Iqbal's Book Islam and Ahmadism Refuted...Part 3

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

Continuing from my last entry regarding Iqbal’s book Islam and Ahmadism, we will now move on to Iqbal’s arguments regarding the issue of the Finality of Prophethood.

Iqbal correctly states: “The cultural value of the idea of Finality in Islam I have fully explained elsewhere. Its meaning is simple: No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad who emancipated his followers by giving them a law which is realisable as arising from the very core of human conscience. Theologically, the doctrine is that: the socio-political organisation called “Islam” is perfect and eternal. No revelation the denial of which entails heresy is possible after Muhammad.” (p. 21)

We are in agreement that the significance of Khatam-un-Nubuwwah (Finality of Prophethood) is that the law of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is final and universal, and there cannot come after him another law-bearing prophet, another Shari’ah (divine law), or another Revelation from God the denial of which entains Kufr (infidelity or disbelief).

However, Iqbal goes on to state that “Since the Qadianis believe the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement to be the bearer of such a revelation, they declare that the entire world of Islam is infidel.” (ibid)

We have already refuted Iqbal’s false allegation that either the Ahmadiyyah movement or its revered founder declared “the entire world of Islam is infidel” in our previous entry in this series here. Specifically, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement penned his own statement that “I do not declare anyone who rejects my claim to be either a disbeliever or dajjal. ” (Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 15, p. 432)

Iqbal goes on to admit the brilliance of the Ahmadiyyah understanding of the Finality of Prophethood: “The founder’s [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s] own argument, quite worthy of a mediaeval theologian, is that the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam must be regarded as imperfect if it is not creative of another prophet. He claims his own prophethood to be an evidence of the prophet-rearing power of the spirituality of the Holy Prophet of Islam.” (Islam and Ahmadism ; p. 21)

Thus far Iqbal has indeed correctly understood the founder of the Ahmadiyyah movement concerning the advent of a Prophet from within the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather than detracting from the high status of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the advent of a “prophet-like” figure from among his own followers is actually a testament to his excellence and the “power of his spirituality”. This is especially true if one considers the fact that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not at all claim to be a prophet in his own right or independently of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather, Ghulam Ahmad asserted that the type of Prophethood he had attained was through strict adherence to the laws and teachings of Prophet Muhammad, and through utmost devotion and love of him. Ghulam Ahmad based his claim on the Sufi concept of Fana fil-Rasul which means a follower of the Prophet Muhammad annihilates his own self or ego and through strict emulation infuses himself with the persona of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This is illustrated through one of Ghulam Ahmad’s divine inspirations:

جَرِيُّ اللّهِ فِىْ حُلَلِ الْاَنْبِيَآءِ

Allah’s Messenger in the garb of Prophets

Although it is evident that Iqbal understands this concept, he is unable to refute it on principle. Instead, Iqbal resorts to turning the tables by stating: “But if you further ask him [Mirza Ghulam Ahmad] whether the spirituality of Muhammad is capable of rearing more prophets than one, his answer is “No”. This virtually amounts to saying: “Muhammad is not the last Prophet; I am the last.” (pp. 21-22)

The answer to this allegation of Iqbal requires a more detailed clarification. Firstly, the spirituality of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has reared thousands and thousands of eminent pious and saintly individuals within the Ummah. Beginning with many of the Prophet’s senior companions, such as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, his wife A’ishah, his daughter Fatimah, his two grandsons Hasan and Hussayn, the sword of God Khalid b. Walid, Salman the Persian, Bilal b. Rabah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, and literally thousands of others (may Allah be pleased with them all). Then there are those who are generally referred to as the Awliya, the very pious saintly figures that arose from within the Ummah, the likes of Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (Rahimullah), and thousands upon thousands of others. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad did not see himself in an altogether separate category from these thousands of other saintly figures who all obtained their greatness and high status through emulation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather, Ghulam Ahmad simply regarded himself as the climatic figure in whom the greatest example of such a saintly figure following in the footsteps of the Prophet is personified. Until Judgment Day such saintly and eminent figures will continue to arise from within the Ummah, but according to Ghulam Ahmad, they will not reach higher than the status he attained. And Ghulam Ahmad has described the status he attained as the highest and most eminent position that is possible to attain in following the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). That status, if not Nubuwwah in the real or technical sense, must at least be considered as Nubuwwah in a figurative sense.

It is also noteworthy that Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the promised Mahdi and Messiah. The coming of such a figure is accepted by the Muslim mainstream. The personality of the promised Messiah in particular is described as being endowed with Nubuwwah and, due to spiritual resemblance, given the name of Jesus son of Mary. Keep in mind that no other figure from within the Ummah has a Nass (textual proof) to be called as a Prophet or Messenger of God apart from the coming Messiah. This is the significance of the Hadith reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him):

كَيْفَ تُهْلِكُ أُمَّةً أَنَا أَوَّلُهَا وَالْمَسِيحُ آخِرُهَا

How can the Ummah be destroyed when I [Muhammad] am at its beginning and the Messiah is at its end?

