Mass-Apostasy in the Muslim Umma

In the previous entry regarding the bifurcation of the Muslims into two opposing camps, the Camp of Faith and the Camp of Hypocrisy, I cited several Ahadith which speak of a general trend of apostasy and estrangement from Islam by a large segment of the Umma. Despite the fact that the Holy Qur’an proclaims that people will enter into Islam in droves [afwāj], the Prophet ﷺ prophesied that likewise a time will come when people will exit Islam in droves:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ أَفْوَاجًا ، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

“Verily, the people will enter into the Religion of Allah in multitudes, and they will exit it in multitudes.”

(Musnad Ahmad)

A mass-apostasy will occur in the Muslim Umma. The Hadith about the bifurcation of the Umma into two camps makes it clear that this will occur near the moment of the Antichrist’s emergence. Yet this is not necessarily a sudden event, but a gradual process which will exponentially intensify as the moment of the Antichrist’s emergence draws near.

Nasibi Refuted on Barking Dogs of Hawab

بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

والعاقبة للمتقين

The Nasiba are a category of people who bear enmity toward the Prophet’s ﷺ household, family and progeny (peace be upon them). In the name of defending the honor of the Prophet’s Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and repudiating the cursed Rafida sect, the Nasiba attempt to mask the malice they harbor towards the Ahl-al-Bait^AS and deceive the ordinary Muslims, by cunningly exploiting the latter’s love and attachment to the Sahaba^RA. In short, both the Rawafid and the Nawasib are two sides of the same coin. They may appear to be polar opposites of each other, yet both are characterized with hatred towards those pious and saintly individuals whom the Prophet ﷺ loved and praised - his Family and his Companions.

Some of the unmistakable hallmarks of the Nasiba is their aversion to singing the praises and virtues of the Ahl-al-Bait^AS. They will often say that such activity ends up benefiting the Rawafid Shi’a and thus, according to this perverted logic, must be avoided. The Nasiba go overboard and exceed the bounds in praising certain other companions of the Prophet ﷺ, particularly the companions who belonged to Bani Umayya, such as sayyidina Uthman^RA,  Abu Sufyan, Hind and Mu’awiya. Likewise, the Nasiba excessively praise and defend the cursed Yazid, son of Mu’awiya, who was responsible for opposing the martyred Imam and Prophet’s own grandson, sayyidina Hussain b. Ali^AS. The Nasiba have invented a fallacious principle that any historical wrongdoing or error of the Prophet’s Companions^RA must never be mentioned, even if it is not with the intention of maligning them. They often claim that the early history of Islam has been distorted by Shi’ite narrators and storytellers. Some even go to the extreme of denying absolutely true historical events and incidents, asserting that the early history of Islam is doubtful and it is impossible that the Prophet’s Companions ever committed such great mistakes. The truth is, of course, that the Prophet’s Companions were not infallible. They were human beings like us. True, Allah and His Apostle ﷺ have praised them for their virtues, good deeds and faith, but this does not mean that they were totally sinless and pure like the Angels and Prophets of God.

The Prophet’s beloved and noble wife, sayyida A’isha^RA was a lady of extreme learning and piety. She was among the favorite wives of the Prophet ﷺ, and Allah Most High has declared all of the Prophet’s wives as ‘Mothers of the Believers’ (Sura 33: 6). The despicable Rafida disparage and even curse the Prophet’s wives, such as sayyida A’isha^RA, thereby coming under the curse and wrath of Allah themselves. In fact, anyone who curses the Prophet’s wife has become an apostate because he has belied the Holy Qur’an which declares the Prophet’s wives as Mothers of the Believers. Since it is impossible that someone would curse their own mother except if he is a wretched, vile person himself, it stands to reason that anyone who curses sayyida A’isha^RA is not a Believer, and she is not his mother.

