Is Prophesy Genetic?

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اَلۡحَمۡدُ لِلّٰہِ رَبِّ الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Is Prophesy Genetic?

Among the heresies of the Imāmiyyah Shī’ah is that the institution of Imamate is restricted to the progeny of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم. This notion is easily dismantled simply through reading the following Āyah:

وَالَّذِیۡنَ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ رَبَّنَا ہَبۡ لَنَا مِنۡ اَزۡوَاجِنَا وَذُرِّیّٰتِنَا قُرَّۃَ اَعۡیُنٍ وَّاجۡعَلۡنَا لِلۡمُتَّقِیۡنَ اِمَامًا

And those who say, ‘Our Lord grant us of our wives and our children the coolness of our eyes, and make us an Imam for the righteous’

(Juz 19, Sūrah 25, Āyah 74)

This single Āyah is such a powerful proof against the Imāmiyyah Shī’ah, in repudiating their doctrine of Imamate being divinely granted (wahbi as opposed to kasbi) that is restricted to twelve individuals after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, that they have been compelled to amend its actual text!

Ironically, some ignorant people among Ahl us-Sunnah (Sunni Muslims) unintentionally give ammunition to Imāmiyyah Shi’ism when they conceive of the institution of Prophesy (Nubuwwah) as being restricted to a particular lineage, in other words, genetic. The idea is that all Prophets after the time of the Patriarch Abraham على نبينا وعليه السلام were necessarily from his seed. Hence they quote the Āyah:

وَاِذِ ابۡتَلٰۤی اِبۡرٰہٖمَ رَبُّہٗ بِکَلِمٰتٍ فَاَتَمَّہُنَّ ؕ قَالَ اِنِّیۡ جَاعِلُکَ لِلنَّاسِ اِمَامًا ؕ قَالَ وَمِنۡ ذُرِّیَّتِیۡ ؕ قَالَ لَا یَنَالُ عَہۡدِی الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ

And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words which he fulfilled. He [Allāh] said, ‘I will make you an Imām [leader] for the people.’ [Abraham] said, ‘And from among my offspring?’ He [Allāh] said, ‘My covenant does not embrace the transgressors.’

(Juz 1, Sūrah 2, Āyah 124)

Yet this Abrahamic Covenant of Imamate does not exclude either the possibility or actual occurrence of Prophets and Imams being raised from those outside Abraham’s progeny. Here it is also worthwhile to explain that Imamate is broader than Prophesy. An Imām is not necessarily a Prophet (Nabi), though every Prophet is necessarily an Imām, with the possible exception of Prophetesses, since Imamate is restricted to the male sex, while Prophesy is not necessarily restricted to the male sex (as the Ash’aris say). Another Āyah that is cited in favor of the doctrine that Prophesy became restricted to the offspring of Abraham is the following:

اِنَّ اللّٰہَ اصۡطَفٰۤی اٰدَمَ وَنُوۡحًا وَّاٰلَ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ وَاٰلَ عِمۡرٰنَ عَلَی الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ

Allāh did choose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of Amram above all the worlds

(Juz 3, Sūrah 3, Āyah 33)

First, it is not explicit from the text of this Āyah that Prophesy is being spoken of as that matter which Allāh عز وجل choose as the means to favor Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham and the family of Amram over everyone else. Undoubtedly, they were granted the gift of Prophesy, but it seems that what the Āyah is speaking of is broader than Prophesy but certainly inclusive of it. And like the previously quoted Āyah (2:124) it is not explicitly mentioned here that Prophesy was restricted to these individuals and families. However, it is certainly true that the gift of Prophesy most frequently occurred within the family of Abraham. In fact, it has to be acknowledged that a plurality if not an outright majority of the Prophets and Messengers sent by Allāh were from the Children of Israel. After the Patriarchs, Prophets Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Zechariah, Yahya (John) and Jesus, all spoken of in the Qurān, were all from the Children of Israel. The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is reported to have said:

كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ تَسُوسُهُمُ الأَنْبِيَاءُ كُلَّمَا هَلَكَ نَبِيٌّ خَلَفَهُ نَبِيٌّ

The Prophets used to be involved in the political affairs of the children of Israel. Whenever a Prophet died he was succeeded by a Prophet

