Bodies of Prophets Decay After Death (Part 3)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين

A popular belief among the Muslims is that the bodies of the Prophets عليهم السلام don’t decay after death. Several years ago I wrote an essay comprehensively debunking this erroneous notion. The Hadith which is quoted as the basis for this belief is as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا هَارُونُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ حَدَّثَنَا حُسَيْنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ بْنِ جَابِرٍ عَنْ أَبِي الأَشْعَثِ الصَّنْعَانِيِّ عَنْ أَوْسِ بْنِ أَوْسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ إِنَّ مِنْ أَفْضَلِ أَيَّامِكُمْ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ فِيهِ خُلِقَ آدَمُ وَفِيهِ قُبِضَ وَفِيهِ النَّفْخَةُ وَفِيهِ الصَّعْقَةُ فَأَكْثِرُوا عَلَىَّ مِنَ الصَّلاَةِ فِيهِ فَإِنَّ صَلاَتَكُمْ مَعْرُوضَةٌ عَلَىَّ قَالَ قَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَكَيْفَ تُعْرَضُ صَلاَتُنَا عَلَيْكَ وَقَدْ أَرِمْتَ يَقُولُونَ بَلِيتَ فَقَالَ ‏إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ حَرَّمَ عَلَى الأَرْضِ أَجْسَادَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ

Allah has prohibited the Earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets (Sunan Abi Dawud #1047)

As I pointed out in that essay this Hadith is weak because the narrator Husain b. Ali al-Ja’fi is narrating from his teacher Abd ur-Rahman b. Yazid, who is declared weak and rejected. Those who claim the Hadith is sound contend that the name of the narrator is Abd ur-Rahman b. Yazid b. Jabir, as it appears in the text of the sanad, whose narrations are acceptable. However, that is a mistake in the name of the grandfather of the narrator in question resulting in a mistaken identity. It is obvious that the narrator is Ibn Tamim and not Ibn Jabir, as the former is the teacher of Husain b. Ali al-Ja’fi and not the latter.

Here I shall quote Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali to make this point clear:

وقال أبو عبيد الأجري عن أبي داود أبو أسامة روى عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم وغلط في اسمه فقال حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر قال وكلما جاء عن أبي أسامة ثنا عبد الرحمن بن يزيد فهو ابن تميم

وكذلك روى حسين الجعفي عن ابن جابر عن أبي الأشعث عن أوس بن أوس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

أكثروا علي من الصلاة يوم الجمعة الحديث فقالت طائفة هو حديث منكر وحسين الجعفي سمع من عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم الشامي وروى عنه أحاديث منكرة فغلط في نسبته

وممن ذكر ذلك البخاري وأبو زرعة وأبو حاتم وأبو داود وابن حبان وغيرهم

Husain al-Ju’fi narrated from Ibn Jabir from Abil-Ash’ath from Aws bin Aws from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم "send abundant blessings upon me on Friday...the Hadith” so a group said: “this Hadith is rejected, and Husain al-Ju’fi heard from Abd ur-Rahman bin Yazid bin Tamim al-Shami, and his narrating from him are rejected Ahadith, and there is an error in attribution.” Among those who mentioned this are al-Bukhari, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Hibban and others.

وقد استنكر البخاري روايات الكوفيين جملة عن ابن جابر

قال البخاري: أهل الكوفة يروون عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر أحاديث مناكير وإنما أرادوا عندي عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم وهو منكر الحديث. وهو بأحاديثه أشبه منه بأحاديث عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر

And al-Bukhari rejected the narrations of the Kufis that include Ibn Jabir. Al-Bukhari said: “The people of Kufa narrate from Abd ur-Rahman bin Yazid bin Jabir rejected Ahadith. And they intend, according to me, Abd ur-Rahman bin Yazid bin Tamim and he is rejected in Hadith” (Sharh Ilal al-Tirmidhi v.2, pp.818-819)

Parable of the Ewe and King David

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين

Allah says:

وَ ہَلۡ اَتٰٮکَ نَبَؤُا الۡخَصۡمِ ۘ اِذۡ تَسَوَّرُوا الۡمِحۡرَابَ

اِذۡ دَخَلُوۡا عَلٰی دَاوٗدَ فَفَزِعَ مِنۡہُمۡ قَالُوۡا لَا تَخَفۡ ۚ خَصۡمٰنِ بَغٰی بَعۡضُنَا عَلٰی بَعۡضٍ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَنَا بِالۡحَقِّ وَ لَا تُشۡطِطۡ وَ اہۡدِنَاۤ اِلٰی سَوَآءِ الصِّرَاطِ

