Can the Dead Return to this World? (Surah 2: 73)

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

On this blog we have discussed quite extensively the issue of the divine prohibition of the souls of the deceased returning to this world.  My basic position, in light of the teachings of the Book of Allah and the Traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), is that Allah Most High has forbidden the souls of the deceased from returning to this world, elaborated here.

I have also discussed and explained the reality of some of the proofs presented by the opposing side, such as the Qur’anic account of the man whom Allah caused to die for a 100 years then raised him back to life here. (2: 243, 259)

And the Qur’anic Verses which speak of the Messiah (peace be upon him) “quickening the dead” with the permission of Allah, here. (3: 49, 5: 110)

And the Qur’anic account of Abraham and the four birds here. (2: 260)

So now we come to the final proof from the Qur’an for the opposing side, which is the incident of the murder victim who was supposedly raised back to life momentarily in order to reveal to the people the identity of the one who murdered him:

وَإِذْ قَتَلْتُمْ نَفْساً فَادَّارَأْتُمْ فِيهَا وَاللّهُ مُخْرِجٌ مَّا كُنتُمْ تَكْتُمُونَ

فَقُلْنَا اضْرِبُوهُ بِبَعْضِهَا كَذَلِكَ يُحْيِي اللّهُ الْمَوْتَى وَيُرِيكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

And recall when you slew a man and disputed over it, but Allah was to bring out that which you were concealing. So, We said, “Strike the slain man with part of it.” Thus does Allah bring the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you might reason. (Surah 2: 72 – 73)

Before I address the purport of this Ayah, let me remind the reader of the basic principle according to the teachings of Islam which is that the deceased will only be raised back to life on Yawm al-Qiyamah (Day of Resurrection). Allah Most High says:

كَيْفَ تَكْفُرُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَكُنتُمْ أَمْوَاتاً فَأَحْيَاكُمْ ثُمَّ يُمِيتُكُمْ ثُمَّ يُحْيِيكُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَيْهِ تُرْجَعُونَ

How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and he brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you back to life, and then to Him you will be returned. (Surah 2: 28)

Notice here that only four states have been mentioned. Man was first “dead”, referring to the first state of non-existence or lifelessness. Then man was given life in this world (known as Hayaat ad-Dunyaa), then man dies in this world (the second death), and finally, man is resurrected back to life (on Judgment Day). However, the exceptional cases put forward by the opposing side would mean that those individuals who were resurrected from the death in this world experienced six states instead of four, contradicting the above cited verse (2: 28). For example, according to the understanding of the opposing side, the man who was murdered as mentioned in 2: 72 experienced six states; 1. Lifelessness (non-existence), 2. Life in this world, 3. Murdered (died) in this world, 4. Raised back to life in this world, 5. Died again, 6. Will be resurrected to life on Judgment Day.

Again I emphasize, the Qur’an informs us of only four states (2: 28) and not six.

It is also noteworthy that the idea of the deceased returning to this world before Judgment Day, a concept known as Raj’ah, is a point of contention between the mainstream Sunni Muslims and the schismatic Shi’ites. But if the Verse under discussion (2: 73) is to be understood as meaning that the murder victim was brought back to life in this world, the schismatic Shi’ites must be considered as correct in this controversy of Raj’ah, at least in principle.

And now let us closely examine the passage in question, which the opposing side confidently cites as a proof for the possibility of the souls of the deceased returning to this world.

The first thing to consider is that the actual text of the passage does not explicitly state that the murdered individual was brought back to life. The phrase

فَقُلْنَا اضْرِبُوهُ بِبَعْضِهَا كَذَلِكَ يُحْيِي اللّهُ الْمَوْتَى

literally means: “So We said: Strike him [or it] with a part of it. Like this Allah revives the dead.”

In other words, this is a parable in which Allah is drawing attention to the striking of someone (presumably the corpse) with a part of something (presumably a piece of the sacrificed heifer) and stating that in like manner does Allah raise the dead to life.

While it is true that the classical Mufassireen have interpreted this passage as meaning that the Israelites were commanded to strike the corpse of the murder victim with a piece of the heifer, such an interpretation is ultimately speculative because it is not based on the explicit text of the Holy Quran, nor is there any Hadith from the Prophet (peace be upon him) to back up such an interpretation.

The parable for كَذَلِكَ يُحْيِي اللّهُ الْمَوْتَى mentioned elsewhere in the Qur’an is the quickening of the barren earth after it “death”, when the barren earth, when watered by rain from the sky, becomes fertile and produces vegetation:

يُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَيُخْرِجُ الْمَيِّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ وَيُحْيِي الْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ مَوْتِهَا وَكَذَلِكَ تُخْرَجُونَ

He brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living and brings to life the earth after its lifelessness. And thus will you be brought out. (Surah 30: 19)

This parable is repeated elsewhere in the Quran (30: 50, 35: 9).

For this reason, the Mufassir, Ibn Abi Hatim, has brought forth the following Hadith as an explanation of the Verse (2: 73) under discussion:

يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِي رَزِينٍ الْعُقَيْلِيِّ ، قَالَ : قُلْتُ : " يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ : كَيْفَ يُحْيِي اللَّهُ الْمَوْتَى ؟ قَالَ : أَمَا مَرَرْتَ بِوَادِي أَهْلِكَ مُمْحِلا ، ثُمَّ مَرَرْتَ بِهِ خَضِرًا ؟ قَالَ : بَلَى ، قَالَ : كَذَلِكَ النُّشُورُ ، أَوْ قَالَ : كَذَلِكَ يُحْيِي اللَّهُ الْمَوْتَى " .

