Christmas an Evil Pagan Festival

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اللَّهُمَّ رَبَّ السَّمَوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَرَبَّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ رَبَّنَا وَرَبَّ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ مُنْزِلَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ وَالْقُرْآنِ الْعَظِيمِ أَنْتَ الأَوَّلُ فَلَيْسَ قَبْلَكَ شَىْءٌ وَأَنْتَ الآخِرُ فَلَيْسَ بَعْدَكَ شَىْءٌ وَأَنْتَ الظَّاهِرُ فَلَيْسَ فَوْقَكَ شَىْءٌ وَأَنْتَ الْبَاطِنُ فَلَيْسَ دُونَكَ شَىْءٌ اقْضِ عَنَّا الدَّيْنَ وَأَغْنِنَا مِنَ الْفَقْرِ

These days there is a disturbing trend of Muslims, in some cases Muslims who self-identify as observant and religious, celebrating the pagan festival of Christmas. Anyone who is acquainted with the basic facts of history necessarily knows that the origin of Christmas is a pre-Christian, pagan festival of the Romans to commemorate the winter solstice. It is a form of sun worship, and certainly not the birthday of the Messiah Jesus. The apostate Christian church, in the 4^th century CE, transformed this pagan festival into a commemoration of the birth of Jesus. That is why there are certain other dissident churches, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Quakers, who shun Christmas. Muslims more than anyone else should shun and condemn Christmas, a well known pagan festival connected to sun worship. Likewise, Muslims must shun other Christian and pagan festivals like Easter, Valentine’s, St. Patrick’s Day and Halloween. When it comes to Christmas, the common forms of commemoration of it among people today is saying “merry Christmas”, setting up an adorned Christmas tree, exchanging gifts, gathering with extended family for a feast, singing Christmas carols, wearing a Santa hat, putting up lights and other Christmas themed decorations. Muslims must go out of their way to avoid all this evil activity. If someone greets a Muslim with “merry Christmas”, rather than responding or acknowledging he or she should totally ignore it and carry on with his business. Muslims must excuse themselves from any celebration or event occasioned by Christmas organized by their workplace or school.

It is quite regrettable that certain so-called Muslim countries, especially those in the Near East like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Sudan, and others like Bangladesh, have made Christmas an official, public holiday. Countries like Syria and Iraq should be particularly ashamed of themselves in their ongoing enmity with the Jewish State of Israel, which has more honor than those Muslims in that it doesn’t recognize Christmas as a public holiday:

یہ مسلماں ہیں جنہیں دیکھ کے شرمائیں یہود

Such Muslims which the even the Jews feel ashamed of

Offensive Jihad Refuted (Part 2)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

I’ve made it clear there is no such concept as “offensive Jihad” in our Religion. The objective of Islam has never been to establish a state, let alone a global empire. On the contrary, Islam is a religion, not a political ideology, it seeks to convert the souls of humanity to the true Faith, to the Oneness of Allah Holy and Exalted is He. Jihad the armed struggle is merely an ordinance to defend the Faith and the Believers, as well as the weak, from aggression and oppression:

وَ مَا لَکُمۡ لَا تُقَاتِلُوۡنَ فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ وَ الۡمُسۡتَضۡعَفِیۡنَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَ النِّسَآءِ وَ الۡوِلۡدَانِ الَّذِیۡنَ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ رَبَّنَاۤ اَخۡرِجۡنَا مِنۡ ہٰذِہِ الۡقَرۡیَۃِ الظَّالِمِ اَہۡلُہَا

And what is the matter with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and of the weak — men, women and children — who say, ‘Our Lord, take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors’

(Surah 4:75)

The so-called jama’āt al-Jihād which call Muslims to fight an offensive holy war against the nations of unbelievers to establish a global caliphate oppose the understanding of the vast majority of our Ulama, and the verdict of the Quran and the Sunnah, as Ibn Taymiyah (someone they tend to hold in high esteem) himself stated:

فأما الباغي من غير قتال فليس في النص أن الله أمر بقتاله بل الكفار إنما يقاتلون بشرط الحراب كما ذهب اليه جمهور العلماء وكما دل عليه الكتاب والسنة

"As for the transgressor who does not fight, then there are no texts in which Allah commands him to be fought. Rather, the unbelievers are only fought on the condition that they wage war, as is practiced by the majority of scholars and as is evident in the Book and Sunnah." (an-Nubuwwāt p.570):

Likewise, the classical Islamic jurist Sufyan ath-Thawri said:

الْقِتَالُ مَعَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ لَيْسَ بِفَرْضٍ إلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ الْبِدَايَةُ مِنْهُمْ فَحِينَئِذٍ يَجِبُ قِتَالُهُمْ دَفْعًا

"Fighting the polytheists is not an obligation unless they begin it themselves, in which case it is required to fight them in defense." (Sharh as-Siyar al-Kabīr p.131):

Why I was Expelled from the Masjid

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله على نبيه الكريم

A few months ago I was officially expelled from my local mosque at the Jumu’ah service. For many weeks prior I refused to participate in the congregational prayers which are spaced apart under the excuse of complying with provincial health orders regarding social distancing to prevent the spread of coronavirus. I also refused to cover my face with a mask. As an orthodox Sunni Muslim, adherent of the Hanafi school of thought, I firmly believe, and backed up by the legal verdicts of our credible Ulama, that congregational prayers with large gaps between the worshippers in the rows is null and void, or else a sin which requires the Salah to be offered again. It is certainly an innovation, having no precedent whatsoever in the history of Islam despite the fact that there are many instances of plagues and epidemics throughout time. It is also observed that this emphasis on social distancing is only reserved for the congregational prayer itself, otherwise the attendees of the mosque including its management are seen intermingling with each other and not observing the same strict protocols in other social situations and gatherings. To the lovers of Islam and the Shari’ah it is obviously a mockery of the form of worship we received through our Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and which the Muslims have been adhering to for generation after generation. So I would, after the sermon, not participate in the congregational prayer, since it is invalid, and would instead offer Zuhr prayer individually in its place. I have been asked why even bother to show up at the mosque at all knowing full well that the congregational prayers won’t be established according to the orthodox way but in this newly invented, innovated method to comply with the government’s protocols for social distancing. The answer is that the mosque should never be abandoned as far as possible, and should be populated with worshippers. There is more blessing in praying in the mosque than anywhere else. Furthermore, the management of my local mosque only opened the doors to it at the Friday prayer service, they would certainly not give me private access to it. Therefore, that was my only opportunity to enter the mosque and worship there. Secondly, it was also my attention to express and display my dissent from this corruption in our worship before the rest of the Muslims, to provoke them into reconsidering the evil they so blindly accepted like brainless sheep. It is this intention of mine which I knew would provoke a response from the management, for they perceived it as an indirect challenge to their authority and an attack on their religious credentials and integrity. Indeed that is so. It exposed their hypocrisy and their mean-spiritedness. So when the head of the administration accosted me that fateful day, he instructed me that I was obliged to wear a mask like everyone else. I naturally refused. Covering one’s face is forbidden in worship. Even women, who are otherwise obligated to cover their face in public for modesty reasons cannot conceal their face during the Salah. When he insisted, I stood up and pulled down his mask, because I wanted him to speak to me man to man and not like a coward hiding his face. He became visibly agitated at this harmless act and smacked my hand away. I sat down again and resumed my dhikr. The sermon was then given and concluded. But while the iqamah was given, suddenly a police officer showed up. The head of the management shockingly prevented the completion of the iqamah, interrupting the mu’adhdhin in the middle of it to announce that the police had shown up. This itself is a great fitnah and a direct attack on our Religion. It can only be an act of hypocrisy worship of a shameless munafiq and an evil wicked-doer, cursed enemy of God. The police officer escorted me out of the mosque and subsequently had me charged with assault because I had touched someone’s mask! He also informed me that I was no longer welcome at the mosque and one of the conditions for my release from his custody was to promise not to ever go near it. I refused to assent to such an evil condition, but he informed me that failing to do so would mean my immediate imprisonment in jail for at least several days as it was Friday and I could not be brought before a judge until after the weekend. I therefore reluctantly signed the set of agreements while writing a note on it that I considered myself coerced and therefore morally not bound to comply with them if I so choose. The simple minded officer did not understand the legal implications but was all too happy to release me, as he in fact sympathized with my situation and personally felt it was wrong to have me arrested and removed from the mosque. My appearance before the court regarding this matter is scheduled in a few days as of writing this.

