Allah is Light

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

اَللّٰہُ نُوۡرُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضِ

Allah is the Light of the Heavens and the Earth

(Surah 24, Ayah 35)

One of the ninety-nine Names of Allah is Al-Nur, the Light. But as Imam al-Nawawi has explained, this does not mean that Allah is literally light, but rather that He is the Guide, and Possessor of Light:

وَمَنَ الْمُسْتَحِيلِ أَنْ تَكُونَ ذَاتُ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى نُورًا إِذِ النُّورُ مِنْ جُمْلَةِ الْأَجْسَامِ وَاللَّهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى يَجِلُّ عَنْ ذَلِكَ هَذَا مَذْهَبُ جَمِيعِ أَئِمَّةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَمَعْنَى قَوْلِهِ تعالى الله نور السماوات والارض وَمَا جَاءَ فِي الْأَحَادِيثِ مِنْ تَسْمِيَتِهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى بِالنُّورِ مَعْنَاهُ ذُو نُورِهِمَا وَخَالِقُهُ وَقِيلَ هادى أهل السماوات والأرض وقيل منور قلوب عباده المومنين وقيل معناه ذُو الْبَهْجَةِ وَالضِّيَاءِ وَالْجَمَالِ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ

It is impossible for the essence of Allah the Exalted to be light, since light is a physical entity, and Allah, holy and exalted is He, is far above such a thing. This is the doctrine of all the Imams of the Muslims. The meaning of His saying, “Allah is the Light of the Heavens and the Earth” and what has come in the Hadiths about Him, holy and exalted is He, being named the Light means that He is the possessor of their light and their Creator. It has also been said that He is the Guide of the inhabitants of the Heavens and the Earth, and it has been said that He illuminates the hearts of His believing servants, and it has been said that it means He is the possessor of joy, radiance, and beauty, and Allah knows best (Sharh al-Nawawi ala Muslim, v.3, pp.12-13)

Regarding the Hadith in which Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, asked the Prophet, peace be upon him, if he saw his Lord, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, answered:

نُورٌ أَنَّى أَرَاهُ

“Light, how could I see Him?” (Sahih Muslim: Kitab al-Iman)

It is said that the Hadith could also be read:

نُورٌ إِنِّى أَرَاهُ

“(He is) Light, I saw Him.”

But Imam al-Nawawi has argued against such a reading:

قَوْلُهُ عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هَلْ رَأَيْتَ رَبَّكَ فَقَالَ نُورٌ أَنَّى أَرَاهُ وَفِي الرِّوَايَةِ الْأُخْرَى رَأَيْتُ نُورًا أَمَّا قَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نُورٌ أَنَّى أَرَاهُ فَهُوَ بِتَنْوِينِ نُورٍ وَبِفَتْحِ الْهَمْزَةِ فِي أنى وتشديد النون وفتحها وأراه بِفَتْحِ الْهَمْزَةِ هَكَذَا رَوَاهُ جَمِيعُ الرُّوَاةِ فِي جَمِيعِ الْأُصُولِ وَالرِّوَايَاتِ وَمَعْنَاهُ حِجَابُهُ نُورٌ فَكَيْفَ أَرَاهُ قَالَ الْإِمَامُ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْمَازِرِيُّ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ الضَّمِيرُ فِي أَرَاهُ عَائِدٌ عَلَى اللَّهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى وَمَعْنَاهُ أَنَّ النُّورَ مَنَعَنِي مِنَ الرُّؤْيَةِ كَمَا جَرَتِ الْعَادَةُ بِإِغْشَاءِ الْأَنْوَارِ الْأَبْصَارَ وَمَنْعِهَا مِنْ إِدْرَاكِ مَا حَالَتْ بَيْنَ الرائى وبينه وقَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَأَيْتُ نُورًا مَعْنَاهُ رَأَيْتُ النُّورَ فَحَسْبُ وَلَمْ أَرَ غَيْرَهُ قَالَ وَرُوِيَ نُورَانِيٌّ أَرَاهُ بِفَتْحِ الرَّاءِ وَكَسْرِ النُّونِ وَتَشْدِيدِ الْيَاءِ وَيَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَعْنَاهُ رَاجِعًا إِلَى مَا قُلْنَاهُ أَيْ خَالِقُ النُّورِ الْمَانِعُ مِنْ رُؤْيَتِهِ فَيَكُونُ مِنْ صِفَاتِ الْأَفْعَالِ

His statement on the authority of Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: I asked the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ‘Have you seen your Lord?’ He said, ‘Light, how could I see Him?’ and in another narration, ‘I saw light.’ As for his statement, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ‘Light, how could I see Him?’ it is with the nunation of ‘light’ and with the hamza in ‘how could I see Him’ pronounced with a fatha, and the nun is doubled and pronounced with a fatha, and ‘I saw Him’ with the hamza pronounced with a fatha. This is how all the narrators in all the narrations transmitted it. The origins and narrations and its meaning is that His veil is light, so how can I see Him? Imam Abu Abdullah al-Mazari, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The pronoun in ‘I see Him’ refers to Allah, Glory be to Him, the Most High, and its meaning is that the light prevented me from seeing Him, as is the custom of lights covering the eyes and preventing them from perceiving what came between the seer and Him. And his saying, may Allah’s blessing and peace be upon him, ‘I saw a light.’ Its meaning is: I saw the light and nothing else. He said: It was narrated as ‘I see a light’ with a fatha on the ra, a kasra on the nun, and a shadda on the ya. It is possible that its meaning is related to what we said, i.e., the Creator of the light who prevents seeing it, so it would be one of the attributes of actions. (Sharh al-Nawawi ala Muslim, v.3, p.12)

The heretical Mujassimah and Mushabbihah believed that God is literally a body of light, or that His Being is from the substance of light. For instance, the Rafidi Shiite heretic, Hisham bin Salim, believed:

وقال هشام بن سالم إنه تعالى على صورة إنسان أعلاه مجوف وأسفله مصمت وهو نور ساطع يتلألأ وله حواس خمس ويد ورجل وأنف وأذن وفم وله وفرة سوداء هي نور أسود لكنه ليس بلحم ولا دم

Hisham bin Salim said that the Most High is in the form of a man. His upper part is hollow and lower part solid. He is a bright radiant light and has five senses, a hand, a foot, nose, ear, mouth, and he has black hair, which is black light, but is not flesh and blood. (al-Milal wal-Nihal, p.188)

Legality of Keeping the Name Abd un-Nabi, Abd ur-Rasul, Abd ul-Mustafa, etc. (Part 3)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Regarding the legality in Islam of keeping the name Abd un-Nabi, Abd ur-Rasul, Abd ul-Mustafa, and the like, al-Khatib al-Shirbini (d.977 H) of the Shafi’i school says:

وَالتَّسْمِيَةُ بِعَبْدِ النَّبِيِّ قَدْ تَجُوزُ إذَا قُصِدَ بِهِ التَّسْمِيَةُ لَا النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ 

“Naming someone Abd al-Nabi is permissible if the intention is to signify affiliation with the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” (Mughni al-Muhtaj, v.6, p.141, Dar ul-Kutub al-Ilmiya, Beirut)

Proof for Permissibility of the Names Abd un-Nabi, Abd ur-Rasul, Abd ul-Mustafa, etc. (Part 2)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

In the previous post, I presented the proof from the Holy Quran that the Believers are the slaves [ibad] of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him:

قُلۡ یٰعِبَادِیَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَسۡرَفُوۡا عَلٰۤی اَنۡفُسِہِمۡ لَا تَقۡنَطُوۡا مِنۡ رَّحۡمَۃِ اللّٰہِ

Say [My beloved Prophet Muhammad]: “O my slaves who have transgressed against their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah”

(Surah 39, Ayah 53)

While the mufassirin have generally understood “my slaves” as attributed to Allah, the correct interpretation based on the grammatical structure of the Ayah is that here “my slaves” are attributed to the Prophet, peace be upon him.

For if “my slaves” is Allah speaking in the first person, then the Ayah would read “despair not of My mercy” rather than switching to the third person “despair not of the mercy of Allah.”

Hence, the great Sufi saint of the Chishti order, Imdadullah Muhajir Makki (1819-1899), may Allah have mercy on him, incidentally the shaykh of the elders of Deoband, says:

عباد اللہ کو عباد رسول کہہ سکتے ہیں جیسا کہ اللہ تعالیٰ فرماتا ہے

قُلۡ یٰعِبَادِیَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَسۡرَفُوۡا عَلٰۤی اَنۡفُسِہِمۡ

مرجع ضمیر متکلم آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم ہیں۔مولانا اشرف علی صاحب نے فرمایا کہ قرینہ بھی انہیں معنی کا ہے آگے فرماتا ہے

لَا تَقۡنَطُوۡا مِنۡ رَّحۡمَۃِ اللّٰہِ

اگر مرجع اوسکا اللہ ہوتا فرماتا

من رّحمتي

Slaves of Allah may be called slaves of the Apostle, as Allah the Exalted says, “Say: O my slaves who have transgressed against their souls”. The pronoun returns to the speaker, the eminent Prophet, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him. Maulana Ashraf Ali has said that there is an indication of this meaning because He proceeds to say, “do not despair of the mercy of Allah”. If it was referring to Allah He would say, “My mercy.” (Shama’im-i-Imdadiyyah, pp.135-136)

To claim that our interpretation of Surah 39:53 is a novel, modern one is also false. The eminent Sufi mystic and poet, Jalaluddin al-Rumi (1207-1273 CE), may Allah have mercy on him, said:

بنده‌ خود خواند احمد در رشاد

جمله عالم را بخوان قل یا عباد

Ahmad (Mohammed) in righteousness called (the people of) the whole world his servants: read (the text), “Say, O My servants.”

(Mathnawi; Daftar Awwal, #2496)

Proof for Permissibility of the Names Abd un-Nabi, Abd ur-Rasul, Abd ul-Mustafa, etc.

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Allah Most High says:

قُلۡ یٰعِبَادِیَ الَّذِیۡنَ اَسۡرَفُوۡا عَلٰۤی اَنۡفُسِہِمۡ لَا تَقۡنَطُوۡا مِنۡ رَّحۡمَۃِ اللّٰہِ

Say [My beloved Muhammad]: “O my servants who have committed excesses against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah”

(Surah 39, Ayah 53)

The Ayah proves that the Believers are the ‘ibaad (slaves) of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

It is therefore permissible to keep a name such as Abd un-Nabi (slave of the Prophet), or Abd ur-Rasul (slave of the Apostle), or Abd ul-Mustafa (slave of the chosen one), and the like, indicating one’s attachment and servitude to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

It is narrated that sayyidina Umar bin al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

وَذَلِكَ أَنِّي كُنْتُ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَكُنْتُ عَبْدَهُ وَخَادِمَهُ

“I was with the Apostle of Allah, peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, and I was his slave and his servant.” (al-Mustadrak lil-Hakim; v.1, p.215, #434)

In the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, the text Durr ul-Mukhtar has a special place. It was compiled by Imam Muhammad Ala ud-Din al-Haskafi, who mentioned the name of his teacher:

فَإِنِّي أَرْوِيهِ عَنْ شَيْخِنَا الشَّيْخِ عَبْدِ النَّبِيِّ الْخَلِيلِيِّ

“I narrate it from our shaykh, the Shaykh, Abd un-Nabi al-Khalili.” (ad-Durr ul-Mukhtar, v.1, p.94)

Those Wahhabis who claim the name Abd un-Nabi and the like are polytheistic or innovative and assert that Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, may Allah have mercy on him, who called himself Abd ul-Mustafa, was in error in justifying such names, should realize that the Shaykh of Imam al-Haskafi came centuries before Ala Hadrat Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, and his name was Abd un-Nabi.

And Allah and His Apostle know best!

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Appeasement of Hindu Cow Worshipers

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ 

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Paigham-i-Sulh, or a Message of Peace, was the last book written by the false prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. It was completed on May 25, 1908, just one day before his death. In this book, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad appeals for peace and harmony with the Hindus, and notably, calls upon the Muslims of India to cease the religious practice of cow sacrifice in order to appease their sentiments.

Mirza says about Muslims and Hindus:

اس خدا پر ایمان لانے میں شریک ہیں جو دنیا کا خالق اور مالک ہے

“We all believe in God, the Creator and Master of the Universe.” (Ruhani Khazain, v.23, p.439)

ہمارا فرض ہے کہ صفائے سینی اور نیک نیتی کے ساتھ ایک دوسرے کے رفیق بن جائیں۔اور دین و دنیا کی مشکلات میں ایک دوسرے کی ہمدردی کریں۔اور ایسی ہمدردی کریں کہ گویا ایک دوسرے کے اعضاء بن جائیں۔

“This requires that we become friends to each other, with purity of heart and sincerity of intentions. We should dispose kindly to each other and be mutually helpful. In the difficulties pertaining to religious and worldly matters, we should exercise such sympathy towards each other as if we have become limbs of the same body.” (Ibid)

The false prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad apparently failed to foresee the Partition of India, and the mass exodus of Hindus from Pakistan and Muslims from east Punjab, or the establishment of Pakistan as an Islamic state and India as a de facto Hindu Rashtra, since he said:

ہندو اور مسلمان اس ملک میں دوایسی قومیں ہیں کہ یہ ایک خیال محال ہے کہ کسی وقت مثلاً ہندو جمع ہو کر مسلمانوں کو اس ملک سے باہر نکال دیں گے یا مسلمان اکٹھے ہو کر ہندوؤں کو جلا وطن کر دیں گے۔

“The Hindus and the Muslims are two great nations inhabiting this country. It is hard to believe that either of the two, for instance the Hindus, would one day gain total domination over the Muslims, and turn them out of this country altogether. Likewise, it is not possible for Muslims to expel the Hindus from their homeland. It should always be borne in mind that Hindus and Muslims are indispensable to each other in this country. If one is beset with a calamity, the other will inescapably share it. If either one intends to humiliate the other, out of egoistic pride or vanity, then it will not escape the consequent disgrace itself. And if anyone among them falls short of showing concern for his neighbour, then he too will suffer the ill effect of his callousness. Anyone who contemplates annihilation of the other is like one who saws off the branch on which he is sitting. With the Grace of Allah, you have also got a measure of education; it behoves you now to eschew grudge and promote mutual love.” (Ibid, p.443)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad erroneously asserted:

خوشی کا مقام ہے کہ جس قدر اسلام میں تعلیم پائی جاتی ہے وہ تعلیم ویدک تعلیم کی کسی نہ کسی شاخ میں موجود ہے

“The good news in all this for those who seek reconciliation is that all of the Islamic teachings are also found in the different parts of Vedic teaching.” (Ibid, p.445)

The antichrist Mirza Ghulam Ahmad further claims that the Hindu idol Krishna was in fact a true Prophet of God!

مگر اس میں شک نہیں  کہ سری کرشن اپنے وقت کا نبی اور اوتار تھا اور خدا اس سے ہمکلام ہوتا تھا۔

“There is no doubt, however, that Sri Krishna was a Messenger and a representative of God in his time, and God conversed with him.” (Ibid)

When bribes and offers of compromise from the polytheists of Quraysh were proposed to the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, through his uncle Abu Talib, the Prophet reportedly replied:

يا عماه لَوْ وَضَعُوا الشَّمْسَ فِي يَمِينِي وَالْقَمَرَ فِي يَسَارِي عَلَى أَنْ أَتْرُكَ هَذَا الأَمْرَ حَتَّى يُظْهِرَهُ اللَّهُ أَوْ أَهْلِكَ فِيهِ ما تركته

“O my uncle, even if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, on the condition that I abandon this matter until Allah makes it manifest or I perish in it, I would not abandon it.” (Tarikh al-Tabari, v.2, p.326)

The polytheists would offer various compromises to the Prophet, peace be upon him, such as that one year they would worship Allah exclusively, and the next they would worship their idols. But the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, never wavered for even a split second and rejected all of their bribes and compromises. Contrast this with the false prophet and antichrist Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who put forward the following compromise to the Hindu idolaters:

ہم احمدی سلسلہ کے لوگ ہمیشہ وید کے مصدق ہوں گے اور وید  اور اس  کے رشیوں کا تعظیم اور محبت سے نام لیں گے اور اگر ایسا نہ کریں گے  تو ایک بڑی رقم تاوان کی جو تین لاکھ روپیہ سے کم نہیں ہوگی ہندو صاحبوں کی خدمت میں ادا کریں گے۔

“We, the members of the Ahmadiyyah Jama‘at, will testify to the truth of the origin of the Vedas, and will speak of the Vedas and their Rishis with respect and love, and if we do not honour our part of the contract, we will be liable to pay a fine of not less than three hundred thousand rupees to the Hindu community.” (Ruhani Khazain, v.23, p.455)

Commenting on the objective of such an unholy compromise, the false prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says:

صلح جیسی کوئی بھی چیز نہیں۔ آؤ ہم اس معاہدہ کے ذریعہ سے ایک ہو جائیں۔ اور ایک قوم بن جائیں۔

“There is nothing like peace and compromise. Let us unite with the blessing of this treaty and be one nation.” (Ibid, p.456)

The call to unity and oneness with the Hindu idolaters is not only blatantly against the fundamental teachings of Islam, but additionally is something that is contrary to the Two Nation Theory which is the foundation for the establishment of Pakistan—a state whose establishment the Qadianis claim to have actively supported.

Coming to the contentious issue of cow sacrifice in India, the false prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad says:

تو یہ تفرقہ جو گائے کی وجہ سے ہے۔اس کو بھی درمیاں سے اٹھا دیا جائے

“It is essential however that you treat Hindus with sincerity and kindness and let decent behaviour be your second nature. Refrain from all such measures as would cause them pain, except those that are essential or obligatory according to our faith. Consequently if the Hindus sincerely accept the proposition of testifying to the truth of our Holy Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and of having faith in his truth, then what remains regarding the split on the issue of cows can be done away with. Remember if we are permitted to eat something, it does not follow that we have to eat it. Everything permissible is not obligatory. There are many things which we know to be lawful yet we do not necessarily practice them. To treat Hindus with decency and kindness is one of the important Islamic injunctions. If for the sake of achieving a higher goal one forgoes a right, it will not be against the spirit of the Divine law. To consider something to be lawful is one thing, to utilise it is another.” (Ibid, p.458)

From this quotation we come to know that the antichrist Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian called upon the people to abandon cow sacrifice and refrain from eating beef altogether for the sake of the Hindu cow worshipers, arguing that something which is merely permissible, in this case cow sacrifice and eating beef, ought not to be practiced for the greater objective of peace and unity with the unbelievers!

Contrast this dishonorable attitude with the zeal and honor of our great Sunni Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, may Allah have mercy on him, who argued that cow sacrifice is one of the symbols of Islam and should never be suspended merely on account of consideration for the sentiments of the cow worshipers.