ًWhite Faces of Sunnis (Sura 3:106)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

سبوحٌ قدوسٌ سبوحٌ قدوسٌ

Allah—Lord of Heaven and Earth—says:

یَّوۡمَ تَبۡیَضُّ وُجُوۡہٌ وَّ تَسۡوَدُّ وُجُوۡہٌ

On the Day when some faces shall be white and some faces shall be black

(Sura 3:106)

This Ayah has traditionally been understood as referring to an important division within the Umma itself, the division between the Saved Sect—the Sunnis—and the sects of misguidance and innovation. It is reported from sayyidina Ibn Abbas رضى الله عنهما that he explained that those whose faces will be white on Judgment Day are the ahl us-Sunna wal-Jama’a [Sunni Muslims] whereas those whose faces will be black are the ahl ul-Bid’ wal-Dalala or people of innovation and misguidance (Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim; #3950, 3951)

This is highly significant as it traces the origin of the term ahl us-Sunnati wal-Jama’a back to an illustrious companion of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم namely, Ibn Abbas رضى الله عنهما

Likewise, Ibn Umar رضى الله عنهما is also reported to have explained that the white faces in this Ayah refers to the ahl us-Sunna wal-Jama’a and the black faces refers to the people of innovation (al-Firdaws lil-Daylami; v.5, p.529, #8986)

Many Muslims nowadays are falling for the so-called non-denominational or non-sectarian call of modernist preachers and teachers. They imagine that Sunnism is a manufactured term that has no basis in early Islam, or that the Muslims who are upon the Straight Path in following the Prophet and his Companions are not meant to form an actual denomination within the Umma.

Seal of Prophets Before Him and After Him

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Yohanan Friedmann, an Israeli scholar of Islamic studies, said:

some traditionists even maintain that a person who does not believe that Muhammad was the last prophet is not a believer even if he does acknowledge Muhammad’s prophethood in general terms. One should, however, bear in mind that symbolizing the completion of some activity is only one meaning pertaining to the concept of “sealing”. Sealing may also be a guarantee of authenticity and approbation, or a device to prevent the opening of a receptacle without the knowledge of its owner. Khâtam also means an ornamental ring. And while it is true that the phrase khâtam al-nabiyyîn is generally interpreted as meaning “the last prophet”, the exegetical tradition and other branches of classical Arabic literature preserved material which indicates that this now generally received understanding of the Qur’ânic phrase is not the only possible one and had not necessarily been the earliest...we have at our disposal a number of indications to the effect that the phrase khâtam al-nabiyyîn was not always interpreted in a way compatible with the orthodox dogma. A verse included in the Dîwân of Umayya b. Abî al-Salt speaks of the Prophet as a person “by means of whom God sealed the prophets before him and after him” (bihi khatama ‘llâhu man qablahu / wa man ba’dahu min nabiyyin khatam). This verse assumes the appearance of prophets after the death of Muhammad and the verb khatama used in it cannot mean that he was the last prophet. One is tempted to consider the possibility that it means here: “he stamped upon them his seal (of approval?)”. From the traditional Muslim point of view this meaning is unobjectionable with regard to Muhammad’s predecessors in the prophetic office: the idea that Muhammad came to confirm the former prophets is attested to in the Qur’ân. However, its application to prophets who will follow Muhammad seems to indicate that the belief in the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood was not generally accepted in the early days of Islâm. (Finality of Prophethood in Sunni Islam, pp. 183-185)

The verse of the poet Umayya b. Abi Salt is quoted below:

به خَتَم اللهُ مَن قبلَه وما بعده من نبيّ خُتِم

Ibn Hajr al-Haytami: Revelation and Descent of Gabriel Continues

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

The idea that divine Revelation and the descent of Angel Gabriel has altogether ceased after the passing away of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was refuted by the great Islamic scholar Ibn Hajr al-Haytami [d. 974 H]:

نعم بِوَحْي إِلَيْهِ وَحي حَقِيقِيّ كَمَا فِي حَدِيث مُسلم وَغَيره عَن النواس بن سمْعَان

Yes, the wahi [revelation] that will come to him [Jesus] is real wahi as it occurs in the Hadith of Muslim, and other than it, from an-Nawwas bin Sam’an.

