Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn: How a fatwa split the Ummah

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

    Respected brother, let us please ONLY consider scholarly statements when discussing and not what laymen say or do not say.


    Regarding the issue of Bashar and Nur:

    No one doubts that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was a human being, otherwise it would make no sense to say that he's from Banu Hashim and that his noble lineage goes back to Ibrahim, 'alayhil salatu wal salam.

    This however does not exclude him - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - being light (Nur) at the same time.

    This is a position that exists even among the early Muslims (like in the Tafsir of Imam al-Tustari (d. 283 AH)).

    If a person now doesn't support this position based upon not finding convincing evidence, then this in itself is not problematic.

    What is however problematic is if this person doesn't know the proper decorum when mentioning the Chosen One - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and claims that "he's a human being LIKE US".
    How can it be claimed that our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is "LIKE US", when Allah ta'ala has sent him as the Seal of all Messengers and Prophets - peace and blessings be upon him - and has honored him with all kind of miracles?!


    Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala states regarding the disbelievers:

    { مَا يَأْتِيهِم مِّن ذِكْرٍ مِّن رَّبِّهِم مُّحْدَثٍ إِلَّا اسْتَمَعُوهُ وَهُمْ يَلْعَبُونَ }
    { اهِيَةً قُلُوبُهُمْ ۗ وَأَسَرُّوا النَّجْوَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا هَلْ هَـٰذَا إِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُكُمْ ۖ أَفَتَأْتُونَ السِّحْرَ وَأَنتُمْ تُبْصِرُونَ }

    { No mention comes to them anew from their Lord except that they listen to it while they are at play }
    { With their hearts distracted. And those who do wrong conceal their private conversation, [saying], "Is this [Prophet] except a human being like you? So would you approach magic while you are aware [of it]?" }

    [Al-Qur`an al-karim 21:2-3 with English interpretation]

    And He states:

    { وَاضْرِبْ لَهُم مَّثَلًا أَصْحَابَ الْقَرْيَةِ إِذْ جَاءَهَا الْمُرْسَلُونَ }
    { إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُم مُّرْسَلُونَ }
    { قَالُوا مَا أَنتُمْ إِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُنَا وَمَا أَنزَلَ الرَّحْمَـٰنُ مِن شَيْءٍ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا تَكْذِبُونَ }

    { And present to them an example: the people of the city, when the messengers came to it - }
    { When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, "Indeed, we are messengers to you." }
    { They said, "You are not but human beings like us, and the Most Merciful has not revealed a thing. You are only telling lies." }

    [Al-Qur`an al-karim 36:13-15 with English interpretation]


    So acting as if the Messengers and Prophets of Allah - peace and blessings be upon them all - are like the rest of humans is from the way of the disbelievers and it's not befitting of a Muslim to follow the way of the disbelievers!
    Does he have an Arabic book in which he explains his aqeedah?

    No one denies that he was the best of man, a light of guidence with the best manners, even if you refer to the prophet صلى اللّه عليه وسلم as nur with that belief, it's fine.

    But bralwis actually believe he was made from the light of Allah, this is a based on fabricated ahadith, they then hate those who say he was not made of light.
    Last edited by TheHaqq; 26-11-20, 09:49 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

      A general note: If one wants to know the views of someone, then one does not read ABOUT him from OTHER sources, but rather reads his OWN works.

      Then: Let us please get our priorities right and see what is happening here right now:
      A person opened this thread and posted a PDF. This PDF contains many statements with a disrespectful wording regarding our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and these statements are DEFENDED and JUSTIFIED in this PDF based upon them "not intending disrespect" this with the knowledge that the classical scholars have mentioned that using a disrespectful wording regarding our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is disbelief EVEN if disrespect is NOT intended!

      As Muslims it's our obligation to CONDEMN this shameless behavior and to stand up for the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and this not because he - 'alayhil salatu wal salam - is in need of us to be defended, but it's rather a test for us!

      So let us not jump to any secondary issues! Nothing is more important here than to stand up for the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - against whoever dares to disrespect him in whatever form!


