The Reality of Yazid b. Mu'awiya

In the Name of Allah; the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

The occasion of Ashura (10^th of Muharram) having recently passed us, I felt it necessary in light of ongoing debates and controversy over the incident of Karbala, to shed some light on the personality of Yazid b. Mu’awiya. The latter was the ruler of the Muslim world who succeeded his father Mu’awiya in 680 C.E. During his tyrannical reign, the beloved maternal grandson of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), al-Imam al-Hussayn (‘alayhis salaam) was martyred along with a small band of his relatives and followers on the plains of Karbala in the country of Iraq. This tragic incident has remained the greatest stain in the history of Islam after the passing away of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Recently, a modern trend has emerged among certain sections of the Muslim world in which Yazid is being defended. It is argued that Yazid was not responsible for the death of Imam Hussayn (peace be upon him), or that, God forbid, he was within his legitimate rights to order the fighting against Imam Hussayn and his family members which resulted in their martyrdom. This neo-Yazidi camp sometimes exhibit Nasibi tendencies (enmity towards the Ahl al-Bayt or household and progeny of the Prophet peace be upon them). According to this camp, Yazid was a righteous man and he was promised salvation citing the Hadith about the conquest of Constantinople as evidence. According to that Hadith it is stated that those Muslims who will form the first battalion to attack Constantinople will be forgiven and granted salvation. The Yazidi camp allege that Yazid was among that first battalion [a claim we dispute]. Others of this tendency take the position that it is forbidden to curse or dislike Yazid, as he was a Muslim and a legitimate Caliph of the Muslim Ummah.

In this specific entry, I only seek to unveil the reality of Yazid from a purely Islamic position, specifically in light of the sayings and prophecies of our Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam).

First, the general principle with regard to cursing Yazid can be understood from the following Hadith:

عَنْ عَوْفِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ، عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : " خِيَارُ أَئِمَّتِكُمُ الَّذِينَ تُحِبُّونَهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَكُمْ ، وَيُصَلُّونَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَتُصَلُّونَ عَلَيْهِمْ ، وَشِرَارُ أَئِمَّتِكُمُ الَّذِينَ تُبْغِضُونَهُمْ وَيُبْغِضُونَكُمْ ، وَتَلْعَنُونَهُمْ وَيَلْعَنُونَكُمْ ، قِيلَ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، أَفَلَا نُنَابِذُهُمْ بِالسَّيْفِ ، فَقَالَ : لَا ، مَا أَقَامُوا فِيكُمُ الصَّلَاةَ وَإِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ مِنْ وُلَاتِكُمْ شَيْئًا تَكْرَهُونَهُ ، فَاكْرَهُوا عَمَلَهُ وَلَا تَنْزِعُوا يَدًا مِنْ طَاعَةٍ "

It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “The best of your rulers are those whom you love and they love you, who invoke blessings upon you and you invoke blessings upon them. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you invoke curses upon them and they invoke curses upon you.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, should we fight them with the sword?” He said: “No, not so long as they establish prayer among you. But if you see something in your rulers that you dislike, then hate their deeds, but do not withdraw your hand from obedience to them.” (Sahih Muslim; Kitab al-Imarah)

According to the purport of this Hadith, Yazid b. Mu’awiya is perhaps the worst of the rulers who ruled the Muslim Ummah because undoubtedly he is the most hated and cursed of such rulers by the Muslims, both Sunni and Shi’i, until this day. No other ruler has been as cursed and hated as Yazid.

Now let us turn to an authentically reported prophecy from the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) concerning Yazid:

حَدَّثَنَا هَوْذَةُ بْنُ خَلِيفَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِي خَلْدَةَ ، عَنْ عَوْفٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الْعَالِيَةِ ، عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، يَقُولُ : " أَوَّلُ مَنْ يُبَدِّلُ سُنَّتِي رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ "

Abi Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) says: I heard Allah’s Messenger Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam saying: “The first person to change my Sunnah is a man from the Bani Omayya.” (Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah and Al-Awa’il of Ibn ‘Asim)

According to another version from Abu Dardaa’ (Allah be pleased with him):

قَالَ أَبُو الدَّرْدَاءِ : سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، يَقُولُ : " أَوَّلُ مَنْ يُبَدِّلُ سُنَّتِي رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ , يُقَالُ لَهُ : يَزِيدُ "

I heard the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) saying: “The first person to change my Sunnah is a man from Bani Omayya, he called him ‘Yazid’” (Tarikh al-Islam of Imam al-Dhahabi)

According to this prophecy, Yazid, who was the second of the Omayyad rulers, was the first person to go against and change the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

The most eminent Salafi Muhaddith of this time, Muhammad Nasir Uddin al-Albani (1914-1999), authenticated this Hadith:

Reference: Silsilat al Ahadith al-Sahiha; no. 1749

But more damning for Yazid is the prophecy concerning Luka’ bin Luka’

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي بُكَيْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا كَامِلٌ أَبُو الْعَلَاءِ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ أَبَا صَالِحٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : تَعَوَّذُوا بِاللَّهِ مِنْ رَأْسِ السَّبْعِينَ ، وَمَنْ إِمَارَةِ الصِّبْيَانِ  .

وَقَال : لَا تَذْهَبُ الدُّنْيَا حَتَّى تَصِيرَ لِلُكَعِ ابْنِ لُكَعٍ  .

Abi Hurairah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “Seek refuge in Allah from the turn of the seventieth year, and from the rule of young boys.” And he said: “The world world will not pass until it first belongs to a mean Fool son of a mean Fool.”