(mutaffaqun alayh)

According to another version of the Hadīth:

إِنَّ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ كَانَتْ تَسُوسُهُمْ أَنْبِيَاؤُهُمْ كُلَّمَا ذَهَبَ نَبِيٌّ خَلَفَهُ نَبِيٌّ

Indeed, the children of Israel’s political affairs were managed by their Prophets. Whenever a Prophet left (died) he was succeeded by a Prophet

(Sunan Ibn Mājah)

*Note: The reference to the Israelite Prophets conducting the siyāsah, which roughly means politics, of the children of Israel does not necessarily mean that the Israelite Prophets were always in positions of political authority and temporal leadership/administration, but that their prophetic ministries were concerned with the political affairs. Typically, this was manifested in the phenomenon of Prophets rebuking and advising the kings of Israel and Judah concerning both domestic and foreign political affairs. The Prophet Jeremiah على نبينا وعليه السلام delivered a divine warning to King Zedekiah of Judah not to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Book of Jeremiah, chapter 38). In those days the Kingdom of Judah was a vassal of the Babylonian Empire, but King Zedekiah was influenced to ally with the Egyptians and rebel against Babylon. The tragic consequence was that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in 587 BCE and destroyed the holy city including the Temple of Solomon, taking the Jews into captivity. Likewise, the Saints and mystics of this Ummah, who reflect the role of the Israelite Prophets, warn the corrupt and incompetent kings and rulers of the Muslims, against their moral corruption, their failure to rule by the Sharī’ah and Sunnah, and their contracting of alliances with the wrong foreign powers that result in destruction for the Muslims at the hands of their enemies.

Now this Hadīth makes it plain that the children of Israel were blessed with the largest number of Prophets, because each of their Prophets was immediately succeeded by another Prophet, until the institution of Prophesy was taken away from them when they rejected the Messiah على نبينا وعليه السلام. So it is reasonable to assume that the frequency of Prophesy, and not Prophesy itself, occurring in the families of Abraham and Amram is what is meant when Allāh says he chose them over the worlds. The term ‘family of Amram’ may refer to the Amram who was the father of Prophets Moses and Aaron or to the Amram who was the father of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus. The Christian Bible never mentions the names of the Virgin Mary’s parents, but the Qurān does mention that her father was named Imrān (Amram). According to the Christian Bible, Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, called Yahyā (Jehiah) in the Qurān. Zechariah was a priest-prophet from the line of Abijah. The priesthood in Israel was for the descendants of Aaron. In this sense, Zechariah, John the Baptist, Mary and Jesus were all from the priestly line and therefore they are included in the Levite family of Amram. It is more reasonable to say, therefore, that the term Āl ‘Imrān (family of Amram) is an attribution to Amram the father of Moses and Aaron, denoting a priestly and prophetic line that was extremely blessed within the broader children of Israel. For if the term ‘family of Imrān’ is an attribution to the father of Virgin Mary سلامٌ عليها then it is inclusive of only a small number of individuals, basically only the Virgin Mary and her son Jesus عليهما السلام. But if the ‘family of Imrān’ is a reference to the priestly Levite family that included many great Israelite Prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, along with John the Baptist, his father Zechariah, and Jesus himself, then it is quite understandable why it is a separately mentioned family that was chosen by Allah as per the Āyah (3:33). Now it is not difficult to understand why many Muslims, from both the Sunnis and the Shī’ah, acquired the mistaken belief that Prophesy was restricted to a particular lineage, for indeed Allāh did choose particular lineages, those attributed to Abraham and Amram, for special favor and blessing, and it was in those lineages that a plurality of the Prophets hailed from. Nevertheless, it may also be understood from the Qurān that Prophets appeared outside the offspring of Abraham:

وَلَقَدۡ بَعَثۡنَا فِیۡ کُلِّ اُمَّۃٍ رَّسُوۡلًا اَنِ اعۡبُدُوا اللّٰہَ وَاجۡتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوۡتَ

And We did raise among every nation a Messenger, [saying], ‘Worship Allāh and shun the Tāghūt’

(Juz 14, Sūrah 16, Āyah 36)

