Completed and posted below ...

Salam alayqum, Meri bi yahi guzarish heh forum kay admin hazraat say kay active members ko moderators banahen. Aur forum ko simple karen bot complex heh. Moderators uneeh ko banaya jahay joh puranay aur active members hoon. Taqay kohi ghayr Sunniat ka makr kar kay moderator nah banay aur forum ko nuqsan nah punchahay ...

Salam alayqum, Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Shaykh Ibn Qayyim kay student thah joh Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah ka shagird thah. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah kay baray mein toh mujjay ilm heh kay yeh Allah-ka-but'h parast thah. Shaykh ibn Rajab Hanbali kay baray mein ek Sunni Hanbali nay kaha thah kay Shaykh Ibn Rajab sahih ul aqeedah thay. Maulana Khalil Rana Sahib, Shaykh Ibn Qayyim aur Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali kay baray mein Ahle Sunnat ka kia mowaqif heh.

Salam alayqum, Mauala Khalil Rana Sahib, Hazrat aap nay post 3 mein achay tareekay say masla imqan kizb ki rudad bayan ki aur parh kar dil mein aya kay aap ki is tehreer ko English mein tarjumah karoon aur is mozoo kay wastay bator introduction pesh kee jahay. Aur agar aap ijazat denh toh mein is ka tarjuma agli fursat mein shoroon kar doon ga.

Introduction: There is evidence to suggest Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not deem Salat ad-Duha as a Prophetic Sunnah. Instead Ahadith record he believed it was a innovation and a practice which did not exist during the life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor in the life of first two rightly guided successors of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He is reported to have said Salat ad-Duha is a fine innovation. Ibn Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) this statement allows Muslims to deduce that Islam has room for good/fine innovations which the opponents of Muslims reject and choose to disbelieve. Please do note; we Muslims believe Salat ad-Duha is a Prophetic Sunnah and Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was not witness to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha. Salat ad-Duha Prophetic Sunnah: In a Hadith it is stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so dutifully performed Salat ad-Duha which lead the companions to believe he would not leave it. And then left it for long periods of times leading them to think he will not perform it again: “Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudri narrated: "The Prophet would pray Ad-Duha until we would say: 'He will not leave it.' And he would leave it until we would say: 'He will not pray it.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B3, H477] In another Hadith Abu Huraira (radiallah ta’ala anhu) narrated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed him engage in three actions – one of which was two Rak’at of Salat ad-Duha: “Narrated Abu Huraira: My friend/Khalil (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) advised me to observe three things: (1) to fast three days a month; (2) to pray two rak`at of Duha prayer; and (3) to pray Witr before sleeping.” [Ref: Bukhari, B31, H202] Following Ahadith record the number of Rak’at performed and how many he would perform at a time: “It was narrated from Umm Hani’ bint Abu Talib that on the day of the Conquest (of Makkah) the Messenger of Allah prayed voluntary Duha with eight Rak’ah, saying the Salam after each two Rak’ah.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H1323] “Mua'ada Adawiyya reported Aisha as saying: The Messenger of Allah used to observe four Rak’ah in the Salat ad-Duha prayer and he sometimes observed more as Allah pleased.” [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1551] Ahadith also narrate benefits of performing Salat ad-Duha but these Ahadith are of questionable grading. And Muhaditheen employ principle; weak Ahadith are strengthened if there are multiple chains for it, which is true for these Ahadith. And Ulamah also employ principle, weak Ahadith which mention merits of an action are usable. In this context regular practice of Salat ad-Duha will amount to forgiveness of innumerable sins, and according to another Hadith, in Paradise Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will build palace of gold for practioner of Salat ad-Duha. Salat ad-Duha An Innovation According To Aysha: In a Hadith Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) is reported to have said; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Salat ad-Duha after returning from a journey: “Abdullah b. Shaqiq reported: I asked 'A'isha whether the Messenger of Allah used to observe the forenoon prayer. She said: No! But when he came back from the journey.” [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1546, H1547] Note she stated, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not perform Salat ad-Duha and then affirmed it for him saying he performed it after he returned from a journey. This indicates questioner inquired if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Salat ad-Duha regularly and she negated this. And then felt the need to specify when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) perform it. She is also reported to have said: “Narrated Aisha: I never saw the Prophet offering the Duha prayer but I always offer it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H273] “Narrated `Aisha: Allah's Messenger used to give up a good deed, although he loved to do it, for fear that people might act on it and it might be made compulsory for them. The Prophet never prayed the Duha prayer, but I offer it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H228] Again her negation is in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha regularly and her saying she performs Salat ad-Duha is in context of regularly performing Salat ad-Duha.[1] From this it becomes apparent she deemed regular practice of Salat ad-Duha as something which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not done. Ibn Umar Believed Salat ad-Duha To Be An Innovation: Ahadith record Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked if he himself, and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha, and he replied in negative: “Narrated Muwarriq: I asked Ibn `Umar "Do you offer the Duha prayer?" He replied in the negative. I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did the Prophet use to pray it?" Ibn `Umar replied, "I don't think he did." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H27] Ibn Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) answer naturally implies Salat ad-Duha is an innovation. Sahih Bukhari and Muslim each record Hadith in which he is explicitly as been reported to have said, Salat ad-Duha is an innovation: “Mujahid reported: I and 'Urwah b. Zubair entered the mosque and found 'Abdullah b. 'Umar sitting near the apartment of A'ishah and the people were observing the forenoon prayer. We asked him about their prayer, and he said: It is an innovation.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2883] “…and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation." [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] Following Hadith establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed it to be a good innovation: “Ibn Ulayyah narrated to us, Jarir narrated, al-Hakim bin A'raj narrated; I asked Muhammad[2] about Salat ad-Duha, while he was sitting near the house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He said: It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!"[3] [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, H3] Yet in another Hadith it is stated; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed Salat ad-Duha to be an innovation and it was very dear/loved by him: "Narrated Muamar, narrated al-Zuhri, narrated [by Ibn Umar’s son] Sa'lim, [that his father] Ibn Umar said: At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd ar-Razzaq, Book Of Salat (No.2 ), Chapter al-Duha, H4868] Note this Hadith indicates Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) might have started to practice Salat ad-Duha. And after realising its goodness it became dear/beloved to him. Words Of Prophet Regarding Good Innovative Sunnahs: Statements of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) establishes that he believed in evil innovations and good innovations. And he deemed Salat ad-Duha to be good innovation which was dear to him. This also establishes that companions did not believe absolutely every innovation is misguidance but believed innovations which conformed to Prophetic teaching can be good. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware performing Salat ad-Duha conformed to Prophetic teaching according to which Nawafil can be performed in all times except the prohibited times of sunrise/sunset and this is evident from his words: "I do only what my companions used to do and I don't forbid anybody to pray at any time during the day or night except that one should not intend to pray at sunrise or sunset." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H283] Regarding good innovations Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Note in the Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not say, he who introduces my good Sunnah of Islam. This would have indicated; reward is for a Sunnah which is already part of Islam as Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “He who introduces …” implication of which is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is referring to every Muslim who introduces his own Sunnah. And then says: “… introduces a good Sunnah in Islam …” Meaning introduces a Sunnah in Islam which is not already part of Islam. Alhasil, Hadith indicates Sunnah for which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told of reward is not already part of Islam and is not Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but Sunnah of Muslim who issues it. And this is precisely the meaning of word innovation and following Hadith also corroborates that the reward is for innovated good Sunnah: “The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever sets a good precedent in Islam, he will have the reward for that, and the reward of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.” [Ref: Nisa’i, B23, H2555] And Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged the issue of Salat ad-Duha being good innovation on basis of these Ahadith. Conclusion: Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) has narrated Ahadith according to which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did and did not perform Salat ad-Duha. Principle of Muhaditheen is that which attests takes precedence over that which negates. And therefore those Ahadith which establish Salat ad-Duha being Prophetic Sunnah are to be preferred over those Ahadith of her which negate it. In addition contradicting Ahadith can be reconciled; ones which negate are negating regular practice and those Ahadith which attest to Salat ad-Duha being Prophetic Sunnah are regarding Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha after returning from journey or reaching a destination. This leads to conclusion in context of her that she practiced Salat ad-Duha regularly which she believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not do. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Salat ad-Duha was not performed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor by the first two Khulafah and therefore he did not perform it. And based on this he deemed Salat ad-Duha to be an innovation and a good innovation which was dear to him. He was unaware of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha and this led him to deem it innovation. His statements cannot be valid evidence to negate the established status of Salat ad-Duha but his statements do establish he believed in Islam there is room for and there is permission to introduce good innovations. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] Some say, she was asked if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha as part of congregation in Masjid on regular basis. And in response to this she said, she never saw Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha. This is incorrect because, she has brought into the answer, her seeing (i.e. رَأَيْتُ). If she was asked about Masjid she would be negating it via knowledge; ‘I don’t know.’ because she did not attend Masjid. Her negation via personal vision is indicative that she is negating Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha where she could have seen him (i.e. at home) but hasn’t seen him engaging it it which she should have if he had performed it reglar basis at home. Alhasil her negation is connected with regular practice of Salat ad-Duha. - [2] It was not Muhammad who was asked, Ahadith refferenced in footnote 3 and quoted in the article establish Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked. So it seems one of the narrators confused the name of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) with Muhammad. - [3] Please note my Arabic is very limited and I am in no way qualified to translate from Arabic to English. Unique element of the Hadith have been kept while ensuring it resembles in meaning or coroborates other Ahadith. Such as, Hadith of Bukhari, No. 27, and Muslim, Hadith, No. 2883, quoted above, state he was sitting close to house of Ayshra (radiallah ta’ala anha). If there is any fault in translation please do inform me.