This Hadith indicates that the Messiah is, chronologically, at the end of the Ummah, but this chronological “end” does not entail in it of itself any kind of virtue or excellence. In fact, there is no virtue or excellence in being the first, second, third, last, etc., in terms of birth or appearance for a Prophet, at least in a chronological sense.

Therefore, Iqbal’s objection is void and based on a failure to understand the true significance of the Prophet Muhammad’s Finality.

To be continued…

Ashari Theologian Bayjuri: The Qur'an is Created معاذ الله

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

The Asha’irah (Asharis) are a theological sect which claims to follow Imam Abul Hasan al-Ashari (Rahimahullah) (d. 324 H)

Modern-day Asharis claim that they are the “orthodoxy” and that the majority of Muslims, or at least Muslim scholars, are adherents of the Ashari creed.

However, we will see how in fact the Asharis are a misguided group which, like the deviant Mu’tazilah before them, believe that the Holy Qur’an is created.

As the reader should be aware, the belief of the original Ahlus Sunnati wal-Jama’ah (the saved sect and orthodox group of Muslims) is that the Holy Qur’an is the Word of Allah, that it is uncreated and that Allah Most High literally spoke it with an audible Voice and consisting of letters and words in the Arabic language. Because the Voice and Speech of Allah are His Attributes emanating from Him, we believe that the Voice and Speech of Allah is uncreated, and therefore the Holy Qur’an is uncreated.

The modern-day Asharis pretend that they hold to this doctrine as well, i.e., that the Holy Qur’an is uncreated. But they only say so to pull the wool over the Muslim masses. The reality is that the Asharis believe that the Holy Qur’an is actually two distinct things. One is the Kalaam Nafsi (internal speech) which is only with Allah. It is eternal without beginning or end and does not consist of any words or sounds. Such a doctrine is of course completely false, because we know that the Holy Qur’an is revealed in the Arabic language (Sura 12: 2, 20: 113, 39: 28, 41: 3, 42: 7, 43: 3, 46: 12) and that it consists of words and letters, and that when it is articulated orally it is sound or audible.

Regarding this Qur’an which is in the Arabic language, consisting of words, letters, sounds and audible, the Asharis say it is created. Hence, the Ashari scholar and theologian, Ibrahim al-Bayjuri (d. 1276 H), writes:

ومذهب أهل السنة أن القرآن بمعنى الكلام النفسي ليس مخلوق, وأما القرآن بمعنى اللفظ الذي نقرؤه فهو مخلوق

“And the madhhab of Ahl-us-Sunnah is that the Qur’an, with the meaning of al-Kalaam an-Nafsi [the meaning that resides eternally with the Self of Allah] is not created. And as for the Qur’an with the meaning of the lafdh (the wording) that we recite, then it is created.”

Reference: Haashiyat al-Bayjuri ala Jawahirut Tawhid; p. 160

Hadith-Rejecter G. A. Parwez's Bizarre Concept of Du'a

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

May salutations of peace and blessings be showered upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and progeny.

One of the most dangerous political ideologies that masquerades as a “Qur’anic movement” is the Bazm Tolu-e-Islam founded by and based on the heterodox ideas of Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Parwez (1903-1985). The latter, herein referred to as G. A. Parwez, was not only a Hadith-rejecter, but undermined even the basic principles and philosophy of Islam. He rejected some of the most fundamental precepts of our Religion and substituted them for entirely alien and irreligious concepts that are derived from modern and Western political ideologies.

Take for example Mr. Parwez’s concept of Du’a (prayer) and ‘Ibadah (worship). He writes:

یا جب وہ عبادت کا لفظ استعمال کرتا ہے، تو مذہب پرستوں کے ہاں اس سے مفہوم پرستش، پوجا پاٹ، (WORSHIP) ہوتا ہے، لیکن دین کی رو سے اس کے معنی احکام و قوانین خداوندی کی اطاعت ہوتا ہے۔ دین میں پرستش کا تصوّر نہیں بلکہ اطاعت اور محکومیّت کا تصوّر ہوتا ہے

Translation: Those who adhere to Madhhab consider the meaning of the word ‘Ibaadah to be worship. But from the perspective of Deen it means obedience to the Divine commandments and laws. In Deen there is no such concept as “worship”, but instead there is the concept of obedience and being subject to commands.

Reference: Kitab ut Taqdir; p. 361

See here how the totally misguided G. A. Parwez has altered the very essence of Islam which is Du’a – to call upon and supplicate to Allah – an act of personal worship between the human being and his Lord. Instead, Mr. Parwez’s poisonous materialistic and pseudo-atheistic ideology forced him to reject the concept of personal worship. He therefore redefined Du’a to simply mean obedience to the Divine laws, which is absurd even from a purely linguistic angle.

But even more absurd than this is Mr. Parwez’s absolutely ridiculous idea that the one who fulfills or answers Du’a is not Allah (God) Himself, but rather the Islamic government!

