“(Some) faces, that day, will be radiant. Looking towards their lord.” (Qur’an 75:22-23)
﷽
May Allah (swt) reward brother Assad, the servant of Allah (swt) who did the translation from our noble Shaykh and teacher.
From his book “Bughyat al-Rāqī fī Sharḥ Khulāṣat al-Marāqī” By Shaykh Rashid bin Salim Al-Busafi (h)
The Impossibility of Seeing Allah (SWT): Evidences and Analysis.
1. Qur’anic Evidence: The Permanence of Non-Perception
Surah al-An’am 6:103
{لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ} “Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted.”
Linguistic Analysis:
“لَا” (Lā al-Nāfiyah): Implies permanent negation (“visions do not and will never perceive Him”).
“الْأَبْصَارُ” (Al-Abṣār): Plural of baṣar (vision), emphasizing all types of sight fail to perceive Him.
Divine Contrast: Allah’s complete perception of creation vs. creation’s inability to perceive Him underscores His transcendence.
Context: The verse is a declarative praise, not a reproach, confirming Allah’s incomparability.
Surah al-A’raf 7:143: The Case of Prophet Musa (AS)
{قَالَ لَن تَرَانِي} “[Allah] said, ‘You will never see Me.'”
“لَن” (Lan) vs. “لَا” (Lā):
“لَن”: Stronger negation, implying eternal impossibility (not just in this world but also the Hereafter).
Context: A rebuke to the demand for visual perception, linked to the Israelites’ disbelief (Qur’an 2:55).
The Mountain’s Destruction:
Allah’s tajallī (manifestation) to the mountain reduced it to dust, proving physical creation cannot endure His manifestation.
Logical conclusion: If a mountain cannot withstand Allah’s presence, how could human vision perceive Him?
3. Linguistic and Theological Principles
A. Meaning of “Idrāk” (الإدراك):
Literally: “To catch up/comprehend fully” (e.g., “أدركته بيدك” = “You grasped it with your hand”).
In the Qur’an: Used for complete perception, not mere sight (e.g., “إِنَّا لَمُدْرَكُونَ” [7:38] = “We are overtaken”).
B. The Three Parts of Ayah 6:103:
Negation of Perception (لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ).
Allah’s Full Perception (وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ).
Divine Attributes (وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ).
“Al-Laṭīf”: The Subtle (beyond physical perception).
“Al-Khabīr”: The All-Aware (knows creation’s limitations).
C. Muqābala (Contrastive Rhetoric):
The juxtaposition of “لَّا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ” and “وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْأَبْصَارَ” emphasizes asymmetry: Creation’s incapacity vs. Allah’s omnipotence.
Refutation of “Seeing Allah in the Hereafter”
A. Qur’an 75:22-23: {وُجُوهٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ نَّاضِرَةٌ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهَا نَاظِرَةٌ}
“نَاظِرَةٌ” (Nāẓirah): Does not necessarily mean “seeing”:
Alternate meanings: “Awaiting” (e.g., Qur’an 3:77: “وَلَا يَنظُرُ إِلَيْهِمْ” = “He will not look upon them”).
Context: Contrast between radiant faces (awaiting mercy) and gloomy faces (fearing punishment).
The correct meaning is confirmed through the context it has been mentioned in, so the Al Nathar (النظر) comes with the meaning of waiting even if it was preceded by (Ila) إلى
“Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their [own] oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they will have a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 3:77)
So is it said that, those who sell out Allah’s covenant and their own oaths for a small price, is it said that Allah doesn’t see them in the Akhira?!
This Ayah came in the context of describing the day of judgment, and the day of gathering to be exact. And that’s by the proof of its context {{On that Day ˹some˺ faces will be bright,() Awaiting the mercy of their lord ()And ˹other˺ faces will be gloomy,() ا ِض َرةٌ ُو ُجوهٌ َيْو َمِئٍذ } {.in anticipation of something devastating ن )22ٰ )ى َّ لَ ِإ َنا ِظ َرةٌ )23ِ )إ َرِّب َها َت ن ُظ َبا ِس َرةٌ )24ُّ )ن َوُو ُجوهٌ َيْو َمِئٍذ َأ َع َل َأ ُيف َها ْ ِ ٌرة َقِفا َب { so if (Nathira) (ناظرة (was of the meaning of seeing then it won’t be except on that day; because he described that by saying (on that day) (ذٍيومئ (and those who differ with us they have not agreed on it happening on the gathering, add to that, the ayah came with the style of comparison between two types of faces, so these are radiant, happy, waiting for the mercy of its lord, while the others are contorted and gloomy expecting what will break their backs from punishment. So, it’s in pity waiting for it to come. Add to that that the description by faces in this ayah means the known organ which the feelings appear on. What is in the soul. What the soul is feeling will be expressed on the face. As the contentment and happiness can be identified through his face, and fearful and frightened can also be identified by his face, and the face organ is not the organ responsible for seeing.
B. Hadith of the “Two Gardens”:
Claim: The ridā’ al-kibriyā’ (Cover of Majesty) is the only barrier to seeing Allah.
Rebuttal:
The “barrier” is an eternal attribute of Allah’s majesty, not a temporary veil.
Asserting its removal implies Allah changes His essence, which is impossible.
C. Theological Absurdity:
If seeing Allah were possible, it would necessitate:
Spatial limitation (violating His transcendence).
Change in divine attributes (e.g., “pride” being removed).
5. Critique of Pro-Visual Perception Arguments
A. Misinterpretation of “نَاظِرَةٌ”:
Error: Assuming it means “seeing” despite contextual evidence to the contrary.
Qur’anic Precedent: “وَلَا يَنظُرُ إِلَيْهِمْ” (3:77) cannot mean “He does not see them,” as Allah is All-Seeing.
B. Anthropocentric Fallacy:
Claiming “seeing Allah is the ultimate reward” reduces worship to physical gratification, contrary to the Qur’an’s emphasis on spiritual nearness (e.g., “قُرْبًا إِلَى اللَّهِ” [3:45]).
C. Quotes from Classical Scholars:
Ibn al-Qayyim’s Attribution to al-Shafi’i:“If Muhammed ibn Idris [al-Shafi’i] knew he would not see his Lord in the Hereafter, he would not have worshipped Him.”
Rebuttal: This contradicts the Qur’anic principle that worship is due to Allah’s lordship, not contingent on visual perception.
This is not acceptable to us. It is as if one links to Imam al-Shafi’i the belief of the Atheist!
And they hold that seeing Allah is the thing that made Allah the Exalted worthy to be worshiped, and that if he Allah Tabaraka wa Ta’ala was not seen in the Akhira then he was not worthy to be worshiped in this dunya, and to you some of what they said: we find ibn Al Qayyim links to Imam Shafi’e that he said “if Mohammed bin Idrees did not known that he won’t see his lord in the akhira then he wouldn’t have worshiped him” and he said “I oppose ibn Aliyyah in everything even in saying La Illaha Illa Allah, as I say: la Illaha Illa Allah that can be seen in the akhira, and he says: La Illaha Illa Allah that cannot be seen in the Akhira…” and in another narration he said “ If Mohammed ibn Idrees was not certain that he’ll see Allah Azza Wa Jal he wouldn’t have worshiped him”. And this is talk that makes bodies grasp, and minds flabbergasted, as this is the Quran within our hands, we do not find that that the worship of Allah the Exalted was conditioned in any position of it with seeing him swt!! This is the belief of the Atheist!
“There is nothing like Him: He is the All Hearing, the All Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
“Do you say things regarding Allah that you do not know?” (Qur’an 7:28)
﷽
There are those who make it a point of aqidah/imam a creedal position to assert that Allah (swt) has two hands, and both of these hands are right hands and one of these right hands is a left hand.
We must accept this “without asking how“. Then they also turn around and say, “but the meaning is known.“
Interestingly this issue is not about denying/affirming any attribute of Allah (swt). Nor is about the way of the Salaaf. It is a simply a matter of does the Arabic language have idioms and expressions?
Apparently some people in the Muslim community simply do not get this! Kindly read the four articles linked at the end.
Thus, they will go on an inquisition and label as deviants anyone who does not hold to the idea that Allah (swt) has two hands, both of those hands are right hands and one of those right hands is a left hand.
The Salafi Aqidah Check List:
1. Two hands
2. Both his hands are right hands.
3. One of those right hands is a left hand.
4. He has two additional hands (we do not talk about). Which makes four but we affirm two.
That is correct you heard them. Allah (swt) has “two right hands“
I came across a Hadith of Sahih Muslim which states:
“Abdullah b. ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, would fold the Heavens on the Day of Judgment and then He would place them on His right hand and say: I am the Lord; where are the haughty and where are the proud (today)? He would fold the’ earth (placing it) on the left hand and say: I am the Lord; where are the haughty and where are the proud (today)?
The God of the Bible has hands (plural).
“The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.” (Psalm 95:5)
“So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no one knows whether love or hate awaits them.” (Ecclesiastes 9:1 )
The God of the Bible has a right hand and Jesus is sitting next to it.
“He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Hebrews 1:3)
The God of the Bible has a right hand and Jesus is standing next to it.
