--
Various articles from new Sunni blog:
--
Understanding Riba (interest or usury)
The prohibition of riba, which includes interest on loans, is perhaps the most important principle in Islamic economic philosophy. A riba-free economy will look radically different from an economy based on interest-based debt, so this prohibition has far reaching consequences for government, society and businesses. As students of Islam, the first thing we need to understand is the concept of riba itself.
Riba literally means ‘to increase’ (1). The Hebrew word for riba is ribit or ribis, and we find the prohibition of riba in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Qur’an prohibits riba in 4 different places and the prohibition is gradual, just like that for intoxicants. The relevant verses are copied below, according to the order of revelation suggested by Mufassirs (exegetes). For excellent detail on their order of revelation and context, please see the following link:
First mention of riba (no prohibition)
That which ye give in usury in order that it may increase on (other) people’s property hath no increase with Allah; but that which ye give in charity, seeking Allah’s Countenance, hath increase manifold. [Ar-room 30:39] (M. Pickthall)
Second mention of riba (no prohibition for Muslims; unlawful for earlier nations)
Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah’s way. And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people’s wealth by false pretences, We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom. [An-Nisa 4:160-161] (M. Pickthall)
The first express prohibition for Muslims
O ye who believe! Devour not usury, doubling and quadrupling (the sum lent). Observe your duty to Allah, that ye may be successful. [Aal-e-Imran 3:130] (M. Pickthall)
The full prohibition of riba
Those who eat Riba (usury) will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person beaten by Shaitan (Satan) leading him to insanity. That is because they say: “Trading is only like Riba (usury),” whereas Allah has permitted trading and forbidden Riba (usury). So whosoever receives an admonition from his Lord and stops eating Riba (usury) shall not be punished for the past; his case is for Allah (to judge); but whoever returns [to Riba (usury)], such are the dwellers of the Fire – they will abide therein.
Truly those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat they will have their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
O you who believe! Be afraid of Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from Riba (usury) (from now onward), if you are (really) believers.
And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allah and His Messenger but if you repent, you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly (by asking more than your capital sums), and you shall not be dealt with unjustly (by receiving less than your capital sums).
And if the debtor is in a hard time (has no money), then grant him time till it is easy for him to repay, but if you remit it by way of charity, that is better for you if you did but know. [Al Baqara 2:275:280] (Mohsin Khan)
There has been considerable debate among Muslim scholars about whether riba is the same as usury or interest, and if loans with a low rate of interest fall under the category of riba. This is an interesting question and a quick look at history tells us that usury and interest were considered one and the same until the 17th century AD.
A look at history
1. The practice in Jahiliyya (age of ignorance) was that the lender would redouble the loan if the borrower asked for a redoubling of the loan period. For example, if 100 dinars were due in 6 months, the lender will double this to 200 dinars and give 12 months for the borrower to repay. The Qur’an [3:130] refers to this practice of doubling and redoubling. This is clearly prohibited.
2. Usury (or interest on loans) was also prohibited in Judaism and Christianity. In fact, the Talmud (2) even refers to the prohibition of avak ribbit or the ‘dust of riba’. This means that riba can be hidden in different ways and Judaism prohibited this hidden riba as well. But in Judaism, there was another opinion: that usury could not be charged to fellow Jews but it was acceptable to charge it to non-Jews. Some Muslim scholars also favour this argument for Muslims.
3. In the Christian tradition, usury and interest were considered one and the same. In the 4th century AD, the Church declared that the clergy could not deal in usury and extended this ruling to the laity (ordinary people) in the 5th century. By the 17th century, charging interest on loans became acceptable at the social level, even though Christians had always disliked money lenders and Jews were not allowed to live within city limits because of the dislike of this practice (a lot of Jews were money lenders).
We see a massive shift in attitudes in the 16th and 17th century, when the Church accepted the practice of charging interest on loans but forbade high rates of interest, which were seen as exploitative. As a result, the common usage of the words changed. Usury is now understood as an excessively high rate of interest; it is considered exploitative and looked down upon. In the USA US
Interest, on the other hand, is the socially and legally acceptable rate on money lent.
The definition of riba in Islam
Islam, as usual, is brilliant at removing this confusion. Although some Muslim scholars have tried to make bank interest acceptable for Muslims (e.g. Fazlur Rahman and Sir Sayyed), their efforts haven’t borne much fruit. The beauty of the Qur’an is its timelessness: it remains relevant in changing times. In His infinite wisdom, Allah uses the word ‘riba’ in the Qur’an and settles the debate in a few succinct words in Al-Baqara:
And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allah and His Messenger but if you repent, you shall have your capital sums.
Therefore, it is established beyond doubt that riba is ANY excess (small or large, usurious or not) on the principal amount of the loan. If the original capital (principal) is 100 dinars, then even 1 extra dinar demanded on top of that is riba. Therefore, there is no distinction between usury and interest in Islam. Any excess over money lent is riba and is prohibited. There is consensus amongst Muslims scholars and jurists on this issue (e.g. Usmani, Khurshid). It is only a minority opinion that low rates of interest on loans are not riba and this opinion can be refuted easily.
