murder. Indeed, after idolatry itself it is the worst sin, and there are frightening threats throughout the Scripture and the traditions of the Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) for the sin of murder.

If it is argued that should Allah refuse to forgive a murderersomeone guilty of having deliberate murdered a Believerthen his punishment in Hell is perpetual and unending as per Surah 4:93, based on this particular interpretation of the word khālidan, then consider the following Hadith:

يَخْرُجُ مِنَ النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، وَفِي قَلْبِهِ وَزْنُ شَعِيرَةٍ مِنْ خَيْرٍ، وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، وَفِي قَلْبِهِ وَزْنُ بُرَّةٍ مِنْ خَيْرٍ، وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَفِي قَلْبِهِ وَزْنُ ذَرَّةٍ مِنْ خَيْرٍ

"Whoever said ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in his heart good equal to the weight of a barley grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of a wheat grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said, ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in his heart good equal to the weight of an atom will be taken out of Hell."

The Prophet (sall Allahu alaihi wasallam) explained that the only condition for someone to be taken out from Hell is that they have an atom’s weight of good in their heart and said ‘La elaha illa Allah’there is none worthy of worship except Allah. If even a serial killer of Believers fulfills this condition, he too shall one day be taken out of Hell, if Allah wills.

As for khuld, according to the Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage published by Brill, the trilateral root KH-L-D connotes: “mountains, rocks; to remain put for a long time”. From this root we get the imperfect verb takhlud which means “to remain, last, endure for a long time” and the word khālid which means “one living or remaining forever or for a long time” (p. 275).

According to the classical Arabic lexicon Taj ul-Urus

الخَوَالِدُ (الجِبَالُ والحِجَارَةُ) والصُّخورُ لطولِ بَقائها بعد دُرُوس الأَطلالِ

Al-Khawalid: mountains, stones and rocks, because of the length of their lasting (v.8, p.63):

Al-Raghib al-Isfahani has mentioned the same in his Mufradat (pp. 291-292):

Monday, 22 March 2021

Foreign Domination

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

British imperial rule over the Muslims is resented by and large by our people due to spread of poisonous ideologies, having their roots in the anti-colonial movements themselves, like nationalism and leftism. It is an indisputable fact that the condition of the Muslim world under European colonialism, and particularly the British, was preferable to the present state of affairs although Muslims are by and large autonomous. The truth is foreign rule and domination is often superior to native, self-rule. To the ordinary subject it shouldn’t really matter whether there is a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen in government buildings and offices, or a portrait of a brown man wearing a red fez. What really matters is the quality of governance, not the identity of the governor. Look back at the height of British imperial power, we Muslims have a lot to be grateful for. These are the people who liberated the Punjab from the Akali tyranny through the Anglo-Sikh wars of the mid 19th century. During the Akali tyranny, the impotent Muslims of Punjab were forbidden the rite of cow sacrificeon pain of death. Mosques were desecrated and calling the adhān was likewise proscribed. Incidentally, today in the Punjab province of Pakistan, the moronic government and other cultural institutions celebrate Ranjit Singh as a hero and part of their heritage. There are even statues [idols] of that indecent tāghūt that have been erected relatively recently to honor his memory. Likewise, there is a growing trend in the Punjab province of Pakistan to celebrate the murderer Bhagat Singh, considered a martyr by some, especially in India among the Sikhs. Upon liberating Punjab from the Akali thugs, the British fully restored the religious liberty of the Muslims. The change in political atmosphere allowed for various Islamic movements, reformist and traditional, to flourish. Regrettably, the rise of Indian nationalism and its general demand for self-rule affected many of the Muslims who shockingly joined hands with idolatrous Hindus to oppose the ‘White Man’. This solidarity with idolatrous Hindus and Sikhs, as an expression of subcontinental ‘Desi’ nationalism has only served to worsen the condition of Muslims who remained behind in India after the Partition. The present rise of Hindutva chauvinism is not hidden from anyone and exonerates the narrative of those who rejected Indian nationalism in favor of Muslim communalism during the height of the Swaraj movement. In the Mideast, the British installed client monarchies. Many of them were later overthrown by nationalists and leftists. For example, the Free Officers Movement overthrew the client monarchy in Egypt in 1952. Since then Egypt has been an extremely authoritarian and autocratic state. The revolution of 1952 used the slogans of nationalism and leftism that eventually brought the despicable Nasser to power. In 1958, something similar happened in Iraq when nationalists overthrew the British installed Hashemite monarchy. Ever since Iraq has gone from bad to worse. In 1969, another devil, Gaddafi, through a coup removed a pro-British monarchy and seized power in Libya. These Arabs may imagine they have gained something through native rule and independence but the opposite is true. They have destroyed themselves and been sucked into a vacuum of perpetual tyranny, corruption, inefficient government, autocracy and injustice. It is narrated that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

السُّلْطَانُ ظِلُّ اللَّهِ فِي الأَرْضِ

The Sultān is the shadow of God upon the Earth

(Musnad al-Bazzar)

The meaning of the Hadīth does not discriminate between a Muslim or non-Muslim sovereign, let alone a foreign or native one. The British Crown at the height of its imperial power was therefore the ‘Shadow of God’. It was a blessing and a divine favor for the Muslims who were under its shade. Don’t forget it was the British imperialists who partitioned Bengal in 1905 as a means of addressing the Hindu industrialist’s exploitation of underdeveloped, predominantly Muslim East Bengal, despite the fury it evoked among the Bengali Hindu. Of course, the final parting gift from the British was the creation of Pakistan. Those who imagine Pakistan was achieved solely through the political struggle the Muslim League led by Jinnah and his associates are living in a delusion. Pakistan could not have come to fruition without British approval. Consequently, two-thirds of the Subcontinent’s Muslims owe a debt of gratitude to the British. Yes, perhaps it can be said that the British rewarded the Muslim Pakistan in recognition of their loyalty to the Crown in supporting the war effort against the Axis, whereas the Hindu led Congress of Gandhi and Nehru boycotted the war effort, and other Indian nationalists like Bose actually went to the extent of fighting on the side of the Japanese, hoping the latter would liberate them from British rule. For the Muslims at least, British rule of India proved to be the ‘Shadow of God upon the Earth’. In the aftermath of World War II, the United States of America emerged as the successor to British imperialism. It waged a Cold War against the evil Soviets and the spread of communism around the globe. A large number of Muslims were duped into viewing the US negatively because of this. Leftism had deeply penetrated much of the Muslim Ummah during this period. Combined with nationalist and anti-colonialist sentiment, it became a toxic mix. In the 1970s, communism managed to take over Afghanistan, otherwise one of the more traditional and conservative Muslim countries. Many Afghan Muslims rose up against the communists, provoking the Soviets to invade Afghanistan in 1979. We must be grateful that the Americans, through their CIA, materially assisted the Afghan Mujāhidīn in resisting the Soviet invader, who were eventually driven out in humiliation, by the grace of Allāh عزّ وجلّ. In 1990, Baathist Iraq led by the tāghūt Saddam invaded Kuwait. The latter were rescued and liberated by the US, who taught Saddam a lesson in humility. Then in the 1990s, Muslim populations in the BalkansBosniaks and ethnic Albanians of Kosovowere the victims of a ghastly genocide perpetrated by the Christian Serbs. They too were rescued by a US led military intervention. In 2003, the US went into Iraq to liberate the country once and for all from Saddam’s tyranny and terror. The US practically handed Iraq freedom on a silver platter. But the subsequent chaos and bloodshed was not at all the fault of the Americans. Iraq’s immediate neighborsIran, Saudi Arabia and Syriawere alarmed at the prospect of a free and democratic Arab state in the midst succeeding. That success would likely result in calls for more freedom and democracy in their own countries. They therefore had a critical interest in destabilizing and sabotaging the democratic experiment in Iraq. They did this by infiltrating the country with sectarian militias, terrorists, insurgents and Jihadists. The Iraqis themselves proved the proverb ‘Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity’ perfectly true when they elected unsavory politicians into office who immediately went about marginalizing the Sunnis and looting the coffers. For their part, the Sunnis foolishly remained loyal to the overthrown Baathist regime and launched an insurgency against the Americans. Al-Qaeda emerged in Iraq, and under their agent al-Zarqawi, they decided to provoke a sectarian war by bombing Shi’ite processions and shrines. The US tried its best to restore law and order to the country, but in the end Iraq proved to be a hopeless case. Meanwhile, in 2011, when the people of Libya rose up against the cruel dictator Gaddafi, inspired by the success of the ‘Arab Spring’ in neighboring Tunisia, a US-led intervention helped them overthrow Gaddafi. But once again, certain Arab states couldn’t stomach the prospect of Libya becoming a free and democratic state. The Egyptians and Emiratis in particular sought to undermine and disrupt peace in Libya by backing the warlord Haftar, who seeks to become another Gaddafi, thus plunging that country into a civil war. So we see a recurring theme of the US intervening militarily to liberate various Muslim countries from tyranny, only for other Muslim states to sabotage and undermine them.

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...