Saturday, 31 December 2016

Refuting quranists (Hadith rejectors): Ahadeeth myths !

All praise is due to Allaah, and peace and blessings of Allaah be upon his Last and Final Messenger, his pure family, his noble Companions, and all those who follow them with righteousness until the Day of Judgment.
We have undoubtedly sent down the Reminder(al-dhikr), and We will truly preserve it. (Soorah al-Hijr:9)
This article is a humble attempt to eradicate the misconceptions that many non-Muslims and Muslims possess about the second source of the Shariah (Islaamic jurisprudence) namely the Sunnah.

This article is by no means a comprehensive coverage of the Sunnah, but rather an introductory article dispelling the myths surrounding ahadeeth [pl. of hadeeth]. I will attempt to avoid several sections such as the command to follow the Messenger as this is discussed in great detail by Allaamah al-Albaani (May Allaah have mercy on him) in his treatise, the Status of the Sunnah in Islaam

I pray, insha’Allaah, (God-Willing), that this article serves to remove the confusion and ignorance that the people are suffering from regarding this important issue and that it will save all those sincere seekers of truth from failing into major kufr by rejecting the ahadeeth.

The Definition of Hadeeth

The term hadeeth linguistically means a communication or a narrative. This is confirmed in the Glorious Qur’aan
Let them then produce a saying (hadeeth) like unto it. (Soorah at-Tur:34)
And when the Prophet spoke (Hadeeth) secretly to one of his wives. (Soorah at-Tahrim:3)
In the Shariah terminology, it refers to all that is transmitted from the Prophet, his deeds, his sayings, whatever he approved. According to the Muhadditheen (scholars of hadeeth), it is synonymous with the term Sunnah.

Myth #1 Ahadeeth were written 200 years after the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

This misconception is based on the hadeeth mentioned in Saheeh Muslim (Second authenthic Hadeeth collection):
It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Do not write anything from me; whoever has written anything from me other than the Qur’aan, let him erase it and narrate from me, for there is nothing wrong with that. (Narrated by Muslim, al-Zuhd wa’l-Raqaa’iq, 5326)
Those who use this hadeeth and argue that no ahadeeth were written are ignorant of the historical temporary prohibition of this statement. The temporary prohibition was meant as a precautionary step to ensure the correctness of the word of Allaah as distinguished from the words of the Prophet himself, as both came from the lips of the Prophet. This is one view and several other views are mentioned in the commentary on Saheeh Muslim by Imaam Al-Nawawi (May Allaah have mercy on him)

Al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim:
Al-Qaadi said: there were many disputes among the Sahaabah and Taabi’een concerning the writing down of knowledge. Many of them regarded this as being makrooh, but most of them regarded it as permissible. This dispute is no longer an issue.

They differed as to the meaning of this hadeeth which says that it is forbidden. It was said that this pertained to one who was sure of his memory, and there was the fear that he may rely upon what he had written if he wrote it down; the ahaadeeth which say that it is permissible to write things down is to be interpreted as referring to the one whose memory is not reliable, such as the hadeeth, “Write it down for Abu Shaah”; or the hadeeth of the saheefah of ‘Alee (may Allaah be pleased with him); the hadeeth of the book of ‘Amr ibn Hazm, which contains laws on inheritance, sunnahs and diyaat (blood money); the hadeeth about writing down charity, and the minimum amounts at which zakaah becomes obligatory (nisaab), with which Abu Bakr sent Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) to Bahrain; the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah which says that Ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas used to ; write things down but he (Abu Hurayrah) did not write things down, and other ahaadeeth. And it was said that the hadeeth forbidding writing down ahaadeeth was abrogated by these ahaadeeth.

The prohibition was in effect when there was the fear that (the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) might be mixed with the Qur’aan. When that danger was no longer present, permission was given to write down (ahaadeeth). And it was said that the prohibition mentioned in the hadeeth referred to writing ahaadeeth on the same page as Qur’aan, lest they become mixed and thus the reader would be confused when looking at this page. And Allaah knows best.

The hadeeth of Abu Shaah was narrated by al-Bukhaari from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said:
‘When Allaah granted His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) victory over Makkah, he stood before the people and praised and glorified Allaah, then he said: “Allaah protected Makkah from the elephant and has given authority to His Messenger and the believers over it, so fighting was forbidden for anyone before me, and was made permissible for me for part of a day, and it will not be permissible for anyone after me. Its game should not be chased, its thorny bushes should not be uprooted, and picking up its fallen things is not allowed except for one who makes public announcement for it, and he whose relative is murdered has the option either to accept a compensation for it or to retaliate.” Al-‘Abbas said, “Except Al-Idhkhir (a kind of plant), for we use it in our graves and houses.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Except Al-Idhkhir.” Abu Shaah, a Yemeni, stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah! Get it written for me.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Write it for Abu Shaah.” (al-Luqatah, 2254)

Ibn Hajar said: What may be understood from the story of Abu Shaah (“Write it for Abu Shaah”) is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave permission for hadeeth to be written down from him.
This contradicts the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, which says that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘Do not write down anything from me except the Qur’aan.’ (Narrated by Muslim).

The two may be reconciled by noting that the prohibition applied only to the time when the Qur’aan was being revealed, lest it be confused with something else, and that permission was given at other times; or that the prohibition applied only to writing down things other than Qur’aan with the Qur’aan on one thing, and that permission was given to write them separately; of that the prohibition came first and the permission abrogated that, when there was no longer any fear of confusion. This is most likely to be the case.

It was said that the prohibition applied only to those whom it was feared would depend on the writing and not memorize things, and that permission was given for those from whom such a thing was not feared.

The scholars said: a group of the Sahaabah and Taabi’een regarded it as makrooh to write down the hadeeth and they regarded it as mustahabb to learn it from them by heart, as they had learned it. But when people were no longer able to strive so hard (in memorizing) and the scholars feared that knowledge might be lost, they compiled it in books.”
There are countless instructions from the Prophet instructing his companions to write down some ahadeeth.
One of the Ansaar (The Helpers) asked the Prophet if there was another way to preserve ahadeeth as he sometimes forgets them. The Prophet replied:
Seek help from your right hand, and pointed out to a writing. (Tirmidhi)
Raafi ibn Khadij (May Allaah be pleased with him) said:
I said to the Prophet that we hear from you many things, should we write them down?” He replied: You may write. There is no harm. (Tadreeb ar Raawi)
Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) narrates that the Prophet said:
Preserve knowledge by writing. (At-Tabari Jaami ul Bayaan)
Abu Raafi (may Allaah be pleased with him) sought permission from the Prophet to write ahadeeth and the Prophet granted him that permission (Tirmidhi)
Salma (student of Ibn Abbaas) says:
I saw some small wooden boards with Abdullaah Ibn Abbaas. He was writing on them some reports of the acts of the Prophet which he acquired from Abu Raafi’. (Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d)
Abdullaah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas (May Allaah be pleased with him) reports that the Prophet said to him:
Preserve Knowledge
Abdullaah then asked,
how should it be preserved?
The Prophet replied,
by writing it.
(Mustadrik Haakim; Jaami ul Bayaan)
In another report, he says,
I came to the Prophet and told him, I want to narrate your ahadeeth. So, I want to take assistance of my handwriting besides my heart. Do you deem it fit for me?’
The Prophet replied,
If it is my hadeeth you may seek help from your hand besides your heart. (Daarimi)
He also says:
I used to write whatever I heard from the Prophet and wanted to learn it by heart. Some people of the Quraysh dissuaded me and said,
Do you write everything you hear from the Prophet, while he is a human being and sometimes he may be in anger as any other human beings may be? (Abu Dawood)
After Abdullaah ibn Amr conveyed their opinion to the Prophet, the Prophet replied by pointing to his lips and said:
I swear by the One in whose hands is the soul of Muhammad: nothing comes out from these two (lips) except truth(haqq). So, do write. (Abu Dawood; Tabaqaat ibn Sa’d; Mustadrik ul Haakim)

These narrations attest that ahadeeth were written during the era of the Prophet.

I will list here the prominent compilations written in the first and second century, some written by the sahabas (the Prophet’s companions), their students (taabi’een), and the students of the taabi’een (tabaa'at-taabi'een).

