Imam Ahmad Sirhindi Claim of Being Mujaddid for a 1000 Years

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

سُبُّوحٌ قُدُّوسٌ رَبُّ المَلاَئِكَةِ وَالرُّوحِ

One of the misconceptions among Muslims is that it is not right for an individual to claim for himself that he is a Mujaddid—a divinely appointed Reformer. It is said that throughout Muslim history none of those individuals who are recognized as Mujaddids claimed the title for themselves. However, this is manifestly incorrect. It is well known, for example, that Imam Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Wali Ullah رحمة الله عليهما both claimed that they were the Mujaddid of their time. Therefore while it is true that some of those individuals whom the Ummah recognizes as having been Mujaddids did not necessarily claim the title for themselves, there are others who certainly did. With respect to Imam Ahmad Sirhindi رحمة الله عليه he did not claim to merely be a Mujaddid who appears at the beginning of the century as per the prophecy of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم but rather the Mujaddid for a thousand years:

یہ علوم انوار نبوت کی مشکاۃ (قندیل) سے مقتبس ہیں جو الف ثانی (دوسرے ہزار سال) کے آغاز کے بعد تبعیت اور وراثت کے طور پر تازہ ہوئے ہیں اور پوری تازگی کے ساتھ ظہور پزیر ہوئے ہیں۔ ان علوم ومعارف کا جاننے والا اس الف (دوسرے ہزار سال) کا مجدد ہے۔

جاننا چاہئے کہ ہر سو سال پر ایک مجدد گزرا ہے لیکن سو سال کا مجدد اور ہےاور ہزار سال کا مجدد اور جسقدر سو اور ہزار کے درمیان فرق ہے اسی قدر، بلکہ اس سے بھی زیادہ ان دونوں مجددوں کے درمیان فرق ہے۔

(Maktubat Hadrat Mujaddid Alf Thani; Daftar 2, Maktub #4, p.35):

میں اپنی پیدائش کا جو مقصد سمجھتا تھا معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ وہ حاصل ہوگیا اور ہزار سالہ تجدید کی درخواست قبول ہوگئی۔

It becomes known that the purpose of my birth which I used to understand has been attained and the petition for a thousand year renewal has been accepted (ibid; Daftar 2, Maktub #6, p.38):

Burhan Ahmad Faruqi, MA, Ph.D of Aligarh Muslim University, confirms the fact that Imam Ahmad Sirhindi رحمة الله عليه "himself had the inspired belief that he was a Mujaddid” and “he expressly claims for himself the dignity of Mujaddid-i-Alf-i-Thani” (Mujaddid’s Conception of Tawhid; pp.2-3). Likewise, Muhammad Abdul Haq Ansari writes: “Shaykh Ahmad has made two kind of claims. One that he is not merely a Sufi shaykh directing the aspirants in spiritual pursuits, but a renovator (mujaddid) of Islam” (Sufism and Shari’ah: A Study of Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi’s Effort to Reform Sufism; pp.94-95).

Abul A’la Maududi not only acknowledged the fact that both Mujaddid Alf Thani and Shah Wali Ullah رحمة الله عليهما made claims to being the Mujaddid but had the audacity to criticize them for making such a claim: “Now let us consider the claims put forth by Shah Waliullah and the Mujaddid of Sirhind. I am too well known for my conviction that I do not regard our great men of the past as innocent and infallible. While I give them full credit for their good work, I do not spare them for their failings...asserting themselves to be the mujaddids and referring time and again to their ‘Divine inspirations’ was one of the few mistakes committed by these great men” (A Short History of the Revivalist Movement in Islam; p.109).

Descent of Angels Upon Believers (Part 2)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

لا اله الا انت سبحانك انى كنت من الظالمين

In my previous explanation of the passage in the holy Quran:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّـهُ ثُمَّ اسْتَقَامُوا تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ أَلَّا تَخَافُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَبْشِرُوا بِالْجَنَّةِ الَّتِي كُنتُمْ تُوعَدُونَ

Indeed, those who have said, “Our Lord is Allah” and then remained on a right course - the Angels will descend upon them, [saying], “Do not fear and do not grieve but receive good tidings of Paradise, which you were promised.”

