Jump to content
IslamiMehfil

Bassam Zawadi Under The Burden Of Kufr.


Recommended Posts

Introduction:

In a earlier article khadam wrote a critical analysis of Bassam Zawadi's statement which pointed to heretical infidelity in his belief; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) did not know the meaning of mutashabiyaat. And after few exchanges with al-boriqee I came to realise; I have not explained the basis of my charge properly in the article but rather gave explaination of his rehetorical undertones. So in this brief article khadam will highlight the reasoning behind charge of kufr with some examples and point out fault in reasoning of one who was insane enough to defend Bassam Zawadi’s kufr.

Abu Adam & Bassam Zawadi - In Light Of Their Own Statements:

In AhlalHdeeth forum the Wahhabis quoted someone called Abu Adam who is supposedly a Ashari and I suppose he would be Sunni too, he wrote: "The Prophet (sallaļļaahuˆalayhiwasallam) definitely knew the meaning of anything ascribed to Aļļaah in the scriptures, but what is mutasħaabih (ambiguous) to some is not to others, as I indicated above. Note, however, that the prophet and at least some of the companions definitely knew the exact meaning of all statements ascribing attributes to Allaah – it is just that some of them became ambiguous to later generations and thus became mutasħaabihaat." What I deduce from Abu Adam's two statements is that; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) as well as some of his companions knew all the meanings of mutashabiyaat and some of the attributes were mutashabiyaat to some Sahabah. This known knowledge became ambiguous for laters generations. In response to this aqeedah of Abu Adam, Bassam Zawadi wrote:“Where is the evidence for all this? Who on earth ever said that the Prophet and some of the Sahabah knew some of the meanings? How come this information was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital doctrine? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details, but some how managed to fail to provide us information about Allah Himself? Sorry Faqir.... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures.” I will not comment on or interpret in this article what Bassam Zawadi is actually stating rather I will leave both his and Abu Adams statements as they are. Hoping that after the two similar type of scenarios would actualy able a honest, objective reader to see through the line of reasoning taken by Bassam Zawadi.

Bassam’s Gensis Of Misguidance:

Bassam on ahlalhdeeth forum created a thread titled:
How Do We Reconcile Shaykh Uthaymeen's Statement with Surah 3:7?” In this thread he quotes the statement of Ibn Uthaymeen[1] as well as verse of Quran[2] and then proceeds to present his difficulty: “Shaykh Uthaymeen says that the mutashaabih verses could be known by people of knowledge, but Allah says that only He knows them. How to reconcile the two statements? Was Shaykh Uthaymeen speaking about something else? Jazakum Allahu Khayran” In that thread few individuals tried to reconcile the difference between Ibn Uthaymeen’s statement and the verse of the Quran[3] but failed to satisfactorily explain the issue to him. Partly they were unfamiliar with the language of the kalam and partly because of poor knowledge of Tawheed. It seems he was unsatisfied with the explainations given to him so he took the noble path of silence on a issue which he could not understand and this is a good quality. The issue which had confused him then resurfaced but this time not only he disbelieved in rasikhoona fil ilm knowing the meaning of mutashabi’at but Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well and when he was corrected he has refused to repent. Instead al-boriqee stepped up to clarify what Bassam wrote and the attempt failed miserably.

Like Bassam Like Sufi:

A Sufi, imaginary one, not real one, says; “Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is declared as the One because His; father died, mother died, sister died, daughter died, son died, and wife died, leaving Him behind all Alone, as the One.” And a true Salafi muwahid the purest Salafi muwahid, again a imaginary one, in context of the Sufi beliefe states: “Where is the evidence for all this? Who on earth ever said Allah is the One because His; father died, mother died, sister died, daughter died, son died, and wife died.? How come this information was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital doctrine? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details, but some how managed to fail to provide us information about Allah Himself? Sorry you mushrik sufi ... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions a bunch of failures.” Soon after the purest, truest Salafi states that the extremist suicide bombing Sufi blows himself up with the truest, purest Salafi. With both dead we are having to do the detective work trying to figure out the details incident. What happened before the suicide bombing by Sufi? The motive behind the criminal act and what lead to the evil Sufi to suicide bomb the purest, truest Salafi muwahid?

Detective infidel: Do the questions asked by Wahhabi remotely indicate that questioner believes in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as being One as the sufi believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being the One? Or is this questioning manner of a person who does not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being the One in meaning of, being left Alone, as the One, after death of Allah’s mother, father, sister, daughter, son, and wife? Detective polytheist: Well it seems to me that the Sufi and Salafi did not agree on how Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was the One. The Sufi believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was one because Allah’s mother, father, son, daughter, wife had died, leaving Him behind as the One. And the line of questioning taken by Salafi indicates he did not share Sufi’s conviction. Thus the Sufi gathered the hate of hundered Salafis in him and pressed botton killing himself as well as Salafi. Detective infidel: This is the only plausible explaination detective polytheist.

Shia & Wahhabi Mutta Debate:

Another supposition; this time a true Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat member, meaning a Wahhabi and a Shia debate about Mutta. One of the most purest Muwahid from the Wahhabi faction, absolutely free from Shirk says:
“Mutta is haram because it was prohibited on the day Khaibar was conquered and Sahabah knew it was declared haram.” And totally foolish Shia who has been busy with Mutta all his life and never read Quran or Sahih authentic hadith says in response to statement of Wahhabi: “Where is the evidence for all this? Who on earth ever said that the Prophet  prohibited the mutta and eating of donkey and  Sahabah knew about this actually taking place? How come this information was not passed down to us then? Did the Prophet and companions fail in preserving such vital aspect of fiqh? They bothered to narrate to us the smallest of details but some how managed to fail to provide us information about something which was declared Haram by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) himself? Sorry Wahhabi.... but you sound ridiculous and your basically calling the Prophet and his companions as well as ahli bayt a bunch of failures.” Soon as Mutta loving Shia finishes, the Wahhabi, the purest, the truthiest, the knower of all books of hadith and the Quran, the only true Muslim refers to ahadith of Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari and establishes his point. After which the fire worshiping Shia runs away from debate and engages in more Mutta to forget his defeat.

