The Waajib Fist-Length Beard

[Majlisul Ulama]

QUESTION

A Mufti, namely, Mufti Abdullah al Mahmudi, in an article/fatwa says  that according to many Hanafi  Ulama it is permissible to trim the beard to less than one fist-length. This is a new version of the mas’alah as it has hitherto  been known to us. Please check the fatwa and comment, especially on the following section:

“However, many Hanafi Ulama  have considered trimming the beard shorter than a fist’s  length to be permissible as there  is no explicit prohibition for  trimming the Beard under a fist’s  length in the original Hanafi texts. It was only Imam Ibnul Humam (D.861) and those who came after him like Allamah Ibn  Abideen Shami who declared it to be Haraam in the Hanafi Madhhab
Furthermore,. no mention of  prohibition has been recorded in  the original Hanafi texts from Imam Abu Hanifah himself, nor  from Imam Abu Yusuf,  Muhammed or Zufar  (Rahimahumullah). Also, the Hadith emphasizes the  lengthening of the Beard but has  not explicitly prohibited  trimming it. Infact, in Kitabul  Aathaar of Imam Abu Yusuf, the following narration is recorded:

Translation: Imam Abu Yusuf  narrates from Imam Abu Hanifah, who narrates from Hammad who narrated from Ibrahim an Nakha’i (Rahimahullah) that he said:  “There is nothing wrong for a man to trim his beard as long as he  does not imitate the people of  Shirk” (Kitabul Aathaar by Abu Yusuf, Pg:235)

Based on this, many Hanafi  Ulama are of the opinion that if  one does trim his Beard under a  fist’s length, he will not be sinful  as long as one does not shave it  off completely. All Hanafi Ulama  are unanimous that the Sunnah  and recommended length of the beard is that it should be a fist’s length all around.”

Answer (By Majlisul Ulama)

The moron, jaahil ‘mufti’ maajin does not name some of the  ‘many Hanafi Ulama’ who believe  that trimming the beard less  than a fist length is permissible.  His argument presented in  conflict with the more than 14  century unanimous Ruling of the fist-length beard is baseless. He  displays his liberal leanings and  lack of understanding of the mas’alah with his corrupt and convoluted opinion.

Who are the Hanafi Ulama who  believe that it is not sinful to cut the beard to less than a fist-length, and that such a  sinn er  will not be a flagrant faasiq?  Perhaps he has in mind moron  ‘ulama’ of this age. But their  views have no validity in the  Shariah. There is Ijmaa’ the Hanafi Math-hab on the fist of length  beard and that it is haraam to cut/trim it to a size less than  a fist-length.

His claim that trimming shorter than a fist  length is only the view of Ibnul Humaam (died 861 Hijri), is the  product of his convoluted opinion. There is not a single  Hanafi Faqeeh who had held the  view of permissibility of the  ‘shorter’ length. Since the time  of the Sahaabah, the practice  was the fist length. The practical  example of the Sahaabah and  which example all the Hanafi  Fuqaha adopted, is the clearest and strongest evidence for the Ijmaa’ of the Math-hab on this issue. It is the height of  stupidity to contend that the prohibition was initiated by Ibn  Humaam. There is not a single Hanafi Faqeeh in any age who  had averred a contrary opinion.  The opinion of the liberal morons  of our time are devoid of Shar’i substance, and have no validity  in the Shariah.

The maajin mufti’s claim: “there  is no explicit prohibition for trimming the beard under a fist’s  length in the original Hanafi texts”, is a portrayal of his jahaalat. When there is Ijmaa’of  all the Ulama of former times and later times, on this prohibition, the explicitness is glaringly conspicuous. No Aalim of Haq and no evil aalim of former times had ever understood that it was permissible to cut the beard shorter than a fist length. Not even the ulama-e-soo’ of former times held the corrupt opinion which this maajin ‘mufti’ is propagating in stark conflict with the Ijmaa’i stance of all our Ulama. 

Ibn Humaam (Rahmatullah alayh) was not a mufti maajin. If his explicit statement in this regard  had been erroneous, there would have been numerous Hanafi Ulama of his age and subsequent ages who would have refuted his contention. But there is not a single Hanafi Faqeeh or Aalim from his time and thereafter, who had ever refuted or even contested the mas’alah as stated by Ibn Humaam. This ‘mufti’ maajin appears to be the first mujrim or one of the liberal mujrimeen of this age who propagates the haraam view of permissibility of cutting shorter than a fist length. 

There is not a single Math-hab which holds the corrupt opinion propagated by the maajin character. On the contrary, the other Math-habs, prohibit even any type of beard-cutting. According to the other Math-habs, cutting to even a fist length is haraam. They do not consider the fist-length Hadith sufficiently sound for permitting any kind of cutting. 

The mas’alah as it appears in Faidhul Baari –Sharah Saheehul Baari, is:   

“Verily, they (the Fuqaha) have differed regarding the beard. What is afdhal (better)? It has been said that cutting that which is in excess of a fist is afdhal as is mentioned in Kitaabul Aathaar of Imaam Muhammad. And, it has been said that I’faa’ mutlaqan (leaving it to grow  unrestrictively) is afdhal. But to cut it less than a fist length is  haraam Ijmaa-an (i.e there is a consensus on prohibition) among the Aimmah (Rahim ahumullaahu ta’ala).”

Should the explicit statement in  Faidhul Baari be accepted or the stupid, haraam view of the ‘mufti’  maajin of this day? Did this unbaked maajin ‘mufti’  understand the mas’alah better  than Allaamah Anwar Shah  Kashmiri (Rahmatullah alayh),  Author of Faidhul Baari wherein  he explicitly mentions Ijmaa’ on the hurmat of cutting shorter than a fist length? 

In all the Kutub it is explicitly  mentioned that cutting the beard is only when it is longer than a  fist length. No one has ever  advocated cutting less than a  fist length as the moron ‘mufti’  alleges baselessly.

“Al-Kaaki said: ‘The length of the  beard is the extent of a qubdhah  (fist-length) according to us  (Ahnaaf). Whatever is in excess  of this (qubdhah), its cutting is  incumbent (waajib)…” (Al Binaayah)       

Cutting only the ‘excess’ is  permissible. The excess is more  than a fist-length. Explaining  this fact further, it is stated in Nukhbul Afkaar: “The Salaf  differed regarding the limit for    (its length to grow ) Among them are those who have not placed  any limit (on its growth) except  that it should not be grown for the sake of shuhrat (fame/attracting attention/pride and  the like). (For then) he should cut from it. Maalik has disliked  excessive lengthening. Among them (i.e. Fuqaha) are those who  limit it to a qubdhah. Thus, the  excess over a qubdhah should be  removed. Among them are those  who regard it reprehensible  (Makrooh Tahrimi) to remove  anything from it except in Hajj and Umrah.”

“Abu Haamid said: ‘There is difference regarding the length of the beard. It has been said that if a man cuts from his beard the portion beyond his qubdhah, then there is nothing wrong with it. Verily, Ibn Umar and a Jamaa’at of the Salf-e-Taabieen had done so (i.e. cut off the excess below a qubdhah). Ash-Sha’bi and Ibn Sireen preferred this.  Al-Hasan and Qataadah said: ‘Leaving it (to grow) is more preferable)……..” 

It should be palpably clear that the difference of opinion among the Fuqaha is applicable to only the excess below one qubdhah. There is no difference regarding the prohibition of cutting less than a fist-length. There is Ijmaa’ of all authorities of all Math-habs that such cutting is haraam. 

In Durarul Hukkaam Sharh Ghuraril Ahkaam, it is mentioned:  

“Cutting from the beard less than a fist-length as is the practice of some westerners and hermaphrodites, no one (among the Ulama/Fuqaha) had permitted it.    

Regarding lengthening the beard, Muhammad narrating from Imaam Abu Hanifah said: ‘It should be left (to grow) until it is thick and abundant. Cutting from it is Sunnah in that portion in excess of a qubdhah.” 

Imaam Muhammad narrated Imaam Abu Hanifah’s statement in which he explicitly states that cutting applies to only the ‘excess’, not to anything else as the maajin ‘mufti’ hallucinates. ‘Sunnah’ in the context means the incumbent practice for adoption. It does not mean permissibility for discardence. The Fardh Salaat is also ‘Sunnah’ in the meaning of it being the practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is not a practice of Islam to shorten the beard to less than a fist length. There is not a single authority of Islam since the inception of Islam, who has ever advocated the permissibility of shortening the beard as the moron ‘mufti’ promotes. 

In Ghaayatul Bayaan, the noble Author, Qiwaamuddeen Itqaani (died 758 Hijri) states:   

“Regarding I’faaul Lihyah (lengthening the beard), there is difference of the people (i.e. of the Fuqaha). Some said that it should be left to grow (unrestrictedly) without cutting or clipping. That in reality is the meaning of I’faa’. Our Ashaab (i.e. the Ahnaaf) said that I’faa’ is to leave it to grow until it is thick and abundant, and cutting it is Sunnah and that is that a man should hold his beard in his fist and cut  that portion which is  more than it (his fist). So has Muhammad narrated in Kitaabul Aathaar narrating from Abu Hanifajh. This is what we accept.” 

In An-Nihaayah Sharh Al-Hidaayah, it is mentioned:   “According to us (the Ahnaaf), the length of the beard is the extent of the qubdhah (fist). It is incumbent to cut that portion more than this………..In his Jaami, Abu Isaa said: ‘Lightening the beard is from the good fortune of a man.” 

It is the height of folly, capable from only a jaahil masquerading as a mufti, to interpret or misinterpret the term khiffah (lightening) to mean a licence to shorten the beard  less than a qubdhah. The extent of shortening is prescribed in all the Kutub of the Shariah

It is said in Raddul Muhtaar:   “Regarding cutting from it whilst it is less than this (i.e. fist-length) as some westerners and hermaphrodites do, no one (among the Fuqaha) has  permitted it.”

This negation is not attributed  to only Ibnul Humaam. It states explicitly that “no one”  has ever  permitted it. It is only this  upstart ‘mufti’ maajin of our  time who is abortively  attempting to peddle the idea  that ‘cutting more than a fist  length’ was a permitted practice since the inception of Islam. But his baatil is manifest.

The qubdhah stipulation which  is the limit for cutting stated unanimously by all the Fuqaha  since the inception of Islam, is in fact the explicit prohibition for  cutting shorter than a fist length. It is therefore absolutely moronic to aver that “no mention of prohibition has been recorded in  the original Hanafi texts.” The moron ‘mufti’  displays  extraordinary jahaalat in his baseless conclusion. The lack of understanding in the sphere of Ifta of this ‘mufti’ is  staggeringly lamentable. He  portrays complete ignorance of the consequences of the  technical designations with  which the Fuqaha have clothed the Ahkaam  of  the Shariah.   

Mustahab and Sunnat in their  technical sense do not mean a  free license for the discardence  of the ahkaam. Acts of such  technical appellation remain  practically and literally Waajib  irrespective of the negation of  the technical/Fiqhi meaning of   Wujoob. For example, while    facing the animal towards the  Qiblah at the time of Thabah is  not technically designated Waajib, it remains practically Waajib to  face the animal towards the  Qiblah. The emphasis of    practical Wujoob is such that  Sahaabah would  refuse to  consume the meat of an animal  which had been intentionally  turned away from the Qiblah.

Similarly, whilst there is no  explicit prohibition of hanging an animal upside down, Sanha-MJC  style when effecting Thabah, only morons and those who have  sold their souls to Iblees, contend that it is permissible to hang the chickens upside down when  slaughtering. The  permanent Shar’i method – the Sunnah method – is in fact the explicit prohibition for any other method. Thus deliberate discardence of technical Mustahab without valid reason, is gravely sinful and haraam. If the discardence is motivated by an attitude of insignificance, scorn or disdain, it will be termed Istikhfaaf which is kufr. If the discardence is the consequence of a lackadaisical attitude or monetary greed as is the case with the carrion halaalizers, it will be Fisq provided they believe in their hearts that their action is haraam. If  they halaalize the haraam kuffaar method with which they  have displaced the Sunnah method, then such discardence will be kufr

The permanent Sunnah practice is Waajib irrespective of the technical categories to which the Fuqaha have assigned the Ahkaam. Ibnul Mulaqqeen states in his Al-I’laamu bi Fawaaid Umdatil Ahkaam:

“From the Hadith is gained the difference between Tanzeeh and Tahreem prohibition….And that (difference) in the Urf of the Sahaabah is related to Ilm. However, with regard to amal (practice), they did not differentiate in it. But they would totally abstain from Makrooh Tanzeehi and Tahreemi. Whoever has investigated their actions, statements and the principles of the Shariah will find the issue to be so.”  [Vol.4, page 468] 

Explicit prohibition is not reliant on explicit words. The explicit Sunnah method is in fact adequate for the explicit prohibition of the method/style which is at variance or in conflict with the teaching of the Shariah. Thus, the ‘mufti’s’ interpretation of ‘lack of explicit prohibition’ on the basis of which he halaalizes   the kabeerah sin of cutting the beard shorter than a qubdhah is the  effect of gross jahaalat.

Then, advertising his gross jahaalat the maajin ‘mufti’ presents a statement from Kitaabul Aathaar of Imaam Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh), which reads:  

“There is nothing wrong for a man to trim from his beard as long as he does not imitate the people of shirk.” 

On the basis of his understanding or misunderstanding of this citation, the maajin ‘mufti’ concludes:

“Based on this, many Hanafi  Ulama are of the opinion that if one does trim his beard under a fist’s length, he will not be sinful as long as one does not shave it off completely.”

The Ummah is incremently being deprived of genuine Ulama. With the departure of the true Ulama, there remain only flotsam characters who are bereft of  understanding, hence  they disgorge  such  corrupt and convoluted  gutha fatwas which distort and mutilate the Shariah thereby misleading the ignorant and the unwary. 

If the interpretation by the maajin ‘mufti, given to Imaam Abu Yusuf’s statement had to be correct, it will follow that even a telescopic beard, short of complete facial barrenness, will also be permissible, and a haraam goatee beard with the sides bare will also be permissible. Only total shaving will be prohibited. In terms of his logic, besides the factor of Tashabbuh bil kuffaar, there is absolutely no restriction on  trimming/cutting the beard in any way. This baatil conclusion is the effect of the wholesale chicanery which the moron ‘mufti’ has perpetrated regarding Imaam Abu Yusuf’s narration. 

In his presentation of Imaam Abu Yusuf’s narration from Kitaabul Aathaar, the Haatibul Lail  ‘mufti’ maajin is guilty of three shaitaani acts of chicanery: 

(1) Concealing the Haqq. While he mentions the narration of Imaam Abu Yusuf  in which appears the term ‘ya’khuthu’ (he takes, meaning, cutting/trimming), the ‘mufti’, in order to bolster his  corrupt opinion based on misinterpretation, conveniently  ignores four Hadith narrations accompanying the  narration on which he basis his convolution. 

(2)  He ignores the explicit tafseer of the term ‘ya’khuthu’ mentioned in the Ahaadith which he has concealed, believing that his deception will go undetected. 

(3) He presents his misinterpretation in diametric conflict and rejection of the Ijma’ of the Ummah on this issue. 

Chicanery No.1

The Ahaadith which he has concealed are the following:

(a) Yusuf narrates from his father who narrates from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma): “Verily he (i.e. Ibn Umar) used to  ya’khuthu’ (cut) from his beard.”

(b) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Al-Aithan, from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) that verily he (Ibn Umar) used to hold with the fist on his beard, then ya’kuthu (cut) from it the portion which exceeded the qubdhah (fist).”

(c) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma): ‘He (Ibn Umar) used to ya’khuthu (cut) from his beard. (d) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) that…………he (Ibn Umar) used to ya’khuthu (cut) from his beard.”   

These four narrations accompany the narration cited by the maajin ‘mufti’, but whose concealment  he deemed expedient for peddling his fallacy. 

Chicanery No.2

In the narration cited by the ‘mufti’, appears the very same word ya’khuthu (he cuts), and this narration is the very next one, No.1041, whilst its tafseer, viz., “He would cut the portion which  traversed  the qubdhah”, appears in Hadith No.1040, just one line above the narration which the maajin ‘mufti’ had ripped from its context. 

Narration No.1039 in the same section, also mentions that Hadhrat Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) would cut (ya’khuthu) from his beard. The limit of the cutting is explicitly stated in narration 1040, which is the qubdhah (fist). Furthermore, this limit of cutting (ya’khuthu) is explicitly stated in numerous kutub of the Shariah, and this is the view on which there exists Ijmaa’ of the Ahnaaf, without a single voice of dissent since the inception of Islam to this day.  The ‘many Hanafi Ulama’ who allegedly differ, have not been named by the maajin ‘mufti’ – not a single one. Liberals of our era have no significance, for they all belong to the Hufaalah class of ulama-e-soo’.

It is inconceivable that Imaam  Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh)    had a meaning other than qubdhah for the cutting (ya’khuthu) when he, himself  presents Hadhrat Ibn Umar’s  qubdhah limit practice in substantiation of the  permissibility of cutting the  beard when it has exceeded the  fist length.

It should be noted that Imaam  Abu Yusuf and all Hanafi Fuqaha  of every age of Islam have cited  Hadhrat Ibn Umar’s practice of cutting to the limit of qubdhah in  negation of the view of the Shaafi’ Math-hab in its  interpretation of the term I’faa’  (to lengthen). ‘Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  ordered I’faa’ of the beard.  According to the Shaafi’ Fuqaha, the I’faa’ (lengthening)  has to be unrestricted, cutting  anything therefrom being  haraam. However, the Ahnaaf  Fuqaha interpret I’faa’ restrictively. The practice of  Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar and  of other Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu anhum), explicitly permits  cutting, hence precludes the Shaafi’ view of unrestricted I’faa’.

