Essay on Reform Movements (Incomplete)

 أشهد أنْ لا إله إلا الله وحده لا شريك له وأشهد أن محمدًا عبده ورسوله

The First Congregation of Believers

At the time of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم the newly established community of Faith, the Muslims, were one without any deviation in terms of beliefs, practices and methodology. There was no multiplicity of sects or significant theological differences among the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. There were, however, the Munafiqin or hypocrites, the most notorious among them being Abdallah bin Ubayy bin Salul. But they did not challenge or deviate from the beliefs and practices of Islam at least outwardly. They were only named hypocrites because they concealed disbelief in their hearts while outwardly professing Islam, camouflaging themselves among the Sahabah. For this reason the Munafiqin were not considered a deviated sect. In reality they were not even Muslims or from the Ummah, but a particular category of unbelievers. The Sahabah were the first Jama’ah or congregation of the Muslims of this Ummah. After the death of the most holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم the Sahabah generally agreed that his senior most companion, sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه, should be elected his first successor and take charge of the leadership of the nascent community. It was during the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه that a major apostasy took place among the freshly converted Arab tribes outside Medina where the Sahabah and the Khilafah were based. The apostates, especially those who reverted to idolatry or supported the pretenders like Musaylimah bin Habib and others, were not deviated sects within the Ummah, but like the hypocrites, merely a particular category of unbelievers. Thus even at this stage it could be said that the Ummah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was unified and protected from deviation, notwithstanding the emergence of hypocrites and apostates.

The First Breakaway Sects

None from the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم ever deviated from the Truth or entered into a misguided, breakaway sect of the Ummah. For this reason, the Sahabah are the standard-bearers of Truth for this Ummah that all the other generations of this Ummah are obligated to follow and adhere to. The Muslims who do so are upon orthodoxy and are known as Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, meaning the people of the Prophet’s Sunnah and the Congregation of the Sahabah. Adherence to the Sunnah is what generally distinguishes the people of Truth from the breakaway sects. The breakaway sects tend to claim support for their misguidance from their wrong interpretation of the Quran. The people of Truth refute those wrong interpretations and ideas in the name of the Quran from the Prophet’s Sunnah. For example, the deviant Ibn Saba, who was in reality a hypocrite and infiltrator motivated by a desire to cause dissension among the Muslims in revenge for Islam’s apparent triumph over Judaism, introduced the concept of Raj’ah into the Ummah – the belief that some of the deceased will return to this world before the Resurrection. This belief was inherited by the Shi’ah and is held to by them till this day. Ibn Saba quoted the Ayah of the Quran:

اِنَّ الَّذِیۡ فَرَضَ عَلَیۡکَ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ لَرَآدُّکَ اِلٰی مَعَادٍ

Indeed, the One Who ordained upon you [O Prophet] the Quran will surely take you back to a place of return

(Surah 28:85)

Ibn Saba argued that it refers to the return of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to this world sometime in the future, whereas the correct, orthodox and Sunni interpretation of this Ayah is that it refers to the fulfilled prophecy of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم being brought back to his hometown of Mecca after having been driven away from it. The fact that there is no teaching from the Sunnah to validate the doctrine of Raj’ah nor did the Jama’ah of the Sahabah believe in it is a reason to reject it. In other words, those like the Shi’ah who affirm the doctrine of Raj’ah deviated from the Sunnah and the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم and are therefore manifestly identified as a breakaway sect.

It was during the third caliphate, the caliphate of sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه, that the first breakaway sects emerged from within the Ummah. They were characterized by some degree of deviation from the Sunnah and the way of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. So by definition none of the Sahabah ever joined one of these first breakaway sects that emerged in their very lifetime. The Khawarij were a cohesive group that may be identified as the first breakaway sect within the Ummah. Though their roots are in the wrong ideas that some individuals began to express even during the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and especially among some of those who were responsible for martyring sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه they did not emerge as an actual sect until the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه. Among their deviations was the idea that the commission of a major sin was equivalent to disbelief and apostasy from the Faith. They had the audacity to declare not only some of the Sahabah apostates but even the caliph sayyidina Ali al-Murtada رضى الله عنه whom they were previously under allegiance to. The modus operandi of the Khawarij is to declare rulers of the Muslims apostate due to a major sin or disobedience to the Shari’ah, and then raise the sword against them in which the blood of many ordinary Muslims who remain in allegiance to the government considered apostate by the Khawarij is also shed.