“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56)
*NOTE* NO WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY GOD HAS A LEFT HAND!
Thus it can be deduced that the God of the Bible has two right hands (if not more right hands).
Now you can clearly see from the above text that many Salafi preachers have asserted that Allah (swt) has two hands and that “both his hands are right hands.” They get that from the above hadith!
Mudraj – interpolated: an addition by a reporter to the text of the hadith being narrated. It even tells you in the hadith itself! Muhammad (one of the narrators said in his Hadith: “And both of His hands are right hands.”
How does one not see that?!
This cannot be said to be attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw). This is the statement of the sub-narrator.
These people in their guilty conscious did not want people to think Allah (swt) has a left hand. Which also shows they are involved in dhan (speculation) about Allah (swt). They did not just let the words pass they had to make bold assertions without proof!
Some of the claimants to the Salaaf who hold these positions will expose themselves by blatantly comparing Allah (swt) to the creation by saying something along the following:
“You see akhi All of Allah’s attributes (hands, shin, face ect) can be described as right. Right here means blessed (تَيَمُّن). As Muslims we know the right is preferred and more virtuous than the left. For example the verse in the Qur’an that says:
“So those on the Right Hand (i.e. those who will be given their Records in their right hands) – how (fortunate) will be those on the Right Hand! (As a respect for them, because they will enter Paradise).” (Qur’an 56:8)
Or for example:
“And those on the Left Hand (i.e. those who will be given their Record in their left hands) – how (unfortunate) will be those on the Left Hand! (As a disgrace for them, because they will enter Hell).”(Qur’an 56:9)
This is Tamthil clear as day. Let us say for the sake of discussion that Allah (swt) does indeed have a left hand as the hadith Sahih Muslim clearly says he does above. Why would any attribute of Allah (swt) not be blessed? That is a bizarre thought.
Then, the person commits a clear act of Tamthil (likening Allah (swt) to the creation) by negating a left hand for Allah (swt)!! They do this by comparing/contrasting the unfortunate news of people receiving their records in their left hands and right hands on the day of judgement. But these are actual hands of people!
This claimant to Salafiyah has committed a clear act of Tamthil.
Is negating what clearly says he has: “a left hand” according to the sahih hadith.
Making claims that an attribute of Allah (swt) would not be blessed?!
ALLAH (SWT) ACTUALLY HAS FOUR HANDS, TWO HANDS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE RIGHT HANDS EXCEPT ONE OF THOSE RIGHT HANDS IS A LEFT HAND!
“And He (is) the One Who sends the winds (of glad news between the two hands of his Mercy, until, when they have carried clouds ”(Qur’an 7:57)
Allah sends winds like herald of glad news, between the two hands of his Mercy.
Now his Mercy has two hands?
So those who believe in literal translations tell us that Allah (swt) has two right hands, and he has an attribute of Mercy and this attribute has two hands. Are they also right hands? Does Allah (swt) now have a total of four hands?
Please see for yourself at Islam Awakened the literal translation that the Salafi do not use.
Thank you gentleman for some honest translations. So now not only does Allah (swt) have two hands, and both of his hands are right hands and one of those right hands is a left hand, but his attribute of mercy also has two hands.
One of their scholars likened Allah (swt) to the moon!
Let us get something out of the way from the very beginning. There is not a single narration from the Blessed Messenger (saw) where when he speaks of Allah’s “hands” where the Blessed Messenger (saw), says, “In a way that befits his majesty” or “unlike his creation.”
That is an open challenge. For the person who can bring that I will shutdown this website!
I challenge any of those people who make such a disclaimer statement after mentioning “hands”, “foot”, “eyes”, “shin” “leg” “foot” or “side” to show this!
The fact that such people have to put a disclaimer after such a statement is an innovation!
“They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be within His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him.”(Qur’an 39:67)
“Allah said, “O Iblis, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant then, or were you already among the haughty?” (Qur’an 38:75)
Some of these people have tried to argue that this word translated as “hands” must be understood as “hands” as something special concerning the creation of Adam. However, this is refuted by the following text of the Qur’an:
“Do they not see that We have created for them from what Our hands have made, grazing livestock, and then they are their owners?”(Qur’an 36:71)
Are we to say that cattle have an advantage or distinction over other animals because they were created by the “hands” of Allah (swt)?
“And the sky we built it with hands.” (Qur’an 51:47)
Look at the following three Saudi English translations of the Qur’an translate the above text!!
“And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are its expander.”(Qur’an 51:47 Sahih International)
“With power did we Construct heaven. Truly, We can extend the vastness of space thereof.” (Qur’an 51:47 Muhsin Khan & Muhammed Al Hilali)
“With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.” (Qur’an 51:47 Yusuf Ali Saudi 1985)
The hands of Allah (swt) tied up?
“And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is tied up.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His Hands are extended, HE spends however He Wills.” (Qur’an 5:64)
It is obvious, to begin with, that this very verse is allegorical. The Jews are not literally saying that Allah’s hand is “tied up”. Rather they are claiming that Allah (swt) is not bestowing upon them what they feel he should bestow. What this verse means is that both the power and generosity of Allah (swt) is on full display.
“Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you, they are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The hand (yadu) of Allah is over their hands (aydihim). So he who breaks his word only breaks it to the detriment of himself. And he who fulfills that which he has promised Allah – He will give him a great reward.” (Qur’an 48:10)
This is a metaphorical usage of the word hand that is allowed within the context of the Qur’an itself. Will it be said that people who have no hands or people who are amputees could never make such a pledge?
The word that is used for hand (yadu) the singular noun is also used for the plural noun (aydihim) above. The apparent understanding of the text, is that Allah (swt) has a hand and people have hands. Yet the following verse should make the matter more clear.
“Oh Prophet, say to whoever is in your hands (aydikum) of the captives, “If Allah knows any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what was taken from you, and He will forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 8:70)
Are we supposed to imagine that the Blessed Prophet (saw) was a giant with little tiny people in his hands!?!
“Moreover, whatever strikes you of disaster – it is for what your hands have earned, but He pardons much.” (Qur’an 42:30)
Are we to understand from the above verse that as long as we do evil with our tongues, eyes, feet that disaster will not befall us? As far as those who do not have physical hands does this verse still apply to them?
“And remember Our servants Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub, men who possessed hands (l-aydi) and vision.” (Qur’an 38:45)
l-aydi is a plural noun literally it would be hands.
Here the word hands literally does mean power. Look how virtually everyone under the sun translates this!
“And say to the believing women that they are lower their gaze and guard their sexual organs; and that they are not to display their ornaments except for what appears thereof. And let them draw their head coverings (bikhumurihinna) over their bosoms.” (Qur’an 24:31)
“O Prophet! Say to your wives, your daughters, and the women of the believers that they are to cast their over-garments (jalābībihinna) over them. That is more convenient, that they be recognized, so that they won’t be molested.” (Qur’an 33:59)
﷽
“And say to the believing women that they are lower their gaze and guard their sexual organs; and that they are not to display their ornaments except for what appears thereof. And let them draw their head coverings (bikhumurihinna) over their bosoms.” (Qur’an 24:31)
Quite often some would point to the fact that the word ḥijāb (حجاب) is not used in Qur’an 24:31 in connection to the head scarf. Thus this lead them to the mistaken notion that woman are not commanded to cover thier hair.
The Qur’ān itself uses the word khimār (خمار) in Sūrah an-Nūr 24:31, where women are instructed to draw their khimār over their bosoms. In classical Arabic, khimār means a cloth or covering that drapes from the head, often covering the hair and neck.
The word ḥijāb (حجاب), on the other hand, literally means a barrier, partition, or veil. In the Qur’ān, it is used in this more general sense (e.g., 33:53, 42:51), not specifically for a head covering. Over time, however, Muslim societies began to use hijab as a broader term for modest dress, especially the headscarf.
“Verily, such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet, and he is shy of (asking) you (to go), but Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth. And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen (ḥijābin), that is purer for your hearts and for their hearts.”
“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil(ḥijābin), or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.” (Qu’ran 42:51)
There is a hijab between Allah and the creation. The black cloth that is put over the Kaaba in Mecca is a hijab. Men wear a hijab.
Most countries today have a hijab that is enforceable by law.
In most countries, public nudity is an offense that can garner either a fine or jail time. Hudud means: boundaries, limits or restrictions. What those boundaries and limits are can differ from country to country.
There are only a few remote places in the world where there are tribes in which full nudity takes place.
Even countries that allow full nudity at what are known as nudist colonies or nudist resorts these are select places. If you go outside those areas nude, you can and will be either fined or jailed.
That which the Muslim covers herself with is the Khimār.
So, technically:
Khimār = the headscarf covering the hair, neck, and often the shoulders.
Hijab = the general concept of modesty and barrier; in modern usage, often synonymous with headscarf.
Another mistake today is that people believe that wearing a khimar is enough. In the context of the verse, women are, by default, wearing khimar. They are being instructed to pull it down over their bosoms. Both men and women are expected to dress modestly. It is quite possible to find a woman who is not wearing a headscarf dressing more modestly than a woman who, for example, wears a headscarf and tight fitted jeans.
We believe that the Blessed Messenger (saw) explained the Qur’an to his people.