In his book Kitab ut Taqdir, Mr. Parwez gives one of its chapters the following heading:

مظلوموں کی دعا‍‎ئین اسلامی مملکت سنتی ہے

“The Islamic Kingdom [Government] Listens to the Du’a of the Oppressed”

One Khalid M. Sayyed’s translation of Parwez’s book is available on the official website of the Bazm Tolu-e-Islam. Here is how he translates what G. A. Parwez wrote under this chapter:

“The Qur’anic State Answers!

Clearly, Allah does not help the oppressed directly. He does it indirectly through other men…In such a society, no one needs to pray to the Almighty because His representatives on Earth are taking care of them. In such a society there are no individual prayers.”

Any true Believer who reads the above cited excerpt should be shaken to the core and deeply disturbed by such a Satanic idea!

G. A. Parwez goes on to declare that Du’a is a collective act and there is no room for individual or personal supplications or prayers to Allah in Islam. He falsely claims that every Du’a mentioned in the Holy Qur’an is collective and that there are no individual or personal prayers mentioned in the Holy Qur’an:

اس میں کسی کو اپنی انفرادی ضروریات کے لئے خدا سے کچھ مانگنا ہی نہیں پڑتا۔ جسے سب کچھ از خود مل رہا ہو، اسے مانگنے کی کیا ضرورت ہوگی! یہی وجہ ہے کہ قرآن کریم میں مومنین کی جس قدر دعائیں مذکور ہیں سب اجتماعی ہیں، انفرادی نہیں۔

Translation: In it there is no need for anyone to ask God to fulfill their individual needs. What is the need for one who is automatically getting everything to ask for anything? This is the reason why in the Qur’an al-Karim all of the Du’as of the Believers that have been mentioned are collective and not individual.

Reference: Kitab ut Taqdir; p. 377

But the reality is that G. A. Parwez was either woefully ignorant of the Book he claimed to champion and have studied intensely, or, more likely, that he engaged in pure deception to pull the wool over the eyes of the people.

The fact of the matter is that the Holy Qur’an mentions numerous prayers of Prophets and other Believers which are personal or individual prayers. Take for example the personal prayer of the priest and prophet Zechariah (peace be upon him) mentioned in the Holy Qur’an:

هُنَالِكَ دَعَا زَكَرِيَّا رَبَّهُ ۖ قَالَ رَبِّ هَبْ لِي مِن لَّدُنكَ ذُرِّيَّةً طَيِّبَةً ۖ إِنَّكَ سَمِيعُ الدُّعَاءِ۝

At that, Zechariah called upon his Lord, saying, “My Lord, grant me from Yourself a good offspring. Indeed, You are the Hearer of supplication.” (3: 38)

One is amazed at how the totally misguided Parwez simply glossed over this and many other similar Du’as mentioned in the Holy Qur’an which are individual prayers that are personal and not collective. We have already seen how Parwez rejects the concept of personal worship and prayer to Allah, and holds to the idea that it is the Islamic state which fulfils all the needs of the people. How then could he have explained the personal prayer of prophet Zechariah (peace be upon him) who supplicated to Allah that He should grant him a pure and righteous son? People pray to God for children, and that is an intimately personal kind of prayer that does not concern any government or state whatsoever. In fact, Allah in the Holy Qur’an encourages Believers to pray to Him to grant them wives and children (Sura 25: 74). This obviously does not jive with Parwez’s absurd notion that it is the Islamic state which, by fulfilling the rights and needs of its citizens, is the agency through which people’s prayers are answered, and that there is no concept of personal prayer or supplication to Allah.

Concerning the habit of Muslims to pray for one another, this has presented a dilemma for G. A. Parwez in light of his radically different concept of prayer and worship which is simply alien to mainstream Islam. We have already seen how G. A. Parwez simply does not accept that Allah listens to people’s prayers on a personal level. Instead, he claims that the purpose of Du’a is to verbalize our desires which has a purely psychological effect. According to him, Allah Most High does not directly answer anyone’s prayers or grant anything to anyone out of His pure grace. According to Parwez, people are required to make effort and struggle for an Islamic government through which all of their collective needs are fulfilled. This is the reason why Parwez states that the habit of Muslims in making personal supplications on behalf of each other is merely a manifestation of politeness and “moral support”:

باقی رہا ہمارا ایک دوسرے کے لئے دعا کرنا، تو یہ در حقیقت ان کے حق میں ہماری نیک آرزؤوں کا اظہار ہوتا ہے جس سے انہیں سکون حاصل ہوتا ہے۔ معاملات کی دنیا میں اسے اخلاقی نائید (MORAL SUPPORT) کہا جاتا ہے۔

Khalid M. Sayyed has translated this passage as follows: “As far as praying for someone else is concerned, it is nothing but the expression of one’s good wishes. It acts as moral support for others. One such case in point is the practice of praying for the dead (who of course remain unaffected) which is a solace to the bereaved. Such acts are socially desirable to promote gregariousness.”