نَحْنُ أَوْلِيَاؤُكُمْ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ ۖ وَلَكُمْ فِيهَا مَا تَشْتَهِي أَنفُسُكُمْ وَلَكُمْ فِيهَا مَا تَدَّعُونَ

We [Angels] are your friends in worldly life and [are so] in the Hereafter. And you will have therein whatever your souls desire, and you will have therein whatever you wish

(Sura 41:30-31)

I cited scholastic authorities who confirmed that this phenomenon is not restricted to occurring at the time of death, contrary to the standard or popular interpretation. As a matter of fact, the passage makes no explicit reference to the specific time when the Angels descend upon those Believers who are steadfast, indicating it is a general phenomenon. The Angels even declare that they are the Awliya, friends or protectors, of those upon whom they descend in the life of this world. That is a strong indication that the phenomenon of this Angelic descent upon Believers is during their worldly life and certainly not restricted to the moment of death, or on the occasion of being resurrected from the grave as some other commentators have opined.

Now the fact that the Angels not only descend upon such Believers with their holy presence but additionally converse with them and relate to them a message from Allah Himself, namely, to ‘have no fear, nor grieve, but receive glad tidings of Paradise’, etc., is a proof for the reality of divine revelation or inspiration continuing despite the cessation of Prophesy in the holy person of the Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه. Al-Baidawi, in his monumental commentary of the Quran, explained the reality of this speech of the Angels being conveyed to the Believers in the form of the inspiration known as sharh al-sadr or ‘opening of the heart’:

تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَلائِكَةُ ‌فيما ‌يعن ‌لهم ‌بما ‌يشرح ‌صدورهم ‌ويدفع ‌عنهم ‌الخوف ‌والحزن، أو عند الموت أو الخروج من القبر

(Tafsir al-Baidawi; v.5, p.71):

Here, al-Baidawi explains that the Angels descend upon the Believers and open their chests [hearts] removing from them fear and grief. He goes on to explain that it may also refer to a phenomenon that occurs at the time of death or resurrection from the graves. This clearly indicates that his first explanation of this phenomenon is something that occurs at a time other than death or resurrection, namely, in the life of this world.

Finally, the Quran itself explains that when Allah communicates with humans through the medium of an Angel, the Angel reveals or inspires that communication to the human:

اَوۡ یُرۡسِلَ رَسُوۡلًا فَیُوۡحِیَ بِاِذۡنِہٖ مَا یَشَآءُ

or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He pleases

(Sura 42:51)

Review of Sayyid Qutb's Milestones (Part 4) Distortion of the Meaning of Uluhiyyah

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اللهم صلى على محمد وآل محمد

In the fourth instalment reviewing Sayyid Qutb’s infamous text Milestones we shall discuss his innovated and wrong concept of monotheism and divinity. Qutb writes:

فلقد كانوا يعرفون من لغتهم معنى اله ومعنى لا اله الا الله كانوا يعرفون ان الالوهية تعنى الحاكمية العليا. وكانوا يعرفون ان توحيد الالوهية وافراد الله سبحانه بها, معناه نزع السلطان الذى يزاوله الكهان ومشيخة القبائل والامراء والحكام

كانوا يعلمون ان لا اله الا الله ثورة على السلطان الارضى الذى يغتصب اولى خصائص الالوهية

“They [Arabs] knew their language well and knew the meaning of Ilah and they also knew the meaning of La ilaha illa Allah. They knew that Uluhiyyah means sovereignty, and they also realized that ascribing sovereignty only to Allah meant that the authority would be taken away from the priests, the leaders of tribes, the wealthy and the rulers, and would revert to Allah.

They knew very well that the proclamation La ilaha illa Allah was a challenge to that worldly authority which had usurped the greatest attribute of Allah, namely, sovereignty.” (Ma’ālim fīl-Tarīq; p.22):

It is critical to understand that Qutb, like Mawdudi prior to him, altered the actual meaning of Ilah (god, deity) and the significance of Uluhiyyah (divinity), with an unsound linguistic argument, and with the impure motive to entirely transform Islam’s central tenet and narrative.