Reference: Musnad Ahmad; no. 8303

According to other versions of this prophecy, it is the sixtieth year (of the Islamic calendar), incidentally, the year in which Yazid b. Mu’awiya seized control of the government.

The interpretation of eminent figures of this Ummah, no less a figure than Abi Hurairah (Allah be pleased with him) is that the rule of young boys and the tribulation of the sixtieth year is a reference to the rule of Yazid b. Mu’awiya (see the following article http://www.livingislam.org/n/ahtv_e.html for more details).

Consequently, my own interpretation is that the figure Luka’ b. Luka’ (the fool son of the fool, or disgraced son of disgraced), is a reference to Yazid in light of the Hadith I have cited above. In that Hadith Luka’ bin Luka’ is mentioned in the same breadth as the evil government of young boys.

Iqbal's Book Islam and Ahmadism...Refuted (Part 2)

In the Name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

Continuing from my last entry regarding Iqbal’s Islam and Ahmadism, we now move on to another example of the author’s woeful ignorance. Iqbal says:

“The history of Muslim Theology shows that mutual accusation of heresy on minor points of difference has, far from working as a disruptive force, actually given an impetus to synthetic theological thought.” (pp. 18-19)

Keep in mind that Iqbal has made the above claim on the basis of history. The reason is because just a few lines after this claim, Iqbal will once again shift gears and claim that it is in fact the “synthetic spirit of Islam” which is the remedy to the sectarian mischief of the mullas.

We see that Iqbal is forced to emphasize his fantastic notion of Islam’s synthetic spirit because his earlier claim of the history of Muslim theology giving impetus to synthetic theological thought is simply untrue. On the contrary, the history of Muslim theology is a history of bitter divisiveness, sectarianism and even violence. In our previous entry we already mentioned the first inquisition in the history of Islam known as the Mihnah. But in fact, the theological disputes that arose throughout the early, middle, and modern history of Islam even managed to create political division within the Ummah, not to mention appalling bloodshed and violence. Many Muslim theologians were executed by the government of their day for heresy. Others suffered persecution, imprisonment, and exile. Apart from Islamic theologians, jurists, and imams, Sufi mystics have also suffered persecution. The mystic Mansur al-Hallaj was executed for heresy. While it is true that many of those executed or imprisoned by the rulers of the time were often implicated in political intrigue or revolt against the State, nevertheless, the State did invoke heresy as the prima facie for their persecution of various theologians, jurists and mystics. The historical Islamic governments and dynasties also executed on charge of heresy many individuals for making heretical claims of being prophets, angels, a reappearance of a prophet, or possessing some kind of divinity. In modern times this phenomenon continues. Take for example the execution of Sayyid Qutb in Egypt, Mahmud Taha in Sudan, just to name a few in an ocean of such examples of outright religious persecution of Islamic theologians, reformers, mystics and claimants to prophethood or divinity.

The Sunni – Shi’ite controversy is the elephant in the room. But if Iqbal or anyone else were to insist that the horrendous history of bloodshed, persecution and violence among the Muslims as a result of this particular controversy is essentially political and not theological, there are still a host of other examples of purely theological controversies that have acted as forces of disintegration for the Muslim Ummah. The sectarian riots in medieval Baghdad and Nishapur should not be forgotten. Various theological camps like the Hanbalis, Asharis, Mu’tazila, Karramiyya, Najjariyya, Mushabbiha, etc., arranged themselves into divided sections of urban centers. There was frequent rioting, with one sect engaging in mischief against the other, by setting fire to the quarters of their rivals. They also engaged in political intrigue against the other, each faction attempting to win control over an academy or secure for one of its scholars the office of Qadi (adjudicator). These sectarian squabbles did not restrict themselves to street violence and agitations, they also manifested themselves into real political and national divisions among the Muslims. The Fatimid dynasty championed its particular brand of Ismailiyya. The Safavids transformed Iran into a Twelver Shi’ite state. The Ayyubids defeated the Fatimids and made Egypt a Sunni Ashari state. The Ottomans promoted the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. The Mughals in India also championed the Hanafi rite. The Saud dynasty enforced its conservative brand of Hanbalism over Arabia. Oman remains to this day the surviving Kharijite state. How absolutely incorrect was Iqbal then when he claimed that the theological variation among the Muslims has acted as a synthetic force for the Muslims. On the contrary, it has led to unimaginable fracture and irreconcilable political division within the Ummah.

Now coming to an allegation that Iqbal levels specifically against the Ahmadiyya movement: “I believe, for reasons to be explained presently, that the idea of a full prophet whose denial entails the denier’s excommunication from Islam is essential to Ahmadism” (p. 20), Iqbal has failed to cite any evidence in his paper that the Ahmadiyya movement expelled anyone from Islam on account of denial of the “prophethood” of its founder Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. On the contrary, the latter himself stated:

ابتدا سے میرا یہی مذہب ہے کہ میرے دعوے کے انکار کی وجہ سے کوئی شخص کافر یا دجّال نہیں ہوسکتا۔

“From the beginning, my belief has always been that denial of my claims does not render any person a Kafir or a Dajjal.”

Reference: Ruhani Khaza’in; v.15, p.432

To be continued…

Iqbal's Book Islam and Ahmadism...Refuted (Part 1)

In the Name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

The poet and philosopher Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) is widely respected throughout the Muslim world for his contribution to Islamic thought. However, I am of the opinion that Iqbal’s ideas are extremely harmful for the Muslim world and that he promoted the cancer of modernism and materialism by deceptively giving them an Islamic coloring.