      Imam Muhammad bin Sahnun (d. 256 AH) stated:

      أجْمَع الْعُلمَاء أَنّ شَاتِم النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم الْمُتَنَقّص لَه كَافِر وَالْوَعِيد جَار عَلَيْه بِعَذَاب اللَّه لَه وَحُكْمُه عند الأمة قتل وَمِن شَكّ فِي كُفْرِه وَعَذَابِه كَفَر

      The scholars are in unanimous agreement that the blasphemer of the Prophet ﷺ and his denigrator is an apostate. Allāh’s promise of punishment for such a person is ordained. The punishment for such a person in our nation is execution. Whosoever doubts in his apostasy and that a blasphemer will be punished has himself become an apostate.143
      - end of quote (from al-Shifa bi Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa 2/215 - 216 and translation taken from "The Killer Mistake" p. 29) -

      The ruling upon those who use a disrespectful wording regarding our Prophet ﷺ


      Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) said regarding DISRESPECT THAT WAS INTENDED the following:

      تقدم الْكَلَام فِي قَتْل القاصِد لِسَبّه وَالإزْرَاء بِه وَغَمْصِه بأيّ وَجْه كَان من مُمْكِن أَو مُحَال فَهَذَا وَجْه بَيْن لَا إشْكَال فِيه

      [The First Case:] We have mentioned earlier that whosoever intentionally disrespects or disparages him in whatever manner – regardless of whether such description is possible or impossible755 – such a person is executed. This is a clear-cut case and there is no reason for confusion nor anything problematic about it.
      - end of quote (from Al-Shifa bi Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa 2/231) -


      Then he said regarding DISRESPECT THAT WAS NOT INTENDED the following:

      الْوَجْه الثاني لَا حَقّ بِه فِي الْبَيَان وَالْجَلَاء وَهُو أن يَكُون الْقَائِل لَمّا قَال فِي جِهَتِه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم غَيْر قَاصِد لِلسّبّ وَالْإزْرَاء وَلَا مُعْتِقَد لَه ولكنه تَكَلّم فِي جِهَتِه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم بِكَلِمَة الْكُفْر من لَعْنِه أَو سَبَّه أَو تَكذيبِه أَو إضَافَة مَا لَا يَجُوز عَلَيْه أَو نَفْي مَا يجيب لَه مِمَّا هُو فِي حَقّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم نَقِيصَة مِثْل أَنّ يَنْسِب إليْه إتْيَان كَبِيرَة أَو مُداهَنَة فِي تبليغ الرّسَالة أَو فِي حُكْم بَيْن النَّاس أَو يَغُضّ من مَرْتبته أَو شَرَف نَسَبَه أَو وُفُور عِلْمِه أَو زُهْدِه أَو يُكَذّب بِمَا اشْتَهَر من أُمُور أخْبَر بِهَا صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم وتَوَاتَر الْخَبَر بِهَا عَن قصْد لِرَد خَبَرِه أَو يَأْتِي بِسَفَه مِن الْقَوْل أَو قَبِيح مِن الْكَلَام ونوع مِن السَّبّ فِي جِهَتِه وإن ظَهَر بِدَلِيل حَالِه أنَّه لَم يَعْتَمِد ذَمّه وَلَم يَقْصِد سَبَّه إِمَّا لِجَهَالَة حملته عَلَى مَا قاله أَو لِضَجِر أَو سُكْر أضْطَرّه إليْه أَو قِلّة مُرَاقَبَة وَضَبْط لِلسَانِه.
      وعَجْرَفَة وَتَهَوُّر فِي كَلَامِه فَحُكْم هَذَا الْوَجْه حُكْم الْوَجْه الأوّل الْقَتْل دون تَلَعْثُم إِذ لَا يُعْذَر أَحَد فِي الْكُفْر بِالْجَهَالَة وَلَا بدعوى زلل اللسان ولا بشئ مِمَّا ذكرناه إذَا كَان عقله فِي فطرته سليمًا إلَّا من أكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان
      وبهذا أفتى الأندلسيون عَلَى ابن حَاتِم فِي نَفْيه الزُّهْد عَن رسول الله صلى الله تَعَالَى عليه وآله وسلم الَّذِي قَدّمْنَاه وَقَال مُحَمَّد بن سُحْنُون فِي المَأمُور يَسُبّ النَّبِيّ صلى الله تعالى عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم فِي أيْدِي العَدُوّ يُقْتَل إلَّا أن يُعْلَم تَبَصُّرُه أَو إكْرَاهُه وَعَن أَبِي محمد ابن أَبِي زيد لَا يُعْذَر بدَعْوَى زَلَل اللسان فِي مِثْل هَذَا وَأفْتى أبو الحسن القابسي فِيمَن شَتَم النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم فِي سُكْره يُقْتَل لِأَنَّه يُظَنّ بِه أنَّه يَعْتَقِد هَذَا ويَفْعَلُه فِي صَحْوِه وَأيْضًا فَإنَّه حَد لَا يُسْقِطُه السُّكْر كَالْقَذْف وَالْقَتْل وَسَائِر الحُدُود لِأَنَّه أدْخَلَه عَلَى نَفْسِه لِأَنّ من شَرِب الخَمْر عَلَى عِلْم من زَوَال عَقْلِه بِهَا وَإتْيَان مَا يُنْكَر مِنْه فَهُو كَالْعَامِد لَمّا يَكُون بِسَبَبِه وَعَلَى هذا ألْزَمْنَاه الطّلَاق وَالْعِتَاق وَالْقِصَاص وَالحُدُود وَلَا يُعْتَرَض عَلَى هَذَا بِحَدِيث حَمْزَة وَقَوْلُه للنَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم وهل أنْتُم إلا عبيد لأبى قَال فَعَرَف النَّبِيّ صَلَّىاللَّه عَلَيْه وَسَلَّم أنَّه ثمل فَانْصَرَف لِأَنّ الخَمْر كَانَت حِينَئِذ غَيْر مُحَرّمة فَلَم يَكُن فِي جِنَايَاتَها إثْم وَكَان حُكْم مَا يَحْدُث عَنْهَا مَعْفُوا عَنْه كَمَا يَحْدُث مِن النّوْم وَشُرْب الدّوَاء الْمَأْمُون


      The Second Case: is similar to the previous one in its wording and explicitness; however, the utterer does not say it with the intention of insulting or disparaging the Prophet , nor does he believe in such things. But he has [nevertheless] uttered blasphemies – words of kufr:

      that criticise him or insult him or belie him;

      or attribute things to him which are forbidden to say about him or negate something which is obligatory for him;

      or attributes a flaw or fault to him – such as accusing him of commiting a major sin or flattery or cajolery when he preached to others or [when he] delivered the message, or in his adjudication between disputing parties;

      or says things that diminish the lofty rank Allāh táālā has bestowed upon him, or [disparages] his noble lineage or [degrades] the extensiveness of his knowledge or his austerity;

      or if a person denies things informed by him, when such reports are well-known and have reached the level of tawātur, [if such denial is in the form of] seeking to reject his opinion;

      or if a person talks about him in a rude and brusque manner, or speaks about him in vulgar and uncouth words or any other form of abusive speech;

      Even if the person proves that he has not deliberately said any of this to deride him ; or intended to insult or disparage him – whether it was ignorance that made him say such things or because he was discontented or disgruntled, or he was inebriated, or he blurted it out without thinking or it slipped from his tongue, or because of haughtiness or impudence, or impetuousity and recklessness; in all such cases, the ruling is the same as in the first case – that is, execution without further deliberation or any hesitation, because the excuse of ignorance [in such cases] which cause apostasy is inadmissible, nor the excuse of slip of the tongue, nor any other excuse which I have mentioned above as long as the person is sane and has not lost his reason. Except a person in duress, who utters such things due to coercion – as long as faith is undisturbed in his heart. It is therefore, that the Andalusian scholars decreed against Ibn Ĥātim when he repudiated the zuhd of RasūlAllāh , as mentioned earlier. Muĥammad ibn Saĥnūn said concerning the blasphemy committed by prisoners,756 that they should be executed – except in the case of such prisoners who became Christians757 or those who were compelled to utter blasphemies.

      Abū Muĥammad ibn Abī Zayd
      758 said that no one will be spared nor any excuse citing slip of the tongue will be admissible in such cases [of blasphemy]. Similarly, Abu’l Ĥasan al-Qābisī issued a fatwā that whoever insulted the Prophet even in a state of intoxication shall be executed, because it appears that the person must have held such beliefs in soberness and probably says such things when he is not drunk – and this is statutory punishment [ĥadd] which is not excusable, like the case of [unjust] accusation of adultery or murder or other ĥadd punishments as he is responsible for this himself. Because when a person knowingly [and of his own free choice] gets drunk, in full knowledge that he may commit a crime, is the same as a person who commits a crime intentionally. Based on this, we consider valid, the divorce or manumission [by a drunk] and punishment in case of homicide [qişāş] and other punishments.

      One cannot pose an objection by citing the case of Sayyidunā Ĥamzah
      رضي الله عنه when he said addressing the Prophet , “You are all the slaves of my father.” The Prophet recognised that he was inebriated and left him [without reprimanding him]. This was because wine was not forbidden at that time, and therefore a crime committed under the influence of alcohol was not a sin; and whatever said [in such a state] was pardonable – similar to a person talking in his sleep or in a state of reduced consciousness while using certain permissible medications.759

      - end of quote (from Al-Shifa bi Ta'rif Huquq al-Mustafa 2/231 - 232) -

      (Note: Translation taken from "The Killer Mistake")


      Conclusion: To both cases the SAME ruling applies!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sunni Ashrafi View Post
        ٧٨٦/٩٢
        المستغاث الا حضرت الله تعالي الصلوٰة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله


        Ashraf Ali Thanwi states in Hifzul Imaan, p.15:

        یہ کہ آپ کی ذات مقدسہ پر علم غیب کا حکم کیا جانا اگر بقول زید صحیح ہو تو دریافت طلب یہ امر ہےکہ اس غیب سے مراد بعض غیب ہے یا کل غیب اگر بعض علوم غیبیہ مراد ہیں تو اسمیں حضور کی ہی کیا تخصیص ہے ایسا علم غیب تو زید و عمر و بلکہ ہر صبی و مجنون بلکہ جمیع حیوانات و بہائم کے لئے بھی حاصل ہے

        "If, according to the questioner, the declaration that the Holy Prophet possesses unseen knowledge is correct, then the question put to this person is: by ‘Unseen Knowledge’ does he mean total knowledge or partial knowledge? If his intention were to refer to partial knowledge, then how is there anything unique about the Holy Prophet because of this? Such unseen knowledge is possessed by every ordinary person, every child and insane person, even all animals possess such knowledge."
        This is the Deobandi translation as mentioned in the PDF (posted in OP) - which tries to justify this statement! - on p. 62 - 63 of the same passage quoted above:

        Then if it is true as held by Zayd that the ruling of knowledge of the Unseen is established for the pure person of the Messenger , then it needs to be discovered what is meant by this knowledge of the Unseen? Is it some or all of the knowledge of the Unseen? If it is some of the knowledge of the Unseen that is meant, then what is the specification of the Messenger in this? The like of this knowledge of the Unseen (aysa `ilm-e-ghayb) is also found with Zayd, Umar, moreover every child, insane person and even all animals and beasts.
        - end of quote -

        So even in their translation the wording itself is still disrespectful!

        Note that the PDF then goes on to complete the quote in order to make clear what the author is trying to establish and not intending disrespect.

        And we say to him: Was the author not able to establish the point he wanted to establish without using this disrespectful wording?! What made him use this disrespectful wording? And what made him insist on this wording even after being warned?! Allahul musta'an!
        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 26-11-20, 10:49 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          This is the Deobandi translation as mentioned in the PDF (posted in OP) - which tries to justify this statement! - on p. 62 - 63 of the same passage quoted above:

          Then if it is true as held by Zayd that the ruling of knowledge of the Unseen is established for the pure person of the Messenger , then itneeds to be discoveredwhat is meant by this knowledge of the Unseen? Is it some or all of the knowledge of the Unseen? If it is some of the knowledge of the Unseen that is meant, then what is the specification of the Messenger in this? The like of this knowledge of the Unseen (aysa `ilm-e-ghayb) is also found with Zayd, Umar, moreover every child, insane person and even all animals and beasts.
          - end of quote -

          So even in their translation, the wording is still disrespectful!

          Note that the PDF then goes on to complete the quote in order to make clear what the author is trying to establish.

          And we say to him: Was the author not able to establish the point he wanted to establish without using this disrespectful wording?! What made him use this disrespectful wording? And what made him insist on this wording even after being warned?! Allahul musta'an!
          ٧٨٦/٩٢
          المستغاث الا حضرت الله تعالي الصلوٰة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله


          What made him use this disrespectful wording?
          The answer to that question is very simple: Pure enmity and hatred for رسول الله ﷺ. And this is a fact that the Deobandis will never be able to bring themselves to accept, because the day they do, their entire heretical sect falls apart.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sunni Ashrafi View Post
            ٧٨٦/٩٢
            المستغاث الا حضرت الله تعالي الصلوٰة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله


            Khalil Ahmad Ambethwi states in Baraheen-e-Qati'ah, p.55:

            از علم و عقل ہے الحاص غور کرنا چاہئے کہ شیطان و ملک الموت کا حال دیکہکر علم محیط زمین کا فخرعالم کو خلاف نصوص قطعیہ کے دلائل محض قیاس فاسدہ سے ثابت کرنا شرک نہیں تو کونسا ایمان کا حصہ ہے شیطان اور ملک الموت کو یہ وسعت نص سے ثابت ہوئی فخر عالم کی وسعت علم کی کونسی نص قطعی ہے


            "Keeping knowledge and common sense in mind, one should consider the following: after seeing the condition of Shaytan and Malak-ul-Maut, if to then try to prove the Unseen Knowledge of the Holy Prophet from the Qur’an and Hadith isn’t Shirk, then what part of Imaan is it? The Unseen Knowledge of Shaytan and Malak-ul-Maut is supported by the Qur’an and Hadith, what evidence is there in the Qur’an and Hadith to prove the existence of the Unseen Knowledge of the Holy Prophet ?"
            This is the Deobandi translation as mentioned in the PDF (posted in OP) - which again tries to justify this statement! - on p. 49 of the passage quoted above:

            In sum, it should be noted that having seen the state of Satan and the Angel of Death, if the affirmation that the Messenger posseses all knowledge on earth ('ilm-e-muhit-e-zamin) is not shirk then what part of the faith (iman) is it? This vastness of knowledge was established for Satan and the Angel of Death through clear scripture (nass). What definitive scripture (nass qat'i) is there that establishes the vastness of the Messenger‘s knowledge, that would refute all the clear texts [establishing otherwise] and thereby affirming a kind of polytheism (shirk)?
            - end of quote -

            The PDF tries to argue that this statement - if seen together with its context - does not intend disrespect.

            But we say: Yet this passage is disrespectful in itself and this is ENOUGH for it to be condemned and rejected! So what is the ruling upon the one who is warned and then insists upon this wording and upon this ugly claim that the accursed satan has MORE knowledge than the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?


            Note that Imam al-Khafaji (d. 1069 AH) mentions in his explanation upon al-Shifa by al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) (i.e. Nasim al-Riyadh) that the one stating "such a person is more knowledgeable than him ﷺ" has faulted [the Messenger of Allah ﷺ] and denigrated him and that the ruling for apostasy and blasphemy applies to him!
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 26-11-20, 11:47 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

              This is the Deobandi translation as mentioned in the PDF (posted in OP) - which again tries to justify this statement! - on p. 49 of the passage quoted above:

              In sum, it should be noted that having seen the state of Satan and the Angel of Death,if the affirmation that the Messenger posseses all knowledge on earth ('ilm-e-muhit-e-zamin) is not shirk then what part of the faith (iman) is it? This vastness of knowledge was established for Satan and the Angel of Death through clear scripture (nass). What definitive scripture (nass qat'i) is there that establishes the vastness of the Messenger‘s knowledge, that would refute all the clear texts [establishing otherwise] and thereby affirming a kind of polytheism (shirk)?
              - end of quote -

              The PDF tries to argue that this statement - if seen together with its context - does not intend disrespect.

              But we say: Yet this passage is disrespectful in itself and this is ENOUGH for it to condemned and rejected! So what is the ruling upon the one who is warned and then insists upon this wording and upon this ugly claim that Satan is MORE knowledge than the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?
              ٧٨٦/٩٢
              المستغاث الا حضرت الله تعالي الصلوٰة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله


              Ironically, the translation given by the Deobandis sounds worse than the translation I made, and despite this the Deobandis still refuse to accept the Kufr of Khalil Ahmad Ambethwi. As for the ruling for such a person, the 'Ulama are very clear on this point: in an Islamic Nation, governed by the Shari'ah, a Murtad is to be imprisoned for three days, during which time he is visited by 'Ulama who try to clear his doubts which led to him becoming a Murtad. If he repents within that time, he is spared, if not, he is executed. However, those who insult رسول الله ﷺ are not just Murtads, they are Heretics and they are not given any chance to recant their heresy, if they want to ask for forgiveness from Allah, that is between them and Allah, if He wishes to forgive them, He may, and if He wishes to punish them, He may, but it is the duty of the Islamic government to execute such a person, and if they do not, they will have to answer for this on the Day of Judgement.
              Last edited by Sunni Ashrafi; 26-11-20, 11:38 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by noobz View Post

                with barelvis at least you wouldn't end up swinging from a tree or be enslaved though they are pretty funny in their rituals.

                Most wahabis though are a next level type of useless fodder that can't even speak up against france unless their king tells them to or the splinter ones turn into isis and start killing anyone that doesn't join them. Still remember those threads here praising isis and whatnot and all those members who got up and vanished when cheezeburger khalifa vanished into the fart.
                wahabis/ahle hadith are a big disappointment, they are muqallads of saudi king and saudi molvis -- they didn't had orders to speak up against france and now that they (arab regimes) have found new love with Israel, don't expect our ahle hadith to raise their voices. ------- you know it's not easy to face baton charge by the state, tear gas, arrest etc., --- Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi was unique, after a long time I have seen a Scholar talking about Political Islam. -- some people didn't liked his style of speech, but he used to say the truth.
                "Europe died in Bosnia and was buried in Syria. Bodies of innocent children washing ashore are the
                western civilization's tombstones"


                Rajab Tayyab Erdogan

                Comment


                • The title of this thread is not correct --- the split was there before the fatwa ---- I hope to see these tags brelwi-deobandi disappear in my lifetime -- this is possible, but the Maulanas have big ego, they aren't ready to give up their egos.
                  "Europe died in Bosnia and was buried in Syria. Bodies of innocent children washing ashore are the
                  western civilization's tombstones"


                  Rajab Tayyab Erdogan

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                    No one denies that he was the best of man, a light of guidence with the best manners, even if you refer to the prophet صلى اللّه عليه وسلم as nur with that belief, it's fine.
                    Can we say RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam is Nur?

                    I'm not a Barelvi, have my issues with them but yet I would also describe RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam as Nur. This is not a negation of him being physically human.

                    We can even call him Nurullah (the light of Allah) as he was the Nur sent by Allah, in the same way we call him Rahmatullah - the Mercy of Allah and Rahmatul lil-Alameen (Mercy to the Worlds), in the same way we call Isa Alayhis Salam Kalamullah (the word of Allah) and Ibrahim Alayhis Salam Khalilullah (the close-friend of Allah).

                    He was sent in a time of Jahiliyyah which was a time of darkness and he lit up that darkness Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam. Moreover, though he was a Human Being physically (Bashar), he is the Imam of the Prophets Alayhim Salam and a messenger, one of the Ulul Azm, and he is Khatim an-Nabiyyin. How can we say a man of this rank is a "mere human being"? Clearly we are as dull stones and he is like beautiful Emerald compared to us.

                    Moreover some people witnessed a miraculous light coming from him at birth, and this is also reported in authentic Hadith.

                    ‘Abdullah ibn Ja’far reports from Halimah Sa’diyyah, Nabi’s (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) wet nurse, who said, “…Amina said to me, ‘Something tremendous shall come of this son of mine; never did I bear a load that was lighter or filled with more blessings than him. As I was giving birth to him, I saw a light resembling a comet that shone from me and lit up the necks of the camels from Busra [Bostra] to the Levant, and when I bore him he did not come out as other newborns do, rather, he came out placing his hands on the ground and with his head raised upwards toward the heavens….'”

                    - Sahih Ibn Hibban; Al Ihsan, Hadith: 6335, Musnad Abu Ya’la, Hadith: 7163, Al Mu’jamul Kabir, Vol. 24, Hadith: 545, with difference in the wording, Majma’uz Zawaid, Vol. 8 pg. 221. Authentic by virtue of being mentioned by Imam Ibn Hibban and the Ulama mention that Hafiz Haythami Rahimullah Alay has declared the narrators of Abu Ya’la and Tabarani reliable. Translation not my own: see here.
                    Reliable scholars of Hadith from the Earlier generations to present have authenticated this Hadith (much longer than what is quoted) which indicates a miraculous light at the birth of RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.

                    For this reason and others we can call him a Nur. Indeed it is mentioned in the Qur'an that Allah sent us a book and light - then who is the light other than RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam?

                    O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.

                    (Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah al-Ma'idah, Ayah 15)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                      Can we say RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam is Nur?

                      I'm not a Barelvi, have my issues with them but yet I would also describe RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam as Nur. This is not a negation of him being physically human.

                      We can even call him Nurullah (the light of Allah) as he was the Nur sent by Allah, in the same way we call him Rahmatullah - the Mercy of Allah and Rahmatul lil-Alameen (Mercy to the Worlds), in the same way we call Isa Alayhis Salam Kalamullah (the word of Allah) and Ibrahim Alayhis Salam Khalilullah (the close-friend of Allah).

                      He was sent in a time of Jahiliyyah which was a time of darkness and he lit up that darkness Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam. Moreover, though he was a Human Being physically (Bashar), he is the Imam of the Prophets Alayhim Salam and a messenger, one of the Ulul Azm, and he is Khatim an-Nabiyyin. How can we say a man of this rank is a "mere human being"? Clearly we are as dull stones and he is like beautiful Emerald compared to us.

                      Moreover some people witnessed a miraculous light coming from him at birth, and this is also reported in authentic Hadith.



                      Reliable scholars of Hadith from the Earlier generations to present have authenticated this Hadith (much longer than what is quoted) which indicates a miraculous light at the birth of RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.

                      For this reason and others we can call him a Nur. Indeed it is mentioned in the Qur'an that Allah sent us a book and light - then who is the light other than RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam?
                      Brother, that still not not mean that he was created by light, this is an innovated bralwi belief, but I wonder if it actually came from ARK. This exactly is the problem, letting your emotions dictate your beliefs instead of the texts, this is why today we don't have anyone expect people who claim to be bralwis saying the must absurd things about the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, their manhaj is the problem.

                      I must also say, one extreme leads to another, when the Bralwis said that the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is made from light, the other side responded by saying: "No, he is a Bashar like us" (quoting the Quran). They did NOT intend disrespect, nor is the statement a statement of disrespect, rather it's in the Quran.
                      Last edited by TheHaqq; 30-11-20, 12:12 PM.

                      Comment


                      • But bralwis actually believe he was made from the light of Allah, this is a based on fabricated ahadith, they then hate those who say he was not made of light.
                        Barelvis do not believe that, this is a simply misquoting of their beliefs.

                        The Missing Hadith of Jabir

                        Regarding 'fabricated' Hadith, if you are referring to the Hadith of Jabir, the scholar have said that this cannot be found in a primary source with chain - one who uses objective Hadith methodology cannot conclude based off of that, that it is fabricated. For something to be fabricated we first need a chain and positive evidence of fabrication as opposed to the Hadith with a chain being weak or very weak. So with the Hadith of Jabir, we say we cannot find it, as Imam as-Suyuti said, we do not just conclude it is fabricated without evidence.

                        It is thus not suitable to quote as a Hadith of RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam, until/unless we can find and verify it, although I agree that many Barelvis and the scholars of Ahlul Tasawwuf in general do quote it anyway trying to justify it based off of numerous mentions in secondary sources and mentions by the pious and learned Ulama. However this is a Hadith of RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam and so any report attributed to him must meet the strict dictates of Hadith authentication - which requires at least a sound chain given by a primary source, so their quoting of it based off of secondary sources is rejected, regardless of what those sources say, regardless of their rank and knowledge etc.

                        Some ignorant people at one point recently tried to fabricate part of Musannaf Abdul Razzaq to try and prove authenticity of the Hadith. Whoever lies against RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam is in the fire as according to the most authentic and mass transmitted of Hadith.

                        The Hadith of Jabir is not needed to talk of the light (nur) of RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu was-Salam, that is proven by the Qur'an and authentic Hadith.

                        This religion is based off of Isnad and verification. All matters require clear evidence.

                        Barelvi Scholars do not believe light broke off from Allah

                        As far as believing that a light from Allah broke off, I will post some videos for you to watch, one from a Sunni scholar who sometimes affiliates with these Barelvi and the last from a Deobandi scholar who I would also consider a Sunni scholar. Both are telling you that the Barelvi do not believe this. Maybe some ignorant people amongst them do, but this is not a belief held by the scholars.

                        It is of course Shirk to believe something broke off from Allah and became a creation, or that Allah has parts in the first place. This includes Tajsim.

                        Sunni Scholar who affiliates with the Barelvi sometimes:



                        Sunni Scholar who identifies as a Deobandi:



                        Skip to 3:12. He clarifies that they do not believe this.

                        In summary then, no the Barelvi Scholars do not believe a "part" of Allah broke off to form our beloved Messenger Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam. He is a creation created by Allah and his blessed and noble slave.

                        Allah is exalted above comparison.
                        Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 30-11-20, 12:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                          Does he have an Arabic book in which he explains his aqeedah?

                          No one denies that he was the best of man, a light of guidence with the best manners, even if you refer to the prophet صلى اللّه عليه وسلم as nur with that belief, it's fine.

                          But bralwis actually believe he was made from the light of Allah, this is a based on fabricated ahadith, they then hate those who say he was not made of light.
                          The Shaykh Ahmad Ridha Khan (d. 1340 AH) regarded the Ash'ari and Maturidi creed as correct and did not have a new creed. But I've found a creedal book - translated into English - by one his direct supporters: Kitab al-Aqayid by Shaykh Na'im al-Din al-Muradabadi (d. 1368 AH)

                          As for the issue of being made from the light of Allah: This is NOT understood to be literal, because Allah ta'ala is NOT a body [made of light or any other substance] in the very first place. This is similar to the saying that 'Isa - peace be upon him - is the word of Allah, which again is NOT to be understood as him being a divine attribute or in a hypostatic union with God (as Christians falsely claim).

                          One should note here that there are things that the classical scholars had differed about, because the proofs concerning it are not conclusive. The Shaykh Ahmad Ridha Khan had specific positions regarding the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and he knew that scholars of the past had differed concerning these issues. His problem was not with the one differing with him on these issues, but rather with the Najdi reasoning and beliefs upon which even clear issues were rejected and which lead some people to forget about the proper decorum when mentioning the Best of Creation - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - or even going as far as disrespecting him.

                          To give an example: The issue of the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam): The Muslims are agreed upon the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - being the most knowledgeable among the creation and that Allah ta'ala teached him more from the knowledge of the unseen ('Ilm al-Ghayb) than any other creation. How vast is this knowledge? Allahu a'lam. This is disagreed upon among classical scholars. Among them are those who said that the knowledge of the five are not included in his knowledge, while there are also those who regarded that it was also included.
                          The Shaykh famously supported the position that knowledge of the five was included in the Prophetic knowledge, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. Now if one supports the other position it would have not be a problem for him, but what was a problem is that some Najdi minded people were hellbent on denying knowledge regarding him to the degree that they even claimed that the accursed Satan is more vast in knowledge than him (which is a Kufri claim).

                          Likewise in the issue of light: It's not problem to disagree with this position and say that metaphorical light is intended, but it is problematic to claim that the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was a "human being LIKE US", because this is the statement of the disbelievers according to the Qur`an al-karim.

                          Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post
                          Brother, that still not not mean that he was created by light, this is an innovated bralwi belief, but I wonder if it actually came from ARK. This exactly is the problem, letting your emotions dictate your beliefs instead of the texts, this is why today we don't have anyone expect people who claim to be bralwis saying the must absurd things about the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, their manhaj is the problem.
                          It's a position that is even found among early Muslims. An example:

                          Imam al-Tustari (d. 283 AH) stated in his Tafsir regarding the Aya 53:13-14 (translation taken from HERE) the following:

                          قوله تعالى: { وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ نَزْلَةً أُخْرَىٰ } [13] قال: يعني في الابتداء حين خلقه الله سبحانه وتعالى. ويقال نوراً في عامود النور قبل بدء الخلق بألف ألف عام بطبائع الإيمان مكاشفة الغيب بالغيب قام بالعبودية بين يديه. { عِندَ سِدْرَةِ ٱلْمُنتَهَىٰ } [14] وهي شجرة ينتهي إليها علم كل أحد

                          { And verily he saw him another time } [53:13], He said: That is, in the beginning when God, Glorified and Exalted is He, created him as a light within a column of light (nūran fī ʿamūd al-nūr), a million years before creation, with the essential characteristics of faith (ṭabāʾiʿ al-īmān), in a witnessing of the unseen within the unseen (mushāhadat al-ghayb bi’l-ghayb). He stood before Him in servanthood (ʿubūdiyya), { by the lote tree of the Ultimate Boundary } [53:14], this being a tree at which the knowledge of every person reaches its limit.
                          - end of quote -

                          Note that al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) regarded Imam al-Tustari among the Sufiyya of the Ahl al-Sunna, so they have no way to attack him!

                          Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post
                          I must also say, one extreme leads to another, when the Bralwis said that the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is made from light, the other side responded by saying: "No, he is a Bashar like us" (quoting the Quran). They did NOT intend disrespect, nor is the statement a statement of disrespect, rather it's in the Quran.
                          As far as I know it's a position that the Sufiyya in general adhere to!

                          The Qur`an al-karim mentions the claim of Prophets - peace and blessings be upon them - being nothing more than "human beings LIKE US" as the statement of the disbelievers! The statement is definitely problematic and shows lack of proper decorum regarding those whom Allah ta'ala has honored with Prophethood and wisdom, peace and blessings be upon them.
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 30-11-20, 01:35 PM.

                          Comment


                          • ....
                            Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 30-11-20, 02:02 PM.
                            My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                            Comment


                            • A general point that I repeat: Refuting that which one regards as "Shirk" - whether rightfully or wrongfully - does NOT justify losing the proper decorum regarding the Prophets of God - peace be upon them all - or worse: Disrespecting them, which is disbelief by agreement!

                              So when we refute the polytheism of the Christians for example, we will NOT do so by disrespecting Jesus (peace be upon him), but rather by showing that he was a noble Messenger of God and NOT God or son of God (because God is Exalted above having a son and above being in a hypostatic union with any of his creation).
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 30-11-20, 02:21 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                                ....
                                Riiiight. So the Saudis taking over the Hejaz caused the collapse of the entire 'Sunni' empire.

                                Seems legit.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X