Introduction: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Salat ad-Duha to be an innovation because he was unaware that it was Prophetic Sunnah. He deemed it to be an excellent innovation. On basis of such statements of companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Muslims have come to believe; companions did not believe in absolute literalism of Hadith, every invention is innovation and every innovation is misguidance, but they made Takhsees of ‘every’ to a specific type of innovation. On basis of his statements Muslims have argued; companions in general, and Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) in specific, believed in concept of good innovations, and permissibility of introducing good innovations in Islam. Khawarij on other hand, in an attempt to discredit the Islamic teaching argue, his statements were made linguistically and not in Shar’ri sense. Therefore he did not believe in permissibility of introducing good innovations into Islam nor did he believe good/evil innovation category. And recently two articles, here, here, were produced regarding Ibn Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) statements made about Salat ad-Duha. And these two articles have created a tiny stir amongst the Khawarij. One supporter of innovation and distortion sent a message in which he argued; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Salat ad-Duha is Prophetic Sunnah and believed it was a good/fine innovation in linguistic sense and not Shar’ri innovation. And to support his position he quoted Hadith from Sahih of Imam Al Bukhari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). This is an out of box, a novel argument, and deserves a proper response. The Hadith Quoted Evidence: “Narrated Nafi: Ibn `Umar never offered the Duha prayer except on two occasions: (1) whenever he reached Mecca; and he always used to reach Mecca in the forenoon (i.e. al-Duha). He would perform Tawaf round the Ka`ba and then offer two rak`at at the rear of Maqam Ibrahim. (2) Whenever he visited Quba, for he used to visit it every Saturday. When he entered the Mosque, he disliked to leave it without offering a prayer.“ [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H283] What Did Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Say About Salat ad-Duha: It is recorded in a Hadith of Bukhari that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he deemed Salat ad-Duha as innovation: “… and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation.” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] Following Hadith explains why he believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and first two Khulafah did not perform Salat ad-Duha, and this is reason why he didn’t perform Salat ad-Duha, and deemed it innovation: “Narrated Muwarriq: I asked Ibn `Umar "Do you offer the Duha prayer?" He replied in the negative. I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative. [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H271] Not only did he deem it as an innovation but he deemed it to be good/fine innovation: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, 3] And following Hadith establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Salat ad-Duha was innovated in the Khilafat of Uthman (radiallah ta’ala anhu): "At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd Razzaq, Vol3, Pages 78/79] Note the underlined words, Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is saying the people of have innovated Salat ad-Duha. Alhasil, he believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not perform Salat ad-Duha and it was people innovated Salat ad-Duha then how can he believe it was Prophetic Sunnah and how can he practice it as a Prophetic Sunnah? The answer to this question will, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills, will follow. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Or The Narrator Of Hadith: In contradiction to Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) the narrator of Hadith 283 states Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha. Does the narrator, who claims Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha on two occasions, knows if Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performs Salat ad-Duha, or does Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) know if he performed Salat ad-Duha? Narrator of Hadith - 283 - cannot know better about Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) then Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) himself. Negation by Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is proof of belief and action of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) not what someone else as attributed to him. Performing Two Rak’at Nawafil In Masjid At al-Duha Time: Evidence of following Hadith establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed two Rak’at Nawafil when he returned from a journey: “Narrated Ka`b: Whenever the Prophet returned from a journey in the forenoon, he would enter the Mosque and offer two rak`at before sitting.” [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H321] This Hadith is the basis on which Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) based his action of performing 2 Rak’at Nawafil at the time of al-Duha after under taking a journey. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Performed Nawafil At Time Of al-Duha: Following Hadith establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), used to undertake journey from Madinah, and reach Makkah at the time of al-Duha (i.e. forenoon), and he performed two Rak’at Nawafil in Masjid Haram: “Narrated Nafi: Ibn `Umar never offered the Duha prayer except on two occasions: Whenever he reached Mecca; and he always used to reach Mecca in the forenoon (i.e. al-Duha). He would perform Tawaf round the Ka`ba and then offer two rak`at at the rear of Maqam Ibrahim.” [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H283] And the reason why he performed two Rak’at in Masjid Haram at Maqam of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) is because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed it there: “Ibn Umar said, "I went in front of the Ka`ba and found that Allah's Messenger had come out of the Ka`ba and I saw Bilal standing by the side of the gate of the Ka`ba. I said, 'O Bilal! Has Allah's Apostle prayed inside the Ka`ba?' Bilal replied in the affirmative. I said, 'Where?' He replied, 'Between these two pillars and then he came out and offered a two rak`at prayer in front of the Ka`ba.' "Abu `Abdullah said: Abu Huraira said, "The Prophet advised me to offer two rak`at of Duha prayer.” Itban (bin Malik) said, "Allah's Messenger and Abu Bakr, came to me after sunrise and we aligned behind the Prophet and offered two rak`at." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H268] Note even though the Hadith does not explicitly indicate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed 2 Rak’at Nawafil after the journey this is to be implied because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was resident of Madinah and he must under take a journey to reach Makkah – Masjid Haram. Therefore the Hadith is proof for Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performing two Rak’at Nawafil at the time of ad-Duha. In simple words, Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed two Rak’at Nawafil in Masjid Al Haram, at the time of al-Duha after taking a journey because he knew it was Prophetic Sunnah. And He Performed Nawafil At Time Of al-Duha In Masjid Quba: The Hadith in discussion indicates Masjid Quba as second place where Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha: “Whenever he visited Quba, for he used to visit it every Saturday. When he entered the Mosque, he disliked to leave it without offering a prayer.“ [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H283] The fact is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used to visit Masjid Quba on Saturday, and in there he performed two Rak’at Nawafil as evidenced by following Ahadith: “Narrated Abdullah bin Dinar: Ibn Umar said, "The Prophet used to go to the Mosque of Quba every Saturday walking and riding." Abdullah (Ibn `Umar) used to do the same.” [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H284] “Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet used to go to the Mosque of Quba walking and sometimes riding. Added Nafi (in another narration), "He then would offer two rak`at." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H285] Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) merely imitated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing two Rak’at Nawafil in Masjid Quba. And he seems to have combined Rak’at Nawafil Sunnah with following Hadith: “Narrated Ka`b: Whenever the Prophet returned from a journey in the forenoon, he would enter the Mosque and offer two rak`at before sitting.” [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H321] Ibn Umar’s Position And Confusion Caused By Narrator: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed Salat ad-Duha to be an innovation which he believed neither Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor the first two Khulafah had performed, and therefore he did not intend to perform Salat ad-Duha [even when he performed Nawafil at the time of al-Duha]. And this is established from following part of Hadith: “I asked Ibn `Umar "Do you offer the Duha prayer?" He replied in the negative. I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative. [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H271] And Ibn Umar performed two Rak’at Nawafil at the time of al-Duha (i.e. forenoon) in Masjid based on the following Hadith: “Narrated Ka`b: Whenever the Prophet returned from a journey in the time of al-Duha, he would enter the Mosque and offer two rak`at before sitting.” [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H321] But these two Nawafil were not performed with intention of performing Salat ad-Duha. If these two Nawafil performed at time of al-Duha were termed Nawafil of Salat ad-Duha then this would contradict, what Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) himself negated. Therefore only acceptable and non-contradictory understanding possible is that he performed them at the time of al-Duha without intending to perform Salat ad-Duha. And following statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) establishes that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) only intended to perform what his companions did (i.e. performing 2 Rak’at Nawafil at the time of al-Duha in Masjid after journey) and he did not forbid Nawafil being performed at any times - including Salat ad-Duha – except on the forbidden times, which the following portion of Hadith establishes: "I do only what my companions used to do and I don't forbid anybody to pray at any time during the day or night except that one should not intend to pray at sunrise or sunset." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H283] Hence it is safe to conclude that the narrator of Hadith - 283 - erroneously assumed on part of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) that he performs Salat ad-Duha on two occasions. Where as the fact is Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was enacting on other Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but due to routinely of reaching destination of Masjid Al Haram and Masjid Quba at the al-Duha time gave impression he performs Salat ad-Duha. Salat ad-Duha Said To Be Linguistic Innovation Or Shar’ri Innovation: When it is evident that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not perform Salat ad-Duha, and deemed it as fine innovation, which was beloved to him. Then the argument that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed it believing as a Prophetic Sunnah fails to achieve its objective. In other words, it does not support the argument; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made following statements in linguistic usage: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, 3] "At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd Razzaq, Vol3, Pages 78/79] And therefore established proof of Islam stands that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed in introducing good innovations into Islam and held to definition of innovation which is of majority of Islamic scholarship. Meaning he believed in good/evil innovation classification and not what Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) had taught. And this in turn establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not believe in absolute literalism of following Hadith: “Avoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error." [Ref: Abu Dawood, B40, H4590] “And the most evil affairs are the innovations; and every innovation is error." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] But rather he understood the innovation in question in according to Hadith of – erroneous innovation (i.e. بِدْعَةَ ضَلاَلَةٍ): “And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins similar to whomever acts upon it, without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] And concept of evil innovative Sunnah is also supported by following Hadith: “And he who introduces a evil precedent (i.e. Sunnah) in Islam there is upon him the burden of that, and the burden of him also who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Alhasil – he believed; ‘every erroneous innovation is misguidance’ and not ‘every innovation is misguidance’ in literal sense. And he believed good innovative Sunnahs can be made part of Islam/Shari’ah which is evident from his statements about Salat ad-Duha. And these statements are in accordance with following Hadith: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.”[Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Innovation is not part of Islam and reward being told is for a Sunnah which is introduced into Islam. Therefore the reward being told is about good innovative Sunnah and not for which is already part of Islam. Alhasil – Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made the statement about Salat ad-Duha in light of Ahadith like this. This Hadith establishes category of good innovative Sunnah [in other words good innovation] in Shari’ah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore his statements about Salat ad-Duha were made in context of Shari’ah. Conclusion: The Hadith in which it is stated Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha on two occasions is misunderstanding of one who narrated it. The fact is that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was acting on Prophetic Sunnah by performing two Rak’at Nawafil in Masjid after undertaking a journey but the timing he reached his destination was always at the time of al-Duha. This gave impression to onlookers that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is performing Salat ad-Duha but he merely performed two Rak’at Nawafil after under taking journey at the Masajid mentioned in the Hadith. Where as his actual position on Salat ad-Duha is narrated in Ahadith; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Salat ad-Duha was a fine innovation which originated at the time of Khariji revolt against the Uthman (radiallah ta’ala anhu). And he believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and two of his Khulafah did not perform Salat ad-Duha and in imitation to their way he did not perform it either. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Introduction: Majority of Islamic scholarship holds to definition of innovation which recognises, good [Shar’ri] innovations and evil [Shar’ri] innovations. A minority holds to a definition which is simplistic. According to which everything termed as Shar’ri innovation is evil/sinful and misguiding. And all evidence in Ahadith which refutes this simple definition of innovation is glossed with Taweel: This statement was made in linguistic sense. Praise be to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), already an article was written refuting this poorly thought-out excuse, here. And it is a decisive argument against Khawarij. This article will address the linguistic innovation claim from different perspective. And also go on to establish the definition of innovation which Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) held to. Simplistic, which is now championed by Khawarij of Najd, or comprehensive which is held by majority of Islamic scholarship. The Understanding Of Innovation By Majority Of Islamic Scholarship: Majority of Islamic scholarship believes in comprehensive definition of innovation according to which, any non-prophetic practice with Asal from Quran and Sunnah it is good innovation in sense of Shari’ah. And any non-prophetic practice which is without Asal from Quran and Sunnah is an evil innovation in sense of Shari’ah. And according to this majority an innovated practice with explicit or implicit Shar’ri evidence can be termed non-prophetic good Shar’ri Sunnah, or alternatively good Shar’ri innovation. And any innovated practice without explicit or implicit evidence from Quran and Sunnah, and composed of sinful activities can be termed non-prophetic evil Shar’ri Sunnah, or alternatively evil Shar’ri innovation. Note the words Shar’ri are dropped from usage when writing about Shar’ri innovations. Instead of good Shar’ri innovation words good innovation, or good Sunnah are used and same applies to evil Shar’ri innovation and evil Shar’ri Sunnah. Innovation According To Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah) holds to simple definition of innovation. According to Shaykh Ibn Rajab (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) innovation is; any practice, or activity, or custom, which without Asal (i.e. Foundation) of Shari’ah. In other words; any practice which is without Asal of Quran and Sunnah is [Shar’ri] innovation. In Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s definition of innovation, anything which is termed/judged as ‘innovation’ or ‘Shar’ri innovation’ is unIslamic and sinful action or practice. And a ‘reprehensible innovation’ in definition of majority of Islamic scholarship. Also according to Shaykh Rajab’s definition any practice which is not Prophetic Sunnah but for it there is Asal (i.e. Foundation) in Shari’ah then it is not innovation but a Sunnah. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) On Salat ad-Duha: In the following Hadith it is established; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha and he responded in negative: “I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did the Prophet use to pray it?" Ibn `Umar replied, "I don't think he did." In the same Hadith Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked if he performs Salat ad-Duha and he responded in negative: “Narrated Muwarriq: I asked Ibn `Umar "Do you offer the Duha prayer?" He replied in the negative.” [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H27] And this was because he deemed it innovation on the account, that he believed neither Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), nor his first to Caliphs performed Salat ad-Duha. Of course this is implied from the Hadith but it is also established from clear text of following Hadith: “… and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation.” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] About Salat ad-Duha he also said: "At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd Razzaq, Vol3, Pages 78/79] This establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) considered Salat ad-Duha to be an innovation and a good innovation at that. And in following Hadith he deemed Salat ad-Duha to be a good innovation: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, 3] This establishes the Islamic belief that companions accepted good innovations into Islam a belief which is challenged by proponents new brand of Kharijis. And they have attempted to protect their misguidance with innovative arguments and an example of which will follow. Shaykh Aymen And Salat ad-Duha Being Linguistic Innovation: Shaykh Aymen adheres to, and esteems Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) definition of innovation, and judges the following statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) regarding Salat ad-Duha in its context: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" Shaykh Aymen interpreted the statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and explained it as: “He did not know that the Prophet prayed it before. He approved it because it is a Nafliah like any other Nafila that is allowed to be prayed at anytime. He said it is Bida'a in its linguistisc meaning. Wallahu A'lam” [Ref: AhlalHdeeth, by Ayman Bin Khaled, post 5] Shaykh Aymen said, statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was made in linguistic usage of word innovation based on Ibn Rajab’s definition of innovation. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not actually hold to Shaykh Ibn Rajab’ (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) definition of innovation. If Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had made the statement with the thought that Salat ad-Duha is from Nafliah worship he would not have declared it to be an innovation. Instead he would have said, it is a Prophetic Sunnah, and this verdict would have been in accordance with Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s definition of innovation. But the clear evidence establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Salat ad-Duha was an innovation because he had stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and his father Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), and he himself does not perform Salat ad-Duha. It is evident from Ahadith that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed Salat ad-Duha to be fine/good innovation. And if he had held to Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definitions of innovation he would have believed all innovations are evil as Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition establishes. And therefore would not have remarked that Salat ad-Duha is fine innovation. Refuting Shaykh Aymen’s Claim Of Linguistic Innovation: To defend Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) definition of innovation Khawarij can argue that he intended the usage of word innovation in linguistic sense and not in Shar’ri sense therefore he could have used Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s understanding of innovation. In other words they could argue; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed Salat ad-Duha to be a form of Nafliah worship for which permissibility is generally granted except the forbidden times – sunrise and sunset -: "I do only what my companions used to do and I don't forbid anybody to pray at any time during the day or night except that one should not intend to pray at sunrise or sunset." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H283] Alhasil, Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged it to be linguistic innovation, while believing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not perform it, but he deemed it permissible based on general permissibility for Nawafil. We the Muslims say, if Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged permissibility of Salat ad-Duha based on general permissibility of Nawafil then he made a Shar’ri judgment to deem it permissible -: Nawafil are permissible at all times except sun rising and sun setting times and Salat ad-Duha is performed during time of Duha (i.e. forenoon) therefore it is permissible. From this it is evident Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not judge Salat ad-Duha to be fine innovation in linguistic sense but good/fine innovation in Shar’ri sense because judgment he made is based on general permissibility of Nawafil. And Shar’ri judgement of permissibility about an innovative practice can only be made by him if believes there exits a provision within Islam permitting innovations. If it is proven there is Shar’ri acceptance of good innovations in Islam then it will establish; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not hold to Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s definition of innovation but to definition of majority of Islamic scholarship. Also this would prove that Shaykh Aymen Bin Khaled would be incorrect in his saying that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made the following statement in linguistic sense: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" Following section will establish that Islam recognises and permits good innovations and considers them reward worthy. And deems evil innovations to be sinful and hence prohibits them by default. Shari’ah The Islamic Law Derived From Islam: Innovation in linguistic sense is something new, something which already did not exist. And in Shar’ri sense it means something which already did not exist in Islam. In the following Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tells the Muslim about reward for introducing/innovating goods Sunnahs in Islam which were not already part of Islam: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466]“The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever sets a good precedent in Islam, he will have the reward for that, and the reward of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.” [Ref: Nisa’i, B23, H2555] Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has told; the one who introduces/sets a good Sunnah in Islam for him and those who emulate his innovated good Sunnah there is reward. If a good Sunnah is already is part of Islam and person acts on it then nothing is introduced into Islam. And the quoted Ahadith tell of reward for introducing good Sunnahs into Islam. In the following portion of Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informs the Muslim who introduces/innovates an evil Sunnah in Islam about the burden of sin and those who follow him: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] “And whoever sets an evil precedent in Islam, he will have a burden of sin for that, and the burden of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest."' [Ref: Nisa’i, B23, H2555] And meaning of this Hadith is same as the following: "And whoever starts an erroneous Biddah (i.e. ابْتَدَعَ بِدْعَةَ ضَلاَلَةٍ) with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] Alhasil meaning of introducing good Sunnah in Islam and evil Sunnah in Islam is good/evil innovations in Islam. And this establishes that Islam/Shari’ah recognises concept of good/evil innovation and tells of reward and sin for introducing each. Conclusion: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not believe in Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition of innovation. Had he believed in this definition of innovation or one remotely resembling it in detail then he would not have stated Salat ad-Duha is fine innovation. But in fact his statement reveals that it was based on the understanding of Hadith; one who introduces good Sunnah in Islam for him and the one who adheres to the Sunnah will equally be rewarded without reward being reduced. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Islam grants permission to Muslims to invent and incorporate good Sunnahs in Islam. Hence he could not have made the statement in linguistic sense but rather he judged it to be good/fine innovation in sense of Islamic canonical law (i.e. Shari’ah) whose source is Quran and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Thus the Islamic definition of innovation – good/evil innovated Sunnahs - stands established and excuse if linguistic innovation refuted. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Salat ad-Duha is a prophetic Sunnah performed after sunrise. But there seems to be some companions who were not aware that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has performed Salat ad-Duha and at least one Sahabi is known for considering it a good innovation. For the record, we the Muslims believe Salat ad-Duha is a Prophetic Sunnah and it is not a good innovation introduced into Islam by a companion. The matter of fact is companion was not aware that it is prophetic Sunnah and due to it he considered it good innovation. Muslims employ the statement of companion to argue that companion termed Salat ad-Duha as good innovation because he was aware that Islam permits good innovations into Islam. The Khawarij teach; there is no such thing as good innovation, nor there is permission to introduce good innovations into Islam. And based on this teaching the Khawarij attempt to distort the natural meaning of statement of companion in an attempt to refute Islamic argument. In sha Allah, this article will address one such argument of opponents of Islam. Shar’ri Innovation – Difference In Termonology: According to majority of Islamic scholarship, all innovations, including good and bad, are ‘Shar’ri innovation’. Therefore every good innovation is good innovation if it is composed according to judgment of Shar’riah and every evil innovation is evil innovation according to judgment of Shar’riah. A minority holds to understanding of definition of innovation according to which everything termed ‘Shar’ri innovation’ would be evil innovation according to termonology of majority of Islamic schoalrship. And I will not use the words ‘Shar’ri innovation’ in accordance with understanding of minority. And words ‘Shar’ri innovation’ have been used in meaning of innovative practice/act which is not Prophetic Sunnah but whose status – as good or evil - is undefined. The Back Ground Of Discussion Of Salat ad-Duha: Brother al-Habeshi on AhlalHdeeth forum started, Ibn 'Umar Regarding Bid'ah, thread and presented the following problem: “Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem, As-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah. I was wondering, I heard in a talk today that with regards to salah ad duha, some people started praying it in congregation and there was a report from Ibn Umar which said that he said it was bida'h, but aparently, Ibn Hajr showed other reports from ibn Umar which said that he actually said Bidah Hasanah? Can someone shed more light on what this is all about, i.e. the narrations, authentic or not, etc.” [Ref: AhlalHdeeth, by brother Al-Habeshi, post 1] A brother responded to him but the answer was unrelated to the type of help sought and Shaykh Ayman responds with following: “ […] The narrations of Ibn Umar are only stating that the Duha prayer itself is a good innovation, albiet this is conformed to be Sunnah but he was one of those who did not know that the Prophet prayed it. However, he was asked about praying it in the Masjid thereafter he said it is an innovation as documented in Sahih Bukhari. That said, you know that Ibn Umar did not approave or liked praying it in public. So, what about praying it in congeration in public! Anyhow, praying nawafil in congeration is fine as long as it is not shown in public or performed in the Masjid as that will make it an innovation and disliked. Wallahu A'lam.” [Ref: AhlalHdeeth, by Ayman Bin Khaled, post 3]And brother Al-Habeshi after reading the answer replied to Shaykh Ayman saying: “This has confused me Ustadh, are you saying that Ibn Umar did not know about the Salah yet he said it is a good innovation? Would this mean that he approved good Bid'ah?” [Ref: AhlalHdeeth, by brother Al-Habeshi, post 4] In an attempt to clarify the confusion Shaykh Ayman wrote a simplified version stating some basic facts: “He did not know that the Prophet prayed it before. He approved it because it is a Nafliah like any other Nafila that is allowed to be prayed at anytime. He said it is Bida'a in its linguistisc meaning. Wallahu A'lam” [Ref: AhlalHdeeth, by Ayman Bin Khaled, post 5] Statement of Shaykh Ayman is partly correct and partly incorrect. It is correct that companion did not know if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had performed Salat ad-Duha. And it is incorrect to say companion said Salat at-Duha is a linguistic innovation. The following sections establishes the logic/rationale and implications of saying, y is an excellent/fine innogation, while believing y was not Prophetic Sunnah, and while believing y is prophetic Sunnah. Scenario For Determining Linguistic Innovation: i) A Sufi Shaykh teaches day and night that beard is Prophetic Sunnah. In other words he knows very well beard is Prophetic Sunnah. Yet once or twice has made the following statement: Beard is an amazing innovation, a brilliant and good innovation. Would he term in innovation in Shar’ri sense when he does knows it is Prophetic Sunnah? Has he called beard fine, excellent, and good innovation in Shar’ri sense or in linguistic sense? ii) A certain Shaykh knows performing Tawaf around the Kabah is prophetic Sunnah and despite this says; it’s a fine and an excellent innovation. Shaykh Muwahid is his opponent and he is aware that Sufi Shaykh knows Tawaf around the Kabah is Prophetic Sunnah, but despite this he has called it excellent/fine innovation. Shaykh Muwahid deduces he called it fine/excellent innovation in linguistic sense because Sufi Shaykh knows it is a Prophetic Sunnah. The rationale behind this is; no one knowingly call a Prophetic Sunnah as a Shar’ri innovation because by nature Shar’ri innovation is not Prophetic Sunnah. And Sufi Shaykh knew Tawaf is Prophetic Sunnah and Shaykh Muwahid was aware of this fact and therefore natural and logical conclusion was Sufi Shaykh meant it in linguistic sense. Scenario For Determining Shar’ri Innovation: iii) A Jahil Muslim believes Islam allows good/excellent Shar’ri innovaions. And this Jahil Muslim doesn’t know Surah of Tawheed/Ikhlas is part of Quran. He in his ignorance says; what a fine/exellent innovation is Surah of Tawheed is. Question begs to be asked [even though due to his lack of knowledge, he didn’t know it was part of Quran] does he believe Surah of Tawheed is Lughvi innovation [therefore part of Quran]? Or does he believe it to be excellent Shar’ri innovation [therefore doesn’t believe it’s part of Quran]? To answer this question you must factor in his lack of knowledge about actual reality of Surah of Tawheed and factor that none would deliberately term a Prophetic Sunnah as Shar’ri innovation because Shar’ri innovation screams, it is not Prophetic Sunnah. iv) A true-Salafi, some how he doesn’t know Sawm (i.e. fasting) is Fardh upon every Muslim, from sunrise till sunset. And due to his Ijtihadi mistake says, Sawm is an innovation introduced into Islam. Against this true-Salafi brother, there is hate filled Shaykh who slanders him for saying; Sawm is an innovation introduced into Islam. This Shaykh knows true-Salafi brother doesn’t know Sawm is Fardh and has come to conclusion that true-Salafi brother has termed Sawm as a Shar’ri innovation. Is the Shaykh juftified in his understanding that true-Salafi brother has considered Sawm as a Shar’ri innovation? He is justified in his judgment that true-Salafi brother has deemed Sawm as an Shar’ri innovation because true-Salafi didn’t know Sawm is Quranic/Prophetic teaching. And he could have only meant Sawm is Lughvi innovation if he had known about it being Fardh and part of Quran/Prophetic teachings. The Rules Of Linguistic And Shar’ri Innovation Game: For the scenarios i and ii, the rule is based on the fact of: Knowing y is Quranic/Prophetic teaching but despite this saying y is excellent/fine innovation. In this context, the y practice which is being called innovation is in Lughvi (i.e. linguistic) sense. The reason for this is simple, no one in their sane mind, after fully knowing y is Quranic/Prophetic teaching will term it Shar’ri innovation. For scenarios iii and iv, the rule is based on the fact of: Not knowing y is Quranic/Prophetic teaching and then saying y is excellent/fine innovation. In this context terming it fine/excellent innovation is in Shar’ri sense because a judgment has been pronounced upon y in light of principles taught in Quran and in Prophetic Sunnah. And the reason for this is that no Muslim in his/her sane mind would say y is Quranic/Prophetic teaching – as Fardh and Sunnah – when it is obviously clear to him/her, that y is neither of the Fard, nor Prophetic Sunnah but a [good] innovation.[1] Shaykh Ayman Bin Khaled Distorting The Reality: Shaykh Aymen stated Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked about performing Salat ad-Duha in Masjid and in response to which Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said it is innovation. And Shaykh Aymen refferenced this lie to Sahih Bukhari: “However, he was asked about praying it in the Masjid thereafter he said it is an innovation as documented in Sahih Bukhari. That said, you know that Ibn Umar did not approave or liked praying it in public. So, what about praying it in congeration in public!” In reality Hadith being refferenced does not in anyway hint or indicate Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked about performing Salat ad-Duha in Masjid: “Narrated Mujahid: Urwa bin Az-Zubair and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation. He then asked him how many times the Prophet had performed Umra. He replied, 'Four times; one of them was in the month of Rajab." We disliked to contradict him. Then we heard Aisha, the Mother of faithful believers cleaning her teeth with Siwak in the dwelling place. 'Urwa said: "O Mother! O Mother of the believers! Don't you hear what Abu Abdur Rahman is saying?" She said: "What …” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] He was sitting in Masjid of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and some companions were performing Salat ad-Duha and he was asked about Salat at-Duha and he said it is innovation. He did not say their performing it in the Masjid is innovation. Did Hadhrat Ibn Umar Knew Salat ad-Duha Is Prophetic Sunnah: Successful refutation of Shaykh Aymen’s point (i.e. Ibn Umar said good innovation in linguistic sense.) hinges on Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) not knowing Salat ad-Duha being Prophetic Sunnah. Shaykh Aymen himself stated Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was not aware of Salat ad-Duha being Prophetic Sunnah: “ … but he was one of those who did not know that the Prophet prayed it.“, and he also wrote: “He did not know that the Prophet prayed it before.” And Hadith establishes Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not have knowledge that Salat ad-Duha is Prophetic Sunnah: “Narrated Muwarriq: I asked Ibn `Umar "Do you offer the Duha prayer?" He replied in the negative. I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did the Prophet use to pray it?" Ibn `Umar replied, "I don't think he did." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H27] Note he was asked if he himself performs Salat ad-Duha and he negated it. And stated neither Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu), nor Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha. Also went on the negate it for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Leading to conclusion that he was unaware of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha in his life time. In fact in another Hadith he termed it innovation: “Narrated Mujahid: Urwa bin Az-Zubair and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation.” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] Similar Hadith is also found in Sahih Muslim with another Sanad. In conclusion he would not have stated what he did if he believed Salat ad-Duha was Prophetic Sunnah. Refuting Shaykh Aymen Bin Khaled’s Distortion: The rule is: ‘Not knowing y is Quranic/Prophetic teaching and then saying y is excellent/fine innovation. In this context terming it fine/excellent innovation is in Shar’ri sense because a judgment has been pronounced upon y in light of principles taught in Quran and in Prophetic Sunnah.’ And another way of putting the same would be: ‘Believing y is not Prophetic Sunnah and then termining it a good innovation is legal ruling [or in other words, Shar’ri judgment] about an innovation.’ And both these are dependent upon the fact that person who made the statement/judgment believes in Islam there is room for good innovations. And Islam allows incorporation of good innovations into it. Please bare the mentioned principle in your mind and continue to read. Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said regarding Salat ad-Duha: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" Shaykh Aymen said Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) meant Salat ad-Duha is linguistically good innovation: “He said it is Bida'a in its linguistisc meaning.” In other words like a Muslim would say, Hajj is an excellent innovation, or concept of Zakat is an excellent innovation, without beleiving Zakat and Hajj are innovations in jargon of Shar’iah. But it is established Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not know/believe Salat ad-Duha is Prophetic Sunnah nor he believed/knew it was so. And the established principle is believing/knowing Salat ad-Duha is not Prophetic Sunnah and then saying Salat ad-Duha is; fine innovation, is terming it fine innovation in Shar’ri sense. And this indicates that he believed in permissibility of introducing good/fine innovations in Islam and believed Salat ad-Duha is a innovation introduced into Islam. And Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) belief that Islam permits good innovations is supported by following Hadith: “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] If he believed or had known Salat ad-Duha is a prophetic Sunnah then his statement could have been interpreted to mean linguistic innovation because knowingly he would not term it Shar’ri innovation. In light of this logic it is clear Shaykh Aymen has incorrectly stated statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is in meaning of linguistical innovation. Conclusion: Even though Salat ad-Duha is known Prophetic Sunnah Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was not aware of it being performed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He deemed it an innovation but a fine/good innovation. Principle is that absence of knowledge or belief means his following statement is to be interpreted as a Shar’ri judgment: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" And no companion will issue a Shar’ri judgment if he/she is not aware of a provision which permits good innovations into Islam. Indicating that Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware of provisions/Ahadith which permit introduction of good Sunnahs/Biddahs into Islam. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnote: - [1] Please note the justifications are based on good opinion of Muslims that a Muslim regardless of how far he has deviated he/she will still uphold a certain standard of striving to follow correct teaching of Islam. In other words a sincere [guided/misguided] Muslim will not term mobile phone usage as a Prophetic Sunnah even when he/she knows it is not Prophetic Sunnah. And will not refuse to believe something is part of Islam as Fard/Sunnah when it becomes clear to him/her when it is established to him/her it is Quranic/Prophetic teaching.

Ihtiraz ka jawab yeh heh kay, Salam e Ala Hazrat haqiqatan dua heh, yeh dua Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) say, kay Allah un par lakhoon salam behjay. Ham ek baar dua mangen kay Allah lakhoon Salam behij toh Allah abdan, lakhoon, karooroon, behij sakta heh.

Mustafa jaan e rehmat pay lakhoon salam, ka mafoom yeh heh: Muftafa [yehni Hadhrat Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam joh] rehmat ki jaan hen un pay lakhoon salam. Shama e bazm e hidayat pay lakhoon salam, ka mafoom yeh heh: Hidayat ki mehfil ki shama par lakhoon salam, jis ka maani yeh heh: [Nabi e kareem sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam] joh Mehfil e Hidayat ki shama hen un par lakhoon salam, abh mehfil e hidayat Ambiyah ki heh, ya Sahabah ki ya donoon girohoon ki, yeh aap par chorta hon. Hasil yeh huwa kay Nabi e kareem sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam mash'al e hidayat hen Ambiyah o Sahabah kay wastay un par lakhoon salam.

Wahhabi ghayr muqallideen yehni Ahle Hadith kay mutabiq esa nikkah karna jaiz heh. Baqi Ahle Sunnat mein qattan haram heh aur joh issay jaiz janay [khata mujtahid kay ilawah baqi sab par] kufr ka murtaqib aur toba beghayr maray toh Kafir heh.

Salam alayqum, Allah ta'ala aap ko jaza e khayr deh. Aap nay bot umda point bayan keeya.

Salam alayqum, Scans kay page 28, ki right hand side, akhri chand lines mein Allama Ismail Shafi Malyabari ka zikr heh, yeh kon hazrat hen, aur in ki Kitab Aqeedat As-Sunnah, online par available heh ya nahin. Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab kay nasb par likhna thah kay woh Dhil Khuwaisirah say milta heh ya nahin ... Page par likha heh kay us'see say milta heh. Aur Tehqeeq kay saath sabat heh.

