Knowing Our Theology: The Encounter between Habib Ali Al Jifri and Miroslav Volf

 

He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?”

(Qur’an 2:169-170)

volf

 

This article will be taken from the exchange between Professor Miroslav Volf (Director of the Yale Centre for Faith and Culture) and Sheikh Habib Ali al-Jifri (General Director of the Tabah Foundation)

First I want to say may Allah (swt) bless Shaikh Habib Ali al-Jifri in his efforts for daw’ah and spreading love and light among the Muslims and sharing knowledge.

I am writing this article because as if you have read the book: ‘Allah: A Christian Response’ and you read the section: The One God and the Holy Trinity you should be concerned how one of our top Da’ee was not able to interact with Professor Miroslav Volf and his Christian theology in a way that was informed and meaningful.

This is absolutely crucial to the Muslim-Christian dialogue.    Rather you are a Muslim who thinks of his or herself as Athari, Ashari, Maturidi you best think long and hard about your theological position and what you understand when you say Allah is One.

 

Allah is One…What?

Allah is One God?   O.K what does that mean?

I am typing with one keyboard, and I have one computer.  I myself am one person.

Yet, the Ashari and the Maturidi would say that I am a composite oneness or a unity. I am composed of parts/components whereas Allah (swt) is not subject is not a unity.

Yet, how true is this upon further investigation, especially when we consider the sifat (the attributes of Allah swt).

Is Allah a unity ( a coming together of …) a Tawheed (again a unity, a coming together of)  a Trinity  ( a three in one coming together of)?

Is Allah one in essence?

Is Allah one in attributes?

Are the attributes identical to the essence or other than the essence or in some static union a mystery as the Ashari assert?

 

Before you read my commentary of the exchange between Professor Volf and Shaikh Habib Ali Jifri I would encourage you to read this article here: 

http://christianthinktank.com/trin2.html

Again I cannot emphasize enough the importance of reading the above link is before continuing in this exchange. You can see just how well-read some of our Christian brothers are on the subject. Even Professor Volf read refutations of the various Trinity doctrines by the illustrious Shaikh Fakhr al-Din al-Razi.

THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN PROFESSOR VOLF AND SHAIKH HABIB ALI JIFRI 

In this section, I will be covering pages 127 to page 148 of the book as well as the exchange between the respected Professor and the respected Shaikh.

Now  I have no reason at all to doubt the encounter as told by Professor Volf. I find him to be humble and sincere.  What is shocking and it should be too many of you is that Habib Ali Jifri really had no frame of reference in dealing with Professor Volf’s theology.

So I would like to share with you the counter (according to Professor Volf) as well as some of the statements Professor Volf puts out there trying to explain the Trinity as he understands it. I will in general quote paragraphs from this section and I will give some thoughts on it as well.  This is not only directed towards our esteemed Habib Ali Al  Jifri but Professor Volf is telling the Christians in general that Muslims have absolutely no clue what our theology is (according to how we understand it).

 

“Do you think that Muslims and Christians worship the same God?”

Sheikh al-Jifri answered without hesitation: “Yes, they do. In the Qur’an it is written: ‘Our God and your God is One.'”

“But Christians believe that God is the Holy Trinity, and Muslims disagree. How do you then still affirm that the two worship the same God?” I pressed him.

He smiled enigmatically and said, “What the archbishop of Canterbury wrote about the Trinity in his response to the ‘Common Word’ was very helpful.”

The archbishop is a great and creative theologian,” I responded to Sheikh al-Jifri, “but he said nothing new in his comment son God as the Holy Trinity.”

“Yes?” he inquired. There was a note of mild surprise and curiosity in his voice. In his lecture at Yale University some six months earlier, Sheikh al-Jifri had stressed that Muslims “do not believe that God, mighty and majestic is He, can be divided.” He seemed to imply, of course, that Christians do. I wanted to reassure him that Christians and Muslims agree on this point.

“After the early centuries of intense debates, Christians have come to affirm what some theologians have described as  ‘the numerical identity of the divine substance,'” I continued knowing full well that the phrase is inexact but wishing to underscore an important and valid point. “For us, the divine ‘three’ are one single and undivided divide essence, not three divine essences next to each other comprising some kind of divine troika.”

I could not read his expression, but I sensed gravity in his manner as he slowly turned to face me, “Miroslav,” he asked, ‘Do you have time after the dinner to discuss this matter with me and my collaborators at the Tabah Foundation?” An immensely learned scholar of Islam and a spiritually attuned man, he knew that we had touched the heart of the matter. Was a way of opening up toward convergence about one of the main issues dividing Muslims and Christians? …

“The oneness of God (tawhid) is the principal at the very heart of Islam. This is the central issue for Muslims disputing with Christian claims about God. The reason is simple: if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be understood as one, according to Muslim interpretations of God’s unity, then Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.”

“Consider the Athanasian Creed, one of the most robust Christian statements about God as the Holy Trinity, approved by the great majority of Christian churches and read in many congregations in public worship on Trinity Sunday. At the very beginning, it states plainly: “We worship one God.” But it does not leave it at that. The full first line of the section about God reads: “We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither blending the persons nor dividing the essence.”

 

3.) Objection: God is not one of three divine beings in the Trinity. Response: Again, exactly right. When Christians speak of the three in God, they do not mean “three gods of limited power,” writes the archbishop. The Athanasian Creed makes the same point by saying the divine essence is “not divided.”  To divide the divine essence in any way is to slip into polytheism, which Christians reject.”

My comments: 

The question here for the Christians is not rather or not the divine essence is divided but rather or not it is shared!  Shared between whom or what? What is interesting is that Professor Volf and the vast majority of Christians will negate modalism as a heresy. Modalism is a “heretical view that denies the individual persons of the Trinity.”

 

Professor Volf continues:

“The critical issue in all these objections is this: Do Christians, their explicit statements to the contrary notwithstanding, divide the divine essence in the way they speak about God?  The great medieval Muslim commentator Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149-1209) thought that Christians did just that. With the doctrine of the Trinity, he said, Christians are “actually affirming the existence of several ‘self-subsisting essences.'” This is, from the Muslim perspective, “pure unbelief,” he insisted. “Pure unbelief” at the heart of the Christian faith! That’s just about as far apart as two religions could be, despite all their similarities. And yet, contrary to al-Razi’s opinion, I suggest that there is an actual agreement on this very issue. “

“Even from the Christian perspective, affirming the existence of multiple self-subsisting divine essences is polytheism and “pure unbelief”.  That is why the Athanasian Creed unambiguously and repeatedly states that “dividing the divine essence” is unacceptable. A basic rule for Christians as they speak about God is this: “Never divide divine essence.” This is the phrase I used in my conversation with Sheikh al-Jifri, and he immediately recognized it as addressing the crux of the tension between Christian and Muslim conceptions of God’s unity.”

 

My comments:

Notice that the Volf says that ‘affirming the existence of multiple self-subsisting divine essences is polytheism’. Yet we have to ask” What about affirming the existence of multiple selves subsisting persons?

Again we see the phrase: ‘dividing the divine essence is unacceptable‘ but sharing the divine essence?

Volf continues:

“Recall the crisply formulated conclusion that Nicholas of Cusa reached after examining Muslim and Jewish critiques of the doctrine of the Trinity: “In the manner in which Arabs [Muslims] and Jews deny the Trinity, assuredly it ought to be denied by all.” The Christian creeds and the great Christian teachers reject dividing the divine essence no less adamantly than do Muslims and Jews. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a preeminent contemporary Muslim scholar, agrees: “The doctrine of the Trinity certainly does not negate Divine Unity in mainstream Christian theology.”

My comments:

First, with due respect to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, he is a Perennialist. His teacher was Frithjof Schuon, another Perennialist.  Their goals and objectives are to try and remove exclusivity of doctrines and in the view of myself and most other Muslims obscure those areas of distinction in our respective theologies.

Secondly, the doctrine of the Trinity may not negate the idea of the Divine being consisting of a team (unity) but it certainly does go against Islamic theology.

Volf continues:

You are simultaneously saying two contradictory things, namely, that the divine essence is undivided  and that the divine ‘Persons’ are distinct.”

“Clearly, it is one thing to reject dividing the essence, and another thing actually to avoid dividing it. So how do Christians actually keep the divine essence undivided? In addition to stating clearly that there is only one “numerically” identical divine essence, they note that the “Persons” are tied and intertwined together in a most intimate manner, more intimate than any relation between creatures could ever be.”

“There are two related ways of understanding this intimate connection between the divine Three who are indivisibly one. Every act of one “Person” is always caused by all three. If this were not the case, then, as Augustine put it, “the Father [would do] some things, the Son others, and the Holy Spirit yet others. And this would be utterly unacceptable, he explicitly states. It would verge on polytheism.”

My comments: 

It is interesting to see Professor Volf put “numerically” and “Person” in quotation marks. So Professor Volf says, “Every act of one “Person is always caused by all three.”   So now a thinking Muslim should also ask Volf and the Christians are this: Is every act done by all three?

If every act is caused by all three is every act done by all three?

Did the Father die for us?

Did the Holy spirit die for us?

Did the Father ‘give’ his Son, in which the Holy Spirit ‘gave’ his Son in which the Son ‘gave’ his Son?

Does Miroslav Volf believe in Patripassianism?   Patripassianism is the idea or belief that the Father suffered along with the Son on the Cross.

This doesn’t sound like a classical Trinity at all!

The following Biblical text refutes Professor Volf’s theological musings.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

*Note*

Jesus has never had an existence in which he was not the son. At least not in mainstream Christianity.

So how can the son -which is divine shared essence not know when the father which is divine shared essence not know the announcement of the day of judgment?

There is no escape clause by saying, ‘Well he is speaking about his human nature’.  No! That is just you trying to escape from the inescapable proof text.  There never was a time in which Jesus was not divine (according to Christian theology). He has always been the ‘God-Man’.

 

Professor Volf continues:

“The second way to think how the divine “Persons” are tired together is their mutual indwelling or, in technical terminology, perichoresis. Again, as Augustine put it, ‘they are always in each other’ and never “alone”. One divine “Person” is what it is, not simply in virtue of being distinct from others, but in virtue of the presence of the other two “Persons” in it. The Father and the Spirit are always “in” the Son; to be the “Son” is to be indwelled by the Father and the Spirit.”

 

My comments:

First by ‘perichoresis‘ what Professor Volf means is by the following illustration:

 

So let us bring this quote up from Professor Volf: One divine “Person” is what it is, not simply in virtue of being distinct from others, but in virtue of the presence of the other two “Persons” in it.

Let us juxtapose it next to the Athanasian Creedal statement: “We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither blending the persons nor dividing the essence.”

After reading something like this we need to ask some very direct questions.  In what way are the persons distinct?  Is this not Sabellian Trinitarianism? 

 

Professor Volf continues on page 137,

“When it comes to God, the act of one person is always done by all three, because the other two are always “in” the third.”

 

My comments:

Again, in what way are these persons distinct? Thus, far it seems only in appellation ‘Father’, ‘Son’, and ‘Holy Spirit’ a redundancy.

 

Professor Volf continues:

“For al-Razi the proof that the Christians putatively “affirm one [divine] essence,” but in reality posit three divine “essences” is that “they deem it possible for one of these essences to inhere in the person of Jesus and of Mary.” If Christians truly considered the divine essence to by indivisible, then it could not be that one “Person,” the Word, would have become incarnate in Jesus Christ; rather, all three would have become incarnate. To have the incarnation of just one of the Persons, argues al-Razi, you need more than one divine essence. Incarnation is therefore an irrefutable proof of Christian polytheism.”

 

I would encourage you the reader to see this entry here: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/2019/05/11/does-the-biblical-text-assert-two-incarnations/

 

Professor Volf actually proves al-Razi’s point when he (Volf) says,

“Though only one Person is incarnate, all three Persons are present and act in that one Person who became incarnate.”

 

My comments: 

If that is not a contradiction than certainly there is no such thing as a contradiction!

This is why Allah (swt) says,

“O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.”  (Qur’an 4:171)

The Creator knows best about his essence and attributes.  So when the Creator says, ‘Do not say, ‘Three” desist -it is better for you.’   The proof is in the pudding.   Even the most learned of Christian scholars like Professor Volf when they begin to unpack their beliefs they will end up falling into modalism, sabellianism, patripassionism, and or outright polytheism.

 

Certain Trinitarian Christians may think they are playing some clever balancing act between polytheism and modalism when in reality they are not.

 

Professor Volf on pages 139-142 really begins to express his frustration in Christian theological terminology.

Professor Volf says,

“To avoid confusion over precisely that issue, many theologians counsel against the use of the word “Person” to refer to one of the three in God. We might be able to put it this way. Christian tradition uses the word “Person” not because it expresses exactly what Christians believe, but because there is no word more adequate to speak of the three in God. So we use the word, knowing we must mentally adjust its meaning when it refers to God.”

God is uncreated and infinite. Therefore God is inexpressible, beyond our concepts, beyond our language.”    “The very reality of God is such that God always remains inconceivable, a mystery that can never be properly named or puzzled out.”   “And yet we speak of God-guided by God’s self-revelation. We have true knowledge of God, but we are capable of understanding much better what the divine Mystery is not than what that Mystery is. Important strands in all three Abrahamic faiths agree on this.”

 

My comments: 

If Professor Volf truly believed that God was infinite why does he believe that the infinite could incarnate into the finite?

The Creator gives us revelation in a language comprehensible to us. The ability to understand abstract concepts.  All of this so that we can have a cogent and proper theology!

Do Christians believe that God is the creator of both space/time is Created by the divine?

Do Christians believe that God is omnipresent?  In all things and/or identical to all things?

These are interesting statements coming from Professor Volf, a Christian who often tell us that they know God?

Contrast the statements of Professor Volf with the following statements that are attributed to Christ Jesus.

“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22)

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you (the only true God) have sent.” (John 17:3)

 

Alas! Professor Volf is saying that:  “The very reality of God is such that God always remains inconceivable, a mystery that can never be properly named or puzzled out.”

Yet, if this is the case why is Professor Volf even speculating on that very nature and reality with doctrinal creeds devised by men?

“And they worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'” (Mark 7:7)

He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:169-170)  

 

Professor Volf continues:

“Recall the argument of Nicholas of Cusa that God is not just beyond concepts, but also beyond numbers. “One” and “three” do not apply to God the way they apply to human beings or to any other things in the world.”

“God is not one thing among many things in the universe, not even one supremely important thing without which none of the other things could exist. Instead, God is unique and categorically different from the world. We always go wrong when we employ numbers with regard to God the way we employ them with regard to created things.”

“Yet you can’t remove math from God entirely. To say that there is one undivided divine essence excludes, for instance, the option that there are eighteen gods, the number of Titans in the Greek pantheon. But “one” does not mean that, instead of there being eighteen gods, there is only one god belonging to the same category as all eighteen would if they existed.”

“Then we would be reducing the one true God to an idol–a unique idol, but an idol nonetheless–because God would still be one “entity” in the world. Monotheism would be then indistinguishable from idolatry. Instead, to affirm that there is one God means that there is only one, unique, and incomparable divine being, on a different plane of existence from everything that is not God.”

Consider, now, the “three” in God. To say that there are three “Persons” in the Trinity excludes, for instance, the option that there are twelve, the number of Olympians in the Greek pantheon. It excludes also the option that there is only one. But it does not say that, instead of there being either twelve or one distinct and separate individual essences in God, there are exactly three such individual essences, for, in fact, there are no individual essences in God.”

 

My comments: 

There is much to be said about the above statements.
Professor Volf says:  “
We always go wrong when we employ numbers with regard to God the way we employ them with regard to created things …”

And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God.”  (Qur’an 4:171)

Professor Volf says: Instead, to affirm that there is one God means that there is only one, unique, and incomparable divine being, on a different plane of existence from everything that is not God.”

That dear Professor is Islam!

Professor Volf says,

“But it does not say that, instead of there being either twelve or one distinct and separate individual essences in God, there are exactly three such individual essences, for, in fact, there are no individual essences in God.”

Subhan’Allah!  Look at the above statement from Professor Volf and remember what  al Razi said:

“For al-Razi the proof that the Christians putatively “affirm one [divine] essence,” but in reality posit three divine “essences” is that “they deem it possible for one of these essences to inhere in the person of Jesus and of Mary.” If Christians truly considered the divine essence to by indivisible, then it could not be that one “Person,” the Word, would have become incarnate in Jesus Christ; rather, all three would have become incarnate. To have the incarnation of just one of the Persons, argues al-Razi, you need more than one divine essence. Incarnation is therefore an irrefutable proof of Christian polytheism.”

Also, keep in mind this is THE KEY ISSUE, that for Christians (or at least this particular Christian) the essence of God is not one!

 

Professor Volf continues:

“My purpose is more modest: to demonstrate that the rejections of the “Trinity” in the Qur’an do not refer to normative Christian understanding of God’s three-ness and that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity doe snot call into question God’s oneness as expressed in Muslims’ most basic belief that there is “no god but God.”  What the Qur’an may be targeting is misconceptions about God’s nature held by misguided Christians.”

 

My comments: 

First who or what are ‘misguided‘ Christians is a matter of debate even among Christians themselves! Just as we Muslims have such debates and intra-faith disputes.  It is also important to note that the Qur’an nowhere, ever attempts to define what ‘The Trinity’ is.   This is simply because there is no such thing as ‘The Trinity’.   In reality, there are various concepts of Trinity, and Allah (swt) admonished the Christians not to say Three! That it would be better for them!

The Qur’an also states:

Indeed, the truth is denied by those who say, “Behold, Allah is the third of a Three” – seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One Allah. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.” (Qur’an 5:73)

God is the third of a Three?

Look at the diagram below:

God is the Father (The Third of Three Persons 3/3)

God is the Holy Spirit (The Third of Three Persons 3/3)

God is the Son (The Third of Three Persons 3/3)


If What Christians are telling us about the divine is factual than according to them God has never been the first of three, or the second of three. If the three persons are always co-eternal, co-substantial,   and co-equal, God would always be the third of three.

He only orders you to evil and immorality and to say about Allah what you do not know. And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?” (Qur’an 2:169-170)

With Allah is the success!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Understanding the Qur’an without Asbab an-Nuzul (Occasion of Revelation)

“Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.”  (Holy Qur’an 39:18)

This entry is written to discuss the popular view that ‘without ‘Asbab an-Nuzul’ you will never be able to ‘properly understand the Holy Qur’an’.

It is one of the things that traditionalist like to use as a litmus test, or measuring stick on rather or not one is proficient enough to be able to be guided by their Lord from reading the Holy Qur’an on its own.

It is often used as a tool of intimidation to be used against anyone who does not have knowledge of the subject.  So that those who like to uphold sources of authority as being equal to that of the Holy Qur’an  can say, ‘Ah ha you have no knowledge of this subject, now completely submit to the authority of our teachers!’.

My critique of this position will be based upon the writings contained in the following book:

An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” by Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi.

This book itself is a summary compilation, of various books, that were researched by the respected author.

*do take note*  I have changed the transliteration of Arabic into English from that used by the respected author, Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi, to confirm with more common usage of transliterated Arabic to English.

I define asbab an-nuzul as ‘the means of the descent’ or ‘the occasion of the descent’ and it is generally understand as the ‘occasion or cause for the revelation’.   As the Holy Qur’an, it was revealed at various stages through out the life of the  Blessed Messenger (saw). It would also appear that specific verses were revealed to address individuals, as well as to address specific circumstances.

Though I may agree with this premise I do not agree that without this knowledge one is unable to receive guidance from the Holy Qur’an; and thus their knowledge of the sacred text would be woefully inadequate.

However, in the book mentioned above we find this very revealing opening paragraph.

“The verses revealed without a sabab an-nuzul. Most of the verses of the Qur’an were revealed without a particular incident occurring before their revelation. The primary purpose for the revelation of the Qur’an was to <<guide mankind out of the darkness into the light>> (14:1)”

(Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” page 107)

As well as this interesting comment:

“Also excluded from the sabab an-nuzul are the histories of the various nations, and the knowledge of the unseen.”  (Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” page 108)

Now do be careful when engaging the sectarians on this point.  They will often acknowledge this very obvious point. That when the Holy Qur’an discusses historical narratives it is not the subject of the occasion for the revelation to descend down.  Thus, they may quickly follow up with ‘but this is not the case with the life of the Prophet’.

However, we are going to find that is assertion is patently false.

The first book to have been written on the topic of Asbab an-Nuzul

“There have been many books written specifically on the topic of asbab an-nuzul. The first person to write a book exclusively on this topic was Ali ibn Al-Madani (d. 234.), the teacher of Imam Al Bukhari.”

“Unfortunately, this work has been lost, and it is only known through later references to it. See the masters dissertation entitled Imam ‘Ali Al Madini wa Manhajuhu Fi Naqd ar-Rijal by Ikraam Allah al-Haqq, Umm al Qurra University, Makkah, 1984, p.220″

(Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” page 109)

According to the respected author the benefits of ‘asbab an-nuzul’ are as follows:

“To arrive at a proper understanding of the verse, and remove any misinterpretations or doubts concerning the verse’s meaning.”

“This by far is the primary purpose of the knowledge of the asbab an-nuzul. concerning this topic Al-Wāhidī (d. 487 A.H.) said, ‘It is impossible to properly interpret a verse without reflecting over its sabab an-nuzul.'”

(Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” page 119)

Yet, this seems to flatly contradict what the respected author says at the introduction of this chapter, namely: “Most of the verses of the Qur’an were revealed without a particular incident occurring before their revelation” (please see above for reference)

So to say that: “it is impossible to properly interpret a verse without reflecting over its sabab an-nuzul”  seems to be a bit of an overstatement indeed.

Here is a classic example that you, the seeker of truth, the defender of Islamic secondary sources, the traditionalist can look into yourself.

“That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of  Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor put him to death on a cross like structure, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not…”  (Holy Qur’an 4:157)

Now go ask your sheikh, your scholar or your Imam,  “What is the asbab an-nuzul of this verse”?  I mean it only concerns 1.7 billion Christians!

For an excellent and in depth discussion on this one particular verse I would recommend the following book:

The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought” By Todd Lawson

I’m going to digress for a moment as I have recommended this book, and cannot In good conscience do so without raising two points.

1) Todd Lawson completely skirts the very meaning of the term ‘crucifixion’. Which to me seems premature. If your going to question widely held assumptions with in the Islamic tradition, one would hope that you would do the same concerning the Christian tradition.

2) Along the same lines as above, he doesn’t discuss the  ‘historical’  accuracy of what Christ Jesus was ‘crucified’ on.

What Todd Lawson does do is show with complete competence the immense challenge this verse has posed to Islamic scholarship, in particular the Sunni faction.

So back to the main thrust of this entry.  There is no asbab an-nuzull for Chapter 4 verse 157 of the Holy Qur’an.

This alone is sufficient to dispel the statement of the respected sheikh ‘Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, and anyone who is aligned with this thinking.

The respected sheikh Ali Ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi was the earliest scholar of the branch of the ‘Qur’anic sciences’ known as Asbāb al-Nuzūl.

Here is also another revealing piece of information gleaned from the book mentioned above.

“The majority of scholars hold the view that the rulings from such verses are applied to every case that the wording of the verse covers. In other words, the ruling is not restricted to the sabab an-nuzul, but rather to every case that comes under the wording of the verse. In fact, one of the popular legal maxims in fiqh is, “The consideration for a ruling comes from the generality of the wording, and not the specificity of its circumstance of revelation.”

(Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” pages 117 & 118)

If you understand what is being said in that paragraph than the question is, why the fuss? Why make a big to do about asbab an nuzul when, “The consideration for a ruling comes from the generality of the wording, and not the specificity of its circumstance of revelation” 

Allah (swt) has given us very clear principles in understanding the Holy Qur’an

“Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it: those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.”  (Holy Qur’an 39:18)

“Allah has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book, consistent with itself, (yet) repeating (its teaching in various aspects): the skins of those who fear their Lord tremble thereat; then their skins and their hearts do soften to the celebration of Allah’s praises. Such is the guidance of Allah: He guides therewith whom He pleases, but such as Allah leaves to stray, can have none to guide.” (Holy Qur’an 39:23)

The respected author quotes an example In which he pleas with us that without understanding of the sabab an nuzul it would be impossible to understand!

An example are the first twenty verses of Surah An-Nur. These verses were revealed to clear ‘Aishah of the false charges that were used to disparage her honor. If the sabab an-nuzul of these verses wear unknown, it would be impossible to understand what the verses were referring to

(Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” page 121)

I’m asking you the reader to please read the first 20 verses of Surah An Nur here:

http://quran.com/24

*note* The author is very careful to say, “it would be impossible to understand what the verses were referring to.”

 

So in this sense he would be right if it was in reference to an incident and we didn’t have a report telling us about the incident, we would have no idea whom it would be in reference to.  However, if he is saying without knowledge of this incident we wouldn’t be able to understand the teachings and implementation of the law, Allah (swt) himself clearly refutes such a notion here:

“A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in  it have We sent down clear verses, in order that you may receive admonition.” (Holy Qur’an 24:1)

So Allah (swt) tells us that what he is about to inform us about is clear.

The respected author than says,

” << Verily those who accuse chaste women…are cursed in this life and the Hereafter…>> [24:23]  This verse did not allow any repentance for those who accused Aishah; however, repentance is still accepted form those who accuse other women.”

(Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” page 122)

This is a pure machination on the part of the respected author and all who like him believe such things.

Again, go here: http://quran.com/24  read verses 1-24 for yourself and may Allah (swt) open your heart and pour in the guidance and light!

See if you found the same verses that I am quoting now:

“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and  produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors” (Holy Quran 24:4)

Does that verse say only Aisha or chaste women?

Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Holy Qur’an 24:5)

Does this verse say that those who utter such statements are condemned forever, with no chance or reprieve, or does it say Allah is Oft-Forgiving and Most Merciful?

“Allah doth admonish you, that you may never repeat such  (conduct), if you are (true) Believers.” (Holy Qur’an 24:17)

Does Allah say our fate is sealed or does Allah use strong language and tell us not to repeat such atrocious behavior?

“And Allah make the verses clear for you: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom” (Holy Qur’an 24:18)

This is self explanatory is it not?

“Let not those among you who are endued with grace and  amplitude of means resolve by oath against helping their kinsmen, those in want, and those who have left their homes in Allah’s cause: let them forgive and overlook, do you not wish that Allah should forgive you? For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Holy Quran 24:22)

Why would Allah (swt) ask us to forgive and overlook mistakes if he was not ready to forgive and overlook mistakes?  Again, Allah (swt) threatens with severe punishment but is ever ready to forgive and be merciful.

“Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter: for them is a grievous Penalty..”  (Holy Qur’an 24:23)

Again read all the verses in context and see if this verse when read in conjunction with others says your fate is sealed.  Also does this verse say ‘Aisha alone’ or chaste women?

So let us look at what the author says again.

“This verse did not allow any repentance for those who accused Aishah; however, repentance is still accepted form those who accuse other women.”

(Source: “An Introduction To The Sciences of the Qur’an” page 122)

Is that what the verse says?   Is that clearly what is says?  Does that even make sense that it only applies to Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) and not all honorable women?

Does that verse even mean people who do such without seeking repentance will most definitely end up doomed; especially read in context?

I think that I have more than established the case that we do not need knowledge of the ‘asbab an-nuzul’ for the purpose of understanding and implementation of the Holy Qur’an in our daily life.

I feel the position of the sectarians is inconsistent and ultimately indefensible.

I leave you with the words of our Creator

“The words of your Lord are complete in its truth and justice. Nothing can change His words – He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. If you obeyed most of those on earth, they would lead you away from the path of Allah. They follow nothing but speculation – they are merely guessing.” (Holy Qur’an 6:115-116)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Jihad between Sufi Tariqa & Sufi Fanaticism

“O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth.” (Qur’an 4:157)

Though this particular text was directed towards the Jewish and Christianity community it applies to the Muslim community as well.  This is the case simply because it has nothing to do with the application of law but a general admonition that applies to all times.

“But as for those who strive hard in Our cause -We shall most certainly guide them onto OUR PATHS that lead unto Us: for, behold, Allah is true with the doers of good.” (Qur’an 29:69)

I also want to say that from the outset Sufism and the teachings of Sufism have been an integral part of Islam from the very beginning. Sufism has been transformative in the lives of many people. Just as Islam has a branch of science for creed, so that we have purified thoughts about our creator and a branch of science for the law, so that we have interactions with fellow human beings are of a purified nature, it has a branch of science for the purification of the heart.

However, just as Muslims have clashed over the various narratives on regards to what is the correct creed and what is the correct understanding of the law so to have we clashed over which methodology for the purification of the heart is best.

I am posting this because all too often there is a ‘Public Relations‘ game that is being done with people who know little to nothing about Islam.

It is the case of rival siblings trying to get the parent to punish the other.   Beyond the many rivalries and divisions among the Muslims, there probably is none more fierce than the internal conflicts among our brothers from the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘.  Especially when it comes to the issues of creed.

Even more fierce than the bloodshed over issues of creed is the fealty given to Sufi Shaykhs and allegiance to their various competing Tariqa’s.

Today the west is being told that the ‘innocent‘ Muslims aka ‘Sufis‘ are in a struggle with the ‘Wahhabi‘ or extreme Muslims.  Thus, the hope is that the western powers, intelligence apparatus, and so forth will listen to these cries of ‘wolf, wolf‘ and bring their might down to bare upon their rivals.

Sufism is being touted as the ‘non-violent‘  ‘apolitical’ version of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Truth be told the various rival Sufi factions do not have the political or financial influence they once did.  Although certain groups are making cozy with certain political powers.

The Ottoman Empire, for example, was certainly not ‘Wahhabi

This should be an eye-opener for many.   Timothy Winter or  ‘Abdal-Hakim Murad is certainly no friend of ‘Wahhabism

and we find the following statement: http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/AHM-Ottoman_spirituality.htm

This Sufi vision cherished by simple cavalrymen gave the Turks a military prowess whose achievements in some ways recalled the early conquests of Islam. The first Ottoman sultans were urged to continue the fight for the faith by spiritual guides whose fame and sanctity had brought them into the intimate circle of the ruler, thereby adding to his charisma. The most prominent example was Ak Semseddin (d.1459), the physician, mystic poet and Sufi instructor (“seyh) who encouraged Mehmed II to conquer Constantinople, and who preached the first Friday sermon at the former cathedral of Aya Sofya. [ii] The power of his spiritual impact, as well as the Islamic sophistication of the ruler, are evident in much of Mehmed’s poetry, as in a lyric poem where the sultan uses the classical Sufi metaphors of spiritual drunkenness to affirm his dependence on his preceptor:”

So now we turn our attention to the Sufi, Ibn Tumart.  Ibn Tumart traveled to Baghdad where he met with contemporaries of Imam Al Ghazali as well as his students. This interaction ignited a flame, a passion within Ibn Tumart who came back to the Maghrib (North Africa) and virtually slaughtered all those who did not accept the Ashari’ theological creed.

Here is an interesting extract:

“It is nothing but bigotry and small-mindedness, if not political, Indeed, in Morocco, when Al-Mahdi b.Toumart returned from his travels seeking knowledge in the East, meeting many great Ash’ari scholars like Al-Kiya Al-Harrasi, he proceeded to disseminate the school throughout Morocco, When he claimed to disseminate the school throughout Morocco. When he claimed to be the Mahdi, and established the Almohad state, he obliged the population to adhere to the school, and fought against the school of the early Muslims, dismissing the previous Almoravid state as “anthropomorphists”,  when they actually were upon the way of the early Muslims in their beliefs. He called his own dynasty  Muwahhidun (“Monotheist”). He also opposed the Maliki school and the scholars of Morocco and Andalusia who adhered to it. In this way, enmity developed between the two groups; and the inherent cause was political.”  

Source: -The Hadith Scholar, Professor ‘Abdullah Guenon Al-Hasani, President of the Morrocan League of Scholars and Member of the Islamic World League, Mecca’  taken from page 326 (Notions that Must Be Corrected by Shaykh Muhammad b ‘Alawi Al-Maliki Al Hasani)

I would encourage you to read an account of Ibn Tumart’s slaughter of Muslims who opposed his Sufi Sunni Ashari vision of Islam.

The Rivalry between the Sufis factions.

The rivalry between various Sufi /Sunni factions is unreal.

Here are some articles from Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad  (himself a follower of the Shafi madhab of the Ahl Sunnah, a believer in Ashari school of creed and follower of the Naqshabandi Sufi Tariqa.

He acts on the permission of his Shaykh the late Shaykh Nazim Al Haqqani. * (Surely we are Allah’s and unto Allah is the return of us all.)

Thus he fired off some refutations of the followers of a rival Sufi order. The followers of this Sufi order follow the Shafi madhab of the Ahl Sunnah, they believe in the Ashari school of creed and follow the Rif’ai Sufi Tariqa.

You can see the following refutations of them here:

http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/refuting_the_habashis.htm

As well as this one: http://www.livingislam.org/o/murb_e.html

*Note  I want to say that may Allah (swt) bless Shaykh Nazim (raheemullah) and my condolences to his family.  (Verily we belong to Allah (swt) and to Allah (swt) is our return.)

Though I obviously disagree with much that they stand for there can be no doubt in my heart and my mind that they have brought many from the tipping point of darkness into illuminating light.    So with that, I also want to say all the best to the new “Khilafa” of the Tariqah, the honourable Shaykh Mehmet as well as Shaykh Adnan and Shaykh Hisham (May Allah swt bless them all and put the unity in their hearts!)

In the above article, there are also some harsh words for fellow Sunni Muslims. This time those who follow the Maliki madhab of the Ahl Sunnah, believe in the Ashari school of creed and follow the Darqawi Sufi Tariqa.