Abi Razin al-‘Uqayli says that he asked: “O Allah’s Messenger, how does Allah give life to the dead?” He (peace be upon him) said: “Do you not pass by a barren valley, then pass through it when it is revitalized with greenery?” He said: “Undoubtedly”. He (peace be upon him) said: “Likewise does Allah give life to the dead.”

(Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim)

Hence we see that for a person to understand how Allah can raise the dead to life it is not necessary for him to actually see a dead person come back to life in this world. Simply seeing a dead person come back to life in this world would only be a proof for the one who actually witnesses such an event which is limited to a certain time and place. However, the Sign of the barren earth becoming fertile and producing vegetation after being irrigated with water is something universal and is a stronger parable to understand how Allah can revive the dead to life on Judgment Day.

Likewise, we should understand from the Verse (2: 73) that a stronger and more profound parable is being given as proof for Allah’s ability to revive the dead. We will return to question of what the particular parable mentioned in Surah 2: 73 is, but first, let us consider some alternate interpretations:

The liberal modernist, Muhammad Abduh (1849 – 1905), considered a major figure of the modern Salafi movement, interpreted this passage as referring to قصاص (Qisaas), meaning “retaliation in kind”, or “eye for an eye” (the term for retributive justice). He cited two other verses of the Holy Quran with similar language (Surah 5: 32, 2: 179). For example: “And there is for you in Qisaas (legal retribution) Life” (2: 179).

Reference: Tafsir al-Manar; v. 1, p. 351

Hence, this alternative interpretation posits that Allah commanded that the murder suspect should be struck with a part of the victim's corpse as retributive justice:

وذلك معنى قول تعالى: "فقلنا اضربوه" أي: المتهم ببعضها أي: ببعض جثة المقتول فإنه سيظهر إجرامه أو براءته، وبذلك لا يضيع دم القتيل هدرًا، وهو معنى قوله: "كذلك يحيى الله الموتى ويريكم آياته لعلكم تعقلون"

بمعنى فاضربوا القاتل الذي قام الاتهام على أنه القاتل ببعض جثة المقتول فإن ذلك يحمله على الاعتراف ، وإذا قام الاعتراف فقد قام الدليل الموجب للقصاص ، وبذلك القصاص يحيي الله تعالى من مات بالقصاص له

Although I do not personally subscribe to this view, nevertheless, it is a valid interpretation worthy of consideration.

But to summarize, the Verse under discussion (2: 73) does not explicitly state that the murder victim was restored to life in this world. This coupled with the fact that we have already established that Allah has forbidden the souls of the deceased from returning to this world leaves us with only one conclusion; the interpretation of the opposing side is simply incorrect.

Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (A.S) Make Takfir of His Deniers?

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

May salutations of peace and blessings be showered upon our beloved master Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family, companions and progeny.

One of the objections against Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement who claimed to be the Mahdi and Messiah, which I repeatedly encounter, is that he and his followers make Takfeer of non-Ahmadi Muslims, i.e., Muslims who do not believe in or accept Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

I have already touched upon this controversy in my series refuting Iqbal’s paper Islam and Ahmadism, in which Iqbal has put forward this accusation quite strongly. The reader can refer to it here.

The crucial statement of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that represents his basic position was quoted there, and I quote it again here:

ابتدا سے میرا یہی مذہب ہے کہ میرے دعوے کے انکار کی وجہ سے کوئی شخص کافر یا دجّال نہیں ہوسکتا۔ 

ہاں ضال اور جادہ صواب ‍‌‏سے منہرف ضرور ہوگا۔ اور میں اس کا نام بے ایمان نہیں رکھتا۔ ہاں میں ایسے سب لوگوں کو ضال اور جادہ صدق و صواب سے دور سمجھتا ہوں جو ان سچّا‌‎‍‌‎‎ئیوں سے انکار کرتے ہیں جو خدا تعالی نے میرے پر کھولی ہیں۔ میں بلا شبہ ایسے ہر ایک آدمی کو ضلالت کی آلودگی سے مبتلا سمجھتا ہوں جو حق اور راستی سے منحرف ہے۔ لیکن میں کسی کلمہ گو کا نام کافر نہیں رکھتا جبتک وہ میری تکفیر اور تکذیب کر کے اپنے تئیں خود کافر نہ بنالیوے۔ سو اس معاملہ میں ہمیشہ سے سبقت میرے مخالفوں کی طرف سے ہے کہ انہوں نے مجھ کو کافر کہا۔ میرے لئے فتوی طیار کیا۔ میں نے سبقت کر کے ان کے لئے کوئی فتوی طیار نہیں کیا۔ اور اس بات کا وہ خود اقرار کر سکتے ہیں کہ اگر میں اللہ تعالی کے نزدیک مسلمان ہوں تو مجھ کو کافر بنانے سے رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کا فتوی انپر یہی ہے کہ وہ خود کافر ہیں۔ سو میں ان کو کافر نہیں کہتا۔ بلکہ وہ مجھ کو کافر کہہ کر خود فتوی نبوی کے نیچے آتے ہیں۔

Translation: “From the beginning, it has always been my madhhab (belief) that by denying my claims no person will become a kaafir (unbeliever) or dajjaal (antichrist). Yes, (such a person) is misguided and removed from the right path. But I do not name him as Bay Imaan (faithless). Yes, I consider all such people as being misguided and far from the true and right path who deny those truths which God Most High has revealed upon me. I, without a doubt, consider every such man as being afflicted by the disease of misguidance, removed from the true path. However, I do not name anyone who professes the Kalimah as Kaafir unless he does Takfeer and Takdheeb of me, whereby he makes himself a Kaafir. Thus, in this matter it has always been my adversaries who, from the start, called me a Kaafir. They prepared a Fatwaa against me. But I never prepared a Fatwaa against them. And they themselves can confirm that if I am a Muslim in the sight of Allah Most High, then by making me a Kaafir the Fatwaa of Allah’s Messenger Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam upon them is this that they themselves are Kaafir. Thus, I do not call them as Kaafir. Rather, they call me as Kaafir thereby themselves coming under the Prophetic Fatwaa.”

In a footnote to this statement, Hadrat Mirza sahib writes:

یہ نکتہ یاد رکھنےکے لائق ہے کہ اپنے دعوے کے انکار کرنے والے کو کافر کہنا یہ صرف ان نبیوں کی شان ہے جو خدا تعالی کی طرف سے شریعت اور احکام جدیدہ لاتے ہیں۔ لیکن صاحب الشریعت کے ماسوا جس قدر ملہم اور محدّث ہیں گو وہ کیسی ہی جناب الہی میں اعلی شان رکھتے ہوں اور خلعت مکالمہ الہیہ سے سرفراز ہوں۔ ان کے انکار سے کوئی کافر نہیں بنجاتا۔

Translation: “This point is also worthy of remembering that to call anyone a Kaafir who rejects one’s claims is only the right of those Prophets who bring from God Most High a Shari’ah and new commandments. But apart from the Saahib al-Shari’ah – whatever degree (of excellence) held by a Mulham and Muhaddath, regardless of the high status he holds with God and being honored with the robe of being conversant with the Divine – nobody will become a Kaafir through denial of him.”

Reference: Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 15, pp. 432 – 433

The summary of the statement is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad does not, in principle, consider anyone who denies any of his claims to be an unbeliever outside the fold of Islam. He does, however, consider such people as being misguided and astray from the truth, but they are still considered as Muslims. With regard to the aggressive adversaries of Ghulam Ahmad who issued Fatawaa (legal edicts) against him declaring him as an apostate, he regards such adversaries as coming under the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement:

أَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ قَالَ لِأَخِيهِ يَا كَافِرُ فَقَدْ بَاءَ بِهَا أَحَدُهُمَا

“If a man says to his brother: ‘O Kaafir!’ Then surely one of them is such.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

What this means is that if a person accuses another of being a Kaafir (unbeliever), either he is right in his accusation, but, if he is making a false accusation, and the person whom he proclaimed to be a Kaafir is in fact a true believing Muslim, then the one who has made this false accusation himself has the Fatwaa of Kufr rebounded on him. It was on the basis of this Prophetic Tradition that Ghulam Ahmad suggested that his bigoted adversaries have their verdicts of Kufr against him rebounded on themselves since he is a true believing Muslim in the sight of Allah, and the adversaries have launched an impure and false allegation against him.

Furthermore, Ghulam Ahmad clarifies the principle in the footnote that it is only denial of the claim of a Prophet who is sent by Allah with a Shari’ah containing fresh commandments that constitutes actual and real Kufr. But while rejection of a Mulham and Muhaddath (someone who is inspired and conversant with Allah but does not bring a Shari’ah) is something that leads to misguidance and can theoretically lead to the extinguishing of the light of faith, nevertheless, such a rejection cannot, by principle, result in immediate Kufr.

Regarding the allegation that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad declared as unbeliever anyone who does not believe in him, even if such a person had never heard his name or belongs to a country that had not as of yet received his message, Hadrat Mirza sahib outright repudiated this false allegation, which originates with one Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan of Patiala. The latter was initially a follower of Ghulam Ahmad, but due to his un-Islamic and heretical ideas, was expelled from the Ahmadiyyah congregation:

یہ کہ ڈاکتر عبد الحکیم خان اپنے رسالہ المسیح الدجّال وغیرہ میں میرے پر یہ الزام لگاتا ہے کہ گویا میں نے اپنی کتاب میں لکھا ہے کہ جو شخص میرے پر ایمان نہیں لائیگا گو وہ میرے نام سے بھی بیخبر ہوگا اور گو وہ ایسے ملک میں ہوگا جہاں تک میری دعوت نہیں پہنچی تب بھی وہ کافر ہوجاۓ گا اور دوزخ میں پڑیگا۔ یہ ڈاکتر مذکور کا سراسر افترا‌‏ئ ہے میں نے کسی کتاب یا کسی اشتہار میں ایسا نہیں لکھا۔

Translation: “Dr. Abdul Hakim Khan in his article Al-Masih al-Dajjal (“the False Messiah”) etc. has launched an allegation against me that I have written in my book that any person who does not believe in me, even if he is unaware of my name or lives in a country to which my invitation hasn’t reached, even then he is a Kaafir and will remain in Hellfire. This is a manifest fabrication of the above mentioned doctor; I have not written anything like this in any of my books or any of my posters.”

Reference: Haqiqat-ul-Wahi; p. 178

Principle of Prophetic Inerrancy (Part 2)

فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ

So in what Hadith after this will they believe?

(Suhuf-i-Mutahhara: 7: 185)

As we have briefly summarized in our previous entry of this series, the Suhuf-i-Mutahhara (Qur’an), being the Words of Allah, is the supreme and final authority in our Deen (religious affairs). No Hadith, text, book, tradition, or statement can overrule the Qur’an. It is reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

سَيَأْتِيكُمْ عَنِّي أَحَادِيثُ مُخْتَلِفَةٌ ، فَمَا جَاءَكُمْ مُوَافِقًا لِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّتِي فَهُوَ مِنِّي ، وَمَا جَاءَكُمْ مُخَالِفًا لِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَسُنَّتِي فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي

“There will come to you various Hadith attributed to me. So that which comes to you that is in accordance to the Book of Allah and my Sunnah, then it is truly from me, and that which comes to you that is at variance with the Book of Allah Most High and my Sunnah is not from me.”

(Sunan Daraqutuni)

Although one of the narrators of this Hadith is Salih b. Musa, whom the Muhaditheen have judged to as matrook (“abandoned”), nevertheless, the purport of the Hadith is correct in light of the above cited Qur’anic principle that no Hadith can be taken in place of it (Surah 7: 185).

A certain sect, the Ahl-al-Hadith, exaggerate with regard to Hadith. They even go to the extent of giving preference to Hadith over the Qur’an and established Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). They in fact make no distinction between the established and mass-transmitted Sunnah and solitary reports of Hadith, which is a major error on their part. There is an obvious distinction between the Prophetic Sunnah, which has been preserved and passed down to us generation to generation through continuous practice, and solitary reports of Hadith whose authenticity needs to be carefully examined by qualified scholars who specialize in that particular field.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463 H), a classical Islamic scholar, has clarified this point:

ولا يقبل خبر الواحد في منافاة حكم العقل وحكم القرآن الثابت المحكم والسنة المعلومة

“A solitary report cannot be accepted if it negates the verdict of the intellect, verdict of the Qur’an, and that of the well-known Sunnah”

Reference: Al-Kifayah fee ‘Ilm al-Riwayah; p. 432

For example, the correct version of the Qur’an is that which has been mass-transmitted from generation to generation. However, there are certain solitary reports contained in the Hadith which identify an alternative reading of certain verses of the Qur’an. These are best understood as exegesis of the normative reading and not as an alternative reading. The danger, however, is that someone, without understanding the proper Islamic methodology and principles, might take those solitary reports containing alternative readings of the Qur’anic verses at face value and begin to recite the Qur’an like that, for example during the Salat.

Hence, a Muslim must approach the solitary reports of the Hadith which greater scrutiny and caution, and always give preference to the Qur’an and the established Sunnah mass-transmitted and passed down from generation to generation.

However, the reader should not understand from this that I am neglecting the importance of the Hadith. Even more dangerous than exaggerating the importance of Hadith, as the Ahl-al-Hadith do, is the tendency of the Hadith-rejecters, who so casually reject and even ridicule the Hadith corpus without fearing Allah.

The Hadith-rejecters are the most astray of the people who have been totally beguiled by Satan. There is no doubt in my mind that if they do not repent and return back to the Sunnah that they have been threatened with damnation to Hell. However, even the Hadith-rejecters are not a single category of people. They are divided into many different degrees of Hadith-rejection. The most extreme are those who promote the slogan of “Qur’an-only” and completely reject both Sunnah and Hadith altogether.

Then there are more moderate Hadith-rejecters who do not reject the Sunnah altogether, but reject most of the narrations of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that have come to us in various Hadith collections, such as Bukhari and Muslim. The reader should keep in mind that after the Holy Qur’an, the most authentic books are the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, known as the Sahihayn. However, even this is not an undisputed fact, as many scholars regard the Muwatta of Imam Malik as the most authentic collection of Hadith. Nevertheless, it is important to give due regard and consideration to the authentic canons of Hadith accepted by Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, such as Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abi Dawud, Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah (known as the Sihhah al-Sitta). The Muwatta of Imam Malik and the Musnad of Imam Ahmad are also important collections which we regard highly and give due consideration to. Then there are the vast number of other collections of Hadith which are of secondary importance, such as the collections Daraqutuni, Darimi, Ibn Hibban, Mustadrak of al-Hakim, Ibn Khuzaymah, Musnad of Abi Ya’la, etc.

Now concerning the principle of Prophetic inerrancy, we mentioned in our previous entry that it is crucial to draw a distinction between the Prophet’s statements which are based on Wahi (divine revelation) and those who are based on his personal opinion.

However, in this entry I would like to clarify another point of this principle which is that the Prophet’s personal opinion can also be given regarding something that was revealed, and it is not always necessary that such opinions will be correct.

This is merely an extension of the principle we have already established and is not a new principle. That is because divine revelation is not synonymous with the understanding or interpretation of that divine revelation. Sometimes the Prophet (peace be upon him) understood or interpreted a Wahi (divine-revelation) through Wahi or Ilham (inspiration) itself. For example, the Prophet (peace be upon him) interpreted and explained the opening verses of the 62^nd chapter of the Qur’an (Surah al-Jumu’ah) on the basis of inspiration, when he stated that those opening verses indicate some virtue for the ‘Ajams (non-Arabs) or the people of Salman the Persian.

However, at times the Prophet (peace be upon him) interpreted or understood a divine-revelation on the basis of his personal opinion, in which case he was not always correct. An example of this latter category is when the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw in a vision that he was migrating from Mecca to a land with an abundance of date-palm trees. He initially interpreted and understood this dream to mean that he would emigrate to either al-Yamamah or Hajar. However, it turned out that the place the Prophet had seen was actually Yathrib (Medina) to which he later migrated to some thirteen years after proclaiming Nubuwwah.

Another example is the Prophet’s premonition that he would enter Mecca and perform Tawaaf (circumnavigation) around the Ka’ba. In the year 628, the Prophet and his companions approached Mecca to fulfill this vision or premonition, and they had donned the ritual garments for Ihram and brought sacrificial animals. However, they were prevented from offering the pilgrimage that year, but the vision was fulfilled at a later date. From this we see that, although the divine-inspiration from Allah is undoubtedly true and was therefore fulfilled, nevertheless, the Prophet, being a human being, can err in his understanding of divine-revelations and visions if they are based on his personal opinion and not inspiration.

Yet another example is the Prophet’s understanding concerning the details of the Dajjal (antichrist). The Prophet (peace be upon him) suspected a certain Jewish soothsayer living in Medina named Ibn Sayyad to be the Dajjal, but never gave any definite verdict on the matter. When the Prophet’s companion and second successor ‘Umar b. al-Khattab requested the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he be given permission to kill Ibn Sayyad, the Prophet (peace be upon him) refused him, stating that if Ibn Sayyad was in fact the Dajjal no one would be able to slay him except the Messiah, and if he was not the Dajjal, ‘Umar would have killed a human being unjustly. This illustrates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was unsure concerning the reality of Ibn Sayyad as he had obviously not received any definite Revelation or inspiration regarding him. In the Hadith of Tamim al-Dari, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported as first agreeing with Tamim al-Dari’s story that the Dajjal is imprisoned on a mysterious island. Then he stated that the Dajjal is in the Mediterranean Sea, then changed his stance and stated that the Dajjal is in the Arabian Sea, and then once again changed his stance and finally stated that the Dajjal will emerge from the east.

Again, this illustrates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) could change his previous stance based on his opinion or personal observation and amend it with a different position that was based on inspiration. There are numerous examples of this, which reinforces the point that one must approach the Hadith with utmost caution and a nuanced understanding.

To be continued (In Sha Allah).

Principle of Prophetic Inerrancy (Part 1)

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

Salutations of peace and blessings upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family, companions, and progeny.

In this entry, I will elucidate a very important principle of Islam regarding the authority and infallibility of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Before we discuss the principle of Prophetic inerrancy the respected reader should understand that the ultimate authority in Islam is the Word of Allah, the Holy Qur’an. That is the Book of God, the literal speech of Allah Most High. It’s every letter, jot, and particle is Wahi (divine revelation).

As such, for a believing Muslim, the Holy Qur’an is unquestionable and inerrant. This is not to say that Muslims may legitimately disagree over the correct interpretation of Qur’anic Verses, but that it is essential and required for a Muslim to sincerely acknowledge that the Book of Allah is the supreme authority on the basis of it being Allah’s spoken Words that have reached us through revelation.

Consequently, it is a firm principle in Islam that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), to whom the Qur’an was revealed, was perfect and infallible in his conveying of God’s revelation to us in the capacity of being a Prophet.

Secondly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not receive only the Holy Qur’an as divine revelation, but received other inspirations which constitute the basis for the Sunnah, the second most important authority in Islam. The Sunnah is the way or path of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in practically following Islam, for example, the precise method of offering different acts of worship, and guidance for all Muslims on how to live their lives. The Sunnah is based on Ilhaam (divine inspiration), but unlike the Qur’an, it is not a book or text. Rather, the Sunnah are traditions and customs that have been passed down from generation to generation by Tawaatur. These are the two fundamental sources and authorities in Islam whose authenticity, due to Tawaatur, cannot be rationally impugned.

The third source is the Hadith. The Hadith corpus are narrations and reports that are traced back to the Prophet (peace be upon him) through Isnaad (chains of narrators). Muslims must approach the Hadith with more skepticism and caution because they are not always authentic. The Muhadditheen (scholars and experts of Hadith) were incredible individuals who expended utmost effort to determine the authenticity of each and every individual Hadith, by examining the narrators and other factors. Nevertheless, the Muhadditheen were not infallible and it is not only possible but a certainty that they were not always correct but that they erred. The Hadith contain the sayings, actions, and approvals of the Prophet (peace be upon him) which constitute an important source for our religious guidance. However, the methodology of the real Ahlus Sunnah (the orthodox sect of Muslims) is to give preference to the Qur’an and mass-transmitted Sunnah over and above solitary reports of Hadith. But if a Hadith does not contravene any verse of the Qur’an or any aspect of the mass-transmitted Sunnah (and the majority of Hadith do not contravene), then there is no harm in accepting and acting upon such Hadith, provided that the individual Hadith is not too suspect in its authenticity (Da’eef) or fabricated (Mawdoo’).

However, in this entry I would like to touch upon an important principle with relates to acceptance of even those Hadith which are Saheeh (authentic). As Muslims, we believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was in communion with Allah and a recipient of divine revelation. Furthermore, he was protected by Allah with regard to conveying the Deen to us. However, being a human being, he also made statements which were not based on revelation or his being in the role of a Prophet, but some statements of his were based on his personal opinion. The following Hadith demonstrate this fact:

أَنَّ أُمَّهَا أُمَّ سَلَمَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا زَوْجَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَخْبَرَتْهَا ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ خُصُومَةً بِبَابِ حُجْرَتِهِ فَخَرَجَ إِلَيْهِمْ ، فَقَالَ : " إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ ، وَإِنَّهُ يَأْتِينِي الْخَصْمُ ، فَلَعَلَّ بَعْضَكُمْ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَبْلَغَ مِنْ بَعْضٍ ، فَأَحْسِبُ أَنَّهُ صَدَقَ ، فَأَقْضِيَ لَهُ بِذَلِكَ ، فَمَنْ قَضَيْتُ لَهُ بِحَقِّ مُسْلِمٍ ، فَإِنَّمَا هِيَ قِطْعَةٌ مِنَ النَّارِ فَلْيَأْخُذْهَا أَوْ فَلْيَتْرُكْهَا "

Narrated Umm Salama, wife of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) from Allah’s Apostle (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he heard some people quarreling at the door of his dwelling. He came out and said, “I am only a human being, and opponents come to me (to settle their problems); maybe someone amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I may consider him true and give a verdict in his favor. So, if I give the right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of Resurrection).”