Here I would like to point out that it is a sad reality that our mosques, especially here in the West, are under the management and custody of men who are unworthy of the heavy responsibility, and often coming from a class that are not known for personal piety or knowledge of the Religion. They have acquired this role simply because they have money and successful worldly careers and education. In many Muslim countries this same class of people are rarely seen at the mosque at all, but here in the West they seem to be drunk on the power and prestige this role affords them. I teach that the leadership of the Muslims is ideally in the hands of men of piety, learning and age, but sadly that isn’t the case. Toward the end of his life, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم saw in a vision that the Umayyads in the form of apes had occupied his pulpit he was so aggrieved that he never laughed after that until he passed away صلى الله عليه وسلم

According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ عليه السلام informed his true followers “they will put you out of the synagogue” (John 16:2). The Muslims of our time, particularly our corrupt leadership, resemble the spiritual and moral condition of the religious and political leadership of the Jews in the time of Christ. They have expelled me from the mosque simply because I refuse to participate in the corruption of the Salah. In the sight of Allah this is a great injustice for which they will be held accountable on Judgment Day if they do not repent. As the Lord God lives, I would rather face Him having committed many personal transgressions than face Him having broken the heart of a Believer or prevented a Believer from worshipping Him. But these are a people whose hearts are blackened. They go through the outward motions of worship without any understanding nor does it purify them of the filth that inhabits their souls.

Gog & Magog Have Already Emerged (Sh. Abd al-Rahman b. Nasir al-Sa'di)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

وَ سَلٰمٌ عَلَی الۡمُرۡسَلِیۡنَ

وَ الۡحَمۡدُ لِلّٰہِ رَبِّ الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ

وَ الۡعَاقِبَۃُ لِلۡمُتَّقِیۡنَ

Shaykh Abd ur-Rahman as-Sa’di (1889-1957) of Saudi Arabia said:

أن انفتاح يأجوج ومأجوج وخروجهم الابتدائي قد وقع وحصل منهم الإفساد في الأرض على الناس عموماً وعلى المسلمين والعرب خصوصاً كفتنة التتار في المشرق وغزوات المجار في بلاد أوربه وأن خروجهم في آخر الزمان الموصوف في حديث النواس بن سمعان بعد فتنة المسيح الدجال لا يدل على أنهم لم يخرجوا قبل ذلك إذ المراد بالخروج التحول من محل إلى محلٍ آخر وليس ابتداء الخروج

The opening of Gog and Magog and their first emergence has already happened, and they caused corruption on the earth against people generally, and against Muslims and Arabs specifically, such as the trials of the Tartars, in the east, and the battles in European lands. Their emergence at the end of time, as described in the tradition of Al-Nawwas ibn Sim’an, is after the trial of the False Messiah. There is no indication that they have not emerged before that, as the meaning of ‘emerge’ is to transfer from one location to another. It will not be the first time they have emerged. (Risālatān fī Fitnat al-Dajjāl wa Yājūj wa Mājūj 1/51):

This is certainly true. The belief that the barrier which Dhu l-Qarnain عليه السلام erected is still standing but even with all the radical advancements in technology, satellite imagery, etc., we have been unable to locate it, is plainly irrational.