The authors of this blog also adhere to the viewpoint that the definition of riba is very clear in the Qur’an and there is no point in debating how large or small the amount of interest should be to be seen as ‘bad’. At any given time, there are many different rates of interest in any economy and interest rates have historically shown large changes over time so it is a useless exercise making a judgement on what is exploitative. All interest, whether small or large, has the same effect on the economy and this is why Islam treats all interest as riba.
We have discussed the riba of Qur’an (riba al-jahiliyya); we will discuss the riba of hadith next, inshallah, and then look into why Islam prohibits the charging of riba and equates it with zulm (injustice).
--
Copyright, a request
Dear readers,
Assalam o alaikumWe would like to make a request to you. When you share our essays or selected sentences from our essays through email or social media, please ensure that you provide the full reference of where you have copied from (the full web link of the article OR the blog will do). It is your religious and moral responsibility as a Muslim that you give acknowledgement to the original writer(s) of the blog, whether negative or positive.
In the light of the copyright law and intellectual property rights, as well as the mannerism taught to us by Islam, it is your responsibility to provide the reference to our blog whenever you share an article, a sentence or publicise an idea. To ‘borrow’ ideas from others and present them as your own is called ‘plagiarism’ and it is an ethical and legal offence. Of course, the blog management cannot police the internet and neither do we intend to which is why we distribute our essays widely and openly in text format, but this is simply a request made to you, appealing to your sense of moral responsibility and fairness.
Our purpose in writing this blog is not to make money or to become famous and this is why we don’t even publicise our names or credentials on the blog, because we feel that an element of ‘fan following’ will creep into our work. But because we use this blog to bring various religious matters under discussion, our aim is to spread this message far and wide hoping that more and more people would benefit from it. At the same time, we are liable for making any errors or mistakes and our readers can only bring those mistakes to our attention or challenge us if they know who wrote them. This is why it is important to establish ownership of the text so people know who has written it and they can ask questions of the author.
In this regard, we expect our readers to support us in our humble effort to bring as many people to this platform as possible. We hope that all our readers will keep our request in mind when copying or sharing articles in the future.
JazakAllah
--
Introduction to the Series on Hadith
Over the last few months we have seen many readers question the hadith literature, both on our blog and on Facebook. Some have even alleged that ‘Hadith is responsible for dividing Islam into sects.’ The opinions about Hadith can be viewed as a spectrum. On one end are those who reject hadith literature completely; they say that there is no such thing as a body of knowledge called hadith and that Muslims do not need hadith to live as Muslims. A lot has been written about this group and it is very easy to counter their argument so we will not be discussing the views of this group.
Close to this group are what we call ‘selective rejecters.’ They know that the Hadith literature offers rich knowledge but they doubt or reject hadith based on personal opinion, personal preference and logic. For example, if a selective rejecter doesn’t like keeping a beard, he will say that the hadith about keeping a beard is not important and does not need to be followed. Our focus will be on this group. The most famous and notable name amongst selective rejecters is Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, a Pakistani scholar. He uses hadith as and when he wants to strengthen an argument and give an opinion of his choice, yet he largely rejects the body of hadith. You will mostly find the anglicised secular elite in this group, who think that interest on money is an unfortunate necessity, keeping a beard is not cool and hijab is not fard.
We have had recent discussions with this group. The research has already been done so that means less homework for us. We would now like to share the summary of the discussions with you. We will post a series of blog articles to cover (almost) all the arguments brought against hadith by those who claim that Islam is based on ‘Qur’an only’ and hadith is tainted or muddy water. The blog posts will follow the discussion we had with rejecters so our readers will be able to see how the discussion evolved. This approach is important as it will highlight how the arguments developed as well as the serious implications of rejecting hadith. Please keep in mind that when we use the term ‘rejecters’ in our hadith articles, we mean ‘selective rejecters.’
At the onset, we will very briefly build a context to this discussion by listing a few key points:
§ The Qur’an and Hadith are the primary sources of Islamic law. [1]
§ Hadith literature refers to the collection of reports which record the Prophet’s (SAW) actions, words, his silence on certain matters, as well as the accounts of decisions or opinions issued by the Sahaba (RA). Thus, Hadith is the primary source of the sunnah or practices of the Prophet (SAW) and the ijma’ or consensus of his companions (RA).
§ A hadith report is made up of two parts. First, the isnad or the chain of narrators; and second, the content of the hadith. The authenticity of the hadith is based on both the isnad and the content and muhadditheen (hadith scholars) pass judgement on both. These judgements form the Science of Hadith, which helps in categorising hadith in order of authenticity and frequency. For example, sahih (highest authenticity), mawdu’ (fabricated), khabar-e-wahid (isolated report of an incident), mutawatir (frequently reported) etc. The word jirah refers to criticism of a hadith. It is also worth pointing out that muhadditheen often reject reports which may have a good isnad but the contents contradict the Qur’an.
§ We should not compare the Qur’an and Hadith and should not pitch one against the other. There cannot be a comparison between the words of the Khaliq, the Creator, and the words and deeds of a Makhlooq (Prophet Muhammad, who was a human being). It is our firm belief that Hadith complements the Qur’an but it cannot supersede the Qur’an. Thus, hadith is the best tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur’an.
§ The Hadith literature contains many weak or fake reports but it also contains many authentic ones and there exists a proper mechanism to differentiate between them.