Iqbal once described the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (d. 1908) as “probably the profoundest theologian among modern Indian Muslims.” (Indian Antiquary, vol. 29, September 1900, p. 239)

Regrettably, Iqbal later changed his view and became an opponent of the Ahmadiyya movement and its respected founder. The booklet Islam and Ahmadism was authored by Iqbal where he states his objections and arguments to the Ahmadiyya in a reply to an inquiry on the subject by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru (1889-1964), India’s first Prime Minister.

In this entry, I shall analyze this booklet and respond to the fallacious objections raised by Iqbal against Hadrat Mirza and the Ahmadiyya movement:

In the first attack on the Ahmadiyya in this booklet, Iqbal states: “the Pandit and the Qadianis [Ahmadiyya], perhaps because both inwardly resent, for different reasons, the prospects of Muslim political and religious solidarity particularly in India.” (p.9)

Iqbal explains this further: “It is equally obvious that the Qadianis, too, feel nervous by the political awakening of the Indian Muslims, because they feel that the rise of political prestige of the Indian Muslims is sure to defeat their designs to carve out from the Ummat of the Arabian Prophet a new Ummat for the Indian prophet.” (pp.9-10)

In this latter statement Iqbal has compounded one false allegation against the Ahmadiyya with an ever more grievous one. He claims that the Ahmadiyya movement “resent” and is “nervous” about a political awakening and solidarity among the Indian Muslims. Secondly, and more seriously, he fabricates a baseless allegation that the Ahmadiyya seek to “carve out” a new Ummah from the Ummah of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam). Iqbal has absolutely no evidence to substantiate this latter allegation in particular. The emphatic claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and his followers is that they are part and parcel of the Ummah of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and that their Movement is not a distinct Ummah, but rather, a Jama’ah and Firqah (Sect) that is within the confines of the Muslim Ummah. Hadrat Mirza himself did not claim to be a Prophet in a real or independent sense, but rather a prophet by way of reflecting the light and being infused with the spiritual excellences of the Prophethood of his master Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam). Hence, Hadrat Mirza claimed to be an Ummati Nabi, that is, a prophet who is also an Ummati and follower of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam).

As for the objection that the Ahmadiyya Movement is somehow threatened by the political solidarity of the Indian Muslims, this too is patently false. It should be borne in mind that the Ahmadiyya Movement is purely a religious movement and a sect within the circle of Islam. It is not a political party or movement, but nonetheless has the same feelings and hopes that the general body of Muslims have as it relates to their betterment and solidarity. In other words, the Ahmadiyya is distinct from other Muslims sects with regard to creed or beliefs, but in political affairs, being a part of the Muslim Ummah, it has no separate or distinct interests from the general body of Muslims. The son and second successor of the founder, Mirza Mahmud Ahmad (1889-1965), made this fact explicitly clear in the book Political Solidarity of Islam, wherein he states: “We have never made any distinction between ourselves and the other Muslims while demanding political rights for them. We have always supported the general Muslim demand, and for the attainment of this object have made sacrifices beyond our means.” (p.6)

History bears testament to this fact. The Ahmadiyya movement, for example, struggled along with the general body of Muslims for greater political autonomy and protection of Muslim interests and political rights in India. The Ahmadiyya was on the side of the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan, while many of the narrow-minded opponents of the Ahmadiyya, such as the Deobandi mullas and the Ahrar (an obscure political party) opposed the political interests of the Muslim Ummah and opposed the creation of Pakistan by giving priority to their Indian nationalism. An eminent member of the Ahmadiyya community, Sir Zafrullah Khan (1893-1985) was in fact the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan, and also played a crucial role in arguing the case of the Arabs before the international community in opposing the Zionist takeover of Palestine.

Having failed to specify in what way the Ahmadiyya movement has opposed the political solidarity of the Muslims, Iqbal cleverly shifts gear by claiming that the very existence of the Ahmadiyya sect with its unique beliefs acts as a “disintegrating factor” that threatens to bring about “dissolution” of the community. Iqbal cites the excommunication of Spinoza by the Jewish elders of Amsterdam as an example. Spinoza was a pantheist and held unorthodox views which angered the Jewish elders who felt it necessary to have him excommunicated from their small and vulnerable community in order to protect it from disintegration. Similarly, according to Iqbal, the Indian Muslims are justified in excommunicating the Ahmadiyya sect from the fold of Islam.

There are two essential problems with Iqbal’s contention. Firstly, the Ahmadiyya sect’s difference with the mainstream Sunni Muslims is in fact a valid difference of interpretation that is within the confines of disagreement according to the principles of orthodox Sunni Islam. The disagreement or difference of interpretation revolve around the question of the life or death of the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth (peace be upon him), and the reality of the prophecy of the second coming of Jesus. In brief, the Ahmadiyya believe that Jesus of Nazareth died a natural death, and that the Islamic prophecy contained in the Hadith regarding his second advent signifies the birth of a saintly Muslim reformer from within the Ummah who, due to spiritual resemblance with the original Jesus, play the role of a new Messiah for the rejuvenation of Islam. The Ahmadiyya believe therefore that the second coming of Jesus was fulfilled in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. This position, though rejected by the majority of mainstream Sunni Muslims, cannot conceivably be understood as a rejection of any fundamental of Islam.

