MuhammedAli

Members
  • Content count

    1,288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by MuhammedAli

  1. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (alayhi rahma) kay wasteh Sayyidi ba-mana Shareef ba-mana Ahli Bayt Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) say nahin, aur nah hi Sayyidi is mana mein istimal keeya jata heh ... Syed/Sayyid Ala Hadhrat ko un kay buland martba ki waja say kaha jata heh ... yehni laqab heh .. nasab nahin. Raha Abu Talib us nay jo kuch keeya woh keeya magr mara Kafir aur us nay joh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ki khidmat ki us ka sila jahhanum mein yeh pahay ga kay jahannum ki sab say nichli jaga say nikaal kar Abu Talib ko sab say kam darja wali aag mein dala jahay ga ... us ko us ki khidmat ka yeh sila mila heh aur millay ga. Original Syed Abu Talib kesay huwa? Sayyid toh Imam Hassan (radiallah ta'ala anhu) ko RasoolAllah nay farmaya thah ... yeh mera beta Sayyidi heh jab meri ummat mein khoon bahay ga ... wali Hadith mein ... Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) ka baap thah toh Sayyid ho gaya ... phir Abu Jahl bi toh kuch lagta thah nah ... woh bi ... ORIGINAL SYED ... jannatiyoon ka sardar ho gaya ... Islam mein Nasab shasab Kufr par khatam heh ... jistera ORIGINAL SAYYID ABU JAHL CHACHA HO KAR DOZAKHI HEH IS'SEE TERA TUMARA ORIGINAL SAYYID ABU TALIB KAFIR/MUSHRIK AUR DA'IMI DOZAKHI JANNANUMI HEH ... keun kay Nasab Kufr say munqata ho jata heh ... Hazrat Ali nay Abu Talib say kuch bi warseh mein hasil nahin keeya keun kay woh Musalman thay aur Abu Talib Kafir mara ... Musalman Kaffir say warsa nahin leh sakta ... sirf Aqeel/Jafr nay hasil keeya thah joh us waqt Mushrik thay apnay baap Abu Talib ki tara ... Is kay ilawah Abu Talib ko dawat e Islam khud RasoolAllah nay deeh magr us nay qubul nah ki aur mardood Mushrik mar gaya ... Wesay Syed honay ka business mein bi khol loon agar Allah ka khauf nah hota ... kafi pesay hen Syed buisiness mein ... beth kar khoob kehta Syed hoon ... phir kia thah nazranoon ki line hoti ... sab pesoon ki khatir Syed naam ki neelami hoti heh ... Syed laga loh, aur Hazrat Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) kay baap, baap kay peshab kay fazail ... us payshab ki bad-boo ko jannat ki kushboo say mila doh, us peshab ko jannat kay heeroon kay mila doh ... Ali (radiallah ta'ala anhu) ka kuch bi ho ... bas ulti seedhi bak jaho ... logh hubb e Ahle Bayt aur fazail e ahle bayt naam deh kar khoob nazranay denh gay ... tum idhar larro nahin ... jaho Hazrat Ali (radiallahta'ala anhu) kay peshab kay fazail bayan karo ... aur apnay aap ko sab say bara muhib e ahle bayt mashoor karo ... aur kasmeh doh kay peshab ka taste jannat kay honey say ziyada lazeez heh ... phir ahahaha kia tum muhab e ahle bayt mashoor hogay ... market mein ho chawal baazi laho joh shiyoon nay pehlay nah mari ho ... MARKET RESEARCH BI KARNA ... jaho ...
  2. https://www. islamimehfil .com/topic/10714-%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D9%86%DB%92-%D8%A7%DB%8C%DA%A9-%DA%BE%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88-%DA%A9%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84-%DA%A9%DB%81%D8%A7%DB%94-%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A8-%DA%86%D8%A7%DB%81%DB%8C%DB%92/ link mein gap chora heh ... browser mein copy paste kar lenh.
  3. Allamah Saeed Ahmad Assad Sahib, aur Allama Asif Jalali Sahib, kay darmiyan ... MUNAZARA ... ka drama shoroon heh. Aur mazay ki baat yeh heh kay DONOON PARTIYOON KAY NAZRIAT BILQUL AIK DOSRAY JAISAY HEN SIRF ILFAAZ KA FARQ HEH. Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib ki Video time, 9:35, ko sunneh, aur phir poori aur ba-ghor say sunneh : Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib ki Video ka 23:10 say agay ka bayan sunneh:
  4. Kitaboon mein para heh kay Daif Hadith agar kasrat say rawayat ho toh darja Hassan paah leti heh. Jin Imamoon nay yeh asool mana aur naqal keeya heh Imam Bayhaqi, Imam Hakim, Imam Ibn Hajr, jitnay bi jayyid aur puranay zamanay kay ulamah un ki kutub kay referrence darkar hen. JazakAllah, khayr.
  5. Mein kissi bi party ka banda nahin hoon, mein Sunniat ka banda hoon, party baazi ko kab ka chor deeya. Mein nay joh tanqeed ki woh party baazi mein nahin Sunniat kay faida nuqsan ki waja say ki. Yeh donoon hastiyan Ilm mein aur taqwa mein laakh darja muj say bari aur agay hen. Magr joh kuch yeh donoon kar rahay hen bilkul ghalat heh.
  6. Aur agar mein YouTube par charh kar Shirk, Mushrik, banahoon aur munazra challenge, doon aur kitaboon ka dehr laga kar betha hoon, aur tanz karoon, aur Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib kay baja-hay ... tum nay Shirk keeya ... in ki kia izzat rehti ... Halan kay jis maslay ki taraf mein nay ungli uthahi heh ... yeh sirf Ahle Sunnat say Kharij nahin ... Islam say kharij karta heh ... aur agar Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib muj say likha hukum Kufr/Shirk mangen toh mein likh kar denay ko tiyar hoon ... yeh aisa qatti aur yaqeeni Kufr/Shirk heh. Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib nay us maslay par Allamah Saeed Assad ka adab ihtiram chor deeya jis par woh khud bi yeh Fatwah denay par tiyar nahin kay Allamah Sahib Ahle Sunnat say kharij hen. Joh ikhtilaf nah Ahle Sunnat say kharij karay, aur nah Islam say, us par aik jayyid Aalim ki khata Ijtihadi ki waja say ... tum ... tum ... ho rahi heh. Kuch toh aisay bey-lagam kuttay sabat huway joh Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib ko ghaali deh rahay hen youtube kay comment section par. Jistera Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib say ghalti huwi is'see tera Allamah Asif Jalali sahib say, balkay in ki ghalti ba-darja hazaar gunna bari heh, abh kia mein peechay parh jahoon. Mahaz bana loon ... ghaltiyan insaan karta heh ... Sahabah kiram mein shadeed ikhtilaf huwa ... peechay parh jahen sab kay ... Joh Ahle Sunnat wasteh khidmat Allamah Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) aur joh Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib ki hen Allamah Asif Jalali aur nah in kay hawariyoon aur ustadoon mein kar sakka aur nah kar sakkay ga. Cha-yeh toh yeh thah kay in ki adab aur muhabbat say Islah ki jaati aur woh bi awaam samnay stage show laga kar nahin balkay jayyidi Ulamah ki majlis munaqqid ki jaati aur Allamah Sahib ko bulaya jata ya Ulamah khud haazir hotay aur parday mein sawal jawab aur ashkalat ka jawab detay aur letay. Aur teh kar letay kay joh faisla jayyid Ulamah denh gay us ko donoon partiyan qubul keren gi aur ainda us kay mutabiq amal hoga. Phir chance banta thah kay yeh masla hal jo jahay abh donoon ki pagriyoon parh awaam ka haath heh ... jis nay bi zarra si bi lachak dekhahi ya peechay hata toh awaam mein pagri uchalay gi nahin ... balkay pagri ko football kee tara latenh paren gi. Is waja say abh is nay hal nahin hona aur fasad nay bar jana heh. Pehlay jis maslay ko aik Allamah Saeed Assad bayan kartay thay is kay baad un kay supporteroon ki poori fauj bayan karay gi. Joh aik banday taq aur chand hawariyoon taq mehdood thah abh hazaroon aur lakhoon mein pehla heh aur yeh aur pehlay ga. Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib toh apni Allamah'iat ko chamka lenh gay ... aur wah wah ... munazr e Islam ... munazir e kull ... munazir e bey-misaal o lajawab ... qatil e imam ul-munazreen ... kay ilqab ko hasil ker lenh gay ... magr un ilqab ka kia faida ... joh hazaroon, lakhoon mein pehalwa kar hasil hoon. Abh is stage drama say lakhoon Sunniyoon Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib kay new ideas ka pata challay ga ... kuch maanh lenh gay aur kuch nahin ... agar un hazaroon lakhoon mein say das nay bi maan leeya toh Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib ko kia faida ... ilqabat ko kama kar ... hazaroon kay nazriyat ko dau par laga deeya aur Ahle Sunnat kay asli nazria say door karwa deeya. Mujjay bara dukh heh kay Allamah Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) aur Allamah Saeed Ahmad Assad sahib nay is masla par Maslak Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) say door hen. Mein nay Sunni'at seekhi toh Allamah Saeed Assad kay bayanaat aur munazaroon say seeki. Aur mera dill say lagao inneeh kay saath heh magr Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib aur in kay ustad e moteram Allamah Ashraf Sialvi Sahib (rahimullah) ghalti par hen. Behtr hota yeh masla tareekeh say hal ho jata magr abh joh chawal baazian ho rahi hen fasad hi pehlay ga jis ka nuqsan sirf Ahle Sunnat ko heh. Kash jitna is maslay par josh jazba aur bayanaat aur taqreeren ho rahi hen aur munazroon kay challenge urh rahay hen ... agar yeh sab mil kar Deobandiyoon aur Wahhabiyoon kay khilaaf hota ... magr udhar maut heh.
  7. Salam alaikum, Mushtaq bhai, lafz azal mein nay istimal keeya heh ... Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib nay ilfaz ... HAMESHA SAY NABI HEN ... Video recording 23:15 say agay sun lenh ... Arabi ibarat kay baad tarjuma kartay hen. Is mein aap Taweel ki kunjaish nikaal kar bataden. Hamesha mana da'im, nit, sada, qadeem mein mustamil hota heh. Allamah Sahib ka aqeedah agar is kay zahir par heh toh phir jaisay wazahat kar chuka yeh Shirk heh. Magr mein janta hoon kay asal Arabi ibarat mein lafz azal istimal huwa heh joh hamesha kay ham mana mein bi istimal hota heh aur azal mana intiha-hi lamba arsa joh shumaar mein ana mushkil ho is mana mein bi azal Arabi mein istimal hota heh. Asal ibarat mein mana azal is aakhiri mana mein istimal huwa jis waja say Arabi ibarat walay par kuch ihtiraz nahin. Allamah Sahib nay tarjumein mein khata kar deeh baat itni si heh. Magr joh nuqta mein pehlay bayan kar aya hoon us khata par 100% jaiz heh. Aur mein bi janta hoon kay Allamah Sahib ka yeh nazria har giz nahin kay RasoolAllah hamesha say Allah kay saath thay aur hamesha say Nabi thay. Allamah Sahib ka nazria wohi heh joh mera, joh aap ka, aur joh tamam Sunniyoon ka heh. Is leyeh Allamah Sahib par hukm Kufr/Shirk nahin lagta keun kay woh aqeedah nahin. Sirf ilfaaz kay chun-neh mein ghalti huwi. Mera asal maqsid is ko point out karnay ka yeh thah kay YOUTUBE PAR VIDEO CHARH KAR, aur woh bi kitaboon kay dehr laga kar kissi ki ISLAH NAHIN KEE JAATI. Agar mein ... KITABOON KA DEHR LAGA KAR ALLAMAH SAHIB KO TAWHEED KA LECTURE DOON ... Aqalmand logh kia tasur lenh gay? Yahi nah kay yeh kitaboon ka anbar dekha kar apni ilmi mutalia say dara raha heh? Istera video charh kar agar mein kahoon kay mein Islah kay wasteh khaloos e dill say yeh qadam utha raha hoon toh kohi aqal wala maneh ga. Janab izzat sab ko piyari heh ... deen Islam say bi logoon ko izzat piyari heh ... jin kay namoon kay saath SHAYKH UL ISLAM, Munazr e Islam, Imam ul-Munazireen, Professor, Shaykh ul-Hadith, Allamah, Pir, Pir e Qull, un logoon nay kabi bi ghalti tasleem nahin karni. Keun kay phir apnoon mein MOONH KALA KAR KAY GADDAY KAY UPPAR BATHA KAR ZALEEL HO JAHEN GAY ... Agar is maslay nay hal hona thah toh tareeqa aur saleeqa say ho jata ... Abh joh kanjoroon kay tarz par stage drama shoroon huwa heh ... is ka hal toh door qatal aam ka chance ziyada heh. Aur meri toh dua heh Allah ta'ala in donoon hastiyoon aur in kay hawariyoon ko aik hi bomb say ura deh, ameen. Ta-keh yeh Ahle Sunnat mein tafarrqa ko faroogh nah dekh sakken. Abh bil-farz Jibaraeel farishtoon ki fauj leh kar Faisalabad Jamia masjid kay uppar charh kar Allamah Saeed Assad kay moqif ki tardeed kar deh tab bi Allamah Sahib nay nahin manna. Asal maqsid sirf Islah karna aur karwana hoti toh phir, Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib challenge nah detay, aur Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib qubul nah kartay, yeh sirf apnay mureedoon aur shagirdoon ko pakka karnay ka sab drama heh. Mureed aur Shagird ... aahaha Allamah Sahib nay challenge mara heh ... mera Peer ilm ka samundar heh ... ahaha kia dialouge mara heh ... wah, wah, wah, kia baat heh, ... dartay hen Allamah Sahib say challenge kar leeya ... subhanallah brigade ko kush karnay wasteh yeh fasad dala heh in donoon nay. Agar islah karna aur karwani maqsood hoti toh YOUTUBE PAR CHALLENGE ... detay nah aur QUBUL KARTAY NAH. Yeh sirf fasad wasteh aur mureedon shagirdoon ko kush karnay wasteh stage show chala heh. Mera asal maqsid Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib ki khata ko point karnay ka yeh thah kay agar mein YOUTUBE PAR FATWAH SHIRK ... lagahoon ... toh kuch haal hota ya hoga ... batanay ka maqsid yeh thah kay yeh tariqa durust nahin ... keun kay nah Allamah Asif Jalali ki izzat heh is mein aur nah Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib ki.
  8. Sifaat Zaat say mutasif hoti hen. Joh zaat azal say nahin us ki kohi sift bi azal say nahin. Aur agar kissi sift/khoobi ko azal say kissi zaat say mutasif mana jahay toh phir zaat ka azal say hona lazam huwa. Makhlooq ki zaat/sifaat ko azal say manna Shirk heh. Aap kissi Mufti say rabta kar kay pooch lenh. Kissi aur ko kia zehmat denh gay aap Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib say hi pooch lenh. Poochen: "Bandeh mein ko aur us ki kissi khoobi/sift azal say manay jahay toh Shirk lazam huwa ya nahin?" Yeh jawab hasil kar lenh toh phir RasoolAllah ka azal say Nabi honay ka poochyeh ga yeh Shirk heh ya nahin. Agar inqaar keeya toh phir Taweel keren gay keh Azal ka haqiqi mana murad nahin balkay ... aur hukm shirk haqiqi manay parh banta heh ... taweel azal ki yeh hogi Adam alayhis salam kay jism shareef kay takhleeq say pehlay aur Nooraniat say Nabi honay ... par itlaq azal keeya heh.
  9. Azli Abadi Dayimi ilm sirf Allah ka heh ... al-Dawlat ul-Makkiyah parh dekh lenh. http://marfah.com/BookDetailPage.aspx?bookId=7ca5b382-9d4f-40ac-bf4b-54c2a693e098
  10. Lamba kissa mukhtasar ... donoon partiyan Nabi Adam alayhis salam kay pehlay zamanay say leh kar pedaish taq, aur pedaish say ilaan e nabuwat taq, aur ilaan say dunya say parda poshi taq, aur parda poshi say aaj taq donoon partiyan Nabi manti hen ... YEH FASAD TOH KHATAM HUWA ... Joh asal masla peechey reh gaya heh woh yeh heh kay kia Nabi e kareem (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) Nabiyoon kay Nabi aur un ki ummatoon kay Nabi thay ya nahin ... yeh asal ikhtilaf heh ... Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib Taweel kartay hen kay Nabi honay ka hukm jaari huwa thah ... misaal tor par jistera police walay ko police wala bana deeya jata heh magr us ka mansub taq shoroon hota heh jab woh apni job shoroon karta heh ... istera kay maneh mein Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib Nabi mantay hen ... yehni mansub e Nabuwat ata thah magar ilaan e nabuwat bad mansub par amal shoroon huwa ... in kay bar khilaaf nazria yeh heh kay aap sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam tamam Nabiyoon kay Nabi thay, yehni tamam Nabi aur un ki ummaten aap kay Ummati hen, aur qayamat taq tamam makhlooq kay Nabi hen is leyeh hasil yeh huwa kay sab Nabiyoon ko Nabuwat aap say milli ...
  11. Joh asal ikhtilaaf heh woh yeh heh kay kia Nabi e kareem tamam Nabiyoon kay Nabi aur tamam Ummatoon kay Nabi hen ya nahin ... is par arz heh kay Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib, Sayyidi Ala Hazrat (rahimullah) kay maslak say door hen, aur in kay khilaaf joh mowaqif Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib ka heh darust heh ... Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib aur in kay ustad e moteram Allamah Ashraf Sialvi (rahimullah) ko pata nahin kiss pagal kuttay nay kata heh kay Jammat kay nazria say door ho gay hen. Yeh Maulvi Sahib hen ... inoon nay sab Sunniyoon ... bilkhasoos jin ka kibla e ilm Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat hen ... un wasteh masla ki wazahat kar deeh ... mahir bani kar kay complete video sunneh.
  12. Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib kay AZLI NABI walay qawl ko aap nay sun leeya ... abh yeh sunneh ... jin mein janab khud apnay hi qawl kay khilaaf baat kar rahay hen. Aik jaga Nabuwat azal say thee abh agay walay mein Adam alayhis salam say qayamat taq: Mein nay Mushrik bana-neh ka cruise missile Allamah Sahib ko nahin marna is waja say in ka asli nazria idhar pesh kar deeya. Pehlay toh mera dil aya thah kay mein bi YOUTUBE par char jahoon aur MUNAZRA KA CHALLENGE doon ... tum sabat karo azal say Nabi thay ... mein sabat karoon ga tum mushrik ho ... phir kia heh ... Allamah, Munazra e Islam, Professor, Imam e Tawheed, waghayra kay alqab meray naam saath lagtay aur mein bi ... kitaboon kay dehr mein beth kar challenge karta ... kia in ki izat rehti aur kia meri banti ... nah yeh toba kartay aur nah mein mushrik mushrik karnay say baaz ata ... fatwah par fatwa lagata aur MUFTIYAN E KIRAM SAY LAGWATA BI ... phir kia mein jistera cha'wal Fazal Ahmad Chishti Imam e Ghayrat bana heh ... mein Imam e Tawheed ban jata ... Magr Allah ka Shukr, Allah ka karam, kay Ahle Sunnat ka mukhlis banaya aur khidmat karnay ki tofeeq deeh aur aqal e saleem deeh. Sirf apni jhooti izzat aur mashorgi wasteh yeh sab fasaad daal huwa heh inoon nay.
  13. Aik aur baat, Allamah Asfi Jalali Sahib ka nazria RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ka azal say Nabi honay ka nazria ... shirkia ... heh. Tawheed seminar karnay walay ko yeh bi abhi taq samaj nahin. Azal say sirf Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) ki Zaat, Sifaat, aur a'afaal hen. Joh zaat azali nahin us ki sifaat azali nahin, aur joh darjaat deeyeh gay woh bi azli nahin. Joh baat Allamah Saeed Assad Sahib nay bayan ki bilqul darust aur Tawheed kay mutabiq heh aur Hadith e Adam ko mad e nazr rakha jahay toh ... Nabi thay ... yehni pehlay hi thay ... toh mana nikal sakta heh kay Nooraniat stage par hi Nabi thay. Nabuwat ko Nooraniat say jora. Nooraniat, say aur us say aaj taq Nabi hen ... Joh RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ko Azli Nabi mannay wala Mushrik heh. Aur mein Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib ko Mushrik nahin tehra raha nah Fatwah Kufr ka deeya heh ... sirf bataya heh kay kharabi kia heh in ka nazriyeh mein ... Allamah Asif Jalali Sahib nay munazra kay jalal mein hosh kho bethay hen. Kohi mujahid in ki dari shareef ko pakr kar toba ka mutalba karay aur tajdeed e nikkah bi karwa leh in ka. Bila waja fasaad pehla rahay hen. Adkar bachoon ki chavloon mein aah kar in'noon nay Allamah Saeed Assad kay khilaaf mahaaz khara kar leeya heh. Ya yeh donoon pagal hen ya phir mein pagal hoon.
  14. Showing Straight Path To Brother al-Boriqee’s: Islamic VS Wahhabi Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Introduction: A Sunni brother had read number of articles which I had dedicated to subject of TRUE Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. These articles were written in response to Wahhabis/Kharijis of Najd who follow innovation originated by Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah and termed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Sunni brother directed my attention toward specific short article written by brother al-Boriqee, here. In this article brother al-Boriqee is attempting to vindicate Shaykh al-Najd and defend against blame of introducing blameworthy Kufri innovation: Which is that Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. He hoped to achieve this by establishing similarity of belief between note worthy scholar, al-Imam Shah Wali-Allah, Muhaddith, al-Dehalvi (rahimullah), al-Sufi, al-Qadri, and Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab al-Najdi. 0.0 - Brother al-Boriqee Protesting At Alledged Unfair Treatment Of His Beloved: “Restoring the Tawheed of the Classical Sunni Scholars: Part 3- Shah Waliullah ad-Dehlawi’s View on the Tawheed of Pagan Arabs Synonymous with Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s. Stated, Shakhul-Islam Muhmmad ibn Abdul-Wahhab regarding the tawheed of mushrikeen in the time of the prophet was with ruboobiyyah but their being mushrik was with regard to tawheed Uloohiyyah, in his Qawaa’id al-Arba’a: “First Rule: The First Rule is the knowledge that the unbelieving pagans whom the Prophet Muhammad, the peace and grace of God be upon him, opposed, did acknowledge that Almighty God – May He be glorified – is indeed the Creator, Provider and Maker of this world. However, this did not make them Muslims. Evidence therefore is in the verse: “Ask them: ‘Who sends down for you your provision from the sky and grows it out of the earth? Who hears your prayer and sees your condition? Who brings the living out of the dead and the dead out of the living? Who directs the course of the world?’ They will answer: ‘God.’ Answer: ‘Would you then not fulfill your duty to Him?'” Second Rule: The second rule is to know that the unbelievers claim that they do not pray to their objects of worship and call on them except to the end that they may intercede on their behalf with God, as the verse said: “Those who worshiped others as patrons beside God, claiming that they did so only to come through their intercession nearer to Him, will receive the judgment of God in the matter they contend. God will not guide the ingrate, the liar”. Evidence regarding intercession is in the verse: “They serve beside God beings which can neither benefit nor harm, claiming, ‘These are our intercessors with God.” Now, let us contrast this with the doctrine presented by Shah Waliullah ad-Dehlawi. Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi writes in his magnum opus, Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, chapter 74, ‘The explanation of what had been the condition of the people of Jahiliyya which the Prophet reformed’: “Among the principles agreed upon among them [the people of the Ignorant Age i.e. Jaahiliyyah] was the belief that God, may He be exalted, had no partner in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the substances in them, and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and that no one could reject His order nor frustrate His decree once it had become settles and decided, and this is His saying, may He be exalted, “If you asked them who created the heavens and the earth they would answer Allah, [31:25], and His saying, “If God’s chastisement comes upon you, will you call upon any other than God, if you speak truly? No; upon Him you will call, and He will remove that for which you call upon Him if he will, and you will forget whatever partners you associated with him,” [6:41-42], and His saying, “All upon whom you call for help lose their way except Allah.” [That is, these others fail in times of crisis or disaster] But it was due to their deviance in religion that they held that there were personages among the angels and the spirits who could manage [the affairs of] the people of the earth except for the major matters…What gave rise to this were the pronouncements of the divine laws concerning entrusting of the affairs to angels, and the answering of the prayers of those people who are closest [to God], so they supposed that this was an administration [of power] on their part like the administration of kings, by analogy of the unseen to the visible world, and this was false.” [Ref: Hujjat al-Baligha, Page 237, Urdu] Strange how Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is rendered a Kaafir who opposed the beliefs of Ahlu-Sunnah for expressing the fact that the Arab Mushrikeen were regarded as Mushrikeen not for their attempt to perform shirk with Allah’s Rububiyyah, but were condemned as such for violations in Uboodiyyah, yet the Imaam of Hadeeth ad-Dehlawi is cool when he says pretty much the same thing.” 0.1 - Already Written Articles In Relationship To This Subject: The very first article was dedicated to establishing Mushrikeen of Arabia took their idols as Lords/Ilahs, here. And this article was further built upon where it was Christians/Jews elevating Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and their scholars as lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), here. Khawarij of Najd distinguished between Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah and following article was dedicated to unite both, here, so verses of Ilahiyyah can be justifiably employed as proof against them. Next article then built on this foundation and introduced new evidences to establish Shirk of Mushrikeen even in Rububiyyah, here. Sister Umm Abdullah, moderator of AhlalHdeeth forum, crossed path on this subject and following article was dedicated to guider her and generally all Kharijis ascribing to her belief, here. Salafi member contacted me on AhlalHdeeth forum and this lead to following brief article, here. These six articles have already covered absolutely everything needed to understand the subject correctly. Readers should invest time to familiarize with the content and it will open up avenues of understanding the dispute. 1.0 - Fundamental Faults: Hujjat al-Balighah Not Of Imam al-Dehalvi: Books Hujjat-Allah al-Balighah, Tohfatul Muwahideen[1], and al-Balagh ul-Mubeen have not been authored by Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah). These three books are completely and utterly against his established works. And no scholar has reported Imam al-Dehalvi changed his sectarian alignment. These have been written by Wahhabis and attributed to al-Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) sometime after his death.And his immediate family members made efforts to inform the public about these forgeries. Scholarship of sub-continent, Sunni, Deobandi have refuted these attributed books and have been doing for over century and half. Urdu readers can see works of Sunnis and Deobandis in this regard, here. Despite it being forgery I am going to comment on the content of Hujjat-Allah al-Balighah as if it is work of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah). 1.1 – Fundamental Faults: Did Not Establish The Contention: Secondly brother al-Boriqee has not and did not establish Shaykh al-Dehalvi followed classification of Tawheed of Ibn Tamiyyah, and of Wahhabis. And nor did he establish Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) stated this establishes Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. If Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) followed their classification of Tawheed/Shirk it could have been logical/correct to conclude that Shaykh al-Dhelavi wrote his statement establishing Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah, like Wahhabis believe. Or if Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote before/after establishing what the Mushrikeen believed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah then it would have been clear proof of his intent, clear proof in favor of Wahhabi innovation, called Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. When we have no reason to interpret his statement as proof of his belief, Mushrikeen believed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah, then why should it be interpreted that way? Un-trained reader, or Wahhabi may say; cause that’s best possible explanation of his statement. Its not so simple and simple as A to Z alphabet and lets demonstrate it. In context of Tawheed how would you interpret words of an athiest who says medicine cured me of illness? That he believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cured me via medicine? Or would you conclude he believes medicine cured me and God hasn’t/doesn’t because there is no God? In context of Tawheed/Shirk what about a Muslim who says the same as the atheist? That Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cured me with medicine. Two different conclusions yet exactly the same statement. The understanding can change depending foundation of person making statement. Affirming they believed in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhananhu wa ta’ala) is different from affirming they believed in TAWHEED al-Rububiyyah. One who believes Wahhabi definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah his statement will be interpreted in this context. And one who doesn’t his statement will be interpreted in context of his belief. 1.2 - Imam Syed Kazmi On Mushriks Beleiving In Rububiyyah Of Allah: The Imam Ghazali of subcontinent, Allamah Syed Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah), wrote pretty much same as the two above. Yet he is known to be a major scholar of BARELWIS/SUNNIS, and he was completely opposed to Wahhabism, to Wahhabi defintion of Tawheed/Shirk, and everything else. He only affirmed classification of Tawheed/Shirk affirmed by Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. On account of affirming Rububiyyah for Mushrikeen only an idiot would alledge that Allamah Kazmi (rahimullah) believed that Mushrikeen were Muwahideen in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Allamah (rahimullah) writes: “Mushrikeen believed that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is enactor/initiator of great affairs [of universe] and with this aqeedah they believed that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has granted some pious worshipers status of god-hood. Therefore they are all creations deserved/rightful ma'bood (i.e. ones deserving worship). So much [deserving of worship] that if any one worships Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) only it will not be maqbool (i.e. accepted) until it is not joined with worship of Ibadis Saliheen. In fact Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is far above [in the heavens] therefore only His worship is without benefit. These Saliheen should be worshiped whom are muqqarib (near/beloved) to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) so we through their blessing become muqarrib of Allah (suhana wa ta'ala). They believed that these worshiped [idols/gods] are sami and baseer and come to our help and aid. They [the Mushrikeen] had carved stones [into idols] with the names of these [Ibadis Saliheen] and when they faced their worshiped [idol-gods] their focus and direction (i.e. Qibla) would be these stones (i.e. idols). And those who came after them failed to realized the great difference between the stones (i.e. idols) and human. And they made these stones (i.e. idols) as their worshiped [idol-gods].” [Ref: Maqalaat e Kazmi, Vol One, Page 33: Creed Of Mushrikeen.] Original of great affairs is, amoor e azaam, major matters, great affairs, great matters, and major affairs.And these affairs/matters are same which are mentioned in Hujjat-Allah al-Balagha, and in Qawaid al-Arba. In Hujjat-Allah al-Balagha same Arabic/Urdu is employed in following: “… and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and …” And this establishes all three are discussing same matter. In twisted Tawheed/Shirk of Wahhabism this maybe proof that Shaykh ul-Islam Syed Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah) was in agreement with Wahhabi understanding that Mushrikeen were believers of Tawheed of Rububiyyah but a Muslim with knowledge holds no such misguided opinion. 1.3 - Imam al-Dehalvi Establishes Shirk Of Rububiyyah: Wahhabi definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah in understanding of Ahlus Sunnah is just Rububiyyah and is bereft of Tawheed. According to Islamic scholarship Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is initiator/actor over all major/minor affairs and He alone as Rabb/Ilah is incharge of all and other then Him there is no Rabb/Ilah. We need to see if Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) indicated that Mushrikeen committed Shirk in Rububiyyah according to Wahhabi definition. Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote: “Among the principles agreed upon among them [the people of the Ignorant Age i.e. Jaahiliyyah] was the belief that God, may He be exalted, had no partner in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the substances in them, and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and that no one could reject His order nor frustrate His decree once it had become settles and decided, and this is His saying, may He be exalted, “If you asked them who created the heavens and the earth they would answer Allah, [31:25], and His saying, “If God’s chastisement comes upon you, will you call upon any other than God, if you speak truly? No; upon Him you will call, and He will remove that for which you call upon Him if he will, and you will forget whatever partners you associated with him,” [6:41-42], and His saying, “All upon whom you call for help lose their way except Allah.” [That is, these others fail in times of crisis or disaster] But it was due to their deviance in religion that they held that there were personages among the angels and the spirits who could manage [the affairs of] the people of the earth except for the major matters (i.e. amoor al-Azaam) …What gave rise to this were the pronouncements of the divine laws concerning entrusting of the affairs to angels, and the answering of the prayers of those people who are closest [to God], so they supposed that this was an administration [of power] on their part like the administration of kings, by analogy of the unseen to the visible world, and this was false.” From this we can see that Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote Mushrikeen committed Shirk in Rububiyyah by ascribing Rububiyyah powers to angels/spirits. And Mushrikeen believed these angels were appointed to task of managing minor affairs of universe. Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) did not fully expand his understanding but I will in section 1.3. Coming back to what I was writing: I have established Shirk in Rububiyyah. If we believe Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) affirmed Tawheed of Rububiyyah then question is he also affirmed Shirk of Rububiyyah very same Mushriks. How can a sane Muslim believe Mushrik is Muwahid and Mushrik in Rububiyyah? He is either one or the other. Idiot may say they were Muwahid in major affairs of Rububiyyah and Mushrik in minor affairs of Rububiyyah but, idiot, you should know Rububiyyah is composed of both, major and minor, Shirk in any negates whole of it. 1.4 - Imam al-Dehalvi’s Angels Are Lords, And Idols al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Manat: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] And these angel-lords were believed to be daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Has then your Lord distinguished/honoured you by (giving you) sons, and taken unto Himself daughters in the guise of angels? Verily, you are uttering a dreadful saying!” [Ref: 17:40] And these ange-lords believed to be daughers were Lat, Uzza, and Manat: “Have you seen Lat and Uzza? And another, the third Manat? What! for you the male s-e-x, and for Him, the female?” [Ref: 53:19/21] Further proof of Mushrikeen affirming Arbab with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is in following verses: “And when adversity touches the people, they call upon their Lord, turning in repentance to Him. Then when He lets them taste mercy from Him, at once a party of them associate others with their Lord.” [Ref: 30:33] In following verse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) negated Shirk al-Rububiyyah. And in this is indication that Mushrikeen of his era were guilty of Shirk of Rububiyyah which prompted his disassociation from it: “Say: ‘I invoke only my lord (Allah Alone), and I associate none as partners along with Him.’” [Ref: 72:20] This verse can be understood in two ways; I associate none as partner in worship of my Lord, and; I associate no Lord as partner with Him. And both are valid. This establishes Imam al-Dehalvi mentioned angels which in reality were believed to be Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And they believed these angel Lords are females and these females were deities of Mushrikeen; Lat, Uzza, and Manat. And this is proof of Shirk of Mushrikeen in Rububiyyah and not Tawheed. 1.5 - Imam al-Dehalvi Believes In Rububiyyah For Mushrikeen Not Tawheed: All important question: Did Imam al-Dehalvi write Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah or Shirk al-Rububiyyah? I say Imam al-Dehalvi wrote: Mushrikeen believed in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and he did not intend write, nor he did write, nor intended to convey, nor he conveyed Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and his statement is being distorted. To believe in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) one has to believe everything related to Rububiyyah but to believe in Tawheed of Rububiyyah there are two fundamental requirements, Tawheed and Rububiyyah. Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Rububiyyah would be to believe there is no Ilah/Rabb beside Him. It is elementry knowledge Mushrikeen attributed Ilahs/Rabbs as partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which even Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) affirmed in what brother al-Boriqee quoted. Therefore to say he affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah for Mushrikeen is invalid and contradicted by Imam al-Dehalvi even in the quote provided by brother al-Boriqee. 1.6 - Khariji Definition Of Tawheed Rububiyyah Distorting Reality Of Issue: The reality is Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah), like Imam al-Kazmi (rahimullah) wrote about Mushrikeen of Arabia attesting to Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without affirming Tawheed of Rububiyyah. I Muhammed Ali Razavi, has written about Mushrikeen affirming Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[2] Yet I did not then, and do not now believe that Mushrikeen were believers of Tawheed of al-Rububiyyah. Why? Because I understand that demand of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is Tawheed and Rububiyyah. And negation of one is negation of entirity of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and Mushrikeen negated Tawheed by affirming other Ilahs/Rabbs as Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) partner therefore negated whole of it. Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) did not write Mushrikeen believed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah but the Kharijis of Najd are reading Tawheed into text due to their own distorted understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Their definition is breft of Tawheed and just Rububiyyah. And according to it Mushrik can attribute many gods/lords to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but as long as Mushrik believes He manages affairs mentioned in verses of Quran Mushrik remains Muwahid and believer of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. 1.7 - Imam al-Dehalvi In Context Of His Maturidi Heritage And Sunni Tradition: Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) was a Maturidi from perspective of Kalam, Hanafi in Fiqh, Qadri in Sufi Silsilah. And from his contempory scholarship, his students, and Khulafah of his Sufi Silsilah, those who remained upon his path, none presented this whacky definition and understanding of Tawheed/Shirk: Which Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah innovated, and Kharijis of Najd adopted. In all of his writings Shaykh not once defined Tawheed/Shirk as; Rububiyyah, Asma and Sifaat, and Uluhiyyah. In light of his affiliation with Maturidi school, Hanafi Fiqh, Qadri Silsilah, and what he left behind (i.e. books), those he left behind (i.e. students and scholars), what he actually wrote (i.e. Mushrikeen believed in Rububiyyah in major affairs and committed Shirk in minor affairs of Rububiyyah), and what he didn’t write (i.e. Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah), it would be senseless to interpret his statement in context of what Wahhabis believe about Mushrikeen (i.e. Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Rububiyyah). Why Hukm Of Kufr On Shaykh al-Najd And Not On Imam al-Dehalvi: Brother al-Boriqee wrote and questioned that why Muslims render Shaykh al-Najd Kafir for saying Mushrikeen were Mushrik not in Rububiyyah but were Mushrik due to Ubudiyyah (i.e. Uluhiyyah). And he says that Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) has stated roughly stated the same as Shaykh al-Najd: “Strange how Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is rendered a Kaafir who opposed the beliefs of Ahlu-Sunnah for expressing the fact that the Arab Mushrikeen were regarded as Mushrikeen not for their attempt to perform shirk with Allah’s Rububiyyah, but were condemned as such for violations in Uboodiyyah, yet the Imaam of Hadeeth ad-Dehlawi is cool when he says pretty much the same thing.” IF Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) had said Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Rububiyyah but Mushrik in Ulluhiyyah then he like Shaykh al-Najd would be guilty of same Kufr because Quranic verses quoted above clearly and absolutely refute this Kufri notion. Yet fact is his mentioned books are forgeries attributed to him. Even if we grant they are not forgeries but there is dispute about authenticity of these books, and this is enough for person of knowledge and Taqwa to refrain from Takfir, and leave the judgment to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Also in Wahhabism affirmation of acts/attributes of Rububiyyah is proof of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. And Shaykh al-Dehalvi’s affirmation of Rububiyyah is not proof of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah but affirmation that Mushrikeen believed in Rububiyyah. Imam al-Dehalvi followed Ahlus Sunnah classification of Tawheed and Wahhabis follow Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyahs classification of Tawheed and Shirk. According to Ibn Taymiyyan defintion affirmation of acts/attributes of Rububiyyah amounts to Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Muwahideen Of Rububiyyah Yet Mushrikeen Of Rububiyyah: And even according to Wahhabi definition Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) cannot be charged to affirming Kufr because he indicated Mushrikeen committed Shirk in minor affairs of Rububiyyah. Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is composed of major and minor affairs? If Mushrikeen committed Shirk in minor than Tawheed al-Rububiyyah as whole has been rejected and they are guilty of Shirk al-Rububiyyah. The issue boils down to Mushrikeen were Mushrik/Muwahid in Rububiyyah. This is like saying they were Muslim and Kafir simultaneously. This conflict is proof that Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) did not ascribe to classification of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. And nor he intended to write about Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. He was just writing about Mushrikeen affirming belief of Rububiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in major affairs and Allah appointing Ilahs/Rabbs to deal with minor affairs of creation: Which is proof of Shirk in Rububiyyah for one who is awake and thinking about implications of what he wrote. Shaykh al-Najd And Wahhabis On Mushrikeen Are Muwahid In Rububiyyah: Shaykh al-Najd wrote Qawaid al-Arba and in it he established belief that Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. This understanding is substantiated by fact that he adheres to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s classification of Tawheed/Shirk. And if I recall correctly Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan in his explanation of Qawaid al-Arba indicated Qawaid al-Arba’s first principle is about polytheists affirming Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. And generally all Wahhabis agree that Shaykh of Najd attempted to prove Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Also while writing about belief of Mushrikeen Shaykh al-Najd made no Takhsees of major/minor affairs being controlled by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or major/minor affairs being controlled by false Ilahs/Rabbs. He plainly stated Mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. If he had said Mushrikeen believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) controls major affairs, and Mushrikeen believed their Ilahs/Rabbs manage minor affairs, without making Tawheed part of it, then there would have been no Takfir because concept of idol-gods managing minor affairs will establish Shirk al-Rububiyyah. And Mushrikeen being Mushrik in Rububiyyah is in agreement with Quranic teachings. What Shaykh al-Najd wrote has nothing common with what Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote. One stated Mushrikeen affirmed Rububiyyah in major affairs and associated Rabb/Ilah partners in minor affairs of Rububiyyah. And Shaykh al-Najd stated Mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and on face value meaning is Mushrikeen believed He controlls major/minor affairs of creation and He has no partner in Rububiyyah at all. Conclusion: Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is dependent upon affirming Tawheed and Rububiyyah. And it is inclusive of major and minor affairs of Rububiyyah. To believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) manages major affairs of creation and minor affairs have been tasked to demi-Ilahs and demi-Rabbs then Shirk as occurred. Shaykh al-Najd purely established Tawheed al-Rububiyyah of Mushirkeen and therefore Hukm of Kufr. Where as Imam al-Dehalvi has written about Mushrikeen affirming belief of Rububiyyah in major affairs and committing Shirk in minor affairs of Rububiyyah by ascribing Ilahs/Rabbs as partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1] First publication of Tohfat ul-Muwahideen was published as Akmal al-Matabeh and was attributed to Khawaja Mohi al-Deen Chishti (rahimullah). When that didn’t get much attention it was rebranded as Tohfat ul-Muwahideen and attributed to and published as work of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and ever since its been published as his work. When that lie was being caught out Markazi Jami’at Ahlul Hadith published it as mentioned name but with correction that it has benefitted from works of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and stated this work is actually compiled by Maulana Rahim Baksh Dehalvi. And Maulana Rahim Baksh Dehalvi published a list of books which were published by Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and none of the disputed books have been mentioned in that list. Note this list was published few years after death of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah). - [2] “Mushrikeen Believed In Allah (subhana wa ta'ala): Mushrikeen of Arabia believed in Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) their supreme God created the space, earth who controlled the amoor e azaam (i.e. great affairs) of universe: “And if you were to ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they would surely say “Allah!” [Ref: 29:61] and same is affirmed in another verse: “If thou shouldst ask them: Who created the heavens and the earth? they would answer: Allah. Say: Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not.” [Ref: 31:25] Also believed that mercy as well as punished is ordained by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and only He can avert the punishment and withhold his mercy. Hence Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) informs them of their actions: "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, 'Allah'. Say : See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they, if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty?[12] Or if He will some grace for me, can they keep back His grace ?"[Ref: 39:38] In another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) gives example of how truly and firmly the Mushrikeen believe; Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) punishes, averts punishment and grants mercy: “And when harm touches you upon the sea, those that you call upon besides Him are lost from you – except Him (Allah alone). But when He brings you safely to land, you turn away (from Him). And man is ever ungrateful.” [Ref: 17:67] They turn away from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in meaning; they attribute their safe return to their idol gods: "Allah has said: "Take not (for worship) two gods: for He is just One Allah. then fear Me (and Me alone)." ... Yet, when He removes the distress from you, behold! some of you turn to other gods to join with their Lord."[Ref: 16:51/54] In another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) instructs Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) to say to the Mushrikeen: "...who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from earth?”[13] Or who is it that has power over hearing and sight?[14] And who is it that brings the living from the dead and the dead from the living?[15] And who is it that rules and regulates all affairs? They will quickly say, Allah. Say : Will you not then show piety to Him'' [Ref: 10:31] and the questioning of Mushirkeen continues: “Say: Unto Whom (belongeth) the earth and whosoever is therein, if ye have knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah.[16]Say: Will ye not then remember? Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Arsh? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth).[17] Say: Will ye not then keep duty (unto Him)? Say: In Whose hand is the dominion over all things and He protecteth, while against Him there is no protection, if ye have knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth). Say: How then are ye bewitched? “[Ref: 23:84-89] Keeping with the theme of heavens and earth Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states what the Mushrikeen would say if there were asked: “Who created the heavens and the earth, and constrained the sun and the moon (to their appointed work)? they would say: Allah. How then are they turned away? [...] And if thou wert to ask them: Who causeth water to come down from the sky, and therewith reviveth the earth after its death? they verily would say: Allah. Say: Praise be to Allah! But most of them have no sense.” [Ref: 29:61-63]” [Ref: Mushrikeen Believed Their Idols To Be Allah's Subordinate Gods, here.]
  15. Responding To Asim ul-Haq’s Article: ‘Deviants Arguments : Shirk Will Not Take Place In Ummah.’ Introduction: Khariji eliments believe most of the Muslims on earth are guilty of [major] Shirk and the only exception to this belief is made for those who adhere to belief of Khawarij of Najd and the leader of this sect was Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. All other Muslims are guilty of [major] Shirk for one reason or another. In order to justify their charge against the great majority of Muslims they employ verse 12:106 in addition to evidences of Ahadith. They quote Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) statement that my Ummah will follow the ways of Jews and Christians to argue and prove Muslims will become Mushrik like followers of these two religions. And even Asim ul-Haq used this Hadith in another article of his and stated that prophetic words have come true because the Muslims are following the ways of Jews and Christians and are guilty of Shirk. They also quote Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said day of judgement will not come until his Ummah does not engage in worship of al-Lat and al-Manat. And in another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said judgment day would not come until women from tribe of Daws dance around their patron idol Dhil Khalasah shaking their buttocks. We the Muslims in contradiction to the claim of Khawarij argue majority of Muslims have not and will not fall into Shirk and in support we employ Ahadith to substantiate our position. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) clearly said my Ummah will not worship sun, or moon, or idols. In other Ahadith he said I am not afraid you will worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Both these Ahadith refute their staple argument and charge; you’re worshiping x, y, z. In addition to this Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he is not afraid that you (my Muslim Ummah) will worship Satan in Arabian Peninsula. Satan worship a synanom of idol worship in Quran. Therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said the believing Ummah will not worship idols in Arabian Peninsula. Further more we the Muslims harmonize the evidence which Khawarij employ. The reality of these Ahadith is that events described in them will take place after a cool musky breeze would take life of every Muslim. And establish that there is no contradiction in prophetic teaching and Khawarij have unjustly and wrongly applied the Ahadith upon believers thinking these Ahadith support their position. This article is part of this effort to expose the reality of Khawarij and how they distort Quran, Ahadith, and everything else needed to make their heretical ends meet. Most Believe In Allah Yet Commit Shirk And Shirk Entered Ummah Centuries Ago: “All praise is due to Allah Alone and may Allah's peace, mercy be upon Prophet Muhammad, his family, his companions and all those who followed their path. This article is in response to those people, who try to defend their shirk by quoting few Ahadith of Prophet peace be upon him. First i would like to quote Quran: "And most of them believe not in Allaah except while they associate others with Him." [Quran 12:106] Imam al-Qurtubi mentioned many interpretations including: Ataa said that the disbelievers forget their Lord during times of ease, but when they are afflicted by disaster, they supplicate Him sincerely … “It means that they ask of Allah to save them from destruction. When He does, some of them would say: “Had it not been for so and so (other than Allah), we would have not survived, and had it not been for the dog, the thief would have been able to come in, etc.” Thus, they attribute the favor of Allah to individuals, and his protection to the dog. I (Qurtubi) say; falling into this and the previous statements many of the Muslim public. [Tafsir Qurtubi] Al-Buhuti says in Kashaf al-Qina [An Matn il-Iqna]: “(If one says) The Creator is the creation and the creation is the Creator; and the servant is the Lord and the Lord is the servant, and so on; about which it is proven by consensus that it is false, his repentance is sought, otherwise, he is executed. Similarly, those who say that Allah in essence is everywhere, and they claim that He is dwells in His creation, his repentance is sought, otherwise, he is executed. These sects have now become widespread, and they have corrupted much of the beliefs of the people of Tawheed. We beg Allah for His forgiveness and safety!” [Taken from IA forum] Comment: I quoted these two scholars so that people may know shirk entered into the Muslims centuries ago. There are Ahadeeth which states that Muslim Ummah will do shirk (referr to the article; ‘Asking Help From Dead is Shirk from Quran,Sunnah and Ijma.’) Note: responded to by Muhammed Ali Razavi, here. Let me come to the Ahadeeth quoted by those who ask help from dead and say it is not shirk because shirk will never happen in the ummah.” [Ref: Deviants Arguments : Shirk Will Note Take Place In Ummah, by Asim ul-Haq, here.] 0.0 - What Asim ul-Haq Said And What Was Left UnSaid: (i) Asim ul-Haq quoted verse MOST of them believe not in Allah except while committing Shirk (i.e. associating God partners with Him). And he applied the verse of Quran upon Muslims which is indicated by what he said in the comment section leading to conclusion that he believes most Muslims are guilty of Shirk and this has happened centuries ago. (ii) Asim ul-Haq quoted verse 12:106 and then quotes Tafasir of Mufassireen. Out of two quoted Mufassireen NONE said this verse is about Muslims, or was revealed about Muslims, nor interpreted it and applied it upon Muslims in general, nor upon a particular sect of Muslims. Also there is no indication in the verse itself, nor the context of this verse indicates it is was revealed in relationship to Muslims, or is about Muslims. Yet in the conclusion supponsed Asim (i.e. defender) of truth rather stupidly and deceptively concludes: And says he quoted [the verse 12:106 and] Tafasir of these two scholars to prove Shirk entered the ranks of [most] Muslims centuries ago. That’s not defender of truth (i.e. Asim ul-Haq) that’s mass Takfir maker. 1.0 - Truthful Words Of Prophet And His Words Of Truth Will Prevail: Before we get to finer details of quoted verse it would be best to deal with stupid in simpler fashion. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said when ever there is difference of opinion follow majority of my Ummah yet the spawn of Iblees declares majority is guilty of [major] Shirk: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] And similar meaning is conveyed in following Hadith: “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." 1.1 - Understanding Quran Chapter 12 Verse ) instructed the Muslims to follow the majority. Therefore Qasim ul-Haq’s fahm of the verse is crooked like the qarn of Shaytan he belongs to.sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would instruct the Muslims to follow the majority? Most of Muslims, over-whelming majority of Muslims, are protected from major Shirk and it was this reason why Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam] If majority of Muslim Ummah could have been upon major Shirk then why would Allah’s Messenger (Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776[106 In Light Of Quran: A YouTube discussion lead to the following two part article. In part twelve of article verse one-zero-six was explained briefly: ‘Analysis Of Hadith; Muslims Fallowing Jews, Christians And Verse Of: Most Believe Not Except With Shirk.’ A comprehensive article was dedicated to the Tafsir of chapter twelve verse one-zero-six and it was titled: ‘A Comprehensive Explanation Of Quranic Verse: And Most Believed Not In Allah Except They Associate Others With Him.’ And let it be clear and known the verse is to be understood; most of mankind believe not in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) except while join/attribute idols as god partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And the most of these are actually absolutely polytheists. Just totalling Hindus and Christians is enough to establish that they are majority from mankind, most of mankind, and Muslims the Muwahideen are a minority. Thus majority/most are polytheist as the verse states. In relation to the second article a Wahhabi brother raised interesting points which needed to be addressed and they were dealt in the following article: ‘Chapter Yusuf (12) Verse 106 Cannot Be Exclusively For Polytheists – Exclusivity Implies Some Polytheists Believe Without Shirk.’ I estimate these three articles on the verse would be more then enough to turn the table on Khariji and will be enough to educate the readers about whom this verse was revealed and who are the intended target. 1.2 - Those Who Interpreted 12:106 In Context Of Major Shirk: (i) Imam Jalal al-Deen al-Suyuti (rahimullah) in his Tafsir interpreted the verse as follows:“And most of them do not believe in God such that they might affirm that He is the Creator and the Sustainer without ascribing partners to Him by worshipping idols; which is why when carrying their ritual response to God they used to say: ‘At Your service no partner have You save a partner that belongs to You; You possess him and all that he possesses.’ meaning it when they said it.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 12:106, here.] He illustrates his point by quoting Hadith in which polytheists make their gods as partners during Tawaf of Kabah: “Ibn 'Abbas reported that the polytheists also pronounced (Talbiya) as: ‘Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.’ The Messenger of Allah said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: ‘But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).’ They used to say this and circumambulate the Ka'ba.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] It is clear that Imam (rahimullah) interpreted the verse incontext of polytheists of Arabia attributing god partners to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worshiping them. Imam (rahimullah) identified the beliefs of polytheists who believed in Allah with Shirk but not pointed out if most was in context of Makkah, or Arabia. In other words Imam (rahimullah) did not indentify who the MOST are out of; a) most people of Makkah believe in Allah except with Shirk; b) or most people of Arabia believe not in Allah except with Shirk. But in context of the quoted Hadith it should be assumed he believed the verse was in context of most people of Arabia because the Hadith is evidence of what polytheists believed about their gods. 1.3 - Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas On Verse 12:106: (ii) Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have interpreted the verse of Quran in discussion as if it is describing the beliefs of polythiests of Makkah: “(And most of them) the people of Mecca (believe not in Allah) deep in their hearts; it is also said that this means: they do not believe in the worship of Allah (except that they attribute partners (unto Him)) openly.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas, 12:106, here.] I don’t have to tell you these polytheists of Makkah in fact believed in idols as their gods/Ilah and worshipped them. This interpretation indicates a minority in Makkah were monotheists but most were polytheists who attributed idols as god partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worshiped them. As this Surah is a Makkan Surah therefore likely it was revealed pre-Hijrah era. In this context Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions being a minority of monotheists in sea of polytheists would be true. And interpretation of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu); most of polytheists of Makkah believe not in Allah except with attributing partners to Him; would be true to context of envoriment of Makkah. 1.4 - Tafsir Mufatih ul-Ghayb On Verse 12:106: (iii) Imam Fakhr al-Deen al-Raazi (rahimullah) in his Tafsir ul-Kabeer explicitly stated that this verse was revealed in context of polytheists of Makkah and Arabia who recited the aforementioned Talbiyah during their naked Tawaf of Kabah. And went on to include all idol worshipers, Jews, Christians, and even planetary body worshippers (i.e. sun, moon, stars etc) in Tafsir of this verse: “This verse was revealed in the context of the Arab idolaters because they were saying: "You have no partner but your partner is yours and you own it. And the people of Mecca said: ‘Allah is our Lord alone, no partner (as He and) His angels are His daughters.’ And they did not single-out (Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala in Tawheed) but associated (Ilah partners with Him). The worshipers of idols said: Our Lord is God alone, and our idols are our intercessors. And the Jews said: ‘Our Lord is One but Aziz is son of God. The Him and Christ the Son of God. Said the worshipers of the sun and the moon: ‘Our Lord is God alone and these are our lords.’ Muhajireen and Ansar said: ‘Our Allah is the One without any associate (god partner).’” [Ref: Tafsir al-Kabeer, 12:106, here] Imam Raazi (rahimullah) interpreted this verse in context of polytheist idol worshippers of Arabia and by extention Hindus of India. Including also polytheistic Trinitarian Christians, a faction of Jews who believed Uzair/Aziz to be son of God, and worshippers of sun, moon, stars. In this context historically when the verse was revealed and even at present most of people who believe in a God do so attributing to Him partners. Hindus do so in form of idol-gods and believe they are under control of supreme Hindu God called Brahman. Christians believe in god-the-son of God, god-the-holy-spirit, and God the Father. Hence most of mankind who believe in a God do so while committing major Shirk. 1.5 – Other Recommended Tafasir On The Verse Of 12:106: (iv) It is worth noting in almost all major works of Tafsir verse 12:106 has been interpreted and explained it as it is describing polytheists who ascribe to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) god partners in one form or another. They all have interpreted it in context of on sons, daughters, angels, idols, sun, moon, planets and everything esle. Following brief list mentions all who have interpreted the verse as aformentioned: Jami ul-Bayan Fi Tafsir ul-Quran by Imam Tabri (rahimullah), here, Tafsir al-Kashf by Zamashkari, here, Jami ul-Ah’kam ul-Quran by Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah), here, Anwar ul-Tanzeel Wa Israr ul-Taweel by Imam Baidawi (rahimullah), here , Bahr ul-Uloom by Allamah Samarqandi (rahimullah), here, Ma’lum al-Tanzeel by Imam Baghwi (rahimullah), here, Zad ul-Maseer Fi Ilm at-Tafseer by Ibn Jawzi (rahimullah), here, Madarik al-Tanzeel Wa Haqaiq al-Taweel by Allamah Nasfi (rahimullah), here. By no means this list is exhaustive. Roughly twenty five more commentators had interpreted the verse in discussion as such. 1.6 - Those Who Interpreted 12:106 In Context Of Major And Minor Shirk: (i) It should be noted that vast majority of commentators of Quran have interpreted this verse of Quran in context of MAJOR SHIRK and applied it upon those who are OVERTLY lay claim to being POLYTHEISTS. And profess OPENLY that the One God has god-partners and they alongside His partners deserved to be worshipped. And we are instructed to follow the majority when there is dispute amongst in Ummah on a issue: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] And similar meaning is conveyed in following Hadith: “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] Minority interpreted the verse in context of OVERTLY polytheists and MAJOR Shirk. And also have applied it upon MONOTHEIST Muslims and interpreted it in context of MINOR and HIDDEN Shirk of Riya (i.e. showing off in worship).[1] Unfortunately they have erred in their methodology of interpretation because of a Munqati (i.e. disconnected) Hadith in which a companion applied verse of major Shirk to censure what was deemed in that Hadith to be minor Shirk. These commentators adopted the indicated methdology [to employ verse of major Shirk to censure minor Shirk] from this Daif Hadith and applied it upon the verse. Therefore the methodology is invalid and contradicts a authentic Hadith according to which applying verses revealed for polytheists and interpreting them as it describes belief/practice of Muslims; is practice of Khawarij the worst creatures in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “... and the Mulhidun (heretical) after the establishment of firm proof against them:"And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' (9:115) And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Vol 9, Page 49, Chap 6: Killing The Khawari] It should be noted these commentators made error in their judgment and we lay no fault on them except of erroneous Ijtihad. If one ignores the context of verse in which it was revealed then the evidences employed by this minority does lend credibility to their interpretation due to the evidences they employed to interpret it. But in context at best their interpretation is weak despite the evidences because the foundation on which the interpretation is based contradicts and is based on weak Hadith. 1.7 - The Horrendous Implications If Verse 12:106 Is Applied Upon Muslims: (ii) In light of evidence of interpretation of verse with Quran as demonstrated in my three articles. Evidence of Jamhoor/majority of commentators applying it upon major Shirk and upon overt polytheists. And prophetic instruction to follow the majority when disputes arise amongst scholars the correct and legitimate course of action would be to adhere to understanding and teaching of Jamhoor on 12:106; as demonstrated in previous section. And reject the understanding of minority because it is based on methodology taken from a Daif Hadith. And reject it on grounds that methodology employed contradicts authentic Hadith; according to which interpreting verse revealed for polytheists as if it is describing belief/practice of monotheists; is way of Khawarij. And there is no doubt the verse was revealed about polytheists of Makkah/Arabia in specific and world in general hence applying it on minor Shirk would be doing exactly what the Hadith deems habbit of Khawarij. Thirdly it is INVALID and REJECTED because implications of the interpretation which the minority ascribes to are so monstrous. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), which at the time of revelation of verse, were his companions are the best of Ummah ever raised from mankind, they enjoin good and forbid evil: “You are the best nation raised up for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and you believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them (though) among them are believers, but most of them are disobedient.” [Ref: 3:110] Yet when the verse 12:106 is believed to be revealed for major and minor Shirk then are not the implications that majority of followers of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), his companions, were guilty of minor Shirk of Riya? Is this the reality of best of Ummah raised from mankind that they engage in minor Shirk which nullifies their acts of worship because they have performed them to show-off their religiousity. Any how even though the methodology and the interpretation both are rejected I will still entertain it for sake of pointing out reality of our stupid Asim ul-Haq. 1.8 - Asim ul-Haq On The Way Of Khawarij: It has been established that 12:106 was revealed in context of those who had attributed Ilahiyyah/Godhood to creation and worshiped these creations. These were Arab polytheists, Jews, Christians. A minority of commentators also interpreted this verse in context of minor Shirk and considered it permissible to apply the verse upon Muslims in meaning of Shirk ar-Riya. Yet Asim ul-Haq applied this verse upon Muslims in context of MAJOR Shirk. For which there is no evidence from Quran and Ahadith. Nor there is support for such action in scholarly precedent. The only precedent there exists is action of Khawarij whose practice Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) narrates: “And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Vol 9, Page 49, Chap 6: Killing The Khawari] No commentator of Quran pre-dating Wahhabism has ever applied verse of major Shirk upon a Muslim. And definitely not in an attempt to prove those who say; none is worthy of worship except Allah; are polytheists. This is a innovation of Khawarij and of Salafi/Wahhabi who adhere to their methdology. Mr. Asim ul-Haq needs to provide proof of this practice from a Quranic verse, or Hadith, or evidence from scholarly precedent. It is his responsibility to provide evidence that a verse of major Shirk; revealed for polytheists of Arabia, Jewish polytheists, Christian; was applied upon a Muslim who openly, loudly, and clearly professed; none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. And I will concede that his methodology of applying major Shirk verses upon Muslims is valid and not of worst of creation i.e. Khawarij. 1.9 - Asim ul-Haq, Verse 12:106, Commentators, And Asim ul-Haq Implied: Asim ul-Haq quoted the following verse: "And most of them believe not in Allaah except while they associate others with Him." [Quran 12:106] Then went on to quote two commentators who did not say anything remotely similar to what he concluded in following comment: “I quoted these two scholars so that people may know Shirk entered into the Muslims centuries ago. There are Ahadeeth which states that Muslim Ummah will do shirk (…). Let me come to the Ahadeeth quoted by those who ask help from dead and say it is not shirk because shirk will never happen in the ummah.” Note he is talking about major Shirk and not minor Shirk. In other words he believes centuries ago Muslims have started to associate others as gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and had started to worship them. For him to prove his case what he needed to prove was that Muslims are part of the majority committing Shirk i.e. associating others as god partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); which he cannot and did not establish. Rather evidence against this position was established in my three articles and from commentaries of scholars. Now question remains what did the two commentators say? 2.0 - Imam Qurtubi Quoted By Asim ul-Haq And What He Actually Said: (i) He quoted Imam al-Qurtubi (rahimullah) as his first evidence: “a) Ataa said that the disbelievers forget their Lord during times of ease, but when they are afflicted by disaster, they supplicate Him sincerely … “It means that they (the disbelievers) ask of Allah to save them from destruction. When He does, some of them would say: “Had it not been for so and so (other than Allah), we would have not survived, and had it not been for the dog, the thief would have been able to come in, etc.” Thus, they attribute the favor of Allah to individuals, and his protection to the dog. I (Qurtubi) say; falling into this and the previous statements many of the Muslim public.” To understand what Imam al-Qurtubi (rahimullah) meant we need to go to Quran but before that a simple observation needs to be made; Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah): “I say; falling into this and the previous statements many of the Muslim public.” Words of Imam al-Qurtubi (rahimullah) clearly indicate that he considers those people as Muslim about whom he alleged that they were guilty of previously mentioned things. This means he does not apply the verse 12:106 upon them in meaning of major Shirk nor charged them of Kufr with Hukum of major Kufr. Yet Asim ul-Haq applies this verse upon Muslims to nullify the Islam of Muslims and to argue that most Muslims are Mushrikeen; like Hindus and Christians; meaning they are not part of Islam. Moving on lets see what was Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) alluding to in his Tafsir. Note I have divided Tafsir of Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) into part a and b. It is for an important reason please make note of this. 2.1 - Understanding Imam al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir In Light Of Quran: (iia) Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) interpreted the verse in context of following verses in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “It is He who enables you to travel on land and sea until, when you are in ships and they sail with them by a good wind and they rejoice therein, there comes a storm wind and the waves come upon them from everywhere and they assume that they are surrounded, supplicating Allah, sincere to Him in religion, "If You should save us from this, we will surely be among the thankful." [Ref: 10:22] “And when adversity touches you at sea, lost are (all) those you invoke except for Him. But when He delivers you to the land, you turn away (from Him). And ever is man ungrateful.” [Ref: 10:67] Both these and following verse are explained properly in the following where it is pointed out who the joined with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Say: ‘Who rescues you from the darknesses of the land and sea (when) you call upon Him imploring (aloud) and privately: 'If He should save us from this (crisis), we will surely be among the thankful.' Say: ‘It is Allah who saves you from it and from every distress; then you (still) associate others with Him.’" [Ref: 6:63/64] After verse 64 topic of discussion in Quran changes and around verse 95 it returns to where it was left of. In keeping with theme Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) protecting mankind and providing for mankind He continues to inform mankind what he does for them and tells who they associated with Him: “Indeed, Allah is the cleaver of grain and date seeds. He brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living. That is Allah; so how are you deluded? (He is) the cleaver of daybreak and has made the night for rest and the sun and moon for calculation. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.” In following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) makes indirect referrece to what was said in verse 64: “And it is He who placed for you the stars that you may be guided by them through the darknesses of the land and sea. We have detailed the signs for a people who know.” Then once again He returns to all what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does for mankind: “And it is He who produced you from one soul and (gave you) a place of dwelling and of storage. We have detailed the signs for a people who understand. And it is He who sends down rain from the sky, and We produce thereby the growth of all things. We produce from it greenery from which We produce grains arranged in layers. And from the palm trees - of its emerging fruit are clusters hanging low. And (We produce) gardens of grapevines and olives and pomegranates, similar yet varied. Look at (each of) its fruit when it yields and (at) its ripening. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.” Then finally tells the readers what the polytheists associated as partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in following verse and continues to tell them that these sons and daughter gods are nothing but figment of their imagination and He is their One and the Only God: “But they have attributed to Allah partners - the jinn, while He has created them - and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they ascribe. (He is) Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing. That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.” [Ref: 6:95/102] Polytheists of Arabia believed angels are daugthers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), here, and they also believed al-Laat, Manat, and al-Uzza are daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Which reveals these three goddesses were believed to be angels and daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). A faction of Jews believed Uzair to be son of God and Christians as whole believed and continue to do so that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is god the son of God, and Lord of lords. 2.2 - Hidden Shirk And Imam Qurtubi’s Tafsir: iib) Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) applied verses 10:22, 10:67, and verses 6:63/64 upon Mushrikeen/Kuffar and part a of his Tafsir was about them. In other words entire section a of his Tafsir; “Ataa said that the disbelievers forget their Lord during times of ease, but when they are afflicted by disaster, they supplicate Him sincerely … “It means that they (the disbelievers) ask of Allah to save them from destruction.” ;was exclusively for those people whom he termed Kuffar/disbelievers and whose actions are clearly mentioned in Quranic verses mentioned. And namely these disbeleivers were Arab polytheists who took their idols as gods and angels as god-daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), a polytheistic faction of Jews, and vast majority of Christianity. Part b of Imam Qurtubi’s (rahimullah) Tafsir; “When He does, some of them would say: “Had it not been for so and so (other than Allah), we would have not survived, and had it not been for the dog, the thief would have been able to come in, etc.” Thus, they attribute the favor of Allah to individuals, and his protection to the dog. I (Qurtubi) say; falling into this and the previous statements many of the Muslim public.”; is inclusive of Muslims with polytheists. In other words Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) indicates polytheists and Muslims are both guilty of Hidden Shirk aka Shirk al-Khafi. Shirk al-Khafi is a minor Shirk and a type contains no Shar’ee offense what so ever and it was explained by me in here. Hidden Shirk is associating a effect to a thing, or being, and not to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), like Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) gave example of dog protecting against theft etc. Of course Muslims and polytheists are guilty of this but it is not blameworthy and warrants no sin nor demands repentance. Shirk ar-Riya is also part of Shirk al-Khafi and it is also minor sin but it is sinful and blameworthy. The type Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) turned toward Muslims in his examples are not. 2.3 - Asim ul-Haq Typical Example Of Khariji Deception: (iii) Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) turned a type of minor Shirk toward Muslims which is not a sin from perspective of Shariah but Mr Asim ul-Haq rather deceptively, or more acurately rather illiterally, was using Tafsir of Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) and turned major Shirk toward Muslims.[2] Using flimsy basis of non-blameworthy type of Shirk to laydown the ultimate charge of major Shirk. None needs to be told major Shirk warrants disbelief and amounts to apostasy. A prime example of Wahhabi/Salafi education and capacity of understanding text Tafsir. And how they employ/distort texts to portray their Khariji belief system to convey scholars of past support their understandings. 3.0 - Position Of Ahlus Sunnah On What Al-Buhuti Stated: To begin with I have not been able to verify the given referrence and my comments should be taken on text presented and being quoted here. If the text isn’t accurate representation of what Shaykh Yunus al-Buhuti stated even then judgment is on on text qutoed here. Asim ul-Haq attributed to Al-Buhuti said: “(If one says) i) The Creator is the creation, ii) and the creation is the Creator; and the servant is the Lord and the Lord is the servant …” Note this statement is foundational statement and it is then further elaborated by Shaykh al-Buhuti. This statement is understood to mean: If one says that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is creation/servant, or creation/servant is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). (i) To believe in, Creator is creation or Allah is creation, is Kufr which invalidates belief in Islam. This belief is no different to notion which Christians entertain about Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) that God became man to die on cross. It is no different from Hindu belief that the God manifested/incarnated in form of creation i.e. Rama, Krishna, and Vishnu etc. (ii) To believe creation is the Creator, or creation is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is also major Kufr and Shirk. Everything stated in i applies here too. It also applies to aspects of Greek mythology where ordinary humans were believed to be elevated to status of a god i.e. Helen, Dionysus, and Epaphus etc. Pantheists (i.e. Hulooli’s), those who believe everything is God, are also included in this. Al-Buhuti makes referrence to Pantheists here: “… those who say that Allah in essence is everywhere and they claim that He is dwells in His creation …” Anthropomorphists (who liken Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala to His creation) attribute to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hands, feet, shin, and eyes; are the ones who make creation into Creator. Sects holding to such notions were historically known as Karamiyyah, Hashawiyyah, and in modern times the flag bearers of anthropomorphism are Wahhabiyyah/Salafiyyah. This includes anyone who attributes Ilahiyyah (i.e. God-hood) to a creation and believes worshiping that creation is acceptable. Anyone adopts any of these notions has committed Kufr/Shirk if they were Muslim. And like Shaykh Yunus al-Buhuti stated; Qadhi seeks repentance and in absence of it such person is deemed apostate and is to be executed by state authorities.[3] 3.1 - Some Instances Where Exception Is To be Applied: (i) Following is example of where Ilahiyyah was attributed to creation but the one attributing it did not actually believe the creation is God partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and did not believe this creation deserves worship. Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said: “Thus did We show Ibrahim the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he be one of those who have Faith with certainty. When the night covered him over with darkness he saw a star. He said: ‘This is my lord.’ But when it set, he said: ‘I like not those that set.’ When he saw the moon rising up, he said: ‘This is my lord.’ But when it set, he said: ‘Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among the people who went astray.’ When he saw the sun rising up, he said: ‘This is my lord. This is greater.’ But when it set, he said: ‘O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners.’ Verily, I have turned my face towards Him Who has created the heavens and the earth (and) upright nature, and I am not of polytheists.’” [Ref: 6:75/79] Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) did not repudiate Lordship of these until he saw the next in line and that too by attributing Lordship to another creation. He saw a comet and said that’s his lord. He saw the moon appear in evening and he said that’s his Lord. All night he did not repudiate this until sun began to rise and then attributed Lordship to sun. This indicates time of at very least ten hours had elapsed from evening to morning when he repudiated Lordship of moon for sake of sun. And then entire day had to elapse; from morning to evening for sunset until he repudiated lordship of sun and ascribed Tawheed of Ilahiyyah to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and disassociated from Shirk. NOTE: I do not believe, even for a second of day, Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) committed Shirk. His actions were supported by wisdom and intention of making polytheists realize Tawheed.[4] 3.2 - Instances Where Sufi Poets Have Transgressed Boundary: (ii) Some Sufis may have transgressed boundary of Shari’ah in peotical works and attributed Ilahiyyah to various personalities. One name that leaps to mind is Shaykh Muhammad Yar Faridi (rahimullah); who in his infamous, Diwan e Muhammadi, he wrote such controversial statements but following is just one example of all such; “Gar Muhammad nay Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ko khuda maan leeya, phir to samjo Musalman hey dagha-baz nahin.” Which translates to: “If Muhammad believed Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is khuda (i.e. god), then understand him to be a Muslim (and) not a deceiver.” Now if someone believes the apparent then this would amount Kufr and Shirk. But if the poetical verse is looked through lense of notions of Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyyah and Wahdat al-Wujud then it is absolutely in agreement with Tawheed.[5] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said in a Hadith Qudsi: “… and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, …” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gives his beloved slave/servant i.e. Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), special ability to hearing and seeing. It is this special ability via which Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sees the reality of universe. This poetical verse is indicating that Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) begins to peel the layers of universe and begins to witness [in state of meditative Zikr i.e. Muraqba, the] reality of existance. Eventually the slave of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reaches to level where he witnesses Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyyah and sees such level of beauty and perfection that Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mistakes it to be God. Shaykh Muhammad Yar Faridi stopped at this stage. The next step is that slave/servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) goes on to realize; even these do not exist in TRUE sense of existance but only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) exists and what he is witnessing is not Him. Another point worth mentioning is Shaykh stated: “If Muhammad believed Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is khuda (i.e. god), then understand him to be a Muslim (and) not a deceiver.” Why does Shaykh say this? Only a true Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can reach reach this stage and realise; Haqiqat of Muhammadiyyah is very foundation of universe; because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted his Wali special ability of seeing: “… so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees …” Even though some Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and I believe Shaykh Muhammad Yar Faridi (rahimullah) was one of them, incorrectly assume Haqiqat of Muhammadiyyah is khuda. Which these Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) go on to renounce in similar fashion of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam). At the end I would like to say that to believe in the Zahir/apparent of what Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) and in this case to believe in Zahir of what Shaykh Muhammad Yar Faridi wrote is Kufr/Shirk. 3.3 - Basing A Weird And Questionable Mode Of Expression On Hadith: (iii) In a authentic Hadith Qudsi it is recorded that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will say to people: “Allah will say on the Day of Resurrection: O son of Adam, I fell ill and you visited Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so had fallen ill and you visited him not? Did you not know that had you visited him you would have found Me with him?” To another man Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will say that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asked him for food and the man did not feed Him: “O son of Adam, I asked you for food and you fed Me not. He will say: O Lord, and how should I feed You when You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: Did you not know that My servant So-and-so asked you for food and you fed him not? Did you not know that had you fed him you would surely have found that with Me?” In the last part of Hadith it is recorded that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will say to a man that you did not give something to drink to Him: “O son of Adam, I asked you to give Me to drink and you gave Me not to drink. He will say: O Lord, how should I give You to drink whin You are the Lord of the worlds? He will say: My servant So-and-so asked you to give him to drink and you gave him not to drink. Had you given him to drink you would have surely found that with Me.” [Ref: Muslim, B32, H6232] Based on this Hadith if a Muslim was visiting a sick person and if he was detained in the way by someone and Muslim asks leave saying; My Lord is sick I need to visit Him or else I will be questioned on the day of judgment by Him why I didn’t visit Him when He was sick. A uneducated person my consider him to be Kafir and even Mushrik but the intended meaning is different from what is apparent. Or he was asked for food and he says to man looking at him; My Lord you’re Lord of all Alameen. I feeding You as You expected of me. My Lord eat from what you provided for me. The apparent if Kufr/Shirk but the intended meaning and interpretation is in according with what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated in Hadith Qudsi. Or if a Muslim was asked for drinking water and he says; My Lord drink all you can and grant me handsome return from Hawd al-Kauthar My Lord. The idiot may declare the righteous Muslim Kafir because the way of his speech is weird. But I am talking to my Lord and not to the person receiving water/food from me. 3.4 - When Attributing Ilahiyyah Is Deserves Exception Of Rules: Any Muslim due to immaturity of age, or insanity, or poetically, or due some wisdom, or due to lack of knowledge; attributes Ilahiyyah to a creation without actually believing in Ilahiyyah of that creation and without believing that creation deserves to be worshipped then the Muslim is not guilty of Kufr/Shirk.[6] Where it becomes clear that a Muslim is geniunely guilty of attributing Ilahiyyah to creation and actually believes worshiping that creation is permissible we the Ahlus Sunnah exhort and encourage the person to repent and if it fails we make Takfir. And if Khilafah al-Rashid is ruling as Khalifah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then punishment stated earlier is implimented with all cautions and after all efforts have failed. 3.5 - Shaykh al-Buhuti; Who Believes Allah Is Every Where Is Apostate: Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah believe to hold to creed; the Zaat/Essence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is everywhere [within His creation] such a person is guilty of Kufr. After thoroughly educating the person repentance is sought and ample time is given to ensure repentance and if all efforts fail the person is to be executed as stated in accordance with rule of law of state.[7] And this is precisely what Shaykh al-Buhuti wrote: “Similarly, those who say that Allah in essence is everywhere, and they claim that He is dwells in His creation, his repentance is sought, otherwise, he is executed.” We the Muslims believe the presence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) every where through His knowledge because He is described as, the Hearing, the Seeing. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not in His creation, i.e. the universe and everything in it, nor part of creation. He is free of all which His creation is subjected to and governed by. Please excuse this feeble way of demonstrating the point. You’re at mixed martial arts event. You’re a spectator. And you can see/hear all that takes place in the Octagon. Behaviour of contestants is constrained by certain rules and regulations but you are not constrained by them. In Zaat/Essence you’re out side the octagon but through your attributes of seeing/hearing it can be said you were present at the big fight. Of course this does not mean you was in the Octagon it just means you observed/heard the event unfold. In similar sense Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not in ‘the Octagon’ of universe but He is believed to be present because of His knowledge (i.e. hearing/seeing). 