Yet you can see the refutations of those who follow the Naqshabandi Sufi Tariqa from the followers of the Darqawi Sufi Tariqah here: http://asadullahali.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/esoteric-deviiation-in-islam.pdf

Most likely the following statement was not very well appreciated by the Naqshabandi Haqqani Sufi Tariqa:

“There is a man associated with Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani who holds a belief of this nature. He wrote: “As with many things that need changing, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it probably won’t happen until Sayiddina Mahdi, alayhi wa Salam, reveals his presence. Until then, I do not consider my participation in the paper-money system any kind of sin whatsoever.” The question of paper-money is irrelevant here, what is evident is that the coming of the Mahdi could somehow exonerate some, or indeed any, wrongdoing. Later this statement was tacitly endorsed by Dr. Fouad Haddad (who would appear to be the qaddem/representative of Shaykh Nazim) in a new statement: “Waiting on the Mahdi is part of the Sunna,” written immediately after the aforementioned statement was issued. In addition, they seem to support the well known Shi’a story of the ‘occultation’ of the Mahdi. I shall provide more details later. One of his students confided to us that Shaykh Nazim often refers to the coming of the Mahdi in his speeches.”

Source: (pg 103 Esoteric Deviation In Islam by Shaykh Umar Vadillo)

Then another refutation of the Naqshabani Haqqani Tariqa, by fellow followers of the Ahl Sunnah, who follow the Hanafi and Shaf’i schools of jurisprudence and follow the Ashari and Maturdi schools of theology; and follow the Rifa’i Sufi Tariqa.

http://www.aicp.org/index.php/islamic-information/text-pdf/english/42-the-irrefutable-proof-that-nazim-alqubrusi-negates-islam  

The above refutation was done by Shaykh Samir Kadi who says that he is ‘An Ashari in creed, a Shaf’i in jurisprudence and a Rifa’i in Tariqa.

Sharif Abu-al-‘Abbas Lakhdar Sidi Ahmed El Idrissi Tamacini of the Tijani Sufi Tariqa was involved in a long and protracted conflict with another faction of the Tijani Sufi Tariqa over rather a prayer entitled “The Pearl of Perfection” should be said 11 or 12 times.  Tijani Sufi killed Tijani Sufi.

Al-Hajj ‘Umar b Sa’id Tall himself a leading Tijani Sufi shaykh, waged ruthless wars against members of the Mukhtariyya Qadiriyya Sufi Tariqa.

What is the fruit of all this killing of Muslims by Muslims?

Shaykh Muhammad ibn al-Habib master of the Darqawi Sufi order is said to have commented about a Tijani aspirant who visited him

“A Tijani faqir came to Shaykh Ibn al-Habib once while we sat with him. He informed the Shaykh that in the Tijani tariqa they did not have a Shaykh and that they did not consider one necessary. It was enough to follow the guidance of Sidi Ahmad Tijani. Our Master was silent for a while before he spoke. Then he raised his eyes and looked at the young man. ‘A dead midwife,’ he told him, ‘cannot deliver a live child.’ the faqir turned pale and then buried his head in his hands and wept from the depth of his being.”

Source: (https://bewley.virtualave.net/diwanpre.html)

The Tijani Sufi Tariqa has made some very interesting claims about their Shaykh. You can see that here:

I would direct the reader to page ’19’ of the text; where their Shaykh is called “Khatam al-Wilayah al-Muhammadiyyah

You can contrast this with the following:

http://nurmuhammad.com/NaqshbandiSecrets/qutbanniyya.htm

Please see the section with the title:

THE RANK OF SULTAN UL AULIYA

“Everything that you know of is under the spiritual control of the Sultan ul Auliya. He is the one who is in charge of all mankind in this universe. He is also in charge of all the world of Jinn’s and Angels as the Sultan of Mankind is also in charge of all the Jinn and of all Malaika (Angels). This Maqam (station) of Sultan ul Auliya is a Maqam related to the hearts. Not even a thought can be comprehended of the greatness of this Maqam. This Maqam in this time is related to Moulana Sheik Nazim.”

“Moulana has been given the power to be in every heart of every human being in this universe. He also has the immense power of being able to make the Divine Light of Allah Almighty and all the 124,000 Prophets to enter into the hearts and bodies of all humanity in just one moment.

Also not very interesting is that both the Naqashabandi Sufi and their rivals the Tijani Sufi have said that ‘Imam Mahdi‘ will come from their ranks!

So watch as these and other rival Sufi groups rumble over this issue in the future.  (May Allah s.w.t protect us and safeguard the unity of Muslims!)

When Imam Abdul Latif Finch was in Singapore some years back he made the comment that “When I was a Shadhili I was hardly receiving any openings but the moment I became a Tijani I received so many openings.

I was having a light moment with a friend of mine and I said to him. “I could guarantee you that somewhere on this planet there is someone saying “I was a Tijani and I hardly received any openings but the moment I became a Shadhili I received so many openings.”

Conclusion:

When you look at the kind of loyalty and even blind fanaticism and sycophants that surround these Shaykhs and various competing Sufi Tariqah’s it could make for some very tragic situations in the future.

Realize this dear brothers and sisters.  Allah (swt) has not given all of his blessings to any single creature.  The proof of this is that even his most noble creation, Muhammed (saw) was not given the blessing to read and to write.

If anyone thinks that this is speaking in an irreverent manner than the question needs to be put to them.  “Is Allah (swt) in need of Muhammed (saw) or is Muhammed (saw) in need of Allah (swt)?”

Only is Allah (swt) the Self Sufficient.

Allah (swt) reminds us concerning those who elevated the station of Christ Jesus son of Mary (alayhi salam) to an extreme.

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 5:75)

As well as the following statement in the Qur’an:

“Blessed is He who, if He willed, could have made for you [something] better than that – gardens beneath which rivers flow – and could make for you palaces.” (Qur’an 25:10)

Whatever station, whatever claim, ever baraka or blessing that anyone ever makes know that Allah (swt) is capable of doing more than that!

I have not even scratched the surface on the tip of an iceberg in regard to the gravity of this situation.  I haven’t even touched the many rivalries of the Indian subcontinent; nor those of the Middle East and Turkey.   I have no doubt that a multitude of volumes could be written detailing and documenting the rival claims, rivalries, and bloodshed between the various competing Sufi Tariqas.

The issue with the various competing Sufi factions is that they show a face of peace, and cooperation and tolerance, but underneath the thin veneer is oftentimes some disquieting agenda in which the dominance of their version of Islam is just as troubling as the ‘Wahhabis‘.

People will claim that the Shaykh can do this and that they witnessed that.  We have seen they all make contradictory and competing claims.  I guess my question to all these Shaykhs is that when they do these miracles and have these visions and dreams,  my question is this.  “How much of that is Allah, and how much of it is you?

If Allah were to punish men for their wrong-doing, He would not leave, on the (earth), a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: When their Term expires, they would not be able to delay (the punishment) for a single hour, just as they would not be able to anticipate it (for a single hour).” (Qur’an 16:61)

“But as for those who strive hard in Our cause -We shall most certainly guide them onto OUR PATHS that lead unto Us: for, behold, Allah is true with the doers of good.” (Qur’an 29:69)

“And each one hath a goal toward which he is turned; so vie with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.” (Qur’an 2:148)

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Adoptionist theology: How Did Jesus become the son of God?

 

Holy Qur’an chapter 21 verse 26

I seek refuge with Allah from Shaitan, the rejected. With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

“And they say: The Beneficent has adopted a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honored servants.”

POSITION OF THE QUR’AN

Holy Qur’an chapter 112

I seek refuge with Allah from Shaitan, the rejected. With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

“Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”

Holy Qur’an chapter 19 verses 88-92

I seek refuge with Allah from Shaitan, the rejected. With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

“They say: “(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!” Indeed yea have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.”

THE BIBLE’S POSITION

 

John 3:16 ( King James Version)

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him will not perish but have ever lasting life.”

 

Question: What does begotten mean?

 

Answer:

Beget begot, begotten: To become the father of: sire

Sire 1: Father 2: The male parent of an animal (as a horse or dog) sired, siring, PRO-CREATE

Source: (The Merriam Websters Dictionary For Large Print Users)

Beget – give birth to (Websters Dictionary)

 

This is indeed blasphemous to ascribe offspring to the Almighty Allah. It is also insulting to the human intellect of any rational person.

All Christians of every sect believe Jesus is the ‘Son of God’.

Allah declares that ascribing a son or any offspring to him is a thing most blasphemous.

We as human beings have children to pro-create our species; and to ensure that humanity survives. We will all die; therefore it is a necessity that sons and daughters take our place.

However Allah is ever living and needs no such means for ‘survival’.

We will now walk through the development of this all important Christian concept. We will show conclusively how an innocent expression ‘Son of God’ became Jesus ‘The Son of God’ in a literal sense.

This very belief latter mutates into ‘God the Son’ the second member of the ever infamous Tri-theistic Trinity.

SONS BY THE TONS

The terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘children of God’ are often used throughout the

Bible.

Deuteronomy 14:1

“You are children of the Lord your God”

I Chronicles 22:10

“He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father.”

Job 1:6

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.”

Psalms 82:6-7

“I have said, you are gods; and all of you are children of the most high

Jeremiah 31:9

“…For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”

Malachi 2:10

“Have we not one father? Has not one God created us?”

 

Matthew 5:9

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons of God

(R.S.V)

Hebrews 1:5

“For unto which of the angels, said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him A FATHER, and he shall be to

me A SON?”

Comments:

In none of the above quotations are the terms ‘children of God’ or ‘Son of God’ understood to be literal, yet in the case of Jesus he is the literal ‘Son of God’.

If you will pay special attention to the last quotation of Hebrews 1:5 You will see that Jesus is ‘A’ Son and God is ‘A’ Father unto him. It does not say Jesus is ‘THE’ Son and God is ‘THE’ father of Jesus.

The reason why Jesus is ‘a’ son and God is ‘a’ father has to do with adoptionist theology.

Question: What is adoptionist theology?

ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY

2 Samuel 7:14

“I will be his father , he shall be my son.”

note: We don’t have, ‘I am his father’, and ‘He is my Son’.

Here we have a concept of God appointing some one to be his son, righteous servant.

This is also stated in Psalms 2:2 and Psalms 2:7 in a reference to King David.

Psalms 2:2

“The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.”

Psalms 2:7

“I will declare the decree: the Lord has said unto me, You are my Son; This day have I begotten you.”

Note: It has this day I have begotten you. It is being said to King David while he is alive and a grown adult. David was being appointed by adoption to be the ‘son of God’.

Now I will give you the proof text which show how Jesus went from being the adopted ‘Son of God’ to the literal ‘Son of God’.

 

ADOPTIONIST THEOLOGY BEHIND THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

 

Mark 1:11

“And there came a voice from heaven, saying, YOU ARE my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Note: The voice from heaven addressed Jesus. The Greek for YOU is su (SU).

Matthew 3:17

“And there came a voice from heaven, saying THIS IS my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Note: The voice from heaven talks about Jesus. The Greek for THIS IS outos(HOUTOS).

Question: Why the change in the voice?

Why would one writer deliberately alter the wording of the text?

Answer: The theology!

Mark’s theology held that Jesus became the ‘Son of God’ at the baptism much like David’s coronation in 2 Samuel 7:14

Matthew’s theology held that Jesus was already the ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.

So Jesus does not need to know who he is you are my son.

It is the crowd that needs to know this is my son.

 

Qur’an and Gospel of Luke reject Matthew’s claim.

Note: Look at the what the Gospel of Luke and Qur’an say in response to Matthew’s claim about Jesus being the ‘son of God’ based upon the virgin birth.

Luke 1:7

“And they had no child, because that Elizabeth was barren; and they were now well stricken in years.”

Luke 1:18-19

“And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? For I am an old man, and wife well stricken in years. And the angel answered said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee glad tidings.”

Holy Qur’an Chapter 19 verses 7-9

I seek refuge with Allah from Shaitan, the rejected. With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

(His prayer was answered): “O Zakariya! We give thee good news of a son: His name shall be Yahya: on none by that name have We conferred distinction before.” He said: “O my Lord! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?” He said: “So (it will be) thy Lord saith, ‘that is easy for Me: I did indeed create thee before, when thou hadst been nothing!’

comment: Allah ask Zechariah to reflect upon the fact that he was created indeed before he was nothing

 

Holy Qur’an Chapter 19 verses 16-21

I seek refuge with Allah from Shaitan, the rejected. With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: “I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.” He said: “Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son. She said: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” He said: “So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, ‘that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us’: It is a matter (so) decreed.”

Holy Qur’an Chapter 3 verse 59

I seek refuge with Allah from Shaitan, the rejected. With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.

Comment: All glory to be to Allah! Allah explains things in a very simple manner for the Christians. Allah says that Adam was made from dust and he was simply willed into being. Thus if Allah can make a human being from simply saying “Be” surely he can make Jesus without the use of male intervention.

THE FIVE TYPES OF CREATION OF HUMAN BEINGS.
1) Adam made without a man or a woman and not divine!

2) Eve made without a woman and not divine!

3) Jesus made without a man and not divine!

4) Isaac and John made while parents were old, infertile, no Viagra and not divine!

5) Rest of humanity made with man and woman and not divine!

 

THE LUKE FACTOR

Luke’s version of the baptism of Jesus.

Luke 3:22

“And the Holy Ghost descended in bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, YOU ARE my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

Note:

1) Luke has the story of the virgin birth

2) Luke has Jesus addressed ‘you are’.

“A few MSS[ “D” “o”, “b”] and Patristic citations representing the “Western” text, have instead of (You are my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased), the words of Psalms 2:7, You are my son this day have I begotten thee.

Numerous expositors ( e.g. W. Mason, Zahn, Klostermann, Harnack, Moffat, Streeter) accept this variant reading as the original.The majority then explain the alteration of the text from the fact that copyists regarded these words as a contradiction to the reality of the virgin birth.”

Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament : The Gospel of Luke by Norval Geldenhuys p. 148]

Comment: If we take the above evidence than the baptism of Jesus according to Luke would look like this,

Luke 3:22

“And the Holy Ghost descended in bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said You are my son this day have I begotten thee”.

This would mean that Jesus became the ‘son of God’ at his baptism while an adult in the same way David became the ‘son of God’ as an adult.

Let’s continue…

 

“More important still is the fact that the heavenly voice which greeted Jesus at his baptism hailed him in the opening words of the decree of Psalms 2:7 ‘You are my Son’ Mark 1:11

“Indeed, the “Western” text of Luke 3:22 represents the fuller wording from Psalms 2:7 which is quoted here by the author ofHebrews 1:5

Hebrews 1:5

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, This day have I begotten you?”

“The words were evidently in widespread use as a testimonial in the apostolic age, as Acts 13:33 bears witness, and not only these words but the other parts of psalms were given a messianic interpretation, as may be seen from the quotation and explanation of it’s first two verses in Acts 4:25.

Source: [The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Hebrews FF. Bruce]

 

Acts 13:33

“God has fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he has raised Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalms, You are my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Psalms 2:1-2

“Why DO the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his ANOINTED.”

Acts 4:25-26

“Who by the mouth of thy SERVANT David has said, Why DID the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his CHRIST.”

Note: Some important points need to be made.

David was called ANOINTED (Christ). Also Luke says David was a SERVANT (Slave) of God. This means also Jesus is like David: he is Anointed meaning appointed by God. Jesus is also the Servant (slave) of God!

Lets continue…

“Likewise, certain early manuscripts of Luke quote all of Psalms 2:7: Luke 3:22 in Codex Bezae, and certain old Latin Manuscripts used by Justin, Clement, Origen and Augustine read, “You are my Son this day have I begotten you.”

But interestingly, Luke also used Psalms 2:7, in a speech composed for Paul.

In Paul’s theology Jesus was “DECLARED to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead” Romans 1:4

“Luke apparently knew of this Pauline teaching for he has Paul quoting Psalms 2:7 as a speech uttered to Jesus at his resurrection, and not his baptism! Acts 13:32-33

“For Luke and Paul Psalms 2:7 is a RESURRECTION prophecy, and not a BAPTISM prophecy.”

Source: (Gospel Fictions: Randel Helms pg. 32, 38)

LUKE: Sees the water Jesus is baptized in as ‘the grave’. When Jesus comes out of the water it is his ‘resurrection.’ The water being symbolic of ‘being washed by the blood’ of Jesus.

MARK: believed Jesus to be the adopted ‘Son of God’. In the same way David was the adopted ‘Son of God, Thus Jesus becamethe ‘Son of God’ at his baptism.

MATTHEW: believed Jesus was the literal ‘Son of God’ based on the virgin birth.

LUKE AND PAUL: believe Jesus was the ‘Son of God’ based on his resurrection from the dead.”

Note: Paul said Jesus was ‘Declared’ to the ‘Son of God’ not that HE WAS the ‘Son of God’

Source: Romans 1:3

 

What do Christians mean Jesus is thee ‘Son of God’?

Examination time!

We have already seen what begotten means. Not only this but every modern translation of the Bible does away with the term ‘begotten’?

Why?

Answer:

1) Because David was called the begotten ‘Son of God’ in Psalms (2:7). You can not have Jesus be the ‘only begotten’ when David is already begotten.

2) Hebrews 11:17

“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.”

a) This is either a flat contradiction because Ishmael was begotten before Isaac was.

b) Or this is not to be understood literally.

We know this is not to be understood literally. Isaac is not the only begotten son; just as Jesus is not the literal ‘son of God’.

 

Question: Is Jesus ‘eternally begotten’ by the father?

Answer: No!

Hebrews 1:5

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, This day have I begotten you?”