Receiving Revelation in the Seclusion of the Tent

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وبارك وسلم وصلى عليه

I have deduced from certain narrations of the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم Sirah that he used to receive divine revelation and inspiration usually in a state of seclusion or while enveloped in some sort of wrap or sheet, perhaps to better concentrate on the reception of that Wahi free of any Earthly distraction. This is apparently the basis for the Prophet’s two attributive names attested to in the Quran, al-Muzzammil and al-Muddaththir.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to sit inside a

قُبَّةٍ حَمْرَاءَ مِنْ أَدَمٍ

red leather tent

and sayyidina Awf b. Malik al-Ashja’i رضى الله عنه narrates that during the expedition of Tabuk the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was in a leather tent and personally gave him permission to enter inside, and then disclosed to him six prophecies portending the Hour.

The Sakinah Would Speak Upon the Tongue of Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وبارك وسلم وصلى عليه

I’ve refuted the idea put forward by certain cessationists like Ghamidi and his affiliate, the engineer Mirza of Jhelum, that there is no institution of Tahdith in this Ummah and that sayyidina Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه was not a Muhaddath. I cited the testimony of sayyidina Abd al-Rahman b. Awf رضى الله عنه bearing witness to the fact that sayyidina Umar is a Muhaddath.

Now I shall cite the testimony of additional Companions of the Prophet, first and foremost among them the Lion of Allah, Ali al-Murtada كرم الله وجهه الكريم who said:

وَمَا نُبْعِدُ أَنَّ السَّكِينَةَ تَنْطِقُ عَلَى لِسَانِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ

"The Sakinah would speak upon the tongue of Umar – Allah be pleased with him"

(Musnad Ahmad)

Imam Ahmad has also brought out a narration of sayyidina Tariq b. Shihab رضى الله عنه in which he says:

كنا نتحدث أن عمر بن الخطاب ينطق على لسانه ملك

"We used to say that an Angel speaks upon the tongue of Umar bin al-Khattab"

(Fada’il as-Sahabah: #341)

I do not know of any classical scholastic authority in the history of orthodox Sunni Islam who denied sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه being a Muhaddath. ‘Shaikh ul-Islam’ Ibn Taymiyah also acknowledged the fact that sayyidina Umar was a Muhaddath (al-Furqan bain Awliya ar-Rahman wa Awliya ash-Shaytan, p.70):

Satanic Gohar Shahi Movement

 باسمك اللهم

سبحان ذى الجبروت والملكوت والكبرياء والعظمة

In the name of Sufism, or more accurately, pseudo-Sufism, many pretenders and charlatans have exploited the thirst of the common, ignorant people for spirituality. One such charlatan was Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. Among the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent in particular there is a persistent tendency toward religious syncretism and antinomianism, indeed a reverence for such tendencies as being more “spiritual” and “Godly” than the orthodox approach to Islam. This is illustrated in the ignorant Muslims’ love for qawwali and their fascination with antinomian couplets of disagreeable figures like Bulleh Shah (d. 1757 CE). In a previous entry I explained the reality of the antinomian, nudist heretic Sarmad, who is a celebrated figure among this demographic of ignorant Muslims who prefer a Satanic brand of “spirituality” over the Shari’ah of Islam. The great reformers of Islam who appeared in the Indian subcontinent, such as Mujaddid Alf Thani, Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624 CE) and Shah Waliullah of Delhi (d. 1762 CE) رحمة الله عليهما waged a scholastic battle against antinomianism and syncretism, emphasizing the importance of abiding by the Shari’ah and the Sunnah. They did not reject Tasawwuf or Tariqah, but made it clear that Tariqah must be in accord with Shari’ah. This is the middle or moderate path between the the extreme of antinomian mysticism, religious syncretism, omnism on the one hand and the other extreme of modernism, anti-mysticism.

