Iqbal's Statism

بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

والعاقبة للمتقين

In the previous entry I exposed Iqbal’s defense of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s secularist and anti-Islamic social and political ‘reforms’ in Turkey, such as the abolition of the veil, polygyny, the Arabic alphabet, etc. It is quite ironic that in the Indian subcontinent, particularly Pakistan, some of the most traditionalist and fundamentalist Islamic leaders and scholars laud Iqbal. Dr. Israr Ahmad, recently deceased political Islamist, and the contemporary populist Barelwi firebrand, Khadim Hussain Rizwi, both claimed to represent the spirit and message of Iqbal in modern times. Khadim Rizwi even affectionately refers to Iqbal as ‘Qalandar Lahori’. Ironically, if Iqbal was alive today he would be appalled at both individuals and their movements which aggressively challenge the central State. Keep in mind that Iqbal viciously attacked what he termed ‘Mullaism’, which at the moment is best exemplified by the likes of Khadim Rizwi. Hence, Iqbal wrote: “As to the [abolition of the] licentiate Ulama I would certainly introduce it in Muslim India if I had the power to do so. To the inventions of the myth-making Mulla is largely due the stupidity of the average Muslim. In excluding him from the religious life of the people the Ataturk has done what would have delighted the heart of an Ibn Taymiyyah or a Shah Wali Ullah. There is a tradition of the Holy Prophet reported in the Mishkat to the effect that only the Amir of the Muslim State and the person or persons appointed by him are entitled to preach to the people. I do not know whether the Ataturk ever knew of this tradition; yet it is striking how the light of his Islamic conscience has illuminated the zone of his action in this important matter.” [Islam and Ahmadism, p. 45]. As for the two great Reformers, Ibn Taymiyya and Shah Wali Ullah, Iqbal’s assertion that they would be delighted by the abolition of the Ulama is absurd. Iqbal’s claim that there is a Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ to the effect that only the Amir or his appointees are entitled to preach is as even greater lie. At most it can be said that this is the position of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, but certainly not based on any authentic Hadith. But Iqbal’s notion that only the State is authorized to preach Islam is absolutely contrary to the spirit of our Religion. History has shown that calamity follows when the State monopolizes and defines Islam. Consider the Mihna when the pious elders of orthodox Sunni Islam, such as Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal^RA were persecuted for defying the doctrines of ‘State-sanctioned Islam’. Since most of the rulers are corrupt and political power is corrosive except for very race exceptions, it stands to reason that if the State were to monopolize the preaching of Islam it would undoubtedly be a very distorted Islam that is ultimately engineered to benefit the interests of the ruler and the ruling class. Like a Prophet, a Mujaddid [religious reformer] is raised up directly by Allah every century to revive the Religion and purify it from innovations and accretions. Islamic preachers who act in the capacity of reformers are independent of the State precisely for this reason. The institution of Ulama is likewise independent of the State. In fact, the true Ulama who are fearful of Allah are those who strive to keep aloof from the government because of the latter’s tendency toward corruption and favoritism. Hence we see that Islam, in temperment, is cynical and skeptical in relation to the rulers and the governments. Islam is characterized by a strong strain of anti-statism. To be continued ان شاء الله