Comment: Jesus cannot be ‘eternally begotten’ by the father when this passage clearly states ‘ This day’ have I begotten you. Indeed one would wonder what day that is.

When the Catholic church decided upon the doctrine of the Tri-theism they had to make Jesus co equal and co eternal with the father in so doing the doctrine of adoption created huge problems for them. Not only this but if Jesus was indeed begotten ‘this day’ he would not be co eternal. This is why the Catholic church called Jesus ‘eternally begotten’.

 

How do other Bibles translate John 3:16

[The Living Bible] John 3:16

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son (or the unique son of God), that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have life eternal.”

[New International Version] John 3:16

” For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

[Revised Standard Version] John 3:16

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

[The New American Bible] John 3:16

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Note: All of the above translations say something like ‘Only Son’ or ‘Unique Son’.

a) Either this is a flat contradiction because as shown from Hebrews 1:5 Jesus is ‘A’ Son not ‘Thee’ Son of God.

b) Or this is not to be understood literally!

We know this is not to be taken literally. Jesus is not the only son because as already proven God has many ‘sons’.

As far as the ‘Unique Son’ is concerned every ‘Son of God’ is unique! So once again the Christians are at a loss to explain how Jesus is the literal ‘Son of God’. Remember that Jesus never once claimed to be the ‘only son’ of God.

 

CONCLUSION:

The Christians should repent to Allah for every ascribing a son to him. Glory be to Allah who has no need of a son or daughter! It can be seen how Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’ in the same was that previous peoples were called ‘Sons of God’.

However, this concept slowly evolved from being the adopted son of God into Jesus being the literal ‘Son of God’ and eventually led to him being ‘eternally begotten God’

May Allah bring the people out of the great darkness they are in. Ameen!

May the God of Abraham: Allah The Owner of The Throne

guide us all to the truth! Ameen!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A MESSAGE TO JEHOVAH WITNESSES

A MESSAGE TO JEHOVAH WITNESSES

 

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem

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

MESSAGE TO JEHOVAH WITNESSES

The Position of the Holy Qur’an

HOLY QUR’AN 17 VERSE 110

I seek refuge with Allah from Shaitan, the rejected. With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

. “Say: Call on Allah or call on the Beneficent (Rahman) By whatever (name) you call on Him, He has the best names.”

Name – n That by which a person or thing is designated; appellation; title; reputation; eminence

Source: (NEW WEBSTERS EXPANDED DICTIONARY)

Christians believe to have a personal relationship with the creator they must know the creator’s name.

1. The Qur’an shows that the creator has many names.

2. The Qur’an shows that the creator is not a person.

Person – n An individual human being; each of the three beings of

the Godhead; bodily form

Source: (NEW WEBSTERS EXPANDED DICTIONARY)

BIBLE SUPPORTS THE MUSLIM POSITION:

NUMBERS 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie, neither the son of man, that he should repent.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses as the name itself indicates believe that the name of the creator is Jehovah.

Question: Where do they get the name Jehovah from?

Answer:

They get this from 4 Hebrew letters. Y.H.W.H

They call this the TETRAGRAMMATON.

Tetra- four and Grammaton -letter(s)

Basically, a four letter word.

It can easily be seen that YHWH and JEHOVAH are two distinctly different spellings.

The Jehovah’s Witness make the Y to a J and the W into a V. Thus YHWH becomes JHVH. Hebrew like Arabic is written without vowels. Also the Hebrew language does not have the letter J.

So Moses and Jesus never ever said Jehovah ever!

Question: What is the source of Jehovah’s witness doctrine?

Answer:

EXODUS 3:13-14

“But, said, Moses to God, when I go to the Israelites and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, if they ask me, What is his name? What am I to tell them? God replied, I AM WHO I AM Then he ADDED, This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.”

Note: “I am who I am; apparently this utterance is the source of the word YAHWEH, the proper personal name of the God of Israel, It is commonly explained in reference to God as the absolute and necessary Being. It may be understood of God as the Source of all created beings out of reverence for this name, the term Adonai, “My Lord” was later USED AS A SUBSTITUTE. The word Lord in the present version represents this traditional usage. The word “Jehovah” arose from a FALSE READING OF THIS NAME AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE CURRENT HEBREW TEXT:

Source: (New American Bible)

So the following can be said:

1. I AM was the ‘name’ given.

2. That the latter term Adonai ‘Lord’ replaced Yhwh is proof that the Bible is corrupted.

3. I AM was obviously not clear enough to Moses because God had to elaborate further. God had to explain that you should tell them he is the “GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB”

EXODUS 3:15

“God spoke further to Moses, “Thus shall you say to Israelites: The Lord the GOD OF YOUR FATHERS, THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, THE GOD OF ISAAC, THE GOD OF JACOB has sent me to you. “This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations.”

The point is if I AM was clear enough God would not have felt the need to elaborate further. Indeed no one today calls God I AM. They use the phrase the “God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob” than a person will reply “Oh I got you, o.k. cool”

Yet, God’s name was known to the people before Moses.

GENESIS 4:25

“And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: “For GOD, said she, has appointed me another seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew”

The Science of Archeology teaches us that Hebrew is not the oldest language on earth. As Eve had her own ‘name’ for God.

God no where made it imperative for Moses and the gang to say ‘I AM’. It was Moses who made the inquiry in the first place.

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES COME CLEAN

In the Jehovah’s Witness publication entitled, The DIVINE NAME that will endure forever on page 7 it states:

“How is God’s name pronounced? The truth is nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced.”

So if you want to know the truth on the matter there you have it!

Also in the MARCH 1st 1991 WATCHTOWER pg. 2 ‘God’s Personal Name:’

True, no early surviving Greek manuscript of the “New Testament” contains the personal name of God.”

Also ponder deeply on this following paragraph:

“Some criticize the form “Jehovah” by which the New World Translation renders God’s name. In Hebrew manuscripts, the name appears just as four consonants, YHWH, and many insist that the proper pronunciation is “YAHWEH” not “JEHOVAH”. Hence, they feel that using “Jehovah” is a mistake. But, in truth, scholars are by no means in agreement that the form “Yahweh” represents the original pronunciation. THE FACT IS THAT while God preserved the spelling of the name “YHWH” over 6,000 times in the Bible, HE DID NOT PRESERVE THE PRONUNCIATION OF IT that Moses heard on Mount Sinai Exodus 20:2 Therefore, THE PRONUNCIATION IS NOT OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE AT THIS TIME.”

Source: March 1st 1991 Watchtower pg. 2 ‘God’s Personal Name’

Comments: Well what is God’s name than? What are the Jehovah’s Witness making a fuss about? If the pronunciation is not important than why is the spelling? Surely, I will not address God as “Dear Y.H.W.H” in my prayers? Running around and saying Ya Hay Wa Hay sounds pretty IMPERSONAL to me!

The Jehovah’s Witness say on pages 10-11 in their (New World Translation Copyright 1985) the following:

Restoring the divine name Jehovah: The evidence is that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX (“Old Testament”) has been. (See App 1A, B.) Sometimes during the second or third centuries C.E the Tetragrammaton (YHWH, Or JHVH) was eliminated from the Greek text by copyist who did not understand or appreciate the divine name or who developed an aversion to it, possibly under the influence of anti-Semitism. Instead of YHWH (or, JHVH) they substituted the words Kyrious, “Lord” and Theos “God”.

Source: ( New World Translation Copyright 1985 pg. 10)

 

OTHER PROBLEMS OF THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESS

(as if there were not already enough)

The Jehovah’s Witness translate JOHN 1:1 as thus,

“In the beginning was the Word ,and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures)

The Jehovah’s Witness don’t like the way Trinitarian Christians translate JOHN 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” (King James Version)

However Islam says: Jesus Is not God or even ‘A’ god.

Islam rejects the doctrine of God incarnate. Islam rejects the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of polytheism for ‘a’ god means one of many!

DEMOLISHING THIS ‘A GOD’ CONCEPT

A person may ask the Jehovah’s Witness is Jesus ‘a’ true god or ‘a’ false god? Of course they will say Jesus is ‘a’ true god. However ponder on what Jesus said in

JOHN 17:3

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.”

Comment: Jesus said that only the father is truly God.

Any other god is a false god. There is only one true God.

Question: What did Jesus call God?

In other words WWJD ( What Would Jesus Do)

Answer:

MARK 15:34

“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying ELOI ELOI lama sabach-thani which is being interpreted MY GOD MY GOD why has thou forsaken me?”

Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Aramaic word for God is Alah.

Source: ( Lamsa Bible translated by Dr. George M Lamsa)

If Jesus in his most desperate hour called God, Eloi/Alah why not the Jehovah’s Witness?

CONCLUSION

1. Jehovah is a concocted name.

2. YHWH is an acronym that no one knows the pronunciation of.

3. Adonai replaced YHWH showing the willful and malicious textual assault on the Bible.

4. No proof that Jesus ever said YHWH or Jehovah.

5. Jesus is not even ‘a’ god.

6. Jesus said Eloi/Alah when addressing God.

7. The Qur’an is universal in showing that the creator has many titles not subject to one particular name or people’s.

8. The Jehovah’s Witness are crafty.

May the God of Abraham: Allah The Owner of The Throne

guide us all to the truth! Ameen!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hadith of 73 sects Analyzed by Shaykh Salah al-Din bin Ahmad al-Idlibi

Then we will pick out from each group (sheeAAatin ) the most ardent opponent of the Most Gracious.” (Qur’an 19:69)

 

 

The following article is taken from:

http://salahsafa.blogspot.sg/2014/04/blog-post.html

Shaykh Salah Al-Din bin Ahmad al-Idlibi (May Allah continue to bless him and bless others through him) has penned the following:

 

حديث تفترق أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 وبه نستعين وله الحمد في الأولى والآخرة.

هذا الحديث رُوي من رواية أبي هريرة وأنس بن مالك ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان وعوف بن مالك وأبي أمامة وسعد بن أبي وقاص وعبد الله بن عمرو وعبد الله بن مسعود وعمرو بن عوف وأبي الدرداء وواثلة بن الأسقع وعن علي بن أبي طالب موقوفا:

* فأما حديث أبي هريرة فرواه أبو داود والترمذي ومحمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة وأبو يعلى وابن حبان والآجري في كتاب الشريعة وأبو منصور البغدادي في كتاب الفرق بين الفرق والبيهقي في السنن وفي الاعتقاد، ورواه ابن حنبل وابن ماجه وابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة، من خمسة طرق عن محمد بن عمرو عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “افترقت اليهود على إحدى أو ثنتين وسبعين فرقة، وتفرقت النصارى على إحدى أو ثنتين وسبعين فرقة، وتفترق أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة“. ولم يأت ذكر النصارى في المصادر الثلاثة الأخيرة. [محمد بن عمرو بن علقمة صدوق فيه لين، وروايته عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة لينة].

* وأما حديث أنس فرُوي عنه من طريق زياد النميري وسعيد بن أبي هلال وزيد بن أسلم والزبير بن عدي وسلمان بن طريف وعبد العزيز بن صهيب ويحيى بن سعيد الأنصاري وسعد بن سعيد الأنصاري ويزيد الرقاشي وقتادة:

ـ فأما طريق زياد النميري فرواه ابن حنبل عن وكيع عن عبد العزيز بن عبد الله الماجشون عن صدقة بن يسار الجزري المكي عن زياد النميري عن أنس بن مالك أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “إن بني إسرائيل قد افترقت على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، وأنتم تفترقون على مثلها، كلها في النار إلا فرقة“. زياد النميري بصري ضعيف.

ـ وأما طريق سعيد بن أبي هلال فرواه ابن حنبل عن حسن عن ابن لهيعة عن خالد بن يزيد عن سعيد بن أبي هلال عن أنس به نحوه، وفيه: وتخلص فرقة. قالوا: يا رسول الله من تلك الفرقة؟. قال: الجماعة. عبد الله بن لهيعة كان قد اختلط. فهذا الطريق ضعيف.

ـ وأما طريق زيد بن أسلم فرواه أبو يعلى عن محمد بن بكار، والآجري في كتاب الشريعة من طريق عاصم بن علي، كلاهما عن أبي معشر عن يعقوب بن زيد بن طلحة عن زيد بن أسلم عن أنس مرفوعا به نحوه. [محمد بن بكار بن الريان بغدادي صدوق ثقة مات سنة 238. وعاصم بن علي بن عاصم واسطي صدوق فيه لين مات سنة 221. أبو معشر نجيح بن عبد الرحمن السندي المدني ضعيف وتغير قبل موته بسنتين تغيرا شديدا ومات سنة 170. يعقوب بن زيد بن طلحة مدني ثقة مات بعد سنة 140. زيد بن أسلم مدني ثقة فيه لين وكان يرسل ومات سنة 136]. فهذا الطريق ضعيف.

ـ وأما طريق الزبير بن عدي فرواه الخطيب البغدادي في شرف أصحاب الحديث من طريق بشر بن الحسين عن الزبير بن عدي عن أنس به نحوه. [بشر بن الحسين متروك متهم بالكذب]. فهذا الطريق تالف.

ـ وأما طريق سلمان بن طريف فرواه الآجري في كتاب الشريعة وابن بطة في الإبانة الكبرى من طريق سلمان بن طريف عن أنس به نحوه. [سلمان بن طريف أو طريف بن سلمان أبو عاتكة منكر الحديث ذاهب الحديث]. فهذا الطريق تالف.

ـ وأما طريق عبد العزيز بن صهيب فرواه الآجري في كتاب الشريعة وابن بطة في الإبانة الكبرى من طريق مبارك بن سحيم عن عبد العزيز بن صهيب عن أنس به نحوه. [مبارك بن سحيم متروك الحديث ذاهب الحديث]. فهذا الطريق تالف.

ـ وأما طريق يحيى بن سعيد الأنصاري فرواه العُقيلي في الضعفاء من طريق معاذ بن ياسين الزيات عن الأبرد بن الأشرس عن يحيى بن سعيد الأنصاري عن أنس به، بلفظ تفترق أمتي على سبعين أو إحدى وسبعين فرقة، كلهم في الجنة إلا فرقة واحدة“. قالوا: يا رسول الله، من هم؟. قال: “الزنادقة وهم القدرية“. [معاذ بن ياسين الزيات مجهول. الأبرد بن الأشرس كذاب وضاع]. فهذا الطريق تالف.

ورواه بحشل في تاريخ واسط والطبراني في الأوسط وفي الصغير عن وهب بن بقية عن عبد الله بن سفيان الواسطي عن يحيى بن سعيد عن أنس بن مالك أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: تفترق هذه الأمة على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة، كلها في النار إلا فرقة واحدة. قالوا: يا رسول الله وما تلك الفرقة؟. قال: ما كان على ما أنا عليه اليوم وأصحابي. [عبد الله بن سفيان قال العقيلي: لا يُتابع على حديثه]. فهذا الطريق ضعيف.

ـ وأما طريق سعد بن سعيد الأنصاري فرواه العُقيلي في الضعفاء من طريق ياسين الزيات عن سعد بن سعيد الأنصاري عن أنس به بنحو الطريق السابق. [ياسين بن معاذ الزيات منكر الحديث متروك الحديث]. فهذا الطريق تالف.

ـ وأما طريق يزيد الرقاشي فرواه محمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة والطبري وابن أبي حاتم كلاهما في التفسير وأبو القاسم الأصبهاني في كتاب الحجة والخطيب البغدادي في الفقيه والمتفقه والبسوي في المعرفة والتاريخ واللالكائي من طرق عن الأوزاعي عن يزيد الرقاشي عن أنس بن مالك عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: “إن بني إسرائيل افترقوا على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، وإن أمتي ستفترق على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، كلها في النار إلا فرقة واحدة“. قالوا: يا رسول الله ومَن هذه الواحدة؟. قال: “الجماعة“.

ورواه أبو يعلى من طريق عكرمة بن عمار اليمامي عن يزيد الرقاشي عن أنس به نحوه.

ورواه الخطيب البغدادي في الفقيه والمتفقه من طريق عبد الله بن غزوان الحمصي عن عمرو بن سعد مولى غفار عن يزيد الرقاشي عن أنس بن مالك أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: “إن بني إسرائيل تفرقت على واحدة وثمانين ملة، وستفترق أمتي على اثنتين وثمانين ملة، كلها في النار غير ملة واحدة“. قالوا: وأية ملة هي يا رسول الله؟. قال: “الجماعة“.

ورواه عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن يزيد الرقاشي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرسلا، ولفظه إن بني إسرائيل اختلفوا على إحدى أو اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، وإنكم ستختلفون مثلهم أو أكثر، ليس منها صواب إلا واحدة. قيل: يا رسول الله وما هذه الواحدة؟. قال: الجماعة.

[عكرمة بن عمار اليمامي صدوق ثقة فيه لين، وأحاديثه عن يحيى بن أبي كثير مضطربة. عبد الله بن غزوان وعمرو بن سعد مولى غفار مجهولان. يزيد بن أبان الرقاشي بصري من العباد، وهو ضعيف متروك الحديث مات سنة 120 تقريبا]. فطريق يزيد الرقاشي كله تالف.

ـ وأما طريق قتادة فرواه ابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة ـ ومن طريقه الضياء المقدسي في المختارة ـ قال حدثنا هشام بن عمار قال حدثنا الوليد بن مسلم قال حدثنا الأوزاعي قال حدثنا قتادة عن أنس بن مالك به. ورواه ابن المقرئ في معجمه والضياء في المختارة والخطيب البغدادي في شرف أصحاب الحديث من طريق موسى بن عامر ابن خريم وعبد الملك بن الأصبغ البعلبكي قالا حدثنا الوليد بن مسلم قال حدثنا الأوزاعي عن قتادة عن أنس به. وكذا رواه أبو منصور البغدادي في كتاب الفرق بين الفرق من طريق الوليد بن سلمة عن الأوزاعي عن قتادة عن أنس به. لكن الوليد بن سلمة متهم بالكذب والوضع، وذكرته هنا لمجرد المعرفة، والعمدة على ما رواه الوليد بن مسلم من الطرق الثلاثة السابقة عنه.

[هشام بن عمار الدمشقي صدوق ثقة، لكن كبر فصار يتلقن. وموسى بن عامر ابن خريم صدوق فيه لين. وعبد الملك بن الأصبغ البعلبكي صدوق فيه لين. الوليد بن مسلم ثقة فيه لين كثير التدليس والتسوية، فإذا لم يتسلسل الإسناد منه إلى منتهاه بما يدل على السماع فالسند غير مقبول. قتادة بن دعامة ثقة مدلس، ولم أجد أنه صرح بسماعه لهذا الحديث من أنس].

هذا الطريق فيه ما يكفي لتضعيفه، والأهم من ذلك أنه معلول، لأنه قد جاء هنا من رواية الأوزاعي عن قتادة عن أنس!، والثابت عن الأوزاعي ـ من طرق عنه ـ أنه رواه عن يزيد الرقاشي عن أنس، كما تقدم قريبا، وهذا يعني أن رواية هذا الحديث من طريق الأوزاعي عن قتادة عن أنس هي مجرد خطأ، ويزيد الرقاشي ضعيف متروك الحديث. فهذا الطريق تالف.

ووجه الإعلال هو أنه لو كان هذا الحديث عند الأوزاعي عن قتادة ويزيد الرقاشي عن أنس فإما أن يجمعهما في الرواية وإما أن يقتصر على روايته عن قتادة عن أنس، فقتادة ثقة ويزيد الرقاشي ضعيف متروك الحديث، وأما الرواية مرة عن هذا ومرة عن ذاك فهذا نوع من العبث الذي تـُصان عنه أفعال العقلاء، وفي مثل هذا الحال فإن الأئمة النقاد من علماء الحديث يحكمون بتثبيت القدر الأدنى ويعلون ما فوقه، فلا مناص عن الحكم بأن الرواية الثابتة عن الأوزاعي هي عن يزيد الرقاشي وليست عن قتادة.

وإذا عُلم أن هذا الطريق معلول فقد جاءت رواية ابن ماجه مختلفة قليلا عن غيرها من روايات الوليد بن مسلم، فألقت الضوء بذلك على وجه الخطأ.

قال ابن ماجه رحمه الله في السنن: حدثنا هشام بن عمار قال حدثنا الوليد بن مسلم قال حدثنا أبو عمرو قال حدثنا قتادة عن أنس بن مالك أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “إن بني إسرائيل افترقت على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، وإن أمتي ستفترق على ثنتين وسبعين فرقة، كلها في النار إلا واحدة، وهي الجماعة“. أي إن الوليد بن مسلم كما روى هذا الحديث عن الأوزاعي عن يزيد الرقاشي عن أنس فكذلك رواه عن أبي عمرو عن قتادة عن أنس.

وللإيضاح أقول: الإمام الأوزاعي رحمه الله هو عبد الرحمن بن عمرو وكنيته أبو عمرو، والوليد بن مسلم سمع من أبي عمرو الأوزاعي كثيرا ومن أبي عمرو عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم وحدَّث عنهما، وأكثرَ من الرواية عن الأوزاعي، ولذا فإن بعض الرواة بمجرد سماعه منه كلمة حدثنا أبو عمرويظن أن شيخه في هذه الرواية هو الأوزاعي، ولهذا فإن عددا من روايات هذا الحديث قد جاء فيها أنه عن الوليد بن مسلم عن الأوزاعي عن قتادة!، ويبدو أن هذا خطأ، وأن الوليد بن مسلم إنما سمع هذا الحديث من أبي عمرو الأوزاعي عن يزيد الرقاشي ومن أبي عمرو عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم عن قتادة، وابن تميم هذا ضعيف متروك الحديث.

ولا يمتنع ـ عند الأئمة النقاد من علماء الحديث ـ أن يكون الحديث عند الوليد بن مسلم عن أبي عمرو الأوزاعي عن يزيد الرقاشي عن أنس وعن أبي عمرو عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم عن قتادة عن أنس فيرويَه مرة عن هذا ومرة عن ذاك، لأن في كلا الوجهين راويا ضعيفا، فكلاهما في درجة الضعف. [ومن المفيد قراءة كتاب منهج الإمامين البخاري ومسلم في إعلال المرويات الحديثية، فهو مفيد في هذا الباب].

هذا وقد روى عبد الرزاق في المصنف عن معمر عن قتادة أنه قال: سأل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عبدَ الله بنَ سلام: على كم تفرقت بنو إسرائيل؟. فقال: على واحدة أو اثنتين وسبعين فرقة. فقال: “وأمتي أيضا ستفترق مثلهم أو يزيدون واحدة، كلها في النار إلا واحدة“. ويبدو أن هذه الرواية هي أصل رواية قتادة، فأخذها منه عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم فزاد فيها في المتن وجعلها عن قتادة عن أنس.

* وأما حديث معاوية فرواه ابن حنبل والدارمي وأبو داود والبسوي وأبو زرعة الدمشقي في الفوائد المعللة وابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة ومحمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة والطبراني في الكبير والآجري في كتاب الشريعة واللالكائي من خمسة طرق عن صفوان بن عمرو السكسكي عن أزهر بن عبد الله الحَرَازي عن أبي عامر عبد الله بن لحي الهوزني أنه قال: حججنا مع معاوية بن أبي سفيان فلما قدمنا مكة قام حين صلى صلاة الظهر فقال: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: “إن أهل الكتابين افترقوا في دينهم على ثنتين وسبعين ملة، وإن هذه الأمة ستفترق على ثلاث وسبعين ملة، يعني الأهواء، كلها في النار إلا واحدة، وهي الجماعة“. [صفوان بن عمرو ثقة فيه لين. أزهر بن عبد الله الحَرَازي صدوق فيه لين. عبد الله بن لحي صدوق].

* وأما حديث عوف بن مالك فرواه ابن ماجه والبسوي في المعرفة والتاريخ وابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة والطبراني في الكبير وفي مسند الشاميين واللالكائي وأبو القاسم الأصبهاني في كتاب الحجة، عن عمرو بن عثمان بن سعيد ويزيد بن عبد ربه عن عباد بن يوسف عن صفوان بن عمرو السكسكي عن راشد بن سعد عن عوف بن مالك أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “افترقت اليهود على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، فواحدة في الجنة وسبعون في النار، وافترقت النصارى على ثنتين وسبعين فرقة، فإحدى وسبعون في النار وواحدة في الجنة، والذي نفس محمد بيده لتفترقن أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة، واحدة في الجنة وثنتان وسبعون في النار“. قيل: يا رسول الله من هم؟. قال:”الجماعة“.

[عمرو بن عثمان بن سعيد حمصي صدوق ثقة مات سنة 250. ويزيد بن عبد ربه حمصي ثقة مات سنة 224. عباد بن يوسف حمصي ذكره ابن حبان في الثقات، وقال عنه ابن عدي: روى عن صفوان بن عمرو وغيره أحاديث ينفرد بها. وقال الذهبي في المغني: ليس بالقوي. فهو لين. صفوان بن عمرو حمصي ثقة فيه لين. راشد بن سعد حمصي صدوق ثقة يرسل ومات سنة 113. عوف بن مالك صحابي مات سنة 73]. فهذا الطريق لين.

هذا الطريق فيه ما يكفي لتضعيفه، والأهم من ذلك أنه معلول، فقد روى خمسة من الرواة حديث افتراق الأمة عن صفوان بن عمرو السكسكي عن أزهر بن عبد الله الحَرَازي عن عبد الله بن لحي الهوزني عن معاوية، وليس عن صفوان بن عمرو عن راشد بن سعد عن عوف بن مالك، فرجع هذا الطريق لحديث معاوية.

ـ ورواه البزار والطبراني في الكبير وفي مسند الشاميين والحاكم وابن عدي في الكامل والخطيب البغدادي في تاريخ بغداد، من طريق نعيم بن حماد عن عيسى بن يونس عن حريز بن عثمان عن عبد الرحمن بن جبير بن نفير عن أبيه عن عوف بن مالك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: “ستفترق أمتي على بضع وسبعين فرقة، أعظمها فتنة على أمتي قوم يقيسون الأمور برأيهم، يحرمون الحلال ويحلون الحرام“.

قال أبو زرعة الدمشقي في تاريخه: عرضت على عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم الحديث الذي حدثناه نعيم بن حماد عن عيسى بن يونس عن حريز بن عثمان عن عبد الرحمن بن جبير بن نفير عن أبيه عن عوف بن مالك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال تفترق أمتي على بضع وسبعين فرقة أعظمها فتنة على أمتي قوم يقيسون الأمور برأيهم فيحلون الحرام ويحرمون الحلال، فرده وقال: هذا حديث صفوان بن عمرو، حديث معاوية. قال أبو زرعة: قلت ليحيى بن معين في حديث نعيم هذا وسألته عن صحته، فأنكره، قلت: من أين يُؤتى؟. فقال: شُبه له.

وقول دُحيم الحافظ عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم هذا حديثُ صفوان بن عمرو حديثُ معاويةكأنه يريد بذلك أن حديث افتراق الأمة مشهور من رواية صفوان بن عمرو، الذي رواه عن أزهر بن عبد الله الحَرَازي عن عبد الله بن لحي عن معاوية، وأن عيسى بن يونس هو من الرواة عن صفوان، وأنه مما انقلب إسناده على نعيم بن حماد فوهِم فيه، فجعله عن عيسى بن يونس عن حريز بن عثمان عن عبد الرحمن بن جبير بن نفير عن أبيه عن عوف بن مالك، بدلا من أن يقول عن عيسى بن يونس عن صفوان بن عمرو عن أزهر بن عبد الله عن عبد الله بن لحي عن معاوية“.

وروى الخطيب البغدادي هذا عن أبي زرعة الدمشقي، ثم روى عن محمد بن علي بن حمزة المروزي أنه قال: سألت يحيى بن معين عن حديث عوف بن مالك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تفترق أمتي، فقال: ليس له أصل. قلت: فنعيم بن حماد؟. قال: نعيم ثقة. قلت: كيف يحدث ثقة بباطل؟. قال: شُبه له.

ورواه أبو إسماعيل الهروي في ذم الكلام من طريق نعيم بن حماد وعبد الوهاب بن الضحاك وسويد بن سعيد عن عيسى بن يونس به.

ورواه ابن عدي في ترجمة نعيم بن حماد من طريقه به، ثم من طريق أبي عبيد الله ابن أخي ابن وهب أحمد بن عبد الرحمن بن وهب عن عمه عبد الله بن وهب عن عيسى بن يونس كرواية نعيم، ثم قال: وهذا الحديث كان يُعرف بنعيم بن حماد بهذا الإسناد، حتى رواه عبد الوهاب بن الضحاك وسويد الأنباري وشيخ خراساني يقال له أبو صالح الخراساني عن عيسى بن يونس، وأبو عبيد الله اتهم بهذا الحديث أيضا، وعبد الوهاب بن الضحاك اتهم أيضا فيه، وذاك لأن هذا الحديث معروف بنعيم عن عيسى بن يونس.

ورواه ابن عدي في ترجمة سويد بن سعيد الأنباري من طريقه به، وقال: وهذا إنما يعرف بنعيم بن حماد، ورواه عن عيسى بن يونس فتكلم الناس فيه، ثم رواه رجل من أهل خراسان يقال له الحكم بن المبارك يكنى أبا صالح الخواشتي، يقال إنه لا بأس به، ثم سرقه قوم ضعفاء ممن يُعرفون بسرقة الحديث، منهم عبد الوهاب بن الضحاك والنضر بن طاهر وثالثهم سويد الأنباري، ولسويد مما أنكرتُ عليه غيرُ ما ذكرت، وهو إلى الضعف أقرب.

ورواه الخطيب من طريق نعيم بن حماد به، ثم من طريق عبد الله بن جعفر الرقي وسويد بن سعيد الحدثاني الأنباري وعمرو بن عيسى بن يونس وعبد الوهاب بن الضحاك وعبد الله بن وهب ومحمد بن سلام المنبجي عن عيسى بن يونس به، ثم روى عن عبد الغني بن سعيد الحافظ أنه قال: “كل من حدث به عن عيسى بن يونس غير نعيم بن حماد فإنما أخذه من نعيم، وبهذا الحديث سقط نعيم بن حماد عند كثير من أهل العلم بالحديث، إلا أن يحيى بن معين لم يكن ينسبه إلى الكذب، بل كان ينسبه إلى الوهَم“.

فحديث عوف بن مالك من هذا الطريق ليس له أصل، وهو خطأ سندا ومتنا، وأصله الحديث الذي رواه صفوان بن عمرو عن أزهر بن عبد الله عن عبد الله بن لحي عن معاوية، فرجع حديث عوف بن مالك من هذا الطريق كذلك لحديث معاوية.

ـ ورواه الطبراني في الكبير عن يحيى بن عبد الباقي عن يوسف بن عبد الرحمن المروروذي عن أبي تقي عبد الحميد بن إبراهيم الحمصي عن معدان بن سليم الحضرمي عن عبد الرحمن بن نجيح عن أبي الزاهرية عن جبير بن نفير عن عوف بن مالك أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “كيف أنت يا عوف إذا افترقت هذه الأمة على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة واحدة في الجنة وسائرهن في النار؟!”. قلت: ومتى ذاك يا رسول الله؟. قال: “إذا كثرت الشرط ومَلـَكت الإماء، ويفزع الناس يومئذ إلى الشام، تعصمهم من عدوهم“. قلت: وهل يُفتح الشام؟. قال: “نعم، وشيكا، ثم تقع الفتن بعد فتحها، ثم تجيء فتنة غبراء مظلمة، ثم يتبع الفتن بعضها بعضا، حتى يخرج رجل من أهل بيتي يقال له المهدي، فإن أدركته فاتبعه وكن من المهتدين“.

[يحيى بن عبد الباقي ثقة مات سنة 292. يوسف بن عبد الرحمن: لم أجد له في أسانيد الطبراني ذكرا سوى هذه المرة الواحدة، ولم أجد له ترجمة، وقد قال الذهبي وابن حجر: يوسف بن عبد الرحمن حدث عنه عيسى بن إبراهيم البِرَكي بحديثين موضوعين. وعيسى بن إبراهيم صدوق فيه لين مات سنة 228، فإن يكن يوسف بن عبد الرحمن الذي حدث عنه البركي هو الذي حدث عنه يحيى بن عبد الباقي فالظاهر أنه أحد الكذابين، وإلا يكـنْه فهو مجهول. عبد الحميد بن إبراهيم الحمصي ضعيف مات سنة 215 تقريبا. معدان بن سليم وعبد الرحمن بن نجيح لم أجد لهما ترجمة، وفي الرواة معدان بن حدير يروي عن عبد الرحمن بن جبير فلعل في السند تحريفا، وقد يكون هذا من افتعال يوسف بن عبد الرحمن]. فهذا الطريق تالف.

* وأما حديث أبي أمامة فرواه ابن أبي شيبة وابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة والحارث بن أبي أسامة ومحمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة والطبراني في الكبير واللالكائي من طرق عن أبي غالب أنه قال: كنت في مسجد دمشق، فجاؤوا بسبعين رأسا من رؤوس الحرورية، فنـُصبت على درج المسجد، فجاء أبو أمامة فنظر إليهم، فقال: كلاب جهنم، شر قتلى قـُتلوا تحت ظل السماء، ومن قـَتلوا خيرُ قتلى تحت السماء. قلت: يا أبا أمامة، إني رأيتك تهريق عبرتك. قال: نعم، رحمة لهم، إنهم كانوا من أهل الإسلام، قد افترقت بنو إسرائيل على واحدة وسبعين فرقة، وتزيد هذه الأمة فرقة واحدة، كلها في النار إلا السواد الأعظم، عليهم ما حملوا وعليكم ما حملتم، وإن تطيعوه تهتدوا، وما على الرسول إلا البلاغ، السمع والطاعة خير من الفرقة والمعصية. فقال له رجل: يا أبا أمامة، أمن رأيك تقول أم شيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟. قال: إني إذا لجريء، بل سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم غير مرة ولا مرتين. حتى ذكر سبعا.

ورواه الطبراني في الكبير والأوسط من طريقين عن أبي غالب عن أبي أمامة أنه قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: افترقت بنو إسرائيل على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، تزيد عليها أمتي فرقة، كلها في النار إلا السواد الأعظم.

