Hadith: "No Prophesy After Me Except the Mubashirat"

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

The bigoted Ulama who raise the slogan of khatm an-Nubuwwa (finality of prophesy) do not realize how great a divine blessing the institution of prophesy really is. Their narrow interpretation of the matter is motivated by a fear of losing influence to charismatic, prophet-like figures. Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wa-aalihi wasallam) was informed that although he is the Seal of the Prophets and that the divine legislation and guidance was completed through him, a portion of prophesy shall remain within him Umma as a divine favor. He (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) stated in a Hadith narrated by sayyidina Aba at-Tufail (radi Allahu anhu):

لَا نُبُوَّةَ بَعْدِي إِلَّا الْمُبَشِّرَاتِ

“There is no prophesy after me except the Mubashirat.”

(Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal)

This is an authentic Hadith, as stated by the muhaddithin. Al-Haythami has mentioned the fact that all the narrators are trustworthy (Majma az-Zawaid v.7 p.173):

The muhaddith Shuayb Arnaut, in his checking of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, has stated that all of the narrators are narrators of the Shaikhain (al-Bukhari and Muslim) with the exception of Uthman b. Ubaid ar-Rasibi, who was authenticated by Yahya b. Ma’in, Abu Hatim ar-Razi and Ibn Hibban (Musnad al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal: v.39, p.213, Hadith #23795):

Likewise, the muhaddith Hamza Ahmad az-Zayn declared this Hadith authentic in his checking of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad (v.17, pp.125-126, Hadith #23685):

There are supporting narrations, such as the narration of Hudaifa b. Asid that the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) said:

ذَهَبَتِ الْنُّبُوَّةُ فَلَا نُبُوَّةَ بَعْدِى إِلَّا الْمُبَشِّرَاتُ

“Prophesy has concluded, so there is no prophesy after me except the Mubashirat”

(Mujam al-Kabir: v.3, p.200, Hadith #3051):

Grammatically, the wording of the Hadith proves that the Mubashirat is a type of Nubuwwa which has been critically excepted from the general cessation of prophesy. Other, more well known versions of the Hadith state that “nothing remains of prophesy except the Mubashirat” and that the Mubashirat is one of the parts of prophesy, one of the forty-six parts of prophesy, etc. But the narration I have brought out from Aba at-Tufail and Hudaifa b. Asid has a particular wording which proves that the Mubashirat is a genus of prophesy in it of itself that remains within this Umma until Judgment Day. The use of the exceptive particle illa which is known as harf al-istithna indicates that the Mubashirat is the exception (mustathna) to the cessation to the antecedent of the exception (mustathna minh), which is Nubuwwa. Therefore, the Mubashirat is a category of Nubuwwa. Those who might argue that this is an example of al-istithna al-munqata and therefore the Mubashirat is not in the same genus as Nubuwwa or not a category of Nubuwwa are refuted by the fact that other Ahadith clearly state that the Mubashirat is a part of Nubuwwa, one of the forty-six parts of Nubuwwa, etc. Therefore, the wording of the Hadith is explicit in proving that prophesy has ceased generally, but the Mubashirat is a form of prophesy that has been excepted and continues among the Umma. As for the explanation of the Mubashirat to mean good visions, the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) reportedly said:

إِنَّ رُؤْيَا الْمُؤْمِنِ كَلَامٌ يُكَلِّمُ بِهِ الْعَبْدَ رَبُّهُ فِي الْمَنَامِ

“Verily, the vision of a believer is (divine) converse in which the slave converses with his Lord in sleep.”

(as-Sunna of Ibn Abi Asim; pp.213-214, Hadith #486 and #487)

Naturally, the believer who experiences the Mubashirat with greater frequency and intensity has that aspect of Nubuwwa within him at a higher degree and can be said to be a prophet at least partially, since he exhibits a portion of prophesy.

Does the Sun Set in Dark Water (Part 2)

I’ve already answered a common objection against the divinity of the holy Quran, namely that it teaches that the sun sets in a spring of dark mud. In this article I shall deal with a particular Hadith in which it is reported that the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) himself explained that the sun sets in a spring of dark mud:

عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ، قَالَ كُنْتُ رَدِيفَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهُوَ عَلَى حِمَارٍ وَالشَّمْسُ عِنْدَ غُرُوبِهَا فَقَالَ  هَلْ تَدْرِي أَيْنَ تَغْرُبُ هَذِهِ  . قُلْتُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَمُ . قَالَ  فَإِنَّهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنِ حَامِيَةٍ

Narrated Abi Dharr (radi Allahu anhu): I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water. (Sunan Abi Dawud #4002)

The principle of our madhhab and maslak is not to accept every narration simply because it has come in a classic book of Hadith. In fact, we reject this narration of the sun setting in a spring of warm water because it manifestly contradicts a more authoritative version of the Hadith which appears in the Sahihayn. In that Hadith, the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) explained to sayyidina Abi Dharr al-Ghifari (radi Allahu anhu): “It goes and prostrates beneath the Throne, then it asks for permission (to rise) and permission is given to it. Soon it will prostrate, but it will not be accepted from it, and it will ask for permission (to rise) but permission will not be given to it; it will be said to it: “Go back to where you came from.’ So it will rise from its place of setting, and that is what Allah, may He be glorified, refers to in the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing” [Yaa-Seen 36:38]. 

