Is It Permissible to Say 'Yaa Muhammad'?
Firstly:
It was not permissible to address the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by saying “Ya Muhammad” during his lifetime, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Make not the calling of the Messenger (Muhammad sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) among you as your calling one of another” [al-Noor 24:63].
Al-Dahhaak said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbaas: They used to say Ya Muhammad, Ya Aba’l-Qaasim, but Allaah told them not to do that, out of respect to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So they said Ya Rasool Allaah (O Messenger of Allaah), Ya Nabi Allaah (O Prophet of Allaah). Mujaahid and Sa’eed ibn Jubayr said something similar.
Qataadah said: Allaah enjoined that His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be treated with respect and venerated and honoured as a leader. Muqaatil ibn Hayyaan said: Do not address him by name when you call him and say Ya Muhammad, and do not say Ya Ibn ‘Abd-Allaah. Rather address him with honour and say Ya Nabi Allaah or Ya Rasool Allaah.
Maalik said, narrating from Zayd ibn Aslam: Allaah enjoined them to address him with honour.
So the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should not be addressed by name only, rather it should be said: Ya Rasool Allaah, Ya Nabi Allaah.
Secondly:
It is not permissible to call on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in du’aa’ after his death, because du’aa’ is an act of worship that can only be directed to Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And the mosques are for Allaah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allaah” [al-Jinn 72:13].
“And who is more astray than one who calls on (invokes) besides Allaah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them?”[al-Ahqaaf 46:5]
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him): “If you ask, then ask of Allaah, and if you seek help then seek help from Allaah.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2516) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan al-Tirmidhi.
Du’aa’ is asking for benefit and asking for harm to be warded off, and it is not only done by saying Yaa (O…), rather it has become customary among people to use this call in du’aa’, especially when hardship comes and calamity strikes, so they say Ya Allaah, meaning O Allaah, save us, give us help, support us.
This is the action of monotheists (believers in Tawheed) who do not call upon anyone other than Allaah. As for those who worship graves and tombs, they call upon their “saints” and revered ones, saying Ya Badawi, Ya Rifaa’i, Ya Jilaani, and what they mean is, O Badawi, help us, come to our aid, save us.
And some of them say: Ya Rasool-Allaah, Ya Muhammad, in this manner also. This is calling upon him, seeking his help and turning to him.
It is well known that this is one of the worst ways of going against the message that was brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the other Messengers, and that was revealed in the Books, namely the call to Tawheed and worshipping Allaah alone, and forsaking the worship of all others.
It is not acceptable in the religion of Islam, which Allaah has chosen as the religion for His slaves, to call upon anyone except Allaah, not any Prophet who was sent or any angel who is close to Him. Rather we are to call upon Him alone. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Is not He (better than your gods) Who responds to the distressed one, when he calls on Him, and Who removes the evil, and makes you inheritors of the earth, generations after generations? Is there any ilaah (god) with Allaah? Little is that you remember!” [al-Naml 27:62]
Thus it is known that if a person says Ya Muhammad or Ya Rasool Allaah, not intending thereby to call upon him and seek his help, then there is nothing wrong with it, such as if he wants to call him to mind and remember him, such as if he reads a hadeeth and says Sall-Allaah ‘alayka ya Rasool-Allaah (May Allaah send blessings upon you, O Messenger of Allaah) or How great and beautiful are your words, O Messenger of Allaah. But saying Ya Muhammad is contrary to good manners, as explained above.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: Is it shirk if someone says in any place on earth, Ya Muhammad Ya Rasool-Allaah, calling him?
He replied:
Allaah has stated in His Holy Book and on the lips of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that worship is the right of Allaah alone and no one else has any share of it, and that du’aa’ is a kind of worship, so if a person says in any place on earth, Ya Rasool-Allaah, Ya Nabi Allaah or Ya Muhammad, help me, or save me, or support me, or heal me, or support your ummah, or heal the sick Muslims, and guide their misguided ones and so on, then he is making him a partner with Allaah in worship. The same applies to those who do the same thing with regard to other Prophets, angels, awliya’ (saints), jinn, idols or any other created beings, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And I (Allaah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone)” [al-Dhaariyaat 51:56].
“O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allaah), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)” [al-Baqarah 2:21].
-Quote from Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (2/453).
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: Some people at times of hardship say Ya Muhammad or Ya ‘Ali or Ya Jilaani. What is the ruling on that?
He replied:
If the intention is to call upon them and seek their help, then the person is a mushrik in the sense of major shirk that puts one beyond the pale of Islam, and he must repent to Allaah and call upon Allaah alone, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Is not He (better than your gods) Who responds to the distressed one, when he calls on Him, and Who removes the evil, and makes you inheritors of the earth, generations after generations? Is there any ilaah (god) with Allaah? Little is that you remember!” [al-Naml 27:62]
As well as being a mushrik, he is also fooling himself. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And who turns away from the religion of Ibraaheem (Abraham) (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) except him who befools himself?” [al-Baqarah 2:130]
“And who is more astray than one who calls on (invokes) besides Allaah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them?”
[al-Ahqaaf 46:5]
-Quote from Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (2/133).
And Allaah knows best.
Read MoreThe Importance of Knowing Allah's Names
Before we begin, it is important to understand some of the important reasons for studying Allah’s Names. These reasons are innumerable:
Enumeration (ihsah) of Allah’s Names is a means to enter Paradise, as mentioned in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah.
The study of Allah’s Names is the most noble of all sciences. This is because the nobility of a science is connected to the nobility of its subject, and there is no subject that one can study more noble than Allah, as indicated by some of His Names such as al-`Aziz and al-Majid.
Because of the nobility and great importance of this subject, Allah’s Messenger (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) gave greater attention to explaining it than he did any other matter. For this reason, we find that the Companions did not disagree concerning any of these matters while there was some disagreement amongst them concerning some of the legal ordinances (ahkam).
Knowledge of the Names of Allah is the basis for all other knowledge. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Knowledge of the Most Beautiful Names of Allah is the basis of all other kinds of knowledge, for all of these other branches of knowledge are devoted to either a command or a creation of His.” ([Badaa'i' al-Fawaa'id (1/163)].