Among the heretical notions put forward by the omnist worldview of antinomian pseudo-Sufism is that the maqam or rank of Wilayah (sainthood) is higher than that of Nubuwwah (prophesy), as rationalized by the omnist Ibn Arabi (d. 1240 CE). Another notion is that false, Satanic religions like Hinduism are divinely revealed truths, and that some of their mythical “gods” (idols) were in fact prophets, identical to figures revered in Islam. The charlatan Gohar Shahi wrote that sayyidina Adam عليه السلام is identical to Shankar (a title of the Satanic Hindu idol Shiva) and sayyidina Khidr عليه السلام is identical to another Satanic Hindu idol, namely, Vishnu:

"The Hindu and Sikh religions are linked with the religions of Adam and Noah. Since Adam revered the Holy Black Stone, they adopted the ritual of worshipping idols. Those who survived from the great hurricane of Noah propagated in India. Indian Gurus obtained spiritual knowledge and spiritual grace from Khidr also. The names such as of Adam (Shankar Jee) and Khidr (Vishnu Maharaj) are found in the wordings of their prayers.” (The Religion of God)

And this notion was also expressed by another so-called Sufi mystic, Khwaja Ghulam Farid (d. 1901 CE), who said that Hinduism is the oldest religion being the religion of Adam, and that the Hindu avatars and rishis were Prophets, specifically naming Ram, Krishna and Buddha as having been Prophets and Apostles of God!

In attempting to answer the objection that some of the supposed “saints” of this Ummah could not have been saints since they did not observe the Shari’ah, they did not offer the Salah or fast in Ramadan, etc., Gohar Shahi says that the Prophets themselves were never obligated to worship Allah according to the Shari’ah, but only did so to set a precedent for their followers:

"The Prophets abide by the Sharia law to become a model for the Ummah (nation), so that they may imitate and follow. Otherwise, they do not need to worship. They have the rank of Prophet-hood since primordial time, long before the existence of the Sharia law. Since they have to perfect the religion as a model, if the Prophets miss out any of the rituals, or if they adopt an act, their nation imitates them. Hence they have to remain careful and sober. Can anyone be justified to say that a Prophet will enter the hellfire if he does not worship? Not at all! Can anyone be justified to say that one cannot be a Prophet if he does not worship? Can anyone claim that one cannot become a Prophet if he does not learn the knowledge? Why are the Saints made subject to objections? Note that Sainthood is a substitute to Prophet-hood.” (ibid)

This passage in the book is quite disturbing from an Islamic perspective, as it clearly suggests that the Prophets are above the Law of God. While we believe Nubuwwah (prophesy) is wahbi, that is, granted by Allah freely and not acquired by the recipient through effort, we simultaneously believe Allah عز وجل granted Nubuwwah to those holy and pure individuals on account of an immense goodness and purity within their souls that made them worthy of receiving the gift of prophesy. And part of that goodness within their souls was their disposition to strictly and beautifully abide by the Law of God and to worship Him alone with an extraordinary degree of devotion. The truth is that every Prophet is bound by the Shari’ah of his time, including the Seal of Prophets Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم who likewise was bound to comply with the Shari’ah that was revealed through his own person, and in fact practically did so in the most perfect and beautiful manner possible, thus being for us Insan al-Kamil (the perfect human). Contrary to Gohar Shahi’s heretical claim that the Prophets are not bound to worship Allah, we read in the Quran that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was in fact obligated to worship Allah above and beyond what is required of the members of his Ummah:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الۡمُزَّمِّلُ

قُمِ الَّیۡلَ اِلَّا قَلِیۡلًا

نِّصۡفَہٗۤ اَوِ انۡقُصۡ مِنۡہُ قَلِیۡلًا

اَوۡ زِدۡ عَلَیۡہِ وَ رَتِّلِ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ تَرۡتِیۡلًا

Today the followers of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi are divided into two factions; the more moderate Anjuman Sarfroshan-e-Islam and the Mehdi Foundation International (MFI) led by the lunatic Younus AlGohar, who believe Gohar Shahi is the promised Mahdi, and also Kalki Avatar of the Hindus.

Perpetuity of Hellfire?

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله على نبيه الامين

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

Rationally it is quite a challenge to justify the idea that everlasting, eternal damnation and punishment awaits people in Hell for sins and rebellion against Allah that are finite. Such a belief also appears to be contrary to the idea of Allah ارحم الراحمين being gracious, merciful and compassionate.

Once the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم came across a woman nursing her child and asked his companions whether they thought she could ever throw her child into the fire, to which they replied “by no means, if she could help it”, to which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

اللَّهُ أَرْحَمُ بِعِبَادِهِ مِنْ هَذِهِ بِوَلَدِهَا

“Allah is more merciful to His servant than this woman is to her child”

Allah says:

وَ رَحۡمَتِیۡ وَسِعَتۡ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ

My mercy encompasses all things

(Surah 7:156)

There are some more specific indications in the Quran that the punishment of Hellfire is not eternal:

فَاَمَّا الَّذِیۡنَ شَقُوۡا فَفِی النَّارِ لَہُمۡ فِیۡہَا زَفِیۡرٌ وَّ شَہِیۡقٌ

As for those who will prove unfortunate, they shall be in the Fire, wherein there shall be for them sighing and sobbing,

خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَا مَا دَامَتِ السَّمٰوٰتُ وَ الۡاَرۡضُ اِلَّا مَا شَآءَ رَبُّکَ ؕ اِنَّ رَبَّکَ فَعَّالٌ لِّمَا یُرِیۡدُ

Abiding therein so long as the heavens and the earth endure, excepting what thy Lord may will. Surely, thy Lord does bring about what He pleases

(Surah 11:106-107)

In this Ayah there is a strong hint that the punishment of the Hellfire is not eternal, but shall perhaps come to an end at some point as per Allah’s will. Interestingly, the same description of duration is mentioned concerning Paradise with one critical caveat:

وَ اَمَّا الَّذِیۡنَ سُعِدُوۡا فَفِی الۡجَنَّۃِ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَا مَا دَامَتِ السَّمٰوٰتُ وَ الۡاَرۡضُ اِلَّا مَا شَآءَ رَبُّکَ ؕ عَطَآءً غَیۡرَ مَجۡذُوۡذٍ

But as for those who will prove fortunate, they shall be in Heaven; abiding therein so long as the heavens and the earth endure, excepting what thy Lord may will — a gift that shall not be cut off

(Surah 11:108)

Note that the description of Paradise as “a gift that shall not be cut off” is unique to Paradise and not mentioned at all regarding the Hellfire. This too is an indication that unlike Paradise, the punishment of Hellfire is not permanent or everlasting. Whether the Quran describes the punishment of Hell as eternal or not, it certainly cannot be denied that Hellfire is described as a lengthy sentence:

لّٰبِثِیۡنَ فِیۡہَاۤ اَحۡقَابًا

Who will tarry therein for ages

(Surah 78:23)

Ahqāb is the plural of huqb which is a finite period of time, usually translated to mean: “long period of time, years, eighty years” (Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage p.223)

It seems counter-intuitive to describe perpetuity as “ages” or a multiple of measurements of a fixed period of time. Granted, infinite fixed periods is still infinite, but that is a strange way to describe infinity.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم said:

يَخْرُجُ مِنَ النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، وَفِي قَلْبِهِ وَزْنُ شَعِيرَةٍ مِنْ خَيْرٍ، وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، وَفِي قَلْبِهِ وَزْنُ بُرَّةٍ مِنْ خَيْرٍ، وَيَخْرُجُ مِنَ النَّارِ مَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، وَفِي قَلْبِهِ وَزْنُ ذَرَّةٍ مِنْ خَيْرٍ

“Whoever said ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in his heart good equal to the weight of a barley grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in his heart good (faith) equal to the weight of a wheat grain will be taken out of Hell. And whoever said, ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah’ and has in his heart good equal to the weight of an atom will be taken out of Hell.”

Interestingly, confessing to the Prophesy of sayyidina Muhammad صلوات الله وسلام عليه is not mentioned as the criterion for Allah taking out souls from the Hellfire, but only belief in the oneness of Allah, that He alone is worthy of worship and the only God.

According to a Hadith whose authenticity is not established:

يأتي على جهنم يوم ما فيها من بني آدم واحد تخفق أبوابها كأنها أبواب الموحدين

That is, a day or time shall dawn upon Gehinnom in which none from the children of Adam will be found in it, and it’s doors shall rattle to the blowing wind.

In conclusion, I say that the traditional belief in the eternality of Hellfire held by most Muslims is not strongly established in Islam. It is indeed rationally difficult to justify, but Allah knows best.

Ibn Taymiyah Declared Act of Ibn Umar رضى الله عنهما an Innovation

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله على نبيه الامين

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

Regarding the eminent sahabi sayyidina Abd Allah b. Umar رضى الله عنهما the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

إِنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ رَجُلٌ صَالِحٌ

“Verily, Abdallah is a righteous man”

We are pleased and honored to take our Religion from a man whom the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم certified and praised. It is narrated that sayyidina Ibn Umar رضى الله عنهما used to go out of his way to search for the places where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had prayed on the path, during travel, between Medina and Mecca, and would pray at those places himself. Imam al-Bukhari رحمة الله عليه has narrated several narrations to this effect under the chapter heading:

بَابُ الْمَسَاجِدِ الَّتِي عَلَى طُرُقِ الْمَدِينَةِ وَالْمَوَاضِعِ الَّتِي صَلَّى فِيهَا النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

“The Mosques which are on the way to al-Madinah and the places where the Prophet peace be upon him prayed”

Strangely enough, Ibn Taymiyah رحمة الله عليه declared the act of seeking out the places where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prayed to be a reprehensible innovation and misguidance while acknowledging this as having been done by sayyidina Ibn Umar رضى الله عنهما. Ibn Taymiyah argued that while Ibn Umar would do so, this practice was not done by any of the other Sahabah, particularly the Prophet’s four rightly-guided successors رضى الله عنهم

Source: Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim v.2 p.278:

The contemporary Salafi movement, which is strongly influenced by Ibn Taymiyah and al-Albani, is known to go to extremes in denouncing common religious practices of Muslims as being bid’āt (innovations). For example, they generally condemn the practice of wiping the face with the hands after raising them in du’a, the practice of swaying back and forth while reading the Qurān, making dhikr on a rosary, and so on and so forth. This despite the fact there is indeed a basis for many of these practices which the zealous Salafis condemn as innovative in the Quran, Sunnah, Hadith and way of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم

The Liar of Thaqif (Mukhtar al-Thaqafi) Part 2

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله على نبيه الامين

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

I previously discussed the reality of the pretender al-Mukhtar b. Abi Ubaid al-Thaqafi, who is hailed as a hero by the Twelver Shi’ah sect. Mukhtar’s associate, Abu Amrah Kaysan, after whom the deviated Kaysaniyyah sect is named, was believed by the latter to receive divine revelation via the Angel Gabriel عليه السلام as Muhammad al-Hasan b. Musa al-Nawbakhti, a Twelver Shi’i theologian, has mentioned:

وكان يزعم أن جبرائيل عليه السلام يأتى المختار بالوحى من عند الله عز وجل

“He (Kaysan) claimed that Gabriel peace be upon him came to al-Mukhtar with wahi (revelation) from Allah” (Firaq al-Shi’ah p.59):

This is a Twelver Shi’ah corroboration of what is in our Sunni sources, for example, Rifa’ah b. Shaddad رحمه الله narrates:

دَخَلْتُ عَلَى الْمُخْتَارِ فِي قَصْرِهِ فَقَالَ قَامَ جِبْرَائِيلُ مِنْ عِنْدِي السَّاعَةَ

I entered upon al-Mukhtar in his palace and he said: “Gabriel just came to me this hour” (Sunan Ibn Majah)

Like sayyidina Ibrahim b. Malik al-Ashtar رضى الله عنهما, Rifa’ah b. Shaddad al-Bajali initially joined and assisted al-Mukhtar in his mission of avenging the martyrdom of Imam al-Husain رضى الله عنه وعليه السلام but subsequently left him when the reality of the pretender was made plain to him.

The Isma’ili Shi’i heresiographer, Abu Tammam, in his text Kitab al-Shajarah, lists the Mukhtariyyah as one of the subsects of the Kaysaniyyah. He writes that al-Mukhtar would say that the Imam after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was was Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام, and that the Ummah became misguided and committed disbelief by giving bay’ah to Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه, then the Imam after Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام was his son al-Hasan then al-Husain then Muhammad b. Ali, the well known son of the Hanafiyah عليهم السلام (Bab al-Shaytan p.98):

The infamous Twelver Shi’i scholar, Baqir Majlisi, has mentioned that the fourth Imam, Ali b. Husain al-Sajjad, also known as Zain al-Abidin رضى الله عنه cursed al-Mukhtar because the latter pretended to receive wahi (revelation) from Allah (Jilaa al-Uyun, Urdu, v.2 p.341):

Deobandi Blasphemy in Sirate Mustaqim

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وصلى الله على نبيه الامين

وعلى آله واصحابه اجمعين

In the text Sirate Mustaqim written in Persian by the martyr Shah Ismail of Delhi رحمة الله عليه there is an extremely controversial, indeed blasphemous, statement that cannot be understood as being anything other than disrespectful to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

It is written:

شیخ یا انہی جیسے اور بزرگوں کی طرف خواہ جناب رسالت مآب ہی ہوں اپنی ہمت کو لگا دینا اپنے بیل اور گدھے کی صورت میں مستغرق، ہونے سے زیادہ برا ہے

“To concentrate (in prayer) on one’s Shaikh or other religious figure, even if it is the Prophet, is worse than thinking of one’s ox or donkey” (Sirate Mustaqim p.169):

معاذ الله

نقل کفر کفر نہ باشد

Now in justification of this apparent statement of disbelief and blasphemy, the author of these vile words writes subsequently that because one will think of one’s Shaikh or other religious figure with veneration, it will transform a prayer intended for God alone into an act that is bordering on polytheism, whereas naturally one’s being distracted about thoughts of one’s ox or donkey is not with that type of veneration.

The Barelawis, who are rightly outraged by the blasphemous statement which says thinking of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in prayer is worse than thinking of one’s ox or donkey, allege that these are the words of Shah Isma’il of Delhi رحمة الله عليه. However, I am not convinced this is true. It appears that this text, Sirate Mustaqim, has multiple authors. Therefore, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty whether these are actually the words of Shah Isma’il of Delhi, or perhaps Sayyid Ahmad of Rai Baraili or even Abd ul-Hayy of Lucknow. At any rate, while the statement in question is surely blasphemous and are words of disbelief, since the author obviously did not intend to insult or blaspheme the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم it cannot be said that he personally is guilty of blasphemy. While the justification for the statement is unacceptable, as I shall explain, it makes clear that the author of these controversial words was under a misconception and may be excused, and Allah knows best. The only group of Muslims who justify this blasphemous statement till this day are the astray Deobandis.

Thinking of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the Salah is by no means reprehensible or bordering on Shirk. On the contrary, we necessarily think of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the Salah from a number of angles. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

صَلُّوا كَمَا رَأَيْتُمُونِي أُصَلِّي

“Pray as you see me praying”

While praying behind the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم would keep their gaze fixed on the Prophet and observe him carefully. Sayyidina Khabbab رضى الله عنه narrates that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would recite from the Quran during the Zuhr and Asr prayers (although inaudibly). When asked how they knew the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was reciting in those prayers when that recitation wasn’t audible, sayyidina Khabbab answered:

بِاضْطِرَابِ لِحْيَتِهِ

“by the movement of his beard”

Likewise, while seated in the Salah we recite Salat and Salam upon the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Therefore, we necessarily think of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم during the prayers. Shirk would be to pray the Salah with the intention of praying to the Prophet or making him a partner with Allah in dedicating the Salah to him صلى الله عليه وسلم.