Another early breakaway sect were the Qadariyah. They rejected the belief in Qadar established from the Sunnah that Allah Most High has predetermined and preordained everything that His creation does, and everything that befalls them of good and evil. Instead, they believe that humans create their own deeds, and from this angle, they make humans independent of Allah. This is why the Qadariyah are in fact dualists and why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is reported to have spoken of them in advance, comparing them to the Magians (Zoroastrian dualists of Iran). The Qadariyah introduced this misguided concept into the Ummah as they saw it as a necessity to answer the problem of God being just and therefore not reckoning humans for that which they are not responsible for. In the imagination of the Qadariyah, for God to punish humans for misdeeds that He Himself is the creator of is unjust. This perverted understanding of Adl or justice by the Qadariyah was inherited by the later Mu’tazilah sect who codified it into one of their five main principles, and why the Mu’tazilah named themselves ahl al-Tawhid wal-Adl (people of monotheism and justice). Incidentally, this false doctrine of the Qadariyah in the name of Adl was likewise inherited by the Shi’ah. Like the Mu’tazilah, it is one of the five principles of faith for the Ithna Ashari (Twelver) branch of Shi’ism, which is its largest branch.

Another early breakaway sect were the Murji’ah. In a sense they were the polar opposite of the Khawarij, especially on the question of Faith. While the Khawarij said that major sins nullify a person’s faith altogether, the Murji’ah said that deeds have no bearing on faith whatsoever, to the extent that the faith of the Angels, the Prophets and the Righteous (like sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه) was absolutely equal to the faith of the most despicable sinners of this Ummah! The orthodox Sunnis and especially the Hanafis are accused of being Murji’ah or having inherited the misguidance of the Murji’ah, an accusation levelled against them usually by the Khawarij and the Shi’ah. In the understanding of these misguided groups, the Sunnis are Murji’ah because they do not hold rebellion against a corrupt or sinful Muslim ruler valid. The narrative of the Shi’ah in particular is that despotic dynasties like the Umayyads and Abbasids patronized the doctrine of the Murji’ah as it would profit them if the Muslims were dissuaded from raising the sword or even questioning their tyranny. The Murji’ah then, according to this false narrative, morphed into the Sunni sect. Yet history reveals the falsehood of this narrative when we examine the uprising of the Murji’ite al-Harith bin Surayj in the mid-8^th century CE. That the Murji’ah did not make takfir (excommunication from Islam) of the sinful Muslim rulers in contrast to the Khawarij did not preclude them from making khuruj (armed uprising) against the same rulers. In other words, for the Murji’ah, the question of defining faith is unrelated to the issue of raising the sword against a government that professes Islam.

Now let us come to another early major breakaway sect in the Ummah, namely, the Shi’ah. The common denominator among all the branches of Shi’ism, both moderate and extreme, is the idea that the progeny of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, through his daughter sayyidatuna Fatimah and through sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنهما are entitled to the office of the caliphate and to lead the Ummah. They either regard the caliphates of the Caliphs who preceded sayyidina Ali as usurpation, or at the very least, a calamity. Therefore, the issue of leadership is the focal point of contention for Shi’ism and their point of departure from orthodoxy. Historically, the armed conflicts that occurred among the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم during the caliphate of sayyidina Ali كرم الله وجهه were purely political, with none of the factions constituting separate religious sects within the Ummah, but the Shi’ah have given theological and sectarian coloring to these conflicts in stark contrast to the orthodox, Sunni narrative. From our perspective, Muslims being unified and protected from sectarian dissension (by definition that means dissension with regard to beliefs and religious practices) does not preclude them from being affected by political dissension and conflicts. The holy Quran itself alludes to this possibility in the Ayah:

وَاِنۡ طَآئِفَتٰنِ مِنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ اقۡتَتَلُوۡا فَاَصۡلِحُوۡا بَیۡنَہُمَا

And if two parties of Believers fight, make peace between them

(Surah 49:9)

But rather than viewing the armed conflicts among the Sahabah at Jamal and Siffin as fights between parties of the Believers as per Surah 49:9, the Shi’ah consider them battles between Iman and Kufr, necessarily considering those among the Sahabah who politically opposed sayyidina Ali كرم الله وجهه including the mother of Believers A’ishah رضى الله عنها apostates and unbelievers!

The Medieval Period of Orthodoxy

For a long time, throughout the Middle Ages, Sunni orthodoxy was manifest and easily identifiable. They not only constituted the vast majority of the Ummah especially the common people, the breakaway sects of heterodoxy like the Khawarij and the Shi’ah, had become quite distinguishable from them. With notable exceptions, the dynastic Muslim rulers also fell into the mainstream Sunni fold and favored the orthodox community, or Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, over the misguided Kharijite and Shi’ite factions, which were often in open rebellion against them. The emergence of Kalam theology, however, was a great tribulation during the Middle Ages for the Ummah. Here the deviations began to occur in matters of theology, specifically relating to the divine attributes of Allah. A man named Jahm bin Safwan was perhaps the first to introduce the false doctrines related to theology of God’s attributes into the Ummah. In summary, the deviated sects of Kalam theology, most prominent being the Mu’tazilah, argued that affirming multiplicity of distinct divine attributes for Allah, such as life, will, power, sight, hearing, knowledge and speech, was tantamount to polytheism. Hence, in the name of monotheism the Mu’tazilah separated from the mainstream, orthodox Congregation of Believers and formed their own breakaway sect. The Mu’tazilah combined within them both the deviations of the Qadariyah whose discussion has already preceded and that of Jahm bin Safwan’s Kalam theology, a general tendency to negate the multiplicity of divine attributes for Allah in the name of monotheism. At the height of the Mu’tazilite tribulation, Allah Most High sent the Imam and Mujaddid (Reformer) Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمة الله عليه to defend and clarify the orthodox Sunni creed with regard to this theological controversy. While the government of the time persecuted the pious Imam, who is rightfully titled Imam Ahl as-Sunnah, the Muslim masses gathered behind him and till this day all those Muslims who identify as Sunnis universally regard him as a Mujaddid and great Imam. It was also during this period that Sufism emerged as a tendency within the Sunni mainstream. The great early Sufi saints, Habib al-Ajami, Dawud at-Ta’i, Harith al-Muhasibi, Sirri as-Saqati, Ma’ruf al-Karkhi, Junayd al-Baghdadi, Bishr al-Hafi, Dhun-Nun al-Misri, Sahl at-Tustari, al-Fudayl bin Iyad, Abd al-Wahid bin Zayd, Ibrahim bin Adham, Abu Yazid al-Bistami, etc., were certainly orthodox Sunnis. Even the most conservative Sunni branch, namely the Hanabilah, has produced two of the greatest Sufi saints in the history of the Ummah, Abu Isma’il Abdallah al-Harawi and Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. The early Sufi mystics themselves were heavily influenced by figures among the Sahabah and Salaf رضى الله عنهم who exemplified Zuhd (asceticism) and a mystical disposition, for example, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali bin Abi Talib, Imam Ali as-Sajjad, sayyidina Salman al-Farisi, sayyidina Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, sayyidina Uways al-Qarani, Imam al-Hasan al-Basri, Farqad as-Sabakhi and Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq. Sufism was a great asset for orthodox Sunni Islam in spreading itself especially among the Ajam (non-Arabs) in the eastern lands, and curtailed the expansion of misguided groups like the Shi’ah and the Mu’tazilah that were competing for souls in those same regions. The Mu’tazilah as an independent and cohesive sect eventually vanished, sealing the triumph of orthodox Sunni Islam in the theological controversies introduced by Kalam. However, another tribulation arose with the rise of the Asharis and Maturidis who set themselves apart from the conservative Hanbalis who hitherto represented Sunni orthodoxy in the theological controversies of Kalam. The Asharis and Maturidis are, in a sense, compromise positions between hardline Hanbali orthodoxy and the deviations of the Mu’tazilah. However, the differences between the old school Hanbalis, also known as Atharis, and the Asharis and Maturidis are not significant enough for any of them to fall outside the scope of Sunni orthodoxy. Nevertheless, hardline and extremist elements within each of these three schools of theology (Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis) may not recognize each other as orthodox and Sunni. From my perspective, the Hanbali/Athari camp is closest to the Truth, and there are some problematic aspects of the Ashari creed particularly with regard to their belief about the holy Quran not being the literal speech of Allah in its wording but only a representation of it. It is also apparent that the early orthodox Muslims emphatically affirmed that Allah تعالى is above Heaven and upon the Arsh (Throne) in His Person. This belief is not only repeatedly taught in the holy Quran and in the Hadith, but also established in the Torah, the Zabur (Psalms of David) and other heavenly Scriptures of old.

Later Reform Movements

As predicted by the holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم the latter part of the Ummah began to deviate en masse from the Sunnah and the way of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. Innovations with regard to tomb veneration and supplicating to deceased Saints the way Believers are meant to supplicate to Allah alone sadly became prevalent in many regions of the Muslim world. Those who engaged in these innovative and even idolatrous practices often identified with Sufism and Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, or the name of Sunni orthodoxy, despite clearly having strayed from the fundamentals of the Faith worse than the earlier breakaway sects already mentioned. But the promise of divine protection for this Religion manifested once again in the form of the sending of Mujaddidin (Reformers) to repudiate the innovations and deviations and re-establish the correct beliefs and practices of Sunni orthodoxy. Among those Reformers was certainly Imam Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab رحمة الله عليه. The so-called Wahhabi movement was instrumental in re-establishing monotheism in the heartland of Arabia. It also influenced similar reform movements in India, associated with Reformers like Sayyid Ahmad and Shah Isma’il, the two martyrs who waged Jihad against the Sikh tyranny. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was himself influenced by Muhammad Hayat as-Sindi, a Naqshbandi Sufi sage. In fact, since the time of the Mujaddid Alf Thani, Ahmad Sirhindi رحمة الله عليه, the Naqshbandi order played a prominent role in reforming and purifying the Muslims from innovations that emerged as a consequence of influence from the misguided Shi’ah and other religions especially in India. For a time, this great legacy of Reform was inherited by the family of Shah Abdur Rahim, particularly his son the great Reformer Shah Waliullah and later Shah Abdul Aziz. This family was based in Delhi and were truly the spiritual leadership of Sunni Islam in the Indian subcontinent in the 18^th century CE. In the region of North Africa, the Sanusi movement during the 19^th century CE mirrored this tendency to purify the conception of Sunni Islam from some of the innovations and practices bordering on idolatry. It also advocated for reforming Sufism to keep it in line with the Shari’ah and the Sunnah, the same legacy of Naqshbandi Reformers in the Indian subcontinent, Ahmad Sirhindi and Shah Waliullah, men who were instrumental in combating the tribulation of antinomianism.

Anti-Colonial Struggles and Nationalism

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم accurately predicted the onslaught of European colonialism upon this Ummah when he said:

‌يُوشِكُ ‌الْأُمَمُ ‌أَنْ ‌تَدَاعَى ‌عَلَيْكُمْ ‌كَمَا ‌تَدَاعَى ‌الْأَكَلَةُ ‌إِلَى ‌قَصْعَتِهَا

“Soon, the nations will invite (one another) to partake of you, as diners call one another to a large dish.”

(Sunan Abi Dawud)

Generally, Muslims of all classes and backgrounds have a very negative perception of European colonization of their countries. A more nuanced view will, however, appreciate the consequential modernization of technology and infrastructure, the liberation, in some areas, of the weak Muslims from their oppressive overlords (whether Muslim or non-Muslim), and the granting of an opportunity to the Ulama and Sufis to increase their influence over the masses due to the vanishing of the previous corrupt institutions associated with the Muslim State that was colonized. The real catastrophe of the anti-colonial struggles, however, was that when they succeeded in forcing out the European imperialist they replaced foreign rule with something even worse, secularized and indeed anti-Islamic autocracy. The anti-colonial struggles also resulted in the rise of ethnic nationalism throughout the Muslim world, where the Muslims now began to identify more with their ethnicity or nation instead of their religious identity and the Ummah. The Dervish movement in Somalia, led by Salihiyah Sufis under Muhammad Abdullahi Hassan (dubbed the “Mad Mullah”) originally had stated religious motives in opposing the British and the Italians but later devolved into a vague tendency of Somali nationalism. Perhaps it did contribute somewhat to preventing or at least delaying the modernization and cultural Westernization of Somalia that neighboring Muslim countries were unable to accomplish by and large. Likewise, the Mahdist movement in Sudan, led by Muhammad Ahmad of the Sammaniyah Sufi order, could not properly divorce its apparent religious credentials with its Sudanese nationalist tendency.

Abrogation in Islam

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

The concept of abrogation does exist in Islam. Allah Most High revealed His commandments and prohibitions to the people through His Apostles and Scriptures. Some of those commandments and prohibitions were intended to be temporary. The wisdom of this is that the circumstances in which humanity, at different times and places, found itself in required some variation and evolution in the laws. Islam also accepts that in history Allah made several covenants, some intended for permanence and others not, and some intended for a specific nation and others for all humanity.

It may be said that Noah (peace be upon him) was the first Messenger of Allah who established a basic law, or Shari’ah, which the people were obligated to adhere to. This divine law revealed through Noah is commonly known as the Seven Laws of Noah. They are laws which prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual immorality, theft, eating flesh torn from a living animal, and enjoin the establishment of courts of justice. None of these laws have been abrogated or abolished, but they have been added to and perfected in the Shari’ah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which is the final and complete divine Law for all humanity until the end of the world. After this Allah established a covenant through the patriarch Abraham (peace be upon him), known as the Covenant of Circumcision. It is alluded to in the Quran:

قَالَ لَا یَنَالُ عَہۡدِی الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ

He (Allah) said: “My Covenant does not embrace the transgressors”

(Surah 2:124)

The Covenant spoken of here is the Covenant of Circumcision, in which Allah would reward the offspring of Abraham with leadership over the people. According to the Torah, this is meant to be an everlasting covenant (Genesis chapter 17).

Yet, the Bible also mentions several examples of abrogation, where a covenant or law previously legislated by God was nullified. God designated Saul (named Talut in the Quran) king over Israel through the agency of Prophet Samuel (1 Samuel chapters 9 and 10). Yet, shortly thereafter God abrogated His appointment of Saul, and announced this abrogation once again through the agency of Prophet Samuel: “But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee” (1 Samuel 13:14) “Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments” (1 Samuel 15:10-11) “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.” (1 Samuel 15:23) “The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou” (1 Samuel 15:28). This entire episode has been summarized in the holy Quran where Allah mentions his appointment of both Saul and then David as kings:

وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا

And their Prophet (Samuel) said to them: ‘Allah has appointed for you Talut (Saul) as a king.’

(Surah 2:247)

Continuing the narrative, and only a few verses later, Allah says:

وَقَتَلَ دَاوٗدُ جَالُوۡتَ وَاٰتٰٮہُ اللّٰہُ الۡمُلۡکَ وَالۡحِکۡمَۃَ وَعَلَّمَہٗ مِمَّا یَشَآءُ

And David slew Goliath, and Allah gave him sovereignty and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased

(Surah 2:251)

The great Prophet Jeremiah declared that both the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants had been broken by the Israelites: "The house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.” (Jeremiah 11:10) "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:32) "Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.” (Jeremiah 33:21)

The end of the Davidic Covenant is also evident in the fact that after the Babylonian Exile never again did a descendant of King David sit upon the throne to rule over Israel. As for the Mosaic Covenant, although Orthodox Jews insist it is everlasting, there are clear indications in their own Scripture that it is not. The breaking of the original Tablets by Moses at Mount Sinai are a strong symbolic indication of this fact. The replacement Tablets were not like the original Tablets. Upon the original Tablets, the Torah says God Himself wrote the commandments with His own Finger (Exodus 31:18, Exodus 26:16) but the replacement Tablets were inscribed by Moses (Exodus 34:28).

The authority of a Prophet is higher than that of Scripture. In other words, if a Prophet, through Revelation, declares something permissible which is forbidden in the Scripture, or declares something forbidden which is permissible in the Scripture, the Prophet is to be followed in that situation, and not the Scripture. Here I will give the example of Prophet Jesus, who abrogated some injunctions in the Torah:

وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَلِأُحِلَّ لَكُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي حُرِّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ

And I come fulfilling that which is before me, namely, the Torah; and to allow you some of that which was forbidden you

(Surah 3:50)

It is mentioned in the Christian Gospels that Jesus abrogated some of the strictures of the Sabbath. He approved of his disciples plucking ears of corn from cornfields on the Sabbath despite objections from the Pharisees, and he himself performed miraculous healings on the Sabbath. Jesus said: “For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day”. It is also mentioned in the Christian Gospels that Jesus abrogated some injunctions of the Torah, namely, divorce and oaths: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32) “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37).

There are examples of abrogation of rulings in the holy Quran too. The Quran was not revealed at once, but over a period of some twenty three years of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) ministry. Here I shall present some examples of abrogation:

The Qiblah

Allah says in the Quran that the initial Qiblah that was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) was facing the direction of Jerusalem:

وَمَا جَعَلۡنَا الۡقِبۡلَۃَ الَّتِیۡ کُنۡتَ عَلَیۡہَاۤ اِلَّا لِنَعۡلَمَ مَنۡ یَّتَّبِعُ الرَّسُوۡلَ مِمَّنۡ یَّنۡقَلِبُ عَلٰی عَقِبَیۡہِ

And We did not appoint the Qiblah which thou didst follow, except that We might know him who follows the Messenger from him who turns upon his heels

(Surah 2:143)

This Ayah makes it clear that the initial Qiblah of Jerusalem was revealed by Allah. It was not the Prophet Muhammad’s own decision to pray facing Jerusalem, but such was revealed to him by Allah. Incidentally, this Ayah disproves the claim of the so-called “Quranist” movement that there were no extra-Quranic revelations to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), thereby demolishing their sola scriptura doctrine. That is because the command to offer Salah facing Jerusalem is nowhere found in the text of the Quran, therefore, it must have been an extra-Quranic revelation to the Prophet. Allah abrogated the Qiblah of Jerusalem and replaced it with the Qiblah of Mecca (Surah 2:144).

Khamr

The prohibition of intoxicants and alcoholic beverages like wine, beer, etc., was done gradually. First Allah merely prohibited offering of Salah in a drunken state:

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَقۡرَبُوا الصَّلٰوۃَ وَاَنۡتُمۡ سُکٰرٰی

O ye who believe! approach not Prayer when you are not in full possession of your senses

(Surah 4:43)

Then the divine law prohibiting khamr absolutely was revealed later.

Punishment for Zina

The initial ruling revealed in the Quran about women who commit sexual immorality, against whom four witnesses testify, was that they should be placed under house arrest until they die:

اَوۡ یَجۡعَلَ اللّٰہُ لَہُنَّ سَبِیۡلًا

or Allah open for them a way

(Surah 4:15)

The concluding clause of this Ayah is an indication that the ruling is not intended for permanence but will later be abrogated. So Allah later revealed the abrogating commandment with regard to punishment for zina, which is flogging of a hundred stripes (Surah 24:2).

Keep in mind that the concept of abrogation does not apply to beliefs and moral teachings or ethics. Those can never be abrogated. Abrogation has only occurred with respect to laws and rulings, and also covenants. After the completion of the Revelation to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) his Shari’ah is permanent and everlasting, incumbent upon all humanity until the end of the world.

Dhul-Kifl is Prophet Ezekiel (Surah 21:85; 38:48)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدى يا رسول الله

وعلى آلك واصحابك يا نبي الله

Allah عز وجل mentions a figure called Dhal-Kifl twice in the holy Quran (Surah 21:85; 38:48). Since he is listed with other Prophets, namely, Ishmael, Idris (who is usually identified as Elijah), and Elisha it is correct to assume that he too was one of the Prophets. He is usually identified with the Prophet Ezekiel. The strongest argument for this identification is the fact that Al-Kifl is the name of a town in southeastern Iraq containing the tomb of a Prophet which both Jews and Muslims identify as that of Ezekiel’s: “The traditional burial-place of the prophet Ezekiel, around which many sages and legends have gathered, is shown at Kefil near Birs Nimrud; for centuries it has been a favorite place of pilgrimage for Mohammedans as well as for Jews.” (Jewish Encyclopedia; v.5, p.316):

Among the mufassirin (commentators of the Quran) it is narrated that both Imam al-Hasan al-Basri and Muqatil bin Sulayman identified Dhul-Kifl with the prophet Hizqil (Ezekiel):

قَالَ الْحَسَنُ وَمُقَاتِلٌ هُوَ ذُو الْكِفْلِ وَسُمِّيَ ‌حِزْقِيلُ ‌ذَا ‌الْكِفْلِ

(Tafsir al-Baghawi; v.1, p.293):

According to my research, the Prophet Ezekiel is likewise the figure mentioned in Surah 2:259 which describes his famous Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones.

The Two Tablets (Surah 7:145)

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اللهم صل وسلم وبارك على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وعلى آل سيدنا محمد

Allah Most High says:

وَکَتَبۡنَا لَہٗ فِی الۡاَلۡوَاحِ مِنۡ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ مَّوۡعِظَۃً وَّتَفۡصِیۡلًا لِّکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ ۚ فَخُذۡہَا بِقُوَّۃٍ وَّاۡمُرۡ قَوۡمَکَ یَاۡخُذُوۡا بِاَحۡسَنِہَا ؕ سَاُورِیۡکُمۡ دَارَ الۡفٰسِقِیۡنَ

And We wrote for him upon the Tablets about everything — an admonition and an explanation of all things. ‘So hold them fast and bid thy people follow the best thereof. Soon shall I show you the abode of the transgressors.’

(Surah 7:145)

The Tablets of Moses are also mentioned in the Book of Exodus:

And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God (ch.31, v.18). Repeatedly, in the Bible, it is mentioned that two Tablets were given to Moses by God, a first set that Moses broke after he was enraged by what he saw of his people worshipping the Golden Calf, and a second set that he was commanded to make to substitute the first set.

Now the Quran confirms that Allah Himself wrote upon these Tablets. It also confirms that Moses “cast down” the Tablets:

وَاَلۡقَی الۡاَلۡوَاحَ

(Surah 7:150)

It is best to interpret this, in accordance with the Torah, that they fell from his hands, either deliberately or accidentally while he was in a state of anger, and therefore were shattered. And there is an indication in the holy Quran that Moses did remake the Tablets after the first set were cast from his hands:

وَلَمَّا سَکَتَ عَنۡ مُّوۡسَی الۡغَضَبُ اَخَذَ الۡاَلۡوَاحَ

And when the anger of Moses was appeased, he took the Tablets

(Surah 7:154)

However, there is an apparent inconsistency between the Quranic and Biblical narratives concerning the number of the Tablets. While in the Bible there is repeated and emphatic mention of two Tablets given to Moses at Mount Sinai, the Quran uses the word الالواح which is in the plural form and not dual form, suggesting at least three or more Tablets. Hence, some commentators have gone with the apparent meaning and claimed that Moses was given several Tablets, even speculating as to whether he was given seven or ten (Tafsir al-Jalalayn). But I argue that it is best to strive for harmonization between the texts of the Bible and the Quran unless harmonization is impossible or extremely far-fetched. That the Bible repeatedly and emphatically states that two Tablets were given to Moses cannot be so casually dismissed by us Muslims as a mere fabrication or interpolation. Two master grammarians and linguists of the Arabic language, namely, Abu Zakariyya Yahya bin Ziyad al-Farra (d.207H) and Abu Ishaq az-Zajjaj (d.310H) state that it is permitted in the Arabic language to sometimes use the plural form for two things rather than the dual form. In both instances they have mentioned this in connection with the number of Tablets Allah wrote for Moses. Al-Farra says:

وَأَلْقَى الْأَلْواحَ ذكر أنَّهما كانا لوحين. ‌وجازَ ‌أن ‌يُقال ‌الألواح ‌للاثنين كما قَالَ فَإِنْ كانَ لَهُ إِخْوَةٌ وهما أخوان وكما قَالَ إِنْ تَتُوبا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُما وهما قلبانِ

(Ma'ani al-Quran lil-Farra; v.1, p.394):

Al-Farra gives the example of Surah 66:4 where the two hearts of sayyidatuna A'ishah and sayyidatuna Hafsah رضى الله عهنما are called قلوب rather than قلبان

Az-Zajjaj says:

إنَّهُمَا كَانَا لَوْحَينِ وَيجوز فِي اللُّغَة أَن يُقَال ‌للَّوحَينِ ‌ألْوَاح

(Ma'ani al-Quran liz-Zajjaj; v.2, p.375; see also Lisan al-Arab, v.2, p.584 and Taj al-Urus, v.7, p.106):

Ibn Jarir at-Tabari says in his Tafsir:

وزعم بعضهم ‌أن ‌الألواح ‌كانت ‌لوحين

"Some of them [Mufassirin/commentators on the Quran] said that the Tablets were two Tablets" (Tafsir at-Tabari; v.10, p.457):

Another scholar, Makki bin Abi Talib al-Qaysi (d.437H), confirms this and gives other examples from both the Quran and Arabic idioms (al-Hidayah ila Bulugh an-Nihayah; v.2, pp.1243, 1244):

Sayyid Qutb's Denial of Moses Hearing the Speech of Allah

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اللهم صل وسلم وبارك على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وعلى آل سيدنا محمد

The extremely misguided Sayyid Qutb, a sort of neo-Mu’tazilite, who was executed in Egypt in 1966 during the autocratic regime of Nasser, denied the fact that the great Prophet Moses على نبينا وعليه الصلوات والتسليمات heard the revealed Words of Allah with his faculty of hearing (with his ears), saying:

كلهم تلقى الوحي من الله . فما جاء بشيء من عنده . وإذا كان الله قد كلم موسى تكليما فهو لون من الوحي لا يعرف أحد كيف كان يتم . لأن القرآن - وهو المصدر الوحيد الصحيح الذي لا يرقى الشك إلى صحته - لم يفصل لنا في ذلك شيئا . فلا نعلم إلا أنه كان كلاما . ولكن ما طبيعته ؟ كيف تم ؟ بأية حاسة أو قوة كان موسى يتلقاه ؟ . . . كل ذلك غيب من الغيب لم يحدثنا عنه القرآن . وليس وراء القرآن - في هذا الباب - إلا أساطير لا تستند إلى برهان

If Moses was spoken to directly by God, this was simply one aspect of revelation and none of us knows how it happened. The Qur’ān, which is the only authentic source we have on such matters, has not given us any details. The only thing we know is that God gave this revelation in words. How and in what manner or in what sense or power Moses used to receive it we do not know. All that is part of the knowledge God has kept to Himself. If the Qur’ān does not speak to us about it, then any interpretation is simply guesswork lacking foundation. (Fi Zilal al-Quran; commenting on Surah 4:164):

Sayyid Qutb falsely claimed that the holy Quran itself does not detail or explain how Prophet Moses received the revelation of the Words of Allah as mentioned in Surah 4:164:

وَکَلَّمَ اللّٰہُ مُوۡسٰی تَکۡلِیۡمًا

And Allah spoke to Moses particularly

Due to Sayyid Qutb’s false, preconceived, theological ideas he was unwilling to acknowledge the fact that when Allah spoke to Prophet Moses, for instance at the burning bush, that he heard His Speech with his faculty of hearing, i.e., with his own ears. Yet this is confirmed elsewhere in the Quran, when Allah said to Moses:

وَاَنَا اخۡتَرۡتُکَ فَاسۡتَمِعۡ لِمَا یُوۡحٰ

I have chosen you; so listen to that which is revealed (to you)

(Surah 20:13)

The Sultan is the Shadow of God on Earth

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اللهم صل وسلم وبارك على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وعلى آل سيدنا محمد

Allah جلّ جلاله says:

قُلِ اللّٰہُمَّ مٰلِکَ الۡمُلۡکِ تُؤۡتِی الۡمُلۡکَ مَنۡ تَشَآءُ وَتَنۡزِعُ الۡمُلۡکَ مِمَّنۡ تَشَآءُ

Say, ‘O Allah, King of the Kingdom, You give the kingdom to whomsoever You wish and You take away the kingdom from whomsoever You wish’

(Surah 3:26)

This blessed Ayah teaches that the great empires, kingdoms, and rulers of this world have been established in their place by the will of Allah. The implication is that respect for or at the very least acknowledgment of the powerful states, kingdoms and rulers of this world is expected and a means of submitting to Allah Himself. This pure Islamic narrative is rejected and challenged by certain deviated tendencies within the Ummah and without, such as the Kharijites, Shi’ites, and various revolutionary political movements (many of the so-called “Islamists”). Outside the Ummah, the anarchists, Leninists, Maoists, and all other revolutionary, secessionist and terrorist movements likewise reject and challenge the aforementioned narrative. Liberation theology may also be said to be a rejection and challenge of the aforementioned narrative. Undoubtedly, a time comes when the powerful states, kingdoms and rulers of this world, who despite having been established in their place by Allah, reach the heights of arrogance, tyranny and oppression. But it is then Allah Himself Who sets into motion that which erodes their establishment and finally finishes them, relegating them to the dustbin of history:

وَتَنۡزِعُ الۡمُلۡکَ مِمَّنۡ تَشَآءُ

It is not the duty of the ordinary Believers to take it upon themselves to clash with the powerful states, kingdoms and rulers of this world for the purpose of dethroning them, as Allah says:

وَلَا تُلۡقُوۡا بِاَیۡدِیۡکُمۡ اِلَی التَّہۡلُکَۃِ

And cast not yourselves into ruin with your own hands

(Surah 2:195)

Hence, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is reported to have said:

‌السُّلْطَانُ ‌ظِلُّ ‌اللَّهِ ‌فِي ‌الأَرْضِ

The Sultan is the shadow of Allah on the Earth

(Musnad al-Bazar)

Al-Albani has declared the following Hadith sound:

السُّلْطَانُ ‌ظِلُّ ‌اللَّهِ ‌فِي ‌الأَرْضِ فَمَنْ أَكْرَمَهُ أَكْرَمَ اللَّهَ وَمَنْ أَهَانَهُ أَهَانَهُ الله

The Sultan is the shadow of Allah on the Earth, so whoever honors him is honored by Allah and whoever insults him is insulted by Allah (as-Sunnah li-Ibni Abi Asim wa ma’ahu Zilal al-Jannah lil-Albani; v.2, p.492, #1024):

Some may object that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referring to a ruler with the title the Sultan is anachronistic as such a title was not conferred upon any ruler until much after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم departed this world. But in fact this is yet another proof of the veracity of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his claim to prophesy. It may also be that Muslim rulers adapted this title because of the Hadith in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to powerful rulers with this word, which otherwise was not used to refer to persons but simply meant authority.