§ Hadith books are compilations or collections; they are not the creation of the author. It is very important to keep this distinction in mind when discussing hadith.
We will have a look at the arguments from rejecters one by one. The list under the following heading will grow over the next few days as we post more articles in this series. We will urge you to read the articles in order to develop a good understanding of the subject. The full series will form a small booklet and we will let you know when it is available for download. You will also find full references of sources as ‘Notes’.
Note:
[1] Christopher Buck, a renowned scholar of Islam, says:
“As stated earlier, the Qur’an is one of the two major sources of Islamic law. The other is the hadith literature, which is a body of traditions that report the extra-canonical sayings and actions of Muhammad. Together, the Qur’an and hadith make up the sunna, the way of the prophet, which, in turn, become the shari’a, the code that Muslims should follow. If the Qur’an is the revealed word of God, then the life and sayings of Muhammad represent the will of God. Muhammad is the perfect Muslim. Therefore, the pious Muslim will try to emulate the prophet in just about every way, beyond his singularly prophetic mission.”
Buck, Christopher. 2009. Discovering. In: A. Rippin, ed. The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an. West Sussex : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 18-35.
--
Series on Hadith Part 1 – Is Hadith the mother of all sects?
The [selective] rejecters of hadith claim that the solution to the problems of the Muslim Ummah lies in following Qur’an only. They say that there are many versions of Sunnah and hadith so it creates confusion around which version should be followed. Each sect has its own favourite set of hadith and it is the hadith literature, with its contradiction and confusion, which has led to the creation of sects. Thus, hadith is the mother of all sects. In order to unite the Muslim Ummah, we need to urge Muslims to follow only the Qur’an for guidance. After all, there is only one version of the Qur’an.
The above argument amounts to a blanket rejection of hadith: that is, all hadith is bad, it has fragmented Muslims into sects and so it should be rejected or it should not be referred to for knowledge.
This argument can be refuted on three bases.
First refutation – People, not the book
It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Qur’an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-fitnah (polytheism and trials), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabari). [Aal-e-Imran 03:07)
The Qur’an explains beautifully that it is people, not the book, who are responsible for choosing guidance over fitna (in this case, fitna refers to confusion or error). It is entirely possible that people will find fitna in the verses of the holy Qur’an itself. There are many examples of this. The Qadiyanis and Sufis use the ‘seal’ verse of the Qur’an to say that prophet-hood is possible after Muhammad (SAW). The Ahle Hadith use the prohibition of interest verse [Q 2:275] in Al-Baqara to conclude that jinns can possess human beings. The Barelvis use the ‘Muhammad is a witness over you’ verses [e.g. Q 2:143 and Q 22:78] to prove that Muhammad (SAW) is present amongst us and aware of all that we do (hazir o nazir).
The above examples are meant to highlight that whether a person will find guidance or not depends on the person, not the book. So we cannot blame books, and in this case, hadith books alone for the problems with the Muslim Ummah.
Second refutation – Hierarchy of knowledge
The problem of sects can be summed up as one of hierarchy of knowledge. For a Muslim, the hierarchy of knowledge is as follows:
1. The Qur’an first and foremost. The Qur’an is also called the Al-Furqan or The Criterion, which helps judge between right and wrong;
2. Authentic hadith, which is subordinate to the Quran and complements the Qur’an;
3. Ijma’ or consensus of the Sahaba (RA);
4. Opinions of learned men or fatawa (if these conform to the first three points).
2. Authentic hadith, which is subordinate to the Quran and complements the Qur’an;
3. Ijma’ or consensus of the Sahaba (RA);
4. Opinions of learned men or fatawa (if these conform to the first three points).
For a sect, the hierarchy is as follows:
1. Fatawa of scholars from their group;
2. Qur’an (subordinate to the fatwa);
3. Hadith (subordinate to fatwa);
4. Consensus of Sahaba (subordinate to the fatwa).
2. Qur’an (subordinate to the fatwa);
3. Hadith (subordinate to fatwa);
4. Consensus of Sahaba (subordinate to the fatwa).
So a sect will always bring the scholarly opinion or the fatwa first, and then manipulate references from the Qur’an and hadith to fit the fatwa. This hierarchy has nothing to do with the authenticity of hadith because a sect will misinterpret and reject Qur’anic verses just as it would bring fake, weak or munkir hadith [1] or quotes from their leaders to support the fatwa.
Hence the issue with sects is not hadith related: it is a problem of hierarchy of knowledge.
Third refutation – History
The rejecters of hadith also say that hadith was complied 200 years after the Prophet (SAW) and numerous sects were created afterwards.
We will cover the history of hadith compilation later. For now, it is important to note that before Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari compiled the Sahiheen [2], there were many sects in existence. The first sect was formed soon after the death of the Prophet (SAW): the Shia quickly developed their own beliefs about divine imamat and their own definition of Ahle Bait. The other sects at the time were the Khwarij, the Marji’ah and the Qadariyah. The Sufis and their ‘mystical’ practices had also started to thrive by second century AH. In fact, Imam Muslim says in the muqaddamah (foreword) of his Sahih that, ‘Lies flow freely from the tongues of the Sufis.’ So the reason why Imam Muslim compiled hadith was that he wanted to build a dam against Sufism. Imam Muslim, and later Ibn e Taymiyyah, are credited with producing the most effective body of literature to stop the problem of Sufism.
Based on the above, we can conclude that hadith is not the mother of all sects.
Assalam o alaikum
[Emphases added]
Note:
[1] A munkir hadith is one that negates the Qur’an or contradicts more authentic reports on the same topic.
[2] Sahiheen is a plural. It refers to the two hadith compilations done by Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari. Imam Muslim died in 261 AH (Hijri) and Imam Bukhari died in 256 AH.
--
Series on Hadith Part 2 – Is Hadith Reliable?
Once the ‘hadith is the mother of sects’ argument is refuted, the selective rejecters of hadith move on to the next attack. Their second argument against Hadith is as follows:
§ Prophet (SAW) forbade the writing of Hadith so those who wrote it down did something against his orders. Hadith should never have been written in the first place.
§ Hadith was written 200 years after the death of the Prophet (SAW) and those 200 years without the presence of hadith literature were the most glorious in Islamic history. So the Muslim Ummah does not need to refer to hadith.
§ Hadith is man-made scripture. After all, it came through a chain of narrators so even though hadith cannot be denied completely, its authenticity is in question.
The problem with rejecters of hadith is that their dislike of hadith prevents them from studying it or reading about its history. This is the reason why they are not well-informed about hadith literature and how it developed over time, or even what the source of that literature was. We will talk about these issues now and answer the above arguments.
Prophet (SAW) did not forbid the writing of hadith
Initially, the Prophet (SAW) did not allow the writing of anything other than the Qur’an since Muslims had not developed enough familiarity with the Qur’anic text to be able to see the differences with other types of text. However, we find authentic reports from the Prophet (SAW) where he recommends writing hadith for future reference. This permission to write is sufficient to refute the argument that the writing of hadith was forbidden.
A member of the Ansar community complained of having a poor memory due to which he had difficulty in remembering the words of the Prophet. The Prophet (SAW) recommended that he seek help from his right hand (i.e. write it down). [Tirmidhi].
………. And one whose fellow is killed is allowed to opt between two alternatives: either he should receive blood-money or get the life of the (murderer) in return. He (the narrator said): A person from the Yemen
Ali (RA) had his own manuscript of hadith which he used to consult:
Narrated Ash-Sha’bi: Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked Ali, ‘Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the Qur’an)?’ ‘Ali replied, ‘No, except Allah’s Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).’ Abu Juhaifa said, “I asked, ‘What is (written) in this sheet of paper?’ Ali replied, it deals with the Diyya (compensation or blood money paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever). (Sahih Bukhari, Book #3, Hadith #111)
We also find that the companions of the Prophet (SAW) recommended writing hadith:
……Anas said: This hadith impressed me very much and I told my son to write it down. (Sahih Muslim, Book #001, Hadith #0052) [last sentence of hadith]
Warrad, the scribe of Mughira b. Shu’ba, reported: Mu’awiya wrote to Mughira: write to me anything which you heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). So he (Mughira) wrote to him (Mu’awiya): I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) uttering (these words) at the completion of prayer:” There is no god but Allah. He is alone and there is no partner with Him. Sovereignty belongs to Him and to Him is praise due and He is Potent over everything. O Allah! no one can withhold what Thou givest, or give what Thou withholdest, and riches cannot avail a wealthy person with Thee.” (Sahih Muslim, Book #004, Hadith #1234)
If there was such a strict prohibition on writing hadith would the companions of the Prophet (SAW), who were such pious Muslims, stand against his order (naudhubillah)?
Brief history of Hadith
We know from the above discussion that hadith manuscripts existed at the time of the Prophet (SAW) and after his death these were consulted by Muslim leaders to resolve administrative matters (see hadith above about blood money). These manuscripts then became the original sources which were gathered together by great scholars like Imam Malik, Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari, whose collections we have with us today. They did not pluck hadith reports out of thin air; they collected reliable reports from manuscripts kept by the Sahaba (RA) and the Tabi’een, and those reports which were memorised and passed on from teacher to student. The motivation of the great Imams was to preserve the Sunnah: this treasure was getting lost because people were forgetting hadith reports, or hadith was getting ‘muddied’ by those who felt no shame in creating fake reports.
Francois Deroche tells us:
“The Qur’an codex [document] underwent significant alteration around the start of the second/eighth century: the original vertical format was replaced by an oblong format. The reasons behind this modification have not been recorded in any existing documentation and thus several hypotheses have emerged: two of these theories are very similar and are not necessarily mutually exclusive. According to the first, the decision indicates the desire to clearly distinguish the Qur’an from the Christian codex and from the Jewish Torah scrolls. The second theory considers this modification to relate to the initial writing down of the hadith and the resultant desire to distinguish the book of God from all other texts.” [1]
The above historical account refers to the writing down of Hadith in the second century, which means that hadith existed at that time.
The Muwatta of Imam Malik was the first hadith compilation and it was put together around 163AH. This compilation is considered to be the most authentic amongst hadith collections and is unique in combining juristic opinion with hadith. Thus it is a crucially important text in the study of Fiqh (Islamic law). [2]
Herbert Berg cites George Schoeler, who has argued that the second generation of Muslims was the first to get concerned about gathering hadith reports, which they collected from the Sahaba (RA). ‘Urwa bin Zubayr (who died around 93AH) used to recite hadith from memory but he did have some written materials with him. [3]
So there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest that the writing down of hadith started around the end of the Prophet’s mission and certainly Sahaba (RA) kept records of Prophet’s words to consult on legal matters. The efforts became more organised with time, eventually resulting in the magnificent works of great scholarship that are with us today.
Hadith as man-made scripture….and the narrators
This particular argument against hadith is actually the weakest one.
The Arabs had a great memory. Very few Arabs at the time of the Prophet (SAW) knew how to write. Arabs were great poets but we do not find many written works from 7th century Arabia . They simply committed everything to memory.
When the Qur’an was revealed the Sahaba (RA) committed it to memory and wrote some of it down. The Qur’an was compiled at the time of Caliph Uthman (RA) but the text of the Qur’an itself was memorised and recorded by the Sahaba (RA). It is strange that the rejecters of hadith trust the Sahaba (RA) to memorise the Qur’an and preserve it but the same individuals (transmitters) cannot be trusted for hadith reports!
The rejecters do point out that Allah has promised to save the Qur’an for all eternity. This is a valid point but we need to remember that our reliance on this promise is simply a matter of faith. Why is it that, when it comes to the words of the Prophet (SAW) which were uttered from the same blessed tongue and were memorised by the same companions, they do not exercise this faith?
Allah tells us in the Qur’an that the Prophet (SAW) forbids Al-Munkar (evil) and allows what is At-Tayyib (good and pure). So the Prophet (SAW) explains Allah’s laws: these explanations have been stored as hadith by the best followers of Islam, i.e. the Sahaba (RA) and the Tabi’een. Eventually, the great scholars spent their lifetimes recording these explanations. This last point has a direct implication for the concept of obedience to the Prophet (SAW) which is fard on a Muslim; we will write about that later in this series.
We will inshAllah look into the nature of hadith literature next.
Notes
[1] Deroche, Francois. 2009. Written Transmission. In: A. Rippin, ed. The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an. West Sussex : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 176.
[3] Berg, Herbert. 2009. Context: Muhammad. In: A. Rippin, ed. The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’an. West Sussex : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 197.
--
Tasting death?
One of our readers is arguing that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) only ‘tasted death’ and did not really die. This is a common belief amongst those who call themselves the Ahl us Sunnah wal jamaat so it is important to address it as a blog post. The full comment is here and is also copied below:
Qur’an States:
Allah puts forth a Parable a man belonging to many partners at variance with each other, and a man belonging entirely to one master: are those two equal in comparison? Praise be to Allah. but most of them have no knowledge. [az-Zumar 39:29]
Truly thou wilt die (one day), and truly they (too) will die (one day). [az-Zumar 39:30]
As mentioned in (Verse number 29) the condition of two persons to be different, similarly the death of Prophet is not same like other deaths. There is great difference between the conditions and the levels of both. This example was given because of this reason that equality to the respect of Prophet (Shan-e-Nabuwah) should be condemned completely.
It is said that Ahlus-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah actually believes that the Prophet Muhammad did not die!! What a gross accusation!! The true belief of the Ahlus-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah is that the Prophet, did indeed “TASTE” death, but then he is made alive in his grave. (Note: All the proofs misused by certain people do prove that prophets including Huzoor had tasted death. We do believe in all those verses and Ahadith, so there is no two opinions about that point but the point to be discussed here is not the occurrence of death but the true concept of the death of a Prophet) It is in the grave that the Prophet Muhammad is presented with our deeds, and makes supplication on behalf of the Ummah. There are also instances where the Prophet will appear in our dreams and comfort us with good news and glad tidings. We also believe that to send salaam (salutations) to our Prophet is directly recieved by him and that It will be met with a reply.
Qur’an States:
And say not of those who are slain (martyred) in the way of Allah, “they are dead”, nay, they are living, though you perceive it not” [Surah al-Baqarah, 154]
Of course, it goes without saying that the position of the Prophets (عليه السلام) is above and beyond the status of those who are martyred in Allah’s way. This proves that he is alive too.
Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (Allah have mercy on him) states in his monumental commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari i.e. Fath al-Bari: “When the living of the martyrs is proven from the text of the Qur’an, then this is also proven from a analogical point of view. And the Prophets are superior then the martyrs” [Fath al-Bari, Volume 006: Page No. 379]
Qadhi Shawkawni writes: “In the Qur’an it is mentioned that martyrs are alive and food is provided for them. The Prophets and righteous people are a lot higher in status than them so what will be their place? It has been proven through Ahadith that Prophets are alive in their graves. Both Imam at-Tirmidhi and Imam al-Bayhaqi have said that these are authentic Ahadith” [Nayl al-Awtar, Volume 003, Page No. 82]
This is our reply.
Dear brother Mubashir,
Assalam o alaikum
You said that the condition of two persons ‘who die’ is different, yet you are bringing verses on two completely separate issues. Az-Zumar 39:29 is about a man answering to more than one master (and the conflict that will cause) and the next verse is about death. How can you use the two to prove that Muhammad’s (SAW) death was different from that of another person? Is this honest scholarship?
The Ahl us Sunnah’s aqeedah of ‘tasting’ death is proven from nowhere except their scholars. Abu Bakr (RA) said at the time of the Prophet’s (SAW) death:
Abu Bakr said, “Amma ba’du, whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, then muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, Allah is alive and will never die. Allah said: ‘Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed (many) Apostles have passed away before him ..(up to the) grateful.’ ” (3.144) (The narrator added, “By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and then whoever heard it, started reciting it “) [excerpt] (Sahih Bukhari, Book #23, Hadith #333)
If Prophet had only ‘tasted death’ and was going to become alive again, then why were the Sahaba (RA) stricken with grief? Why did Umar’s (RA) knees buckle with the shock of it?
Abu Bakr said, “To proceed, if anyone amongst you used to worship Muhammad , then muhammad is dead, but if (anyone of) you used to worship Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die. Allah said:–”Muhammad is no more than an Apostle, and indeed (many) apostles have passed away before him..(till the end of the Verse )……Allah will reward to those who are thankful.” (3.144) By Allah, it was as if the people never knew that Allah had revealed this Verse before till Abu Bakr recited it and all the people received it from him, and I heard everybody reciting it (then). Narrated Az-Zuhri: Said bin Al-Musaiyab told me that <strong>’Umar said, “By Allah, when I heard Abu Bakr reciting it, my legs could not support me and I fell down</strong> at the very moment of hearing him reciting it, declaring that the Prophet had died.” [excerpt] (Sahih Bukhari, Book #59, Hadith #733)
Abu Bakr (RA) recited Qur’an 3:144
Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.
So if your alim says Prophet (SAW) didn’t die, then he is a worshipper of Muhammad (SAW) and not Allah. Your alim has turned back on his heels. Your alim forgets that: ‘Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), Al-Hayyul-Qayyum (the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists). [first portion of Ayat al Kursi, 2:255]‘
For your alims, Muhammad (SAW) is Al-Hayyul-Qayyum but according to the Qur’an, the true word of Allah, only Allah is Al-Hayyul-Qayyum.
As for Shawkawni, he should also have mentioned the full verse:
Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision. (Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #169)
See above the phrase ‘with their Lord they have provision’ ['aainda rabbihim yurzaqoona]. As the status of prophets is higher than martyrs, they too are with Allah in Jannah and it in Jannah that they find their provision. But your alim wants to consign them to a grave for his own convenience, so he can use them for waseela. All alims who do this should be ashamed of themselves, that they take Allah’s great messengers from their elevated places in Jannah (as Allah tells us in the Qur’an) and tries to put them in graves in this wretched world. Your alim insults Allah, the Greatest of Helpers, who can listen to all duas directly. The Mushrikeen of Makkah committed the same shirk of waseela.
You can now open the Qur’an and Sahih Hadith and read it with the aim to do tehqeeq (research) to find out what Allah tells us about the beliefs of a Muslim, or you can read views of your alims without questioning them and then spread their teachings far and wide. It is up to you. As for ‘dead in graves’ have a look through this article.
We realise that you don’t like our views very much, but you need to understand that in matters of aqeedah, we don’t give our views. We only quote what is written in the Qur’an and Sahih Hadith.
--
Sufism is an omelette
I was trying to think of a metaphor for Sufism, one that would give some detail about the thing itself and the process with which it came about. And the most appropriate metaphor seemed to be an omelette.
Let me explain.
An omelette is a dish made from beaten eggs, so eggs are the essential ingredient or the ‘foundation’ on which the final dish is based. The type of omelette simply depends on what we throw into the eggs. Add in mushrooms, cheese and ham and the omelette becomes French. Add in potatoes, onions and cheese and it becomes a Spanish or Italian frittata. Cook the eggs in sautéed onions, chillies and coriander and they turn into the Pakistani anda pyaz. But in essence, the dish is an omelette. It is versatile and flexible to the influence of culture on taste buds.
Mysticism has existed for thousands of years. In ancient Greek temples nearly 4000 years ago, young students attended initiation ceremonies to enter the ‘mystikos’ or the religion of silence and mystery. Mysticism was, and is, the religion of seeking divinity or becoming one with the divine (what Sufis call fina fillah or losing yourself in Allah). Mysticism has always held a great appeal for the human intellect. It promises purity of the soul and freedom from sin. It promises that the hidden knowledge of the Universe will become apparent to those who purify themselves by maintaining strong self-discipline. It offers noble spirituality and tempts with the possibility of sharing in divine powers. In short, it is about personal glory.
If we take a look at the history of this religion, we can see it picking up local and exotic ingredients. In Buddhism and Hinduism, it took the form of Nirvana, attained by giving up all worldly temptations, becoming vegetarian, spending time in meditation and adhering to the philosophy of non-violence. When the omelette took in Judaic influences it become Kabbalah, in which all creation unfolds from Divine reality and some of these divine emanations are accessible to human thought. (This of course is very close to the idea of Wahdat ul Wujood in Sufism, summarised here). When the mystical religion borrowed ideas and terminology from Islam, it turned into Sufism.
Sufism can be traced back to the 1st century AH [1]. Famous Sufis include Mansoor Al-Hallaj, who cried ‘Ana ul Haq’ [2] and was imprisoned and executed for this. The Sufis lament that the ‘uninitiated’ could not understand what he meant. It is also claimed about some Sufis that they could walk on water, could travel to Makkah in the blink of an eye and had knowledge of the Unseen. Shah Wali Ullah met Prophet Muhammad (SAW) when Shah was on his deathbed and apparently the Prophet told him he did not have to worry about his young children [3]. And so the stories go.
Mysticism does not need a specific religion to reach its aims. It is the egg base and it can pick up a variety of flavours: this is what is so clever about mysticism. Thus, the Sufi omelette is created by adding Islamic terms and ideas into Hindu and Buddhist mysticism. Allah replaces Brahman and Irfan replaces Nirvana. The Sufi holds a rosary and grows a beard and says the salaat (if the sheikh allows), the monk shaves his head and lives in a monastery and the sadhu blackens his body with ash and takes to a life of begging.
Unfortunately, Islam never came to South Asia , Sufis did. They brought mysticism dressed up as Islam and the local population liked it very much because it incorporated almost all of their local customs and beliefs. It is due to the influence of Sufism that grave worship is so common in this region and also why the landscape is dominated with shrines. It is also due to this reason that personality-worship is deeply entrenched in the hearts of the people. Saints are viewed as divine, they are thought to have special connections with Allah and their ‘saintliness’ is never questioned. The sons of saints are saints (hereditary transfer of sainthood) and many Pakistani politicians are ‘heir to thrones’ at famous shrines (yes readers, please do make the link between religion and power). These saints are begged and beseeched to bless the enquirer with children, to lift misery and illness. Sufism is a religion that has created many gods for those who call themselves Muslims and recite the Shahadah every day.
The religion of Sufism has nothing to do with Islam. It promises divinity through union with Allah (nauzubillah). But Islam tells us that man is but a slave of Allah, that there is none like Allah and none can have His attributes and powers. Instead of stemming the tide of Sufism, Sunnism and Shi’ism have helped its cause by providing the incorrect reasoning that the dead become alive in their graves. And so, Sufism’s tentacles reach all Sunni and Shia sects.
But we have to recognise Sufism for what it is: a religion that glorifies Shirk. Sufism is nothing more than the South Asian flavour of the mystical omelette.
Assalam o alaikum
Endnotes:
[1]The first century Hijri. In other words, immediately after the time of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). And why should this come as a surprise when mysticism predates Islam by two thousand years!
[2] Translated as ‘I am The Truth’.
[3] Ashraf Ali Thanvi quotes this in his compilation called Hikayat e Auliya, page 28.
--
Sufism (a.k.a. Tasawwuf or Islamic Mysticism)
Perhaps the most glamorous, modern and fashionable creed to follow these days is Sufism or Tasawwuf: the only religion in the world which guarantees divinity for the believer, provided he has the good fortune of finding the most accomplished Sheikh, who has not only claimed but proven his own divinity to the masses. Sufism holds tremendous appeal for the youth, as well as for seasoned old intellectuals. That is the reason why most famous writers, poets and journalists in Pakistan
The most admirable and splendid accomplishments of Sufism are:
§ Its success in identifying itself with Islam: Sufism is globally defined as a doctrine within Islam. It is called “Islamic mysticism.” In actuality, Sufism is a religion in itself and has nothing in common with Islam. Islam is the religion of submission to Allah’s Will: it is deen-e-bandagi. Sufism is the religion of becoming one with Allah Himself and sharing in His divinity: it is deen-e-khudai. While Islam abhors Shirk and calls it Zulm-e-Azeem, Sufism glorifies Shirk and calls it true accomplishment. While Islam denounces paganism, Sufism borrows from ancient pagan philosophies and creates a new set of beliefs by mixing in some Islamic elements.
§ The other stroke of brilliance is the institutionalisation of the “Wali-hood of a Sufi”: The son of a wali is also a wali. Therefore, the state of being a Wali is a genetically transferable trait and helps in the deification of the entire family lineage. That is why we find the family pedigrees called Chishtia, Naqshbandia, Mujaddadia, Junaidia, Rizwia, Qadria, Ashrafia and Suharwardia etc. with their respective Gaddi-nasheens, who will forever rule the hearts of the peasantry and polity in Pakistan
Lets look at the basic tenets of this religion of the much-revered mystics, ascetics and sheikhs.
“There is a linguistic connection between the three words ‘myth’, ‘mysticism’ and ‘mystery.’ All are derived from the Greek verb musteion: to close the eyes or the mouth. All three words, therefore, are rooted in an experience of darkness and silence.”[1]
It is important to note that Allah’s prophets had declared war on ancient pagan mythology. But when monotheists turned to mysticism, mythology reasserted itself as the chief vehicle of religious experience.[2] The basic premise of Sufism (which is said to be Islamic mysticism) uses the same logic, as did ancient pagans of Babylon
Since our aim is to provide only the basics of Sufism, we will not go into much detail. While Islam tells a Muslim to use only the Quran, Sahih Hadith and Ijma-e-Sahaba as sources of knowledge, Sufism believes in “Tareeqat”, which basically nullifies Shariat, the basics of Emaan and Aqeeda, and emphasises blind following of the commands of the Sheikh/mentor. It is important to mention the “Trinity” of Sufism, which comprises the official doctrine of this religion:
i. Hulool
The concept of hulool says that if a person reaches the ultimate purity of Nafs (id) and Ruh (soul), he elevates himself so much that Allah steps down from his divine throne and merges Himself with that person. This belief is common among Hindus, who believe certain holy men to be avatars (different manifestations) of God on this earth. Some of their idols also qualify as avatars. A Munafiq Jew, Abdullah bin Sabah, during the caliphate of Usman (RA), spread this belief that Ali (RA) is God Incarnate and made of Noor. Abdullah bin Sabah thus invented this philosophy of hulool. (That is, Ali (RA) had reached divinity because of his piety, which prompted Allah to merge Himself with Ali (RA). Allah forbid!). Although Ali (RA) had Abdullah bin Sabah killed by throwing him into fire, this belief found popularity and kept spreading. One of the first to adopt this belief among Sufis was Mansoor Al-Hallaj, who screamed “Ana-ul-Haq” (I’m the Truth!) and was executed for this blasphemy by the caliph in Baghdad
Since we are thankfully part of the uninitiated lot, we also consider Al-Hallaj to be too confident of his own glory. His claim was an obvious manifestation of how dangerous this philosophy is in leading a person towards outright Shirk.
ii. Wahdat-ul-Wujood
This is the second point in the trinity of Sufism. This theory borrows directly from Buddhism and Hinduism and claims that all things in the universe are actually God: only God exists in reality, and all objects in the universe, alive or inanimate, are manifestations of the Creator Himself. What our senses perceive is actually an illusion created by the mind. The truth of existence is that everything is an avatar of God and therefore, there is no difference between the Creator and Creation. This theory actually denies the separate existence of God, which amounts to Shirk by Negation. As there is no difference between a bird and a stone, a kafir and a Muslim, the devil or the jinn, custard pudding or excrement, so even the worship of an idol can lead a person to God; the idol itself contains the essence of God, as everything is God. It is wahdat-ul-wajood then, that makes Sufism so tolerant of other religions and advocates the philosophy of all religions being equally correct. It does not matter whether a person is a practicing Jew or a Hindu, as long as he finds the right mentor (sheikh) who will guide him to Allah. From the viewpoint of Sufism then, worship in a temple, in a church or in a mosque holds the same value for God. The fact that the Quran stated 14 centuries ago that only MUSLIMS would be admitted to heaven has no importance whatsoever. This particular theory was invented and taught by famous Sufi, Ibn-e-Arabi, who is known as Sheikh-ul-Akbar.
iii. Wahdat-ul-Shuhood
This is the theory of “Fana-fe-Allah” (losing one’s self in God). Just like Hulool, in which Allah descends from His divine throne and becomes one with a person of ultimate purity of Nafs and Soul, Wahdat- ul-Shuhood means that the pious person rises up from his being and blends with Allah Almighty. This theory was practiced and preached by revered “saints” such as Ali Hajveri, Abdul Qadir Jilani etc.
One can find hundreds of points of contention between Sufism and Islam. While Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) advocated in his Hajj-a-tul-Wida address that all humans are equal in the eyes of Allah and that only God-consciousness (Taqwa) elevates a person above other humans, Sufism divides people into categories:
§ Ordinary humans
§ Aulia Allah (further sub-divided into 12 categories, with their numbers remaining constant within each category. For instance, there are only 40 Abdaals in the world; 12 or 22 in Syria , and 18 or 28 in Iraq
§ Nabi
§ Rasool
§ Sheikh
§ Sheikh’s Protégé (Mureed)
Some Sufis have claimed that the status of a “wali” is lower than that of a “Rasool” and higher than that of a “Nabi”. If a person were to study the “accomplishments” of different Aulia/Sufis/Saints, he would discover an uncanny similarity regarding the miracles given to different prophets and the feats performed by these saints. Despite the fact that Allah has informed us that prophethood (and consquently, ability to perform miracles) came to an end with the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), many saints have laid claim to continuity of miracles through the spirit/noor of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). However, in order to deflect strong criticism, they have resorted to different terminology: While a prophet performs a miracle by raising a dead person (a miracle given to Jesus (AS)), a wali performs a karamat when he lays claim to the ability of raising people from the dead. Where as a prophet receives a revelation from Allah, a wali experiences ilhaam, that is, an idea implanted in his heart by Allah. Just as Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) experienced temporary death, as claimed by these people, and is now alive in his grave, these saints too are still alive and are involved in conducting the affairs of this universe as well as interceding with Allah on behalf of their followers. These dead saints are now considered “parda-posh”, that is, they are hidden from the eyes of ordinary living humans.
According to the rules of Tareeqat, the Mureed cannot move an inch without the prior consent of the Sheikh. He is also to discontinue his salat if the Sheikh calls for him, as this is considered better (afzal) than completing the salat. To be a Mureed, it is important to follow the Sheikh without question or doubt, even if the sheikh orders the Mureed to do something against Shariat.
Can Sufism then be considered a mere variant of Islam? Can variant doctrines mutually co-exist within Islam? Can different or contradictory doctrines proliferate symbiotically within Islam?
[1] John Macquarrie, Thinking About God (London
[2] Karen Armstrong, A History of God, p. 244.
[3] For further study on this interesting topic, please refer to Maulana Shah Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Shariat-o-Tareeqat, Chapter 9, pg. 337.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment