Tag Archives: Ahlus Sunnah

Divine Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala

Allah’s Omnipresence has been the belief of the Ummah since the inception of Islam.There is no difference of opinion among the Ulama of Islam on the Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala Who declares in the Qur’aan Majeed:

“WE ARE CLOSER TO MAN THAN HIS JUGULAR VEINS”

Similarly, He says:

East and West belong to Allah. Whichever way you turn your face, there is Allah’s Presence.”

Leaving all philosophical and fanciful discussion aside, the Qur’aanic fact upheld and proclaimed by the Ulama of the Ummah for the past 14 centuries is that Allah Ta’ala is here, there and everywhere at one and the same time. Whether this doctrine be understood or not and whether it sounds logic or illogic is of no consequence. The belief of His Emanence is unanimous.

ON TOP OF THE ARSH

The argument of Allah Ta’ala being above or on top of the Arsh cannot be cited in refutation of Allah’s
Omnipresence. The Qur’aanic  verses pertaining to Allah’s Presence on top of the Divine Throne belong to the Mutashaabihat (Allegorical) category. The interpretation of such verses is known to only Allah Ta’ala. When the Qur’aan speaks of Allah’s Face and Allah’s Hand, it is not permissible to attribute on this basis anthropomorphistic connotations to Allah Ta’ala because dimension and direction are not applicable to Him. Any aspect such as direction and dimension which implies finitude concern only created beings.

While everyone accepts the Qur’aanic claim of Istiwaa alal Arsh (or Allah’s Presence on the Arsh), the manner of such Presence defies our created minds.

BRAHMANIC BELIEF?

The claim that the Islamic belief of Allah’s Omnipresence is the product of Brahmanic influence is absolutely stupid and ludicrous. This belief has come down in the Ummah many centuries before Muslims had contact with Hindus of India. This belief has been propounded by the greatest authorities of the Shariah since all times. Only ignorant people can be misled by the stupid claim made by deviates.

The satanism of such deviates is conspicuous. By implication the deviate is saying that for 14 centuries the greatest authorities of the Shariah were in darkness regarding this belief, and only today, the true belief has been unearthed, and that too by a modernist deviate who has no Islamic credentials Muslims should beware of the writings of all products of kuffaar universities. The surest sign of deviation is hatred and criticism of the Math-habs. When a man rejects the Taqleed of the Math-habs, his deviation is manifest.

The Omnipresence of Allah Ta’ala is an unanimous belief propagated by the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. Those who step beyond the confines of this Jama’ah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) plunge into dhalaal and the Fire of Jahannum.

Was Ibn Taymiyah from the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama‘ah?

By: Shaykh Muhammad Abū Bakr Ghāzīpūrī al-Anṣārī

Forward:

All  praise  is  due  only  to  Allaah.  We  laud  Him  and  beseech  His  aid and  beg  forgiveness  only  from  Him  and  believe  in  Him  and  rely solely  on  Him.  We  seek  salvation  in  Him  from  the  evils  of  our  inner selves  and  the  vices  of  our  actions.  There  is  none  to  misguide  one whom  Allaah  intends  to  guide.  I  bear  witness  that  there  is  no  one worthy  of  worship  but  Allaah,  the  One  who  has  no  partner.  I  also testify  that  Hadhrat  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)is  the  faithful  servant  and  the  Last Rasul  of  Allaah.  May  Allaah  Ta‟ala‟s  mercy  be  on  him,  his  family and his Sahabaah  and may He bless them and raise their status.

This  work  can  be  divided  into  three  parts  –  the  first  linking  the statements  of Ibn Taymiyah to the  authentic  Sufis, the  second quoting  some  of  the  ludicrous  beliefs  of  the  great  icon  of  the  Salafis  and  the third,  as  the  appendix  explains,  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  was  not  a  true  ‘Alim by academic standards.

The  current  day  Salafis,  who  at  times  label  themselves  as  Ahle Hadith‟/ Ghair  Muqallids‟ go  to  the  extreme  due  to  the  lack  of knowledge  and  deficiency  in  Ilm.  Due  to  their  stubbornness  they strongly  criticize  in  vile  languages  the  statements  of  reliable,  pious  Sufis  and  Ulema  of  Deoband.  The  able  author  Moulana  Muhammad Abu  Bkar  Ghazipuri  highlights  those  very  statements  which  they  are against  as  being  totally  similar  to  what  their  guide,  their  leader,  their  Imaam  of  Deen,  the  one  whom  they  quote  day  and  night,  whom  they call  Shaykhul  Islaam  none  other  than  Ibn  Taymiyah  holds.  The author correctly asks them to rule on their Shaykhul Islaam.

Many  a  historical  icon  once  probed  and  investigated  proved  to  be  a disaster.

The  weird,  strange,  fallacious  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  are  simplified yet again for answering by the current Salafis.

Lastly,  from  an  academic  view  the  status  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is assessed.  The  reader  is  all  along  encouraged  to  be  the  judge  and formulate  an  informed  opinion  of  their  own  –  not  one  propelled  by propaganda and lop-sided information.

Few  years  ago  even  reliable  scholars  thought  that  no-one  was  better than  Al-Bani  but  when  his  knowledge  was  unveiled  he  became history. Ibn Taymiyah’s path to oblivion is following close by.

We  make  Duaa  that  Allaah  Jalla  Majdahu  grants  all  of  us  the  ability to  follow  and  adhere  to  the  way  and  pattern  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnat  wal Jamaat.  A  simple  fomula  is  to  be  adherent  to  one  of  the  Mazhabs  of Fiqh.

A H Elias  (Mufti) May Allaah be  with him. 1430/2009

Preface:

Alḥamdu lillāhi  Rabbil  ‘ālamīn  waṣ  ṣalātu  was  salāmu  ‘alā  sayyidil mursalīn wa ālihi wa ṣaḥbihi ajma‘īn.

These  days  many  tribulations,  various  calamities  and  pains  which Allaah  alone  knows  afflict  the  Islaamic  Ummah.  Yet  Allaah  ‘azza  wa jal  does  not  oppress  His  slaves.  These  tribulations  and  calamities are  due  to  what  we  have  earned  by  way  of  our  disobedience  and  sins. The  only  escape  is  to  turn  to  Allaah  and  repent  and  strive  against  the ego  and  passions.  We  should  have  correct  belief,  perform  pious deeds,  abstain  from  disobedience,  and  be  zealous  in  remembering Him,  establishing  the  symbols  and  pillars  of  the  Dīn,  calling  to  the Quraan and Sunnah and entrenching divine law in our lives. 

In  the  same  way  we  are  bound  at  the  present  moment  to  avoid everything  which  causes  division  and  separation  amongst  the Islaamic  body  and  hatred  and  jealousy  in  human  society.  The weakness, disgrace  and humiliation we  are  suffering  is  due  to nothing besides  this  disunity  amongst  Muslims  and  Islaamic  groups  and contempt for one another. 

Our  struggle  in  these  evil  conditions  which  the  Muslims  witness throughout  the  Islaamic  world,  is  to  hold  on  to  Allaah’s  rope,  arrange our  ranks  and  avoid  all  that  causes  disunity  and  dispute  amongst Muslims.  We  should  be  a  single  hand,  a  single  power  and  a  single army  against  the  enemies  –  the  enemies  of  Islaam  and  the  Muslims, the enemies of Allaah and His Rasūl.

If  we  uphold  this  struggle  which  is  compulsory  upon  us  in  these times, our condition will  be  other than what  we  find ourselves  in right now.  With  the  permission  and  will  of  Allaah  our  lost  honour,  awe and power will be restored.

It  is  extremely  regrettable  that  not  only  do  the  Muslims  not understand  this  reality,  they  do  not  even  attempt  to  understand  it. They  are  involved  in  that  which  does  not  benefit  them.  They  walk  the contrary  path  and  think  that  that  is  the  compulsory  struggle  and  a duty from Allaah and His Rasūl . Innā lillāhi wa innā ilayhi rāji‘ūn.

A  sample  of  this  diversion  from  the  Islaamic  path  is  in  the  form  of the  westernisation  of  the  sect  which  claims  association  with  the Predecessors  and thus  calls  itself  Salafīyah.  Sometimes  they  associate themselves  with Ḥadīth and call  themselves  Ahlul  Ḥadīth.  Sometimes they  pride  themselves  on  not  following  the  Four  Imāms  whose  Fiqh the  Ummah  follows.  They  are  then  “Ghayr  Muqallid.”  The  names  are many but the meaning is the same. 

This  sect  is  today  a  major calamity  upon  the  entire  Ummah, from  east to  west,  from  north  to  south.  Their  efforts  today  are  directed  at proclaiming  the  majority  of  Muslims  to  be  Kāfir,  Innovators  and outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  It  regards  itself  to be  the  sole  group  with  correct  belief,  Imān,  Islaam,  Quraan  and Ḥadīth.  Those  who  enter  the  sect  are  the  only  true  Muslims.  Besides them  all  are  Kuffār  and  apostates.  Their  attitude  is  the  same  as  the Khawārij  in  Islaamic  history.  We  seek  Allaah‟s  protection  against their  evil  and  place  Him  upon  their  necks.  How  many  calamities, disasters,  trials  and  tribulations  is  the  Islaamic  Ummah  not  suffering, yet  how  many  of the  Ummah do they  not  expel  from  Islaam  and issue Fatāwā  that  they  are  astray  and  Mushrikūn?  Every  day  there  is  a  new book,  every  day  there  is  a  new  publication,  every  day  there  is  a  new statement  in  this  regard.  This  is  their  Jihād.  Wa  lā  ḥawla  wa  lā quwwata illā billāhil ‘Azhīm.

These  “Mujāhids”  –  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  are  agents  of  the satanic  powers  of  the  Jews  and  Christians  who  work  for  them  and fulfil  their  satanic  desires  of  weakening  Islaam’s  strength,  spreading confusion  in  Islaamic  society,  and  causing  weakness  and  mutual confrontation  amongst  Muslims  –  have  their  sights  specially  on  the those  of  Deobandī  thought  and  their  Ulamā‟  and  spiritual  leaders. They  continuously  lay  in  ambush  for  them  and  seek  to  drive  the Muslims  away  from  them.  They  hatch  such  plots  against  them  that none  can  be  pleased  with  except  Satan.  They  come  up  with  such  lies and  concoctions  against  the  leaders  and  elders  of  Deoband,  that  the  Arsh of ar-Raḥmān could shake  with these.  Whoever wishes  to study their  filth  should  peruse  their  book, “Ad-Diyūbnadīyah.”  By  means  of books  and  publications  they  strive  to  make  the  Muslims  averse  to  the Ulamā‟ of Deoband despite the efforts to combat idolatrous beliefs.

When  I  travelled  this  during  Ramaḍān  for  the  purpose  of  Umrah,  I was  fortunate  enough  to  visit  the  Two  Noble  Ḥarams.  At  that  time some  brothers  were  given  two  writings  of  this  type.  The  first  was  an Arabic  text  of  eight  pages,  named,  “Ash-Shajarah  al-Khabīthah.”  It included  the  picture  of  a  tree,  with  branches,  twigs  and  leaves.  Each leaf  had  the  name  of  an  Islaamic  sect  present  in  the  world.  All  these sects  were  thus  growing  from  the  shajarah  khabīthah  (filthy  tree) with  weak  roots,  while  Salafīs  and  Ghayr  Muqallids  were  shown growing  from  shajarah  ṭayyibah  whose  roots  are  firm  and  branches extend to the sky. 

The  second  writing  was  a  text  of  66  pages  called,  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’ of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  This booklet  was  first  published  in  Arabic,  and  then  translated into  Urdu.  I have  a  copy  of  the  translation,  not  the  original.  Al-Maktab  atTaāwunī  lid  Dawah  wal  Irshād  wa  Tawītil  Jāliyah  at  as-Sunnī,  ar Riyāḍ  had  published  both  booklets.  As  for  who  had  composed  them, this  was  not  mentioned  on  the  front  cover,  inside  or  on  the  back cover.

The  contents  of  the  booklet  was  entirely  extracted  from  the  book  of an  innovator,  drowned  in  innovation  and  fantasies.  He  is  an implacable  enemy  of  the  Ulamā‟  of  Deoband.  This  man,  Arshad  al Qādirī,  is  known  in  India  for  blatant  lies  in  his  writings  against  the Deobandis.

The  “great  Islaamic  hero”  who  compiled  this  booklet  who  exhibits his  Imānī  bravery  by  hiding  his  name,  has  done  no  favour  to  himself or  his  group  to  which  he  claims  affiliation.  The  basis  upon  which  he proclaims  Deoband  to  be  astray  and  outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  is  the  same  as  the  basis  clearly  found  with  that sect.

Would  he  be  pleased  if  someone  should  write  a  book  called,  “Is  the Salafī  sect  and  those  without  Maẓhab  part  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā‘ah”?

The  composer  lists  in  the  booklet  some  incidents  of  the  kashf  and miracles  of  the  elders  of  Deoband  and  presents  these  as  the  basis  of Deobandī  belief.  He  holds  these  Kashf  and  miracles  to  be misguidance,  Shirk  and  contrary  to  the  beliefs  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā’ah.  He  thus  asks  after  mentioning  the  Kashf  and  miracles, “Is the Deobandī sect part of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah?”

The  uninformed  deceived  one  has  no  concept  that  Kashf  and miracles  do  not  form  the  basis  of  belief,  whether  of  Deobandīs  or others,  since  it  does  not  give  the  benefit  of  absolute  certainty. Something  which  does  not  fulfil  this  criterion  can  never  be  a  basis  of belief.  There  are  no  two  who  will  disagree  on  this  matter.  Thus  his question,  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’  of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  is  absolutely  futile.  It  is  based  on  stories  of miracles,  Kashf  and  other  facts  which  are  essentially  true  according to  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  such  as  the  Life  of  the  Ambiyaa, the need for Taqlīd of the Aimmah or the status of Taṣṣawwuf.

Despite  the  excesses  of  this  sect  which  makes  Muslims  into disbelievers  which  is  spreading  day-by-day  and  expanding  from place  to  place,  we  turn  our  gaze  away  from  them.  Some  people  are unaware  of  their  state  and  fall  into  their  snares,  and  then  hold  a  bad opinion  on  the  elders  and  Ulamā‟  of  Deoband.  We  are  thus  forced  to examine  their  beliefs  and  see  how  much  of  a  difference  there  is between  them  and  Deoband.  Since  the  basic  doctrines  and  beliefs concerning  Shirk  and  Bid‘ah  are  the  same,  why  then  is  Deoband singled  out  for  expulsion  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  Why are  the  Salafī. Ghayr  Muqallid  and  “Saved”  sects  not  expelled despite common beliefs and deeds?

It  is  known  amongst  all  the  people  of  knowledge  that  the  Salafī  sect never  diverts  in  minor  or  major  matters  from  the  beliefs  of  al-Ḥāfizh Ibn  Taymiyah  and  his  student,  Ibn  Qayyim.  According  to  this  sect, Dīn  is  whatever  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  Ibn  Qayyim  held  Dīn  to  be.  True doctrine  according  to  them  is  what  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  Ibn  Qayyim believed.  Thus  these  two  are  the  scales  and  measures  of  truth  and falsehood,  of  belief  and  disbelief,  of  correct  belief  and  incorrect.

According  to  the  Salafīs,  whoever  contradicts  the  two  of  them  is outside the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamāah.

We  would  therefore  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to  examine  some  of the  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  so  that  truth  and  falsehood  can  be clarified,  and  we  can  know  who  is  really  upon  guidance  and  the Straight  Path.  Is  it  not  possible  that  it  is  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  his followers  who  have  abandoned  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  due  to these beliefs? 

The  reader  should  know  that  we  have  nothing  but  honour  and  respect in  our  hearts  for  Ibn  Taymiyah,  may  Allaah‟s  mercy  be  upon  him. We  consider  him  to  be  from  amongst  those  Ulamā‟  upon  whose hands  Allaah  brought  about  much  goodness.  Through  him  He removed  many  innovations,  nonsense,  shirk  acts  and  grave-worship. He  memorised  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  He  was  a  veritable  ocean  of Dīnī  knowledge.  Despite  that,  he  was  not  innocent  of  mistakes  in regards  knowledge  and  belief.  May  Allaah  pardon  us  and  him.  He was  not  of  the  status  of  an  Imām  whose  Taqlīd  can  be  made  on everything,  just  as  there  is  no  Imām  or  Ālim  in  the  Ummah  upon whom Taqlīd can be made in all matters. 

In  the  following  pages  there  will  be  presented  selected  beliefs  of  Ibn Taymiyah,  taken  from  his  famous  writings  which  circulate  amongst people.  We  seek  Allaah’s  help  and  rely  upon  Him.  Allaah’s salutations  and  peace  be  upon  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  his  family  and  all  his companions.

I am  the  one  in  need  of  Allaah’s  mercy,  Muḥammad  Abū  Bakr Ghāzīpūrī, son of  Mawlānā Bakhsh al-Anṣārī.   Book  completed  on  the  night  of  Thursday  after  ‘Ishā,  8th  Shawwāl  al Mukarram 1427 Hijrī.

All  praise  belongs  to  Allaah,  Creator  of  the  heavens  and  earth. Salutations  and  peace  be  upon  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  Chief  of  the  Messengers, Seal  of  the  Ambiyaa,  and  upon  all  his  companions  and  family,  the righteous,  guides  and  guided,  and  upon  the  pious  and  truthful  friends of Allaah.

This  is  an  explanation  of  some  of  the  beliefs  of  ash-Shaykh  al-Ḥāfiz  Ḥujjatul  Islaam  wa  Qudratul  Anām,  al- Ārif  ar-Rabbānī,  Ibn Taymiyah  al-Ḥarrāni,  Allaah’s  mercy  be  upon  him,  whose  heart  was filled  with  Qura’manic  light.  These  beliefs  are  taken  from  valuable writings  which  are  circulated  amongst  people.  I  present  these  beliefs of  Ibn  Taymiyah  to  the  readers  so  that  it  may  be  clarified  to  them  if he  was  of the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā’ah  or not (The  Salāfīs  expel  Allaah’s    friends  and  the  noble,  pious  Ṣūfīs  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah,  and  deny  Kashf  and  the  appearance  of  extra-natural  acts  at  the  hands  of  the pious  amongst  Allaah’s  slaves,  and  declare  the  acts  of  the  Ṣūfīs  to  be  misguidance. They  regard  Ibn  Taymiyah  as  their  leader  and  establish  their  belief  system  upon  the beliefs  of  that  Ḥārrānī  Shaykh.  When  he  is  their  pivot  in  Dīn,  belief  and  maẓhab, the  question  arises  –  are  the  Salāfīs  part  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  If  they dissociate  themselves  from  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  beliefs  which  we  shall  mention,  then we  ask  if  they  will  declare  their  denial  of  these  in  the  interests  of  declaring  the  truth and presenting and reply? ) .  Allaah  guides  to the Straight  Path.  He  is  sufficient  for  me  and  the  best  disposer  of  affairs. Here  now  lies  before  you  the  beliefs  of  Shaykhul  Islaam,  Allaah‟s mercy be upon him.

Ibn Taymiyah‟s belief on extra-natural events

[Khawāriq  –  events  which are  outside  “normal  natural”  events. I  have chosen  to  translate  this  as  “extra-natural”  to  avoid  the  modern connotations of “supernatural” – translator]

He  said,  “There  are  certain  extra-natural  events  which  are  related  to knowledge,  such  as  Kashf.  Others  are  related  to  power  and  kingdom such  as  enacting  acts  which  are  extra-natural.  Others  are  related  to self-sufficiency  in  apparent  gifts  people  are  given,  such  as knowledge,  authority,  wealth  and  independence.  All  these  what Allaah  grants  His  slave  is  in  order  for  him  to  use  it  as  an  aid  upon what  Allaah  loves  and  is  pleased  with,  and  to  draw  closer  to  Him. Through  it  He  raises  his  status  through  the  commands  of  Allaah  and His  Rasūl.  In that  way  his  rank and closeness  to  Allaah  and  His  Rasūl increase.” [al-Fatāwā, V11, p299]

O noble  brothers,  ponder  over  this  belief  of  Ibn  Taymiyah.  Then  ask,  “By  Allaah,  is  this  not  the  exact  same  belief  as  that  of  the  Ṣūfīs?”  In that  case,  Ḥujjatul  Islaam  Ibn  Taymiyah  is  with  the  people  of Taṣṣawuf,  the  people  of  “misguidance  and  nonsense.”  He  is  not  with the present Salafīs, the people of “the Quraan and Imaan.”

Tell  us,  O  Salafī  brothers,  O  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah,  what  is  then your  Fatwā  about  your  Shaykh?  Was  he  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah or was he astray and misguided others?

Come,  O  truthful  believing  brothers,  let  us  see  what  these  words establish about you concerning strange occurrences:

1.  Extra-natural  events  are  proven for the  saints.

2.  There  are  various  forms  of  extra-natural  events.  Some  are related to power, such  as  the  effects  of a  saint  on the  world.

3.  Some  are  related  to  knowledge  such  as  the  knowledge  of  a slave  which none  besides  him  knows.

4.  Unseen matters  shown to him  by  means  of  Kashf.

5.  Self-sufficiency  from  that  which  the  general  masses  on dependants  upon.  

6.  Independence  from  eating,  drinking,  learning,  reading  and writing.

7.  These  extra-natural  events  bring  the  slave  closer  to  Allaah  in station and  are  aids  in attaining  the  pleasure  of  Allaah  and  His Rasūl.

These  are  encompassed  in  the  words  of  al-Ḥāfiz  Ibn  Taymiyah, which  we  just  quoted.  Thus  if  someone  believes  that  a  saint  could assist  someone  in  distress,  in  his  absence,  or  learns  of  a  man’s condition  whilst  being  far  from  him,  or  walks  on  water;  or  flies  in  the air;  or  he  attained some  knowledge  without  direct  learning;  or  that  the conditions  of  the  inmates  of  graves  are  shown  to  him; these  beliefs and  the  many  similar  ones  are  nothing  by  which  someone  can  be  faulted  for.  He  is  not  a  man  who  contradicts  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah. If  it  were,  then  it  would  not  have  been  part  of  the  beliefs  of  Shaykhul Islaam.

What  is  the  stance  of  the  Salafis  is  in  regards  this  belief??  What  is their  opinion  on  Shaykhul  Islaam  Ibn  Taymiyah??  Is  he  of  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  or  not?  O  brothers,  refrain  from  flinging accusations  of  evil  against  the  elders  and not  attempt  to  cause  grief  to Allaah  and  His  Rasūl    with  regard  to  their  friends.  The  punishment for  that  is  all-encompassing.  Allaah  guides  whom  He  will  to  the Straight  Path.

There are various forms of Kashf

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “Sometimes  he  is  shown  the  exact  object  when Kashf  of  it  is  made.  Sometimes  he  sees  an  image  of  it  in  his  heart which  acts  as  a  mirror  for  him.  The  heart  sees  as  well.  This  can  occur while  awake  or  asleep,  such  as  when  a  man  sees  something  in  his dream  and  then  sees  the  exact  thing  when  he  awakens  without  any change to it.” [V 11; p 638]

Here  the  Shaykh  speaks  in the  language  of  the  Ṣūfīs.  The  Ṣūfīs  do not say  anything  different  from  Shaykhul  Islaam  in  regards  kashf  and Murāqabah.

My Salafī  brothers  turn  to  Ibn  Taymiyah  and  regard  him  as  a  proof  in Dīn  and  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah.  I  now  ask  them  with  all  due respect  and  honour,  what  is  your  opinion  with  regard  to  these  words of  the  Shaykh?  Are  these  the  words  of  a  man  who  has  diverted  from the  correct  belief?  Are  these  words  of  an  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah, or misguided ones who have strayed from the Straight Path?

If  these  words  are  incorrect  according  to  you  and  if  such  belief  is contrary  to  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah,  then  do  not  hide  the  truth.  “Do not cover it with falsehood and you know it.”

Dear  brothers!  I  invite  you  to  ponder  over  the  words  of  the  Shaykh  of Islaam  and  the  Muslims.  If  you  have  given  it  thought,  the  following  would have become apparent to you:

1.  Sometimes  the  one  experiencing  Kashf  sees  the  revealed object  as  itself without  any  change.

2.  Sometimes  he  sees  an  image  in  his  heart,  while  he  is  awake, but  it  is  like  a  dream.

3.  That  which  he  dreams  of  he  can  later  see  in  its  original  form when awake.

So  believe  in  this,  O  Salafī  brethren!  This  is  the  belief  of  the  great scholar  in  whose  heart  Quraanic  light  was  placed.  May  Allaah  have mercy  on  him  and us  all.  He  always  spoke  the  truth and was  honest  in his  speech.  He  would  never  make  that  which  contradicts  the  Quraan and  Sunnah  his  belief  and  Dīn.  That  is  what  we  think  of  him.  Tell  us what  you  think  of  him  O  brothers  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah, O people  of the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.

He who unconditionally attacks the Ṣūfīs is immoderate

He  said  the  following  concerning  Taṣawwuf  and  its  people,  “There  is a  group  which  reviles  Taṣawwuf  and  the  Ṣūfīs  as  innovators  and outside  the  Ahlus  Sunnah.  Another  group  goes  to  extremes  in  their regards  and  claims  that  they  are  the  best  and  most  perfect  of  creation. Both  of  these  are  reprehensible  extremes.  The  correct  view  is  that they  strive  in  Allaah‟s  obedience,  just  as  others  strive  in  Allaah’s obedience.  Amongst  them  are  those  well  ahead  in  closeness according  to  their  efforts.  Others  are  more  moderate  and  they  are  the People  of  the  Right  Hand…Yet  there  is  also  attributed  to  them  those who have wronged themselves and disobeyed their Rabb.” [v11; p18]

He  then mentioned in regards  those  well  ahead and the  moderate  ones amongst  the  Ṣūfīs,  that  they  are  the  true  Ṣūfīs  and  described  their qualities. [p19]

Thus  al-Ḥāfiz  Ibn  Taymiyah  does  not  unconditionally  attack Taṣawwuf  and  Ṣūfīs.  He  speaks  like  a  person  of  knowledge  about them,  not  like  those  ignorant  of  reality.  He  relates  what  is  true  about Taṣawwuf and Ṣūfīs.

O  Salafī  brothers,  turn  to  guidance  and  fix  your  gaze  at  the  words  of Ḥujjatul  Islaam.  Do  not  be  amongst  those  whom  the  tongue  of  Imām Ahlus  Sunnah  labelled  as,  “reprehensible.”  Do  not  revile  ar Raḥmān’s  friends,  for  indeed  His  Throne  shakes  at  that.  Allaah‟s anger ignites at that.

Who  can  be  more  wrong  and  ignorant  then  he  who  describes Taṣawwuf  in  a  nonsense  manner  and  attacks  its  people  without  any restriction;  whose  tongue  moves  against Allaah’s  people  and  views that  condoned  in  Sharīah  as  innovation;  and  expels  the  Ṣūfīs  from the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah?

Special people know nations‟ punishments through Kashf

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “As  for  the  special  ones  amongst  people,  they know  the  punishments  of  nations  through  the  Kashf  Allaah  gives them.” [v11; p69]

Meaning  that  they  are  informed  of  something  which  belongs  to  the knowledge  unseen  to  others  –  will  this  one  die  as  a  believer  or  not? Will he die poor or rich? Will he die in his land or not?

I  ask  the  Salafī  sect, who are  the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā’ah?  Is  this  a belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  according  to  you?  Does  one who  declares  such  a  belief  remain  a  Muslim?  If  not,  then  proclaim the  truth,  O  People  of  the  truth.  Do  not  hide  the  truth  about  Ḥujjatul Islaam.

I  have  read  much  about  what  you  say  in  regards  our  Mashāikh  of Deoband.  I  know  your  style,  but  have  chosen  to  be  patient  and  not attack  you  in  the  style  of  your  harsh  words  against  our  elders.  Natural vulgarity  and  deliberate  vulgarity  degrades  knowledge  and  the Ulamā‟. Obsenity is not a quality of a believer. 

O  brothers!  When  you  know  the  belief  of  your  leader,  then  either repent  from  your  audacious  statements  against  the  Ulamā‟  and Mashāikh  of  Deoband,  or  expel  Shaykhul  Islaam  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  and  declare  him  to  be  a  frivolous  innovator.  Weigh  the matters with a balanced scale.

O  Salafī  brothers!  Do  not  be  like  those  who  give  short  measure. “Those  who  when  they  receive  measure  demand  their  full  right,  but when  they  have  to  measure  or  weigh  for  others  they  give  short.” Surely guidance is in Allaah’s Hands.

Allaah’s addresses His friends and shows them Kashf

Shyakhul  Islaam  said,  “These  are  true  matters  which  Umar  bin  al Khaṭṭāb (radhiyallahu anhu) told  us  about  which  occur  to  obedient  ones.  These  are matters  which  the  Most  Honourable  and  Majestic  makes  kashf  of. Allaah‟s friends have Mukhāṭabāt and Kashf. [v11; p205]

You know  the  meaning  of  Kashf  from  the  previous  discussion.  Allaah shows  the  obedient  ones  matters  which  are  hidden  from  the  eyes  of the  general  people.  They  witness  it  and  others  do  not.  They  are informed of what others are not. 

Mukhāṭabāt  means  that  Allaah  sometimes  addresses  His  friend,  and sometimes  the  saint  addresses  Allaah.  Sometimes  the  saint  addresses unseen  beings  like  Jinn,  angels  and  souls  and  sometimes  they converse with him.

These  Mukhāṭabāt  and  Kashf  occur  to  the  saint  during  both  sleep  and wakefulness. 

Yes,  this  is  the  belief  of  virtuous  Imām  which  he  registered  in  his Fatāwā.  So  what  do  you,  O  Salafīs,  think  about  this  august  Imām?

Was  he  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  or  not?  How  can  he possibly  be  part  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  according  to  contemporary Salafīs,  since  they  regard  such  beliefs  as  negation  of  Imān  and Islaam?  They  say  that  someone  who believes  that  is  outside  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  and  part  of  the  sect  with  ridiculous  beliefs,  the Ṣūfīs.  In  fact,  such  a  person  does  not  belong  to  the  community  of  our Nabī,  Muḥammad (sallallaqhu alayhi wasallam) .  Perhaps  there  is  a  different  scale  for  Shakhul Islaam  according  to  you,  O  brothers,  and  misguidance  is  only  for  the Deobandīs?

O  brothers,  what  proof  do  you  have  to  negate  the  belief  of  Shaykhul Islaam?  We  all  know  that  it  does  not  originate  except  from  the Quraan, Sunnah and what the majority of Imāms believed. 

Anyone  can  perform  extra-natural  acts,  but  a  saint  is  one who follows the Quraan and Sunnah

He  said  in  his  Fatāwā,  “You  will  find  many  like  these  and  will believe  that  he  has  to  be  Allaah‟s  friend  because  of  the  Kashf  he displayed  in  certain  matters,  or  extra-natural  acts  such  as  he  indicates to  someone  and  that  person  dies,  or  he  flies  in  the  sky  to  Makkah  or elsewhere,  or  sometimes  walks  on  water,  or  he  fills  up  an  empty container,  or  he  at  times  spends  from  unseen  sources,  or  he  may become  invisible  to  people’s  eyes,  or  someone  is  in  need  and  he  is not  there  but  he  suddenly  appears  and  fulfils  his  need,  or  he  informs the  people  about  their  stolen  goods  or  other  unseen  matters,  etc…. These  matters  are  extra-natural  and  the  performer  may  be  Allaah‟s friend or His  enemy. Do  not  think that  whoever performs  these  acts  is necessarily  Allaah’s  friend.  Friends  of  Allaah  are  assessed  according to  their  qualities,  deeds  and  conditions  as  outlined  in  the  Quraan  and Sunnah. [v11; p214]

Allaah  be  praised  for  the  Shaykh  who  uttered  the  truth  and  spoke  in the  language  of  Deoband.  This  is  indeed  the  exact  belief  of  the  elders and Ulamā‟ of Deoband.  Who  say  nothing  different  to  Ibn Taymiyah in  regards  sainthood and  extra-natural  acts.  It  is  as  if  he  has  explained what  is  their  belief  concerning  Allaah‟s  friends.  If  there  is  any  doubt in what  I  have  said, then  Alhamdulillaah,  the  Ulamā‟  of Deoband are to  be  found  in  every  place  on  earth,  go  enquire  from  them  or  refer  to their  publications  on  Taṣṣawuf  and  character.  You  will  discover exactly what I had said.

Ibn  Taymiyah’s  words  prove  that  these  extra-natural  acts  are  not farfetched  for  Allaah’s  friends.  It  is  an  honour  which  Allaah  confers on  them  due  to  their  obedience  and  Him  being  pleased  with  them. They worship Him and sacrifice their desires for His sake.

Shaykhul  Islaam  repeats  this  in  another  place  in  the  same  volume  of his  Fatāwā,  “The  pious  friends  of  Allaah  are  the  followers  of Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  They  do  as  He  commanded  and  abstain  from  what  He criticised.  They  follow  Him  in  all  that  is  clear  to  them  that  they should  follow  Him…  Allaah  helps  them  with  His  angels  and  a  spirit from  Him  and  sends  from  His  light  into  their  hearts.  Allaah  honours then  by  way  of  miracles  which  are  also  proofs  for  the  Dīn  and  help for the Muslims. [v11; p 17]

I  am  utterly  amazed  at  the  Salafī  brothers  for  their  attacks  against  the friends  of  Allaah  from  the  people  of  Taṣawwuf  whom  Allaah  had honoured  with  miracles.  How  can  they  regard  attacks  against  the Ṣūfīs  to  be  permitted and  how  can  they  deny  miracles  from  the  slaves of  ar-Raḥmān,  when  Ibn  Taymiyah,  their  leader  in  belief  and Maẓhab,  categorically  establishes  the  reality  of  extra-natural  acts  and miracles  at  the  hands  of  Allaah’s  friends  and  declares  them  to  be amongst Allaah’s great bounties to them?

If  by  virtue  of  their  belief  in  these  acts  and  miracles,  the  Mashāikh and  Ulāmā‟  of  Deoband  are  expelled  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah  and  are  to  be  considered  innovators  with  doubtful  faith,  then what  is  the  status  of  Shaykhul  Islaam  for  believing  the  same  as  the
Deobandīs?  O  noble  ones,  how  can  his  faith  be  intact?  How  can  he remain  within  the  congregation  of  the  Muslims?  Why  is  he  not attacked  in  regards  his  Dīn  and  belief?  Had  you  thought  about  him before  making  your  statements  in  regards  Deoband,  it  would  have better for you, O denying brothers. 
Once  you  have  pondered  the  just  quoted  words  of  the  Shaykh,  the following should become apparent to you:

1.  Extra-natural  acts  are  established  from  Allaah’s  friends  and cannot  be  denied.

2.  Miracles  are  bounties  from  Allaah  to  His  pious  slaves.  Allaah honours  them  thus  to illustrate  their status  with Him.

3.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  person  can  die  with  the  mere indication of the  saint.

4.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  saint  can walk on water.

5.  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  saint  can  fly  in  the  air  to  Makkah  or elsewhere.

6.  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  can spend from  unseen  sources.

7.  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  can be  invisible  to people’s  sight.

8.  That  someone  seeks  his  help  and  the  saint  appears  to  help  him and  the  one  in  distress  sees  him,  whereas  the  saint  was  absent or dead.  

9.  That  a  saint  informs  people  about  their stolen  wealth.

10. The saint informs people about someone missing or sick.

Al-Imām  Ibn  Taymiyah  declares  all  of  this  possible  for  a  saint  and  he is  an  Imām  in  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth  and  a  proof  in matters  of  Dīn.  What is  then  wrong  with  the  Salafīs  that  they  deny  this  for  the  saints?  Who is  more  knowledgeable  of Sharīah, Dīn,  Quraan  and Sunnah  –  you or the Imām?

When  these  acts  and  miracles  are  possible  for  saints,  then  why  do raise  a  hue  and  cry  on  the  possibility  of  them  occurring  at  the  hands of  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband  and  describe  them  in  an  ugly  manner?  If you  do  not  regard  these  Mashāikha  and  Ulāma  to  be  pious  friends  of Allaah  and perfect  believers  who follow  the  Quraan  and Sunnah, then O  slaves  of  Allaah,  fear  Him!  They  were  certainly  pious  friends  of Allaah.  The  like  of  them  is  rarely  to  be  found  on  the  face  of  the  earth. They  were  like  angels  in  human  form;  averse  to  the  world  and desirous  of  the  Ākhirah;  worshippers  at  night,  warriors  in  the  day. Their  faces  shone  with  the  light  of  taqwā  and  Imaan.  Their  hearts were  attached  to  Allaah  wherever  they  went  and  whatever  they  were paying  attention  to.  They  were  humble  to  the  believers  and  firm against  the  Kuffār.  They  placed  the  edifice  of  Dīn  and  belief  upon  a firm  foundation  of  Quraan  and  Sunnah  and  spread  the  Word  of  Truth in  the  world,  as  the  poet  said,  “Those  are  my  forebearers,  bring  the  like of them if you can, O Jarīr.

Whoever  doubts  our  description  of  them  should  read  their biographies  and  research  their  condition.  If  they  are  to  be  found  to  be really  as  described  and  the  condition  of  their  Dīn  is  that  of  Taqwā, then  why  is  it  far-fetched  that  they  should  have  performed  miracles? Miracles  at  the  hands  of  Allaah’s  friends  are  true  according  to  the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā’ah.

Additional explanation of Kashf from Ibn Taymiyah

The  pious  Imām  said,  “Amongst  those  extra-natural  acts  in  regards knowledge  are  those  where  the  slave  sometimes  hears  that  which others  cannot  hear.  Sometimes  he  can  see  that  which  others  cannot see,  whether  awake  or  asleep.  Sometimes  he  learns  that  which  others do  not  such  as  through  Waḥy  or  Ilhām  or  revealing  of  necessary knowledge;  or  true  insight.  These  are  called  Kashf,  Mushāhadāt  and Mukāshafāt.  Hearing  is  called  Mukhāṭabāt,  seeing  is  called Mushāhadāt  and  knowledge  is  called  Mukāshafah.  They  are  also collectively  called  Kashf/Mukashafah  i.e.  Kashf  was  made  to  him. [v11; p313]

These  are  the  words  of  the  pious  Imām  in  regards  the  reality  of  Kashf and  an  exposition  of  the  different  kinds.  It  is  variously  in  the  either the  form  of hearing, vision or knowledge.  According  to contemporary Salafīs,  words  like  these  are  misguidance,  false  belief  and  words  of the  people  of  Shirk.  O  slaves  of  Allaah,  was  Ibn  Tyamiyah  a  Mushrik or a misguided man according to you?

The  reality  which  cannot  be  hidden  is  that  the  Salafī  sect  is  amongst the  most  ignorant  people  in  regards  the  realities  of  Dīn  and  most  far from  the  path of guidance. If it  were  not  so, they  would not  have  been enemies  of  ar-Raḥmān’s  friends  and  they  would  not  have  walked  the path  transgression  and  excess.  “He  who  Allaah  lets  go  astray  has  no guide.”  “He  for  whom  Allaah  had  not  created  a  light,  will  have  no light.”

It is necessary for the slave to set some time for solitude

Shaykhul  Islaam  said,  “It  is  necessary  that  the  slave  set  aside  some time  alone  for  Ẓikr,  Ṣalāh,  meditation,  self-reckoning  and  rectifying his  heart.  This  can  either  be  inside  his  house  or  elsewhere.”  [v  10;  p 429]

This  is  what  the  Ṣūfīs  term  as,  “Khalwah.”  If  you  regard  that  as monasticism  then  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  “If  this  is  a  rejected  act which  has  no  basis  in  Sharī’ah  and  is  an  innovation  in  Dīn,  then  what is  your  Fatwā  on  the  pious  Imām  whose  heart  was  filled  with Quraanic  light?  Was  he  ignorant  on  what  is  established  and  what  is not  established  in  Sharī’ah  –  and  we  seek  Allaah’s  protection  against such  an  accusation  –  or  was  he  an  inviter  to  innovations  and concoctions?  Was  he  of  those  who  legalised  Ḥarām  and  prohibited Ḥalāl?” Give us your Fatwā, may you be rewarded. 

Kashf can be of the world or Dīnī matters

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “Just  as  Kashf  of  the  worldly  matters  can  be made  for  the  believing  slave,  whether  on  a  definite  or  speculative basis,  Dīnī  matters  are  similar…  Sometimes  it  is  a  proof  placed  in the believer‟s  heart  in  which  further  interpretation  is  impossible…  many people  of  Kashf  get  in their hearts  that  this  food is  Ḥarām, or this  man is  a  Kāfir  or  Fāsiq  and  there  is  no  apparent  proof  for  these.”  [v10; p477]

If  such  words  concerning  the  saints  and  people  of  Kashf  were  to come  from  a  Deobandī,  contemporary  Salafīs  would  declare  him guilty  of  Shirk  and  Kufr.  At  the  very  least  he  would  be  declared  to  be an  innovator  and  grave-worshipper.  Sadly  for  them  these  words  come from  Shaykhul  Islaam,  the  man  who  always  spoke  from  Quraan  and Sunnah, whose words were true and honest.

Brethren  in  Dīn!  What  Ibn  Taymiyah  said  is  the  exact  belief  of  the noble  Ṣūfīs.  He  spoke  with  their  tongue.  In  fact,  he  clarified  their belief in such a manner which many others are incapable of.

Let  us  see  what  Fatwā  the  Salafīs  will  issue  in  this  regard.  The essence  of  what  the  Imām  said  is  that  the  Ṣūfīs  sometimes  do something  for  which  there  is  no  apparent  proof  from  the  Quraan  or Sunnah,  yet  but  act  upon it  because  of  inspiration  Allaah  casts  in their hearts. 

It  is  thus  inappropriate  for  us  to  hasten  to  issue  a  Fatwā  against  them and  wag  the  tongue  of  objection.  Instead,  we  are  obligated  to  be patient in their regard, and hand over the matter to Allaah. 

Yet  will  this  sink  in  the  brains  of  the  contemporary  Salafīs?  No,  a thousand  times  no.  They  are  a  sect  whose  thoughts  have  become fossilised  and  eyes  have  been  blinded.  Darkness  upon  darkness clouds  their  hearts.  We  ask  Allaah  to  guide  them  and  enlighten  their eyes  that  they  may  refrain  from  ignorant  rulings  against  Allaah’s slaves.

Extra-natural  acts  may  occur  to  those  of  abstention  and worship

Ibn  Taymiyah  states  in  al-Waṣīyah  al-Kubrā ( Maktabah  as-Sunnah  ad-Dār  as-Salafīyah  li  Nashril  Ilm  printed  it  in  Cairo.  Abū Abdullāh  Muḥammad  bin  Ḥamd  al-Ḥamūd  researched  it  and  attached  his comments  to  it.  I  have  a  copy  of  that  print.  Ad-Dār  as-Salafīyah  printed  it  without realising  that  it  destroys  the  foundation  of  Salafīyah.  Such  is  the  intelligence  of  the Salafīs.) which  explains  the basic  beliefs  of  Islaam,  “Amongst  those  of  you  who  are  abstentious of  the  world  and  engage  in  worship,  there  are  those  who  have purified  states  and  a  pleasing  path,  and  receive  Kashf  and  effects.”  [p 17]

O  brothers  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah,  what  is  your  opinion about  this  Imām?  He  regards  believing  that  Allaah’s  friends  who abstain  from  the  world  and  engage  in  worship  can  receive  Kashf  and extra-natural  effects,  to  be  a  necessary  a  basic  article  of  faith  for Muslims.  Is  this  then  a  false  belief?  Is  he  outside  the  true  faith?  Is  he on something besides Allaah’s guidance?

You  certainly  know  by  now  after  all  these  explanations  what  is  Kashf and  enactments  and  what  the  Imām’s  view  is.  Do  you  have  the capability  to  declare  yourselves  free  from  the  Imām,  the  Shaykh  of Islaam  and  the  Muslims,  the  Proof  in  Dīn,  the  leader  of  the  believers? Do  you  have  the  capability  to  expel  him  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah

Is  it  not  amazing  that  when  a  Deobandī  says  something  like  this he  is  outside  Islaam,  but  when  Ibn  Taymiyah  says  it  then  he  is Shaykhul  Islaam  and  leader  of  mankind?  Is  this  how  you  judge, O fair ones?

People receive Kashf of the grave and hear the punishments

The  Imām  says  in  his  Fatāwā,  “Kashf  has  been  made  to  many  people who  have  heard  the  voices  of  those  being  punished  in  their  graves. They  saw  them  being  punished  with  their  own  eyes.  These  narrations are many and well-known.” [v4; p296]

O people  of  justice  and  fairness,  is  this  not  what  the  Ṣūfīs,  whom  you label  as  astray,  say?  Now  what  do  you  say  about  the  august  Imām, who  is  the  Imām  of  the  Salafīs  and  Proof  of  the  Ghayr  Muqallids? The  Imām  does  not  stop  at  saying  that  there  are  people  who  hear people  being  punished  in  their  graves,  but  he  said  that  there  are  those who actually see the punishment.

People experience while awake what was dreamt

The  Imām  said  in  al-Waṣīyah  al-Kubrā,  “Sometimes  people experience  sights  while  awake  similar to that  of one  sleeping. He  thus sees  with  his  heart  that  which  the  sleeper  sees.  Realities  can  become shown  to  him  through  the  witnessing  of  his  heart.  All  these  occur  in the world.” [p27]

O  people  of  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah,  ponder  over  the  words  of  the Imām  you  consider  to  be  most  reliable.  He  believed  that  Allaah’s friends  can  see  whilst  awake  what  a  sleeper  sees.  Realities  are revealed  to them  through  the  testimony  of  their  hearts.  This  is  exactly what  the  Ṣūfīs  believe.  It  is  known amongst  all  people  that  the  sleeper can  dream  that  he  is  in  Jannah;  that  he  is  in  Hell;  that  he  is  with angels;  that  he  is  with  the  souls;  that  he  is  speaking  with  the inhabitants  of  the  grave;  that  he  is  in  some  distant  land;  that  he  is  in the  Ka’bah;  that  he  is  at  the  Sacred  Tomb.  A  sleeper  dreams  of  many others  things.  All  these  can  be  experienced  by  people  whilst  awake  as well.  Allaah’s  slave  can  witness  many  realities  with  his  heart.  This  is according to the belief of Ibn Taymiyah. According  to  contemporary  Salafīs,  such  belief  is  misguidance  and deviation  from  Dīn  and  Sharī’ah  and  is  a  negation  of  Imaan.  We  thus have  to  ask  them,  “What  is  your  view  on  the  Imām?  Which  of  the two  are  upon  guidance?  You,  O  brothers  or  your  Imām  and  leader  in Dīn?”

The  slave  can  witness  with  his  heart  without  need  of physical senses

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “In  the  same  way  there  are  slaves  who  can witness  with  the  heart,  so  much  so  that  the  physical  senses  are negated  and  he  perceives  it  to  be  a  vision  of  the  physical  eyes.”  [al Waṣīyah; p 27]

That  is  the  same  as  the  belief  of  the  Ṣūfīs,  but  you  say  that  whoever believes  that  is  outside  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah

You,  O  Salafī brothers,  regard  such  as  person  as  a  nonsensical  Ṣūfī.  What  then,  O true  believers,  is  you  opinion  on  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah?  He made  this  matter  to be  a  basic  point  of belief in Dīn and Sharī’ah. Did he  speak  nonsense  or  was  he  soiled  with  Shirk  and  inviting  to innovation? How ignorant  you  are  on the  beliefs  of  your own  Imām!  It  is  as  if  you never  cast  a  glance  at  his  writings  and  beliefs.  You  claim  the  love  of Laylā,  but  Laylā  does  not  acknowledge  it.  Return  to  guidance  and  do not  sow  corruption  on  earth.  Do  not  destroy  yourselves  by  attacking the  Ṣūfīs  whom  Allaah  has  distinguished.  Do  not  seek  to  grieve Allaah and His Rasūl by harming and being enemies to them. 

The  Nabī   and  some  pious  are  alive  in  the  graves  and  can hear
In  his  book  Iqtiḍāuṣ  Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  Ibn  Taymiyah  strongly  refutes those  who  deny  that  du’ā  near  the  graves  of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  the pious  may  be  more  likely  to  be  accepted  due  to  their  blessings.  He adds  similar  such  words  and  explicitly  says,  “It  is  not  part  of  this topic  what  has  been  narrated  in  regards  some  people  hearing  a  return of  their  greeting  from  the  tomb  of  the  Nabī  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or  the  graves  of  others amongst  the  pious.  Indeed  Sa’īd  bin  al-Musayyib  heard  the  Aẓān from the grave during the nights of al-Ḥarrah. [p373]

Is  this  not  an  explicit  admission  from  the  Imām  that  Rasulullaah  is alive  in  his  grave  and  returns  Salām  and  that  Aẓān  is  heard  from  his grave?  In  the  same  way  others  are  alive  in  their  graves.  What  a  denial of  reality  to  deny  the  life  of  the  Ambiyaa  and  pious  in  their  graves after Ibn Taymiyah verified it.

Rasulullaah  hears  complaints  in  his  grave  and  plans  to assist

He  wrote  in the  same  book, “In the  same  way  it  is  narrated that  a  man came  to  the  Nabī‟s    grave  and  complained  about  drought.  He  then had a  vision of him  and he  ordered him  to go to „Umar and tell  him  to go with the people and perform Istisqā‟.” [p373]

Think  about  it,  O  noble  reader,  these  are  the  words  of  Shaykhul Islaam.  Are  they  not  clear  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  alive  in  his  grave  and hears  complaints?  That  he  plans  from  his  grave  to  alleviate  these problems?  That  people  have  vision  of  him  whilst  he  is  in  his  Noble Grave?  If  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  not  alive,  then  do  dead  people  hear, command  and  plan  to  remove  difficulties?  Is  it  not  to  deny  reality when  one  denies  that  he  is  alive  despite  having  to  accept  these  facts?

As  for  Allaah’s  words,  “Verily  you  will  die  and  they  will  die…”  it simply  means  that  no  human  will  remain  eternally  on  the  face  of  the earth. Just  as  the  disbelievers  will  not  remain  eternally  on  earth,  in the  same  way,  you  O  Muḥammad  will  not  remain  eternally  on  earth. How  is  this  a  denial  of  him  being  alive  in  his  grave?  The  grave  is another  world  completely.  Its  conditions  are  not  the  conditions  of this world.  If  Allaah  wishes  to  grant  his  Ambiyaa  life  in  their  graves  then what  obstruction  is  there  to  that?  People  with  insight  and  intact intelligence  will  not  deny  that  Ambiyaa  are  alive  in  their  graves.  Yes, their  lives  in  the  graves  are  different  to  their  earthly  lives  in  many ways.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  life  which  entails  awareness,  hearing, planning and assisting people. This is the belief of the pious Imām

What  the  Imām  said  is  in  fact  the  belief  of  the  ṢūfīsUlamā‟  of Deoband  and  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah.  They  do  not  add  anything  to  that  in  regards  their  belief  in the life of the Ambiyaa.

Despite  his  belief  that  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  alive  in  his  grave,  Ibn Taymiyah  is  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  and  Shaykhul  Islaam. Yet  you  Salafīs,  despite  following  him  in  the  “straight  Maẓhab”  and claiming  to  be  the  people  of  Imaan,  recognition,  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth, amaze us at the state of your justice, Dīn and trust. 

After  declaring  that  Rasūlullaah is  dead  in  grave  and  falsely  states that  such  belief  is  the  unanimous  belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  the author of,  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’ of  the  Deobandī  sect  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah wal  Jamā‘ah?”  asks,  “Issue  your  Fatwā  on  one  who  does  not  accept the  unanimity  of  the  Ṣaḥābah,  that  how  can  such  a  person  belong  to the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā„ah?” [p35]

Indeed,  how  can  such  a  person  belong  to  the  Ahlus  Sunnah?  If  Ibn Taymiyah is  your  Imām  in the  Ahlus  Sunnah, then  at  the  least  he  is  of the  Ahlus  Sunnah. Your question should be  directed more  at  him  than at  us  Deobandīs.  Either  you  have  no  sense,  your  eyes  are  blind,  your heart is darkened or your have lost all sense of shame.

The  dead  hearing  is  seeking  help  from  them  is  not  specific  to Rasūlullaah 

Ibn  Taymiyah  said  on  the  same  page,  “Similar  occurrences  happen  to those less than the Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and I know many such incidents.” [p 373]

The  words  of  the  Shaykh  are  absolutely  clear.  They  leave  no  scope for  interpretation. There  are  many  Friends  of  Allaah  who  hear  and help are sought from them when they are alive in their graves.

Do  the  Ṣūfīs  say  anything  different?  If  such  belief  about  the saints  and  Ambiyaa  in  their  graves  is  Kufr  and  Shirk,  it  is obligatory  upon  the  Salafīs  to  denounce  Ibn  Taymiyah  and renounce  him  as  the  Imām  of  the  Quraan  and  Sunnah.  They must  decree  him  guilty  of  Kufr  and  Shirk.  They  then  have  to repent  and  renew  their  faith  because  they  had  made  a  man  guilty of Kufr and Shirk as their Imām in belief. 

“Allaah  will  complete  His  light  even if the  disbelievers  dislike  it.”

The dead hears the Quraan in his grave

Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote  in  his  book  Iqtiḍāuṣ  Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  “As  for the dead hearing the voices reciting, it is true…

This  is  the  exact  belief  of  the  Grave-Worshippers,  innovators  and those  outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah.  In  fact, of every  person who  is  not  a  Salafī  for  such  is  the  way  of  the  Salafī  sect.  So  dear Salafī  brothers,  what  is  your  view  on  the  Imām  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah according to you? 

How  regrettable  that  contemporary  Salafīs  weigh  matters  with  two different  scales.  This  is  certainly  not  justice  in  the  Dīn  which  our Rasūl (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) brought.  

One  who  brings  a  new  thing  with  a  good  intention  is rewarded

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “Similarly  when  some  people  bring  about, whether  it  resembles  the  Christians  in  the  Birth  of  „Īsā    or  out  of love  and  honour  for  the  Nabī  ,  Allaah  will  reward  them  for  their love  and  effort,  not  for  the  innovation  of  celebrating  the  birth  of  the Nabī  as a festival.” [Iqtiḍāuṣ Ṣirāṭil Mustaqīm; p294]

If  we  were  to  accept  the  Shaykh’s  words,  then  by  Allaah,  the foundation  of  Dīn  would  be  destroyed.  An  innovation  in  Dīn remains  an  innovation  even  if  the  innovator  claims  to  have  a  good intention  and  is  honouring  the  Nabī.  We  have  no  idea  how  the Imām of the Ahlus Sunnah could utter such words. 

If the  contemporary  Salafīs  regard these  words  as  true  –  after  all, they are  the  words  of  their  Imām  and  leader  –  then  we  demand  that  they present  proof  for  it  from  the  Quraan,  Ḥadīth  or  sayings  of  the Ṣaḥābah  or even the Fuqahā‟ or Muḥaddithūn

As  for  us,  these  words  resemble  that  of  innovators  and  graveworshippers.  They  are  words  whispered  by  the  Devil,  not  words  of people  of  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  Through  these  words  Ibn  Taymiyah opened  the  doors  of  misguidance.  He  falsified  in  Allaah’s  Dīn  what none  of  Ulamā‟  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  dared  do.  None  of  the  Ṣaḥābah ,  Tābi’īnAimmahFuqahā‟  and  Muḥaddithūn  ever  said  anything like  that.  Alas!  What  is  the  condition of  Islaam?  Where  are  the  heroes of  the  contemporary  Salafīs  in  regards  this  belief  of  their  leader  in Dīn?  Do  we  not  have  a  right  to  question  them  just  as  they  question  us –  is  your  Imām  Ibn Taymiyah part  of the  Ahlus  Sunnah or not?

What  adds  to  our  astonishment  is  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  then  repeats  this statement  without  any  care  on  p297  of  that  book,  “Honouring  the birth  and  making  it  an  annual  festival  is  what  some  people  do  and  in that  there  is  great  reward  for  them  because  of  their  good  aim  and honouring Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .”

SubḥānAllaah!  Is  this  the  statement  of  one  in  whose  heart  Quraanic  light  has  been  cast  or  the  whispers  of  devils?  Give  us  your  Fatwā,  O Salafīs.  May  you  be  rewarded.  Where  now  are  all  those  warnings  of Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) against  innovation  which  you  are  supposed  to  be  more particular about than us Deobandīs? 

O  Allaah,  bear  witness.  If  I  were  walking  a  path  like  the  Salafīs  tread in  reviling  our  elders  and  Ulamā‟  I  would  fully  refute  that  statement and  attacking  the  one  who  uttered  it.  However,  I  believe  that  Ibn Taymiyah  made  a  mistake  when  he  wrote  that,  and  meant something  good  and  will  be  rewarded.  As  the  saying  goes,  “One who  does  a  lot  has  to  slip  up.”  He  who  never  falls  in  the  field  is not  a  true  hero.  We  seek  Allaah’s  protection  against  the  evils  of  the ego  and  Satan.  There  is  no  ability  to  avoid  evil  and  no  power  to  do good except through Allaah Almighty. 

The  author  of  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’  of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  is  the  most  ignorant  person  and  greatest  liar. He  concocts  beliefs  and  attributes  them  to  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband. He  wrote,  “Look  O  people  of  Islaam,  at  these  beliefs  of  the Deobandīs.”  He  does  the  same  as  the  Barelwīs,  may  Allaah  curse them.  His  style  in  concocting  beliefs  is  to  relate  a  miracle  from  a book  of  one  of  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband  and  then  comments,  “This is  the  belief  of  the  Deobandīs…”  i.e.  he  builds  the  beliefs  upon  the stories  of  miracles.  The  ignoramus  does  not  know  that  miracles are  in  nobody‟s  school  the  basis  of  ideology.  Beliefs  are  based upon  conviction,  not  thoughts.  It  is  but  possibilities  which  arise from  miracles.  

Kashf  and  miracles  are  possible  from  Allaah’s  friends  but  these  are not  a  means  of  convincing  knowledge  according  to  any  of  the Ulamā‟  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  Stories  of  Kashf  and miracles are never the basis for belief.

If  the  Salafīs,  and  the  above  author  with  them,  insist  that  stories  of miracles  and  Kashf  were  used  as  the  basis  for  beliefs,  then  what  is their  Fatwā  on  their  Imām,  Ibn  Taymiyah?  For  that  is  what  he  says  in the eleventh volume of his Fatāwā.

Life and death are in the slave‟s hands!

Ibn  Taymiyah  said,  “al-Ḥasan  al-Baṣrī  prayed  against  a  Khārijī  who was troubling him and he fell down dead.” [p280]

Would  the  Salafīs  like  it  if  we  said  about  Ibn  Taymiyah  that  he believed  that  a  slave  has  the  power  of  life  and  death  in  his  hands because  he  mentions  this  miracle  in  his  Fatāwā  and  viewed  it  as  real. He  wrote  on  the  same  page,  “The  horse  of  Ṣalt  bin  Ashyam  died whilst  he  was  on  a  campaign.  He  then  prayed,  “O  Allaah,  do  not make  me  dependant  upon  creation.‟  He  asked  Allaah  ‘azza  wa  jal Who  resurrected  his  horse  for  him.‟  When  he  returned  home  he  said, “O  my  son,  take  the  horse’s  saddle  because  it  was  a  loan.‟  He  took the saddle and the horse died.”

I  ask  the  people  of  knowledge,  is  it  permissible  to  believe  concerning Ibn  Ashyam  on  whose  hands  Allaah  had  shown  a  miracle  in answering  his  du’ā,  that  he  controlled  life  and  death?  Or  can  we  say that  Ibn  Taymiyah  believed  that  a  human  can  control  life  and  death and  he  had  knowledge  of  the  unseen,  because  Ibn  Ashyam  knew  that the  horse  would  die  upon  reaching  home.  Would  it  now  be permissible  for  someone  to expel  him  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah?  Yes,  it will  be  permissible  if that  person walks  the  path of the  Salafīs.

In  this  regard  Ibn  Taymiyah  mentioned  many  miracles  which  the saints performed. These include:

A  man  from  the  Nakha  tribe  had  a  donkey  which  died  during  a journey.  His  companions  said,  “Come  let  us  move  his  baggage  onto our  mounts.”  He  told  them, “Give  a  little  chance.”  He  then  performed an excellent  Wuḍū‟, offered Ṣalāh and  asked  Allaah, Who resurrected his  donkey.  It  then  continued  carrying  his  goods.”  [Chapter  1,  Fatawa 11; p 299]

What  do  our  Salafī  brothers  think  about  this  miracle?  What  do  they think of someone  who thinks  that  such miracles  are  true  and mentions them  in  his  writings?  Is  he  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  or  not?  If  the response  is  yes,  then  I  ask  how  can  that  be,  when  miracles  such  as these  are  Kufr  and  Shirk  according  to  you,  and  the  believer  in  them loses his Imaan and is expelled from the Ahlus Sunnah

If  the  answer  is  in  the  negative,  then  was  Ibn  Taymiyah  a  liar  in describing  these  miracles  and  in  attributing  them  to  the  pious?  Did  he concoct this himself?

You  O  treaders  of  the  Path  of  Guidance  and  only  true  believers,  have one  of  two  options.  Either  you  expel  your  Imām  Ibn  Taymiyah  from the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  or  you  issue  a  Fatwā  that  he  was  a  liar.  Yes  dear brothers  who  attack  the  Mashāikh  of  Deoband,  these  are  your  two choices. There is no third choice. Choose whichever you wish.

Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was an innovator according to Ibn Taymiyah

Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote  in  Iqtiḍāuṣ  Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  “As  for deliberately  offering  Ṣalāh  in  that  spot  where  the  Nabī  incidentally performed  Ṣalāh, it  is  not  quoted  from  any  Ṣaḥābī  besides  Ibn  ‘Umar. It  would  appear  that  this  is  not  a  Sunnah  of  the  Khulāfā‟  Rāshiḍun, but his own innovation.” [p29]

Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  said,  “Beware  of  bringing  new  things  in  matters, for  every  new  thing  is  an  innovation  and  every  innovation  is misguidance.”  Thus  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  Ibn  ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  is  an innovator and misguided. 

By  Allāḥ,  when  I  read  these  words  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  in  Iqtiḍāuṣ Ṣirāṭil  Mustaqīm,  the  hairs  of  my  body  rose.  How  poor  in  shame  and how  copious  in  audacity  is  he  in  regards  to  the  Ṣaḥābah.  They  are the  ones  whom  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  taught  Dīn  directly.  He  informed them  what  is  Sunnah and  what  is  innovation  in  Sharī’ah;  what  is  truth and  what  is  misguidance;  what  is  Ḥalaal  and  what  is  Ḥarām.  The  Ṣaḥābah    followed  Rasūlullaah  to  the  “T”  and  were  most  zealous is obeying his Sunnah.

As  the  people  of  knowledge  know,  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)was  distinguished amongst  the  Ṣaḥābah  for  his  following  of  every  Sunnah,  great  or less.  He  would  not  leave  anything  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did,  said  or  guided towards. 

Is  it  not  utterly  astonishing  that  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  Ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)   became  an  innovator,  when  at  the  same  time  he  said  that one gets rewarded for innovations if he had a good intention. 

Perhaps  the  distinguished  scholar  forgot  this  saying  of  Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) , “Fear  Allaah!  Fear  Allaah  in  regard  my  Companions.  Do  not  make them a target after me.

At  this  point  I  wish  to  quote  what  al-Ḥāfizh  aẓ-Ẓahabī  mentioned with  regard  to  Ibn Taymiyah in  Zaghlul  ‘Ilm, “I find no reason for  his fall  amongst  the  peoples  of  Egypt  and  Syria  and  them  hating  him,  disassociating  from  him,  belying  him  and  denying  him,  except  his pride,  vanity,  extremism  against  the  Mashāikh  and  disassociation from the seniors.” [p17]

By  Allaah,  those  words  are  most  certainly  true.  Ibn  Taymiyah  was like  that.  He  was  averse  to  the  seniors,  even  the  Ṣaḥābah.  I  wish  to ask  Ibn  Taymiyah,  if  Ibn ‘Umar‟s (radhiyallahu anhu)   act  was  an  innovation  without any  basis  in  Sharī’ah,  then  why  did  the  other  Ṣaḥābah  not  deny him  and  prevent  him  from  that?  Why  did  they  keep  quiet?  Why  did the  Khulafā‟  Rāshiḍun  not  say  anything  about  him?  Would  it  not have  been  their  duty  to  refute  this  “bad”  act?  Is  Ibn  Taymiyah,  or anyone  from  his  group  able  to  produce  a  single  shred  of evidence  that never  mind  the  Khulafā‟  Rāshidūn,  but  did  even  any  one  Ṣaḥābī , denounce Ibn ‘Umar‟s  act, or did they all remain silent?

One  who  believes  that  the  Ṣaḥābah  witnessed  evil  in  their  midst  and kept  silent  is  without  doubt  outside  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah, because  he  believes  that  the  Ṣaḥābah  did  not  fulfil  a  Shar’ī obligation.  On  the  other  hand,  Allāḥ  says,  “The  believing  male  and females  are  protectors  unto  each  other.  They  order  the  good  and forbid the bad.”

The  statement  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  concerning  Ibn  ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) is  of the  same  category  of  his  statement  on  journeying  to  visit  the Grave  of  Rasūlullaaḥ.  Ibn  Taymiyah  regarded  such  a  journey as  forbidden  and  sinful  and  such  a  traveller  is  not  permitted  to perform  Qaṣr  [shortening]  of  his  Ṣalāh.  Rasūlullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,  “Do not  set  out  on    a  journey,  except  for  three  Masājid…”  Ibn Taymiyah  quoted  the  Ḥadīth  without  knowing  what  exactly  was Rasūlullaah  prohibiting.

Ibn  Ḥajar  wrote  in  Fatḥul  Bārī,  “This  is  amongst  the  ugliest rulings  attributed  to  him.”

To make Zikr of “Allaah” alone is an innovation

Amongst  the  concocted  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is  this  what  he  wrote in  his  Fatāwā,  “Ẓikr  of  al-Ism  al-Mufrad  [Name  of  Allaah  alone] whether  explicitly  or  by  way  of  pronoun  is  an  innovation  in Sharī’ah.” [V10, p396]

In  which  Sharī’ah  might  this  be?  In  the  Sharī’ah  of  Ibn  Taymiyah? Certainly  not  in  the  Sharī’ah  of  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)!  Ibn  Taymiyah assumed  the  ultimate  in  arrogance  in  appropriating  the  right  to  Ḥalāl and  Ḥarām.  Allowing  what  he  willed  and  forbidding  what  he  willed is  the  way  of  the  Ulamā‟  of  Banū  Isrāīl.  He  imposes  his  opinion  on Dīn  and  opposes  the  permissibility  on  which  the  Muslims  are unanimous. 

If  this  Ẓikr  is  an  innovation,  then  let  Ibn  Taymiyah  present  proof  that it  is  forbidden  from  the  Quraan  or  Ḥadīth  or  a  saying  of  the  Ṣaḥābah   or  the  Imāms  of  Fiqh  and  Ḥadīth.  Otherwise  he  should  have abstained  from  pronouncing  his  opinion  over  Dīn.  Apparently  Ibn Taymiyah  was  deaf  to  the  verse,  “Verily  by  the  Ẓikr  of  Allaah  do hearts  find  contentment.”  For  in  this  verse  “Allaah”  is  mentioned  on its  own  and  is  not  attached  to  anything  else.  This  is  the  most  explicit proof  on  its  permissibility.  Allaah  says,  “To  Allāḥ  belongs  the  Most Beautiful  Names,  so  call  unto  Him  through  it.”  Allaah  also  says, “Call  unto  Allaah  or  call  unto  ar-Raḥmān.  Whichever  you  call,  to Him  belongs  the  Most  Beautiful  Names.”  Ibn  Taymiyah  made himself  blind  to  all  these  āyāt  when  he  forbade  this  Ẓikr.  He expressed  a  personal  opinion  opposed  to  unanimous  decision. According  to  him  and  according  to  the  majority  of  Muslims, consensus is proof in itself.

It  is  indeed  a  big  joke  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  sought  proof  from  this  in  a way  which  common  people  would  not  have  stooped  to.  He  used  the Aḥādīth  which  narrate  the  virtue  of  the  words,  “SubḥānAllaah  wal ḥamdu  lillāh  wAllaahu  akbar.”  Such  is  his  intelligence  and understanding  of  Dīn.  There  is  no  ability  to  avoid  evil  and  no  power to do good except with Almighty Allaah.” What  relationship  does  the  former  bear  with  the  latter?  Yes,  had Rasūlullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) forbidden  the  Ẓikr  of  the  word,  “Allaah,”  then  there would  have  been  substance  to  Ibn  Taymiyah‟s  prohibition.  However, there  is  no  such  prohibition  substantiated  from  Rasulullaah   or  his Ṣaḥābah.  From  where  then  did  Ibn  Taymiyah  manage  to  declare this  Ẓikr  to  be  a  prohibited  innovation  when  it  is  proven  from  the Quraan? Is this not concocting Dīn according to one’s opinion?

As  for  his  stating  in  his  Fatāwā  that  this  Ẓikr  is  not  narrated  from  any Ṣaḥābī , is  the  absence  of the  mentioning  proof of its  prohibition, or that  it  was  never  existent  amongst  them?  Such  is  the  intelligence  of Ibn  Taymiyah  and  his  understanding  of  Dīn.  Has  everything  been narrated  to  us  what  they  did  in  private  and  public?  I  present  this question  to  Ibn  Taymiyah  with  full  respect.  If  he  cannot  prove  that the  Ṣaḥābah  when  following  the  Imām  said,  “Allaahu  Akbar,” softly  then  how  can  Ibn  Taymiyah  say,  “Allaahu  Akbar,”  in  his Ṣalāh,  whether  softly  or  loudly?  I  demand  that  he  or  anyone  from  his sect  present  a  single  shred  of  evidence  that  any  of  the  Ṣaḥābah  or the  Salaf  said  it  loudly  or  softly.  If  that  cannot  be  proven,  then  would his  Fatwā  be  that  it  has  no  Shar’ī  basis  for  reciting  it  in  Ṣalāh?  If  it  is not  proven,  then  what  did  the  Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  his  Ṣaḥābah  recite?  We await the reply of Ibn Taymiyah and his party.

Such  kind  of  statements  such  as  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  belief  on  this  Ẓikr are mere baseless opinions.

Rasulullaah  was  the  Lawgiver  with  power  of  allowing  and prohibiting 

Ibn  Taymiyah  stated  in  his  Fatāwā,  “The  Rasūl  must  be  obeyed  and loved.  Ḥalāl  is  what  he  permitted.  Ḥarām  is  what  he  forbade.  Dīn  is what he prescribed.” [v10; p466]

I  ask  you,  O  Salafī  brothers  who  are  drowned  in  their  love  for  Ibn Taymiyah,  if  this  is  the  statement  of  people  of  the  Sunnah?  Is  this  the Maẓhab  of  the  Predecessors?  Did  the  Ṣaḥābah  say  this?  Or  is  Ibn Taymiyah  speaking  here  with  the  tongue  of  the  innovating Barelwīs  who  are  outside  the  pale  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah?  For  it  is  the  Barelwīs  who  say  that  Dīn  is  what  the  Rasūl (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prescribed,  forbade  and  permitted. They  thus  attribute  the  authority of  permitting  and  prohibiting  unto  him.  Thus  Rasulullaah    is  the True  Lawgiver  according  to  them.  Ibn  Taymiyah  seems  to  be  with them on this.

On  the  other  hand,  according  to  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  the Real  Lawgiver  is  Allaah  Ta’ālā  alone  Who  has  no  partner  whether  in lawgiving  or  creation.  The  authority  of  Ḥalāl  and  Ḥarām  belongs  to Him alone. Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the conveyor from Him Most High. 

If  I  wished  to  criticise  Ibn  Taymiyah  I  would  just  be  wasting  my breathe  refuting  that  belief,  because  it  is  my  belief  that statement  was  an  error  on  his  part.  It  is  rare  that  those  who  do much are free fro slip-ups. 

If  he  deliberately  meant  it,  then  it  is  baseless  Shirk  which  has  no proof  from  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  Ash-Shaykh  Ḥabībur  Raḥmān  al A’zhamī  had  written  “ash-Shāri‘  al-Ḥaqīqī,”  on  this  topic.  In  it  he describes  the  reality  as  per  the  belief  of  the  majority  of  Muslims  and mentions  their proofs  from  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.

The  Nubūwah  of  our  Nabī    is  the  origin  of  the  Nubūwah  of the other Ambiyaa

The  author  of  “Are  the  ‘Ulamā’  of  the  Deobandī  sect  from  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā‘ah?”  made  an  all-out  effort  in  his  ignorance  to make  people  lose  affection  for  ash-Shaykh  Qāsim  an-Nānotwī,  the founder  of  Dārul  ‘Ulūm,  the  famous  university  at  Deoband.  In  doing that  he  imitated  the  style  of  the  misguided,  innovator  and  graveworshipper,  Arshad  al-Qādirī,  of  the  Barelwī  sect.  He  strove  to  incite people  against  the  Imām  in  regards  his  statement  that  the  Prophethood of Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  original  and the  Prohethood of the  other  Ambiyaa stems  from  the  effulgence  of  his  Nubūwah.  That  also means  that  he  is the  Seal  of  the  Ambiyaa,  from  the  first  of  them  to  the  last,  in  aspects of  personality,  time  and  place.  Even  if  in  theory  there  should  have been  a  prophet  after  him,  that  would  have  no  effect  on  his  Finality, because  his  Nubūwah  is  vested  in  himself  originally  whilst  the  others stem from his effulgence. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  that  statement  is  correct.  It  is  the  belief  of  the Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  It  is  from  Rasulullaah  that  the  chain  of Nubūwah originated.  He  was  the  Nabī  from  primordial  times  and was already  then  the  Seal  of  Ambiyaa  by  the  decree  of  Allaah,  before even  the  presence  of  the  creation,  before  there  was  time  and  place, before any Nabī came to the world.

Sadly,  the  author  of  the  booklet  did  not  understand  this  subtle meaning  due  to  his  ignorance  and  enmity  against  the  Deobandīs.  He thus  spewed  against  ash-Shaykh  an-Nānotwī  what  he  spewed  and  his tongue spoke like a devil.

The  statement  of  ash-Shaykh  an-Nānotwī  is  in  fact  in  the  same  style as  that  Ibn  Taymiyah.  He  presented  his  argument  based  on  the Quraan  and  Ḥadīth,  in  a  style    and  division  modern  intelligence  can understand.

If  the  author  of  the  booklet  has  any  intelligence  then  he  should  listen very  carefully  to  what  Ḥujjatul  Islaam  wrote.  Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote, “There  is  no  Nabī  in  Jannah  except  that  it  began  with  the  Nabī    and passed  down  to  others.  He  is  the  unconditional  Imām  of  guidance from  the  beginning  of  Banū  Ādam  until  the  last  of  them.”  [alFatāwā: v10; p727]

He  is  the  Intercessor  of  the  first  ones  and  the  last  ones  in  their Reckoning.  He  will  be  the  first  to  seek  the  opening  of  Jannah’s Gate.” [ibid: p728]

That  is  because  Allaah  took  an  oath  from  all  creation  to  believe  in him.” [Ibid: p728]

Ibn  ‘Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu)  said  that  Allaah  never  sent  a  Nabī  except  that  he  made him  pledge  that  if  he  sent  Muḥammad  and  he  was  still  alive,  he would believe in him  and assist him.” [ibid]

“The  Nabī  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said,  “Indeed  I  was  according  to  Allaah  the  Seal  of  the Ambiyaa while Ādam was still in a state of earth.‟” [ibid]

Allaah  wrote  and  decreed  at  that  time,  and  in  that  state  commanded before the progeny.” [v10; p729]

Think  O  ‘Ulāmā,  do  these  words  not  mean  that  Rasulullaah (rasulullah)  is  the origin  of  the  Chapter  of  Nubuwah?  That  the  Nubūwaat  of  the  others gush  from  this  original  spring?  That  theirs  grew  from  his  just  as  twigs grow  from  a  tree’s  branch,  the  twigs  then  sprout  leaves  whilst  the branch remains standing? 

That  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  our  august  Imām,  Muḥammad Qāsim  an-Nānotwī,  “Indeed  our  Nabī  Muḥammad    is  Allaah’s  Nabī in  terms  of  personality,  whilst  the  Nubūwah  of  other  Ambiyaa ‘alayhimus  salām  is  the  effulgence  of  his  Nubūwah  .  He  being  the Seal  of  the  Ambiyaa,  in  personality,  time  and  place,  there  would  be no harm  to his  Nubūwaat  if in theory  there  were  to be  another  Nabi  in the era after him .
This  is  a  very  delicate  meaning  which only  those  will  understand who have  insight  and  intact  intelligence  and  Allaah  has  filled  their  hearts with  His  light.  As  for  those  whose  share  is  but  ignorance  and  lack  of understanding,  how  can  they  possibly  understand  such  delicate meanings?  

Ambiyaa are not innocent of sin

The  most  dangerous  belief  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is,  I  believe,  the belief  that  the  Ambiyaa  are  not  ma‘ṣūm  [innocent]  of  sin  and disobedience,  whether  minor  or  major.  According  to  him  the ‘Iṣmah  [innocence]  of  the  Ambiyaa  is  confined  to  what  they  relate from  Allaah,  that  they  do  not  repeatedly  sin  or  remain  upon  a  sin.  It does  not  mean  as  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  believe,  that  they  never  commit any sin. 

He  wrote  in  the  tenth  volume  of  his  Fatāwā,  “The  Ambiyaa  –  may Allaah‟s  salutations  be  upon  them  –  are  Ma‘ṣūm    in  terms  of  what they relate from Allaah and conveying His messages.” [p289]

The  aims  of  Nubūwah  and  Risālah  are  achieved  through  this  ‘Iṣmah which is established for the Ambiyaa.” [p290]

He  introduces  this  word  a  bit  saying,  “The  ‘Iṣmah  through  which they  convey  from  Allaah  is  established,  thus  there  is  no  error remaining in the conveying.” [p290]

Dear  reader,  do  you  fully  understand  the  import  of  Ibn  Taymiyah‟s words?  He  claims  that  the  Ambiyaa  were  not  entirely  free  from  sin  as is  the  belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah.  Instead,  they  were only  free  from  sin  in  regards  the  conveying  of  their  message.  As  for complete  ‘Iṣmah  from  sins  and  disobedience,  that  is  not  the  belief  of Ibn Taymiyah. 

To  further  clarify  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  belief  on  the  ‘Iṣmah  of  the Ambiyaa,  listen  to  the  following  words  of  his  and  ponder  over  the “…but…” 

He  wrote,  “But  does  Allaah  reach  him  and  erase  what  the  Devil  cast and  thus  establish  His  verses?  There  are  two  views  in  this  matter. What  has  been  narrated  from  the  Predecessors  agrees  with  the Quraan.” [v10; p291]

That  means  that  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  the  narrations  from  the Predecessors  establish  that  the  Ambiyaa  ‘alayhimus  salām  are  not free  from  satanic  misguidance.  Satan  casts  unto  them  that  which  is not  from  Allaah.  Allaah  then  erases  that  and  establishes  His  verses. This is what “agrees” with the Quraan.

If  you  need  more  clarity  then  listen  to  these  words  which  have  many distortions,  “As  for  ‘Iṣmah  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  conveying the  Message,  is  it  proven  from  intelligence  or  is  it  even  heard  of?  Is  it from  Major  and  minor  sins?  Or  some  of  them?  Or  from  repeating them?  Or  is  it  that  ‘Iṣmah  is  not  necessary  except  in  conveying?  Is ‘Iṣmah  from  Kufr  and  sins  necessary  before  Prophethood  or  not?” [v10; p293]

Look  at  this  man.  He  turns  the  issue  of  ‘iṣmah,  which  is  an  agreed upon  issue  amongst  the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  into  a  disputed  issue.  There  is but  one  view  that  they  are  innocent  of  all  sins  after  becoming Ambiyaa.  According to some, they  are  innocent  of major sins  as  well, before  Nubūwah,  but  not  of  minor  sins.  Yet  the  overall  view  of  the Ahlus  Sunnah  is  that  they  are  innocent  of  both  major  and  minor sins,  both  before  and  after  Nubūwah

After  these  statements,  Ibn  Taymiyah  clarifies  his  belief  on  the ‘Iṣmah  of  the  Ambiyaa  alayhimus  salām,  “The  view  which  the majority  hold  and  is  narrated  from  the  Salaf  {Predecessors]  is  that ‘Iṣmah  is  confined  to  innocence  from  repeating  sins  in  general.” [v10; p293]

This  is  a  lie  against  the  Salaf  and  against  the  majority.  They  are  free of  such  a  corrupt  belief  which  contradicts  the  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth. Allaah  says,  “We  found  you  ḍāll  –  meaning  here  unaware  –  and  then We  guided  [you].”  How  can  one  whom  Allaah  guides  and  chooses for  His  Message,  commit  sins?  Allaah  mentions  a  number  of Ambiyaa  alayhimus  salām  and  then  says,  “Follow  their  guidance.” Will  Allaah  order  the  purest  of  His  creation  and  most  virtuous  of  His Messengers  to  follower  those  who  commit  sins?  Allaah  said  to  Satan, “Verily  you  will  have  no  power  over  My  Slaves.”  So  which  of Allaah’s  Slaves  are  more  noble  and  virtuous  than  the  Ambiyaa alayhimus  salām,  that  he  can  then  throw  them  into  sinning  and  turn them  from  guidance?  Disobedience  and  sins  are  nothing  but  the effects of Satan exerting power over Allaah’s Slaves. 

Ibn Taymiyah‟s belief about Yūnus (alayhis salaam)

Since  Ibn  Taymiyah  did  not  believe  in  the  innocence  of  the  Ambiyaa, he  wrote  on  that  basis  in  regards  Yūnus (alayhis salaam ,“Ẓun  Nūn  [Yūnus alayhis salaam] witnessed  the  consequences  of  his  deficiency  in  the  Divine  right when  he  became  angry  and  displeased  that  they  should  be  saved.  In that  he  presented  an  act  which  was  preferring  something  else  to  what was  obligatory  upon  him  in  terms  of  only  loving  Him  and  accepting Him  as  his  god.  By  then  saying,  “There  is  no  god  but  You,”  he recited  the  statement  by  which  the  slave  erases  taking  his  god  his desires.  It  has  been  narrated,  “There  is  nothing  under  the  sky  which Allaah  regards  as  worse  to  worship  than  following  one’s  desires.‟ Yūnus,  Allaah’s  salutations  be  upon  him, thus  perfected  the  reality  of declaring  his  god  and  erased  the  desires  which  he  had  made  a  god besides Him.” [v10; p287]

O  Slaves  of  Allaah!  Look  at  that!  O  ‘Ulamā‟  what  prattle  is  this which the  Imām  of the  Salafīs  says  about  our chief, Yūnus (alayhissalaam), whom Allaah  had  selected  for  Nubūwah?  Tell  us,  O  noble  ones.  Are  these the  words  of  a  scholar  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  Who before  this  Shaykh  uttered  such  words  against  a  Nabī  of  Allaah?  Ibn Taymiyah  prattles  and  does  not  know  what  emerges  from  his  mouth. According  to  him,  Yūnus  (alayhis salaam)  was  deficient  in  divine  rights  and made  his  desires  his  god,  which  is  the  worst  associate  unto  Allaah under the sky. 

These  words  are  clear  that  the  Imām  of  the  Salafīs  believed  that Ambiyaa  could  commit  the  worst  of  sins,  so  the  extent  that  they  were not innocent of setting their desires as their gods. 
I  ask  the  Salafī  brothers,  does  their  Imām  remain  a  believer  after uttering  such  words?  Never  mind,  whether  he  is  the  Imām  of  the Muslims  and  Ḥujjatul  Islaam.  As  for  us,  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah,  such  belief  is  undoubtedly  Kufr  and  the  one  who  utters that is certainly left Imaan

We  ask  Allaah  to  save  us  from  evil  beliefs  concerning  His  sincere slaves  from  the  AmbiyaaRusul,  and  pious  Salaf; and  that  He resurrect  us,  the  Deobandīs,  with  them,  through  the  blessings  of  the Chief of all  Messengers (Such  words  of  mediation  is  permissible  according  to  the  Salafīs  as  well.  In  the sketch  of  Ibn  Arabī  in  at-Tāj  al-Mukallil,  an-Nawwāb  al-Bhopālī  ends  with  those words) .

When  it  was  said  to  Ibn  Taymiyah  that  sins  negate  perfection  and  are a  denial  of  the  bounty,  he  replied,  “That  is  when  there  is  remaining upon  that  without  turning  away.  On  the  other  hand,  sincere repentance  which  Allaah  accepts  is  the  means  by  which  He  raises the  repentant  to  a  greater  state  then  what  he  was  upon.    [v10; p293]

This  is  an  explicit  statement  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  did  not  believe  in  the ‘Iṣmah  of  the  Ambiyaa  ‘aalyhimus  salām.  The  strange  thing  about this  reply  which  indicates  the  low  intelligence  and  lack  of understanding  of  Dīn  of  the  man  is  that  he  says  that  sincere repentance  erases  sins  and  raises  the  repentant  to  greater  status.  Well, one  does  not  have  to  be  a  Nabī  for  that.  It  applies  to  any  person  of Imaan.  What  distinction  then  remains  for  the  Ambiyaa?  What distinguishing them in regards sins?

Events affect the Being of Allaah

According  to  all  the  ‘Ulamā‟  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  Allaah’s  Being cannot  be  affected  by  external  events.  The  early  and  latter generations  were  unanimous  about  that.  Ibn  Taymiyah  was  however of  a  different  view.  According  to  him,  not  only  is  it  possible  that events  can  affect  Allaah’s  Being,  this  actually  does  occur.  He  wrote in  the  fifth  volume  of  his  Fatāwā,  “From  this  a  second  principle becomes  apparent  in  regards  the  Azalī  [primordial]  and  Muta‘addī [transcending]  acts  of  the  Rabb.  It  is  that  are  voluntary  acts  related  to His  power  and  will  applicable  to  Him  or  not?  The  Maẓhab  of  the Salaf and Aimmah of Ḥadīth is that it is possible.” [p536]

He  also  wrote,  “As  for  His  nearness  and  approaching  Him  on  the  part of  some  Slaves,  This  is  established  by  those  who  establish  His voluntary  acts  by  His  Being,  His  coming  Yawmul  Qiyāmah,  His descending  and  His  Mounting  the  Throne.  This  is  the  Maẓhab  of  the Aimmah  of  the  Salaf,  the  famous  Aimmah  of  Islaam  and  the  people of  Ḥadīth.  Narration  from  them  to  that  effect  is  mutawātir [continuous and known]. [p466]

He  also  wrote,  “These  say  that  He  comes,  descends,  mounts  and other  such  acts  just  as  He  informed  about  His  Being  and  this  is perfection.” [v8; p20]

In  this  way,  Ibn  Taymiyah  continued  establishing  events  for  the Being  of  Allaah.  He  does  not  know  that  one  who  is  affected  by events  cannot  be  Qadīm  [Primordial].  Allaah’s  Being  is  Qadīm.  He does  not  need  anything.  How  then  is  His  Being  affected  by events?

He  attributes  to  Allaah  voluntary  acts  such  as  climbing,  descending, mounting,  laughing,  moving,  keeping  still,  etc  according  to  their literal  meanings.  Thereafter  he  says  that  voluntary  acts  for  Allaah  are different than that for creatures because Allaah is not like anything. 

This  is  nothing  but  sheer nonsense  which  people  of knowledge  do not utter.  If  you  declare  these  acts  to  be  established  for  Allaah  according to  the  literal  meaning,  then  you  have  made  Allaah  partners  with  His creation in the  original  meaning. How  can there  be  any  comparison to the  original  meaning?  For  example,  the  original  meaning  of descending  is  to  move  from  one  place  to  another.  So  Aḥmad  for example  descends  in  this  meaning  and  Allaah  also  descends  in  this meaning?  Is  there  a  comparison  or  is  Aḥmad  and  Allaah’s  Being  the same  in  the  meaning  of  descending?  As  for  Ibn  Taymiyah  then saying  that  Allaah’s  descending  is  different  to  the  creation descending  despite  their  being  a  commonality  in  the  original  meaning of  descending,  there  is  nothing  special  in  that  for  Allaah.  The descending  of  Bakr  is  different  to  the  descending  of  ‘Amr.  Bakr’s climbing  is  different  to  ‘Amr’s  climbing.  Bakr’s  mounting  is different  to  ‘Amr’s  mounting.  These,  despite  the  commonality  of these acts in their original meaning. 

One  who  concocts  his  own  Maẓhab  will  inevitably  fall  into  such prattle.  He  falsely  attributes  his  Maẓhab  to  the  Salaf  in  order  to deceive  the  people  and  misguide  them  from  the  Straight Path. 

Finally,  I ask fair and just  ‘Ulamā‟, “Can we  fairly  consider to be  part of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  someone  who  believes  that  events  affect  the Being of Allaah?”

Ambiyaa do not attain perfection except at their end

Amongst  the  filthy  beliefs  of  Ibn  Taymiyah  is  that  the  Ambiyaa do  not  attain  perfection,  except  at  their  end,  not  at  their beginning.  Listen  well  to  his  statement,  “The  aim  here  is  that  all  that is  blameworthy  upon  Ẓūn    Nūn  as  demonstrated  by  the  story,  is forgiven  and  Allaah  changed  them  to  good  deeds  and  raised  his status.  After  his  emergence  from  the  fish‟s  belly  and  his  repentance, he  was  greater  in  status  than  before  he  fell  into  what  he  fell.”  [v10; p299]

He  also  wrote,  “His  state  after  saying,  “Lā  ilāha  illā  Anta, Subḥānaka,  innī  kuntu  minazh  zhālimīn,‟  was  higher  than  that  his state  before  what  had happened. Regard is  paid to what  the  end is, not what  happened  in  the  beginning.  Actions  are  according  to  their completion.” [v10; p299]

He  also  wrote,  “Allaah  created  Man  and  took  him  from  his  mother, not  knowing  anything.  He  then  taught  him.  He  thus  moved  him  from a  state  of  deficiency  to  a  state  of  perfection.  It  is  thus  not  permissible to  examine  the  worth  of  Man  before  he  reached  the  state  of perfection.  Regard  is  at  the  state  of  perfection.  Yūnus    and  other Ambiyaa attained the most perfect at their end. [v10; p299]

O  Muslims!  Say  in  Allaah’s  Name  if  this  is  the  belief  of  any  of  the Salaf  or  Aimmah  of  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth  in  regards  the  Ambiyaa ‘alayhimus  salām?  Have  your  ears  ever  heard  such  a  statement  from any  of  the  Ṣaḥābah  or  Tābi’ūn?  Inform  me,  for  you  are  Allaah’s witnesses  upon  earth.  Has  the  pen  any  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  ever written something like that in regards those whom Allaah chose?

Who  from  amongst  the  Salafi  ever  stated  that  the  Ambiyaa  are perfect  at  the  end  and  deficient  at  the  beginning,  and  that  their state  is  like  when  emerging  from  their  mothers  and  then  they attain perfection as time passes? You,  O  Salafīs,  are  upon  the  belief  system  of  your  Imām,  so  are  you from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah?  If  you  sufficed  with  what  was with  you,  instead of casting  against  the  ‘Ulāmā‟ of Deoband, it  would have  been  better  for  you.  It  is  good  for  people  to  ponder  of  their  own states instead of attacking others.

Respected  brother,  if  we  were  to  accept  this  statement  of  Ibn Taymiyah,  then  we  would  have  to  say  that  none  of  the  Ambiyaa attained  perfection  even  at  his  end.  The  reason  being  that  had  his  age been  longer  than  what  it  actually  was,  would  his  perfection  and  Imān not have increased?

Ibn  Taymiyah  is  astray  in  this  belief  and  has  gone  far  away  from  the way  of  guidance  in  innovating  a  belief  in  Dīn  which  is  purely  his opinion.  Nobody  from  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  has  believed  that.  It  has  not been  narrated  from  the  Ṣaḥābah or  Tābi’ūn.  He  falsely  ascribed this false Kufr belief to them and lied against them. 

Mu’āẓ (radhiyallahu anhu) was more learned than Alī (radhiyallahu anhu)

Ibn  Taymiyah  wrote  in  his  Fatāwā,  “His  statement,  “The  most learned  of  them  in  regards  Ḥalaal  and  Ḥarām  is  Mu’āẓ  bin  Jabal,‟  is closer  to  authenticity  according  to  the  “Ulamā‟  of  Ḥadīth  than  his statement,  “The  best  judge  amongst  you  is  ‘Alī,‟  if  it  in  fact  can  be used  as  proof.  Thus  if  that  is  more  authentic  as  per  chain  of  narration and  clearer  proof,  then  the  one  who  uses  the  other  as  an  argument that  ‘Alī  is  more  learned  than  Mu’āẓ  bin  Jabal  is  an  ignoramus.”  [v4; p41]

This  is  another  example  of  his  ignorance  and  misguidance.  It  is the  belief  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  that  ‘Alī  (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  more  virtuous  and learned than Mu’āẓ bin Jabal (radhiyallahu anhu).  Ibn  Taymiyah’s  habit  was  to  concoct  something  and  then shamelessly  attribute  it  to  the  majority  and  the  Salaf;  the  Quraan and  Ḥadīth.  Actually  it  is  not  amazing  that  he  said  something  like this.  He  was  overzealous  in  seeking  to  find  fault  with  the  son-in-law of  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Whoever  wants  further  details  on  that,  should  read his book, Minhājus Sunnah

No  believer  attained  complete guidance  –  even  Ambiyaa  and Ṣaḥābah 

In  regards  the  āyah,  “And  what  is  wrong  with  you  that  you  do  not believe  in  Allaah,  whereas  the  Rasūl  calls  you  to  believe  in  your Rabb  and  indeed  took  your  pledge,  if  indeed  you  are  believers,”  Ibn Taymiyah  commented  that  it  is  the  believers  who  being  addressed and  Allaah  desires  from  them  that  they  perfect  their  faith  and  fulfil what is obligatory upon them.
Just  as  we  ask  Allaah  to  guide  us  on  the  Straight  Path  in  every Ṣalāh,  whereas  He  has  guided  the  believers  to  accept  all  that  the Rasūl  brought;  but  complete  guidance  is  in  everything  that  they  say and  do  in  all  their  affairs.  It  is  this  complete  and  perfect  guidance which  is  the  faith  which  is  commanded.  Through  that,  He  takes  them out from the darknesses unto the light.” [v7; p231]

See  what  nonsense  does  your  Imām  utter,  in  what  valley  of  darkness is he blind, is what misguidance he fell.

Does  any  Muslim  –  whom  Allaah  has  blessed  with  the  faith  that Allaah  made  the  Ṣaḥābah  , Tābi’ūnAmbiyaa  and  Rusul  from  those whom  Satan  has  no  power  over  –  believe  such  a  thing?  He  placed them  upon  the  Straight  Path  and  perfect  guidance.  He  removed  them from  darkness  from  their  very  first  day.  They  were  attributed  with  the Imaan  which  is  commanded.  They  were  lights  from  which  beams  of guidance  and  Imaan  shone  and  lit  the  world,  and  from  which  the astray  found  guidance  in  every  place.  No,  a  Muslim  will  never  say such a thing. A thousand times no.

However,  according  to  Ibn  Taymiyah,  these  select  ones  were  not perfect  believers  of  perfect  guidance.  Instead,  they  were  in darkness.  What  kind  of  intelligence  and  understanding  of  Dīn  did this  man  have?  He  whom  Allaah  allows  to  be  misguided  will  have  no guide.  He  for whom  Allaah  has  not  made  light  will  have  no light.

Conclusion

This  was  a  glance  at  some  of  beliefs  of  Shaykhul  Islaam  Ibn Taymiyah,  leader  of  the  Salafīs,  their  proof  for  Islaam.  It  was  a glance  at  some  of  his  thoughts  and  opinions  in  Dīn.  There  are  many other  examples  to  be  found  in  his  writings  and  compilations.  I  have sufficed  with  this  amount  and  do  not  wish  for  more  than  that.  The aim  was  no  complete  encompassing  or  prolongation,  but  to  shed  light on  some  of  the  Salafī  beliefs  which  they  assume  to  originate  from Quraan  and  Ḥadīth.  It  was  to  clarify  truth  from  falsehood  to  the brothers,  and  the  reality  of  their  claim  that  they  belong  to  the  Ahlus Sunnah  wal  Jamā’ah  and  that  they  alone  will  be  the  saved  sect  out  of the  73;  that  they  are  the  people  of  Quraan  and  Ḥadīth  and  Imaan  and Islaam  and  the  rest  of  the  Muslims  in  the  world  are  astray, Mushrikūn,  innovators  and  grave-worshippers;  in  fact  apostates behind whom  Ṣalāh is  not  permissible  and  with whom  marriage  is  not permissible.

Ibn Taymiyah was not a true Ālim

Despite  Ibn  Taymiyah  being  a  scholar  of  many  diverse  subjects,  he was  not  a  true  ‘Ālim.  He  was  not  a  religious  and  just  ‘Ālim.  As  for his  lack  of  religiosity,  it  is  because  of  his  apathy  in  speaking  against seniors,  even  against  the  Ṣaḥābah   and  Ambiyaa  ‘alayhimus  salām. There  have  been  many  examples  in  this  booklet  concerning  his irreligiousness. 

As  for  him  not  being  a  true  ‘Ālim,  he  was  not  versed  in  quoting  from the  early  generations.  He  used  to  attribute  statements  to  them  without any proof. This is clear to anyone who reads his writings. 

His  “knowledge”  of  the  Quraan  is  made  apparent  by  his  commentary on  the  āyah,  “And  what  is  wrong  with  you  that  you  do  not  believe  in Allaah, whereas the Rasūl calls you…” This has been commented on.

As  for  his  knowledge  of  Ḥadīth,  he  was  also  not  a  research  scholar, nothing with deep-understanding, nor justice.

As  for  his  lack  of  justice,  he  made  weak  Aḥādīth  to  be  strong  on  the basis  of  prattle,  when  that  Ḥadīth  was  in  concord  with  his  desires.  He would  make  a  strong  Ḥadīth  to  be  weak  if  it  was  contrary  to  his desires. 

As  for  his  lack  of  deep-insight,  he  would  not  distinguish  between weak and strong Ḥadīth and would mix them. 

As  for  his  lack  of  research,  he  would  often  fall  into  confusion  and mix  the  words  of  Rasulullaah  with  the  Ṣaḥābah  and  vice-versa. He  would  make  Mursal  Ḥadīth  Marfū’  and  vice-versa.  He  would  join authentic to weak and weak to authentic. 

We  now  present  unto  some  examples  of  what  we  have  said,  from  a small  booklet  of  his,  whose  pages  do  not  exceed  66.  It  is  called  al Waṣīyah  al-Kubrā.  In  it  he  mentioned  the  basic  beliefs  of  Dīn  and principles of Islaam. 

We  mention  these  examples  here,  so  that  his  affair  may  be  clear,  and the  readers  not  be  deceived  by  those  who  are  extremists  in  their  love and  veneration  for  him.  In  fact,  they  raise  him  above  being  a  human. They  don  him  in  the  highest  of  titles  and  count  him  from  amongst  the most  august  ‘Ulamā‟  of  Islaam.  They  believe  that  Allaah  has  not created the like of him in knowledge, virtue, memory and piety.

Here are some examples from the booklet: “He  who  reads  the  Quraan  and  ponders  over  it,  will  receive  ten rewards  for every  letter.”  [p38]
He  mentioned  this  Ḥadīth  and  did  not  mention  that  it  is  extremely weak.

He  also  wrote,  “Abū  Bakr  and  ‘Umar  raḍhiyAllaahu  ‘anhumā  said, Memorising  the  diacritics  of  the  Quraan  is  more  beloved  to  us  than memorising  some  of its  letters.”  [p38]

This supposed narration is not to be found in any book.

He  mentioned  a  famous  Ḥadīth  is  these  words,  “Khayrul  Qurūn qarnī,” despite there being no source for the word “Qarnī

He  mentioned  the  Ḥadīth  of  al-‘Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu)   complaining  about  the harshness  of  a  certain  people.  The  Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then  said,  “By  He  who holds  my  life  in  His  Hand,  they  will  not  enter  Jannah  until  they  love you for my  sake.”  [p43]

Such  a  Ḥadīth  is  not  recorded  in  the  books  in  these  words.  There  are however  other  words,  but  in  any  case,  it  is  a  weak  Ḥadīth  according to  the  Salafīs,  because  amongst  the  narrators  is  Yazīd  bin  Abī  Ziyād al-Qurashī  who  is  a  weak  narrator  according  to  the  majority  of  the Muḥaddithūn

Ibn  Taymiyah  also  narrated  this  Ḥadīth  from  Ibn  ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  ,  “The  first army  to attack Constantinople  will  be  forgiven.”  [p46]  This  is  indeed  nothing  but  a  fantasy  on  his  part.  He  narrated  it  from al-Bukhārī,  whereas  the  narrator  there  is  in  fact  ‘Umayr  bin  al Aswad,  not  Ibn  ‘Umar.  In  addition,  Ibn  Taymiyah  did  not  quote the  correct  words  of  the  Ḥadīth.  The  correct  words  are, “…the  first  of my Ummah to attack Caesar‟s  city  will  be  forgiven.” Such was Ibn Taymiyah, randomly snatching words of Ḥadīth.

He  narrated  the  Ḥadīth,  “The  Nabī (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) passed  by  Abū  Mūsā,  who  was reciting  the  Quraan, and  intently  started to listen to his  recitation…” The  Ḥadīth  with  those  words  and  narrators  is  weak.  There  is  however a  Ḥadīth  in  Muslim  with  the  same  meaning.  Ibn  Taymiyah  never researched it. He  narrated a  weak Ḥadīth and abandoned the  authentic Ḥadīth.  He  also  narrated,  “Verily  Allaah  more  intently  listens  to  a  man reciting  the  Quraan,  than  a  master  listening  to  his  slave-girl.”  This Ḥadīth  is  weak  and  he  did  not  mention  its  weakness.  Perhaps  he  did not  even know.  

He  mentioned  that  Rasulullaah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  taught  his  Ṣaḥābah  to  recite  the following  when  they  visit  the  graveyard,  “As-salāmu  ‘alykum  dāra qaymim  mu’minīn.  Wa  innā  inshāAllaahu  bikum  lāḥiqūn. Yarḥamullāhul  mustaqdimīna  minnā  wa  min  kum  wal  musta’khirīn. Nas’alullāha  lanā  wa  lakumul  ‘āfiyah.  Lā  tuḥarrimnā  ajrahum  wa  lā taftinnā ba‘dahum. Waghfir lanā wa lahum.

This  du’ā  is  not  narrated  in  these  words  from  Rasulullaah    in  any book  of  Ḥadīth.  He  concocted  the  du’ā  himself  by  joining  one  Ḥadīth to  another;  joining  an  authentic  Ḥadīth  to  a  weak  Ḥadīth;  and  further adding  his  own  words.  He  then  had  the  audacity  to  attribute  this  du’ā to Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)who did not say it.

This  is  Ibn  Taymiyah,  the  Imām  of  the  present  Saalfīs  and  their leader  in  Dīn.  The  “Hero”  of  Islaam  about  whom  they  say  that  Allaah never created the like of him amongst the ‘Ulamā‟.

Ibn  Taymiyah  would  at  times  follow  nothing  but  his  desires  in accepting  or  rejecting  a  Ḥadīth.  What  his  desires  liked  he  accepted, and  what  it  disliked  he  rejected.  You  have  seen  for  example,  how  he accepted  weak  Ḥadīth  and  used  them  as  evidence,  and  some  of  them were  in  fact  extremely  weak.  On  the  other  hand  he  rejects  and  belies the  following  Ḥadīth,  “My  Rabb  Most  Honourable  and  Majestic came  to  me  in  the  best  of  forms…”  al-Imām  Aḥmad  narrated  it  in  his Musnad  from  ‘Abdur  Razzāq  from  Ma’mar  from  Ayyūb  from  Abū Qilābah  from  Ibn  ‘Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu).  At-Tirmiẓī  narrated  it  with  a  different chain. This  is  an  impeccable  chain  without  a  dust  particle  on  it. In addition,  as  stated  in  at-Tirmiẓī,  al-Bukhārī  also  authenticated  it.  AtTirmiẓī  said,  “I  asked  Muḥammad  bin  Ismā’īl  about  this  Ḥadīth,  and he replied, This is an authentic Ḥadīth.”

Ibn  Taymiyah  rejected  this  authentic  Ḥadīth  and  said,  “Every  Ḥadīth that  states  that  Muḥammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saw  his  Rabb with his  eyes  on earth is  a lie….similarly  the  Ḥadīth  which  people  of  knowledge  narrate,  “I  saw my Rabb in such-and-such a state…‟” [p24]

Look  at  the  audacity  of  this  man  who  declared  an  authentic  Ḥadīth  to be  a  lie,  solely  on  the  basis  of  his  desires.  He  took  the  measure  of acceptance  and  rejection  to  be  in  his  hand.  Innā  illāhi  wa  innā  ilayhi rāji‘ūn.

Ibn  Taymiyah  practised  his  fancies  in  many  Ḥadīth  and  other important  matters. This  is  not  hidden from  the  ‘Ulamā‟ of Ḥadīth.  For example,  he  wrote  in  his  booklet  that  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was  given Sūratul  Fātiḥah  from  a  treasure  beneath  the  ‘Arsh?  This  is  a  grave mistake  and clear  fancy.  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  was  not  given  Sūratul  Fātiḥah from  the  treasures  beneath  the  ‘Arsh.  What  he  was  given  from  the treasure  beneath  the  ‘Arsh  is  was  the  last  two  verses  of  Sūratul Baqarah.  This  al-Imām  Aḥmad  narrated  from  Ḥuẓayfah  in  his Musnad.

His  booklet  does  not  exceed  66  pages,  yet  look  at  these  few  examples which  shows  his  low  knowledge  and  understanding  of  Ḥadīth.  What then  would  you  think  of  those  writings  of  his  which  run  into  many volumes and so many pages?

It  should  now  be  clear  that  Ibn  Taymiyah  was  not  an  ‘Ālim  versed  in the  sciences  of  Sharī’ah.  He  was  not  a  resort  to  be  relied  upon  in taking  and  rejecting.  He  is  not  reliable  enough  to  be  a  leader  in  Dīn, due  to  his  many  diversion  from  the  beliefs  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  wal Jamā’ah,  and  his  many  personal  contrary  views.  That  is  why  the researcher-‘Ulamā‟ do not accept his statements.

As  for the  extremism  displayed by  his  party  in  exalting  him, that  is  an excess which Allaah and His Rasūl (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) do not love.

Yes,  he  –  may  Allaah‟s  mercy  be  upon  him  –  had  a  strong  memory and  memorised  many  Ḥadīth  and  statements  of  the  ‘Ulamā‟  in various  fields.  He  could  produce  and  spread  what  he  wished.  He  was a  prolific  writer  and  a  spontaneous  debater.  However,  these  qualities and  firmness  in  knowledge  and  understanding  of  Dīn  are  not  the same. It is not given except to those whom Allaah wishes good. 

Finally,  we  ask  Allaah,  Most  Noble  and  Merciful,  to  guide  us  to uprights  deeds  and  words.  May  He  avert  evil  from  us  through  His grace.  May  He  grant  us  goodness  in  this  world  and  the  next.  He  is  the All-Hearing,  Answerer  of  Du’ā.  Allaah’s  salutations  and  peace  be upon  His  Arab  Nabī  Muḥammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  and  all  his  Companions,  pure Family and pure Wives.

Analyzing the Proofs presented by Qabr Pujaris regarding Placing Cloth-Sheets (Chadar) and Flowers on the Graves

image

It  is  most  certainly  not  proven  from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam  or  the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) that  the  graves  of  the  pious  are  covered  in cloths  or  decorated  with  flowers.  There  were  graves  of  the Auliyaa  (in  the  former  eras),  there  were  cloths  and  flowers, there  were  people  who  could  place  these  on  the  graves, there  also  existed  greater  love  and  affection  for  the  pious then,  and  yet,  no  one  ever  placed  cloths  and  flowers  on  the graves.  This  act  has  not  only  gained  acceptance  nowadays, it  has  become  a  “rewarding  act!”  It  has  also  gained  the  rank of  being  a  sign  of  the  Ahle  Sunnat  and  a  sign  of  Islaam! 

As for  the  proof  of  the  Ahle  Bid`ah/Ahle Shirk/ Qabr Pujaris  which  they  take  from  the narration  of  Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)  where  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  was passing  by  two  graves  and  he  took  a  date-palm  and  broke  it into  two  and  placed  on  the  graves,  explaining  that  as  long as  the  twigs  remains  green,  the  punishment  in  the  grave will  be  eased  for  the  inmates,  who  according  to  the narration  were  guilty  of  negligence  at  the  time  of  urinating and  carrying  tales.  [Mishkaat  Shareef,  vol.  1,  page  42]  This proof is totally incorrect and inapplicable. 

Firstly,  the  ease  in  the  punishment  in  the  graves  was owing  to  the  intercession  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  The  twigs  were  mere symbols  of  this.  In  this  regard,  Hadhrat  Jaabir  (radhiyallahu amhu) reports from  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  “Indeed  I  passed  by  two  graves  whose inmates  were  being  punished.  I  wanted  that  this (punishment)  be  lifted  from  them  owing  to  my  intercession, as  long  as  the  twigs  remained  green.”  [Muslim  Shareef, vol. 2, page 418]

Even  though  the  recitation  of  Qur`aan  Majeed,  Tasbeehaat and  even  greenery,  are  means  of  easing  the  difficulties  in the  grave,  the  lessening  of  punishment  in  the  graves  in  this particular  incident,  was  owing  to  the  intercession  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  and  the  twigs  were  mere  symbols  and  indications  of  this.

The  error  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar  Khaan  is  manifest  when he  states,  “The  lessening  of  the  punishment  in  the  graves was  owing  to  the  blessing  of  the  Tasbeeh  of  the  green  twigs and  not  only  the  dua  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  If  the  easing  of  the punishment  was  due  to  the  dua’  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  then  why  was  the condition  of  it  becoming  dry  stipulated?  Hence,  if  we  place flowers  etc.  by  the  grave,  it  will  have  some  beneficial effects, Insha-Allaah.” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 284]

Mufti  Saheb,  if  the  punishment  was  lessened  because  of the  twigs,  then  why  was  the  condition  of  green  stipulated?? The  Qur`aan  Majeed  states  that  everything  makes  the Tasbeeh  of  Allaah  Ta`ala,  be  it  wet  or  dry.  “And  there  is nothing,  except  that  it  hymns  His  praises,  but  you  do  not understand its Tasbeeh.”

Note:  The  incident  reported  in  the  narrations  of  both, Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbaas  and  Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu)  is  the  same.  However there  is  a  difference  between  the  interpretations  of  two narrators.  Such  occurrences  do  occur  in  Ilm-e-Hadith. Imaam  Nawawi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  Allamah  Khattabi (rahmatullah  alayh)  agree  that  the  incident  in  both narrations  is  the  same.  Even  if  the  incidents  are  not  the same,  as  reported  by  Haafidh  Ibn  Hajar  (rahmatullah alayh)  [Fat-hul  Baari,  vol.  1,  page  276],  then  too  there  is  no problem.  That  narration  which  has  the  commentary  of  the intercession  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is  also  applicable  to  the  narration which  does  not  have  this  commentary.  Hence  the  actual and  real  reason  and  cause  for  the  lessening  of  the punishment  in  the  graves  was  the  intercession  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam. The  Ahaadith—some  explain  others. 

Secondly,  these  twigs,  used  by  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  were  not  from  any normal  or  common  tree.  In  fact,  it  is  explicitly  narrated  in Muslim  Shareef,  vol.  2,  page  418,  that  these  twigs  were from  such  a  tree  which  miraculously  presented  itself before Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and thereafter returned to its place.

Thirdly,  even  if  we  accept  this  narration  as  proof,  then  too, it only proves the use of wet twigs, not flowers, cloths, etc.

Fourthly,  if  we  finally  concede  that  this  narration  proves that  wet  twigs  ease  the  punishment  in  the  graves,  and  also that  this  same  cause  exists  in  flowers,  then  too  this  will only  apply  to  the  graves  of  sinners  and  faasiqs.  How  can  it ever  be  implemented  on  the  graves  of  the  Pious Auliya-e-Kiraam (Alayhim Ar-Rahmah)??  Because  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  placed  these  twigs  on  the  graves of  two  sinners  and  not  on  that  of  a  Wali (friend of Allah).  [see  Umdatul Qaari, vol.1, page 877]

Fifthly,  it  has  never  been  proven  from  the  lives  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  , Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) or  anyone  of  the  Khairul  Quroon,  where  they placed green twigs or flowers on the graves of any deceased sahaabi. 

There  remains  now  the  issue  of  Hadhrat  Bareedah  bin Khaseeb (radhiyallahu anhu) who  made  bequest  to  place  a  green  twig  on  his grave. [Bukhaari Shareef, vol.1, page 181]

Some  scholars  mention  that  it  is  possible  he  made  this bequest  owing  to  his  humility,  considering  himself  to  be  a sinner. 

The  question  is,  has  anyone  of  the  Khairul  Quroon ever  placed  green  twigs  on  the  graves  of  those  whom  they considered  Walis?  Is  this  also  proof  for  placing  a  cloth  on  a grave?? 

Mufti  Ahmed  Yaar  Khaan  avers  that  Hadhrat  Maulana Ashraf  Ali  Thaanvi  (rahmatullah  alayh)  wrote  in  Islaahur Rusoom  that  flowers  etc.  be  placed  on  the  graves  of  sinners and  faasiqs  and  not  the  pious.  Their  graves  are  free  of  any punishment  which  the  flowers  etc.  would  be  a  cause  of reduction.  It  should  however  be  considered  those  actions  of the  sinners  for  which  it  is  a  means  of  defence,  it  benefits the Saaliheen with higher stages. [Jaa-al Haqq, page 284]

Mufti  Saheb  gloats  over  this  point,  but  he  has  not considered  the  general  principle  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  the Sahaabah (alayhim ar ridhwan)  were  also  aware  of  this,  so,  why  did  they  not place  flowers  on  the  graves  of  the  pious??  How  come  they deprived the Saaliheen from this rank-elevation?? 

Similarly,  this  Qiyaas (analogy)  of  Mufti  Ahmed  Yaar  Khaan  is  also baatil  and  rejected  that  there  is  life  in  one  fresh  flower, therefore  it  hymns  Tasbih  and  Tahleel,  which  either  earns rewards  for  the  deceased  or  reduces  his  punishment,  and  it also  affords  the  visitors  to  the  grave  a  sweet  scent.  Hence, it  is  permissible  to  place  it  on  the  grave  of  every  Muslim. [Jaa-al Haqq, page 283]

It  is  an  accepted  fact  known  to  all  that  everything  hymns the  praises  of  Allaah  Ta’ala.  The  Qur’aan-e-Majeed  bears testimony  to  this  fact,  so  why  differentiate  between  wet and  dry??  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum)  were  well  aware  of this  fact  also,  but  they  did  not  put  it  into  practice.  To  top  it all,  what  wetness,  greenery  or  life  is  there  in  a  cloth,  which makes  it  permissible  to  place  it  on  a  grave??  The  view  of one  who  is  not  sinless  neither  a  Mujtahid  is  not  proof  in  the Shari’ah

As  for  the  statement  of  Imaam  Shaami (rahmatullah  alayh)  and  others  that  it  is  permissible  to place  a  cover  on  the  graves  because  it  is  a  means  of honouring  the  inmate  of  the  grave,  etc.,  etc.  is  not  worthy of  any  consideration,  because  besides  this  being  the  view of  a  non-Mujtahid  it  is  also  without  proof.  Honouring  graves  is  no  new  fad,  that  we  need  to  rely  on  or  accept  the Qiyaas  of  the  Muta-akhireen.  During  the  era  of Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam,  the  Sahaabah (ridhwanAllahu anhum),  Tabieen  and  Tabe-Tabieen (rahmatullah  alayhim),  there  were  also  graves,  but  this  was never  their  custom.  Therefore  we  are  not  in  need  of  any imagined  and  pseudo  honour  or  respect.  As  they  had  done, we will do. 

As  for  the  Qiyaas  of  Mufti  Ahmed  Yaar  Khaan,  that  the origin  of  a  chader  lies  in  the  fact  that  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did  not prevent  from  the  Ghilaaf  (Kaaba  cover)  being  used.  For centuries  a  valuable  green  silk  cloth  was  placed  on  the blessed  grave  of  Nabi  ρ.  Until  this  day  no  one  had prohibited  it.  There  is  also  a  Ghilaaf  on  the  Maqaam-e Ebrahim. [Jaa-al Haqq, page 285]

This  is  Qiyaas  ma`al-Faariq (illogical  and  baseless reasoning).  The  Ghilaaf  used  to  be  placed  on  the  Kaaba during  the  time  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  he  did  not  change  this tradition,  therefore  this  is  an  actual  Sunnat.  [see  Bukhaari Shareef, vol.2 page 613]

Similarly  even  if  the  use  of  a  Ghilaaf  on  Maqaam-e Ebrahim  is  established,  then  it  appears  that  it  was  only done  during  the  Khairul  Quroon and  to  equate  this  and make  Qiyaas  of  it  on  placing  a  cloth  on  graves  is  illogical. All  praise  due  to  Allaah  Ta`ala  that  this  humble  writer  has performed  Hajj  twice,  but  never  noticed  a  Ghilaaf  being used on the Maqaam-e-Ebrahim

As  for  the  covering  on  the  blessed  grave  of  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  it should  be  remembered  that  his  ghusl,  burial  and  grave  etc. is  a  unique  thing,  which  cannot  be  applied  as  a  general practice  for  the  masses.  

The ‘wonderful’ proof of the Mufti Saheb

Mufti  Ahmed  Yaar  Khaan  writes  that  the  Auliya  of  Allaah Ta`ala  and  their  graves  are  amongst  the  Shi`aar  (signs)  of Allaah  Ta’ala,  therefore  respecting  the  Shi’aar  of  Allaah Ta`ala,  i.e.  the  signs  of  Deen  is  a  Qur’aanic  injunction— ‘And  he  who  honours  the  Signs  of  Allaah  Ta`ala  indeed that  it  is  from  the  piety  of  hearts’.  There  are  no  conditions placed  on  the  rendering  of  this  honour.  Whatever  form  of honour  is  customary  and  practiced  amongst  people  is permissible.  To  place  flowers  on  their  graves,  cloths, lanterns,  etc.  are  all  tokens  of  honour,  hence  permissible. [Jaa-al Haqq, page 283]

Mufti  Saheb  has,  in  his  research  also  categorized  the graves  of  the  Auliya  as  being  among  the  Signs  of  Allaah Ta`ala!  Hadhrat  Shah  Waliullah  Saheb  (rahmatullah  alayh) has  enumerated  the  Shi`aar  of  Allaah  Ta`ala  as  being four—Qur`aan  Majeed,  Kaabah,  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  Salaat [Hujjatullah,  vol.  1,  page  70]—No  mention  is  made  of graves,  however  Mufti  Saheb’s  research  has  led  him  to include  the  graves  as  being  amongst  the  Signs  of  Allaah Ta`ala.  The  Ulama  of  Aqaaid  have  expressly  stated  that besides  those  whom  Allaah  Ta`ala  and  Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  have singled  out  with  a  good  ending  (i.e.  vouched  for  their salvation),  we  cannot  say  with  certainty  regarding  anyone else.  We  only  have  a  good  opinion  regarding  them.  How then  can  we  claim  the  wilaayat  of  anyone  with  certainty?? And  then,  further,  how  can  we  ever  make  their  graves  the Shi`aar  of  Allaah  Ta`ala??  Now  according  to  the  mufti Saheb,  the  honour  can  be  endowed  upon  these  ‘shi`aar’  by placing  flowers,  cloths  and  lanterns  upon  them!  It  has  been mentioned  before  that  neither  did  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) ever  place  twigs/flowers  on  the  graves  of  any  wali.  The case  of  Hadhrat  Bareeda (rashiyallahu anhu)  was  unique.  In  fact,  greenery  is only  placed  on  the  graves  of  sinners.  This  is  a  rather strange shi`aar  of  Allaah  Ta’ala  and  wali,  where  we  first envisage  him  to  be  sinner  and  then  place  flowers  etc.  on his grave. May Allaah Ta`ala save us!

How  can  honour  and  respect  ever  be  shown  to  a shi`aar  of Allaah  Ta`ala  via  the  means  of  something  which  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has  cursed  (i.e.  lanterns  at  the  graves)?  What  strange reasoning  spews  forth  from  the  likes  of  Mufti  Ahmad  Yaar Khaan!  Or  does  he  aver  that  all  this  is  proven  from  the Qur`aanic  Aayat??  May  Allaah  Ta`ala  save  us  many  times over!

This  type  of  honour  is  never  gleaned  from  the  Qur`aanic Aayat  nor  from  the  practice  of  the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu amhum).  If  it  were the  case,  then  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  would  not  have  cursed  this  act, neither  would  Sahaabah  like  Hadhrat  ‘Amr  bin  `Aas (radhiyallahu anhu) ever  have  made  the  bequest  that  they  did.  What  strange beings  these  Ahle  Bid`ah  are—they  regard  impermissible  and Haraam  acts  as  being  rewarding  and  beneficial. May Allah Ta’ala save the masses from their deceptions. Aameen!.

CONCLUSION

The placing of sheets on graves is also forbidden. None of the graves during the honourable period of Rasulullah salalahu alayhi wa salam, sahabah, Tab’ien had sheets placed on them.

Allamah ibn Aabideen Shaami  (Rahmatullahi alayh) says:

It is mentioned in Ahkam on the authority of Hujjaj that the placing of Sheets on graves is Makrooh. (Durre Mukhtaar pg228 Vol2)

Note: The above statement from ibn Aabideen al-Shaami proves that the analogy of covering ghilaaf for the kaaba cannot be applied for covering the graves, both are separate issues with separate rules altogether.

The Burning of Lamps and Lights on Graves

Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wa sallam) did not only prohibit us from burning lamps, lights, candles, etc. but also cursed those observing these customs. Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) says:

Rasulullah salalahu alayhi wa sallam has cursed those women who go to the graves and those people who make graves places of Sajdah (prostration) and those who burn lamps and lights at graves.

Allama Ali Qari Hanafi (rahimahullah) commentating on this hadith says

‘The prohibition of burning lights, lamps, candles etc. at graves is because it is unnecessary spending of wealth there exists no benefit in the burning of such lights and lamps consisting of fire and these are actually signs of Jahannam.

Hadhrat Qadi Thana ullah pani Pati Says: “The raising of the Auliya’s graves, erecting of walls and domes, making of urs, burning of lamps, are all innovations- among these, some are haraam while others are makrooh.

Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) cursed those who burn lamps etc. and make sajdah at graves. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is reported to have said: Do not make my grave a place of worship. Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) commanded Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) to flatten all raised graves and destroy all pictures of animate thing

***********************************

Are the Prophets Alive in their Graves??

Hadith on the Life of the Prophets

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

(from http://www.deoband.org)

Haddab ibn Khalid and Shayban ibn Farrukh narrated to us: they said: Hammad ibn Salamah narrated to us: from Thabit al-Bunani and Sulayman al-Taymi: from Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu): that Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“I came – and in the narration of Haddab ‘I passed’ – by Musa the night I was taken on the night journey (Isra’) at the red dune and he was standing, praying in his grave” (Sahih Muslim)

A group of verifiers adduced this hadith as proof that the Prophets (alayhimussalaam) are alive in their graves. Controversy on this issue has been ongoing in our time, so we will give a brief synopsis here of the [correct] view on this topic. And Allah (Glorified is He) is the Helper.

The Issue of the Life of the Prophets (alayhimussalaam)

Indeed the starting point of this issue is Allah’s statement (Blessed and High is He) “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, though ye perceive [it] not” (al-Qur’an 2:154). Since the life of the martyrs is established, the life of the Prophets (alayhimuss) is established by indication of this text, because the rank of the Prophets is higher than the rank of the martyrs without doubt. Al-Shawkani said in Nayl al-Awtar (Adab al-Jumu’ah 3:211):

A textual proof in Allah’s Book is revealed with regards to martyrs, that they are living and sustained, and that the life in them pertains to the body, so what of the Prophets and Messengers?

In this topic, a hadith with unequivocal import has been reported which Abu Ya’la transmitted in his Musnad (6:147, no. 3425) from Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) that he said: “Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying’”. Al-Haythami mentioned it in Majma’ al-Zawa’id (8:211) and said: “Abu Ya’la and al-Bazzar narrated it and the narrators of Abu Ya’la are trustworthy”. Al-Dhahabi weakened it in al-Mizan because of al-Hajjaj ibn al-Aswad but al-Hafiz ibn Hajar disagreed with him in al-Lisan and said: “He is al-Hajjaj ibn Abi Ziyad al-Aswad, known as Ziqq al-’Asal and he was Basran … Ahmad said: ‘trustworthy and a pious man’; ibn Ma’in said: ‘trustworthy’; Abu Hatim said: ‘passable in narration’; and ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat.” The hadith was also transmitted by al-Bayhaqi in his volume on the life of the Prophets (p. 3) and he authenticated it. Likewise, al-Munawi authenticated it in Fayd al-Qadir.

This hadith is further corroborated by what Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated in this chapter. Imam al-Bayhaqi devoted a short volume to this issue in which he collected the hadiths which prove the life of the Prophets (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). ‘Allamah Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (rahimahullah) has a treatise on this with the title Inba’ al-Adhkiya’ fi Hayat al-Anbiya’ in which he collected the hadiths related to this issue.

From the hadiths which prove the life of the Prophets after their death is the hadith of Aws ibn Aws about the virtue of Friday, in which it is mentioned: “So increase in your blessings on me, for indeed your blessings are shown to me.” Aws said: “They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! How will our blessings be shown to you when you have decomposed?’ He said: ‘Indeed Allah (Great and Glorious is He) has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of Prophets.’” Al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, ibn Majah, al-Darimi and al-Hakim transmitted it; (al-Hakim) authenticated it and al-Dhahabi agreed with him in Talkhis al-Mustadrak (1:278).

In mentioning the perpetuity of his body after his death in the context of blessings being presented to him there is an indication that his blessed soul has a connection to his body, and when blessings are shown, it is to both his body and soul, for otherwise there would be no meaning to mentioning the physical body in the answer.

From them is the hadith of Abu ‘l-Darda’ (radhiyallahu anhu) that he said: “Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘One does not send blessings on me except his blessings are shown to me until he finishes with it.’” Abu ‘l-Darda’ said: “I said: ‘And after death?’ He said: ‘After death, indeed Allah has forbidden the earth to consume the bodies of Prophets, so the Prophet of Allah is alive and given sustenance.’” Ibn Majah transmitted it.

From them is what Abu ‘l-Shaykh transmitted in Kitab al-Thawab with a good chain from Abu Hurayrah ( radhiyallahu anhu ) in marfu’ form: “He who sends blessings near my grave I hear it and he who sends blessings on me from far, it reaches me.” Al-Hafiz mentioned it in al-Fath (6:488, chapter 48 from Kitab al-Anbiya’); and Abu Dawud transmitted it from Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) with the words “Send blessings on me! For indeed your blessings reach me wherever you may be.”

From them is what Abu Dawud transmitted from Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) through another route in marfu’ form: “None sends peace on me but Allah restores to me my soul so I can respond to him [by sending him] peace”. Its narrators are trustworthy as al-Hafiz clarified in al-Fath. It may be problematised by [claiming that] the restoration of the soul to the body entails that it was previously detached from the body, which is death, so the hadith only proves that the soul returns upon sending peace.

Imam al-Bayhaqi (rahimahullah) responded to this problem in his treatise on the life of the Prophets (p. 5) by his saying: “He only intended, and Allah knows best, ‘and Allah restored to me my soul so I [am able to] respond to him by sending peace.’” Its upshot is that the assumption in the expression is : “None sends peace on me but Allah has restored to me my soul before that so I can respond to him.” Hence, his statement (Allah bless him and grant him peace) “Allah restored to me my soul” is in the context of responding to a greeting, and the intended meaning is that “I respond to him by sending peace (upon him) due to my soul having already been restored to my body.”

‘Allamah al-Suyuti explained this in Inba’ al-Adhkiya’ (p. 5) based on Arabic principles and said “His statement ‘Allah restored’ is an adverbial phrase (jumlah haliyyah) and the Arabic principle is that qad (already) is assumed in an adverbial phrase when it occurs as a perfect verb.” This is like His statement “or those who approach you with hearts restraining” (4:90) i.e. it has already been restrained. This is how it is assumed here. The sentence in the perfect tense [implies the restoration of the soul] precedes greetings from everyone. “Hatta” (so) is not for an explanation (ta’lil) [of why the soul was restored], rather it is only a particle of conjunction (harf ‘atf) with the meaning “and” (wa). Thus, the assumption of the particles is that “None sends peace on me except Allah has already restored to me my soul before that and I [can thus] respond to him”. Al-Suyuti (rahimahullah) mentioned at the end of his stated treatise “then after that I saw the hadith in question transmitted in the book Hayat al-Anbiya’ by al-Bayhaqi with the words ‘but my soul has already returned to me’ and the words ‘wa qad‘ were clearly in it, so I praised Allah abundantly.”

In sum these hadiths, together with the hadith of the chapter, prove the Prophets are alive after their death, and this is the belief of the majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah. However, at times it is problematised by some people [who ask] how can life be determined for them while unequivocal texts have pronounced that death has overtaken them and they will gather on the Day of Resurrection like all [other] men? This difficulty only arises from a lack of understanding of the meaning of the life established for the Prophets and the martyrs after their death. Some people claim that it is exactly like the worldly (dunyawi) life which they experienced before their death. The truth is that no one says the life of the Prophets is established after their death in this sense. The meaning of their “life” is in the sense that their souls have a strong connection to their noble bodies buried in the graves, and by this strong connection their bodies come to have many unique features from the features of the living, like hearing greetings and replying to them, being preoccupied in worship and other similar things of the said features.

No one from the people of truth says [this life] established for them after their death is characterised by all the features of their previous life. ‘Allamah al-Subki (rahimahullah) says in Shifa’ al-Siqam (p. 191): “The life being real does not entail that the bodies have life as it did in the physical world, in needing food and drink and in it being impossibile to pass through a dense barrier and other features from the qualities of physical bodies, which we observe. Rather it has another law. Thus, nothing in the intellect prevents the affirmation of a real life for them.”

The conclusion that is reached by analysing the texts is that although “death” is an expression about the departure of the soul from the body, after death the soul continues to have a connection to the body which it departed, and by this connection the body feels pain at the punishment of the grave and is delighted by the blessings of the intermediary realm (Barzakh), in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Ahl al-Sunnah that the punishment of the grave happens to the body and the soul. This is the meaning of the soul returning to the body when questioning [the inmate] of the grave and when punishing him as has been recorded in clear texts the authenticity of which has been verified by Ibn al-Qayyim in Kitab al-Ruh. The soul being restored to the body after death does not imply resurrection (ihya) after death. Rather it implies only the development of a connection between their bodies and their souls and there is no way of knowing the true nature of that connection.

However this connection is not on the same level for all the dead. Thus, the dead differ in the strength and weakness of this connection. Consequently, this connection in the generality of the dead is very weak, since their bodies are consumed by the earth. Hence the designation of “bodily life” is not generally assigned for them after death overtakes them, although some ‘ulama also used the designation of “bodily life” for the restoration of the soul to their bodies. See Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Jassas (1:185).

As for martyrs, the connection of their souls to their bodies is stronger in relation to all the dead to the degree that the earth does not consume their bodies. Thus the Qur’an assigned for them the designation of “living”. If the meaning of their life is intermediary (barzakhi) or spiritual (ruhiyya) only, there would be no difference between them and others. The difference between them and the rest of the dead is that their souls have a strong connection to the bodies. This is the meaning of their bodily lives.

As for the Prophets (alayhimussalaam), the connection of their souls to their noble bodies is the strongest of connections which is conceivable of a man after death has overtaken him. This strong connection affects some of the worldly rules also. Thus, their properties are not divided between their heirs and it is not permissible for one to marry their wives after their death. Our master Abu Bakr (radhoyallahu anhu) would spend on them as Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would spend [on them]. As such, the Prophets (alayhimussalaam) acquired some of the unique features of life which are not established for others besides them after death.

Hence, complete and real bodily life is designated for a number of degrees in the connection of the soul to the body, some of them stronger than others. What is established for the Prophets and martyrs after their death is a real bodily life due to the presence of many of the features of the previous life upon death, although it parts with this worldly life, which was established for them before their death, in many [physical] laws. The outcome of this real bodily life is a strong connection of the soul to the body which goes beyond the connection which the rest of the dead acquire.

As for discussion about understanding the true nature of this connection it is a discussion about that which man has no means of knowing, for indeed the states of the intermediary realm and the Afterlife is not perceived by these minds [of ours]. Therefore, whoever recognises this much, established by clear texts, and consigns its true nature to Allah Most High, his creed will be safe if Allah Most High wills. As for discussion about the true nature of the states of the intermediary realm and striving to perceive the reality of the connection of the soul to the body or contesting about terminologies of the designation of this connection as bodily life or intermediary life, it is not the concern of the people of truth and not from the path of the people of knowledge.

As for debating (mujadala), contestation (mira’), mutual hatred (tabaghud) and argumentation (niza’) on these semantic or theoretical issues as has occurred in our time, it is very far from the etiquette of the people of knowledge. Likewise denying this connection between the soul and body which is established by many textual proofs which there is no scope in denying is erroneous and presumptuous. It is not permissible for one of the people of knowledge and balance to deny them expressly. Al-Hafiz ibn al-Qayyim said in Kitab al-Ruh (p. 86) “It is authentic from him that he saw Musa (alayhissalaam) standing in prayer in his grave during the Night of Isra’ and he saw him in the sixth or seventh heaven. Thus, the soul was in heaven and it has a connection with the body in the grave, ennobles it and has a relationship with it, whereby he prays in his grave and responds to the greeting of one who greets him, while the soul is in the Greater Company (al-Rafiq al-A’la).”

So the realities which are necessary to recognise according to the texts are as follows:

[1] The noble souls of the Prophets have a strong connection with their bodies after their death

[2] This connection is much stronger than the connection of other souls of other dead people to their bodies

[3] By virtue of this connection unique features of the previous life occur in them after their death and this is indeed known by clear texts

[4] It is accurate to designate this strong connection as “life”, and its people as “living” as has been reported in the texts

[5] This life attained by them after their death is not the worldly life in its essence or with all its features rather it is similar to the worldly life in some of its features, some expressed clearly and some assumed

People continue to recognise these realities (haqa’iq) for they are in accordance with the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, and there is no need to discuss about its details more than what we have mentioned here. Allah (Glorified is He) knows best.

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, vol. 5 pp. 23-7)

Allamah Zafar Ahmad Uthmani on the Life of the Prophets (alayhis salaam)

[It was narrated] from Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) that Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “No Muslim sends peace upon me except Allah restores my soul to me so that I reply to his salutation.” Abu Dawud narrated it with an authentic (sahih) chain, and Ibn Qudamah mentioned it from the narration of Ahmad with the wording: “None sends peace upon me at my grave…” Al-Bayhaqi opened with this [hadith] the chapter on visiting the grave of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). A group of the Imams relied on this [hadith] for support of it [i.e. visiting the grave], from them Imam Ahmad. Al-Subki said: “It is a valid support.” Such was mentioned in Wafa’ al-Wafa’ (2:403).

I say: The meaning of his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement, “except Allah restores my soul to me,” the intent of the restoration of his soul – and Allah knows best – is “spiritual attentiveness” and descending to the planes of humanity from absorption in the Transcendent Presence, since his noble soul is busy in the presence of the [Divine] Presence and the Greatest Company away from this world, so when peace is sent upon him, his soul turns to this world to attain the peace-salutation and to reply to the one who sent peace. This was said by al-Subki as mentioned in Wafa’ al-Wafa’ (2:407).

Al-Khafaji said: “That which is apparent in the exegesis of the hadith without affectation is that the prophets and the martyrs are living, and the life of the prophets is stronger, and since the earth is not administered over them they are like sleepers, and the sleeper does not hear and does not speak until he awakens, as Allah (Exalted is He) said: ‘Allah it is who takes away souls at the time of their death, and those which die not in their sleep; then He withholds those on which He has decreed death, and sends back the rest for an appointed term.’ (39:42) Thus, the intent is the “sending back” which is mentioned in the verse, so its meaning is that when he hears the peace-salutation he awakens and replies to it, not that his soul is taken and is then breathed and returned [to him], so there is no [exegetical] dilemma at all.” Such was mentioned in ‘Awn al-Ma‘bud (2:170).

Hence, there is no indication in this of the discontinuity of life as some of them assert. ‘Abd al-Haqq (d. 581 H) narrated in al-Ahkam al-Sughra – and he said “its chain is authentic” – from Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), he said: Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “No one passes by the grave of his believing brother that he knew and he sends peace upon him, except he will recognise him and return his salutation.” Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr also narrated it and authenticated it as transmitted by Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Abi al-Dunya narrated from Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu), he said: “When a man passes by a grave whose [inhabitant] he knew, and he sends peace upon him, he returns his salutation and recognises him; and when he passes by a grave whose [inhabitant] he did not know and he sends peace upon him, he returns his salutation.” The narrations with this meaning are many.

Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim that the martyrs, rather all believers, when a Muslim visits them and sends peace upon them, they recognise him and reply to their salutation. Since this is about the individuals of the believers, what about the master of the messengers (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? A clear mention of his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) hearing the peace-salutation of a visitor is mentioned in a narration narrated by a group from Abu Hurayrah (radhiyallahu anhu) with the wording: “Whoever sends blessing on me near my grave, I hear it, and whoever sends blessing on me from afar, it reaches me.” In it is Muhammad ibn Marwan al-Suddi al-Saghir who is weak, and al-Khallal narrated the like of it through the route of al-Buhtari who is very weak from ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Umar from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar raised [to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)] with the wording: “Whoever sends blessing on me near my grave, I reply to him, and whoever sends blessing on me from another place, they send it to me.” Multiple paths offer strength. Al-Subki said: “What indicates that he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) hears one who sends peace on him near his grave and he replies to him, knowing his presence, is to come. And this is sufficient as a true virtue for the king of the world to spend until he reaches it [i.e. the blessed grave] from the furthest regions of the world.” End quote from Wafa’ al-Wafa’ summarised (2:404).

There is no doubt in his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) life after his departure, and likewise all the remainder of the prophets (alayhimussalaam) are living in their graves, a life more complete than the life of the martyrs which Allah Almighty gave information of in is Mighty Book, and our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is the master of the prophets and master of the martyrs and the deeds of the martyrs are in his scale.

He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “My knowledge after my death is like my knowledge during my life.” Hafiz al-Mundhiri narrated it. Ibn ‘Adi narrated in his Kamil from Thabit from Anas (radhiyallahu anhu), he said: Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The Prophets are living in their graves, praying.” And Abu Ya‘la narrated it with trustworthy narrators, and al-Bayhaqi narrated it and authenticated it.

Ibn Majah narrated with a good chain as said by al-Mundhiri from Abu al-Darda’ (radhiyallahu anhu), he said: Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Increase in sending blessing on me on Friday for it is attended by angels, and no one sends blessing on me except his blessing is shown to me when he finishes with it.” I said: “And after death?” He said: “And after death. Verily, Allah has forbidden the earth from consuming the bodies of prophets, so the prophet of Allah is living and sustained.” This is the wording of Ibn Majah.

It is not contradicted by what Thabit narrated from Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) raised [to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)] that “the prophets are not left in their graves after forty nights, but they pray in front of Allah until the trumpet is blown” since Ibn Abi Layla is in its chain and he had a bad memory so the contradiction of what he narrated with the hadiths of trustworthy narrators is unacceptable. Al-Bayhaqi said: “Even if it is authentic with this wording, the intent is – and Allah knows best – they are not left not praying except for this period, and then they begin to pray in front of Allah Almighty.” End quote from Wafa’ al-Wafa’ summarised (2:405,6).

I say: Its outcome according to this is that the prophets are not like other than them from the children of Adam that when they die, their deeds are cut off, rather their deeds continue after death also, and it does not cease but for forty nights. Allah Almighty knows best.

(I‘la al-Sunan, Idarat al-Qur’an wa al-‘Ulum al-Islamiyyah, 10:504-6)

 Common Objections By The Salafi Sect

The following refutation by Maulana Ahmad Sadeq Desai against a Salafi whom he refers to as “coprocreep”, adequately deals with most of the common objections to the position held by the Ahlus Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah for 1400 years.

THE COPROCREEP’S ALLEGED 4TH INCONSISTENCY

In the 4th alleged inconsistency which the coprocreep attributes to the Ulama of Deoband, he rants some rubbish about ‘hayaatis’ and mamaatis’. Propounding the rubbish figment of his imagination, the coprocreep states:

“Some Hayaatis have compromised and have invented ‘levels of life’ in the Barzakh – the highest being reserved for the prophets and they say this is strongest/closest to the worldly life.”

Then in pursuance of his rubbish, he asks:

“Why do you endlessly want to equate the Barzakh life to the world life?”

The very first essential principle to understand regarding the Ulama of Deoband is that when we say ‘Ulama of Deoband’, the reference is not to mediocre Molvis who had acquired knowledge at Deobandi Darul Ulooms nor to any Ulama who have deviated from the Minhaaj of the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband. When the term ‘Ulama of Deoband’ is used it refers to Giants and Stars of Ilm and Taqwa such as Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Hadhrat, Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Ambetwi, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayhim), and to the glittering galaxy of senior Ulama-e-Haqq associated with Darul Uloom Deoband. These illustrious Souls are the Seal of the Ulama of Deoband. Any view which clashes with the unanimous stance of these noble Ulama of Deoband, is never the view of our Ulama (the Ulama of Deoband).

It should be well understood that Darul Uloom Deoband has long ago been infiltrated by men of the Maudoodi sect and men with Salafi leanings and views. Thus, any conflicting view tendered by such miscreants who happened to have studied at Darul Ulooms linked to Deoband is never the view of the Ulama of Deoband.

There is no need to delve into the silly discussion pertaining to the ‘hayaati and mamaati’ concepts which the coprocreep presents with derogation. In so doing, he endeavours to cast a veil of deflection and deception on the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah (the Four Madh-habs) on the issue of Rasulullah’s life after his earthly death. The issue at hand is whether Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is hayaat (alive) in his Qabr Shareef (in Barzakh). The details and exact nature of this noble Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are of no significance. The fundamental issue is: “Are the Ambiya alive after they had died an earthly death??”

On this issue there is no difference of opinion among the Ulama of Deoband. (Bear in mind who the Ulama of Deoband are!). According to the Qur’aan, Sunnah and Ijma’ of the Ummah, the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) are alive in Barzakh, and so are the Shuhada (the Martyrs). However, it is quite obvious that the Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) is of a higher state than the Hayaat of the Shuhada. Furthermore, all mankind, including the kuffaar, have life in Barzakh. The questioning in the grave, the torments and pleasures in the grave, etc. are all related to Barzakh. These states are not related to inanimate objects such as stones. It is therefore, simple logic that the Hayaat if the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) in Barzakh will not be of the same level as the ‘hayaat’ of the kuffaar in Barzakh.

On this issue, the belief of the Ulama of Deoband is the precise belief of the Ahlus Sunnah as it has been propagated and believed since the era of the Salf-e-Saaliheen of Quroon-e-Thalaathah. The Ulama of Deoband do not stand apart from the Ahlus Sunnah in this belief. In his famous kitaab, Al-Muhannad, Hadhrat Maulana Khaleel Ahmad Ambetwi (rahmatullah alayh) records the questions posed by the then Ulama of Haramain Shareefain, who were not Salafis, but staunch Muqallideen of the Madh-habs, and his answers. On the question of Rasulullah’s Hayaat after his earthly death, the Ulama of Haramain Shareefain asked:

“What is your view regarding the Hayaat of Nabi (alayhis salaatu was salaam) in his blessed Qabr. Is that (life) special with him or is it similar to Barzakhi Hayaat of all the Mu’mineen?”

Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) answered as follows:

“According to us and our Mashaaikh, Hadhrat Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is alive in his Qabr Shareef. His Hayaat is dunyawi (i.e. like the worldly life) without (its) obligations. And, that is special with him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and all the Ambiya (salawaatullah alayhim) and the Shuhada. It is not like the barzakhi life common to all Mu’mineen, in fact common to all mankind. Thus, Allaamah Suyuti explicitly states in his treatise, Abnaaul Azkiya wa Hayaatil Ambiya that Shaikh Taqiuddin As-Subki said: ‘The hayaat of the Ambiya and the Shuhada in their graves is like their hayaat on earth. Testifying for this is the Salaat of Musa (alayhis salaam) in his Qabr. Verily, Salaat demands a living body…….” Thus this substantiates that the Hayaat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is dunyawi (also) Barzakhi because it exists in the Realm of Barzakh.”

This is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa’ah, hence it was approved and endorsed by the Ulama of the Haramain Shareefain. The Ulama of Haramain Shareefain had bestowed glowing accolades on Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad (rahmatullah alayh) for his answers which 100% represented the Belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah on the question of the Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam), as well as on the other 25 questions which the illustrious Allaamah Khalil Ahmad answered, and with which answers all the noble Ulama of Haramain Shareefain concurred. The following is the concurrence of Hadhrat Shaikh Muhannad Saeed Baabaseel Shaafi’, Shaikhul Ulama in Makkah Mukarramah, and the Imaam and Khateeb of Musjidul Haraam:

“Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem. I have studied these answers of the illustrious Allaamah to the questions posed in this treatise, and I have found them (the answers) completely correct. May Allah Ta’ala reward him who had responded, my honoured, unique Brother Shaikh Khalil Ahmad. May Allah Ta’ala perpetuate his goodness and glory in both worlds, and with him (Maulana Khalil Ahmad), by the honour of Sayyidul Mursaleen may Allah break the heads of the deviates and the envious ones until the Day of Qiyaamah, Aameen.”

Ulama of Makkah, Madinah, Egypt and Damascus, of all Four Math-habs, lauded accolades on Allaamah Khalil Ahmed and concurred with his answers which were unanimously confirmed to be the Aqaaid of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah while paying glowing tribute to him for stating the Haqq with clarity. Thus, the attempt by the coprocreep to create the false impression that the Hayaat belief of the Ulama of Deoband is in conflict with the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah is most despicable and dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

The coprocreep, in subservience to the Saudi Salafis and other deviated ghair muqallideen are notorious for their Shiah-type taqiya stunts. Deceit is their salient feature. Therefore, the coprocreep speaks as if the Ulama of Deoband are alone in the belief of Hayaat, i.e. the concept of the Hayaat of the Ambiya to which the Ulama of Deoband subscribe.

The argument of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam) performing Salaat in his grave has not been originated by the Ulama of Deoband. Shaikh Taqiuddin Subki mentions it, and Imaam Suyuti narrated it. This fact alone should be sufficient to dispel the falsehood that the concept of Hayaat propagated by the Ulama of Deoband is not the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. While there is complete consensus on the issue of Rasulullah’s Hayaat after his earthly demise, the precise details of this concept are not explained in the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. No one has the right to claim that his personal understanding of an ambiguous concept has the status of Wahi. It suffices to say that the concept to which the Ulama of Deoband subscribe has not been originated by them. It has come to them from the Salf-e-Saaliheen by way of authentic narration. We therefore find that the Maaliki, Shaafi’, Hanafi and Hambali Ulama of the Haramain Shareefain upholding the elaboration tendered by Hadhrat Allaamah Khalil Ahmad. If the concept of the Ulama of Deoband was an innovation, the Ulama of the Haramain Shareefain, Damascus and Egypt would not have concurred.

The ‘rational’ arguments which the coprocreep presented in no way whatsoever succeeds in making even a kink in the belief propounded by the Ulama of Deoband in view of the fact that their view is the view of the Four Math-habs. Logic may not be tendered as a daleel for refuting what has been established and upheld by the narration of the Four Math-habs. There is no factor (murajjih) to confer preference to the conjecturing of the coprocreep and his Salafi cohorts. On the contrary, the established view of the Four Math-habs is as old as Islam, and it totally eliminates any conflicting concept.

Displaying considerable density of intellect, the coprocreep avers:

“If one looks at al-Muhannad by M.Khalil Ahmed Sahaaranpuri, he says: “His life is Dunyawi, but Barzakhi as well as it is in the Barzakh life.” So here we see a person living BOTH the dunyawi AND the barzakhi life. It’s as if a person is in the World of Souls and the World of the Dunya at the same time, or in Barzakh AND the Hereafter at the same time. What an impossibility! How can a person be inside a house AND outside it at the same time?”

The ‘impossibility’ is a figment of corrupt and defective understanding. The concept of the Ahlus Sunnah presented by Allaamah Khalil Ahmed (rahmatullah alayh) in his kitaab, Al-Muhannad, was firstly upheld and lauded by the Ulama of the Four Math-habs of Haramain Shareefain, Damascus and Egypt. Secondly, it was never contended that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in two different physical abodes at one and the same time. The simple explanation is that the dunyawi dimension of Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) exists in one realm, the Realm of Barzakh. There is neither a rational impossibility nor a Shar’i impossibility to preclude the validity of this concept.

It is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah that punishment in Barzakh occurs to the physical body as well. Furthermore, in the life Hereafter, it will be a physical life – a dunyawi life. By ‘dunyawi’ is not meant existence on earth. It refers to the physical nature of life. There is no daleel to deny the reality of dunyawi (physical) existence of Insaan in Barzakh and in Qiyaamah. Dunyawi does not mean the world. It is an adjective describing worldly attributes. Therefore, the contention that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is postulated to be in two physical abodes at one and the same time is baseless and absurd.

This stupid analogy confirms that the coprocreep is unaware of the meaning of Mahaal-e-Aqli (rational impossibility). It will serve him well to gain re-admission to a Madrasah to acquire the basic knowledge of mantiq (logic) to enable him to understand the meaning of ‘impossible’. The idea that one plus one equals three is a rational impossibility. But, to imagine an animal with a 100 heads is not mahaal-e-aqli. It is not a rational impossibility despite it not being a normal possibility. There is no valid rational reason for contending that a human being has no physical existence – his physical body with his worldly personality – in Barzakh.

According to the Hadith, the qabr of the successful Mu’min will be increased manifold in size and a variety of comforts will be bestowed to him. On the other hand, terrible punishment in the grave awaits the kuffaar and the disobedient Muslims. This comfort and torment will be meted out to the dunyawi body and soul of man in Barzakh. It is thus plain stupidity and density of brains corrupted by stercoracious substances of dhalaal to deny the possibility, in fact, the established belief of physical punishment/reward in Barzakh.

The coprocreep says:

“The rules of dunya do not apply to barzakh in the slightest.”

To which ‘rules’ is he referring? If he is alluding to the rules of the Shariah, no one has ever contended that such rules are applicable in Barzakh. In fact, Allaamah Khalil Ahmed (rahmatullah alayh) in his answer explicitly makes mention the terms ‘min ghair takleef’. Whatever the coprocreep means by ‘rules of the dunya’, no one has claimed that the ‘rules of the dunya’ apply to Barzakh. However, this non-applicability does not negate the existence of a dunyawi personality in Aalam-e-Barzakh. There is no daleel for substantiating such a contention, neither Shar’i nor rational.

The stupid coprocreep further avers:

“Regarding Me’raj and Israa, our Prophet talked to the past prophets while the Prophet was in his dunyawi life whereas the people he was talking to (except for Jesus) were in their Barzakhi life. This is just a miracle of our Prophet – i.e. being able to talk to those of the Barzakh, NOT that all the prophets were still in the Dunya.”

Before demolishing the coprocreep’s self-contradictory statement, it is necessary to comment on his use of the name ‘Jesus’ for Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). Perhaps he is one of the interfaithers who subscribe to the kufr doctrines of the interfaith movement financed and espoused by the Saudi king. What constrains a Muslim when addressing other Muslims to refer to Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) with the Christian kufr name of ‘Jesus’? Let him search his heart.

In the aforementioned averment the coprocreep switches, but not dexterously, from ‘dunyawi’ to dunya. Who had claimed that the Ambiya to whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) spoke on the Night of Mi’raaj were in the dunya? This episode of Mi’raaj is cited by the Ulama-e-Haqq to support the rationality of the belief that the Ambiya were with their dunyawi personalities in Barzakh. The coprocreep, in his statement, has conceded that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with his physical body – his dunyawi personality – addressed the Ambiya in Barzakh. So how was this possible? By a miracle he was in two different houses at one and the same time? If the ‘miracle’ had made the ‘impossibility’ of the coprocreep possible on the Night of Mi’raaj, what precludes the re-enactment of the ‘miracle’ after the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?

In this averment, the coprocreep has trapped himself in a self-contradiction. Earlier he had claimed that this was impossible, now by the ‘miracle’ the impossible has become possible. The whole Mi’raaj from beginning to end was one wonderful Miracle. It was the command of Allah Azza Wa Jal. How can it be impossible for Allah Ta’ala to decree a dunyawi existence for the Ambiya in Barzakh? Again, we should remind the coprocreep that by ‘dunyawi’ is not meant the world. It is not being suggested that the Ambiya are in two different abodes at one and the same time. The Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) were performing Salaat in Barzakh. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) observed them with their dunyawi bodies performing Salaat. They were not invisible celestial souls whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw and spoke to.

Another interesting fact is that whislt the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) were in their Barzakhi life, they all were present in Musjidul Aqsa on the Night of Mi’raaj, where Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) led them in Salaat. Regardless of what interpretation is tendered, the fact remains that the Ambiya were present on earth during their Barzakhi life. This as well as many episodes of the Shuhada confirm that whilst they are in Barzakh they do appear on earth with Allah’s permission. Their Barzakhi life is undeniable, and so is the dunyawi dimension. The coprocreep’s confusion stems from his deficient understanding of the term ‘dunyawi’. He has stupidly concluded from this word that the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah entails the notion of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) being in two different abodes at one and the same time.

A being in Barzakh can, with Allah’s permission, make an appearance on earth or any where else in Allah’s universe, whilst he will still be in the state of Barzakh. His appearance on earth such as the appearance of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) in Musjidul Aqsa on the Night of Mi’raaj, does not negate the fact that they were in Barzakh. Barzakh is not a fixed physical abode such as the earth with geographic frontiers. It is the existence of human life after Maut until Qiyaamaah. While that phase of life in relation to man is described ‘Barzakh’, it is not Barzakh for the Angels who are present during this phase of human life. Wherever Allah Ta’ala allows the deceased person to reside or be in Barzakh, he/she will occupy that abode without Barzakh being negated. Thus, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) being in his Qabr Shareef with his blessed worldly (dunyawi) body in no way whatsoever negates Barzakh. The physical body can and does exist in Barzakh.

The earth does not consume the blessed bodies of the Ambiya and the Shuhada. Wherever Allah Ta’ala allows them to reside after their demise, that place is in the Realm of Barzakh notwithstanding the endurance of their physical (dunyawi) bodies and personalities. The coprocreep has spoken absolute rubbish. He is ignorant of the Shariah’s concept of Barzakh.

Dwelling aimlessly in his state of confusion, the coprocreep alleges:

“Also, if the prophets are alive due to the various evidences they bring, then why don’t they ever apply the dunyawi principle to the martyrs as well, who too have evidence that proves their life.”

From this statement it appears that the coprocreep is in fact denying the Hayaat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This statement appears to be the cat which has slipped out of the bag. The true belief of the coprocreep lies embedded in this statement. He asks:

‘If the prophets are alive due to the various evidences they bring…”

The logical conclusion of this question is that he does not believe in the Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). If this is indeed so, then Allah have mercy.

In fact, the Ahlus Sunnah does ‘apply the dunyawi principle’ to the Martyrs as well. It is our belief that the Shuhada too enjoy this kind of superior life in Barzakh, albeit of a lower level than the status of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). Confirming this belief, Allaamah Khalil Ahmed (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Al-Muhannad in response to the question posed by the Ulama of Haramain Shareefain:

“It (the life in the grave being dunyawi as well) is exclusive with him (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), all the Ambiya (salawatullaahi alayhim) and the Shuhada. It is not barzakhi as it is for all the Mu’mineen, in fact, for all mankind.”

This answer annihilates the erroneous conclusion the coprocreep has made regarding his imagined inconsistency relative to the belief of life in Barzakh for the Ambiya and the Shuhada. The Shuhada do enjoy a similar kind of life although of a lower category than the life of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam).

Inconsistently pursuing his claim of ‘inconsistency’ of the Ulama of Deoband, the coprocreep avers:

“Some Hayaati Deobandis have compromised and have invented ‘levels of life’ in the Barzakh – the highest being reserved for the prophets and they say this is strongest/closest to worldly life. Once again this is Batil.”

The claim that ‘levels of life’ do not exist in Barzakh is stupid and baatil. A high degree of Aql is not a requisite for understanding that a Muslim fornicator, bandit and murderer even if he has been forgiven will not occupy the same lofty level of life in Barzakh and Jannat as the Ambiya would. The contention of the coprocreep is astonishingly absurd. Will criminals and the Shuhada have the same level of life in Barzakh? And, for even the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) there will be different levels. The Qur’aan Majeed is explicit in stating that some Ambiya have higher ranks than other Ambiya. This difference in rank will not be obliterated in Barzakh, nor in Jannat. Islam does not propagate the communist doctrine of a classless society. Even in Jannat it will not be a classless society. There will be ranks above ranks, not only among the Ambiya and Shuhada, but also among the ordinary Mu’mineen. This argument of the coprocreep is too stupid to pursue further.

The coprocreep accuses the Ulama of Deoband of equating the life of Barzakh to the life of the world. The density of his sensorium constrained him to arrive at this stupid conclusion. No one has equated the superior life of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) in Barzakh to the inferior life of this world. The attributive word, ‘dunyawi’ is not an equation. It does not equate the superior life of Barzakh to the worldly life. It only explains man’s physical attributes and personality which constituted him in the world. These attributes and personality will not be annihilated in Barzakh. Insaan will remain Insaan in Barzakh. There is Hayaat for all human beings in Barzakh. But, the Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) is of the highest category. If life in Barzakh is negated, what then is the meaning of reward, comfort pain and punishment in the Qabr? What is the meaning of the questioning in the grave if hayaat is negated? The coprocreep compounds his rubbish with more and more rubbish.

Hayaat in the realm of Barzakh is undeniable. Denial of it is kufr. Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’aan Majeed regarding the Shuhada (Martyrs):

“Do not say about those who have been slain in the Path of Allah that they are dead. In fact, they are alive, but you are unaware.” (Baqarah, aayat 154)

“Do not think of those who have been slain in the path of Allah that they are dead. In fact, they are alive, by their Rabb they are being given rizq, enjoying the bounties Allah gave them from His kindness……..” (Aal-e-Imraan, aayats 269/170)

The Qur’aanic negation of ‘death’ for the Shuhada is the death as understood by human beings. The Qur’aan explicitly says: “Do not say that they are dead.”, despite the fact that they had died an earthly death – death as man understands it. The ‘life’ which the Shuhada have been granted is life which is the opposite of earthly death, hence the emphasis: “In fact, they are alive.” The Qur’aan tells us that they are alive just as we are alive here on earth prior to earthly death. In addition to them being alive, they are enjoying a variety of bounties and are being given sustenance (food) to eat.

Now when the Qur’aan Majeed confirms dunyawi life, albeit of a superior kind, for the Martyrs, then by what stretch of Islamic logic do the juhhaal deny this type of superior dunyawi life for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in particular, and the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) in general? There is neither logical impossibility nor Shar’i impossibility for the existence of this type of life in Barzakh. And, if it appears ‘impossible’ to the fossilized sensorium of coprocreeps, it matters not. The density of brains of deviates constrains them to deny simple and self-evident Qur’aanic facts.

The fact that the bodies of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and of the Shuhada do not decompose, is further evidence for the bestowal of dunyawi (i.e. physical) life of a lofty kind. It is undeniable to even the Salafis that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and the Shuhada are in Barzakh. By accepting that their bodies are intact, they have no logical reason for refuting the presence of the physical bodies of the Ambiya and Shuhada in Barzakh. Now whether their bodies are in the physical graves or transferred to some other abode, their presence in Barzakh is undeniable. Barzakh is not a physical abode with territorial boundaries such as the earth. It is therefore downright jahaalah to contend that a being cannot be in Barzakh and on earth at one an the same time. The impossibility would develop only if Barzakh was a distinct physical abode with physical boundaries. But Barzakh is a phase of existence which commences from after Maut and endures until Qiyaamah.

The coprocreep, we are sure, unless we are mistaken, believes that the mubaarak body of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is not the subject of decomposition. His body is intact. Now where is the mubaarak physical body of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Wherever it is, it is the physical body in the state of Barzakh. This is the meaning of dunyawi life which is a special bounty awarded to the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and the Shuhada.

In an extremely stupid and flabby attempt to bolster the Salafi denial of Hayaat for the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and the Shuhada, the coprocreep avers:

“….the bodies being preserved is not a sign of worldly life, but it is the divine order of Allah, for both the prophets as well as the martyrs. It is divine law in itself, not because the prophets are still alive in the worldly sense.”

Everything in creation is the ‘divine law’ of Allah Ta’ala. Nothing happens without His command. The Ahlus Sunnah do not contend that mere preservation of the physical bodies is the basis of the belief of the post-Maut Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and the Shuhada. A dead body could be preserved for ages in a deep freezer without it decomposing. No one will say that such preservation is a sign of worldly life. Nevertheless, the body preserved intact in a deep freezer on earth is in the state of Barzakh. Physical presence on earth does not negate the existence of Barzakh. While it is quite possible for the bodies of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and of the Shuhada to remain intact without life by the command of Allah Ta’ala, it is kufr to subscribe to such a corrupt belief because to do so would be in denial of the Qur’aan and other proofs stated in the Ahaadith.

The Qur’aan explicitly and emphatically declares life for the Shuhada, and warns against saying they are dead. Allah Ta’ala is addressing human beings and mentioning Maut and Death to them as they understand these two states. The Qur’aan tells us to refrain from saying that the Shuhada are dead – dead in the worldly sense, despite them having died a physical death. While their physical death is undeniable, it does not follow that no revival and restoration to physical life takes place in Barzakh. Aside from the fact that this is not a logical impossibility (mahaal-e-aqli), it is expressly confirmed in the Qur’aan that they are alive – alive in the way we understand life to be. The relevant aayaat stating the Hayaat of the Shuhada are not among the Mutashaabihaat (allegorical verses). They are matter of fact verses with literal meanings.

Furthermore, what exactly does the coprocreep mean by ‘worldly life’? It devolves on him to expound his theory of ‘worldly life’ to enable us to respond with greater clarity. Does he mean that the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and the Shuhada are dead, i.e. bodies without souls in Barzakh? But the Qur’aan says that they are alive – alive in the worldly meaning. This does not mean that they are living a worldly life as they lived prior to their death. It only means that their physical bodies are together with their souls. In other words they are completely Insaan (human), having their senses all intact, in fact to a far greater degree.

Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“The Ambiya are alive in their graves and perform Salaat.”

Imaam Baihaqi, in addition to narrating this Hadith from Allaamah Subki, also narrates it from Imaam Abu Ya’la. Commenting on the sanad of the Hadith narrated by Imaam Abu Ya’la, Allaamah Haithami said:

“The narrators of Abu Ya’la are thiqaat (reliable).” 

Allaamah Azeezi states in As-Sitaahun Niyarah: “This Hadith is Saheeh.”

Allaamah Ibn Hajar states: “Baihaqi has authenticated this Hadith.” (Fathul Baari, Vol.6, Page 352).

Mullah Ali Qaari narrates in Mirqaat, Vol.2, page 212:

“The narration that the Ambiya are alive in their graves is Saheeh.”

Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri states in Faidhul Baari, Vol.2, page 64:

“Haafiz Ibn Hajar concurred with Imaam Baihqi (regarding the authenticity of this Hadith).”

Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri also says:

“Many a’maal (acts of ibaadat) occur in the graves, e.g. Athaan and Iqaamah according to Daarmi, and recitation of the Qur’aan according to Tirmizi.” (Faidhul Baari, Vol.1, page 183)

Mufti Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianwi states:

“From the time of Khairul Quroon until the 14th century there was no difference in this mas’alah. All the Akaabir had elaborated on this mas’alah in their writings in their own style. Among the Akaabir of the Aslaaf some had written special treatises on this subject (the Hayaat of Rasulullah- sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They had substantiated with clarity the issue of the Hayaat of the Ambiya. It is a clear issue and a belief on which there exists the Ijma’ of the Ummah.

While the Hayaat of the Shuhada is proven by the clear text of the Qur’aan Kareem, the Hayaat of the Ambiya-e-Kiraam is proven from the Qur’aan Kareem by way of Dalaalatun Nass. May self-opinionated people be destroyed. They have introduced jahaalat (ignorance) in the name of research, and bid’ah in the name of Sunnah. On this fictitious basis so-called ‘muhaqqiqeen’ (researchers) have, in addition to interpolating in other Ijma-ee masaa-il, refuted this Aqeedah (of the Hayaat of the Ambiya).”

The coprocreep following blindly his jaahil Salafi handlers is at pains to show that the belief of Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) has been invented by the Ulama of Deoband about one and half centuries ago. He abortively tries to conceal the irrefutable fact that many centuries before the existence of Darul Uloom Deoband, this belief was entrenched in the Ummah, and that it has come down from the Khairul Quroon. Neither Imaam Suyuti nor Allaamah Subki, who both were Shaafis, was among the Ulama of Deoband. Darul Uloom Deoband had not even existed in that era many centuries ago. So why does the miserable coprocreep single out the Ulama of Deoband for his baseless criticism?

The Saheeh riwaayat of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) who is among the most senior Sahaabah, dismisses the rubbish belief of the coprocreep and his Salafi bosses.

The moron asks:

“If the Prophets were still living a worldly life then what was the need to wash our Prophet and perform Janaazah over him?” 

The stupidity of this argument is self-evident. But only morons fail to discern the stupidity. That Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) died a physical death in this world has never been denied. The Qur’aan also testifies that death will overtake Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The issue does not revolve around denial of his physical death – death as it occurs to all human beings. The issue is his life in Barzakh. The contention of the Ahlus Sunnah is that in Barzakh the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) enjoy a superior form of life – a life in which their bodies and souls exist together in the form of human beings. They are not in an abstract spiritual state. When the Qur’aan Majeed explicitly confirms such physical life for the Shuhada, then to a greater degree by way of Dalaalatun Nass, will the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) be enjoying a physical life in Barzakh of a higher degree than even the Shuhada.

With regard to the subsistence of Rasulullah’s marriages to his wives, this is a contentious issue among the Ulama. While some Ulama maintain that the marriages of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) subsisted even after his earthly death, others do not subscribe to this belief. However, the belief of the Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and the Shuhada is not based on the subsistence of Rasulullah’s Nikahs nor on the fact that the Ambiya do not leave an estate for inheritance. These are subsidiary issues which are presented to bolster the original belief of Hayaat which is not reliant on these masaa-il.

While the coprocreep calls on us to base our case on only the Qur’aan and Sunnah, he is in total denial of the Qur’aan by refuting Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam) and the Shuhada. What constrains these deviates to interpret away the verses stating emphatically the physical life of the Shuhada? They are falsifying the Qur’aanic aayaat solely to bolster the corrupt belief of their deviant Imaam. One of the fundamental issues of sharp conflict between the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah and the Wahhaabi Salafis is the belief of Rasulullah’s Hayaat in his blessed Grave. While the deviates deny Hayaat for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Ahlus Sunnah affirm it.

They also deny the authentic Hadith of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) who explicitly mentioned that the Ambiya are alive in their graves and perform Salaat. We have already cited above the references for the authenticity of this Hadith. Thus, the coprocreep blindly follows his deviant handlers whose corrupt beliefs he laps up like a dog licking up vomit.

The belief of the Hayaat of the Ambiya in their Graves is based on the Qur’aanic verse in which the Hayaat of the Shuhada is explicitly mentioned, and on the Ahaadith such as the narration of Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) who states this belief with great clarity, and on other Ahaadith in which it is mentioned that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw the Ambiya performing Salaat, and their performing Salaat behind him in Musjidul Aqsa. This is a belief which has come down in the Ummah from the age of the Sahaabah. Coprocreeps and the miscreant Salafis are in denial since they have strayed from the Siraatul Mustaqeem.

The first to deviate from Siraatul Mustaqeem regarding this belief was Ibn Hazam who denied the return of the souls of the Ambiya to their bodies. In his concept, ‘hayaat’, means the life of the soul – only a spiritual existence. This is palpably false since the Qur’aan categorically prohibits us from saying that the Shuhada are dead. The Qur’aan unequivocally say that they (i.e. the Shuhada – body and soul) are alive and by Allah they are being fed.) Allah Ta’ala addresses all the Mu’mineen and speaks to us in the terms that we understand. In order to refute the baseless notion of Ibn Hazam, the Ulama deemed it incumbent to describe the life of the Ambiya in the graves with the term ‘dunyawi’. In other words, they are alive with their physical bodies.

Their existence in the graves is not on the same level as the life of the ordinary Muslims and of entire mankind which includes the kuffaar. It is contumacious to even suggest that the hayaat of the Ambiya is the same as the hayaat of even the kuffaar who are all living in Barzakh at a level far below the lofty status and form of the Ambiya.

We really are not in need of these rational arguments to prove the dunyawi Hayaat of the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). The Qur’aan, Ahadith and the Ijma’ of the Salf-e-Saaliheen are more than adequate to confirm the veracity of this belief. Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn Hazam appeared on the scene several centuries after the Salf-e-Saaliheen of Khairul Quroon. Allaamah Samhudi (rahmatullah alayh), died 911 Hijri, states:

“There is no doubt in the Hayaat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) after his demise. The same applies to all the Ambiya (alayhimus salaam). They are alive in their graves. Their hayaat is of a higher status than the hayaat of the Shuhada about whom Allah Ta’ala has informed in His noble Kitaab.” “The proofs for the Hayaat of the Ambiya necessitate hayaat of the physical bodies such as was the condition in the dunya…..”
(Wafaaul Wafa, Vol.4)

Stating the belief in terms of the Shaafi’ Math-hab, Allaamah Taajuddin As-Subki (rahmatullah alayh), died 777 Hijri, states:

“Hadhrat Anas narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘The Ambiya are alive in their graves and are performing Salaat.’”

“According to us (the Shawaafi’), Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is alive, in his full senses…. The deeds of the Ummah are presented to him, and the Durood and Salaam (recited by the Ummah) reach him.”

“Among our Aqaaid (Beliefs) is that the Ambiya are alive in their graves. Where then is Maut? (i.e. How can he be dead when he is alive?). Imaam Baihqi (rahmatullah alayh) had authored a treatise on the Hayaat of the Ambiya in their graves. We have heard it.”
(Tabqaat, Vol.3)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh), died 852 Hijri, said:

“Verily, the Hayaat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in his Qabr is such that it will not be followed by Maut. On the contrary he will remain alive. The Ambiya are alive in their graves.” (Fathul Baari, Vol.7)

“When it has been substantiated by narrational proof that the Ambiya are alive, then rational proof also substantiates since the Hayaat of the Shuhada is established by the explicit text of the Qur’aan. The Ambiya are superior than the Shuhada.” (Fathul Baari, Vol. 6)

Among the Hanaabilah, Ibn Uqail (rahmatullah alayh) said:

“Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is alive in his Qabr and he performs Salaat.
(Raudhatul Bahiyyah, page 14)

Imaam Baihaqi (rahmatullah alayh), died 458, said:

“Verily, Allah Jalle Shanuhu has returned to the Ambiya their souls, hence they are alive by Allah as are the Shuhada……” (Hayaatul Ambiya, page 14; Sharhi Mawaahib Zurqaani, Vol.5)

Imaam Shamsuddin Muhammad Bin Abdur Rahmaan As-Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh), died 902 Hijri, said:

“We believe and we acknowledge that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is alive. He is being given Rizq in his Qabr. The earth does not consume his blessed body. There exists Ijmaa’ on this.” (Al-Qaulul Badee’, page 173)

Allaamah Jalaluddin Suyuti (rahmatullah alayh), died 911 Hijri, said:

“The Hayaat of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in his Qabr and of all the Ambiya is a fact known to us by such knowledge which is Qat’i (absolutely authentic). According to us the proofs for this are well established, and the narrations are Tawaatur indicating this fact.” (Al-Haawu lil Fataawa, Vol.2)

“Among the Tawaatur narrations from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the (narration) about the Hayaat of the Ambiya in their graves.” (Sharhul Bughawi, page 4)

Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (rahmatullah alayh), died 973 Hijri, said:

“The Ahaadith regarding Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) being alive in his Qabr performing Salaat with Athaan and Iqaamah, are undoubtedly authentic.” (Manhul Minnah, page 92)

Mullah Ali Qaari (rahmatullah alayh), died 1014 Hijri, states:

“Among the reliable beliefs is that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is alive in his grave just as all the Ambiya are alive in their graves. They are alive by their Rabb. Their souls have a relationship with the Ulwi (celestial) and Sifli (terrestrial) realms as was their dunyawi condition. With regard to the heart, they are of the Arsh, and with regard to the body, they are of the earth.”
(Sharh Shifa’, Vol.2)

Shaikh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlwi (rahmatullah alayh), died 1052 Hijri, said:

“There is consensus on the Hayaat of the Ambiya. There is no difference of opinion on this issue.” (Ash-atul Lam’aat, Vol.1)

Even Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhaab Najdi (rahmatullah alayh), died 1206, the Imaam of the Najdi Salafis, confirming the Hayaat of the Ambiya said:

“It is our belief that the status of our Nabi is totally superior to the ranks of creation. He is alive in his Qabr with perpetual life, superior than the life of the Shuhada about which the revealed Qur’aan explicitly mentions. This (superior life is) because he is the noblest of them without any doubt. Verily, (i.e. Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam)) hears those who recite Salaam on him.” (Ittihaaf, page 415)

Maulana Abul Ateeq Abdul Haadi Muhannad Siddique Najeebabaadi Al-Hanafi states:

“Verily, they (the Muhadditheen) are unanimous on the Hayaat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). There is no difference among them on this issue.” (Anwaarul Humood-Sharh Abi Dawood, Vol.11)

Alhamdulillah, the coprocreep’s alleged 4th inconsistencies are devoid of Shar’i and logical arguments. The Salafi belief regarding the Hayaat (Life) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is baatil.

Proofs That Deeds Are Presented to the Prophet
(sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

By Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hafiz al-Makki

Translator — The article below was published in Roshni, a religious supplement published each Friday with the Saudi-based Urdu News newspaper, in clarification of a column published a few weeks earlier, discussing a story about a man who was told on his death bed that he had been forgiven due to his devotion to sending Blessings and Peace (Salat wa Salam) to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) each morning.

The column also included a discussion on how, according to the writer, it is contrary to Islamic doctrine to believe that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is alive in his grave and that the Umma’s deeds are presented to him — viewpoints that Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hafiz felt compelled to clarify. The shaykh’s article was published on 4 Jumada ‘l-Ula, 1429 (9 May, 2008). Comments within square brackets are not part of the original article and have been included by the translator for clarity.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Hafiz writes:

There are a few points to note in Dr Sayyid Sa’id ‘Abidi’s article, Are Our Actions Presented to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)?, which appeared on page eight of the Roshni supplement on 27 Rabi’ al-Ula, 1429 (4 April, 2008).

In response to the above question, Dr ‘Abidi considers the story to be contrary to Islamic belief (‘aqida) and therefore makes some serious accusations against the author [of the book in which the story was originally mentioned]. In reality, the purpose of such stories, which the noble ‘ulama often include in their books, is not to explain belief but to encourage readers to diligently carry out actions mentioned within, as, sometimes, they are a means of gaining Allah Most High’s acceptance.

The author’s purpose [in narrating the story] was only to show that the mercy of Allah Most High turns to the writing and recitation of Blessings and Peace (Salat wa Salam) to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). It is unknown which action will be accepted; because of this one should persistently send Blessings and Peace to him. One should not consider such a deed to be trivial, as a great deal of encouragement to send Blessings and Peace to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has been narrated in the blessed hadiths. Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim and others have mentioned innumerable benefits of this. The purpose of narrating this story is not to explain belief; rather, it is to encourage the sending of Peace and Blessings. It is for this that senior ‘ulama — such as Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim, Hafiz Dhahabi and others — have always included such stories in their writings.

In fact, it has been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself that an immoral woman, seeing a thirsty dog at the side of a well, felt sorry and lowered her shoe inside. Having filled it, she gave the dog water to drink. On this, Allah Most High forgave her. It is not Islamic belief that is being explained here that — we seek refuge with Allah — sin as much as you want and then at the end feel sorry for an animal and feed it; you will be forgiven. Rather, Allah Almighty’s generosity and kindness is being explained that if He, who is the kindest of all (Akram al-akramin), wishes then he can even forgive such a sinful woman on such a small action. In other words, one is being encouraged to mercy the creation, something that draws Allah’s mercy.

Regarding the hadith about the deeds of the Umma being presented to the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), Dr ‘Abidi, in an unbefitting fashion, writes: “Were the actions of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) also presented to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) when he was alive? So, how and for what reason are they presented after the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) death?” Such boldness and disrespect is totally inapt.

The question of why actions are presented [as mentioned by Dr ‘Abidi in his article] remains. However, the Messenger of Allah has clarified this in that very hadith[1]: “Whatever good I shall see, I shall praise Allah for that; and whatever bad I shall see, I shall seek repentance on your behalf.” The purpose has been explained by the Prophet of Guidance and Mercy (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself — something at which Dr ‘Abidi and all of us should rejoice. May Allah Most High, through His bounty, accept the Messenger of Allah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) repentance on our behalf and forgive us all of our sins. Amin.

What remains now is the issue surrounding this hadith, which Dr ‘Abidi has separated into two parts and then individually explained at great length. Regarding this, it suffices to say that senior hadith scholars — those who have an extremely high standing in the subject — have considered it to be authentic (sahih). It is the words of these experts and specialists that will be relied upon and accepted. Personal opinions that run contrary to the views of these masters of hadith will definitely not be deliberated on. This is an accepted principle.

Hafiz ‘Iraqi says the chain of narration (isnad) of this hadith is excellent (jayyid). Imam Hafiz Haythami also mentions the same in Majma’ al-Zawa’id and writes that Imam Qastallani, the commentator of Sahih al-Bukhari, considers it to be authentic (sahih). The great hadith scholar, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari has also mentioned it to be authentic in Sharh al-Shifa and writes that Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti has mentioned it to be authentic in his books. Imam Munawi has mentioned it to be authentic in Fayd al-Qadir, likewise, Imam Zurqani in Sharh al-Mawahib has considered it to be authentic and so has Imam Shihab al-Khafaji in Sharh al-Shifa.

In addition, the hadith has been narrated mursal[2] from a different chain of narration — this has been mentioned by Hafiz Isma’il al-Qadi in Juz’ al-Salat ‘ala ‘l-Nabi. Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani writes that it is mursal sahih and Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi al-Hanbali has mentioned it authentic in his book Al-Sarim al-Munki. The great hadith scholar ‘Allama ‘Abd Allah al-Ghumari has also penned a booklet, entitled Nihayat al-Amal fi Sihha wa Sharh Hadith ‘Ard al-’Amal, solely on this hadith.

Further to this, Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi — who has been quoted by Dr ‘Abidi, and who is considered to be among those hadith scholars known for their critical research and stringency — has penned a brilliant two-volume book on the Prophet’s life, entitled Al-Wafa bi Ahwal al-Mustafa (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In its introduction to the book, Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi writes that he has only included authentic hadiths and kept it completely clear of lies. Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi also devotes an individual chapter comprising three hadiths to the subject — Al-Bab al-Sabi’ wa w’l-Arba’un fi ‘Ard ‘Amal Ummatihi ‘Alayh (The Forty-Seventh Chapter Regarding the Presentation of His Umma’s Action to Him).

The first of these hadiths has been narrated by Sayyiduna Aws ibn Aws (radhiyallahu anhu) that the Noble Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The best of your days is Friday. On that day Adam (peace be upon him) was created, on that day he died, on that day the Trumpet will be blown and on that day all of creation will swoon. So send a great deal of blessings upon me, for your blessings will be shown to me.” They said, “Oh Messenger of Allah, how will our blessings upon you be shown to you when you have turned to dust?” He said, “Allah has forbidden the Earth to consume the bodies of the Prophets (alayhimussalaam).

The second hadith is the one mentioned by Dr ‘Abidi — not the one from Sayyiduna ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, but one from Bakr ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Muzani, which is mursal and which Albani says is mursal sahih.

The third hadith has been narrated by Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “My life is also good for you in that wahy (revelation) comes to me from the sky and that I can inform you about what is permissible and what is impermissible; and my death is also good for you in that your actions will be presented to me every Friday. So whatever is good, I shall praise Allah for that; and whichever sins I shall see, I shall seek repentance on your behalf.

In sum, it can be said that the hadiths about the presentation of deeds — including the presentation of Peace and Blessings, as that is also a deed — have been narrated from three individuals: Sayyiduna ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik and Bakr ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Muzani (radhiyallahu anhum).

One of the hadiths regarding “peace and blessings” has been narrated from Sayyiduna Aws ibn Aws and one from Sayyiduna Abu ‘l-Darda’, which, at the end, includes the wording: “Hence the Messenger of Allah is alive and being given his sustenance.” This hadith [contrary to what Dr ‘Abidi writes in his article] has also been considered authentic by Hafiz Mundhiri, ‘Allama Zurqani, Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari, Qadi Shawkani and others. Further to this, the noble ‘ulama and great hadith scholars have said the ‘ulama are united (ijma’) that “the Noble Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is alive in his grave and is being given sustenance (rizq).”

Regarding this, Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim in his book, Zad al-Ma’ad, writes in detail that: “It is definitely known that the pure body of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is completely fresh in his blessed grave. The Companions (radhiyallahu anhum) asked the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) how Peace and Blessings would be presented to him after his death? At this, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah Most High has forbidden the Earth from consuming the bodies of the Messengers. If the Prophet’s pure body was not in the noble grave then he would definitely not have replied as such. Likewise, it has been authentically established from the Prophet that Allah Most High has appointed angels at his noble grave to convey the greetings of his Umma. It is also authentically established that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) once stood between Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar and said: ‘We will be raised like this.’

“With all these truths, it is also absolute that the Prophet’s blessed soul is in the Highest Heaven (A’la ‘Illiyyin) at the Rafiq al-A’la together with the souls of the other messengers (alayhimussalaam). Hence, the soul is there and is in connection with his pure body, which is in his blessed grave. The relationship between the soul and the body is such that the Prophet offers prayer (salat) in his noble grave and responds to the greetings of those who visit him. On the basis of this relationship between the soul and the body, he saw Sayyiduna Musa (alayhissalaam) offering prayer standing in his grave.”

In conclusion, there is no room for anyone to reject in anyway that which has been clearly mentioned in the blessed hadiths regarding the life of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the afterlife (barzakh) — this is regardless of whether one can or cannot comprehend the issue. One should supplicate to Allah Most High that He grants us the ability to make our minds and comprehension subject to that which is explicit in the Qur’an and Sunna — this is the straight path. May Allah grant us all steadfastness on it, and bestow us with His proximity by granting us sincerity and piety in all our actions and states. Amin.

 THE MARTYRS ARE NOT DEAD

Mufti Shafi’ in Ma’riful Qur’an

One who dies in the cause of Allah is a Shaheed (Martyr) and, although, it is correct and even allowed to call him “dead”, yet we are forbidden to regard their death like ordinary deaths. For, though, life in Barzakh is given to everybody which gives him perception of reward and punishment but Shaheed in the Barzakh life is qualitatively different from the one given to other persons. The distinction a Shaheed has over others in Barzakh is that in effect, for the fullness and sensitivity of life, his perception is, keener and deeper. As, for instance, the life sensation is there in finger tips, as also, it is there in heels, but the sensitivity of finger tips is sharper than that of heels. The effect of the finer life-quality of a Shaheed in Barzakh reaches his physical body as well; whereas ordinarily bodies remain unaffected. Consequently, a Shaheed’s body does not waste away, decay or mingle with dust. On the contrary it retains it freshness and a semblance of being alive too. This is duly endorsed by Ahadith and observations. They are, therefore, reported as living and we are forbidden to call them dead. However, for all worldly purposes they are treated at par with the dead; their properties are divided and their wives can remarry. Lives of prophets in Barzakh have a further distinction. Their life-sensitivity is even finer and keener than that of Shaheeds. In Barzakh their bodies retain their life-quality and, in some ways, its manifestation is extended to this life as well; their properties are not divided and their wives cannot again enter into wedlock.

The most strong in the retention of this life-quality are the prophets, then are the Shaheeds, then the ordinary human beings. Nevertheless, according to some ahadith some of the men of Allah and virtuous people share this excellence with Shaheeds. Apparently, those who die while exercising stringent discipline against their selves (Mujaahidatun Nafs) are ranked with Shaheeds. In other words, though this verse specifically refers to Shaheeds as against the broad humanity, it does not, for that reason, exclude the virtuous and the truthful. If, therefore, the body of a Shaheed returns to dust, as bodies of ordinary persons, generally do, the chances are that the person did not, perhaps, die in the cause of Allah which is the only criterion of martyrdom (Shahaadah).

In case a person who fulfilled all the prerequisites of martyrdom and, beyond, any doubt, died in the cause of Allah and whose martyrdom (Shahaadah) has been unmistakably and repeatedly demonstrated, his body must not, on the authority of a hadith, return to dust. If, in spite of Ahadith, the body mingles with earth (what, in fact, has made the author of Ruh al-Ma’ani doubt is how can, in spite of Ahadith, the body of a Shaheed be eaten away by earth) the explanation would be that according to Hadith the body would not return to dust; however, it does not deny the process of decay and decomposition caused by other factors like geo-chemical reaction, body enzymes, and bacteria. Neither does it confute the verse. Other compound objects like weapons, medicines, food, and the commingling of various natural elements like water, fire and air had, undoubtedly, their effects on the bodies of prophets in this world and, obviously, the life-quality of Shaheed in Barzakh is not superior to that of the prophets in this world; if, therefore, the other ingredients register their impact on the bodies of Shaheeds in Barzakh it does not confute, in any sense, the meanings of Ahadith which say the Shaheeds bodies are sacred to earth.

Another answer is that the distinction which Shaheeds have over others is apparent from the fact that, comparatively, their bodies remain unspoiled for a pretty long time, although the liklihood of their disentegration in the longer run does exist. The aim of the hadith should, therefore, be explained by saying that the immunity from decay for such a long time is, in itself, an excess on the customary behaviour of dead bodies. Eternal preservation, and preservation for a considerable long time, both are an “excess on the customary behaviour” of dead bodies. By the words, “Laa Tash’aroon”: “you perceive not”, the Holy Qur’an asserts the fact that the life in Barzakh transcends all sensory perceptions.

 HADITH ON THE HEARING OF THE DEAD

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani

‘Abd ibn Humayd narrated to us: Yunus ibn Muhammad narrated to us: Shayban ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman narrated to us: from Qatadah: Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated to us: he said: Allah’s Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

Verily when the servant is put in his grave, and his companions turn away from him, he hears the noise of their sandals” (Sahih Muslim)

The Issue of the Dead Hearing

His statement “he hears the noise”: this hadith is a proof for those who affirm the hearing of the dead and this is the position of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (rahimahullah) mentioned that it is the preferred view of ibn Jarir al-Tabari, ibn Qutaybah and most of the ‘ulama.

It was narrated from ‘A’ishah (radhiyallahu anha) that she opined that the dead do not hear and interpreted the hadith of the well of Badr (which contained the corpses of the disbelievers) [in this way]. A group of ‘ulama agreed with her on this. Al-Qadi Abu Ya’la from the great Hanbalis preferred this view. Ibn al-Humam (rahimahullah) mentioned that most Hanafi scholars take the view that the dead do not hear, using as proof His statement (Most High) “Truly thou canst not cause the dead to listen” (27:80) and “Thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves” (35:22) and for this reason, the Hanafis say: if one swears he will not speak to someone and he speaks to him when he is dead, he has not broken his oath.

The hadith of the chapter proves unequivocally that the dead hears the noise of the sandals of his companions. It is also authenticated from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) according to a hadith that is to come shortly that he addressed the disbelievers from the dead of Badr and said to the Companions (radhiyallahu anhum): “You do not hear better [than them] to what I say to them.” The two shaykhs [Bukhari and Muslim] transmitted it.

Hafiz ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) said in the commentary of Surah al-Rum (3:438): “The correct view according to the ‘ulama is the view of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, due to corroborations to its authenticity from many paths. From the most well-known of these is what ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrated, authenticating it, from ibn ‘Abbas in marfu’ form that ‘none passes by the grave of his Muslim brother that he knew in the world and greets him except Allah restores his soul to him and he returns the greeting to him.’ It is established from him that he instructed his ummah, when they greet the inhabitants of the graves to greet them with the greeting of one addressed [directly], thus the one greeting says ‘peace be on to you, abode of the group of believers’ and such an address is [only] for one who hears and thinks. Were it not so, this address would be akin to addressing an absent person or an inanimate object. The predecessors (salaf) are agreed on that as the narrations from them that the dead person knows of the visit of the living to him and rejoices are mass transmitted (tawatur).”

Despite this preponderant view in this issue, the moderate verifiers from the ‘ulama, did not adopt it. [They took the view that] it is the norm in the dead that they cannot hear, but it is not impossible that Allah Most High makes them hear a speech in some situations by way of breaking the norm and such an incidence has been established in the hadith of this chapter, in the hadith of the dead of Badr and in the hadith of ibn ‘Abbas which ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrated and authenticated. Hence, it is required that we believe in the hearing [of the dead] in these instances and stop short [at giving judgment] about other instances which no text is recorded about.

My father ‘Allamah Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ (rahimahullah) said in his Ahkam al-Qur’an (3:168): “The view of the generalisation of the hearing of the dead in every part of every moment is a statement [expressing] that which you have no knowledge and the view of its complete negation rivals the aforementioned cited texts. For this reason we say it is established in general, I mean in some times and not other times, for one person and not other persons, in some speech and not other speech, and by this explanation the texts and the cited narrations in this topic are in agreement.” He wrote at length in verifying this issue, listed the texts and narrations pertaining to it and spoke about them with moderation and balance in which the hearts find rest and the chest finds relief so whoever wants further detail should refer to it.

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim, vol. 6 pp. 188-9)

 QUESTION
What Aqidah should we have for the people that are dead? Some people say the Prophets are alive in their graves, is this true? Please give me evidence.

ANSWER
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

The belief (Aqidah) of the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah is that our beloved Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and all the other Prophets are alive in their graves.

This life is physical and worldly (dunyawiyyah), and not just a spiritual one with the sole (barzakhiyyah), as the latter is common for all the people. They are usually involved in performing Salat and worshiping Allah (out of their own choice and not binding on them), and we can normally not see or feel them.

This was the Aqidah held by the Sunni Muslims throughout the ages, and many books in Arabic have been written on this subject. The great Imam Suyuti (rahimahullah) compiled a whole work on this subject titled ‘Inba al-Azkiya bi Hayat al-Anbiya’ (Informing the intelligent regarding the living of the Prophets), in which he quoted many evidences in support of this belief. Similarly, other scholars such as: Imam al-Bayhaqi, Imam Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha’rani and Imam Ibn al-Qayyim in his book ‘al-Ruh (The Soul) have also written and gathered evidences with regards to this.

Evidences on the prophets remaining alive in their graves:

There are many evidences in the Qur’an, Hadith and sayings of the predecessors regarding the prophets remaining alive after death. Some are reproduced here:

1) Allah Most High says:

“And question thou (O Muhammad) our Messengers whom we sent before you. Did we appoint any deities other that Allah, Mot gracious, to be worshiped?” (Surah al-Zukhruf, 45).

Many commentators (mufassirun) of the Qur’an have stated in their respective exegeses that the living of the Prophets can be proved from this verse (See: Durr al-Manthur of Suyuti, Ruh al-Ma’ani by al-Alusi and others).

2) Allah Most High says:

“And say not of those who are martyred in the way of Allah, “they are dead”, nay, they are living, though you perceive it not” (Surah al-Baqarah, 154).

Regarding this verse, the great Hadith expert (hafidh), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) states in his monumental commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, ‘Fath al-Bari’:
“When the living of the martyrs is proven from the text of the Qur’an, then this is also proven from an analogical point of view. And the Prophets are superior then the martyrs” (Fath al-Bari, 6/379).

3) Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “On the night of Isra, the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) passed by the grave of Sayyiduna Musa (alayhis salaan), and found him performing Salat in his grave” (Recorded by Imam Muslim in his Sahih, and others).

4) Anas ibn Malik narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The Prophets are alive in their graves performing Salat” (Recorded by al-Bayhaqi in his ‘Hayat al-Anbiya’ and Abu Ya’la in his Musnad).

The above Hadith has been authenticated by many Hadith scholars, such as: Ibn Hajar, al-Haythami, Ali al-Qari, al-Munawi, al-Shawkani and others.

5) Aws ibn Aws (radhiyallahu anhu0 narrates the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as saying: “Send salutations in abundance on me on Friday, as your sending salutations are presented to me. The Companions inquired: “How is it possible that you receive our salutations when your body will have been decayed? The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily Allah has made forbidden on the earth that it eats the bodies of the Prophets” (Recorded by Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Darami and others, and authenticated by many, such as Ibn al-Qayyim).

6) Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “None of you greets me except that Allah returns my soul on me until I return his greeting” (Musnad Ahmad, 2/527 and Sunan Abu Dawud, 1/279).

7) Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “The Prophets are not kept in their graves for more than forty nights, but they remain worshiping Allah until the trumpet will be blown” (Sunan al-Bayhaqi).

Due to the fact that there are many narrations regarding the living of the Prophets (of which only a few have been reproduced as an example), Imam al-Suyuti (rahimahullah) is of the view that these narrations have reached the level of certainty (tawatur).

8) The great Hadith master, Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) states: “Death will never come to the blessed Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in his grave, rather he will remain alive, due to the fact that the Prophets remain alive in their graves” (Fath al-Bari, 17/22).

9) Imam al-Subki (rahimahullah) states: “It is from our beliefs that the Prophets are alive in their graves”. (Tabqat al-Shafi’iyya al-Kubra, 6/266).

10) The great Hanafi jurist, Allama Ibn Abidin (rahimahullah) says: “The Prophets are alive in their graves, as proven from the Hadith” (Rasa’il of Ibn Abidin, 2/203).

11) Imam al-Shawkani (whom the Salafis and La-Madhhabis normally refer to) states: “The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)) is alive in his grave, as has been established in the Hadith “The Prophets are alive in their graves”. (See: Nayl al-Awtar, 5/101).

12) Also, one of the major incidents that prove this, is the incident of Me’raj (Ascension of the Prophet to the heavens), where he met and conversed with many Prophets. He also led them in prayer in Masjid al-Aqsa.

The above evidences from the Qur’an, Hadith and the sayings of the predecessors (salaf) are sufficient to prove the fact that the Prophets remain alive in their graves after they pass away from this world. There are many other evidences which we have not mentioned here, due to the fear of prolonging our discussion.

This is the reason why this Aqidah has been held by the mainstream Sunni scholars throughout the eras. It is only recently that some people have objected to this view.

For more details on this subject in Arabic, one may refer to Imam Suyuti’s ‘al-Inba’ and Imam al-Bayhaqi’s ‘Hayat al-Anbiya’.

And Allah knows best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

 

Question
In one of your fatwahs you mentioned that all Prophets (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are alive in their graves. Could you please explain in what ways they are alive? JazakAllah Khair

Answer
The bodies of the Prophets are preserved and remain intact in the grave. This is mentioned by Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] himself and is authentically proven. The Prophets are also alive in their graves.

We do not know the reality and exact nature of the life of the Prophets [alayhis salaam] in their graves. However, it is mentioned in the Hadith that when a person comes to visit Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] and greets Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], he (Rasulullah) hears the greeting and also replies to the greeting. When a person sends greetings to Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] from far, the angels carry that salaams and convey it to Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam].

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai

 Question
Assalamu-alaikum, Brother, what are “Mamathees and Hayathees”? I will explain…a scholar called Maulana Yunus Nomani came to a local masjid, some people started to say do not give him charity because he is a “Mamathee”, they claim to be linked to the madrassah Deoband but are actually misguided. They were saying that they have belief like the “Wahhabis” like do not believe that the Prophet sallallaho alihi wasalam is alive which sometimes leads to becoming a “Usmani”(?????!!!!). They (the people who where talking about Maulana Younus Nomani) said that they are “Hayatis” and they believe that the Prophet salallahoalaiwasalam is alive and so are the other Prophets peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all and so are the Shaheeds. Please explain is this true about “Mamaathees and Hayatis”? What is Usmani? If it is true (about Mamathees and Hayathees) please tell me according to Qur’an and Sunnah who is right? Jazakallah

Answer
We are unaware of the terminology of Hayatees and Mamathees, however they seem to be referring to the famous controversial topic of Hayatul Ambiyaa (Are the Prophets Alaihimus Salam alive in their graves).

The view of the wahabi/Salafis is that Nabi sallalahu Alaihi wasallam and all the other ambiyaa as well are not alive in their grave. This view has been incorrectly attributed to the Ulama of Deoband. The correct view on the topic is that the Ambiyaa and Shuhadaa are alive in their graves, in a manner like that of their lives in this world, without having to do any Ibadat etc. (Hayaatun Dunyaweeyah bilaa Takleefin). This is the unanimous belief of the Ulama of Deoband and has been mentioned in the book “AL-Muhannad alal Mufannad” (Pg. 38) which clearly states the beliefs of the Ulama of deoband and which as been attested to by all the senior Ulama of deoband.

We are unaware of who is an Uthmani.

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

 QUESTION:

With regard to question no 3195 & 7729. Dear Mufti, could you give us proof from Qur’an and Sunnah what you have explain[ed] and you cliam that Ahlus sunnah Wal Jamaa beleive prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is alive in his grave….

The Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was a human being who suffered from sickness and real death the same as any other human being. Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning):

Verily, you (O Muhammad) will die, and verily, they (too) will die” [al-Zumar 39:30]

And We granted not to any human being immortality before you (O Muhammad); then if you die, would they live forever?” [al-Anbiyaa’ 21:34]

The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and was buried in his grave, hence al-Siddeeq Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “Whoever used to worship Muhammad, Muhammad has died, but whoever used to worship Allaah, Allaah is alive and will never die.”

ANSWER:

In your question, you have quoted a few Aayats and the incident of Abu Bakr (Radhiallaahu Anhu). In actual fact, these have nothing to do with Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) being alive in his grave because the Aayat and the incident of Abu Bakr (Radhiallaahu Anhu) have to do with Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) passing away from this Dunyaa. This is an accepted fact. Everyone agrees that Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) passed away for this earthly life.

Everyone also agrees that Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) is alive in his grave but what has to be understood is how is Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) alive in his grave. If this is understood, I am sure that your objection will evaporate.

Firstly, it should be known that after the death of a person, the life of Barzakh (interval between death and resurrection) takes place. In this regards, both the Muslim and the Kaafir are equal. This is the view of Ahlus sunnah wal Jamaa. This has been proven through many Ahaadith. To cite a few: “When a person is placed in his grave and his companions depart from him, verily, he hears their footsteps, two angels come to him, they make him sit up, then they address him…” (Mishkaat pg.24; Qadeemi)

Once a Jewess came to Aaisha (Radhiallaahu Anha), she spoke about the punishment of the grave and then said, “May Allah protect you from the punishment of grave.” Later, Hadhrat Aaisha (Radhiallaahu Anha) questioned Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) concerning the punishment of the grave. Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) replied, “Yes, the punishment of the grave is Haqq…” (Mishkaat pg.25; Qadeemi)

These Ahaadith explicitly prove that after a person passes away, he enters into a different phase of living and this is the life of Barzakh. However, in regards to this life there are various levels. Allah Ta’ala says in regards to the Shuhadaa, “And do not term those who have been killed in the path of Allah as dead. In fact, they are living but you perceive not.” (Baqarah 153). From here, it is even more evident that a person dying in the world does not affect his status of being alive in the life of Barzakh.

The question that now arises is, what is the meaning of them being alive? Mufti Shafi (rahimahullah) commentating on this verse in his Ma’ariful Qur’aan explains, “It is well known that from the Islamic viewpoint, every dead person has a special type of life in Barzakh through which he experiences either punishment or enjoyment. However, there are different levels in this life. There is the level which is general for all, and there are special levels for the Ambiyaa, the martyrs and the pious.” With regards to the reality of those levels, the best explanation is given by Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahimahullah) in his Bayaanul Qur’aan.

The difference between the life of a martyr and of a normal person is that the effects of life is stronger in a martyr. Its example is that of the difference of feeling between the fingertips and the heel of the foot. Life flows in both of them, but feeling and perception is much greater in the fingertips. In the same manner is the effect of life greater in the martyr to the extent it even affects the body of the Shaheed in that it stays fresh in the grave and does not decompose, as is substantiated in the Ahaadith and from eye-witness accounts. This effect of life is only in regards to Barzakh, therefore, in Dunya all the laws that apply to a dead person will also apply to the martyr, his inheritance will be divided and his wife will be able to marry another person. A similar type of life is granted to the Anbiyaa but the effect of their life is even stronger to the extent that together with their bodies being preserved, some effects of their lives in Barzak also become apparent in Dunyaa, hence, their inheritance is not divisible and neither can their wives remarry.

This is what we mean when we speak of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) being alive in his grave. Now for some proofs:

From Aayat 2:253, it is proven that the martyrs are alive in their graves. Which this is established for the martyrs, then it is also established for the Anbiyaa, because:

This position has been bestowed on the martyrs as an honour for them. There is no doubt that there is no rank higher than the rank of the Anbiyaa and that the position of the Anbiyaa is higher and more perfect than the position of all the Shuhadaa. Therefore, it is impossible that this honour is given to the Shuhadaa and the Anbiyaa remained deprived of it;

This position is granted to the Shuhadaa is a recompense for their Jihaad and for spending their lives in the way of Allah. Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) was the one who instituted this practice, who called them to this practice and guided them towards it. Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) has said, “Whoever institutes a noble practice, for him is its reward and the reward of those who act on it until the day of Qiyaamah.”

Anas ibn Maalik (Radhiallaahu Anhu) narrates that Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, “The Anbiyaa (Alayhis salaam) are living in their graves, they perform Salaat.” (Majmauz-zawaaid vol.8 pg.211)

The lives of the Anbiyaa (Alayhis salaam) are also proven through the Ahaadith of Mi’raaj narrated by Bukhari and Muslim where it is mentioned that Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) led the Anbiyaa (Alayhis salaam) in Salaat and also his meeting them in Jannah.

Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiallaahu Anhu) narrates that Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, “Verily, Allah has angels travelling through the earth, they bring to me the salaams of my Ummah.” (Targheeb wat Tarheeb vol.2 pg.498)

Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, “Whoever recites Salawaat upon me in my presence, I hear it and whoever sends Salawaat to me and he is not by me, his Salawaat is brought to me.” (Nasaaie)

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

REGARDING THE ‘MAMATI’ SECT 

Maulana Hamood from sunniforum.com states:

“…The mamatis have been categorically rejected by all the senior Deobandi scholars of our times, many seminaries in Pakistan don’t even allow them admission and they are booted out if caught studying under-cover. Our scholars consider them outside the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah wa ‘l-Jama’ah. Nobody does their takfir although there have been a few among their ranks who have fallen into kufr because in trying to deny the hayat of the Prophet they went so far that they ended up insulting and disrespecting the Prophet .May Allah save us from their evil.

The Aqidah of Hayat al-Anbiya is certainly an essential aspect of our maslak, those who deny it should not associate themselves with the Akabir of Deoband. In the eyes of our ‘ulama, there is no valid ikhtilaf on this issue.

Those who can understand Urdu and would like to know more about this subject should read Taskin al-Sudur fi Ahwal al-Mawta wa al-Qubur of Allamah Sarfraz Khan Safdar (ra). He has thoroughtly refuted their false beliefs and also their dancing around the issue by saying the Prophets are “alive” but not really alive because they are alive in barzakh. Something which we may have already witnessed already on this thread.”

Maulana Zameelur Rahman quotes from the above mentioned book:

“There is also this on p. 37 which should leave no doubt about the position of the Deobandi Akabir:

The Way of the Elders of Deoband from the Present Age in Relation to the Issue of the Life of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan) and their Unanimous Announcement

With respect to the holy revered personality, the Noble Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and all noble prophets (alayhimussalaam), the way of the elders of Deoband is this:

1. that after [their] demise they are alive in their graves;
2. and their sacred bodies, themselves, are preserved;
3. and with the material body, they enjoy a life in the Barzakh World;
4. and it is similar to the Dunyawi Life.

It is only that they are not burdened with the laws of Shari’ah. Nonetheless, they even offer prayers. That blessing (durud) which is recited at the sacred garden [i.e. the grave], he hears it directly.

This is the way of the majority of the hadith masters and the theologians of the Ahl al-Sunnah.

Such clarifications are available in various treatises of the elders of Deoband. An independent write-up of Hazrat Mawlana Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi (rahimahullah) on the life of the prophets with the title Abe Hayat is available. Hazrat Mawlana Khalil Ahmad Sahib (rahimahullah), who was from the most upright of the successors of Hazrat Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahimahullah), his treatise al-Muhannad ‘ala l-Mufannad is sufficient for the people of fairness and the people of insight.

At present, those who assert [a belief] contrary to this way, this much is certain, that they have no connection to the way of the elders of Deoband.

And Allah speaks the Truth, and He guides to the [right] path.

[Signatories] 

1. Mawlana Muhammad Yusuf Binnori (Allah pardon him) – Madrasah ‘Arabiyyah Islamiyyah, Karachi
2. Mawlana ‘Abd al-Hayy (may he be pardoned) – Muhtamim, Dar al-‘Ulum Haqqaniyyah, Akora Khattak
3. Mawlana Muhammad Sadiq (Allah pardon him) – Previous Nazim, Mahkamah Umur Mazhabiyyah, Saharanpur
4. Mawlana Zafar Ahmad al-‘Uthmani (Allah pardon him) – Shaykh al-Hadith, Dar al-‘Ulum Islamiyyah
5. Mawlana Shams al-Haqq (Allah pardon him) – Head, Wifaq al-Madaris al-‘Arabiyyah, Pakistan
6. Mawlana Muhammad Idris (may Allah be for him) – Shaykh al-Hadith, Jami’ah Ashrafiyyah, Lahore
7. Mawlana Mufti Muhammad Hasan, Muhtamim, Jami’ah Ashrafiyyah, Lahore
8. Mawlana Rasul Khan (Allah pardon him) – Jami’ah Ashrafiyyah, Nila Gumbad, Lahore
9. Mawlana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ (Allah pardon him) – Muhtamim, Dar al-‘Ulum Karachi
10. Mawlana Ahmad ‘Ali (may he be pardoned) – Amir, Nizam al-‘Ulama and Amir, Khuddam al-Din, Lahore

These are ten in total.

Rabi’ al-Awwal 1380 H, September 1960″

Taskeen as Sudoor p. 37

***********************************

(Courtesy: reliablefatwas.com)

The Issue of the Ambiguous Attributes of Allah

[An original Deoband.org article
By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Translated by Zameelur Rahman]
image

Zuhayr ibn Harb and Ibn Numayr narrated to me: both of them from al-Muqri’. Zuhayr said: from ‘Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Muqri’: he said: Haywah narrated to us: Abu Hani informed me: that he heard Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Hubuli: that he said: ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-’As (radhiyallahu anhu) says: that he heard Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say:

“Verily all the hearts of the children of Adam are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful like one heart. He disposes of them however He wills.” Then Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “O Allah! Disposer of Hearts, dispose our hearts to Your obedience.” (Sahih Muslim)

His statement “two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful”: al-Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “This is one of the hadiths of attributes and there are two views in regards to them which have just preceded:

One of them is to believe in them without venturing into
ta’wil (interpretation) or trying to understand its meaning. Rather, one believes it is the truth and that its outward purport is not intended. Allah Most High said: ‘Naught is as His likeness’ (42:11).

And the second is to interpret them in a manner that is befitting. According to this, the intended meaning is figurative. This is just as is said, ‘such and such a person is in my grasp and in my palm’; it is not intended by it that he took up residence in his palm, rather the intent is: he is under my power. It is said, ‘such and such a person is between my two fingers, I turn him however I wish’ i.e. that he is under my control and I will dispose of him how I wish. Thus, the meaning of the hadith is that He (Glorified and High is He) disposes of the hearts of His servants and other hearts besides them however He wills. None of them are thwarted from him, and what He intends does not escape Him, just as what is between the two fingers of man is not thwarted from him. Thus, He addresses the Arabs [in a manner] by which they will understand it and the like of it by [making use of] sensual meanings that give assurance to their souls. If it is said: Allah’s Power is one, and ‘two fingers’ (isba’an) is for duality, the response is that it has preceded that this is figurative and metaphorical, so the simile (tamthil) occurred in accordance to what they are used to without intending thereby duality or plurality. And Allah knows best.”

The weak servant (Allah pardon him) says:

Imam al-Nawawi (rahimahullah) only mentioned two paths (madhhabs) of the‘ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah in the likes of these texts which attribute a finger to Allah (Most High), or a hand, or a palm, and other things besides these.

The first of them is the path of tafwid (relegation) and this is the position of the majority of the muhaddithin (hadith scholars) and predecessors (salaf), and the second is ta’wil (interpretation), and this is the position of most mutakallimin (scholastic theologians).

There is a third path which a group of the predecessors took, and al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, ‘Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahumullah) preferred, and it is that the intended meaning of “finger” is its literal sense (ma’naha l-haqiqiyyah) but it is an attribute of Allah (Most High), is not a limb and is not like the fingers of creation, rather its kayfiyya (modality) is unknown.

‘Allamah Ibn Daqiq al-’Id mentioned a fourth method which was approved by many ‘ulama. He said: “We say about the problematic attributes, it is true and truthful according to the meaning Allah intended. Whoever interprets it, we consider [the interpretation]. If its interpretation is close, in accordance with the language of the Arabs we do not reject it, and if it is distant, we refrain from it and return to affirming [the intended meanings of the attributes] while declaring transcendence. That which is from the attributes whose meaning is apparent and clearly understood from the conversation of the Arabs we understand it in accordance with that, like His statement ‘In that I neglected the side of Allah (janb Allah)’ (39:56), for indeed the intended meaning of it in their popular usage is ‘duty to Allah (haqq Allah)’, so there is no hesitation in understanding it in accordance with this [meaning]. Similar is his statement: ‘Verily, the heart of the son of Adam is between the two fingers of the Most Merciful’, for indeed the intended meaning of it is that the will of the son of Adam’s heart is controlled by Allah’s Power and what He brings down on it.” Al-Hafiz transmitted this in Fath al-Bari (13:383), Kitab al-TawhidBab ma Yudhkaru fi l-Dhati wa l-Nu’ut

All four paths are conceivable (muhtamilah). Multitudes of the verifying scholars have taken every one of them. For indeed the important thing in creed (‘aqidah) is declaring Allah (Most High) beyond tashbih (comparison) and ta’til (negation), and every one of these four paths is firmly convinced of this. The difference between them is not a difference in creed, for indeed the creed is declaring Allah beyond tashbih and ta’til, and it is only a difference of opinion in expressing that creed and basing them on the texts. So not one of these paths is entirely baseless or absolutely misguided, even if theoretical debates and arguments have not ceased to run between them for many centuries. Occasionally browbeating, exaggeration and excess occurred in them from the various sides and occasionally one of them steered in the direction of trespassing the limits of moderation, but the truth is that the basis of the dispute is nothing but an ijtihadi (judgemental) dispute, akin to the differences of the fuqaha (jurists) in juristic matters which are open to interpretation (mujtahad fiha). For this reason, outstanding scholars of the ummah, adherent devotees to the Book and the Sunnah of whose being from the people of truth and from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah is not in doubt, took every opinion from these four opinions.

It is apparent that the path of the majority of the predecessors (salaf) was tafwid, and this is the safest, most prudent [path] and most in accordance with His statement (Most High): “no one knows its interpretation except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: we believe therein’” (3:7). We have spoken on this matter in some detail in our writings around Tafsir ‘Uthmani which is from the sum of our Arabic essays. See, for elaboration of all sides of the matter, Kitab al-Asma’ wa l-Sifat by al-Bayhaqi, Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih by Ibn al-Jawzi, Sharh Hadith al-Nuzul by Ibn Taymiyyah and Bawadir al-Nawadir by Shaykh Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (Allah Most High have mercy on them).

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim Vol 5. pp. 379-80)

***************************

Note: This article was originally taken from here

The Divine Attributes: Ahlus Sunnah vs. Mujassimah (Psuedo-Salafiyyah)

The  Belief  of  Ahlus  Sunnah  wa  l-Jamā‘ah

In  the  view  of  Ahlus  Sunnah  wa  l-Jamā‘ah,  Allāh  (subhānuhū  wa  ta‘ālā)  is  totally  unlike  His creation.  There  is  nothing  in  His  essence  (dhāt),  attributes  (sifāt)  or  actions  (af‘āl)  that  resembles in any  way  anything  found  in  creation.  This  is  the  clear  position  of  Ahlus  Sunnah,  and  is  the decisive  and  definitive  verdict  given  by  the  Qur’ān,  Sunnah,  sayings  of  the  Salaf  and  the  Ahlus Sunnah  who  followed. Allāh  (subhānuhū  wa  ta‘ālā)  says in  the  Qur’ān:  “No  thing  is  as  His  likeness.”  (42:11) ءيش هلثمك سي This  verse,  which  is  the  foundation  for  Sunnī  doctrine  concerning  the  oneness  and  uniqueness of  Allāh  (subhānuhū  wa  ta‘ālā),  expressly  negates any  and  all  similarity  between  Creator  and creation.  There  are  a  few  points  to  note  about the  verse:

1.  The  form  of  the  sentence  is  “nafy  (negation)  in  the  context of  nakirah  (an  indefinite noun).”  Shay’  (thing)  is  an  indefinite  noun  and  it has  been  negated  using  the  word  laysa. It  is  an  established  principle  of  Nahw  (Arabic  grammar)  that  a  nafy  in  the  context  of nakirah  connotes  total  negation.  In  other  words,  the  form  of  the  sentence  grammatically entails  that  there  is  absolutely  nothing  whatsoever  that  resembles  Allāh  (subhānuhū  wa ta‘ālā).

2.  The  terms  used  for  resemblance  in  this  verse  are  two:  one  particle  (harf),  ka  (like),  and one  noun  (ism),  mithl  (likeness).  This  compounding  of  terms  used  for  resemblance negates the  minutest  possible  similarity.  For  instance,  if one  were  to  say,  “Zayd  is  not  a lion”  (laysa  Zaydun  asadan),  this  would  negate  only  a  gross  resemblance.  If  one  were  to say,  “Zayd  is  not  like  a  lion”  (laysa  Zaydun  ka  asadin),  this  would  negate  similarity  with  a lion  to  a  greater  degree.  And  if one  were  to  say,  “Zayd  is  not  as  the  likeness  of  a  lion,” (laysa  Zaydun  ka  mithli  asadin)  it  would  be  to  negate  any  similarity  between  Zayd  and  a lion.  

Imām  al-Bayhaqī  (384  –  458  H) said: “When  Allāh  intended  to  negate  tashbīh  (making  a  resemblance  between  Allāh  and  His creation)  in  the  most emphatic  way  that  a  negation  can  [possibly]  be  made,  He  put together  in  our  recitation  the  particles  of  similitude  (i.e.  ka)  with  the  noun  of resemblance  (i.e.  mithl),  so  that  the  negation  is  emphasised  to  the  utmost.”  (Al-Asmā’  wa l-Sifāt,  2:34)

The  word  mithl  (likeness)  is  the  broadest  term  of  equation.  It  incorporates  similarity  in every  possible  dimension,  whether  in  appearance,  qualities  or  actions.  Other  words  of equation,  like  shaklnidd  and  musāwī  are  narrower  than  mithl.  Hence,  this  entails  a negation  of  similarity  in  all  respects,  as  it  means,  “no  thing  is  as  His  likeness  in  any respect.”

Imām al-Rāghib al-Asbahānī said in Mufradāt al-Qur’ān: “Mithl  is  an  expression  about resemblance  with  something  in  any  property  from  its properties,  whatever  property  it may  be.  It  is  broader  than  other  words  designated  for resemblance.  That  is,  nidd  is  said  about  something  that  shares in  essence  only,  shibh  is said  about  something  that  shares in  quality  only,  musāwī  is  said  about  something  that shares in  quantity  only,  shakl  is  said  about  something  that  shares in  measure  and  distance only.  Mithl  is  broader  than  all  of  that.  This  is  why  when  Allāh  (Exalted  is  He)  wished  to negate  tashbīh  from  every  dimension,  He  mentioned  this  specifically,  so  He  said:  laysa  ka mithlihī shay’.”  (al-Mufradāt,  p.  597)

Hence,  the  verse  is  absolutely  categorical  in  its  indication  that  Allāh  (subhānuhū  wa  ta‘ālā)  is totally  unlike  His  creation.   As  for  rational proof,  if  we  were  to  assert  that  there  was  any  similarity  between  Allāh  and  His creation,  it would  entail  that  the  beginningless  entity,  Allāh,  has  within  Him  some  attributes  of temporal or  originated  entities.  This  would  entail  that  the  beginningless  is  originated,  at  least  in some  aspects,  and  that  is  absurd,  as  “beginningless”  is  the  opposite  of  “originated”  and  they cannot  come  together.  Imām  al-Bayhaqī  expressed  this  in  the  following  words: “Further,  it is  known  that  the  Creator  of  creation  does  not  resemble  anything  of  the  creation, because  if He  resembled  any  originated  thing  in  any  way,  He  would  resemble  it in  origination from  that  aspect,  and  it is  impossible  for  the  beginningless  to  be  temporal,  or  beginningless from  one  angle  and  temporal from  another.”  (al-I‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād,  p.  37)

Furthermore,  if any  aspect  or  quality  of  temporality  were  to  exist  in  the  necessary  and beginingless  existence  of  Allāh  (subhānuhū  wa  ta‘ālā),  the  same  laws  that  apply  to  temporal entities would  apply  to  Him.  For  temporal entities,  their  being  and  attributes  are  only  possible, whereas  for  Allah  they  are  necessary. 

And  it is  not  possible  for  something  to  be  possible  and necessary  simultaneously. As  for  the  recorded  view  of  the  Salaf,  Imām  Abū  Ja‘far  al-Tahāwī  (239  –  321  H) transmitted from  the  founders  of  the  Hanafī school,  Imām  Abū  Hanīfah  (80  –  150  H),  Imām  Abū  Yūsuf (113  –  182  H)  and  Imām  Muhammad  al-Shaybānī  (132  –  189  H)(rahimahumullah): “Whoever  describes Allāh  with  a  meaning  (or  property)  from  the  meanings  (or  properties)  of man,  he  has  disbelieved.”

Here,  Imām  al-Tahāwī (rahmatullah alaih) is  clear  that  it is  not  the  wording  or  outward  expressions  that  matter,  but the  meaning  and  substance.  If  any  actual  or  ontological reality  of  a  created  being  is  believed  to exist  in  Allāh,  that  is  comparing  Him  to  creation  and  is  disbelief.   As  for  the  later  Ahlus  Sunnah,  the  books  of  ‘aqīdah  have  clearly  incorporated  this  fundamental doctrine  into  the  very  foundation  of  Islāmic  belief,  Tawhīd.  In  defining  Tawhīd,  Shaykh  Burhān al-Dīn  Ibrāhīm  al-Laqānī  al-Mālikī rahimahullah (d.  1041  H)  and  many  others  said: “It  is  to  single  out  the  Deity  for  worship,  along  with  believing  in  His  oneness,  in  essence, attributes  and  actions.” (Hidāyat  al-Murīd  li Jawharat  al-Tawhīd,  1:83) 

The  commentators  of  Jawharat  al-Tawhīd  and  other  ‘aqīdah  texts  explain  that  oneness  in  essence means:  Allāh  has  only  one  being  and  there  is  nothing  else  akin  to  His  being;  oneness  in attributes  means:  He  has  only  one  of  each  attribute,  like  power,  knowledge,  hearing,  seeing  and will,  and  no  other  being  has  an  attribute  akin  to  it in  any  way;  and  oneness  in  actions  means:  He alone  is  the  true  active  agent  in  the  created  realm,  bringing  things  into  being  from  nonbeing  and taking  things  out  of  existence  after  existence,  and  no  other  being  has  any  real  action. Hāfiz  Ibn  Hajar  al-‘Asqalānī rahimahullah (d.  852  H)  states in  Fath  al-Bārī  on  the  meaning  of  Tawhīd according  to  Ahlus  Sunnah: “As for  the  Ahlus  Sunnah,  they  explain  Tawhīd  as  negating  similarity  [with  Allāh]  and [negating]  nullification  [of  His  attributes].  Thus,  al-Junayd  [al-Baghdādī]  said  in  that  which  Abu l-Qāsim  al-Qushayrī related:  ‘Tawhīd  is  to  single  out  the  Beginningless  from  the  temporal.’” (Fath  al-Bārī,  13:421)

The  Attributes  of  Allāh

Once  the  above  has  been  settled,  the  question  arises:  what  of  the  established  attributes  and names  of  Allāh  which  have  counterparts  within  creation,  like  knowledge,  hearing,  seeing,  life, speech,  power,  will and  so  on?? Do  they  not  suggest that  there  is  indeed  some  degree  of similarity  between  Creator  and  creation??

In  answer  to  this,  it must  firstly  be  understood  that  true  similarity  or  resemblance  between  two entities  occurs  only  in  their  actual external realities,  meaning,  in  things that  have  actual  existence or  an  ontological  reality  in  the  beings of  those  entities.  Based  on  this,  the  following  aspects will not  be  considered  true  resemblance  as  they  do  not  entail  any  similarity  in  the  external  realities of  the  entities:

1.  The  consequences  or  relations of  attributes.  For  example,  the  consequence  of  “hearing” is  to  perceive  sounds.  However,  this  is  not  the  reality  of  hearing  as  it subsists  in  the being  of  the  entity  that  hears.  The  reality  of  hearing  as  we  know  it  is  “to  perceive  sounds with  the  two  ears.”  This  reality  is  restricted  to  creation.  As  for  the  reality  of  the  hearing of  Allāh,  there  is  absolutely  no  similarity  of  it  with  creation,  and  we  are  not  aware  of  it. We  do  know  the  consequence  of  it,  however,  which  is  “to  perceive  sounds.” 

This  degree of  similarity  in  the  consequences  of  the  attributes  entails  no  similarity  in  the  actual realities  of  the  entities themselves.  In  other  words,  by  stating  that  sounds  are  not  hidden to  Allāh,  or  that  they  are  disclosed  to  Him  by  virtue of  a  particular  attribute  He possesses called  sam‘,  says nothing  about  a  description  of  the  external  reality  of  this attribute  in  the  being  of  Allāh.  Similarly,  Allāh’s  attributes  of  knowledge,  power,  seeing, will and  life  are  understood  according  to  the  dictates or  relations of  these  attributes  and not  on  how  they  subsist  in  the  being  of  Allāh.  These  attributes  according  to  the  Ahlus Sunnah  (as  opposed  to  the  Mu‘tazilah  and  Jahmiyyah)  do  enjoy  a  real,  unchanging  and non-temporal  ontological  existence  within  the  essence  of  Allāh.  That  reality  however  is beyond  the  human  mind  and  is  absolutely  incomprehensible,  as  Imām  al-Tahāwī rahimahullah mentioned in his ‘Aqīdah:

“Imaginations do  not  reach  Him,  comprehensions do  not  grasp  Him.”

This  is  applicable  to  many  other  attributes,  like  mercy,  love,  anger,  pleasure  and  so  on. The  famous  early  Ash‘arī scholar,  Abū  Bakr  ibn  Fūrak rahimahullah (d.  406  H) ,  said  about the  mercy of Allāh as it comes in one particular hadīth: “The  mercy  itself  [as  it subsists  in  the  essence  of  Allāh]  may  not  retreat  or  proceed  with a  limit  or  end,  because  it is,  according  to  us,  an  attribute  from  the  attributes  of  His essence  that  He  has  borne  in  eternity.  What  is  intended  here  is  an  indication  to  the mercy  which  you  attain  from  Allāh,  because  that  which  comes  about  from  something and  is  connected  to  it is  often  given  its  name,  just  as  something  that  appears  from  the power  of  Allāh  (Glorified  is  He)  from  His  actions  is  called  ‘the  power  of  Allāh.’  The meaning  of  this  is  that  it came  about from  His  power.  Similarly,  that  which  appears from  one  with  pre-eternal mercy  may  be  called  mercy  by  way  of  flexibility  in  speech.” (Mushkil  al-Hadīth,  p.  112)

In  other  words,  when  we  describe  attributes  like  hearing,  seeing,  power,  knowledge,  will, life,  mercy,  love,  anger,  pleasure  and  so  on,  we  are  not  describing  them  as  they  subsist  in the  essence  of  Allāh,  as  that  can  never  be  comprehended.  Rather,  we  describe  their connections,  relations,  outcomes  and  so  on.

  However,  this  does  not  mean  we  negate that  they  have  a  beginningless,  unchanging  and  intangible  reality  in  the  essence  of  Allāh as the Mu‘tazilah do. This  also  applies to  divine  actions.  If  we  say  a  worldly  ruler  “honours”  or  “debases”  one of  his  subjects,  the  reality  of  this  action  would  be  to,  for  example,  write  a  decree  and send  it to  a  governor  to  exalt  or  lessen  his  rank.  The  consequence  of  this  action  is  for the  subject  to  have  a  higher  or  lower  position.  When  we  say  Allāh  “honours”  or  He “debases,”  the  reality  of  this  action  bears  absolutely  no  resemblance  to  the  reality  of  the action  of  man.  However,  its  relation,  in  terms of  the  effect  the  action  produces,  may bear  some  resemblance. 

This  is  not  similarity  in  the  external  realities  of  these  attributes but in a relational or consequential property.  Another  example  is  “existence”  itself.  Existence  is  a  relational  attribute  that  merely conveys  the  reality  that  there  is  an  entity  that  enjoys  an  ontological  presence  outside  of the human mind. It does not say anything descriptive about the reality itself.

2.  The  absence  of  attributes.  For  example,  if we  say,  “angels  do  not  sleep,”  and  we  say, “Allāh  does  not  sleep,”  this  is  a  resemblance  in  the  absence  of  attributes,  and  not  a resemblance  in  any  true  reality  that  subsists  in  either  of  them.  Hence,  this  is  not  an actual resemblance.  When  we  say  Allāh  is  self-subsisting,  dissimilar  to  creation,  one, transcendent,  beginningless,  without  end  and  so  on,  we  are  not  affirming  any  positive external realities  subsisting  in  Allāh’s  being.  Rather,  we  are  saying  what  He  is  not.  Hence, there  is  no  question  of  anthropomorphism  or  regarding  Allāh  similar  to  His  creation  in this.

Thus,  the  divine  attributes  in  the  Qur’ān  and  Sunnah  which  outwardly  and  nominally  bear resemblance  with  creation  do  not  give  the  indication  of  any  real similarity.  The  similarity  is  only in  consequences  and  connections  or  in  the  absence  of  something,  which  does  not  represent  any external reality  of  the  beings  themselves.  This  is  how  many  names  and  attributes  of  Allāh  can easily  be  understood. Hence,  these  attributes  are  readily  affirmed  and  one  will notice  that  these are  the  more  frequently  mentioned  attributes  of  Allāh  in  the  Qur’ān  and  Sunnah  e.g.  the oneness  of  Allāh,  His  absolute  power,  hearing,  seeing,  knowledge,  life,  mercy,  love,  generosity, transcendence,  self-subsistence  and  so  on.

The  Sifāt  Khabariyyah

However,  there  are  certain  attributes  and  actions  known  as  sifāt  khabariyyah (characteristics which  outwardly  suggest physical/bodily  parts),  like  hand,  foot,  eye,  laughter,  and  ascension (istiwā’),  for  which  even  a  relational meaning  or  negative  meaning  is  often  difficult to  decipher. For  these,  two  views  have  emerged  from  the  early  scholars:  

1.  One is  the  way  of  the  Salaf,  which  is  to  consign  their  realities  to  Allāh,  while  having surety that the literal meaning is not intended, e.g. eye is not a physical organ of sight.

2.  The  second  is  to  interpret  them  according  to  the  context  in  where  they  appear,  which  is the  methodology  of  many  of  the  later  scholars.

On  the  first  view,  these  ascriptions  are  affirmed  as  actual intangible  attributes  in  the  being  of Allāh  just  like  power  and  will,  or  as  attributes of  action  like  honouring  and  debasing,  but  like other  attributes  that  are  affirmed,  their  reality  is  consigned  to  the  knowledge  of  Allāh.  However, their  connections and  relations may  be  described,  expanded  upon  and  comprehended.  On  the second  view,  these  “attributes”  or  ascriptions  do  not  have  any  reality  in  the  essence  of  Allāh  but are  reducible  to  other  attributes  or  to  particular  aspects  of  other  attributes,  like  will,  power  and knowledge.

Imām  al-Bayhaqī rahimahullah (384  –  458  H)  explicitly  mentions  these  two  methodologies  of  the  early scholars  in  his  work  on  Islāmic  beliefs called  al-I‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād.  He  says: “[Some]  amongst  them  accepted  it,  believed  in  it and  did  not  interpret  it  but  consigned  its knowledge  to  Allāh,  while  negating  kayfiyyah  (modality)  and  similarity  [with  creation]  from  Him. [Some]  amongst  them  accepted  it,  believed  in  it and  interpreted  it in  a  manner  whose  usage  is valid  linguistically,  and  does  not  contradict  the  oneness  [of  Allāh].  We  have  mentioned  these two  approaches  in  the  book  Kitāb  al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt.”  (al-I‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād, p.  120)

The  first  view,  known  as  tafwīd  (consignment),  is  the  preferred  methodology,  related  from  the earlier  Salaf,  as  will be  shown  below.  

The  second  methodology  was  that  of  many  of  the  later  scholars.  For  example,  the  great commentator  of  hadīth  from  the  fourth  Hijrī century,  Abū  Sulaymān  al-Khattābī rahimahullah (319  –  388 H),  says under  the  commentary  of  a  hadīth  from  Sahīh  al-Bukhārī  which  ascribes a  “foot”  to Allāh:

Abū  ‘Ubayd  [al-Qāsim  ibn  Sallām  (d.  224  H)]  –  who  was  one  of  the  imāms from  the  people  of knowledge  –  would  say:  We  narrate  these  hadīths  and  we  do  not  search  for  meanings  for them.” Then  he  says: “We  are  more  worthy  of  not  advancing  into  that  which  those  with  more  knowledge  and  more senior  in  era  and  age  retreated  from.” 

He  then  says:

However,  the  time  that  which  we  are  in,  its  people  have  evolved  into  two  camps:  the  denier  of what  has  been  narrated  of  these  hadīths  entirely  and  a  belier  of  them  completely  and  in  this  is [entailed]  accusing  the  scholars  who  narrated  these  hadīths  of  lying,  while  they  are  the  imāms of religion,  the  transmitters  of  the  sunnahs and  the  intermediaries  between  us  and  the  Messenger of  Allāh  (Allāh  bless  him  and  grant  him  peace);  and  the  second  group  accept  the  narration  of them,  adopting  a  path  in  actualising  the  outward  of  them  which  almost  leads  them  to  tashbīh. We  are  averse  to  both  approaches,  and  we  are  not  pleased  with  either  of  them  as  a methodology.  Thus,  it is  necessary  for  us  to  search  –  with  respect  to  the  hadīths  that  have  been transmitted  when  authentic  in  terms of  transmission  and  chain  –  for  an  interpretation  that emerges  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  of  the  foundations of  religion  and  the  views  of  the scholars,  and  we  do  not  nullify  their  narration  completely  when  their  routes are  accepted  and their  transmitters  righteous.”  (A‘lām  al-Hadīth,  p.  1907)

Al-Bayhaqī  rahimahullah quotes  this  statement  of  al-Khattabi  in  his  al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt  (2:192-3).

Hence,  al-Khattābī   rahimahullah accepts  figuratively  interpreting  the  sifāt  khabariyyah  mentioned  in  the hadīths,  but  only  in  the  context  in  which  he  was  living,  where  people  were  adopting  a  path  of affirmation  which  took  them  close  to  anthropomorphism.  In  the  same  passage,  he  offers  an interpretation  of  the  “foot”  of  Allāh  as  that  which  Allāh  has  sent  forth  into  the  fire. 

However,  al-Khattābī   rahimahullah says he  only  takes  this  approach  with  attributes  that  appear  infrequently in  some  hadīths.  With  regards  to  frequently  mentioned  sifāt  khabariyyah,  he  adopts  the  approach of  tafwīd.  He  says: “If  it is  said:  Why  do  you not  interpret  hand  and  face  in  this  manner  of  interpretation,  and consider  these  terms  metaphors  likewise? It  will be  said:  These  attributes  are  mentioned  in  the Book  of  Allāh  (Exalted  is  He)  with  their  names,  and  they  are  attributes  of  praise,  and  the default  is  that  every  attribute  mentioned  in  the  Book  and  are  authentic  by  reports  of  continuous transmission  or  narrated  through  the  route of  solitary  reporters  but  has  a  basis  in  the  Book  or emerges  from  some  of  its  principles,  then  we  profess  it and  we  let  it proceed  on  its  outward, without  giving  it  a  modality.  And  that  which  does  not  have  any  mention  in  the  Book,  nor  a basis  in  continuous  transmission  and  has  no  connection  to  the  principles  of  the  Book,  and  were we  to  let  it proceed  on  its  outward,  it would  lead  [some  people]  to  tashbīh,  we  will  interpret  it with  a  meaning  which  the  speech  accommodates and  by  which  the  meaning  of  tashbīh  will be eliminated.  This  is  the  difference  between  what  has  been  transmitted  of  the  mention  of  foot, leg  and  shin  [on  the  one  hand]  and  hand,  face  and  eye  [on  the  other].” (A‘lām  al-Hadīth,  1911)

By  the  statement  “we  let  it  proceed  on  its  outward,”  al-Khattābī  rahimahullah  means  leave  it  as  it has  come  in the  narrations  without  delving  into  its  interpretation  or  meaning.  He  negates “modality”  or  kayf, which  is  to  negate,  as  a  starting  principle,  the  literal meanings  of  these  attributes,  as  Allāh  is  free of  these  meanings.  As  he  says elsewhere  in  the  same  book: “The  meaning  of  yad  (hand)  according  to  us  is  not  a  physical appendage  [as  is  its  literal meaning].  Rather,  it is  an  attribute  brought  forth  by  restraint  [at  the  text].  Thus,  we  let  it proceed  as  it has  come,  and  we  do  not  give  it a  modality,  and  we  hold  back  to  where  the  Book and  the  authentically  transmitted  reports  kept  us.  This  is  the  way  of  Ahlus  Sunnah  wa  lJamā‘ah.”  (A‘lām  al-Hadīth,  p  2347)

The  Position  of  the  Salaf:Negating  Physical  Descriptions  of  Allāh

It  is  famously  transmitted  from  the  imām  of  the  people  of  Madīnah, Imam Mālik  ibn  Anas  Rahimahullah (93  –  179 H),  that  he  was  asked  about the  istiwā’ (ascension)  of  Allāh  as  mentioned  in  the  Qur’ān  (20:5 and  other  verses).  Imām  Mālik rahimahullah replied,  as  reported  by  al-Bayhaqī  rahimahullah with  his  chain:  

“The  istiwā’  is  known,  kayf  is  incomprehensible,  belief  in  it is  necessary  and  asking  about it  is innovation.”  (al-I‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād,  p.  119)

This  is  authentic  from  Imām  Mālik (rahimahullah).  It  has  also  been  reported  by  Abū  Nu‘aym  in  Hilyat  alAwliyā’,  al-Bayhaqī  in  al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt,  al-Lālakā’ī in  Sharh  Usūl  I‘tiqād  Ahl  al-Sunnah,  Qādī ‘Iyād  in  Tartīb  al-Madārik  and  others.  By,  “istiwā’  is  known”  Imām  Mālik  rahimahullah conveys  the  truth  of  what  the  Qur’ān  says.  In  other  words,  the  Qur’ān  certainly affirms the  istiwā’  of  Allāh  and  we  confirm  the  reality  of  istiwā’  as  the  Qur’ān  intends  it.  What is  the  reality  of  that  istiwā’??  Imām  Mālik rahimahullah says:  “Asking  about it  is  innovation!”

Moreover,  Imām Mālik (rahmatillah alaih) says there  is  something  positive  we  can  say  about the  istiwā’,  which  is:  kayf  is incomprehensible  for  it.  Kayf  means “how”.  How  is  an  istiwā’,  how  is  a  hand,  how  is  an  eye?? An istiwā’  may  be  quick,  slow,  from  a  short  distance,  a  long  distance  and  so  on.  A  hand  can  be  big or  small,  an  eye  can  be  round  or  thin,  blue  or  brown,  and  so  on.  These  all  fall  under  kayf.  This kayf  is  incomprehensible  for  Allāh,  as  Allāh  is  free  of  all  these  physical  qualities  of  creation.  In another  version,  Imām  Mālik rahimahullah said:  “Kayf  is  removed  (marfū‘)  from  Allāh.” As  in,  kayf  does  not  pertain  to  or  relate  to  Allāh.  Hence,  the  literal meanings  of  these  words  are  not  what  is  meant.  In  fact,  the  literal meaning  which  incorporates, by  necessity,  some  of  what  falls  under  kayf,  is  explicitly  negated.  Instead,  istiwā’  is  affirmed  for Allāh  with  a  meaning  that  is  known  to  Him,  and  which  to  ask  about is  innovation.  This,  in  a nutshell,  is  the  methodology  of  the  Salaf

a)  to  negate  bodily  attributes,

b)  to  affirm  the  sifāt khabariyya with  a  meaning  known  to  Allāh  and 

c)  to  admit  ignorance  of  that  meaning. 

Imām  al-Bayhaqī rahimahullah transmits  this  position  from  the  early  scholars,  declaring  it the  correct methodology.  He  says: “Further,  the  correct  methodology  in  all  this  is  sufficing  with  what  brings with  it  restraint  [at the  text],  without  giving  it a  modality.  This  is  what  the  earlier  ones from  our  scholars  adopted as  well as  those  who  followed  them  from  the  later  ones,  and  they  said:  The  istiwā’  on  the throne  has  been  stated  in  the  Book  in  various  verses and  have  been  transmitted  in  the  reports.” (al-I‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād,  p.  118)

  In  another  version  of  the  statement  from  Imām  Mālik rahimahullah which  al-Bayhaqī rahimahullah narrates  with  a  chain graded  excellent  (jayyid)  by  Ibn  Hajar  al-‘Asqalānī rahimahullah,  he  says: “The  Most  Merciful  ascended  the  Throne  as  He  described  Himself.  It  is  not  said  ‘how?’  and ‘how’  is  removed  from  Him.” (Al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt,  2:304-5)

In  al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt,  Imām  al-Bayhaqī rahimahullah shows  the  Salaf  would  negate  physical descriptions, while  affirming  what  has  been  transmitted  of  the  sifāt  khabariyyah.  He  says: “We  have  related  [the  position  of]  leaving  discussion  on  the  likes of  this  from  the  early  ones of our  companions.  This  is  along  with  their  belief  in  the  negation  of  limit,  tashbīh  and  tamthīl from  Allāh,  Glorified  and  Exalted  is  He.  Faqīh  Abū  Bakr  Ahmad  ibn  Muhammad  ibn  al-Hārith al-Asbahānī  reported  to  us:  Abū  Muhammad  ibn  Hayyān  reported  to  us:  Ishāq ibn  Ahmad  alFārisī narrated  to  us:  Hafs  ibn  ‘Umar  al-Mahraqānī  narrated  to  us:  Abū  Dāwūd  [al-Tayālisī] narrated  to  us:  He  said:  ‘Sufyān  al-Thawrī  (97  –  161  H),  Shu‘bah  (82  –  160  H),  Hammād  ibn Zayd  (98  –  179  H),  Hammād  ibn  Salamah  (91  –  167  H),  Sharīk  (95  –  177  H)  and  [al-Waddāh ibn  ‘Abdillāh]  Abū  ‘Awānah  (c.  95  –  176  H)  would  not  ascribe  a  limit,  nor  make  resemblance nor  similarity.  They  narrate  the  hadīth  without  saying  kayf. When  asked,  they  would  answer with  narration.’  Abū  Dāwūd  said:  ‘This  is  our  view.’  I  say:  And  our  elders  remained  on  this.” (al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt  2:334)

The  report  to  Abū  Dāwūd  al-Tayālisī (133  –  204  H)  is  sound.  The  position  of  these great imāms  of  the  atbā‘  al-tābi‘īn (third  generation  of  Muslims) is  that  whatever  has  been  transmitted in  authentic  reports  are  accepted  as  they  were  intended  without  taking  any  physical meanings from  them  like  limit  and  kayf.

This  was  the  way  of  all  the  major  scholars  of  the  Salaf.  Imām  al-Bayhaqī  rahimahullah related  with  a  sound chain

“Al-Awzā‘ī,  Mālik,  Sufyān  al-Thawrī and  al-Layth  ibn  Sa‘d  were  asked  about these  hadīths  [on the  sifāt  khabariyyah],  and  they  said:  ‘Let  them  pass  as  they  have  come  without  kayfiyyah.’” (alI‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād,  p.  123)

In  other  words,  convey  them,  read  them  and  believe  in  them  as  they  were  intended,  but  while holding  firmly  that  kayf  is  negated.

Imām  al-Bayhaqī rahimahullah also  related  from  Sufyān  ibn  ‘Uyaynah  with  an  authentic  chain: “All that  Allāh  has  described  of  Himself,  its  interpretation  is  its  recitation  and  silence  over it.”(al-I‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād,  p.  123)

In  the  same  report  from  his  al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt,  there  is  the  addition:   “No  one  may  explain  it,  neither  in  Arabic  nor  in  Fārsī.” (al-Asmā’  wal-Sifāt,  2:117)

In  the  same  report  from  Sharh  Usūl  I‘tiqād  Ahl  al-Sunnah,  al-Lālakā’ī (d.  418)  narrates  it as follows:   “Everything  Allāh  has  described  Himself  with  in  the  Qur’ān,  its  recitation  is  its  explanation. There  is  no  kayf  and  no  likeness.”  (Sharh  Usūl  I‘tiqād  Ahl  al-Sunnah,  p.  431)

This  is  a  reference  to  the  sifāt  khabariyyah  like  ascension,  hand,  eye  and  so  on,  the  literal meaning of  which  is  specific  to  created  beings.

Hence,  the  intent  of  these  attributes  as  they  appear  in  the revealed  sources  is  consigned  to  Allāh.  Other  attributes  like  knowledge,  power,  hearing,  seeing, mercy,  self-subsistence,  oneness  etc.  can  be  explained  and  expanded  upon,  in  terms of  their connections and  in  terms of  what  they  negate,  as  explained  earlier.

Thus,  Imām  al-Bayhaqī rahimahullah explained  Ibn  ‘Uyaynah’s  words  as  follows: “He  only  intended  thereby  –  and  Allāh  knows  best  –  that  which  the  explanation  of  which  leads to  ascribing  kayf.  And  ascribing  kayf  necessitates considering  Him  like  His  creation  in  the qualities  of  temporality.” (al-I‘tiqād  wa  l-Hidāyah  ilā  Sabīl  al-Rashād,  p.  123)

After  mentioning  the  report  in  al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt,  he  says:

I  say:  And  he  only  intended  –  and  Allāh  knows  best  –  the  sifāt  khabariyyah.”  (al-Asmā’  wa  l-Sifāt, 2:159)

However,  it is  possible  that  even  these attributes  like  yad  and  ‘ayn  are  understood  relationally,  in terms of  what  they  connect  to,  while  their  reality  as  they  subsist  in  Allāh’s  essence  is understood  to  be  unfathomable.

Thus,  al-Bayhaqī  rahimahullah said  after  this: “Some  of  the  people  of  insight  amongst  them  adopted  the  view  that  by  the  right  hand  is  meant the  hand,  and  the  hand  of  Allāh  (Exalted  is  He)  is  an  expression  about  an  attribute  that  is  not  a physical appendage.  Thus,  wherever  it is  mentioned  in  the  Book  and  the  authentic  Sunnah,  the intent  of  its  mention  is  its  connection  to  what  came  about  in  that  which  is  mentioned  along with  it,  of  folding  up  and  grasping,  contracting  and  spreading  out,  eliminating  and  accepting, spending  and  other  than  that;  a  connection  of  an  intrinsic  attribute  with  its  consequence without  direct  physical contact  or  mutual touching.  There  is  no  tashbīh  in  this  at  all.” (Al-Asmā’ wa  l-Sifāt,  2:159)

Imām  al-Tahāwī rahimahullah said  in  his  famous  text on  ‘aqīdah  encapsulating  the  beliefs transmitted  from Imām  Abū  Hanīfah  and  his  two  students:

“The  vision  [of  Allāh]  is  true  for  the  inhabitants of  Paradise,  without  encompassing,  nor kayfiyyah.”

Here  kayfiyyah  is  categorically  negated  for  the  vision  of  Allāh  in  Paradise.  Kayfiyyah  with  regards to  vision  refers  to  distance,  opposition,  direction  and  so  on,  which  are  necessary  concomitants of  vision  in  the  phenomenal  world.  However,  the  vision  of  Allāh  in  the  afterlife  will be  without these  modalities  that  we  are  accustomed  to.  It  will be  a  beholding  of  Allāh  with  the  eyes bestowed  to  true  believers  after  resurrection.

The  mujassimah  (corporealists)  and  crypto-mujassimah  refuse  to  make  the  explicit  negations of kayf  and  physical descriptions  for  Allāh  in  the  way  the  Salaf  did.  Imām  al-Tahāwī rahimahullah  narrates from the  imāms of  the  Hanafī school:

“Our  Lord  bears  the  attributes  of  oneness  and  holds  the  characteristics  of  singularity.  Not  one of  creation  is  in  His  meaning.  He  is  transcendent  beyond  limits  and  boundaries,  parts,  limbs and  instruments.”

Imām  al-Tahāwī rahimahullah did  not  merely  say  that  we  are  not  permitted  to  say  that  He  does  not  have these  attributes.  Rather,  he  categorically  states that  Allāh  is  far-removed  from  them  due  to  His absolute  transcendence.

  Similarly,  Hāfiz  Abū  Bakr  al-Ismā‘īlī  (277  –  371  H) imāms of  hadīth  that  Allāh  is  free  of  limbs and  a  physical body: “Limbs and  appendages,  nor  length  and  breadth,  thickness  and  thinness  and  the  like  of  this,  of which  the  equivalent  is  found  in  creation,  are  not  believed  about Him.  And  that  there  is nothing  as  His  likeness.” (I‘tiqād  A’immat  al-Hadīth,  p  36)

Describing  the  vision  of  Allāh,  he  says: “And  that  is  without  belief  in  corporealism  with  respect  to  Allāh  –  Great  and  Glorious  is  He  – nor  assigning  limits.  But  they  will see  Him  –  Great  and  Glorious  is  He  –  with  their  eyes just  as He  pleases,  without  kayf.”  (I‘tiqād  A’immat  al-Hadīth  p.  43)

The  Salaf  would  often  say  Allāh  is  “above  the  creation”  (fawq  al-khalq)  or  above  the  Throne (fawq  al-‘arsh)  which  is  the  highest  point  of  creation.

The  reason  for  this  statement  was  to  refute the  Jahmī belief  that  Allāh  dwells  within  creation.  Hence,  this  is  not  a  positive  description  of Allāh,  but  a  way  of  expressing  the  negative  detail  of  Allāh  not  being  within  His  creation,  but being  far  removed  and  different  from  creation. 

This  is  why  the  Salaf  would  also  say  He  is “bā’in” (separate)  from  His  creation.  This  also  is  not  a  physical “separation”,  but  a  way  of expressing  that  the  creation  does  not  contain  the  Creator.  Abū  Sulaymān  al-Khattābī rahimahullah said: “The  meaning  of  the  statement  of  the  Muslims that  Allāh  is  over  the  throne  is  not  that  He  is touching  it or  settled  on  it or  bounded  by  one  of  its  directions,  but  that  He  is  different/separate from  all  His  creation.”  (A‘lām  al-Hadīth,  p.  1474)

Ibn  Hamdān  al-Hanbalī  (603  –  695  H)  said: “He  is  separate  from  His  creation.  Allāh  is  above  the  throne,  without  [physical]  limitation. [Physical]  limitation  is  of  the  throne  and  all  that  is  beneath  it.  And  Allāh  is  above  that  with  no place  and  no  limit.  [This  is]  because  He  existed  when  there  was  no  place,  and  then  He  created place,  and  He  is  as  He  was  before  He  created  place.”

The  above  encapsulates the  belief  of  the  Salaf.  Hence,  the  Salaf,  unlike  the  present-day so-called “Salafīs” who  claim  to  follow  the  Salaf,  would  explicitly  negate  boundaries,  parts,  limbs,  directions, physicality  and  kayfiyyāt  in  general for  Allāh  (subhānahū  wa  ta‘ālā).

Allāh  is  Unchanging  and Timeless

Moreover,  if Allāh  possesses  kayfiyyāt  like  movement,  physical  descent  and  ascent,  laughter, emotions  and  so  on,  it would  entail  changing  from  one  state  to  another  which  is  a  feature  of temporal things and  not  of  the  beginningless  unchanging  Creator.

  This  has  also  been expressed  by  one  of  the  imāms of  the  Salaf.  Abu  l-Shaykh  relates in  his  ‘Azamah  with  an authentic  chain  from  Imām  ‘Abd  al-‘Azīz  ibn  al-Mājishūn rahimahullah  (d  164  H),  a  narrator  of  hadīth  found in  the  six  collections and  a  prominent  jurist  of  Madīnah,  that  he  said: “…He  is  the  Last  that  will not  end  and  the  First  that  will not  perish,  the  beginningless  (qadīm) Who has  no  beginning.  He  did  not  come  into  being  as  [other]  things  came  into  being.  He  was not  small  and  then  became  large,  nor  was  He  weak  and  then  became  strong,  nor  deficient  and then  became  complete,  nor  ignorant  and  then  He  knew.  He  was  always strong,  lofty,  great  and transcendent.  The  blink  of  an  eye  did  not  pass  but  He  was  Allāh,  without  ceasing  to  be  Rabb. He  will remain  so  unceasingly  in  what  has  passed  and  likewise  in  what  remains  to  come.  And thus  He  is  now.  He  did  not  gain  new  knowledge  after  not  having  known,  nor  strength  after  a strength  that  was  not  in  Him.  He  did  not  alternate  from  one  state  to  another  state  with  increase or  decrease,  because  there  remains  no  [aspect]  of  sovereignty  and  magnitude  but  He  occupies it.  He  will never  increase  beyond  something  that  He  was  upon…”

The  above  is  the  clear  view  of  Ahlus  Sunnah as  transmitted  from  the  Salaf  and  the  imāms of ‘aqīdah,  and  subsequently  from  the  Ash‘arī  and  Māturīdī theologians,  as  well as  major  Hanbalī authorities  like  Abu  l-Fadl al-Tamīmī  (342  –  410  H) Jawzī  (510  –  597  H) 44, 48  and  Ibn  Hamdān  (603  –  695  H)(rahimahumullah)

The  Beliefs  of  the  Mujassimah

On  the  other  hand,  there  was  a  small  group  historically,  and  a  sizeable  group  in  recent  times,  of a  people  who  believe  that  the  sifāt  khabariyyah must  be  accepted  literally.  They  believe  that  Allāh is  literally  in  the  upward  direction,  with  physical parts  like  a  face,  two  hands,  fingers,  shape,  two eyes and  so  on.  They  believe  He  moves  up  and  down.  This  is  the  position  of  tashbīh  and  tajsīm.

While  Ahlus  Sunnah  deny  completely  any  and  all  resemblance  between  Allāh  and  creation  in their  descriptive  and  ontological realities,  some  modern  “Salafī”  authors  do  not  shy  away  from saying  they  accept  a  degree  of  resemblance  between  Allāh  and  His  creation.

  For  example,  one of  the  leaders  of  the  contemporary  Salafī movement,  Ibn  ‘Uthaymīn,  said: “To  negate  tashbīh  completely  between  the  attributes  of  Creator  and  of  creation  is  not  correct because  there  are  no  two  established  attributes  except  they  have  commonality  in  the  basic meaning,  and  this  commonality  is  a  kind  of  similarity.” (Fatāwā  Ibn  ‘Uthaymīn,  1:181)

He  also  said: “If  you ask:  what  is  the  shape  which  Allāh  has  that  Ādam  was  upon?  We  say:  Allāh  has  a  face, eye,  hand  and  leg,  but  it is  not  necessary  that  these  things  are  equivalent  to  man’s.  Thus,  there  is a  degree  of  similarity  but  it is  not  by  way  of  equivalence.” (Sharh  ‘Aqīdat  al-Wasatiyyah,  p.  110)

Clarifying  further,  he  said: “The  one  who  believes that  the  attributes  of  the  Creator  are  equivalent  to  the  attributes  of creation  is  misguided.  That  is,  the  attributes  of  the  Creator  are  not  equal to  the  attributes  of creation  by  the  clear  text of  the  Qur’ān…  And  it is  not  necessary  from  the  equivalence  of  two entities in  name  or  attribute  that  they  are  equal in  reality.  This  is  a  known  principle.  Does man not  have  a  face  and  a  camel  a  face?  They  are  common  in  name  but  do  not  conform  in  reality. The  camel  has  a  hand  and  the  ant  a  hand  –  are  the  two  hands  equal?  The  answer  is  no.  Then, why  do  you not  say  that  Allāh  has  a  face  that  is  not  equivalent  to  the  faces  of  creation  and  Allāh has  a  hand  that  is  not  equivalent  to  the  hands  of  creation?  Allāh  (Exalted  is  He)  said: ‘And  they esteem  not  Allah  as  He  has  the  right  to  be  esteemed,  when  the  whole  earth  is  His  handful  on the  Day  of  Resurrection,  and  the  heavens  are  rolled  in  His  right  hand.’ (39:67)  Is  there  a  hand from  the  hands  of  creation  that  is  like  this  hand?  No….This  is  why  it is  never  permissible  for you to  imagine  how  a  quality  from  the  qualities  of  Allāh  is  or  that  you believe  that  the  attributes of  Allāh  are  the  same  as  the  attributes  of  creation.” (Fatāwā  Ibn  ‘Uthaymīn,  1:177)

It  is  clear  from  these  statements  that  he  believes  the  “attributes”  of  hand,  face,  eye  and  so  on are  physical  parts  but  with  distinctive  features that  put  them  apart  from  creation.

This  becomes more  apparent  from  many  of  his  other  statements.  What  the  contemporary  Salafiyyah  do  not realise,  however,  is  that  by  affirming  a  likeness  in  the  base  meaning  of  the  attributes  of  Creator and  creation,  they  are  affirming  a  general  resemblance  between  the  two,  and  by  negating similarity  in  kayfiyyāt  (physical descriptions),  they  are  negating  similarity  in  only  minor  details. Hence,  what  they  affirm  in  resemblance  is  far  greater  than  what  they  negate. This  belief  has  its  roots  in  an  early  time.  Muqātil  ibn  Sulaymān  an  early  mufassir  from  the  atbā‘ al-tābi‘īn overemphasised  the  attributes  of  Allāh  in  opposition  to  the  Jahmiyyah  who  negated  it, resulting  in  affirming  a  similarity  between  Allāh  and  His  creation,  as  al-Khatīb  al-Baghdādī narrated  with  an  authentic  chain  from  Imām  Abū  Hanīfah rahimahullah (80  –  150  H): “Two  groups  of  the  worst  of  people  are  from  Khurāsān:  the  Jahmiyyah  and  the  Mushabbihah” or  he  said,  “Muqātiliyyah.”  (Tarikh  Baghdad  15:514) 54  

Hāfiz  Ibn  Hajar rahimahullah said  in  Tahdhīb  al-Tahdhīb:  “Muhammad  ibn  Samā‘ah  (130  –  233  H)  narrated from  Abū  Yūsuf  from  Abū  Hanīfah  that  he  said:  ‘Jahm  went  overboard  in  negation  until  he said:  He  [i.e.  Allah]  is  nothing,  and  Muqātil  went  overboard  in  affirmation  until  He  deemed Allah  to  be  like  His  creation.’”

Hāfiz  Ibn  Hajar rahimahullah  also  quotes  him  saying: “Two  repulsive  opinions  came  to  us  from  the  east: Jahm  the  negator  [of  Allah’s  attributes]  and  Muqātil,  the  anthropomorphist.” 
Hence,  the  Salaf  did  not  turn  a  blind  eye  to  the  anthropomorphism  that  found  its  way  into some  groups of  Muslims.  

The  belief-system  of  tashbīh,  though  in  existence  before,  was  popularised  and  defended  fiercely by  the  Damascene  Hanbalī  scholar,  Ahmad  ibn  ‘Abd  al-Halīm  Ibn  Taymiyyah  (661  –  728  H), an  undisputed  authority  of  the  contemporary  Salafiyyah.  He,  for  example,  explicitly  supported the  notion  that  the  attributes  of  Allāh,  including  the  sifāt  khabariyyah  like  eye,  hand,  face,  descent and  ascension,  must  be  understood  by  analogising  them  to  creation. He  supported  the  idea that  these  attributes  have  a  meaning  that  is  shared  between  creation  and  Creator.  He differentiates between  “intangible”  attributes  like  knowledge  and  power  and  “tangible” attributes  like  hand  and  face  for  Allāh.  He  defended  the  view  that  Allāh  has  boundaries  from all  six  physical directions,  up,  down,  left,  right,  front  and  back,  leaving  no  room  for  doubt  that he  believed  in  a  physical  body  for  Allāh.  His  claim  to  avoiding  tashbīhtajsīm  and  tamthīl, however,  is  on  the  grounds  that  Allāh  is  not  exactly  like  His  creation.  He  is  vastly  bigger,  with unknown  dimensions,  and  He  is  indivisible  as  His  parts  cannot  be  separated  one  from  the other,  and  He  doesn’t  have  a  digestive  system,  nor  are  His  limbs  made  of  blood  and  flesh  like human  beings.  Instead,  His  features  that  have  a  counterpart  in  creation  only  bear  a  generic resemblance  with  those  of  creatures,  while  their  physical descriptions  and  modalities  (kayfiyyāt) are  vastly  different.

Conclusion

Hence,  while  this  group  with  Ibn  Taymiyyah  at  its  head,  affirm  kayfiyyāt  (physical  descriptions) for  Allāh  while  negating  knowledge  of  them,  the  Salaf  and  Ahlus  Sunnah negate  the  very existence  of  kayfiyyāt  for  Allāh.  These  innovated  ascriptions  of  physical parts  to  Allāh,  delving into  the  ambiguous  attributes  of  Allāh  by  designating  their  literal  meanings  as  their  intent,  and affirming  a  basic  meaning  or  ontological  reality  of  these  attributes  that  are  similar  to  the qualities  of  creation,  are  extreme  violations  of  core  Islāmic  beliefs  on  the  oneness  of  Allāh  and His  absolute  dissimilarity  to  creation.

****************************

[ Acknowledgements: This  article  is  based  on  an  online  work  of  ‘Uthmān  Muhammad  al-Nāblusī  titled:  al-Sifāt al-‘Ilāhiyyah  bayna  Ahl  al-Tanzīh  wa  Ahl  al-Tashbīh, translated by Maulana Zameelur Rahmaan]

Raafidhi Twelver Shi’ism – A Saba’ite-Safavid-Sassanid conspiracy forced on Persia [Iran]

image

Unfortunately many Muslims are not aware of the impressive orthodox-Sunni history of Iran . Many don’t know that Iranians, especially Persians since the arrival of Islam (by the Arab, EHTIOPIAN, ROMAN and PERSIAN companions of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallaahu Alaihi wasallam) to Persia, used to be Muslims (Ahlus Sunnah) and not twelver Shi’ites (Rafidites/Rafidis). In fact the conversion of the people of the Iranian plateau to Islam was a gradual one, and even 300 years after the downfall of the Sassanians there were sizeable Zoroastrian (Parsi) communities in Iran. The Persians were “forced to convert to Islam and attack by “Umar” is nothing but a lie. Never were the Iranian people FORCED to convert to Islam. That is why it took the Iranian nation 300 years to have a substantial Muslim population.

The only thing the noble people of Persia were forced to was the heretical cult of twelver Shi’ism. Rafidi Shi’ism was mainly alien to Iran, except some regions like Qom and Kashan, Qom in fact was “founded” by Saba’ite Arab Yemenites.

Other than that, the Persians used to despise Rafidi Shi’ism and Rafidi Shi’ites with passion, Persians and especially Persian scholars (and even poets like Saadi Shirazi the Sunni-to-the-bone) used to write volumes in defence of the Khulafa’ Al-Rashideen, this can be proven through endless works of Shirazi, Isfahani etc. scholars who compiled volumes over volumes in defence of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah and the refutation of Rafidi Shi’ism. This plain facts simply destroys the lies by the Shia Rafidi clergy that “Persians became Shia from they dot and despised Abu Bakr, Umar and ‘Uthman radhiyallahu anhum. The same lie has been repeated countless times by Islamophobic Iranians who are happy to adopt Shi’ism as a cover, just for the sake of resisting orthodox Islam, the Islam of Imam Tabari, Ibn Hazm, Abu Hatim Al-Razi Al-Isfahani, Nafe’ Al-Isfahani, Sulayman Ibn Mehran (Al-A’mash), Abu Na’im Al-Isfahani, Saadi Shirazi, Attar, who were all of Persian Ahlus Sunnah origin.

Now, there is no doubt that twelver Shi’ism (especially after the Safavid era) has undergone various changes (into extremes) during history as their major scholars said, what used to be heresy to the Shias of the past is considered from the most essential parts of the Shia religion today. We have chosen the title:
A Saba’ite-Safavid-Sassanid conspiracy forced on Persia, because this is the cocktail of heresy that since the Safavids has been forced on the majority of the Iranians under the pretext of: “Ahl Al-Bayt/Ja’fari/Imami/Shia Twelver” “school of thought”.

Now let’s start with the Sassanid part, and with that we mean the Sassanid/Persian elite, the Majoos (Zoroastrian/Parsi’s) who (along with the Zoroastrian priests) used to suppress the non-royal and non-elite of the Persian society, just like in ancient India, Persia was divided into a caste system. Now these racist Majoos (Sassanid Zoroastrians) who were wiped away by Allah during the reign of Ameer al mu’mineen Hazrat Umar Ibn Al-Khattab radhiyallahu anhu, the Farooq who brought Islam to Iran were not sleeping, they, along with other Zanadiqah (heretics) tried to weaken Islam by any means possible. Now it is true that Shi’ism was started by a Yemenite Jew, and certainly not by Persians, but it is also true that the heresy of Tashayyu’ (Shi’ism) after being propagated by a Yemeni Jew was then adopted by Extremist Azeris (the Safavids) and then finally being advocated by Racist, fashist, Sassanid Persians who saw their chance to destroy Islam from within, especially inside Iran, by adopting and actively supporting Shi’ism, and claiming that the only Islam acceptable for Iranians the Shi’a one.

It did not take much time until Shi’ism after the Safavids was filled with nationalistic Persian elements, in nature absolutely alien to Islam, like the veneration of Zoroastrian festival “Nowrooz” etc all actively advocated by top Shi’a scholars, like Majlisi, the palace scholars of the Safavids .

The Safavids and their forced and brutal conversion of the Muslim Persians (Sunnis) into heresy (Shi’ism) has been well documented.

Race has no place according to the teachings of Islam, the only point that should be made is that even though the Safavids (being of Turkish-Azeri origin) dyed their own Shia version with Persian elements (with the support of Persian Islamophobes who wanted to distort the authentic Islam that covered almost all parts of Persia), they themselves were NOT Persians, neither those who were in charge to convert the Persians (i.e. the scholars). This is important to understand that the original ISLAMIC heritage of Persians was Islam and Sunnah (Ahl As-Sunnah) for over 1000 years of Sunni-Persian history.

For Shiism did not become fully established until the reign of Abbas I of Persia (1587–1629)
As for the Safavids (Azeri non-Persians) and their crimes:

‘Methods of converting Iran’
Imposing Shiism as the state and mandatory religion for the whole nation and much forcible conversions of Iranian Sufi Sunnis to Shiism [Modern Iran: roots and results of revolution. Nikki R Keddie, Yann Richard, pp. 13, 20. The Encyclopedia of world history: ancient, medieval, and modern. Peter N. Stearns, William Leonard Langer, p. 360. Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Steven R Ward, pg.43]

He destroyed Sunni mosques. This was even noted by Tomé Pires , the Portuguese ambassador to China who visited Iran in 1511–12, who when referring to Ismail noted: “He (i.e. Ismail Safawi) reforms our churches, destroys the houses of all Moors who follow (the Sunnah of) Muhammad…” (This is a tradition still practiced by the Shia-Rafidi-Safavid Mullahs of Iran, like under the reign of the AZERI-TURK Khamenei who himself ordered the destruction of the Sheikh Feiz Sunni Mosque of Mashad).

He (Ismail I) enforced the ritual and compulsory cursing of the first three Sunni Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman radhiyallahu anhum) as usurpers, from all mosques, disbanded Sunni Tariqahs and seized their assets,
used state patronage to develop Shia shrines , institutions and religious art and imported Shia scholars to replace Sunni scholars. [Sources: A new introduction to Islam. Daniel W Brown, p. 191. Encyclopaedic Historiography of the Muslim World . NK Singh, A Samiuddin, p. 90. The Cambridge illustrated history of the Islamic world. Francis Robinson, p. 72.]

He shed Sunni blood and destroyed and desecrated the graves and mosques of Sunnis. This caused the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II to advise and ask the young monarch (in a “fatherly” manner) to stop the anti-Sunni actions. However, Ismail was strongly anti-Sunni, ignored the Sultans warning and continued to spread the Shia faith by the sword. [Sources: Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Steven R. Ward, p. 44. Iran and America: re-kindling a love lost]. Badi Badiozamani, pp. 174–5.]

He persecuted, imprisoned and executed stubbornly resistant Sunnis. [Sources:The Cambridge illustrated history of the Islamic world. Francis Robinson, p. 72 . Iraq: Old Land, New Nation in Conflict . William Spencer, p. 51.]

With the establishment of Safavid rule, there was a very raucous and colourful, almost carnival-like holiday on 26 Dhu al-Hijjah (or alternatively, 9 Rabi’ al-awwal ) celebrating the murder of Caliph Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). The highlight of the day was making an effigy of Umar to be cursed, insulted, and finally burned. However, as relations between Iran and Sunni countries improved, the holiday was no longer observed (at least officially …). [Source: Culture and customs of Iran . Elton L Daniel, ‘Alī Akbar Mahdī, p. 185]

In 1501 Ismail invited all the Shia living outside Iran to come to Iran and be assured of protection from the Sunni majority. [Source: Iraq: Old Land, New Nation in Conflict. William Spencer, p. 51.]

The early Safavid rulers took a number of steps against the Sunni Ulema of Iran. These steps included giving the Ulema the choice of conversion, death, or exile [Sources: A new introduction to Islam, By Daniel W. Brown, pg.191^ The Middle East and Islamic world reader, By Marvin E. Gettleman, Stuart Schaar, pg.42^ Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces, By Steven R. Ward, pg.43]
and massacring the Sunni clerics who resisted the Shia transformation of Iran, as witnessed in Herat.[32] As a result, many Sunni scholars who refused to adopt the new religious direction lost their lives or fled to the neighboring Sunni states. [Sources: The failure of political Islam, By Olivier Roy, Carol Volk, pg.170^ Conceptualizing/re-conceptualizing Africa: the construction of African …, By Maghan Keita, pg.90^ Iran: a short history : from Islamization to the present, By Monika Gronke, pg.90]

As for the Saba’ites (Arab-Rafidite Shia clergy) and Sassanid (Persian Majoos) their crimes:

After the conquest, Ismail began transforming the religious landscape of Iran by imposing Twelver Shiism on the populace. Since most of the population embraced Sunni Islam and since an educated version of Shiism was scarce in Iran at the time, Ismail imported a new Shia Ulema corps from traditional Shiite centers of the Arabic speaking lands, such as Jabal Amil (of Southern Lebanon. Many such devils are still active in Iran, one of them is a truly lunatic and polytheist liar dwelling in Qom, who goes by the name AL-KORANI , Bahrain and Southern Iraq in order to create a state clergy. Ismail offered them land and money in return for loyalty. These scholars taught the doctrine of Twelver Shiism and made it accessible to the population and energetically encouraged conversion to Shiism.
To emphasize how scarce Twelver Shiism was then to be found in Iran, a chronicler tells us that only one Shia text could be found in Ismail’s capital Tabriz. Thus it is questionable whether Ismail and his followers could have succeeded in forcing a whole people to adopt a new faith without the support of the Arab Shiite scholars. The rulers of Safavid Persia also invited these foreign Shiite religious scholars to their court in order to provide legitimacy for their own rule over Persia.

Abbas I of Persia , during his reign, also imported more Arab Shia scholars to Iran , built religious institutions for them, including many Madrasahs (religious schools) and successfully persuaded them to participate in the government, which they had shunned in the past (following the Hidden imam doctrine).
[Sources: The failure of political Islam, By Olivier Roy, Carol Volk, pg.170^ The Cambridge illustrated history of the Islamic world, By Francis Robinson, pg.72^ The Middle East and Islamic world reader, By Marvin E. Gettleman, Stuart Schaar, pg.42^ The Encyclopedia of world history: ancient, medieval, and modern … By Peter N. Stearns, William Leonard Langer, pg.360^ Iran: religion, politics, and society : collected essays, By Nikki R. Keddie, pg.91^ Iran: a short history : from Islamization to the present, By Monika Gronke, pg.90^ Shi‘ite Lebanon: transnational religion and the making of national identities, By Roschanack Shaery-Eisenlohr, pg.12-13^ Science under Islam: rise, decline and revival, By S. M. Deen, pg.37]

Shi’ism did not become fully established until the reign of Abbas I of Persia (1587–1629). Abbas hated the Sunnis , and forced the population to accept Twelver Shiism. Thus by 1602 most of the formerly Sunnis of Iran had accepted Shiism (i.e. Iran is majority Shia for about 400 years only). A significant number (until TODAY > Sunnis of Iran

image

Under the guidance of Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (1616–98, one of the most important Shiite clerics of all time who openly believed in the distortion of the Qur’an) , who devoted himself to (among other things) the eradication of Sunnism in Iran , the Safavid state made major efforts, in the 17th century to Persianize Shiite practice and culture in order to facilitate its spread in Iran among its Sunni populace. It was only under Majlisi that Shi’a Islam truly took hold among the masses.

Conclusion: The Safavids were a Azeri-Turkish clan that converted to Shi’ism, opposed the Ottomans and used Shi’ism as their tool. They literally massacred the Sunni Persians (and other Iranian people) and forced them into Rafidite-Shi’ism with the help of Arab-Lebanese Rafidite clergy of south Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrain. If anything than the Persians are (generally) victims of Shi’ism for contrary to what many believe, Shi’ism was not started neither carried by Persians, it was carried by Arabs in the past and the Safavid Turks of the past and today (Khamenei is Azeri …) who introduced Shi’ism to Persians and the world with an extra brush of heresy, namely pre-Islamic Zoroastrian-Arab-hating twelver Shi’ism