Refernece: Kitab ut Taqdir; p. 384

We see here just how far G. A. Parwez and his blind-followers have deviated from the beauty and light of true Islam. Not only do they consider personal prayers which the Believers make for each other as merely an example of moral support and a purely social act to “promote gregariousness”, they also flat out reject that any kind of personal supplication to Allah, including on behalf of the deceased, can have any real affect or benefit.

Prophet Abraham (A.S) and the Four Birds

My series on the topic of whether the dead can return to this Dunya has already addressed the the verse (2:259) cited by the opposing side concerning the man whom Allah caused to die for a hundred years then was raised back to life. I explained that the man spoken of in that Ayah is the prophet Hizqiyal (Ezekiel), and that he experienced a vision. The reader can refer back here for that entry.

As I mentioned, that verse (2:259) was cited by Mawdudi himself as the strongest proof for the opposing side’s belief that the dead can return to this Dunya.

However, the very next verse (2:260) is also considered by many Muslims to be yet another strong evidence that the dead can return to this world:

وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ ۖ قَالَ أَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِن ۖ قَالَ بَلَىٰ وَلَـٰكِن لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي ۖ قَالَ فَخُذْ أَرْبَعَةً مِّنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ إِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِّنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَأْتِينَكَ سَعْيًا ۚ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّـهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ۝

And [mention] when Abraham said, “My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead.” [Allah] said, “Have you not believed?” He said, “Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied.” [Allah] said, “Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then put on each hill a portion of them; then call them - they will come [flying] to you in haste. And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (2:260)

Before we consider the argument presented concerning this verse, keep in mind that it is dealing with birds and not human beings. Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that this verse proves that Abraham killed four birds and then they were miraculously resurrected, it does not necessarily break the divine law that the souls of deceased human beings are forbidden from returning to this world.

The opposing side’s argument and understanding of this Ayah is that Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) was instructed by Allah Most High to slaughter four birds by cutting them into pieces, then mixing those cut up pieces together and dividing them into four portions. Then Prophet Abraham placed each portion on a different hill, and when he called upon them the four birds were suddenly resurrected and came flying in his direction.

However, when one examines the English translations of the Holy Qur’an that are sponsored by the Saudi government, such as Saheeh International or Hilali & Khan, and others, one notices it being said that Abraham slaughtered or cut to pieces the birds placed in brackets. The fact that it has been placed in brackets demonstrates that the plain text of the Holy Qur’an does not explicitly state it. The text of this Verse merely informs us that Prophet Abraham was commanded to take four birds and incline or attach them towards him. Some classical exegetes interpret فَصُرْهُنَّ إليك to mean قَطِّعْهُنَّ (“cut them”). However, the preposition الى (“to”) determines the significance of the word in the sense of inclining or attaching and not “cutting”.

Another argument of the opposing side that the birds were literally slaughtered or cut up into pieces is the phrase اجْعَلْ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِّنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا interpreted to mean “place upon each hill from them (the birds) a piece”. Here the noun جزء signifies, according to the opposing side’s argument, a cut piece, implying that the birds were indeed cut up. But the reality is that the word جزء simply means “part”. Since the Verse is mentioning a group of four birds, a Juz’ or part of that whole group would mean each individual member (single bird) of the group of four birds. In other words, Allah is saying to gather four birds and place one bird from the group of four on each of the four hills.

We find an example of this in the following Ayah:

لَهَا سَبْعَةُ أَبْوَابٍ لِّكُلِّ بَابٍ مِّنْهُمْ جُزْءٌ مَّقْسُومٌ۝

It (Hell) has seven gates; for every gate is of them a portion (of people) designated. (15:44)

In summary, our position is that Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) was not instructed by Allah Most High to slaughter or cut up the birds with a knife. Rather, he was simply instructed to train the birds so that they would be “inclined” or “attached” toward him. Then he placed each bird on four different hills, called upon them, and they came flying towards him.

The major objection the opposing side poses toward our rational and harmonized understanding of this Verse is that the context is raising the dead back to life. Prophet Abraham asks Allah to literally show him how the dead are raised back to life. How does one reconcile this fact if it is to be believed that Prophet Abraham did not kill the birds?

The simple answer to this objection is that Prophet Abraham is being taught, through a practical demonstration, that the One who nurtures and sustains humanity in the first place rationally and logically has the ability to revive them after death. An example of this is how human beings, after training and nurturing birds, are able to command them to move in a certain direction simply by calling them with a voice. That is because the birds have been trained and nurtured to be inclined, attached and dependent upon their human owner. Likewise, mankind is inclined or dependent upon God, Who with a single call or command will raise them back to life. Through this practical demonstration, Prophet Abraham’s heart was satisfied that Allah Most High does indeed have the ability to raise the dead back to life, something which will occur on Yawm al-Qiyamah (Judgment Day) and not a moment before.

The Deviant Ibadis are Khawarij Lite

The Ibadis (الاباضية) are an ancient but deviant sect that are prevalent in the Sultanate of Oman. There are also significant pockets of Ibadis in Zanzibar, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. The Ibadis call themselves Ahl al-Istiqamah meaning the “people of straightness”.

Claiming to be a peaceful and moderate sect, many unsuspecting Muslims fall prey to the deceitful propaganda of the Ibadis. For example, ordinary Muslims from South Asia and other Muslim countries who go to Oman as guest workers unsuspectingly pray alongside Ibadi congregations behind an Ibadi imam. They notice a sharp difference in the method of offering the Salat. For example, Ibadis do not raise their hands at all, even when commencing the prayer. All other Muslims raise their hands when commencing the Salat, either up to the chest or to the ear lobes. Furthermore, the Ibadis do not clasp their hands in the Qiyam (standing position). But likewise neither do the Shi’ah and some Sunni Muslims who follow the Maliki school of thought.

However, the real danger of the Ibadis is not these variations in worship or jurisprudence, but the fact that the Ibadis promote Kharijism. The Khawarij were the first organized sect to break away from the Jama’ah of the Muslims. They rebelled against the fourth caliph Amir ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him) and faught him in the well known Battle of Nahrawan in 659 C.E.

These days, some Ibadi apologists and others dispel false propaganda that the Ibadi sect are not Khawarij and that they respect the Prophet’s companions and family members, including Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him).

However, this is simply untrue. The Ibadis cling to their Kharijite foundations and consider, according to their principles, the doers of major sins to be Kuffar (unbelievers) although they intend by this disbelievers in the Favor of Allah and not disbelievers in the sense of being expelled from the Millah. While it is true that the Ibadis are moderate in comparison to other Kharijite sects like the Azariqah, the Sufriyah and the Najadat, they nevertheless share the same basic ideology as the original Khawarij, known as the Muhakimah and Haruriyah.

In fact, Ibadi apologists have themselves spilt the beans on this. For example, Soud H. Ma’awaly wrote the book Ibadhism: The Cinderella of Islam. Here are a few excerpts from that book:

“the Khawarij were right when they refused to go to Syria and fight because they said the war was for materialistic interests. It was not a war of ‘Jihad’ any more. They were right, as they were right before when they repudiated arbitration because it turned out to be a deceit.” (p. 24)

“When the so-called Khawarij defected from Seyyidna Ali and his army, they did not fight him. It was his army which went to fight them in the battle of Nahrawan. So the innocent Khawarij were neither the first nor the second nor the third to shed the blood of Muslims.” (p.30)

“They pledged allegiance to Seyyidna Ali and fought with him against the Uthmaniyyun in the battle of the Camel and at Siffin but abandoned him when he accepted arbitration. The results of the arbitration proved the correct stand of the Khawarij No. 2. He [Ali] also made a wrong decision when he accepted the advice of his army generals to fight the Khawarij No. 2 at Nahrawan.” (p. 32)

Look how this Kharijite Ibadi is justifying the Kharijite rebellion against Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali b. Abi Talib (Radiyallahu anhu) and claiming that the latter made a “wrong decision” to fight against the rebellious and renegade Khawarij!

Ahl al Hadith Abdullah Ghaznawi and Revelation of Qur'anic Verse to Non-Prophet

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

Mawlana Abdul Jabbar Ghaznawi wrote:

مغالطہ: اور قرآن میں بعض آیات ایسے ہیں کہ ان میں خاص رسول اللہ صلعم ہی مخاطب ہےانکے سوائے کوئی مخاطب بن نہیں سکتا۔

ھدایہ: اگر الہام میں اس آیت کا القا ہو جس میں خاص آنحضرت کو خطاب ہے تو صاحب الہام اپنے حق میں خیال کر کےاسکےمضمون کو اپنے حال سے مطابق کریگا اور نصیحت پکریگا

Translation: “Error 162: Certain verses of the Qur’an are such that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) has been addressed specifically, and no one else can be addressed by them. Clarification: If in the Ilhaam (inspiration) there is a verse in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) is specifically addressed, then the Saahib-i-Ilhaam (recipient of inspiration) should, nevertheless, understand it as concerning himself and fit it into his own personal circumstances so as to obtain beneficial guidance from it.”

Reference: Ithbat al-Ilham; p.142

Splitting of the Moon; An Eclipse?

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

Allah Most High says:

اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ۝

وَإِن يَرَوْا آيَةً يُعْرِضُوا وَيَقُولُوا سِحْرٌ مُّسْتَمِرٌّ۝

The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]. And if they see a Sign, they turn away and say, “Passing magic.” (Sura 54:1-2)

The famous miracle of the Prophet (peace be upon him) of splitting the moon into two is accepted by all Muslims except some of the most deviant Hadith-rejecters and modernists. However, examining the reality of this powerful Sign from Allah and determining as to whether the moon was literally broken into two, or whether it refers to a kind of eclipse, is surely a legitimate undertaking.

Those who believe in a literal cracking of the moon into two pieces are faced with a dilemma as to why there is no historical, extra-Islamic source which confirms the fact that the moon appeared “split” from anywhere else in the world. If the moon was indeed literally broken into two pieces, such an extraordinary event would surely have other historical witnesses from at least somewhere else in the world apart from Arabia.

The fact that apparently there exists no other such historical evidence corroborating the occurrence of this miraculous sign upon its literal conception, lends credence to our view that the splitting of the moon was a local phenomenon in Mecca and its vicinity only. This could only be true if it is accepted that the splitting of the moon was not a literal breaking of the moon into two, but a kind of eclipse. This view is strongly supported by the narration of Abdullah b. Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) as reported in Sahih Muslim:

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، قَالَ : " انْشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِلْقَتَيْنِ ، فَسَتَرَ الْجَبَلُ فِلْقَةً ، وَكَانَتْ فِلْقَةٌ فَوْقَ الْجَبَلِ ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " اللَّهُمَّ اشْهَدْ "

Abdullah b. Mas’ud narrates that the moon was split in the time of Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) into two parts. The mountain concealed a part, and [the other] part was [visible] above the mountain. So Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “O Allah, bear witness”

This narration from Abdullah b. Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) clearly indicates that the Sign of the splitting of the moon manifested itself as a kind of eclipse, where the moon was partially eclipsed or concealed by a mountain. However, an obvious objection to this view is that how could such a thing be considered as a miracle or a Sign of God?

It has also been suggested that the splitting of the moon was perhaps a type of shared Kashaf (vision). This means that Allah made the people of Mecca and its vicinity see the moon split into two parts. An example for this kind of vision is found elsewhere in the Holy Qur’an, when Allah says:

فَارْتَقِبْ يَوْمَ تَأْتِي السَّمَاءُ بِدُخَانٍ مُّبِينٍ۝

يَغْشَى النَّاسَ هَـٰذَا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ۝

Then watch for the Day when the sky will bring a visible smoke. Covering the people; this is a painful torment. (Sura 44:10-11)

Once again, Abdullah b. Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) has interpreted the reality of this Sign of smoke from the sky, just as he interpreted the reality of the splitting of the moon:

قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ : إِنَّمَا كَانَ هَذَا لِأَنَّ قُرَيْشًا لَمَّا اسْتَعْصَوْا عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دَعَا عَلَيْهِمْ بِسِنِينَ كَسِنِي يُوسُفَ ، فَأَصَابَهُمْ قَحْطٌ ، وَجَهْدٌ حَتَّى أَكَلُوا الْعِظَامَ ، فَجَعَلَ الرَّجُلُ يَنْظُرُ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ ، فَيَرَى مَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَهَا كَهَيْئَةِ الدُّخَانِ مِنَ الْجَهْدِ ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى : فَارْتَقِبْ يَوْمَ تَأْتِي السَّمَاءُ بِدُخَانٍ مُبِينٍ { 10 } يَغْشَى النَّاسَ هَذَا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ { 11 } سورة الدخان آية 10-11

Abdullah said: It (i.e., the imagined smoke) was because, when the Quraish refused to obey the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), he asked Allah to afflict them with years of famine similar to those of (Prophet) Joseph. So they were stricken with famine and fatigue, so much so that they ate even bones. A man would look towards the sky and imagine seeing something like smoke between him and the sky because of extreme fatigue. So Allah revealed: “Then watch you for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of smoke plainly visible, covering the people; this is a painful of torment.” (44.10-11)

Sahih al-Bukhari; Kitab Tafsiril Qur’an

Now although the apparent wording of the Holy Qur’an is that the smoke shall come from the sky, the reality, as explained by the eminent companion Abdullah b. Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) is that the smoke appeared to the starving people of Quraish due to their mental state caused by the seven years of extreme famine. They would collapse due to extreme hunger and fatigue and their vision would become cloudy or foggy, as if they were seeing smoke coming from the sky, perhaps because they were lying on their back gazing at the heavens. In summary, the vision of the smoke from the sky was a hallucination due to starvation and not that there was literally smoke coming from the direction of the sky.

So when we examine this issue of the splitting of the moon, we see that there are two plausible and reasonable alternative possibilities: 1. That the splitting of the moon was a type of eclipse caused by the moon being partially concealed behind the top of a mountain as explained by Abdullah b. Mas’ud, and 2. That the splitting of the moon was a special vision restricted to the people of Mecca but the moon was not literally split, just like the vision of the smoke from the sky was not literal but a special vision due to hallucination from hunger as explained by Abdullah b. Mas’ud.

It is my view that these two possible explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. My view is that (and Allah knows best), the moon being eclipsed by the mountain was what triggered this powerful vision that was shared by the people of Mecca. This would answer the initial question as to how could the mere eclipse of the moon in the sense of it being partially concealed by the top of a mountain be considered a miracle or an extraordinary heavenly Sign. The Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself explained that the eclipse of the sun and the moon are two signs from the Signs of Allah, notwithstanding the fact that a solar and lunar eclipse are natural phenomena, and not extraordinary or supernatural.

The Qur’an states in the subsequent verse that when the polytheists witnessed this Sign they described it as “passing magic” (54:2). Anas b. Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the people of Mecca requested of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that he show them a Sign, and in response the moon was immediately split into two. Now even if the splitting of the moon, due to eclipse or being concealed by the top of the mountain, occurred naturally and not supernaturally, it is still a Sign because of the time of its occurrence immediately after the polytheists demanding a Sign. For example, rain is a natural and ordinary occurrence, but the sudden occurrence of rain in unfavorable circumstances of weather is a Sign when the Prophet (peace be upon him) supplicated to Allah to send down rain and in response it immediately began to rain. This explains why the dumbfounded polytheists, who immediately witnessed the splitting of the moon, even if as a natural occurring phenomena, just moments after demanding a Sign from the Prophet, could find no means of escape except to allege that what had just transpired was an example of “passing magic”. And Allah knows best!

The Rider on the Camel: A Prophecy of Muhammad (Peace be upon him)

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

One of the very clear prophecies in the Hebrew Bible concerning the advent of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the following:

וְרָ֣אָה  רֶ֗כֶב  צֶ֚מֶד  פָּֽרָשִׁ֔ים  רֶ֥כֶב  חֲמ֖וֹר  רֶ֣כֶב  גָּמָ֑ל  וְהִקְשִׁ֥יב  קֶ֖שֶׁב  רַב־  קָֽשֶׁב

“And should he see chariotry of a pair of riders, one riding an ass, (and) one riding a camel” (Book of Isaiah; ch.21 v.7)

The rider of the ass (donkey) is a clear reference to the Messiah (Zechariah 9:9). It is said that the Messiah of Nazareth fulfilled this prophecy by riding into Jerusalem seated on a colt, the foal of a donkey, as mentioned in the Gospel of Mark (ch. 11).

The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) also used to ride on a donkey, but he was most well known for riding on the camel, thus the “one riding a camel” aptly describes him. During the Hijrah (exodus), the Prophet (peace be upon him) famously rode into the town of Medina seated upon a camel. Similarly, during the conquest of Mecca, he rode humbly into the city that had persecuted and expelled him upon a camel.

What is quite interesting, however, is that learned Jewish rabbis have acknowledged the fact that this prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) specifically, and the Ishmaelites (Arabs) generally. The mid-8^th century Jewish apocalyptic text the Nistarot or Secrets of Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai has been translated by John C. Reeves and can be read here. It is attributed to the great Jewish sage of the 2^nd century, Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai. A passage in this Jewish apocalypse states:

R. Šim‘on answered and said: ‘From whence are they (understood as) our deliverance?’  He said to him: ‘Did not Isaiah the prophet speak thusly? “And should he see chariotry of a pair of riders, one riding an ass, (and) one riding a camel” (Isa 21:7).’ Why did he put the ‘rider of an ass’ before the ‘rider of a camel’? Should he not instead have said ‘rider of a camel, rider of an ass’? (No, the textual sequence means that) when the one who rides the camel (Ishmael or Muhammad) emerges, the kingdom ruled by the ‘one mounted upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9) has manifested (lit. ‘sprouted’) by his (i.e., Ishmael’s or Muhammad’s) agency. Another opinion: ‘rider of an ass’ (connotes) at the (same) time when he ‘rides upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9). Consequently they (Ishmael) are a deliverance for Israel like the deliverance (associated with) the ‘one mounted upon an ass’ (Zech 9:9).

Similarly it is stated in the Tefillat or Prayer of Rabbi Shimon b. Yohai (translated here):

I turned to Metatron and said to him, ‘Are the Ishmaelites a deliverance for Israel?’ He said to me, ‘Did not Isaiah the prophet speak thusly? “And should he see chariotry of a pair of riders, one riding an ass, (and) one riding a camel” (Isa 21:7).’ “Chariotry”—this (word) refers to the Achaemenid empire. “Pair”—this (word) refers to the Greek empire(s).  “Riders”—this (word) refers to the Roman empire. “One riding an ass”—this (phrase) refers to the Messiah, as Scripture attests: “humble and mounted upon an ass” (Zech 9:9). “One riding a camel”—this (phrase) refers to the kingdom of Ishmael, during whose rule the Messianic kingdom will sprout. This is why (the phrase) “one riding an ass” precedes (the phrase) “one riding a camel” (in the verse from Isaiah). The “one riding a camel” will rejoice at the advent of the Messiah; nevertheless, the sages perish and the power of the riff-raff grows stronger.’

To summarize, the Jewish apocalypticist who composed this text in the mid-8^th century, or if it is indeed originally attributed to the 2^nd century Jewish sage Rashbi, believed that the prophecy of the rider on the ass refers to the promised Jewish Messiah and that the rider on the camel is a prophecy of our beloved master Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the emergence of the Ishmaelites (Arabs) after him.

However, one point which has caused difficulty for this apocalyptic Jewish view is that the rider of the ass preceeds the rider of the camel in the text of Isaiah chapter 21. For us Muslims this is no problem as we do believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah and preceded our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them both) by some six centuries. However, the Jews failed to recognize their own Messiah and were thus puzzled as to why the rider of the camel (Prophet Muhammad) is preceded by the rider of the ass, i.e., the Messiah, whom they are still expecting.

The Valley of Ants

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

Continuing our theme of the esoteric meanings found in the Suhuf-i-Mutahhara (the Qur’an), we come to the passage referring to the Valley of Ants:

حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَتَوْا عَلَىٰ وَادِ النَّمْلِ قَالَتْ نَمْلَةٌ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّمْلُ ادْخُلُوا مَسَاكِنَكُمْ لَا يَحْطِمَنَّكُمْ سُلَيْمَانُ وَجُنُودُهُ وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ۝

Until, when they came upon the Valley of the Ants, an ant said, “O ants, enter your dwellings that you not be crushed by Solomon and his soldiers while they perceive not.” (Sura 27:18)

The phrase “Valley of the Ants” is interesting, because ants are not ordinarily associated with valleys. Ants, as in the insect, live in colonies and build unique nests for themselves. Ants are fascinating creatures, according to the article on them in Wikipedia: “Ant societies have division of labour, communication between individuals, and an ability to solve complex problems. These parallels with human societies have long been an inspiration and subject of study.”

In addition to the fact that ants are already recognized as creatures that have “parallels with human societies”, the Holy Qur’an elsewhere gives similitudes of animals with human beings. For example:

أَمْ تَحْسَبُ أَنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَسْمَعُونَ أَوْ يَعْقِلُونَ إِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ سَبِيلًا۝

Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way. (25:44)

Allah Most High compares the astray human beings who lack reason to livestock or cattle.

مَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا

The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah and then did not take it on is like that of a donkey who carries volumes of books (62:5)

Allah Most High compares the Jewish rabbis, scribes and teachers of the law who were entrusted with the Holy Torah but subsequently failed to follow its precepts to a donkey which is overloaded with books. For the donkey, which is unable to gain any benefit from the books, the heavy load it is forced to carry is only a burden. Elsewhere, the Holy Qur’an compares the polytheists who flee from the preaching of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) to “alarmed donkeys” (74:50).

فَمَثَلُهُ كَمَثَلِ الْكَلْبِ إِن تَحْمِلْ عَلَيْهِ يَلْهَثْ أَوْ تَتْرُكْهُ يَلْهَث

So his example is like that of the dog: if you chase him, he pants, or if you leave him, he [still] pants. (7:176)

Allah Most High compares one who was given knowledge of Allah’s Signs but subsequently detaches himself from them to a dog.

And there are many other such similitudes to be found from the authentic Ahadith of the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam).

Returning to the ants, it is not at all too far fetched to understand the meaning of “ants” along these lines of descriptive or expressive allegory.

Another strong indication of this is the meaning of the roots from which the names of certain animals are derived. For example, according to the Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage, the meaning of ح-م-ر (H-M-R)  from which the word donkey is derived is, among other things: “to be difficult; donkey” (p.234) Similarly, the meaning of خ-ن-ز-ر (KH-N-Z-R) the root from which the name for pig is derived, is, among other things: “to be rough and crude; pig” (p.287). The meaning ofك-ل-ب  (K-L-B) from which the name for dog is derived, is: “dog, any wild animal, to train animals and birds for hunting; to become fierce; rabies; to fight over; hanging hook; gluttony” (p.815)  And likewise, the meaning of  ق-ر-د (Q-R-D) from which the name for monkey is derived, is, among other things: “to deceive; to subdue, to humiliate; monkey” (p.749).   Taking into consideration these linguistic meanings associated with the root from which the names of all these animals, we can definitely say that Himaar, apart from meaning an actual donkey, can also mean a person who is stubborn or “difficult”. Khinzeer means pig but also a person who is “rough” and “crude”. Kalb means dog but also a person who is “fierce” and combative. Qird means an ape or monkey but also a person who has been “subdued” or “humiliated”.

Likewise, let us consider the linguistic meaning of the root ن-م-ل (N-M-L) from which the name for ant is derived: “ants; tips of the fingers; to invisibly mend a garment; to tell lies; to be restless, active person.” (p.966) In summary, the word Namlah (a singular ant) can mean a “restless, active person”, apart from the actual insect. Again, this is taking it from a purely linguistic point of view. Our interpretation is reinforced and strengthened by the fact that the Holy Qur’an is a religious text that naturally employs allegory, parables, and symbolism. Finally, the anthropomorphic description of the “ant” in Sura 27, for example, the term “Valley of the Ants”, the speaking of the ant and commanding the other ants to enter into their “dwellings” lends further credence to the view that in this passage the “ants” can mean an active or laborious people who were quartered in a particular valley. Allah Most High has referred to them as “ants” to expressively describe the fact that they were hard-working laborers, perhaps already in the employment of Prophet Solomon (and Allah knows best). It is noteworthy that “ants” are mentioned in the Book of Proverbs attributed to Prophet Solomon (Proverbs 6:6, 30:24).

The order to the “ants” that they should enter into their dwellings lest they be crushed by Solomon and his forces is understood to mean that when a mighty king and his cavalry march through some inhabited valley civilians are usually trampled under foot and it is expected that they should remove themselves from harm and seek safety inside their dwellings, (and Allah knows best).