Iqbal, who himself diverges quite strongly with the mainstream Muslims, rejects the idea of the expectation of a coming Messiah. He characterizes such a doctrine as the penetration of a “Magian” idea into Islam. Thus, if on this point the Ahmadiyya movement has deviated beyond the pale, Iqbal himself is an even greater deviant because he rejects the second coming of the Messiah altogether, while the Ahmadiyya do not reject the second coming but merely have a difference of interpretation with the mainstream Sunni Muslims regarding its reality and details.

The second problem is evident from a purely Islamic perspective. Islam is a universal religion in which the values of truth and justice are paramount. Unlike Judaism, it is not a tribalistic community whose primary concern is political solidarity. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly condemns the attitude of the Jewish elders and community leaders who have a notorious history for opposing Prophets of God, including their own Messiah, in the name of social cohesion and political solidarity. It is well known that the Jewish Sanhedrin opposed the promised Messiah Jesus of Nazareth because they felt he was a threat to the political solidarity of their community that was occupied by the iron fist of the Roman empire. The Sanhedrin attempted to persuade the Roman governor of Judea province to have Jesus of Nazareth put to death on the cross for this very reason. Iqbal has defended the actions of the Jewish elders in Amsterdam for excommunicating Spinoza, but by the same token and using the exact same rationale, he should have also defended the actions of the Sanhedrin for doing the same to a Prophet recognized by Islam!

Next, Iqbal attempts to gloss over the dark chapters in Islamic history when he states: “Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru seems to think that a society founded on religious principles necessitates the institution of Inquisition. This is indeed true of the history of Christianity; but the history of Islam, contrary to the Pandit’s logic, shows that during the last thirteen hundred years of the life of Islam, the institution of Inquisition has been absolutely unknown in Muslim countries.” (Islam and Ahmadism; p.15)

The fact of the matter is that Iqbal is simply incorrect in making such a grandiose claim about the history of Islam. He seems to have deliberately ignored the first theological inquisition in the history of Islam known as the Mihnah. This inquisition was instituted by the Abbasid ruler Al-Ma’mun in 833 C.E and lasting for some eighteen years. Through this inquisition, the Abbasid government attempted to enforce the Mu’tazilite creed upon the Muslims, specifically the doctrine that the Qur’an is created. Any Imam or scholar who dissented from the official doctrine of the State was severely punished or imprisoned, among them the eminent Sunni Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him).

A modern manifestation of the Inquisition which occurred after the death of Iqbal were the proceedings in the National Assembly of Pakistan in 1974 as a result of which the Ahmadiyya sect were officially declared as a non-Muslim minority expelled from Islam by way of an amendment to the Constitution.

To be continued…

Metaphorical Meaning of Sun, Moon and Stars in the Holy Qur'an

In the Name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful

In this entry I would like to begin a new series involving a deep introspection and study of the inner meaning of the Book of Allah, the Holy Qur’an.

Many deluded individuals and those effected by the excessively literalist thought claim that the Holy Qur’an must only be understood upon its apparent meaning. They further allege that the Holy Qur’an contains no inner meanings, and label those who hold the contrary view as Batiniyya (esotericists). For example, Jawed Ahmad Ghamidi, a contemporary modernist, writes:

“It is evident from the foregoing discussion that what makes the Qur’an a document having one definite meaning and which resolves all differences of interpretation and thus verifies Imam Farahi’s words الْقُرْآنُ لَا يَحْتَمِلُ إِلَّا تَاْوِيْلاً وَاحِداً  (There is no possibility of more than one interpretation in the Qur’an) about it is the coherence it possesses.” (Principles of Understanding Islam; p.56)

*Note: Hamid Uddin Farahi (1860-1930) was a modernist scholar. His ideas were inherited by Jawed Ghamidi via Amin Ahsan Islahi (1904-1997).

However, this idea that there is no possibility for multiple interpretations of the Holy Qur’an is false in light of the proceeding statement of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam):

أُنْزِلَ الْقُرْآنُ عَلَى سَبْعَةِ أَحْرُفٍ ، لِكُلِّ آيَةٍ مِنْهَا ظَهْرٌ وَبَطْنٌ

“The Qur’an was revealed in seven dialectic modes. Every Ayah (verse) of it has an apparent and a hidden (meaning).”

In fact, the Holy Qur’an itself issues an important disclaimer that it contains two kinds of verses, the Muhkamaat which are foundational and unambiguous verses that are the “mother of the Book”, and the Mutashabihaat, or verses that are allegorical, whose true meaning is known only by Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge (Sura 3:7).

Even a cursory reading of the Holy Qur’an will make it quite evident to the reader that it is a Book filled with parables, literary expressions, metaphors, and religious symbolism.

One example I would like to focus on for this entry is the repeated mention of the sun, moon, and stars throughout the Holy Qur’an.

The vision of the Prophet Joseph (peace be upon him) where he saw eleven stars, the sun and moon making obeisance to him (Sura 12:4) is a key to understanding the reality of this subject. The sun and moon were Joseph’s parents, the sun symbolizing his father Prophet Jacob (peace be upon him), and the eleven stars symbolizing his eleven brothers (Sura 12:100).

Based on this we are given a strong indication that sun, moon and stars, as used in the Holy Qur’an, connote Prophets and saintly people.

Keep in mind that this is not a denial of the apparent meaning of sun, moon and stars, and no doubt, these words have also been used in their apparent sense. But the beauty and salient feature of the Holy Qur’an is that its words have both an apparent and inner meaning, and both should be studied and accepted whole-heartedly.

In many Ahadith, the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) has elucidated on the inner meaning of sun, moon and stars;

أَوَّلُ زُمْرَةٍ تَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ عَلَى صُورَةِ الْقَمَرِ لَيْلَةَ الْبَدْرِ وَالَّذِينَ عَلَى إِثْرِهِمْ كَأَشَدِّ كَوْكَبٍ إِضَاءَةً قُلُوبُهُمْ عَلَى قَلْبِ رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ

“The first batch (of people) who will enter Paradise will be like the full moon, and those upon the trace of their steps will be like the brightest star, their hearts will be like the heart of a single man…” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Regarding the illustrious Sahaba (companions of the Prophet may Allah be pleased with them) there is the Hadith:

أَصْحَابِي كَالنُّجُومِ بِأَيِّهِمُ اقْتَدَيْتُمُ اهْتَدَيْتُمْ

“My Companions are like the Stars, whoever of them you follow you will be guided.”

In describing the ‘Ulamaa (scholars) of his Ummah, the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:

هُمْ عُلَمَاءُ أُمَّتِي الْكَوَاكِبُ زِينَةُ السَّمَاءِ ، وَالْعُلَمَاءُ زِينَةُ أُمَّتِي

“The Ulema of my Ummah are the Stars which adorn the sky, and the Ulema are the adornment of my Ummah.” (Tarikh Jarjan; no. 215)

This Hadith in particular correlates to and helps to explain the inner meaning of the verse of the Holy Qur’an:

إِنَّا زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِزِينَةٍ الْكَوَاكِبِ

Indeed, We have adorned the Heaven of the world with an adornment of Stars (Sura 37:6)

These and many other Ahadith demonstrate for us that saintly and pious people like the Prophets, the Sahaba, and the Ulema, have been described as the shining objects in Heaven that glitter with light, i.e., sun, moon and stars.

The 53^rd Sura of the Holy Qur’an is called Al-Najm, or the Star, because it begins with Allah drawing out attention to the Star when it descends:

وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَىٰ ۝
مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَىٰ۝

By the Star when it descends. Your Companion (Prophet Muhammad) has not strayed, nor has he erred. (Sura 53:1-2)

Since the subject matter of the Sura is the Mi’raj (ascension) of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), for this reason Islamic exegetes have understood the descending star as referring to the Prophet as he descended back into this world at the conclusion of his experience of the Mi’raj. Imam Sahl al-Tustari (818-896 C.E) and the eminent Sufi, Abdul Karim al-Qushayri (986-1074) have mentioned this in their respective Tafsirs.

Reference: Tafsir Tustari; p. 261 and Tafsir Qushayri; v.3, p.247

Let us now re-examine some selected verses of the Holy Qur’an keeping this inner meaning in mind:

وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ وَالنُّجُومَ مُسَخَّرَاتٍ بِأَمْرِهِ

The Sun, the Moon and the Stars, subjected by His command (Sura 7:54)

The inner meaning is that here Allah is stating that the Prophet, the Messiah, and the saintly and learned people of this Ummah are in a state of willing subjection to His command.

أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّـهَ يَسْجُدُ لَهُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَن فِي الْأَرْضِ وَالشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ وَالنُّجُومُ وَالْجِبَالُ وَالشَّجَرُ وَالدَّوَابُّ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنَ النَّاسِ

Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the Heavens and whoever is on the Earth and the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, the Mountains, the Trees, the moving creatures and many of the people (Sura 22:18)

While it is certainly true that the inanimate and unconscious objects of the cosmos and nature are in a state of subjugation or prostration before Allah, the inner meaning is also quite profound. Here Allah has mentioned that those who prostrate to Him are the Angels, and those who are on the Earth, such as the Sun (the Prophet), the Moon (the Messiah), the Stars (saintly and learned believers), the Mountains (great nations), the Trees (tribes or clans based on their lineages), beasts meaning perhaps beastly individuals, and many ordinary people.

Similarly, the Stars, both Al-Nujum and Al-Kawakib have been mentioned throughout the Holy Qur’an, but particularly in a sense of being vanished, effaced, scattered, or dimmed (see 52:49, 77:8, 81:2, 82:2).

The profound inner meaning of the vanishing or dimming of the Stars is a prophecy that as Judgment Day approaches the saintly and pious believers will become scarce or of a lesser degree than those who preceded them.

Magic is not Real (Part 2) Answering an Objection

In a previous entry I made recently, I negated the common mythological belief among Muslims that Sihr (magic/witchcraft) is real. On the contrary, magic is imaginary and has no real effect, something exemplified best by the Qur’anic narrative of the Prophet Moses’s contest with the Pharaonic sorcerers.

However, those Muslims who have been deluded into believing, often with such shocking certitude, that magic is real, even go to the extent of saying that a sorcerer can, through the dark art of sorcery, cause a person to become ill and even murder people!

Those who argue this opposing view cite the following verse of the Holy Qur’an as substantiating their claim:

وَاتَّبَعُوا مَا تَتْلُو الشَّيَاطِينُ عَلَىٰ مُلْكِ سُلَيْمَانَ وَمَا كَفَرَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ كَفَرُوا يُعَلِّمُونَ النَّاسَ السِّحْرَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَى الْمَلَكَيْنِ بِبَابِلَ هَارُوتَ وَمَارُوتَ وَمَا يُعَلِّمَانِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ حَتَّىٰ يَقُولَا إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ فِتْنَةٌ فَلَا تَكْفُرْ فَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مِنْهُمَا مَا يُفَرِّقُونَ بِهِ بَيْنَ الْمَرْءِ وَزَوْجِهِ وَمَا هُم بِضَارِّينَ بِهِ مِنْ أَحَدٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ وَيَتَعَلَّمُونَ مَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلَا يَنفَعُهُمْ وَلَقَدْ عَلِمُوا لَمَنِ اشْتَرَاهُ مَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنْ خَلَاقٍ وَلَبِئْسَ مَا شَرَوْا بِهِ أَنفُسَهُمْ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ

And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut. But the two angels do not teach anyone unless they say, "We are a trial, so do not disbelieve [by practicing magic]." And [yet] they learn from them that by which they cause separation between a man and his wife. But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them. But the Children of Israel certainly knew that whoever purchased the magic would not have in the Hereafter any share. And wretched is that for which they sold themselves, if they only knew. (Sura 2:102)

The essence of the argument that magic is real is based on this verse. This verse states that Magic is something that is learnt, that it is a type of ‘Ilm (knowledge/science), and something that is learnt or taught is real and not imaginary. Otherwise, how can someone learn something that is not real but only imaginary. Such a thing cannot be considered as knowledge or acquired through “learning” since it is imaginary, according to this argument.

Furthermore, this verse is proving [as per this argument] that the one learned in magic can cause separation between a man and his wife. Causing separation between husband and wife is something real and not imaginary.

The answer to this argument is that it is not necessary that something which is imaginary cannot be labeled as knowledge. Magic is a type of knowledge in a linguistic sense, because, as this verse makes clear, it is something that is learned. There are many things that people learn which have no basis or are imaginary. For example, people study and learn mythology, fiction, horoscopes and astrology. All of these are examples of knowledge, but knowledge of imaginary, useless things that have no benefit or reality. The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) has made this point clear by stating:

مَنِ اقْتَبَسَ عِلْمًا مِنَ النُّجُومِ ، اقْتَبَسَ شُعْبَةً مِنَ السِّحْرِ زَادَ مَا زَادَ

“Whoever learns anything of astrology, he [learns] a branch of magic…” (Sunan Abi Dawud; Kitab al-Tibb; Bab Fil Nujum)

Astrology is known as ‘Ilm al-Nujum or the knowledge of stars. Despite the fact that astrology is imaginary and false, and that Muslims have been specifically commanded to reject astrology and disbelieve in it absolutely, it is nonetheless refered to as a type of knowledge, and interestingly enough, as one of the branches of Sihr (magic).

Therefore, magic, where, for example a person learns how to cause separation between a man and his wife, is comparable to learning from the books of astrology how to predict future events and horoscopes through the movement and position of the stars. Both are useless types of knowledge because neither will any magician be able to actually cause separation between a man and his wife, and neither will any astrologer be able to correctly predict future events through the knowledge of astrology, i.e., the movement or pattern of the stars.

Furthermore, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to the words of this Verse: “But they do not harm anyone through it except by permission of Allah. And the people learn what harms them and does not benefit them.”

Here it is clearly stated that the dark art of witchcraft is something that cannot be used to harm anyone, a strong proof for our side’s firm belief that magic is not real and cannot be used to harm anyone, such as causing death or sickness. However, there is an exception, “…except by the permission of Allah.” Now it is argued that magic can harm someone only if Allah permits it. Indeed, we do affirm that nothing can occur without the permission of Allah, and likewise, no person can kill or harm anyone, through any means, until and unless Allah permits.

But what needs to be examined more carefully is whether or not magic is one of the means which Allah has created through which a person can kill or harm another. For example, Allah has created weapons like swords, knives, daggers, guns, bullets, etc., as means by which a person can kill or harm another. Is the same true for magic, i.e., is it an actual means that Allah has created and permitted through which people can inflict harm upon each other? The answer is no.

In fact I believe that the exceptive particle used in this verse “except by the permission of Allah” is an example of استثناء منقطع (Istithnaa’ Munqati’a). In Arabic grammar, Istishna’ Munqati’a refers to an exception where the excepted thing represents a different type from the excepted noun. In other words, Allah is saying that harm occurs by His permission and magic is something that cannot harm. Those who harm, they harm not by means of magic, but by the permission of Allah. Magic has absolutely no power to cause harm, and Allah knows best.

The Veil of Fire and the Holiness of Allah

In Islamic theology, Allah (God) is both Al-Zaahir (Imminent) and Al-Baatin (Transcendent).

The concept of Tanzeeh (transcendence or God being apart and distinct from His creation) is central to the Islamic understanding of the Almighty. It is this concept that I would like to focus on in a new series on my blog.

Some other religions of the world are pantheistic, some more than others. Pantheism is the idea that God is synonymous with the cosmos, that God’s essence pervades throughout the world, and that there is no distinction between God and the material universe. Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Sikhism have a strong pantheistic tendency within their respective theologies or philosophies.

But in Islam, God is clearly distinct from the creation of which He is the Creator. While His power, knowledge, vision, and hearing encompass all that exists, He in His Essence is above and apart from His creation. This is what I refer to as the Holiness and Purity of God. It is reflected in His attributive Names Al-Quddoos (The Holy), As-Subooh (The Holy, Purified, Glorified), and At-Tayyib (The Pure).

The Holiness and Purity of God is reflected in the fact that He is separate, distinct and not intermingled with His creation in His Essence.

Islam has gone one step further and explained the wisdom and rationale behind this separation and distinction between Allah Most High and the created world.