اِنَّ ہٰذَاۤ اَخِیۡ ۟ لَہٗ تِسۡعٌ وَّ تِسۡعُوۡنَ نَعۡجَۃً وَّ لِیَ نَعۡجَۃٌ وَّاحِدَۃٌ ۟ فَقَالَ اَکۡفِلۡنِیۡہَا وَ عَزَّنِیۡ فِی الۡخِطَابِ

قَالَ لَقَدۡ ظَلَمَکَ بِسُؤَالِ نَعۡجَتِکَ اِلٰی نِعَاجِہٖ ؕ وَ اِنَّ کَثِیۡرًا مِّنَ الۡخُلَطَآءِ لَیَبۡغِیۡ بَعۡضُہُمۡ عَلٰی بَعۡضٍ اِلَّا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ وَ قَلِیۡلٌ مَّا ہُمۡ ؕ وَ ظَنَّ دَاوٗدُ اَنَّمَا فَتَنّٰہُ فَاسۡتَغۡفَرَ رَبَّہٗ وَ خَرَّ رَاکِعًا وَّ اَنَابَ

فَغَفَرۡنَا لَہٗ ذٰلِکَ ؕ وَ اِنَّ لَہٗ عِنۡدَنَا لَزُلۡفٰی وَ حُسۡنَ مَاٰبٍ

And has the story of the disputants reached thee when they climbed over the wall of the chamber? When they entered in upon David, and he was afraid of them. They said, “Fear not. [We are] two disputants; one of us has transgressed against the other; so judge between us with justice, and deviate not from the right course and guide us to the right way. This is my brother; he has ninety-nine ewes, and I have only one ewe. Yet he says, ‘Give it to me,’ and has been overbearing to me in his address.” [David] said, “Surely, he has wronged thee in demanding thy ewe [to add] to his own ewes. And certainly many partners transgress against one another, except those who believe and do good works; and these are but few.” And David perceived that We had tried him; so he asked forgiveness of his Lord, and fell down bowing in worship and turned [to Him]. So We forgave him that; and indeed, he had a position of nearness with Us and an excellent retreat (Sura 38:21-25)

This passage in the Quran is a strong indication that in order for Muslims to understand the Scripture revealed to Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه they must be familiar with the Biblical narrative. According to that narrative, King David coveted the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite, whose name was Bathsheba. King David arranged for Uriah to be placed on the frontlines ensuring his death at the hands of the enemy, after which he secured marriage with Bathsheba, who later became the mother of King Solomon. This was undoubtedly an unethical act by King David, who already had many wives but sought to deprive poor Uriah of his only wife Bathsheba. It is this unethical act of King David which the Quran is certainly alluding to in narrating a story of two litigants who approached King David to judge for them their dispute over ewes. King David perceived this dispute as a Sign from Allah to remind him of how he had committed an act of injustice toward Uriah the Hittite, causing him to repent. The Parable of the Ewes is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but there is a discrepancy with the account given in the Quran. According to the Bible there were not really two litigants who approached King David directly, rather it was a parable narrated to King David by the Prophet Nathan: The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. Now a traveller came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveller who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.” David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.” Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’” Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.” (2 Samuel 12:1-13)

Perhaps the Bible has some minor errors in relaying the historical context of this Parable of the Ewe. Apart from the element of the prophet Nathan which is absent in the Quranic narrative, the Biblical account also states that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba while Uriah was still alive and that in order to conceal her pregnancy he instructed Uriah to come back from the battlefield and spend time with his wife. We Muslims certainly find it a challenge to accept that someone like King David, who was in communion with God, could ever commit such a major sin. Nevertheless, the essence of the Biblical narrative—how King David acquired Bathsheba the wife of Uriah—must certainly be true because Allah in the Quran says We forgave him that (38:25) without directly or explicitly mentioning what “that” was. Without the Bible how can we possibly understand what the Quran is referring to in Sura 38:24-25? The classical Tafāsīr also paraphrase the Biblical account indicating that the early Muslims generally accepted it as the appropriate explanation for this Quranic passage.

