Worm Buffet?! Ultimate Hope & Philosophical Naturalism.

 

Casuality; educating adherents of doctrines of confusion.

 

What is the meaning of Hadith Sahih Muslim 2603?

Anas b. Malik reported that there was an orphan girl with Umm Sulaim (who was the mother of Anas). Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saw that orphan girl and said:

‏"‏ آنْتِ هِيَهْ لَقَدْ كَبِرْتِ لاَ كَبِرَ سِنُّكِ ‏"‏

"O, it is you; you have grown! May you not advance in years!"

Answer

Praise be to Allah.

Firstly:

Among the greatest characteristics of our great Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) were his forbearance, deliberation and restraint in speech. Allah the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, described him thus in the Qur’an. He, may He be glorified, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:159].

He was also described thus in the previous scriptures, as ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

By Allah, he is described in the Torah in some of the same terms as in the Qur’an… he is not harsh and aggressive, and he does not make a noise in the market-place; he does not repay evil with evil, rather he overlooks and forgives. Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2125).

The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) also knew him to be like that, from seeing how he lived. It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not given to impugning others, he was not foulmouthed, and he was not given to cursing. He used to say to one of us – when wanting to rebuke him –: “What is the matter with him? May his forehead be rubbed with dust.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6031). 

In some instances, he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) even refused to pray against the mushrikeen even though they deserved to be cursed. It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

It was said: O Messenger of Allah pray against the mushrikeen! He said: “I was not sent as an invoker of curses, rather I was sent as a mercy.”

Narrated by Muslim (2599).

Secondly:.

It was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abdillah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I am only human, and I have made a deal with my Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, that any Muslim whom I impugn or scold, that will be a cause of purification and reward for him.”

Thirdly:

This hadith is a refutation of those who exaggerate about the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). It clearly states that he was human and got angry as other humans get angry. Even though he was the most knowledgeable of mankind about Allah, the one who most feared Allah, and the one who was furthest removed from all sins and errors, he was not infallible and protected from error in his judgement and he was not infallible and protected from such errors, that he made in very rare circumstances, because he was human. But he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was infallible and protected in the sense that if he made any error in judgement, it would not be approved and left alone; rather revelation would come down to him to correct his errors. Moreover, with regard to words he said in a moment of anger that had to do with infringements on the rights of other people, such as impugning and cursing, whatever he uttered would not lead to bad consequences, if it was said in the case of one who did not deserve that, on the basis of the hadith which refers to Allah’s promise in that regard, that He would make it a cause of purification and reward for him, and a means of him drawing close to Allah on the Day of Resurrection.

Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

... He (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was human, according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, but he is the leader of humanity and the best of them all, according to the saheeh hadiths, and as is indicated by the story of his life and his seerah (biography), and by what Allah, may He be exalted, blessed him with of a noble attitude and praiseworthy characteristics, which were never perfected and completed in any human as they were in him (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Allah the Almighty spoke the truth when He said (interpretation of the meaning): “And indeed, you are of a great moral character” [al-Qalam 68:4].

End quote from as-Silsilah as-Saheehah (no. 84).

Fourthly:

The scholars discussed this and similar hadiths noting that, in addition to being mutawaatir, it constitutes definitive proof that refers to the Prophet’s perfect manners and attitude, his compassion towards his ummah, his forbearance and his knowledge.

Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

These hadiths clearly highlight the extent of the Prophet’s compassion towards his ummah, how he cared about their well-being, how he gave them the benefit of the doubt and his desire for everything that would benefit them.

This particular report that is mentioned towards the end explains the other reports that speak in general terms, and note that the Prophet’s du‘aa’ against a person will be turned into mercy, expiation, purification and so on, if he does not deserve that du‘aa’ against him, impugning, cursing and so on, and he was Muslim. Otherwise, we know that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prayed against the disbelievers and hypocrites, and that cannot be a mercy for them.

If it is asked: how could he pray against someone who did not deserve to be prayed against, impugned or cursed, and so on? The answer is as the scholars said, which may be summed up in two points:

1. What is meant is that he does not deserve that in the sight of Allah, may He be exalted, or in reality, but outwardly he appeared to deserve that, and it seemed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he deserved that, based on the person’s outward actions that appeared to be contrary to the teachings of Islam, but in reality that person did not deserve that, but the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was enjoined to judge people on the basis of what they appeared to be, and Allah would take care of what was in their hearts.
   
2. What happened of his impugning that person, praying against him and so on was not meant literally; rather it was customary in the speech of the Arabs to say phrases without meaning them literally, such as saying “May your right hand be rubbed with dust” or “May you be barren and shaven-headed” [to a woman]; and – in this hadith – “May you not grow older”; and – in the hadith of Mu‘aawiyah – “May you never be satisfied with food”, and so on. They did not mean any of that literally. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was afraid that his du‘aa’ might be answered when he did not mean it, so he asked his Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, to make that a mercy and expiation, a means of drawing close to Him, purification and reward.

This happened very rarely, and such incidents were few and far between. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not given to foul speech or cursing, and he would not seek revenge for himself. It has been noted above that they said: Pray against Daws, but he said: O Allah, guide Daws” and he said: “O Allah, forgive my people for they do not know.” And Allah knows best.

End quote from Sharh Muslim (16/152).

Loving the Prophet ﷺ: A Necessity for Salvation - Dr. Jawad Qureshi

 

What happens to Iblees/Satan upon hearing the call to prayers (Athan)? Bukhari 1231

 What is the meaning of Bukhari 1231?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqIUX2VctRI

Is insulting Islam protected under ‘Freedom of Speech’?

 From Abdullah Andalusi blog

The purpose of free speech, when expressing opinion, is the pursuit of truth. That is all, nothing more. For it has no other rational purpose it can serve. All speech that expresses opinions must be allowed so that all ideas can be heard and to give the best chance for one of them to contain a weight of truth. Based upon this undisputed reason, how can anyone justify the right to use their speech to insult, degrade and humiliate another human being (and their identity)? Gratuitous insult offers no truth, or intellectual weight, and offers nothing to society except hate, rancour, emotional suffering, harassment, depression and divisiveness.What rational benefit can gratuitous insult serve humanity? To what good does it direct us towards? Surely if something yields no benefits, and only offers harm and negative experience to human life, should it be tolerated amongst a society of civilised human beings?

The Fallacy of the Liberal Counter-Argument of Free Speech due to Individualism

Some Liberals argue that insult should be allowed because it is an expression of ‘individuality’, and ‘individuals must be allowed to flourish outside of social constraints’. If this is so – why does the individual require other humans in order to manifest their ‘individuality’? Surely, according to this logic, the individual would not require a legal right to insult others, because ‘as an individual’ they could simply insult people and their beliefs in their own head and be content with that! As Liberal theory states, ‘Individuals’ do not need society to make them individuals. So in essence, why can’t they just be happy keeping their insults to themselves, why need a right to express their vitriolic language in public?

I could even counter that ‘freedom to insult’ actually hampers the flourishing of individuals according to Liberal theory itself! Surely an individual who wishes to express their ideas and opinions, but is fearful of public backlash and insults, has their individuality restricted? One could also say that giving people the right to gratuitously insult others and their beliefs causes unnecessary suffering to the targets of these attacks, and also diminishes their social respect in society from others. Of course, this is but one of the many contradictory issues with Liberalism. This is primarily due to Liberal theory being deeply flawed in its dogma about humans being ‘individuals’ and not also social creatures. Anyone who has studied psychology and sociology would obviously realise how humans are not not ‘individuals’ in the Liberal sense. Humans neither made themselves, nor educated ourselves from first principles – but relied on others for theses things. Humans still rely on others for social comfort, material help and intellectual help – hence humans are by nature, social creatures. If our true nature was to be anything but social creatures who ‘need to be freed from social constraints’ (as the Liberal Utopia desires), then solitary confinement would be the happiest place on earth for the human! (I know Liberals may argue that being in a prison is a restriction of Liberty. However, would life be happy for a human to live alone in a deserted wilderness, even if they had food, water, heating and entertainment?).

There is no argument to show that people should be given the right to insult and abuse others. However, the unrestricted freedom in their speech to express a sincere intellectual opinion should be granted to everyone – but no one should have the right to insult others or their beliefs – which as we know, define who they are more than superficial things, like skin colour. Insulting a belief does not change people’s minds about it when they believe their ideas are right – instead, it only makes them more entrenched to defend it, and retaliate – since it is human nature to demand respect for oneself, and one’s beliefs are a fundamental part of someone’s personality. So knowing this, how do Liberals see any benefit coming from a state of affairs more akin to a school playground, than to a noble and enlightened human society?

Did the religion of Islam developed as a coping mechanism?

 Written by mlife.org

The opponents of the religious life argue that religion was put together as a sort of outpouring of man's feeling of powerlessness in the world or of his feelings of relief and gratitude when rescued from powerlessness. In summary form, the argument goes like this:
Certain natural phenomena proved impenetrable to man's understanding and control and so he attributed them to a creator. Or, man attached to certain natural phenomena an aura of sacredness because he derived an unreliable benefit from them. Indeed, he went so far, in some cases, as to deify such phenomena. Thus it was, they say, that the river Ganges came to be held sacred by the people of India, or the Nile by the people of Egypt, and, in different ways, the cow by both. Confronted by fearful insecurity in the world, they say, man sought to secure himself by revering and appeasing what he supposed to be the source of his security or insecurity. The division, in some cultures, of this aura of sacredness between two deities, one good the other evil, led to the attribution of love and mercy to one, and of terror and punishment to the other. The argument carries on to 'explain' in a similar way the concept of hell and heaven, and eventually concludes with the observation that religion became, for the middle classes of people in society, a comforting illusion, and for the men of power in that society, and most especially for the men of religion, a means of manipulating the masses in short, 'the opiate of the people'

Does this argument have any real foundation?

It does not.

Religion is not by any means a consequence of infirmity in reason nor does it depend upon any infirmity of will.

Among the meanings of the term religion are obedience, recompense, and a way or path. These meanings are interlinked. The path is the way that leads, through obedience, to God, the All Mighty, and at the end of life man will have to render full account of his good and bad deeds, all that he did on the way. In a more technical sense, religion may be defined as 'the whole of the Divine Law as it guides any person possessed of reason to do good'. Just as the Law distinguishes a legally responsible person from one who is not, so also the demands of the religious life are addressed to a being capable of reason and not to one incapable. Religion is not there because man cannot reason or because of what he cannot understand; rather, it is there because, by God, he can reason and because of what, by God, he can understand. Further, man obeys or disobeys God by exercising his free will. Obedience is required of him, it is not imposed. The notion that religion happens simply because man desires to obtain a good harvest and to avoid a bad one, in other words simply because he has no choice, no control, in his affairs, is utterly absurd. The true religion does not negate free will. On the contrary, it most particularly points out that nature was not created to impose upon man but to benefit him and enlarge his potential, and it emphasizes that man was endowed with the ability to choose his way by exercising the freedom to do so.