عَنْ أَبِي مُوسَى ، قَالَ : قَامَ فِينَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِخَمْسِ كَلِمَاتٍ ، فَقَالَ : " إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ، لَا يَنَامُ ، وَلَا يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أَنْ يَنَامَ ، يَخْفِضُ الْقِسْطَ وَيَرْفَعُهُ ، يُرْفَعُ إِلَيْهِ عَمَلُ اللَّيْلِ قَبْلَ عَمَلِ النَّهَارِ ، وَعَمَلُ النَّهَارِ قَبْلَ عَمَلِ اللَّيْلِ ، حِجَابُهُ النُّورُ " ، وَفِي رِوَايَةِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ : النَّارُ لَوْ كَشَفَهُ لَأَحْرَقَتْ سُبُحَاتُ وَجْهِهِ ، مَا انْتَهَى إِلَيْهِ بَصَرُهُ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ

Translation: Abi Musa (Allah be pleased with him) narrates: Allah’s Messenger (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was standing among us and told us five things: “1. Verily Allah Azza wa Jall does not sleep, nor does it befit Him to sleep, 2. He lowers the scale and raises it, 3. The deeds of the night are taken up to Him before the deeds of the day, 4. And the deeds of the day before the deeds of the night, 5. His Veil is Light” and in the narration of Abi Bakr (the Prophet said): “His Veil is Fire. If He were to remove it (the Veil) the Holy Radiance of His Face would burn up everything of His creation within the extent of His Vision.”

Reference: Sahih Muslim; Kitab al-Eeman

The value of this Hadith, especially for theology, cannot be overstated. Even a cursory reading of it is sufficient to demonstrate how radically different the theology of Islam is from virtually all other world religions and philosophies. In fact, many sects and schools of thought within Islam are both disturbed and perplexed by the purport of this blessed Hadith. Many sects outright reject it, such as the Mu’tazilites and some Shi’ites.

It is the nature of Allah’s (God) Essence which mandates this separation between Him and the created world which cannot sustain if it were to be exposed to the burning glory of the Almighty. It is this fact that is alluded to in the Holy Qur’an itself regarding the request of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) to see God:

وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَن تَرَانِي وَلَـٰكِنِ انظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ مُوسَىٰ صَعِقًا فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

And when Moses arrived at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said, “My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You.” [Allah] said, “You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me.” But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, “Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.” (Surah 7:143)

Imam Tirmidhi has brought a narration in his Sunan which explains this amazing verse of the Holy Quran:

عَنْ أَنَسٍ ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " قَرَأَ هَذِهِ الْآيَةَ فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا سورة الأعراف آية 143 ، قَالَ حَمَّادٌ : هَكَذَا وَأَمْسَكَ سُلَيْمَانُ بِطَرَفِ إِبْهَامِهِ عَلَى أُنْمُلَةِ إِصْبَعِهِ الْيُمْنَى قَالَ فَسَاخَ الْجَبَلُ : وَخَرَّ مُوسَى صَعِقًا سورة الأعراف آية 143

Anas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) recited this Ayah: “So when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He made it collapse to dust.” – Hammad said: “Like this.” Sulaiman held his thumb over the tip of his finger on the right hand – and he (the Prophet) said: “So the mountain fainted, ‘And Moses fell down unconscious.’”

In the version reported by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad:

عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ سورة الأعراف آية 143 ، قَالَ : قَالَ : " هَكَذَا ، يَعْنِي أَنَّهُ أَخْرَجَ طَرَفَ الْخِنْصَرِ "

The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said regarding the saying of He the Most High “So When his Lord manifested upon the mountain…” (7:143), “like this” that is, he (the Prophet demonstrated by) taking out the tip of his little finger.

What these narrations are explaining, in the words and hand gestures of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), is that Allah manifested Himself (Tajallee), that is, the Light of His Holy Essence. But the quantity of the Light of God manifested was not much, only about the measure of the size of the Prophet’s small finger. Yet even that small quantity of God’s Light manifested on a massive mountain resulted instantly in the mountain crumbling to dust!

So if only the Light of God in such a small quantity is enough to reduce an entire mountain to smithereens, then just imagine what would happen to this temporal and unstable world if God were to remove the Veil and appear in His full glory!

This incident, as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, is mirrored in the text of the Torah also:

וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַרְאֵ֥נִי נָ֖א אֶת־כְּבֹדֶֽךָ׃

 וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֲנִ֨י אַעֲבִ֤יר כָּל־טוּבִי֙ עַל־פָּנֶ֔יךָ וְקָרָ֧אתִֽי בְשֵׁ֛ם יְהוָ֖ה לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וְחַנֹּתִי֙ אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָחֹ֔ן וְרִחַמְתִּ֖י אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲרַחֵֽם׃

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א תוּכַ֖ל לִרְאֹ֣ת אֶת־פָּנָ֑י כִּ֛י לֹֽא־יִרְאַ֥נִי הָאָדָ֖ם וָחָֽי׃

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהוָ֔ה הִנֵּ֥ה מָק֖וֹם אִתִּ֑י וְנִצַּבְתָּ֖ עַל־הַצּֽוּר׃

וְהָיָה֙ בַּעֲבֹ֣ר כְּבֹדִ֔י וְשַׂמְתִּ֖יךָ בְּנִקְרַ֣ת הַצּ֑וּר וְשַׂכֹּתִ֥י כַפִּ֛י עָלֶ֖יךָ עַד־עָבְרִֽי׃

וַהֲסִרֹתִי֙ אֶת־כַּפִּ֔י וְרָאִ֖יתָ אֶת־אֲחֹרָ֑י וּפָנַ֖י לֹ֥א יֵרָאֽוּ׃ ס

He (Moses) said, “Oh, let me behold Your Presence!” And He answered, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim before you the name LORD, and the grace that I grant and the compassion that I show. But,” He said, “you cannot see My Face, for man may not see Me and live.” And the LORD said, “See, there is a place near Me. Station yourself on the rock and, as My Presence passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and shield you with My Hand away and you will see My back; but My Face must not be seen.” (Jewish Study Bible; Exodus Ch.33 V.18-23)

Here the Torah is stating that “You cannot see My Face, for man may not see Me and live.”