3.6 - Shaykh al-Buhuti; What He Wrote, Does Not Relate To Asim ul-Haq’s Objective: Shaykh al-Buhuti wrote: “These sects have now become widespread, and they have corrupted much of the beliefs of the people of Tawheed. We beg Allah for His forgiveness and safety!” All which Shaykh al-Buhuti stated has nothing to do with creed and understanding of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah, the Ashariyyah and Maturidiyyah, of world nor we defend any such belief. Rather scholars of Ahlus Sunnah who I have had pleasure of reading such as Imam Ahmad Raza Khan al-Qadri (rahimullah) clearly, emphatically, explicitly have denounced such people as guilty of Kufr. 3.7 - Thinking Reader And His Very Important Question: A thinking reader would question: Why is it important you denounce and disassociate from all which Shaykh al-Buhuti considered Kufr/apostasy; when Asim ul-Haq didn’t accuse you of Kufr/Shirk but he merely wanted to establish Muslims commit Shirk? In aid of answering this question first of all you must realize that a person can only be guilty of Kufr/Shirk if he/she ascribes to a creed which warrants charge of Kufr/Shirk and in absence of such creed charge is invalid. Secondly the people whom he accuses of committing Shirk/Kufr belong to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah he makes referrence to Ahlus Sunnah with following words: “Let me come to the Ahadeeth quoted by those who ask help from dead and say it is not shirk because shirk will never happen in the ummah.” This is referrence to Tawassul which Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah practice and evidence of it is in Hadith and even Quran. Note this charge is not just on a small group: Wahhabi lunacy dictates; adherents of this Khariji sect believe none beside Wahhabis know true Tawheed. And the Ahlus Sunnah, the Sawad al-Azam (the great group), the Jamhoor (i.e. the majority), the Jammah, composed of Ashariyyah and Maturidiyyah, are upon Tawheed which even the polytheists of Arabia believed. Asim ul-Haq already quoted verse of to support most Muslims are guilty of Shirk: “First i would like to quote Quran: "And most of them believe not in Allaah except while they associate others with Him." [Quran 12:106] Imam al-Qurtubi mentioned many …” And he was implying majority of Muslims are actually Mushrik now and have been for centuries, or at very least since time of Shaykh al-Buhuti. And he also stated this: “I quoted these two scholars so that people may know shirk entered into the Muslims centuries ago.” Questioner should note that there are three major factions, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and its branches, Wahhabiyyah and their sub-sects, Shia and sub-sects. These Kharijis consider all else Mushrik except themselves. In fact Shaykh Ibnul Abdul Wahhab is on record for saying that none before him [during his own life time] in region of Najd, Hijaz, Arid, and other regions of Arabia knew meaning of: “None is worthy of worship except Allah.” Of course he claimed he changed this through education. Vast majority of Muslims of Arabia including scholars held to Ashariyyah/Maturidiyyah creed just like vast majority of Muslims today. He nullified their Islam by saying they didn’t know Tawheed (i.e. None is worthy of worship except Allah). And Asim ul-Haq like Shaykh Ibnul Abdul Wahhab is charging the majority of exactly the same thing just different tact. It was important for these reasons to point out Ahlus Sunnah does not hold to positions which Shaykh al-Buhuti deemed Kufr/Shirk nor we are guilty of Kufr/Shirk. And to establish that MOST of Muslims are free from major Shirk which Asim ul-Haq is arguing to establish. 4.0 – Asim ul-Haq’s Comment And The Truth Regarding It: Asim wrote: “I quoted these two scholars so that people may know shirk entered into the Muslims centuries ago. There are Ahadeeth which states that Muslim Ummah will do shirk (referr to the article; ‘Asking Help From Dead is Shirk from Quran,Sunnah and Ijma.’) Let me come to the Ahadeeth quoted by those who ask help from dead and say it is not shirk because shirk will never happen in the ummah.” Before I begin responding to Asim ul-Haq please note his indicated article, ‘Asking Help From Dead Is Shirk from Quran Sunnah and Ijmah.’, has been responded to by my self, here, so please referr to it. First of all Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) directed major Shirk toward the polytheists of Arabia and included the Muslims in statement regarding a type of minor Shirk which I isn’t even offensive from perspective of Shari’ah. We the Muslims do not disagree over minor Shirk afflicting Ummah. In fact minor Shirk affliciting the Ummah is a agreed upon understanding between Kharijis and Ahlus Sunnah. The disagreement and major contention is over Kharijism charging the vast majority of Muslims of being guilty of major Shirk. Ahlus Sunnah has no objection to an absolute minority becoming polytheist; especially by converting to other religions for example, here, and here. These two are examples of Wahhabis leaving Islam and becoming Hindu. Unfortunately one is son of Wahhabi Maulvi popularly known as Umar Maulvi in Kerala. What Shaykh al-Buhuti wrote does not apply to us therefore it cannot be applied to establish Shirk of Jamhoor, the Jammah, the majority of Muslims. The point of contention between Wahhabis and Muslims is that they accuse the vast majority of Muslims of major Shirk and not a minority. In it is evident from what Asim wrote in another way: “There are Ahadeeth which states that Muslim Ummah will do shirk …” Note the implications of Muslim Ummah; it can be either used for entirity of Muslim Ummah or for majority but not for minority. And I will explain how the word Ummah is used in Hadith in following section. 4.1 - Interpretation Of Quoted Ahadith And Prophetic Teaching: What Asim and Wahhabis in general wish to establish is problematic and too daring effort in light of following Ahadith: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] Clearly insanity would compell an idiot to charge the majority of Shirk/Kufr. Coming to Hadith of Musnad of Imam Ahmad (rahimullah) indicates that majority is the Jammah and majority is Ummah. Two plust one equals three and if two are better then one then majority is better then minority. Three plus two are five and if three are better then two then majority is better then minority. After indicating majority is better then he said adhere to the Jammah. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would only encourage us to adhere to better i.e. majority, Jammah. And as part of same sentence then he went on to say the Ummah would only agree on guidance implying the Ummah is majority: “… so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." And Hadith of Ibn Majah apparently denotes Jammah is entirity of Ummah and it is obvious from following: “My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” But I also understanding this Hadith that Jammah (i.e. , the main-body, the majority) is being said as Ummah and majority of it. He said, my Ummah would not agree on misguidance, and then he said follow great majority in case of diferrence; in this there indication is that majority has not agreed on misguidance; therefore majority is being called Ummah. These are hair splitting Tafsir issues but all are valid. Coming back to topic; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “‘The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one, which is the main-body (i.e. the Jammah, the majority).” [Ref: Muslim, B36, H3993] Wahhabis in general and Asim in context of this response have sent MOST, the main-body, the majority of Muslims to hell-fire. In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “’One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main-body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah.’” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] Wahhabism not only rebelled agains the Khilafat Uthmaniyyah in 1750 onward. They not only left the Jammah but they formed their own bunch of Khariji zealot terrorist bunch and declared that the Jammah of Muslims of Arabian Peninsula and by extention of similarity of belief and practice of entire world are Mushrik/Kafir. So how can they not be derserving of death of Jahiliyyah period? In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Whosoever attacks my Ummah killing the righteous and the wicked of them (indiscriminately); sparing not (even) those staunch in faith, and fulfilling not his promise made with those who have been given a pledge of security-he has nothing to do with me, and I have nothing to do with him.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4555] As pointed out earlier, the word Ummah has been used in two meanings: i) main-body (i.e. the Jammah), ii) as well as entirity of Muslim Ummah including heretics. The Hadith indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Whosoever attacks my Ummah killing the righteous and the wicked of them (indiscriminately) …” Word Ummah is used here in second meaning because righteous, staunch in faith, are part of the Jammah and the wicked are heretics [therefore not included in the Jammah]. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said he has nothing to do with such a person. The origins of Wahhabism are drenched in blood of Muslims. The Wahhabis ravaged Arabian Peninsula and killed the Muslims indiscriminately, man, woman, children, the upright Muslims, and heretics. Enslaved, raped, pillaged, looted, destroyed lives, property of Muslims who did not agree with their Wahhabism.[8] 5.0 - Muslim Ummah Will Never Fall Into Major Shirk: Asim stated: “Let me come to the Ahadeeth quoted by those who ask help from dead and say it is not Shirk because Shirk will never happen in the Ummah.” We have no objection to accepting that a absolute minority can and did become Mushrik by changing their religion to others. But there is no chance of Muslim Ummah falling into major Shirk; there is no chance of what you stated here: “There are Ahadeeth which states that Muslim Ummah will do shirk (referr to the article; ‘Asking Help From Dead is Shirk from Quran,Sunnah and Ijma.’).” Your usage of words: “…Muslim Ummah …” denotes either majority, or entirity of Muslims falling into major Shirk. Your claim is majority, incase you say no its not; remember you quoted the verse; MOST believe not in Allah. No chance of Ummah … zero, zilch and nought percent chance of Muslim Ummah, as in majority or as whole, falling into major Shirk. To be on the record; the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah believe and have taught; minor Shirk of blame and of no-blame, and a very littly minority from Muslim, I would say 0.0000001%, becoming Mushrik by changing religion or by adopting a notion which is polytheistic, is quite possible and demonstrated. But most of Ummah, or whole of Ummah, with exclusion of Wahhabis, no chance. 6.0 - Asim ul-Haq’s Three Ahadith And The Way Forward: Second and third Ahadith will be dealt first and then finally the first Hadith. Reason for this is that conclusion of the article would incriminate and establish; the Wahhabis are guilty of Shirk which they accuse Muslims of. And the Hadith in discussion establishes and lends support to this view along side other Ahadith. 7.0 - Asim Calls Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani To Support His Position: Second Hadith: “Narrated Uqba bin Amir: Allah's Messenger offered the funeral prayers of the martyrs of Uhud eight years after (their death), as if bidding farewell to the living and the dead, then he ascended the pulpit and said: ‘I am your predecessor before you, and I am a witness on you, and your promised place to meet me will be Al- Haud (on the Day of Resurrection), and I am (now) looking at it from this place of mine. I am not afraid that you will worship others besides Allah, but I am afraid that worldly life will tempt you and cause you to compete with each other for it.’ That was the last look which I cast on Allah's Messenger.” [Ref: Bukhari, Vol5, B59, Kitab al-Maghazi – book of the Battles, H374, here.] Response: Ibn Hajar said in the Chapter of Signs of Prophethood, Hadeeth 3401: ‘He informed in this Hadith that he will be their predecessor at the Hawd, and this will occur as such, and that his companions will not commit Shirk after him, and this occurred as such, and he warned about competing for this world and this occurred, and this meaning has been mentioned in the Hadith of Amr ibn Awf in a Marfu' way: ‘I do not fear poverty for you, but I fear that this world will be presented for you as it was presented for those before you …’, and the Hadith of Abu Sa'id in the same meaning, and this occurred as well as they conquered many lands and the world spread for them in great quantity, and more will be mentioned about this in the chapters of heart softeners.’" [Ref: Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab (61) al-Manaqib, Chapter (25) Signs Of Prophet-hood, Hadith 3401] “He also mentioned (even if it is for whole Ummah) then the words, ‘I do not fear that you will associate others with Allah …’, mean as a whole (they will not associate partners with Allah), because that (Shirk) happened with some of them – may Allah protect us. This Hadeeth is one of the miracles of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) hence the author narrated it under the heading of the signs of Prophethood.” [Ref: Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol 3, Page 211] 8.0 - Asim ul-Haq Responds To; I Am Not Afraid You Will Worship Others Beside Allah: Asim ul-Haq quotes the following Hadith, which the Muslims employ to argue; Muslim Ummah, i.e. the majority, will not adopt beliefs/practices of Shirk: “Narrated Uqba bin Amir: Allah's Messenger offered the funeral prayers of the martyrs of Uhud eight years after (their death), as if bidding farewell to the living and the dead, then he ascended the pulpit and said: ‘I am your predecessor before you, and I am a witness on you, and your promised place to meet me will be Al- Haud (on the Day of Resurrection), and I am (now) looking at it from this place of mine. I am not afraid that you will worship others besides Allah, but I am afraid that worldly life will tempt you and cause you to compete with each other for it.’ That was the last look which I cast on Allah's Messenger.” [Ref: Bukhari, Vol5, B59, Kitab al-Maghazi – book of the Battles, H374, here.] To begin with readers should note a whole article has been dedicated explaining why you in the Hadith is inclusive of entire Ummah and not just the companions. And this article can be read, here. In light of same Hadith, from a different perspective, it was explained; the entire Muslim Ummah is protected from major Shirk, and not just the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), here. But briefly here is the evidence that you is inclusive of entire Muslim Ummah and not just companions: “The thing that I fear most for my Ummah is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1 B37, H4205] Note in the first Hadith, of Bukhari, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used you; “…that you will worship …” but in the second Hadith, of Ibn Majah, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) clearly explained said what he meant by you i.e. his believing Ummah; “…most for my Ummah is …”. In the first Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have used words; “…others besides Allah …” and in the second Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained by what he meant by it; by indicating sun, moon, and idols; “…worship the sun or the moon or idols …” On account of this evidence it will be apparent that Taweel/Tafsir which Asim ul-Haq is holding to cannot not abrogate what has been established in this section. Therefore the Tafsiri meaning of Hadith of Bukhari would be: “I am your predecessor before you (O my Ummah), and I am a witness on you, and your promised place to meet me will be Al- Haud, and I am (now) looking at it from this place of mine. I am not afraid that you (O my Ummah) will worship others besides Allah (such as Sun, Moon, and idols), but I am afraid that worldly life will tempt you (O my Ummah) and cause you to compete with each other for it.” With this irrefutable foundation now we will move to; how he established his case; and what it actually boils down to in light of prophetic teaching. 8.1 - Shaykh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani And What He Said: Shaykh (rahimullah) said that in the Hadith you referrs to companions but he then in another place said if it wasn’specific for companions then it is Ummah as whole and not about a minority because Shirk has happened in some members of Ummah. From this we can deduce that when Shaykh Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) wrote the following he did not deem is definitive and absolute truth but he gave his best understanding of Hadith: “…and this will occur as such, and that his companions will not commit Shirk after him, and this occurred as such, …” And fact of matter his even if he considered his understanding as concrete even then his understanding would have been contradicted by following prophetic words: “The thing that I fear most for my Ummah is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1 B37, H4205] 8.2 - Interpretation Of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani In Frame Work Of Prophetic Teaching: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Messenger saying: ‘I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim, and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand.’ Muhammad said: ‘Jawami al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet.’” [Ref: Bukhar, B87, H141] In other words prophetic words can be interpreted in wide meanings and all such interpretations will be valid as long as these interpretations do not contradict Quran/Hadith. Imam Ibn Hajr al-Aqalani’s (rahimullah) understanding of Hadith agrees with generally held notions about companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Which are of course supported by text of Quran and Hadith therefore we have no objection to accepting his interpretation. The comprehensive understanding of the portion of Hadith in discussion is as explained in section 7.0 and supported by clear evidence of Hadith. And the understanding that this Hadith is inclusive of rest of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not detract anything from Imam Ibn Hajr’s (rahimullah) understanding but gives support to it; because companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are part of his Ummah and are part of following just like rest of his Ummah: “The thing that I fear most for my Ummah is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1 B37, H4205] 8.3 - Matter Of Principle And Interpretation Of Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani: It is matter of principle that a Mutliq Haqiqi (true generality; inclusive of all, excluding none) cannot be made Muqayyid Haqiqi (i.e. true specific, limited, restricted to a type) if there is no evidence to do so. It is also a principle that a Mutliq Haqiqi cannot become Muqayyid Haqiqi on grounds of evidence of Takhsees. Only plausible, but not definitive, way to argue; Mutliq Haqiqi is Muqayyid Haqiqi; if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) himself employed language which serves evidence; x was in meaning of y. And even then valid counter argument would be that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not limit/restrict his statement but gave example to help the listeners understand his general statement. Example of this in Hadith is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed fi amrina (i.e.matter of ours) here: "Whoever innovates something in this matter of ours (i.e. fi amrina) that is not part of it, will have it rejected." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H14] In another place he is reported to have said: “A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: He who did any act for which there is no sanction from our behalf, that is to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] The first Hadith is general but second Hadith defines amr (i.e. matter) as amal (i.e. action/practice). In other words it can be argued that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made Mutliq Haqiqi into Muqayyid Haqiqi. A valid counter argument in response to it would be that he gave example of an action/amal to demonstrate his general statement of amr via a example of amal. Proof of reasoning is; it is accepted that any belief not sanctioned by text of Quran/Hadith is also rejected and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not include this in statement of amal. He included actions and left issues of creed and this demonstrates he was only illustrating his general statement with example. If he wanted to define amr comprehensively he would have done so by mention creedal matters also. My example of this would be: Give me something to drink. And then I say: Water! Point is I wanted anything to drink and suggested water as a example. No reasonable person would assume I made Haqiqi Takhsees. In other words; I asked for water of to drink. Rather they would realize that my preferrence is water but any thirst quenching drink would just as good. In this context; there is no definitive Muqayyid Haqiqi. Point worth noting is when prophetic words do not come togather to establish Muqayyid Haqiqi even in compelling cases then why should word of Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimullah) be deemed the final verdict and absolute truth. And fact is he himself doesn’t believe this because he introduced a doubt in his interpretation in another place: “…then the words, ‘I do not fear that you will associate others with Allah …’, mean as a whole (they will not associate partners with Allah), because that (Shirk) happened with some of them …“ Therefore the best meaning and best interpretation of; “I am not afraid that you will worship others besides Allah, …”; is inclusion of Muslim Ummah and exclusion of none – i.e. I am not afraid that you O my Ummah will worship others beside Allah; likes of sun, moon, idols; as evidenced by prophetic words narrated here: “The thing that I fear most for my Ummah is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1 B37, H4205] 8.4 – Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani Said It Means Ummah As Whole: Imam (rahimullah) wrote folllowing:“He also mentioned (even if it is for whole Ummah) then the words, ‘I do not fear that you will associate others with Allah …’, mean as a whole (they will not associate partners with Allah), because that (Shirk) happened with some of them – may Allah protect us. This Hadeeth is one of the miracles of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) hence the author narrated it under the heading of the signs of Prophethood.” [Ref: Fath al-Baari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol 3, Page 211] Meaning of his saying is that entirity of Ummah will not worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In other words at no point in the history of Islam even till the day of judgment the Muslims Ummah would become Mushrik. That is to say that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has foretold; Ummah as whole, or in other words majority, would NOT become Mushrik; but minority can and this has happened in some instances. 8.5 - Matter Of Principle, Majority Is Whole, And Shaykh Of Najd: Rule of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is; over whelming majority is whole. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the angels to prostrate Iblees, the Jinn, did not. Instructed the angels to prostrate but because he was a drop amongst the ocean of angels hence he was also instructed. Even Iblees understood, majority is whole, and therefore he has been instructed to prostrate but his reason for not doing was pride/arrogance and it doomed him. Yet the Iblees of Najd and his Qarn, aka Shaykh Ibnul Abdul Wahhab and his Wahhabi minions, taught/believe that before me/him none knew meaning of, none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, in Najd, Arid, Hijaz, in other regions of Arabian Peninsula. Which means there were not any Muslims in Arabia before; and only Muslims that existed during/after Shaykh of Najd started his mission of Takfir, slaughter, rape, pillage, destruction and general ISIS style terrorism; were his own followers: “And I inform you about myself – I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him – I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha Illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored. As well as my Shaikhs (teachers) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-Arid (the lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha Illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived people and praised himself with something he does not possess.“ [Ref: al-Darur al-Saniyyah, Volume 10, Page 51, here.] And if you compute this to reality of world then you will note; all most, all Muslims held to same creed and teachings Tawheed of people of Arabia; because all most all of them were either Ashari or Maturidi. And if he deemed scholarship of Arabia of not knowing Tawheed, i.e. none has the right to be worshipped exceped Allah, then by default he accused the entire Ummah of same. And if Ummah didn’t knew meaning of this basic concept of Tawheed then how could they have been Muslim? And minion of Khariji Iblees, aka Asim ul-Haq, has not fallen far from the Khariji tree because he attempted to establish majority is guilty of Shirk via; MOST believe not in Allah except with Shirk; remember??? What did Imam (rahimullah) say write, Ummah as whole, and founder of Wahhabism and Asim ul-Haq indicated whom are guilty of major Shirk, Ummah as whole. They accuse the majority of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of exactly; what RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he does not fear [because it would not happen]; and what Imam Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) understood would not happen. NOTE: Following two articles explain what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not fearing something means in context of this Hadith and in general; here, here and here. 8.6 - Whole Ummah And Ummah As Whole And Prophetic Teaching: As it was pointed out by Imam Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not afraid of Ummah as whole associating creation as Ilah partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and then worshipping them. This to me means majority of his Ummah would remain upon Tawheed and an absolutely insignificant minority can/will become guilty of Shirk. And this understanding has support of Imam Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) too because he said Ummah as whole and then went on to say some from Ummah have committed Shirk; which indicates majority being protected from major Shirk: “… then the words, ‘I do not fear that you will associate others with Allah …’, mean as a whole (they will not associate partners with Allah), because that (Shirk) happened with some of them – may Allah protect us.” In support of his understanding we present what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said as evidence of Takhsees: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] In other words the meaning of prophetic words, “I am not afraid that you will worship others besides Allah, but I am afraid that worldly life will tempt you ...”, is I am not afraid that you, the great majority of Muslims; which is to be followed in case of difference of opinion, would ascribe Ilahiyyah to creation and then worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And in light of following Hadith Tafsir of underlined would be; … would ascribe Ilahiyyah to creation and then worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) such as sun, moon, and idols: “The thing that I fear most for my Ummah is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1 B37, H4205] 8.7 - Concluding Discussion On Statements Of Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani: Imam Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) interpreted, you, in the Hadith with Takhsees of companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And he did not deem his Tafsir of it as definitive because he gave alternative meaning of Ummah as whole in another section under same Hadith. Imam Ibn Hajr’s (rahimullah) statement is fully supported by what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) said that his Ummah would not worship sun, moon, and idols. And his saying it means Ummah as whole is also supported because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said that follow the majority; and principle is over whelming majority is deemed to be and said to be as whole. Just as two mins to twelve is said to be twelve; because 11:58 is over whelming majority toward twelve. Takhsees is only made when absolutely required otherwise over-whelming majority is whole. The Wahhabis deem the over-whelming majority of Muslims as Mushrik and not a minority of them. They deem all Muslims to be Mushrik, with exception of themselves, for one or another reason, wether they express it clearly or not is another matter but their teachings conclude same outcome. And the minority which became guilty of Shirk was of those who left Islam for other religions, or adopted other polytheistic notions which invalidate Tawheed i.e. Atheism, Pantheism/Hulool, and others. And they have nothing to do with Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and its three core schools; Athariyyah, Ashariyyah, and Maturidiyyah. Yet the Khawarij, likes of, Shaykh al-Najd Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Asim ul-Haq, and Wahhabiyyah in general, accuse the Ahlus Sunnah of being guilty of major Shirk/Kufr. 9.0 - Asim ul-Haq’s Copy & Paste Job From Wahhabi Website: “Third Hadith: (1) "The Shaytaan has despaired of ever being worshipped by the worshippers in the Arabian Peninsula." With regard to the Hadeeth: "The Shaytaan has despaired of ever being worshipped..." the scholars have interpreted it in several ways: a) That the Shaytaan has despaired of ever getting all worshippers to unite on kufr. [This view was favoured by the great scholar Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. Al-Darar al-Sunnah, 12/117.] That this is a report of the despair that befell the Shaytaan when he saw the conquests and how the people entered the religion of Allaah in crowds. So the hadeeth is telling us what the Shaytaan thought and he expected to happen. Then what really happened was something other than that, for a reason decreed by Allaah. [This view was favoured by Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him). Al-Qawl al-Mufeed, 1/211.] c) That the Shaytaan despaired of the believers whose faith is complete, because the Shaytaan has no hope that they will worship him. [This view was favoured by al-Aloosi. See Da'aawa al-Munaawi'een, 224.] d) That the "al-" in the word "al-musalloon" (worshippers) refers to a specific group of worshippers, and that what is meant is the Sahaabah. All of these interpretations are close in meaning, and the most likely is the second. And Allaah knows best. See Ahaadeeth al-Aqeedah allati yuwahham Zaahiruha al-Ta'aarud fi'l-Saheehayn, 2/232-238 . (end quote) (2) “Response (Islamqa Fatwa no: 42919): In another hadeeth it says: "Night and day will not cease until al-Laat and al-'Uzza are worshipped." Praise be to Allaah. One of the things that are established by the scholars is that shirk will take place in the ummah as is indicated by the sound texts, and reality confirms this. Many of the Arabs apostatized after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and many of them went back to worshipping idols. The Mujaddid (renewer of the Faith) Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab said: "Chapter: Reports That Some Of This Ummah Will Worship Idols." Then he mentioned some ahaadeeth which indicate that.” [Ref: Deviants Arguments : Shirk Will Not Take Place In Ummah, by Asim ul-Haq, here.] 9.1 - About Material Of Wahhabi Website And News Of Things To Come: The material has been re-organised for the readers so they can easily associate the relavent material of with Hadith easily. Also I wished to comment on both Ahadith systematically. No ommissions have been made to effect the quality of Wahhabi response. Nor does the reorganisation negatively effect the quoted material. Its just that I have self inflicted OCD of sorting mess out. News of things to come: To begin with I will explain the meaning of prophetic statement in first Hadith in light of Quranic verses. Then judge if the Wahhabi interpretations are correct. And then explain what the implications of the first Hadith are upon Wahhabi charge of Shirk. It will be followed by effort to contextualize second Hadith in order of events to come. It will establish who the Ummah is and if they will be Muslim or not and then point out if it has already happen or not. 9.2 - Satan Has Despaired In Regards To Being Worshipped By Servants Of Allah: "Jabir reported: I heard Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship (him) in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] “It was narrated from Sulaiman bin ‘Amr bin Ahwas that his father said: “I heard the Prophet () say, during the Farewell Pilgrimage: ‘O people! Which day is the most sacred?’ three times. They said: ‘The day of the greatest Hajj.’ He said: ‘Your blood and your wealth and your honor are sacred to one another, as sacred as this day of yours, in this land of your. No sinner commits a sin but it is against himself. No father is to be punished for the sins of his child, and no child is to be punished for the sins of his father. Satan has despaired of ever being worshipped in this land of yours, but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, and he will be content with that. All the blood feuds of the Ignorance days are abolished, and the first of them that I abolish is the blood feud of Harith bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib, who was nursed among Banu Laith and killed by Hudhail. All the usuries of the Ignorance days are abolished, but you will have your capital. Do not wrong others and you will not be wronged. O my nation, have I conveyed (the message)?’ (He asked this) three times. They said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘O Allah, bear witness!’ three times.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol1, B25, H3055] “Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Ash-Shaitan has despaired of getting those who perform Salat to worship him. But he is engaged in sowing hatred among them.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1937] 9.3 - Material Previously Written About Satan Worship: Worship of Satan in language of Quran means obedience of Satan and following article illustrates this understanding, here. Also worship of Satan is a synanom for idol worship and following article establishes this, here. In addition to these two article quite sometime ago on Wahhabi, IslamicAwakening forum, I was challenged with regards to my interpretation; Satan worship is synonym of idol worship. And in response to which I wrote a extensive response some of that will be reproduced as part of this article. 10.0 - Sunnah Of Allah In Quran And Principle Of Tafsir: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: i) “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. ii) There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:15] From the out set the first part of verse is not connected with the second but in actuality second part is summary of first part. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “…there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture …” Noor reveals what is hidden in darkness thus revealing what is hidden is quality of Noor. And the verse states this is what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does therefore the following part of verse referrs to him indirectly: “There has come to you from Allah a light …” Second part is Messenger reveals what the Jews hid in their scriptures and Messenger reveals through the knowledge of Wahi and in this context Quran. Quran is a book therefore the following part of verse is referrence to Quran: “…and a clear Book.” Point I am making is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) summarized the earlier part of verse to impart another meaning. He says the same thing but another way. So we learn that Noor is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he reveals what the Jews hid and through which he revealed what the Jews hid is Kitab al-mubeen. Similar to Maidah verse 15 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states the following: “’Have they feet wherewith they walk? Or have they hands wherewith they hold? Or have they eyes wherewith they see? Or have they ears wherewith they hear?’” And in the following part Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) spells out the implications of what the questions. In other words He says the same thing in another way: “Say: ‘Call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me, and give me no respite! Verily, my Wali is Allah Who has revealed the Book, and He protects the righteous. And those whom you call upon besides Him cannot help you nor can they help themselves. And if you call them to guidance, they hear not and you will see them looking at you, yet they see not.’” [Ref: 7:195/198] The only diferrence is in Surah al-Maidah verse 15 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) shortened the Tafseel in the end of verse. And in Surah al-A’raf verses 195/198 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gave brief account and in the later verses gave Tafseel. This is the Sunnah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and its evident in all over Quran. Please keep this, saying the same thing with/without Tafseel earlier/later, in mind in the following discussion. 10.1 - Prophet Ibrahim Makes Alternative Referrence To Idol Worship: i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) narrates Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) addressed his father and said: “And mention in the Book (the story of) Abraham. Indeed, he was a man of truth and a prophet. (Mention) when he said to his father: O my father, why do you worship that which does not hear and does not see and will not benefit you at all? O my father, indeed there has come to me of knowledge that which has not come to you, so follow me; I will guide you to an even path. O my father, do not worship Satan. Indeed Satan has ever been, to the Most Merciful, disobedient. O my father, indeed I fear that there will touch you a punishment from the Most Merciful so you would be to Satan a companion (in Hellfire).’ (His father) said: ‘Have you no desire for my gods, O Abraham? If you do not desist, I will surely stone you, so avoid me a prolonged time.’" [Ref: 19:41/46] Contextually the phrase, ‘O my father, do not worship Satan.’, has no connection with anything before except the verse, ‘O my father, why do you worship that which does not hear and does not see and will not benefit you at all?’ Which leads to deduction worship of which does not see/hear and benefit is in fact Satan worship. Conclusion Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) referrenced idol worship in another way to illustrate a different angle of understanding idol worship. ii) Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) has emphatically stated that his father took idols as an Ilah (i.e. Ma’bud; a being derserving of worship) and he therefore worships these Ilahs: "Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." [Ref: 6:74] Idols have eyes, ear, hands, feet, but none of them are functioning. They do not hear, or see, or walk, or hold, or talk. And this Tafseel is another verse where it is also stated they do not see or hear: “’Have they feet wherewith they walk? Or have they hands wherewith they hold? Or have they eyes wherewith they see? Or have they ears wherewith they hear?’ Say: ‘Call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me, and give me no respite! Verily, my Wali is Allah Who has revealed the Book, and He protects the righteous. And those whom you call upon besides Him cannot help you nor can they help themselves. And if you call them to guidance, they hear not and you will see them looking at you, yet they see not.’” [Ref: 7:195/198] Hence the referrence to, “… that which does not hear and does not see …”, is therefore about idols. And this leads to full circle, “O my father, do not worship Satan.”, is in fact referrence to idol worship. iii) In addition to this many commentators have also understood that Satan worship is referrence to idol worship. And this change of referrencing it was because idol worship is in fact due to obedience of Satan which was equated to Satan worship. 10.2 - Explaining Verse 19:44 In Light of Quran And Sunnah: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said a supplication [directed toward an Ilah/God] is worship: “Narrated An-Nu'man ibn Bashir: The Prophet said: Supplication (i.e. Du'a) is itself the worship. (He then recited:) ‘And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you.’" [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1474] Please bare this in mind for following discussion. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “(The Mushrikeen i.e. polytheists) leaving Him call but upon goddesses: They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] In context of prophetic saying; supplication is worship, the verse 4:117 basicly means: ”The polythiests leave Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instead worship goddesses: They worship Satan the persistent rebel.” This is collective judgment for three goddesses mentioned in Quran: Some polytheists worshipped Manat, others Uzza, and others Laat. In context of a polytheist who worships Uzza the interpretation would be tailored: ”The polythiests leave Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instead worship, al-Uzza, the goddess: They worship Satan the persistent rebel.” It is self evident that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has deemed goddess worship as Satan worship and He has deemed supplication to gods as supplication to Satan: “(The Mushrikeen i.e. polytheists) leaving Him call but upon goddesses: They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] 10.3 - Reversing The Logic To Understand Verse Of Worship Not Satan: We arrived at the conclusion; Uzza worship is Satan worship; after adding layers of facts derived from Ahadith. It should be noted that we can repeal each layer to uncover the most basic facts which support this understanding if we know what they are. Following is most basic facts which will help us to repeal layers to get to foundational meaning: i) Worship is supplication. ii) Satan worship is false-god worship. iii) Polytheists worshipped gods in form of idols. And in context of discussion -: Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said to his father Azhar: "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] Before I begin, note, at each step I will only interpret required portion and leave unrelating portions unchanged until over-all interpretation is given. Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said: “O my father! Worship not Satan.” Because worship is supplication therefore this can be interpreted to mean: “O my father! Supplicate not Satan.” Supplicating goddess is supplication of Satan and it is also true for gods therefore it can also mean: “O my father Worship not god.” And finally it can also mean: “O my father! Worship not idol.” The over-all interpretation of verse, "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” , would be: “O my father! Supplicate not idol-god: For Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” Unrelated to subject the meaning of following verse is; did I not command you, O children of Adam, that you should act not act on instruction of Satan to worship idols. And it also means; did I not command you, O children of Adam, that you should not worship idol-god: “Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” [Ref: 36:60] 10.4 - Implications Of Satan Worship Meaning Satan’s Obedience And Idol Worship: It has been established Satan worship in language of Quran means two things; i) obedience of Satan , ii) idol-god worship. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) reported to have said: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship (him) in the peninsula of Arabia ..." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] And in light of established meaning of what Satan worship is the meaning of prophetic statement would be; "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship idol-gods in the peninsula of Arabia ..." And it also means; "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever obey him in his version of Haram/Halal in the peninsula of Arabia ..." Alternative meaning of this would be; "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever elevate him to standard of lord beside Allah [like the Jews/Christians did to their scholars] in the peninsula of Arabia ..." And following Ahadith mean the same as stated: “Indeed Ash-Shaitan has despaired of getting those who perform Salat to worship him." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1937] “Satan has despaired of ever being worshipped in this land of yours …” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol1, B25, H3055] 10.5 - The Despair Of Satan And Its Implications And His Course Of Action: When it has become evident that Satan has, despaired, has been demoralized, given up hope of being worshipped by worshippers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) - i.e. worship idol-gods, or take Satan as lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Then question is what is he hopefull of? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: "... but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension (altrntve; discord) amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] “But he is engaged in sowing hatred among them.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1937] In other words; Satan no longer attempted to convert the believing Ummah to polytheism. Instead he did what he was hopefull of, i.e. discord, and was/is engaged in sowing hatred of each other amongst the worshippers. If you recall I gave interpretation that Satan worship means obedience of Satan on matters of Haram/Halal and prophetic statement supports this interpretation: “Satan has despaired of ever being worshipped in this land of yours, but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, and he will be content with that.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol1, B25, H3055] The prophetic statement contextually means; Satan has despaired of ever being obeyed by Muslims in matters of Halal/Haram in this land of yours but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, and he will be content with that. And alternatively it can be phrased as; Satan has despaired of ever being elevated to standard of a lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) … and the rest is same as mentioned previously. 10.6 - Return of Idol-God Worship In Arabian Peninsula After Death Of Muslims: He is/will be hopefull of PEOPLE of Arabia reverting to polytheism but only after all Muslim/Momin would have passed away due to cool/musky wind which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) send to collect souls before destruction of judgment day is established: “Aisha reported:I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza.[…] Then Allah would send the sweet fragrant air by which everyone who has even a mustard grain of faith in Him would die and those only would survive who would have no goodness in them. And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] “… and the milch sheep would give so much milk that the whole family would be able to drink out of that and at that time Allah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Momin and every Muslim (i.e. فَتَقْبِضُ رُوحَ كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ وَكُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ) and only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like asses and the Last Hour would come to them.” [Ref: Muslim, B041, H7015, here] And following Hadith explains that to these wicked and evil people Satan would come and say to those Kafir Arabs: Hey! Why don’t you respond? I have been calling you to idol-worship and then they will obey him: “... I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Only the wicked people would survive and they would be as careless as birds with the charactertistics of beasts. They would never appreciate the good nor condemn evil. Then the satan would come to them in human form and would say: Don't you respond? And they would say: What do you order us? And he would command them to worship the idols. But in spite of this, they would have abundance of sustenance and lead comfortable lives. Then the trumpet ...” [Ref: Muslim B41, H7023] And the idols which these Arabs will worship have been mentioned in Hadith-6945, and these are Lat, Uzza, and in another Hadith Dhil Khalasah is mentioned. Point to be noted this will happen in Arabia Peninsula when there will be no worshippers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and nor will there be any on earth. And even then Satan would struggle to make the Kafirs to worship idols and they will only respond to his indirect suggestions when he visits them in form of man. 11.0 - Shaykh Ibn Rajab Regarding Hadith Of Satan Has Despaired: It was attributed to Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah) that he said: “With regard to the Hadeeth: "The Shaytaan has despaired of ever being worshipped..." the scholars have interpreted it in several ways: a) That the Shaytaan has despaired of ever getting all worshippers to unite on Kufr. [This view was favoured by the great scholar Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. Al-Darar al-Sunnah, 12/117.]” Khariji did not quote the details which would have helped me to indentify which type of Kufr Shaykh (rahimullah) intended in his statement. Keeping the best view about Shaykh (rahimullah); I would assume that the intended Kufr was which results from major Shirk. And whose corner stone is affirmation of beliefe of Ilahiyyah for a creation and worship of it. If this was intended then it can be agreed that Hadith means: ‘Satan has despaired of ever getting all the worshippers of Arabian Peninsula to unite upon Kufr [via major Shirk].’ 11.1 - Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen al-Khariji Regarding Hadith Of Satan Has Despaired: Ibn Uthaymeen, the chief of Kharijis of Najd, is reported to have said: “ That this is a report of the despair that befell the Shaytaan when he saw the conquests and how the people entered the religion of Allaah in crowds. So the Hadeeth is telling us what the Shaytaan thought and he expected to happen. Then what really happened was something other than that for a reason decreed by Allaah. [This view was favoured by Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him). Al-Qawl al-Mufeed, 1/211.]” Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen is a major Wahhabi/Khariji scholar from Najd and you can see his ‘TRUE’ knowledge on display. i) This saying of Ibn Uthaymeen is nothing but example of his Jahl. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) informed His Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about despair of Satan and He informed that Satan would engage in things which he is hopefull of i.e. discord, hatred, and being obeyed in minor infractions and Satan being satisfied with that. If Satans state of despair was to change then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not have said: “Satan has despaired of ever being worshipped in this land of yours, but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, and he will be content with that.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol1, B25, H3055] In other words due to state of his despair he will only attempt to misguide the Muslims in insignificant matters and Satan will be satisified with this achievement and will not attempt anything greater i.e. HALALING the HARAM, and IDOL-GOD worship. ii) Ya Shaykh you said; Shaytan expected that the Muslims will remain upon Islam/Tawheed and this did not materialize but instead the Muslims fell into Kufr/Shirk as decreed by Allah (subhananhu wa ta’ala). Yet the fact is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has decreed that Shirk in Arabia will only return after death of Muslims. After which judgment day will be established on the worst type of people i.e. polytheists and evil doers. If what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had decreed has already taken place then Ummah of Tawheed and Islam is dead and you’re from Kafirs on whom the destruction of judgment day will be established. Evidence of which will be presented in forth coming articles.[9] 11.2 - Alusi On Hadith Of Satan Has Despaired: A certain Alusi, I am not sure if this is Shaykh Mahmud al-Alusi, is reported to have said: “c) That the Shaytaan despaired of the believers whose faith is complete, because the Shaytaan has no hope that they will worship him. (This view was favoured by al-Aloosi. See Da'aawa al-Munaawi'een, 224.)” And if the intended meaning of his saying is; Satan has no hope of the believers whose faith is complete, through correct knowledge of Tawheed/Islam and its practice, would obey him in matters of Haram/Halal. Or it it intended meaning of writer was; Satan has no hope of the believers whose faith is complete, through correct knowledge of Tawheed/Islam and its practice, would worship idol-gods on his instruction. If the intended interpretations were either of two or both then it can be agreed. Any other interpretation until it does not negate these two fundamentally established can be accepted and would be valid if the criteria of evidence is met. 11.3 - Ahadith Al-Aqeedah Allati … Records About Satan Has Despaired: It is recorded in Ahadith al-Aqeedah .. that al of al-Musalloon is about a specific group: “d) That the "al" in the word "al-musalloon" (worshippers) refers to a specific group of worshippers, and that what is meant is the Sahaabah. All of these interpretations are close in meaning, and the most likely is the second. And Allaah knows best. See Ahaadeeth al-Aqeedah allati yuwahham Zaahiruha al-Ta'aarud fi'l-Saheehayn, 2/232-238 . (end quote)” It is true that addition of al to al-Musalloon indicates a special and specific group of people and this understanding is in accordance with rules of Arabic grammar. But it is not certain who this special specific group of people are. In the following I will present three interpretations: i) One interpretation is that specialisation of al-Musalloon referrs to Sahabah, Tabi’een, Taba at-Tabi’een because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “The Prophet said: ‘The best people are those of my generation (i.e. Sahabah), and then those who will come after them (i.e. Tabi’een), and then those who will come after (i.e. Taba at-Tabi’een), and then after ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H437] ii) Specialisation of al in al-Musalloon also can mean people of West (i.e. Hijaz) because regarding them Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “The people of the West will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the Hour is established.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4722] Note Najd is East and in relation to Najd Hijaz is stated as West. And Hijaz is the last refuge of Islam: “The Messenger of Allah said: "Indeed the religion with creep into the Hijaz just like a snake creeps into its hole, and the religion will cling to the Hijaz just like the female mountain goat cling to the peak of a mountain. Indeed the religion began as something strange and it will return to being strange. So Tuba is for the strangers who correct what the people have corrupted from my Sunnah after me." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B38, H2630] And this interpretation of al in al-Musalloon destroys the foundation of Kharijism which originated in Najd and lead by Iblees of Najd and followed by bandits of Najd because Shaykh al-Najd aka Shaykh Ibnul Abdul Wahhab charged the people of Hijaz of being guilty of major Shirk. When the reality was/is the inhabitants of Hijaz held/hold to true Islam and will continue to do so till judgment day is established. iii) It can also be that al of al-Musalloon can also include and most definitely does include the majority of Muslims and their scholarship because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar al-Ghaffari, H20776] And the majority is in fact the Jammah of Muslims therefore al of al-Musalloon is about Jammah deviation from which even a handspan leads to hell-fire: “‘The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one which is the Jammah.” [Ref: Muslim, B36, H3993] “’One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the Jammah of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah.’” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] Death of Jahiliyyah is of utter ignorance, barbarity and Shirk. iv) Finally al of al-Musalloon can be regarding the whole Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because he said: “I heard Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan delivering a sermon. He said: ‘I heard the Prophet saying: ‘If Allah wants to do a favor to somebody, He bestows on him, the gift of understanding the Qur'an and Sunna. I am but a distributor, and Allah is the Giver. The state of this Ummah will remain good till the Hour is established, or till Allah's Order comes.’’" [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H415] Alternative translation of underlined would be; the state of this Ummah will remain upon straight path till the Hour is established, or till Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) order comes. v) And to end it I Muhammed Ali Razavi say al of al-Musalloon is inclusive of all four interpretations and all of them are valid. The first interpretation is only interpretation of al-Musalloon which excludes all else except three generations. The second interpretation is inclusive of first but excludes the third and fourth interpretations. It can incorporate the first because the first three generations predominately remained in Hijaz. It also stands alone as proof against those who accused the Ahlul Hijaz of Kufr, or Shirk, or heresy. And third and fourth are interpretations which include all of Ahlus Sunnah from companions to present. Interpretations three and four are fundamentally the same; the only diferrence in one place the Jammah is referred as Ummah and in the other Ummah is referred as the Jammah. And in context of prophetic saying, "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship (him) in the peninsula of Arabia ...",) contended with. On this charge of Shirk Wahhabism’s founder and his followers laid the foundation, and justified butchery, enslavement, rape, pillage, destruction of houses, mosques, religious seminaries of Muslims of Makkah, Madinah, Najd, and of other regions of Arabia.sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he will be satisfied with sowing seed of discord, hatred, and being obeyed in minor affairs. Yet Iblees incarnate from Najd, and his mini-Shayateen hold to view that Arabia as whole became power house of major Shirk. Not just regular mill major Shirk but hold to view that the Muslims were in Shirk worse then Shirk of those whom Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam] worshipping him in Arabian Peninsula. It was due to his despair that Iblees would not attempt to incite the Muslims to worship idol-gods in Arabian Peninsula but he will attempt lesser things such as sowing seeds of discord, hatred, and being obeyed in minor issues. Prophet (i.e. people of Hijaz, the Jammah of, the Ummah of Muslims, of all ages, from beginning of Islam to presentThe conclusion we arrive is that Satan despaired about al-Musalloon [ 11.4 - Summing-Up Discussion In Context Of what Has Been Established: ) was given short expression bearing widest possible meaning and these interpretation are proof of it and it is proof of their legitimacy.sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) This makes it clear that there is no definitive interpretation of al-Musalloon and only best possible fit. And I say this is deliberate because Messenger (vi, would ever worship him in Peninsula of Arabia. Implications of which would be Satan lost all hope that over-whelming majority of members of al-Jammah, or al-Ummah, would obey him in regards to matter of Haram/Halal, or obey him and worship idol-gods. The most comprehensive and best suited interpretations are three/four. al-Jammah, or al-Ummah) would be al-Jammah of Muslim Ummah. And therefore it would mean: Verily the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers of, i.e. worshippers the most appropriate interpretation of al-Musalloon ( 12.0 - Truth About Worship Of Idol-Gods al-Lat, al-Uzza, And Dhil al-Khilasah: Asim ul-Haq quoted Khariji Fatwah website IslamQA and they refferenced Ahadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said judgment day will not come until al-Lat and al-Uzza are not worshipped: “Response (Islamqa Fatwa no: 42919): In another hadeeth it says: "Night and day will not cease until al-Laat and al-'Uzza are worshipped." Praise be to Allaah. One of the things that are established by the scholars is that shirk will take place in the ummah as is indicated by the sound texts, and reality confirms this.” Ahadith of Ummah reverting religion of their fore-fathers, worshipping idols such as al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Dhil al-Khilasah; have been explained in detail in following articles. Following article explains for whom the words min-ummati (i.e. my nation) were used by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And as part of establishing the interpretation the Ahadith which IslamQA refferrenced above were put in context. And the context revealed worship of al-Lat, and al-Uzza, will take place when the Muslims and Momins would not be around in Arabian Peninsula and world in general. Please referr to the following article for this comprehensive explanation with evidence of Ahadith, here. And following two articles, first, establishes Kafir Arabs would worship idols ,and second, establishes that this would happen after the blowing of cool musky fragrant wind, here, here. From outset both these articles prove the same but the second article carries withit very important implications. If a Khariji says the wind has already blown then implications would be that every Muslim and every Momin have already died. And therefore what remains is, including, those who claim to be Muslims; Wahhabis/Salafis, Sunnis, Shias, Deobandis, Ibadis, are Kafirs and there is no Muslim.[10] And this is based on the fact that after death of Muslims judgement will be established on those who would return to religion of their fore-fathers. 12.1 - Judgement Day Established On Kafirs After Cool Musky Wind: In following Hadith Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) heard Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot reconcile how worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza would return. She presents her case to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he explains how things will unfold: “A'isha reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza. I said: Allah's Messenger, I think when Allah has revealed this verse:" He it is Who has sent His Messenger with right guidance, and true religion, so that He may cause it to prevail upon all religions, though the polytheists are averse (to it)" (9:33), it implies that (this promise) is going to be fulfilled. Thereupon he (Allah's Apostle) said: It would happen as Allah would like. Then Allah would send the sweet fragrant air by which everyone who has even a mustard grain of faith in Him would die and those only would survive who would have no goodness in them. And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945, here.] In following Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tells how the end of days will unfold. I have taken quoted the narration from near the end to see the full Hadith click on link. The quoted portion begins with death of Yajud and Majuj and ends with blowing of wind. Which would take the life of all Muslims and all Momins and after which day of judgement will be established on those who will survie the Muslims: “Allah's Apostle, Jesus, and his companions would then again beseech Allah, Who would send birds whose necks would be like those of Bactrian camels and they would carry them and throw them where God would will. Then Allah would send rain which no house of clay or (the tent of) camels' hairs would keep out and it would wash away the earth until it could appear to be a mirror. Then the earth would be told to bring forth its fruit and restore its blessing and, as a result thereof, there would grow (such a big) pomegranate that a group of persons would be able to eat that, and seek shelter under its skin and milch cow would give so much milk that a whole party would be able to drink it. And the milch camel would give such (a large quantity of) milk that the whole tribe would be able to drink out of that and the milch sheep would give so much milk that the whole family would be able to drink out of that and at that time Allah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Muslim and every Momin only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like asses and the Last Hour would come to them.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H7015, here.] And there is no mention in any Hadith that after blowing of wind Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab or his minions will revive Islam. Rather it is clear that there will be no Islam, or a Muslim, and judgment will be established upon Kafirs after blowing of wind. 12.2 - Concluding The Discussion On Ahadith Of al-Lat And al-Uzza: We Muslims believe Shirk will take place in Arabian Peninsula and Arabs would revert to the religion of their fore-fathers and worship idol-gods, al-Lat, al-Uzza, Dhil al-Khilasah, but we do not believe these Arabs would be Muslims. Ahadith establish when this would happen the Muslims would have been dead for some time and events such as coming of Dajjal, Yajuj and Majuj, return of Isa (alayhis salam), would have taken place long before it; like Hadith-7015 establishes. Yet the Wahhabis employ these Ahadith to argue Muslims have been worshipping idols. Point to note is these Ahadith clearly state who will be worshipped, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Dhil al-Khilasah. Yet in minds of Wahhabis these are subsituted with graves of Saliheen, trees, and Prophets. And I say this because Wahhabis employ these Ahadith to justify charges of Muslims are worshipping graves, trees, fairies, saints, prophets, and even Jinn. When the fact is these Ahadith in their apparent meaning do not support their position and nor do these Ahadith establish that Muslims will worship idols. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has removed the Noor of insight from their hearts and consequently they removed guidance, and through Takfir, Iman from their own hearts. 12.3 - Arabis Apostacized Is Truth But Became Mushrik Is False: The IslamQA Mufti wrote: “Many of the Arabs apostatized after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and many of them went back to worshipping idols. The Mujaddid (renewer of the Faith) Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab said: ‘Chapter: Reports That Some Of This Ummah Will Worship Idols.’, then he mentioned some Ahaadeeth which indicate that.” It is true that after death of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the Arabs revolted against the central authority and some even claimed Prophet-hood and people followed them. The lie is that these apostate Arabs went back to worshipping idols. Musailmah the Liar believed in teaching of Tawheed. He even believed in prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but he himself claimed to be a Prophet. Then there was another Liar Aswad al-Ansi of al-San’a. Tulayha ibn Khuwaylid was chief of his tribe and he also claimed prophet-hood. Again these two confirmed the two teachings of Islam but apostatcised due to claim of prophet-hood. Sajah Ibn al-Harith was a Christian woman she claimed prophet-hood married Musaylmah the Liar and after his defeat moved to Iraq and where she accepted Islam. In other words the ex-Muslim apostate ‘prophets’s never called their fallowers to worship idols. Rather their claims were motivated by worldly desire of being kings. And they hoped after claim of prophet-hood people would work for their aims like the Muslims worked for cause of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in support of His last final Prophet and Messenger, the mercy of universe, the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Sajah Ibn al-Harith was Christian and her influence was over Christian members of her tribe. In the claim that Arabs reverted to polytheism after death of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the Wahhabis of IslamQA are liars. If they are truthfull they should provide proof of their claim. The burden of proof is upon claimant according to Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This leaves the last and final portion: “The Mujaddid (renewer of the Faith) Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab said: ‘Chapter: Reports That Some Of This Ummah Will Worship Idols.’, then he mentioned some Ahaadeeth which indicate that.” This leaves what Shaykh Ibnul Wahhab wrote: Response to Ibnul Wahhab’s chapter of Kitab al-Tawheed mentioned by IslamQA can be read, here13.0 - Hadith Of Khariji Man Reciting Quran Then Accuses Neighbor Of Shirk: . First Hadith – Part 1: “Narrated by Hudhaifa i.e. Ibn al-Yaman said that the Prophet said: Verily, I fear about a man from you who will read the Qur'an so much that his face will become enlightened and he will come to personify Islam. This will continue until Allah desires. Then these things will be taken away from him when he will disregard them by putting them all behind his back and will attack his neighbor with the sword accusing him of Shirk. The Prophet was asked: Which of the two will be deserving of such an accusation? The attacker (i.e. accuser) or the attacked (accused)? The Prophet replied: The attacker (i.e. the one accusing the other of Shirk).” [Ref: Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih, Vol1, Page282] Readers should note that translation provided/employed by Asim ul-Haq is incorrect and Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled, an Arab Wahhabi Shaykh, has provided correct translation of Hadith and I have inserted the best of both translations to produce following: “Narrated by Hudhaifa (Ibn al-Yaman) said that the Prophet said: ‘The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran and he becomes a supporter to Islam. He will change it (i.e. Quranic teachings) to what Allah permits and will. Upon that the man become detached from it (i.e. Islam, or Quran) and he throws it behind his back. And starts to fight his neighbor and he accuses him with Shirk.’ I (Hudhaifah) said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! Who amongst them both deserve to be called a Mushrik?’ The accused or the accuser? He replied: ‘The accuser!’" [Ref: Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih, Vol1, Page282] According Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled another version accords following: “Narrated by Hudhaifa (Ibn al-Yaman) said that the Prophet said: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran and he will come to personify Islam. He will change it (i.e. Quranic teachings) to what Allah permits and will. Upon that …” [Ref: Not known with certaintity but could be version from; Musnad al-Bazzar, Majma az-Zawaid] 13.1 - Interpreting The Prophetic Statement In Light Of Prophetic Teaching: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’allam) said a man would recite Quran and Noor of it will shine on his face and he will come to embody Islam and this state of the person will continue until Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wishes: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran and he becomes a supporter to Islam.” And second version: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran and he will come to personify Islam. He will change it (i.e. Quranic teachings) to what Allah permits and will.” It is quite possible this is about Khawarij in general and maybe specific to a particular person: Both possibilities are likely on grounds that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he fears about ‘a person’ this can be about a particular person or a general term to include anyone who exihibits the characteristics. Also it is likely that he would be exposed to heretical method of interpreting Quran and he would adopt teachings/beliefs of heretics. Then in accordance with his new belief and methdology will change Islamic/Quranic understanding related to understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. And due to this following would unfold: “He will change it (i.e. Quranic teachings) to what Allah permits and will. Upon that the man become detached from it (i.e. Islam, or Quran) and he throws it behind his back. And starts to fight his neighbor and he accuses him with Shirk.” Question needs to be asked is why would anyone attack Muslims with sword after he recites the Quran? Will he not be educated enough about Tawheed and Shirk to know what Tawheed and Shirk is? After all his knowledge is directly from Quran can be wrong in it? There is nothing wrong with Quran but wrong is in the person. It was Khawarij who recited Quran excessively and it was them who accused the Muslims/companions of being guilty of major Shirk and considered it legitimate to kill companions/Muslims due to it. 13.2 - Excessive Recitation Of Quran And Charging Muslims Of Shirk Sign Of Khawarij: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold about Khawarij that they would recite the so Quran excessively that recitation of companions would seem insignificant: “O people, I heard the Messenger of Allah say: There would arise from my Ummah a people who would recite the Qur'an, and your recital would seem insignificant as compared with their recital, your prayer as compared with their prayer, and your fast, as They would recite the Qur'an thinking that it supports them, whereas it is an evidence against them compared with their fast..” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2333] “Zaid Ibn Wahb al-Juhani told us that he was in the army which proceeded to (fight with) the Khawarij in the company of Ali. Ali then said: O people! I heard the Messenger of Allah say: There will appear from among my community people who recite the Qur'an, and your recitation has no comparison with their recitation, and your prayer has no comparison with their prayer, and your fasts have no comparison with their fasts. They will recite the Qur'an thinking that it is beneficial for them, while it is harmful for them.” [Ref: Dawud, B41, H4750] And following Hadith hints that Khawarij will recite Quran but will not understand it: “I asked Sahl bin Hunaif: ‘Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about Al-Khawarij?’ He said:”I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq: ‘There will appear in it some people who will recite the Qur'an but it will not go beyond their throats and they will go out from Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B84, H68] Note the Hadith states Quran would not go below their throats. The significance of this is that heart is organ of understanding and Quran was revealed on heart: “Say: ‘Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel (you should know) it is (none but) he who has brought the Qur'an down upon your heart, (O Muhammad), by permission of Allah, confirming that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers.’" [Ref: 2:97] So to understand it one must do so with his heart. Khawarij accused Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) of committing Shirk and companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in general and this is agreed by all parties. In this light the inability of Khawarij and inability of man in the following Hadith is connected by the fact; they recite the Quran excessively yet they cannot understand it. And accuse the Muslims of Shirk, and consider it acceptable to kill them: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran and he becomes a supporter to Islam. He will change it (i.e. Quranic teachings) to what Allah permits and will. Upon that the man become detached from it (i.e. Islam, or Quran) and he throws it behind his back. And starts to fight his neighbor and he accuses him with Shirk.” Reciting Quran so excessively without proper understanding, saying Muslim are guilty of Shirk and is way of Khawarij. Therefore the Hadith in discussion is about Khawarij and not ordinary Muslims. 13.3 - Khawarij To Appear End Of Times Dhil Khawaisirah al-Najdi From Them: Khawarij are also known as Qarn al-Shaytan, group of Satan: A leader of Khawarij named in Hadith Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi of Najd accused the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam) of being unjust in his distribution of charity. This angered Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he said many things but one thing he said was that they would recite Quran and it would not pass beyond their throat: "By Allah! You will not find a man after me who is more just than me." Then he said: "A people will come at the end of time; as if he is one of them, reciting the Qur'an without it passing beyond their throats. They will go through Islam just as the arrow goes through the target. Their distinction will be shaving. They will not cease to appear until the last of them comes with Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. So when you meet them, then kill them, they are the worst of created beings." [Ref: Nisai, B37, H4108, here] In other words Quran will be recited by them but it will not reach their hearts. And other Ahadith related to these people state they will kill Muslims: "Among the off-spring of this man (i.e. Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi) will be some who will recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an will not reach beyond their throats and they will renegade from the religion as an arrow goes through the game's body. They will kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idolaters. If I should live up to their time' I will kill them as the people of 'Ad were killed (i.e. I will kill all of them)." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H558, here, and here.] Why would this happen? Glimpse of answer is stated in Hadith of Ibn Hibban. Same story of excessive Quran recitation, changes Islam/Quran, person will disregard its teaching/verses and will attack Muslims on assumption that Muslim is guilty of Shirk: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran and he becomes a supporter to Islam. He will change it (i.e. Quranic teachings) to what Allah permits and will. Upon that the man become detached from it (i.e. Islam, or Quran) and he throws it behind his back. And starts to fight his neighbor and he accuses him with Shirk.’ I (Hudhaifah) said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! Who amongst them both deserve to be called a Mushrik?’ The accused or the accuser? He replied: ‘The accuser!’" [Ref: Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih, Vol1, Page282] This will continue to be played, again and again, until last of them joins forces with Dajjal. 13.4 - Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab an-Najdi at-Tamimi Is Khariji: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab is part of Khariji apostasy and our argument from Hadith in discussion is that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab abandoned the true teaching of Quran and unjustly accused the Muslims of major Shirk and deemed it permissible to kill Muslims on the grounds of alleged Shirk. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold group of Satan (i.e. the Khawarij) would appear from Najd, here, and Shaykh of Najd Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was born and his group emerged from Najd. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold the group of Satan would emerge from land of Banu Rabia and Banu Mudhar, here, and both these tribes are situated in Najd. Notes maps are provided to indicate region of Najd and location of these tribes in Arabia. In the following article precise direction is pointed on map to aid understanding from where in Najd precisely the group of Satan was/is to emerge, here. And Ahadith establish that a Khariji sect was to emerge from Najd and it was to continue to appear until last of them joins Dajjal. But there are other Ahadith which indicate that a sect of Kharijis was to emerge from progeny of Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi, here, and this group would embody Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi and his companions like the Hadith stated: "A people will come at the end of time; as if he is one of them, reciting the Qur'an without it passing beyond their throats.” [Ref: Nisai, B37, H4108, here] And this is indication that Dhil Khawaisirah and the Khariji sect of his progeny would behave similarly. In case someone doubts Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamim being Khariji; then you should read the following article, here, because it establishes Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamim, his followers were from Najd and travelled to Iraq and fought against Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu), and other companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and these opponents of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) are referred to as Khawarij. 13.5 - Hadith Of Sahih Ibn Hibban Perfectly Fits Upon Kharijis In General: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his Wahhabi minions are fulfillment of a prophesy. According to which Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabi minions of Iblees are Qarn al-Shaytan (i.e. group of Satan). Shaykh al-Najd is from progeny of Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi. From amongst his progeny a group of Kharijis was to emerge and Hadith states it would seem as if he is one of them: "A people will come at the end of time; as if he is one of them, reciting the Qur'an without it passing beyond their throats.” [Ref: Nisai, B37, H4108, here] Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi an-Najdi and his Khariji companions charged that the Muslims [Sahabah, Tabi’un, Taba Tabi’un] are guilty of Shirk. They killed Muslims, applied the verses of Quran revealed for disbelievers upon Muslims to justify charge of Shirk: “… And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Vol 9, Page 49, Chap 6: Killing The Khawari] Shaved their heads excessively, and tucked up their loin-cloth [in Urdu; teh-band]. Nullified the Islam of Muslims for actions which were [major] sins: “Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet who said: Three things are the roots of faith: (i) To refrain from (killing) a person who says “there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah” (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his deed. Jihad continues from the day I was sent as Prophet to ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] Shaykh al-Najd applied verses of Quran on Muslims of his era which in reality were revealed for disbelievers and his followers continue to do so. Shaykh an-Najd and minions of Iblees excessively shaved their heads and folded/fold their loin cloth just like Dhil Khawaisirah. 13.6 - Shaykh al-Najd And His Minions Part Of Revived Khariji Apostasy: And now coming Hadith of Ibn Hibban (rahimullah) which resulted discussion in part section 13.5: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran and he becomes a supporter to Islam. He will change it (i.e. Quranic teachings) to what Allah permits and will. Upon that the man become detached from it (i.e. Islam, or Quran) and he throws it behind his back. And starts to fight his neighbor and he accuses him with Shirk.’ I (Hudhaifah) said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! Who amongst them both deserve to be called a Mushrik?’ The accused or the accuser? He replied: ‘The accuser!’" [Ref: Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih, Vol1, Page282] Shaykh al-Najd deserves to be amongst those who did as the Hadith states and the following is just proof that. Shaykh al-Najd like Dhil Khawaisirah and their minions charged the Muslims of committing major Shirk, and considered it permissible to kill Muslims. Shaykh al-Najd legalized; rape, enslavment, killing of non-combatant Muslim men, women, children including rape/ with the married women. In context of Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban Shaykh al-Najd disregarded the mainstream Islam, its belief, it principles interpreting Quran, and said that the belief and practice of over-whelming majority of Arabs, lets say 99.9999%, is of major Shirk. And then legalized the use of sword against Muslims [which was expressedly forbidden by Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam]. Therefore everything Shaykh al-Najd did was in fulfillment of this Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban and due to it application of it is justified upon him and Khawarij in general. 14.0A - Shaykh Siddique Raza On Hadith Of Ibn Hibban: Shaykh Siddique Raza Responded: First Response: This narration is Khabar al-Wahid which according to the rule of opponents is not enough to make Aqeedah and Takhsees of general [verses of] Quran. By watching their rule they should not quote this Hadith … Second Response: This is clear in the Hadith that the person will "accuse" him with Shirk. And regarding accusing normally Muslims know that this is regarding accusing the other Muslim who is not doing Shirk. And this is the ruling of Islam that if the person issues a Fatwa of Kufr on other Muslim or he sends Lanah on other Muslim. But in reality the one (who is accused) is not doing Shirk then the person who is issuing Fatwa of Kufr is himself a Kafir. “Narrated abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said: "If a man says to his brother, O kafir (disbeliever)!' Then surely one of them is such (i.e. a Kafir)." [Bukhari no: 6103] This is narrated from Abdullah Ibn Omar that Prophet peace be upon him said: "If a Muslim man says to his Muslim brother a Kafir. If he is really a Kafir then okay. Otherwise he (who issued the Fatwa) himself is a Kafir" [Abu Dawud no: 4687] Above Hadith provided by opponents is talking about same person who is accusing his Muslim neighbor for the Shirk. As it is clear from the words of "accusing". In reality the neighbour is not doing the shirk, Thats why the accuser will be the Mushrik, his wrong Fatwa will come back to him. Third Response: Nothing is mentioned in this Hadith that Shirk can not happen in the Ummah of Prophet peace be upon him … Fourth Response: If we see this Hadith closely then it is proven from this Hadith that the person who has Eman on Prophet peace be upon him and who is in Ummah of Prophet peace be upon him can be a Mushrik. Like if a person is saying you are Mushrik and other is not Mushrik then the issuer of Fatwa will be himself a Mushrik. [How can they say ummah will not indulge in Shirk then?] Fifth Response: Both sides, in fact, all the people of Islam have agreed upon rule that a Hadith is the commentary of another Hadith. [Then he quoted Hadith where it is mentioned people of Ummah will do shirk.]” [Ref: Ummat Aur Shirk Ka khat’rah, Pages 115-116, by Shaykh Siddique Raza] 14.0B - DIY Shaykh Asim ul-Haq And His Translation Skills: Asim ul-Haq made mistakes in his translation but they are not serious enough that meaning was altered. In other places the translation and original Urdu indicate there is Manavi Tehreef (i.e. distortion of meaning) in translation. I cannot say for certain it was deliberate nor I can say it would have served an alterior motive but it was Tehreef. I have just taken the liberty of indicating … In the first response he did not translate the green writing inserted by me but that was not an issue. Asim ul-Haq translated the third Response as follows: “Nothing is mentioned in this Hadith that Shirk can not happen in the Ummah of Prophet peace be upon him …” Yet the correct translation of third response would be as follows: “In this Hadith there is absolutely no mention of that not even a single Ummati of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be effected by Shirk. Not be guilty of Shirk. When in this Hadith there is no negation of Shirk of Ummah, and definitely there is not, then how can the other party present this Hadith has proof for their position? Their position would only be established if in this Hadith there was complete/absolute negation of Shirk for Ummah.” [Ref: Ummat Aur Shirk Ka khat’rah, Pages 115-116, by Shaykh Siddique Raza] Note he did not completely translate he response but what he did was distorting what Shaykh Siddique Raza actually wrote. And I have responded to Shaykh Siddique Raza’s query how this Hadith and why this Hadith is employed comprehensively in section, 14.0 to 14.1C, but specificly please referr to 14.1C. Response four used as an actual proof that an Ummati mentioned in Hadith accuses of Shirk wrongly, thus he becomes Mushrik, therefore notion that no Muslim Ummati can be Mushrik is refuted. But the wonky translation doesn’t convey this meaning accurately. 14.1A – Ahlul Najd Are Khariji Even If Hadith Is Disregarded: Shaykh Siddique Raza stated in his first respone: “First Response: This narration is Khabar al-Wahid which according to the rule of opponents is not enough to make Aqeedah and Takhsees of Quran. By watching their rule they should not quote this Hadith …” You’re aware that parts of this Hadith is coroborated by authentic Ahadith: A component of this Hadith indicates unwarranted Takfir returns upon one who issues edict of Takfir and this is known to you. Khawarij declaring the Muslims as Mushriks is known to you. Khawarij killing Muslims is known to you. Khawarij excessively reciting Quran and disregarding its teaching and attacking Muslims with swords [with intention of killing] is known to you. Khawarij applying Quranic verses of Quran upon Muslims which were originally revealed about polytheists is known to you. Qarn al-Shaytan (i.e. group of Iblees), aka Khawarij, emerging from Najd, and Shaykh al-Najd, and his Wahhabi minions appearing from Najd of central Arabia is known to you.When all this is truth and known to you then even if we take the Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban out of equation nothing would change the final verdict. The verdict cannot change because methodology of your sect, Takfir by declaring Mushrik, murder of Muslims, declaring Mushrik for actions/sins, applying verses of Kafirs on Muslims is of Khawarij. So even with or without Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban the end result is the same. 14.1B - Responding To Khabr al-Ahad Hadith Not Being Evidence: It is true this Hadith is classed as Khabr al-Ahad/Wahid (i.e. single person report). And it is also true that we do not employ such Ahadith in Aqeedah nor employ Hadith Khabr al-Wahid to make Takhsees of un-restricted Quranic verse [because common sense dictates Zanni cannot restrict Qatti]. Word Aqeedah means something which is certain/definitive and Khabr al-Ahad even if Sahih lacks corroboration of second witness.[11] You’re aware that according to Ahlus Sunnah Qatti al-Thubut (i.e. definitively established) Hadith is source of Aqeedah and Zanni al-Thubut (i.e. doubtfully established) is neither. While compiling Quran in a single book form companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) decided two peoples witness will be accepted for a verse to included: “Narrated Kharija bin Zaid: Zaid bin Thabit said: ‘When the Qur'an was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Messenger reciting. I could not find it except with Khuza`ima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Messenger regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was: ‘Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H62] Shaykh Siddique you know for comparatively insignificant issues Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) required two witnesses: And for Quran compilation it was two. Shar’i witness is of two and would you be satisfied with two witnesses testifying to an incident? Then how can Khabr al-Wahid be proof of Aqeedah [because it requires Qatti al-Thubut evidence] which lacks testimony of another witness? It cannot be used for Aqeedah or Takhsees due to lack one witness lacking corroboration of another. Khabr al-Wahid only serves as Zanni evidence, if it lacks indirect corroboration, and if its meaning is corroborated by other authentic Ahadith then can be employed as evidence in matters of Furu al-Deen. It is known to you that this Hadith is classed as Hassan and therefore it is Maqbool and Mash’oor. You should know that Ahlus Sunnah consider Khabr al-Wahid Maqbool (i.e. single accepted report) as actionable and it can be used for Ihtijaj (i.e.as proof) in matters of Ihkam al-Shara. It is known to you that from this Hadith some rulings regarding Takfir are derived. 14.1C – Not Proof Of Aqeedah But It Is Proof Of Aqeedah For You: Shaykh you wrote: “First Response: This narration is Khabar al-Wahid which according to the rule of opponents is not enough to make Aqeedah and Takhsees of Quran. By watching their rule they should not quote this Hadith …” Shaykh Siddique Raza you’re aware this Hadith is not being employed in matter of Aqeedah nor it is being employed to make Takhsees of any Quranic verse. Importantly this Hadith is employed to warn the Khawarij of Najd and their branches to refrain from Takfir of Muslims via charge of Shirk. And you and your Najdi Kharijism of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab deem this Hadith to be proof of Aqeedah then will you refrain from Takfir via charge of Shirk? Not, Takfir via charge of Shirk is bread and butter of Najdi Kharijism. The issue we dispute is issue of Furu al-Din (i.e. branches of religion) and it is connected with Fitan (i.e. tribulations). Our dispute is regarding personality of Shaykh al-Najd, his Najdi Kharijism, his methodology, and those who follow him. Islamic scholarship is of opinion based on established evidences that Shaykh al-Najd, his Wahhabism, his methodology/teachings, and his followers are Khawarij. And Kharijis like yourself, wherever they may live and whatever form they take, support him and deny and contest Kharijism. According to Ahlus Sunnah this Hadith is Zanni al-Thubut and its interpretation is corroborated by authentic Ahadith therefore with or without this Hadith the conclusion is same. Only difference is that this Hadith is employed to warn the Najdi Kharijis to refrain from accusing Muslims of Shirk. And this Hadith is quoted as a warning with Ahadith which establish Muslim Ummah as whole will remain free of Shirk so that you and your Ibleesi ilk take heed and rectify yourself. We have no Aqeedah that Shaykh al-Najd was intended target of this. For us to hold absolutely definitive opinion/creed Shaykh al-Najd has to be mentioned by name in this Hadith and it must be reported by at the very least TWO witnesses. Shaykh al-Najd being part of Khariji apostasy is definitively established by his beliefs and methodology. And also prophetic guidance points group of Satan (i.e. Qarn al-Shaytan, aka Kharijism) will emerge from Najd. This Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban is employed as warning so you take heed from the fact that in this Ummah such people as mentioned in Hadith are to emerge. We base no Aqeedah on this Hadith other then hold to understanding that such people as mentioned in Hadith are to appear. And historical evidence and current affairs continue to establish that this Hadith is true prophetic statement because it happened as it states. Your excuse that your Takfir is valid Muslim Ummah has fallen into Shirk therefore we are justified due to this, this, this, evidence has been refuted. It was established these Ahadith indicate disbelievers in Arabia after death of all Muslims and all Mominoon will revert to religion of fore-fathers; which you’are aware was worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza, Dhil al-Khalasah and others. Therefore Shaykh al-Najd and his followers are jusfiably deemed part of Khariji apostasy and therefore the application of Hadith narrated in Sahih of Ibn Hibban fits upon you and serves as a warning to refrain from Takfir. Khabr al-Ahad is evidence for Aqeedah in your clan of Iblees and you’re required to form a Aqeedah on it. 14.2 - Response To If Accused Is Not Mushrik Accuser Is Mushrik: Shaykh Siddique Raza stated: “Second Response: This is clear in the Hadith that the person will "accuse" him with Shirk. And regarding accusing normally Muslims know that this is regarding accusing the other Muslim who is not doing Shirk. And this is the ruling of Islam that if the person issues a Fatwa of Kufr on other Muslim or he sends Lanah on other Muslim. But in reality the one (who is accused) is not doing Shirk then the person who is issuing Fatwa of Kufr is himself a Kafir. “Narrated abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said: "If a man says to his brother, O Kafir (disbeliever)!' Then surely one of them is such (i.e. a Kafir)." [Bukhari no: 6103] This is narrated from Abdullah Ibn Omar that Prophet peace be upon him said: "If a Muslim man says to his Muslim brother a Kafir. If he is really a Kafir then okay. Otherwise he (who issued the Fatwa) himself is a Kafir" [Abu Dawud no: 4687] Above Hadith provided by opponents is talking about same person who is accusing his Muslim neighbor for the Shirk. As it is clear from the words of "accusing". In reality the neighbour is not doing the shirk, Thats why the accuser will be the Mushrik, his wrong Fatwa will come back to him.” i) It was established that Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban is actually about Khawarij. And Khawarij being attached to Quran and then throwing its teachings behind their back, and accusing Muslim of Shirk, and then attempting to kill his Muslim neighbour due to accusation of Shirk. And it was also established that Shaykh al-Najd is a Khariji, upon methodology and practice of Khawarij, and appeared in region of Najd from where the Khawarij were to appear. And behaved in the same way as foretold, and resembled the Khawarij with shaven heads, tucked up loin cloths, excessive appreciation of Quran, killing of Muslims after charging them of major Shirk, and applied verses of Kafirs upon Muslims, Takfir due to acts which were major sins. Question begs to be asked: How can a off-shoot Khariji sect legitimately invalidate the Tawheed of majority of Muslims when it is known that Khawarij have defective understanding of Tawheed and Shirk. As result of which the first Khawarij even accused the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of being guilty of major Shirk. ii) It should be noted that all evidence Shaykh al-Najd employed to justify charge and accusation of major Shirk hurled against majority of Muslims has backfired on him. And it has been revealed that Ahadith of al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Dhil al-Khilasah worship and Ummatis reverting to religion of fore-fathers are in fact about Kafirs who would out-live Muslims. His Takfir stemmed from defective understanding of Quran/Ahadith and Khariji methodology of interpreting Quran/Ahadith. Therefore his Takfir was invalid and unjustified. According to prophetic teachings and according saying of Shaykh Siddique Raza one who makes Takfir of a Muslim unjustly then Takfir returns to him: It would be correct to say Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s Takfir of majority of Muslims has returned to him. iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: : “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that:"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] If the majority aka the Jammah of Muslims could be guilty of major Shirk then why would Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instrcut the Muslims to follow the majority? Could it be that because he wanted the Muslims to become Mushrik? Or could it be that he didn’t know what would happen in future? Neither! He instructed the Muslims to hold to the majority and the Jammah of Muslims because Jammah (i.e. main-body) would not deviate from path of Tawheed and Islam. Shaykh al-Najd accused this Jammah and this majority of being guilty of major Shirk. How can his Takfir of majority be valid? Invalid! It was unjustified! And it returns upon him and we the Muslims say: He died a Khariji, a Kafir, and those who follow his path with conviction and dedication they live upon Kufr. And if they die without repentence then they die upon Kufr. 14.3 - Response To Hadith Does Not State Shirk Will Not Take Place In Ummah: Shaykh Siddique Raza wrote: “Third Response: Nothing is mentioned in this Hadith that Shirk can not happen in the Ummah of Prophet peace be upon him …” Shaykh you are aware we the Muslims do not employ Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban to argue Muslim Ummah will not fall into Shirk. Nor we employ it to argue that Muslims will not fall into Shirk. Yet you choose to be deceptive minion of Iblees to your own deteriment and give impression that we do this. Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban is employed to argue that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab is one from amongst those intended by this Hadith. Also to point out that Kharijis, like Wahhabiyyah, accuse the Muslims of committing major Shirk [due Khariji methodology] therefore the Hukm of Takfir returns upon you and upon Shaykh al-Najd. 14.4 - Response To Muslim Becoming Mushrik And Ummah Will Indulge In Shirk: Shaykh Siddique Raza wrote: “Fourth Response: If we see this Hadith closely then it is proven from this Hadith that the person who has Eman on Prophet (peace be upon him) and who is in Ummah of Prophet (peace be upon him) can be a Mushrik. Like if a person is saying you are Mushrik and other is not Mushrik then the issuer of Fatwa will be himself a Mushrik. [How can they say ummah will not indulge in Shirk then?].” i) First of all a Muwahid cannot be Mushrik just because of invalid Takfir. Suppose I believe in all aspects of Tawheed and I make invalid Takfir via accusation of major Shirk. My Tawheed is still the same as it was before accusation of major Shirk and it has not been negated due to invalid accusation of Shirk. Muwahid becoming Mushrik requires change of creed from Tawheedi to Shirki not invalid Takfir. Best interpretation of prophetic words is by prophetic words. And when we know Shirk cannot be warranted due to invalid Takfir therefore we interpret Shirk to mean Kufr. Note Shaykh Siddique Raza employs the literalism of Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban to argue that Muslims can be guilty of Shirk. He didn’t need to distort the Hadith it is given and accepted by Ahlus Sunnah that a absolute minority from Muslims can become Mushrik. In fact it has been witnessed in India that Hindu extremist organisations have pressured and bribed the poor Muslims into converting to Hinduism. All one needs to do is search Shaykh YouTube to witness it yourself. Dispute between Muslims and Kharijis of Najd following Shaykh al-Najd is over majority of Muslims being guilty of major Shirk. ii) Coming to content in square brackets: “How can they say ummah will not indulge in Shirk then?” Well we say this because your usage of words ‘[Muslim] Ummah’ entails meaning of entire Ummah and majority of Ummah. In other words you’re saying: ‘How can they say entire/majority of [Muslim] Ummah will not indulge in Shirk then?’ Do you see the crooks of matter? And you will say like Shaykh of Najd said: none beside us Wahhabis know in Arabia and in world true meaning of; none is worthy of worship except Allah. Or you will support Shaykh al-Najd who claimed in regions of Najd, Hijaz, and regions around Najd none knew meaning of; none has the right to be worshipped except Allah; and if anyone claims to know its meaning before I came and revived Islam they are lieing and exagerating about their own knowledge: “And I inform you about myself – I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him – I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha Illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favored. As well as my Shaikhs (teachers) no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-Arid (the lands of Najd and surrounding areas) claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha Illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived people and praised himself with something he does not possess.“ [Ref: al-Darur al-Saniyyah, here] Do you know what the implication of this is? It means according to Shaykh al-Najd there was no Muslim in Arabia and none in the world. Our dispute with Kharijis of Najd is over if the vast majority of Muslims of Arabia during the life of Shaykh al-Najd and afterwards and of world are Muslim or Mushrik. According to teaching of your Shaykh al-Najd there was no Muslim then until emergence of Wahhabism and there is no Muslim other then Wahhabis. In other words over-whelming majority claiming Islam is in fact according to your Wahhabism is Mushrik. And this was/is far from truth therefore Shaykh al-Najd was nothing but a Khariji and his followers are also Kharijis. 14.5 - Response To One Hadith Explains Another Hadith: Shaykh Siddique Raza stated: “Fifth Response: Both sides, in fact, all the people of Islam have agreed upon rule that a Hadith is the commentary of another Hadith. [Then he quoted Hadith where it is mentioned people of Ummah will do shirk.]” It is agreed by Muslims that best interpretation of; Quran is by Quran, Quran is by Hadith, Hadith is by Hadith. And according to principle of best Tafsir I have explained Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban in light of other Ahadith. Further more went on to explain Ahadith which Khawarij, like you, employ to prove majority of Muslim Ummah has fallen into Shirk in light of Ahadith. Note Asim ul-Haq did not quote the Ahadith hinted in square brackets and therefore I too will not be responding to these Ahadith in this article. An article titled as follows will be dedicated to deal with these Ahadith: Responding To Shaykh Siddique Raza’s Thirteen Ahadith About Shirk In Muslim Ummah. This book also quotes Ahadith explained earlier. It was same Ahadith of … al-Lat, al-Uzza, Dhil al-Khilasah, reverting to religion of fore-fathers, tribes of my Ummah worship idols … which I explained that these Ahadith indicate events will take place after death of all Muslims and all Momins. 15.0 Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled On Hadith Of Sahih Ibn Hibban: First Hadith – Part 2: Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled (of Multaqa) Said: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran until its brightness appears on him and he becomes a supporter to Islam (in another narrtion it says he envolope himself in Islam), he (i.e. the man) changes it (what he learnt or Islam) to what Allah permits and will. Upon that, the man become detached from it (i.e. Islam), and he throws it behind his back, and start to fight his neighbor (i.e sword is used here to show that its physical fighting with weapon), and he accuse him (his neighbor) with shirk". I ( Hudhaifah) said: O prophet of Allah, who amongst them both deserve to be called a Mushrik? The accused or the accuser? He replied: "The accuser." Ibn Hibban placed this narrtion under the Book of knowledge, under the section of: "The Prophet fearing on his Ummah the arguments of hypocrits." Ibn Katheer, on the other hand, he mentioned this narrtaion in his Tafseer under the ayaah: "Recite on them the news of the man who we gave him our ayaat yet he detached himself from it." The above shows that scholars who mentioned this Hadeeth understood it in term of those who were given knowledge yet they afterwards distorted and changed the knowledge for whichever reasons in order to suit their desires and whims. So, the Fiqh of this Hadeeth is: A) To condemn those who use religion to suit their desires and personal interest. To warn us from the possibility that the bless of guidence and knowledge can be taken away from us as no one safe except those who sincerely look for it. C) To warn us against hypocrits who accuse Muslims with Shirk without a valid reason (this is a warning to lay people who have the gut to declare others Mushrik or commiting Shirk without knowledge, therefore, such matters are left to scholars to decide and average Muslims can only decalre what is clear to be Shirk and Kufr as other topics could carry details and information that are unknown to lay people). D) A Muslim need to start his advice with words and kindness and never to begin denying first with killing. Since the man in narration is known to immediately kill after detaching from the Islam. E) Every Muslim need to worry about himself and ask Allah to hold him fast to his religion and to protect him from deviation as it can happen over a night and we are created weak after all. Wallahu A'lam.” (end quote).” [Ref: Is This Hadith Authentic? Post Number 10, Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled, here] 15.1 - Commenting And Contextualizing One who Uses Religion To Suit Their Desires: Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled stated: “a) To condemn those who use religion to suit their desires and personal interest.” First interpretation of Shaykh Ibn Khaled based on idea that the attacker/accuser would know that the belief/practice of his neighbour is absolutely in accordance with teaching of Tawheed. But due to personal conflict with his neighbour he would employ religion, charge of major Shirk, to settle score with his neighbour. As such his charge of Shirk is fabricated therefore charge of Kufr/Shirk would return upon him. And in this context the prophetic words serve as a warning against those who employ religion to settle personal disputes. I judge this interpretation as a valid understanding of prophetic words. 15.2 - Commenting On Shaykh’s Interpretation That Guidance Can Be Taken Away: Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled wrote: “b) To warn us from the possibility that the bless of guidence and knowledge can be taken away from us as no one safe except those who sincerely look for it.” This is a very valid point of Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated He does not misguide believers until it has been clear to them what they should avoid: “And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things.” [Ref: 9:115] One who recites Quran will be aware of what he should avoid and therefore it is quite possible to be misguided despite having copious knowledge of Quran. 15.3 - Commenting On Hypocrites Takfir Of Muslims Via Charge Of Shirk: Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled wrote: “c) To warn us against hypocrits who accuse Muslims with Shirk without a valid reason. (This is a warning to lay people who have the gut to declare others Mushrik or commiting Shirk without knowledge, therefore, such matters are left to scholars to decide and average Muslims can only decalre what is clear to be Shirk and Kufr as other topics could carry details and information that are unknown to lay people.)” Underlined interpretation of Shaykh Ibn Khaled is correct on grounds that Hadith states: Man would first recite Quran with correct principles and methodology and Noor of Quran would shine on his face. This state will continue until Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills it to be. Then the man will be disinterested in pure and true teaching of Quran/Islam and he will change them. He will throw true/pure teaching behind his back and on basis of his knew understanding he would accuse Muslim neighbour of Shirk. As evidence take the following incident as proof. There was a Munafiq who was not satisfied with judgment of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so the Jew and he went to Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and he brought the sword and stroke the Munafiq dead after finding out he did not like the judgment of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He sought to change the judgment against him and disregarded what Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) judged when dispute was presented to him. A sign of Munafiq is that he is not satisfied with what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and what His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teaches. He seeks to change it to suit his own vision. 15.4 – Commenting On Preaching Before Sword: Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled wrote: “d) A Muslim need to start his advice with words and kindness and never to begin denying first with killing. Since the man in narration is known to immediately kill after detaching from the Islam.” I have changed the order of sentences to convey the intended meaning of Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled better: “d) Since the man in narration is known to immediately kill after detaching from the Islam. A Muslim need to start his advice with words and kindness and never to begin denying first with killing.” This is also correct observation. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided.” [Ref: 16:125] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not instruct the Muslims to charge the people with sword when beautiful preaching and sound arguments are needed. In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” [Ref: 2:256] Charging with sword due to religious difference is effort to use force in matters of religion which is prohibited according to this verse. Therefore the observation of Shaykh is correct and justified; a Muslim should preach beautifully and present sound arguments to move a disputant toward correct understanding of Islam. 15.5 – Commenting On Observation Iman Can Be Lost: Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled wrote: “Every Muslim need to worry about himself and ask Allah to hold him fast to his religion and to protect him from deviation as it can happen over a night and we are created weak after all. Wallahu A'lam.” (end quote).” Taking cue from the incident mentioned in Hadith Shaykh advises the Muslims to seek protection from misguidance. This is not interpretation but a observation. We should seek protection of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from misguidance and ask guidance from Him and seek end upon, none is worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is Abd and Rasool of Allah, and all upon righteous deeds affirmation of this confession entails. And best of Muslim is one who invokes for other Muslims what he invokes from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for himself. Further more Shaykh stated guidance can be taken away over-night. I do not agree with what Shaykh Ayman stated here. And it is highly likely if he stated his point of view in Tafseel (i.e. detail) then we would have agreed on following. The set system in creation is things are achieved via means and intermediatries. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can heal and burn without instrument of fire and medicine but His set way is to do according to His set system. Similarly guidance and misguidance are process of education or lack of it. None wakes up to find himself with/without Iman. It is intellectual process which takes time and thinking end of which culminates in Iman, or lack of it. 15.6 - Commenting On Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled’s Interpretations: Generally there is nothing in this response of Shaykh Ayman Ibn Khaled which contends with what Ahlus Sunnah teach about this Hadith. He has given various interpretations of Hadith some in conjunctions with other Ahadith and some based on implied contexts. And these interpretations are non-problematic for position which Ahlus Sunnah holds therefore if one accepts them in conjunction with understandings of of Ahlus Sunnah there would be no harm and nothing point of Ahlus Sunnah would be refuted. Conclusion: Position of Ahlus Sunnah with regards to Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab al-Najdi al-Tamimi is that he is from Qarn of Shaytan/Iblees (i.e. Khawarij) which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold would emerge from Najd. It is agreed upon the first group of Khawarij emerged from Iraq and it was supported by Najdis and members of Banu Tamim. The second group of Khawarij would appear from Najd and scholars of Ahlus Sunnah hold to understanding that this group was of Shaykh al-Najd and his band of Wahhabis. This is corroborated by the fact that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pretty accurately pointed toward the direction of modern city of Riyadh and foretold group of Satan will appear from this direction. Al-Uyaynah/al-Uyainah, here, Shaykh al-Najd’s place of birth, and al-Diriyah/al-Dariyah, here, the centre for propogation of Wahhabism would fall into the direction toward which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointed.[12] Further more Shaykh al-Najd claimed none before him in region of Najd, Hijaz, and Arid (i.e. area surrounding Najd) before and during his lifetime knew Tawheed, statement already quoted in 14.4. And by extension of similarity of belief of Tawheed held by Ahlus Sunnah of earth his statement was about all the Muslims of earth. This is indirect Takfir of entire Muslim population. Takfir of over-whelming majority of Muslims. Only the ones excluded from it are his ownself and those who followed his Najdi Kharijism. It was this implied/indirect Takfir of over-whelming majority which was challenged and is being challenged by Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. Further more Shaykh al-Najd was declaring that the entire Muslim Ummah of Arabia are guilty of major Shirk. And that too on account of his unsupported principles of judging Shirk. A tiny minority in Arabia leaving Islam for another religion or being guilty of major Shirk is not impossible. But their Shirk has to be established correctly and using proper methodology and evidences of Quran/Ahadith. Just possibility of a tiny minority falling into Shirk does not establish tiny minority became Mushrik. Shaykh al-Najd employed Khariji methdology when determining if a Muslim is Mushrik or not: He applied verses which revealed regarding polytheists and interpreted them as if they describe belief/practice of Muslims. He then came to conclusion this person is guilty of Shirk or not through similarity of action [and not of belief]. Yet Hadith, quoted section 13.5, makes it clear that we are not to declare someone out of Islam due to [sinful] deeds/actions. Takfir due to sinfull deeds is Khariji way. It was result of his unsubstantiated principles and his Khariji methodology that resulted Takfir via accusation of major Shirk. After erroneous judgment, Muslim/Muslims are Mushrik, had been made about the belief of Muslims via drawing parallels between practice of Muslims/non-Muslims. He went to employ Ahadith … Dhil al-Khilasah, al-Lat, al-Uzza, reverting religion of fore-fathers, following ways of Jews/Christians … to justify and to give credibility to his understanding. All while not realizing that these Ahadith point to worship of specific idols whose name Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam) mentioned, reverting to a very specific pre-Islamic Arabian polytheistic religion, and therefore these Ahadith cannot be proof of alleged grave, fairy, tomb, and saint worship. And worse for Shaykh al-Najd is; on basis of these Ahadith he laid foundation of Takfir of over-whelming majority of Muslims of Arabia; yet contextual interpretation of these Ahadith with other Ahadith establishes; Arabs reverting to relgion of their pre-Islamic ancestors, worshiping Dhil al-Khilasah, al-Lat, and al-Uzza; all will transpire when the Muslims/Momins of Arabia in specific and world in general would have died. Then Satan would come to Arab Kafirs to incite them to worship idols and they would oblidge as Ahadith establish. Therefore Shaykh al-Najd had and his Ibleesi spawns have no justification to deem the belief and practice of over-whelming majority of Muslims of major Shirk. This brings Hadith of Sahih Ibn al-Hibban into discussion. It is employed to warn: A man with initial strong attachment to Quran would appear and he will then go through change in his understanding of Quran. Educated assumption is this change would result a defective understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. He will become a Khariji. Due to it this man would attack his neighbour with sword charging him of Shirk. And to inform that unjustified Takfir returns to issuer. Shaykh al-Najd made unjustified Takfir of Muslims based on his Khariji defective understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. Therefore he is one of those men mentioned in Hadith of Sahih Ibn Hibban, and to inform Takfir returned upon him, and it returns upon those who believe as he believed. Muhammed Ali Razavi Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. FootNotes: - [1] “And most of them do not believe in God without ascribing partners (to Him).He (Sahl) said:This is referring to the association (of others with God i.e. shirk) by the self which incites to evil (nafs ammāra), as was (indicated) when the Prophet said, ‘Association (of others with God i.e. shirk) in my nation is more hidden than the creeping of an ant over a stone.’ This is the inner meaning of the verse. However, the outer meaning of the verse refers to the fact that the polytheists among the Arabs believe in God, just as He has said, If you ask them, who created them, they will certainly say ‘God’…(43:87) Even so they are polytheists who believe in some of the messengers but do not believe in others.His words, Exalted is He: …” [Ref: Tafsir al-Tustari, 12:106, here.] “And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him.” Ibn Abbas commented: "They have a part of faith, for when they are asked, `Who created the heavens Who created the earth Who created the mountains' They say: `Allah did.' Yet, they associate others with Him in worship.'' Similar is said by Mujahid, `Ata, `Ikrimah, Ash-Sha`bi, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam. In the Sahih, it is recorded that during the Hajj season, the idolators used to say in their Talbiyah: "Here we rush to Your service. You have no partners with You, except a partner with You whom You own but he owns not!'' Allah said in another Ayah: “Verily, joining others in worship with Allah is a great Zulm (wrong) indeed.” (31:13) This indeed is the greatest type of Shirk; associating others with Allah in worship. It is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abdullah bin Mas`ud said: "I said: `O Allah's Messenger! What is the greatest sin?' He said: That you call a rival to Allah while He alone created you.'' Al-Hasan Al-Basri commented on Allah's statement: “And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him.” "This is the hypocrite; if he performs good deeds, he does so to show off with the people, and he is an idolator while doing this.'' Al-Hasan was referring to Allah's statement: “Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them. And when they stand up for As-Salah, they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little.” (4:142) There is another type of hidden Shirk that most people are unaware of. Hammad bin Salamah narrated that Asim bin Abi An-Najud said that Urwah said: "Hudhayfah visited an ill man and saw a rope tied around his arm, so he ripped it off while reciting: “And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him.” In a Hadith, from Ibn `Umar collected by At-Tirmidhi who said it was Hasan, the Prophet said, (He who swears by other than Allah, commits Shirk.) Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud and other scholars of Hadith narrated that `Abdullah bin Mas`ud said that the Messenger of Allah said: “Verily, Ar-Ruqa, At-Tama'im and At-Tiwalah are all acts of Shirk.” In another narration collected by Ahmad and Abu Dawud, the Prophet said: “Verily, At-Tiyarah (i.e. omen) is Shirk; everyone might feel a glimpse of it, but Allah dissipates it with Tawakkul.'' Allah said next: “Do they then feel secure from the coming against them of the covering veil of the torment of Allah” Allah asks: `Do these idolators who associate others with Allah in the worship, feel secure from the coming of an encompassing torment from where they perceive not' Allah said in other `Ayat, …” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 12:106, here] - [2] Readers should note sometimes there is ambiguity in Tafsir of a Mufassir and best way to remove it is to referr to Quran itself. You will never find a Tafsir which is so clear that it answers all questions of every reader. There will always be something missing and to find answer to it you either referr to Tafsir of Mufassir or directly go to source of Quran and Hadith; like I did in iia. And it resulted in clarification of what he was referring to and established where the charge of major Shirk was laid. Please read the hidden Shirk article it will greatly help understanding Tawheed and Shirk. - [3] Death sentence for apostate is not carried out instantaneously but a long imprisonment precedes it during which efforts are made to convince the guilty of wrong and to bring him back to fold of Islam. In cases where guilty is guilty due to lack of knowledge such efforts bring fruit and where apostasy is out of choice becomes apparent. Death sentence is to be carried out as last resort when all avenues have been exhausted. ), Wahhabism and Wahhabis are no better now. The true demonstration of Wahhabism, and true color of Wahhabis is Al-Qaidah, subhanahu wa ta’ala- [8] And by Allah ( - [7] Punishments of apostasy should be deferred indefinately because what is at stake is not just life but the Iman and Islam of a person. And every effort should be made to allow change including postponing the execution indefinately. Actions are judged according to intentions and this is what I feel best course of action. Criminal activity such as murder, rape, rebellion death sentence should be carried out promptly after satisfying strict demands of Islamic law in court. - [6] We the Ahlus Sunnah make no distinction between Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah apart from obvious lingustic implications. We believe one is essential for other therefore where ever Rububiyyah is mentioned Ilahiyyah is inclusive and vice versa. ) and all His creation exists like existance of things and persons in dream.subhanahu wa ta’ala). Wahdat al-Wujud is; what truly and actually exists is Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Noor and first thing created from this Noor was Noor of Prophet Muhammad (subhanahu wa ta’ala- [5] Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyyah is the very first creation of Allah ( ‘Is this my Lord?’, turns into a rehtorical question; “This is my Lord.”- [4] Some scholars said he experienced a state of Fana and in this state to lampoon how polytheists choose their gods sarcasticly made these statements to demonstrate how impotent way of choosing Lord was and how senseless notion of planets being Lords was. Others said verse is to be understood with hamza of istifaham and implication of which is that, ISIS, Boko Haram, Tehreek Taliban Pakistan, Al-Shabab, Malaysian terrorist group known as Abu Sayyaf, and various Wahhabi terrorists groups operating in Mali. The only real contribution of Wahhabism and Wahhabis to earth is killing Muslims mercilessly and barbaricly in all kind of ways. And they justify their murderous rampage and destruction on slogan that we are spreading Tawheed and eliminating Shirk; we are only putting things right. - [9] And I say to you: In Arabian Peninsula if; Muslims as whole were to become Mushrik and had become Mushrik; then where is your proof? Are you not astonished that Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told you/us of major Shirk after death of all Muslims but not which was to occur before death of Muslims? If major Shirk was to occur in Jamhoor of Muslims of Arabian Peninsula before the blowing of cold musky wind then don’t you think it would have been great help and more beneficial if he had told us about this occurance? Yet Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has clearly explained that major Shirk will return to Arabia but only AFTER death of all Muslims and Momins. And how does that benefit us? If major Shirk occurred in Jamhoor of Muslims of Arabia then why wasn’t this crucial information which was important for Muslim Ummah wasn’t given? Information which isn’t relevent to Iman and Islam of Muslims was given but what could have saved the Iman/Islam of people wasn’t given. Does this make sense to you? Ya Jahl! This could only make sense if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were aware that before the death of Muslims entirity of Arabian Peninsula will remain upon Tawheed, minus a tiny minority, and only time major Shirk would return to Arabia and over-whelm it after emergence of Islam is when the last of Muslims has passed away. Yet the foundation of your Kharijism rests on over-whelming majority were Mushrikeen and only Muwahid was Shaykh Ibnul Abdul Wahhab and his minions. Chief of your Khariji sect Shaykh Ibnul Abdul Wahhab said none beside him and his minions know meaning of; none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. And this is veiled Takfir of Jamhoor and entirity of Muslims of Arabia and Ummah. - [10] According to prophetic and Quranic teaching the day of judgment would only be established on Kafirs/Mushriks, here. And this is because they have asked for destruction of judgment day to be established upon them, here. - [11] It is worth pointing out that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed the Muslims to take two witnesses in relationship to insignificant matters of debt and divorce: “O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write … And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon. And do not be weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves.” [Ref: 2:82] “And when they have (nearly) fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or part with them according to acceptable terms. And bring to witness two just men from among you and establish the testimony for (the acceptance of) Allah. That is instructed to whoever should believe in Allah and the Last day. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him a way out.” [Ref: 65:2] But a matter of Aqeedah, note rejection of any aspect of Aqeedah is Kufr, for such important matter, way more improtant then debt/divorce but Wahhabis are willing to accept a single witness report. Why? Answer: Some beliefs of Khawarij of Najd are based on Ahadith which are classed as Khabr al-Wahid. Therefore they have taken it upon themselves to justify usage of such Ahadith to support their heretical beliefs. None but a tiny minority before them took such reports for matters of Aqeedah and majority is against them. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed to hold to majority. - [12] Or if two lines from prophetic pulpit of Masjid al-Nabavi are drawn: One connecting with Northern boundary of Hadhrat Aysha’s (radiallah ta’ala anha) house and the other Southern boundary then I am confident Riyadh, Uyaynah, and al-Diriyah would be between these lines. Hadith establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) pointed from pulpit of Masjid al-Nabawi toward house of Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha).
  16. Prophet Muhammad Is End Of Prophets And After Him There Is No Prophet, Or Messenger. Introduction: Islam teaches Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as last/final Prophet. After him there is no Prophet, nor a Messenger. Except thirty liars and impostors claiming to be Prophets in Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam). This article will establish this Islamic teaching from evidence of prophetic traidtions. Prophet Muhammad is Khaatam al-Nabiyeen: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Khaatam al-Nabiyeen. Linguistically Khaatam means ring, seal, and last and final. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained in which meaning Khaatam has been employed: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the end of Prophets, there is no Prophet after me." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] He is reported to have said there will be thirty [minor] Dajjals claiming to be Prophets in his Ummah. He then said, I am Khaatam al-Nabiyeen, I am end of Prophets, and further defined in what meaning he employed Khaatam al-Nabiyeen by saying; there is no Prophet after me. In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed example of a beautifully constructed house which is missing a brick. He then said I am that last missing brick which completes the construction of the house: “The similitude of mine and that of the Apostles before me is that of a person who built a house quite imposing and beautiful, but for one brick in one of its corners. People would go round it, appreciating the building, but saying: Why has the brick not been fixed here? He said: I am that brick and I am the end of Prophets.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5675] In this example Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) established he is the missing brick in house of Islam and his sending completed the house. And he then said I am Khaatam al-Nabiyeen to indicate Khaatam al-Nabiyeen is in meaning of last/end of Prophets. In another Hadith it is recorded that people of previous Ummats will visit Prophets for intercession. Hadith records that these followers would go to Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam), to Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam), to Prophet Musa (alayhis salam), to Prophet Isa (alayhis salam), and then finally to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And say: O Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) you’re Khaatam ul-Ambiya, Allah’s end of the Prophets, you intercede for us: "… 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 said about you): "So that Allah may forgive the sins of your past (Ummats), as well as your Ummats, and Ummatis of future through you ..." (48:2), intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?" [Ref: Bukhari, B60, H236] Please note this quotation is only a small portion from a extensive Hadith, click on here to read the full Hadith. If there was another Prophet after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) they would have been told to visit him and seek his intercession. And the fact that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) interceded and he did not direct them to another Prophet after him is proof the Ummatis of earlier Prophets would employ Khaatam ul-Ambiyah in meaning of end of Prophets. Nothing Of Prophet-hood Remains Only True Dreams: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been reported to have said: “‘Nothing is left of the prophet-hood except Al-Mubashshirat.’ They asked: ‘What are Al-Mubashshirat?’ He replied: ‘The true good dreams (that conveys glad tidings).’” [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H119] Suppose there is a garden of flowers where every flower is composed of Prophet-hood. A flower is given to every Prophet sent to guide their nations. There remains nothing of flowers of Prophet-hood. Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent with the last flower of Prophet-hood effectively making him last/final Prophet. Prophet Muhammad Is al-Muqaffi And al-Aqib: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Muqaffi: "… Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioned many names of his and said: I am Muhammad, Ahmad, Muqaffi, Hashir, the Prophet of repentance, and the Prophet of Mercy." [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5813] It means one who is last in succession. In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'I have several names: I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad, and I am Al-Mahi with whom Allah obliterates Kufr (disbelief), and I am Al-Hashir (gatherer) at whose feet the people will be gathered, and I am Al-Aqib." [Ref: Bukhari, B60, H419] Imam al-Zuhri explained what al-Aqib means: "This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar (and the words are): I said to Zuhri: What does (the word) al-'Aqib imply? He said: One after whom there is no Prophet, and in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar and 'Uqail there is a slight variation of wording." [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5812] In another Hadith it is recorded Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained meaning of al-Aqib by saying: " I am Muhammad and I am ahmad, and I am al-Mahi (the obliterator) by whom unbelief would be obliterated, and I am Hashir (the gatherer) at whose feet mankind will be gathered, and I am al-Aqib (the last) after whom there will be no Prophet." [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5810] Prophet Sent To Entire Mankind And He Is Last Prophet: Prophets were sent a nation at a time but Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a Prophet to entire mankind and of all ages: "… therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. 3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me. 4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection). 5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.” [Ref: Bukhari, B7, H331] If he was sent as a Prophet for Arabs and not to mankind then all other then Arabs would have argument: No Prophet came to us. Therefore Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) universalism implies end of all Prophets. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also made the same statement with addition of; line of Prophets is closed with me: "… I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1062] Bani Israel Ruled And Guided By Prophets, No Prophets After Me: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said before him the Bani Israel were ruled by Prophets but after him there will be no Prophet but only increasing number of Khulafah: "... Prophet said: ‘The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be caliphs who will increase in number.’ The people asked: ‘O Allah's Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?’ He said ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H661] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) basicly informed us that Khulafah of Prophets of Bani Israel were Prophets. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last Prophet and no Prophet as Khalifah would succeed him but only non-Prophet Khulafah will succeed him. Prophet Muhammad Last Prophet And His Nation Last Nation: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Prophet said: “We are the last of [nation from] the nations, and the first to be brought to account. It will be said: ‘Where is the unlettered nation and its Prophet?’ So we are the last and the first.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B7, H4290] Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being last nation logically denotes Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last Prophet. This deduction is explicitly stated in another Hadith: “Allah has not sent any Prophet but he warned his nation about Dajjal. I am the last of the Prophets, and you are the last of the nations. He will undoubtedly appear among you. If he appears while I am among you, I will contend with him on behalf of every Muslim, and if he appears while I am not among you, then each man must fend for himself and Allah will take care of every Muslim on my behalf.” [Ref: Ibn majah, B36, H4077] Prophet Muhammad Last Prophet, And Masjid Nabvi Last Masjid: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he is last Prophet and Masjib Nabvi is last Masjid: "Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Prayer in the mosque of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is more excellent than a thousand prayers in other mosques except the Masjid al-Haram, for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is the last of the Apostles, and his mosque is the last of the mosques. Abu Salama and Abu Abdullah (two of the narrators in this chain of narrations said: We had no doubt that what Abu Haraira (Allah be pleased with him) had said was from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ..." [Ref: Muslim, B7, H3211] Last of mosques means, last mosque to be associated with a Prophet. And this is confirmed by another Hadith: “Holy Prophet said: ‘I am the last of the Prophets and my mosque is the last of the mosque [from mosques] of the prophets.’" - [Kanz al-Ummal, V12, P270, H34999] Prophet Muhammad Last Prophet And If There Was Prophet Statements: It is recorded in Hadith that son of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have been a Prophet if there was to be a Prophet after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but there is no Prophet after him: "Narrated Isma'il: I asked Abi Aufa, "Did you see Ibrahim, the son of the Prophet ?" He said, "Yes, but he died in his early childhood. Had there been a Prophet after Muhammad then his son would have lived, but there is no Prophet after him." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H214] Another Hadith records similar conditional statement about Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “Narrated Uqbah bin Amir: That the Messenger of Allah said: ‘If there was to have a Prophet after me, it would have been Umar bin Al-Khattab.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B46, H3686] Absence of verse of Khaatamiyyah and prophetic explanation of it would have paved the way for Ibrahim (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to be Prophets. Prophet Muhammad Last Brick Completing Beautiful Mansion: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "The similitude of mine and that of the Apostles (before me) is that of a person who constructed a building and he built it fine and well and the people went round it saying: Never have we seen a building more imposing than this, but for [this] one [missing] brick, and I am that brick (completing the construction of beautiful building)." [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5673] In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was the last missing piece needed to complete/perfect the mansion of Islam. This understanding is supported by another Hadith: "My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: 'Would that this brick be put in its place!' So I am that brick, and I am the end of the Prophets." [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H735] Ali As Helper Like Haroon, And Prophet Muhammad The Last Prophet: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was leading army for battle of Tabuk. He left Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) as incharge of affairs in his absence. Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) noted he is being left with women and children. Being a worrior he mentioned this to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that he is being left with women and children. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) enquired from him; will you not be pleased the fact you’re like Haroon (alayhis salam) was to Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) but there will be no Prophet after me: "... appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). 'Ali said: "Do you want to leave me with the children and women?" The Prophet said, "Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Harun to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H700] In other words, you’re being left as a guardian over the women/children like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) left Prophet Haroon (alayhis salam) as guardian over Bani Israel. And guardian left by Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) was a Prophet but you’re not a Prophet. Many Liars And Impostors Claiming To Be Prophets/Messengers: It is recorded in Hadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: Before the Last Hour there would be many liars, and there is an addition in the badith transmitted on the authority of Abu Ahwas of these words: ‘I said to him: Did you hear it from Allah's Messenger?’ He said: ‘Yes.’" [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6986] In another Hadith al-Kadhabs is replaced with [minor] Dajjals: "The Last Hour will not come before there come forth thirty liar Dajjals (i.e. impostors) lying on Allah and His Apostle." [Ref: Dawood, B37, H4320] These Liars, Impostors are claimants of Prophet-hood: "The Last Hour would not come until there would arise about thirty impostors, liars, and each one of them would claim that he is a messenger of Allah." [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6988] Similar is recorded in another Hadith but with addition of, I am Khaatam of Prophets, after hom there will be no Prophet: “… and the Last Hour will not ocme before the tribes of my people attach them selves to the polytheists, and tribes of my people worship idols. There will be among my people thirty great liars each of them asserting that he is Prophet, where as I am the Seal of the Prophets after whom there will be no Prophet; and a section of my Ummah will continue to hold to the truth …” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B37, H4239] Conclusion: Word Khaatam in Khaatam al-Nabiyeen has been employed in meaning of last/end. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave many examples through which he established this meaning consistently. He clearly stated there will be no Prophet, or Messenger after him. And warned there will be thirty liars and impostors from his Ummah who will claim to be Prophets but there is no Prophet after him. Wama alayna ilal balalghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.
  17. Prophet Muhammad As Witness In Meaning of Hadhir Nazir Over Nations Earlier Prophets. Introduction: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ummah will be called to testify on day of judgment in defense of Prophets. Ummah would bear witness but will acknowledge its source of information is last/final Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would testify against the disbelievers of previous nations. 1.1 - Prophets Sent To Every Nations To Warn And Deliver Good News: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated in Quran: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger to make clear to you [the religion] after a period [of suspension] of Messengers, lest you say: ‘There came not to us any bringer of good tidings or a warner.’ But there has come to you a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And Allah is over all things competent.” [Ref: 5:19] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) also states mankind were sent Messengers to guide them and warn them: “[We sent] Messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allah after the messengers. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Ref: 4:165] Following verses also imply mankind and Jinn were sent Prophets: “It almost bursts up with fury. Every time a group is cast therein, its keeper will ask: "did no warner come to you?” [Ref: 67:8] "’O company of Jinn and mankind, did there not come to you Messengers from among you, relating to you My verses and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?’” [Ref: 6:130] The topic continues pointing out that the disbelievers would acknowledge Messengers came to them but due to being deluded they disbelieved in their teachings: “They will say: ‘We bear witness against ourselves.’ And the worldly life had deluded them, and they will bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers. That is because your Lord would not destroy the cities for wrongdoing while their people were unaware.“ [Ref: 6:131] Ultimately the residents of hell and paradise would acknowledge the reality that Prophets came to them as established by following verses: “Do they await except its result? The Day its result comes those who had ignored it before will say: ‘The Messengers of our Lord had come with the truth, so are there [now] any intercessors to intercede for us or could we be sent back to do other than we used to do?’ They will have lost themselves, and lost from them is what they used to invent.” [Ref: 7:53] “And We will have removed whatever is within their breasts of resentment, [while] flowing beneath them are rivers. And they will say: ‘Praise to Allah, who has guided us to this; and we would never have been guided if Allah had not guided us. Certainly the messengers of our Lord had come with the truth.’ And they will be called, "This is Paradise, which you have been made to inherit for what you used to do." [Ref: 7:43] 1.2 - Prophets Delivered To Nations The Revelation Entrusted To Them: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Prophets; Nuh (alayhis salam), Hud (alayhis salam), Prophet Salih (alayhis salam), Prophet Shu’ayb (alayhis salam), conveyed the Wahi entrusted to them in following verses: “[Prophet Nuh alayhis salam] said: "O my people, there is not error in me, but I am a Messenger from the Lord of the worlds. I convey to you the messages of my Lord and advise you; and I know from Allah what you do not know.” [Ref: 7:62/63] “And to the Aad [We sent] their brother Hud. He said: ‘O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him. Then will you not fear Him?’ Said the eminent ones who disbelieved among his people: ‘Indeed, we see you in foolishness, and indeed, we think you are of the liars.’ I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a trustworthy adviser.” [Ref: 7:65/68] “But if they turn away [say]: ‘I have already conveyed that with which I was sent to you. My Lord will give succession to a people other than you, and you will not harm Him at all. Indeed my Lord is, over all things, Guardian.’" [Ref: 11:57] “So they hamstrung the she-camel and were insolent toward the command of their Lord and said: ‘O Salih, bring us what you promise us, if you should be from the Messengers.’ So the earthquake seized them, and they became within their home [corpses] fallen prone. And he turned away from them and said: ‘O my people, I had certainly conveyed to you the message of my Lord and advised you, but you do not like advisors.’” [Ref: 7:77/79] “Those who denied Shu'ayb - it was as though they had never resided there. Those who denied Shu'ayb - it was they who were the losers. And he turned away from them and said: ‘O my people, I had certainly conveyed to you the messages of my Lord and advised you, so how could I grieve for a disbelieving people?’" [Ref: 7:92/93] In the following verse it is recorded that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) protects all the Prophets until they have conveyed the message given to them. Implications of which is all Messengers get to convey the Wahi entrusted to them: "(He Alone is) the all-Knower of the Ghayb and He reveals to none His Ghayb. Except to a Messenger (from mankind) whom He has chosen and then He makes a band of watching guards to march before him and behind him (i.e. Allah protects the Messengers). Till He sees that they (the Messengers) have conveyed the Messages of their Lord. And He records all that which is with them, and He keeps count of all things.” [Ref: 72:26/28] 2.1 - Questioning Disbelievers On Judgment If Messengers Conveyed Message: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Then We will surely question those to whom [a message] was sent, and We will surely question the messengers.“ [Ref: 7:6] The nations of Prophets will be asked how did they respond to the Messengers sent to guide them but they will unable to respond due to fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “And [mention] the Day He will call them and say: ‘What did you answer the Messengers?’ But the information will be unapparent to them that Day, so they will not [be able to] ask one another.” [Ref: 28:65/66] Prophets too will be questioned and due to fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and humility they will respond they have no knowledge: "On the Day when Allah will gather the Messengers together and say to them: 'What was the response you received?' They will say: 'We have no knowledge, verily, only You are the Knower of all that is unseen.'" [Ref: 5:109] Yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) makes it clear that Messengers will be supported by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not left to devices of disbelievers of their own nations: “Indeed, We will support Our Messengers and those who believe during the life of this world and on the Day when the witnesses will stand.” [Ref: 40:51] 2.2 - Prophets Will Say We Conveyed Message, Ummatis Would Deny It: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states from every nation a Prophet will be brought forward to be witness against his nation [and after evidence against them will be gathered] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will say to disbelievers to produce your proof [of your claim that no Prophet was sent to you and you did not receive the message of Wahi]: “And We will extract from every nation a witness and say [to disbelievers of every nation]: ‘Produce your proof and they will know that the truth belongs to Allah, and lost from them is that which they used to invent.’“ [Ref: 28:75] It is recorded in many Ahadith, I will employ just one, that on judgment day Prophets will be called and asked if they delivered the Wahi entrusted to them? The Prophets would answer the question with yes but when their nations will be questioned if a Prophet came to them and delivered the Wahi they would reply in negative: “A Prophet will come accompanied by two men, and a Prophet will come accompanied by three, and (some will come) with more or less than that. It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ And he will say: ‘Yes.’ Then his people will be called and it will be said: ‘Did he convey the message to you?’ They will say: ‘No!’” Then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will enquire from every Prophet; who will bear witness for you. and they would say Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ummah: “Then it will be said: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’” Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would then question about the source of information: “He [Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’“[2] [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4425] This establishes Muslims would testify because the Messenger informed the Muslims and its not their direct experience. This is testimony of faith like the companion testified on horse issue sale that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is truthful in his claim that he sale was agreed. Or as we testify and profess with our tongue and heart; I bear witness none has the right to be worshipped except Allah and I bear witness Muhammad is Abd and Rasool of Allah. We are not actually witnessing Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and that He alone has the right to be worshipped. Instead we are attesting to our actual belief and to which we’re witness upon. 2.3 - Prophet Muhammad And His Nation Would Testify Against Every Ummah: The last/final Ummah will testify in defense of Prophets: “So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’” The Hadith continues to establish Ummah is testifying after being informed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: “Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.[1]’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4425] Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be called to bear witness. Following verses of Quran alludes to this incident in Quran: "How then if We brought from each people a [Prophet sent as a] witness, and We brought you as a witness against these people!" [Ref: 4:41] “One day We shall raise from all peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring you as a witness against these (people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Ref: 16:89] The verse is referring to last/final Ummah and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being witness against previous nations: "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; ..." [Ref: 2:143] And when the witness bear witness against former nations then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will tell the disbelievers of former nations to produce their proof that no Prophet came to you to convey the Wahi of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “And We will extract from every nation a witness and say [to disbelievers of every nation]: ‘Produce your proof and they will know that the truth belongs to Allah, and lost from them is that which they used to invent.’“ [Ref: 28:75] And they will be unable to provide any proof in their defense. 3.1 - Difference In Prophet Muhammad’s Witnessing And Witnessing Of His Nation: Hadith records: “He [Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’“ [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4425] Upon witnessing of Ummah Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) questioned what was the source of their information but when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) testified in support of the Prophets there was no question about how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gained this knowledge. Note Ummah directly witnessing was negated and it was made clear that they were bearing witness because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had informed them. This establishes; testimony of Ummah of last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is testimony/witnessing of their own faith in truthfulness and their trustworthiness of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi aalihi was’sallam). And they are not bearing witness as first hand witnesses. If witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was due to being informed by another, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then this was perfect opportunity to negate his own direct witnessing of events. Absence of this negation is proof that his witnessing was direct; he actually witnessed all the events related to earlier Prophets. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) negated direct witnessing of his Ummatis because to believe they are direct witnesses must have contravened with Islamic teaching. And to believe he directly witnessed the events was in line with Islamic teaching therefore he allowed this interpretation unchecked.[3] In a verse it is stated: "How then if We brought from each people a [Prophet sent as a] witness, and We brought you [O Prophet Muhammad] as a witness against these people!" [Ref: 4:41] A truthful witness is one who has seen/heard the events about which one bears witness about and it would be against the truthfulness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to testify without hearing/seeing. And it would be against justice of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to accept a testimony of one who has not seen/heard the events about which he bears witness about. And there is no textual proof for Taweel; which would suggest prophetic testimony was of his faith in revelation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and therefore natural conclusion must be Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will testify against the disbelievers of previous nations because he directly witnessed the events as they transpired. 3.2 – Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Witnessed All: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enquired from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); what the angels are disputing about? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) replied that he is not aware and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) made him aware of everything: "Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these?" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3246, Tafsir Surah Sad] Hadith recorded Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Kitab al-Fitan, 1st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi] "It is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Mawahib al-Laduniyyah bil-Manahi al-Muhammadiyyah, Vol7, Page204] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was seeing during his life all that was going to happen till the day of judgment and all that was happening during his life time. And if he could see the future he could see the past with permission and power granted to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Another Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) detailed all events that transpired from beginning of creation till judgment day: “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H414] He could only educate his companions what transpired so comprehensively if he witnessed the events and remembered. And many verses of Quran rhetorically imply Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw events which predate his birth. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has insinuated this: Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with Aad!” [Ref: 89:6] “Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the companions/army of elephant!” [Ref: 105:1] “Have you not seen those elders of the children of Israel after the time of Moses!” [Ref: 2:246] Conclusion: It is clearly recorded in Quran; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sent Prophets to all the nations and they delivered the message of Wahi entrusted to them. On the day of judgment Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would questions every Prophet and their nations of Prophets had come to them and if they conveyed the message. The disbelievers would deny receiving the message of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but the Prophets would affirm that they have delivered the message. Every Prophet would be asked who will testify on their behalf and they would say Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ummah. The last/final Ummah would be questioned if Prophets have delivered the message and they would answer yes. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would question them how they know this and they would say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed them that Prophets delivered the message. It is unclear if Ummatis would be referring to Quranic verses, quoted in article, or Prophetic teaching found in Hadith. Whatever the case it establishes Ummah’s witnessing is based on trust in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and demonstration of their faith in his claim of Prophet-hood. This witnessing would be no different from how we the Muslims testify; ashadu al-la ilaha il-Allah, as means of demonstrating our Eman in Islam. And this testimony is not of actual witness who witnesses to truth of it with sight and hearing to reality of Shahadatayn. After the witnessing of Ummah then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will testify; Prophets delivered the message of Wahi, as a first hand witness. There is no evidence available to suggest and legitimize an alternative understanding of prophetic witnessing as is in the case of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The prophetic Takhsees made for witnessing of Ummah could easily have been turned inclusive for witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) if he willed so. And absence of such Takhsees strengthens Islamic understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) allowed orthodox interpretation; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was first hand witness therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not limit his witnessing to witnessing of his own Eman like he did for his Ummah. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Footnotes: - [1] “It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed that the Messenger of Allah said: “A Prophet will come accompanied by two men, and a Prophet will come accompanied by three, and (some will come) with more or less than that. It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ And he will say: ‘Yes.’ Then his people will be called and it will be said: ‘Did he convey the message to you?’ They will say: ‘No.’ Then it will be said: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: “Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4425] - [2] “... ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ and they will say, ‘No.’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his Ummah.’ So Muhammad and his Ummah will be called, and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message.’ That is the words of Allah: ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Hadith 1164, Sunan Ibn Maajah, Hadith 4284] - [3] Heretics will attempt to refute Hadhir Nazir by arguing: No because the natural implications was; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed the Ummah and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) informed the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Therefore there was no need to explicitly state; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) didn’t see the events like his Ummah didn’t see. This belief of heretics is based on Qiyas, analogy, drawn between the ordinary Ummatis and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This Qiyas is of those people who want people to believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is an ordinary human being entrusted to deliver the message of Islam. And therefore they attempt to portray him as an ordinary human being by equating and drawing comparison of him with ordinary people. Even though negation of Ummatis being direct witnesses by default does not imply the same is also true for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); it would be best to address it from neutral point of view. PartA: There’re two possibilities; i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) informed the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he informed the Ummah, ii) Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directly witnessed as they transpired and he informed his Ummah i.e. he was Hadhir Nazir Noorani’an and Roohani'an. PartB: The two possibilities produce following results; i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directly did not witness the events of former nations but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) witnessed these events and informed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he then informed his own Ummah. Therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not an actual witness who saw and heard events himself. This is contradicted by the evidence quoted above. ii) Ummah was not direct witness because Hadith negates it but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was direct witness. Meaning spiritually saw heard everything just as the events of former nations and their Prophets transpired. And this is established by circumstantial evidence of Ahadith quoted in section, 3.2.
  18. Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Sent As Shahid In Meaning Of Hadhir Nazir. Introduction: Creed of Hadhir al-Nazir essentially is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has witnessed, as a first hand witness, the deeds of people about whom he would testify on the day of judgment. 0.0 - Prophet Muhammad Sent As A Hearing Seeing Witness: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states while addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the following verse: "We have truly sent thee as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings, and as warner." [Ref: 48:8] Same is stated while directly addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in another verse: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent thee as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner." [Ref: 33:45] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a witness and meaning of this is that he (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a hearing and seeing type of witness. 0.1 - Implications Of Being Sent As a Witness Are Hearing And Seeing: Those who disbelieve in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being sent as a hearing seeing type of witness should suppose being sent as a witness to an exhibition by another and then contemplate the implications of it. Are you being sent to be present at the events and as a hearing seeing type of representative or blind and deaf type of witness? Have you been sent to hear and see the events of exhibition? You would agree, you are sent to be present at the exhibition and as a seeing, hearing type of witness. You have been assigned to be present at the event and hear/see the events. In Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) defines how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent as a witness: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated We sent Prophet Muhammad to be witness like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) and we know Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) was sent as a hearing/seeing type of witness. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sent His Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also as a hearing/seeing type of witness. 0.2 - Prophet Muhammad Sent To Entire Mankind: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated He has sent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to mankind: “O mankind, the Messenger has come to you with the truth from your Lord, so believe; it is better for you.” [Ref: 4:170] “Say: ‘O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all; to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death.’ So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided. “ [Ref: 7:158] With Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he sent Quran as a conclusive proof of truth of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) claim of Prophet-hood and as a instruction, healing for mankind: “O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord and We have sent down to you a clear light.” [Ref: 4:174]“O mankind, there has to come to you instruction from your Lord and healing for what is in the breasts and guidance and mercy for the believers. “ [Ref: 10:57] The following words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) reveal that he has been sent to entire mankind and not just to Arabs: “… concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me.” [Ref: Muslim B4, H1062] Being sent to mankind implies all men/women of all ages therefore being sent to mankind closes the door of Prophet-hood. As such Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ended his statement with saying line of Prophets is closed after him. 0.3 - Prophet Muhammad Prophet And Witness Over Mankind: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was sent as a witness, bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner to all mankind. As such witnessing deeds of mankind is fundamentally established because being sent as a witness to mankind implies witnessing of deeds by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This Tafsir of verse of 34:28 and 48:8 has been supported by another verse of Quran. 0.4 - Prophet Sent As A Warner, Bearer Of Good News And As A Witness To Mankind: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner." [Ref: 33:45] Following verse further explains that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was sent to mankind as a bringer of good news and as a warner but does not make addition of being sent as a witness: “And We have not sent you except comprehensively to mankind as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. But most of the people do not know. “ [Ref: 34:28] Both verses come togather to establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was sent to mankind as a witness from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), as a warner, and bringer of good news. 0.5 – Witnessing Deeds Of Mankind From Perfection Till Judgment: In light of this it would be correct to conclude Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed the deeds of mankind after his station was perfected and continued to do so after his passing away. And he will continue to witness good and bad deeds till judgment day’s destruction is established. This in essence is an aspect of creed of Hadhir al-Nazir and has been summarized in following verse of Quran: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] One meaning of verse is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a hearing/seeing type of witness to witness deeds of mankind in person as hearing seeing witness. And another interpretation is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent to be witness over people of Makkah/Madinah like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) was sent to Pharaoh in person as hearing seeing type of witness. The book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has short expression vast meaning nature and until the requirement of Takhsees are met we affirm all correct interpretations and reject none. Conclusion: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sent Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as a Shahid and Prophet and Messenger to mankind. Being sent as a witness entails being sent to hear see and in context it means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent to hear see deeds of mankind. This is in nutshell one part creed of Hadhir Nazir. Wama alayna ilal balalghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.
  19. Adressing AhlalHdeeth Forum Content In Thread Titled: Are Salafis Kharjis Based On These Ahadith? Introduction: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold the emergence of Khawarij from Iraq and Najd. The first appearance of Khawarij was from Iraq where the Khawarij abandoned Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and they went on to charge Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and his party of committing major Shirk. They applied verses of disbelievers upon Muslims, declaring them Mushrikeen, and legitimized killing them under this pretext. This first major Khariji sect and its branches plagued the Muslims with violence throughout the centuries thereafter. Then era of second major Khariji assault started from Najd. It was lead by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. They differed with first major Khariji sect. Yet are connected to it via ambilicalcord of fundamental principle methodology and cornerstone practices which are hallmark of Kharijism. This article will mainly attempt to shed light onto such two aspects: i) Verses revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks applying them on Muslims, ii) and Takfir via declaring Muslim is guilty of major Shirk therefore Mushrik. 0.0 - BackGround: Brother Rizwan Lets The Khariji Genie Out The Bottle: A concerned brother enquired about two very important Ahadith. First states a person will attack his Muslim neighbor with sword under the pretext his neighbor is a Mushrik. The second Hadith states Khawarij apply verses of Quran upon Muslims which were in fact revealed for disbeleivers. His question is quite simple and important because brother knows on face value these Ahadith fit like glove to Salafis and Wahhabis: “Assalamu Aleikum. How should we understand these Ahadith? Are these reports refering to Salafis? “Hudhaifa i.e. Ibn al Yaman said that the Prophet said: Verily, I fear about a man from you who will read the Qur'an so much that his face will become enlightened and he will come to personify Islam. This will continue until Allah desires. Then these things will be taken away from him when he will disregard them by putting them all behind his back and will attack his neighbor with the sword accusing him of Shirk. The Prophet was asked - which of the two will be deserving of such an accusation? - The attacker or the attacked? The Prophet replied - the attacker (the one accusing the other of Shirk).” [Narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, Tahqiq Nasir Albani, Volume 001, Page No. 200, Hadith Number 81] Nasir Albani said: ‘This Hadith is Hasan.' Also see: Silsilat al-ahadith al-Sahihah - Albani Volume 007-A, Page No. 605, Hadith Number 3201. “Ibn Umar considered the Khawarij and the heretics as the worst beings in creation, and he said: They went to verses which were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them to the Believers.” [Bukhari; Chapter Khawarjites. Ibn Hajr al Asqalani said in Fath ul Bari: That its sanad is sahih.] Today we see salafis who use verses from Al Quran and make takfir on sufis and call them mushriks. So I want to know what ulema have said about these ahadith. Can someone help?” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Brother 03:37 PM, here] In response to Hadith of Hudhaifa (radiallah ta’ala anhu) man attacking his neighbor on pretext he is Mushrik Rizwan responds and attempts to give impression majority of Salafis/Wahhabis do not engage in Takfir of Muslims. And those who do they are Jahil (i.e. ignorant/illiterate). He goes on to say members of other sects also make Takfir of Muslims and he names sects. On the second Hadith of, Khawarij apply verses of Kafirs upon Muslims, he says the Khawarij employ such verses and gives example of following verse: “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” [Ref: 5:47] And he ends with saying that both these Ahadith referr to Khawarij, a conclusion which, I Muhammed Ali Razavi agree with. It should be pointed out brother Rizwan does not apply this Hadith upon Salafis/Wahhabis because he deems this sect as true/pure Islam. For him some Khawarij are really insanely, extreme, over zealous, fringe, elements within Wahhabism but not mainstream. Without further delay here is what Rizwan wrote: 1) “Salaam. Simple answer is no because true Salafis don't. There may be a small minority that do 'Takfeer' but they don't kno what they are doing as they are Jahil and means they speak without Ilm. Plus the same could be said about Deobandis, Brailwees, certain Sufis who accuse Salafis and each other. So the answer is no. 2) The Hadeeth you quoted from Ibn Umar is true because the Khawarij use certain Ayah especially from Surah Maidah that were revealed about the Jews, according to the Mufasireen, and apply them to Muslims. Those who believed that Surah Al-Ma'idah V.47 refered to other … 3) Those Hadeeths look clearly like they are reffering to the Khawarij, not Salafiyah.” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Rizwan 04:18 PM to 08:02 PM, here] Rizwan made admission that Khawarij apply verses of Quran revealed for disbelievers upon believers and his admission implies; he, al-Boriqee, and their Wahhabi kind in general are all Khawarij. Entire Wahhabism is based on disbeliever’s Ayaat/Ahadith being applied upon Muslims. For proof read any book of founder of Wahhabism , Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, and prove me right. 0.1 - BackGround: Attempt To Bottle The Genie Of Khariji Methodology: Brother al-Boriqee was stung to action by admission of brother Rizwan and the implications it has for Wahhabism/Salafism. In response to what brother Rizwan admitted and context of Surah al-Maidah veres forty-seven al-Boriqee writes the following: "Asalamu Alaikum Akhee Rizwan. You have to differentiate between: 1) The Sabab (reason) of the Hukm. 2) The Amm (generality) of the Hukm. Yes, the Ayaat of Allah regarding ruling by other than what Allah has revealed was indeed revealed about the Yahood primarily. The Sabab does not efface the fact that the action cannot happen with anyone else. In other words, the Sabab does not restrict the reality of such Kuffaric concepts happening beyond the realm of the Ahlul Kitaab. Al-Qurtubi mentions in his Tafseer: "If it were said that on this basis it is permissible to use as evidence when debating with Muslims verses which were revealed concerning the Kaafireen and it is known that the rulings concerning them are different, then it may be said to him that it is not far-fetched to derive rulings concerning the muslims that which Allah has revealed concerning the Mushrikeen." The Ulema have indicated that the reason for revelation and what is indicated by an Ayah may be interconnected. Moreover, the fact that the clear words of Allah are irrefutably general and thus understood by our Salaf as such, and the Ulema of Islam who followed them, then whatever is indicated as general, then its Hukm falls on all and sundry to whoever fulfills the reality of the Hukm. [While referring to what brother Rizwan acknowledged; verses of Quran revealed regarding polytheists being applied to Muslims is way of Khawarij al-Boriqee writes:] This is the exact same argument utilized by the Mushrikeen (i.e. Sunnis, the vast majority of Muslims) who try to validate the Shirk of idolatry [by ascribing it] to the prophet Muhammad. And differentiating [between] this Shirk from/with the Shirk of the Christians on the basis of their nominal claim to Islam. Despite the fulfillment of realities pertaining to Shirk [in their beliefe/practice] as revealed in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Moreover, the purpose of the Shariah being revealed, the explanation of Tawheed and the aspects of Kufr and Emaan as stipulated by Allah and His messenger when revealing about other peoples IS SO THAT the Ummah does not fall into the same pitfalls. If the fact of the matter was that the human who claims Islam is immune to these pitfalls solely on the virture of their attestation to Islam, then the revelation concerning the matters of Tawheed, Eman and Kufr with regards to other peoples becomes nothing more than ancient fables. And this was the charge of the Mushrikeen in the time of the prophet who said the same. The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and all that Dhulm encompasses SO THAT those who claim to love Allah will beware of following the same footsteps, OR ELSE they will become like those who adopted these Dhulumaat and will suffer the consequences of those who fulfill the Dhulumaat. Lastly, the purpose of mentioning all of this is to explain to you that the Asbaab of the Ayaat of Hukm does not reflect the application of the Ayaah on those who fulfill its reality. That is because the Sabab and the generality of the Ayaah are two different issues. That is why the same people who narrated and believed that these Ayaah were revealed concerning the Ahlul Kitaab, like at-Tabari, Ibn katheer, Ibnul Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibnul Arabi, and all others were the same individuals who also believed that a Muslim can literally fulfill the reality of the Hukm given in these verses. Asalamu alaikum." [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, al-Boriqee 08:44 PM, here] It is worthy pointing out that even though al-Boriqee wrote the above in context of Surah al-Maidah verse 47 the general principles of Tafsir, underlined, apply to else where as well. Because Kharijis of Najd (i.e. Wahhabis/Salafis) apply verses revealed for Mushrikeen and apply them upon Muslims so admission of brother Rizwan implicates Wahhabis/Salafis as well. And what brothr al-Boriqee wrote in the beginning, underlined, referrs to those verses as well and his objective is to establish that there is no agreement with what Khawarij do and what Salafis/Wahhabis do. Brother al-Boriqee reasons Wahhabis/Salafis are justified in their application of these verses upon ‘nominal’ Muslims because they in fact are guilty of Shirk so even though the cause of revelation doesn’t implicate them the teachings of Shirk a verse rejects/refutes makes it permissible for us to apply such verses upon ‘nominal’ Muslims. 1.0 - Rules Of Interpretation: True Meaning Must Be Part Of Hukm: You rightly pointed out in context of principle of Tafsir; Sabab (i.e. cause) of revleation does not restrict Hukm (i.e. injunction) of revelation for only whom the verse was revealed but Hukm of verse is Aam (i.e. general) and applies to all who qualify for it. You’re also aware that Sabab restricts the type of Hukm derived from verse. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in numerous places stated bow down with those who bow down. And meaning contextually is bow in worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with those who bow down to worship Him. It would be foolish to derive Hukm of permissibility of bowing in context of Japanese/Chinese cultural practices. Only exception to this rule is, underlined, is when a Ayat/Hadith is coupled with another Ayat/Hadith. Even then resulting Tafsir must incorporate true meaning of the Ayaat/Ahadith. And you also know that when the Hukm derived from Ayat/Hadith does not fit upon belief/practice of a person then Hukm cannot be applied upon individual. 1.1 - No Difference Between Methodology And Practice Of Khawarij: You're aware that Khawarij did not apply Quranic verses upon Muslims due to belief that these Muslims were cause of revelation of these verses. Kharijis actually applied the verses of, Kufr/Shirk, upon Muslims in same, Hukm, sense you, apply verses of Kufr/Shirk upon Muslims. In short there is no difference in; what you apply, why you apply, and how you apply. Nor there is any difference in delusion which made them feel they are justified. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits I will establish this delusion in forth coming parts of this article. To know if you’re from Khawarij all needs to be seen is if Wahhabi Takfir of Muslims by accusations of major Shirk are based on valid grounds or not. If invalid then you’re from Khawarij even if you choose to delude otherwise. 1.2 - Your Way Of Takfir Is Unjustified And Khariji Way: You're well aware that those whom you alleged are 'nominal' Muslims neither affirm Ilahiyyah (i.e. Ma'budiyyah) for a creation, or any creation. Nor do they worship them, nor have such intentions, nor perform actions of worship. And they say, none is worthy of worship except Allah, yet despite this you charge them of Shirk based on your distorted wonky understanding of and methodology of determing Shirk. You judge them to be Mushrik not based on what they believe but what you attribute to them and this is what the Khawarij did. And you’re aware without affirmation of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship no worship takes place. If you disbelieve then worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without these two foundations. These two are cornerstone of worship in Islam and to determine worship of Muslims and non-Muslims. You judge them, Muslims, to be Mushrik even when Ilahiyyah isn’t affirmed, nor intention of worship is made. Note this golden nugget and do not forget it: No action is worship without Ilahiyyah and intention of worship. Every action done with belief of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship is worship. Do not forget them and contemplate over them. If you contest this rule bring your proof if you’re truthful. And by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you’re from the misguided folk. Yet despite these defects in your understanding of Ibadah and methodology of determing major Shirk you judge them to be Mushrikeen. And you have odacity to, indirectly, claim to know their belief better then them. How unfortunate of you! Since brother al-Boriqee thinks high of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah); Imam Shah Wali-Allah al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) in chapter of chapter 38 of his Hujjat al-Balighah writes in Sajdah intention differentiates between worship and respect. And this indicates in his understanding Niyyah would make an action worship. 1.3 - Truth According To Fundamental Principles Of Tawheed And Shirk: There is no denial foolish amongst those who claim to hold to path of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah perform deeds which are Haram, such as prostration, out of reverance and some are engaged in other type of reprehensible innovations. But despite this their creed of Tawheed is intact major sins (i.e. prostration of reverance for other then Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala), type of Tawassul disputed by your kind and deemed major Shirk by your kind, and other practices do not invalidate belief of Tawheed. Because these Muslims do not explicitly or implicitly affirm Ilahiyyah for a/any creation and nor they worship a/any creation. Tawheed fundamentally is affirmation; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah. And Shirk fundametnally is affirming Ilahiyyah for anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And once this core is corrupted, with major Shirk of belief, then person performs action with intention of worship. When the reality of your Takfir via charge of major Shirk and accusation of Mushrik is unwarranted then you have no argument against the truth that your Wahhabism is form of Kharijism. This charge returns to you via two routes: i) The Hukm of verses you apply upon Muslims cannot legitimately be applied to Muslims and this is also what Khawarij did. ii) Khawarij without just cause declared that Muslims are Mushrik, like the Hadith of Ibn Hibban establishes. Due to these two reasons supported by quoted Ahadith you folk are Khawarij. This conclusion is also supported by Ahadith of group of Satan (i.e. Qarn al-Shaytan) emerging from Najd. And history is proof Wahhabism emerged from Najd and did all which was prophecised. Friend of the British and enemy and killers of Muslims, and a reality which has not changed since. 1.4 - Wahhabism And Kharijism Against The Prophetic Teaching: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated three things are foundation of Eman in following Hadith and he explained what these are: “Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet who said: Three things are the roots of faith: (i) To refrain from (killing) a person who says “there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah” (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his deed. Jihad continues from the day I was sent as Prophet to ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] A ignorant/foolish Muslim performs prostration to a grave out of respect, or a Muslim seeks Waseela/Shafa’at of a Wali/Nabi. Wahhabi declares him out of Islam for this deed. This is violation of third foundation of Eman. If the action is sin, i.e. prostration of respect to any creation, then this would be violation of second foundation of Eman. It is known Khawarij made Takfir of Muslims because of their major sins just like Wahhabis. It is also established that when Khawarij/Wahhabis considered it permissible to shed blood of other Muslims on ground of their Takfir and when oppurtunity availed they killed Muslims with imputiny and continue to do so. The Wahhabi barbarity unleashed by Najdi forces in Arabia is recorded in history books. Modern example of true Wahhabism is ISIS, their absolute lack of compassion and mercy, inhumane butchery of orthodox Muslims, and other minorities can be accessed and viewd on internet. And their murderous orgy nullified the first foundation of Eman. Any who has nullified all three has no Eman and is out of Islam like an arrow out of target: Never to return to Islam and out of Islam so cleanly that there is little sign of Islam on him. And every Wahhabi educated and believer of it will aspire to do to Muslims all which Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Khulafa did: wage wars, enslave, demolish, and invade to expand territory of Islam because Shaykh al-Najd wrote: “The third principle is that the Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) encountered people differing in their worship. Amongst them were people who worshipped the angels, some who worshiped the prophets and the righteous men and others who worshipped stones, trees, the sun and the moon. The Messenger of Allaah (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them and did not differentiate between them.”[1] [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, 3rd Principle, Shaykh al-Najd, here] What he stated here is that we will fight every type of Mushrik and will not make distinction between any. Note Shaykh al-Najd’s immediate target ‘Mushrik’ were actual Muslims of entire Arabian Peninsula. In context of historical events he is stating those who worshipped so and so, and including these who say we are Muslims, and as claimants of Islam (i.e. ‘nominal Muslims’) say none has the right to be worshipped, even though they say it, they are in fact Mushrikeen, and we will do all to them which Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did with Mushrikeen he encountered during his life. And these Wahhabis precisely did so thus negating first condition of Eman. All three Kharijis nullified, and all three Wahhabis nullified. Those who haven’t yet aspire and desire to. Therefore every true Wahhabi, true to teaching of Wahhabism, is enemy of every member of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah, and he is desiring aspiring, could be, and in ‘right circumstances’ then would be killers, enslavers of you, your mother, daughters, sisters, your wives, children, old, and young. 2.0 - When Can A Verse Of Kafir/Mushrik Can Be Employed As Evidence: i) When the Hukm is corroborated from another Ayat/Hadith which was revealed for Muslims. ii) When it talks about a humanly attribute/behavior negatively and it is also of a Muslim also: To point out this is done by astray and cursed people so the Muslim gives-up the habbit/behavior. iii) When substantiating, linguistic, a undersanding. iv) When Hukm derived is not same as in context of it was revealed for. v) When taking general wisdom and learning lessons from stories mentioned in Quran and Hadith. 2.1 - What Imam al-Qurtubi Sated And How It Was Employed: You’re forewarned following English translation of Imam al-Qurubi’s quote is very crude and does not properly convey intended meaning but it can be gleemed from it. Brother al-Boriqee quoted Imam al-Qurtubi (rahimullah) in support of his view: “Al-Qurtubi mentions in his Tafseer: "If it were said that on this basis it is permissible to use as evidence when debating with Muslims verses which were revealed concerning the Kaafireen and it is known that the rulings concerning them are different, then it may be said to him that it is not far-fetched to derive rulings concerning the muslims that which Allah has revealed concerning the Mushrikeen.” Imam (rahimullah) states if the derived Hukm from verse is different then what it originally was revealed for then it is permissible to employ it as evidence during sectarian debates even if a verse was revealed in context of Kafirs. And I Muhammed Ali Razavi absolutely and whole heartedly agree with this. What the Wahhabis do is completely and absolutely opposite of what Imam al-Qurtubi (rahimullah) stated. They interpret a verse of Quran as if it is describing belief/practice of Muslims. In other words they apply the direct/explicit Hukm of Kuffaar verse upon Muslims which is prohibited and it is something what Khawrij did. 2.2 - Shaykh al-Najd, Four Fundamental Principles, And Proof: Shaykh al-Najd, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, al-Najdi at-Tamimi, wrote a small pamphlet named Qawaid al-Arba in a effort to prove Muslims are actually Mushrikeen due to practice of intercession/intermediation. In the second principle Shaykh al-Najd wrote the following: “The second principle: That they (the mushrikeen) say: ‘We do not call upon and turn towards them except to seek nearness and intercession (with Allaah).' So the proof against seeking nearness (through awliyaa) is His saying: "And those who take awliyaa besides Him (say): "We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah.'' Verily , Allaah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly , Allaah guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever." (Quran 39:3) And the proof against intercession (through awliyaa) is His the Most High's saying: "And they worship besides Allaah things that hurt them not , nor profit them, and they say: " These are our intercessors with Allaah.'' (Quran 10: 18) And intercession is of two types: The prohibited intercession and the a ffirmed intercession. The prohibited intercession …” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, 2nd Principle, Shaykh al-Najd, here] He says those Muslims who say we practice Waseela/Shafa’at through Awliyah-Allah and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are saying like the Mushrikeen said that we worship them … Shaykh al-Najd didn’t consider belief in Qawaid 2nd principle just action of Muslims and worse he inferred belief of Muslims from verse which was indicating belief/practice of Mushrikeen. In the quoted Shaykh al-Najd ignored the fact that Muslims who practice Waseela/Shafa’at do not believe another is Ilah (i.e. worthy of worship) except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or intend to worship, or worship anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And despite this he applied upon them verses of Quran which were describing beleifs/practices of polytheists. al-Hasil they do not just employ unrelated point of a verse as proof but in fact they apply main objective of verse upon belief/practice of Muslims. And this is contrary to what Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) stated, and against the accepted norm, and this is precisely what Khawarij did. 3.0 - Generality Connected With Jawami al-Kalim Nature Of Quran: Brother al-Boriqee writes: “Moreover, the fact that the clear words of Allah are irrefutably general and thus understood by our Salaf as such, and the Ulema of Islam who followed them, then whatever is indicated as general, then its Hukm falls on all and sundry to whoever fulfills the reality of the Hukm.” Brother al-Boriqee stated words of Quran are general and understood in their generality. He stated this in context of his following statement. Yet despite this his words are true for every such verse found in entire Quran. And I am glad brother al-Boriqee made this admission because this is something very few Wahhabis of Najd will allow and practice. And I pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) He makes it means of his guidance. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated he has been given Jawami al-Kalim, meaning, short expression bearing widest possible meanings. And this widest scope of understanding is due to generality of Quranic verses. Brother al-Boriqee wrote his own way but it would have been better he had phrased as following because it would have encampassed all applications of actual rule: Words of Quran are general (i.e. Mutliq) and understood as such by Salaf and those scholars who followed them. Therefore whatever is indicated as general then it’s understanding is according to Mutliq Haqiqi (i.e. truly general) and only limiting factor is evidence coupled with Mutliq Haqiqi. Its Faham is according to whatever generality establishes and Hukm upon whoever fulfills the reality of Hukm. Yet he wrote in context of issue and there is no blame on brother al-Boriqee for this. 3.1 - Generality Of Quranic Verses Disbelieved By Wahhabis: Generality means all inclusive and nothing is excluded. In context of Quranic verses if a verse is general it means it isn’t restricted to a particular meaning but all meaning possible can be derived from it and all are valid. If a interpretation contradicts then you have violated principle of Tafsir. Hence all inclusive nothing excluded. This out the way lets move to actual battle ground. Brother al-Boriqee states Salaf and the scholars who follow their footsteps understand Quranic verses according to generality of meaning but the fact is truth is far from it. This generality is only practiced on selective verses where the Khawarij want to apply Quranic verses revealed for polytheists/idols upon Muslims and Awliyah-Allah. I will quote one such verse employed often in a bid to prove Tawassul of Awliyah-Allah and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shirk and futile practice: “And those they invoke other than Allah create nothing, and they (themselves) are created. They are, (in fact), dead, not alive, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.” [Ref: 16:20/21] Yet another verse establishes this was said about idol-gods of polythiests: “But they have taken besides Him gods which create nothing, while they are created, and possess not for themselves any harm or benefit and possess not (power to cause) death or life or resurrection.” [Ref: 25:3] Prophets and Awliyah have support of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and they not only create birds out of clay, they give life to dead. Theoratically they can do all, with permission/power granted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able over. Anyway lets return … only selective verses are applied in generality and that too verses of disbelievers/idols on Muslims, Awliyah, Anbiyah, and nothing else. 3.2 - Testing Claim Of Holding To Generality Via Noor Mutliq: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a Noor and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:16] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) reveals concealed things. Ability of Noor (i.e. light) is to reveal hidden/concealed things therefore Noor referred in following part is referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). On the principle of generality of Quran let us test the claim of brother al-Boriqee and his claim of following of Salaf. This verse means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Noor Mutliq (i.e. Noor of all types) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not restrict to a type of Noor in this verse. From this we learn he is Noor in body and Noor of guidance. In context of first following verse is further proof of it: “O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And one who invites to Allah, by His permission, and as an sirajam muneera (i.e. illuminating lamp).” [Ref: 33:45/46] Siraj and Muneer in language of Quran are sun and moon. One is a Noor entirely and other earthly body which emits Noor of Sun. Alluding to Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyyah (i.e. Nooraniyyah) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) encapsulated in Bashariyyah of RasooAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). One may say Noor and Bashr are opposites therefore Taweel is needed. Yet Quran and Ahadith are proof Noor, Gibraeel (alayhis salam), came in form of Bashr therefore no Taweel is needed. The second is understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Noor of guidance because he guides with Noor of Quran. And this understanding is ittifaqi (i.e. agreed upon) by both sides. Will brother al-Boriqee hold to established generality of this verse and meaning it establishes? Not! 3.3 - Testing Claim Of Holding To Generality Via Shahid Station: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent as Shahid (i.e. witness): “O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And one who invites to Allah, by His permission, and as an sirajam muneera (i.e. illuminating lamp).” [Ref: 33:45/46] Muslims believe he has been sent as a hearing seeing type of witness like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) was sent as a witness to Pharaoh: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] And he has been sent to entire mankind as a warner, bringer of glad tidings, and as a witness: “O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord and We have sent down to you a clear light.” [Ref: 4:174]“O mankind, there has to come to you instruction from your Lord and healing for what is in the breasts and guidance and mercy for the believers. “ [Ref: 10:57] In this context natural conclusion of these verses is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a hearing/seeing type of witness to mankind. And he witnesses deeds of believers and disbelievers like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) witnessed deeds of Pharaoh. This in nutshell is belief of al-Hadhir and Nazir which none of them believe and all make Taweel of on account of it being ‘incompatible’ with Tawheed. 3.4 – Testing Claim Of Holding To Generality Via Knowledge In Quran: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated informs what is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book): “For, with Him are the keys of Ghayb (i.e. hidden): none knows them but He. And He knows all that is on land and in the sea; and not a leaf falls but He knows it; and neither is there a grain in the earth's deep darkness, nor anything: living or dead but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 6:59] “And in whatever condition thou mayest find thyself and whatever discourse of this thou mayest be reciting, and whatever work you may do We are your witness (from the moment) when you enter upon it: for not even an atom's weight on earth or in heaven escapes thy Sustainer's knowledge; and neither is there anything smaller than that, or larger, but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 10:61] “And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God; and He knows its time-limit (on earth) and its resting-place (after death): all (this) is laid down in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 11:6] “For there is nothing (so deeply) Ghayb (i.e. hidden) in the heavens or on earth but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref; 27:75] “And yet, they who are bent on denying the truth assert: Never will the Last Hour come upon us. Say: Nay, by my Sustainer! By Him who knows all Ghayb (i.e. hidden): it will most certainly come upon you! Not an atoms weight (of whatever there is) in the heavens or on earth escapes His knowledge; and neither is there anything smaller than that, or larger, but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen.” [Ref: 34:3] There are two understandings, one, that Kitab al-Mubeen mentioned which records everything mentioned in these verses is al-Lawh al-Mafooz (i.e. perseved tablet) which has record of everything to happen from creation to judgment day. Second is that Kitab al-Mubeen Quran: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a Noor and a Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 5:16] Therefore it too contains all knowledge mentioned in the quoted verses. And scholars of Ahlus Sunnah hold to understanding that both positions are correct and according to Jawami al-Kalim nature of Quran. Yet none of the Khawarij believe this because it leads to logical conclusion that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been taught entire Quran therefore his knowledge is inclusive of, all, from beginning to judgement day. And he reached this state of knowledge after Quran was completely revealed and explained to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). A Hadith records understanding of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) on a verse which completely goes against what the verse of Quran states: “Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so AbdurRahman bin Auf said to Umar: ‘We have sons similar to him.’ Umar replied: ‘(I respect him) because of his status that you know.’ Umar then asked Ibn Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse: ‘When comes the help of Allah and the conquest (of Mecca).’ (110:1) Ibn Abbas replied: ‘That indicated the death of Allah's Messenger which Allah informed him of.’ Umar said: ‘I do not understand of it except what you understand.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H713, here] This is proof that Quranic verses contain knowledge of matters apart from what is obvious. And only the ones who have knowledge of required method of interpretation can derive such understandings from Quran. Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golari (rahimullah), Ghawth of his time, was asked about date of birth and date of death of Imam Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu). And he responded it is in the bismillah of Surah al-Fatihah as it is recorded in Mehr e Muneer. He explains and justified it but I cannot recall precise referrence. In short Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have held this understanding and idiots of opposed them. 4.0 - Hadith Of Seeking Aid From Servants Of Allah: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet. He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” for indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon. [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam Al Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] This Hadith has been criticised by Khawarij for being weak but scholars of Hadith and Sanad criticism have established it is Hassan (i.e. good/fair). Following contains response to those who deem it Daif (i.e. weak), here. I also had a discussion on this Hadith and subjects related to it, here, it is a must read. Following Hadith supports it: “The Prophet said, "This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them. When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said: 'O (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] And it has been acted on by many scholars but following is report about Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah): “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rahimullah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal rahimullah) who said: I performed Hajj five times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697] And principle employed by Muhaditheen is if a weak Hadith is acted by a Muhaddith its elevated to rank of Hassan because it demonstrates trust in content and narrators beyond words. Actions speak louder then words. 4.1 - Hadith Of Seeking Aid And Test Of Generality: Brother al-Boriqee said he takes general as general and this is way of Salaf and those who followed them. Note he made that statement in context of Quranic verses but I am confident he and his kind will not challenge the generality rule even for prophetic words. In case he does, if he does, I must be informed, and Insha-Allah, generality will be established for prophetic words with evidence of Ahadith. Words of Hadith are: “He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” for indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon. [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam Al Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] This indicates generality in two aspects. Hadith employed plural word slaves. It could means may slaves of a type (i.e. angels), or many slaves of different types (i.e. angels, Jinn, human). It also employs phrase: “… many slaves who we do not see.” And it can be inclusive of angels, Jinn, and even Arwah (i.e. souls) of Awliyah. Question is will brother al-Boriqee believe in the generality of wording? Unlikely! 4.2 - Determining Tawheed And Shirk, Via Angel And Wali: Very likely brother al-Boriqee will make Takhsees and say other Ahadith establish its angels. Lets just agree with angels. What if via route of Ijtihad Muslims include Arwah of Anbiyah/Awliyah, Jinn, and living Awliyah-Allah will asking their help still be Shirk? I can even concede the Ijtihad is an error: What about the Mujtahid and what about those who act on his erroneous Ijtihad? For people of ilm and aqal black (i.e. Shirk) and white (i.e. Tawheed) suddenly got grey (i.e. confused): Didn’t it? Is the Mujtahid Kafir/Mushrik for legitimizing some what you deem major Shirk? And are those who act on his Ijtihad guilty of same? Or will the examption and reward of his error will be granted? Once again I will continue from underlined question and with the worst case scenario and suppose they say: Shirk! If from living/angel, Tawheed? If from deceased/Wali, Shirk? Tawheed/Shirk is now determined by new criteria of Wali and angel, and not by Tawheed and Shirk. Yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) indicated the Mushrikeen took angels as lords which we all know is Shirk: ”Nor could he order you to take the angels and prophets as lords. Would he order you to disbelief after you had been Muslims?” [Ref: 3:80] Some Wahhabis would be celebrarting because they don’t practice on this Hadith saying something like: Thank you Allah! You saved me from worship of angels. You saved me from Shirk of angels. Ahun attention folks! What about Mujtahid e Mutliq al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) and dozens of other Imams who practiced this Hadith? 4.3 - Wahhabi Way Of Determining Tawheed And Shirk: Wahhabi rule for determining Shirk is: Any verse of Quran, which indicates Shirk, and establishes similarity between practice of a Muslim and Mushrik, in action (i.e. invoking), and of being invoked (i.e. Saliheen), then Muslim is also guilty of major Shirk.[2] Wahhabis argue idols of Mushrikeen were originally Saliheen/Awliyah of previous nations and after they died people created their idols and worshipped their graves. So they quote verses of idols and say the Arab polytheists invoked their Awliyah and you your Awliyah for help therefore you’re Mushrik like them. Wahhabis do not mention belief of Ilahiyyah, intention, action of worship, as the cause of Shirk but only emphrasize similarity of invoking Saliheen to charge Muslims of Shirk. In this context, and according to verse of Quran, Shirk of angels was a reality in Arabia. Therefore invoking/asking an angel for help would be Shirk, and, to be precise Shirk of angels. And all those Imams are guilty of Shirk of angels including Mujtahid al-Mutliq al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah). O you silly Sufi! Seeking help from angels is Tawheed. Aaah! So those who called upon, invoked, beseeched, angels were Muwahid in Angeliyyah? O you silly Sufi! No! No! Their Shirk was in Rububiyyah as the verse states. Aaah! So not in Ilahiyyah just Rububiyyah? Yeah! Ilahiyyah as well! Dua means; invocation, calling, beseeching, invoking, and is Dua worship? Of course it is, you Sufi, don’t you know this much? So invoking angels is not Dua? It is: No it’s not! Sufi leave me alone my head hurts. His head hurts cause if he says yes Dua is worship then Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) would be guilty of worship as per Wahhabism. And if he says no its not worship then first of all he contradicts literal reading of Hadith, which they hold dear, and secondly the angel worshiping Mushriks will no longer be guilty of worshiping angels. And to avoid all this blameworthy stuff they must abandon the mentioned rule, and believe Shirk is determined by belief, and all types of worship, including of Dua, by belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, intention of worship, and action of worship. Otherwise you present your excuse and … 4.4 - Not Shirk Because Angles Are Living: Angels are living therefore seeking help from them not Shirk according to our living/dead principle of Shirk. Mr Wahhabi! First of all living and dead, near and far, according to means and out of means, natural and supernatural, are all invented and have no foundation in Quran or Hadith. Therefore they are not criteras of determining major Shirk. Secondly Mr Wahhabi! It would be Shirk according to following rule: Any verse of Quran, which indicates Shirk, and establishes similarity between practice of a Muslim and Mushrik, in action (i.e. invoking), and of being invoked (i.e. Saliheen), then Muslim is also guilty of major Shirk. This rule of mine in nutshell has given the methodology you employ to determine if a practice of Muslim is Shirk or not. Therefore there is a contradiction between your methodology of determining major Shirk. You can’t suspend one rule in favour of another when you feel like it. Either give up this methodology or give up your dead/living rule. If you give up your dead/living rule result would be that you cannot defend Imams and if you give up this rule [which I made] then you cannot accuse Muslims of Shirk. Heads I win and tails you loose! Best way give up these fantasies of your flight and come to undeniable and agreed upon methodology of determining major Shirk: Shirk by affirming Ilahiyyah, worship by Ilahiyyah, Niyyah and Amal. Thirdly the Mushriks of Arabia invoked LIVING angels so are they Muwahideen in Angeliyyah or Mushrik? Mushrik! Why? They affirmed Rububiyyah. And what about Ilahiyyah? Ilahiyyah too. Did they worship the angels? Yes! Did they intend to worship them? Yes! Mr Wahhabi! Thank you. You just sang the tune I wanted you to sing. True criteria of determining Shirk was/is affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and to determine worship its is Ilahiyyah, Niyyah, and Amal. 5.0 - Empty, Hollow, Shallow, Claim Of Holding To Generality: Even though brother al-Boriqee claimed to hold to generality of Quranic verses matter of truth is far from it. And when it is practiced by these Khawarij it is done so to justify and support Takfir of Muslims. And generality held of verse is always of a verse which was revealed about Kafirs/Mushriks, and their idol-gods, and then it is applied upon Muslims. They do not hold to Jawami al-Kalim nature of Quranic verses except lip service and except when they apply verses of polytheists/idols upon Muslims. 6.0 - Al-Boriqee’s Saying Muslims Legitimize Major Shirk: In the following brother al-Boriqee is saying Muslims attempt to legitimize major Shirk by attributing it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and make distinction between major Shirk: “This is the exact same argument utilized by the Mushrikeen Mushrikeen (i.e. Sunnis, the vast majority of Muslims) who try to validate the Shirk of idolatry [by ascribing it] to the prophet Muhammad. And differentiating [between] this Shirk from/with the Shirk of the Christians on the basis of their nominal claim to Islam. Despite the fulfillment of realities pertaining to Shirk [in their beliefe/practice] as revealed in the Qur'an and Sunnah.” No Muslim actually attempts to justify major Shirk, or attempts to legitimize major Shirk by ascribing it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And no Mulsims differentiates between major Shirk in an attempt to legitimize it. One who believed al-Lat is an Ilah and worshipped al-Lat, he/she was guilty of major Shirk. One who believes in Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) as an Ilah and worship’s him he/she is guilty of major Shirk. We Muslims make no distinction between Hukm of major Shirk in case of geniune major Shirk. 6.1 - When, How, Why Distinction Between Monotheists And Polytheists: How is a polytheist; who believes Krishna is a god, invokes Krishna as god, with intention and action of worship; same as a Muslim who practices Tawassul? How is a Muslim; who believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One, the Only Ilah, and with Him there is no partner. And believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Only deserves to be worshipped. And with intention of worship, and with Shari’ah sanctioned acts, worships Him; Mushrik like a Krishna god worshipping Hindu? How is a Muslim; who believes the Anbiyah/Awliyah are not Ilahs, do not deserve to be worshipped, do not intend to worship them, and does not perform action of worship for them, but practices Tawassul of Awliyah by saying similar to, O Allah, the Lord of Universe, the Malik of day of judgment, aid me through your Wali; Mushrik as a Krishna god invoking Hindu? How is a Muslim; who believes Anbiyah/Awliyah are servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and in accordance with Hadith of servant of Allah, living/deceased Awliyah can be asked for help in time of hardship, because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has appointed them on this task; is Mushrik like Krishna god invoking Hindu? You young foolish folk with beautiful speeches make no distinction. We Muslims make distinction between practice of Tawassul of Anbiyah/Awaliyah and between polytheists invoking their gods because Tawassul of Muslims is without belief of Ilahiyyah, Niyyah of worship, and without Amal of worship. Men with little understanding of Shirk and zilch understanding of Islamic principle methodology of determining major Shirk make no distinction between belief, practice, intention of Muslims, and of Mushrikeen. Clear distinction has to be made between belief/practice of polytheists and beliefe/practice of Muslims. One who makes no distinction between monotheistic Muslim practice of Tawassul, or seeking aid of Ibadullah as instructed in Hadith, and between polytheistic practice of invoking their associated god-partners is a Khariji. And one who deems them one and same is from Kufr group in East of Madinah and part of group of Satan of Najd. 6.2 - Fulfillment Of Realities Of Shirk, Or Fantasy Criterias Of Shirk: Wahhabi methodology of determining Tawheed and Shirk has nothing to do with actual Tawheed and Shirk. Its connected with living and dead, ability and inability, near and far, natural and supernatural, in means and out of means. In Wahhabism when one needs to determine if a practice is Shirk then Shirk has nothing to do with affirmation of Ilahiyyah. Tawheed in their understanding is; ability, near, natural, in means, and Shirk is; inability, far, supernatural, out of means. If you seek help from living person, something which is in their power/ability, when you seek their help they are near to hear your call, help you need is natural such has help you lift TV in these things you’re Muwahid. But if person you ask help from is far, or dead, or help you want is supernatural, or the person is living but what you want is supernatural, i.e. paradise, then you’re Mushrik. Earlier I gave Muwahid, underlined, version of help; just change tiny bit, instead of near into far; seek help from living person, something which is in their power/ability, when you seek their help they are far from you so they cannot hear your call naturally but you believe they hear your call supernaturally, help you need is natural such has help you lift TV in these things you’re Mushrik. Yes you’re Mushrik according to Wahhabism. Not because you made that tiny spec equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Equality in hearing would be hearing absolutely everything; in-depths of seas, hearts, earths, planets, space, minds; and even that would be limited equality. True equality would be hearing without ears, unlimited/unrestricted hearing, without being dependent upon sound waves, without sound, hearing thoughts of minds/hearts. And even that isn’t exhautive … to end it all … to believe a creation hears as much and as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hears would amount to true Islamic equality with Him and would amount to true major Shirk. Its Shirk according to Wahhabism not because Ilahiyyah has been affirmed. It is Shirk according to Wahhabism but not because with intention of worship a action of worship has been performed. It is Shirk because someone far as been called for help, and stupid has inferred belief of Ilahiyyah, and action of worship from it. It has nothing to do with understanding of Shirk. Or anything to do with belief, intention, practice of person seeking help. Its just that stupid has invented his stupid criteria of determining Shirk. And this criteria has absolutely no foundation in Quran, or Hadith but its foundation and home is in fantasy land of Wahhabism. Just entertaining this makes me feel I have dropped few digits from my already low IQ. 6.3 - Reality Of Shirk And Way Of Determining Shirk: Shirk has nothing to do with; living and dead, far and near, natural and supernatural, ability and inability, respect and disrespect, love and hate, asking and not-asking. You have had stupid version of Shirk and now have Islamic version of Shirk. Shirk is affirmation of Ilahiyyah for a creation and worshiping an invented Ilah instead of, or as well as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Once Ilahiyyah for a creation is affirmed major Shirk has been committed. And invented Ilah is living or dead, near or far, human or animal, angel or Jinn, able or inable, hearing or deaf, loved or hated, respected or disrespected, and help sought is in his means or out of his means, natural or supernatural, absolutely none of these can change the Hukm of major Shirk to Tawheed or make it worse then what it is. Hypothetically speaking a living human being is elevated to status of Ilah. This invented Ilah is sitting right next to Mushrik, Mushrik ask him, O my Ilah, can you pass me the glass of water. The invented Ilah passes him glass of water. Is Mushrik a Mushrik. Yes he is! Why? He affirmed Ilahiyyah! Another scenario: Mushrik in Saudi Arabia believes his Ilah is living in America, i.e. George Bush, Mushrik says, O my Ilah the great George Bush help me bomb Muslim country, but his invented Ilah does nothing. Is Arabian Mushrik a Mushrik or Muwahid? Mushrik! Why? You guessed it he affirmed Ilahiyyah for George Bush. In both scenarios consistent cause of Shirk was affirmation of Ilahiyyah. This proves Shirk has nothing to do with living, dead, far, near … major Shirk fundamentally is affirmation of Ilahiyyah. Wahhabi cannot challenge this Islamic principle methodology of determining Shirk and cannot prove his flight of his fantasy which he believes is his principle methodology of determining Shirk. 7.0 - Brother al-Boriqee Distorting The Reality Of Quranic Verses: Brother al-Boriqee wrote the following and I agree with over-all message which he attempted to convey but some specifics are wrong and considering level of his knowledge I am satisfied in saying distortions, and Batil example of Tafsir bil’Ra’ee:“Moreover, the purpose of the Shariah being revealed, the explanation of Tawheed and the aspects of Kufr and Emaan as stipulated by Allah and His messenger when revealing about other peoples IS SO THAT the Ummah does not fall into the same pitfalls. If the fact of the matter was that the human who claims Islam is immune to these pitfalls solely on the virture of their attestation to Islam, then the revelation concerning the matters of Tawheed, Eman and Kufr with regards to other peoples becomes nothing more than ancient fables.” What I agree with: Muslims falling into major Shirk is not impossible and Quran was revealed to combat this possibility and teach clear Tawheed/Shirk. And I agree with his saying that just because a Muslim professes to be a Muslim; he by default does not become immune from becoming Mushrik it is continous process affirming/holding to Tawheed, denouncing Shirk to retain Iman/Islam. 7.1 - Immunity From Shirk Makes Quran Worthless Fable Is An Absurd Rationale: On a side note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated, Q12:111, we have revealed stories of past events so people of understanding take lesson from them. So even IF Quran became just a story book for us lessons can be learnt. It wouldn’t make Quran worthless and pointless. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) narrated in Quran stories of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) and other Prophets does that make Quran worthless and those stories worthless fable? What I am getting at is his logic if Muslims are immune from major Shirk then Quran becomes worthless fable is faulty and absurd. Was Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was immune from Shirk? He was! Was Quran worthless fable to him? No! So why did he have to read the Quran? O because he was teaching those who weren’t immune from major Shirk. There you go one with immunity from major Shirk employs Quran to teach those who are without immunity and Quran still remain relevent. Now hypothetically speaking even, IF EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM WAS IMMUNE FROM MAJOR SHIRK, will Quran become worthless fable? It wasn’t for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And it was relevent for him too because of his mission. What is our mission? To spread the religion of Islam, bring people to Islam, until it dominates, and conquers all religions. al-Hasil his rationale is absurd product of defective intellect, result of not thinking things through, and is based on faulty understanding of objectives of Islam. 7.2 - Confusion In Fables And Refutation Of Misunderstood Fables: Brother al-Boriqee wrote: “And this was the charge of the Mushrikeen in the time of the prophet who said the same. The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and all that Dhulm encompasses SO THAT those who claim to love Allah will beware of following the same footsteps, OR ELSE they will become like those who adopted these Dhulumaat and will suffer the consequences of those who fulfill the Dhulumaat.” Wording of brother al-Boriqee’s writing is such that it can be understood in general context of entire Quran or specific context of stories of Quran. Originally I had understood following statement, “The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and …”, in context of what Mushrikeen said about Quranic verses and hinted by brother al-Boriqee here, “And this was the charge of the Mushrikeen in the time of the prophet who said the same.” He had written, “… was in essence …”. These words supported understanding that brother al-Boriqee was writing about stories of various Prophets mentioned in Quran. And brother al-Boriqee was discounting peripherials, such as things mentioned by me in following critical response: It already has been established that immunity from major Shirk does not make Quran a worthless fable. Why the Mushrikeen said Quranic verses are fables? Not all of the stories of past are actually about Zulm (i.e. transgression/Shirk). In fact stories of birth of Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) and being cast in river, Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) … are not just about Shirk/Zulm. Yes there are parts of stories which are connected with Shirk/Tawheed but not just that. These facts alone are sufficient to prove that their accusation of Quranic verses being fables of ancients were not related to Quran refuting their Shirk and affirming Tawheed. Rather they thought Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was narrating to them plagarised fictional accounts of past. Birth of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam), him speaking, breathing life to figurines of birds, Maryam (alayhis salam) receiving sustenance miracolously, casting of lots to determine who would take care of Maryam (alayhis salam), all these have been mentioned in Christian apocryphal writings. End. If brother al-Boriqee had written in context of what I understood then this is elimentry level mistake and criticism heaped and error established is justified. On a side note in Surah of Luqman Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) interpreted Zulm to mean Shirk and brother al-Boriqee correctly employed this Tafsir of Zulm to mean Shirk and polytheism. 7.3 - Setting The Fables On Straight Path And Agreement In Understanding: I know brother al-Boriqee as person of knowledge and sound intellect but one who has been misguided due to unquestionably adhering to Wahhabi principles and methodology. This issue he wrote was not about orthodox Islam VS Wahhabism so we should not differ and dispute on. Nor my understanding of his writing seemed to fit into his knowledge characteristic. So I concluded I have made mistake in contextualizing his statement. I eventually figured that he was not writing about fables of Mushrikeen but in here, “The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and …”, he was referring to his saying that Quran would become worthless fable if Muslim Ummah was immune from Shirk just on account of being Muslim: “Moreover, the purpose of the Shariah being revealed, the explanation of Tawheed and the aspects of Kufr and Emaan as stipulated by Allah and His messenger when revealing about other peoples IS SO THAT the Ummah does not fall into the same pitfalls. If the fact of the matter was that the human who claims Islam is immune to these pitfalls solely on the virture of their attestation to Islam, then the revelation concerning the matters of Tawheed, Eman and Kufr with regards to other peoples becomes nothing more than ancient fables.” Note he placed word fables in quotation marks. In other words he does not believe Quranic verses are fables but he referrs to them as such because Mushrikeen did so. And he believes these verses are true revelation. In this context my criticism in section, 7.2, is unjutified and brother al-Boriqee is free of blame but I have not deleted the content because there is possibility for that understanding. Understanding the statement of “fables” in this new context has no negative implications and I agree with what he wrote that essentially, in essence, Quranic message is of Tawheed/Shirk. 8.0 - Final Word Of Brother al-Boriqee And Balancing Act: Brother al-Boriqee wrote: “Lastly, the purpose of mentioning all of this is to explain to you that the Asbaab of the Ayaat of Hukm does not reflect the application of the Ayaah on those who fulfill its reality. That is because the Sabab and the generality of the Ayaah are two different issues. That is why the same people who narrated and believed that these Ayaah were revealed concerning the Ahlul Kitaab, like at-Tabari, Ibn katheer, Ibnul Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibnul Arabi, and all others were the same individuals who also believed that a Muslim can literally fulfill the reality of the Hukm given in these verses. Asalamu alaikum." Brother al-Boriqee is being diplomatic here. He wants to make sure that brother Rizwan does not see his response as refutation to what Rizwan wrote. He is trying to refute him in delicate way without making it out that he is attacking/targetting brother Rizwan. So brother al-Boriqee states why he wrote what he wrote … so his response is not seen as attack/refutation and brother Rizwan does not feel offended. This is tactical non-offensive diplomatic and smart way of correcting people. And it works you’re about to see result in section 9.0. 8.1 – Contextual Implication And My Final Words: Apart from what he wrote my take of his saying in context of his entire content is: Verses of Quran can be applied upon any individual once he/she becomes guilty of Shirk because the Hukm is not restricted to those who were cause of revelation. And holding to notion that Quranic verses can only be applied upon whom it was revealed for and entire Ummah is immune from major Shirk will make Quran into worthless fable because then verses will referr to people of past. And understanding that Hukm can be applied even to Muslims keeps Quran relevent to all ages, to all people. End. His entire post is interconnected and implications of one supports another part of his lengthy post. Of course Hukm can be applied but Hukm derived must be in context of Sabab and when Hukm is applied upon Muslim then it should be be due to similarity of belief, intention, action. And where Hukm applied is just based on similarity of action without counting belief, intention of Muslim then such application is Khariji. Also the notion that if whole Muslim Ummah was immune from major Shirk it would make Quran worthless/benefitless is senseless and why was explained earlier. 9.0 - Brother Rizwan’s Content And Following Responses: Brother Rizwan attempted to deflect sharp sword of prophetic words by blaming minority from Salafis/Wahhabis, and attempted to lessen the strength by saying others do Takfir too. These two main points require response. Originally I was planning to just respond to brother al-Boriqee but at the end I thought it would be better to respond to what brother Rizwan wrote too. Note after brother Rizwan made the admission brother al-Boriqee indirectly censored/responded to him. And later on brother Rizwan retreated toward position of brother al-Boriqee: “Salaam. Ahki al-boriqee yes I understand that even though the Ayah was in regards to them the Hukm can still and does still apply to us. My intent was merely to shown how deceptively khawarij use that Ayah out of it's original context. Obviously it can apply to us of this there is no doubt. The ruling can still be extrapolated regarding ruling by other than what Allah revealed.” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Rizwan, Post 11, 3:03 AM, here] It would have liked brother Rizwan to establish how they, the ‘true’ Salafis, employ the verse and how Khawarij employ it. Then we would have seen if there was/is any difference between Khariji application and Wahhabi application and if Wahhabis completely free of Khariji methodology. Yet all is not lost, my personal knowledge of this matter is …[3] 9.1 - Brother Rizwan’s Statement Small Minority Does Takfir: Brother Rizwan states a small minority [of Salafis] do Takfir [via declaring Muslims are Mushrikeen]: “Salaam. Simple answer is no because true Salafis don't. There may be a small minority that do 'Takfeer' but they don't kno what they are doing as they are Jahil and means they speak without Ilm.” What he stated is contrary to truth. Wahhabi sect was found on notion that majority of Muslims have fallen into major Shirk. They are worshipping stones, Jinn, angels, graves, Prophets, Awliyah, and idols, and everything else under the luminous shade of sun. And Shaykh al-Najd and his followers have made it abundantly clear that they deemed vast majority of Muslims of Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, … as Mushriks. Any Wahhabi with ounce of truth, integrity, honesty, objectivity, and awareness of origin of Wahhabism, history of, and teaching of Wahhabism will tell you this TRUTH directly or indirectly. And al-Boriqee, Bassam Zawadi, Shaykh Aymen Ibn Khaled I believe have ounce of each of these so referr to them. I, myself, was an fervent supporter and defender of, and deeply engrossed in studying Wahhabism [which then I thought was true Islam], and it was years later I chose abandon it, and I am fully aware what is in Wahhabi books. They deemed the vast majority of 17th century ArabianMuslims as Mushriks. And if you go by similarity of belief and practice of Arab Muslims and between Muslims of world then whole world was Mushrik except few Wahhabis in Najd. At present they are very tactical with Takfir via declaring Shirk/Mushrik. Instead of saying you’re Mushrik for Istighathah they are likely to say brother Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not forgive Shirk and we should learn Tawheed. If they say, brother you’re Mushrik/Kafir, that’s equivlent of slap, and that will wake up heedless Muslim, who will argue and challenge them and denounce them, and abandon their company, but insinuating the same without saying it is the way of modern Salafis. In Arabia if you say it to a illegitimate person, you’re bastard because your mother and father had no Nikkah and committed Zina, he will smack you. If you say, well brother your parents didn’t get Nikkah therefore Islamicly offspring of such Nikkah-less union are deemed not worthy of inheritance from BIOLOGICAL father because inheritance is from Shar’ri and biological father, see its not offensive. So they learnt to say the same in non-offensive ways. Secondly Takfir makers via, you’re committing [major] Shirk, or via, you’re Mushrik, is performed by educated Wahhabi folks, scholars and Tulab (i.e. students) firmly established in belief/practice and principles of their sect. And those who do not personally engage in it agree with EDICTS of their scholars: In which beliefs/practices of Muslims have been deemed major Shirk and Muslims have been declared Mushrik. So however you grind the axe it boils down to same Wahhabis declare Muslims are Mushrik like the Hadith states. Typical idiot gets interested in learning about Islam. Starts reading Quran/Tafsir, gets exposed to Wahhabi literature, and in zeal for Tawheed, and hate for Shirk, starts declaring Mushrik. He starts just short of murdering his Mushriks … but everything else of Hadith gets fulfilled. And if envoriment is right, and weapons available, then I believe murder would be next step. Lastly brother Rizwan states Salafis don’t do Takfir via Mushriking Muslims but then goes to say small minority does. This is obvious contradiction. Either they do or don’t. There is reason for this contradiction in his understanding those SALAFIS saying Muslims are Mushrik are not true SALAFIS but are ascribing to the title. He stated this explicitly in the following: “Salaam. As I said there people claiming to be Salafis who are ignorant. But then what about the possibility of it being true.” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Rizwan, post 5, 8:00PM, here] But what would he do about writings of Shaykh al-Najd and those who followed him and those who continue to adhere to his teaching and methdology? They all did and do Takfir via Mushriking. Are they not Salafi? 9.2 - Brother Rizwan’s Statement Others Make Takfir Too: He said members of other sects, Deobandis, Sufis, Barelwis make Takfir of each other: “Plus the same could be said about Deobandis, Brailwees, certain Sufis who accuse Salafis and each other. So the answer is no.” To begin with Deobandis declare Sunnis/Barelwis as Mushrik because they are off-shoot of Wahhabism. The Ahlus Sunnah, i.e. Barelwis, of subcontinent do not declare people Mushrik. They have and make Takfir of Qadiyanis, Deobandi elders who were guilty of Kufr, and after Ihtimam of Hujjat also make Takfir of anyone who supports the Kufr of Deobandi elders. And the issues on which the Ahlus Sunnah make Takfir no: Arab, African, European, Asian: Sunni, Wahhabi, Shia, deem Islamic but all would agree these issues are of Kufr. I am not going to list these issues beccause they are too many but just one, Qasim al-Nanotavi founder of Deobandism, wrote if another Prophet is born after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) finality will not be effected. You figure if this is Islam or one who wrote this is deserving of being excommunicated from Islam. Takfir of Ahlus Sunnah is according to Ijmah (i.e. concensus) of Islamic scholarship but Wahhabi Takfir via Mushriking of Muslims is disputed by Sunni majority VS Wahhabi minority. Importantly Hadith says he will DECLARE Muslim neighbor Mushrik on account of Shirk and we do not do this. We have no interest in nullifying Islam of people by nullifying their belief/practice of Tawheed. This is uniquely Wahhabi and to some extent a Deobandi phenomina in modern times. And before Wahhabis it was habbit and practice of Khawarij. Conclusion: Practically Wahhabis/Salafis are Khariji because they accuse Muslims of major Shirk. They apply verses of Quran upon Muslims which originaly were revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks without taking into account the belief of Muslims. Incase of ruling by laws of other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Surah Maidah verse 47, they take into account the belief and practice. On issues Istighathah and Tawassul, they make no allowance for belief and practice, and declare Muslim is Mushrik and liable to be killed. Shaykh al-Najd and Wahhabi scholars who followed him; their books are proof of this. In fact reader can verify this himself by simply visiting one of their internet forums and submitting query about Istighathah: Is Istighathah in accordance with Tawheed, or contrary to it, and major Shirk?[4] I am confident edicts of Shirk/Mushrik will come in fast aided by Mushrikeen verses being applied upon Muslims who practice Istighathah. Based on my personal knowledge of how the verses are employed by Wahhabis, and what is in their books, by Allah, these Ahadith absolutely perfectly fit on belief, practice, and methdology of Wahhabism. And these Ahadith do fit upon Wahhabis in the same way as they fit upon Khawarij. Wama Alayna Ilal Balalgh ul-Mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi FootNotes: - [1i] Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, one of the major scholars of summit of Kufr, while explaining the third principle of Qawaid al-Arba states following: “So the mushrikeen differ in their worship but the Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them all and did not differentiate between them. He fought the idol worshippers, the Jews, the Christian's, the Maajoos, those who worshipped the angels, the Awliyaah and Saaliheen. In fact he fought all the mushrikeen and did not differentiate between them. So this contains a refutation of those who say: "The one who worships an idol is not like the one who worships a righteous man or an angel. This is because the Mushrikeen worship stones, trees and inanimate objects. As for the one who worships a righteous man or a wali of Allaah, then he is not like the one who worships an idol." These people intend to say that the one who worships the graves in our times has a different ruling from the one worships an idol. So they do not declare him to be a disbeliever nor consider this action of his to be shirk and they do not permit fighting him. So we say: "The Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) did not differentiate between them, rather he considered all of them as mushrikeen and permitted shedding their blood and taking their property. Then there were those who worshipped al- Maseeh, the messenger of Allaah, but despite this he (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them. And the J ews worshipped Uzair, who was from their prophets or righteous men, but the Messenger of Allaah (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them and did not differentiate between them.” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, 3rd Principle, Shaykh al-Najd, here] Note Wahhabis accuse Muslims of worshiping graves and this includes who prostrate to graves, those who practice Tawassul of Awliyah-Allah. - [1iia] Just because I am in here. Take note Shaykh al-Fawzan being spawn of Iblees is inserting his own belief into mouth of Muslims and says that Muslims say: "The one who worships an idol is not like the one who worships a righteous man or an angel. This is because the Mushrikeen worship stones, trees and inanimate objects. As for the one who worships a righteous man or a wali of Allaah, then he is not like the one who worships an idol." And proof of this is that he writes: “These people intend to say that …” Now if they say it then why would he tell you what they intend to say? Because they don’t say what he attributed to them. And I know it becaue I am one of such persons. And I was one of followers of Wahhabism in past. In reality when Wahhabis charge Muslims of worshiping graves, Nabi, Wali, Jinn then we say: We do not believe they are Ilah, i.e. deserving/worthy of worship, nor we intend to worship them, nor we perform action of worship for them, nor we worship them. Yet you apply upon us verses revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks. One who worships idol-Ilahs is not same as one who practices Waseela/Shafa’at of Awliyah because none of conditions of worship have been met. And action of idol worshipers is not same as one who seeks aid of Ibadullah (i.e. angels, Jinn, Wali), because this is established by Hadith, by saying: “A’eenu ya ibadullah!” (i.e. O Servants of Allah help me). In response to us Muslims the Wahhabis say: “… Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) encountered people differing in their worship. Amongst them were people who worshipped the angels, some who worshiped the prophets and the righteous men and others who worshipped stones, trees, the sun and the moon. The Messenger of Allaah (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them and did not differentiate between them.” Instead of telling readers they don’t worship, nor they claim to worship, but this is how I percieve their actions, or this is how my Wahhabism judges their actions. Instead he tells the reader they say we worship them but our Shirk is not like the Shirk of Christians, Arabs, fire-worshipers etc. Allah’s curse be upon this liar and all his clan of Ibleesi minions of Najd. - [1iib] In one way this article is actually a demonstration of how discussion progresses. They accuse us of major Shirk on account of x, y, and z. We respond we affirm no Ilahiyyah for Wali, perform action of Tawassul without intention of worship, no action of worship therefore no worship. They quote verses of Quran originally revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks to prove we are guilty of it. We point out these verses are about Mushriks/Kafirs and Khawarij did same as you. They reply we make no distinction between Shirk because Hukm applies to you as well. My experience tells me Qawaid al-Arba is response to Islamic counter arguments. - [1iic] For the records let it be known. Anyone who affirms Ilahiyyah for any creation, intends to worship any creation, and worships any creation such a person is Mushrik. What he worships makes no difference to the fact that belief and practice is of major SHIRK. And this verdict is according to Quran/Sunnah, scholars of Ahlul Islam of past, present, and insha'allah will remain for future. No Muslim with ounce of knowledge of Islam would say one who worships x is not equal in major Shirk one who worships z. One who believes stone is an Ilah and worships this stone Ilah, this Mushrik is precisely guilty of same major Shirk as one who worships a Nabi/Wali of Allah believing Nabi/Wali is Ilah. - [2] I am confident no Wahhabi will be able to contest this rule because it was formulated keeping their methodology in mind. I have the first hand experience, I am ex-Wahhabi, and know how their Mushrik making machine functions. - [3] My personal knowledge of this matter is that Khawarij do not differentiate between belief of Muslims and apply verses of Kafirs/Mushriks on Muslims based on practice alone Brother Rizwan gave example of Surah al-Maidah verse 47: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” Khawarij say he rules by laws which are not revealed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore he is Kafir/Mushrik. And there are rabid Wahhabis who actually precisely do this but this is not mainstream Wahhabism. Its idiotic fringe element from Wahhabism who does Takfir like Khawarij on issue of judging by laws of creation. It would be wrong to say they are NOT Salafis/Wahhabis on account of single, one percent, disagreement and ingore 99% conformity with rest of Wahhabism. Coming back to main issue. Wahhabis in this regard, judging by laws of other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), take into account belief, and then judge the practice of not judging by laws not by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed. So they make allowance of fact that person who rules by non-Shar’ri rules knows his made-up rules are not from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and believes he is sinful, does not deem the Shar’ri rules to be out-dated and man-made laws to be better, and they say therefore he is only guilty of major sin, but not Kufr/Shirk. So in this verse Wahhabis take into account belief but this does not mean Wahhabis are not Kharijis. Its just one issue where they have developed proper scholarly method and knowledge. On issue of ISTIGHATHAH belief of Muslims and intention, isn’t taken into account. Muslim is declared Kafir/Mushrik by these Wahhabis/Salafis just because of practice. And verses of Kufr/Shirk which are related to idol/Mushriks are applied upon Muslims. So in reality just because they dodged the bullet to head on verse 47 does not mean they dodged point blank head-shots. - [4] Istighathah is a practice of seeking help from a deceased Wali. Like saying, Ya Ali Madad!, translates to mean, O Ali help! Logic behind saying it is that he is a servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and as per Hadith he will provide help, with permission, power, given to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Suppose I say, O Ali help me against Wahhabis, I sought his help without affirming Ilahiyyah for him, without intending to worship him, without believing that I have directed act of worship toward him, but according to Wahhabis, I am Mushrik.
  20. Contextual Information: Allah (subhana wa talah) states, Jews took their Rabbanical priests as Lords against Allah (subhana wa ta'ala): Surah At'Tawbah {9} Verse 31: "They take their {Christian} priests and their {Jewish} Rabbaniyah to be their Lords against Allah, and Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship none but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)." The classical commentators of Quran have explained the Jews taking their Rabbis as Lords is in meaning of Jewish obedience of Rabbis with regards to the Halal which their Rabbis declared Haram, and Haram which the Rabbis declared Halal: Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "They have taken their rabbis, the scholars among the Jews, and their monks, the devout among the Christians, as lords beside God — following them in making lawful what God has made unlawful and making unlawful what He has made lawful — and the Messiah, son of Mary, when they were not commanded, in the Torah and the Gospel, except to worship One God: there is no god except Him; glory be to Him, as an affirmation of His transcendence [high], above what they associate [with Him]." Tafsir Ibn Abbas: "(They have taken as lords beside Allah) i.e. they obeyed them in acts of disobedience (their rabbis) the men of knowledge among the Jews (and their monks) who reside in monasteries (and the Messiah son of Mary) and they have taken the Messiah son of Mary as lord, (when they were bidden) in all Scriptures (to worship) to confess the divine Oneness of (only One God. There is no god save Him. Be He glorified from all that they ascribe as partner!) Allah exalts Himself above all that which they ascribe to Him." - It is also recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Tirmadhi Shareef, Prophet Muhammed explained the meaning of: "They take their (Christian) priests and their (Jewish) Rabbaniyah to be their Lords against Allah, ..." because the Rabbis declared the haram {forbiden} as halal {permissable}, and halal as haram, and the Yahood and Nasara obeyed them, where as the right to declare something as halal, haram is of Allah the Lord of Alameen. By obeying the Priests and Rabbis, they in reality were elivating them to status of Lords against Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), and anyone who is elivated to the status of Lord and then is respected, honoured, adored, and loved is being worshipped, and yet Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) had told them:"... yet they were commanded to worship none but One Allah." From this we gather what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) had declared Haram and Halal, if anyone other then Him and His Messenger was to change it, and we obeyed them, we then would be guilty of taking that individual as Lord in partneship with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). In Shari'ah, thumb rule is any respect, honouring, love, shown to a X after a attribute, or right of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has been confered to the X it will amount to Ibadah {worship} even if there is no phisical sign of worship as in ruku, sajood, qayam etc. And obedience to that lord, and in disobedience to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) on haram, halal matters which are determined by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in every case is result of respect of a religious authority, and such respect of person elivated to status of Lord in Sharia is defined as worship. Please bare the above in mind to properly understand the article. Shaytan Has Given Up Hopes: Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states in Quran: Surah Ya Seen {36} Verse 60: “Did I not command you O children of A'dam, that you should not worship the Devil. Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” Children of Adam (alayhis salam) should not worship shaytaan, note the words: "O children of Adam, ..." indicate that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is reffering to every single human being, including Prophet's (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) Ummati's and verse 61 states, shaytan lead many people astray i.e. made them worship him. As a precaution Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam), and to ensure that his Ummati's do not accuse each other of Shirk he revealed the fact: Sahih Muslim, Book 39, Hadith 6752: "Jabir reported: I heard Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." It is apparent that Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) will be free from worship of Shaytaan. Tafsir 36:60 - Obeying Shaytaan: Tafsir Ibn Kaseer:"(Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaytan Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.) This is a rebuke from Allah to the disbelievers among the sons of Adam, those who obey the Shaytan even though he was a plain enemy to them, and they disobeyed Ar-Rahman Who created them and granted them provision." Tafsir Jalalayn: "Did I not charge you, command you, O children of Adam, by the tongues of My messengers, that you should not worship Satan, [that you should] not obey him; truly he is a manifest enemy to you, one whose enmity is evident, ..." Tafsir Ibn Abbas: "He will also say to them: (Did I not charge you) did I not present to you, in the Scripture brought by the Messenger, (O ye sons of Adam, that ye worship not the devil) that you should not obey the devil. (Lo! he is your open foe) whose enmity is quite manifest!" The Mufassireen of Quran have explained that, Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has prohibited obedience to Shaytaan, in other words the worship of Shaytan is in obedience to him, and disobedience to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Right to declare something as haram or halal is of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) alone and whom he confers it (i.e. RasoolAllah sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Therefore if shaytan was to excercise this right, i.e. declare something haram which Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) delcared as halal, and we obeyed him in obedience to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), we will be elivating Shaytan to status of Lord {Rabb}, and obeying someone in disobedience to another is form of honouring, respect, love, hence that disobedience becomes worship when Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is disobeyed in and shaytaan inspired individual is obeyed. Worship Of Shaytaan - Hadith Explained: Prophet Muhammed (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) foretold in Sahih Hadith: Sahih Muslim, Book 39, Hadith 6752: "Jabir reported: I heard Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." Yahood, Nasara raised their Rabbis, and Monks to the status of Lords besides Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), because these Monks, Rabbis declared haram as halal, and halal as haram and the Yahood and Nasara obeyed them leaving Allah's (subhana wa ta'ala) judgement. And the respect, love, honouring of these people in authority (i.e. monks, rabbis) was declared to be their worship. In the same manner Shaytan and people under his influence if they were to declare haram as halal or halal as haram it would mean those people under the influence of shaytaan as well as shaytan have taken the right of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and attributed to them selves, and if people were to beleive in what they declare as haram but Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) had declared it halal, then those people would be taking Shaytaan and the people under his influenc as Lords besides Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Therefore in the meaning of: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia ..." is Shaytaan has failed in his attempts to declare the halal as haram, and haram as halal, his hopes of being taken as Lord against Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and obeyed instead of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) have been dashed. Conclusion: Part One: - Ummah as whole has refused to obey the individuals who under the influence of Shaytan have declared haram as halal and halal as haram, and Ummah has whole have refused to honour, respect, love, such individuals.[1] Therefore the natural conclusion is that Ummah as whole has not worshipped ghairullah including Shaytaan, but only worship Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Prophet Muhammed (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) has certified that Arabian peninsula as whole, as well as for vast majority of the time from dawn of Islam till blowing of the musky wind will be free from acts of Shirk (i.e. worshiping of scholars, saints) and free from shaytan and his clans-men being taken Lords besides Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), free from shaytaan being obeyed in matters of haram and halal, meaning his Ummah in Arabian peninsula will not give shaytaan or anyone else the attributes, and rights of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Therefore those accuse Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat of worshipping graves, tombs, are liars and falsifiers of Prophet Muhammed (sallalahu alayhi was'salam). They have disbelieved in RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) and instead have surrendered to wispers of Shaytaan who has incited them to raise their voice over the voice of Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). They in obedience to Shaytaan the cursed have thrown the clear teachings, the teachings which Jibraeel (alayhis salam) bought from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) the guidance of beloved Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) behind their backs, and have preffered for them selves their own understandings.[2] Part Two:- The readers should take note of the fact that Wahabi'ism originated in 17th century, in the begning its fallowers plundered cities, and robbed the pilgrims who travled for Hajj to Hijaaz Maqdis. It was in 1930 Saudi Arabia was finally conquered by Wahabi's with the support of long time allies, the British. Prior to this the vast majority, more then 80 % percent of the peole of Arabia adhered to the creed of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat, and this creed was dominant for nearly 1200 years and with grace of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is still the dominant creed in Arabia. How can a creed which reigned supreme in Arabian Peninsula for 1300 years as majority, and from there spread to rest of the world and which is still the dominant creed upto this day, can be promoting Shirk! Prophet said hold to Sawad Al Azam (i.e. great majority) of Muslims they are the Firqa Naj'jiah (i.e. saved sect).Wallahi, those who accuse Ahle Sunnat of Shirk, are not aware of what the definition of Shirk in the light of Quran and Sunnah is, and they do not know what the definition of Ibadah (i.e. worship) is. It is not Shirk in the Ummah, rathers its their erroneous rules and principles, which are basis of their erroneous understandings, and its these faulty rules principles when utilised produce results which are in contradiction to clear explicit authentic ahadith.Part Three:- Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Najdi was born in a prominent scholarly family, whose scholarly clout went back to generations. In early childhood he was taught by his father but later on due to hot headedness he would often argue with his father and his teachers on issues which he had not yet learnt fully.[3] As a result of this he was often beaten by his father for arguing when he crossed the limits in arguments. When he got bit older, and excercised independence he stoped learning from his father and journeyed to places far and wide looking for like minded people so he could gain knowledge from them. Upon his return from his studies he started to propogate his brand of Islam, and part of it involved branding Muslims as grave-worshippers, tree -worshippers, saint-worshippers. When this happened his father Seikh Abdul Wahhab (may Allah bless him) and his brother Seikh Sulaiman Ibn Abdul Wahhab took upon themselves the task of refuting him and Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) granted them success. During the life time of his father Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) humiliated and kept Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab success limited but after he passed away the obstacles which Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) had in path of Wahhabi'ism were pretty much removed. With millitary might at disposal of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Seikh Sulaiman bin Abdul Wahhab's opposition amounted to nothing. And people of Najd quickly fell in line with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab's teachings.[4]Part Four:- It is my gut instinc is, and a educated judgement[5] that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) had foretold about Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab Najdi in this hadith and people who will be like him before or after him:Sahih Ibn Hibban,Volume 1, Hadith 81: “... Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) said: 'The most I fear on you is a man[6] who will recite the Quran until its brightness appears on him and he becomes a supporter to Islam, then he changes it (i.e. Islamic teachings) to what Allah permits and wills. Upon that, the man become detached from it (i.e. Islam), and he throws it behind his back, and start to fight his neighbor with sword, and he accuse him (his neighbor) of shirk". I (i.e. Hudhaifah) said: O prophet of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam): Who amongst them both deserve to be called a Mushrik? The accused or the accuser? He replied: "The accuser"The trait of these Wahhabi's was and still is that they accuse Muslims of commiting Shirk, and Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) said Ummah as whole will be free from Shirk, and told that one accusing his Ummatis of Shirk will in reality will be Mushrik.Part Six:- I urge Muslims to not go to extremes in religion[7], obey Allah and the Messenger (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam)[8]. Give up your understandings and return to the simple deen taught by RasooolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Refrain from taweels of clears ahadith, and submit to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and Allah's Messenger (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Even if what they state goes against everything you know, learnt, understand, for Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) can not be decieved and was never lead astray, he was guided by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), and you are guided by your intellect, and judgement, bias's, which Shaytaan can cloud, and wisper misguidance into your ears. Safe, and sure guidance is of Allah's beloved Messenger (sallalahu alayhi was'salam). Destruction of aakhirah is path of your own making. Whom Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) guides none can misguide him, so seek guidance from Him earnestly, and let not the guidance pass you or Shaytaan will come and misguide you. For who so ever Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) decrees misguidance none can guide him. So seek protection from misguidance from Him. Guidance is for those who seek from Him, and protection of misguidance is for those who seek from Him. And those who do not seek from Him and respond positively when he provides guidance; For such men, and women hell will be their dewelling place. Alhamdu'lillahi rabbil alameen.Wama Alayna Ilal Balaghul Mubeen.Muhammed Ali Razavi------------------------------ FootNotes: - [1] Respecting, honouring, loving the Ulamah who have not become Lords against Allah (subhana wa ta'ala); who have not declared a halal as haram or haram as halal can not be worship of them. Respecting, loving, caring scholars who uphold the deen of RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) with their righteous teachings and righteous actions is legitimate in light of Shariah. - [2] The end of those who prefer their own opinions over the beloved Messenger (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) has been explained in a Hadith: “... The Prophet recited Surat An-Najam and prostrated, and there was nobody who did not prostrate then except a man whom I saw taking a handful of pebbles, lifting it, and prostrating on it. He then said, "This is sufficient for me. ...” The narrator then goes on to say: " No doubt I saw him killed as a disbeliever afterwards.” [ref: Bukhari, B58, H192] The reason for his apostacy are two; one, he preffered his own opinion even when the Jammat of Sahabah (alayhi ridwan) and RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) were present. And his this action was in opposition to the Jammah, he deviated from the Jammah, hence he fell prey to Shaytaan and incited him upon disbelief. Two he was too proud to bow to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) so instead of bowing as Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) taught (i.e. bow on the ground) he picked up the pebbles from ground and placed them on his forehead declaring it to be sufficent replacement for Sajdah. - [3] My assumption is that his arguments with his father and his teachers were on aspect of aqeedah of Tawheed, and Shirk. And no where else his lack of proper understanding of basics of deen shows best then in aqeedah of Shirk, and in its definition. Which unfortunately inheritors of his teachings are also plagued with. - [4] The people of Najd were described by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam): “... and those bedouins who are busy with their camels and pay no attention to Religion; ...” [ref: Muslim,B54, 520] so their acceptance of his teaching was based on ignorance of deen, and secondly at the point of sword. - [5] Educated judgement based on his takfir of Muslims, calling them Mushrikeen, fighting them and making fighting halal with Muslims. Note fighting and killing Muslims is infidelity: "Do not become disbelievers after me by cutting the necks of one another." [ref: Bukhari, B73, H187] - [6]The words: “The most I fear on you is a man who will recite the Quran until its brightness appears ...” indicate that this hadith is not about just a single person, but it could be about more then one person. Let me explain how this is: 'I fear on you a man who shows no remorse to animals and kills them for pleasure.' This shows that '… you a man ...' isnt refering to just a single person but anyone from that group, it could be one or more then one, but who ever meets the criteria of killing animals for pleasure is what I fear. Similarly what beloved RasoolAllah (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) has stated is not just about a man but anyone from his Ummah who loves to recite Quran, and recites it so much that sign of recitation show on his face (i.e. noor of Quran). - [7] For Prophet instructed to fallow the straight path. It's not parth of Takfir, its path of what you disagree with or are suspicious of abstain from it and hold to clear, doubtless. Abstain from Takfir on issues which Ummah has whole has not agreed upon. - [8] As both of them supposed to be believed. Even if what they state disagrees with your understanding and your opinions if they are opposed by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), as well as beloved Messenger (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) then you hold to unclear, doubtful, let go of it.
  21. Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log. Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
  22. Wa alayqum salam, Moterma aap joh sawal pooch rahi hen is k talluq nah aap kay Islam say, nah ap kay iman say, aur nah hamaray jawab say heh, yeh aap ki pasand heh ... pasand mein nah ap nay Allah aur Rasool kay deen ka lehaz keren gi aur nah hamaray jawab ka ... mukhtasar ... Ismail Musalman nahin hen ... Namaz, Hajj, Roza, Zakat ... aur baqi kay munkir hen ... is inqar ki waja say yeh logh 100 say ziyada ayaat kay munkir hotay hen aur hukm kufr lagta heh ... aur GHAYR MUSLIM SAY AAP KA NIKKAH NAHIN HOGA ... aik maulvi kia hazaaar aa kar Nikkah kar denh Shar'ri tor par aap ka Nikkah nahin hoga ... aur Zina ki murtaqib aur haram ki ulaad peda keren gi.
  23. In sawalat ka Shia mazhab say kia talluq. Yeh toh kohi Sunni bi pooch sakta heh. Pehlay sawal ka jawab: Woh faut huween theen Shaheed nahin. Dosray sawal ka jawab: Unoon nay Khalifah e Rashid, Zun-Noorain ki Shahadat Madinah mein dekhi, joh Harram heh, aur is kay taqaddus ki pamali ki waja say apna Darul Khilafat badal leeya. Dosri waja yeh ho sakti heh kay Khilafat kay middle mein DARUL KHILAFAH (CAPITAL) banana maqsood huwa ho. Aur bi Shahid kuch ho magr khaas zehn mein yahi aati heh ... Tesray sawal ka jawab: Keun kay dar thah kay Khariji, Ibn Muljam kay saathi, jism mubarak ko nikaal kar bey-hurmati keren gay.