Some of the compilations during the era of the Prophet:

The Scripts of Abu Hurairah

Hasan ibn Amr reports that once:
Abu Hurairah took him to his home and showed him “many books” containing the ahadeeth of the Prophet. (Jaami’ Bayaan-ul-‘Ilm; Fath-ul-Baari)
The Script of Abdullaahi ibn Amr

Mujahid, his student, said
I went to Abdullaah ibn Amr and took in hand a script placed beneath his cushion. He stopped me. I said, You never save anything from me. He replied:
This is the Saadiqah (the Script of Truth). It is what I heard from the Prophet. No other narrator intervenes between him and myself. If this script, the Book of Allaah, and wahaz (his agricultural land) are secured for me, I would never care about the rest of the world. (Jaami’ Bayaan-ul-‘Ilm)
The Script of Anas

Sa’eed ibn Hilal, one of his students, says:
When we insisted upon Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) he would bring to us some notebooks and say, These are what I have heard and written from the Prophet, after which I have presented them to the Prophet for confirmation. (Mustadrik Haakim)
The Script of Alee

Alee said:
I have not written anything from the Prophet except the Qur’aan and what is contained in this script. (Saheeh Bukhaaree- Book of Jihaad)
Ibn Sa'd reports that Alee stood in the mosque and delivered a lecture then he asked the people:
Who will purchase ‘knowledge’ for one dirham only?
meaning, who wants to learn ahadeeth should buy writing paper for one dirham and come to him for dictation.

It is reported that Haarith al-A’war bought some paper and came to him:
So, Alee wrote for him a lot of knowledge. (Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d)
Scripts of Jaabir

Qataadah, one of Jaabir’s students, says,
I remember the script of Jaabir more than I remember Surah al-Baqarah (Qur’aan). (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb)
Scripts of Ibn Abbaas

Musa ibn Uqbah says:
Kuraib left with us a camel load of Ibn Abbaas’s books. When Alee ibn Abdullaah ibn Abbaas would need any book from them, he wrote to Kuraib, ‘Send to me such and such books.’ He would then transcribe the book and send to him one of the two copies. (Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d)
The pupils of Ibn Abbaas would copy these scripts and read them over to him to confirm the correctness of the copies. (Tirmidhi)

Sometimes Ibn Abbaas would narrate the ahadeeth to his pupils while they would record them. (Daarimi)

The compilations of the First Century:

1. Book of Khalid ibn Ma’dan (d. 104)
2. Books of Abu Qilabah (d. 104). He bequeathed his books to his pupil, Ayyub Saktiyan (68-131 A.H.), who paid more than ten dirhams as a fare for them being loaded on a camel.
3. The script of Hammam ibn Munabbih,
4. Books of Hasan al-Basri (21-110 A.H.)
5. Books of Muhammad al-Baqir (56-114 A.H.)
6. Books of Makhul from Syria
7. Book of Hakam ibn ‘Utaibah
8. Book of Bukair ibn Abdullaah ibn al-Ashajj (d. 117)
9. Book of Qais ibn Sa’d (d. 117). This book later belonged to Hammad ibn Salamah.
10. Book of Sulaiman al-Yashkuri
11. Al-Abwaab of Sha’bi,
12. Books of Ibn Shihaab az-Zuhri
13. Book of Abul-Aliyah
14. Book of Sa’id ibn Jubair (d. 95)
15. Books of Umar ibn ‘Abdul Aziz (61-101 A.H.)
16. Books of Mujahid ibn Jabr (d. 103)
17. Book of Raja ibn Hywah (d. 112)
18. Book of Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Haq
19. Book of Bashir ibn Nahik.

The compilations of the second century (note that only the prominent ones are listed due length) :

1. Book of Abdul Malik ibn Juraij (d. 150)
2. Muwatta of Maalik ibn Anas (93-179)
3. Muwatta of Ibn Abi Zi’b (80-158)
4. Maghaazi of Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 151)
5. Musnad of Rabi’ ibn Sabih (d. 160)
6. Book of Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah (d. 156)
7. Book of Hammad ibn Salmah (d. 167)
8. Jami’ Sufyan ath-Thauri (97-161)
9. Jami’ Ma’mar ibn Rashid (95-153)
10. Book of ‘Abdur-Rahman al-Awzaa’I (88-157)
11. Kitaab az-Zuhd by Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak (118-181)
12. Book of Hushaim ibn Bashir (104-183)
13. Book of Jarir ibn ‘Abdul-Hamid (110-188)
14. Book of Abdullaah ibn Wahb (125-197)
15. Book of Yahya ibn Abi Kathîr (d. 129)
16. Book of Muhammad ibn Suqah (d. 135)
17. Tafsîr of Zaid ibn Aslam (d. 136)
18. Book of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah (d. 141)
19. Book of Ash’ath ibn ‘Abdul-Malik (d. 142)
20. Book of Aqil ibn Khalid (d. 142)
21. Book of Yahya ibn Sa’id Ansari (d. 143)
22. Book of Awf ibn Abi Jamilah (d. 146)
23. Books of Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (d. 148)
24. Books of Yunus ibn Yazid (d. 152)
25. Book of ‘Abdur-Rahman al-Mas’udi (d. 160)
26. Books of Zaidah ibn Qudamah (d. 161)
27. Books of Ibrahim al-Tahman (d. 163)
28. Books of Abu Hamzah al-Sukri (d. 167)
29. Al-Gharaaib by Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 160)
30. Books of Abdul-Aziz ibn ‘Abdullaah al-Majishun (d. 164)
31. Books of Abdullaah ibn ‘Abdullaah ibn Abi Uwais (d. 169)
32. Books of Sulaiman ibn Bilal (d. 172)
33. Books of Abdullaah ibn Lahi’ah (d. 147)
34. Jami’ Sufyan ibn ‘Uyainah (d. 198)
35. Kitaab-ul-AAthaar by Imaam Abu Haneefah (d. 150)
36. Maghaazi of Mu’tamir ibn Sulaiman (d. 187)
37. Musannaf of Waki’ ibn Jarrah (d. 196)
38. Musannaf of Abdur-Razzaaq ibn Hammam (136-221)
39. Musnad of Zaid ibn Alee (76-122)
40. Books of Imaam Shaafi’i (150-204)

The following are available today in printed form:

1. Al-Muwatta by Imaam Maalik.
2. Kitaab-ul-AAthaar by Imaam Abu Haneefah.
3. Musannaf by ‘Abdur-Razzaaq. This book has been published in eleven big volumes.
4. As-Seerah by Muhammad ibn Ishaq.
5. Kitaab az-Zuhd by ‘Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak.
6. Kitaab az-Zuhd by Waki’ ibn Jarraah (3 volumes).
7. Al-Musnad by Zaid ibn Alee (76-122).
8. Sunan of Imaam Shaafi’i.
9. Musnad of Shaafi’i.
10. Siyar of Awzaa’i (88-157).
11. Musnad of ‘Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak.
12. Musnad of Abu Daawood Tayalisi (d. 204).
13. Ar-Radd ‘ala Siyaril-Awzaa’i by Imaam Abu Yoosuf.
14. Al-Hujjah ‘ala Ahlil-Madeenah by Imaam Muhammad ibn Hasan Shaibaani.
15. Kitaabul-Umm by Imaam Shaafi’i.
16. Al-Maghaazi by Waqidi (130-206) (4 volumes).

Myth #2 Al-Hikmaah is an attribute of the Glorious Qur’aan

The Quraniyyah (Quran-alone group) argue that Al-Hikmaah mentioned in the Glorious Qur’aan refers to the Glorious Qur’aan instead of the Sunnah. They claim that it means mere 'Wisdom' and leave it at that.

In the linguistic sense, The term hikmaah means 'wisdom', 'aphorism', 'maxim', or 'gnome'. it is derived from the root h-k-m (haakaama) which means 'to rule or issue a judgement' and thus in the Shariah terminology, it refers to the Sunnah depending on the context.

The definition is eloquently explained by Imaam Shaaf’ee (may Allaah have mercy on him) who comments on the ayaat regarding the Kitaab (Qur’aan) and the Hikmaah (Sunnah):
Allaah (Exalted is He) mentioned the Kitaab, and that is the Qur'aan; He also mentioned Hikmaah. I have heard those whose opinion I trust among the people of knowledge of the Qur'aan say that Hikmaah means the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This supports what Allaah (Exalted is He) said - and Allaah knows best - because the Qur'aan is a reminder (dhikr) and hikmaah follows it, and Allaah mentioned that He lavished favour on His creatures by teaching them the Kitaab and Hikmaah. It is therefore impermissible - and Allaah knows best - to say that Hikmaah here is anything other than the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). That is because it is coupled (maqruna) with the Kitaab, and that Allaah has made obedience to His Prophet a strict obligation, imposing upon people the absolute duty to follow his commands. Thus it is not permissible to say about anything that it is a strict obligation (fard) except about Allaah's Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) due to what we just said, namely, that Allaah has coupled belief in His Messenger with belief in Him. (al-Risala (p. 78))
Allaah (Exalted is He) mentions the Hikmaah in several ayaat:
Allaah has surely blessed the believers with His favor when He raised in their midst a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His verses and makes them pure and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom, while they were, earlier in open error. (Soorah Al-Baqaraa:164)
He (Allaah) is the One who raised up, among the unlettered, a Messenger from among themselves who recites the verses of Allaah, and makes them pure, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom. (Soorah al-Joomooa:2)
Here Hikmaah is followed straight after the mentioning of Kitaab (Book). According to the Quraniyyah, it should read as:
He (Allaah) is the One who raised up, among the unlettered, a Messenger from among themselves who recites the verses of Allaah, and makes them pure, and teaches them the Book (Qur'aan) and the Wisdom (Qur'aan) (Soorah al-Joomooa:2)
This is grammatically incorrect since according to the Qur'aanic principle of mooghayaraa (differentiation), coupled words do not mean the same thing and indeed the Glorious Qur’aan is far above such mistakes.

Allaah (Exalted is He) says:
Do they not then consider the Qur'aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely have found therein much contradiction. (Soorah An Nisaa: 82)

Myth #3 The Glorious Qur’aan does not need any explanation; it is complete.

The Quraniyyah group often introduce this claim to establish that the Glorious Qur’aan does not need any expounding based on a couple of ayaat. They seemingly twist the tafseer of these ayaat and introduce their distorted interpretation.

The revelation (wahy) is one, meaning that they come from same source, but are distinguished between the unrecited wahy (ghayr matluww) which is the Sunnah and the recited wahy (wahy matluww) which is the Glorious Qur’aan.

Allaah (Exalted is He) says:
He does not speak from his desires, Verily it is inspiration (unrecited revelation) which has been revealed. (Soorah an-Najm:3-4)
Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentions in his treatise:
And the Sunnah with us are the aathaar (narrations) of the Messenger of Allaah (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the Sunnah explains and clarifies the Qur’aan. It is the guide to the Qur’aan [containing evidences and indications as to its meanings and correct interpretations.]
Hassaan ibn Atiyyah said,
Jibreel used to descend upon the Messenger of Allaah with the Sunnah just as he used to descend with the Qur’aan.
Reported in Ash-Sharh wal-Ibaanah of Ibn Battah, p. and Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa of Shaikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, 3/366.
Ibn Katheer said,
The Sunnah is decisive over the Book of Allaah.
Reported in ad-Daarimee, 1/144 and Ash-Sharh wal-lbaanah of Ibn Battah
Al-Suyuti says that
if one seeks the Quraan, he shall seek 'sunnah' because it is the commentary of the Quraan and its explanation
Daarimi says
that the sunnah is a Judge upon the Qur'aan and not the Qur'aan upon Sunnah. (Musnad Daarimi)

Imaam Ghazzaali says:
Allaah does not have two words, one in the Quraanic style which we are bidden to recite publicly, and called the Qur'aan, while the other word is not Qur'aan. Allaah has but one word which differs only in the mode of its expression. On occasions Allaah indicates His word by the Qur'aan; on others, by words in another style, not publicly recited (Sunnah), and called it the Sunnah. Both are mediated by the Prophet. (Mustasfa 1.125)

Ibn Khaldun explains:
The basis of all the traditional sciences is the legal material of the Qur'aan and the sunnah of the Prophet, which is the Shariah given us by Allaah and His Messenger, as well as the sciences connected with that material, by means of which we are enabled to use it. This, further, requires as auxiliary sciences the sciences of the Arabic language [that is, grammar, rhetoric, lexicography, etc.]. Arabic is the language of Islaam and the Qur'an was revealed in it.

The different kinds of traditional sciences are numerous, because it is the duty of the responsible Muslim to know the legal obligations Allaah placed upon him and upon his fellow men. The are derived from the Qur'aan and the sunnah of the Prophet, either from the text itself or through general consensus, or a combination of the two. Thus he must first study the explicit wordingof the Quran. This is the science of Qur'aan interpretation. Then he must study the Quran, both with reference to the manner in which it has been transmitted and related on the authority of the Prophet who brought it from Allaah, and with reference to the differences in the readings of the Quran readers. This is the science of Quranic "reading."
Without the unrecited wahy (sunnah), some of the provisions of the Shariah would have been left untouched or subjected to everyone’s opinion irrespective of their knowledge. To name an example: the command to establish the second pillar which is the salaah.

Allaah (Exalted is He) has ordered more than 73 times to observe it and yet the explanation is nowhere mentioned in the Glorious Qur’aan. Hence, through the sunnah of the Prophet, we learn the exact way of observing the salaah.

Ibn Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) summed up the different aspects of explanations:
The explanation of the Qur'aan has four aspects to it. The first aspect comprises what is known by the Arabs by virtue of their language. When it is recited to the Arabs, they understand it. Then there are the explanations that no one is excused for not knowing. This includes the explanation of the verses related to Islamic legal injunctions and beliefs that people need to know. Then there are the explanations that are known only to scholars. These are subtle meanings that most people do not grasp. Then there are matters whose explanation is known only to Allaah. These are the four aspects of the explanation of the Qur’aan
Tafseer at-Tabaree
Thus, the Sunnah is an exposition of the Glorious Qur'aan by which its generalities are clarified and its intended meaning specified.

Myth #4 The ahadeeth is not protected.

Another popular belief among the Quraniyyah and the ignorant Muslims is the myth that the ahadeeth are not protected.

They cite the ayah in Soorah al-Hijr as proof. A clear examination of the ayah proves that Allaah (Exalted is He) has promised to protect His religion which includes the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. The ayah is:
Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).(Sooraah al-Hijr:9)
Al-Dhikr mentioned in the ayah has numerous meanings in the Glorious Qur’aan, it is sometimes for the Glorious Qur'aan as in
And this is a blessed Reminder (al-dhikr), which We have sent down: will you then (dare to) deny it? (Sooraah al-Anbiyaah:50)
And sometimes it is used for Sunnah, as in,
With clear signs and Books (We sent the Messengers). And We have also sent down unto you the Dhikr, that you may tubayyina (explain clearly) to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought. (Soorah An-Nahl:44)
Ibn Hazm (May Allaah have mercy on him) said in his book ‘al-Ihkaam that
al-dhikr is a name that comprises all that Allaah revealed to His Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) be it the Qur'aan or the Sunnah. The Sunnah is also a revelation that explains the Qur'aan

Myth #5 Some authentic ahadeeth contradict the Glorious Qur’aan

Many Quraniyyah shift through the two saheeh volumes and assert that some ahadeeth contradict the Glorious Qur’aan. This reveals their lack of acquaintance with the ahadeeth sciences (Usool al-Hadeeth). They do not question that their interpretation might be erroneous and instead of looking at the commentaries of these ahadeeth, they brush them as ‘contradictory’ and thus ‘false’.

There are some apparent contradictions between narrations but that is because the sahabas narrated according to their own understanding of things that they have witnessed. A good example is the ahadeeth regarding Hajj (Pilgrimage). One of the narrators reported that the Prophet made an ifrad hajj because he heard the Prophet saying "I have presented myself in Your service to perform the Hajj". Others have narrated that the Prophet performed a qiran hajj. At the first glance, it seems contradictory since the qiran hajj is very different from the ifrad hajj, but in fact there are no contradictions between the narrations, since it is permissible for one performing qiran hajj to also say "I have presented myself in Your service to perform the Hajj"

Such apparant contradictions can cause confusions and hence why Allaah (Exalted is He) said in the Glorious Qur'aan to refer to ahl-quraan and the ahl-ahadeeth (ahl al-dhikr):
then ask those who possess the Message (Ahl al-Dhikr) if you do not know. (Soorah Al-Anbiya:7)
The general public cannot identify whether the hadeeth is said in a general context or particular matter, or that it is absolute or restricted or that it is abrogating is abrogated. Only the scholars (May Allaah have mercy on them) know these matters and can distinguish which is which, contrary to the ignorant Muslims who spend all their time declaring ahadeeth that opposess their intellect as contradictory.


Even though I have not covered the major aspects of the Sunnah, some of the misconceptions addressed are often repeated by many Muslims who are deceived by the Quraniyyah websites.

One of the main reason that many Muslims reject the second source is because it conveys the huddud punishments such as stoning and flogging so they reject to suit the desires of their masters (the enemies of Islaam).

They are ashamed that they might be called 'backwards' by their peers so they try to misinterpret the Glorious Qur'aan and the Sunnah.

Allaah (Exalted is He) addresses this:
Indeed, We have brought the Truth to you but most of them have a hatred for the Truth (al-Zukhruf:78)
And remember the words of the Prophet:
Fa-tooba lil-ghurabaa (tooba is for the Strangers)
Praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds.

Wednesday, 28 December 2016

Hadith al-Manzilah Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 700 - like Haroon to Musa? A successor ?

Hadith al-Manzilah

The Shia propagandists oftentimes abuse the following Hadith in order to claim that the Prophet appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 700:
Allah’s Apostle set out for (the Battle of) Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Haroon to Musa? But there will be no prophet after me.”
عَنْ مُصْعَبِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَرَجَ إِلَى تَبُوكَ وَاسْتَخْلَفَ عَلِيًّا فَقَالَ أَتُخَلِّفُنِي فِي الصِّبْيَانِ وَالنِّسَاءِ قَالَ أَلَا تَرْضَى أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ نَبِيٌّ بَعْدِي.

However, this Hadith is not evidence for the Caliphate of Ali after the death of the Prophet because the comparison made was between Ali and Prophet Haroon. It is well-known that Prophet Haroon died before Prophet Musa, and thus was never his successor after him.
The following is an explanation by Imam al-Qurtubi in his Tafseer:
There is no disagreement that Haroon died before Musa…and (Haroon) was not a successor after him (Musa), for the successor (to Musa) was Yusha bin Noon (i.e. Joshua), so if he (the Prophet) wanted by his saying (to grant Ali) the Caliphate, he would have said “you will be to me like Yusha was to Musa”, so when he didn’t say this it proved that he didn’t want that meaning, but he (simply) wanted that “you are my deputy over my family in my life and my absence from my family, like Haroon was deputy of Musa over his people when he left to speak to his Lord.”
Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, a Shia scholar, says
“He (Allah) appointed Harun the helper, assistant, deputy and successor of Musa among his people, and even made him a prophet…Since Harun was the leader of all the Bani Isra’il, the situation of Ali, peace be upon him, was analogous.
source: Imamate And Leadership,"
This is simply incorrect: Prophet Haroon died before Prophet Musa, so it is impossible to claim that Haroon was the successor of Musa. The successor of Prophet Musa was Prophet Yusha (Joshua) and therefore if the Prophet had wanted to imply successorship, then surely he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha.
In Hadith al-Manzilah it is narrated that the Prophet left to go for war and he deputized Ali as the caretaker of his family in his absence. It was very routine at that time for a father to deputize his son as caretaker of the family in his absence; because the Prophet did not have a son, Ali was the most appropriate choice for this very noble task.
Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, a Shia scholar, says
“ To this we answer that whenever the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, left the Islamic capital, he would always appoint someone to act as his deputy. If by comparing Ali, peace be upon him, to Harun, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, had intended nothing more than the usual appointment of a deputy, restricted in his authority to Madinah for the period of the Prophet’s absence, why did he not use a similar expression for those other favored Companions he would appoint as deputy? Why did he not use the same or similar words to describe the services they rendered?
source: Imamate And Leadership, 
In order to respond to this, we must first understand the context in which this Hadith was said. Before the Battle of Tabuk, a band of the Munafiqoon (Hypocrites) began to spread anti-Islamic propaganda in order to dishearten the Muslims. One of the lies they spread was directed towards Ali ibn Abi Talib and it was because of this that the Prophet said what he said in the Hadith. We read:
Expedition to Tabuk
…The Munafiqoon were constantly in league with the Jews of al-Medinah and were holding regular consultations against the Muslims. A band of twelve Munafiqoon built their own separate mosque as a center for carrying out their hostile activities and anti-Islamic propaganda, and for creating a rift among the Muslims. When they saw the Muslims engaged in preparing for the impending battle, they started passing discouraging remarks…
Islamic Army’s Departure
The Messenger of Allah set out for Tabuk with an army of 30,000 men from al-Medinah…and he put Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari in charge of al-Medinah…The Prophet had left behind Ali to look after his family. The Munafiqoon used this as an opportunity to spread false rumors about Ali. They implied that the Prophet gave little importance to Ali and therefore left him alone in al-Medinah. When his patience ran out, he (Ali) hurried from al-Medinah and–joining the Prophet at al-Jurf–asked: “The Munafiqoon are saying such-and-such about me and so I have come to you.” The Prophet of Allah said: “They are liars. I have left you behind to look after my household, so go back.” In order to soothe his feelings, the Prophet further added: “You are to me as Haroon was to Musa, except that there will be no Prophet after me.” Ali returned to al-Medinah pacified and satisfied.
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.232)
This context is understood by the Shia as well:
Shia say
The Expedition of Tabuk
…The hypocrites in Medina seized this opportunity to plant disaffection in the minds of the neophytes in Islam. They not only did not take part in the campaign but also tried to dissuadeothers from doing so. In an attempt to undermine the will and purpose of the Muslims, they began to spread alarmist stories…
Nevertheless, many Muslims responded to the appeal of the Prophet, and took up arms to defend the faith. When a head-count was taken, there were found to be 30,000 volunteers. It was the largest force ever assembled in Arabia until then.
The Prophet appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib his viceroy in Medina during his own absence…For the hypocrites, there was nothing more disagreeable than to see Ali in authority over them. When the army left Medina, they began to whisper that the Apostle had left Ali in Medina because he wanted to get rid of him. Ali was mortified to hear that his master had found him a “burden.” He, therefore, immediately went after the army and overtook it at Jorf. The Apostle was surprised to see him but when he (Ali) explained why he came, he (the Apostle) said:
“These people are liars. I left you in Medina to represent me in my absence. Are you not content to be to me what Aaron was to Moses except that there will not be any prophet after me.”
source: Restatement of History of Islam,”
Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, a Shia scholar, says
“ …they (the Munafiqoon) began spreading idle rumors in the hope of weakening Ali’s position. They hinted that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, was angry with Ali, peace be upon him, and that it was for this reason that he had not been permitted to accompany him on a major military expedition. Ali, peace be upon him, was greatly troubled and saddened by the circulation of these rumors, and he hastened to the presence of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, who had already left Madinah. He told him what had happened, and with a single historic sentence he clarified the special position of Ali, peace be upon him, once and for all:
“Are you not content that your relation to me shall be like the relation of Harun to Musa, excepting only that there shall be no prophet after me?”
source: Imamate And Leadership"
Now we come back to the question of the Shia propagandist which was: “Why did he (the Prophet) not use the same or similar words to describe the services they (the other Sahabah) rendered (i.e. for similar tasks)?” The answer is obvious: the Munafiqoon did not spread this particular rumor except against Ali. It was this degrading rumor and Ali’s concern that caused the Prophet to say what he said in order to placate Ali. Had other Companions been similarly slandered, then perhaps they too would have refused to stay back in Medinah.
Because these other Sahabah did not feel dismayed with their deputyship and did not ask to go along with the Prophet instead of staying behind, there was thus no need for the Prophet to reassure them with such words as he used for Ali. On the other hand, when Ali was deputized by the Prophet to take care of his family, the Munafiqoon implied that this task was menial as it left Ali behind with women and children. This is the reason that Ali asked to go along with the Prophet instead. It was based on this specific concern of Ali’s (i.e. that the task was menial) that the Prophet spoke the words he did, in order to convey to Ali the extreme importance of taking care of his family in his absence.
Hadith al-Manzilah was said to Ali because of the circumstances, which were that Ali objected to staying behind with children and women as opposed to embarking on Jihad with the Prophet. By saying those words, the Prophet was explaining to Ali how he would be to him, by staying behind watching over women and children, like Haroon was to Musa when the latter left the former behind as a deputy over his people. The Prophet’s purpose in saying this was to reassure Ali that this deputyship was an honor and that he would not be any less than the ones who went to fight in battle.
Shia say
“The Prophet appointed Ali ibn Abi Talib his viceroy in Medina during his own absence. He selected Ali to be his viceroy for the following reasons: He wanted to show to the rest of the world that he considered Ali to be more qualified than anyone else to be the ruler of all Muslims, and to be the head of the Islamic State. He, therefore, appointed him as his representative in his capital.
source: Restatement of History of Islam, "
This is a very odd argument. This was the singular instance in which the Prophet left Ali as his deputy in Medinah, yet we know that there were many other battles in which the Prophet left other Sahabah behind as his deputy in Medinah. For example, the Prophet left behind Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari as his deputy in Medinah; what if we told the Shia that this is a proof that the Prophet “wanted to show to the rest of the world that he considered Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari to be more qualified than anyone else, to be the ruler of all Muslims, and to be the head of the Islamic state and the Prophet therefore appointed him as his representative in his capitol?”
To this, the Shia would say that this is a preposterous argument, yet suddenly they force this argument upon us in the one single instance in which the Prophet appointed Ali as his deputy. Therefore, we say to the Shia that their interpretation is just as preposterous as saying that the other Sahabah were appointed as Caliphs by the Prophet simply because he deputized them.
Shia say
“The words “except there will be no prophet after me” indicates that Ali was being appointed for a task similar to Prophethood. Otherwise, there would have been no need to mention Prophethood at all.”
One of the fundamental beliefs of Islam is that Prophet Muhammad was the final seal of the Prophets. Therefore, whenever Prophet Muhammad would liken anyone to a Prophet, he would make sure to clarify that this is only a comparison and does not mean there will be any Prophet after him. In a separate instance, the Prophet praises Umar as one who is very much inspired as Prophets were inspired, but he makes sure to clarify for the people that there would be no Prophet that would succeed him. These were clarifications that were necessary in order that people not be misguided on the matter later lest they take Ali or Umar as Prophets.
In any case, to end the discussion altogether, Prophet Haroon and his lineage were prohibited by the Law of Musa to take executive roles, but they were instead limited to religious, spiritual, and ceremonial roles. It was Prophet Yusha (Joshua) who became the Caliph (successor) of Musa, not Prophet Haroon nor his descendants. Throughout the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn and Uthman, Ali remained a spiritual guide for the people. Similar is the case with many of the Imams of the Shia, who secluded themselves from any temporal role and instead remained as spiritual guides.
The Hadith al-Manzilah does not at all help the Shia cause, but rather it is a strong proof against the Shia claims. Had the Prophet wished to imply that Ali was his successor, then he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha rather than Prophet Haroon. Instead, the Prophet likened Ali to Prophet Haroon whose role was not that of a temporal ruler but that of a spiritual guide.
Article Written By: Um Abdullah and Ibn al-Hashimi,

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

Polygamy in Christianity !

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)s polygamy has been an attack from Anti-Islamic Christian as well as Atheist/Secularist for a long time dating back to the Crusades. However it is not the purpose of this paper to give the reasons why Prophet Muhammad was polygamous. Rather it is the purpose of this paper is to note that polygamy had already been established in the Bible, and Prophet Jesus, as will be seen had come from Prophets Abraham and David who were polygamous. In fact there are 40 polygamists in the Bible! Both the Old and New Testaments say nothing about forbidding polygamy and in fact the Old Testament even allows it and sets laws regarding it. The following is a list of Prophets, Kings of Israel and Judges who all were polygamous in the Bible.

Prophet Abraham had three wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah and had several concubines (Genesis 16:1-4, 25:1 and 25:6). Prophet Abrahams brother, Nahor, had both a wife and concubine. (Genesis 22:20-24). Prophet Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah and used their two female slaves as concubines (Genesis 29:21-30:22, 31:17). Esau, the brother of Prophet Jacob was polygamous, having at least three wives (Genesis 26:34; 28:6-9). Eliphaz had two wives in Genesis 36:11-12. Prophet Moses had two wives, Zipporah and an unnamed Ethopian woman (Exodus 2:15-16, 21, 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1).

Ashur, from the tribe of Judah had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5). Shaharaim, from the lineage of Benjamin who was a son of Prophet Jacob, had two wives (1 Chronicles 8:8). Even the so-called Mosaic Law of Judaism set rules for a polygamous marriages (Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15). Prophet Moses also had set instructions to his men about their wives implying the children of Israel were polygamous (Exodus 19:15). Gideon, a judge in Israel had multiple wives and at least one concubine (Judges 8:30-31). Other Judges appear to be polygamous as Jair the Gileadite had 30 sons (Judges 10:3-4), Ibzan of Bethlehem had 30 sons and 30 daughters because of his multiple marriages (Judges 12:8-9) and Abdon had 40 sons (Judges 12:13-14). Elkanah, the Bibles father of Prophet Samuel, had two wives (1 Samuel 1:1-2).
Polygamy was also practiced with kings of Israel, Prophets and other leaders. King Saul had multiple wives which were later given to Prophet David (II Samuel 12:7-8). Prophet David had 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Samuel 25:39-44, II Samuel 5:13-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 and 14:3). Prophet Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3). Benhadad, a king of Syria had several wives in 1 Kings 20:3. Heman had many wives by implication of the number of sons he had in (1 Chronicles 25:4). Rehoboam, the son of Prophet Solomon and a King of Judah, had 18 wives and 60 concubines (II Chronicles 11:18-21). Abijah had 14 wives (II Chronicles 13:21). Jehoiada had two wives (II Chronicles 24:3). Jehoram, another king of Judah, had multiple wives (II Chronicles 24:1-3). King Ahab also had multiple wives (1 Kings 20:1-7). Jehoiachin, King of Judah, had multiple wives (II Kings 24:15). King Zedekiah of Judah also had many wives (Jeremiah 38:14-24). Hosea had two wives (Hosea 1:3, 3:1).Belshazzar, a king of Babylon had many wives and concubines (Daniel 5:2). Ahasuerus was polygamous because of the women in his royal house in Esther 1:9.

Further in the Bible, polygamy is regonized by various people and even God in Israel. For example God is offended when Israelites take forgien wives in Ezra 9:2. God Prophetically has many wives in Ezekiel 23, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23:4, Jeremiah 3:6-14, Jeremiah 31:31-34. Further Prophet Ezra reconizes polygamous marriages with his people in Ezra 10:2-3,10-11. Nehemiah rebukes the men for marrying their "strange wives" in Nehemiah 13:25-27. Also as seen before and as read in John 5:46-47, Jesus upheld the so-called Mosaic law, and by doing so he santionced polygamy and concubinage since those things have already been established in Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15. Moreover in 1 Timothy 3:2, a Bishop can have only wife however it seems okay that a layman can have more than one, implying the anonymous author of 1 Timothy implies it is okay for polygamy. Titus 1:6 also states a bishop only is required one wife, stating nothing about laymen (common men). So this also implies that polygamy is allowed, as the passages says nothing forbidding laymen to have several wives. As said earlier Prophet Jesus also came from Prophets Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1). If Polygamy had been so offensive to God, why would he allow Jesus to come from two polygamists? More importanantly Prophet Jesus never spoke out against polygamy in the entire New Testament. So one can see that the Bible has no rescritions or criticisms over polygamous marriages.

Many Biblical figures have been polygamous, including important figures in Judaism and Christianity such as Prophets Abraham and David. Further nowhere in the Bible is it forbidden to be polygamous. In Judaism, there was a continuation of polygamy throughout Israel as Josephus in the first century witnessed this and wrote about it, along with Justin Martyr an early Christian apologetic in the 2nd century. Additonally the Talmud allowed a man to have up to 4 wives and for a king up to 18 wives.

What about Matthew 19:3-9? Jesus is not speaking about polygamy. Rather, He is only answering a question about divorce. Indeed, the entire passage is about divorce, not polygamy.

In early Christian churches polygamy was practiced as well as bishops and such were able to have more than one wife is desired. An Early Church father, Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, supported polygamy in his writings and even today polygamy is practiced in two Christian dominations of Africa: the Legion of Mary Church and the African Orthodox Autonomous Church South of the Sahara. Martin Luther admitted that there was no scriptural prohibition against polygamy in the New Testament. Finally this author leaves the reader with a quote from Father Hillman. As Father Hillman states:
Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy. [1]

Don't Ignore the Old Testament

It is commonly said that Jesus Jesus was the lamb to clear away the Old Testament and it's rules. Well, that's not true. It fact The New Testament tells readers to obey the Old Testament! We can find this fact all over the New Testament:

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets Jesus says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Furthermore The author of 2 Timothy has this to say: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

And finally Jesus says: Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John 7:19) and For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

So we already see that there were 40 polygamists in the Old Testament. Moreover as we've seen there is no limit as to how many wives a man can marry in the so-called Mosaic Law.

What about Paul?

Paul did not say, "It is better for a single person to marry than to burn." Moreover, Paul did not say "it is better to commit adultery than to burn" which is what would occur if a woman were to be taken by more than her one and only living husband according to the laws of the Torah which he knew so well. He wrote the letter in which this was found to the all the Christians at Corinth which included all of the men in Corinth, not just the single men. In most cases, there is nothing lacking in the first wives of men that have a need for additional wives.

Moreover according to one Christian website there seems to be a command in the New Testament that allows a man to have more than one wife:

"There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does command a situation of polygamy ---in the New Testament, even.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28. In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own "recommendation" (in verses 6, 12, and 25) and when he is expressing the "commandment of the Lord" (verses 10-11). Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the "commandment of the Lord". (It should therefore also be noted that the other areas in which he clarifies as being only his "recommendation" can NOT be used to otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all, Paul's ultimate "recommendation" therein is celibacy!)

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which thay are actually written, are the "commandment of God"."And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above "commandment of the Lord" was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instuction is not the Lord's words, but his own again.

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the believer WIFE is commanded of God to either: remain unmarried, or be reconciled back to her husband believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to: not put away any wife, and to let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28d.

"Art thou bound unto a wife?seek not to be loosed.Art thou loosed from a wife?seek not a wife.But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned." 1 Corinthians 7:27-28.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men --whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another's wife).

And herein comes the "commandment of the Lord", of polygamy, as in the following situation.A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man's wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the "commandment of the Lord". The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND.... he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright "commandment of the Lord" of polygamy for the family in that situation.1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God --- in the New Testament --- that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27c-28d) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.
There truly IS a "commandment of the Lord" for a situation of polygamy to be found in the Bible ---and it's in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!" (Source)

So we can see there is NO injunction in the Bible for the husband to have one wife.

Polygamy in Islam

Before I begin we must examine Arabia. In Pre-Islamic Arabia, many men were polygamous. All Shaykhs (The leader of a tribe or clan) in Arabia had mutliple wives and/or multiple concubines. [2] Polygamy was widely practiced among Arabs of Pre-Islamic Arabia and Jews not only of Israel, but among the Jews of Arabia was well.

The Quran accepts polygamy and allows a man to have up to four wives. However, although the Quran, like the Bible, allows polygamy, it puts rescritions on it, something the Bible failed to do. As a matter of fact the Quran is the only Religious book in the world that says its best to marry only one woman, and not four. Having up to four wives is an option however if a man cant maintain justice between these four then he has to marry only one, this way men will be prevented from doing injustice.Of quick note, polygamy is quite rare in the Muslim world very few Muslim men have more than one wife. The following two Quranic verse demonstrates that monogamy (marrying only one woman) is preferred and not polygamy.

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (Quran 4:3)

Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 4:129)

The last verse you are never able to be fair and just between women, even of it is your ardent desire proves that polygamy is something that not every man can do. It would be very hard for a man to divide his time between wives if he is polygamous, and as I have stated before, polygamy in modern times, really doesnt work. It might have worked during Prophets Abraham to Prophet Solomons time (2166-1991 to 930 BCE) during the early days of Christianity (as will be seen) from the 1st to the 7th centuries and during the rise of Islam during Prophet Muhammads ministry in Arabia (late 5th century to the 6th century) however it just doesnt work in modern times.Mnay men in Pre-Islamic Arabia had many wives however when Islam came it put a limit to how many wives a man can marry. This is why the Quran tells Muslims to marry only one woman and that a man just cant be fair and just between more than just one woman. Clearly polygamy is discouraged in Islam and monogamy is preferred unless a man has strong reasons for marrying more than one woman (economic reasons, etc.)

Notes and Bibliography

[1] Hillman, Eugene: Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches,. Orbis Books, 1975 pg. 140.
[2] Aslan, Reza: No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Random House, 2006 pg.62-64.

Further Reading

Evangelical Christian sites that support Polygamy and even prove it from the New Testament:

Sunday, 18 December 2016

Quran 15:14-15 Commentary; Sayed Kutb on atheists !

"If We opened for the unbelievers a gateway to heaven and they had ascended higher and higher, still they would surely say: ‘It is only our eyes that are spellbound! Indeed, we must have been bewitched.’ (Surat Al-Ĥijr -Ayat 14-15)

We can imagine them ascending higher and higher into the sky, going through a special door that opens for them, and they climb physically and see with their eyes the open door. Yet their stubborn attitude remains, whereby they deny the truth of what they see and feel, claiming that someone must have cast a spell over them so that they cannot see clearly. They claim that what they see is mere fantasy: “It is only our eyes that are spellbound! Indeed, we must have been bewitched.” (ayah 15) All we see and feel is mere illusion.

There is no use arguing with such people. They have all the evidence they need to believe. What prevents them is not that the angels have not been sent down to them, because their own ascension is greater evidence and closer to them than the angels descending. Instead it is their shameless obstinacy which causes them to disregard and reject the clearly manifest truth.

This then is an example of human stubbornness which the sūrah paints. It is met only with a feeling of disgust and contempt. This example is neither temporary nor local, nor is it the product of a particular environment at a particular period of time. It is an example of human beings when their nature has been distorted and their faculties of reception impaired. They are cut off from the living universe around them and all the signals it gives. In our own generation, this example applies to atheists who follow materialistic creeds which they claim to be ‘scientific’, when they are far removed from science and knowledge, as well as from insight and inspiration.

Advocates of materialistic doctrines disbelieve in God and deny His existence. They claim that the universe exists without a Creator who controls whatever takes place in it. They then formulate on the basis of their claims and denials social, political, economic and ‘moral’ creeds, even stating that such are ‘scientific’. Indeed, they say that their creeds are the only scientific ones.

This lack of feeling of God’s existence despite all the evidence that testifies to His control of the universe clearly indicates that their receptive faculties are impaired. Their persistence in denying God is no less rude and impudent than that painted in the Qur’ānic text: “If We opened for the unbelievers a gateway to heaven and they had ascended higher and higher, still they would surely say: ‘It is only our eyes that are spellbound! Indeed, we must have been bewitched.’“ (ayat 14-15) The evidence that is available in the universe is so varied and manifest that it is stronger than their ascension to heaven. That evidence addresses every sound nature in an open and private manner, saying what is so powerful that human nature must accept without question. When we look at the universe we find that it has countless laws working in perfect harmony to maintain its phenomena and existence. Moreover, it has so many complementary aspects which allow life to come into existence in certain parts of it.

So to claim that this universe exists without a creator, is something that the human mind cannot accept. It is wholeheartedly rejected by human nature. Not only so, but the better science understands nature and the more deeply it penetrates into the universe and the more of its secrets it uncovers, the notion of self existence and uncontrolled operation seems even more far-fetched. In fact, the greater human knowledge becomes, the more clearly science admits that it is the Creator who controls the universe. Undistorted human nature accepts this truth once it receives the clear signals the universe makes. It has accepted it long before recent scientific evidence supporting it has come to light.

The universe cannot create itself, then create the laws that control its existence. Nor can we attribute the emergence of life to a lifeless universe. Hence neither human nature nor human intelligence accepts the emergence of the universe or life without a Creator who continues to control it. Indeed material science is now rejecting it as well.

Russell Charles Artist, Professor of Biology at David Lipscomb College, Nashville, Tennessee, says:
Many theories have been brought forward in the attempt to derive living cells from inanimate matter. Certain investigators are claiming that life has originated through the protogene, or through viruses, or through an aggregation of large protein molecules, which may leave the impression that at last the gap between the lifeless and the living has been spanned. Actually it must be admitted that all attempts to produce living matter experimentally from inanimate matter have failed utterly.
Furthermore, it is not by direct evidence that the one who denies the existence of God proves to a waiting world that a fortuitous aggregation of atoms and molecules is life, capable of maintaining and directing itself as do the cells described here. Not at all. He accepts this as a belief. It is his private interpretation of the facts visible to us all, that an accidental concourse brought the first cell into being. But this is to accept an even greater miracle than to believe that Intelligence called it into being!
I maintain that each of these single cells (each a system so intricate and delicate that its complete functioning has so far escaped our study), and all the trillions of them on this earth, definitely present a justifiable inference — one of Mind, or Intelligence, or Thought, which we call God. Science both admits and accepts this inference. I believe firmly that there is a God. (Russell Charles Artist, `Trillions of Living Cells Speak Their Message', a paper included in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, ed. John Clover Monsma, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1958, p. 124.)

The author did not start his investigations from a religious standpoint, but instead commented with an objective outlook, reflecting on the laws of nature. Yet he reached a conclusion that supports the truth as outlined by both natural inspiration and innate religious sense. When a truth exists, everyone who seeks it will inevitably come across it, regardless of what route he takes. It is only those whose receptive faculties have stopped functioning that cannot attain to the truth.

Those who deny God’s existence are people whose argument is in conflict with the logic of nature, reason and universal existence. They seem to suffer from the malfunctioning of all their receptive faculties. They are blind, as God Himself describes them: “Is, then, he who knows that what has been revealed to you by your Lord is the Truth like one who is blind? Only those who are endowed with understanding keep this in mind.” (13: 19)
As this is their true description, it follows that any social, political or economic theory they come up with, as well as any theory they formulate, on the universe, human life and history must be viewed by a Muslim as no more than the groping in the dark of a blind person who has lost all his senses, at least with regard to understanding human life and how it is organized. No Muslim can adopt anything such a person formulates, let alone make it the basis of his view of life or code of living.

This is a matter of faith, not an intellectual argument. A person who argues that the material world has created itself and initiated human life, and makes this concept the basis of his ideology and code of living errs in the starting point of thought and doctrine alike. All structures and rules that have such a basis cannot bring any good.
They have no meeting point even with any detail in the life of a Muslim whose basic concepts and code of living start with the belief in God’s oneness and His creation of the universe which remains subject to God’s will at all times.
Hence, to suggest that so-called ‘scientific socialism’ is independent of materialism betrays ignorance. Adopting ‘scientific socialism’, when it has such a basis and line of thinking, constitutes a total turning away from Islam as a faith, concept and code of living. It is not possible to combine scientific socialism and belief in God. To try to do so is to try to combine Islam with unbelief. 

People must choose either to believe in Islam or in materialism. If they believe in Islam, they cannot adopt scientific socialism. Islam is much more than a faith and a conviction. It is a system based on an ideology. On the other hand, scientific socialism is based on materialistic philosophy, which believes that life is matter, and denies the existence of God altogether. We simply cannot separate the two. Hence, a choice between the two must be made. Everyone is free to make his or her choice, but everyone must be responsible for their choice.(The author wrote his commentary at a time when so-called, “scientific socialism” was in vogue. Hence, he concentrates on this particular doctrine. However, what he says applies to all materialistic philosophy and any system based on it, including capitalism.)
(In the shades of Quran)

Monday, 12 December 2016

Quran 8:12 – ‘I will Cast Terror ..."

Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." This is what they have justly incurred by FIGHTING God and His messenger. For those who fight against God and His messenger, God's retribution is severe.

The story is mentioned in "Sahih Muslim":
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Umar b. al-Khattab who said:

When it was the day on which the Battle of Badr was fought, the Messenger of God (may peace be upon him) cast a glance at the infidels, and they were one thousand while his own Companions were three hundred and nineteen. The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) turned (his face) towards the Qibla Then he stretched his hands and began his supplication to his Lord:

"O God, accomplish for me what Thou hast promised to me. O God, bring about what Thou hast promised to me. O God, if this small band of Muslims is destroyed. Thou will not be worshipped on this earth."
He continued his supplication to his Lord, stretching his hands, facing the Qibla, until his mantle slipped down from his shoulders.

So Abu Bakr ( his favourate companion )came to him, picked up his mantle and put it on his shoulders. Then he embraced him from behind and said:.

Prophet of Allah, this prayer of yours to your Lord will suffice you, and He will fulfil for you what He has promised you.
So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed (the Qur'anic verse): "When ye appealed to your Lord for help, He responded to your call (saying): I will help you with one thousand angels coming in succession." So God helped him with angels.

While on that day a Muslim was chasing a disbeliever who was going ahead of him, he heard over him' the swishing of the whip and the voice of the rider saying: Go ahead, Haizi'm ! He glanced at the polytheist who had (now) fallen down on his back. When he looked at him (carefully he found that) there was a scar on his nose and his face was torn as if it had been lashed with a whip, and had turned green with its poison. An Ansari came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and related this (event) to him. He said: You have told the truth. This was the help from the third heaven.
The Muslims that day (i.e. the day of the Battle of Badr) killed seventy persons and captured seventy.

Also, the previously mentioned laws of Jihad all applied here and the Muslims were commanded:

وَإِن جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّـهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).

Furthermore, Believing in a punishment for oppressive disbelievers delivered by the unseen angels is hardly different from believing in an unseen punishment in the next life.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

The Impossibility of Polytheism !


In this post I will be presenting one of the key arguments against Shirk (polytheism), based on Sheikulislam Fakhr Al-Deen Al-Razi's tafsir of Quran 21:22 (Vol 22, Pg 127 of Al-Shamela's version of Al-Razi's Al-Tafsir Al-Kabir).

The verse from the Quran:

لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا ۚ فَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَرْشِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ

Had there been in the heavens and earth gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah, Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.


Before we begin, let us first expand on what we mean when we say "God". This in reference to a being that possess all the Divine attributes of perfection. The most relevant attribute for our argument will be God's non-contingency. In other words, God is not contingent upon on any other being. And any being which depends on another, is ultimately not God.

The monotheist's claim is that there is only One being which possesses those Divine attributes of perfection (including non-contingency). And that those who claim that there is more than One, are upon clear falsehood.

I hope to be able to demonstrate at least one aspect of this falsehood now.

The Argument

The argument begins with a simple boolean, a question with only two possible answers. We ask the Polytheist: "Are your gods able to disagree with one another?"

If the polytheist answers: "No, my gods are unable to disagree with one another."

Then all of the polytheist's gods are false. This is because each god is dependent on every other gods' approval- they are all forced to agree with one another. None of the polytheist's gods are truly independent, and thus they fail the test for divinity.

If the polytheist answers: "Yes, my gods are able to disagree with one another."

Then this is proof for monotheism. Reality is one, and if the different gods disagree, only one god's will can manifest into reality. Thus, all of the polytheist's gods are false, except for one. Hence monotheism.

Let us use an example to make this second scenario clearer:

Suppose there were two gods that are able to disagree with one another, as per the polytheist's answer to our original question.

The first god wants karkooshy to be born in the month of January. The second god wants karkooshy to be born in February. Obviously karkooshy cannot be born in both January and February. He can only be born in one of the two.

Now suppose karkooshy was born in January. This means the will of the first god manifested into reality, and overcame the will of the second god. Thus the second god is a false god (he is imperfect, weaker than the first), and only the first god is true- I.e. there is only One God.


The original question is a valid question (doesn't assume anything, doesn't contain contradictions... Etc.). The only two possible answers to this Boolean were highlighted above, and in both cases it was shown that polytheism is logically impossible. Hence, polytheism is logically impossible. 

Friday, 25 March 2016

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

uantum theory?

Originally Posted by Qatada View Post

I've heard some people say that quantum theory explains that matter can come into existence spontaneously.

Can you tell briefly describe the theory, tell me whether its just hypothesis or based on fact, and how you respond to it?

Jazak Allah khayr.
Selam aleykum
I think this is somewhat of a misconception, and I'm not sure what they are refering to. there's three scientific principles that they might be refering to.

1. Einstein's relativity theory.
According to general relativity, E=mc^2 and by that ratio energy can be transformed into matter and vice versa. Like in an atom bomb, how a part of the matter of an atom is transferred into massive amounts of destructive energy. This isn't creating out of nothing, but merely changing the form of energy. There is always conservation of enrgy, that is the sum total of all energy is always the same. The only thing we can do is manipulate the form that energy has. So for the atom bomb for example, we can change energy in the form of matter, to energy in the form of heat and radiation. So nothing new is created, instead existing energy merely changes forms.

2. Superposition.
Due to the wave-particle duality and due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We cannot know the exact location of particles. We can only detect particles by letting them interact. But by this process of detection, they have changed position. This is a big restriction in quantum-science. And something we have to take into account in any test or experiment. So rather then expressing the location of particles, in quantum physics we express an area of probabilities. An area that contains all the different places where the particle could be. These areas are calculated by complex mathematical equations based on experiments and chance-calculation. When studying these areas we come across a phenomena called superposition. This principle says that if a particle can be in one position or in another position, then there is also a third alternative where the particle temporarily exists in in both positions. However this doesn't mean that a new particle has come into existence that later disappears again. It is the same particle, which just manifests himself in two locations. What causes this phenomenon however, is yet unknown.

3. Matter and antimatter.
Empty space, or a vacuum isn't really empty. Space is made out of a sort of checkers-board, with negative and positive fields (boxes). If all the negative fields are filled with raw particles, and the positive fields are left open, then the end result is just empty space, a vacuum. If however a positive field also gets a particle, then we can detect that particle as it will manifest himself as "matter". If a negative box does not get a raw particle, this box will manifest himself as "anti-matter". So, if a raw particle changes location from a positive box to a negative box, then to us it will appear as if matter collides with antimatter and disappears. Also, if you could force a raw-particle to move from a negative box to an empty positive box, you would create matter and antimatter by doing so. This however isn't "creating out of nothing". In fact you would be merely manipulating raw particles, to make it seem as though new things come in existence. But this is only appearance. In reality nothing new is created, instead compositions of existing things have merely shifted.
Originally Posted by Qatada View Post
asalam alykum

JazakAllah akhi, can you now explain them points in relation to the origin of the universe, especially with the most focus on point no.2 superposition?
Superpostiion doesn't really have any direct link to the origin of the universe. Basically, all these rules follow the law of conservation of energy, that is no new energy is created, and no old energy is destroyed. Thus we know that none of these three can account for the creation of the universe, because for such a creation you would have to break the law of conservation of energy. The only alternative, is when you believe in an infinite universe, and you see the big bang merely as a dramatical change in the composition of the universe, and not as it's origin. However that theorie faces a whole bunch of scientific and philosophical challenges which make it implausible.

I've heard that quantum theory (or is it hypothesis?)
Most parts of quantum science is theory, only some small parts are still hypothetic since we're still pending on results of experiments.

explains that the universe never needed a begining because quantum explains that time ie past, present and future are irrelevant. I dont understand it much myself but can you comment on what u know about this?
Yes this is true. From an a-temporal, or better yet, an ex-temporal point of view, the past, present and future could have been created instantanious. So the origin of the universe doesn't need to "precede" the big bang. However this still doesn't acount for the existence of that universe. Logic still predicts that something caused it nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Qatada View Post

what is meant when past, present and future are all created together instantaniously? how is that possible scientifically? what do they mean by this? i.e. do they mean that the future of what we're doing today had already been created billions of years ago?
Well consider that time is a dimension, and that this dimension is part of our universe. Things inside the universe traverse trough time, but things outside the universe wouldn't necessaryly do so. That is what I meant by a-temporal or ex-temporal. Outside the dimension of time. It could very plausibly be the case that past present and future were created at once. And that only to us, since we have a subjective point of view, it appears as if past comes "before" future.

also, i know abit about entropy, but can u explain it abit more. does entropy mean that there is only a certain level of useful energy which can be used for the production of new universes, and that this useful energy could soon run out? [how is this possible if u say that energy just changes in state without being destroyed?]
I got this definition for entropy on-line:
A function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
So translation: the amount of entropy is the amount of energy that can no longer be used. that doesn't mean that energy is destroyed, but simply that it has changed into a state where it can no longer be changed back to it's previous state. It appears with our current knowledge impossible for the entropy of a closed system to decrease. In other words, in ever process that happens, every single even in the universe, the entropy increases. Meaning in every process the amount of energy that is no longer useful increases. So yes, if the universe would go on forever, then eventually we'll run out of useful energy. In such a hypothetical future, all energy would be scattered and spread over the vastness of space. All suns/stars burned out, all heat dissipated. Also , I don't know how much energy it would take to form a universe, but I don't think there was ever enough energy in our universe to create a new universe.

how does this rule of entropy apply to the multiverse argument too? And how can that be refuted?
It would apply to the multi-verse in just the same way as the standard universe view. I don't see why it would need further explanation in the multi-verse view. And I don't think the multiverse view should be refuted. It could be true, it could be false, important thing s to keep in mind though is:
1. It doesn't solve the question of existence or negate the anthropic principle
2. It is still a speculative hypothesis.
Originally Posted by Qatada View Post
asalaam alaikum

jazak Allah khayr akhi.

What happens to the energy which isn't useful anymore? you explained that stars are destroyed etc. but can't this energy change to something else which will be useful, since it just changes state? Whats the difference between energy which forms the universe, and energy which isn't useful anymore?
Your representation is a bit off. first of all, some energy is no longer useful for certain processes, that doesn't mean it isn't "used" at all. It also doesn't mean that it's no longer part of teh universe or anything like that. Just look at it like this:
Energy can change states trough certain processes, but some of these processes are only one-way-streets. So eventually, given infinite time, all energy will be "stuck" in a certain state. To simplify the matter with an analogy: you can drop a glass and let it scatter, but you cant rewind the process and "unbreak" a broken glass.
(by the way, there's a very nice short story about this phenomena called "the last question".)

also, about the past, present and future, do you mean that outside the dimensions of this universe - the past, present and future can be percieved and seen?
Wheter or not it can actually be "seen" or "percieved" is not the issue. The issue is, that from a non-subjective point of view, one doesn't necesairly precede the other.

How is this known (does science prove this and how)?
It is a logical conclusion of our understanding of the nature of time and space.

And would this argument be plausible for theists who believe in God by saying that the future is already written and known by God?
Are you asking wheter this concept is compatible with the idea of God knowing the future? Yes; possibly.

I understand now, so would this energy probably cause alot of destruction in the universe? Or would it do something else?
Everything else you said makes sense right now, so jazak Allah khayr :) Well it depends on your perspective. Like with the analogy of the glass. Everything is made out of energy, the matter (glass) that is destructed consists out of energy, the force that destroys it is (kinetic) energy, the sound it makes is energy. So it's a bit odd to ask whether or not "this energy" causes allot of destruction. Which energy are you refering to? For example, if the sun would burn up; the biggest problem is not the state of entropy, but rather the lack of light and heat. A universe were all the stars have gone out would be very dark and cold. Another, perhaps even better analogy: you can burn up a piece of wood for warmth, but you can't un-burn the ashes. So in other words the problem of entropy is not that systems with high entropy are destructive, but rather simply that we have no use for them.

As for the relation to the infinite history. Those who claim that the universe has always existed, would have to explain why we aren't already in a state where all entropy is maximised.
here's that short story btw:
The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

By AbdulFattah