The Hanafi Fuqaha also cite the  practice of Hadhrat Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu  anhuma) in  prescribing the permissible limit  of cutting. Thus, the argument    among the Fuqaha of the two  Mathhabs is on the term I’faa’. While  according  to  the  Shaafis, I’faa’ is mutlaq (unrestricted),  the Hanafis say that it is  muqayyad (restricted) with the qubdhah length. This is the  actual meaning of Imaam Abu  Yusuf’s statement of the  permissibility of cutting (ya’khuthu) from the beard. He    specifies that the cutting should  not be in emulation of the    people of shirk who also kept  beards which entail restricted I’faa’ ,hence they would cut their  beards. The Yahood keep beards  longer than qubdhah , and  perhaps other people of shirk  also do, hence the warning that  when restricting I’faa’, it should  not be in imitation of the kuffaar.  It NEVER means to cut and shorten to less than a fist length.  This is a satanic inspiration. 

The maajin ‘mufti’ has attempted with his own baatil ta’weel to negate the explicit tafseer of the term ya’khuthu mentioned by Imaam Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh) in his Kitaabul Aathaar

Chicanery No.3

The third satanic act of fraud perpetrated by the Haatibul Lail ‘mufti’ is his reckless and stupid opposition  to the Ijmaa’ of all the Hanafi Fuqaha of all ages, and his  ludicrous attempt  of  attributing the prohibition to Ibnul Humaam of the 8th century and to Ibn Aabideen of the 12th century. If  Ibnul Humaam had been the first Faqeeh to have  issued the Fatwa of prohibition as the ‘mufti’ hallucinates or  stupidly presents, then  most certainly there would have been many Hanafi Fuqaha who would have contested his Fatwa. But not a single Hanafi Aalim or Faqeeh had ever breathed a difference since his era to this day. This upstart maajin ‘mufti’ of today is the first moron who has stupidly ventured what no Faqeeh has ever stated. 

In the entire history of Islam since its inception to this day, there has never been any difference of opinion among the Authorities – the Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and the Ulama-e-Haqq – regarding cutting the beard less than a qubdhah. The difference is confined to only I’faa’ (lengthening). According to the Ahnaaf, I’faa’ is restricted with qubdhah, while according to the Shawaafi and also others, I’faa’ is unrestricted, that is the beard must be allowed to grow irrespective of the length it reaches. 

Imaam Abu Yusuf’s statement regarding akhth (cutting), applies to the qubdhah  length, and to substantiate this,  are the practices of the Sahaabah, notably Hadhrat Ibn Umar, Abu Hurairah and also of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). Less than a qubdhah is hallucination inspired by Iblees.

It  is observed that the maajin  ‘mufti’ has designate himself “ al-Mahmudi” ostensibly relating  himself to Hadhrat Mahmudul Hasan Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) whose compilation of Fataawa is known as Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah. This  ‘mufti’  should have consulted Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah to ascertain the  view of his patron, Hadhrat    Mahmudul Hasan. In Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah, Hadhrat Mahmudul Hasan says:

“Keeping a beard is Waajib. It is  haraam to shave or cut it prior to  it having reaching the prescribed  limit…….Cutting the beard is of the practices of the Ajam (non- Arab kuffaar). Today it is a salient feature of many of the  people  of shirk and  idolaters such as the English, Hindus and those who  have no morality in Deen ….(Mirkaat) 

Cutting in it (the beard) is  Sunnat, and this is that a man should hold his beard with his  hand, and cut off that portion  which is longer than a fist. So  has Muhammad narrated in  Kitaabul Aathaar from Imaam  Abu Hanifah. And this is what  we adhere to….Muheetus Sarakhsi, Tahtaawi.” (Vol.6)

In the Hadith Shareef, it is  explicitly said: “Increase the  beard; lengthen the beard; make  abundant the beard.” The  (axiomatic) demand of these  terms is that there should not  have been a limit to increasing  the beard (i.e. it should be  allowed to grow unrestrictively),  and that cutting (anything whatever) should have been totally impermissible. But, the  amal of  the Sahaabi narrator of  the Hadith was to cut the  portion of his beard in excess of  one fist length. Imaam  Muhammad has narrated this Hadith in Kitaabul Aathaar, and  he has stated that this is the  Math-hab of Imaam Abu Hanifah
It is not narrated from any  Sahaabi that the beard was cut  before it reached one fist  length….It is thus known that  this is what the Sahaabah had  understood from the Hadith    (pertaining to lengthening and  cutting the beard). On this is  enacted Ijmaa’. Thus, to interpret  the Hadith in any way in conflict  with the understanding of the  Sahaabah is not permissible. (This is precisely what the maajin ‘mufti’ is guilty  of). Such a  meaning (as peddled by the  maajin character) cannot be the  meaning (intended by) Nabi  Akram Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam. On the contrary, it is  the meaning fabricated by the  mind of the one who presents  such a meaning which is a  fabrication thrust on to the  Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam). For this there is severe warning of punishment.   For such a person, is the warning  of Jahannam.

It is mentioned in Durre-Mukhtaar that NO ONE (i.e. no  one among the Fuqaha)  has    averred  that  it  is  permissible  to  cut  the beard  bef ore  it  has  reached  one fist length.. It is  self-evident that since the  command is to lengthen the  beard, cutting will be nugatory of it, and conflicting with the command is sinful. Those who  cut before the beard has reached  one fist and content themselves  with short-cropped beard or little  more than this, should present the hadith proof for such cutting.”  (Vol.5)

The Shar’i limit of the beard is  one qubdhah (fist). Imaam Muhammad has narrated this in  Kitaabul Aaathaar with its Sanad. It is mentioned in Fathul Qadeer,  Durre Mukhtaar and in other Kutub of Fiqh to cut before the  beard reaches one fist or to cut    it to less than one fist is not permissible by anyone (of the  Fuqaha). No one has stated that  this is permissible. This is in the  category of Ijmaa’” (Vol.1) 

No one has ever said that cutting the beard before it has reached one fist or to cut it less than a  fist–length is permissible. This shaving and cutting are  tashabbuh with aliens (kuffaar).  It is also self evident that such a  person’s testimony is not  acceptable nor is he an aadil.”. (Vol.14) 

These explicit Fatwas of Hadhrat  Mufti Mahmudul Hasan, as well as the fatwas of all our Akaabir  Muftis and Ulama, categorically  damn and reject the haraam  rubbish disgorged by the maajin ‘mufti’ who relates himself to  Mufti Mahmudul Hasan with the appellation, ‘al Mahmudi’.  There  is not a vestige of  proof for the haraam view of permissibility for  cutting the beard less than a qubdhah.

We have dealt with  mild severity with the  propounder of the haraam opinion in view of the notriety of his fraud and falsehood. His crime is of the gravest proportions. He has  attributed falsehood to all the Hanafi Fuqaha prior to the 8th century, including Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf and  Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayhim). Furthermore, he has  rejected the unanimous view  of  all our Akaabuir Ulama, and he  has fabricated the despicable lie  of the prohibition having been  fabricated by the illustrious Ibnul  Humaam (Rahmatullah alayh) of  the 8th century, when in reality  Ibnul Humaam was merely  narrating the official and the  only one Ijmaa’ee view of the  Ahnaaf which has been  transmitted to him down the centuries by way of authoritative Naql (Narration).

Advertisements

The Practices of Saudi Arabia Are Not Proof Of Islam – Here’s Why You Should Desist From Imposing Them On Others

[Mufti Ibadur Rahman (hafidhahullah), Ashraful Uloom, Hyderabad, India]

السّلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

Some people, owing to their narrow mindedness, want to impose every act practiced in Saudi Arabia on the entire world and narrow the vast nature of Islam. But they should take a lesson from the broad mindedness of Imam Malik (rahimahullah). Caliph Harun al Rashid (rahimahullah) wished to enforce Muwatta of Imam Malik throughout the world as a primary book of law. But Imam Malik suggested to him not to do that, because the Companions had spread in every region. They narrated ahadith in every place. Thus, the people of every region had acquired knowledge from those Companions, while Imam Malik had collected the knowledge of only Madinah. (Majmu’ al Fatawa: V. 2, p. 311, Faid al-Qadir. V. 1, p. 209)

Islam is a global as well as eternal faith. It has not been confined to any specific race, color, region or period. Islam revolves around truth, wherever it goes. Therefore, no specific place has been taken as the cradle of truth, for places go through continuous changes. Places always accept every sort of good and bad change. The truth was, therefore, not confined to any specific place; even the blessed cities of Makkah and Madinah, although birth place of Islam and, therefore, worthy of every reverence from us, are not hujjat (solid base for action) for us like Allah ta’ala, Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith do. Despite the fact that the Holy Qur’an was revealed and the Ahadith were stated in these two cities, they did not remain limited to them; they crossed the boundaries to dominate all over the world.

Sanctity is one thing, while being hujjat is something else. Every Sacred thing does not necessarily qualify for being hujjat.

The blessed Companions of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) spread throughout the world with the Holy Qur’an and they made lslam a global faith and purified the entire world with the blissful teachings of the Quran and Ahadith, as though creating a new Makkah and Madinah in the very place they visited. They built the castles of Islam in every city and left the message for us “Stay with truth wherever it is found.”

A group of people nowadays is making effort to establish that the practice in Saudi Arabia is hujjat for us and we are bound to follow the norms practiced over there. Everything against them is avoidable. This trend is badly affecting the people who do not have deeper knowledge of the faith. People are often heard saving that it happens in Saudi this way and in Makkah this way, as the truth was found only in Saudi Arabia and Makkah. Apart from that, every place of the world is void of this quality. This mentality is synonymous to narrowing the global face of Islam, not to speak of the harms it causes to the belief of common masses.

Spreading this mentality is surely not a service to the faith, or any positive and constructive task. It reflects a negative process and destructive mindset. We do not believe that truth is found only in Saudi Arabia; instead we believe that it is also found in it, apart from many other parts of the world. We do not accept the confinement of the truth in Saudi Arabia and everything that is practiced in it as hujjat. Our purpose is no way to degrade the sanctity of the holy city, nor to hurt the sentiments of its residents. The Makkah and Madinah are, in fact, the centre place for our love and qiblah for our soul. It is our primary duty to honor and protect the Holy cities. We consider it as our privilege and responsibility to sacrifice our lives for their security. At the same time, we are also neither ready to endure the travesty of the Haramayn and conspiracy against the spirit of Islam, nor will let anyone do it. We cannot remain silent if someone creates dissention amongst the Muslim community in the name of the Haramayn, charge people for infidelity from there and presents a distorted face of Islam. We will fight against them with both, the life and letters and will present Islam with all its vastness to the humanity, as the pious elders have done.

I will substantiate this view in the light of evidences from the writings of the pious elders, so that the truth stands apart and the falsehood gets disclosed.

Below are some evidences.

Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah) discusses an issueprimarily based on practices in the holy city of Madinah in details. He just abhors with due evidences the view that the practices of thepeople in the holy city serve as hujjah or authority for Muslims. He emphasizes the it is the sunnah (of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasllam)) and the truth that primarily make basis for action. It is the hadith that will serve as criterion to judge the deeds. The practices of no specific place, may it be the city of Madinah, will be taken as the criteria.

He writes in I’lam al-Muwaqqi’een:

Ending (salaah) with one salaam is a common practice in Madinah. It has been traditionally practiced by the People of Madinah for long ago. This is such an act with which argument can be made for practice in every city, as it cannot remain hidden due to repeatedly being practiced so many times a day.

I say (Ibn al-Qayyim rejects this view). This basis (the practice of people in Madinah) is opposed by the majority of scholars. They say that the practice of the people in Madinah is similar to that of people in other cities. There is no difference between the practice of people in Madinah and that of the people in Hijaz, Iraq and Syria. The practices of only those who have sunnah (hadith) in support make a base for action. It is the sunnah that judges an act, and not vice versa. No specific city, barring other ones, ever guarantees accuracy of action for us. The walls, houses and the regions do not play a role in preferring any of the different opinions. It is the residents that play a role. It is known to all that the Companions of the Prophet (saws) witnessed the revelation of the Qur’an, learnt its meaning and acquired the knowledge that the latter generations could not. Thus, they have superiority over others in regards with knowledge, as they have in regards with the religion and virtue. Their practices are such that cannot be disputed with. Most of them shifted from Madinah to other cities. Most of the scholars among the Companions (radhiyallahu anhum) stayed in Kufa, Basra and Syria, like Ali ibn Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu), Abu Musa (radhiyallahu anhu), Abdullah ibn Masood (radhiyallahu anhu), Ubadah ibn al-Samit (radhiyallahu anhu), Abu Darda (radhiyallahu anhu), Amr ibn al-Aas (radhiyallahu anhu), Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufiyan (radhiyallahu anhu) and Mu’adh ibn Jabal (radhiyallahu anhu).

Almost over three hundred Companions migrated to Kufah and Basra, and almost the same number to Egypt and Syria. So, how can their practices while living in Madinah will be reliable and the practices of their opponents not? It is not possible that their actions remain reliable as long as they stay in Madinah, but when they migrate from there, the practice of only those who remain there even after them be reliable (meaning those who remain back in Madinah – blog author). (I’lam al-Muwaqqi’een v. 2, p. 380-381, Beirut, Maktabah Dar al-Jabal). The author has further written in this regard which has been left for fear of excessive length.

In Zad al-Ma’ad also, Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim discloses the fact that unreliability of the practices of people of Madinah is also caused by the fact that the officials appointed by the Umayyad government had innovated many new things in Madinah. (See, Zad al-Ma’ad. v. 1, p. 99, Maktabha al-Maurid)

Layth ibn Sa’d, a celebrated mujtahid and hadith scholar, once wrote a long letter to Imam Malik. Apart from pointing out to many things, he also wrote in the letter that the early Companions spread in numerous regions for the purpose of jihad. They stayed in various places and people joined them. They taught people the Holy Qur’an and Ahadith which was not concealed from the Rashidun caliphs. They used to guide them through letters in many small affairs, so that Islam could remain Safe. The early Companions lived in other places and also they received guidelines for work from the Rashidun caliphs. So how can it be said that Islam did not remain pure in other cities except Madinah?

Layth ibn Sa’d writes:

Many of those early Companions got out in jihad seeking the pleasure of Allah. They recruited people in the army and people continued to gather around them. The Companions promoted the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasllam) among them. They deduced rulings about the issues on which the Holy Qur’an and the Ahadith did not make a clear view. At the forefront among them were Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (radiyallahu anhum) whom the Companions had chosen for themselves. These three caliphs were neither to make the lives of the soldiers meaningless, nor were they neglectful about them. They instead guided them with letters in small issues to establish the faith and avoid differences from the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus, they did not leave anything that the Holy Qur’an clearly presents, or the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) practiced or the Companions (radhiyallahu anhum) unanimously decided after him (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but these caliphs taught them everything. (Talam al-Muwaqqieen. v. 3, p. 83, Maktabah Dar al-Jabal)

Layth ibn Sa’d also establishes with sufficient evidences that the practices of the people in Madinah was totally different from the practices of the early knowledgeable Companions in other cities, while the sunnah also supported them. This long interesting letter is known as ‘Risalah al-Laith Ila Malik’ and can be seen in I’lam al-Muwaqqi’een.

A narration related in Sahih Bukhari speaks of a disputed issue of the Hajj. The people of Madinah asked Abdullah Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), a Makkah based scholar, about a woman who has menses after performing the Tawaf Ifadah. He said, “She could depart (from Mecca). They said, “We will not act on your verdict and ignore the verdict of Zaid.” (Sahih Bukhari 1785).

Allamah Aini also quotes from the Musnad Abu Da’ud al Tayalisi in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari that the Ansar said: “We will not obey you, o ibn Abbas, if you dispute with Zaid (Umdat al-Qari, v7, pg. 386, Dar Al Fikr, Lebanon).

The noteworthy point here is that a celebrated scholar of Makkah issues a verdict, but the people of Madinah directly refused to accept it. They only wanted to act upon the verdict of the imam Zaid ibn Thabit (radhiyallahu anhu). What happened later is another story, but the narration suggests that people from outside Makkah were not ready to accept a verdict passed by ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) even in that period.

Even the Ulama of Madinah themselves have not accepted the practice of people in Madinah as a basis for action. They disputed with Imam Malik (rahmatullah alayh) in the issue of Khiyar al-Majlis, while he did not act upon the hadith “the deal is optional until the two parties depart”, because the people of Madinah did not act according to this hadith, yet Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib and ibn Shihab Zuhri, both scholars of Madinah, act according to this hadith, Imam Ibn Abi Dhiab, a contemporary scholar of Imam Malik (rahmatullah alayh) highly criticized the latter for his view in this issue, see Asbab al Ikhtilaaf al-Fuqaha, pg. 60, Cairo, Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi).

One of the most respected Syrian hadith scholars and researchers, Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah (rahimahullah), edited a book “Arba Rasa’il fi Ulum al-Hadith”. In the footnote, he also writes about the criticism of ibn Abi Dhi’ab on Imam Malik for not acting on the hadith “the deal is optional until the two parties depart”, (Arba Rasa’il fi Ulum al-Hadith p. 24, Maktabah al Matbuat al-Islamia Halab).

Thus, even the residents of Madinah do not accept the practices in their city as a base for action. So, those who present the practices in Saudi Arabia or Haramain as solid base for action in this evil times have no words to refute it. In the best period of Islam, even the Madinah based Ulama and Fuqaha abhorred the practiced accustomed in the city.

Some hadith scholars of Hijaz including Imam Malik viewed that the ahadith with Iraq or Syria based chain of narrators were not reliable as long as they do not find a root in Hijaz.

It simply means that all the Hijazi ahadith were reliable, as opposed to the Iraqi and Syrian ahadith, they cannot be reliable as long as they do not have any narrator from Hijaz. But the majority of scholars have rejected this view. Imam Sha’fi also held the same view before, but later on he took it back. Most of the scholars opine that the hadith is reliable, if its chain of narrators is solid, no matter the chain is from Hijaz, Syria, Iraq or Kufa.

Imam Abu Da’ud al-Sijistani wrote a book in which he collected ahadith with the chain ofnarrators based in different cities. The book covers only the ahadith which are narrated from the narrators of only one city (for details, read Allamah Ibn Taimiyyah, Rafa al-Malaiman Aimmah al-‘Alam: p. 21, Majmu’al-Fatawa: v. 20. p. 317).

