Abdullah Faisal: 100 Fabricated Hadith (Part 2)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اَلۡحَمۡدُ لِلّٰہِ رَبِّ الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ

والصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of the Worlds

Blessing and Peace upon You, my Master, the Apostle of Allah

Continuing the series on Abdullah Faisal, the Jamaican neo-Kharijite and Takfiri extremist, and his controversial book 100 Fabricated Hadith, the eleventh supposedly fabricated Hadith he lists is the famous:

My Companions are like Stars

أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ فَبِأَيِّهِمُ اقْتَدَيْتُمْ اهْتَدَيْتُمْ

“My Companions are like the stars. Whomsoever among them you follow you shall be guided.”

Although Abdullah Faisal claims the Hadith is fabricated, the truth is that since it has many routes of transmission some of the Muhaddithin consider it hasan (sound), though others consider it merely da’if (weak). To deem it fabricated is unwarranted, as even then its subject matter is affirmed in the Quran and other authentic Hadith with regard to the uprightness of the Sahabah, radi Allahu anhum.

The Sahabah are the best of the Ummah, and each of them was a true Believer, upon guidance and ultimately guaranteed salvation. Hence, Allah says:

وَالسّٰبِقُوۡنَ الۡاَوَّلُوۡنَ مِنَ الۡمُہٰجِرِیۡنَ وَالۡاَنۡصَارِ وَالَّذِیۡنَ اتَّبَعُوۡہُمۡ بِاِحۡسَانٍ ۙ رَّضِیَ اللّٰہُ عَنۡہُمۡ وَرَضُوۡا عَنۡہُ وَاَعَدَّ لَہُمۡ جَنّٰتٍ تَجۡرِیۡ تَحۡتَہَا الۡاَنۡہٰرُ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَاۤ اَبَدًا ؕ ذٰلِکَ الۡفَوۡزُ الۡعَظِیۡمُ

The first pioneers among the Emigrants and the Helpers, and those who follow them in goodness—Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. He has prepared for them gardens beneath which flow rivers. Therein shall they abide forever. That is the supreme attainment

(Surah 9, Ayah 100)

The Prophet, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam, said:

أُوصِيكُمْ بِأَصْحَابِي

“I bequeath upon you my Companions.” (Jami al-Tirmidhi: Kitab al-Fitan)

But Abdullah Faisal the Jamaican rejects this Hadith as according to him “As for the Sahaabahs they were not infallible as this fabricated Hadith is suggesting.” (100 Fabricated Hadith, p.35)

Yet by no means is the Hadith even remotely suggesting that the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, are infallible. Must one be assumed infallible before being compared to the stars in the sense of being a means of guidance for the people?

The truth is that Abdullah Faisal and some other ghayr muqallidin (non-conformists) adhere to a methodology which has inherited some degree of rifd and Shiism in their attitude toward the Sahabah, which compels them to immediately dismiss this Hadith and declare it a fabrication. But we Sunni Muslims love this Hadith and even if it is weak we affirm its meaning as true and correct.

If not for women Allah would be worshipped properly

This is the thirteenth in Abdullah Faisal’s list. He criticizes it in the following words, “This fabricated Hadith is repulsive, and it’s against the spirit of Islamic brotherhood and sisterhood. It enhances male chauvinism, which is a form of kufr.” (ibid, p.39)

Whether the narration is actually fabricated is immaterial at this point since I am much more interested in the psychology behind Abdullah Faisal’s harsh criticism of its text. For if he considers this narration “repulsive” then one wonders what he might think of many authentic Ahadith with a similar message and sentiment, for instance:

مَا تَرَكْتُ بَعْدِي فِتْنَةً أَضَرَّ عَلَى الرِّجَالِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ

“I am not leaving behind me a tribulation more harmful upon men than women.” (Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim)

According to Abdullah Faisal’s logic, this Hadith is kufr because it enhances “male chauvinism”?

The reality is that Abdullah Faisal obviously converted to Islam still carrying in his mind and heart some of the foolish feminist notions and supposedly “progressive” and “egalitarian” Western cultural attitudes regarding women. One is at a loss as to what his basis is for declaring “male chauvinism” to be kufr. But it does fit the overall pattern found with Abdullah Faisal in declaring matters to be kufr quite carelessly, as is the hallmark of Kharijites and Takfiris.

That women are a harmful fitnah for men is a basis to reasonably conclude that if not for women men would be able to worship Allah at a higher level, but the divine wisdom ordained otherwise.

Scholars of my Ummah are like Israelite Prophets

This is the eighteenth narration mentioned by Abdullah Faisal. While I agree it has no basis in being attributed to the holy and blessed mouth of the Prophet Muhammad, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam, those like Abdullah Faisal who criticize its meaning have actually failed to understand it. This is part of a general pattern with him and other extremists in lacking the wisdom and intellectual capacity to appropriately interpret statements upon the tongues of the Muslims in a good way rather than rushing to condemnation and takfir. Abdullah Faisal says, “This fabricated Khabar is cited by Qadiyaanis, may Allah curse them, who claim that the possibility exist for prophets to come after Muhammad, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam.” (100 Fabricated Hadith, p.48)

It is true that the dajjal, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and his followers cited this narration to justify their heresy. But this saying is accepted by the Sufis who correctly interpret it to mean that the Ulama have a function that is similar to the Prophets in teaching and spiritually guiding the people. By no means does it mean that the Ulama are equal to the Prophets in rank or that attainment of Prophethood is possible for the Ulama after sayyiduna Muhammad, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam. Abdullah Faisal himself cites an authentic Hadith “The learned are the inheritors of the Prophets” (ibid) which is what this statement “the learned of my Ummah are like the Prophets of the Children of Israel” is pointing to. So even if it is not an actual Hadith of Prophet Muhammad it is still true and correct in its meaning.