Linguistically, the word Ilah is the generic word for deity or god, but really connotes “worshipped object” (Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage; p.40). Therefore, the true significance of La ilaha illa Allah is ‘there is none worthy of worship except Allah’. To put the meaning of sovereignty, dominion, authority or rule for the word Ilah is linguistically unsound. It is also a revisionist attempt to distort the reality of prophetic ministries, particularly the prophetic ministry of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم whose preaching was aimed at putting an end to the idolatry in worship, and not necessarily the establishment of a political order or divine sovereignty. Sayyid Qutb has wrongly asserted that the Pagan Arabs were threatened by the message of La ilaha illa Allah because they perceived it as a threat to the political authority of their priests, tribal chieftains, wealthy people and rulers. On the contrary, the Pagan Arabs were hostile to the message of La ilaha illa Allah because they correctly perceived it as a threat to the continued worship and veneration of their idols, false gods, and the shrines, temples and altars dedicated to them. If there was any threat to the priests it was not to their political power – for historically they did not wield any – rather a threat to their continued role and influence as carrying out the rites associated with Pagan worship and idolatry. In other words, their religious authority was threatened by the appearance of a Prophet preaching a message of radical monotheism.

Review of Sayyid Qutb's Milestones (Part 3) "We are surrounded by Jahiliyyah"

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اللهم صلى على محمد وآل محمد

In this third instalment on my series reviewing Sayyid Qutb’s infamous Milestones we shall explore his concept of jahiliyyah. This is the Islamic term that refers to the state of ignorance that was prevalent before the appearance of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم when the country of Arabia, and indeed the entire world, was engulfed in the darkness and depravity of idolatry and polytheism. However, after the establishment of Islam in the world the term jahiliyyah is generally understood to mean the pre-Islamic period, though it may also apply to the personal histories of those individuals who convert to Islam, as a reference to their life prior to conversion. Likewise, jahiliyyah may apply to the societies, civilizations and countries of the world where the people are generally non-Muslim and are deprived of the light of Islamic monotheism and faith. However, Sayyid Qutb innovated the application of jahiliyyah to what is considered the contemporary Muslim world or Muslim societies. He considered contemporary Muslim society to be in a state of jahiliyyah, like during the pre-Islamic period, or even worse:

نحن اليوم فى جاهلية كالجاهلية التى عاصرها الاسلام أو اظلم. كل ما حولنا جاهلية. تصورات الناس وعقائدهم, عاداتهم وتقاليدهم, موارد ثقافتهم, فنونهم وآدابهم, شرائعهم وقوانينهم. حتى الكثير مما نحسبه ثقافة اسلامية, ومراجع اسلامية, وفلسفة اسلامية, وتفكيرا اسلاميا. هو كذلك من صنع هذه الجاهلية

“We are surrounded by Jahiliyyah today, which is of the same nature as it was during the first period of Islam, perhaps a little deeper. Our whole environment, people’s beliefs and ideas, habits and art, rules and laws – is Jahiliyyah, even to the extent that what we consider to be Islamic culture, Islamic sources, Islamic philosophy and Islamic thought are also constructs of Jahiliyyah!” (Ma’ālim fīl-Tarīq; pp.17-18):

The declaration that Muslim society is today in a state of jahiliyyah, possibly worse than the jahiliyyah of the pre-Islamic period, and that which Muslims consider to be Islamic culture, sources, philosophy and thought is in reality jahiliyyah, is the gateway to mass-takfir of the Ummah. Sayyid Qutb’s message is intended to radicalize Muslims and give them a sense of estrangement and separation from general Muslim society, viewing the latter as being in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance, and therefore, for all intents and purposes, a society of unbelief, like a society of idolatry or atheism.