ورواه الطبراني في الكبير واللالكائي والبيهقي من طرق بنحوه، وفيها: قلت: يا أبا أمامة، من ِقبل رأيك تقول أم شيئا سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟. قال: بل شيء سمعته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. ثم قال: إن بني إسرائيل تفرقت إحدى وسبعين فرقة ـ أو قال اثنتين وسبعين فرقة ـ، وإن هذه الأمة ستزيد عليهم فرقة كلها في النار إلا السواد الأعظم. ففي هذه الرواية الأخيرة لا يدخل حديث افتراق الأمة فيما سمعه أبو أمامة من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.

[أبو غالب صاحب أبي أمامة: وثقه موسى بن هارون الحمال وابن معين في رواية والدارقطني مرة، وقال ابن معين في رواية: صالح الحديث. وقال الدارقطني مرة: يُعتبر به. وقال ابن عدي: ولم أر في أحاديثه حديثا منكرا جدا وأرجو أنه لا بأس به. وقال أبو حاتم: ليس بالقوي. وضعفه النسائي، وقال ابن سعد وابن حبان: منكر الحديث]. فسنده ضعيف.

* وأما حديث سعد فرواه عبد بن حميد ومحمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة والبزار والآجري في كتاب الشريعة من طريق موسى بن عُبيدة الربذي عن أخيه عبد الله بن عبيدة عن عائشة بنت سعد عن أبيها أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: افترقت بنو إسرائيل على إحدى وسبعين ملة، ولن تذهب الليالي ولا الأيام حتى تفترق أمتي على مثلها، وكل فرقة منها في النار إلا واحدة، وهي الجماعة. موسى بن عُبيدة ضعيف منكر الحديث.

* وأما حديث عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص فرواه الترمذي ومحمد بن وضاح في البدع والآجري في كتاب الشريعة واللالكائي وأبو منصور البغدادي في كتاب الفرق بين الفرق وأبو القاسم الأصبهاني في كتاب الحجة، من طرق عن عبد الرحمن بن زياد بن أَنْعُم الإفريقي عن عبد الله بن يزيد المعافري المصري عن عبد الله بن عمرو أنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ليأتين على أمتي ما أتى على بني إسرائيل حذو النعل بالنعل، وإن بني إسرائيل تفرقت على ثنتين وسبعين ملة، وتفترق أمتي على ثلاث وسبعين ملة، كلهم في النار إلا ملة واحدة. قالوا: ومن هي يا رسول الله؟. قال: ما أنا عليه وأصحابي. عبد الرحمن بن زياد بن أنعم ضعيف.

* وأما حديث ابن مسعود فرواه ابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة والطبراني في الكبير عن هشام بن عمار عن الوليد بن مسلم عن بكير بن معروف عن مقاتل بن حيان عن القاسم بن عبد الرحمن عن أبيه عن جده عبد الله بن مسعود، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: “إن بني إسرائيل افترقت على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، لم ينج منها إلا ثلاث“.

[بكير بن معروف وثقه مروان بن محمد الطاطري، وذكره ابن حبان في الثقات، وقال أبو داود والنسائي: ليس به بأس. وقال أحمد: ما أرى به بأسا. وقال في رواية أخرى: ذاهب الحديث. وقال الدارقطني في العلل: ليس بالقوي. وقال ابن عدي: أرجو أنه لا بأس به وليس حديثه بالمنكر جدا. وقال فيه ابن المبارك: ارم به]. فالظاهر أنه لين وإلى الضعف اقرب.

ـ ورواه ابن أبي عاصم في السنة ومحمد بن نصر المروزي في السنة والطبري والطبراني في الكبير وفي الصغير والحاكم من طريق الصعق بن حزن عن عقيل الجعدي عن أبي إسحاق عن سويد بن غفلة عن ابن مسعود مرفوعا به نحوه. [عقيل الجعدي قال فيه البخاري وابن حبان: منكر الحديث].

والطريقان السابقان ـ زيادة على ما فيهما من الضعف ـ معلولان بالوقف على الصحابي:

فقد روى ابن أبي حاتم في التفسير هذا الحديث عن أبيه عن هشام بن عمار عن شهاب بن خراش عن حجاج بن دينار عن منصور بن المعتمر عن الربيع بن عميلة الفزازي عن عبد الله بن مسعود أنه قال: “إن بني إسرائيل لما طال عليهم الأمد فقست قلوبهم اخترعوا كتاباً من عند أنفسهم، فافترقت بنو إسرائيل على ثنتين وسبعين ملة“. ورواه البيهقي في شعب الإيمان عن أبي محمد عبد الله بن يوسف الأصبهاني عن أبي سعيد بن الأعرابي عن سعدان بن نصر عن أبي معاوية عن الأعمش عن عمارة بن عمير عن الربيع بن عميلة عن ابن مسعود بنحوه، وعنده فاختلفت بنو إسرائيل على بضع و سبعين فرقة“.

[هشام بن عمار الدمشقي صدوق ثقة، لكن كبر فصار يتلقن. شهاب بن خراش صدوق ثقة فيه لين. حجاج بن دينار ثقة فيه لين. منصور بن المعتمر ثقة. الربيع بن عميلة ثقة. ورجال الإسناد عند البيهقي ثقات]. فهذا الإسناد صحيح.

* وأما حديث عمرو بن عوف فرواه ابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة من طريق كثير بن عبد الله بن عمرو بن عوف عن أبيه عن جده عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: ألا إن بني إسرائيل افترقت على موسى على سبعين فرقة، كلها ضلالة إلا فرقة واحدة الإسلام وجماعتهم، وإنها افترقت على عيسى عليه السلام على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، كلها ضلالة إلا فرقة الإسلام وجماعتهم، ثم إنكم تفترقون على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، كلها ضلالة إلا فرقة الإسلام وجماعتهم“. [كثير بن عبد الله بن عمرو بن عوف متروك متهم بالكذب].

* وأما حديث أبي الدرداء وأبي أمامة وواثلة بن الأسقع وأنس فرواه الطبراني في الكبير والآجري في كتاب الشريعة وأبو إسماعيل الهروي في كتاب ذم الكلام وأهله من طريق كثير بن مروان الفلسطيني عن عبد الله بن يزيد بن آدم الدمشقي عن أبي الدرداء وأبي أمامة وواثلة بن الأسقع وأنس بن مالك عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: ذروا المراء، فإن بني إسرائيل افترقوا على إحدى وسبعين فرقة والنصارى على ثنتين وسبعين، كلهم على الضلالة إلا السواد الأعظم. قالوا: يا رسول الله ومن السواد الأعظم؟. قال: من كان على ما أنا عليه وأصحابي. ورواه ابن عساكر من طريق أبين بن سفيان عن عبد الله بن يزيد بن آدم به.

[كثير بن مروان الفلسطيني كذاب يحدث بالمنكرات. وأبين بن سفيان ضعيف منكر الحديث، وقال البخاري: لا يُكتب حديثه. عبد الله بن يزيد بن آدم الدمشقي ليس بثقة، أحاديثه موضوعة]. فهذا إسناد تالف.

* وأما الموقوف على علي فرواه محمد بن يحيى بن أبي عمر العدني ـ كما في الإتحاف ـ عن مروان بن معاوية عن حسان بن أبي يحيى الكندي عن شيخ من كندة عن علي رضي الله عنه أنه قال: افترقت النصرانية على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، وافترقت اليهودية على ثنتين وسبعين فرقة، والذي نفسي بيده لتفترقن الحنيفية على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة، فتكون ثنتان وسبعون في النار، وفرقة في الجنة. [حسان بن أبي يحيى الكندي شيخ مروان بن معاوية ذكره ابن حبان في الثقات، لكن وقع في نسخة كتاب الثقات تسميته بحسان بن أبي حسان. وشيخه مبهم]. فهذا الطريق ضعيف.

ـ ورواه ابن أبي عاصم في كتاب السنة من طريق يعقوب بن عبد الله القمي عن ليث بن أبي سُليم عن مجاهد عن ابن عباس عن علي أنه قال: تفرقت اليهود على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، والنصارى على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، وأنتم على ثلاث وسبعين، وإن من أضلها وأخبثها الشيعة. [ليث بن أبي سُليم اختلط جدا ولم يتميز حديثه].

ـ ورواه محمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة وابن أبي حاتم في التفسير من طريقين عن عبد الله بن وهب عن أبي صخر حميد بن زياد عن أبي معاوية البجلي عن سعيد بن جبير عن أبي الصهباء البكري عن علي بن أبي طالب أنه قال: لقد افترقت بنو إسرائيل بعد موسى على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، كلها في النار إلا فرقة، وافترقت النصارى على اثنتين وسبعين فرقة، كلها في النار إلا فرقة.

[حميد بن زياد مدني سكن مصر ومات سنة 145 تقريبا، صدوق فيه لين. أبو معاوية البجلي: قال المزي: يُقال إنه عمار الدهني ويُقال غيره. سعيد بن جبير ثقة. أبو الصهباء صدوق فيه لين]. عمار الدهني ثقة لم يسمع من سعيد بن جبير شيئا، فإن كان أبو معاوية البجلي المذكور في هذا السند هو عمارا الدهنيَّ فالسند منقطع، وإلا يكنْه فهو مجهول. فهذا الطريق ضعيف.

ـ ورواه محمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة وابن عساكر من طريق عطاء بن مسلم الحلبي عن العلاء بن المسيب عن شريك البرجمي عن زاذان أبي عمر عن علي بنحوه.

[إسحاق بن إبراهيم هو ابن راهويه. عطاء بن مسلم الكوفي الحلبي صدوق فيه لين مات سنة 190. العلاء بن المسيب كوفي ثقة فيه لين. شريك البرجمي لم أجد فيه سوى أن ذكره ابن حبان في الثقات. زاذان أبو عمر ثقة فيه لين مات سنة 83]. فهذا الطريق ضعيف.

ـ ورواه ابن بطة في الإبانة الكبرى من طريق شبابة بن سوار عن سوادة بن سلمة عن عبد الله بن قيس عن علي رضي الله عنه أنه قال: افترقت اليهود على إحدى وسبعين فرقة، لتفترقن هذه الأمة على مثل ذلك، وأضلها فرقة وشرها الداعية إلينا أهلَ البيت، وآية ذلك أنهم يشتمون أبا بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما. [سوادة بن سلمة لم أجد له ترجمة، ولا فيمن اسمه سواد. عبد الله بن قيس يحتمِل أن يكون الذي ذكره ابن حبان في الثقات]. فهذا الطريق ضعيف جدا.

ـ ورواه أبو نعيم في الحلية من طريق محمد بن عثمان بن أبي شيبة عن إبراهيم بن الحسن التغلبي عن عبد الله بن بكير عن محمد بن سوقة عن أبي الطفيل عن علي أنه قال: “تفترق هذه الأمة على ثلاث وسبعين فرقة، شرها فرقة تنتحل حبنا وتفارق أمرنا“. ثم علقه المؤلف بعد روايته مسندا عن أبي نعيم عن عبد الله بن بكير نحوه كذلك، وعن محمد بن سلمة الحراني عن محمد بن عبيد الله الفزاري عن محمد بن سوقة نحوه كذلك.

[محمد بن عثمان بن أبي شيبة كوفي مات سنة 287، وثقه جماعة، ويبدو أن له أخطاء كان يصر عليها فكذبه جماعة لأجلها. عبد الله بن بكير الغنوي الكوفي صدوق وليس بقوي. محمد بن سوقة كوفي ثقة. أبو الطفيل صحابي. أبو نعيم لعله الفضل بن دكين وهو ثقة. محمد بن سلمة الحراني ثقة مات سنة 192. محمد بن عبيد الله الفزاري العرزمي كوفي متروك الحديث مات سنة 155 تقريبا]. فهذا الطريق ضعيف.

ثم إنه معلول بما رواه الآجري في الشريعة من طريق رجاله ثقات، والخطيبُ البغدادي من طريق واه، كلاهما عن أبي معاوية قال حدثنا محمد بن سوقة عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن علي رضي الله عنه أنه قال: تفترق هذه الأمة على بضع وسبعين فرقة، شرهم قوم ينتحلون حبنا أهلَ البيت ويخالفون أعمالنا.

[أبو معاوية محمد بن خازم كوفي صدوق ربما دلس ومات سنة 194. محمد بن سوقة كوفي ثقة رأى أنس بن مالك. حبيب بن أبي ثابت كوفي ثقة يدلس ويرسل، ولم يدرك عليا، ومات سنة 119]. فهذا الطريق منقطع بين حبيب بن أبي ثابت وعلي رضي الله عنه، فهو ضعيف.

ووجه الإعلال هو أن الطريق السابق لهذا الأثر الموقوف على علي رضي الله عنه رُوي من طريق محمد بن سوقة عن أبي الطفيل عن علي من وجه ضعيف، ولو صحَّ من هذا الطريق لكان الأثر صحيح الإسناد، ورُوي من طريق محمد بن سوقة عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن علي من وجه قوي، فبذلك يكون الطريق السابق ـ زيادة على ضعفه ـ معلولا بالوجه الأقوى، وإذا كان ذلك كذلك فالصحيح أن محمد بن سوقة رواه عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت وليس عن أبي الطفيل، فيكون هذا الطريق عن علي ضعيفا لأنه منقطع الإسناد بين حبيب بن أبي ثابت وعلي رضي الله عنه.

* خلاصة القول في درجة هذا الحديث:

هذا الحديث طرقه كلها ضعيفة، ولعل أمثلها حديث معاوية، والثابت منها هو قول عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه فاختلفت بنو إسرائيل على بضع وسبعين فرقة“.

قد يقول قائل: ألا يصل الحديث بهذه الطرق الكثيرة لمرتبة الحديث المتواتر فنحكمَ بصحته على الجزم والقطع؟! أو لمرتبة الصحيح لغيره؟! أو لمرتبة الحسن لغيره على الأقل؟!.

أقول:

قلت في كتاب متنزه الأنظار: [ولا ارتباط بين صحة الحديث وعدد الطرق التي رُوي بها، لأن مجرد كثرة الطرق لا تفيد الصحةَ ولا الحسن، فضلا عن إفادة الجزم والقطع، وقد أشار الإمام أحمد ابن حنبل عليه رحمة الله إلى هذا المعنى إذ قال: “يطلبون حديثاً من ثلاثين وجهاً!! أحاديثُ ضعيفة“. والذي أقول به وأؤكده هو أنه لا ارتباط بين عدد الطرق التي يُروى بها الحديث وبين الصحة والحسن، فقد يكون للحديث عشرة طرق أو عشرون أو ثلاثون ويبقى ضعيفا، وقد يكون له طريق واحد ويكون صحيحا، والمعوَّل عليه هو عدالة الرواة وضبطهم مع اتصال السند وسلامة الحديث من العلل ومن الشذوذ].

وترقية الحديث بتوارد الطرق الضعيفة له شرط أهمله المتأخرون، وهو أن لا يكون الحديث شاذا، وهذا الحديث فيه شذوذ من وجهين:

أحدهما: أن الله تعالى أخبرنا أنه هدى المؤمنين لما وقع فيه الاختلاف فقال سبحانه {فبعث الله النبيين مبشرين ومنذرين وأنزل معهم الكتاب بالحق ليحكم بين الناس فيما اختلفوا فيه وما اختلف فيه إلا الذين أوتوه من بعد ما جاءتهم البينات بغيا بينهم فهدى الله الذين آمنوا لما اختلفوا فيه من الحق بإذنه}، فلا يُعقل أن تكون أمة الهداية التي أثنى عليها الحق جل جلاله أشدَّ اختلافا وتفرقا من الذين غضب الله عليهم.

وثانيهما: أن الفِرقة التي جاء الإخبار عنها بأنها الفرقة الناجية ـ حسب معظم طرق هذا الحديث ـ ليست هي المتمسكة بالحق أو بالكتاب والسنة مثلا، ولكن ـ حسب تلك الروايات ـ هي الجماعة، كذا في حديث معاوية وعوف بن مالك وسعد وعمرو بن عوف وعدد من الطرق عن أنس، وورد أنها السواد الأعظم، كما في حديث أبي أمامة والحديثِ المروي عن أبي أمامة وأبي الدرداء وواثلة وأنس، وهذا مخالف للنصوص القرآنية الكريمة التي تبين أن أكثر الناس ليسوا على الحق، فقد قال الله تعالى {ولكن أكثر الناس لا يعلمون} {ولكن أكثر الناس لا يؤمنون} {ولكن أكثر الناس لا يشكرون}.

وهذا ما جعل بعض السلف مضطرا إلى أن يؤول لفظة الجماعةتأويلا بعيدا يخرجها عن المعنى المعروف في اللغة والظاهر من السياق، فمعناها المعروف والظاهر هو أنها تعني السواد الأعظم.

ولكن عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه قال: “الجماعة الكتاب والسنة وإن كنتَ وحدك“. وفي رواية الجماعة أهل الحق وإن كنت وحدك“. وفي رواية إن جمهور الناس فارقوا الجماعة، إن الجماعة ما وافق طاعة الله عز وجل“. وقال إبراهيم النخعي رحمه الله: “الجماعة هي الحق وإن كنت وحدك“. وقال نعيم بن حماد: “إذا فسدت الجماعة فعليك بما كانت عليه الجماعة قبل أن تفسد وإن كنت وحدك، فإنك أنت الجماعة حينئذ“. وكل هذه المعاني تحمل مفهوما مغايرا لما ترمي إليه تلك الروايات حسبما يظهر منها.

ومن القرائن التي تدل على عدم ثبوت الحديث ـ المروي من طرق ضعيفة كثيرة دون أن يكون فيها إسناد صحيح ـ أن يغلب على الظن أن هنالك جهةً ما تسعى لإشاعته وترويجه، وفي مثل هذه الحال فالواجب عدم التسرع في تصحيح الحديث خشية الوقوع في نسبة كلام إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو لم يقله.

والخلاصة أن هذا الحديث لم يثبت عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والله أعلم.

وكتبه صلاح الدين بن أحمد الإدلبي في 24/ 5/ 1435، الموافق ل 25/ 3/ 2014 ،

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Shaykh Muhammad bin Yahya al-Husayni al-Ninowy: “Hadith on 73 sects is fabricated.”

Then we will pick out from each group (sheeAAatin ) the most ardent opponent of the Most Gracious. (Qur’an 19:69)

 

 

  • NOTE The title of the video says: “Ninowy’s corrupt view on Hadith of 73 sects”. 

Which obviously this was uploaded by someone who wanted to expose the blessed Shaykh.  However, as we have seen in previous entries as well as this one it is not a corrupted view at all. It’s simply the truth.

“We talk about one body but we want to split the Ummah into million different parties and million different Jamaahs, and every Jamaah says I am the right Jamaah and everybody else, NOW THERE IS THAT WEAK HADITH OR FABRICATED HADITH EVEN! That says 73 sects and we mentioned something about that even and everybody says I AM THE 7OTH (73RD) AND EVERYONE ELSE TO JAHANNAM!”-Shaykh Ninowy

“AND THE HADITH ANYWAY IS WEAK AND NOT EVEN THAT MANY SCHOLARS SAY IT IS FABRICATED,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, this is the best ummah that came to mankind.”- Shaykh Ninowy

“,,, everybody writes about SECTS, SAYS 73 everybody (is going) in JAHANNAM and I am going to Janah, and they have the keys to Jannah, they have the keys to Jannah, they the last one to go to Jannah they going to lock it up, so nobody goes in,,,,, this radical thinking, and everyone claims that Haq is in his own pocket Haq is (in) my own bag and everyone else hasn’t got any of it (Haq).”-Shaykh Ninowy.

 


 

During a recent Friday Khutbah by Sayyadi Shaykh Dr. Muhammad bin Yahya al-Husayni an-Ninowy he said:

“Our religion is a religion of LOVE in the first place. No love= No Deen, as simple as that. Being a good Muslim doesn’t depend on the knowledge you amass-as much-, race, color, culture, “holy” clothing you wear, or political views.”

“It depends on how you treat other than you; The Creator and the creation. If you don’t love for other human beings (regardless of creed and background) what you love for yourself, then there is an essential problem in your very Iman.”

“The merchants of hate and violence, even when they portray themselves as the “official and exclusive” spokespeople of Islam, can dish out poison, not Deen. Islam is not a Deen of hate but of Love, mercy, and unconditional compassion. Rest, assured’ Allah Ta’ala is much more passionate, forgiving & merciful than all the “experts” in or “scholars” of the Deen (religion) put together.”

“Religion is much easier and simpler than the strict rituals of the “religious”. The “official” spokesmen of the Deen are plenty!! Making you feel as if Malik (Hellfire gatekeeper) is their employee & Ridwan (Jannah gatekeeper) is them in person. Those who call you to hate or violence are callers of Satan and to him.”

“The term “Ulama-u-Su” or (Errant Scholars) is a term usually used to describe scholars keen to please powerful governments/regimes and give them what they’d like to hear on the account of principles of Haqq, but equally so includes scholars/preachers keen to please the masses, cater to them, mobilize and ride on the wave of their innocent Deeni emotions on account of principles of Haqq. I call you to search for the truths and question truths offered to you, for no truth can contradict the Wahi (Qur’an and authentic Sunnah).”

“I call you to Love; for love heals. Treat yourself and others with knowledge, humility, and love. But Love itself is also a form of Rizq(sustenance from heavens/provisions granted by Allah). Don’t you see the Prophet (saw) saying about Sayyidatuna Khadija al-Kubra: “I was granted the Rizq of her love”.  So seek love just like you seek other forms of Rizq.”

“The enemy of Islam is: ignorance and the culture and cults of hate, The Saved Sect (al-Firqah al-Najiyah) Hadith-which is less than Sahih in my view does not in any way give any one group/cult the exclusive keys to Jannah, Qur’an, and authentic Sunnah do. The Saved Sect (al -Firqah al-Najiyah) is not the one seeking to lock up all other sects in hellfire, but the one struggling to save them and all others.”

“In summary, The Beloved sent the beloved out of love to teach love with love for the sake of love. And love does not have limits, for true love collapses all limits, not establishes them.”

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Qur’an instruct us to disregard all hadith ?

“But there are, among men, those who purchase lahwa alhadith (vain hadith), without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.” (Qur’an 31:6)

To say that the Qur’an instructs Muslims to reject all the hadith would be to reject the Qur’an itself!

How could I make such a claim?  Because Allah (swt) calls the Qur’an, “hadith” within the Qur’an itself!

For example:

Then leave Me alone with such as reject this (hadith) alhadith by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not. (Qur’an 68:44)

So we can see from the beginning that that Allah (swt) saw fit to refer to the revelation itself as hadith.

Also, the Qur’an makes a distinction between hadith in chapter 31 verse 6 as follows:

“But there are, among men, those who purchase lahwa alhadith (vain hadith), without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.” (Qur’an 31:6)

Here the Qur’an is warning us against lahwa alhadith (vain hadith).  If  Allah (swt) so wished he could have simply used the word ‘hadith’.

If there are  ‘lahwa alhadith’  -vain hadith than it stands to reason there are hadith that are not vain, fruitless, or futile.

The Qur’an is a book in which nothing has been left out.

“We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered.” (Qur’an 6:38)

It would have been sufficient to say do not believe in any hadith other than this hadith – the Qur’an.   However, we do not find such a verse in the entirety of the  Qur’an!

For example, I could say to you, “You may eat all the apples in the basket.”  I can also say, “You may eat all the apples in the basket that are good.”

The first sentence indicates that it is permissible to eat every apple contained in the basket.  The second sentence indicates that some apples in the basket may not be good, so use discretion.

So most unfortunately, religion has come along to challenge Islam. This religion is known as  ‘Quraniyoon‘  are actually ascribing deficiency to Allah (swt).  May Allah (swt) forgive us!


There are some examples in the Qur’an that refer to hadith outside of the Qur’an.

What would be the point of referencing hadith outside of the Qur’an if all hadith were useless; and utterly futile?  Why reference hadith if they did not contain some newsworthy information?

Example 1)

“Has the hadith reached you, of the honored guests of Abraham?” (Qur’an 51:24)

If one continues to read through the verses they will see that this is obviously a recounting of the events that are contained within Genesis chapter 18:1-15 of the Bible.

Example 2)

“Has the hadith of Moses reached you?” (Qur’an 20:9)

If one continues to read through the verses they will see this is obviously a recounting of the events that are contained within Exodus chapter 3:1-5 of the Bible.

Allah (swt) never says that all hadith are baseless or lies.

Allah (swt) simply informs us that it is Allah (swt) that is the best to relate hadith. We find that in the following verse of the Qur’an.

“Allah! There is no god but He: of a surety He will gather you together against the Day of Judgment, about which there is no doubt. And whose hadith can be truer than Allah’s?” (Qur’an 4:87)

Who would argue against this point?    Human beings can deliver mercy and compassion, but who can be more merciful and compassionate than the one who is The Most Merciful & The Most Compassionate?

Thus hadith can be true but Allah’s hadith is the truest; for who can be truer than Allah?

ALLAH CONFIRMS HADITH OF PROPHET MUHAMMED OUTSIDE OF THE QUR’AN?  YES!

“When the Prophet disclosed a hadith in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, “Who told you this? “He said, “He told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things).” (Qur’an 66:3)

It would be very difficult to imagine a Messenger of Allah (swt)  confirming part of a hadith (The Qur’an) and repudiating part of a hadith (The Qur’an)if the word hadith was used exclusively of the Qur’an.  This is the death blow to the position of which ‘Qur’an only Muslims‘ are unable to escape.

It would also be hard to imagine that if all hadith outside of the Qur’an were absolutely false how could the Blessed Messenger (saw) confirm part of a hadith that was false in the presence of his Lord?

For example, there are ahadith in the collection called Bukhari that relate to this particular incident.    You can read more about the above verse and the events surrounding it here:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1305&Itemid=122

I have no reason to discount this hadith of giving an accurate portrait of the events that happened.   In fact, it is in the context of this entire event that the Allah (swt) reprimands the Blessed Messenger (saw) for his error as well.

“O Prophet! Why do you hold to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to you? You seek to please your wives. But Allah is Often-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 66: 1)

This hadith in Bukhari and other sources also recounts what is known in historical circles as ‘the principle of embarrassment’.

You can read more about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

Hadith can refer to inspiration or dreams that Allah (swt) gives people in their sleep.

“Thus will your Lord choose you and teach you the interpretation of hadith and perfect His favor to you and to the posterity of Jacob – even as He perfected it to your fathers Abraham and Isaac before! for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.” (Qur’an 12:6)

“The man in Egypt who bought him, said to his wife: “Make his stay (among us) honourable: maybe he will bring us much good, or we shall adopt him as a son.” Thus did We establish Joseph in the land, that We might teach him the interpretation hadith. And Allah has full power and control over His affairs, but most among mankind know it not.”  (Qur’an 12:21)

“Twice we can see that Allah (swt) mentions that he will teach Joseph the interpretation of hadith.  In both instances, it is a reference to dreams.

“Behold! Joseph said to his father: “O my father! I did see (in a dream) eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to me!” (Qur’an 12:4)

Now with him, there came into the prison, two young men. Said one of them: “I see myself (in a dream) pressing wine.” said the other: “I see myself (in a dream) carrying bread on my head, and birds are eating, thereof.” “Tell us” (they said) “The truth and meaning thereof: for we see you are one that does good (to all).”He said: “Before any food comes (in due course) to feed either of you, I will surely reveal to you the truth and meaning of this before it befalls you: that is part of the (duty) which my Lord have taught me. I have (I assure you) abandoned the ways of a people that believe not in Allah and that (even) deny the Hereafter.” (Qur’an 12:36-27)

“So the king said: Surely I see seven fat cattle which seven lean ones devoured; and seven green ears and (seven) others dry: O chiefs! explain to me my dream, if you can interpret the dream.” (Qur’an 12:43)

“O, Joseph!” (he said) “O man of truth! Expound to us (the dream) of seven fat cattle whom seven lean ones devour, and of seven green ears of corn and (seven) others withered: that I may return to the people and that they may understand.” (Qur’an 12:46)

This is obviously a recounting of the events that are contained within Exodus chapter 41:1-36 of the Bible.

As Muslims, if we are to believe that the dreams we receive from Allah (swt) are all revelations than we are going to have to radically change our concepts of revelation.

I could elaborate more on this but I believe what is provided is sufficient to prove the following.

1) The Qur’an does not tell Muslims to reject all hadith,

2) The Qur’an does not tell Muslims to accept all the hadith.

3) The Qur’an makes it clear that hadith does not necessarily refer to divine revelation itself.

4) The Qur’an makes it clear that no hadith could be truer than the hadith of Allah (swt).

“Allah! There is no god but He: of a surety He will gather you together against the Day of Judgment, about which there is no doubt. And whose hadith can be truer than Allah’s?” (Qur’an 4:87)

This statement lets us know that even if hadith reach a state of mutawattir (mass transmitted) they still cannot clash with the clear teachings of the Qur’an. 

Remember that this blog is called PRIMA QURAN

So what is Prima-Qur’an?

Prima is from the Latin word which simply means ‘First’ or ‘foremost’.

Prima Qur’an is about using the Qur’an,  primarily for guidance in matters of theology, jurisprudence, and spirituality.

Prima-Qur’an rejects any source that clashes with the teachings of the Qur’an..  It is about Muslims going back to the Qur’an first. It is about Muslims looking to the Holy Qur’an first and foremost for guidance and healing.

The position of Prima-Qur’an is distinct from the religion of the Quraniyoon religion.

Quraniyoon is a religion that broke away from the religion of Islam. If the truth be told in reality they reject the Qur’an as well.

I have yet to encounter any person from the Quraniyoon that can give us one text anywhere from the Qur’an where it tells us to disregard all the hadith.

23 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Does the Holy Qur’an instruct us to beat women?

And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your hearts. Undoubtedly in these are signs for those who reflect.” (Qur’an 30:21)

“And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men to your women until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)

 

So let us get straight to the question: Does the Qur’an allow women to be beaten?

The answer to that is within the context of sexual immorality it absolutely allows both men and women to be beaten/lashed and to allow a party of the believers to witness this.

This is our way and our revelation and we should not let the disbelievers in any way shape or form dissuade us from that which we are upon.

The proof is in the following text:

The woman or man found guilty of sexual immorality-lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.” (Qur’an 24:2)

So yes in the context of sexual immorality women can be beaten/lashed.

We are unapologetic about it. It is our way it is what is given to us by Allah (swt).

 

What about in a marriage?  Does the Qur’an instruct us to beat women? 

Before I begin this part  I want to stress that I do not believe in forced marriages.  Even when Imam asks the woman if she consents and she does so under pressure from her parents, society, or culture it is wrong.   More must be done to educate Muslim society about the harms of doing so.

I also believe that it is important for the man and women who decide to marry each other to know as much as they can about their future partner.  Every man or woman can only be judged by the outward character or outward appearance.

From my personal experiences, I feel we do not really know anyone until we have seen them under pressure, duress, during the crisis, under strain, or when the ‘chips are down‘ -so to speak.

It is also important to understand that none of us really know the complete physiological history and makeup of any individual that we meet unless he/she divulges that history to us.

The importance of what I have stated in the last few paragraphs cannot be emphasized enough.

So now let us deal with the idea of domestic violence or the idea that the Qur’an instructs men to beat their wives.

So let us look at the verses under discussion:

“Men are the protectors of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend in maintenance from their wealth, Thus accordingly the righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in their husband’s absence what Allah would have them, guard. But those from whom you fear nushuz (sexual immorality), first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed, and finally strike them. But if they obey you, seek not means of annoyance against them. Indeed, Allah is Most High, Most Great. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever Knowing, and Acquainted with all things.” (Qur’an 4:34-35)

It is my understanding that this verse is not at all addressing all men.

  1. It is, first of all, addressing those free men who are the protectors of women, provide for them either shelter or maintenance, etc.
  2. It is not addressing those slave men who would not be the protectors of women, providing for them either shelter or maintenance, etc.

These verses  in 4:34-35 above are not addressing the following type of man:

“And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe. And a believing slave woman is better than a polytheist, even though she might please you. And do not marry polytheistic men to your women until they believe. And a believing slave is better than a polytheist, even though he might please you. Those invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites to Paradise and to forgiveness, by His permission. And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember.” (Qur’an 2:221)

Due to his social status, a slave man would not be a protector and maintainer of a woman. He also would not be in any position to admonish his wife (a free woman) or refuse to share his bed (presumably her bed) and or dare to think to strike her.

I also believe based upon this text that any man who is not meeting his primary duties and requirements as a husband has forfeited his right to pursue the steps mentioned in the above verses. (Qur’an 4:34-35)

Also, understand that for those men that this verse and its various steps it is in relation to nushuz -sexual immorality.

Similarly, the Qur’an addresses women in regards to men who commit nushuz.

“And if a woman fears from her husband ‘nushuz’- sexual immorality or ‘i’radan’- (abandonment) either to physically desert her or to treat her like a nonpresence while together, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of the settlement between themand settlement is best. And present in souls is stinginess. But if you do good and fear Allah – then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” (Qur’an 4:128)

Notice it doesn’t tell the women to do any of the following:

A) admonish the husband

B) refuse to share the beds with them

C) beat them /hit them/strike them/ tap them

It is my understanding that if the woman is the maintainer and provider in this regard than the inverse of Qur’an 4:34-35 applies.

It also could be the reason the Qur’an does not detail these steps  (as in the case with the slave-man) is that women were often not in a social/economic advantage over a man.  So it may be possible that some of the steps advised to the man may not be helpful to the woman.

Dealing with nushuz- sexual infidelity privately /discreetly or making the matter known. 

So I believe that the Qur’an gives marital couples two methods of dealing with marital infidelity.

What the Qur’an does in verses 4:34-35 and 4:128 is as follows:

It is for those couples who want to try and settle the issue of sexual immorality committed by the husband/wife discreetly -with little fanfare.

Also addressed in the case of the husband is his abandonment of the wife.

What the Qur’an 24:4-9 does is those couples who want to go public with the issue of marital infidelity on behalf of the partner.  It is in this arena in which very severe consequences could await either of the partners.