“And obey Allah and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the message clearly. (Qur’an 64:12)
The Muslim woman wearing the Khimār may vary according to custom and culture. Yet this is a transmitted practices that has reached us from the Blessed Prophet (saw).
It has reached us as Muslims across the sectarian divide that a Muslim woman covers all but the hands and face.
That is to say, the Shi’a, the Sunni, and Ibadi have all concurred on this. In fact, the only debate within the community is whether she should cover more than this, meaning — the face veil.
Islam does not oblige a person to wear specific type of clothing as long as it fulfils the purpose of modesty. Rather, this depends on the customs of society, so long as those customs do not contradict the guidelines of Islam.
In a world of nihilism and postmodernism, there can be a lot of pressure upon any faith tradition to amalgamate and transform their faith into something ‘more acceptable’ to an increasingly secularized world.
We feel the issue of women’s Khimār is one such issue. It seems to us that many struggle with this.
Where we feel Muslims do not ponder deeply enough is on the ‘default dress’. When this verse above was being revealed, what was the ‘default dress’ of the people of that time? What was the basic ‘skeleton’ if you will?
This is what has led many who are ignorant of the Arabic language as well as the context of the revelation will leave open the possibility of wearing tight and revealing clothing, or even skirts. It really seems that we could offer a better response than to simply cave in completely to postmodernism. It may be cliché, but a saying comes to mind, ‘If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything.’
There is a real disdain for Muslim women who choose to continue to observe the Khimār as explained by the Blessed Messenger (saw) and preserved in the mass transmitted Sunnah.
Examples where the dress code can be relaxed.
Such elderly women are past the prospect of marriage, there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments(thiyābahunna), provided they do not display their beauty/adornment. But it is best for them to modestly refrain: “And God is One Who sees and knows all things” (Qur’an 24:60)
It can be a normal garment and an outer garment. (11:5; 24:58).
In verse Q 24:60, we clearly note that an older woman is permitted to remove this ‘thobe’ without wanton display of her beauty. This cannot refer to her normal garments, as if these were to be removed she would be left exposed.
“The women may relax (their dress code) around their fathers, their sons, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, the other women, and their (female) servants. They shall reverence Allah. Allah witnesses all things.” (Qur’an 33:55)
Remember the five essential objectives of the Sharīʿah (maqāṣid al-sharīʿah). These objectives are:
Protection of religion (ḥifẓ al-dīn)
Protection of life (ḥifẓ al-nafs)
Protection of intellect (ḥifẓ al-ʿaql)
Protection of lineage/progeny (ḥifẓ al-nasl)
Protection of wealth (ḥifẓ al-māl)
“O Prophet! Say to your wives, your daughters, and the women of the believers that they are to cast their over-garments over them. That is more convenient, that they be recognized so that they won’t be molested.” (Qur’an 33:59)
In this case if you stand out in a way that directly identifies you as a Muslim the purpose of this guidance is defeated. You will be recognized and you will be molested. You might even be killed.
There is a principle in Shari’a law
لا ضرر ولا ضرار
“Lā ḍarar wa lā ḍirār” = No harm and no reciprocating harm.
Abu Sa‘īd al-Khudri reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “There should be no harm or reciprocal harm. Whoever causes harm, Allah harms him, and whoever makes things difficult, Allah makes things difficult for him.
a) A woman who chooses Islam as her faith. If she outwardly dresses or identifies as a Muslim, she could be assaulted or attacked. She does not wear the Khimār. She can dress modestly and, as Allah (swt) cautions us: Do not transgress the limits. A relaxing of outward garb is not an invitation to abandon modesty altogether. That woman lives as such until she can travel to a place where Muslims are numerous, and she can fulfill the commands.
b) A woman who was born and raised a Muslim. Suddenly there is news that Muslims are getting attacked and killed wherever they are found. This woman also does not need to outwardly identify nor dress as a Muslim until she can reach a place where Muslims are numerous, and she can fulfill the commands.
This was a panel that Allah (swt) graced our brother to do for the Sultan Masjid ‘mini-gallery’ in Singapore. It is the first ‘mini-gallery’ in any masjid anywhere. Al hamdulilah.
We would encourage readers to read this very excellent and brief over view of the topic here:
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)
1) In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger.
Had it been that those in authority were infallible or divinely appointed then, Allah wouldn’t have given any scope to disagree with them.
The fact that there is disagreement proves that “those in authority, aka the Ulil Amr”, are neither an absolute nor an infallible authority.
It means that Ali Ibn Abu Talib and Ibn Abbas can disagree with one another. Yet, if they have a disagreement, they would refer the matter back to Allah (swt) and his Blessed Messenger.
2) If their authority was infallible, Allah(swt) wouldn’t have put authority above them. (.i.e) Allah and His Prophet.
3) If “those in authority, aka the Ulil Amr” were divinely appointed, then Allah would have asked the believers to refer them along with Allah and the Prophet in matters of disagreement.
But Allah(swt), giving the possibility of disagreement with those in authority, asked us to refer back to Allah (swt) and the Blessed Messenger; which is clear evidence that “those in authority aka the Ulil Amr” were not divinely appointed.
The huge advantage that the Sunni have over the Imami Shi’i’ is as follows:
Since in Sunni Islam they do not believe that their Imams are infallible or above reproach, a mistake in jurisprudence, reasoning, deduction or logic does not entail disaster for Sunni Islam. However, just one mistake in jurisprudence, reasoning, deduction or logic would be absolutely disastrous for the Imami Shi’i’.
“You see, then the Imamate goes from the Imam to his first cousin, and when the first cousin dies, then the Imamate goes to his first cousin and so on. Because that is the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).”
Huh?
The battle of Siffin and practical implications of the above verse.
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in the result. (Qur’an 4:59)
The battle of Siffin gives us a demonstration of how some of the companions understood the above verse. If we are to believe the historical narrative as told by Shi’i and Sunni sources.
If we are to believe the Shi’i narrative.
Ali agreed to arbitration with Muaviya on the basis that they would judge by the Qur’an. If Ali understood that he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw) he would not have submitted to arbitration. He would have been on the same page as those in his army who wanted to continue the fight. However, if he did think he was of the same authority as the Qur’an and the Messenger (saw), then he would be a hypocrite for going against what he himself believed. Or he was not sincere in submitting to the authority of the Qur’an.
If we are to believe the Sunni narrative.
If those in Muaviya’s camp believed that the Shi’i held any of the views about Ali that Imami Shi’i held, namely that he (Ali) was maʿṣūm (معصوم) and he (Ali) held ʿiṣmah (عصمة) they themselves would have never asked for arbitration as it too would have simply been a ruse. This becomes very clear that these concepts were not among the followers of Ali because Muaviya’s camp would have known this and would have never cooked up the idea of raising the Mushafs as it would have easily backfired
May Allah (swt) guide us all to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
Allah asked, “What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?” He replied, “I am better than he is: You created me from fire and him from mud.” (Qur’an 7:12)
﷽
THE VERY FIRST SIN ACCORDING TO ISLAM IS THE BOASTFUL PRIDE OF ONE’S ORIGIN…. (TRIBALISM)
If there is one sad and shameful takeaway (from the recent New Zealand Christchurch massacre) that is directed towards our own community (as Muslims) is that SOME in the Muslim community will take this opportunity to deflect the ugly and heinous way that MANY of them treat Muslims who are Black, African, Sub-Sahara African, West African, South Indian etc.….
So, instead of using this as an opportunity to teach, to learn, to grow and to heal…..they deflect their collective guilt upon another group, ‘The Whites’.
Let it be a reminder that, according to Allah Most High that the first sin ever was the PRIDE OF ONES ORIGIN.
When Allah had ordered all the dominions to bow down before the creation of humanity, only one creation stood in rebellion to this command.
Allah asked, “What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you?” He replied, “I am better than he is: You created me from fire and him from dark mud.”
Iblis felt that it was unbecoming to subservient to one he deemed being of an inferior origin. This is the attitude that SOME White people exhibit towards non White people. This is the attitude that SOME Jews exhibit towards Arabs. This is the attitude that SOME Chinese exhibit towards Non Chinese. This is the attitude that SOME Pathans exhibit towards Punjabis. This is the attitude that SOME Arabs exhibit towards Non Arabs. This is the attitude that SOME fair skinned Mexicans exhibit towards non fair skinned Mexicans. This is the attitude that SOME Japanese exhibit towards non Japanese. This is the attitude that SOME North Indians exhibit towards South Indians. This is the attitude that SOME Hutu exhibit towards Tutsi. This is the attitude that SOME Tutsi exhibit towards Hutu.
Humans are a very interesting and curious species. We often decorate our walls with accolades and awards and many of us like to boast about our lineage and ancestry.
We believe self-esteem is a good thing, and it is especially important to instill this in our children. Yet, we should be cautious as not to make our degrees, accomplishments, accolades or lineage as an opening for whispers to the heart that can cause us to be vainglorious.
Being proud of one’s achievements is a good thing. It can help you in landing a job or to show others that you are competent in a particular field. Yet for those in our community who are constantly boasting about ethnicity, tribal heritage or lineage, it is tantamount to taking a picture of your parents’ privates and proudly displaying that on a wall!
We have seen even some of the most pious and erudite in the Muslim communities do just that.
When Allah (swt) PUTS ALL OF US IN OUR PLACE when He (swt) says the following:
“He (Allah) has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold, this same (man) becomes an open disputer!” (Qur’an 16:4)
“His companion said to him, in the course of the argument with him: “Do you deny Him Who created you out of dust, then out of a sperm-drop, then fashioned you into a man?” (Qur’an 18:37)
Now, except Adam, Eve and Jesus (upon them all be peace), every other single human being created had been created from nutfah or spermatos -semen.
Now there maybe some people who will boast that Adam and Eve were from their tribe, their lineage and their ancestors. The first man and woman on the Earth were not created from sperm, so that tribe or lineage must somehow be better than other humans, correct?
Well, consider that Adam (alayi salam), his son Cain, was the first reordered murderer on Earth. What is there to be boastful about in that?
Especially since in Qur’an 16:4, Allah (swt) has used this to show the very, very low state of human beings who then rise up to become haughty, arrogant, boastful and vainglorious.
SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
“O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (Qur’an 49:13)
Allah (swt) did not count nobility, ethnicity, tribal affiliation, family lineage or anything of the kind.
Allah (swt) has recognized us based upon what emanates from our hearts and souls. Our nobility is in how we treat each other, tread upon this earth, fear and love Allah (swt).
Allah (swt) made us with variance so that we may know each other. So that we may learn to live with variance.
What is interesting about this? The interesting thing about this is we will truly know who outranks who in the sight of Allah only on the day of judgement.
There is no annual award or ceremony (most righteous Muslim of the year goes to …..)
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.” (Qur’an 4:135)
﷽
I thought that for today’s entry I would share with you dear readers some of my personal experience with those who call themselves ‘Salafi’ or follow what is known as “daawat salafiyyah” as well as those who call themselves ‘Sufi’ and are associated with Sufi Tariqah (spiritual orders).
For the record I am writing this as someone who is not a ‘Salafi’ nor do I follow the manhaj that is known as “daawat salafiyyah”. I am inclined towards some ‘Sufi’ practices -with the exception of tawassul, and I do not belong to any tariqah.
But I want to share my experience with some people who are affiliated with or identify with either ‘Salafi’ or ‘Sufi’.
When I was in Manama Bahrain at the Discover Islam training centre there was a man who was driving us around in one of the vans around the city. To be honest I thought any moment we would meet our Lord because of the way he was driving. I was doing a loud dhikr to myself la ilaha il law lah. Some other brothers in the van joined in. One brother also began to do the dhikr but his Shaykh put his hand on his shoulder and said, “We don’t do that.” That was it. He didn’t condemn me or the others, he simply said of himself and his student that they do not do this.
Also, I observed at the great Masjid in Manama that the tourist were allowed to go into the Masjid unrestricted. They had to wear appropriate attire but they could go anywhere. All the way up to the niche in the wall facing the qiblah.
The hotel I stayed in Manama there was a small Masjid nearby and I can tell you that the Imam and nearly everyone in that masjid prayed in the style of brothers who are known to practice, ” “daawat salafiyyah” and at that time I was following the Maliki school of jurisprudence and I was praying with my arms to the side (as is one of the positions of the Maliki school). No one said anything to me, everyone greeted me, returned my salam, and smiled. They were all very kind.
The same can be said about the people of Discover Islam, whom I gather were a mixture of ‘Salafiyyah’ and ‘Ikwani’ influences.
Whereas when I went with a particular Tariqah (sufi group) to a place in Malaysia called, ‘hulul langat’, just outside of Kuala Lumpur. We had a wonderful group dhikr together. However one day one of the murids was relating how the shaykh got sick and blew his nose in the tissue paper. So one of the followers of the tariqah took the tissue paper out of the wastebasket boiled it in water and drank the water. I couldn’t have been more disgusted.
There was another time when I was with a tariqah in Singapore ‘Firqat ul Huda’ the sect of guidance, a Qadiri tariqah. Beautiful beautiful dhikr, wouldn’t trade it for anything. Yet one time of the murids invited me to his house for tea. Very hospitable brother. He then discussed with me about the hadith about the Blessed Messenger (saw) existing before Adam (as). So then he asked me what I understood about “The Prophet being called the Nur of Allah.” I told him that I thought it meant that he was an illuminating guide and representative of Allah (swt). He replied, “brother the light of Allah IS Allah.” I thanked him for the tea and the hospitality and I told him that he went to a place that I could not follow him in. I parted ways with him and have never seen him since.
I witnessed first hand with my own eyes as I volunteered at the Sultan Mosque in Singapore (predominantly Sunni/Shaf’i/Ashari/Balawi) I have witnessed first-hand tourists being clapped at and shooed away from the Masjid.
One brother came up to me and said, “how do we know they don’t have maniyy (sperm) on their underwear.” To which I exclaimed, “How do you know that I don’t?” Are we going to ask everyone to drop their pants for inspection before they enter the Masjid?”
Now this was coming from someone who
a) followed a madhab -Shafi’i
b- Ashari I cannot clarify this but I’ll assume because
c) he was associated with the Balawi Tariqah.
Whereas in the same Masjid (Sultan Mosque), I witnessed a Salafi brother bring his young daughter to the afternoon salah (prayer) and pray beside him (he would pray at the furthest end so his daughter would be between him and a wall) -this was done to respect the other’s views, and even then many of them shook their head at the brother.
Then came the ban of Mufti Menk from Singapore! Now I am not a follower of Mufti Menk and again it is clear that he is following what is called, ” “Daawat-us-Salafiyyah” -which for those who may not know what this means it is a claim to be following what the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his companions followed.
So Mufti Menk was banned from Singapore because someone asked him if we could say or respond to ‘Merry Christmas’ in kind with ‘Merry Christmas’ and he replied, ‘no’. Now because those Sunni Muslims who follow schools of jurisprudence and who are often associated with Sufi Tariqah are rivals of those Sunni Muslims who claim not to follow a particular school of jurisprudence this was an opportunity for them to ban Mufti Menk from Singapore.
Personally, I thought the way Mufti Menk was dealt with was quite cowardly. After all, if someone would have asked Mufti Menk can we celebrate the ‘Mawlid An Nabi’ (celebration of the Blessed Prophet’s birthday) he would say, ‘no we cannot’. It’s not like this was some personal swipe at Christianity. Mufti Menk comes from a school of thought that doesn’t recognize such ‘urf-customs, or anything such as bid’ah hasanah – (innovations that encourage good and do not contravene establish practices of the faith).
I just thought it was strange that since Christians have been such a huge presence in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt etc…that surely there was something from the traditional schools that would warrant replying, ‘Merry Christmas‘ or something that the followers of Imam Shafi’i could have used to refute his (Mufti Menk) position.
I’m telling you this dear reader because not everything is chalk and cheese. Not all of these groups are alike and many of them even have subgroups. There is fierce competition among rival Salafi groups just as there is fierce competition among rival Tariqah groups.
However, as Muslims, we are always commanded to speak plainly, truthfully, and justly about one another even if that group does not share our world view or our approach to the Qur’an and Sunnah.
May Allah (swt) guide us all to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided.” (Qur’an 3:103)
“Turn you back in repentance to Him, and fear Him: establish regular prayers, and be not among those who join gods with Allah,- Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects,- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!” (Qur’an 30:31-32)
“O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy.” (Qur’an 10:57)
﷽
When looking at the issue of forgeries of hadith one does not have to look further than the pro-Sufi and anti-Sufi forces within the ‘Ahl Sunnah‘.
Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak said, “The isnad is from the religion; were it not for the isnad anyone could say anything they wanted.”
Source: (Reported by Muslim in the introduction to his Sahih, vol. 1, pg. 9, Dar Taibah.)
The isnad -is the chain of narration.
The word hadith in the title of the article is used in the Arabic sense of a report. Thus, for the purposes of this article it is not necessarily a statement attributed to the Blessed Prophet (saw).
Anyone who has been among people who claim to practice ‘Sufism‘ and/ or have inclinations towards a branch of study in Islam called ‘tassawuf‘ has most likely heard innumerable times the following statement attributed to Imam Malik.
“He who practices tassawuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith (tazandaq) , while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself (tafassaqa).”
Now when I studied at Zaytuna I was told time and again the importance of being connected in an ‘unbroken‘ chain of sacred knowledge that goes all the way back to the Blessed Messenger (saw) himself.
Of course, what I’m about to say may seem cynical to you the reader, but it is the atmosphere that was created around Zaytuna when I was there.
The atmosphere seemed to say to me, “Don’t you dare question anything that is presented to you, because after all who are you to question? You don’t have the requisite tools; and you didn’t study under a Shaykh who toes the line that we tell you to tow. Therefore, all of your sincere lines of inquiry are invalid.”
So let us say that someone has reservations about giving their complete allegiance (the custody of their soul) to a Shaykh. However, this person agrees to or understands the necessity of following someone learned in jurisprudence.
Thus, the concept of the following someone learned in jurisprudence is used as a jump-off point for handing over complete sovereignty of your soul to a Spiritual guide or Shaykh. Many who call themselves ‘Sufi’ today use the following modus operandi:
Start by getting the spiritual aspirant the necessity of following someone learned in jurisprudence. Use the idea of following Imams in jurisprudence to advance their position. Thus, if Imams like Shaf’i and Malik are seen to be in favor of Sufism or ‘Tassawuf‘ then whom are we to question it!
So even until today, you have world-renown people like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf attributing such statements to Imam Malik.
You can see the following video where he attributes the above-mentioned statement to Imam Malik. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_5d9c2UdiU @ 1:14 in the video you can hear Shaykh Hamza attribute this statement to Imam Malik
Interestingly the term Sufi was applied to those given the appellation “Mutazalites” long before it was applied to Junayd.
“The term Sufi was applied to Mu’tazili ascetics before it was to Junayd and his circle. Early Mu’tazili ascetics and the later Karramiyya, who more or less absorbed Mu’tazili asceticism, sometimes exalted complete renunciation of normal gain, counting it best to live off alms.”
Origins of the term ‘Ahl al sunnah’
Christopher Melchert also gives some very keen insights into the term ‘Ahl al sunnah’ and the fact that a great many factions were called themselves by this appellation.
He says,
“The 9th-century hadith folk’s own preferred term for themselves was“Ahl al-sunna.” It is not convenient for us to call the hadith folk “Sunnis” because that term now calls to mind the great tripartite division of Sunnis, Shi’is, and Kharijis. At least for the 9th century and earlier, a mere tripartite division is simplistic and practically impossible to document. To begin with, 9th-century definitions of Shi’ism were considerably different from those of later times; for example, traditionalist rijal critics regularly distinguished between ‘tashayyu’, special regard for ‘Ali and his house that the hadith folk was willing to overlook, and rafid, the rejection of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar that they thought put one outside the Muslim community. With equal emphasis, the 9th-century hadith folk distinguished themselves from Qadariyya, Murji’a, Mu’tazila, and other theological parties not accounted for by a simple, anachronistic dichotomy between Sunnis and Shi’is. The polarity of Sunni and Shi’i was not strong until the mid-10th century, and full Sunni mutual recognition and self-awareness appeared only in the mid 10th century. Finally, modern scholars should avoid endorsing the hadith folk’s own estimate that they were the overwhelming majority, as calling them “Sunnis” might do.”
” The significance of their calling themselves ‘Ahl al-sunna’ is not that their views were identical to those of the later, great Sunni community, which they were not, but that the later community deliberately identified them as its forebears. We need to understand their piety. Their adversaries preferred not to call them ‘Ahl al-sunna’ and proposed various other terms.’ Al-Jahiz disparaged the nabita, those who sprouted up like weeds to extol the enemies of ‘Ali and to promulgate such crass ideas as assigning God an imaginable body (tajsim, taswfr). Other writers attributed similar errors to the hash- wiyya (vulgar). The hadith folk complained that the Murji’a called them shukkak (doubters) for saying, “I am a believer, God willing,” while the Qadariyya called them mujbira or jabriyya for upholding divine predestination. To use any of these terms for the hadith folk would mean taking sides as much as it would mean calling them ‘Ahl al-sunna’, which is needless for modern scholars.”
“The hadith folk emerged as a distinct group at about the end of the 8th century. They lost importance in the 10th century. Chroniclers usually refer to their 10th-century successors in Baghdad as the Hanabila or simply al-‘amma (the general), periodically rioting against the Shias. Meanwhile, their own name for themselves, ‘Ahl al-sunna’, was claimed by virtually all parties except the Shi’is.Even Mu’tazila called themselves Ahl al-sunna wa-al-jama’a, on the plea that if they were not actually the great majority, they ought to have been. (I have not compared the piety of the hadith folk with that of 9th-century Shi’is, rewarding though such a comparison would be. At least a wing of the Shi’ movement probably had something very close, which ought to show up in Shi’i hadith.)”
So again we can see there was a lot of conflict and turmoil in the very early history of Islam. Conflict and turmoil that is with us until this very day. So less I digress let me go back to the opening quotation attributed to Imam Malik:
“He who practices tassawuf without learning Sacred Law corrupts his faith (tazandaq) , while he who learns Sacred Law without practicing Tasawwuf corrupts himself (tafassaqa).”
Gibril Fouad Haddad who is a follower of the Sufi group ‘The Naqshabandi Haqqani‘ * has provided some very insightful information to this claim above.
* note: This Sufi group is to be distinguished from their rivals the ‘Naqshabandi Mujaddidi‘ as well as other rival Sufi groups.
He has the following to say about the above quotation attributed to Imam Malik :
“Cited without the chain of transmission by Al-Qari in Sharh ‘Ayn al-Ilm and Mirqat al-Mafatih, Ahmad Zarruq in the Forth of his Qawa’id al-Tassawuf in his commentary on Ibn Abi Zayd’s Risal a (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Kutub al Arabiyyah, Ibn Ajiba in Iaqaz, Al Himan fi Sharh al-Hikam and Al-Tata’i in his commentary on Ibn Rushd’s Muaqaddima.”
Source: (The Four Imams and their Schools page 180)
Ponder that for a moment, respected readers. A statement seemingly in support of ‘Tassawuf‘ put into the mouth of Imam Malik and then repeated by men like Al Qari, Ahmad Zarruq, Ibn Abi Zayd, Ibn Ajiba, and At Tata’i. Yet, no chain of narration!
In my previous conversations with Dr. Abdullah bin Hamid Ali and Ustadh AbdasSamad Clarke, both have confirmed to me that it is not authentically ascribed to Malik.
Anti-Sufi reports attributed to Imam Malik
Incident no. 1 )
“Al -Tinnisi said: We were sitting with Malik with his companions around him. A man from the people of Nasibin said, ‘We have some people who go by the name of Sufis. They eat a lot then they start (chanting) poems (qasa’id), after which they stand and start (chanting) dancing.” Malik asked, “Are they boys (sibyan)?” He said no. Malik asked, “Are they insane?” He said, No, they are old men (mashaykh) and other than that, and they are mature and sane (‘uqala.” Malik said, “I never heard that any of the people of Islam do this.” The man said to him, “Indeed, they do! They eat, then they stand up and start dancing intensively (dawa’ib), and some of them slap their heads, and some of their faces.” Malik started laughing then went into his house. His companions said to the man. “You were, O man, ill luck (mash’um) for our friend [Malik]. We have been sitting with him thirty-odd years and never saws him laugh except today.” “Narrated without a chain by Al-Qadi ‘Iyad in Tartib Al-Madarak.”
Source: (The Four Imams and their Schools by Gibril Fouad Haddad page 180)
Incident no.2 )
“Abd al-Malik ibn Ziyad al-Nasibi said: “We were with Malik when I mentioned to him Sufis in our city. I said to him that they wear fancy Yemenite clothes, and do such and such. He replied, ‘Woe to you! Are they Muslims?’. He then laughed until he lay on his back. Some of his companions said to me, ‘What is this?’ We have not seen more trouble (fitna) caused to the Shaykh than you, for we never saw him laugh!” “Narrated by al-Khallal in al-Hathth ‘ala al-Tijara wal-Sina’a wal-Amal (Abu Ghudda) with a weak chain because of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Ziyad al-Nasibi who is “disclaimed in his narrations and untrustworthy” (munkar al hadith, gahyr thiqa) according to al-Aazdi as per Ibn al-Jawzi in al-Du’afa wal-Matrukin (1:149) while Ibn Hibban in his Thiaqat (8:390) said he reports oddities from Malik.”
Source: (The Four Imams and their Schools by Gibril Fouad Haddad page 181)
So you can imagine the incongruity of all of this. Notice the similarities between the two seemingly Anti-Sufi reports attributed to Imam Malik.
1) His strong reaction: ‘I never heard that any of the people of Islam do this. &Woe to you! Are they Muslims?’
2) His hearty laugh after hearing of their doings. ‘Malik started laughing then went into his house. &He then laughed until he lay on his back’.
3) The shock of the people present at Maliks’ reaction. ‘You were O man, ill-luck (mash’um) for our friend [Malik]. We have been sitting with him thirty-odd years and never saws him laugh except today. & What is this?’ We have not seen more trouble (fitna) caused to the Shaykh than you, for we never saw him laugh’!
You can scroll down to the section: “Imam Malik and the Sufis” Gibril Fouad Haddad has the following to say about the two incidents, reported above:
Concerning the first incident, he says, “This is narrated without chain by al-Qadi `Iyad. in Tartib al-Madarik (2:53-54).” That is all he has to say. There is no chain of transmitters. Case closed.
Concerning the second incident, he simply gives the reason one of the transmitters is dismissed. Then he concludes by saying:
“Content-wise, neither of the above reports shows unambiguous condemnation of group dhikr but only that some people who passed for Sufis in the Imam’s time reportedly committed certain childish excesses or irrational breaches of decorum. The reports only show that Imam Malik found the story amusing. The delator seems obsessed with the ‘eating and dancing’ which he mentions twice as if afraid Malik didn’t hear it the first time. There is also on the part of Malik’s circle clear disapproval of the delator who is apparently perceived as an interloper. And Allah knows best.”
Actually what the reports show assuming they are true at all is the following:
The reports show that Imam Malik does not even seem to be even vaguely familiar with such groups. The asking ‘if the people are Muslim‘, and making statements such as ‘the people of Islam are not heard of doing this‘ would be very difficult for Muslims having a pro-Sufi bias to fathom. Especially, in the first report since, we don’t have Imam Malik laughing until after hearing about people slapping their faces.
“And Noah called to his Lord and said, “My Lord, indeed MY SON IS OF MY FAMILY (AHLI)and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges! He said, “O NOAH, INDEED HE IS NOT OF YOUR (AHLIKA) FAMILY; indeed, he is one whose work was other than righteous, so ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant. Noah said, “My Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I will be among the losers.”(Qur’an 11:45-47)
﷽
We are often told that our presuppositions may preclude us from being fair in accessing certain hadith traditions. That we would approach the text with our own suppositions. I don’t disagree with this statement. The real point is who doesn’t approach something with their own suppositions?
However, I think the point is we all approach any situation with our own suppositions. The point is to be mindful of this, and know when it may impede our ability to look at something from a different perspective, or not.
What better example than the attacks upon ‘sahih’ -ahadith found in the collection of Muslim, by those who hold to the Ashari theological school.
In particular, things that the ‘Sufi‘ find troubling about the following sahih hadith. As well as those who have been affected by the Shia-fication of Sunnism as follows:
Narrated from Anas (ra) that a man said: “O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?” He said: “In Hell.” When he turned away he called him back and said: “My father and your father are in Hell.”
Some may say why even talk about this subject? It is bad manners?
The very people who say that, are the very people themselves who have brought the topic up.
There is actually no good reason to reject this hadith. The only reason to reject this hadith is based upon an emotional attachment to the ‘Ahl Bayt‘ and to the family of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
“Say, [O Muhammed], “If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.” (Qur’an 9:29)
If this is the state of faith that Muslims are to have in regards to Allah (swt) It is certain that the Blessed Messenger (saw) had this state of faith, a state of faith that none of us would pale in comparison to.
There is also the reality that hellfire is real. That some people will go to hellfire. Those people will be other people’s fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters. All of us live with the reality that either ourselves or our most beloved family will not be in paradise.
With the Blessed Messenger (saw) making that statement about his father, it makes the Blessed Prophet (saw) very relatable to our grievances.
Now the “Sufis” will go on and on about knowledge of the unseen that the Blessed Messenger (saw) is said to have had.
However, when it comes to something like this they simply cannot accept that the Blessed Messenger (saw) may have had some insight into what happened to His (saw) parents; albeit a very painful insight.
The same people will go absolutely ballistic when anyone challenges their Sahih hadith canons, but themselves will pull out all the stops when they come across something that goes against their presuppositions.
It is worth it to watch the entire video presentation of Dr. Jonathan Brown. However, for the purpose of this entry, it would suffice to watch from @42:50, to see exactly what I am talking about.
At @43:50 Dr. Jonathan Brown takes liberties by saying ‘there is an important principle in Islam that in order to be accountable for anything you have to have knowledge‘.
First, it should be very clear what he is about to present to the audience is not necessarily the position of ‘Islam’. It is a position of creed, one that a certain group of Muslims with their own presuppositions hold to.
Basically what Dr. Jonathan Brown is doing is expounding upon a position in the Ashari theological school. (Albeit in a very superficial manner)
They assume that just because people have not heard about Islam, these people would automatically enter into paradise.
In other words, if divine guidance has not come to you, you will automatically enter paradise.
Think of the implications of that for a moment. Now, if your going to talk about justice this creedal position of the Ashari turns the justice of Allah (swt) into a cosmic comedy.
Why?
Well, how is it fair for people who have been exposed to Islam entered into it and possibly still end up in hell?
Whereas it would have been more preferable (I mean we are talking about eternity here) for said people to have never heard about Islam, and enter into heaven automatically, simply by virtue of the fact of not receiving guidance.
So if you do not receive divine guidance you automatically enter into heaven?
However, if you do hear about divine guidance and reject it you will go to hell.
In General: Assurance of salvation is not a doctrine in Islam.
Then if you embrace the divine guidance you have a 50/50 chance of going to heaven/hell.
Something seems very inconsistent here.
As educated and eloquent as Dr. Jonathan Brown is he gives an example. What that would be relatable to the Ashari school. He gives the example about ‘the man living in a remote part of Nebraska‘.
So you mean to tell us this man who lives in a remote part of Nebraska and never heard about Islam, or even had an adequate presentation of Islam delivered to him, can steal from his mother, rape a child, rob a bank, never pay back any of his loans, constantly lie, beat his wife and lead an overall horrible life and he will enter heaven?
Whereas countless Muslims all of the world are trying their utmost to have a relationship with their Creator and to fulfill the commands as they understand them, in a sea of competing sects and schism, and then there is a very likely chance that they could end up in hell?
Does that honestly make any sense to anyone at all?
Notice Dr. Jonathan Brown says @45:13 “God will judge them on the day of judgement like God judges everybody“
So why would God judge them? If they would automatically enter into heaven? If God judges them than doesn’t that mean they stand a chance to be condemned?
If they do stand the chance to be condemned than the Ashari needs to explain based upon what.
Apologies to the readers, as I digress.
However, this is fundamentally important to the discussion, because it is an ironclad proof! It is an ironclad proof from within that if those from the Ashari school find something that goes against their presuppositions they will discard a hadith!
Gibril Fouad Haddad is a modern scholar who gave a lengthy apologetic response to the issue in pages 51-64 of his book “The Four Imams and Their Schools“
Which by the way if you don’t have that book you absolutely should buy it. You should buy everything written by Gibril Fouad Haddad for that matter. He has absolute astute attention to detail. He is in our view one of the most, candid and truthful traditonalist scholars in our time. Surely he will receive his reward with his Lord.
In the pages of his book, there are some eye-opening admissions. His book also contains his own biases and leanings for example:
Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari and his Minah Al-Rawd Al-Azhar, commentary on Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is simply thrown under the bus.
Shaykh Haddad states:
“Mulla Ali al-Qari claimed in Sharh al-Fiqh Al Akbar, Mu’taqad Abu Hanifa, and Shar al-Shifa that Imam Abu Hanifa said, “The parents of the Prophet (saw) died as disbelievers.” and that this was the Maturidi position. He was refuted harshly by his student, the Faqih and Friend of Allah, Imam Abd al-Qadir ibn Muhammed ibn Ahmad al Tabari, during the latter’s lessons in the Makkan Sanctuary, Al-Qari died in Makka shortly after those lectures from a bad fall-May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him. Shaykh Ibrahim al-Halabi, the Hanafi faqih, held the same view as Mulla Ali al-Qari as well as does al-Azim Abadi in AAwn al-Mabud.” (pg 51 The Four Imams and Their Schools)
The innuendo is certainly not subtle at all.
“Al-Qari died in Makka shortly after those lectures from a bad fall-May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him.”
The implication is Allah (swt) made the learned scholar, Mulla Ali al-Qari die from a bad fall for simply repeating what he found attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa.
Is what is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa a forgery?
Shaykh Haddad quotes Dr. Inayatullah Iblagh al-Afghani in the 1987 2nd edition of his published doctoral thesis titled ‘al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifa al-Mutakallim (“The Greatest Imam, Abu Hanifa, the Theologian”), said:
“Regarding the text [of al-Fiqh al-Akbar] we find in some of them: “and the two parents of the Prophet (saw) died according to pristine disposition” (mata ala al-fitra), In some others, it is: “did not die as disbelievers” (ma mata ala al-kufr) while in others yet, we find: “died as disbelievers” (mata ala-al kufr)”
Shaykh Haddad continues: The erudite scholar al-Kawthari noted that the word fitra can be easily altered to read kufr in Kufic Arabic calligraphy. It is highly probable, therefore, that the copy with “died according to pristine disposition” was changed to “died disbelievers.” The original reading implies that the Greatest Imam was arguing against those who adduce the hadith; “My father and your father are both in Hellfire.” (pg 57The Four Imams and Their Schools.”
So now let us think about this claim.
The text could read:
did not die as disbelievers/did not die in pristine disposition
or
could read died as disbelievers/died according to pristine disposition.
Now, we can’t assume that the version that Shaykh Hadad prefers is the original version. Especially if it simply a copyist error. However, something that was not pondered upon at all is the possibility of forgery. The reason I believe this was not discussed is that to discuss forgery we need to discuss a motive. We have a high motive for someone to change the text from disbeliever to pristine disposition. However, what possible motive would any Muslim have for changing the text from pristine disposition to disbeliever?
Let us look at some other evidence that shows contrary to what some people desire that relatives of the Blessed Messenger (saw) were indeed people who do not make it to paradise.
“The daughter of Abu Lahab, Subay’a came to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said, “Messenger of Allah!” The people are calling me the daughter of the Fuel of the Hellfire! The Messenger of Allah (saw) stood angry and said on the pulpit: “What is the matter with the people that harm me in my relatives? Whoever harms my relatives harms me, and whoever harms me has harmed Allah!”
Source: (Narrated from Ibn ‘Umar, Abu Hurayra, and Ammar bin Yasir by Ibn Abi ‘Asim in al-Ahad wal-Mathani (5:470 & 3165).
“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.” (Qur’an 111:1)
Did Allah (swt) find it insensitive to name someone’s father as a resident of hellfire?
Ali himself said that Abu Bakr is the only Companion to have both parents, Abu Quhafa and Umm al-Khayr enter Islam.
Sources: (Aisha by Malik in Muwatta, Ibn Sa’d (3:194-195) Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan al-Kubra (6:169-170 & 11728, 6:178 & 11784, 6:257 & 12267, Abd Al-Razzaq (9;101) , Al-Tahawi in Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar (4:880, Istiab (4:1807), Nasb (2:630), al-Lalika’i in Karamat al-Awliya (p 117), al-Mizzi in Tadhib al-Kamal (35:380) and Muhhib al-Din al-Tabari in al-Riyad al-Nadira (2:122-123 & 576)
Narrated by Al Musaiyab:
“When Abu Talib’s death approached, the Prophet went to him while Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya were present with him. The Prophet said, “O uncle, say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, so that I may argue for your case with it before Allah.” On that, Abu Jahl and ‘Abdullah bin Abu Umaiya said, “O Abu Talib! Do you want to renounce ‘Abdul Muttalib’s religion?” Then the Prophet said, “I will keep on asking (Allah for) forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden to do so.” Then there was revealed: ‘It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe that they should invoke (Allah) for forgiveness for pagans even though they are of kin after it has become clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.’ (9.113)”
The point being is that all of these groups and factions you are hard-pressed to find anyone to be consistent.
People will attack Shaykh Nasir Ad-Deen Al Abani because he said that Bukhari itself was bound to have mistakes.
However, the same people in our humble opinion apply double standards. They use their own presuppositions to evaluate the truthfulness of a text even if it said hadith is within the category of something deemed ‘sahih’ -sound!
“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do?” (Qur’an 61:2)
It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Qur’an 9:113)
So extreme are these presuppositions concerning that the father of the Prophet (saw) that these same people have taken some strange approaches concerning the father of Prophet Ibrahim (as)
“Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is rightly guided.” (Qur’an 16:125)
﷽
The background of the debate that never happened.
Shaykh Bin Baz invited Shaykh Ahmed Khalili to his office and Shaykh Khalili accepted the invitation. Shaykh Ahmed Khalili and a small delegation went into what was described as a small room. There was no courtesy and no decorum shown on behalf of Shaykh Bin Baz. As soon Shaykh Bin Baz got everyone in the room, he started shouting, “You Ibadi are Kafirs! You don’t believe in seeing Allah in the afterlife”. “You believe in the creation of the Qur’an and you must make tawba!” “You must testify that you are mistaken!”
Shaykh Ahmed Khalili remained very calm. He replied, “These issues are very old issues and many of the ulemah have been talking about it.” “Our expectation was to come and discuss how to unite the Ummah, and keep the differences aside, and we should agree on certain terms.”
However, Shaykh Bin Baz insisted, “No, you must confess, and you must repent.”
To which Shaykh Ahmed Khalili said, “You have your justification and we have our justification. So let us call for a general symposium in Mecca and allow all the media, rather it is newspapers, or radio or television, to broadcast this debate.”
“If you think you are right, and you want to tell the whole ummah of your righteous opinion, this will show who is wrong and who is right.” “Even if we are wrong we agree to debate publicly so that everyone will know that we are wrong, and you are right.”
“Allow the Ummah to judge according to the debate and the justifications everybody brings forward.” However, Shaykh Bin Baz did not want to discuss nor debate.
So this prompted Shaykh Ahmed Khalili in the video you are about to see. In the beginning, Shaykh Ahmed Khalili mentioned:
“That these are old disputes that split the Ummah. He asked whose interest it was in bringing up these issues that split the Ummah? However, since Bin Baz started I have to clarify these points. The people of Bin Baz are doing their best to spread their beliefs and, in the process, to make us look like kafirs.”
Thus, Shaykh Ahmed Khalili (May Allah continue to benefit this Ummah by him) found it necessary to clarify the issues. Ultimately, Shaykh Bin Baz backed down.
You can see this student of Bin Baz asking Bin Baz that he had the chance to refute Al Khalili(h) and show that he was upon batil (falsehood) so why did he not take it? Bin Baz replied but what if Khalili (h) has strong evidence then what?
The way the following video is framed it paints a picture as if Bin Baz was the wise one in the situation. As if he was saying: “If I debate him he might have a stronger argument and this will cause the misguidance of many people.”
From our perspective this whole debacle looks like this.
Bin Baz: “Come to the Haqq.”
Shaykh Ahmed: “Ok. Let’ shav ea debate and see who is upon the haqq.”
Bin Baz: ghost…
May Allah (swt) forgive the Ummah. May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah!
If you want to read more articles on the issue of whether or not the Qur’an is created or uncreated, you may wish to see:
Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
﷽
Once I was approached by a Salafi Muslim in a Masjid who asked me, “Brother where is Allah?” I thought this was an extraordinary question to ask but I asked him “What time it was“. He seemed puzzled but told me the current time. I thereby responded, “Allah is in London, England!”
He rapidly started to stroke his beard rapidly repeating “istaghfirullah!'” “‘istaghfirullah!” “Allah forgive you!” “Allah forgive you!”
This seemed like very neurotic behavior so I offered the following mutawatir hadith.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
“Allah descends every night to the lowest heaven when one-third of the first part of the night is over and says: I am the Lord; I am the Lord: who is there to supplicate Me so that I answer him? Who is there to beg of Me so that I grant him? Who is there to beg forgiveness from Me so that I forgive him? He continues like this till the day breaks.”
I don’t see what was so wrong with saying that Allah was in London, England considering that it was around 4:45 a.m London time (which would be the last third of the night).
I guess that was not the answer he was expecting. He was visibly upset as he said, “But brother Allah is in the highest heaven.” “What?!” I responded. I thought this was very strange for how could Allah be in London England and in heaven at the same time! Surely this man does not believe that Allah is multi-present? Could it be that he believed that Allah (swt) was in many places simultaneously?
“Who said Allah is in heaven?” I asked.
“Firaun (Pharoah) said Allah is in heaven.” the brother offered.
“Where does he say this?” I demanded!
The brother quoted the following,
“And Fir’aun (Pharaoh) said: “O Hâmân! Build me a tower that I may arrive at the ways, The ways of the heavens, and I may look upon the Ilâh (God) of Mûsa (Moses) but verily, I think him to be a liar.”(Qur’an 40:37)
I was simply shocked by this! “Brother,” I said, “I do not think we need to be taking our Aqidah (belief) from Fir’aun (Pharaoh)! We do not need to build a tower of babel to reach heaven.“
This was a real conversation that happened between me and a Malay Salafi brother in a Masjid in Singapore. Needless to say, I feigned ignorance of the subject and admittedly baited the brother because I am all too familiar with these topics.
However, keep in mind he did approach me first.
However, I did advise him that in the future he may wish to use the hadith of the blind woman pointing upwards into heaven or when asked, ‘Who said Allah is in heaven‘ perhaps he could say, ‘Allah himself says this.’ It is also advisable to simply use the verse of the Qur’an “The Beneficent One, Who is established on the Throne.” (Qur’an 20:5)
I am quite sure that our Salafi brothers continue to improve their techniques.
Yet the problem remains. The issue of Allah (swt) presumably being over the throne and descending down into the lowest part of the earth every night of course (in a way that befits his majesty) …..of course.
Now the Ashari and Maturidi among our Sunni brothers are quite sensible on this issue. However, those Sunni Muslims from the Salafi, Hanbali, Athari can get quite agitated over this very sensitive issue.
So sensitive that they tell you to just shut up and accept it! Blind faith!
You can’t make taqlid to a legal school but you damn well better make taqlid to their belief system!
Don’t worry yours truly has screenshots of the entire Q & A as many people make web sites, articles, and entries that disappear in a flash!
So here we go… I’ll highlight the text of interest.
Question
When asked, “Where is Allah ?” I reply “Above the seven Heavens and the Arsh” But taking the Hadith regarding that Allah descends to the lowest heaven in the latter part of the night. If someone asks where is Allah (swt) and they state He is the latter 3rd of the night now. What reply should you give?
Another point is that some people say it is the latter part of the night all the time (somewhere on the earth at a particular point in time) From this they conclude that Allah is not above His Arsh.
Answer
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly, we have to know the ‘aqeedah (belief) of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah concerning the names and attributes of Allah. The belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to affirm the names and attributes which Allah has affirmed for Himself, without distorting or denying them, discussing how they are or likening them to anything else. They believe that which Allah has commanded them to believe, for Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer”
[Qur’an 42:11]
Allah has told us about Himself. He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Indeed, your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He rose over (Istawaa) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty).
Prima Qur’an comments: “The Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty)…” So now they are going to say no one knows how but then use the word ‘really’. Interesting.
[Qur’an 7:54]
“The Most Gracious (Allah) rose over (Istawaa) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty).
[Qur’an 20:5]
and there are other ayats which mention that Allah rose over His Throne.
The rising of Allah over His Throne, which means that He Himself is High and above the Throne, is of a special nature which befits His Majesty and Might. No one knows how it is except Him.
This was proven in the saheeh Sunnah, where it is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that Allaah descends during the last third of the night. It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Our Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when the last third of the night remains, and He says, ‘Who will call Me that I might answer him, who will ask of Me that I might give him, who will ask My forgiveness, that I might forgive him?’” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, Kitaab al-Tawheed, 6940; Muslim, Salaat al-Musaafireen, 1262)
According to Ahl al-Sunnah, the meaning of this descent is that Allaah Himself comes down to the lowest heaven in a real sense, as befits His Majesty, and no one knows how that is except Him.
Prima-Qur’ancomments: I thought that the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunnah according to the Hanbali, Salafi, and Athari is that no one knows how? So how are they saying tongue in cheek, “comes down to the lowest heaven in a real sense, as befits His Majesty.”
They continue:
“But does the fact that Allaah comes down means that He vacates the Throne or not? Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said concerning a similar question: we say that this question is based on unnecessary and excessive questioning and that the one who asked this is not to be thanked for his question. We ask, are you keener than the Sahaabah to understand the attributes of Allah? If he says yes, we tell him, you are lying. And if he says no, we tell him, then be content with what they were content with. They did not ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), ‘O Messenger of Allah, when He comes down, does He vacate the Throne?’ Why do you need to ask this question? Just say, He comes down. Whether or not the Throne is vacated is not your business. You are commanded to believe the reports, especially concerning the essence of Allah and His attributes, for this matter is above rational thought.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: I have read many of Shaykh ‘Uthaymeen’s legal verdicts and this is as close to ‘Shut the hell up‘ as I have ever seen the Shaykh get. The whole of his response is about intimidation and shutting down the inquiry of the questioner.
They continue:
Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh Muhammad al-‘Uthaymeen, 1/204-205
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said concerning this matter:
“The correct view is that He descends and that He does not vacate the Throne. A person’s soul remains attached to his body night and day until he dies, but when he is asleep it ascends… It was said, night varies, and the last third of the night comes sooner in the east than in the west, so the descent of Allaah to the lowest heaven, of which His Messenger spoke, happens in the east first and then in the west…”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Whoa there Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah! Hold your horses! Are you now likening the descent/ascent of Allah (swt) to a human soul leaving the body? Furthermore are you saying that Allah (swt) has division with him self? A part of him that travels and a part of him that remains? By saying that Allah (swt) does not ‘vacate‘ the throne you are in fact establishing a ‘how’ for Allah swt! Authubillah min dhalik! Or if the Shaykh is suggesting that by his comparison to human beings that Allah (swt) can be in two places at the same time than my initial response to the brother that questioned me is not wrong at all!
They continue:
See Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Taymiyah, 5/132
Rising over (istiwaa’) and descending are two of the practical attributes which have to do with the will of Allaah. Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah believe in that, but in this belief they avoid likening Allaah to any of His creation or discussing how He is. It cannot occur to them that Allaah’s descending is like the descending of any of His creatures or that His rising over the Throne is like the rising over of any of His creatures, because they believe that there is nothing like unto Allaah and He is the All-Hearer, All-Seer. They know on rational grounds that there is a great difference between the Creator and His creatures, in their essence, attributes and actions. It cannot occur to them to ask how He descends, or how He rose over His Throne. The point is that they do not ask how His attributes are; they believe that there is a ‘how’, but it is unknown, so we can never imagine how it is.
Prima Qur’an comments: Respected Shaykh Taymiyah you said, ‘we can never imagine how it is’ and yet you also say in the paragraph above, A person’s soul remains attached to his body night and day until he dies, but when he is asleep it ascends.
“We know for certain that what is narrated in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is true and is not self-contradictory, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Do they not then consider the Qur’aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”
[Qur’an 4:82]
Prima Qur’an comments: Well, you see 4:82 actually is a reference to the Qur’an. It is not a reference to hadith, sunnah, fiqh, ijtihad of imams, or anything else. How you lump the sunnah in with the Qur’an is anyone’s guess.
He continues:
“Because contradictions in the reports would mean that some of them were showing others to be false, and this is impossible in the case of that which Allaah and His Messenger tell us.
Whoever imagines that there are any contradictions in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or between the two, it is either because of his lack of knowledge or because he has failed to understand properly or to ponder the matter correctly, so let him seek further knowledge and strive to think harder until the truth becomes clear to him. Then if the matter is still not clear to him, let him leave it to the One Who is All-Knowing and let him put a stop to his illusions and say, as those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:7 – interpretation of the meaning]. Let him know that there is no contradiction in the Qur’aan and Sunnah and no conflict between them. And Allaah knows best.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Well, you see 3:7 actually is a reference to the Qur’an. It is not a reference to hadith, sunnah, fiqh, ijtihad of imams, or anything else. How you lump the sunnah in with the Qur’an is anyone’s guess.
He continues:
“See Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 3/237-238
Imagining that there is a conflict between Allaah’s descending to the lowest heaven and His having risen over the Throne and His being high above the heavens stems from making a comparison between the Creator and the created being. For man cannot imagine the unseen things of His creation, such as the delights of Paradise, so how can he imagine the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, the Knower of the Unseen. So we believe in what has been narrated of His rising over (the Throne), His descending and His being High and Exalted. We affirm that (and state that it is) in a manner that befits His Majesty and Might.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: So there you have it. ‘Uthaymeen telling a person to shut up. Ibn Taymiyah basically resorted to blatant Tashbih and Tamthil. (Making resemblance and drawling parallels to) the creation.
Being accurate and circumspect in our beliefs. So the next time someone asks you, “Where is Allah?”’ in order to answer the question accurately one would need to ask the person back. “Do you believe Allah is the creator of all things?” “Do you believe Allah is the creator of space and time?”
Because apparently Allah (swt) is separate and distinct from his creation. Who said that? This website affirms that Imam Ahmad (r) said that.
“So Yoosuf bin Moosaa al-Qattaan, the Shaykh of Abu Bakr al-Khallaal, said: It was said to Abu Abdullah (Ahmad bin Hanbal): “Allaah is above the seventh heaven, over His Throne, separate and distinct (baa’in) from His creation, and His power and knowledge are in every place?” He said:
Yes, He is over His Throne, and nothing escapes His knowledge.”
If the answer is yes, you have to wonder if the throne is a creation or not. If the throne, space, and time are all creations you have to wonder at the question: “Where is Allah?” before the creation of the throne.
We also have this interesting verse. This has to be taken into consideration since some of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah say that Allah (swt) will “come in ranks with the angels.”
“So your Lord comes and also the angels in ranks..” (Qur’an 89:22)
“Lo! those who swear allegiance unto you (Muhammed), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whoever breaks his oath, breaks it only to his soul’s hurt; while whoever keeps his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward.” (Qur’an 48:10)
We also have to take into account this hadith:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (saw) said, “The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: “Are there any more (to come)?’ (50.30) till Allah puts His Foot over it and it will say, ‘Qati! Qati! (Enough Enough!)'”
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE IS ALLAH AND WHEN IS ALLAH?
So what does all this mean? Especially if it is admitted that Allah (swt) is separate and distinct from his creation?
It means that the true answer of an Athari, someone who takes the apparent meaning of a text, that the true answer to the question “Where is Allah?” is to respond by saying:
Allah is as he is before space/time. While also being over the throne, while also coming down in the third part of the night (depending upon the time) and coming with rows of his angels. Allah’s foot is on the hellfire. His hand is over their hands. All of that in a way that befits his majesty.
Because here is the point. I challenge anyone to show me where the Blessed Messenger (saw) or any of the companions disputed any of those points above?
Why is Allah (swt) being over the throne: The Default Answer to the Question-Where is Allah?
Why is ‘Allah being over the throne’ THE DEFAULT POSITION?
Again I challenge anyone to show me where the Blessed Messenger (saw) or the companions made ‘above the throne’ as the default position to the exclusion of the other text/positions? Thus, making everything else like ‘coming down’ or ‘existing as he was before creation’ or ‘coming in rows’ relational to that?
Because keep in mind the person is asking you, “Where is Allah?” They are not asking you, “When is Allah?” They are not asking you ‘Where is Allah now?” Because ‘now‘ does not apply to Allah (swt).
Who gave them the authority to make ‘the throne’ the default position? So yes, when someone asks, “Where is Allah?” You could reply, “London England” depending upon what time of day/night it is where you are.
Those who say that Allah (swt) is over the throne bi dhati (in essence) have made a reprehensible innovation because we have nothing reliably transmitted to us on this account.
This is the state of these people who want to police the beliefs of the Muslims and do actually approach people in the Masjid and ask random people, “Where is Allah?” With beliefs like this no wonder, they go around asking such a question, because it certainly seems they have lost their Lord. If only Allah (swt) was always in the dhirk of their minds and and in their hearts they would not need to ask this. They are searching for Allah (swt).
Prima Quran 