It is one of the purposes of our creation. Allah (Subhanau wa Ta’ala) says:
“It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like thereof. [His] command descends between them so you may know that Allah is Powerful over all things and that Allah has encompassed all things in (His) Knowledge.” [65:12]
Thus it is that the Prophet (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) stressed that all teaching and da`wah should begin with teaching mankind about Allah. When he sent Mu’adh to Yemen, he instructed him, saying:
“You shall come to a people of scripture, so of all things, first call them to the worship of Allah. Then, when they come to know Allah, then inform them that Allah has obligated upon them five prayers…” [Agreed Upon]
Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The key to the call of the Messengers, the essence of their Message, is knowing Allah through His Names, His Attributes, and His Actions, because this is the foundation on which the rest of the Message, from beginning to end, is built.” [Al-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah `Ala al-Jahm?yyah wa'l-Mu`attilah by Ibn al-Qayyim, (1/150-151)]
Therefore, when a person occupies himself with learning about Allah, he is fulfilling the purpose for which he was created, but if he ignores this matter, he is neglecting what he was created for. The meaning of faith is not merely to utter words without knowing Allah, because true faith in Allah means that the slave knows the Lord in Whom he believes, and he makes the effort to learn about Allah through His Names and Attributes. The more he learns about his Lord, the more he increases in faith.
Thus it is that we have been commanded to know them. For example, Allah says:
“Know that Allah is of all things Knowing (`Alim).” [2:231]
“Know that Allah is severe in punishment and that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [5:98]
If you truly understood who Allah is, you would never worship anyone else. This is because knowledge of Allah’s Greatness, His Vast Mercy, and all of His Beautiful Names and Attributes would instill in the worshipper a great love and fear of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala). He would realize that Allah is worthy of all worship because of the great Qualities of Majesty He possesses and that anyone who does not possess such qualities is not worthy of worship. Thus, we see that there is a reciprocal relationship between Tawhid al-Asma’ wa’l-Sifat and Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah.
Calling upon Allah & praising Him by these names is one of the greatest deeds and best forms of dhikr. Allah says:
“And to Allah belong the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him by them.” [7:180]
And Allah has ordered us in the Qur’an to engage in frequent dhikr:
“O you who believe, remember Allah with frequent remembrance.” [33:41]
How can you love Allah if you do not know Him?
A’ishah relates that the Prophet (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) placed a man in command of an expedition. Whenever he would lead his companions in prayer, he would finish his recitation with Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad [Surah al-Ikhlas]. When they returned, they mentioned this to the Prophet, so he said, “Ask him why he does that?”
He said, “Because it is the Description of the Most Merciful (Sifat al-Rahman), and I love to recite it.”
The Prophet (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) said, “Inform him that Allah loves Him.” [Agreed Upon]
Without a doubt, the most important of all subjects in the Qur’an is al-Asma’ al-Husnah, as Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, states in Dar’ Ta`aarud al-`Aql wa’l-Naql (5/310-312),
Read MoreThe Qur’an makes mention of Allah’s Names, His Attributes, and His Actions more than it does of eating, drinking, and marital relations in Paradise. The verses that mention Allah’s Attributes and Names are greater in importance than the verses concerning the Hereafter. Thus, the greatest verse in the Qur’an is Ayat al-Kursi as established in the authentic ?ad?th reported by Muslim from the Prophet (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) that he said to Ubayy b. Ka`b, “Do you know which verse in the Book of Allah is greatest?”
He said, “Laa Ilaha Illa Huwa al-Hayy al-Qayyum” [2:255]
He struck him on the chest with his hand and he said, “May knowledge be easy and pleasant for you, O Abu’l-Mundhir.”The best surah in the Qur’an is Umm al-Qur’an (al-Fatihah) as mentioned in the hadith of Abu Sa’eed b. al-Mu`alla in the Sahih: The Prophet (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) said to him, “The likes of it has not been revealed in the Tawrah, the Injil, the Zabur, or the Qur’an, and it is the Seven Oft-Recited [Verses] (al-Sab` al-Mathani) and the Great Recital (al-Qur’an al-’Azim) which I have been given,” and it makes more mention of Allah’s Names and Attributes than it does of the Hereafter.
Furthermore, it has been established from him (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) in the Sahih from numerous routes that “Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad” [112:1] equals one-third of the Qur’an.
It is also established in the Sahih that he gave glad tidings to the one who used to recite it and would say, “I love it because it is the description (Sifah) of al-Rahman,” that Allah loves him. Thus, he clarified that Allah loves anyone who loves the mention of His Attributes (Sifaat), Glorified and Exalted is He, and this is a vast topic.
Overview
by Abu Bakr b. Nasir
This is the beginning of a series studying the Most Beautiful Names of Allah. The focus of this series is to help the reader to understand and implement the famous hadith of the 99 Names.
Abu Hurayrah has reported that the Prophet (sal-Allahu ‘alayhi was-Sallam) said:
“Indeed, Allah has Ninety-Nine Names, one hundred less one, whoever enumerates (ahsaahah) them shall enter Paradise.” [Agreed Upon]
This hadith is known to almost all of us, however, it is surrounded by many misconceptions. For that reason, in this series, we shall endeavor to explain what is meant by this hadith as well as a brief overview of some of the fundamental principles of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah in understanding Allah’s Names. Then, a brief explanation will be given of the meanings of many of the Names of All?h that can be found in the Qur’an and in the Sunnah.
Read MoreMuhammad Mukhtar Shinqiti: A Principle Of Athari Creed, On Metaphorical And Literal Meaning In The Arabic Language
By Abul-Hussein at Ahl al-Hadith
Regarding The Existence Of Metaphor In The Arabic Language
The sound position regarding metaphor is that it is exists in language of the Arabs. This it itself is a general statement that is governed by a qualification. Metaphor exists in the language of the Arabs but it is not to be applied to the names and attributes of Allah (swt). The scholars of Usul al-Fiqh have treated this topic under the section of Usul al- Fiqh entitled: Contradicitions Between Literal And Metaphorical Meaning
The Rule Of Thumb Regarding Metaphor:
When a conflict arises between the metaphorical and literal meaning and usage of a word then preference is given to the literal meaning and usage. This is the norm unless there is proof that justifies the employing the metaphor usage of a word to the exclusion of the literal meaning and usage. What the scholars of Ilm al-Kalam (Theology) have suggested is that the use of metaphor is to be given preference when dealing with the Names and Attributes of Allah (swt). This position is predicted on reason (rational proof) rather than linguistic proof. Therefore, the position of the Scholars Of Kalam is not consistent with the principle we mentioned that governs the usage of metaphor as treated in Usul al-Fiqh. The evidence (dalil) of the Scholars of Kalam is not grounded in the well established principle (qa’ida) that governs the usage of metaphor. Rather, the Scholars of Kalam turn to reason they treat their use of reason (intellect) as a legitimization of employing metaphor in the Names And Attributes. Reason in itself, is not a proof weighty enough to justify abandoning the literal usage of a term in the absence of linguistic proof that legitimizes the use of metaphor.
he Rule Applying To The Names And Attributes Of Allah
There is nothing similar or equal to Allah (swt). Allah (swt) can not be compared to anything for none knows the Essence of Allah (swt). Comparison between things means knowledge of likes, knowledge of the two things that are two be compared. Nothing that comes to mind is like Allah (swt) Allah (swt) is unlike all of creation. The principle of the scholars of Usul al-Fiqh for interpreting the Book and the Sunnah is that the literal meaning of a word is given the preference unless there is valid linguistic evidence to justify recourse to metaphor in its stead. What the Scholars Of Kalam offer as a justification for recourse to metaphor in the Names And Attributes Of Allah (swt) is not substantial enough as it does not coincide with the principle that governs the use metaphor in the place of the literal meaning of the Names and Attributes of Allah (swt).