Although this is clearly stated in the Torah, modern day Jews and Christians have, due to the toxic historic influence of Greek Hellenism on their religions, glossed over the pure theology of the Torah. Modern day Jews believe that God cannot be seen as there is nothing to see. Christians are even worse in this regard as they believe God manifested Himself in a human incarnation and was seen in this world by thousands of people who did not die by beholding God in His Essence (rather the Christians believe that those same weak and fragile human beings succeeded in murdering God!)

For the most part, it is only Muslims who possess this ancient theology imparted to mankind through the Torah and now the Holy Qur’an that God cannot be seen in this world, that if God were to manifest Himself the world would be utterly burnt.

However, even the Muslim Ummah is not entirely agreed upon this theology, that too due to the toxic influence of Greek Hellenistic philosophy and rationalism.

Returning to the subject of Allah’s Veil, it a bright and fiery barrier which separates Him from the created world. The Holy Qur’an alludes to this Veil:

إِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِأَهْلِهِ إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا سَآتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ أَوْ آتِيكُم بِشِهَابٍ قَبَسٍ لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَصْطَلُونَ 
 فَلَمَّا جَاءَهَا نُودِيَ أَن بُورِكَ مَن فِي النَّارِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّـهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ 
 يَا مُوسَىٰ إِنَّهُ أَنَا اللَّـهُ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ 

When Moses said to his family, “Indeed, I have perceived a fire. I will bring you from there information or will bring you a burning torch that you may warm yourselves.” But when he came to it, he was called, “Blessed is Whoever is at the fire and whoever is around it. And exalted is Allah, Lord of the worlds. O Moses, indeed it is I - Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” (Surah 27:7-9)

According to classical commentators, the phrase “Blessed is Whoever is at the fire and whoever is around it” refers to Allah, Who is screened by the Veil of Fire, and the Angels, who surround it:

وفي رواية عن ابن عباس : نور رب العالمين . فوقف موسى متعجبا مما رأى ، فنودي أن بورك من في النار . قال ابن عباس : [ أي ] قدس .

( ومن حولها ) أي : من الملائكة . قاله ابن عباس ، وعكرمة ، وسعيد بن جبير ، والحسن ، وقتادة

Reference: Tafsir Ibn Kathir; Surah 27:8

Deobandi Confession: Nothing in the Holy Quran Proves Bodies of Prophets are Preserved After Death

The Hayati subsect of Deobandis believe that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is literally alive in his grave with a physical, bodily life. They claim that if a person were to approach the grave of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and address him with any words, such as invoking Salaat (Durood sharif) and Salaam upon him that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) can directly hear him or her. The rivals of the Hayatis, the Mamatis who have some sanity as compared to the former, correctly believe that the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) died and no longer has any connection to this world. Rather, his life is a spiritual life in Jannah.

However, both of these two subsects of Deoband, along with most other sects of Islam, hold that the bodies of the Prophets are preserved in their graves, because Allah has forbidden the Earth to decompose their bodies. We have already refuted this belief extensively here.

While the Hayatis obviously think that the preservation of the bodies of the Prophets in the grave is evidence that they are physically and bodily alive, the Mamatis contend that the preservation of their bodies is only a distinction and honor of them, and cannot be used as a proof to substantiate the idea that they are bodily or physically alive in the grave.

A leading, contemporary Mamati scholar, Mawlana Ata Ullah Bandiyalawi, wrote a book Aqidah Hayat an-Nabi to explain his sect’s belief regarding the life of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam). In response to this small booklet, a Hayati mullah, Mawlana Abdul Haq Khan Bashir Naqshbandi, wrote his own book Ulama-i-Deoband ka Aqidah Hayat an-Nabi aur Mawlana Ata Ullah Bandiyalawi. In the pages of this useless book, the Hayati mullah, in a rare occasion of honesty, confesses the fact that nothing in the Holy Qur’an exists which proves that the bodies of the Prophets are permanently preserved:

قرآن پاک اجساد الانبیائ علیہم السلام کے مستقل محفوظ رہنے کا کوئی ضابطہ نہیں دیتا

Translation: “The Holy Qur’an does not give any substance to the notion that the bodies of the Prophets peace be upon them are permanently preserved.”

Reference: Ulama-i-Deoband Ka Aqida Hayat-un-Nabi aur Mawlana Ata Ullah Bandiyalawi; p.47

In a previous entry we discussed the verse Surah 34:14, which is often cited as a proof that the bodies of the Prophets do not decompose after death. Apart from the arguments I presented to refute the opposing side’s utilization of that verse, we now have the Deobandi mulla Abdul Haq Bashir Khan Naqshbandi to thank for confirming the fact that not a single verse of the Holy Qur’an, including 34:14, can be cited as evidence that the bodies of the Prophets do not decompose (peace be upon them all).