Nevertheless, sayyida A’isha^RA, despite her noble and exalted status as Mother of the Believers, was still a human being who undoubtedly committed mistakes. To mention some of those historical errors she committed with the intention of drawing a lesson from them or for any other beneficial reason cannot in the least be considered unlawful. Of course, to mention the errors of sayyida A’isha^RA for a malicious intention, or due to enmity, is certainly unlawful. The orthodox Muslims of Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’a acknowledge the fact that sayyida A’isha, along with sayyidina Zubair and sayyidina Talha (Allah be pleased with them) were in error in the historical event of the Battle of Jamal (656 CE), while sayyidina Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib^AS was upon the truth, not only in the Battle of Jamal, but in the subsequent War of Siffin against Mu‘awiya and in the Battle of Nahrawan against the Kharijite renegades. The orthodox Muslims of the Sunna are in agreement upon this point. It is only the Nasiba and other misguided sects who claim that the opponents of sayyidina Ali^AS were upon the truth in any of those three civil wars. One of the proofs that sayyidina Ali^AS was upon the truth in the Battle of Jamal, while sayyida A’isha, Talha and Zubair were in error is the authentic Hadith of Haw’ab:

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ ، حَدَّثَنَا قَيْسٌ ، قَالَ : لَمَّا أَقْبَلَتْ عَائِشَةُ بَلَغَتْ مِيَاهَ بَنِي عَامِرٍ لَيْلًا ، نَبَحَتْ الْكِلَابُ ، قَالَتْ : أَيُّ مَاءٍ هَذَا  قَالُوا : مَاءُ الْحَوْءَبِ ، قَالَتْ : مَا أَظُنُّنِي إِلَّا أَنِّي رَاجِعَةٌ ، فَقَالَ بَعْضُ مَنْ كَانَ مَعَهَا : بَلْ تَقْدَمِينَ ، فَيَرَاكِ الْمُسْلِمُونَ ، فَيُصْلِحُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ذَاتَ بَيْنِهِمْ ، قَالَتْ : إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَنَا ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ : كَيْفَ بِإِحْدَاكُنَّ تَنْبَحُ عَلَيْهَا كِلَابُ الْحَوْءَبِ

“the sound Hadeeth reported by Ahmad and al-Haakim  may  Allaah  have  mercy  upon  them which says, ‘When 'Aa'ishah  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  her reached the waters of Bani Amr at night, she heard some dogs barking. She asked, ‘Which water is this?' They replied, ‘The water of Hawab'. She said, ‘I think I had better return, the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) said to us once: How will one of you be when the dogs of Hawab will be barking at her?‘ Az-Zubayr thereupon said to her, ‘How can you return! Perhaps Allaah might make people reach an agreement through you'. Al-Albaani  may  Allaah  have  mercy  upon  him said the chain of this Hadeeth is authentic and five other scholars of Hadeeth grade it as sound.“

This is an absolutely authentic Hadith. In his checking of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, the Muhaddith, Shu’aib Arna’ut has declared it authentic:

Reference: Musnad al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Mu’asasa al-Risala); v. 40, p. 299

Likewise, another Muhaddith, Hamza Ahmad al-Zain, has declared the same Hadith as authentic:

Reference: al-Musnad lil-Imam Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (Darul Hadith, Cairo); v. 17, p. 273, H. 24135

Finally, Muhammad Nasiruddin Albani (d. 1999), considered the most authoritative Muhaddith of the age in the Salafi tradition, declared this Hadith as ‘extremely authentic’:

Reference: Silsila al-Ahadith al-Sahiha; v. 1, pp. 846-847, H. 474

Despite the fact that these and many other authoritative Muhaddithin have all declared this Hadith as authentic, the Nasibis find it extremely hard to digest since this Hadith contravenes their erroneous narrative that the opponents of sayyidina Ali^AS were upon the truth in the Battles of Jamal and Siffin. One of the despicable Nawasib, Mahmud Ahmad Abbasi, wrote that this Hadith is fabricated and a lie:

ام المومنین عائشہ ^رض اور حضرت طلحہ ^رض و زبیر ^رض کو ان کے اقدام قصاص میں مطعون کرنے کی غرض سے بہت سی جھوٹی باتیں کہی گئی ہیں، ان میں سےکذب بیانی سب سے زیادہ شرمناک ہے کہ بصرہ کے راستے میں جب ایک مقام الحوءب آیا وہاں کتے بھونکنے لگے ام المومنین نے فرمایا کہ مجھے واپس لوٹا‌ؤ میں نے رسول اللہ صلعم کو اپنی ازواج سے یہ فرماتے سنا ہے کہ نہ معلوم تم میں وہ کون ہوگی جس پر الحوءب کے کتّے بھونکیں گے۔‍

“In order to challenge the steps taken by the Mother of the Believers A’isha^RA, and Talha^RA and Zubair^RA for inflicting Qișāș [retaliation upon the murderers of Uthman^RA], a lot of lies have been fabricated. Among them the most shameful lie is that on the way to Basra, when they passed by a place called Haw’ab, dogs started barking. The Mother of the Believers said: Take me back! I heard Allah’s Apostle^SA saying to his wives: ‘I don’t know which one of you will be barked at by the dogs of Haw’ab.’”

