MuhammedAli

Responding To Asim ul-Haq’s Article: ‘Deviants Arguments : Shirk Will Not Take Place In Ummah.’

1 post in this topic

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. B) 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.] B) 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:B) 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. 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. 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).

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.