وَخبر لَا ‌وَحي ‌بعدِي ‌بَاطِل نعم إِنَّمَا يتلَقَّى جِبْرِيل الْوَحْي عَن الله بِوَاسِطَة إسْرَافيل كَمَا دلّت عَلَيْهِ الْأَحَادِيث، وَمَا اشْتهر أَن جِبْرِيل عَلَيْهِ السَّلَام لَا ينزل إِلَى الأَرْض بعد موت النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم فَهُوَ لَا أصل لَهُ

The report ‘there is no wahi after me’ is false. Yes, Gabriel only receives the wahi from Allah through the medium of Israfil as the Ahadith prove. As for the popular idea that Gabriel peace be upon him does not descend to Earth after the death of the Prophet [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam], it is baseless (al-Fatawa al-Hadithiya; pp. 181-182)

Hadith: Jesus is My Successor in My Ummah After Me

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Those who have a literal and rigid understanding of the finality of Prophesy when faced with the problem of Jesus’s second coming [Jesus is a Prophet] contend that since Jesus was made a Prophet prior to our master Muhammad [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] therefore his return to this world does not conflict with the finality of Prophet Muhammad’s Prophesy. However, this argument has many flaws, among them is the fact that the Prophet Muhammad [sall Allahu alaihi wasallam] himself declared that Jesus should be considered as being after him chronologically in a Hadith reported by Imam at-Tabarani:

إِنَّ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ لَيْسَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُ نَبِيُّ، أَلَا ‌خَلِيفَتِي ‌فِي ‌أُمَّتِي ‌مِنْ ‌بَعْدِي

Jesus son of Mary—there is no prophet between me and him—is my successor in my Umma after me (Mu’jam al-Awsat, v.5, p.142, #4898; Mu’jam al-Saghir, v.2, p.30, #725):

Deobandi Elder: "Angels and Messengers are Taghut"

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

والعاقبة للمتقين

Allah Most High says:

فَمَنۡ یَّکۡفُرۡ بِالطَّاغُوۡتِ وَ یُؤۡمِنۡۢ بِاللّٰہِ فَقَدِ اسۡتَمۡسَکَ بِالۡعُرۡوَۃِ الۡوُثۡقٰی

So whoever rejects the Tâghût and believes in Allâh has grasped a strong handle

(Sura 2:256)

Allah commands Believers to reject and disbelieve in the Taghut. This is a term that is defined as referring to that individual who calls upon or orders others to worship them, or is satisfied with others worshiping them. As such the term Taghut cannot be applied to any true Prophet or Saint of Allah, as they would never be pleased with anyone worshiping them nor would they ever order others to worship them instead of Allah. So while it is true that there are some Prophets and Saints who are worshiped by misguided people—Christians worship Jesus and his mother Mary—those Prophets and Saints would disassociate themselves strongly from such worship and deification. This is why Allah in the Quran orders us to believe in all of His Apostles but to disbelieve in the Taghut, thereby making a clear distinction between the two.

However, Husain Ali Alwani, considered Ra’is ul-Mufassirin (chief of the commentators of the Quran) by some of the Deobandis, said:

اور طاغوت کا معنی کل ما عبد من دون اللہ فھو الطاغوت اس معنی موجب طاغوت جن اور ملائکہ اور رسول کو بولنا جائز ہوگا۔

The meaning of Taghut is ‘everyone who is worshiped besides Allah is the Taghut’. According to this definition to call Jinn, Angels and the Apostle Taghut will be allowed (Bulghat ul-Hairan; p.43)

Regrettably, the Deobandi elder made a serious error in considering it correct to refer to Angels and Messengers of Allah who are worshiped by the polytheists as ‘Taghut’.

Bodies of Prophets Decay After Death (Part 3)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين

A popular belief among the Muslims is that the bodies of the Prophets عليهم السلام don’t decay after death. Several years ago I wrote an essay comprehensively debunking this erroneous notion. The Hadith which is quoted as the basis for this belief is as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا هَارُونُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ حَدَّثَنَا حُسَيْنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ بْنِ جَابِرٍ عَنْ أَبِي الأَشْعَثِ الصَّنْعَانِيِّ عَنْ أَوْسِ بْنِ أَوْسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ إِنَّ مِنْ أَفْضَلِ أَيَّامِكُمْ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ فِيهِ خُلِقَ آدَمُ وَفِيهِ قُبِضَ وَفِيهِ النَّفْخَةُ وَفِيهِ الصَّعْقَةُ فَأَكْثِرُوا عَلَىَّ مِنَ الصَّلاَةِ فِيهِ فَإِنَّ صَلاَتَكُمْ مَعْرُوضَةٌ عَلَىَّ قَالَ قَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَكَيْفَ تُعْرَضُ صَلاَتُنَا عَلَيْكَ وَقَدْ أَرِمْتَ يَقُولُونَ بَلِيتَ فَقَالَ ‏إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ حَرَّمَ عَلَى الأَرْضِ أَجْسَادَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ

Allah has prohibited the Earth from consuming the bodies of Prophets (Sunan Abi Dawud #1047)

As I pointed out in that essay this Hadith is weak because the narrator Husain b. Ali al-Ja’fi is narrating from his teacher Abd ur-Rahman b. Yazid, who is declared weak and rejected. Those who claim the Hadith is sound contend that the name of the narrator is Abd ur-Rahman b. Yazid b. Jabir, as it appears in the text of the sanad, whose narrations are acceptable. However, that is a mistake in the name of the grandfather of the narrator in question resulting in a mistaken identity. It is obvious that the narrator is Ibn Tamim and not Ibn Jabir, as the former is the teacher of Husain b. Ali al-Ja’fi and not the latter.

Here I shall quote Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali to make this point clear:

وقال أبو عبيد الأجري عن أبي داود أبو أسامة روى عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم وغلط في اسمه فقال حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر قال وكلما جاء عن أبي أسامة ثنا عبد الرحمن بن يزيد فهو ابن تميم

وكذلك روى حسين الجعفي عن ابن جابر عن أبي الأشعث عن أوس بن أوس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

أكثروا علي من الصلاة يوم الجمعة الحديث فقالت طائفة هو حديث منكر وحسين الجعفي سمع من عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم الشامي وروى عنه أحاديث منكرة فغلط في نسبته

وممن ذكر ذلك البخاري وأبو زرعة وأبو حاتم وأبو داود وابن حبان وغيرهم

Husain al-Ju’fi narrated from Ibn Jabir from Abil-Ash’ath from Aws bin Aws from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم "send abundant blessings upon me on Friday...the Hadith” so a group said: “this Hadith is rejected, and Husain al-Ju’fi heard from Abd ur-Rahman bin Yazid bin Tamim al-Shami, and his narrating from him are rejected Ahadith, and there is an error in attribution.” Among those who mentioned this are al-Bukhari, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Hibban and others.

وقد استنكر البخاري روايات الكوفيين جملة عن ابن جابر

قال البخاري: أهل الكوفة يروون عن عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر أحاديث مناكير وإنما أرادوا عندي عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن تميم وهو منكر الحديث. وهو بأحاديثه أشبه منه بأحاديث عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر

And al-Bukhari rejected the narrations of the Kufis that include Ibn Jabir. Al-Bukhari said: “The people of Kufa narrate from Abd ur-Rahman bin Yazid bin Jabir rejected Ahadith. And they intend, according to me, Abd ur-Rahman bin Yazid bin Tamim and he is rejected in Hadith” (Sharh Ilal al-Tirmidhi v.2, pp.818-819)

Parable of the Ewe and King David

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الامين

Allah says:

وَ ہَلۡ اَتٰٮکَ نَبَؤُا الۡخَصۡمِ ۘ اِذۡ تَسَوَّرُوا الۡمِحۡرَابَ

اِذۡ دَخَلُوۡا عَلٰی دَاوٗدَ فَفَزِعَ مِنۡہُمۡ قَالُوۡا لَا تَخَفۡ ۚ خَصۡمٰنِ بَغٰی بَعۡضُنَا عَلٰی بَعۡضٍ فَاحۡکُمۡ بَیۡنَنَا بِالۡحَقِّ وَ لَا تُشۡطِطۡ وَ اہۡدِنَاۤ اِلٰی سَوَآءِ الصِّرَاطِ

اِنَّ ہٰذَاۤ اَخِیۡ ۟ لَہٗ تِسۡعٌ وَّ تِسۡعُوۡنَ نَعۡجَۃً وَّ لِیَ نَعۡجَۃٌ وَّاحِدَۃٌ ۟ فَقَالَ اَکۡفِلۡنِیۡہَا وَ عَزَّنِیۡ فِی الۡخِطَابِ

قَالَ لَقَدۡ ظَلَمَکَ بِسُؤَالِ نَعۡجَتِکَ اِلٰی نِعَاجِہٖ ؕ وَ اِنَّ کَثِیۡرًا مِّنَ الۡخُلَطَآءِ لَیَبۡغِیۡ بَعۡضُہُمۡ عَلٰی بَعۡضٍ اِلَّا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ وَ قَلِیۡلٌ مَّا ہُمۡ ؕ وَ ظَنَّ دَاوٗدُ اَنَّمَا فَتَنّٰہُ فَاسۡتَغۡفَرَ رَبَّہٗ وَ خَرَّ رَاکِعًا وَّ اَنَابَ

فَغَفَرۡنَا لَہٗ ذٰلِکَ ؕ وَ اِنَّ لَہٗ عِنۡدَنَا لَزُلۡفٰی وَ حُسۡنَ مَاٰبٍ

And has the story of the disputants reached thee when they climbed over the wall of the chamber? When they entered in upon David, and he was afraid of them. They said, “Fear not. [We are] two disputants; one of us has transgressed against the other; so judge between us with justice, and deviate not from the right course and guide us to the right way. This is my brother; he has ninety-nine ewes, and I have only one ewe. Yet he says, ‘Give it to me,’ and has been overbearing to me in his address.” [David] said, “Surely, he has wronged thee in demanding thy ewe [to add] to his own ewes. And certainly many partners transgress against one another, except those who believe and do good works; and these are but few.” And David perceived that We had tried him; so he asked forgiveness of his Lord, and fell down bowing in worship and turned [to Him]. So We forgave him that; and indeed, he had a position of nearness with Us and an excellent retreat (Sura 38:21-25)

This passage in the Quran is a strong indication that in order for Muslims to understand the Scripture revealed to Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله والسلام عليه they must be familiar with the Biblical narrative. According to that narrative, King David coveted the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite, whose name was Bathsheba. King David arranged for Uriah to be placed on the frontlines ensuring his death at the hands of the enemy, after which he secured marriage with Bathsheba, who later became the mother of King Solomon. This was undoubtedly an unethical act by King David, who already had many wives but sought to deprive poor Uriah of his only wife Bathsheba. It is this unethical act of King David which the Quran is certainly alluding to in narrating a story of two litigants who approached King David to judge for them their dispute over ewes. King David perceived this dispute as a Sign from Allah to remind him of how he had committed an act of injustice toward Uriah the Hittite, causing him to repent. The Parable of the Ewes is also mentioned in the Hebrew Bible but there is a discrepancy with the account given in the Quran. According to the Bible there were not really two litigants who approached King David directly, rather it was a parable narrated to King David by the Prophet Nathan: The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. Now a traveller came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveller who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.” David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.” Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’ This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’” Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.” (2 Samuel 12:1-13)

Perhaps the Bible has some minor errors in relaying the historical context of this Parable of the Ewe. Apart from the element of the prophet Nathan which is absent in the Quranic narrative, the Biblical account also states that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba while Uriah was still alive and that in order to conceal her pregnancy he instructed Uriah to come back from the battlefield and spend time with his wife. We Muslims certainly find it a challenge to accept that someone like King David, who was in communion with God, could ever commit such a major sin. Nevertheless, the essence of the Biblical narrative—how King David acquired Bathsheba the wife of Uriah—must certainly be true because Allah in the Quran says We forgave him that (38:25) without directly or explicitly mentioning what “that” was. Without the Bible how can we possibly understand what the Quran is referring to in Sura 38:24-25? The classical Tafāsīr also paraphrase the Biblical account indicating that the early Muslims generally accepted it as the appropriate explanation for this Quranic passage.

In a Hadith which is considered weak Anas رضى الله عنه narrates that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said that David had looked at the woman [Bathsheba] and then ordered his army commander to send her husband [Uriah] when faced with the enemy toward the Ark of the Covenant where he was slain. Then David married the woman and the two Angels descended upon him – referring to the two litigants as mentioned in the Quran. David prostrated in repentance for forty days until the Angel Gabriel came to him and announced to him that Allah had forgiven him:

عَنْ أَنَسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ إِنَّ دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ حِينَ نَظَرَ إِلَى الْمَرْأَةِ قَطَعَ عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَأَوْصَى صَاحِبَ الْجَيْشِ فَقَالَ إِذَا حَضَرَ الْعَدُوُّ تَضْرِبُ فُلانًا بَيْنَ يَدَيِ التَّابُوتِ وَكَانَ التَّابُوتُ فِي ذَلِكَ الزَّمَانِ يُسْتَنْصَرُ بِهِ مِنْ قُدِّمَ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ التَّابُوتِ لَمْ يَرْجِعْ حَتَّى يُقْتَلَ أَوْ يَنْهَزِمَ مِنْهُ الْجَيْشُ فَقُتِلَ وَتَزَوَّجَ الْمَرْأَةَ وَنَزَلَ الْمَلَكَانِ عَلَى دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَسَجَدَ فَمَكَثَ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً سَاجِدًا حَتَّى نَبَتَ الزَّرْعُ مِنْ دُمُوعِهِ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ فَأَكَلَتِ الْأَرْضُ جَبِينَهُ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ فِي سُجُودِهِ رَبِّ زَلَّ دَاوُدُ زَلَّةً أَبْعَدَ مِمَّا بَيْنَ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ رَبِّ إِنْ لَمْ تَرْحَمْ ضَعْفَ دَاوُدَ وَتَغْفِرْ ذُنُوبَهُ جُعِلَتْ ذَنْبُهُ حَدِيثًا فِي الْمَخْلُوقِ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ فَجَاءَ جِبْرِيلُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً فَقَالَ يَا دَاوُدُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ غَفَرَ لَكَ وَقَدْ عَرَفْتَ أَنَّ اللَّهُ عَدْلٌ لَا يَمِيلُ فَكَيْفَ بِفُلانٍ إِذَا جَاءَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَقَالَ يَا رَبِّ دَمِيَ الَّذِي عِنْدَ دَاوُدَ قَالَ جِبْرِيلُ مَا سَأَلْتَ رَبَّكَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَإِنْ شِئْتَ لافْعَلَنَّ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ فَفَرِحَ جِبْرِيلُ وَسَجَدَ دَاوُدُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فَمَكَثَ مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ ثُمَّ نَزَلَ فَقَالَ قَدْ سَأَلْتُ اللَّهَ يَا دَاوُدُ عَنِ الَّذِي أَرْسَلْتَنِي فِيهِ فَقَالَ قُلْ لِدَاوُدَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَجْمَعُكُمَا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَيَقُولُ هَبْ لِي دَمَكَ الَّذِي عِنْدَ دَاوُدَ فَيَقُولُ هُوَ لَكَ فَيَقُولُ فَإِنَّ لَكَ فِي الْجَنَّةِ ما شئت ما اشتهيت عوضا

(Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim: p.3239, #18344)

Shi'ite Doctrine of Wilayat al-Takwiniyah (Cosmic Authority) for the Imams

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله

In the previous blog entry I quoted Twelver Shi’ite sources which establish that their belief and concept of Imamate manifestly contravenes the fundamental belief in the Finality of Prophesy. In this article I shall quote the infamous Khomeini, founder of the so-called “Islamic Republic” of Iran, to the effect that the belief of the Shi’a about their Imams manifestly violates the most central tenet of Islam—Tawhid (monotheism):

فان للامام مقاما محمودا ودرجة سامية وخلافة تكوينية تخضع لولايتها وسيطرتها جميع ذرات هذا الكون، وان من ضروريات مذهبنا أن لائمتنا مقاما لا يبلغه ملك مقرب ولا نبي مرسل

(al-Hukumat al-Islamiyah, p.52)

"The spiritual status [maqāman mahmūdan] of the Imām is a universal divine viceregency that is sometimes mentioned by the Imāms. It is a viceregency pertaining to the whole of creation, by virtue of which all the atoms in the universe humble themselves before the holder of authority. It is one of the essential beliefs of our Shī‘i school that no one can attain the spiritual status of the Imāms, not even the cherubim or the prophets" (Islamic Government, p.68)

Hamid Algar explains this statement further in a footnote:

"The ‘governance’ (vilāyat) of the Imāms is intrinsic to their persons, unlike that of the fuqahā; moreover, its scope is not limited to men but embraces the whole of creation. They therefore exercise ‘cosmic governance’ (vilāyat-i takvīnī), in part through the performance of miracles. This form of vilāyat is common to the Imāms and to the foremost of the prophets, who exercised a governmental function while also propagating a divine message. The statement here that ‘no one can attain the spiritual status of the Imāms, not even the cherubim or the prophets’ thus carries the strict sense that the Imāms are superior to those prophets whose mission lacked the dimension of governmental leadership."

In summary, Khomeini claims, representing the madhhab of the Shi’a, that the Imams possess wilayat al-Takwiniyah meaning they possess control and authority over the entire universe, all of the atoms and particles, the laws of nature or physics, etc. This is clearly shirk (polytheism) of the worst kind, as it is a contravention of the Rububiyah (Lordship) of Allah Most High Who alone is Lord of the worlds. Hamid Algar has also explained in his footnote that this wilaya or divine authority which the Imams possess is essential or personal “intrinsic to their persons”. Furthermore, Khomeini claims that the Imams are superior to even the Prophets and Angels in this sense, i.e., their cosmic authority known as wilayat al-Takwiniyah

Twelver Shi'ite Rejection of Finality of Prophesy (Part 2)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Twelver Shi’ites are certainly guilty of contravening the doctrine of khatm an-Nubuwwa or finality of Prophesy. In their minds the status of an Imam is superior to that of a Prophet of Allah. They believe, for example, that the Imams are infallible, incapable of making the slightest error or even conceiving of an error. Although they technically do not name their Imams ‘Prophets’ for all intents and purposes the conception of an Imam with the Twelver Shi’a is identitcal to, if not greater than, that of a Prophet. I have previously quoted two giants of Twelver Shi’ite theology, Baqir Majlisi and Shaikh al-Mufid, to the effect that the Imams are Prophets rationally.

In the most authoritative book of Hadith for the Twelvers – al-Kafi – in the Kitab al-Hujja, there are several chapter headings which relay their specific beliefs regarding the characteristics of Imamate that make it plain that their concept of an Imam trespasses upon the particularities and exclusive attributes of Prophesy. Here I shall quote the names of those chapters:

أَنَّ الْحُجَّةَ لَا تَقُومُ للهِ عَلَى خَلْقِهِ إِلَّا بِإِمَامِ

The issue that Allah’s holding people accountable remains unjustified without the Imam (al-Kafi; v.1, p.103, ch.61)

And this belief directly contravenes the holy Quran which says that it is only through the Apostles that Allah establishes the proof against the creation, and that there is no other such establishment of proof after them:

رُسُلًا مُّبَشِّرِیۡنَ وَ مُنۡذِرِیۡنَ لِئَلَّا یَکُوۡنَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَی اللّٰہِ حُجَّۃٌۢ بَعۡدَ الرُّسُلِ

Apostles as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the Apostles

(Sura 4:165)

In chapter 64 of this book there appears a narration attributed to one of the twelve Imams:

لا يَكُونُ الْعَبْدُ مُؤْمِناً حَتَّى يَعْرِفَ الله وَرَسُولَهُ وَالائِمَّةَ كُلَّهُمْ وَإِمَامَ زَمَانِهِ وَيَرُدَّ إِلَيْهِ وَيُسَلِّمَ لَهُ

"One will not be considered a Believer until he knows Allah, His Messenger and all of the Imams and the Imam of one’s time, acknowledges his divine authority and submits his affairs to the Imam." (al-Kafi; v.1, p.105, ch.64, no.2)

Yet nowhere in the Quran does it declare knowledge and acceptance of any non-Prophet Imam as a condition of Faith, unlike the Article of Faith which necessitates belief in the Prophets and Apostles of Allah. This is another way in which the Twelvers elevate the status of the Imams to that of being Prophets for all intents and purposes.

Further on in this book the following statement is attributed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq:

إِنَّمَا الْوُقُوفُ عَلَيْنَا فِي الْحَلالِ وَالْحَرَامِ فَأَمَّا النُّبُوَّةُ فَلا

"To refer to us (as the Divine authorities) is valid only in finding the lawful and unlawful matters. To refer to us as prophethood is not valid." (ibid; p.160, ch.110, no.2)

This narration indicates that the Twelvers hold their Imams to be legislators or possessing divine legislative authority, a plain rejection of the spirit of the doctrine of khatm an-Nubuwwa. Only a Prophet can be delegated with divine legislative authority, and after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the Shari’a is complete and immutable, remaining in effect until the Apocalypse.

In the same chapter another statement is attributed to Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq:

الائِمَّةُ بِمَنْزِلَةِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه إِلا أَنَّهُمْ لَيْسُوا بِأَنْبِيَاءَ وَلا يَحِلُّ لَهُمْ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ مَا يَحِلُّ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه فَأَمَّا مَا خَلا ذَلِكَ فَهُمْ فِيهِ بِمَنْزِلَةِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه

"The Imams possess the position of the Messenger of Allah except that they are not prophets and the number of wives permissible for the Holy Prophet is not permissible for them. In the aspects other than these they possess the same positions as the Messenger of Allah did" (ibid; no.7)

In other words, other than the fact that an Imam is not permitted to have more than four wives, he is identical and equal to the Messenger of Allah in manzila or status and position according to the astray Twelver Shi’a sect.

*Note: The English translations of the narrations I quoted from al-Kafi are by Muhammad Sarwar, as published by The Islamic Seminary INCNY

Ghamidi Claims Wars of the Prophet Were Divine Punishment

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على خاتم النبيين

Among the novel conceptions of the misguided modernist Ghamidi is that some of the wars waged by the most holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were for the purpose of inflicting a divine punishment upon the Pagans:

Once the truth is communicated to a people through their respective messengers in a conclusive manner and they still deny it in spite of being convinced about it, they are punished in this very world. At times, this punishment is through earthquakes, cyclones and other calamities and disasters, while, at others, it emanates from the swords of the believers. As a result, those who have denied the truth are totally vanquished in their land and the truth reigns supreme in it. In the case of Prophet Muhammad (sws), the Divine scourge took this very form. Consequently, just as the Prophet (sws) and his Companions (rta) were asked to wage war against oppression and injustice, they were also asked to wage war to punish the rejecters of the truth once it had become totally manifest to his addressees. This was actually a Divine plan executed through human beings. It should be viewed as a divine practice (sunnatullah) and cannot be initiated by human beings in any manner; it is not part of the shari‘ah. The Qur’anic words “God will punish them by your hands” (9:14) allude to this very reality. (Islam: A Comprehensive Introduction p.541)

Ghamidi has quoted the following Ayah of the Quran as proof for his contention that the wars waged by the most holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were for the purpose of inflicting a divine punishment upon the Pagans:

قَاتِلُوۡہُمۡ یُعَذِّبۡہُمُ اللّٰہُ بِاَیۡدِیۡکُمۡ وَ یُخۡزِہِمۡ وَ یَنۡصُرۡکُمۡ عَلَیۡہِمۡ وَ یَشۡفِ صُدُوۡرَ قَوۡمٍ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

Fight them, that Allah may punish them at your hands, and humiliate them, and help you to victory over them, and relieve the hearts of a people who believe

(Sura 9:14)

While the Ayah certainly mentions that Allah shall punish the polytheists through warfare of the Believers, Ghamidi has quoted it out of context to give the impression that such warfare is being waged against the polytheists on account of their rejection of the Truth after the latter has been established against them. One need only read the preceding Ayah to expose Ghamidi’s deception:

اَلَا تُقَاتِلُوۡنَ قَوۡمًا نَّکَثُوۡۤا اَیۡمَانَہُمۡ وَ ہَمُّوۡا بِاِخۡرَاجِ الرَّسُوۡلِ وَ ہُمۡ بَدَءُوۡکُمۡ اَوَّلَ مَرَّۃٍ ؕ اَتَخۡشَوۡنَہُمۡ ۚ فَاللّٰہُ اَحَقُّ اَنۡ تَخۡشَوۡہُ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مُّؤۡمِنِیۡنَ

Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted to turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilities against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers

(Sura 9:13)

This Quranic passage is in fact yet another proof that the wars waged by the most holy Prophet ﷺ his Companions and the Believers in general are meant to be purely defensive and retaliatory, and not to punish the polytheists for their rejection of the Truth after it has been manifested upon them fully as claimed by Ghamidi. While I don’t necessarily reject the idea that Allah may have punished the polytheists and pagans in the past through the sword of the Believers under direction of a Prophet, but to claim specifically that the wars waged by our most holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were also for this purpose is clearly unsubstantiated.

Cessation of Prophetic Revelation

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله

The unenlightened cessationists—those who believe all forms of divine communication and inspiration from Heaven have ceased after the Prophet Muhammadﷺ—cite the following narration as proof for their contention:

Umm Aiman رضى الله عنها said:

وَلَكِنْ أَبْكِي أَنَّ الْوَحْىَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ

Rather I weep because the Wahi from Heaven has ceased (Sahih Muslim)

It is especially noteworthy that the cessation of the Wahi or the divine revelation was a cause for sadness and not joy among the Prophet’s Companions رضى الله عنهم. When Umm Aiman رضى الله عنها explained the reason for her weeping to sayyidina Abi Bakr and sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنهما they too broke down and began to weep along with her. This is in stark contrast to the celebratory and boastful attitude of the so-called khatm an-Nubuwwah movement and other cessationists who considers the cessation of divine revelation and Prophesy to be a cause for joy.

But the answer to this narration is that the word Wahi appears with the definite article making it an identifiable or known noun as opposed to a general noun. In other words, Umm Aiman stated that the particular Wahi, meaning the Prophetic Revelation that used to come down upon the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is what has ceased and not necessarily divine revelation in general. Similarly there is another narration of sayyidina Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه in which he is quoted as saying:

إِنَّ أُنَاسًا كَانُوا يُؤْخَذُونَ بِالْوَحْىِ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، وَإِنَّ الْوَحْىَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَ، وَإِنَّمَا نَأْخُذُكُمُ الآنَ بِمَا ظَهَرَ لَنَا مِنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ

Verily, people were reckoned by the Wahi during the time of the Apostle of Allah, but the Wahi has now ceased. Therefore, we shall reckon you in accordance to that which is apparent from your deeds (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Here too the word Wahi appears with the definite article making it particular as an identifiable noun and not a reference to divine revelation in general.

Non-prophetic revelation continues, but to avoid confusion it is generally termed Ilham and not Wahi although linguistically they may at times be synonymous.

The Prophet’s first successor, Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه was certainly among those of this Ummah who experienced such divine inspiration despite technically not be a Prophet. He would also receive glad tidings through such divine inspiration. He disclosed to his daughter, our mother A’ishah سلام الله عليها that soon a sister would be born to her:

ذُو بَطْنِ بِنْتِ خَارِجَةَ أُرَاهَا جَارِيَةً

That which is in the womb of the daughter of Kharijah. I see that it is a girl (Muwatta of Imam Malik)

Shortly after sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه passed away a daughter was born through his wife Habibah bint Kharijah who was named Umm Kulthum.