Reference: Tahqiq Mazid ba Silsila Khilafat Mu’awia o Yazid; p. 105

The Nasibi mulla, Mahmud Abbasi, attempts to deceive the public regarding this Hadith by citing only a single sanad from the Tarikh of al-Tabari, and then proceeding to unveil the weakness of the narrators in that particular sanad. This despite the fact that the mulla knew very well that this Hadith has multiple asanid containing nothing but truthful and trustworthy narrators. The mulla also overlooked the fact that another version of the Hadith, with a completely different sanad was brought by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari^RA in his Tarikh that is authentically traced back to Imam al-Zuhri^RA. Although it may be said that that particular sanad is mursal, the point is there are other narrations in books of Hadith like the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which I have already cited, but also in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaiba, the Musnad of Abu Ya’la, the Musnad of al-Bazar, the Sahih of Ibn Hibban, the Musnad of Ishaq bin Rahuwaih the Mustadrak of al-Hakim, and others. Indeed, this Hadith is authentically established to sayyida A’isha^RA via Isma’il b. Abi Khalid and Qais b. Abi Hazim. The Nasibi mulla conveniently ignored this authentic sanad establishing the soundness of the Hadith to sayyida A’isha^RA and instead focused on citing the most weak sanad of the Hadith in question, thus giving his readership the impression that the Hadith is forged.

Moving along, the Nasibi mulla Mahmud Abbasi makes another futile and pathetic attempt to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Hadith of Haw’ab. The mulla writes:

بالفرض الحوءب اس زمانہ میں قافلہ کی منزل بھی رہی ہو تو کتّوں کے بھونکنے کی خصوصیت اسی منزل کی کیوں تھی۔ دوسری بیس منزلوں کے کتّے کیا نہ بھونکنے ہوں گے۔ اجنبیوں کو دیکھ کر کتّے کہاں نہیں بھونکتے کیا حضرت علی رض کے قافلہ پر نہ بھونکے ہوں گے۔ پھر حضرت عائشہ رض کے قافلہ ہی کی یہ خصوصیت کیوں اور کس بنائ پر؟

“Suppose, hypothetically, that Haw’ab was a layover along the way for [A’isha’s] caravan during that time. But what was so particular about it that dogs barked at that layover? Wouldn’t dogs bark at any of the other twenty layovers? Where don’t dogs bark when they see strangers? Wouldn’t they have barked at Ali’s^RA caravan too? Then why and on what basis was A’isha’s^RA caravan particularized (for being barked at)?”

Reference: Ibid, p. 107

The laughable and foolish objection to the Hadith put forward by this deceptive Nasibi mulla need only be compared to a similar pathetic objection made to the authentic Hadith of Safina^RA by another Nasibi, Faiz Alam Siddiqui. In that case, the Nasibi Faiz Alam argued that the Hadith attributed to the Prophet ﷺ that his rightly-guided succession would last only thirty years after him had to be a fabrication, because had sayyidina Ali^RA not been martyred and lived longer the Prophet’s prediction would have turned out false!

Dear reader, consider the stupidity of Nasibi logic! They have in fact employed a logical fallacy whose technical term is counterfactual fallacy, or speculative fallacy. To clarify and break down the structure of this fallacy:

“If event X did not happen, then event Y would not have happened.”

In the specific argument of the Nasibi mulla Mahmud Abbasi, the same logical fallacy has been employed, though in reverse:

“If event X did happen, then event Y would have happened.”

In other words, if the dogs did bark at A’isha^RA at Haw’ab, then they should have barked at the other layovers along the way to Basra, and likewise, they should have barked at sayyidina Ali’s^AS caravan too.