In a Hadith which is considered weak Anas رضى الله عنه narrates that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that David had looked at the woman [Bathsheba] and then ordered his army commander to send her husband [Uriah] when faced with the enemy toward the Ark of the Covenant where he was slain. Then David married the woman and the two Angels descended upon him – referring to the two litigants as mentioned in the Quran. David prostrated in repentance for forty days until the Angel Gabriel came to him and announced to him that Allah had forgiven him:

عَنْ أَنَسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ إِنَّ دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ حِينَ نَظَرَ إِلَى الْمَرْأَةِ قَطَعَ عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَأَوْصَى صَاحِبَ الْجَيْشِ فَقَالَ إِذَا حَضَرَ الْعَدُوُّ تَضْرِبُ فُلانًا بَيْنَ يَدَيِ التَّابُوتِ وَكَانَ التَّابُوتُ فِي ذَلِكَ الزَّمَانِ يُسْتَنْصَرُ بِهِ مِنْ قُدِّمَ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ التَّابُوتِ لَمْ يَرْجِعْ حَتَّى يُقْتَلَ أَوْ يَنْهَزِمَ مِنْهُ الْجَيْشُ فَقُتِلَ وَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ وَنَزَلَ الْمَلَكَانِ عَلَى دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَسَجَدَ فَمَكَثَ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً سَاجِدًا حَتَّى نَبَتَ الزَّرْعُ مِنْ دُمُوعِهِ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ فَأَكَلَتِ الْأَرْضُ جَبِينَهُ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ فِي سُجُودِهِ رَبِّ زَلَّ دَاوُدُ زَلَّةً أَبْعَدَ مِمَّا بَيْنَ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ رَبِّ إِنْ لَمْ تَرْحَمْ ضَعْفَ دَاوُدَ وَتَغْفِرْ ذُنُوبَهُ جُعِلَتْ ذَنْبُهُ حَدِيثًا فِي الْمَخْلُوقِ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ فَجَاءَ جِبْرِيلُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً فَقَالَ يَا دَاوُدُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ غَفَرَ لَكَ وَقَدْ عَرَفْتَ أَنَّ اللَّهُ عَدْلٌ لَا يَمِيلُ فَكَيْفَ بِفُلانٍ إِذَا جَاءَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَقَالَ يَا رَبِّ دَمِيَ الَّذِي عِنْدَ دَاوُدَ قَالَ جِبْرِيلُ مَا سَأَلْتَ رَبَّكَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَإِنْ شِئْتَ لافْعَلَنَّ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ فَفَرِحَ جِبْرِيلُ وَسَجَدَ دَاوُدُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَمَكَثَ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ثُمَّ نَزَلَ فَقَالَ قَدْ سَأَلْتُ اللَّهَ يَا دَاوُدُ عَنِ الَّذِي أَرْسَلْتَنِي فِيهِ فَقَالَ قُلْ لِدَاوُدَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَجْمَعُكُمَا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَيَقُولُ هَبْ لِي دَمَكَ الَّذِي عِنْدَ دَاوُدَ فَيَقُولُ هُوَ لَكَ فَيَقُولُ فَإِنَّ لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ ما شئت ما اشتهيت عوضا

(Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim: p.3239, #18344)

Shi'ite Doctrine of Wilayat al-Takwiniyah (Cosmic Authority) for the Imams

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

In the previous blog entry I quoted Twelver Shi’ite sources which establish that their belief and concept of Imamate manifestly contravenes the fundamental belief in the Finality of Prophesy. In this article I shall quote the infamous Khomeini, founder of the so-called “Islamic Republic” of Iran, to the effect that the belief of the Shi’a about their Imams manifestly violates the most central tenet of Islam—Tawhid (monotheism):

فان للامام مقاما محمودا ودرجة سامية وخلافة تكوينية تخضع لولايتها وسيطرتها جميع ذرات هذا الكون، وان من ضروريات مذهبنا أن لائمتنا مقاما لا يبلغه ملك مقرب ولا نبي مرسل

(al-Hukumat al-Islamiyah, p.52)

"The spiritual status [maqāman mahmūdan] of the Imām is a universal divine viceregency that is sometimes mentioned by the Imāms. It is a viceregency pertaining to the whole of creation, by virtue of which all the atoms in the universe humble themselves before the holder of authority. It is one of the essential beliefs of our Shī‘i school that no one can attain the spiritual status of the Imāms, not even the cherubim or the prophets" (Islamic Government, p.68)

Hamid Algar explains this statement further in a footnote:

"The ‘governance’ (vilāyat) of the Imāms is intrinsic to their persons, unlike that of the fuqahā; moreover, its scope is not limited to men but embraces the whole of creation. They therefore exercise ‘cosmic governance’ (vilāyat-i takvīnī), in part through the performance of miracles. This form of vilāyat is common to the Imāms and to the foremost of the prophets, who exercised a governmental function while also propagating a divine message. The statement here that ‘no one can attain the spiritual status of the Imāms, not even the cherubim or the prophets’ thus carries the strict sense that the Imāms are superior to those prophets whose mission lacked the dimension of governmental leadership."

In summary, Khomeini claims, representing the madhhab of the Shi’a, that the Imams possess wilayat al-Takwiniyah meaning they possess control and authority over the entire universe, all of the atoms and particles, the laws of nature or physics, etc. This is clearly shirk (polytheism) of the worst kind, as it is a contravention of the Rububiyah (Lordship) of Allah Most High Who alone is Lord of the worlds. Hamid Algar has also explained in his footnote that this wilaya or divine authority which the Imams possess is essential or personal “intrinsic to their persons”. Furthermore, Khomeini claims that the Imams are superior to even the Prophets and Angels in this sense, i.e., their cosmic authority known as wilayat al-Takwiniyah

Twelver Shi'ite Rejection of Finality of Prophesy (Part 2)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Twelver Shi’ites are certainly guilty of contravening the doctrine of khatm an-Nubuwwa or finality of Prophesy. In their minds the status of an Imam is superior to that of a Prophet of Allah. They believe, for example, that the Imams are infallible, incapable of making the slightest error or even conceiving of an error. Although they technically do not name their Imams ‘Prophets’ for all intents and purposes the conception of an Imam with the Twelver Shi’a is identitcal to, if not greater than, that of a Prophet. I have previously quoted two giants of Twelver Shi’ite theology, Baqir Majlisi and Shaikh al-Mufid, to the effect that the Imams are Prophets rationally.

In the most authoritative book of Hadith for the Twelvers – al-Kafi – in the Kitab al-Hujja, there are several chapter headings which relay their specific beliefs regarding the characteristics of Imamate that make it plain that their concept of an Imam trespasses upon the particularities and exclusive attributes of Prophesy. Here I shall quote the names of those chapters:

أَنَّ الْحُجَّةَ لَا تَقُومُ للهِ عَلَى خَلْقِهِ إِلَّا بِإِمَامِ

The issue that Allah’s holding people accountable remains unjustified without the Imam (al-Kafi; v.1, p.103, ch.61)

And this belief directly contravenes the holy Quran which says that it is only through the Apostles that Allah establishes the proof against the creation, and that there is no other such establishment of proof after them:

رُسُلًا مُّبَشِّرِیۡنَ وَ مُنۡذِرِیۡنَ لِئَلَّا یَکُوۡنَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَی اللّٰہِ حُجَّۃٌۢ بَعۡدَ الرُّسُلِ

Apostles as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the Apostles

(Sura 4:165)

In chapter 64 of this book there appears a narration attributed to one of the twelve Imams:

لا يَكُونُ الْعَبْدُ مُؤْمِناً حَتَّى يَعْرِفَ الله وَرَسُولَهُ وَالائِمَّةَ كُلَّهُمْ وَإِمَامَ زَمَانِهِ وَيَرُدَّ إِلَيْهِ وَيُسَلِّمَ لَهُ

"One will not be considered a Believer until he knows Allah, His Messenger and all of the Imams and the Imam of one’s time, acknowledges his divine authority and submits his affairs to the Imam." (al-Kafi; v.1, p.105, ch.64, no.2)

Yet nowhere in the Quran does it declare knowledge and acceptance of any non-Prophet Imam as a condition of Faith, unlike the Article of Faith which necessitates belief in the Prophets and Apostles of Allah. This is another way in which the Twelvers elevate the status of the Imams to that of being Prophets for all intents and purposes.

Further on in this book the following statement is attributed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq:

إِنَّمَا الْوُقُوفُ عَلَيْنَا فِي الْحَلالِ وَالْحَرَامِ فَأَمَّا النُّبُوَّةُ فَلا

"To refer to us (as the Divine authorities) is valid only in finding the lawful and unlawful matters. To refer to us as prophethood is not valid." (ibid; p.160, ch.110, no.2)

This narration indicates that the Twelvers hold their Imams to be legislators or possessing divine legislative authority, a plain rejection of the spirit of the doctrine of khatm an-Nubuwwa. Only a Prophet can be delegated with divine legislative authority, and after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the Shari’a is complete and immutable, remaining in effect until the Apocalypse.

In the same chapter another statement is attributed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq:

الائِمَّةُ بِمَنْزِلَةِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه إِلا أَنَّهُمْ لَيْسُوا بِأَنْبِيَاءَ وَلا يَحِلُّ لَهُمْ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ مَا يَحِلُّ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه فَأَمَّا مَا خَلا ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ فِيهِ بِمَنْزِلَةِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه

"The Imams possess the position of the Messenger of Allah except that they are not prophets and the number of wives permissible for the Holy Prophet is not permissible for them. In the aspects other than these they possess the same positions as the Messenger of Allah did" (ibid; no.7)

In other words, other than the fact that an Imam is not permitted to have more than four wives, he is identical and equal to the Messenger of Allah in manzila or status and position according to the astray Twelver Shi’a sect.

*Note: The English translations of the narrations I quoted from al-Kafi are by Muhammad Sarwar, as published by The Islamic Seminary INCNY

Ghamidi Claims Wars of the Prophet Were Divine Punishment

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Among the novel conceptions of the misguided modernist Ghamidi is that some of the wars waged by the most holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were for the purpose of inflicting a divine punishment upon the Pagans:

Once the truth is communicated to a people through their respective messengers in a conclusive manner and they still deny it in spite of being convinced about it, they are punished in this very world. At times, this punishment is through earthquakes, cyclones and other calamities and disasters, while, at others, it emanates from the swords of the believers. As a result, those who have denied the truth are totally vanquished in their land and the truth reigns supreme in it. In the case of Prophet Muhammad (sws), the Divine scourge took this very form. Consequently, just as the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) were asked to wage war against oppression and injustice, they were also asked to wage war to punish the rejecters of the truth once it had become totally manifest to his addressees. This was actually a Divine plan executed through human beings. It should be viewed as a divine practice (sunnatullah) and cannot be initiated by human beings in any manner; it is not part of the shari‘ah. The Qur’anic words “God will punish them by your hands” (9:14) allude to this very reality. (Islam: A Comprehensive Introduction p.541)

Ghamidi has quoted the following Ayah of the Quran as proof for his contention that the wars waged by the most holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were for the purpose of inflicting a divine punishment upon the Pagans:

قَاتِلُوۡہُمۡ یُعَذِّبۡہُمُ اللّٰہُ بِاَیۡدِیۡکُمۡ وَ یُخۡزِہِمۡ وَ یَنۡصُرۡکُمۡ عَلَیۡہِمۡ وَ یَشۡفِ صُدُوۡرَ قَوۡمٍ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate them, and help you to victory over them, and relieve the hearts of a people who believe

(Sura 9:14)

While the Ayah certainly mentions that Allah shall punish the polytheists through warfare of the Believers, Ghamidi has quoted it out of context to give the impression that such warfare is being waged against the polytheists on account of their rejection of the Truth after the latter has been established against them. One need only read the preceding Ayah to expose Ghamidi’s deception:

اَلَا تُقَاتِلُوۡنَ قَوۡمًا نَّکَثُوۡۤا اَیۡمَانَہُمۡ وَ ہَمُّوۡا بِاِخۡرَاجِ الرَّسُوۡلِ وَ ہُمۡ بَدَءُوۡکُمۡ اَوَّلَ مَرَّۃٍ ؕ اَتَخۡشَوۡنَہُمۡ ۚ فَاللّٰہُ اَحَقُّ اَنۡ تَخۡشَوۡہُ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers

(Sura 9:13)

This Quranic passage is in fact yet another proof that the wars waged by the most holy Prophet ﷺ his Companions and the Believers in general are meant to be purely defensive and retaliatory, and not to punish the polytheists for their rejection of the Truth after it has been manifested upon them fully as claimed by Ghamidi. While I don’t necessarily reject the idea that Allah may have punished the polytheists and pagans in the past through the sword of the Believers under direction of a Prophet, but to claim specifically that the wars waged by our most holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were also for this purpose is clearly unsubstantiated.

Cessation of Prophetic Revelation

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله

The unenlightened cessationists—those who believe all forms of divine communication and inspiration from Heaven have ceased after the Prophet Muhammadﷺ—cite the following narration as proof for their contention:

Umm Aiman رضى الله عنها said:

وَلَكِنْ أَبْكِي أَنَّ الْوَحْىَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ

Rather I weep because the Wahi from Heaven has ceased (Sahih Muslim)

It is especially noteworthy that the cessation of the Wahi or the divine revelation was a cause for sadness and not joy among the Prophet’s Companions رضى الله عنهم. When Umm Aiman رضى الله عنها explained the reason for her weeping to sayyidina Abi Bakr and sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنهما they too broke down and began to weep along with her. This is in stark contrast to the celebratory and boastful attitude of the so-called khatm an-Nubuwwah movement and other cessationists who considers the cessation of divine revelation and Prophesy to be a cause for joy.