Iqbal's Praise of Atatürk and Secularist Turkey

Continuing my critique of Iqbal’s Islam and Ahmadism, this being the ninth entry of the series, we come to Iqbal’s praise and identification with the modernist movement. This is evident in his mentioning of the major figures of Muslim modernism in the early 20^th century; Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Jamal-ud-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh. Iqbal describes Jamal-ud-Din as “One of the most advanced Muslims of our time, both in religious thought and action” [p. 38]. Jamal-ud-Din was a well-known freemason, and much of his history and motives for his various activities are shrouded in mystery. Iqbal goes on to explain the “three main forces” which modernist reformers like al-Afghani, Abduh and others created a “revolt” against: 1. Mullaism, 2. Mysticism and 3. Corrupt dynastic rulers [p. 40–41]. With respect to Mullaism, Iqbal states that the Wahhabi movement was the first real revolt against the conservative rigidity of the Ulama. But Regarding the last of the three forces, Iqbal says that it was Jamal-ud-Din al-Afghani’s “special mission” to prepare the Muslim masses for a “revolt” against. In other words, al-Afghani was laying the intellectual foundation for the later political revolts in various parts of the Muslim world against corrupt and unenlightened dynastic rule. Among the individuals whom Iqbal hails as being under the influence of this thought introduced by the likes of al-Afghani are Zaghlul Pasha in Egypt, Mustafa Kamal in Turkey and Raza Shah in Iran [p. 41]. These were the so-called great political reformers of the Muslim world in the warped mind of Iqbal. Undoubtedly, the worst of these three individuals was Mustafa Kamal, the so-called ‘Atatürk’. Among his ‘reforms’ was the dismantling of Islamic courts and laws and its replacement with a secular, civil code. His reforms encouraged the visual, fine arts like sculpting and statues, Western classical music, opera, ballet, theatre, and also the ‘liberation’ of women from veiling and segregation. Iqbal claims that none of this constitutes apostasy from Islam, quite the contrary, he defends such ‘reforms’. As part of his argument, Iqbal writes: “As long as a person is loyal to the two basic principles of Islam, i.e. the Unity of God and Finality of the Holy Prophet, not even the strictest Mulla can turn him outside the pale of Islam” [p. 43]. Of course, Iqbal has no basis for saying that belief in the ‘Finality’ of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the second of the most basic principles of Islam. The Shahadatayn doesn’t mention ‘Finality’ at all, only bearing witness that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the Apostle of God. This is not to say that belief in the ‘Finality’ of Prophethood isn’t part of Islamic belief, it certainly is, just not the second of the two most basic principles of Islam as Iqbal falsely claims. Iqbal’s motive is obviously to exclude the ‘Ahmadis’ from the pale of Islam while conveniently repudiating a similar exclusion of Mustafa Kamal ‘Atatürk’. Furthermore, Iqbal’s claim that “loyalty” to the two basic principles of Islam preclude any possibility of Kufr is technically incorrect. A person may claim to believe in the Oneness of God and in the Prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ, but if he denies belief in any other Article of Faith, denial of a Prophet or Apostle of God like Abraham, Moses or Jesus, or denies belief in the Angels, in the Quran or any other divinely-revealed Scripture such as the Torah, or in the Resurrection, he is certainly excluded from the “pale of Islam”. Nevertheless, Iqbal flatly lies by claiming that not even the “strictest Mulla can turn him outside the pale of Islam”. The truth is that many of the Ulama made Takfir of ‘Atatürk’ and others like him who totally abolished the Shari’a and replaced it with a manmade legal system. The essence of ‘Finality of Prophecy’ is that the Shari’a brought by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is final and authoritative until Judgment Day. Anyone who claims to be a prophet and brings a new law replacing it is not only a liar but an infidel too. Then how much greater is the infidelity of one who abolishes the Shari’a and replaces it with his own law even though he doesn’t claim to be a prophet or have divine sanction for doing so? Iqbal goes on to praise the materialism of secularist Turkey.  Iqbal justifies the “recitation” of the Quran in Turkish by claiming it has some precedent in Muslim history. Perhaps even more serious is his baseless idea that “according to the Law of Islam, the Amir of a Muslim State has the power to revoke the ‘permissions’ of the law if he is convinced that they tend to cause social corruption” [p. 45] implying that it is possible for the Law of Islam to permit something that can cause “social corruption” (God forbid). This is in the context of Iqbal’s justification of secular Turkey revoking the explicit permission and even encouragement of polygyny granted in the Holy Quran and exemplified in the Sunna of the Prophet ﷺ and his illustrious companions. Abolishing the Shari’a is not restricted to declaring Halal what Allah has made Haram, but also making Haram what Allah has declared Halal. Allah Most High says:

اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّـهِ

They took their Rabbis and their Monks as Lords besides Allah

[Sura 9:31]

In explanation of this Ayah, the Prophet ﷺ said:

كانُوا يُحِلُّونَ لَهُمْ ما حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فَيَسْتَحِلُّونَهُ، ويُحَرِّمُونَ ما أحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ فَيُحَرّمُونَهُ

“They would make permissible upon them what Allah had made forbidden, and they would forbid what Allah had made permissible for them.”

فَتِلكَ عِبادَتُهُمْ

“So that was their worship of them”

Hence it is disbelief in Islam to legislate a prohibition of something which Allah Most High has made permissible, such as polygyny.

To be continued ان شاء الله عز وجل

The Liar of Thaqif: Mukhtar al-Thaqafi

The Liar of Thaqif

One of the major figures that emerged in the early days of Islam was Mukhtar bin Abi Ubaid al-Thaqafi^LA. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُبْعَثَ دَجَّالُونَ كَذَّابُونَ قَرِيبًا مِنْ ثَلاَثِينَ، كُلُّهُمْ يَزْعُمُ أَنَّهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ‏

“The Hour will not be established until nearly thirty deceivers and liars arise, each of them claiming he is a Messenger of Allah”

[Bukhari & Muslim]

Lady Asma bint Abi Bakr^RA while addressing the tyrant Hajjaj bin Yusuf, narrated the Hadith:

إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم حَدَّثَنَا ‏  أَنَّ فِي ثَقِيفٍ كَذَّابًا وَمُبِيرًا ‏ ‏.‏ فَأَمَّا الْكَذَّابُ فَرَأَيْنَاهُ وَأَمَّا الْمُبِيرُ فَلاَ إِخَالُكَ إِلاَّ إِيَّاهُ

Verily, Allah’s Apostle ﷺ told us that “In Thaqif there is a liar and a murderer.” The liar we have seen, and as far as the murderer is concerned, I do not find anyone else besides you [Hajjaj]” [Sahih Muslim]

Although Asma^RA didn’t explicitly mention Mukhtar by name as being the ‘Liar of Thaqif’, the fact that she stated that the ‘Liar of Thaqif’ had already been witnessed before Hajjaj bin Yusuf is an implicit proof that it could be no one besides Mukhtar.

The eminent companion, sayyidina Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr^RA, narrates that Allah’s Apostle ﷺ said:

لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ ثَلَاثُونَ كَذَّابًا , مِنْهُمْ : الْعَنْسِيُّ وَمُسَيْلِمَةُ وَالْمُخْتَارُ

“The Hour will not be established until thirty liars emerge, from among them: al-Ansi, Musaylima and al-Mukhtar.”

[Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba: Kitab-ul-Umaraa]

The Hadith proves that after Aswad al-Ansi of Yemen and Musaylima of Yamama, the third major false prophet and liar to emerge from the Umma was Mukhtar al-Thaqafi. Incidentally, many of the Shi’a hail Mukhtar as a celebrated hero for avenging the martyrdom of sayyidina Husayn^AS. The truth is, however, that the real hero was not Mukhtar but the noble Ibrahim^RA, son of Malik al-Ashtar, who famously killed that ruthless animal Ibn Ziyad^LA in the Battle of Khazir [686 CE]. Mukhtar himself was slain by the Zubayrids under Mus’ab b. al-Zubayr^RA. Interestingly, after Mukhtar was killed by the Zubayrids, Ibrahim b. al-Ashtar went over to the Zubayrid side and joined them in their struggle against the tyrannical Umayyads. It is authentically narrated that the companion sayyidina Rifa’a b. Shaddad^RA would have killed Mukhtar but was prevented from doing so by the Prophet’s ﷺ Hadith to the effect that it is treachery to kill someone whose life is entrusted to you [Sunan Ibn Maja].

While it is established that Mukhtar was a kadhhab and a dajjal, is it true that he actually claimed to be a prophet or simply claimed divine revelation thus lying upon Allah while not technically alleging Nubuwwa for himself? From my research, the latter appears to be the case, i.e., Mukhtar was definitely a liar who lied upon Allah by claiming he received Wahi or that the Angel Gabriel came to him with news, though he did not explicitly declare himself to be a prophet. An associate of Mukhtar named Kaysan, the namesake of the Kaysaniya sect, appears to be the one who formulated or developed the doctrines which Mukhtar championed, such as the idea that sayyidina Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya^RA is the Qa’im and the true Imam. While Mukhtar was an infidel for lying upon Allah and alleging that he was receiving divine revelations, this claim in its essence is not kufr, unlike the claim of being a prophet in the true sense after Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Hence, while those people who attach themselves to a liar like Mukhtar are misguided, they are not necessarily disbelievers if they genuinely believe he is not a liar. This is why the eminent companion Ibn Umar^RA, who incidentally was Mukhtar’s brother-in-law, would not only greet the Khashabiya [followers of Mukhtar] with the Salam, but he would also offer his Salah with them [Sunan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqi: v.3 p.174]

The Bizarre Death of Sa'd bin Ubada

The Bizarre Death of Sa’d bin Ubada^RA

An eminent companion of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, namely, sayyidina Sa’d b. Ubada^RA, chief of the Khazraj clan from among the noble Ansar, considered himself worthier to be the Prophet’s ﷺ first Khalifa or successor. As fate would have it, he was unwell during the incident at the Saqifa of Bani Sa’da, where he was wrapped in blankets reclining on the portico unable to stand. His being ill on that fateful day when sayyidina Abu Bakr^RA  was elected the Khalifa instead of him was obviously no coincidence. As Muslims of Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’a we believe that this was part of Allah Most High’s plan to have sayyidina Abu Bakr^RA elected without much fuss, since virtually all of the companions present there pledged their allegiance to him with the exception of Sa’d b. Ubada^RA. In the rush to pay fealty to Abu Bakr^RA, Sa’d b. Ubada^RA, who was lying on the ground, was trampled over and rumored to have been killed during the commotion. But throughout the remainder of his life, Sa’d b. Ubada^RA refused to give the Bay’a to the Prophet’s ﷺ Caliph, Abu Bakr^RA, and then subsequently to the next Caliph, sayyidina Umar b. al-Khattab^RA. Incidentally, Sa’d^RA was left alone by the Caliphate and allowed to spend the rest of his days in peace. What this shows is that salvation isn’t contingent to pledging allegiance to or recognizing the legitimate Caliph, since Sa’d^RA, a believing Companion of the Prophet ﷺ, was granted salvation without having ever pledged allegiance to any of the Prophet’s true successors. We do acknowledge that Sa’d bin Ubada^RA was mistaken in his position of refusing to pledge allegiance to the Caliph of his time, but since he did not initiate any rebellion, rather lived peacefully and quietly, having emigrated to the Levant, he was left alone. Hence, if there is an established Caliphate which is legitimate in the Eyes of Allah, but a person remains aloof from it and refuses to pledge allegiance to the Caliph, he is not necessarily condemned so long as he does not rebel or cause trouble. Coercion and totalitarianism are ultimately against the spirit of Islam, which theoretically and at times practically gave individuals a wide berth to remain aloof from the State and distance themselves from the ‘social contract’, something that is virtually impossible in today’s modern nation-states, which ironically claim to be freer and more liberal. The historic ‘Wars of Apostasy’ which the Companions faught under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr^RA against the rebellious, apostate Bedouin tribes were because the latter were not only in open rebellion against and challenging the writ of the State, but because of their doctrinal apostasy too. Nevertheless, on an individual level, someone who feels he should not pledge the Bay’a to the Caliph or Ruler of his time should be spared, and cannot be coerced, so long as he does not rebel or conspire against the State. The latter, of course, bears no responsibility to such an individual as it does to those who have pledged allegiance to it and are therefore citizens. Yet the basic liberties and rights of an individual Muslim who does not recognize the Caliphate, while residing within its domain, cannot in any way be hindered, as the example of Sa’d b. Ubada^RA illustrates. It should also be noted that while Sa’d^RA did not recognize the Caliphs of his time, he himself did not initiate a counter-Caliphate by gathering individuals around him and having them pay allegiance to him, as that would certainly constitute rebellion and challenging of the Caliphate’s writ.

Regarding Sa’d b. Ubada’s^RA death, Ibn Sirin says:

بَيْنَا سَعْدٌ يَبُولُ قَائِمًا ، إِذِ اتَّكَأَ فَمَاتَ ، قَتَلَتْهُ الْجِنُّ ، فَقَالُوا : نَحْنُ قَتَلْنَا سَيِّدَ الْخَزْرَجِ سَعْدَ بْنَ عُبَادَهْ رَمَيْنَاهُ بِسَهْمَيْنِ فَلَمْ نُخْطِئْ فُؤَادَهْ

Sa’d was urinating while standing when suddenly he fell over and died. The Jinn killed him and said: “We have killed the chief of the Khazraj, Sa’d bin Ubada. We shot him with an arrow that did not miss his heart.” [Mu’jam al-Kabir of Imam al-Tabarani]

A well-know preacher and student of knowledge, Yasir Qadhi, has mentioned this in one of his talks:

Apparent Crucifixion of Jesus (Sura 4:157)

بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

والعاقبة للمتقين

Was Jesus Crucified?

Allah Most High says:

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّـهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا ﴿١٥٧﴾

And their saying: “Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God.” But they killed him not, nor did they crucify him, rather, it was made to appear so to them. And indeed, those who differ in it are surely in doubt about it. There is no knowledge for them in it except the following of assumption. And they certainly did not kill him.

[Sura 4:157]

While the Holy Quran emphatically denies that Jesus of Nazareth was killed by those who claim to have murdered him, i.e., the Jews: “His blood is on us and on our children” [Matthew 27:25], it nevertheless affirms the fact that it at least appeared as though Jesus was crucified. There is considerable difference among the Muslims regarding the details of this. The majority believe that that someone else was killed who was made to resemble Jesus, either one of his enemies such as Judas Iscariot, or else one of his own disciples who volunteered to sacrifice himself in order to save Jesus. However, all narrations to this effect are legendary accounts known as Israeliyat and are not authoritative in Islamic creed. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ has certainly not narrated such an idea in any Hadith that has reached us. Another view is that Jesus was indeed killed on the cross, but Allah has negated the act of killing to the people, since in reality it was He who caused Jesus to die. This is like how Allah told the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his companions after their victory at Badr:

فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَـٰكِنَّ اللَّـهَ قَتَلَهُمْ

So you did not kill them, but it was Allah Who killed them

[Sura 8:17]

This is indeed a strong and valid interpretation of the Verse. But there is also a third view which is that Jesus was indeed put on the cross, but he survived and was taken down the cross alive, though it appeared to the spectators that he had died. Known as the swoon theory, this third view was first championed by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, and more recently by Ahmad Deedat, who wrote several books in defense of this view, such as Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, Resurrection or Resuscitation?, and What was the Sign of Jonah?. The contemporary apologist, Dr. Zakir Naik, cites the arguments of Ghulam Ahmad and Ahmad Deedat, especially concerning the ‘Sign of Jonah’ against Christians in debates about the crucifixion. There is a lot of internal evidence for the ‘swoon theory’ within the canonical Gospels themselves, such as the fact that Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours, the news of his apparent death surprising and confusing Pontius Pilate himself. Normally a person wouldn’t die so quickly due to crucifixion, which was meant to be a slow, agonizing death. Furthermore, the legs of Jesus were apparently not broken unlike the legs of the criminals who were being crucified alongside him to ensure their immediate death before taking them down from the cross. Finally, the claim in the synoptic Gospels that Jesus was seen alive in his corporal body after having apparently been ‘killed’ on the cross, if taken to be true, would more rationally be explained as meaning that Jesus simply survived the crucifixion rather than having been supernaturally resurrected.

Coming back to the Verse of the Quran [4:157], Allah Most High simply says that they did not kill Jesus, though it appeared to them as if they had. Regrettably, some translations of the Quran interpolate an unsubstantiated view into the text, for example, the English translation of Hilali & Khan: “but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)”. It is quite evident that the actual text of the Verse doesn’t mention “another man” at all. This is an example of how translators of the Quran dishonestly and deceptively interpolate their own folk beliefs into the text of the Scripture. The truth is that all of the four synoptic Gospels place Jesus of Nazareth on the cross. There are, of course, many inconsistencies among them regarding the details, especially about the more spurious accounts relating to his alleged resurrection a few days after. But nonetheless, there is some degree of corroboration from  early independently written accounts about Jesus which makes it likely that the historical Jesus was indeed hung on the cross. Technically, the Holy Quran doesn’t deny that Jesus was put on the cross, only that his enemies succeeded in killing him, either because he survived the crucifixion or because the death of Jesus on the cross is to be directly attributed to God Himself. In other words, it was not the crucifixion itself which was the cause of Jesus’s death, rather, Jesus’s soul departed his body while he happened to be on the cross, by God’s command. There is some indication of this in the synoptic Gospels, for example: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.” [Luke 23:46] This is in accordance with the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ: “No soul of a Prophet is taken until he has been shown his place in Paradise and then he is given the choice.” A strong indication that Jesus was put on the cross is the Hadith narrated by Abdullah b. Mas’ud^RA that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ spoke of a previous Prophet who was severely beaten and wounded by his own people, and he said: “My Lord, forgive my people, for they do not know.” This corresponds to the words attributed to Jesus while he was on the cross, or about to be crucified: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” [Luke 23:34], and Allah knows best.

The Evil of Secret Societies

بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

والعاقبة للمتقين

The Evil of Secret Societies

From the fitna of the Dajjal which afflicts the Muslim Umma is the harm of secret societies, like the freemasons, illuminati, etc. It isn’t a coincidence that the symbol of freemasonry is the so-called ‘Eye of Providence’ which in fact corresponds to the one-eye of the Dajjal. This symbol appears on the U.S. dollar bill, as part of its ‘Great Seal’. The origin of this symbol is in Renaissance era Europe, the one-eye enclosed within a triangle represents the Christian trinity. Undoubtedly, the secret societies which may have had humble beginnings but having endured with many centuries have grown extremely powerful. Being able to count powerful individuals as their members, these secret societies have strong geopolitical influence. The individuals at the highest levels of these secret societies remain largely unknown to the public. The higher up you go in the hierarchical pyramid, the more diabolical individuals are to be found. The ideology of Salafi modernism which penetrated into the Muslim world in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries was as a result of the influence of freemasonry and imperial powers like Britain and France. Individuals like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and his associate Muhammad Abduh were known freemasons. These were the individuals who introduced modernism into the Muslim world. Likewise, ‘Sir’ Syed Ahmad Khan, the modernist and neo-Mu’tazilite, was extremely pro-British and was their agent in introducing Western ideas to the Muslims of India. In Egypt, Hasan al-Banna founded the so-called Ikhwan-al-Muslimun or ‘Muslim Brotherhood’, a secretive organization, and likewise the Jamaati Islami founded by Abul-Ala Mawdudi in the Indian subcontinent. These two groups spawned numerous splinter groups and copycats throughout the Muslim world, carrying on a certain political ideology, but with the activities of its leadership shrouded in secrecy. The Religion of Islam prefers transparency in the activities of the Muslims, and has condemned Najwa or secret counsel:

إِنَّمَا النَّجْوَىٰ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ

Private counsel is only from Satan

[Sura 58:10]

Of course an exception is made for Najwa or private counsel that is for a good purpose, such as enjoining Sadaqa, Ma’ruf, or Islah among the people [Sura 4:114]. The Prophet ﷺ said:

وَعَلَيْكَ بِالْعَلانِيَةِ ، وَإِيَّاكَ وَالسِّرَّ

“Upon you is transparency, and beware of secrecy”

[as-Sunna of Ibn Abi Aasim]

Certain secretive sects like the Nusayri Alawites, the Druze, and the Isma’iliya are in fact Batini esotericists who are highly secretive, are condemned as Satanic by the Holy Quran. There should be no secrecy in beliefs among any group of Muslims. The Shi’a who practice Taqiya or dissimulation likewise fall under this category. As for the political Jama’aat or parties, the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ being the largest of them, but also the likes of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, their secrecy is quite dangerous because their behavior is conspiratorial and aimed at seizing power for themselves above all else. Muslims should be careful not to join any political party in general, but be particularly aware of the fact that those political parties which cloak themselves in the garb of Islam are deceptive and have ulterior motives. They have many secret counsels and meetings which are not open to the public, a tendency which is altogether un-Islamic and makes them suspect. These groups that operate among the Muslims in secrecy are in fact modelled after the evil secret societies like the Freemasons. Allah Most High says that this Najwa is from Satan, because Satan himself is secretive and meets in secret with his devilish minions among the Jinn. Those individuals who are at the highest echelons of the secret societies remain anonymous and hide their identity not only from the general public, but from the majority of the society’s members who are occupying the lower rungs. Indeed, those at the very top practice abominable things such as communication with devils and demons, and take instruction from the latter. I have become aware of this reality through deep reflection and through a sort of Kashaf making me acquainted with some of that which is enigmatic to the ordinary people. Believing Muslims should combat and resist the evil of the secret societies by exposing and speaking openly about them, warning their fellow Muslims about their reality and how they seek to misguide the people. And Allah knows best.

Allah was and There was Nothing Other than Him

بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

والعاقبة للمتقين

 هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ

He is the First and the Last, the Apparent and the Hidden

[Sura 57:3]

 

In explanation of these Names and Attributes of Allah Most High, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

اللَّهُمَّ أَنْتَ الأَوَّلُ فَلَيْسَ قَبْلَكَ شَىْءٌ وَأَنْتَ الآخِرُ فَلَيْسَ بَعْدَكَ شَىْءٌ وَأَنْتَ الظَّاهِرُ فَلَيْسَ فَوْقَكَ شَىْءٌ وَأَنْتَ الْبَاطِنُ فَلَيْسَ دُونَكَ شَىْءٌ

“O Allah; You are the First, there is nothing before You, You are the Last, there is nothing after You, You are the Apparent, there is nothing above You, and You are the Hidden, there is nothing apart from You.” [Sahih Muslim]

 

One of the fundamentals of Islam is the belief that Allah Most High is eternal without beginning or end, hence why He is called the First and the Last, or Alpha and Omega. A question may arise “what is meant by Allah being the Last and that there is nothing after Him?” Imam al-Shawkani^RA answers:

وَالْآخِرُ بَعْدَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ ، أَيِ: الْبَاقِي بَعْدَ فَنَاءِ خَلْقِهِ

“The Last after everything, that is, the Everlasting after the annihilation of His creation.” [Fath-al-Qadir] referring to the Fanaa or annihilation of all things on Judgment Day when the Angel Israfil [Seraphiel] will blow the horn:

كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ

Everything will be destroyed except His Countenance

[Sura 28:88]

 

كُلُّ مَنْ عَلَيْهَا فَانٍ ﴿٢٦﴾ وَيَبْقَىٰ وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلَالِ وَالْإِكْرَامِ ﴿٢٧﴾

Everyone who is on it will perish. But will remain the Countenance of Your Lord, the Owner of Majesty and Honor

[Sura 55:26-27]

 

Apart from Allah Most High, everything else is created and orginated, including this world and the cosmos. But there is a controversy among Muslim theologians regarding there being a first creation before which there was nothing except Allah Himself. Most Muslims, including myself, do believe that before Allah created anything He was alone and there was nothing existing alongside Him. One of the explicit proofs for this is the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ

كَانَ اللَّهُ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ شَىْءٌ غَيْرُهُ، وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ

“Allah was and there was nothing other than Him. And His Throne was upon water.”

[Sahih al-Bukhari]

The second clause of this statement should not be misunderstood as meaning Allah’s Throne and the water it was upon are likewise eternal. Rather, these are two separate statements, one which speaks of the pre-existence of Allah when there was nothing else, and the other which speaks of the reality of His Throne being upon water. The great Muhaddith, Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, has explained this, and also the fact that this Hadith explicitly refutes those who claim an endless chain of creation in the past with no specific first creation, the well-known position of Ibn Taymiyya:

قوله  كان الله ولم يكن شيء قبله تقدم في بدء الخلق بلفظ ولم يكن شيء غيره وفي رواية أبي معاوية كان الله قبل كل شيء وهو بمعنى كان الله ولا شيء معه وهي أصرح في الرد على من أثبت حوادث لا أول لها من رواية الباب وهي من مستشنع المسائل المنسوبة لابن تيمية

Fath-al-Bari v.13 p.410

 

Salafi Belief: Parallel Body for Prophets After Death

بسم الله الرحمـن الرحيم

والعاقبة للمتقين

In a previous entry concerning the false doctrine that the Prophets are living in their graves, I cited a reference from Fatawa ad-Din al-Khalis of the Ahlul Hadith (Salafi) scholar Aminullah Peshawari. In it he states that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ seeing Moses praying in his grave was either a dream, or he saw a similitude of Moses illustrating a condition of the latter’s life:

آپ ﷺ کو ان کی زندگی کے احوال کی جھلک دکھائی گئ اور آپ کو ان کی مثال دکھائی گئ کہ وہ کیسے حج کرتے تھے کیسے تلبیہ کہتے تھے جیسے آپ ﷺ نے فرمایا گویاء کہ میں موسی علیہ السلام کو دیکھ رہا ہوں گویا کہ میں یونس علیہ السلام کو دیکھ رہا ہوں گویا کہ میں عیسی علیہ السلام کو دیکھ رہا ہوں۔ میں کہتا ہوں یہ صحیح ہے۔

Translation: Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was shown a glimpse of a state in Moses’s life, and was shown a similitude of Moses of how he used to make Hajj, how he used to pronounce the Talbiya. He ﷺ said: “As if I am looking at Moses peace be upon him, as if I am looking at Jonas peace be upon him, as if I am looking at Jesus peace be upon him.” I say this is correct. (Fatawa ad-Din al-Khalis: v.1 p.190)

 

Aminullah Peshawari is referring to various Hadith, for example, when the Prophet ﷺ said:

وَأَمَّا مُوسَى فَرَجُلٌ آدَمُ جَعْدٌ، عَلَى جَمَلٍ أَحْمَرَ مَخْطُومٍ بِخُلْبَةٍ، كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَيْهِ إِذِ انْحَدَرَ فِي الْوَادِي يُلَبِّي

“And as regards Moses, he is a brown curly-haired man riding a red camel reined with a strong jute rope, as if I am now looking at him getting down in the valley and saying Labbaik.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى يُونُسَ بْنِ مَتَّى - عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ - عَلَى نَاقَةٍ حَمْرَاءَ جَعْدَةٍ عَلَيْهِ جُبَّةٌ مِنْ صُوفٍ خِطَامُ نَاقَتِهِ خُلْبَةٌ وَهُوَ يُلَبِّي

“As if I am seeing Jonas son of Matta on a well-built red dromedary, with a cloak of wool around him and the rein of his dromedary is made of fibres of date-palm and he is saying Labbaik.” (Sahih Muslim)

These are examples of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ being shown a similitude of an ancient prophet, such as Moses and Jonas, and cannot be used as a proof that the Prophet ﷺ saw them alive in their earthen bodies. It is in this light that the Hadith of the Prophet ﷺ passing by the grave of Moses and seeing Moses praying has to necessarily be understood.

Another major Salafi scholar, Muhibullah Shah Rashidi (1921-1995), writes that during the Isra and Mi’raj the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not see the earthen or original bodies of the Prophets:

یعنی انبیاء کرام علیہم السلام کے اجسام مبارک تو اپنی اپنی قبروں میں مدفون ہیں لیکن ان کے پاک اور طیبہ ارواح کو ضرور کوئی نہ کوئی صورت ملی ہوئی ہوگی اور وہ ارواح طیبہ آسمانوں پر اپنے اپنے مقام پر ان صورتوں میں موجود ہیں لہذا آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی ملاقات بھی ان کو دی ہوئی صورتوں کے ساتھ ہوئی

بعینہہ اسی طرح ان انبیاء کرام علیہم السلام کی ارواح بیت المقدس میں لائی گئیں اور ان تمام ارواح نے نبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی اقتداء میں نماز ادا کی۔

Translation: “The blessed bodies of the noble Prophets, peace be upon them, are buried in their respective graves, but their pure spirits have necessarily been given some form, and those pure spirits are present with those forms in the heavens in their respective stations. Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ meeting them was with those forms that they were given…Exactly like this the spirits of those noble Prophets, peace be upon them, were brought to Jerusalem, and all of those spirits offered prayers behind the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.” (Fatawa Rashidiya: Kitab-al-Aqaid p.203)

So, like the Twelver Shi’a and the Deobandis, the Ahlul Hadith (Salafis) likewise affirm the concept of a parallel body after death that is granted to the soul of the deceased, while its corpse lies buried in the earthen grave.

Male Circumcision is Mandatory

The Icelandic parliament is considering legislating a ban on infant male circumcision. If the bill becomes law, parents may be imprisoned up to six years for having their boys circumcised. According to the New York Times: “The bill is perceived as an anti-immigration issue directed against Muslims” (Caron, C. (2018, February 28). Bill Banning Circumcision in Iceland Alarms Religious Groups.) Nevertheless, an increasingly number of Muslim modernists and so-called ‘progressives’ are beginning to question the Islamic custom of male infant circumcision. They tend to argue that circumcision is never once mentioned in the Holy Quran, which states: “Indeed, We created man in the best mould” (Sura 95:4), an obviously general statement. It is true that circumcision isn’t specifically mentioned in the Holy Quran, but the latter does endorse the Abrahamic Covenant: “You follow the Religion of Abraham, upright” (Sura 16:123), which is also known as the Covenant of Circumcision. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reportedly said that Abraham was circumcised after the age of eighty years, though the Old Testament informs us he was ninety-nine years old. It may be reconciled that the Prophet ﷺ intended to draw attention to the fact that Abraham was quite elderly when circumcised, beyond the age of eighty, as it says in the narration:

 

اخْتَتَنَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بَعْدَ ثَمَانِينَ سَنَةً، وَاخْتَتَنَ بِالْقَدُومِ

“Abraham was circumcised after eighty years, and he was circumcised with an adze.”

In another narration, Abu Huraira^RA narrates that the Prophet ﷺ said:

اخْتَتَنَ إِِبْرَاهِيمُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حِينَ بَلَغَ عِشْرِينَ وَمِائَةَ سَنَةٍ ، وَعَاشَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ ثَمَانِينَ سَنَةً ، وَاخْتَتَنَ بِالْقَدُومِ

“Abraham the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was circumcised when he reached 120 years, and he lived for eighty years after that. He was circumcised with an adze.” (Sahih Ibn Hibban)

Abraham had his son Ishmael circumcised on the same day, indicating that the covenant of circumcision includes his Ishmaelite progeny too and not just the Israelites (Genesis 17:23-27).

In the Muhammadi Shari’a, male circumcision is likewise mandatory. It is not only the personal Sunna of the Prophet ﷺ as well as his Sahaba (companions) and the Salaf (early Muslim community), but the Prophet ﷺ actually declared circumcision an act of fitra. Ibn Shihab^RA said: “When a man became Muslim, he was ordered to have himself circumcised, even if he was old” (al-Adab al-Mufrad #1252). The Prophet ﷺ ordered an uncircumcised man who had just converted to Islam to get circumcised (Sunan Abi Dawud #356). It is also narrated that:

عَنْ جَابِرٍ ، قَالَ :  عَقَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ وَالْحُسَيْنِ وَخَتَنَهُمَا لِسَبْعَةِ أَيَّامٍ

Jabir^RA said: “Allah’s Apostle ﷺ performed the Aqiqa of al-Hasan^RA and al-Husain^RA, and had them both circumcised on the seventh day.” (al-Sunan al-Kubra of al-Bayhaqi)

Hence, it is from the Sunna to circumcise a boy on his seventh day, while still an infant, the same day of the Aqiqa, when two rams are sacrificed on his behalf.