Some people, owing to their narrow mindedness, want to impose every act practiced in Saudi Arabia on the entire world and narrow the vast nature of Islam. But they should take a lesson from the broad mindedness of Imam Malik. Caliph Harun al Rashid wished to enforce Muwatta of Imam Malik throughout the word as a primary book of law. But Imam Malik suggested to him not to do that, because the Companions had spread in every region. They narrated ahadith in every place. Thus, the people of every region had acquired knowledge from those Companions, while Imam Malik had collected the knowledge of only Madinah. (Majmu’ al Fatawa: V. 2, p. 311, Faid al-Qadir. V.1, p. 209)

In short, Imam Malik who was the greatest scholar of his time in Hijaz did not like his book to be enforced in every city even in that period. Thus, no one has the right today to enforce the practices of Saudi Arabia on the entire world.

These are the seven evidences which just suffice to prove the view. The number seven is a unique number that covers the implications of all numbers, as Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzi writes in his book. (Zad al-Ma’ad; v. 3, p. 46, Maktabah al-Maurid). In view of the unique nature of the number seven, we can say that not only seven evidences, but many more which suffice to establish the actual view, remove the dispute and satisfy the mind.

At last, I would like to present a logical point.

Some irrational authors lavishly of the virtues of Saudi Arabia today and therefore try to impose the practice of the holy city on the whole. Following in the same footsteps, if the people of Syria too begin to speak of their virtues, consider every act of their country to be a solid base for actions and invite the entire world to follow them, will it be accepted from them? Never, because a virtue is one thing, while being hujjat or solid base for action is a totally different thing. For example, a hadith says: Ibn Hawalah (radhiyallahu anhu). narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one in Syria, one in Yemen and one in Iraq” Ibn Hawalah said: “Choose for me, Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), if I reach that time” He (saws) replied “Go to Syria, for it is Allah’s chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered.” (Sunan Abi Da’ud and Musnad Ahmad) (Note that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Islamic State – blog author)

The land of Syria is described as the ‘Sacred Land’ and whose environs we have blessed in the Holy Qur’an, and as “Allah’s chosen land” in this hadith. Muslims are directed to take shelter in Syria to avoid the fitnas. A hadith says: “So, what do you order us, O Messenger of Allah? He said: Go to Syria.” Sunan Tirmidhi # 2217)

In a yet another hadith, those who migrated to Syria are called ‘the best of people’. Abdullah Ibn Amr ibn al-As says: I heard the Apostle of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say “There will be emigration after emigration and the people who are best will be those who cleave most closely to places which Abraham migrated. (Sunan Abi Da’ud # 2482)

Many more virtues have been narrated about Syria. The greatest virtue is that it accommodates Bait al-Maqdis whose virtue is known to all. So, keeping all these virtues in eyes, can anyone accept every act practiced in the country to be a solid base for action? The reply one gives about Syria will be given about Saudi Arabia too. At last, I would like to reiterate that the purpose of this article is not to disrespect Makkah or Madinah. It is also not intended that every act that is practiced over there is wrong. The only thing I would like to say is that the solid base for action is not confined only to the acts of the people residing in those cities. The truth and sunnah are found in other cities too and the actions of people residing in any region too are reliable. May Allah ta’ala grant us all the right wisdom and put us on the right path!

وعليكم السلام و رحمة الله و بركاته

                             * * *

The System of Takween & Tashri’ – The Secrets Of Divine Operations

AN EXPLANATION AND DETAIL OF THE DIVINE SYSTEM OF CREATION AND LEGISLATION

Allah Ta’ala created this universe for mankind and created mankind for His worship and for the Hereafter.

Allah Ta’ala has instituted two types of system in this world.
1. Legislation    2. Creation

The first is clearly understood which is in regards to all the laws and commandments of Islam. The second system is not so well-known and many reject it, particularly in matters regarding mankind. Allah Ta’ala created mankind for this recognition. Recognising Allah Ta’ala can be through various means and ways. One method is to find out the rare and wonderful works of arts from amongst the creations of Allah Ta’ala and reveal it, so that the power and greatness of Allah Ta’ala and His excellent qualities and attributes can be understood. Allah Ta’ala mentions in Surah Talaaq, “Allah Ta’ala is that Being who created the seven heavens and earths same as the skies (i.e. seven)”. From this verse it is understood there are six more Earths that are like this very earth we are in. Mankind will discover and detect the other six earths as well. Proof of this claim is the announcement of Allah Ta’ala in the same verse where He further says, “so that you (mankind) understand that verily Allah Ta’ala has power over everything.”

In this scientific world, with technology increasing daily, it is no surprise that this knowledge of the other six are known.

Past nations were not blessed with this understanding and knowledge. The present nation has been given this honour specifically because after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) all the bounties Allah Ta’ala related to mankind has been bestowed to this nation.
The religion of Islam has been perfected till doomsday, no matter what conditions prevail, Islam will not change. All the bounties of Allah Ta’ala has been bestowed to this nation totally.

Previous nations were not privileged with what this nation has, so much so that even a two-wheeler cycle was not invented then. This nation is inventing and learning  new things daily and science and technology knows no bounds. Every invention is ultimate for a short while until something new is invented thereafter.

The wonders of the computer, internet etc, has the entire world mesmerising. This is the effects of the knowledge of the pen initiated by Allah Ta’ala and still much is to come in the future.

Mankind is proud of their inventions which is the result of the power of Allah Ta’ala. So what about the actual Divine Power of Allah Ta’ala Himself. This progress will reach its pinnacle and thereafter there will be decline.

We are still in the era of science and invention which will continue as Allah Ta’ala desires, then gradually everything will return to that of the old days. At that time it will be safe to say that creation and legislation has been almost complete and doomsday is close. Honorable saints and great scholars of this nation have been given the status and ranks of the Ambiya (Prophets) of the previous nations.

Just as the period and duration of this nation is extensive compared to that of the previous nations, and the same manner in regards to the breadth of this earth and population is also extensive by quantity and measure.

It is for this reason arrangements (cause and effect/causing to be) Takween is related/connected to many special individuals of this nation. The system of creation and legislation for this nation has large capacity.

Allah Ta’ala bestows his special servants with this knowledge, doctrine and science of Takween.
Although Allah Ta’ala has full power to enforce this system Himself without any medium, but since this world is a abode/place of means, therefore He subjected it-put it under control-of a unique system which is hidden from the public and this system is prevalent and continuing.

The incident of Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) connected with Takween and Tashree’

Allah Ta’ala disclosed the system of Takween in the Glorious Qur’aan by relating the incident of Musa and Khizr (alayhimussalaam).

Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi’i Usmani Sahab (rahmatullah alayhi) relates this incident with reference and quotations of narrations from Bukhari and Muslim Sharif:-

Once Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) stood up to deliver a sermon to his followers when some people asked “Who is the most learned person?” Since in the knowledge of Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) there was none more learned than himself, he replied, ‘I am the most learned’.

Although Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) was entirely correct in his reply considering the normal situation and his limited knowledge, but Allah Ta’ala desired to teach mankind a lesson to be careful in speech and refer important matters to Allah Ta’ala. It would have been better to reply that Allah Ta’ala is most learned. Allah Ta’ala informed Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) that there was a person more learned than him. Upon receiving this news, Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) desired to meet him to benefit from his knowledge, so he requests Allah Ta’ala to inform him about his whereabouts.

Allah Ta’ala commanded Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) to carry a fish in his basket and travel towards where two rivers or seas meet. (Seas of Rome and Persia). The place where the fish gets lost is the meeting place of this person.

As instructed, Musa (alayhissalaam), put a fish in the basket and left. His attendant, Yusha’ ibn Noon (alayhissalaam) accompanied him. On the way Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) rested and fell asleep. At once the fish came into motion put pf the basket and went into the waters/sea. Yusha’ (alayhissalaam) witnessed this but forgot to relate it to Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) when he awoke.

They left this place and travelled another full day and night. The next morning when Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) asked his companion to bring breakfast, then only did the incident of the fish came to mind.

He apologised; for the satan made him forget and thereafter explaimed the entire episode of how the fish came alive and went into the ocean in a unique manner. Upon hearing this, Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) reported, “That was our aim/desire”. Immediately they returned on the same route so that they find the exact spot. When they arrived at the spot, they found a person enjoying a care-free sleep, Hadhrat Musa (alayhisalaam) greeted. Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) enquired: ‘From where greeting was heard in this barren land?” Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) replied, “I am Musa” Hadhrat Musa enquired whether he is Musa of Bani Isra’eel. Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) replied that certainly he is Musa from Bani Isra’eel and requested him to teach that sacred knowledge which Allah Ta’ala has bestowed him with.

Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) said, “O Musa! You will not be able to exercise self-restraint with me. Allah Ta’ala has blessed me with such a knowledge/science which you do not have, and you have been given a science/knowledge which I do not know.

Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) was eager to learn so he replied, “If Allah Wills, you will find me patient and I will not contradict anything you do.” Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) said, “If you are certain to accompany me, then you will not question anything I do until I personally explain the reality and facts.”

Agreeing on this, both of them walked along the shore when by chance a ship came by and they spoke to them to take them aboard the ship. They recognized Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) and took them free of charge. As soon as they boarded the ship, Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) damaged the ship with an axe. Hadhrat Musa could not endure this and said, “These people have taken is aboard free of cost and in return you damaged their ship, so they drown. You have done a very bad thing.”

Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) replied, “I told you initially, that you will not be able to exercise self-restraint with me.” Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) apologized that he has forgotten his promise and that he should not be hard on him. They disembarked and walked along the sea-shore.

All of a sudden Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) noticed a boy playing with other boys and he severed the boy’s head from his body with his bare hands, resulting in the boy’s death. Hadhrat Musa was shocked and said, “You killed an innocent being, this is a very grave sin.” Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) repeated that didn’t I tell you that you will not be able to exercise self-restraint with me.

Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) realized that this matter is severe than the previous one, so he made a condition that if he asks anything again, then he should dismiss him. They continued on their journey  till they reached a village and made a request to the people there to host them, but, they refused.

Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) noticed that a wall was about to collapse,  so he straitened it with his bare hands. Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) was surprised and said, “These people refused to host us and you had just done a great job. If you wished, you could have taken a fee for that job.”

Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) replied, “This is the time of separation between you and me.”
Thereafter Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) explained the reality of his actions in the three circumstances. In the first he made a defect in the ship due to an oppressive king who took all perfect ships by force and this particular ship belonged to a group of poor people who earned their livelihood in the sea by charging a fee for their services. The damage could be repaired later, but the ship got saved.

The second incident of killing the young boy was a blessing in disguise for his parents; who were true faithed in Allah Ta’ala. Had this young boy lived on, he should have become a disbeliever, and due to the intense love and affection for this child, they would have also eventually disbelieve in Allah Ta’ala and follow their son, resulting in their eternal destruction. The outwardly loss of their child was a calamity, but it was a blessing of Allah Ta’ala. Later Allah Ta’ala blessed the couple with a beautiful daughter who married a prophet and a prophet was born from her, by the means of whom Allah Ta’ala guided an entire nation.

Allah Ta’ala had knowledge of this and commanded Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) to carry out this act. In the last incident, two orphans lived in that city whose father was a very pious person who buried treasure beneath that wall and due to the peity of the father. Allah Ta’ala desired to protect that treasure till the orphan matured and benefit from it later.

All these acts were by the command of Allah Ta’ala upon which Musa (alayhissalaam) could not exercise restraint because he is forced to follow and act upon what he sees and such acts are not permissible in the Shari’ah, whereas Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) performed his duty of Takween. Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) understood this and departed.

Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam)

Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) is an accepted entity in regards to perform Takweeni duties. From amongst the three incidents mentioned in the Noble Qur’aan, the result of the first was to be soon that if the ship was perfect it should have been usurped by the king. The second result took effect some time later when a daughter was born to the couple of the killed child. The effect of the third incident was much later when the orphans matured and when Allah Ta’ala decreed for them to get their treasure but they would not have any knowledge of the wall about to collapse and how and who miraculously straightened it.

The first two acts were not beyond understanding apparently since it could have done naturally, but to straighten a collapsing wall with bare hands is supernatural and could only be done by the power of Allah Ta’ala.

From this it is understood that those persons chosen to carry out takweeni duties are kept imformed and are given instructions with it as well and these matters are connected with divine revelation and inseparation.

The question arises whether Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) was a prophet or a saint? Scholars have a difference of opinion regarding this.

Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Idris Saheb Kandhlawi (rahmatullah alayh) says that majority of the scholars agree that Hadhrat Khizzr (alayhissalaam) was a saint and not a Prophet. A group of scholars say that he was Prophet only, and not a Messenger. If he is accepted as a saint, then there is an objection to his actions which are not permissible by law, whether merely divine inspiration is acceptable as proof. Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahimahullah) answered that it is possible that divine inspiration was acceptable in the Shari’at (Code of Law) of Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam). If he is accepted as a prophet, then his actions will be acceptable for him alone and an exception to the general rule.

Hadhrat Mufti Shafi’i Saheb (rahmatullah alayh) said:- from the incidents related in the glorious Qur’an, it is established that Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) was a Prophet. He was comanded by Allah Ta’ala to perform certain duties which were apparently contrary to the Shariah, but these are exceptional matters. These were takweeni duties which Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) was not informed about and had no knowledge of.

Hadhrat Qadhi Thanaullah Panipati (rahimahullah) says that there are duties of such nature which are generally carried out by angels, but Allah Ta’ala also chose special Prophets to carry out some exceptional takweeni duties and Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) was amongst them. Some examples of these types are: save a certain drowning person, destroy someone, Improve conditions of some etc. These matters are not a concern for the general public and the rules are of another nature.

Learned scholars are also not aware of such conditions, therefore there will be duty bounds to pass a verdict on unlawful in such matters which are unlawful in the Shariah, but the person who carried out the act with the command of Allah Ta’ala is excused and totally on the truth.

In reality, there is no contradiction, each one is duty bound in their own way. To compare the actions of Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) in the three incidents which are an exception to the general rule and giving a ruling of permissibility, with other actions of saints and make lawful that which is unlawful, is irreligious and not acceptable.

Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Idrees Saheb Kandhlawi (rahimahullah) says, “My tutor, Hadhrat Maulana Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahimahullah) would mention a golden principle, if a difference of opinion is found regarding anything between the Learned scholars and the Saints, then if it is a matter of Shariah wherein a ruling of lawfulness or permissibility has to be given, then give preference to the view of the Learned Scholars (Ulama), because they are more aware of all the rules and laws and if it is something to do with Takween and secrets of worldly matters, then give preference to the view of the Saints, because they get inspirations from Allah Ta’ala  and undoubtedly they are a group of pious people”

There is a difference of opinion in regarding whether Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) is still alive or he has passed away. A group of learned scholars say he is still alive and substantiate their claim with proof and another group also produces proof for their claim that he has passed away.

Hadhrat Maulana Mufti Shafi’ Saheb (rahimahullah) studies the viewa and opinions of both groups with their proofs and says that Hadhrat Thanaullah Panipatti (rahimahullah) mentioned that the solution to all the objections and doubts in this matter is in the view of what Hadhrat Mujaddid alf-Thani Sayyid Ahmad Farooqi al-Sirhindi (rahimahullah) has mentioned from his experience of having a discussion with Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) in Alam e Kashf (i.e. a state of inspiration) and upon this matter Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) said, “Hadhrat Ilyas (alayhissalaam), we both are not alive, but Allah Ta’ala has given us this power that we present ourselves in the form of living persons and assists people in different situations and conditions.” (Allah Ta’ala knows best).

Nonetheless, this is not an issue to dwelve into and really be concerned about. Hadhrat Maulana Badr e Aalam (rahimahullah) mentions a few points after discussing the incidents of Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) with Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam):

1.  To really perceive the inner wisdom of the doings of Allah Ta’ala is beyond the intellectual capacity of Mankind.

2.  When Allah Ta’ala commanded Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) to perform such duties which are extraordinary, then Allah Ta’ala also bestowed him that much a power as well, therefore he could straighten a fallen wall with little effort which did not fall thereafter, until the orphans who were the rightful of the treasure, become strong young men.

3.  Rules and regulations of matters concerning Takween differ from that of normal Shariah ruling and Allah Ta’ala has appointed His special servants to review them also, but they are so discreet that it is not necessary for Prophets also to have knowledge of that entire system.

4.  Such persons who are chosen for Takweeni duties are kept unknown by Allah Ta’ala from the public so that their peculiar actions do not create disorder from the system of the laws of Shariah.

5.  The status of the knowledge of legislation is greater than Takween.

6.  If a most prominent and honourable person (i.e. Prophet) does not have knowledge of the exceptional acts of Takween, this does not create any difference in his prominence and honour.

7.  It is not desirable to search for such Takweeni saints and one should not consider for oneself an honour to be in such a persons company.

If per chance co-incidently if one meets such a person, then it will be incorrect to object their actions.

Hadhrat Musa and Hadhrat Khizr (alayhimussalaam) were bestowed with “ilm Laduni” (inspired knowledge) which are not dependant on earning a skill or any apparent means. Allah Ta’ala bestowed Khizr (alayhissalaam) with the knowledge of hidden secrets and internal wisdom, whilst He blessed Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) with the knowledge of Shariah (Code of Laws). When they met, Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) informed Hadhrat Musa (alayhissalaam) that, “I have a knowledge from Allah which you do not possess and you have a knowledge which I do not know”

Services of Pious Saints of Legislation (Tashri’) and Creation (Takween)

‘Allamah Jalaluddeen Suyuti (rahimahullah) writes in his book:-

In a book of Allamah Yaafi’i (rahimahullah), it is related, “There are many pious people who mix and live with the masses so that they can guide anr reform people in their worldly and religious matters. Their situations are well known to all. There is another group of distinguished noble people who amount to about three hundred in the world and their conditions are hidden from the public specifically, but amongst themselves, they are aware of each others conditions. These people are known as Nujabaa.
Nujabaa is a plural for Najeeb.

One group of headmen who amount to forty only, are known as Nuqabaa. A single headman is known as Naqeeb. These people only mix and gather with the special servants of Allah.

Another group of only seven are found in major cities. Only one is found generally in a city at any given time and when he passes away, he is replaced with another. Very fortunate are those people who have two at one time amingst them. These saints are known as Abdaal (sing. is Badl).

A group of four saints who are known as Autaad (sing. is Watad)
are found in Yemen and Syria and in the East and the West. This is a special type of saints.

There is one chief saint known as Qutb whom Allah Ta’ala circulates around the world. His conditions are concealed from all.

When a Qutb passes away then the most prominent from amongst the four Autaad is chosen and nominated as a Qutb. A very exalted Badl is appointrd as a Watad, when from amongst the four Autaad, one passes away. When a badal passes away, then the most excellent of forty Nuqabaa fill in that place. The noblest of Three hundred Nujabaa is given the status of being a Naqeeb after one of them passes away, and when one najeeb passes away, then the most excellent of virtuous and pious persons takes his place.

When Allah makes the decision for the final day of resurrection, then all these saintly people will be taken away. Allah Ta’ala removes many calamities and misfortunes and sends rain by virtue of the existence of these people of Takween.

A Takweeni incident of Hadhrat Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahimahullah) is also narrated in the same book. “One night Hadhrat left home and I was giving him a jug to use for wudhu but he did not take it. He walked towards the madrasah so the doors were opened for him, then he went and I followed him. Thereafter the door closed. Hadhrat walked out of the city of Baghdad with me following him closely. We walked a short distance and all of a sudden we fpund ourselves in an unfamiliar place. We entered a building resembling a guest house and unexpectedly found six men who greeted Hadhrat first and I hid behind a pillar. I heard sounds of groaning and crying from one end of the place and after a while there was silence.

One person entered, went towards the place where the sounds were heard from and emerged with a body over his shoulder. Another bare headed person with a long moustache entered and sat in front of Hadhrat. Hadhrat made him read the Kalimah and had his hair and moustache shaved and made him wear special clothing. Hadhrat kept his name Muhammad and addressed the other thus: “I have been ordered that this new Muslim be in place of the deceased.” They replied: “most willingly.” We returned and the next day I made Hadhrat promise to tell me what happened the last night.

Hadhrat explained that they were in a city where six Abdaals were present and the seventh was leaving this world. Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) took him away. The person who came was a Christian from Constantia and I was ordered that he acquire the place of the deceased, thus he came, accepted Islam and now he is included amongst them.

In this system of Takween, Allah Ta’ala takes special services, therefore, in whomsoever he finds that they have the ability to perform the desired tasks as He wishes, He chooses such persons for those ranks according to his capability and entrusts them with certain duties.

Some great saints who are strict followers of the Shari’ah, are also people of Takween  with some duties. But the status of Shariah superior and apparent. There is a possibility of being both.

In the era of Shah Abdul Azeez Muhaddith Dehlwi (rahimahullah) few such incident are related from which it is understood that the people in charge of Takween, have a connection with the order and the arrangement of the place they are in, and according to the actions of the place, Allah Ta’ala appoints a Takweeni saint.

Once there was no law and order in the city. A person came to Hadhrat Shah Saheb (rahimahullah) and complained of the situation and he wanted to know the reason for this. Hadhrat mentioned that presently the person in charge of Takween is slow and negligent. The person enquired as to who that Takweeni saint is. Hadhrat Shah Saheb (rahimahullah) said that in the market place there is this person selling melons at a certain spot and he was in charge. This person decided to test this Takweeni saint anr went to him. First he enquired as to how much he was selling his melons and a price per kilogram was fixed. The person who was testing the takweeni saint asked whether the melons were sweet and he received a positive answer. This person said that he will first taste the melons and see if they are sweet, then he will purchase.

The melons were cut for him one by one and he tasted each one and put it aside. Eventually all the melons were cut and now this person gets up to go away and tells that none were sweet. The person selling the melons who was actually a takweeni saint did not say anything and without asking for the money he let the other person go away. He did not express any anger or displeasure. This person came to report to Shah Saheb (rahimahullah). That most drfinitely that takweeni saint was a unique person.

After some time there was some order in the city and the management has been restored. The person who had come to Shah Saheb (rahimahullah) and experienced the incident with the melon seller, came back to ask about the strange happenings and how law and order have been restored in the city. Hadhrat told him that the takweeni saint has been changed, therefore a change in the city. This person again expressed his desire to meet this saint and asked Hadhrat to inform him of his whereabouts. Hadhrat told him that he is a water-carrier who has a water bag on his shoulder and gives water to people to drink, he can be found near the Fatehpur Masjid.

This person went to the place and after meeting the takweeni saint, he asked hom as to how much he charges for his water. The saint told him an amount per glass and he requested a glass of water. This saint was not like the melon seller and asked for the money first. The money was given and he filled the glass with water and he gave it. This person saw something inside the glass and said there is something in the water and he threw the water away. Now this person is asking for another glass of water. The saint wanted money first. The person said that the first glass of water was not good so he should give him another glass of water.

The saint gave him a hard punch and asked him whether he thought he was the melon seller. This person returned from there with pain. Hadhrat Shah Saheb had said that now this is the takweeni saint in charge and he will straighten things up.

After relating this incident, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi Saheb (rahimahullah) said, “Understand well that outward arrangements is dependant on the internal management. This internal order has something more internal and that is the command of Allah Ta’ala which is judged by obedience and disobedience. If one displeases Allah Ta’ala, then first the internal management is distrupted which will be followed by trails and difficulties later. The solution for this is to please Allah Ta’ala, then no difficulty will come.”

Someone asked Hadhrat Shah Saheb, “How do these saints carry out takweeni duties?”. Hadhrat made some lines on a piece of paper and told him to give it to a shoe-maker whom he will find on the road near the parade geounds opposite the fort. As soon as the cobbler read the note he began to collect and wrap up his belongings. On the ground the military brigade were all scattered around. The bugle was blown and the army was commanded  to prepare to leave.

Then the cobbler tossed his bag over his shoulder and all the men in the army mounted their horses. The cobbler walked and the army were ordered forward march. All of a sudden the cobbler stopped and the army stopped as well. The cobbler took the bag off his shoulders and put it on the ground, at the same time the military dismounted. The cobbler then opened his bag and took out all his belongings. The army removed the saddles of the horses and put them away. Now the cobbler spread out all his things and sat down. The military as well put all their things down and sat.

The cobbler performed this act thrice and each time it was just as the first. The person who came with the note witnessed the entire scene and went away.

Later the military officer ecplained that he does not understand what overcame him that he repeatedly gave orders to the army in this manner.

Those saints whom Allah Ta’ala has shouldered takweeni responsibilities with are from are two types of honorable pious friends of Allah Ta’ala.

Hakim al Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi Saheb (rahimahullah) has narrated few valuable points on the discussion of Takween.

1. There are two types of saints. Firstly those who give guidance to people to reform themselves, gain nearness to Allah Ta’ala, cleanse the inner-self, to conform to the commandments of Allah Ta’ala. These saints are known as the “Ahle-Irshad” and from amongst them whoever is the most excellent and virtuous, whose favours and bounties are widespread, is known as “Qutbul Irshad”, and such saints are deputies of the Prophets in reality.

The second type are those saints whose duties revolve around the reformation of a soviety, management of worldly affairs and removal of calamities. Allah Ta’ala grants them the strength and courage to carry out the duties with his permission. These saints are known as “Ahle Takween” or “Ahle Khidmat”. The one that is if highest status and the chief over others is known as “Qutbut Takween. Their conditions is that like angels. Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) is understood to be of this second type.

2. Many acts are performed by the saints with internal knowledge, like the straightening of the wall with bare hands by Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam).

3. In every matter there are some causes, but legislation will not be abandoned due to the takweeni causes. Cause and effect will take place and continually does so always. We are bound by Shariah and are accountable for not following any law. One will be taken to task for leaving any act of Shariah out. Since takweeni causes are not in our control, we are not accountable for any such acts.

4. To be connected to takween is a special post. Whoever is chosen is given the necessary knowledge, but his actions are not proof for others to follow. The condition of a Takweeni saint is similar to that of Hadhrat Khizr (alayhissalaam) and the angels. They can safely say: “I did not do anything by my own will.”

5. It is necessary for Qutbut takween to have knowledge of his status, whereas for the Qutbul Irshad it is not necessary. Qutbul Aqtaab is only one in the world and he is known as ‘Ghaus’.

6. Allah Ta’ala has bestowed Hadjrat Maulana Ya’qub Saheb (rahimahullah) with the status of Qutbul Irshad and for a while also the lofty status of Qutbut takween. He was also given responsibilities of takweeni services and no majzoob could come there without his permission which was unique with him only. (Majzoob is a saintly person who whilst not in full possession of his senses is absorbed in divine meditation), Hadhrat Maulana Gangohi (rahimahullah) was also a qutbul Irshad.

7. Muslims and non-Muslims, both benefit from takween. Even when a non-Muslim is sleeping, angels are appointed to protect him. If anyone is assisted in any way by some takweeni saint, then this is not really a sign of his acceptance in the sight of Allah Ta’ala.

8. It is absolutely futile to search for and find takweeni saints. They are in the control of Allah Ta’ala. What is meant to take place will most definitely happen whether you be kind to the takweeni saint and assist him in any way or not. It will be more of use to please the One who uses these saints.

From the above explanation, it is understood that some saints are only involved with the shariah and advice and guide people towards good, and warn them of evil. Some saints are only involved with takween.

There is one group who are appointed with both duties and from amongst this group, some have major responsibilities with takween and some are more with shariah and seldom perform takweeni duties.

The rank of those saints fully involved with the shariah is superior by Allah Ta’ala because they discuss and strive in those actions of the public which they have power and control over. Those who carry out duties of takween are merely like servants who follow the commands of Allah Ta’ala.

The general public is advised to spend their lives in accordance to the dictates of the shariah.

Takween is like Taqdeer (fate) and whatever is divinely decreed, that will happen at its appropriate time. Whilst having faith in fate, one still acts upon the commandments of Allah Ta’ala  to the best of one’s ability without negligence.

This system of Takween is Allah Ta’ala’s secret department in different matters. Generally every country has C.I.D’s working secretly and their investigations are not publicized since it is not beneficial to the public.

Some Takweeni saints are fully sensible and understand everything. They are like normal people who have different jobs as a cover up but it reality are engaged in Takweeni duties.

Takweeni saints meet together when necessary and are introduced to each other by the command of Allah Ta’ala which takes place in different ways. They sometimes use normal modes of transport tp get to their destinations and fullfil their duties. At other times they are miraculously taken to far off places by the command of Allah Ta’ala bodily and at times only by soul. When taken by soul only, then sometimes a similar body are given also.

Mazjoobs:- As explained earlier, a Mazjoob is a saintly person who is absorbed in divine meditation and is not in full possession of his senses.

Some Takweeni saints are Mazjoobs. They are found normally everywhere or wherever Allah Ta’ala wills, they arrive there. From amongst this group, some feel the effects of thirst, hunger, cold etc  due to a certain degree and Allah Ta’ala provides from them accordingly. Some dress up like normal people and eat normally, but don’t really do any work. They offer Salaah etc anyhow with no real regards to proper postures or number of rakaats.

Some are stark naked or barely covered up and are aloof from people. They are always in an absorbed state and talk very little which hardly makes sense also. There is no restriction of age amongst them. It can be from ten years old to old aged.

The wisdom of using such people also for Takween is that due to their mental state, they are excused from practicing the commandments of Shariat. If they do acts which are apparently against the Shariat, then there is no reproach for them.

Many people become confused in matters related to mazjoobs and sense of moderation is lost sometimes which results in extremism in either way. Therefore it is necessary to understand the reality totally so that no misunderstanding remains.

Hakimul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahimahullah) has written few points on this subject:-

(1) Ahle Khidmat: (Those persons chosen forTakweeni duties) are mostly majzoobs

(2) Majnoon (insane) is a person whose understanding/ intellect fails due to Malignant humours of the Body. The four humours of the body are:- 1. Blood 2. Phlegm 3. choler 4. Melancholy (Black Bile); and a ‘Majzoob’  is whose understanding fails / vanishes due to unseen occurrences.

Sometimes changes in the humours of the human body are due to different conditions and incidents, therefore it is difficult to identify / recognise a Majnoon from a Majzoob on a pretence is difficult.

One sign of a Majzoob is that by sitting near him one experiences an attraction towards the hereafter and the saints / pious people of that era do not oppose him. Every Majnoon is not a Majzoob.

The reason why people search for a Majzoob is that whatever he says happens, whereas it does not happen because he says it, but because Allah Ta’ala had ordained for it to happen. This can be understood simply by the example of a person who receives telegrams. As the messages arrives, he writes them down and sends it to the persons concerned. The person who writes down the messages has no interference in the message relayed. If the telegram does not come through, there is nothing to write down. Now if the people begin to distribute sweetmeats and give presents to the person writing down the messages, then this will be considered as foolishness.

The person writing the telegram cannot alter the message of the telegram even if the people have to praise him or be bad to him. There is really no effect  in what the majzoob says. People unnecessarily waste their valuable time in the company of a majzoob since there is no worldly or other benefit by him. In the company of true saints, who give advice sincerily  and good guidance, there is all types of benefits.

(3) Majzoobs are transferred to places such as government offices.

(4) ‘Aqtaabut Takween’  are mostly majzoobs.

(5) An ‘Aalim asked Hadhrat Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahimahullah) that he heard, “Takweeni matters are related to majzoobs, so how do they carry out their duties without intellect?”

Hadhrat replied that although they are in such a state, whatever duties are conferred to them, for such duties there is no need for intellect, therefore they perform their duties very well.  

(6) These majzoobs are in charge of takweeni matters and pious saints who are involved in serving mankind to become better people are engaged in worship of Allah Ta’ala are in fact deputies of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and inheritors of the prophets. Their status and rank is very lofty.

(7) There is great wisdom in the matters of takween being given to majzoobs. Since they are excused in Shariah due to their mental defects, some of their actions although outwardly do not conform to the teachings of Islam, they are overlooked.

(8) The damage of delving into the concerns of Majzoobs is the people begin to take the Shariah and understand it to be useless.

Fundamentals of Divine Inspiration and miracles of pious Saints

Nowadays many people either totally reject miracles and Divine inspirations of pious Saints or some believe in them to such an extent that when some supernatural power is witnesses by a pious saint, then some people attribute divine qualities to them. Both groups are wrong and the reality is in between the two. Moderation is recommended in everything.

It is very much possible for the miracles to be performed at the hands of a pious saint, but in it is the power of Allah Ta’ala that contributes to the effect to take place. It means that the existence of the miracle is the doing of Allah Ta’ala and not that of the saint. He is merely just the means. Whenever Allah Ta’ala wills, He can make it possible for a miracle to be produced via a saint. Sometimes the saint does not even perceive or have knowledge of a miracle being possibly revealed by him. Therefore, to attribute divine qualities to saints due to miracles, etc is a sign of ignorance in regards to this subject.

Hadhrat Hakeemul Ummat (rahimahullah) says, ” I gave a speech regarding miracles in a gathering where there were few Ghayr Muqallids who had a trace of ‘Shirk’  in the belief of miracles (A Ghayr Muqallid is one who does not follow any school of thought and has liberal and independent views), (Shirk here means to attribute some qualities of Allah Ta’ala to saints. In this lecture, I gave the answer to the question of; Who is the being who reveals / discloses miracles and males miracles become possible at the hands of saints? Is it Allah Ta’ala or the saint himself?

We believe that Allah Ta’ala is the Sole Being who discloses miracles and it is clear that the power of Allah Ta’ala is limitless; thereafter the most extraordinary miracle is possible.

Those who believe the saint reveals miracles, they limit the miracles to his power  and in this manner, fall prey to shirk.”

A miracle is super-natural and revealed upon such saints hands who follow in the footsteps of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) totally, If a person does not follow Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) totally, although he may claim to, but his appearance and actions are contrary to his teachings, then his acts are not considered as miracles. Those people that accept every super-natural act  of any person as miracle  or become their followers are in error and are astray. Examples of such persons are people who are involved with mesmerism, invocation of spirits, black magic, witchcraft, superstitious remedy, conjuration, juggling, etc.

There are two types of miracles:

1. Those miracles that are apparently noticed and seen. E.g flying in the air, walking on water, etc

2. Those miracles which are significant, but not taken seriously. E.g. To be firm and constant on the Shariah, to have commitment and be punctual of good deeds, to become accustomed and habituated  with good character and clear the heart and self from evil character, etc.

Research scholars agree that miracles of the second nature are higher in rank.

A famous saying in Arabic is:-

Al-Istiquamatu Fawqal Karaamatu

‘Steadfastness is greater than Karaamat’

Amongst the work of Hadhrat Hakeemul Ummat (rahimahullah), the following statements in regards to miracles and divine inspiration is found:-

(1) Some divine inspirations are such that there is absolutely no doubts of any error / uncertainity, but then too it is no proof in shariah and at the same time it will not be understood as far-fetched. The question arises is that, if there is absolutely no oubt of any uncertainity, then why can it not be proof in Shariah? This can simply be understood by way of an example of a person who sights the Eid moon on the 29th of Ramadhan; and sighting is something which is apparent and clear in which there is no doubt, then too it will be necessary for him to bear witness of his sighting because it is very much possible that there is another witness / testimony, although according to his knowledge he is only one person, but he should not think that the evidence of one person is not accepted, so what benefit is there in giving evidence.

If many individuals sight the moon and all thino to themselves that, ‘I am alone and the testimony of  one person is insignificant’, and in this manner each one reserves his evidence, then, how can the sighting be valid and confirmed?

Anyhow, one person goes and testifies that he saw the moon, but co-incidently there was no other evidence, therefore judgement was passed that one testimony is not proof for confirmation of sighting. Nevertheless, this person also will have to the 30th fast of the Ramadhan, although he had most definitely seen the moon.

(2) ‘Kashf’: Divine inspiration is what the perception / insight of the heart testifies to, which is better termed as ‘Ilhaam’. Perception, insight, wisdom and intelligence are very similar. The difference is that the wise people ‘Uqualaa’ reason out  / prove through apparent means; and perception and insight of saints are intuitional.

(3) Some saints are of the opinion that in ‘Il-Haam’ (inspiration) there is no mistake / error just as the person whose senses are not afflicted, there is no error and mistake. Majority are of the opinion that inspiration is not imperative and conclusive.

(4) People understand inspiration to be something very great and excellent, whereas it is really nothing much and has nothing to do with proximity to Allah Ta’ala. Some have a natural connection with it and others don’t just as some are born far-sighted  and some are near-sighted.

(5) ‘Ghayb’ – invisibility / mystery has two meanings:- 1. Real  2. Additional

Real is where there is no means of such knowledge and this is attributed solely to Allah Ta’ala.
Additional is in which circumstances some people are informed of things by different means and mediums. Therefore inspirations are from Allah Ta’ala to his special servants.

[Next Part will be posted later Insha Allah]

The Fiction of so-called ‘Imam turned Christian’ Mario Joseph – White Lie of a Moron Christian Missionary

[Majlisul Ulama]

THE DEVIL-WORSHIPPER

His Fiction The  article (or a  video),  “Changing Tracks”  is the work of  some crank Christian missionary  who has descended to the  very bottom of the barrel of fraud and  falsehood with his lies, and the  hallucinatory ‘muslim’ who has  reneged from Islam. His article is a stupid fiction.  

There is no such thing as a “parish priest” in Islam. The tenor and  tone of the fictitious “man” clearly indicate that the  fabrication is the work of a crank  Christian missionary who is  completely unaware of the manner in which Muslims conduct  themselves in speech and  argument. No Muslim Imaam/Aalim preaches that Jesus is not  God. This is a fact which every  Muslim child is aware of. No one  in any Muslim community adopts  this crystal clear, self-evident fact  as a topic for a lecture. Just as no  Muslim will preach that the sun  emits rays of light, so too will it  not be preached that Jesus is not God.

In order to weave his fictitious  tale, the fraud adopted this topic for the fiction he fabricated.

His Stupid Principle

Let us now examine the very silly  and spurious argument the crank  presents to “prove” that Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam) is superior to  Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) and that he is “the son  god” – Nauthubillaah! Thus, the  moron missionary says:

“When I read it  (i.e. the Qur’aan), the Name of Prophet Muhammad I found in the Quran 4 places but the name of Jesus I found in 25 places. There itself I was a little confused. Why does the Quran give more preference to Jesus?”

The stupid missionary has  fabricated a principle: Superiority is based on the number of times a being is mentioned in the Qur’aan. The one who is mentioned a greater number of times, is given more preference by Allah, hence he is the most superior.”  

On the basis of this silly,  spurious, ludicrous and laughable ‘principle’, the crank missionary  contends that Jesus is given  greater preference, because he is  mentioned 25 times in the  Qur’aan while Nabi Muhammad  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned only “four” times.

In the Qur’aan Majeed, Nabi  Ibraaheem (alayhis salaam) is mentioned 69 times. On the basis  of the moron’s principle, Nabi  Ibraaheem is given greater  preference and is thus superior  to ‘Jesus” who the stupid  Christian believes to be god.

Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) is  mentioned 136 times in  lthe Qur’aan. In terms of the moron’s  principle, he has to concede that  Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) is  superior to the one whom he  believes is ‘god’ because Jesus is  mentioned only 25 times while  Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) is mentioned 136 times.

Nabi Aadam (alayhis salaam) is  also mentioned 25 times in the  Qur’aan. Thus, Aadam (alayhis  salaam) in terms of the moron  missionary’s principle, is on par  with the Christian deity. In fact,  it shall be shown later, that  Aadam (alayhis salaam) according  to another stupid convoluted  ‘principle’ of the moron, is  superior to the Christian  lgod  whom they designate as the ‘son  of god’. May Allah Ta’ala save us from such abhorrent blasphemy.

Nabi Nooh (alayhis salaam) is  mentioned 42 times in the Qur’aan Shareef. Thus, he too  surpasses the rank of the god of the moron missionary. 

Let us examine the moron’s stupid principle further. Fir’oun  (Pharoah) who was destroyed by  the punishment of Allah Ta’ala, is  mentioned 77 times. Thus,  according to the moron’s  principle even Fir’oun is superior  to his god or son-god.

The moron’s Devil-God

The stupid missionary’s density ofbrains is indeed astounding. He  has fabricated a principle in  terms of  which even the devil  (shaitaan) is superior to the  Christian god. In the Qur’aan,  shaitaan is mentioned 102 times  whilst Jesus is mentioned only 25  times. This then is the logical conclusion of the flotsam which  the moron missionary has disgorged in his silly article of  fiction. It appears that the moron  is a devil-worshipper. He  therefore elevates the devil way  above the person whom he  believes to be ‘god’ and the ‘son of god’ – Nauthubillaah!

Rasulullah’s mention 218 times,  not four times

The moron has conspicuously  portrayed his stark ignorance and downright stupidity by  claiming that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is  mentioned only four times in the  Qur’aan Majeed. Even if this had  been so, it would have been an  argument devoid of substance  and pregnant with stupidity to  assert superiority and truth on  the basis of the greater number  of times a name appears in the  Qur’aan. It has already been  shown that the devil is  mentioned 102 times.

The Holy Prophet (on whom be  peace) is mentioned  218 times  in the Qur’aan, not four times as  the moron claims. He is  mentioned by his name,  Muhammad four times, by the  lofty title of Rasool 181  times,  and by the other lofty title of  Nabi 33 times. The titles of  Rasool and Nabi are more in  consonance with the lofty Office  of Nubuwwat (Prophethood)  than the name, Muhammad. By  referring to Muhammad  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as the  Rasool and the Nabi, his divine  status and divine proximity are  well borne out. His Prophethood  is thus confirmed hundreds of times in the Qur’aan. This  irrefutable fact has escaped the understanding of the moron, crank and fraud who fabricated the fiction.

Hadhrat Maryam (alayhas salaam)

Explaining his second ‘proof’ for  Jesus being god, the ignoramus says:

“And the second thing: I could  not see any woman’s name in the Quraan…..NO in the Quraan,  there is only one woman’s name I found, Mariam, the mother of  Jesus…..And in the Holy Quraan  Chapter 3 the name of the  Chapter is ‘Family of Mariam’  and the Holy Quraan chapter 19,  the name of the Chapter itself is Mariam.”

The moron has displayed  monumental ignorance throughout his fiction. In  addition he has betrayed his identity. Only a non-Muslim  because of lack of Islamic understanding could have  written the above statement. A person who had been a Muslim  for decades, since birth, and who  had allegedly studied the  Qur’aan for ten years, would not  have written the stupidity that  Chapter 3 of the Qur’aan is  named  ‘Family  of  Mariam’.  There is no chapter in the Qur’aan called ‘Family of Mariam’.  The name of the third Surah is  Aal-e-Imraan (the Family of  Imraan).  The  moron has confused Imraan with Maryam.

The 19th Surah is named  ‘Maryam’ on account of the importance of the true story of  Hadhrat Maryam (alayhissalaam).  The Yahood had slandered her,  accusing her of fornication. Her  life was shrouded in mysticism,  hence while the Jews slandered  her, the Christians fabricated stupidities about her. On the  basis of her giving birth to Nabi  Isa (alayhis salaam) miraculously,  the Christians elevated her to the pedestal of godhood.

The Qur’aanic Surahs take their  names from some significant  episode. Thus, the second Surah  is called Baqarah (The Cow). One  Surah is named Luqmaan although he was not even a Nabi.  Another  Surah is called Al-Munaafiqoon (The Hypocrites.).  One Surah is called, Al-Maaidah  (The Food-cloth). The name of a  Surah is merely for highlighting a significant episode/fact in  he  Surah. Since a number of verses  explain the truth about Maryam (alayhas salaam), the Surah is  named Maryam just as the fourth  Surah is called, An-Nisaa’  because it deals significantly with rules pertaining to women. 

The Qur’aan highlights the story  of Hadhrat Maryam (alayhas  salaam) to refute the moronic,  irrational, polytheistic Christian  doctrine of her being the  ‘mother of god’ – the mother of  the ‘son of god’.  It also  highlights her story to refute the  notorious Christian belief of  Jesus being the son of God.    And, it exonerates her of the  slander which the kuffaar had  levelled against her. While the  stupid missionary mentions that  the name of the Surah is Maryam, he is conveniently silent about  exactly what the Surah says about Maryam.

While the crank with a  rodomontade attitude proclaims  the name of the Surah, he does  not mention that relative to Maryam and Nabi Isa (Jesus),  speaking in his infancy, the Qur’aan states in verses 30 and  31: 

“Verily I (Jesus) am the Slave of  Allah. He (Allah) has given me the  Scripture and has made me a  Nabi. In Surah Maryam, Jesus  does not say that ‘I am the son  of God.’  Surah Maryam refutes  the polytheistic doctrines of the  moron, crank, stupid missionary.  But he cites the name of the  Surah to substantiate his belief, while the Surah refutes him.

The stupidity of original sin

The crank missionary says:

“About Mariam, the Holy Quraan chapter 3 verses 34 onwards say that Mary was born without original sin.”

This averment further confirms  that the moron never had studied the Qur’aan for ten years  under an Ustaadh as the stupid  missionary claims. Neither in  these verses (34 onwards) nor in  any other verse does the Qur’aan  mention anything about Maryam  (alayhas salaam) being “born without original sin”, nor  anything whatsoever about the stupid belief of original sin.  Original sin – that every  person is born with sin – is not an  Islamic belief. It is the belief of the polytheist Christians.  Maryam (alayhas salaam) and all human beings are born without  sin. The fact remains that these verses do not even touch on this topic.

Verse 34 does not even deal with  Maryam (alayhas salaam). Verses  35 and 36 deal with the mother  of Maryam (alayhas salaam), and verse 37 states:

“Then her Rabb accepted her with a beautiful acceptance, and He granted her a beautiful upbringing, and He placed her in the custody of Zakariyya.  Whenever Zakariyya went to her in the sanctuary, he found by her food. He said: ‘O Maryam! From whence did you obtain this?’ She replied: ‘It is from Allah. Verily, Allah provides for whomever He wills magnificently.”

Maryam’s Ascension?

There is absolutely no mention of  the stupid doctrine of ‘original  sin’. The moron then avers: 

“Quraan chapter 50 verse  23  says that she went to heaven  with her physical body.”  

Again he has conspicuously  advertised his ignorance and the  fictitious nature of the supposed  Muslim scholar of ten years  converting to Christianity. It  appears that at the time when  the moron was writing his  fiction, he was under the influence of some intoxicating  substance such as dagga (marijuana). Verse 23 of Surah 50 (Surah  Qaaf) does not have the  remotest reference to anything  pertaining to Maryam (alayhas  salaam), leave alone her physical ascension into the heaven hallucinated by the moron.

Verse 23 of Surah 50 reads: “His  companion will say: ‘This what is by me is ready.’ 

This verse depicts a scene which  will take place on the Day of  Resurrection. The companion,  according to one version, refers  to the Angel who accompanies  man.  Whatever it means, it does  not have the slightest  relationship to Maryam (alayhas  salaam).  This man is too  ignorant or he was too drunk when he spoke his fiction of his hallucination.

Islam does not teach the belief  that Maryam (alayhas salaam)  ascended physically or even  spiritually into the heavens. The  Islamic belief is that Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam) had ascended physically into the heavens.

The Moron’s 10 points

The crank avers: “And then  about Jesus when I read chapter  3 verses 45 to 55, there are 10  points which the Quraan makes  about Jesus, the first thing  Quraan says, Kalimatullah, the  Arabic word which means ‘word  of God’, and the second thing,  Roohullah which means spirit of  God and the third Isalmaseeh  which means Jesus Christ. So Quraan gives the name for Jesus,  word of God, spirit of God and  Jesus Christ. And then Quraan  says that Jesus spoke when he  was very small, like 2 days old  after his birth. Quraan says that  Jesus created a live bird with mud…….And  then  Quraan  says  that  Jesus  cured  a  born blind man and a man with leprosy, etc. ………
When I saw all these things in  Quraan my thinking was what the  Quraan says about Mohammed.  You know according to Quraan  Prophet Mohammed is not the  word of God, not the spirit of  God, never spoke when he was 2 days old, never created any bird  with mud, never cured any sick  people, never raised any dead  people, he himself dies and  according to Islam he is not alive  and he will not come back. So  there is a lot of difference  between these two prophets. I  don’t call Jesus as God you  know, my idea was, he is a  Prophet, but he is a Prophet  greater than Mohammed.”

The crank contradicts himself  with his blasphemy. While here  he says that Jesus is a Prophet,  in the very same fiction he says:  “….Christians say word is son of  God.” Then he stupidly proceeds  to substantiate that Jesus is the  son of God. The moron’s  intellectual density is  staggering. Firstly, to establish  his man-god’s superiority over  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), he sucked from his  finger the convoluted ‘principle’  of the ‘greater number’. If a  name is mentioned a greater number in the Qur’aan, then in terms of the stupid missionary’s  logic, that person is greater.  Well, in terms of his stupid  ‘principle’ it has been shown that even the devil is greater than the  moron’s god whom he calls the  ‘son of  god’. For shaitaan is  mentioned 102 times in the Qur’aan.

Miracles only with Allah’s  Permission

Every  Nabi  performed  miracles  –  numerous  miracles. Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  displayed thousands of miracles.  But miracles are not proof of godhood. The Ambiya (Prophets)  demonstrated miracles by the  permission of Allah Ta’ala, not by  their volitional power and will.  They have no power to create or  to demonstrate supernatural  feats without Allah’s permission. Thus, regarding the miracles of  Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam) – Jesus  – the Qur’aan states with clarity  the statements of Nabi Isa:

“Verily I have come to you with a  sign from your Rabb (Creator  and Sustainer). I create for you  from sand the likeness of a bird,  then I blow into it; thus it  becomes a bird with the  permission of Allah. And, I cure  the born blind and the leper, and  I restore to life the dead with the  permission of  Allah……………….And, I have come  to you with a sign from your Rabb. Therefore fear Allah and obey me. Verily, Allah is my Rabb  and your Rabb, therefore worship  Him. This is the Straight Path.    [Aal-e-Imraan, Verses 49 – 51]

While the crank and fraud  mentions the miracles of Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam), he remains  stupidly ignorant of the astoundingly stupendous miracle of the splitting of the moon into  two parts by Muhammad  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  mentioned in the Qur’aan. Since  the crank missionary has  accepted the Qur’aan as the basis  of proof for his copro-argument,  he has no option but to accept  what the Qur’aan says about this  most marvellous miracle demonstrated by Muhammad  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The  very first verse of Surah Al-Qamar reads: “The Hour (of  Qiyaamah) has approached, and  the moon has been split.” All and  sundry in Makkah, and travellers  far afield had physically seen the  moon split into two parts. By a sign of his finger, the moon had split into two for all to witness.

Then the Satanist Christian  missionary blows hot air about the miracles of Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam) while ignoring the  miracles of Nabi Ibraheem  (alayhis salaam), also mentioned  in the Qur’aan. Just as Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam) had brought to  life the dead with Allah’s  permission, so too had Nabi  Ibraheem (alayhis salaam). With  the permission of Allah, he killed  four birds. Cut them into bits  and mixed all the parts into one  whole. Then he divided the  mixture into four parts, placing  one portion on a different hill.  Then with the permission of  Allah, he commanded the birds  to come to life. Instantaneously,  the birds came to life, running to  Nabi Ibraheem (alayhis salaam).  All the parts miraculously  separated themselves from the  admixture and accumulated separately to form the birds.

Then there is the miracle of Nabi  Ibraheem (alayhis salaam) cast  into the fire by Nimrood, and the  fire becoming a garden for him.  All the Ambiya displayed  miracles. But the display of  miracles does not make them gods as the moron believes. All miracles by the  Ambiya are Kalimatullah. They are by the command of Allah Ta’ala.

The superiority of a being is not  measured by the number or type  of miracles he displays. Even the  devil too displays miracles. The crank perhaps is a devil-worshipper, hence in terms of  his convoluted principle of a  greater number, the devil is  superior to Jesus, since Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam) is mentioned  only 25 times in the Qur’aan  while shaitaan (the devil) is mentioned hundreds of times.

Then the moron makes a big,  stupid issue out of the term, Kalimatullaah (the Word of Allah).  He is ignorant of the Arabic  language, hence he has miserably  failed to understand the meaning of the term. It never means ‘god’ or the ‘son of god’ nor does it  imply superiority over another being.

The Meaning of Kalimatullah

Kalimatullah, is explained in  Verse 59 of the same Surah, which states:  “Verily, the  likeness of Isa by Allah is like that  of Aadam. He (Allah) created him  from sand, then said to him: ‘Be! Thus he came (to life).”

Kalimatullah – the word of Allah –  is His command: “BE!”
The verse states with clarity that  just as Allah Ta’ala had created  Aadam (alayhis salaam with His  word (command): “Be!”, so too had He created Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). 

Just as Allah Ta’ala had created Aadam (alayhis salaam) from sand, so too had He  created Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). And, unto both these Nabis,  Allah Ta’ala proclaimed at the time of their non-existence: “Be!”,  and they came to life into  existence. In this verse, the  Qur’aan compares Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) to Hadhrat  Aadam (alayhis salaam), a created  human being. The comparison is  not with Allah. In fact, the  miraculous nature of Aadam’s  creation is of a greater marvel  than the miracle of Nabi Isa’s  birth. Whilst Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam) had at least a human  mother and was born in exactly  the same way as all humankind,  the creation of Nabi Aadam  (alayhis salaam) was without the medium of a human father and a human mother.

Furthermore, Aadam (alayhis  salaam) was created in Heaven  while Isa (alayhis salaam) was  created on earth in the same way  and substratum where and as all  men are created. In addition,  Aadam (alayhis salaam) inhabited  the celestial realm of the  Heaven, and he was honoured  with the prostration of countless  millions/billions/trillions of Angels. But not a single Angel  prostrated for Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam).

Even the creation of Hawwa  (alayhas salaam) has greater marvel than the creation of Nabi  Isa (alayhis salaam). While he was born from a woman in the  normal/natural way, and on  earth, Hawwa (alayhas salaam)  was created without the agency  of a human mother nor was she subjected to the normal process  of human birth. She was created from the rib of Nabi Aadam  (alayhis salaam), and in Jannat.  In  addition, she never was an  infant or a child. She came into  existence, a fully grown, fully  developed and perfect woman  spontaneously. Thus, relative to  these two progenitors of the  human race, there is no marvel in  the miraculous birth of Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam). But no one has  elevated Nabi Aadam (alayhis  salaam) and Hawwa (alayhas  salaam) to the pedestal of  godhood on the basis of all the wonders and miracles related to them.

The moron missionary saw in a  verse the word, Kalimatullah,  used in relation to Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam) – Jesus – hence  he stupidly concluded his  convoluted theory of divinity/godhood for Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam).

But, the stupid did not realize  that in the Qur’aan, the word,  Kalimatullah, does not refer  exclusively to Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam). Verse 40 of Surah At-Taubah reads: “And Kalimatullah  (the Word of Allah), it is  dominant.” Here Kalimatullah  does not have the slightest  relationship with Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam). The word,  kalimah appears dozens of times  in the Qur’aan without having  the slightest reference to Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam).

Refuting the divinity of Jesus  with the greatest clarity, the Qur’aan states:

“Remember when Allah will say  (on the Day of Judgment: ‘O Isa,  Son of Maryam! ‘Are you the one  who said to the people: ‘Accept  me and my mother as gods  besides Allah?’ He (Nabi Isa) will  say: ‘Glory to You! I had no right  to say what was not true to  me………I did not say to them  except what you had commanded  me (to say): ‘Worship Allah Who is my Rabb and your Rabb.”  [Surah Maaidah, verses 116/117]

It should be noted that the  moron missionary has built his stupid case on the basis of the  Qur’aan thereby conceding the authenticity and truth of the Qur’aan. He cites from only the  Qur’aan to ‘prove’ his flotsam  belief pertaining to Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam). The sources  which constitute the basis of  one’s case, must necessarily be  authentic. If the Qur’aan is  unauthentic, then the moron has  no right to cite verses from the  Qur’aan to substantiate his  copro-claims. Therefore, utilizing  only the Qur’aan to establish his  copro-ideas, the moron has  implied the authenticity of the Qur’aan.

Since he cites and draws proof  from the Qur’aan, let him listen to  what the Qur’aan has to say  about Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam). Verses 72 and 73 of Surah Maaidah read:

“Verily, those who said: ‘Verily,  Allah is the Maseeh, the son of  Maryam.’, have committed kufr.  (On the contrary) Maseeh said:  ‘O Bani Israaeel! Worship Allah  Who is my Rabb and your  Rabb……….Verily, the kuffaar  said: Verily, Allah is the third of  the trinity.’ There is no deity  except the One God. If they do  no desist from that (trinity)  which they speak, then verily, a  painful punishment will  overtake  those who commit kufr.”

Verse  74  of  the  same  Surah  states: 

“Maseeh the son of Maryam is  nothing but a Messenger.  Messengers have gone before  him. 

Emphatically negating the idea  of godhood from the term  Kalimatillah, Verse 171 of Surah  Nisaa’ states:

“O People of the Book! Do not  commit excess in your Deen, and  do not say about Allah, but the  truth. Verily, Isa, the son of  Maryam was only a Messenger of  Allah and His word (His word of  command) which He cast to  Maryam, and a Rooh from Him.  Therefore believe in Allah and His Messengers, and do not  ay:  ‘trinity’.  Desist (from this blasphemy), for it is best for  ou.  Verily, Allah is One God. Glory  unto Him! (He is pure) from there  being a son to Him.”

The terms,Kalimatullah and  Roohullah are expressly coupled  to and explained with the term,  Rasool. That is: Isa is not a god.  He is nothing but a Messenger  just as the Messengers which  came before him. He was created  by the word of Allah (‘BE!’) and  by the mercy and power of Allah (Roohullah). Why does the moron not also quote the Qur’aanic  verses which negates divinity for  Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) and  which maintain with great clarity  that Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) is a Messenger?

The terms, Kalimatullah and  Roohullah have been added to the verses by Allah Ta’ala not to  confirm divinity for Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam). If the moron  Christian missionary had understood Arabic, he would havecomprehended that these terms  are actually to refute the  Christian blasphemous doctrines  of Jesus being the ‘son of God’.  The words serve the purpose of  clarification and refutation. In  the context of clarification and  refutation, the meaning of the  relevant verses is:

There is no deity but the One  Allah. Isa, the son of Maryam, is  not god. On the contrary, he is  the word of Allah, i.e. he came  into existence with the command  of Allah by the word: ‘Be!, and he  is the Rooh of Allah. i.e. the Will, Intention. Mercy and Power of  Allah. His creation is by Divine Will.

This is the meaning of  kalimatullah and roohullah. It appears in the Qur’aan in  refutation of the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Nabi  Isa (alayhis salaam). The title of  Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) is also  Rooh. He too is Roohullah. In  fact, in the Qur’aan he is  specifically referred to as Roohul  Quds (the Holy Spirit). This title  does not confer divinity to  Jibraeel (alayhis salaam). In the  Qur’aan, the term Roohullah also  means “the mercy of Allah”. Verse 87 of Surah Yusuf states: “And  none but a kaafiroon nation despair of the mercy of Allah (Roohullaah).”

Even Aadam (alayhis salaam) is  the effect of Roohullah.Verse 72  of Surah Saad states: “Then  when I (Allah) have fashioned  him (Aadam) and infused in him  MY ROOH, then fall down in  prostration for him (Aadam).” 

Now both Aadam (alayhis  salaam) and Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam) are Roohullah. Why does  the moron’s belief exclude Aadam (alayhis salaam) from the corrupt,  blasphemous Christian concept  of divinity? The words, RasoolKalimatullah and Roohullah  serve the specific objective of  negating the Christian concept of Isa’s divinity.

The Fiction of Nabi Isa’s divinity Negating in entirety the divinity  of Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam), Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan:

“Remember when Allah said: ‘O  Isa, son of Maryam! (NOT SON  OF GOD) Remember My favour  on you and on your mother.  Remember when I aided you with  Roohul Quds (i.e.  Jibraeel). You  spoke to people in the cradle and in manhood. And remember whenI taught you the Kitaab and  Hikmah, the Taurah and the  Injeel. And remember when you  made from sand the likeness of a  bird with My permission. Then  you blew into it, then it became a  bird with My permission. And you cured the born blind and the leper with My permission. And  remember when you brought to  life the dead with My  permission.”  (Surah Maaidah, Verse 110)

The clarity with which Nabi Isa’s  divinity is negated in the Qur’aan  is brighter than the sun’s light.  All of these miracles performed  by Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) were  the commands of Allah Ta’ala.  Without the permission of Allah  Ta’ala,  Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam)  and all the Ambiya were  incapable of displaying any  miracle. Hence, Allah Ta’ala repeatedly proclaims: “With My permission.”

Only Allah is The Creator

Disgorging another lie, the crank  (the supposed renegade who  had become a kaafir) says: 

“So one day I went to my teacher,  the one who taught me 10 years  in Arabic college, and I ask him,  “teacher, how did God create the  universe?” Then he said, “God  created the universe through the  word” THROUGH THE WORD!”

With this lie, the moron only  succeeded in portraying his falsehood and ignorance. A  Muslim who has studied 10 years  in a Madrasah will not ask the  silly question attributed to the  fictitious renegade, nor would  the Ustaadh (Teacher) proffer  such a stupid answer as the crank  has disgorged. The answer to  the stupid question would have been simple:  Allah created the  universe with His power. He  simply says, “Be!”, and whatever  He wills, comes into existence.  There is no conundrum to  warrant the stupid rigmarole  hallucinated by the moron, who  says: “Then my question, “word    is creator or creation?”…….Quraansays Jesus is word of God. If my  teacher said the word of God is Creator, which means Jesus is  creator, then the Muslims must become Christian!”

The ignorance of the moron is  colossal. The ‘word’ (Kalimatullah  – the Word of Allah) is the  Command of Allah. The Teacher  never would have answered so  stupidly by saying: “God created  the universe through the word.” A  Muslim will simply answer: “Allah  created the universe by his  Qudrat (Power).” The Teacher  would not have said that the  ‘word’ is the creator. He would  say that ‘Allah is the Creator’.  The hallucination of the word  ‘through’ does not feature as far  as Muslims and the Qur’aan are concerned. Allah creates by His command, “BE!”, and with His  Qudrat (Power). He does not  create ‘through’ a created human  being who was born of a woman,  who ate food and who was the  substratum of all human frailties  and attributes.

Allah Ta’ala Himself is the  Creator. There is no separate ‘word’ which creates. Then the  moron says:   

“In Suppose if he says the word of  God is creation, he will be trapped. You know why? He said  everything is created through the word.”  

No Muslim can be trapped with  stupidities. A man of knowledge  will not proffer the stupid  answer the moron has  hallucinated here. The only  Creator is Allah – nothing more  and nothing less. There is  nothing to be trapped in this answer. He Alone Creates by His Qudrat.

Jesus is Allah’s creation. Just as  Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) is  Kalimatullah, so too is the entire  universe Kalimatullah. The  Qur’aan and stable brains  confirm this simple, self-evident  reality denied by the crank, devil-worshipper. We don’t say that  the ‘word’ is the creator. We say  that Allah is the Creator. A  polytheist such as the moron,  and idolaters believe in a  plurality of ‘creators’. The crank  has no option but to believe  what the Qur’aan says, namely,  only Allah is Khaaliq (The  Creator). He has presented the  Qur’aan as his evidence, hence he is logically obliged to accept the  ruling of the Qur’aan which says  that Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) is the Messenger sent  to all mankind, and that Isa  (alayhis salaam) is not the son of  god, and that trinity is  blasphemy, and that Isa (alayhis  salaam) is Allah’s Servant and Messenger. 

What the Qur’aan Commands

The lying fraud should heed the following commands of the Qur’aan and submit in obedience, for he himself has chosen the  Qur’aan as the basis of evidence  for his stupid ideas of blasphemy:
*    “(And Allah’s Wrath and  Punishment are on them) because of their (blasphemous)  statement: “Verily, we have killed  Maseeh Isa, the son of Maryam,  the Messenger of Allah. (But)  they did not kill him nor did they  crucify him, but it (the matter)  was confused upon them. Verily,  those who dispute regarding him  (Nabi Isa) are in doubt regarding    him. They have no knowledge  about it except following    conjecture. For a certainty they  did not kill him. On the contrary,  Allah raised him unto Himself.  And Allah is Mighty and Wise.”  (Surah Nisaa’, aayat 156)

*     “Most certainly, the kuffaar  who said: ‘Verily Allah is Maseeh  the son of Maryam, have  committed kufr. Say: ‘Who can  do anything to  Allah if He  intends to destroy Maseeh the  son of Maryam and his mother  and all on earth? Unto Allah  belongs the dominion of the  heavens and the earth and  whatever is between them. He  creates whatever He wills. And,  Allah has power over all things.” (Al-Maaidah, aayat 17)

*   “Verily, the kuffaar have  committed kufr by saying: ‘Verily,  Allah, He is Maseeh, the son of  Maryam. (But) Maseeh said: “O  Bani Israaeel! Worship Allah Who  is my Rabb and your Rabb. Verily,  he who associates partners with  Allah, Allah has forbidden for him  Paradise, and his abode is the  Fire. There will be no helpers for  the transgressors.”   (Al-Maaidah, aayat 72)

*   “Verily they have committed  kufr – they who say: ‘Verily, Allah  is a third of trinity.’ (Know!) that  there is no god but the ONE  GOD. If they do not desist from  (the blasphemy) they utter, then  most assuredly a painful punishment will overtake the  kuffaar among them.”    (Al-Maaidah, aayat 73)

*    “Maseeh, the son of Maryam  is only a Rasool (Messenger of  Allah). Messengers have passed  before him. And, his mother is  truthful. They both used to eat  food. Just look! How We explain  for them the signs. But, then just look how they drift (into error  and blasphemy)”  (Al-Maaidah, aayat 75)    

Muhammad, The Seal of the Prophets

The copro-moron Christian  missionary now has no option but to accept that Jesus was the  Prophet (Messenger) of Allah  Ta’ala, and to become a Muslim.  He has no option because he has  made the Qur’aan the basis on  which he structured his drivel.  He has thus implied the authenticity of the Qur’aan, for one does not    present a fabrication as the basis of one’s evidence.

In addition, the moron has no  option but to accept Muhammad  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as  the greatest and the final Rasool  (Messenger) of Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan states:

“Those who believe, practise virtue and believe that which has  been revealed to Muhammad –  and he is the Truth from their  Rabb—He (Allah) will forgive  them their sins and reform their  state.”  (Surah Muhammad, verse 2)

“Muhammad is not the father of any men among you. But, he is the Messenger of Allah and the  Seal of the Prophets. And Allah has knowledge of everything.” (Surah Ahzaab, verse 40)

“(The people of piety are) those  who follow the Rasool (Messenger) who is the Nabi  (Prophet), the Unlettered one, the one whom they (the Jews  and Christians) find written by  them in the Tauraah and Injeel.  He (Nabi Muhammad) commands righteousness and he prohibits evil…….Therefore follow  that  Noor (Celestial Light – the Qur’aan) which has been revealed to him. They are the successful ones.” (Surah A’raaf, verse 157)

“Say (O Muhammad!): ‘O people! Verily, I am Allah’s Messenger  unto you all. (He is Allah) unto  Whom belongs the heavens and the earth. There is no god but  He. He gives life and causes death. Therefore, believe  in Allah and His Messenger, the  Unlettered Prophet who believes in Allah and  His Law. Follow him  (Muhammad) so that you may be guided.”   (Surah A’raad, verse 158)

The Qur’aan is replete with verses  declaring the Nubuwwat  (Prophethood) of Muhammad  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and  commanding obedience to him.  The copro-moron has no  alternative but to accept  Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) as the greatest and  the final Prophet of Allah. He  has entrapped himself into this situation where he has to embrace Islam since he has implied the  authenticity of the Qur’aan from  which he cites his ‘proofs’ to  substantiate the blasphemy of  Jesus being the son of God, and even god, the creator. 

If the copro-moron rejects these  verses which establish the messenger-ship of both Nabi Isa  and Muhammad, and declare Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) as the final Messenger,  then he concedes that his entire  argument is baseless since then, it has been raised on a ‘spurious’ basis.

The Qur’aanic Context of the  mention of Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam)

Not a single verse of the 25  verses in which appears Nabi Isa’s name, is there the slightest  support for the blasphemous  contention of the copro-moron.  On the contrary, every one of the  25 verses negates godhood and divinity from Jesus. Every verse  confirms that Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam) was the Rasool  (Messenger) of Allah Ta’ala. While the stupid missionary patted  himself because Nabi Isa’s name  appears 25 times in the Qur’aan, the moron has conveniently    refrained from stating the  context in which Nabi Isa  (alayhis salaam) is mentioned in    each one of the 25  verses. The  mere mention of Nabi Isa’s  name in no way whatsoever  supports the blasphemous case  of the copro-moron.

A wife for a son

In a silly attempt to ‘prove’ that  God has a son (Nauthubillaah!),  the moron, devil-worshipper  says:   

“Then he (i.e. the imaginary  teacher of the imaginary Muslim  who had reneged from Islam) told me if there is a son of God, I must show him the wife of God.  Without wife, no chance for having a son. Then I showed him  a portion from the Quraan,  Quraan says that God sees  without eyes, God can talk  without tongue, God can hear  without ears. Its written in the  Quraan, I said if that is the case,  he can have a child without a wife.”

The ignorance  and intellectual  density of this copro-moron are  indeed stupendous. There is  absolutely no intellectual worth  in this stupid argument. Firstly,  there is consensus of Christians,  Jews and Muslims that Jesus was  born from an earthly woman. He  was a human being. The Qur’aan  states that Nabi Isa (alayhis  salaam) and his mother ate food.  The logical consequence of  eating food on earth is not a conundrum. It is known to even  the moron. It is precisely for this  consequence that the Qur’aan  mentions them eating food to  dispel the stupid blasphemy of  Nabi Isa (alayhis salaam) being the son of God.

If the stupidity of a  son  for  God  had been a possibility, such a  ‘son’ would not have had the needto go to the toilet. He would not  have consumed food. He would  not flee from people who are  created weaklings bent on killing him. He would not have been able to die. He would have enjoyed all  the attributes of God. He would  not have been born of a woman  in the way all people are born.  Confirming this argument, the Qur’aan states:

“If Allah had intended to have a  son, He would have chosen from  what He creates. Glory unto Him  (Pure is He). He is Allah, The One,  The Most Powerful.” (Surah Zumar, verse 4)

In this verse Allah Ta’ala scorns  and scoffs at the stupidity of the  Christians who claimed that Allah Ta’ala took as a son a human being born from a woman. 

Intelligence demand that at least  God would have created a powerful ‘son’ having His  likeness, and not adopt as a son  a weak, frail human being born from a woman.

The copro-moron has to accept  what the Qur’aan says in this  regard, for he is in a trap. Then  with regard to a wife, the moron  has no option but to accept the  verdict of the Qur’aan which  conforms the need for a wife in  order to beget a son. This issue,  in Qur’aanic terms, may not be analogized with tongue, eyes  and ears. And, the moron is under rational obligation to  accept what the Qur’aan says. Just as it is written in the  Qur’aan, so too is it written in  the Qur’aan that a wife is  necessary for a son. Thus, the Qur’aan states:

“How can He have a son when He  does not have a wife? He created  everything, and He is aware of  everything.”    (Surah An’aam, verse 101)

“Most exalted is the Majesty of  our Rabb. He has not taken a wife nor a son.” (Surah Jinn, verse 3)

The Qur’aan views the  blasphemous doctrine of  ‘the  son of God’ a stupidity  hallucinated by deranged brains,  and which is impossible because  God has no wife. Since the Qur’aan cites the dimension of a  wife being necessary for a son,  the copro-moron’s argument of  the possibility of a son without a  wife is devoid of intelligent  substance. 

The entire article of  the moron is a stupid, insipid fiction.

The Istinaad (analysis) of the Hadeeth: “My Sahaabah are like the stars…”

[Maulana Saeed Palanpuri D.B]

“As-haabee  Kan  Nujoom.  Bi  Ayyihim  Iqtadaytum Ihtadaytum”

[My  Sahaabah  are  like  the  guiding  stars.   Whosoever of them you will follow, you will be guided]

This  Hadeeth  has  been  narrated  by  six  different  Sahaabah:  

1.  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
2.  Jaabir  (radhiyallahu anhu)
3.  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
4.  Anas  (radhiyallahu anhu)
5.  Abu  Hurairah  (radhiyallahu anhu)
6. Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)

It  is  also  narrated  Dhahhaak  ibn  Muzaahim  Hilaali  in  a  Mursal  form.

1] The Narration of Ibn Umar: > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 89, no 1)

In  this  Sanad,  Hamza  ibn  Abi  Hamza  AlJazri  is  a  weak  narrator. Regarding  him:

– Imaam  Yahya  Ibn  Ma’een  said:  “He  is  not  worth  a  cent”

– Imaam  Bukhaari  said:  “He  is  Munkarul  Hadeeth (rejector)”

– Dar  Qutni  said:  “He  is  Matrook  (discarder)”

– Ibn  Adi  said:  “Most  of  his  narrations  are  Matrook”

– Tirmidhi  has  included  one  of  his  narrations  in  his  Kitaab (Baabul  Istidhaan)  but  then  said:  “This  Hadeeth  is Munkar  –  Hamza  is  Dha’eef  in  Hadeeth.  [Tuhfatul Ahwazee Vol. 3 pg. 391]

Verdict:

This Raawi (narrator) is Dha’eef Jiddan (very weak)

2] The Riwaayah (narration) of Jaabir > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 90, no 2)

Regarding  this  Sanad:

– Dar  Qutni  said:  This  Riwaayah  is  not  proven  from  Maalik and  its  Narrators  are  Majhool  (unknown).  [Lisaan] 

– Haafiz  has  said:  Jameel  is  not  Ma’roof  (known)  [Talkhees]

– Abu Haatim Raazi said: Laa A’rifuhu (not known) [Lisaan]

Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr  has  narrated  it  in  ‘Jaami’  Bayaanil  Ilm’ through this Sanad:

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 90, no 3)

But  then  he  says:  This  Sanad  is  not  strong  enough  to  be  used  as Hujjat  because  Haarith  Ibn  Ghadheen  is  Majhool.

In  Lisaanul  Meezaan,  Haafiz  has  narrated  this  statement  of Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr.  He  then  wrote:    

– Toosi  has  mentioned  him  in  his  ‘Tadhkirah  Rijaalush Shee’ah’ –  Ibn  Hibbaan  has  mentioned  him  in  his  ‘Kitaabuth Thiqaat’

Verdict:

The  Jarah  (critical  comment)  in  this  Riwaayah  is  not  very severe.  The  Raawi  (narrator)  is  Majhool  (unknown)  but  the  two Sanads  (chains  of  narrations)  lend  strength  to  each  other.  This Tareeq  is  Dha’eef  (weak)  but  not  Dha’eef  Jiddan.

3] The Riwaayah of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91, no 4)

Razeen’s Tareeq has the following addition

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91, no 5) – –

– The  author  of  Mishkaat  has  included  this  Riwaayah  in  his Kitaab.

– Abu  Bakr  Al  Bazzaar  has  also  narrated  it  (Talkheesul  Habeer  pg. 404  and  Jaami’  Bayaanil  Ilm)  
– Dhahabi has also mentioned it in Meezaanul I’tidaal This Tareeq is also Dha’eef.

Regarding  Abdurraheem

– Bukhaari  has  said:  Tarakoohu  (the  Muhadditheen  have  left  him out)   

– Ibn  Ma’een  said:  Kadhaab  (liar)  and  Laisa  Bi  Shai’  (he  is nothing)

– Jawzjaani  said:  Ghair  Thiqah  (not  reliable)

– Abu  Haatim  said:  Turika  Hadeethuhu  (his  narrations  are  left  out)

– Abu  Zar’ah  said:  Waahin  (weak)

– Abu Dawood said: Dha’eef (weak)

Verdict: This  Riwaayat  is  also  Dha’eef  because  of  Abdur-raheem.

4] The Riwaayah of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91/92, no 6)

This  Tareeq  is  also  Dha’eef  Jiddan.  

Regarding  Ja’far  ibn  Abdil  Ahad:  

– Dar  Qutni  said:  He  fabricates  Hadeeth –

– Abu  Zar’ah  said:  He  narrates  baseless  Ahaadeeth

– Ibn  Adi  said:  He  ‘steals’  Hadeeth  and  narrates  Munkar Ahaadeeth

5] The Riwaayah of Anas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Bazzaar  has  narrated  this  Hadeeth  but  in  Talkhees,  Haafiz  has  said: Its Sanad is no good.

6] The Riwaayah of Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Baihaqi  has  narrated  this  Hadeeth  in  ‘Al-Madkhal’  and  Munaawi  has mentioned  it  in  Faidhul  Qadeer  Sharah  Jaami’us  Sagheer  but  he  has not mentioned its Sanad nor has he commented on it. 

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 92, no 7)

7] The Mursal Hadeeth from Dhahhaak

Ibn  Hajar  has  mentioned  it  in  Talkhees.  He  said:  Abu  Dhar  Harawi has narrated it in Kitaabus Sunnah but its Sanad is Dhaeef.

[End of the seven Tareeqs of this Hadeeth]

This  Hadeeth  has  been  narrated  through  several  chains.  After  putting all of them together, it reaches the level of Dha’eef at the very least. 

In  ‘At  ta’leequs  Sabeeh’  –  the  Sharah  of  Mishkaat,  the  following  has been  said:  “its  Sanad  is  weak  but  the  various  Sanads  complement each  other  as  has  been  mentioned  in  Zafarul  Amaani,  the  Sharah  of Mukhtasar Jurjaani”

Similar  to  this  is  the  Hadeeth:  “The  minimum  Haidh  is  3  days  and the  maximum  is  10”  which  has  also  been  narrated  from  6  Sahaabah and  all  six  Tareeqs  are  very  Dha’eef.  After  putting  all  the  chains together, the Hadeeth reaches the level of Dha’eef. 

According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  a  Dha’eef  Hadeeth  is  given  preference over  the  Rai  (opinion)  of  any  Mujtahid  and  therefore  they accept it.

The  Hadeeth  we  are  discussing  also  reaches  the  level  of  Dha’eef  and a Dha’eef Hadeeth concerning Fadhaail is accepted unanimously.

Ibn  Hazam  Zaahiri  has  said:  “This  Hadeeth  is  Makdhoob  Mawdhoo’ Baatil”  but  his  verdict  is  not  worth  considering.  Bazzaar  has  said:  “It is  not  Saheeh”.  This  verdict  is  correct  since  a  Hadeeth  which  is  not Saheeh is Dha’eef and not Baatil and Mawdhoo’. 

There is a worlds difference between the two!

Bazzaar  has  raised  another  objection  to  this  Hadeeth.  He  says:  “This Hadeeth  contradicts  the  Saheeh  Hadeeth  of  Rasulullaah  ρ:  ‘Hold  on to  my  Sunnah  and  that  of  the  rightly  guided  Khulafaa  after  me’  in that  there  were  differences  among  the  Sahaabah  and  these  cannot  be clearly understood.”

But  Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr  gave  the  following  answer:

“The  Kalaam  of  Bazzaar  is  not  completely  correct.  Each  Sahaabi  in his  own  right  was  on  Haqq  and  thus  worthy  of  being  followed.  As for  their  internal  dispute,  this  too  was  a  source  of  guidance  for  the Ummat.”

Generally  you  will  find  that  whenever  the  Ahnaaf  have  a  Riwaayat in  support  of  their  Madh-hab  and  the  Ashaabul  Hadeeth  don’t,  then their  common  argument  is  that  the  Riwaayat  is  Dha’eef  or  Ghair Mu’tabar (not reliable). There are many examples of this.

In  the  Mas’alah  of  laughing  aloud  breaking  Salaat  and  Wudhu;  the minimum  and  maximum  periods  of  Haidh;  Qiraa’at  Khalfal  Imaam etc.  this  is  the  argument  of  the  others.  Yet  in  most  of  these  Masaa’il, the  Ahaadeeth  in  question  are  Mu’tabar.  For  details  refer  to  I’laaus Sunan.

The  Ahnaaf  use  the  Hadeeth  “As-haabee  kan  Nujoom”  in  support  of their  Madh-hab  that  the  Aqwaal  and  Fataawa  of  the  Sahaabah  are Hujjat in Deen.
According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  the  saying  of  a  Sahaabi  is  an  accepted Hujjat in Deen even if there is no consensus among them.

The  other  Imaams  only  accept  the  Ittifaaq  of  Sahaabah  as  Hujjat.  In the  case  of  a  single  Athar  (saying)  of  a  Sahaabi,  he  may  accept  it  or reject it with his own Ijtihaad.

Shah  Waliyullaah  has  quoted  the  saying  of  Imaam  Shaafi’ee  in  this regard:  “it  is  not  necessary  to  follow  the  individual  Sahaabi  unless there is Ittifaaq among them…” (Hujjatullaah pg 147)

According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  if  an  Athar  of  a  Sahaabi  is  presented, the Mujtahid will not make his own Ijtihaad.

So  according  to  their  habit,  the  As-haabul  Hadeeth  declare  this Hadeeth  as  Ghair  Mu’tabar.  Strangest  of  the  lot  is  Haafiz  Ibn  Hajar who  after  gathering  all  the  Turuq  of  this  Hadeeth  besides  that  of  Ibn Abbaas,  then  brings  Ibn  Hazams  Qowl  (saying).  Yet  wherever  it suits  him,  he  would  gather  2  or  3  Turuqs  of  a  Hadeeth  and  then  say: ‘these  few  Turuqs  strengthen  each  other,  the  Hadeeth  is  therefore acceptable’!  Here  he  turns  the  table  completely.  Ibn  Hajar  is notorious for these types of inconsistencies. 

Further:

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains,  all  linking  up  to  one  Sahaabi,  then this  is  a  Daleel  (proof)  that  the  Riwaayat  (narration)  has  an  Asal (origin/basis)

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains,  leading  to  several  Sahaabah,  and  if they are Dha’eef, the Riwaayat will be Hasan li Ghairihi.

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains  from  several  Sahaabah,  and  they  are very Dha’eef, then all put together will become Dha’eef.

Keeping  all  these  Usools  in  mind,  the  Hadeeth  we  are  discussing  at the very least will be said to be Dha’eef.

In  fact,  Mulla  Ali  Qaari  has  declared  this  Hadeeth  Hasan  li  Ghairihi (see Maudhoo’aat Al-Kubraa)

Allaamah  Abdul  Ali  Bahrul  Uloom  has  also  called  it  Hasan  li Ghairihi.

The  content  of  this  Hadeeth  is  also  supported  by  several  others:   “All my Sahaabah are Adool (righteous and just)” etc.

The  Hadeeth  ‘As-Haabee  kan  Nujoom’  is  thus  acceptable  as  Hujjat. After putting all of this together, the Usool of the Ahnaaf stands that ‘The  Aqwaal  of  Sahaabah  are  Hujjat  in  Deen  and  will  gain preference over the Ijtihaad of any non Sahaabi’  

Wallaahu A’lam
Sa’eed  Ahmad
10  Muharram  1417
Deoband

Who Poisoned Hadhrat Hasan (Radhiyallahu Anhu)??

Question: It has been alleged  that either Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or his son  Yazid was involved in the  poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). It is claimed  that one of them persuaded one  of Sayyiduna Hasan’s (radhiyallahu anhu) wives to  administer poison to him. What  is the truth of this claim?

Answer: Any claim of a historical  nature must be substantiated  with proof. An accusation made without providing proof is  slanderous, and should  accordingly be dismissed as such.

But even the mere presentation  of evidence is not sufficient to  prove the claim. There is one very  important condition that has to  be met, and that is authenticity. The onus rests upon the claimant  not only to provide evidence for  his claim, but also to  authenticate his evidence. For as  long as he fails to prove its  authenticity his claim is nothing more than an empty and worthless accusation.

This is a general rule which  applies to all historical claims,  and not only those to do with  alleged misdeeds of the Sahabah  (radhiyallahu anhu). Let us look,  for example, at the issue of the  “satanic  verses” which was so  maliciously taken advantage of by  the notorious Salman Rushdie (Shaitaan Khabees). Mr. Rushdie Khabees did not suck the  incident out of his thumb; he  found it in historical books.  However, what he failed to do  was to authenticate. Why? The  reason is obvious. He had his  own (satanic) agenda and his  own pre-conceived notions.

Thus when someone accuses  Sayyidunah Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or anybody  else of poisoning Sayyiduna  Ḥasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and  does not care to examine the  authenticity of the evidence for  his accusation for no reason  other than the fact that he dislikes Sayyidunah Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), he is no less  guilty than Salman Rushdie Khabees and his satanic ilk. Let  not your enmity for a person  become your only motivation for  finding him guilty.

And do not ever let enmity for a  people carry you away into  injustice. Be just; that is closer to  piety. And fear Allah. Verily Allah  is aware of what you do. (al-Ma’idah: 8)

It is authentically narrated that  when Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) lay on his deathbed, dying from poisoning, his  brother, Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) came to him and asked him: “Brother, tell me who  is the one who poisoned you.”  Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) asked: “Why? That you  may kill him?” Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Yes,” to which Sayyiduna Hasan  (radhiyallahu anhu) responded: “I  will not tell you anything. If it is  the one I think it is, then Allah’s  revenge is harsher. And if it is nothe, then by Allah, no innocent person will be killed on account of me.” [al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah  vol. 7 p. 41]

This authentic narration shows  that even Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was not  exactly sure of the identity of the  poisoner. Over and above that, herefuses to tell his own brother  who he suspects. It is strange  that Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself displayed such great caution in  the matter, fearing that he might  be accusing an innocent person,  but that people today can blurt  out, without the blink of an eye, that “Mu’awiyah poisoned Hasan”.
The greatest concern Sayyiduna  Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had  was the preservation of the ummah’s unity. It was on account  of this concern that he made peace with Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in 41 A.H. It  was also this outstanding  accomplishment of his which was predicted by his grandfather, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), in the well known hadith:

This son of mine is a Sayyid, and  soon the time will come when  through him Allah will reconcile two great masses of Muslims.

He had this concern of not  causing strife in the ummah,  right up to the time of his  demise. It was his dearest wish to be buried with his grandfather,  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), in the room of  Sayyidah ‘Aa’ishah (radhiyallahu anha), but he instructed  Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) not to resort to violence in the event Banu Umayyah tried to prevent his burial there, and to  bury him with his mother in  Jannah al-Baqi’. Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was prepared  to sacrifice the things nearest  and dearest to him in order to preserve the peace and unity of the ummah.

Therefore, if it was Sayyiduna  Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)  whom he suspected of having  him poisoned he would rather  have been expected to tell  Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) something like “I fear that  you will cause civil war if you try  to revenge yourself upon the one  I suspect”.  In the fact that he  does not allude to the prospect  of disunity and sedition at all, but  rather expresses fear at an  innocent person being killed on  account of him, we therefore have  reason to see that the one whom Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) suspected of poisoning him  was not Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah.

Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) lived for ten  more years after the passing of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). In all that time the valiant  and fearless Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) was alive, and  so was his brother, Muḥammad  ibn al-Hanafiyyah (rahimahullah),  his cousins ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far  and ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhuma), and numerous  other members of the Ahl al-Bayt. However, not a single one of  them ever confronted Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) on the poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan  (radhiyallahu anhu). In fact, they  maintained cordial relations with  him, especially Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) and ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu).  They never uttered a word about  Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) alleged  involvement in the death of  Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), neither in public nor to  their closest followers. This gives  us so much more reason to  dismiss the allegation against Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as unfounded.
Now let us look at the material in  the books of history on the basis  of  which the allegation is made.  The only report in which Mu‘awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) is  implicated in the death of  Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) is narrated by the historian,  Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi. This report appears as follows: [Al-Waqidi] says: 

I heard some people saying that  Mu’awiyah secretly made one of his servants administer poison to him. [Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 6 p. 251]

As a report of history, this  narration suffers from two fatally  serious defects. The first is the  universally recognised  untrustworthiness of al-Waqidi.  Details of his unreliability as a  narrator would probably fill  several paragraphs, but all of it may be suitably condensed into a  statement by Imam al-Shafi’i (rahmatullah alayh), who was his contemporary, and who knew him personally. Al-Shafi’i (rahmatullah alayh) has the following to say:

In Madinah there were seven  people who used to forge chains  of narration. One of them was al-Waqidi.  [Tahdhib al-Kamal vol. 26 p.194]

The second defect is much more  glaring. Note that al-Waqidi does  not mention the names of his  informants, and that he merely  says “I heard some people say”. This particular report comes after  a number of other reports in  which al-Waqidi clearly mentions  the names of his informants.  When he comes to this one, he merely says “I heard some people  say”. Is it on the basis of such  flimsy evidence that people today  are bold enough to level an  accusation of murder? Indeed,  this smacks of a total disregard  for academic integrity for the  sake of nothing but personal sentiments and prejudice.

There is another report in which  the wife of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), namely Ja’dah  bint al-Ash’ath, is implicated in  his murder by poisoning. This  report has it that it was Yazid ibn  Mu‘awiyah who set her up to do it, promising to marry her thereafter. This report is narrated  by Muhammad ibn Salam al-Jumahi. It is reproduced by al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal as follows:

Muhammad ibn Salam al-Jumahi narrates on the authority of Ibn  Ju’dubah that Ja’dah, the  daughter of Ash’ath ibn Qays, was  the wife of Hasan ibn ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). A message  was sent to her in secret by  Yazid, telling her: “Poison Hasan and I will be your husband.” So  she did it. When Hasan died she  sent a message to Yazid asking  him to fulfil his pledge. But he  told her: “By Allah, we did not  approve of you as Hasan’s wife.  Shall we approve of you as our own wife?” [ibid. vol. 6 p. 253]

This is the way the report is  found in the history books. To  the uncritical reader who has no  knowledge of the criteria of  authenticity and their application,  it might well appear to be  acceptable evidence. To the one  whose emotions have already  caused him to be favourably  disposed towards Sayyiduna  Hasan, and unfavourably disposed  towards Yazid, it is nothing less  than incontrovertible evidence.  But the true scholar never lets  emotion make his decision for  him. He first weighs the  evidence, examines it and scrutinises it, and only if it merits approval and acceptance will he  accept it. To the discerning  scholar, emotions are shaped by evidence and not evidence by emotions.

Now we return to the report  under discussion. Ibn Ju’dubah,  who is Muhammad ibn Salam’s  source for this report, is properly  known as Yazid ibn ‘Iyad ibn Ju’dubah. He lived in Madinah  during the time of Imam Malik (rahmatullah alayh). Imam Malik’s student, ‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn  al-Qasim, once asked his opinion  about a person called Ibn Sam’an.  The Imam replied: “He is a liar.”  Ibn al-Qasim then asked: “And Ibn  Ju’dubah?” Imam Malik replied: “An even bigger liar, an even  bigger liar.”  [ibid. vol. 32 p. 223] 

All other rijal critics who ever  expressed themselves on his  status as a narrator have concurred with Imam Malik in some way or the other.

Furthermore, Ibn Ju’dubah died  in the days of the ‘Abbasid  Khalifah, al-Mahdi, whose reign  came to an end in 169 A.H. If we  assume that he died in 165  A.H, and that he lived a life of 70  years, we could say he was born  in about 95 A.H. In other words,  by the time of his birth, almost a  half a century had passed after  the death of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). The “Yazid-Ja’dah plot” therefore either  came to his knowledge through  sources whom he refrains to  mention, or it was the product of his own mendacious and fertile imagination.

In light of what his  contemporaries thought of him, Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, for  example says of him “I think he  used to invent hadith for the  people.” [ibid. vol. 32 p. 224]

one is inclined to believe that the  whole plot was of his own  invention. Looking at the times  in which he lived — the early  ‘Abbasid period —, we find more  reason to believe that the report  is a forgery by Ibn Ju’dubah.  During the early ‘Abbasid times  sentiments were running high  against the recently ousted  Umayyads, and a person like the notorious Yazid would have been the perfect scapegoat.

To come back now to the alleged  involvement of Ja’dah bint  Ash’ath: There is one other report  which implicates her in the  poisoning of Sayyiduna Hasan,  but it does not mention anything  about Yazid. [ibid. vol. 6 p. 253] 

It is narrated from Umm Musa,  who was a bondswoman of  Sayyiduna ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). [Lisan al-Mizan vol. 7 p. 543 ]  The chain of narration  up to Umm Musa is reliable.  However, we might pose a  question here with regard to  Umm Musa herself: Did she  identify Ja’dah as the culprit out  of knowledge of her guilt, or  must her words here be  construed as the emotional  outburst of a bereaved woman  who simply must find someone to blame for the cause of her bereavement?

We do not pose this question out  of unnecessary scepticism. There  are two things which prompt us to ask it: Firstly, Sayyiduna Hasan’s (radhiyallahu anhu) own reluctance to name the person he  suspected. Keep in mind also  that he himself merely suspected,  and did not know it for a fact. Secondly, if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting Ja’dah  bint Ash’ath, no man would readily marry her, especially a  man of the Ahl al-Bayt. But with  Ja’dah we find that after the  demise of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) she was  married by his father’s cousin  Sayyiduna ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), and that she  bore him a son, Muhammad, and  a daughter, Quraybah. [al-Tabaqah al-Kubra’ vol. 5 p. 241] 

From  the  above discussion we may then draw the following conclusions:   

»  The report implicating Mu‘awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)is  narrated by an extremely unreliable narrator— al-Waqidi— from unnamed people.

» The report implicating Yazid and Ja’dah are narrated by a known liar— Ibn Ju’dubah—  who was born almost  50 years after the incident and names no sources at all. His report comes into  circulation during the early  ‘Abbasid period in which anti-Umayyad sentiments, and more  particularly anti-Yazid sentiments, are common.

» The report from Umm Musa which implicates Ja’dah is more likely the emotional outburst of a  bereaved woman than an  allegation based on factual knowledge.

» Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself refused to disclose  the identity of the one he  suspected. He restrained his  brother Sayyiduna Husayn (radhiyallahu anhu) from taking any action.

» After the death of Sayyiduna Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) the Ahl al-Bayt maintained good relations with Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) in Damascus.

In light of the above we fully  endorse the statement by Ibn  Kathir that none of these reports  are authentic. [Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah vol. 7 p. 41] 

We hope that this demonstration  — of how the words of a  bereaved woman, a report by  unknown reporters, and a forgery  by a known liar came to be  regarded as factual history — will  bring to light the need of  critically examining historical  sources before levelling  accusations against anybody.

Then who poisoned Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)??

Various parties have been accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), with the most famous being that it was his wife, Ja’dah bint Ash’ath,
instigated either by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), with the promise of marrying her to his son, Yazid, or instigated by her own father Ash’ath ibn Qais, who in turn was instigated by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Despite this view being mentioned in many unverified historical narrations, the accusations against Ja’dah and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) fails to answer the following questions:

a) What benefit Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) could ever derive from from the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)? In fact, as long as Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) remained alive, there remained no fear of the Iraqis instigating Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) , since it was common knoqledge that Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was totally against in-fighting, and for that very reasonhad agreed to hand over the Caliphate.  Had hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) been alive at the time when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) decided to elect his son, Yazid, as the next Caliph, there is a great possibility that he would have ensured that none opposed Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), since his life ambition was to keep the unity of the Ummah, and to seal all the doors that could lead to in-fighting.

In attempting to answer this, certain narrations have been concocted to show that in the truce made between Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). It was agreed that after the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), the caliphate would be returned to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu).  Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) motive in having him assassinated (radhiyallahu anhu) was thus to protect himself from having to fulfil this condition. (Na’udhubillah) The stupidity and absurdness of this ‘made-up motive’  is more than evident, since if such a condition had ever been laid, it would have been common knowledge amongst all the Sahaba and Tabi’een present during that era, and it would surely have found some mention in authentic narrations.

b) Why can no narration be found wherein Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) accuses Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) of having killed his brother? Rather, what can be found is even after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would visit Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) atleast once a year, and accepting from him gifts, just as he would do during the lifetime of his brother.

c) The wife of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ja’dah, was herself a princess, being the daughter of Ash’ath bin Qais, chief of the famous and mighty tribe of Kindah, and loyal friend of Hadhrat ‘Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). She had the honour of being in the marriage of the prince of both the worlds, the most handsome man of the time, the grandson and beloved of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  a man who every woman desired of that time desired entering into his wedlock. Due to being the wife of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu),  she was also blessed to be the daughter-in-law of Hadhrat Fatima Zahra (radhiyallahu anha), and of the close household of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Having acquired all this prestige and honour, what benefit could there now possibly be for her to forfeit all this glory and honour, merely so that she could be married to Yazid, who was absolutely no match whatsoever in front of the leader of the youth of Jannah, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)!.

d) Had Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) or Yazid ever thought of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), they would have never done it through his wife. Would they ever take a chance of having themselves humiliated in front of the entire Ummah, and branded as traitors, knowing full well the wife’s love for her husband, especially a husband like that of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), would surely have her exposed their evil intentions? When no weak-minded man would ever take such a chance, where then could such an unwise plot ever emit from the mind of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), who has been declared as one of the most wise of the Arabs.

e) If the motive behind the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was to clear the path for his son, Yazid, to become Caliph, why then did Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) also not make some sort of effort to have the few standing in opposition to Yazid’s election also murdered. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was well aware that the only true opposition that Yazid would have to face was that of Hadhrat Hussain and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhuma). If assassination Hadhrat Hasan was so easy, why did he then not have the same done with these illustrious two as well?

f) Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) would yearly present himself, together with his brother, in front of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). Had Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) ever intended having him assassinated, he could have easily ordered that they be ambushed during one of the journey’s and killed. In this way, their would be no fear of a woman ever exposing the men behind the killing, nor any concern of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up for any retaliation.

g) According to one narration, the father of Ja’dah, i.e. Ash’ath ibn Qais, having been bought off by Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), instigated his daughter to poison Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). From all the narrations, this one is the most preposterous, since Ash’ath ibn Qais passed away approximately nine years before the demise of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and according to some narrations, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself performed his Janazah Salah.

Due to the above eight factors (a-g) it seems only right that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazid and Ja’dah ibn Ash’ath be absolved from having played any role in the assassination of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and other subjects now be brought under investigation. The suspects with the greatest motive, who would attain the most benefit throught the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) would obviously be none other than the very ones who had been behing all the wars and assassinations thus far, i.e. the Satanist/Persian/Khawarij/Jewish forces operating primarily from Iraq, but whose forces of hypocrites had now spread all over the Muslim world.

Their motive would be obvious, i.e. only with the removal of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) could their hopes of re-ignitong the flames of war ever be realized. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had already made it clear that he was never going to lend support to any Iraqi movement, and as long as he was alive, he would ensure that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) too never inclines towards them.

A narration, with a sound and strong chain, which supports this  in which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed concern that in his absence he feared that the people of Iraq would easily instigate his brother against the present government and thus re-ignite the flames of war amongst the Ummah.

Another indicating factor towards the involvement of this group is the fact that as soon as the news of the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) spread, letters from parties in Iraq started pouring in, expressing regret over his death, but at the same time instigating Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to join them in opposing the government. An example of this has also previously passed, the gist of which is as follows:

(When the news of the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) reached the people of Kufa, the leaders of Kufa sent their condolences to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) via letters, Ja’dah ibn Hubeira, who would display the most love for the Ahle-bayt, wrote,

Such friends of yours are present here (i.e. in Kufa and Iraq), who are eagerly awaiting your coming, who regard none as your equal! They are well aware that the opinion of your brother, Hasan, was to avoid war, whereas you are a man who shows kindness to friends and severity against the enemy, a man who fights bravely for the Deen of Allah. Thus, if you are desirous of achieving these goals, come over to Kufa immediately, for we have, in your service, handed ourselves over to death!)

As for Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), no real change in his manner of governing occurred after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), which could in some way have indicated that he was just waiting for the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) to carry out some new idea. It was only seven years later, when he felt that his death was fast approaching, that he began considering having Yazid elected as Caliph after him. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) passed away in the 49th year after Hijrah, whilst the issue of having Yazid elected only began in the 56th year after Hijrah, four years before the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).

The crux of this discussion is that the accusation made against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid regarding their involvement in the murder of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), this accusations have no real basis, and common logic also defies it. In fact, suring the entire era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), not a word was ever mentioned regarding his, or his son’s possible involvement in the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) for the next nine years, continued making his annual visits to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), but not for once did he even raise the issue of the death of his brother.

It was only years later that the evil segments had this absurd claim propagated, and without any verification, the simple-minded believers began repeating it, as though it was a decided truth. As for those against whom there definitely was some form of case, i.e. the liars of Iraq, their mention was hardly ever made in the lists of possible suspects.

As with regards to the women accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ja’dah bint Ash’ath, despite famous historians having painted her as the killer, without making any indication whatsoever that this accusation too has never been verified, if one were to merely ponder over her life-history alone, it would be more than sufficient to expose the fact that the accusation laid against her, forget not being proven, was never even mentioned during her lifetime.

A summary of her life, as mentioned in Tabaqat ibn Sa’d, and other sources, show:

1) She was the maternal niece of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu).

2) She was married to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), while Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was still alive. She thus had the privilege of remaining in the wedlock of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) for over 9 years, getting separated only due to his death. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was well known for his habit of retaining women in his marriage for only short periods of time, and thereafter divorcing them and accepting others into his wedlock, merely with the intention of allowing more and more woman the opportunity of having some sort of share to be from the family of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Despite this habit, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) kept Ja’dah till the end. Why?

Can it be conceived that a man of such wisdom and foresight remain blinded from the evil hidden within this woman, thereby keeping her back and sending so many other righteous and pious women? Does the love and inclination which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed for this woman not offer any indication towards her nobility, piety, righteousness and sincerity? Has Qur’aan not hinted that the inclination, love and admiration expressed by a pure believing male for his female partner should be considered as a significant sign of the purity of the female herself? [Here the reference is being made to the verse 26 of Surah Nur, Wherein Almighty Allah says: “And pure souls shall surely only be inclined  to that which is pure”]

3) After the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Ya’qub ibn Talha, the son of Hadhrat Talha ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu, one of the ten who received the glad-tidings of Jannah during his life) extended his hand of marriage towards her. She remained with him in Madinah Munawwarah, till his death, and bore him three children. Ya’qub ibn Talha was a high-ranked Tabi’i, famous for his generosity. Would such a man ever think of marrying a woman who had been accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and thereafter residing with her in the very city in which Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) had passed away?

4) During her stay in Madinah Munawwarah, with her new husband, a time came when the people of Madinah, including her husband, pledge their allegiance to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu). During this time, why did Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) not have her brought to trail? The only reason that comes to mind  is that during that time, in Madinah Munawwarah, not a single accusation had been levelled against her by anyone, thus the need of an investigation never arose.

5) After the death of Ya’qub, the eldest son of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) married her, from whom she bore two children. Knowing the close relationship between Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu and the family of Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), could one ever imagine his eldest son marrying a woman accused of poisoning Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). The fact that he married her and kept her with him in Shaam clearly shows that during that era, no accusation had been levelled against her, neither in Hijaz, nor in Shaam.

From the above, one can clearly gauge that during the era of the Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum), no accusation had ever been made against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), nor againsy Yazid, and neither against Ja’dah, at least not in the lands of Hijaz and Sham. No trail was ever held, no evidence was ever heard, and in fact, no finger was ever pointed at any of these three, regarding having played amy role in the murder of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). When this is the case, could one ever now dare lifting the finger of accusation against any of these three individuals, especially after being aware of the strict verdict of the Shariah regarding accusing without any valid proof!

To recogize who these Iraqis/Satanists are and how they created fitnah in a broader scope, please continue reading this article: Karbala – A ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and The Secrets Behind it

Karbala – A ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and The Secrets Behind it [Part-2]

The Reality of “Salaat al-Ghausthiyyah”

Pseudo-Sufis have attributed many lies to the great scholar Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahimahullah) one of them is a 2 rak’at prayer which involves invoking Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahimahullah) and facing his tomb in Iraq.

The following is taken from a book (Bajhat al-Asrar) where the method of this innovated prayer is described and following it is criticism from the classical scholars:

If a person in distress or hardships calls out to me, his hardship will be eradicated. If a person uses my name as a Wasila (medium) when he pleads to Allāh Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, his need will be fulfilled. One should perform two Rakats of Salah and in every Rak’at one should recite the Surah Fatiha eleven times, and thereafter, Surah Ikhlas eleven times. After completing the Salah, one must recite the Durood and Salam (Salawat or Durood Sharif) upon Sayyiduna Rasoolullah Sallallahu ‘Alaihi wasallam. Then remembering me one should take eleven steps towards the direction of Baghdad invoking my name in every step and also one’s need and wish. In this manner, (Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala willing), his need and wish will be granted. [Bahjat al Asrar]

Ibn Rajab al Hanbali (rahimahullah) said regarding this:

“Shatnoofi has written a three volume book on Shaykh Abdul Qaadir (rahimahullah) and in it he has compiled a mountain of lies. Whereas it is sufficient for a person be declared a liar for him to narrate everything he hears. I have seen some of the quotes in the book but my soul was not content in believing them because firstly the narrations have been taken from unknown people.

Secondly not only are their mountains of lies and allegations on Shaykh Abdul-Qaadir but it is also contrary to the status of the Shaykh if attributed to him. The statement of Shaykh al-Kamaal has also passed by me where he says the things Shatnoofi has mentioned in his book Bahjatul-Israar have caused him to be accused (of lying).”
[Dha’il Tabaqaat (1/293) of Ibn Rajab].

Ibn Hajr Asqalani al-Shafi’i (rahimahullah) mentioned from Shaykh al-Kamaal Ja’afar,

“Shatnoofi has mentioned very strange and odd things in this book (Bajhat ul Asrar) and the people have criticized most of the incidences he has mentioned and their chains.”
[ad-Durr al-Kaaminah (3/142].

Shirk in Salaat al-Ghauthiyyah

There are certain people who are very fond of an invented form of Salah (Namaz) called the Salat al Ghauthiyyah or the Salat al Asrar.

Some salient points about this “Salah” are as follows:

It is specially offered in the month of Rabi’ al Aakhir, probably because its proponents celebrate the ‘Urs of Shaykh ‘Abdil Qadir Jilani in this month. According to them, the prayer can be offered in other months as well.

According to them if one needs help and solutions for his problems then he should perform this ‘prayer’.

The method is as follows:

After the Fardh and Sunnah of Maghrib, one is supposed to offer two rakahs of prayer.

In each rakah, after Surah Faatiha, the person is supposed to read Surah Ikhlas eleven times.

After Surah Ikhlas the person is supposed to read the following “dua”: 

After reading the above supplication to the Prophet (saws), the person is supposed to take eleven steps towards Iraq.

On every step, the person is supposed to supplicate to Shaykh ‘Abdil Qadir Jilani in the following words:

After this the person is supposed to make dua’ using the wasila of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The proponents of this prayer say that all needs will then be fulfilled.

May Allah guide all Muslims to Tawhid and Sunnah and save them from Shirk and Bid’ah.

Providing Information about Various aspects of Islam