اِنَّمَاۤ اَنۡتَ مُنۡذِرٌ وَّلِکُلِّ قَوۡمٍ ہَادٍ

You [O Prophet Muhammad] are, surely, a Warner. And there is a Guide for every people

(Juz 13, Sūrah 13, Āyah 7)

ؕ وَاِنۡ مِّنۡ اُمَّۃٍ اِلَّا خَلَا فِیۡہَا نَذِیۡرٌ

And there is not a nation but that a Warner passed away among them

(Juz 22, Sūrah 35, Āyah 24)

At the very least these passages from the Qurān indicate that there have been nations, not from the offspring of Abraham, among whom Allāh sent Prophets and Messengers. The specific Prophets Hūd and Sāleh, sent to the tribes of Ād and Thamūd respectively, are likely examples of Prophets who were not from the progeny of Abraham. Consider also the fact that none of the Salaf or the pious Ulamā, Saints and elders of Ahl us-Sunnah ever rejected the claim of a Prophesy-claimant on the grounds that he was not a descendant of Abraham, though many such claimants arose who were not from Quraysh, the Adnanites, or even the Arabs.

In essence, Islam is a religion that rejects genetic determinism and the idea that Prophesy and Imamate are genetic traits that are restricted to a particular family or lineage. Allāh سبحانه وتعالى says:

یُنَزِّلُ الۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃَ بِالرُّوۡحِ مِنۡ اَمۡرِہٖ عَلٰی مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ مِنۡ عِبَادِہٖۤ

He sends down the Angels with the Spirit of His command upon whom He wills of His servants

(Juz 14, Sūrah 16, Āyah 2)

The great Prophet Yahyā, or John the Baptist, said to the self-righteous and arrogant Jews:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8)

It was recently suggested to me by an ignorant person that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is the last prophet because he had no biological son that survived into adulthood who would succeed him to the prophetic office. This is a gross misreading of the blessed Āyah:

مَا کَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ اَبَاۤ اَحَدٍ مِّنۡ رِّجَالِکُمۡ وَلٰکِنۡ رَّسُوۡلَ اللّٰہِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِیّٖنَ

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allāh and Seal of the Prophets

(Juz 22, Sūrah 33, Āyah 40)

Firstly, the words ‘your men’ are restricted to the adult men who are being addressed in this Āyah, which must necessarily include sayyidina Zayd رضى الله عنه, as the context clearly indicates. The purpose of the Āyah is to establish that despite his adoption by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, sayyidina Zayd bin Hārithah al-Kalbi’s رضى الله عنه father is not the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and therefore, there should be no objection to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم marrying sayyidina Zayd’s ex-wife, sayyidatuna Zaynab bint Jahsh رضى الله عنها. The Āyah subsequently mentions that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Messenger of God and Seal of the Prophets as compensation for the apparent shortcoming of not being the father of adult men (considered a shortcoming in the Jāhili Arab culture but not a shortcoming in reality).

Mulla Ali al-Qari's Athari Leaning

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وبارك وسلم وصلى عليه

Mulla Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 H) رحمة الله عليه was a great Sunni Hanafi scholar. He defended Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah رحمة الله عليه and his student Ibn al-Qayyim رحمة الله عليه from the attacks of Ibn Hajr al-Haytami, saying:

صَانَهُمَا اللَّهُ عَنْ هَذِهِ السِّمَةِ الشَّنِيعَةِ وَالنِّسْبَةِ الْفَظِيعَةِ، وَمَنْ طَالَعَ شَرْحَ مَنَازِلِ السَّائِرِينَ لِنَدِيمٍ الْبَارِيِّ الشَّيْخُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ الْحَنْبَلِيُّ قَدَّسَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى سِرَّهُ الْجَلِيَّ وَهُوَ شَيْخُ الْإِسْلَامِ عِنْدَ الصُّوفِيَّةِ حَالَ الْإِطْلَاقِ بِالِاتِّفَاقِ، تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ أَنَّهُمَا كَانَا مِنْ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَالْجَمَاعَةِ، ‌بَلْ ‌وَمِنْ ‌أَوْلِيَاءِ ‌هَذِهِ ‌الْأُمَّةِ