But the answer to this narration is that the word Wahi appears with the definite article making it an identifiable or known noun as opposed to a general noun. In other words, Umm Aiman stated that the particular Wahi, meaning the Prophetic Revelation that used to come down upon the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is what has ceased and not necessarily divine revelation in general. Similarly there is another narration of sayyidina Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه in which he is quoted as saying:

إِنَّ أُنَاسًا كَانُوا يُؤْخَذُونَ بِالْوَحْىِ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، وَإِنَّ الْوَحْىَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَ، وَإِنَّمَا نَأْخُذُكُمُ الآنَ بِمَا ظَهَرَ لَنَا مِنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ

Verily, people were reckoned by the Wahi during the time of the Apostle of Allah, but the Wahi has now ceased. Therefore, we shall reckon you in accordance to that which is apparent from your deeds (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Here too the word Wahi appears with the definite article making it particular as an identifiable noun and not a reference to divine revelation in general.

Non-prophetic revelation continues, but to avoid confusion it is generally termed Ilham and not Wahi although linguistically they may at times be synonymous.

The Prophet’s first successor, Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه was certainly among those of this Ummah who experienced such divine inspiration despite technically not be a Prophet. He would also receive glad tidings through such divine inspiration. He disclosed to his daughter, our mother A’ishah سلام الله عليها that soon a sister would be born to her:

ذُو بَطْنِ بِنْتِ خَارِجَةَ أُرَاهَا جَارِيَةً

That which is in the womb of the daughter of Kharijah. I see that it is a girl (Muwatta of Imam Malik)

Shortly after sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه passed away a daughter was born through his wife Habibah bint Kharijah who was named Umm Kulthum.

Angel Gabriel Disclosed Glad Tidings to Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

The reality of the descent of Angels upon pious Believers in this world, including the Angel Gabriel, is proven from an episode in the life of the great Imam and Reformer, Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمة الله عليه as related by al-Qadi Iyad bin Musa:

وَحُكِيَ عَنْ أحْمَدَ بن حَنْبَلٍ قَالَ كُنْتُ يَوْمًا مَعَ جَمَاعَةٍ تَجَرَّدُوا وَدَخَلُوا المَاءَ فاسْتَعْمَلْتُ الْحَدِيثَ من كَانَ يُؤْمِنُ بِالله وَاليَوْمِ الآخِرِ فَلَا يَدْخُلُ الْحَمَّامَ إلَّا بِمِئْزَرٍ وَلَمْ أتَجَرَّدْ فَرَأْيتُ تِلْكَ اللَّيْلَةَ قَائِلًا لي ‌يَا ‌أَحْمَدُ ‌أبْشرْ ‌فَإِنَّ ‌اللَّه ‌قَدْ ‌غَفَرَ ‌لَكَ ‌باسْتِعْمالِكَ ‌السُّنَّةَ ‌وَجَعَلكَ ‌إمامًا ‌يُقْتَدَى ‌بِكَ، قُلْتُ من أنْتَ قَالَ جِبْرِيلُ

Ahmad bin Hanbal said: One day I was in the public baths, and there was a group of people who entered the water without any clothes. I kept in mind the Hadith ‘He who believes in Allah and the Last Day should not enter the public bath without a waist-wrapper’. So I did not remove my clothes. That night I saw someone saying to me ‘O Ahmad! Receive good news that Allah has forgiven you on account of your following the Sunnah, and made you an Imam who shall be followed’. I said, ‘who are you?’ he said, ‘Gabriel’. (al-Shifa bi ta’rif huquq al-Mustafa; p.488):

Divine Inspiration to Ali رضى الله عنه in Form of Audible Voice

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Imam al-Baihaqi relates an incident in which amir al-Mu’minin, Ali bin Abi Talib كرم الله وجهه heard a voice as a form of divine inspiration in a state of wakefulness:

وَحَدَّثَنَا يُونُسُ عَنِ الْمُنْذِرِ بْنِ ثَعْلَبَةَ عَنِ الْعَلْبَاءِ بْنِ أَحْمَرَ قال

كَانَ عَلِيٌّ وَالْفَضْلُ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ يُغَسِّلَانِ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلم فَنُودِيَ عَلِيٌّ ارْفَعْ طَرْفَكَ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ

al-’Albaa bin Ahmar narrates: Ali and al-Fadl bin Abbas رضى الله عنهم were washing the [corpse] of the Apostle of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم when Ali heard a voice calling out ‘lift up your sight to Heaven’ (Dala’il an-Nubuwwah; v.7 pp.244-245):

Dawud Khaki: A Guide (Pir) is Like a Prophet (Nabi)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Dawud Khaki (d. 994 H), considered a great Sufi poet and saint, composed the following line:

چوں رسول اللہ گفت پیر مانند نبی است

کے بود مومن کے کزاز وے نبی منکر شد است

The Prophet said, a guide is like a Prophet,

How can a person be faithful if he is not the Prophet’s favorite

(Wird ul-Muridin; p.132, #279):

In the second line of the couplet it is obvious Dawud Khaki is metaphorically naming the guide or pir as “Prophet”, meaning one who is guilty of rejection of the guide/pir is faithless.