We will return to the mater of settling marital infidelity discreetly shortly

However, let us first look at the severity of the matter if either party were to go public.

“The woman or man found guilty of sexual immorality -lash each of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. (Qur’an 24:2)

“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are defiantly disobedient, Except for those who repent thereafter and reform, for indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. And those who accuse their wives sexual immorality and have no witnesses except themselves – then the witness of one of them shall be four testimonies swearing by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful. And the fifth oath will be that the curse of Allah be upon him if he should be among the liars. But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies swearing by Allah that indeed, he is of the liars. And the fifth oath will be that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he was of the truthful.” (Qur’an 24:4-9)

So this is a scenario laid out for those husbands/wives accusing each other of sexual immorality and they decide to go public with it.

  1. The man will need to produce four witnesses or be beaten/lashed with 80 lashes and his testimony may never be accepted again.
  2. The man has not four witnesses but swears an oath by Allah four times and the fifth is he invokes the curse of Allah upon himself if he is lying.

Just pause for a moment and think of the gravity of what that would entail. To solemnly wish for the curse of Allah (swt) upon oneself.  A gravity beyond imagination.

3. If the woman is willing to match her husband with the solemn oath and that the fifth is that she invokes the curse of Allah upon herself (a grave matter with everlasting consequence) than her testimony will invalidate that of her husband.

The matter will be up to them if they choose to reconcile after this embarrassing ordeal. If they choose reconciliation may Allah (swt) will put mercy and love between them.

Now, what happens if the couple wants to deal with marital infidelity discreetly?

“Men are the protectors of women by right of what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend in maintenance from their wealth, Thus accordingly the righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in their husband’s absence what Allah would have them, guard. But those from whom you fear nushuz (sexual immorality), first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed, and finally strike them. But if they obey you, seek not means of annoyance against them. Indeed, Allah is Most High, Most Great. And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is Ever Knowing, and Acquainted with all things.” (Qur’an 4:34-35)

Now to me, it is rather obvious that the text is even addressing repeat offenses of sexual immorality, indecency.  In other words, the issue of nushaz -sexual immorality with the wife is a reoccurring affair.

So several things are advised.

  1. Verbal Communication: Very Strong admonishing. Be very stern with your words and your feelings about what transpired.

Notice it doesn’t tell you a number or a limit in the number of times you should try this measure.

2. Non-Verbal Communication: Another psychological tool is employed. To not share intimacy with them, to not show them affection. Let it be known through this lack of personal touch that you are absolutely enraged over this.

Notice it doesn’t tell you a number or a limit in the number of times or duration that this should be tried.

3. Non-Verbal Physical Communication: ‘Strike them‘.

Now before I go into my understanding of  “wa-id’ribuhunna” I want to say unequivocally that I do understand that the man is being given permission to strike his wife.

To me it doesn’t mean the following:

“to go on strike”
“to initiate the divorce”
“something metaphorical”

However, “wa-id’ibuhunna” does not mean nor can it mean to ball up the fist and punch someone. It would be a really desperate person with extremely poor exegesis that would try and make that case.

I think at this point a husband who has caught his wife in an act of marital infidelity even after deciding to remain married to her (which he is not obliged to do), after admonishing her, catching her doing it again (showing his disdain by showing lack of empathy) and then finally catching her doing it again.  I think even before these steps are advised the very least that a dignified man whose heart is filled with hurt, pain, and outrage would do in this situation is to strike his wife.

I would also understand it as ‘to slap his wife‘.

Now again if a person cannot understand the context and the scenario that is being mentioned here that is a problem with them.  A dignified and honorable man who is working providing for his wife, taking care of her needs only to have the indignity visited upon him that his wife committed sexual immorality, not once, not twice but three times now.  Anyone who has any concept of justice (even that woman’s own mother) would slap her.

You the hypocrisy and irony of all of this?   I am from the United States and in my culture if this situation was reversed and a woman was working two to three different jobs, putting food on the table, paying the bills, raising the kids, dressing them and preparing them for school, and the man was receiving all these benefits from this woman and he turned around and cheated on his wife and she found out, the very least he could expect is a slap across the face at the least.

Now I have no issue with the “wa-id’ribuhunna” being understood as to strike or to slap.  However, there are other English translations and anyone who has an understanding of language knows full well that some words carry stronger meaning than others.

I understand strike to mean: hit forcibly and deliberately with one’s hand not being balled up.

I understand beat to mean: hit (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them-with one’s hand being balled up.

I understand hit to mean: bring one’s hand into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

I understand tap to mean: to hit something gently

You may look at all the different verb forms of dad ra ba here:

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Drb#(4:34:29)

You can see an instance of the word here:

“We said, “And take in your hand a bunch of weeds and strike (fa-iḍ’rib) with it and do not break your oath.” Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was repeatedly turning back to Allah.” (Qur’an 38:44)

When Muslims do not have water to make ablutions for prayer we are allowed to use dry earth. Now I would encourage you to watch @ 3:53 minutes into the video.

The narrator says: He should ‘strike’ the soil or dust with his hands once.

This word in Arabic is daraba to strike, so it can mean to strike (daraba) as you see in the manner that the man is doing below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mu-pozlhYw

However, many people who have axes to grind with Islam and Muslims favor the word beat because they need to paint the worst possible image of Islam and its teachings.

That being said if a woman doesn’t want slapped /strikes than it is very simple.  Do not commit acts of sexual immorality while being a married woman again and again and again.  If you can’t stand the man you are married to divorce him!

It reminds me of people who said to me, “Are you going to the Middle East? You realize if you steal they will cut off your hands! If you sell drugs they will kill you! If you rape someone they will kill you.”    I really couldn’t believe this guy was saying these things to me.

So I replied to him:  “Well, I guess if I don’t steal, sell drugs or rape anyone than I shouldn’t have any problems right?”

A man or a woman who are in an unhappy marital union can leave it any time they wish. May Allah (swt) find for them both partners who are more suitable to them than the previous ones.

Final Thoughts: 

As mentioned prior it is important for both men and women to understand and know as much as they can about someone they decide to choose as a marital partner.  The idea being that marriage is a life long commitment through all types of challenges.

The ideal of a healthy relationship is laid out in the Qur’an: 

And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your hearts. Undoubtedly in these are signs for those who reflect.” (Qur’an 30:21)

In fact, men are to hold their wives in such esteem and respect that even to divorce them by idioms is seen as uncouth.

“Those who pronounce thihar (saying you are to me like the back of my mother) among you to separate from their wives-they are not their mothers. Their mothers are none but those who gave birth to them. And indeed, they are saying a dishonorable statement and a flat lie. But indeed, Allah is Pardoning and Forgiving. And he who does not find a slave to set free-then a fast of two months consecutively before they touch one another; and he who is unable -then the feeding of sixty poor persons. That is for you to believe in Allah and His Messenger, and those are the limits set by Allah. And for the disbelievers is a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 58:2-4)

So we can see that even using such idioms and cruel words towards one’s wife carries a heavy expiation in Islam.   One needs to free a slave or fast for 2 months back-to-back, or at the very least to feed 60 indigent people!!

We have also seen where a man brings false testimony of marital infidelity towards his wife he will either be beaten/lashed 80 times!!

Likewise, a husband who does have to resort to striking/slapping his wife should she repeat such offensive behavior should at that juncture possibly consider divorcing his wife.

It is possible that this man has married a woman who has deep psychological issues.

She could possibly be a relationship masochist.

For example, Dr. Karen Ruskin author of 10 Seconds to Mental Health says,

A relationship masochist will deliberately provoke and solicit rejecting responses from their partner to feel hurt, humiliated, and defeated,” says marriage and family therapist Dr. Karen Ruskin.

Likewise Tabitha McGurr in the article:  “The Harsh Truth Why Women Go Back to Men Who Abused Them”

She Says in the following section:

SHE GETS OFF ON THE PAIN

“There’s a huge difference between a chick who likes it rough in the sack and one who actually enjoys physical and sexual abuse. Some women choose to transcend the rough play boundary and head towards full-on violence. Every girl likes her ass spanked and hair yanked every now and then, but I’ve heard of extreme cases involving bruising, lashing, cutting, burning, vomiting, and pretty much any other atrocity you can imagine. If it’s consensual and you’re into that, then go for it, but don’t think getting off on abusive practices doesn’t have its pitfalls. Some people just take sex too far. David Carradine accidentally killed himself because of a fetish. Feel free to have sex however you want, but if it’s your choice to stay with someone who berates you just because the sex is good, therapy and major life reassessments are certainly in order.”

Source: (https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/02/the-harsh-truth-why-women-go-back-to-men-who-abused-them)

So even after a husband has slapped his wife, and continues to exert patience and this woman is doing such things (maybe even to elicit this reaction) you may need to assess if this woman/wife/partner is having a psychotic break or if she has some deep-seated issues that need counseling.

Likewise, it is our responsibility as Muslims, especially those with platforms and voices to advocate and educate the true position of the Qur’an on this matter.  There are plenty of Muslim men in this world with deep-seated anger issues, resentment issues, power and control issues, among others, and bringing them into marital union could put a woman into serious harm.

Muslim men and women need to be educated on what are their rights/roles and responsibilities as husbands and wives.  Admittedly there needs to be more work done to improve the situation of women (all over this world).  However, we certainly do not need secular liberals, feminists, or those who do not believe in divine guidance trying to give us direction.

And among His signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your hearts. Undoubtedly in these are signs for those who reflect.”  (Qur’an 30:21)

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Is seeking ease in the religion a sign of weak faith?

Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship.” (Qur’an 2:185)

“Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you.” (Qur’an 5:6)

“He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty” (Qur’an 22:78)

“Allah does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity” (Qur’an 2:286)

“And Allah wants to lighten for you your difficulties” (Qur’an 4:28)

“Recite then only that which is easy for you.” (Qur’an 73:20)

“It is part of the mercy of Allah that you deal gently with them. If you were severe or hardhearted, they would have broken away from you.” (Qur’an 3:159)

There are among us in the Muslim community those whose hearts have become hardened and are often bereft of mercy, empathy, compassion.   They recite Ar Rahman and Ar Raheem before the recitation of the Qur’an again and again and yet never seem to grasp concepts like mercy and compassion.

You will hear that taking easy fatwa-legal verdicts or taking the easiest opinion is a sign of weak faith or a giving into your nafs (self/ego).

Even though as we have seen above that time and time again that Allah (swt) has permitted ease in our faith and that he doesn’t want to impose difficulty upon us.

What these people (those who accuse others of having weak faith or taking the easy way out) is that they themselves may be having a disease of the heart.

“The similitude of those who were charged with the Torah (obligations of the Mosaic Law, )but who subsequently failed in those obligations, is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes. Evil is the similitude of people who lie about the revelation of Allah: and Allah guides not people who do wrong.” (Qur’an 62:5)

Notice that Allah (swt) says that people who lied about the revelation of Allah (swt) are likened to a donkey which is burdened with carrying huge tomes; and even then they fall short of what they claim are obligations.

So in reality those who seek hardship and difficult fatwa-legal verdicts in the religion it is they who are having a spiritual crisis. They possibly wake up in the middle of the night in cold sweats wondering if someone somewhere is taking a dispensation that will create ease in their life.

I have seen such people and been among them. They never want to shepherd their own souls they are too busy wanting to shepherd the souls of others and even then it is not with sincerity they only wish in the darkness of their hearts to see others fall short, to fail.

You do not have to fast while sick -but not these people they go that ‘extra mile’ they will continue fasting.

You can combine your prayers when traveling -but not these people they have to go that ‘extra mile’ and will do the full rakats, and sunnah and nawafil just to show you.

There are people who want to flog and whip themselves over battles over the outcomes of battles that they had no control over.

There is almost this masochistic tendency among some segments in our community that the Qur’an and the example of the Blessed Messenger (saw) are simply not enough.

What is the fruit of it?  Muslims taking the beautiful sacrosanct month of Ramadan and turning it into an ideological identifier and battleground on rather we pray 8 or 20 rakats of Tarweeh (when it is not even Wajib) to begin with.

In fact, there is a hadith attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw) that I feel describes these people exactly.

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: Leave him, for he has friends that everyone among you would consider his prayer insignificant as compared with their prayer, and his fast as compared with their fasts. They would recite the Qur’an but it would not go beyond their collarbones. They would pass through (the teachings of Islam so hurriedly) just as the arrow passes through the prey. He would look at its Iron head, but would not find anything ticking) there. He would then see at the lowest end, but would not find anything sticking there. He would then see at its grip but would not find anything sticking to it. He would then see at its feathers and he would find nothing sticking to them (as the arrow would pass so quickly that nothing would stick to it) neither excrement nor blood. They would be recognized by the presence of a black man among them whose upper arms would be like a woman’s breast, or like a piece of meat as it quivers, and they would come forth at the time when there is dissension among the people. Abu Sa’id said: I testify to the fact that I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (saw), and I testify to the fact that ‘Ali b. Abu Talib fought against them and I was with him. He gave orders about that man who was sought for, and when he was brought in, and when I looked at him, he was exactly as the Messenger of Allah (saw) had described him.” Source: (Muslim: Book 005, Number 2323 Graded Sound). 

To me, this does not describe a particular group/political/ or ideological / among the Muslims rather it describes an attitude.     You the reader can confirm this.  You can see such attitudes among the Salafi, Sufi, Deobandi, Brewli. Is it not an attitude that can be found across the theological/political/juristic divide among Muslims?

Even though the Qur’an time and again and again gives dispensation and ease to people over and over again.

For example, you could ask a group of Muslims: ‘Are we allowed to eat pork?’

I did that when I worked at the Sultan Mosque in Singapore.   To nobody’s surprise, the audience said in unison, “No!”   However, I mentioned the answer is actually “It depends”.   The standard normative situation is that no we cannot eat pork.

However, since the preservation of human life (something a lot of those with hard hearts reading this post tend to forget) is a key component of Islamic Sacred Law  Allah (swt) has revealed the following:

“Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and approved Al-Islam as a Deen (way of life for you). Anyone who is compelled by hunger to eat what is forbidden, not intending to commit sin, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:3)

“The month of Ramadan is that in which was revealed the Qur’an, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and the criterion. So whoever sights the new moon of the month, let him fast it; and whoever is ill or is on a journey-then equal number of other days. Allah intends to ease and does not intend for you hardship and wants for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that which He has guided you; perhaps you will be grateful.”  (Qur’an 2:185) 

Much more can be said about fasting.  However, it should suffice the reader to know that there are more than what is listed above who are exempted from fasting.   Knowledgeable people have understood that people who have diabetes or other illness can be exempt from fasting altogether.

Yet, this group of people who have the attitude that the Blessed Messenger (saw) described above they have created such an atmosphere of animosity that I know of Muslims who are scared to death to eat soup or take fluids in Ramadan in-front of other Muslims while they are sick.

Not only that in Malaysia (a beautiful and amazing country by the way) an atmosphere is created to where Non-Muslim food stalls are closed in some places and they are even afraid to eat in front of fasting Muslims!  To do it out of respect is one thing but to make as if its disrespectful for them to carry about their lives is just bizarre.

Muslim women who are having menses in Ramadan are often afraid to eat in front of other people simply because of this attitude that some people have as if  Allah (swt) and his angels are not sufficient enough as witnesses.  Authubillah min dhalik!

Even in the Qur’an where a man insults his wife by calling her ‘like the back of my mother’ such a heinous thing even than Allah (swt) gives dispensation after dispensation.

“Those who pronounce thihar (saying you are to me like the back of my mother) among you to separate from their wives-they are not their mothers. Their mothers are none but those who gave birth to them. And indeed, they are saying a dishonorable statement and a flat lie. But indeed, Allah is Pardoning and Forgiving. 1)And he who does not find a slave to set free-then 2) a fast of two months consecutively before they touch one another; and he who is unable -then 3)  the feeding of sixty poor persons. That is for you to believe in Allah and His Messenger, and those are the limits set by Allah. And for the disbelievers is a painful punishment (Qur’an 58:2-4)

We also know that the fifth pillar of Islam by unanimous decision by all legal schools is that it is only obligatory if one is both able physically and financially.

Can you imagine the burden it would put not only upon the Muslim community if it was made an absolute necessity but the burden it would put on the Saudi authorities who already do their level best to accommodate the logistics of having 3 million people?  May Allah (swt) bless them in the way they have handled it thus far.

Even Prophet Jesus (as) made the haram (forbidden) into the halal (permissible) by the will of Allah (swt).

“And confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful-wali-uhilla (HALAL) some of that which was forbidden-hurrima (HARAM )unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.” (Qur’an 3:49)

Now, why else would Prophet Jesus (as) be given permission to do that if not to make things easier for people?   Think about it.  Take all the time you need.

As we have seen at the beginning of this blog post that Allah (swt) desires ease.  This is the Sunnah of Allah (swt).

“This is the way of Allah (Sunnat Allah) with those who passed away before, and you will not find any alteration in the way of Allah (Sunnat Allah).” (Qur’an 33:62)

My sincere advice to you fellow Muslims who encounter these masochistic types who desire for religion to be more arduous, rigorous, and difficult is to recite to them Surah Ar Rahman (The Most Merciful).

So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized