Monarchy in Qur'an and Hadith
GF Haddad
The question was asked whether there is "such a thing as kingship or
princeship or royal families in Islam and Shari`a."
I said yes, because there are so many texts to that effect.
A revolutionary type ("Thawri" or "Khariji" in Arabic) expressed his
profound disapproval without providing proof.
Since the way of Ahl al-Sunna is different than theirs in Religion, and
since we fear speaking of this Religion without proof, here are the
proofs.
If that person fears Allah, he should provide his proofs. Not simply deny
each these, as I suspect he will do - for lack of an alternative.
--
Proof-texts for the concepts of malakiyya - "monarchy, kingship,
royalty" - and mulūkiyya - "monarchic rule, monarchism, kingship,
royalty" - as viable systems in Islam and Shari`a.
These texts are arranged by topic under the following headings:
1. Prophecy that there shall be Kingship in Islam
2. Exalted Status of Righteous Monarchy and Kingship in the Qur'an and the
Sunna
3. Every Epoch has a Divinely-Appointed King Reflecting Its People
4. The Awaited Mahdi (AS) Shall be a King
5. Belief in the Mahdi is Obligatory in Islam
--
1. Prophecy that there shall be Kingship in Islam
1.1 The Prophet said - Allah bless and greet him: “This business began as
prophethood and mercy, then mercy and a khalifate, then a voracious
kingdom, and then arrogance and tyranny and corruption will enter the
community.” In Qadi`Iyad's al-Shifa', chapter on the Prophet's (SAWS)
knowledge of the Unseen. This is a proof in Islam and Shari`a that
kingship is not as good as caliphate but is better than tyranny. Here are
some narrations to that effect in their precise wordings insha Allah:
1.2 “Successorship (al-khilāfa) after me shall last for thirty years.
After that, there will be kingship.” Imam Ahmad declared this narration
sound and adduced it as a proof for the caliphate of the four Imams. A
sound hadith narrated from Safina by al-Tirmidhi (hasan) with a fair chain
ac-cording to Shaykh ‘Abd Allah al-Talidi who declared it sahīh because of
its cor-robo-rative and witness-chains in his edition of al-Suyuti’s
Tahdhib al-Khasa’is (p. 293 #375); also narrated by al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud,
Ahmad in his Musnad with two chains; al-Hakim; Ibn Hibban with two fair
chains as stated by al-Arna’ut (15:34 #6657, 15:392 #6943); al-Tayalisi in
his Musnad (p. 151, 479); and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir with several chains.
This narration is among the “Proofs of Prophethood” (dalā’il al-nubuwwa)
as the sum of the first five caliphates is exactly thirty years: two years
and three months for Abu Bakr, ten years and a half for ‘Umar, twelve
years for ‘Uthman, four years and nine months for ‘Ali, and six months for
al-Hasan as narrated from Safina by al-Suyuti in Tahdhib al-Khasa’is (p.
293 #375) and Tarikh al-Khulafa’ (p. 22, 198-199). Al-Dhahabi cites the
saying by Mu‘awiya: “I am the first of the kings” (anā awwalu al-mulūk) in
the Siyar (3:157).
1.3 To the man who said: “O Messenger of Allah! I saw in my dream as if a
balance came down from the heaven in which you were weighed against Abu
Bakr and outweighed him, then Abu Bakr was weighed against ‘Umar and
outweighed him, then ‘Umar was weighed against ‘Uthman and outweighed him,
then the balance was raised up.” The Prophet ? said: “Successorship of
prophethood (khilāfa nubuwwa)! Then Allah shall give kingship to whomever
He will.” Narrated from Abu Bakrah by Ahmad with three chains, Abu Dawud,
and al-Tirmidhi who said: hasan sahīh, and from Safina by Abu Dawud with a
fair chain and al-Bazzar with a fair chain as indicated by al-Haythami.
Al-Tirmidhi’s narration omits the last statement of the Prophet (SAWS).
Al-Hakim narrated it with a chain similar to al-Tirmidhi’s and graded it
sahīh, and al-Dhahabi concurred.
1.4 “There shall be Prophethood (nubuwwa) among you for as long as Allah
wishes it to be among you. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to
lift it up. Then there shall be successorship (khilāfa) on the pattern
(minhāj) of Prophetship for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then it
shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be a
trying kingship (mulkan ‘āddan) for as long as Allah wishes it to be. Then
it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then there shall be
a tyrannical kingship (mulkan jabriyyatan) for as long as Allah wishes it
to be. Then it shall be lifted up when Allah wishes to lift it up. Then
there shall be successorship on the pattern of Prophetship.” Narrated from
Hudhayfa by Ahmad with a sound chain as stated by al-Zayn in the Musnad
(14:163 #18319) and as indicated by al-Haythami (5:188-189): “Narrated by
Ahmad, al-Bazzar with a more complete wording, and al-Tabarani partly, in
al-Awsat. The narrators in its chain are trustworthy.” Also narrated from
Abu ‘Ubayda by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir (1:157) with the wording “Then
there shall be kingship and tyranny” after the mention of successorship.
It was pointed out that the sequence of events described in these
narrations is strikingly similar to the Christian Eastern Orthodox
explanation of the Prophet Daniel's interpretation of the dream of the
Babylonian King in Daniel 2:31-43.
2. Exalted Status of Righteous Monarchy and Kingship in the Qur'an and the
Sunna
2.1 Allah (SWT) praised monarchy and kingship by making it one of the
greatest gifts He gave to a Prophet, making it synonymous with prophethood
itself in the verse {And Allah gave him [Dawud (AS)] the kingdom and
wisdom} (2:251).
2.2 Greater yet is the kingdom Allah gave to Sulayman (AS). The Prophet
said - Allah bless and greet him - in the authentic hadith of Isra' and
Mi`raj: "[O Allah!] You have given Sulayman an immense kingdom, and
subjected the jinn and men and devils to him, as well as the winds, and
You have given him a kingdom the like no one may have after him."
2.3 Kingdom was given to Sayyidina Muhammad (SAWS) also. An angel
descended as Gibrīl - upon him peace - was sitting together with the
Prophet (SAWS). Gibrīl said: “This angel did not descend on earth since
its creation until this moment.” The angel said: “O Muhammad! Your Lord
told me to ask you: ‘Shall I make you a king or a servant and Messenger?’”
Gibrīl said: “Humble yourself before your Lord, O Muhammad!” The Prophet
(SAWS) said: “A servant and Messenger!” Narrated from Abu Hurayra by
Ahmad, al-Bazzar, and Abu Ya‘la, the former two with a sound chain as
stated by al-Haythami and Ahmad Shakir in Ahmad’s Musnad (#7160). Also see
al-Mundhiri’s al-Targhib. This hadith is a proof that kingship is an
honored state, as Allah (SWT) would not propose to His Beloved anything
dishonorable or disliked, and Allah knows best.
2.4 The fact that an even greater Kingdom than Dawud's and Sulayman's - a
royal family, by the way - was actually given to Sayyidina Muhammad (SAWS)
even though he preferred the higher title of Servant to that of King, is
estbalished by the foundational hadith in the two Sahihs "I was given the
keys to all the riches of the earth" beginning with the words "I was given
five things which no Prophet before me was given."
3. Every Epoch has a Divinely-Appointed King Reflecting Its People
3.1 Nor did the Prophet (SAWS) condemn monarchy in itself, as shown by the
hadiths already cited. A more specific proof that it is not monarchy but
evil rule that is condemned - whether under caliphate or kingship - is the
following narration: "Every epoch has a king whom Allah sends in the
semblance (`ala nahw) of the hearts of its people. If He desires their
reform He sends them a reformer, and if He desires their destruction He
sends them one who shall cause their perdition." Al-Fattini said in
Tadhkira al-Mawdu`at (#182): "`Umar said: 'People follow the religion of
their kings.' I do not know it as a Prophetic hadith, but ... it supported
by what al-Tabarani narrates [and al-Bayhaqi from Ka`b, as stated in Kashf
al-Khafa (2:166)] raised [to the Prophet, Allah bless and greet him]:
"Every epoch has a king... etc."
3.2 Al-Tabarani narrated that al-Hasan [al-Basri] heard a man supplicating
against al-Hajjaj whereupon he said to him: "Do not do that! Truly you are
all the same and were treated accordingly. The only thing we fear, if
al-Hajjaj were to be put away or die, is that apes and pigs shall be made
rulers over you.* It has been narrated: "Your deeds are your workers
(a`malukum `ummalukum) and as you are, so will your leaders be." ... No
doubt, "ape rule" includes the lust and advent to power of those who scoff
at the encouragement to worship and the power of du`a, dhikr, salat `ala
al-Nabi, karamat al-Awliya' etc. believing only in human power, its means
and its instruments with little or no knowledge of the Sunna, its fiqh,
its adab, and its secrets, wAllahu a`lam.
3.3 Ibn Hajar [al-Haytami] said [in al-Fatawa al-Hadithiyya]: "Al-Najm
said
that Ibn Abi Shayba narrated from Mansur ibn Abi al-Aswad that the latter
asked al-A`mash about Allah Almighty's saying: {Thus We let some of the
wrong-doers have power over others because of what they are wont to earn}
(6:129) to which he replied: 'I heard them say about it [that it means]
that the most evil of people are made to rule over them.'" ...
3.4 Al-Bayhaqi also narrated from al-Hasan that the Israelites asked
Musa -
upon him peace - saying: "Ask your Lord to show us how we can tell He is
pleased with us and how we can tell He is displeased." He asked Him and He
said: "Tell them: My good pleasure with them is [seen in] the fact that I
make their best govern them, and that my displeasure with them is [seen
in] the fact that I make their most evil ones govern them." ...
3.5 [Al-Sakhawi] said in al-Maqasid: "We have narrated from al-Fudayl [ibn
`Iyad] that he said: 'If I had one supplication that is answered, I would
consider the Sultan more deserving of it. For in his uprightness lies the
uprightness of those who are governed by him, and in his corruption lies
their corruption.'" This is supported by what al-Tabarani narrated in
al-Kabir and al-Awsat from Abu Umama, raised [to the Prophet, Allah bless
and greet him]: "Do not curse the governors but supplicate that they be
upright. For their uprightness is best for you." ...
3.6 Similarly al-Qasim ibn Mukhaynara's saying: "The epoch in which you
live
is nothing other than your governor. If your governor is upright then your
epoch is upright and if your governor is corrupt then your epoch is
corrupt." I mentioned all the narrations in this section in my July 1999
internet post titled "Ape Rule."
4. The Awaited Mahdi (AS) Shall be a King
4.1 When the Israelites were oppressed by Jalut and his forces they went
to their Prophet and asked him to ask Allah to raise up for them a King so
they could fight in the way of Allah: {Bethink thee of the leaders of the
Children of Israel after Moses, how they said unto a Prophet whom they
had: Set up for us a King and we will fight in the way of Allah} (2:246).
Our Shaykh, Mawlana al-Shaykh Nazim - Allah save and keep him in the best
care - spoke to this effect: "Why do you now run to the U.N. and ask for
help? Go to the Grave of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and ask him to ask
Allah, to send al-Mahdi (AS). Indeed, One of the distinguishing traits of
Ahl al-Sunna today in contrast to innovators is their belief in Khalifat
Allah al-Mahdi (AS) as righteous *King* - as shown by the following
narrations - endowed with full Divine support and even reaching a
spiritual level higher than the Four Caliphs, as stated by al-Hakim
al-Tirmidhi (d. 320) and others.
4.2 Many hadiths mention that al-Mahdi shall actually "rule by Kingship"
(yamluku) and speak of "the duration of his kingdom" (muddatu mulkihi) as
narrated by Abu `Amr al-Dani in al-Sunan al-Warida fi al-Fitan, Nu`aym ibn
Hammad in Kitab al-Fitan, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi
`Alamat al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, and al-Barzanji in al-Isha`a li Ashrat
al-Sa`a (cf. p. 225). This indicates that his Caliphate shall be of the
nature of a righteous monarchy.
4.3 For example: The Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - said: "The Hour
shall not rise until a man from the People of my House [again the concept
of royal family] shall rule by kingdom (yamluk), named after me, his
father named after mine, and fill the earth with justice and equity just
as it had been filled with oppression and injustice." Narrated from Ibn
Mas`ud by Abu Dawud in his Sunan (book of al-Mahdi), al-Tabarani in
al-Mu`jam al-Kabir (10:165 #10219), al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (4:442) where
al-Dhahabi said it is sound (sahih). Cf. al-Dani (5:1040, 1041, 1047,
1048, 1051 ["Rule by kingdom over the earth"], 1052 ["Rule by kingdom over
the Arabs"]).
4.4 From Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: The Prophet (SAWS) said: "Al-Mahdi shall
rule by kingdom for seven, eight, or nine years." Nu`aym ibn Hammad
(2:689). He cites several similarly-worded reports with variant durations
(1:376-378).
5. Belief in the Mahdi is Obligatory in Islam
5.1 It should be remembered also, that belief in al-Mahdi's coming and in
his God-sanctioned reformative functions is an obligatory tenet of belief
in Islam. The opening lines of Shaykh al-Islam, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's
book on the Mahdi entitled Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi `Alamat al-Mahdi
al-Muntazar ("The Brief Discourse on the Portents of the Awaited Mahdi")
are:
It has been related that the Prophet, blessings and peace
upon him, said: "Whoever denies belief in the Dajjal, has
certainly committed disbelief (man kadhdhaba bi al-dajjali
fa qad kafara), and whoever denies belief in the Mahdi, has
certainly committed disbelief (wa man kadhdhaba bi al-mahdi
fa qad kafara)."
Abu Bakr al-Askafi narrated it in Fawa'id al-akhbar, and
also [the hadith master] Abu al-Qasim al-Suhayli in his
book Sharh al-Sira. End of Haytami's words.
The hadith mentioned above is also narrated by the hadith master
Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi in his book `Uqud al-durar fi `ulum
al-athar (The pearl necklaces in the science of tradition) p. 156
and the hadith master Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his monograph al-
`Arf al-wardi fi akhbar al-mahdi (The roselike fragrance in the
reports of al-Mahdi) in his collected fatwas entitled al-Hawi li
al-fatawi 2:161.
5.2 Under note #18 Dr.Suhaib Hasan in his book "An Introduction to the
Science of Hadis wrote:"Although the Mahdi is not mentioned explicitly
in the collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, numerous sahih ahadith
which are mutawatir in meaning speak of the coming of the Mahdi, a man
named Muhammad bin 'Abdullah and a descendant of the Prophet
s.a.wassalam through Fatimah who will be the Leader (Imam ,Khalifah) of
the Muslims , rule for seven years and fill the world with justice and
equity after it had been filled with tyranny and oppression.He will also
fight along with Jesus son of Mary.The author, in his" The Concept of
the Mahdi among the Ahlul Sunnah" has named 37 scholars who collected
ahadith about the Mahdi with their own isnads and 69 later scholars who
wropte in support of the concept compared to 8 scholars who rejected the
idea.(page 62 of An Introduction to the Science of Hadith
published by Darusalam,Riyadh , Saudi Arabia)
The author he means seems to be `Abd al-`Alim `Abd al-`Azim who wrote a
Master's thesis titled al-Ahadeeth al-Waaridah fi al-Mahdi fi Meezan
al-Jarh wa al-Ta'deel in which he states that there are thirty two
authentic (hasan or sahih) Hadiths about Mahdi. Of these, nine of them
mention the Mahdi explicitly while the others simply give a description of
him. This quantification, of course, is unreliable as the man is obviously
not a hadith master and is using a computer to reach his conclusion.
However, he and Hasan can be cited insofar as they confirm what actual
hadith masters and the Ulema of Ahl al-Sunna have long since established.
WAllahu Ta`ala A`lam wa Ahkam.
Blessings and peace on our Master Muhammad, his Family, his Companions,
and all those loyal to him until the end of Time.
Wal-Hamdu Lillahi Rabbi-l-`Alamin.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Mr Mahdi
>The question was asked whether there is "such a thing as kingship or
>princeship or royal families in Islam and Shari`a."
Allah says in the Quran that he is the Al-Malik (The King):
20.114 High above all is Allah, the King, the Truth!
23.116 Therefore exalted be Allah, the King, the Reality: there is no god but
He, the Lord of the Throne of Honor!
Muhammad (saaw) said in Bukhari:
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 604:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
A priest from the Jews came (to the Prophet) and said, "On the Day of
Resurrection, Allah will place all the heavens on one finger, and the Earth on
one finger, and the waters and the land on one finger, and all the creation on
one finger, and then He will shake them and say. 'I am the King! I am the
King!'" I saw the Prophet smiling till his premolar teeth became visible
expressing his amazement and his belief in what he had said. Then the Prophet
recited: 'No just estimate have they made of Allah such as due to Him (up
to)...; High is He above the partners they attribute to Him.' (39.67)
Now since Allah is the Al-Malik and the mulk belongs to none but Him, the only
legitimate King is Allah. People must understand that monarchism makes man not
Allah sovereign and legislator. Some caliphates in history were described as a
"monarchy" due to the fact that the caliphate was passed down from father to
son and so on. "Mulk" does not always mean monarchy, and this is what Haddad
does not currently understand. "Mulk" means that a position of leadership is
passed on to another person based on family ties. But in English a monarchy
means a system where the king is sovereign not Allah. All caliphs in history
were given the bai`ah, while "kings" were not because the people did not have
to give the king any type of bai`ah (oath of allegience).
>A revolutionary type ("Thawri" or "Khariji" in Arabic) expressed his
>profound disapproval without providing proof.
As always, Haddad resorts to name calling and insults to make a point. One
must remember that when one is attacking Muslims and Islamic groups in the name
of sectarianism, he has no qualms in attacking Muslims he happen to disagree
with. Remember what Muhammad (saaw) said about those who act rude when
debating with people?
>Since the way of Ahl al-Sunna is different than theirs in Religion,
What do you mean by "different than theirs in Religion?" Are you saying that
anybody who disagrees with you or Hisham Qabbani and do not follow the Haqqani
sect are following a religion other than that of Ahl al-Sunnah (i.e., Islam
based on Quran and Sunnah)?
>These texts are arranged by topic under the following headings:
>
>1. Prophecy that there shall be Kingship in Islam
Typical Haddad: find a reference that has little to no connection when it
comes to proving something and then say it proves something. It is like saying
that being a meteorologist is a Fard because Allah mentioned thunder in the
Quran.
We shall see to why his "evidence" has no connection to what he is trying to
prove:
>1.1 The Prophet said - Allah bless and greet him: “This business began as
>prophethood and mercy, then mercy and a khalifate, then a voracious
>kingdom, and then arrogance and tyranny and corruption will enter the
>community.” In Qadi`Iyad's al-Shifa', chapter on the Prophet's (SAWS)
>knowledge of the Unseen. This is a proof in Islam and Shari`a that
>kingship is not as good as caliphate but is better than tyranny.
Another example of extremely bad scholarship: A Hadith mentions monarchy and
Haddad tries to say that this in a way proves that monarchism is allowed in
Islam.
The Hadith he mentions actually predicts in the most accurate detail the
various stages in Muslim history. If one studies Islamic history, this Hadith
fulfils the prophecy of how the Muslims went through various types of
CALIPHATES. Like for example, some of the caliphs passed their caliphate to
their sons or other male relatives. This is prophecized in the Hadith. This
is not justifying monarchism, because Muhammad (saaw) mentioned about the
biting (or trying) "mulk" (mulkan `aDDan) and tyrannical and oppressive "mulk"
(mulkan jabriyyatan). Look at how these "mulk" are described as "tyrannical
and biting!" Does this seem like a justification to you?
Now "mulk" means any rule passed down from family member to family member. It
does not always mean monarchism because a monarchy means that the king is the
sovereign and legislator. In the caliphate, the sovereignty belongs to Allah
and the caliph does not legislate but enact laws.
Now the reason why Haddad makes no coherent connection is that all the Hadith
mentions is about what will happen to the history of the Ummah. It does not
justify anything. For example, many Hadiths mention fitnah, but that doesn't
mean that fitnah is Halaal or justified!
This again shows the fallacy of Haddad's reasoning.
Now also customary of Haddad is to provide very lengthy and even irrelevant
references as if that will help him prove anything.
It seems that Haddad does not understand the concept of abrogation of the
Shar`a of previous Divine Laws (shar`a min qablinaa).
>4.2 Many hadiths mention that al-Mahdi shall actually "rule by Kingship"
>(yamluku) and speak of "the duration of his kingdom" (muddatu mulkihi)
Once must understand that "kingship" means that the sovereignty belongs to the
king and that he is the legislator. "Yamluk" does not mean always to rule by a
kingship. One of the sense does mean that, but "yamluk" can also mean to own
or rule. Either ruling in any type of system or ruling in a monarchy, "yamluk"
can mean both. But we know that a monarchy does not give sovereignty to Allah.
Now here are some conclusive evidence concerning the obligation of having a
Caliphate:
Abu Hurairah reported that Muhammad (saaw) said:
"The prophets ruled over the Children of Israel. Whenever a prophet died
another prophet succeeded him but there will be no prophet after me. There
will be soon Khulafaa' and they will be many. They (ra) asked, 'What then do
you order us?' He (saaw) said: 'Give allegience to them (give them the bai`ah)
one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them what He
has entrusted them to do." (Bukhari and Muslim)
Giving bai`ah to a caliph is Fard as Muhammad (saaw) mentioned:
Nafi` reported that `Abdullah ibn `Umar told him that he heard Allah's
messenger (saaw) saying:
"Whosoever takes his hand from allegience to Allah will meet Him on the Day of
Resurrection without any evidence supporting him and whosoever dies without
giving the bai`ah on his neck DIES IN A DEATH OF JAAHILIYYAH." (Muslim)
Muhammad (saaw) also said that the Ummah can only have one Caliph at a time:
Imam Muslim reported on the authority of Abu Said al-Khudri that the Messenger
of Allah (saaw) said:
"When the oath of allegience has been given to two Caliphs, kill the latter of
them." (Muslim).
To conclude, "mulk" does not always mean monarchism in the sense that ruler has
the sovereignty. It is clear that having a caliphate is fard as the evidence
above clearly proves that. Also clear is that giving the bai`ah to the caliph
is fard and whosoever doesn't is committing a sin. When the Hadith describes
the various stages of the caliphate as "mulk," it is clear that these Hadiths
are mentioning the succession of leadershop from one family member to another,
but as always, every caliph was given the bai`ah while is king is not given any
bai`ah.
May we all see the return of the Caliphate on the Path of Prophethood so we can
the see the justice of Islam on the earth. May we also pray for the
destruction of all man-made systems and beliefs such as the MONARCHY. Ameen.
Mahdi
GF Haddad
>Muhammad (saaw) said in Bukhari:
This way of saying "Muhammad" is the way of the unbelievers.
>Volume 9, Book 93, Number 604:
>Narrated 'Abdullah:
>
>A priest from the Jews came (to the Prophet) and said, "On the Day of
>Resurrection, Allah will place all the heavens on one finger, and the
Earth on
>one finger, and the waters and the land on one finger, and all the
creation on
>one finger, and then He will shake them and say. 'I am the King! I am the
>King!'" I saw the Prophet smiling till his premolar teeth became visible
>expressing his amazement and his belief in what he had said. Then the
Prophet
>recited: 'No just estimate have they made of Allah such as due to Him (up
>to)...; High is He above the partners they attribute to Him.' (39.67)
Beware of the doctrine of anthropomorphism espoused by some of those who
cite the above narration. Al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat
(al-Kawthri ed. p. 334-338; al-Hashidi ed. 2:169-170):
"About the hadith whereby a Jew – or: one of the rabbis – said to the
Prophet : “Allah places the heavens on a finger, the earths on a finger,
the trees on a finger, the undersoil on a finger, and all creatures on a
finger.” Hearing this, the Prophet (SAWS)smiled until his molar teeth
showed. Some versions state [two out of four in al-Bukhari, none in
Muslim's two]: “he smiled in confirmation of the rabbi’s words.” Then he
said: And they esteem not Allah as He has the right to be esteemed
(39:67). Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said:
"The Jews are anthropomorphists, and they claim that part of the re-vealed
Torah consists in expressions that support anthropomor-phism. However, the
Muslims do not accept such expressions among their doctrines. It is
established that the Prophet said: “Whatever the People of the Book
narrate to you, neither believe nor disbelieve them, but say: We believe
in Allah and whatever was revealed to us (2:136).” The Prophet (SAWS) is
the most apt of all creation to have applied this com-mand in the above
report. The proof for the veracity of this fact is that he did not utter a
single word to confirm nor deny it. All that he let show was a smile,
which in one case expresses approval, in another, surprise and
disapproval. Then he recited the verse which may apply to either case, but
there is no mention of fingers in the verse. As for the words of one of
the narrators – “in confirmation of the rabbi’s words” – they are pure
speculation, and the matter of this supposed confirmation remains a weak
view for what he let show does not explicitly disclose one view over the
other.... To adduce a proof from smiling or laughter in such a tremendous
instance is therefore not allowed in the presence of two conflicting
interpretations for the evidence. "
Al-Qurtubi explained the Prophet’s (SAWS) smile here to mean disapproval
in light of the verse that follows it.
>Now since Allah is the Al-Malik and the mulk belongs to none but Him, the
only
>legitimate King is Allah. People must understand that monarchism makes
man not
>Allah sovereign and legislator.
By the above misguided answer he has made Dawud and Sulayman "sovereign
and legislator" besides Allah, when Allah Most High Himself said: {He
gives Mulk to whomever He will}!
The rest is a befuddled attempt at refutation of the evident proofs I
listed, as I had predicted this non-guided Mahdi would do.
Was-Salam `ala man ittaba`a al-Huda.
Rahim
This is a matter of great import to Muslims today. So I decided to say few words
on this topic. Before I address some specifics of Brother Haddad's post, I will
summarise as I understand the Quranic stand is on the nature of government among
the Muslims.
The Quran gives us no system, only some general principles. This is not an
omission, rather it is by design that the details of the system of government
are not stated. Such a fixation would clearly negate the space-time related
effects on the system of government, i.e. there can be no detailed specification
of a system of government that would prove useful for all places and over the
long history of mankind on this Earth. Quran being what we call NATURAL, does
not ask us for anything UNNATURAL. So the detailed system of government is to be
evolved for the Muslims, By the Muslims. Such a system ofcourse makes full
advantage of the general principles that Quran does address.
So what we should look towards Quran for a system of government is a collection
of general principles. That would form something like the constitution. Its
detailed implementation would certainly depend on who implements it, where it is
implemented and when is it implemented. This would be perfectly fine in view of
the great evolution of the human society.
Now the Quran is not a treatise on anything specifically topical. It addressed
life situations as they arose over its 23 years of gradual revelation. Those
aspects are addressed for which there was a specific occasion in the society and
events of that space-time of 7-8th century Arabia. For other situations there is
more or less nothing that specifically applies to them. Of course there are
general principles that we talked about above and which are a fine constitution
for not only Muslims but any civilized society.
Now let us list the general principles that Quran offers for a system of
government.
1. Quran 42:38
2. Quran 48:29
3. Quran 8:73
4. Quran 3:103
5. Quran 3:110, 3:104, and 22:78 together
6. etc.
In discussing this important topic we can not argue from individual Ayahs alone.
We need to have some consensus understanding of what the Quranic grand scheme of
things is, and what is the HIKMAH part of the Quran and what is detailed address
to specific situations. We need to have a clear vision as to what a Muslim
system of government is expected to accomplish.
I offer the following high level Quranic intent for a system of government. This
system must accomplish the following.
1. Produce an environment in which the society naturally develops wise, strong
and non superstitious people with an ever increasing degree of TAQWA.
2. These individuals must be able to come up with a reasonable system of
government that is based on SHURA.
3. The Shura based individual governments within the UMMAH must find a system of
cooperating and allied governments. This system and its people collectively
constitutes the Ummah. The Ummah must be able to establish the righteousness and
abolish the fasad not only from the territories of the Ummah, but from the
entire World/Earth. Only then can we be the Khalifah of Allah on Earth as the
original intention was. This obviously can not be done except from a POSITION OF
STRENGTH with respect to Non-Muslim countries of the world taken together
The picture that emerges for a system of government has absolutely no place for
the type of government rampant within the Islamic countries today, with noteable
exceptions like those of Iran and Malaysia. They are fine examples of a Muslim
system of Government in a Muslim majority country and one that is a totally
pluralistic country.
It is irrelevant what we call them, Kingship, Queenship, Amirship, OnePartship.
Under any name they are inconsistent with the above requirements of the Quran.
Now it is naive to expect that those Kings and Amirs and Presidents etc will not
use their muscles to label themselves as "Islamic". But such tricknology has
been overused and there is nodoubt in my mind that the people in general will
see through them.
Brother Haddad's post is very long. I will only address it in the passing below.
GF Haddad wrote:
>
> As-Salamu `alaykum:
>
> The question was asked whether there is "such a thing as kingship or
> princeship or royal families in Islam and Shari`a."
>
> I said yes, because there are so many texts to that effect.
The question concerns the real life as it impacts day in and day out. It is not
a question needing endless debates based on "WORDS" in the TEXTS. The biggest
word in the texts is the FACULTIES that ALLAH created MAN/WOMAN with. We have it
and we must use it and that is why Allah created us with them.
So a mindless struggle with WORDS is neither required nor desired: in fact it
may lead to more problems.
>
> A revolutionary type ("Thawri" or "Khariji" in Arabic) expressed his
> profound disapproval without providing proof.
Proof of the pudding is often in the eating. There is no need to get hung over
words from the history. We need to use what humans use noprmally i.e.
Come up a working solution
Learn as we use it
Improve it via feed back mechanisms
So we do not need to wait untill the problem has been solved completely. As soon
as we have a reasonably practical solution the above cyclucal process can kick
in.
>
> Since the way of Ahl al-Sunna is different than theirs in Religion, and
> since we fear speaking of this Religion without proof, here are the
> proofs.
We must speak of the Way of Muslims, not way of the AHLASSUNNAH etc.. To bring
in the SECTARIANS is a recipe for self defeat.
>
> If that person fears Allah, he should provide his proofs. Not simply deny
> each these, as I suspect he will do - for lack of an alternative.
This is what they call PIGMELIAN EFFECT. You set yourself for failure at the
very outset by an ATTITUDE like the one you display here.
You make assumptions about others and about yourself. These assumpsions are
quite contrary to any semblance of PROOF :-)
>
> --
>
> Proof-texts for the concepts of malakiyya - "monarchy, kingship,
> royalty" - and mul kiyya - "monarchic rule, monarchism, kingship,
> royalty" - as viable systems in Islam and Shari`a.
>
> These texts are arranged by topic under the following headings:
>
> 1. Prophecy that there shall be Kingship in Islam
Assuming that there is such a Prophecty, it is an indication of something that
will happen. It is not an endorsement of that thing, or that of its happening.
> 2. Exalted Status of Righteous Monarchy and Kingship in the Qur'an and the
> Sunna
These texts address concrete situations, talking to a specific generation of
people, using VOCABULARY as is understood by them.
There is no need to get hung up on these things. We need to understand the big
picture and develop small details to fit that big picture.
> 3. Every Epoch has a Divinely-Appointed King Reflecting Its People
What is the KING of USA for today's Epoch? Who ever is filling those shoes today
in most of the Euro America is certainly not DIVINELY APPOINTED.
So please do not get hung up on WORDS!
> 4. The Awaited Mahdi (AS) Shall be a King
What does it mean to us today? Should we fill the Islamic countries with KINGS.
Replace the representative governments by Kings? Should we avoid process of
SHURA?
So please do not get hung up on WORDS!
> 5. Belief in the Mahdi is Obligatory in Islam
Says who?
Who is Mahdi?
What is the use/misuse for such a belief. Remember the Mahdi Sudani?
It is mindless parrotlike recitation of the Words like brother Haddad provides a
fine example of, that is killing the Muslims. This must stop and so it shall.
>
> --
>
> 1. Prophecy that there shall be Kingship in Islam
>
> 1.1 The Prophet said - Allah bless and greet him: This business began as
> prophethood and mercy, then mercy and a khalifate, then a voracious
> kingdom, and then arrogance and tyranny and corruption will enter the
> community. In Qadi`Iyad's al-Shifa', chapter on the Prophet's (SAWS)
> knowledge of the Unseen. This is a proof in Islam and Shari`a that
> kingship is not as good as caliphate but is better than tyranny. Here are
> some narrations to that effect in their precise wordings insha Allah:
How about the arrogant, corrupt, and tyrant kings?
You can not see them around. So what is this non sense of "Kingship is better
than Tyranny?"
You can find them around in the Muslim countries. By the way where does the Amir
of Kuwait and Saddam fit into this scheme?
Words more words ... Reminds me of a French pop song that went something like
Parole Parole Parole
>
> 1.2 Successorship (al-khil fa) after me shall last for thirty years.
> After that, there will be kingship. Imam Ahmad declared this narration
> sound and adduced it as a proof for the caliphate of the four Imams. A
> sound hadith narrated from Safina by al-Tirmidhi (hasan) with a fair chain
> ac-cording to Shaykh Abd Allah al-Talidi who declared it sah h because of
> its cor-robo-rative and witness-chains in his edition of al-Suyuti s
> Tahdhib al-Khasa is (p. 293 #375); also narrated by al-Nasa i, Abu Dawud,
> Ahmad in his Musnad with two chains; al-Hakim; Ibn Hibban with two fair
> chains as stated by al-Arna ut (15:34 #6657, 15:392 #6943); al-Tayalisi in
> his Musnad (p. 151, 479); and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir with several chains.
> This narration is among the Proofs of Prophethood (dal il al-nubuwwa)
> as the sum of the first five caliphates is exactly thirty years: two years
> and three months for Abu Bakr, ten years and a half for Umar, twelve
> years for Uthman, four years and nine months for Ali, and six months for
> al-Hasan as narrated from Safina by al-Suyuti in Tahdhib al-Khasa is (p.
> 293 #375) and Tarikh al-Khulafa (p. 22, 198-199). Al-Dhahabi cites the
> saying by Mu awiya: I am the first of the kings (an awwalu al-mul k) in
> the Siyar (3:157).
OK so the Reign of Yazid Bin Muawia was fine, Assassination of Hussain Ibne Ali
was just in order. The behaviour of Hajjaj with Abdullah Bin Zubair was all as
the Prophet willed it.
Have some life brother! Do not get hung up on words. God gave you the brain so
you use it!
>
> 1.3 To the man who said: O Messenger of Allah! I saw in my dream as if a
> balance came down from the heaven in which you were weighed against Abu
> Bakr and outweighed him, then Abu Bakr was weighed against Umar and
> outweighed him, then Umar was weighed against Uthman and outweighed him,
> then the balance was raised up. The Prophet ? said: Successorship of
> prophethood (khil fa nubuwwa)! Then Allah shall give kingship to whomever
> He will. Narrated from Abu Bakrah by Ahmad with three chains, Abu Dawud,
> and al-Tirmidhi who said: hasan sah h, and from Safina by Abu Dawud with a
> fair chain and al-Bazzar with a fair chain as indicated by al-Haythami.
> Al-Tirmidhi s narration omits the last statement of the Prophet (SAWS).
> Al-Hakim narrated it with a chain similar to al-Tirmidhi s and graded it
> sah h, and al-Dhahabi concurred.
Same comments as already given.
Sorry I can not go on with the narrations that say the same theme over and over
again and just waste more paper and bandwidh! It is such behaviour that is
keeping the Muslims from the STRAIGHT PATH.
>
>
> GF Haddad
> Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Mr Mahdi
>Salam `alaykum:
I am quite suprised he said this to me and I will show why later on...
>>Muhammad (saaw) said in Bukhari:
>
>This way of saying "Muhammad" is the way of the unbelievers.
This is one of the most craziest things I have ever read. What "way" am I
saying Muhammad (saaw) in? Is writing "sallaa Allah `alaihi wa sallam" (as in
writing the abbreviation "saaw') after saying Muhammad a way of of unbeliever?
Are you making takfeer on me? Is this is what you Haqqani sect or leader
Hisham Qabbani taught you to do with people who refuse to accept bid`ah? Is
disagreeing with you or Qabbani worthy of you making takfeer? Have you no
sense of shame? Where is your adab? Is this a sign of frustration?
For some strange reason Haddad seems to think I believe in the kufr of
anthropomophism. I have no idea where on Allah's earth where or even how he
got that idea from and I am just at a lost for words at the low levels Haddad
decided to go to. He has committed the lowest blow and he even made takfeer on
me. I am almost speechless. From accusing me of saying Muhammad in a way of
an unbeliever to trying to portray me a believer is anthromorphism is something
I would never expect from my worse enemies.
>By the above misguided answer he has made Dawud and Sulayman "sovereign
>and legislator" besides Allah, when Allah Most High Himself said: {He
>gives Mulk to whomever He will}!
By his misguided response, I have mentioned in the previous post that the
"shar`a min qablinaa" have been abrogated. Furthermore, I am quite suprised at
Haddad's lack of understanding Arabic. "Mulk" means many things, including
domain. As I have mentioned in the last post, the "mulk" can be any type of
system that has the leadership being passed down from father to son and so on.
Many caliphs have passed down their caliphate to their sons and other
relatives. This is a "mulk" but still, in such a *caliphate* Allah is still
the Law Maker and He is still sovereign.
It seems that you are making Dawud and Sulaiman into great sinners. Dawud and
Sulaiman obeyed Allah, they enacted laws in their domain without going against
the laws of Allah. Sovereignty belongs to Allah, and Allah GIVE AUTHORITY to
whom He wills. Authority means that you are given the right to be a ruler or
leader of a nation. But that doesn't mean you can make Halaal Haraam and vice
versa.
>The rest is a befuddled attempt at refutation of the evident proofs I
>listed, as I had predicted this non-guided Mahdi would do.
Muhammad (saaw) said in a Hadith about the signs of a Munaafiq:
1. When ever he speaks, he tells a lie.
2. Whenever he promises, he always breaks it.
3. If you trust him, he proves to be dishonest.
4. WHENEVER HE QUARRELS, HE BEHAVES IN A VERY IMPRUDENT, EVIL, INSULTING
MANNER.
Why when anybody disagrees with Haddad and expose his fallacies he attacks
them, insults them, make tafseeq and even takfeer on them? Why can't he argue
in a way that is in accordance to Quran and Sunnah?
And he dares call me non-guided? I follow the Quran and Sunnah to the best of
my ability, I don't need to Haqqani/Naqshbandi person to tell me how to praise
Allah the Most High. I don't call Muslims to participate in kufr politics when
Allah's Laws are the only legitimate laws for mankind. I don't embrace killers
of Muslims like I have seen Qabbani and his sect do to Mubaarak, Islam Karimov,
"King" Hussain, and the rest of the tyrants and oppressors of Muslims. I don't
make it my life attack Muslims and Islamic groups in the name of sectarianism.
Now look at what he says in a sign that he is truly frustrated:
>Was-Salam `ala man ittaba`a al-Huda.
In other words, to him I am a kaafir and I do not believe in the `aqeedah of
Islam. He has no shame in his low, unIslamic tactics and may he realize his
unIslamic behavior before its too late. Muhammad (saaw) said in a Hadith that
when there are two people and one of them call each other kaafir then one of
them is a kaafir.
In others words, when debating with Haddad, do forget what Muhammad (saaw)
said:
WHENEVER HE QUARRELS, HE BEHAVES IN A VERY IMPRUDENT, EVIL, INSULTING MANNER.
Mahdi
GF Haddad
>Now look at what he says in a sign that he is truly frustrated:
>
>>Was-Salam `ala man ittaba`a al-Huda.
>
>In other words, to him I am a kaafir and I do not believe in the `aqeedah
of
>Islam. He has no shame in his low, unIslamic tactics and may he realize
his
>unIslamic behavior before its too late.
Tell it to Imam Ahmad Faruq al-Sirhindi. He signed each of his hundreds of
letters, as printed under the title Maktubat Imam Rabbani, with this very
same phrase.
>WHENEVER HE QUARRELS, HE BEHAVES IN A VERY IMPRUDENT, EVIL, INSULTING
MANNER.
Impudent is what the hadith said. But, yes, both apply.
Was-Salam `ala man ittaba`a al-Huda.
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Arshad
A brother wrote this in response to GF Haddad here on SRI:
> And he dares call me non-guided? I follow the Quran and Sunnah to the
> best of my ability, I don't need to Haqqani/Naqshbandi person to tell
> me how to praise Allah the Most High.
The Naqbashandis (Haqqani's and Kabbani's sect, not the other, unless
they use these sources) will now be refuted, using their own sources.
The greatest danger of this group lies in the fact that
they, while wearing the cloak of Islaam, are striving to
destroy it from within, in a vain attempt to extinguish the
light of Islaam and divert the Muslims from the true
religion.
In all fairness to this group we have given the names of
the books , along with the page number from where we
have taken these quotes. Reference to the Qur’aanic
Aayaat and authentic Hadith too have been provided.
Those sincerely interested in finding out the truth may
refer to these books and the Qur’aan and Hadith and
verify for themselves its authenticity. This
is by no means a complete exposition of the
entirety of this group’s deviant beliefs and teachings,
which is beyond the scope of this article we pray that
this serves to remove the confusion and ignorance that the
people are suffering from regarding this important issue and
that it will save the sincere seekers of the truth from falling
in to Shirk.
1) The Islaamic Belief : Allaah is the Only Truth
Allaah (subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
"That is because Allaah - He is the Truth and it is He
who gives life to the dead" (Qur’aan, Chapter 22, Verse
6)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Aba Yazid Al Bistami is the Truth
On page 15 of the Book 'The Naqshabandi Way' it reads -
" Whoever recites Bismillaah and the verses
Amana'r-Rasul untill the end, even a single time will
attain a high rank and a great position.......he will get
what the Prophets and Saints could not get, and will arrive
at the stage of Aba Yazid Al-Bistami, the Imam of the
order who said: "I am the Truth (al-Haqq)".
The above statement 'I am the Truth' - is a clear example
of Shirk (association) in the aspect of the Names and
Attributes of Allaah, Since Al-Haqq in the definite form, is
one of Allaah's Unique attributes and is not shared by any
created being or thing unless preceded by the prefix 'Abd
meaning "Slave of" or "Servant of". (In fact the Mystic
al-Hallaaj was publicly executed as an apostate for daring
to openly claim divinity in his infamous pronouncement
"Anal-Haqq - I am the Truth" ). '
2) The Islaamic Belief : None Shares With The Command of Allaah
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
"Verily, His (Allaah's) Command, When He Intends a
Thing, is only that he says to it, "Be ! And it is!" -
(Qur’aan, Chapter 36, Verse 82).
Also in another place in the Qur’aan, Allaah Says -
“They have no Protector other than Him (Allaah); Nor
does He Share His Command With any person
Whatsoever" - (Qur’aan, Chapter 18, Verse 26)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh Shares with The
Command of Allaah
On page 33 of the book 'Mercy Oceans" -Part 1, it reads
“The power of the wali is such that he only needs to say
Kun ( be) and that will be.”
The above is another clear example of Shirk (association)
in the aspect of the Lordship of Allaah, Since the Islaamic
principle of the Lordship of Allaah States that no created
being can share in God's attributes and Infinite Qualities,
and any attempt to give the divine attributes to creation
is referred to as Shirk (association), the antithesis of
Tawheed (Singling out Allaah Alone for Worship)
3) The Islaamic Belief : None Could Attain The Rank of the Prophets or
their Companions
The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) has
said in a well known Hadith that
"The Best of People are those living in my generation,
and then those who will follow them, and then those
who will follow the latter..." (Saheeh Bukhaaree,Vol
5,Hadith # 3, Arabic-English Translation)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Certain people could attain a
Rank higher than the Prophets and their Companions
On page 1 of the Book 'The Naqshabandi Way' it reads
“ Our master the Sheikh says that a person who manages
to act on these Principles (spiritual) in our times will
achieve What earlier generations did not
achieve................he who attains an exalted stage and a
great rank, such a rank which the Prophets themselves
and the companions were unable to attain.”
On page 4 of the same Book it reads,
“ Especially those who hold to the Prophets Sunnah, will
attain special stations that weren't opened to earlier
people - Not even to the Prophets Companions.”
The deviant claim of attaining the Rank which the
Prophet's could not is a major deception of the
Naqshabandiya as any Muslim with even the basic
knowledge of Islaam will confirm, as regards the
Companions (May Allaah be pleased with them all) The
Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) in a hadith
narrated by Anas bin Maalik (Radhiallaahu Anhu) said -
"After me, you will see others given preference to you,
so be patient till you meet me." (Saheeh Bukhaaree,Vol
5, Hadith # 137, Arabic - English Trans)
He (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) also said in reference to
his Companions ( May Allaah be pleased with them all)
"For by Him in Whose hand is my soul, If you were to
spend the like of uhud or of the mountains in gold, You
would not reach their actions." ( Saheeh Bukhaaree )
4) The Islaamic Belief : Allaah is above the Heavens
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
“ Do you feel secure, that He (Allaah), who is above
the Heavens, will not cause the Earth to sink with you
" ( Qur’aan, Chapter 67, Verse 16 ).
And in a long Hadith found in Saheeh Muslim, it is
narrated that the Companion Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) Slapped his servant girl who used to
tend his sheep, and as a result went to the Prophet
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) and asked what should be
done as an atonement for having slapped her.The Prophet
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied: "Bring her to me"
so Mu'awiyah brought her to the Prophet (Sallallaahu
Alaihi Wasallam), the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi
Wasallam) then asked her “Where is Allaah?” and she
replied “Above the Sky” then the Prophet (Sallallaahu
Alaihi Wasallam) asked her “Who am I?” and she replied
“You are Allaah's Messenger” so the Prophet
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, “Free her, for verily
she is a true believer.” (Saheeh Muslim, Vol 1, Hadith #
1094 - Eng Trans)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Allaah is Everywhere
On page 13 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani in the last
paragraph it reads “Allaah Almighty is everywhere but
specially in the Baitullaah.”
The concept of Allaah being everywhere is not Islaamic as
the above Qur’aanic Aayaah and the Authentic hadith
confirm, Indeed if Allaah was everywhere then there would
have been no need for the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi
Wasallam) to go up through the seven skies on the night
of Mi'raaj to meet Allaah, he would have been in the direct
presence of Allaah on the earth in his very own house.
5) The Islaamic Belief : None has the knowledge of
the Last day except Allaah.
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
"Verily the knowledge of the hour is with Allaah
(alone)." (Qur’aan, Chapter 31, Verse 34)
And according to the well known Hadith, where Angel
Jibreel (Alaihis Salaam) came in the guise of a man, we
quote the part of the hadith that is relevant to our matter,
after asking about Islaam, Imaan and Ihsaan, Angel
Jibreel (Alaihis Salaam) asks Prophet Muhammad
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) “then tell me about the Hour
(Meaning the last day)”, the Prophet Muhammad
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied "The One
Questioned about it knows no better than the
Questioner." (Saheeh Muslim, Vol 1, Hadith # 4,
English Translation)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh Has the Knowledge of
the Last day.
In the beginning of page 19 of the Book 'Mercy Oceans'
part one it reads -
" These signs that have been given us indicate that the
Last day is coming is nearly exactly now............we shall
witness that great event within two years.”
The above book (Mercy Oceans) was published in 1987
and it is almost nine years since its publication, but the
Last day is still not witnessed, how could it be when
indeed Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) has clearly stated in
the Qur’aan
"Say None in the heavens and the earth knows the
Unseen except Allaah." ( Qur’aan, Chapter 27, Verse 65)
6) The Islaamic Belief : Believers and Disbelievers are
not equal.
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
"The likeness of the two parties (Disbelievers and
Believers) is as the blind and the deaf and the seer
and the hearer. Are they equal when compared ? Will
you not then take heed?" ( Qur’aan, Chapter 11, Verse
24 )
The Naqshabandi Belief : Believers and Disbelievers are
Equal
On page 12 of the Book 'The Naqshabandi Way' it reads,
" Allaah does not distinguish betweeen the non believer
and the fasiq (wrong doer) or between a believer and a
Muslim, In fact they are all equal to him,”
Further more on page 16 of the same Book it reads,
"Allaah does not distinguish between a kafir or a hypocrite
or between a Saint and a Prophet".
7) The Islaamic Belief : No Intermediary between
Allaah and Man.
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
"And your Lord said : Invoke Me, I will respond to
your Invocation." (Qur’aan, Chapter 40, Verse 60)
And, in another place,
"And When My Servants ask you (O Muhammad)
concerning me, then (answer them), I am indeed near
(to them in Knowledge), I respond to the Invocations
of the supplicant when he calls on me." (Qur’aan,
Chapter 2, Verse 186)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh is Intermediary between
Allaah and Man.
On page 23 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani it reads,
" If there wasn't Sheikh Nazim between us and Allaah
Almighty, no one would be able to reach to Divine
knowledge..........this is because Sheikh Nazim is the
Intermediary between us and these stations "
8) The Islaamic Belief : No Spokesman Between
Allaah and Man on the Day of Judgement.
Adi bin Hatim (Radhiallaahu Anhu) reported that Allaah's
Messenger (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,
"There is none of you but his Lord will certainly talk
with him without any Spokesman between him and his
Lord." ( Sunan Ibn I Maajah, Vol 1, Hadith # 185, Arabic -
Eng Trans ).
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh will be a Spokesman
Between man and Allaah on the Day of Judgement.
On page 11 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani it reads
“When a person takes Bayyath from Sheikh, Sheikh will be
with that person, even untill he reaches in front of Allaah
Almighty will Sheikh be with him, When Allaah Almighty
questions this person Sheikh shall answer all questions
instead of him.”
9) The Islaamic Belief : For anything to happen It is
Only what Allaah alone wills
Once a companion of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi
Wasallam) concluded his statement to the Prophet
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) with the phrase "It is what
Allaah wills and you will?" The Prophet (Sallallaahu
Alaihi Wasallam) Immedietly corrected him saying - "Are
you making me an equal to Allaah? Say: It is what
Allaah alone wills." (Collected by Ahmad)
The Naqshabandi Belief : It is what Allaah and the Saint
wills.
On page 23 of the Book Quthub us Sailan which is written
by the local head of the group, it reads
“One morning in the newspapers, I read that the wakf
board had taken over the Dewatagaha Mosque sacking the
chief trustee at the time, chairman of the welfare
commitee and chief trustee, M.I.M.Shaukat came to my
place a couple of days later to find out what he could do
in that matter as chief trustee, I told him that if it was
the Will of Allaah and the Saint, well nothing could be
done on his part.”
10) The Islaamic Belief : Allaah is in Charge of
Creation.
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
"And Allaah is a Wakil (Disposer of affairs, guardian
e.t.c) over all things" (Qur’aan, Chapter 11, Verse 12)
And, in another place, Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says:
"He (Allaah) arranges (every) affair from the heavens
to the earth." (Qur’aan, Chapter 32, Verse 4)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh is in charge of Creation.
On page 15 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani it reads,
“Every thing that you know of is under the spiritual control
of the Sultan ul Awliya, He is the one who is in charge of
all mankind in this universe, he is also in charge of all the
world of Jinns and Angels.”
Again the above belief is one of Shirk (association) in the
aspect of the Lordship of Allaah, as has been explained
before.
11) The Islaamic Belief : None Can Change a Bad
Situation except Allaah.
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
"And If Allaah touches you with harm, None can
remove it but He..." (Qur’aan, Chapter 6, Verse 17)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh can change a Bad
Situation.
On page 26 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani in the 2nd
Paragraph it reads -
“If a bad situation is to come to a mureed of his, Sheikh
has the power to change it”
12) The Islaamic Belief : None can make anyone enter
Paradise or save from Hell, Except Allaah.
The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) said
in an authentic Hadith -
"O People of Quraysh, Secure deliverance from Allaah
(by doing good deeds) I can not help you at all against
Allaah, O sons of Abdul-Muttalib, I can not help you at
all against Allaah; O (my uncle) Abbas ibn Abdul
Muttalib, O (my Aunt) Safeeyah, I can not help you at
all against Allaah; O Faatimah, daughter of Muhammad,
ask me whatever you like, but I have nothing which can
help you against Allaah." - ( Saheeh Muslim, Vol 1,
Hadith # 402, English Trans ).
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh can make one enter
Paradise and save one from Hell.
On page 30 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani , in the 3rd
paragraph it reads -
“Sheikh will not allow any of his Mureeds to enter
Hell,................Sheikh Nazim shall make all his followers
to enter into this Paradise.”
13) The Islaamic Belief : The Angel of Death will
take the soul of the dying.
Allaah (Subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
" Say the Angel of Death, who is set over you, will take
your souls, then you shall be brought to your Lord." (
Qur’aan, Chapter 32, Verse 11 )
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh will take the soul of the
dying.
On page 35 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani under the
heading ‘No questioning in the grave ' it reads -
“As for anyone who is related to Sheikh Nazim as a
mureed the Angel of Death Israel (Alai) will have nothing
to do with him, the soul of this mureed at the time of his
death will be taken by Sheikh Nazim, he shall look at the
mureed and immediately the soul of that mureed will
leave his body, there is nothing for either the Angel of
death or for the Angels of the grave to do with the
mureeds of Sheikh Nazim.”
14) The Islaamic Belief : No Hidden Knowledge in
Islaam, Everything is given in the Qur’aan and
Sunnah.
The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) said
in an authentic Hadith -
"I have not left Anything which Allaah ordered you
with, except that I have ordered you with it, nor
Anything that Allaah forbade you, except that I
forbade you from it." ( Saheeh - Al Baihaqee 7 :76,
Arabic )
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh has hidden Knowledge.
In spite of the above clear hadith, the deviant
Naqshabandi claim that there is ' 'Secret Knowledge' with
the Sheikh, for example on page 60-61 of the Book
Haqiqat ul Haqqani in the 3rd paragraph it reads -
“Vast amounts of hidden knowledge have been
communicated to his Mureeds by Sheikh Nazim in this
manner, Questions by these mureeds regarding day to day
life, or questions relating to religion and also many other
subjects have been answered by Sheikh Nazim, when this
type of communication has been granted to a mureed, he
no longer needs to resort to books in order to further his
knowledge.”
15) The Islaamic Belief : When Allaah Loves a
Person......
The Messenger of Allaah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam)
said as Narrated by Abu Huraira (Radhiallaahu Anhu) that:
"...Allaah said... the most beloved things with which my
slave comes nearer to Me, is with what I have enjoined
upon him, and my slave keeps on coming closer to Me
through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra
deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I
become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and
his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with
which he grips..." (Saheeh Bukhaaree, Vol 8, Hadith 509,
Arabic - English Trans)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Directly contradicts the above
hadith.
On page 62 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani, in the last
paragraph it reads -
“Certain of the mureeds of Sheikh Nazim experience that
Sheikh appears within them, when this happens, they are
no longer conscious of themselves as themselves, they
lose their Identity and are conscious of themselves as
their Sheikh, They see through Sheikh's eyes when they
look, they hear through Sheikh's ears when they hear, and
they speak Sheikh's words when they speak...”'
The Naqshbandi Belief : Sheikh can be in any place at the
same time.
On page 33 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani it reads,
“Sheikh Nazim can also be present in his shape and body
in several places at the same time .”
Also on page 65 of the same Book it reads in the 2nd
paragraph,
“Sometimes, mureeds have been transported to other
countries and places .....some are known to have visited
Mecca, Medina, London and Baghdad in moments by the
power and the grace of Sheikh Nazim.
16) The Islaamic Position : On the aforegoing
Naqshabandi Position
In a Hadith the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi
Wasallam) said -
" There are three types of Jinn, One type flies through
the air..." (Transmitted by Al-Hakam, At-Tabarani and
Al-Baihaqi - Arabic)
The Naqshabandi Belief : Sheikh has Two Faces.
On page 21 of the Book Haqiqat ul Haqqani in the first
paragraph describing Sheikh Nazim, it reads -
' He (Sheikh) now has a face towards the creatures and a
face towards Allaah Almighty, therefore he is with Allaah
Almighty all the time!'
The Islaamic Position On the Above.
The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam)
Rightly said as reported by the companion Abu Huraira
(Radhiallaahu Anhu) who said that Allaah's Messenger
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) said -
" The worst amongst the people is the double faced
one..." ( Saheeh Muslim, Vol 4, Hadith # 6300 - English
Translation )
Also, the Companion Ammar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) Reported
the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) as saying:
"He who is two Faced in this world, will have two
tongues, of fire on the Day of Resurrection." (Sunan
Abu Dawud, Vol 3, Hadith # 4855 - English Translation).
Conclusion
>From the preceding, concise presentation of the
Naqshabandi groups deviant beliefs, Inshaa'Allaah there
should not remain even the slightest inkling of a doubt in
the mind of the sincere reader about the groups deviant
nature and falsehood, It is only the ignorant, grossly
biased and dishonest sympathisers of the group who will
still maintain the view that the groups teachings and
beliefs are in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah,
since it has been clearly and decisively proven to be just
the exact opposite,.
In the aforegoing article, the reader would have noticed
that every thing of the pure Islaamic Belief mentioned has
been contradicted by this deviant group. In fact the
Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) had
warned us about the appearence of such deviant groups,
when he said in an authentic narration reported by Abu
Amir al-Hawdani (Radhiallaahu Anhu),
" Indeed those who were before you, from the people of
the Book (Jews & Christians), Split into seventy two sects,
and this religion will split into seventy three, seventy two
will go in to the Hell fire, and one of them will go to
Paradise, and it is the Jama'ah " ( Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol
3, Hadith # 4580, English Translation )
Then there is no doubt that each of these groups claims
for itself that it is the saved group, and that it is correct
and that it alone follows the Messenger (Sallallaahu Alaihi
Wasallam), but the way of truth is a single way and it is
the one which leads to salvation, and any other way is
one of the ways of misguidance which leads to destruction
as has been clearly explained by the Prophet (Sallallaahu
Alaihi Wasallam) in another hadith reported by the
Companion Abdullaah ibn Masood (Radhiallaahu Anhu)
who said,
" Allaah's Messenger (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) drew a
line with his hand and said, 'This is the Straight path of
Allaah' he then drew lines to its right and to its left and
said, 'These are the other paths, Which represent
misguidance and that at the head of each path sat a devil
inviting people to it (path), He then recited "And Verily,
This is My Straight Path, So Follow It, And Follow Not
(other) Paths, For They Will Seperate You Away From His
Path - Qur’aan, Chapter 6, Verse 153, ( Collected in
Mishkaat ul Maasabih, Vol 1, Hadith # 166, Arabic English
Translation and reported by Ahmad, Nasaai & Daarimi )
So the path of truth is to stick to the Book of Allaah and
to the Sunnah of His Messenger (Sallallaahu Alaihi
Wasallam) as occurs in the following Hadith, The Prophet
(Sallallaahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,
" I Have left you with two things, as long as you hold to
them, you will never go astray, they are the Book of
Allaah and My Sunnah " (Collected by Imaam Maalik
(Rahimahullah) in his Muwatta, The Book of Decree, 46/
Hadith # 3, Page 434, English Translation )
So the Criterion to Judge the claim of any group or
Individual who claims to be on the Right path, is to see
how close its beliefs and teachings are in accordance with
the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
The external deceptive claim of the Naqshabandi group,
under the guise of Islaam should not be a means of
confusion to any body as to the Reality of its deviant
nature, History is a witness to the well known slogan ' If
you can not beat them, then join them '- This is exactly
what the group is doing, its aim is to destroy Islaam from
within, wearing the cloak of Islaam. A serious effort
should be made to enlighten those of the groups followers
who may be genuinely seeking the light of pure Islaam,
but as a result of the groups brainwashing have fallen in
to its clutches, because whatever has been said in this
booklet is not to be taken lightly, since this is a matter
that could take a person completely outside of Islaam in
to Kufr (Disbelief), this is not mere opinion of laymen but
the verdict of the Ulemaa of Islaam who have pronounced
that anyone holding such Wierd beliefs which are
contradicting the very fundamentals of Islaamic Belief and
continue to persist in such beliefs even after the evidence
has been clearly shown to them, risk been falling outside
the fold of Islaam . It should be kept in mind that the
above statements are being made for conveying
knowledge and not to make declaration of Kufr ( Disbelief)
on any people. It is compulsory on the Ulemaa to make an
effort to inform the public through all means available
about the groups deviant nature. Articles exposing the
group should be written and distributed, many muslims
have passively sat by for a longtime, believing that the
group would soon fizzle out and disappear, instead its
cancerous growth has continued unabated and unchecked.
As for those who in spite of what they have read, continue
to have misgivings about exposing the group due to their
desire to maintain an image of unity with respect to
Islaam, then let them reflect on the following incident,
"When some people mentioned to Imaam Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal (Rahimahullaah) that they felt uneasy about
criticizing people (who had deviated in their beliefs) He
replied ' If I were to remain silent, How then would the
masses know truth from falsehood' " (Reported by Imaam
Ibn Taymeeyah in Majmoo'ah ar-Rasaail Wa al-Masaail,
Vol 4, Page 10, Arabic ). According to the unanimous
agreement of muslim scholars, those who introduce
deviant writings and religious rites, contrary to the
Qur’aan and Sunnah have to be exposed and the muslim
nation warned against them, in fact When Imaam Ahmad
Ibn Hanbal (Rahimahullaah) was asked if one who fasted,
prayed and secluded himself in the Masjid was dearer to
him than one who spoke out against people involved in
deviations, he replied When one fasts, prays and secludes
oneself, he does so for himself alone, But if he speaks out
against deviations, he does so for muslims in general
which is more noble, With this we end this article, after
having read this article if you believe it is your duty and
responsibility to Allaah, to warn your brothers and sisters
then please do not be a silent spectator, spread the truth
to the best of your ability, perchance you may save a soul
or two from the deviant clutches of the group.
We ask Allaah, to give all of us the Towfeek to recognize
the truth, to understand it, to implement it and to call to it.
Wasalaam,
Arshad
http://get.to/islam
Altway 2
<i_found_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>The Naqshabandi Belief : Allaah is Everywhere
>The concept of Allaah being everywhere is not Islaamic as
the above Qur’aanic Aayaah and the Authentic hadith
confirm, Indeed if Allaah was everywhere then there would
have been no need for the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi
Wasallam) to go up through the seven skies on the night
of Mi'raaj to meet Allaah, he would have been in the direct
presence of Allaah on the earth in his very own house.
Comment :-
"He is the First and the Last, and the Outer and the Inner, and He is the
Knower of all things." 57:3
"Unto Allah belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth. Allah ever
surrounds all things." 4:126 and 41:54
"Vision comprehends Him not, but He comprehends all vision. He is the Subtile,
the Aware." 6:104
"Unto Allah belongs the East and the West, and wheresoever ye turn, there is
Allah's countenance. Lo, Allah is all-embracing, all knowing." 2:115
I do not know much about the ideas of these people, but unfortunately the above
critic has a very naive understanding. It is, therefore, not possible to take
his criticisms very seriously.
H.S.Aziz
mar...@vom.com
from seeing the hotmail handle:
Arshad <i_found_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Arshad keeps relative anonymity by using the hotmail address, but his
web site, referenced at the end of the article, tells us more about
him. I doubt he is over twenty. There are things on that site which
will embarrass him if he sees them twenty years from now, unless he
has by then left Islam.
>The Naqbashandis (Haqqani's and Kabbani's sect, not the other, unless
>they use these sources) will now be refuted, using their own sources.
The use of a person's own sources to refute his positions is something
that I do from time to time, but it can be a dangerous process: it
requires understanding what those sources are saying.
>The greatest danger of this group lies in the fact that
>they, while wearing the cloak of Islaam, are striving to
>destroy it from within, in a vain attempt to extinguish the
>light of Islaam and divert the Muslims from the true
>religion.
This is an accusation that a group of Muslims are *intentionally*
attempting to destroy Islam. That's a big charge to make anonymously
and still imagine that one is Muslim.
>In all fairness to this group we have given the names of
>the books , along with the page number from where we
>have taken these quotes.
This kind of thing has previously been attempted on s.r.i. Before,
quotation out of context was one of the characteristics of the
slander; it becomes tedious to continually verify these things.
So I will assume that the claims of "Arshad" are correct, merely for
the purpose of discussion; this does not indicate that I trust him,
nor that I even consider it an established fact that he is Muslim.
>1) The Islaamic Belief : Allaah is the Only Truth
>
>Allaah (subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
>"That is because Allaah - He is the Truth and it is He
>who gives life to the dead" (Qur’aan, Chapter 22, Verse
>6)
>
>The Naqshabandi Belief : Aba Yazid Al Bistami is the Truth
>
>On page 15 of the Book 'The Naqshabandi Way' it reads -
>" Whoever recites Bismillaah and the verses
>Amana'r-Rasul untill the end, even a single time will
>attain a high rank and a great position.......he will get
>what the Prophets and Saints could not get, and will arrive
>at the stage of Aba Yazid Al-Bistami, the Imam of the
>order who said: "I am the Truth (al-Haqq)".
I'm a little puzzled. That quote is usually attributed to al-Hallaj.
I've heard other shatahaat (shocking statements) attributed to Abu
Yazid, QS. There are ellipses in what is quoted; it is impossible to
judge the quotation with those ellipses. Is this book on the web? The
first part of the quoted paragraph seems to contradict the last part.
>The above statement 'I am the Truth' - is a clear example
>of Shirk (association) in the aspect of the Names and
>Attributes of Allaah, Since Al-Haqq in the definite form, is
>one of Allaah's Unique attributes and is not shared by any
>created being or thing unless preceded by the prefix 'Abd
>meaning "Slave of" or "Servant of". (In fact the Mystic
>al-Hallaaj was publicly executed as an apostate for daring
>to openly claim divinity in his infamous pronouncement
>"Anal-Haqq - I am the Truth" ). '
It appears to be a popular myth that al-Hallaj was executed upon that
charge. I've seen references that claim otherwise. But this is beside
the point here.
"I am the Truth" is not a clear example of shirk. It is a statement,
and statements taken out of context mean very little. For example, I
just quoted *Arshad* with that statement. Of course, in context, we
would know that Arshad is quoting for the purpose of refutation,
without any intention that he be personally identified with the truth.
Thus, by understanding Arshad's intention in making the statement, we
understand that he is not, by it, guilty of shirk.
Now, what did Abu Yazid, the shaykh, mean by the statement, if he said
it? Without answering that question, how can one judge the statement?
In any case, the concept of fana fillah is well-established in many
strains of tasawwuf (Sufism), and "I am the Truth" can be an
expression of that. Maybe. I've been told not to write on the subject
of fana by one who *might* know more about it than I. But here is a
rough idea: fana fillah means, literally, disappearance in God, a
state in which the servant loses any distinct identity. When such a
servant says "I" it means something quite different than the ordinary
"I" of common speech.
Or does it?
Had Abu Yazid said, "I am the truth and you are not," I would be truly
concerned about his imaan. But he is not reported as saying that.
Do the shuyukh of the Naqshbandiyya correctly understand the statment
of Abu Yazid? I don't know. But I would not assume that they don't!
And, especially, were I a callow youth, I would assume quite little.
That's what I say now. When I was young I sometimes thought quite
differently!
In any case, because no division is made in the statement "I am the
Truth," because "I" is undefined, because, contrary to Arshad's
assertion, "the Truth" does not in all contexts refer to Allah alone.
An example: "tell me the truth."
Consider this statement: "I am not the Truth." If I make this
statement, is it true or false?
Be careful! Another translation of "al-Haqq" is "the Reality." If I
really exist -- do I? -- then in at least one sense I am the Reality.
But my existence, i.e., that Reality which is known as me, is not the
existence of God. Or is it? If I say that I exist and my existence is
not in any way the existence of God, then I would be claiming an
independent attribute, for what depends on God, completely, in its
appearance and in its sustenance and in its disappearance, is nothing
other than an indication of the existence of God, just as my writing
is an indication of my soul. In other words, if my existence were
completely independent of the existence of God, I would be a god
beside God.
However, from my point of view, the "my" in "my existence" is quite
suspect. By what right do I claim ownership of this reality? I did not
create it, I do not sustain it, and I will not end its appearance
here; I would be at most a partner in these things. A partner with who
or what?
Since God has no partners, I have no share of my own existence. So
when I say "I am" the "I" does not rightfully refer to the individual
known as the servant, but to his master, the one who creates,
sustains, and takes away.
Now, I seriously doubt that Abu Yazid engaged in this kind of logic.
He merely expressed what he tasted. That expression has legitimate
meaning to those who also taste it, and it means nothing, or worse
than nothing, to those who do not understand it.
These sayings are not intended as expressions of formal logic; they
cannot be used to derive shari'a for they are not proposed as truthful
on the level of shari'a. If they are truthful, they are truthful on
the level of reality, as in the judgement of al-Junayd, who signed the
warrant for the execution of al-Hallaj, it is reported. Does Arshad
know what al-Junayd is reported as saying about this?
Does he think that he should cite the case of al-Hallaj as an example
in a proof of shirk when he does not know the history?
Now, perhaps there was some value in the remainder of Arshad's long
slander, but I would suggest putting the strongest arguments first,
for one who sees weakness at the beginning is not motivated to
continue to read. We have better things to do.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
USA
GF Haddad
>The Naqshabandi Belief : Allaah is Everywhere
>
>The concept of Allaah being everywhere is not Islaamic as
>the above Qur’aanic Aayaah and the Authentic hadith
>confirm, Indeed if Allaah was everywhere then there would
>have been no need for the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi
>Wasallam) to go up through the seven skies on the night
>of Mi'raaj to meet Allaah, he would have been in the direct
>presence of Allaah on the earth in his very own house.
It seems Arshad <i_found_the_truth> now shows his true colors after
beating around the bush on the Albani thing for a while. But as the header
shows he is still confused on the spelling of "Naqshbandi".
The above text is from an anonymous attack on the Naqshbandi Tariqa first
published by a Wahhabi outlet (mis-)named al-Hidaya in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Their 19-page tract was refuted in full by Shaykh Hisham Kabbani line by
line with clear proofs from the Qur'an and Sunna for their deviation. The
text of the refutation is available at
http://sunnah.org/publication/salafi/salafi_unveiled/contents.htm
The table of contents of Shaykh Hisham's detailed refutationm titled
SALAFIS UNVEILED lists the following headings:
1. “Salafis” conceal themselves in Anonymity to accuse Muslims
2. They misuse Qur’an against Muslims
3. They forge baseless rulings of kufr
4. They claim Naqshbandis commit shirk but may themselves be committing
kufr
5. They quote only in part, in order to con-vey the opposite of what is
meant
6. They change the wording of the Qur’an to pass anthropomorphism for
Islamic belief
7. The Mujassima accuse Ahl al-Sunna of tajsîm
8. They deny the impendency of the Last Day
9. They deny the equality of all human beings in Allah’s creation
10. They deny the status of Prophets as intermediaries between Allah and
creation
11. They deny the reality of intercessors
12. They deny that intercession may save one from the Fire by Allah’s
permission
13. They believe no knowledge is hidden from them in all of Islam
14. They quote Qur’an against Hadith
Conclusion: warn others of the “Salafis”
I shall quote the following material from chapter 7, titled "The Mujassima
accuse Ahl al-Sunna of tajsîm" in relation to their deviant claim
excerpted by the i_found_the_truth fellow that "The concept of Allaah
being everywhere is not Islaamic etc.":
Regarding their allegation: "The concept of Allah being everywhere is not
Islaamic," we reply: What is meant by the statement "Allah Almighty is
everywhere" is the same as what is meant by Allah's statement: "He is with
you everywhere you are (ayna ma kuntum)" (57:4) and the same as what is
meant by the Prophet's statement (see below): "If you were to extend a
rope down all the way to the seventh earth, verily you would alight upon
Allah." [al-Tirmidhi and Ahmad]
To whomever would say to us: "No! What you meant is intended to be not
Islaamic"! We reply with the warning of the Prophet: "Have you split our
hearts open and checked? Allah is the judge between you and us, if you but
fear Him."
By openly declaring that "The concept of Allah being everywhere is not
Islaamic" these "Salafi" attackers have simply declared themselves
non-Muslims, and our refuge is in Allah. Allah said: "And He is with you
everywhere you are (ayna ma kuntum)" (57:4).
The pious Salaf applied ta'wil or interpretation to this verse in a
variety of ways of which the most known is that of Imam Sufyan al-Thawri:
"He is with you by His knowledge." [In al-Dhahabi, Siyar a`lam al-nubala'
7:274.]
It also means: with His acceptance, with His help, with His tolerance,
with His will, with His punishment, etc.
Similarly, Tirmidhi in the Book of Tafsir (Sura 57) and Ahmad in his
Musnad (2:370) relate from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said: "By Him in
Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, if you were to extend a rope down all
the way to the seventh earth, verily you would alight upon Allah!" That is
interpreted again as: His knowledge, His power, His sovereignty, etc. as
stated by Tirmidhi and others, while He Himself is "over the Throne," that
is: exalted high above creation and free of space and location.
At the time his teacher Abu al-Qasim al-Junayd (d. 298) -- the "Imam of
the World of his time" according to the historian Ibn al-Athir -- was
accused of heresy by the anthropomorphists of Baghdad, Abu al-Hasan
al-Nuri (d. 295) was asked by the chief judge and in the presence of the
Sultan al-Mutawakkil: "Where is your Lord in relation to you?" He replied:
He is, in relation to me, wherever I am in relation to Him, since He said:
wa huwa ma`akum ayna ma kuntum
"He is with you everywhere you are"
that is: He is with us in whatever way we are with Him. If we are with Him
with obedience, He is with us with help and guidance; if we are with Him
with heedlessness, He is with us with His will; if we are with Him with
disobedience, He is with us with His delay; if we are with Him with
repentence, He is with us with acceptance; if we are with Him with
abandonment of His commands, He is with us with punishment. [In Ibn
`Ajiba, Iqaz al-himam fi sharh al-hikam (Beirut: al-maktaba al-thaqafiyya,
n.d.) p. 397.]
Was-Salam
Arshad
Regarding your comment, Altway2 in regards to where Allah (SWT) is, your
understanding is incorrect.
> I do not know much about the ideas of these people, but unfortunately the above
> critic has a very naive understanding. It is, therefore, not possible to take
> his criticisms very seriously.
>
> H.S.Aziz
>
Insha'Allah I will clarify for you the Islamic position using AUTHENTIC
Islamic references, some innovators think Allah (SWT) is everywhere physically,
this is incorrect. Allah (SWT) has knowledge of everything around us, but
is not everywhere physically, and that was the purpose of my point in the post,
insha'Allah you will read it more carefully now and be cautious of these
Naqabashandis (Kabbani's and Haqqani's sect) as they post frequently on this
message board. We ask that Allah (SWT) guide them to the truth.
Sheikh Muhammad al-Munajidd answered as follows:
Praise be to Allaah,
The people of Sunnah and Jamaa’ah (Ahl al-Sunnah) believe that Allaah is exalted
above His creation because of the evidence of the Qur’aan, Sunnah, consensus
of the scholars, common sense and man’s innate instinct (fitrah).
(1) The Qur’aan describes the "exaltedness" or "highness" of Allaah in
different ways, as His being High and Above, and by describing how things
come down from Him, and go up to Him, and by stating that He is above
heaven. For example (interpretations of the meaning):
(Highness):
". . .and He is the Most High, the Most Great." [al-Baqarah 2:255]
"Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High." [al-A’la 87:1]
(Above):
"And He is the Irresistible, above His slaves . . ." [al-An’aam 6:18]
"They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded." [al-Nahl
16:50]
(Things coming down from Him):
"He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth . . ." [al-Sajdah 32:5]
"Verily We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’aan). . ."
[al-Hijr 15:9]
(Things going up to Him):
". . . To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it . .
.." [Faatir 35:10]
"The angels and the Rooh (Jibreel) ascend to Him . . ." [al-Ma’aarij 70:4]
(Allaah is above heaven):
"Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven, will not cause the earth to
sink with you . . .?" [al-Mulk 67:16]
(2) The Sunnah: many reports were narrated "mutawaatir" (i.e. with a large
number of narrators at every stage of the isnaad, such that it is impossible
for them all to have agreed on a lie) from the Prophet (Peace & Blessings
of Allaah be upon Him), describing his words and deeds and things of
which he approved. For example, he used to say "Subhaana Rabbi al-A’laa
(Glory be to my Lord Most High)" in sujood, and in some ahaadeeth he is
reported to have said "By Allaah Who is above the Throne."
Among his deeds is the gesture of pointing up with his finger, when
addressing the people in the greatest gathering, on the Day of ‘Arafaah
during his Farewell Pilgrimage. He asked the people, "Have I not
conveyed the message?" and they said, "Yes!" He asked again, "Have I
not conveyed the message?" and they said, "yes!". He asked a third
time, have I not conveyed the message?" and they said "Yes!" Each
time, he said: "O Allaah, bear witness!" - pointing up to the sky and
then at the people. He also used to raise his hands towards heaven
when he made du’aa’, as it reported in tens of ahaadeeth. This is
proof via his actions that Allaah is exalted and high.
An example of an approval of the Prophet (Peace & Blessings
of Allaah be upon Him) which indicates that Allaah is exalted and
high is the hadeeth concerning the young slave girl, to whom the
Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) said:
"Where is Allaah?" She said: "In heaven" He asked, "Who am I?"
She said, "The Messenger of Allaah." So he said to her master:
"Set her free, for she is a believer."
This young girl was uneducated, as many are, and she was a
slave, but she knew that her Lord is above heaven. Some
misguided people deny that Allaah is above heaven, and say,
"He is neither above nor below; neither to the right nor to the
left. He is everywhere!"
(3) The consensus of the scholars: the salaf agreed that
Allaah is above heaven, as is reported by scholars such
as al-Dhahabi, may Allaah have mercy on him, in his
book Al-‘Aluw li’l-‘Aliy al-Ghaffaar.
(4) Common sense: highness is a quality which is
associated in people’s minds with perfection. If this is
the case, then it should be attributed to Allaah because
every absolute perfection should be attributed to Him.
(5) The innate instinct of man (fitrah). There should be
no dispute that man instinctively knows that Allaah is
above heaven. Whenever something overwhelming
befalls a person, and he turns to Allaah for help, he looks
towards heaven, not in any other direction. But it is strange
that those who deny that Allaah is above His creation still
raise their hands in supplication to no other direction than
towards heaven.
Even Pharaoh, the enemy of Allaah who disputed with
Moosaa about his Lord, told his minister Haamaan
(interpretation of the meaning): "O Haamaan! Build me a
tower that I may arrive at the ways, - the ways of the
heavens, and I may look upon the god of Moosaa . . ."
[Ghaafir 40:36-37]
He knew in his heart of hearts that Allaah is real, as He
says (interpretation of the meaning): "And they belied
them (those aayaat) wrongfully and arrogantly, though
their own selves were convinced thereof . . ." [al-Naml 27:14]
These are a few of the indications that Allaah is above the
heavens; this proof comes from the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, the
consensus of the scholars, common sense, man’s own
instincts and even the words of the kuffaar.
We ask Allaah to guide us towards the Truth.
Wasalaam,
Arshad
http://get.to/islam
Altway 2 wrote:
> In article <smikj4...@corp.supernews.com>, Arshad
> <i_found_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >The Naqshabandi Belief : Allaah is Everywhere
>
> >The concept of Allaah being everywhere is not Islaamic as
> the above Qur’aanic Aayaah and the Authentic hadith
> confirm, Indeed if Allaah was everywhere then there would
> have been no need for the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi
> Wasallam) to go up through the seven skies on the night
> of Mi'raaj to meet Allaah, he would have been in the direct
> presence of Allaah on the earth in his very own house.
>
asim...@my-deja.com
>
> (1) The Qur’aan describes the "exaltedness" or "highness" of Allaah in
> different ways, as His being High and Above, and by describing how
things
> come down from Him, and go up to Him, and by stating that He is above
> heaven. For example (interpretations of the meaning):
>
> (Highness):
> ". . .and He is the Most High, the Most Great." [al-Baqarah 2:255]
>
> "Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High." [al-A’la 87:1]
>
Salaam
After this ayat, Allah relates the various stages of creation through
the use of four terms. This description discusses the various stages
creation goes through in order to attain towards perfection. This is a
profound allusion to the concept of rububbiya. The first verse, the
attributes of Allah, are explained by the following verses. The Prophet
(S) used this exclamation in sujood, and this is the perfect state of
submission to Allah as represented in this world. The salaat in fact
represents the evolution of man, culminating in his perfection by
attaining abdiyat through sujood and this profound statement, as taught
to us by the Prophet (S) in his manner of prayer.
Highness, just as in any language, denotes qualities of reverence and
perfection. A king in this world is alluded to as "His highness". Men
understand things through what they already know and perceive. There is
nothing any different in what is being stated above and beloew, except
as Allah says "Make not similitudes for Allah, while ye know not."
Allah is beyond anything, as Sirhindi (R) stated (Beyond the Beyond,
Beyond the Beyond, Beyond the Beyond.)
In surah Mulk, Allah says He created the heavens, one above the other.
Man cannot comprehend these facts due to his limited knowledge.
Questions become if Allah is above the heavens, then where was He
before He created them, which are just questions of stupidity. The
heavens were created by Allah, not the other way around. Allah has
created place, "To Him belongs the east and the west." "Whichever way
one turns, there is the face of Allah."
All the ayats qouted, understanding the basic and simple message of the
Quranic, allude to man's conception about His Lord who understands
through symbols. One of the meanings from which alameen comes from is
symbol, all pointing to their Lord. Another route is "he came to know
something." Creation are symbols to help us understand the ways of our
Lord.
> "Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven, will not cause
the earth to
> sink with you . . .?" [al-Mulk 67:16]
In the same surah, Allah says He created seven heavens, one above the
other. Allah is free from the limitations and restrictions of time and
space. There are certain limitations imposed upon man. This is the
fundamental belief in the unseen. Man recognizes He is impotent in
certain respects and it is only through guidance can he understand
certain things. But even then, through revelation, we can know some
essential facts but they are taught to us in language we understand,
such as the fruits of paradise being described through what man already
knows and enjoys.
Allah after He mentions that he created everything, points to the
essential fact that He istawa alal arsh. The main point behind this is
to show that Allah has not left creation alone, but he is always running
the affairs of creation. The most beautiful aspect of this in my view,
is the ayat of surah rehman. "Everyday He is in a new work." The
creation is in perpetual change and growth.
> An example of an approval of the Prophet (Peace & Blessings
> of Allaah be upon Him) which indicates that Allaah is exalted and
> high is the hadeeth concerning the young slave girl, to whom the
> Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) said:
> "Where is Allaah?" She said: "In heaven" He asked, "Who am I?"
> She said, "The Messenger of Allaah." So he said to her master:
> "Set her free, for she is a believer."
>
It is a fundamental error to think any hadeeth can form a basis for
belief. There are various narrations of this event, some pointing to
various questions.
>
> (5) The innate instinct of man (fitrah). There should be
> no dispute that man instinctively knows that Allaah is
> above heaven. Whenever something overwhelming
> befalls a person, and he turns to Allaah for help, he looks
> towards heaven, not in any other direction. But it is strange
> that those who deny that Allaah is above His creation still
> raise their hands in supplication to no other direction than
> towards heaven.
The Quran says to seek help through patience and prayer. And in the
same book, Allah says whichever way one turns He is turning in the
direction of His Lord. The best place for dua according to the Prophet
(S) is in sujood, yet he is farthest from heaven during that position.
All these ayats really have nothing to do with the subject but just
point to a basic fact of human perceptions, and the Quranic manner in
which it addresses certain facts. This is a literary book filled with
picturesque descriptions.
>
> Even Pharaoh, the enemy of Allaah who disputed with
> Moosaa about his Lord, told his minister Haamaan
> (interpretation of the meaning): "O Haamaan! Build me a
> tower that I may arrive at the ways, - the ways of the
> heavens, and I may look upon the god of Moosaa . . ."
> [Ghaafir 40:36-37]
This is an act of desparation. Pharoah said this in arrogance and
mockery and it points mainly to his idiocy more than anything else.
"There is nothing like Him whatsoever."
This is the purity of the Islamic message of tawheed as culminated in
the most profound surah, surah ikhlas. Allah is beyond anything we
know, and our duty is to submit.
Salaam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Altway 2
<i_found_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Insha'Allah I will clarify for you the Islamic position using AUTHENTIC
Islamic references, some innovators think Allah (SWT) is everywhere
physically,
>this is incorrect. Allah (SWT) has knowledge of everything around us, but
is not everywhere physically, and that was the purpose of my point in the
post,
Comment:-
I have not the faintest idea of what you mean by "physically" in the above
context.
Are you saying Allah has a physical body which is somewhere else?
>These are a few of the indications that Allaah is above the
heavens; this proof comes from the Qur’aan, the Sunnah, the
consensus of the scholars, common sense, man’s own
instincts and even the words of the kuffaar.
Comment:-
Do you believe literally that Allah is a Being sitting on a throne somewhere
high up in
the sky? Or is "UP" a symbol for something exalted?
Please let us know what sect you belong to or who you follow.
H.S.Aziz
GF Haddad
>It is a fundamental error to think any hadeeth can form a basis for
>belief.
I am sorry to point out that according to the scholarly Consensus, the
above statement constitutes disbelief if it includes mutawatir hadiths.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
GF Haddad
> I doubt he is over twenty. There are things on that site which
>will embarrass him if he sees them twenty years from now, unless he
>has by then left Islam.
Wal`Iyadhu billah. I certainly do not wish him that, nor do I believe that
Brother Marjan wishes him that. Rather, may Allah grant all Muslims to
live and die in the full light of Islam, and be examples for non-Muslims
to come to the truth and leave behind the darkness of illusion.
...
>>The Naqshabandi Belief : Aba Yazid Al Bistami is the Truth
>>
>>On page 15 of the Book 'The Naqshabandi Way' it reads -
>>" Whoever recites Bismillaah and the verses
>>Amana'r-Rasul untill the end, even a single time will
>>attain a high rank and a great position.......he will get
>>what the Prophets and Saints could not get, and will arrive
>>at the stage of Aba Yazid Al-Bistami, the Imam of the
>>order who said: "I am the Truth (al-Haqq)".
There are two potentially problematic issues in the above excerpt:
1. the words attributed to Abu Yazid (ALlah sanctify his secret), "I am
the truth," which the "Salafis" in their anonymous attack (from which the
above is excerpted) characterize as shirk.
2. the words: "he will get what Prophets and Saints could not get", which
the "Salafis" in their anonymous, poisoned little tract characterize as
"The deviant claim of attaining the rank which the Prophets could not is a
major deception of the Naqshbandiyya as any Muslim with even the basic
knowledge of Islaam will confirm, as regards the companions etc."
Most of the following is excerpted from the refutation posted at
http://sunnah.org/publication/salafi/salafi_unveiled/contents.htm
1. Regarding the statement "I am the truth":
In the second volume of the complete edition of his fatwas entitled
Majmu`at al-fatawa al-kubra Ibn Taymiyya says (p. 396-397):
"This state of love is the state of many people from among the people of
love to Allah and the People of Desire of Allah (Ahl al-irada). When such
a person vanishes to himself in the object of his love -- that is,
Allah -- through the intensity of his love, he will recall Allah, not
recalling himself, and remember Allah, not remembering himself, and
visualize Allah (yastashhid), not visualizing himself, and exist in Allah,
not in himself. When he reaches that stage, he no longer feels his own
existence. That is why he says in this state: ANA AL-HAQQ (I am the
Truth), or subhani (Glory to Me!) and ma fi al-jubba illa Allah (there is
nothing in this cloak except Allah), because he is drunk with the love of
Allah and this is a pleasure and happiness that he cannot control. From
such states the pen of the Law is lifted."
We would like to ask the anonymous "Salafis" who claimed that the
statement ana al-Haqq constitutes shirk: Is Ibn Taymiyya claiming that the
Shari`a excuses shirk? Or, rather, have you made up a type of shirk that
is not recognized by your own Imam?
2. Regarding the words: "he will get what Prophets and Saints could not
get":
THis is apparently problematic because the Prophet (SAWS) praised the
Companions as the best of human beings after Prophets and their time as
the best of times in human history. Furthermore it is known, as al-Tahawi
stated in his `Aqida, that "all the Awliya put together do not reach the
level of the least Prophet" - upon them blessings and peace of Allah.
Nevertheless, the specific meaning of the above statement not only does
not contradict all of this, but is also supported by rigorously authentic
evidence. Namely:
In the hadith narrated from Abu Malik al-Ash`ari by Imam Ahmad in the
Musnad:
When the Prophet finished his prayer he turned to face the people and
said: "O people! Listen to this, understand it, and know it. Allah has
servants who are neither Prophets nor martyrs and WHOM THE PROPHETS AND
MARTYRS YEARN TO EMULATE, due to their place of nearness to Allah."
One of the beduin Arabs who came from among the most isolated of people
twisted his hand at the Prophet and said: "O Messenger of Allah! People
>from humankind who are neither Prophets nor martyrs and yet the Prophets
and the martyrs yearn to emulate them due to their place of nearness to
Allah? Describe them for us!"
The Prophet's face showed delight at the Beduin's question and he said:
"They are of the strangers from this and that place. They frequent this
or that tribe without belonging to them. They do not have family
connections among themselves. They love one another for Allah's sake. They
are of pure intent towards one another. On the Day of Resurrection Allah
will place for them pedestals of light upon which He will make them sit,
and He will turn their faces and clothes into light. On the Day of
Resurrection the people will be terrified but not those. They are Allah's
Friends upon whom fear comes not, nor do they grieve."
Al-Haythami in Majma` al-zawa'id says: "Ahmad relates it, and Tabarani
relates something similar, and the men in its chain of transmission have
been declared trustworthy." Also related through several chains by Abu
Dawud, Ahmad, Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunna, al-Hakim in the Mustadrak, Ibn
`Asakir, Ibn Abi al-Dunya in Kitab al-ikhwan, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Abi
Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and others.
Regarding comparison of latter-day believers with the Companions, the
Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - said in an authentic hadith, that
those of his Community who would hold fastidiously to his Sunna at the end
of time would each be given the reward of FIFTY OF HIS COMPANIONS. This is
narrated in al-Tirmidhi (book of Tafsir al-Qur'an), Abu Dawud (book of
Malahim), Ibn Majah (book of Fitan), al-Tabarani in al-Majma` al-kabir
(17:117), al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his Tarikh (8:426), Ibn Kathir in his
Tafsir (3:208), and others.
The Prophet (SAWS) also said: "The similitude of my Community is as the
rain: it is not known whether its greater good lies in its beginning or in
its ending."
Narrated by Tirmidhi in his Sunan (book of Amthal), Ibn Hibban in his
Sahih from `Ammar ibn Yasir (#2307), Ahmad in his Musnad in several places
(cf. 3:143, 4:319), Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunna (1:405), Tabarani in his
Kabir, Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (7:493), al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad
(11:114), Abu Ya`la, al-Daraqutni, al-Bazzar, and Ibn `Abd al-Barr. The
latter said according to al-Sakhawi in his Maqasid that its grade is hasan
(fair) and this is confirmed by the hafiz Ibn Hajar, while al-Bazzar said:
"No hadith is narrated from the Prophet with a fairer chain."
He also said, in the hadith of Abu Umama from the Musnad of Imam Ahmad
with a sound chain:
"Blessed is he who saw me and believed in me, and blessed is he sevenfold
who saw me not and yet believed in me."
Finally, there was, in the original Naqshbandi book citing the line
"Salafis" objected to, a footnote which they did not cite. That long
footnote cited some of the above narrations and said: "Just as Prophethood
was granted specifically to Prophets, exclusive of others, so the levels
and rewards granted to sincere worshippers in the last time are granted
specifically to them, and not to others."
I hope this makes it clear that we have on the one hand a game of
deception and studied idiocy leading to takfir and branding of Naqshbandi
Muslims and, on the other, luminous explanations of the Sunna and
superlative encouragement to good deeds for the Muslims of our time.
And success is from Allah alone.
Blessings and peace of Allah on the Prophet, his Family, and all his
Companions.
Thanks to Shaykh Lomax for his explanations of Abu Yazid / al-Hallaj's
statement.
Hajj Gibril
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Arshad
In the past, I have usually ignored your responses Lomax because you
reply with insults, and you reply with no proof other then guesswork.
At first I attributed it to you being a revert, but it has been a few
years and at times you have served as moderator on here (which shows
just how poor the state of affairs are here).
> as-salaamu ^alaykum. We know we are in for a deluge of nonsense just
> from seeing the hotmail handle:
> Arshad <i_found_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is the first slander in your response and has nothing to do with
my post whatsoever. Shame on you.
> Arshad keeps relative anonymity by using the hotmail address, but his
> web site, referenced at the end of the article, tells us more about
> him.
The hotmail address serves as a means for me to handle the emails I
receive on USENET. I use different emails for different purposes,
but that really is none of your concern, and this was a silly question
to be asking, and a waste of my time to answer it.
> I doubt he is over twenty. There are things on that site which
> will embarrass him if he sees them twenty years from now, unless he
> has by then left Islam.
More insults and slander from you. Many scholars and authors of famous
works have visited it and signed the guestbook. Just last week a
khatib in the UK visited it and took a khutbah to deliver at a
university in the UK. None of these people seemed to be embarassed
and many people come back for more. May Allah (SWT) guide you. Sincere,
naseeah to you is to learn some adab when addressing Muslims.
As for your reply to the article there was no substance or proof on your
part. In fact, you didn't even READ the book!!!! How can YOU even
comment?
<SNIP>
> >1) The Islaamic Belief : Allaah is the Only Truth
> >
> >Allaah (subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
> >"That is because Allaah - He is the Truth and it is He
> >who gives life to the dead" (Qur’aan, Chapter 22, Verse
> >6)
> >
> >The Naqshabandi Belief : Aba Yazid Al Bistami is the Truth
> >
> >On page 15 of the Book 'The Naqshabandi Way' it reads -
> >" Whoever recites Bismillaah and the verses
> >Amana'r-Rasul untill the end, even a single time will
> >attain a high rank and a great position.......he will get
> >what the Prophets and Saints could not get, and will arrive
> >at the stage of Aba Yazid Al-Bistami, the Imam of the
> >order who said: "I am the Truth (al-Haqq)".
> >The above statement 'I am the Truth' - is a clear example
> >of Shirk (association) in the aspect of the Names and
> >Attributes of Allaah, Since Al-Haqq in the definite form, is
> >one of Allaah's Unique attributes and is not shared by any
> >created being or thing unless preceded by the prefix 'Abd
> >meaning "Slave of" or "Servant of". (In fact the Mystic
> >al-Hallaaj was publicly executed as an apostate for daring
> >to openly claim divinity in his infamous pronouncement
> >"Anal-Haqq - I am the Truth" ). '
>
LOMAX said:
> "I am the Truth" is not a clear example of shirk. It is a statement,
> and statements taken out of context mean very little. For example, I
> just quoted *Arshad* with that statement. Of course, in context, we
> would know that Arshad is quoting for the purpose of refutation,
> without any intention that he be personally identified with the truth.
> Thus, by understanding Arshad's intention in making the statement, we
> understand that he is not, by it, guilty of shirk.
<SNIP>
Shaikh Salim Morgan replied:
This statement of Al-Hallaj is shirk without doubt. It is not taken out of
context. It's context is well known and you yourself have mentioned it in
your message. It is the deviant pantheistic belief of "al-fanaa' fiy
Allah". This is not an Islamic belief. Allah sent no authority for it in
either Qur'an or Sunnah. It is contrary to what Allah has taught us about
Himself and us in His Book and that which the Prophet (sas) has taught us in
his Sunnah.
It is the same as the shirk of the Christians who said that Isa was one with
Allah or was Allah or Isa and Allah were two parts of one thing or Isa was a
"manifestation" of Allah on earth or whatever garbage they have come up with
over the centuries. There is no such thing as "annihilation in Allah". It
is only one of Satan's means to lead people from the straight path of Islam
and monotheism into all kinds of foolishness, sin and obscenity.
None of the prophet's including the final Prophet (sas) Muhammad ever became
"annihilated in Allah" nor did they teach us to seek such a thing. Allah
told us that in His messenger there is for us the best of examples. Neither
did anyone after the prophets become "annihilated in Allah". Rather, they
became seduced by Satan. They only went astray from the path and led others
astray.
Wasalaam,
Arshad
http://get.to/islam
mar...@vom.com
Arshad <i_found_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>An example of an approval of the Prophet (Peace & Blessings
>of Allaah be upon Him) which indicates that Allaah is exalted and
>high is the hadeeth concerning the young slave girl, to whom the
>Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allaah be upon Him) said:
>"Where is Allaah?" She said: "In heaven" He asked, "Who am I?"
>She said, "The Messenger of Allaah." So he said to her master:
>"Set her free, for she is a believer."
Now, Arshad's report here is not controversial. There is no
disagreement among us over Allah being exalted and high.
>This young girl was uneducated, as many are, and she was a
>slave, but she knew that her Lord is above heaven.
Does Arshad recognise how he has shifted the language? "in" has become
"above."
This hadith demonstrates that faith is not a matter of theology, but
of heart. We do not find the saying "God in heaven" in the Qur'aan nor
in the traditions of our Prophet from his tongue. Here, however, he
accepted the faith of an unsophisticated slave girl and did not
quibble with her language.
Allah speaks in images, and so in the creation there are images which
can be used to indicate his majesty, and among the best of these is
the image of the sky. What is the direction of the sky?
The sky only appears to be *up* from a limited perspective. In fact,
the direction of the sky is *every* direction, but to say that the sky
is in every direction does not fully express the matter. (The Arabic
word translated as "heaven" above is almost certainly "samaa," or sky.
I don't have the original text of the hadith readily available.)
>Some
>misguided people deny that Allaah is above heaven, and say,
>"He is neither above nor below; neither to the right nor to the
>left. He is everywhere!"
The people of knowledge say "he is neither above nor below" because
both of these are spatial limits and he is without spatial limit;
likewise they say "he is neither to the right nor to the left." In
this saying "above" is being used as a direction, not as an indication
of exaltedness. In the sense of exaltedness, he is above the sky, just
as, in the sense of origin, he is beneath all affairs.
However, they do not say "he is everywhere." Why do they not say this?
Because existence is itself a limitation, and to say "he is
everywhere" is to imply that his existence is like the existence of,
for example, space, which is also everywhere.
Neither do they say "he is nowhere," for that would be even more of a
limitation.
And he, he is the best knower, elevated above what is said about him.
Abdelkarim Benoît Evans
> >Some
> >misguided people deny that Allaah is above heaven, and say,
> >"He is neither above nor below; neither to the right nor to the
> >left. He is everywhere!"
>
> The people of knowledge say "he is neither above nor below" because
> both of these are spatial limits and he is without spatial limit;
> likewise they say "he is neither to the right nor to the left." In
> this saying "above" is being used as a direction, not as an indication
> of exaltedness. In the sense of exaltedness, he is above the sky, just
> as, in the sense of origin, he is beneath all affairs.
>
> However, they do not say "he is everywhere." Why do they not say this?
>
> Because existence is itself a limitation, and to say "he is
> everywhere" is to imply that his existence is like the existence of,
> for example, space, which is also everywhere.
>
> Neither do they say "he is nowhere," for that would be even more of a
> limitation.
>
> And he, he is the best knower, elevated above what is said about him.
Indeed. Allah is __________. As soon as we fill in the blank, we add a
limitation even when our only intention is to attempt to explain in some
small, human way the nature of Allah.
We are told in today's Jewish version of the Torah that when Allah told
Moses (Allah's peace and grace be on him) to go to Egypt and tell
Pharoah to release the Israelite slaves, Moses asked God:
"When I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your
fathers has sent me to you and they say to me, What is his Name?, what
shall I say to them?'"
"And God said to Moses, 'I AM THAT I AM...say therefore that AM sent
you.'" (Exodus 3:13-14)
The Hebrew expression is "Ehyeh asher ehyeh", which can be translated
into English as either "I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be".
Allah IS. Of all the names used for God in the Torah, Yahveh, El,
Adonai, Eloha (Allah), etc., Ehyeh (Am) is the only one that is said to
have been uttered by Allah himself.
Allah is the subsistent, the eternal. Who IS after everything else has
ceased to be and before everything else has come into being. He is Pure
Being, Pure Existance, Perfect, without limits of space or time or
degree.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Qatra
I am responding solely to Brother Arshad's following opening statements :
>In the past, I have usually ignored your responses Lomax because you
>reply with insults, and you reply with no proof other then guesswork.
>At first I attributed it to you being a revert,
This appears to presume that "reverts" to Islam possess some kind of deficiency
in understanding and practice which those born into nominally Muslim families
do not.
As this is unsupported by The Qur'an and Sunnah, I am fairly confident that
Brother Arshad made a simple error.
Perhaps he would care to explain himself.
WasSalaam,
qatra
Kamal Southall
a bit to avoid spam from reaching me, Jazak Allahu Khair.
Qatra wrote:
>
> AsSalaamu 'alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuhu!
>
> I am responding solely to Brother Arshad's following opening statements :
Statements that I too found deeply offensive.
> >In the past, I have usually ignored your responses Lomax because you
> >reply with insults, and you reply with no proof other then guesswork.
> >At first I attributed it to you being a revert,
> This appears to presume that "reverts" to Islam possess some kind of deficiency
> in understanding and practice which those born into nominally Muslim families
> do not.
As it is, by and large, I have found that many converts to Islam often
tend to develop a level of understanding of din, both on a formal level
as well as on the level of sheer *understanding* (fiqh, this is what
fiqh really means) that is superior to that of those born in nominally
or even actively Muslim families (particularly from certain
nationalities, and no I'd just as soon not name countries).
This is not tooting my horn since I am not a convert. It is an
observation that I have made and found true in EVERY Muslim community
that I've happened to live in (in my short life).
Frankly the same holds true for children of converts as for children
>from traditionally Muslim families. I'm a child of converts, and I've
known other children of converts, and by and large our level of Islamic
commitment tends to be level with that of children of parents from
traditionally Islamic families, which is sadly often VERY LITTLE.
As far as knowledge of din goes, and I'm not tooting a horn for
Abdulrahman, and as a matter of fact I disagree with a number of the
views that he has expressed publicly, but frankly the man has been a
Muslim since before many of the people posting on this forum were even
born, or at least since they were children. And frankly the man is (or
was, anyway) a Hafiz, and I am not too sure that brother Arshad is a
Hafiz (or was. anyway).
This is not to indicate support for the positions being argued here, or
-for that matter- to indicate my lack of support, it is a statement of
fact. Respect those who know more than you even if their positions are
offensive to you. Characteristic of the abandonment of 'ilm amongst the
youth of the Ummah is the abandonment of the adab of the Talib, the one
seeking knowledge...
Ajeeb dude.
Criticisms of a person should not be made while one is ignorant of the
subject being criticized. And assuming ignorance on the part of a
convert to Islam, or on the part of someone that you believe is a
convert, is annoying at best (oh, and let me state just how annoying it
is, the Prophet said speak to people according to their level of
understanding, some brothers follow this advice in strange ways, perhaps
before one KNOWS what one's level of understanding is it is best to
assume that they are on the same level as you, or perhaps higher, and
then after testing the waters -so to speak- adjust the level of ones
discourse. There are converts out there who are from amongst the huffaz
or fuqaha and you would not even know it unless you engaged them in
discourse)
So please, we should all exercise a bit more care.
--
Kamal Southall | kam...@mpowernet.com
Mpowernet Internet Access Services | http://www.mpowernet.com
pgp 2.6.6 key available on request | 513.381.SURF
Arshad
>
> I am responding solely to Brother Arshad's following opening statements :
>
> >In the past, I have usually ignored your responses Lomax because you
> >reply with insults, and you reply with no proof other then guesswork.
> >At first I attributed it to you being a revert,
>
> This appears to presume that "reverts" to Islam possess some kind of deficiency
> in understanding and practice which those born into nominally Muslim families
> do not.
Not at all brother, that was not my intention. Alhumdullilah I have
had a privilege to witness many non-Muslims come out of the darkness
and into the light and have taken part in discourses with many,
perhaps even with yourself, your email address sounds familiar,
are you Khaled's and Safi's friend? If so you may contact me
privately through email.
Some of my favorite writers are reverts, alhumdullilah a few I know
write with such passion. If you are the same brother, I still
remember your account of when you went to Mecca and the tears of joy
you had when you visited the Kabbah.
The intention of my statement was that in SOME CASES when people
revert to Islam, they take some of their beliefs from their days
of ignorance with them, and that may be natural as they are very
eager to learn. In no way am I advocating that a revert is any
worse or better then one born into a Muslim family.
> As this is unsupported by The Qur'an and Sunnah, I am fairly confident that
> Brother Arshad made a simple error.
>
> Perhaps he would care to explain himself.
>
> WasSalaam,
> qatra
Jazak Allah khairen for giving me an opportunity to explain, as
I don't check this place often and someone privately emailed me,
telling me you had posted.
Wasalaam,
Arshad
http://get.to/islam
Qatra
>> >At first I attributed it to you being a revert,
>>
>> This appears to presume that "reverts" to Islam possess some kind of
>deficiency
>> in understanding and practice which those born into nominally Muslim
>families
>> do not.
>Not at all brother, that was not my intention.
Alhamdulillah.
>The intention of my statement was that in SOME CASES when people
>revert to Islam, they take some of their beliefs from their days
>of ignorance with them, and that may be natural as they are very
>eager to learn. In no way am I advocating that a revert is any
>worse or better then one born into a Muslim family.
I understand that isra'iliyyat is a real problem; I also understand that the
world is not a commodity worth arguing over, alhamdulillah.
I wish this understanding would be established and sustained as the foundation
of the ummah. Insha'ALLAH, it will be.
WasSalaam,
qatra
Altway 2
>This appears to presume that "reverts" to Islam possess some kind of
>deficiency
>in understanding and practice which those born into nominally Muslim families
>do not.
>As this is unsupported by The Qur'an and Sunnah, I am fairly confident that
>Brother Arshad made a simple error.
Comment:-
In my experience new converts not only have a fresh and discerning mind but are
also more enthusiastic about learning than those born into a religion. These
later tend to be bogged down by mental conditioning to unexamined traditions
and unaware of much owing to familiarity and often extremely arrogant.
This is no doubt why religion had to be renewed by a series of Prophets in the
past and was to be renewed in Islam by reformers.
That is no doubt also why the Quran tells us:-
"Every nation (or community) has its appointed term, and when their appointed
term is completed they cannot delay it an hour, nor can they advance it." 7:38
H.S.Aziz
abujamal
Qatra wrote:
> I am responding solely to Brother Arshad's
> following opening statements :
>> In the past, I have usually ignored your responses Lomax because
>> you reply with insults, and you reply with no proof other then
>> guesswork. At first I attributed it to you being a revert,
> This appears to presume that "reverts" to Islam possess some kind
> of deficiency in understanding and practice which those born into
> nominally Muslim families do not.
Experience and reason both suggest that "reverts" would have
different deficiencies in understanding and practice than those born
into nominally muslim families. What Arshad attributes to Lomax is
certainly not atypical of those who discover Islam in America, Americans
are nowhere in the world known for possessing "good manners," partly
because those Americans who do exhibit good manners are seldom
sufficiently offensive to gather "notice" as an American. On the other
hand, the insults and guesswork I have seen from -- for example, some
Arabs -- has been insult delivered with gracious manner and guesswork
offered as mannerly selections from obscure or unavailable writings. It
does demand a measure of insight to be able to discern some insults as
well as some guesswork, we Americans are fairly and justly well-known
around the world for reducing that demand.
> As this is unsupported by The Qur'an and Sunnah, I am fairly
> confident that Brother Arshad made a simple error.
I think it is quite supported by the shari'ah, which repeatedly
makes statements like "Not equal are those _____ with those _____."
Just as most of the Companions radi ALLAHU anhu were themselves
"reverts," whose deficiencies in understanding and practice were
rectified by what we were given, so we find both "reverts" and "nominal"
muslims today eligible for similar and dissimilar rectification. I know
of nothing in the shari'ah that suggests that people are all alike.
> Perhaps he would care to explain himself.
Undoubtedly each of us will wish to explain himself at a time when
tongues are tied and limbs speak. I do not find myself in need of any
explanation from him, what he says is clear, "At first I attributed it
to you being a revert" obviously was not sufficient for him as
explanation of Lomax' conduct and manner. I do not find myself in need
of any explanation of that conduct either, perhaps Arshad finds
otherwise. I don't even need an explanation of this somewhat curious
challenge to Arshad.
> WasSalaam,
> qatra
was-salaam,
abujamal
astaghfirullahul-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
=======
HTML coders and server owners: You may use my machine for one dollar
per machine cycle applied to retrieval from any second server. Failure
to remit in US Dollars IN ADVANCE the requisite fee will subject the
violator(s) to the immediate electronic disabling of any capacity to
make further attacks on my facilities with the computer running the
server software; or litigation, whichever is more fun. This notice
includes anyone similarly increasing the costs of bandwidth.
=======
seer...@my-deja.com
alt...@aol.com (Altway 2) wrote:
>
> Comment:-
> In my experience new converts not only have a fresh and discerning
>mind but are also more enthusiastic about learning than those born into
>a religion.
In my experience there are knowledgeable and wonderful Muslims among
those who were born in Islam, and also among those who are reverts.
There are, unfortunately, also many who are confused and lost, both
among those who were born in Islam and those who are reverts.
I suggest that we all sincerely ask Allah(SWT) for His guidance, and that
we all try our best to avoid this kind of empty arguing about reverts and
born-ins, this kind of arguing would bring hardly anything other than
sensitivities and maybe even hatred among brothers.
> This is no doubt why religion had to be renewed by a series of Prophets
>in the past and was to be renewed in Islam by reformers.
There is nothing called "reformers" in Islam. "Reformers" and "reforms"
are left for man-made religions and ideologies.
As for Islam, it is the perfectly preserved work of the All-knowing, the
Exalted in Wisdom. So it never needs any reformers and reforms.
" and there is none to change the words of Allah" [Qur’an 6:34]
There could, however, be RE-NEWERS (Mu'jeded) in Islam, as the Prophet
(SAW) had told in a known Hadith that there will be Re-Newers who
would, with the leave of Allah, bring the Ummah BACK to its pure religion
at the down of every century.
W’assallam,
Seeraj
Qatra
Abu Jamal wrote
> I don't even need an explanation of this somewhat curious
>challenge to Arshad.
Brother Arshad, there is an expression in Turkish, "hakkini helal et," which is
difficult to translate, but comes out to something like :
"Make my rights halal." (Forgive my rights. (?))
It is said to a fellow brother in Islam who may have offended or violated the
rights of another brother. I wish to say it to you, being that the
understanding of my response just now became clear to me. I fear that I have
attributed some motive to you which you did not deserve. I now understand
where you were originally coming from, alhamdulillah.
WasSalaam,
qatra
Cbun
The statement "At first I attributed it to you being a
revert, " should not be considered as an insult to a revert.
It is a well stablished Islamic rule to excuse the mistakes
of a revert in consideration that he is new to Islam and
needs to acquire knowledge before he can be accountable for
his errors. The same principle of accountability applies to
a non-revert Muslim. Arshad's statement is based on his
assumption that Loamax is new to Islam (which he is not).
Lomax is a long time participant on SRI and he never acts
as someone who does'nt know.
Arshad's statement, "At first I attributed it to you being
a revert, " is not the first of its kind on SRI. It has
been used in the past against Lomax and others. From my
observation in the past, whenever Lomax involved himself in
the discussion concerning "Naqbashandis (Haqqani's and
Kabbani's sect", he behaved irrationaly in his attempt to
defend the sect. He has acted ,aggressively against anyone
who attempted to expose the Naqbashandis (Haqqani's and
Kabbani's sect)- he used abusive words including the label
of Kufr. In contrast, he uses mild words whenever he
addressed the Naqbashandis (Haqqani's and Kabbani's sect)
and their representative on SRI Fouad Haddad. I personally
have similar experience with Lomax where he used abusive
words against me in his attempt to defend Fouad Haddad and
the Naqbashandis (Haqqani's and Kabbani's sect). In
contrast when Fouad Haddad attacks the scholars of Islam,
past and present, Lomax shows no reaction.
Lomax is Irrational when it comes to the Naqbashandis
(Haqqani's and Kabbani's sect) and their representative on
SRI, Fouad Haddad. The only diffrence between him and Fouad
Haddad is that Lomax does not clearly declare huimself as a
representative of the Naqbashandis (Haqqani's and Kabbani's
sect) although, he expressed his admiration for their
sheikh in the past.
In article <8m9m2c$ccq$1...@samba.rahul.net>, qa...@aol.com
Alhabashi (not Ahbash, salafi, ...),
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
mar...@vom.com
Kamal Southall <1ka...@mpowernet.com> wrote:
>As far as knowledge of din goes, and I'm not tooting a horn for
>Abdulrahman, and as a matter of fact I disagree with a number of the
>views that he has expressed publicly, but frankly the man has been a
>Muslim since before many of the people posting on this forum were even
>born, or at least since they were children. And frankly the man is (or
>was, anyway) a Hafiz, and I am not too sure that brother Arshad is a
>Hafiz (or was. anyway).
there are a number of definitions of hafiz; the most common usage is
with regard to one who can recite the entire Qur'aan from beginning to
end from memory, with little or no error. I am not able to do this.
Yet.
As to how much Qur'aan I know, it will suffice for the moment to note
that I can recite from memory approximately a tenth of the Qur'aan
including Baqara; beyond that I have a general familiarity but by no
means a comprehensive knowledge. I do not know the extent of Qur'aanic
knowledge on the part of Arshad, for it is possible that he knows more
than is apparent from what he writes.
>This is not to indicate support for the positions being argued here, or
>-for that matter- to indicate my lack of support, it is a statement of
>fact. Respect those who know more than you even if their positions are
>offensive to you. Characteristic of the abandonment of 'ilm amongst the
>youth of the Ummah is the abandonment of the adab of the Talib, the one
>seeking knowledge...
Well said.
Abd ulRahman Lomax
Printed Circuit Consulting since 1975, Training, Protel license resales.
www.lomaxdesign.com
mar...@vom.com
Arshad <i_found_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In the past, I have usually ignored your responses Lomax because you
>reply with insults, and you reply with no proof other then guesswork.
Let's see if he himself has responded with "proof" and without
"insults."
>At first I attributed it to you being a revert, but it has been a few
>years and at times you have served as moderator on here (which shows
>just how poor the state of affairs are here).
This, of course, is simply an opinion, laced with insult. It
represents being a "revert," i.e., one who has voluntarily accepted
Islam, not being born into a Muslim family, as if it were a deficient
condition; and it is deeply insulting in other ways as well. This post
was on the edge of acceptability by current standards, which have
gradually been tightening.
>> as-salaamu ^alaykum. We know we are in for a deluge of nonsense just
>> from seeing the hotmail handle:
>> Arshad <i_found_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>This is the first slander in your response and has nothing to do with
>my post whatsoever. Shame on you.
Because a hotmail handle has voluntarily been chosen by its owner, it
can tell us something about him. My responses are written for the
general audience of s.r.i., and do not confine themselves to response
to the occasion, i.e., to a post preceding it in the thread. If a
matter seems relevant to me to the interests of those who read this
newsgroup, I may include it.
My comment was testimony, and it was true testimony, if "we" is
understood as it was used; that is, not as the fully inclusive "we"
but as the "we" of one who writes representing a set of people. Such
people exist, and they know what was said, and therefore the testimony
was true.
Arshad's post was itself a slander of a broad group of people;
therefore his own character becomes an issue. One cannot throw mud
without getting dirty oneself.
Now, even truthful testimony can be slander if it is gratuitous, that
is, if it defames without necessity. Was there a necessity here?
Perhaps not, and thus perhaps shame is appropriate for me. It's an
edge that I walk in writing for this newsgroup. However, my intuition
here is that there was a purpose served by bringing these matters to
the surface. What we see here is the character of those who defame the
Folk; this is nothing new, it has been going on for better than a
thousand years.
>> Arshad keeps relative anonymity by using the hotmail address, but his
>> web site, referenced at the end of the article, tells us more about
>> him.
>
>The hotmail address serves as a means for me to handle the emails I
>receive on USENET. I use different emails for different purposes,
>but that really is none of your concern, and this was a silly question
>to be asking, and a waste of my time to answer it.
I don't recall asking a question, thus if Arshad has chosen to answer
a question, it is a question of his own invention. If a writer writes
something which I consider irrelevant to my purposes in responding, I
delete it. There is no obligation to respond to what is irrelevant.
"That is none of your concern" is the refrain of those who imagine
that life can be divided into compartments, that they can represent
themselves in one way in one sphere and in another way in another
sphere. At the masjid they can display piety, at home they can engage
in whatever depravity they like, "none of your business." This is not
Islam; it is actually a modern idea.
The believers are one company, and they do not erect barriers of
secrecy between one another. Yes, there are private matters and
confidences, but these do not represent a maintained and defended
identity. I have made mistakes in my life, mistakes that I am not
going to tell you about, or at least I will not tell you in this
forum, at this time; I will only disclose them if there is necessity.
>> I doubt he is over twenty. There are things on that site which
>> will embarrass him if he sees them twenty years from now, unless he
>> has by then left Islam.
>
>More insults and slander from you.
Perhaps he will be asked, twenty years from now, if what I wrote was
true. Until then he cannot know from personal experience, but he can
only speculate. It is rare that one who is twenty has any idea of how
the world will appear to him twenty years hence, and it is especially
rare among those who refuse to learn from their elders, but imagine
themselves superior to them. And I am yet another generation beyond
that, old enough to begin to become sharply conscious of my mortality,
something uncommon among the healthy, even at forty.
>Many scholars and authors of famous
>works have visited it and signed the guestbook. Just last week a
>khatib in the UK visited it and took a khutbah to deliver at a
>university in the UK. None of these people seemed to be embarassed
>and many people come back for more. May Allah (SWT) guide you. Sincere,
>naseeah to you is to learn some adab when addressing Muslims.
Perhaps Arshad is himself revealing the sad condition of our ummah,
and he imagines that one who is so young is in a position to teach
manners to his elders. It may indeed be a fault of mine that I
confront him with himself; that is between me and Allah and my friends
will not hesitate to caution me, but Allah uses me for the purposes he
chooses. This is true even of the kafiruwn, by the way, it is no
excuse for bad behavior.
But since he has insisted about the matter, it becomes relevant to
detail precisely that about which I was writing. So I went again to
his website. It seems to me that it has been cleaned up a bit, I'm not
sure. But this is among what I found:
>Allow myself to introduce....myself, Arshad, swingin computer
>programmer by day, man of mystery by night Glad you could make
>it to my swingin pad in cyberspace.
>
>What's that you say? It's shagadelic? Oh behave! Yeah baby!
>Yeah! I think you're smashing, terrific, grrroooovy.
>You put the grrrr in groovy. Grrr baby, very grrr!
One wonders if he knows what shagadelic means. Of course, one might
protest that this was taken out of context. Aside from the fact that
this is not particularly out of context -- this is what one will find
if one follows the link to find out about Arshad himself -- what
Arshad did with his slanders against the Naqshbandiyya was to take a
whole series of comments out of context. Now, is this fair?
>As for your reply to the article there was no substance or proof on your
>part. In fact, you didn't even READ the book!!!! How can YOU even
>comment?
Book? What book? I comment on what is before me. I don't have to read
some other book. If Arshad says that such-and-such is in a book, yes,
I could not generally deny what he has said without verifying what is
actually in the book.
Notice that Arshad is complaining about lack of substance to my
response, but so far this is no substance to his writing, only foam.
But then he does proceed to substance, or, at least, something more
substantial. I will make some of my arguments again. He claimed that
there was no substance to them before, so I do not expect that he will
find substance now. But I am not writing for him, but for myself and
those who read with good intention.
>> >1) The Islaamic Belief : Allaah is the Only Truth
>> >
>> >Allaah (subhaanahuwata'ala) says in the Qur’aan -
>> >"That is because Allaah - He is the Truth and it is He
>> >who gives life to the dead" (Qur’aan, Chapter 22, Verse
>> >6)
>> >
>> >The Naqshabandi Belief : Aba Yazid Al Bistami is the Truth
>> >
>> >On page 15 of the Book 'The Naqshabandi Way' it reads -
>> >" Whoever recites Bismillaah and the verses
>> >Amana'r-Rasul untill the end, even a single time will
>> >attain a high rank and a great position.......he will get
>> >what the Prophets and Saints could not get, and will arrive
>> >at the stage of Aba Yazid Al-Bistami, the Imam of the
>> >order who said: "I am the Truth (al-Haqq)".
First of all, the quoted statement does not affirm that "Aba Yazid Al
Bistami is the Truth." Rather it indicates that a person who does such
and such will attain to such a stage as to be able to understand the
statement of Abu Yazid. Without understanding the meaning of a
statement, trying to judge it is only to play with appearances,
without any knowledge of the correspondence of the appearances with
the truth. This is a dangerous business.
>> >The above statement 'I am the Truth' - is a clear example
>> >of Shirk (association) in the aspect of the Names and
>> >Attributes of Allaah, Since Al-Haqq in the definite form, is
>> >one of Allaah's Unique attributes and is not shared by any
>> >created being or thing unless preceded by the prefix 'Abd
>> >meaning "Slave of" or "Servant of".
Rather, this clear comment is a proof that the writer did not
understand the meaning of what was quoted, for it is completely clear
that no assertion is being made that Abu Yaziyd is *the* truth in an
exclusive sense (since it is being proposed that another will attain
the same station), yet the writer attempts to prove that the use of
the definite article indicates an attribute that is not shared; thus
it is utterly without controversy for those of vision that the critic
is ignorant.
It is not necessary for me to read the book to know this. It is
certainly a theoretical possibility that the book is *filled* with
shirk; but what was quoted is not a proof of shirk. As I mentioned, I
write about what is in front of me; I generally dislike writing about
matters where I have no personal knowledge.
>> > (In fact the Mystic
>> >al-Hallaaj was publicly executed as an apostate for daring
>> >to openly claim divinity in his infamous pronouncement
>> >"Anal-Haqq - I am the Truth" ). '
Did I mention that no knowledgeable report has come to me that claims
this as the charge against al-Hallaaj? This is a common rumor, and
nothing more, it appears. Yes, al-Hallaaj is reported as saying that,
and yes, it is reported that he was executed for heresy, and the
ignorant put the two together without proof.
Ana l-Haqq does not make any *personal* claim of divinity, as it is
understood by the people of insight. Rather, it affirms a perceived
relationship between the self (ana) and God (for indeed God is the
truth.) Some taste this relationship and fall into kubriyya,
identifying with and claiming what they do not own.
I could give an abstract analysis of this, but it is a bit like
writing about the taste of honey. If one has not tasted honey, what
will be conveyed is deficient, and if one has tasted honey, the
analysis is unnecessary; an allusion is sufficient and more is a
distraction.
>LOMAX said:
>
>> "I am the Truth" is not a clear example of shirk. It is a statement,
>> and statements taken out of context mean very little. For example, I
>> just quoted *Arshad* with that statement. Of course, in context, we
>> would know that Arshad is quoting for the purpose of refutation,
>> without any intention that he be personally identified with the truth.
>> Thus, by understanding Arshad's intention in making the statement, we
>> understand that he is not, by it, guilty of shirk.
>
><SNIP>
>
>Shaikh Salim Morgan replied:
Who is Shaikh Salim Morgan, such that he replies here through the pen
of Arshad?
>This statement of Al-Hallaj is shirk without doubt. It is not taken out of
>context. It's context is well known and you yourself have mentioned it in
>your message.
The context is *not* well-known, and these writings show that.
Further, by "context" I meant the meanings which the one making the
statement applies to the words, not the meanings that *others* might
apply to those words. Does the shaykh claim that the true inner states
of al-Hallaaj are "well known?"
At law, one may be made responsible for unintended meanings where one
could reasonably anticipate that those meanings would be attached to
the words by others, but this is as a matter of law, not of truth. And
thus it is reported that al-Junayd, asked to sign the death-warrant
for al-Hallaaj, said, as to the law, he may be executed; as to the
truth, Allah is the best knower.
>It is the deviant pantheistic belief of "al-fanaa' fiy
>Allah".
There are those who hold such a belief, and they are in error.
However, it would be more accurate to say that the "belief" in fanaa
fillah is based on accounts of al-Hallaaj and others than that
al-Hallaaj and the others hold such a belief. There are liars and
pretenders and the deceived, to be sure, but the existence of such is
no proof against the genuine.
Now, I have *not* denied the reality of fanaa fillah; rather I have
indicated that to "believe" in it is an error. To explain this would
require a discussion and definition of belief, and this is beyond the
scope of this post. I merely meant to say that to place reliance on
fanaa fillah, as one would place reliance on any of the articles of
faith in Islam, would be an error.
fanaa fillah is a description of a state; the reality of that state is
not, to me, a matter of controversy; that is, there *is* such a state.
What the *meaning* of the state might be is another question, and it
is a question which even those who have tasted might be unable to
answer.
In any case, it should be clear here that what is under attack is not
only the Naqshbandiyya, but, indeed, the entire history of tasawwuf
and those known as the people of direct knowledge, such as Abu Yazid,
Ibn Arabi, and others.
Ibn Arabi is reported to have written (in the FutwHaat, which is not
available to me), translated by R.W.J. Austin,
"I entered this station in the month of MuHarram in the year 597 in
the Maghrib. I was distracted with joy by it and found no one else in
it. I felt the loneliness of isolation and remembered that Abu Yaziyd
had entered it with lowliness and helplessness and found no one else
in it. This spiritual abode was to be my home so I resolved not to
feel alone, since homesickness is the lot of every being in existence
and isolation is the lot of every stranger. When therefore I attained
this station and its isolation and realized that no one would
recognise its validity in me, I began to explore its various aspects
and characteristics. However, although I had realized this station and
the special gifts of God attendant upon it I still did not know its
name. In it I was the commands of God descending upon me and His
envoys coming down to me and seeking intimacy with me."
One of the special merits of Ibn Arabi is that he describes in very
human terms matters on which most have remained silent. He is simply
describing his experience, he is not exaggerating, but neither is he
shrinking in false modesty (which really is only a fear of the opinion
of others). His station in writing this and in many other writings I
have seen from him is, no doubt, a dangerous one; one step to the
right or left and he would lose his head.
I heard Abd ul-Qadir, now known as al-Murabit, say about Ibn Arabi:
before they condemn him, they should at least attempt to understand
him.
But the people afflicted with darkness hate anything that they do not
understand; if only they knew that they understand nothing and that
they will never find rest until they abandon this hatred and accept
fully the sovereignty of Allah and his rights. Among his rights is
kindness toward his lovers; the excesses of a lover are not like the
excesses of the corrupt; so a sign of the love of Allah is a gentle
kindness toward the lovers of Allah. The corrupt may claim and may
even imagine that they love Allah, but they love only themselves and
even there their love is a failure, for it leads to nothing but loss.
>This is not an Islamic belief. Allah sent no authority for it in
>either Qur'an or Sunnah.
Has this shaykh read every one of the words from Him? He may or may
not deserve the title of shaykh, but he is not old enough to have
accomplished this, of that I am certain.
However, the authority in the Qur'aan for the concept of fanaa is
completely obvious to anyone familiar with the language of the Sufis
and the language of the Book; it is impossible to miss. Fanaa fillah
is a characteristic literally ascribed to *everything* by Allah in his
Book. Do I need to cite the verse?
What happens with the awliya about whom it is said that they have
reached fanaa fillah is only that they realise and directly taste a
truth which has always been true and which will always be true; it is
quite like the state of the muslim. Everything is muslim before Allah,
but some know it and accept it and others deny it and reject it.
Allah planted his seed of knowledge with the Qur'aan, and those who
live it and breathe it will taste the fruit of the tree; not all the
fragrances of this fruit were described directly in the book, though
generally there are allusions.
The people who are covered by darkness may imagine that they
surrender, but they do not know themselves and for this reason they do
not know Allah. Tasawwuf was well-defined by a recent post by Br.
Haddad. It is significant that tawassul was not mentioned in this
definition, nor was fanaa.
Rather there was only what I have seen everywhere that Sufism has been
discussed by people of sympathy. And in this definition was mention of
a basic fact about Sufism: that its sciences use special terminology
as a means of naming what may be difficult to describe. Fanaa is just
such a term.
And the core definition of tasawwuf is given as this: "purification of
the self from all that is other than the remembrance and obedience of
Allah." Thus, inherently, tasawwuf deals with inner states and not
with what is outer except as the latter may open a door; the key does
not resemble what is in the room.
The ignorant will claim that there is no mention in the Qur'aan and
Sunna of the key -- though this is not true; there is ample
*allusion," for those who know the room and its doors and locks and
keys -- but if they were to awaken for one moment and realize that
they are already in the room and that all the doors and keys are only
illusions meant to take one out of illusion into reality, they would
no longer waste their lives trying to sweep shadows out of the path.
They would come to know that their former behavior was, indeed,
obstruction of the path and that the shadows were their own shadows.
If this came upon them suddenly, it would drive them mad.
>It is contrary to what Allah has taught us about
>Himself and us in His Book and that which the Prophet (sas) has taught us in
>his Sunnah.
The writer is asked to kindly detail such a contradiction. He has not
done so except by misrepresenting the meaning of fanaa; and by falsely
describing a thing one may easily show that it is contrary to truth.
Anything.
If he is going to show that fanaa is contrary to what was revealed, he
will have to first define fanaa by the definitions of the Sufis. That
definition is, in fact, found in the Qur'aan, as I mentined, but it is
not elaborated (though, in a sense, every verse of the book is a
commentary on it).
>It is the same as the shirk of the Christians who said that Isa was one with
>Allah
The Christians do not report this about Jesus. And Abu Yaziyd did not
say "I am one with Allah." Nor did al-Hallaaj. But the difference
between what these men said, may Allah protect them, and what is said
about them by the ignorant will be lost on the latter, for they
imagine that they have been given the power of interpretation, a power
they will not have until they know themselves.
One *cannot* know others until one knows oneself.
>or was Allah or Isa and Allah were two parts of one thing
Nor do they say this.
>or Isa was a
>"manifestation" of Allah on earth or whatever garbage they have come up with
>over the centuries.
Nor do they say this, though the Baha'is say something like that.
>There is no such thing as "annihilation in Allah". It
>is only one of Satan's means to lead people from the straight path of Islam
>and monotheism into all kinds of foolishness, sin and obscenity.
The "shaykh" has here directly denied the Book. kulli shay'in faan
illaa wajhu llah.
Now, what did Allah mean? Does this "shaykh" think he knows?
a'uwdhu billah.
>None of the prophet's including the final Prophet (sas) Muhammad ever became
>"annihilated in Allah" nor did they teach us to seek such a thing.
Every act of obedience is seeking such a thing, in its true meaning.
Yes, one can imagine meanings for annihilation which are vain dreams;
but one can also imagine that one is a believer when one is in fact a
frightened child trapped in an oversize body. May God have mercy on
us!
>Allah
>told us that in His messenger there is for us the best of examples. Neither
>did anyone after the prophets become "annihilated in Allah". Rather, they
>became seduced by Satan. They only went astray from the path and led others
>astray.
And this man imagines that he is going to guide us to the truth? He
denies testimony without understanding it; he asserts corruption when
he is himself corrupt. Had he confined himself to what he knows, he
would have been safe, but he extended his reach into matters which he
does not know, and thus he has become one who has "said about Allah
that which he does not know," which is exactly and precisely to fall
into the trap of Satan, as we are warned in the book.
O believers! Do not say what you do not know! Beware!
It has been said that I am one of the Naqshbandiyya or that I am one
who loves them. The latter is closer to the truth, but my love is for
people who seek God's face and whose faces show the light of this
seeking, and there are such among the Naqshbandiyya (and elsewhere,
though I do not find this to be a common coin). I am no fan of
spiritual authoritarianism, but, at the same time, it is necessary to
recognise that ignorance is not like knowledge and that there are
those of us who know more than others; such can guide us through a
territory that would otherwise be unfamiliar.
But the journey is ours to make, and we are responsible for what we
do, not for them, nor are they responsible for us.