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

This Hadith indicates that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not always make decisions on the basis of Wahi (divine revelation), and did not always make statements in the role of being a Prophet. Rather, being the leader of influence in his community, people came to him to settle their disputes and seek counsel. No doubt, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was qualified to do so, as he undertook this role even before his proclamation of the Nubuwwah (prophethood). However, the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself stated that being a human being it is not necessary that each and every one of his decisions is infallible. Only those decisions, commands and statements of his which are based on Wahi are infallible and unquestionable.

حَدَّثَنِي رَافِعُ بْنُ خَدِيجٍ ، قَالَ : " قَدِمَ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْمَدِينَةَ ، وَهُمْ يَأْبُرُونَ النَّخْلَ ، يَقُولُونَ يُلَقِّحُونَ النَّخْلَ ، فَقَالَ : مَا تَصْنَعُونَ ؟ قَالُوا : كُنَّا نَصْنَعُهُ ، قَالَ : لَعَلَّكُمْ لَوْ لَمْ تَفْعَلُوا كَانَ خَيْرًا ، فَتَرَكُوهُ ، فَنَفَضَتْ أَوْ فَنَقَصَتْ ، قَالَ : فَذَكَرُوا ذَلِكَ لَهُ ، فَقَالَ : إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ ، إِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ دِينِكُمْ ، فَخُذُوا بِهِ ، وَإِذَا أَمَرْتُكُمْ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ رَأْيٍ ، فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ "

Rafi' b. Khadij reported that Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) came to Medina and the people had been grafting the trees. He said: What are you doing? They said: We are grafting them, whereupon he said: It may perhaps be good for you if you do not do that, so they abandoned this practice (and the date-palms) began to yield less fruit. They made a mention of it (to the Prophet), whereupon he said: I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being.

(Sahih Muslim)

Here again we see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) makes a distinction between following him as it pertains to the Deen (religion), and following him as it pertains to his personal opinion in matters that are unrelated to the Deen. We have to remember that the Prophet’s authority in the Deen is not derived from his essence, but from Allah. Being a Messenger, he is chosen by Allah to simply convey to us, in his sayings and actions, the Religion of Islam including its laws and regulations, or the Shari’ah. In this capacity and role of being a Prophet, he is divinely protected from error and is infallible. However, in matters that are not Shar’an (relating to the Shari’ah), the Prophet (peace be upon him) may have given his personal opinion and it is not necessary that his personal opinion in such matters is always correct:

عَنْ أَنَسٍ ، " أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، مَرَّ بِقَوْمٍ يُلَقِّحُونَ ، فَقَالَ : لَوْ لَمْ تَفْعَلُوا لَصَلُحَ ، قَالَ : فَخَرَجَ شِيصًا ، فَمَرَّ بِهِمْ ، فَقَالَ : مَا لِنَخْلِكُمْ ، قَالُوا : قُلْتَ كَذَا وَكَذَا ، قَالَ : أَنْتُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِأَمْرِ دُنْيَاكُمْ "

Anas reported that Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) happened to pass by the people who had been busy in grafting the trees. Thereupon he said: If you were not to do it, it might be good for you. (So they abandoned this practice) and there was a decline in the yield. He (the Prophet) happened to pass by them (and said): What has gone wrong with your trees? They said: You said so and so. Thereupon he said: You have better knowledge (of a technical skill) in the affairs of the world.

(Sahih Muslim)

Here the Prophet (peace be upon him) is even clarifying that it is possible others have superior knowledge to him in certain worldly affairs, such as agriculture, dendrology, etc. For example, the famous episode that occurred during combat preparations for the Battle of the Trench (Khandaq). The Prophet’s wise and knowledgeable companion, Salman the Persian (Allah be pleased with him) asked the Prophet whether the strategy he had laid out in preparation for the battle was on the basis of Wahi (divine revelation) or Rayy (the Prophet Muhammad’s personal opinion), to which the Prophet (peace be upon him) answered that it was based on his personal opinion and assessment of the situation. Salman the Persian, after seeking this important clarification, then proceeded to recommend an alternative strategy of digging a trench around Medina, from which the battle acquired its name (Battle of the Trench).

Here is another example of how the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) personal opinion, recorded in an authentic Hadith of Bukhari Sharif, turned out to be incorrect because it a statement he expressed from his own personal observation and not on the basis of Wahi:

Narrated Abu Hurairah (Allah be pleased with him): The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and transformed into mouses and rats, for if you put the milk of a she-camel in front of a mouse or rat, it will not drink it, but if the milk of a sheep is put in front of it, it will drink it.”

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

Here we can clearly see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave his personal opinion regarding a group of Israelites that were lost and never seen again. The Prophet (peace be upon him), based on his personal opinion and not Revelation, stated that they were cursed and transformed into mice. This was based on his personal observation of mice, when he noticed that they do not drink camel’s milk but do drink sheep’s milk. Alternatively, the Hadith may be understood as a parable, in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) is comparing the Jews to mice in that both avoid camel’s milk. Such parables where groups of human beings, due to their peculiar characteristics, are described with names of certain animals, is part of the Islamic narrative, and there exist such parables throughout the Qur’an and Hadith. I have briefly touched on this vast subject in one of my previous entries here.

In the Darussalam edition and English translation of Sahih al-Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, it is stated in the footnotes to this Hadith: “Later on the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was informed through revelation about the fate of those Israelites: They were transformed into pigs and monkeys.”

This is why it is so critical to have a more skeptical and nuanced approach to the Hadith, otherwise a person could mistakenly think that the Prophet’s personal opinion based on his own observation or experience is infallible and must be regarded as Deen, whereas that is simply not the case. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was, after all, a human being living in seventh century Arabia, and he himself confessed that it is possible that others may have more knowledge than him concerning worldly matters. This explains why many of the Prophet’s statements, which are based on his personal opinion, do not accord with modern scientific discoveries and facts. If a Muslim is not careful, he can end up embarrassing himself and other Muslims by blindly defending the veracity of such Hadith as proverbial Gospel truth by failing to understand the Islamic principle which makes a distinction between Wahi (divine revelation) and Rayy (Prophet’s personal opinion).

To be continued (In Sha Allah)

Allah Created Adam and Wrote the Torah With the Touching of His Hand

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

There are two views concerning the establishment of Allah جَلَّ جَلَالَهُ over His ‘Arsh (Throne). According to ‘Abd Allah b. Sa’id b. Kullab (d. 240 H) and the Kullabiyya, Allah is established over His Throne without contiguity (Mummaassah). According to the Mujassimah (those who believe God is a corporal body), such as Muhammad b. Karram al-Sijistani, and the misguided Karramiyya sect, Allah is touching His Throne, or in contiguity (Mummaasah) with it.

Our view, however, is that both statements are speculative and should, therefore, not be professed. In other words, there is no evidence from the divinely-revealed texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah to either affirm or negate that Allah Most High is in contiguity with or physically touching His ‘Arsh.

Some of the latter scholars of the Salaf, such as Imam Abu Nasr al-Sijzi (d. 444 H), leaned toward the view that Allah is above His Throne but without contiguity/contact or touch. Imam al-Sijzi stated:

واعتقاد أهل الحق أن الله سبحانه فوق العرش بذاته من غير مماسة وأن الكرامية ومن تابعهم على قول المماسة ضلال

“The creed of the people of truth is that Allah, Holy is He, is above the Throne in His Essence without contiguity (Mummaasah), and the Karramiyyah and those who follow them are upon the misguided saying (affirming) contiguity (Mummaasah).”

Reference: Al-Radd ‘ala man Ankara al-Harf wal-Sawt; pp. 126 – 127

However, none of the early Salaf or scholars of Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama’ah seem to have either affirmed or negated Mummaasah with Allah for being over His Throne.

Now let the reader keep in mind that the attribute of Mummaasah is neither affirmed nor negated for Allah specifically in relation to the ‘Arsh (Throne). In fact, as indicated by the statement of Imam Abu Nasr al-Sijzi, negation of Mummaasah in relation to the ‘Arsh seems to be closer to the reality, but not because the attribute of Mummaasah is impossible or a defect for Allah.

On the contrary, the narrator Abu Saleh Maysarah al-Kufi (rahimahullah) says:

إِنَّ الله لَمْ يَمَسَّ شَيْئًا مِنْ خَلْقِهِ غَيْرَ ثَلَاثٍ: خَلَقَ آدَمَ بِيَدِهِ, وَكَتَبَ التَّوْرَاةَ بِيَدِهِ, وَغَرَسَ جَنَّةَ عَدْنٍ بِيَدِهِ

“Verily, Allah did not touch anything of His creation except for three: He create Adam with His Hand, wrote the Torah with His Hand, and planted Jannah (Paradise) of Eden with His Hand.”

Reference: Naqdh al-Darimi ‘alal-Marisi; no. 39

This is also reported from Ikrimah:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لَمْ يَمَسَّ بِيَدِهِ شَيْئًا إِلا ثَلاثَةً : خَلَقَ آدَمَ بِيَدِهِ وَغَرَسَ الْجَنَّةَ بِيَدِهِ وَكَتَبَ التَّوْرَاةَ بِيَدِهِ

(Al-Sunnah of Abdullah b. Hanbal)

And from Khalid b. Ma’dan (d. 105 H):

إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لَمْ يَمَسَّ بِيَدِهِ إِلا آدَمَ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ خَلَقَهِ بِيَدِهِ ، وَالْجَنَّةَ ، وَالتَّوْرَاةَ كَتَبَهَا بِيَدِهِ ، قَالَ : وَدَمْلَجَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لُؤْلُؤَةً بِيَدِهِ فَغَرَسَ فِيهَا قَضِيبًا فَقَالَ امْتَدِّي حَتَّى أَرْضِي وَأخْرِجِي مَا فِيكِ بِإِذْنِي فَأَخْرَجَتِ الأَنْهَارَ وَالثِّمَارَ

(Ibid)

Hence, the attribute of Mass (contiguity or touching) is affirmed with Allah, but only for three specific things from His creation. We believe that Allah Most High wrote with His own Hand the Torah and gave it to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him).