Apart from the fact that this argument is purely speculative and hypothetical, it misses the point of the Hadith and attempts to cloud the issue. Whether or not dogs barked at the caravan at any other place is immaterial, the Prophet ﷺ specifically predicted that dogs would bark at one of his wives at a place called Haw’ab. This was a prophecy of the Prophet ﷺ which was literally fulfilled, and as such serves as a strong proof for the veracity of his claim of being a Prophet. Consider the fact that when the Prophet ﷺ made this prophecy, none of his wives could conceivably think about going off to a far off place near Basra, the location of Haw’ab, let alone hear dogs barking at one of them there. The extreme unlikelihood of this event unfolding at the time it was predicted is all the more reason to accept the truth of this prophecy.

The Nasiba simply have no worthwhile argument to deny the Hadith. They simply resort to stubbornly rejecting and repudiating it due to their animosity toward the Ahl-al-Bait, particularly, Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib (peace be upon him).

72 Sects of Christianity

Seventy-Two Sects of Christianity

(Christian Sects Before the Rise of Islam)

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ stated that the Christians were divided into 72 sects, all of them are in the Hellfire except for 1 sect. The saved sect of the Nazarenes (Nasara) were those followers of Jesus of Nazareth who did not deify him and remained under the obedience of the Mosaic law. Apart from them, all other offshoots and sects of Christianity which developed after the death of Jesus deviated from his gospel and are therefore doomed to the hellfire. In this entry, I shall outline some of those sects and briefly summarize their particular doctrines. Hopefully the reader will be able to see the utter foolishness of Christian theology and the kind of strange theological controversies which erupted among them resulting in their factionalism:

 

1. Ebionism – They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites, and that Joseph is the natural father of Jesus and that Mary and Joseph conceived Jesus in the way that all parents conceive children.

2. Helvidianism – Antidicomarians (lit. ‘opponents of Mary’). Helvidius author of a work written prior to 383 against the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary taught that Mary was a virgin at Christ’s birth, but after the birth of Christ, she and Joseph engaged in marital relations and conceived a number of children.

3. Valentinianism – taught that Holy Spirit deposited the Christ Child in her womb and that Mary was the a surrogate mother, but not truly Christ’s genetic mother. Valentinian the Gnostic (d. 180?) taught that the Son of God passed through Mary like water through a straw.

4. Collyridianism – early Christian heretical movement in pre-Islamic Arabia, from the Greek word κολλυρις meaning “bread roll” since adherents offered quasi-Eucharistic bread sacrifice to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Heresy that holds that Mary is a divine goddess worthy of the worship of adoration. Their strongest opponent, Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about them in his Panarion of about 375.

5. Nestorianism – a Christological doctrine advanced by Nestorius (386–450) that emphasizes a distinction between the human and divine natures of the divine person, Jesus. A form of dyophysitism. Nestorianism holds that Christ had two loosely united natures, divine and human: “the Word, which is eternal, and the Flesh, which is not, came together in a hypostatic union, ‘Jesus Christ’, Jesus thus being both fully man and God, of two ousia ‘substance’ but of one prosopon ‘person’.

6. Anomoeanism – In 4^th century, followers of Aëtius and Eunomius believe that Jesus Christ was not of the same nature (consubstantial) as God the Father nor was of like nature (homoiousian), as maintained by the semi-Arians, but rather ‘different’ and ‘dissimilar’. The Word had not only a different substance but also a will different from that of the Father. Also Heteroousianism.

7. Homoiousianism – 4th-century theological party which held that God the Son was of a similar, but not identical, substance or essence to God the Father. Proponents of this view included Eustathius of Sebaste and George of Laodicea. The Son is “like in substance” but not necessarily to be identified with the essence of the Father.

8. Homoeanism – the Son is similar to God the Father, without reference to substance or essence. The father is so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and Holy Spirit are heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father is like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia is impertinent speculation. The Acacians, also known as the Homoeans, a sect which first emerged into distinctness as an ecclesiastical party some time before the convocation of the joint synods of Rimini and Seleucia Isauria in 359. The sect owed its name and political importance to Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea.

9. Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) from Sabellius, who was a theologian and priest from the 3rd century is the nontrinitarian or anti-Trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son. Known as patripassianism (from Latin patri- father and passio suffering), because the teaching required that since the God the Father had become directly incarnate in Christ, that God literally sacrificed Himself on the Cross.