What type of individual would say what the Shia said after learning the belief of Wahhabi? A person who believes in Mutta being haram or a person who considers Mutta halal? For this debate to take place Shia and Wahhabi must hold to opposite. Therefore here Shia believes the opposite of Wahhabi:
“Mutta is NOT haram because it was NOT prohibited  on the day Khaibar was conquered and Sahabah knew it was NOT declared haram.” And with this belief the Shia proceeded to question to establish doubt, to establish fault in belief of Wahhabi.

Bassam Zawadi Ins Perspective:

When the Sufi stated: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is declared as the One because His; father died, mother died, sister died, daughter died, son died, and wife died, leaving Him behind all Alone, as the One.” Then the line of questioning taken by the Wahhabi muwahid indicated that he does not share the belief of Sufi (i.e. Allah’s family died leaving him as the One). And when the Wahhabi stated: “Mutta is haram because it was prohibited on the day Khaibar was conquered and Sahabah knew it was declared haram.”, then his Shia opponents questioning indicated that he does not believe in the creed of Wahhabi (i.e. Mutta is haram) but believes Mutta is halal. Abu Adam clearly states his belief about Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as some of the companions knowing the meanings of mutashabi’at: "The Prophet (sallaļļaahuˆalayhiwasallam) definitely knew the meaning of anything ascribed to Aļļaah in the scriptures, but what is mutasħaabih (ambiguous) to some is not to others, as I indicated above. Note, however, that the prophet and at least some of the companions definitely knew the exact meaning of all statements ascribing attributes to Allaah – it is just that some of them became ambiguous to later generations and thus became mutasħaabihaat." And Bassam’s questioning line would indicate as it did with two examples that he does not believe in Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) knowing the meaning of mutashabi’at. There are two main reasons for this; one, the opposing party must naturaly hold to the belief opposite to Abu Adam otherwise there is no reason for contention. If there is contention which there is then naturaly Bassam must have opposing view to Abu Adam and we have the belief of Abu Adam written. Therefore the opposite of Abu Adam’s belief would be; Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as his companions did not know the meaning of mutashabi’at. And to discredit the belief of Abu Adam, Bassam proceeded to question with objective of discrediting the beliefe of Abu Adam.Secondly just as the Wahhabi questioned the belief of Sufi about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being the One after death of His family; Bassam’s has challenged the creed of Abu Adam. And if in the context of Sufi’s belife of Tawheed the Wahhabi’s questioning insinuated; opposition, disbelieving the Sufi’s belief. Then here in this context Bassam’s questioning insinuates opposition, disbelief in Abu Adam’s belief.

Conclusion:

Bassam Zawadi was charged with kufr [but not declared kafir] due to his belief;
Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) did not know the meaning of mutashabiyaat and he did not teach them to companions. The legitimacy of the charge of kufr has been established with logical, rational argumentation which only blind of heart will argue against. I would advise rather then attempting uncalled taweel instead bit of time is spent contemplating the consequences of defending this heretical statement.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

Footnotes:


- [1] “Allaah, may He be blessed and exalted, has divided the Holy Qur’aan into two categories: the verses which are entirely clear and those which are not entirely clear. What is meant by those which are entirely clear is that the meaning is clear and obvious to everyone, like the heavens and earth, stars, mountains, trees, animals and so on. This is entirely clear because there is no ambiguity in its meaning. The verses which are not entirely clear are those of which the meaning is ambiguous or unknown to most people, and is known only to those who are well-versed in knowledge, such as some verses which are general in meaning and do not give details, but they are explained in detail in the Sunnah.” [Source: http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/103146]

- [2] “It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad) the Book (this Qur'an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding.” [Ref: 3:7]

- [3] The verse which caused confusion to Bassam is similar to the verse: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them [by his own self] except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf…” [Ref: 6:59] and knowledge of all ghayb in heavens as well as in earth was given to al Qalam which wrote it in clear book: “And there is nothing hidden in the heaven and the earth, but is in kitab al mubeen.” [Ref: 27:75]. In another verse granting of knowledge of ghayb by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to a Rasool (i.e. Muhammad sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) is confirmed: “[Allah] the knower of the ghayb reveals to none His ghayb. Except to a Messenger whom He has chosen and then He makes a band of watching guards (angels) to march before him and behind him.” [Ref: 72:26/27] Therefore it would be foolish to argue; only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows ghayb. In light of evidence the correct aqeedah would be; only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows ghayb by His self and Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) is granted the knowledge of ghayb by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Coming to the verse: And no one knows its interpretation except Allah.“ [Ref: 3:7] it means: And no one knows its interpretation [by His ownself] except Allah.“And the evidence for Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as his companions knowing the interpretation of mutashabi’at verses is established from Quran. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states:A similar (favour have ye already received) in that We have sent among you an Messenger of your own, rehearsing to you Our Signs, and sanctifying you, and instructing you in Scripture and Wisdom, and in new knowledge.” [Ref:2:251] and prerequisite for teaching is knowledge of Quran. Hence Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) knew the interpretation of entire Quran including ambigous. He is the Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was’sallam) whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has chosen to impart Quranic knowledge of ghayb: “[Allah] the knower of the ghayb reveals to none His ghayb. Except to a Messenger whom He has chosen and then He makes a band of watching guards (angels) to march before him and behind him.” [Ref: 72:26/27]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...