Translation: “...they [Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim] were from Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, rather from the Awliya’ of this Ummah.” (Mirqat al-Mafatih; v.8, p.148)

Regarding the controversy on the Siffat (divine attributes) of Allah, Mulla Ali al-Qari wrote:

وَتَبَيَّنَ مَرَامُهُ، وَظَهَرَ أَنَّ مُعْتَقَدَهُ مُوَافِقٌ لِأَهْلِ الْحَقِّ مِنَ السَّلَفِ وَجُمْهُورِ الْخَلَفِ، فَالطَّعْنُ الشَّنِيعُ وَالتَّقْبِيحُ الْفَظِيعُ غَيْرُ مُوَجَّهٍ عَلَيْهِ وَلَا مُتَوَجِّهٍ إِلَيْهِ، فَإِنَّ كَلَامَهُ بِعَيْنِهِ مُطَابِقٌ لِمَا قَالَهُ الْإِمَامُ الْأَعْظَمُ، وَالْمُجْتَهِدُ الْأَقْدَمُ فِي فِقْهِهِ الْأَكْبَرِ مَا نَصُّهُ وَلَهُ تَعَالَى يَدٌ وَوَجْهٌ وَنَفْسٌ، فَمَا ذَكَرَ اللَّهُ فِي الْقُرْآنِ مِنْ ذِكْرِ الْوَجْهِ وَالْيَدِ وَالنَّفْسِ فَهُوَ لَهُ صِفَاتٌ بِلَا كَيْفٍ، وَلَا يُقَالُ إِنَّ يَدَهُ قُدْرَتُهُ أَوْ نِعْمَتُهُ لِأَنَّ فِيهِ إِبْطَالَ الصِّفَةِ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَهْلِ الْقَدَرِ وَالِاعْتِزَالِ، وَلَكِنَّ يَدَهُ صِفَتُهُ بِلَا كَيْفٍ، وَغَضَبُهُ وَرِضَاهُ صِفَتَانِ مِنْ صِفَاتِهِ بِلَا كَيْفٍ

Translation: “his [Ibn al-Qayyim’s] objective has become clear and it has become apparent that his belief is in agreement with the people of truth from the Salaf and the majority of the Khalaf (latecomers). Hence, slanderous revilement and heinous rebuke does not fall upon him and is not directed towards him. For his words are exactly in agreement with what the Great Imam, the Foremost Mujtahid [i.e. Abu Hanifah] said in al-Fiqh al-Akbar, whose text is as follows: ‘And He, the Exalted has a hand (yad), a face (wajh) and a self (nafs).’ Thus whatever Allah mentioned in the Quran of the mention of the face, hand and self, then they are His attributes without asking how. And it is not said that His hand is His power (qudrah) or favor (ni’mah), because in this is a nullification of the attribute and it is the saying of the people of Qadr and I’tizal (the Mu’tazilah). Rather, His hand is His attribute without how, and His anger and pleasure are two of His attributes without how.” (ibid; v.8, p.149)

Modernist Muhammad Abduh's Rejection of Polygyny and Hadith

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وبارك وسلم وصلى عليه

Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), one of the modernists and reformists of the Azhari school, was a Freemason, a member of various Masonic lodges, like his mentor Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani.

His dissent from Sunni orthodoxy, that is the main Jama’ah of the Muslims, is indisputable. Among his heresies was that the statutory laws of Islam in the Shari’ah are mutable, that they are subject to change and modification in keeping with the spirit of modernity. Concerning polygyny, which is clearly sanctioned in the holy Quran (Surah 4, Ayah 3) and upon which the Ummah has an Ijma (consensus), Abduh advocated for its abolition:

فَيَجِبُ عَلَى الْعُلَمَاءِ النَّظَرُ فِي هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ خُصُوصًا الْحَنَفِيَّةَ مِنْهُمُ الَّذِينَ بِيَدِهِمُ الْأَمْرُ، وَعَلَى مَذْهَبِهِمُ الْحُكْمُ، فَهُمْ لَا يُنْكِرُونَ أَنَّ الدِّينَ ‌أُنْزِلَ ‌لِمَصْلَحَةِ النَّاسِ، وَخَيْرِهِمْ، وَأَنَّ مِنْ أُصُولِهِ مَنْعَ الضَّرَرِ، وَالضِّرَارِ، فَإِذَا تَرَتَّبَ عَلَى شَيْءٍ مَفْسَدَةٌ فِي زَمَنٍ لَمْ تَكُنْ تَلْحَقُهُ فِيمَا قَبْلَهُ فَشَكَّ فِي وُجُوبِ تَغَيُّرِ الْحُكْمِ، وَتَطْبِيقِهِ عَلَى الْحَالِ الْحَاضِرَةِ

Translation: “It is required from the Ulama to revise this issue…the Din was revealed for the welfare of the people and their good and its basis is to prevent harm and destruction. So if there is something causing corruption at an age that was not such previously, then without doubt the ruling should be changed and modified in accordance with the present."

(Tafsir al-Manar; v.4, p.350)

Concerning the government and leadership of a woman, whether it is the position of ruler or judge, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

لَنْ يُفْلِحَ قَوْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَةً

A nation ruled by a woman shall never succeed

(Sahih al-Bukhari)

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم uttered these golden words when he was informed that the daughter of Khosrow II Parviz لعنة الله عليه a woman named Boran (d. 632 CE) had become Queen of Persia. Her reign was short lived and oversaw the rapid decline of the Empire, fulfilling the prophecy of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. But the words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم were not solely prophetic, rather, ahl-us-Sunnah are agreed that they constitute the basis for the prohibition of giving women positions of leadership or judgment. But the modernist heretic Muhammad Abduh dissented from this ruling, and wrote concerning the Hadith about Boran:

أما حديث: ما أفلح قوم يلي أمرهم امرأة فهو نبوءة سياسية من الرسول - صلى الله عليه وسلم - بفشل الفرس المجوس أولئك الذين ملكوا عليهم امرأة وليس حكمًا بتحريم ولاية المرأة للقضاء .. فلا ولايتها العامة ولا الخاصة كانت بالقضية المطروحة على مجتمع النبوة كي تقال فيها الأحاديث

Translation: “It is a political prophecy from the Messenger about the failure of the Persian Magians - they were the ones who were ruled by a woman. It is not a command of prohibition for the leadership of women, neither general nor specific."

(Al-Islam wal-Mustaqbil; p.232)

Fitnah of Anti-Clericalism

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

اللهم صلى على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وبارك وسلم وصلى عليه

لا حول ولا قوة الا بالله

لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله

Islamic Perspective on Clericalism

The phenomenon of clericalism reached its extreme manifestation in the Roman Catholic Church. The Church’s clergy is rigidly hierarchical and organized, with the Pope at the top, under whom are the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The seat of the Roman Church is of course Rome, and now specifically the Vatican. During the late medieval period the Church was at its height of power and pomp. Its clergy was a wealthy, landowning class, and exerted considerable political authority in Europe and all of Christendom, such that even the Christian kings, rulers, knights, nobility and lay aristocracy were to a degree subservient to them, for the Pope had the authority to excommunicate kings, an authority he utilized if a king would threaten the political or economic interests of the Church. The situation was somewhat similar during the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s صلى الله عليه وسلم advent. The clergy and bishops of the various Christian Churches in Europe and the Near East wielded considerable power in secular affairs, that is, they had economic and political interests and surrounded Caesar in his court. Likewise, in Iran, the Zoroastrian clergy or priesthood was a wealthy and powerful aristocracy. The appearance of a humble Prophet in Arabia was a mighty challenge to the clergy of these false religions, including to their political and economic interests. Allah Most High says:

اِتَّخَذُوۡۤا اَحۡبَارَہُمۡ وَرُہۡبَانَہُمۡ اَرۡبَابًا مِّنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ وَالۡمَسِیۡحَ ابۡنَ مَرۡیَمَ

They have taken their learned scholars and monks as lords beside Allah, and [they have taken as lord beside Allah] the Messiah, Son of Mary

(Juz 10, Surah 9, Ayah 31)

یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡۤا اِنَّ کَثِیۡرًا مِّنَ الۡاَحۡبَارِ وَالرُّہۡبَانِ لَیَاۡکُلُوۡنَ اَمۡوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالۡبَاطِلِ وَیَصُدُّوۡنَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَالَّذِیۡنَ یَکۡنِزُوۡنَ الذَّہَبَ وَالۡفِضَّۃَ وَلَا یُنۡفِقُوۡنَہَا فِیۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ ۙ فَبَشِّرۡہُمۡ بِعَذَابٍ اَلِیۡمٍ

O you who believe! Surely, many of the learned scholars and monks devour the wealth of the people by false means and turn [people] away from the Way of Allah. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the Way of Allah – give to them the tidings of a painful punishment

(Juz 10, Surah 9, Ayah 34)

These holy and blessed passages in the Quran repudiate the evil of clericalism in its most corrupt manifestation. However, from this it should not be concluded that there is no concept of clergy as such in Islam. In these passages occurs the term Ahbâr which is the plural of Hibr , and it refers to the learned divines or scholars of the Religion. Sayyidina Abd Allah bin Abbas رضى الله عنهما a learned companion and relative of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was dubbed the حبر الامة ‘Hibr of the Ummah’. Likewise, among the Tabi’in, sayyidina Abi Ishaq Ka’b bin Man’i al-Himyari رضى الله عنه was titled الاحبار meaning he was so knowledgable of the Torah, especially its esoteric meaning, that his title was plural of hibr (religious scholar) though he was an individual. The holy Quran enjoins the creation of a learned class of religious scholars:

فَلَوۡلَا نَفَرَ مِنۡ کُلِّ فِرۡقَۃٍ مِّنۡہُمۡ طَآئِفَۃٌ لِّیَتَفَقَّہُوۡا فِی الدِّیۡنِ

Why, then, does not a party from every section of them go forth that they may become well versed in Religion

(Juz 11, Surah 9, Ayah 122)

*Incidentally, this Ayah demonstrates that the term firqah ‘sect’ or ‘section’ does not always have a negative connotation in Islam, contrary to the laughable claim of the so-called non-denominational ‘Muslim-only’ movements that have risen in modern times.

The institution of Ulama, the learned religious scholars, is also sanctioned and praised in the holy Quran:

اِنَّمَا یَخۡشَی اللّٰہَ مِنۡ عِبَادِہِ الۡعُلَمٰٓؤُا

(Juz 22, Surah 35, Ayah 28)

Anti-clericalism, an extreme reaction to the excesses of the Church, was most prominently manifested in the French Revolution. Islam is therefore the middle path and moderate approach between the two extremes of excessive clericalism and anti-clericalism. The Roman Catholic Church, especially in the Middle Ages, is an example of the former, while the French Revolution and thereafter the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia were examples of the latter. Now restricting to the world of Islam, the anti-clerical tendency was prominently manifested in Kemalist Turkey while excessive clericalism can be seen in what came about due to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Khomeini’s theory of Wilâyat al-Faqîh ‘government of the Islamic jurist’ is certainly a blueprint for excessive clericalism, the kind which is similar to what is found in the Roman Catholic Church and condemned in the passages of the Quran already cited. Today, much of the class of Shi’ah Mullas in Iran, who are politically empowered and enjoy a position of authority in that country, are extremely corrupt and have major economic interests, including the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ Ali Khamanei, who is Khomeini’s successor and has been ruling Iran since 1989. On the other hand, Kemal ‘Atatürk’ was a persecutor of the Religion, comparable to the likes of Nero and Diocletian. Before him, Muhammad Ali Pasha, the 19^th century Ottoman governor of Egypt, exhibited excessive anti-clerical tendencies, in his project to ‘modernize’ Egypt. He actively sought to minimize the influence and limit the independence of the Ulama and the Sufi orders, a legacy that was inherited and continues among most of the Arab States today. The tendency of anti-clericalism is also ideologically expressed in folk poetry of the Muslim East (particularly Persia and India) where the term Mulla has become a derisive label. Some of the Sufis, especially the antinomians (who are in reality pseudo-Sufis), introduced this harmful narrative which has taken hold of the minds of many ordinary Muslims. It directly fed into the propoganda of the Marxist and Leftist trends that achieved a space for themselves in much of the Muslim world. Likewise, certain radical and dissenting religious movements among the Muslims, such as the Ahmadiyyah (Qadiyani) movement, the Hadith-rejecters (so-called ‘Quranists’) and others, have strong anti-clerical tendencies and an anti-clerical narrative, as clericalism is associated with the traditional Sunni orthodoxy that they dissent from. This is especially true in the colonial and post-colonial age where the influence of the Ulama has increased in certain parts of the Sunni Muslim world, especially the Indian subcontinent, due to the vacuum left behind with the fall of the great Muslim empires and dynasties. The anti-clerical tendency has a milder manifestation among the rejecters of Taqlîd; such as the Modernist school of Aligarh (founded by Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan), a rigid section of the so-called Ahl al-Hadith movement, and Muslim freethinkers in general. It also has a mild manifestation among the so-called political ‘Islamist’ groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood founded in Egypt and the Jama’ati Islami of Mawdudi that is active in the Indian subcontinent. The political ‘Islamist’ trends, because they were founded by laypersons (although the term ‘laity’ isn’t exactly appropriate in the Islamic context), meaning individuals who were not from among the learned, traditional Ulama, was never fully embraced by the latter, and in fact at times and places even actively opposed by them. In India, the traditionalist and conservative Ulama of Deoband strongly opposed Mawdudi and his ideology. But in modern day Pakistan, the Ulama of Deoband have formed political parties to represent their interests, which are active in electoral politics, and often form electoral alliances of convenience with the non-clerical Jama’ati Islami. Due to this realpolitik both sides have toned down the polemical rhetoric against each other.

In the history of Prophesy (Nubuwwah) the manifestation of excessive clericalism which reached a point where it openly opposed an actual Prophet of God, can be seen during the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ عليه السلام. The Gospels speak at length of how the Pharisees, Sadducees, Soferim (Scribes), and teachers of the Law in general, were the most outspoken opponents of Jesus Christ عليه السلام to the extent that the Sanhedrin itself, a wholly clerical institution in Judaism, condemned him (though it is mentioned that a minority of individuals within the Sanhedrin were sympathetic to Jesus). In the holy Quran it says:

فَلَمَّاۤ اَحَسَّ عِیۡسٰی مِنۡہُمُ الۡکُفۡرَ

So when Jesus sensed from them unbelief

(Part 3, Surah 3, Ayah 52)

Although this verse is referring to the unbelief of the Children of Israel in general, history bears witness that it was the clerical class of the Jews, the Pharisees, who spearheaded this reaction of unbelief and rejection toward Jesus Christ عليه السلام and the general masses of the nation followed their direction in committing this unbelief. The wording of this Ayah is significant in that it uses the verb ‘he sensed’ or ‘he perceived’ for Jesus عليه السلام. It may be that he was able to sense their unbelief due to their outward reception of his prophetic message, implying that that reaction was not initially categorical and blatant rejection, or that he was able to sense that unbelief within their hearts and minds by means of kashf or a divinely inspired unveiling of the reality of hidden and unseen matters which the Prophets definitively experience, and which the Saints and even ordinary Believers of this Ummah also experience though not with the same clarity and definitiveness of Prophets. In the history of this Ummah, there were also sections of the so-called Ulama, especially the clerical establishment that had the ear of the Sultan, who opposed and even persecuted the great Mujaddids, Saints, mystics and sages of this Ummah. This is especially true of those Mujaddids and Imams who appeared from within the great Sunni Hanbali tradition, beginning with Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal رحمة الله عليه himself, but also Ibn Taymiyah and Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. In fact, each of the Four Imams of Fiqh, including Imam al-A’zam Abi Hanifah رحمة الله عليه had to suffer some degree of persecution by the government of their day due to the influence of the clerical establishment that had the ear of the Sultan. In various Ahadith, the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم warned about the evil Ulama, misguiding Imams, and those who are close to the Rulers, particularly the Qurra (professional Quran-reciters):

‌إِنَّ ‌أَكْثَرَ ‌مُنَافِقِي ‌أُمَّتِي ‌قُرَّاؤُهَا

Verily, most of the hypocrites in my Ummah are its Quran-reciters

(Musnad Ahmad)

The field of Qira’ah has been mastered by the Quran-reciters of Egypt. In modern times, these Qurra tend to be close to and under the control of the State and the Government. The Ulama of Al-Azhar University are known for their modernist and even liberal tendencies, and their passing of fatawa or legal opinions due to fear of the State and not fear of Allah. These Qurra and so-called Ulama have a specific uniform and appearance; they are often clean shaven, itself a sin that opposes the Prophetic Sunnah, and wear a specific turban style that has no tail (they wrap a white cloth around a red fez). Tellingly, the Roman Catholic Church in it’s desire to find an equivalent establishment among the Muslims with which they may enter into dialogue and cooperation, primarily reach out to and have developed a working relationship with the senior Ulama of Al-Azhar University.

In conclusion, I say that Islam values and is protected by the institution of the conservative Sunni Ulama. This blessed category of Ulama who teach and protect the Religion are characterized by having the correct aqidah (creed) especially strict monotheism, personal piety, other-worldliness, distance and independence from the corrupt rulers, humility, and being outspoken against evils that are afflicting modern society. They also embrace those Mujaddids (Reformers) and Saints who rise, from time to time, within the Ummah to call it to rectification and purification, rather than opposing them in the way of the corrupt clerical establishment. Today, the anti-clerical strain is still strong and even spreading within the Ummah. The anti-clerical narrative of the Leftists is particularly dangerous and must be intellectually repudiated from the pulpits and every other legitimate platform by men of belief and conviction.

Shirk of Grave Worship and Istighathah

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

الصلاة والسلام على سيدنا ونبينا محمد

Barelawis claim that the common elders, saints and Sufis that are recognized by all branches and schools of ahl-us-Sunnah held the same doctrines of them, particularly concerning the issues of tawassul, istighathah, isti’anah and istimdad. Let us examine what the great Imam and Mujaddid, Muhammad Tahir al-Fattani al-Gujarati [d. 986 H] said about beseeching the Prophets and the pious for the fulfilment of needs:

كره مالك أن يقول زرنا قبره صلى الله عليه وسلم وعللوه بأن لفظ الزيارة صار مشتركا بين ما شرع وما لم يشرع فإن منهم من قصد بزيارة قبور الأنبياء والصلحاء أن يصلي عند قبورهم ويدعو عندها ويسألهم الحوائج وهذا لا يجوز عند أحد من علماء المسلمين فإن العبادة وطلب الحوائج والإستعانة حق لله وحده

“...among them is one who deliberately visits the graves of the Prophets and Pious to pray at their graves, to supplicate there and ask them for the fulfilment of needs, and this is not permissible according to any of the Ulama of the Muslims. It is only the right of Allah alone that worship, fulfilment of needs and aid be sought from.” (Majma Bihar ul-Anwar; v.2, p.444)

Likewise, Qadhi Thanaullah al-Panipati [d. 1225 H] says:

اور نہ خدا کے سوا کسی سے امداد چاہنا جائز ہے

“Neither is it allowed to seek aid from anyone other than God”

فوت شدہ یا زندہ اولیا اور انبیا سے دعا مانگنا جائز نہیں

“Praying to deceased or living Saints and Prophets is not permissible”

(Irshad ut-Talibin; p.23)

انبیاء اور اولیاء کی قبروں کو سجدہ کرنا اور قبور کے ارد گرد طواف کرنا اور ان سے دعا مانگنا اور ان کے لۓ نذر قبول کرنا حرام ہے بلکہ یہ چیزیں کفر تک پہنچا دیتی ہیں

“Prostrating to the graves of the Prophets and Saints, circling graves, praying to them and accepting boons from them is forbidden, rather, these things lead to unbelief.” (Mala Buddu Minhu; p.82)

Mahmud al-Alusi [d.1270 H], the well known mufassir, writes:

أن الناس ‌قد ‌أكثروا من دعاء غير الله تعالى من الأولياء الأحياء منهم والأموات وغيرهم، مثل يا سيدي فلان أغثني، وليس ذلك من التوسل المباح في شيء، واللائق بحال المؤمن عدم التفوه بذلك وأن لا يحوم حول حماه، وقد عدّه أناس من العلماء شركا

(Ruh al-Ma’ani; v.7, p.181)