Tag Archives: Allah

Seeing Allah in Dreams

Is it possible to see Allah in a dream? It is reported from Imam Abu Hanifa and others that they saw Allah in a dream, is that true?

ANSWER

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

The position of the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah (Asha’ira and Maturidiyya) is that the vision of Allah Most High with the eyes of the head is rationally (aqlan) possible and that the believers will be blessed with this vision in the hereafter. This vision, however, will be without encompassment (ihata) or delimitation (tahdid) within any given limit (hadd), whether from the front, the back, above, below, right, or left. Allah Most High will be seen (unlike any material being) not in place or in a direction so far as being confronted, nor by the conjunction of the rays of light, nor by a certain definite distance between the one who sees and Allah.

In other words, the believers will see Allah Most High in Paradise without our specifying how and in a manner Allah knows best. It is impossible and wrong to draw analogy for the unseen from the seen. This vision of Allah is certainly unlike the vision of material things in this world, for vision in this world requires the seen to be in a place, direction, at a specific distance, etc, whilst the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter will be free from such restrictions. Allah Most High will enable the believers to see His esteemed self. (Culled from Mulla Ali al-Qari’s Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar P: 245-246, Taftazani’s Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya P: 131, Nuh Ali Suleyman’s commentary on Jawhara al-Tawhid P: 113 and Bajuri’s commentary on the Jawhara P: 114)

The above is the position that the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah scholars have always maintained. The Mu’tazila and some other groups such as the Shi’a held that Allah Most High could not be seen at all, even on the Day of Resurrection or in Paradise. They interpreted certain verses of the Qur’an erroneously, rejected some sound hadiths claiming that such vision necessitated a physical body for Allah and a direction, which He Most High is free from. However, the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah is supported by many evidences of the Qur’an and Sunnah, of which some are presented below:

1) Allah Most High says:

“Some faces, that day, will beam (in brightness and beauty), looking towards their Lord.”(Surah al-Qiyama, V: 22-23)

2) Allah Most High says regarding the Prophet Sayyiduna Musa (Peace be upon him):

“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! Show (Yourself) to me, that I may look upon You.” Allah said: “By no means can you see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place, then you shall see Me…” (Surah al-A’raf, V: 143)

In the above verse, Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) requested to see Allah Most High. Had the vision of Allah been impossible, the request of Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) would have been out of ignorance or foolishness or he would be making a request for the impossible, whereas all the Prophets of Allah are far removed from such things. Secondly, Allah Most High connected the vision with the abiding of the mountain firm in its place, which is something that is possible in itself. Hence, that which is connected to the possible is also possible. (Taftazani and Nasafi, Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 127-128)

3) Allah Most High says:

“There will be for them therein (in Paradise) all that they wish, and more besides in Our presence.”(Surah Qaf, V: 35)

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) interpreted “more” saying that it referred to the vision of Allah Most High. (Narrated by Muslim and others)

4) Allah Most High says regarding the disbelievers:

“Verily, from their Lord, that Day, will they be veiled.”(Surah al-Mutaffifin, V: 15)

This verse explains that the disbelievers will be deprived from the vision of Allah; hence by contrast, it implies that the believers will be blessed with this vision. Thus, Sayyiduna Imam Shafi’i (Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Allah Most High’s veiling Himself from a people (disbelievers) due to His displeasure indicates that a group (believers) will see Him due to His pleasure. By Allah, had Muhammad ibn Idrees (Shafi’i himself) not been convinced that he will see his Lord in the hereafter, he would not have worshipped him in this world!” (Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid)

5) Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the people (companions) said: “O Messenger of Allah! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?” He replied: “Do you have any doubt in seeing the full moon on a clear (not cloudy) night?” They replied: “No, O Messenger of Allah” He said: “Do you have any doubt in seeing the sun when there are no clouds?” They replied in the negative. He said: “You will see Allah (your Lord) in the same way….” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 773)

6) Sayyiduna Jarir ibn Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that we were sitting in the company of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) on a fourteenth night (of the lunar month), and he looked at the (full) moon and said: “You will see your Lord as you see this moon. You have no trouble in looking at it. So, whoever can should not miss the offering of prayers before sunrise (Fajr prayer) and before sunset (Asr prayer).” Then the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) recited: “And celebrate the praises of your Lord, before the rising of the sun and before (its) setting.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 4570 and others)

7) Moreover, the occurrence of the vision of Allah has been narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, Sayyiduna Huzayfa ibn al-Yaman, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Sayyiduna Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and many others (Allah be pleased with them all). No Companion (sahabi) of the Messenger of Allah is reported to have rejected the vision of Allah; hence there is complete consensus of the Companions on this. (Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 131 & Tuhfat al-Murid Sharh al-Jawhara, P: 115)

As far as the verse “Visions comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision” (6: 139) is concerned, it refers to encompassing Allah Most High with our vision. Vision and encompassment are two different things, the latter is rejected in this verse, in that the visions of humans will not be able to encompass Allah most High (even in the hereafter), whilst the former (vision) has been proven in many verses of the Qur’an and many Hadiths. (ibid)

The vision of Allah Most High in this world

The above few evidences were relating to the possibility of seeing Allah and the believers seeing Him Most High in the hereafter. As far as seeing Allah Most High in this world is concerned, there are two situations here. Seeing Him whist awake and secondly seeing Him in sleep.

a) Seeing Allah whilst awake

There is, more or less, a consensus amongst the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah scholars that, though logically possible, nobody is able to see Allah Most High in this world in the state of being awake. However, there is a difference of opinion as to whether the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah Most High in the night of ascension (me’raj) or not.

The renowned Hadith scholar and Hanafi jurist, Mulla Ali al-Qari (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“There is an agreement among the Muslims (scholars) that no believer will see Allah Most High with his eyes in this world. The scholars only differed with regards to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) seeing Allah during his ascension to the heavens.” (Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, P: 354)

Mulla Ali al-Qari then said, there is a consensus on the fact that the vision of Allah cannot take place in this world for other than the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). He quoted Ibn al-Salah and Abu Shama saying that the one who claims to have seen Allah whilst being awake will not be believed, for this (vision of Allah whilst being awake) is something that even Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him) was prevented from when Allah Most High said to him: “By no means can you see Me”. However, there is a difference of opinion whether this vision occurred for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). (ibid)

Some scholars went to the extent of considering such a person, who claims to have seen Allah whilst awake, a Kafir, although most scholars were precautions and did not consider such a person to be an outright Kafir. However, there is no doubt that this person will be considered to have severely deviated. (ibid) Hence, no individual (besides the Messenger of Allah) is able to see Allah Most High whilst being awake in this mortal world.

As far as the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is concerned, the Companions differed as to whether he (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah in the night of Isra’ and Me’raj or not. Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas and others (Allah be pleased with them all) related that he did, whilst Sayyida A’isha, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud and others (Allah be pleased with them all) were of the opinion that he did not see Allah with the eyes of his head during his ascension to the heavens. As a result, the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah also have conflicting views on this issue.

Imam al-Bukhari relates that Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) said regarding the statement of Allah: “And We granted the vision (Ascension to the heavens) which We showed you, but as a trial for men…” (17.60): He said: “The sights which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was shown on the night he was taken to Bayt al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) were actual sights, (not dreams). And the cursed tree (mentioned) in the Qur’an is the tree of Zaqqum.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 3675)

Imam Tirmidhi has also related some narrations from Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) wherein he states that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see his Lord in the night of Isra’ and Me’raj. (See: Sunan Tirmidhi, chapter on the commentary of the Qur’an, Surah al-Najm)

On the other hand, Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) has rigorously denied that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw Allah Most High with the eyes of his head. The following is the narration expressing her viewpoint:

Imam al-Bukhari (Allah have mercy on him) narrates from Masruq that the latter said: “I said to A’isha: “O my mother! Did Muhammad (Allah bless him & give him peace) see his Lord?” She replied: “My hair stands on end because of what you said. Have you no idea of three things? Whoever tells them to you is lying. Whosoever tells you that Muhammad (Allah bless him & give him peace) saw his Lord, is lying.” She then recited: “Visions comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. He is the Subtle, the Aware” and “And it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil”. (Secondly), whosoever tells you that he knows what shall happen tomorrow is lying.” She then recited: “No soul knows what it will earn tomorrow” And (thirdly) whosoever tells you that he (Allah bless him & give him peace) concealed something, is lying.” She then recited: “O Messenger. Proclaim the (message) which has been sent to you from your Lord”. “However, he (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see (the angel) Jibra’il (peace be upon him) in his actual form twice.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 4574).

Some scholars explained that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had a vision with the eyes of the heart, and not with the eyes of his head. This is elucidated by Ibn Abbas’ other narrations in Sahih Muslim and elsewhere where he said: “He saw him with his heart.” Hence, in this way, the two opinions may be reconciled. (Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, 8/430)

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) said that the preferred position according to the Ulama is that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) did see his Lord in the night of al-Isra’ and al-Me’raj with the eyes of his head. The Hadith of Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) will be given preference over the position of Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her), as the principle states “Affirmation (ithbat) takes precedence over the negation (nafi)”. Hence, the position of Ibn Abbas and others (Allah be pleased with them all) will be given preference and it will be said that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was blessed with the vision of his Lord in the night of al-Isra’ and al-Me’raj. (Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid, P: 117-118)

The best statement on the issue is of Shaykh Muhyi al-Din ibn Arabi (Allah have mercy on him). He said: This world is that which is below the heavens and anything above the heavens is considered to be part of the next world (akhira). Hence, the vision of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) will not be considered a vision of this world; rather it is a vision of the next world, and there is no disagreement concerning the vision of the hereafter. Hence, this vision of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was also a type of the vision of the hereafter. (See: Ma’arif al-Qur’an, 3/412)

b) Seeing Allah in a dream

As far as the vision of Allah Most High in a dream is concerned, Imam al-Taftazani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his commentary of Imam Nasafi’s al-Aqa’id:

“As far as the vision of Allah in sleep is concerned, it is something that has been related from many predecessors (salaf). And there is no doubt that this is a type of observation by the heart rather than the eye.” (Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P: 135)

Mulla Ali al-Qari (Allah have mercy on him) states in his renowned Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar:

“The majority of the scholars are of the view that the vision of Allah Most High in sleep is possible, without any given description of modality (kayfiyya), direction (jiha) or quiddity (hay’a). It is recorded that Imam Abu Hanifa (Allah have mercy on him) said: “I saw Allah Most High 99 times whilst asleep.” Then he saw Him the hundredth time also, the story of which is long and not feasible to be mentioned here. It is recorded that Imam Ahmad (Allah have mercy on him) said: “I saw Allah Most High in a dream, I said: “O Lord! How is it possible to achieve closeness to You?” He replied: “By the recitation of my speech (Qur’an).” I said: “O Lord! Recitation with understanding or (even) without understanding?” He replied: “With or without understanding.” It is also narrated from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) that he said: “I saw my Lord in my sleep.” Hence, the vision of Allah in sleep is recorded from many predecessors (salaf) and it is a type of observation by the heart observed by noble people…” (Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, P: 356-357)

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“As far as seeing Allah Most High in sleep, it is narrated from Qadhi Iyadh that there is no difference of opinion regarding its occurrence and truth, for the Satan cannot take the form of Allah Most High like he cannot take the form of the Prophets (peace be upon them)….. (Tuhfat al-Murid, P: 118)

The above-mentioned few texts of the scholars indicate clearly that Allah Most High can be (and has been) seen in a dream. It is something that His noble and pious servants are blessed with, and one cannot deny its occurrence. Indeed some Ulama did deny the possibility of seeing Allah in sleep, but that is a minority position not accepted by the majority of the scholars.

Imam al-Bajuri (Allah have mercy on him) has mentioned some additional notes regarding the vision of Allah in sleep in his commentary ofJawhara al-Tahid.

He states that, if one sees Allah in a manner that is not impossible for Allah, then one has surely seen Him. However, if one sees Him in a form that is impossible for Him such as seeing Him in a form of a specific individual, then that is not Allah rather it is the creation of Allah, and the dream will need to be interpreted by those qualified to do so. Some scholars said that even in such a case, one did actually see Allah, but the form seen is not the reality of Allah; rather, it is reflecting the mind of the one having the vision. (Tuhfat al-Murid Sharh Jawhara al-Tawhid, P: 118)

Imam Ibn Sirin (Allah have mercy on him), a major classical scholar considered to be a master in the science of interpreting dreams, states in his renowned book, The Interpretation of Dreams: (This book incidentally covers over 900 dreams with their meanings explained. It explains what facts are to be taken into account when interpreting a dream, when is a dream regarded as true or false, etc.)

“Sayyiduna Daniyal (peace be upon him) relates that if a believer was to see Allah Most High in his dream unequalled and incomparable, as is related in the verses of the Qur’an and in the Hadiths, he will be blessed with the magnificent sight of Allah Most High (in the hereafter) and his needs will also be fulfilled. If an individual was to see a dream in a manner that he was standing before Allah Most High and that He Most High was watching him, then the dream is a sign of his piety and spiritual well-being. He will be chosen for forgiveness, and if he is sinful he will repent.” (Ta’bir al-Ru’ya, P: 67)

Imam Ibn Sirin then goes on to mention many types of dreams in which one sees Allah Most High and gives their interpretations. For example, if one sees that Allah Most High is talking secretly with one, then this means one is close to Allah Most High. If one sees that Allah Most High is advising one and giving one Nasiha, then this alludes to the fact that Allah Most High is not completely happy with one’s actions. A glad tiding from Allah is a sign of His pleasure and admonition from Allah is a sign of His wrath and anger (ibid). For more details, one may refer to Imam Ibn Sirin’s above-mentioned book, but one should consult a reliable scholar of knowledge, piety and wisdom before coming to any sort of conclusion.

To sum up, the vision of Allah Most High is rationally possible and the believers will be blessed with this vision in the hereafter. However, no one is able to see Allah in this world whilst in a state of being awake besides the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and regarding the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) too, there is a difference of opinion amongst the Companions (Allah be pleased with them all). As far as seeing Allah in sleep is concerned, this is possible and is related from many pious servants of Allah, saints and scholars.

And Allah knows best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam 
Darul Iftaa 
Leicester , UK

Source

Refuting the Baseless Claim that Allah is a ‘Moon-god’

THE CLAIM THAT JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS REJECTED ALLAH AS A FALSE DIETY

The argument that lays the floor work for the people that argue that Allah is a pre-Islamic pagan deity known and worshipped as the moon-god is their claim that Allah was alien to the Jews and the Christians and they rejected Him as a false deity. We find in Robert Morey’s The Moon-god In the Archaeology of The Middle East, p. 1

The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of “Allah.” The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was “Allah” the biblical God or a pagan god in ‘Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim’s claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if “Allah” is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted.”

The first problem is that the above statement implies that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and in continuation, the Muslims are trying to sell the Jews and the Christians a lie by saying that Allah is the God mentioned within their scriptures. This opinion is demonstrated further in his next statement:

Muhammad attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.”

The above sentence is combined with two blatant lies. The first being that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was trying to convince the pagans he worshipped what they worshipped. We know this claim to be false for many reasons as we will refute shortly. The second false claim is that the Jews and the Christians rejected Allah as a false god. Our main focus will be on refuting this false premise.

DID MUHAMMAD ﷺ TRY TO PLEASE THE PAGANS??

It is very easy to prove that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ rejected the idolatrous worship in Arabia and that the Makkan pagans actually rejected Allah. This can be witnessed by any sensible mind who reads the Qur’an, the Ahaadeeth, or the Biography of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ , even at a basic level. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ made no efforts at all to try and convince the pagans of Makkah that he worshipped what they worshipped, and just to prove this I will quote a few passages from the Qur’an.

The following passages can be found in Surat al-Kaafirun: “Say [to them] O disbelievers: I worship not what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship, and I will never worship what you worship, so to you your religion, and to me my religion” The Chapter of the Disbelivers”  It is reported in the Seerah compiled by Ibn Hisham , p. 285 , also in what is said to be Ibn Ihsaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 165 that the Prophet was doing the circumbalation of the Ka’bah when al-Aswaad b. Muttalib b. Asad and Umayyah b. Khalaf approached him and said “O Muhammad, worship our Lord for some time and we will worship your Lord for sometime; if yours is better, then we will benefit from that and if ours is better you will benefit from that. It was at this moment that Surat ul-Kaafirun was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It is clear from this account alone that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not trying to please the pagans by saying we worship the same god. In fact, he made it a common practice to differ with them at nearly every turn! [Footnote, this also refutes Robert Morey’s claim in which he uses the ayah “Tales of the ancients dictated to him day and night, for this is an example of how the revelation would come down in spontanious circumstances].

DID THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS REJECT ALLAH AS A FALSE DEITY??

Dr. Robert Morey also claimed in the above statement that the Jews and the Christians  rejected Allah as a false god. So what name did the Arabic Bible use  if it did not use Yahweh?? What did the Jews and Christians of Arabia call their deity before Islam and after Islam?? The oldest Syriac New Testament dating back to 465 AD [after departure], the Peshitta which is written in the native tongue of ‘Eesa alayhissalaam [Jesus Christ], Aramaic, uses the name Alaha for God. Furthermore, the oldest Arabic Bible, the Mt Sinai Arabic Codex 151, which dates back to 867 AD also uses the name Allah for God. Just this simple fact alone is enough to destroy Dr. Robert Morey’s argument. However, let us look further into this baseless claim.

The fact of the matter is, the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that Allah is the true universal God.  Had Allah been a pagan deity that the Jews and Christians rejected as a false deity, then surely there would have been record of this in early Jewsish, Christian-Muslim debates. It would have been recorded in the primary and secondary sources, which include the Qur’an and the Ahaadeeth, yet we find no such objections. Not from the Jews, not from the Christians, not even the pagans!

The Qur’an clearly responds to the Jewish claim regarding parts of their Torah in which they substituted:

“Woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say ‘This is from Allah’…” Al-Qur’an Surah al-Baqarah, ayah 2:79

We can deduce from this evidence that the Jews used to forge scripture and then claim that is was directly from Allah. Firstly you need to ask why would the Jews attribute their Torah to a pre-Islamic pagan deity if they (according to Robert Morey) believed Allah to be such?? Secondly, why do we not see any recorded argument from the Jews saying “We did not say this book is from Allah” in response to this ayah??

In the following ayah from the Qur’an the Jews claimed that they had made a promise to Allah not to believe in a messenger unless he showed them a sacrifice consumed by fire, they said:

“Allah took our promise not to believe in a Messenger unless he showed us a sacrifice consumed by fire.” Al-Qur’an, Surah al Imraan .3:183

We can see further from the Qur’an that the Jews and the Christians claimed to be the children of Allah:

“And both the Jews and the Christians say ‘we are the children of Allah and His loved ones…” Al-Qur’an Surat ul Maa’idah, ayah 5:18

It does not stop here as we can see the Jews using the name Allāh for their deity can be seen further in Surah 2, verse 89, where it is noted that the Jews of Madinah used to pray to Allah for victory over the pagan tribes in that residence.  Concerning this verse Imaam as-Suyuti [rahimahullah] said:

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated through Said or Ikrima from Ibn Abbas: the Jews used to pray for the Prophet ﷺ to come so they could be victorious against the Aws and the Khajaz , before he was sent. Then, Allāh sent him from amongst the ‘Arabs, but they disbelieved in him. They denied and rejected what they used to say about him.  At this Muaadh Ibn Jabaal, Bishr ibn al-Bara, and Dawud ibn Salama said: “O Jews! Fear Allaah and submit! For you used to pray for victory with the coming of Muhammad when we were disbelievers, and you used to tell us that he is a Messenger soon to be sent, and you would describe him for us.” Whereupon Salaam ibn Mashkam, one from amongst the Jewish tribe of Banu Naadir, said, “He did not come to us with something we recognize, and he is not the one we used to describe and speak about before” _Imaam Suyuti’s Asbaab al-Nuzuwl. from al-Itqaan fi Ulum ul-Qur’an

Imaam Suyuti [rahimahullah] also records the exact supplication the Jews used:

Allahumma unsurna alayhim bin-nabi i.e. “O Allah   please help us (be victorious) over them with the (promised) Messenger ﷺ” _Imaam Suyuti’s Tafseer Jalalayn, ayah 2:89

On another occasion, the Jews were asked by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ what would they think if their main priest converted to Islam and upon hearing that they replied:

May Allah protect him from that”  _Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, No. 275

This Hadeeth is known to Dr. Robert Morey as he quoted from it on p. 61 of his book, “Winning The War Against Radical Islam,” however he has chose to ignore this evidence along with many others, as it would destroy the credibility of his thesis that Allah was alien to the Jews. Dr. Robert Morey does not want you to know that the Jews used the name Allah for their deity! He knows fully well that their argument was not concerning the name of God, but, the prophet hood of Muhammad ﷺ, as the Jews only objection was with the Prophet-hood of Muhammad ﷺ.

Another example is the changing of the direction of the Qiblah.   For many years, the Muslims faced towards Jerusalem for their daily prayers until Allah sent down a revelation commanding the Muslims to face the direction of the Kabah in Makkah.   Ibn Ihsaaq reports that the change of direction happened one year and six months after the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the Muslims had emigrated to Madinah.

This demonstrates for us that, for so many years the Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem whilst they were in Makkah! Facing the direction of Jerusalem pleased The Jews and gave them hope that they could convert Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to Judaism. However, they had lost all hope when Muhammad ﷺ told them:

All nations are equal before Allah, and Allah   chooses whom He wishes for Prophet-hood and the distinction is not for Jews alone

This belief would have destroyed everything the Jews stood for concerning their beliefs that only they were to be the trustees and owners of Allah’s religion, thus making them thee chosen ones.  Allah shattered their delusions by revealing the command for the Muslims to change their direction to Makkah. The Jews objected to this strongly and Allah revealed the verse

The fools among the people say ‘What has made them turn away from the direction they used to face’”

It is strange that we do not find the Jews arguing anywhere about the name Allah, but, something a lot less serious, being the direction of prayer.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica also gives us strong irrefutable evidence that the Jews in ‘Arabia did in fact use the proper name Allah for their deity. If we look up the name ‘Abdullah Yusuf, we find the following submission:

Last of the false Messiahs to appear among the Jews of Yemen …His opponents (the Jews) mockingly named him “’Adu Allah” (“enemy of God”), a play on his name ‘Abdallah (“servant of God”). _Encyclopaedia Judiaca, Vol. 2, pp. 51-53.

These evidences demonstrate that the Jews used the name Allah before and after the advent of Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ declaration to his prophetic office. If there had been a problem with the usage of the name Allah, the Jews would have argued this point and such an argument would have been recorded either in the texts of the Ahadeeth or in historical documentation. However we find none. Had it been that the name Allah was pagan in origin, then the Jews would have strongly objected based on the ruling in the “Torah”  which states that one should not utter any name of any false god (see:Bible, Exodus 23:13).

We clearly see from the evidences that Allah was indeed the Jewish Deity, however, what about the Christians??

The Christians also raised many objections against Islam but we find it was never once about the name Allah. It is reported that the Christians of Najran listened attentively to Mughirah Ibn Shubah (radgiyallahu anhu) reciting the verses of the Qur’an that relate to Bibi Maryam (Biblical Mary) and the birth of Hadhrat ‘Eesa  alayhissalaam (Jesus) After hearing the recitation of the Qur’an they objected to Mary being referred to as “O sister of Aaron” accusing Prophet Muhammad ﷺ of Anachronism.

They never objected to the passages which quote baby ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) as saying

Indeed I am a servant of Allah (‘Abdullah).

The Christian king Negus had these very same verses recited to him and he made no objections in regards to the name Allah either.

Let us also recall the sixty Christian riders from Najran who came to to hold a face to face dialogue with Prophet Muhammad ﷺ . They had many disagreements with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ but Allah being the true name for God was never one of them. They were refuted for their notion of Trinity in a very clear cut manner, the very verse that says “wa la taquwlu thalatha” i.e. “do not say three”  – “innama al maseehu ‘isaabn maryam rasoolullahi” i.e. “Jesus the Messiah, son of Mary is only a Messenger of Allah” (S.4:171).

Note here that we fail to find one Christian in any historical account who says “Wait a minute, hold it right there! You said ‘Rasoolullah’! Allah is not God’s name! You must have it confused, why are you saying Jesus is the Messenger of the moon-god?” In fact, we find in the Qur’an and other historical documents the Christians argued that Jesus was Allah, and they still use this very argument to this day.  Furthermore, one of the Christians had the name ‘Abdullah i.e. servant of Allah, and he may have been born well before Muhammad’s ﷺ declaration to Prophet-hood. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah by Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press, pgs. 270-277

Likewise, we find no objections from the pagans!

Had Allah been a pre-Islamic pagan deity housed inside of the Kabah, then the pagans of Makkah would have been the first to object to the idea that Allah was the same God that the Jews and the Christians worshipped. They would have been the first to argue that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Jews and the Christians. They would have jumped to this chance to call Prophet Muhammad ﷺ an imposter, a liar. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the pagans to disprove Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ beliefs, especially in the court of Negus, as mentioned before.  However these arguments are conspicuously absent from the texts of the Qur’an and the Ahadeeth, or any historical documentation.

Overall, these few examples demonstrate that even though the Jews, Christians and the pagans made objections, they shared a common belief in Allah as being the true universal God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Dr. Robert Morey confirms that the only challenge to the Qur’an that the infidels put forth was the claim that the Qur’an is just a bunch of tales from the ancients:

But the unbelievers say, “This is nothing but a lie which he has forged, and other have helped him do it …Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written; and they are dictated before him morning and evening” Qur’an S.25:4-5

However look more closely at this claim for Dr. Robert Morey says:

The authors of the Qur’an assumed that everyone already knew of these things and thus no explanation was needed_Winning The War Against Radical Islam p. 5

Dr. Robert Morey further documents on pgs 7-8 of this said work, that the Qur’an is composed of Jewish and Christian myths. Notice very closely that there was no objection was from the infidels claiming that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had transformed their pagan deity to the God of the Jews and the Christians. Reason being is that the pagans already believe that Allah, the supreme God of the universe was the same God that the Jews and the Christians worshipped. This is clearly seen from the following ayah from the Qur’an:

Say: ‘Who provides you from the sky and the earth? Or who owns his hearing and sight? And who brings out the dead from the living? And who disposes the affairs?’ They [the pagans] will say ‘Allah.’ Say: ‘Will you not then be afraid of Allah’s punishment [for setting up partners with Allah].”   Surah 10 ayah 31

This understanding is also seen in Imaam Muwaafaq ud-Deen’s lum’at ul-I’tiqaad:

The Holy Prophet ﷺ said to Hussain:  “How many deities do you worship?” He replied: “Seven! Six in the earth and one in the heavens” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then asked him another question: “Which one do you turn to when you feel frightened or terrified or have a need to be fulfilled?” The man said:  “He who is in the heavens” So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Abandon the six and worship He who is in the heavens and I will teach you two supplications” Upon hearing this from the Messenger of Allah the man then embraced Islam and learnt from the Holy Prophet ﷺ the following supplication: “O Allah inspire me and guide me and protect me from the evilness of my soulSunan at-Tirmidhi, Kitaab ud-Da’awaah, hadeeth  no. 3483. The whole quotation of this paragraph is found in the classical text Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad p. 45, translated by Andrew Sanders, Saladin Publishing 2009

Therefore it is clearly seen that the pagan ‘Arabs did believe Allah to be the true universal deity “The one in the heavens” and none of them ever understood Allah to be a stone pagan deity housed in the Ka’bah. Although, they “believed” in Allah, their disbeleief was due to associating partners to Him. Robert Morey wants to lead you to believe that Allah was once a stone deity. However it is clear from the evidence I have presented that Allah is the God of the Jews Christians and they had no objections to that.

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DEBATES

In a previous discussion, Robert Morey accused me of making a factual error when I posed the question “why has no objection been made by the Jews and the Christians of Arabia in regards to the name of Allah?” instead of answering the question, he replied by saying:

You have committed a factual error in that you do not know the early debates between Christians and Muslims where the name “Allah” was rejected as pagan.”

The book that Robert Morey refers to is an edited version of The early Christian-Muslim dialogue by al-Kindi `Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq.  This is best known as “The Apology of al-Kindi” and it documents an early Muslim-Christian debate in which letters were exchanged between a Muslim theologian and ‘Abd ul-Maseeh al-Kindi. This text has been translated from the ‘Arabic manuscript

[Risaalah ‘Abdullah Bin Isma’el al-Hashimy ilaa ‘Abdul-Maseeh Bin Ihsaaq al-Kindi. This text can be downloaded at http://www.jesus-for-all.net/hewar_adyan/pdf_266.pdf ] by Sir William Muir in 1880 and N. A. Newman later edited the English of this text adding a few comments of his own. Robert Morey has refered to this book in his “The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East” on page 13.

So what do we learn from this book??

Firstly, al-Kindi uses the Arabic basmalah which Arabic speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly did. This is to begin the book in Allah’s name by saying “Bismillahi” i.e. In the name of Allah.

The reply of al-Kindi is introduced thus… The Christian [al-Kindi] answered him [the Muslim scholar he was debating] In the name of God the Merciful” which in the original Arabic manuscript of this apology is “Bismillah ar-Rahmaan arRaheem” [See the apology of al-Kindi translated by Sir William Muir, p. 16 and the Arabic text  Risaalah ‘Abdullah Bin Isma’el al-Hashimy ilaa ‘Abdul-Maseeh Bin Ihsaaq al-Kindi The Arabic can be clearly seen athttp://www.jesus-for-all.net/hewar_adyan/pdf_266.pdf on p. 41]

Not only this, but we find al-kindi prefixing the name Allah with the ‘Arabic word “ta’alaa” which translates into English as “The Almighty” so along along al-Kindi is saying Allah the Almighty. Even the Biblical quotes that al-Kindi utilizes contain the name Allah as the name for his supreme deity. This factor destroys Robert Morey’s claim that Allah was rejected as a pagan deity. This really does tear apart his claim that:

The Jews and Christians… rejected… Allah as a false god_The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East”  p. 13.

Especially given the fact Robert Morey then goes on to quote from al-Kindi directly after this statement. This only demonstrates that Robert Morey has not carefully read the text in English, let alone ‘Arabic. Let us look at how he quotes al-Kindi to his own little agenda:

Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans.” The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East, By Robert A. Morey, p. 13

Robert Morey wants us to believe that al-Kindi is suggesting that Allah is a pagan deity who is unknown to the Bible, however we have successfully demolished this claim with overwhelming factual evidence. However, let us see what Sir William Muir undertstands from al-Kindi’s statement:

His friend [Al-Hishamy] had invited him to embrace the Hanyfite, faith of Abraham, their common father. Our Apologist answers that the Hanyfite faith was in reality the idolatrous religion of the Sabeans, which the patriarch professed before his conversion to the worship of the one true God.” The Apology of Al-Kindy, 2nd Edition, page 41

We see from Sir William Muir’s commentary that Al-Kindy alleges that the Hanifite faith of Islam, i.e. the Abrahamic faith, stems from the paganism of the Sabeans, then, he further alleges that Abraham was of this idolatrous religion until he turned in his worship to the one true God. He is not saying Allah is a pagan deity, he is saying that Abraham used to worship pagan deities before his “conversion”.

In Islam we know this to be untrue as the Qur’an clearly states that Abraham was never one of the idolaters in many places, as the Qur’an says “Wa maa kaana minal mushrikeen – He [Abraham was not one of the pagans

I would like the readers to take note what Sir William Muir writes in the footnote to this point:

But the only argument in this passage as to the propriety of circulating or translating which I have doubts is that in which he asserts the Hanyfite religion of Abraham to have been, not the Catholic faith of the Unity (as is clearly intended in the Coran)  , but Sabean idolatry. To support this view, our Author twists texts of the Coran…Mahometan readers will with reason object to such misrepresentation of their Scripture.” Ibid page 43.

Please take special care in noticing how Sir William Muir freely admits that he, himself, doubts what al-Kindi has asserted regarding the alleged paganism of Abraham, due to Al-Kindi’s deliberate twisting and misrepresentation and cherrypicking of the Qur’an to deceive the readers into arriving at his own concocted conclusion that Abraham was formerly a pagan. [He uses the ayah’s from the Qur’an 6:74-82, however it must be understood clearly that Abraham was making an example to his people in order to lead them to the One true God and he was never one of the mushrikeen as proven in Surat ul-Baqarah (2), ayah 135]

Therefore the integrity of Al-Kindi is questioned, not by the Muslim but by a Christian Missionary. Al-Kindi only alleged that Abraham [Qur’anic Ibraheem alayhissalaam] was formerly a pagan and attempted to cherrypick ayahs from the Qur’an to prove his case.  How then has Robert Morey managed to derive without any hard solid evidence to back up his theory that somehow al-Kindi has implied that Allah was the Sabean Moon-god? Robert Morey’s referral to the early Christian and Muslim debates has failed dismally, and the evidence i against his thesis, not with his thesis.

Robert Morey’s deceptive style of quotation does not stop here as he then tries to conclude from the evidence we just refuted that Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating:

Islam proved itself to be…a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry.” moon-god booklet, p.13

However, Dr Newman actually wrote:

The first three centuries of the Christian-Muslim dialogue to a great degree moulded the form of the relationship which was to prevail between the two faiths afterward. During this period, Islam proved itself to be less a wayward sect of the “Hagarenes,” from a Christian perspective, and more a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry. ” N. A. Newman (Ed.), The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Collection Of Documents From The First Three Islamic Centuries (632 – 900 A.D.) Translations With Commentary, 1993, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 719.

Dr Robert Morey conveniently left out that the idea that Islam originating from paganism is from a Christian perspective i.e. this is a point of view, and does not serve as evidence, nor does it have any citations to even strengthen this bias Christian perspective. Unfortunately, Dr Robert Morey has misunderstood and misused the evidences al-Kindi to form baseless assumptions and misinterpretation of what the text actually says. Once again, we are to find this unscrupulousness all too common when it comes to Dr. Morey’s “truthful” integrity and “careful” scholarship.

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]

WHY HAS ALLAH IMPOSED THE KUFFAAR AND THE MOST BRUTAL RULERS OVER US ??

[By Shaykh Ahmad Sadeq Desai D.B]

YOU WILL BE GIVEN RULERS ACCORDING TO YOUR DEEDS

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
Just as you are, so too will rulers be appointed over you.

Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam) supplicated to Allah Ta’ala:
“O my Rabb! What is the sign to indicate that you are pleased with Your creation?”

Allah Ta’ala said:
“I cause the rains to descend when it is time for sowing the seeds, and I withhold the rains when it is time to harvest the crop. I appoint benevolent men to rule over them. I assign their monetary affairs to generous persons.”

Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) said:
“O my Rabb! What is the Sign of Wrath on your creation?”
Allah Ta’ala said:

“I send the rains when they harvest the crops, and I withhold the rains when they sow the seeds. I appoint ignoramuses to rule them, and I assign their monetary affairs to their miserly ones.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Allah Ta’ala says: ‘I am Allah. There is no deity except Me. I am the King of kings. The hearts of kings are in My Hands when the people obey Me, I turn the hearts of the rulers with benevolence and mercy towards them. Verily, when the people disobey Me. I turn the hearts of the rulers with wrath and vengeance towards them. Then they (the rulers) inflict severe punishment on them. Therefore do not become involved with cursing the rulers. On the contrary engage yourself with thikr and humility so that I protect you against the tyranny of your rulers.”

Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“Verily, when Allah Ta’ala becomes wrathful on a nation whose destruction He has not ordained by means of earthquakes and disfigurement, then He causes prices to soar; He withholds rain, and He appoints the worst of people to be their rulers.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

‘Verily, Allah Azza Wa Jal says: ‘I extract vengeance from those on whom is My Wrath with others on whom is My Wrath. Then ultimately I shall cast them all (both groups) into Jahannum”

Don’t revile the rulers. Supplicate to Allah for their rectitude, for verily, their rectitude is linked to your rectitude.” (i.e. if you reform yourselves, the rulers will become reformed.)

“I take oath by Him in whose control is my life! Command righteous and prohibit evil. (If you do not) then the vilest among you will be appointed rulers over you. Your pious people will then supplicate, but their duas will not be accepted.”

Rulers are the reflections of the deeds of the masses. The rulers are mirrors in which the citizens can view their own deeds. A corrupt people will be saddled with tyrannical and corrupt rulers. Thus Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Your deeds are your rulers” .

[STUPID TO REVILE ONE’S OWN UGLY REFLECTION]

Since the rulers are our reflections in the mirror, it is unintelligent to revile our own ugly reflection we see in the mirror. If a beautiful image is desired to be reflected in the mirror, it is necessary for the object in front of the mirror to be beautiful. A very ugly ignorant man who had never seen a mirror in his life once picked up a broken mirror. When he looked in it, he saw his own ugly face. In disgust he threw the mirror to the ground and exclaimed: “No wonder you have been thrown away!” This buffoon reviled the mirror for his own ugliness which was reflected in it. This is the condition of people who revile the rulers. They in fact revile themselves in the same way that the buffoon had thrown away the mirror and reviled it.

In the Hadith Qudsi, we are instructed to reform ourselves and become obedient servants of Allah Ta’ala. He will then either reform and tenderize the hearts of the tyrannical rulers or replace them with kind, benevolent rulers. It is quite obvious from the many Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as well as stemming from the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem that in general cruel and oppressive rulers are the consequences of the evils of the masses, and that the solution for the oppression and tyranny is not vilification of the tyrants. On the contrary, it is selfvilification, soul-searching, regret and repentance.

Moral reformation and submission to the Shariah of Allah Azza Wa Jal will bring about a peaceful revolution which will see either the change of heart of the rulers or their replacement by benevolent rulers. It is also quiet clear that the basic theme of all the Ahaadith on this subject is self-reformation, for only such reformation is the enduring solution for the tyranny of oppressors.

BASHAR ASAD, SISI, OBAMA, MODI, ETC. – OUR UGLY REFLECTION

However, shaitaan has succeeded in casting the Ummah into the massive deception of believing that the problem is for example Sisi,Obama,Modi, Asad and the host of other kuffaar and munaafiqs who are today at the helm of affairs in the lands of Islam. These tyrants are merely the reflections of the moral degradation, bid’ah, fisq, fujoor and kufr in which the Ummah is today wallowing in a drunken stupor.

Removal and killing of the tyrants without moral reformation and submission to the Sunnah is simply the substitution of one system of tyranny for another system of tyranny. The scenario of substitution of tyrannies comes within the scope of the Hadith Qudsi (mentioned above) in which Allah Azza Wa Jal says that both groups – the oppressors and the oppressed who replace the former oppressors – are Mabghoodh Alayhim, i.e. the Wrath of Allah Ta’ala has settled on them. Both groups of scum will be swept into Jahannum. This is the situation prevailing currently in the Arab lands in the aftermath of the so-called stupid ‘Arab Spring’. Both groups are Mabgoodh Alayhim.

The other form of punishment mentioned in the Ahaadith for a flagrantly transgressing and rebellious Ummah when their final destruction has not yet been ordained, but is divinely schemed to be gradual and incremental, is drought, scarcity of essential foodstuff, soaring prices, pestilence, infighting, etc. Then when the hour dawns for the ultimate decree of annihilation, no respite will be granted.

And, when We decide to destroy a place (town/city, i.e. its people), we command its affluent ones (that is, we grant them leeway to transgress recklessly). Then they indulge in transgression. Thus the decree (of punishment) is ordained for them. Then We utterly destroy them.”
“And, when their appointed time (of annihilation) arrives, it will not be delayed a moment nor advanced.” (Qur’aan)

As long as Muslims fail to understand that every particle moves by the direct intervention and command of Allah Azza Wa Jal and that the oppression which rulers inflict on the populace is the decree of Allah Ta’ala, and the solution for such tyranny is Inaabat ilallaah (Turning to Allah with Repentance), they will remain sinking in an abyss of moral degradation and humiliation to remain the slaves of the western kuffaar.

“And not a leaf falls (from a tree) but He is aware of it….”

EXAMPLES OF WIDESPREAD SINS WHICH ARE HARAAM ACCORDING TO IJMA’ (CONSENSUS) BUT JUSTIFIED AND PROPAGATED BY TODAY’S “ULAMA”

Examples of sins which the whole Ummah is flagrantly indulging in and justifying on the shaytaani basis of “valid ikhilaaf” and which were ruled emphatically as HARAAM according to the complete IJMA (CONSENSUS) of all the Akaabir of Deoband who upheld authentically the ruling of the Aimmah Mujtahideen and Fuqaha (jurists):

* Music – there is no such thing as ‘Halaal’ music, regardless of the new technology used to produce it.

* Pictures, Photos, Videos, Digital images containing animate objects – there is not such thing as Halaal video containing animate objects.

* Prohibition of Women coming out of their homes to go to the Masjids, public “Islamic” lectures, etc.

* Alcohol – even a drop of wine added to your food renders the whole food as HARAAM by Ijma’ (consensus). Small amounts of alcohol are added to ALL fizzy drinks, and countless other food items that are completely unnecessary for our survival, but eaten just for the sake of our Nafs (desires).

* Trusting the Faasiq-Faajir Saudi government for doing Eid based on a fake moon, who have let slip and revealed in numerous official documents and letters (to be published soon) that they do not base their month on Islamic moon-sighting.

AND COUNTLESS OTHER SINS WHICH WERE ONCE HARAAM BY IJMA’ (CONSENSUS) OF ALL THE RELIABLE ULAMA, BUT TODAY JUSTIFIED BY THE ULAMA-E-SOO ON THE SATANIC BASIS OF “VALID IKHTILAAF”

PLEASE PROPAGATE THIS BITTER HAQQ FOR THE UMMAH TO SWALLOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE REAL AND TRUE CAUSE OF ALLAH’S UNIVERSAL PUNISHMENT IS OUR FLAGRANT SINS AND JUSTIFICATION OF THOSE SINS.