Shaikh Muhammad Mukhatar ash Shinqiti al Usuli al Maliki (h)
Comment Of Abul-Hussein:
A Balanced Approach In Dealing With The Topic Of Metaphor
This position of Shaikh Muhammad Mukhtar Shinqiti (h) on how to deal with metaphor is also the position of Shaikh Sadiq Hasan Khan (r) and others. This is a balanced position as it decreases conflict between various schools of Aqeeda. Also this position is rooted in principles and supported by proof. As regards the position of Imam Ibn Taymiyah (r) towards metaphor i.e., the absence of metaphor in the Arabic language this is not a new position. The position of Ibn Taymiyah (r) on metaphor is often misrepresented partly because it is misunderstood. Ibn Taymiyah (r) does not employ the same terminology to treat the topic of metaphor that we find common among those who follow the ideas of Imam Sakaaki (scholar of rhetoric). There is a point wherein Ibn Taymiyah agrees with the majority of scholars in the issue of metaphor but he gives it a different name and their is a part wherein he disagrees. What confuses the issue greatly is that Imam Ibn Taymiyah (r) does not use the same terminology to deal with aqeeda or rhetoric that is common among other scholars. He has his own terminology that is divested of close association with Greek philosophy. In fact, Ibn Taymiyah aimed to use terminology that has a ground in the Book, Sunnah or Arabic language. Our other Imams, did not take this position they utilized the logic of the Greeks and the basics of the rationale of Greek philosophy to construct terminology and standardize it. So that they developed a technical language that was shared and common and utilized in Islamic sciences. Imam Ibn Taymiyah (r) constructed a system and rationale for the construction of terminology that was grounded directly in the Qur’an or Sunnah and Arabic. The idea that Ibn Taymiyah argues for is that there has been a misuse of metaphor in the Arabic language and that there are some uses that came to be popular in later scholarship that emerged with schools of rhetoric influenced by Greek thought.
Imams In The Madhab That Claims There Is No Metaphor In The Arabic Language
The position that there is no metaphor in the Arabic language was also the position of Muhammad Abu Bakr, Asfour Daud adh Dhahiri, Abi Ishaq as Safraa’ienni, Saeed Bin Mundhir and the scholars of Usul al Fiqh leaned in their direction. Imam Suyuti and Imam Zarkashi before him chronciled the differences of the Ulema regarding metaphor in the Arabic language. In recent times al-Allamah Amin Shinqiti al Maliki al Mufasir (r) took the position that metaphor does not exist in the Arabic language.
Closing Words Regarding The Matter Of Metaphor
The use of metaphor has great implication in the way Aqeeda is treated. This subject is technical and is truly an area that requires great patience, tolerance and learning. It is not facile to rightly declare those who reject metaphor to be incorrect without understanding their reasoning the source of their position and without first having gained depth in the Arabic language.
In order to gain a position in this topic that affords one the ability to critically judge one must be familiar with the Imams of Arabic and be intimate with the Imams of Rhetoric and knowledgeable of the schools and opinions therein. Also one is required to understand how these schools developed and the contours of the debates that took place among the Imams of language. Like, fiqh language studies also were characterized by madhabs.
Because this topic requires a degree of study it is best to suspend judgment or take a position by following an Imam without engaging debate. To debate this matter without a background is a mark of great ignorance. This issue requires much more than listening to a position and refutation it also entails understanding how various schools of thought in Arabic have an impact on Usul al fiqh and Aqeeda. So it is best left alone. We are not obliged to follow Ibn Taymiyah (r) but it is silly to think that he is easily refuted by the shallow claim that he was wrong and that is it. In any case, the balanced approach for the Athari in this matter is that metaphor exists in the Arabic language but it does not apply to the Names and Attributes of Allah (swt) and the rules when dealing with the Names and Attributes Of Allah (swt) is that Allah is disimilar to all creation and thought.
References:
1.) Explanation of Zad al Mustaqna By Muhammad Mukhtar Shinqiti (h)
2.) Metaphor Between those who stand by it and those who reject it volume three by Doctor Abdul Adheem Ibrahim Muhammad al Mu’tee printed by Maktaba Wahba
3.) Jaame Li Ahkam Wa Usul al Fiqh by Sadiq Hasan Khan
Read MoreThe Role of Atomism on the Groups of Kalam
By Yasir Qadhi, originally posted at MuslimMatters.org
Note: This is a short essay that I wrote during my Comprehensive Exams as part of the requirements of the PhD at Yale. The question was with regards to atomism and the role that it had on the groups of kal?m, in particular the Ash’arites. I’ve decided to post it here, as is.
The article demonstrates, inter alia, the reason why orthodox scholars of the past (viz., the Ahl al-Had?th and those who followed them) disapproved of kal?m. The obvious Hellenistic roots of kal?m, the cosmological premises that it posited, and the theological positions that were derived from such roots and premises, do not have any basis in the Sacred Texts, and in fact in most instances contradict them.
Additionally, it is simply preposterous to presume that the Companions themselves, or even the Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam, knew of these concepts or based their theology on them (and even the Ash’arites do not claim this). And surely, if the Prophet and Companions were not using such tools, then there is no need to use them, especially since they lead to positions that appear to contradict the Qur’?n and Sunnah.
Introduction of the Concept
The concept of all matter being composed of small, indivisible particles called atoms most likely goes back to the fifth century B.C., when a young contemporary of Socrates, known as Democritus, first formally introduced the idea (most likely under the influence of his teacher Leucippus). He claimed that if one continually kept dividing matter, eventually a particle would be reached that could not be divided anymore: an a-tom, i.e., ‘not divisible’. He also posited the existence of empty spaces between these atoms within which they could move – a pure ‘void’. He believed that all of the workings of the universe were the result of the vibrations of these atoms through voids and their collisions with one another.
Plato, and in particular his student Aristotle, strongly disagreed. The latter, in his Physics, wrote quite extensively against the existence of both the ‘atom’ and the ‘void’, claiming that not only were Democritus’ evidences lacking, but also that the existence of atoms and voids violated physical principles. In turn, Plato posited the ‘four natural elements’ theory: fire, air, earth and water form the basis of all else.[1]
These Greek philosophers – both the atomists and antiatomists – were attempting to explain natural occurrences and daily phenomenon without the need of resorting to supernatural explanations and believing in heavenly (or earthly) deities.[2] It is, therefore, rather ironic that this tool was then adopted by a faction of a monotheistic faith (i.e., the mutakallim?n) in their attempt to prove the all encompassing efficacy of an omnipotent God.[3] However, in their adoption of this cosmological view, they ensured that they sufficiently modified it so as to conform with and eventually support their theological positions.[4]
Kal?m Atomism
From its earliest inception in the second century of the hijra, kal?m has always been fascinated with the theory of atoms. A cursory look at the relevant sections in al-Ash’ar?’s (d. 324/935) Maq?l?t shows the center stage this issue took.[5] And although the mutakallim?n disagreed about certain secondary issues regarding atomism (such as the minimum quantity of atoms required for a ‘body’, the quantity of atoms that a single atom is allowed to touch, and so forth), the broad theory was generally upheld by both the Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites.[6]
The mutakallim?n posited that all matter is composed of identical, miniscule, indivisible particles (i.e., atoms), that are devoid of any quantitative or qualitative properties. They only acquire quantitative properties of width, height, and breadth when two or more of them unite (at which point it becomes a ‘body’), and they only acquire qualitative properties when an ‘accident’ is created within it. An accident is something that exists above and beyond the actual body. It is an accident that gives each atom (and, thereby, each body) its specific qualities that separates it from other atoms (and bodies); qualities such as color, temperature, speed or rest, life, knowledge, power, and so forth. Such accidents must reside in the atom itself, in fact by definition an accident cannot exist except within an atom.
Broadly speaking, the Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites were in agreement with regards to the affirmation of atomism, the most prominent exception being the eccentric al-Na???m (d. 230/845), who was influenced by Aristotle’s denial of atomism. Due to this view, al-Na???m was forced to invent the concept of the ‘leap’ (?ufrah).[7] Also, in contrast to the Greek philosophers (and also the fal?sifa), the mutakallim?n strongly affirmed the belief that both atoms and accidents were created, and that matter was not eternal.[8]
One of the most profound and unique contributions of the Ash’arites to the atomism debate was their proposition that ‘No accident can last two successive instances of time.’[9] In other words, as soon as an accident is created, it immediately ceases to exist. There is no continuity or connection between one moment in time and another. This means that if an object were to, say, remain in a state of rest, the accident of ‘rest’ must be continually created and re-created at each successive instant in time for the object to remain so. And, of course, it is only God who could create each and every accident on each and every body in each and every instance of time. The entire universe and all that transpires in it, according to the Ash’arites, must be directly controlled by God at each specific instance.
Another philosophical (albeit not original) contribution was the idea that time itself is composed of discrete and successive units, a type of ‘atomic-time’. This was derived not only from Aristotle’s notion that space, time and movement are all existentially equivalent, but also from the problem of trying to solve Zeno’s paradox as applied to time.[10]
These two positions necessarily leads to a denial of causality, meaning that the Ash’arites completely negated a cause-and-effect relationship between any two occurrences. Everything that occurred was disconnected, time and space, from anything preceding or following it. Even a body that remained a certain color did so because God continually re-created the accident of color in all of its atoms, at each instance in time (i.e., at each ‘atomic-time’ unit). A rock thrown at a window could not cause the window to shatter; an arm lifting a cup was not the cause of its lifting; the ingestion of food was not the cause of satiation; the proximity of fire to wool did not cause the wool to alight; and so forth.
With such a radical view of the world, the Ash’arites were then forced to explain not only the continuity of the universe around us (materials did not typically vanish, or transform into another substance, or change color, or inexplicably move from one instance to the next), but also the very clear causal connections upon which the livelihood of men rests. It is only because man eats that he does not starve to death, it is only because a fire is lit that food can be cooked, and so forth. Pressed with such factual realities, the Ash’arites (and in particular al-Ghaz?l?) developed the theory of ‘God’s habitual character’ or ‘?dah, meaning that God had ordained upon Himself to act within certain norms.[11] Thus, an object that is at rest is recreated by God at the second instance still at rest, an object that is brought close to fire and is flammable shall be set alight by God not due to the fire, but because God’s custom dictates so, and so on..
This theory safeguarded the permanent order of the universe, and also explained the apparent ‘causal’ relationship in daily life. What man perceives as ‘permanent’ is merely God’s habit (‘?dah) manifesting itself, at each successive instant. Contingent events, which man perceives as having been subject to natural physical causes, are in fact the direct result of God’s constant intervention.
Other Theological Implications of Atomism
The concept of atomism was deployed by the Ash’arites in many different fields. In what can only be described as a pun on ideas, it is true to state that the concept of atomism itself became the fundamental building block of all other aspects of Ash’arite theology.
So, for example, based upon this cosmological view, the Ash’arites formalized more than one elaborate proof for the existence of God, the most common one being the ‘dal?l al-’a’r?? wa ?ud?th al-ajs?m’, or the ‘Proof from accidents and temporality of bodies.’ This proof relies upon the fact that (i) existence is divided into bodies (composed of multiple atoms), and accidents; (ii) bodies are inherently composed of temporal accidents and cannot exist without them, and so: (iii) ‘that which is composed of temporal elements and does not precede it must also be temporal.’ Some of the Ash’arites sought to prove this method from the story of Abraham as he ‘searched’ for God via the celestial objects (Q. 6:71-79). They claimed that Abraham understood that the star, moon and Sun could not be gods because they were moving, and movement was an accident, hence Abraham realized that any body that carried within it an accident must be created and not a God.[12]
Furthermore, based upon this atomic conception, they proved that God is One, and cannot be more than one. This proof is known as dal?l al-tam?nu’, or the ‘Proof from mutual exclusion’. A summary of this is as follows: suppose that the universe had two gods, and one of them wished to create the accident of motion within an atom, while the other wished to create the accident of rest. Logically, there are only three possibilities: (i) both of them fail; (ii) both are successful; (iii) one of them is successful while the other fails. The first two logical possibilities are actually impossible, as the two are mutually exclusive, and the object has to be characterized with one of these opposing accidents. This only leaves the third option. And by definition, the one whose will is overpowering all else must be a God, and the one whose will was overpowered cannot be a god.
The Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites also propounded a theory of understanding God’s Attributes based upon their respective understandings of atomism. The primary issue at stake for them was that God could not be a place (ma?all) where accidents exist, as that would imply that He was a body composed of atoms (since accidents by definition need atoms to subside in), and hence created. So, for the Ash’arites, who defined an ‘accident’ as that which cannot last two successive instances, to posit any ‘change’ in God or from God would constitute an accident. And since all accidents must by definition reside in bodies, any accident posited of God would imply that God was a body. It was based upon this definition of ‘accidents’ that the Ash’arites could affirm God’s never-changing attributes of Life, Power, Knowledge, Hearing, Seeing, Will, and Speech, and interpret other Attributes figuratively, especially those that implied any type of motion (such as istiw? and nuz?l).
For the Mu’tazilites, on the other hand, an ‘accident’ was defined as ‘that which is superfluous to the essence (dh?t) of a substance.’[13] For them, any meaning that was not inherent to a being and extraneous to its essence (z?’id ‘al? al-dh?t) constituted an accident. Al-Q??? ‘Abd al-Jabb?r expounded on this when he said that if God actually had power, this would imply that He were a body, as power can only be potentialized when it resides in a body.[14] Hence, to affirm any characteristic to God would imply that an accident resided within God, which would necessitate God being a body, which would in turn entail that God was created. This helps explain why Mu’tazilite doctrine concerned itself with how best to phrase some of God’s capabilities, (e.g., ‘God knows with His essence’, or ‘God knows with a knowing that is Himself’, or ‘God’s knowing implies that He is not ignorant’, and so forth) as they could not explicitly affirm any meaning within God, yet at the same time could not deny that God, for example, knows everything.[15]
Yet another theological tangent that atomism provided a basis for was that of predestination. In particular, the Ash’arite understanding of qadr was directly linked to their conceptualization of matter.
Atomism and Predestination
The Ash’arite position on predestination is that God creates the actions of the servant directly without the servant himself causing that act, and that the servant then ‘acquires’ the reward or punishment of that deed. Hence, there is only an illusion of free-will, for in the end all actions are a direct result of God’s will and action. This theory, propounded by al-Ash’ar? himself, is known as the theory of ‘acquisition’, or kasb. It is, of course, based directly on Ash’arite belief of God re-creating accidents within atoms at each and every second. Man, being merely the agency upon which these accidents are created, cannot actually be the cause of any of his own ‘actions’.[16] Hence, atomism was the key factor that led Ash’arites to deny both natural causality and human free-will.
This understanding led to another ethical dilemma, and that was the accusation of God doing something evil.[17] How was it possible, the Mu’tazilites charged, that God would Himself create the actions of His servant and then punish them for it? This was the essence of evil.
In response to this charge, or perhaps pre-empting it, al-Ash’ar? developed his doctrine of what constitutes ‘evil’. For al-Ash’ar?, evil was merely what God had prohibited, and good was what He had commanded.[18] Therefore, according to him, no act is inherently judged as good or evil – human intellect and rationality play no role in this regard. Later Ash’arite authorities concurred.[19] Hence, for the Ash’arites, unless God explicitly states so, there is nothing that is ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in the first place! God does not punish or reward based upon a deed – God’s rewards are a gift from him, and His punishment an indication of his Justice, and nothing is required or obligatory on God.[20]
Therefore, for the Ash’arites, based on their definition of evil, the charge that it is evil to deprive man of free-will and then subsequently punish him for actions which God created holds no weight. Man does not have the capacity, or even right, to say what is evil and what is good.
The Mu’tazilites took the exact opposite view. Before explaining their position on free-will, it is interesting to note that, unlike the Ash’arites, the Mu’tazilites did not reduce the concept of causality to a simple and wholly unequivocal scheme, hence it is rather difficult to piece together the relationship between their version of atomism and their position on qadr; for this response, some general observations will be made.[21]
The Mu’tazilites were, of course strong proponents of free-will, hence they denied that God created man’s actions. Instead, they supported the doctrine that man created his own actions with the power that God had given him.[22]
This led to a detailed discussion of the concept of tawallud amongst them: whether (and to what extent) a human action could cause other actions. As an example, suppose a man shoots an arrow, and another person diverts it, and an innocent person is killed, who is morally responsible for his death?[23] Despite the differences that the Mu’tazilite had amongst themselves, as a whole they affirmed causality and believed that substances posses properties that have the capacity to affect other properties.
In contrast to the Ash’arites, they viewed that it was rationally possible to judge actions as evil or good (the issue of al-tahs?n al-’aql?). This basic premise played a profound role in their understanding of qadr. For the Mu’tazilites, if God were to directly create man’s actions and then punish him for those actions, while man himself has been deprived of free-will, this would be the height of tyranny and injustice. Therefore, God cannot be the creator of man’s deeds. For the Mu’tazilites, the Sacred Law only confirms what the intellect has already judged; it does not play any extra role in this decision.[24]
Conclusion:
Atomism was accepted by all factions of kal?m and incorporated into their theological models. Even though it was the Mu’tazilites who began the discussion, it was the Ash’arites who took it to a whole new level, and relied upon it even more than the Mu’tazilites.
For the Ash’arites, the only perpetual object is the atom. The atom itself is created at a specific point in time, but after that time, it remains in creation until God wills otherwise. Everything else in the world besides the atom is ‘accidental,’ meaning something that lasts for only a fleeting instant. And time itself is composed of discrete, successive units that are not directly connected to each other. It is God who must create and re-create each accident, on each atom, at each instance of time. Based upon this understanding, they extracted proofs for God’s existence, His Unity, His Attributes, and His all-encompassing power (i.e., predestination). Additionally, they denied natural causality.
For the Mu’tazilites, although they did use their understanding of atomism to derive similar proofs for God’s existence, since they defined ‘accidents’ in a manner different to that of the Ash’arites, their understanding of God’s attributes differed as well. Additionally, they did not elaborate upon the relationship of atomism with free-will as much as the Ash’arites did.
Other issues, not directly related to atomism, also played a role in conceptualizing their respective positions on predestination versus free-will. For the Mu’tazilites, if God demanded obedience from man yet simultaneously created his actions and deprived him of any free-will, it would be the height if injustice and contradict Divine Wisdom. All of this is clear and incontrovertible, according to them, because the intellect is capable of deciding what is praiseworthy and what is not. For the Ash’arites, since the intellect plays no role in deciding good from evil, it was not possible to judge any of God’s actions. Therefore, if God requires us to do something and, at the same time, does not grant us an independent will to execute it, that is permissible, for God can commit no injustice, and we cannot judge the actions of God.
Postscript
The debate of whether this elusive ‘smallest indivisible object’ actually exists remains alive up until today. The belief in such objects survived, even as it adapted and modified itself through many controversies, via medieval Christianity, Jewish philosophy, and the Renaissance. Finally, in the post-Enlightenment period, John Dalton (d. 1844) formulated his concept of the atomic theory, which was then developed and held sway for much of the 19th and early 20th century. For the first time, atoms were discovered to be of different types, and molecules to be combinations of atoms. Daltonian physics still considered the atom to be the smallest indivisible unit, but claimed (unlike kal?m) that atoms of different substances were different from one another. From the early part of the 20th century, physicists, starting with Rutherford (d. 1937), discovered smaller sub-atomic particles from which atoms were made, namely, electrons, protons and neutrons. This then gave way (largely due to the efforts of Max Planck (d. 1947) and Albert Einstein (d. 1955)) to quantum mechanics, and later to the discovery of even smaller sub-atomic particles, such as quarks and leptons, which are currently believed to combine in specific ways to form protons and neutrons. Research is still being done in this field, and daily discoveries and experiments continue to shape and challenge current theories.
For those theologians who based aspects of their theology on atomism, it is interesting to posit how these new scientific discoveries might possibly affect their theological models and positions.
[1] See: John McDonnell, The Concept of an Atom from Democritus to John Dalton (New York: 1991) p. 1-4, 21-25.
[2] Bernard Pullman, The Atom in the History of Human Thought (Oxford University Press: 1998), p. 17.
[3] Wolfson, Philosophy of the Kal?m, p. 468.
[4] It should be noted that there is a very strong possibility of Indian atomism heavily influencing the mutakallim?n as well, as Pines (p. 117) and Wolfson (p. 473) show.
[5] Al-Ash’ar?, Maq?l?t, p. 314-321.
[6] Much has been written on this. The standard introduction is that of Shlomo Pines, Studies in Islamic Atomism (Jerusalem: 1997). Also see Richard M. Frank, “Bodies and Atoms: The Ash’arite Analysis;” Bernard Pullman, The History of the Atom, p. 107-114; Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kal?m, p. 466-518; EI2, s.v., ‘Djuz’. It is interesting to note that the most accessible and elaborate explanation of kal?m atomism has been written by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, in his Guide to the Perplexed. D. Macdonald has translated and analyzed these passages in his article “Continuous Recreation and Atomic Time,” Isis, v. 9 (1927).
[7] Wolfson, Philosophy, p. 495. The ?ufrah is the belief that an object has the capacity to move from point A to point C without traveling through the intermediate point B but rather ‘leaping’ over it. This belief was needed in order to explain how a body could traverse from point A to point C when, according to al-Na???m, there were an infinite amout of points between them.
[8] Ibid, p. 471.
[9] See, for example, al-Ash’ar?, Maq?l?t, p. 358; al-Baghd?d?, U??l al-D?n, p. 50, al-Ghaz?l?, Tah?fut, p. 88.
[10] Macdonald, ‘Continuous Re-Creation,’ p. 320.
[11] See al-Ghaz?li’s Seventeenth Discussion in his Incoherence (tr. Marmura), p.171-3.
[12] Al-B?qill?ni, al-In??f, p. 44. I have written a paper on this specific issue elsewhere. Also see: Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kal?m, p. 386-390; Herbert Davidson, Proofs for eternity, creation, and the existence of God in medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy.
[13] Al-Ash’ar?, Maq?l?t, p. 369; Frank, “Bodies and Atoms,” p. 42.
[14] Shar? U??l al-Khamsah, p. 162.
[15] It goes without saying that both the Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites had other concerns as well, all of which led them to formulate their respective doctrines regarding the Attributes of God; the point here is to stress how their theory of atomism directly affected their conceptualization of God’s Attributes.
[16] Watt, The Formative Period, p. 315.
[17] It also led them to develop a unique understanding of God’s justice: for the Ash’arites, God was never unjust, not because He chose not do show injustice (the Mu’tazilite position), but rather because whatever He did was always just. Hence, if He rewarded a sinner or punished a just man, that recompense in and of itself would constitute Justice on God’s part. This of course solved the conundrum of how God could (from the Mu’tazilite perspective) ‘force’ someone to do something and then punish him for it.
[18] Al-Ash’ar?, Ris?lah ?l? Ahl al-Thaghr, p. 74.
[19] See, for example, ‘Abd al-Q?hir al-Bahd?d?, U??l al-D?n, p. 149; ‘A?ad al-D?n al-?j?, al-Maw?qif, p. 323.
[20] See, for example, al-B?qill?n?’s description of this in his al-In??f p. 48.
[21] See Pines discussion of this in his Studies, p. 32-34. I believe this issue certainly warrants further study.
[22] al-Q??? Abd al-Jabb?r, al-Mughn?, v 2, p. 340.
[23] Pines, p. 37-8; al-Ash’ar?, Maq?l?t, p. 408-10.
[24] See al-Q??? Abd al-Jabb?r, al-Mughn?, v. 6, p. 26, 30 – 34. Also, it should be borne in mind that the Mu’tazilite authorities differed amongst themselves on some of the finer details of this issue. In particular, is an act inherently good or evil, or is it due to external consequences that such a description can be made? The former view is held by the Baghdadian authorities, while the Basrians held the latter view.
Read MoreDetailed Look at the Narration of Malik al-Dar
Compiled by Um Abdullah M.
Bismillah, wal-hamdulillah was-salatu was-salamu ‘ala Rasulillah.
The incident mentioned in the narration of Malik al Dar happened during the Khilafah of Umar radiyallahu anhu, during the time of drought, and so did the incident of Umar bin al Khattab’s (radiyallahu anhu) tawassul through the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) uncle, Al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.
I have come across many discussions in regards to this narration, and all of them were concentrating on the “authenticity” of the narration, discussing its chain.
But I have not come across any discussions on the text of the hadith itself, the story,
except for some quotes here and there from some current shaikhs, sited in ahl alhadith forum, and those 2 or 3 points mentioned by those shaikhs led me to research the story of the hadith in classical books of past scholars, and I have found it very interesting and informative.
The things I discovered and read show a totally different understanding of the hadith, than what is understood by many Muslims today including some scholars, it only needs for one to go deep and see where the scholars of the past quoted the narration, in which chapter and what they said before quoting it to understand the real meaning of the hadith.
I will go straight to the points that I have regarding the text and story of this narration of Malik al Dar. After that I will mention some logical arguments in reply to the ones who use this narration as evidence for tawasul that is “asking the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to make duaa to Allah for us AFTER HIS DEATH.
The text of the narration:
It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the time of `Umar (his khilafah), whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”"
Scholars’ understanding of this narration
Hafidh Ibn Hajar al Asqalani -rahimahu Allah- in his books “Fath al Bari” (vol 3 pg. 441):
He sites it in chapter “The people asking the Imam to do istisqa’ in times of drought,” in the chapter heading section, in which he quotes ahadith that have relevance to the chapter heading, and that connect it with hadiths that come under that chapter.
Amongst those narrations he mentions the narration of Malik al Dar, and he only quotes part of the narration, he stops at “go to Umar”. He used this as evidence that people ask the imam to do istisqa (ask for rain) for them in times of drought.
He didn’t mention the rest of the hadith because it has nothing to do with the chapter heading, he only quoted what he believed fits the chapters title, for he says at the end of the section, after mentioning this narration:
“From all of this appears the relevance of the chapter heading to the origin of this story“
so, al Hafidh Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah understood from this hadith that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was directing the man to go ask the Imam, during that time (Umar radiyallahu anhu), to do istisqa’ for them.
Hafidh Ibn Kathir -rahimahu Allah-:
He sites it in his book “al Bidayah wan Nihaya ” (vol7 pg.104 ), in which he mentions some narrations, right before he mentions Malik ad Dar’s narration, which explain the meaning of the narration.
The narrations before it are by Sayf Ibn Umar, and in them is the mentioning of Umar radiyallahu anhu, after hearing about the man’s dream (who is said to be Bilal al Harith), asking the people on the minbar if they have seen anything bad from him, and then he tells them about the dream that Bilal saw, so they told him:
“Bilal has spoken the truth, so make istiqatha (seek or ask for help) to Allah, then the Muslims”. So then Umar radiyallahu anhu does istisqa’ through al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.
In the second narration, they said “he found you slow in doing istisqa’, so do istisqa’ for us “, so he did.
(Note: these 2 narrations could be weak, but the point is that al Hafidh Ibn Kathir rahimahu Allah mentioned them right before the narration of Malik, showing what it is about, which shows what he understood it to mean, same as what Ibn Hajar (r A) understood from it).
Shihab adDeen Abdur Rahman bin Askar al Baghdadi al Maliki (d. 732) in his book “Irshad as-Salik ila Ashraf al Masalik fi fiqh al Imam Malik“:
He sited it in chapter of (istisqa’ – asking for rain), in which he said (before siting the narration of Malik al Dar):
“And it is recommended to do istishfa’ (intercession) through righteous/pious people, and ahl al bayt”
Then he quotes the narration that is in sahih al Bukhari, the tawassul of Umar through al Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma), and right after it he says “and Ibn Abi Shayba narrated”, and quotes Malik ad Dar’s narration.
This clearly shows that he used the narration of Malik as evidence for “doing istishfa’ through ahl al bayt”, for al Abbas ra was the uncle f the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the dream the man saw, was guiding him to ask Umar to do istisqa’ for the people, in which he did, through al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.
Ala’ ad Deen Ali al Mutaqi al Hindi al Burhan Furi (d. 975) in his book “Kanz al Ummal“:
He sites it in chapter of (salat al Istisqa’ – prayer for rain), and Umar radiyallahu anhu prayer salat al istisqa’ when he made tawassul through Al Abbas radiyallahu anhu, thus both narrations are connected to each other, as shown in the previous points.
Conclusion: That the story of Malik al Dar’s narration is connected to the hadith about Umar’s tawassul through al Abbas, all leading to doing istisqa’ through the living, and not through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after his death.
Narrations with an addition.
There are narrations of the same story, with an addition, if they are authentic (the authenticiy is not known to me so far), they would give very strong support to the understanding of the above scholars.
and it also shows what the scholars who sited the narrations believed the narration to mean.
Imam Ibn Abd al Bar al Maliki in his book “al Isti’ab fi ma’rifat al As-hab”:
The people suffered a drought during the time of ‘Umar (his khilafah), whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and said:”O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to ‘Umar and tell him to do istisqa’ (ask Allah for rain) for the people, and that they will be watered. And tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” So, the man went and told ‘Umar, and Umar cried and said “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”
Ahmad Abdullah at Tabari (d. 694 ) in his book “ar Riyadh an Nadhirah fi Manaqib al Ashara”:
Anas bin Malik narrated:
The people suffered drought during Umar’s time, whereupon a man came to teh grave of the Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your community, for verily they have but perished,”, he said so the Messenger of Allah came to him in a dream and told him “Go to ‘Umar then tell him to do istisqa’ (ask Allah for rain) for the people, and that they will be watered. And tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” So, the man went and told ‘Umar, and Umar cried and said “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”. narrated by al Baghawi in al fada’il and Abu Umar.
Logical Arguments
-
The ones who use this hadith for this type of tawassul say that Umar radiyallahu anhu did not rebuke the man who did istisqa’ at the grave.
Reply: There is no clear evidence in the hadith indicating that the man told Umar of him going to the grave, but clearly he did tell him of the dream, telling him the message of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
so to say that he told him about his istisqa’ at the grave is an assumption, and we can’t use assumptions as evidence. -
It didn’t rain until after Umar radiyallahu anhu made istisqa’ by al Abbas radiyallahu anhum.
If the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was capable or had permission to do du’aa to Allah after his death, when asked by others, then it would have rained immediately after the man asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam at his grave, but it didn’t until after Umar’s istisqa’ through the duaa of Al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.
This shows that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, was guiding the man to ask the Umar to do istisqa’ and not him, hinting to Umar by saying to him “be clever!“, and when Umar did istisqa’ by al Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma) it immediately rained.. -
If going to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to ask him to make duaa to Allah was permissable, Umar radiyallahu anhu would have done that when wanting to do istisqa’ instead of doing it through the uncle of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, who was alive, and Umar’s (r.a) saying “we used to make tawassul through your Prophet’s duaa, and now we do tawassul through the uncle of your Prophet…”, indicates that they don’t make tawassul through the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) duaa after his death, and only when he was alive, or else why would he say “we used to”?
-
If what the man did (wether it was Bilal ibn al Harith radiyallahu anhu or someone else) was correct\permissable, then:
-
Why didn’t any of the scholars I quoted mention the narration in a chapter titled (tawassul by the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) or some title indicating that the narration is EVIDENCE for permissibility of that type of tawassul?
Instead they title the chapter in which the narration is in (salat al istisqa’- the man didn’t do salat al Istisqa’ at the grave, only did duaa, while Umar rA did salat al istisqa) , (The people asking the Imam to do istisqa’ in times of drought), he didn’t say “intercession through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam”, wouldn’t it be more important to point out the permissibility of tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after his death, which is stronger than doing tawassul through the righteous and ahl al bayt?
Instead they ignored that part , showing no importance to it at all.
So if they believed that the narration indicates the permissibility of such a tawassul, why didn’t they at least hint to it by the chapter title or a comment like they did to show that it meant to do intercession through saliheen and ahl al bayt, and ask the imam to do istisqa? -
What was the point of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam telling Umar r.A “be clever“?
-
If the man told Umar that he went to the grave, and then told him about the dream, why would Umar do salat al istisqa’ when the man already asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to do istisqa’ and he told him that they will be watered?
Isn’t the istisqa’ of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam sufficient? -
If the action of the man was correct (to ask the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to do istisqa), and the Prophet S.A.W answered his request, then why didn’t it rain immediately after the dream, and instead came down immediately after al Abbas’s (radiyallahu anhu) duaa?
Who is higher in status, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or his uncle?
-
A Reply to Those Who Deny Punishment in the Grave
A Reply to Those Who Deny Punishment in the Grave
By Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Saalih al-’Uthaymeen
Information related to the Religion (al-khabar), is categorized in accordance to the manner in which it has reached us. There are two categories:
[1]: al-Mutawaatir (recurrent): that which has been narrated from one group to another. Convention dictates: it is impossible that they would act in collusion upon a lie, from he beginning of the chain of narration to the end.
[2]: al-Aahaad (singular): all narrations excluding those classified as recurrent. Some individuals from the people of kalaam, for instance the:
The Mu’tazilah and whoever followed them from later generations, for example Shaykh Muhammad Abduh, Mahmood Shaltoot, Ahmad Shalbee, ’Abdul-Kareem ’Uthmaan, amongst others. In addition to the Usooliyyeen: Ascribed to the opinion that the khabarul-waahid cannot be used as a means of founding matters of ’aqeedah, rather only definite evidence can be used to establish matters of ’aqeedah, comprising of either a verse or a prophetic tradition. [1] The assertion above concerning the impermisibility of establishing matters of ’aqeedah upon singular traditions is inadmissible. For indeed, if the authenticity of a hadeeth is established, it being transmitted by a trustworthy chain of narrators, and has arrived to us in a correct manner, then eemaan (faith) upon it is indeed obligatory, in addition to the affirmation of it. Irrespective of whether it is khabarul-aahaad or mutawaatir. It imports upon the individual an obligation to maintain the indisputable knowledge concerning it. This is the creed of the scholars of our pious predecessors, established upon the Command of Allaah the Most High to the believers, by his statement:
‘‘It is not for a Believer, man or woman, when Allaah and his Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.’’ [Sooratul-Ahzaab 33:36]
His statement, the Most High:
‘‘Obey Allaah and His Messenger.’’ [Soorah Aali-’Imraan 3:32]
Ibn Hajar (d.852H) – rahimahullaah – said:
‘‘The implementation of the singular tradition, by the companions and the Taabi’een without repudiation is ubiquitously circulated and known, for it dictates that they unanimously accepted it.’’ [2]
Ibn Abil-’Izz al-Hanafee (d.729H) – rahimahullaah – mentioned:
Read MoreCensure of Kalam: A Consensus of the Ages
by: Abu Abdallah (sunnipress)
The Salaf al-Salih condemmned Kalâm, very harshly. They are unanimous in their rejection of it, as narrated from the Imams and their students. There is not a single evidence from the righteous predecessors who are known with religious leadership and who took part in Kalâmi discussions or approved of it. Many books have been written on this. Refer to authors like Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Batta al-’Ukbari, Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi, Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, Abu’l-Fadl al-Muqri, Abdallah al-Ansari al-Harawi, Ibn Tahir al-Maqdisi, Abu’l-Muzaffar al-Sam’ani etcetera.
Here are a few statements from the Imams of the past. These words carry authority with the Ahl al-Sunnah and they provide ample evidence with respect to their agreement in forbidding and censuring Kalâm, whether called: ‘Ilm al-Kalâm, ‘Ilm Usul al-Din or anything else. If it is based upon the foreign ‘knowledge’ of the Greeks and their ilk, it is rejected.
I shall try also to explain some of their statements, clarifying their intended meanings with the Help of Allah. I shall not bother about the authenticity question of the narrations I bring forth, for whoever has little knowledge of the Salaf’s way know that most of it is authentic; and whoever has no knowledge can trace the statements and judge himself.
I remember several discussions wherein people speak in praise and positively about Kalâm, knowingly that the Salaf abhored it and condemned its practioners. However they interpreted part of their statements or all of it, opposing the apparent meaning of theirs. Indeed, they opposed the clear-cut decisive impact of the Salaf. They do that as blind followers of particular callers of today, who cleverly voice the weak and shaky opinions of some late prominent Ash’arites who felt the need to interpret many anti-Kalâmi statements too. With Allah is Help sought!
Kalâm – A Short Overview
What is Kalâm? Kalâm is today usually translated as scholastic theology or speculative theology. It is a way or mode of argumentation and discussion – probably also the reason why it is called kalâm, lit. speech – which finds its origin outside of Islam, nay outside Arabia!
Read MoreCall Upon Allah by the Status of the Prophet (saw)
5) To call upon Allah alone, asking Him by His Prophet is a valid difference of opinion in Fiqh where none is censured. For example: O Allah! I ask you alone by Your noble Prophet!
This type of tawassul does not entail Shirk by agreement, but it is, nevertheless, a bida’i tawassul, over which the scholars have differed.
Bida’i tawassul is, as al-‘Allama Hasan al-Shatti al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali says while commenting on Matalib Ulin-Nuha, quoting Ibn ‘al-Imad al-Hanbali: ‘Tawassul through the righteous is for one to say: O Allah! I make tawassul to you through your Prophet Muhammad SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, or someone else, that you fulfil my need’
Take note, that the tawassul referred to here involves directly calling upon Allah and addressing Him alone, by the right of His creation. It does not involve calling upon anyone other than Allah, for that will be dealt with later on.
This type of Tawassul is differed over amongst the scholars, including the Hanbalis.
Some scholars, including Ibn Qudama allow this type of Tawassul, while other scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyya do not allow it.
The issue of tawassul is linked to swearing an oath by the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam.
Most of the scholars
Read MoreCall Upon Other than Allah to Intercede with Allah
3) To call upon other than Allah, asking them to intercede for us with Allah is also Shirk. For example: O Prophet! Intercede for us with Allah!
The following verdict from Allah about intercession should suffice:
“They worship besides Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, saying: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Do you inform Allah of something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth? Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him!” (Yunus 18)
The Hanafi Maturidi theolgian, al-Taftazani states that the Shirk only occured amongst the pagans when “one of them died, who possessed a high station with Allah, they took an sculpture resembling him and exalted him, thereby seeking his intercession (tashaffu’an) and and taking him as means (tawassulan).” Sharh al-Maqasid
The Shafi’i-Ash’arite theologian, al-Razi states in his Tafseer: “Those who said: ‘We only worship these idols, which are sculptures of angels, so that they intercede for us. Hence, Allah falsified their claim saying: ‘No intercession will be of benefit with Him, except for one He permits’. Hence, there is no benefit in you worshiping other than Allah, for Allah does not permit intercession for one who worships other than Him. You, by asking for intercession, have lost the right of intercession.”
He also says:
Read More