10. Adoptionism – The first known exponent of Adoptionism in the 2nd century is Theodotus of Byzantium. Also known as dynamic monarchianism denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ, and although it explicitly affirms his deity subsequent to events in his life. A nontrinitarian theological doctrine which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension.

11. Subordinationism – asserts that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being.

12. Macedonianism – Founded by Macedonius a Greek bishop of Constantinople from 342 up to 346, they denied the Godhood of the Holy Ghost, hence the Greek name Pneumatomachi or 'Combators against the Spirit'.

13. Apollinarism or Apollinarianism – was a view proposed by Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 390) that Jesus could not have had a human mind; rather, Jesus had a human body and lower soul (the seat of the emotions) but a divine mind.

14. Eutychianism – derived from the ideas of Eutyches of Constantinople (c. 380 – c. 456). The human nature of Christ was overcome by the divine, or that Christ had a human nature but it was unlike the rest of humanity. One formulation is that Eutychianism stressed the unity of Christ's nature to such an extent that Christ's divinity consumed his humanity as the ocean consumes a drop of vinegar. Eutyches maintained that Christ was of two natures but not in two natures: separate divine and human natures had united and blended in such a manner that although Jesus was homoousian with the Father, he was not homoousian with man.

15. Novatianism – an Early Christian sect devoted to Novatian. Lapsed Christians, who had not maintained their confession of faith under persecution, may not be received again into communion with the church. It held a strict view that refused readmission to communion of Lapsi, those baptized Christians who had denied their faith or performed the formalities of a ritual sacrifice to the pagan gods, under the pressures of the persecution sanctioned by Emperor Decius, in 250.

16. Donatism – Christian clergy are required to be faultless for their ministrations to be effective and for the prayers and sacraments they conduct to be valid. Rigorists, holding that the church must be a church of "saints", not "sinners", and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by traditores were invalid.

17. Monophysitism – the Christological position that, after the union of the divine and the human in the historical Incarnation, Jesus Christ, as the incarnation of the eternal Son or Word (Logos) of God, had only a single "nature" which was either divine or a synthesis of divine and human. Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis in one nature: divine.

18. Monothelitism or monotheletism – formally emerged in Armenia and Syria in 629. Jesus Christ has two natures but only one will.

19. Miaphysitism sometimes called henophysitism – the person of Jesus Christ, Divine nature and Human nature are united (μία, mia - "one" or "unity") in a compound nature ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without mixture, without confusion, and without alteration.

20. Docetism – the doctrine that the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

21. Marcionism – was an Early Christian dualist belief system that originated in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144. Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

22. Paulicianism –Attributed to Constantine-Silvanus of Mananali (d. c. 684). Variously described as adoptionist and dualist.

23. Arianism – is a Christological concept which asserts the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father at a point in time, is distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to the Father. Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius (c. 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten by God the Father.

24. Montanism – an early Christian movement of the late 2nd century, later referred to by the name of its founder, Montanus, believing in new revelations and ecstasies, unapproved by the wider Church. It was a prophetic movement that called for a reliance on the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit

25. Bonosianism – Antidicomarian sect. Bonosus was a Bishop of Sardica in the latter part of the fourth century, who taught against the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. They affirmed the purely adoptive divine filiation of Christ. However, they differed from the Adoptionists in rejecting all natural sonship, whereas the Adoptionists, distinguishing in Christ the God and the man, attributed to the former a natural, and to the latter an adoptive sonship.

26. Jovinianism – Antidicomarian sect founded by Jovinian (c. 405).

 

27. Psilanthropism – understands Jesus to be human, the literal son of human parents.

28. Manichaeism – Founded in 210–276 by Mani (claimed to be Paraclete)

29. Audianism – Anthropomorphism, a sect of Christians in the fourth century in Syria and Scythia, named after their founder Audius, who took literally the text of Genesis, i, 27, that God created mankind in his own image.

Now according to tradition, the Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him & his family] said that the Christians were divided into 72 sects:

وَافْتَرَقَتْ النَّصَارَى عَلَى ثِنْتَيْنِ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً , فَإِحْدَى وَسَبْعُونَ فِي النَّارِ , وَوَاحِدَةٌ فِي الْجَنَّةِ

The Nazarenes were divided into seventy-two sects. Seventy-one are in the fire and one is in paradise.

[Sunan Ibn Maja #3992]

 

The Christians of antiquity were indeed divided into some seventy odd sects, though the Hadith can also be interpreted to mean that the Christians were divided into a large number of divisions, more so than the Jews before them, and similarly, the Umma of Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him & his family] will be divided into 73 sects, meaning they will experience more divisions than both the Jews and the Christians. A large number of the remaining sects are essentially Gnostic groups, like the Ophites, Bardesanes, Sethians, Basiledes, Priscillians, Naassenes, and Nicolaites. Other heresies include the Euchites/Messalians, Pelagians, Semipelagians and Luciferians.

 

Allah Speaks With Audible Voice (Part 2)

 بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده

والعاقبة للمتقين

In a previous entry over two years ago I wrote about the affirmation of a Voice for Allah Most High. Today, a large segment of the Muslim Umma reject the doctrine that Allah speaks with a voice/sound. The Asharis, Maturidis and their subsects like Deobandis and Barelwis accuse Muslims such as myself who believe that Allah speaks with a voice/sound of gross anthropomorphism and corporalism. Likewise, those sects affected by the perverse theology of the Mu’tazila and Hellenic philosophy, such as the modern-day Shi’a, the Kharijite Ibadis and others, reject outright any notion that speech is an attribute of Allah, let alone that Allah speaks with a voice/sound that can literally be heard. All of these misguided groups have no satisfactory answer to explain the speaking of Allah with real speech to His beloved prophet Moses, with a speech that the latter actually heard and sensed at the ‘burning bush’.

In that previous entry, I also cited some narrations, including Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ proving that Allah speaks with a voice/sound that can be heard. In this entry, I shall quote some narrations regarding the sound of Allah’s speech, when He speaks or reveals something. Abdullah b. Mas’ud^RA narrates that Allah’s Apostle ﷺ said:

إِذَا تَكَلَّمَ اللَّهُ بِالْوَحْىِ سَمِعَ أَهْلُ السَّمَاءِ لِلسَّمَاءِ صَلْصَلَةً كَجَرِّ السِّلْسِلَةِ عَلَى الصَّفَا فَيُصْعَقُونَ، فَلاَ يَزَالُونَ كَذَلِكَ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَهُمْ جِبْرِيلُ حَتَّى إِذَا جَاءَهُمْ جِبْرِيلُ فُزِّعَ عَنْ قُلُوبِهِمْ ‏‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏:‏ ‏‏ فَيَقُولُونَ ‏:‏ يَا جِبْرِيلُ مَاذَا قَالَ رَبُّكَ فَيَقُولُ ‏:‏ الْحَقَّ فَيَقُولُونَ ‏:‏ الْحَقَّ الْحَقَّ

“When Allah speaks with the revelation, the inhabitants of heaven hear a clanging from the heavens like a chain being dragged across rock, and they swoon, then they remain like that until Gabriel comes to them. When he comes them, they recover and say: ‘O Gabriel, what did your Lord say?’ He says: ‘The truth,’ and they say: ‘The truth, the truth.’” (Sunan Abi Daud, H. 4738)

جب اللہ تعالیٰ وحی کے لیے کلام کرتا ہے تو سبھی آسمان والے آواز سنتے ہیں جیسے کسی چکنے پتھر پر زنجیر کھینچی جا رہی ہو ، پھر وہ بیہوش کر دئیے جاتے ہیں اور اسی حال میں رہتے ہیں یہاں تک کہ ان کے پاس جبرائیل آتے ہیں ، جب جبرائیل ان کے پاس آتے ہیں تو ان کی غشی جاتی رہتی ہے ، پھر وہ کہتے ہیں : اے جبرائیل  تمہارے رب نے کیا کہا ؟ وہ کہتے ہیں : حق  فرمایا  تو وہ سب کہتے ہیں حق فرمایا  حق  فرمایا

In some other versions of this Hadith, there is a slight difference of wording, and the sound is described as ‘iron’ being dragged upon rock, or the clanging of iron.

Reference: al-Radd ‘Ala Man Yaqul al-Qur’an Makhluq; pp. 32-33

 

 

The content of these Hadith serve to affirm that the speaking of Allah is audible, and such a sound results from it which causes the Angels who listen to swoon. And Allah knows best!