Review of Mawdudi's Book "The Revivalist Movement in Islam"

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

سُبُّوحٌ قُدُّوسٌ رَبُّ المَلاَئِكَةِ وَالرُّوحِ

Abul-Ala Mawdudi (1903-1979) is considered a mujaddid or reformer by many of his duped followers. In reality he was an extremely misguided individual who formulated an entirely novel conception of Islam that is diametrically opposed to the orthodox, Sunni conception. In this entry I shall bring forward several quotes of his from the text A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam which is an English rendering of his book Tajdid-o-Ihya-i-Din which was first published in 1940.

Mawdudi says:

The Prophets were sent, one after the other, to establish such a social system in the world (p.28)

This is an outrageous distortion of the purpose for the sending of the Prophets of Allah. They were not sent to establish a social system but rather sent to warn their people against idolatry and to establish the Oneness of Allah, first and foremost.

Mawdudi says:

Without the power to enforce, it is meaningless merely to believe in or present a doctrine or way of life (p.28)

The vast majority of the Prophets of Allah did not have the power to enforce the doctrine or way of life they presented to their people, so according to Mawdudi their efforts were, God forbid, “meaningless”.

Mawdudi says:

The ultimate aim of all the Prophets’ missions in the world has been to establish the Kingdom of God on the earth and to enforce the system of life received from Him. The Prophets, one and all, could very well concede the polytheists’ demand of sticking to their old beliefs and practices, in so far as their activities and influence were restricted to their own communal sphere, but they could never agree, and rightly so, to their remaining in authority and yielding power for their own ends. With this object before them all the Prophets did endeavour to bring about political revolutions in their respective ages. Some of them were only able to prepare ground, as Prophet Abraham; others succeeded in practically starting the revolutionary movement but their mission was terminated before they could establish the rule of God, as Prophet Jesus (p.29)

Mawdudi commits libel against the Prophets of Allah by accusing them of conceding to the polytheists’ demand of sticking to their old beliefs and practices. He also falsely claims that the Prophets were simply interested in seizing the reins of political authority from the polytheists but otherwise had no interest in putting an end to polytheistic doctrines and practices so long as the polytheists kept such doctrines and practices confined to their own spheres.

Next Mawdudi claims that although it is the mission of a Prophet to bring about a political revolution, some, like Abraham, were only able to prepare the ground for such a revolution. This is tantamount to saying that the patriarch Abraham was unsuccessful in his supposed mission. Likewise, Mawdudi claims that the ministry of Jesus was terminated by God Himself before he could fulfil the purpose of his mission, which is illogical and a contradiction. Why would God send Jesus for a specific mission of bringing about a political revolution and then terminate that very mission before it could be completed? The stupidity of Mawdudi knows no boundaries.

Mawdudi says:

Hazrat Uthman, who had been elected to shoulder the heavy burden of Caliphate, did not possess the qualities of leadership to the extent his great forerunners had been endowed with (pp.30-31)

This is a slanderous disrespect to the Prophet’s third successor, sayyidina Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with him).

Mawdudi says:

Though a mujaddid is not a Prophet, yet in spirit he comes very close to prophethood (p.37)

This statement is correct, a Mujaddid is indeed very close to a Prophet in spirit, and in terms of activity a Mujaddid replicates the path of a Prophet. Yet we see that the vast majority of the Mujaddids that the Ummah of Islam has generally accepted as such and hold in high regard were not politically active, let alone involved in bringing about a political revolution.

Mawdudi says:

On the contrary, a mujaddid does not hold any of these positions. He is not appointed but becomes a mujaddid only by the way (p.38)

Mawdudi is wrong in claiming that a Mujaddid is not divinely appointed like a Prophet. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ لِهَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ مِائَةِ سَنَةٍ مَنْ يُجَدِّدُ لَهَا دِينَهَا

“Verily, Allah shall raise up for this Ummah at the head of every century one who shall renew for it its Religion” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

The Hadith upon which we have derived the institution of the Mujaddid clearly explains that this Mujaddid is one whom Allah Himself raises up. Therefore it is a divine office like that of Prophesy.

Mawdudi says:

He does not start his work with any claim, nor is he entitled to do so (p.38)

This is also incorrect. There is no evidence that it is not appropriate for someone to claim the office of Mujaddid. On the contrary, there were several individuals whom Mawdudi himself acknowledges to have been Mujaddids who laid claim to the office, as he himself says:

Some people raise objections that the mujaddids like Hazrat Shaikh Ahmad of Sirhind and Shah Waliullah of Delhi have actually laid claims to their being mujaddids. The objectors forget that these revered men only gave expression to the fact of their being mujaddids, but they never demanded to be acknowledged as such (p.38)

Mawdudi says:

History reveals that the Ideal Mujaddid is yet to be born (p.40)

This is an admission on the part of Mawdudi that no Mujaddid has appeared in the history of the Ummah that fulfils his expections and definition of what a Mujaddid is suppose to be. Therefore Mawdudi is forced to claim that thus far no ideal Mujaddid has appeared. Such a belief is illogical for fourteen centuries passed and Allah could not raise up an ideal Mujaddid according to Mawdudi?!

Mawdudi says:

Most probably he will not be aware of his being the promised Mehdi. People, however, will recognize him after his death from his works to be the one who was to establish “Caliphate after the pattern of Prophethood” as mentioned in the prophecies (pp.42-43)

This statement is contrary to the Hadith about the Mahdi that people shall give him the pledge of allegiance and recognize him being the Mahdi during his lifetime:

فَيَخْرُجُ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ هَارِبًا إِلَى مَكَّةَ فَيَأْتِيهِ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ مَكَّةَ فَيُخْرِجُونَهُ وَهُوَ كَارِهٌ فَيُبَايِعُونَهُ بَيْنَ الرُّكْنِ وَالْمَقَامِ

A man shall come out from the people of Medina and flee to Mecca. A people from the people of Mecca shall come to him, compel him to emerge, and pledge their allegiance to him between the Rukn and the Maqam (Sunan Abi Dawud: Kitab al-Mahdi)

فَيَجِيءُ إِلَيْهِ رَجُلٌ فَيَقُولُ يَا مَهْدِيُّ أَعْطِنِي أَعْطِنِي‏ قَالَ‏ فَيَحْثِي لَهُ فِي ثَوْبِهِ مَا اسْتَطَاعَ أَنْ يَحْمِلَهُ

A man shall come to him saying ‘O Mahdi! Give me, give me!’ So he will fill his garment with whatever he is able to carry (Jami at-Tirmidhi: Kitab al-Fitan)

Mawdudi says:

Now, therefore, if somebody wishes and plans to revive Islam, he must shun the language and terminology of the Sufis, their mystic allusions and metaphoric references, their dress and etiquette, the saint-disciple institution and all other things associated with it (p.94)

This statement unveils the materialist mindset of Mawdudi and how it colors his conception of a revivalist and reformer whose function is to purify and revive the Religion.

Mawdudi says:

When the Mujahidin rose to organise and undertake Jihad, it was no secret that the real formidable power in India and the one to be seriously reckoned with by them was of the English, not of the Sikhs. One is at a loss to understand how they could possibly lose sight of this important aspect of the matter (p.98)

Mawdudi is referring to the fact that Sayyid Ahmad and Shah Isma’il of Delhi (may Allah have mercy upon them both) whom he recognizes as reformers of their time, did not fight the British who were present in India at the time but rather recruited a volunteer force of Muslims to liberate the Punjab from the Akali Sikhs. Mawdudi confesses he cannot explain why these beloved reformers and martyrs took this course of action and that he is bewildered by their approach. That is because first Mawdudi conceived of his own conception of what a reformer is and then reviewed the historical facts to try and mould them to fit into his false narrative. The truth is that neither Prophets nor Reformers are sent by Allah to simply seize the reins of political power, rather they are sent to fight for the Oneness of Allah.

Mawdudi says:

Tajdid is not a religious office to which a person may be appointed by Allah according to His will (p.103)

I have already answered this baseless objection above by quoting the Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as recorded by Imam Abi Dawud Sulaiman bin Ash’ath al-Sijistani that the Mujaddid is raised up by Allah Himself. Therefore it is indeed a divine appointment like the appointment of a Prophet.

Mawdudi says:

As far as I have studied the prophecies made by the Holy Prophet, their manner and approach is never such that they would describe the details and specific signs of a coming event in the way these have been described in the Traditions concerning the Mehdi. The Holy Prophet generally gave the principal signs only of an event but as far as details were concerned he would never describe them (p.118)

Mawdudi’s ignorance is exposed when he claims there are generally no examples of prophecies from the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم which are detailed. A cursory reading of only a handful of the Prophet’s prophecies reveals the falsehood of Mawdudi’s self-serving claim.