LET ME TURN THE TABLES!

Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi as a Narrator

2012-01-26T18:50:00.001+05:00

by Syed Suleman Nadvi

1. Introduction:

One of the well known early reporters of the Sirah is Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi widely known to the students of Islamic history as al-Waqidi. He was born in Madinah in 130 A.H./747 C.E. He settled in Baghdad where he attained the high rank of “qadha” during the caliphate of al-Mamun (198 A.H./813 C.E. – 218 A.H./833 C.E.). He died in 207 A.H./822 C.E. in Baghdad. He belongs to the early group of writers on “sirah” and his famous book on the subject is “Kitab al-Maghazi” in which he has described the campaigns of the prophet.

Since the early writers used to state every event or every part of an event with a separate “isnad” (authorities), it resulted in discontinuity and frequent interruptions in the narration. Consequently, it often resulted in the loss of interest in the following up event. al-Waqidi started with a new style, that is, before reporting any event he enumerated all the names of the reporters which included both “Ma’ruf” (known) and “Majhul” (unknown) at the beginning of that event or campaign and then narrated the whole event along with other relevant details in an uninterrupted form attracting the interest of the people. Those who were not familiar with the complicated science of “riwayah” (report) and those who did not want to involve themselves in the complications of the close investigations, did not like to deprive themselves of the enjoyment of reading a continued uninterrupted report, they liked very much his style of reports. al-Waqidi attained a highly respectable status in the eyes of the Abbasid caliphs and the Baramikah. But the strange thing is that the more he attained respect and status of honour with rulers and princes the more he earned “disrespect” and unreliability in the eyes of the “Ulama al-Rijal” (scholars of hadith reporters) and the “Muhaddithin” (scholars of Hadith).

2. His great knowledge and sharp memory

al-Waqidi’s supporters and opponents have agreed on the fact that he had a sharp memory and that he was known for his “ilm” (knowledge). His secretary, Muhammad ibn Sa’d writes;

He was a scholar of Maghazi, Sirah, conquests, differences of people in Hadith and religious injunctions and of things on which they had their consensus.[1]

Shams al-Din al-Dhahbi writes:

His memory was at its best in remembering history, biographies, battles, happenings, battles, (events) of the people, jurisprudents etc.[2]

Khatib al-Baghdadi says:

He is one of those whose fame has covered the East and the West of the Earth. Anyone who is familiar with history knows about him. Men have carried his books on various sciences of the knowledge like; Maghazi, Siyar, Tabaqat, life of the Prophets and events which took place in his (Prophet’s) lifetime and after his death.[3]

3. Question of reliability

These are some of the quotations which I have picked up at random as an evidence of al-Waqidi’s vast knowledge, especially of the Maghazi, and of his sharp memory. But the question is what position does al-Waqidi enjoy in respect to reliability, truthfulness, credibility and “istinad” (trustworthiness)?

The Orientalists accept al-Waqidi as a reliable and valuable source for the life of the Prophet and for the period immediately following the death of the Prophet, whereas Muslim scholars, by and large, are not prepared to give him a rank more than a story-teller in the court of the Baramikah.

The books of “Asma’ al-Rijal” have recorded about al-Waqidi opinions, for and against. Among his supporters we find men like al-Darawardi (d. 186 A.H.), Yazid ibn Harun (d. 206 A.H.), Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Saghani (d. 270 A.H.) and others, while those who reject him include men like al-Shafi’i (d. 204 A.H.), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 A.H.), Yahya ibn Ma’in (d. 233 A.H.) and others. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, who is the staunchest and the most enthusiastic supporter of al-Waqidi, has collected all the relevant materials, for and against, concerning al-Waqidi and has tried to defend him and absolve him of all the charges.[4] Among prominent Western scholars who have defended al-Waqidi are J. Welhausen[5], Joseph Horovitz[6] and Marsden Jones.[7]

al-Waqidi could not find a more enthusiastic defender than Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (d. 734 A.H./1334 C.E.) who has rebutted the criticisms against Muhammad ibn Ishaq with much zeal and enthusiasm but replying to the “jarh” (criticism) against al-Waqidi, he could not give a powerful defense such as he did in case of Ibn Ishaq and finally admitted frankly:

But there are severe controversies against him.[8]

All the later defenders of al-Waqidi have drawn upon Ibn Sayyid al-Nas and none could add to what he has already written in al-Waqidi’s defense.

3.1. Supporters of al-Waqidi

I give below a list of al-Waqidi’s supporters as well as critics which will help us form an opinion.

First the supporters and their remarks:

1. al-Darawardi (d. 186 A.H.):

al-Waqidi is a master of traditions.

2. Yazid ibn Harun (2. 206 A.H.):

al-Waqidi is reliable.

3. Abu ‘Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Salam (d. 224 A.H.):

Reliable.

4. al-Musayyibi (d. 236 A.H.)

Reliable.

5. Ibn Numayr (d. 234 A.H.)

Here his tradition is alright but for the traditions of the Madinites, they know it better.

6. ‘Abbas al-Anbari (d. 246 A.H.)

I like him more than al-Razzaq.

7. Ya’qub ibn Shaybah (d. 264 A.H.)

Some of our people have told me that he was reliable.

8. Mus’ab al-Zubayri (d. 236 A.H.)

He is reliable and safe.

9. Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Saghani (d. 270 A.H.)

Had he not been reliable to me I would have not reported from him.

10. Ibrahim al-Harbi (d. 280 A.H.)

al-Waqidi is a trustee of the people of Islam[9]

This is a long list of al-Waqidi’s defenders and in appearance seems very impressive too but a close examination will show that this list does not contain a single name of any of the prominent expert of “Ilm al-Rijal” or any Imam of “Ilm Naqd al-Hadith” (Science of the Criticism of Hadith). Had there not been a much more impressive and weightier list of opposite testimonials, the above favourable testimonials would have been valuable and acceptable. Another strange fact which needs our attention is that the man who would have testified in favour of al-Waqidi’s credibility should have been his own disciple and secretary. Muhammad ibn Sa’d (d. 230 A.H./845 C.E.) who has written his master’s biography but has not written a single word about the reliability and credibility of al-Waqidi, whereas, writing about him he pointedly remarks. “He is reliable (thiqah) or not reliable (ghayr thiqah).”[10]

3.2. Critics of al-Waqidi

As for the critics of al-Waqidi, there are many, therefore, I would confine the list to very prominent names:

1. al-Shafi’i (d. 204 A.H.):

All the books of al-Waqidi are lies. In Madinah there were seven men who used to fabricator authorities, one of which was al-Waqidi.[11]

2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 A.H.):

He is a liar, makes alternations in the traditions.[12]

3. al-Nasa’i (d. 303 A.H.):

The liars known for fabricating the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah are four. They are: Arba’ah b. Abi Yahya in Madinah, al-Waqidi in Baghdad, Muqatil b. Sulayman in Khurasan and Muhammad bin Sa’id in Syria.[13]

4. al-Bukhari (d. 256 A.H.):

al-Waqidi has been abandoned in Hadith. He fabricates Hadith.[14]

5. al-Dhahbi (d. 748 A.H.):

Consensus has taken place on the weakness of al-Waqidi.[15]

6. Yahya ibn Ma’in (d. 233 A.H.):

He is weak. He is nothing. Not reliable![16]

7. Ishaq ibn Rahwiyah (d. 238 A.H.):

According to my view, he is one of those who fabricate Hadith.[17]

8. Abu Dawud (d. 275 A.H.):

I do not write his Hadith and I do not report (Hadith) on his authority. I have no doubt that he used to make up Hadith.[18]

9. Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (d. 277 A.H.):

He fabricates Hadith. We have abandoned his Hadith.[19]

10. al-Darqutni (d. 385 A.H.):

There is weakness in him (in his reporting).[20]

11. ‘Ali ibn Madyani (d. 241 A.H.):

He fabricates Hadith.[21]

12. Ibn ‘Adi (d. 365 A.H.):

His traditions are not safe and there is danger from him (in accepting his traditions).[22]

13. Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.):

He has been abandoned in spite of vastness of his knowledge.[23]

14. Abu Zar’ah al-Razi (d. 264 A.H.):

Abandoned, Weak![24]

15. al-Nawawi (d. 676 A.H.):

Their (muhaddithin’) consensus is that al-Waqidi is weak.[25]

4. Reasons for criticism against al-Waqidi

After comparing the above two lists it becomes clear that al-Waqidi has been condemned and rejected by competent authorities of the Hadith criticism. Now let us examine the reasons why the Hadith authorities reject al-Waqidi.

4.1. Problem with his way of narration

The method that al-Waqidi had adopted to report events was rejected by critics on the basis that in this way it was not possible to find out the original source. In other words, it is not possible to find out which part or portion of the report is narrated by which reporter. Sometimes he does give separate “isnad” but they are “munqati” (interrupted or with a link missing); or sometimes he gives the “isnads” and says that some parts of the “report are common among them” this is one of the reasons why al-Waqidi and his reports could not receive certificate of credibility from the Traditionalists and the “Ashab al-Rijal”. al-Shafi’i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal have rejected him on the same basis.

4.2. Comparison with al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq

Prof. Marsden Jones and Mr. Horovitz, justifying al-Waqidi’s method of reporting by collecting all the “asanid” at one place in the beginning of the report, have counter-charged that if this kind of reporting was a defect (‘ayb) then the same defect could be found in al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq.[26] This counter-charge is, in reality, borrowed from Ibrahim al-Harbi who is one of the earliest defenders of al-Waqidi and is quoted by Ibn Sayyid al-Nas. The whole quotation runs as follows:

When Ibrahim al-Harbi was asked what was the reason that Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) did not approve of al-Waqidi, he replied that he (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) disapproved al-Waqidi’s (method of) collecting together all the authorities (at one place) and his coming out with one single text; then Ibriahim added that it was nothing objectionable because al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq had done the same thing.[27]

This counter-charge is not correct because of three reasons:-

Firstly, al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq both enjoy high rank and good reputation in the eyes of the critics of Hadith literature and allthe “ashab al-Rijal” have almost unanimously testified in their favour and have called him truthful (saduq), reliable (thiqah), and sound in Hadith (hassan al-hadith).[28] Therefore, anything coming from al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq would enjoy credibility than al-Waqidi whose credibility is disputed and injured (majruh). If a reporter is considered reliable then his report is also considered reliable, and by the same token, if a reporter’s reliability is disputed then his report too will be denounced. The same experts of “Rijal” who have denounced al-Wqidi have testified in favour of al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq. Although Ibn Ishaq could not escape criticism from certain authorities, the fact remains that the authorities who approve of him enjoy greater rank and authority.

Secondly, al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq have narrated very few reports in the way that al-Waqidi had adopted. al-Waqidi has based his whole book on such reports. In case of al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq, only a few reports may be affected while in the case of al-Waqidi his whole book is in question.

Lastly, the authorities would maintain that if al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq report any event or tradition without maintaining the standard method of “isnad” or then the critics of Hadith literature would treat such reports in the same way as they would any other report of such a quality. Nevertheless, the reports of al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq would enjoy credibility more than the reports of al-Waqidi because of the simple fact that the critics and compilers of hadith did not find them “liars”. The other thing that we should keep in our mind is that in the acceptability of reports from al-Zuhri, Ibn Ishaq or al-Waqidithe question is not of personality but is that of reliability. This is because in the eyes of critics of Hadith all the reporters who report anything about the Prophet are equal unless their reliability and truthfulness are contested.

This brings us to a very important question, what are criteria on the basis of which a report may be accepted or rejected?

5. Criteria to decide a report’s reliability

According to Muslim scholars a report can be considered reliable only when its isnad “forms an unbroken series of reliable authorities.” The critical investigation of isnads has caused the Muslim scholars to make thorough researches and to establish different categories and degrees of the reliability of a Hadith. They “endeavored not only to ascertain the names and personal details of the authorities in order to investigate when and where they lived, and which of them had personally acquainted with the other, but also to rest their reliability, truthfulness and accuracy in transmitting the text in order to make certain which of them are reliable.” This criticism of the authorities came to be called “al-Jarah wa al-Ta’dil” and along with it came the various allied sciences such as principles of Hadith (usul al-hadith), biographies of reporters (asma’ al-rijal), and contradiction in Hadith (ikhtilaf al-hadith). At the same time principles of “riwayah” (transmission) and “dirayah” (knowledge) were laid down on the basis of which transmissions were investigated.

5.1. Principles of Riwayah

Principles of Riwayah may be summed up as follows;

1- Transmitters must be reliable from the beginning to the end of the report.

2- The first transmitter should be an eye witness of the event.

3- If the first reporter is not an eye witness himself then he should report on the authority of someone who must have been an eye witness.

4- In the case of No. 3, experience must prove that the first transmitter has always transmitted on the authority of those who themselves were eye witnesses and were present at that particular event.

5- Each transmitter must admit his meeting with his predecessor and must state that he had heard the report from his preceding transmitter, or at least there must be sufficient evidence of the fact that the transmitter had met his processor at least once in his lifetime.

6- If the evidence does not prove the meeting then there must be evidence which could prove that the transmitter and his predecessor were at least contemporary of each other and that the transmission from his contemporary predecessor was possible.

7- The chain of transmitters must not be broken.

8- There must not be any unknown (majhul) transmitter.

5.2. Principles of Dirayah

The principles of Dirayah can be summed up as follows:-

1- The event that is being transmitted should not run counter to other reliable historical facts and evidence.

2- Is there any other transmission about the same matter on the authority of more reliable “isnad” which contradicts it?

3- The transmitter has not possibly erred in understanding the meaning of the transmission.

4- Transmission should not be incomplete.

5- Transmission must not run contrary to the accepted (musallamah), well established (mutayaqqanah), and well known (ma’ruf) basic principles of Islam.[29]

These, in short, are the principles on which the initial structure of the early history and injunctions (ahkam) of Islam was built. On the basis of above principles of “riwayah” and “dirayah” the early writers of Islam, whether they were the scholars of Hadith, scholars of Maghazi or scholars of history, were tested and their ranks of reliability and trustworthiness were determined according to the above principles and not according to the fame or status. The more these writers adhered to these principles the more their writings attained credibility. That is why books of Traditions have a higher degree of reliability than the books of al-Maghazi because in comparison to the “muhaddithin” the writers of the Maghazi did not adhere to these principles very strictly. According to the degree of credibility has been given to each collection of Traditions and, by the same token, among the books of Maghazi. What status of reliability is occupied by the books of Maghazi, of al-Zuhri and Musa ibn ‘Uqba and Ibn Ishaq among the Maghazi literature is not occupied by the Kitab al-Maghazi of al-Waqidi. The reason for difference in degree of acceptability if simple and it is that the experts of the “ ’Ilm al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil” could not find evidence to accuse al-Zuhri and Ibn Ishaq of lying or fabricating Traditions. Ibn Ishaq, although charged for his liberal attitude (‘adam ihtiyat) in accepting Hadith from the people of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) was not accused of lying or fabricating. On the other hand, the critics of Hadith literature have accused al-Waqidi in definite terms of lying and fabricating Hadith. That is why al-Waqidi was unanimously rejected in so far as Hadith is concerned and his transmissions found no place in the collection of Hadith. On the other hand, he found a place in the Maghazi and his reports concerning the Maghazi have been accepted even by his critics.

This brings us to another question: What place does al-Waqidi have in the Maghazi?

6. al-Waqidi’s reliability in Maghazi and Siyar

Early scholars of Islam themselves have maintained a difference between the literature of hadith and history. For instance, those who collected materials concerning the person of the Prophet (siyar) in relation to the legal obligations (al-Ahkam al-Shari’yah) were called “MUhaddithin” (Traditionalists); those who concerned themselves only with the life of the Prophet were known as “Ashab al-Sirah”; those who wrote about the character and habits of the Prophet were called “Ashab al-Shama’il”. And those who concerned themselves with the campaigns of the Prophet were known as the Ashab al-Maghazi.

On the basis of above categorization the same “Ashab al-Rijal” who, have rejected al-Waqidi in Hadith and in discussions on important religious obligations, have at the same time acknowledged his knowledge of the Maghazi and have specified his fact in their criticisms. For instance, the same al-Dhahbi who, at the end of his criticism on al-Waqidi in his Mizan has concluded: “Consensus has taken place on the weakness of al-Waqidi,”[30] has specified in his “Tadhkirat al-Huffaz” that:

He is one of the vessels of knowledge but he is not well-versed in Hadith. But he is an expert (on the top) in Maghazi and Siyar.[31]

Ahmad al-Khazarji writes:

He was a scholar of Maghazi, Siyar, conquests and of difference among the people.[32]

Ibn Hajr himself who, has severely criticized al-Waqidi in his “Tahdhib al-Tahdhib” and “Taqrib al-Tahdhib”, has quoted him extensively in explaining the various events of the battles (ghazawat) and other historical events in his Fath al-Bari, the commentary to Sahih al-Bukhari.[33]

al-Shafi’i has called al-Waqidi a “liar” (kadhab) but at the same time in his monumental work, Kitab al-‘Umm, he has based his inferences on the strength of al-Waqidi’s reports on the Ghazawat.[34]

7. Conclusion

Consequently, it becomes clear that al-Waqidi was not acceptable in Hadith and important religious injunctions such as the question concerning permissible (halal) and impermissible (haram) but was acceptable in the Maghazi and Siyar and in such events of early history which did not run against the principles of historical evidence or personal bias. Thus, one can safely say that al-Waqidi’s reports concerning Maghazi and the Siyar will be accepted after close investigations and that in the presence of stronger “isnad” his report will not be accepted. In such a case too, where he is the only transmitter of a particular event his report will not be acceptable unless other evidence supports his version.[i]

At the conclusion, I would like to end with a very interesting but revealing remark of Sulayman al-Shadikuni in which he has said about al-Waqidi that if al-Waqidi “was truthful then certainly he was the greatest of all truthful men, but if he was a liar even then he was the greatest of all liars.”[35]

* The research paper was published in the biannual “Al-Seerah International” No. 13 pp.3-16 (English section) April 2005 under the title “Muhammad Ibn Umar Al-Waqidi”. Transcription errors have been removed and headings added.

[1] Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol.7 pt.2 p.67, Leiden, 1918

[2] Sham al-Din al-Dhahbi, Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, vol.3 p.110, Cairo, 1907

[3] Yaqut al-Rumi, Mu’jam al-Udaba’, vol.18 p.278, Cairo, 1936

[4] Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, Uyun al-Athar, vol.1 pp.17-21, Cairo, 1936

[5] J. Welhausen, Muhammad in Madina, pp.11-28, Berlin, 1882

[6] Joseph Horovitz, The Earliest Biographies of the Prophet and the Authors, ‘Islamic Culture’, vol.2 pp.495-526, Hyderabad (India), 1928

[7] al-Waqidi, KItab al-Maghazi, published by Marsden Jones, pp.29-34, Oxford University Press, 1966
Marsden Jones, Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi: The dream of ‘Atika and the raid to Nakhla in relation to the charge of plagiarism. BSOAS, XXII, I, 1950

[8] Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, vol.1 p.20

[9]al-Dhahbi, Mizan, vol.3 pp.110-111
Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, vol.1 pp.18-21
Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil, vol.4 pt.1 pp.20-21, Hyderabad (India), 1953

[10] Ibn Sa’d, vol.7 pt.2 p.67

[11] Ibn Abi Hatim, vol.4 pt.1 p.21

[12] al-Dhahbi, Mizan, vol.3 p.110

[13] Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol.9 p.366 No.604, Hyderabad, 1326 A.H.cf. Yusuf ‘Abbas Hashmi, Zaynab bint Jahash, ‘Islamic Culture’ vol.XLI, No.1, Hyderabad (India), 1967

[14] al-Dhahbi, Mizan, vol.3 p.110

[15] Ibid., p.111

[16] Ibid. p.110,
Ibn Abi Hatim, vol.4 pt.1. p.21

[17] Ibn Abi Hatim, p.21

[18] Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib, vol.9, p.366, No.604 cf. Hashmi

[19] Ibid., p.366
Ibn Abi Hatim, p.21

[20] al-Dhahbi, Mizan, p.110

[21] Ibid., p.110
Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib, p.366 cf. Hashmi

[22] al-Dhahbi, Mizan, vol.3, p.110

[23] Ibn Hajr, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, vol.2, p.194, Cairo, 1960

[24] Ibn Abi Hatim, vol.4, pt.1, p.21

[25] Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib, vol.9, p.366 cf. Hashmi

[26] al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, published by Marsden Jones p.29

Horovitz, ‘Islamic Culture’, vol.2 pp.518-520

[27]Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, vol.1 p.20

[28] al-Dhahbi, Mizan, vol.3 pp.21-24
al-Dhahbi, Tadhkirah al-Huffaz, vol.1 2^nd ed., pp.163-164, Hyderabad, 1911
Ibn Abi Hatim, vol.3 pt.2 pp.191-194
Ibn Hajr, Taqrib, vol.2, p.144
Ahmad bin ‘Abdullah al-Khazraji, Khulasah Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma’ al-Rijal, p.278, Cairo, 1940

[29] Ibn Abi Hatim, (introduction) vol.1
Ibn Hajr, Lisan al-Mizan, vol.6, Hyderabad, 1911
Khatib al-Baghdadi, Kitab al-Kifayah fi ‘Ilm al-Riwayah, Hyderabad (India), 1357 A.H.
al-Hakim Naysaburi, Kitab al-Ma’rifah ‘Ilm al-Hadith

[30] al-Dhahbi, Mizan, vol.3 p.111

[31] al-Dhahbi, Tadhkirah, vol.1 pp.317-318

[32] Ahmad al-Khazarji, Khulasah Tahdhib al-Kamal, p.291

[33] Ibn Hajr, Fath al-Bari, KItab al-Maghazi, vol.7 p.197, Cairo, 1325 A.H.

[34] al-Shafi’i, Kitab al-Umm, vol.4, p.260, Cairo, 1961

[35] al-Dhahbi, Mizan, vol.3 p.110

[i] Here it may be added that in case of the narrations on Maghazi (Battles) and Siyar (Biographies), if al-Waqidi’s report does not contradict any authentic narration and established facts, but adds a little to the details of an event otherwise independently known through authentic reports, the addition may be accepted. Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H./1373 C.E.) said:

“al-Waqidi: He has reliable additions, and well documented history …”
(al-Bidayah wal Nihayah 3/288)

--Waqar Akbar Cheema

Refuting Wesley and Tariq on Complexion of the Prophet

2012-01-17T00:01:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

by Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani

This is a response to the falsehood being spread by Wesley Muhammad of the Nation of Islam cult, and Tariq Berry, a self styled amateur ‘scholar’. Please use the table of contents below for easy navigation in this rather long response.

Table of Contents

1. Prefatory remarks.
2. The complexion of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) according to his Companions
2.1 Narrations with the description, white (abyad) imbued with redness (humrah).
    2.1.1 Narration of Abu Bakr (RA).
    2.1.2 Narration of ‘Umar (RA).
    2.1.3 Narration of Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (RA).
    2.1.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA).
    2.1.5 Narration of ‘Ali (RA).
    2.1.6 Narration of Abu Umamah (RA).
    2.1.7 Narration of Ibn Mas’ud (RA).
    2.1.8 Narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (RA).
    2.1.9 Findings from these reports and Wesley’s stupidities.
2.2. Narration with the description white (abyad) or extremely white (shadid al-bayad).
    2.2.1 Narration of Anas (RA).
    2.2.2 Narration of Abu Tufayl (RA).
    2.2.3 Narration of ‘Aisha (RA).
    2.2.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA).
    2.2.5 Remarks on these narrations.
2.3. Narrations with description using the words asmar/sumrah.
    2.3.1 Narration of Anas (RA).
    2.3.2 The narration of Anas is odd.
3. Meaning of key words.
3.1. The meaning of “abyad”.
3.2. The meaning of “azhar”.
3.3. The meaning of “Asmar”/”Sumrah”.
    3.3.1 “Asmar” also refers to whiteness imbued with redness (bayad mushrab bi-humrah). [IMP]
4. Calling the Prophet black termed as disbelief: Significance and reasoning.
4.1. Ahmad bin Abi Suleman al-Maliki’s verdict.
    4.1.1 Explanation of the verdict.
4.2 Verdict by al-Nawawi
4.3. Important points on the verdict.
   4.3.1 Basis of the verdict: Denial of mutawatir (continuous) reports.
   4.3.2 Ahmad bin Abi Suleman was an early, not medieval, scholar.
5. Complexion of Prophet’s relatives. [IMP]
5.1 Can close relatives have manifestly different complexions?.
5.2 Complexion of ‘Ali (RA).
5.3 Complexion of Fadl bin ‘Abbas, the poet.
5.4 Complexion of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya.
5.5 Complexion of Ja’far al-Sadiq.
5.6 Complexion of Musa al-Kazim..
5.7 Complexion of ‘Ali al-Rida.
5.8 Complexion of Muhammad al-Jawwad and ‘Ali al-Hadi
5.9 Complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali (RA)- the one who resembled the Prophet the most. [IMP]
6. Intake of al-Dhahbi and al-jahiz.
6.1 Statement of al-Dhahbi
   6.1.1 First part of the statement.
   6.1.2 Second part of the statement.
   6.1.3 Significance of al-Dhahbi’s statement.
6.2 What did al-Jahiz say?.
7. Summary.
8. Final Word.

1. Prefatory remarks

Wesley Muhammad and Tariq Berry have an obsession for life to make every revered person appear black. To achieve this end, they do not feel any hesitation in distorting the truth and picking up things from here and there to present to the world some unique and ‘profound’ research.

Wesley happens to be a more interesting but sad case. It is very sad that today anyone with a PhD can boast themselves and try to put others down based on their CV as if a piece of paper has anything to do with skill and ability of research, debate and exposition of fundamental truths. Such is the case of Wesley PhD who in his shallow attempt to respond to our initial paper exposing the racist theology of NoI, has attacked the two of us based on what he could find about us on the internet. Much like his qualifications and papers that has written in the past, the farthest Wesley will get is being a University of Michigan Orientalist, who tries to fool Muslim kids into believing that God is a black man, prophet Muhammad was a black man, and for that matter most of prophets and everyone that is of any importance was and is black.

As we have seen in his papers, Wesley shoots many arrows but none of them hits the target. His PhD takes him as far as quoting the experiences of someone who has traveled and spoke to Sudanese villagers about the color of those who will enter paradise, as if such weighs any proof in our discussion. If that was not enough he has gone to quote some scholars who have divided the geographical zones and colors of skins that pertain to such, as if that gives any proof for the point that we are debating. But again such things are not proof, and the Quranic verses and Hadith narrations that we have quoted many times, and will once again document, practically kill such weak ‘scholarship’ disguised as PhD research. He has jumped up and down, but has never really touched the issue that we are discussing: Was Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) a black man (black as African, black as Wesley)?

Same is true with Tariq Berry, whose seems to push people hard to buy his book, tantalizing, as he seems to suggest, just some of the information he has on the subject.

These guys, Wesley Muhammad and Tariq Berry, seem to forget that we are talking about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- and that we have the minutest details about him preserved in the Hadith narrations. Therefore, any research on the topic should focus on this primary evidence rather than quoting secondary, many times, irrelevant things. All these people seem to miss this simple plain fact, or is it something akin to a Freudian slip?

Both Wesley and Tariq refer to just one Hadith narration- the narration that we have already shown, is recognized as rather odd by the scholars of Hadith. Is the evidence that goes against their vicissitudes not worthy of consideration?

Earlier we did respond to one of Wesley’s deceitful articles. Wesley has attempted a refutation of our exposition of his lies. And Tariq has joined him to contend with us.

This paper not only aims at rebutting Wesley and Tariq’s responses to our initial refutation, but we have also made an effort at taking to task other arguments put forward by these two self acclaimed ‘scholars’.

Readers will notice that unlike these good-for-nothing scholars all the evidence we bring to table is directly related to the subject at hand. We shall take a special look at the complexion of the family and relations of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- after establishing the worth of such kind of evidence.

Our paper is based on clear, simple ahadith, which in context, in the light of the Arabic language, the situations which leave no doubt about meaning, and in the light of Qualified explanations, leave no doubt about the issue. Prophet Muhammad was not a black man. And this is what we shall uphold based objectively on evidence and not because we would have any issue if he would have been as other prophets and their companions who we love are described as black. One of us happens to be a European and other hails from South Asia and we are both sure that neither of us resembles the Holy Prophet in complexion, and certainly this does not matter.

Following are the main arguments of Wesley and Tariq.

1- When Arabs, at least of the past, said so and so is “Abyad” they did not mean complexion, rather this is how they referred to one’s character.

2- In the usage of the native Arabs “abyad” did not mean “white” or “fair” complexion, rather it referred to a shade of blackness.

3- Arabs have an idea of “addad” i.e. a word actually signifies the opposite of its first meaning. This is especially true for colors and the same is must be applied to narrations that describe the Prophet as “abyad” i.e. white. This is, to our knowledge, is the argument of Wesley alone.

4- Some of the family members and relations of the Holy Prophet like ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and certain people from his progeny were dark in complexion, it can, therefore, be suggested that the Holy Prophet was also dark complexioned.

While we shall show the absurdness of all these contentions below, the first three arguments and especially the way Wesley uses them is quite good a testimony to what these people are up to. Let us ask Wesley to explain if by his “addad” theory “the opposite of ‘abyad’” is black, how can then “abyad” itself signify dark complexion?

Unlike Wesley and Tariq, this subject is not our ultimate obsession of life, therefore we have made an effort to response to all their relevant assertions on the topic. We have also repeated things we earlier wrote as we intend to present this particular paper as a comprehensive rebuttal to their falsehood. Hope it enlightens many.

2. The complexion of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) according to his Companions

As the fundamental evidence in this discussion is only the Hadith narrations, we need consider as to how the Companions of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- have described his complexion.

2.1 Narrations with the description, white (abyad) imbued with redness (humrah)

Most of the narrations from the Companions describe the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- as white imbued with redness.

These narrations come from at least eight (8) companions.

2.1.1 Narration of Abu Bakr (RA)

On being questioned about the appearance of Holy Prophet (pbuh) by a monk, Abu Bakr (RA) said:

أبيض اللون، مشرب بحمرة

“White in complexion (abyad al-lawn), imbued with redness.”[1]

Now here the fact that ‘abyad’ is attached with the word ‘lawn’ (lit. colour) kills the idea that it is all about character.

2.1.2 Narration of ‘Umar (RA)

Ibn ‘Asaakir (d. 571 A.H.) quotes;

Bashir al-‘Abdi says, people came to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and asked him about the appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him. He said:

كان نبي الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أبيض اللون مشربا حمرة

“The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was of white complexion (abyad al-lawn) imbued with redness (mushraban humrah).”[2]

Again here the usage is such that laughs at the suggestion to take “abyad” not to be about the complexion.

2.1.3 Narration of Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (RA)

In Tabqatul Kubra, also sometimes referred to as, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, we read:

عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم أَبْيَضَ مُشْرَبًا بِحُمْرَةٍ

Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: “The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).”[3]

2.1.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA)

Similarly Abu Hurayrah (RA) narrates that some Bedouins came and inquired about the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him, the Companions guided him. Saying this Abu Huraira (RA) describes how the Prophet appeared, saying:

وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبيض مشربا بحمرة

“The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).”[4]

2.1.5 Narration of ‘Ali (RA)

Another very close companion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ‘Ali (RA) described the complexion of the Holy Prophet in the following words:

كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مشرَّباً بَيَاضُهُ حُمْرَةً، وَكَانَ أَسْوَدَ الْحَدَقَةِ

“He had white complexion, his whiteness being imbued with redness (abyad musharraban bayaduhu humrah) and his iris was black (awsad).”[5]

Reports to this effect from ‘Ali (RA) are found in many works of Hadith.

2.1.6 Narration of Abu Umamah (RA)

Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat al-Kubra narrates from Abu Umamah that he described about the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, as:

رَجُلًا أَبْيَضَ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ

“A man of white complexion with red tinge in it (abyad ta’luhu humrah).” [6]

2.1.7 Narration of Ibn Mas’ud (RA)

Hafiz Ibn Kathir, on the authority of Abu Na’im al-Isfahani, quotes a narration in which Ibn Mas’ud (RA) also describes the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- using the words;

أَبْيَضُ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ

“White (abyad) with redness in it (ta’luhu humrah).”[7]

2.1.8 Narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (RA)

Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihi (d. 942 A.H.) quoting from Ibn Abi Khuthaymah and Abu Na’im gives us a narration from Ibn ‘Abbas that describes the Prophet’s complexion as;

أحمر إلى البياض

“Red leaning towards whiteness”[8]

Evidently this is just another way to put what is described in narrations from other companions.

2.1.9 Findings from these reports and Wesley’s stupidities

1- These reports cannot be twisted by arguing that here “abyad” is not about complexion but about the character for how is the “bayad” of character mixed with “humrah”? Plus, the narrations from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar –may Allah be pleased with them both- categorically use the words “abyad al-lawn” i.e. “whiteness of complexion.”

2- Mr. Wesley has already shown his true colors by rejecting these narrations. He wrote: “There are a few reports, however, generated no doubt by non-Arab converts to Islam like the Persians, which describe the Prophet as white-skinned, abyad al-lawn mushrab humra (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-tabaqat al-kabir, I/i,120, 121,122, 124, 129 (Ar.); Baladhuri,Ansab, I: 391 § 836; 394 § 848).”[9]

While we shall all wait for the evidence that these reports were “generated” by “non-Arab converts to Islam like the Persians” I wonder if he Mr. Wesley was in his senses when he called them “a few”. The fact, however, remains this is the most oft-repeated description of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- in Hadith narrations.

Mr. Wesley further wrote about these narrations, “I have shown the secondary nature of these reports. This description is absent from al-Bukhari and many of the early Classical texts. It becomes popular only in the later, medieval period when non-Arabs dominated the intellectual life of the Muslims.”

This is stupidity at its best. Just after putting the reference to Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabqat al-Kabir and Baladhuri’s Ansab [al-Ashraf] he says these reports became popular in “later, medieval period”. While anyone with some knowledge of history knows al-Baladhuri died in the year 279 A.H. while Ibn Sa’d lived from 168 A.H. to 230 A.H. and the period of al-Bukhari is 194-256 A.H.

And interestingly in his hap-hazard confused and rather cunning endeavor to seek evidence he uses the same [Imam] al-Bukhari as a bench mark against “Persian generated” reports whom he elsewhere dubs as “famed Persian traditionalist.”

Mr. Wesley must be a cause of great embarrassment to all the PhDs in the world.

2.2. Narration with the description white (abyad) or extremely white (shadid al-bayad)

There are some reports that describe his complexion solely as “abyad” i.e. white.

2.2.1 Narration of Anas (RA)

According to Sahih Bukhari Anas bin Malik (RA) reported that when a person inquired the companions about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- they pointed towards him saying;

هَذَا الرَّجُلُ الأَبْيَضُ المُتَّكِئُ

"This white man (rajul al-abyad) reclining on his arm."[10]

2.2.2 Narration of Abu Tufayl (RA)

Similarly Abu Tufayl (RA) reports;

كَانَ أَبْيَضَ

“He was white (abyad)”[11]

2.2.3 Narration of ‘Aisha (RA)

The same is reported from ‘Aisha (RA) as well;

عن عائشة قالت أهدي للنبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) شملة سوداء فلبسها وقال كيف ترينها علي يا عائشة قلت ما أحسنها عليك يا رسول الله يشوب سوادها بياضك وبياضك سوادها

Narrated ‘Aisha: “A black turban (shimlatu sawda) was gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he put it on and asked, ‘How do you see on me O ‘Aisha?” I said, “How beautiful it looks on you O the Messenger of Allah! Its blackness (sawaduha) suits on your whiteness (bayadak) and your whiteness (bayadak) on its blackness (sawaduha).”[12]

This narration once again mocks the application of “addad” idea which Wesley again and again shamelessly refers to without justifying or explaining the usage in all the texts under consideration.

2.2.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA)

In one narration Abu Hurayra (RA) described him as;

شَدِيد الْبيَاض

“Very white (shadid al-bayad)”[13]

The same was also reported from Bara’ bin al-‘Azib.[14]

2.2.5 Remarks on these narrations

These narrations do not contradict the narrations that say his complexion was white imbued with redness. Ibn Hajr al-Haithmi addresses this point saying;

لإمكان حمل شدة على الأمر النسبى فلا ينافى كونه مشربا بها

“For the possibility of taking the (mention of) extreme [whiteness as] a relative thing, it does not contradict that it was imbued [with redness].”[15]

This is especially true as we have earlier seen Abu Huraira –the narrator here- describing his complexion as “white imbued with redness” (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).

Another proof for the solitary mention of “abyad” in relative terms is the narration from ‘Abu Tufayl –may Allah be pleased with him- who reports the following about the Prophet;

فَمَا أَنْسَى شِدَّةَ بَيَاضِ وَجْهِهِ وَشِدَّةَ سَوَادِ شَعْرِهِ

“I shall not forget his very white (shiddah bayad) face and his very black (shiddah sawad) hair.”[16]

It plainly establishes that reports describing the Prophet’s complexion as “fair/white” or “very fair/white” are only descriptions in terms of relative contrast to blackness (sawad), and they do not go against the overwhelming evidence of his whiteness being imbued with redness.

2.3. Narrations with description using the words asmar/sumrah

Further there are narrations that use the word “asmar” and “sumrah” describing the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

2.3.1 Narration of Anas (RA)

Humayd said, he heard Anas (RA) saying:

وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ

“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness (bayad) leaning to be ’sumrah’.”[17]

And as per yet another narration

Humayd reports from Anas (ra) that he said:

أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ

“’Asmar’ in color”[18]

This last narration from Jami’ Tirmidhi is the only one that Wesley and Berry regularly quote, as if it is the only important narration on the subject. Against their behavior read the following comment by the scholars of Hadith on this particular narration.

2.3.2 The narration of Anas is odd

Ali bin Sultan al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) writes:

وَقَالَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ: هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا حُمَيْدٌ عَنْ أَنَسٍ وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرْنَا إِلَى مَنْ رَوَى صِفَةَ لَوْنِهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَسٍ فَكُلُّهُمْ وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا

And al-Iraqi said, “These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not ‘asmar’ complexion and they are fifteen companions who explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.”[19]

Scholars of Hadith recognize this report as an odd one, and yet these people who have the obsession of dissipating their “truth” incessantly quote this and almost exclusively this one alone. This behavior itself says it all!

Not only Anas (RA) is unique in narrating this among all the companions, in fact not all narrations from Anas (RA) describe the Prophet’s –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- complexion as “asmar” or “leaning towards ‘asmar’” (See the narration from Sahih Bukhari above). And from Anas (RA), none but Humayd narrates this. In fact even Humayd does not always quote from Anas (RA) describing it as purely “asmar” as clear from the narration of Dala’il al-Nubuwwah given above. This adds much to the oddity of this narration. No reasonable person will bask on this narration alone, especially taking it on the face value.

However, we shall see in a while that even these narrations actually go in line with the most oft-repeated description of the Prophet’s –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- complexion in Hadith narrations.

3. Meaning of key words

3.1. The meaning of “abyad”

Now let us turn towards the meanings of the word “abyad”. Above we have translated it as white which is the simple plain meaning of the word in the Arabic language.

Wesley using the argument of Tariq Berry argues that in relation to the complexion “abyad” does not mean “abyad” rather it refers to a shade of blackness.

Before looking into usage of the word in hadith, let’s look into the relation between “bayad” and “sawad.”

Ahmad Ibn Faris al-Qazwayni (d. 395 A.H.) taking about “sawad” writes;

السِّينُ وَالْوَاوُ وَالدَّالُ أَصْلٌ وَاحِدٌ، وَهُوَ خِلَافُ الْبَيَاضِ فِي اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ يُحْمَلُ عَلَيْهِ وَيُشْتَقُّ مِنْهُ. فَالسَّوَادُ فِي اللَّوْنِ مَعْرُوفٌ

Al-Seen, wal-Waw, wal-Daal, form the gerund. And it is opposite to "bayad" in color. Then words are based on it and derived from it. And "sawad" in colors in well known.[20]

While we all agree “sawad” means “pure blackness”, so the above proves “bayad” does simply mean “pure whiteness.”

Now let’s see if the Hadith narrations about the complexion of the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- support either of the contentions i.e. if “abyad” simply means white or it is a shade of blackness as Berry and Wesley contend.

The key in understanding this is the Hadith narrated by Anas –may Allah be pleased with him. He reports about the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

وَلَيْسَ بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ

“And he was neither white as lime (abyad al-amhaq) , nor brown (adam).”[21]

it proves the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was far from being black in any shade for in that case there was no need to say it was not lime white - a sharp contrast to blackness.

It proves “abyad” used for the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- means simply white as in common use for had it been a shade of blackness there was no need of denying its being white as lime which looks ugly.

Infact “abyad al-amhaq” refers to pale white which is devoid of a reddish tinge.

Abu ‘Ubaid Qasim bin Salam (d. 228 A.H.) writes;

فالأمهق الشَّديد الْبيَاض الَّذِي لَا يخالط بياضه شَيْء من الْحمرَة وَلَيْسَ بنير وَلَكِن كلون الجّص أَو نَحوه

“’Amhaq’ is extreme whiteness (bayad) in which there is no mixture of redness (humrah), not is it radiant, but it is rather like the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) or similar.”[22]

Ibn Battal (d. 449 A.H.) in his commentary to Sahih Bukhari writes;

أن المهق من البياض هو الذى لا يخالطه شىء من الحمرة

“’amhaq’ of ‘abayad’ is that in which there is no mixing of redness (humrah),”[23]

Ibn Abdul Barr (d. 463 A.H.) explains “amhaq al-abyad” saying;

الَّذِي بَيَاضُهُ لَا إِشْرَاقَ فِيهِ كَأَنَّهُ الْبَرَصُ لَا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الْحُمْرَةِ

“[It is] that whiteness (bayad) in which there is no radiance like leprosy that is not mixed with anything of redness (humrah)”[24]

So “bayad” if devoid of redness (humrah) is like leprosy. Is leprosy related to anything but simple plain pure whiteness?

Similarly al- Tha’alabi wrote:

إذا كَانَ الرَّجُل أبْيَض لا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيء مِنَ الحُمْرَةِ وَلَيْسَ بنَيِّرٍ ولكنَّهُ كَلَوْنِ الجِصّ فَهُوَ اَمْهَقُ

“When a man is “abyad” (in complexion) without anything of redness (humrah) and it is not radiant but is of the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) then it is “amhaq”. [25]

Quite clear! When a person is white (abyad) without any mixture of redness or radiance in it then his complexion is like the color of plaster/gypsum, termed as “amhaq.” A shade of blackness does not become “amhaq” (i.e. like gypsum/plaster) if devoid of redness.

Remember these scholars were all discussing the Hadith on the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Those who maintain the rather funny idea of “abyad” being a shade of dark complexion need to explain away this Hadith without forgetting the above elucidations by the scholars.

3.2. The meaning of “azhar”

A narration from Anas- may Allah be pleased with him- describes the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- using the word “azhar”.

Thabit narrated from Anas (RA) describing the complexion of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, as:

كَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ

“The Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- was had bright white complexion (azhar al-lawn).”[26]

Abu ‘Ubayd Qasim bin Salam (d. 228 A.H.) explains the meaning of “azhar” in the following way;

الْأَزْهَر: الْأَبْيَض النيرِّ الْبيَاض الَّذِي لَا يخالط بياضه حمرَة

“Al-Azhar: Radiant white, whiteness (bayad), such that no redness mixes with it.”[27]

Abu Mansur al-Tha’labi (d. 429 A.H.) writes;

إذا كَانَ الرَّجُل أبْيَض لا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيء مِنَ الحُمْرَةِ وَلَيْسَ بنَيِّرٍ ولكنَّهُ كَلَوْنِ الجِصّ فَهُوَ اَمْهَقُ. فإنْ كَانَ أبْيَضَ بَيَاضاً مَحْمُوداً يُخَالِطُهُ أَدْنَى صُفْرَةٍ كَلَوْنِ القَمَرِ والدُرِّ فَهُوَ أزْهَرُ وفي حديث أَنس في صِفَةِ النبيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم: "كان أزْهَرَ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ أمْهَقَ"

“When a man is “abyad” (in complexion) without anything of redness (humrah) and it is not radiant but is of the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) then it is “amhaq”. And if it is white (abyad), its whiteness (bayad) being pleasing with yellowish tinge (or radiance) in it like the color of moon and the gems then it is “azhar”. The narration of Anas in the description of the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- (states): He was “azhar” and not “amhaq”.[28]

Categorically maintains that even the “abyad” of complexion is sheer whiteness, which may be ugly looking like plaster or pleasing depending if it is mixed with redness (humrah) making it radiant, or not.

This is why Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) explained ‘azhar al-lawn’ saying;

أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ أَيْ أَبْيَضُ مُشَرَّبٌ بِحُمْرَةٍ

“Azhar al-lawn’, that is: white imbued with redness (abyad musharrab bi-humrah)”[29]

As regards the statement of our Imam, Abu Hanifa that “azhar” can relate to any complexion, it is true but while we are talking of a particular individual we need to keep other descriptions of him in mind. And our readers will observe unlike Wesley and Tariq, we stick to scholarly comments about the very person of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

3.3. The meaning of “Asmar”/”Sumrah”

As regards the meaning of “asmar”/”sumrah”, Ibn Mandhur (d. 711 A.H.) gives us the following definition;

َهُوَ لَوْنٌ يَضْرِبُ إِلى سَوَادٍ خَفِيٍّ

“It is the color that inclines towards hidden blackness (sawad khafiy).”[30]

This hits the bull’s eye and kills the idea of “asmar” referring to someone truly black. “Asmar” is very very slightly dark as if its blackness is hidden.

In the same way al-Tha’alabi (d. 429 A.H.) writes;

إذا عَلاَهُ أَدْنَى سَوَادٍ فَهُوَ أسْمَرُ

“When his/her complexion is mixed with slight blackness (adna sawad), he/she is ‘asmar’.”[31]

So this clearly shows, “asmar” is a very slight shade of blackness, as if its blackness is hidden.

Lest anyone say that in Maqayis al-Lugha the word “asmar” has been defined as;

السِّينُ وَالْمِيمُ وَالرَّاءُ أَصْلٌ وَاحِدٌ يَدُلُّ عَلَى خِلَافِ الْبَيَاضِ فِي اللَّوْنِ. مِنْ ذَلِكَ السُّمْرَةُ مِنَ الْأَلْوَانِ

We find that here “sumrah” is explained involving the words we saw were used for “sawad” i.e. خِلَافِ الْبَيَاضِ which we earlier translated as, “opposite to white.” Tariq, Wesley or the likes of them may try to use it to their purpose. We shall, therefore, explain it here.

The above statement properly translated goes as;

“Al-seen, wal-meem, wal-Raa, forms the gerund. It adduces to other than white (khilaf al-bayad) in color. And from it come the “sumrah” in colors.”[32]

One can clearly see that here the relation of the root of “asmar” with “bayad” is established using the word يَدُلُّ عَلَى خِلَافِ الْبَيَاضِ where emphasis is on يَدُلُّ عَلَى which means “to point to” or “adduce to” i.e. in an indirect way; whereas, as we earlier saw, the relation of “sawad” and “bayad” is established directly saying وَهُوَ خِلَافُ الْبَيَاضِ “and it is ….” This explains as to why we translated the phrase as “opposite to white” earlier and now we translate it as “other than white.” “Bayad” is directly opposite to “sawad” and “sumrah” is a slightly dark shade, which is different than “bayad.”

3.3.1 “Asmar” also refers to whiteness imbued with redness (bayad mushrab bi-humrah)

But Arabs used the words “sumrah” and “asmar” to signify “whiteness imbued with redness” as well. Carefully read the following;

Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) discussing various narrations writes;

وَتَبَيَّنَ مِنْ مَجْمُوعِ الرِّوَايَاتِ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالسُّمْرَةِ الْحُمْرَةُ الَّتِي تُخَالِطُ الْبَيَاضَ وَأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالْبَيَاضِ الْمُثْبَتِ مَا يُخَالِطُهُ الْحُمْرَةُ وَالْمَنْفِيُّ مَا لَا يُخَالِطُهُ وَهُوَ الَّذِي تَكْرَهُ الْعَرَبُ لَوْنَهُ وَتُسَمِّيهِ أَمْهَقَ

And it is evident from all the narrations taken collectively that “sumrah” means redness (humrah) mixed with whiteness (bayad). And the pleasing look of whiteness (bayad) is that in which redness (humrah) is mixed and the displeasing look is that in which it is not mixed. It is the color the Arabs dislike and call “amhaq”.[33]

This evidently maintains that “abyad” is such a color which if devoid of redness becomes “amhaq” i.e. like plaster/gypsum or leprosy. This shows it is but pure white and if the same is mixed with redness it is also termed as “sumrah” (or “asmar”). Therefore in the narrations about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- “asmar” and “sumrah” do not signify a shade of blackness but whiteness imbued with redness.

Hafiz Ibn Hajr has based his assertion on the meaning of “asmar” on the study of Hadith narrations itself.

Same was also stated by Hafiz Zainuddin al-Manawi (d. 1031 A.H.)[34] and Ibn Hajr al-Haithmi.[35]

Hafiz Nuruddin ‘Ali bin Ibrahim al-Halabi (d. 1044 A.H.) in Insan al-‘Uyun commonly known as Sirat al-Halbiyya writes;

لأن العرب قد تطلق على ومن كان كذلك أي بياضه إلى حمرة أسمر

“For whoever is like that, i.e. whose whiteness (bayad) leans to be red (humrah) Arabs call him ‘asmar’”[36]

Long before them Abu Suleman al-Khattabi (d. 388 A.H.) wrote the following in his discussion on various narrations on the issue;

وفيه وجه آخر وهو أنه مُشرَبُ الحُمرة والحُمرةُ إذا أُشْبِعَت حَكَت سُمْرَة ويدُلّ عَلَى هذا المعنى قَولُ الواصِفِ له لم يكن بالأبيض الأمهق

"And on this matter there is another narration i.e. his complexion was imbued with redness. And when there is much redness (humrah) it is termed as 'sumrah' and this meaning is indicated to by his descriptor's words that he was not white as lime (abyad al-amhaq)."[37]

Here al-Khattabi perfectly summarizes what we are trying to make people understand.

The fact that it is Anas himself who gives the narration of Prophet’s not being “abyad al-amhaq” and “asmar” up holds the above. It is so, because had “asmar” meant a shade of blackness there was no need to testify against “abyad al-amhaq” thing, as already explained in detail.

4. Calling the Prophet black termed as disbelief: Significance and reasoning

There is further strong evidence that Wesley runs from, and rather gives it a completely different color. It is the fact that scholars recognized that calling Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- black was simply not acceptable because it went against the huge well established evidence.

4.1. Ahmad bin Abi Suleman al-Maliki’s verdict

Those who have been reading Wesley must have read his rant about alleged anti-black racism among early scholars. He often quotes Ahmad bin Abi Suleman’s (d. 287 A.H.) statement from Al-Shifa of Qadi Iyad.

مَنْ قَالَ: إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ أَسْوَدَ، يُقْتَلُ

“One who says the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was back should be killed.”

4.1.1 Explanation of the verdict

‘Ali bin Sultan Muhammad al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) explains this statement saying;

بل كان أبيض كأنما صيغ من فضة رواه الترمذي في الشمائل عن أبي هريرة رضي الله تعالى عنه وفي رواية مسلم والترمذي عن أبي الطفيل كان أبيض مليحا وفي رواية البيهقي في الدلائل عن علي رضي الله تعالى عنه كان أبيض مشربا بالحمرة ... والحاصل أن بياض لونه ثابت في الأخبار الصحيحة والآثار الصريحة مختلفة في المبنى متواترة في المعنى فمن قال في حقه إنه كان أسود يكفر حيث وصفه بغير نعته الموجب لنفيه وتكذيبه لكن قد يعذر قائله إذا كان جاهلا بوصفه عليه الصلاة والسلام لا سيما إذا كان من العوام إلا إذا أراد به تنقصه واستهانته عليه الصلاة والسلام وهذا يختلف باختلاف العرف بين الأنام إذ السواد مرغوب بين الحبشة والهنود كما أن البياض مطلوب عند العرب والاعجام

“Because ‘he (the Prophet) was white (abyad) as if fashioned from silver’ –Narrated Tirmidhi in Shama’il from Abu Huraira- and as per the narration of Muslim and Tirmidhi from Abu Tufail, he was, ‘Beautifully White (abyad malihan)’ and according to Baihaqi’s narration in Dala’il from ‘Ali (RA) he was, ‘Of white complexion (bayad) imbued with redness (mushrab bil-humrah)’ … And the crux is whiteness (bayad) of his complexion is proved with authentic reports and categorical narrations that are different in wording but consistent and continuous (mutawatir) in meaning. Therefore anyone who says he was black becomes a disbeliever (kafir) when he describes him with other than what is expedient for his act of denying and belying the true description. But a person is excused if he does not know the description of the Prophet –on him be the peace and blessings- especially if he is from the common folk except when the motive is to show disrespect and disparage him. And this varies with the difference in custom among the nations as blackness (sawad) is preferred among the Abyssinians and the Indians like fairness (bayad) is liked by the Arabs and the Europeans (‘Ajam).”[38]

This is a detailed explanation of the ruling. It not only kills Wesley’s allegation of racist tendencies on the great scholars of Islam but also establishes that to the classical scholars based on solid academic evidence it was heretic to assert that Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was black (aswad) and not fair-skinned i.e. white (abyad).

The same was explained by Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Haithmi (d. 974 A.H.)[39]

Al-Zarqani (d. 1122 A.H) has also very important elucidation to it likewise. He writes;

من غيِّر صفته، كما لو قال قصيرًا أو أسودًا يقتل

“One who changed his characteristic, as if he said, [the Prophet was] short or black, he will be killed.”[40]

4.2 Verdict by al-Nawawi

Similarly al-Nawawi (d. 676 A.H.) wrote:

لَوْ قَالَ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَسْوَدَ، أَوْ تُوُفِّيَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَلْتَحِيَ، أَوْ قَالَ: لَيْسَ هُوَ بِقُرَشِيٍّ، فَهُوَ كُفْرٌ ; لِأَنَّ وَصْفَهُ بِغَيْرِ صِفَتِهِ نَفْيٌ لَهُ وَتَكْذِيبٌ بِهِ

“If a person said, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was black or that he died before his victory, or if he said that he was not from the Quraysh, then the person is a disbeliever (kafir) , for he has described him with other than his characteristic, denying and belying it.”[41]

Quite clear, leaves nothing to explain!

4.3. Important points on the verdict

There are two very important points here;

4.3.1 Basis of the verdict: Denial of mutawatir (continuous) reports

The reason for pronouncing one a disbeliever and declaring him subject to capital punishment like apostates is denial of what has been reported in mutawatir narrations.

This is very important to understand. In Islam what matters is not the “trivial” or “grand” nature of a thing as per some people’s thinking but the stature of the proof on which it rests. To the scholars of Islam it has always been, in the light of continuous (mutawatir) reports, that Prophet’s –may Allah bless him- complexion was not black but was rather white. Therefore anyone who contends for the opposite is actually denying mutawatir reports. And denial of such an enormous evidence amounts to outright disbelief.

This can be easily understood when we see Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 A.H.) in his well known treatise on the beliefs of the people of sunnah writes, “We agree with wiping over leather socks (in ablution).”[42] And al-Karkhi (340 A.H.) states “I fear disbelief (kufr) on the part of the one who does not agree with wiping on the leather socks.”[43]

The point to note here is, apparently wiping on the leather socks is a trivial issue, but as it is proved through mutawatir narrations, therefore scholars put it in their works on Aqidah (beliefs) and equated its rejection with disbelief.

In the same way, the characteristics of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- are proved through mutawatir narrations, so if anyone denies it he turns a disbeliever and due to his apostasy he is subject to capital punishment.

I hope Mr. Wesley understands the simple plain basis for such a verdict. I would bid Mr. Wesley to understand some basics of Islam when he likes to argue about Islamic texts. This is a fundamental requirement in the field of comparative religions, so a person following the creed of NoI must have some know how about Islam before he wishes to argue with Muslims.

4.3.2 Ahmad bin Abi Suleman was an early, not medieval, scholar

Another very important thing to note here is the fact that Ahmad bin Abi Suleman al-Qayrwani was an early scholar. As Al-Zarqani mentions, he died in the year 287 A.H.[44] This is a very significant point and kills the lie of Wesley that idea of Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- being white in complexion was a medieval concoction.

5. Complexion of Prophet’s relatives

Rejecting the loads of narrations directly about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- Wesley and Tariq try to seek evidence with narrations about the complexion of other individuals. In the first place, every reasonable person knows it makes absolutely no sense to reject the simple direct evidence and to seek for so-to-say the “secondary evidence.” In fact we will see this “secondary evidence” is actually no evidence at all.

5.1 Can close relatives have manifestly different complexions?

Before discussing the case of various individuals let us turn to hadith, a divine source, to find out if complexion of a son must be same as that of his father?

There is a very interesting Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other collections that put to sword the whole rant of Wesley and Tariq on this.

The wording in Sahih Muslim is;

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ أَعْرَابِيًّا أَتَى رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِنَّ امْرَأَتِي وَلَدَتْ غُلَامًا أَسْوَدَ، وَإِنِّي أَنْكَرْتُهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «هَلْ لَكَ مِنْ إِبِلٍ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: «مَا أَلْوَانُهَا؟» قَالَ: حُمْرٌ، قَالَ: «فَهَلْ فِيهَا مِنْ أَوْرَقَ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «فَأَنَّى هُوَ؟» قَالَ: لَعَلَّهُ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ يَكُونُ نَزَعَهُ عِرْقٌ لَهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «وَهَذَا لَعَلَّهُ يَكُونُ نَزَعَهُ عِرْقٌ لَهُ» ،

Abu Hurayrah reported: A desert Arab came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: My wife has given birth to a dark-complexioned child and I have disowned him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Have you any camels? He said: Yes. He said: What is their colour? He said? They are red. He said: Is there anyone dusky among them? He said: Yes. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: How has it come about? He said: Messenger of Allah, it is perhaps due to the strain to which it has reverted, whereupon the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: It (the birth) of the black child may be due to the strain to which he (the child) might have reverted.[45]
The same is reported by Ibn ‘Umar –may Allah be pleased with him- in Sunan Ibn Majah and there the narration adds that the man even said;

وَإِنَّا أَهْلُ بَيْتٍ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِينَا أَسْوَدُ قَطُّ

“And in our family there is no one black at all.”[46]

This is categorical evidence that to a couple neither of whom is black and who have no black person in their entire family, a black child may be born. If this can happen between a child and his parents, why can this not happen between cousins or persons generations apart?

5.2 Complexion of ‘Ali (RA)

Both Wesley and Tariq refer to the description of ‘Ali (RA) given in Tarikh al-Khulafa of al-Suyuti and Ansab al-Ashraf of al-Baladhuri i.e.

آدم شديد الأدمة

“Adam Shadid al-Udma”, translated as; “very tawny complexioned” by Major S.H. Jarret [47]

Firstly, as already shown the complexion of ‘Ali (RA) cannot prove anything about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- as he was only his cousin. This is especially important as we read in Sahih Bukhari;

عَنْ عُقْبَةَ بْنِ الحَارِثِ، قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، وَحَمَلَ الحَسَنَ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ: «بِأَبِي شَبِيهٌ بِالنَّبِيِّ، لَيْسَ شَبِيهٌ بِعَلِيٍّ» وَعَلِيٌّ يَضْحَكُ

It is related that 'Uqba ibn al-Harith said, "I saw Abu Bakr carrying al-Hasan on his shoulder, saying, 'By my father, he resembles the the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and does not resemble 'Ali,' and 'Ali was laughing.”[48]

i.e. Hassan resembled the Prophet, and not ‘Ali, means ‘Ali did not resemble the Prophet –may Allah bless them all.

We will see the description of Hassan bin ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, shortly.

Although narrations assert ‘Ali (RA) was relatively dark however a closer look clarifies he was not “shadid al-udma” in complexion. In fact not even purely “adam” but his complexion was “asmar”- “close to being ‘adam’”.
Al-Baladhuri (d. 279 A.H.) himself in Ansab al-Ashraf and before him Ibn Sa’d (d. 230 A.H.) in Kitab al-Tabqat al-Kabir give us an interesting narration;

Sa’id al-Dhabay said regarding ‘Ali (RA):

وَإِنَّ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ إِذَا نَظَرْتَ إِلَيْهِ: هُوَ آدَمُ، وَإِنِ تَبَيَّنْتَهُ مِنْ قَرِيبٍ قُلْتَ: أَنْ يَكُونَ أَسْمَرَ أَدْنَى مِنْ أَنَّ يَكُونَ آدَمَ

“And when you look at him you may say, “he is ‘adam’.” And if you clearly look at close, you may say, “ he is ‘asmar’ close to being ‘adam.’””[49]

The narration structure is quite clear to maintain the difference between “adam” and “close to being ‘adam.’”

Anyways, we have already shown, his complexion does not help Wesley and Tariq in twisting the simple plain fact given in loads of Hadith narrations. And how can this description of ‘Ali (RA) be taken as suggestive of the Prophet’s complexion when in sharp contrast to this “adam”/”udmah”, description of ‘Ali (RA) the very first narration of the most well known work on the Prophet’s physical characteristics clearly tells us;

وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ

“And he was not ‘adam’.”[50]

Wesley and Tariq are requested not to try fooling the people with their senseless verbosity!

5.3 Complexion of Fadl bin ‘Abbas, the poet

Next we dwell on the complexion of al-Fadl Ibn al-‘Abbas (d. 95 A.H.), a poet and the great grandson of Abu Lahab, the uncle of the Holy Prophet (saaw). In one of his own poetic verses he speaks of his dark complexion, which is recorded by Ibn Mandhur (d. 711 A.H.) in Lisan al-‘Arab (4/245). Tariq Berry and Wesley Muhammad do not fail to quote this, and they will obviously refer to what Ibn Mandhur quotes from Ibn Barri (d. 582 A.H.). However the argument of Tariq and Wesley was answered long before these scholars.

Abu Al-Faraj ‘Ali bin Hussain al-Isfahani (d. 356 A.H.) has recorded the following about Fadl bin al-‘Abbas:

إنما أتاه السواد من قبل أمه : جدته ، وكانت حبشية

“Rather blackness reached him through his mother’s side. His grandmother was Abyssinian.”[51]

If Wesley and Tariq have a bit of honesty and objectivity left in them, they should cease to allude to complexion of Fadl bin Abbas after reading this categorical evidence.

And further Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 571 A.H.) gives us precise information on this, as he records;

ومن ولد عتبة بن أبي لهب الفضل بن العباس الشاعر وأمه آمنة بنت العباس بن عبد المطلب وهي لأم ولد سوداء

"And from the children of Utbah bin Abi Lahab was al-Fadl bin al-‘Abbas the poet and his mother was Aminah bint al-‘Abbas bin Abd al-Mutlib and she was (daughter) of a black umm-walad"[52]

“Umm-walad” refers to a slave-woman who bears her master a child.

Having clarified this, let’s have a look at the trick of Wesley on this. Though he first asserts that Abu Lahab is “particularly important” in this discussion but instead of giving his description, contends: “Abu Lahab’s importance for us here rather lies with his great grandson”[53]. We have shown the reason for blackness of his great grandson’s complexion, but what about his own?

According to Musnad Ahmad, Rab’ia bin ‘Ibad al-Daylami, described Abu Lahab as;

أحول ذا غديرتين أبيض الناس وأجملهم

“Luminous, with two braids; most fair-complexioned (abyad al-nas) and handsome of the people.”[54]

Now we get a clear picture, this grandson of the Prophet’s uncle was black owing his blackness to his maternal grandmother while his great grandfather, the Prophet’s uncle was actually very fair-skinned. Moreover, it tells us why not Abu Lahab but his great grandson became important to Wesley.

Although there is no need to turn to the complexion of Holy Prophet’s –may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- relations when we have so many narrations about his very own person, but just to show the cunningness of Mr. Wesley “the PhD” and his cohort Tariq, let’s have a look at the complexion of a namesake of the Fadl bin al-‘Abbas the poet i.e. al-Fadl bin ‘Abbas bin ‘Abd al-Mutallib (d. 18 A.H.), the cousin of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless them both. He has been described the following way;

وَكَانَ رَجُلًا حَسَنَ الشَّعْرِ أَبْيَضَ وَسِيمًا

“He was a man having beautiful hair, white (abyad) and handsome.”[55]

The above makes it quite clear that both Wesley and Tariq and just resorting to pathetic tricks to fool people into their “concocted truth”.

5.4 Complexion of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya

Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (d. 145 A.H.) was a noble descendant of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- who had a row with the rulers of his time and was subsequently martyred.

About him al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) records the following in his work on history;

كان محمد آدم شديد الأدمة، أدلم جسيما عظيما، وكان يلقب القاري من أدمته، حتى كان أبو جعفر يدعوه محمما

Wesley and Tariq both refer to this and Wesley translates it the following way in his article written using the “feedback” and “material contribution” of Tariq Berry;

“Muhammad (Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya) was black, exceedingly black, jet black (adam shadid al-udma adlam) and huge. He was nicknamed “Tar Face” (al-qari) because of his black complexion (udmatihi), such that Abu Jaffar used to call him “Charcoal Face” (al-muhammam).”[56]

Even withstanding his claim of “pure paternity, undiluted with non-Arab blood” it does not prove that Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was also of the same complexion. The evidence is manifolds;

Authenticity of this report

But before turning to the manifolds evidence, let us say a word about the authenticity of this report.

This quote about Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya is a solitary report of al-Tabari. And scholars have mentioned the weakness of it.

In Sahih Tarikh al-Tabari, research work of Muhammad bin Tahir al-Barzinji, Subhi Hassan Hallaq and others, under the heading of “Events of 144 A.H.” the rebellion of Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah bin Hassan (Al-Nafs Al-Zakaiyya) is mentioned but no narration including the above is given. And they have mentioned that none of the narrations about him quoted by al-Tabari is authentic. And even the weakness of various narrators involved with these narrations is given.[57]

Instead various narrations about Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya including the one under question, is included in Da’if wa Maskut Anh Tarikh al-Tabari (9/883)

If one says that same is mentioned in other works like Tajarib al-Umam of Ibn Miskawayh (d. 421 A.H.) and Al-Kamil fil Tarikh of Ibn Athir (d. 630 A.H.), then he ought to know that both of them quoted it from al-Tabari’s work, therefore it does not help.

It is known that Ibn Miskawayh heavily relied on al-Tabari’s work.[58]

And Ibn Athir himself in introduction (muqaddimah) to his work says that he has collected reports from various works on history and then writes, “So I started [gathering of historical records] with the huge work on history written by Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tabari”[59]

Neither of these has chain of narrations for their reports and both have heavily relied on al-Tabari leaving little doubt that their source is the very one we have already analyzed.

Lest, Wesley or Tariq, play the gimmick of alluding to the stature of al-Tabari, undoubtedly a great scholar, to assert that whatever he has quoted ought to be accepted, let us bid the readers to read al-Tabari’s foreword (muqadddima) to his work.

The narration hardly proves anything about Holy Prophet’s complexion

Now we come to the evidence that even if accepted this narration of al-Tabari hardly says anything about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

1- The account that he was nicknamed “al-Qari” i.e. “Tar Faced” itself proves his complexion was manifestly different from his people. Names are generally called for unique features.

2- Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya was a great grandson of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- and even if he was exactly like his great grand father, it does not relate to the complexion of the Holy Prophet as we have already seen ‘Ali (RA) did not resemble the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

3- A narration in Tabaqat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d describes him as;

كَانَ رَجُلا آدَمُ أَثَّرَ الْجُدَرِيُّ فِي وَجْهِهِ

“He was a brown colored (adam) man with the affects of smallpox on his face.”[60]

This narration is telling us that there were the scars of smallpox that made him look darker than he originally was. Assuming the narration of al-Tabari as true, this report helps us understand why he looked “jet black”. His own description i.e. “adam” was like that of ‘Ali (RA) who was “close to being ‘adam’”. cf. al-Baladhuri.

4- Even if we accept that Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya was originally “jet black” it still does not say anything about Holy Prophet’s complexion in face of multiple narrations that describe him in a very different way. All these narrations describe Naf al-Zakiyya’s complexion as “adam” /”udmah” etc. and we know from a Sahih Hadith that Holy Prophet was not “adam”[61]. This fact is enough to deflate this argument.

And we have seen the hadith from Sahih Muslim and Sunan Ibn Majah showing a black child of pure descent can take birth in a family in which there is no black person. This may be due to some of the great grand parents. And it is known that people of the Quraysh used to marry “habshiyat” (i.e. Abyssinian/black women). Ibn Jawzi (d. 597 A.H.) has named more than 30 men from Quraysh who were born to “habshiyat” [62]– clear evidence that it was not unusual for the people of Quraysh to marry Abyssinian women.

This provides an apt explanation for black complexion of some of the people of Quraysh. We have already seen a perfect example in the case of Fadl bin Abbas, the poet. We shall see more in the following lines.

5.5 Complexion of Ja’far al-Sadiq

Another holy man whose complexion Wesley refers to is, Ja’far al-Sadiq (d. 148 A.H.), the well known and reputed scholar from the family of ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with them both.

It is indeed true that just like ‘Ali –may Allah be pleased with him- his complexion has been described as ’Adam’ in Ibn Sabbagh’s (d. 855 A.H.) work on the Shiite Imams [63]. But we need to remember that it does not prove anything about the complexion of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, just as we have shown above.

Isn’t it funny of Wesley and Tariq to refer to a person whose complexion is described as “adam” to contend about the complexion of Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- about whom we have a categorical authentic narration telling us he was “not adam”?

5.6 Complexion of Musa al-Kazim

Another interesting case is that of Abu al-Hasan Musa al-Kazim (d. 183 A.H.), a revered personally and the Seventh Imam of the Shiites. He has been described as “Black (aswad) in complexion” in ‘Ali bin Hussain bin ‘Utbah’s (d. 828 A.H.) ‘Umdah al-Talib fi Ansab Aali Abi Talib (p.184)

Wesley, as expected, alludes to this. However, again as expected, he fails to mention some important details about this revered personality. In the very same book and on the very same page it is stated about Musa al-Kazim;

وأمه أم ولد يقال لها حميدة المغربية

“And his mother was a slave-woman and she was known as Humayda al-Maghribiyya.”[64]

This is to show that his mother was a slave-woman from al-Maghrib region. Further from al-Fusul al-Muhimmah (p. 222) we learn that she was a Berber.

Thus we know the reason for his black complexion. About Berbers Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) writes;

فَالنَّاسُ مِنْهُمْ بَرْبَرٌ وحُبُوش وطُمَاطم فِي غَايَةِ السَّوَادِ

“Among mankind there are Berbers, Ethiopians and (some) Barbarians who are very black.”[65]

5.7 Complexion of ‘Ali al-Rida

Tariq Berry refers to Abu al-Hasan Ali a-Rida’s (d. 203 A.H.) black complexion. But this was again due to his mother who was a Nubian slave-woman.[66]

Salahuddin Khalil al-Safdi (d. 764 A.H.) writes about him;

كَانَ أسودَ اللَّوْن لِأَن أمَّه كَانَت سَوْدَاء

“He was black in complexion (aswad al-lawn) because his mother was black.”[67]

After this al-Safdi gives the incident of bathhouse where a soldier pushed ‘Ali al-Rida aside and then said, “Pour water on my head oh black one!”

5.8 Complexion of Muhammad al-Jawwad and ‘Ali al-Hadi

Besides the fact that his father and grandfather were both born to black-women Abu ja’far Muhammad al-Jawwad (d. 220 A.H. ) was himself son of a Nubian slave-woman, named Sukyana.[68]

Likewise, Ali al-Hadi Abu al-Hasan al-‘Askari (d. 254 A.H.) who has been described as “asmar” in complexion was also a son of slave-woman from al-Maghrib.[69]

It is rather a well established fact that many among the progeny of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- were born to black slave-women so it makes absolutely no sense to mention them in this discussion. As recorded by Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 A.H.), when people asked Nasr bin Shabath al-‘Uqayli to make a pledge of allegiance with someone from the family of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- he replied;

والله لا أبايع أولاد السوداوات

“By Allah, I will not make pledge of allegiance with the children of the black women.”[70]

Besides the killing of argument of the de facto black racist contention of Wesley and Tariq, this fact also serves as a death blow to white racism as we find people from the noblest lineage marrying black women and their children rising to highly esteemed status. Alhamdulillah there is no place for any kind of racism in Islam.

5.9 Complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali (RA)- the one who resembled the Prophet the most

It is very important and interesting to note that while Wesley and Tariq refer to the complexion of so many people from amongst the progeny of the Prophet’s uncles, they do not mention the complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali, his grandson well known to have resembled the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless them both.

Ibn Sabbagh records the following;

كان الحسن عليه السلام ابيض اللون مشرباً بحمرة

“Hasan –on him be peace- was fair in complexion (abyad al-lawn) with redness imbued (mushraban bi-humrah) in it.”[71]

The very same is also recorded by Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali bin ‘Eisa al-Irbili (d. 693 A.H)[72] and others.[73]

This is very striking as there is hardly any work with basic information about him, which does not mention that fact of him resembling the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Abu Juhayfa, the companion of the Prophet, said;

رَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَكَانَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ يُشْبِهُهُ

“I saw the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Hasan bin Ali resembled him.”[74]

Similarly Anas- may Allah be pleased with him- said:

لَمْ يَكُنْ أَحَدٌ أَشْبَهَ بِالنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنَ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ

“No one resembled Allah’s Messenger more than Hasan bin Ali.”[75]

The same was also testified by ‘Ali[76], Ibn ‘Abbas[77] and ‘Abdullah bin Zubayr[78]- may Allah be pleased with them all.

We have earlier read the statement of Abu Bakr that Hasan bin ‘Ali resembled the Prophet and he did not resemble the ‘Ali, may Allah bless them all. Here is a similar testimony from none other than Fatima, the mother of Hasan, the wife of ‘Ali and the daughter of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless them all.

Once Fatima –may Allah be pleased with her- while pampering Hasan said in poetic fashion;

بِأَبِي شَبَهُ النَّبِيِّ ... لَيْسَ شَبِيهًا بِعَلِيٍّ

“By my father, he resembles the Prophet,
he does not resemble ‘Ali.”[79]

Does it not tell us that ‘Ali did not resemble the Prophet?

This is for our readers to reflect. Tariq and Wesley refer to the complexion of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib who did not resemble the Holy Prophet, while we here show the complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali who had the closest resemblance with the Holy Prophet- may Allah bless them all. And we know Hasan’s complexion was white imbued with redness. We leave the conclusion on the common sense of the readers.

One wonders if Wesley did not read this all important description while he quoted about other people from the very same book –Ibn Sabbagh’s al-Fusul al-Muhimmah. And if he actually did, why he failed to share it with his readers who are otherwise sadly mistaken to consider him an honest “scholar”?

6. Intake of al-Dhahbi and al-jahiz

6.1 Statement of al-Dhahbi

Al-Dhahbi wrote the following in his work Siyar al-A’lam al-Nubala[80];

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

Now we got to see who translated this statement rightly and who actually played with it.

In our initial exposition of Wesley Muhammad’s lies we translated it as;

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.”

6.1.1 First part of the statement

First objection to this translation raised by both Wesley and Tariq is about the first phrase;

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda).”

They have a problem with the word “slight” in the translation above and further that word “hilya” is not represented in the translation.

The fact however is, they are trying to play nasty with the language. Anyone reading the whole statement knows al-Dhahbi is moving from fair to dark, at least in relative terms.

His flows maintains “Abyad” is lighter than “asmar” and “adam” which are both lighter than “shaded al-udma” and “sawad.” While we have already seen “asmar” is a very slight shade of blackness as if the blackness is hidden. So if “asmar” itself signifies “slight blackness” why should anyone cry if the same is put with the word representing the hue even lighter than it?

And as to “hilya” thing, it’s a childish objection for there is never a need to put every word in its parallel in the other language and complexion is all about appearance.

In fact our translation is contextually true and solid, while the translation given by Wesley or Tariq may not be termed as literally wrong but is misleading nevertheless. It is misleading because they are running after the literal and in-isolation meaning of a word as they attempt to make people believe that “abyad” is not much different than “aswad”. Anyone with even a modicum of the understanding of Arabic –in fact of any language as such- will have to laugh his heart out at their stupid assertion.

6.1.2 Second part of the statement

Second part of the al-Dhahbi’s statement reads;

فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ

In his article that we originally refuted Wesley put this as;

“Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”

He did not translate the words قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ

Now there can be two possibilities about such a translation of the text above.

1- Either zero knowledge of the Arabic language

2- Deceit and dishonesty

Anyone with slightest knowledge of the Arabic knows, it is just impossible to fathom a third possibility, unless we are told, Wesley does his “research” while asleep.

Here for the benefit of the readers we present the original text and Wesley’s initial translation. We shall see his attempted explanation thereafter.

فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ،

“Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”

We all must wait and see by any farthest stretch of imagination what reasoning can lead anyone to translate “إِنْ كَانَ” as “like” or “i.e.”

No devil or saint can ever justify this. In his last article, response to our exposition, he says he actually misunderstood “al-takrur” and then pleads, “misreading this word caused a domino effect that caused me to mistranslate that whole sentence” and then reveals something interesting as he says; “Everyone who has struggled with a Classical Arabic text with an obscure word knows how this can happen.”

While it is true that misunderstanding a word can cause a ripple effect on the whole statement but this cannot possibly be the case here. Following is Mr. Wesley’s latest translation of the statement;

“and if they are speaking of the color of the people of India, they say: more or less dark brown (asmar wa ādam). And regarding the blackness of the people of Takrur they say aswad, intensely black …”

One thing to observe here is that this time he was forced to translate the last words of the phrase i.e. قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ He did not translate these earlier for it would have thrown a spanner into his work. This alone speaks volumes about his “knowledge” and “credibility.”

This is important because the conditional statement that it is, without these words the sentence does not make any sense. Regardless of anything else, the fact that Mr. Wesley has come up with somewhat acceptable translation lately, proves that he was just trying to be smart with his readers, who he knows, have hardly got any access to the original work. This also says why this liar PhD never gives the full Arabic text of the quotes he brings.

Mr. Wesley now tries to justify his lie by alluding to “domino effect”, while we are sure Mr. Wesley can never explain how misunderstanding “al-takrur” made إِنْ كَانَ to mean “like” or “i.e.” we shall wait if any of his fans can do this.

To show people the real face of Wesley, the Liar, let us work a bit more. Following is the latest translation of the second part of al-Dhahbi’s statement by Wesley with his initial understanding of the word “al-takrur” inserted.

“and if they are speaking of the color of the people of India, they say: more or less dark brown (asmar wa ādam). And regarding the refined blackness they say aswad, intensely black …”

Now the above is a lot better than what Wesley initially made of this statement. The element of absurdity in the above is because in his initial translation Wesley did not even translate a sensibly full phrase. Actually his plea that it was only a “domino effect” of misunderstanding a single word is another lie – itself the “domino effect” of his earlier deceitful play with the statement.

As we mentioned earlier even, it is quite evident that Wesley did this to make people believe “asmar” , “adam”, “aswad” a part of the explanation of “abyad.” But he was caught red handed – and all praise be to Allah!

6.1.3 Significance of al-Dhahbi’s statement

We have already discussed the meaning of “abyad” in detail under a separate heading. Statement of al-Dhahbi must also be seen with the rest of the evidence. It thus, signifies that even a person with wheatish complexion and not just pale wheatish but with a tinge of shade is ALSO called “abyad.” And even with that slight shade, it remains far from qualifying to be termed as “black” for any common, fair-minded observer. We should neglect the cries of the White and the Black racists. And as al-Dhahbi himself clarified anyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black, he is referred to as “aswad.”

6.2 What did al-Jahiz say?

In his response to our response, Wesley comes up with loads of quotes and much verbosity but hardly anything relevant to the topic at hand. Isn’t it striking to note that in his entire article he only speaks of one hadith, which is termed as odd by the masters of the science of hadith? In fact we have shown that even if accepted, it means exactly what the narrations, that Wesley says were fabricated by Persians, tell us.

We do not need to comment on the red herrings he throws, but just a few words of interest about something this Liar Dr. is too excited about.

The title of the monograph of al-Jahiz (d. 255 A.H.) he refers to is فخر السودان على البيضان “Fakh al-Sudan alaa l-Bidan.” Following are the points to note here;

1- The title, as Wesley puts it, means, “The Boast of the Black Race Over the White”

May we ask, what word has al-Jahiz used for “the White” here? It’s none other than “al-Bidan” of the same root as “abyad” and “bayad”

So what does it means here?

Does it relate to character instead of complexion?
Does it mean the opposite of its first meaning?
Does it mean a shade of blackness?

2- Whom does al-Jahiz quote? Is he quoting some established authority?

3- And the million dollar question is, in his dedicated work on the “Boast of the Black”- in which he does not fail to mention even the prominent of the Tabi’un (Successors) who were black and wherein “they” [the unknown boasting for the Black] even mention Abyssinian emperor for whom the Prophet prayed- is the Prophet –Allah’s blessings and peace upon him- himself counted among the Black? The answer is a big NO!

Even more than a millennium ago, the people boasting loud for the Black had no clue or obsession to somehow count the Prophet among the Black. More than 1400 years after the Prophet some people are remaking the evidence on his complexion.

This must be enough for the people to know Wesley’s “scholarship” is good for nothing. And Tariq is no better.

7. Summary

1- At least eight companions have described the Prophet’s complexion as white imbued with redness (abyad mushrab bi-humrah)

2- The narrations that describe him as “fair/white” or “very fair” prove he was far from being dark in complexion.

3- The very authentic narration from Anas that says he was not white as plaster or like the color of leprosy belies any notion of “abyad” meaning a shade of blackness, for in that case there was no need to deny the far end opposite of blackness.

4- The Arabs used to describe one with white complexion imbued with redness as “asmar.”

5- The narration from Anas (RA) that describes the Prophet’s complexion as “asmar” is odd in wording but actually means the same, “white with reddish imbue” complexion.

6- The narration of Abu Tufail (RA) that mentions fairness (bayad) of Prophet’s face and blackness (sawad) of his hair in one sentence and the narration of ‘Aisha (RA)in which she spoke of the fairness (bayad) of his face and blackness (sawad) of his turban in one breath, show the flimsiness of Wesley’s “addad” (i.e. opposite the first meaning) contention.

7- Almost every single narration that we have quoted kills the assertion that when a person is described as “abyad” it is about his character and not complexion. There are narrations that categorically relate to it “lawn” (complexion) and there are others that simply do not entertain this idea. Such an idea has absolutely no place at least within the scope of this discussion.

8- The fact that some of the greatest scholars have opined that anyone who says the Prophet was black in complexion is, because of denying continuous (mutawatir) reports, just a disbeliever, at least proves beyond all doubt that his complexion was far from being black.

9- An evidence as no less than a rigorously authentic hadith shows a black child can take birth to a couple neither of whom is black or even if there is no one black in the entire family.

10- There is clear evidence that ‘Ali (RA), whose complexion is described as “close to being ‘adam’” did not resemble the Prophet, as even an authentic hadith says the Prophet was NOT “adam” in complexion. Hope Tariq and Wesley will accept the plain truth.

11- Fadl bin ‘Abbas was black in complexion because his grandmother was an Abyssinian. His grandfather and prophet’s uncle, Abu Lahab, was fair-complexioned. It is hoped that Wesley and Tariq will apologize to their readers for using his case with proper research.

12- Ja’far al-Sadiq, Musa al-Kazim, Ali al-Rida and others from the progeny of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) were sons of black slave-women. This fact also upholds the fact that their complexion says absolutely nothing about that of the Holy Prophet. Justice demands both these guys stop referring to these people in this discussion. Let’s hope to find them editing their writings accordingly.

13- Hasan bin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, who resembled the Prophet the most, his complexion has been described as “white imbued with redness.”

8. Final Word

There is a lot more these two guys write. But not a bit of it is related to the Complexion of the Holy Prophet –Allah’s peace and mercy be upon him. What they quote from al-Mubarrad or the complexion of some other companions etc. has hardly anything to do with the topic here. However, various narrations and scholarly comments on those help us see what the truth is. We shall answer those twisting some other time in bits and pieces. The above lays to rest their falsehood on the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him. No doubt consistent and continuous (mutawatir) reports tell us that his complexion was white imbued with redness. All the great scholars have understood the narrations like it. And in this paper all the contentions of Wesley and Tariq related to the topic have been killed, Alhamdulillah.

We hope and wish that both Wesley and Tariq give up their ill contention, follow Islam and simple plain facts mentioned in the authentic sources without any twisting.

We pray this effort comes as guidance to all those dear innocent brothers and sisters who have been deluded away from the real contemporary issues i.e. spiritual and political revival of Islam, in the name of unveiling (read fabricating) the facts.

May Allah, the Almighty, make this a source of guidance and learning for all our readers!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

References:

[1] Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 18524

[2] Tarikh Damishq, No. 653, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1995 vol.3 p.264

[3] Tabqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1990 vol.1 p.321

[4] Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 18533

[5] Dalail al-Nubuwwah lil-Baihaqi, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah Beirut 1405 A.H. vol.1 pp.212-213

[6] Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol.1 p.319

[7] al-Bidaya al-Nihaya, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1986 vol.6 p.18
Also see Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharah Nahaj al-Balagha, n.d. vol.13 p.226

[8] Subul al-Huda wal Irshad fi Sirat Khayr al-‘Ibad, Ministry of al-Awkaf,, Egypt 1997 vol.2 p.18

[9] ‘In Islam Does the Color of the Prophet(s) Matter?’ See HERE Last accessed on January 16, 2012 5:14 p.m. GMT

[10] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 63

[11] Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2340

[12] Tarikh Damishq, No. 705 vol.3 pp.310-311

[13] Musnad Bazzar Hadith 7789

[14] Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 18547

[15] Ashraf al-Wasail ilaa Fahm al-Shama’il, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1998 p.42

[16] Tabaqat al-Kubra vol.1 p.321

[17] Dala’il al-Nubuwah vol.1 p.204

[18] Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 1754

[19] Jama’ al-Wasa’il fi Sharah al-Shama’il vol.1 p.14

[20] Maqayis al-Lugha, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut 1979 vol.3 p.114

[21] Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1

[22] Gharib al-Hadith, Da’ra al-Ma’arif, Hyderbabad, 1964 vol.3 p.27

[23] Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Makteba al-Rushd, Riyadh, 2003 vol.9 p.155

[24] al-Istizkar, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 2000 vol.8 p.327

[25] Fiqh al-Lugha, Ahya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 2002 vol.1 p.68

[26] Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2330

[27] Gharib al-Hadith vol.3 p.27

[28] Fiqh al-Lugha vol.1 p.68

[29] Fath al-Bari, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut 1379 A.H. vol.6 p.569

[30] Lisan al-‘Arab, Dar Sader, Beirut 1414 A.H. vol.4 p.376

[31] Fiqh al-Lugha vol.1 p.72

[32] Maqayis al-Lugha. Vol.3 p.100

[33] Fath al-Bari vol.6 p.569

[34] Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir vol.2 p.230

[35] Ashraf al-Wasail ilaa Fahm al-Shama’il, pp. 42-43

[36] Sirat al-Halabiyya, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1427 A.H. vol.3 p.467

[37] Gharib al-Hadith, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1982 vol.1 p.214

[38] Sharah al-Shifa, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1421 A.H. vol.2 p.431

[39] Ashraf al-Wasail ilaa Fahm al-Shama’il, p.43

[40] Sharah Al-Muwahib al-Ladunniyyah, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1996 vol.5 p.531

[41] Rowdha al-Talibin, Makteba al-Islami, Beirut 1991 vol.10 p.70

[42] Aqidah al-Tahawiya, Makteb al-Islami, Beirut 1414 A.H., p.70

[43] Sharah Ghaznawi, Dar al-Karaz, Cairo, 2009 p.133

[44] Sharah Al-Muwahib vol.5 p.530

[45] Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1500

[46] Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2003

[47] History of Caliphs –Translated from the Original Arabic, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, 1881 p.171

[48] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3750

[49] Tabaqat al-Kubra vol.3 p.19

Also, Ansab al-Ashraf, Dar al-Fekr Beirut 1996 vol.2 p.126

[50] Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1

[51] Kitab al-Aghani No. 316, Dar Sader, Beirut 2008 vol.16 p.115

[52] Tarikh Damishq vol. 48 p.337

[53] The De-Arabization of Islam and the Transfiguration of Muhammad in Islamic Tradition, p.13

[54] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 16020. Al-Resala, Beirut 2001

[55] Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith 1900

[56] The De-Arabization of Islam and the Transfiguration of Muhammad in Islamic Tradition, p.14

[57] Sahih Tarikh al-Tabari, Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut 2007 vol.5 p.75

[58] Tijarab al-Umam wa Ta’aqub al-Himam, Dar al-Kotob al-Imliyah, Beirut 2003 vol.1 p.50

[59] Al-Kamil fil Tarikh, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut 1997 vol.1 p.6

[60] Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol.5 p.439

[61] Shamail Tirmidhi, 1

[62] Tanwir al-Habash fi Fadl al-Sudan wal Habash, Dar al-Sharif, Riyadh, 1998 pp.246-247

[63] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah fi Ma’rifah al-Ahwal al-‘Aimma, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1988 p.213

[64] Umdah al-Talib fi Ansab Aali Abi Talib p.184

[65] Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, Dar al-Taybah, Beirut 1999 vol.6 p.544

[66] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah p.234.

Tarikh al-Baghdad, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1417 A.H. vol.19 p.135

Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, Dar al-Hadith, Cairo 2006 vol.8 p.115

[67] Al-Wafi bil Wafyat, Dar al-Ahya al-Turath, Beirut 2000 vol.22 p.156

[68] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah p.254

[69] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah, pp.265-266

[70] Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1988 vol.3 p.302

[71] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah, p.145

[72] Kashf al-Ghumma fi Ma’rifah al-Aimma, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut n.d. vol.2 p.148

[73] Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Mo’assas al-Wafa, Beirut 1983 vol.44 p.137

[74] Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 2827

[75] Sahih Bukharii, Hadith 3752

[76] Musnad Abu Dawud al-Tiyalsi, Hadith 132

[77] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 8508

[78] Tarikh Damishq, vol.13 p.176

[79] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 26422.

Tarikh Damishq, vol.13 p.176
al-Bidaya al-Nihaya, vol.8 p.33

[80] Siyar A’lam al-Nubula, vol.1 p.39 & vol.3 p.448

The Problem of Enormous Numbers of Hadith

2012-01-11T00:42:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

This is reproduction of APPENDIX II from Shaykh Muhammad Mustafa Azmi’s work “Studies in Early Hadith Literature” Suhail Academy, Lahore 2001 pp. 301-305

There are references to hundreds of teachers from whom al-Thauri, Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Zuhri, etc. had written ahadith. In the works of biographers we find a long list of teachers and students of eminent scholars. There are at least fifty students of al-Zuhri who made their written collections from him. If, on average, every one of them had written only five hundred traditions from him, then this number would have been 25,000. If we go a step further and assume for example that every student of al-Zuhri had only two or three students, then this numbers of traditions might have increased at the end of the second century to some 75,000, and in the time of Bukhari and his contemporaries they have been in hundreds of thousands.

Thus, the number of a few thousand ahadith reached about three quarters of a million in the mid third century.

According to Ibn Hanbal’s statement, over 7,000,000 traditions were sound, of which 6,000,000 were memorized by Abu Zur’ah. [1]

Al-Bukhari claimed that he made his collection of traditions out of six hundred thousand[2]. His book contains only 7,397 Hadith with repetition, and only 2,602 Hadith without repetition[3].

The actual number of traditions preserved in the Sihah and other collections is only a small fraction of the body of the traditions described above. This is a puzzling problem. Many scholars have been perplexed, and so have reached very strange conclusions. Guillaume says, “Bukhari’s biographer says that he selected his material from no less than 600,000 hadith. If we allow for repetitions which occur under different heads, he reduced this vast number of forgeries or dubious reports to less than 3,000 Hadith. In other words, less than one in every 200 traditions which circulated in his day could pass his test.”[4]

The problem consists of (a) Hadith and (b) enormous numbers and their implications.

(a) Hadith in the terms of some traditionalists, means utterance, deeds and tacit approval of the Prophet[5], while in definition of other scholars it covers utterances, deeds, legal decisions and tacit approval of the Prophet as well as those of Companions and the Successors.[6]

(b) As for the problem of enormous numbers, every channel of transmission is counted as a separate hadith. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi (d. 198) says, “I have thirteen traditions from Mughriah transmitting from the Prophet, concerning al-mash ‘ala Khuffain.”[7] It is quite obvious that al-Mughirah is reporting single action or habit of the Prophet. It does not matter how many times this action was repeated. It would be reported as a single action. As this single action is reported to ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi from thirteen channels, he counts them as thirteen traditions.

The first four centuries of the Hijrah were the golden age of the science of tradition, and the number of transmitters grew tremendously. Ibn Khuzaimah (d. 311) gives some thirty isnad for one hadith is one chapter, concerning the single act of ‘Aishah for cleansing the cloth. Meanwhile it is obvious that there might have been many other channels of transmission which were unknown to him. Muslim bin al-Hajjaj (d. 261) cites the names of a great number of transmitters, when he argues about certain points, especially when there is a mistake committed by some transmitters. For example, he gives thirteen traditions concerning the single incident of Ibn ‘Abbas and his tahajjud prayer. In the prayer, he stood on the left of the Prophet and then Prophet pulled him to his right side. Yazid b. Abu Ziyad related on the authority of Kuraib that Ibn ‘Abbas stood on the right side of the Prophet, but he was placed on the left. On this occasion Muslim gives thirteen isnads – making thirteen Hadith – contradicting Yazid’s statement.[8] Furthermore, he does not give the complete isnad and their full growth until his time. He mostly gives the details of channels until about 130 A.H. had he given the complete comprehensive isnad flourishing in his own time, they might have grown to fifty traditions at least.

Growth and development of isnad in the third century

There have been some traditionalists who claim that they had every Hadith from one hundred channels[9], and many others who have written every Hadith from twenty or thirty channels[10]. So, we may now infer what the real numbers of the traditions were which were described as 600,000. Another point is that they were not purely traditions of the Prophet, but the sayings of the Companions and the Successors and their legal decisions as well; the word ‘Hadith’ covers all these subjects and matters in some scholars’ terms.

The True Numbers of the Traditions

What is the real number of authentic traditions? The exact number is unknown, but according to Sufyan al-Thauri, Shu’bah, Yahya al-Qattan, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi and Ibn Hanbal 4,000 Hadith only[11]. The statement is incomprehensible. Gilani is inclined to a number less than 10,000 Hadith, based in his statement, on the quotation from Tahrir al-Jaza’iri, who in turn was quoting al-Hakim al-Nishaburi[12]. This is apparently a misinterpretation of al-Hakim’s attitude. He gives an estimate of less than 10,000 Hadith for the first-class authentic traditions which are transmitted according to al-Bukhari and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj’s stipulation. Furthermore he himself objects to this number, saying, “How can it be said that this [Prophet] traditions do not reach 10,000 traditions when 4,000 Companions… have transmitted traditions from him, who associated with him for more than twenty years…”[13]

It is said that the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal consists of some 40,000 Traditions, and without repetitions it would be about 30,000[14], but there has not been any research so far.[15]

Al-Bukhari, his Sahih and other Traditions

Al-Bukhari did not claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were no authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary he said, “I only included in my book al-Jami’ those that were authentic, and I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary lengths.”[16] He had no attention of collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile a manual of Hadith, according to the wishes of his Shaikh Ishaq b. Rahwaih[17], and his function is quite clear from the title of his book “Al-Jami’, al-Musnad, al-Sahih, al-Mukhtasar, min umur Rasul al-Allah wa Sunanihi, wa ayyamih.”[18] The word al-Mukhtasar, ‘epitome’, itself explains that al-Bukhari did not make any attempt at a comprehensive collection.

Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of Hadith. But when they give small figures, saying: “Al-Zuhri has 1,000 Hadith, or al-Qasim has 200 Hadith” they most probably mean Hadith as a subject matter not counted according to its isnad.

Does ‘Unauthentic’ Mean a False Statement?

Traditionalists, at first, look into the isnad and if it is defective, they call the Hadith defective, without scrutinizing the subject matter[19]; because a Hadith, according to their criteria, cannot be authentic unless both its parts are perfect.

Authentic matter with false isnad is a false statement. This will be clear from – [Nuskhah of Zubair b. ‘Adi] -- which is a collection of traditions, transmitted by Bishr b. Malik on the authority of Zakariya b. ‘Adi from Anas b. Malik from the Prophet – is called spurious, though about one quarter of the traditions of this collection are found in Bukhari and Muslim’s Sahih collections, and are called authentic. The only reason for discarding them is that it is maintained that Zakariya did not hear all these traditions from Anas, and they are falsely attributed to him.

Therefore, if the scholars say that 200,000 Hadith were not authentic, it does not mean that they spurious. It only means that there isnads are questioned while the subject itself may or may not be false.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

[1] Al-Hakim, Madkhal, 13.

[2] Al-Kathib, Tarikh Baghdad (Bagh.), ii, 8,14. Other traditionalists also gave an enormous number which they memorized or wrote down. I discuss only one case of al-Bukhari to clarify the problem.

[3] Ibn Hajar, Hady al-Sari, as quoted by al-Siba’i in Sunnah, 501.

[4] Guillaume, Islam, 91; a similar idea is maintained by Ahmad Amin, Fajr al-Islam, 211-12; Muir, Mahomet, xxxvii; see also J. Robson, Traditions in Islam, M.W., vol.xli, pp.101-2; Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs, p.146; Gibb, Mohammedanism 79, Haikal, Hayat Muhammad, p.49

[5] Tahanwi, Kashshaf, 279; Qasimi, al-Tahdith 61; Suyuti, Alfiyah 3; Subhi, Mustalahat 3; Sakhawi, Mughith 4.

[6] Jurjani, Risalah, 1; see Tahanwi, Kashshaf, 279; Suyuti, Tadrib, quoting al-Tibi 6; Sakhawi, Mughith, 12 “predecessors called them Hadith”; Gilani, Tadwin 62; for early usage of this word for the sayings other than the Prophet see Hasan b. ‘Imarah’s discussion with al-Zuhri, Islam, v, 147

[7] Razi, Introd. 261

[8] Muslim, Tamyiz, fol. 6b-7a; for more examples see fol. 10a; 11 channels; fol. 11b; 17 channels; these isnads are shown in the mid-second century as they flourished , not at the time of Muslim, who was a century later.

[9] Siba’i, Sunnah, 224, quoting sayings of Ibrahim b. Sa’id al-Jauhari from Tanib al-Khatib.

[10] Madkhal, 9; and it is quite possible, at least 50 students transmitted al-Zuhri’s book, so within 25 years’ time his traditions might have grown 30 or 40 times, see also Majruhin, 10a; Jami’ 165a; Mizan, I, 35

[11] Rashid, Ibn Majah, 164, quoting al-Amir al-San’ani

[12] Gilani, Tadwin, 66-67

[13] Madkhal, 11-12

[14] Shakir, Commentary on Suyuti’s alfiyah, pp.218-222, Shakir gives the estimate of the early scholars of 30,000 to 40,000; perhaps the first number indicates traditions without repetition.

[15] (Lately Musnad Ahmad has been published with proper continuous Hadith numbering. The total number of hadith according to al-Resala ed. is 27647. However if we count each channel separately the number will be quite large. See Hadith No. 535, 2008 etc – Waqar A. Cheema)

[16] Baji, 9b; also Ibn Hajar, Hady al-Sari, I, 18; also Bagh., ii, 8-9

[17] Ibn Hajr, op. cit., 18; Bagh. Ii, 18

[18] Ibn al-Salah, ‘Ulum al-Hadith, 24-5

[19] See for the priority of isnad criticism, Robson, Materials of Tradition, M.W., vol. xli, p.166; Guillaume, 55

72 Virgins! Does Allah give sexual bribe?

2011-12-30T15:05:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

The concept of 72 heavenly beautiful females is one of the hottest topics of western media and Islamophobes who try to embarrass Muslims of this heavenly reward.

However, being fair the criticism doesn’t come from the hadith itself but rather when Muslims saying something like this or perhaps doing something like this [and this too], the latter is more bewildering and somewhat absurd. Such remarks and behaviors are easy targets and they got themselves a good material (as shown below) to defame Islam.

However, we would discuss the soundness and weight age in the light of Islamic perspectives of such concepts and ideologies shortly but before addressing the topic, I would like to explain some facts that are normally neglected by the antagonists especially when viewing such phenomena (heavenly reward here).

                                                          Polygny Vs. Polyandry
                                             (Who desires more sexual partners and why?)

Polygny: Polygyny is the practice in which a male associates himself with many females for the purpose procreation and pleasure seeking thus binding himself in long term relationship (marriage). This nature is in men is natural and even agreed by evolutionary biologist.

However males don’t associate themselves primary for procreation but also for seeking pleasure since on comparative grounds men feel more sexual arousal than men and love to seek multiple mates than females.

Men prefer physical attractiveness more in women than women do in men. Women usually prefer men having higher social status and good economic strength.

However, all these traits or characteristics demanded by either of the sexes or both of them aren’t at the top, the first priority is always that partner should faithful, loving and caring [same book pg.99]. All of the above information, give us a view of man’s burning desire for intercourse, there is nothing embracement about it, this is how nature works. None should deduce that men are sex vultures or women are just too selfish. Finally, things would vary from person to person and culture to culture.

Polyandry: Polyandry is the association of a female with many males in a longing relationship, this is rare form of association and the most occurring form of polyandry is fraternal polyandry in which a female is shared by many brothers. This practice of a single female owned by brothers is for economic reasons so that the property may not have to be divided among children of different brothers .It is mainly found in Tibet and India, in India its is because of disturbed sexual ratio on account of female infanticide and as for Tibet, it is simply done to stop the division of property among of the off springs of different brothers of the same family.

Short- term mating: Man Vs. Woman
(If Women don’t desire many partners, why so many females engage in short term relationship?)

This short term matting strategy doesn’t apply to every male and female. This is a very broad topic and this would be come infinitely long if I am to discuss every detail and every dynamics involved. For men, short term matting doesn’t have to do with economics, they involve in it to seek pleasure and that’s why males engage in relationship with prostitutes. For females, again both genetic and economic benefit is involved but one thing is well established that if a female is engaging in relationship outside marriage, his new partner would always be stronger than her husband. If her husband is already rich and good looking, she wouldn’t like to involve herself with another man. Since in Paradise, Males would be attractive as Prophet Joseph (pbuh) and equally powerful with respect to economic point of view, there is no need for a woman to have more than one partner both for long-term and short term relationship.

“Can anyone be actuated to participate in a war by promising beautiful girls?”

Some of you guys must be thinking that this analogy is similar to an Army general promising his men that they would be allow to rape women of their enemies like Red Army did when they swept into Berlin committing almost 20,000 to 100,000 rapes (Brown Miller, 1975; Ryan 1966; Siefert, 1994). No this isn’t, actually Mass war time rape has nothing to do with man’s natural sexual instinct, it is done to embarrass the enemies that they had failed to protect their woman (More information about the dynamics of this concept can be found here and here) but that goes with Mass rape however the situation is quite different for soldiers raping female soldiers in their own army as Time magazine indicated that The Pentagon's latest figures show that nearly 3,000 women were sexually assaulted in fiscal year 2008, up 9% from the year before; among women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number rose 25% . Moreover, this behavior of raping your own comrade is a byproduct of misogynistic environment of military as one source points out not ‘out of control lust’ but a possibility of man’s own sexual desire cannot be simply ruled out as In German Psychological Warfare (Arno Press, New York, 1972) Ladislas Farago states: “Since young soldiers are in a state of hyperactive bodily development, their immediate problems are related to appetite and sex....Sexual deprivation may be a motive for a soldier’s suicide attempt.” Secondly, Japan to meet the sexual appetite of her soldiers established what they called ‘comfort zones’ in order to prevent rape and spreading of diseases among soldiers but all these rapes occurred when woman was available what about a soldier being encouraged to participate in a war for that? Let’s take this claim in this sense, Can a soldier is be demoralized to abandon the battle ground if he is shown that his wife or girl friend is raped in his absence? Obviously, if woman is the factor for encouraging someone to participate in war it would also cause it to leave it too. In World War II, sexual leaflets were distributed among enemy soldiers for a reason to demoralize them that the woman they left behind is in great danger in their absence, some of them were extremely pornographic but for the readers I would show the mild ones. For example,

A. Sexual leaflet made by Germans to demoralize allies in Italy in a series called, ‘Home Front warriors’ indicating when Frank [soldier] entered the room he found his girlfriend [Vivian] in bed with another guy bill.
B. Another German made leaflet for the allied troops in Italy demoralizing the soldier that if he continued to fight he would lose his girl.
C. Russian leaflets to German soldiers, it pretends to be a reproduction of a letter to from the State Insurance Office of Family Increase to a German male offering him the chance to have sex with multiple German women, and goes so far as to promise the award of a medal to those who perform well. It also explains that his wife will have no right to divorce and will have to take this minor hardship as a consequence of war. The letter explains that fertile and vigorous men are needed to keep children coming for the German war machine. Some of the more interesting text is: “German Soldiers! The Hitler Gang is making Germany a House of prostitution. These documents show you how your officers are spending their time.”
The same sort of things was happening on the Japanese front where sex leaflets were being dropped by the enemy on Allied troops. Some comments from Prisoners of the Japanese, Gavan Daws, William Morrow and Company, NY, 1994, on the subject: The Japanese were dropping propaganda leaflets…And for the friendliest of friendly persuasion, pictures of a beautiful blonde stripper, private parts and all: “You too can enjoy this is you surrender.” The propaganda bombers came droning over every day. It was like having the paper delivered. Some of the troops started trading the leaflets like baseball cards.

Reaction of Soldiers towards these leaflets: Herbert A. Friedman writes in his article ‘Sex and Psychological Operations’, Professor Linebarger noted that obscene pictures showing naked women, designed to make the celibate troops so desirous of women that they surrendered was a Japanese idea that did not work. The troops kept the pornography and despised the Japanese as queer little people for having sent it. One American soldier assigned to the 35th Infantry Division in February of 1945 told of receiving pornographic leaflets in an artillery barrage. He told me [Herbert A. Friedman]:
“We used the leaflets for toilet paper.”
This is a telling statement and seems to bolster a comment once made by Sir Arthur Harris, Air Marshall of the Royal Air Force during WWII. “My personal opinion is that the only thing achieved (by dropping leaflets) was largely to supply the continent’s requirement of toilet paper for the five long years of the war.”

The Inverse Reaction: Actually the hadith of Tirmidhi (no.1663 classified Sahih by Albani) about martyr being given 72 virgins as one of the six great rewards is not sufficient for anyone to risk his life for some beautiful partners he has never seen. In fact, it would be bring a reverse effect i.e. the aggressiveness of soldiers against the enemy would fade away as Edward Donne stein says in The Journal of Personality and Social Behavior (Vol. 39, 1980, p. 269-277) : “When males have not been angered or have been exposed to mild erotica, aggressive behavior has been reduced…In summary, the present results suggest that highly arousing nonaggressive-erotic stimuli can be a mediator of aggressive behavior by males toward other males under certain condition.”
Since nobody has seen those beautiful virgins thus all males have to develop their own sexual fantasies which would in turn provided a serious setback towards their military progress because they would lose that ‘anti enemy’ sentiments which is necessary overcome the hardships hurled by the enemies.

Ok! Fine about the virgins but don’t you think the number is too big?: Well yes! But its looking odd only because we never see it , when we watch news channels we only found rapist having more partners and even polygamy isn’t common even in Muslim countries, so this cause a negative correlation in our mind that having more sex partners for a male is bad [for long term relationships] because some criminals have many short term sex based relationships with man thus whenever we think of polygamous mating, we think that a guy is crazy about sex without even bothering to see that it is natural and in the genes of man. This is the same way if we find police man doing something against the law it would look because whenever we think of uniform we think of law, safety and comfort. Actually, our sense of moral values is greatly influenced by the society and on the basis of that we shape our brains.

So the pleasure of the Martyr is intercourse and he would be the only one receiving this reward: No, many would get 72 wives not just a martyr , Narrated by Abu Huraira (RA), the Messenger of Allah -may the peace and blessings of Allah- said: "The ordinary inmate of paradise ... for him there will be seventy-two partners from Hoor al'Ayn besides his spouses from (the women of) this world." (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 10874. Classified as Hasan by Ahmad Shakir) and even for the martyr the best prize isn’t the intercourse it’s the honour he would receive at the time of martyrdom, Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet -may the peace and blessings of Allah- said, "Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a martyr who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives (from Allah)" (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 2817).

Islamic Paradise revolves around desires of men, Aren’t women Neglected by Allah as they would be jealous of the hoors: Well! Woman are very secretive about their wishes and dreams, they just don’t want to tell anyone unless the person is very close to them , under the light of this fact many scholars believed that woman would get what she desires since men don’t feel shy thus Allah (S.W.T) told them what they would get but a case is different for woman yet however Jannah has a bazaar in it,… “Their Lord will say. ‘Get up! I have prepared for you blessing. Take what you desire’. Then we will come to the market surrounded by angels. There will be in it the like of which eyes have not seen and ears not heard and hearts have not thought of. To us will be delivered what we desire, there being no buying or selling in the market..”[Ibn e Majah 4336] ,. Anas (RA) narrated the Messenger of Allah -may the peace and blessings of Allah- said: "Verily a market will be set for the inmates of Paradise every Friday .." (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 39366. Classified as Sahih by Albani in Sahiha 3471) and we have seen earlier that even woman sexual life is influenced by material factors [not implying that woman are crazy about money but it’s a fact that they love shopping than anything]. Even the modern research confirms this behavior that women love shopping more than men. Cosmetic industry is booming in the west because of woman’s desire of eternal youth look but Jannah has perpetual youth, “Their youth does not pass away and their garments do not wear off.” [Ahmed 7939] .There wouldn’t be any jealousy in paradise Allah makes it clear, Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And We shall remove from their breasts any (mutual) hatred or sense of injury (which they had, if at all, in the life of this world); rivers flowing under them, and they will say: ‘All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has guided us to this, and never could we have found guidance, were it not that Allah had guided us! Indeed, the Messengers of our Lord did come with the truth.’ And it will be cried out to them: ‘This is the Paradise which you have inherited for what you used to do’” [al-A’raaf 7:43]. Not to mention the superiority of woman of this world would have in both beauty and virtue because they prostrated to Allah (Targheeb Vol.4 pg.534), thus men wouldn’t lose their interest in their wives as they would be twice beautiful than the the Houris.Women always dream of higher standards of living thus they are always found more materialistic than men. Women, on average, always dream of higher standards of living thus they are always found more materialistic than men.

Sensual Pleasure Vs. Spiritual Pleasure: Abu Naeem’ narrated in Sifat ul Jannah from Abu Hurairah (R.A) that messenger of Allah said: “A man will go to one hundred virgins in one day” i.e. in Paradise classified as Sahih by Albani in Silsila Al-Sahiha, 367) . First of all in jannah a thousands of earth is equal to one day in Jannah and since the orgasm is the highest dopamine rush experienced by humans, there is no good reason that paradise should be deprived of it. In fact, a neural scan of the moment of orgasm is similar to one taken during a heroin rush. Just like with drugs, the dopamine surge is followed by withdrawal symptoms, which are immediate in the male, but delayed in the woman. Why would a God need to get rid of this joyful activity which he himself created for us? Anyways, back to the topic, well the best pleasure for the inhabitants of paradise is watching Allah (S.W.T): Sayyidina Suhayb (R.A.) narrates that Prophet (saaw) said: "When the people of Jannah enter into Jannah, Allah Ta‘aala will say: ‘Do you want Me to increase anything for you?' They will say: ‘Did you not illuminate our countenance; did You not enter us into Jannah and save us from Jahannam.’" He (further) says: "Then the veils will be lifted and they will see the countenance of Allah. From whatever they had been granted, nothing will be more beloved then seeing their Rabb." (Muslim, Mishkat).

Awkward behaviors of Some Muslims towards such teachings: Although sex is a need and some time a driving factor in the society among males to compete for the most beautiful females. In his influential book Male, Female, the evolution of human sex differences, David C. Geary discusses brain and cognitive differences from an evolutionary perspective. Identifying basic empirically observed differences between the sexes, both in humans and other species, Geary finds the sexual selection pressures that are responsible for these differences. When it comes to male-male competition, which plays a key role in the choice of sexual partners across many species, Geary points to modern man´s efforts to secure a high-paying job as a clear example of the same sexually-driven competition amongst males. Interestingly enough, a 2008 paper by Pollet and Nettle observed a correlation between men’s wealth and reported female orgasm, indicating that in a sample of Chinese women, those engaged in sexual relationships with wealthier men reported a higher degree of sexual satisfaction, and a higher number of orgasms achieved, in particular. Well ! when it comes to the heavenly women things are different since nobody has seen them, this may be a candy for a person living a subjugated life but for others who are free and have an access to better females it wouldn’t work, besides as we stated earlier even if the person doesn’t go to war for some reason he would get it too. In fact, Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) never stressed or even encouraged his followers during wars to fight so that they would get beautiful girls and not for the benefit of Islam.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES!

Finally , I would like to make point out some sources that actually confirms the existence of sex in heavens.

1. Dr.Ruckman deduce from 1 John 3:2, Philippians 3:21 and 1 Corinthians 15:49 that Jesus would have orgasmic gay sex with all the Christian men. (read full here).
2. If Jesus is the God of OT and he can give Solomon some 300 women with no complaints at all, what is the problem with you when a Muslim just has 72?
3. Many Christians such as Peter Kereeft logically proves that there would be sex in heaven.

Note: I am extremely thankful to Mr. Herbert A. Friedman for giving me the permission to add images of the sexual leaflets used in WWII

Indeed Allah knows the best!

by Azhan Ahmed

Understanding Seven Ahruf –1 (the weaker explanations)

2011-12-05T18:30:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

The missionaries and the orientalists have always been attacking the Muslim claim of perfect preservation of the Holy Qur’an. They try to make an issue of the Hadith narrations on Seven “Ahruf.” Also while many of their lies can be easily responded to in the light the best interpretation recognized by the scholars, they always run away from the truth alluding to huge differences among the scholars on the point. This series is intended to show the best interpretation, arguments for it, comparison with other interpretations, nature and significance of the difference in interpretations and finally to see if the whole thing puts to doubt the claim of Qur’an absolute and ultimate preservation? I hope people with scholarly taste will find it useful, in-sha’Allah!

Understanding Seven “Ahruf”

Translation of
a section from Shaykh Taqi Usmani’s book ‘Uloom al-Qur’an

DISCLAIMER! It must be noted, it is NOT the original work of the respected Shaykh, nor has the translation been reviewed by the him. His book is in Urdu and is available HERE. The translation titled “An Approach to Quranic Sciences” published by Darul Ishat has been used with some changes. Headings have been added. References have been revised using the latest available editions of the works cited, and notes in the footnotes are by the publisher here. Any mistake in the translation, references or notes may be attributed only to the publisher of this post.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

According to an authentic Hadith, the Holy Prophet has said,

Qur’an has been revealed on seven “ahruf”. So recite it in a way that is easy for you out of these.[1]

What is meant by revelation of the Qur’an on seven “ahruf”? This is a very momentous and lengthy subject, indeed, one of the most complicated discussions on the sciences of the Qur’an. It is very difficult to discuss it in full details in this work but the important things about it are being presented below.

The Hadith quoted above is uninterrupted as far as its meanings are concerned, so that the renowned Muhaddith Abu ‘Ubayd Qasim bin Salam has affirmed its continuity (tawatur). The well known scholar of hadith and recitals (qira’at) Ibn al-Jazari has stated that he has put together all the variation of this report in a separate monograph. According to him, this hadith has been narrated by ‘Umar bin Khattab, Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam, ‘Abdur Rahman bin ‘Auf, Ubayy bin Ka’b, ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud, Mu’az Ibn Jabal, Abu Hurayrah, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, Abu Sa’id Khudri, Huzaifah bin Yaman, Abu Bakrah, ‘Amr bin al-‘Aas, Zayd bin Arqam, Anas bin Malik, Samurah bin Jundub, ‘Umar bin Abi Salmah, Abu Jaham, Abu Talha and Umm Ayyub Ansariyah- may Allah be pleased with them all.[2]

In addition, several others have referred to the incident that while addressing a congregation, ‘Uthman the third Caliph, proclaimed that all those who had heard the tradition from the Holy Prophet that;

The Qur’an was revealed on Seven “Ahruf” each of which was effectual, should stand up. In response to this the number of companions who stood up was so large that they could not be counted.[3]

2. Meaning of Seven “Ahruf”

The first problem we face with this Hadith is what is meant by the revelation of Qur’an on Seven “Ahruf”? We find a great deal of difference of opinion on this subject. Up to thirty five different views have been quoted by Ibn al-‘Arabi and others.[4] Some of the popular views are quoted below.

2.1. First View: Seven “Ahruf” are the Seven well known Recitals (qira’ts)

Some people think that Seven “Ahruf” refers to the recitals of the seven well-known reciters (qaris) of the Qur’an. But this view is unfounded and wrong, because the continuously reported recitals (mutawatir qir’ats) of the Qur’an are not limited to seven. Rather, many other recitals are confirmed though mutawatir narrations. The seven recitals (qir’ats) became popular because Ibn Mujahid had compiled a selection of seven of them in a book. He neither meant that recitation of the Qur’an was limited to those variations nor did he intend to elucidate the Seven “Ahruf” through the seven recitals.

2.2. Second View: Seven “Ahruf” denote Multiple Recitals (qira’ts)

On the same basis some scholars have opined that “ahruf” include all the different recitals, but the word ‘seven’ does not specify the number seven. It means ‘many’. In Arabic, the word ‘seven’ is very often used to denote excess of something. Here also the hadith does not intend that the “ahruf” on which the Qur’an is revealed are specifically seven, but it denotes that is Qur’an is revealed in ‘many’ readings. Of the earlier scholars, Qadi ‘Iyad held the same view[5], and in the latest period Shah Wali Ullah upheld the same opinion[6]. But this view does not seem to be correct because Bukhari and Muslim have quoted Ibn ‘Abbas saying that he heard the Prophet say;

Jibril taught me the Qur’an in one “harf” but I turned to him and did not cease asking him to allow more until he ended up at seven “ahruf”[7]

This tradition is reported in detail in Muslim on the authority of Ubayy bin Ka’b that the Prophet was sitting by the pond of Banu Ghifar.

So Jibril came to the Prophet and said, ‘Allah has commanded you that all your people should recite the Qur’an following one “harf”. On that he said, “I seek the forgiveness of Allah, my people do not have the ability to do so.” Then Jibril came to him again and said, “Allah has commanded that your people recite the Qur’an following two “ahruf.” He said, “I seek the forgiveness of Allah, my people do not have the ability to do that even.” Then he came a third time and said, “Allah has commanded you that your people should read the Qur’an following three “ahruf.” The Prophet again said, “I seek the forgiveness of Allah, my people do not have the ability to do that too.” Then Jibril came a fourth time and said, “Allah has commanded you to let your people recite the Qur’an following seven “ahruf.” Hence whichever “ahruf” they would follow will be correct.[8]

The context of these narrations indicates clearly that the word ‘seven’ does not denote an unspecified large number but it denotes the specific numerical value ‘seven’. Hence, in the light of these narrations this view (that seven means more than that) does not hold good and the majority of scholars reject it.

2.3. Third View: Seven “Ahruf” refer to Seven Dialects of Arabic

Some other scholars, including Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) and some others have stated that, in this Tradition, the seven “ahruf” indicate the seven dialects of the tribes of Arabia. The Arabs belonged to different tribes and the language of each tribe, in spite of being Arabic, had a slightly different dialect. It was as usually occurs with a major language that several dialects naturally evolve on regional basis. Hence, for the convenience of different tribes, Allah revealed the Qur’an on seven dialects so that every tribe may read it according to its own dialect.[9] Abu Hatim Sajistani has even enumerated the names of these tries and has stated that the Qur’an was revealed in the dialects of these seven tribes. They are: Quraysh, Huzayl, Taymur Rabab, Azd, Rabi’ah, Hawazin and Sa’d bin Bakr. And Ibn ‘Abdul Barr has relied upon some authorities to name the tribes thus: Huzayl, Kinanah, Dabbah, Taym-ur-Rabab, Asad bin Khuzaima and Quraysh.[10]

However, many researchers, such as Ibn ‘Abdul Barr, al-Suyuti and Ibn al-Jazari have refuted this view due to certain reasons;

1) The number of Arabian tribes was quite large, why should the seven be selected?

2) There was a disagreement between ‘Umar and Hisham bin Hakim on the correct recital of the Qur’an. This is reported in Sahih Bukhari in detail, although both of them were of Quraysh and the Prophet confirmed that both were correct and said that the Qur’an had been revealed on seven readings. If seven readings were meant to denote dialects of the seven different tribes there should have been no difference in the views of ‘Umar and Hisham as both were from the Quraysh.[11] al-Alusi has, however, stated that it was possible that the Prophet might have taught the Qur’an to one of them on a dialect different from the Quraysh dialect.[12] But this argument is weak because the purpose of revelation of the Qur’an in different dialects was to make its recital easy for every tribe, hence it does not conform to the prophetic wisdom to teach the Qur’an to a Qurayshite in a different dialect.

3) al-Tahawi has raised another objection to it; if the seven “Ahruf” are understood to correspond to dialects of seven tribes, then it is in contradiction to the Qur’anic proclamation

And We have sent no Messenger but with the language of his people.[13]

There is no doubt that the Prophet’s people were the Quraysh, hence it is apparent that the Qur’an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraysh only.[14] This view of al-Tahawi is supported by the fact that when ‘Uthman intended to gather the Qur’an a second time and formed a committee comprising the Companions headed by Zayd bin Thabit for this purpose, he instructed them.

When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about any of the Qur'an, write it in the dialect of Quraysh. It was revealed in their language.[15]

‘Uthman made it clear that the Qur’an has been revealed only in the language of Quraysh. The question then arises why should there be a difference among them? This would be discussed in detail further on.

4) Apart from this, the proponents of this view hold that “ahruf” and recitals (qira’at) are two separate things. The variations in its recital which exist even today belong to one dialect only, which is the language of the Quraysh. The other dialects were either abrogated or eliminated for some valid reason. On this question, among the several doubts one observes that in the entire collection of Ahadith, we do not find any proof that there were two kinds of differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, one pertaining to Seven “Ahruf” and other pertaining to recitals. In fact wherever a difference in the words of the Qur’an has been mentioned it is referred to as a difference of “ahruf”. Difference in recital is not mentioned separately. For these reasons this view also serves as a weak argument.

2.4. Fourth View: Seven “Ahruf” refer to Maximum no. of specific synonyms allowed in early days

The fourth popular view is that of al-Tahawi. According to him, the Qur’an was revealed only in the dialect of Quraysh but because the people of Arabia belonged to different regions and different tribes and it was very difficult for all of them to recite it in one dialect, hence in the beginning they were permitted to recite it in synonymous words of their language. Thus the Prophet had himself suggested synonyms for those people who could not recite Qur’an in the original words correctly. They synonyms were chosen from the dialects of both, the Quraysh and non-Quraysh. Such as, instead of تعال words like هلم or اقبل or ادن could be read because they had the same meaning. But this permission was given only in the early days of Islam when all Arabs were not fully acquainted with the language of the Qur’an. But gradually, this language gained more circulation and the people of Arabia got used to it. They found it easy to recite in the original diction of the Qur’an. In the month of Ramadan before his death, the Prophet sat with Jibril for the final revision of the Qur’an. This is known as Ardul Akhirah (the Final Revision). The use of synonyms was thereafter disallowed and only the original diction of the Qur’an remained.[16]

According to this view the tradition relating to Seven “Ahruf” pertained only to the period when the use of synonyms was permissible in the recitation of the Qur’an, and it did not mean that the Qur’an was revealed on Seven “Ahruf”. But that it has been revealed with flexibility that for a certain period it could be recited on Seven “Ahruf” and even that did not mean that they were permitted to use seven synonyms with every word of the Qur’an, but that the maximum number of synonyms that could be used was seven. Further, this relaxation did not mean that everybody was free to choose the synonyms of his own choice, but the words were chosen by the Prophet himself, and he taught the Qur’an to everyone in the diction that was easy for him. Hence only those synonyms were permitted that were proved from the Prophet.[17]

Besides al-Tahawi, Sufyan bin ‘Uyainah and Ibn Wahb also subscribed to this view. Hafiz Ibn ‘Abdul Barr goes on to attribute the view to most scholars.[18]

The view appears to be more logical than all the other views and its advocates present as an argument the following narration of Abu Bakrah as quoted in Musnad Ahmad,

Jibril said to the Prophet, “O Muhammad read the Qur’an in one “harf”. Mika’il said to the Prophet to get the number increased, till the matter reached seven. Jibril then said, “Each of these is sufficient unless you mix the verses of punishment with those of rewards and vice versa. It will be the same as you express the meaning of تَعَالَ (come) with أَقْبِلْ and هَلُمَّ and اذْهَبْ and أَسْرِعْ and أَعْجِلْ (end).[19]

There may not be any other doubt on this view but certain confusion persists. It does not explain the position of different recitals of the Qur’an which continue to this day. This theory does not account for it. If these recitals are treated as something different from the Seven “Ahruf” solid arguments will be needed to prove it. In the vast collection of Hadiths, we do not find any mention of difference in the Qur’an other than that accounted for in “ahruf”. How then may we explain differences in reading and “ahruf”? I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to this confusion with the advocates of this theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEXT (in the series) we shall look into the “Best Explanation of Seven Ahruf”, in-sha’Allah!

[1] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4992

[2] Ibn al-Jazri, An-Nashr fil Qira’at al-‘Ashr 1/21, Dar al-Kutab al-Ilmiyya, Beirut

[3] Ibid.
The same is quoted by al-Suyuti in al-Ittiqan. Al-Suyuti then mentions, Abu Ya’la said, “I can give as many narrators of this Hadith as desired.” (al-Ittiqan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an 1/164)

[4] Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi ‘Uloom al-Quran 1/212, Dar al-Ma’rifa, Beirut 1957
The figure thirty-five is given with reference to the statement of Abu Hatim Ibn Hibban al-Basti

[5] Zakariyya Kandhalwi, Awjaz al-Masalik ilaa Muwatta al-Imam Malik, 4/240, Dar al-Qalam, Damascus, 2003

[6] Shah Wali Ullah, al-Musaffa Sharah Muwatta, 1/187, Matba’ Faroqqi, Delhi, 1287 A.H.

[7] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3219
Sahih Muslim, Hadith 819

[8] Sahih Muslim, Hadith 821,

[9] Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Ta’wil al-Qur’an, 1/46-47, Al-Resalah Publishers, Beirut, 2001

[10] Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari, 9/27 Dar al-Ma’rifa, Beirut, 1379 A.H.

[11] Ibn al-Jazri, op. cit., 1/24

[12] Al-Alusi, Ruh al-M’ani, 1/22, Dar al-Kutab al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1415 A.H.

[13] Qur’an 14:4

[14] Al-Tahawi, Sharah Mushkil al-Athar, 8/117 Al-Resalah Publishers, Beirut, 1994

[15] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4987
Another narration puts it as, “When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about the Arabic of the Qur'an, you should write it in the language of Quraysh. The Qur'an was revealed in their tongue.” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4984)

[16] Al-Tahawi, op. cit., 8/117-121

[17] Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, op. cit., 9/27

[18] Al-Zarqani, Sharah al-Muwatta, 2/10, Maktaba Thaqafa al-Diniya, Cairo, 2003

[19] Ahmad, al-Musnad, Hadith 20514. Al-Resalah Publishers, Beirut, 2001

The respected author has quoted from Awjaz al-Masalik (4/242) that its isnaad are good (jayyad). Whereas Shu’aib Arna’ut and his team has mentioned that its chain is weak (da’if) due to the weakness of the narrator ‘Ali bin Zayd bin Jud’an. The report, however, is authentic (sahih) due to other isnad except the words, “it is same as … (to the end)”. These words are not reported from the Prophet through authentic chain of narrators though a statement of Ibn Mas’ud on the same lines is narrated by al-Tabari and al-Tabarani with a sahih chain.
(Musnad Ahmad, al-Risalah ed. 34/147)

Ibn masud said: “I have listened to the reciters (qura’). I found them reciting in almost the same way. So recite as you know. Beware of going to extremes and differing. For it is like one of you says هَلُمَّ or تَعَالَ (means the kinds of differences that exist are like these synonyms)”
(Tafsir al-Tabari 1/50 & 16/30 No. 18998 and al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam al-Kabir Hadith 8680)

Al-Baihaqi helps us understand the nature of this phenomenon and tells that it was permissible only before the Final Revision. Commenting on Zaid bin Thabit’s statement, "Recitation (qira't) is a sunnah that is strictly adhered to,” he said:
“And what is intended -And Allah knows the best- is following established sunnah regarding "huruf" and about the recitals (qir'ats). It is not permissible to go against the mushaf which is the true guide (on the matter) and the recitals (qira'at) that are famous, even if it seems acceptable in language or even more. And with Allah is the success. And as to the reports about permissibility of reciting "Most Forgiving, Most Merciful" instead of "All-knowing, All-Wise: It is because all of it was revealed. And if he recites (the ending of the verses) this way changing them from their actual position, without mixing the verses about mercy with those about the torment or the other way around, it is as if reading one verse from one surah and one from another surah. It was not sinful reciting this way. And the real thing to which the recitation was confined in the year of the death of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, was (what was permitted) after he revised it twice with Gabriel on him be peace that year. Thereafter the Companions agreed on putting it between the two bindings"
(Sunan al-Kubra 2/539 Hadith 3995)

‘Ulama, Murabbis and two extremely weak hadiths

2011-11-28T20:18:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Some of the Ahmadiyya leaders try to stereotype contemporary Islamic scholarship as a whole using some narrations recorded in Hadith works.

Before talking of the status of scholars (‘ulama) in the House of Islam and especially their role with regards to the Ahamdiyya cult, let’s first see the narrations that some Ahmadis use and scrutinize them to check their authenticity.

Narration 1:

Following is the translation of one such narration as it appears on an as it appears on the AlIslam.org website:

The Prophet once said, “There will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its words. Their mosques will be splendidly furnished but destitute of guidance. Their divines will be the worst people under the Heaven; strife will issue from them and avert to them.”

In the following lines I will mention the wording of the narration as found in different works and dwell on the authenticity check for each narration in the light of scholarly works.

As a statement of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) narrated by ‘Ali (ra):

عَنْ عَلِيٍّ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ عَلَى النَّاسِ زَمَانٌ لَا يَبْقَى مِنَ الْإِسْلَامِ إِلَّا اسْمُهُ وَلَا يَبْقَى مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ إِلَّا رَسْمُهُ مَسَاجِدُهُمْ عَامِرَةٌ وَهِيَ خَرَابٌ مِنَ الْهُدَى عُلَمَاؤُهُمْ شَرُّ مَنْ تَحْتَ أَدِيمِ السَّمَاءِ مِنْ عِنْدِهِمْ تَخْرُجُ الْفِتْنَةُ وَفِيهِمْ تَعُودُ» .

Narrated ‘Ali, the Messenger of Allah –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him- said: “There will come a time upon the people when nothing will remain of Islam except its name and nothing will remain of the Quran except its words. Their mosques will be splendidly furnished but destitute of guidance. Their divines will be the worst people under the Heaven; strife (fitna) will issue from them and avert to them.” (Mishkat al-Masabih 1/91 Hadith 276)

As it is known to the students of Hadith, Mishkat al-Masabih is not the original Hadith source book. It has narrations with reference to other works giving full chain of narrators.

For this narration, the author of Mishkat al-Masabih, Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah al-Khatib al-‘Umri (d. 741 A.H.) has quoted it from Shu’b al-Imam of al-Baihaqi.

Its chain of narrators is;

Al-Baihaqi – Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Ahmad bin ‘Abdan –Ahmad bin ‘Ubayd as-Safar – Muhammad bin ‘Eisa bin Abi Iyas – Sa’id bin Suleman – ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn – Ja’far bin Muhammad – Muhammad bin ‘Ali – ‘Ali bin Hussain – ‘Ali bin Abi Talib – Messenger of Allah, on whom be the peace and blessings of Allah

Dr. Abdul al-‘Aliy Abdul Hamid has classified it as Da’if due to the weakness of ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn and due to the fact of the chain being interrupted as ‘Ali bin Hussain did not meet ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him. See Shu’b al-Iman 3/317 Hadith 1763, Makteba al-Rushd, Riyadh, 2003

For those who are rather naive about the categorization of hadiths can have a introduction to this science HERE.

Muhammad bin Sa’d states that ‘Ali bin Hussain i.e. Zain al-‘Abidin was twenty-three of age at the tragic eve of pogrom at Karbala (See Tabaqat al-Kubra 5/212, Dar al-Sadir, Beirut 1968). We know the tragedy of Karbala took place in the year 63 A.H. and ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- was martyred in the year 40 A.H. ‘Ali bin Hussain was therefore by any stretch of imagination no more than an year old when ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- was martyred. This is enough to prove that ‘Ali bin Hussain –may Allah have mercy on him- could not report directly from the Pious Caliph.

The inqita’ (interruption) is mentioned by al-Baihaqi himself in his comment to a subsequent narration as we shall see below.

About ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn, Yahya bin Ma’in said: “He is nothing.” (See Lisan al-Mizan 7/260 No. 3503, Mo’assas al-‘Ilmi, Beirut 1971)

al-Dhahbi quotes the statement of Yahya bin Ma’in and then gives this narration pointing to its weakness. See al-Mizan al-A’itadal 2/417 No. 4296 Dar al-Ma’rifa, Beirut 1963.

Ibn ‘Adi mentions this report in the profile of ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn in his work al-Kamil fil Du’afa al-Rijal 5/377-378. This work was compiled to warn against the weak narrators. The chain also has the interruption (inqita’) problem as above.

Abu Tahir Muhammad bin Fazl al-Maqdisi Ibn al-Qaysarani (d. 507 A.H.) has quoted the narration from Ibn A’Adi. About ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn he says, “He is nothing.” See Zakhirah al-Huffaz 5/2808 Narration 6583, Dar al-Salaf, Riyadh 1996

Shaykh Albani has referred to its weakness in his first research on Mishkat al-Masabih by stating that it is given by Ibn ‘Adi in his above mentioned work. See Mishkat al-Masabih 1/91 Hadith 276 pub. Al-Makteb al-Islami, Beirut 1979

In 1985 the Shaykh Albani’s second research on Mishkat al-Masabih was published in which he categorically graded it as Da’if i.e. dubious.

With the same chain the report is mentioned in Abu ‘Amr al-Dani’s (d. 444 A.H. ) Sunan al-Waridah fil Fitan No. 236

Same narration with the same chain from ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn onwards is given by Ibn Abi Dunya in his work ‘al-‘Uqubat 1/23 Hadith 8, Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut, 1996.

The report is also found in Abu Bakr Ahmad al-Daynawari’s (d. 333 A.H.) al-Mujalisa wa Jawahir al-‘Ilm 2/359 Narration 519. Its chain is same from ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn onwards so it adds nothing to the equation. However in this work between al-Daynwari and ‘Abdullah bin Dukayn is a narrator named Muhammad bin Masalama who is much criticized. al-Dhahbi quotes al-Khallal who said, “He is extremely da’if (weak).”(Mizan al-A’itidal 4/42 No. 8179) Shaykh Mashhur bin Hasan has graded the narration as “Extremely Da’if”. See al-Mujalisa wa Jawahir al-‘Ilm 2/359 Narration 519, Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut, 1998

The report is also quoted in al-Suyuti’s Jami’ al-Kabir (No. 11451) with reference to Ibn ‘Adi and al-Baihaqi.

Moreover, the narration is found in a Shiite scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi’s (d. 1111 A.H.) work Bihar al-Anwar (18/146 Chapter 12) as well. Its chain involves a narrator al-Sakouni who is Isma’il bin Abi Ziyad and he is a well known liar. Ibn Hibban said, “A great liar! It is not permissible to make a mention of him in hadith except by the way of condemnation.” (al-Majruhin 1/129 No. 50, Dar al-Wa’iy, Aleppo 1396 A.H)

In all the works the narration appears it has the same issues with its chain, so it remains Da’if and dubious. The point is mentioning all the works is to set the record straight lest someone may try to play clever by saying it is found in ‘other works’ as well.

As a statement of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) narrated by Ibn ‘Umar (ra):

In his Musnad (1/107) al-Daylami reports through al-Hakim the following, narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, said:

سيأتي على الناس زمان لا يبقي من القرآن إلا رسمه، ولا من الإسلام إلا اسمه، يقسمون به وهم أبعد الناس منه، مساجدهم عامرة، خراب من الهدى، فقهاء ذلك الزمان شر فقهاء تحت ظل السماء، منهم خرجت الفتنة، وإليهم تعود

“Soon a time would come upon people when nothing will remain of Quran except its script, and nothing of Islam will remain except its name, they will divide and will be farthest from it. Their mosques will be furnished but devoid of guidance. The scholars of that age will be the worst people under the heavens. Strife will emerge from them and return to them.”

As Shaykh Albani mentions the chain of narrators of this report includes;

Khalid bin Yazid al-Ansari – Ibn Abi Zi’b – Nafi’ – Ibn ‘Umar -- Messenger of Allah, on whom be the peace and blessings of Allah

Shaykh Albani has commented to it in detail in Silsala Da’ifa. He writes:

“Khalid- it is evident that he is al-‘Umri al-Makki. He narrates from Ibn Abi Zi’b. Abu Hatim and Yahya described him as a liar. And Ibn Hibban said, “He narrates fabricated narrations from trustworthy people.” (Silsala Da’ifa wa Mawdu’a 4/410 No. 1936. Dar al-Ma’arif, Riyadh, 1992)

For the original reference to Ibn Hibban’s statement about Khalid bin Yazid, See al-Majruhin 1/284-285 No. 308.

As a statement of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) narrated by Ma’az (ra):

Shaykh Albani further mentions:

“Then al-Daylami narrated it through, Isma’il bin Abi Ziyad – Thawr – Khalid bin Ma’dan from M’az, likewise. I say: ‘It is –like the earlier one- a fabrication. The trouble with it is (the narrator) Isma’il and he is al-Sakouni al-Qadi. Ibn Hibban said, “A great liar! It is not permissible to make a mention of him in hadith except by the way of condemnation.” (Silsala Da’ifa wa Mawdu’a 4/411 No. 1936)

For the original reference to Ibn Hibban’s statement about Isma’il bin Abi Ziyad al-Sakouni, See al-Majruhin 1/129 No. 50

As a statement of ‘Ali (ra):

According to Shu’b al-Iman of al-Baihaqi ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, mentioned almost the same while addressing the people in Kufa. Abu Wa’il reports that he heard him saying:

يُوشِكُ أَنْ لَا يَبْقَى مِنَ الْإِِسْلَامِ إِِلَّا اسْمُهُ، وَمِنَ الْقُرْآنِ إِِلَّا رَسْمُهُ .... مَسَاجِدُكُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ عَامِرَةٌ، وَقُلُوبُكُمْ وَأَبْدَانُكُمْ مُخَرَّبَةٌ مِنَ الْهوى، شَرُّ مَنْ تَحْتَ ظِلِّ السَّمَاءِ فُقَهَاؤُكُمْ، مِنْهُمْ تَبْدَأُ الْفِتْنَةُ، وَفِيهِمْ تَعُودُ "، فَقَامَ رَجُلٌ فَقَالَ: فَفِيمَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ؟ قَالَ: " إِِذَا كَانَ الْفِقْهُ فِي رُذَّالِكُمْ وَالْفَاحِشَةُ فِي خِيَارِهِمْ، وَالْمُلْكُ فِي صِغَارِكُمْ فَعِنْدَ ذَلِكَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ

“Soon nothing will remain of Islam except its name and of Quran except its script … In that day your mosques will be well furnished but your hearts and bodies will have no guidance. At that time the worst people under the sky will be your scholars, strife will originate with them and return to them.” A man stoop up and asked: “Why would this happen O Commander of the Faithful?” He said: “When the knowledge is the worst among you and when immorality spreads even amongst your best people and rule with the lowest amongst you, then the Doomsday will set in.” (Shu’b al-Iman, Hadith 1765)

Its chain of narrator is;

Al-Baihaqi – ‘Ali bin Ahmad bin ‘Abdan – Ahmad bin Abi Hassan Yahya bin Ahmad al-Dhibbi – Hafs bin Muhammad bin Najih al-Basri – Bishr bin Mihran – Sharik bin ‘Abdullah al-Nakhai’ – al-‘Amash – Abi Wa’il – ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him.

Just after giving the report through this chain, al-Baihaqi writes:

هَذَا مَوْقُوفٌ، إِسْنَادُهُ إِلَى شَرِيكٍ مَجْهُولٌ، وَالْأَوَّلُ مُنْقَطِعٌ وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ

“This is mawquf. Its chain up to Sharik is ‘majhool’ (i.e. contains unknown narrators) and the first one (i.e. earlier narration) is ‘munqati’’ (i.e. interrupted) And Allah knows the best!”

Practically expounding the above, Dr. Abdul al-‘Aliy Abdul Hamid mentions that Ahmad bin Abi Hassan Yahya bin Ahmad al-Dhibbi and Hafs bin Muhammad bin Najih al-Basri are both unknown. About Bishr bin Mahran, al-Dhahbi quotes Ibn Abi Hatim as saying, “My father (i.e. Abu Hatim) rejected his narrations.” (Mizan al-A’itadal 1/325 No. 1224)

The same report is quoted in Kanzul ‘Ummal (Hadith 44217)

As to the words of al-Baihaqi,

وَالْأَوَّلُ مُنْقَطِعٌ

“And the first one (i.e. earlier narration) is ‘munqati’’ (i.e. interrupted).”

It refers to the above discussed narration through ‘Ali –may Allah be pleased with him- attributing the words to the Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Narration 2:

Another narration that Murabbis use comes from Nawadir al-Usool of Hakim al-Tirmidhi (d. 320 A.H.).

It is narrated through Abu Umamah –may Allah be pleased with him. He said:

قَالَ رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم تكون فِي أمتِي فزعة فَيصير النَّاس إِلَى عُلَمَائهمْ فَإِذا هم قردة وَخَنَازِير

“The Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: Terror and dismay will appear in my Ummah. The people will turn to their scholars while they will be (like) monkeys and pigs.” (Nawadir al-Usool 2/609 Narration 860, Makteba al-Imam al-Bukhari, Cairo 2008)

With reference to Nawadir al-Usool it is quoted in Kanzul ‘Ummal (Hadith 38727), al-‘Ayni’s ‘Umdatul Qari (21/177) and al-Tadhkirah (1/1256) of al-Qurtubi.

The chain of narrators for this narration is;

Hakim al-Tirmidhi – ‘Umar bin Abi ‘Umar – Hisham bin Khalid al-Damishqi – Isma’il bin ‘Ayyash – Laith [bin Abi Salim] – Ibn Sabit – Abu Umamah – the Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah.

This chain is full of problems.

In this report Ibn Sabit is reporting from Abu Umamah, while we find al-Mizi (d. 742 A.H.) quoting ‘Abbas al-Douri who said: Yahya [bin Ma’in] was asked, if ‘Abdul Rahman bin Sabit heard anything from Abu Umamah? He replied, “No!” (Tahdhib al-Kamal 17/125 No. 3822, Mo’assas al-Risalah, Beirut 1980)

About the other narrator Laith bin Abi Salim, it is to be noted that Imam Ahmad, Yahya bin Ma’in, Muhammad ibn Sa’d , Ibn Abi Shayba etc. all have mentioned that he is weak and not reliable. (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 8/468 No. 835, Da’ira al-Ma’arif al-Nizamiya, Hyderabad Deccan, 1326 A.H.)

As to the narrator ‘Umar bin Abi ‘Umar [al-‘Abdi al-Balkhi] al-Suyuti mentions that he is majhool.i.e. unknown. (al-La’ali al-Masnu’a 1/89, Dar al-Kutab al-‘Ilmiyya, Beirut 1996)

So clearly the chain is interrupted and weak.

And in the first place the fact that report actually comes from Hakim al-Tirmidhi’s Nawadir al-Usool only is enough to maintain that it does not deserve a serious consideration.

al-Suyuti in his introduction to Jami’ al-Kabir writes that whatever comes from Nawadir al-Usool (alone) is Da’if and this knowledge suffices to speak of its weakness. See Jami’ al-Ahadith 1/6 Makteba al-Shamela ed.

Let’s not forget Ahmadiyya have themselves recognized al-Suyuti as a Mujaddid of his century.

So we see the reality of the narrations they use. But still see, how brave these people are and with what audacity they attribute these reports to the Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him!

Status of ‘ulama in Islam:

Much can be said about the high status that scholars (‘ulama) have in the House of Islam. But to keep the thing brief I will just quote one Hadith.

The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

إِنَّ الْعُلَمَاءَ وَرَثَةُ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ

“Verily the ‘ulama are the successors of the prophets.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3641)

This report has been classified as Sahih by Ibn Mulaqqan (d. 804 A.H.) in Badr al-Munir 7/587. Al-‘Ayni also authenticated in ‘Umdatul Qari 2/40. Albani and Shu’aib Arna’ut too authenticated it.

Scholars, vis-à-vis Ahmadiyya-Muslim dialogue:

Now we come to the real issue. Where do, according to the Hadith, the Muslim scholars stand in the debate between Muslims and the Ahmadiyya? And if at all the two narrations discussed at length are to be accepted, who is their prime subject?

Now the situation is, while the Muslim scholars stand for the ideas established for last 1400 plus years, Ahmadiyya claim that through Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani “new truth” has dawned upon them which was somehow hidden from the Muslims of the past centuries. To the Muslims this “new truth” is the real strife (fitna) and Muslims scholars are trying to defend their faith against this fitna.

In this backdrop, the following narration says a lot;

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: " يَرِثُ هَذَا الْعِلْمَ مِنْ كُلِّ خَلَفٍ عُدُولُهُ , يَنْفُونَ عَنْهُ تَأْوِيلَ الْجَاهِلِينَ , وَانْتِحَالَ الْمُبْطِلِينَ , وَتَحْرِيفَ الْغَالِينَ

The Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “In every successive century those who are reliable authorities will preserve this knowledge, rejecting the interpretations of the ignorant, lies of the treacherous and the corruption of the extremists.” (Sunan al-Kubra, Hadith 20911)

It is also quoted in Mishkat al-Masabih (Hadith 248). It has been classified as Sahih by Imam Ahmad, See al-‘Alai’s (d. 761 A.H.) Bughyah al-Multamis 1/35, ‘Alam al-Kutb, Beirut 1985
Shaykh Albani also classified it as Sahih in his research on Mishkat al-Masabih

The two narrations, if accepted, refer to the Murabbis:

This Hadith plainly established that in “every successive century” people with sound knowledge will protect it against all kinds of attacks. So who defends the truth now? Those who stick to and speak for the established beliefs that have been defended in “every successive century” or those who stand for the “newly dawned truth”?

This brings us to the simple plain conclusion that the so-called “newly dawned truth” is only a fitna. Therefore if by any means either of the above discussed two reports is to be considered- especially with reference Muslim-Ahmadiyya dialogue- it applies to the Ahmadiyya and not the Muslims. The murabbis are the subject of these narrations and not the Muslim ‘ulama.

One has to say; even if we agree with the Ahmadiyya interpretation how do they conclude does it not fall upon the murabbis as well?

Ahmadis basking upon these false narrations and running away from the real points of discussion, remind me of a narration attributed to the Holy Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Although it’s manifestly weak but aptly fits the murabbis narrative. It says:

“Soon you will see the devils from amongst the men. One of them would listen to a hadith and apply it to other than himself. And will thus delude people away from listening about the person about whom it is actually said.” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, No. 29125)

Indeed Allah knows the best!-

Scholars on the Meaning of “Khatam al-Nabiyyin”

2011-11-21T20:37:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

In this post we see quotes from various scholars about the meaning of “khatam al-nabiyyin”. Many issues that are often a subject of discussion among the Muslims and Ahmadis are dealt with in these quotes.

Qatada (d. circa 100 A.H.):

عن قتادة ، في قوله تعالى : ( وخاتم النبيين) قال : آخر النبيين

It is narrated from Qatadah that he said about the word of Allah, “Wa Khātam al-Nabiyyin”: “[It means] Last of the Prophets.” (Tafsir Abdul Razzaq al-San’ani, Narration 2270)

Hassan al-Basri (d. 110 A.H.):

عن الحسن في قوله { وخاتم النبيين } قال : ختم الله النبيين بمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وكان آخر من بعث

It is narrated from Hassan [al-Basri] said about the word of Allah, “Wa Khātam al-Nabiyyin”: “Allah completed the series of the Prophets through Muhammad, may Allah bless him, and he is last [of them] in being raised.” (Durr al-Manthur cf. ‘Abd bin Hameed)

Abu Hanifa (d. 150 A.H.):

Imam Mofiq bin Ahmad al-Makki (d. 568 A.H.) narrates:

وتنبأ رجل فى زمن ابى حنيفة رحمه الله وقال امهلونى حتى اجئ بالعلامات فقال ابو حنيفة رحمه الله من طلب منه علامة فقد كفر لقوله عليه السلام « لا نبى بعدى »

A man in the time of Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, claimed to be a prophet and said, ‘Allow me to present proofs of my prophethood.’ Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, ruled: ‘Anyone who demands a proof of prophethood from him, will also turn a disbeliever, for the Messenger of Allah has said: ‘there is no prophet after me.’’ (Manaqib al-Imam al-‘Azam Abi Hanifa vol.1 p.161, Da’ira al-Ma’arif al-Nizamia, Hyderabad Deccan 1321 A.H.)

This shows that to the greatest of mujtahid Imams any consideration of what a claimant of prophethood may say was tantamount to disbelief. Simple!

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.):

Commenting on the words “Khātam al-Nabiyyin” he says:

الذي ختم النبوة فطبع عليها، فلا تفتح لأحد بعده إلى قيام الساعة

“He brought the Prophethood to end and sealed it. Now this door will not be opened for anyone till the establishment of Doomsday.” (Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari)

Al-Zamakhshari (d. 538 A.H.):

فإن قلت : كيف كان آخر الأنبياء وعيسى ينزل في آخر الزمان؟ قلت : معنى كونه آخر الأنبياء أنه لا ينبأ أحد بعده ، وعيسى ممن نبىء قبله ، وحين ينزل ينزل عاملاً على شريعة محمد صلى الله عايه وسلم ، مصلياً إلى قبلته ، كأنه بعض أمته

“If you ask; how can the Holy Prophet be the last of the Prophets when there is the belief that ‘Eisa will come down near the End of the Times before Resurrection? I shall say: The Holy Prophet is the last of the Prophets in the sense that no other person will be raised as a Prophet after him. As for the ‘Eisa (may Allah bless him), he is one of those who had been made the Prophets before the advent of the Holy Prophet. And when he comes again, he will come as a follower of the Shariah of Muhammad, may Allah bless him, and will offer prayers facing his qiblah like any other person of his Ummah.”
(Tafsir al-Kashshaf)

The same has been stated by;

Abu al-Barakat al-Nasafi (d. 710 A.H.) in Tafsir Madarik al-Tanzil
Nizamuddin al-Qumi (d. 728 A.H.) in Tafsir Gharaib al-Qur’an
Abu al-Hassan al-Khazin (d. 741 A.H.) in Tafsir Lubab al-Tanzil
Abu Sa’ud al-‘Imadi (d. 982 A.H.) in Tafsir Irshad al-‘Aql al-Salim Ila Mazaya al-Qur’an al-Karim
Ibn Ujayba (d. 1224 A.H.) in Tafsir Bahr al-Madid

Still if someone has any misgiving about the return of ‘Eisa عليه السلام and its relation to Finality of Prophethood then it is truly unfortunate.

Fakhruddin al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.):

Discussing Qur’an 33:40 and the Prophet’s compassion for his Ummah, he writes;

وَخَاتَمَ النبيين : وذلك لأن النبي الذي يكون بعده نبي إن ترك شيئاً من النصيحة والبيان يستدركه من يأتي بعده ، وأما من لا نبي بعده يكون أشفق على أمته وأهدى لهم وأجدى ، إذ هو كوالد لولده الذي ليس له غيره من أحد

“In this context, the reason for saying Khātaman-nabiyyin is that, a prophet after whom another prophet is to be raised, leaves the work of admonition and explanation of injunctions somewhat incomplete, and the one coming after him can complete it. But the Prophet after whom no other Prophet is to be raised, is far more compassionate to his Ummah and gives them explicit guidance, for he is like the father who knows that after him his son has no guardian and patron to take care of him.” (Tafsir al-Kabir)

Did Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, leave anything incomplete? Was the deen not perfected before he died?

Al-‘Izz bin Abdus Salam (d. 660 A.H.):

He comments:

{وَخَاتَمَ النبيين} آخرهم

“{Wa Khatam al-Nabiyyin} (i.e.) Last of them” (Tafsir al-Qur’an li-‘Izz bin Abdus Salam)

Al-Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.):

The great Spanish Muslim mufassir of the Qur’an quotes another great scholar Ibn Atya as saying;

هَذِهِ الْأَلْفَاظُ عند جَمَاعَةُ عُلَمَاءِ الْأُمَّةِ خَلَفًا وَسَلَفًا مُتَلَقَّاةٌ عَلَى الْعُمُومِ التَّامِّ مُقْتَضِيَةٌ نَصًّا أَنَّهُ لَا نَبِيَّ بَعْدَهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

“To the scholars of the ummah, of (both) the later and earlier times , these words are to be taken in absolute general terms whereby the text necessitates the meaning that there is no prophet after him –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” (Tafsir Jami’ li-Ahkam al-Quran)

What a clear testimony that to the scholars of the Ummah these words must be taken in absolute general terms. No exception to “non-shari’i”, “ummati” or “buruzi” prophet(s)!

Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d. 745 A.H.):

ألفاظ تقتضي نصاً أنه لا نبي بعده صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والمعنى أن لا يتنبأ أحد بعده ، ولا يرد نزول عيسى آخر الزمان ، لأنه ممن نبىء قبله ، وينزل عاملاً على شريعة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم مصلياً إلى قبلته كأنه بعض أمته

“[These] words serve as evidence that there will be no Prophet after him, may Allah bless him. And the meaning is, no one will be made a prophet after him. And this does not contradict the descent of ‘Eisa near the End of Times, for he is one of those who were made prophets before him and he will descend following the shar’iah of Muhammad, may Allah bless him, praying facing his qibah like one from his own people Ummah.” (Tafsir Bahr al-Muhit)

Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.):

فهذه الآية نص في أنه لا نبي بعده، وإذا كان لا نبي بعده فلا رسول [بعده] بطريق الأولى والأحرى؛ لأن مقام الرسالة أخص من مقام النبوة، فإن كل رسول نبي، ولا ينعكس

“This verse categorically states that there will be no Prophet [Nabi] after him. If there will be no Prophet [Nabi] after him then there will surely be no Messenger [Rasul] after him either, because the status of a Messenger is higher than that of a Prophet, for every Messenger is a Prophet but the reverse is not the case.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Al-Baqa’i (d. 885 A.H.):

أي لأن رسالته عامة ونبوته معها إعجاز القرآن ، فلا حاجة مع ذلك إلى استنباء ولا إرسال ، فلا يولد بعده من يكون نبياً ، وذلك مقتض لئلا يبلغ له ولد يولد منه مبلغ الرجال ، ولو قضي أن يكون بعده نبي لما كان إلا من نسله إكراماً له لأنه أعلى النبيين رتبة وأعظم شرفاً ، وليس لأحد من الأنبياء كرامة إلا وله مثلها أو أعظم منها ، ولو صار أحد من ولده رجلاً لكان نبياً بعد ظهور نبوته ، وقد قضى الله ألا يكون بعده نبي إكراماً له ، روى أحمد وابن ماجه عن أنس وعن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال في ابنه إبراهيم : « لو عاش لكان صديقاً نبياً » ، وللبخاري نحوه عن البراء بن عازب رضي الله عنه ، وللبخاري من حديث ابن أبي أوفى رضي الله عنه : لو قضى أن يكون بعد محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي لعاش ابنه ، ولكن لا نبي بعده والحاصل أنه لا يأتي بعده نبي بشرع جديد مطلقاً ولا يتجدد بعده أيضاً استنباء نبي مطلقاً

{And the seal of the prophets} means as his message is general and his prophethood carries a miracle of the Quran, so there is no more need to assign prophets or messengers, so no prophet is to born after him, and it also entails that none of his children will reach the age of manhood. Because if there were to be a prophet raised after him it would have been from his offspring as an honor to him because he is the highest of the prophets in status and greatest of them in nobility. And there was no honor for any one from amongst the prophets but similar or more of it was due to him. If any of his sons were to reach the age of manhood he would have been a prophet after him. And as an honor to him Allah had decreed that there is no prophet after him. Ahmad and Ibn Majah have narrated from Anas and Ibn ‘Abbas –may Allah be pleased with them both- that the Prophet –may Allah bless him- said about his son Ibrahim: “Had he lived he would have been a Siddiq and a Prophet.” And Bukhari has the same narrated from al-Bara’ bin ‘Aazib –may Allah bless him. And with Bukhari is a narration from Ibn Abi Aufa –may Allah bless him: “If it were decreed for a Prophet to be after Muhammad, may Allah bless him, his son would have lived but there is no Prophet after him.” And the conclusion is that there is no way for a prophet with a new law to come after him and similarly there is no chance of revival of assignment of prophethood after him. (Nazam al-Dorar wa Tanasub al-Ayat wal Suar)

There are many points of consideration here.

Finality of Prophethood means no prophet is to be born after him.
As some of earlier prophet’s had their sons raised to the status of prophethood it demanded that a son of the Prophet reaching the age of manhood should not be denied the same so Allah decreed for his sons not to reach that age. This way he was not denied an honor and was blessed with another honor of being of the last of all of the Prophets.
It also cuts at the roots of the Ahmadiyya’s cunning Appeal of Emotion when they say how come Holy Prophet spiritual power fails to originate another prophet because if it was to be so, some of his sons would have survived him.
At the end al-Baqa’i clarifies; neither a law bearing prophet would come after him nor would prophethood in general be revived after him. The learned scholar clearly mentioned the belief of Muslims denying possibility of the particular, the law-bearing prophet and then the same for in general terms thus clarifying prophethood of any kind is impossible after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him.
Just like a) at the end he says revival of “assignment of prophethood” (istinba’ nabi) which does not contradict the return of ‘Eisa, may Allah bless him, for he was born and assigned with prophethood before the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him.

Isma’il al-Haqqi (d. 1127 A.H.):

قرأ عاصم بفتح التاء وهو آلة الختم بمعنى ما يختم به كالطابع بمعنى ما يطبع به . والمعنى وكان آخرهم الذى ختموا به … وقرأ الباقون بكسر التاء اى كان خاتمهم … وهو بالمعنى الاول ايضا … فكانت علماء امته ورثته عليه السلام من جهة الولاية وانقطع ارث النبوة بختميته ولا يقدح فى كونه خاتم النبيين نزول عيسى بعده لان معنى كونه خاتم النبيين انه لا ينبأ احد بعده كما قال لعلى رضى الله عنه « انت منى بمنزلة هارون من موسى الا انه لا نبى بعدى » وعيسى ممن تنبأ قبله وحين ينزل انما ينزل على شريعة محمد عليه السلام مصليا الى قبلته كأنه بعض امته فلا يكون اليه وحى ولا نصب احكام بل يكون خليفة رسول الله … وقال اهل السنة والجماعة لا نبى بعد نبينا لقوله تعالى { ولكن رسول الله وخاتم النبيين } وقوله عليه السلام « لا نبى بعدى » ومن قال بعد نبينا نبى يكفر لانه انكر النص وكذلك لو شك فيه لان الحجة تبين الحق من الباطل . ومن ادعى النبوة بعد موت لا يكون دعواه الا باطلا

“’Asim has read the word as “Khātam”, which is the sealing instrument with which things are sealed. It implied that Holy Prophet came at the end and in him the line of the Prophets was closed and sealed … Some people have read it as “Khātim”, which means the one who put a seal … Thus, “Khātim” also is a synonym of “Khātam” … Henceforth the scholars of his Ummah will only inherit him in walayat (sainthood), the inheritance of the Prophethood having been brought to a close in him. And the second coming of Prophet ‘Eisa does not affect the Holy Prophet’s being the last Prophet, for Khātam al-nabiyyin means that no other prophet will be raised after him as he said to the Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, “You are unto me like Harun was to Musa except that there is no prophet after me.” And ‘Eisa had been raised a Prophet before him. When he comes the second time, he will come as a follower of the shari’ah of Muhammad, may Allah bless him. He will offer the prayer facing his qiblah, like any other man belonging to his Ummah. He will neither receive revelation nor issue new commands, but he will be a caliph of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him … And the followers of the Sunnah believe that there is no prophet after our Holy Prophet, for Allah has said: “But he is Messenger of Allah and the last of the Prophets,” and the Holy Prophet has declared: “There is no prophet after me.” Now whoever says that there is a prophet after our Holy Prophet, will be declared a kafir, for he has denied a fundamental article of the faith; likewise, the one who doubts it, will also be declared a kafir, for the Truth has been made distinct from falsehood. And the claim of the one who claims to be a Prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him, can be nothing but imposture.” (Tafsir Ruh al-Bayan)

Al-Shaukani (d. 1250 A.H.):

وقرأ الجمهور : « خاتم » بكسر التاء . وقرأ عاصم بفتحها . ومعنى القراءة الأولى : أنه ختمهم ، أي جاء آخرهم . ومعنى القراءة الثانية : أنه صار كالخاتم لهم الذي يتختمون به ويتزينون بكونه منهم

“The majority of the scholars have read the word as “Khātim” and ‘Asim as “Khātam”. According to the first reading, it would mean: “The Holy Prophet closed the lines of the Prophets i.e. he came at the end of them.” And according to the second reading it means, “He was like a seal for them, with which their line was sealed, and with whose inclusion their group was embellished.””(Fath al-Qadir)

Conclusion:

Top scholars from various times in Islamic history agree that “khatam al-Nabiyyin” simply means last of the prophets with whom the lines of prophets came to end. And even a possible consideration of what any claimant of prophethood after the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, may say is tantamount to disbelief.
“Khatam” or “khatim” make no difference and the significance remains the same i.e. Final Seal of Prophets.
Return of ‘Eisa عليه السلام is not against the Finality of Prophethood for what it signifies is that no new prophet will be born and no one will be assigned prophethood after the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him. And we know ‘Eisa عليه السلام was born and assigned with prophethood before the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him.
And al-Baqa’i stating the unanimous belief of the Ummah first denied the possibility of more specifically a law-bearing prophet and then followed it by categorical mention that assignment of prophethood will not be revived after the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم. Thus he clarified the Muslim belief that there will not be any kind of prophethood now.
The scholars of the Ummah have always taken the words “khatam al-nabiyyin” to signify the end of Prophethood in absolute general terms leaving room for no exception at all.

I hope these references help the common Ahmadis to have an idea of what the real beliefs of the greatest scholars of this Ummah have been. It’s a call to give up the slavery of the cult and return to the Ummah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad al-Mustafa صلى الله عليه و سلم.

* For all the references to Tafasir check under ayah 40 of surah 33.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Jesus: Sinless or Divine?

2011-11-19T14:24:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

An analysis of the proofs used by Christian Missionaries and a clear exposition of the deception

by Waqar Akbar Cheema and Gabriel K. AbdulRahman AlRomaani

Missionaries such as Sam Shamoun, Silas and others have tried to prove from many Islamic sources that Jesus was the only one who never sinned and that even Islamic sources fail to mention even one sin against Jesus. They quote different ahadith, especially a famous one that is called the hadith of intercession in which only Jesus is said not to mention any sin (as opposed to the other prophets). We will look at the narrations in question and show the Islamic view on Jesus and sin, and finally we will show the selective citation by missionaries (which is an oft repeated technique) and show what the bible says about Jesus’ sins.

Narrated Abu Huraira: Some (cooked) meat was brought to Allah Apostle and the meat of a forearm was presented to him as he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, "I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection. Do you know the reason for it? Allah will gather all the human being of early generations as well as late generation on one plain so that the announcer will be able to make them all-hear his voice and the watcher will be able to see all of them. The sun will come so close to the people that they will suffer such distress and trouble as they will not be able to bear or stand. Then the people will say, 'Don't you see to what state you have reached? Won't you look for someone who can intercede for you with your Lord' Some people will say to some others, 'Go to Adam.' … [then] they will go to Jesus and say, 'O Jesus! You are Allah's Apostle and His Word which He sent to Mary, and a superior soul created by Him, and you talked to the people while still young in the cradle. Please intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?' Jesus will say. 'My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before nor will ever become thereafter. Jesus will not mention any sin, but will say, 'Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Muhammad.' So they will come to me and say, 'O Muhammad ! You are Allah's Apostle and the last of the prophets, and Allah forgave your early and late sins. (Please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?" The Prophet added, "Then I will go beneath Allah's Throne and fall in prostration before my Lord. And then Allah will guide me to such praises and glorification to Him as He has never guided anybody else before me. Then it will be said, 'O Muhammad Raise your head. Ask, and it will be granted. Intercede It (your intercession) will be accepted.' …. "[1]

The Missionaries mention this hadith to show that every prophet had a sin or mistake but Jesus does not mention any sin or even any issue, except saying Myself!. It is very important to not here that sins as mentioned in this hadith are not sins but small errors or things that are not even to be considered errors but out of the fear and awe of the prophets to show the severity of the day of judgment even a possibility of a mistake looks like a mountain of burden. The hadith is very well known in Muslim scholarship however the missionaries fail to quote the other hadith that is related to the topic to show that Jesus believes that he has made a mistake or he is scared because people took him for worship. The hadith goes as follows:

Abu Sa’id Khudri reported that Allah’s Messenger –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him- said : I will be the chief of the children of Adam on the Day of Resurrection - no boast about it. And, in my hand will be the standard of praise (hamd) and this is no boast. There will be no Prophet that day, including Adam, but will be under my standard, and I will be the first for whom the earth will be split open (on resurrection) - and this is no boast. People will be terrified three times. They will come to Adam and say, “You are our father. So intercede for us with your Lord.” He will say, “I committed a sin for which I was sent down to the earth. But go to Noah. So, they will come to Noah and he will say. “I had prayed against the people of the earth (to be punished) and they were destroyed. But, go to Ibrahim.” They will come too Ibrahim and he will say, “I lied three times.” Allah’s Messenger –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him- said: None of that was a lie except that he helped Allah’s religion with it. (Ibrahim will tell them.) “But, go to Musa.” So, they will come to Musa and he will say, “I had killed a soul. But go to Jesus.” They will go to Jesus. He will say, “I was worshiped besides Allah. But go to Muhammad.“ So, they will come to me and I will go with them.[2]

Scholars of Islam use comprehensive methodologies of looking at narrations, however missionaries use whims and desire based methodologies that serve their evil intentions towards attacking Islam. It is clear from the above hadith that Jesus will be in the same boat as the other prophets believing that maybe he has done a mistake that people took him as a god besides Allah, and that he is not worthy of the help that the people are seeking from him. In the end what the missionaries have to understand and fail to realize is that both narrations are meant to establish the status of Prophet Muhammad –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him-, and to show that he is the one who will be granted the right of intercession by Allah on the Day of Judgment. The missionaries try to use a magic card trick where the audience is distracted from the main issue and directed towards a distraction so that the magician can do his trick. Missionaries are exposing their double standard by taking that he does not mention any sin (with regards to Jesus) statement and not paying attention to Intercede It (your intercession) will be accepted (with regards to Muhammad). This type of logic is like saying the statement I have two million dollars but I owe three means that I am rich. It is this type of logic which leads missionaries to believe in the trinity.

Let us now take a look of the issue in itself. If Jesus would be a prophet without sin, would that show that he is God or that he is somehow superior? The answer is NO. Christians try on many occasions to prove divinity through exclusivity or that because Jesus is the only one to be called or to have done something (such as virgin birth), he is God. In this case they try to say that Jesus is the only one without sin, therefore he is God. They fail to realize that there are all the angels (as Muslims believe) that have no sins and are created perfect to worship Allah. Looking at the Islamic texts we also see the hadith which explains not only why Jesus was never influenced by the devil to commit sins but why his mother is in the same boat:

The mother of Mary said:
"I place her and her progeny under Your shelter against Satan, the rejected."[3]

The Messenger of Allah -may Allah's peace and blessing be upon him said:
"No child is given birth to, but the devil pricks it so that it weeps due to the pricking of the devil, except Maryam (Mary) and her son."[4]

Is Maryam God? No, of course not and nor is Jesus. Maryam’s mother prayed a prayer that was granted by God and her daughter and her progeny i.e Jesus were protected from Satan. It is also very important to mention here that just because no sin is ever mentioned for Jesus (flawed logic) does not mean he never sinned and therefore he is God, as the same could be applied for Mary.

It is also very important to notice that the missionary approach is lacking any understanding of Islamic sources and logic in the light of proof. Before we Turn The Tables on the missionaries and expose them, let us briefly show the Islamic stance on prophets and sins. It is agreed upon by all scholars that prophets never commit any major sins, but they can make small mistakes as they are human. The mistakes they make serve as big lessons for humanity. It is also important to understand that “ma’soom” or infallible in Islamic terms means infallible in delivering the message from God, and being protected from God in failing to achieve the purpose they were sent for.

It is also important here to quote a hadith from Musnad Ahmad which indicates that the only one who has never committed a sin is not Esa (Jesus) but Yahya or John the Baptist. The narration goes as follows:

"There has never been one from the offspring of Adam who did not err (qad akhta') or was inclined (hamma) to it except Yahya bin Zakariyya"[5]

Compared to the narrations about Jesus and Mary which imply that they did not have sin, or that they committed no sin, this narration says specifically that none of the progeny of Adam erred except Yahya. If we were to follow missionary logic and approach we could play day and night with such narrations and try to build whatever we want but that is not the case. The reality is that the narration is not fully authenticated by most scholars. The reality is that missionaries have no logic or sincere approach in this subject and that they can establish nothing but conjecture.

The prophets were always fearful and humble even though they did not do anything that could be termed a sin. This is the sign of true and ultimate piety[6], and this is the trait of a true believer who lives his or her life in a balance of love, fear and hope, not in a state of arrogance and comfort as if they deserve paradise. To highlight this point the following narration says:

It is narrated from Abu Huraira, he said the Messenger of Allah -may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said, "If my Lord was to judge me and Ibn Maryam (Jesus) even by the amount of the shadow between these two fingers, He would have punished us without being unjust."[7]

This narration kills any missionary attempt to claim divinity for Jesus –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him- based on Islamic texts.

The Muslim has no problem in admitting that Jesus or Mary or John or anyone else for that reason is without sin, as this does not establish any proof for divinity for anyone with an ounce of intellect. As Allah created angels without sin, and perfect obedient creatures, He created others and selected them with special characteristics and all is by the will of Allah, not by the will of the creation, and all praise goes back to Allah not to the creation. And anyone who tries to twist Islamic texts and dupe people to believe that Muslims cannot show that Jesus sinned therefore he is God, let it be known that such people are lacking any real insight or intellect and only follow conjecture and doubts, which can never counter reason, proof and truth.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES!

When a Christian tries to use the argument that Jesus is God because Jesus was sinless we need to point out the fallacy of such an argument. Christian missionaries have been desperate to prove Jesus’ divinity, as there is categorically no unambiguous evidence of such in the Bible, and such Christian theology is ambiguous. Why is the Christian argument a fallacy and illogical argument? Can this litmus test be applied? Let us break the argument in a few points for the sake of simplicity:

There is no correlation between being sinless and being divine. Christians build the premise but it’s a false premise. We have already shown that there is no proof that Mary sinned, or John the Baptist or angels for that matter. The most one can say here is that Jesus was a sinless man.

There is no correlation between being sinless and being God. A God cannot be subjected to SIN standards; no matter what God does is never considered a sin. God ordered the killing of men, women and children[8] but that cannot be a sin. So the statement God is sinless does not even apply or make sense, as the two words could never be put together.

Now if one were to apply the true apparent meaning of the argument and that is – Jesus never committed a sin (killing, genocide, killing small children, killing animals etc.) and God never committed a sin (such as killing, genocide, killing children etc.) therefore Jesus is God, one would realize after reading a few chapters of the Bible that the first statement might be true, but the second is definitely false. God whipped out nations, killed children and infants, ordered massacres and genocides, destroyed lands and crops and much more. Is Jesus better than God?

Any objective reader who is looking for truth and applies any principle of reason can see the fallacy of the missionary attempt. It is with such futile attempts that these people fool people in poverty stricken lands such as Africa and India, converting them and leading them astray from Islam.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

[1] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4712

[2] Jami' Tirmidhi, Hadith 3148. Classified as Sahih by Albani

[3] Qur’an 3:36

[4] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3431

[5] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 2294, narrated by Ibn Abbas. Shaikh Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih

[6] Today Muslims try to follow that path and when asked by Christians (who think they are going to paradise for sure) DO YOU KNOW IF YOU WILL END UP IN PARADISE? The Muslim responds NO I DON’T, ONLY ALLAH KNOWS, even though we know that anyone who says THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH will eventually enter paradise.

[7] Hilya al-Awliya 8/132. Also quoted in Kanzul 'Ummal Hadith 5905

[8] The Bible, Book of Numbers Ch. 31

Variant of Qur’an 33: 56 – A Myth

2011-11-14T18:08:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Some Islamophobes use a narration from al-Suyuti’s al-Ittiqan to insinuate as if there was a variant in Qur’an 33:56 in the mushaf of ‘Aisha -may Allah be pleased with her. Some cults use the same report to attack the mainstream Muslim texts and scholarship.

Let’s bury this lie as well.

The narration:

Quoting from Abu ‘Ubayd Qasim bin Salam’s Fada’il al-Qur’an, al-Suyuti puts the narration as;

عَنْ حُمَيْدَةَ بِنْتِ أَبِي يُونُسَ قَالَتْ قَرَأَ عَلَيَّ أَبِي وَهُوَ ابْنُ ثَمَانِينَ سَنَةً فِي مُصْحَفِ عَائِشَةَ " إِنَّ اللَّهَ وملائكته يصلون على النبي يأيها الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُصَلُّونَ الصُّفُوفَ الْأُوَلَ " قَالَتْ قَبْلَ: أَنْ يُغَيِّرَ عُثْمَانُ الْمَصَاحِفَ

Humaydah bint Abi Yunus narrates: “My father who was eighty years old recited for me the verse of salutation from the Mushaf of Aisha: “Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect. And on those who came to the first lines of prayers.” She said, “[It was so] before Uthman changed (ghayyara) the Masahif.” (al-Ittiqan 3/82 Section 47)

The narration comes of Abu ‘Ubayd’s Fada’il al-Qur’an 1/324. It is also narrated by Ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitabul Masahif No.238

The issues:

There are two issues here.

1- Did ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- actually consider the words “And on those who came to the first lines of prayers.” a part of the Qur’anic text?

2- Did Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- actually changed the Masahif in the sense of distorting them? Why did he change the Masahif?

Authenticity of the narration:

Firstly the narration is not reliable according to the rules of reporting. It has been graded as Da’if (i.e. weak) due to the weakness of a sub narrator Muhammad bin Abi Humayd. See,

Al-Ittiqn fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an with research of scholars at Markaz Dirasat al-Qur’ania, Saudi Ministry of Publications p.1458

Kitabul Masahif with research by Dr. Muhibbudin Wa’iz, Darul Basha’ir al-Islamiyya, Beirut, 2002 part 1.p.370

Reality of the issues:

Let me elaborate on the two issues raised on this narration.

Truth about the additional words in Qur’an 33:56:

1- The additional words i.e. “And on those who came to the first lines of prayers” were never a part of the Qur’anic text. These words are actually a Hadith of the Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Reports on this account come from Bara’ bin al-‘Azib and Sayyidah ‘Aisha herself –may Allah be pleased with them both. Narrations from ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- are found in Sahih Ibn Hibban (Hadith 2163, 2164) as well but the similar words as in the narration under consideration are found in al-Mu’jam of Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ibrahim Ibn al-Muqri’ (d. 381 A.H.).

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ: قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى الصُّفُوفِ الْأُوَلِ»

It is narrated from ‘Aisha that she said: The Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: “Verily Allah Almighty and His angels send blessings on (those who pray in) first lines (in salaah).” (al-Mu’jam li-Ibn al-Muqri’ Hadith 1218, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 2003 p.225. The report has been classified as Sahih)

It is clear that ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- actually heard it from the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- as a Hadith. It is thus easy to understand that she added these words to her personal manuscript with Qur’an 33:56 only because it is related to point mentioned there. Actually it is only due to the importance of the issue Sayyidah ‘Aisha had written these words along with the verse mentioning something similar i.e. Allah and His angels sending blessings.

Ibn al-Jazri writes about the fact of companions writing additional material in their personal masahif;

“At times they used to add to the recital the commentary for clarification and explanation for they were people knowledge. As they had learnt the Qur’an from the Prophet –may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, so they were safe from any confusion (between the actual Qur’an and its commentary). And at times some of them would even write it along with the actual text.” (al-Nashr fil Qira’at al-‘Ashr 1/32. Also quoted in al-Ittiqan fi ‘Uloom al-Qur’an)

A similar case regarding ‘Aisha’s –may Allah be pleased with her- personal mushaf has been explained earlier.

Did ‘Uthman distort the masahif?

The second issue is, if ‘Uthman distorted the Masahif? An ordinary reader would get the impression from the wording of the otherwise dubious narration that ‘Uthman distorted the masahif. This is far from the truth!

Actually ‘Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- involved himself with the process of doing away with anything that could give rise to controversies about the Qur’anic text as we have earlier discussed. In this case too, he was simply trying to get all the masahif uniform or confiscating and even destroying some personal masahif.

Details of his bid at changing the masahif can be understood from the following narrations.

Talking about the reaction of Ibn Masud to ‘Uthman’s afforts, Khumayr bin Malik said:

“Changes (ghayyara) in the Masahif were ordered.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 3929)

And further according to Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif Abu Qilabah reports that Malik bin Anas (grandfather of Imam Malik) told him;

“When the mushaf had been prepared [‘Uthman] wrote to people of all cities: ‘I have done so and so. And I have omitted (from the mushaf) what was with me (of commentary and abrogated part), so you too erase (from the masahif) what is with you (of the same).’” (Kitab al-Masahif, Narration 75)

Conclusion:

Even if the narration is accepted it does not put to question the stability of and uniformity of the Qur’an text with all Muslims. ‘Aisha –may Allah be pleased with her- had added the words only because they were relevant to the Qur’an and she had heard these from the Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. What she did was a known practice with some of the Companions, and it never caused confusion to the Muslims as a community.

And ‘Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- did not distort the masahif, rather he simply arranged for getting the commentary notes etc. removed from the masahif to avoid any potential trouble.

in-sha’Allah some other famous lies of the kind will be responded to in coming days.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Exposing Wesley Muhammad on Prophet Muhammad's Complexion: Refutation of NoI’s Racist Theology

2011-11-05T20:01:00.002+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

by Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani

Wesley Muhammad PhD of Nation of Islam (NOI) has made his career following the steps of Wallace Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad claiming that the black man is divine by nature and that it is the body that contains Allah’s radiance. A deep explanation of their theology is not needed here, however one can do some research and can find much of NOI material, especially Wesley’s articles, where he outlines the theology of the group NOI. Such theology has made scholars of Islam deem the group as outside the fold of ISLAM.

The racist approach that Wesley has taken to his academics cannot be fully understood but speculated as a reactionary one: blacks have been oppressed around the world for centuries and it’s only reasonable and fair that they should make it known to the world. However in doing so, there have been many groups that have formed causing the same damage that whites have done in the past. Instead of trying to solve racism, racism was only painted with a different color. Such is the case of NOI who is not only a Black Nationalist Movement but a religion, a theology built on color. A reaction to Christianity’s white Jesus gave NOI’s black god, black man divine, back prophets, black nation and chosen people. This has not only affected the relationship between NOI and whites, blacks and other (be them Christians or others), but also the dynamics between orthodox Muslim communities. With a convincing resume and academic studies, Wesley and others like him have managed to attract some of the mainstream Muslims (especially blacks) to follow their way.

In this article we will deal specifically with one issue which ties all, and that is the color of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). To a normal Muslim this might not be an issue, and one can go on their whole life without even thinking of such a topic being an issue. Islam’s foundation and practice is based on ideologies and principles not on persons. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not venerated or worshiped (except by deviant-ignorant), nor is his color important to the ideology or practice of Islam. It is true that scholars have written books and composed poetry on the physical characteristics of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but never has such an issue become a theological one. The Shamail of the Prophet by Al-Tirmidhi and other works have been recorded and described the physical attributes of prophet Muhammad. Such were done out of love for him, out of scholarship but not out of racism and intention to propagate a theology that is based on color and to give superiority to a color skin over the other (something that Wesley does whether explicitly or implicitly). Wesley objected to such a statement quoting a Muslim scholar, Ahmad bin Abi Sulayman- a companion of the great Maliki jurist, Sahnun), who said “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black (aswad) should be killed“ (al-Shifa). We respond by saying that you will always find someone who will give death fatwas, for many unreasonable reasons. Osama bin Laden’s famous fatwa to “kill Americans wherever you find them” is only one such example. Second, when we go and analyze the circumstantial evidence around the text of Ahmand b. Abi Sulayman we see that Muhammad al-Zarqani in Sharah Al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyya says that the statement was made not because of looking down upon black complexion but because it goes against the facts known through mutawatir reports. And according to the Maliki school of thought anyone who denies any characteristic of the Prophet (pbuh) should be killed even if it is known that degrading or disparaging was not intended. Wesley’s scholarship failed to mention that or was not interested in researching a bit more about it.

The color of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) might be important only as a fact, and would he have been white or black or Chinese for that matter it should not add or take away from a Muslim’s faith in Allah.

We decided to take Wesley’s article and show the rest of the world, especially his followers, what happens when someone puts on the specs of racism and will see everything in one color. Wesley tries to prove in his article that Prophet Muhammad was a black man. To go further one needs to understand that black here does not mean colored or brown as an Arab might be but black as AFRICAN BLACK, just like Wesley and most of the followers of NOI. This is important because it ties in to the whole theology of NOI and their movement of racism. Of course in the attempt to gain converts and superiority over humanity, people such as Wesley have claimed that most if not all of the prophets were black.

It is important that we start with a verse from the Quran to put everyone at ease and to show that Allah has created human beings in different colors and that such makes no difference to Him:

O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honorable of you with Allah is the most God fearing (righteous). Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (Quran, Hujarat v. 13)

Refuting Wesley’s article

It is very important for the reader to pay close attention to the following refutation and see the academic twists that Wesley tries to make be it out of ignorance (which is hard to believe as he claims to know Arabic) or on purpose. We will refute his claims by analyzing the meaning of the words in reference to skin color, analyzing the Arabic of the narrations in question, quoting narrations which give the full picture of the issue in question, and showing how Wesley has selectively quoted and misquoted texts in order to propagate his racist ideology.

Mr. Wesley Muhammad in his article tries hard to ‘prove’ that Prophet Muhammad may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was black in complexion. The racism within him prompts him to come up with such ‘interesting research’. Let us analyze the issue and see where his theory stands in the light of evidence. We will also analyze his intellectual honesty.

Meanings of the keywords used to describe the complexion

With regards to the meanings and connotation of the words used to describe the complexion we must remember that in any language it’s the usage of the words that matters more than their dictionary meanings. To facilitate things for non Arabic readers, the dictionary meanings of the keywords around which the discussion revolves are given, as it will help understand their usage better. All the meanings are from Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon.

Meaning of Adam/Udma;

آدم Of the colour termed أُدمة (Book I, p.37)

أُدمة... and in human beings, a tawny colour; or darkness of complexion; syn. سُمرة or an intermixture, or a tinge, of blackness or intense سُمرة (Book I, p.36)

Meaning of Asmar/Sumra:

أسمر [Tawny, or brownish; dusky; dark-complexioned or dark-coloured;] of the colour termed سُمرة (Book I, p.1426)

سُمرة [A tawny, or brownish, colour, of various shades, like the various hues of wheat; duskiness; darkness of complexion or colour;] certain colour, well known, between white and black, … (Book I, p.1425)

Meaning of Ahmar/Humrah:

حُمرة [Redness;] a well-known colour; (Msb, K;) the colour of that which is termed أحمر …. But when relating to complexion, whiteness; (Book I, p.640)

Meaning of Azhar/Zuhrah:

أزهر Shining; giving light; bright. (S.,K) …. White; (S.,K;) and beautiful: (K.:) or of a bright white colour: (TA:) or of any shining colour: (AH.n,R:) (Book I, p.1262)

زُهرة Whiteness; (Yaakoon,S,K;) and beauty: (K:) whiteness, or fairness, characteristic of good birth: (S:) or bright whiteness: (TA:) or any shining colour. (AHn,R) (Book I, p.1262)

How the Arabs use the words?

As Mr. Wesley said, Imam al-Dhahbi has described as to how the Arabs use these words.

Here are the actual words of al-Dhahbi (d. 748 A.H.) and their rightful translation:

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)

In the second instance where these words appear, al-Dhahbi continues:

فَمَعْنَى ذَلِكَ: أَنَّ بَنِي آدَمَ لا ينفكون، عن أحد الأمرين. وكل لَوْنٍ بِهَذَا الاعْتِبَارِ يَدُوْرُ بَيْنَ السَّوَادِ وَالبَيَاضِ الَّذِي هُوَ الحُمْرَةُ.

“So this means, mankind cannot escape either of these two things (fairness and darkness of complexion). And every complexion is a shade between blackness and, whiteness which (in this context) is redness.” .” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 3/448)

Word about the trickery of Mr. Wesley on this quotation follows towards the end of the article.

Meaning of ‘Abyad’ when used for people:

Mr. Wesley also tends to argue that Arabs use ‘abyad’ not to mean whiteness of complexion but the purity of one’s character. It might be used to mean purity of one’s character but to say that it is not used to mean whiteness of complexion is a mistake. This is evident from the very page of the classical work Lisan al-‘Arab from which Wesley quoted, but he failed to be honest enough to present the whole thing. Moreover, this can be said of some usage only, there are instances when the statements categorically relate ‘abyad’ to color/complexion.

We shall see the details of Lisan al-‘Arab quote towards the end. And the examples forcing the understanding of ‘abyad’ relating to colour/complexion will fall within our scope of discussion.

Principle of ‘addad’

Coming to the idea of ‘addad’ (a word understood to imply the opposite of its first meaning) which Wesley brings forward, this might be the case in some rare instances. But if it’s with regard to colors in some contexts it does not mean ‘addad’ applies always. To suggest this is insanity. And again we shall see some usages that just do not allow any such sense of the word.

Complexion of the Prophet (peace be upon him)

Here in a quote narrations from different Companions about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him.

Abu Bakr (RA)

On being questioned about the appearance of Holy Prophet (pbuh) by a monk, Abu Bakr (RA) said:

أبيض اللون، مشرب بحمرة

“White in complexion (abyad al-lawn), imbued with redness.” (Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 18524 cf. al-Zawzni, Abdul Razzaq)

Same is mentioned in al-Ins al-Jalil bi-Tarikh al-Quds wal Khalil of Abdul Rahman bin Muhammad al-‘Alimi (d. 928 A.H.)

Now here the fact that ‘abyad’ is attached with the word ‘lawn’ (lit. colour) kills the idea that it is all about character.

‘Umar (RA):

Ibn ‘Asaakir (d. 571 A.H.) quotes;

Bashir al-‘Abdi says, people came to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and asked him about the appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him. He said:

كان نبي الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أبيض اللون مشربا حمرة

“The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was of white complexion (abyad al-lawn) imbued with redness (mushraban humrah).” (Tarikh Damishq 3/264 No. 653, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut 1995)

‘Aisha (RA):

Ibn Asaakir also gives the following narration:

Narrated ‘Aisha: A black turban (shimlatu sawda) was gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he put it on and asked, ‘How do you see on me O ‘Aisha?” I said, “How beautiful it looks on you O the Messenger of Allah! Its blackness (sawaduha) suits on your whiteness (bayadak) and your whiteness (bayadak) on its blackness (sawaduha). (Tarikh Damishq 3/310-311 No. 705)

Now this leaves nothing ambiguous. Here blackness (sawad) of turban is brought in contrast to whiteness/fairness (bayad) of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), so it cannot be anything of the kind of addad or any other sense of ‘bayad’.

Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (RA):

In Tabqatul Kubra, also sometimes referred to as, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, we read:

Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: “The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).” (Tabqat al-Kubra 1/419, Dar al-Sader Beirut 1968)

Abu Huraira (RA):

Similar Abu Huraira (RA) narrates that some Bedouins came and inquired about the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him, the Companions guided him. Saying this Abu Huraira (RA) describes how the Prophet appeared, saying:

وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبيض مشربا بحمرة

“The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).” (Kanzul Ummal 18533)

‘Ali (RA):

Another very close companion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ‘Ali (RA) described the complexion of the Holy Prophet in the following words:

كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مشرَّباً بَيَاضُهُ حُمْرَةً، وَكَانَ أَسْوَدَ الْحَدَقَةِ

“He had white complexion, his whiteness being imbued with redness (abyad musharraban bayaduhu humrah) and his iris was black (awsad).” (Dalail al-Nubuwwah lil-Baihaqi 1/212-213 Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya Beirut 1405 A.H.)

Reports to this effect from ‘Ali (RA) are found in many works of Hadith.

Abu Tufail (RA):

According to Sahih Muslim, when Jurairi asked the last to die Companion, about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- he said:

كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مَلِيحًا

“He was beautifully white (abyada malihan).” (Sahih Muslim 2340 Darul Ahya al-Turath, Beirut)

Abu Umamah (RA):

Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat al-Kubra narrates from Abu Umamah that he described about the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, as:

رَجُلًا أَبْيَضَ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ

“A man of white complexion with red tinge in it (abyad ta’luhu humrah).” (Tabaqat al-Kubra 1/413)

Anas (RA):

There are numerous narrations from the Anas (RA) about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Rab’ia bin Abdul Rahman narrates from Anas (RA) who while describing the appearance of the Holy Prophet said:

وَلَا بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ، وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ

“And he was neither white as lime (abyad al-amhaq) , nor brown (adam).” (Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1)

Same is narrated in Tabawat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d etc.

This narration has important points pertinent to our discussion. The very fact that the narration says ‘abyad al-amhaq’ i.e. ‘white as lime’ belies the assertion that ‘abyad’ does not mean ‘whiteness’ when used for complexion.

Also the wording asks one to laugh at Wesley’s idea of taking ‘abyad’ to mean the opposite for it is unfathomable to find some sane person saying, ‘black as lime.’

Also it proves the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was far from being dark for in that case there was no need to say it was not lime white - a sharp contrast to blackness.

In fact his complexion was white but not extremely white. The detail of it is explained in another narration from Anas (RA).

Humayd said, he heard Anas (RA) saying:

وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ

“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness leaning to be tan (bayaduhu ilas-sumrah).” (Dala’il al-Nubuwah 1/204)

This Hadith shows his complexion was not even pure ‘asmar’ (tan) but rather something between pure white and pure tan. Surely describing complexion is not very easy!

In another narration from Anas (RA) we learn,

Thabit narrated from Anas (RA) describing the complexion of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, as:

كَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ

“The Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- was had bright white complexion (azhar al-lawn).” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2330)

Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) explained ‘azhar al-lawn’ saying;

أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ أَيْ أَبْيَضُ مُشَرَّبٌ بِحُمْرَةٍ

“azhar al-lawn’, that is: white imbued with redness (abyad musharrab bi-humrah)” (Fath al-Bari 6/569 Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut 1379 A.H.)

Narration from Anas (RA) quoted by Wesley

Now we come to the narration from Anas (Ra) quoted by Wesley.

Humayd narrated from Anas (ra) that he said:

أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ

“Tan in color (asmar al-lawn).” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 1754)

About this narration, consider the following point made by Ali bin Sultan al-Qari (d. 1014):

And al-Iraqi said, “These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness and not tawny complexion and they are fifteen companions explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.” (Jama’ al-Wasa’il fi Sharah al-Shama’il 1/14)

Prophet Muhammad’s –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- complexion was not purely tan, it was white tending to be tan or white imbued with redness, not white as lime, neither dark nor purely tan.

This narration is rather odd and for the fact that it goes against all the narrations from other companions and even other reports from Anas (RA). It is reported through a single narrator i.e. Humayd and even his narrations do not consistently say the same. As mentioned above in one narration Humayd himself reports from Anas (RA) that he said:

“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness leaning to be tan (bayaduhu ilas-sumrah).” (Dala’il al-Nubuwah 1/204)

This is the scholarly way of handling an odd narration. Mark the difference- scholars do not agree with one narration based on an objective science comparing different narrations on the subject and then deciding on the merit whereas Wesley merely gives in to his subjective whims and desires and:

1- Fails to share all the various narrations from different Companions on the subject.

2- Twists hadiths with multiple tricks, like alluding to the idea of ‘addad’ or taking ‘abyad’ not to refer to complexion. Above details show he cannot consistently use either of these and usage of the word ‘abyad’ is itself enough to reject his ideas.

3- Rejects the hadiths which he is unable to twist without giving any proof for what he stands for.

Narration about the blackness of foot

Wesley plays foul and clever when he mentions that Tabaqat al-Kubra has pages dedicated to the description of physical appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him- but then fails to quote the most relevant of them. He dubs the most explicit narrations about the complexion of the Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- as later invention of Persians without citing any proof. And what more, he quotes a narration to find some support for his theological beliefs. The narration as quoted by him goes as:

“The Messenger of Allah (s) stretched his left foot, such that the blackness of its exposed part (zahiruha aswad) was visible.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-kabir, I/i,127)

To expose the trick, let me just quote the same narration from Sunan Abu Dawud where it is narrated with the same chain of narrators but with a little detail. It goes as:

كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا جَلَسَ فِي الصَّلَاةِ، افْتَرَشَ رِجْلَهُ الْيُسْرَى حَتَّى اسْوَدَّ ظَهْرُ قَدَمِهِ

“When the Prophet, peace be upon him, sat during prayers (salaah), he stretched his left foot, such that blackness of foot was exposed.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 962, Makteba l-‘Asriyyah, Beirut)

Clearly this is about the left foot only and that too related to prayers (salaah) and we know when a person regularly offers prayers, on his left foot blackness appears due to frequent contact with the ground (Abu ‘Abdul Rahman al-‘Azimabadi in ‘Awn al-Ma’bud 3/170) And surely this it must had been even more for we know back then they used rough prayer mats or prayed on ground.

It is appropriate at this time to show a narration that puts Wesley in check on his black foot narration attempt. We are not using this narration to prove our point necessarily, as most people know that the armpits of a human being are usually lighter than the rest of his skin. We are just giving an example of how unscholarly Wesley can get and how he picks and chooses and can only see black out of all the ahadeeth that talk about the description of the prophet. It is important to note here that Bukhari (the most authentic book of ahadith) records it in the chapter entitled “Characteristics of the Prophet” hadith nr. 3372 narrated by Anas:

أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان لا يرفع يديه في شيء من دعائه إلا في الاستسقاء فإنه كان يرفع يديه حتى يرى بياض إبطيه

Allah's Apostle did not use to raise his hands in his invocations except in the Istisqa (i.e. invoking Allah for the rain) in which he used to raise his hands so high that one could see the whiteness of his armpits (bayad ibtayh).

Mark the last words

“Whiteness of his armpits”

Exposing more lies

Besides his play with the ideas about meaning of ‘abyad’ and failing to quote most relevant narrations and stretching narrations out of context and things like that, here are some glaring examples of Wesley’s intellectual dishonesty:

What did Imam al-Dhahbi actually say?

Mr. Wesley wrote:

According to the important Syrian hadith scholar and historian of Islam, Shāms al-Dīn Abū `Abd Allāh al-Dhahabī (d. 1348), in his Siyar a’lām al-nubalā’ [II:168]:

“When Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad),’ they mean a golden brown complexion with a black appearance (al-hintī al-lawn bi-hilya sudā’). Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”

Here he gives the impression that words ‘asmar wa adam’ and ‘sawd al-takrur’ etc. were also about Arabs. Before commenting on this, let us see what al-Dhahbi actually wrote:

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubula 1/39 & 3/448, Darul Hadith, Cairo 2006)

So evidently Imam al-Dhahbi has mentioned three different types of complexion. Wheatish, tan and finally overwhelmingly black, and he makes tan a reference to people of India and black a reference to people of certain African tribes. Mr. Wesley clearly lies and makes all of it look as if about the meaning of ‘abyad.’ Though Imam al-Dhahbi does mean that ‘abyad’ does not mean something like pure white but the flow of his statement maintains ‘abyad’ is whiter than tan, which in turn is tends to be whiter than black.

The quote from Lisan al-Arab

Mr. Wesley writes:

Ibn Manzur [Lisan al-arab IV: 209, 210] notes:

“The Arabs don’t say a man is white [or: “white man,” rajul abyad] due to a white complexion. Rather, whiteness [al-abyad] with them means an external appearance that is free from blemish [al-zahir al-naqi min al-‘uqub]; when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar)… when the Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad – bayad), they [only] mean a noble character (al-karam fi l-akhlaq), not skin color. It is when they say ‘so-and-so is red’ (ahmar – hamra’) that they mean white skin. And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”

“Red (al-hamra’) refers to non-Arabs due to their fair complexion which predominates among them. And the Arabs used to say about the non-Arabs with whom white skin was characteristic, such as the Romans, Persians, and their neighbors: ‘They are red-skinned (al-hamra’)…” al-hamra’ means the Persians and Romans…And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”

This is misleading.

The statement which Mr. Wesley translated as:

“The Arabs don’t say a man is white [or: “white man,” rajul abyad] due to a white complexion. Rather, whiteness [al-abyad] with them means an external appearance that is free from blemish [al-zahir al-naqi min al-‘uqub]; when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar)

It is actually what the author of Lisan al-‘Arab quotes from Shamir. And after this statement the author, Ibn Manzur, quotes Ibn Athir. Ibn Athir’s statement is hidden behind the three dots given by Mr. Wesley.

Mr. Wesley put it as:

… when they mean a white complexion they say ‘red’ (ahmar)… when the Arabs say, ‘so-and-so is white (abyad – bayad), they [only] mean a noble character (al-karam fi l-akhlaq), not skin color.

The dots highlighted above hide much important text behind them. Ibn Manzur writes:

قَالَ ابْنُ الأَثير: وَفِي هَذَا الْقَوْلِ نَظَرٌ فإِنهم قَدِ اسْتَعْمَلُوا الأَبيض فِي أَلوان النَّاسِ وَغَيْرِهِمْ؛

“Ibn Athir said: In this statement (of Shamir) is a problem for they do use ‘abyad’ for complexions of the people and other things.” (Lisan al-‘Arab 4/209 Dar al-Sadir, Beirut 1414 A.H.)

He then gives examples of such usages. This is about the usage of the word in general. Otherwise we have seen above in certain usages it will be insane to say that ‘abyad’ is not about complexion.

Alleged depictions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

It is appropriate at this time to show another cheap attempt of Dr. Wesley to gain credibility to his arguments by showing a very famous picture that he claims is a picture of a white Muhammad, which is a result of distorted depictions that took place after non black converts to Islam began distorting not only Islam but the true figure of prophet Muhammad.

We have compared the picture (to the left) he uses with a picture of Imam Ali (to the right) and have found some amazing similarities. What is also shocking is that Wesley uses this picture in many of his presentations and articles as if this picture is the consensus of Muslim scholars and the Muslim nation. He does the same by showing pictures of actors from the famous movie (The Message) by Mustapha Akkad, as if this movie weighs any scholarly evidence. Of course this is another cheap attempt to shock his audience. People should also keep in mind that depictions of Prophet Muhammad are not allowed, be it in the Sunni tradition or the Shia tradition. It is also important to highlight the baseless accusation that Dr. Wesley makes to converts of Islam who are non Arab or white.

This shows the scholarship that he has and practices. As the companions of the prophet spread to different lands, conquering different countries where the inhabitants were white or light skinned, the Arabs of Makkah or Madinah never lost their lineage or heritage so that one can say that such a blatant corruption could happen. One needs not to go to a great extent to prove this. The simplest way to do this is to go back to the tradition of the Arabian peninsula tribes, the city and Bedouin of Arabia, and know their lineage and their descent. Their odes and poems, their literature and lineages are all preserved from the youngest to the oldest. When one visits Mekka or Madinah one can sit with people from the Quraish, people of Banu Shaibah who are the key holders of the Kabbah from the time of prophet Muhammad and other tribes. One can see the difference in their skin color.

Some are darker, some are light, and some are in between. The population dynamics of tribes and the gene pool allow for variation in skin color and such Prophet Muhammad –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- happened to be lighter in color, and when we say that we don’t mean white like a European white (like myself, Gabriel, in the picture to the left), but white like an Arab white, somewhere between light and brown. In the presented picture you can see myself a white European (left), an Arab (Arabized African) from Sudan (center) and an Arab (Arabized Asian) from Al Marri tribe which is a Bolochi tribe from Asia (right). This is not a google picture taken out of context this is a real picture three different colored skinned Muslims, brothers in faith. What you are required to focus on is the Arab to the picture on to the right which is a boy from the Al-Ameri tribe, a tribe from Yemen. Notice the color of his skin in contrast to the Sudanese and European Muslim. This picture says a thousand words in the context of this article, especially when reading the narrations about prophet Muhammad being not too brown nor lime-white.

Allegation against Imam al-Shafi’i:

Finally we want to leave our readers with a short piece of the kind of theology and ideology the associates of Dr. Wesley propagate. This is a short entry recorded on the Black Arabia blog, a site where Dr. Wesley posts much of his work. The short entry is entitled “Imam Shafi and that Early Black Islam”.

روى أحد تلامذة الشافعي أنه إشترى له طيبا بدينار ، فسأله الشافعي : ممن إشتريت ..؟؟ ، فقال : من الرجل العطار الأشقر الأزرق .. فقال الشافعي : أشقر وأزرق ..؟؟ ، إذهب ورد العطر ، ماجاءني خير قط من أشقر

"One of Al-Shafa'i's students related that he bought some scents for Al-Shafa'i for a dinar. Al-Shafa'i asked him (the student) who he bought the scents from. The man replied, 'From that blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر) perfumer.' Al-Shafa'i said, 'Blue-eyed, very fair-complexioned (أشقر)?! Take it back! Nothing good has ever come to me from a very fair complexioned (أشقر) person!'"

Now certainly this is misleading. And the way it is quoted clearly shows it was just picked from a random online Arabic discussion forum.

Let us quote it with due reference to a classical work.

قال الربيع : اشتريت للشافعي طيبا بدينار ، فقال : ممن اشتريت ؟ قلت : من ذاك الأشقر الأزرق . قال : أشقر أزرق ! رده ، رده ، ما جاءني خير قط من أشقر

أبو حاتم : حدثنا حرملة ، حدثنا الشافعي ، يقول : احذر الأعور ، والأعرج ، والأحول ، والأشقر ، والكوسج ، وكل ناقص الخلق ، فإنه صاحب التواء ، ومعاملته عسرة .

Al-Rabi’ said: “I bought scent for al-Shafi’i for a Dinar. He asked, ‘From whom you bought the scent?’ I said: ‘From so-and-so blue-eyed albino!.’ he said; "’Blue-eyed albino! Return it, return it! I haven’t experienced any good from an albino.’

Abu Hatim said, Harmalah narrated to us, al-Shafi’i said, ‘Beware of the one-eyed, the lame, the squint, the albino, and everyone with a deformity (especially those born with it). These are people of deficiencies and its a trouble dealing with them.’ (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala 10/40-41)

Following narration from the same section of the same book from which the quote under discussion comes helps understand the thing better.

قال الشافعي : خرجت إلى اليمن في طلب كتب الفراسة حتى كتبتها وجمعتها

Al-Shafi’i said: “I traveled to Yemen and kept seeking the books on Physiognomy till I wrote and collected them.” (Siyar ‘Alam al-Nubala 10/41)

Physiognomy is all about assessment of people’s character or personality from their outer appearance.

What our great Imam said was not even intended to disparage those people but to be on the guard against the troubles that can come up in dealing with them. he had learnt this from his study of physiognomy.

Now this makes the thing clear. His comment was not about a people with a particular complexion but about those suffering from albinism and other deformities. Its shameful to use it to imply racism. Truly disgusting!

Conclusion

As we can see from above Wesley has gone to great lengths to distort many of the meanings of terms, while quoting Islamic texts and making a case for his perverse theology. Such is the case of most people these days who attack Islam and want to destroy Islam. There are those who quote Quran, Sunnah, commentaries and other authentic sources yet to prove that Prophet Muhammad –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- was a racist slave owner. It is mind boggling to see such insincerity from two different spectrums dealing with the same texts.

Indeed if the problem of racism is to be solved in the world, people have to start looking at pure Islam with an objective view and open mind, and take the following advice of Prophet Muhammad –may Allah’s blessings be upon him-that he gave to the world before departing it:

“O People! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a red person, except in piety.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 22978)

* The links to Wesley’s articles (from BlackArabia.blogspot.com) were last accessed on November 5, 2011 8:50 a.m. GMT

Indeed Allah knows the best!

No. of Surahs in the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud

2011-10-15T08:32:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

You will never find a Christian missionary talking about the preservation of Holy Qur’an and then failing to come up with issue of the surahs missing from Ibn Mas’ud’s mushaf.

Surahs missing in Ibn Mas’ud’s Mushaf:

It is said that Ibn Mas’ud’s mushaf (codex) did not have three surahs, al-Fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn (al-Falaq and al-Nas) i.e. Nos. 1, 113 & 114. (See al-Ittiqan 1/270 al-Haiyaal-Misriya, Cairo, 1974)

We shall deal the issue of al-Fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn separately. For each case we shall first see the reports becoming the basis for the confusion and then probe further to find out the truth.

Al-Fatiha:

Al-Fatiha means the ‘al-fatiha al-kitab’ i.e. opening of the Book (al-Qur’an). And its status is such an established one in Islam that no Muslim can be negligent about it. It is recited multiple times in every salah five times a day.

Ibn Mas’ud did recognize it a part of the Qur’an:

Al-Fatiha’s status as a part of the Qur’an is established from the Qur’an itself. In Surah 15 it is said:

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَاكَ سَبْعًا مِنَ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنَ الْعَظِيمَ

“We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses and the glorious Qur‘an.” (Qur’an 15:87)

Here “seven oft-repeated verses” refers to Surah al-Fatiha.

Quoting Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ibn Dhurays, Ibn Munzar and Ibn Mardwiyah, al-Suyuti gives us the following narration;

It is narrated from Ibn Mas’ud, regarding the word of Allah, ‘We have given you the seven oft-repeated verses’ He said: “[It is] Fatiha al-Kitab.” (Durr Manthur 5/94, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut)

This plainly confirms that the al-Fatiha was indeed a part of the Qur’an in the view of Ibn Mas’ud just like the rest of Muslims.

Why Ibn Mas’ud did not write it in his Mushaf?

If Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- did recognize al-Fatiha a part of the Qur’an, why did he not write it in his Mushaf? He himself solves the riddle.

In a narration given by Abu Bakr al-Anbari, it is stated;

“’Abdullah bin Mas’ud was asked as to why he did not write al-Fatiha in his Mushaf. He replied, ‘If I were to write I would write it before every surah.’” Abu Bakr al-Anbari explains this saying every raka’ah (in prayers) starts with al-Fatiha and then another surah is recited. It is as if Ibn Mas’ud said, ‘I have dropped it for the sake of brevity and I have trusted its preservation by Muslims (collectively).’ (al-Qurtubi, al-Jami al-Ahkam al-Qur’an. Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1964 vol.1 p.115)

Thus we learn, if he did not write a certain thing in his mushaf it does not mean it was not part of the Qur’an to his understanding. This is a vital point, I will ask the readers to bear in mind.

Al-Mu’awwazatayn (Surah Nos. 113 & 114):

Ibn Mas’ud did recognize al-mu’awwazatayn a part of the Qur’an:

The evidence that Ibn Mas’ud did consider al-mu’awwazatayn a part of the Qur’an, is too strong. Consider the following points;

1- The foremost medium of preservation of the Holy Qur’an has always been memory of the Muslim masses. In the article about Qur’an preservation during Holy Prophet’s –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- time I shared a Hadith on this point and here I reproduce it.

Allah Almighty said to the Holy Prophet- may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:

"I sent the Book to you which cannot be washed away by water." (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 5109)

Muslims experts of Qira’at (recitals) have always preserved the unbroken chain of authorities of back to the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and all his followers. And the Mutawatir Qira’ats are the ultimate and greatest authority on the words of the Holy Qur’an.

2- All the Mutawatir Qira’ats do include al-mu’awwazatayn (and certainly al-Fatiha as well). And four of the Mutawatir Qira’ats can be traced back to the Holy Prophet –may Allah’s blessings be upon him- through Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. Here I briefly mention the Mutawatir Qira’ats through Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him with reference to a monumental work on the subject i.e. al-Nashr fi Qira’at al-‘Ashr of Shams al-Din Ibn al-Jazri (d. 833 A.H.)

i- Qir’at of Aasim: Its chain reaches back to the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- through Zirr through Ibn Masud.

Please note, the same Aasim and Zirr who are the narrators of the reports in Musnad Ahmad etc. (given below) showing Ibn Masud did not write the two surahs in his Mushaf are the narrators of a mutawatir qira’at from Ibn Masud in which they did recite the two surahs on his authority. See vol.1 p.155

ii- Qir’at of Hamza: Its chain reaches Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- through Ibn Mas’ud. See p. 165

iii- Qir’at of al-Kisai: Its chain back to Prophet also involves Ibn Masud. See p.172

iv- Qir’at of Khalaf: It also rests on Ibn Masud’s authority. See p.185

These ‘mutawatir qira’ats’ certainly include al-Muawazzatayn and al-Fatiha and thus leave no doubt that Ibn Mas’ud recognized and recited them as Qur’an.

Also remember by the consensus of the whole Ummah the chains of these Qir’ats are strongest of all the chains anywhere. See Fawatih al-Rahmout fi Sharh Musallam al-Thabut vol.1 p.12

The narrations that hint otherwise will be dealt with shortly.

3. Quoting from al-Daylami, Shaykh Ali Muttaqi, in his gigantic Hadith collection, records a very interesting narration.

Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: "Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-mu’awwazatayn (i.e. al-Falaq and an-Nas/Nos. 113 & 114) ...” (Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 2743)

Here in most explicit terms Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- refers to al-mu’awwazatayn as two surahs, showing he did believe in their divine origin and Qur’anic authority.

Reality of the opposing narrations:

Now let’s scratch the details of the opposing narrations and see as to what they actually suggest and where the truth lies.

Reports from Aasim and Zirr:

Aasim narrates from Zirr, he told Ubayy that Ibn Mas’ud did not write al-mu’awwazatayn in his mushaf. (Musnad Ahmad, No. 21186)

Abdah and Aasim narrate from Zirr, he said; “I told Ubayy, ‘your brother Ibn Mas’ud erases them (surah 113 & 114) from his mushaf,’ and he did not object.” (Musnad Ahmad, No. 21189)

Note the following points;

1- These reports say Ibn Masud did not write the two surahs in his Mushaf. And discussing the case of al-Fatiha above we concluded not writing in the Mushaf is not same as refusing to accept as part of the Qur’an.

2- We learn that even after being told of Ibn Masud’s action, Ubayy “did not object.” While it has always been an established fact in the House of Islam that rejecting even a single verse makes one a disbeliever and even liable to capital punishment, it is impossible that Ubay would not react had he known Ibn Masud to altogether reject two surahs. Perhaps he knew Ibn Masud did not refuse to accept them a part of Qur’an even though he did not write them.

3- al-Suyuti quotes Abu Bakr al-Baqilani (d. 406 A.H.) who said;

“It is not proved from him that these two surahs are not from the Qur’an. He erased them and dropped them from his Mushaf refusing to put them into writing, not rejecting them as part of the Qur’an. It was so because to him nothing was to be written in the Mushaf except what was commanded by the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- and he did not find them written nor heard an instruction in this regard.” (al-Ittiqan 1/271)

4- With above points in mind recall that Aasim and Zirr themselves recited al-mu’awwazatayn along with the rest of the Qur’an on Ibn Masud’s authority. With same people reciting the surahs on his authority and then reporting him not to write them in his Mushaf, above mentioned explanation sounds the best.

Report from Abdul Rahman bin Yazid:

Abdul Rahman bin Yazid relates that Ibn Mas’ud erased al-mu’awwazatayn from his Mushaf and said they were not part of the Qur’an. (Musnad Ahmad, No. 21188)

Same is reported in Mu’jam al-Kabir of al-Tabarani.

1- This report cannot be true for it is a solitary report narrated only through Abdul Rahman bin Yazid. A solitary report that contradicts the evidence based on Mutawatir (i.e. something narrated by such a large no. of people of each generation that their agreement on falsehood or mistake is well beyond reasonable doubt) reports cannot serve as a proof to any effect.

2- If one says that Ibn Hajr, al-Haithmi etc. have clearly graded its isnad as authentic, then he needs to know what even if isnad (chain of narrators) is authentic a report that contradicts overwhelmingly strong evidence is known as mu’allal i.e. defective.

Carefully read the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his Magnus Opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;

“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006. p.67)

3- Further, this narration from Abdul Rahman bin Yazid is “shaadh” i.e. anomalous which is not acceptable. Ibn al-Salah quotes its definition from al-Shafi’i who said:

“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith p.57)

Evidently it runs in direct contradiction to what is known through mutawatir qira’ats, as mentioned above. Therefore it is rejected as anomalous.

Ibn Mas’ud’s beliefs:

Before quoting the scholars on the essence of the whole issue, let me share further proofs that it is inconceivable to have Ibn Masud –may Allah be pleased with him- refusing to accept these surahs as part of the Qur’an.

1- We know the report telling us that students of Ibn Masud brought the fact of him not writing the surahs in his Mushaf to the notice of other Companions. It shows the issue was discussed. And had he actually not accepted the surahs as part of the Qur’an, other Companions would have certainly corrected him.

2- Other reports tell us that Ibn Masud would discuss things with other Companions and would not fail to revise his opinion and admit his mistake, whenever it came to it.

e.g. we read in Muwatta of Malik;

“When Abdullah ibn Masud was in Kufa, he was asked for an opinion about marrying the mother after marrying the daughter when the marriage with the daughter had not been consummated. He permitted it. When Ibn Masud came to Madina, he asked about it and was told that it was not as he had said, and that this condition referred to foster-mothers. Ibn Masud returned to Kufa, and he had just reached his dwelling when the man who had asked him for the opinion came to visit and he ordered him to separate from his wife.”

(al-Muwatta, Kitab al-Nikah)

If this was his attitude in normal issues of jurisprudence, how much more would he have been about Qur’an regarding which he has himself said;

“One who rejected a single letter of the Qur’an, he (is like the one who) rejected the whole of it.” (Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 15946)

3- How is it that his students who discussed the matter with other Companions would not mention the thing to him and he would then not seek to verify it, while we know of his cautiousness on this issue, as he himself reports;

“We differed about a Surah. We said [and differed if] it has thirty-five verses or thirty six verses. So we went to the Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him [to clarify the matter] …” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 832)

If he would rush to the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- on differing about a single verse to clarify the matter, how can one assume he would not consult the Companions about three complete surahs and that he would not have been corrected by other Companions?

What the scholars say?

In the end let’s have a look at what various scholars said on this issue.

Al-Nawawi (d. 676 A.H.) said:

“The Ummah has agreed that al-mu’awwazatayn and al-fatiha are part of the Qur’an and whoever denies this becomes a disbeliever. And whatever is quoted from Ibn Masud in this regard is not true.” (al-Ittiqan 1/270)

Abu Hafs ‘Umar al-Nu’mani (d. 775 A.H.) wrote:

“Report of this opinion from Ibn Masud is a lie and falsehood.” (al-Baab fi ‘Uloom al-Kitab 1/249)

Shaykh Muhammad bin Nizamuddin al-Ansari (d. 1225 A.H.) said:

“Attributing the rejection of al-mu’awwazatayn as part of the Qur’an to Ibn Masud is a grave mistake. And whoever attributed such a thing to him, his isnad is not reliable compared to the isnad which have been accepted collectively by all the scholars –infact the whole Ummah. This highlights that attribution of this rejection to Ibn Masud is false.” (Fawatih al-Rahmout bi Sharah Musallam al-Thabut 2/12)

Al-Khifaji (d. 1069 A.H.) wrote in his notes to al-Baidhawi’s commentary:

“And what is reported from Ibn Masud that al-fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn are not from Qur’an has no basis.” (al-‘Inaya al-Qadhi 1/29)

Other scholars who have vehemently rejected the notion include;

Ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H.) See al-Muhalla (1/32)

Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi (d. 543 A.H.) See al-Ittiqan (1/270)

Fakhruddin al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.) See Tafsir Mafatih al-Ghayb (1/150)

Zahid bin Hassan al-Kawthari (d. 1371 A.H.) See Maqalat al-Kawthari (p.16)

Summary:

1- Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- did recite al-Fatiha and al-mu’awwazatayn in Qur’an as proved from rigorous evidence of four established qira’ats whose chains of authorities (isnaad) are the strongest chains unanimously accepted by the Ummah.

2- Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- categorically identified “Oft-repeated seven verses” mentioned in Qur’an 15:87 as “al-fatiha al-kitab” (Opening Surah of the Book).

3- He did not write al-Fatiha in his Mushaf but gave his reason and the reason was refusal or doubting its status as a part of the Qur’an. This proves him not writing some verses is no evidence that he doubted their position within Qur’an.

4- Ibn Mas’ud –may Allah be pleased with him- mentioned the virtues of two surahs (al-mu’azzatayn), thus refuting the false notions attributed to him.

5- There are narrations from Aasim and Zirr that Ibn Mas’ud did not write al-Mu’azzatayn in his Mushaf. Same people (along with other people) used to recite the two surahs with the rest of Qur’an on Ibn Mas’ud’s authority. So either the narrations are a mistake or just like al-Fatiha Ibn Mas’ud had some other reason for not writing the two surahs in his Mushaf.

6- Narration that says he categorically denied their being a part of the Qur’an is defective (mu’allal) and strange (shaadh) because it is a solitary report, narrated only the authority of Abdul Rahman bin Yazid, and contradicts the strongest and multiple isnaad.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES!

The critics of Islam with all their efforts could find only Ibn Mas’ud’s case to try question the singularity and consensus of the Muslims on the text of the Holy Qur’an whereas in case of Bible, not just an individual or a group of few but whole churches and denominations differ with each other on what all forms the canon.

Please follow THIS LINK to find Canon Comparative Chart showing what is there in which Bible. See the Christian manuscript is too flexible, you can throw away anything you like and accept whatever you find good for yourself.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Is Qur'an literal or metaphor?

2011-10-10T01:09:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

The short answer to this question is that it is literal and metaphorical where Allah Ta'ala explicitly states it. This is not an issue for Muslims; however the need for this article has arisen due to several sects interpreting everything metaphorically. For example, these sects state that heaven and hell is not a place but a condition, fire of hell is a metaphor and heavenly delights are also all metaphors. The Qur'an says otherwise!

The article will be divided into following parts:

1) Introduction

2) Heaven and Hell are places and not a condition

3) Meanings of a few words "Naazil" and "Rafa'a" from the Qur'an

4) Heavenly delights

5) Physical raising up

6) Punishment in Hell is physical and literal

7) Some other examples from the Qur'an claimed to be metaphors

1. Introduction

A lot has already been written on these topics and this article aims to put all points in one place. There are a few points that are of much importance but since a lot has been written on them, a few links are provided that prove extensively from the Qur'an, Hadith, logic and science that Allah Ta'ala is outside the creation and above all over the Arsh [*][*][*]. This is important to understand as the belief that Allah is everywhere is the base of fallacy.

2. Heaven and Hell are places and not a condition

There are some metaphorians who argue that pain and suffering in this world is referred to as hell or fire. Their explanations and tricks may fool those who have never read the Qur'an. They mainly attract ultra modernist Hadith rejectors. The Qur'an answers their fallacy:

وقالوا لن يدخل الجنة الا من كان هودا او نصارى تلك امانيهم قل هاتوا برهانكم ان كنتم صادقين
And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."
[Surah Baqarah 2:111]

Here Allah Ta'ala tells us that the Jews and Christians claim that only they will enter heaven. This shows that heaven is place to enter and not a physical, emotional or an intellectual condition that one experiences. Furthermore, if this belief of paradise being a place had been a fallacy, Allah Ta'ala would have corrected it. Allah Ta'ala does not rebuke them for believing in heaven to be a place but Himself says elsewhere that it is a place:

Whenever he is told, ‘Fear Allah', his vanity (holds him back and) keeps him staunch and steady on (the road to) sin. For him, hell shall suffice! How wretched is that resting-place! [Surah Baqarah 2:206]

There is however a group that is not as ultra modern, as those mentioned before, who do believe in afterlife but metaphorically. They state that fire refers to some sort of state of the soul in discomfort in afterlife not imaginable. Again they deny any sort of "fire" in hell.

Then would those who are followed clear themselves of those who follow (them): They would see the penalty, and all relations between them would be cut off. [Surah Baqarah 2:166]

Allah Ta'ala tells us that the punishment would be seen. After tremendous evidences from the Qur'an, the metaphorians need to privode some sort of evidence to support their claim; so far their stance is pure guesswork.

Jahannam (Hellfire) exists now

Many of the Imams of the Sunnah used this Ayah to prove that the Fire exists now. This is because Allah said,

[أُعِدَّتْ]
(prepared) meaning, prepared and kept. There are many Hadiths on this subject. For instance, the Prophet said,
«تَحَاجَّتِ الْجَنَّةُ وَالنَّار»
(Paradise and the Fire had an argument..)
Also, the Prophet said,
«اسْتَأْذَنَتِ النَّارُ رَبَّهَا فَقَالَتْ: رَبِّ أَكَلَ بَعضِي بَعْضًا فَأذِنَ لَهَا بِنَفَسَيْنِ: نَفَسٍ فِي الشِّتَاءِ وَنَفَسٍ فِي الصَّيْف»
(The Fire sought the permission of her Lord. She said, 'O my Lord! Some parts of me consumed the other parts.' And Allah allowed her two periods to exhale, one in winter and one in summer.)
Also, there is a Hadith recorded from Ibn Mas`ud that the Companions heard the sound of a falling object. When they asked about it, the Messenger of Allah said,
«هَذَا حَجَرٌ أُلْقِيَ بِهِ مِنْ شَفِيرِ جَهَنَّمَ مُنْذُ سَبْعِينَ سَنَةً، الْآنَ وَصَلَ إِلى قَعْرِهَا»
(This is a stone that was thrown from the top of Jahannam seventy years ago, but only now reached its bottom.) This Hadith is in Sahih Muslim.
There are many Hadiths that are Mutawatir (narrated by many different chains of narrations) on this subject, such as the Hadiths about the eclipse prayer, the night of Isra' etc. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]
Heaven (paradise exists now)
Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge. [Surah Fussilat 41:9-12]

In these Ayaat, Allah Ta’ala describes the creation of heavens and earth. The creation of earth is very much literal, the creation of everything on it is also very much literal and then fact that universe came from smoke is also a scientific reality. Then how come heaven is a metaphor? It is clear from these Ayaat that heaven is a place just like earth is also a place.

3. Meanings of a few words "Naazil" and "Rafa'a" from the Qur'an

Naazil: The literal meaning of Naazil is "to send down". Some, however, try to use it in metaphorical sense. However, if we look at the links provided in the first section, we find that Allah Ta'ala is not in the creation, He is outside the creation and is above the Arsh, above everything and so if we understand that Qur'an was "nazala" (sent down from above), then we need no metaphors; literal understanding is sufficient. Furthermore, the Qur'an and science prove this understanding of "naazil" as well.

Rafa'a: Rafaa means to raise up. It could be a physical raising up (55:7) or it could be the raising of the status (19:57). However, when the raising of the status or rank is concerned, it is mentioned very clearly. In short, Rafa’a means to raise up physically unless otherwise stated.

[19:57] We raised him to an exalted status!
[19:57] WarafaAAnahu makanan Aaaliyyan

When the raising is of the status, we find a clear mention of it with a follow-up word. However, in the case of Prophet Issa (peace be upon him), we see nothing like this and therefore we can conclude that he was raised physically to the heavens. A must read article regarding the raising up of Prophet Issa (peace be upon him).

Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time." [Surah Baqarah 2:36]
We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. [Surah Baqarah 2:38]

Allah Ta’ala tells the inhabitants of paradise to get down to earth clearly indicating that heaven is above. The word “all” is striking. Did they have children in paradise? If so, then the metaphorian concept of no sex in heaven is refuted by these Ayaat.

4. Heavenly delights

Before continuing with this section, kindly read this article.

But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before,"for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever). Surah Baqarah 2:25

The inhabitants of paradise would be given food to eat similar to what would have been available in worldly life. They would have wives just like Aadam (alayhi Salaam) had a wife in heaven who gave birth clearly indicating that wives in paradise would be literal and real companions of the believers.

Allah said,
[وَلَهُمْ فِيهَآ أَزْوَجٌ مُّطَهَّرَةٌ]
(and they shall have therein Azwajun Mutahharatun). Ibn Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "Purified from filth and impurity.'' Also, Mujahid said, "From menstruation, relieving the call of nature, urine, spit, semen and pregnancies.'' Also, Qatadah said, "Purified from impurity and sin.'' In another narration, he said, "From menstruation and pregnancies.'' Further, `Ata', Al-Hasan, Ad-Dahhak, Abu Salih, `Atiyah and As-Suddi were reported to have said similarly.
Allah's statement,
[وَهُمْ فِيهَا خَـلِدُونَ]
(and they will abide therein forever) meaning ultimate happiness, for the believers will enjoy everlasting delight, safe from death and disruption of their bliss, for it never ends or ceases. We ask Allah to make us among these believers, for He is the Most Generous, Most Kind and Most merciful.

Those claiming metaphor need to provide some sort of evidence rather than mere guesswork. They only rely on twisted logic and not facts. They claim that the act of sexual intercourse is a filthy act and not worthy of being done in paradise. However this is their thinking only; if there is nothing wrong with the act in this life, then how can one find it wrong in afterlife.

5. Physical raising up

Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: "Oh! how shall God bring it (ever) to life, after (this) its death?" but God caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again). He said: "How long didst thou tarry (thus)?" He said: (Perhaps) a day or part of a day." He said: "Nay, thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink; they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey: And that We may make of thee a sign unto the people, Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh." When this was shown clearly to him, he said: "I know that God hath power over all things." Surah Baqarah 2:259
Behold! Abraham said: "My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead." He said: "Dost thou not then believe?" He said: "Yea! but to satisfy My own undertaking." He said: "Take four birds; Tame them to turn to thee; put a portion of them on every hill and call to them: They will come to thee (Flying) with speed. Then know that God is Exalted in Power, Wise." [Surah Baqarah 2:260]
Those who swallow down usury cannot arise except as one whom Shaitan has prostrated by (his) touch does rise. That is because they say, trading is only like usury; and Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury. To whomsoever then the admonition has come from his Lord, then he desists, he shall have what has already passed, and his affair is in the hands of Allah; and whoever returns (to it) -- these arc the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it. [Surah Baqarah 2:275]
And remember Moses said to his people: "God commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said: "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "God save me from being an ignorant (fool)!" [Surah Baqarah 2:67]
So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus God bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand. [Surah Baqarah 2:73]

These are several Ayaat that deal with the physical raising up. What is important about these verses is that they speak of dead people coming back to life so metaphorians cannot argue that bringing back to life could be water giving life to dead plants. The verses explicitly state the bringing back to life of human beings on the Day of Judgment. Moreover, it cannot be more evident than the following verse:

On that day will those who disbelieve and disobey the Apostle desire that the earth were leveled with them, and they shall not hide any word from Allah. [Surah Nisa 4:42]

6. Punishment in Hell is physical and literal

(As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise. [Surah Nisa 4:56]
This verse indicates that there is something in the skin which makes us feel pain. This is exactly what modern science tells us i.e. pain receptors are responsible for feeling pain. It was thought that the sense of feeling and pain was dependent only on the brain. Recent discoveries however prove that there are pain receptors present in the skin, without which a person would not be able to feel pain. When a doctor examines a patient suffering from burn injuries, he verifies the degree of burns by a pinprick. If the patient feels pain, the doctor is happy, because it indicates that the burns are superficial and the pain receptors are intact. On the other hand, if the patient does not feel any pain, it indicates that it is a deep burn and the pain receptors have been destroyed.
Prof. Tegatat Tejasen, Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University in Thailand, has spent a great amount of time on research of pain receptors. Initially he could not believe that the Qur’an mentioned this scientific fact 1,400 years ago. He later verified the translation of this particular Qur’anic verse. Prof. Tegatat Tejasen was so impressed by the scientific accuracy of the Quranic verse, that at the 8th Saudi Medical Conference held in Riyadh on the Scientific Signs of Qur’an and Sunnah, he proudly proclaimed in public: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad (Peace Be upon Him) is His Messenger.”

The sensation of pain results from communication between nerve cells in the brain, spinal cord, and elsewhere in the body. When a person experiences an injury, such as a stubbed toe, specialized cells called nociceptors (another name for pain receptors) sense potential tissue damage (1) and send an electric signal, called an impulse, to the spinal cord via a sensory nerve (2). A specialized region of the spinal cord known as the dorsal horn (3) processes the pain signal, immediately sending another impulse back down the leg via a motor nerve (4). This causes the muscles in the leg to contract and pull the toe away from the source of injury (6). At the same time, the dorsal horn sends another impulse up the spinal cord to the brain. During this trip, the impulse travels between nerve cells. When the impulse reaches a nerve ending (7), the nerve releases chemical messengers, called neurotransmitters, which carry the message to the adjacent nerve. When the impulse reaches the brain (8), it is analyzed and processed as an unpleasant physical and emotional sensation.
Types of burns
The Ayat under discussion mentions the burning of the skin. The severity of a burn depends on its depth, its extent, and the age of the victim. Burns are classified by depth as first, second, and third degree. First-degree burns cause redness and pain (e.g., sunburn). Second-degree burns are marked by blisters (e.g., scald by hot liquid). In third-degree burns, both the epidermis and dermis (external and internal parts of the skin) are destroyed, and underlying tissue may also be damaged. Further burn in the skin would damage the pain receptors and hence the person would not feel pain.
Word Analysis:
Quran rightly mentions this ‘extreme’ stage for the change of skin. The Arabic word used is نضجت which indicates the burning to the extreme stage. Ibn e Faris says that its basic meaning includes burning something to the last stage.
Hence, not only the Quran told humans that sensation is due to the pain receptors of the skin, Quran also describes accurately the type of burn that kills the pain receptors. [By brother Muhammad Awais Tahir]

7. Some other examples from the Qur'an claimed to be metaphors

Metaphorians have their own will in deciding what is a metaphor and what is not. This concept is very much similar to Taqqiyya. This way they can twist anything anyway they want. Religion to them is nothing more than whatever they want to do.

Do you expect them to believe in you? (Such are they, that) a group of them hears the word of Allah, understands it well, and then deliberately (twists and) distorts its meaning. [Surah Baqarah 2:75]

They claim that Jinn are not invisible other beings but hot tempered angry men, they do not believe in Shaytaan and whole lot more. If each and every single point is taken, the debate would take pages and pages to write and needlessly become overcomplicated and move away from the purpose. I recommend visiting this link for a lot of answers.

When one starts rejecting Ahadith, then he feels that he has an excuse to misinterpret the Qur’an any way he likes. However, the Qur’an itself answers all their fallacies.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

… by Adeel Tariq Khan

Reality of alleged lost verse(s) of surah 98 (al-Bayyinah)

2011-09-24T10:59:00.004+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Following Theodor Nöldeke, the Christian missionaries continue to raise the issue of what they call the lost verse(s) of surah 98, al-Bayyinah. As pointed out by Nöldeke, in Geschichte des Qorans 1/242 Leipzig (1909), the narration from Jami’ al-Tirmidhi runs as;

عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَهُ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَيْكَ القُرْآنَ» ، فَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ {لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا} وَقَرَأَ فِيهَا: «إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ، مَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ» وَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ: لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَانِيًا، وَلَوْ كَانَ لَهُ ثَانِيًا، لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

Ubayy ibn Ka’b (RA) reported that Allah’ Messenger -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said to him, “Allah has commanded me that I should recite the Qur’an to you.” Then he recited to him, “Those who reject (Truth)…” (surah 98) He also recited: Surely, the essence of religion with Allah is upright Islam not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism. Whoever performs a good deed, it will not be neglected. He then said, “If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second, and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3898)

Alleged lost verses:

Here they find two alleged lost verses which the Holy Prophet - peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- recited after Surah Bayyinah (No.98).

First of them being;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ، مَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ

“Surely, the essence of religion with Allah is upright Islam not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magian.”

And second one;

لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَانِيًا، وَلَوْ كَانَ لَهُ ثَانِيًا، لَابْتَغَى إِلَيْهِ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

“If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second, and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.”

The Truth:

The truth, however, is simply that neither of them was ever a part of the Surah Bayyinah. And Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- only mentioned these as explanation to words within the surah.

This is clear for two reasons;

1. In Mustadrak al-Hakim, the wording of the same narration testifies to this. There it reads;

عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ لِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «إِنَّ اللَّهَ أَمَرَنِي أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَيْكَ الْقُرْآنَ» فَقَرَأَ: {لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ} وَمِنْ نَعْتِهَا لَوْ أَنَّ ابْنَ آدَمَ سَأَلَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ، فَأَعْطَيْتُهُ، سَأَلَ ثَانِيًا، وَإِنْ أَعْطَيْتُهُ ثَانِيًا، سَأَلَ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ، وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ، وَمَنْ يَعْمَلْ خَيْرًا فَلَنْ يُكْفَرَهُ

Ubayy ibn Ka’b (RA) reported that Allah’ Messenger -peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said to him, “Allah has commanded me that I should recite the Qur’an to you.” Then he recited , “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists … ” (surah 98) and in its description (he said) “If the son of Adam would ask for a valley of riches and is given, he would ask for the second, and if he is given the second, he would ask for the third and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” And religion with Allah is uprightness (hanfiyya), not Judaism, and not Christianity and whoever performs a good deed, it will not be neglected.” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 2889. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)

This clearly states the alleged lost verses were not verses but prophetic description and commentary of certain points in the Surah.

2. Had the statements in question actually been part of the Qur’anic text, there wouldn’t have been any difference on their wording, as is the case with established text of the Qur’an. In the following lines I show variance in the words of the alleged verses.

a- Religion with Allah:

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration, it reads;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الحَنِيفِيَّةُ المُسْلِمَةُ لَا اليَهُودِيَّةُ وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ وَلَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ

“Surely, the essence of religion (zaat al-deen) with Allah is upright Islam (al-hanfiyya al-muslimah) not Judaism and not Christianity and not Magianism.”

In a narration of Musnad Ahmad it is;

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“Verily the religion (inna al-deen) with Allah is the upright faith (hanfiyyah), not paganism and neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203. Classified as Sahih by Shu’aib Arnaut)

At another place in Musnad Ahmad it goes as;

وَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ الدِّينَ الْقَيِّمَ عِنْدَ اللهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ، غَيْرُ الْمُشْرِكَةِ، وَلَا الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“And verily this true religion (zalik al-deen al-qayyim) with Allah is the Upright Faith (hanfiyyah), neither paganism (ghayr al-mushrikah), not Judaism nor Christianity.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21202. Classified as Hasan by Shu’aib Arnaut)

In yet another collection the wording varies further;

إِنَّ ذَاتَ الدِّينِ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ السَّمْحَةُ لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ وَلا الْيَهُودِيَّةُ وَلا النَّصْرَانِيَّةُ

“Verily the essence of religion with Allah is pliable Uprightness (al-hanfiyyah al-samhah), not paganism (la mushrikah) , neither Judaism nor Christianity.” (al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarah, Hadith 1162. Classified as Sahih by the author)

In narration of Mustadrak, it is even different, with no mention of paganism;

وَإِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الْحَنِيفِيَّةُ غَيْرَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ، وَلَا النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ

“Verily the religion with Allah is uprightness (al-hanfiyyah) not Judaism or Christianity.” (Mustadrak, Hadith 2889)

This variation shows it was not the Quranic text. The simple fact that verses found in established text of the Qur’an i.e. verses of surah bayyinah are always reported without variation in all these reports but there is variance in these words shows the statement was never a part of the Qur’an, not even to the primary narrators.

In some narrations it is “inna al-deen”, in some it is “inna zaat al-deen”, in some it is “inna zalik al-deen al-qayyim.” In some narrations it is “al-hanfiyya al-muslimah”, in some it simply “al-hanfiyya”, in yet another variation it is “al-hanfiyya al-samha.” In one narration it says لَا المَجُوسِيَّةُ i.e. “not magianism” in others it is لَا الْمُشْرِكَةُ i.e. “not paganism” and in one narration there is no mention of either of these. In one narration it says “ghayr al Musrikah” and in another it says “la mushrikah.”

Also in al-Tirmidhi’s narration it is مَنْ يَعْمَلْ and in other narrations letter و ‘waw’ meaning ‘and’ is added to it and it becomes ومن يعمل .

Also note the phrase ذَاتَ الدِّينِ “essence of religion” and the words الْيَهُودِيَّةِ “Judaism”, النَّصْرَانِيَّةِ “Christianity” and المَجُوسِيَّة i.e. “Magianism” have not been used in the Qur’an showing the style is non-Qur’anic.

b- Two valleys of riches:

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration the wording is;

“If the son of Adam has a valley full of wealth, he would crave for a second (la-abtigi ilaihi thaniya), and if he had a second, he would crave for a third. Nothing will fill the belly of the son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” (Jami Tirmidhi, Hadith 3898)

In one narration of Musnad Ahmad it is;

"لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيَيْنِ مِنْ مَالٍ، لَسَأَلَ وَادِيًا ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ

“If the son of Adam would have two valleys of wealth, he will ask for the third (las’aala wadiyan thalitha) and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam except dust.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203)

Mark the difference, how besides the variation, the statement gets brief and last part about Allah relenting to the repentant is trimmed.

In another narration, it reads;

وَلَوْ أَنَّ ابْنَ آدَمَ سَأَلَ وَادِيًا مِنْ مَالٍ فَأُعْطِيَهُ، لَسَأَلَ ثَانِيًا وَلَوْ سَأَلَ ثَانِيًا فَأُعْطِيَهُ، لَسَأَلَ ثَالِثًا، وَلَا يَمْلَأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ، وَيَتُوبُ اللهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

“If the son of Adam would ask for a valley of riches and is given (sa’aala wadiyyan min maal fa-aatihi), he would ask for the second, and if he is given the second, he would ask for the third and nothing fills the belly of son of Adam but dust. And Allah relents to one who repents.” (Musnad Ahmad Hadith 21202 & Mustadrak al-Hakim 2889)

Now the variation in the above three version is too evident.

Also compare the narrations from Tirmidhi and Mustadrak given in full above. In Tirmidhi’s narration the thing of about True Religion comes first and man’s crave for valley’s of riches follows it (same is in Musnad Ahmad No. 21203), where as in the narration from Mustadrak (and similarly in one narration of Musnad Ahmad i.e. No.21202) the mention of two valleys comes first and the thing about True Religion comes later. This also proves there was nothing particular about the sequence of these words, showing these were not a part of the Qur’an.

What words do these phrases explain?

These words actually explain verse 5 of the surah;

وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ حُنَفَاءَ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَذَلِكَ دِينُ الْقَيِّمَةِ

“And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight.” (Qur’an 98:6)

Seemingly the statement on man’s crave for riches is about “regular charity” arguing that one should spend, otherwise one is never satiated hoarding riches.

And the statement on True Religion explains ‘deen al-qayyimah’ i.e. Right/Straight Religion.

Answering some possible queries:

1- One may say how these statements can be taken to explain verse 5 when they are mentioned just after initial few words of the surah. The answer is, initial few words are generally mentioned to point towards a surah instead of naming it. This is also evident from the fact that different narrations give different extent of wording to show the surah it refers to.

In al-Tirmidhi’s narration its simply, “Those who reject (Truth) …”

In Musnad Ahmad (No. 21202) it says, “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book …”

In Mustadrak al-Hakim it is, “Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists …”

These are not full quotes of verse 1 even.

In Musnad Ahmad (No. 21203), first 2 verses are given in full

And in al-Ahadith al-Mukhatara it just says, “They are not …”

This is just to show it was only a reference to the surah in general.

2- As regards the fact that in some narrations on the issue the report ends with the words, “And then he read the rest of the Surah” it may be about the verse 6 and 7 i.e. the explanation came after verse 5 and after the explanation the other verses were read.

3- If one says, that narrations clearly say i.e. “he recited in it” so how can it be an interpretation and commentary? the answer is in putting together all the various forms of the narration. Mustadrak’s version clearly says وَمِنْ نَعْتِهَا i.e. “and in its description.”

The words وَقَرَأَ فِيهَا i.e. “he recited in it” are the words of a later narrator as is evident from the fact that in the same narrations it also reads, وَقَرَأَ عَلَيْهِ i.e. “and he recited to him” i.e. Prophet recited to Ubayy. This shows these were not the words of Ubayy but a later narrator for Ubayy would not refer himself in third person. In fact one narration (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21203) explicitly says these interjecting words are those of the narrator Shu’bah. Words of a later narrator which are not even consistently used cannot stand the above mentioned facts. And the Tawatur of the Qur’an is ultimate evidence against this.

Answering Ahmadis:

Ahmadis (Qadianis), the followers of the religion founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also use this narration to their ignoble end. In his bid to justify Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s lie of attributing a narration to Sahih Bukhari which is not found in it, author of Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, Malik Abdul Rahman Khadim, says this narration proves even the Holy Prophet Muhammad –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- had a lapse and mentioned some words as part of the Qur’an while they are not. See Ahmadiyya Pocket Book, pp.517-518.

The assertion is utterly false as we have seen above the Prophet –may Allah bless him- mentioned those lines only as commentary. Malik Abdul Rahman’s objection to idea of its being commentary is answered above.

Furthermore there could have been some adjustments in the Qur’anic text during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- but Bukhari or any other classical work could never be edited by the pseudo-prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

The fact of Malik Abdul Rahman, the famous Ahmadi author trying to justify the lies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad even at the cost of sowing the seeds of doubt about the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- and the stability of the Qur’anic text, is a clear evidence that Ahmadiyya religious elite has done away with the very fundamentals of Islam and how Murabbis don’t mind raising questions about the basics of Islam to justify the lies of a false claimant of prophethood. I will urge common Ahmadis to take exception to such a behavior and revert back to the Ummah of Muhammad, the Final Seal of Prophethood –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Summary:

The above detail is enough to show that neither of the two statements is mentioned as a part of the Qur’anic text. They were never a part of surah al-Bayyinah. It was just a prophetic commentary. A number of variations in the wording of the statements in question and the fact that they do not go with the general Qur’anic usage and style are enough to show they were never meant as part of the Qur’an.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Examining Ibn Masud’s reaction to Qur’an preservation efforts

2011-09-14T21:03:00.001+05:00

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

Ibn Mas’ud’s reaction to efforts regarding Qur’an preservation during Uthman’s time has been a subject of interest to orientalists and missionaries. In this article we shall put the lies on the issue in coffin.

Firstly, you need to study description of efforts during Uthman’s time regarding Qur’an preservation. You find that HERE.

Ibn Masud’s reaction:

Let’s first study the narration that shows Ibn Mas’ud’s reaction to establish what his grievances were.

In Jami’ Tirmidhi, ‘Ubaydullah bin ‘Abdullah is recorded to have said:

“Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" (Jami’ Tirmidhi, hadith 3104)

Note: Above translation is taken from Acts-17 Ministry’s blog. Its significance will be discussed in while. Hold your breath!

What were Ibn Mas’ud’s grievances?

1- Seemingly Ibn Mas’ud’ first grievance was on him being left out of the noble task and Zaid bin Thabit, who was definitely much younger to him, being made the head of the committee assigned with the task.

2- The fact that he was being asked to give up his Mushaf and adopt one prepared by the committee headed by Zaid bin Thabit.

In Mustadrak al-Hakim we read that when Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and Huzayfa bin Yaman tried to persuade him to give up his personal manuscript, he said:

“By Allah I will not hand this manuscript over to them. Allah’s Messenger –may Allah bless him- personally taught me more than seventy surahs and now I should hand this (manuscript) over to them? By Allah, I will not give it to them!” (Mustadrak al-Hakim, Hadith 2896. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)

In essence the grievance was simply about being asked to hand over his personal manuscript and this aggravated further when he found he was to do it in favor of the Mushaf prepared by someone much younger to him. Reading this, one must consider Ibn Mas’ud’s own grand stature.

Simply Zaid’s being in charge of the endeavor could have not sparked such a strong reaction as we know Ibn Mas’ud did not show any anger when Zaid was made the in charge of a similar task during Abu Bakr’s time. The demand of giving up his personal manuscript was the real issue.

There was no difference in the text:

There was no difference on the actual text between Ibn Mas’ud’s manuscript and the official one. This is known because.

1- Zaid bin Thabit undertook a similar task during Abu Bakr’s time and Ibn Mas’ud never raised his eye-brows then.

2- After Zaid had completed the work during Uthman’s time, he compared the mushaf prepared then with the suhuf prepared during Abu Bakr’s time. And he testified;

“I compared the Mushaf with those manuscripts; they did not differ in anything.” (Mushkil al-Athar, Hadith 2645)

This leads us to logical conclusion that Ibn Mas’ud mushaf had no fundamental textual difference with the official mushaf.

The actual reason of grievance has just been described above.

Why was Ibn Mas’ud asked to give up his Mushaf?

This brings us to the question, as to why was Ibn Mas’ud asked to give up his Mushaf? Answer to this question is already given in my paper on Uthman’s efforts regarding Qur’an preservation i.e. personal masahif (manuscripts) did not take into account all the sanctioned readings at certain instances in the Qur’an. Personal Masahif prepared by great scholars like Ibn Masud and that too directly learnt from the Prophet –may Allah bless him- were never wrong and could never be disputed with, but there is no denying that they could not encompass all the sanctioned variants. And Uthman wanted them to be destroyed only to avoid potential trouble as all sanctioned readings were already preserved in the officially prepared Masahif.

As this idea rests on the Seven Ahruf thing, Christian missionaries have tried to counter this by alluding to large scale differences of interpretations about Seven Ahruf and that Ibn Masud’s mushaf did not allegedly have three surahs (i.e. no. 1, 113 & 114).

As to Seven Ahruf, in-sha’Allah a paper with extensive discussion on the subject is in the pipeline that will kill the misconceptions about it. And the no. of surahs in Ibn Masud’s manuscript will be discussed in full in another forthcoming article dedicated to the subject.

Due to the complexity of the issues and the fact that things are interrelated I have but no option except to refer the readers back to earlier articles or ask to them to wait for forthcoming work.

Did Ibn Masud accuse Companions of deceit in reading Qur’an?

Lately we have seen Christian missionaries using a certain report from Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra, sometimes referred to as Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir.

They present the narration like this;

-- Ibn Masud does not think highly of today's Quran, the one collected by Zaid. In comparing himself to Zaid, he says:

“The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.” (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444) –

This is wrong translation. Translation should actually be;

“So conceal the manuscripts! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.”

Allah knows what has lead to the addition of the words “in the reading of Qur’an” in the translation given by missionaries. See the actual Arabic text below and decide for yourself;

فَغَلَّوُا الْمَصَاحِفَ. فَلأَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ مَنْ أُحِبُّ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِنْ أَنْ أَقْرَأَ عَلَى قِرَاءَةِ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثابت. فو الذي لا إِلَهَ غَيْرُهُ لَقَدْ أَخَذْتُ مِنْ فِيِّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - بِضْعًا وَسَبْعِينَ سُورَةً. وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ غُلامٌ لَهُ ذُؤَابَتَانِ يَلْعَبُ مَعَ الْغِلْمَانِ

So the translation given by missionaries makes “ghalla” to mean “deceit” while the basic meaning of the word and the one intended here is “to hide/conceal.” Following are my evidences for this.

1- In the similar report in Jami’ Tirmidhi wording is;

قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ: " يَا أَهْلَ العِرَاقِ اكْتُمُوا المَصَاحِفَ الَّتِي عِنْدَكُمْ وَغُلُّوهَا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ القِيَامَةِ} فَالقُوا اللَّهَ بِالمَصَاحِفِ

Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" (Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 3104)

Mark this, this is the translation they themselves gave and here “ghalla” and all its forms have been translated as “conceal”.

Also note at the end the narration says, “Meet Allah with the masahif” now if “ghalla” is translated as “deceit” then what would the whole thing mean?

2- In Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud Khumayr bin Malik says:

سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ يَقُولُ: " إِنِّي غَالٌّ مُصْحَفِي، فَمَنِ اسْتَطَاعَ أَنْ يَغُلَّ مُصْحَفًا فَلْيَغْلُلْ، فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَمَنْ يَغْلُلْ يَأْتِ بِمَا غَلَّ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ}

“I heard Ibn Masud saying: I have concealed my Mushaf. Whoever can conceal his mushaf he should conceal it. For Allah says, “And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement.”” (Kitab al-Masahif, Narration 52)

Now if “ghalla” is to be translated “to deceive” then narration above would make Ibn Masud says, “I have deceived my mushaf.” Why do these missionaries divorce with reason? Reason is not that bad!

There are other forms of the same narration that show “ghalla” can never mean “to deceive” here.

* In all the above discussed narrations Ibn Masud asked people to conceal their manuscripts because they were based on his own personal manuscript, and for his above mentioned grievance he initially reacted this way.

James White at his best- lying!

This is perhaps nothing when we even find them concocting stories on this issue. James White in one his debates with Muslim scholar, Shabir Ally alleged that Ibn Masud was beaten for not giving up his manuscript and he ended up dying for this reason. See the proof in this video. He lied and said he was quoting from Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi’s book, “An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran” whereas it is nowhere to be found in the book. That’s the best they can do!

Did Ibn Masud later agree with Uthman?

We know initially Ibn Masud reacted furiously, but did he later agree with Uthman and rest of the companions? Yes, he did. He might not have given up his personal manuscript but he did agree with the idea behind the scheme of Uthman, made into a reality by the team headed by Zaid bin Thabit.

Ibn Kathir tells us;

“Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- wrote to him (Ibn Masud) bidding him to follow the Companions in what they had agreed upon due to its benefits, (and because it lead to) unity of opinions and the end of differences. So, he inclined to it and agreed to follow and to give up the opposition –may Allah be pleased with them all.” (al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya 7/217)

Ibn Kathir even goes on to reason that it was only natural for Ibn Masud to agree on such a fundamental issue. He first quotes the following report;

Abdul Rahman bin Yazid said: Abdullah bin Mas’ud entered the mosque in Mina. He asked how many rak’ahs have the Commander of the Faithful (i.e. Uthman) offered in Zuhr salah? People said, “(He offered) four.” Ibn Masud offered four rak’ahs. People asked, “Have you not told us that the Messenger of Allah –may Allah bless him- and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar offered two (in Zuhr prayers at Mina)?” He said, “Indeed and I narrate to you the same now even but I do not like to differ.”

On this Ibn Kathir comments;

“So if Ibn Masud followed Uthman this way even in secondary issues, how much (more willing) he would have been in following him regarding Qur’an and in sticking to the recitation to which he had bound the people.” (al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya 7/217)

Conclusion:

There was some initial misunderstanding between the Companions but evidences show it was never about the basic text of the Holy Qur’an, and even that misunderstanding between Ibn Masud and Uthman etc. was later removed –may Allah be pleased with them all! Excitement of missionary haters of Islam is rather pointless.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

*** All the external links were last accessed on September 14th, 2011 4:15 GMT

LET ME TURN THE TABLES!

Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Waqidi as a Narrator

Refuting Wesley and Tariq on Complexion of the Prophet

2.3. Narrations with description using the words asmar/sumrah

The Problem of Enormous Numbers of Hadith

72 Virgins! Does Allah give sexual bribe?

Understanding Seven Ahruf –1 (the weaker explanations)

Understanding Seven “Ahruf”

Translation of a section from Shaykh Taqi Usmani’s book ‘Uloom al-Qur’an

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction

2. Meaning of Seven “Ahruf”

2.1. First View: Seven “Ahruf” are the Seven well known Recitals (qira’ts)

2.2. Second View: Seven “Ahruf” denote Multiple Recitals (qira’ts)

2.4. Fourth View: Seven “Ahruf” refer to Maximum no. of specific synonyms allowed in early days

‘Ulama, Murabbis and two extremely weak hadiths

Scholars on the Meaning of “Khatam al-Nabiyyin”

Jesus: Sinless or Divine?

Variant of Qur’an 33: 56 – A Myth

Exposing Wesley Muhammad on Prophet Muhammad's Complexion: Refutation of NoI’s Racist Theology

No. of Surahs in the Mushaf of Ibn Mas’ud

Is Qur'an literal or metaphor?

Reality of alleged lost verse(s) of surah 98 (al-Bayyinah)

Examining Ibn Masud’s reaction to Qur’an preservation efforts

Translation of
a section from Shaykh Taqi Usmani’s book ‘Uloom al-Qur’an