Some people may object to this and ask how is it possible that the Dhaat (Essence) of Allah come into physical contact (Mummaasah) with something from His creation, such as touching the Torah, Adam, and Jannah with His Hand?

The answer to this objection is simply that we are not responsible for explaining “how”. Nor does such a belief necessitate either Tajsim or Tashbih. As long as a Muslim negates any general resemblance between Allah and His creation they are safe from the heresy of Tashbih (resembling Allah to His creation). So for example we believe that Allah touched the Torah with His Hand in that He wrote down the Torah with His Hand coming into contact with it, but we negate that this resembles a created human being writing something with their hand. And Allah knows best.

Iqbal's Book "Islam and Ahmadism" Refuted (Part 5)

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

Continuing on the theme of Finality of Prophethood, Iqbal mentions the views of Ibn Arabi (d. 1240):

“It is further claimed on the authority of the great Muslim mystic, Muhyuddin ibn Arabi of Spain, that it is possible for a Muslim saint to attain, in his spiritual evolution, to the kind of experience characteristic of prophetic consciousness.” (Islam and Ahmadism; p. 23)

In fact, not only Ibn Arabi, but many Sufis or Muslim “mystics” advocate this view. One may even argue that it is a view that is essential to Sufism. The reader should keep in mind that Sufism focuses on the experiential. The Sufi is the person who wants to experience a living relationship with God remnicient of the ancient Prophets. However, Iqbal argues that: “the Qadiani argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of his exact position. The Shaikh [Ibn Arabi] regards it as a purely private achievement which does not, and in the nature of things cannot, entitle such a saint to declare that all those who do not believe in him are outside the pale of Islam.” (p. 24)

We have already satisfactorily responded to Iqbal’s false straw-man argument here that the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement expelled from Islam any Muslim who does not believe in him. Rather, he stated: “I do not declare anyone who rejects my claim to be either a disbeliever or dajjal.” (Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 15, p. 432)

As for Iqbal’s assertion that Ibn Arabi regards the saint’s attainment of “prophetic consciousness” as a “purely private achievement”, the fact of the matter is that none of the great Sufis, mystics, and saints in Islamic history were isolationists who did not have a calling to share the fruits of their spirituality and gnosis with the rest of the Ummah. On the contrary, they were people active in preaching and teaching the public, taking disciples, gathering circles of followers around them, and travelling from place to place in the capacity of missionaries. Major Ulama (learned divines) of the Ummah did the same, but the difference is that the Ulama were recognized for their academic knowledge, especially in the fields of theology, jurisprudence, and law, whereas the Sufis attracted people to themselves through their piety, asceticism, miracles, and strong connection with God. This is not to say that the two categories are mutually exclusive. In orthodox Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama’ah, the two categories were in fact blended together, since the ideal Sufi or mystic is also a person of deep knowledge concerning the outer aspects of the Religion, such as law and jurisprudence, and the ideal ‘Alim (academic) is likewise a person of great piety, asceticism, and spirituality, and having deep knowledge of the inner aspects of the Religion, such as purification of the heart.

Furthermore, the orthodoxy, or Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah, hold the eschatological figures of the promised Imam or Mahdi, and Jesus during his second advent, to be men of the highest spiritual calibre within the Ummah. They are regarded as superior in terms of spiritual attainment and “prophetic consciousness” than any other Muslim saint or mystic. And it is a given that the figure of the Mahdi, for example, will not restrict his “prophetic consciousness” to being a “purely private achievement”. He will be a major public figure within the Ummah, indeed its very Imam (leader and guide), to whom the Ummah will, as a religious duty, owe him the oath of allegiance. Hence, Iqbal is again proven wrong when he states: “while it is psychologically possible for a saint to attain to prophetic experience, his experience will have no socio-political significance making him the centre of a new organisation” (p. 24). How does Iqbal explain the orthodox Muslim conception of the Mahdi and Messiah, who will undoubtedly, according to their conception, have a great “socio-political significance” as a direct result of their “prophetic experience” and not in spite of it.

Of course, Iqbal personally rejected the “Messianic” idea, and even says concerning the view of Ibn Arabi now under discussion: “I personally believe this view of Shaikh Muhyuddin ibn Arabi to be psychologically unsound” (pp. 23 – 24). Indeed, as we have previously mentioned, Iqbal was anything but an orthodox Muslim. He was a materialist, naturalist, and modernist. Nevertheless, the foundation of Iqbal’s argument against Ahmadism is that, being an alleged rejection of a core doctrine of Islam, it represents an internal threat to the solidarity and social cohesion of the Ummah. Yet we have proven and continue to prove that Ahmadism, at least as expressed in the writings and teachings of its founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, does not at all diverge from Islamic orthodoxy concerning any principle of Islam. The only real difference boils down to either an acceptance or rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as either a person truly attuned to God or not. The opposition that Ghulam Ahmad faced from the orthodox Ulama and Sufis, therefore, should be understood more as an opposition rooted in religious rivalry and not as opposition that is fundamentally doctrinal or theoretic. It is a common thing in the Sufi world for various orders and groups to oppose each other over personality, since personality reverence is a major aspect of Sufism. A Sufi or mystic making a grandiose claim concerning himself, such as that he is conversant with God, or that he receives inspiration through the Angels, or that he can produce extraordinary feats and miracles, may be attacked by his orthodox rivals not on the basis that such claims are tantamount to heresy, but on the basis that the claimant is a charlatan who seeks fame and glory for himself.

To be continued…