Hadhir Nazir: Ibn Kathirs Tafsir On 33:45 Has No Justification From Book Of Allah.

1 post in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post


During a discussion on subject of Hadhir Nazir a Wahhabi brother demanded proof from Quran, or Hadith, or Salaf that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would testify about deeds of members of his Ummah [and mankind in general]. I asked if it is established will you then believe as you suppose to believe in Hadhir Nazir or will you continue to make Taweel of verse 33:45? His response was he will believe providing criteria is met. Note there is context of huge discussion on Hadhir Nazir and this demand of his and agreement is culmination of gradual build up toward a concrete resolution. And I took him up on this and presented to him Tafsir of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) of verse in discussion. He was caught unprepared and resorted excuses which eventually I chased down to zero (i.e. until there was nothing left to adress).

Chapter 33 Verse 45 And Ibn Kathir:

"O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner."
[Ref: 33:45] “’… as witness …’ means; a witness to Allah's Oneness, for there is no God except He, and a witness against mankind for their deeds on the Day of Resurrection. [Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] said: “… and We bring you as a witness against these people …” (4:41) This is like the Ayah: “… that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.” (2:143) [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 33:45]

I Wanted Evidence Of Nation Not Mankind To Mankind Not Nation:

His first response was; Ibn Kathir said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be witness against mankind for their deeds and not Ummah. I replied: How would you take the Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) from Jinn and Mankind? Are we not part of mankind? He said: I am sorry. I actually wanted evidence for mankind but by mistake I said Ummah. I said well I have provided you with precisly that in this case then. While introducing myself to him I told had told him I am not Arabic speaker. Hoping to take advantage of this Wahhabi said: Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) used word Ummah (i.e. nation) and not Al-Naas (i.e. the mankind).

Ibn Kathir Used al-Nas Not al-Ummah:

He wasn’t aware my high level of Urdu can be passed as rudimentary level of Arabic. So I quickly caught him up with his lie but he put the blame of lie on a ‘trusted’ brother. I said: Brother in online Tafsir which can be view, here.  Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) employed al-Nas and not word Ummah. And I quote his words: أي لله بالوحدانية، وأنه لا إله غيره، وعلى
الناس بأعمالهم يوم القيامة، وجئنا بك على هؤلاء شهيداً كقوله I continued: Brother you do know al-Nas means mankind and not al-Ummah (i.e. nation)? Being familiar with art of converting books and scholars of past after their deaths to beliefs of Wahhabism and to Wahhabism I was thinking the worst but fortunately nothing materialised of that sort. I asked him if he would comply with what he agreed with me but he did not respond to it. Instead he said: A Salafi brother had informed him the interpretation and he trusted him. The trusted brother I assume was just also scrambling a response instead of actually referrencing Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah). It is quite possible to interpret the verse Ummah in light of: “Thus have We sent you to a community before which [other] communities have passed on so you might recite to them that which We revealed to you, while they disbelieve in the Most Merciful.” [Ref: 13:30] Even then Ummah would be mankind because he has been sent to mankind. Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is of two types: i) Ummah of invitation – i.e. Mankind, ii) Ummah of believers – i.e. those from mankind who became Muslims. And in 13:30 is referring to the first out of two.

Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) Made Mistake In His Understanding:

He replied saying: Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) made mistake in his understanding. There is no indication in the verse that it is about mankind. I asked him: Is it possible that you’re are making mistake in understanding the Tafsir due to lack of knowledge of Tafsir? He said: Brother how can he be right when there is no proof of his Takhsees in this verse?

Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti On Verse 33:45:

I didn’t answer his question and instead posted his Tafisr: “O Prophet! Indeed We have sent you as a witness against those to whom you have were sent and as a bearer of good tidings for those who affirm your sincerity of Paradise and as a warner for those who deny you of the punishment of the Fire.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 33:45, here.] And said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent to Jinn and mankind. Therefore Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti (rahimullah) Tafsir implies the mentioned. He again repeated: This Tafsir again does not agree with evidence of Quran therefore it is incorrect. I asked: Will you believe as you agreed or not? He replied: How can I leave Quran and believe errors of men. There is no obedience of men when they are against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I said: Brother you’re saying that you, a nobody, is right and these two scholars of great learning are wrong? He said: Brother I don’t want to argue on who is right or wrong. I just want evidence from Quran, or Hadith of their understanding and that is all.

Failed To Crush Him Under Books:

I intended to crush him under the Tafasir of commentators of Quran who interpreted the verse to mean same as Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) but his reaction to Imam Jalal al-Suyuti’s (rahimullah) Tafsir had no moderating effect. Noting that brother is believer of: I am better then he. I abadoned my plan to crush him under books. Instead I went back to his desired course of action.

Methodology Of Tafsir And Beginning Of End:

I said: Brother proof of his Tafsir and Takhsees does not need to be in the same verse. Can it not be that the evidence of his Takhsees is another verse? I He said: It is possible one verse explains another but brother there is not a single verse which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent to mankind as a witness. I said: Had Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) phrased it so explicitly in another verse then dispute would have been resolved. Yet it is possible to derive this meaning from Quran without stretching any verse but before I get to that stage somethings need clarification. I asked him: Does Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) need to explicitly state something for it to be true or implicit mention is enough? He said: If explicit is mentioned in another part of Quran then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does hint toward it implicitly. By stating this golden nugget my Wahhabi brother effectively committed suicide. All needed was me dancing during his funeral and his grave. So I went ahead and wrote the following Tafsir of verse in dispute.

Explicitly Stated: Allah Sent Quran And Prophet To Mankind:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner." [Ref: 33:45] Now question is to whom he has been sent as a witness? Arabs, people of Makkah, Madinah, or mankind? The answer is in the following verses in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent 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) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) also sent Quran to mankind as a Burhan (i.e. proof): “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] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) referrs to Quran as Muwahiz (i.e. instruction): “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]

A Verse Explains Another: To Mankind And Witness:

I replied brother Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “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] In this verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) made referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with you but specified that he has been sent to mankind. For purpose of delivering good news to mankind and delivering warning of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In the following verse, which is part of our discussion, the ambiguity of you has been removed because there is referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with phrase, ya ayyu al-Nabiyyu (i.e. O Prophet): "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner." [Ref: 33:45] And direct referrence to mankind to whom he was sent is removed but indirect reference is made via: “… a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner."  In other words, in verse 34:28 referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is indirect and to mankind is direct. And in verse 33:45 referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is direct but to whom he has been sent is indirect. Conclusion is that both verses explain each other and comprehensive understanding that can be drived from them is: i) “And truly We have not sent you O Prophet except comprehensively to mankind as a witness, as a bringer of good tidings, and a warner. But most of the people do not know.“ [Ref: 34:28 and 33:45] Or alternatively you can use 33:45 as base and insert data of 34:28 to on it: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you not as a witness except comprehensively to mankind a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner but most of the people do not know." [Ref: 33:45 and 34:28] In both cases through correct methodology of Tafsir and the one you stated yourself Tafsir of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) and Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti (rahimullah) is substantiated.

Blind Couldn’t See Noor Of Islam At The End Of Tunnel:

His next response was limited to: Jazakallah Khair. I said: Brother have I satisfied your demand of evidence? I didn’t get any response for two days and the suspense was killing me. Then he replied: Brother Razavi after reading your recent response I consulted few Tulab ul-Ilm (i.e. seekers of knowledge) and they have verified your explanation of verse. As such I feel no shame in accepting my fault and I am truly humbled by my lack of knowledge. I replied: Brother this is why I continued to impress on you; you’re opposing two giants of Ummah. Then I asked him: As we agreed your demand has been met and all important question is: Will you now believe in Hadhir Nazir as you said you will? There was no response for few days and then he replied: I am embrassed to say I will not. In reponse to him I wrote: Brother you have undermined your integrity you’re aware agreements oral or written are binding. He said: I am aware and ashamed of my conduct. May Allah forgive me. My last post consisted of: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. For a week there was nothing written by him and then he wrote about his desire to  discuss subject of Istighathah and I refused. Instead I gave him link of following discussion, here.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Edited by MuhammedAli

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.