In the course of his discussion on the nineteenth narration in his list, Abdullah Faisal digresses into a theological discussion concerning tawhid (monotheism), saying, “Tawheed has four branches and anyone who denies one is guilty of denying all, hence he has apostated from the Deen.” (ibid, p.51)

It is the supposed fourth branch of tawhid that is considered controversial, “Tawheed Haakimiya, i.e. to believe Allah, azza wa jall, is the only lawgiver.” (ibid, p.52)

But it should be borne in mind that none of the Salaf or the classical theologians, scholars and jurists of Sunni Islam ever explain tawhid as consisting of four branches with the fourth branch being tawhid al-hakimiyah, meaning that it is from tawhid to affirm that Allah is the “only lawgiver”.

The neo-Kharijites and extremist Takfiris have put forward this notion of tawhid al-hakimiyah to justify their wholesale takfir of large segments of the Muslim Ummah, and particularly the contemporary governments of the Muslims on the basis that they legislate and adhere to legislation that is manmade and therefore guilty of shirk!

We mainstream Sunni Muslims certainly affirm that Allah, holy and exalted is He, is the supreme legislator, and that all mankind is obligated to obey Allah, Whose judgment and legislation supersedes all manmade judgment and legislation.

Nevertheless, if this was a distinct branch of tawhid then none of the creation would be authorized to even legislate or make judgments in the discretionary matters of ijtihad in which the divine Shari’ah is either not explicit or falls silent. If hakimiyah is a distinct branch of tawhid, it would be shirk to even obey any Muslim caliph, emir, sultan, imam, ruler, qadi, etc., even if his commandment or law does not clash with the Shari’ah. That is because just as it is still shirk to worship anything or anyone as a minor god while acknowledging Allah as the supreme God, it therefore follows that to obey the creation as a lesser legislator while acknowledging Allah as the supreme legislator possessing the highest authority must also be shirk if hakimiyah is to be considered a matter connected to tawhid.

Yet, Allah Himself commands us to obey some of His creation, such as His Apostle, sall Allahu alayhi wasallam, and the human rulers, governors and judges among us. They are authorized to legislate and issue commands in the discretionary matters where Allah has not legislated or given an explicit commandment or prohibition.

What about a ruler who legislates in opposition to the divine Shari’ah? Or a person who willingly obeys a piece of manmade legislation or a commandment that violates the Shari’ah? Should such individuals be considered polytheists guilty of shirk in the matter of hakimiyah?

It is reasonable to say that to reckon manmade legislation as higher than the law of Allah is surely kufr. But not every instance of kufr is shirk. To reject a true Prophet of God is kufr but it is not necessarily shirk. This is because shirk is a specific type of kufr that has been defined. At any rate, the neo-Kharijite concept of tawhid al-hakimiyah is quite problematic at the very least, and it is better to stick with the conceptions of tawhid and shirk that have been explained by our classical Sunni scholars and theologians.

Illegitimate Child

The twenty-second narration in Abdullah Faisal’s list says “An illegitimate child cannot enter the Paradise nor anyone from his descendants to as far as the seventh generation.”

I agree with Abdullah Faisal that this narration, in the apparent, is quite problematic for rationally speaking how can one assign blame to an illegitimate child for the sin of his or her parents?

Nevertheless, the narration is interesting as it is quite similar to a commandment found in the Torah: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2, KJV)

While obviously disagreeing with the meaning of the narration, which contradicts the basic principle of Islam that does not assign responsibility to an individual for the sin of another, I disagree with Abdullah Faisal when he says, “As for the hadith that says the illegitimate child should not lead the salah, this hadith is classified weak. The Imam which the Muslims are not supposed to pray behind is the one who is an open sinner, or the one with a deviant Aqeedah which contains shirk e.g. the Barailwis, the Shias (Twelvers), Democrats etc.” (100 Fabricated Hadith, p.58)

The term Barelawi is usually used by people in the Subcontinent who are not Sunni to refer to the traditional and orthodox Sunni Muslims. Abdullah Faisal is not only a Wahhabi but an extremist Takfiri and neo-Kharijite, currently serving an eighteen year prison term in the United States for attempting to recruit for the terrorist ISIS, and so it is not surprising that he accuses mainstream Sunni Muslims “Barailwis”, of having a deviant aqidah and committing shirk.

With regard to the imamate for the salah of a man born out of wedlock, as a Hanafi it is considered makruh (disliked) in our school as Imam al-Shurunbulali (d. 1069 H) has said:

وكره إمامة العبد والأعمى والأعرابي وولد الزنا والجاهل والفاسق والمبتدع وتطويل

الصلاة

“The imamate of a slave, a blind man, a Bedouin, an illegitimate child, an ignoramus, an open sinner, an innovator and prolonging the salah is disliked.” (Maraqi al-Falah Sharh Nur al-Idah, p.173)

Now the reason for the dislike of a man born out of wedlock leading a congregational salah is that such an individual is usually ignorant and lacks good character due to his family background and lack of valid fatherhood that is often an essential for obtaining knowledge and tarbiyah.

Another reason is that the congregational salah is a very important act of worship which among other functions serves to represent the condition of the particular Muslim congregation. It could reflect badly on the congregation if others come to know that they pray behind a man born out of wedlock, and members of the congregation itself may feel uneasy or disturbed if the status of their imam of being an illegitimate child was disclosed to them. That is because the position of imamate is a noble and respectable one, a figure that the Muslims should look up. But the knowledge that one’s imam is an illegitimate child would likely cause at least some members of his congregation to look down on him and feel he is not a suitable candidate to lead them.