I shall comment on the meaning of this Hadith shortly. But first, it is quite clear that the narration from the Sunan of Abi Dawud which states that the sun sets in a spring of warm water must be rejected. Not only does it conflict with this more authoritative version of the Hadith, it also has some weakness in its chain:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/176375/the-correct-way-to-describe-the-sun-is-that-it-prostrates-beneath-the-throne-and-not-that-it-sets-in-a-spring-of-warm-water

From the above it is clear that the version of the hadeeth of Abu Dharr which is most likely to be correct is the first one, in which it says: “It goes and prostrates beneath the Throne”, in which it makes no mention of it setting “in a spring of warm water (innaha taghrubu fi ‘aynin haamiyah).” This is based on several factors: 

~1~

This wording is that on which the majority of narrators and those with the best memories agreed upon, in the report from Ibraaheem at-Taymi. 

~2~

The second version (“in a spring of warm water”) was narrated only by al-Hakam ibn ‘Utaybah from Ibraahem, and al-Hakam – although he was trustworthy – was described by an-Nasaa’i as mudallis [i.e., he used vague wording to give a wrong impression] in Dhikr al-Mudalliseen (no. 11). Ibn Hibbaan said: He used to engage in tadlees. End quote from ath-Thiqaat (4/144). None of those who narrated his hadeeth said that he clearly stated that he heard it from the previous narrator; rather they all said that his report included the word ‘an (from – instead of ‘I heard’, etc). Ibn Hajar mentioned him in Maraatib al-Mudalliseen in the second rank of mudalliseen (p. 30), who are the ones whose tadlees the imams (leading scholars) tolerated and from whom they narrated reports that they regarded as sound, because of their prominence and because they rarely engaged in tadlees  compared to others, such as ath-Thawri; or (it was tolerated) because they did not use engage in tadlees except when narrating from a trustworthy source, such as Ibn ‘Uyaynah. The fact that this report is contrary to the report narrated by the trustworthy narrators confirms the possibility that tadlees occurred in this hadeeth in particular. 

~3~

The first version was narrated by both al-Bukhaari and Muslim, whereas the second version was not narrated by these two shaykhs. That is because they thought the first version was more likely to be correct than any other. Undoubtedly the reports in the books of al-Bukhaari and Muslim take precedence, according to the critics and scholars, than those in other books and Musnads. 

~4~

There is a great difference between the two versions. The first one describes the sun as prostrating beneath the Throne, whether at the time of sunset or at any other time, according to different versions of the hadeeth. Prostration beneath the Throne is a matter of the unseen, and no one knows how it is except Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. He, may He be glorified and exalted, has told us that all created things prostrate to Him, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“See you not that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the mountains, and the trees, and Ad-Dawab (moving living creatures, beasts, etc.), and many of mankind? But there are many (men) on whom the punishment is justified”

[al-Hajj 22:18].

No one knows how this prostration is or when it happens or its real nature except Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. Similarly, the hadeeth of Abu Dharr is no different from this verse at all, and there is nothing objectionable in it. 

Al-Khattaabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

It cannot be denied that it halts beneath the Throne, in a manner that we cannot see or comprehend; rather this is speaking about a matter of the unseen. So we should not disbelieve in it or ask how it happens, because our knowledge cannot comprehend it.

End quote from A‘laam al-Hadeeth Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari (p. 1893) 

With regard to the second version, “It sets in a spring of warm water”, this is problematic, because the setting of the sun occurs when its disc disappears below the horizon, and it sets on some people and rises on others because of the movement of the earth around it. So it is not possible that the sun, which is of immense size, could disappear into a spring of warm water. With regard to the words of Allah, may He be exalted, in the story of Dhu’l-Qarnayn (interpretation of the meaning): “Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water” [al-Kahf 18:86], the commentators said that what is meant is to depict the scene that appeared before him, for he saw it on the horizon of the sea, as if it were sinking into it at the time of setting. The Holy Qur’an does not tell us that this was something that happnened in a real sense; hence Allah, may He be glorified, said “he found it setting” and He did not say “it was setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water.” 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

That is, he way he saw the sun was as if it was setting in the ocean, which is something that happens to everyone who stands on the shore: he sees the sun as if it is setting into the sea, when in fact it does not leave the celestial path on which it is firmly established.

End quote from Tafseer al-Qur’an al-Kareem (5/191) 

To sum up: whoever casts aspersions on the Sunnah because of this wording is ignorant of the precision of the hadeeth scholars in examining different versions of the hadeeth and distinguishing between the reports which are proven and those which are not proven. The fact that some scholars regarded this report as saheeh is problematic; rather what they intended was to class as saheeh the basis of the hadeeth, not to suggest that this version is more correct than that which is proven in as-Saheehayn: “It goes and prostrates beneath the Throne.”

Here I would like to point out that the Hadith of the sun prostrating beneath the Throne and requiring permission to rise are matters of the unseen which we cannot comprehend. True, the sun’s rising and setting is due to the rotation of the Earth upon its own axis, which is why when it is night in one hemisphere there is daylight on the other. For this reason, it may be said that the Hadith wording of the sun requiring permission to rise is problematic. One may even reject it as being true because these are not the divine Words of Allah. There is the possibility of a mistake in the narration or that the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) misunderstood the divine inspiration regarding the sun but Allah knows best.

Salat Cannot Be Enforced by the State

Recently, another clip from Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza was released in which he has committed another blunder due to sheer ignorance and misunderstanding the basic principles of Islam. According to the Engineer, the state is responsible for enforcing people to offer the Salat:

The Engineer has quoted some Ahadith and narrations to prove his argument. First he mentions the following Hadith:

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ إِذَا غَزَا بِنَا قَوْمًا لَمْ يَكُنْ يَغْزُو بِنَا حَتَّى يُصْبِحَ وَيَنْظُرَ، فَإِنْ سَمِعَ أَذَانًا كَفَّ عَنْهُمْ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ أَذَانًا أَغَارَ عَلَيْهِمْ

“When the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) went out with us to fight a people, he would not allow us to attack till morning. He would wait and see, if he heard the Adhan he would leave them, and if he did not hear the Adhan he would attack them.” (agreed upon)

But this Hadith has no bearing on the issue of the state enforcing the Salat. Rather, this Hadith is concerning Jihad and illustrates the fact that it is forbidden for Muslims to fight a people who proclaim the Adhan, as the Adhan is a salient feature of Islam, and the proclamation of the Adhan from a locality is sufficient to regard it as a Muslim locality. Next, the Engineer mentions the following narration of sayyidina Ibn Mas’ud (radi Allahu anhu):

قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُنَا وَمَا يَتَخَلَّفُ عَنِ الصَّلاَةِ إِلاَّ مُنَافِقٌ قَدْ عُلِمَ نِفَاقُهُ

“We have seen that no one stayed away from the Salat except a hypocrite whose hypocrisy was known.” (Sahih Muslim)

Once again, I am deeply surprised at how the otherwise intelligent Engineer thinks this is a solid proof for the idea that the state should enforce offering of the Salat. The fact of the matter is sayyidina Ibn Masud’s purpose was to explain the importance of the Salat and that during the time of the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) it was only the well-known hypocrites who neglected offering the Salat in congregation. Ironically, this narration actually refutes the Engineer’s entire thesis, because we know of no incident in which the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) punished any of those hypocrites who did not offer the Salat in congregation. The fact that he left them alone demonstrates that it is not the state’s function to enforce the Salat and to punish people for neglecting its offering the mosque or in congregation. I should also point out that this was only applicable during the time of the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) when Islam was manifest and fully established, such that only the open and well known hypocrite would be negligent of offering the Salat in congregation. In our time, it is irresponsible to say that those who are negligent of the Salat or coming to the mosque and praying in congregation are outright hypocrites. No doubt, they are grave sinners whose faith is weak. Some among them may indeed be hypocrites, but we cannot determine that unless the hypocrite himself openly renounces Islam or unless Allah sends down the revelation of prophesy identifying for us who the hypocrites are. But after the sealing of prophesy, it is impossible for the Muslims to determine with absolute certainty whether an individual is a hypocrite. Only Allah Most High knows the true state of a person’s heart, the Muslims are only given dispensation to judge by what is apparent. Now according to the Shari’a, parents are obliged to teach their children to pray when they reach the age of seven, and when they reach the age of ten they may be physically disciplined if they become negligent in offering the prayer. However, once a child reaches adolescence the parents are no longer able to physically discipline him regarding the Salat. This is a clear proof from the Shari’a that neither the State nor anyone else has the authority to enforce the Salat on any individual Muslim. The command to discipline a ten year old child with regard to the Salat is the extent of the parents’ responsibility to ensure that their children are doing right before they reach the age of maturity. Indeed, any Salat that someone is compelled to pray as a sane adult and doesn’t pray voluntarily is unacceptable to Allah. The basic requirement for the acceptance of Salat is that the worshiper must be offering it out of his own free will and not out of fear of any human being. Hence Allah says:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ

There is no compulsion in Religion

(Sura 2:256)

In an authentic Hadith, the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) stated:

وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَقَدْ هَمَمْتُ أَنْ آمُرَ بِحَطَبٍ يُحْتَطَبُ، ثُمَّ آمُرَ بِالصَّلاَةِ فَيُؤَذَّنَ لَهَا، ثُمَّ آمُرَ رَجُلاً فَيَؤُمَّ النَّاسَ، ثُمَّ أُخَالِفَ إِلَى رِجَالٍ فَأُحَرِّقَ عَلَيْهِمْ بُيُوتَهُمْ

“By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I was about to order for collecting fire wood and then order someone to pronounce the Adhan for the prayer and then order someone to lead the people in prayer and then I would go from behind and burn the houses of men who did not present themselves for the (compulsory congregational) prayer.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

The Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) expressed this to illustrate the severity of neglecting the congregational Salat, but he obviously did not act upon this desire. By not acting upon it we come to know that the Salat cannot be enforced by the state or any other authority.

Sikhism is Polytheistic NOT Monotheistic

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

Many Muslims who are sympathetic to Sikhs and Sikhism are under the false impression that the latter is a monotheistic religion like Islam. The truth is Sikhism is even more polytheistic than trinitarian Christianity. While Christians believe Jesus Christ is god incarnate, the Sikhs believe that each of their ten gurus are literal incarnations of God on the Earth. This was made clear by the Sikh apologist Jagraj Singh. The latter recently died from cancer in a pathetic condition of agony immediately after having voiced his burning hatred for Islam and having the audacity to criticize our holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him & his family). In the following clip, listen to Jagraj Singh, an expert on his own religion, explain the reality of Sikhism as being a polytheistic religion which teaches that the human “gurus” were all God incarnate based on hymns (verses) from the Sikh scripture:

Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith's Position on Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

Another controversy raging within the Barelawi maslak is the status and position of Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan. Presently, the maslak has more or less been splintered into two camps; a camp which seeks to defend Mu’awiya and raises the slogan bey qasur bey khata Mu’awiya Mu’awiya and includes a major Barelawi organization, Da’wate Islami led by Ilyas Attar Qadiri. This group has even begun organising conferences and programs defending and praising Mu’awiya, following in the footsteps of the Deobandis especially the Sipahe Sahaba, as well as directing na’t khwans to sing songs extolling the virtues of Mu’awiya. The opposing camp is extremely disturbed by this novel trend and views it as a conspiracy to move the Barelawi maslak away from their traditional devotion to the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). The gaddi nashins of Ajmer in particular are spearheading this reaction, since historically they have been at the forefront in promoting Sunni-Shi’i unity. Recently, one Kamran Chishti presented a citation from the writings of the great scholar of Hadith, Shah Abd ul-Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi, in which he addresses a question concerning the reality of Marwan bin al-Hakam and Mu’awiya bin Abi Sufyan:

“Question: What is proven from Ahl us-Sunna regarding speaking ill of Hadrat Mu’awiya^RD and Marwan?

Answer: Love for the Ahl al-Bayt is from the obligations of faith, not the necessities of the Sunna. And from the love of the Ahl al-Bayt is to speak ill of Marwan curse be upon him, and one’s heart should bear enmity toward him for it was particularly he who misbehaved in the extreme with Hadrat Imam Husain^RD and the Ahl al-Bayt, and had complete enmity for them. With this understanding, one should have extreme hatred for this devil (Marwan). But Hadrat Mu’awiya^RD bin Abi Sufyan was a Sahabi his merit has been mentioned in some Ahadith. There is therefore a difference of opinion among the Ulama of Ahl us-Sunna regarding him. The Ulama of Transoxiana, the Mufasirin, and Fuqaha say that Hadrat Mu’awiya’s^RD fighting and contesting with Hadrat Ali^RD was only an error in ijtihad. The researchers of the people of Hadith, based on their checking of narrations, concluded that [Mu’awiya’s] acts were not free from selfish motives, and likewise not free from the allegation of tribal bigotry among the Umayyads in the matter of Dhi Nurain Uthman^RD. This is why such acts occurred from Hadrat Mu’awiya^RD, the result of which is that he be declared as having committed a great sin and rebellion. But the fasiq (sinner) is not worthy of being cursed.” (Fatawa Azizi pp.250-251):

I myself tend to agree with what Shah Abd ul-Aziz Muhaddith of Delhi (rahimahullah) has written here. The reader will notice that I do not add invoke the prayer radi Allahu anhu (may Allah be happy with him) for Mu’awiya, and neither do I invoke this prayer for Abu Sufyan and his wife Hinda. This is in keeping with the Prophet’s (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) instructions:

مَنْكَانَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ فَلْيَقُلْ خَيْرًا أَوْ لِيَسْكُتْ

“Whoever believe in Allah and the Last Day should either say good or be silent.”

(Sahih Muslim)

إِذَا ذُكِرَ أَصْحَابِي فَأَمْسِكُوا

“When my Companions are mentioned then withhold.”

Since I have nothing good to say about Mu’awiya, his father Abi Sufyan and his mother Hinda, I remain silent regarding them, neither invoking prayers for them nor cursing or criticising them as the Shi’a do. This is position of safety I have adapted out of caution and taqwa, and I ask Allah to compensate me for it with His mercy and bounty (Amin).

I am Seal of the Prophets While Adam Was Unformed in Clay

At present a doctrinal controversy is raging in Pakistan within the Barelwi maslak regarding the Nubuwwa of Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam). Apparently, the standard creed of the Barelwis and many other Muslims is that Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) was a prophet in prehistory, according to the supposed Hadith:

كُنْتُ نَبِيًّا وَآدَمُ بَيْنَ الْمَاءِ وَالطِّينِ

“I was a prophet (when) Adam was between water and clay.”

But this is an outright fabrication on the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam). One of the major figureheads of the Barelwis, famous for apologetics and debates defending his sect, Sa’id As’ad, came out and denounced the standard Barelwi creed, claiming it presents an irreconciliable paradox for the doctrine of khatm un-Nubuwwa. If Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) was a prophet from prehistory before the creation of primordial Adam was even complete, then the coming of a multitude of prophets after him, from Adam to Jesus, numbering perhaps as many as 124 thousand, logically means that Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) was not the last and final prophet after whom there is no other prophet. While we accept the view of the Barelwi mulla Sa’id As’ad in this matter and commend his courage for going against his own maslak, it is important to understand his basic motivation for doing so. Truth is, Sa’id As’ad had made a name for himself in criticizing the rival Deobandis for having “opened the door” for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the Qadianis. This is in reference to the founder of Deoband, Muhammad Qasim of Nanawta, having written the treatise Tahdhir un-Nas, which controversially sought to redefine the meaning of khatam an-Nabiyyin to mean something other than strict chronological finality. Now according to the Barelwis, the meaning of khatam an-Nabiyyin is that sayyidina Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) is the last and final prophet absolutely in the chronological sense, and the slightest qualification of this basic doctrine is tantamount to outright kufr, i.e., rejection of Islam. Therefore, in order to remain consistent in their criticism of the Deobandis and Qadianis, Sa’id As’ad feels the Barelwis must reject the idea that Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) was a prophet in prehistory before the creation of Adam was complete, and stick with the belief of other Muslims that Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) became a prophet at the age of forty after his experience in the Cave of Hira. Now keep in mind that Sa’id As’ad’s apparent concern for maintaining a strict literal understanding of the doctrine of khatm an-nubuwwa which doesn’t allow for even the slightest, nuanced qualification is the product of modern day political developments and the mainstream Sunni Ulama’s reaction to the Ahmadiyya/Qadiani movement. Otherwise, numerous statements from the explanation of the classical Ulama and the mystics of Islam can easily be cited demonstrating that those elders of our Religion did indeed have a very nuanced and qualified understanding of the finality of prophesy based on their enlightened wisdom and deep understanding of the spirit of Islam. The narrations presented by Barelwis and others to prove the prehistoric nubuwwa of Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) actually deal with the pre-decree of Allah and His having preordained matters. For example:

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ : قَالُوا : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَتَى وَجَبَتْ لَكَ النُّبُوَّةُ ؟ قَالَ : وَآدَمُ بَيْنَ الرُّوحِ وَالْجَسَدِ

Abi Huraira (radi Allahu anhu) narrates: They asked: “O Messenger of Allah, when was prophesy ordained for you?” He (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) said: “(When) Adam was between spirit and body.”

(Jami at-Tirmidhi)

In another Hadith:

إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ فِي أُمِّ الْكِتَابِ لَخَاتَمُ النَّبِيِّينَ ، وَإِنَّ آدَمَ لَمُنْجَدِلٌ فِي طِينَتِهِ

“I am the slave of Allah in the Mother of the Book, Seal of the Prophets (while) Adam was unformed in clay.”

(Musnad Ahmad)

Sa’id As’ad has correctly explained the matter and brought various examples. He mentions the incident of when Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) ascended Mount Uhud with three of his successors, sayyidina Abi Bakr, sayyidina Umar and sayyidina Uthman (radi Allahu anhum) and the mountain suddenly began to shake, so he (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Be firm, Uhud, for there is not upon you except a prophet, a siddiq and two martyrs.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

So he (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) named sayyidina Umar and sayyidina Uthman (radi Allahu anhuma) martyrs before they had attained martyrdom.

Ta'ifat al-Mansura (The Aided Group Upon Truth)

اشهد ان لا اله الا الله وحده لا شريك له

واشهد ان محمدا عبده ورسوله

Our time is witnessing divisions within the Muslims being exacerbated. While I do not advocate the false gospel of unity for the sake of unity, it is nevertheless quite alarming that our people have developed a sectarian mindset which prevents them from not only considering the views of others with an open mind and with the intention of seeking the truth, but even showing due regard and courtesy to those of different persuasions. In the world of religion, there are two basic levels of distinction: 1. religious tradition or community and 2. sect or denomination. The first level of difference deals with fundamental differences in the Articles of Faith. Simply put, belief in the Oneness of Allah, the Prophesy of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Afterlife are what set apart our religious tradition and community from others. Anyone who rejects one of these matters or deviates so completely in them that it becomes unrecognizable from the original belief cannot be considered a part of our religious tradition and community, namely Islam. But apart from these fundamental Articles of Faith, Islam has numerous other doctrines where Muslims themselves have differed, in some instances, considerably so. These are divisions in the branches of belief which led to the emergence of denominations and sects. During the early period of Islam, including during the latter period of the Sahaba (Allah be pleased with them), the main deviations that took hold were deviations from the Prophet’s Sunna. That is why the Muslims in that era who held on to the correct doctrine and way distinguished themselves from the host of deviated sects within Islam with the name Ahl as-Sunna or Ahl as-Sunna wal-Jama’a (people of the Sunna and the Congregation). In this designation, the term Sunna refers to the Sunna of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his rightly-guided Caliphs or Successors, and the term Jama’a refers to the collective way of the Prophet’s Companions. In distinguishing themselves from the heterodox Khawarij, Shi’a, Qadariyya, Murji’a, Mu’tazila and the like of early deviated groups, this was certainly the correct approach. However, we are living in an altogether different era with radically different circumstances. The main faultlines within the Muslims we see today are in fact much more serious than before. In particular, the deviations of tomb veneration, amulets and false doctrines such as the deceased being able to hear and the Prophets and martyrs being alive in their graves (these two doctrines are the ideological foundation for the widespread deviation in the Muslim world of calling upon the deceased). These are in fact deviations from the true and original conception of Tawhid which the Prophets of old came with and which is emphasized in the holy Scriptures. Therefore, the Muslims of our time who cling to the truth and the original teachings of Islam should distinguish themselves as people of Tawhid just as the earlier generations of Muslims distinguished themselves as people of Sunna. Of course, by Tawhid I mean the Tawhid of worship, i.e., Tawhid al-Uluhiya or Tawhid al-Ibada, and not the so-called Tawhid of the Mu’tazila. The Prophets of Allah came with the Tawhid of worship against the idolatry of their peoples, the age-old idolatry that persists today. The so-called Tawhid of the Mu’tazila has nothing to do with the Tawhid of the Prophets; rather, it is their baseless misconception that the Oneness of Allah means He does not possess any attributes. Likewise, the false “tawhid” of the Jabariyya ‘La Fa’il illa Allah’ (there is no doer except Allah), the false “tawhid” of the monist, pseudo-Sufi heretics ‘La Wujud illa Allah’ (there is no existent except Allah), and the false “tawhid” of the political fikr of hakamiyya advanced by the likes of Mawdudi that the true meaning of ‘La ilaha illa Allah’ is ‘La Hakim illa Allah’ (there is no ruler except Allah). On the contrary, the Tawhid of the Prophets is La ilaha illa Allah’ (there is none worthy of worship except Allah). Now it is certainly true that many great Muslim scholars who lived at times when they were beginning to see the deviations of calling upon other than Allah surface wrote in refutation of such a phenomenon. However, the individuals who launched full scale movements and dedicated the essence of their da’wa to Tawhid of worship and fighting idolatry were shaikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab in Arabia and Sayyid Ahmad of Barailly and Shah Isma’il of Delhi in India. Now this is the pure stream of Islam which is often termed Wahhabism with derision. Of course, I see nothing wrong with the people of Tawhid taking ownership of the term ‘Wahhabi’ and using it casually for the sake of convenience. After all, al-Wahhab (the Bestower) is one of the holy names of Allah, and so literally a Wahhabi is one who is ascribed to al-Wahhab, meaning God Himself. Therefore, I reiterate it is not so important for the Muslims who are upon the truth and the right way to identify themselves with the term Sunna as it is to identify with the term Tawhid. Indeed, the deviated groups of today call themselves people of Sunna or Sunni. For example, the grave-worshipping Barelwis and the Deobandis who believe the Prophets are alive in their graves and that the deceased can hear, and validate the unholy trade in amulets and talismans proudly claim to be Ahl us-Sunnati wal-Jama’a. In reality, they have hijacked that label and do not deserve to be given such a lofty ascription. But for the sake of convenience and for the reason I have already mentioned, let the Muslims who have the correct belief in Tawhid and who hate the idolatry of grave veneration and other un-Islamic superstitions refer to themselves as people of Tawhid or Muwahhidin and distinguish themselves from the so-called deviant “Sunni” groups. As for the term ‘Salafi’, while the so-called Salafis share our conception of the Tawhid of worship, the term Salafi should be avoided for a number of reasons. Firstly, there are different types of Salafism including the worst one which is modernist Salafism that can be traced back to Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida. Even some of those who push the false narrative of Hakamiyya and the political fikr, and engage in acts of terrorism, making takfir of other Muslims, have branded themselves ‘Salafi’. Then there is the modern Ahl al-Hadith movement which really originates in India during the 19^th century with such figures as Siddiq Hasan Khan of Bhopal and Nadhir Hussain of Delhi. They are another variant of Salafism which prioritise the science of Hadith over the principles of Tawhid. This to the extent that some of them believe the deceased can hear while others validate the unholy trade in amulets. Therefore, stick to the call and mission of the great reformers of our era like Sayyid Ahmad of Barailly and Shah Isma’il of Delhi (may Allah have mercy on them both and accept their martyrdoms). Consider the fact that these individuals did not advocate the false political fikr of Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb. Nor were they modernists like Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida and the party of Ulama which came to dominate al-Azhar University in Egypt. Nor were they Takfiri extremists. In fact, it has reached me that these two individuals were moderate Hanafis who respected the school of Imam Abi Hanifa (rahimahullah) unlike the non-conformist “Ahl al-Hadith”. They acknowledged the validity of the Sufi path of mysticism, while condemning the innovations and superstitions that had taken hold among the pseudo-Sufis of our time. Therefore, the maslak of Tawhid need not be in conflict with the way of the Sufis or with the legal school of Imam Abi Hanifa. In fact, the latter is more strict than the school of Imam ash-Shafi’i in condemning innovations and grave veneration. The Salafism of the Arabs today is severely lacking because of its opposition to the Sufi path. A major factor in that opposition is the huge influence of modernism on Salafism today. That influence is primarily in lifestyle and approach to Religion, which may be described as ‘Protestant’. It is certainly right to compare the textualist Salafis to the Christian Protestants. Their approach to religion is minimalist, essentialist, in other words, dry and narrow. It lacks both intellectualism and mystic passion. The various sects and groups in Islam each have taken something that is apparently from the Religion and emphasized it to the point that it has become deeply connected to its identity. For example, the Barelwis call to the love and devotion to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Shi’a call to the following of his family and progeny (peace be upon them). The Deobandis call to the Prophet’s Companions (Allah be pleased with them), and its missionary wing, Jama’at at-Tabligh, call to going out in the path of Allah to preach the virtues of good deeds and the lifestyle of the Companions. The Salafis call to following the Sunna and the way of the Salaf and opposing the innovations that have taken people away from the Sunna. The various Sufi orders call people to seek nearness to Allah by attachment to a guide who has inherited the legacy of the saints through an unbroken chain, and through frequent remembrance of Allah and purification of the heart. The political groups call to establishing an Islamic state or the imposition of Islamic law. The Ulama tend to call people toward acquiring religious knowledge by studying at their feet. The Jihadists call people to fight the infidel forces and defend the Muslim lands from the invaders, occupiers and colonial powers. All of these groups have taken something from Islam and emphasized it as the most critical mission. But they are all wrong. The most critical mission of Islam is to call people to worship Allah alone and to fight against idolatry in its various manifestations. This was undoubtedly the mission and work of the Prophets, therefore, how can any other effort or ministry be superior to it?

Now one of the doubts raised by the opponents of our maslak and silsila of Tawhid in this time by the propagandists of the deviated sects, especially those who identify as ahl as-Sunna, is that we are on falsehood because we do not possess an unbroken chain that includes the great saints, sages and scholars of this community and which terminates back to the time of the Prophet and his Companions. This is basically the argument of the traditionalists. It is an argument for their authenticity via inheritance of legacy. It is true that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that a group upon the truth shall never cease to exist within his community. But this doesn’t necessitate that such a group will always be present in the same land or locality. Nor does it mean they will exist as an unbroken silsila. On the contrary, the institution of the Mujaddid proves otherwise. The Mujaddidin of every century appeared in disparate places and often had no familial or scholastic connection to each other. They were simply pious Muslims who Allah raised up for the reformation of the community and to revive an aspect of the Religion that had been altered or neglected. 

Parable of the Brick (Part 2)

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

وأفضل الصلاة وأتم التسليم على سيدنا محمد وعلى آله الطيبين وصحبه الغر المحجلين ومن والاهم واتبع هداهم إلى يوم الدين

Several months ago, I discussed the Hadith of the Brick, in which the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wa-aalihi wasallam) said:

إِنَّ مَثَلِي وَمَثَلَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ مِنْ قَبْلِي كَمَثَلِ رَجُلٍ بَنَى بَيْتًا فَأَحْسَنَهُ وَأَجْمَلَهُ، إِلاَّ مَوْضِعَ لَبِنَةٍ مِنْ زَاوِيَةٍ، فَجَعَلَ النَّاسُ يَطُوفُونَ بِهِ وَيَعْجَبُونَ لَهُ، وَيَقُولُونَ هَلاَّ وُضِعَتْ هَذِهِ اللَّبِنَةُ قَالَ فَأَنَا اللَّبِنَةُ، وَأَنَا خَاتِمُ النَّبِيِّينَ

“Verily, my parable and the parable of the prophets before me is like that of a man who built a house• He beautified it except for the place of a brick in the corner• People circle it in wonder, but say: ‘Would that this brick be placed’• I am that brick, and I am the Seal of the Prophets”

This Hadith is often presented as the strongest proof from the Sunna in the arsenal of that tendency which argues for an absolute, unqualified chronological finality to the prophesy of Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam)• My own interpretation, however, is somewhat more nuanced and enlightened; hence I wrote: “This parable clearly illustrates that the purpose of the final brick is to complete the perfection and beauty of the house, without which the latter has an obvious flaw despite its general attraction at which people stare at it in appreciation and wonder”

Keep in mind this Hadith of the Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) is a parable, meaning it is not meant to be taken literally• The Prophet (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) is not literally a brick made from clay, lime, concrete or some other material• Likewise, in the parable while it is the brick that is placed last chronologically which completes the building, this does not necessitate that sayyidina Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) completes or perfects the edifice of prophesy by virtue of being the last prophet to come chronologically• It is critical to understand this point, because unlike a material building which cannot be said to be complete or perfect until the last gap is filled with a brick, the edifice of prophesy is completed and perfected by such a prophet who is the culmination of the best qualities of the other prophets, irrespective of whether he appeared at the beginning of the chain of prophesy, or somewhere in the middle or at its very end• Know that it is the greatest of the prophets in whose person the institution of prophesy reaches the pinnacle of beauty and excellence who has the most right to be compared to the last brick through which a material building is completed• That is, after all, the purpose of the parable, to illustrate how the edifice of prophesy is perfected through the person of Prophet Muhammad in the way a building is perfected when the space for a final brick is filled•

The celebrated historian and medieval Islamic thinker, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), mentioned this nuanced and accurate understanding of the Hadith of the Brick:

إشارة إلى حديث البخاري في باب خاتم النبيين، قال صلى الله عليه وسلم: " مثلي فيمن قبلي من الأنبياء كمثل رجل ابتنى بيتاً وأكمله، حتى إذا لم يبق منه إلا موضع لبنة فأنا تلك اللبنة " . فيفسرون خاتم النبيين باللبنة التي أكملت البنيان، ومعناه النبي الذي حصلت له النبوة الكاملة. ويمثلون الولاية في تفاوت مراتبها بالنبوة، ويجعلون صاحب الكمال فيها خاتم الأولياء أي حائز الرتبة التي هي خاتمة الولاية، كما كان خاتم الأنبياء حائزاً للمرتبة التي هي خاتمة النبوة. فكنى الشارع عن تلك المرتبة الخاتمة بلبنة البيت في الحديث المذكور. وهما على نسبة واحدة فيها

“With reference to a tradition reported by al-Bukhari in the chapter on the Seal of the Prophets: Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘I and the prophets before me are like a man who built a house and finished it save for one brick still to be placed. I am this brick’• Therefore, the (scholars) interpret the Seal of the Prophets as the brick needed for the completion of the building•. It means the prophet who has obtained the perfect prophecy•. Sainthood in its different degrees is compared (by the Sufis) to prophesy•. The perfect (saint) is considered to be the seal of the saints, that is, the saint who is in the possession of the rank that is the final (sealing) stage of sainthood, exactly as the Seal of the Prophets was the prophet who was in possession of the rank that is the final (sealing) stage of prophesy•. In the tradition quoted, the lawgiver used the phrase the ‘brick (that completes) the house’ for that final stage• The two things correspond to each other•” (Muqaddima Ibn Khaldun, v_•1 p_•536):

Ibn Khaldun has written this in the context of his discussion on the Sufi concept of the Mahdi, whom they regard as the ‘Seal of the Saints’ just as the Prophet Muhammad is ‘Seal of the Prophets’• The Mahdi is given the title of the Silver Brick, while the Prophet is the Golden Brick• Now it is quite obvious that the Mahdi being the Seal of the Saints is not in a chronological sense, for no one denies the possibility of sainthood after him•