Prophecies About the Mongol Invasion

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

The Mongol invasion and devastation of the Muslim world in the beginning of the 13^th century CE may be termed the original Holocaust. Tens of millions of Muslims were put to the sword by the Mongol hordes as they vanquished city after city in the regions of Transoxiana and Khorasan. Eventually the Mongols reached Baghdad in 1258 and utterly destroyed the center of Islamic civilization. This apocalyptic catastrophe was reminiscent of the destruction of Jerusalem many centuries earlier, first by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar II in the 6^th century BCE and then by the Romans under Titus in the year 70 CE. The holy Quran speaks of both instances of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and explains it was a consequence of the corruption and evil of the Israelites:

وَ قَضَیۡنَاۤ اِلٰی بَنِیۡۤ اِسۡرَآءِیۡلَ فِی الۡکِتٰبِ لَتُفۡسِدُنَّ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ مَرَّتَیۡنِ وَ لَتَعۡلُنَّ عُلُوًّا کَبِیۡرًا

And We decreed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture that ‘you will surely cause corruption in the Land twice and you will surely reach great haughtiness’

(Surah 17:4)

The ancient prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others عليهم السلام prophesied the first destruction of Jerusalem, while the Messiah of Nazareth عليه السلام prophesied the second (Gospel of Mark, chapter 13). Since the Mongol invasion mirrors the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians and then Romans, it stands to reason that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم must have forecast that cataclysmic event. In the holy Quran we read about the impending doom at the hands of the hordes of Gog and Magog:

حَتّٰۤی اِذَا فُتِحَتۡ یَاۡجُوۡجُ وَ مَاۡجُوۡجُ وَ ہُمۡ مِّنۡ کُلِّ حَدَبٍ یَّنۡسِلُوۡنَ

Even when Gog and Magog are let loose and they shall hasten forth from every height

(Surah 21:96)

وَتَرَكْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَمُوجُ فِي بَعْضٍ

And on that day We shall leave some of them to surge against others

(Surah 18:99)

And there are several preserved traditions from the most holy Prophet Muhammad:

‏ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ، وَيْلٌ لِلْعَرَبِ مِنْ شَرٍّ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ فُتِحَ الْيَوْمَ مِنْ رَدْمِ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ

None is worthy of worship except Allah! Woe to the Arabs from an evil that has drawn near! Today an opening has been made in the dam of Gog and Magog (Sahih al-Bukhari)

‏ لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تُقَاتِلُوا التُّرْكَ صِغَارَ الأَعْيُنِ، حُمْرَ الْوُجُوهِ، ذُلْفَ الأُنُوفِ، كَأَنَّ وُجُوهَهُمُ الْمَجَانُّ الْمُطَرَّقَةُ، وَلاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى تُقَاتِلُوا قَوْمًا نِعَالُهُمُ الشَّعَرُ

The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

However, the Mongol invasion of the Muslim world occurred several centuries after the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم died. Although there were technically no Prophets after him صلى الله عليه وسلم the Saints of the Ummah appeared as their substitutes and some of them prophesied about the impending doom very close to its actual occurrence. At the beginning of the 13^th century CE, Transoxiana, Khorasan and Iran were under the rule of the Khwarezmian empire. The last ruler of this empire was Ala al-Din Muhammad II. He was a particularly evil man who ordered the execution of a great Muslim saint and mystic, namely, Majd al-Din al-Baghdadi رحمة الله عليه (d. 616 H or 1219 CE) by having him drowned in the River Oxus. The martyrdom of Majd al-Din al-Baghdadi رحمة الله عليه mirrored the martyrdom of the Prophet Yahya or John the Baptist عليه السلام on the orders of the evil king Herod Antipas. When the army of Herod Antipas was defeated by the Nabataean king Aretas IV, the Jews considered it divine retribution for the execution of John the Baptist, as mentioned by Josephus. Likewise, soon after the execution of Majd al-Din al-Baghdadi at the behest of Ala al-Din Muhammad II, in that very year, 1219, Genghis Khan launched his invasion and devastation of the Khwarezmian empire, bringing it to an end once and for all. The Khwarezmian Shah was killed in that devastation, along with many of the people. Another great mystic and saint, Najm al-Din Kubra رحمة الله عليه even predicted that a terrible punishment awaited the Khwarezmians and even the Muslims in general as a consequence of the unjust killing of Majd al-Din al-Baghdadi رحمة الله عليه.

Abd ur-Rahman Jami mentions the fact that the great Sufi mystic and saint, Najm al-Din Kubra رحمة الله عليه predicted the Mongol invasion by Genghis Khan and his monstrous hordes in his work entitled Nafahat al-Uns:

Likewise, the Persian historian Hamdallah Mustawfi Qazvini says: “Majd-ud-Din Baghdadi, put to death on suspicion of an intrigue with the mother of Khwarazmshah. After his death Khwarazmshah repented of what he had done, and went to Shaikh Najm-ud-Din Kubra, and asked what atonement would suffice to expiate this deed, to which the Shaikh replied that their lives and the lives of many others would hardly expiate it; a saying presumably held to have hinted prophetically at the fatal results of the impending Mongol invasion.” (Tarikh-i-Guzida, English, p.215):

In conclusion, the rebuke of a tyrannical and evil Muslim king by the Sufi saint and mystic of his time, and often the martyrdom of the saint at the hands of that king, and the consequent destruction of the kingdom and the general population closely mirrors the history of ancient Israel. It points to the reality of the Muslim saint taking on the prophetic role of the ancient Israelite prophet. It is a strong proof for the reality of the phenomenon of Ilham (divine inspiration) and Kashf (divine vision) among the non-prophet saints of this Ummah, which is denied by many astray Muslim sects and individuals usually under the poisonous influence of materialism and modernism.

The Assumption of Moses

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

The beautiful story of Prophet Moses’s encounter with Khidr عليهما السلام as mentioned in the Eighteenth Surah of the Quran has many lessons and mystical secrets contained within it. However, in this article I want to discuss my belief that this entire episode transpired not in this world but in another dimension—the world of spirits or the realm of similitude.

Firstly, this story of Moses and Khidr عليهما السلام is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures or literature of the Jews and Christians that preceded the revelation of the Quran, including in the holy Torah.

Secondly, there are strong indications within the story itself that this episode did not occur in this world, for example:

وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِفَتَاهُ لَا أَبْرَحُ حَتَّىٰ أَبْلُغَ مَجْمَعَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ أَوْ أَمْضِيَ حُقُبًا

And when Moses said to his young companion, ‘I will not stop until I reach the junction of the two seas, or I will journey on for ages.’

(Surah 18:60)

This is the Ayah that starts the story of Moses and Khidr عليهما السلام. We begin with Prophet Moses explaining that his destination in a travel is the juncture of two seas, and he will not cease trying to reach there even if it takes ages upon ages. Right here is an indication that this was not a worldly travel but a travel occurring in another plane of existence where it might take ages to reach the destination. The juncture of two seas is a similitude which symbolizes the place or person in which the two seas of knowledge are combined, these being the sea of the knowledge of the exoteric and the sea of the knowledge of the esoteric. By exoteric is meant the knowledge of the outer aspects of the divine Law and by esoteric is meant the knowledge of the inner aspects of the Path, also known as mysticism.

The story goes on to mention that when Prophet Moses عليه السلام discovered that the fish they were carrying had slipped out back into the sea that he realized he needed to retrace his steps back to the point, the rock, where the fish had slipped away because that is the location of the junction of the two seas. How is it that the fish was suppose to slip away at that point to indicate their arrival at their destination if it was a worldly journey?

And when they retraced their steps back to the rock they found a man regarding whom Allah says He gave him knowledge from Himself, and Prophet Moses requested that he should be allowed to follow him. This is another indication that it was not a journey in this world, for in the time of Prophet Moses عليه السلام there was no other man who was superior to him including in terms of knowledge.

Next, the various acts of the man, who is identified as Khidr according to the Prophetic tradition, are at face value contrary to the divine Law. For example, making a hole in a ship which would cause it to sink and drown its crew and passengers and killing a young boy without due cause. However, as symbolic lessons and secrets pointing to the esoteric meaning it makes sense that these acts transpire in another plane of existence.

Finally, I shall quote a statement of the Prophet’s companion and second successor, sayyidina Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه which appears to indicate that this journey of the Prophet Moses عليه السلام was a spiritual ascension:

When the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم died, some of the people began saying:

إِنَّمَا عُرِجَ بِرُوحِهِ ‌كَمَا ‌عُرِجَ ‌بِرُوحِ ‌مُوسَى

Verily, he has ascended in his spirit like how Moses ascended in his spirit

Sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه likewise began repeating this statement and declaring it to be true:

وَقَامَ عُمَرُ خَطِيبًا يُوعِدُ الْمُنَافِقِينَ قَالَ وَقَالَ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَمُتْ وَلَكِنْ إِنَّمَا عُرِجَ بِرُوحِهِ ‌كَمَا ‌عُرِجَ ‌بِرُوحِ ‌مُوسَى

Umar stood up, addressing and threatening the hypocrites, saying, ‘the Apostle of Allah peace be upon him has not died, rather he has ascended with his spirit like how Moses ascended in his spirit’ (Tabaqat al-Kubra; v.2 p.204; Sunan ad-Darimi #90):

Although sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه and some of the other companions were wrong to initially deny the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, the pertinent question arises that what exactly were they referring to when they said that the spirit of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ascended like the ascension of the spirit of Prophet Moses عليه السلام and that he will return?

This statement of sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه is usually interpreted as a reference to the journey of Prophet Moses to Mount Sinai to receive the Tablets, in which he was absent from his people for forty nights. During his absence the hypocrites and perhaps some others from the Israelites began thinking that Prophet Moses had died and would not return. However, the difficulty with this interpretation is that Prophet Moses عليه السلام ascended Mount Sinai physically, in his corporal body. It was not a spiritual ascension. Therefore, the only other possible event in the life of Prophet Moses where he was absent from his people and on a journey was during his encounter with Khidr. Therefore, we can deduce that it was that journey which sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه was referring to when he said Prophet Moses ascended with his spirit, and not his corporal body.

According to another version of sayyidina Umar’s statement:

لا أَسْمَعَنَّ أَحَدًا يَقُولُ إِنَّ مُحَمَّدًا قَدْ مَاتَ وَلَكِنَّهُ أُرْسِلَ إِلَيْهِ كَمَا أُرْسِلَ إِلَى مُوسَى بْنِ عِمْرَانَ فَلَبِثَ عَنْ قَوْمِهِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً

I don’t want to heard any of you saying ‘indeed, Muhammad has died’ rather he was sent unto Him like how Moses son of Amram was sent for, and stayed away from his people for forty nights (Tabaqat al-Kubra v.2, p.204)

Although this version mentions forty nights which matches the duration of Prophet Moses’s stay on Mount Sinai, it does not make sense to compare that to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, because the body of the Prophet Muhammad was present and observed by sayyidina Umar and the other Companions, so as the previous version indicates, they believed the absence of Prophet Moses from his people that is being compared to the absence of the Prophet Muhammad was an absence of his spirit and not corporal body.

Vision of the Coming Messiah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على محمد وآل محمد

The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم met the Messiah of Nazareth على نبينا وعليه السلام in the Heavens during the incident of the Mi’raj—the spiritual ascension. While this was an event that occurred in the spirit realm and was not a corporal ascension, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم saw various other Prophets and was able to inform us of some of their physical descriptions. Regarding the Messiah of Nazareth على نبينا وعليه السلام he صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

فَأَمَّا عِيسَى فَأَحْمَرُ جَعْدٌ عَرِيضُ الصَّدْرِ

As for Jesus he was reddish [complexion], curly haired and broad chested

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

However, in a separate vision, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saw himself circulating the Ka’ba and in that state he beheld Jesus, and described him:

فَإِذَا رَجُلٌ آدَمُ كَأَحْسَنِ مَا يُرَى مِنْ أُدْمِ الرِّجَالِ تَضْرِبُ لِمَّتُهُ بَيْنَ مَنْكِبَيْهِ رَجِلُ الشَّعَرِ يَقْطُرُ رَأْسُهُ مَاءً وَاضِعًا يَدَيْهِ عَلَى مَنْكِبَىْ رَجُلَيْنِ وَهْوَ يَطُوفُ بِالْبَيْتِ‏ فَقُلْتُ مَنْ هَذَا فَقَالُوا هَذَا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ‏

I saw a brown men like the best of brown men you can see. His hair touched down to between his shoulders and was straight with water dripping from his head. He placed his hands upon the shoulders of two men while circulating the House [Ka’ba]. I said ‘Who is this?’ They answered: ‘the Messiah, Son of Mary’

فَإِذَا رَجُلٌ آدَمُ سَبْطُ الشَّعَرِ يُهَادَى بَيْنَ رَجُلَيْنِ يَنْطِفُ رَأْسُهُ مَاءً أَوْ يُهَرَاقُ رَأْسُهُ مَاءً فَقُلْتُ مَنْ هَذَا قَالُوا ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ

I saw a man of brownish [complexion] with straight hair, walking between two men, water was dripping from his head. So I asked ‘Who is this?’ and they replied: ‘the Son of Mary’

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

What explains this apparent and major discrepancy in the physical appearance of Jesus son of Mary from two separate visions of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم? The simple and likely explanation is that in the vision of the Mi’raj the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم beheld the original Jesus son of Mary—that ancient Israelite Prophet. While in his vision of circulating the Ka’ba the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم beheld the coming Messiah of the future who is called ‘Son of Mary’ due to resemblance and fulfilling the prophecy of the Second Advent. This is indicated by the fact that in the same vision the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم beheld the Antichrist, described as a reddish man, burly, curly-haired, and with a deformity in his right eye resembling a floating grape. Seeing Jesus son of Mary with his hands placed on the shoulders of two men is indicative of the Prophet Muhammad’s prophecy:

وَاضِعًا كَفَّيْهِ عَلَى أَجْنِحَةِ مَلَكَيْنِ

Placing his palms upon the wings of two Angels

(Sahih Muslim)

In the vision the two Angels are beheld as two men and their wings are their shoulders upon which the Messiah places his hands.

Monarchy and Mercy

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وبارك وسلم وصلى عليه

Among the signs of the veracity of the Prophesy of our master Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was his accurate prediction about the sequence of rule that would materialize subsequent to his passing away from this world. He صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

أَوَّلُ هَذَا الْأَمْرِ نُبُوَّةٌ وَرَحْمَةٌ، ثُمَّ يَكُونُ خِلَافَةً وَرَحْمَةً، ثُمَّ ‌يَكُونُ ‌مُلْكًا ‌وَرَحْمَةً، ثُمَّ يَكُونُ إِمَارَةً وَرَحْمَةً، ثُمَّ يَتَكادَمُونَ عَلَيْهِ تَكادُمَ الْحُمُرِ فَعَلَيْكُمْ بِالْجِهَادِ، وَإِنَّ أَفْضَلَ جهادِكُمُ الرِّبَاطُ، وَإِنَّ أَفْضَلَ رباطِكُمْ عَسْقَلَانُ

The first of this affair is Prophesy and mercy, then there shall be Caliphate and mercy, then there shall be Kingship and mercy, then there shall be Emirate and mercy. Then they shall scramble for it like donkeys. So upon you is Jihad, and the best of your Jihad is Ribat [guarding the border] and the best of your Ribat is in Ashkelon. (Mu’jam al-Kabir; v.11, p.88, #11138):

al-Haythami said that all of the narrators of this Hadith are thiqāt (Majma az-Zawa’id).

According to this prophecy when kingship or monarchy first appears in this Ummah it shall be a manifestation of mercy for it, just as the institutions of Prophesy and Caliphate prior to it were manifestations of Allah’s mercy upon the Ummah. Of course, the degree of mercy is not as great as that which was associated with Prophesy and with Caliphate. Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan رضى الله عنه was the first king or monarch to rule the entire Umma. The Negus رضى الله عنه who cnoverted to Islam was a monarch over Ethiopia and likewise Badhan رضى الله عنه , the king of Yemen, whose seating on the throne was confirmed by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself. However, those two kings رضى الله عنهما were not kings for the Umma collectively, therefore, Mu’awiya رضى الله عنه was technically the first king of the Muslims. And his kingship was certainly a manifestation of mercy for the Umma, as per the prophecy from the Hadith I have quoted. The appearance of ‘Emirate’ within the Umma refers to the breakup of the political unity of the Umma during the later phase of the Abbasid dynasty. Powerful emirates emerged in various lands exercising a degree of independence from the supposed caliphate in Baghdad. The righteous emirs and rulers from among them were certainly a continued manifestation of mercy from Allah, albeit to a lesser degree. However, in modern times we have entered a phase in which the rule over the Muslims is, generally speaking, not to be understood as a mercy from Allah, which is why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم compared it to the scrambling of donkeys. The second great prophecy of this Hadith is that the best Jihad in the latter days shall be the defense of the borders in the region of Ashkelon, which is today situated in the Israel/Palestine area near the Gaza strip. Historically, the Muslims faught here against the Crusaders, and in present times or in the near future it may refer to a Jihad or armed conflict against the Zionists.

Concerning the prophecy of monarchy being a manifestation of Allah’s mercy for this Umma, some individuals I have come across object to it on the basis of another Hadith which states:

تَكُونُ النُّبُوَّةُ فِيكُمْ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ ‌خِلَافَةٌ ‌عَلَى ‌مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ، فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا عَاضًّا، فَيَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ يَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا جَبْرِيَّةً، فَتَكُونُ مَا شَاءَ اللهُ أَنْ تَكُونَ، ثُمَّ يَرْفَعُهَا إِذَا شَاءَ أَنْ يَرْفَعَهَا، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ ‌خِلَافَةً ‌عَلَى ‌مِنْهَاجِ نُبُوَّةٍ ثُمَّ سَكَتَ

“Prophesy shall remain among you as long as Allah shall will. He will bring about its end and follow it with Caliphate on the precepts of Prophesy for as long as He shall will and then bring about its end. A biting monarchy will then follow and will remain as long as Allah shall will and then come to an end. There will follow thereafter monarchial despotism to last as long as Allah shall will and come to an end upon His decree. There will then emerge Caliphate on precept of Prophesy.” Then he [the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم] became silent. (Musnad Ahmad)

The objection is that in this latter Hadith the monarchy that emerges after the Caliphate is described as a ‘biting’ monarchy whereas in the former Hadith it is described as ‘monarchy and mercy’. The answer to this apparent confusion is that monarchy by its nature is ‘biting’ meaning that it is an institution that seeks to subsist above all else, yet that is not necessarily a dispraise of it, not does it necessarily mean that such monarchy cannot be a manifestation of Allah’s mercy. A proof for this is the fact that monarchy was established by Allah Himself among the nation of Israel. Their first king Talut [Saul] was appointed directly by Allah through the agency of the Prophet Samuel على نبينا وعليه السلام. Subsequently, two of the Israelite kings, David and Solomon على نبينا وعليهما السلام were Prophets themselves. With respect to King Solomon in particular, the Queen of Sheba said about him and other kings:

قَالَتۡ اِنَّ الۡمُلُوۡکَ اِذَا دَخَلُوۡا قَرۡیَۃً اَفۡسَدُوۡہَا وَ جَعَلُوۡۤا اَعِزَّۃَ اَہۡلِہَاۤ اَذِلَّۃً ۚ وَ کَذٰلِکَ یَفۡعَلُوۡنَ

She said, ‘Surely, kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and turn the highest of its people into the lowest.’ And thus will they do

(Sura 27:34)

Even the righteous kings like Solomon عليه السلام were no exception to the general rule that when kings enter a country they despoil it and humiliate those of that country who are considered high and honored. This too is not necessarily a dispraise or condemnation of monarchy but only a description of its reality.