Introduction: Khawarij believe prostration to any creation out of reverance/respect is worship even if no belief of Ilahiyyah is affirmed for that creation, even if intention of worshiping that creation is absent. And Khawarij charge a Muslim of committing major Shirk and declare the Muslim to be a Mushrik. Muslims on other hand believe such prostration is major sin but does not consitute a act of worship, nor major Shirk. Islamic teaching with regards to acts of worship is that any act sanctioned in Islam as part of Salah (i.e. prayer), or any form of worship which Islam does not recognise, if it is performed with belief of Ilahiyyah and with intention of worshiping a creation, then worship has taken place. And one who is guilty of worshiping a creation is a Mushrik (i.e. polytheist). A Khariji attempted to convince me; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited prostration of reverance/respect for creation because in Islam every prostration is of worship and he referenced Khariji Shaykh, Ibn Baaz. Instead of directly responding to Shaykh of Khawarij, and to avoid a debate like scenario, I sent him link of following article, here. In response to which he presented the argument – Khariji Argument Prostration Is Major Shirk – and what follows was the response given to him. Khariji Argument Prostration Is Major Shirk: It is recorded in a Sahih Hadith: “Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: That the Prophet said: "The major sins are associating others with Allah, disobeying the parents" or he said, "the false oath". Shu'bah (a narrator in the chain) was in doubt.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B44, H3021] You stated prostration to other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is a major sin. According to words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) major Shirk is from major sins. And according to your understanding prostration is major sin but not major Shirk. It would stand to reason that prostration to anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can be major sin and major Shirk. And if it can be major Shirk than you have not conclusively established prostration of reverance is not of worship and not Shirk. Therefore the possibility remains. Major Shirk Is From Major Sins: First of all, indeed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has counted major Shirk from amongst major sins and the Hadith you quoted and many more like it are proof of it. You’ve reasoned, in Islam every prostration is of worship [even if the intention and belief which make it worship are absent] based on logic that major Shirk is from major sins. And in all that is rational and logical your deduction is flawed simply because possbility is not proof. Just as possibility of life on Mars is not proof there is life on Mars. Nor possibility of you dieing upon Kufr is proof that you have/will die upon Kufr. Major Shirk being from major sins is not proof that prostration to anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. It is only proof that major Shirk is major sin. Major sins are; adultery, major Shirk, rape, disobeying parents, taking false oaths, homosexuality, theft, murder, prostrating to other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), intoxicating drinks, gambling, and eating pig etc. Just because major Shirk is mentined in the list of major sins does not automaticaly imply that in Islam prostration is of only worship, or prostration of reverance is of worship, and major Shirk therefore. Just as rape and murder are Haram and major sins but not major Shirk so can prostration of reverance be Haram and major sin without being major Shirk. What is required from you, is to quote a single Hadith in which prostration of respect in Islam has been said to be worship even if the belief and intention which make it worship are absent. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has placed the burden of evidence upon claimant and not upon defendant: “’On the authority of Ibn Abbas; the Messenger of Allah said: Were people to be given everything that they claimed, men would (unjustly) claim the wealth and lives of (other) people. But, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, and the taking of an oath is upon him who denies.’A hasan hadeeth narrated by al-Baihaqee and others in this form, and part of it is in the two Saheehs.” [Ref: Forty Ahadith – Nawavi, Hadith 33] And in this case my Salafi brother you’re claimant and burden of evidence is upon you. If with some twisted logic you reason, you [as in Razavi] are claimant and burden of proof was/is upon you [as in Razavi] then do note I will furnish evidence in support of my position, In sha Allah. The Reason For Excluding Prostration Of Reverance From Major Shirk: Exclusion of prostration of reverance, performed for anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), from major Shirk is not on grounds that it is Haram. But its exclusion from major Shirk is based on the evidence of Quran. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) as gesture of reverance/respect in the following verse: “And when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other than Me while they are enemies to you? Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange.” [Ref: 18:50] Islam recognises prostration of worship and prostration of reverance. The angels when they prostrated to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) they performed prostration of reverance because prostration of worship to creation was forbidden even at that juncture of time and it remained prohibited in every Shari’ah of every Prophet. And we find evidence in another verse of Quran that Prophet Yaqoob (alayhis salam) prostrated to his son Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) as mark of respect: “And he raised his parents high on the throne and they fell down in prostration, (all) before him. He said: "O my father! this is the fulfilment of my vision of old! Allah hath made it come true! He was indeed good to me when He took me out of prison and brought you (all here) ...” [Ref: 12:100] Prostration of reverance performed for creation became prohibited in Shari’ah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Note prostration of worship performed for creation was prohibited in every Shari’ah of every Prophet. And prostration of worship to a creation was prohibited when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) received the very first Wahi. This leads to natural conclusion the only form of prostration which wasn’t already forbidden in Shariah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was of reverance/respect. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited prostration of reverance and not prostration of worship because prostration of worship for creation was always forbidden hence there was no need to prohibit it. Absence Of Evidence Proves Prostration Is Haram: We find clear evidence in many Ahadith prostration to creation for any purpose is prohibited by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), here. In the following Ahadith prohibition of prostration to creation is indicated: “It was narrated from Aishah; the messenger of Allah of said: “If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone else, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. If a man were to command his wife to move (something) from a red mountain to a black mountain, and from a black mountain to a red mountain, her duty is to obey to him.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B9, H1925] “The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the one in who hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfill her duty towards Allah until she fulfills her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.' “ [Ref: Ibn Majah, B9, H1926] “Abu Hurairah narrated that The Prophet said: “If I were to order anyone to prostrate to anyone, then I would order the wife to prostrate to her husband.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H1159] All Ahadith are unanimous on prohibition of prostation. And there is not a single Hadith, not even a Daif Hadith, in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated prostration to a creation out of reverance is Shirk [because it is worship]. Therefore it reasons in Islam there is no reason to believe prostration performed to respect another being is of worship [therefore Shirk]. And if prostration of reverance was of worship and Shirk, according to Quranic teaching, then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have taught this as part of Tafsir of Quran because he was sent with the book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and with responsibility to explain it: “We did not send (any apostles) before you except as men to whom We revealed, ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know. (And sent them) with manifest proofs and scriptures. We have sent down the reminder to you so that you may clarify for the people that which has been sent down to them, so that they may reflect.” [Ref: 16:43/44] And absence of evidence which indicates either; every prostration in my Shari’ah/Deen is of worship, or prostration peformed for reverance of a creation is worship, itself is evidence that it is not Shirk. Prostration Of Reverance And Prostration Of Worship: Islam distinguishes between prostration of reverance and prostration of worship with two clear ways; i) the creed, ii) and the intention. For whom the prostration is performed if creed is; x is worthy of worship, or deserving of worship [because x is Ilah/Rabb], then prostration is of worship. If intention is; I intend to worship x [because x is Ilah/Rabb] then prostration is of worship. Also if belief of Ilahiyyah is absent then action of prostration of reverance is not of worship. And if intention of worship is absent from prostrations but belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is present [as it would be in the case of Muslims] even then no worship has taken place. Islamic Understanding Regarding Prostration Of Reverance: Islamicly for major Shirk to be warranted belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah has to be affirmed for a creation. Or intention to worship a creation [with belief that this creation is worthy of worship] has to be made and then action of prostration has to be carried out for worship of creation and major sin of Shirk to be warranted. If belief of Ilahiyyah is not affirmed and intention of worship is not made no worship takes place even if the action of prostration is performed. Suppose certain Wahhabi, believes in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with belief of Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah, but without intending to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), prostrates to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as mark of respect/reverance. Has this Wahhabi worshipped Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? If you’re from Muslims you will know no worship has taken place even though the action of prostration has taken place. What this establishes is prostration even when performed for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the intention of worship has to be made. Absence of intention of worship resulted in prostration being of nothingness a waste of effort. From this it becomes clear that prostration of respect to a creation cannot be of worship because there is no belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah nor intention of worship. In both verses, quoted above, neither the belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah was affirmed nor intention to worship the creation was made hence on both these ocasions the prostration of respect did not become worship. Conclusion: It is unanimously agreed by all Muslims that prostration of reverance performed for creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is prohibited in Islam. And there is no proof in Quran in the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which establishes prostration to any creation out of respect is worship, or Shirk. Muslims as whole have maintained prostration of reverance is Haram and major sin and not Shirk. Only some elements of Khawarij held to this view. In understanding of Islamic scholarship prostration of respect to creation is major sin and if done with intention of worship then it is major Shirk because it will result in worship of creation and because it automatically establishes belief of Ilahiyyah. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Salam alayqum, Meray bhai, in bandoon ko apna qaan nah denh. Mein in ki Masjidoon mein Namaz nahin parta keun kay imeray dil mein yeh baat bethi heh kay is mein in ki izzat heh. In ko sun kar in ki izzat afzahi nah keren. Mein taqriban 12 saal huway hen Sunni huwa hoon, aur al hamdu lillah kafi parta likhta rehta hoon, magar jab bi in khabeesoon kay bayanat sunoon toh kuch nah kuch waswasa dil mein aa jata heh. Allah kay karam say rafa ho jata heh magr ana hee buri cheez heh. Aap kay dil damagh mein bi koi na koi fitna peda hota hoga. In ko qaan dena shaytaan ko gumrahi ka license dena heh, kay tooh mujjay gumra kar leh. Yeh dawr shaytan ka heh, qarn ash-shaytan, shaytan kay giro ka, shaytan kay zamanay ka. Apnay aap ko bachahen. Mein nay Christain ko tableegh issee leyeh chori thee kay un ko towheen o gustakhiyan sun sun kar Nabi e kareem ki muhabat jaati rahi. In Wahhabi bey-asaloon ka bi yahi tareeka heh, towheen e RasoolAllah toh in kay leyeh sirf ek aam baat heh, in ko nah suneh aur apnay dil ko decensitise honay say bachahen.

Salam alayqum, Pehli baat issay suntay keun hen? Ahle Sunnat kay Ulamah dunya say khatam ho chukay hen ya aap nay ahle sunnat kay aqahid ko seekh leeya heh aur kuch peechay raha nahin? Apna waqt bey-fizool kharch nah karen. Ji

Introduction: It was brought to attention that on IslamicAwakening forum people had disagreed on the reasons on which Sajdah to creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was prohibited. One opinion was that Sajdah to creation was prohibited because it was [worship hence] Shirk. The second position was that Sajdah performed to honour a creation is prohibited as consuming of pig is prohibited. The third position was that Sajdah was prohibited because it means/road to Shirk - such as worship of other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The last position can perfectly compliment the first and the second position therefore finale position by itself is not a separate position. Angels And Prophet Yaqoob (alayhis salaam) Prostrate To Creation: Sajdah is not worship on every occasion because Quran attests to angels prostrating to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam): “And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam", and they prostrated except Iblis (i.e. Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers.” [Ref: 2:34] And Prophet Yaqoob (alayhis salaam) prostrating to his son: “And he raised his parents to the throne and they fell down before him prostrate. And he said: "O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream aforetime! My Lord has made it come true! He was indeed good to me, when He took me out of the prison, and brought you (all here) out of the bedouin-life, after Shaitan (Satan) had sown enmity between me and my brothers. Certainly, my Lord is the Most Courteous and Kind unto whom He wills. Truly He! Only He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” [Ref: 12:100] If it was worship in all cases [therefore Shirk] then the angels would not have been instructed to prostrate to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) and Prophet Yaqoob (alayhis salaam) would not have prostrated to Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salaam). Prohibited But Never Stated To Be Shirk: Mu’adh Ibn Jabal (radiallah ta’ala anhu) travelled to Sham (i.e. ancient Syria), there he saw Christians prostrating to priests and bishops as sign of respect. So Mu’adh Ibn Jabal (radiallah ta’ala anhu) intended that he will perform prostration to show respect to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Upon his return from Sham he prostrated to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as gesture of respect and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited him from repeating it again: “It was narrated that: Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said” When Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: 'What is this, O Muadh?' He said: 'I went to Sham and saw them prostrating their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.' The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that.“ [Ref: Ibn Majah, B9, H1853] Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said to him, if I were to command such action then wife will be instructed to prostrate to her husband: “The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the one in who hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfill her duty towards Allah until she fulfills her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.' “ [Ref: Ibn Majah, B9, H1853] In another Hadith it is recorded companion Qays Ibn Sad (radiallah ta’ala anhu) narrated that he travelled to Al Hirah. He saw people prostrating to their governor. He came back and said to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) that you are more right of being prostrated infront due to being Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Narrated Qays ibn Sa'd: I went to al-Hirah and saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet, I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B11, H2135] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) enquired if the companion will prostrate to him while passing by his grave, the companion said no. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said then do not do so now: “He said: Tell me , if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B11, H2135] This establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not wished to be respected in a manner which will not be used after his death. The Missed Perfect Opportunity: On these ocasions Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) did not state –: [every] Sajdah in Islam is worship, or [every] Sajdah performed to honor other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk in Islam. If it was Shirk then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) would have stated; it is Shirk in Islam to perform prostration to honor other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Yet we find no Hadith which gives Shirk as reason for prohibiting prostration to creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). If prostration to other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by its very nature was worship and resulted major Shirk then Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have pointed out to these companions. These incidents were perfect oppurtunities for teachings that in Islam prostration of respect/reverance is worship even if the actor has no intention of it. Did Companion Ask Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) To Legalize Shirk: Why would the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) seek permission to prostrate to him? Maybe companion didn’t know the true and proper understanding Tawheed/Shirk [as a Khariji knows]? How likely is that a companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) who has been a Muslim for years didn’t understand Tawheed/Shirk? Or when did companions sought permission of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to perform acts of worship to him or sought permission to legalize polytheistic beliefs? How often if ever, a companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sought permission to worship his mother or father or anyone else? Did a companion ever seek permission from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) to believe in Ilah other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? If prostration to other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was act which nullified Tawheed in Islam the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) would have known it. Can anyone contemplate a companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) didn’t understand who has the right to be worshiped? Or can you comprehend, a companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) not knowing that prostration of worship was sole right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Prostration by itself, if performed to honor anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), is not Shirk/worship. If it was then companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) would have known and would not have dared to seek permission for something which is Shirk. His seeking of permission only indicates that he understood that act of prostration maybe Haram/Halal if done with intention of respect. Which Aspect Of Prostration Was Forbidden – Respect Or Worship: The polytheistic aspect of prostration (i.e. prostrating to worship a creation) was prohibited when the angels prostrated to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) and also in the Sharia of Prophet Yaqoob (alayhis salaam). It was also prohibited from day one in Sharia of our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Hence the only aspect of Sajdah which was not prohibited in the previous laws of Prophets was - Sajdah of respect. So our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’salam) was given the instruction to prohibit performing of Sajdah of respect for a creation. Sajdah of respect was not Shirk in prior to our Sharia as evidenced by prostration of angels to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) and Prophet Yaqoob’s (alayhis salaam) prostration to his son Prophet Yusuf (alayhi salaam). So Shirk cannot be the reason for prohibiting the Sajdah of respect in our Sharia. If according to the laws of previous Prophets, Sajdah to creation had been only act of worship, then prohibition of Sajdah to creation in our Sharia would have been for Sajdah being act of worship. Had this been the case then prohibition of Sajdah in our Sharia would have been for the reason of Shirk. Yet the evidence establishes Sajdah was not only for worship but also a sign of showing respect and which was not Shirk. Hence the aspect of Sajdah not already forbidden was prohibited in Sharia of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and this aspect was performing Sajdah for a creation to show respect. Prohibited Due To Blocking Means To Shirk: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) prohibited Sajdah of respect to a creation to block the means to Shirk.[1] Sajdah to creation was prohibited in religion of Islam because Sajdah is part of ritual acts of worship. If Sajdah to creation as a mark of respect was permitted then Shaytan might have caused confusion in the minds of Muslims, leading the confused to worship of creation. It is important to point out that Sajdah was means to Shirk and this does not imply only who performs prostration to honor a creation has gone into Shirk. Something which is means to Shirk is means to Shirk and not Shirk. A road which leads to a city is not the city just leads to it. One cannot say I have arrived in the city just when he is on the road to the city. One has to enter the city following the road to be in the city. Similarly road to Shirk leads to Shirk. One becomes guilty of Shirk when one follows the road and enter into Shirk by believing; (1) a creation is deity, (2) or worthy of worship, (3) or intends to worship a creation. Then on the basis of beliefs [1 and 2], action of prostration is worship. Also due to intention of worship the action of prostration is worship. Engaging in means to Shirk does not qualify one as Mushrik until one affirms polytheistic belief. When Prostration To Other Than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Worship And Major Shirk: Prostration by itself is not act of worship. There are two factors which make the prostration worship. The first one is creed and the second intention. If one believes y is a deity and invokes y for help, or praises y, then these acts will be acts of worship. Ritual worship essentially is honoring, respecting with physical actions. If n believes y is Ilah (i.e. deity) besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worthy of worship, then any ritual act of n directed toward y, to honor, to show respect, will be interpreted as an act of worship. Also any action done with intention of worshiping a deity will be taken as an act of worship. Note all aspects have been conditioned with taking y as deity. Absence of this essential belief removes the praising, invoking, respecting, from worship. Conclusion: It is established with sound reasoning that Sajdah was prohibited due to it being a sign of respect. Sajdah of worship performed for a creation was prohibited in the Sharia of all previous Prophets and only aspect which was not prohibited was of respect. Showing of respect with prostration was not Shirk hence prohibition of Sajdah of respect in our Sharia could not have been for the reason of Shirk. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] The concept of ‘blocking the means to Shirk’ is a concept which the anthropomorphist Ibn Taymiyyah invented. In the 17th century Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab the creator of Wahhabi sect of Kharijites employed this concept to prohibit and destroy anything which was deemed by them as means to Shirk. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) blocked the means to Shirk in the religion of Islam as the prohibition of prostration to creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) establishes. Exceeding what has been prohibited due to concept of blocking the means to Shirk in our Sharia is reprehensible innovation. Adhering to restrictions which are invented by Khawarij under the pretext of, blocking means to the Shirk, is akin to taking lords besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The Kharijites prohibit people from facing blessed resting place of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) while making dua to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on the principle this concept. Instead these Khawarij instruct the Muslims to face the direction of Qibla while facing Dua and there saying this is also a innovation, neither Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) instructed the believers to face the Kabah during the Dua. Kabah is our Qibla, the direction we face to perform our Salah. We are under no obligation to face the Kabah when we engage in Dua. Coming back to the topic of, blocking the means to Shirk, if facing the blessed resting place of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) during the Dua is means to Shirk or warrants Shirk then how facing Kabah prostrating or making dua facing toward it is not means to Shirk? They say; do not kiss the walls of chamber where the blessed resting place of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is situated. When a Muslim asks, they say it is Shirk or it is means to Shirk. Will not a Muslim reason with them by saying; how come it is not Shirk when one kisses Hajr Al Aswad nor kissing it is means to the Shirk? If kissing warrants Shirk or is means to Shirk then how come only kissing the walls of blessed chamber is Shirk and not Hajr Al Aswad? And when was facing a specific direction during Dua Shirk and when was kissing something Shirk in Islam? The wise man said, when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wishes to take-away the Eman of a person He first takes his intellect away.

Introduction: A thread with the name of, Misuse Of 12:106 By Salafis, was started by someone with login name of Yunus. Discussion has revolved around the topic of, if polytheists believed in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah or if they were guilty of Shirk Al Rububiyyah. Brother Yunus adheres to Islamic understanding/belief that Arab polytheists were guilty of polytheism even in Rububiyyah. Sister Umm Abdullah is of belief like the typical Najdi Khawarij; Arab polytheists were believers in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah. And these polytheists did not believe their idol-gods were Arbab/Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In order to defend this belief of Khariji Shuyukh of Najd she has presented some excuses and these excuses will be dealt with in this article. Inadvertently the discussion will gravitate toward the subject if the polytheists believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do all as Lord or there are some things are out of His capability of Lordship. But all will come togather to establish the correct Islamic position. 1.0 - Polytheists Believed In Oneness Of Lordship But Were Not Monotheists In Lordship: In response to brother Yunus’s post: “12:106 doesn't in any way prove the existence of people Allah calls pagans and are also *muwahidoon in Rubbubiyah*.”, she wrote: “I don't remember seeing any Salafi scholar saying "Muwahidoon in Rububiyyah" .. they say that Pagan Arabs affirm Tawheed Rububiyyah meaning in the basis and major aspects of Rububiyyah and not in every aspect, as I explained before.” And I quoted the stated of Khariji Shuyukh in which they stated polytheists believed in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah: "Specially if it is known that today the majority of scholars from different (muslim) countries do not know from tawhid except what mushriks (of Makkah) approved and they did not know the meaning of "al-ilahiyya" that "kalimatul-ikhlas" denied its attribution to anything other than Allah.” [Ref: Fath Al Majeed – Sharh Kitab At-Tawheed, Chapter (4) Fear Of Shirk, page 76] “The disbelievers whom the Messenger fought affirmed Tawheed ar-Rububiyah (Oneness of Allah's Lordship), yet their affirmation of Tawheed ar-Rububiyah did not enter them into Islam and did not sanctify their blood or wealth.” [Ref: Explanation Of Four Fundamental Principles, by Shaykh Salih Ibn Al Fawzan, Page 30, Published by: QSEP] And in response to her it was point by me: “Sister to say they believed in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah is to say they were Muwahid in belief of Rububiyyah.” So basically it was pointed out to her that to say, they believed in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah, symentically means they were Muwahidoon in belief of Rububiyyah. Or it could be resolved by asking, are you believer in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah? If the answer is yes ask are you Muwahid in Onessness Of Lordship or Mushrik in beliefe of Oneness of Lordship? Anyone with ounce of knowledge and sense will realise the first question has answered the second by default. And this boils down to mean that the Shuyukh of Khawarij believed polytheists were monotheists in Oneness of Lordship. And this belief of Khawarij is a great lie and a clear disbelief in teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 2.0 - Oneness Of Lordship Means Believing Allah Manages Major Affairs Of Creation: Sister Umm Abdullah wrote: “While in Rububiyyah, it is about Allah's Actions, and the pagan of Makkah did not associate partners in every action of Allah, but in some or many, while in some of the major ones like creation and ownership, they only ascribed to Allah. That is why their idols are called "ilahs" and not "Rabbs".” She stated polytheists believed Tawheed Al Rububiyyah because they believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) manages the following affairs [maybe others as well]: "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, 'Allah'. Say : See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they, if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty? Or if He will some grace for me, can they keep back His grace ?" [Ref: 39:38] “Who created the heavens and the earth, and constrained the sun and the moon (to their appointed work)? they would say: Allah. How then are they turned away? [...] And if thou wert to ask them: Who causeth water to come down from the sky, and therewith reviveth the earth after its death? they verily would say: Allah. Say: Praise be to Allah! But most of them have no sense.” [Ref: 29:61-63] "...who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from earth?” Or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings the living from the dead and the dead from the living? And who is it that rules and regulates all affairs? They will quickly say, Allah. Say : Will you not then show piety to Him'' [Ref: 10:31] “Say: Unto Whom (belongeth) the earth and whosoever is therein, if ye have knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah. Say: Will ye not then remember? Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Arsh? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth).Say: Will ye not then keep duty (unto Him)? Say: In Whose hand is the dominion over all things and He protecteth, while against Him there is no protection, if ye have knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth). Say: How then are ye bewitched? “[Ref: 23:84-89] Polytheists of Arabia believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) managed all the mentioned – major affairs – quoted in the verses [and maybe more affairs]. 2.1 - Belief In Rububiyyah Is Not Belief In Tawheed Al Rububiyyah: Believing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) manages all these affairs and more does not make anyone believer in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah. Firstly, polytheists have not believed in complete Al-Rububiyyah but they have believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only manages major affairs of universe (i.e. major affairs of Al-Rububiyyah). Secondly, polytheists have not believed in Tawheed. Tawheed is belief of Oneness in, Dhaat (i.e. Essence), Asma Wal Sifaat (i.e. Names and Attributes) which is inclusive of Rububiyyah and Afaal (i.e. Actions), and Ilahiyyah (i.e. God-hood). Having a belief which negates belief of Oneness in anyone of these aspects negates belief in Tawheed. And there is evidence which establishes they committed Shirk in every mentioned category. Alhasil to term their belief of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) managing the major affairs of universe as Tawheed Al Rububiyyah is without warrant. 3.0 - Ilahs Of Polytheists Lords Or Gods: She wrote: “While in Rububiyyah, it is about Allah's Actions, and the pagan of Makkah did not associate partners in every action of Allah, but in some or many, while in some of the major ones like creation and ownership, they only ascribed to Allah. That is why their idols are called "ilahs" and not "Rabbs".” In an attempt to refute her bold part of statement I quoted another one of my articles, here: “Lat, Uzza, And Manat As Lords Beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] What else did those people believe about the angels apart from believing them to be lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? This question is answered in the following vers of Quran – it reveals they believed these angels were daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Has then your Lord distinguished/honoured you by (giving you) sons, and taken unto Himself daughters in the guise of angels? Verily, you are uttering a dreadful saying!” [Ref: 17:40] “Have you seen Lat and Uzza? And another, the third Manat? What! for you the male child, and for Him, the female?” [Ref: 53:19/21] It was the polytheists of Arabia who believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had three daughters. This establishes the polytheists of Arabia believed Lat, Uzza, Manat to be Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because the polytheists believed these three are angels and hence daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and proof of them taking these daughter-angels as Lords is in the following verse: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] And in response to their attribution of angel-daughters as lord partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “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 describe.” [Ref: 6:100] And in another verse questions how they have come to know if the angels were female in the following verse: “And they have made the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned.” [Ref: 43:16] Indicating the entire philosophy of polytheism is made-up and has no foundation other then their own desires.” To undermine the belief of Muslims she attempted to argue that the verse of Quran was revealed with in context of Jews/Christians [therefore it is regarding them and not polytheists of Arabia]: “As for the ayah (3:80): “Nor would he order you to take angels and Prophets for lords. Would he order you to disbelieve after you have submitted to Allah's Will?” If you check the tafsir of this ayah, you will see that the verse is speaking about the Jews and Christians, and that the reason behind the revelation of this verse is that a group from the Jews came to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and asked him if he is calling them to worship him like the Christians worship Jesus (alayhi assalam); and Allah revealed this ayah.” This will be responded to in next three sections. 3.1 - Introduction To Meaning Of Verse 3:80: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] Taking Prophets as lords was something which Jews/Christians did. And taking the angels as Lords was something which the polytheists did. This verse adresses the Muslims and says the Jews Christians, and polytheists took Prophets and angels as lords and Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salaam) would no instruct you to take them your your lords because he would be inviting you to Kufr. 3.2 – Ezra The Angel In Context Of Revelation Of Verse 3:80: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states regarding the belief of a Jewish sect that Uzair was son of God: “The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth.” [Ref: 9:30] Uzair has been associated with Prophet Ezra of Jewish Bible. In traditional Judeo Christian circles Ezra is regarded as a scribe who helped to restore the OT after it was lost during Babylonian captivity. If this is considered than Ezra would be from amongst those Prophet-Rabbi who has been elevated to status of Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and this charge is evident from the following verse of Quran: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] The hetrodoxical writings of 2nd Ezra (i.e. 2nd Esdras), 3rd Enoch, the angels are reffered as ‘bene ha elohim’[1] (i.e. sons of god) and angel Metatron is believed to be their chief.[2] Traditionally the phrase ‘sons of god’ was mostly used for men pious men. Regarding Ezra the traditional Jewish opinion is/was that none is more pious then the one who committed the books of OT from memory to paper (i.e. Ezra). And based on this it is likely that a faction of them rationlised Uzair to be [an angel and] son of god. Please refer to following article for verification of various details, written by M S M Saifullah & Mustafa Ahmed, at Islamic-Awareness, here. 3.3 - Jesus The Angel In Context Of Revelation Of Verse 3:80: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: (for) would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] “The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth.” [Ref: 9:30] There is concesus amongst scholars that there were some remenants of Ebionite Christians in Arabian Peninsula when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) receieved revelation. And later vast majority of these Christians converted to Islam. According to Epiphanius of Salamis in his book Panarion states [a sect of] Ebionite Christians believed Jesus to be archangel who was adopted by God to be His son. In this case it is likely this sect of Ebionites believed Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is angel son of God and a Lord. The belief of Lordship would fit the following verse: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] 3.4 - Substantiating The Disputed Meaning With Evidence: The verse is not only talking abou Jews/Christians it is inclusive of polytheists of Arabia. Polytheists believed angels were children of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and following verse of proof of their belief: "They say, ‘The All-beneficent has taken offsprings.’ Immaculate is He! Rather they are [His] honoured servants. They do not venture to speak ahead of Him, and they act by His command. He knows that which is before them and that which is behind them, and they do not intercede except for someone He approves of, and they are apprehensive for the fear of Him. Should any of them say, ‘I am a god besides Him,’ We will requite him with hell. Thus do We requite the wrongdoers." [Ref: 21:26/29] And specificly the Polytheists believed their goddesses, Lat, Uzza, Manat were angels and daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore. And I explained the relevent portion of verse (i.e. "Nor would he order you to take angels and prophets for lords.") with verses which establish polytheists belived their trinity goddesses were daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and angels. The evidence followed: “Has then your Lord distinguished/honoured you by (giving you) sons, and taken unto Himself daughters in the guise of angels? Verily, you are uttering a dreadful saying!” [Ref: 17:40] “Have you seen Lat and Uzza? And another, the third Manat? What! for you the male , and for Him, the female?” [Ref: 53:19/21] I had expalined verse of Quran with verses of Quran. 3.5 - Supporting The Interpretation From Tafsir Ibn Abbas: The Islamic understanding is supported by Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Note he does not negate the historical context in which the verse was revealed nor affirms to it. Instead he explained the verse – being inclusive of Pagan Arabs - even though verse was revealed in context of Jews: "(And he commanded you) O people of the Quraysh, Jews and Christians (not that ye should take the angels) as daughters of Allah (and the Prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve) how could Abraham command you to follow disbelief (after ye had surrendered (to Allah)) after he commanded you to follow Islam (completely Surrendering to Allah), saying to you: (Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) Religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered [2:132]). Allah says here: Allah has not sent a Messenger except that He commanded him to follow Islam and not Judaism, Christianity or the worship of idols, as these unbelievers claim. It is also said that this verse was revealed about the claims of the Jews that Muhammad commanded them to love him and worship him as the Christians worshipped Jesus. The Christians and idolaters also made the same claim." [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Al Abbas - 3:80] This establishes that polytheists took the angels to be daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and believed Lat, Uzzat, and Manat are daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And verse 3:80 establishes these daughters were taken as Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 4.0 – Did Pagans Believe Angels Are Daughters Of Allah: She wrote: “And my question still stands, i) where did Allah or His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) say that the pagans of Makkah believed that the Angels or anyone else they claimed are the offspring of Allah (Exalted is He), ii) [or that they] share authority with Allah, and have major attributes of Rububiyyah like creating,, ownership … etc?” In response to her first demand, the following verse of Quran establishes that polytheists believed angels are offsprings of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), I quote the following verse: "They say, ‘The All-beneficent has taken offsprings.’ Immaculate is He! Rather they are [His] honoured servants. They do not venture to speak ahead of Him, and they act by His command. He knows that which is before them and that which is behind them, and they do not intercede except for someone He approves of, and they are apprehensive for the fear of Him. Should any of them say, ‘I am a god besides Him,’ We will requite him with hell. Thus do We requite the wrongdoers." [Ref: 21:26/29] And this understanding is in line with understanding of Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “(And they say) i.e. the people of Mecca: (The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a child) angels as daughters. (Be He glorified!) Allah exonerated Himself from having children or partners (Nay, but are honoured slaves) rather they are, i.e. the angels, are servants whom Allah has honoured with obeying Him; …” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas – 21:26] Shaykh Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir has the following to say: “Here Allah refutes those who claim that He has offspring among the angels -- exalted and sanctified be He. Some of the Arabs believed that the angels were the daughters of Allah, but Allah says: (Glory to Him! They are but honored servants.) meaning, the angels are servants of Allah who are honored by Him and who hold high positions of noble status. They obey Him to the utmost in all their words and deeds.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir – 21:26] This has established that polytheists believed angels are daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and your first demand has been met. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states about people likes of you: “And not equal are the living and the dead. Indeed, Allah causes to hear whom He wills, but you cannot make hear those in the graves.” [Ref: 35:22] And I cannot make those hear the message of Islam who are in destined to enter graves with unbelief. 4.1 – Pagan Arabs Believed Lat, Uzza, Manat To Be Daughters Of Allah: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated that polytheists believe angels are daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but they are honoured servants: They say, ‘The All-beneficent has taken offsprings.’ Immaculate is He! Rather they are [His] honoured servants. They do not venture to speak ahead of Him, and they act by His command. He knows that which is before them and that which is behind them, and they do not intercede except for someone He approves of, and they are apprehensive for the fear of Him. Should any of them say, ‘I am a god besides Him,’ We will requite him with hell. Thus do We requite the wrongdoers." [Ref: 21:26/29] The following verse implies the goddesses of polythiests mentioned in verse are females in belief of Pagan Arabs: “Have you seen Lat and Uzza? And another, the third Manat? What! for you the male , and for Him, the female? That, then, will be an unfair division! These are but names which you have coined - you and your fathers - for which Allah has not sent down any authority. They follow nothing but conjectures and the desires of the soul, while there has already come to them the guidance from their Lord.” [Ref: 53:19/23] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reconnects with the verses 19/23 in the following verse by saying: “Indeed those who do not believe in the Hereafter give female names to the angels.” [Ref: 53:27] The female names given in the context of verse 27 are al-Lat, al-Uzza, and al-Manat. And the following verse also indicates these female-angels and supposed daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) - al-Lat, al- Uzza, al-Manat - were believed to be angel-daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Has then your Lord distinguished/honoured you by (giving you) sons, and taken unto Himself daughters in the guise of angels? Verily, you are uttering a dreadful saying!” [Ref: 17:40] And regarding whom the pagans worship the verse indicates they worship female [angel-daughters - al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Manat - whom they have elevated to status of] deities: “They invoke nothing but female deities besides Him and they invoke nothing but Shaitan (Satan), a persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states regarding taking of angels as lord [daughters], that Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salaam) did not command you to believe in anything as such: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] 4.2 - Sharing Of Authority With Allah And Major Attributes Of Rububiyyah: Sister wrote that she wants me to prove that polytheists believed the offspring daughters/sons share authroity with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and have major attributes which are fundamental for Rububiyyah: “And my question still stands, where did Allah or His Messenger -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam - say that the pagans of Makkah believed that the Angels or anyone else they claimed are the offspring of Allah (Exalted is He), [or that they] share authority with Allah, and have major attributes of Rububiyyah like creating, ownership … etc?” Firstly, there is no need me to establish that shared authority with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Rububiyyah because when it is established that in the belief of polytheists angels are daughters (i.e. Lat, Uzza, Manat) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and these angel daughters are lords than Shirk in Rububiyyah is already established. [Note polytheists beleiving their gods share authority has been established in section 5.3.] Secondly, for Shirk in Rububiyyah to be warranted a partner does not not need to possesse major powers [and attributes] of Rububiyyah. Rather Shirk can be warranted for believing y god is excercising minor powers of Rububiyyah with limited/restricted human capability. And this is agreed even by sister Umm Abdullah that polytheists committed Shirk in minor aspects of Rububiyyah. Than it is clear that polytheists did not believe in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah. Also Islamicly Rububiyyah is part of Ilahiyyah[3] and to believe there is Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will automatically establish the polytheists were guilty of major Shirk in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah. And Quran establishes they committed Shirk in Ilahiyyah. 5.0 – Statement Of Sister Umm Abdullah And Its Meaning: Sister Umm Abdullah wrote: “Allah using the pagan Arab's belief in His Lordship (i.e. Him being the sole Creator, Owner and Sustainer of the Universe) against them in their worshiping of others [gods] besides Him, is proof that they did not believe that those idols they worshiped, nor the angels, were Rabbs like Allah. The Pagans of Makkah attributing some attributes of Rububiyyah like benefit and harm, does not mean they believed they were Rabbs.” Firstly - In conjunction with material of post 17 you seem to be arguing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) uses their affirmation of belief against them to force the Arab polytheists to acknowledge Tawheed Al Ilahiyyah. The basis of your position is on following gounds: polytheists believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is sole Rabb, the only Rabb and since Rububiyyah is characteristic of Ilah. You have established this point in the following post: “The incident that was the reason behind the revelation of this ayah explains to us that those who worship something, are making them Rabbs, even if they don't consider them to be Rabbs [because Rububiyyah is quality of Ilah]. And some groups of people worship Angels, including some pagan Arabs, and by worshiping them they are taking them as Rabbs. And this can be used against them, because when they say that they don't believe in them as "Rabbs", one can say to them "Then why are you worshiping them if they don't posses Rububiyyah in your beliefs? Only The Rabb, The Creator and Owner of all the exists, deserves worship, and since you believe Allah is your Rabb Who Created you and what you worship, then you should be worshiping Him alone." And Allah used their belief in His Rububiyyah in general, and Him being the Rabb, against them in their shirk in Uloohiyah.” [Ref: Sister Umm Abdullah, post #17] Therefore my objective would be to establish, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is has not had polytheists affirm to His Rububiyyah for sake of establishing Tawheed Al Ilahiyyah. Also see footnote one at the end of article. Secondly - Also there are two possible meanings of your statement. The likeness in your statement can be absolute or partial. i) Partial likeness [and generally Tashbih is in one attribute/characteristic and this would] would imply you are saying polytheists didn’t give attribute of Rabb as name to their idol-god and this would be caroborated by the statement which followed: “The Pagans of Makkah attributing some attributes of Rububiyyah like benefit and harm, does not mean they believed they were Rabbs.” ii) Absolute likeness [in Tashbih is rare and maybe not what you intended incase you did then it] would imply you’re saying that polytheists believed even though their gods have limited powers of Rububiyyah but they are not Rabbs, with unlimited powers of Rububiyyah, and being sole Creator, Owner, Sustainer of the Universe like of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is: “Allah using the pagan Arab's belief in His Lordship (i.e. Him being the sole Creator, Owner and Sustainer of the Universe) …” In another place you attempt to argue polytheists didn’t believe in Rububiyyah as they believed it for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “And my question still stands, where did Allah or His Messenger -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- say that the pagans of Makkah believed that the Angels or anyone else they claimed are the offspring of Allah (Exalted is He) share authority with Allah and have major attributes of Rububiyyah like creating,, ownership etc?” And this is due to your belief that polytheists didn’t believe in absolute sense that their gods shared atributes of Rububiyyah with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Both these are quite possible and both these meanings are something that can be used for your position. 5.1 - Foundation For Refutation Of Sister Umm Abdullah’s Argument: It has already been established the Christians take Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) as Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And the Arab polytheists at the very minimum took the angels to be Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). With regards to the three main goddesses of polytheists Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has indicated they are believed to be female angels [daughters]: “So have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza? And Manat, the third - the other one? Is the male for you and for Him the female? That, then, is an unjust division. They are not but [mere] names you have named them - you and your forefathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. Or is there for man whatever he wishes? Rather, to Allah belongs the Hereafter and the first [life]. And how many angels there are in the heavens whose intercession will not avail at all except [only] after Allah has permitted [it] to whom He wills and approves. Indeed, those who do not believe in the Hereafter name the angels female names. And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all.” [Ref: 53: 19/28] In light of this it is established that polytheists and Christians believed their gods to be Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hence any explanation must consider these beliefs of polytheists and an explanation which ignores these beliefs of polytheists cannot be correct. 5.2 - Affirmation Of Rububiyyah To Establish In-Ability Of Idols: When it is established that polytheists affirmed Rububiyyah for their idol-gods then question arises; why does Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) question them and force them to affirm Rububiyyah for Himself? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) questions them and forces them to acknolwedge characterisitics of Rububiyyah for Himself because all they depend upon as creation is believed to be in control of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) even in their own beleif and even they know their idol-lord-gods have no capability of anything. In other words they believe their idol lord-gods to be lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but they know they have no power of Rububiyyah. And in light of this Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “(They the idols are) dead, lifeless, and they know not when they (the people) will be raised up." [Ref: 16:21]"Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you?” [Ref: 5:76] “And they worship besides Allah things that harm them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." [Ref: 10:18] “... Verily those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatches away a thing from them, they will have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought.” [Ref: 22:73] "He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: no son has He begotten, nor has He a partner in His dominion: it is He who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions.” [Ref: 25:2/3] In other words, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has forced them to acknowledge all for Him but has pointed out to them the truth that their idol-lord-gods have no capability whatsoever. Against this point they have no comeback. They are forced to acknowledge in silence that their idol-lord-gods serve no purpose to them [cause they are idols – the create nothing in fact they are created by those who worship them]. Note the obejctive of such verses is to point out inability of their idols to do anything and to make them realise there is no reason to believe idols are lord-gods, and indicate to the polytheists a better alternative; to believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as their sole, the only Ilah and Rabb. And finally, Allah (subhanahu ta’ala) connected Ilahiyyah to Rububiyyah in this verse because Rububiyyah is part of Ilahiyyah: Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection." [Ref: 25:3] Hence by affirming the Oneness of Ilahiyyah they would be affirming oneness of Lordship as well. 5.3 - Affirming Rububiyyah For Allah And Negating Rububiyyah For Lord-Gods Of Polytheists: They believed He is the Lord and the Master of their lord-gods and proof that they believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is superior/supreme Deity is in following Hadith: “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.” The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) 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 circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants to their lord-gods and they grant due to receiving from Him. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants freely without being subject to authority of another but their gods being subjected to authority of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Following verse indicates dependency of their lord-gods upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and at the same time refutes their belief: “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.” [Ref: 16:75] With regards to those polytheists who acknowledged their idol have no power of any sort Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states the following to guide them to Tawheed: “Allah sets forth (another) Parable of two men: one of them dumb, with no power of any sort; a wearisome burden is he to his master; whichever way be directs him, he brings no good: is such a man equal with one who commands Justice, and is on a Straight Way? “ [Ref: 16:76] And some among them believed even though their lord-god was under authority of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) their lord-gods were equal partners in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and this belief is refuted in the following verse: “He sets forth for you a parable from your own-selves: Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs in detail to a people who have sense.” [Ref: 30:28] In light of polytheistic belief that there are many lord-gods Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gives the following similitude: “Allah puts forth a similitude: a (slave) man belonging to many partners (like those who worship others along with Allah) disputing with one another, and a (slave) man belonging entirely to one master. Are those two equal in comparison? All the praises and thanks be to Allah! But most of them know not.” [Ref: 39:29] And then in another verse states what would happen if there were many gods and one creation: “!If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!” [Ref: 21:22] Note confusion would result from all gods excercising their right of Rububiyyah. All wanting to govern the creation in their own way. This establishes that even the polytheists believed Rububiyyah is part of Ilahiyyah otherwise the argument against would be futile. Continuing with the - Rububiyyah is part of Ilahiyyah – Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that if there were many gods then each god would have taken what it has created and would have attempted to over throw the kingdom of another god to become dominant: “Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any god. [If there had been], then each god would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].” [Ref: 23:91] Once establishing all various defects in their beliefs of Rububiyyah then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) refutes them all in clear refutation, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: "He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: no son has He begotten [in form of lord of lords – Prophet Isa], nor has He a partner in His dominion [as an angel lord-god managing affairs of universe]: it is He who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions. Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection." [Ref: 25:2/3] 5.4 - The Real Reason For Which Allah Had Polytheist Affirm His Rububiyyah: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) indicates; polytheists of Arabia did not believe in the day of ressurection: “Or [any] creation of that which is great within your breasts." And they will say, "Who will restore us?" Say, "He who brought you forth the first time." Then they will nod their heads toward you and say, "When is that?" Say, "Perhaps it will be soon.” [Ref: 71:51] “And they will be presented before your Lord in rows, [and He will say], "You have certainly come to Us just as We created you the first time. But you claimed that We would never make for you an appointment." [Ref: 18:48] “And if you are astonished (O Muhammad) then astonishing is their saying, "When we are dust, will we indeed be (brought) into a new creation?" Those are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord, and those will have shackles upon their necks, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” [Ref: 13:5] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states how He manages the affairs as Lord:“It is He who made for you hearing, eyesight, and hearts. Little do you thank. It is He who created you on the earth, and you will be mustered toward Him. And it is He who gives life and brings death and due to Him is the alternation of day and night. Do you not apply reason?” In verse 81 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that Arab polytheists living in time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are like the people of old times in denial of day of ressurection day:“Rather they say just like what the ancients said. They said, ‘What, when we are dead and become dust and bones, shall we be resurrected?’ Certainly we and our fathers were promised this before. (But) these are nothing but myths of the ancients.” In context of denial of day of ressurection Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) questions to them about His powers of Rububiyyah and states they will affirm these powers are of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Say, ‘To whom does the earth belong and whoever it contains, if you know?’ They will say, ‘To Allah.’ Say, ‘Will you not then take admonition?’ Say, ‘Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Great Throne?’ They will say, ‘(They belong) to Allah.’ Say, ‘Will you not then be wary (of Him)?’ Say, ‘In whose hand is the dominion of all things, and who shelters and no shelter can be provided from Him, if you know?’ They will say, ‘(They all belong) to Allah.’ Say, ‘Then how are you being deluded?’” Then in the verse 90 states; what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has revealed [with regards to ressurection after death] is the truth and the saying of polytheists [that there is no such thing as ressurection after death is because] they are liars: “Rather We have brought them the truth, and they are indeed liars.” [Ref: 23:78/90] The context reveals the objective of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was to have polytheists affirm the ability of Rububiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for sake of establishing argument against them that if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does all these which you affirm then how would it be impossible for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to bring you back to existance again. 5.5 - Establishing The Tafsir From Clear Text Of Quran: In verse 80 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated people of old times negated ressurection after death just like the Arabs in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were rejecting it: “Rather they say just like what the ancients said. They said, ‘What, when we are dead and become dust and bones, shall we be resurrected?’ Certainly we and our fathers were promised this before. (But) these are nothing but myths of the ancients.” [Ref: 23:80] From people of old, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions the story of people of Nuh (alayhis salam), and indicates his Ummah did not want to accept the idea of ressurection after death: “And the eminent among his people who disbelieved and denied the meeting of the Hereafter while We had given them luxury in the worldly life said; This is not but a man like yourselves. He eats of that from which you eat and drinks of what you drink. And if you should obey a man like yourselves, indeed, you would then be losers.This is not but a man like yourselves. He eats of that from which you eat and drinks of what you drink. And if you should obey a man like yourselves, indeed, you would then be losers. Does he promise you that when you have died and become dust and bones that you will be brought forth (once more)? How far, how far, is that which you are promised. Life is not but our worldly life - we die and live, but we will not be resurrected.” [Ref:23:33/38] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states how Nuh (alayhis salam) reasoned with them to believe in ressurection after death: “O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then (consider that) indeed, We created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot, and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed - that We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child, and then (We develop you) that you may reach your (time of) maturity. And among you is he who is taken in (early) death, and among you is he who is returned to the most decrepit (old) age so that he knows, after (once having) knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows (something) of every beautiful kind.” [Ref:22:5] Note Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) argued using the characteristics of Rububiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentioned in the verse to establish ability/power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) over raising the dead. In the following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) responds to one who did not believe in ressurection after death: “And he presents for Us an example and forgets his (own) creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?" Say, "He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing." (It is) He who made for you from the green tree, fire, and then from it you ignite. Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes, (it is so); and He is the Knowing Creator. His command is only when He intends a thing that He says to it, "Be," and it is. So exalted is He in whose hand is the realm of all things, and to Him you will be returned.” [Ref: 36:78/83] Note here Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) again has highlighted title of Rabb and his Rububiyyah in order to make the point hit home. 5.6 - Summing The Discussion So Far: It was established that polythiests of Arabia affirmed Rububiyyah for their idol gods. And they knew very well their idol lord-gods were unable to do anything. Therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had them affirm His Rububiyyah to indicate to them that there belief in godhood/lordship of their idols is irrational. Quran establishes inability of idols to do anything and then also deals with belief of Rububiyyah which each group of the polytheists affirmed in their own unique way. The hasil in this regards is that their lord-gods are under authority of a superior and they are unable to do anything by themselves, and therefore it makes no sense to worship, or to ask a minor lord-god to gain favour of supreme Deity. In short these verses in which polytheists of Arabia attest to His Rububiyyah was to establish a common ground regarding the belief of Muslims and Mushrikeen about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Once the common ground was founded Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) established the inability of their gods to do anything while directing them toward His ability in a bid to encourage them to accept Him as the only Lord/Ilah. Note this Tafsir is derived by considering various undeniable facts but the sections, 5.4, and 5.5, actually explain the meaning of verses of - where polytheists are forced to admit Rububiyyah - in their historical context. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) establishes that polytheists believed in His Rububiyyah to establish a common ground and uses it as a launch pad against their rejection of ressurection after death. The real objective for having them affirm Rububiyyah was to reason with them that if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) manages all the affairs of creation including creating you, giving you eye sight, hearing ability, and many more things than would it hard for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to recreate your bodies again for the day of judgment. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) told them their Lord will recreate not just as they were but even the unique finger print of their finger-tips He will recreate for day of ressurection: “I swear by the Day of Resurrection! And I swear by the self-blaming soul! Does man suppose that We shall not put together his bones? We are able to proportion (even) his fingertips!” [Ref: 75:1/4] 5.7 – The Likeness Of Allahs Rububiyyah Responded To: If your intention was to negate title of Rabb for their idol-gods (and idol-gods are inclusive of al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Manat) then it was already was established from Tafsir of Quran as well as from context of 53:19/28. In case you intended absolute likeness in your statement then note I have no where stated; polytheists believed their idol-gods are Arbab like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Meaning I do not believe that polytheists believed their Arbab excercised absolute authority in managing the affairs of creation like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In fact Allama Saeed Ahmad Qazmi (rahimullah) in his book, Maqalat e Qazmi, has clearly stated polytheists believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) excercises authority in major affairs (i.e. amoor e azaam).[4] And absoluteness was/is not our belief and you would be distorting the actual dispute. The dispute was did the polytheists believe their gods were Arbab. And now you have attempted to make the dispute into, did the polytheists believe their gods were Arbab like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The first we affirm, that is to say; we affirm polytheists believed their gods were lords besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and due to which they excercised authority on minor affairs. But the second we do not believe that polytheists believed their gods were lords like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 5.8 – Making Excuses For Tawheed Of Mushrikeen Of Arabia: Also you stated: “The Pagans of Makkah attributing some attributes of Rububiyyah like benefit and harm, does not mean they believed they were Rabbs.” Firstly! You wouldn’t imply Rububiyyah because Arab polytheists attributed some attributes of Rububiyyah (i.e. harm and benefit) to their idol gods. Generosity and kindness reserved for polytheists. Yet for Muslims, [major] Shirk, Mushrik and Takfir knives are always kept in best for to make the slaughter smooth process. What I am hinting at is that you would imply Ilahiyyah just because a Muslim affirms some attributes for a deceased Muslim, as Karamah of deceased Wali-Allah, and believes in Rijal Al Ghayb - men of Ghayb - in a misguided belief due to Hadith of: ’O slaves of Allah help me!’[5] And puts 2 + 2 togather and arrives at understanding that they can be asked for help in time of hardship and then utters: ‘O Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) help me!’ You will not hesitate to infer belief of Ulluhiyyah and Ilahiyyah and charge him of major Shirk, and nullify his/her Nikkah, make spilling of red stuff Halal upon the ‘true’ Muwahid Muslims of purest Tawheed. Yet you have all the excuses for your Mushrik brothers/sisters of Quresh. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, the Khawarij will kill the Muslims and leave the Mushriks alone. In your case the lesser is true, you’ve made excuse for Mushrik Muwahideen brothers/sisters of yours. Yet you, Shaykh of Najd Ibnul Wahhab, and your Khariji sect aka Najdiyyah/Wahhabiyyah make/made no excuse for Tawheed of those who say/said, there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. Instead Shaykh of Najd wrote the Muslims of entire Arabian Peninsula didn’t even know the meaning, there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. And accused the Muslims of major Shirk and murdered them wholesale. And you believed in his lie, and disbelieved in Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shamelessness of Najd has no boundary. It is at home in heart of every member of Khariji group of Iblees/Shaytan [aka Qarn ash-Shaytan]. 6.0 – The Back Tracking Of Sister Umm Abdullah: After sister Umm Abdullah had received a convincing answer to her point mentioned in 3.0 and which was further explained in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, she decided to change the goal post and deleted my content which refuted her innovation. She has changed goal posts on numerous times in many other discussions as well, it seems I have habitual vandetta of misunderstand everything she is successfully refuted by me. And it can be seen on scribd as it was posted on the Khariji forum, here. Now she has changed the goal posts once again and as claimed the verse means: “Since I missed talking about the part about angels in this ayah, some [i.e. Muhammed Ali Razavi] seemed to have misunderstood what I am saying. The incident that was the reason behind the revelation of this ayah explains to us that those who worship something, are making them Rabbs, even if they don't consider them to be Rabbs. And some groups of people worship Angels, including some pagan Arabs, and by worshiping them [as Ilahs beside Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] they are taking them as Rabbs.” Did I misunderstand her, or Fitna is her? If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits it will be answered in due time. 6.1 - The Issue Explained In The Context: Muslims believe that polytheists of Arabia believed their idol-gods are Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The Khariji Shuyukh are of belief that polytheists of Arabian Peninsula believed in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah and the following is proof of this belief of Khariji Shuyukh: "Specially if it is known that today the majority of scholars from different (muslim) countries do not know from tawhid except what mushriks (of Makkah) approved and they did not know the meaning of "al-ilahiyya" that "kalimatul-ikhlas" denied its attribution to anything other than Allah.” [Ref: Fath Al Majeed – Sharh Kitab At-Tawheed, Chapter (4) Fear Of Shirk, page 76] “The disbelievers whom the Messenger fought affirmed Tawheed ar-Rububiyah (Oneness of Allah's Lordship), yet their affirmation of Tawheed ar-Rububiyah did not enter them into Islam and did not sanctify their blood or wealth.” [Ref: Explanation Of Four Fundamental Principles, by Shaykh Salih Ibn Al Fawzan, Page 30, Published by: QSEP] In an attempt to justify their Kufr, Sister Umm Abdullah believes polytheists of Arabia did not believe their idol-gods were Rabbs/Arbab beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but they believed in them as Ilahs/Aaliha. In one of her post, #7, she stated this: “They believe that Allah is "The Rabb". They don't believe their idols are Rabbs, but they did ascribe to them or some of them some attributes of Rububiyah. They called their idols "ilahs" and not "Rabbs".” In simple words, Khawarij believe Arab polytheists believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Rabb and there was no Rabb beside Him. And in words of their Shaykh of Najd the polytheists were believers in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah and this belief was refuted. I responded to her with following verse: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] In an attempt to establish Islamic beliefe that polytheists did commit Shirk in Rububiyyah and the angels are al-Lat, al-Uzza and al-Manat. And they believed these three are angel lord daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Note this verse was the foundation on which the Islamic belief was erected and further developed. Therefore she considered it important to explain away the verse in such a fashion that it does not contradict with her position. Note my explantion of the verse was inclusive of Arab polytheists as well as Christians and [a sect from] Jews. If she managed to exclude the Arab polytheists from this verse she would have successfully demolished the foundation of my argument and so she tried. Note how the exclusivity of verse to Jews and Christians would benefit her and refute my position. Realising the importance she stated the verse was revealed because Jews enquired if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was asking them to worship him like Christians worship Prophet Isa (alayhis salam): “As for the ayah (3:80): “Nor would he order you to take angels and Prophets for lords. Would he order you to disbelieve after you have submitted to Allah's Will?” If you check the tafsir of this ayah, you will see that the verse is speaking about the Jews and Christians, and that the reason behind the revelation of this verse is that a group from the Jews came to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and asked him if he is calling them to worship him like the Christians worship Jesus (alayhi assalam); and Allah revealed this ayah.” In other words the verse was revealed in the context of Jewish question and regarding Jews and Christians. By directing it toward them she negated the inclusion of Arab polytheists into the verse and their exclusion would solidify her position. This is why she convinently ‘forgot’ to deal with the angels part. It would have been better to acknowledge error and say: My bad! I didn’t understand the verse and nor I am familiar with methdology of interpretation of Quran. Alhasil the real objective of sister Umm Abdullah was to exclude Rububiyyah from belief of polytheists but after being check-mated she changed the goal posts. 6.2 - Laying Bare The Distortion Of Quranic Verse: And in reponse to this distortion of verse of Quran by our ‘truest’ Muwahid sister one should note; Christians took Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) as the Lord and they are not guilty of believing in Rububiyyah by affirming Ilahiyyah. In fact their belief of Lordship for Prophet Isa (alayahis salam) is very pronounced in their scriptures. Sister Umm Abdullah, you have Bassam Zawadi on your door step, he is your co-religionist and my ex-co-religionist. He should be questioned in regards to belief of Christians. Following questions would suffice; Do Christians believe Jesus is the Lord, the Lord of Lords? Does the supposed New Testament support such belief? Or do they believe he is just an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? After all instruction is to seek knowledge from those who [are suppose to] know. Here are some NT refferences which establish the Christian belief of Lordship for Prophet Isa (alayhis salam):“Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit.” [Ref: 1st Corin 12:3] “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” [Ref: Romans 10:9] ”That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” [Ref: Phillippians 2:11/12] And even Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states clearly that Christians are guilty of elevating Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) to status of Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] The Christians did not become guilty of Shirk of Rububiyyah by believing in Ilahiyyah, and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not, and did not accuse them of believing in Rububiyyah for Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) due to their belief of Ilahiyyah. Christians, and this includes, Protestants and Catholics, and all Trinitarians, they all believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) is Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and Lord of Lords. 6.3 – The Effect Of Christian Belief Of Lordship On Surah 3 Verse 80: When it is established that Shirk of Rububiyyah upon Christians is not implied from their belief of Ilahiyyah but they actually believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) is Lord, the Lord of lords. Than the same meaning is true with regards to the polytheists of Arabia in this verse: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] And note in this verse there are no words which indicate this Takhsees for Christians. In other words, the verse does not state Christians believed in Rububiyyah but in context of belief of Arab polytheists the Rububiyyah is implied from Ilahiyyah. Absence of Takhsees for any group establishes that meaning of verse is uniform for those who took angels as Lords and those who took Prophets as Lords. And because we know Christians believed/believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) is Lord, and Lord of Lords, therefore the verse is not about implied Rububiyyah but actual affirmation of Rububiyyah for angels and prophets. Note, Quran explicitly also states the fact that Arab polytheists believed in their idol-gods (i.e. Lat, Uzza, Manat, and other gods) as Lords. And this was established in section 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 therefore please refer to it once again. From this we can gather that the verse is not about implied Rububiyyah but is regarding those who believed Rububiyyah for angels and prophets. 6.4 – Sons And Daughters Of Allah As Gods And Lords: Christians took their Prophet as son of God, the lord of Lords, and a sect from Jews took Uzair to be son of God literally. And this is attested by following verse of Quran: “The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth.” [Ref: 9:30] Sons of have attributes of their fathers. In context of these two parties, both sons would be gods (i.e. Ilahs) and possess attributes of Rububiyyah. Affirmation of Godhood is also affirmation of Lordship. Therefore Lordship is natural belief for both and this is why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says to them: “And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] And the point equally applies for those who attribute dauthers to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – polytheists of Arabia – they too are guilty of attributing angels as daughters of Allah and they therefore even if they did not believe their gods are Arbab besides Allah they all are indeed guilty of Shirk of Rububiyyah because they attributed daughter-godesses to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and they affirmed some degree of attributes of Rububiyyah for them. Also note, Islamicly when Godhood is affirmed for anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), any level of belief of Rububiyyah for that false god is enough to warrant major Shirk in Rububiyyah. 7.0 – Belief Of Mushrikeen In Rububiyyah For Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): Sister Umm Abdullah wrote the following: “And Allah used their belief in His Rububiyyah in general, and Him being the Rabb, against them in their shirk in Uloohiyah. And note how the mushriks of Quraysh used the word "ilah" and not "rabb" when objecting to the message of Tawheed that Islam came with. If they had a problem with Islam's teaching of their being only one Rabb, they would have also objected to that … but they only objected to there being one Ilah instead of the many ilahs like they believed.” She basicly stated, polytheists believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the only Lord and there was no objection to belief of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being the only Lord [she implied] therefore they did not believe any lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Firstly - The evidence from Quran and Sunnah has already established that polytheists [at the very minimum] believed the angels to be Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is also established from Quran that polytheists of Arabia believed al-Lat, al-Uzza, and al-Manat were angel dauthers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and goddesses. Evidence regarding which was quoted and discussed in sections; 3.1 to 4.1 and section 5.1. Does Jibraeel (alayhis salam) has to come to you and give you direct message from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructing you to believe in what He has already revealed in His Book? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And whoever has not believed in Allah and His Messenger - then indeed, We have prepared for the disbelievers a Blaze.” [Ref: 48:13] The gate of Wahi is closed and the gate of Nabuwah is closed. The best of speech is Book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and best of guidance is guidance of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And if you choose any way other then religion of Islam it is/will be rejected. Secondly – Why did not they object to Tahweed Al Rububiyyah concept of Islam? You’re looking at Islamic teaching fourteen hundered years later. Much as changed and much has been introduced into it to faciliate better understanding of Islam. And the progress has been made in regards to Tawheed and Shirk. I mean to indicate that Muslims have invented classifications of Tawheed/Shirk -: Al Dhat, Al Asma Wal Sifaat, Al-Afaal/Rububiyyah. And your end the definition of Tawheed/Shirk is Al-Ulluhiyyah, Al Asma Wal Sifaat, Al-Rububiyyah. Unfortunately in your Tawheed (i.e. oneness) the belief of oneness is not essential – like it is in the case of your version of Tawheed Al Rububiyyah but in Islamic version affirmation of Tawheed of Ilahiyyah/Dhat is fundamental for Tawheed Al Rububiyyah. Considering all the later alterations/innovations it has become difficult for the people to see through the smoke. Let go of all of these definitions and return to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like we were instructed to refer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to do so when we dispute. The answer is quite simple, you/we have detailed Tawheed/Shirk into many categories and the polythiests and Quran has not. According to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and in belief of polytheists of Arabia, Rububiyyah is fundamental for Ilah. And this is one reason why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has not clearly/explicitly affirmed Oneness of Rububiyyah for Himself in Quran by saying: He is Allah the One Lord beside Him there is no Lord, or with something similar. Therefore affirmation of many Ilahs beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) automatically amounts to existances of many Arbab beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this would by default erect disbelief of Quranic teaching that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the only Lord. And similarly affirmation of beliefe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Only, the One Ilah, amounts to affirmation of the One, the Only Lord. Thirdly - Polytheists did not believe in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as we the Muslims believe. Rather they believed some aspects of Rububiyyah and negated other aspects. They denied ressurection because they could not comprehend Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being able to recreate human bodies after they have decomposed and remains have scattered through out the earth. A Concise Refutation Of Khawarij Regarding Their Doctrine: The Khawarij believe Tawheed Al Rububiyyah is to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Alone is managing the affairs of universe/creation. And Shirk Al Rububiyyah is to believe a creation also manages the affairs of creation with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[!] They argue polytheists did not believe their gods are Rabb nor they believed their gods manage the affairs of creation. And they conclude therefore they are Muwahideen in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah. The Muslims believe Tawheed Al Rububiyyah is that there is Only One Ilah/Rabb and He Alone manages the affairs of creation as Rabb/Ilah. And Shirk Al Rububiyyah is to believe; there is [completely independent, or completely dependent, or depenent in some aspects and independent in others] Rabb/Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who manages the affairs of creation with Him.[#] To Khawarij we say; fundamental requirements for Tawheed Al Rububiyyah are i) Tawheed ii) and Rububiyyah. One must believe in both to be Muwahid in Al-Rububiyyah. Tawheed/Shirk is of Dhat (i.e. Essence) and Sifaat (i.e. Attributes).[$] All Sifaat [and Asma] of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are connected with His Dhat [including His Rububiyyah] and they cannot exist without His Dhat. Rububiyyah is fundamental for Ilahiyyah and if a Dhat (i.e. Essence) from creation is believed to be Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then automatically Tawheed of Dhat is negated [as well as Tawheed of Sifaat]. Coming to point of polytheists believed Al-Rububiyyah was exclusively for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). One who is believed to be Ilah is also believed as Rabb which is established from the following verse: “Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection." [Ref: 25:3] And we know that polytheists associated many Ilahs as partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore they could not have believed in Al Rububiyyah was uniquely for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is established from Quran that polytheists believed in Al-Rububiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) question is what did they precisely believe? There is abundant evidence in Quran to establish they only believed limited Rububiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence they did not believe in Al-Rububiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as they should have. The Verdict On Who Believes Contrary To Clear Teaching Of Quran: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has clearly stated in numerous verses of Quran, the Arabs are polytheists and to hold belief that they are Muwahid establishes disbelief in these verses. No Taweel is to be accepted in this regard because it is against the apparent and clear teaching of book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And to hold to belief polytheists were Muwahideen in Lordship is clear cut Kufr [due to disbelief in Quranic verses] and to make excuse for one who is guilty of such Kufr is also Kufr. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] In Jewish mysticism – Kabalah - the phrase ‘bene ha elohim’ (i.e. sons of god) used in passages of OT is understood to be refering to angels – example is following passage: “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” [Ref: Gen 6:1/4] This is later development in interpretation of such passages but the basis to interpret them to mean angels existed prior to the interpretation. - [2] “... we can deduce that the inhabitants of Hijaz during Muhammad's time knew portions, at least, of 3 Enoch in association with the Jews. The angels over which Metatron becomes chief are identified in the Enoch traditions as the sons of God, the Bene Elohim, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causer of the flood. In 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the term Son of God can be applied to the Messiah, but most often it is applied to the righteous men, of whom Jewish tradition holds there to be no more righteous than the ones God elected to translate to heaven alive. It is easy, then, to imagine that among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.” [Ref: G. D. Newby, A History Of The Jews Of Arabia, 1988, University Of South Carolina Press, page 61]. - [3] Sister Umm Abdullah’s following statement was based on stated point – inserted by me -: “The incident that was the reason behind the revelation of this ayah explains to us that those who worship something, are making them Rabbs, even if they don't consider them to be Rabbs [because Rububiyyah is quality of Ilah]. And some groups of people worship Angels, including some pagan Arabs, and by worshiping them they are taking them as Rabbs. And this can be used against them, because when they say that they don't believe in them as "Rabbs", one can say to them "Then why are you worshiping them if they don't posses Rububiyyah in your beliefs? Only The Rabb, The Creator and Owner of all the exists, deserves worship, and since you believe Allah is your Rabb Who Created you and what you worship, then you should be worshiping Him alone." And Allah used their belief in His Rububiyyah in general, and Him being the Rabb, against them in their shirk in Uloohiyah.” [Ref: Sister Umm Abdullah, post #17] i) Note the Arab polytheists at the very minimum did believe their angels to be their lord-gods and evidence has already been presented in the article. ii) The basis on which point was made by sister is valid -: Rububiyyah is quality of Ilah. iii) But she has ignored the actual belief of polytheists therefore even her own argument – underlined - would fail against them cause they would simply point out we believe them to be lord-gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and therefore they have the right to be worshipped as our gods. iii) Also sister Umm Abdullah wrote they would be guilty of associating a Rabb with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) due to their worship of idol-gods and this is partly correct because of Islamic teachings of Rububiyyah being part of Ilahiyyah. iiv) In this statement of sister Umm Abdullah, Shirk of Rububiyyah warranted upon Arab polytheists will be due to their worship, and not due to professing belief of lordship for their gods. And the fact is, the polytheists explicitly affirmed Rububiyyah for their idol-gods and angels. Alhasil over-all her point is invalid but the basis on which the point is made is valid. Following is the Halal version of her statement: “The incident that was the reason behind the revelation of this ayah explains to us that those who worship something, are making them Rabbs, even if they don't consider them to be Rabbs because Rububiyyah is quality of Ilah. And some groups of people worship Angels, including some pagan Arabs, and by elevating them to status of Ilah worshiping them they are taking them as Rabbs. And this can be used against them, because when they say that they don't believe in them as "Rabbs", one can say to them "Then why are you believing them to be your Ilahs worshiping them if they don't posses Rububiyyah in your beliefs? Only your Ilah and The Rabb, The Creator and Owner of all the exists, deserves worship, and since you believe Allah is your Rabb Who Created you and what you worship, then you should be worshiping Him alone." And Allah used their belief in His Rububiyyah in general, and Him being the Rabb, against them in their shirk in Uloohiyah.” Please compare to see how meaning is changed. - [4]“Mushrikeen believed that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is enactor/initiator of great affairs [of universe] and with this aqeedah they believed that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has granted some pious worshipers status of god-hood. Therefore they are all creations deserved/rightful ma'bood (i.e. ones deserving worship). So much [deserving of worship] that if any one worships Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) only it will not be maqbool (i.e. accepted) until it is not joined with worship of ibadis saliheen: “(It will be said): "This is because, when Allah Alone was invoked (in worship) you disbelieved (denied), but when partners were joined to Him, you believed! So the judgment is only with Allah, the Most High, the Most Great!” [Ref: 40:12] "You invite me to disbelieve in Allah (and in His Oneness), and to join partners in worship with Him of which I have no knowledge; and I invite you to the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving!” [Ref: 40:42] In fact Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is far above [in the heavens] therefore only His worship is without benefit. These saliheen should be worshiped whom are muqqarib (near/beloved) to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) so we through their blessing become muqarrib of Allah (suhana wa ta'ala). They believed that these worshiped [idols/gods] are sami and baseer and come to our help and aid. They [the Mushrikeen] had carved stones [into idols] with the names of these [ibadis saliheen] and when they faced their worshiped [idol-gods] their focus and direction (i.e. Qibla) would be these stones (i.e. idols). And those who came after them failed to realized the great difference between the stones (i.e. idols) and human. And they made these stones (i.e. idols) as their worshiped [idol-gods].” [Ref: Maqalaat e Kazmi, Vol One, Page 33: Mushrikeen Ka Aqeedah, Edited, addition of verses.] - [5] “The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “The Substitutes (i.e. Abdaal) in this Community are thirty like Ibrahim the Friend of the Merciful. Every time one of them dies, Allah substitutes another one in his place.” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad 5:322] “The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “The earth will never lack forty men similar to the Friend of the Merciful [Prophet Ibrahim], and through them people receive rain and are given help. None of them dies except Allah substitutes (Abdaal) another in his place.” Qatada said: “We do not doubt that al-Hasan [al-Basri] is one of them.” [Ref: Mu’jam al-Awsat, by Tabarani] “Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Shurayk who said: My father told me, from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Eesa, from Zayd ibn ‘Ali, from ‘Utbah ibn Ghazwaan, from the Prophet of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) who said: “If one of you loses something, or one of you wants help, and he is in a land in which there are no people, then let him say, ‘O slaves of Allah, help me; O slaves of Allah, help me!’ for Allah has slaves whom we do not see.” [Ref: Tabaraani, Mu‘jam al-Kabeer 17:117] - [6] The result of this is; if it is believed a creation manages some affairs of creation [without affirming belief of Ilahiyyah/Rabubiyyah for that creation] the Khawarij charge the Muslims of committing major Shirk, and of Kufr. - [7] In light of Islamic undestanding; i) Shirk Al Rububiyyah is associating a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as Rabb/Ilah, ii) and believing that this false deity has partnership in managing the affairs of creation. Note Islamicly there are two offences are committed due to Shirk. But the first offence is fundamental for the second offence otherwise the second cannot be offence which warrants major Shirk [but can be reprehensible innovation]. - [8] Scholars have included Asma (i.e. Names) and Afaal (i.e. Actions) as subcategories because some of Sifaat are used as Asma and some Asma are of type which indicate his Afaal.

Wahhabi-Ahle Hadith say heh, tehqeeqi rawayya rakhta heh, magar bunyadi tor par uneeh Khariji nazriyat ka malik heh joh hanbali Wahhabi, ghayr muqallid wahhabi, salafi, waghera kay hen. Yehni yeh bi Musalmanoon ko Mushrik/Kafir tehrata heh aur joh tehratay hen un ki muzammat bi nahin karta. Gustakhana ibaraat ka difa karta heh waghera.

Jistera Sharab kay peenay ka hokam nahin aya thah balkay pehlay hee log peetay thay. Sirf hurmat wahi kay zariyeh huwi. Is'see tera muttah pehlay hi Arab kartay thay sirf hurmat ki wahi Khaybar kay fata honay walay din huwi. Jis par yeh Ahadith daleel hen: Ali bin Abi Talib narrated: "The Prophet prohibited the Mut'ah with women, and the meat of domestic donkeys during (the campaign of) Khaibar." [Tirmadhi, Book 6, Hadith 1121] Narrated `Ali bin Abi Talib: On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the Mut'a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat. [bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 527] Shia say based on following Hadith Hadhrat Umar forbade it: Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248 Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Mut'a (Tamattu’ of Hajj 1846 and Tamattu’ with women), whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them. Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3250 Magar yeh Shia ki ghalat samaj ka nateeja heh. Haqiqat mein Mutah khaybar kay fatah honay walay din hi haram ho chuka thah magar kuch Sahabah is baat ka ilm nahin rakhtay jis waja say woh muttah par amal kartay rahay. Hazrat Umar kay zamanay mein is baat ka ilm jab Hazrat Umar ko in Sahabah kay mamnu mutah karnay par ilm huway toh unoon nay rok deeya. Aur zahir baat heh joh pehlay say hee haram thee us ko woh khud haram nahin kar rahay thay balkay sirf Allah kay nabi kay hokam e shariat ko jari kar rahay thay. Jistera kissi musalman ko yeh pata nah ho kay sharab haram heh aur woh sharab peeyeh magar jab ahle ilm ko maloom ho toh woh ussay rokay. Abh is say yeh mana akhaz karna kay shariat mein mamnu nahin magar Muhammed Ali Razavi nay haram kar deeh heh toh jahalat hogi ya nahin?

Salam alayqum, Brother let me guide you with a Hadith. Please read the entire Hadith: "After Ishmael's mother had died, Abraham came after Ishmael's marriage in order to see his family that he had left before, but he did not find Ishmael there. When he asked Ishmael's wife about him, she replied, 'He has gone in search of our livelihood.' Then he asked her about their way of living and their condition, and she replied, 'We are living in misery; we are living in hardship and destitution,' complaining to him. He said, 'When your husband returns, convey my salutation to him and tell him to change the threshold of the gate (of his house).' When Ishmael came, he seemed to have felt something unusual, so he asked his wife, 'Has anyone visited you?' She replied, 'Yes, an old man of so-and-so description came and asked me about you and I informed him, and he asked about our state of living, and I told him that we were living in a hardship and poverty.' On that Ishmael said, 'Did he advise you anything?' She replied, 'Yes, he told me to convey his salutation to you and to tell you to change the threshold of your gate.' Ishmael said, 'It was my father, and he has ordered me to divorce you. Go back to your family.' So, Ishmael divorced her and married another woman from amongst them (i.e. Jurhum). Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as Allah wished and called on them again but did not find Ishmael. So he came to Ishmael's wife and asked her about Ishmael. She said, 'He has gone in search of our livelihood.' Abraham asked her, 'How are you getting on?' asking her about their sustenance and living. She replied, 'We are prosperous and well-off (i.e. we have everything in abundance).' Then she thanked Allah' Abraham said, 'What kind of food do you eat?' She said. 'Meat.' He said, 'What do you drink?' She said, 'Water." He said, "O Allah! Bless their meat and water." The Prophet added, "At that time they did not have grain, and if they had grain, he would have also invoked Allah to bless it." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "If somebody has only these two things as his sustenance, his health and disposition will be badly affected, unless he lives in Mecca." The Prophet (ﷺ) added," Then Abraham said Ishmael's wife, "When your husband comes, give my regards to him and tell him that he should keep firm the threshold of his gate.' When Ishmael came back, he asked his wife, 'Did anyone call on you?' She replied, 'Yes, a good-looking old man came to me,' so she praised him and added. 'He asked about you, and I informed him, and he asked about our livelihood and I told him that we were in a good condition.' Ishmael asked her, 'Did he give you any piece of advice?' She said, 'Yes, he told me to give his regards to you and ordered that you should keep firm the threshold of your gate.' On that Ishmael said, 'It was my father, and you are the threshold (of the gate). He has ordered me to keep you with me.'" [Ref: Bukhari, Book 55, Hadith 583] Note Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salaam) instructed his son Prophet Ishmael (alayhis salaam) to divorce his wife because she was not pleased in her situation and had complained of poverty. Compare actions of your wife with actions of wife of Prophet Ishmael (alayhis salaam) and see who was worse in disobedience to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala)? And should you change the gate and get a gate which is going to protect your house, your honour, and her own honour. My advice get rid of that gate she isn't worth being your wife or wife of any Muslim. And you have moral responsibility to inform others of her immoral character so they are not affected by her lewdness. A Muslim only wants for another Muslim what he wishes for himself.

Exam kabiliyat/salahiyat maloom karnay kay leyeh hotay hen. Un mein kissi ki cheat karnay mein madad karnay kay nataij buray hen. Deeni lehaz say hat kar, sirf ek misaal lenh, kohi doctori kay exam deh raha heh, aap teen din jagay ussay jawab likh kar behj rahay hen, us nay aap kay tiyar karda jawabat ko likh kar doctor ka exam pass kar leeya ... abh woh doctor banta heh aur logoon ki ult pult ilaaj karta heh, operation karta heh aur banda mar jata heh, woh toh zummedar heh hee aap bi us kay qatal mein qayamat kay din barabar kay shareek hoon gay. Exam sirf banday ki qabliyat check karnay kay leyeh hen aur jitni ziyada qabliyat utni ziyada responsible job milti heh. Aur responsibility jaan aur maal ki heh. Mehnat say agay baren aur auroon ki madad karen takay woh bi aap jesay qabil hoon. tution denh, cheating say exam pass toh karwa saktay hen magar apnay andar salahiyat peda nahin kar saktay. Salahiyat peda karyeh aur is mein logoon ki madad keren.

Introduction: Muslims believe Islam recognises two types of innovations, praiseworthy and blameworthy. And believe praiseworthy innovations are those which have been composed of prophetic Sunnahs, consisting of acts of worship, charity, encouraging good, forbidding evil, and spreading Islamic knowledge, and such innovations earn the initiator and their partaker reward. Blamewothy innovations are those which have been composed what Islam has deemed Haram, Kufr, Shirk, and sinful. And if such innovation is partly or wholely are composed of Kufr than their practioners are guilty of Kufr. And if such innovation is composed of sinful activities than person is guilty of sin and sin is compounded of others act on it. Opponents of Islam on other hand argue there is no such thing as praiseworthy innovation in Islam because all innovations are evil. Muslims justify their understanding based on Ahadith of good Sunnah, whoever introduces a good Sunnah in Islam if it is followed the initiator and the actor both will equally be rewarded without reduction in their reward. Natural meaning of this Hadith is one who innovates a good Sunnah in Islam for him there is reward. Yet the opponents argue against the Islamic position with their baseless arguments. To refute such baseless arguments and to present Islamic understanding in light of Hadith of, and whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah. In which the emphasis was the latter Hadith explains earlier. Private Message From AhlalHdeeth Member: And a Salafi brother sent me a private message on AhlalHdeeth forum regarding the Hadith of Tirmadhi quoted in footnote three, here. While refering to a portion under the heading: Understanding Ahadith Of Good And Evil Sunnah. He quoted underlined statement of mine – which will reproduced in context of actual discussion. And remarked; Hadith is notebly different from what you have claimed. He also stated Hadith has been classed as weak by Imam Tirmadhi, and therefore it cannot be used as evidence. What should be noted is; Salafi antagonist didn’t address the arguments presented and only nit picked. And I would have completely ignored his criticism had he not stated Hadith is weak. But his criticism allowed me to lift the lid of deception employed by enemies of Islam. The Underlined Statement Which Brother Objected On: “When something is designed, or created, or assembled, or thought of, and that tradition, precedent, custom, belief, is not already part of Islam, then what is that something? Would that be prophetic Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? Or would that be an innovation? The words of Hadith itself imply innovation. In another Hadith the general meaning of prophetic statement is exactly same but the word, precedent, is replaced with word, innovation: "And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it, without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677]“And … it in the slightest.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H209] Establishing that even though Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used words good precedent he meant and implied good innovation.” [Note, parts from Ahadith have been omitted.] 0.1 - Hadith Fundamentally Is Same As Ahadith Of Muslim: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “And he who introduces a evil precedent (i.e. Sunnah) in Islam there is upon him the burden of that, and the burden of him also who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And while refering to various versions of quoted Ahadith it was stated the general meaning of Hadith is same as Hadith of Muslim. Innovation is which is not part of Islam, and if something which was not part of Islam and does not agree with its teaching it is evil innovation. And this meaning is obvious if you had paid attention to the following Hadith: “And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it, without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] If you read the Hadith in discussion without the underlined text, than it gives exactly same meaning as Hadith of Muslim. And reading the Hadith with the underlined text, with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), than one has to take it as Tafseel (i.e. explanation) of what an erroneous innovation is. So the Hadith states, whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, and that erroneous innovation is with which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is pleased, and one who introduces such innovation and one who acts on it will receive equale blame of sin. Alhasil Ahadith of evil Sunnah - Muslim, Hadith 6466 - and Hadith of Tirmadhi - Hadith 2677 – give same meaning the only difference is in expressing the meaning. 0.2 - Are The Ahadith Notably Different Or One And The Same: Following Hadith was quoted in the article: "And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins ...” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] This Hadith of – Tirmadhi, H2677 - was not quoted on its own but it was coupled with following Hadith:“And whoever introduces an innovation that is acted upon, will have a burden of sins equivalent to that of those who act upon it ...” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H209] And there is another version of this Hadith which reads: “Whoever starts an innovation with which Allah and his Messenger are not pleased, he will have a (burden of) sin equivalent ...” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H210] Pay attention to the words of these Ahadith and note the additions being to them in each version. It is stated by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “And whoever introduces an innovation that is acted upon, will have a burden of sins equivalent to that of those who act upon it …” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H209] This Hadith is slightly different, words, fil Islam (i.e. in Islam) have been omitted because naturally sin is for [sinful] innovation introduced in Islam, otherwise the Hadith is virtually the same as Hadith of evil Sunnah. And it agrees with various other versions of Hadith of evil Sunnah where the words, in Islam, are absent as here: “And whoever introduces a reprehensible Sunnah that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] Note - Hadith 209 – is vague and does not explain which type of innovation earns the initiator and actor sins. And with this in mind words following words were added; with which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are not pleased. As evidenced here: “Whoever starts an innovation with which Allah and his Messenger are not pleased, he will have a (burden of) sin equivalent to that of …” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H210] With this addition it became evident which type of innovation brings equal sin for initiator and its actor. Now sinful innovation has been defined, what remains is how to classify the innovation which does not please Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and for sake of classification of such innovation, words erroneous innovation were introduced: "And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins ...” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] Hadith 209, was improved by, Hadith 210, and Hadith 210 was improved by Hadith 2677. This naturally implies fundamental meaning of - Ibn Majah, Hadith 209 – is part of two Ahadith - 210 and 2677 - which were improved upon, to further explain the type of innovation intended. Alhasil - Ibn Majah 210 - is sources of improvements and it agrees with - Muslim, Hadith 6466 – therefore naturally meaning of both Ahadith are part of Tirmadhi 2677. 1.0 - Did Imam Tirmadhi Classified The Hadith Weak Or Hassan: You referred to online translation, available on Sunnah.com and stated Hadith is weak even according to Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). Truth of matter is Hadith is Hassan according to Imam Tirmadhi. Jami’at Tirmadhi, Volume 2, Publishers; Darul Ishaat, Translation by Maulana Fazal Ahmad Deobandi, Abwabul Ilm (chapters of knowledge), Acting On Sunnah And Abstaining From Innovation, Page 149, see here. Another publication of Jami’at Tirmadhi, Volume 2, Part One , Publishers; Maktabatul Ilm, Translation by Maulana Nizam Ud-Deen Deobandi, Abwabul Ilm (chapters of knowledge), Acting On Sunnah And Abstaining From Innovation, Page 242, see here. And according to online version, whose publishing details are missing, Page 574, see here. These relevent scans be accessed on SCRIBD, here, here, and here. This establishes Ahadith were graded Hassan by Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) but the distorters did not present his grading correctly. In fact weak grading has been taken from Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zai. Shaykh Zubayr’s weakening of the Hadith is unwarranted and it is demonstration of his basic knowledge of science o Hadith and his excess. 1.1 - The Deception Of Sunnah.Com: Sunnah.com is a very good website because it has contributed greatly toward understanding Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). But this resource website is reminder that one should not take their Deen from Salafi/Deoband published texts. The habbit of these people is to change the books of great scholars of past in such a fashion so the books of great scholars represent heretical understandings of Deobandism/Salafism. Anyway coming back to the topic. I have checked the Sunnah.Com link he provided me, and the source material which it uses. The Hadith at Sunnah.Com ends with words “… without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.’” But the part in which Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) graded the Hadith was not presented by whoever placed the text on search engine. Note even on Sunnah.Com the following words are present in Arabic text: “[Muhammad] Abu Isa [Imam Tirmadhi] said: This Hadith is Hassan. Muhammad bin Uyainah, Missisi is Shami (i.e. Syrian) …” See the words in the link provided, here and here: [“… قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ ‏.‏ وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ هُوَ مِصِّيصِيٌّ شَامِيٌّ”]. Darussalam publishers is stated source for Sunnah.Com database. The Darussalam translation has the following words: “[Abu Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hassan. Muhammad bin Uyainah is Al-Missisi, from Ash-Sham, and Kathir bin Abdullah is Ibn Amr bin Awf Al Muzani.” This establishes that Adminstrator of Sunnah.Com deliberately omitted to conceal how Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) graded the Hadith in discussion. The word (Da’if) is found at the end of Darussalams translation, here, as in: “… without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.’” (Da’if) but this is not part of Imam Tirmadhi’s grading but Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zai’s grading. Alhasil the real blame is upon Admin of Sunnah.Com, or who ever typed the text of Ahadith for the website. None has the right to remove any grading from, Jami at-Tirmadhi of Imam Muhammad Abu Isa (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala), even if one does not agree with his grading. Imam Tirmadhi’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) grading of Ahadith as Sahih, Hassan, is proof of what he believed. Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah) graded the Hadith in discussion as Hassan, and this establishes he believed, one who introduces evil innovation, and those who follow the evil innovation all are equally sinful. If his grading of - Good - was omitted from translation of Jami at-Tirmadhi and anothers grading of - Weak - was inserted than it would give impression that Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah) did not believe so because the Hadith is weak. This is an attempt to converted Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah) to Salafism by tempering with his grading of Ahadith. Likewise countless other scholars of past belonging to Ahle Sunnat have been converted to Salafism. 1.0 - Imam Tirmadhi The Imam Of Hadith And A No-Body: The foolish one has graded it weak thinking he posseses better knowledge of Hadith than Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). But his worth in judging authenticity of Ahadith is of an arrogant imbecile. Imam Tirmadhi’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) grading is sufficient for a Muslim. His knowledge regarding lives of narrators, and their strenths and weaknesses, and his knowledge of science of Hadith was better than nobodys of modern era. And with all knowledge regarding science of Hadith he classified it Hassan, and he did not grade it Hassan due to his ignorance but due to excellence in science of Hadith. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits it, grading of Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) will be established in next section. 1.1 - The Grading Of Hadith According To Science Of Hadith: It is a principle in science of Hadith; when a weak hadith has number of Ahadith than such Hadith is elevated to level of Hassan (i.e. good). Another principle employed is, when a weak Hadith is corroborated by an authentic Hadith than weak Hadith is elevated to level of Hassan. Ibn Majah, Hadith 209 and 210, and Hadith of Tirmadhi 2677 all come togather to strenthen themselves. And all these are strenthened by Ahadith of Muslim, Hadith 2677, and by following version of Nisai: “And whoever sets an evil precedent in Islam, he will have a burden of sin for that, and the burden of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.” [Ref: Nisai, B23, H2555] There are many other AUTHENTIC versions of Ahadith of good/evil Sunnah, all of which add to elevate the grading of Hadith in discussion to level of Hassan. 1.2 - How The Ahadith Of Evil Sunnah Support Tirmadhi 2677: Innovation is something which does not have precedent prior to its origination. And it is recorded that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “And he who introduces a evil precedent (i.e. Sunnah) in Islam there is upon him the burden of that, and the burden of him also who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] “And whoever sets an evil precedent in Islam, he will have a burden of sin for that, and the burden of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.” [Ref: Nisai, B23, H2555] These Ahadith indicate innovation because they tell initiator/actor of evil Sunnah in Islam will earn equal sins. Therefore the evil Sunnah for which sin is earned equally cannot already be part of Islam but is innovated into Islam, and is innovated evil Sunnah. And Hadith of Tirmadhi states: "And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins ...” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] If an innovation was introduced and it was evil, such as thermonuclear weapon (i.e. Hydroge Bomb), but it is not believed to be part of Islam than there is no sin upon one who introduced it. But if use of H-Bomb is considered permissible in Islam than H-Bomb has been made part of Islam. And thereafter any Muslim who deems its usage permissible, and one who employs it as a weapon to target a populace, all are equally responsible and sinful, for murder of innocent non-combatants. Point being made is evil innovation becomes sinful when it is made part of Islam either by judging it permissible or by considering it prophetic Sunnah. Therefore by default Hadith of Tirmadhi is talking about introducing an evil innovation into Islam even if it does not textually state it. In other words, meaning of Hadith is as follows: "And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation [in Islam], which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins ...” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] And it was already explained; the statement, with which Allah is not please nor His Messenger, is Tafseel/Tafsir (i.e. detail/explanation) of what an erroneous innovation is therefore if it is removed meaning of Hadith would not be effected in anyway. As a demonstration: "And whoever introduces [in Islam] an erroneous innovation (i.e. which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger) then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it, without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” Removing the Tafsir of erroneous innovation from the main text of Hadith and inserting it as a additional explanation reconciles the Hadith with Ahadith of Muslim and Nisai. And this goes on to establish the statement made in section - 1.2 – that, Ahadith of evil Sunnah strenthen Hadith of Tirmadhi 2677, and elevate its grading to Hassan. And Hassan is accepted as proof in matters of religion by Ijmah of Muslims. Conclusion: Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) classified the Hadith as Hassan and not as weak. And his grading is supported by principles employed by Muhaditheen. When a weak Hadith has number of chains than they all come togather to elevate the Hadith to level of Hassan. And if a weak Hadith is supported by a Sahih Hadith than the weak Hadith is also strenthened to level of Hassan. The Hadith of Tirmadhi conveys the very same meaning as the Ahadith of evil Sunnah found in Muslim, Nisai, Ibn Majah, and elsewhere. And any detail missing from a version of Hadith can be implied from another version of Hadith because the statements of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explain each other. And to explain the Ahadith by each other is highiest level of commentary. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: An opponent of Islam presented to me the writing of two Salafi Shuyukh and some students of knowledge and indicated if proofs and arguments of Shaykh Ayman bin Khaled and evidence of sister Um Abdullah are refuted he will truly/sincerely consider adopting orthodox Islam. And I obliged and responded to the material, here and here. In the hope, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) makes me means of his guidance. Later brother emailed me material of Shaykh Waheed Al Zaman and requested I consider his material for study also and for possible response. The issue of disagreement, Muslims believe Hadith of, whosoever introduces good Sunnah (i.e. precedent) in Islam and if it is followed by others initiator and its actor both will receive equal reward, tells of reward for innovating good Sunnahs into Islam. On contrary the opponents of Islam argue this Hadith is refering to prophetic Sunnahs and the reward being told for is reviving prophetic Sunnahs. This contradiction between two factions if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits will be comprehensively resolved in light of Quran and Ahadith. Ahadith Relating To The Subject Of Discussion: “Jarir b. Abdullah reported that some desert Arabs clad in woollen clothes came to Allah's Messenger. He saw them in sad plight as they had been hard pressed by need. He (the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) exhorted people to give charity, but they showed some reluctance until (signs) of anger could be seen on his face. Then a person from the Ansar came with a purse containing silver. Then came another person and then other persons followed them in succession until signs of happiness could be seen on his (sacred) face. Thereupon Allah's Messenger said: He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] “The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever sets a good precedent in Islam, he will have the reward for that, and the reward of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest. And whoever sets an evil precedent in Islam, he will have a burden of sin for that, and the burden of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest."' [Ref: Nisa’i, B23, H2555] “The Messenger of Allah said: He who introduces good precedent in Islam, there is a reward for him for this (act of goodness) and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards; and he who introduces an evil precedent in Islam, there is upon him the burden of that, and the burden of him also who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2219] Shaykh Waheed Al-Zaman’s Excerpt On Hadith Of Good Sunnah: “RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was'sallam) was pleased due to display of compassion of people. And raising poor [children] and spending of people without measure in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), is obedience to RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). On such ocasions every Muslim should be glad to see kindness of Muslims on their brothers. And from this Hadith ahlul biddat (i.e. people of innovation), of those whose forte is not Hadith, use this [Hadith] to substantiate their new innovations. And [they] say; "every innovation is misguidance..." is specific. And intended meaning [of every innovation is misguidance] is inventions which are batila (i.e. false, without foundation) and reprehensible innovations. And their objective is to continue those innovations which are in agreement with their desires and to exclude them from principle ["every innovation is misguidance ..."]. Yet their this evidence is completely false/without-foundation due to many reasons. (1) Firstly in here honourable [Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam] did not mention a new invention [in the Hadith of, "And whosoever introduces a good Sunnah in Islam ..."] due to which this Hadith [cannot] be specifict to new inventions. (2) Secondly companions did not do anything new for which he stated this ["And whosoever introduces a good Sunnah in Islam ..."]. Therefore implying from this, a new matter/action is completely ignoring [the text] before and [the text] which appears after the words [of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam]. (3) Thirdly سن and سنت means beautiful method (i.e. tareeqah malooka’h, tareeq-ul masluk) in language not newly invented matters. Therefore this Hadith means to reinvigurate same beautiful method and not starting a new matter. (4) Fourthly in hundereds of Ahadith, evils of innovations and new-inventions is mentioned. Than why should RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say in this [Hadith innovations and new-inventions] are good! When this matter is established [that the Hadith of Good Sunnah does not refer to good innovations] than [we] need to understand that [Sunnahs being reffered in this Hadith are] those Sunnahs and [those] rewardworthy [actions], toward which people are no longer being attentive, and have stopped practicing them. One who re-acted these [forgotten and disapeared Sunnahs], that is starting good Sunnah. And in this [similar] manner, one who spreads the [actions which are] disliked and prohibited of Shari’ah – he is in accordance with the second statement [of Hadith:“Whosoever introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam …”]. In this way there is no need to for interpretation (i.e. Taweel) of, every new invention is innovation, nor there is contradiction in the words of law-giver (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). What is left is those matters which originated after the pious predecessors due to need, like [addition of] diacritical marks [in Quran], to label them innovation is disrespectful, but due to Shar’ri need they should be called, mulhiq bil-sunnatah (i.e. in agreement with Sunnah). Similarly those matters [which are found in time of] RasoolAllah (sallallah alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and [during the period of] khayrul quroon (i.e. best three generations) they are Sunnat. And [those matters] exact likeness of which [is not found in prophetic Sunnah] they should be said to be in agreement with Sunnah. [This way] there is no contradiction in the words of law-giver nor a principle needs to be re-interpreted nor faults are result [from words of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam].” [Ref: Sahih Muslim, with Mukhtasar Sharh Nawavi, by Shaykh Waheed Al-Zaman, Vol3, Pages 47/49, Rendered to English by Muhammed Ali Razavi] A.0 – Shaykh Quotes Hadith Of Every Innovation: Shaykh states the Muslims (i.e. ahlul biddah) use Hadith of good Sunnah to establish their innovations: “And from this Hadith ahlul biddat (i.e. people of innovation), of those whose forte is not Hadith, use this [Hadith] to substantiate their new innovations.” He then continues to state that Muslims argue Hadith of every innovation is specific to evil/prohibited innovations: “And [they] say; "every innovation is misguidance..." is specific. And intended meaning [of every innovation is misguidance] is inventions which are batila (i.e. false, without foundation) and reprehensible innovations.” And than Shaykh gives his take and verdict why the Muslims interpret the general words of, every innovation is misguidance, in specific manner: “And their objective is to continue those innovations which are in agreement with their desires and to exclude them from principle ["every innovation is misguidance ..."]. Yet their this evidence is completely false/without-foundation due to many reasons.” A.1 – Why Shaykh Waheed Al Zaman Is Making So Much Effort: Than Shaykh proceeds to argue why the principle of good Sunnah does not refer to good innovated Sunnah. The reason why he needs to refute is because Hadith of good innovated Sunnah is used to contradict literalism of, every innovation is misguidance. And it paves the way for specific interpretation (i.e. takhsees) and exception (i.e. istithnah) of , every innovation is misguidance. Shaykhs objective is to negate its interpretation of, good innovated Sunnahs, from its foundation to protect his sectarian position. If Shaykh fails to substantiate his position than automatically the principle of good Sunnah does refer to innovated good Sunnahs. But suppose Shaykh has successfully established; the principle of good Sunnah does not refer good innovated Sunnahs. Does Shaykh win the argument? Does he get box of celebrations in his grave? Well not as long as there are Muslims on earth and not as long as they have solid grasp of Hadith. Even if the argument of Shaykh is valid he cannot maintain the generality of, every innovation is misguidance, because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made it specific to a particular type of innovation. A.2 – Is Every Innovation A Misguidance: Shaykh Waheed was refering to the following Hadith and attempting to maintain its generality by making taweel of principle of good Sunnah:“And the most evil affairs are the innovations; and every innovation is misguidance." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] And Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said: “On that, 'Umar remarked what an excellent innovation this is (i.e. نِعْمَ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ) but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.” [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] If the literalism of Hadith, every innovation is misguidance, is kept and Taweel is not made in the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with his own words than words of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) would contradict prophetic words. Implications of which would be that a Wahhabi knows meaning of prophetic words, every innovation is misguidance, better than a Sahabi. The very statement of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) establishes, the companions did not understand every innovation to be misguidance. And ofcourse Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) lived with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he knows better in which conext Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated every innovation is misguidance. And it was after knowing the context of the event which resulted, every innovation is misguidance, and knowing toward which type of innovations Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directed, every innovation is misguidance, that Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said, excellent innovation. Well lets find out what he knew in light of Ahadith. A.3 – Every Erroneous Innovation Is Misguidance: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "And whoever starts an erroneous Biddah (i.e. ابْتَدَعَ بِدْعَةَ ضَلاَلَةٍ) with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] This Hadith establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had the concept of evil/erroneous innovation and due to it he stated: "And whoever starts an erroneous Biddah with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it… “ And therefore the Prophetic statement to be followed has to be about erroenous innovations which incurs sin and cannot be about every single innovation:“And the most evil affairs are the innovations; and every innovation is misguidance." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] In simple words, the Hadith of Muslim means, and the most evil affairs are the erroneous innovations, and every such innovation is misguidance. A.4 – Every Innovation Not Composed Of Prophetic Sunnas Is Misguidance: What is erroneous innovation? How do we recognise an erroneous innovation? And what type of innovation is misguidance? These three questions will be answered in the following discussion.It is narrated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "One who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861] Another Hadith explains what that matter rejected matter is: “He who acted any action not from our affair that is rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] In other words rejected matter is any action which is not sanctioned by; (i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) verbally, (ii) demonstrated through action, (iii) or via tacit approval. And a innovation which is composed of; forms of charity, ways worship, good actions, which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not demonstrate by his action, tacitly approved, or commanded verbally, or a belief which is not established from Quranic or prophetic teaching is an evil affair and an innovation. And it was regarding such type of innovations Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated: “And the most evil affairs are the [erroneous] innovations; and every [such] innovation is misguidance." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] Alhasil, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared those innovations to be evil matters and misguidance which are composed of innovated ways of worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And forms of innovated concepts of charity, which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not teach. And composed of teachings of belief and practice which contradict prophetic teachings. And it was regarding such innovations Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also said: "And whoever starts an erroneous Biddah with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] A.5 – Companions Held To Concept Of Good Innovations: It has become evident that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had a specific type of innovation in his mind when he stated, every innovation is misguidance. And this naturally eliminates the idea that literally every innovation is misguidance. And we have proof that companions deemed innovations to be good and first one of them is Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “On that, 'Umar remarked what an excellent innovation this is but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.” [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] And son of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said regarding Salat ad-Duha: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, 2:172] In another narrations his words are narrated as: “At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer.” [Ref: Musannaf Abd al-Razzak] This establishes according to companions innovations can be good even if the matter being practiced is not prophetic Sunnah. And if people closer to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are not saying, absolutely every innovation is misguidance, and only a Wahhabi is saying it. Than decision to choose between Sahabi and Wahhabi is yours. A.6 – Ramblings Of A Self-Centred Salafi: Obviously todays, internet Muhaqiq, and Mutahid mutliq, and Mujadid, backed by Shaykh Google (hafidhahullah) will choose Wahhabi. And will not be satisfied with what the statements of companions have established. What did these two companions know about religion of Islam? They didn’t even have Sahih al-Bukhari. Did they have, www.sunnah.com, to search the Hadith instantly? How would they know proper meaning of prophetic statements when they didn’t have a source which they could reffer to to study meaning of prophetic? I hear your irrefutably self delusional argument. The legal existance of good innovations will be established for type of insane individual who believes companions had no basis for their statements in teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and they made these statements in linguistic sense. Note declaring something to be an, excellent/fine innovation, indicates the one who makes the statement has acknowledged that it is an innovation. In other words he/she acknowledges it did not have precedent prior to it. Also when we make judgment about something it has to be based on our world view. For companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) it is religion of Islam. And their declaring an innovation to be excellent/fine means they have judged it to be in light of prophetic teachings. Therefore they have made a legal judgment and the judgement given in light of prophetic teachings on a matter makes the subject matter of judgment as shar’ri/legal. And in the context of companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) they have declared two practices to be excellent/fine innovations. Which reveals these companions distinguished between praiseworthy innovations and blameworthy innovations. A.7 Good Sunnah Points To Good Innovated Sunnah: Innovation is something which already did not exist and in Islam innovation is which did not exist as teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran or as Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are: “He who introduces good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him in this, and reward of that, also for who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] To introduce x into Islam, it should not be already part of Islam. And if it is already part of Islam, than nothing is being introduced into Islam. And the reward being told is for a Sunnah which is not already part of Islam. And like it was stated innovation is which is not already part of Islam. Hence the reward being told is for a good Sunnah introduced/innovated into Islam. And this could be the basis on which the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced into Islam innovations which were not done by prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 0.0 - Prophet Introduced Good Sunnah Of Sadaqah Into Islam: Shaykh wrote: “Firstly in here honourable [Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam] did not mention a new invention [in the Hadith of, "And whosoever introduces a good Sunnah in Islam ..."] due to which this Hadith [cannot] be specifict to new inventions.” Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced into Islam the concept of giving Sadaqah to poor. Hence the following words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are primarily about his own self: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Implying that the good Sunnah of giving Sadaqah to poor, which he introduced into Islam, will earn same amount of reward for those who follow his prophetic Sunnah. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced into Islam the good Sunnah of giving Sadaqah (i.e. optional charity) than reward being told for introducing good Sunnah is for introducing good innovation. And secondarily these words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) refer to anyone who introduces into Islam any good Sunnah which did not already exist in Islam as a prophetic Sunnah. 0.1 - Son Of Prophet Adam Introduced Evil Sunnah Of Murder In Islam: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently, he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this without their's being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] The position of Ahle Sunnat is that evil Sunnah refers to evil innovation. And position is substantiated with the following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "Whenever a person is murdered unjustly, there is a share from the burden of the crime on the first son of Adam for he was the first to start the Sunnah (i.e.tradition) of murdering." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H552] Son of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) introduced the precedent of murder and before him there was none who murdered anyone. Than it has to be said that he introduced an innovation because innovation is which does not have precedent prior to its origination. In light of this, the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about evil Sunnah was primarily directed toward son of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) and secondarily to anyone who introduces an evil Sunnah/Biddah. 1.0 – Taking Meaning Of Innovation Is Ignoring Context: I will deal with all of it in piecemeal but first in its entirity. Shaykh wrote “Secondly companions did not do anything new for which he stated this ["And whosoever introduces a good Sunnah in Islam ..."]. Therefore implying from this, a new matter/action is completely ignoring [the text] before and [the text] which appears after the words [of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam].” Shaykh if you restrict the words of principle to the context and interpret it in the light of context than you are negating what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated in the principles. Clearly Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is actually implying those Sunnahs which are not already part of Islam, if they are good, and made part of Islam, there is reward for the initiator and its actor. This establishes he told there is reward for innovating good Sunnah into Islam. Your Taweel of these words to mean prophetic Sunnahs and is result of completely ignoring what the principle literally says: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Your Taweel is more accurately Tehreef (i.e. distortion). Did the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not comprehend the words he was uttering? He was given the ability to express in few words or sentences vast meanings (i.e.jawami al kalim) and he knew very well what he stated. Only acceptable Taweel would be which incorporates the context and the clear/emphatic implications of principle. To negate one for sake of other is foolishness. The context and the principles both should fit each other smoothly without negating any aspect of the other. 1.1 - Companions Did Not Introduce Anything New: Shaykh stated: “Secondly companions did not do anything new for which he stated this ["And whosoever introduces a good Sunnah in Islam ..."].” We can agree that companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not introduce anything at this incident. And why should it be that only companions have to introduce something for it to reffer to good innovation? Is it not true that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced into Islam the concept and the practice of giving Sadaqah? Yes, indeed! Than his saying, “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.”, is about his own self. In other words he stated there is reward for him who engages in Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) innovated Sunnah into Islam and for those who follow it. On secondary level, its general permission for his followers to introduce good Sunnahs into Islam which already were not part of it. And he told about the reward for those who introduce such good Sunnahs and those who follow them. 1.2 – Companions Introduced Into Islam Innovated Good Sunnahs: Companions may not have introduced anything new at the events connected with Hadith of good Sunnah but there is proof that they did introduce good Sunnahs into Islam which are followed after them. Firstly Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Taraweeh for three days in congregation. And thereafter he did not perform Taraweeh in congregation until his death. During the Khilafat of Hadhrat Umar (radiallaht a’ala anhu) he collected the companions under leadership of a single Qari and stated this was an excellent innovation: “Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their reciter. On that, 'Umar remarked نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ (i.e. what an excellent innovation this is) but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.' He meant the prayer in the last part of the night. (In those days) people used to pray in the early part of the night." [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] He revived a prophetic Sunnah which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had abandoned. He instituted Taraweeh to be performed for entire month of Ramadhan yet Sunnah was only three days. And entire Quran or more is recited yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) never recited entire Quran as part of Taraweeh. He termed Taraweeh of entire month, under leadership of a Qari, recitation of entire or more Quran, as an excellent innovation. Secondly, during the apostasy wars many Qaris of Quran were matyred, than Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) suggested to first Khalifah Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to compile Quran in book format and he replied to him: “Therefore I consider it advisable that you should have the Qur'an collected.' I said, 'How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?’” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stated: “Umar said: هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ (i.e. By Allah, it is good). `Umar kept on pressing me for that till Allah opened my chest for that for which He had opened the chest of `Umar and I had in that matter, the same opinion as `Umar had." [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] The reason why Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) it is good (i.e. khayr) because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: "Whoever starts a سُنَّةَ خَيْرٍ (i.e. good Sunnah) which is followed, then for him is a reward and the likes of their rewards of whoever follows him, there being nothing diminished from their rewards." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2675] So Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) attempted to direct his attention toward it being khayr (i.e. good) because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has told reward for introducing khayr (i.e. good). Point to note, compiling the Quran in entirity was something which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not do and words of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) itself are proof of this: “I said, 'How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?’” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] And innovation is something which does not have precedence hence Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) suggested innovated good Sunnah (i.e. سُنَّةَ خَيْرٍ). And meaning of Tirmadhi – H2675 - is same as the following Ahadith: “The servant does not introduce سُنَّةً صَالِحَةً (i.e. righteous Sunnah) which is followed after him. The rest of the hadith is the same." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6468] "The servant does not introduce سُنَّةً صَالِحَةً (i.e. good Sunnah) which is followed after him. The rest of the hadith is the same." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6468] Thirdly, Khubaib (radiallah ta’ala anhu), the honourable matyr in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) started the tradition of performing two raka’at Nawafil before execution and invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for punishing his murderers. Hadith records: “When they took him to Al-Hil out of Mecca sanctuary to martyr him, Khubaib requested them. "Allow me to offer a two-rak`at prayer." They allowed him and he prayed two rak`at and then said, "By Allah! Had I not been afraid that you would think I was worried, I would have prayed more." Then he (invoked evil upon them) saying, "O Allah! Count them and kill them one by one, and do not leave anyone of them"' Then he recited: "As I am martyred as a Muslim, I do not care in what way I receive my death for Allah's Sake, for this is for the Cause of Allah. If He wishes, He will bless the cut limbs of my body." Then Abu Sarva, 'Ubqa bin Al-Harith went up to him and killed him. It was Khubaib who set the tradition of praying for any Muslim to be martyred in captivity (before he is executed).” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H325] Once again innovation is something which does not have precedent before it originated and therefore he introduced and set an example to be followed. And in this sense he innovated a good Sunnah into Islam: “He who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good Sunnah in Islam), there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Hence companions did innovate Sunnahs which were not already part of Islam but because they were based on prophetic teaching and served good purpose they were good innovated Sunnahs. 1.3 – You’re Ignoring The Context Of Prophetic Statement: Shaykh stated: “Therefore implying from this, a new matter/action is completely ignoring [the text] before and [the text] which appears after the words [of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam].” If Firstly, if contextual relevance of before and after the prophetic statement is so dear to Shaykh than would our Shaykh educate the Muslims what evil Sunnah did the companions acted on for which warranted the following from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently, he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this without their's being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And if he cannot establish an evil Sunnah practiced by a single companion or by entire group than he should give up contextual agreement theory. 1.4 - Contextual Relevance Theory Put Into Perspective: Note, I am only dealing with contextual agreement theory of Shaykh and I am using his own interpretations. Whatever interpretation he gives good Sunnah I will contextually apply to evil Sunnah part of Hadith and same other way round. (1) Shaykh has stated good Sunnah portion of Hadith is refering to prophetic Sunnahs and is regarding reinvigurating neglected and forgotten prophetic Sunnahs. Than contextually evil Sunnah portion of Hadith has to refer to evil prophetic Sunnahs and should be regarding reinvigurating neglected/forgotten evil prophetic Sunnahs. (2) If those who are ‘dead in their graves’ scream and protest. I ask on basis of what has Shaykh excluded evil Sunnah portion of Hadith refering to prophetic Sunnahs when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not explicitly/implicitly stated to whom good Sunnah portion and evil Sunnah portion of Hadith refers to? Than to divorce evil Sunnah from context of good Sunnah and direct it toward non-prophetic evil Sunnahs (i.e. actions) of general public is unscholarly. (3) If the evil Sunnah portion of Hadith can be directed toward evil sunnahs (i.e. as in evil actions) of people than why should the good Sunnah portion of Hadith be restricted to prophetic Sunnahs? In light of Shaykh’s refering evil Sunnah to sinful actions of people which are not prophetic Sunnahs. Than using his interpretation and contextual agreement theory good Sunnahs can be interpreted to mean righteous actions of people which are not prophetic Sunnahs and following them is rewardworthy. This would attest to good Sunnah being good innovation. (4) And if in light of following Hadith evil Sunnah means evil innovated Sunnah because precedent for murdering another human did not exist prior to this murder: “Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "Whenever a person is murdered unjustly, there is a share from the burden of the crime on the first son of Adam for he was the first to start the Sunnah (i.e.tradition) of murdering." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H552] Than why should portion of good Sunnah not mean good innovated Sunnah? What I mean is contextually, if evil Sunnah portion of Hadith does imply innovation than by logic and contextual relevance same would be true for the good Sunnah portion of Hadith. 1.5 – The Good And Evil Sunnah Is Not Prophetic Sunnah: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is best of example: “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” [Ref: 33:21] And there is no doubt every Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is good by default. And for the record, if the good Sunnah part of Hadith was solely refering to prophetic Sunnahs. Than there was no need to emphasise goodness of Sunnah as stated: “…he who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam …” because by default his all Sunnahs are good: “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” [Ref: 33:21] Hence he needed not to make a distinction between good/evil Sunnahs. There are many instances where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has referred to his own Sunnahs and has not emphasised goodness of them. And if it was solely regarding for those Sunnahs which are already part of Islam than Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not have emphasised entering Sunnahs into Islam as he stated: “…he who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam …” On back of these two points Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have stated: “And he who introduced my Sunnah to a people …” or would have stated: “And he who revived my Sunnah which has been neglected/forgotten …” If he was refering to actions/beliefs which Islam has already declared evil than at the very least, would not have stated informed for entering them into Islam is equally blameworthy for initiator and actor: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam …” He would have stated something like: “And he who introduces an evil Sunnah to a people not already known to them …” Or would have stated similar to: “And he who revives forgotten sinful action …” His emphasis on goodness/evilness of Sunnah and entering of Sunnahs in Islam, is itself serves as proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not solely refer to his own Sunnahs. 1.6 – Contextual Relevance Of Principle And Matter Of Interpretation: If contextual relevance between the historical events and the principles given by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is fundamental and the statement should only be interpreted in the context than should the following Hadith be restricted to its context and interpreted only in light of matter combining three houses as one house: “Sa'd b. Ibrahim reported: I asked Qasim b. Muhammad about a person who had three dwelling houses and he willed away the third part of every one of these houses; he said: All of them could be combined in one house; and then 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] If a Salafi believes and holds to consistant methodology of interpreting Hadith in context and not allowing any deviating from context than arguments against introducing innovations would automatically will be negated due to the Ahadith being unable to contexually support the innovated matter. Point is contextual interpretation is not fundamental for interpreting a principle but it is one way of interpreting Hadith. Principles can be isolated from their contexts and understood individually and applied to matters which were not contedually relevent. Also note many verses of Quran revealed in context of an event had some relevance to context but were not entirely connected with context. Take for example the following verse: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things." [Ref: 33:40] Historical context of its revelation is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) marrying divorced wife of his adopted son. This caused a stir in the community and resulted polytheists saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) married wife of his son. But Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) negated Zayd (radiallah ta’ala anhu) being his biological son. Hence removing the objection for his marriage to Zayd’s ex-wife. Yet also declared that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is end of Prophets, seal of Prophets. Alhasil an Ayaat/Hadith should be interpreted in the context of event but historical event is no way limiting/restricting factor for understanding of Quranic verses or prophetic principles. 2.0 – Distinguishing Between Linguistic And Legal Meaning Of Sunnah: Shaykh stated: “Thirdly سن and سنت means beautiful method (i.e. tareeqah malooka’h) in language not newly invented matters.” Shaykh is mistaken and his mistake is elementary level and inexcusable. Sunnah does not linguistically mean tareeqah maluqa’h (in Arabic, tareeq-qul masluk). It means, way, practice, precedent, and an example. When it used for Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) than its usage is shar’ri. And in shar’ri usage, in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Sunnah means beautiful; conduct, precedent, example, and tradition because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” [Ref: 33:21] Hence when it is used for Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) his Sunnah will automatically be implied to be beautiful conduct. 2.1 – Sunnah Means Good Method Therefore Good Sunnah Refers To Prophetic Sunnah: In the following portion I have corrected elementary mistake of Shaykh and inserted a meaning which would allow correct understanding of his point: “Thirdly [in shari’ri usage] سن and سنت means beautiful method (i.e. tareeqah malooka’h) in language not newly invented matters. Therefore this Hadith means to reinvigurate same beautiful method and not starting a new matter.” Ignoring the minor slip, I am forced to acknowledge this is indeed a very good point, and well thought of point, and deserving of his calibre scholarship, providing someone has capacity to understand it. What he is saying is, in Shar’ri usage, prophetic Sunnah means beautiful/good Sunnah therefore in the Hadith the words good Sunnah refer to prophetic Sunnahs which is a brilliant point. Before the Wahhabis/Salafis take box of Celebrations and start sharing it please read on till end of the section. If the words refer to prophetic Sunnah than it is no Celebrations for you because it implies Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced in Islam a beautiful conduct (i.e. Sadaqah) and those who act on it will receive reward. In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) intrdouced into Islam a practice which did not exist before it, and this gives meaning of innovated good Sunnah: “He who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good Sunnah in Islam), there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Primarily it would be refering to his ownself because he introduced into Islam a good Sunnah of giving Sadaqah [which did not exist before he introduced it into Islam] but secondarily it reffers to all Muslims because he has not restricted its application to his ownself. In other words he would be permitting Muslims to introduce good Sunnahs into Islam which have already have no precedent in Islam. 2.2 – Adressing Claim Good Sunnah Refers To Prophetic Sunnahs: Firstly, if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) intended to imply prophetic Sunnah by using good Sunnah than Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have said something like: “And whoever follows my good Sunnah which I have set in Islam …” There is not a single example in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated anything similar. When ever Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) meant his own Sunnah he was clear about it. He did not cryptively refer to his own Sunnah in any Hadith. 2.3 – Prophet Directing Toward His Sunnah With My Sunnah: And readers should note, when ever Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) talks about his own Sunnah he uses words which direct the refference of Sunnah to him. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “Whoever revives my Sunnah then he has loved me. And whoever loved me, he shall be with me in Paradise.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2678] In another he is reported to have said: "It was narrated from Aishah that: the Messenger of Allah said: “Marriage is part of my sunnah, and whoever does not follow my sunnah has nothing to do with me." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B9, H1919] In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated obey my Sunnah and Sunnah of rightly guided Khulafah: “Indeed, whomever among you lives, he will see much difference. Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa', cling to it with the molars.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2676] In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated one who has abandoned prophetic Sunnah he is cursed: "Six are cursed, being cursed by Allah and by every Prophet that came: …and the one who legalizes what Allah forbade, and the one from my family who legalizes what Allah forbade, and the abandoner of my Sunnah." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B32, H2307] 2.4 – Prophet Was An Arab, Was Able To Speak Arab, And Was Sent To Arabs: If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) solely intended the principles, of good Sunnah, to be reference to his own Sunnahs he would have expressed it. He did not suffer from language problem which non-Arabic speakers have to suffer. He was an Arab, sent to Arabs, spoke Arabic and recieved revelation in Arabic. He had no difficulty comprehending the meaning of his statement and did nor Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had deemed it problematic He would have rectified it via revelation. Principles of good/evil Sunnah are in perfect agreement with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having ability to express vast meanings in short sentences (i.e. jawami al kalim) and the principle in discussion is proof of this: “He who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good Sunnah in Islam), there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] 3.0 – Hundreds Of Ahadith State Innovations Are Evil: Shaykh appeals to existance of many narrations pointing negatively toward innovations to argue innovations are evil and cannot be good: “Fourthly in hundereds of Ahadith, evils of innovations and new-inventions is mentioned. Than why should RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say in this [Hadith innovations and new-inventions] are good!” Shaykh is exagerating about existance of hundereds of narrations pointing negatively toward innovations. Yes there are Ahadith which indicate innovations are misguidance. Yet the type of innovation which is stated to be misguidance has been restricted to a specific type of innovation and this subject has been addressed suffiently in earlier dicussion. 3.1 - Responding To Rhetorical Tone Of Shaykh’s Statement: Dead Shaykh point is pretty straight forward. In the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and of companions not all innovations are evil/misguiding. And this has been established by demonstrating that Hadith of, every innovation is misguidance, is limited to erroneous innovation. And by statements of companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stating innovations are excellent/fine. Companions introduced into Islam Sunnahs which did not have prophetic precedent and are flat-out innovated Sunnahs. Lastly but not leastly, the Ahadith of, good Sunnah in Islam, establish the reward being told is for Sunnahs which are not already part of Islam but are innovated good Sunnahs. 4.0 – Reviving Forgotten & Neglected Sunnah: Shaykh has argued the Hadith of, introducing good Sunnah in Islam, is regarding reviving forgotten and neglected prophetic Sunnahs: “When this matter is established [that the Hadith of Good Sunnah does not refer to good innovations] than [we] need to understand that [Sunnahs being reffered in this Hadith are] those Sunnahs and [those] rewardworthy [actions], toward which people are no longer being attentive, and have stopped practicing them. One who re-acted these [forgotten and disapeared Sunnahs], that is starting good Sunnah.” Firstly, the interpretation of Shaykh would be valid if [introducing good Sunnah in Islam,was absent from Hadith of, whosoever introduces good Sunnah, and] companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had forgotten/neglected prophetic Sunnah. And if the companions had introduced into Islam which was not already part of it. Yet we find Sadaqah was part of Islam and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had initiated it. Therefore it cannot be refering to companions starting a good Sunnah. Secondly there is no proof; companions were guilty of lack altafaat (i.e. focus) toward Sadaqah because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had exhorted them to give Sadaqah minutes before. The were reluctant to practice it for unknown reason on this occasion. 4.1 – Position Of Shaykh In Light Of Ahadith Of Reviving A Prophetic Sunnah: Shaykh is basing his understanding of, reviving/starting a prophetic Sunnah, on following Hadith and not on Hadith of Muslim: “Whoever revives a Sunnah of mine, which people then act upon, will have a reward equivalent to that of those who act upon it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H209] News for the dead Shaykh is, the Ahadith of reviving Sunnah are about after departure/death of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): "I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Whoever revives a Sunnah of mine that dies out, after I have departed, he will have a reward equivalent to that of those among the people who act upon it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H210] "That indeed whoever revives a Sunnah from my Sunnah which has died after me, then for him is a reward similar to whoever acts upon it without diminishing anything from their rewards.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2677] At a time when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was alive, and companions had not forgotten the Sunnah of Sadaqah to impose Sunnah revival understanding of these Ahadith upon Ahadith of, introducing good Sunnah in Islam, is against the prophetic teaching. 5.0 - The Meaning Of Second Statement Is Disliked And Prohibited: Please note, just before this quoted portion Shaykh has stated good Sunnahs are those which are prophetic Sunnahs and rewardworthy actions evidenced from Quran and Ahadith. And generally his position is that good Sunnahs are prophetic Sunnahs and not innovated practices. In this context read the following words of Shaykh Waheed Al Zaman: “And in this [similar] manner, one who spreads the [actions which are] disliked and prohibited in Shari’ah – he is in accordance with the second statement [of Hadith, whosoever introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam].” There were many things which are prohibited in Shari’ah and disliked by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and numerous Ahadith are evidence of this. And Shaykh has connected his statement with earlier portion of writing. So according to Shaykh those actions which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has disliked or declared to be Makhrooh (i.e. disliked), or deemed Haram (i.e. prohibited) are included in evil Sunnah. 5.1 – Cigarettes And Cigars And Tabacco Products: What about cigarettes and cigars? You say Haram or Makrooh? But did the Shari’ah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declare them to be either of the two explicitly? No explicit teaching regarding use of these has been left by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Here! Yet you have deemed them to be unlawful/disliked and you have no right to consider them either of the two in light of your principle, dead Shaykh. Nor you can judge them to be evil Sunnahs without contradicting your written words – Makroohaat & Muharamaat – because you have stated the second portion of Hadith refers to those Muharamaat & Makroohat which are already deemed as such in Shari’ah by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And you will not find any direct/explicit refference stating its either of two. Your judgment regarding them is inferred from ambigous texts (i.e. Dalail Dhanni) and if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had deemed them to be Makrooh or Haram judgment would be found in the prophetic Sunnah. So in your methodology, dead Shaykh, you cannot deem them any of the two and you cannot legitimately and principally deem them to be any. Yet you will acknowledge they’re evil Sunnahs and who ever promotes their usage, promotes something which is disliked/unlawful sinful in Shari’ah. 5.2 – Evil Sunnah Hadith Portion Is Inclusive Of Implied Disliked And Unlawfull: The above establishes; even though cigarettes/cigars explicitly, with mention of their names, have not been declared unlawful/disliked by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but the judgment has been implied due to paralells of cigarettes/cigars with onions/garlic. And due to cigarettes/cigars being harmful to health and are means of wasting wealth they are evil innovated Sunnahs but their evil is not to degree where they become unlawful but their sinfulness is evident from ambigous texts. Alhasil cigarettes are evil Sunnahs (i.e. Makrooh Tahrimi) and they were not explicitly/directly deemed as such by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And they did not exist in the life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor the three generations that followed him and they are innovation. Shaykh stated the evil Sunnah portion of Hadith [only] refers to those activities which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) deemed Haram or Makrooh. And it has been established against this claim of Shaykh. Revealing the portion of Hadith can and does refer to evil innovated Sunnahs. And explicit evidence in regards to this was given from Hadith, son of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) murdering his brother, and started and innovated the tradition of murdering. 6.0 – We Already Taweel, Every Innovation Is Misguidance: Shaykh writes if everything he stated is believed than there would be no need for Taweel for Hadith of, every innovation is misguidance, nor there would be contradiction in the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “In this way there is no need to for interpretation (i.e. Taweel) of, every new invention is innovation, nor there is contradiction in the words of law-giver (i.e. Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).“ Shaykh I am sure you are familiar; you and the Muslims do not take Hadith of, every innovation is misguidance, absolutely literally. We have already excluded certain innovations from it even though they originated two hundred fifty years after, namely Bukhari, Muslim. What ever your justification, you have already made the following statement specific to a particular type of innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and excluded some innovations. 6.1 - There Is Need For Taweel In Light Of Prophetic Teaching: Every/Qullu is never used in its Haqiqi (i.e. true, real) meaning except when it is used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is always restricted due to context when it is used for creation and in regards to activities of creation. In light of this fact, following Hadith is in context of evil/erroneous innovations: “And the most evil affairs are the innovations; and every innovation is misguidance." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] And erroneous innovations are which displease Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because they contradict with their teachings: "And whoever starts an erroneous Biddah with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] And every erroneous innovation, which does not please Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is misguidance, and composed of matters which are not from prophetic Sunnah hence such erroneous misgudiding innovation is to be rejected: "One who innovates something in this matter of ours that is not of it will have it rejected.” [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861] “He who acted any action not from our affair that is rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] And in fashion we make Taweel/Tafsir of prophetic statement in light of prophetic teachings. 6.2 – Shaykhs Artistry In Perspective Of His Argument: Shaykhs fundamental argument was, if the literalism of following two Ahadith is maintained than there would be contradiction between words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “And the most evil affairs are the innovations; and every innovation is misguidance." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] So he thought by interpreting the Hadith of, good Sunnah in Islam, and restricting it to prophetic Sunnahs it would remove the contradiction, and there would be no need for Taweel of, every innovation is misguidance. Unknown to him, he was on position of Taweel even for Hadith of, every innovation is misguidance. He knowingly/unknowingly rejected its absolute literalism. I merely pointed out; Shaykh is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of readers with his artistry. The reality is neither he nor do the Muslims actually take the Hadith in absolute literal meaning. Also there is no contradiction in the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even if his understanding of matter is rejected because Hadith of, every innovation is misguidance, is refering to innovations which are composed of non-prophetic Sunnahs, and Hadith of, good Sunnah in Islam, is refering to those good innovated Sunnahs which are composed of various prophetic Sunnahs. 7.0 - Definitive Judgment Regarding Labelling Diacritical Marking As Innovation: Even though there is evidential permissibility Shaykh has pronounced definitive judgment; using the word for innovation for diacritical markings is disrespectful: “What is left is those matters which originated after the pious predecessors due to need, like [addition of] diacritical marks [in Quran], to label them innovation is disrespectful, but due to Shar’ri need they should be called, mulhiq bil-sunnatah (i.e. in agreement with Sunnah).” And I disagree with his pronouncement because if usage of word innovation was most definitively and in every case with negative canotations then Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was guilty of disrespecting Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by labelling Taraweeh, a three day prophetic Sunnah under leadership of single Qari, as innovation and proof is as follows: “Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their reciter. On that, 'Umar remarked نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ (i.e. what an excellent innovation this is) but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering." [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] I purpose that usage of innovation without prefix; good, excellent, praiseworthy, great, rewardworthy, may be with disrespectful canotations. But with prefixes mentioned alters its negative/disrespectful canotations. And Shaykh knows we the Muslims do not use the word innovation on its own but couple it with a prefix. Or else Shaykh must come to conclusion, he and understand Arabic better then companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and better then Al-Mubdi (i.e. the Originator). 7.1 - Refering To Innovations As Innovations Is Disrespectful Or Acceptable: Without the definitive pronouncement what Shaykh Waheed al-Zaman stated would respectable. Shaykh Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi (rahimullah) in his book, Ja al-Haq Wazahaqal Batil, has stated something similar. If I recall correctly, he wrote fundamentally the word innovation in Arabic is used in negative conotations and therefore innovations of companions are reffered as Sunnahs. And he hinted toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) using the word Sunnah to refer to innovations of his righteous Caliphs in Hadith of, sunnati khulafa ar-rashideen, which is what Shaykh Waheed Al Zaman is stating here: “Similarly those matters [which are found in time of] RasoolAllah (sallallah alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and [during the period of] khayrul quroon (i.e. best three generations) they are Sunnat. And [those matters] exact likeness of which [is not found in prophetic Sunnah] they should be said to be in agreement with Sunnah. “[This way] there is no contradiction in the words of law-giver nor a principle needs to be re-interpreted nor faults are result [from words of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam].” Also Shaykh Hamza Yusuf (may Allah reward him for the good) stated something which confirmed what Shaykh Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) wrote with regards to natural meaning of innovation. With regards to this issue, of diacritical markings, and innovations of companions, I cannot decide. It is entirely up to the individual to call them Sunnahs, or innovated Sunnahs, or innovations and I have to confess, I have no prefference, nor recommendation in this regard. The issue is regards of good Adab (i.e. manners) and one should do as one feels because I see permissbility for all. 7.2 - Innovated Sunnahs In Accordance With Islamic Teachings: Please note, Shaykh does acknowledge diacritical markings are innovations in the sense that they originated after three pious generations but he is against the use of word innovation. Ofcourse these diacritical markings in no way harm, or go against the teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore they are good, and their addition is praiseworthy. Now even though diacritical marks are not a Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but they are good because they agree with the stated principle: “And whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah.” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Mukthireen, Ibn Mas’ud, H3589] And the Muslims have deemed their addition as good and beneficial and this is the judgment of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) also. But their status as good innovations into Islam cannot be negated even though they can be reconciled as being good via prophetic teaching. And labelling them mulhiq bil sunnatah will not change the innovative reality of diacritical marks. Conclusion: Phrase of, every innovation is misguidance, is restricted in context of erroneous innovations which do not please Allah (subhanahau wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and are composed of those acts/beleifs which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not teach, and such innovations are to be rejected. The following principle taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) primarily refers to his ownself and secondarily to a Muslim who introduces into Islam a good innovated Sunnah; whosoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam there is reward for him and those who follow the introduced Sunnah. And this statement is good news of reward for one who introduces into Islam a innovated Sunnah which is good in light of Shari’ah. Innovation means something which doesn;t already have a precedent in Shari’ah. And the Hadith in discussion states, one who introduces in Islam a Sunnah, and this indicates the reward being told is for a Sunnah which is not already part of Islam. Hence the natural meaning and implications are of innovated Sunnah which did not have a precedent in Islam. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Introduction: Various QA websites run by anti-Islam elements and proponents of Najdi Kharijism neo-Hanbalism have argued Tabbaco related items are Haram in Shari’ah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Yet orthodox Muslims adhering to traditional Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, and Hanabali Madhabs have judged the smoking of tabacco items as Makrooh (i.e. disliked). This short article will attempt to adress this topic. Tabacco Related Items Are Permitted: The Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki and traditional Hanbali scholarship is in agreement; cigarettes, cigars, Hukah/Shisha are all Makrooh (i.e. disliked). Only the neo-Hanbalite breed originated from Najd and following foolishness of Khawarij have deemed it Haram. The general rule is given by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the following Ahadith: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] “ … and what He was silent about; then it is amongst which He has excused." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B22, H1726] “Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things do do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning about other things out of mercy for you, and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them.” [Ref: Sunan Darqutni] And meaning of pardoned/excused is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has excused them from reward or punishment and has allowed them: “… and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] And cigarettes/cigars and other tobacco related items were not clearly probhited nor permitted and had there not been other eliments which prohibit their usage they would be permissible. And these reasons would be discussed in next two sections. Onions And Garlic Disliked Due To Smell: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited eating of garlic and onions: “Narrated Ibn `Umar: On the day of Khaiber, Allah's Messenger forbade the eating of garlic and the meat of donkeys.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H526] “Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: The Prophet said, "Whoever has eaten garlic or onion should keep away from us (or should keep away from our mosque).” [Ref: Bukhari, B65, H363] And this prohibition was in context of raw onion and garlic: “Narrated Sharik bin Hanbal That Ali said: "Eating garlic was prohibited except when cooked." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B23, H1808] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) disliking strong smell of onions and garlic: “Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah said: He who eats of this plant (garlic) should not approach our mosque and should not harm us with the odour of garlic.” [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1144] The prohibition of entering Masjid was in context of consuming raw garlic, as it is evident from following Hadith: “Narrated Ata: I heard Jabir bin `Abdullah saying, "The Prophet said, 'Whoever eats (from) this plant (he meant garlic) should keep away from our mosque." I said, "What does he mean by that?" He replied, "I think he means only raw garlic." [Ref: Bukhari, B12, H813] In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have not consumed even cooked garlic due to its odour: “The Prophet said: 'It contained garlic.' So he said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Is it unlawful?' He said: 'No, I dislike it because of its odor.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B23, H1807] Implying Disliked Status Of Tabacco Products From Garlic And Onions: It is a well known fact that Tabacco products produce awful smell. One who smokes cigarettes their breath, clothes, emits disgusting smell of cigarettes and it is by far worse then pleasant smell of raw garlic and onions. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not consume even cooked garlic due to its odour even though it is not Makrooh in cooked form: “The Prophet said: 'It contained garlic.' So he said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Is it unlawful?' He said: 'No, I dislike it because of its odor.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B23, H1807] And this demonstrates his extreme vigilance in saving himself from bad odours. On basis this Hadith, it can implied that the foul smelling Tabbaco products are Makrooh and we should avoid them just as Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) avoided Halal garlic due to its offensive smell. It is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to smell great. And we should use perfume and have good oral hygeine. Disliked Of Tabacco Implied From Damage To Health And Wealth: In addition to this it is waste of wealth and one who does so is said to be brothers of devil (i.e. Jinn), implying wasteful spender is doing bid of Iblees: "Give the kinsman his due, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and squander not (your wealth) in wastefully. Lo! the squanderers were ever brothers of the devils, and the devil was ever an ingrate to his Lord" [Ref: 17:26-27] Smoking also damages health and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated regarding harming ownself: “…make not your own hands contribute to your destruction…” [Ref: 2:195] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “Your body has a right over you, your eyes have a right over you and your wife has a right over you." [Ref: Bukhari, B62, H127] Body having right over the person means, the body is to be proteced and should not be harmed, eyes have right in the sense that they should not see what is unlawful, and wife has right over the husband that, her sustenance, clothing, protection, sexual needs, need to be met and neither of them should be harmed. The Precise Judgment Regarding Smoking Tabacco Products: After considering all the avenues of matter, its smell, damage to health, and wealth, it would be sinful to smoke any Tabacco products. And therefore its proper status in Shari’ah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would be Makrooh Tahrimi. In other words, smoking is sinful activity for all the reasons mentioned and is closer to Haram. Instruction For One Smokes Tabacco Products: Just as with all sinful activities repentance is first and foremost and one smoking should repent for the sins of wasting wealth and damaging health and smelling awfully. One who smokes should have a bath often as he can because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) use to instruct the companions to take bath if they had bad body odour: “Narrated Aisha: The companions of Allah's Messenger used to practice manual labor, so their sweat used to smell, and they were advised to take a bath.” [Ref: Bukhari, B34, H285] Than change his clothes, and should clean his mouth to get rid of the odour of cigarettes. And this should be done by anyone who smokes and attends Masjid. Conclusion: Tabacco produces are not Haram but they are Makrooh Tahrimi due to the smell, damage to health, and wasting wealth. And one who smokes them is guilty of sin and repentence is compulsory. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi