MuhammedAli

Salam alaykum, Mujj say ghalti huwi, Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat nay, Saif al-Naqi, kay hawala say likha thah kay us kay Deobandi Musannaf nay yeh bey-hayahi keeh heh: https://archive.org/details/SaifUlNaqi/page/n16/mode/1up Jis Saif al-Naqi ka hawalay aur saffay Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat nay deeyeh wo upar walay print kay hen. Check kar lenh. Hussain Ahmad Madani ki bey-imaniyun ka phanda ghaliban radd-Shihab as-saqib mein heh. Mein check kar kay idhar link pesh karta hoon.

Salam alaykum Mein Urdu parh leta hoon aur English patti say Urdu likh toh sakta hoon magr Urdu rasm ul-khat mein likhna nahin ata aur na hee in-page ki madad say type kar sakta hoon. Is leyeh mujjay madad chayeh. Deobandiyun ki taraf say Jaa ul-Haq kay radd mein aik kitab likhi gahi heh, Tibyan ul-Haq, is kay jawab mein Kashf ul-Haq likh raha hoon. Is ko paya takmeel taq pochanay wasteh mujjay aik aisay banday ki madad kee zeroorat heh joh meri roman Urdu mein likhay ko Urdu Rasm ul-Khat mein likhay. Agar kohi bhai is naik kam mein madad dena chahta heh toh private message mein contact keren ya phir is number par WhatsApp message kar denh: +447707333278 Jazakallah khair.

Hussain Ahmad Madaani ki sab bey-hayahi ka parda faash Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Imam e Maslak Wa Minhaj, Wa Daee e Quran Wa Ahle Sunnat nay Abhaas e AAkhirah mein parda utha deeya thah: https://www.alahazratnetwork.org/data/01-alahazrat_books/01A-alahazrat_books_gif/103-abhaas_e_akhirah/ Safa 4, 5 say agay.

Muhammed Ali Razavi June 22, 2017 Salam alayqum, Hamit Topcu, ISIS are not Sunni. They are Wahhabi. Abu Muhammad June 23 ISIS are not Sunni nor are you, man. How can Salafism support Khuruj when Salafis don’t even permit peaceful protests on oppressive Muslim rulers. ------------------------------------------------ Muhammed Ali Razavi June 25 How Can Salafis/Wahhabis be Khariji. Have you actually looked at what Wahhabism aka Salafism has contributed to Muslims and then i will tell you what is KHURUJ and if Wahhabis/Salafis are guilty of it or not. In 1750 AD Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his band of bandits equivlents of modern terrorists were looting robbing Hujjaj that passed through Najd. Then these bandits committed hideous acts of terrorism on Sunni population of Arabia . City after city was ransacked and Sunni men, women, children, old, young, male female combatants civilians all were target of butchering and death. Women were raped and enslaved just like what ISIS did to Iraqis. In Syria you have ISIS a Wahhabi terrorist group everyone knows what your Wahhabis did. In Somalia al-Shabab Wahhabi/Salafi terrorist group is whole sale butchering Sunni Muslims and raping women and little girls. In Afghanistan your Wahhabis are committing acts of terrorism. In Mali the Boko Haram are Wahhabi terrorist groups … you telling me Wahhabism is not Kharijis. What are these groups doing of this is not KHURUJ you illiterate jack-. In addition to that Khuruj is not only in sense of fighting … but Khuruj encludes abandoning the Jammah of Muslims. What did Wahhabism do and still does with imputiny? You left the Jammah of Muslims and charged the Jammah of major Shirk, Kufr, Irtad, Biddah, and on this foundation your Shaykh al-Najd in his Kitab at-Tawheed justified killing of Muslims, enslaving of Sunni women and looting of property: “It is absolutely amazing! And more amazing is tat depite their (people of Biddah) reading this story in the books of Tafsir and Hadith, along with their understandings of its meaning, and knowing about the obstruction that Allah has put between them and their hearts, they believed that the deeds of the people of Nuh (i.e. over praising the dead and memorializing their graves with statues) is the best type of worship. They believed in what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden which is the disbelief (Kufr) THAT PERMITS THE TAKING OF LIFE AND WEALTH …” [Ref: Kitab al-Tawheed, Chapter 19, Page 80, Important IOChapter Number 14] Not only this is Takfir, this is instruction to kill Muslims. Guess what did Khawarij do, they made Takfir of Muslims because they believed Sahabah committed major Shirk by giving Hukm right of Allah to creation. And they permitted killing, looting, enslaving of Muslim women, they left the Jammah and they rebelled against the state authority and you contiue to rebel against state authority. You Wahhabis living in WEstern countries, you all are exactly the same as ISIS, Al-Qaidah, you’re all sitting Khariji terrorists, and if a right oppurtunity came you would do exactly to Muslims what Wahhabi groups such as Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Pakistan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, all these groups are Wahhabi and terrorists. If opportunity availed you will do do Sunni Mslims what your Wahhabis are doing and have done but you can live under pretext of we are peaceful and tolerant and loving but reality is your Wahabism is brutal barbaric terrorist sect and proof of it is in your books. I AM A FORMER WAHHABI AKA SALAFI AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOUR LITERATURE TEACHES. You just need right incentive to go out and committ terrorist acts or to join a terrorist group. Only reason Wahhabi majority have remained and did not joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq is lack of awareness of Wahhabi teaching lack of practicing true Wahhabism. True Wahhabism is PURE ISIS and its barbarity and brutality and destruction. Here listened to a Salafi/Wahhabi who was a former grand Imam of Masjid al-Haram and he is a major, major scholar of your Wahhabism, here. In response to question if ISIS is Wahhabi and in response he says ISIS is pure WAHHABISM AND EVERYTHING THEY ARE DOING IS FROM WAHHABI LITERATURE. In conclusion, Khuruj is millitary, as well as theological, and Wahhabism is guilty of both. Entire Tawheed/Shirk determining methodology of Wahhabism/Salafism is of Khawarij. They way their judged Shirk exactly same way Wahhabis judge Shirk and charge Muslims of committing Shirk. This is the ambilical cord WHICH CONNECTS WAHHABISM WITH KHARIJISM. ------------------------------------------------ Abu Muhammad June 25 Alright, let’s calm down & put emotions aside. Let us use reference from books to come to our conclusion on one issue at a time since we don’t know each other so how could we trust each other, right? So let me start. My Claim Our Sh. Muhammad b. ‘Abdil-Wahhab [رحمه اللّٰه] has not used Takfir execissvely. My Evidence Past Scholar, Shaykhul-Islām Muhammad b. 'Abdil-Wahhāb [رحمه اللّٰه] said: “And if we do not make takfīr (declaring one an apostate) on the one who worships the idol that is on the grave of 'Abdul-Qādir, and the idol that is on the grave of Ahmad Al-Badawi and their likes, due to their ignorance, and not having someone to explain them, Then how can we make takfīr on those who do not set up partners with Allah.” Source: [Mu'lafāt Ash-Shaykh Al-Imām: Muhammad b. 'Abdil-Wahhāb, Section III, Fatwas & Issues Pg 11] He [رحمه اللّٰه] also said: "As for what the enemies say about me: I make takfīr by using assumption and according to loyalty, or I make takfīr on the ignorant who the evidence wasn't established upon, then this is a great slander " Source: [Same Source, Section V, Personal Letters P. 25] He [رحمه اللّٰه] said: “Indeed we make takfīr upon the one who sets up partners with Allah in his worship, after we show him the evidence of the invalidity of shirk.” Source: [The Previous Source (p. 60).] He [رحمه اللّٰه] said: “As for takfīr, then I make takfīr on the one who knew the religion of the Prophet, then after what he knew, he insulted it, forbade people from it, waged war on who practiced it, So this is who I make takfīr upon and most of The Ummah - praise be to Allah - aren't like that.” Source: [The Previous Source (p. 38).] (Translated by The THIQA Page Administration) ------------------------------------------------ Muhammed Ali Razavi June 26 About My Self: You said we don’t know each other so I am about to introduce myself to you. My name is Muhammed Ali and I am from England, Derbyshire. I was likely the very first Hanafi Salafi on internet. Long before the term Halafi came to be used for my type of Salafis. I am a former, WAHHABI, and there is my story how and why I left Wahhabis, here. If you want to read my content you’re welcome to read 275 articles, here, all are dedicated to refuting Wahhabism or its offshoot but I recommend you read the reasons why I left. All important articles evidences are linked in it. Now I have introduced myself to you. Word Of Advice: Just to let you know IN-ADVANCE this discussion will eventually, sooner, later will feature on the forum of which I have linked above. Later is more likely because at the moment I am busy formatting a discussion of Istighathah, 137 A4 pages, long, later likely. With improved formatting and content. Rest assured all your posts will remain as they come nothing will change but I will rework my own content. So I do advise you to make a dignified and respectable show because it is better to be a good looser then a bad looser. Setting Some Record Straight: I want to begin with something simple and easy for naive mind of yours. First of all I did not say Shaykh al-Najd made direct Takfir of majority or whole of Jammah of Muslims. I said he charged the Muslims of Kufr, Shirk. And you cannot charge someone of Kufr/Shirk without direct Takfir. Example Wahhabism is group of Kufr in East foretold in Hadith: “Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The head (or summit) of disbelief lies towards the east and the pride and arrogance lie in people who possess horses and camels who are also coarse - the bedouins. Tranquillity lies in people who possess sheep." [Ref: Adab al-Mufrad, here.] I quoted this Hadith from Adab al-Mufrad but same Hadith is found in Bukhari and Muslim, here. I believe Wahhabism is indeed the group of Kufr and Tafseel of it is not important for the point I am intending to make. Your Wahhabism and you are upon Kufr but I am not saying you’re Kafir. Yet it is clear to you if I make Hujjah and you do not repent I will issue Hukm of Kufr against you i.e. declare you’re Kafir. And I will answer if direct Takfir is required or not. Your Objective Shaykh al-Najd Did Not Make Takfir: So your pre-prepared onslaught to justify SHAYKH AL-NAJD DID NOT MAKE TAKFIR OF UMMAH/MUSLIMS IS ABOUT TO FAIL. Takfir, Or No Takfir, Does It Matter, Or No Matter: Direct Takfir, you’re Kafir, you’re outside the fold of Islam, does it matter, or no matter? Takfir is a legal formality and it requires Hujjah but absence of Takfir does not change reality of a Kafir. Zayd believes there is no ressurection after death, no judgment day or its accountability or paradise or hell, he is guilty of major Kufr. Mufti makes no Takfir but says denial of all these if Kufr … does not mean Zayd is not Kafir reality is ZAYD IS A KAFIR if a Mufti issues Takfir, or not, has no bearing on Zayd being Kafir. Because Kafir’s Kufr doesn’t need Hukm to be Kufr, nor Zayd needs to be declared Kafir to be Kafir. Kufr of Zayd and Zayd being Kafir are a reality which needs no attestation from a Mufti. Takfir of a Mufti is a legal formality. If Zayd died upon his beliefs as mentioned he died a Kafir irrespective of lack of formal direct Takfir from Mufti. IN PRINCIPLE EVERY PERSON GUILTY OF MAJOR KUFR/SHIRK IS KAFIR/MUSHRIK UNTIL REPENTANCE. Why does this matter? And what does it got to do with what we are about to discuss? This matters because being Kafir/Mushrik doesn’t require formal direct Takfir. It is related to topic because Shaykh al-Najd has not explicitly made direct, formal Takfir of entire Ummah but from his teachings it can be deduced all of Ummah was Kafir/Mushrik according to his religion of Wahhabism. Your Objective Shaykh al-Najd Did Not Make Takfir Is A Fail: So your pre-prepared copy paste job to prove Shaykh al-Najd did not actually directly formally made Takfir of entire Ummah is about to fail on you because EVEN IF HE DID NOT MAKE TAKFIR … my objective still will be established that according to teaching/belief of Shaykh al-Najd vast majority/entirity of Ummah [with exception to his followers] were guilty of major Kufr/Shirk … IN REALITY AND IN ACTUALITY … but he did not make formal Takfir in such explict words. My Claim About Shaykh al-Najd And His Teachings: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab believed Muslims of Arabia as whole were upon major Shirk. And killing them is permissible, looting property is permissible, enslaving of wives of such people is allowed. And he made Takfir excessively and unjustly. Evidence Shaykh Najd Deemed Muslims As Kafir/Mushrik: "And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favoured. As well as my teachers no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 10, Page 51, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] Comment: Al-Aridh is regions around Saudi province of Najd. Al-Aridh is inclusive of all provinces of Arabia including Hijaz. In other words all the Muslims of Arabia were Kafir/Mushrik. And the only Muslim that existed in the land of Arabia during his time was he himself alone and no one else other then those who accepted his Wahhabism. WAHHABI: But, but, but, he didn’t make Takfir, you lying Sufi Moshrek filth. ANSWER: It makes no difference if he made no Takfir. In formality they were not Kafir/Mushrik but in Haqiqat he establish Kufr/Shirk of them. Just because he formally did not make Takfir they were not Kafir/Mushrik? Are you going to say they were Muslim according to Wahhabism? How can anyone be a Muslim if he does not even know meaning of la ilaha il-Allah? Will someone be Muslim if he does not know linguistic meaning of la ilaha il-Allah and Tafsiri meaning of it? How can someone believe in Tafsir meaning of la ilaha il-Allah when he doesn’t even know it? And how can such a person be Muslim? So you agree they were Kafir/Mushrik despite no formal Takfir? Shaykh al-Najd said Muslims are polytheists: “That the polytheists in our era are more severe in their (committing of) shirk than the first polytheists (during the Prophet's time). This was since the first polytheists sed to associate partners with Allah at times of ease and worship Him sincerely during times of hardship. However, the polytheists in our era constantly commit shirk in times of ease as well as in times of hardship. The proof for this is His - the Exalted …” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, fourth principle, here.] Who were these Mushrikeen? Christians, or Hindus, or Muslims of Arabia? You and I both know he is referring to Muslims of Arabia. You should know this that every Mushrik is Kafir but not every Kafir is Mushrik. And a Mushrik is greater Kafir then a Kafir. In this light see Shaykh al-Najd said Muslims of Arabia which he encountered are worst Mushrikeen then Mushrikeen whom RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encountered. To say to a Muslim you’re Kafir is bad, to say to him you’re Mushrik (i.e. is to say to him you’re worst Kafir there can be) is very bad, but to say you’re worst Mushrik then Mushriks which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encountered is very and very bad Takfir. Shaykh al-Najd didn’t just say this about one or two but entire people of Arabia: “However, the polytheists in our era constantly commit shirk in times of ease as well as in times of hardship.” Are you still going to delude yourself that he did not declare Muslims as whole were Mushrikeen? Shaykh al-Najd wrote: "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir upon the polytheists and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah. So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and loves Islam and its people. This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Quran declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] Shaykh al-Najd said anyone who does not make Takfir of; (i) the polytheists of the Turkish state, (ii) the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah, (iii) others from those who worship the righteous, (iv) and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk. Such a person according to Shaykh al-Najd is: “… a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and loves Islam and its people.” If Shaykh al-Najd did not make Takfir of Muslims of Arabia in accordance with his own teachings he would be Kafir. Why, and how can he abstain from Takfir of people whom he believes were Mushrikeen? He cannot and did not therefore to be Muslim in accordance with his own teachings it must be that he made Takfir of people whom he deemed to be Mushrikeen. And we, I and you, know pretty much entire Arabia was belief of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah whom Shaykh al-Najd charged of being engaged in major Shirk. Further more you’ve been abstaining from Takfir of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and according to teaching of Shaykh al-Najd you’re Moshrek filth like me. You’re Mushrik without affirming Shirk and holding to Tawheed of Wahhabism and refuting Shirk according to Wahhabism. How is that even possible? Shaykh wrote: “So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them …” It needs to be pointed out that Shaykh al-Najd has made a blanket Takfir, carpet bombed with Takfir which covers all people of Ummah except Wahhabis: (i) He said Muslims of Turkish state were Mushrikeen. In his time Turkish state was Ottoman Khilafat. Please see map of Turkish Ottoman empire, here. All the Muslims living in territories of Ottoman empire between 1718 to 1790 were Kafir/Mushrik. (ii) He said grave-worshippers of Makkah are Mushrik. In reality people of Makkah, Madinah, whole of region of Hijaz, and others were already declared to be Mushrikeen in his first qualification … i.e. Turkish State because these territories and others were part of Turkish State, hence all regions were Mushrikeen. (iii) He said others those who worship the righteous are also Mushrikeen. According to Wahhabism Sunnis, Shias worshipped righteous, and only exception to this is Wahhabis and Wahhabinised. And these ‘Mushrikeen Muslims’ were not only limited to Arabian Peninsula rather beliefs of these ‘Mushrikeen’ were spread far and wide. To Indian subcontinent (i.e.India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan Bohtan), modern Russian states, vast majority of Africa (Somalia, Mali, Algeria, Libya, Egypt) Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Malaysia … And according to Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabism due to certain practices this over-whelming majority was/is guilty of major Shir therefore Mushrikeen. This qualification is foundation of blanket, carpet bombing the Muslim Ummah with Takfir. And if you resist this Takfir and abstain from Takfir then you’re Mushrik like the Mushriks. (iv) He said any who leaves Tawheed for Shirk is Kafir (i.e. disbeliever) like them (i.e. Mushrik). This qualification is not targetting anyone specific but it is a general rule. You can consider this qualification as foundation of three previous one. And consider them as explanation of this qualification. Think about all these lands in morden times and realize which ever country you can think of Wahhabism is minority creed and the dominant and prominant creed WAS/IS of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. And Shaykh al-Najd the Khariji was making Takfir of majority of Muslims. You will say, you Sufi Moshrek filth, killing you is Halal for me, you lie you Moshrek filth, you’re making this all up there is no proof about entire Ummah not knowing Tawheed. So here you go proponent of Wahhabism says the same in his own way leading to same conclusion i.e. muslim majority is kafir/Mushrik due to being upon Tawheed of Mushrikeen: قوله: "إن أخوف ما أخاف عليكم الشرك الأصغر" هذا من شفقته صلي الله عليه وسلم بأمته ورحمته ورأفته بهم، فلا خير إلا دلهم عليه وأمرهم به، ولا شر إلا بينه لهم وأخبرهم به ونهاهم عنه; كما قال صلي الله عليه وسلم فيما صح عنه: " ما بعث الله من نبي إلا كان حقا عليه أن يدل أمته على خير ما يعلمه لهم - الحديث ". فإذا كان الشرك الأصغر مخوفا على أصحاب رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم مع كمال علمهم وقوة إيمانهم، فكيف لا يخافه وما فوقه من هو دونهم في العلم والإيمان بمراتب؟ خصوصا إذا عرف أن أكثر علماء الأمصار اليوم لا يعرفون من التوحيد إلا ما أقر به المشركون، وما عرفوا معنى الإلهية التي نفتها كلمة الإخلاص عن كل ما سوى الله- "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.” [Fath Al Majeed – Sharh Kitab At-Tawheed, Chapter (4) Fear Of Shirk, page 76] Author of Fath al-Majeed, grandson of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, aka Shaykh al-Najd the Khariji, has written that vast majority of Ummah is upon Tawheed of Mushrikeen of Makkah. You tell me if being upon Tawheed of Mushrikeen would qualify this vast majority for Islam or Kufr, and for Muslim or Kafir? Shaykh al-Najd also said majority of Muslims were Mushrikeen/Kafireen: "It's known regarding the people of our land and the land of al-Hijaz, that those among them who reject the resurrection (after death) are more than those who accept it and that those (among them) who know the religion are less than those who do not ..." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 10, Page 43, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] "But he came from al-Sham, and they worship Ibn Arabi and have made an idol upon his grave to worship it. I do not mean all of the people of al-Sham, no of course not; rather there does not cease a group [from them] to be upon the truth, even if they're only few." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 2, Page 45, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] Responding To Wahhabi Brother’s Evidence – Arguing He Didn’t Make Takfir: You quoted that Shaykh al-Najd wrote: “And if we do not make takfīr (declaring one an apostate) on the one who worships the idol that is on the grave of 'Abdul-Qādir, and the idol that is on the grave of Ahmad Al-Badawi and their likes, due to their ignorance, and not having someone to explain them, Then how can we make takfīr on those who do not set up partners with Allah.” [Source: Mu'lafāt Ash-Shaykh Al-Imām: Muhammad b. 'Abdil-Wahhāb, Section III, Fatwas & Issues Pg 11] This is in clear contradiction with what I quoted above and I quote again: "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir upon the polytheists and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah. So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and loves Islam and its people. This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Quran declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] Maybe someone is covering his footsteps, or forgetting what he wrote, or maybe his position changed and position of Durar al-Saniyyah was lattest. Maybe it was earlier position … in that case Shaykh al-Najd is covering his tracks. Or maybe he just forgot what he had written earlier. I don’t know where to go from here. If Durar statement is earlier then Shaykh al-Najd is covering his Takfiri tracks in statement of Mu’lafat. If Mu’lafat was later then this doesn’t bid well for you because then you’re acting on Sunnah of Qadiyanis attempting to wash away contradictions by referring to his earlier positions. For your sake I hope you’re doing this due to ignorance and not inspite of knowing the truth about Shaykh al-Najd. However you roll the ball you and your Shaykh al-Najd loose on basis of what he wrote. Two Important Questions On Statement of Mu’lafat ash-Shaykh: (i) If his statement of Takfir which I quoted was earlier one and the one you quoted later then it indicates he retracted. Then why is he saying he did not make Takfir in your quoted statement? (ii) If what I quoted is was his lattest position and what you quoted was his earlier position then why are you trying to cover-up his later position with earlier position? Shaykh al-Najd Making Takfir According To Association/Loyalty: He Said: "As for what the enemies say about me: I make takfīr by using assumption and according to loyalty, or I make takfīr on the ignorant who the evidence wasn't established upon, then this is a great slander " [Same Source, Section V, Personal Letters P. 25] Shaykh said he does not make Takfir based on loyalty and he does not make Takfir of ignorant folk. Yet in the following statement his Takfir is blanket, inclusive of loyalists of Turkish state, ignorant and educated of Makkah: "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir upon the polytheists and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah. So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state andthe grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and …." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] Or do you disagree? You disagree. Question is does Shaykh al-Najd need to declare someone to be Kafir for them to be Kafir? And can they be Kafir/Mushrik if someone was guilty of Kufr or Shirk? Takfir does not need to be made for someone to be Kafir, or Mushrik. And Shaykh Najd deemed some practices to be major Shirk which were not major Shirk. So in Wahhabism these practices became major Shirk/Kufr and in principle according to Wahhabism anyone engaged in these practices was in reality a Kafir/Mushrik but being unable to explain Wahhabi Tawheed and Shirk to these ‘Mushrikeen’ there was no direct Takfir on individual basis. Instead a blanket Takfir was made which is good as direct Takfir. Proving Killing Of Muslims Was/Is Permissible In Wahhabism: I said Shaykh al-Najd permitted killing of Muslims, looting of their property, and enslaving of their women which Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited: “That the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi zva sallam ) was emerged among a people that differed from one another in their worship. Among them were those who worshipped the angels. And among them were those who worshipped the prophets and righteous people. And among them were those who worshipped trees and stones. And among them were those who worshipped the sun and the moon. However, the Messenger of Allah ( sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam ) fought against (all of) them and did not differentiate between any of them.” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, third principle, here.] “It is absolutely amazing! And more amazing is tat depite their (people of Biddah) reading this story in the books of Tafsir and Hadith, along with their understandings of its meaning, and knowing about the obstruction that Allah has put between them and their hearts, they believed that the deeds of the people of Nuh (i.e. over praising the dead and memorializing their graves with statues) is the best type of worship. They believed in what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden which is the disbelief (Kufr) THAT PERMITS THE TAKING OF LIFE AND WEALTH …” [Ref: Kitab al-Tawheed, Chapter 19, Page 80, Important IOChapter Number 14, here.] He said fighting/killing Muslims whom he and his Wahhabism deems Mushrik/Kafir is permissible and taking of life and property is also permissible. Wahhabi armies not only did precisely that to the Sunni Muslims of Arabia but they took the women of Sunni Muslims, their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and raped them to enforce their right of slavery upon them. Unjustly Declaring Beliefs Practices Of Muslims As Shirk And Takfir Of Muslims: Shaykh al-Najd made Takfir of Muslims and permitted killing of Muslims on matters which were not Shirk/Kufr to begin with. Shaykh al-Najd wrote: "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir upon the polytheists and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah. So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state andthe grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and …." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] And lets suppose he did not make direct, formal Takfir of of Muslimf of Arabia, or Ummah. Even this does not change anything because Shaykh al-Najd held belief x, y, z is major Shirk. And even absence of formal Takfir it is still established that in Wahhabism vast majority of Muslims were actually Kafir/Mushrik and only exception to that was Shaykh al-Najd’s followers. And only reason he did not individually make direct Takfir of each and every resident Arabia by mentioning name, Fulan, Ibn Fulan, Ibn Fulan is because task required serveral million written Takfirs. No one makes Takfir like this. We, by that I mean you and I, believe Qadiyanis are Kafir. We judge that on basis of certain criteria. If a person claiming to be Qadiyani meets it we judge him as a Kafir. We judge whole Qadiyaniyyah to be Kafir have we made Hujjah upon all? We haven’t because if Takfir required that we make Hujjah to each and everyone then why would we consider Qadiyanis as Kafirs. When a large group of people is involved in Kufr/Shirk Takfir then scholars give a certain guidelines and by judging on them we can determine if someone is Kafir or not. We don’t need to give Hujjah to entire Qadiyani Jammah to declare them Kafir, or believe they are Kafir, if they meet criteria they are Kafir. Due to large numbers, over whelming majority, 99.99% of Muslims being guilty of major Shirk in teaching of Shaykh al-Najd he could not have issued specific Takfir so he gave a guiding principle on basis of which his followers can judge if someone is Kafir or not. And above quote is proof and example of this kind of guiding principles. Prophet’s Ummah Will Not Worship Idols, Sun, Moon, Tree, Stones: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “It was narrated from Shaddad bin Aws that the Messenger of Allah said: “The thing that I fear most for my nation is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Sunan Ibn Majah, B37, H4205, here.] Another version of same Hadith which is Sahih states: “They will not worship sun, and not moon, and not stones, and not idols …” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Musnad Shaamiyeen, Hadith 16671,here.] Zayd Bin al-Hibab Bin Riyaan’s standing is Sudooq, Hassan ul-Hadith (i.e. truthful; Hassan ul-Hadith). Abdul Wahid Bin Ziyad, he is graded as, Thiqa. Ibadah Bin Nasi is Thiqa. And Shaddad Bin Aws Bin Thabit is a companion and he is above false ascription to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been reported to have said: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] And Satan worship in language of Quran is idol worship and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said in Arabian Peninsula Muslims will not worship idols in obedience to Satan. Now I know you will contradict me and quote me Ahadith of worship of Dhil Khilasa, al-Laat worship. And here is brief answer. The people worshiping al-Laat, Dhil al-Khilasa the booty shakers will be non-Muslims and this will take long after death of Muslims. A cold musky wind will blow and it will take life of all Muslims/Momins and Satan will come to Kafirs and tell them to worship idols and Kafir Arabs will worship idols mentioned in Hadith i.e. Al-Laat, al-Uzza, Dhil al-Khilasa etc … al-Hasil Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said the Muslims will not worship, idols, sun, moon, stones, trees, and Muslims of Arabia will not worship idols in obedience to satan. Yet Shaykh al-Najd contradicted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and attempted to make his teachings voids. Conclusion: Shaykh al-Najd made Takfir of Muslims excessively, or as i put it blanket Takfir, carpet bombing with Takfir. And Shaykh al-Najd held to understandings which if true then whole Ummah other then him and his followers was upon actual Kufr/Shirk. And he made Takfir unjustly and belied the words of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam with his teachings. When he said there will be no major Shirk amongst the whole Muslims of Arabia, no idol worship, no sun, moon, start, stone, tree worship Shaykh al-Najd said there is and was. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi. Abu Muhammad June 27 I’ve read your text and I have understood the following. · You don’t know the difference between ‘Am and Khas rulings. · You don’t know who is considered a Scholar & who isn’t and how do we identify who is one and who isn’t as laymen. · You don’t know the conditions needed to know an individual and his reliability. · You don’t know the difference between using a name, an adjective and a verb in rulings and their meanings. · You don’t know all the exclusive rights of a Mujtahid. · You don’t know the difference between Fatdwa, Hal & Hukm · You don’t know the difference between warnings, dispargements and rulings. · You did not name those Salafi scholars today so you don’t even know the methodology of your opponent. · You don’t know Salafiyah and you didn’t know it back then. So when you have actually studied creed, methodology and related sciences under actual scholars then we will discuss, till then actually study (browsing isn’t studying). Muhammed Ali Razavi June 27 It would have been soo good if you actually addressed what I wrote instead of like all-mighty wise one posted observations about me. It doesn’t matter about me, what matters is what is established from your texts. Instead of going after what I wrote you went after WHO WROTE IT and thats way of loosers. At the very least refute what I wrote then come after me. Because if you did your job then your observations would have been worth something. Any how I am about to deal with just first, observation I don’t know Aam/Khaas one. You Said: “I’ve read your text and I have understood the following: You don’t know the difference between ‘Am and Khas rulings.” Explaining Hukm Aam And Hukm Khaas: (i) Hukm Aam, general ruling applicable to all who meet a certain criteria i.e. Wahhabis are Kafir. (ii) Hukm Khas is a specific ruling, in this context, issued about an individual who meets criteria, and upon whom Hujjah is made, Hukm Khas speicificly targets a person and not a whole group i.e. Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was a Kafir. Your Objective Why You Said What You Said: Now I have explained to you Hukm Aam and Khaas lets refute what you want to hide behind. The reason you said I am unaware of Hukm Aam and Khaas is because you want to imply that CARPET BOMBING OF MUSLIMS WITH TAKFIR is Hukm Aam and does not apply until Hujjah is made, or until criteria of Kufr/Shirk has been met. In other words you hoped to insinuate Shaykh al-Najd issued his judgment regarding those who committed major Shirk but does not include those who were without Kufr/Shirk even if they lived in Turkish state. The Reality Of Hukm Aam And Hukm Khaas And Its Application: Hukm Aam is all inclusive and if conditions of Hukm Aam are met by a person, a whole group, residents of a village, or a city, or a country, then it is applicapable upon all. Let us first burst your bubble about Hukm Aam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.” [Ref: 5:17] This verse says those who believe/say Jesus is son of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are guilty of Kufr. This is Hukm Aam about all those who believe as such. The qualifiying criteria is, any who says Jesus is son of Allah, whoever meets this criteria, be it a Christian living right after the time of Isa (alayhis salam), or during the life of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or be he Catholic or Protestant, be he Black or White, be he male or female, be they old or young, when and if they affirm Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is son of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are guilty of Kufr. Now do you understand Hukm Aam is all inclusive? It is amazing that you’re intelligent person and educated because you have understood. How Hukm Aam And Hukm Khaas Work: Hukm Aam is all inclusive of those who meet the criteria on which the Hukm was issued. Hukm Aam justifies Hukm Khaas. Hukm Khaas is germinates from Hukm Aam. Hukm Aam, those who say Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is son of Allah have committed Kuffr, Donald meets the criteria, on basis of Hukm Aam we have got specific ruling, DONALD committed Kufr. The whole purpose of Hukm Aam is that from it originates and it supports Hukm Khaas whenever Hukm Khaas needs to be issued. You’re telling me I don’t know nature of Hukm Aam yet the reality is you’re totally and completely unaware of it yourself except a basic linguistic understanding of it. Hukm Aam, every innovation is misguidance, this Hukm Aam gives rise to Hukm Khaas, Mawlid is an innovation. Mawlid is innovation what is it based on? It is based on Hukm Aam, every innovation is misguidance. Entire purpose of Hukm Aam is that it supports Hukm Khaas. Statement Of Shaykh al-Najd And How It Is Understood: Shaykh al-Najd Said in his book: "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir upon the polytheists and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah. So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and loves Islam and its people. This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Quran declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] How I See This Statement: If you say this statement of his is example of Hukm Aam. And I will say you’re spot on because HUKM AAM IS ALL INCLUSIVE. And this is Hukm Aam in Takfir the qualifiers were mentioned earlier and I will do again. Shaykh al-Najd said whoever does not make Takfir of: “(i) … he polytheists of the Turkish state, (ii) the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah, (iii) others from those who worship the righteous, (iv) and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk, …” then such a person is Kafir/Mushrik like the ones mentioned. In my understanding each qualifier is individually applicable and Shaykh al-Najd was giving qualifiers which would nullify the Islam of a Wahhabi, or anyone not adhering to his Takfir. How A Wahhabi Is Likely To Understand It: Let me interpret it according to how you would like to interpret statement of Shaykh al-Najd. You would say: According to Shaykh al-Najd polytheists IN Turkish state are those who worship graves like people of Makkah, and those who worship the righteous. In other words anywho in Turkish state does so like peopl of Makkah - Shaykh al-Najd and his Wahhabism deems to be guilty of Shirk. Now answer my two questions: (i) The Mushriks of Turkish State via two conditions; were the entirity of Turkish State, or were they a great majority with minority of Muwahideen? In case you say minority was Muwahideen but majority of them were steeped in practices of Shirk but I do not declare/believe they were Mushrik/Kafir. I say to you it matters not if you make their formal/direct TAKFIR. Fact of matter is you believe vast majority of them were in reality upon major Shirk and that alone is criminal enough. (ii) ANYWHO living in Turkish State guilty of Shirk via these two conditions IS HE MUSHRIK OR NOT? If you said they were not you’re Kafir according to your own Shaykh al-Najd. Do you remember that Hukm Aam supports Hukm Khaas? Hukm Khaas, Abu Muhammad is a Kafir according to Wahhabism. What is support for this Hukm? Shaykh al-Najd said: “… and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and loves Islam and its people. This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists …." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] Prophet’s Ummah Will Not Worship Idols, Sun, Moon, Tree, Stones: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “It was narrated from Shaddad bin Aws that the Messenger of Allah said: “The thing that I fear most for my nation is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Sunan Ibn Majah, B37, H4205, here.] Another version of same Hadith which is Sahih states: “… قَالَ: أَمَا إِنَّهُمْ لَا يَعْبُدُونَ شَمْسًا وَلَا قَمَرًا وَلَا حَجَرًا وَلَا وَثَنًا” “They will not worship sun, and not moon, and not stones, and not idols …” [Ref: Musnad Imam Ahmad, Musnad Shaamiyeen, Hadith 16671,here.] Zayd Bin al-Hibab Bin Riyaan’s standing is Sudooq Hassan ul-Hadith (i.e. truthful; Hassan ul-Hadith). Abdul Wahid Bin Ziyad, he is graded as, Thiqa. Ibadah Bin Nasi is Thiqa. And Shaddad Bin Aws Bin Thabit is a companion and he is above false ascription to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been reported to have said: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] And Satan worship in language of Quran is idol worship and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said in Arabian Peninsula Muslims will not worship idols in obedience to Satan. Now I know you will contradict me and quote me Ahadith of worship of Dhil Khilasa, al-Laat worship. And here is brief answer, the people worshiping al-Laat, Dhil al-Khilasa the booty shakers will be non-Muslims and this will take long after death of Muslims. A cold musky wind will blow and it will take life of all Muslims/Momins and Satan will come to Kafirs and tell them to worship idols and Kafir Arabs will worship idols mentioned in Hadith i.e. Al-Laat, al-Uzza, Dhil al-Khilasa etc … al-Hasil Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said the Muslims will not worship, idols, sun, moon, stones, trees, and Muslims of Arabia will not worship idols in obedience to satan. Yet Shaykh al-Najd contradicted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and attempted to make his teachings voids. Brief Comment On What You Wrote: You read my text and you made observations about me. Well if they make you sleep peacfully do Tilawat with them. Bottom line is you failed to respond to anything and everything I wrote. And all praises are for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who gave me insight and knowledge to expose your deception and pretendance of being Sunni but now the truth of your Kharijism is revealed. Fact of matter is Wahhabism then and now deemed beliefs practices of OVER-WHELMING MAJORITY of Muslims as major Shirk/Kufr. In other words Wahhabis emphatically believe vast majority was actually Kafir/Mushrik … but say … we didn’t say they were Kafir/Mushrik. That’s like me saying, I believe and know you Wahhabis are bastards in actuality … but I don’t and did not formally say you’re bastards. No body cares about formality of Takfir rather what matters is what you believe about Muslims in actuality. That is vast majority of Muslims then and now are actually in reality Mushrikeen/Kafirs but we formally don’t declare such. This was my last response to you. I am not spending my valueable time with an empty vessel like you. Go make noises some where else. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razav Abu Muhammad June 27 My reply is as it was and it is addressed to what you wrote. Muhammed Ali Razavi June 27 Salam alaykum, When the write up actually completes I will publish it and you will be notified. Repent from your neo-kharijism and become a Sunni Muslim. Entire foundation of Najdi Dawah was, vast majority, everyone other then Wahhabis are Mushrik and we need to spread Tawheed. And this completely contradicts prophetic teaching found in Hadith. All the Ahadith which Wahhabis use to argue for Shirk in Ummah such as worship of Dhil al-Khalasa, Uzza, Manat, have been explained in light of prophetic statements. And basicly Arab Kafirs would worship these idols after blowing of wind which will kill all Muslims and all Momins then Kafir Arabs would revert to religion of their forefatehrs i.e. worship of dhil al-Khalasah, Lat, Uzza etc … This refutes and properly explains all evidences which Wahhabis use to prove Muslims will engage in idol worship. Second part is Ahadith which clearly state Muslims will not worship stones, idols, trees, sun, moon, and Satan worship will not take place in Arabia amongst Muslims i.e. idol wroship not take place amongst Arab Muslims. With this entire foundation of Najd Dawah collapses. I have written extensively on these Ahadith and explained them in detail. And if youre honest and objective then insha allah you will find truth. All these articles can be found on the link. If you need my help finding them I will find them and link them here. Otherwise Salam alaykum. Our difference is reality of Surah al-Kafiroon. I don’t worship what you worship and you do not worship Allah whom I worship. Your Allah is with hands, feet, shin, womb, eyes, like image of Adam (alayhis salam) and my Allah is nothing like anything … Our Tawheed is different, out Allah is different, our Shirk is different, … our understanding of Quran is different, … we have no commonality and I cant bridge that huge gap. You live your delusions and misguidance and let me live mine. Abu Muhammad June 27 My reply is as it was and it is addressed to what you wrote.

38.0 – Some Important Information Before Discussion On Satan Worship: [EMail.] I Said: From section 8.0 to 8.3 4.0 to 4.3 we had discussion on if entirety/majority of Muslims in Arabian Peninsula can fall into major Shirk. My position was that Shaykh al-Najd and his followers believed/taught majority if not entirety of Ummah residing in Arabian Peninsula had become Mushrik. And Shaykh al-Najd believed he is bringing Islam back to these Mushrikeen. In an effort to prove Shaykh al-Najd had no foundation to accuse Muslims of Arabia of major Shirk and via logical deduction; Muslims of world at large; I quoted following Hadith: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] And I said Muslims not worshiping Satan means Muslims will not worship idols in Arabian Peninsula. Implication of which was/is obvious that it would invalidate the entire foundation of Shaykh al-Najd’s antagonism against Arab Muslim. This would go on to establish innocence of Ahlus Sunnah against all charges of Shirk levelled by Shuyukh and minions of Iblees of Najd. End. --------------------------------------------------- Numbering corrected. Jazakallah Khayr brother for letting me know.

Salam alaykum, Pedaish say pehlay ka waqt Quran mein zamana maut mein ginna gaya heh. Nabi e kareem ka wasila qabal az-paidaish Quran say sabat heh. is leyeh wafat qabal padaish aur wafat bad az-wafat RasoolAllah ka wasila jaiz heh. Allah farmata heh: “They will say: "Our Lord! Twice hast Thou made us without life, and twice hast Thou given us Life! Now have we recognized our sins: Is there any way out (of this)?" [Ref: 40:11] “How can you disbelieve in Allah Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life and then unto Him you will return.'' [Ref: 2:28] Hasil huwa zamana pedaish say pehlay maut ka thah aur pedaish baad rooh ka jism baghayr hona bi maut heh. Abh agar sabat ho jahay kay donoon mein say kissi aik mein bi wasila banahay gay to halat e wafat mein Wasila sabat heh. Allah farmata heh: “And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith." [Ref: 2:89] Aur is ayaat ki Tafsir istera heh: "(“…though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved…”). Said Ibn 'Abbas: “The Jews of Khaybar were at war with Ghatafan, and whenever the two parties used to meet, Khaybar ended up in defeat. For this reason they devised the following supplication: 'O Allah! We beseech You by the truth of the unlettered Prophet whom You promised to send forth to us at the end of time to give us victory over them'. And so whenever they said this supplication, Ghatafan was defeated. But when the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, was sent forth, they disbelieved in him. It is due to this that Allah, exalted is He, revealed ...” [by: Tafsir Asbab Un Nuzul, Al Wahidi] "When there came to them a Book from God, confirming what was with them, in the Torah, that is the Qur’ān — and they formerly, before it came, prayed for victory, for assistance, over the disbelievers, saying: ‘God, give us assistance against them through the Prophet that shall be sent at the end of time’; but when there came to them what they recognized, as the truth, that is, the mission of the Prophet, they disbelieved in it, out of envy and for fear of losing leadership (the response to the first lammā particle is indicated by the response to the second one); and the curse of God is on the disbelievers." [Ref: Tafsir Jalalayn] "(“And when there cometh unto them a Scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession”) which accords with that which is in their possession (“though before that”) before Muhammad (“they were asking for a signal triumph”) through Muhammad and the Qur'an (“over those who disbelieved”) of their enemies: the tribes of Asad, Ghatafan, Muzaynah, and Juhaynah (“and when there cometh unto them that which they knew”) of his traits and description in their Book (they disbelieved therein) they denied it was him. (“The curse of Allah”) His wrath and torment (“is on disbelievers”) the Jews." [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas] "(although aforetime they had invoked Allah (for coming of Muhammad ) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved) meaning, before this Messenger came to them, they used to ask Allah to aid them by his arrival, against their polytheistic enemies in war. They used to say to the polytheists, "A Prophet shall be sent just before the end of this world and we, along with him, shall exterminate you, just as the nations of `Ad and Iram were exterminated.'' Also, Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "The Jews used to invoke Allah (for the coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over the Aws and Khazraj, before the Prophet was sent. When Allah sent him to the Arabs, they rejected him and denied what they used to say about him. Hence, Mu`adh bin Jabal and Bishr bin Al-Bara' bin Ma`rur, from Bani Salamah, said to them, `O Jews! Fear Allah and embrace Islam. You used to invoke Allah for the coming of Muhammad when we were still disbelievers and you used to tell us that he would come and describe him to us,' Salam bin Mushkim from Bani An-Nadir replied, `He did not bring anything that we recognize. He is not the Prophet we told you about." [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir] Quran ki ayaat aur Tafasir say sabat huwa kay Yahood RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) ka Wasila say Fatah mangtay thay. Pedaish say pehlay waqt maut aur is zamana maut mein Wasilah banay lehaza wasila faut shuda ka jaiz heh.

Aisay loghoon par kohi fatwa nahin jin ko ghayr motbar bandoon nay ilm paunchaya ho aur khabr panay par bila tasdeeq koi faisla nah kar pahen aur ihtiyatan takfir nah keren ... Har woh banda kufr ka murtaqib heh joh kufria nazriat o aqahid ko sahih janay ... Misaal kay tor thanvi ki ibarat ... Jissay is ka ilm ho aur waja kufr ko paa leh aur phir bi kufr aur bey adabi nah janay kufr ka murtaqib heh ... Motbar zarahay say khabr nah milnay parTakfir nah karna aur baat heh ... Magr kisi ibarat ko kufr jannay kay wasteh motbar ya ghayr motbar zarahay say khabr kufr ka milna zeroori nahin ... kufri nazria ko kufr tehrana zeroori heh ... Misaal ... Zalim Allah ko do manta heh ... Zalim kay nazria ki tasdeeq nahin lehaza takfir nahin magr nazria ko kufr janna zeroori heh. Magr jin ko khabr ki tasdeeq ho un wasteh lazam heh takfir karay. Agar nahin karta to kam say kam gumra biddati zeroor heh jab kay ibarat ko kufr janay ... Aur agar ibarat kufria ko sahih samjay toh kufr lazam huwa aur takfir bi.

....

Tafsir naeemi ki agay wali wali ibarat yahan parh lenh Deobandi farad ka banda phor deti heh. https://archive.org/details/NoorUlIrfanByMuftiAhmedYaarKhanNaeemi2/page/n594/mode/1up Safa 595 dekh lenh pehli line say agay ... Wohi baat likhi heh joh Allama Kazmi nay likhi heh.

Salam alaykum. Allamah Kazmi rahimullah nay bey hawas kehnay ko gustakhi likha heh honay ko nahin. Misaal thanvi harami ho gstakhi nahin magr kehna gustakhi heh. Allama kazmi ki ibarat taqwiyaatul iman kay sayaq o sabaq mein heh. Ismail dehalvi nay likha kay rasoolallah kissi nakkamay ki tara bey hawas ho gay ... Kuxh is tera ki ibarat thi ... Sahih yad nahin. tafsir naeemi ka sayaq o sabq aur heh. Aur wesay bi Allamah naeemi nay bey hawaas likha bi nahin kay rasoolallah bey hawaas ho gay . Balkay likha kay hosh hawaas baja nah rahay. Confusion panic forgetfullness ki waja say bi hosh hawaas baja nahin rehtay. Nabi na to khof say panic karta heh aur nah shaytan ki waja say bhoolta heh Allah bula deta heh. Is leyeh confusion ho sakti heh. jadoo nabi par asr nahin karta yehni pagal nahin karta jis say hosh o hawas aisay kho jahen kay achay bura islam kufr ki tameez nah rahay ... Aisa jadoo nahin war karta ... Hosh o hawas baja nah rahay ka mana heh darust nah rahay ... Yeh ilfaz confuse confusion wasteh bolay jateh hen ... Aur jadoo nabi par is tara asr karta heh ... Yehni confsion peda karta heh jaisay hadith say sabat heh ... RasoolAllah ko yad nah rahi namaz pari ya nahin ... Halanh kay namaz par chukay thay ... Tafsir naeemi mein bi yahi likha heh ...

Salam alaykum, Bhai bhot koshish ki magr kamyab nahin ho sakka.

Wrong: The thirteen concepts [such as Zaati, Qulli, Azli …] are from perspective of Islamic understanding of Tawheed and Shirk. We believe essence, attributes, actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are according to the mentioned principles and this is distinguishing feature of Islamic monotheism. Shirk is opposite of Tawheed hence true Shirk only is what is opposite of Tawheed. So fundamentally the belief and the philosophy of polytheists that their idols were god-partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is invalid because their belief x,y, and z are gods was based on invalid principles – limitations unbefitting true Ilah; dependency [upon true Ilah], coming to existence from non-existence, being exalted to status of god after being ordinary creation, [and much more …], and these concepts are against concept of Tawheed, hence against concept of God-hood. To truly exalt their idols to status of God they needed to affirm for their x, y, and z idols Islamic principles of Tawheed - which they affirmed for their supreme Deity, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). These thirteen principles highlight that true Ilah is only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Like you stated none of the polytheists of Arabia believed their idols were gods with these principles. Islamicly, and even in philosophy of polytheists their gods cannot be the Gods because they believed their gods are creation who were exalted to status of god-partners of Allah (subhnahu wa ta’ala). Polytheists did not contemplate over their belief of polytheism. Had they truly thought about what they believed about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then they would have understood what truly Shirk was/is - opposite of what they believed for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). As a result they would have formulated a better form of polytheism - opposite of Tawheed, which of course would not have been any less Kufr/Shirk in Islam then what it already is. Note, Christians attempted to formulate their polytheistic doctrine of Trinity using some concepts of monotheism but even that did not fully comply with comprehensive monotheistic principles. Christians believe, the Father is God, the Son is God, Holy Spirit is God, not three persons/gods, but one person/god. The Father, the Son, Holy Spirit are all believed to be eternal, not three eternals but one eternal and it goes on. Alhasil, polytheism of Arabs was foolishness of worst type compared what they could have had - a bit more intelligent form of polytheism like of something which Christians attempted. Correct: The thirteen concepts [such as Zaati, Qulli, Azli …] are from perspective of Islamic understanding of Tawheed and Shirk. We believe essence, attributes, actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are according to the mentioned principles and this is distinguishing feature of Islamic monotheism. Shirk is even though opposite of Tawheed but true Shirk only is warranted when thirteen concepts of Tawheed exclusive for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) are affirmed for a creation. So fundamentally the belief and the philosophy of polytheists that their idols were god-partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is invalid because their belief x,y, and z are gods was based on invalid principles – i.e. limitations unbefitting true Ilah: dependency [upon true Ilah], coming to existence from non-existence, being exalted to status of god after being ordinary creation [and much more …], and these concepts are against concept of Tawheed, hence against concept of God-hood. To truly exalt their idols to status of God they needed to affirm for their x, y, and z idols Islamic principles of Tawheed - which they affirmed for their supreme Deity, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). These thirteen principles highlight that true Ilah is only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Like you stated none of the polytheists of Arabia believed their idols were gods with these principles. Islamicly, and even in philosophy of polytheists their gods cannot be the Gods because they believed their gods are creation who were exalted to status of god-partners of Allah (subhnahu wa ta’ala). Polytheists did not contemplate over their belief of polytheism. Had they truly thought about what they believed about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then they would have understood what truly Shirk was/is - opposite of what they believed for their Ilahs/gods. As a result they would have formulated a better form of polytheism. And their Shirk, beliefs about their gods would have been identical image Tawheed. Which of course would not have been any less Kufr/Shirk in Islam then what it already is. Note, Christians attempted to formulate their polytheistic doctrine of Trinity using some concepts of monotheism but even that did not fully comply with comprehensive monotheistic principles. Christians believe, the Father is God, the Son is God, Holy Spirit is God, not three persons/gods, but one person/god. The Father, the Son, Holy Spirit are all believed to be eternal, not three eternals but one eternal and it goes on. Yet they believe God the Son-God was born, died, was raised etc. al-Hasil polytheism of Arabs was foolishness of worst type compared what they could have had - a bit more intelligent form of polytheism like of something which Christians attempted. --------------------------------------------------- Moderators please copy paste and replace faulty one with correct one into main article.

Salam alaykum, Kunz ul Amal ka Urdu tarjuma talash karnay par mila heh: https://archive.org/details/Kanz-ul-Ummaal-Urdu-Full/Kanz-ul-Ummaal-Urdu-Volume001-002/mode/2up Insha Allah ainda faragh oqaat mein Hadith ki talash karta hoon. Meray idea kay mutabiq yeh Hadith qayamat ki nishaniyon nay bab mein hoga ya phir bab ul fitan mein. Mazameen ki fehrist mein check keren, insha Allah kal roza khol kr mein bi check karoon ga.

Salam alaykum. Moteram do din huway talash kartay huway magr nahin mila. Taqriban panch gantay laga chooka hoon. Wesay Kabi para bi nahin. Yeh pehli dafa para heh. Agar Arabi mein ibarat ho toh shahid millay. Reference to kunz ul iman ka heh ... Aap kay page per ... Momkin nahin lagta. Shahid Kunz ul amaal ho. Arabi ki ibarat millay toh phir talashbmein asani ho. Aap nay jis kitab say nikala heh us ka reference denh aur kitab ka musannif kon heh ... Phir shahid milay.

Qasim Nanotavi kay radd mein Maulana Fasih Ud-Din Merathi (rahimullah) nay kitab, Al Qawl ul-Fasih, likhi magar abh yeh mil nahin rahi. Is kay jawab mein Qasim Nanotavi ki taraf say Radd Qawl ul-Fasih (i.e. Tanveer ul-Nibras Ala Min Inkar Tahzir al-Naas) bi likhi thi. Joh Ilyas Ghuman nay ik dafa phir print karwahi heh. Al-Qawl ul-Fasih kitaab ki talash mein hoon.

Tawassul Bil Amwat: Explaining Wahabi Quranic Evidence Against It. [Part Two] Wahhabi Evidence – Eight: Surah Yunus (10) Verse 18: “They worship besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: …" Part One: The worship in essences is invoking of, calling upon a X with with belief that X is god as well as deserving of worship. Therefore the meaning of: “They worship besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, ...” is that the Mushrikeen: “... call on besides Allah which can neither hurt nor profit them: ...” [Ref: Surah 22:12] These who can not hurt nor profit anyone else were taken besides Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) as gods: “... gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves[26]; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.” [Ref: Surah 25:3] The created gods are idols because Bani Israel asked Musa (alayhis salam) to fashion, design, create for them idol as god beside Allah: “... They came upon a people devoted entirely to some idols they had. They said: "O Moses! fashion for us a god like unto the gods they have." He said: "Surely ye are a people without knowledge.” [Ref: Surah 7:138] And when they take idols besids Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) as gods the Mushrikeen say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Part Two: The Mushrikeen said: "We worship idols, and we remain constantly in attendance on them." [Ref: Surah 26:71] and Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) informs the believers and mushrikeen alike: “They worship besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." the reason they take idol-gods as intercessors with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is explained by saying of Mushrikeen recorded: “We do not worship them except that they might bring us near to Allah.” [Ref: Surah 39:3] Ignoring their justifications Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) tells them: “Verily ye (i.e. unbelievers), and the (false) gods that ye worship besides Allah, are fuel for Hell! to it will ye (surely) come!” [Ref: Surah 21:98] Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) hints at the fuel of hellfire: “... then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.” [Ref: Surah 2:24] the fuel is men, and stones (i.e. idols). Part Three: The Mushrikeen declared about their idol-gods: "These are our intercessors with Allah." and Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) questions them: “What! Do they take for intercessors others besides Allah? Say: "Even if they have no power whatever and no intelligence?[27]" [Ref: Surah 39:43] Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states explicitly: “No intercessor will they have among their "Partners"[28] and they will (themselves) reject their "Partners". [Ref: Surah 30:13] on the day of judgement then the Mushrikeen will say after realising that there are no idol-gods who can interced for: "The apostles of our Lord did indeed bring true (tidings). Have we no intercessors now to intercede on our behalf? Or could we be sent back? Then should we behave differently from our behaviour in the past." Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) says that it will be too late: “In fact they will have lost their souls, and the things they invented will leave them in the lurch.” [Ref: Surah 7:53] Part Four: Tafsir Ibn Kathir: Allah reproaches the idolators that worshipped others beside Allah, thinking that those gods would intercede for them before Allah. Allah states that these gods do not harm or benefit. They don't have any authority over anything, nor do they own anything. These gods can never do what the idolators had claimed about them. That is why Allah said: “Say: `Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth'” Ibn Jarir said: "This means, `Are you telling Allah about what may not happen in the heavens and earth' Allah then announced that His Glorious Self is far above their Shirk and Kufr by saying: “Glorified and Exalted is He above all that which they associate as partners (with Him)!”[29] Tafsir Al Jalalayn: And they worship, besides God, that is, other than Him, that which can neither hurt them, should they not worship it, nor profit them, if they do worship it — and these are the idols; and they say, of them: ‘These are our intercessors with God’. Say, to them: ‘Would you tell, would you inform, God of what He does not know in the heavens or in the earth?’ (the interrogative is meant as a disavowal), for if He had a partner, He [Himself] would know it, since nothing can be hidden from Him. Glory be to Him!, in [affirmation of] His transcendence, and High be He exalted above what they associate! with Him. Tafsir Ibn Abbas: “They worship ...” i.e. the disbelievers of Mecca “... beside Allah that which neither hurteth them ...” in this life or in the Hereafter, if they did not worship it, “... nor profiteth them ...” in this life or in the Hereafter if they worshipped it, “... and they say: These ...” i.e. these idols “... are our intercessors ...” which will intercede for us “... with Allah. Say ...” to them, O Muhammad: “Would ye inform Allah of (something) that He knoweth not in the heavens or in the earth.” i.e. He knows there does not exist a god who hurts and benefits except Him? “Praised be He ...” He exalted Himself far above having a son or partner “... and high exalted above ...” and absolves Himself from “... all that ye associate (with Him) ...” of idols! The verses of Quran as well as the commentaries make it absolutely clear that this verse refers to the worsthip of idols of Mushrikeen by Mushrikeen. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [26] Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states that Idols do not have ability to do good or harm themselves: “... gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves ...” [Ref: Surah 25:3] is indirectly from rehetorical point of view saying: "Besides Allah can they help you or help themselves?” [Ref: Surah 23:93]. Thoughtful answer to this is no they can not help themselves or anyone else. This answer leads to; if one can not do harm or good for his own self then how do you expect them to benefit you or punish you! And in the context of story (i.e. breaking of idols) of Ibrahim (alayhis salam) the verse means that the idols can not benefit (i.e. by protecting) themselves, nor can they harm anyone this is why Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) asks: "Who is it that can screen you from Allah if it be His wish to give you punishment or to give you Mercy?" [Ref: Surah 33:17] the answer is none because the idols are unable to defend themselves therefore to expect them to protect you is senseless. Hence there is no justified reason for them being taken as Awliyah (i.e. protectors) instead of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states: “… But those who take for protectors other than Allah (say): "We only worship them in order that they may bring us nearer to Allah." [Ref: Surah 39:3] Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) informs: “… and ye have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall ye be helped.” [Ref: Surah 11:113] in another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states: “What! Have they taken besides Him protectors (for worship)? But it is Allah; He is the Protector, and it is He Who gives life to the dead: It is He Who has power over all things.” [Ref: Surah 42:9] - [27a] The idols have no power, no authority because they are: “... 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: Surah 25:3] : and neither can these gods can hurt or do good for them. These gods: “...cannot create (even) a fly, if they all met together for the purpose! and if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly.” [Ref: Surah 22:73] and these idol-gods “... have no power of providing them sustenance with anything in heavens or earth, and cannot possibly have such authority.” [Ref: Surah 16:73] “... then seek ye sustenance from Allah, serve Him, and be grateful to Him: to Him will be your return.” [Ref: Surah 29:17] and they have no intelligence because Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has described the idol-gods as: “(They the idols are) dead, lifeless, and they know not when they (the people) will be raised up." [Ref: Surah 16:21] Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) says about the dead and the deaf: “Truly thou canst not cause the dead to listen, nor canst thou cause the deaf to hear the call, ...” [Ref: Surah 27:80] therefore the Idols are worse then the dead and the deaf, they neither hear, see, or have any form of intelligence. [27b] Another interpretation of: “What! Do they take for intercessors others besides Allah? Say: "Even if they have no power whatever and no intelligence?” Refers to Mushrikeen of Makkah who took the idols as gods besides Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) because they do not have the power, authority, right, power of decision to attribute to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) a partner: “Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: ... assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority (to the Mushrikeen); and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.” [Ref: Surah 7:33] without authority from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) they do not have power of attributing to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) a partner, and without knowledge they are ignorant, without intelligence because prerequisite for intelligence is knowledge. Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) informs them: “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!” [Ref: Surah 3:151] and because of their lack of intelligence the Mushrikeen will say to each other: "Had we but understood, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!" [Ref: Surah 67:10] - [28] The part of verse: “No intercessor will they have among their "Partners" and ...” means that as a god, as a worthy of worship beside Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), as a god-partner with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) there will be no intercessors, but does not negate intercessors in absolute terms. Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states about intercessors: “None shall have the power of intercession but such a one as has received permission from ar'Rahman (i.e. Most Gracious).” [Ref: Surah 19:87] in another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states: “And those whom they invoke besides Allah have no power of intercession; only he who bears witness to the Truth (i.e. of Islam, Quran,) and they know (him).“ [Ref: Surah 43:86] And the one who bares witness to the truth, and one who is known to the Mushrikeen is our beloved Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) informed that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will say to Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam😞 “Raise your head. Ask, and your request will be granted; say, and your saying will be listened to; intercede, and your intercession will be accepted.' I will raise my head and praise Allah with a saying (i.e. invocation) He will teach me, and then I will intercede.” [Ref, Bukhari, B60, H3] - [29] Online English translation of Tafsir Ibn Kathir does not have the interpretation where it suppose to be. The Urdu as well as Arabic both have the above interpretation under the verse 18 so I assume that the typists wrongly placed the interpetation of the verse 18 under verse 17.

22.0 - Our Next Meeting And Salafi Brothers Getting Ready To Learn: He Said: Salam alaykum. I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. He Said: You didn’t come back yesterday. I waited till Fajr. I Said: Apologies for no show. I sat down for little rest and instead fell a sleep. Any how I got material you asked for. He Said: In PDF? I Said: No. It is material which I wrote and posted on IslamiMehfil forum. He Said: Have you got link? I Said: Wait few minutes I will E-Mail everything to you. 22.1 - Articales On Subject Of Tawheed, Shirk, And Methodology: [EMail.] I Said: Following article briefly explains Tawheed, here. A very important article on subject of Tawheed/Shirk because it explains many things not addressed in articles but which always become part of almost every Sunni/Salafi debate, here. Content wise this article is related to previous one, here. Next article explains methodology and then demonstrates how Ilahiyyah is determined if explicitly has not been affirmed, here. And in context following comprehensively explains and refutes innovated principles often employed to support charge that Muslims are committing Shirk, here. I Said: Also following article responds to a misconception about methodology of Ahlus Sunnah; it absolves polytheists of their Shirk, here. In this capacity following article also explains how methodology of Ahlus Sunnat establishes Shirk, here. Fundamentally cause of dispute between Wahhabis and Sunnis is issue of definition of worship, worship, and Shirk of attributes. And what Shirk of attributes is and how it is warranted is issue of contention/dispute. Dispute is over how a attribute/name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is is exclusive to Him alone. I Said: Following two articles focus on Sunni and Wahhabi methodologies of determining exclusivity of essence, attributes, and actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And judges which is in accordance with teaching of Quran and Sunnah; basic here, comprehensive here. And lastly following was a debate/discussion on subject of Tawheed/Shirk and it points to flows in their methodology, here. [End of mail.] 22.2 - General Chit Chat About Progress And Other Topics: He Said: OMG! This is insane amount to read. I still haven’t finished reading your write-up of our previous discussion. Brother Ali, don’t mind me saying, go get a job you got too much time, smile. I Said: I am working full-time. He Said: Your’re way too industrious to be in full-time employment. I Said: I have two full-time jobs one paying with money. And second one, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills, will pay in hereafter. The first I do eight to nine hours, and the second I do eight/ten hours. And what makes this happen is sacrifices my dear brother, sacrifices. Sacrifice my sleep, rest, hobbies, associating with friends, and even time with family. And these sacrifices make this happen. He Said: I was actually joking Brother Ali. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you for your good intentions. I Said: Ameen. He Said: You don’t seriously expect me to read all this? I Said: I don’t brother but soon as you can read the third, fourth, and fifth articles. These will give you idea of how our methodology works. And if you want to push read last three also. They are primed to refute some misguided notions of Salafis in regards to methodology of Shirk. He Said: Will do but it will take time and it will hold our discussion. I Said: Brother this discussion has holding me from completing my articles and posting them on forum. In last eight months, since we started this discussion, I have not been able to start new or even complete articles only time I had was to rewise earlier articles. Everything else has been on hold since then. If I can abandon my writing I can wait for this as well. I am not in any hurry. Hurry has left my system since this discussion. Smile. He Said: Something good has been achieved. I Said: What is that? He Said: Discussion with me is hindering your writing. I Said: OK! This means … He Said: I am going to try to finish your articles ASAP. I need a week though. I Said: Take two weeks. Mean while I am gona get to work to wipe that smile off your face. He Said: What smile? I Said: You been preventing me from publishing my articles. I am going on war path ... i.e. article writing/posting mayhem. He Said: Nooooo! I Said: You asked for it. Smile. 22.3 - Getting Update On Brother Reading Articles And Finishing Them: I Said: Salam alaykum. He Said: Wa alaykum salam. I Said: How is the reading of recommended articles going? He Said: I read them all in three/four days. Following your instruction during my second read I made notes as suggested. This is my third time and I am trying to improve notes and practically employing methodology on issues which are definitively and unanimously agreed to be major Shirk to see if your methodology is in accordance with clear Shirk mentioned in Quran/Hadith. I Said: Well keep at it. We will chat on few days time. He Said: If Allah wills. He Said: Its been a week. You didn’t come online. Salam alaykum. I Said: Wa alaykum salam. Been busy with few things. Are you done with studying material on Tawheed/Shirk? He Said: It took longer then I expected but I am done. Four and half weeks to be precise. I Said: Making notes complicates it. 23.0 - Liking Sunni Methodology And Understands Root Cause Of Dispute: I Said: Whats your verdict. Honest, objective, heart felt verdict, not the one forced by compelled by sectarian world view. I mean verdict you feel is true and not the one you must give due to sectarian world view. He Said: Anything which your methodology proves to be major Shirk is also major Shirk in my understanding. I Said: Just in yours not according to your Minhaj? He Said: I mean according to our Minhaj. Last three articles really opened up my eyes to some things. I Said: How has the understanding of Istighathah been effected by it? He Said: Looking through your methodological frame it is not Shirk of Sifaat/Asma but according to Salafiyyah it is Shirk. Can I ask you something? I Said: Sure! He Said: When you left Salafi Minhaj did-you/do-you complete reject our understanding of Tawheed/Shirk? I Said: Not in entirity but parts which did not agree with my new understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. I find no fault in understanding of Tawheed of Salafiyyah except branch of Mutashabihat. Yes it is bit under developed compared depth of this subject amongst Maturudiyyah/Ashariyyah circles but once poked and prodded Salafis do march toward our direction. He Said: What about Shirk and our methodology? I Said: Well in general matters explicitly mentioned as Shirk in Quran/Hadith Salafi understanding is absolutely fine. In my understanding fault is in methodology of determining exclusivity of an Ism/Sift. Principles such as; fawq al-asbab is Shirk, teht al-asbab is not Shirk; are completely unfounded, and real cause why Shirk of Ism/Sift is erroenous. Because they force believers to by-pass establishing equality/Twinity. Add to this bowl, incorrect definition of Ibadah and Shar’i Dua and you have Salafism. He Said: I agree! I Said: You agree with? He Said: Agree with your conclusion that fawq al-asbab and exclusivity deciding factors are cause of dispute. 23.1 - Implied Equality/Twinity Not Established, No Ilahiyyah Not Established: He Said: My problem is I/we cannot disagree with anything which your methodology judges to be Shirk but on other hand you can dispute and reject judgment of our methodology. I Said: When there is no explicit mention of Ilahiyyah and it has to be implied then can you disagree with judgment of our methodology? He Said: I cannot disagree with Ilahiyyah when it is established on absolute likeness grounds i.e. Haqiqi, la-Mahdood grounds. I Said: OK! And when there is no explicit affirmation of Ilahiyyah, no intention of worship, and no absolute likeness but the likeness is relative then do you judge it to be Ilahiyyah? He Said: There is no Ilahiyyah in this. I Said: In other words you agree with Sunni methodology? He Said: I do and I don’t. I do because I know there is no explicit or implied equality between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His creation. Then I don’t because Istighathah, circumbulation around graves are Shirk etc. 23.2 - Istighathah Is Not Shirk Because There Is No Twinity Of Attributes: I Said: So in your methodology practice of Istighathah establishes absolute likeness of creation with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He Said: You’re very cunning. Smile. I Said: Brother answer the question. Smile. He Said: No! I Said: Brother then why is Istighathah Shirk when you know Shirk is equality in meaning of Twinity of Zaat and Sifaat/Asma? He Said: I have to confess I am stuck. I Said: Thanks you Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you’re stuck and we have come some conclusion. You know help sought from deceased, of ma fawq al-asbab type etc, does not establish absolute equality required for implied Ilahiyyah to be warranted. Would you agree with that? He Said: Do I have a choice? I Said: You did until you wasn’t initiate of path. Smile. So answer the question: Would you? He Said: Yes! I Said: Allahu Akbar! So you agree Istighathah is not Shirk? He Said: I will make that judgment after fully exploring all avenues. I Said: What else is there left to discuss Brother and is do we need to anymore when we have resolved our issue? Simple answer to this question is; no it is not Shirk. He Said: I need got go and think about this discussion. Ignorance was truly bliss and that bliss lasted until I learnt your methodology of determing implied Ilahiyyah. At the moment I want to re-think everything. Salam alaykum! I Said: Wa alaykum salam. 23.3 - Battle Within, Fought Between, Islamic VS Wahhabism Understanding: I Said: Salam alaykum. He Said: Wa alaykum Salam. I Said: How is re-evaluation process progressing? He Said: Brother Ali doubts, confusion, and uncertaintity about two methodologies. I can’t choose your over Salafi one. Do I leave Salafi methodology to judge what is Shirk, or do I choose Barelwi one. Depending upon whose methodology is adopted their judgment regarding Istighathah would be supported. There lies the problem. I Said: Brother lets side step issue of sectarian methodology. Focus on what you know. I Said: Do you agree that when Salafi methodology of equality/exclusivity is employed on issue of Istighathah then there is genuinely no equality between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and creation? He Said: Agreed! I Said: Brother you no and I know Shirk is absolute equality. Twinity of essence, attributes, names, and actions. In other words Twinity of Trinity is Shirk. He Said: You’re loosing me Brother. I Said: Twinity of essence, attributes/names and actions equals Trinity (i.e. essence, attributes/names, and actions). He Said: Oki that makes better sense. I Said: Anyhow since you agree there is no equality/Twinity then there is no implied Ilahiyyah and no Shirk. What is there to get confused about? He Said: Having to let go of Salafi methdology for your. I Said: Brother why would that be a problem when you yourself agree to truth of our methodology? He Said: Even though I agree it is creating a lot of doubts in my mind. What if Ilahiyyah isn’t judged on absolute equality of creation with Creator but it is as Salafiyyah judges it to be! 23.4 - Evidence Of Inner Struggle And Helping Brother Toward Right Decision: I Said: Is that a question? He Said: No! It was just a inner voice whispering and confusion and making me doubt. I don’t know where I stand on issue of Istighathah at the moment. I Said: Brother, Salafi methodology of implying Ilahiyyah and major Shirk has no foundation. You cannot quote me a single verse/Hadith in support of it. If there was ever I would have known it. You already spent a half a life time declaring people Mushrik/Kafir due to a methodology which you have trusted and which has no support. So why don’t you take leap of faith for good and not declare Muslims as Mushrikeen/Kafireen by adopting this methodology. He Said: Brother fear of validating and support Shirk is the only reason. I Said: I understand your concern and fears. Do you have any evidence from Quran/Hadith which establishes seeking ma fawq al-asbab help is Shirk? He Said: No there is no explicit mention. I Said: So you would agree that your principle methodology of ma fawq al-asbab call of help is Shirk has no clear support from Quran/Hadith? He Said: Yeah! I Said: So you agree you have been following ‘Ijtihad’ of a ‘Shaykh’ on a fundamental issue? He Said: Yes! I Said: So Ijtihadi principles of determining implied Ilahiyyah to declare Muslims as Mushriks is absolutely fine with you. Yet Ijtihadi principles which no one aware of these principles and sane [be he/she Salafi, Barelwi, Deobandi and even Shia] would dispute; are causing you to convulse in fear. I am gona say this politely like older brother says to his younger: Am gona smack you Brother. He Said: Smile. Brother Ali Shirk is a sin non-forgiveable sin and I do not want to make judgment in haste. I Said: Takfir of Muslims via Mushriking them and declaring those who say la ilaha il-Allah are worst Mushrikeen then polytheists which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encountered you think is any less? He Said: I could have responded to that when I was in state of [ignorance is] bliss. I need to go but I will be back. I Said: Salam alaykum. He Said: Wa alaykum salam. 23.5 - Offer Of Potential Solutation Made To Salafi Brother: I Said: Are you still concerned if you leave your Salafi methodology you won’t be able to declare Muslims as Mushrikeen of worst type? He Said: This jibe is not called for brother Ali. I Said: Sorry! I wasn’t jibing brother. I was actually translating your reasons why you don’t want to leave your methodology. He Said: Brother manner in which you have phrased that hints you believe I am attached to making Takfir of Muslims and this is not the case. I Said: I see your point and I am sorry if I have offended you it wasn’t my intention. He Said: Actions are judged according to intentions. I Said: I was thinking how to resolve conflict for you and I have realized a solution. He Said: Solution? I Said: Rather old solution but perfect one. He Said: I am all ears! 23.6 - Methodology Of Ahlus Sunnah Is Of Concensus/Ijmahi And Therefore Correct: I Said: Since you’ve been initiated into our path and you’re fully aware of validity of our principles. And you said you cannot disagree with our methodology of determing exclusivity of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) essence, attributes, and actions. You acknowledged Istighathah does not established equality/twinity between creation and Creator. He Said: I cannot recall all I said but I agree what you wrote. I Said: OK! I have chat logs saved. If you want them I am more then happy to share. Smile. He Said: I knew you would be. Smile. I Said: You’re in agreement with our methodology then. Do you think a Salafi who is aware of our methodology would say: ‘No! In accordance with Salafi methodology absolute equality (i.e. twinity) has been established between Creator and creation due to practice of Istighathah?’ He Said: Not if he has fully grasped your methodology. I Said: So under ideal condition we all can come to agreement on correctness of our principles of determining exclusivity? He Said: Yes! I Said: And would this agreement include understanding that Sunni methodology levels charge of major Shirk on basis of absolute equality/twinity and Salafi ones does not? He Said: Yes! I Said: Do you think Deobandis would disagree with your conclusion if they were also initiated in our path. He Said: No! I don’t think anyone who understood it would dispute. I Said: So our principles and methodology of determining Shirk has potential for Ijmah even amongst disputants. Providing all have fully grasped the methodology. Where as Salafi methodology of determining Shirk has no chance of this only way there can be Ijmah on Salafi methodology is if all Muslims of earth become Salafi. Think about it my brother a methodology over which there is potential for Ijmah even amongst disputants. And it’s a methodology whose conclusions even its opponents cannot reject. And this methodology of potential Ijmah is against a methodology which doesn’t determine major Shirk, or implied Ilahiyyah, on basis of absolute equality/twinity but on basis of ma fawq al-asbab type help … being sought from deceased. How can you hold to such dubious methodology? We all know major Shirk is explicitly affirmed by ascribing Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to a creation. Or major Shirk is warranted when Ilahiyyah is implied via absolute equality/twinity. To conclude a methodology which is potentially Ijmahi VS a methodology which doesn’t even have basics correct (i.e. absolute equality/twinity equals Shirk). It shouldn’t be hard to choose the right one out of these two. He Said: When you complete write-up of this part can you E-Mail it to me. I want to read it alone and ponder over it. I have to go now. Salam alaykum. I Said: Wa alaykum salam. 23.7 - Light Of Islam Begins To Eradicate Darkness Of Wahhabism: He Said: Are you online? I Said: I am but will be free in few mins, if that’s OK. He Said: I will wait. I Said: Did you get the point being made? He Said: I read it few times to ensure I get what you actually reasoned. It’s a brilliant argument in support of your position. This argument adds more weight to your side of scale. More I think about your methodology VS our methodology more I am convinced your side has correct understanding. Earlier I was reading our first discussion. During our that discussion I was thinking you’re asking me pointless questions. I guess I was too steeped into my own Salafi methodology to realize world outside of it. Reading it after learning your methodology has made me realize strength of your position. All the traps you placed for me I see them now. Where they succeeded and where they failed. I Said: Some failed cause you didn’t give the desired/expected answer. He Said: You had massive advantage because you’re aware of our methodology. I lost that discussion. I Said: Trust me brother I was never happy with my ‘win’. I was quite upset over how it ended and blamed myself for it. First two/three versions I didn’t include the ending because it bathered me. At the end I did because it fed into narrative of Wahhabis being desrespectful and sense-lessly rigid. I never saw it as win/victory. He Said: Yeah that is what you wrote at the end of published discussion. I Said: I am glad you repented ASAP. After all you’ve acknowledged surely you no longer believe Istighathah is major Shirk? He Said: I am more inclined toward your understanding but to say I am hundered percent satisfied would be wrong. I still have my doubts. I Said: Inclined toward which part of my understanding? There is lot you can incline toward. Smile. He Said: Towards not being Shirk. I Said: Inclined but not convinced that means you’re not with us, nor against your own side. He Said: Sitting on fence brother. I am happy to say, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows better, when asked if Istighathah is Shirk or not. I Said: Even this is a huge improvement from original position of [Istighathah is] Shirk. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows better is also a right mind set. I know everything and I know better isn’t a good mind set because such people never acnowledge error and never learn anything challenging their Minhaj. He Said: I true that! I Said: Brother you know where the truth is so why don’t you just jump the fence and join the ‘Mushrik’ sect. He Said: Ha! Ha! Ha! That really made me laugh. I can’t jump the fence until I am satisfied. 23.8 - Muslims To Follow Ijmah Of Ummat And Understanding Of Majority: I Said: I have just the right injection for you. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] Technically my side is majority. And I would dare say we have Ijmah of Ummat on our methodology of determining major Shirk via implied Ilahiyyah. You have also acknowledged that you believe no one would dispute with our methodology. And to be honest there has been no contest from knowledgable Salafi Tulab ul-Ilm especially ones who have discussed with our side before. In conclusion our definition of Shirk and methodology of determining Shirk is Ijmahi but verdict of Ijmahi definition/methodology on Istighathah is rejected by you and your Salafi side. When methodology is Ijmahi and correct as per words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then its verdict is also correct by default: “My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.”, 23.9 - Brother Is Struggling And Still Fighting On For Salafism: He Said: Istighathah verdict … and on others ... is the only obstacle in my way and that’s only reason I cannot come to accept it. How can it be Ijmahi definition/methodology if we reject the verdict of it on Istighathah? I Said: Your side rejects the verdicts not the definition and methodology of determining Shirk. He Said: That’s actually very true. I Said: Did you test our methodology as I recommended? [The content where advice was given has been omitted because it was study guide and did not relate to topic beingd discussed.] He Said: I applied it upon Hindus, Christians, and even Atheists as recommended, and I judged them to be Mushrikeen, and definition and methodology to be absolutely fine. I Said: When did you disagree with it? He Said: When it contradicted our methodology. I Said: So what does that tell you that our definition and methodology is wrong or your sides? He Said: Its hard to make the judgment. 23.10 - Example Of Bulb, And Parable Of Heart, And The Fault Within: I Said: Brother I give you a bulb. In order to see if its functional you try it in three lamps. In all these three lamps bulb lights up the room. When you take it home and try it in your own lamp it doesn’t. You bring it back to shop and you try it on my lamps and once again it works fine. Question to you is: Is my bulb faulty or the lamp in your own house? Problem is with your own methodology brother not with our definition of Shirk and methodology of determining Shirk. He Said: Smile. Very good and valid point brother Ali. I Said: I am glad you appreciated it. Smile. Salam alaykum. He Said: Wa alaykum salam. Before you leave, will you be online tomarrow and what time? I Said: Unlikely but if I do plan to come online I will text you on WhatsApp. He Said: OK. 23.11 - Salafi Brother Finally Disowns His Ex-Salafi Position On Istighathah: [He sent following mail.] He Said: Salam Alaykum. I had agreed with you that your methodology is Ijmahi. Prophetic teaching is Ijmah of Ummat is only upon guidance. Yet despite this I kind of closed my eyes to it pretending your argument will eventually pass to newer fields and I will once again able to live another day. So to speak. Brother Ali your Ijmah point did bother me a lot. I tried my best to forget it. I was thinking sooner, or later, I would get a new insight, and I will then have reason to disregard your point. During this state of mind it hit me that I disregarded prophetic teaching even after knowing well what he would want me to do i.e. to follow Ijmah of Ummah. I have decided to turn toward him and his guidance: “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] I have been attempting to avert this day over past few months sometimes willfully and others in the hope that passage of time will open up new avenues. This has been tough decision to make but I make my Lord witness that I officially and with sincere intentions renounce my position on Istighathah. Salam Alaykum. [End of mail.] 23.12 - Salafi Brother Explains His Decision And Finally Offers Repentence: I Said: Salam Alaykum. Congradulations for taking the right step Brother. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) make you firm and open your heart. Ameen. He Said: Ameen. I Said: What brought about this sudden change? He Said: It wasn’t sudden. Over these tens months there were number of times I decided to throw in the towel but held back in the hope that I/Salafiyyah will eventually triumph after hardship. This was wishful thinking because after studying your methodology of judging Tawheed/Shirk it became clear to me that I have lost the battle and decided not to turn up. Then my concious egged me to continue and eventually I contacted again. This discussion made me realize that I have placed a huge burden on myself and over passage of time I felt it got heavier and heavier. Takfir of such a large numbers of Muslims who openly/privately profess Shahadatayn and worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 This burden [of Takfir] has eventually got too heavy for me to carry so I am leaving it on the wayside to continue my journey without it. You will never catch me practice Istighathah but fact is all the wrongness of it does not amount to Shirk. All the contempt I have for it cannot justify charge of Shirk and Takfir of a Muslim for practicing it. I cannot ignore reality on the ground, there is no affirmation of Ilahiyyah for Wali, there is no intention to worship Wali, therefore calling a Wali for help, however wrong it is, it is not his worship, therefore not Shirk. Then came your final argument about Ijmah over your methodology and I could not ignore the calling of my heart and guidance of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Have you repented for Takfir? He Said: It has been bit of an emotional roller coaster ride for me. I have not repented like this before. I recited in tears the supplication of Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) until I fell sleep. I Said: May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) accept it. Ameen. Did you make Tajdeed of your Iman/Islam? He Said: Is that needed? It is better that you recite Shahadatayn due to prophetic saying invalid Takfir returns. He Said: La ilaha il-Allah. I Said: Say full Shahadatayn. He Said: La ilaha il-Allah is enough. I Said: Brother, just do it, don’t be hard. Its not an innovation just lack of your knowledge. Shahadatayn is one of foundations of Islam. He Said: I didn’t mean that but I will recite complete. I was being brief to avoid typing it. I Said: “Narrated Ibn Umar: That the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Islam is based upon five: the testimony of La Ilaha Illallah, and that Muhammad ar-Rasool-Allah, the establishment of the Salat, giving the Zakat, fasting (the month of) Ramadan, and performing Hajj to the House.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B38, H2609] He Said: Jazakallah Khayr. I Said: OK! Brother, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills tomarrow we will meet, otherwise weekends as normal. I have to perform Sajdah of Shukr and few Nawafil. He Said: OK! I do have few niggly bits that need answering though so I would appreciate further discussion. 24.0 - Everlasting Life Of Paradise VS Eternal Life Of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 He Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that life of paradise will be everlasting. According to your principles believing any creation is everlasting is Shirk. How do you reconcile this with your principles? I Said: A very good question. I think you’re talking about Azali, Abadi and Da’imi principle. Am I correct? He Said: Yes! I Said: You will have to give me tiny bit of time. I need to write bit comprehensively and for that I need time. Best would be if you give me an hour or two. And even better would be if you read it in your own time. This will get bit technical and complex due weird writing style so expect an E-Mail. He Said: No problem. If you finish within half an hour you can message me on WhatsApp and I will come online. I Said: I will try but likely it will get long. Just one question, did you abandon Salafism, or just the judgment of Istighathah? He Said: I am still Salafi in all other respects but judgment of Istighathah being Shirk and practioner being Mushrik I have abandoned. I Said: And what about the methodology which results these verdicts? He Said: I have done away with bath water and bath. I Said: You mean to say, you let go of methodology and judgment? He Said: Yes! I Said: And you agree with our methdology and would you adopt it? He Said: I agree with your methodology and I have already adopted your methodology [of determing Shirk] to best of my ability. I Said: OK! I was getting impression you’re attempting to refute/undermine our methodology with, everlasting life VS Eternal life. He Said: No, I am not brother Ali. Just attempting understand your methodology with your help. I have studied your methodology only for roughly 10 weeks and I need time to fully internalize it. I Said: Yes you’re correct it will take time. If you understand the foundation then eventually you will develop knack for it and will be able to judge complex matters. Time and practice will do it. Salam alaykum. 24.1 - Beginningless Infinite Life Of Allah VS Everlasting Life With A Beginning: [EMail.] I Said: Please read all three sections. I Said: I) For Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) we believe He is as-Samad equivlent meaning is conveyed by Azali, Abadi, Da’imi. His existance is Timeless, Ageless, Eternal, Infinite, without beginning, or end. He was, He is, and He will be. There was never when He wasn’t and there will be never when He isn’t. He is Independent and dependent upon no senior, or equivlent, or inferior for His existance. He is Wajib ul-Wujud, meaning, His existance is fundamental. His non-existance is Muhaal, meaning, impossible. All praises are for Lord of Universe. I Said: II) Creation going to Jannah had no existance. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created them and all depend upon Him. He caused them to die and raised them again. Entered them in paradise and gave them everlasting life of paradise. Creation of Jannah wasn’t, then it was, then it wasn’t, and it was with everlasting life of Jannah. For creation everlasting life BEGINS from point of non-existance to existance. Creations existance is Mumkin ul-Wujud, meaning, existance is possible, but not compulsory. I Said: III) There is huge difference between everlasting life of Muslims in Jannah and between Eternal, Infinite, Timeless, Boundless existance of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Creation of Jannah has beginning and the Creator is Beginningless. Creation of Jannah will live everlasting life in paradise because He allows it. If He decides to do against His promise of everlasting life in paradise then everlasting life of paradise can come to an end. He is able over all in accordance with His might. This is possible because creation is Mumkin but other way around isn’t because He is Wajib. And due to it He cannot have a beginning, nor his Eternal life can be with a beginning. His creation is with beginning and everlasting life of creation is with a beginning. Therefore there is no EUQALITY/TWINITY between Eternal, Azali, Abadi, Infinite, Beginning-less, and Boundless life of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and limited, dependent, with-a-beginning everlasting life of paradise of His creation. [Mail ends.] He Said: Salam alaykum. Thank you this helped. I got fixated over eternity i.e. never ending life of future. I didn’t pay attention to fact that it had a beginning. Using judgment day as referrence for time; true equality in everlasting life would be eternal everlasting life of past and of future. I Said: Precisely my brother. Anything else bugging you? 25.0 - Worship, Definition Of Worship, Islamic And Non-Islamic Worship: He Said: We have discussed in quite detail but we have not discussed subject of worship and what worship is. I Said: We did discuss supplication being worship. He Said: We sparred on what are requirements of worship but we didn’t discuss the definition of worship. Definition of worship is only frontier giving me difficult time because from what I know it contradicts your understanding of what worship is. I have huge amount of referrences, of some you will be already aware, defining what worship is. They do not say include Ilahiyyah and Niyyah as part of definition of worship. These definitions of worship if taken into account effect subject of Istighathah. For example Shaykh Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s defintion would warrant charge of Shirk on those who practice Istighathah. I Said: Quote me material if you have it. He Said: “Worship unites two principles: The extremity of love with the extremity of humbleness and submissiveness. So whoever you loved but were not submissive to, you are not a worshipper of him, and whomever were submissive to without (showing) love, you are not a worshipper (of him) until you are (both) loving and submissive.” [Ref: Madaarij as-Saalikeen 1/74, by Shaykh Qayyim al-Jawziyyah] Those who practice Istighathah show utmost love for Saliheen and are humble infront of in physical/mental sense and this naturally leaves to submissiveness. Do you see the conflict? After learning your methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk. I am satisfied that it isn’t Shirk but definition of worship points to that it is worship. I Said: I can respond to that now but it will have to involve a lot of waiting on your behalf so I advise you let me response via E-Mail. He Said: That would be fine with me. I Said: Thanks. I am so glad you brought this point up. I had already remedied it with correct defintion of worship long ago. He Said: It seems so because you have added part of belief and intention to combat it. Smile. I Said: Not quite but you’re near it. He Said: Explain. I Said: I will explain everything in E-Mail response. For now read upon two short articles on definiton of worship, here, here. Do note I will make some changes to these two articles sooner or later and likely will change. Obviously not to drastically but with better way of putting it but what is available should give you some idea. Salam alaykum. 25.1 - Shaykh Ibn Qayyim, His Definition, Misunderstanding, And Correction: [EMail.] I Said: First thing first. Definition of worship is not defnintive. It differs from scholar to scholar and proof of it is many definitions of worship. Smile. That is not to say there is Ikhtilaf on the subject. Rather scholars have formed these definitions with certain things in mind which has limited their definitions and brought about differences. And sometimes some of them formed brief and others bit more detailed versions of definitions. In this context it is worth pointing out my ‘Ijtihad’ differs with scholars just as theirs differs with each other. I Said: (Ia) It should be noted in my understanding definition of Ibadah of every scholar should be interpreted in context where belief in an Ilah is affirmed. Even though some do not state x, y, z for an Ilah is worship, it should be assumed into text. The scholars who originally formed them did so. Otherwise definition absent of limitation of Ilah has left door open for strife/tribulation. I Said: (Ib) Fundamentally Shaykh Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah’s definition of worship is as follows: Worship is extreme; love, humbleness, and submissiveness. This definition can lead to misunderstanding that even if in general there is EXTREME; love for y, humility in presence of y, and submission to y, then y has been worshipped. I Said: (Ic) Take into account the following facts. A believer is not Momin until he loves Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) more then his own mother, father, wife, child, wealth, and health, that’s extreme degree of love required to be Momin. It is recorded in a Hadith: “I came to the Prophet and his Companions were sitting as if they had birds on their heads. I saluted and sat down. The desert Arabs then came from here and there. They asked: Apostle of Allah, should we make use of medical treatment? He replied: Make use of medical treatment, …” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B28, H3846] Hadith states companions were sitting as if birds are sitting on their heads. And the first image that came to my mind was of head bowed with bird perched on head. People are not even this still and silent in Salah. Companions observed extreme level of humility, submission, and showed utmost degree of respect, and love for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through this action. Due to this excessive, love, respect, humility, submissiveness to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can it be correct to charge the best of Ummah to be guilty of worshipping Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? I Said: (Id) Just take another example. Angels and their prostration to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam). Did they not love Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created? Of course they did. They were instructed to prostrate and they prostrated to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam). Prophet Yaqoob (alayhis salaam) prostrated to his son Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salaam) out of respect as was custom of people of old. These are actions of extreme submission and humility and love. Question is were they guilty of worship? Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legitimize worship for them but has prohibited us from it? Despite all the conditions of worship being met none of them were guilty of worshipping a creation nor Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) allowed worship of creation in previous Ummahs. Concept of worship and what constitutes worship in theory was same for all the Prophets only the methods may have changed. I Said: (Ie) Now we come to question: Is the definition written by Shaykh Ibn Qayyim wrong or application of his definition wrong? I say application of his definition by Khawarij of Najd is invalid. He wrote it assuming that his definition will be read by Muslims who will apply it in context of showing extreme love, humbleness, submissiveness to Ilah, but dumb-asses apply it when there no affirmation of Ilahiyyah but there is extreme love, humility, submissivness toward Prophets/Awliyah. So in this day and age of idiots distorting and not understanding what, why, and in which context something was written. And not going to original sources (i.e. Quran and Sunnah) to understand everything scholars have written: I have introduced a improvement which prevents it from being misunderstood and misapplied: Worship is extreme; love, humbleness, and submissiveness to an Ilah. I Said: (Ig) With this correction in mind please try to see if Istighathah, prostration of angels to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam), and any other is worship. I am pretty confident with the criticism levelled against definition of Shaykh Ibn Qayyim and others like him and suggested correction I have convinced you that problem is misunderstanding and misapplication of definitions of Ibadah. 25.2 - Comprehensive Guide To Definitions Of Worship: I Said: (I) Fundamental: To invoke an Ilah is worship. (II) Comprehensive: To show obedience, submissiveness, humility, and to hold in respect; to fear, or to love; to invoke in praise, or to invoke in time of difficulty, or ease; and to request great, or small from one believed as an Ilah; while believing Ilah is far, or near with belief and intention of worship amounts to worship. I Said: (III) Ritual Acts Basic: To perform any ritual-act with belief and intention of worshiping an Ilah is an act of worship. (IV) Comprehensive Ritual Acts: Performing any ritual-act in obedience, submissiveness, humility, respect, love, fear to an Ilah; and to praise, to glorify qualities/attributes with belief and intention of worshiping an Ilah is an act of worship. I Said: (V) Islamic Ritual Concise: Being in position of Qiyam (i.e. standing), Ruku (i.e. bowing), Sujud (i.e. prostration), Tashahhud (i.e. kneeling position), or raising hands in a Dua, or during Tawaf of Kabah or Safa/Marwah; in obedience, submissivenes, humility, love, adoration, fear, honour, respect; while praising, or asking, begging and pleading Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with belief and intention of worship is worship. (VI) Islamic Ritual Comprehensive: With belief Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah/Rubb. He is without mother/father and brother/sister. Has no wife, or son, or daughter. He resembles nothing and anything does not resemble Him. He is the First, the Last, the Apparent, and the Hidden. His Zaat (i.e. essence), Sifaat (i.e. attributes) are Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Azali, Muhaal al-Fana, bi’Ghayr Izni, Qulli, Zaati, Haqiqi … Assuming position of Qiyam (i.e. standing), or Ruku (i.e. bowing), or Sujud (i.e. prostration), or sitting in position of Tashahhud (i.e. kneeling position), or raising hands in a Dua, or during Tawaf of Kabah and Safa/Marwah; in obedience, submissiveness, humility, love, adoration, fear, honour, respect; while praising, or asking, or begging and pleading Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with belief and intention of worship is worship. 25.3 - Final Words On Defintions Of Worship: I Said: I had to revise definitions of worship with new headings and made them gel togather smoothly which they didn’t before. Do note that these defintions have been brought togather from articles I linked you earlier. Your main interest will be, two, three, and four. All of these defintions are valid. First is further developed in second. And second is further developed in third, and third is futher developed in fourth … Each one of them individually is valid yet all of them explain and contain seeds of each other. If you understand these defintions properly and correctly you will never go wrong and get confused on subject of Ibadah. If you judge by these and corrected definition of Shaykh Ibn Qayyim then you will come to agree these definitions do not lead to conclusion Istighathah is Shirk. The path you’re walking on I have walked on it and straightened it and myself long ago. Anything else you’re more then welcome to discuss on this subject. Salam alaykum. [EMail End.] 25.4 - What Is My Opinion On So, And So Shaykh, And My Breaking Point: [EMail.] He Said: Salam alaykum brother Ali.May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you for your hard work and dedication. What is your view about Shaykh Ibn Qayyim (rahimullah)? I Said: Brother I am doing very best to skirt around giving my heart-felt take on esteemed personalities of your sect but you’re droping me in the mix again and again. So please just stop asking because it will leave bad taste in your mouth and ruin our civil discussion. Even about Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah I have said what the scholars have said about him and only addition I have made is that he was lacking in knowing proper knowledge of Tawheed, understanding of Shirk, and methodology of determining Shirk. With regards to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaykh Ibn Qayyim, Shaykh Ibn Abdul al-Hadi despite their great learning attested to by great scholars they were and their followers are in my judgment lacking in understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. Scholars have praised their knowledge in field of Fiqh, grammar, Tafsir, … but no one has pointed out the obvious; these idiots had defective knowledge of Tawheed/Shirk. I Said: What good is great ability of narrating Hadith and knowing complexities of Arabic grammar when they didn’t grasp Tawheed/Shirk properly. According to them Istighathah is Shirk and to believe that how much of Tawheed/Shirk did they need to distort to make their belief Islam? Their very foundation of Islam/Iman has been questioned. What can be more damaging and damning verdict about them then this? He Said: There has to be some excuse Brother Ali. I Said: There is excuse this is why I have not declared them Kafir. I do genuinely believe their methodology of determining Shirk was defective. Naturally this would also tick boxes of defective Tawheed/Shirk. I feel it is too far fetched to say their understanding of Tawheed and BASIC understanding Shirk was defective because its all clear in text of Quran. They made mistakes in complex issues of determining Shirk/Tawheed but they made BASIC grade of Tawheed/Shirk enough to be Muslims. [EMail Exchange Ends.] [GMail Chat.] I Said: I am bit perplexed how easily you accepted my judgment about Shuyukh Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul Hadi, and Ibn Qayyim. He Said: Brother Ali not just you. There is long line of giant scholars of Ummah who opposed them and have condenmed them. You just took a leaf from them that is why I agreed. On your weight alone, smile, it was very unlikely. I Said: As far as I am aware none before me said anything about their lack of understanding how Shirk is determined. He Said: Not clearly as you but what do you think Shaykh Ata’ullah Sikandari was saying to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah? He was indirectly saying Ibn Taymiyyah you don’t know how Shirk is warranted. I Said: Hey Brother! At least I took scholarship forward and didn’t leave it unsaid. Smile. He Said: Without your explanation how Shirk is warranted when it has to be inferred I very much doubt I would have ever agreed with what you said about his understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. 26.0 - Verse Living And Dead Are Not Alike And Cannot Make Dead Hear: He Said: I was reading write-up of this discussion and noted you quoted verse, Q35:22, and this kind of reinvigurated my interest in discussion about dead hearing or not. I Said: Which page of discussion are you referrencing? He Said: Page 26/27. I Said: It is not on page 26/27. [I later figured he changed the size of writing from Times New Roman 11 to 12 which resulted difference of page numbers.] He Said: It is Brother. I Said: Checked again and didn’t find it. Did you alter, add, remove anything to document? He Said: No. I Said: Quote me text before it and portion of verse. Actually never mind that. I will search referrence of Surah number and verse number, Q35:22, through FIND. I have found the only referrence to the verse on page 22/23 [see section 8.12]. He Said: What is your understanding of this verse Q35:22? I Said: While I was searching for referrence of Quranic verse, Q35:22, I spotted material in red which is my referrence point to indicate content was not part of original discussion but has been produced later. And therefore I want to run that pass you now. He Said: What is it about? I Said: Interpretation of, Q16:21, and I would E-Mail it to you after writing introduction to it. He Said: That would be fine and maybe better because I really want to to get on with dead hearing in graves topic. I Said: OK. We can continue. Just a note Tafsir of, Q16:21, which I added later on page 23 will be removed from page 23 and inserted in beginning of this session [26.1 to 26.2]. That way it officially would become part of our discussion. He Said: You just want me to read it so you have excuse to put it in so I can’t say it wasn’t part of original. Smile. I Said: Once it has passed into your knowledge its part of our this discusion. This has been canon for this discussion. Note all E-Mail exchanges relating to discussion will be part of published material not just what we discuss here [on Gmail chat]. He Said: Not a problem. Ha! Ha! Haa! 26.1 - Brief Contextualisation Of Coming Interpretation Of Chapter 16 Verse 21: [EMail.] I Said: I misunderstood your intent and in following you pointed out what you intended:“I didn’t mean what you understood from this. I meant that if the dead are idols then they are not going to be raised to life on ressurection day yet the verse hints they will be raised to life: “(They the idols are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the idols themselves) will be raised up.” I responded to your point with following correct interpretation: “The verse actualy is stating: “(They the idols are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the dead mankind) will be raised up.” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) translated it like this fashion. You took this interpretation of mine to a Talib ul-Ilm brothers of yours, he added to it (the idols), and in your own words [taking cue from me] he levelled following criticism: “… everything of your interpretation does not fit into the verse. If the verse was about idols then it would mean the idols do not know when the mankind will be raised up for judgment day: “(They the idols are) dead, not alive, and they (the idols) know not when they (the dead mankind) will be raised up.” This does not fit into verse well because if idols are intended then why should they be expected to know? They are after-all, idols, made up of inanimate material. If the dead mentioned in the verse were deceased human beings then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) saying; the dead don’t know when deceased will be raised up for judgment; would make better sense and in this light I purpose that dead mentioned in the verse are not idols but dead human beings.” Initially I had thought his criticism was valid but when I paid attention to verse I realized it is in error. And in following section the error and agreement of Tafsir with Quranic theme will be proven. 26.2 - Idols Do Not Know When The ManKind Will Be Raised For Judgment: I Said: Note I did not present the following version of interpretation but I thought about it and came to understanding this interpretation is valid: “(They the idols are) dead, not alive, and they (the idols) know not when they (the dead mankind) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:21] This interpretation is absolutely in agreement with Quranic theme of idols being unable to do anything, hear, see, hold, grant, harm, benefit, and unable to create, and inability of idols in knowing; knowing of Ghayb. Of which, when will be ressurection, is part of. This verse and its interpretation is not imputing expectation of knowing but establishing lack of knowledge of Ghayb i.e. day of judgment. And this interpretation is also related to following which I offered during of intial discussion on this verse: “Those (Ilahs represented by idols) whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (Those whom idols represent are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the deceased/themselves) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. [EMail End.] He Said: Thumbs up! Smile. I Said: Smile. You just want to move on. Smile. He Said: Yes but I think your point is valid in light contextualisation of verse theme. 26.3 - Onto Hearing Of Dead – Do They, Or Don’t They Hear: He Said: I was reading article on IslamQ&A, here, and they quoted verse, Q35:22, as proof that dead do not hear: “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] According to website Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid has explained that hearing of dead mentioned in Hadith of Badr was a one off special event where dead were made to hear and it not a regular occurance. What do you say in this regard? I Said: Let me, first, deal with hearing of the dead at well of Badr being one off event. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Anas Ibn Malik reported Allah's Apostle having said: When the servant is placed in his grave, his companions retrace their steps, and he hears the noise of their footsteps, two angels come to him and make him sit and say to him: What you have to say about this person (the Prophet)? If he is a believer, he would say: I bear testimony to the fact that he is a servant of Allah and His Messenger.“ [Ref: Muslim, B40, H6862, here] This Hadith explicitly indicates that when servant is burried in his grave and people leave the deceased even hears their footsteps. Note this is not just one off hearing but hearing of every servant. Previously I had argued hearing of deceased at the grave site is way more powerfull then living because they even hear the footsteps but now note the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) imply the very same: “Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet looked at the people of the well (the well in which the bodies of the pagans killed in the Battle of Badr were thrown) and said: ‘Have you found true what your Lord promised you?’ Somebody said to him: ‘You are addressing dead people.’ He replied: ‘You do not hear better than they but they cannot reply.’” [Ref: Bukhari, Book 23, H452, here.] In conclusion I would say dead can hear. 26.4 - Dead Cannot Hear Because He Equated Idols To Dead Not Hearing: He Said: Forgive me but we discussed these verses before but I want to bring them to attention for another point. About idols Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] “And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer. If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you.” [Ref: 35:13] Even though these verses are about idols but His saying idols are dead and idols cannot hear are based on fundamental foundation that dead persons cannot hear. And since dead persons cannot hear/see Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equated the idols with dead persons because both share common qualities i.e. dead and cannot hear. I Said: That is a good point but I will address that after I have fully explored previous. I wasn’t done with it. He Said: No! Tackle this point first and then you can move on to next. I Said: As you wish Brother. Smile. I have already partly responded to this when I said dead are of two types: I) dead which never heard and will never hear i.e. idols, II) dead which heard and after death continue to hear i.e. human beings. The idols are in the first category, never heard and will never hear. I Said: And idols are made up of dead material i.e. stones, wood etc. So in verse, Q16:20/21 and Q35:13, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equates idols with dead material with which they are made up off i.e. stone, wood. It was dead, never heard, and never will hear. The idols have common with stones from which they are carved – both dead, both never heard, both never will hear because they never had life and have no soul at all. To sum it up dead earth material with which idols are made has a common traits/qualities with dead idols. Note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says earth is dead and He gives it life. And deadness referrs t soil and minerals in the soil … and life is plants that emerge from it. He Said: Masha’Allah that’s a very good answer. I Said: So my interpretation is correct and your interpretation wrong because mine brings reconciliation between Quranic verses and Ahadith. Where as yours perptuates contradiction between Quranic verses and authentic Ahadith. He Said: It wasn’t my understanding I read it somewhere and I recalled it. 26.5 - Zaati Ability Of Hearing Of Dead Negated Not Atahi: I Said: Another important point to note: Ahadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prove hearing of the dead only logical is the verse is negating Zaati ability of hearing for dead but does not negate Atahi hearing of dead. He Said: I actually thought about this too this. Through this we can bring reconciliation between Quranic verses and Ahadith. I Said: Knowledge of Sunni principles of Tawheed; Zaati, Atahi, … all make it easy to resolve some clear conflicts. Deobandi, Wahhabi scholars who don’t know our principles struggle in proper understanding of Tawheed/Shirk and make huge mistakes in understanding issues like of Ilm al-Ghayb, Sama al-Mawta, Istighathah and others. He Said: I true that because ever since learning them I have developed better depth in Tawheed and Shirk. I Said: You will reap the rewards of learning them. I am going to take leave. I will try to write rest in E-Mail. The key to understanding this verse is to understand who the DEAD are and what does it mean by HEAR. Allah Hafiz. 26.6 - Prophet Cannot Make Living Hear But Not The Dead To Hear: [EMail.] I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) begins with: “Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead.” Then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states He can make the living and the dead hear: Allah can make any that He wills to hear …” And then addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) He says you Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can only make the living hear but not the dead ones: “… but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves.” [Ref: 35:22] Note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) negates for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the ability to make dead hear him but not of making the living hear him. And therefore logical deduction is that he can make the living hear hence it was not negated. 26.7 - Verse 35:22 Says Dead Cannot Hear, Or We No Power To Make Dead Hear: I Said: On IslamQA Shaykh Munajjid quoted the following verse to prove dead cannot hear: “Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead. Allah can make any that He wills to hear; but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves.” [Ref: 35:22] This verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is saying: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot give dead the ability/power to hear because this ability/power is in control of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Its like saying; Ali you can not give life to dead but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gives life to dead as He wills. It doesn’t mean dead do not come to life it means Ali does not have power to give life to dead. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) gave life to the dead, made figures of bird with clay and breathed life into them, with permission and power from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In short the verse is not negating dead having ability to hear but negates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having ability/power to make dead hear without permision of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 26.8 - Who Are The Dead – Are They Living, Or Are They Literally Dead: I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead. Allah can make any that He wills to hear; but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves.” [Ref: 35:22] Why would Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) address Prophet and say: You can not make the dead hear. Was he giving Tawheed lessons to deceased in graveyard of Mushrikeen? Obviously not. In following verses dead are stated to have ability to turn back and leave – when they hear the call [of Islam from Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam]: “Truly thou canst not cause the dead to listen, nor canst thou cause the deaf to hear the call, (especially) when they turn back in retreat.” [Ref: 27:80] “So verily thou canst not make the dead to hear, nor canst thou make the deaf to hear the call, when they show their backs and turn away.” [Ref: 30:52] This establishes dead referred in these verses are not actually dead but they are living but due to certain something they are referred as dead and burried in graves by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 26.9 - Tafsir - Hear In Verse 35:22 Means Guide: I Said: It was established that verse 35:22 does not mean dead cannot hear but means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot make the dead hear but only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) makes the dead hear: “Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead. Allah can make any that He wills to hear; but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves.” [Ref: 35:22] And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can only make the living to hear. To hear in verse, Q35:22, is in meaning of to guide: “Indeed (O Muhammad) you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He is most knowing of the (rightly) guided." [Ref: 28:56] Therefore verse, Q35:22, means Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can guide whoever He wills but you Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot guide those who are dead in graves. 26.10 - Tafsir – You Cannot Guide Those Destined To Die Upon Kufr: I Said: I) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead. Allah can make any that He wills to hear; but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves.” [Ref: 35:22] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) also said: “Indeed (O Muhammad) you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He is most knowing of the (rightly) guided." [Ref: 28:56] Thus Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not being able to make dead Mushrikeen/Kafireen hear is in meaning of not being able over guidance of dead Mushrikeen/Kafireen. I Said: II) Hadith establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recited, Q27:80, upon the dead of Badr: “Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet said, "They now realize that what I used to tell them was the truth. "And Allah said, 'Verily! You cannot make the dead to hear nor can you make the deaf hear.” (27:80) [Ref: Sahih Bukhari, B23, H453] From application of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Umm ul-Momineen Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) it is obvious, Q27:80, Q35:22, Q30:52, were revealed in specific context of those disbelievers whose bodies were thrown in well of Badr. I Said: III) In this context, Q35:22, means: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can guide whoever He wills but you cannot make the people of well accept guidance because they have been destined to die and are to be burried in state of Kufr/Shirk. 26.11 - Tafsir Of Q35:22 By Hadhrat Ibn Abbas, The Two Jalals, And Ibn Kathir: I Said: “Allah says that these antonyms are clearly not equal, the blind and the seeing are not equal, there is a difference and a huge gap between them. Darkness and light are not equal, neither are shade and the sun's heat. By the same token, the living and the dead are not equal. This is the parable Allah makes of the believers who are the living, and the disbelievers who are the dead. This is like the Ayat: “Is he who was dead and We gave him life and set for him a light (of belief) whereby he can walk amongst men -- like him who is in the (depths of) darkness from which he can never come out.” (6:122) [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 35:22, here.] "Nor are the living equal to the dead.” The believers and the disbelievers. Respectively the addition of the particle lā, ‘nor’, in all three instances is for emphasis. “Indeed God makes to hear whomever He will.” To be guided. So that such a person then responds to Him by embracing faith. “But you cannot make those who are in the graves to hear.” Namely the disbelievers — whom He has likened to the dead to hear and so respond." [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 35:22, here] “”Nor are the living equal with the dead.” Nor are the believers equal with the disbelievers in relation to obedience and honour. “Lo! Allah maketh whom He will …” Whoever deserves it “… to hear …” to understand. “Thou canst not reach …” You cannot make understand “… those who are in the graves …” Those who are as if dead and buried in the graves.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas, 35:22, here.] I Said: All this should help you to understand that the verse is not negating hearing of dead in literal sense but establishes Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) inability to guide to Islam those Mushrikeen destined to die upon Kufr. Salam Alaykum. [EMail End.] 26.12 - You Cannot Make Dead Accept Guidance Requires Expert Witness: [EMail.] He Said: Salam Alaykum. I read through your E-Mail some parts seemed suspect but after looking at Tafasir Ibn al-Abbas, Tafsir al-Jalalayn and Tafsir Ibn Kathir I came to agree that dead referrs to living Mushrikeen and hear means guide, guidance. Other parts of your explanation either agreed with Tawheed/Shirk principles therefore I agreed with them. Yet the most important and compelling part; you cannot make the people of well accept guidance because they are destined to die upon Kufr/Shirk; lacks scholarly corroboration. There is no doubt you have reasoned it flawlessly and very logically but is there a scholarly precedence for this Tafsir? If there is could you quote the text with referrence. This supporting evidence would seal the deal for me [to accept this interpretation]. [EMail End.] 26.13 - Expert Witness Of Shaykh Ibn Kathir Supports Foundation Of My Interpretation: [EMail.] I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. As far as my knowledge goes [and it is not very far from English and Urdu translations of Tafasir] there is no particular Tafsir which makes specific referrence to dead of the well of Badr. Yet the general concept has been found in Tafasir – take for example Tafsir of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah). He does not interpret the verse in direct context in which I have but he has laid the basis of – those who are destined to die upon Kufr/Shirk cannot be guided: “Verily, Allah makes whom He wills to hear …” Means He guides them to listen to the proof and accept it and adhere it. “… but you cannot make hear those who are in graves.” Means just as the dead cannot benefit from guidance and the call to truth after they have died as disbelievers and ended up in the graves, so too you cannot help these idolators who are decreed to be doomed, and you cannot guide them. “You are only a warner.” Means all you have to do is to convey the Message and warn them, and Allah leaves astray whomsoever He wills and guides whomsoever He wills.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 35:22, here.] And note verse, Q35:22, talks about dead yet we know the dead of verse were living people but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states about them to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); you cannot guide those who are burried in graves. Logical deduction is that the intended targets of verse would die upon Kufr/Shirk. On top of this foundation I employed Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) reciting verse, Q35:22, upon the Mushrik dead of Badr to arrive at the understanding presented in Tafsir. I hope this helps. [EMail End.] 27.0 - Revisiting Issue Of Takfir Of Muslims Made By Shaykh al-Najd: [EMail.] He Said: Salam alaykum. Thank you Brother for clarification. I have another problem which I would like you to tackle. Before I go ahead and share let me say it. I do not believe majority or entirity of Ummah in past were, or at present are, or future will become Kafir/Mushrik. Sometime ago you quoted evidence of mass Takfir issued by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. I couldn’t see any justification back then but you’ve quoted Tafsir of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) and he employed verse Q6:120 in his Tafsir of verse Q35:12. While checking context of verse I noted verse: "And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience. And indeed the devils do inspire their allies (among men) to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be associators (of others with Him)." [Ref: 6:121] He Said: I discussed this verse with Talib Brother and we came to agreement this verse supports mass Takfir. Salafi brother presented his argument; Mushrikeen of Makkah/Najd [and other regions] claimed Islam and Muwahideen accepted this claim. Muwahideen did not judge and believed Mushriks were Mushrik therefore they became Mushriks themselves. I wanted get your take on this and get answer to important question for me. IF the people of Arabia were indeed upon major Shirk as it was alleged then Muwahideen validating Shirk as Islam would make them Mushrik or not and will the verse support charge of Shirk levelled at such individuals? [EMail End.] 27.1 - Brief Response – Obey Equals Believing/Acting On Shirk: [EMail.] I Said: There are two key points that need to be made: I) Verse states, obeying Mushriks in which they dispute, it means obeying in meaning of believing and egaging in practice of major Shirk. It has nothing to do with obeying a claimant and accepting his claim [of Islam]. Verse is stating Mushriks dispute with you on X. If you were to obey them and act/believe in Shirk then you would be Mushriks. Accepting a claimants polytheistic notion as legitimate is an offense in Islamic law but does not warrant charge of Shirk. Acting on Shirk and adopting Shirki beliefs warrants legitimate charge of Mushrik. I Said: II) If there was genuine Shirk and a Islamicly educated Muslim did not deem it so then he is guilty of Kufr. And Kafir if exhortion to repent has been made but person refuses to retract. Kufr, because he rejected what Quranic teaching of Shirk and accepted Shirk to be valid teaching. It is not Shirk because he does not believe in Shirk. Example, a ‘Muslim’ due to ignorance believes its absolutely fine to believe in Krishna being a god and it is not his position to deem its worship as an evil/sinful act. He affirms all boxes of Tawheed but is too tolerant as demonstrated. In this context person would be guilty of Kufr but not Shirk. I Said: III) On side note if you recall your initial position was that Shaykh al-Najd did not make Takfir of vast majority of Muslim Ummah in his writtings inculding people of Hijaz. By quoting the verse are you endorsing and agreeing that Shaykh al-Najd engaged in this? End. A comprehensive and textual proof based response will follow but this is all what I could do for the moment. The following response will directly or indirectly reinforce what has been stated above. [EMail End.] 28.0 -Takfir Of Majority And Inner Struggle Of Salafi Brother: He Said: Salam alaykum. I am looking forward to your comprehensive explanation of verse. I did talk to Talib Brother about what you quoted and he confirmed Shaykh Muhammad did make Takfir of those towns who either refused his Dawah of Tawheed. He pointed out that Shaykh Muhammad sent envoys to elite of scoiety like rulers, scholars, and when they refused his Dawah he made Takfir of them and those under their authority. This wasn’t the first time I actually heard what you alleged. Brother Sulayman, whom you quoted from, and another brother on Islamic-Awakening forum with nickname of, Salah ad-Din al-Azkabani, said the same things. I ignored them at times and made Taweels on other times. Anyway my trusted, Talib, brother has confirmed it. On top of this you have staked your credibility. I am still waiting for refferrences. Smile. He Said: To be honest this is very hard to digest. I am so acustomed to being Salafi I am struggling to let go few aspects of it. You know months ago we had discussion on Ahadith which Salafis employ to justify there will be major Shirk in Ummah. You explained them so convincingly that I felt there is no coming back but months later after knowing I have no come back. I still can’t believe I have been on error regarding understanding of these Ahadith. I re-read discussion (your edited account of it) just to make my self believe I was wrong about my initial accessment of your explanation. My innate Salafi isn’t willing to let go of errors which my rational mind tells were errors. This has been a very tough eleven months. 28.1 - Brief Account Of Salafi Brother’s Deep Commitment To Salafism: He Said: At the age of nineteen I became active in Salafi Dawah starting same year I landed in Arabia. Aged twentyfour I went back to India to get married and then came to UK the same year. For past nineteen years I have been in UK I have got my children educated in Salafi mosques to ensure they learn Minhaj. My oldest son is seventeen, youngest ten, and daughter she’s fifteen. My wife isn’t very religious in sense of learning theology but otherwise practicing Muslim. Now I am about to turn their and my own lives upside down because of ‘deviation’ from Salafiyyah. How will I approach them on these issues! He Said: I am so worried that I fear my decision to change will make my marriage soar and maybe bring end to it. Due to these worries/fears I thought about quiting this discussion. Yet each time your words, DO NOT CLOSE GATE OF GUIDANCE OPENED FOR YOU WITH YOUR OWN HANDS, brought me back to it. The turmoil in my mind, worries, stress has finally broken me. Salafism was and to an extent is my whole life and it nearly is upside down. Make Dua for me. Salam Alaykum. [EMail End.] 28.2 - Advising Salafi Brother To Calm The Revolution: [EMail.] I Said: Salam Alaykum. I was intending to write Tafsir of verse in context of disputes which the Mushrikeen had with Muslims but reading your E-Mail I changed my objective. Just Brotherly advice for you. Don’t be too hammer and anvil on yourself. I have been through same many years ago and I understand it is hard. For you it will be extra hard to adopt change because you’re married with children. You got yourself and others to contend with. And you feel you’re not just responsible for yourself but fate of your family. We cannot take everyone we love to paradise nor guide to straight path. If it was possible then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have compelled Abu Talib to accept Islam and would have taken him to paradise. It wasn’t destined to be. I Said: Guidance is in hands of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) so seek it from Him for yourself and family members. Your children attending Salafi Masjid for learning Deen is no reason to believe they have adopted naturalized Salafism as their belief system. Masajid in UK only teach Tajweed, Fiqh, and basics of creed. Most I believe your children would have adopted label of Salafism but distinguished traits of Salafism not likely. So do not jump the gun and make judgment to wage Jihad. First find out. Incase they are then … 28.3 - Advice On How To Correct Misguided Family Members: I Said: Attempt to engage and guide lovingly, politely, and compassionately. Instead of making your effort four week Aqeedah course; make it a year, two, and three years crash course. Slowly chip away. Give bit of correct information and ask tough questions that challenge their world view and when they struggle to answer questions then give them alternative world view of Ahlus Sunnah. Ask more questions. Put them in tough positions consistently and continously eventually they will crack. We discussed nearly ten years ago on this subject but ten years later there is change. I don’t believe the change happened just in this discussion. My experience says in our original discussion somethings left mark on you which you might have attempted to conceal/forget. And through years these marks resulted in reflections and realizations which ultimately bought you back to discuss the subject again. I Said: Brother successful Dawah does not need to convert on spot; it only needs to sow seeds of guidance in hearts and minds which bloom in time. You’re are proof of this ten years ago and then years on. Seek guidance from Him for yourself and your family and then set to achieve your objective. You must do it diplomaticly and leniently. Too much emphasis on correcting their misunderstanding will certainly result in resistance/rebellion so best way is to rework on their understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. Without bringing into discussion Istighathah or any other disputed subjects. Similarly correct the understanding of Ahadith which Salafis typically employ to justify charge; Muslims have fallen into Shirk and are worshipping idols; instead of challenging Salafi application of these Ahadith. Once you’ve laid these foundations and they have fully grasped and understood these subjects then proceed to challenge their understandings. I Said: With this correct foundation eventually you will succeed in correcting their misunderstandings. Have plenty of Sabr, make Dua for guidance, and your best effort will eventually bear fruit. It will not be easy but you surely will succeed with aid of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 28.4 - Straight Road To Test Sift Out Pure And Impure: I Said: You said you had thought about quitting discussion. So I want to relate to you something which likely you will be aware of. Sunnis of subcontinent often call slogan, ghulamiyeh Rasool mein (i.e. in servitude to Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and people respond, maut bi hayat heh (i.e. even death is a life), or they say maut bi qubool heh (i.e. even death is welcomed). Yet in reality at first sign of danger to life ninety-nine percent of people who respond would run away leaving Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to struggle for Deen of Islam. I Said: And as result they fail the test of maut being welcomed by them. Slogans are easy. La ilaha il-Allah Muhammad ur-RasoolAllah is easy part but letting go of evil and sins for this la ilaha il-Allah Muhammad ur-RasoolAllah is not easy. Especially when evil/sin is you, part of nature, and is programmed into system. For sake of la ilaha il-Allah Muhammad ur-RasoolAlah letting go of your misguidance is test of your Iman/Islam. I Said: Will you give-up errors misguidances which you even have come to agree are as such? Or will you turn your back and run leaving Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to struggle against reprehensible innovations introduced by Wahhabism? The easiest and safest for health ,safety, comfort of this world would be to run-off and never look back. The just and right course of action would be to go through all pain suffering depression and all the rest that comes with adopting change. This hardship is test of your Iman. My Brother your submission to correct teaching of Quran/Sunnah is literally, Islam. I Said: By making the required changes, at very least the ones you have come to acknowledge are erroneous, you will be struggling with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for Deen of Islam. It is not easy and will not be easy but you must strive to pass your test. [EMail End.] 29.0 - Various Valid Interpretations Of, Q6:121, In Light Of Quranic Teaching: [EMail.] I Said: (Ia) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience.” [Ref: 6:121] “And for all religion We have appointed a rite that they may mention the name of Allah over what He has provided for them of animals (when they’re slaughtered). For your God is one God, so to Him submit. And give good tidings to the humble (before their Lord).” [Ref: 22: 34] This verse is referring to eating of flesh of slaughtered animal on which the slaughterer has not invoked name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and instead as invoked an idol-Ilah: “He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah (during slaughter). But whoever is forced, neither desiring it, nor transgressing (limits), there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” [Ref: 2:173] I Said: (Ib) Mushrikeen affirmed Ilahiyyah for their idol-Ilahs. They pronounced the name of their idol-Ilahs before they slaughtered an animals to dedicate slaughter to gods. In this context Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And indeed the devils do inspire their allies (among men) to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be associators (of others with Him)." [Ref: 6:121] Meaning of, if you were to obey them, is inclusive of if you were to obey them and associate Idol-Ilahs as partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and dedicate the slaughter of sacrificial or other slaughter to them then you, the Muslims, would be Mushrikeen. I Said: (II) Mushrikeen of Arabia ascribed many Rabb/Ilah as subordinate partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Some they believed to be His daughters, others his consorts, and ... This is established by question of polytheist when he enquired about lineage of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and in response Surah Ikhlas was revealed. The very question of polytheist reveals they had such belief system for their Ilahs/Rabbs. Islam challenged their entire polytheistic belief system as well as they belief of many gods, daughters, wifes, and so on. This was the key and the corner stone of entire dispute which lead Mushrikeen to persecute and wage war against Islam. They disputed with Tawheed and wanted the Muslims to accept Shirk belief system of many Ilah/Rabb partners: “And indeed the devils do inspire their allies (among men) to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be associators (of others with Him)." [Ref: 6:121] 29.1 - The Subject Of Mass Takfir: I Said: In order to give legitimacy to principle of mass Takfir you said in your understanding and of your Salafi Talib brother verse, Q6:121, in principle justifies mass Takfir of entire people of Hijaz including Muwahideen. You reasoned Mushriks claimed Islam despite their Shirk and Muwahideen of Hijaz accepted their claim to Islam. Muwahideen accepted/obeyed their claim of Islam and judged Mushriks to be Muslim. As a consequence of this Muwahideen too became Mushrikeen like the ‘Mushriks’ (i.e. Sunnis). Yet Tafasir of the Quranic verse establishes obeying Mushrikeen is inclusive of believing in major Shirk and acting on practices which major Shirk paves way for. And if any is guilty of such obedience then indeed such a person is Kafir/Mushrik. I Said: Muslims of Hijaz those whom allegedly met the criteria of Wahhabi Tawheed to be deemed as Muwahideen could not have believed as alleged Mushriks of Hijaz believed. As such the application of verse, Q6:112, upon Muwahideen to justify edict of mass Mushriking of entire people of Hijaz was unjustified. Because verse means obeying/believing polytheistic belief and acting on Shirki actions which the alleged Muwahideen were not guilty of. I Said: We both agree Jamhoor (i.e. majority), Sawad al-Azam (great majority group) of Arabia including of Hijaz did not affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for any Prophet, or saint, or an angel, or Jinn. Nor they ever made Niyyah to worship nor worshipped anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Ahlus Sunnah believed and Sunnis continue to believe none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. And therefore Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab declaring the vast majority of Arabian/Hijazi Muslims of major Shirk goes against prophetic teaching. [EMail End.] 29.2 - The Important Question And Important Answer: [Following responds to two questions asked at the end of section 27.0.] [EMail.] I Said: You had asked if a Muslim/Muwahid deemed major Shirk to be Islam would he be guilty of Shirk or not? And if the verse, Q6:112, would support Mushriking of such individuals? I Said: I) Answer is very simple. Shirk has to be affirmed as part of individual’s own belief otherwise it cannot be warranted. Kufr on other hand can be warranted even if one does not profess Kufri belief. If a Muslim judges major Shirk to be acceptable in Islam due to ignorance while upholding all requirements of Tawheed then such a individual is misguided in best case scenario. While same would be Kufr if ignorant person is made aware of such misguidance but refuses to repent. And a educated Muslim, fully aware of Islamic teachings of Tawheed/Shirk, deemed Shirk to be acceptable within Islam then it is clear cut Kufr. Point to be noted is in ignorance or in knowledge granting Shirk validation while not affirming it as one’s own belief would not amount to being guilty of major Shirk; at worst case it would amount to major Kufr. I Said: II) Shaykh al-Najd declared the Muslims are guilty of Shirk on basis direct involment in ‘Shirk’ as well as indirect; via agreeing to Shirk/Mushrik being Islam/Muslim. Without Shirk there is no legitimacy to charge of Shirk. IF there was indirect involvement as discussed earlier then it does not warrant major Shirk. Nor charge of major Shirk on this basis can be valid. This points to two possibilities either Shaykh al-Najd didn’t know Tawheed/Shirk and how these are affirmed/negated. Or he knew well and he was making Takfir of vast majority of Ahlul Hijaz on basis of direct involvment in major Shirk. I Said: III) I do believe him to be an idiot agent of Iblees but I don’t believe he wasn’t aware of technicalities mentioned. He was making Takfir due to second possibility and this contradicts what your Salafi brother cooked up; i.e. Shaykh al-Najd due to obedience of Mushrikeen declared Ahlul Hijaz as Mushriks. Obviously both cannot be true and you will have to balance the equation if he was declaring Ahlul Hijaz on basis of direct/indirect involvement in Shirk. Whatever the case reality is charge of Shirk due to indirect involvement is invalid. I Said: IV) This brings me to your second question. The verse does not support Shaykh al-Najd’s Takfir because it pre-requisites his affirming Shirki beliefs and actions which Shirk leads to. And the Muwahideen could not have been affirming Shirki beliefs otherwise why would they be deemed any different from rest of ‘Mushriks’ of Hijaz/Makkah? Therefore verse cannot and does not support Shaykh al-Najds Takfir in anyway. [EMail End.] He Said: May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you for effort and good intentions. Ameen. I will have look at the content of your last two E-Mails tonight. [EMail End.] 30.0 - Dua To Dead Is Shirk & Asking Living Not Shirk: [EMail.] He Said: I) Jazakallah Khayr! You made some good points that Shirk has to be affirmed as personal belief to be guilty of it and Kufr can be warranted without actually affirming a Kufri belief. I thought about second part and realized Kufr can be mere denial of what is explicitly stated in text of Quran i.e. angels, hellp, paradise, ressurection etc. Major Shirk is result of affirmed belief and major Kufr is result of affirmation of Kufri, or negation of an essential Islamic belief. I Said: II) I was browsing AhlalHdeeth forum and chanced upon some good content about Hadith we discussed. My aquaintances discussed Sanad of this Hadith saying it is Da’if. In the thread brother al-Boriqee and … provided what seemed to me a good response. I am not going to ask you to respond to it which you likely will but can you give me your opinion about it: “(I) It does not contain Shirk, because if it was Sahih or at least sound, then it would be a legislated imposition to the servants to make this Du'a. (II) If it was Dha'eef, then it is simply Dha'eef and not acted upon. (III) If someone chose to act on it, then it would still not entirely be shirk because the call is a reasonable call towards those who are: a) Living. b) Have the ability to assist and attend to the deserted traveller. Furthermore, from a Fiqh perspective, it may be that this may also apply to the one stranded in the desert to actually literally call out loudly. Wallahul-alim. Asalamu Alaykum.” [Ref: Narration Of O Slaves Of Allah Help Me, Post#5, by al-Boriqee, here.] This seems balanced approach to me. [EMail End.] 30.1 - Unveiling Brother al-Boriqee’s Quote Balanced Approach: I Said: (Ia) Major flaw with brother al-Boriqees paragraph is that it is based on misguided notions; distance, certain attributes, life/death, ability/inability factor and make a Dua into worship. In actuality Dua of worship permits no Takhsees of living, or of deceased, able, or of unable, far, or of near, seeing, or of blind, hearing, or of deaf. Instead when a supplication of Hamd/Madad is directed toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or toward an false Ilah then worship has occurred. And hearing, seeing, blindness, deafness, near, far, ablility, inability, living, lifelessness of one being praised/asked does not factor and make action into worship. I Said: (Ib) It is idiotic belief of Wahhabis and is without sound rationale that one being asked for help if he cannot hear, see, and is not living, able, near then request of help turns into worship. A more analogous and fitting observation would be to argue to ask living, near, able, seeing, hearing, and Ghayb (i.e. hidden) for help is worship because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is living, near, able, seeing, hearing, Ghayb and therefore to ask for help of such is worship. This would be stupid on another level but at very least some type of equality is basis of worship/Shirk. In true it is belief intention and in context of Muslim’s worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), legislated actions decide if it is worship or not. When the belief, intention are in accordance with Tawheed then calling of far, near, living, dead, able, unable, seeing, blind, hearing, deaf, human, Jinn, angel, alien ... calling them in any condition is not worship and not Shirk. And any who reasons such calling is worship/Shirk needs to quote evidences of Quran/Hadith which prove his stated characteristics are factors via which Shirk is warranted. I Said: (IIa) Brother al-Boriqee wrote “(I) “It does not contain Shirk, because if it was Sahih or at least sound , then it would be a legislated imposition to the servants to make this Du'a. (II) If it was Dha'eef, then it is simply Dha'eef and not acted upon. (III) If someone chose to act on it, then it would still not entirely be shirk because the call is a reasonable call towards those who are: a) Living. b) Have the ability to assist and attend to the deserted traveller.” Brother said it is not Shirk because if it was Sahih then Islam would be instructing the believers to act on the teaching of Hadith. Reason he gives doesn’t justify why it isn’t Shirk and even betrays common sense. Comparatively in light of second and third statements his actual reason why it isn’t Shirk is; practice of Hadith of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would be based on Sahih/Hasan Hadith [and source of this teaching is Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam and they do not instruct Shirk]. I drived this conclusion via complex reasoning method. To decipher and understand Salafi methodology of Tawheed/Shirk if A is Tawheed then Z is Shirk i.e. opposite of A is Shirk. Corner stone of Salafi Tawheed/Shirk are opposites. If eating a Banana is Tawheed then not eating Banana is Shirk. If action on Sahih Hadith is accordance with Tawheed then action on Da’if Hadith of O servants of Allah help me is Shirk. Opposites. I Said: (IIb) He wrote: “It does not contain Shirk, because if it was Sahih or at least sound, then it would be a legislated imposition to the servants to make this Du'a.” Brother al-Boriqee is holds to misguided notion that existance of evidence makes a practice Tawheed. Brother is talking about Hadith of, O Servants of Allah help me, and in this context he said it is not Shirk because … Instead he says if the Hadith was Sahih/Hasan then it would be instructing the Muslims to call servants of Allah for help. In his writing there is implicit affirmation that existance of valid evidence ensures a practice is not Shirk. Strictly from Islamic Tawheed perspective suppose Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed a scripture saying, believe in My Son, Jesus the Son of Allah. Would it be correct to say this verse does not teach Shirk because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed us to believe in His son Jesus Christ? No! Because it would be Shirk but with difference that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would have legislated/permitted Shirk. Evidence or no evidence, legislated or not legislated, permitted or not permitted; Shirk will remain Shirk, in this case, and in every case. Existance of valid evidence will not make a Muslim Muwahid if belief of Jesus being son of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is affirmed by one. If someone affirmed Haqiqi Shirk then he/she will be Mushrik even if Quranic evidence exists and will remain Mushrik if there is no evidence in Quran/Hadith. Person has to be delusional to assume existance of evidence would make some belief/practice Tawheed. I Said: (IIc) Christians also suffer this delusion that textual evidence justifies their version of ‘Tawheed’. They employ fabrication aka Christian Bible to established and divide the One God into three. And go on attribute to Him figure of father, a son, and a holy spirit. Educated amongst them, likes of James White, acnowledge their belief is Shirk in light of Quranic teaching but argue our scriptures do not prove Trinity to be polytheistic but establish Christian version of monotheism. Therefore to make existance of textual evidence a criteria of Tawheed is dangerous. In this age of misguidance and lack of knowledge I can only guess how far we are away from a time when ‘Muslim’ idiots may end up justifying Islamic Trinity from Quran on basis of We, Us, and Our. Existance of such words/evidence would not prove plurarity of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and give it valid Ikhtilaf standing. Tawheed/Shirk should be judged strictly on what these are said to be in Quran/Sunnah and what the Ulamah of Ummah have agreed upon. And to do it otherwise, like Salafis, do is heretical and dangerous. I Said: (IId) Brother al-Boriqee wrote: “(II) If it was Dha'eef, then it is simply Dha'eef and not acted upon. (III) If someone chose to act on it, then it would still not entirely be shirk because the call is a reasonable call towards those who are: a) Living. b) Have the ability to assist and attend to the deserted traveller.” Logical deduction from statement is that if Hadith is Da’if and saying, O servants of Allah help, then acting on it would be Shirk but not entirely Shirk for reasons he states. Yet reality is existance of Sahih/Da’if evidence will and does not make a Tawheedi belief/practice into Shirki. Nor it would make Shirki belief/practice into Tawheedi. Simple matter of fact is that reality of Shirk/Tawheed does not change to the other on basis of existance/absence of valid/invalid evidence from Quran/Sunnah. I Said: (III) His saying that it isn’t entirely Shirk gives impression Shirk is partial, or entire. There is no partial major Shirk or entire major Shirk. What Brother al-Boriqee stated if it is true then countless Imams having acted on this Da’if Hadith have not been entirely Muwahid. Smile. Major Shirk if committed is entire Shirk and if not then none has been committed. I Said: (IV) Ask any Salafi worth the pinch of salt in Wahhabi academic circles: If acting on this Hadith believing it is Da’if and seeking help from a living/able-helper is Shirk, or not? It is not Shirk in Wahhabism in any sense, not partially and not fractionally yet he stated it is not entirely Shirk; insinuating that it is Shirk to a degree. [EMail End.] 30.2 - Could Shirk Rationale Of Wahhabism Be Justified Via Opposite Dissimilarity: [EMail.] He Said: I) Salam alaikum Brother Ali. Thank you for your extensive response. Some parts confused me a bit because I couldn’t understand how your words are linked with what he wrote. The depth you’re judging his statement I even struggled to understand justification for your criticism. I fear others would think you’re looney, smile, which I did think initially. No offense. It would help greatly if you insert all material from which you derived your understanding. He Said: II) “There is no partial major Shirk or entire major Shirk. What brother al-Boriqee stated if it is true then countless Imams having acted on this Da’if Hadith have not been entirely Muwahid. Smile.” I was not fully with you until I read this. My first reaction was to actually laugh at how subtly you unmasked scarry implications of his words. When it sunk in what his words actually boil down to then by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I thanked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for our meeting. It reminded me words of advice you gave me; to look deeper then apparent of words. After I finsih this I will read again your lecture about Sufism. It was actually enjoyable. Smile. It inspired me for few weeks but effect wore off. Sad. He Said: III) Brother Ali I quote: “In true, it is belief, intention, and in context of Muslims worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), legislated actions decide if it is worship or not. When the belief, intention are in accordance with Tawheed then calling of far, near, living, dead, able, unable, seeing, blind, hearing, deaf, human, Jinn, angel, alien ... calling them in any condition is not worship and not Shirk. And any who reasons such calling is worship/Shirk needs to quote evidences of Quran/Hadith which prove his stated characteristics are factors via which Shirk is warranted.” In Quran/Hadith it is stated Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Living, Seeing, Hearing, Able, Hidden and Near. Could it not be logically deduced these mentioned characteristics justify invocation directed to Him is in accordance with teaching of Tawheed? Ilahs (i.e. idols and people represented by idols) of Mushrikeen are stated to be dead, unable, blind and deaf. Due to these characteristics invocation directed to them and invocation to any invoked who possesses these characteristics results invocation of Shirk. Don’t you think this route gives credence to Salafi methodology and to their charge of Shirk? [EMail End.] 30.3 - Opposite Dissimilarity Is Not Quranic Criteria Of Judging Tawheed/Shirk: I Said: Could you explain yourself a bit? I think I grasped what you intended but simplify your thought. He Said: As far as I am aware Salafis judge Tawheed on basis of characteristics affirmed for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and determining Shirk on basis of characteristics affirmed for Ilahs of Mushrikeen. Would that not justify their methodology and verdict? I Said: You mean to say that Salafis judge something to be Tawheed/Shirk on basis of opposite dissimilarity between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and false invented Ilahs? He Said: Brother you lost me. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Living and Ilahs of Mushrikeen are dead according to Quran. Living VS Dead equals opposite dissimilarity. Asking the Living is Tawheed but asking the dead Ilah is Shirk. Asking the Hearing is Tawheed but asking unable-to-hear Ilah is Shirk etc. This would be judging Tawheed/Shirk by two extremes, by two opposite. Is this what you meant? He Said: Yes. I Said: OK there are number of things. I Said: (I) IF Tawheed/Shirk was judged on this opposite dissimilarity then indeed their verdict would be justified. If living, dead, far, near … of judging Tawheed/Shirk then generally asking aid of living but unable to see and hear (i.e. or blind/deaf) would result in their worship therefore Shirk. I Said: (II) You know well Shirk of attributes, and in this case of characteristics, would only be established if there is equality/twinity between attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and a creation. And Shirk is not warranted via opposite dissimilarity indicated in text of Quran on which Salafis rely to justify their Takfir. I Said: If someone says the following will you agree with them: (a) Invocation directed to a false Ilah is Shirk due to its state of lifelessness/death? (b) Invocation directed to a false Ilah is Shirk due to being too far. (c) Invocation directed to a false Ilah is Shirk due to invoked being unable to see. (d) Invocation directed to a false Ilah is Shirk due to invoked being unable to hear the caller. None of these statements state actual reason of Shirk; believing in false Ilah is actual reason of Shirk; and act of invoking an Ilah is worship therefore secondary reason of Shirk. Concept of dissimilarity/opposite can’t be correct method for establishing Shirk. When these characteristics do not justify Shirk where Ilahiyyah is affirmed then how can these characteristics justify charge of Shirk when belief of Ilahiyyah is absent! 31.0 - What Did I Mean, Being Called Wahhabi, And Becoming Barelwi: He Said: Mashallah! Good explanation Brother Ali. I have another question while I was browsing our discussion on Sufism I read: “Doing To Wahhabi What Wahhabi Does Best.” What did you imply by that? I Said: It means Wahhabis are very good at taking advantage of someone’s lack of knowledge of Islam. If you read paragraph or two after it you will get how I took advantage of your lack of knowledge employing typical Wahhabi arguments … Islam is perfect complete … best example is of Sunnah … we follow Sunnah … but when you turned these on me I explained my position and understanding. Smile. He Said: That’s not true Brother Ali. I Said: It is true but difference is that those taking advantage of absence of knowledge of Muslims are not doing it with malicious intent. Rather Wahhabis do the hard work believing they are upon truth. Yet truth is those whom they brain wash into joining Wahhabism get bested by Wahhabi missionaries due to lack of their lack. He Said: Never mind that. I was bit offended that you classified me a Wahhabi in the heading even after change. I Said: I am sorry brother. I gave it that heading because at that stage of discussion you were Wahhabi. At present you’re very far from Wahhabism. He Said: Smile. Don’t be excited Brother I will never become Barelwi. Smile. I Said: Just like you had thought you will never be anything other then Salafi? He Said: Smile. I didn’t even get to think that. I was Salafi and that was my beginning and will be end [of life]. Or so I thought. 31.1 - Sunnism And Barelwism – All B is S But All S is Not A: He Said: If you were to leave Barelwis which sect would you leave them for? I Said: I suppose you want me to name a sect but I can’t. Generally I would leave Barelwis for a sect which adheres to teaching of Quran, Sunnah, Jammah, and whose Ijtihad has stronger connection with Quran/Sunnah. He Said: I would have stopped at Quran and Sunnah. I Said: Quranic and Sunnah understanding of Jammah/Jamhoor is guidance. And Ijtihad of Jammah/Jamhoor would always be stronger on matters which are not explicitly evidenced in Quran/Sunnah. So I indicated holding to Jammah and way of Ijtihad. He Said: I wasn’t criticising what you said Brother. I was saying that I would have limited myself to Quran/Sunnah because of my short sightedness. I Said: Holding to Jammah and engaging in Itjihad is also from Quran/Sunnah and adopting strongest evidence is also in accordance within teaching of Islam so when people say Quran/Sunnah they indirectly make them part of it. He Said: I know Brother Ali but I liked how you spelled it out. Smile. He Said: Basically you wouldn’t leave Barelwism? My deduction is you believe Barelwism is upon 100% Quran/Sunnah and Jammah, and Ijtihad. I Said: If I did leave Barelwism then I would leave it for Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. He Said: You don’t believe Barelwism is Sunnism? I Said: Barelwism is pure Sunnism but pure Sunnism isn’t Barelwism. He Said: One of your golden rules again. Smile. I Said: It is important to know how the difference between Barelwism and Sunnism is made. 31.2 - Barelwi A Distinction Maker And Identifying Marker: I Said: Barelwism differs from Sunnism in regards to position it took regarding Kufri writings of Deobandi scholars. Barelwi scholarship considers certain Deobandi scholars such as Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi as Kafirs. And in theory would make Takfir of any scholar supporting/defending Kufri writings after exhortation of repentance is made and means of education exhausted. Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi distorted understanding of Khatamiyyah to such an extent that it paved way for more Prophets even after door of Prophet-hood has been closed. I Said: He wrote in Tahzir al-Naas if another Prophet was born after era of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even then finality (i.e. Khatamiyyah) will not be [negatively] effected. Implication of which is that Finality/Khatamiyyah/Seal will not be broken. In this context Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi laid foundation of theoretical Qadiyanism and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani developed Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi’s idea further and took next logical step and claimed Prophet-hood. He Said: Are you narrating what you have heard from others or have you read the mentioned book? I Said: I read it. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah) declared Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi and others as Kafir for other Kufrs. In this context, Barelwi, is a distinction marker indicating a slight variation in Sunnism due to controversy of Shaykh Qasim Nanotavi and other Deoband related issues. As an example native Sunni scholarship of Africa haven’t even heard of Deobandi/Barelwi. Nor they are aware of events that transpired in subcontinent hundred years ago so they have no pro/con stance against Deobandis. Yet it is certain that when they are made aware of these developments and Kufri statements they would validate struggle of and support Shaykh ul-Islam Wal Muslimeen Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan al-Barelwi (rahimullah) against Kufr/Biddah of Deobandism. So they are Sunnis but they are not Barelwis. Comprende! He Said: You want to deliver another speech? I Said: Only if you’re ears. He Said: I am! I Said: There is another side to it. Generally those scholars of subcontinent whom accepted Fatwah Kufr issued by Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) were accused by his detractors of being Barelwis and believers in Barelwism. Eventually this derogatory term, Barelwi, caught on and was/is employed to weed out Deobandi heretics masquerading as Sunnis. Barelwi is marker for identifying pure/true Sunni in subcontinent 31.3 - The Ascription Of Barelwi And Motives/Objectives Of Deobandis: He Said: How was it originally employed? I Said: Originally it was used by Deobandis/Wahhabis in a derogatory way. Detractors of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) used it to argue that he originated a new sect. He Said: Based on your knowledge bank of Barelwi beliefs and practices would you say agree/disagree with this accusation? I Said: Barelwism is no different from fundamental orthodox Sunnism of Arab world, Africa, Asia and the world over. It is not difficult to actually verify this fact. He Said: Why would they accuse him of starting new sect when he held typical Sufi, Ashari/Maturidi beliefs and Hanafi Madhab? I find it hard to believe. I Said: There are so many ways this WHY can be answered but all would be estimations. It is certain that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) had no Aqeedah/Fiqh difference with traditional Sunnism. This is something you can verify yourself. Barelwis believe in Ilm ul-Ghayb, Nooraniyyah, Hadhir Nazir, celebrate/commemorate Mawlid, Tawassul, Istighathah … all traditional Sunni scholarship confirms and held these beliefs/practices long before and after Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah). I Said: Deobandis oppose and reject these beliefs/practices and level charge of Shirk due to them. And yet they accuse Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) of starting a sect which went against traditional Sunnism. He Said: What you’re saying seems to be legit these differences pre-dated Deobandism/Barelwism. Maybe not Hadhir Nazir. I Said: For them to charge; Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) started a new sect is just an effort to character assassinate him for the sake of undercutting his struggle against Kufria/disrespectful statements of Deobandi elders. Belief of Hadhir Nazir with label of Hadhir Nazir did not exist. Yet the belief of Hadhir Nazir; what Hadhir Nazir is; was affirmed by scholars of past. The only difference is Sunnis of subcontinent have presented it with details unfound in classical era. And this too was result of Deobandis/Wahhabis disputing this belief and raised objections which forced the Ahlus Sunnah to deal with belief of Hadhir Nazir in comprehensive manner. I Said: The general belief; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) personally witnesses good/bad deeds of believers/disbelievers as a first hand witness; was affirmed by great many scholars of past. He Said: Any proof of this? I Said: I will dedicate article or two to this sooner or later but until then you will have to agree to it due to Taqleed or you can become Muhaqiq and research the claim yourself. Smile. 31.4 - Controversial Statements Of Deobandi Shuyukh And Validation Of Takfir: He Said: Earlier you said if you were to leave Barelwism you will do it to revert to Sunnism. I gathered you will revise your position on allegedly Kufri statements and abstain from Takfir of allegedly offending scholars. I Said: Brother by revise if you mean, I would revise and deem them Islamicly acceptable, then absolutely no. These writings are clear cut, zero doubt, and absolute Kufr. I have understood them so and unless I turn mental asylum case this verdict is not changing. Before I make such destructive and ruinous judgment I would want Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to kill me. He Said: This is first glimpse that you’re from those zealot types of Barelwis I dislike. You guys are epically stern and harsh. I Said: Thanks for compliments Brother but isn’t that you calling me black. He Said: ??? I Said: Pot calling the kettle black. He Said: Smile. That was vague metaphoric reference. Moving on I guess you will refrain from their Takfir [of Deobandi scholars]. I Said: Yes! Remember this is all in IF and not actual. He Said: Why? This means you would accept Shaykh Ahmad Raza’s judgement of Kufr but not Takfir. Why not Takfir? I Said: First of all I do validate his judgment of Kufr [regarding writings] and Takfir. And I do believe they [the writers of Kufri statements] are Kafirs. He Said: You don’t have to spell it out Brother Ali. I already know. I was just finding out why you would not make Takfir. I Said: I had to state this because not everyone can read in-between the lines. Remember this will be posted online. Just like your side my side too has Minhaj police. They do not worry me but I fear deliberate/accidental misguidance in my writings. One whom initiates evil Sunnah burden of it and those who follow it will be equally upon the initiator and the actor. So I wanted to be clear. He Said: OK! You still haven’t answered; why you would abstain from Takfir; if you were to leave typical Barelwism? I Said: It would be on grounds that maybe this did not fully understand Kufr in their statements. I personally have been through stage once upon a time. There was a time when I thought/understood Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s statement to be free of any/all blame and wrong. Eventually Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) opened my heart to the truth and I saw the insult and realized Kufr in it. He Said: What Kufr did he commit? I Said: Long story brother. I will send you links of related material tomorrow, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. I was saying that the possibility of Shaykh not knowing and understanding he committed Kufr. With combination of personally not being able to exhort him to repent from Kufr I believe would establish weak ground for refraining from Takfir. He Said: OK! End here because I have to sleep but we will continue from here. 31.5 - Takfir Of Shaykh Thanvi And Others In Principle Is Justified: He Said: Then why do you consider him and other authors of Kufri statements as Kafir? Would it not be better to abstain from Takfir then? Smile. I Said: There are two main reasons why I affirm and make their Takfir. Their understanding or lack of realization of Kufr does not lift burden of Kufr/Shirk. It is unlikely that these Deobandi Shuyukh remained unaware of Kufr in their writings even after being educated about it. I can accept it was over-sight first/second time but after it was pointed out I cannot accept they did not recognize Kufr in their writings. They understood principles of Kufr, Tashbeeh (i.e. comparison), Tanqees (i.e. lowering), Towheen (i.e. insult), and Tauqeer (i.e. respect). Over-sight once but once pointed out its unlikely they remained unaware of insults/Kufr in their writings. He Said: What if they remained unaware of Kufr in their writings? You cannot be certain. There will always be doubt. I Said: I give you ten pounds and ask you to give me change; five pound coins, four fifties, two pound in twenties, one pound in tens. You give me all except, one pound in tens. I tell you this is wrong change. Do I need to spell it out to you and write books to explain to you that a pound is missing? You’re university graduate. You are able to add, subtract, divide and multiply. I Said: Through what you know you will figure out pound is short. Once over-sight but you will rectify it within a minute or two. Deobandi scholars are taught all these things in Madaris. It is highly unlikely they remained ignorant of truth because everything needed to understand/interpret words and phrases is taught in Madaris syllabus. And respect doesn’t need to be taught it is culturally part of our daily life. I Said: We understand what insult is and disrespect without being taught. So what chance do they have not realizing it? Once over-sight not impossible but to remain constant without knowing the truth of their writings is not. On top of that Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah) and those with him exhorted them to repent and explained the Kufr in their writings via books and letters. Yet authors of Kufri statements remained firm on Kufr. I Said: His exhortation to repentance and those with him was/is enough to establish evidence against them. They had; no excuse of ignorance lifts Kufr; no excuse of we were unaware of Kufr in our writings; and no excuse of no one told us of Kufr in our writings. Therefore they were/are Kafir in my judgment. He Said: I will have to read what he wrote to give you my judgment but in principle I would agree with Takfir if charge levelled by Barelwis is substantiated. 32.0 - Principles Of Immutability And Mutability Of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 I Said: I would like to purpose end to our discussion on subject of ISTIGHATHAH. Smile. He Said: Smile. Istighathah discussion was about 15% of this discussion. I Said: That is why I want to put end to our discussion on Istighathah. Smile. This discussion has spilled into many side subjects and there is no end in sight and more it goes on I will have more to edit. He Said: Absolutely fine with me too because I wanted to focus on your articles about Tawheed/Shirk and the methodology of determining both. They are gold mine to be honest. I haven’t read anything so systematic and well presented content on Tawheed and methodology of determining Shirk. My priority is to focus my studies on them. He Said: Actually just one thing. Your methodology has Zaati Vs. Atahi, Unlimited Vs. Limited; what about Immutability Vs. Mutability (i.e. Changeless VS Changeable). Ascription of immutability to Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Essence and Attributes. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is immutable in His Essence and Attributes. Immutability in context of His Existence (i.e. Wujud) would mean He always was, is, and will exist. Immutable in context of His Essence means He was, is, and will be as He Was, Is, Will be. And you can develop understanding further. He Said: That is simple but beautiful expression of Tawheed! Smile. I Said: Thirteen principles by no means end-all these thirteen were what I could think of while writing my article. These thirteen plus one fourteen are applicable to Zaat/Sifaat but beside these there are others which are specific to certain aspects. Take example like in context of knowledge. Unforgtetting Vs. Forgetting. Static VS Increasing/Decreasing. You will have to find such specifics when discussing various subjects but fourteen mentioned are equally applicable to Zaat/Sifaat. He Said: Static? I Said: Immutable. It doesn’t increase or decrease. His knowledge remains so perfect that no event increases His knowledge and passage of time decreases it not. 32.1 - Salafi Belief Attributes Of Allah Bring About Change In Him: He Said: Just last thing then it can come to end. Smile. There are certain attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which indicate there is change in Him via His attributes. I Said: You mean Ghayra (i.e. jealousy brought on by protectiveness), Ghadab (i.e. anger). He Said: I had anger, compassion, mercy … in mind but you can take all relevant. These indicate there is shift from one state to another. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is pleased/happy with good deeds and angered when sinful actions are committed. When Zayd does good Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is pleased with him but displeased/angered with Zayd when he violates His laws and commits sins. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has revealed: “There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.” [Ref: 42:11] Due to this verse position of Ahlus Sunnah is; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is free from emotions which His creation is subject to and by default he would be free from changes in these attributes. In other words when He does not possess attributes of anger/happiness like His creation then by default there cannot be change from a state to another. To say He possesses these attributes like His creation and there is change from one attribute to another would imply likeness to His creation. I Said: And when fact is; He is nothing like His creation; not in Zaat (i.e. essence), not in Sifaat (i.e. attributes). These attributes in fact are from Mutashabihaat and should be left as they are. Or else if mind of a believer envisions creaturely characteristics of these Attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then Taweel/Tafsir of such attributes should be derived from texts of Quran/Sunnah which befits the majesty of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: Something like Yadh as Yadh and not Yadh like hand? I Said: I have always employed anger/pleasure of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but without thinking about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) changing from one attribute to another. Never in my life has it even occurred to me He has changed His state of pleased to angered due to my good/bad deeds. Not even in my Salafi days. This subject never even came up in our discussions. Why I am telling you this? I am telling you this because I want you to know; this notion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) changing from one attribute to another doesn’t even occur to minds. Hence there is no danger of anthropomorphic ascription so using; anger, pleasure, mercy, compassion … without Taweel is absolutely fine. I Said: Look it at from another perspective. When I say Hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). An image of hand appears in mind if not in mine/yours then at least in minds of laymen. And this is why Tafweed is recommended course of action. When I say mercy/anger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! There is no image of mercy/anger in your mind. You can refer to incidents, or things which demonstrate His mercy/anger but you cannot imagine mercy/anger in pictorial form like you can imagine hand. As such there is no danger of anthropomorphic type misapplication/distortion of these attributes. There is no reason to resort to holding to Arabic wording of these attributes or even Taweel. 32.2 - Reasoning Why Allah Is Unchanging In Essence, Attributes, And Actions: He Said: Brother Ali to be honest I am not with you on this. These attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) demonstrate change in His state. I Said: OK! The end was near but I guess it was illusion. Smile. He Said: What we must, we must. Smile. I Said: How many Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are there? One! How many human beings living on earth and Jinn? Billions! With some He is pleased and others He is angered. True? He Said: True! I Said: There are two points I want to make. I Said: I) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is pleased and displeased with billions of children of Adam (alayhis Salam) and Jinn. He is angered with Zayd but then is pleased with Zayd. He is pleased with Amr but then is displeased with him. I just mentioned just two but this angered and pleased takes place for billions of His creation. He is angered with Zayd but pleased with Amr. Imagine a huge switch board with ten billion human/Jinn indicators and with each indicator there is red and green lights = twenty billion red/green lights to indicate His pleasure and displeasure. Considering all the good/bad His ten billion creations are engaged in can you visualize state of pleasure and anger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from this switchboard? This switching between state of anger/happy is not befitting the majesty of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is free of this Multiple Attribute Shift Disorder which some of His maniacal creations exhibit. [MASD not an actual mental disorder but invented by myself.]. II) Someone can only be in state of anger or calm, happy or unhappy. If your notion is believed and there are so many creatures on earth then He is angered, pleased and displeased all at the same time. Think about it deeply what you’re purposing and affirming is indirectly establishes M.A.S.D for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). When I am angry with Zayd. I am in state of anger in my essence so even though I may not be angry/upset with someone else i.e. Amr, and may don’t demonstrate my anger toward Amr but I am angered. I cannot be happy/pleased at the same time even though I might show to be happy when I meet Amr. These two states cannot co-exist. If your theory is believed then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is angered/pleased simultaneously in His Essence and that too without affirming multiple personalities for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This co-existence logically cannot be affirmed for Him. 32.3 - Steer Away From Anthropomorphism - Ahlus Sunnah Way Of Taweel And Tafweed: He Said: When did logical and rational deduction become criteria of determining/undermining a belief in Islam? I Said: When people started to logically and logically deduce His anger and His pleasure indicate shift in change of emotion/attribute. Smile. Do you have Nass Qati? A single Qati as-Subut (i.e. definitive evidence) and Qati ad-Dalalah (i.e. evidence with definitive meaning) in support of your belief; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does go through change in emotion/attribute effecting His Essence? He Said: Smile. Good one! So what is your evidence that change doesn’t take place? I Said: My evidence is verse: “There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.” [Ref: 42:11] Change signifies a creaturely trait and this is a trait of a thing [which He created]. To say He changes from one state to another, from an attribute to another, and then He is comparable with a creature/thing. And reality of Him is that there is nothing comparable to Him. I Said: What I purpose is you affirm anger/happiness for Him without changing from one attribute to another. And without considering His anger like emotion of anger/happiness like of which His creation experiences and the way His creation experience them in essence (i.e. Zaat). Instead take His anger to mean His punishment and happiness to mean His mercy/reward. If Taweel is unacceptable to you then employ them in manner of Tafweed. I Said: Believe as they are revealed i.e. anger/happiness, without associating creaturely emotion associated with each attribute, affirm the unknown Haqiqah of each, and pass them on as revealed. Simple rule about Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); when intended meaning of a Sift is unknown and known is not in accordance with grand majesty of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then affirm as it came and pass it on as you received. He Said: Taweel not my cup of tea but Tafweed hard to dismiss and more I hear Tafweed expressed by you more appealing it has become. Any how we will end our discussion here. I Said: Do we have agreement that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not change; not in His Zaat and not in His Sifaat? He Said: He is Unchanging in His Zaat and Sifaat. I Said: JazakAllah Khayr. He Said: Can you suggest source any reading material for Unchanging Essence and Attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? I Said: You mean dedicated material just on this topic? He Said: No just some official confirmation from a scholar. I Said: Salafi? He Said: As long as it is a scholar’s view even Maturidi/Ashari would go down better then yours alone. Smile. I Said: Can you read Urdu? He Said: Yes! I Said: Smile. Why have I been translating stuff for you then? Anyhow this will be easy. Give me few days I should be able to find something, here. Well I have nothing to discuss anymore so official end from my side. I Said: End it is. [Official end of discussion.] 33.0 - Revisiting Shaykh Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s Statement And Brothers Verdict: He Said: I couldn’t ignore the fact Shaykh Thanvi believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and animals … possess Ilm ul-Ghayb. From my perspective this alone is problematic. Not only prophetic knowledge of Ghayb is compared to animals, which is disrespectful by itself, but speciality/uniqueness being denied adds another level of disrespect. Damn! This is clear cut Kufr. Why would he write this? I am shocked. I Said: You tell me brother? He Said: Can’t be anything less then deliberate attempt to belittle Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: Your conclusion seems obvious after becoming aware of disrespect but I didn’t understand insult initially until … so I would posited accidental but then pretending innocence even after realizing his statement is insulting/disrespectful. He Said: I don’t believe, deliberate, either but it’s so obvious that it seems to be deliberate. I Said: Nah! I think it was realized by you so easily because you read articles in which I broke down the statement. I very much doubt you would have noted anything other then Ilm al-Ghayb for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and animals … He Said: Brother Ali! Disrespect in that statement is inescapable glaring reality so I think I would have figured out. I Said: I will let you win if you take it to your three Salafi Tulab ul-Ilm and majority of them gives verdict author of statement insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Condition is you don’t tell them anything just ask about their opinion. He Said: OK! Smile. 34.0 - Revisiting Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud Changing Salam Of Tashahhud: [EMail.] I Said: In the beginning of our discussion I enquired if you have an evidence for your claim that Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changed Salam of Tashahhud due to fear of Shirk. You responded saying it’s your deduction and what Salafi apologists/scholars have claimed: “I Said: In context of your, first point, why is it not allowed? He Said: It could have lead to Shirk therefore Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changed it to block the route of Shirk. I Said: Is there proof which proves he changed it due to his fear of Shirk? He Said: No, but this deduction is based on principles of Tawheed and our scholars have said it was this reason. I Said: Is it possible that some people fell into Shirk due to this Salam? He Said: Yeah! It is quite possible.” At that time I thought your confession of lack of evidence is enough to prove your claim is speculative and without a foundation; so I did not pursue the subject any further but I want suggest reason for Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changing Salam of Tashahhud. Ya and Ayyu are employed address a Hadhir (i.e. present) person. As such both denote Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is present and he is directly being engaged with address of; as-salamu alayka ay’yu han’nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaat. After passing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Salam of Tashahhud grammatically would be incorrect so he changed it. He Said: Salam Alaykum. There is a good chance your explanation is true but ultimately his intention only he knows. I Said: You’re not saying Salafi proposition is a possibility, are you? If that is the case then if a Salafi can demonstrate their principle methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk [via far, near, living, dead, fawq, teht etc.] was employed pre-Shaykh al-Najd era scholarship; then I will concede the point. He Said: Brother Ali I have no doubt about Tawheed/Shirk and no doubt about error of Salafi methodology. Salafi notion that Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changed it due to fear of Shirk is a monstrous slander. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) completed/perfected His religion. To say he changed Salam of Tashahhud out of fear of Shirk insinuates companion believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not complete His religion. Or that Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not properly convey teaching of Islam and by mistake left Ya/Ayyu in Salam of Tashahhud. To compensate for his mistake a companion attempted shut the open gate of Shirk. He Said: I forgot to add. This notion [of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud radiallah ta’ala anhu attempting to remove ya/ayyu out of fear of Shirk] also reflects badly on companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Entire Jammah of companions accepted open/clear Shirk and kept on practicing it despite Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) calling them toward Tawheed through his altered Salam of Tashahhud. Worst is that they didn’t even realize by practicing prophetic Sunnah Salam of Tashahhud they are upon dangerous road leading to Shirk. All this would be out come if Salafi principles of judging Tawheed/Shirk were correct and if their understanding of why Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changed was correct. This puts blame upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This is insanity and I do not subscribe to it. I was blinded but, praise be to Allah, no more. I Said: Thank Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I thought you have relapsed after intensive treatment. Smile. He Said: No, never. I wasn’t insinuating Salafi understanding was a possibility. I merely intended to say his actual intention we won’t know but we can speculate. Salam Alaykum. [EMail End.] 35.0 Revisiting Personally Prophet Salam Hearing Is Taht al-Asbab – Not Shirk: [EMail.] I Said: Salam Alaykum. I wanted you to read this in your available time. I know this seems I am digging up old graves but there are many places where inconsistencies could have been demonstrated but I didn’t realize. While proof reading I am noting few things so I thought I point them out to you. In this case it seems you had whiff of something not being quite right. I Said: I quote your words: “He Said: If the Ahadith are Sahih/Hasan then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) personally hearing Salawat being reciting upon him does establish this is according to means (i.e. taht al-asbab). Shirk in our understanding would be which goes against the means (i.e. fawq al-asbab). You did not refute these two principles through contradiction. I Said: Before we discuss anything else: Do you believe he hears personally and not via angels? He Said: If Ahadith are authentic then I will. I Said: Brother we cannot continue our discussion on, I WILL, it has to be affirmation or negation, and acceptance or rejection. This will introduces a doubt and we need concrete stance. If you don’t we need to discuss chain of narrators to sort out Ikhtilaf because on this hinges solution. He Said: I understand. I believe he hears with permission from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” Note it is just for education and I am not targeting you. My objective is to educate others through pointing out errors. I Said: I) You reasoned that Salam of Tashahhud is heard by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through Asbab therefore not Shirk. In other words in your understanding supernatural or miraculous type of hearing/seeing in your understanding is according to means. If you put natural and supernatural hearing/seeing in category of ma teht al-asbab then my Brother which event that takes places in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is proof of ma fawq al-asbab? You made everything natural and supernatural as part of ma taht al-asbab. By erasing the distinction you have invalidated these two principles. When there is no distinction between both then these cannot be employed to determine Tawheed or Shirk. Traditionally supernatural hearing/seeing was in realm of ma fawq al-asbab. I Said: II) Ma fawq al-asbab principle of determining Shirk is cause of problems for Salafi kind. Salafis say believing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears/sees our actions is Shirk because contradicts ma fawq al-asbab principle. In response when Muslims employ Ahadith of miraculous hearing/seeing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to refute their charge of Shirk then they resort to arguing that miracle is textually supported. And this is effectively as saying; ‘Shirk’ via ma fawq al-asbab with textual support is in accordance with Tawheed. And Shirk via ma fawq al-asbab without supporting evidence is Shirk. To refute that all it needs to be done is to reference a Karamah of Wali. There would be reference from Quran, or Sunnah. There is general support for Karamah but there will be none for referenced Karamah hence principle will be disproven. Or worse believing supernatural hearing of a Wali (i.e. in Karamah) would amount to Shirk. I Said: III) If a Hindu says, O Krishna god, whose wife was kidnapped by Rawan, come help me, rescue my wife from evil folk. And he says I believe Krishna heard his call through means (i.e. ma taht al-asbab). Will he be guilty of worship of Krishna according to Salafi principle of ma that al-asbab? Point is by judging Tawheed/Shirk on basis of these principles Salafis cannot judge him to be Mushrik on account of charge of worship. And if they do so despite affirmation of ma taht al-asbab belief then they are guilty of Shirk themselves because believing taht al-asbab hearing hasn’t lifted Hukm of Shirk from Hindu then why should it lift from Salafi who recites Salam of Tashahhud with Harf of Nida? Only justified course is; Hindu affirms Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, and intends to worship Krishna, and calls upon Krishna believing Krishna is a god who will help him in his time of trouble therefore he is guilty of Shirk in belief and in worship. It is evident these principles of yours are not all inclusive and rather ineffective at determining Tawheed/Shirk. It would be better for Khawarij to ascribe to following Ijmahi principles of Tawheed Shirk and abandon their invented principles teht/fawq al-asbab: a) Tawheed is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah. b) Shirk is to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has equal, or superior, or inferior, Ilah partner/partners then Him in Zaat/Sifaat. 36.0 - Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab And Takfir Of Majority Of Ummah: I Said: Salam Alaykum. You may recall during our discussion I quoted few statements of Shaykh al-Najd to argue he made Takfir of vast majority of Muslims. I am on about these statements: "And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favoured. As well as my teachers no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 10, Page 51, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] I have to confess wasn’t able to get scanned image of references but did manage something near enough. I Said: With regards to this statement (i.e. no one knowing meaning of la ilaha il-Allah) I was able to find it being quoted by Wahhabis on a popular Wahhabi forum, here, and scribd version of same forum is, here. On 3th April 2020 chanced upon interview of well known ‘former’ Wahhabi/Salafi Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, here, and he confirmed this statement at 12:35 onward. Extended version of the interview can be found, here, and same statement can be confirmed 22:50. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has emphatically confirmed Shaykh of Wahhabism penned this statement. I Said: Shaykh Yasir Qadhi regarding whom no Wahhabi/Salafi should have any doubts about him being a Wahhabi/Salafi. He indirectly confirms that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab did author following statement or something like it: "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir upon the polytheists and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah. So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawheed of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and loves Islam and its people. This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Quran declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] On shorter version of his video, here, from 5:38 onwards to 7:17 he begins to confirms this statement was authored by Shaykh al-Najd. I Said: Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find anything on the following two statements: "It's known regarding the people of our land and the land of al-Hijaz, that those among them who reject the resurrection (after death) are more than those who accept it and that those (among them) who know the religion are less than those who do not ..." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 10, Page 43, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] "But he came from al-Sham, and they worship Ibn Arabi and have made an idol upon his grave to worship it. I do not mean all of the people of al-Sham, no of course not; rather there does not cease a group (from them) to be upon the truth, even if they're only few." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 2, Page 45, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] I Said: On side note Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, here, 10:20 onwards he states Shaykh al-Najd deemed entire Ummah except his own followers to be Kafir/Mushrik. If you can recall I had deduced this through reasoning. It went something like this; due to Ahlus Sunnah of Arabian Peninsula and of world in general having common beliefs/practices; Shaykh al-Najd’s verdict of Shirk/Kufr applies to entirety of Ummah. At that time you dismissed this but here Shaykh Yasir Qadhi ‘former’ Salafi states exactly the same. He doesn’t say if there is an actual statement authored by Shaykh al-Najd which supports his point or if it was deduced judgment but he has confirmed my deduction. [EMail End.] 37.0 - Two Ways To Determine If Something Is Haram In Islam: He Said: I knew Shaykh Yasir Qadhi had turned away from Salafism but this is really shocking. I Said: His saying that he is not a Salafi/Wahhabi any more is just a ruse. Yes he has left Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his Khariji Mushrik machine but Shaykh has not left Wahhabis. And until he doesn’t stand and oppose his ‘former’ Khariji companions including Wahhabi scholars he is one of them. He Said: I had to listen to entire interview twice and I am watching it again tonight. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi said Istighathah is Haram. I Said: Brother at it’s worst it is Haram and at its best it is permissible but not a prophetic Sunnah. He Said: It would be good if he explained how/why Istighathah is Haram. I Said: Note he says it is Haram but not Shirk. Typically amongst Salafis mention of Istighathah is followed by statement Istighathah is Shirk. He Said: Hmm! How did he come to conclusion it is Haram? I can’t figure out. I Said: He is half baked Qadhi (i.e. judge). I Said: Brother there are two ways something can be Haram: I) Explicitly stated Istighathah is Shirk/Haram, II) or if Istighathah was composed of a part/juzz which was clearly stated to be Shirk/Haram. I Said: This is how a Mufti determines if something is Haram/Halal. Any issue not clearly dealt in Quran/Sunnah Mufti looks if a part of it is Haram/Shirk. If yes, then whole of it is Haram, and if no then it is Halal. I Said: Chicken Biryani with all Halal ingredients. Add to it roasted Khanzir. Despite all Halal ingredients just because roasted Khanzir was added the Biryani is Haram. Why? Juzz/part was Haram. Tawaf around Kabah with prophetic Talbiyah is Ibadah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Tawaf around Kabah with prophetic Talbiyah + belief that Jesus is a son of God + intention to worship Jesus via Tawaf = Shirk. When Shirk became part of something which is purely Islamic then practice of Tawaf became Shirk because juzz/part is Shirk. I Said: Shaykh Yasir Qadhi said it is Haram but what Haram is it composed of? If it is not composed of something clearly stated to be Haram/Shirk then declaring it Haram/Shirk on basis of personal dislike is taking Rabbi as a Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Why? Because the Rabbis declared Haram/Halal on basis of their desires. He Said: So why do you say; at its best its worst it is Haram and at its best it is permissible; if it being Haram is impossible? I Said: Because it can’t be Shirk and once this is established I want opponent to move away from Takfir of those who practice Istighathah on basis of charge it is major Shirk. So then I give him two options; Haram in worst case, best case Mubah. And then through discussion I establish it is not Haram because it is not explicitly declared Haram nor it is composed of a juzz/part which Shari’ah has explicitly declared Haram. He Said: Makes better sense now. 37.1 - Establishing Istighathah Is Not Haram And Not A Major Sin: I Said: For the following questions please ignore implied/deduced Haram i.e. Haram juzz/part making something Haram. Are you ready? He Said: Not really but … I Said: Can you declare a Haram as Halal which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared so? He Said: No! I Said: Can you declare Khanzir Halal? He Said: No! I Said: Can you Halal incestuous marriage? He Said: I got your point Brother Ali. I have no right to declare anything Haram/Halal if it wasn’t declared to be so by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Allah (subhanahu WA ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared many things Halal/Haram in Quran/Sunnah and provided guidelines via which we can determine something to be Haram/Halal. Are you in position to legislate new guidelines via which Haram becomes Halal and Halal are changed to Haram? He Said: No! Can you get to your point Brother Ali! Please. I Said: I am almost done with questioning. Then you agree you have no right to declare something Haram/Halal if revelation from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has not declared it so? He Said: I agree. I Said: I warn this will get long so if you’ve to go I can E-Mail. He Said: OK! Salam Alaykum. 37.2- How Haram Is Determined And Why Istighathah Is Not Haram: [EMail] I Said: If you cannot introduce, or change things/matters which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared Haram/Halal then clearly Shaykh Yasir Qadhi also cannot declare something Haram/Halal. And if you cannot add to list of explicitly declared Haram then clearly Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has no authority to do so likewise. Why? Because door of revelation has been closed and there is no Prophet after last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). You, Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, myself and everyone else Islamicly and legitimately cannot abrogate a Quranic teaching, or introduce a new teaching. All we can do is go by what was reveled and judge by them. I Said: Take note of two things: I) We can say this, or that is Haram/Halal because explicit Quranic/Hadith evidence indicates so. II) We can declare something Haram/Halal without playing God/Messenger if an innovated practice was composed of explicitly stated Haram/Shirk. I Said: Istighathah can only be Haram in following two ways: I) If it was declared clearly and emphatically as Shirk/Haram by Allah (subhanahu WA ta’ala) or by Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). II) If practice of Istighathah was composed of something which was declared Haram, Kufr, Shirk by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and by Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: You clearly cannot claim Istighathah was declared Haram by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or by His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If you, or Shaykh Yasir Qadhi does then burden of evidence in form of Ayat/Hadith is upon you. What you can claim is; it is composed of something Haram therefore it is Haram. And you need to point that Haram in Istighathah and quote Ayat/Hadith to prove this juzz/part is Haram and if your evidence is valid then it is Haram. I Said: Istighathah is four juzz/parts: I) Asking, II) help, III) from deceased, IV) Wali/Nabi. Altogether Istighathah is asking for help from a deceased Nabi/Wali. Is the act of asking Haram? Or requesting help Haram? Or requesting help from deceased Haram? Or requesting help from deceased Nabi/Wali/Muslim Haram? Individually these are not Haram but combination of all Shaykh Yasir Qadhi may believe results in Haram. Where is proof that combination of these results in Haram? I Said: It all hinges on clear explicit textual proof in which asking for help from deceased Anbiyah/Awliyah is declared Haram. You will admit there is no such proof and since you cannot legislate Islam and introduce into Islam something new which was not already part of it in whole or part you cannot declare Istighathah as a practice to be Haram. That’s my few cents but you’re more then welcome to approach Shaykh Yasir Qadhi for his justification why it is Haram. [EMail End.] 37.3 - Istighathah Is Haram Due To Beliefs Associated With Istighathah: [EMail.] He Said: I liked how you reasoned your point of view but I think it is worth exploring belief part as well. Smile. You left out the belief part. Beliefs associated with Istighathah such as deceased Awliyah-Allah can hear the call Zayd calling for help even miles away is without proof therefore Biddah. A Biddah in terms of Shari’ah is Haram. Could it not be that beliefs associated with Istighathah make it Haram? Smile. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) entrusted Jibraeel (alayhis salam) to deliver Wahi and with this He also provided means to carry out his job. Similarly Isra’il (alayhis salam) the angel of death is responsible for collecting souls of Jinn and mankind. To meet the demand of his responsibility Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted Isra’il (alayhis salam) means knowing who/when someone is to die along side ability to reap the souls. I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say: “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” For indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon.” [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam ul-Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] “… that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call “Assist (me) O slaves of Allah”’ [Ref: al-Bakhr ul-Zakhaar - al-Maroof - Musnad al-Bazzar, Volume 11, Msnd Ibn Abbas, H4922, Page181, here.] These Ahadith indicate Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has servants picked for task of providing help. And it has to be accepted Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has granted them means to know who has called for help, where person needing help is situated at, and has granted the servants ability to provide required help. With this said how which belief connected with it is [evil] innovation? [EMail End.] 37.4 - Nothing Biddah Regarding Hearing, Seeing, And Help Of Awliyah: [EMail.] He Said: Firstly innovation is in belief servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sees and hears all happening on earth. Secondly innovation is; deceased Wali-Allah has ability to see/hear events of all earth. I Said: We do not believe there is a single servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is hearing/seeing everything happening on earth. Hadith clearly indicates usage of plural word servants which indicates more then one servant is appointed for task of providing relief to distressed. I don’t know nor have I read how the system works. Have the regions of earth divided between many servants and each Wali-Allah is tasked with policing his domain and helping. Or is there a massive Majlis of Arwah of Awliyah-Allah somewhere and when a call of help is made one from them is tasked to provide aid? I don’t know and I don’t think knowing precise details is important. I Said: It may well be combination of both. Important part is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has appointed them to provide aid and they do. I don’t even believe it is important for to believe Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) personally sees/hears the call of help. I am perfectly content with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informing Wali-Allah and then Wali-Allah provides help with permission and means provided to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or angels informing Awliyah-Allah about the request of help etc. This does not mean it would be incorrect to believe Awliyah-Allah are aware of happenings of events. It is perfectly acceptable to believe deceased Awliyah-Allah in their life and after death can/do hear and see events taking place because their Karamaat do not cease in both worlds. He Said: What is your proof that Karamaat of Awliyah do not cease and they are aware of events after death? I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of the doers of good.” [Ref: 9:120] “Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds - indeed, We will not allow to be lost the reward of any who did well in deeds.” [Ref: 18:30] The reward given to righteous Muslims and Awliyah-Allah in this world and in hereafter: "So Allah gave them the reward of this world and the good reward of the Hereafter. And Allah loves the doers of good." [Ref: 3:149] “And thus We established Joseph in the land to settle therein wherever he willed. We touch with Our mercy whom We will, and We do not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good.” [Ref: 12: 56] "They said: 'Are you indeed Joseph?' He said: 'I am Joseph, and this is my brother. Allah has certainly favoured us. Indeed, he who fears Allah and is patient, then indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good.'" [Ref: 12:90] And elite Saliheen (i.e. Awliyah-Allah) amongst their reward is power of Karamah (i.e. ability over supernatural). Hasil so far is that supernatural capability of Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not lost in their life nor after their death because it is a reward given to them. And if after death this reward is no longer available to them then it has lost which would go against the Quranic verse. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Hadith Qudsi stated: “… and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, …” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509] The supernatural/Karamaat stay with Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and their supernatural seeing, hearing, holding/giving, traveling is with them even after death as it was with them during earthly life. He Said: I had rejected your Tafsir of these verses earlier because there is no scholarly precedence and I am sticking to my guns Smile. I Said: I will write an email. [EMail Exchange Ends.] 37.5 - Issue With Inconsistent Methodology And Tafsir Of Quranic Verse: [EMail.] I Said: To conclude there is no evidence to prove beliefs associated with Istighathah are Biddah in terms of Shari’ah. You are more then welcome to have reservations about Tafsir I have presented but I do advise you be consistent in your methodology. I am sure you believe Quranic verse, Q21:31, talks about Big Bang and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created all living creatures from water. You’re happy to interpret the verse in this fashion but there is no scholarly precedence for these two interpretations pre nineteenth century. Our predecessors have interpreted this verse crudely in light of other verses of Quran but their interpretation in modern terms is about structuring of seven layers of atmosphere and organising seven layers of earth crust. With regards to verse we created every living thing from water they interpreted in context of fluid emitted verses i.e. sperm. I Said: I cannot negate the correctness of modern interpretation because without coupling this verse with another the interpretation is valid and with coupling other verses other interpretation are possible and they are correct also. I Said: My advice for you is to follow a consistent methodology. In our/my methodology Quran is Jawami al-Kalim verse or two provides immense truths worth books for one who can derive them. Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) when he heard the verse, this day I have perfected your religion for you, he said verse means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will die soon and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) confirmed his interpretation. Look at the apparent of verse and look at their interpretation. Point is Brother there is more to Quran then it’s apparent. Accept all interpretations which are supported with evidence until they are contradicted by a clear evidence of Quran because Quran is Jawami al-Kalim. I Said: My methodology allows me to accept new interpretations your methodology claims to follow ‘Salaf as-Saliheen’ and their methodology. As a result research stops with I have this from Salaf as-Saliheen and this is the only truth and everything not from them is Biddah. Worst part is you claim Salaf as-Saliheen for yourself but your actual Salaf as-Saliheen are Ibn Baaz, Ibn Uthaymeen, Salih al-Fawzan, Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim. He Said: Jazakallah Khayr. I wasn’t being difficult. My aim is to extract much information as possible that’s why I am chucking everything at you. I am done on subject of Istighathah. Had pleasure of reading some of your articles on Biddah. It would have been great if you had list of your articles in systematic reading order. It is something you need to think about. I absolutely loved this one: Brother Amar Iqbal’s Understanding Of Hadith Of Good Sunnah Refuted And Position Of Imam Nawavi Explained, here. You delivered a master class. Another Q&A type article surprisingly was good too: Questions Pertaining To Subject Of Innovation And Their Answers, here. I have always thought Barelwis believe innovations like Mawlid are compulsory and one who does not partake in them is sinful but you have contradicted my prejudice. I just finished reading your article: Misguided Follower Of Evil Sunnah Distorting The Truth About Hadith Of Good Sunnah In Islam, here. This was another gem which I enjoyed reading. I Said: Salam Alaykum. Jazakallah Khayr. Because you have started reading I want to remind you of what I advised you sometime ago. You should recite first chapter of Quran frequently as you can with intention of seeking guidance from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And that too without pre-determining the guided ones instead seek His guided ones from Him with open heart and mind. It is time you put that into practice. Perform two Raka’at Nawafil make Dua of to be guided on straight path and protection from misguidance and then sincerely seek the straight path. He Said: Thanks for reminding me. In sha’a Allah I will. [EMail Exchange Ends.] 38.0 – Some Important Information Before Discussion On Satan Worship: [EMail.] I Said: From section 4.0 to 4.3 we had discussion on if entirety/majority of Muslims in Arabian Peninsula can fall into major Shirk. My position was that Shaykh al-Najd and his followers believed/taught majority if not entirety of Ummah residing in Arabian Peninsula had become Mushrik. And Shaykh al-Najd believed he is bringing Islam back to these Mushrikeen. In an effort to prove Shaykh al-Najd had no foundation to accuse Muslims of Arabia of major Shirk and via logical deduction; Muslims of world at large; I quoted following Hadith: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] And I said Muslims not worshiping Satan means Muslims will not worship idols in Arabian Peninsula. Implication of which was/is obvious that it would invalidate the entire foundation of Shaykh al-Najd’s antagonism against Arab Muslim. This would go on to establish innocence of Ahlus Sunnah against all charges of Shirk levelled by Shuyukh and minions of Iblees of Najd. End. I Said: Discussion progressed until it reached section 11.32 where you reluctantly agreed that Satan worship is expression meaning idol worship but you asked for scholarly carroboration for this interpretation. At that juncture I believe we had reached to stage that if this interpretation was supported then you will accept/adopt position that prophetic teaching are oppose Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s charges of Shirk/Kufr. I believe time has come to carroborate my position and make it clear Shaykh al-Najds entire Dawah was against prophetic teaching and against ground reality. End. Before it begins something important to remember. Quran is Jawami al-Kalim short but expressing widest possible meaning, here. As such Quran expresses many interpretations which commentators might not have expressed in their Tafasir. And I have already demonstrated big bang, and everything created from water etc. If I recall correctly Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said passage of time interprets Quran and truth of it you cannot deny. 38.1 – Coraborating Satan Worship Meaning Idol Worship: I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (i.e. Allah) call but upon (i.e. yad'una) females (i.e. goddesses): They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have interpreted the verse in following fashion: “’They invoke in His stead …’ (i.e. the people of Mecca worship in place of Allah) ‘… only females …’ (i.e. lifeless idols such as al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat). ‘… they pray invoke to …’ (i.e. they worship) ‘… none else than Satan, a rebel …’ (who is intense in his rebellion).” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas: 4:117, here.] Hadhrat Ibn Abbas’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Tafsir is purely of verse, Q4:117, without influence of any other verse and therefore it gives impression idol worship is synonym of Satan worship. In Tafsir al-Jalalayn this verse is interpreted as follows: “… other than Him are but females (i.e. idols with feminine names such as al-Laāt al-‘Uzza and Manāt) and they only pray call to (i.e. they only worship by worshipping these female idols) a rebellious Satan, one who has rebelled against obedience of God for they are obeying him in this worship of female idols.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 4:117, here.] I Said: It seemed someone used Shaykh Google’s translate feature and translated this verse to English so I crossed referenced this translation with Urdu: “They do not invoke (i.e. Mushrikeen do not worship) besides Him (i.e. beside Allah) except (i.e. meaning they do not worship other than Allah) but of females (i.e. which are female idols such as Lat, Manat, and Uzza) and they do not invoke (i.e. and they do not worship none in their own unique ways) except cursed Satan (i.e. who has rebelled against obedience of Allah and they in (in regards to idol) worship obey him – intended is Iblees).” [Ref: Tafsir Kamalayn Sharh Tafsir Jalalayn, by Shaykh Muhammad Naeem Deobandi, Volume 1, Pages 619/620, archive, scribd.] Tafsir Kamalayn Sharh Tafsir Jalalayn whose author Shaykh Muhammad Naeem is a Deobandi Aalim and a teacher of Tafsir at infamous Dar ul-Uloom Deoband has explicitly stated Satan worship is a metaphoric reference to idol worship: “Of which one part is worship of goddesses and second part is worship of Satan; meaning of which is obeying him (i.e. Satan). Therefore in metaphoric (usage) worshiping other than Allah on instruction of Satan is understood/deemed as worship of Satan.” [Ref: Tafsir Kamalayn Sharh Tafsir Jalalayn, by Shaykh Muhammad Naeem Deobandi, Volume 1, Pages 622/623, archive, scribd.] This last reference is not the smoking gun you were looking for but anything not from my side of fence will be good I guess. 38.2 – Breaking Down Interpretation Of Verse Q19:44: I Said: Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said to his father: "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] There is no proof that Azhar took Satan to be his Ma’bud/Ilah therefore it cannot be literal worship of Satan. Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said to his father: “Behold he said to his father: "O my father! Why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing?” [Ref: 19:42] “Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods/Ilahs? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." [Ref: 6:74] This indicates dispute was over idol worship. a) In this light verse means: ‘O my father do not worship idol because Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.’ In this interpretation ‘worship not Satan’ has become ‘worship not idol’. In phrase ‘worship not Satan’ word worship remains literal and word Satan is replaced with word idol to mean ‘worship not idol’. b) In conjunction with other verses (i.e. Jews taking Rabbis as Lord beside Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) it is also interpreted to mean: ‘O my father do not obey Satan because Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.’ In this interpretation ‘worship not Satan’ becomes ‘obey not Satan’. In this phrase ‘worship not Satan’ word worship is interchanged with obey but word Satan remains literal to mean ‘obey not Satan’. c) In both cases interpretation is based on Taweel of literal reading of a single word. If worship can mean obey then on basis of evidences presented Satan can mean idol in context of verse, Q19:44. 38.3 - Modern Interpretation Of Children Of Adam Worshiping Satan: I Said: I) In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” [Ref: 36:60] First two verses are restricted/limited in context of polytheism of idol worship but this verse adds a new meaning simply because it addresses entire Bani Adam. From amongst Bani Adam some obeyed Satan and committed major sins breaking boundaries of revealed prophetic laws. Others obeyed Satan and took idols/people as Ilahs/gods besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And then others obeyed Satan and took Satan as Ilah/god beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Satanists worship Satan as Ilah due to modern trend of going against tradition and in desire to show uniquely peculiar rebellious traits. I Said: All of these interpretations are valid and of equal weight for, Q36:60. Verses, Q4:117 and Q19:44, do not allow literal Satan as a worshipped Ilah interpretation but verse, Q36:66, and passage of time has opened the door for literally Satan being elevated to status of Ilah and being worshipped by Satanists. No Mufassir of classical era has interpreted this verse to mean literal taking of Satan as an Ilah and literal worship. Correctness of and literal reading of verse, Q36:66, hinges on all Bani Adam being addressed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And fact is some from those being addressed actually believed Satan to be a god and worshipped him as such. Therefore this interpretation cannot be negated/rejected even if be it novel. In conclusion it needs to be pointed out that even novel interpretations with support of Quran are correct as long as they have linguistic and metaphoric support. In conclusion I would like to say Satan worship is metaphoric reference to idol-worship or Ghayrullah worship. And it can be defined as; to obey directive of Satan which encourages idol worship or Ghayrullah worship. I Said: II) I have fired my best shot on this topic and I very much doubt I would be able to better it so you will have to make your mind on what has been offered. He Said: JazakAllah Khayr. It was a good read. In modern context of Satanism verses literally meaning Satan worship is absolutely true. I will have to think about everything and then give you a judgment. I do feel you have made a compelling case but I want to mull over everything for few days. [EMail Exchange Ends.] 38.4 - Quranic Context Of Worship Not Satan And Interpretation Possibilities: [EMail.] I Said: Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said: "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] The real issue of contention between Azhar and Ibrahim (alayhis salam) was idol worship so it makes no sense in saying do not obey Satan. Only way this interpretation is correct if it was interpreted; do not worship idols in obedience to wishes of Satan. Note request to not to obey Satan is in context of idol worship and this is only way do not obey Satan can be interpreted in Quranic context of dispute. If do not worship Satan just means do not obey Satan then it indicates Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) wanted his father to completely reject every Satanic device which encouraged acting against divine law. Quranicly we know dispute between Azhar and Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) was stuck at most basic level – Shirk (i.e. idol worship) and Tawheed. Therefore it is highly unlikely Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) wanted Azhar to stop obedience of Satan in every aspect of divine law. This interpretation (i.e. do not obey Satan in every aspect of divine law) does not fit into Quranic context of dispute. In Quranic context of dispute it would make better sense if Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) instructed Azhar to abandon Shirk (i.e. idol worship) for sake of Tawheed by saying do not worship Satan intending do not worship idols. 38.5 – Meaning Of Satan Despaired About Being Worshipped In Light Of Ahadith: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said:“No father is to be punished for the sins of his child, and no child is to be punished for the sins of his father. i) Satan has despaired of ever being worshipping in this land of yours, ii) but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, iii) and he will be content with that.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B25, H3055, here.] “Indeed none commits a crime for which his son is accountable, nor does a child commit a crime for which his father is held accountable. i) Indeed Ash-Shaitan has lost hope of ever being worshipped in this city of yours, ii) but he will have compliance in some deeds of yours which you consider insignificant, iii) which he will be content with.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2159, here.] Please take note of how Ahadith are divided in three sections. I Said: A) If we interpret Satan worship in these Ahadith to mean obedience to Satan then number (i) and (ii) in both Ahadith contradict each other. First would state Satan has given up hope on being obeyed in your land and second says but he will be obeyed on some minor matters. If first part (i.e. Satan worship) part of Hadith is interpreted to mean Satan has despaired about idol worship then second part (i.e. Satan obeyed in some matters) will not contradict each other. I Said: B) Alternatively if obedience is inclusive of idol worship as in; Satan has despaired of ever being obeyed in regards to major issue of worship of idol in your land; then this is correct. In section (ii) of these Ahadith insignificant matters are mentioned then it is only logical that in part one significant matter was intended. And as Quranic evidence has established this can only be worship of idols instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 38.6 – Conclusion In Context Of Satan Worship And Discussion: I Said: It would be safe to conclude Satan worship means idol worship and Shaykh al-Najd charged the Muslims of Arabia of major Shirk i.e. idol worship, grave worship, and other things unjustly and in contradiction to prophetic teaching. [EMail Ends.] 39.0 – Satan Content With Being Obeyed In Minor Matters And Not Being Worshipped: [EMail.] I Said: In section 11.34 to 11.38 we discussed meaning of Satan being despaired about being worshipped as well as other parts of Hadith. At that time we came to agreement despair of Satan is due to realization that he will not succeed in leading Jammah of Muslims into idol worship in Arabia. I want to add to that discussion somethings which flow of discussion then did not allow. I Said: In the quoted Ahadith underlined words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in these two Ahadith: “… ii) but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, iii) and he will be content with that.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B25, H3055, here.] “… ii) but he will have compliance in some deeds of yours which you consider insignificant, iii) which he will be content with.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2159, here.] He is saying Satan will be satisfied with being obeyed in matters which Muslims of Arabia will deem minor. Implication of this is; Satan has been thoroughly demoralized by rise and dominance of Islam/Tawheed. And this dominance and his despair has ensured Satan will not attempt to misguide Muslims into major Shirk (i.e. idol worship) but will attempt to be oeyed and will have some success in matters which will be deemed insignificant by Muslims. 39.1 – Satan Realized He Will Never Succeed In Leading Ummah In To Kufr/Shirk: I Said: A) Iblees figured out that he will never manage to lead the Muslims to complete Kufr/Shirk like he did with nations of earlier Prophets. He figured the Ummah of la ilaha il-Allah Muhammadur RasoolAllah will remain upon Shahadatayn till the judgment day and he will not succeed in completely utterly obliterate them through Kufr/Shirk. Such is perfection of Islam that Satan was defeated so convincingly that he despaired so much that he will not attempt to destroy Jammah of Islam via Shirk/Kufr. I Said: B) On other hand human Shayateen of Najdi Kharijism were/are in high spirits about taking Muslims out of Islam through edicts of Shirk/Kufr and are not just content with edicts of Biddah. Talk about setting higher goals then their superior. Iblees you have been beaten by your minions of Qarn ash-Shaytan. You’ve despaired and you’re content with minor achievements but your followers are in better spirits then you. Yet you’re their Imam, shame on you. Vacate the thrown of enemity to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and to His Deen so your minion from Najd Shaykh Abdul Wahhab claim his rightful place. Step down Iblees and tell your legions of Shayateen to make way for Shaykh al-Najd and his minions. Let your inheritors do job which you and your minions have given up on. I Said: C) Shaykh al-Najd and his minions are comfort and pleasure for Iblees. Iblees, Najdiyyah are your Qarn ash-Shaytan and they are taking Muslims out of Islam into Kufr/Shirk. They took vast majority, greath majority of Muslims out of Islam via direct, or via indirect Takfir. Indirect because Wahhabis have been busy declaring so many things Shirk/Kufr so except Wahhabis no Muslim is free of major Shirk, or Kufr. The end result is Iblees, his Shayateen, and Shaykh al-Najd and his minions taking believers out of Islam by hook or by crook method. I Said: D) It has been demonstrated Satan has despaired about taking Muslims out of Islam via idol worship in Arabian Peninsula but he was/is hopefull of being obeyed with minor matters. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he will be content with his minor achievements but it is important for his Khariji legion of Najd to come to same realization, and despair as their master Iblees, and then give-up on their hallucinations. [EMail Ends.] 40.0 - Satan Worship Means Idol Worship And Rejects Wahhabi Charges: [EMail] He Said:I) At the end you got bit carried away but you did make an interesting point about objectives of Najdi Dawah and Iblees. I don’t know if you was intending to convey following or not but it made me question; why did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) term Khawarij are Qarn al-Shaytaan; was it because Khawarij also strive to make Muslims Mushrik? It was interesting use of rhetoric at very least. Smile. He Said: II) I read some of your old articles on subject of Satan worship. In one article you interpreted Satan worship to mean obedience to Satan in matters of Haram/Halal and I quote your conclusion: “Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Satan will not be worshipped by worshippers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Arabian Peninsula. And one meaning of this is that Muslim of Arabian Peninsula would not accept a Haram as Halal, and a Halal as Haram on the instruction of Iblees. Obedience to him in this regard would be worship of Satan.” [Ref: Explanation Of Prophetic Saying: "Satan Lost All Hopes That The …, here.] I suppose you would include affirming Ilahiyyah of Ghayrullah and their worship in Haram as well as other aspects of Haram/Halal in Shari’ah. I mean to say your overall meaning is Muslims would not obey Satan and judge/believe Ilahiyyah/worship of Ghayrullah and other Harams are Halal. He Said: III) Urdu referrence of Tafsir Kamalayn helped me to decide Satan worship is expression which means idol worship. About Shaykh al-Najd and his charges of Shirk I completely disown his methodology of [determining] Shirk and all inter-sectarian Shirk charges his methodology resulted. I didn’t need any more convincing. Smile. There is no going back. Learning methodoloty of [determining] Shirk opened my eyes to what is and isn’t Shirk. If it wasn’t for this discussion maybe I would have died with my mistakes. Before our discussion for me Shirk was equality but your Twinity concept made it soo much easier to grasp type of equality required for major Shirk. I am sorted on this subject. Your carroboration only served as icing on the cake. [EMail Ends.] 40.1 – Is There Proof Prophet Has Right To Declare Haram And Halal: [EMail] He Said: I have more important issues. Your Barelwi methodology has not dealt with or I should say not as well as it needs to be explained. I would preferr you rather shed light on these then dwelve too much on our earlier discussion. He Said: In your following article, here, you built foundation by saying: “The right to declare something as Halal/Haram is of i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), the Lord of universe, and ii) one who has been conferred this right i.e. Prophet/Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). From this we gather what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had declared Haram and Halal, if anyone other then Him and His Messenger was to change it, and we obeyed them, we then would be guilty of taking that individual as lord in partnership with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or as Prophet after gate of Prophet-hood has been closed.” In this context you concluded and clearly stated one who takes Satan as lord like Jews/Christians took their priests as lords is not guilty of major Shirk. Following statement of yours is saying it is not Shirk and why it is not major Shirk: i) “Note notion that Satan is taken as lord is implied and not explicitly affirmed therefore no major Shirk has taken place. Instead it amounts to minor Shirk if at all. It would be major Shirk if person emphatically attributes Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to Satan and performs actions with intention of worship. ii) Also it is not major Shirk because there is implied ihtimal (i.e. possibility) of Satan being taken as a Prophet.” He Said: I have three issues with this but two are interconnected. My first confusion is with regards to your saying that RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has the right to declare Haram/Halal. I have never ever heard anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has right to legislate religion and declare what is Haram/Halal. As far I know this is right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). What is your evidence in support of this position of yours? [EMail Ends.] 40.2 - Elevating Lord Via Haram/Halal And Ego As God Shirk Or Not: [EMail] He Said: I know my following questions are interconnected in fundamental level and also will be impacted outcome of previous question but I would preferr separate answer for each of these. He Said: (I) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and 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] In interpretation of this verse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Jews/Christians have taken Rabbis/Monks as Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because they accept Haram which they make Halal and Halal which Rabbi’s make Haram. Were these Jews/Christians guilty of major Shirk because according to Salafi teaching this is part of major Shirk? And would a Muslim be guilty of major Shirk if a explicitly stated Haram/Halal is believed to be Halal/Haram due to edict of a Mufti? He Said: (II) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Have you seen he who has taken his desire as his god, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge, and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart, and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) explained it means: “’Have you seen him who takes his own lust as his god.’ [Have you seen him] who abides by his lust, and whatever his lust portrays as good he implements it, and whatever his lust portrays as evil, he abandons it!” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 45:23, here.] If a person lives a life without guidance of Shari’ah and decides good/evil based on societal attitudes. And based on personal preferrence decides good/evil, or decides Haram/Halal on whims of desire/urges is such a person guilty of major Shirk? I have read in Salafi Tawheed literature and therefore always unquestioningly believed it is major Shirk. I already have clue, answer in both cases is a resolute, NO, but I would preferr you say it. Smile. What I am looking for is how would you refute those who say it is major Shirk? [Email Ends.] I Said: Salam Alaykum. I don’t have access to [Salafi] literature which establishes taking Rabbis/scholars as lords (i.e. Haraming/Halaling a Halal/Haram, or Haraming/Halaling according to ones own desires) is major Shirk. Could you provide me refferences so I can check this myself. Jazakallah khayr. [Email Ends.] 41.0 - Prophet Has Been Granted Right By Allah To Declare Haram/Halal: [Email]I Said: Ahlus Sunnah believe right to declare Haram/Halal is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and He has bestowed authority upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to declare things/matters as Haram/Halal. With a difference that in principle Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can abrogate what His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has deemed Haram/Halal but Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has no authority to overturn ruling regarding Haram/Halal of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “Have they not seen that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders? And Allah decides; there is no adjuster of His decision. And He is swift in account.” [Ref: 13:41] And we believe all authority His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) excercised in legislating Haram/Halal and other exceptions were with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not have any cause to abrogate any prophetic ruling. 41.1 – Evidence Prophet Has Authority Over Legislating Religion: I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta'la) states He and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legislate over matters of Haram/Halal and good/evil: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who ..." [Ref: 7:157] There are more evidences in this regard from Quran but one would suffice to justify position. Typically in Salafi/Wahhabi circles including Deobandi it is believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) only anounces what has been declared Haram/Halal and good/evil. And he does not have any authority to legislate matters of Deen and this verse is interpreted/understood in accordance with this heretical belief. I Said: Without getting too deep into how/why the verse means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has authority of legislate Deen I would like to indirectly establish this meaning. It is recorded in Sahih of Imam Muslim (rahimullah😞 "Abu Huraira reported: Allah's Messenger addressed us and said: O people, Allah has made Hajj obligatory for you; so perform Hajj. Thereupon a person said: Messenger of Allah every year? He (the Holy Prophet) kept quiet. And he (the man) repeated thrice. Whereupon Allah's Messenger said: If I were to say yes, it would become obligatory, and you would not be able to do it. Then he said: Leave me with what I have left to you, for those who were before you were desroyed because of excessive questioning, and their ..." [Ref: Muslim, B7, H3095, here.] I Said: This Hadith is proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had be given authority to legislate matters of Deen. And if he had answered the question of companion in affirmative then Hajj would have become compulsory every year for Muslims. This evidence establishes the quoted verse does not only mean what Deobandis/Wahhabis interpret it to mean but it also means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been given authority to legislate Haram/Halal and good/evil in religion. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty." [Ref: 59:7] We will move onto next step onces this is resolved. [Email Ends.] 42.0 – Verse Of Hukm Is Of Allah Quoted: He Said: Salam alaykum. I was sceptical until I read Hadith of Hajj becoming compulsory every year for Muslims. You’ve already quoted verse, Q13:41, about judgment being of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) so how would you understand it? Seemingly this verse and your evidence is in contradiction. I am not saying there is contradiction. Obviously there is fault in my understanding of the these verses. I Said: It would be better if I write you a mail. It would give me time to write carefully. He Said: In sha’a Allah! We will chat after Fajr. 42.1 - How Hakimiyyah And Related Verses Are Supposed To Be Understood: I Said: I) First scripture based answer. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) judged and legislated that in His Deen the last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can legislate good/evil and Haram/Halal: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who ..." [Ref: 7:157] And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) could legislated and did legistate acting on His legislation and judgment. Not only Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but a Mujtahid issues Hukm on matters not found in Quran/Sunnah, in other words legislates religion in form of Fatwah, in light of Quranic/prophetic teachings. I Said: II) Verses which affirm Hakimiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Hukm only affirm His and do not negate another creation excercising right over Hukm. It is similar to verses which say Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Mafatih ul-Ghayb (i.e. keys of hidden), here. When we look at Ahadith it becomes evident knowledge of Mafatih ul-Ghayb was granted to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Because he marked places where named Mushrikeen will die. Another example, in one place Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says only He knows Ghayb in heavens and earth. Yet in Surah al-Jinn verse twenty-six He says only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Ghayb and a chosen Messenger. Verses of Hakimiyyah are of similar meaning to these verses. When there is affirmation of something for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) we should not assume none beside Him posseses this characteristic. Instead we should understand His qualities, attributes, characteristics in accordance with Tawheed and in a way which befits His majesty. And for creation we should affirm according to creaturly contraints as demonstrated by thirteen principles. I Said: III) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Hakim Zaati and His Hukm (i.e. judgement/decision) is Zaati. You can interpret His Hakamiyyah and His Hukm in context of thirteen principles, Zaati, Qadeemi etc. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Hakim Atai and his right to issue Hukm has been granted to him. And his authority is dependent upon permission and approval of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). [Email Ends.] He Said: JazakAllah Khayr. I am going to need bit of time to get my head around what you wrote and implications of all this. I Said: Salam Alaykum. He Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. For now we can move onto next stage. 43.0 – Shirk Determined On Basis Of Shari Worship Not Linguistic: I Said: I think subject of Hakimiyyah has been sufficiently dealt with so I will return to dealing with your question; is taking scholars as Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being major Shirk or not? The Jews/Christians did not genuinely believed, nor outwardly, verbally professed their scholars are Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor did they conceal this belief in their hearts. They did not intend to direct Shari worship to their scholars nor did they believe their scholars deserved to be worshipped. And when this is true then it is also correct they did not engage in major Shirk because major Shirk is established through Shari worship and not due to linguistic worship. Note Shari worship of Ghayrullah is technically Kufr. Due to belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah leading to worship and being affirmed as part of worship; worship is termed major Shirk. I Said: If someone genuinely believes a scholar is Lord/God beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then such a person is Mushrik no doubt even if there is no worship whatsoever. Christians are Mushrik for crime of elevating Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) to status of god/lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his worship but this is clear/emphatic ascription of godhood/lordship with intentional worship. Principle is that if Rububiyyah/Ilahiyyah is not explicitly affirmed, and and not believed in heart, and there is no intention to worship than technically there is no worship, and no reason for charge of major Shirk. And biggest proof that accepting a scholar’s Haram/Halal as Halal/Haram is not Shirk is; there is hypothetical Ihtimal of affirming prophethood for a scholar. Note just as person doesn’t directly/emphatically affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah but despite it verse states he/she has taken scholar as a lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 Similarly without affirming prophethood it can be said he/she took scholar as a prophet after gate of prophethood has been closed. I Said: This Ihtimal invalidates deduced understanding that Jews/Christians were guilty of affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and worship of their scholars. In case I have given impression that Ahlus Sunnah deem the practice of Jews/Christians as blameless I want to end with a declaration: Accepting a Shari Haram/Halal as a Halal/Haram against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messengers is major Kufr. It invalidates belief in Islam but it is not major Shirk. 43.1 - Scholars/Satan As Lord And Worship Of Satan/Scholars: I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and 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] Reason why they are said to have taken their scholars as Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is when their scholars declared a Haram a Halal and a Halal a Haram the Jews/Christians obeyed them: “Narrated 'Adi bin Hatim: "I came to the Prophet while I had a cross of gold around my neck. He said: 'O Adi! Remove this idol from yourself!' And I heard him reciting from Surah Bara'ah: ‘They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.’ (9:31). He said: 'As for them they did not worship them but when they made something lawful for them, they considered it lawful, and when they made something unlawful for them, they considered it unlawful.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B44, H3095, here.] In language of Quran obedience in to a creation/Satan in matters of Halal/Haram is worship of Satan: “Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” [Ref: 36:60] And in this context obedience of scholars by Jews/Christians is worship of Satan and if we apply this deduction upon verse, Q9:31, then we can come to conclusion Jews/Christians worshipped their scholars. I Said: In conclusion in language of Quran taking up scholars as Lords and worship of Satan is one and the same because both are interpreted to mean obedience to a creation in matters of Haram/Halal and good/evil. So we can say worship of Satan is same as taking Satan as Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and we can say taking of scholars as Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is same as worship of scholars instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Both are one and same just different way of expression. Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) quoted a Hadith which supports that Haraming a Halal and Halaling a Haram was judged as act of worship: “The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah: “They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.” Adi commented I said: `They did not worship them.’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes they did. They (the Rabbis and monks) prohibited the Halal for them and allowed the Haram, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them..” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 9:31, here.] 43.2 - Resolving Apparent Contradiction Between Ahadith: I Said: I) Hadith of Tirmadhi quoted above explicitly negates worship of scholar-Lords by Jews/Christians: “‘They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.’ (9:31). He said: 'As for them, they did not worship them, but when they made something lawful for them, they considered it lawful, and when they made something unlawful for them, they considered it unlawful.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B44, H3095, here.] On apparent level there is contradiction between Hadith of Tirmadhi and translation of Hadith quoted by Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) in his Tafsir: “Adi commented I said: `They did not worship them.’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes they did. They (the Rabbis and monks) prohibited the Halal for them and allowed the Haram, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them..” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 9:31, here.] Therefore I will comment on the Arabic Hadith text: (بَلَى إِنَّهُمْ حَرَّمُوا عَلَيْهِمُ الْحَلَالَ وَأَحَلُّوا لَهُمُ الْحَرَامَ فَاتَّبَعُوهُمْ فَذَلِكَ عِبَادَتُهُمْ إِيَّاهُم). If Arabic, bala/yes, is taken in context of Sahabi’s statement (i.e. they didn’t worship them) then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) validated his statement with, yes. In this case Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) verified his statement and meant, yes they did not worship them [in conventional sense]. If Arabic, yes,/bala, is understood in context of Quranic verse then it means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is negating what the companion said and attesting to what the verse has stated. In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), yes Jews/Christians worshipped their Monks/Rabbis as lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but in sense of obeying them in matters of Haram/Halal. I Said: II) Even though there is a possibility of translating, bala/yes, as it has been in Tafsir Ibn Kathir; it has to be said that this is forced and does not follow normal speech pattern. Readers should note companion was engaged in discussion with Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore, bala/yes, could only be affirming what companion said. In Jami ul-Bayan Fi Tafsir ul-Quran, here, by Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) many narrations make it clear that Prophet bala/yes was uttered to attest/confirm statement of companion. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) confirmed what companion said with following words: (" صَدَقْتَ، ولَكِنْ كانُوا يُحِلُّونَ لَهُمْ ما حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ فَيَسْتَحِلُّونَهُ، ويُحَرِّمُونَ ما أحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَهُمْ فَيُحَرّمُونَهُ ") Translation would be: “You’re truthful/right, but they permitted what Allah prohibited and they prohibited what Allah permitted.” In another narration Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explicitly negated Jews/Christians worshiping others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 (" أكانوا يعبدونهم؟ قال: لا، كانوا إذا أحلوا لهم شيئاً استحلوه، وإذا حرّموا عليهم شيئاً حرّموه") I Said: III) Shari worship is practiced on basis of outward verbal affirmation and on sincere confirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah in heart. This sincere belief then translates into desire of worship and intention of worship. And then the belief, desire, intention leads person to engage in actions of worship. And the Jews/Christians did not do this therefore no Shari worship. Accepting a Haram as Halal, or Halal as a Haram is worship due to obedience of scholars. No concession is made for lack of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah of persons mentioned in verse. Nor intention of worship of persons involved is taken into consideration and yet action is declared worship. This indicates charge; Jews/Christians worshipped their scholars is expression of Majaz (i.e. metaphor) and not Shari. 43.3 - Ahlul Kitab Taking Scholar Lords Is Rhetorical Exagerated Reality: I Said: Jews/Christians were guilty of obedience in regards to Haram/Halal and good/evil. And this was said to be them taking their scholars as lords and this obedience was also said to be worship of their scholars. If obedience alone in regards of Haram/Halal and good/evil was elevating creation to status of lordship and their worship. Then our obedience to commands of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would be worship and so it be in regards to our obedience of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in matters of Halal/Haram and good/evil. We do not worship Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and therefore obedience alone is not worship and not elevating a creation to status of an Ilah/Rabb. I Said: They were only said to have taken their scholars as lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) rehtorically in exagerated reality for effect. In order to convey meaning they are engaged in taking religion from their scholars when in reality they should take it from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And they blindly obey their scholars and this type of obedience is only right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Another example of such exageration is in many Quranic verses. The living Mushrikeen who disbelieved in Message of Tawheed are said to be dead people: “It is only those who listen, will respond (benefit from it) but as for the dead Allah will raise them up, then to Him they will be returned (for their recompense).” [Ref: 6:36] Insinuation is that the Mushrikeen who obey will positively respond to call of Islam but those Mushrikeen who are destined to die upon Shirk will be held responsible for their disbelief on day of judgment. I Said: In other verses of Quran the Mushrikeen are said to be deaf, dumb, and blind: “Deaf, dumb and blind - so they will not return (to the right path).” [Ref: 2:18] Insinuation in these two verses is that the Mushrikeen cannot hear the truth of Islam due to being entrenched in Shirk. They cannot see the truth/proof of Islam embodied by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And they cannot therefore speak the truth. I Said: Another example of such exagerated rehotric is in verse: “O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful.” [Ref: 49:12] Spying/Backbiting are indicated as eating flesh of a deceased brother. Question is asked would you like to eat the flesh of deceased brother? And answer is also given that you would hate it. All in effort to convey backbiting and spying is a detestable act. I Said: Similarly Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) rhetorically exagerates the reality and says Jews/Christians took their scholars as lords: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and 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] In order to convey Jews/Christian are engaged in blind obedience of their scholars to such an extant they are in obedience of them even if their verdicts is against His legislated Haram/Halal and good/evil. 43.4 – Religion Legislator Is Lord And Is Prophet A Permitted Lord: I Said: According to literal reading of verse, Q9:31, legislating religion is right of Lord/Ilah and when this right is given to a creation then it is as if creation is elevated to status of Lord. And Jews/Christians in obedience to their scholars accepted Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Haram as Halal and His Halal as Haram. Therefore they were said to have taken their scholars as Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Quran and Hadith establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been given the right to legislate religion. This implicitly leads to understanding that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has permitted his last/final Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be a lord/ilah beside Him. The only difference between his and Jewish/Christian scholars being lords is that they legislated religion against injunctions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and he legislates with His permission. As such we are practicing permitted form of major Shirk and the Jews/Christians are engaged in forbidden form of major Shirk. You and I know if it is major Shirk for Jews/Christians then it is also major Shirk for Muslims. Note Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah in context of Jews, Christians, and Muslims is implied from obedience in matters of legislating Haram/Halal, good/evil. Are you willing to accept we have a lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who has been given authority and permission for lordship? I Said: In our understanding the verse is example of rehetorical exageration to convey particular meaning. Blind, unquestioning obedience and abrogating legislated religions is right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Haqiqi, bi-Ghayr Izni, Zaati, and Qadeemi sense etc. And in light of other verses blind, unquestioning obedience and right of abrogation of religious injunctions is of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in bi-Izni, Atahi, Hadis, Baaz, Waqti, and Mahdood sense. If Amr was to abrogate/cancel injunction of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without intending to be a rival Lord then and if Amr is obeyed in this regards without emphatically affirming belief Amr is a rival Lord against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then Amr is not elevated to status of Lordship and no major Shirk has taken place. I Said: The verse, Q9:31, is merely rehteorical exageration to impart a lesson through shock therapy. Obedience to one who legislates religion with permission given by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and legislates religion in support of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) religion: And obedience to one who usurps this right and legislates matters which contradict teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not elevating a creation to status of Lord nor worship of that creation. And any who insists it is should wake up confessing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and obedience to his teachings is his worship. [EMail Ends.] 44.0 - Why Didn’t Allah Say You’re Taking Scholars As Prophets: He Said: I am not disputed with your conclusion but question arises why didn’t Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say you claim Prophet-hood for your scholars? Why did he say you elevated your Rabbis/Monks to status of Lords? I Said: There is no indication in Quran/Hadith why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) didn’t say you take your scholars as prophets so I don’t have answer to this interogation. He Said: OK! I Said: I will take break for a about week and half. I am drained. He Said: Brother Ali make sure all this content is posted online. Trust me it will be help for many to unravel difficult matters. Content of this discussion is quite impressive and it should not go to waste. If you let me I will make PDF book out of this. I Said: You have permission to PDF all articles dated 2016 to present including this discussion. Free distribution, sale, publishing and all. There is a condition if you want to publish your own version you let me have look at the content first. Everything of religious value will be included when this goes online. He Said: I don’t have much time for editing my own version. At every he said and I said start with new line so it is easy to follow. I Said: I am currently editing another discussion with space between each exchange. I will see how it turns out when I post on forum. There are bugs in forum software and too many new lines garble formatting so I adopted approach of whole chunk to avoid too many adjustments. They have updated software and forum again and I will see how that pastes. If it goes smooth then I will add spaces. He Said: On same topic? I Said: Three Talaq issued in one go being three or one. He Said: OK. I Said: What was the outcome? I Said: It was good discussion in content wise but Ahle Hadith Brother was abusive. He Said: This is typical behaviourial trait of Pakistanis and Indians. We quickly get riled up especially in religious discussions. When Muslims discuss religious issues with Hindus, OMG, they are so attentive, kind, respectful to them but Muslims discussing each other is like dogs fighting. This really makes me angry. He Said: Some time around our first discussion Dr. Usama Hassan said evolution is in agreement with Islam. He is from Ahle Hadith background family but educated in Madinah University. Meeting was held so he can confirm, deny, and clarify about what has been going around in local community. All I wanted to do was sit, listen, and let Dr. Usama Hassan reveal his Kufr. That senseless idiot couldn’t get more then two sentences without gathered, excited, zealous, morons shouting stuff at him. There was so much comotion that at one point I thought he is about to get lynched. I just got up and left. I Said: Wow! Salafi supporting evolution? He Said: They just started shouting and saying stuff. Luckily he was relieved of his duties as Imam. I Said: Where do you live in UK? He Said: When the incident took place I was living in Leyton, London. I Said: And where are you now? He Said: Coventry. I Said: I am in Derby. I have quite few relatives in Coventry next time am visiting them I let you know and maybe we can have bite togather He Said: Yeah! It will be nice. I Said: I have to hit bed. I am falling asleep. He Said: OK! Allah Hafiz. I Said: Allah Hafiz. 45.0 – Taking Ego/Desires As God, And Ego/Desire Behaving As God: [Email.] I Said: Here we will see effect of affirming belief of Ilahiyyah for ego and deciding good/bad. And deciding good/bad and engaging in good/bad without affirming Ilahiyyah. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] “Have you seen he who has taken his desire as his god, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge, and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart, and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] This verse can be interpreted in context of two types of people: I) If one takes his/her ego/desires believing and professing it is my god. And whatever seems good/evil to it I will believe so and act accordingly then there is no doubt this is clear-cut major Shirk. II) If the verses are saying they took their egos/desires as gods about a people who due to influences arrived at understanding this is good/bad and acted accordingly then there is no major Shirk because their ego/desire is behaving as god and is not believed as god. But they would be guilty of Kufr when their Halal/Haram went against Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Haram/Halal. And those who say even this is MAJOR SHIRK are in for a huge shock. I Said: Mushrikeen of Arabia certainly did not believe their egos/desires are their gods so these verses cannot be about first type of people. Instead these verses are about second type of people therefore these verses do not speak about those who were guilty of major Shirk. I Said: Just to explain difference between beleiving ego is god and ego behaving as god. To believe Dajjal is behaving as a god is not Shirk but to believe Dajjal is god is Shirk. To behave like Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not same as claiming to be a Prophet. Behaving like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala); deciding what to worship and what is good/bad; is not same as claiming to be Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Ego is behaving like an Ilah but ego isn’t believed to be an Ilah. First isn’t Shirk second is major Shirk. 45.1 - Meaning Of Taking Your Desire/Ego As A Lord/God: I Said: (I) Before I move to quoted verse there is another verse which states the same as verse quoted by you: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas interprets the verse as: “(Hast thou) O Muhammad (seen him who chooseth for his god his own lust) who worshipped his god ( i.e. al-Nadr and his host) out of the whim of his ego? (Wouldst thou) O Muhammad (then be guardian over him) a protector against going out for such corruption?” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 25:43, here.] Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) interprets the verse saying one who decides good/bad based on his own desires is taking his ego/desire as a god: “’Have you seen him who has taken as his god his own vain desire?’ Meaning, whatever he admires and sees as good in his own desires becomes his religion and his way. As Allah says: ‘Is he then, to whom the evil of his deeds is made fair seeming. So that he consider it as good. Verily, Allah sends astray whom he wills.’ (35:8) [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 25:43, here.] Regarding those who follow desires/egos and deem their self judgments to be good/evil and do not respond to message of Islam in general and Tawheed in specific – Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about them: "But if they do not respond to you - then know that they only follow their (own vain) desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah ? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people." [Ref: 28:50] I Said: (II) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Have you seen he who has taken his desire as his god, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge, and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart, and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] This verse is interpreted in historical context in Tafsir al-Jalalayn and in Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas: “Have you seen one who takes his ego/desire as his Ilah. (When he finds a better stone then the previous he makes it his Ilah.) Allah has lead him astray due to his knowledge …” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 45:23, Urdu to English translation.] “(Hast thou seen) O Muhammad (him who maketh his desire his god) the one who worships a deity because of the whim of his ego; whenever his ego desires something, he worships it.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas, 45:23, here.] Both Tafasir indicate that historically it was about specific group of people, or this verse indicates a general behaviourial trait of Mushrikeen of Arabia. I Said: These Tafasir insinuate two/three practices of Mushrikeen: (a) Whenever Mushrikeen found a more beautiful stone they made their idol from it and got rid of less attractive looking stone idol and instead worshipped the new: “‘Would you then be a guardian over him?’ Ibn Abbas said: "During the Jahiliyyah, a man would worship a white rock for a while, then if he saw another that looked better, he would worship that and leave the first.'' [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 25:43, here.] (b) Or whenever Mushrikeen felt their idol-god is failing to provide joys/material they had prayed for they decided to get a idol-god of people who were economically doing better. (c) Or if for whatever reason they came to understanding their idol-god had some defect they would change it for one which didn’t have it. And this is evident from incident of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) when he said meteor is my god but has defect so my god is moon instead. Moon has defect so my god is sun and sun sets so my god is … he was high lighting practice of Mushrikeen of choosing one idol-god for a better one: "So when the night covered him he saw a star. He said: 'This is my lord.' But when it set, he said: 'I like not those that disappear.' And when he saw the moon rising, he said: 'This is my lord.' But when it set, he said: 'Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray.' And when he saw the sun rising, he said, ‘This is my lord; this is greater.’ But when it set, he said: ‘O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah.’" [Ref: 6:76/78] In all these cases it was ego/desire deciding what they should worship and what they should not worship. In language of verse it is desire/ego deciding worshiping this idol-god is not good and worshipping this one is good. I Said: (iii) Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) did not interpret the verse in historical context but rather commented on the apparent text of verse: “’Have you seen him who takes his own lust as his god.’ [Have you seen him] who abides by his lust, and whatever his lust portrays as good he implements it, and whatever his lust portrays as evil, he abandons it!” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 45:23, here.] Conclusion is act of deciding what is good/bad, what is good for worship and what bad for worship is to be decided by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And one who decides this based on desire/ego is behaving like and his ego is behaving like god. Because it is only God who decides what is to be worshipped and what is good/bad. And as reasoned earlier, to behave like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not same as claiming to be an Ilah besides Him. Claiming to be god beside Him, or setting ego/desire as a rival Ilah besides Him is without doubt major Shirk but the verses are not about this type of belief. These verses are about ego/desire behaving as a god in absence of Ilahiyyah therefore these verses are not to be understood in literal apparent sense. [EMail Ends.] 45.2 - The Basic Premise Of Verse Of Taking Ego As God: [Email.] I Said: Verse is explained to mean deciding good and bad based on desires/ego is behaving as god. But just lets just agree with Wahhabis and say deciding good/bad based on desires/ego is elevating ego and desire to status of god. I Said: I) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] "O Prophet, why do you prohibit (yourself from) what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you (Muslims) the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise." [Ref: 66:1/2] In context of these two verses did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) elevate his ego/desire to status of an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) committ major Shirk by prohibiting which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) made lawful for him? I Said: II) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said:“They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and 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] And this verse and its Tafsir: "O Prophet, why do you prohibit (yourself from) what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you (Muslims) the dissolution of your oaths. And ..." [Ref: 66:1/2] Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) elevate himself to status of a LORD beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by prohibiting something which was Halal for him? Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) committ major Shirk by elevating himself to status of a Lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? I Said: III) According to this verse obedience of Jews/Christains of their Jewish/Christian scholars when they went against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) became worship of scholars:“Adi commented I said: `They did not worship them.’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes they did. They (the Rabbis and monks) prohibited the Halal for them and allowed the Haram, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them..” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 9:31, here.] And therefore it stands to reason if someone obeyed his ego and declared a Haram as Halal and then he ate that Haram belieiving it is Halal he has obeyed his ego and is guilty of worship. And same logic would apply of a Halal was termed Haram. Quranic evidence establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared via an oath and Haramed upon himself something which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had judged to be Halal. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) remained steadfast on his oath until he was told to expiate for his oath and partake in the Halal: "O Prophet, why do you prohibit (yourself from) what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you (Muslims) the dissolution of your oaths." [Ref: 66:1/2] In context of verse, Hadith, and logical deduction question is: Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) take his ego as an Ilah/Rabb and did he worship his go? And did he become guilty of major Shirk due to his worship of his ego? End. Any follower of Salafi as-Saliheen and true Muwahid wanting to make Takfir and declare Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was guilty of major Shirk and Mushrik? I Said: IV) If this hasn’t ripped Wahhabism out of your heart then nothing ever likely will. This critique of your twisted understanding of Tawheed, Shirk and methodology of determining Tawheed and Shirk should have shocked your Wahhabi core. When Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not safe from your Shirk methodology and edicts of sure Shirk then who else is? If nothing else made you realize your error in understanding Tawheed, Shirk, and methodology of determining Shirk this SHOULD. [EMail Ends.] 45.3 - Prophet Ibrahim’s Rehetorically Exagerates To Convey A Meaning: [Email.] I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not elevate himself to status of god/lord nor he worshipped his ego/desire due to abstaining from what he prohibited upon himself. Because fundamentally verse Q45:23 and Q25:43 are example of rehtorical exageration and do not literally impart deciding good/evil based on desire/ego is elevating himself/ego to status of a god. Objective of these exagerations is to convey a meaning and meaning conveyed by these verses is one who decides good/bad, and what is deserving of worship and what is not, is behaving as God. And the verses does not mean by engaging in such person has elevated himself to status of a god. Any Wahhabi still stuck on his erroneous undertanding such is major Shirk should answer six key questions asked in section 45.2. Everyone else should take note that some times things are exagerated to convey a meaning. I Said: Here I will quote example of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam😞 "So when the night covered him he saw a star. He said: 'This is my lord.' But when it set, he said: 'I like not those that disappear.' And when he saw the moon rising, he said: 'This is my lord.' But when it set, he said: 'Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray.' And when he saw the sun rising, he said, ‘This is my lord; this is greater.’ But when it set, he said: ‘O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah.’" [Ref: 6:76/78] This verse is a brilliant example of rhetorical exageration. Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) exageratingly affirms lordship for celestial bodies and repudiates each until he affirms Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Readers should note this incident reached its pinnacle in roughly 24 hours. And Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) was not upon Shirk before this incident, during the unravelling of this incident, nor thereafter. I Said: It was just a exageration to establish, to demonstrate to his Ummah their gods have faults, and Mushrikeen are not satisfied with their gods, and constantly seek a better god then their current chosen deity. And Mushrikeen should critically think about defects in their gods and leave them like he left them. And that they should choose Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as their Lord like Ibrahim (alayhis salam) chose, and not associate another as Lord with Him because He alone is without faults, and imperfections, and whose equal, or better does not exist. Similarly the verses, Q45:23 and Q25:43, are exagerations to convey a meaning and are not to be understood literally just like account of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) isn’t indicating his actual falling into Shirk and then reasoning out of Shirk. [EMail Ends.] 46.0 - In Wahhabism Taking Scholars And Ego As Lord/God Is Major Shirk: [Following content was originally fourth Email brother sent which you see from 40.0 to 40.2. And this should have been 40.3 but I decided respond to it seperately.] He Said: I managed to find refference of Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips who has counted taking of scholars scholars as lords a major Shirk and I quote: “Major Shirk: This means ascribing to someone other than Allah something that belongs only to Allah, such as Lordship (ruboobiyyah), divinity (uloohiyyah) and the divine names and attributes (al-asma’ wa’l-sifaat). This kind of shirk may sometimes be outward, such as the shirk of those who worship idols and graves, or the dead or absent. Or it may sometimes be hidden, such as those who put their trust in other gods besides Allah, or the shirk and kufr of the hypocrites. For even though their (hypocrites’) shirk puts them beyond the pale of Islam and means that they will abide forever in Hell, it is a hidden shirk, because they make an outward display of Islam and conceal their kufr and shirk, so they are inwardly mushriks but not outwardly. Shirk may sometimes take the form of beliefs: Such as the belief that there is someone else who creates, gives life and death, reigns or controls the affairs of the universe along with Allah. Or the belief that there is someone else who must be obeyed absolutely besides Allah, so they follow him in regarding as permissible or forbidden whatever he wants, even if that goes against the religion of the Messengers.” [Ref: The Fundamentals Of Tawheed,by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, here, scribd.] He Said: Based reading material like of Abu Ameenah I have always deductively held to opinion that taking ego as god is also way to major Shirk. I didn’t come to this understanding myself but I had read it is major Shirk on Salafi website. I was unable to find more concrete source but did find article which inspired my understanding that taking ego/self as god is major Shirk and I quote once again: “Major Shirk also includes loving to obey one’s desires more than Allah. One would follow their desires even if it leads to disobeying Allah. Such one takes their desires as their god as they act according to their whims. God states: “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his (own) desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So, who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] Minor Shirk (Shirk al-Asghar) does not make the doer a disbeliever or remove one from the folds of Islam. However, minor Shirk is still a major sin.” [Ref: Shirk (Polytheism) In Islam, here, scribd.] He Said: I was type of Salafi who only stepped on foot prints of Salafi scholarship and did not want to or even tried to pave my own path so it is unconcievable I came to this conclusion without support of Salafi mainstream literature. This weekend I will have look at books I have amassed at home and if I find something I will let you know. [EMail Ends.] 46.1 - Ego God Of Jewish/Christian Scholars, These Scholars Gods Of People: I Said: The verses of ego being taken as god and taking scholarship as god/lord are interconnected. These are different ways of expressing obedience to others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in matters which none but He should be obeyed. I will reason in two steps: (I) Jewish/Christian scholars due to ego Halaled the Harams and Haramed the Halals. So they elevated themselves/ego to status of god and this is major Shirk in Salafism. (II) Jews/Christians accepted what these scholars legislated therefore according to Salafism they were guilty of taking them as God/Lord rivals of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It can seen both verses are interconnected and if one is about major Shirk then so has to be the other. The only difference is Amr is taking himself/ego as Lord and in the other Amr is elevated to status of Lord by others. And this is major Shirk in Salafism no doubt. 46.2 - Shaykh al-Bani Supports Taking Desire/Ego As God Is Major Shirk: I Said: Concept of taking scholars as Lords being [major] Shirk was first purposed by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab al-Najdi in his master piece of Kharijism called, Kitab at-Tawheed, chapter 38, titled: Whoever obeys the scholars and the rulers … I will not quote the content of chapter here but readers can referr to it. I Said: On ego being taken as god resulting major Shirk I found support from Shaykh al-Bani’s question and answer session. Al-Bani said: “Therefore when he denied the Resurrection, he associated partners with Allah. So whoever disbelieves in something that has come in the Book or the Sunnah, then he is (also) a Mushrik during his state of disbelief; this is with respect to the Qur’anic text. So what is the intellectual reason (for this)? The answer is that the Most High said: ‘Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilah?’ (45:23) Therefore whoever disbelieves with any type of disbelief is (also) a Mushrik, because he himself made his logic to be a partner with His Lord, the Blessed and Most High. Thus do not differentiate between Kufr and Shirk …” [Ref: Silsilat ul-Hudaa Wa Noor – the series of guidance and light – Tape no. 727, Que 7, by Shaykh al-Bani, here.] I wasn’t satisfied with no prominent Wahhabi source establishing desire/ego being taken is major Shirk so I laboured a little. I Said: He isn’t actually interpreting the verse as I would have liked but Shaykh al-Bani is employing it to justify charge of major Shirk. And that is all the support I needed. I might deal with Shaykh al-Bani’s statement as well then maybe not because it was not introduced by you. I will think about feasibility of responding to him. 46.3 - Giving In To Desires And Engaging In Haram Leads To Major Shirk: I Said: According to Wahhabi methodology of determing Shirk; self Halaling/Haraming, deciding good/evil is an act of elevating one’s ownself via desire/ego to status of God and major Shirk: “Major Shirk also includes loving to obey one’s desires more than Allah. One would follow their desires even if it leads to disobeying Allah. Such one takes their desires as their god as they act according to their whims. God states: “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his (own) desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So, who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] Minor Shirk (Shirk al-Asghar) does not make the doer a disbeliever or remove one from the folds of Islam. However, minor Shirk is still a major sin.” [Ref: Shirk (Polytheism) In Islam, here, scribd.] So one gives into his urges/desires and acts against Sharia has committed major Shirk. A Muslim can’t resist pig, or donkey, or engages in outside marriage, or engages in another other Haram acts. His urges, desires, lust gets better of his control he has disobeyed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and obeyed urges/desires. And this is major Shirk according to Wahhabism and this is no short other side of coin called Kharijism. 46.4 - Why Kharijism And Dealing With Excuses To Defend Wahhabism: I Said: This principle is Kharijism in nutshell because they said major sin is major Kufr and in Wahhabi methodology of determing Shirk one who acts on urges/desires which lead to disobedience to commands of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is guilty of major Shirk. Author might not have intended this meaning but he has conveyed this meaning very clearly. I Said: First excuse a Wahhabi would likely come with is; this is an oversight because in Wahhabism we do not deem engaging in Haram as major Shirk. In response I would say, yes you’re right in saying Wahhabism not deem engaging in Haram as major Shirk but you’re wrong that this is an error. There is a fault in methodology of determining major Shirk. If acting on urges against Shariah leads to major Shirk then Wahhabi belief acting on Haram is major sin is wrong. And if major sin is right jugement then this principle of determining major Shirk is wrong. You can’t have both. And if Wahhabis hold to their Shirk determining principle then they would be Khawarij manifest even in their knowledge. If they let go of principle then they agree with Muslims that major Shirk is determined on basis of clearly affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and not on basis of Halaling/Haraming a Haram/Halal. It is win, win in both situations for Ahlus Sunnah. 46.5 - Wahhabi Excuse Believing Makes Desire God, Inability To Resist Is Sin: I Said: Wahhabi may argue believing a Haram is Halal is major Shirk but being unable to resist roast pig while believing it is Haram is sin. Readers should note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says nothing about belief when he says have you seen one who takes ego/whim/desire as a god: “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his (own) desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and…” [Ref: 45:23] Principle in interpreting Quran is when there is no specification then all possible are inclusive. In other words Mutliq is all inclusive. And absence of a specific way of taking desire as god hints to all types of ways in which desire can be taken as god. I have figured two ways; (i) to actively believe a Haram is Halal and then taking part in it, (ii) and to heedlessly partake in a Haram. Note point mentioned in section 46.2 was in context of second – heedlessly partaking in Haram leads to person elevating ownself via ego/desire to status of god. I Said: World does not revolve around Haram/Halal for non-Muslims. They eat what they like and leave what they dislike. The concept of this is Haram and this is Halal doesn’t exist for them so they heedlessly engage in many Harams and many Halals. Their ego/desire is their decision maker and unfortunately this also applies to a lot of Muslims. I want to give example of first type those who active believe Haram is Halal. Smoking according to vast majority of Wahhabis is Haram. Smokers you took up smoking believing it is Halal. According to Wahhabism you took your ego/desire as a god in sight of vast majority of Wahhabi scholarship. Due to this you’re guilty of major Shirk in their sect. I Said: According to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah smoking is not Haram but Makruh (i.e. disliked), here. And it is best to avoid it because it is amongst those whichs which are in language of Hadith unclear (i.e. mutashabihat) which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said we should avoid. At worst case scenario according to Ahlus Sunnah smokers are sinful Muslims. In Wahhabism you’re Mushrik, killing you is Halal, looking your property is Halal as well due to your apostasy from Islam. I have already given example that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared a drink made from honey as Haram upon himself and did not partake in it. Whose going to issue Fatwah of Shirk upon him? I Said: Khawarij you have no excuse to defend against the reality facing you. Accept and repent from your neo-Kharijism. Don’t deluded yourself into thinking it is based on methodology, belief, practice of Salaf as-Saliheen. Give up and acknowledge major Shirk is warranted by direct, explicit, clear, emphatic, outward and verbal affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. And come to believe only other way major Shirk via indirect affirmation of Ilahiyyah can be warranted is; if His attributes are assigned to a creation exactly in the same fashion as the attributes are affirmed for Him. 46.6 - Wahhabism And Category Of Shirk Of Obedience: I Said: It occurred to me, let us suppose Amr invites to something which is in agreement with teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), something which is Halal. Or forbids practice of something which coincides with being Haram. And his intention is not to call people toward obedience of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor he makes referrence to book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), nor to Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He calls people purely on basis of sciencetific and rational arguments and people respond to it on basis of scientific evidence. I Said: Question is those who respond to his call have they taken Amr to be lord/god beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Have they committed major Shirk? Something for thinkers to ponder over. As a former Wahhabi and being fully conversant with their methodology I would say, yes, they take Amr to be god/lord beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and committed major Shirk. Let me reason my answer. They did not respond to his call on basis because it is taught by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and he did not call them to obedience of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: He reasoned and juged his position and called toward it on basis of his learning and intellectual reasoning. And in Wahhabism this would be Amr elevating himself to status of a lord/god rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and people taking him lord/god beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). What this establishes is that in Wahhabism call toward what Islam deems Halal and call prohibiting what Islam deems Haram: If it is not on basis of belief/intention come to what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) allowed, and stay away from what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited is of major Shirk. And in accordance with rationale of Wahhabism those responding to such call in absence of belief/intention it is teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then they have also committed major Shirk. 46.7 - If Halaling Haram Shirk Then Intellectually Agreeing To Halal Tawheed: I Said: Deciding this is permissible and this is prohibited on basis of scientific, or intellectual reasoning does not lead to Tawheed or Shirk. If Haraming a Halal leads to Shirk then if Hindu Mushrik comes to understanding which coincides with Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Halal does he become a Muwahid? I just pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) an idiot doesn’t respond saying Muwahid in Tawheed of Halal. I Said: Tawheed/Shirk is not determined on basis of Haram and Halal. Taking a Halal to be Halal due to intellectual persuation, or Haram to be Halal on basis of someones instruction/learning is not major Shirk. This does not warrant indirect/implicit affirmation of Ilahiyyah because there is Ihtimal of Amr enacting role of a prophet. There is no reason to imply Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah in such cases when we can easily read Nabuwah into it and instead give verdict of Kufr. And reality is we have no right to EVEN make assumption of belief, or imply belief from actions. I Said: We see people prostrating to Kabah we do not imply they are worshiping Kabah, or they believe Kabah is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on earth, or they believe Kabah is an idol deserving of worship. Point being made is Haraming, or Halaling on basis … does not mean we make assumption of belief, especially not of Ilahiyyah and Nabuwah on behalf of Amr. Belief is affirmation with tongue and confirmation in heart. Anyone who implies belief absence of Tawheed, and proof of Shirk on basis of actions alone is a Khariji Shaytaan. I Said: We have no right to make assumption that Amr has affirmed Ilahiyyah for himself; not even prophet-hood; on basis of Amr declaring some Halal as a Haram. Nor we have right to make such assumption because he has sceintifically and intellectually come to agree with Haram/Halal of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Tawheed and Shirk is to be determined by what Amr profess and not what we assume from his actions. And judgment is based on what is professed and not what is assumed by a third person. [EMail Ends.] 46.8 - Testimony Of Brother About Argument Wahhabism Is Kharijism: He Said: What was that you wanted to say about Shaykh al-Bani’s quote? I am intrigued to find out. Smile. You know what he said it is truth and in accordance with Islam. You can’t challenge his truth brother and you know it. I dare you. Smile. I Said: This made me laugh. Smile. I will make a deal with you I respond to his quote if you provide honest feedback first in regards to what I have written so far. Smile. He Said: You’ve made some deep cuts brother Ali. You have exposed me to so much, most, I never even thought about. I was some was sceptical of you being ex-Salafi to some degree even at this later stage. At best I was happy to concede you was former Salafi but unaware of true beliefs and our methodology. I am sorry if I am offending you but I am being honest with you. How you explained Salafism is Kharijism and the way you justified your position, and demonstrated your know how of our methodology has made me a believer. Salafis who read this will hurt a lot, even I felt pain. Thinking about all that content has soured my mood. I Said: Brother I did not intend to hurt. I did not invent anything. All information I employed and route I took to make connection was explained. It is undeniable facts brother. How can you now agree it is plain simple truth. He Said: I was saying the facts were painful to come to terms with. What you wrote hurt because I am still some what ‘Salafi’. It is going to take time to let go of feelings for what I know is not good for me. I Said: Brother if it is any consolition ... I intend to bleed Wahhabism to death. He Said: Smile. You paused and delivered the punch line. Cracked me up for real. I Said: I am glad it worked. I Said: I will have to go my son is in room. To get my attention he presses power-off botton at the back of PC. He Said: OK! You look after yourself then brother Ali. I Said: If that happes too many times and harddrive will get corrupt and if I can’t restore it I will end up loosing articles saved on PC. I don’t update USB’s daily so its risk. He Said: OK! Remember to write about Shaykh al-Bani’s quote. I am interested what you have to say. I Said: I will. He is destracted with his dinosaurs and I am capitalize on it and safely turn PC off before he does. He Said: Smiles. 46.9 - What Were The Reasons Which Lead Me Away From Wahhabism: [EMail.] I Said: Just to point out something. I didn’t note the methodological similarity of establishing Shirk was same of Khawarij and Wahhabis. It took me years to realize the way the Khawarij established Shirk of Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and companions; this is exactly same methodology being employed by Wahhabis. I left Wahhabism due to following three key points. I Said: (I) Wahhabism came into existance due to claim of and understanding of its founder that majority of Muslims are guilty of major Shirk. Gradual increase in knowledge lead me to realization that Ahadith employed by Wahhabis to argue majority of Muslims have fallen into major Shirk are not about Muslims but Kafirs who would turn to polytheism after death of every Muslim and every Momin. Then Ahadith clearly establishing Muslims of Arabia will not fall into Satan worship i.e. idol worship. And Ahadith that my Ummah will not worship, sun, moon, stars, idols … I thought now when this was established I realized our (i.e. Wahhabi) methodology determining Shirk is wrong so I learnt one where Ummah wasn’t/isn’t guilty of Shirk and one that supports teaching of these Ahadith. That is first and major reason I distanced from Wahhabism. I Said: (II) Second reason why I distanced from Wahhabism was due to issue of group of Satan i.e. Qarn al-Shaytan emerging from Najd. Studies forced me to come to terms Najd is not Iraq but in central Arabia. Then realization that there are two groups of Satan to emerge one from Iraq, one from Najd. Eventually learnt there are two groups of Satan, one group of Satan was Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi himself, and another was to appear from his progeny, from his descendants. Scholars in his life time charged that he is group of Satan Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold will emerge from posterity of Dhil Khawaisirah. This Hadith is understood in literal sense and according to others it means an offshoot of Kharijism will emerge from Najd. My study has lead me to believe both are true for Shaykh al-Najd. I Said: (III) Third issue was issue of innovations. Does Islam allow innovations? Are there good innovations and bad or just bad innovations? I found out answer depends on which definition and whose definition of innovation you hold to. Imam Shafee (rahimullah), Imam Malik (rahimullah), and Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah) made distinction of good and bad innovations. The majority of Hanabali scholarship took different route. They said all innovations are evil misguidance as the words of Ahadith indicate. Cutting long story short both sides made such Taweels of Ahadith on topic that disagreement was of categorization but not of substance. Fuqaha of Ahnaf, Shafiyyah, Malikiyyah gave verdict on Mawlid being good innovation. Vast majority of orthodox Hanbali scholarship gave verdict it is not an innovation rather a good Sunnah. In other words everything which Imam Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah) termed innovation in his methodology was evil/bad innovation in terminology of other three. And what he said is Sunnah in his methodology is equivlent of good innovation. Difference is ofglass half empty, glass half full. Wahhabis have distorted Quran/Hadith on this matter and distorted the Hanbali methodology of Imam Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah) to produce Wahhabi definition of innovation. And this defintion produces verdicts which go against traditional defintions of all four Madhabs as well as against teaching of Quran/Sunnah. It prohibits which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has allowed through teaching of Quran/Sunnah. I Said: (IV) In conclusion I did not leave Wahhabism due to all details I express currently. I left Wahhabism on three mentioned issues and believed on authority of Ahadith that Wahhabism is Kharijism i.e. group of Satan which was to emerge from Najd. But to say I had in-depth knowledge how Wahhabism was Kharijism would be wrong. It was belief, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said it, evidences establishes it, I believe it. Methodological how and why Wahhabism is Kharijism I learnt years later. What opened the gate for me was understanding of Tawheed/Shirk correctly and then gradually I compared methodology of Ahlus Sunnah with Wahhabism and that eventually lead me to realize Wahhabi methodology of determining Shirk is of Khawarij. I have written three articles on how Wahhabis determine/judge exlcusivity in attributes/actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You can read them here, here, and here. [EMail Ends.] 46.10 - In Islam Every Mushrik Is Kafir, Every Kafir Is Not Mushrik: I Said: Coming to Shaykh al-Bani, he said: “Therefore when he denied the Resurrection, he associated partners with Allah. So whoever disbelieves in something that has come in the Book or the Sunnah, then he is (also) a Mushrik during his state of disbelief; this is with respect to the Qur’anic text. So what is the intellectual reason (for this)? The answer is that the Most High said: ‘Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilah?’ (45:23) Therefore whoever disbelieves with any type of disbelief is (also) a Mushrik, because he himself made his logic to be a partner with His Lord, the Blessed and Most High. Thus do not differentiate between Kufr and Shirk …” [Ref: Silsilat ul-Hudaa Wa Noor – the series of guidance and light – Tape no. 727, Que 7, by Shaykh al-Bani, here.] Shaykh al-Bani is attempting to establish; every Kafir is a Mushrik and every Mushrik is a Kafir. I Said: The Muslims have held to view and understanding; every Mushrik is worst type of Kafir by default but every Kafir is not Mushrik. Jews are Kafir no doubt but they are not Mushrikeen. Every Mushrik’s slaughter is Haram for Muslims even if he slaughters in the name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). A Hindu who slaughters an animal in name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) his slaughtered animal is Haram upon Muslims. We cannot eat it because Mushrikeen are Najs (i.e. unclean) due to polytheism. We are permitted to eat slaughter of orthodox Jews despite their lack of belief in Islam yet their slaughter is Halal for Muslims. If they were Mushrikeen their slaughter would be Haram upon Muslims. This proves in Islam mainstream Judaism/Jews is monotheistic. An animal slaughtered by Christians is Haram for Muslims because they are Mushrikeen. Sahih Bukhari records that Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not allow Muslims to marry Christians on account of them being Mushrikeen: “Narrated Nafi: Whenever Ibn Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady and a Jewess, he would say: ‘Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry women-polytheists, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B63, H209, here.] This Hadith establishes two things Trinitarian Christians male/female are polytheists and implicitly establishes Jews are not polytheists. It is obvious his reason does not apply to Jews. 46.11 - Every Kafir Is Not Mushrik But Every Mushrik Is Kafir: I Said: Shaykh al-Bani said: “Therefore when he denied the Resurrection, he associated partners with Allah. So whoever disbelieves in something that has come in the Book or the Sunnah, then he is (also) a Mushrik during his state of disbelief; this is with respect to the Qur’anic text. So what is the intellectual reason (for this)? The answer is that the Most High said: ‘Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilah?’ (45:23) Therefore whoever disbelieves with any type of disbelief is (also) a Mushrik, because he himself made his logic to be a partner with His Lord, the Blessed and Most High. Thus do not differentiate between Kufr and Shirk …” Words of Shaykh al-Bani imply and lead to conclusion; only a Muslim is a true monotheist and every Kafir is Mushrik and every Mushrik is Kafir. I Said: This might seem all good until you probe bit more deeply. When everything is put in perspective of Wahhabisms beliefs and teachings then everyone not following Wahhabism is a Mushrik/Kafir including Muslims who do not adhere to Wahhabism and its teachings. If you take Wahhabi interpretation, Q45:23, and verse :“They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah ...” [Ref: 9:31] And methodology of determining major Shirk, and their judgment regarding one who is involved in taking ego as god and scholars as gods. Then you will know and understand that every Muslim other then a Wahhabi is Mushrik just like every Kafir is a Mushrik. I Said: In Wahhabism everyone not following true teaching of Islam (i.e. Wahhabism/Salafism) is actually a Mushrik. If you’re holding to a belief which Wahhabism/Wahhabis judge to be heretical you would be guilty of major Shirk via route of taking ego as god, scholars as gods. As per Wahhabism holding to heretical belief would go against His religion of Islam. Amr even though may believe his belief/beliefs are Islamic but in reality it is at odds with Islam so Amr has introduced in Islam belief/beliefs. I Said: Due to it he/she has assumed position of god/lord, or has taken others who have assumed this position and being/taking a rival god/lord to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. Note this is not my belief I was only explaining logic/rationale of Shaykh al-Bani because he said every Kafir is Mushrik and every Mushrik is Kafir if they disbelieve what is stated in the Book (i.e. Quran) and Sunnah (i.e. Ahadith). What this boils down to is that every Muslim not a Wahhabi is equally Kafir/Mushrik like the Jews/Christians and others [EMail Ends.] 46.12 - Every Muslim Is A Monotheist, Only Wahhabi Is True Muslim: I Said: What does Islam teach? In Islam a Muslim’s obedience to Satan, or a scholar misguided by Satan, or giving in to urges/desires on a matters which goes against teaching of Islam is not even Kufr until it is clear verbal denial/rejection of Quranic verse/teaching, or Mutawatir Hadith. In other words denial of something stated in verse of Quran is Kufr not Shirk. If obedience of Satan is in regards to taking part in a Haram, or major sin then judgment is; it is major sin. And if it is on a matter which is minor sin then it is minor sin. And of obedience of Satan is accepting Shirk belief then you have become Mushrik due to affirming Shirki belief but you’re not guilty of taking Satan as a rival god to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Yet in Wahhabism for same you’ve taken your ego, scholars as your lords/gods as well as Satan as your lord/god because you obeyed them and his whispers. And due to obedience on matters against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you have litterally worshipped Satan, ego, and scholars. In short according to Wahhabism, every true Wahhabi is a Muwahid and everyone other then them is a Mushrik. And by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah who contended with Shaykh al-Najd during his life time reported precisely this; they the Wahhabis deem everyone other then themselves as Mushrik and they believe they are only Muwahideen (i.e. monotheists). I Said: Yet prophetic teaching is that his Ummah would divide into 73 sects out of which one is of paradise and 72 of hell. And none said the 72 sects are Mushrik, or even Kafir, not even the Wahhabis say this. Wahhabi methodology of determining Shirk on basis of verses quoted, Q45:23, Q9:31, leads us to conclusion they are Mushrik and Kafir. I had to apply Wahhabi methodology to issue of misguided sects to demonstrate a methodology, understanding of verses, and Hukm, which leads to conflicts with prophetic teaching cannot and is not correct. This is not way to determine major Shirk and if Wahhabi methodology is correct then founders of sects and all those who followed their teaching in contradiction to Islamic teaching all were Mushrikeen due to elevating ego as god and followers taking scholars as lords/gods legislating religion. [EMail Ends.] 46.13 – Circumventing Methodological Restrictions To Find Truth Of Islam: I Said: Brother I leave you, and readers to decide how successful I have been in demonstrating Wahhabism is a form of Kharijism and thatWahhabi methodology of determining Shirk leads to contradictions with Islamic and prophetic teaching. This is very obvious in two situations. Wahhabis charging Arabs in time of Shaykh al-Najd were Mushrikeen. And members of 72 and their scholars are Mushrik on account of Halaling/Haraming, legislating religion, being = to elevating to status of god/lord. Yet Ahadith clearly establish Arabs would not fall into idolatory until after blowing cool musky wind which will cause death of all Muslims and Momins. And Ahadith establish that 72 sects members even though have deviated from correct teaching of Islam but are Muslim on account of affiming la ilaha il-Allah Muhammad ur-RasoolAllah. This clearly points to fault in methodology of determining Shirk if it was correct then why would it contradict prophetic teaching! When Tawheed/Shirk determining methodology is incorrect then how can it produce correct judgments in regards to matters such as Istighathah? A methodology of misguidance will not and cannot produce guidance. [EMail Ends.] He Said: I agree with almost everything you said brother Ali. How you applied Salafi understanding upon Hadith of 73 sects and established in Salafism was 72 sects would be guilty of major Shirk was genius. It made me wonder why haven’t I or other Salafis have come to realize these things. If I ignore all else and just look at that point of yours I will have to either agree they are all Mushrikeen and hold Salafi understanding of verses, methodology of [determining] Shirk. Or affirm members of these 72 sects are Muslims but then let go of Salafi understanding of these verses and methodology of Shirk. I know you’re not just writing all this for me but you have wider audience in mind. I was thinking readers, especially Salafis, would think I didn’t try to refute you. To be honest I don’t know how to. Smile. It would be my pleasure if some Salafi takes up the mantle of challenging your assertions but I am no longer able to challenge anything. I am increasingly agreeing with you. That’s all I have done for long as I can recall now. Smile. I am happy to conclude our discussion on this note. [EMail Ends.] 46.14 - Why Wahhabis Don’t Realize Error Of Their Ways: I Said: (I) Brother Wahhabis don’t realize errors in their methodology of Shirk is primarily because they have shallow grasp of their methodology. As a consequence they cannot wield methodology without being bottle fed by Wahhabi Scholarship. And they are blindly following verdicts which correspond with that methodology without realizing it produces results which totally contradict prophetic teaching. Ultimately they have no sense of independence, or critical thinking required, or the know how to test their methodology. Even if they had all these they have conviction their Wahhabi religion is 100% authentic pure Islam and because of that they will not question it. You got to have some degree of doubt and burning desire to be upon true Islam to actually set out to learn, question, think, and change. Wahhabis typically have almost Wahi like certaintity about teaching of Shaykh al-Najd. As a result people shut the gate of objective Tehqeeq and instead spend their lives looking for coraboration of their beliefs from books of scholars. And this coroboration effort has given rise to converting deceased scholars to Wahhabism, or Wahhabi theology good example would be statement of Imam Fakhr al-Din ar-Raazi (rahimullah) which we discussed [in section 9.2]. 46.15 - Every Sects Primes Own Methodology To Justify Their Own Sect: I Said: (II) Every sect’s methodology is primed to produce results which correspond and prove teaching of sect so people spend their lives looking at Islam through pin-hole of their own methodology and as such they live/die upon their loved sect. Heretical methodologies can be proven to be misguidance but to manage such task detailed knowledge of Quran/Hadith is required as well as solid grounding in logic; as demonstrated in previous section 46.13. I learnt quite early in my studies that my Islam depends upon which sects methodology I choose to follow. With help of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) found way to by-pass this limitation. And following is just rehash of that idea: Islam allows good innovations, and any defintion/methodology of innovation which states there is no good innovation and there is no room for good innovations in Islam, therefore it must be wrong. When it is clear that Muslims of Arabia will remain major Shirk free and major Shirk will only return to Arabia after blowing of cold musky wind, when there are no Muslims left in Arabia, then any definition and methodology of determining major Shirk says Muslims of Arabia as whole were Mushrik for x, y, z is wrong. And any methodology with agrees with Islamic teaching is correct. 46.16 - There Is No Discussion That Will Satisfy Palate Of Everyone: I Said: (III) On the side note it has also crossed my mine Salafis would think I made this entire discussion up but I made peace with my self thinking it is none of their business if it took place or not. What should matter is if our discussion was based on Wahhabi teachings and you have not said anything different from what is available on internet. Only axe Wahhabis can grind against you is; he wasn’t vigrous enough in defending Salafism, and that to an extant I would agree. I am likely to be accused of not convey details accurately to give strenght to my side. And how I see it is as long as you’re satisfied everything has been conveyed accurately I couldn’t care less about others. We cannot get approval and acceptance of everyone. There will always be people who would make assumptions or think if you had said this or that it would have been better. I am sure my side, if anyone reads this, would be foaming at mouths due to somethings not agreeing with their palate. You could never have a discussion on whose contents everyone from a sect would agree. There will always be people with, he could have said this, or should have said this, or that, in mind of one or the other. We have to accept reality as it transpired and better prepare the next time. 46.17 – Some Good Words About Brother And Advice: I Said: (IV) Finally I want to say brother you’ve a very good heart in your chest and head on your shoulder don’t loose them. You have come leaps and bounds from where you was in terms of your knowledge and way of handling a discussion. You’ve talked/wrote less and thought more and consequently you’ve greatly benefitted from this discussion. That is whole mark of person sincerely seeking His straight path. I did not expect you would take my words seriously but you proved me wrong. At times you assissted me in my response to your objections/evidences when you had no obligation to. And others beside you would have created obstructions to prevent me from making my point. Don’t change and be sincere in seeking guidance like you have demonstrated. I pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for Him to grant you progress; in your knowledge, understanding, Iman, and for Him to assisst you, grant you success in your religious, and worldly endevors. Ameen. Salam Alaykum. [EMail Ends.] 46.18 – Salafis Not Truly Interpreting Sunnah With Sunnah: He Said: (I) Salam alaykum. I totally agree with what you said bout absolute certaintity, my sect is upon truth, being an obstacle. What I don’t like is you equating Salafi conviction with revelation. You’re insinuating extreme degree of certaintity, I get it, but Salafis will be put off reading your content with such exageration. (II) You have proven and can’t emphasise enough; way to truth is understanding Quran/Sunnah with help of Quran/Sunnah. I was big believer of slogan: Salafis explain Quran/Ahadith in light of each other. How wrong was I! I thought Dhil Khilasa worship means Muslims would be worship Dhil al-Khilasa al-Uzza, and al-Lat. It didn’t come to my mind, maybe these Ahadith are about a time when Muslims would be no more on earth, just maybe. How much we take for granted in matter of religion because of noteworthy Shuyukh. They [Salafi Shuyukh] used these Ahadith to mean, to prove Muslims will engage in worship of these idols, and we just believed. After your explanation I was in total disbelief. The most important aspect related to these Ahadith was, do they referr to Muslims, and when it will take place, does the Sunnah answer these questions, were never asked. And when these did, thanks to you, I did not had to wrestle with” Am I going to speculate about these, or weave them in Salafi scholarship’s tale like I have been doing, or let Sunnah answer these questions? And I loved the fact that you provided each clarification and explanation from words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). There is no doubt in my mind Salafi understanding of these Ahadith is totally against Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (III) I totally agree with your saying that a methodology which produces results contrary to teaching of Quran/Sunnah is invalid. It is a logical deduction. This is one reason why I have let go of Salafi way of determining Shirk. Barelwi understanding of Shirk/Tawheed and methodology to determine each contributed as well. (IV) I am not worried about what my associates would say, or about Salafi Minhaj police force, but I am concerned about impact of my decisions on my family. Whatever happens I hold to rope of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Jazakallah khair brother. (V) He Said: Salam alaykum. Brother Ali I was just sifting through chat-logs and E-Mails of our discussion. A very important portion of our discussion is missing. Do you remember our discussion on Barelwis committing Shirk in Ulluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah and attesting to belief in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah like Mushrikeen? It was before discussion of Tashahud. It is important part of our this discussion as I see it and you should put it in. It is bit of work but reward and benefit is way more then work you will put in. [EMail Ends.] 48.19 – Hadith Of Umm ul-Momineen Key To Understanding Ahadith Of Idol Worship: I Said: Salam Alaykum. (I) Thank you for the good advice. You mentioned how Salafis did not interpret prophetic Sunnah correctly. The key to correct understanding Ahadith about worship of al-Uzza, al-Lat, Dhil al-Khilasa is following Hadith of Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha😞 “'Aisha reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza. I said: Allah's Messenger, I think when Allah has revealed this verse:" He it is Who has sent His Messenger with right guidance, and true religion, so that He may cause it to prevail upon all religions, though the polytheists are averse (to it)" (ix:33), it implies that (this promise) is going to be fulfilled. Thereupon he (Allah's Apostle) said: It would happen as Allah would like. Then Allah would send the sweet fragrant air by which everyone who has even a mustard grain of faith in Him would die and those only would survive who would have no goodness in them. And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] This Hadith puts into perspective when the worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza and Dhil al-Khalasa will take place. Wahhabi scholarship has closed their eyes to this Hadith and what it establishes in its entirity. They have employed underlined parts of this Hadith but the part which is key to correct understanding of this Hadith and related Ahadith they conveniently have ignored. Why? Because it takes all the air out of their teachings and beliefs. (II) With regards to omitted discussion. I remember it but I cant recall the exact details. Can you please forward me the E-Mails and chat-logs just incase I ended up deleting them. I don’t know why/how it was left out but since you have brought it up I will add it. Jazakallah Khayr. [EMail Ends.] 46.20 - Three Possible Objections Upon Prophet Hearing Salat: He Said: You quoted Hadith from Jila al-Afham of Shaykh Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (rahimullah) in section six. Hadith says Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Recite great quanitity of Salat upon me on day of Jummah because it is the day of witnessing and angels are present. A servant does not recite Salat upon me but it’s voice reaches me where ever may he be.” During our discussion I agreed with you that [underlined] words are general and inclusive of Salat recited upon him any day of week, anytime, every place and every occasion in which Salat is recited. Which I am now having some doubts on. There are three matters I want your opinion on: (I) While re-reading I was pricked by thought it can be argued this supernatural hearing is only about recitation of Salat on Friday and not inclusive of any other day etc. (II) It also can be argued that because angels are witnessing they record recited Salat and take it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Once angels are in his presence they replay recited Salat and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears it. This way the hearing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is ordinary and not supernatural. (III) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not encourage Muslims to recite great quantity of Salat during Salah but outside of Salah. Our discussion was regarding Salat/Salam in Salah therefore your evidence didn’t satisfy the requirement. Smile. [EMail Ends.] 46.21 - Recite Salat Upon Me, It’s Voice Reaches Me Where Ever May He Be: I Said: (I) The words you underlined clearly are general and not limited/restricted to day, time of day, or occasion. I am believer of Jawami al-Kalim expression of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). His words have widest possible meanings. You can clearly limit it to context of Friday but where is Jawami al-Kalim in that? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said reward of deeds depends upon intentions but these words were uttered in context of marriage and emigration: “Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Allah's Messenger saying: ‘The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B1, H1, here.] Are we to deduce meaning that intentions only count in marriage/emigration and not in worship/charity and other Khayr? This is just single Ahadith. Ahadith of innovation, every innovation is misguidance, ones are also in a context but no one restricts their meaning to it. General statement made in a context is not limited to context but related to context in some way. Coming to Hadith in question. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “Recite great quanitity of Salat upon me on day of Jummah because it is the day of witnessing and angels are present. A servant does not recite Salat upon me but it’s voice reaches me where ever may he be.” Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not say he hears on Friday. Nor he said he only hears Salat recited during Salah, or outside of Salah. There is absolutely no Takhsees of anykind. He does not say, his voice reaches me on Friday whoever and where-ever you maybe. Underlined statement is made in context of Friday but not limited/restricted to Friday. Statement itself is general and unrestricted therefore natural meaning is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears all who recite Salat upon him during the week including Friday. 46.22 – Many Possible Interpretations Of How Prophet Hears: I Said: (IIa) You said it can be argued angels could replay for him our actions and he could hear it thus it won’t be supernatural. You’re speculating. Or any who argues this would be speculating without evidence. What if we interpret based on whim and desire then why not following interpretation: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) personally travels throughout the earth to every place to hear Salat being recited upon him. This interpretation is compatible with the Hadith because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Friday is day of witnessing. What can be better way to witness then to witness as it happens? Anyhow I do not believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) leaves his heavenly resting place. Instead we believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted him supernatural ability to hear/see spiritually events and hearing of Salat. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is bestows upon His Prophets supernatural abilities. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) showed granted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the power to see paradise and made paradise so close to him that if he wanted to he could have taken bunch of grapes from paradise. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who brought hell so near to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that he not only saw it but felt its heat, here. And hence it is not impossible for my Rabb to bring the Far near to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so he can hear the Salat. Nor it is impossible for Him to grant the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) supernatural power to hear Salat recited in all corners of world. Nor it is impossible for my Lord to make your whispers so loud enough so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can hear them in his heavenly resting place. The bottom line is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) personally hears as the Hadith says: “A servant does not recite Salat upon me but it’s voice reaches me where ever may he be.” If he meant angel brings voice to me I am sure he could have and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was able to express the very same meaning. There is no intermediatry mentioned and there is no compelling reason to assume one. 46.23 – Being Informed By Angels Is Not Proof Of Not Directly Witnessing: I Said: (IIb) There are Ahadith which say angels present the deeds of believers to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). There are Ahadith which states angels inform Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) of what stage a embro is in the womb, here, here. Based on these Ahadith are we to assume Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not know what is happening on earth? Angels informing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) doesn’t go against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hearing/seeing Himself. If we interpret Hadith in discussion in light of other Ahadith - to mean angels replay for him deeds of people – even then what the Hadith establishes cannot be negated: “A servant does not recite Salat upon me but it’s voice reaches me where ever may he be.” In conclusion being informed by angels does not go against personally seeing/hearing at it happens. Just as angel informing at what stage the embroy is doesn’t go against the belief that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hears/sees as the events unfold without mean of another. 46.24 – Objective Was To Refute Far Concept Not To Establish Hearing Of Tashahud: I Said: (III) You said our discussion was regarding Salat/Salam in Salah but the evidence I, Muhammed Ali, offered did not justify Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) could hear it himself. I say you need to look at the discussion in wider context. Sections 5.0 and 5.1 are foundations on which the discussion developed. You said any who recites Salam of Tashahhud with belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears it from Far has committed major Shirk. My entire objective was to prove that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) personally hears those at great distances. If I proved this then your ex-principle and understanding, and methodology of Shirk would be invalid. If I believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears my Quran recitation in your ex-Salafi belief I have committed Shirk. If I believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is watching my every action and hears my every word Salafi would charge me of committing major Shirk. The common theme is disntance, Far. Be it Tashahhud’s Salam, or anything else, as long as it is hearing/seeing of Far, in your belief I have committed Shirk. Therefore Salafi principle would be invalidated as long as I establish hearing/seeing of Far (i.e. ma fawq al-asbab). And the Hadith I employed just did that. To refute your principle there was/is no need to prove he hears Salam of Tashahhud. Anything which establishes Far hearing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would invalidate your principle. In conclusion, objective was to refute your principle on which you was justifying charge of Shirk, and not justify hearing of Salam of Tashahhud. In conclusion go back to section 5.0 and 5.1. It will all become clear then. Smile. [EMail Ends.] Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

11.15 - Wahhabi Says, Assumption, Worshippers of Idols Are Muslims Is Built In Hadith: He Said: Brother Ali but Arabs are Muslim so its demonstration would prove tribes of my Arabian Muslim Ummah/nation. I Said: You need to establish worship of these idols took place after the first three generations of Muslims and before/after Shaykh al-Najd and then you can interpret this to mean Muslim. Quote me a single Hadith from which it is established the people of la ilaha il-Allah would worship these idols. Otherwise you got to acknowledge your position is based on indefinite/general wording of Hadith and not on concrete evidence. He Said: Brother I have followed the Minhaj of Salafiyyah and explanation of our scholars and this is how they have explained it. They have never provided any evidence which independently establishes Muslims would worship idols. Rather the assumption is built into their evidence due to use of, tribes of my Ummah, and I have never felt to need to challenge or disregard because logically this understanding seems to correct assumption. I Said: Brother I have explained to you now that phrase, tribes of my Ummah, actually means, tribes of Arabian nation, and I have backed that this interpretation with evidence as well. He Said: I cannot definitively prove that Arabs mentioned in Hadith are Muslims but neither can you prove they were Kafirs before reverting religion of Arab ancestors. I Said: Don’t make assumptions on my part. I can and I will prove position of Ahlus Sunnah. And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills, I will establish it with emphatic evidence. Not only I can establish in one swoop that the events described in Hadith have not taken place I can also establish they would not be Muslims. You see this is secret Sufi knowledge. Smile. He Said: You’re about to narrate to me fantastic Sufi interpretations of this Hadith with no backing from Quran/Sunnah. Aren’t you? Smile. I Said: Joh bina ishq pertay hen Bukhari. A’ta heh Bukhar un ko a’ti nahin Bukhari. He Said: Brother there you go it started. Smile. I Said: It means those who read Bukhari without love. Get high temperature but don’t get (i.e. understand) Bukhari. Point of poetic verse is; you haven’t read Bukhari with love of Muslims therefore you will not understand it. I Said: All my evidence has been from Quran/Sunnah and following discourse won’t be any different. In sha’a Allah ta’ala ul-Aziz. He Said: I am eagerly waiting. I Said: The material would be bit long and require bit of research so I would write it up and E-Mail it to you by tomorrow. In sha’a Allah. He Said: In sha’a Allah. 11.16 - Hadith Of Religion Of Forefathers And Worship Of al-Lat And al-Uzza: [In the email] I Said: You wanted to quote the following Hadith: “'Aisha reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza. I said: Allah's Messenger, I think when Allah has revealed this verse:" He it is Who has sent His Messenger with right guidance, and true religion, so that He may cause it to prevail upon all religions, though the polytheists are averse (to it)" (ix:33), it implies that (this promise) is going to be fulfilled. Thereupon he (Allah's Apostle) said: It would happen as Allah would like. Then Allah would send the sweet fragrant air by which everyone who has even a mustard grain of faith in Him would die and those only would survive who would have no goodness in them. And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] Please keep this Hadith in mind I will refer and will be explaining various parts of this Hadith. At the end I will bring it all togather. 11.17 - Explaining Hadith Of Worship Of al-Lat, al-Uzza In Context Of Relevant Ahadith: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] To this Umm ul-Momineen Hadhrat Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) questioned based on the verse: “Allah's Messenger, I think when Allah has revealed this verse: ‘He it is Who has sent His Messenger with right guidance, and true religion, so that He may cause it to prevail upon all religions, though the polytheists are averse (to it).’ It implies that (this promise) is going to be fulfilled.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] Meaning she said O Prophet you’re saying the worship of al-Lat and al-Uzza would return but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says in Quran Islam would prevail over all religions. How come is this possible? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) goes on to respond to her: “[Islam prevailing over all religions.] It would happen as Allah would like.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] He then goes on to add that eventually: “Then Allah would send the sweet fragrant air by which everyone who has even a mustard grain of faith in Him would die and those only would survive who would have no goodness in them.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] I Said: And this portion of Hadith is explained by other Ahadith where it is explicitly stated the Muslims and Momins would die after the blowing of wind: “… and at that time Allah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Muslim and only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like asses and the Last Hour would come to them.” [Ref: Muslim, B041, H7015] “… and the milch sheep would give so much milk that the whole family would be able to drink out of that and at that time Allah would send a pleasant wind which would soothe (people) even under their armpits, and would take the life of every Momin and every Muslim and only the wicked would survive who would commit adultery like asses and the Last Hour would come to them.” [Ref: Muslim, B041, H7015, here] And after the sweet, fragrant wind/air will take life of every person with spec worthy of Iman [meaning every Muslim] and takes life of every Momin with highest degree of Iman and Taqwa then only those remain behind will be atheistic Kafirs with absolutely no goodness in them. I Said: Eventually this worthless rabble would revert to religion of their forefathers: “And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] And by this he means tribes of his Ummah: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] And the idols to be worshipped will be the ones mentioned in following Ahadith: “'Aisha reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H232] This explanation establishes all these Ahadith are interconnected, and explain each other, and are regarding same era. 11.18 - The Definitive Conclusion And Concrete Argument Against Wahhabism: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained that a cold musky fragrant wind/air will blow which will take life of every Muslim and every Momin. This means after death of every Muslim/Momin only Kafirs would survive/alive. And it would be these Kafirs who would revert to religion of their forefathers and worship al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Dhul al-Khilasa. I Said: This conclusively proves Muslims cannot and would not be worshipping these idols. And this conclusively proves events described in these Ahadith have not already taken place and are yet to take place in future. And compelling evidence for this is that you’re, I am, are still alive and those who say la ilaha il-Allah are still alive with a lot more Iman/Taqwa then spec worth. To declare us Kafir and apply these Ahadith upon us you must either acknowledge; Muslims and Momineen have died, I and my Salafi-kind are Kafirs, and we like donkeys have on road sides, and then you can apply these Ahadith on us. I Said: I testify that I believe in la ilaha il-Allah Muhammad ur-RasoolAllah. These evidentially established points conclusively definitively established that phrase, tribes of my Ummah, does not mean tribes of my Muslim nation but meant tribes of my Kafir Arab nation would worship idols. I Said: Now when this foundation is established I want to direct your attention toward another important point. 11.19 - Argument From Not Knowing Priorities: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza, and al-Khilasa would take place after blowing of wind which would kill all Muslims and all Momineen. If there was chance that majority of Muslim Ummah would fall into major Shirk before the blowing of wind and if there was chance of majority of Muslim Ummah worshipping stones, trees, sun, moon, idols, graves, Awliyah-Allah, Jinn, Prophets then don’t you think that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have informed us of this? I Said: Attempt to balance following equation in your head. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed us about something which would take place after death of all Muslims but didn’t tell us, or warn us something which would befall Muslims before blowing of wind. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Wise and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) deemed it important to tells us; after blowing of wind which would take life of all Muslims Shirk would re-appear in Arabia and worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Khilasa would engulf Arabs again. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Wise and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not inform the believers: O Muslims an era of grave, tree, saint, Jinn, Prophet, stone, idol, and fairy worship would begin before the blowing of cool musky wind so protect yourself from it. Nor he said: O Muslims before the blowing of wind group of people would profess, la ilaha il-Allah Muhammad ur-RasoolAllah, yet these people would be worshippers of graves, trees, saints, Jinn, Prophets, stones, idols, and fairies. You balance this in your head; which information out of two was important for Iman/Islam of Muslims? I Said: A Muslim with ounce of aqal (i.e. intelligence) would’ve realized if before blowing of cold/musky fragrant wind Shirk was to take place in Arabia [to such great extant that whole of Arabia would become Mushrik like Shaykh al-Najd and his followers believed] then this is more important and essential information. Due to absence of such important information, IF, Shirk returned to Arabia and it happened as Shaykh al-Najd and his followers believed/believe then it can be reasoned that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Wise did not know His priorities. I Said: There are Kafirs amongst Deobandis masquerading as Muslims who believe in possibility (i.e. imkan) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) telling a lie and Wahhabis may follow their footsteps and adopt position that there is Imkan of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not knowing His priorities. As a Muslim to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Wise did not know His priority is Kufr and believer of this is Kafir. 11.20 - Final Argument: Wisdom Of Allah And His Messenger Behind Silence: I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) provided all needed information so we can steer our selves onto straight path in time of tribulation and it is our responsibility to understand this guidance correctly. I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold after blowing of wind and death of all Muslims and Momins Shirk would return to Arabia. And Arabs would revert to religion of their forefathers and worship al-Lat, al-Uzza, and al-Khilasa. There is no evidence to suggest that before blowing of wind, entirety, or majority, or some Ummah/Arabs would fall into major Shirk because it was/is not destined to take place. And after the blowing of wind it is destined to return and affect entire Arabia and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has informed Muslims of this. I Said: Absence of evidence suggesting Shirk would return is proof Shirk will not return before blowing of wind. From logical point of view proof of major Shirk returning after blowing of wind, and silence regarding major Shirk before blowing of wind, establishes it was/is not destined to take place. This was wisdom due to which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) remained silent regarding major Shirk before blowing of wind. I Said: Yet Khawarij of Najd charged the Muslims of committing major Shirk before the blowing of wind. And to expose them Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) left sufficient guidance to indicate group of Shaytan would emerge from Najd [Wahhabis emerged from Najd]. Shaytan wants polytheism to be order of day, and strives hard to take Muslims from path of Tawheed to path of Shirk, and this is his key objective. I believe this label, Qarn ash-Shaytan i.e. group of Satan, is also due to Wahhabis declaring Muslims are Mushrikeen. Shaytan’s key objective is to take Muslims to path of Shirk and corner stone of Wahhabism is to declare Muslims are Mushrikeen. Allah guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills … 11.21 - Pre-Written Material Explaining Idol Worship Ahadith And Related Quran Verses: I Said: Ahadith establish a cool wind will blow which will take life of all Muslims and destruction of Day of Judgment will be inflicted upon disbelievers but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has also established this in Quran, here. Following article explains establishment of Day of Judgment upon disbelievers is a form of punishment, here. Following two articles establish Ahadith of al-Lat, al-Uzza, Dhul al-Khilasa and all related Ahadith are about when Muslims would be dead and remaining Kafir Arabs would revert to religion of their ancestors, here, here. Following article answers many common issues but, Part Two A to Part Two C, subject of Shirk after blowing the wind is discussed, here. Following article focuses on linguistic usage of Ummah in Quran and Hadith and then applies the found understanding on Ahadith of idol worship and then corroborates the interpretation by conclusion of Ahadith of wind blowing killing Muslims, here. I Said: Asim ul-Haq a Wahhabi wrote article attempting to employ various Ahadith to justify Takfir of Muslims and following article responds to him, here. Following two articles are dedicated to responding to Hadith that Muslims will follow footsteps of Jews/Christians, here, here. On the flip side following articles establish Muslims will not fall into Shirk and Arabs would not revert to Shirk, here, here. Explanation of Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said you will not commit Shirk with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), here. Following article builds upon previous article, here. Wahhabis have responded to Ahle Sunnat employing these Ahadith in defence of Iman/Islam of Muslims and following is my response to their arguments, here. Following article explains and justifies the content of previous article to strengthen the argument against Wahhabism, here. And following attempts to substantiate explicitly and implicitly the principles employed in previous two articles, here. Please take your time and complete reading of these articles when you can. [End of email.] He Said: Salam Alaykum. I am taking little break from this discussion due to occupational requirements but I will read all. Rest assured. Jazakallah Khayr. 11.22 - E-Mail Exchange – Verdict On Blameworthy Tafsir Of Ra’iy: [During this lull in our discussion I began work civilizing our discussion. During which I noted in section 8.26 Salafi brother promised to give verdict on his and my Tafsir of Q16:20/21 but after discussing and reaching conclusion on Ahadith contradicting my position. Once again all relevant material was mailed along side request to honestly and truthfully give his verdict as he had promised.] He Said: Brother Ali I am at short end of stick. I have felt there is been compelling strength in you arguments. Your arguments even though are novel but are supported by Quran/Hadith. I am handicapped because my go-back is only Salafi scholarship, their research and say. I utilized the verses, Q16:20/21, to argue our position but this discussion made me aware what I claimed [is that these verses are about graves and their residents for whom Ilahiyyah was not believed but this claim] is not proven from Quran/Sunnah. In contrast your interpretation of this verse [was that this verse refers to idols of Mushrikeen and deceased persons elevated to Ilahs whom the idols represented] has backing of Quran/Sunnah and attestation of Mufassireen. In this back drop I am not ashamed to admit even though our understanding of verse is plausible but has no corroboration of Quran/Sunnah. According to my research it also has no corroboration from scholarship of pre-Najdi Dawah era. 11.23 - E-Mail Exchange – Asking Him To Spell Out His Judgment: I Said: Do you acknowledge your understanding of verse is blameworthy Tafsir bil-Ra’iy? If you recall I presented to you Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he does not fear his Ummah falling into major Shirk of worshiping sun, moon, idols, and stones but he fears minor Shirk of Riya. You believe Muslims worshipped sun, moon, stars, idols, stones, trees even after this Hadith? And what is your position on Sharh of Ahadith about idol worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Khilasa etc? He Said: I) It is blameworthy Tafsir bil-Ra’iy. II) In the Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is talking about the majority of Muslims not worshipping sun, moon, idols and stones and does not exclude a minority. III) Your explanation of Ahadith of; tribes of my Ummah would join Mushrikeen and worship idols; and persons would worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Dhul al-Khilasa; is very plain and simple, and the prime example of Sharh of Sunnah by Sunnah. In my understanding it is authentic and I believe it cannot be undone but I maybe wrong. 11.24 - E-Mail Exchange – Free Of Shirk Majority Before Wahhabism – Where And Who: I Said: You’re correct about application of Hadith on majority but I want to find out something from you. During Shaykh al-Najd’s life time, or before him and his mission of Takfir; where did this, free of Shirk majority, live in/out of Arabia? According to your own scholarship none in Arabia knew meaning of la ilaha il-Allah and all parts of Arabia were steeped in Shirk, and this was reality of Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and I can confirm same beliefs/practices which Shaykh al-Najd deemed major Shirk/Kufr were dominant and are dominant in subcontinent (i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan). So where was this majority which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) protected from Salafi charge of major Shirk? And what label was this group known by and who were/are their scholars? Your answer to these questions will help so they can be identified to ensure your claim agrees with historical reality? He Said: To be honest I am not prepared to respond to your questions and I need to research on this matter. This discussion has plagued me with so many questions. I have an inner struggle to deal with before I can struggle with your devices. So brother we will discuss this at the end of our main discussion. Also I don’t want to take part in two parallel discussions. This discussion is already taking over my life. Smile. 11.25 - E-Mail Exchange – Closing The Door On Batil Interpretation: He Said: I had planned to refute your presentation by arguing on basis of words, tribes of Ummah would worship idols means all tribes of Muslim Ummah. After reading discussing with you I have learnt you’ve effectively closed door on this interpretation by putting this Hadith in context of wind taking life of all Muslims along side Bani Daus and others worshiping idols of ancestors. I am thinking about moving on to actual subject of discussion but not right now. I am still reading our discussion and articles you suggested. It will take sometime due to family, occupational business and social life. I assume it would take a month or two to achieve this momentous task but I will be back. 11.26 - E-Mail Exchange – General Chit Chat Related To Discussion: I Said: Brother there is no need to discuss subject of Istighathah. It is established Muslim majority will not and has not fallen into Shirk. And by default this establishes all reasons due to which Shaykh al-Najd made Takfir of majority were invalid and practice of Istighathah by majority was/is without Shirk. We already have discussed Istighathah in our previous discussion I believe it was sufficient. He Said: It would seem so but I would like to discuss the subject a fresh. I want to discuss subject in light of Tawheed/Shirk and see if the conclusion you arrived is confirmed by it. If both compliment each other then your interpretation of Ahadith was correct and if Istighathah IS Shirk then your interpretation of the Ahadith was/is incorrect. I Said: Brother for you to properly understand the subject you need to know our definition of Shirk and methodology of determining Shirk. And this is a very difficult road to trek in a short time. I suggest instead of confirming/rejecting interpretation of Ahadith; via method Istighathah Shirk or not; it would be better to actually respond to refute interpretation of Ahadith itself. [GMail chat.] He Said: It would better if we discuss subject of Istighathah despite the issue of interpretation. I Said: OK! I would be glad to. Smile. He Said: Just one question though Brother Ali. You quoted various Ahadith to argue Muslims would not fall into major Shirk. Would it be correct to assume; you’re interpreting them in context of era before blowing of wind? I Said: Yes! This is only era where they can be logically applied. Smile. He Said: Jazakallah Khayr brother Ali. I will be in touch soon. [About two months later.] He Said: Salam Alaykum. I am back. [Email.] I Said: Wa alayqum Salam. Will you be coming online? And do you still want to discuss content of Hadith? [EMail.] He Said: Yes I should be online tonight. Nothing to contradict your position but just few related questions. 11.27 - Arabs Only Or The Entire Mankind Will Regress Toward Worship Of Idols: He Said: Salam Alaykum brother Ali. I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. You can go ahead and brief me about your experience. He Said: Your style of writing is really weird and difficult to read but I have finished reading and studying content of all suggested articles. I advise you use grammarly.com Smile. Apart from this criticism I have nothing negative to say. Smile. I Said: I know [it is weird] but despite best effort I am still writing like weirdly. He Said: I think you read in your head. If you do then don’t read in your head but read it out loud. Everything will flow in your head but anything that doesn’t flow on your tongue isn’t good enough. I Said: OK! Important stuff please. You said you have questions. He Said: In your explanation of Ahadith you stated wind will blow and it will take life of all Muslims and Momins. Then Satan would come to Arabs and instruct them to worship idols and they would revert to religion of their pre-Islamic polytheistic ancestors and worship idols such as al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Dhil al-Khalasah. My question is: I) Will the Arabs only revert to religion of their polytheistic ancestors or people of world? II) And will they only worship idols named in the Ahadith? I Said: Evidence of Ahadith emphatically establishes Arabs and certain named idols. This much is definitive. I also believe there is room to interpret the Ahadith to include those idols not mentioned in Ahadith but this would be Ijtihad and could be correct or incorrect. He Said: How can these Ahadith be inclusive of other idols? I Said: These two are very good questions. And I cannot answer them here cause I need to think about to get my point of view across and write in peace. Give me an hour or two. He Said: OK! You have an hour. If I leave before that then E-Mail it. 11.28- Answering Questions – Ummah Or Only Arabs, Mentioned Idols Or All Inclusive: I Said: Salam Alaykum. I have E-Mailed it to you. [Email.] I Said: (I) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] If we consider this prophetic statement to be mother statement and all other Ahadith which mention idols to be worshipped as Tafsir of mother statement then as per rule Tafsir meaning would not be Haqiqi meaning of mother statement. Instead it will retain its generality and be open to include other tribes worshipping idols not mentioned in Ahadith. In other way it can be said; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) suggested names to illustrate types of idols that will be worshipped but his list is not exhaustive. In my understanding it is quite possible and more then likely that Arabs would worship idols mentioned in Ahadith and not mentioned. Yet it will only be those idols which were worshipped by their ancestors. I Said: (II) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “'Aisha reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza. I said: Allah's Messenger, I think when Allah has revealed this verse:" He it is Who has sent His Messenger with right guidance, and true religion, so that He may cause it to prevail upon all religions, though the polytheists are averse (to it)" (ix:33), it implies that (this promise) is going to be fulfilled. Thereupon he (Allah's Apostle) said: It would happen as Allah would like. Then Allah would send the sweet fragrant air by which everyone who has even a mustard grain of faith in Him would die and those only would survive who would have no goodness in them. And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] Try to see for your self in which context the discussion between her and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) started and how great extant it spread. I Said: She begins with saying worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza is inconsistent with teaching of this verse. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed her that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will make Islam dominant against all religions and all ideologies. I Said: This carries with it implication that Khilafat will conquer all adversaries and Islam will defeat all ideological challenges. Once promise of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is fulfilled then a cold musky fragrant wind will blow and take life of all believers. I Said: I quote the following words: “Then Allah would send the sweet fragrant air by which everyone who has even a mustard grain of faith in Him would die and those only would survive who would have no goodness in them. And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] Question arises are the underlined words just in context of Arabian Peninsula or all lands which will come under control of Khilafat? In my understanding it’s in context of all lands that will be ruled by Khilafat. I Said: Implication of this is; inhabitant of Khilafat would revert to idol-worship which Khilafat had prevented during its authority: “… and those only would survive [on earth] who would have no goodness in them. And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] So my conclusion is that mentioned idols definitely and unmentioned idols will be worshipped by Arabs. And this phenomenon will not be limited to Arabia but all lands which would be ruled by Khilafat would revert to religion of their ancestors. I Said: In case of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh death of Muslims would result in Kafirs reverting to worship of Seeta, Geeta, Rama, Krishna, Ganesh, Hanuman and other gods. In short each region earth would revert to their ancestral polytheism. End. [Next day we met online again.] He Said: This was a good read and helpful. I am more inclined to agree with your conclusion especially in light of Quranic teaching that judgment day will be brought upon Mushrikeen. I Said: In modern time it would be hard to invent a polytheistic religion with same appeal of history, legitimacy, tradition, culture, mystique which Hinduism or Arabian polytheism enjoyed. In this light I don’t believe people of earth will invent new polytheism rather mankind will just regress toward ancient ancestral polytheism. 11.29 - Salafi Point Satan Worship Means Idol Worship Lacks Corroboration: He Said: Good point. I remembered another point. You said in Hadith meaning of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saying Satan has lost hope of ever being worshipped in Arabian Peninsula means Satan has lost hope of ever idolatry ever returning to Arabia. There is problem with this interpretation. He Said: Your interpretation hinges on the foundation that Satan worship mentioned in Hadith actually means idol worship. [In a linked article] You have reasoned your position in light of Quranic evidence and it seems plausible interpretation but there is no scholarly precedence to suggest Satan worship is a synonym of idol worship. He Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said near the end of times deceptive people will come who will narrate things which neither you nor your ancestors have heard off so if there is scholarly precedence then I would deem your interpretation valid. I Said: I think you’re referring to this Hadith: “… the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah upon him, said: ‘There will be in the end of time charlatan liars coming to you with narrations that you nor your fathers heard, so beware of them lest they misguide you and cause you tribulations.’” [Ref: Muslim, Intro Hadith 15, here.] He Said: Yes, this is it. 11.30 - Side Tracked – Ancestor Following Blameworthy Or Criteria Of Truth: I Said: Can I just interrupt you here for a moment and respond to your point before you get to second point. He Said: OK! Smile. I Said: In my Salafi days I would apply verses of Quran upon Muslims originally addressing Mushrikeen and stating’ you’re holding on to Shirk of polytheistic ancestors. In an effort to convey that Sunnis were Mushrik like, and Sunnis are holding to Shirk of their Hindu ancestors. And in this behaviour of holding to belief of ancestors the Sunnis are no better then Mushrikeen which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encountered. And after leaving Salafism it has been said to me: You reverted to Barelwism because you could not properly let go polytheistic religion of your ancestors. The only reason polytheists fought Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was because they were pleased and satisfied with polytheism of their ancestors. You’re no different compared to Mushriks of pre-Islam era. And it is funny now that you’re saying my belief needs corroboration of ancestors. 11.31 - Salafi Brother Makes A Very Good Point And I Gave Him Cookie: He Said: Brother Ali we are against blind following of ancestors/forefathers. I Said: Brother you said if I quote you scholars who have said, “…the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia…” means worship of idols that will prove to you my interpretation is valid. If you were following Quran/Sunnah evidence then issue would have been resolved in light of presented evidences. You want corroboration of scholars which indicates you are not satisfied with evidences presented and will blindly follow ancestral scholarship. He Said: I want to decide in conjunction with evidence of Quran/Sunnah and scholarly precedence. Not on sole basis of your reasoning. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made the statement of Hadith because he wanted to convey to us that we should seek corroboration of from our ancestors and ancestral scholarship. I am not actually deciding on scholarship but combination of Quran/Hadith and scholarship. I Said: I grant you this point and with it a cookie. Smile. If you be this good again you might get milk with it. He Said: Thanks for cookie but I am still without corroborating evidence for your Taweel of Satan worship to mean idol worship. Smile. 11.32 - Reasoning To Establish Satan Worship Means Idol Worship: I Said: I want to draw your attention to following: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (i.e. Allah) call but upon (i.e. yad'una) goddesses: They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] Have you taken into account logical deduction of this verse? Note the Mushrikeen did not believe Satan is an Ilah nor they invoked him. They believed in idols to be their Ilahs and in context of verse al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Manat, and invoked them. Yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Mushrikeen invoked Satan. This can only be true if idol worship was Satan worship in judgment of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: I have already read it and I agree with it but I would prefer corroboration for it. I Said: I need to research this and it will take time. You could bring your second point or wait until after we resolve our current issue. He Said: No! I will mention it and if it is something which requires investigation then you can do both so we can save bit of time. 11.33 - Worshippers In Arabian Peninsula Or Will They Eventually: He Said: I am not contesting your position but attempting to understand your position neutrally as possible so don’t take following as if I am challenging/refuting your interpretation of this Hadith. He Said: If your interpretation is correct and Satan worship is reference to idol worship then this Hadith means Satan has given up his struggle to make idol worship reign supreme in Arabia. This meaning would contradict Ahadith which according to you mean Arabs would worship idols al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Khalasah and other idols. How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction? I Said: [In the Hadith of Satan not being worshipped] Brother you have generalized, worshipers (i.e. al-Musalloon). It’s not general but specific to a group. I am pretty confident I had addressed this point in one of my articles before. Are you sure you read all the articles. He Said: I have I can E-Mail you notes on articles if you like. I Said: No. This means either I have an uncompleted/unpublished article lurking on computer or it has been deleted from forum. Few mins I need to search USB. Mean while why don’t you read this Hadith again because you understood it general while it is specific about a group. [After few minutes of trying different words. I finally got it.] I Said: Brother my fault it was in none of the articles you read. In fact it’s in this article, here, see footnote 12. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] In this Hadith reference to al-Musalloon is regarding Muslims. And it means Satan has despaired about Muslims worshiping idols in Arabian Peninsula but this Hadith does not say Satan has despaired Kafirs will not worship idols in Arabian Peninsula. If it did say that then there would have been contradiction. There is no contradiction between this Hadith and Ahadith of Shirk in taking place in Arabian Peninsula after blowing of wind because because idol worship will only occur between Kafir Arabs and after death of all the Muslims and Momins. He Said: I generalized al-Musalloon to mean all types of worshippers. I Said: In an unpublished article I quoted following translation of Hadith in which al-Musalloon is made specific to Muslim worshipers: “Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Ash-Shaytan has despaired of getting those who perform Salat to worship him. But he is engaged in sowing hatred among them.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1937, here.] If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills sooner or later I will write an article explaining how and who said al-Musalloon is specific to believers. He Said: When you do then share it with me. Do you know whose translation this is? I said: Let me just check Sunnah.com to see their source but I believe this translation was published by Dar us-Salam. [It took me about five minutes to find right volume and Hadith.] I just checked, here, it was indeed published by Dar us-Salam and translation is by Abu Khalyil. Have a look at page 49/50 of the link, here. 11.34 - Despair Of Satan Result Of Realization Salah Performers’ Would Not Worship Idols: He Said: Have you read the comment on page 50 of link you provided? I Said: I have and not least bit worried about it. He Said: It refutes your understanding that the Hadith of, Satan despairing about not being worshipped in Arabia, refers to all Muslims. According to the commentator it only refers to companions. In fact all the Ahadith which you employed earlier which negate occurrence of Shirk are about companions. Some commentators said these are about Ummah as whole, meaning, Ummah as whole will not fall into Shirk. I Said: Before I respond to your points lets get few things sorted. He Said: Like what! I Said: Are you satisfied that al-Musalloon is reference to Muslim worshipers and not Kafir? He Said: I have no doubt. I Said: Good! Are you also satisfied; Satan not being worshipped in Arabia by worshippers, means, there will be no idol worship by worshippers in Arabia? He Said: How can despairing about it mean there will be no occurrence of idol worship in Arabia? I Said: Hadith states: “… the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Ash-Shaytan has despaired of getting those who perform Salat to worship him.” Read the comment you referenced. It states: “The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) means to say that the Shaytan has despaired of enticing the Companions back to any kind of idolatry and polytheism.” I have colour coded translators comment and Hadith. Just see the colour and match them to see how the commentator has interpreted each part of Hadith. In short commentator has indicated Satan worship, means, idolatry and polytheism. The Companions did not become Mushrik after RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Do you agree? He Said: OK! I do. I Said: The reason Satan despaired is because he became aware of the fact companions will not revert to idol-worship in Arabian Peninsula. If we restrict the application of Hadith on only companions then companions didn’t revert to idol-worship and this is proof Satan’s despair means no worship of idols in Arabian Peninsula by companions. In light of translators COMMENT meaning of Hadith of Tirmadhi is; Satan has realized those who perform Salat i.e. companions will not enticed into idol-worship. I Said: Without restricting it to companions because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not do so the Hadith of Muslim would boil down to; Satan has realized Salah performers would not be enticed to worship idols in Arabian Peninsula. Do you agree with this meaning? He Said: Give me time to get my head around what you’re actually saying. I Said: Pay attention to what the comment says, it says Satan has despaired about enticing the companions back to ANY KIND of idolatry and Shirk. implication of which is that he has realized he will not succeed in reverting the companions back to polytheism of any type and result of despair was there was no reversion to polytheism by companions. He Said: I got it. I Said: So you agree un-interpreted meaning of both Hadith is Salah performs would not worship idols? He Said: Yes! I Said: I could kiss you. Smile. 11.35 - Satan Worship, Idol Worship, al-Musalloon, Muslim Worshippers, Conclusion: I Said: If I recall correctly you doubted al-Musalloon, means, believing worshippers. And you also doubted, Satan has (realised and therefore) despaired about not being worshipped, means, Satan has realized idols will not be worshipped. You agree these understandings are correct in light of the footnote? He Said: Yes! I Said: Please keep this agreement in mind. These were two key hurdles in your mind which hindered my interpretation: I) “Your interpretation hinges on the foundation that Satan worship mentioned in Hadith actually means idol worship.” II) “I generalized al-Musalloon to mean all types of worshippers.” If worship of Satan is reference to idol worship and al-Musalloon means Muslims and if my interpretation hinged on these two points then [my position of] Muslims not worshipping idols in Arabia is established. Would you not agree? He Said: I would make that judgment after I re-read the discussion but, but, but, there is still a hurdle in your way. I Said: I have addressed all your arguments on this topic brother. He Said: Smile. I agree that al-Musalloon refers to Muslim worshippers but which one, the Companions or Muslims in general (i.e. Ummah)? I Said: O Yes! I forgot this one. 11.36 - Ahadith Absolving Of Shirk, About Companions, Reasoning To Lift Takhsees: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said generation after companions and generation that succeeds the second generation all are on Khayr (i.e. good). Are they part of al-Musalloon or excluded? He Said: I have not read two generations succeeding Companions are with al-Musalloon of Hadith. I Said: Brother you tell me if they are included in it according to your knowledge. He Said: I would say they are. I Said: But commentators of Hadith in Tirmadhi mentioned only the Companions yet you’re willing to include two more generations. What does this prove? He Said: OK! Good on you brother! I Said: This proves a commentator gives an understanding according to their evidences and understanding. And a commentators understanding should not be deemed exhaustive and end of all understandings. Rather other interpretations if supported can be correct like your understanding. He Said: Good point. I Said: You said commentators have explained Ahadith which absolve from Shirk refer to either to the Companions or to Ummah as whole and not a minority. You remember? He Said: I do remember. I Said: If these Ahadith are about Ummah as whole then they are not about specific about the Companions. And if they are specific about the Companions then they are not about Ummah as whole. What does this difference of opinion prove? He Said: … I Said: It proves there is no definitive interpretation rather each commentator is giving best possible explanation they can think of. He Said: So why is your interpretation any better? I Said: Al-Musalloon is plural and unrestricted. If it was only for the Companions, or for only first three generations of Muslims then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have limited its application to the Companions, or two first three generations Muslims. He could have said, Satan has lost hope of … first three generations of worshippers, or he could have said similar about companions. Yet he left al-Musalloon unrestricted and unlimited and this is indication that it is inclusive for all Muslims. 11.37 - There Is No Evidence For Takhsees Haqiqi Of al-Musalloon: I Said: You will be aware there is no Takhsees Haqiqi of a generality until Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made Takhsees. Best example of Takhsees Haqiqi is when you quoted Ahadith to give credence to charge; Muslims will engage in Shirk but I explained these Ahadith in accordance with Ahadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And established that Shirk mentioned in your quoted Ahadith refers to a time when Muslims would be dead and persons involved would be Arabs and they would worship idols mentioned in the Ahadith. If you have Ahadith which explains of, Satan despairing about not being worshipped by worshippers in Arabia, to mean, Satan has despaired about not being worshipped by Companion worshippers in Arabia, then you win the argument. Otherwise understanding of Ahlus Sunnah remains unchallenged. He Said: Nice! Good argument. I Said: In absence of such Takhseesi evidence then following Ahadith remain free of restriction of time and group: “Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Ash-Shaytan has despaired of getting those who perform Salat to worship him. But he is engaged in sowing hatred among them.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1937, here.] "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] He Said: It is not free of restriction. It is only applicable to Arabian Muslims. I Said: That is what I intended to say. Hadith is free to be applied to all Arab Muslims from the companions to Muslims of modern era. 11.38 - Proof Of Takhsees from General Application To Specific To Arabia: I Said: Another thing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made Takhsees of general statement [of Tirmadhi] with Hadith of Muslim. Tirmadhi Hadith was applicable upon all Muslims of all regions: “Indeed Ash-Shaytan has despaired of getting those who perform Salat to worship him. But he is engaged in sowing hatred among them." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1937, here.] Hadith of Muslim restricts its text upon Muslims of Arabia: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia …" [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] This is example of Takhsees Haqiqi which I made reference to earlier. If you can quote a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not use al-Musalloon instead employed As'hab and text of Hadith is same as above then you have Takhsees Haqiqi. He Said: I don’t know about such Hadith. I Said: Brother I am not claimant of knowing all Ahadith but I am confident there is no such evidence. If there was commentators would have employed it and Salafis would have hunted that Hadith down because legitimacy of your sect is in danger otherwise. He Said: Smile. True that one brother Ali [that we Salafis would have found it]. He Said: Maybe there is [such Hadith] but escaped detection of our hunters. Smile. I Said: There is possibility you’re talking to a very articulate monkey who has learnt about Islam and learnt to use a PC and is currently engaging you in a discussion, but that’s not a acceptable probability. He Said: Smile. I Said: There are a lot of possibilities but not all of them are acceptable probabilities. Escaping detection of Salafis is not a probability considering how easy it is to search Ahadith on internet. Any how the burden of proof is with you. He Said: Proof of Takhsees is upon me and you’re correct in your deductions until I can contradict it. I Said: Then generality of al-Musalloon stands and it is inclusive of all worshippers and not just the Companions or two generations that followed them. Do you agree with the conclusion? He Said: I kind of do agree but I need to research if there is supporting evidence for Takhsees [supporting view that it was about Companions]. Plus I would like to read all this discussion to properly access issue and then decide. I Said: Well you can wait until I complete writing this up or you can re-read the original. He Said: I’ll see. 12.0 - Shaykh al-Najd Made Takfir Of Ummah As A Whole: I Said: After you left I remembered another thing. You said that commentators applied the Ahadith which absolve from Shirk upon Ummah as whole. Do you believe it is correct interpretation? He Said: It is more plausible because it’s inclusive of all Arab Muslims from past to present. I Said: In the life time of Shaykh al-Najd was the majority/all people of Hijaz upon Shirk? He Said: Majority being upon Shirk is more then possible but definitely not entirety of them. I Said: Was there any time in history to present where majority of Muslims were guilty of major Shirk? He Said: No! Only a minority of them was guilty of it. I Said: Minority even in Arabia? He Said: Only a fractional minority. I Said: So you’re saying Shaykh al-Najd had danced war dance with death destruction of hundred of thousands of Muslims of Arabian Peninsula due to a fractional minority engaging in Shirk. He Said: Brother Shaykh Ibn Abdul Wahhab had signed pact with al-Saud family to effect of; Saud’s will rule and Shaykh ul-Islam will be religious leader of their state. The murderous rampage was result of al-Saud family consolidating power and has nothing to do with Shaykh ul-Najd’s Dawah. I Said: So you’re saying Shaykh al-Najd did not provide theological justification for murdering, looting, and raping Muslims on account; Muslims of Arabia are engaged in major Shirk? Are you not aware that life, property, dignity of Muslims is sacred and protected in Shariah? And there are handful of infringements which make the life of Muslim Halal. He Said: Brother Shaykh ul-Islam judged some people to be Mushriks so he legalized fighting them to bring them to Tawheed. I Said: So you acknowledged Shaykh ul-Najd justified fighting Muslims on account of accusation of major Shirk? He Said: Only some. I Said: We will see some, or majority in a bit. 12.1 - Shaykh al-Najd Said No One But He Knew Meaning Of La Ilaha Il-Allah: I Said: "And I inform you about myself - I swear by Allah whom there is none worthy to worship except Him - I have sought knowledge and those who knew me believed that I had knowledge while I did not know the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah at that time and did not know the religion of Islam before this grace that Allah favoured. As well as my teachers no one among them knew that. And if someone from the scholars of al-'Aridh claims that he knew the meaning of La Ilaha illa Allah or knew the meaning of Islam before this time, or claims on behalf of his teachers that someone from them knew that, then he has lied and said falsehood and deceived the people and praised himself with something he does not possess." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 10, Page 51, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] I Said: Did you read it? He Said: Yes! I Said: He didn’t know meaning of la ilaha il-Allah, not even his teachers knew the meaning, and no one from region of Aridh knew meaning of la ilaha il-Allah, not even Islam. Aridh is composed of entire/parts of three Saudi provinces namely Riyadh, Qasim, and Ha’il. He Said: How do I know Shaykh ul-Islam actually wrote this? I Said: I have quoted text and I have provided reference. If you cannot verify these reference you will have to be patient until I publish this discussion because then scanned pages of actual book will be linked with it. He Said: Smile. What are chances you will remember this? I Said: My credibility and truth of my position is to be established through it. Even if I had to spend ten days to find this reference if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills I will invest that time. He Said: I will give verdict on it then. I Said: Give me verdict on condition, if Shaykh ul-Najd said this then, this why you have not committed, and we had something to go on by. He Said: OK! I will but on condition that conditional part is not omitted. I Said: You have my word it will be with conditional statement. He Said: If Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab wrote this then this is a vile but veiled Takfir of entirety of people of Aridh, or at least of vast majority of people residing in Aridh. I Said: In my understanding this is also a claim to Nabuwah (i.e. Prophet-hood). He Said: Not necessarily because his claim was that he took knowledge from writing of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimullah). I Said: Plausible but remains to be established. He Said: This can be proven. I Said: Brother actual point was Shaykh al-Najd claiming none beside him knew Tawheed in Najd/Aridh and this was established. He Said: There is no evidence to suggest he claimed prophet-hood. I Said: I am sorry I mentioned it. Can we just move on? Please! He Said: Smile. 12.2 - Shaykh al-Najd Said Turks And People Of Makkah Are Mushrikeen: I Said: Shaykh al-Najd also made Takfir of Muslims living in Uthmanic Khilafat and people of Makkah. He declared the people of Makkah are grave-worshippers: "The second issue: To disbelieve in that which is worshipped instead of Allah, and this means to make Takfir upon the polytheists and the disavowal from them and that which they worship alongside Allah. So whoever does not make Takfir upon the polytheists of the Turkish state and the grave-worshippers like the people of Makkah and (upon) others from those who worship the righteous and left the Tawhid of Allah for Shirk and exchanged the Sunnah of his Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) with innovations, then he is a disbeliever like them even if dislikes their religion and hates them and loves Islam and its people. This is so because the one who does not declare the polytheists to be disbelievers has not accepted the Qur`an. The Qur`an declares the polytheists as disbelievers, and commands to declare them as such and to show enmity towards them and to fight them." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 9, Page 291, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, post 15, here.] He Said: What I don’t get is Shaykh saying, if he wrote this, that one who dislikes their religion (i.e. Shirk, grave-worship) is still Kafir for not declaring them Kafir. This is Ghulu on level with your Shaykh [Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat] Ahmad Raza Khan. He said something similar in his book Hussam al-Haramayn didn’t he? I Said: He did write something similar but when he was asked do you make Takfir of entire Deobandi sect he wrote I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from such excess. He Said: No! I was making reference to his saying, one who does not deem x Kafir is himself Kafir. I Said: It is somewhat similar but not same. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat’s statement is to be translated as: One who doubts Kufr and punishment has committed Kufr. Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) did not declare those people Kafir who disliked/disavowed the Kufr but your Shaykh al-Najd did. He Said: Never mind the side show but what was your point? I Said: It was that Shaykh al-Najd made Takfir of people of Makkah and Uthmanic Khilafat. 12.3 - Land Of Shaykh al-Najd And People Of Hijaz Rejecting Resurrection After Death: I Said: Shaykh al-Najd wrote following: "It's known regarding the people of our land and the land of al-Hijaz, that those among them who reject the resurrection (after death) are more than those who accept it and that those (among them) who know the religion are less than those who do not ..." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 10, Page 43, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] This is not evidence of Shirk but it is evidence that Shaykh al-Najd accused people of Hijaz of being deniers of judgment day. He Said: What you quoted negates rising after death not judgment day. I Said: Brother if people rejected resurrection after death then by default they rejected judgment day. He Said: What you said can be implied from it though. I Said: Great we both have Ijmah on this then. Smile. Do you know why he made this accusation that majority of Muslims did not believe in resurrection after death? He Said: Maybe some denied it and he assumed majority did. I Said: Brother Muslims living in Hijaz denying resurrection after death. This is such a basic Islamic requirement can you imagine someone claim Islam and reject this fundamental teaching? And note Shaykh al-Najd said majority of them disbelieved in resurrection after death and majority didn’t know what Islam was. He Said: If anyone rejects resurrection after death it has to be deliberate wilful act of disbelief definitely cannot be out of ignorance. I Said: Actually he accused the people of Hijaz [which includes regions of Makkah, Madinah, and vast area between and surrounding these cities] of this because Mushrikeen of Arabia/Makkah did not believe in resurrection after death. And this fact is mentioned by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran and Shaykh al-Najd hopes convey that Mushrikeen of prophetic times and the ones he is contending with are same in their Shirk and their denial of resurrection after death. I Said: Shaykh al-Najd in his hate for Muslims was applying anything and everything revealed for Mushrikeen upon Muslims of his own time. A sign of true Khariji is that he applies verses revealed for Kafirs upon Muslims. He Said: If what you said is indeed true then I see your point. Even though I dislike you labelling him Khariji, if he said this and accused majority of Hijaz of this, then this is way out of order. 12.4 - Statement of Ibn Umar Doesn’t Carry Weight: He Said: I think there a Hadith stating Khariji applies verses of Kafirs upon Muslims? I Said: Not in so many words but there is a statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) narrated in Sahih Bukhari which denotes this meaning. He Said: I have been told before it is in Bukhari but I couldn’t find it. I Said: The text of statement is not part of text of Hadith: "And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' (9:115) And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Book 88, Book Apostates, Chapter 6:Killing al-Khawarij and Mulhideen, here, scribd here.] Use link and you should find it in chapter six. It is right before the first Hadith of chapter six. Arabic reading of chapter is: “.باب قَتْلِ الْخَوَارِجِ وَالْمُلْحِدِينَ بَعْدَ إِقَامَةِ الْحُجَّةِ عَلَيْهِمْ” Note translation of chapter name is wrong. Actual translation is:“Killing of Khawarij and the Mulhidun (heretics) after the establishment of firm proof against them.” Mohsin Khan translated as: “Killing al-Khawarij and Mulhideen.” He Said: It is statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and not Sunnah of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so it doesn’t hold much weight. I Said: Even if it is statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) it proves he observed a trait of Khawarij. Why does it have to be prophetic statement to carry weight? Fatwah of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah carrys weight even though it is not prophetic statement. Fatwah of every Tom, Dick, Harry Mufti of Najd carrys weight but observation made by Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) about behaviour of Khawarij carrys no weight. He Said: There is no Sanad for this statement. How can it be relied on if there is no Sanad? I Said: Imam Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) in his commentary stated this Hadith is authentic, here. He Said: I will look into it later on. 12.5 - Shaykh al-Najd Said Majority Of People Of Sham Were Mushrikeen: I Said: In another place, he wrote the following about people of Sham: "But he came from al-Sham, and they worship Ibn Arabi and have made an idol upon his grave to worship it. I do not mean all of the people of al-Sham, no of course not; rather there does not cease a group [from them] to be upon the truth, even if they're only few." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 2, Page 45, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] He says people of Sham worshipped Shaykh Ibn Arabi (rahimullah) by placing idol on his grave and this is nothing but lie like of Firawn when he said I am Rabb. He Said: So your point is he deemed majority of people of Sham as Mushriks? I Said: Yes! Also Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi using your criteria of Tawheed/Shirk judged the majority of Muslims of subcontinent to be Mushrikeen and lacking knowledge of Tawheed/Shirk, here. He Said: I am just going to practice Taqleed and believe you. I Said: I want to bring my actual point togather so no interference please until I am done. 12.6 - Shaykh al-Najd’s Erroneous Methodology Of Tawheed And Shirk: I Said: Shaykh al-Najd said people of, Sham, Najd; those living in region of Aridh, Makkah, and Hijaz which is includes cities of [Makkah], Madinah, Tabuk, and regions bordering Yemen. Virtually entire Arabian Peninsula has been found guilty of major Shirk by Shaykh al-Najd. I Said: In subcontinent [modern, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Syria, Nepal, Sri Lanka] Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi using Wahhabi methodology as yardstick judged the majority/entirety of Muslims as Mushrikeen. According to Wahhabism and teaching of its founder majority/entirety of Ummah had fallen into major Shirk. Only exception to this entirety was those who choose to fallow Wahhabi teachings. I Said: If Ahadith which absolve of Shirk are about majority of Ummah and Shaykh al-Najd made direct/indirect Takfir of majority of Arab Muslims then you tell me how Wahhabism isn’t wrong especially when it contradicts teaching stating majority is free of Shirk? I Said: And if you judge on basis of his teaching then vast majority, almost entirety, of world Muslim population was Mushrik, therefore how can this methodology of Shirk/Tawheed be in accordance with Islamic teaching of Tawheed/Shirk when it negates prophetic statement that majority will remain upon Tawheed? He Said: Brother Ali you’re just presenting an argument which maybe valid/invalid. Sometimes even Batil arguments appear to be strong and justified. I Said: You’re right but if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills truth will prevail. 12.7 - Justifying Why Shaykh al-Najd’s Methodology Is Erroneous: I Said: Before I continue can I get confirmation of few things? He Said: Why not! I Said: If H is in West and N is in East. And a speaker says name of one place and cardinal direction of another. Would it correct to deduce cardinal direction of one whose name/direction as been mentioned based on this information? He Said: I am not following your drift. I Said: Amr says people of Hoobia will always be victorious over people of East. Based on the information given initially will it be correct to say Amr’s statement means, people of West will always be victorious over people of Noobia? He Said: If the cardinal directions match with names then it would be absolutely fine. I Said: Thank you. 12.8 - Promise Of Delivering The Response Via An E-Mail: I Said: I will E-Mail to you my evidence and summed up argument. He Said: Can’t I just wait here while you complete it. I Said: Your choice but I need to find the relevant Ahadith and think how I will compile the evidence and argue the case from it. Could take long quite bit of time. He Said: OK! I will be online for little while but no longer then hour and half. Salam Alaykum. 12.9 - Islam And Iman To Remain Constants In Hijaz: [EMail.] I Said: I) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “That the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed the religion with creep into the Hijaz just like a snake creeps into its hole, and the religion will cling to the Hijaz just like the female mountain goat cling to the peak of a mountain. Indeed the religion began as ...’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B38, H2630] To properly understand this Hadith imagine all the lands of Muslims on a map as boundary of Islam. And now imagine that boundary of Islam shrinking and shrinking until only Hijaz remains on Islam. This is something which will happen in future. And it will be a time when secularism and Westernisation would have demonstrated its Atheistic reality. Anyhow let’s return to key point of this section. According to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) key boundary of Islam would retreat toward Hijaz and it would be confined to Hijaz. In this Hadith is indication that Hijaz will always remain upon Islam even at last stage of Islam on earth yet your Shaykh kind of believed Islam left Hijaz and left Arabia in general. I Said: II) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “A group of people from my Ummah will continue to be triumphant over the people until the Command of Allah overtakes them while they are still triumphant.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, N4716] And these people are people of Hijaz: “The people of the West [Hijaz] will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the Hour is established.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4722] And in another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said those who oppose Ahlul Hijaz will not be able to over-come the Hijazis: “It was narrated from Thawban that: The Messenger of Allah said: "A group among my Ummah will continue to follow the truth and prevail, and those who oppose them will not be able to harm them, until the command of Allah comes to pass." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H10] [EMail End.] [EMail exchange.] He Said: Why have you interpreted West to mean Hijaz? I Said: Hijaz literally means barrier. It is barrier between province of Najd/Riyadh and Western coast of Arabia. In perspective of Najd/Riyadh West of it is Hijaz and East of Hijaz is Najd/Riyadh. If I am not wrong al-Maghrib (the West) was actually used by Arabs to mean Hijaz. End. 12.10 - Bringing Togather The Final Argument: He Said: All this is fine but is there anything from Sunnah in support of this? I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “The callousness of heart and sternness is in the East [Najd/Riyadh] and faith is among the people of the Hijaz [West].” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H9] He Said: Smile. You’re very cunning brother Ali. I Said: Tactically sound brother not cunning. Experience trumps inexperience. Smile. I Said: III) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] And this means Satan has despaired about Muslims falling into idol worship in Arabian Peninsula. According to prophetic teaching and guidance the majority of Muslims of world/Arabia including Hijaz all are protected from Shirk. And Hijaz would remain upon Islam even at the worst stage of Islam’s retreat. And yet Shaykh al-Najd declared, directly/indirectly, majority of Muslims of World, Arabia, and Hijaz are guilty of major Shirk. And methodology which produces this monstrosity cannot be in accordance with Islamic Tawheed/Shirk. You can now say what you like. He Said: Do you believe Najd is in Iraq or Saudi Arabia? I Said: Saudi Arabia, region surrounding capital Riyadh. [EMail discussion ends.] 13.0 - What Transpired After His Sudden Disappearance Act: He Said: I have read material number of times and would agree with you conclusion, if it is proven that Najd is in East of Arabia. I Said: Brother, I am finding it difficult to comprehend why in your mind for my position to be true, Najd being in East of Arabia, is criteria of truth? He Said: With your distortion you would apply Ahadith of Khawarij of Iraq [which he believes is actual Najd] upon Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab [whom Wahhabis refer to as Shaykh an-Najd]. I Said: First of all, it is not about what I would do in future, it is about what I have already done. And I have not applied Ahadith of Khawarij, i.e. group/horn of Satan, upon Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and so you have no reason to argue. If it helps I am willing to make distinction between Najd of group/horn of Satan and Najd where Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was born. And make agreement with you that I will not apply those Ahadith of horn/group of Satan upon Najd which was birth place of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. He Said: So you agree Najd of Ahadith of Qarn al-Shaytan is Iraq then? I Said: Brother I do not believe Najd is in Iraq I believe Najd is precisely central Arabia region which includes birth place of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab but just to avoid discussion about group of Satan I said I will make distinction between Najd the birth place and Najd of group of Satan. He Said: Brother Ali just as I suspected you do not believe Najd is Iraq. And given chance you would apply horn of Satan Ahadith upon Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. I Said: This doesn’t explain, WHY/HOW, this issue Najd is in East of Arabia has become a criterion of truth of my position. You’re just clutching at straws instead of just facing the music. He Said: This is actually a genuine concern and I am not messing you about. I Said: Brother you have made your protest known about Najd being in Iraq so in future it will be noted. The reason I mentioned Najd with Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab is because even biographies published by Salafis/Wahhabis he is said to have been born in NAJD. If that is making you jittery I will send you a new version of my E-Mail with Najd removed and Riyadh. I will need bit of time to make adjustments. [I then proceeded to remove Najd and insert Riyadh. But during write-up of discussion I realized after removing Najd linguistic break of Najd does not agree with lingustic meaning of Riyadh so I informed him when I publish it Najd will be mentioned along with Riyadh.] 13.1 - Ahadith Of Group Of Satan And Location Of Najd: He Said: Have you got written material on issue of Najd? I Said: Quite a bit. He Said: How do you reconcile appearance of Khawarij from Iraq with Ahadith with understanding that Khawarij appeared from Riyadh region [central] Saudi Arabia? I Said: Ahadith of Iraq and Najd are about two different groups of Khawarij. In some Ahadith group of Satan is said to come from East and in other Ahadith from Najd. And both these are interconnected because Najd is in East and in relationship to East Hijaz is toward West. Following article, here, establishes direction of East which also is direction of sunrise. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) precisely and with pin point precision establishes direction of group of Satan, here. In following articles maps of Arabia indicating location of Najd, here. Then following two maps were shared to establish that linguistic meaning of Najd (i.e. raised/elevated land) fits on Najd, here, here. Therefore applying Ahadith of group of Satan upon Shaykh al-Najd is justified. [He quoted Ahadith and argued these Ahadith prove horn/group of Satan Ahadith apply to Iraqis.] I Said: With regards to Ahadith on which you argued Najd is in Iraq and east is toward it. Brother a very comprehensive explanation of these Ahadith is available on IslamiMehfil forum, here, and here. And also section 8.1 to 8.5 of following, here. In response to other Hadith please read articles, here, and here. And reading following section 4.0 to 5.0 of this article here. As well as section 1.0 to 1.9 of previously mentioned article and section 7.0 to 7.4 of following article, here. [After providing him with all the information regarding articles via which he can correct his misunderstanding I signed-out after Salam.] 13.2 - Disappointing Turn Of Events And Just Surrendering To Fate: Realizing that brother is only attempting to divert the topic to another to avoid damning judgment of evidence established against Shaykh ul-Najd and his minions I decided to abandon the discussion on this topic of Najd. And gave up on pressing him into conceding Shaykh al-Najd was a Khariji maniac whose true reality was that he deemed vast majority of Muslims as Mushrikeen. My objective was for him to realize his mistake/error and I believe I achieved that. All he needs to do was to come to terms with the reality. I would have liked Salafi brother to acknowledge that Shaykh al-Najd made Takfir of majority, his Takfir of majority goes against prophetic teaching, and he was upon Khariji heresy. Unfortunately I did not get the confirmation and agreement I wanted. Yet evidence of truth stands despite lack of his confession. 13.3 - Settling The Score Better Later Then Never: I Said: Do you recall earlier we had exchange about imitating the ancestors. He Said: Yes! I Said: You at that time asked me to provide confirmation of my point of view from earlier scholarship. And I criticised you until you said you wish to judge the issue in light of Quran/Sunnah and how the forefathers/ancestors understood the Hadith. It was something like this. He Said: You got the gist of it. I Said: I remembered something so I would like to pursue the subject bit further. He Said: You may. I Said: So you agree that Ta’eed (i.e. confirmation) of forefathers is one way to ensure no innovation is introduced? He Said: Yes! I Said: Your Wahhabi principles of determining Shirk such as ma teht al-asbab, ma fawq al-asbab, far, near, living, dead, natural, supernatural, and others. About these, quote me a single Companion or anyone after them, whom used these as criteria of determining Tawheed/Shirk. Quote me a single something like the following: You called someone far and this is is Shirk. And calling someone near is in accordance with Tawheed. If your Shaykh’s methodology is true and Islam then you will find hundreds of references. He Said: Brother Ali I am only a Talib ul-Ilm. What you’re asking is specialised knowledge which only elite scholars will have not me. I Said: So you don’t know of any such evidence which confirms your methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk? He Said: I don’t Brother Ali. So even though you said you’re against blind imitation you’re perfectly satisfied with blindly following your Shaykh al-Najd in regards to his methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk? He Said: Brother Ali you just opened my eyes to something I have been blind to. I Said: Perfect choice of words here brother. Smile. There are two takes for you in this. I Said: I) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said and you quoted these words too: “… the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah upon him, said: ‘There will be in the end of time charlatan liars coming to you with narrations that you nor your fathers heard, so beware of them lest they misguide you and cause you tribulations.’” [Ref: Muslim, Intro Hadith 15, here.] And you have no corroboration of your methodology of determining Shirk/Tawheed based on these principles from scholars that preceded Shaykh al-Najd. I Said: II) You’re blindly following Shaykh al-Najd and as result you have adopted his methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk without evidence of Quran/Sunnah and without corroboration of scholarship. He Said: Brother I can only thank you for your sincere efforts and insight. When you mentioned it in the beginning I was thinking why is he trying to resurrect a dead horse but you made me realize there was some benefit in it after all. 14.0 - Sunnah Does Not Mean Innovation And Good/Evil Sunnah Hadith: [This part is connected with section 5.6 of this discussion. It seems our ‘Salafi’ brother forgot what was discussed and how I solidified my position.] He Said: I also have a point which I wanted to make but didn’t get to. Did you say that Hadith of whoever introduces good/evil Sunnah in Islam supports position of good innovation? I Said: Something like it. He Said: I wanted to discuss this with you then but tangent we discussed didn’t permit me to bring it into discussion then. I Said: I can relate to it brother. This is nature of a conversation not everyone gets to say what they want to say. Somewhere someone just has to go with flow of others. He Said: I have been going with flow too much. Don’t you think? Smile. I Said: True but back to important point you want to make. He Said: OK! You said Hadith of good Sunnah means; one who introduces good innovation in Islam and those who follow them will earn equal reward. Brother Ali the word Sunnah means practice and does not mean innovation. So reward is for a good Sunnah of Islam which was forgotten but revived by someone. I Said: Brother you didn’t register my explanation of Hadith then. Before I explain it lets get few things clear. By good Sunnah you mean prophetic Sunnah? He Said: Yes! I Said: This Hadith continues and next sentence is whoever introduces evil Sunnah in Islam … If good Sunnah is referring to prophet Sunnahs then naturally evil Sunnah is also referring to evil prophetic Sunnahs. Do you believe some of prophetic Sunnahs were evil? He Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said in life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) there is best example so how can his Sunnah be evil! I Said: Hadith states: “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] In context of what you said what do you make of the content of Hadith? He Said: It isn’t referring to prophetic Sunnah. I Said: If evil Sunnah part is not referring to prophetic Sunnah then why should good Sunnah part refers to his Sunnah! I Said: Wait! I Said: No where in extensive corpus of Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said follow my good Sunnah or abstain from my evil Sunnah. If you can quote me one Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said follow my good Sunnah I will concede the point and agree it refers to reviving of prophetic Sunnahs. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not speak about his Sunnah in this fashion (i.e. my good Sunnah). He cannot be making this statement about his own Sunnah. If he was encouraging us to adopt and act on Sunnahs of others he would make the statement because those other then him are able over introducing good Sunnahs and evil Sunnahs. And as result he told of reward for those who follow innovated good Sunnah and sin for those who innovate and follow evil Sunnah. I Said: Brother let me finish please. I Said: You say this Hadith does not convey meaning of good innovation and evil innovation. Have you read the Hadith of son of Adam being the first person to start Sunnah of murder? This one, here? He Said: Yes! I Said: Hadith states he was first one to start Sunnah of murder. Linguistically being the first one to start the Sunnah of murder mean he was the first one to introduce innovation of murder. Yes or no? He Said: Yes! I Said: “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] Then does not this part of Hadith apply to him or not? He Said: Brother it does. I Said: If this Hadith can be applied upon innovation of son of Adam (alayhis salam) then this Hadith must be about evil innovation. Won’t you agree? Otherwise it would be case of applying Hadith/Hukm not related upon him. He Said: That’s a good point brother Ali. I Said: Won’t you agree the Hadith of evil Sunnah is about evil innovation? He Said: Yes! I Said: Are we done then? He Said: Brother Ali if I recall correctly you gave a logical argument to justify your position. It made sense then but I lost how you intended it. I Said: It must have been something like; innovation is not part of Islam and when a good Sunnah not already part of Islam is made part of Islam then a good innovation in form of good Sunnah is being made part of Islam and reward being told is for innovated good Sunnah. He Said: Yes that’s the one. I Said: Even though Sunnah does not mean innovation but the usage of it in context of Hadith of good/evil Sunnah and son of Adam starting Sunnah of murder does give it meaning of innovated Sunnah not already part of Islam. Are you satisfied with the explanation? He Said: Absolutely satisfied but it’s a subject I would like to discuss in detail with you at a later date. This has taught me a valuable lesson. I Said: Not to discuss with me again? Smile. 15.0 - Like Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah Devoid Of Capacity To Reach Depth: He Said: Smile. No! I use to think word games (i.e. show me this word and I will believe) was habit of novices just stepping on ladder of Islamic knowledge but I just realised like ordinary Muslims seeking guidance Muslims I am too stuck in same word games. I Said: Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah you have not learnt this lesson until today. Even though Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah al-Iskandari (rahimullah) advised you look into how words and phrases are/was used by speaker in order to correctly understand the intended meaning of speaker. Don’t just look at the apparent meaning of words instead penetrate the depth and explore all possibilities and define what would prove each possibility and what would refute it. From possibilities narrow down to probable and then to actual. If you’re stuck on precisely this word would refute my argument, and precisely this would refute it then you really have no understanding of your own but you’re a Muqallid who doesn’t understand anything for himself. So Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah please elevates your level of learning. He Said: Smile. That really cracked me up. You’re a very creative writer brother Ali. I Said: Not as much as I should be. He Said: Did Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah (rahimullah) actually say that? I Said: Nah! I don’t think so but something close to it. Wait. Shaykh al-Iskandari (rahimullah) said the following: “But I realize also that your knowledge of language demands that you search out the hidden meanings of words which are often shrouded behind their obvious senses. As for the Sufis, meaning for them is like a spirit, and the words themselves are like its body. You must penetrate deeply into what is behind the verbal body in order to seize the deeper reality of the word’s spirit.” [Ref: Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah al-Iskandari (rahimullah) VS Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, here.] 15.1 - Reasons Why Shakyh Ibn Taymiyyah Was Reserved In Debate: He Said: I read the discussion too but it didn’t smack of extraordinariness. I Said: I read it years ago and chanced upon it again few days ago. And this was perfect opportunity to bring it into your memory. Didn’t seem impressive to me too to be honest but if something like it happened then its evident Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was inhibited and feeling insecure due to learning of Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah al-Iskandari (rahimullah). He Said: I got the same vibe too [about Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah holding back]. Do you think he was afraid due to great learning of his opponent? I Said: I have three theories: I) Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was not afraid of debating Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah (rahimullah) but he was likely worried about repercussions from local authority. He already did his time in prison so he was likely reluctant to openly and freely engage in a debate. II) It is also likely that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was intimidated by Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah’s (rahimullah) learning because Shaykh (rahimullah) demonstrated notion of blocking-means [of evil to eliminate evil] is a rubbish concept because then grapes should be eradicated and due to fear of illicit unmarried youngsters should be castrated. I Said: III) Another possibility is that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah had great love and respect for Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah al-Iskandari (rahimullah) and due to it he was being reserved. And evidence of this would be that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said about Shaykh al-Iskandari (rahimullah) that you’re man of great learning and piety: “I know you to be a man of scrupulous piety, abundant learning, integrity and truthfulness in speech. I bear witness that I have seen no one like you either in Egypt or Syria who loves Allah more nor who is more self-effacing in Him nor who is more obedient in carrying out what He has commanded and in refraining from what He has forbidden. Nevertheless, we have our differences.” [Ref: Shaykh Ibn Ata’ullah al-Iskandari (rahimullah) VS Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, here.] He Said: This doesn’t say anything about love/respect. I Said: Brother it it is deduced and its foundation is love/respect. Have you ever heard in modern days a Wahhabi Shaykh say about a Barelwi Shaykh that your learning, piety, generosity, compassion, worship, fasting, and spending in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is unrivalled: And I have never seen anyone pious like you in East or West? I very much doubt it. Why? Because there are no more people of knowledge and integrity and piety and compassion in opposing sects and they only exist in MY sect? Or is it because we have lost love and have no respect for each other and learning of our opponents? He Said: I get the point. Our problem is indeed lack of respect for opponents and their scholarly credentials. I Said: So I think Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was reserved, at very least, due respect for Shaykh al-Iskandari (rahimullah). I Said: IV) Maybe not any of three individually but combination of all three is very likely because there is illusion of each in context and text of debate. He Said: Last one (i.e. combination of all three) is very plausible and likely the cause why Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimullah) was reserved. 15.2 - Lecture On Sufism And How Self Criticism Would Lead To Piety: I Said: I am going to tie this with my original advice. Look beyond the apparent and develop the capability to read your own behaviour. Why you thought that? Why you said that? Why you did that? And once you become adept in understanding, why, of your thoughts, words, actions then will understand, why, in thoughts of others, words, and actions. And answers to, why, are more earthly and more related to inherent human nature; greed, show-off, mean spiritedness, hate, anger, lie, deception, ego; then anything else. He Said: Forget the whacky stuff even this part of Sufism I don’t understand and I find it strange. I Said: Brother you can’t understand it. Sufism is experiencing reality Shari’ah through practice and right understanding. It starts with understanding Nafs (i.e. your very own self). Once person understands self and learns to read his body and ‘animal-nature’ and how these make our soul commit acts against Shari’ah. Then he can combat both body and animal-nature because person realizes its not him but his body and his animal-nature are making him/her act. He Said: Brother Ali just when I understood something you lost me with your weird comment. Are you making distinction between body and soul? I Said: Brother your reality, your true form, is your soul. Your and my bodies will likely decay and become nothing. We are out of clay, to clay, and then finally, clay. Our bodies are temporary and our real form and reality is our soul. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) places soul in this body. Through self criticism and analysis a Sufi under right guide learns his reality and puts body in second and soul first in importance list. And if he cares about his hereafter then he combats his body and animal-nature. Body says sleep you’re tired but his understanding of Nafs tells him body wants whats best for it I need to do whats best for my soul. So he gets up and goes for Salah. I Said: When Satan implants idea in head to keep all the food for yourself Sufi shares with the hungry because he knows that’s animal-nature of body it wants best for itself but Sufi wants best for whats his self (i.e. soul). We are so lost and don’t realize our greatest adversary, and the biggest enemy is wants/desires our Nafs, and this is cause of all our sins. I can’t force you to comit a sin at least not very easily. Only under pain of death you may surrender and commit a sin against your will. I Said: Your body the mother of your desires, lust, want, urges, can make you/me look at semi-dressed woman and completely get mesmerized by her beauty and lost in sinful scene, like its nothing bad at all. Yet I and you would pick up our books and march for Jihad, Allahu Akbar, lets get the Barelwi Mushriks, lets get the Khariji Wahhabi anthropomorphists, show them the true Islam. This is form of Jihad too bro. Refuting them is Jihad. We are so eager for Jihad with external enemies of our Islam and Iman but no time, not even a minute, not even a thought, is devoted to combat our greatest threat and biggest adversary and challenge. 15.3 - Sufism, Tazkiyah al-Nafs, And Sufi Literature: He Said: SubhanAllah! Brother Ali I think I just glimpsed Sufi in you. The level of insight you displayed even half of the Sufis espoused this wisdom and learning then face of Sufism and image of Sufism would have been completely opposite to what it is. I Said: My Sufi is only a few years old and I am just babbling words of Sufi elders. He Said: Is there a book on this topic? I Said: There must be but I can’t recall reading anything particular on Tazkiyah al-Nafs. He Said: How do you know this is stuff? I Said: Sufi Shaykh Syed Abdullah Shah Qadri (rahimullah) popularly known as Baba Bulleh Shah (rahimullah) truly depicted state of learned men in his poetical verse: “Parh, parh, Aalim fazil hoyoon. Kaddeh apnay aap noon parya hi neenh. Ja, Ja varrda mandir maseetan. Kaddeh man apnrren vich warrya hi neenh. Ewain roz shataan nal larrda hen. Kaddeh nafs apneh nal larrya hi neenh.” [Ref: Kalam Baba Bulleh Shah, here.] Shaykh Says that you have extensively read until you became a distinguished scholar. Yet you never read your own self. You again and again go to temple and mosque. Yet you never entered your own heart. You struggle/fought against Satan in such a fashion. You never struggled/fought against your own Nafs. I Said: Past few years I have started to pay bit more attention to Tazkiyah an-Nafs (i.e. purifying ones self) side of Sufism. A lot of which is Tafakkur and Tadabbur. Through it pieaces fall into place and things make sense. He Said: What books would you recommend? You have kind off peaked my interest. I wouldn’t mind exploring Sufism if it wasn’t weird, and dancing, and things like that. I Said: I read few works of Imam Ghazali’s (rahimullah), in Urdu, Ihya Uloom ud-Deen, Kimia e Sa’adat, Minhaj ul-Abideen, and there was one book in which Imam al-Ghazali (rahimullah) detailed his journey from sect to sect until he decided to join a Sufi order to experience Sufism, but I can’t recall which it was. I also read Kashf ul-Mahjoob of Shaykh Syed Ali al-Hujwiri (rahimullah). And not forgetting English translation of, Futuh ul-Ghayb, al-Fath ar-Rabbani, and Sirr ul-Israr. If you really want to taste Sufism then you have to practice it. There isn’t a book on Sufism which I enjoyed reading more then Fath ar-Rabbani. You should read mentioned last if not all then read the three mentioned. I Said: You can read all these books and gain nothing beneficial. Your real learning will be via Tafakkur/Tadabbur. Once you read a book then randomly read a paragraph and take cue from book and ponder over it. You will learn greatly more in this fashion then just reading the book. Develop a thought with mind set that that’s how it should be in Sufism and Shari’ah. If your developed idea is wrong you have not lost anything. In most cases you will rectify your mistakes by reading books of Sufi Shuyukh. 15.4 - Salafi Brother Asks Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah And My Opinion Of Him: He Said: I will do my best in due time to read Fath ar-Rabbani if nothing else. Just one more que for today. What is your opinion of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah? I Said: He was a learned man with extensive knowledge of Quran/Sunnah but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not give him penetrating insight and intelligence. And I get feeling from his works that his education was lacking fundamental knowledge such as what is Shirk and what leads to Shirk. He deemed Isitighathah to be Shirk and this points to fault in his methodology of determining Shirk. Some scholars of Ahlus Sunnah deemed him to be Kafir and others judged him to be a heretic. Those who declared him Kafir did so due to Tajseem and we have narrations that he repented and left anthropomorphism. And in this capacity I do not deem him to be Kafir. I Said: His deviation is established by scholars of Ahlus Sunnah and I agree with this verdict. Just from his verdict on Istighathah I have judged him be to deficient in knowledge of Tawheed/Shirk and principles which establish Tawheed/Shirk. And I therefore deem him to be a Mubtadi (i.e. innovator). 15.5 - Wahhabis Believe In Relegating The Meaning Of Mutashabihaat Attributes: He Said: What do you think about his stance regarding attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? I Said: It kind of seems to me that he was in a confused idiotic fashion affirmed Tafweed. All he needed to say was I believe in Istawa alal arsh, yadullah and … I) I believe in them as stated/revealed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), II) and as intended by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), III) and in accordance with His Majestay. Note these are stated briefly and maybe exapanded later. He Said: We do not believe in Tafweed. Our scholars have vehemently opposed Tafweed. You claimed you was Salafi and this proves either you weren’t fully aware of Salafiyyah, or your claim you was Salafi is false. I Said: With regards to my claim of formerly holding to Minhaj as-Salafiyyah: I am not going to try to prove it because my leaving it is not proof of truth of my current belief. Truth of my Minhaj are Quran/Sunnah and Jammah of Muslims. He Said: I am eargerly waiting for those proofs then. I Said: Brother you Wahhabis/Salafis believe and ascribe to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) apparent/literal meaning of earlier mentioned attributes. In other words you believe in, Yadullah as hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Istawa alal arsh as rose above throne. True or false? He Said: True. Brother this is not whole of our belief. I Said: Be paitent and let me deal with Tafweed issue step by step. I Said: After you affirm literal/apparent reading of attribute then don’t you and your Salafis/Wahhabis say bila Tashbeeh (i.e. without likening), bila Kayf (i.e. without asking how), bila Tahreef (i.e. without distortion), bila Ta’weel (i.e. without interpretation), bila Ta’teel (i.e. without denial), and bila Takyeef (i.e. without defining precise meaning)? He Said: Yes, all except Takyeef this is new to me. I Said: Takyeef was purposed by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan in his Sharh of Aqeedah al-Wasatiyyah, Page 15/16, and it has been translated, here. I Said: All these terms come togather to establish that you believe meaning of these attributes is with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this effectively is Tafweed al-Ma’na (i.e. relegating the meaning). He Said: O! You meant Tafweed al-Ma’ana! I Said: Wait! Salafis believe in Tafweed al-Ma’ana. Incase you have any doubts, here. He Said: OK! I Said: I actually meant Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah idiotically affirmed Ahlus Sunnah’s version of Tafweed al-Ma’ana. He Said: Why are you proving to me Salafi version of Tafweed al-Ma’ana then? I Said: Because you said Salafis don’t believe in Tafweed. It seemed you was completely denying Tafweed and not a version of it. He Said: O, OK! I Said: Shall I tell you why I believe he was idiotically affirming Ahlus Sunnah’s version of Tafweed al-Ma’ana? He Said: Keep it short and simple. I Said: What Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah hoped to achieve was to deny apparent meaning Jismani conotations of Yadullah etc. True? He Said: I true that! I Said: And he hoped to ensure that people do not negate known/literal meaning of words in eagerness to reject bodily similarities for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In my understanding he simply was trying to make sure people do not believe in Yadullah and attributes alike have unknown meanings. He wanted people to believe meaning of words is known but meaning of expression Yadullah and attributes like it is unknown. In other words he did not want people to believe in Yadullah … like we affirm recitation of Huruf Muqatta’at such as alif, laam, meem. We recite the letters as they were revealed and affirm they have meanings but do not claim to know meaning. Yet he did not want to associate linguistic apparent meaning of words to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: Smile. I can agree to that 100% but do you? I Said: If this is what he intended then there is absolutely nothing wrong in my understanding but the way he went about affirming the above basicly lead to anthropomorphism. 15.6 - Wahhabis Are Guilty Of Tashbeeh, Takyeef, Ta’teel, and Tahreef: He Said: Brother Ali but we do believe in these attributes as you mentioned above. We believe in these attributes as revealed [the literal/apparent reading of Arabic text], as intended, and according to His Majestay. I Said: Brother you do believe them as revealed but you do not believe in attributes as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) intended, and not according to His Majestay. He Said: Brother Ali this is none sense we do. You Sufis just like to accuse us of Tajseem. I Said: Do you believe in literal/apparent of Yadullah? He Said: Yes! I Said: Would that literal/apparent be accurately represented by translation hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He Said: Yes but we believe it with all conditions [of bila Kayf, bila Tashbeeh, bila Ta’weel, bila Ta’teel, bila Takyeef, bila Tahreef]. I Said: You only affirm Tafweed al-Ma’ana and not Tafweed ul-Ilfaaz? He Said: Yes! I Said: Game On. Smile. I Said: Yad (i.e. hand) is Sift or Zaat (i.e. essence) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He Said: It is attribute (i.e. Sift). I Said: You affirm apparent and literal meaning of Yad so you do not believe in Yadullah (i.e. hand of Allah) as attribute but you believe it as Zaat (i.e. essence). He Said: Brother Ali we affirm what is known to us [in form of apparent/literal meaning] and relegate what is not known to us. I Said: Known meaning of Yadullah contradicts verse: “There is nothing like Him, and He is all-Hearing and all-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] And literal/apparent meaning [of Yadullah and attributes like it] contradicts with belief that Yadullah is an attribute. Therefore you do not believe it as it was revealed [in meaning of attribute]. Only way it can be truly possible to believe in Yadullah as revealed is to deny apparent, literal, and translation of it, and to relegate entirity of it as it was revealed. Yadullah was revealed Yadullah so we pass on as it came. And we acknolwedge knowing its literal meaning and believe these words mean this/that but do not associating the literal meaning to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and do not believe them to be His attributes. He Said: Brother Ali we can’t relegate Yadullah as it was revealed without affirming apparent/literal because apparent/literal of Yadullah is known. I Said: Brother literal/apparent known contradicts following verse: “There is nothing like Him, and He is all-Hearing and all-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] And literal/apparent meaning of Yad is essence and not attribute. If you affirm literal/apparent meaning of Yad/hand then this amounts to Ta’teel of attribute. And it would amount to Tahreef and Tashbeeh, and Takyeef. All of which you hope to deny but all you end up establishing for yourself. He Said: Brother you’re charging me with these when I categorically reject them. I Said: O the pain. Poor Muslim who says, I don’t believe x, y, z, is my Ilah, nor I intend to worship them, but you Shirk/Mushrik them. He Said: Good point. You didn’t planned this. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) planned it. Lets not get side tracked Brother. 15.7 - Irrefutable Logic Establishes Tafweed al-Ma’ana Establishes Tafweed Lafzi: He Said: Smile. Believing in apparent/literal of Yadullah does not contradict the verse because that’s what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wanted us to know about His attributes so we have to affirm what is known [the apparent/literal reading of text] and relegate what is not [actual intended meaning of attributes]. I Said: Brother when apparent/literal known contradicts your very own principles and you become guilty of Ta’teel, Takyeef, Tashbeeh, and Tahreef. And you’re guilty of making an attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) into an essence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You’re also guilty of violating a clear emphatic verse of Quran: “There is nothing like Him, and He is all-Hearing and all-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] All evidence points to you’re guilty of Tajseem and guilty of anthropomorphism so why don’t you just repent. He Said: Brother position of Salaf is best and if you feel there is anything better then understanding of Salaf as-Saliheen then I will like to hear it. I Said: Brother I am not claiming my understanding is better then Salaf as-Saliheen but I am saying your understanding of this issue is not of Salaf as-Saliheen. He Said: Brother from writing of pominent Imams it is proven Salafi beliefs are according to understanding of Salaf. I Said: What Imams have written sorting all of that is a never ending debate subject. Judge by what Allah revealed and when in dispute referr to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He Said: OK! How do you judge it and sort it out? I Said: When we know literal/apparent meaning contradicts emphatic teaching of Quranic verse: “There is nothing like Him, and He is all-Hearing and all-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] And literal/apparent meaning results in an attribute turning into essence then only correct course of action is to pass Yadullah as it came. Believe in it as it was revealed, believe in intended meaning of it, and you believe in it according to which befits Majestay of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: You’re espousing Tafweed Lafzi and Tafweed al-Ma’ana with this? I Said: By Tafweed Lafzi you mean Tafweed of Ilfaaz (i.e. words) then yes. He Said: By Tafweed Lafzi I mean relegating the Arabic words as revealed. I Said: That’s what I understood but wanted to make sure because in Urdu and Arabic word Lafzi has few meanings. He Said: There is no proof for Tafweed Lafzi. I Said: What is the proof for Tafweed al-Ma’ana? He Said: I will oblige but you first. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “There is nothing like Him, and He is all-Hearing and all-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] This verse is proof of Tafweed Lafzi and Tafweed al-Ma’ana because it negates Him being like His creation. And if His attributes are not like His creation and creation is not like Him then we must pass these attributes as they came to ensure His uniquesness in His Essence and His Attributes is not negated. Note if Yad, Istawa … are translated, or believed in literal/apparent meaning then you have give Him Tashbeeh, and this is against: “There is nothing like Him, and He is all-Hearing and all-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] Not just that but you end up negating their status as an attribute. And now your proof of Tafweed al-Ma’ana? 15.8 - Tafweed Lafzi And Tafweed Al-Ma’ana: He Said: Brother Ali your reasoning is faulty and debatable. With regards to my evidence it is same verse which you quoted and chapter 19 verse 65. I Said: How is your application valid? He Said: My rationale is exactly same as yours but it is in context of Tafweed al-Ma’ana. I Said: You said this because you believe my rationale is correct? He Said: Yes! I Said: You believe in Tafweed Lafzi or not? He Said: No! I Said: O so you believe the rationale is correct but for Tafweed Lafzi it is not correct. He Said: Yes! I Said: So practicing Tafweed is correct when it is related to Tafweed al-Ma’ana but error/misguidance when it comes to Tafweed Lafzi. He Said: And so? I Said: Your methodology lays the foundation of Tajseem and try to cover it with Tafweed al-Ma’ana. In contrast to your methodology Ahlus Sunnah reject the literal/apparent known meaning of these attributes because apparent/literal meaning of these attributes is against Muhkam verse: “There is nothing like Him, and He is all-Hearing and all-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] He Said: Did you not say you believe in literal meaning of attributes and now you’re saying you reject? Smile. I Said: I rephrase: In contrast to your methodology Ahlus Sunnah reject ascription of the literal/apparent known meaning of these attributes to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because … Happy now? He Said: Smile. We will have to agree to disagree on this. I Said: How can you say Tafweed Lafzi is invalid when apparent/literal of these attributes goes against verse and to avoid it what other choice do we have other then to pass it on as it came to us? He Said: I agree to disagree. 15.9 - Why No Translation, Attribute Or Metaphor, Ala Hadhrat’s Judgment: [EMail.] He Said: Salam alaykum. Brother Ali I was in park with my kids. While they were riding their bikes I thought about discussion we had today. I must confess your way of understanding these attributes is sensible but I cannot grasp why you said translation of attributes results in negation of them being attributes and to believe them as an attribute I must believe them as they were revealed. [End of Mail.] I Said: A metaphor indicating an attribute when translated looses its intended meaning. The term son of God amongst Jews was innocent expression meaning righteous/upright person but when Christianity reached Europe there, son of God, was understood in context of Greek/Roman culture of sons of gods and it was therefore understood literally and this changed Christianity forever. I Said: In English it is said, give me hand, a metaphorical expression of seeking help but if you translate that in Urdu, mujjay haath do, it looses its intended meaning. Urdu expression, mera haath bata’o, is a metaphorical denoting meaning of, give me a hand, but if it is translated to English it means, change my hand, could it be intended meaning is change the prosthetic hand? Point being made is metaphor looses its meaning when translated so it isn’t advisable especially not when it ascribes physical creation like body. He Said: So you believe Yadullah is an attribute or a metaphor? I said: Haqiqat of Yadullah is attribute but which is realized through the context in which Yadullah is used. Just one sec … Did you ask me this because I gave example of metaphor loosing its true meaning and you have assumed I believe Yadulah is not an attribute but a metaphor instead? He Said: Yes! I Said: OK! Haqiqat of Yadullah is an attribute but the apparent/literal text is a metaphor hinting, indicating, expressing, directing toward an attribute out of His attributes. He Said: OK! I Said: Point being made was that once a metaphor indicating an attribute is translated to another language the intended meaning of metaphor is lost as was in case of Urdu and English phrases. So translation of these words negates their very nature as well as opens up another possibility of translation being taken as literal. He Said: So you make no Taweel? I Said: I use to make Taweel but I read a work of Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat, al-Imam Ahmad Raza Khan, al-Qadri, al-Maturidi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in which he stated we do not make Taweel of such attributes and I stopped. He Said: What verdict did Shaykh Ahmad Raza Khan issue for one who believes in Zahir/Apparent meaning of Yadullah, …, like we [Salafis/Wahhabis] believe? I Said: I don’t know. [Salafi brother wished to pursue this topic further but as is evident any further discussion would only delay discussion on Istighathah. So I had to refuse further discussion and promised to discuss other subjects after Istighathah discussion.] 16.0 - Istighathah And It’s Types Explained: He Said: Brother can you define Istighathah because in our previous discussion we didn’t define it. Its your belief and therefore you’re best to define and explain it. I Said: There is two types of Istighathah: I) Directly seeking help of a deceased Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with intention and belief that this Wali, himself, will provide required aid from what has been bestowed to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). II) Asking a deceased Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to help you by invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on your behalf; asking Him to provide aid in time of your need. He Said: Istighathah is only first one out of two you mentioned not the second. I Said: Typically and most debate/discussed is the first one but second is part of it. Shaykh Ata’ullah (rahimullah) alluded to these two in reponse to Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah. He Said: OK! I just thought about the types and you’re right second can be deemed variation of Istighathah. I actually thought number two was wrong but I realized even though help is sought from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deceased person is still invoked. I Said: I preferr, asked. He Said: What ever rocks your boat. Smile. He Said: Which one will we be discussing? You have opened two fronts against me. Smile. I Said: We will battle just Istighahthah, asking the deceased for help, and leave alone the detail. And if general concept is in accordance with Tawheed and not Shirk then it will not be Shirk even with detail. He Said: Smart way to tackle the broad subject. I Said: Smart is, smart does. He Said: Smile. Would it not be easier to just discuss, type one, this was one we disucssed previously! I Said: As you wish. 16.1 - Deceased Wali Personally Helps And Via Living Person: He Said: With regards to directly asking the deceased Wali for help. How is it possible that a deceased Wali of Allah is able to provide assistance? I Said: When Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) entrusts a task He also grants required capability to complete the task. Jibraeel (alayhis salam) was given the task of delivering revelation (i.e. WahI) and he was granted capacity to do so. Malak ul-Mawt (i.e. angel of death) is tasked with taking lives of creatures and to complete this task he was granted means. And those whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) appointed on task of assissting the Muslims in difficult situation Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has provided means for them to hear/see and provide required help. He Said: How does the required help/material is granted by Wali? I mean to ask, help/material sought from Wali, is given by Wali himself, or by mean of another? I Said: If you’re looking for answer to these ques in light of Quran/Hadith I cannot answer because I am not aware of any detail about these Ahadith. Generally all help is given by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) through mean of creation. He Said: OK! I Said: Help is definatively given, but means of help, and by whom, through whom, cannot be said definitively. Ancedotal accounts kind of explain how we are to understand help of deceased Awliyah-Allah. He Said: As long it explains how it is believed I am fine. 16.2 - Help From Data Ali al-Hujwiri (rahimullah) And Shaykh Sa’di (rahimullah😞 I Said: There is a story sometimes narrated by scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. Its bit offensive but gives our perspective so you will have to tolerate it. Begins. A man was standing at the blessed grave of Shaykh Data Ali al-Hujwiri (rahimullah) and continously repeated. O Data give me ten [rupee currency] note. Right next to him there was another man. According to story, a Wahhabi, after repeatedly hearing it he got angry and just to shut him up Wahhabi gave him ten rupee note. The man said: O Data you have given me through many people but its miracle that you have given me ten rupee note through this Khabees. He Said: That was actually funny brought smile on my face. I Said: There is another one. Its about either about Shah Wali-Allah Muhadith al-Dehalvi (rahimullah). Or its about Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki (rahimullah). Actually just forget the persons because I doubt it was any of these. Story is that a certain Shaykh was reciting poem of Shaykh Sa’di while going on a long journeybut he forgot the few lines. He tried to recall it but failed and invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asking; he meet someone educated so he can reminded of following verse. He reached for his side pocket to get a Panh [subcontinentian minty sweet thing] out of his pocket. And when he looked up a man was walking toward him just few yard infront of him. Shaykh was reciting the last verse known to him repeatedly so he might click the missing one. Hearing that the incoming man told him the next verse. Shaykh reached for the pocket again to offer him a Panh as jesture of appreciation of his help but when he looked up the same man in few moments was ahead of him hundered metres or so. Shaykh figured this was not ordinary person so he shouted whats your name. He said my name is Sa’di but people call me Shaykh Sa’di Shirazi. From these two stories you can figure that Ahlus Sunnah hold to view deceased Shaykh directly and through means of living can help. 16.3 - Help Is Sought From Body Or Soul Of Deceased Wali: He Said: One last que before I start interrogation. Smile. I Said: Seems you have planned big for this battle. Smile. He Said: Seeking help of deceased, this phrase, do you mean seeking help from jism, or do you mean soul of deceased servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? I mean do you seek help from jism of deceased Wali as well as his soul? I Said: Once soul seperates body to cause death lasting till judgment day then jism has no capacity to hear but soul associated with the body hears. And help sought is from the souls of deceased Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Jism dies but the souls live. He Said: Would it be correct to deduce soul of Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) directly comes to aid in context of Shaykh Sa’di’s incident? I Said: Correct! He Said: Is there special termonology for two ways the deceased Wali provides help to needy. What label would you give to help that’s comes via living person and via his own soul? I Said: Not that I know of but we can term it I) Madad Insaani II) and Madad Roohani. He Said: Thanks brother. I need bit of time to process what we discussed and how I need to approach the topic. 16.4 - You’re Hiding Your Belief Of Awliyah-Allah Being Given Treasures: He Said: In one of your versions of Isitighathah you said Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will help through what has been given to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Do you believe the deceased Walis have been given all resources (i.e. treasures of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) and out of these they can grant what is needed to one calling them for help? I Said: No! He Said: You wrote following: “Directly seeking help of a deceased Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with intention and belief that this Wali, himself, will provide required aid from what has been bestowed to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” You’re denying it but this proves you do believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has granted them all treasures. Are you just making up stuff as you go along brother Ali? Smile. Is this not example of what you have accused us of? I Said: I don’t recall saying this to you. He Said: In your own words: “… pay as you go, eat as you go, and now make wahhabi'ism as you go.” I Said: Smile. This rings a bell. He Said: I read this yesterday. Smile. It got stuck in the head. I Said: Shall I explain my position now? He Said: Isn’t your position obvious? I Said: Not to you. He Said: Smile. 16.5 - Elite Awliyah-Allah Are Given Supernatural Powers: I Said: We believe, elite, Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are granted special miraculous powers by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and following Hadith Qudsi indicates them: “… and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, …” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509] These powers remain with the Arwah of Awliyah-Allah. He Said: According to scholars this Hadith means Abdullah prevents his hearing, seeing, touching, walking against Shari’ah. I Said: This is one of meanings of this Hadith but you have ommitted a important detail. The Hadith means that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) takes it upon Himself to protects/prevents the hearing, seeing, holding, walking of Abdullah from violations of rules of Shari’ah. This Hadith is proof of Ahle Sunnats point of view that Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are Mahfooz (i.e. protected) from [all major] sins and fire. He Said: Is there any backing of your understanding of this Hadith Qudsi from an Aalim? I Said: Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Raazi (rahimullah) in his Tafsir ul-Kabir. Shall I quote referrence? He Said: I will take your word for it. 16.6 - Evidence For Souls Caryying Supernatural Powers To Hereafter: He Said: But I do want evidence for your belief that souls of deceased Awliyah-Allah are able over supernatural. Sufis claim this but there is no evidence to prove it from Quran and Hadith. I Said: Brother I would not believe it if there was no Quranic evidence in support of it. I am going to need confirmation of few things in advance. He Said: Can you just by pass that confirmation process and just get into evidence? I Said: I can but I would preferr this route. Do you believe in accordance with prophetic teaching that Quran is Jawami al-Kalim (i.e. short expression with widest possible meanings)? He Said: Of course we do. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states He becomes: “… and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, …” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509] Would you agree with conclusion that these are granted to Abdullah as reward? He Said: Yes it would make sense. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said He does not allow the reward of righteous to become nothing: “Indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of the doers of good.” [Ref: 9:120] And in context of Hadth Qudsi and verse of Quran interpretation is that supernatural powers of Awliyah-Allah remain with them. 16.7 - Excuse Verse Is About Inhabitants Of Madinah And Not All Muslims: He Said: This Ayah is about the reward of hereafter. It states good deeds performed by righteous believers will be rewarded by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in hereafter and He will not nullify their deeds. I Said: This is just one of interpretation and I agree with it. Quran is Jawami al-Kalim don’t you recall? Smile. He Said: This Ayah is about specific group of people living in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and it should not be applied upon anyone else. In the beginning the verse explicitly addresses inhabitants of Madinah. I Said: The beginning of verse is specific to them but last part is generally applicable upon all Muslims. Any how here is another verse which is general and not specific: “Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds - indeed, We will not allow to be lost the reward of any who did well in deeds.” [Ref: 18:30] How about now? He Said: The reward mentioned in these verses is of hereafter in paradise. I Said: Brother I agree that according to one interpretation it is. I am not denying legitimacy of your interpretation. 16.8 - Allah Rewards Believers For Good Deeds In This World: He Said: Is there evidence which establishes that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) rewards for good deeds in this world? I think there is. I Said: You’re correct there is. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "So Allah gave them the reward of this world and the good reward of the Hereafter. And Allah loves the doers of good." [Ref: 3:149] “And thus We established Joseph in the land to settle therein wherever he willed. We touch with Our mercy whom We will, and We do not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good.” [Ref: 12: 56] "They said: 'Are you indeed Joseph?' He said: 'I am Joseph, and this is my brother. Allah has certainly favored us. Indeed, he who fears Allah and is patient, then indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good.'" [Ref: 12:90] These verses establishes that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gives reward to ones who perform good deeds. And in context of last two verses Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) has been rewarded his good deeds and was made a king. I Said: When He rewards righteous Muslims with material wealth for their firm belief and righteous deeds and they get the paradise in hereafter. And Awliyah-Allah are given supernatural powers of miracles in this life then why is it hard to accept that rewarded supernatural abilities remain with the souls of deceased Awliyah-Allah after their deaths? If worldly rewards are carried through to hereafter life and their equivelent paradise is granted then why should not the supernatural abilities of Awliyah-Allah carried into the next life? He Said: You make a very compelling argument Brother Ali. I can come to respect your understand of verse. I Said: Jazakallah Khayr. Allah Hafiz. I will have to read chat again to find out how all this started. He Said: I have forgotten how it started. We will continue this tomarrow. [I mailed following to him.] 16.9 - Back Ground To What Lead To Discussion: [EMail.] I Said: Just to give you brief reminder: It started because you said objected to first type of Tawassul. You asked if I believe Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has been granted all the treasures of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And I wanted to clarify so I quoted Hadith Qudsi. I Said: I) We agreed on meaning that Hadith Qudsi means supernatural powers are granted to Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: II) Then you enquired if there is proof of Arwah of deceased Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) having supernatural powers and after long discussion we finally reached to stage where you said you can respect my understanding. Conclusion: Hadith Qudsi establishes that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants supernatural powers to His elite Awliyah mentioned in Hadith: “… and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, …” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509] Wali isn’t granted all the treasures of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but Wali is granted means to access these treasures of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and he gives with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 16.10 - Treasures Of Earth Have Been Granted To Prophet Of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 I Said: Just to bring the whole chapter togather believe treasures of earth have been granted to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in accordance with following Hadith: “Abu Huraira said that Allah's Messenger said: "I have been sent with 'Jawami-al-Kalim' and have been made victorious with awe (cast in my enemy's hearts), and while I was sleeping, I saw that the keys of the treasures of the world were placed in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Messenger has gone, and you people are utilizing those treasures, or digging those treasures out." or said a similar sentence.” [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H378] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is giver, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is distributor and elite Awliyah-Allah are Wasail (i.e. means) of distribution these treasures: “Allah's Messenger said: ‘If Allah wants to do good for somebody, he makes him comprehend the Religion, and Allah is the Giver and I am the distributor, and this (Muslim) nation will remain victorious over their opponents ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B53, H346, here.] “Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said: ‘Neither do I give you (anything) nor withhold (anything) from you, but I am just a distributor, and I give as I am ordered.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B53, H347, here.] [End of Email.] 16.11 - Salafi Brothers Counter Response And My Counter Argument Nails It: He Said: Brother all things said. I) I still do not believe there is strong enough case to believe Karamat of Awliyah remain with them after they have passed away. Simply proving believers are rewarded for good deeds in this world does not prove in anyway that a dead Wali is able over supernatural after death. Its is too much of leap of faith which I am not willing to make. II) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having been given the treasures of earth. I have consulted some students of knowledge and they have provided interpretations. With regards to, Hadith-378, it was a dream and nothing of actually was given to him. It was just a dream like we all have. III) Regarding, Ahadith 346/347, both are about distribution of war loot and not about distribution of treasures of earth. IV) All said and done I know there is some case to be made for your interpretation around, shortest expression widest possible meaning, basis. Smile. After discussing with you for months I have come to realize a thing or two about you and that is its not over until you made your point. Also that you’ve heard all from my side and likely what I said is not knew to you. You can say your bit so we can move on to actual subject of Istighathah. [End of Email.] I Said: I Said: I will be very brief here. I Said: I) With regards to your saying about Arwah of Awliyah having supernatural abilities after death. I will not add anything because I feel my evidence and argument based on, verses 9:12/18:30, was/is sufficient. I Said: II) You said treasures of earth have not been given to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because it was dream. If this was the case then why would Abu Huraira (radiallah ta’ala anhu) follow it up with following: “ … and while I was sleeping, I saw that the keys of the treasures of the world were placed in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Messenger has gone, and you people are utilizing those treasures, or digging those treasures out." or said a similar sentence.” [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H378] The underlined part of saying Hadith is part of very same Hadith. I just didn’t underline it thinking you will be aware dreams of Prophets are true like happenings of events while they are awake. Abu Huraira (radiallah ta’ala anhu) seems to think these granted treasures have been distributed to companions/others whom are digging them out. Any way you should check Ahadith on dreams of Prophets, here. I Said: III) Finally I agree these Ahadith can be interpreted in context of distribution of war loot but in context of Hadith of treasures of earth being granted the meaning of these Ahadith changes accordingly and interpretation stands as explained earlier. [End of Email.] He Said: May Allah reward you for correcting my errors but our difference with regards to supernatural powers of Awliyah carrying with them after death stands. [End of Email.] I Said: Salam Alaykum. I have nothing to add. [End of Email.] 17.0 - Wahhabi Argument - Muslims And Mushriks Invoke Dead For Help: He Said: Salam Alaykum. I Said Wa alaykum Salam. He Said: You gave me two versions of Istighathah and defined two ways the help can be given – via Madad Insaani/Roohani. I have to say both forms of Istighathah are Shirk because Mushrikeen held similar notions. Mushrikeen sought help from dead men whom they had elevated to status of gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In this context it needs to be pointed out Mushrikeen invoked dead also with same beliefs as you: Mushrikeen invoked the dead in time of safety/stress for all-needs/help with intention/belief that dead himself will help with what has been given to him by and with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – via Insaani/Roohani means. This is clear cut Shirk because both parties are invoking the dead. I Said: Was this Shirk due to believing in additional Ilah/Rabb beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and then invoking them? Or was Shirk warranted because dead was invoked? He Said: Obviously Shirk because dead was invoked instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Not Shirk because of taking a creation as Ilah/Rabb and then invoking for help/all-needs? He Said: That too is Shirk but this is not relevent to issue at hand. I Said: So you’re saying basicly that invoking dead is Shirk? He Said: Yes! I Said: Quote me a single Ayat/Hadith in which invoking dead is said to be Shirk. He Said: According to Ahadith al-Lat, Ya’uq, Nasr, Ya’ghuth, Wadd, and Suwa were all men of pre-Islamic era. They were long dead and Mushrikeen invoked them in worship. Due to this worship they were deemed Mushrik. I Said: Brother I will accept your rationale if you can provide proof that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said; invoking dead [for help] is Shirk . Or any wording which establishes invoking a dead person/Jinn is Shirk. He Said: I don’t know if there is such [explicit] evidence. 17.1 - Shirk Is Associating Ilah/Rabb As Partners With Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 I Said: Brother there is not a single text of Quran/Hadith which indicates this. Lack supporting evidence for your position establishes it has nothing to do with Shirk. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) comprehensively explained all ways in which Shirk can be warranted. Taking another as Ilah partner in form of; mother, father, son, daughter, wife, brother, sister all is established as Shirk. He went to lengths to establish, there is no Ilah beside Him, and there is no Rabb beside Him, not as inferior or superior, nor as an equale. All to establish He is the One, the Only Ilah and Rabb and with Him there is no Ilah, or Rabb. So much emphasis on negation of Ilahs/Rabbs beside Him proves that Shirk in His sight is elevation of creation as Ilah/Rabb parnters of Him. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) devoted entire Quran for negating existance of Ilahs/Rabbs and affirming He is the One, the Only Ilah/Rabb to ward-off danger of Shirk. If invoking dead persons was Shirk then surely Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would have devoted a verse or two in order to establish this as a doctrine of Islam. 17.2 - There Is No Evidence For - Invoking Dead For Help Is Shirk: I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) informed us about story of companions of Kahf, miraculous birth of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and events surrounding it, and many other stories. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) narrated these incidents which are way less important then Tawheed/Shirk but could not devote a single verse in entire Quran to doctrine; asking the dead for help is Shirk. There is absolutely no such evidence other then Salafi ‘Ijtihad’ and that too without a pinch of evidence. Question begs to be asked why is there such silence by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Was Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not able to reveal what is Shirk? Or did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) misplace His study notes somewhere and couldn’t not reveal comprehensive guide to Tawheed/Shirk? Or did He not know comprehensive Tawheed/Shirk? He is above all these short comings. Its none of these, and if asking dead for help was Shirk, He would have informed us of this. Shirk was/is to attribute Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to a creation and elevate this creation to status of an Ilah/Rabb partner. And Tawheed is believing He is the One, the Only Ilah/Rabb. 17.3 - A Good Counter Argument By Salafi Brother: He Said: So you’re saying this is only type of Shirk? And one who says Jesus was with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from eternity, and he is uncreated like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), such person is not guilty of Shirk until he affirms Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah? I Said: What you asked; this is undoubtedly also Shirk because attributes which are absolutely unique to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have been associated with creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: So even though it is not explicitly stated you believe it is Shirk? I Said: Yes! He Said: Then why should there be explicit mention of; invoking dead persons is Shirk; when your understanding is valid without such explicit mention of; attributing Allah’s unique attributes to creation is Shirk? I Said: I do not need explicit mention is basis of validity. We have principle methodology of Shirk according to which, and rule that implicit evidence is valid proof. You believe every not explicitly stated is innovation and every innovation is misguidance. Will you agree your criteria of determining Shirk; asking dead for help is Shirk; is an innovation because it has no explicit mention in Quran/Sunnah? He Said: I have already stated I don’t know [if evidence exits in support of Salafi principle]. 17.4 - Two Ways Of Shirk - Ilahiyyah/Rabububiyyah And Shirk In Zaat/Sifaat Of Allah: I Said: With regards to my judgement, it agrees with principle of Tawheed and Shirk. And in book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) there is explicit evidence for it. He Said: Seeking help from deceased persons being Shirk is also in accordance with principles of Shirk and [against principles of] Tawheed. I Said: OK! There are two ways of determining if a person has ascribed a Shareek with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 I) Person professes there is a Ilah/Rabb partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is Shirk and this is judged to be Shirk due to what person professed i.e. Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, with his tongue. II) Another way of determining Shirk is via types of beliefs person professes for a creation’s, essence, attributes, and actions. And in this case person may, or may-not explicitly affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah but ascribes to a creation a essence, attributes, and actions which are absolutely unique to Him, and this would warrant Shirk. 17.5 - Demonstrating Example Of Salafi Brother Was True Form Of Shirk: I Said: To believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was uncreated, from eternity, will be to eternity, is self-sustaining, independent, and more … establishes he is being believed to be an equale with Zaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Your scenario was in fact an example of true/genuine Shirk in belief and an example of when someone is truly believed to be a Shareek of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In contrast, if Robert believes, Jesus didn’t exist before, only came to existance when he was born, died on cross, and his soul lives, and it will disappear into nothingness when supreme God wills it so, and Jesus had very limited power, and after death had very limited power, was dependent, needed some form of nourishment to exist, and he now is Ilah. Due to affirmation of Ilahiyyah person is guilty of Shirk al-Akbar but he was not believed to be true/genuine Shareek of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because that entails sharing same characteristics of Zaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Are you with me so far? He Said: In a sort of way. I Said: Basicly there are two main ways of Shirk: I) by ascribing names/titles such as Rabb/Ilah to a creation and believing creation is Ilah/Rabb, II) and by ascribing to creation attributes which are unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Zaat, and Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 17.6 - Justifying The Position In Light Of Quranic Teaching: He Said: I agree with your understanding brother Ali but my/your contention was that lack evidence nullifies validity of a principle. After half an hour there is still no proof of your understanding from Quran/Sunnah. I Said: You’re mistaken about lack of evidence. Smile. He Said: … I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: Jesus is believed to be an Ilah and part of Trinity. In Trinity the Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, are all believed to be uncreated, eternal, all-powerful, etc … And following verse addresses Jews/Christians and says: “Say: ‘O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah, and not associate anything with Him, and not take one another as lords instead of Allah.’ But if they turn away, then say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims.’" [Ref: 3:64] Note there are two types of Shirk being negated primarily in the verse; to not to affirm Ilah for worship, and not assosociate with Him a partner. I Said: If wa (i.e. and) between, “… except Allah and not associate …”, is understood for purpose of differentiating between two parts then it means not to take Ilah for worship and in addition not to associate with Him in His Essence and Attributes. I Said: If wa/and is taken in sense that it is adding further detail then in this context verse means to not to associate a partner in worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I hold to short expression widest possible meaning philosophy and therefore both are possible and correct. I Said: In your example uncreatedness, eternalness of Prophet Jesus was mentioned and this is very definition of associating a partner with Him in His Essence and Attributes. In conclusion my position is supported with evidence. And in my understanding Shirk by attribution of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is lesser in offense then Shirk where a creation is made to share with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) His Essence and His absolutely unique Attributes. And this is prohibited via: “…and not associate anything with Him, and …" [Ref: 3:64] He Said: All this is reasoned on basis of limited evidence. I Said: Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. He Said: We will continue tomorrow. 17.7 - Salafi Brother Does Not Know How Shirk Is Warranted: I Said: Yesterday I demonstrated my position and estalished two ways in which Shirk can be warranted. Do you agree that both these methods are valid way of determining Shirk? He Said: Yes. I Said: You believe calling dead for help is Shirk. Obviously calling dead for help is not same as affirming Ilahiyyah and not same as ascribing to a creation Essence/Attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Then how can calling dead for help is Shirk? He Said: Wait! Wait! Calling dead for help indeed is ascribing to dead person attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Explain. He Said: Dead do not know they are being called for help, nor they can hear the call, they do not see the callers, nor they can help. I Said: And how does that amount to Shirk? He Said: Caller assumes/believes the one called can hear, see, has means of help and this is Shirk. I Said: You’re aware, Shirk is giving attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to His creation, aren’t you? He Said: Yes, that’s why I said it is Shirk. I Said: I Don’t think you understand how Shirk is warranted. He Said: Explain what you mean. 17.8 - Explaining To Salafi Brother How Major Shirk Is Warranted: I Said: Suppose I believe, deceased, Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (rahimullah) when he is called for help by human/Jinn he hears/sees all the callers, has means of help, and provides help them. Do I affirm polytheistic beliefe and have I made him an equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His hearing and seeing attributes? He Said: Yes indeed. I Said: So you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sees/hears callers of help and that amounts to His attributes of hearing/seeing being shared with a creation? He Said: Yes. I Said: How is that Shirk. Amr believes I see a table infront of me and he also believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sees the same table. Has he made me an equal of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in capability of seeing? He Said: No! I Said: Why? He Said: Your seeing is limited in other areas where as Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) seeing is encampassing all that exits in universe. I Said: If this type of seeing was truly believed for a person then what would be out-come? He Said: In this case creation would be ascribed with attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and this would warrant Shirk. I Said: Thank you. When I believe Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani hears call of help and sees callers of help, has means of help, and provides help. I have not affirmed all encampassing hearing/seeing of happenings of universe rather just hearing of calls and seeing of callers. Regarding this you said I am guilty of making him equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His attributes of hearing/seeing. And this verdict was clearly wrong when it is comparatively analyzed. 17.9 - Shirk Is Making Creation Equale To Allah, And Not Equale Allah To Creation: I Said: In example of seeing table you said seeing of person isn’t equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because His seeing is all encampassing, and His Seeing is of everything in universe. And you said it would be Shirk [of attributes] if such belief was affirmed and it can logically be deduced if it is not affirmed then its not Shirk. Shirk is all encampassing seeing and Shirk is not equality in limited seeing. He Said: I am not getting what you’re saying. I Said: Brother Shirk is affirming that a creation can see everything happening in the universe, like and as much as, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sees – in this way a creation is made partner in Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) seeing. A creation being able to see/hear in limited sense is not Shirk. He Said: And your point is? I Said: Point is that Shirk is making a creation equal, a Twin, in attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And Shirk is not making Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equal in attributes of creation. When you said my belief is Shirk of attributes you judged it to be Shirk by making Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equal in attributes of creation. He Said: Nice way of putting it. I Said: Can I go on. He Said: Smile. You can go on for two of us. Smile. 17.10 - Twinship Is Route To Shirk Of Essence And Attributes: I Said: Number one Shirk is ascribing a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Number two explicit major Shirk is established when affirms there is another Ilah, or Rabb, or both beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Implied major Shirk (i.e. implied Ilahiyyah) is established when there is perfect/absolute equality between Creator and creation in essence and attributes. In other words when creation is made Twin of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in essence, or in one or more attributes then implied major Shirk has occurred. If your principles of determining Shirk are correct then they would either established explicit major Shirk. If not explicit then they should establish implied major Shirk through concept of Twinship. Twinship not at superficial level but to full detail. Superficial level would be, calling the living Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is worship, therefore calling the living creation is worship, and therefore Shirk. Its not Shirk because Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, or Twinship in essence/attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hasn’t been established. 17.11 - Inferiority, Or Superiority Doesn’t Invalidate Belief Of Shirk: He Said: OK! I understand that and I agree with you that Twinship is essence/attributes is actual reason of Shirk but Mushrikeen didn’t affirm Twinship they affirmed inferiority for their idol-gods. I Said: We don’t need to establish Twinship for them because we have EXPLICIT MAJOR SHIRK. They explicitly affirmed Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah. Discussion of superiority/inferiority comes into play when major Shirk is implied but not explicitly affirmed. For example to declare Trinitarian Christians as Mushrikeen we don’t argue over inferior Jesus god, or equal Jesus god, or superior Jesus god, to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Without getting into detail we judge them to be Mushrik and reason is simple they affirm Shirk explicitly by affirming Ilahiyyah for Jesus. I Said: I as Muslim do not affirm explicit major Shirk by affirming Ilahiyyah for a creation so you take my belief/practice of Istighathah and put it through your own priniple methodology of determining Shirk and come to conclusion that I am Mushrik. I Said: You have employed your principles and came to conclusion that I have indirectly/implicitly affirmed Ilahiyyah for a creation by making affirming Twinship in essence, or one or more attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: This is methodology [of Sunnis] is new to me. I have uptill now always employed what you termed superficial equality. I Said: Brother I am painfully aware. Smile. 17.12 - Wahhabi Principle, Asking Dead Help Is Shirk, Is A New Addition: [Disscussion continues from section 17.7.] I Said: Your principle, asking the dead for help is Shirk, can only be correct; I) if Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is affirmed for the dead, II) or it can be correct if, the asked, Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (rahimullah), was believed to be equal in Zaat/Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). If these two ways Shirk can’t be established then there is no Shirk. He Said: Brother Ali asking the dead for help is Shirk and it does not depend on these two. I Said: Explain. He Said: People worship others instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and this is Shirk. I Said: Brother matter of principle is that belief is before action (i.e. worship). I worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but I worship Him because of my belief that He is the One and the Only Ilah. Worship is based on Ilahiyyah. When people worship they affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah first and then worship therefore worship of others beside Allah is based on affimation of Ilahiyyah. You’re saying Shirk does not depend on these two categories is wrong fundamentally and the example you gave to support it is also invalid because it establishes Ilahiyyah is cause of worship. Shirk can only occur in one of these two and there is no third way. If you say Shirk can occur in another then you have to quote evidence for that third category. He Said: I understand. 17.13 - Explaining Why I Asked For Explicit Evidence For - Asking Dead Help Is Shirk: I Said: If you recall earlier I asked you to provide evidence for your principle; asking dead for help is Shirk. He Said: That was yesterday. Yeah, what about it? I Said: I have established there are two MAIN ways Shirk can be warranted. And I have established your principle, asking the dead for help is Shirk, is not in accordance with these two ways. He Said: Make your point brother. I Said: You asked me, why should there be explicit evidence for this principle, and I could not respond to it there. And right now I believe we reached to stage where I can. I Said: Your principle doesn’t fit into two ways in which Shirk can be warranted. In other words this [your way of establishing Shirk] is third category that’s why I asked you to provide me explicit evidence for it. He Said: Can’t be grand strategy of yours. I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is best of planners. It just came togather. He Said: I am going to think about all this. I need week or two off to get my head around all discussion we had. I Said: Yeah! While you’re taking break also look for explicit evidence for your principle. Smile. I Said: Did you have any luck with evidence for your principle? He Said: I never, and WE have never claimed this is our principle. I am sure this principle which is supposedly ours was actually invented and imposed on me by you. I Said: Brother I have not imposed it upon you. Principles serve to help understand something. Your understanding is seeking help of deceased Awliyah is Shirk. And in light of this principle when help of deceased Wali is sought you invoke this principle and deem the action [to be of Shirk] and person as Mushrik. I Said: When was the last time you judged via route of Tawheed/Shirk to determine if practice of Istighathah is Shirk? You judge on basis of, asking the dead for help is Shirk, and this is proof that it is your principle. [He did not respond to this and wished to move on and I was too happy to oblige. Readers should note he failed to provide proof of, seeking help of deceased is Shirk, from a verse of Quran, and failed to prove Istighathah is Shirk via two routes of Shirk.] 17.14 - Ahadith Of Seeking Help From Servants Of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 He Said: You believe in Istiaghathah therefore you quote evidence for it and I will deconstruct it. Then I will quote evidence against Istighathah and you refute it. You agree? I Said: Yes, why not! He Said: You can start when you ready then. I Said: It has to be tomarrow because I have had made no preparations for this development. I was thinking we will be bickering over other aspects. He Said: Tomarrow it is then. [I left discussion to find Ahadith which will be help in substantiating my position. And on the next day I had made necessary preparations.] I Said: “Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say: “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” For indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon.” [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam ul-Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] He Said: This Hadith is Da’if therefore not valid evidence. I Said: It is accepted that the Ahadith on this subject are Da’if all but one. If you recall and if you do not please referr to my rendering of our first discussion, here. Your saying this Hadith is weak in Sanad was never contested by me. He Said: I cannot remember since the discussion took place some ten years ago. I Said: Well, we can discuss the subject again but I will begin with a chain which is Hassan even according to Muhaditheen: “Musa Ibn Ishaq related to us from Manjab Ibn Al-Harith, Hatim Ibn Isma’il related to us from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aban Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call “Assist (me) O slaves of Allah”’ [Ref: al-Bakhr ul-Zakhaar - al-Maroof - Musnad al-Bazzar, Volume 11, Msnd Ibn Abbas, H4922, Page181, here.] I Said: Brother we have been through this discussion before and I rather avoid it. I am not capable of establishing validity of this or related Ahadith on account of Isnad. You will be aware through rules/regulations of Hadith Textual Criticism defects causing weakness in these Ahadith can be lifted in light of principles of Muhaditheen. He Said: Any such effort has been responded by Salafi scholars. I Said: I am too familiar with it. Both sides have produced tons of material in polemical rebuttles. And I cannot judge and decide without learning science of Hadith, nor are you. This leaves copy and paste jobs which is pointless and is against our agreement. [He did not respond or comment on what I said and instead took a new direction.] 17.15 Minority Disagreed With Mujtahid Acting On Daif Hadith Equals Hassan: He Said: In our previous discussion you said that when a Mujtahid acts on Da’if Hadith it becomes Hassan due to action of Mujtahid. Hafidh Ibn Salah al-Din (rahimullah) in Muqaddamat Ibn Salah Fi Ulum ul-Hadith has refuted this. He is on record for saying: When a Mujtahid narrates a Sahih Hadith and doesn’t act on it that is not construed to mean Hadith is Daif then why should his action on Da’if Hadith should be consctrued to mean he deems the Hadith Da’if? I Said: First of all position I hold to and narrated then is understanding of Jamhoor of Ummah. A minority has disagreed on this principle and out of which Hafidh Ibn Salah al-Din (rahimullah) is one such individual. He Said: O! I didn’t know this was minority opinion. I Said: With regards to what Hafidh ul-Hadith Shaykh Ibn Salah al-Din (rahimullah) said is defective. Mujtahid not practicing a Sahih Hadith cannot be construed to mean he believes Hadith is Da’if because Sanad of Hadith speaks for itself. Period. 17.16 - Mujtahid Acting On A Da’if Hadith Is Something Important: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “… 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] In context of this Hadith, think, if a Mujtahid practiced what he believes is not in agreement with prophetic teaching would he not be accountable! Of course he would be responsible for introducing an evil Sunnah in Islam. So his action on Da’if Hadith is not to be taken lightly nor would a Mujtahid consider his action insignificant. Therefore a Mujtahid acting on Da’if Hadith is demonstration of his confidence in Matan (i.e. text) and in Sanad of Da’if Hadith. And it demonstrates that Mujtahid believes Matan Hadith does not contradict any Islamic teaching so when a Mujtahid acts on a Da’if Hadith it is worth taking note of. 17.17 - Da’if Hadith Acted By Mujtahid A Prophetic Sunnah Or Not: He Said: I agree with what you stated but this doesn’t prove Hadith is Hassan/Sahih. I Said: It depends on how you see it. If you see it from perspective of Sanad then defects of Sanad simply don’t vanish those defects still remain. If you look at it from perspective of Matan then action of Mujtahid removes negativity imposed on Matan by defective Sanad and elevates its rank. He Said: Ok! I agree with both points of yours but it still doesn’t prove instruction in Hadith is what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed. Does it? I Said: This is difficult to answer. I cannot speak on behalf of Mujtahid who has acted on Da’if Hadith. It could be that he believes it is instructed prophetic teaching. Or it could be that he believes there is no prohibition of it in Islam and generally agrees with philosophy of Islam therefore permissible. His reason for acting is known to Mujtahid. He Said: Since you’re man of opinion; what is your opinion? I Said: I always stick to Jammah/Jamhoor. He Said: OK! I Said: My personal opinion is that Mujtahid acting on Da’if Hadith establishes; Mujtahid believes it is prophetic teaching but like I said Jamhoor of Ummah is to be followed. 17.18 - Da’if Hadith A Prophetic Sunnah And Why It Cannot Invalid For Evidence: I Said: Every Da’if Hadith is not Mawdu Hadith (i.e. fabricated Hadith). Yes there is defect in [Da’if] Hadith but all are not fabrications. Ahadith can become Da’if and a narrator unreliable for little as telling a single known lie, or forgetfulness, or memory being effected in old age, deception, hearing of Hadith from source. Is there a man who doesn’t lie, or forget, or isn’t effected by some memory loss in old age; there were/are very few such people. I Said: Put this criteria into practice today. In an age lieing is art, deception is strategy, where every person is a liar, and one who denies this is greatest liar. In this age of lieing/liars five Salafis through five long/short chains, in which some are Thiqa and others known to have lied, narrate to you Shaykh Ibn Baaz said [Wahhabi sub-sect of] Sururis are heretic. I Said: When five people via five chains are narrating, Ibn Baaz said Sururis are heretic, and it is established all the members of chain have met each other; will you reject this? He Said: I have to say yes [I will reject it]. We do this [confirmation and rejection based on reports] all day. I Said: Thank you Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: Smile. I Said: We get told by, Yasir Qadhi, or Nauman Ali Khan, or Shaykh Israr Rasheed, or Shaykh Hamza Yusuf; X said Y when I met him in London. And guess what? We all believe it. I Said: Despite their lying known/unknown lies we believe, SOLE NARRATOR, people when people tell us he heard x, y, z, from Shaykh Mango. Yet you wouldn’t believe five people who narrate a Hadith, with mix bag of credibility, via five chains. He Said: That is a very good point brother Ali. I Said: And related to previous point is; Muhaditheen said when a Da’if Hadith is narrated via many chains it is raised to grading of Hassan. And reason and logic behind this is; all of these people could not have conspired to fabricate, or made same mistake. Therefore there is greater possibility for it being a prophetic teaching then not. He Said: I understand how logic behind this works but I simply cannot accept that a Da’if Hadith becomes Hassan due multiple chains of narration. I have to see proof that Muhaditheen have actually said this. 17.19 - Allah’s Messenger Said Follow The Majority In Disputes: [In this section I was suppose to be proving why Da’if Hadit is prophetic teaching when Muhaditheen/Mujtahideen act on but idea got lost in discussion. I made-up for the lapse, see following section 17.23.] I Said: I can reason a degree of evidential credibility on basis of Ahadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] The majority is better, majority is Jammah, stick to Jammah: “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] When there is difference in the Ummah hold to the Jammah the great majority of Muslims: “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] The Jamhoor/Jammah of Muslims holds to view these Ahadith are Hassan and actionable and have acted on it for centuries. 17.20 - Statistics Say Ahlus Sunnah Is Majority Even In Arabia: He Said: The Jamhoor does not hold to this view. You’re just making a claim without backing. I Said: Brother the truth of my statement is bright as midday sun. The Salafis do not even compose Jamhoor in Saudi Arabia. In following map, here, Sunnis are 52% of Saudi population,Wahhabis/Salafis are part of ‘Other’, assuming best for Wahhabism and even if we consider entire ‘Other’ as representing Wahhabism then 23% of Saudi population is Wahhabi. And I am willing to allow 10% error margin in favour of Wahhabism. In this light it would be 42% Sunni, 33% Wahhabi, and 25% Shia. He Said: This map is not credible source. If it had been published by Saudi Kingdom, or referrenced to a credible and neutral source, I would have had no objections to it. I Said: Give me bit of time I will try to find source of this. He Said: Sorry! I had to leave because you took too long and I couldn’t wait. I Said: I got the original source. This religio map was part of research lead by Columbia University, here, for Atlas of the Islamic World and Vicinity, by Dr Michael Izady. And the original can be seen on website by following route: Category II. Ethnographic and Cultural: Section D, Religion: 25: Middle East Religions. [After verifying source he came back.] He Said: OK! This has made it bit difficult to back track on commitments made by me. I Said: On the top left corner I believe flag of Iran is visible. I suggest you claim conspiracy, and argue, Irani government the enemy of Tawheed paid Dr Michael Izady to produce counter Tawheed infrographic map. Smile. He Said: Smile. Maybe I should. Smile. 17.21 - Finally He Accepts Ahlus Sunnah Is Jamhoor Via Layity And Scholarship: I Said: You will accept that Wahhabis are not even Jamhoor in Arabia, or take the help I provided? He Said: I am not pleased, or satisfied, but when I look at it through world view of entire Muslim population then I have to tolerate it. I Said: And you mean? He Said: Sufis are majority of world Muslim population so I loose nothing by admiting you’re majority in numbers even in Arabia. I Said: Thanks. He Said: I can say the majority of scholarship is on our side. I Said: Based on exactly what? And do you genuinely believe, on the back of fact, even in epic centre of Wahhabism (i.e. Saudi ArabIa) Wahhabism isn’t belief of majority, that Wahhabism has been producing more scholars throughout the world then Sunnis? You’re not high on coffee brother? Are you? He Said: Smile. Can we leave this majority talk get to discussion that matters? I Said: Majority of scholarship and majority of layity deems it permissible to act on this Hadith. And in this dispute between majority and minority you/I were instructed to hold to majority, the better, the Jammah, the Ummah of Muslims, but you’re opposing the majority. And this is a strike against your position. He Said: You have added weight to your position but it hasn’t tipped the balance yet. Smile. I Said: Not finished. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will tip the balance in favour of truth. He Said: Indeed. 17.22 - Straight Path Of Mujtahideen, Muhaditheen VS Crooked Path Of Najd: I Said: You/I perform Salah and ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to guide us upon straight path, the straight path of those whom He has favoured. When it is evident to you Mujtahideen of Ummah, Saliheen of Ummah, Awliyah-Allah of the Ummah, have acted upon this Hadith and they are on STRAIGHT PATH. Then why do you choose to oppose them when in fact you invoke/ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to make you walk on their path. Either walk on the straight path as demonstrated by the Mujtahideen like of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah). Or else take note you’re opposing people like of him. He Said: He acted on his Ijtihad and it could be wrong. I Said: He could be wrong, Mujtahideen, and Muhaditheen, Mufassireen of highiest calibre can be wrong, but you, your Najdi Shuyukh cannot be wrong in this regard. Brother choose your side, Najdi Shuyukh of Wahhabism VS Mujtahideen, Muhaditheen, Mufassireen of highiest calibre and Taqwa. 17.23 - Why Mujtahideen Acted On Hadith, Hadith Is Hassan, It Is Prophetic Sunnah: I Said: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) and all others were wrong. Not a problem. I have a golden arrow and this will, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills, it will score the point home. I Said: Can I ask you about Hadith I quoted initially which lead to this long discussion? He Said: Sure. I Said: Did you say that this Hadith was about asking help of angels? He Said: Yes! I Said: If I can prove that someone sought help of angels and it is authentic Hadith will you then consider all the Da’if Ahadith related to this topic as Hassan li-ghayrihi (i.e. Hassan due to other)? And this is a principle of Muhaditheen that they raise the grading of Da’if Hadith via authentic. He Said: I am not committing to anything but I will give fair and heart felt verdict. I Said: OK! Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said mother of Prophet Isma’il (alayhis salam) asked the help of angels when she was in search of water for infant Prophet Isma’il (alayhis salam😞 “When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] Note she sought help of angel, it has been narrated in Sahih of Imam Bukhari (rahimullah), and Hadith is authentic. This Hadith establishes she realized there is something invisible and asked for help. I Said: Note mother of Prophet Isma’il (alayhis salam) was alone, in deserted place, no means of natural help, she had absolutely nothing, she needed water, she heard a noise and realized something is invisible, she addressed the angel and asked for help, and she was helped. All this detail perfectly fits into following Hadith and demonstrate this Hadith of Bukhari is gensis of, O Servants of Allah, regarding which we been debating about: “Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say: “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” For indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon.” [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam ul-Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] Based on the Sahih Hadith of Imam Bukhari (rahimullah), I assume Mujtahideen such as Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) concluded this Hadith must be prophetic teaching because he/they must have deemed it, Hassan li-ghayrihi due to Hadith of Sahih Bukhari. 17.24 - Brother Finally Accepts Hadith Is Hassan Due To Supporting Evidence: I Said: I am actually done. Now the all important question: Do you accept this Hadith is Hassan due to evidence of Hadith of Bukhari? He Said: I do admit position you took earlier was strongly reasoned and this was way I didn’t want to committ it but right now I have to confess you have won me over. I Said: Won you over, meaning, you believe Hadith is Hassan/Good? He Said: I believe the Hadith’s Matan has foundation in Sunnah based on Hadith of Bukhari [B55, H583]. I can believe it is Hassan and to be honest see no reason to oppose it other then defects in Sanad of Hadith. Despite the defects in Sanad I can agree Hadith has foundation in Sunnah and its Matan is Hassan. I Said: Don’t be too excited because it does not support your position. Rather it proves help comes from angels. Your position is that it is permissible to call the deceased Awliyah-Allah for help and this Hadith is explained via Hadith of Bukhari and it establishes help was sought from angel. I Said: What it proves and what it can mean is to come. I Said: I was actually going to quote more Ahadith regarding the topic and then, it is Da’if, discussion prevented from pasting them. And I think it would be best to paste all of them so you know what I am referring to. He Said: Are they similar to Hadith we discussed? I Said: Yes they are with slight variations. He Said: Go ahead Brother Ali. I Said: Before I do, would you agree due to that supporting evidence of Bukhari-Hadith-583, all related Ahadith to Tabarani-Hadith-5469, benefit from Hassan grading. And as a result they all improve their standing to level of Hassan? He Said: I do as long as Matan and meaning of Ahadith is not too distinct. I Said: Jazakallah khayr. 18.0 - Ahadith Of, O Servants Of Allah, And Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Acting On: I Said: “When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] “Musa Ibn Ishaq related to us from Manjab Ibn Al-Harith, Hatim Ibn Isma’il related to us from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aban Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call “Assist (me) O slaves of Allah.”’ [Ref: al-Bakhr ul-Zakhaar - al-Maroof - Musnad al-Bazzar, Volume 11, Msnd Ibn Abbas, H4922, Page181, here.] I Said: “Hadhrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud has narrated that the Prophet said: When you lose your means of transport in a jungle, you should call: ‘O creatures of Allah! Help me, recover my transport! O creatures of Allah! Help me, recover my transport!’ There are many of Allah’s creatures on this earth. They will help you recover it.” [Ref: Tabarani al-Mu‘jam-ul-kabir, Vol 10, Chapter: 217, Hadith 10518, here] “Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say: “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” For indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon.” [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam ul-Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] I Said: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) has been said to acted on this Hadith: “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697] Also Imam Nawavi (rahimullah) stated he has acted on this Hadith in his Kitab ul-Adhkaar: “One of our major (Kibar) scholars in knowledge related to me that he lost his means of transport, which I presume was a mule, and he was aware of this Hadith and said (the Du’a) so Allah brought to him his animal immediately.’’ I was once with a group of people and my animal fled and the people failed (to find it) and I said (the Du’a) and I found the animal immediately without any means but this statement.” [Ref: Kitab ul Adhkaar, page 370, by Imam Nawavi rahimullah, here.] Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) has reported to have said a version of Hadith is Hassan and is acted on: “If the animal of someone runs loose in jungle, then he should say: “O Allah’s servants stop it.” He writes under Ibaadullah. It means the angels, Muslims, jinn or men of unseen (i.e. Abdal). Then he writes:“This Hadith is Hassan and the travelers are in urgent need of it and this has been acted upon .” [Ref: Sharah Hisn ul-Hasin, Al-Hirz al-Thamin, p.378, by Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari, here.] In understanding of Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) Ibaadullah is inclusive of mentioned and implications of this is that helpers are from these when a believer says; O servants of Allah help/stop-it. I Said: These are the referrences I could easily find online. A comprehensive list of Imams, Muhaditheen, Mujtahideen, Mujadideen who have either acted or approved acting on this genre of Ahadith (i.e. O servants of Allah help) would at the very least amount to quarter of a century. He Said: Thanks for that. I will have read of these Ahadith and get back at you soon but before I leave I want to point out. Despite their grading is raised to Hassan/Good these Ahadith do not support your point of view because Hadith of Sahih Bukhari explains [help comes from the angels] and is factually the root of all these Ahadith. You can respond tomarrow I need to perform Fajr and sleep. Salam Alaykum. [He signed out after saying this and following content was mailed to him.] 18.1 - Acting According To Ijtihad And Not On Apparent Of Prophetic Instruction: [EMail.] I Said: Have read of the following Ahadith: “It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah who said: On the day he returned from the Battle of Ahzab, the Messenger of Allah made for us an announcement: ‘Nobody would say his Zuhr prayer but in the quarters of Banu Quraiza.’ (Some) people being afraid that the time for prayer would expire, said their prayers before reaching the street of Banu Quraiza. The others said: ‘We will not say our prayer except where the Messenger of Allah has ordered us to say it even if the time expires.’ When he learned of the difference in the view of the two groups of the people, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be tipon him) did not blame anyone from the two groups.” [Ref: Muslim, B19, H4374] I Said: Hadith of Bukhari has is about Asr prayer but its about same incident: “Narrated Ibn Umar: On the day of Al-Ahzab (battle) the Prophet said: "None of you Muslims should offer the `Asr prayer but at Banu Quraiza's place." The `Asr prayer became due for some of them on the way. Some of those said: "We will not offer it till we reach it, the place of Banu Quraiza," While some others said: "No, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet did not mean that for us." Later on It was mentioned to the Prophet and he did not berate any of the two groups.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H445] Please read the text of these Ahadith carefully. 18.2 - Understanding The Ahadith – Nobody Say Salah Except At Banu Quraiza: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave explicit instruction and despite this one group performed Salah while on the way to residence of Banu Quraiza and the other performed it when they reached the destination. One group held to literal instruction while other performed Ijtihad on the prophetic words. I Said: If I recall correctly I have heard/read that group which performed Ijtihad on prophetic statement reasoned that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) meant: Travel fast so none of you should have to perform your Salah but at residence of Banu Quraiza. Their understood that prophetic instruction was to travel quickly so that they reach Banu Quraiza before the time of Zuhr/Asr Salah. Understanding they have travelled at slower speed companions decided to perform Salah on the way. In their understanding companions had missed their target and saw no reason to miss the appointed prayer time. I Said: While other group held to literal apparent of prophetic instruction and refused to perform Salah on the way because they understood that instruction was to perform Salah at residence of Banu Quraiza [and not travelling fast to reach the destination]. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) approved the understanding of both groups of companions. This establishes it is correct to hold to apparent of the prophetic words and it is also correct to turn the prophetic words away from the apparent via plausible Taweel. 18.3 - Evidence For Slaves/Servants Of Allah Being Applied For Humans: I Said: Words Ibadullah literally means, servants/slaves of Allah, and this is inclusive angels, Jinn, and Bashr (i.e. human). In the following Ahadith angels/Jinns are part of slaves of Allah: “'Abdullah ibn 'Umar said, "When someone enters a house which is not lived in, he should say, 'Peace be upon the righteous slaves of Allah.'" [Ref: al-Adab al-Mufrad, B43, H1055, here] “Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that when one entered an unoccupied house, one should say, "Peace be upon us and on the slaves of Allah, who are salih.” [Ref: Muwatta Malik, Book 53, Hadith 1765, here] I Said: In the following Ahadith servants/slaves of Allah mentioned were human: “Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not hate one another nor contend with one another. Slaves of Allah, be brothers." [Ref: al-Adab al-Mufrad, B22, H400, here] “‘O slaves of Allah! Allah has only made harm in that which transgresses the honor of one’s brother. That is what is sinful.’ They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Is there any sin if we do not seek treatment?’ He said: ‘Seek treatment, O slaves of Allah, for Allah does not create any disease but He also creates with it the cure, except for old age.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Book 31, Hadith 3436, here] “Abu Rafi the freed slave of Allah's Messenger said: Allah's Messenger took as a loan (the rest of the hadith is the same), but with this variation that he (the Holy Prophet) said: Good amongst the servants of Allah is he who is best in paying off the debt.” [Ref: Muslim, B10, H3897, here] Linguistically both speaking phrase, servants/slaves of Allah, is inclusive of all three. I already quoted Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari saying Ibaadullah is inclusive of angels, Jinn, righteous servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “If the animal of someone runs loose in jungle, then he should say: “O Allah’s servants stop it.” He writes under Ibaadullah. It means the angels, Muslims, jinn or men of unseen (i.e. Abdal). Then he writes:“This Hadith is Hassan and the travelers are in urgent need of it and this has been acted upon .” [Ref: Sharah Hisn ul-Hasin, Al-Hirz al-Thamin, p.378, by Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari, here.] 18.4 - Takhsees Not Restricting Generality But For Purpose Of Illustration: I Said: You may say, slaves of Allah, has been explained as angels therefore only angels are intended. A generality (i.e. servants of Allah) cannot and does change into specific due to Takhsees. Ahadith say judgement will not be established until people worship idols al-Lat, al-Uzza. When questioned by Umm ul-Momineen whom said Quran says Islam is to dominate. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained domination of Islam will take place as much as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills and then a wind will blow that will take life of all those with spec worth of Iman and the remaining people will revert to religion of their fore-fathers, here. I Said: The last part of Hadith uses phrase religion of fore-fathers while explaining how/when the worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza will return. Should we interpret that only worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza will return, or the entire polytheistic religion of pre-Islamic era? If you say phrase religion of fore-fathers is means worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza only and nothing else; then what about Ahadith of Dhil al-Khilasah being worshipped by women of Bani Daus? Dhil al-Khilasah worship was also part of religion of polytheistic ancestors of Arabs but it is not mentioned in this Hadith but in following Hadith: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said: "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." Dhi-al-Khalasa was the idol of the Daus tribe which they used to worship in the Pre Islamic Period of ignorance.” [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H232] I Said: In conclusion phrase religion of fore-fathers is Mutliq and idols named in the Hadith (i.e. al-Lat, al-Uzza) are only examples but not a exhaustive list of those to be worshipped. If you say Mutliq remains Mutliq and specific names mentioned have to be understood as examples for purpose of illustration and not deemed as end of Mutliq then you have supported my mentioned position. I Said: You will question; what this has got to do with Hadith of servants/slaves of Allah? The phrase Ibadullah is Mutliq (i.e. general, inclusive of all) and excludes none. And when Mutliq statement is made and a related specific is used in context of it then specific is for purpose of illustration and it is not employed to restrict the generality of Mutliq. Implication of which is that specific mention of angels, dessert/jungle, type of problem, type of help needed all are mentioned to illustrate seeking of help but they are not details which limit the Hadith. Fundamentally Hadith instructs when is trouble of any sort seek help of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and it employs mentioned as illustrative guide: “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam ul-Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] I Said: Practice of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) establishes my interpretation: “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697] Note the Hadith says Imam (rahimullah) while on foot lost his way. He specificly stated the type of help he needed, O servants of Allah show me the way … He did not restrict it in context of jungle/dessert, or asked for help to find the riding animal, rather he directly sought help to find way while on foot. I Said: In short Takhsees is for illustrative purposes and not to restrict the generality of Mutliq wording of Hadith. And as such words Ibadullah (i.e. slaves of Allah) are inclusive of all, human, Jinn, angels and exclude none. I Said: And I have turned the prophetic words via Ijtihad from apparent toward generality which is inclusive of all slaves/servants. If you recall you said that Hadith of Tabarani [and like it] does not support my position because it is to be applied upon angels, and not humans. And this point of your has been refuted via this extensive explanation and I have established it can be turned from apparent via Ijtihad. And turning away from apparent is a practice which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed and did not condem after the Ikhtilaf of companions. [End of mail content.] 18.5 - Generality Of Ibadullah Is All Inclusive – Prophet And Companion Included: He Said: In the Hadith of slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not specify from whom the help is being sought. Yet you interpret this Hadith in context of Istighathah. So why so specific about Istighathah and what is your proof for this specification? I Said: (I) Generality of Hadith as indicated by words, servants/slave of Allah, is inclusive of living, souls of deceased Awliyah-Allah, angels, Jinn, humans. As such help being sought is inclusive of living/dead and these helpers can be from Prophets, Saints, human, Jinn, and angels. When all is inclusive according to the wording of Hadith and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not make Takhsees of phrase, servants/slaves of Allah, to living/dead, Nabi, Wali, Jinn, Malak (i.e. angel) then this itself is proof of all inclusivity including of deceased saints. I Said: (II) It is recorded in Hadith that a companion requested help of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when he was at his wives house in Madinah and companion was in Makkah: “Maymuna bint Harith, the blessed wife of Prophet (Peace be upon her) narrates: The Prophet (peace be upon him) was doing Wudhu for Tahajjud Salaah at the home of Hazrat Maimuna (radi Allahu anha). He suddenly called out three times, “Labbaik, Labbaik, Labbaik!” (Here I am) and “Nusirtu, Nusirtu, Nusirtu!” (I helped you). Hadhrat Maimuna (radhi Allaho anha) further asked him why he had called out those words”. He replied: “Raajiz (a sahabi from far) was calling me because Quraish wanted to kill him“ [Ref: Imam Tabarani in Mu’jam as-Sagheer, Volume 2, H968] This proves seeking help of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not just restricted to angels and living elite Awliyah-Allah but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is part of slaves/servants and able over help as well. I Said: (III) Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radiallah ta’ala anhu) instructed Sariyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to move toward the mountain even though the distance between then was of a months journey is also proof of this understanding. If I recall correctly this Hadith has been recorded in al-Bidayah Wan-Nihaya of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah), and in Kunz ul-Amal by Allamah Ala’u al-Din Muttaqi (rahimullah). This is Karamah of Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and proof that he was one of those Awliyah-Allah appointed as helper. I Said: (IV) And generally the following Hadith Qudsi is proof of supernatural powers of Awliyah-Allah: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said: "Allah said, 'I will declare war against him who shows hostility to a pious worshipper of Mine. And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection, I will protect him, and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him." [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509, here] Here the meaning is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granting His righteous servants supernatural (i.e. KaramatI) abilities associated with organs mentioned in Hadith. Therefore the Awliyah al-Kamileen can hear, see, hold/give, walk/travel which ordinary man/woman unable and can help as permitted and required. All this is proof that Ibadullah is not just angels but Anbiyah and Awliyah-Allah are part of it. 18.6 - Generality Inclusive Of All Persons, The, Inclusive Of All Types Of Calls: He Said: You said the words, servants/slaves of Allah, are inclusive of all type of servant/slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and none is excluded. Based on your logic would you agree that call of help is inclusive of general call of help and it is also inclusive of call of help in legal/Shar’i. I Said: You mean Dua in sense of worship? He Said: Yes! [What he was getting at is if MY principle is believed that Ibadullah is all inclusive then call of help is inclusive of all calls, including, call of worship so then call of worship can be directed toward creation as well.] I Said: I have clue where you were heading but I want you to say it. He Said: Based on your principle we can make direct Dua of worship toward Ibadullah. You cannot hold to the principle and reject my argument. If you let go of your principle you have eradicated entire foundation of your argument. What you going to do Brother Ali? Smile. I Said: You have prepared for this haven’t you? He Said: This quizzing has been ten years in the making. Should I assume you have conceded your position? I Said: I fight to the end. He Said: Fight on Brother but with evidence. Smile. I Said: There is no Haqiqi Takhsees of phrase, slaves of Allah, meaning Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not specify but slaves of Allah does have interpretative Takhsees. Meaning other verses of Quran/Ahadith can be employed to make Takhsees of generality; as an example: “Verily, your Wali (protector, helper) is none other than Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, - those who perform As-Salat (i.e. prayer), and give Zakat, and they are Raki'un (submitters in prostration).” [Ref: 5:55] I Said: His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and believers, and from believers Awliyah-Allah i.e. those who have been given Karamati abilities mentioned in Hadith Qudsi: “… and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil till I love him, so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection, I will protect him, and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him." [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H509, here] I going to abstain from detail … Jinn, and angels are also are included in slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: And this is the Takhsees I have been making. So a type of Takhsees is made. Takhsees of living/deceased is not made not in Quran, or Ahadith and therefore we hold to the generality which is inclusive of both. Simple reason is that be they living or deceased they do not escape ascription of being Ibadullah (i.e. servants of Allah). 18.7 - Call Of Worship Prohibited, Shirk Prohibited, Seeking Help Not Prohibited: He Said: That is not response to point I made. Brother Ali you just argued your earlier position. I Said: Wait a sec Brother. He Said: Smile. You write for two of us and you can’t tolerate two short sentences from me. I Said: Smile. That was funny and well timed. On serious note I was only laying foundation. He Said: OK! Proceed then. I Said: Just as words, Ibadullah, have a interpretative Takhsees the, call of help, has interpretative Takhsees. This implied Takhsees is on basis of Haram and Halal. Assosociating an Ilah as a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is prohibited/Shirk. Invoking Ilahs other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is prohibited/Shirk because it is worship. Therefore one is not permitted to call for help from Ibadullah with intention of worship and belief of Ilahiyyah. And because the complete message of Islam is in harmony with each other therefore call of help excludes call of help with belief and intention of worship. I Said: Also rule is anything not explicitly declared Haram, or Halal by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Mubah (i.e. permitted). And there is no EXPLICIT prohibition on calling souls of deceased slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore Istighathah is Mubah. He Said: In this context I would argue it is from Mutashabihat of Haram and Halal. I Said: Issue which is of major Shirk according to you how can it be issue of doubtful/unclear (i.e. Mutashabihat)? If it is issue of major Shirk then its not from Mutashabihat and if it is from Mutshahbihat then its not issue of major Shirk. He Said: Because there is no evidence for permissibility of Istighathah. 18.8 - Permissible Is On Which Allah Is Silent, Istighathah On Which Allah Is Silent: I Said: Brother permissibility isn’t based on existance of evidence and Mutashabihat-ness of something due to absence of evidence. Clear existance of evidence of Istighathah would establish it is Sunnah. And even though Sunnah would establish permissibility of Istighathah but it would have greater standing then merely permissible (i.e. Mubah). Sunnah establishes highiest degree of permissibility while Mubah via absence of proof of Haram is lowest of all permissibles. I Said: I have not said it is permissible because it is Sunnah but my argument is; there is no proof that Istighathah is Shirk; when practiced without beliefe of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship. And due to absence of proof of it being Shirk and Haram therefore it is permissible. I Said: Rule of Hadith is; all which is not Haram is Mubah (i.e. permissible). And we already discussed this in our first discussion. Hadith states: “And what Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns - it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the [stranded] traveler - so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you. And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” [Ref: 59:7] “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “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/excused.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] Istighathah Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has remained silent about therefore it is excused and He has allowed it due to His mercy. 18.9 - Salafi Brother Admits His Inability To By Pass Argument Of Belief And Intention: He Said: To be honest with you Brother Ali I am stuck. I need time to think about this whole issue. You have presented and argued your case very well. I see no way I can by-pass Ilahiyyah and intention point other then force it upon you. I Said: You can’t brute force a belief which I reject and do not affirm. And you accuse me of affirming a belief which you judged to be Shirk on basis of your own controversial/disputed principles. He Said: Yeah that’s what I mean. Can I argue my case and just side step quizzing you arrangement? I Said: You’re welcome but before you do. Do you acknowledge I have given you a satisfactory response to your point that call of worship would also be permitted if generality is all inclusive? He Said: You argued your point very well and I can’t argue with that. I Said: Jazakallah khayr. You can continue. 19.0 - Benefit/Harm With Allah Then Why Call Ones With No Control Over Benefit/Harm: He Said: In context of Tawheed please respond these. You agree harm and benefit is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? I Said: Yes in Haqiqi sense! He Said: Do you believe anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can harm and benefit? I Said: No not in Haqiqi sense! He Said: What about the saints can they benefit and harm? I Said: Not in Haqiqi sense of benefit and harm. He Said: I am glad we agree on this because this establishes prohibition of Istighahthah. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Say: "Shall we invoke instead of Allah that which neither benefits us nor harms us and be turned back on our heels after Allah has guided us? (We would then be) like one whom the devils enticed (to wander) upon the earth confused, (while) he has companions inviting him to guidance ...” [Ref: 6:71] In response to Quranic question I say we should not call to help what does not benefit and harm us especially when it is proven and acknowledged by you as well that only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) benefits and harms in Haqiqah (i.e. truth/reality). Therefore natural deduction of verse should be that we should not invoke anyone unable to benefit/harm including saints. I Said: So you’re employing my strategy against me but more overtly and rather well! He Said: Result of reading too much of your material I guess. Plus it is working because you’re co-operating and not being difficult. I Said: If I give expected/desired answer to your questions and it truly represents my belief then two things would happen: You will establish inconsistency in my belief/understanding of religion, or I will clarify my position in light of your criticism remove a misconception which you held about my belief. And both of these are win, win, for me and you so there is no reason to avoid giving an expected answer. He Said: Jazakallah Khayr. You can continue if you want to add something. 19.1 - Quoted Verse Is Regarding Those With No Power To Benefit And Harm: I Said: Before anything else I will deal with the verse which you quoted. (I) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Say: "Shall we invoke instead of Allah that which neither benefits us nor harms us and be turned back on our heels after Allah has guided us? (We would then be) like one whom the devils enticed (to wander) upon the earth confused, (while) he has companions inviting him to guidance ...” [Ref: 6:71] Phrase, shall we invoke (a’nad’u), is explained by another verse: “Say: "Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no (power of) harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the Hearing, the Knowing?" [Ref: 5:76] Act of invoking of verse 71 has been explained as invocation of worship in verse 76. And we both will agree that worship is of a Ma’bud/Ilah. Therefore the natural conclusion is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is saying: Say shall we the Muslims invoke in worship to a Mabud/Ilah which does not benefit us nor harm us? And this understanding is supported by another verse which I already employed in our first discussion while responding to verse 16:20/22. I quote again: “But they have taken besides Him gods which create nothing, while they are created, and possess not for themselves any harm or benefit and possess not (power to cause) death or life or resurrection.” [Ref: 25:3] So you cannot prohibit Istighathah based on this verse. You’re applying the Hukm of verse upon Muslims which was revealed for Mushrikeen and their gods. This is what the Khawarij did and you should not do. 19.2 - Idols Of Mushrikeen Were/Are Totally And Absolutely Benefit/Harmless: I Said: (II) You should have noted I stated in Haqiqi sense benefit and harm is from Allah (subhananu wa ta’ala). Creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is means of benefit and harm. You should ask Connor MacGregor benefit of keeping mouth shut and harm of running his mouth to Khabib NurMagomedov. If there was no benefit/harm from creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then why would the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instruct seeking assistance of Ibadullah in the Hadith we agree over: “… Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call “Assist (me) O slaves of Allah”’ [Ref: al-Bakhr ul-Zakhaar - al-Maroof - Musnad al-Bazzar, Volume 11, Msnd Ibn Abbas, H4922, Page181, here.] I Said: With living creation believed to be a Ilah/god, or just a ordinary man, there is certain benefit from them and certain harm from them. And therefore the verse cannot be about living beings; not humans, not souls of deceased, nor angels, nor other creatures. In short the verse you quoted is on about idol-gods of Mushrikeen and these idols cannot benefit like a living creation can nor harm as a living creature can. This verse is about idol-gods of Mushrikeen like proven earlier with support of verse Q25:3. In this context of idol-gods the asnwer to following should be no, absolutely not because they cannot and do not benefit and harm: “Say: "Shall we invoke instead of Allah that which neither benefits us nor harms us and be turned back on our heels after Allah has guided us?” [Ref: 6:71] 19.3 - Istighathah Is Mutashabih And It Means Its Neither Shirk, Nor Kufr, Nor Haram: I Said: I am going to ask something. He Said: ??? I Said: Did you try to prove Istighathah is from Mutashabihat, or Haram, or major Shirk? He Said: Good one! [He just has realized his position that Istighathah is Mutashabihat has undermined his original position that it is Shirk.] I Said: For the record, you said it’s from Mutashabihat. Yet evidence which you employed then its literalism would be arguing it is Haram. And if you employ, Q6:71, you’re trying to establish it is Shirk so it is definitely not Mutashabihat. Not Haram because no CLEAR evidence is against it and definitely not Shirk because those who believe in it and practice it do not affirm Ilahiyyah from whom the help is sought, do not believe in Haqiqi sense benefit/harm comes from creation, nor intend to worship therefore not Shirk. I Said: To spell out implications of all this; I established Istighathah is Shirk and Haram is erroneous. If it is Shirk/Haram then it cannot be from Mutshabhiat and if it is from Mutashabihat then it cannot be Shirk/Haram. Mere act of you declaring it Mutashabih is enough to nullify your claim that it is Shirk/Haram. He Said: What you mean its not Shirk/Haram! I Said: Mutashabih Hukm is for something which doesn’t have explicit Hukm in Quran/Sunnah of Haram/Halal. By you saying it is from Mutashabihat it is means even in your understanding there is no explicit evidence for it being Shirk/Kufr. He Said: Let me ask you something. 19.4 - Way Of Determining Something Haram And Shirk: He Said: For something to be Haram/Shirk is it must that it is declared Haram/Shirk explicitly? I Said: No not necesserily. He Said: How can something be Haram other then explicit mention? I Said: If a whole is composed of a part (i.e. Juzz) which is Haram then whole is Haram. Or Haram until that Haram Juzz is part of it. Example would be taking a mortage with agreement to pay interest. Mortage is Haram due to agreeing to pay interest and paying interest. If you take the Haram (i.e. interest) off mortage is Halal. He Said: So if I provide proof that a part of Istighathah is Haram then whole of it will be so? I Said: Yes but providing Haram part is clearly declared Haram in Islam and Haram is not implied by you. He Said: What about [major] Shirk? I Said: If Shirk is part of Istighathah then Shirk is established. He Said: Do you mean to say if Shirk is part of a belief/practice of Istighathah then Shirk has occurred? I Said: Yes! Would it be Haram in this case? I Said: Yes! 20.0 - Generality Permits Call Of Worship Therefore Generality Is Wrong: He Said: Would you say the call of help from saints is a Dua? I Said: Yes but this is not going to help your case. I know where this is heading. He Said: So you know the Hadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Dua is worship? I Said: Yes! We already discussed it. Smile. He Said: So why would not the Dua to a deceased saint be worship of saint? I Said: There is linguistic Dua and there is Shar’i Dua. Shar’i Dua directed toward a creation would result Shirk. Isitighathah is Dua in linguistic sense. He Said: You argued that, slaves of Allah, has no Takhsees of living/deceased, or of angel, Jinn, human therefore all are part of it. Here too [for Dua] there is no Takhsees of Shar’i and linguistic call. As per your logic both would be inlcuded and permissible therefore Istighathah would lead to Shirk. So I purpose you acnolwedge your error of holding to generality of Ibadullah and return to Takhsees of angels. Or acknowledge that call made to saints is of worship. 20.1 - Principle Genesis Mutliq All Inclusive Until It Contradicts Islamic Teachings: I Said: Logic would dictate call of worship is included in Hadith of Ibadullah. In my case nothing of Quran/Sunnah is contradicting [my position that Ibadullah is without Takhsees and all inclusive] but foundation of your argument contradicts established verse [to be quoted]. And it is a verse I believe we already talked about. He Said: I can’t remember discussing a verse. I Said: No, not this time but during our first discussion. He Said: OK. I Said: Shall I continue with my argument? He Said: You said my interpretation contradicts verse therefore it is invalid. Istighathah is Shirk according to evidence of Quran and Sunnah therefore your all inclusive interpretation of, O servants of Allah help, is invalid also. I Said: First of all that’s a contended issue in support of which you have no evidence. There is no verse or Hadith stating Istighathah bi-ghayr affirmation of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship is worship, or Shirk. Your interpretation contradicts clear text of Quranic Ayah. If you provide me clear text [of Quran and Sunnah establishing Ibadullah is just angels and not inclusive of all others] as I would provide evidence to you then I would concede point. He Said: OK. I Said: Shall I continue? He Said: Go on Brother. 20.2 - Quranic Evidence Which Contradicts Salafi Brothers Understanding: I Said: You employed my principle but interpretation which you derived contradicts following verses: “(Remember) when you (fled and) climbed (the mountain) without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind. So Allah repaid you with distress upon distress ...” [Ref: 3:153] Verse says yad’ukum (i.e. calling you) and my limited Arabic it is derivative of Du’a and if not then its definitely related to it in linguistic meaning, here. I Said: “Do not make (your) calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment.” [Ref: 24:63] There are four interpretations, (I) do not call as you call one another, (II) do not deem supplication of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as supplication of each other, (III) when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) generally calls you do not consider it unimportant to respond immediately like you do to each other, (iv) and lastly do not consider Prophet Muhammad calling you to Islam as you would deem the call of one another (i.e. unimportant). 20.3 - Salafi Brother Questioning Two Of My Interpretations: I Said: In all these interpretations Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being called by Muslims, or he is calling others. If Dua Mutliqan is worship, that is to say every Dua is worship, then according to the verse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was either worshiping creation, or the best of Ummah was worshiping him. If you need evidence for any of interpretations let me know. He Said: I believe your third and fourth interpretations are suprious in my understanding but I am not contesting. I am not saying they are wrong but I have not read a Tafsir giving this interpretation nor I know of evidence for them. I Said: Shall I back it up. He Said: It will divert the discussion. I Said: I think its better its confirmed before we move on because it might resurface and then we will have to bang heads again. He Said: Diversion … Be it on your wisdom. Smile. I Said: I am satisfied with playing the fool. He Said: Smile. Just to let you know I understood that. I Said: That’s two of us who understood each other then. Anyhow I am going to get back to issue at hand. He Said: OK! 20.4 - Evidence For Third Tafsir – Don’t Deem Unimportant Respond To Prophet: I Said: It is narrated in a Hadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) called a companion Abu Sa’id. Companion was performing Salah and he did not answer the call and when he attended he said I was performing Salah. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed him that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has already revealed a verse in which He has instruced believers to respond to call of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when he call them: “Narrated Abu Sa`id bin Al-Mu'alla: While I was praying in the Mosque Allah's Messenger called me but I did not respond to him. Later I said: "O Allah's Messenger! I was praying." He said: "Didn't Allah say: "Give your response to Allah (by obeying Him) and to His Apostle when he calls you." (8:24) He then said to I Said:…” [Ref: Bukhari, B65, H4474] He Said: How is this evidence for your Tafsir? I Said: It is because companion didn’t think Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was important enough to respond to. He thought Salah was more important then answering the call of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) disapproved of this. 20.5 - Evidence Of Fourth Tafsir – Do Not Deem Prophet’s Calling As Of Each Other: I Said: Fourth Tafsir is supported by: “O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.” [Ref: 8:24] And it is supported by following: "For those who have responded to their Lord is the best (reward), but those who did not respond to Him. If they had all that is in the earth entirely and the like of it with it, they would (attempt to) ransom themselves thereby. Those will have the worst account, and their refuge is Hell, ..." [Ref: 13:18/19] Do note that in verse, Q8:24, answering to call of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger is mentioned, but in “ … when he calls you to that …” singular he is used. This indicates call of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is one and same therefore in verse 13:18, “… but those who did not respond to Him.” is inclusive of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 20.6 - General Chit Chat And Principle Of Mutliq Is All Inclusive: He Said: You said you don’t know Arabic? I Said: I don’t but I do know some principles of grammar even though I don’t know Arabic. He Said: I find it hard to believe you’re not a Shaykh though. I Said: I find it hard to believe too. I been studying Deen for roughly 20 years and I am still a Noob. Had I taken the right approach I would have been an Aalim by now and Mufti on seat of Ifta but here I am a nobody sitting on worn out computer chair of no standing. He Said: That was funny! Thanks for supporting evidence. Shall we get back to Dua? I Said: So you still sticking with Dua of all types being worship? He Said: I actually didn’t believe it. I was trying to utalize your principle to corner you. I Said: Did you then? He Said: I am not admitting anything. Smile. I know this is going on your forum. I Said: It definitely will be. Smile. You said, you didn’t believe it in the argument to begin with. Then why advance it? He Said: To refute your principle Mutliq is inclusive of all until it contradicts [Quranic, Prophetic, and Ijmahi teachings]. I Said: Aaaaah! I was wondering why you’re arguing this because your Arabic is way better then mine. You’re Arab right? No. Indian! I lived in Saudi Arabia for about five years. I Said: OK! Shall I give evidence for my principle? He Said: You ain’t gona attempt to justify it? I Said: If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills it will be established. He Said: You can’t be serious. 20.7 - Evidence Of General Is Inclusive Of All Until Otherwise Is Proven: I Said: I have two evidences which indicate Mutliq is all inclusive until contradiction. He Said: Well lets have it then. I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) quoted the companion Abu Sa’id Ibn Mu’alla following verse when he did not respond to his call: “O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.” [Ref: 8:24] There is no explicit mention of responding to him during Salah but he employed it to inform the companion that he should have answered the call even during Salah. This proves that Hukm to answer the call of Prophet includes answering all of his calls and Muslim should respond to all his calls whatever state he is in including Salah. I Said: Another Hadith establishes principle of generality is all inclusive: “Umar bin Al-Khattab said: "I went to the Prophet and said: 'Aren't you truly the Messenger of Allah?' The Prophet said: 'Yes, indeed.' I said: 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?' He said: 'Yes.' I said: 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said: 'I am Allah's Messenger, and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.' I said: 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka`ba this year?' I said: 'No.' He said: 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B50, H891] The Hadith reveals Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed the companions they will perform Tawaf. When it did not materialize Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was unhappy so he questioned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about it and he said I did not say you will perform Tawaf around Kabah this year. 20.8 - Evidence Establishes General Is All Inclusive Except Proven Otherwise: I Said: By the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) it was assumed the Tawaf is to be performed this year but when questioned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not specify when it was to occur. In this context we conclude generality is inclusive of all possibilities unless a particular is negated. In context of the event Tawaf around Kabah on the same year was negated. And note after being questioned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not specify which year Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and companions will perform Tawaf and who will perform it: “He said: 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it.” He Said: Does your last point prove generality can be inclusive [of all] and exclusive [of some]? I Said: I will have to modify the rule to fit the new point. He Said: Smile. I can say you’re changing goal posts? I Said: I don’t need to change goal posts because my goal keeping skills are good enough to keep you from scoring any goal except allowed by Quran/Sunnah. He Said: Moving on. I Said: Earlier principle was; Mutliq encompasses all in itself until a specific contradicts it. I want to revise that, or you can say I want to add another principle; mutliq is all encompassing unless exclusions are established. 20.9 - Changing Goal Post Is Not Changing Goal Post: He Said: How is that any different to the previous one? I Said: First one was in context of Dua verses contradicting your interpretation hence, contradiction, and this [new] one is tailored for the Hadith. It is very likely after treaty of Hudaibiyyah some companions died and they did not get to perform Tawaf. So if it was established a companion died after taking part in march toward Makkah then he was excluded and not included. He Said: You were revising the principle to better fit into historical context? I Said: Precisely! And therefore generality is all inclusive until exclusion is established. He Said: I can agree with your principle but it is not rigoursly established. Its just backed by couple of evidences with generous dollop of assumption? I Said: Assumption? There was/is no assumption. He Said: I mean assumption that no evidence contradicts what you argued and assumption that it is proven by other evidences. Anyway how did we get here? I cannot recall what prompted this discussion. I Said: To be honest I cannot either. Smile. He Said: In that case I will call it a night. Send me an E-Mail copy of this discussion. Smile. I know your saving it. I Said: Sure I am. 20.10 - A Recapture Of The Earlier Discussion And Goal Post Changing Charge: He Said: The genesis principle was when you argued Hadith of slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is inclusive of living, dead, far, near, because there are no exceptions made. He Said: Did you read on it? I Said: Yeah sure I did but my account is slightly different. He Said: OK! I am sure it was. I Said: I argued, slaves/servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), is all inclusive, living, deceased, far, near, human, angel, Jinn, Nabi, and Wali etc. Then you made argument via Dua Hadith; Dua is worship; this indicates all form of Dua is worship therefore if your principle is correct then calling upon deceased Shaykh would be Shirk. I argued not every Dua is worship and your interpretation contradicts clear evidence. I then revised my principle; generality is all inclusive until it contradicts an Islamic teaching. While trying to establish the principle I employed Hadith of Hudaibiyyah and Ayat of Prophet’s call has to be answered to prove not every Dua is worship. And I further revised the principle in light of new evidence to; generality is all encompassing unless exemptions are established with evidence. He Said: OK! That is fine too but just bit more detailed. Based on your account it would be correct to say you have been changing goal posts by rewising principle. Smile! I Said: No! He Said: Right now you’re behaving like a typical Barelvi. Come on you got to concede this one. 20.11 - Reasoning How And Why Principles Were Revised, And Not Changing Posts: I Said: There is two type of changing goal posts. One is where a defense has been by-passed by attacker and defender makes new wall. Another is defender’s first defensive wall stands and also builds new defensive wall. He Said: I understood this but can you write less cryptically! It’s irritating because I have to assume you meant this, or that. I Said: In simples, Tafsir of a verse changes depending upon what evidence it is coupled with. Verse of straight path of Surah Fatihah when coupled with, Q3:51, then it is worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and according to other evidences straight path is path of Islam. Would you say I am changing goal posts? He Said: This is Tafsir. I Said: Even though I have interpreted the verse in two different ways in light of coupled evidence you agree straight path is both? He Said: Yes! I Said: I revised the principles in light of coupled evidence just as I revised the understanding of straight path in light of evidence. In other words the original principle is absolutely correct in light of evidence which supported it. So even though you may deem the two following principles as new I deem them to be Tafseel of first. 20.12 - Making Sense Of Why Principle Was Changed And How It Works: He Said: Smile! What you’re saying makes no sense. How can that be brother Ali? They are revised but new. I agree with that they resulted in light of criticism and new evidence but to say they are Tafseel of original don’t make sense to me. I Said: Well look at it from this perspective. Hadith records, every novelty is innovation, … and to end of Hadith. Is Sahih Bukhari an innovation? And does it take to hell? You will agree to saying no, no, for both questions. So we make a new rule; every novelty composed of prophetic Sunnah is not a novelty and not an innovation mentioned in Hadith of innovation. So even though this is a new principle but it allows correct understanding of original principle in Hadith. So even though my principles were revisions and you can say new but they helped correct understanding of original principle. He Said: I liked the way you explained this. Smile. I Said: Can we not argue over tangents and discuss the meat of matter! He Said: OK. 20.13 - Salafi Brother Admits Mutliq Is All Inclusive Except When Contradicts Islam: I Said: Do you agree with my principle, generality is all inclusive until contradiction and exclusions are established? And that words of Hadith, slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), includes all slaves (i.e. living/deceased). If you do then technically this implies you concede Istighathah is permissible. He Said: It would be permissible if there was evidence for it. I Said: Brother … He Said: You presented two Tafasir of phrase sirat al-mustaqeem and you supported them with evidence. It can be many things because it is not defined but each specification requires evidence. Otherwise it is Qiyas. Similarly your interpretation of, slave of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), includes living/deceased but there is no evidence from Quran and Hadith for specification of deceased saints. So how can it be permissible and correct? I Said: Brother we will get to permissibility part in a bit because we have already discussed this in our first discussion but I am happy to discuss this time around as well but need to nip the Mutaliq, Muqayyid discussion in the bud. Forget I said Istighathah is permissible and back track our discussion to Mutliq, Muqayyid/Makhsoos. Do you agree Mutliq/General is all inclusive until something is negated via Quranic and Sunnah evidence? He Said: Yes! I Said: I will recap the discussion briefly as possible. [He decided to leave and following was sent to him via mail.] 20.14 - Istighathah Is Permissible Because Living/Deceased Awliyah Are Ibadullah: [EMail.]I Said: I had argued, slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), is all inclusive of living, dead, angel, Jinn, human, Nabi, Wali. You rejected Mutliq being all inclusive and consquently all of mentioned being included in slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Instead you said slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is only referring to angels. After you argued my principle would legitimize directing call of worship to Ibadullah I went on to add clauses to faciliate correct understanding of Mutliq is all inclusive. Out come was Mutliq is all inclusive of which is in agreement with Quranic and Prophetic teaching. And all that contradicts these is rejected. Through further discussion we included another rule, Mutliq is all inclusive unless something is contradicted [historical happening, or Islamic teaching]. Finally we have come to stage where you have accepted the principle. In this light I have established how and why, slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), is inclusive of Awliyah, Anbiyah, angels, Jinn, living and deceased, far, near, all other Islamicly valid possibilities. And therefore seeking help of any slave of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), be they far/near, or alive/deceased is permissible. Note you acknowledge Hadith is Hassan li-ghayrihi because it has substantiating basis in Hadith of Bukhari. [End of EMail.] 20.15 - Let Allah Choose Slave To Provide Help, And Not Define Person Yourself:: He Said: Brother Ali, I agree that Mutliq is all inclusive except when it contradicts Islamic teachings, and I agree that slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is also a Mutliq. You said something while back which really effected me and ever since every Dua of guidance has been in accordance with it. You said when you recite Surah Fatihah you invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asking to be upon straight path, path of favoured. You said you emphasize that you wish to be upon path of favoured persons known to Him. And you don’t define path of favoured in your Duas. Remember! I Said: I do. He Said: Good! When you don’t specify who the favoured ones are in your Duas (i.e. you don’t say, O Allah guide me upon path of so and so Shaykh) then why do you insist on making Takhsees of Ibadullah to mean all and specific? Why don’t you let Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) decide who the helper, Ibadullah, is and not ask anyone specific? Would it not be better to leave that Takhsees be and let Him choose His helper. I Said: That is a very good and brilliant point and I am glad you made it. He Said: Smile. Are you? I Said: My practice VS permissibility. You’re aware that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told that even seek shoelace from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but we have so many Ahadith in which companions seek help of each other and help each other. One is HIGHER degree of practice and other is LOWER degree of practice. Higher degree of practice, Imam Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu), lower degree of practice of Islamic teaching, those who pledged allegiance to Yazid (lanahumullah) and did nothing to remove a Fasiq from power. There are degrees of practice and in higher degree of practice of Tawheed, there is only seeking from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), absolutely everything from Him, and nothing from His creation. 20.16 - Personal Practice VS Islamic Permissibility: I Said: You recite Surah Fatihah and I am confident you know Arabic good enough to understand it without translation. You say in Surah Fatihah, your aid we seek, do you really? Yes you do, but in every case? No! I Said: Brother can you help me lift this: It’s too heavey for one person. Even though we say we seek His help we sometimes seek help of His creation. One practicing higher degree of Tawheed, he seeks help of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), only. Not only that, you also DEFINE the type of help you want from Him. He didn’t make Takhsees in the verse which type of help you seek from Him but you do. O Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! My house is about to get repossessed by mortaged company. Help Me –eee- eee -eeeee? O Lo-o-o-ooord save my house and me! He Said: That was just hilarious. You’re funny brother. It would be fun meeting you. I Said: You make Takhsees of help you want from general permission. He Said: I get the point brother Ali. 20.17 - Why EstablishPermissibility, And Why Establish It Not Shirk: I Said: There is practice and there is permissibility. You can practice all permissible even of low degree permissible, and higher degree of permissible. You can also leave low degree for higher degree. I am not interested in promoting Istighathah, nor encouraging you to practice Istighathah. It is understandable that when I argue for permissibility it naturally gives impression I want it to be practiced. And of course if permissibility is established and it does not warrant sin then some will practice it but my motive isn’t to promote it. I Said: My objective are two and by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for nothing else. (I) To defend Islam and Eman of Muslims: This includes both sides, Salafis [the Takfir makers] and Sunnis [the target of Salafi Takfir, murder, and pillage]. (II) And to stand up for correct understanding of Tawheed, Shirk, and correct methodology of determing Shirk. I Said: You/I engage in Istighathah or not was never and is never my objective. My argument that Takhsees of, Ibadullah, includes deceased souls of Awliyah-Allah, is purely to defend Islam of Muslims. And to prevent you nullifying Iman and Islam of others and of yourself. You’re aware invalid Takfir returns. And note even if permissibility isn’t established even then Istighathah isn’t Shirk because it requires affirmation of belief of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship when call of help is made. Absence of this still invalidates your sides Takfir and warrants it return upon those who issue it. He Said: May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you for your noble and good intentions. I Said: And you, ameen. 21.0 - Help Sought And Expected Is From Creation, And Not From Allah: He Said: Those who seek help of deceased they ask help from deceased and believe the help to come is from deceased person therefore it is Shirk. I Said: Did you hear anyone actually say that? He Said: Both my parent are Barelwi and I too was a Barelwi. When I went to Saudi Arabia for work I changed during my stay there and became Salafi. So I know what people believe. I even asked my mother where does the help come from when you say, Ya Ali Madad, and she even said from Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu). 21.1 - Straightening The Bent Understanding Of Tawheed: I Said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cures or medicine? The angel who distributes Rizq gives you Rizq or the one whose command angel of Rizq is carrying out, or the guy who gives you slice of bread three times a day for your entire life? Angel of death takes life or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) whom has granted him this position to do His bidding? Answers to these questions are difficult for those who make them issue of, A or B. I Said: The correct understanding is answer is A and B. Anything associated with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is in Haqiqi meaning and with His creation is in Majaz. In reality/Haqiqat everything is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His creation is means of receiving what He has intended to grant. As Muslims we attribute death of loved one in Haqiqi sense to be an act of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The cure is attributed to medicine and not to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Muslims say: I got better with X medicine, it worked for me. I Said: This is not to say they believe cure is not from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) rather linguistic culture has developed as such that cure is attributed to medicine. Yet reality is that a Muslim believes cure is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), death is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), medicine, and angel of death etc are just His ways of enacting His will. I Said: Zaid grants loaf of bread. Ali believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted it through Zaid. When angel of death takes life, it is by His command. And righteous servants/slaves whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) appointed for help provides help bi-iznillahi ta’ala (i.e. with permission of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala), and with Qudrah granted to them by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And their actions of help because are fullfillment of will/wish of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore the help they provide in Haqiqi sense is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Brother reality is you’re distorting words of people to justify your own Takfir. What your mother said is Majaz and apparent, like medicine cured me. And it is not said to negate help/cure is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 21.2 - Evil Of Salafi Methodology Of Determining Tawheed And Shirk: He Said: Brother Ali you’re giving general examples of things which even we agree with you and then you tactfully connect these principles with Istighahtha. I Said: I explained to you the Usool, I established a standard, and then employed this Usool/standard in specific contexts to explain it. It makes no difference what examples I employed to justify the Asool but when Asool is established then it can be applied to all relevent. I Said: The principle established was that help, cure, Rizq, life, death, health, wealth, and everything else comes from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And some we directly affirm as acts of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and others we attribute to as acts of His creation. Even about them we believe, the needed object, power, ability, permission has come from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and His creation is only means of providing what He willed, and allowed, and has granted in actuality. So your charge of Shirk is invalid. Can I ask you something? He Said: Could I stop you before? I Said: If this understanding was in regards to seeking of help from a living person would this understand establish Tawheed or Shirk? He Said: Tawheed. I Said: So you’re nullifying Tawheed of this understanding because help from deceased was sought? Ask the living with these principles then they establish Tawheed but ask the dead with same principles its Shirk. I Said: Tawheed doesn’t become Shirk on account of help being sought from living/dead. Ask living for help its not worship, but ask the dead its worship. Ask the living with Tawheedi understanding and its not worship but ask the deceased with exactly same Tawheedi understanding and its worship of deceased. This is not judging Tawheed on affirmation of explicit Ilahiyyah or implied Ilahiyyah but it is Tawheed/Shirk on state of living/dead. I Said: This was/is, and will never be criteria of determining Tawheed and Shirk. This is an evil innovation and I dare say Kufri innovation from Salafis. He Said: How can you say our [Wahhabi] principles are Kufr Brother Ali! I understand you do not agree with our principles but to say Kufr don’t you think this is bit excessive. I Said: Smile. Your side thinks, excess, nahhh … I didn’t read properly. Smile. Let me read again. He Said: Smile. I Said: It is Kufr in my judgment. He Said: Evidence? I Said I can reason its Kufr-ness but there is no explicit evidence. He Said: Let’s see what you have then. I Said: It’s Kufr because it distorts Tawheed/Shirk. He Said: Brother Ali obviously I am not understanding in what capacity this would be that’s why I want to see the justification. I Said: I will begin with some questions then. 21.3 - Wahhabi Claim Istighathah Negates Tawheed Rububiyyah And Asma/Sifaat: I Said: On what basis do you judge Istighathah is Shirk? He Said: Calling upon other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Would it be correct to say that your justification is on basis of calling upon other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is worship? He Said: Correct! I Said: Not the answer I was expecting. He Said: This is what I believe. I Said: Brother I know that but this is not the only route of Shirk in your belief. Is practioner of Istighathah guilty of Shirk of Rububiyyah and Asma Wal Sifaat? He Said: Would be guilty of Shirk Rububiyyah but not Asma Wal Sifaat. I Said: Think about it this way: Asma (i.e. names) Rabb is Ism (i.e. name). And to comply with requirements of Rububiyyah certain obvious Sifaat are required, hearing, seeing, at minimum. Shirk of Rububiyyah is by default inclusive of Asma and Sifaat. He Said: Yes, I am fine with that. I assumed you meant entirety of Asma and Sifaat. I Said: We have agreement partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is made in Rububiyyah and some Asma Wal Sifaat due to practice of Istighathah? He Said: Agreed! 21.4 - Help Sought From Far, Supernatural, And Dead, Is Shirk: I Said: I want to present some situation and I want your verdicts on them. He Said: OK! I Said: For now I want to focus on just two attributes. I Said: (I) If someone seeks help via Istighathah then is Tawheed of Asma Wal Sifaat negated: Specifically Tawheed of Seeing/Hearing? He Said: Yes it is Shirk. I Said: (II) Amr is in Pakistan and Zayd is in Makkah performing Umrah. Amr believes Zayd can hear his call and when Amr gets attacked by angry Wahhabis. Amr says, O Shaykh Zayd help me, save me Shaykh Zayd, or else they will kill me. In this context of help being sought from, FAR, question is: Seeking help of one who is, FAR, and cannot hear call naturally, is Amr guilty of Shirk or not? He Said: In this context, FAR, points toward belief that Amr believes Zayd possess supernatural ability of hearing/seeing and this is Shirk. I Said: Why is it Shirk? He Said: Hearing/Seeing events taking place in FAR distances, especially, one you mentioned, proved Amr believes Zayd possesses supernatural ability of hearing/seeing. Only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hears supernaturally and sees supernaturally. I Said: In your understanding Amr made Zayd partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His supernatural all-Hearing/all-Seeing? He Said: Yes, he did and that’s why it’s Shirk. I Said: Thanks. Just one more question. To my first question you answered it is Shirk; would it correct to say the reasons of it being Shirk are same to answers of question two? He Said: Yes. I Said: In conclusion, help sought from far, dead, and via supernatural means is Shirk. He Said: True. I Said: My response will get bit excessive so I will EMail the response. 21.5 - Hadith Of Raajiz Refuting Far Equals Shirk: [EMail.] I Said: From what you said it can be deduced, expecting one who is far to hear the call is Shirk, but following Hadith completely refutes your methodology: “Maymuna bint Harith, the blessed wife of Prophet (Peace be upon her) narrates: The Prophet (Peace be upon him) was doing Wudhu for Tahajjud Salaah at the home of Hazrat Maimuna (radi Allahu anha). He suddenly called out three times, “Labbaik, Labbaik, Labbaik!” (Here I am) and “Nusirtu, Nusirtu, Nusirtu!” (I helped you). Hadhrat Maimuna (Radhi Allaho anha) further asked him why he had called out those words”. He replied: “Raajiz (a sahabi from far) was calling me because Quraish wanted to kill him“ [Ref: Imam Tabarani in Mu’jam as-Sagheer, Volume 2, H968] Companion in Makkah called out Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for help and from Madinah Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) helped him to safety. If call of, FAR, implied your understanding, or negatively effected Tawheed then this Hadith wouldn’t have existed. Even IF it is, Mawdu, it wouldn’t be narrated if Tawheed was being negatively effected by it. Therefore, FAR, has got nothing to do with Tawheed/Shirk. 21.6 - If Far Is Unique For Allah, So Is Near Unique For Allah: I Said: You said calling of one who is, FAR, warrants Shirk in Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In your belief Hearing/Seeing, FAR, is unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And one who is called, FAR, has given right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to His creation. We will get to, FAR, in a bit but let me get to, NEAR, because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Hearing/Seeing of, NEAR, is also established. There is nothing like Him. And there is none like Him in His Hearing/Seeing of NEAR. If, FAR, is Shirk then, NEAR, is also Shirk because it is also Unique for Him. You might think I am talking rubbish but hear me out. Do you hear everything near you? What about your sound of blood flow, sound of cell movement, sound of electrical charges set in your brain. The Satan with you flowing like blood. Angels writing your deeds. Vibrations of atoms … ZzzZzzz. So hear of near is unique to Him as well. You hear near, you believe one near you can hear you, you made him equal with Him, you’re Mushrik. You know according to how you employ your methodology, OUR, hearing of near is Shirk therefore your principle saying hearing of near is Tawheed cannot be correct. 21.7 - Hearing Of Near Is Of Few Things Therefore Not Shirk: I Said: You believe hearing of near is accordance with Tawheed and therefore you won’t accept otherwise. You likely will say, but I only hear few things of near that’s why it is not Shirk. In that case one who asks help via Istighathah does not believe Wali hears/sees from eternity, to absolutely everything happening in the universe, he doesn’t believe Wali hears blood flow, electrical dischanges in brain, movement of blood cells, communications of white blood cells with each other, he too just believes: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted His Servant special powers to hear calls of help of His sevants in distress. He doesn’t believe the Wali hears every single wave that crashes on shore, or every other noise he too just believes in limited hearing of calls of help. If hearing few sounds of, NEAR, doesn’t result believer negating Tawheed then how does hearing few sounds of, FAR, invalidate Tawheed. His uniqueness is HEARING/SEEING absolutely everything of FAR/NEAR. And this is not negated in this practice of Istighathah, nor your calling someone near you. 21.8 - Establishing Why Wahhabi Methodology Of Determining Shirk Is Kufr: I Said: (I) In your Salafism, FAR, is domain of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and, FAR, is domain of Shirk. If seeing/hearing of, FAR, is affirmed for any creation you deem it Shirk because you believe by affirming hearing/seeing of, FAR, creation has been made equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This establishes Salafis judge Shirk on superficial apparent equality and this means according to your side Tawheed/uniqueness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is superficial uniqueness. Evidence establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw and heard, supernatural FAR, of Hell/Paradise. Therefore your Tawheed/uniqueness is something which is true for His creation too. It is Kufr because something is not unique to Him is deemed unique for Him. What creation shares with Him is believed to be unique to Him. Ascribing uniqueness to what is true for creation is Kufr. And worse Kufr when creation’s quality/attribute is ascribed to Creator while believing it is unique to Him because it makes Him like His creation. And in this context how can YOUR SUPERFICIAL UNIQUENESS of, FAR, not be Kufr? I Said: (II) With regards to, NEAR, you believe it is not unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but creation hears/sees according to means therefore not Shirk. Yet I/you, both know, NEAR, is just as much as unique to Him as is, FAR. And not considering His hearing/seeing of, NEAR, as unique to Him - how can it not be Kufr for one who believes it is not unique for Him? And if we judge by your superficial uniquness/equality standard then we’re His Shareek in, NEAR, therefore His equals/rivals. How can believing we are His rivals/equals in, NEAR, not be Kufr/Shirk? I Said: (III) You see Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), companions, and those who followed them did not divide Shirk/Tawheed and judge these on basis of far and near. He did not say His hearing/seeing of far is unique to Him and near is not. We believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in all of His attributes is completely/perfectly unique. None in creation is His rival. Not in hearing/seeing of far, nor of near. Wahhabi division of FAR/NEAR makes it indirectly/implicitly insinuates NEAR is not unique to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And proof is that no Fatwah from Wahhabi side has been issued declaring Muslims to be Mushrik because they are calling people in hearing distance to help. So this division of FAR/NEAR is faulty. To judge Tawheed on basis of NEAR and Shirk on basis of FAR indicates there we are legitimate partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in NEAR realm. And we Muslims believe as creations of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) we do not have 50% parity with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in one, or more, or all attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And I am sure neither do the Wahhabis believe in this 50% equality which would be warranted if FAR/NEAR are true criterias of determining Shirk/Tawheed. I Said: Your principles are wonky and produce wonky results. This FAR/NEAR, and this Teht al-Asbab/Fauq al-Asbab, and this LIVING/DEAD, and this ABLE/UNABLE, all have nothing to do with determining Tawheed/Shirk. You should learn proper understanding of Tawheed and Shirk. And Ahlus Sunnah’s principle methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk then you will be able to determine Tawheed/Shirk correctly when obvious Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah isn’t affirmed. [End of mail.] 21.9 - Finally I Broke Salafi Brother: He Said: Brother Ali, clearly your understanding of subject of Tawheed/Shirk, Salafi methodology of determining Shirk/Tawheed, is on a level I cannot seem to contest much. The way you broke FAR, NEAR (or in other words Teht al-Asbab, Fauq al-Asbab) proves to me you’re very well versed on this topic. I Said: Quite some time ago you agreed with me that you judge Shirk on superficial basis yet despite this admission and agreeing that Twinship is true equality which establishes Shirk you’re still stuck on superficial equality and judge Shirk on superficial basis. I advise you study our methodology of determining Shirk. He Said: How you made FAR, NEAR unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I have not thought about it like this. This was wake-up call. I didn’t even believe it was unique for Him. I am ashamed to admit: You have made me realize I didn’t have fuller understanding of Tawheed. I Said: Brother I am familiar with Tawheed understanding of Salafis. I have known this fact very long ago. I could have told you thousand time your understanding of Tawheed is lacking would you have believed me? Not a bloody chance. Self realization is the key not me telling you. And to do that I have gone to lengths. Where ever possible and needed I even explained our methodology and how it was applied. All this so you understand our methodology can relate to it. 22.20 - Wind Of Change Is Here, A New Leaf, A New Beginning: He Said: Is there a book explaining methodology of your side. I Said: Methodology of determining major Shirk? He Said: Yes! I Said: Nope! He Said: That didn’t surprise me. I never could find a decent book from your side on subject of Tawheed. Smile. I Said: We don’t have petro-dollar support, brother. He Said: I don’t think petro-dollars would have helped your side. Your side academicly has been lacking and definitely in printing press. I Said: I won’t say academicly lacking but printing power is not on par of your side. And I don’t think its due lack of wealth. Wealth obstacle can be overcome. The grease which makes engine of Tableegh work efficiently and effectively is zeal and sincerity for the cause of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). My side has been bugged down by laziness and Tasawwuf. I Said: Half of Sunnis don’t want to know religion until they are about to enter grave (i.e. in later part of their life) and some young-ones when they get into Deen then are nabbed by Sufism. Not saying its bad. Its great for self-improvement and Ibadah. These few young-ones are then pushed into voluntary Ibadaat. Its good for individuals engaged in this activity but leaves no one to study disputed issues produce literature and guard the boundaries of Jammah. Result is what you see; Salafis less then ten percent of total Muslim population, I am just assuming, produce sixty percent of literature and world class public speakers. And my side even though over-whelming majority cannot compete with this ten percent. Sad state of affairs but true. He Said: I think you’re missing the true picture. Actual reason is: Truth has come and falsehood has perished. Falsehood is destined to perish. Smile. I Said: Truth indeed came and remains but foolish said it had perished and none in the land of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew meaning of la ilaha il-Allah except we the Khawarij from Najd. He Said: Calm down Brother Ali. Smile. It was just attempting to wind you up. Smile. So no book? I Said: I don’t know English books on the topic. In fact not even in Urdu but I have produced some material but I will have search the links. So I am going to take leave. I will be back in few hours.

Introduction: Istighathah is name given to practice of asking deceased Awliyah-Allah to help you either directly through aid of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or asking for them to help with intention deceased Wali-Allah would intercede for you in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) via a supplication and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would send aid through means of His choosing. It is a controversial subject and often hotly debated between members of Ahlus Sunnah and Wahhabis and those influenced by Wahhabism. 0.0 – Shaykh al-Najd Revives Kharijism Of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah: Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah a revered personality by Wahhabis deemed practice of Istighathah as Shirk. And three hundred years after his death Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab of Najd revived Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s theology and Takfir. Shaykh al-Najd contributed to it monstrous porportion of Takfir with addition of genocidal slaughter of orthodox of Muslims. Debates and discussions between both parties have ensued ever since. Wahhabis wanting to prove Takfir of Muslims argue it is major Shirk and practitioners are apostates. Ahlus Sunnah argue it is permissible and its practice does not violate any demands of Tawheed. Nor does it tick any box which warrants major Shirk and practitioners of Istighathah are Muslims. 0.1 - At Stake Is Life, Property, And Dignity Of Muslims: From outset it seems to be two ideas competing for legitimacy but in reality this is only the tip of iceberg. Orthodox scholarship has debated/discussed and established permissibility of Istighathah because it’s a legitimate practice in light of religious texts. Even more importantly they wish to reinstate the sanctity of life of a Muslim, his property, and his dignity. These were sacred and were inviolable in traditional Islam but Wahhabism has made it Halal for its followers. Shaykh al-Najd justified whole sale slaughter, looting, destruction, rape, pillage of Muslims of Arabia on account of his belief that all Muslims of Arabia except his followers are/were polytheists due to practice of Istighathah etc. Consequences of emergence of this sect were horrendous for Muslims of Arabia and effects of his Kharijism are being felt even today. 0.2 - Wahhabi Past, Present, And Our Strategy And Future: Wahhabism a branch of Khariji apostasy with sponsoring of Saudi Kingdom has plagued Muslim with unrelenting sectarianism and destruction through Wahhabi militant groups. Wahhabis/Salafis have heaped insane brutality and barbarity upon orthodox Muslims under labels of ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Shabab, al-Qaidah … and have tortured the orthodox Muslims with death/destruction throughout its 270 years of its emergence with unrelenting impunity. Areas/regions ruled by these Wahhabi groups almost certainly spell death of anyone not toeing their theology but especially true for orthodox Muslim scholarship and laity. If opportunity availed them in Western countries those living midst Muslim communities would do exactly the same in West. It is paramount for Muslims to learn the subject and meet their academic challenge. And under leadership of State meet their militant threat in ways which are in accordance with prophetic guidance. 1.0 - Background Information Regarding Previous Discussion: Roughly ten years ago a Salafi Brother and I had a pretty detailed discussion on subject of Istighathah. And selected but interconnected portions of this discussion were reproduced in my own words and published for benefit of others, here. My intention was to gradually rework and publish all three hundred plus A4 pages. Unfortunately hard-drive on which the discussion was stored died in sometime in June 2014. Result of this was; roughly fifteen to twenty percent of discussion was lost. Some content was saved on USB drive which at the time was being worked on for publishing. Sometimes in 2014 it was published and in 2016 it was improved with headings and formatting. 1.1 - Background Of Current Discussion - Hadhir Nazir To Istighathah: In March 2018 I was engaged in a discussion on subject of Hadhir Nazir and a selected portion of it was published, here. At the end of discussion of Hadhir Nazir brother requested to discuss subject of Istighathah which I refused and instead directed him to read an earlier discussion between myself and a Salafi. At that time it was unbeknown to me he was same Salafi brother with whom subject of Istighathah. Roughly about two months after publishing Hadhir Nazir material brother contacted me once again and opened up about his identity. Initially I was not chivalrous as our Salafi brother but after hearing good news of his repentance my hostility disappeared. This set the ball rolling toward this discussion. I agreed to discuss subject of Istighathah but with fair conditions and on a time when it would be convenient for me. Salafi brother revealed he has approached me with open heart despite it I had to open his heart quite forcefully. Referr to 2.0 to 2.8. Smile. He said he believes Istighathah is Shirk but he will quite gladly and willingly accept opposite verdict if his concerns and doubts are responded to convincingly in light of Quran/Sunnah. 1.2 - Some True And Lies About Salafi Brother: Salafi brother has confessed to number of exaggerations. Brother claimed he holds PHD which I then suspected was not entirely true due to fairly common level of English employed in discussion. He now has revealed he is not highly educated as he originally claimed but only has a 2:2 degree which I checked and it is lower second-class honours. He also claimed to be running a website promoting Wahhabism but this also turned out to be untrue in light of his own confession. In previous discussion on topic of Istighathah Salafi brother uttered some very dangerous and disrespectful words about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which were Kufr in nature. So when he contacted me to discuss the subject again I conditioned it; not until you repent from Kufr committed in our original discussion. Good news is Salafi brother repented within few days of incident taking place. After enquiring details he said he referred to a forum and has given up notion that Hadith on which we discussed taught Shirk. Now Salafi brother holds to position that Sunnis distort the Hadith and employ it unjustly in an attempt to substantiate practice of Istighathah. Salafi brother also claimed to be a Talib ul-Ilm and this status in my understanding is achieved when an individual has acquired extensive knowledge of what scholars his sect have written on various topics. And can employ Quran/Hadith to make judgments to support/refute a teaching in light of his sectarian principles and beliefs. Brother’s knowledge of Wahhabism and its literature is extensive and fits well into level of knowledge he claimed then and has demonstrated in our second discussion. 2.0 - Motive And Objective Of This Debate And Discussion: I Said: What do you hope to achieve in this discussion? He Said: I want to give Dawah. Call you to Tawheed as taught by Salaf and warn you about Tawheed of Mushrikeen. I Said: What is formal objective of a debate? And purpose of a discussion? He Said: Scholars have said debate is for purpose of enquiry into truth. I Said: Correct! And discussion is exchange of views. You have already decided I am upon Tawheed of Mushrikeen which implies Tawheed mixed with Shirk of Arab polytheists. The entire purpose of debate is defeated. And you’re not here for exchange of views. He Said: I want to give Dawah I have no other intentions. Dawah was never conditioned upon exchange of views or debate. I Said: Indeed Dawah is independent of debate/discussion objectives but I am not interested in your Wahhabism or your Dawah so you’re free to go. Salam Alaykum. He Said: Brother Ali, wait. Why can’t we just discuss subject of Istighathah like we did before? I Said: We certainly can but I want to make sure your and my objectives are right. He Said: Why does it matter if my or your intentions are right? I Said: It matters because if glass is already full we will only be pouring in to spill out and that will be waste of time and effort. I am no longer interested in pouring knowledge into full glass. He Said: Brother Ali if we pour into full glass some of its original contents will spill out and new contents will replace that one. I Said: True. He Said: Then why not? I Said: To Answer that I need time and some information and I don’t think you will co-operate with me. Smile. 2.1 - Shirk Of Yaqeen And Why It Is Not Good To Discuss/Debate: I Said: Do you have doubts about Kitabullah, and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being RasoolAllah, and about his teachings? He Said: Living in Western society we are under constant attack from Satan causing doubts. As a Muslim we combat his plans and keep march on straight path. I Said: So you experience doubts? He Said: Don’t you? I Said: I do, but like you said, I combat what is thrown at me by Satan, and believe in Ghayb, and I march on. I have made assumption you do experience doubts like me. If you disagree with that say it now. He Said: Like you I do too. I Said: Have you ever doubted teaching of Shaykh al-Najd? He Said: No. I can’t recall if I have ever. I Said: Not even on issues which his teachings are at odds with vast majority of Muslims? He Said: Anything you have particular in mind? I Said: Topics like Istighathah. He Said: Brother Shaykh ul-Islam only preached teaching of Salaf as-Saliheen. I Said: I know why you believe what you do. I asked if you experience doubts about his teachings and you didn’t directly answer question. He Said: No I don’t. I Said: Brother [as per Wahhabi logic of Shirk] you’re guilty of Shirk of Yaqeen. You have more certainty in teaching of Shaykh al-Najd and experience doubts in teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Word of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is true but to you Shaykh al-Najd’s words are truer and beyond doubt. If anyone deserves to be doubted and suspected of injustice is human and Jinn. He Said: Where did you get Shirk of certainty? I Said: Where it came should be least of your problem. In Wahhabism loving a creation more then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk. Contradict me if I am wrong. Then why should having zero doubt/suspicion about teaching of Shaykh al-Najd and having more Yaqeen in his teaching then teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not be Shirk of certainty (i.e. Yaqeen)? He Said: This is a Biddah for which you have no evidence. I Said: This should be least of your worry. My Ijtihad is based on Wahhabi principle and following verse: “And of mankind are some who take others besides Allah as rivals (to Allah). They love them as they love Allah. But those who believe, love Allah more (than anything else). If only, those who do wrong could see ...” [Ref: 2:165] According to Wahhabism loving a creation more then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. In accordance with this Wahhabi teaching I have derived principle: Absolute/perfect quantity of … is right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and to have a creation share in it equally, or to affirm it for a creation in greater quantity then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. 2.2 - Usage Of Ijtihad, Explanation, And My Academic Worth: He Said: You’re not spokes person for Salafism brother Ali and definitely not a Mujtahid. I Said: Brother I am definitely not a Mujtahid, not even an Aalim. He Said: Why did you say it was your Ijtihad then? I Said: There isn’t a word which can express meaning of Ijtihad so I just use Ijtihad to convey meaning; strived independently of confines to reach a conclusion. Instead of long way I brief it up Ijtihad. I am not claiming position of Mujtahid even though lowest level of Mujtahid is of Mufti. I am not even claiming I am an Aalim which is lower a rank then Mufti. I am an ordinary Talib ul-Ilm with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) given gift of deep thinking and ability to derive information from text. He Said: OK! I understand but I wouldn’t use word Ijtihad for my research. I Said: Don’t get hanged upon usage of word Ijtihad. He Said: I am not. You’re throwing technical jargon around very lightly. It is concerning. I Said: Don’t worry too much about my hereafter. What difference would it make I am already Mushrik in your understanding. And use of Ijtihad can’t be more serious offense then Shirk. According to you as I am, I am destined to hellfire, and my usage of Ijtihad won’t make the fire any hotter. You know I am already in the worst place. He Said: OK! As you please. I Said: We need to move to subject of Shirk of certainty. 2.3 - Shirk Of Love Concept Supports Shirk Of Certainty Concept: I Said: I have offered principle: ‘Absolute/perfect quantity of … is right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and to have a creation share in it equally, or to affirm it for a creation in greater quantity then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk.’ Do you agree with it? He Said: Wait brother. I Said: This principle applies to wide variety of matters out of which love is one. He Said: For example? I Said: Shirk of fear, love, trust, obedience, certainty, authority, … Do you agree that you was/are guilty of Shirk of certainty? He Said: Brother if you can prove from Quran/Sunnah loving a creation more then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk I will agree with your principle. I Said: I don’t believe Quran/Sunnah supports this notion. He Said: Brother how else can it be proven to be major Shirk? I Said: You claim to be Salafi and if Wahhabism says it is major Shirk then you can be held accountable through its teaching. He Said: I can agree to that but on one condition. Evidence has to be from mainstream Salafi scholars likes of Shaykh ul-Islam [Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab], Shaykh Abdur Rahman Ibn Hassan, Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan, and others like them. I Said: Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid wrote: “Forbidden love: This includes love which constitutes shirk, which is when a person loves something instead of Allaah or as much as Him. In such a case he has taken that thing as a rival to Allaah. This is the shirk of love, and most people have taken things as rivals to Allaah in love and glorification.” [Ref: Anwaa al-Mahabbah … and the Ruling concerning them, here.] Shaykh al-Najd quoted the same verse as above in the chapter and wrote: “Whoever takes a partner (to Allah) for whom he has as much as love as he has for Allah, has committed major Shirk.” [Ref: Kitab al-Tawheed, Chapter 31, Page 116, iiotChapter 11.] He Said: Can you wait a little brother I need to verify Kitab al-Tawheed referrence? I Said: I would be more then happy to. He Said: It checks up fine. I Said: You would agree you was/are upon major Shirk of Yaqeen? 2.4 - Wahhabi Belief Haraming Halal Is Major Shirk And Principle That Supports It: He Said: Brother your principle contradicts a known fact. According to your principle Shirk of obedience is to obeying someone equally, or greater then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In Salafism Shirk of obedience is to obey a creation on matter of Haram/Halal which goes against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: What do you think this teaching is based on? He Said: Quran/Sunnah brother Ali. I Said: I didn’t mean to question it was said rhetorically. I was insinuating your teaching; accepting Haram/Halal against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is based on the principle I have presented. In your Wahhabism by declaring Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Halal as Haram person is exercising equal authority as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which is Shirk. And by obeying a creation and accepting creation’s Hukm against Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Halal/Haram person gives creation equal/greater obedience in comparison to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence he is guilty of major Shirk in Wahhabism. In other words I gave you a principle on which your following understanding is based on; accepting/believing Haram/Halal against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk. He Said: I see what you mean. I never thought of it like this. I Said: I have done in-depth study on Wahhabi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. I haven’t invented this principle out of thin air. I have done my research on Wahhabism. I am former Salafi, rememer! Smile. 2.5 - Answering Why There Is No Point In Debating/Discussing: He Said: No Salafi with even basic knowledge of Tawheed/Shirk would ever become Barelwi. Mushriks from your sect when they learn Tawheed and understand reality of Shirk they leave Shirk of their ancestors for Tawheed. You claim you were Salafi and you converted to Shirk of Barelwis. I Said: We will get to, if I am Mushrik and guilty of major Shirk. My question to you is, do you acknowledge you was/are upon major Shirk of Yaqeen? He Said: What has that got to do with our discussion? Why did it even come up? I Said: I have lost track of discussion. Wait. It came up because you enquired why I wouldn’t discuss with you on subject of Istighathah. He Said: How does Shirk of Yaqeen issue answer that question? You went around and around for nothing. I Said: It does answer the question because I wanted to prove that there is no reason to discuss with you when reality of your convictions about Wahhabism is that it is above suspicion/doubt. Yet teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) isn’t above this doubt/suspicion. When this is state of your convictions in Wahhabism it would be easier to rip Islam out of you then Wahhabism. I Said: Point about Shirk of Yaqeen was just to to establish this hypothesis. I wasn’t attempting to prove you’re Mushrik because you committed Shirk of Yaqeen it was just a side show in reality I just wanted you to see for yourself how stiff-necked you’re. And it can’t get worse then being guilty of Shirk of Yaqeen according to your own principles. 2.6 - Shirk Of Yaqeen Is Not Shirk According To Sunni Understanding: He Said: Do you doubt Barelwi Minhaj? I Said: I do have doubts because Shaytaan always works on people to misguide them. And I am no exception but I do strive to gain knowledge about issues which cause doubt. He Said: You have made your point now what? I Said: I am not interested in debating/discussing with you because your convictions about Wahhabism and belief in correctness of Shaykh al-Najd’s teaching are too concrete. Only way I would agree to discuss with you is if I see demonstrable improvement. He Said: Brother I really want this discussion on Istighathah go ahead. If it makes you happy I will recite, I bear witness there is no Ilah except Allah and I testify Muhammad is Messenger of Allah, I am no longer upon Shirk of Yaqeen. I Said: Smile. You were never upon major Shirk to begin with brother. This principle was in accordance with Wahhabi Tawheed/Shirk. In my understanding of Tawheed/Shirk there is no Tawheed of Yaqeen and Shirk of Yaqeen, or Tawheed of Love, or Shirk of Love, or Tawheed of obedience, or Shirk of obedience … So you don’t have to recite Shahadah to convince me that you’re not Mushrik. Do that to satisfy your Wahhabism and for your guilty conscious. He Said: Why would you try to prove I am guilty of major Shirk in Yaqeen? I Said: I have answered already and I quote again: ‘I wanted to prove that there is no reason to discuss with you when reality of your convictions about Wahhabism is that it is above suspicion/doubt. Yet teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) isn’t above this doubt/suspicion. When this is state of your convictions in Wahhabism it would be easier to rip Islam out of you then Wahhabism.’ He Said: I missed that. Never mind brother Ali. 2.7 - Expressing Doubt About Wahhabism Being Truth And Mother Of Questions: He Said: Do you want to discuss subject of Istighathah, or not? I Said: Answer to that depends upon if you show/demonstrate, and entertain doubt about your beliefs, and entertain possibility of you being upon error and misguidance. He Said: What is better demonstration of my error/misguidance then ‘Shirk al-Yaqeen’? I Said: Do you believe you were guilty of major Shirk in this context Shirk al-Yaqeen? He Said: I understand your reasoning but there is no such thing as Shirk al-Yaqeen. It is an innovation so it cannot be evidence against my belief of Tawheed. I Said: All I wanted from you was to realize, and to express possibility of you, and your Wahhabism being upon deviation, error, and misguidance. You didn’t and don’t have to actually believe you were/are upon misguidance. I just wanted you to express about truth of Wahhabism and open to possibility it being misguidance. He Said: This entire song dance was just for that alone! I Said: Yes, but to see if you can be improved through education. I have few questions which would tell me if I was successful. He Said: I will but ... I Said: Can you as an individual be misguided? He Said: Yes. I Said: Is it possible Shaykh al-Najd was upon error and misguidance and died upon it? He Said: Yes. I Said: Can Wahhabism/Salafism be erroneous? He Said: Yes. I Said: Is it possible that Salafism has nothing to do with teaching and methodology of Salaf as-Saliheen? He Said: Yes. I Said: Can Wahhabism be amongst 72 sects destined to enter hellfire? He Said: Yes. I Said: Brilliantly done brother. Because you have expressed doubt about your belief now answer the following question thoughtfully. Let me ask you once again: What do you hope to achieve in this discussion? He Said: Two hours later and you still want me to answer same question. I Said: Answer to this question will prove if your theory; pouring knowledge into full brain removes old cobwebs; is actually true in your case or not. Smile. He Said: In that case my theory has lived up to the expectations. I Said: Your answer to question is? He Said: Exchange views, teach, and learn. I Said: 100% confidence is for only about what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught. Teaching of every non-Nabi should be subject of some doubt and there should be some degree of scepticism, and you should always entertain possibility of being upon error. When such doubt and scepticism is internalized then an individual becomes true seeker of path. He Said: Internalized, meaning? I Said: In the sentence it means firmly set in mind and genuinely believed. He Said: Well said. 2.8 - What To Do As A Seeker, When And What Not To Do Advice: I Said: I have to go now. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits tomorrow we will sort out rules like we did in our previous discussion. He Said: Great. We will chat tomorrow then. I Said: Just last bit of advice. During our discussion don’t feel compelled to respond to and refute everything. You will help yourself and me more by thinking, and by genuinely trying to understand what I am saying, and by trying to connect dots. If you get feeling you have to respond otherwise you will loose. Don’t respond to me in that state of mind because your objective wouldn’t be to guide me or to seek but to protect your belief. And in this state of mind human will stretch, twist, exaggerate, and virtually do all to come out on top. This is bad for two reasons: (i) It results in distortion of Quran/Sunnah, (ii) and that distortion becomes obstacle in way of truth which a seeker has to remove to get to truth. Why put it in the first place when you don’t have to! Seeker read’s and think’s not read’s then debate’s. You will have to strike the perfect balance to gain the most benefit. Allah Hafiz. He Said: I will do my best. Isn’t it funny you want me to do the thinking and not much responding! Smile. [He signed out.] I Said: If this discussions turn out to as I invision it then you will understand the importance of my advice. I have walked the path of debates/discussions and what a person is forced into by ego, by convictions/beliefs, by loyalties and love of scholars we respect. As human you/I will stretch, twist, exagerate, conceal and do all to stay on top. And not to stay on top for sake of Deen, Islam dominates false-hood, but rather for more personal reasons. For reasons of perserving image, standing … and sight of real objective will be lost – i.e. guidance and to make Deen of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) superior will not even be on your mind. You will have to think about these things and keep control on them. 3.0 - Agreed Methodology Of Responding And Rules Of Discussion: I Said: As-Salam Alaykum. I have following suggestion. Please have a good read and let me know if you agree to it. I Said: Suppose evidences, a, b, c, d, e, and f, all individually and in combination of each other substantiates a sectarian belief of the Doom sect. For opposition, the Gloom sect, to refute the belief opposition must demonstrate his ‘correct’ understanding of, a, b, c, d, e, f, in light of Quran/Sunnah. And then conclude his argument in light of his own evidences of Quran/Sunnah. Doom sect’s counter argument of following type: ‘Brother if your interpretation of, a, is accepted/valid then it goes against b, c, d, e, f.’, is not allowed. This is not allowed because judgment of Doomi that Gloomi’s clarification going against b, c … is based on Doomi’s own sectarian yardstick (i.e. his own sectarian understanding his evidences). Also it is based on clarification of evidence, a, only. For a proper judgment to be made Doomi needs to wait for Gloomi to explain all evidences in light of Quran and Sunnah. And then follow his interpretation of a, b, c, d, e, f with his own evidences of Quran and Sunnah. In this way Gloomi has explained all evidences of Doomi and has supported his belief. And Gloomi has removed contradiction between his own evidences and evidences of his opposition. He Said: It doesn’t seem to be problematic or biased so I can accept. I Said: Thanks. And what about following? I Said: ‘Quran and Hadith Evidence Related: I) Evidence of Quran and Hadith only, no scholarly opinions on disputed issue. II) No refuting understanding of one verse with with another verse until presented evidence has been explained. III) In relation to classification of Hadith, early, Jamhoor, and classical era material. Tafsir Related Rules: I) Classical Tafasir accepted, II) understanding of Jamhoor Mufassireen is to be accepted in case of disagreement, III) any Tafsir of Quran with Quran/Hadith with supporting evidences is accepted. IV) Anything which contradicts explicit text of Quran/Hadith is rejected if no plausible Taweel is possible. V) Preference of one valid Tafsir over another valid Tafsir not allowed because Quran is Jawami al-Kalim. Rules Regarding Sharh Of Hadith: I) Hadith to be explained by Quran, II) Hadith explained with Hadith, III) Hadith explanation by scholars can only be cited only if both parties agree. IV) Any position established via rules, I and II, cannot be nullified by understanding of scholars. If Material Posted Online: I) Tangents not related to on-going/developing discussion can be omitted. II) Interjections which contribute material and are aimed at refuting something can be omitted if contributed content isn’t discussed further in discussion. III) General chit chat can be excluded. IV) Discussion material will be submitted for approval of opposing party and material agreed by both will be posted online. V) Permission is granted to present write-up of discussion in his own words as long as conveyed meaning is not affected by it. VI) Embellishments in order to remove ambiguity or to improve line of argument are permitted providing such text is inserted in brackets. VII) Names, E-Mail addresses, alias, phone numbers all to be with-held unless writer reveals his own details himself. VIII) No copy & pasting of material of others to refute something. IX) Asked questions relating to discussion must be answered. 3.1 - Chat Related Technical Difficulties: He Said: Regarding material posted online section rule one, I want to say I would prefer if those angles are not omitted. I Said: OK! I agree to it and I will not omit them. He Said: Jazakullah Khayr. I Said: When I previously compiled discussion record there were some, ODD, comments I couldn’t recall how they were connected to comments of mine/yours so they were omitted or assumed best context for them. This weighed heavy on me because there was chance of these comments being omitted wrongfully, or placed in a context where they totally make no sense. He Said: …? I Said: You will not truly understand how difficult this is until you edit a chat log. Suppose, you ask me about where I am from, I write, I am from Mirpur, right after it you write, Mirpur! And then I follow my comment with two more paragraphs about subject of Tawheed. Its time to write the discussion, should I leave your comment, Mirpur, in between my initial comment and the paragraphs that followed? Or shall I put it at the end of two paragraphs? If I do it at the end I changed where it was and it looses its connection. There were many situations like this and I had to omit and relocate some. And I am afraid I will have to do this again but you want me to leave them. See the problem? He Said: OK! As long as you do not omit an explanation, or argument, or refutation I am fine. Relocation is absolutely fine with me too but frivolous distractions you’re at liberty to omit. I Said: May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you. He Said: And you. Ameen. 3.2 - Discussion Page Refferences, And Consecutive I Saids: Original write-up only contained section headings and sections were not numbered. As consequence when referrence to past content was made during this discussion it was page number of word document. Due to a difficulty locating a referrence I had to add numbering section. Updated version of discussion was then shared with ‘Salafi’ brother and there after section number became point of referrence. Also initial write-up was written in huge paragraph style but after the end of discussion it was decided to separate his and my content. This has made page number irrelevent so readers should referr to section number where ever need arises. Finally I inserted, I decided to add, I Said, in longer responses to break them into short paragraphs on basis of separate points. All such, I Saids, occur consecutively without break of, He Said, so readers should not think something has been ommitted. 3.3 - Information About Content Of This Discussion And How This Started: (i) Like the first discussion this too deviated from main subject. There have been instances where deviation completely veered off course. Ten years ago I decided to omit all these deviations and only retained material central to our core discussion but this time around I have made no omissions. I have ensured conveyed and intended meanings of both parties remains as intended. (ii) Salafi brother felt in our first discussion his stance was not presented comprehensively. He therefore liked to redress his under performance. I initially resisted but caved in to his insistence on account that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is best of planners and I went with His plan. Therefore officially discussion started from Salam of Tashahhud. 4.0 – Preliminary Accessment Of Salafi Beliefs Regarding Sunnis: I Said: What is your position on Istighathah? He Said: It is cause of Shirk and worship of graves in Ummah. I Said: In which aspect of Tawheed a creation has been made partner for this Shirk to be warranted? He Said: Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah. I Said: You’re aware Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah (ألوهية) is same as Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah (إلهية)? He Said: I do brother Ali. I Said: Just wanted to be clear on this. Are we guilty of Shirk al-Rububiyyah? He Said: You claim to be a fomer Salafi. I very much doubt it to be honest but if you are a fomer Salafi you should already know these. I Said: I just want answers for the record. It is better to start of with knowing where and how you stand. I don’t want to get deep into discussion and learn we are not even agreeing on basics. He Said: I think this questioning is unnecessiry. I Said: Silence before storm. He Said: I have weathered many storms before and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills I will weather yours too. I Said: What about Shirk al-Rububiyyah and Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat? He Said: Our scholars have said Ghulaat [extreme] Sufis are guilty of Shirk ul-Uluhiyyah but like Mushrikeen you affirm Tawheed al-Rubuiyyah. I Said: Can you quote what they said? He Said: Shaykh ul-Islam, Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s, book Qawaid al-Arba is proof of it, here. In first principle he said Mushrikeen believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is creator of all things, sustainer etc. This is Tawheed al-Rububiyyah which Mushriks believed and Sufis also believe in. Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is bit more more complex because you will have to connect the dots. I will do my best to illuminate the way as best as I can. Principle three talks about what type of Shirk Uluhiyyah Jahiliyyah Arabs were engaged in – which incidently was no different what the Sufi are engaged in. And principle two says Mushrikeen invoked others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), i.e. Awliyah, to get close to Him by engaging in forbidden intercession – and this is exactly why Sufis call upon residents of graves. Principle four explicitly states Mushrikeen living in Shaykh ul-Islam’s time were upon greater degree of Shirk because they call upon dead during time of ease and difficulty. Principle three, two, and four all relate to and establish Shirk of Uluhiyyah of ‘Muslims’ which Shaykh ul-Islam encountered during his life time. It is the same Shirk which Barelwis are upon. I Said: We are guilty of Shirk in Uluhiyyah but not Shirk of Rububiyyah? He Said: True. I Said: What about Shirk al-Asma Wal Sifaat? He Said: I am not aware of any scholar saying Sufis are guilty of this Shirk. I Said: What do you think? He Said: I don’t like to express a view other then what Salaf have said. I Said: Brother you claim to adhere to belief/principles of Salaf so you should judge based on their principles and their precedents to arrive at a understanding. He Said: I would say it is Shirk. 4.1 – Tawheed al-Rububiyyah Is Found On Asma Wal Sifaat: I Said: Is Rububiyyah Sift (i.e. attribute) or Ism (i.e. name), or both? He Said: It is an Ism. I Said: Brother Rabb is a Sift in reality and is employed as an Ism. He Said: That works too. I Said: If I say Rububiyyah is uncomplete without Asma Wal Sifaat. Do you agree? He Said: Yes! Asma Wal Sifaat make up Rububiyyah. I Said: Would you say Rububiyyah is dependent upon Asma Wal Sifaat? He Said: I wouldn’t say dependent but Asma Wal Sifaat is need of Rububiyyah. I Said: In that case you have made my job very easy: How can someone be upon Tawheed al-Rububiyyah when they are upon Shirk of Asma Wal Sifaat? He Said: What has Tawheed al-Rububiyyah got to do with Tawheed al-Asma Wal Sifaat? Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is to single out and believe Only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Creator, Sustainer etc. Where as Tawheed al-Asma Wal Sifaat is to believe all attributes and names of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are unique to Him alone. Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat is to join partners in Asma and Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Your question makes no sense to me. I Said: Join partners meaning to associate creations as equals in Asma Wal Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He Said: Yes. 4.2 – Shirk al-Asma Wal Sifaat By Default Warrants Shirk al-Rububiyyah: I Said: Brother you have already agreed Rububiyyah is not complete without Asma Wal Sifaat. And Asma Wal Sifaat are requirement of Rububiyyah. He Said: So? I Said: I was implying because both are inter-connected therefore Shirk in one is by default Shirk in the other. He Said: Agreed. Shirk in Rububiyyah won’t be Shirk in entire Asma Wal Sifaat but just ones supporting Rububiyyah. I Said: You said we are guilty of Shirk in Ulluhiyyah and Asma Wal Sifaat but not in Rububiyyah. In response to which I want to make three points: (I) Brother Asma and Sifaat are of our Rabb. Our Rabb is defined His hearing, seeing, knowing, creating, sustaining … all combine in Zaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Even though both, Rububiyyah and Asma Wal Sifaat, are seperated in two categories, but in reality both are part of Zaat of the One and the Only Rabb. As such if one committs Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat then by default Shirk in Rububiyyah is committed. (II) Christians believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) raised the dead, healed the sick, born blind and lepers. These are attributes of Rububiyyah. We believe he did it with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and they believe he did it on his own accord because he is Lord of lords and King of kings. So they are guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah as well as Asma Wal Sifaat. (III) Furthermore Rabb has to be hearing, seeing, and knowing otherwise he would be unable to hear, see, and unable to know what are needs of creation and will not know how to manage their affairs. Or I should say Rabb would not be able to comply with the demands of Rububiyyah if he is not hearing, seeing, knowing at minimum. Therefore hearing, seeing, and knowing are fundamental to Rububiyyah. Shirk in hearing, seeing, knowing, in one, or more, or all, attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk in Rububiyyah because Rububiyyah is found on Asma Wal Sifaat. Without Asma Wal Sifaat there is no Rububiyyah. Thus Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat by default is Shirk in Rububiyyah. He Said: No biggy bro. I revise my understanding in light of what you argued. Get ready! You’re Mushrik in Rububiyyah. I Said: You’re only sending more fuel for your fire with your edict. He Said: I agree to disagree. I Said: This proves Wahhabi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk is defective. He Said: You can’t use my lack of knowledge about Salafiyyah to say Salafi scholarship doesn’t believe Sufis aren’t guilty of Shirk Ar-Rububiyyah. I Said: You already said Sufis are not guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah and your scholars have said the same. You referrenced Qawaid al-Arba in support of this there is no way out. He Said: I have been quite for this long because I am, honestly, embrassed. I Said: Why? He Said: I resorted to lying and it was so obvious. You called me straight on it. I Said: I wouldn’t say you was lying but scrambling. We don’t like to be proven wrong especially something we are passionate about. When we realize an error in what we believe and identify a right. Natural first response is to somehow bring reconciliation between our belief and new found truth. He Said: True. I Said: There have been times I have done exactly the same. You agree Salafis have defective understanding of their own version of Shirk? He Said: It isn’t well thought out that’s for sure. 4.3 – Majority Or Minority Of Sunnis Guilty Of Major Shirk: I Said: Do you believe majority of Ummah has fallen into Shirk or minority? He Said: Bro Ali you’re not asking questions to gather information about my belief. There is already a pre-planned agenda behind these questions. When you get answers to these seemingly innocent questions then you refute something. You pretend to be all toothless but your claws and teeth come out as soon as you get what you fish for. I Said: Brother false-hood cannot dominate truth. You’re upon truth so answer the questions please. He Said: That made me laugh. Minority from Ummah [has fallen into Shirk]. I Said: According to evidence Wahhabis believe it is majority of Ummah. He Said: What evidence? I Said: It is not concrete and emphatic as I like it to be but it is easily deduced. He Said: You mean, you will weave typical Barelwi story around something? I Said: You can evaluate it yourself. Give me bit of time to write it. (i) Shaykh al-Najd wrote: “The first principle is that you know the kuffaar, whom the Messenger (saws) fought, used to affirm that Allah, the Most High, was the Creator and the Disposer of all the affairs but that did not enter them into Islam and the proof is His, the Most High's, saying …” [Ref: Sharh Qawaid al-Arba, by Shaykh Salih Ibn Fawzan, here.] Shaykh al-Najd taught Mushrikeen of Pre-Islam era were Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah but committed Shirk in Tawheed al-Ulluhiyyah. In this context it can be understood Shaykh al-Najd is insinuating Muslims affirming Tawheed al-Rububiyyah does not make them Muslim just as Mushrikeen were not Muslim even though they affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. (ii) Shaykh Salih Ibn Fawzan states scholars of Kalam do not believe in Tawheed but believe in Tawheed which the Mushrikeen believed – one that does not enter them into Islam: “So Tawheed is not simply affirmation of Tawheed Ar-Rububiyyah as the scholars of Kalam and innovation say in their creed. They a ffirm that Tawheed is the affirmation that Allah is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Giver of life and death. So they say: ‘One in His essence, there is no division to Him. One in His attributes, there is nothing like Him. One in His actions, there is no partner to Him.’ This is Tawheed Ar-Rububiyyah and if you refer to any of the books of the scholars of Kalaam you will not find them going beyond the sphere of Tawheed Ar-Rububiyyah. However, this was not the Tawheed that Allah sent His Messengers with and only affirming Tawheed Ar-Rububiyyah does not benefit the individual. This is because the Mushrikeen and the leaders of disbelief used to affirm this but it did not bring them out of Kufr and it did not enter them into Islam.” [Ref: Sharh Qawaid al-Arba, by Shaykh Salih Ibn Fawzan, here.] (iii) Shaykh al-Najd in his Qawaid al-Arba targetted Awam (i.e. common-folk) and Khawas (i.e. elite - scholars). Shaykh Salih Ibn Fawzan in his explanation of Qawaid al-Arba targetted the Khawas. Both affirmed Awam/Khawas believe in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah but they do not affirm other aspects of Tawheed which would enter them into Islam. (iv) You’re fully aware Ashariyyah. Maturidiyyah Awaam/Khawas form a over-whelming majority. If Awaam and Khawas of Ahlus Sunnah do not believe in complete Tawheed then you have to need to confess according to Wahhabism majority of Muslims are Kafir/Mushrik. He Said: You’re clutching at straws Brother Ali. This far you controlled discussion but I want to take the reins. I Said: It is clear. He Said: The Matan doesn’t say anything as such. You are inserting your understanding into it. I Said: OK. I hand you the control. 5.0 - Salafi Brother Revisits Old Discussion – Responds To Salam Of Tashahhud: He Said: In our previous discussion you employed our rule of, invoking upon dead is Shirk, and argued if it was the case then we Salafis are guilty of worshipping Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Tashahhud with words: “As-salamu alayka ay’yu han’nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaat.” I Said: It would be good if you can quote relevant material so I can refer to it as well. He Said: “I said: I can understand calling upon a deity/god is worship because one is calling on something which is believed by person to be a deity. I see no reason for calling of dead to be worship. Ok, brother! Provide evidence for your principle that calling dead is worship. (No answer.) I said: If calling upon dead was worship then in every prayer you recite: “As-salamu alayka ay’yu han’nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaat.” Ay’yu is harf of nida (i.e. call), so you are saying; “Peace be upon you O Prophet …” In addition to this you read in the Quran; ya ay’yu ar’rasool, ya ay’yu an’Nabi, ya ay’yu al muzammil and mudassir. All these phrases begin with harf of nida hence each time you perform Salah and recite Quran you are invoking Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) who had departed from this world. Are you guilty of Shirk or not? He replied: Brother these are proven from Quran and Hadith hence their usage is not Shirk. I said: Did you not say calling of the dead is Shirk? What prevents you from declaring these as Shirk? If you abstain from declaring them Shirki then you contradict your principle and if you declare them to be polytheistic you will become a Kafir.” I have two answers to this point of yours: (I) According to Hadith Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stopped saying this proving that it is not allowed. (II) We do not call upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with belief that he hears us, or responds to us, nor we are calling upon him for help. In fact Ahadith prove angels present Salam to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and this Salam is also part of Salam which angels will present to him. 5.1 - And I Begin To Respond To Salafi Brother’s Rebuttal: I Said: In context of your, first point, why is it not allowed? He Said: It could have lead to Shirk therefore Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changed it to block the route of Shirk. I Said: Is there proof which proves he changed it due to his fear of Shirk? He Said: No, but this deduction is based on principles of Tawheed and our scholars have said it was this reason. I Said: Is it possible that some people fell into Shirk due to this Salam? He Said: Yeah! It is quite possible. I Said: What could have made this possibility into reality? He Said: If they believed he hears their Salam personally. I Said: Salam of Far or Near? He Said: Far. I Said: Just so we are on same page. You believe those who said, as salamu alayka ayyu han-Nabiyu wa rahmatullah wa barakaat, with belief Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) personally hear’s Salam even though we are Far, they committed Shirk? He Said: Yes. I Said: In context of your, second point, if reciter believes he hears, responds, and reciter calls him for help then is he Mushrik? He Said: Mushrik! I Said: Reason of this judgment is? He Said: His action then would amount to worship. If some conditions are met and not all then is it worship/Shirk to recite these words? He Said: Depends on what conditions are fulfilled. 5.2 - Taking Break To Get Grasp Of Context: I Said: OK! You will have to give me time to read original exchange and this means I will have to take leave. He Said: I will wait you can read. I Said: Brother I will have to find references and think through everything. He Said: As you wish. I Said: Allah Hafiz until next meeting. Salam Alaykum. He Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. 5.3 - Ijtihadi Innovation Of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud Abrogates Prophetic Sunnah: I Said: With regards to Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introducing as-Salamu alan-Nabi. First of all do you agree that Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced it and it was not a prophetic Sunnah? He Said: It was his Ijtihad. I Said: Are we allowed to introduce innovations in matters of worship? He Said: No! I Said: For you to practice what Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced you must agree to four fundamental points: Ia) It is permissible for a Mujtahid to abrogate prophetic Sunnah related to worship. Ib) Then by conducting Ijtihad replace a prophetic Sunnah with an innovated practice. II) Valid Ijtihad resulting non-prophetic Sunnah becoming part of Islam is proof of Biddah Hasanah. III) Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) via Ijtihad introduced as-Salamu alan-Nabi as a Shar’i Biddah Hasanah. IV) Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed/practiced innovations can be introduced into Islam and he did not believe in literalism of prophetic saying every innovation is evil. End. 5.4 - Doing To Wahhabi What Wahhabi Does Best: I Said: Do you believe in any of these? He Said: No! I Said: Isn’t the religion of Islam perfected by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He Said: Indeed it is Brother Ali. I Said: Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not provide complete guidance with regards to worship and method of worship? He Said: Yes! I Said: Is not guidance of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) best of guidance? He Said: It is. I Said: Then who will you follow, Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud’s as-Salamu alan-Nabi; or Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) guidance of; As-salamu alayka ay’yu han’nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaat? He Said: Allah’s Messenger brother Ali. I Said: Then you cannot escape the charge of Shirk and you cannot replace prophetic Sunnah with Sunnah of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu). 5.5 - Salafi Brother Thinks I Am Upon Heretical Understanding Of Innovation: He Said: Are you on Salafiyyah on subject of innovation. I Said: No my brother. I am what some enraged Salafi would say; innovation loving Mushrik to the core. He Said: Dramatically exaggerated statement brother Ali. I Said: No, this was what a Salafi actually said about me to our mutual friend. He Said: OK! Never mind that. You reasoned like a Salafi though that’s why I assumed you were upon Minhaj of Salafiyyah in regards to innovation. I Said: You’re assuming Salafiyyah without computing Minhaj just because my approach/apparent is same does not mean my Minhaj and core of subject is same as yours. He Said: OK! Isn’t Islam complete? I Said: It is completed and perfected. He Said: Whose guidance is the best and better then all? I Said: Guidance of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He Said: Then why do you partake and support innovations of your sect? I Said: Which precisely are you referring to? He Said: Mawlid celebration on 12th Rabbi ul-Awal. According to definition of innovation held by Shaykh Ibn Hajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah) Mawlid is not an innovation. And according to definition of Fuqaha of Ahnaf and Shafi’a it is linguistically innovation but not Shar’ee reprehensible innovation rather it is Shar’ee praiseworthy innovation. He Said: Is Islam completed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? If it is then why do you not leave innovation of Mawlid like I left innovation of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu)? 5.6 - Explaining Hadith Of Good Innovated Sunnah: I Said: Islam was perfected and completed with all inclusive teachings of Quran and Sunnah. And part of these teachings are Ahadith; whoever introduces a good/evil Sunnah in Islam reward/sin will be shared equally between introducer and it’s practitioners, here, here, and here. He Said: So you’re saying this Hadith is proof of good innovation? I Said: Yes! He Said: Suppose it is proof of good innovation and suppose I agree with your understanding: Then why should you/I abandon his [Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud’s] Ijtihad? Don’t you think its better to adopt his innovative Ijtihad and abandon innovations such as Mawlid? I Said: Please let me respond completely and you can have your say then. This Hadith is indeed proof of good innovation. You/I both know innovation is introduced in Islam. You agree? He Said: Yes! I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told a Muslim of reward who introduces IN Islam a good Sunnah. Something can only be introduced IN Islam if it is not already part of it. You agree? He Said: I do. I Said: I hear by proclaim you are lawfully wedded to a Biddah Hasanah. He Said: You lost me. I Said: Good Sunnah introduced in Islam is not part of Islam so if it is introduced in Islam and there is reward for it then natural conclusion is good Sunnah is an innovated Sunnah and a Sunnah introduced in Islam which was not part of it. End. 5.7 - Why I Left Ijtihadi Of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud And You Should Too: I Said: I will now answer your questions. I left his Ijtihad and you should also leave because guidance of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is better then guidance of a Mujtahid companion. And I left his Ijtihadi innovation because his Ijtihadi innovation forced abandonment of prophetic Sunnah. End. He Said: Brother Ali all innovations compel abandoning of Sunnah. I Said: Brother not all innovations compel practitioner to abandon prophetic Sunnah. He Said: You’re wrong brother Ali. I Said: You have to give reason chance before you give verdict. Smile. He Said: OK! I won’t interject. Smile. I Said: Innovation of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) forces practitioner to abandon prophetic Sunnah for his Ijtihadi innovation. Practicing his Ijtihadi innovation leaves no choice but to abandon the prophetic Sunnah. If you recite his version of Salam you got to leave prophetic method of Salam. In contrast to his innovation you’re not being compelled by Mawlid, Khatam type innovations to leave a prophetic Sunnah because these do not alter a set pattern. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fasted on Monday because he was born this day. I can fast on Monday to celebrate/commemorate his birthday on Monday and also do it every year on 12th Rabbi ul-Awwal. So the innovative Mawlid of 12th Rabbi ul-Awwal does not compel/force abandonment of prophetic Sunnah rather both can be practiced. The nature and type of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) innovation is as such that it alters/replaces and compels abandonment of prophetic Sunnah this is why it should be abandoned. And nature of our good innovations is such that they do not alter a prophetic Sunnah nor replace a prophetic Sunnah therefore they are reward worthy good Sunnahs. End. 5.8 - General Chit Chat And Why Husn ad-Dhan And Why Not: He Said: That point of Ibn Mas’ud’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Ijtihad compelling practitioners to abandon prophetic Sunnah is new to me. I Said: This explanation explains why some scholars have said innovations leads to abandonment of prophetic Sunnah. They were writing about innovation which compels/leads abandonment of Sunnah (i.e. leaves no choice but to abandon Sunnah) such as as-Salamu alan-Nabi. And their rule was not about innovations which do not compel abandoning of prophetic Sunnah. Salafis have been distorting their statements. Or at very least due to empty heads have not understood which innovation they were referring to. He Said: I have learnt great deal more while discussing with you in past week then years of discussions with your Barelwi kind on various forums. I do believe your interpretation of their statement is a strong possibility and correct. But, Smile. How do you know for sure that this is what they intended though? I Said: My good opinion of involved scholars, and their understanding of religion, and their capability, with my understanding of innovation, good innovations introduced by companions, when I computed them all together I came to conclusion that they could not be referring to all types of innovations but rather a specific type. Then I said could their intended target be Mawlid type innovations? After pondering I came to conclusion this type is protected by whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam so this can’t be their target. Then I tried and tried … until I came to a type of innovation which alters a set prophetic Sunnah and replaces it with non-prophetic practice and forces practitioner to abandon prophetic Sunnah. I was, bingo, got you! He Said: So it’s your research and not what a scholar said? I Said: It is my Tehqiq. Call it trial by until statement fits. Smile. Maybe scholars have explained these statements as such but I have not read anything. He Said: OK! I Said: My understanding is basically best possible solution for such statements otherwise these statements would contradict authentic Ahadith. And I cannot comprehend; scholars better aware of prophetic teachings, more intelligent, more pious make statements which contradict prophetic teachings. And censor them [innovations] when the Prophet legalised them and companions introduced them. He Said: Ma sha’a Allah! Brother Ali your Husn ad-Dhan is inspiring on one hand and perplexing on other. I Said: Why perplexing? He Said: You won’t show this Husn ad-Dhan for Shuyukh of Dawah Najdiyyah. I Said: My Husn ad-Dhan is for scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. Salafis distort the statements of early scholars to promote Salafism. This Husn ad-Dhan is only until I can maintain it and if I find out their understandings contradict teaching of Quran/Sunnah I would leave them. He Said: OK! I Said: I have some very choice words of Shuyukh of Dawah Najdiyyah but I will withhold them due to interest of this discussion. He Said: Please nothing that would leave bad taste in my mouth. It may spoil our discussion also so just refrain. 5.9 - Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud A Mujtahid And As Such Is Above Reprimand: [For few days there was silent on this battle front and then …] He Said: Do you believe Ijtihad of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was innovation which takes to hellfire? I Said: I) I do not believe he will enter hellfire or his innovation is of type which takes to hellfire. To see my position read following, here. He was a Mujtahid and I believe his Ijtihad is in accordance with Hadith of, whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam for him and those who follow the good Sunnah will be equal reward. II) If his Itjihad is looked from perspective of those scholars who said innovation leads to abandonment of Sunnah then his Ijtihad is erroneous and blameworthy innovation. As a Mujtahid he is immune from blame and despite error he would be deserving of reward for his error. I Said: We are instructed to judge by what Allah revealed through His Messenger and therefore judgment via Hadith of good Sunnah is that his innovation is a righteous innovated Sunnah for which there is reward but prophetic Sunnah is best. This means abandoning principle in question (i.e. innovation leads to abandonment of Sunnah) or at very needs rework. He Said: Jazakallah Khayr. I Said: As it stands is problematic but how it can be reformed I haven’t figured out that yet. He Said: Jazakallah. 6.0 - Addressing With Ya/Ayyuha The Reason And Evidence: I Said: I want to re-focus to actual topic. With regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not hearing when he is addressed through as as-salamu alayka ayyu han-Nabiyyu. He Said: Our innovation discussion was interesting so I kind off went with it. Smile. I Said: I) If only angels present Salam to him and he personally does not hear then why Khitab of ayyuha an-Nabiyyu? Why address Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directly when there is no need for it? When you recite Salawat Ibrahimi (i.e. allahuma salli ala Muhammad wa ala …) in Salah there is no Khitab of ya or ayyuha. At the end of Salah we say: as-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah from right to left but no Khitab of ya or ayyuha because we are not suppose to believe it is heard by people of far places. Presence of Khitab ayyuha and absence of it in another place indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears Salam offered to him and where there is no hearing there is no ya/ayyuha. I Said: II) Shaykh Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah in his Jala al-Afham, here, narrated an authentic Hadith which establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears the Salam offered to him. Also Allamah Sakhawi (rahimullah) in also narrated Hadith establishing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears the Salawat recited for him, here. It would be stupid to assume that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears your/our Salam but does not respond to you. How rude would it be you give someone a Salam and Dua and he does not respond in kind? Not responding to, Salam is unbefitting majesty of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So his hearing and his response is established. And so is your worship of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in accordance with your own principles. 6.1 - On Account Of Evidence Brother Believes Prophet Personally Hears: He Said: If the Ahadith are Sahih/Hasan then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) personally hearing Salawat being reciting upon him does establish this is according to means (i.e. taht al-asbab). Shirk in our understanding would be which goes against the means (i.e. fawq al-asbab). You did not refute these two principles through contradiction. I Said: Before we discuss anything else: Do you believe he hears personally and not via angels? He Said: If Ahadith are authentic then I will. I Said: Brother we cannot continue our discussion on, I WILL, it has to be affirmation or negation, and acceptance or rejection. This will introduces a doubt and we need concrete stance. If you don’t we need to discuss chain of narrators to sort out Ikhtilaf because on this hinges solution. He Said: I understand. I believe he hears with permission from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Personally? He Said: I would have said angels but Ahadith you quoted indicate personal hearing by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: Jazakallah Khayr. 6.2 - According To Wahhabism Calling With Ya/Ayyuha Is Worship: [Going back to his statement about taht/fawq asbab.] I Said: If you look at the context of our original discussion: “So I Said: Brother Dua directed to a dead person is worship or directed to deity is worship? He said: Both! I said: What makes the call to dead person an act of worship if every Dua is not worship? [No response.] I said: I can understand calling upon a deity/god is worship because one is calling on something which is believed by person to be a deity. I see no reason for calling of dead to be worship. Ok, brother! Provide evidence for your principle that calling dead is worship. [No answer.] I said: if calling upon dead was worship then in every prayer you recite: ‘As-salamu alayka ay’yu han’nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaat.’” I did not intend to prove these principles are invalid because they contradict recitation of Salam in Tashahhud. Rather your position was that Dua (i.e. call) directed toward deceased is worship even if Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship is not part of it. And in response to this I directed your attention to Salam of Tashahhud. And argued if Dua without Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship is worship then your Dua (i.e. call) directed toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Tashahhud is also worship and you’re guilty of worshiping Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 6.3 - Tashahhud Like Phrase Worship Of Krishna According To Salafism: He Said: Brother these words [of Tashahhud] are not directing worship toward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: If a Hindu who holds to belief Krishna is demi-god/minor-deity and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is a supreme Ilah says the following is he worshiping Krishna: ‘O Krishna peace, mercy, blessings of Allah be upon you.’ Has he worshipped Krishna? He Said: Brother this has got nothing to do with what we believe nor this applies to us. We do not affirm Ilahiyyah and in your scenario the Ilahiyyah is affirmed. I Said: Brother you answer the question. He Said: Yes these words are words of Shirk. I Said: Due to worship? He Said: Yes! What has this got to do with me and us? I Said: Quite a bit. We established words; O Undefined peace, mercy, blessings of Allah be upon you; can be of worship. I need to ask something else. Why worship/Shirk in context of Krishna and why not in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? He Said: Ilahiyyah was affirmed for Krishna and not for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: Well done my brother you have learnt well from me. Smile. You just validated my principle where affirmation of Ilahiyyah determines call is worship. I Said: Brother we have established the words recited in Tashahhud can be of worship. We both know you establish Ilahiyyah and Ibadah on basis when deceased is invoked. And you do not ONLY judge worship on basis of pre-affirmation of Ilahiyyah. Yet in context of Istighathah you SOLEY judge worship on basis of call to deceased and words recited in Tashahhud indicate call. You’re calling him to let him know you’re invoking peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) upon him by saying: O Prophet peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are upon you. If this is not worship according to your methodology of determining worship then what else is this? 6.4 - Call Of Worship Is Not Exclusive Of Help But Inclusive Of Help: I Said: This leaves you with your saying: “We do not call upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with belief that he hears us, or responds to our call, nor we are calling upon him for help.” We have established [with example of Krishna] for call to be worship it does not need to be of help therefore you cannot be excused on account of not seeking help. In light of your own methodology affirming belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hears/responds and then pronouncing words of Tashahhud result in worship/Shirk. And his hearing via texts and his responding via reason is established and I presume you you affirm both therefore you’re guilty of Shirk. 6.5 - As-Salamu Alayka Ayyu Han-Nabiyyu Is Sunnah Of Allah: [I decided to change the battle ground to trap him from another angle.] I Said: Brother when I say to you that I/we do not believe the deceased servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ilah and nor I intend to worship him you ignore my belief and my intention. Despite what I declare you judge me/us to be as Mushriks: Yet some how you expect me to accept your excuse when your own action is in breach of your own principle. He Said: Brother saying this [as-salamu alayka ayyu han-Nabiyyu] is Sunnah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore we too repeat these words in Tashahhud. I Said: Brother even a Da’if Hadith would satisfy your claim. And even if you do manage it; nothing changes because it being Sunnah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not mean you do not believe what Kalam/Sunnah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) establishes. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Say (O Muhammad), "I do not tell you that I have the treasures of Allah or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me." Say: "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing? Then will you not give thought?” [Ref: 6:50] Do you believe what this verse establishes? Or do you repeat without believing what it establishes? Of course you believe all this verse establishes. Am I correct? He Said: Do I have choice to say incorrect! I Said: Brother not really. Smile. He Said: Then obvious logical answer, correct. I Said: So even though this is Kalam of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and so are words of Tashahhud Sunnah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). How come you do not believe what the words establish Tashahhud establish? He Said: Brother I already agreed that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does hear the words of Salam. 6.6 - Call Can Be Worship Without Belief X Is Hearing And Will Respond: I Said: You’ve agreed that Khitab of Ayyuha is because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is listening to recitation of Salam. What needs to be established is worship is ONLY if call of help is made, and worship is ONLY if call is expected to be answered by one being called. Once these are established then I will conclude my point. He Said: Brother I concede a call can be worship if these two are absent. I Said: Then you have established your own Shirk in light of your own principle because you believe in hearing. You presented the following to avoid charge of worship [of Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam]: “We do not call upon Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with belief that he hears us, or responds to our call, nor we are calling upon him for help.” This indicates hearing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a criterion of worship/Shirk. And in the following specifically hearing is said to be cause of Shirk: “I Said: In context of your, first point, why is it not allowed? He Said: It could have lead to Shirk therefore Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changed it to block the route of Shirk. I Said: Is it possible that some people fell into Shirk due to this Salam? He Said: Yeah! It is quite possible. I Said: What could make this possibility into reality? He Said: If they believe he hears their Salam personally.” And in addition to this if worship can be without these two then your call of Tashahhud becomes worship of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) according to your own principles. And to further seal the deal you already agreed following are words of worship: ‘O Krishna peace, mercy, blessings of Allah be upon you.’ This proves you’re Mushrik according to your own criteria and so is your Wahhabi kind. Worse is yet to come. Those who believed this Hadith is Sahih/Hassan believed he hears all of them have become Mushrik as per your/Salafi principle. This edict of Shirk would nullify Tawheed of Muhaditheen, Mujtahideen, Mufassireen, Imams and Aimmah of Ummah including doing away with Tawheed of your beloved Shaykh Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. 6.7 - Principle Is In Context Of Istighathah Because Scholars Have Applied It So: He Said: Brother I made the statement in context of Istighathah and you’re applying them in context of Salam of Tashahhud. [No he did not, see quoted content in section 5.0.] I Said: Your principle is call directed toward the deceased is worship. Is it not? He Said: Brother our scholars have not applied concept of call like you have. They have always said directing call of help toward dead and call seeking animate/inanimate from dead is Shirk. I Said: According to literal application of, Dua is worship, should not call/Dua directed toward deceased be worship? If you say, no, then what evidence do you have for Takhsees? Quote evidence which establishes only call in which caller expects call to be heard, and seeks help, or material is from deceased is worship, therefore Shirk. Explicit evidence of Quran or Hadith a Da’if one would even do. He Said: Brother you’re making impossible demands. You know if this evidence existed then why would argue here the case would have been decided in our favour long ago. I Said: Brother your side makes unsupported Takhsees of Dua/Call. First is that call to deceased is Shirk and when you get checked here you now made further Takhsees that calling dead for help and material is Shirk. Anyhow brother let me nip this discussion in bud. When you acknowledge Dua of worship can be without call of help and without calling for material need then you have established Salam of Tashahhud is worship. He Said: Brother Ali it is not Shirk because no help nor material is being sought our principle is as I have stated. I Said: Your principle lacks textual support for it to be valid. 6.8 - Attempt To Substantiate The Evil Innovation Of Khawarij: He Said: As you know there is no verse/Hadith stating the principle but there are verses on which these principles are based on. The principle can be implied from Quranic text though. I don’t need to tell you how I am sure you’re already familiar with the supporting evidences. I Said: Assume I am not. I am need of education on your methodology. He Said: OK! Give me few minutes to find related verses. I Said: OK! He Said: “Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] “And those you call upon besides Him are unable to help you, nor can they help themselves." [Ref: 7:197] “And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer. If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you. And on the day of resurrection, they will disown your worshipping them. And none can inform you like Him who is the All-Knower.” [Ref: 35:13/14] I Said: Brother don’t let me imply your point of view. I would prefer you spell out how these verses support your principle. He Said: The invoked are dead, they cannot help, and they do not hear, they cannot grant anything. I Said: And so the point is? He Said: It means as an act of worship the invokers invoked the dead for help with belief they hear; and as a result wanted material help from them. But reality is the dead cannot hear, see, nor can they grant anything, or be any help. This establishes our principle. I Said: Are you done? He Said: Yeah! I Said: I will have to address quite a bit so I will have to write quite so it would be best if we part our ways until tomorrow. He Said: Don’t write twenty pages Brother Ali. Keep it simple and to the point. I Said: In sha’a Allah. Salam Alaykum. He Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. 6.9 - Worship Of Dead Was Performed Many Ways: He Said: Salam. I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. Shall I continue where we left off with copy paste? He Said: You’re welcome. I Said: Brother, issue was if words of Tashahhud are worship and you said only your defined type of call to dead is worship (i.e. call in which caller expects call to be heard, and seeks help, or material is from deceased is worship therefore Shirk). I am not validating your principle or agreeing with you that you have actually established the principle. I am going to leave that out until later. If your principle is established, and suppose it is, that does not exclude Tashahhud from being worship. Your principle does not exclude other forms of worship. I Said: I quote the following: “Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] And pair it with the following Hadith: “Ibn 'Abbas reported that the polytheists also pronounced (Talbiya) as: ‘Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.’ The Messenger of Allah said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: ‘But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).’ They used to say this and circumambulate the Ka'ba.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] In frame work of your logic I have proven dead can be worshipped without your criteria of worship of dead being met. I Said: Polytheist performed Tawaf of worship for their dead around Kabah while saying: “Here I am at Thy service; there is no associate with Thee. But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” What you need to establish is your principle is only valid form of worship of dead and if someone attempts to worship dead with other words then worship is not valid. And I am confident you will not even attempt this because it has been falsified by Talbiyah of Mushrikeen. And I have established that even the words of Tashahhud if recited for an Ilah (i.e. Krishna) would result worship of invented Ilah and would warrant major Shirk. I Said: My question to you at the end is, why, why, why, are not words of Khitab of Tashahhud worship of ‘deceased’ Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? He Said: Brother because Ilahiyyah isn’t affirmed by these words (of Tashahhud). I Said: You imply worship if a Nida (i.e. call) of help is directed toward a deceased Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and by default Ilahiyyah is established. And I have established invoking the dead for help/material isn’t only way of their worship and worship of Tashahhud is of worship as was case of dead-Krishna. Would it not be logical to conclude words of Tashahhud are also worship because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is being called upon? He Said: Maybe logically correct deduction but Islamicly incorrect. I Said: This is the only statement of yours on which you and I can have Ijmah on. Smile. He Said: Smile. I Said: So where is the fault then: Fault in your principle? Or in Islamic teaching? He Said: I know you want to pin it on our principle. I Said: Shall I uphold your principle and blame Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for words of Tashahhud? Blame can only be your principle and whole of your/Salafi methodology of determining Shirk. He Said: Brother I cannot over-ride what scholars have stated and I disown the methodology of Salaf. I Said: Brother the amount of faith you have in correctness of your Salafi scholarship is unhealthy. Leave tiny spec of doubt in your convictions so you’re open to learning and entertaining notions that other possibilities maybe be true. We have already had discussion about Shirk of Yaqeen. At the very least be open to possibility of error. [Following day’s discussion started with copy and paste of following.] 7.0 - Explaining Salafi Evidence: Invocation Is Worship, Worship Is Of An Ilah: I Said: Brother you quoted the verse: “Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] “And those you call upon besides Him are unable to help you, nor can they help themselves." [Ref: 7:197] “And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer. If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you.” [Ref: 35:13] First of all you acknowledge the invocation mentioned in the verses is of worship which naturally implies invokers held belief of Ilahiyyah for invoked. You know creed is before action and Ilahiyyah is before Ibadah. Therefore natural conclusion is these verses are about invented Ilahs which Mushrikeen worshipped in various ways, and invoked in time of difficulty, and need. 7.1 - Quranic Evidence That Invoked Were Ilahs/Ma'bud's Of Polytheists: I Said: It would be better if I support each with evidence. [i] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] And this verse is explained by following where Ilahiyyah of; those who create nothing, themselves created, dead, and don’t know when dead will be raised; is affirmed along side the mention that they are Ilahs/gods: “Yet have they taken besides Allah 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] This establishes in verses 16:20/21 the invokers invoked as an act of worship to an Ilah. I Said: [ii] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “And those you call upon besides Him are unable to help you, nor can they help themselves." [Ref: 7:197] In the following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) points out that those besides Him which are unable to help the invokers are themselves gods: “Or do they have gods to defend them other than Us? They are unable to help themselves, nor can they be protected from Us.” [Ref: 21:43] Conclusion of these two verses is that gods which the polytheists invoked upon are unable to defend, or protect, or help Mushrikeen, or even help themselves when a calamity strikes them. I Said: [iii] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer. If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you.” [Ref: 35:13] Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) enquired from his father Azhar; why do you worship which hears, sees, and cannot help; in following verse: “When he said to his father: "O my father! Why do you worship that which hears not, sees not and cannot avail you in anything?” [Ref: 19:42] And his father responded saying: “He (the father) said: "Do you reject my gods, O Ibrahim (Abraham)? If you stop not (this), I will indeed stone you. So get away from me safely (before I punish you)." [Ref: 19:46] This establishes those who do not own an atoms weight, not even skin of date seed, and cannot hear, or see, nor can help anyone are in fact gods of polytheists of Arabia. I Said: [iv] And finally these verses establish that the Ilahiyyah is part of belief of those who invoked the mentioned Ilahs for help, material, or removal of some distress therefore their action is of worship because Dua is worship. And Islamicly even if they did not invoke they still would be Mushrikeen because of their affirmation of Ilahiyyah. So affirmation of Ilahiyyah and invoking with intention of worship, or calling for material, help etc, is all worship. I Said: [v] Coming to words of Tashahhud; according to Ahlus Sunnah calling/addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not his worship because the one calling/addressing him does not believe he is an Ilah/Ma’bud nor intends to worship him, nor call upon him with belief of Ilahiyyah. And if anyone affirms Ilahiyyah for him such a person is Mushrik even if he calls or does not call upon him in Tashahhud or generally for Istighathah. Period. 7.2 - Confession, Good For Soul Of His Islam: He Said: What I am impressed with is how easily you responded to the issue. I Said: Brother the issue can be answered by you with the same ease but you have additional baggage with your principles of determining/deciding Shirk. And this baggage is primed for one and the only Tawheed purpose of declaring Muslims as Mushrik. If you hold to, mainstream, pre-Wahhabism era, definition of Tawheed/Shirk, then you can’t go wrong. If you want to add to it; ma taht al-asbab is Tawheed and fawq al-asbab is Shirk, call of near is Tawheedi and of far is worship, call to living is Tawheed and of deceased is Shirk, directing call to one who can grant is Tawheed one who cannot is Shirk; in this case you’re just making your burden/baggage of hereafter very heavy. These principles in reality have no consequence on Tawheed/Shirk nor do they help to determine Tawheed/Shirk. Simple example, ma taht al-asbab type of help sought from living in your principle is in accordance with Tawheed but if same help is sought from living sitting right next to person seeking help but seeker has affirmed Ilahiyyah; is he guilty of worship/Shirk? He is guilty of Shirk because he affirmed Ilahiyyah and guilty of Kufr which resulted in due to worship of this Ilah. The factor which really determines Tawheed/Shirk is association of Ilah partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He Said: I agree your way of determining Tawheed/Shirk is very basic but works. You said worship of an Ilah is Kufr and not Shirk. Did you mean Kufr as in Shirk type of Kufr? 7.3 - Worship Of Partners Shirk Or Kufr: I Said: Nope! I meant Kufr without Shirk. He Said: Brother this is Shirk al-Ulluhiyyah no one disputes this. I just got comfortable and you dropped this bomb of shock and surprise. Tell me you’re kidding me and you’re not serious. I Said: I am not kidding, I am serious. He Said: Do you know what Shirk al-Ulluhiyyah actually is? I Said: Brother Shirk al-Uluhiyyah according to Salafism is Shirk al-Ubudiyyah. He Said: Yeah but do you understand it? I Said: I am former very zealous Salafi and I know precisely what it is and what it should be. You’re not really thinking I don’t know what it is? He Said: I am too shocked to think anything at the moment. Smile. I Said: OK! Shall I put your mind to rest? He Said: Please do. Smile. I Said: The existence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is of His Essence, and His Attributes. Some of His attributes are His Asma also and out of some Attributes some denote His Actions but generally all come in category attributes. Therefore we have two main categories of essence and attributes. What is Shirk? Shirk is associating an equal/inferior Ilah partner/partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or ascribing an equal to Him; in His Essence, or in one, or more of His attributes. Do you agree so far? He Said: Its different from classification I know but I agree. I Said: Please answer questions you will be asked even if it sounds stupid. He Said: OK! I Said: Does a Mushrik make worship an equal/inferior partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Ilahiyyah? He Said: Nope but if someone did that would be stupid. I Said: Does a Mushrik ascribe to Him worship as an equal in His Essence, or one or more of attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He Said: No! I Said: If worship was Shirk then both answers would be in affirmative. Shirk is attributing Ilah partner to Him and worship is not Ilah partner therefore not Shirk. Think about it bit more deeply. Act of worship does not warrant Shirk. The belief that there is another equal/inferior Ilah partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) warrants Shirk. Simple rule Shirk is always belief alone and Kufr can result from belief/action. And in this case worship is act of Kufr. Comprende? He Said: I vaguely grasped what you’re saying but carry on explain bit more. I Said: Belief that Krishna is an Ilah leads to worship. Belief of Shirk leads to an act of Kufr. Mushrik may commit Shirk in his worship but that is only because he believes Krishna is an Ilah. There is difference between belief and act. The act is Kufr by itself and the belief due to which act of worship was performed is Shirk. If you still don’t get it then try to relate the information to how I defined Tawheed/Shirk and what worship is. Done! He Said: OK! I think I got the message. I thought you were going to say Mushrikeen weren’t Mushrikeen due to worship of their idols. I Said: Brother Mushrikeen are Mushrikeen because of their belief of Ilahiyyah which they affirmed for creation and even if they don’t worship their idol-Ilahs they are even then Mushrikeen. He Said: If a Mushrik utters words which indicate his polytheistic belief during his customary worship would you agree on basis of affirmation of polytheistic belief polytheists worship is Shirk? I Said: Brother technically Shirk is result of belief and not of action of worship therefore, no, but if whole act of worship is judged to be Shirk due to Shirki beliefs being affirmed in worship then it is absolutely correct. 7.4 - Salafi Brother Finds Evidence Of Contradiction In My Position: He Said: Brother I need to leave to check something I will be back shortly. I Said: In sha’a Allah! He Said: Sorry brother Ali. I had to verify if you’re being consistent and I just found out that there was contradiction in your position. I quote: “Secondly, I have already established; Shirk is warranted primarily due to polytheistic belief and if belief has polytheistic element then the action of seeking help will be interpreted to mean worship – which is Shirk.” In our previous discussion you stated worship is Shirk and here you said it is Kufr but then you relented to it being termed Shirk. Could this be confusion, or you making up stuff as you go? Smile. I Said: I am impressed you recalled this but all is not at loss. There is logic to my understanding which Muftis employ often. In our original discussion I was judging whole due to a part and giving verdict on it and in this discussion I have technically established act of worship is Kufr but not Shirk. In Urdu/Arabic it is said, sar safaid ho gaya, which means, head turned white, but it actually means, hair turned grey. Or when it is said, Ali when are you flying to Pakistan, it means, Ali when you’re flying to Pakistan on a plane. Hairs discolour and turn grey and because the hairs are part of head therefore it is said head turned white. Ali books seat on a plane and buckles himself in and plane flies to Pakistan but because Ali is part of plane flying therefore it is said Ali flew to Pakistan. Whole is judged due to a part. 7.5 - Sometimes A Whole Is Judged To Be Something Due To A Part Of It: I Said: Coming to example of Deen. Scenario: A Salafi believes while sitting on toilet and reciting Quran earns greater reward then if it is recited anywhere else. So Salafi as a special toilet fitted just for purpose of sitting and reciting Quran on it. Period. My brother question is: Is he guilty of Kufri innovation or not? He Said: Astaghfirullah ul-Azeem. This is blunt act of Kufr and desecration. I Said: Is his practice Kufr? He Said: Kufr! I Said: I) Kufr due to recitation of Quran, II) or Kufr due to recitation of Quran on a toilet, III) or Kufr because he sat on a toilet? He Said: Brother this is uncalled for. It is obvious why it is Kufr. I Said: Brother point I wanted to make was that verdict on whole is due to a part. When I judged worship to be act of Shirk it was due to a part, i.e. affirmation of Shirki beliefs during worship. And in here I have judged it on technical grounds that Shirk is due to belief and worshiping other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) goes against hundreds of Quranic verses therefore Kufr. If I was interrogating you on basis of earlier scenario and say: You said reciting Quran is Kufr. You would say no its not. Then if I said so you’re saying it is permissible on toilet. You would say no its Kufr. I would say O contradiction. This would be very devious of me because I am taking your answers out of your intended context. I placed them into context where they seem to be contradicting. He Said: Brother Ali I had no intention of distorting anything. I didn’t even know there was such technicality involved. You’re misconstruing my effort. I Said: Brother I didn’t mean you was being devious I was strictly referring to my example. I am aware wasn’t familiar with the technicality involved because our discussion is proof of it. The lesson being taught through my example was that you have to judge my writing according to how I intended and judged the subject. And I have made it clear how worship can be termed Shirk and why it’s not Shirk but Kufr. He Said: Would there be any blame in your understanding if it is termed Shirk? I Said: No whatsoever if the rationale behind it as explained above. He Said: What if someone terms it Shirk but without understanding it according to your logic? I Said: That would point to ones crude/basic understanding of Shirk. He Said: So there is blame then? I Said: Give me few minutes I need to think it through. I Said: OK! Answer is there is no blame of reprehensible innovation because Tawheed isn’t affected by such understanding. He Said: How So? I Said: Absence of advance knowledge of Tawheed/Shirk resulting an ambiguous understanding of Ibadah does not warrant charge of innovation. A person who holds to notion worship by itself is Shirk and not for the reason I stated holds to his understanding due blind imitation of others. This blind imitation points to strong possibility that he hasn’t developed an understanding about it but merely is repeating what he has heard from others. Due to this there is ambiguity to why he holds the belief therefore no charge of reprehensible innovation is to be directed until education and full investigation. He Said: I am impressed with the depth. Smile. I Said: So shall I consider this finished. He Said: Finished but I won. Smile. I Said: In that case I need to go. Salam Alaykum. He Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. 8.0 - Verse Of Quran Dead, Lifeless, Are About Saints, Or Not: He Said: Something else just came to my mind. Earlier I quoted verse where it is stated dead/lifeless are being invoked: Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] “And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer. If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you.” [Ref: 35:13] When it is clear that dead can’t hear nor can they grant anything then why invoke them? I Said: Are you saying the dead do not hear? He Said: Well the verse does establish this. I Said: “Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet stood at the well of Badr (which contained the corpses of the pagans) and said: ‘Have you found true what your lord promised you?’ Then he further said: ‘They now hear what I say.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H317, here] What about this and other Ahadith which establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) talked to the dead after battle of Badr? And those Ahadith which prove the dead even hear the footsteps of people attending their graves: “Anas Ibn Malik reported Allah's Apostle having said: When the servant is placed in his grave, his companions retrace their steps, and he hears the noise of their footsteps, two angels come to him and make him sit and say to him: What you have to say about this person (the Prophet)? If he is a believer, he would say: I bear testimony to the fact that he is a servant of Allah and His Messenger. “ [Ref: Muslim, B40, H6862, here] 8.1 - Dead Hear Even The Light Sounds Around Their Graves: I Said: Scholars have said this indicates great strength of hearing of dead because that’s that sound is very low and if they hear that anything greater then that will be heard also. He Said: Brother that’s what scholars have said; I am under no obligation to accept that. I Said: Brother when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said don’t say even ‘Uff!’ to parents did he just mean don’t say ‘Uff!’ but its OK to knock their teeth out in their old age? Ulamah said anything greater then ‘Uff!’ is forbidden by default. If I say to my son, don’t hit your brother with a stick, does that mean I have also intended anything greater then it? Or I just stopped the whacking with stick but need give instruction regarding not to stab him with knife? He Said: Brother Ali I got your point the first time. Smile. You can calm down with your examples. I Said: Good! He Said: There is still conflict, other verses of Quran also state dead cannot hear, and so this is bit confusing me. I Said: Shall I explain the verses? He Said: Smile. That was actually what I wanted but inserted the anti-Istighathah point in for bonus. Smile. This issue has been bugging me for a while. I have read numerous explanations and I have got no better understanding of subject. I have already learnt a great deal by discussing with you and maybe you can shed some light on it. 8.2 - Quranic Evidence That Dead Do Hear: I Said: Brother in my Salafi days I too found it hard to reconcile the conflict. If I applied the verses, Q16:20/21, upon deceased persons then Ahadith and Quranic evidence contradicted it. He Said: Hadith contradicting the verses I am aware but the Quranic verses contradicting. Is there is a verse which indicates dead hear? I Said: Dead can hear, Prophet Salih Q7:77/79, Prophet Shu’ayb Q7:91/93, Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) speaks to Prophets before him, Q43:45. If you read these verses in context the deceased are being addressed in similar fashion to how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) addressed the dead Mushrikeen at well of Badr. He Said: I am going to check references and Tafsir of these verses so I will be back tomorrow. [Next day he came back and he said:] He Said: The verses I) Q7:77/79, II) Q7:91/93, III) Q43:45, all three have been misconstrued. First two are about Prophets abandoning their nations after fulfilling their tasks so the punishment of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can envelop them. And last one refers to asking the people of scriptures and not deceased before Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: The way first/second evidences have been structured lead to logical deduction that Prophets are talking to the deceased. If you read Tafsir Ibn Abbas on verses, Q7:91/93, it makes clear that Prophet is talking to destroyed/dead people. And if this interpretation is valid for this verse then due to similar structure of, Q7:77/79, the same understanding is also correct. Coming to last evidence of verse; Q43:45. Tafsir al-Jalalayn gave two verdicts on verses that it is about asking about people of scriptures and about Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) have option to enquire from earlier Prophets when he met the Prophets on Miraj journey. He Said: I am not entirely convinced but its better to move on. I Said: Brother any Tafsir as long as it does not contradict Quranic and Prophetic teachings should be accepted as long as there is room for the interpretation because Quran is Jawami al-Kalim (i.e. short but comprehensive in meanings). Are we in agreement that dead do hear? He Said: I don’t agree with your understanding of above quoted verses. I Said: But you do agree the dead hear irrespective of validity of above evidence? He Said: Yes due to evidence of prophetic Sunnah. 8.3 - Explaining They Are Dead, Lifeless, And Do Not Hear, Verse: I Said: The verse states: Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] “And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer. If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you.” [Ref: 35:13] Obviously those dead who do hear cannot be intended the dead. The intended dead are only dead ones which do not and cannot hear. We have evidence, Muslim and Mushrik dead both hear; therefore dead human cannot be intended dead. He Said: Are there different types of dead? I Said: There are two types of dead: I) human being who died, II) and inanimate object which never was alive for example an idol. The first dead hear and the second dead cannot. And does not hear/see because it didn’t/doesn’t have life therefore is without life and soul. Human was alive/hearing died his body stopped hearing but his soul continues to hear. Regarding the idol Quran states: “Have they feet with which they walk? Or have they hands wherewith they hold? Or have they eyes wherewith they see? Or have they ears wherewith they hear? Say: "Call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me, and give me no respite! “ [Ref: 7:195] Living human being and soul of dead human being hears and sees but an idol did not hear/see and does not hear/see therefore its dead. Body of idol doesn’t have life or soul so this verse establishes idols are lifeless/dead. Verse, Q16:20/21, goes on to build on this verse, Q7:195, and explicitly spells out the implications of verse Q7:195. He Said: That makes so much sense brother. I Said: Just to reinforce what has been established taking the note of following: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) calls barren land as a dead land, Q35:9 and Q36:33. This indicates why idols are called dead. They are made up of material which is dead/lifeless therefore it is appropriate to term them dead. [My son Ibrahim unexpectedly joined me so I had to leave station to attend him and mean while brother wrote.] He Said: I am impressed with how you explained the issue. Your understanding of verse isn’t new but the way you explained it is new and logically appealing. Is there anything else that could add to the clarity of verse? [He got no response from me so he left with customary greeting.] Salam Alaykum. [Few hours later I came back and brother was online.] I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. Sorry got distracted because of son pouncing on the keyboard. He Said: I realized something must have come up. I Said: Yes I do have one point to add. In verse of, “jaa al-haq wa zahaq al-batil …” the al-Batil refers to idols. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) miraculously breaking idols after each recitation by touching an idol with stick establishes al-Batil is name/title of idols in the verse: “Truth has come and the falsehood/Batil has perished …” And similarly in verse, Q16:20/21, amwat (i.e. dead) and ghayru ahya (i.e. without life) is used as description/title/name of idols. 8.4 - Idols Are Dead So Why Will They Be Raised From Dead For Judgment: He Said: I have one question. If your interpretation is correct then why is the verse saying the idols don’t know when they will be raised up on resurrection day? I Said: How can the idols know! They are lifeless, and dead, never had any life, so they won’t even know signs of judgment day even if you sit in front of one and recite entire end of day’s corpus. Knowing the actual resurrection day by them is impossibility on another level. He Said: I didn’t mean what you understood from this. I meant that if the dead are idols then they are not going to be raised to life on resurrection day yet the verse hints they will be raised to life: “(They the idols are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the idols themselves) will be raised up.” I Said: OK! I got the message this time. The verse actually is stating: “(They the idols are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the dead mankind) will be raised up.” Sayyidi Ala Hadhrat (rahimullah) translated it like this fashion. He Said: I do not trust his scholarship or his translation. I Said: Brother you do not trust him and his scholarship and you agree with my understandings. He is a man of great learning but you have bone to pick with him. Insignificant person like me you agree with. Isn’t this bit strange? He Said: I don’t agree with you Brother Ali, only agree with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I Said: May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) give you strength to hold to this path then Ameen. He Said: Ameen. I Said: Anyway the reference of yub’asoon refers to humans/mankind in following verses, where Iblees asks for respite till us the mankind are raised again Q7:14 and Q15:36. Read both these verses in context and see the reference is to rising of human kind for judgment in these verses. And in verse of, Q16:20/21, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states the dead idol Ilahs of Mushrikeen do no know when the people will be raised for judgment day. He Said: Jazakallah Khayr for this clarification but I need to check references and Tafasir. I intend to pass your explanation to a Talib ul-Ilm to see what he says. I Said: Brother if you like I will write up the material and E-Mail it to you and you can pass that to him. He Said: That would be better if you can do it within few hours. I Said: I will have to go now and start now if I finish it I will E-Mail it. Remember to send him chat-log of this session. He Said: OK. I will. Jazakallah Khayr. 8.5 - Interpretation Of Verse, Q16:20/21, By Salafi Talib ul-Ilm And My Response: He Said: Brother Ali there is another logical hurdle which Talib ul-Ilm brother placed on your way. I Said: Did he say anything to refute what I presented as proof of my understanding? He Said: Nothing much! He basically said everything of your interpretation does not fit into the verse. If the verse was about idols then it would mean the idols do not know when the mankind will be raised up for judgment day: “(They the idols are) dead, not alive, and they (the idols) know not when they (the dead mankind) will be raised up.” This does not fit into verse well because if idols are intended then why should they be expected to know? They are after-all, idols, made up of inanimate material. If the dead mentioned in the verse were deceased human beings then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) saying; the dead don’t know when deceased will be raised up for judgment; would make better sense and in this light I purpose that dead mentioned in the verse are not idols but dead human beings. And he presented following explanation of verse: “Those whom they (the majority of mankind) invoke besides Allah (are residents of graves and they) have not created anything, but are themselves created (by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala). (They the people of graves are) dead, not alive, and they (residents of grave) know not when they (the dead) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] I think he has produced an equally compelling argument. What do you have to say about this Brother Ali? 8.6 - Muslims Are Part Of Majority Of Mankind Fallen Into Major Shirk: I Said: Before I answer your question just my own side note type of question. He Said: Smile. I Said: Majority mankind inclusive of Muslims or exclusive? He Said: ‘Muslims’ of type who worship others beside Allah are part of this majority of mankind. I Said: I was intending to ask if they are part of majority in major Shirk or due to minor but you answered the question yourself. Just one more question; are you inserting that in due to, most believe not except with Shirk, verse? He Said: Yes! I Said: Thanks I am done. With regards to your question: You will be glad to know partly he is correct. 8.7 - Mushrikeen And Living-Kind Does No Not When They Will Be Raised: I Said: The correct deduction is that yash’u’runa (i.e. they know) is not referring to idols but it is referring to human beings. I quote: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are idol-Ilahs) dead, not alive, and they (the Mushrikeen) know not when they (the Mushrikeen) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] Contextually verse 20 and 21 indicates the Mushrikeen who invoke the Ilah-idols beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) do not know when they themselves will be raised for judgment day. But another verse is inclusive of all living beings in universe not knowing Ghayb by their own selves except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His living creation not knowing when they will be resurrected: “Say: ‘None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allah, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.’" [Ref: 27:65] I Said: This verse employs yub’a’thoon and yash’u’run like verse, Q16:21. So the conclusion is that Mushrikeen invoke dead idol-Ilahs which were created by others but these idol-Ilahs themselves did not create anything due to lack of life and living-kind does not know when entire living-kind will be resurrected for judgment: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are idol-Ilahs) dead, not alive, and they (the living-kind) know not when they (the living-kind) will be raised up (after their death).” [Ref: 16:20/21] I Said: In conclusion immediate context the verse, Q16:21, is referring to Mushrikeen not knowing when they will be raise-up from dead. And in wider context of, Q27:65, the living-kind does not know when they will be raised from dead for judgment day. And my judgement is that both interpretations are equally valid. He Said: Ma sha‘a Allah Brother Ali. I Said: Note I said his deduction is partly correct partly correct part was that the verse indeed referred to human beings (i.e. Kafirs/Muslims) but to living and not dead. 8.8 - Takhsees Of Dead Mentioned In Verse Means Resident Of Graves Not Idols: He Said: You didn’t address his Takhsees. Talib ul-Ilm brother made Takhsees of dead mentioned in the verse to mean residents of grave. His logic was dead is in grave therefore resident of grave is valid Takhsees. I Said: Brother when we discussed this verse decade ago I had satisfactorily explained the verse in context of Quran. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are idol-Ilahs) dead, not alive, and they (the Mushrikeen) know not when they (the Mushrikeen) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] Those who do not create anything but are themselves created are idols gods: “Yet have they taken besides Allah Ilahs 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] The overall message derived from these two verses is that polytheists of Arabia have taken beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Ilahs whom they invoke. And reality of these associated Ilah-partners is that they create nothing but were created [by those who worship them]. They are dead and lifeless and have no control over benefit or harm, nor do they control life, or death, or resurrection. 8.9 - Tafsir Of Ahlus Sunnah Validated By Salafi Brother: He Said: Brother Ali I accept your interpretation is valid due to your evidences but the exclusion of its application upon dead people is I am not so convinced of. I Said: In verses, Q16:20/21, the points requiring Tafsir are three but I have only explained the third: I) besides Allah have not created anything, II) but are themselves created, III) they are dead without life. I was hoping you would be convinced that your take of verse is blameworthy type of Tafsir of Bir Ra’iy. You’re unwilling to let of your unsupported blameworthy Tafsir so I am going to develop the first two parts as well. I will have pre-written the material for our next meeting. He Said: How can the apparent meaning of verse be blameworthy Tafsir of opinion? It’s not needed Brother Ali but you go ahead and I will share my two cents when you’re done. I Said: In response to your question I will say it is contention for me to prove and for you to find out. Smile. Brother Tafsir of first two parts is needed so the issue can be resolved for once and for all. He Said: Salam Alaykum. I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. 8.10 - Tafsir Of Not Created Anything But Themselves Are Created: I Said: I) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything …” [Ref: 16:20] “Yet have they taken besides Allah gods that can create nothing ...“ [Ref: 25:3] “O people, an example is presented, so listen to it. Indeed, those you invoke besides Allah will never create (as much as) a fly, even if they gathered together for that purpose. And if the fly should steal away from them a (tiny) thing, they could not recover it from him. Weak are the pursuer and pursued.” [Ref: 22:73] And it is deniable fact that the Ilahs of Mushrikeen of Arabia were idols which could not create anything. Now if you say these verses refers all human beings, (you cannot, especially not Prophets and Saliheen of Ummah), then there is obvious contradiction because Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) made birds of clay and breathed into them life with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And Awliyah-Allah performed miracles befitting their status. I Said: II) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “… but are themselves created.” [Ref: 16:20] In language of Quran which does not create is created by another is an idol: “You only worship, besides Allah, idols, and you (Mushrikeen) create a falsehood (the idol). Indeed, those you worship besides Allah do not possess for you (the power of) provision.” [Ref: 29:17] Incident of Bani Israel mentioned in Quran is also Tafsir of, “… but are themselves created.” His nation said to Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) create for us an Ilah/god like these people have: “And We took the Children of Israel across the sea; then they came upon a people intent in devotion to idols of theirs. They said: "O Moses make for us an Ilah (i.e. god) just as they have Aalihatan (i.e. gods)." He said, "Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly.” [Ref: 7:138] Contextually demanding that Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) create for them an Ilah can only mean create for us an idol. Also Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said to his people: “He said: ‘Do you worship that which you (yourselves) carve. While Allah created you and that which you do/make?’" [Ref: 37:96] And following verse is proof that they carved idols and took them as Ilahs beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “And (mention, O Muhammad), when Abraham said to his father Azar: "Do you take idols as Aalihat (i.e. the gods)? Indeed, I see you and your people to be in manifest error." [Ref: 6:74] The first two points, they don’t create anything, themselves are created, and they are dead and without life all go and support the only correct interpretation that those referred in the verse are idols: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah (are idols and they) have not created anything, but (these idols) are themselves created. (These idol-Ilahs are) dead, not alive, and they (the Mushrikeen) know not when they (the Mushrikeen) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] He Said: Brother Ali like I said earlier I absolutely agree with you that your Tafsir of this verse is correct. I have forgotten how you established; they are dead lifeless, points to idols so if you got the material written up I will like to read it. Any way my position does not change. Your interpretations to establish the verse refers to idols are not excluding our understanding that dead humans are part of it. 8.11 - Responding To Two Contentions Of Salafi Brother: He Said: You said Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) created birds but this is bi izn-illahi ta’ala and [the miracle is] not from him. I Said: Brother Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) sought permission [to perform miracle] and did not ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to perform the miracle. I Said: Scenario. Amr verbally abused Zayd. Akhtar is friend of Zayd and Akhtar seeks permission from Zayd to slap Amr. Zayd grants permission to Akhtar. Akhtar slaps Amr on the face for insults. Question is did Zayd slap Amr or Akhtar slapped Amr! You will agree Akhtar sought Izn and after Izn was granted Akhtar delivered the slap. Similarly the permission from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for miracle is not same as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performing miracle. A Prophet, a Messenger performs miracle with power given to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and with His permission Prophet/Messenger performs the miracle. I don’t seem to understand why people misconstrue seeking of permission with seeking ability/power. He Said: You acknowledge power came from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and permission came from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is proof that miracle is not action of a Nabi/Rasool. I Said: Would it have been possible for Akhtar to slap Amr if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not grant Akhtar the power and permission to slap Amr? No! Despite having power and permission from Him delivered slap is Akhtar’s action or not? Every ability, every quality, every attribute, every thing, of creation is dependent upon His bestowal and His permission to do anything/everything. Why do you want to degrade Prophets/Messengers and take away a merit which distinguishes them from rest of us? He Said: You’re saying the power/capability was of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and not from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I Said: Brother everything we do power has been granted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He has granted it to us therefore we perform actions with it and actions are ours. Similarly the supernatural power enabling Prophets to perform miracles is granted to them by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore it is their power/ability but they under instruction from Him utilize their supernatural ability to perform miracle. He Said: I am happy with that explanation. [He continued with the next objection.] He Said: Your Tafsir of al-Batil being idols is not correct as far as I am aware. Have you got any supporting evidence for this? I Said: I definitely do brother and if I recall correctly I already did in this round of discussion. Give me bit of time I will be back. Back. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) smashed the idols in Kabah while reciting verse truth has come falsehood has perished: “Narrated Abdullah bin Mas’ud: Allah's Messenger entered Mecca (in the year of the Conquest) and there were three-hundred and sixty idols around the Ka`ba. He then started hitting them with a stick in his hand and say: 'Truth (i.e. Islam) has come and falsehood vanished. Truly falsehood is ever bound to vanish.' (17.81) 'Truth has come and falsehood (Iblis) can not create anything.' (34.49).” [Ref: Bukhari, B60, H244] This incident indicates falsehood in verse recited by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was idols. And falsehood is name of idols in Quranic language: “That is because Allah is the Truth (i.e. al-Haq), and that what they call upon other than Him is Batil (i.e. falsehood, the idol), and because Allah is the Most High, the Grand.” [Ref: 31:30] He Said: OK! I get how you interpreted it. I will have to confirm it with Tafasir though. That’s enough for now I have to go. Allah Hafiz. I Said: Allah Hafiz. 8.12 - Living Mushrikeen Can Be Part Of Verse Q16:21: I Said: Brother while you was gone I spent bit of time contemplating over the verse flow of verse: “(They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] I was bothered by lack of flow of verse. If verse, they know not when they will be raised up, part refers to living then why should the, they are dead not alive, part not refer to living also? What plagued my mind was if my idol interpretation is correct then first and later part of verse has no real connection. And I have come to a new conclusion for which is also fully supported with evidence of Quran. He Said: So you’re retracting your earlier interpretation? I Said: Nope! Interpretation of dead mentioned in verse, Q16:21, to mean idols in context of following verse is correct: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created.” And that interpretation stands correct in light of evidences established in support of it. The new realization is that the dead mentioned in the following verse can also be interpreted to mean living Mushrikeen: “(They are) dead, not alive, and they (the Mushrikeen) know not when they (the Mushrikeen) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] And evidence for this interpretation is following verses where living polytheists are termed as the dead: “Indeed, you will not make the dead hear, nor will you make the deaf hear the call when they have turned their backs retreating.” [Ref: 27:80] “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] You should take note of fact that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not attempting to preach Islam to dead of graves nor can the dead retreat turning their backs therefore the dead/deaf mentioned were living Mushrikeen. I Said: Tafsir Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) on verse, Q27:80, here. I quote civilized version of Tafsir al-Jalalayn: “Indeed you cannot make the dead hear nor can you make the deaf hear the call when (al-du‘ā’a idhā read by pronouncing both hamzas or by not pronouncing the second one eliding it with the yā’) they have turned their backs upon you.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 27:80, here] So my new Tafsir is: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They the living Mushrikeen are) dead, not alive, and they (the Mushrikeen) know not when they (the Mushrikeen) will be raised up (after their deaths).” [Ref: 16:20/21] He Said: Have you got more to say? I Said: Yes! He Said: You complete your side first. 8.13 - Q16:21 Is Also About Deceased People Whom The Idols Of Mushrikeen Represented: I Said: Also another thing. The verse can also refer to dead human beings but those who have been elevated to status of an Ilah and whose idol was worshipped by Arab Mushrikeen. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Those (Ilahs represented by idols) whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (Those whom idols represent are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the deceased/themselves) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] He Said: Are you kidding? I Said: I am serious. He Said: When did you adopt this understanding? I Said: Yesterday after you left I was reciting Quran and by chance looked at the translation of verse and instantly realized the first interpretation (i.e. living Mushrikeen are called dead) and while search evidence for it I remembered the details of belief of polytheists. And remembered that idols are representation of a person/creature therefore it can be inclusive of deceased persons whom the idols represent. He Said: Smile. You know what this means then? I Said: Brother I can guess but you tell me. He Said: If the verse refers to dead persons whom the Mushrikeen invoked via their idols then my position is proven; invoking dead for help/material is Shirk because it amounts to worship. I Said: Brother first of all invoking an Ilah/Ma’bud is worship about which the invoker affirms Mabudiyyah/Ilahiyyah and in Islam even the intention of worship has to be made. So action, intention and belief three come togather for Islamic worship otherwise if one is missing there is no worship. 8.14 - Three Valid Interpretations Of, Q16:20/21, And None Supports Salafi Position: I Said: Secondly verse, Q16:21, was interpreted in four ways. I Said: I) Dead refers to idols: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are idol-Ilahs) dead, not alive, and they (the Mushrikeen) know not when they (the Mushrikeen) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] I Said: II) “Those (Ilahs represented by idols) whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (Those whom idols represent are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the deceased/themselves) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] I Said: IIIa) “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive, and they (the Mushrikeen) know not when they (the Mushrikeen) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] I Said: IIIb) “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are idol-Ilahs) dead, not alive, and they (the living-kind) know not when they (the living-kind) will be raised up (after their death).” [Ref: 16:20/21] I Said: As I understand all four are valid and correct interpretations in light of supporting evidences. And none of these interpretations are favourable to you because three interpretations are about Ilahs of Mushrikeen and one is directly about Mushrikeen. 8.15 - Spelling Out Difference Between My Interpretations And Salafi Interpretation: I Said: You cannot apply the verse on Muslims because there is no intention of worship because there is no affirmation of belief of Ilahiyyah from whom help is sought. Just merely seeking help from a deceased Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) doesn’t/can’t warrant Ilahiyyah. I Said: Hadith records: “Ibn Umar considered the Khawarij and the heretics as the worst beings in creation, and he said: They went to verses which were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them to the Believers.” [Bukhari, Chapter Khawarjites, Ibn Hajr al Asqalani said in Fath ul Bari: That it’s Sanad is Sahih.] Why would you openly want to be from Khawarij by applying a verse revealed Mushrikeen and their idol-Ilahs? My concession does not benefit you in anyway. 8.16 - Spelling Out The Error Of Salafi Methodology Of Determining Shirk: I Said: Thirdly your interpretation is that Mushrikeen invoked the dead persons for help/material and this was worship and Shirk therefore. Your interpretation does not compute dead persons are their Ilahs/Ma’buds. Your side ignores the belief of Ilahiyyah of Mushrikeen because you wish to draw similarity between practice of Mushrikeen and Muslims due to practice of Istighathah. You avoid belief part because there is no similarity between belief of Muslims and Mushriks. If you fully state Mushrikeen affirmed Ilahiyyah for their dead persons and invoked them for help/material with intention of worship you would fail to establish similarity of belief and this would undermine your objective. Muslims don’t affirm Ilahiyyah and without intention of worship call for Awliyah-Allah for help. And this absence of belief of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship refutes your charge. He Said: We do establish Ilahiyyah. I Said: You do not brother. Shirk begins with belief of Ilahiyyah and results in worship. Your Shirk is judged from practice of worship and then arrives at Ilahiyyah. In other words your Ilahiyyah is implied because you believe a creation was worshipped therefore the worshipper must have affirmed Ilahiyyah for creation. If it took the belief route then Ilahiyyah/belief comes first and worship/practice comes next in line. And you know too well that Sunnis Muslims do not affirm Ilahiyyah with tongue and confirmation in heart for Nabi, or a Wali. If you take belief route then you have no accusation and no foundation but you take action route. You decide x is worship, worship is of Ilah, they affirm Ilah and then charge Sunni Muslims are guilty of major Shirk. 8.17 - Called Worst Mushrik Not Offended But Khariji Offended: I Said: Any how brother you will you continue to employ following blameworthy Tafsir bir’Ra’iy to advance your Kharijism: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (These invoked are) dead, not alive (persons), and they (the deceased persons) know not when they (living-kind) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] He Said: I am not going to dignify your accusation a response that we [Salafis] are Khawarij but I will ask you to prove your charge that our Tafsir is from of opinion. This is second time you repeated this and I am still to see evidence how you have come to this conclusion. To answer what you asked, I see no reason to abandon it. You believe in Jawami al-Kalim capacity of Quran and I consider this interpretation to be also valid. I Said: Brother I did not mean to offend you by saying your Salafism is Kharijism. If I take no offense in being deemed a Mushrik, worse Mushrik then Mushrikeen which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encountered, then I am sure your side being deemed Khawarij is not more insulting and offensive then mine. And the saying your way is Kharijism was in context of statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) who deemed your methodology of interpreting Quranic verses as of worst creations i.e. Khawarij. You will have to bear with some barbs like I am. I cannot always avoid saying what is obvious and my belief. I Said: With regards to Tafsir bir’Ra’iy. I was supposed to follow up on that discussion but discussion got diverted and I forgot. So lets explain why your interpretation of verse, Q16:2021, is incorrect and a example of blameworthy Tafsir bir-Ra’iy. For now I will have to go and research the matter of Tafsir bil-Ra’iy to figure out how it can be determined. Allah Hafiz. [After researched the matter I mailed following content to him.] 8.18 - Blameworthy Tafsir Bir-Ra’iy According To Salafi Shaykh: I Said: Brother a Salafi, Shaykh Muhammad Bazmool, defines Tafsir bir'Ra’iy as praiseworthy and blameworthy and goes on to give five reasons how Tafsir bir'Ra’iy can be praiseworthy: “The praise-worthy and accepted Tafsir bi’l-Ra’yi is that whose author adheres to the conditions for the acceptance of Tafsir bi’l-Ra’yi, which are as follows: a). That it does not differ from the Tafsir bi’l-Ma’thoor in a way that opposes or conflicts with it. b). That it does not produce an interpretation of the ayah which goes against the surrounding context. c). That it does not produce an interpretation of a word which goes against the linguistic meanings of that word. d). That it does not produce an interpretation which agrees with and aids the people of innovation and misguidance. e). That it does not produce an interpretation that goes against the contents and objectives of the religion. The blame-worthy Tafsir bi’l-Ra’yi: The blame-worthy Tafsir bi’l-Ra’yi is that which fails to fulfil any one of the conditions for the acceptance of Tafsir bi’l-Ra’yi.” [Ref: The Types of Tafsir, by Sheikh Muhammad Bazmool, here.] I do not agree with every rule stated by Shaykh Bazmool especially, d, following: “That it does not produce an interpretation which agrees with and aids the people of innovation and misguidance.” I disagree because it seems he is just attempting to prevent the flock from accepting interpretation of Quran/Sunnah which would undermine Salafism. This is hardly a fair and balanced rule. Chat to you soon. Text me if you’re coming online today. [End of mail.] I Said: Did you get chance to read the contents of E-Mail? He Said: I have read them before. I Said: Do you agree to judge via these rules if your Tafsir is blameworthy or praiseworthy? He Said: Yeah! I Said: Shall I present your position in context of verse or will you? He Said: Brother you have knack for this so you go ahead. 8.19 - Salafi Brother’s Blameworthy Tafsir Of Verse Q16:20/21: I Said: Do you agree with following representation of your point of view: "Those whom they (the majority of Muslims and Mushrik) invoke besides Allah (are deceased persons and these) have not created anything, but are themselves created (by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala). (These invoked persons are) dead, not alive, and they (the invoked dead persons) know not when they (themselves and living-kind) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] He Said: Smile. I couldn’t have done this better myself. I Said: Glad I was help. He Said: Do you agree this verse points to Mushrikeen invoking the deceased persons as an act of worship? I Said: Agreed that deceased persons were Ilahs of Mushrikeen whom they worshipped. He Said: Brother my question wasn’t answered. I Said: You cannot expect me to exclude Ilahiyyah/Ma’budiyyah when we both know Ilahiyyah/belief precedes worship. What you’re asking and answer to it without Ilahiyyah can be manipulated. He Said: I understand Brother Ali. I Said: You believe this Tafsir is valid. I think its time you and your Talib ul-Ilm brother to work togather and support your position via corroboration of Quranic verses. He Said: I will but weren’t you supposed to establish my Tafsir is of blameworthy opinion? I Said: I was going to but guess who interrupted and I lost sight of objective. Smile. He Said: Don’t let me hold you back then. I Said: I have prepared material for this in advance I will E-Mail it to you. He Said: Copy and paste here. I Said: It has links embedded in text which will be lost. He Said: Copy paste here and E-Mail them I will check references. 8.20 - Online Arabic Tafasir On The Verses, Q16:20/21: I Said: Great scholars of Islam have interpreted both verse 20, and 21, saying that these are descriptions of characteristics of idols and Ilahs of Mushrikeen. Al-Tabri in his Tafsir Jami ul-Bayan Fi Tafsir ul-Quran interpreted the verse 20/21 in context of awthan and asnam, here. Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Raazi also did likewise in Tafsir ul-Kabeer, here. Imam Qurtubi in his Jami ul-Ihkam ul-Quran also interpreted it in context of idols, here. Ferozabadi in his, Tafsir ul-Quran, interpreted both verses in context of idols, here. Samarqadi in his, Tafsir Bahr ul-Uloom, like all before interpreted these verses about idols, here. Imam Baghwi in his, Tafsir Ma’lum al-Tanzeel, also interpreted these two verses in context of idols, here. Author of Tafsir Madarik al-Tanzeel Wa Haqaiq ul-Taweel also interpreted both verses about Ilahs of Mushrikeen, here. Al-Khazin in his, Li’baab il-Taweel Fi Mani il-Taweel, interpreted them about idols, here. He Said: I cannot verify due to absence of links. 8.21 - Arabic Tafasir Translated To English Available Online: I Said: “(Those unto whom they invoke) they worship, (beside Allah created naught) they cannot create anything like Our creation, (but are themselves created) they are themselves carved. (They are dead) they are lifeless idols, (not living) the idols, (And they know not when they will be raised) from the graves and give account; it is also said that this means: the disbelievers do not know when they will give account for their deeds; and it is also said: the angels do not know when they will give account.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 16:20/21, here, here.] I Said: “And those whom you invoke tad‘ūna or read yad‘una ‘they invoke’ besides God namely the idols do not create anything but are themselves created fashioned from stones and other materials. They are dead possessing no life. Amwātun (i.e. dead) is a second predicate, ghayru ahya (i.e. not living) an emphasis [on amwatun], and they the idols are not aware when is the time in which they shall be raised (that is creatures) so how can they be worshipped? For only the Creator the Living the Knower of the Unseen can be a God.” [Ref: Tafsir Jalalayn, 16:20/21, here, here.] I Said: “Then Allah tells us that the idols which people call on instead of Him cannot create anything, they are themselves created, as Al-Khalil (Ibrahim) said: “Do you worship that which you (yourselves) carve While Allah has created you and what you make!” (37:-96) “They are dead, not alive …” means, they are inanimate and lifeless, they do not hear, see, or think. “… and they know not when they will be resurrected.” Meaning they do not know when the Hour will come, so how can anyone hope for any benefit or reward from these idols? They should hope for it from the One Who knows all things and is the Creator of all things.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 16:20/21, here.] He Said: OK! Brother Ali what is your point? I Said: Brother I have established in light of Quranic evidences that both these verses are about Ilahs of Mushrikeen which were represented by their idols and I have proven living Mushrikeen can also be intended dead. And to further support my point of view I have presented view point of Mufassireen. 8.22 - Salafi Tafsir Of, Q16:20/21, Blameworthy Tafsir Of Opinion, Or Praiseworthy: I Said: Your Tafsir and I quote: “Those whom they (the majority of mankind) invoke besides Allah (are residents of graves and they) have not created anything, but are themselves created (by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala). (They the people of graves are) dead, not alive, and they (residents of grave) know not when they (the dead) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] This contradicts following rules of Shaykh Bazmool: “a) That it does not differ from the Tafsir bi’l-Ma’thoor in a way that opposes or conflicts with it. b). That it does not produce an interpretation of the ayah which goes against the surrounding context.” It opposes and conflicts with Tafsir bi’l-Ma’thoor that it goes against Tafsir of Quran with Quran and if you believe Tafsir Ibn Abbas is actually his Tafsir then in two ways. Your Tafsir ignores that the Mushrikeen invoked their Ma’buds/Ilahs representations of whom they had created with their own hands in form of idols. And it contradicts what is stated before verses 20/21. I Said: If you read from verse 2 of chapter 16 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states he sent angels with Wahi (i.e. revelation) to inform the people that there is no Ilah/Deity except Him so fear Him alone. Due to mankind associating idols as Ilah-partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) He tells mankind what He created for them from verse 3 to 16. Then in verse 17 He asks question: “Then is He (the Ilah) who creates like one (Ilah) who does not create? So will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 16:17] And then three verses later Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) builds upon it with following by saying not only they don’t create anything in the universe the idols/Ilahs of Mushrikeen have themselves been created: “Those whom they (the Mushrikeen) invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created (because they are inanimate idols).” [Ref: 16:20] Then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) goes on to give reason why they are unable to create and why they are not Ilahs: “(These idol-Ilahs are) dead, not alive, and they know not when they (the living-kind) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:21] I Said: This evidence is addition to what I have already provided in our earlier encounters. He Said: OK! By the look of things I have a problem with which I cannot contend with. I Said: Brother you have not presented evidence for your Taweel of dead being non-Ilah-persons. If you have a single verse/Hadith to support your Takhsees please go ahead. He Said: I need some space to think. Allah Hafiz. I will be back on Saturday or Sunday. 8.23 - My Method Of Determining Blameworthy Tafsir Of Opinion: [He abruptly left so I mailed the following to him.] I Said: Salam Alaykum Brother. Following is how I would determine blameworthy and praiseworthy Tafsir bir’Ra’iy. If it does not oppose or conflict with; I) Tafsir bi’l-Ma’thoor, II) understanding Ijmah/Jamhoor of Ummah then it is praiseworthy. III) If it agrees with surrounding context of verse, IV) if it does not give credibility to a belief invalidated by teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), V) if it does not go against moral, theological, and practical compass of religion of Islam, VI) and adheres to rules of Arabic grammar and linguistic usage of words; then it is valid and praiseworthy. End. And if it opposes/conflicts with any of these then it's rejected and blameworthy. 8.24 - The Verdict According To My Methodology And Supporting Evidence: I Said: You presented your Tafsiri understanding of the verses in following words: “Those whom they (the majority of mankind) invoke besides Allah (are residents of graves and they) have not created anything, but are themselves created (by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala). (They the people of graves are) dead, not alive, and they (residents of grave) know not when they (the dead) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] And with your permission I presented your view point with following: "Those whom they (the majority of Muslims and Mushrik) invoke besides Allah (are deceased persons and these) have not created anything, but are themselves created (by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala). (These invoked persons are) dead, not alive, and they (the invoked dead persons) know not when they (themselves and living-kind) will be raised up.” [Ref: 16:20/21] In context my rules your Tafsir goes against, I, II, III, and IV. Out of these four, I and II, has already been argued and established with evidence. This leaves III and IV, to be established. I Said: II is because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated: “One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a hand span and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] Note Jammah is the main body of Muslims and this is supported by following as well: “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that, “Two are better than one, and three better than two so stick to the Jama'ah, for verily Allah Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] None from the Jammah of Muslims, pre-Wahhabi era, has interpreted this verse to mean Prophets and Saints of this Ummah, or even righteous persons of previous Ummahs. Ijmah of Ummah and understanding Jamhoor/majority of Muslims and even of Muslim scholarship establishes my position. I Said: Number IV applies to your interpretation because your interpretation of verse, Q16:21, is employed to established Muslims are worshiping prophets and righteous men of Ummah. And this interpretation causes conflict in Quranic and prophetic teaching. 8.25 - Wahhabi Interpretation Causes Conflict With Quranic and Prophetic Teaching: I Said: This conflict can be established via two ways: I) Application of this and verses like it upon Prophets and righteous servants and saying Muslims are worshipping them is legalizing hellfire upon righteous servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophets: “Indeed you (polytheists) and what you worship other than Allah are the firewood of Hell. You will be coming to (enter) it." [Ref: 21:98] Yet Prophets, Saliheen, Awliyah-Allah have been promised paradise in Quran. I Said: II) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said my Ummah will not worship sun, moon, and idols but will engage in minor Shirk of Riya: “It was narrated from Shaddad bin Aws that the Messenger of Allah said: “The thing that I fear most for my nation is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Sunan Ibn Majah, B37, H4205, here.] And your understanding of Shirk and interpretation warrants Shirk and this is against prophetic teaching. In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship him in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] And meaning of it is that Satan has despaired about succeeding in spreading idol-worship amongst Muslims of Arabia. Implications of which is major Shirk will not return in Muslims of Arabia. [End of mail.] 8.26 - Admission His Tafsir Is Invalid And Of Self-Opinion: He Said: Brother Ali I think your rules are bit more grounded or at very least better explained therefore I am happy to agree with them. I Said: It doesn’t really matter my brother who you agree with the result is same. With his rules you oppose two and with mine you oppose four and in both cases conclusion is your Tafsir is blameworthy Tafsir bir-Ra’iy. So you agree or you disagree? I mean the conclusion is straight forward Brother. Smile. He Said: I will give my honest verdict after we have debated the contents of your E-Mail in light of prophetic Sunnah. I Said: Brother if it makes easy ignore that material and judge by what was discussed in our last meeting. He Said: Brother Ali your E-Mail answers some questions and contradicts teaching of other Ahadith. After discussing these contradictory Ahadith and if you managed to satisfy I will give you judgment. I Said: As you wish. 9.0 - Preparing For Discussion Regarding Grading Of Hadith: He Said: There are number of points I want to discuss, I) grading of Ibn Majah H4205, II) also you said none interpreted the verse in context of Saliheen but Brother Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari establishes that righteous people from Ummah of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) are being worshipped by Arabs. So even IF none has the evidence exists to interpret it as such. III) If this Hadith is authentic (which it isn’t) then it contradicts Ahadith so we will have to reject, prefer, or harmonize. And this is very difficult for me. I Said: Brother I am prepared to discuss second but for first and third I will need preparation time. He Said: OK! 9.1 - Worship Of Righteous Men From Ummah Of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam😞 I Said: Shall I dive into the subject because I have already encountered it before and wrote about it? He Said: Smile. I am man of few words and you of too many so go ahead. Smile. I Said: Give me few minutes I will be back. [After five minutes.] Brother the Hadith on which you’re basing your understanding is Da’if because it contradicts clear text of Quran. Following article contains details, here, see section 5.0 to 5.3, of linked article for details. I Said: Read it few times and allow time for it to sink in. He Said: Your pre-written content is killing me. I Said: Thank Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! You have no pre-produced content otherwise I would be dying too. Smile. He Said: I have understood justification of no copy & paste rule. Smile. 9.2 - Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Raazi On Intercession Of Inhabitants Of Graves And Idols: He Said: What do you say about scholars like al-Raazi and others who have said veneration of deceased persons at graves lead to Shirk and this is similar to what the Muslims are doing now [during his life]. I Said: I don’t think he precisely said what you’re attributing to him. If I recall correctly his statement in his Tafsir was people created idols/statues to represent Prophets and righteous men of their time and then they started worshipping them thinking they would intercede for them. He then followed his comment by saying likeness of that practice is what the Muslims are doing at the graves of Saliheen with belief that they will intercede for them. He Said: Something like that Brother but his position is that Muslims are committing Shirk at graves and it was similar to how idol worship started. I Said: I present to you two translation of his statement: “They made these idols and statues in the image of their Prophets and great men, and claimed that if they devoted themselves to worshipping these statues, those great men would be intercessors for them with Allah, may He be exalted. The equivalent to that in our own times is the devotion of many people to venerating the graves of great men, in the belief that if they venerate their graves, they will intercede for them with Allah.” [Ref: Surah Yunus Verse 18, IslamQA, Wahhabi translation, here.] I Said: And following is translation of same taken from a Sunni website: “They built these statues and idols upon the forms of their Prophets and leaders (Akabir), and they believed that when they would worship these idols, then these leaders (Akabir) would become intercessors for them in front of Allah. And what is similar to this in our times is the veneration/respect (ta’zeem) of a lot of people among the creation of the graves of their leaders (Akabir), with the belief that if they venerate their graves, then they (leaders) will be intercessors for them in front of Allah.” [Ref: So called ‘Grave Worship’ Refutation By Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Raazi, here.] Sorry for the taking too much time. I had to find the references. He Said: No worries. 9.3 - Explaining Meaning Of Statement Of Imam Raazi’s (rahimullah😞 I Said: Brother Imam al-Raazi (rahimullah) has not stated Muslims worship graves. You’re misconstruing his Tashbeeh to mean worship. Without Ilahiyyah and intention of worship there is no action or belief can be construed to be worship. You’re reading your Wahhabism into his text. He Said: Smile. I Said: His Tashbeeh is not in worship but comparison is in why Mushrikeen worship idols and Muslims do various things at graves of Awliyah-Allah. Imam al-Raazi (rahimullah) gives reason of his Tashbeeh; Mushrikeen and the Muslims want their respective figures to intercede for them in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The belief of ignorant Muslims that these Saliheen will intercede for them if they show love and respect for the Awliyah-Allah is a reprehensible innovation and nothing more. If a Muslims says: ‘Mushrikeen performed Tawaf around the Kabah worshipping their idols and likewise we perform Tawaf around the Kabah.’ My questions to you are: Does the statement mean Muslims worship idols while performing Tawaf like the Mushrikeen of Arabia did? Or did he say the Mushrikeen performed Tawaf to worship their gods and Muslims perform Tawaf to worship multiple Allahs (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? I Said: We do not infer all details in Tashbeeh. Tashbeeh is always in a Juzz (i.e. part) and not in all inclusive details. And the Juzz in which Tashbeeh between Mushrikeen and Muslims was made is; they show respect to deceased beloveds of Allah in hope they would intercede for them. And this is clearly stated by Imam Fakhr al-Din Raazi (rahimullah). I Said: If it is said Mushriks performed Tawaf of Safa and Marwa and likewise Muslims perform Tawaf of Safa and Marwa. Will you take that I mean to say Muslims are Mushriks, or Mushriks are Muslims? I Said: In this case of Muslims wanting intercession and Mushriks want intercession from Saliheen similarity of motives and similarity of action does not make the action Shirk. Shirk is determined on basis of belief of Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah etc. Mushriks committed Shirk because they performed Tazeem with intention of worship and belief of Ilahiyyah. Muslims have no such belief nor intention hence the actions cannot be declared Shirk. Just like we don’t judge Shirk on basis of similarity of action between Tawaf of Mushrikeen we cannot do the same for Muslims in regards to Tazeem of deceased Saliheen. He Said: Your explanation of his statement is very plausible and more likely correct understanding of his statement. I Said: I am glad you appreciate it. Jazakallah Khayr. 9.4 - Leaving To Prepare For Discussion Regarding Grading Of Hadith: I Said: I won’t be around for few days because I need to study about grading of Hadith. And I leave you to study the contents of article until my return. He Said: Brother Ali you have employed this Hadith number of times in your articles and you haven’t investigated the chain of this Hadith. Don’t you think this is bit dangerous? I Said: During my discussions with Salafis only one person before has ever challenged the grading of this Hadith and at that time I beat him by corroborating the meaning of this Hadith by authentic Ahadith of Sahih al-Bukhari. He Said: How can you remove weakness through corroboration? I Said: Brother you asking me this is strange. Suppose there is Hadith whose content is Z and chain is, A, B, C, D, E, and out of all these persons, C, was a liar, therefore Hadith will be graded, weak. There is another Hadith virtually identical Matan (text/content) to Z and its chain is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and all the narrators in this chain are trustworthy. In context of second Hadith will it not be reasonable to assume, C, narrated truthfully because another authentic Hadith has corroborated the contents of Hadith? He Said: I didn’t want to interrupt but I know what you would say because you had already done that. I Said: Salam Alaykum. He Said: Wa Alaykum salam. 9.5 - Grading Of Hadith: You Will Not Worship Sun, Moon, Idols, And Stones: I Said: Brother will you do the honours or shall I myself answer your objections? He Said: I will play my part you write too much already. Smile. I Said: Is it that obvious? He Said: Smile. I Said: You present your case because I have pre-prepared my material just needs copy & paste. Smile! But you go can present your evidence. He Said: Amir Bin Abdullah is Majhool (i.e. unknown) narrator and Hassan Bin Zakwan is extremely weak in Hadith, here. There is other Jirah also but you can read that on IslamQA website, here. I Said: Brother this is grading based on Sanad of Ibn Majah and this Hadith is also narrated in Musnad of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah). And in Hadith of Musnad Imam Ahmad there is addition of Hajr (i.e. stones😞 “… قَالَ: أَمَا إِنَّهُمْ لَا يَعْبُدُونَ شَمْسًا وَلَا قَمَرًا وَلَا حَجَرًا وَلَا وَثَنًا” This translates to mean: “They will not worship sun, and not moon, and not stones, and not idols …” This Hadith can be seen online on following link, here. All the narrators of this Hadith are Thiqa (reliable). [To verify please click on name of each narrator his standing in Hadith and all other relevant information will appear in pop-up form.] Zayd Bin al-Hibab Bin Riyaan’s standing is Sudooq Hassan ul-Hadith (i.e. truthful; Hassan ul-Hadith). Abdul Wahid Bin Ziyad, he is graded as, Thiqa. Ibadah Bin Nasi is Thiqa. And Shaddad Bin Aws Bin Thabit is a companion and he is above false ascription to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). [Click on name of each narrator, here, to see how each is graded. If unavailable click, here.] I Said: In conclusion this Hadith is authentic and via corroboration of this Hadith the weakness in Hadith of Sunan Ibn Majah is removed also. Even though Sanad remains faulty but Matan (i.e. content/text) is reliable. He Said: I am just checking the references. Give me few minutes. I Said: Are you done? He Said: Yes! Got distracted brother. 9.6 - According To Shaykh al-Najd Majority Of Muslims Were Mushrikeen: I Said: This leaves third and the last issue of rejection, preference, and harmonization. He Said: Can I provide my evidence before we move to discussing your side of evidence. Smile. I Said: Yea, go on. He Said: Do you believe Shirk in Ummah is possible? I Said: Members of Ummah falling into Shirk is quite possible and it is evidentially established. He Said: I am glad we’re in agreement with this. I Said: Few persons falling into Shirk is not disputed but whole Jammah of Muslims and the majority falling into it is rejected. He Said: Brother Ali we believe only some Muslims fell into Shirk not majority of Ummah. I Said: Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab believed in his life time none knew meaning of la ilaha il-Allah except him. Via logical deduction this means him and those who learnt and accepted his Dawah knew its meaning therefore knew Tawheed. In other words Muslims of Arabia, with exception of his Najdi goons, didn’t know Tawheed which was indirect Takfir. And he charged Muslims of Arabia committing Shirk, for one or another reason and those beliefs/practices which he termed Shirk were of majority. This boils down to charge of Shirk levelled against vast majority of Muslims. Even at present vast majority of Muslims hold to Barelwi, Shia, Deobandi beliefs and Wahhabis in comparison are a minority. And in day of Shaykh of Najd this was even truer [because Salafis were a tiny minority and Deobandis didn’t exist at all and when Deobandism came about they didn’t exist like they do today]. Your Shaykh of Najd held view that the Jammah, i.e. the vast majority of Muslims of Arabia, and by extension of commonality of belief/practice between them and Muslims of world, then Muslims of entire world were upon Shirk and none of them knew meaning of, la ilaha il-Allah. He Said: Brother Ali you are inferring all this and he has not stated anything about majority of Ummah. 10.0 - Evidence Of Wahhabi Belief That Majority Of Muslims Were/Are Mushrikeen: I Said: Brother this is based on facts and no sane person would dispute this. Author of, This Is Our Belief, Abul Fudayl Nasir al-Din an-Nuaymi spelled out this Wahhabi belief on page sixteen, twenty, and thirty-eight of his book, here. I Said: And following is easy to understand version of his writing: “These types [of Shirk] have all become normal and widespread on all places of earth, in countries that ascribe themselves to Islam and other than these. And most of those who say, there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah and claim [for themselves religion] of Islam, have verily fallen into one of these [types of Shirk].” [Ref: This Is Our Belief, page 20.] I Said: “And most of those [who] say it [There is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah, Muhammad is Messenger of Allah.] in last centuries have not entered nor known Islam, and they have not distinguished [in practice and in belief] between the religion of Prophets and the religion of the polytheists. They have also not known [Tawheed is] the distinguishing and separating border between the disbelievers and the Muslims. This kind of person is Kafir-Asli, who has never entered Islam.” [Ref: This Is Our Belief, page 38.] I Said: A Wahhabi spawn in subcontinent, Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi, in his Taqwiyat ul-Iman explicitly stated this belief: “First one should listen to is; a lot of Shirk is spreading amongst people and actual Tawheed is rare. Yet most people do not understand the meaning of Tawheed and Shirk and claim to have Eman (i.e. faith) but in reality are caught in Shirk. So firstly meaning of Tawheed and Shirk should be understood so good and bad from perspective of Quran and Hadith can be known. One should listen, that most people in time of their hardship call upon Pirs and Prophets, Imams and martyrs, angels and fairies, and seek from them their desired, and vows for them, and for fulfilment of their needs give Nazr and Niaz, and for the dispelling of evil attributes their sons to them. One (from amongst polytheistic masses) names his son Abdul Nabi, one Ali Baksh, one Hussain Baksh, one Peer Baksh, one Madar Baksh, one Salar Baksh, one Ghulam Mohy Al-Din, one Ghulam Mohayn Al-Din, and to ensure their survival (of their sons) one keeps hair-lock in name of so, and one wears bracelet/necklace, one dresses up in particular clothes, one puts a chain (around the wrist), one dedicates an animal for someone, one invokes in time of difficulty, one takes an oath (of by name of human) in discussions, conclusion – all that which the Hindus enact for their idols so do these masquerading Muslims enact for saints, Prophets, leaders (i.e. Imams), Martyrs, angels and fairies. And yet continue to claim to be Muslims, subhanallah, (from) this mouth, and such a claim (of being Muslim), honourable Allah truthfully said in chapter Yusuf: "And most of them believe not in Allah except while they associate others with Him." (Q12:106) Then if there was someone to explain to them and says to them, you claim to have Eman and engage in actions of Shirk, so why do you combine these two paths (of Tawheed and Shirk)? They respond to him, we do not commit Shirk …” [Ref: Taqwiyatul Iman, Chapter (1) Explanation Of Tawheed And Shirk, Page 8/9, Rendered to English by Muhammed Ali Razavi] And following was a debate/discussion between and a Deobandi on this statement of Taqwiyat ul-Iman, here. 10.1 - Wahhabi Belief What Prophet Foretold Has Taken Place In Ummah Of Muslims: I Said: At very minimum you will have to establish your sectarian belief; the Jammah of, the majority of Muslims in time of Shaykh of Najd was guilty of major Shirk. He Said: Brother we do not believe what you attribute to us but your position is understandable. We believe that a minority from Muslims can become Mushrik. I Said: Brother even if you just consider Barelwi VS Salafi we form a majority and your sect is minority. He Said: Yes, maybe majority in comparison to us but a minority over-all therefore Barelwis being Mushrikeen is possible. I Said: You want to exclude the Sufis/Sunnis of Arab world who share with us in belief and practice? He Said: Brother Ali I will just go and present evidence that a large group in Muslim Ummah can become Mushrikeen and will become Mushrikeen. I was intending to provide evidence on this but you of hijacked discussion. I Said: I was only making sure you establish what is disputed and I had to make sure agree with what you need to establish. Do you agree that a Jammah size of Barelwiyyah can be Mushrik? He Said: Evidence of such possibility exists in Ahadith. I Said: OK let’s move away from detail. Just one further clarification. Do you believe there is evidence in Ahadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Muslims will commit major Shirk? He Said: Absolutely! You’re telling me you’re not already aware of such Ahadith? I Said: I am aware of Ahadith which say Shirk will return to Arabia and people will worship idols which their fore-fathers worshipped in pre-Islamic era but not what you said. He Said: These Ahadith are about Muslims. I Said: So you believe what these Ahadith indicate has already taken place? He Said: Absolutely it has taken place and Shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab began his mission of Tawheed due to it. I Said: Just to add further confirmation of what you said Shaykh al-Najd also stated what you have said: “The occurrence of his declaration that many followers of this Ummah will worship false deities (idols, statues etc.).” [Ref: Kitab al-Tawheed, Shaykh al-Najd, Chapter 23.] 10.2 - Prove From Prophetic Teachings A Muslim Minority, Or Majority: I Said: Brother originally I wanted you to prove that the Jammah, the majority of Muslims would fall into Shirk and have fallen into major Shirk but I have changed my mind because you deny this being belief of your sect. I just want you to prove from teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Muslims in a large, or small group, majority, or minority, would fall into Shirk. Which ever part you can prove. He Said: Smile. Wouldn’t that be too easy? I Said: If it was I wouldn’t have given you then free hand. Note you must prove that from Prophetic teaching and not Qiyas, not, O I believe it happened so, and not, O it took place look so and so converted and became Mushrik. I want pure evidence from Quran/Sunnah that Muslims would fall into Shirk. Stage is yours, smile. 10.3 - Requesting Leave To Find References To Establish Salafi Position: He Said: I am just wondering what kind of Salafi you would’ve been if you weren’t already aware of these Ahadith! Providing you with evidence of Hadith will only be a formality considering you already know it. I Said: If that was a question then, a fake and phony Salafi, how can a Salafi not know the bread and butter of, Salafi Shirk propaganda against Muslims. You can’t make your case without these Ahadith. He Said: I don’t get it why/how you became Sufi especially Barelwi. If you became Deobandi I would see reason but out of all you became a Barelwi. I see Barelwis from amongst the Sufis most ill-mannered, illiterate, extreme, zealously polytheistic, and flag bearers of [evil/reprehensible] innovation. There are Sufis worse then Barelwis but none of them actually attempt promoting their ideas as collectively and vigorously as Barelwis. I Said: Brother I did not became Barelwi after leaving Salafism. I sat on the fence, then joined Deobandis, then sat on fence and finally joined the Barelwis. He Said: This is evidence of gradual degeneration. Smile. I Said: Or gradual ascension via proper learning and correct understandings. He Said: Its matter of perspective I guess. I Said: It’s in the eye of beholder of a view point. He Said: We are getting distracted. I need to find references of Ahadith to advance my position and discussion. I Said: I can help you with that. He Said: I will find them but for now I have get to bed its too late. Salam Alaykum. I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. 11.0 - Salafi Proof Muslims Committed Shirk: Following Way Of Jews/Christians: He Said: Shall I start? I Said: Yeah but once Hadith at a time don’t bombard me with twenty Ahadith. Once we discussed the first one then move to next one. He Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold that Muslims will imitate the ways of nations before us: “Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: The Prophet said: "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them." We said: "O Allah's Messenger! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" He said: "Whom else?"” [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H422] Christians elevated Prophet Jesus to status of son of God and God. And Jews took Uzair to be son of God. This proves they committed Shirk and we Muslims following their ways means we will also commit Shirk. It happened as it was prophesised. I Said: You have anything else to add to this Hadith? He Said: No! 11.1 - Wahhabi Interpretation Of Imitating Of Jews/Christians Is Zann Based: I Said: Does this Hadith say anything about Shirk? He Said: Not explicitly but corroborating evidences provide credence to this interpretation. I Said: Is there chance that your interpretation of this Hadith is erroneous. He Said: There is chance but not likely because Quranic verses substantiate it. I Said: We will get to that in a bit. I am asking, is your interpretation Qatti (i.e. definitive) or Zanni (i.e. speculative)? He Said: Qatti! I Said: It cannot be Qatti if greater part of it is based on assumption that Hadith means this. He Said: There is no assumption brother Ali it’s quite clear. I Said: Brother how this Hadith is interpreted is depends on matter of perspective. If I interpret this Hadith in context of verses of Tawheed being preached by immediate followers of Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will that mean Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will/has never committed Shirk? You chose to interpret this Hadith in context of negative verses to charge the Muslims of Shirk and I did in positive verses to establish Tawheed of Muslims. Your Zann is that it refers to Shirk and my Zann is it refers to Tawheed. Its interpretation is matter of perspective and Zann therefore it cannot be Qatti. And you’re justifying Takfir based on Zanni interpretation. That is very dangerous for your Iman and Islam. He Said: Brother Ali, I am not aware of technicalities. I am of opinion a valid interpretation of a verse with another verse is Qatti interpretation. I Said: Brother Qatti means definitive. And in technical jargon if it is said this is Qatti evidence and Qatti meaning (i.e. Qati al-Subut Qatti al-Dilalah) then it means evidence is unquestionably authentic (i.e.verse) and it cannot be interpreted differently. Shall I demonstrate it with example? I Said: Yes! Ayah, “wama huwa alal ghaybi bidhaneen.” And he/He is not stingy over sharing of Ghayb. He/he in the Ayah could be referring to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and even to Jibraeel (alayhis salam). If it referrs to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) it means Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) shares [with chosen Messenger] His Ghayb and He is not stingy. And if it is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then it means same is true for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He could referr to Jibraeel (alayhis salam) and it means that whatever Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) grants him to deliver as Wahi Jibraeel (alayhis salam) delivers whole of it without holding anything back. The Ayah is Qatti al-Subut but its interpretation is Zanni al-Dilalah. Similarly the Hadith you quoted is Qatti al-Subut but the feham/interpretation you’re offering is Zanni al-Dilalah. He Said: How does that effect the interpretation? Does it mean it is invalid? I Said: It can be wrong but always isn’t. All it means is Qatti al-Subut Zanni al-Dilalah interpretation is not definitive. It cannot be deemed THE true definitive intended understanding of verse/Hadith because there is at very least another possibility. He Said: I get you. I will have to get off. Tomarrow if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits. 11.2 - Tashreeh Of Imitating Jews/Christians Is Blameworthy Innovative Interpretation: I Said: Shall I go back point of origin which lead to Qatti al-Subut Qatti al-Dilalah discussion? He Said: We waste a lot of time on side issues. Smile. I Said: Yesterday you offered an explanation of Hadith this Tashreeh of yours is blameworthy Tashreeh of Ra’i. You connected this Hadith with verses/Ahadith of Jews/Christians and interpreted this Hadith as if it is referring to polytheistic beliefs of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Yet you did not establish from prophetic teaching that imitation of Sunan is inclusive of creedal/belief matters also. I Said: Can you provide me a single Hadith/verse in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employed word Sunnah/Sunan to mean belief/creed. You have to establish the foundation of your interpretation (i.e. belief are inclusive in Sunan) otherwise your interpretation is invalid. I Said: Your interpretation is of Ra’i because none before Salafis interpreted this Hadith to mean that immitation of Muslims will be in belief/creed especially in Tawheed/Shirk. This Hadith refers to immitation of Sunan of Jews/Christians. Meaning Hadith refers to imitation of practical life style and customs of Jews/Christians. Not theological beliefs and practices of followers of these two religions. 11.3 - Tashreeh Of Hadith Muslims Will Imitate Contemporary Jews And Christians: I Said: This Hadith does not say Muslims will imitate the Sunans of Jews/Christians who preceded the Muslims. You interpreted this Hadith in context of those Jews/Christians who had gone before Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Muslims. And this is why you have misunderstood this Hadith. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, “… nations who were before you …” These words were interpreted by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to mean Jews and Christians so these words should be replace words which were hinting toward them in original statement. In other words the phrase, “… nations who were before you …” was hinting toward Jews and Christians and since we know who they are these words should be removed. I Said: Prophetic statement should be read in following way: "You will follow the ways of Jews and Christians, span by span and cubit by cubit so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them." This effects how this Hadith is to be interpreted. Your interpretation says Muslims will follow the Sunans of Jews/Christians who have gone before them. Yet words of Hadith say Muslims will imitate Sunans of Jews/Christians and not necessarily those who lived before Muslims. In other words the Hadith is saying Muslims will imitate their contemporaries like we are imitating Jews/Christians in their dress, language, food, customs, and actions etc. 11.4 - Sunan Of Jews/Christians Interpreted In Context Of Following Persians/Byzantines: I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: This Hadith is to be understood in light of how Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) interpreted, those nations before you, to mean Jews/Christians. Therefore words, those nations before you, have to be replaced by words, Jews and Christians. This indicates following of Jews and Christians in collective culture [and not religious imitation] and this interpretation is strengthened by another Hadith. I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: "The Hour will not be established till my followers copy the deeds of the previous nations and follow them very closely, span by span, and cubit by cubit." It was said, "O Allah's Messenger! Do you mean by those (nations) the Persians and the Byzantines?" The Prophet said, "Who can it be other than them?" [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H421] Note this Hadith is sign of judgment day and this indicates it will happen in future just as Hadith of following collective way of Jews/Christians indicates in future Muslims will imitate them. I Said: And if this Hadith is interpreted in context of prophetic clarification mentioned in Hadith of imitating Jews and Christians then his statement means: “The Hour will not be established till my followers copy the deeds of the Persians and Byzantines and follow them very closely, span by span, and cubit by cubit." Therefore this statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); "You will follow the ways of Jews and Christians, span by span and cubit by cubit so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them.”; is further clarified by the following: “The Hour will not be established till my followers copy the deeds of the Persians and Byzantines and follow them very closely, span by span, and cubit by cubit." al-Hasil meaning of, followings Sunan of nations before Muslims, means, following Byzantine and Persian culture and not in belief and religious practices. 11.5 - Hadith Says Muslims Imitating Collective Sunans Of Jews And Christians: I Said: Hadith says Muslims will imitate Sunans of Jews/Persians and Christians/Byzantines and this is not following one or the other but following both these nations collectively. In other words the Hadith is saying Muslims will imitate collective achievement of Jews/Christians. And collective achievement of these two religious is Western lifestyle and not these two religions. Behold the phenomena of Muslims and everyone else imitating the Western lifestyle. You’re living in a time where this is a reality and you’re and I am an example of truth of this interpretation. He Said: Brother if I have corroboration for my foundation then you don’t either. I admit I cannot corroborate that word Sunan is inclusive of beliefs from prophetic teaching nor from linguistic usage. But if you can corroborate your position I would gladly adopt your appealing and compelling interpretation. I Said: So what do I have to do to compel you even more. Smile. He Said: Establish from Ahadith that others have applied this Hadith on actions, customs, dress, food, etc. I Said: Smile. In that case here is an article dedicated to explaining this Hadith, here. I will be reworking this article and should post it online within few days. He Said: Brother you’re kidding me. I Said: No, not kidding at all, I am serious. He Said: Can you not just provide evidence of Hadith here? I am not feeling reading a ten page essay. I Said: OK! I can do but I do recommend you read it eventually. He Said: I will attempt it but I cannot this week for sure. This discussion alone is very time consuming and a heavy burden to carry on. You have established a compelling foundation. He Said: I concede that this interpretation has strong possibility because its effect and demonstration we are all witnessing but I would prefer corroboration of Hadith. 11.6 - Imitating Jews/Christians Even In Zina With Mother: I Said: I have one Hadith for now: “Narrated Abdullah bin 'Amr: That the Messenger of Allah said: I) "What befell the children of Isra'il will befall my Ummah, step by step, such that if there was one who had intercourse with his mother in the open, then there would be someone from my Ummah who would do that. II) Indeed the children of Isra'il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect." He said: "And which is it O Messenger of Allah?" He said: "What I am upon and my Companions.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B38, H2641] He Said: Any other Ahadith? I Said: Yes! A comprehensive substantiation of this would be in this article, here, from section 3.0 to 4.14. I haven’t been able to complete it due to this discussion. He Said: Are you responding to article of SytemOfLife? I Said: Yes! Already wrote 41 pages but I haven’t got to complete it. He Said: You think his material is worth investing this time? I Said: Did not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) respond to most preposterously stupid things the Kufar said? He Said: He did indeed but I wasn’t saying this material is bad. I just intended to say you’re over-killing the response. I Said: You would say that won’t you. Anyway to damage control. Joking! He Said: Smile. Please proceed with evidence in support of your interpretation. I Said: I am just going to E-Mail you relevant content of this unpublished article. Please don’t post it online. He Said: OK! I Said: It is important you read both the E-Mail and the linked article. I will rework it and should be done within two three days. WhatsApp me when you have read both and then we will continue. [Two days later, after posting upgraded version of, Truth about Kitab al-Tawheed … I sent him following via WhatsApp.] I have also reworked linked article. Read section 1.0 to 2.3, here. When you done with both we will discuss it 11.7 - Imitation Would Be Inclusive Of Religious Behaviour But Not Beliefs: He Said: Just one question: So you’re saying Muslims will not imitate ways Jews/Christians before us? I Said: Muslims imitating acts/behaviour of Jews/Christians gone before Muslims is possible which the Hadith of Dhat al-Anwat indicates. I am making the Hadith general that it can refer to deeds and behaviour of those Jews/Christians gone before and those who are our contemporaries. Where as Salafi interpretation makes it specific to Jews/Christians gone before Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions. He Said: OK! That’s bit more clear. Your interpretation that Muslims will imitate contemporary Jewish/Christian collective lifestyle was indicating exclusion of those gone before. I Said: Issue of Dhat al-Anwat, Ummat splitting 73 sects, Jews splitting 71, Christians 72, all was and is proof that it was possible for Ummah to imitate stupidity of those Jews/Christians before Muslims. He Said: You didn’t spell this out like you have now. I Said: Brother what was not evident from Ahadith I spelt out but wasn’t (i.e. imitation of contemporary collective cultural of Persian/Jew and Byzantine/Christian) I explained. He Said: I feel its bit misleading to keep this information and not state it. I Said: Brother if a Mufassir gives you linguistic analysis and Tafsir of Surah Ikhlas and he focuses on aspects not apparent and ignores apparent then will you think he is concealing the apparent/obvious of verse? He Said: Smile. I Said: I was only rectifying and establishing what was distorted; i.e. making the Hadith specific to following those Jews/Christians who had lived before Islam. I no where denied that Muslims will behave like the Jews/Christians in practical aspects of religious life. He Said: OK! Now it is clear you have denied imitation of religious/theological belief and practice of these two nations but not social behaviours. I Said: How does that serve your objective Brother? He Said: At any rate it doesn’t serve any objective of mine. I wasn’t saying you’re being dishonest I was just saying that it misdirects person. It did confuse me a little but it got sorted at the end. I Said: Jazakallah Khayr. He Said: I will need time to investigate all what you stated and to see if there is content which refutes what you posited. To be honest this is completely new information to me and would be to most if not all Salafi Tulab ul-Ilm on internet so chance of it already being refuted by someone is pretty slim. I Said: I am confident you will not find a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said you will imitate beliefs, or a Hadith which can be interpreted to mean Muslims will imitate the Jews/Christians in belief i.e. Shirk etc. You will only find corroboration of imitating actions. [Few days later.] I Said: How did it go? He Said: Nothing in specific refutes what you stated. I searched on IslamQA to see interpretation of Hadith. According to Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan Hadith is applied upon beliefs and cultural practices but he provided no proof. On other hand Shaykh Ibn Uthaimeen interpreted to mean actions/behaviour but not belief and religious practices. I Said: Can you link me? He Said: Few mins I will have to find it again, here. I Said: Are we done on this Hadith? He Said: Done. I Said: Would I be justified to conclude that immitating Sunnahs of Jews/Christians does not mean immitating religious belief and practice of Jews/Christians? He Said: Absence of contradictory evidence would lead to this conclusion but only if there is no evidence contradicting your point of view. I Said: And am I justified in my conclusion that these Ahadith mean Muslims as whole will be immitating cultural practices of Jews/Christians like we currently are? He Said: Yes! There is another thing. I Said: And that is? He Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "What befell the children of Isra'il will befall my Ummah …” Is this statement about all Ummah, majority, or a minority? I Said: In modern context I would say it would be vast majority. He Said: OK! Why majority any evidence rational basis for this judgment? I Said: I believe this Hadith was especially about Muslims of past 100 to 200 years. In past Muslims were dominant power in the world and the Jews/Christians immitated us. At very least Muslims did not aspire/desire to be like Western world in culture. This trend of following culture of West has gathered pace in last 100/200 years. And in next 100/200 it will reach its pinnacle where a Muslim and Kafir will become indiscernible just like Jews are hard to spot in West world. He Said: Very well thoughtout answer but I think indistinguishibility you are on about will take longer then 200 years. I Said: It is just a speculation by looking at current trend and pace of Westernization. It may well be wrong. He Said: That will be it for now. I need to take what you said into account and research. 11.8 - Salafi Brothers Claim Companions Followed Jewish Teaching: [Two days later.] He Said: Couple of days ago you said the Hadith; Ummah immitating Sunnahs of Jews/Christians; is about majority of Muslim Ummah following culture of Western world. If this Hadith was about religious immitation would it still be about majority? I Said: The Hadith is about majority of Ummah because principle is majority determines label of identity. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam). Iblees refused to prostrate but he understood majority determined the identity label (i.e. angels) and as part of majority of angels instruction to prostrate Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) was extended to him as well. He Said: What if Hadith was about immitating religious issues? I Said: Smile. If it was about immitation of theological Shirk and practical religious practices of Judaism/Christianity then it is about majority. He Said: I have evidence which proves Muslims will followed the religious practices of Jews. Smile. I Said: Any immitation of religious practice by Muslims will be of a minority and not majority. Hadith has established Muslims will follow cultural practices of Jews/Christians. If it was possible for Muslim Ummah (i.e. entirity/majority) to engage in Shirk/Kufr of Jews/Christians then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have informed us about it. Hadith says you will follow the Sunnahs of Jews/Christians and this indicates Muslims will be following collective practices of Jews/Christians. And only collective practice they both share is culture. He Said: What if I prove Muslims immitated Jewish religious practice? Will that convince you immitation is in religious practice as well? I Said: I will not and cannot deny possibility of a fractional minority may immitate Jewish/Christian religious customs. But Jammah of Muslims; over-whelming majority; of Muslims will remain free from such misguidance. Coming to theological misguidance leading to Shirk/Kufr. Muslim Ummah as a whole will remain free from major Shirk/Kufr inspired by Judaism/Christianity because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has told his Ummah will not fall into Shirk: “The thing that I fear most for my nation is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun, or the moon, or trees, or stones, or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” Based on this saying vast majority, the Jammah, the Sawad al-Azam will remain free from major Shirk. He Said: "Narrated Sa`id bin Al-Musaiyab: Mu'awiya came to Medina for the last time and delivered a sermon. He took out a tuft of hair and said: 'I thought that none used to do this (i.e. use false hair) except Jews. The Prophet labelled such practice, (i.e. the use of false hair), as cheating.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B72, H821, here.] Ahadith record Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) warned people about using hair extentions because it was way of Jews. I Said: What is your proof that it was immitation of religious practice of Judaism? And are you saying the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has a whole deviated? He Said: The Jews engaged it in so what else cannot it be? I Said: Brother just because Jews are engaged in a practice does that mean it was teaching of Judaism? I can quote you Ahadith in which Jews didn’t punish the rich for Zina and punished the poor for Zina with stoning. Will that mean this prejudice was part of core teaching of Judaism? A practice of people is not always religion. Wahhabis of Najd wear ankle long shirts and checkered red head covering with camel tale to hold it in place does that mean their action is part of core teaching of Islam? He Said: Make your point Brother Ali. You’re asking too many questions. I Said: Point is my Brother not everything done by people of religion is teaching of religion. And you won’t disagree with that. Not everything Islam has deemed permissible is part of core teaching of Islam. Rather through certain rules/principles we determine if something is permissible or prohibited and based on that we give judgment. Everything permitted is not part of core of Islam. Take a straw as an example. We can use it to drink water/juice but is it part of core Islam? No! Requirement for being core part of Islam is that it has to be part of revelation/Wahi. Similarly Judaism as far as I am aware has no text in Jewish Bible which explicitly states wearing hair extensions are core part of Judaism. It was likely a fashion statement amongst Jewish women/men and which Jewish Rabbis permitted based on deductive reasoning. And this is what companions may have copied. So it was not religious but culture. I Said: Wait I have more to say. I Said: And for you to think that companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would follow religious teaching of Judaism is a real shame. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are the best of Ummah raised from mankind for reasons stated in the vers: “You are the best nation raised up for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and you believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them [though] among them are believers, but most of them are disobedient.” [Ref: 3:110] And you’re saying they were immitating Judaism. It is shame you have such a low image of companions. In order to prove me wrong and ultimately Mushrik you have just undermined foundation on whose basis we received this Deen of Islam. He Said: I did not say this about entire Jammah of companions just a few. I Said: Brother saying this about a single companion is bad enough. He Said: Due to lack of knowledge it is quite possible that some companions practiced practices of Judaism including use of hair extensions. I Said: And IF what you said is true, and confident it is false, you have not refuted my position which is majority will not fall into following religious practices of Jews/Christians. When majority of Jews/Christians don’t act on Jewish/Christian core religious laws then how can majority of Muslims engage in them? Deviation from prophetic teaching is possible and Hadith of 73 sects is proof but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said it will never reach to stage of Ummah as whole worshiping, stones, trees, idols, sun, or moon, stars. What you need to prove is Muslims fallowing Judaism/Christianity to Kufr/Shirk. I Said: Brother how can you say that about companions! You first need to prove use of hair extensions is core teaching of Judaism. Let me end discussion here. You find evidence for your claim (i.e. use f hair extensions is core teaching of Judaism) and we continue. You’re under burden of proof for your claim. Otherwise you will have to withdraw and repent from this accusation. Salam Alaykum. [Week later.] He Said: Salam Alaykum. I Said: Wa Alaykum Salam. Did you find the supporting evidence for your claim? He Said: I did not find anything on use of hair extensions being part of Judaism. I Said: Discussion then is concluded from my side. Hadith says Muslims will follow cultural practices of Jews/Christians and Hadith of hair extensions establishes this point. And Muslims of modern world gradually adopting Westernism is another concrete proof for this interpretation. The majority of Muslims despite Westernization will remain upon Islam and fractional minority falling into Shirk by openly adopting other religions such as Hindusim, Christianity, and other religions is quite possible. He Said: Leave this topic Brother Ali. I feel uneasy about what I said. I Said: OK! We can move on. 11.9 - Women Of Daus Would Perform Tawaf Of Dhul al-Khilasa But Has It Happened: I Said: Just to remind you were presenting evidence which according to you proves Muslims would worship idols. He Said: I know. I Said: What is your next evidence which you THINK supports your point of view? He Said: My evidence is Ahadith of Lat and al-Uzza worship. I Said: I prefer if you go to Dhi al-Khalasa one first because then I will be able to explain the both Ahadith properly. He Said: I don’t see how it would affect your response. I Said: It doesn’t but Hadith of Dhil a-Khalasa is cornerstone which explains Ahadith of al-Lat and al-Uzza. He Said: I don’t see it how but if you think it can help then I will. I Said: Don’t take advice of your elders because may do some good for yourself. Smile. He Said: Smile. I Said: Jazakallah Khayr. Just to get over-all view of discusion. You agree that you were supposed to be proving Muslims have committed Shirk according to Ahadith and will commit Shirk? He Said: Agreed. I Said: OK! You can provide evidence and your reasoning. He Said: Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) recorded in his Sahih that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said women of Bani Daus would shake their buttocks while performing Tawaf around their patron deity Dhul al-Khalasa: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said: "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." Dhi-al-Khalasa was the idol of the Daus tribe which they used to worship in the Pre Islamic Period of ignorance.” [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H232] Bani Daus is an Arabian tribe and they are Muslims and their women worshipping Dhil al-Khalasa is proof that Muslims were to commit Shirk. I Said: According to you Muslims of Arabia worshipped stones, idols, Jinn, graves, fairies, saints, Prophets and others. This Hadith says women would perform Tawaf of Dhil al-Khalasa while dancing. Once Dhul al-Khalasa was destroyed it has not been rebuilt and named as Dhil al-Khalasa. Can you quote me a single statement even from Wahhabi sources in which your sects’ followers alleged that idol Dhul Khalasa was rebuilt and worshipped as described in Hadith? I Said: Dhul Khalasa has not been rebuilt and has not been worshipped until now. NOTE HADITH STATES WORSHIP OF DHIL AL-KHALASA WILL TAKE PLACE AGAIN. He Said: Dhil al-Khalasa was a tree and Muslims were worshipping trees in Arabia. I Said: Who said it was a tree? It was made of stone. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says fuel of hellfire is men and stones. In this verse stones is reference to stone idols. Biggest indication that it was made of stone are following words: "O Allah's Messenger! By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I did not leave it till it was like a scabby camel.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H643] If it was a tree or made with wood it would have burnt to crisp but companion says he left it looking life scabby camel meaning discoloured and ugly. And that can only be if it was made with stone. 11.10 - Dhul al-Khalasa Was A Building Like Kabah: I Said: Sahih Hadith establishes Dhil al-Khalasa was name of building similar to Kabah: "Jarir bin 'Abdullah narrated: There was a house called Dhul-Khalasa in the Pre-lslamic Period and it was also called Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya." [Ref: Bukhari, B58, H160] "Dhul-l--Khulasa was a house in Yemen belonging to the tribe of Khatham and Bajaila, and in it there were idols which were worshipped, and it was called Al-Ka`ba." Jarir went there, burnt it with fire and dismantled it. When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H643] Let me correct your understanding of this Hadith. Dhul al-Khalasa was name of the building in which the idols of Mushrikeen were placed and worshipped. Mushrikeen performed Tawaf around Dhil al-Khilasa to worship their idols inside it. So the meaning of prophetic words; hour will not come until women of Daus perform Tawaf around Dhil al-Khalasa; is that hour will not come until, Dhul al-Khilasa the Kabah of Yemen is not rebuilt and inhabited by idols and, women from Bani Daus perform Tawaf around it once again while shaking their buttocks. He Said: Hmmm! I Said: You prove to me it was rebuilt and idols were placed in it and actions described in the Hadith have already taken place. Even a report from Wahhabis in which they stated it was rebuilt and Dhul al-Khilasa and other idols in it were worshipped. He Said: Brother Ali you have out done my knowledge in this regard. I Said: Brother Wait! As far as my sources go they indicate it was never rebuilt. He Said: Brother Ali I concede in this regard. Your point is good and I am glad you benefitted me. I am little confused that there is an idol and a Kabah like building called Dhul Khalasa. Could you clarify this? I Said: The Yemeni Kabah was named Dhul al-Khilasa due to most prominent and widely worshipped idol i.e. Dhil al-Khalasah. He Said: Am I suppose to take your word for it? Smile. I Said: Wait! He Said: Waiting! I Said: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said: "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." Dhi-al-Khalasa was the idol of the Daus tribe which they used to worship in the Pre Islamic Period of ignorance.” [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H232] 11.11 - Interpreting The Hadith Of Kabah And Sanam Called Dhul al-Khalasa: I Said: In pre-Islamic era of Shirk people performed Tawaf around Kabah of Makkah naked with their own version of Talbiyah because their patron idols were placed in Kabah. Similarly the Kabah of Yemen had idols in it and based on above Hadith I can assume tribe of Daus and others worshipped their idols by performing Tawaf around Kabah of Yemen. So in this context the following words of Hadith are about the building called Dhil al-Khalasah and the resident idol Dhil al-Khilasa: "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H232] And following part of Hadith actually refers to the patron the chief idol placed in Kabah of Yemen on due to which it was named Dhul al-Khalasah: “Dhi-al-Khalasa was the idol of the Daus tribe which they used to worship in the Pre Islamic Period of ignorance.” [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H232] And if you interpret both these in light of following: Hadith says people would revert to religion of their forefathers: “And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] Religion of those those who worshipped Dhil al-Khilasa had Kabah of Yemen with idols in it and chief of which was Dhil al-Khilasa so my deduction was/is that both the Kabah of Yemen will be rebuilt and idols general all including Dhil al-Khilasa will be part of it and worshipped like the Mushrik forefathers of Arabs worshipped their patron idol-deities. In conclusion this has not happened. And I know it has not happened because there is a huge condition which has not been met. He Said: I am not contesting what you stated Brother Ali. I am surrendering but what is that condition? I Said: Its secret Sufi knowledge which only initiated is taught. He Said: Smile. I Said: Smile. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills I will reveal it in a bit. He Said: No! Keep that secret for a little while. I will be back Sunday. Just one more thing. The Hadith of Muslim, H6945, that’s part related to Lat and al-Uzza Hadith but you have brought it into discussion of Dhil al-Khilasa. How so? I Said: Next section I will explain it. I will write it in advance. Should I assume that you presented your al-Lat and al-Uzza Hadith as evidence? I don’t want you to say I didn’t employ it as evidence. Why you bringing it into disucssion? It has happened before with others. He Said: You already know it Brother Ali so you just explain it in an email. Salam Alaykum. 11.12 - Responding To Hadith Of People Worshiping al-Lat and al-Uzza: [Email.] I Said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said tribes of his Ummah would worship idols: "Thawban narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: 'The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols. And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] “And they would revert to the religion of their forefathers.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] As part of explanation of, H2219, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said told which idols would be worshipped: “'Aisha reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H232] These three Ahadith explain each other. Also this explanation and H2219 establishes how Hadith al-Lat/al-Uzza is connected with Hadith of Dhil al-Khalasah. Forefathers of Arabs worshipped these idols and according to the Hadith these idols, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Dhul al-Khilasa, would be worshipped by their descendants again. 11.13 - Hadith Does Not Establish Events Have Taken Place And Worshippers Are Muslims: I Said: Worship of al-Lat/al-Uzza has not returned to Arabia and it is foolish to make assumption that this Hadith supports Wahhabi accusation that Muslims were worshipping stones, trees, saints, Prophets, Jinn, angels, fairies, idols and graves. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) intended something other then apparent, i.e. worship of al-Lat and al-Uzza, he was capable of expressing it in his native language without making explicit reference to these two idols. If you have any evidence from Quran/Hadith in which name of an idol or multiple idols was employed to mean idol worship in general then you MIGHT have a point worthy entertaining. Otherwise you must concede that this Hadith is specific to a group of people who would worship specific idols. I Said: I) You believe worship of al-Lat and al-Uzza has already happened during/before Shaykh al-Najd started his Khariji mission therefore you must establish this with evidence. I Said: II) And you also believe those who will be guilty of this will be Muslims and you must establish this contention with evidence also or at least explain why you believe this Hadith applies upon Muslims. And I know you cannot because a major sign has not yet happened. [End of mail.] 11.14 - My Ummah, Means My Arabian Ummah, And The People Means Arabs: He Said: Brother Ali I cannot provide evidence for worship of al-Lat, al-Uzza, Dhil al-Khilasa already has been worshipped but I am absolutely certain the worshippers of these idols would be Muslims. I Said: And evidence? He Said: The Hadith itself says, my Ummah, and his Ummah is Muslim but I guess you have Taweel for this? I Said: There is perfect explanation for usage of tribes of my Ummah by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). From linguistic point of view word Ummah is used for those who share a common heritage. In Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employed Umam for birds and stated they are nations like you. In other words each specify of bird is an Ummah and all species collectively are referred as Umam. When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said tribes of my nation he means tribes of my nation of Arabs would join forces with Mushrikeen and worship idols. I Said: And to support this interpretation we have Arabs returning to religion of their forefathers and worshipping al-Lat, al-Uzza, and al-Khilasa. In other words descendants of pre-Islamic Mushriks would worship their own patron idol-deity like their ancestors did. So words, my Ummah, in following do not refer to Muslims but to Arabs and not necessarily to Muslims of other nationalities: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] He Said: I didn’t quote this Hadith brother Ali. I Said: Brother H2219 explains following Ahadith which you wanted to present as evidence: “'Aisha reported: I heard Allah's Messenger as saying: The (system) of night and day would not end until the people have taken to the worship of Lat and 'Uzza.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6945] The people referred in your evidence are explained/referred as tribes of my Ummah in H219: "The Hour shall not be established until tribes of my Ummah unite with the idolaters, and until they worship idols." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219] I Said: And you presented Hadith of tribes of my Ummah as evidence that the worshippers of idols would be Muslims because the words used are; tribes of my Ummah. I Said: You scrambling for balance aren’t you? Smile. He Said: Smile. I had forgotten I used it [phrase tribes of my Ummah] to argue they would be Muslim. Sorry! It was a scramble. I Said: So the phrase, tribes of my Ummah, means, tribes of my Arab nation, and therefore it does not necessarily mean Muslim.

Salam alaykum, Farid BookStall ki taraf say publish kay tarjumeh mein kitab Jila al afham kay upar wali Hadith kay khat-kasheed ilfaaz ka na tarjuma pesh keeya gaya heh aur nah asal ibarat. Yeh tehreef banti heh. Yeh joh kohi bi Mufti/Allamah Sahib hen in ko bataya jahay. Shahid kissi bad-mazhab nay tarjumein mein qaat chaat ki ho print kay doraan. https://archive.org/details/JilaUlAfhamFiSalatOWasalamAlaKhairulAnam/page/n1/mode/1up FaridBook Stall Deobandiyoon ki printing press heh. Is link par safa 70 dekh lenh.

Refuting Qadiyani, Prophet-Hood End Is Curse, And Descension At Odds With Khatamiyyah. Introduction: Qadiyanis are typically very anti-Pakistan and pro-West. On a Pakistani millitary defence forum an individual with login name of Cherub786 argued Muslims of Pakistan had no right to criticise brutal treatment of Muslims in India at the hands of Hindus. He argued this on grounds that Muslims of Pakistan are are engaged in mistreatment and discrimination against ‘Ahmadi’ and Christians. Like a true secularist went on to say Pakistan should adopt Westernisation and Americanism and impliment like West fully impliment their ethics/morality. Thinking he is a Pakistani secularist, nah Kafiroon mein, aur nah Musalmanoon mein type, I responded and explained position of a polytheists in Islam and the rights they have within Islam. I should have also criticised him for saying we have no right to say a wrong is wrong because people in Pakistan are engaged in wrong. Anyhow after posting I noticed he had picture of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani as display picture on his profile. It then downed on me that he is Qadiyani and immediately realized why he employed ‘Ahmadi’ and not Qadiyani. At this juncture I expressed my realization saying Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani was a minor-Dajjal and al-Kazzaab because Mirza claimed he is a Prophet and recieves Wahi. And to back it up I quoted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saying there will be about thirty Liars (i.e. al-Kazzaboon), Impostors (i.e. Dajjaloon). What transpired thereafter will be presented so others can benefit from this exchange. 0.0 - Initial Exchange And Brief Context: I said: “You’re follower of minor-Dajjal. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said in my Ummah there will be thirty impostors and liars [each claiming to be a prophet], and there is no prophet after me.” [MuhammedAli.] He responded to my saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prophecised about thirty liars/impostors: “He also said the Messiah will come and the Mahdi will come. But since you raised the subject, let me ask, is Prophesy (Nubuwwah) a blessing or curse? If it is a blessing why has it ceased? So the best Ummah is deprived of a blessing that God blessed an inferior Ummah (Bani Israel) with in abundance? Consider this carefully, reflect on it deeply.” [Cherub786.] Qadiyani saying Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold about return of Messiah the Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and birth of Imam al-Madhi (rahimullah) is related to claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani. Mirza not only claimed to be Messiah Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) but also Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah). The questions he posed have come from Qadiyani priets. I have number of times heard Qadiyanis on YouTube reason end of prophet-hood is curse. And Bani Israeel had constant guidance,and if prophet-hood came to end we have been deprived of a blessing. I have never bathered to respond because my plate is already too full to accommodate another article. But Mr Qadiyani had employed it in a discussion initiated by me. It was felt I would be responsible if Muslims developed even an iota of sympathy for Qadiyanism hence it was refuted. Mr Qadiyani wrote: “He also said the Messiah will come and the Mahdi will come.” And with this he was insinuating Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the al-Masih Isa Ibn Maryan (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) therefore he is not a minor-Dajjal and the Liar foretold in Ahadith. Mirza taught and Qadiyanis believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) actually is actually Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) and these are not two separate persons. This belief is based on incorrect understanding of following Da’if/Weak Hadith: “… Messenger of Allah said: ‘Adhering to religion will only become harder and worldly affairs will only become more difficult, and people will only become more stingy, and the Hour will only come upon the worst of people, and the only Mahdi is Isa Ibn Maryam.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4039, here.] Noting what his objective is I widened scope of discussion by bringing in Ahadith which describe events relating to Imam al-Madhi (rahimullah) and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). See section 1.0 onwards till 3.0. My objective is to demonstrate Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani is neither Prophet Isa (alayhis salam), nor Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah). And logically speaking if Mirza was not either of two then he could not be combination of two person, or one person with title of al-Masih and al-Mahdi. End. Explanation of Hadith, the only Mahdi is Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) is found at sections 20.0 to 20.4. 1.0 - Mirza Son Of Parents That Why He Is Not Prophet Isa: Mirza was born to Charagh Bibi and was Son of some Mirza Ghulam Murtaza. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) on other hand was/is referred as Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) in Quran and Hadith. And his birth was result of a miraclous event and without a male playing any role. In this context and truth how can Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani be al-Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam)? How son of Charag Bibi be son Maryam (alayhis salam)? How can supernatural birth of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) become void and he have Mirza Ghulam Murtaza as his father? Wake up! Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani was not/is not Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). 1.1 - Mirza Did Not Kill Dajjal At Ludd That Is Why Mirza Is Not Prophet Isa: Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also said al-Maseeh will fight Dajjal and will kill Dajjal at gate of Ludd (biggest sraeli millitary airfield in Ludd😞 “Mujammi bin Jariyah Al-Ansari said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) saying: 'Eisa bin Maryam will kill the Dajjal at the gate of Ludd.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2244, here.] “We asked : Messenger of Allah, will one day’s prayer suffice us in this day which will be like a year ? He replied : No, you must make an estimate of its extent. Then Jesus son of Marry will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. He will then catch him up at the date of Ludd and kill him.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4307, here.] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani did not meet Dajjal, or fought war against Dajjal, nor killed Dajjal, and he never went to Ludd in Israel. How do you purpose Mirza Ghulam was Prophet Isa (alayhis salam)? 1.2 - Mirza Not Descend Syria Mosque That Is Why Mirza Is Not Prophet Isa: Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also said al-Maseeh Ibn Maryam will descend on Masjid in Syria: “… and it would be at this very time that Allah would send Jesus, son of Mary, and he will descend at the white minaret in the eastern side of Damascus wearing two garments lightly dyed with saffron and placing his hands on the wings of two Angels. When he would lower his head ...” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H7015, here.] “We asked : Messenger of Allah, will one day’s prayer suffice us in this day which will be like a year ? He replied : No, you must make an estimate of its extent. Then Jesus son of Marry will descend at the white minaret to the east of Damascus. He will then catch him up at the date of Ludd and kill him.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4307, here.] Mirza was born in Punjab to house of Charagh Bibi and lived and died in India, and didn’t even have the fortune of performing Hajj or Umrah. Nor he visited Syria (i.e. Israel, Jordon, Syria). How can he be Messiah Prophet Isa (alayhis salam)? Another point before Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will descend the Dajjal will already be in Syria/Israel. How can Mirza Ghulam be Messiah Isa Ibn Maryam (alayahis salam) Dajjal has been born yet? Nor has Dajjal caused tribulations mentioned in Hadith? 1.3 - Mirza Not Prophet Isa Because He Descend Wearing Saffron Garments: Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will descend [in Damascus Masjid] wearing two saffron/yellow garments. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he will fight for the cause of Islam. And he will break the cross, kill pig and abolish Jaziyah tax: “Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] It is safe to say Mirza did not descend on minaret of Masjid in Damascus. Therefore he could not be meeting two Saffron garments criteria. 1.4 - Mirza Not Meet Own Kill Pig, Break Cross Interpretation, Therefore Not al-Masih: (i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said al-Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) will kill swine and break the Cross: “… wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] Mirza did say killing pig and breaking cross are metaphoric expressions. If I recall correctly he said breaking of Cross means dismantling of Christianity and killing of swine means eradicating habbits and characteristics of swine within humans. If these two are correct interpretations Mirza has failed magnificently because as al-Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) he should have eradicated Christianity but it is not only alive it is thriving in India and in rest of world. There is no way Mirza can be justified in claiming he has achieved task of eliminating Christianity. Christianity is spreading fast and fastest converting religion. Islam is spreading fastest due to high baby production rate. With regards to Mirza killing swine – during the life and after death of Mirza the dengeneration of mankind has not reversed instead it has gained more momentum. If Mirza was al-Masih and his interpretation was true then cannot justifiably cannot claim to have reversed this trend. Proving Mirza was not al-Masih Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) according to his own interpretation. 1.5 - al-Masih To Personally End Christianity, Mirza Did Not, Therefore Not al-Masih: (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will fight for cause of Islam: “… looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] And cause of Islam is to eradicate Shirk/Kufr and spread of Tawheed and Islam in general. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the believers to fight the Mushriks until there is no more Shirk for cause of Islam: "O my son! Do not commit Shirk with Allah. Verily Shirk is a tremendous Zulm (transgression)." [Ref: 31:13] “And fight against them until there is no more zulm (transgression of Shirk) and all Deen belongs to Allah alone.” [Ref: 8:39] Return of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will be to fight and eradicate all forms of Shirk/Kufr and Christianity is one such Shirk so Islam is superior above all religions: "It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon hate it." [Ref: 9:33] And superiority of Islam will be established in meaning that all other religions will be eradicated by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Part of these religions to be destroyed is Christianity. So why does Hadith makes distinction Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) breaking Cross when it is also part all religions to be destroyed? The Cross is symbol representing Christianity and Christianity has been strongly attributed to Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). And for Christians Cross is also symbol of his alleged crucifixion, sacrificial death as attonement of original sin and salvation. The emphasis on breaking of Cross is because both religion of Christianity and it’s central/core/foundational teachings are based on Cross and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) breaking it insinuates he will personally get involved to dismantle and to eradicate Christianity. Therefore Mirza cannot be al-Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) because Christianity is alive and well. 1.6 - Two Interpretations Of Killing Of Swine, Mirza Did Not, Therefore Not al-Masih: (iiia) Scholars of Islam have stated breaking of Cross is referrence to destruction of Christianity and killing of pig is referrence to Capitalism i.e. benefitting from legal/illegal means because it has similarity to swines consuming natural/unnatural without any hesitation. And Capitalism is in essence embodiment of a swine as a system. It teaches personal gain at any cost and without morals. If you take Capitalism as swine mentioned in Hadith even then Mirza has not met the demand for this therefore he cannot be al-Masih (alayhis salam). (iiib) In Quran chapter 5 verses 163/166 and chapter 5 verse 60 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited the Jews to fish on Sabbath day, Saturday. A group of Jews violated this instruction so Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) turned them to being apes/swines as punishment for violating law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Punishment inflicted is literal sense just as punishments inflicted on Ummahs of other Prophets were e.g. Ummah of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) was swept away in regional Tsunami. On grounds that violaters of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) law were turned to apes/swines I hypothise swine of Hadith in discussion is a group of people and their system, an order, an ideology, a movement, a philosophy whose entire foundation is violating law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It is not only Capitalism but amalgamation of many different ideologies. The swine to be slaughtered by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is Westernism. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will break the cross and kill the swine and then abolish Jaziyah: “… looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] Why is breaking of cross mentioned with killing of swine? What connection is there between the two? Adoption of Christianity by default means Westernisation. Adopting Western names, dress, morals, ethics, pro Western political leanings and everything else that comes with it. And end of Christianity and domination of Islam will bring end to Westernism. Slaughter of swine in this light means putting end to Westernism, Westernisation. Mirza did not even get near to this nor his followers ever will therefore Mirza Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam). 1.7 - Prophet Isa Will Be Burried With Last Prophet That’s Why Mirza Not al-Masih: Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also said Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will descend, get married, and die, and burried next to grave of Prophet: “Narrated 'Abdullah bin Salam: ‘The description of Muhammad is written in the Tawrah (and the description that) 'Eisa will be buried next to him.’ (One of the narrators) Abu Mawdud said: ‘(And) there is a place for a grave left in the house.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B46, H3617, here.] Mirza died due to excessive diarrhea on a toilet, or in toilet and he was buried in Qadiyan. How can it be possible that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani be Prophet Isa (alayhis salam)? 1.8 - Prophet Isa Will Perform Hajj/Umra, Mirza Did Not, Therefore Not al-Masih: Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taking an oath saying without doubt Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will perform Hajj, Umra, or both: "Hanzala al-Aslami reported: I heard Abu Huraira as narrating from Allah's Apostle who said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life. Ibn Maryam (Jesus Christ) would certainly pronounce Talbiya for Hajj or for Umra or for both (simultaneously as a Qiran) in the valley of Rauha." [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2877] Mirza did not have fortune of visiting Arabia and by default had no chance to perform Hajj, or Umra. He knew too well if he went for Hajj, or Umra, and out of protection of British he would meet his end at the hands of Ottoman Hijazi police. No Hajj, Umra, or both means Mirza is not the foretold al-Masih whom we Muslims are waiting for. 1.9 - al-Masih Distribute Wealth But None Will Accept, Therefore Mirza Not al-Masih: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said that during the rule of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) he will distribute so much wealth that people will no longer need charitable gifts: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said: ‘The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).’” [Ref: Bukhari, B43, H656, here.] Mirza on other hand was pleading/begging his followers and Muslims at large to fund publication of his book Baraheen e Ahmadiyyah. Forget enriching others with wealth to extant that people refuse charitable gifts Mirza in his afore mentioned book, Baraheen e Ahmadiyyah, Izala e Auham, Vol 3, page 197/178, here, emphatically stated he is al-Masih which has not come with kingdom or as king but as a Darwaish and in poverty. Those who can read Urdu should read underlined, here, and see when Mirza was criticised for not fulfilling prophetic prophecies he said, I may not be the al-Masih of these Ahadith. Maybe there will be 10’000 after me and maybe one will be which meets the criteria of these Ahadith and one might descend on minaret of Damascus Masjid. See Izala Auham, Vol 3, page 251, here. Mirza himself isn’t sure about who he is and which al-Masih is but his followers are more sure then him. Bottom line is Mirza was so poor that it would be safe to label him, mangta (i.e. beggar), on accounts of his pleading for funds. He cannot be al-Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) because during rule of al-Masih Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) he will enrich people to such a great extent people will refuse to accept charitable gifts because they will have no need of anything as the Hadith states: “Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah said: By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary will soon descend among you as a just judge. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish Jizya and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it.” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H287, here.] 1.10 - Imam Madhi, Prophet Isa, Two Persons That’s Why Mirza Not Any Of Two: In Hadith Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also says that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will perform Salah behind Imam Mahdi, even when Mahdi insists Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) lead prayers: “He said: 'On that day they will be few, and most of them will be in Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem), and their leader will be a righteous man. When their leader has stepped forward to lead them in Subh/Fajr prayer, 'Isa bin Maryam will come down to them. Their leader will step backwards so that Isa can come forward and lead the people in prayer, but Isa will place his hand between his shoulders and say to him: ‘Go forward and pray, for the Iqamah was given for you.’ Then their leader will lead them in prayer. When he has finished, Isa will say: ‘Open the gate.’ So they will ...” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani on other hand said I am Imam Mahdi (rahimullah) and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) – both of them are combined in me. How can he be two people at once? Christian TRINITY and Mirza’s and Qadiyanism’s TWINITY are impossible. He cannot be both, Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Madhi (rahimullah). And because he claimed to be both proves he was not any of them except he was a Liar and minor-Dajjal. 1.11 - Prophet Isa Sent To Bani Israeel, Mirza Claimed Mankind, He Not al-Masih: al-Maseeh Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) was sent to Bani Israeel like the following verses prove: “And He will teach him the Book and Al-Hikmah (and) the Taurat and the Injeel. And will make him a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): ‘I have come to you with …” [Ref: 3:48/49] “And (remember) when Isa, son of Maryam said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you, confirming the Taurat before me, and giving glad tidings of a ...’" [Ref:66:6] And Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani said I have been sent as al-Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam). Which means his prophet-hood was limited to a group of people. And later [he claimed to be sent to Ummah of Prophet Muhammad which means as Prophet Isa alayhis salam he was sent] as prophet to mankind. And both of these claims are incompatible with each other. He also said Wahi comes to me, here. Yet Wahi’s gate has been closed and no prophet will recieve Wahi after last final prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… (this worldly life). She said: I weep not because I am ignorant of the fact that what is in store for Allah's Messenger (in the next world) is better than (this world), but I weep because the revelation which came from the Heaven has ceased to come. This moved both of them to tears and they began to weep along with her.” [Ref: Muslim, B31, H6009, here.] “… People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a divine inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H809, here.] 1.12 - Wahi Comes Via Jibril, To Mirza Via Teechi Teechi, He Not al-Masih: Wahi came to Prophets via Gibraeel (alayhis salam) and following verses are evidence beside countless other verses and Ahadith: “And truly this is a revelation from the Lord of the universe. Which the trustworthy spirit has brought down. Upon your heart that you may be (one) of the warners.” [Ref: 26:192/194] “Say holy spirit has brought it down from your Lord with truth, that it may make firm and strengthen (the faith of) those who believe, and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who have submitted (to Allah as Muslims).” [Ref: 16:102] “Say: ‘Whoever is an enemy to Jibril, for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'an) down to your heart by Allah's Permission, confirming what came before it and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.’” [Ref: 2:97] In contrast Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani said in his book, Haqiqat ul-Wahi, writes an angel called Teechi Teechi delivers Wahi to him. I just want to point out, Mirza did not say Teechi Teechi delivers Wahi. He literally wrote in dream an angel came called Teechi Teechi who gave him wealth. Dreams of Prophets are Wahi and if Mirza was a prophet, clearly not, then his dream was Wahi. That is why I said Teechi Teechi delivers Wahi – Teechi Teechi delivered report of events to happen – i.e. Mirza getting wealth in real world = Wahi. 2.0 - Mirza’s Name Ahmad, Fathers Name Not Abdullah, Therefore Not al-Mahdi: (i) Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) telling about Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) said that his name will be my name, i.e. Muhammad/Ahmad: “Abdullah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘The world shall not pass away until a man from the people of my family rules the Arabs whose name agrees with my name.’” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2230, here.] And his father’s name will be name of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) father’s name, i.e. Abdullah: “Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: The Prophet said: If only one day of this world remained. Allah would lengthen that day (according to the version of Za'idah), till He raised up in it a man who belongs to me or to my family whose father's name is the same as my father's, who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it has been filled with oppression and tyranny (according to the version of Fitr). Sufyan's version says ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B37, H4269, here.] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani’s name did have Ahmad part of it but his fathers name was Mirza Ghulam Murtaza. 2.1 - Mirza Not From Progeny Of Prophet Muhammad Therefore Not al-Mahdi: (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayh wa aalihi was’sallam) also said that Imam al-Mahdi will be from his family: “Abdullah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘The world shall not pass away until a man from the people of my family rules the Arabs whose name agrees with my name.’” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2230, here.] From descendants of Fatimah (radiallah ta’ala anha),: “Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet said: The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah. Abdullah ibn Ja'far said: I heard AbulMalih praising Ali ibn Nufayl and describing his good qualities.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B37, H4271, here.] And descendent of Imam Hassan Ibn Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu😞 “Abu Dawud said: Abu Ishaq told that Ali looked at his son al-Hasan and said: This son of mine is a sayyid (chief) as named by the Prophet, and from his loins will come forth a man who will be called by the name of your Prophet and resemble him in conduct but not in appearance. He then mentioned the story about his filling the earth with justice.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B37, H4276, here.] Mirza was from Mughal Barlas caste/qaum. If you didn’t know Mughal is perversion of word Mongol. In English letter n in word Mongol is pronounced hard where as in Mongolian the letter in is weakly pronounced with full mouth sound and it gives sound of Mughal with no, n. In other words he was not even Indian but descendent of Muslim Mongols who immigrated to India and created their Indian Mongol/Mughal empire. In conclusion Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had nothing do with Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) family therefore he cannot be Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah). 2.3 - Mirza Did Not Distribute Countless Wealth Therefore Not Imam al-Madhi: Ahadith record during the life time of Imam al-Madhi (rahimullah) there will be abundant of wealth and Imam (rahimullah) will grant it freely to those who ask: “It was narrated from Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudri that the Prophet said: ‘The Mahdi will be among my nation. If he lives for a short period, it will be seven, and if he lives for a long period, it will be nine, during which my nation will enjoy a time of ease such as it has never enjoyed. The land will bring forth its yield and will not hold back anything, and wealth at that time will be piled up. A man will stand up and say: 'O Mahdi, give me!' He will say: 'Take.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, Book 36, Hadith 4083, here.] This Hadith is classed as Daif but it’s meaning agrees with following Hadith of Sahih of Imam Muslim therefore there is no defect in text of Hadith is: “Abu Sa'id and Jabir b. Abdullah reported that Allah's Messenger said: There would be in the last phase of the time a caliph who would distribute wealth but would not count.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6964, here.] This would be state of Ummah during Caliphate of Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) but during Hakimiyyah of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Ahadith record that he will enrich people with so much material wealth that people will no longer accept gifts. In fact Mirza confessed to being poor. Proof of which was submitted earlier. How can he be Imam al-Madhi (rahimullah)! He did not and fulfill any prophesy which makes him candidate for Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) so he was not Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) individually, or combined al-Mahdi + al-Masih. 2.4 - al-Mahdi Fill Earth With Justice/Equity, Mirza Did Not, Therefore Not al-Mahdi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) in his Caliphate will fill the earth with equity and justice as it was filled with opression, tyranny: “Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: The Prophet said: The Mahdi will be of my stock, and will have a broad forehead a prominent nose. He will fill the earth will equity and justice as it was filled with oppression and tyranny, and he will rule for seven years.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B37, H4272, here.] “… till He raised up in it a man who belongs to me or to my family whose father's name is the same as my father's, who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it has been filled with oppression and tyranny (according to the version of Fitr). Sufyan's version says ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B37, H4269, here.] “Abu Sa'id and Jabir b. Abdullah reported that Allah's Messenger said: There would be in the last phase of the time a caliph who would distribute wealth but would not count.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6964, here.] Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) as a Caliph will rule for seven years and after his death Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will take over the leadership. Mirza filled the earth with oppression, barbarity, tyranny, abuse, threats, literally filled pages with word Lanat thousands of times. And he did not get to rule as a Caliph of Muslims over earth for a single day, or a second. Therefore Mirza was/is not al-Mahdi (rahimullah). He was a Liar and minor-Dajjal. 3.0 - Verdict About Mirza Being al-Masih And al-Mahdi: These sections have establihsed Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani was not al-Masih the Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) because he did not meet any of the criteria which would establish Mirza was him. Mirza also is not Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) because once again he did not meet the criteria. Only one aspect of criteria was met and namely name of Mirza being Ahmad. And he was refuted in very next instance because his fathers name was Mirza Ghulam Murtaza where as it should have been Abdullah. I believe this was suffucient response and sound refutation in regards to your insinuation that Mirza was promised al-Masih and al-Mahdi. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) lift the veil of misguidance and Kufr from eyes of Qadiyanis and bring them to fold of Islam. 4.0- Three Questions, And Hopes Of Justifying Prophet-hood Continued: You wrote: "But since you raised the subject, let me ask: (i) Is Prophet-hood (Nubuwwah) a blessing or curse? (ii) If it is a blessing why has it ceased? (iii) So the best Ummah is deprived of a blessing that God blessed an inferior Ummah (Bani Israel) with in abundance? Consider this carefully, reflect on it deeply." I will answer them in detail, insha-Allah. 4.1 - Prophet-hood Is A Blessing And Not A Curse: You enquired: “Is Prophet-hood (Nubuwwah) a blessing or curse?” Prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) and all Prophets was/is Rahma/mercy and not a curse. I want to ask you something: (i) Are you saying stop of Nabuwah is a curse? (ii) If that is the case then in the six hundered years between Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) there was no Nabi/Rasool. During that period did Nabuwah become curse? (iii) What is your basis for your belief/understanding: (a) Stop of Nabuwah temporarily would not amounts to Nabuwah being curse/barbarity/injustice? (b) Stop of Nabuwah permanently would a amount to Nabuwah; being curse/barbarity/injustice? Bring forward your proof if you're truthful. 4.2 - No Foundation Except Being Allah And Taking Others As Lords: You have nothing but your Qadiyani preachers and yourself as proof for this understanding of yours. Quran al-Kareem talks about people like you saying such people claim to be Lords/Gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) for inventing a religion: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] “Have you seen he who has taken his desire as his god, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge, and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart, and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] Regarding those who follow others when they invent religious verdicts Allah says: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and 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] If you have no proof from Quran/Sunnah and Ijmah of Ummah you’re one of the two, one who makes himself God, meaning makes religion, decides what religion is, and what he will follow. So give me evidence why temporary stoppage is not curse and why permanent stoppage is a curse/injustice. I am expecting that you will come back saying, Mullahs have brain-washed you, you’re hate filled, go read book of Mirza he will answer your questions. In reality I do not need to proceed further because foundation on which you’re making your argument is made up and based on, I am Allah, and I can make up religion as I please. I wouldn’t expect any different because you’re following Mirza and he invented and distorted entire Islam. 5.0 - Answering If Prophet-hood Is Blessing So Why Has It Ceased: You asked: “If it is a blessing why has it ceased?” It is mercy and it has ceased because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wanted to close the gate of Nabuwah. And why He decided to close the gate of Nabuwah? I don’t know 100% but rest assured I will do my very best IJTIHAD and provide you a very compelling/convincing why He closed the gate of Nabuwah. Note there will be two types of answer, scriptural, and rational. 5.1 - Ummah Of RasoolAllah Is Best Of Ummah Ever Raised: You’re best of people ever raised from mankind enjoining good and forobidding evil: “You are the best nation raised up for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and you believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them (though) among them are believers, but most of them are disobedient.” [Ref: 3:110] And in another verse Allah said: “And let there arise from you a group inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be successful." [Ref: 3:104] What these two verses come to mean is Ummah of RasoolAllah will continue to practice preach and join in all that is good according to Islam and Ummah will continue to abstain from munkir/bad/sin and continue to preach against it and prohibit others from engaging in all that is evil/sin/shirk/kufr. And as result of this state of Ummah’s Islam/Iman will remain good. 5.2 - State Of Islam/Muslims Will Remain Good Till Day Of Judgment: States of Ummah will remain good until the day of judgment: "Narrated Humaid: I heard Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan delivering a sermon. He said, "I heard the Prophet saying, "If Allah wants to do a favor to somebody, He bestows on him, the gift of understanding the Qur'an and Sunna. I am but a distributor, and Allah is the Giver. The state of this nation will remain good till the Hour is established, or till Allah's Order comes." [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H415, here.] In another Hadith Prophet said the Ummah will remain victorious over the opponents till the day of judgment: “Narrated Muawiya: Allah's Messenger said, "If Allah wants to do good for somebody, he makes him comprehend the religion (of Islam). And Allah is the Giver and I am Al-Qasim (the distributor). And this (Muslim) nation will remain victorious over their opponents, till Allah's Order comes and they will still be victorious." [Ref: Bukhari, B53, H346, here.] This means Ummah of RasoolAllah will remain upon Islam until the day of judgment.And those who oppose the Ummah, Qadiyanis and others, will not be winners. Rather the Ummah will remain upon good state of Islam/Iman till the judgment day and remain victorious their adversaries till judgment day. And this will be so because Mujadids will revive Islam. On a side note as per Qadiyanism only Mirza’s followers are following true Islam and the rest are all liars and angry Mullahs spreading hate and persecuting people. These Ahadith completely undo the lie of Qadiyanism because it states Islam from time of Prophet to the judgment day will be pure/true. If we go by Qadiyanism and those who believe there can be no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad and Khatamiyyah means last/final Prophet have been upon falsehood and will remain so till judgment day. Anyhow state of Ummah will remain good and they will remain victorious because Mujadids will revive true teaching of Islam. 5.3 - Mujadideed Will Remove Filth From Islam And Purify It Every 100 Year: (i) Prophet said Mujadids revive religion of Islam at every century: "He also reported among the material he knew to come from God’s messenger that he said, "At the beginning of every century God will send one who will renew its religion for this people.” Abu Dawud transmitted it." [Ref: Mishkat ul-Masabih, Kitab ul-Ilm, B2, H43, here.] Same Hadith has been narrated by Imam Abu Dawood in his Sunan Abu Dawood but online version of Sunan Abu Dawood is missing two volumes therefore no Hadith does not appear in search engine. Anyhow the Mujadids in Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’allam) revive Islamic teaching and remove the rubbish that has become associated with Islam and end up purifying Islam in their books/speeches. And result of this purification is that in area where Mujadid is born the revitalised pure Islam begins to take hold. And if it gets corrupted a new Mujadid is born in the same area. Where ever, and when ever corruption of Islam takes place and it becomes difficult to decipher Islam from innovation/misguidance then Mujadid revives Islam. Mujadids guard against Biddah/innovation. (ii) It is also worth pointing out as per Qadiyanism the al-Masih the Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) are one and the same. And this is against Ijmahi understanding and against clear emphatic text of Ahadith. No Mujadid has come and challenged traditional position that both personalities are two separate persons and it was only Mirza who said this understanding is wrong. 5.4 - Islam Protecting Itself From Innovations Which Distorted Other Religions: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said any action/matter which is not from Allah and Messenger is rejected: “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 (Qasim b. Muhammad) 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, Book 18, Hadith 4267, here.] “'A'isha reported Allah's Messenger as saying: He who innovates things in our affairs for which there is no valid (reason) (commits sin) and these are to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, Book 18, Hadith 4266, here.] There are different translations of this Hadith – translators have translated them in light of commentaries, here, here, instead of literally. And in another he said every (such) innovation is misguidance and every misguidance takes to hellfire: “And he would join his forefinger and middle finger; and would further say: "The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best of the guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad. And the most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation is error." [Ref: Muslim, Book 4, Hadith 1885, here.] Every/kullu is always used in a restricted context. Ali drank all/kull water. Restricted to how much Ali can drink, a glass, bottle, jug, matka, so kull/all is restricted. Same when ever kullu is used in context of Quran/Hadith in regards to creation it is limited/restricted some how. Only time kullu is not limited/restricted is when it refers to Allah’s qualities/knowledge … then it is in meaning of unlimited. Even though it says kullu it does not include Sahih Bukhari and that’s why it is misguidance, nor reading acting on it takes to hell-fire. Kullu is restricted to context of invented things/matters and actions which are not from Allah and Rasool. In other words every innovation which does not agree with teaching of Islam is rejcted and anywho adopts this innovation is upon misguidance and will enter fire. This teaching is introduced for protecting Islam from innovation. And it is part and parcell of perfect/completion of Islam. This mechanism will allow some innovations but others it will prohibit and deem rejected. This teaching is part of perfection/completion of Islam. And corner stone which protects Islam from corruption. Prophets before last/final Prophet could not spread this and did not have this mechanism in their religions to protect themselves from corruption. Islam having this is demonstration of completion/perfection of Islam. 5.5 - Allah Perfected/Completed Islam And It Requires No More Perfection: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says the religion of Islam, has been perfected/completed: "Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Dīn (religion and a way of life) for you. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger, having no inclination towards sin, then Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful." [Ref: 5:3] Note religion of former Prophets was also Islam. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says religion of Islam meaning the religion of Islam which all Prophets were teaching has been perfected/completed. And when the religion is completed and perfected then why send more Prophets. Suppose you made a perfect square can you make it more perfect then your perfection? Your perfection might have defects but the perfected/completed religion of Allah doesn’t need any more perfection because when Allah says it is perfect/complete then it is perfect/complete beyond need of improvments. 5.6 - Islam Is Perfected, Mujadids Revive/Purify Islam, Muslims Acting Nabi’s Job: When the religion is perfected/completed to a degree when no improvements needs to be made. Then there is no need for a new Prophet. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declared it complete/perfect and there was/is no need for another Prophet. No need for Mirza, or Bab, or Baha-ullah, or anyone else for that matter. To say and to believe more Prophets are needed; is to say religion of Islam was not completed/perfected. Every Prophet that was sent was either sent to teach Islam from scratch, or reknew aspects of religion which the people have distorted but same cannot be said for Islam because Mujtahid/Mujadids were continously reviving/purifying Islam upto present and will continue till the day of judgment. Thus removing need of Prophets. The jobs which the Prophets of Bani Israeel did before Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the Mujadideen/Mujtahideen of this Ummah are doing. This is why Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said station of scholars of my Ummah would be of Prophets of Bani Israel. These scholars were not your daily joe Maulvis/Mullahs but Mujadideen and Mujtahideen of Ummah. This Hadith is Khabr Mashoor and narrated by Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Raazi (rahimullah) in his Tafsir ul-Kabeer. Khabr Mashoor is what Ummah accepts it is also called Ummat Talluqi bil-Qubul. It is recorded in Hadith: “Whatever Muslims deem to be good, is good in the sight of God and whatever they deem evil, is evil in the sight of God" [recorded by Ahmed] Even if saying scholars will have station of Prphets of Bani Israeel is not Hadith it is a Athar of a companion. And even if that is not true its meaning and understanding is true. The job of Mujadideen/Mujtahideen of Ummah is Tat’heer which is what Prophets of previous nations also did. 6.0 - State Of Ummah, Protecting, Promoting, Purifying Islam: You sought asnwer for:“If it is a blessing why has it ceased?” Earlier nations failed to adopt Islam and protect it. And resisted Prophets, killed them, and disbelieved in them.Those who followed their teaching were a tiny minority and they disappeared eventually. And Ummah of Prophet Muhammad basicly adopted Islam and are protecting/spreading even to this day. 6.1 - Excellent State Of Ummah of Prophet Muhammad: Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was is best of Ummah. ISLAM became it’s inner and out. Islam became a system and its teaching took hold in lands, hearts, minds, and souls of people. Its teaching were established by Muslims upon themselves and they took the Noor of Islam and established states/kingdoms upon it. Islam was/is learnt, and taught. Its core teaching of Tawheed, worship, charity, and virtually every aspect of it remains in knowledge of people and in books. Its scripture, Quran, and prophetic explanation i.e. the Sunnah remain with us. Every 100 year a Mujadid is born. Where where ever Islam gets corrupted and begins to loose its true form the Mujadid revives its spirit and teaching again and performs Ijtihad in light of Islamic core teachings and updates it to fit into then society. Islamic teaching of good/bad are still known. And Muslims still enjoin good and forbid evil. Tawheed is still dominant, and worship of Allah still performed by Muslims. Islam contains within it mechanism of revival, protection against biddah/innovation. Despite there are Ijtihadi disputes in Fiqh and some aspects of Aqahid there is no dispute over what is clearly stated in Quran/Sunnah. Pig is Haram amongst all, Kufr takes out of Islam, Shirk is not allowed, worship of others beside Allah is unanimously not allowed. They have disputes in these aspects but the principle on which they dispute on is unanimously held. All say Shirk is wrong. Allah has no partner. Worship is of Allah, Fasting is in Month of Ramadhan, Hajj is to be performed in places stated. And regardless their disputes they have a uncorrupted scripture and Sunnah. The dominant Islam/sect is of Ahlus Sunnah, the Wahhabis, Deobandis, Shias, and other factions, in total would not amount to 25% of total world Muslim population. So state of Islam is good, and Prophet said stick to the Jammah, the main-body, the Jamhoor i.e. majority when disputes arise. But despite these disputes Prophet said state of his Ummah will be good. He said about the whole Ummah/majority. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said, Allah will perfect it, and protect it promote it. He took the burden of protecting Islam upon Himself. And said: "It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon hate it." [Ref: 9:33] This means Islam will remain upon earth and become superior/dominant. And according to Hadith this will happen during life time of Imam Mahdi and when Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) returns. They will live, die, and Allah will send a cold/musky fragrant wind which will take life of kullu muslimun wa mominun (all muslims and all righteous-believers). Those who will be left on earth, atheists, kafirs of other type will return of idol worship. So Islam will stay and will stay strong from time of Prophet till death of Muslims before judgment day. Why Muslims would die before judgment day? Another story. To put it simply Allah doesn’t want to torment Muslims by inflicting destruction what would precdeed judgment day. 6.2 - Disgracefull State And Affairs Of Ummahs Of Earlier Prophets: Religions of previous Prophets to begin with never took off. Just take Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) soon as he crossed the sea they worshipped the calf. When Prophet Musa said to them go and fight them and claim that land, they said, o Musa you and your God go and fight. Religion of Islam which Prophet Musa brought didn’t establish strongly. And its scripture was/is lost. What remains behind is extremely corrupted form with some teaching of Prophet Musa alayhis salam. Prophet Noah (alayhis salam) his entire Ummah went down with the flood. Two other Prophets, ones nation was destroyed by a fire tornado, and others nation had mountain toppled over it because they disobeyed. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) nation, they not only refused to believe in his teaching they tried to kill him. Yes he did gain few followers, mentioned in Quran as Hawariyoon/supporters, but again his Islam was not accepted by people, and those who accepted were out muscled by Paul of Tarsus and other forgerers. Forgeries about Prophet Isa’s teaching were so wide spread that true followers of his religion … disappeared. Point I am making is religion of all formers Prophets never took off, their Ummahs never really accepted its teaching and their followers never became strong enough to establish religion on their hearts, minds, souls and bodies. Only success in establishing religion of Islam had was Prophet Sulayman and Prophet Dawud and what followed thereafter was rebellion/Kufr/Shirk Baal worship and etc and consquently they ended up in bondage/slavery at hands of Nebuchazaar. Any/Every religion of Islam which a previous Prophet brought disappeared with in a 100 year of their death. There was/is no enjoining good/forbidding evil. Their teaching of Tawheed, worship of Allah, all have disappeared for two main reasons. One they didn’t have huge following, two their teaching did not become solidly established in hearts, minds, souls and on bodies. Nor it became a solid self reviving self protecting institution. Why? Because before the people were tasked with protecting all aspects of teaching of their prophets and they eventually failed and result was that their religions got distorted and forgotten. 6.3 - Envoriment And Condition Of Bani Israeel The Killers Of Prophets: Originally Prophets were sent as in father to son … generation after generation. Then this changed and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sent Prophets to Bani Israel at intervals. And then gap increased. Prophets either brought new revelation, or explained guarded revelation of a previous Prophet. This is how Bani Israeel were dealt with. Jews killed Prophets even before they could teach/preach to them. Others they imprisoned and tortured. With Jews spread of Islam was constant struggle, required constant micro-managing and direction. Sometimes things went south and they killed the Prophet because they didn’t like what he taught or didn’t agree with their i.e. Jewish nations world view. Jews as whole nation were happy when there needs were met and Prophet was teaching what they liked. And went Kufr whent they didn’t as consequence they would kill Prophets. You get the image. THE JEWS REQUIRED BABY-SITTING. They were rebellious people and to keep them upon Tawheed … it required constant maintaince. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) decided enough is enough after they tried to kill Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). And chose a new people, Arabs, the most backward nation on earth at that time. They were so backward they didn’t even have a king/government. They still were tribal era where as nations around them had kings and emperors and Allah knows what else. They had one good quality they were a committed people. Whatever cause they committed to they committed to. I mean take , 300 year war, started between two tribes because a bird from orchard of one flew to anothers. And second got offended because bird hinted he was second best. So started 300 year war. Look at the dedication … to kill and get killed because of bird. Plus they were the most back-ward nation on earth. What better place to demonstrate what RELIGION of Allah can do for people if they accept and follow it sincerely. What better way to rubb it in the face of Jews then to transform a backward nation and make them reach pinnacle of education and englightenment. So Allah did. The Arabs fought, killed, got killed, but eventually came to Islam. ISLAM BECAME THEM AND THEY BECAME ISLAM. They took the NOOR of Islam and implanted that commitment and dedication and that knowledge and that love of Allah and His Messenger into hearts and minds of all those around them. And as far as Multan. Islam became the bright shinning star. Its teachings established, with solid roots on globe. And where as religion of former Prophets would get distorted and disppear in absence of a Prophet. The religion of Islam 1430 years and counting … it is strong and spreading. And here begins new chapter. 6.4 – Prophet-hood Ceased Because Mujadids Replaced Prophets: (i) Prophets were needed to purify, to spread, their own versions of Islam, but religion of Islam is perfected and Mujadideen, Mujtahideen, scholars, and common Muslims like me are busy spreading it. Prophets were needed when a absence of a Prophet wuld mean there would be no one to purify it and no one to explain it to people. Ummah of RasoolAllah in all levels is promoting, teaching, protecting, sharing, and inviting non-Muslims to Islam. And this is why we are said to be best of Ummah, we enjoin good, we invite to good, and we prohibit evil/sin/kufr/shirk and we abstain from kufr/Shirk, and abstain from sin to best of our ability. Islam is alive, Islam is spreading, Muslims are promoting it, protecting it, and there is no need for a Prophet. When it has been perfected/completed wth Mujadids/revivers then what is need of a Prophet. When a Mujadid is doing what in previous nations prophets did then there is no need for new Prophet. And Mujadid is not something we have invented this is what Allahs Messenger told us. And He Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not speak religion except what Allah tells him to declare this is Islam. And he declared Mujadids will be born doing job of Prophets then what is need of Prophets. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) replaced system of Prophet-hood with system of Mujadids. 6.5 - Stop Of Prophet-hood Is Mercy To Prevent Ummah Falling Into Kufr: (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stopped Prophets as a mercy/rahma. He stopped sending more Prophets because some followers of previous Prophet, maybe most would not follow the new Prophet, and they would become Kafir: “Verily, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allah and His Messengers saying: ‘We believe in some but reject others.’ And wish to adopt a way in between. They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment.” [Ref: 4:150/151] Jews killed prophets because their teachings went against teaching of previous Prophet and this is why they tried to kill Isa (alayhis salam). So it was act of mercy for us Muslims. And to prevent the Ummah dividing on fault like of Islam/Kufr. Take Mirzas claim of Prophet-hood as example. New one claims it, and guess what, we say you’re Kafir, Mirza is Kafir, and if Muslims got chance we would have killed him. Originally one Muslim Ummah now we fractured on line of Islam/Kufr. To prevent this divison of Kufr/Islam Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stopped sending more Prophets. These are two main reasons I could think of. 6.6 – End Of Prophet-hood To Honour Prophet And The Best Of Ummah: (iii) Third is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) honoured Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by stopping sending of more Prophets. Because any new Prophet would become centre of attention and pole of guidance and previous would be replaced. New ones teachings would become central and previous would loose position of authority. For us Muslims Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is authority as source of religion. For you Mirza has become this central figure. His teaching takes precedence over teaching of what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught in Ahadith. Whatever Prophet said now is looked through pin hole of Mirza’s teaching. And I believe when Allah completed perfected religion of Islam on efforts of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam). And saw struggle, suffering of believers and their Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) it was decided as matter of honouring him to not to send more Prophets. Ofcourse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knew this even before any of the events transpired so He decided to end Nabuwah on him to show that he has been honoured by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) above all Prophets. 7.0 – Asnwering Question Have We Have Been Deprived Of Having Prophets: You asked:“So the best Ummah is deprived of a blessing that God blessed an inferior Ummah (Bani Israel) with in abundance?” The reason best of Ummah has not received a Nabi to guide them is preciously because they are, best of Ummah raised from mankind and they enjoin good and forbid evil as they were commanded which earlier Ummahs did not do. And thus they required constant baby-sitting and guidance and protection from misguidance of Nabis/Rasools. Religion of last and final Prophet is a animate body. And does all what a living organism does. It has DNA (i.e. Quran/Sunnah) which tells body this is me. Then we have white blood cells (i.e. angry Maulvis) which have human DNA in them (i.e. knowledge of Quran/Sunnah) so they can identify this is human and this is virus, bug, and others. When white blood cells see a non-native cell (i.e. innovator whose teaching contradict Islam) these white blood cells go, ALLAHU AKBAR, JIHAAAAAD, get em, refute em, write books against them, entire WHITE BLOOD CELL kind is mobolised. They isolate the infection and fight of infections (i.e. innovations of Kufr/Shirk/Sin). Sometimes the body can’t do it so we need medicine (i.e. bigger Maulvi i.e. Allamah, Muhaddith, comes into action). And some times that medicine doesn’t just work good enough so a bigger more powerful new approach is needed to get rid of infection or to limit the damge of infection (i.e. enters a MUJADID into battle). The only difference is in real human body sometimes the diceases, viruses, cancers win and cause death of host. The living-body of Islam will never experience death at hand of innovations introduced in it. It will always remain, and remain a dominant creed, the true Islam will be dominant Islam, and will remain belief/practice of majority of Muslims. Far from being deprived, I say we have been privillaged, to guard, protect, to serve, and be soilders of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger. We have been given the torch of Islam and tasked/honoured to spread the perfection of Islam to entire mankind. We are not deprived we were honoured. 8.0 - Prophet Isa Return As Ummati And Belief Khatammiyyah Is Uneffected: You Said: “If Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is chronologically the last Prophet: (i) Then how is it that the Messiah son of Maryam who is a Prophet of God, will descend in the latter days? (ii) How do you resolve this puzzle?” (i) There is no, if, or but. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said there is no Prophet/Rasool after me. And scholars said it means there will be no prophet newly commissioned to propogate a Shariah, or a Prophet of old returning as a Prophet to propogate former Shariah. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, there is no Prophet/Rasool after me, without making any Takhsees/distinction. Meaning he did not say, there is no prophet after me except Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will be sent as a prophet to mankind with Wahi. Nor said there will be Ummati-Prophet after me. Nothing such thing whatsoever. As much I can recall there is not a single Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) EXPLICITLY used word prophet while informing us about return of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Meaning he did not even say, Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) would descend. In fact in such Ahadith he explicitly said, Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) will descend, here, here. In the following link you can see all Ahadith which mention descension of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) but none from it indicates Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said; Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) will descend amongst you, here. Absence of this title indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was making sure his words cannot be misconstrued to mean return of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) would be of a Prophet. There is no proof he would descend as a Nabi. He was/is a Nabi but his descension will be as an Ummati. We do not believe, and there is no proof, which Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will descend as a Nabi, and therefore our understanding of Khatamiyyah meaning last/final Prophet is not contradicting our belief. If you believe he will return as a Nabi you provide proof that his return will be of Nabi sent to last Ummah. (ii) Consider previous section as a response to both questions without going into evidences which support this understanding and as a introduction to discussions that will proceed. It will justify understanding of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and Muslims in general in light of evidences of Quran/Hadith and Ijmah of Ummah. 9.0 - Ascension And Descension Of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam😞 Quran says:“And because of their saying (in boast): ‘We killed Messiah Jesus the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely, they killed him not but Allah raised him up unto Himself. And Allah is ever all-Powerful, all-Wise.” [Ref: 4:157/158] The Jews tried to kill Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) like they had killed Prophets before him. And Jews in life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said in boast/arrogance that we killed Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) responds to them saying it was made to appear that he was crucified and he died. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in context of saying no death took place says but he was raised-up by Allah (i.e. bal-rafa’ullahu). 9.2 - Qadiyani Argument Based On Usage Of Rafa And Response: Here Qadiyanis argue, word rafa (i.e. raised) in Quran is used in meaning of raised in maratib/maqam (degrees/stations) of honor and not raising of his body in literal sense. We say, rafa is jismani, because that is natural meaning of these two verses. Verse says; he was not killed, not crucified, it appeared so, they didn’t kill him, Allah raised him; logically the verse only gives meaning of being raised alive in body. If death had taken place then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would have said, they didn’t’ kill him, he died a natural death, and Allah raised him. Why force something on the verse which is not in the verse or hinted in the verse? Word rafa is used in meaning of physical raising of body because many Ahadith word rafa is used to mean raising of hands in beginning of Salah, during Ruku, and Sujud, and raising of hands in Dua, here. And in many verses of Quran word rafa has been used in meaning of raising something material high, example, in verse Q55:7, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said he raised the sky above earth. Raising of stations is also agree-able if we say rafa was used as a Zameer/hint toward rafa Darajaat, in light of following verse where raising of Darjaat is clearly stated in it: “Those Messengers! We preferred some of them to others; to some of them Allah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour); and to Isa, the son of Maryam. We gave clear proofs and evidence, and supported him …” [Ref: 2:253] But natural meaning of verses, Q4:157/158, as quoted above is that he did not die and was raised without death. Even if we say the verse means, raising of Darjaat, question still remains Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not say he died after clearly negating his death. It is worth noting a minority from scholars of Islam have said natural death of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) did occur but he was not killed/murdered and was not crucified on cross. Majority holds to understanding he did not die and was raised alive/bodily. And we are instructed to follow majority: “It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] No death of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is belief and understanding of dominant group of Muslims. And this is the truth which we are instructed fo adhere to by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 9.3 - Proving Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Is Alive And Will Return Therefore: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will return as a sign of judgment day to come in following verse: “He ( Prophet Isa alayhis salam) is a Sign of the Hour. Have no doubt about it. But follow me. This is a straight path.” [Ref: 43:61] If he died a natural death as Qadiyanis believe this means when he returns he will be son of another mother/father and will die again and will be burried next to grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). That is two births and two deaths. And this is not allowed everyone has one chance to live and die. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said none from paradise will want to return except martyrs: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said: ‘Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the earth, except a Mujahid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives (from Allah).’" [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H72, here.] And he said Prophets are in paradise: “Narrated Hasana daughter of Mu'awiyah: She reported on the authority of her paternal uncle: I asked the Prophet: Who are in Paradise? He replied: Prophets are in Paradise, martyrs are in Paradise, infants are in Paradise and children buried alive are in Paradise.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2515, here.] If Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) had died he would not have returned. His returning is proof that he has not died and the rafa/raising mentioned in the verse is bodily ascension. And Ahadith talk about bodily descension of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam😞 “Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and …” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6924, here.] 9.4 - Why Descension Of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam😞 (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Every soul will taste death. Then to Us will you be returned.” [Ref: 29:57] His ascension was to save him from humiliation and help cause of Islam by sending him as an Ummati of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (ii) His descension is for promotion of perfected/completed Islam of last/final Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as mentioned in following Hadith: “Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish Jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B38, H4310, here.] His return is to help the cause of Islam because through his Jihad, preaching, struggle, and support of Muslims, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will bring end to all religions. Like I said he is helping the cause of Islam. If he was helping cause Islam by inviting to his own Shariah that would be like me helping your shop by taking your customers to my shop. That would hardly be helping the cause of Islam. Qadiyani can say since religion of all Prophets was Islam therefore return of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Islam dominating could be referrence to his version of Islam (i.e Shariah). We say Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon hate it." [Ref: 9:33] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said Islam will be championed by Him and this he said in context of teaching of last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore domination of Islam mentioned in Hadith is fullfilment of the verse. And eradication of all religions will be result of and due to spread of last perfected version of Islam. (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed to fight the disbelievers until there is no more Zulm: “And fight against them until there is no more zulm (transgression) and all Deen belongs to Allah alone.” [Ref: 8:39] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated that Luqman (alayhis salam) said to his son Shirk is a great Zulm (i.e. oppression/transgression) in following Ayah: "O my son! Do not commit Shirk with Allah. Verily Shirk is a tremendous Zulm (transgression)." [Ref: 31:13] And Shirk being a Zulm has support from following Hadith, here. In conclusion we the Muslims are instructed to fight/Jihad against Mushirkeen until there is no more Shirk. And Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) as a Muslim will fight as an Ummati until all religions are eradicated and Shirk completely disappears. (iv) He will then abolish Jaziyah because Jaziyah is a tax levied on non-Muslims living in Khilafat. These words can also mean that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will abolish Jaziyah in the beginning of his milltary compaign. And therefore make rule that you accept Islam, or you die. In other words he will offer no choice of paying Jaziyah and living under Islamic rule as a non-Muslim Dhimmi (i.e. conquered) people. Some scholars have taken this position and it is position of a minority. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons: (a) It seems Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) indicated a chronological in which things will unfold. (b) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: "There shall be no compulsion in (acceptance of) the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut ..." [Ref: 2:256] In this light second interpretation is invalid and rejected. My understanding is Muslim armies will conquer lands and providing free access and people of conqered lands will get to see true Islam and true Muslims as opposed to what they saw in Media and they will accept Islam. And maybe Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will perform Karamat/Mojazaat to convince people of truth of Islam. Bottom line is he will work to end Shirk in line with Quranic teaching and this is proof that he will be Ummati of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And he will end Jaziyah after domination of Islam because there will no longer be need for it. The Kafirs/Mushriks living in lands of Islam all will convert to Islam and thus there would be no need to pay Jaziyah. And Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will then cancel Jaziyah contracts made with former Dhimmis. This is also proof he will be a Ummati and under Shariah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And this is clearly stated in Hadith: “It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah observed: What would you do when the son of Mary would descend amongst you and would lead you as one amongst you? Ibn Abi Dhi'b on the authority of Abu Huraira narrated: Your leader amongst you. Ibn Abi Dhi'b said: Do you know what the words:" He would lead as one amongst you" mean? I said: Explain these to me. He said: He would lead you according to the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Apostle.” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H292, here.] 10.0 - He Was Sent To Bani Israeel As a Prophet To Guide Them: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) narrates regarding Prophet Isa (alayhis salam😞 “And He will teach him the Book and Al-Hikmah (and) the Taurat and the Injeel. And will make him a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, a figure like that of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's Leave; and I …” [Ref: 3:48/49] “And (remember) when Isa, son of Maryam said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you, confirming the Taurat before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.’ But when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: ‘This is plain magic.’" [Ref:66:6] Quran makes it very clear that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was sent to Bani Israeel with Taurat and understanding of it, and a scripture called Injeel. 10.1 - Prophet Muhammad Was Sent To Entire Mankind: Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent to entire mankind according to following verses: “And We have not sent you except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most men know not.” [Ref: 34:28] “Say: ‘O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah (from) to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth.’" [Ref: 7:158] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he has been sent to entire mankind where as Nabis before him were sent to just one group of people: “The Messenger of Allah said: … I have been given the intercession which was not given to any Prophet before me; and I have been sent to all of mankind whereas the Prophets before me were sent to their own people.’" [Ref: Nisai, B4, H432, here.] It means Nabis were exclusive to Ummah which the Nabi belonged to. Prophets of Bani Israeel were exclusively for them because they belonged to them. Yet our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is an Arab and from Banu Quraysh tribe yet he is sent to all races/nations and tribes in mankind. In another Hadith he said the same but added he is last Prophet in line of Prophets: “… the Messenger of Allah said: … spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me.” [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1062, here.] 10.2 – Contradiction In Quran From Qadiyani Belief And Resolution: IF we believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will return as a Nabi with Wahi like he did before Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then it his prophet-hood can only be limited to Bani Israeel. And this is because he was sent to them as a Prophet with Wahi/Injeel and Hikmah (i.e. wisdom). He was not sent to mankind with Wahi/Injeel. In contrast according to text of Quran/Sunnah Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was/is sent to entire mankind. His Prophet-hood is inclusive of all people, all races, all nations, and all Ummahs, including Bani Israeel. How can all encampassing prophet-hood be replaced with prophet-hood of a Nabi who was sent to a particular Ummah. If Qadiyani belief is true that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will return as a Nabi then it means he will act as a Nabi of entire mankind. And this goes clearly against what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) taught in Quran because he was sent to Bani Israeel. In context of Qadiyani belief it will boil down to a Nabi over-stepping boundary set by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And Prophets of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only say and do as instructed by Him and do not assign for themselves tasks which weren’t His directives. He would not only be over-stepping the set boundary but also unjustly become partner in Wahi/Quran of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And this is something he was not tasked as a Nabi as evidenced by verses quoted above. Only way he would not over-step boundary set by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not be a Nabi partner in Quran is; if he was Ummati of last final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Indeed he is and evidence will follow in the next sections. See 1.4 and onwards. 10.3 – Qadiyani Objections New Prophets Explained Scriptures Of Previous Prophets: Qadiyani could argue earlier Prophets explained scriptures of Prophets that were before them. And we say, Sunnah of Prophets and objective of their scriptures is that they expose corruption in previous scriptures and explain the truth about them in their new scripture. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was sent to Bani Israeel to expose corruption of and to explain Taurat and to bring them new scripture, Injeel. He was sent to do this very job as evidenced by the verse: “And He will teach him the Book and Al-Hikmah (and) the Taurat and the Injeel. And will make him a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, a figure like that of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's Leave; and I …” [Ref: 3:48/49] There is no proof in Quran/Sunnah which indicates he was or will be commissioned as a Nabi upon his return and will be tasked to do explain Quran as a Nabi. In light of all evidence in support of Islamic understanding and in absence contradicting proof; it is natural to conclude he will/can only return as an Ummati of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 11.0 – Covenant Of Prophets To Be Ummatis Of Last Prophet Upon His Commission: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) took oath from Prophets that when Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) comes they would believe in his prophet-hood and aid him and they all said we will including Prophet Isa (alayhis salam😞 "And (remember) when Allah took the covenant of the Prophets saying: ‘Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah/wisdom and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger confirming what is with you. You (prophets) must, then, believe in him and help him.' Allah said: 'Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My Covenant?' They said: 'We agree.' He said: 'Then bear witness and I am with you among the witnesses (for this).'" [Ref: 3:81] When this is undeniable truth then how can Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) return as a Nabi. And how can he be sent as a Nabi to Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when he himself is Ummati of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 11.1 – Evidence Establishes Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Will Be Ummati: And proof of this is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) lead all the Prophets in prayers in Masjid al-Aqsa. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will perform Salah behind Imam al-Mahdi:“He said: 'On that day they will be few, and most of them will be in Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem), and their leader will be a righteous man. When their leader has stepped forward to lead them in Subh/Fajr prayer, 'Isa bin Maryam will come down to them. Their leader will step backwards so that Isa can come forward and lead the people in prayer, but Isa will place his hand between his shoulders and say to him: ‘Go forward and pray, for the Iqamah was given for you.’ Then their leader will lead them in prayer. When he has finished, Isa will say: ‘Open the gate.’ So they will ...” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] Note this Hadith is Daif/Weak but other authentic Ahadith establish the same point. What this proves is that will be a follower of Shariah of last/final Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 11.2 – Qadiyani Counter Argument Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Will Lead Prayers: A Qadiyani once argued according to more authentic Hadith in Sahih of Imam Muslim Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will lead the Muslims in Prayers: “And when they would come to Syria, he would come out while they would be still preparing themselves for battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Mary would descend and would lead them. When the enemy of Allah would see him, it would (disappear) just as the salt dissolves itself in water and …” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H6924, here.] And he argued this proves he will not be an Ummati but returning as a Nabi. It was pointed out to him, that the Hadith does not say Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will lead them in Salah. Hadith says he would lead Imam al-Mahdi and Muslim army in battle against Dajjal his Zionist army. 11.3 - No Evidence In Quran/Sunnah Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Will Return As Nabi: No where in Quran/Hadith it is stated Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will be sent as a Prophet to us, or he will receive Wahi upon his return, and via which he will guide us. It makes no sense that he will return as a Prophet who has believed in Prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And as help to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he invites toward a new Shariah, or his own religion. That is like saying, I am helping your buisiness by taking your customers to my own shop. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will be an Ummati of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And as an Ummati he will be help to cause of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and to spread/promote religion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as he promised in world of souls: “’Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah/wisdom and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger confirming what is with you. You (prophets) must, then, believe in him and help him.' Allah said: 'Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My Covenant?' They said: 'We agree.' He said: …" [Ref: 3:81] 11.4 – Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Nabi Of Bani Israeel And Ummati: Here the Qadiyanis typically say, how come Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will return as an Ummati and is still a Prophet, being Ummati is in contradiction with being a Prophet. We say, he will return as an Ummati of last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but his status of Prophet is not revoked. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) remains a Prophet even after his Shariah has been replaced by Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Now he is bound by duty and agreement mentioned in verse, “You (prophets) must, then, believe in him and help him.' … They said: 'We agree.' Allah said ..”, to believe and follow Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and aid him in spread of his last, perfect version of Islam. And just as in world of souls Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) took oath from Prophets, and he referred to them as Prophets, and they were Prophets without Wahi-Kitabi, and without an Ummah, in the same way Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) can be a Prophet without receiving any Wahi and without being sent to an Ummah to guide. Only distinction that needs to be made is that he is not as a Prophet sent to this last/final Ummah, he was a Prophet sent to Bani Israeel, and he is Prophet of Bani Israeel and an Ummati of last final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 11.5 – As Believer Of And Helper He Invite Jews To Perfected Islam: His return is so that he can convince Bani Israeel (i.e. the Jews) to believe in him as they should have believed him when he was sent to them. And in light of Quranic teaching to set record straight about his elevation to status of God-hood and Lord-ship. Upon his return/descension the Jews will believe in him as whole nation: “There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in him ('Isa) before he dies; and on the Day of Rising he will be a witness against them.” [Ref: 4:159] With regards to Christianity, he will break cross, this could mean he will literally break a cross associated with his alleged death (i.e. true cross non-sense). It could mean he will dismantle Christianity and its teaching of crufixion and death of Jesus being an attonement for mankind. With regards to Jews who do not believe in him will die in wars. The killed/dead will be soilders of Jewish Zionist state of Israel. Hadith which records saying, even stones will speak and tell the army of Imam al-Mahdi and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) a Jew is hiding behind me is about Israeli Zionist army: “Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said: ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’’" [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H177, here.] Even though Ahadith make no Takhsees/distinction between Jews; Islamicly killing civilians, destroying civilian infrastructure, crops, water sources, is all prohibited, as evidenced by Ahadith. Hence army of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will not target Jews residing in Israeel but those fighting defending this Jewish Nazi state will certainly meet their end in this final battle. Returning to main subject. Jews will come to believe in him in light of Quranic teaching: He was sent to them as a Messenger of Allah, Ruh-ullah, Maseeh-ullah, his miraclous birth, affirm righteousness of his mother, they did not kill him, and nor crucified him, but he was raised alive etc. In addition he will inform Jews/Christians that Prophet which he prophecised is the last/final Prophet Muhammad. And such people will earn double reward: “Narrated Abu Burda's father: The Prophet said: ‘Three persons will get double reward. (One is) a person … marries her. Such a person will get a double reward. (Another is) a believer from the people of the scriptures who has been a true believer and then he believes in the Prophet (Muhammad). Such a person will get a double reward. (The third is) a slave who observes ...’" [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H255, here.] Logically he cannot call toward a new religion or his own version of Islam with which he was sent before his ascension. He can only invite people to Shariah and beliefs/teachings of Quran. And this is what an Ummati, I, you the Muslims, all do, and this is precisely what he will invite to as an Ummati. Therefore he will not be sent as a Nabi but he will return as an Ummati of last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). 11.6 – Conclusion - Bani Israeel Ummah Of Last Prophet And Return As An Ummati: Now coming to what you Said:“If Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is chronologically the last Prophet: (i) Then how is it that the Messiah son of Maryam who is a Prophet of God, will descend in the latter days?” He will not return as a Prophet of Bani Israeel because Bani Israeel was formerly his Ummah. All Bani Israeel from his own anouncement of prophet-hood to beginning of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prophet-hood were Ummah of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Believers and disbelievers of Bani Israeel were his Ummah. Bani Israeel became Ummah from beginning of prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and will remain so till judgment day. This includes those who believed as Muslims/Momins and those who remained upon misguidance/Kufr of old. This is because Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is of two types; (i) to whom he was sent - this is entire mankind, (ii) and those who accepted him as their Nabi from mankind – these are Muslims. Those Jews who believed in his prophet-hood and affirmed, la ilaha il-Allah, Muhammadur rasoolAllah, they became part of Muslim-Ummah. And those who for whatever reason could not accept Islam they are part of sent-to-Ummah. All nations, races, castes, tribes, families, and any other conceivable division; Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent to them, including Bani Israeel: “And let there arise from you a group inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, and those will be successful." [Ref: 3:104] And therefore Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) cannot and will not be returning as a Nabi of Bani Israeel. His role as an active-Nabi came to end upon his ascension and time granted to Bani Israeel to believe believe him as Nabi came to end when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) anounced his Nabuwah. His return can only be as an Ummati. 12.0 - Last And Final Prophet – After Prophet Muhammad There Is No New Prophet: (i) There is no if or but in regards to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being last and end of Prophets. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everything.” [Ref: 33:40] The all important word in phrase Khatm al-Nabiyeen is Khatm and it is read with Zabr and Zer on t/ta (i.e. Khatim, Khatam). Khatim means last/final. Khatam has many meanings including signet and seal (i.e. to tightly close). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained the Shari meaning of Khatam al-Nabiyeen in various Ahadith. (ii) He said I am Khatam al-Nabiyeen in following Hadith and followed it by saying there is no prophet after me to make it clear that Khatam is in meaning of seal (i.e. to tightly close/shut😞 “… the Messenger of Allah said: ‘The Hour shall not ... And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219, here.] (iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said his example is of a missing piece effecting completion of otherwise beautifully built house: “Abu Hurairh reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The similitude of mine and that of the Apostles before me is that of a person who built a house quite imposing and beautiful, but for one brick in one of its corners.” He continues and goes on to say he is that missing piece and I am the last of Prophet (i.e. wa ana Khatam al-Nabiyeen😞 “People would go round it, appreciating the building, but saying: Why has the brick not been fixed here? He said: I am that brick and I am the last of the prophets.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5675, here.] (iv) Bani Israeel were lead by one prophet replacing another. And this tradition of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) could have caused some to postulate just as Bani Israeel were guided by consecutive chain of prophets so there would be a continous chain of prophets amongst Arabs like Bani Israeel. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in this regard said Bani Israeel were led by prophets, one replaced by another, but there is no Prophet after me: “… The Prophet said: ‘The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.’ The people asked: ‘O Allah's Messenger! What do you order us (to do)?’ He said: ‘Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H661, here.] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) drew our attention to context of Bani Israeel being sent one prophet another. Why did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) frame the statement of there is no prophet after me, in context of Bani Israeel? Prophets of Bani Israeel were acting many roles and carrying out many duties. And to let us know, no prophet whatsoever type of duty/role, would be sent after him Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) framed, there is no prophet after me, in context of Bani Israeel being guided by consecutive prophets. (v) In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is guardian of believers in his absences as Prophet Haroon (alayhis salam) was guardian of Bani Israeel in absence of Prophet Musa (alayhis salam). He then said but there is one distinction that there is no Prophet after me: “Narrated Sa`d: Allah's Messenger set out for Tabuk. appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). `Ali said: ‘Do you want to leave me with the children and women?’ The Prophet said: ‘Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Aaron to Moses? But there will be no prophet after me." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H700, here.] This Hadith indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) would out-live him therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said there is no Prophet after me. Tashbih/comparison is always in relation to a single component/quality there was possibility prophetic saying being misconstrued so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, there is no prophet after me. (vi) In following Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said I am al-Aqib: “… Allah's Messenger said: ‘I have five names: I am Muhammad and Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected there after; and I am also Al-Aqib (i.e.the end, the last).’” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H732, here.] In many verses of Quran derivatives of Aqb are linguistically employed to mean end and last. Meaning of al-Aqib in Shari sense is given in following Hadith: “This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar (and the words are): I said to Zuhri: What does (the word) al-Aqib imply? He said: One after whom there is no Prophet. And in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar and Uqail there is a slight variation of wording.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5812, here.] (vii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said there is no prophet, nor a messenger after him, because prophet-hood has come to end. Only thing that continues which has a flicker of prophet-hood are true dreams: “Anas bin Malik narrated: The Messenger of Allah said: 'Indeed Messenger-ship and Prophethood have been terminated, so there shall be no Messenger after me, nor a Prophet.' He (Anas) said: ‘The people were concerned about that, so he said: 'But there will be Mubash-shirat.' So they said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what is Mubashshirat?' He said: 'The Muslim's dreams, for it is a portion of the portions of Prophethood.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B8, H2272, here.] This Hadith absolutely makes it clear nothing of prophet-hood remains. Sending of Wahi to prophets has come to end and prophets being sent to nations has come to end. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was/is last Prophet and the final Messenger and after him there is no prophet, or messenger. If there was ever chance of a sub-ordinate prophet being sent after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) he would have said, there are no Prophets/Messengers after me; except sub-ordinate Prophets/Messengers; or except Prophet/Prophets stamp approved by me. He made no such distinction. Why? Because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wasn’t sending any such prophet. He also said, mother of Risalah (i.e. messenger-ship) and Nabuwah (i.e. prophet-ship) has ceased, except true dreams. Wahi is foundation of both of these and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) put an end to it. There can be no Nabi/Rasool without Wahi. If there was a Nabi being sent, or more then one, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not have said door of Wahi is closed with me. And only thing of Nabuwah, Risalah, Wahi that can be received is true-dreams which are 1/40th of Wahi: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah's Messenger said: ‘A good dream (that comes true) of a righteous man is one of forty-six parts of prophetism.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H112, here.] One forty’th, that’s all of Wahi one can access in form of a true dream after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and nothing more. Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said messenger-ship and prophet-hood has ceased and I interpreted that to mean Wahi has ceased. Companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) understood his statement to mean Wahi has ceased: “… (this worldly life). She said: I weep not because I am ignorant of the fact that what is in store for Allah's Messenger (in the next world) is better than (this world), but I weep because the revelation which came from the Heaven has ceased to come. This moved both of them to tears and they began to weep along with her.” [Ref: Muslim, B31, H6009, here.] “… People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a divine inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H809, here.] There can be no prophet/messenger without Wahi. And anywho claims Wahi after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is a liar and an impostor (i.e. minor Dajjal). 13.0 - Hadith Of Dajjal Claiming To Be A Prophet And Lord: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) while describing Dajjal said: “O slaves of Allah, remain steadfast. I will describe him to you in a manner in which none of the Prophets has described him before me. He will start by saying: ‘I am a Prophet.’And there is no Prophet after me. Then a second time he will say: ‘I am your Lord.’ But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed. And written between his eyes is Kafir.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] Casual readers of this Hadith may not be able to understand much from literal reading of this Hadith but when this Hadith is contextualized with other Ahadith then it reveals great details. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) chose his words very carefully. Ahadith reveal he will claim to be a Prophet impersonate al-Maseeh. Yet the Hadith doesn’t explicitly state if Dajjal will claim to be a new Prophet/al-Maseeh, nor does Hadith indicate Dajjal will claim to be a former Prophet/al-Maseeh whom as returned. And I believe this is to convey a wider meaning. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “I heard Allah's Messenger saying: "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim … Muhammad said Jawami al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet.” [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141, here.] This Hadith is perfect demonstration of comprehensiveness of prophetic words. 13.1 – Dajjal Will Claim To Be Al-Maseeh: (i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Narrated Abu Huraira: ‘Allah's Messenger said: ‘Neither Messiah nor plague will enter Medina.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B71, H627, here.] al-Maseeh mentioned in the Hadith is not Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (radiallah ta’ala anhu) it is Dajjal: “Narrated Abu Bakra: The Prophet said: ‘The terror caused by Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal will not enter Medina and at that time Medina will have seven gates and there will be two angels at each gate (guarding them).’” [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H240, here.] In Jami at-Tirmadhi Abdullah Ibn Salam (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) will be burried next to grave of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Madinah: “Narrated 'Abdullah bin Salam: ‘The description of Muhammad is written in the Tawrah (and the description that) 'Eisa will be buried next to him.’ (One of the narrators) Abu Mawdud said: ‘(And) there is a place for a grave left in the house.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B46, H3617, here.] These Ahadith establish Dajjal will be called al-Maseeh. And implications of this is in the beginning Dajjal will claim to be al-Maseeh which the Jews are waiting for. 13.2 – Dajjal Will Claim To Be Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam😞 (ii) Question arises why did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used words al-Maseeh ad-Dajjal for Dajjal? Word Dajjal is derived from Djl which means to decieve and to falsify. In this light Dajjal means deciever, impostor, charlatan etc. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed words al-Maseeh ad-Dajjal for Dajjal to indicate he will be an impostor Christ/al-Maseeh. He will be impersonating someone he is not. And in light of Islamic teaching Dajjal will claim to be Prophet al-Maseeh Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam). To score his point he would seemingly will perform iconic miracle of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) – the giving of life to dead. And will say to people if I kill and restore his life will you then accept I am the al-Maseeh [Isa Ibn Maryam] whom you been waiting for: “He will land in some of the salty barren areas (outside) Medina; on that day the best man or one of the best men will come up to him and say: 'I testify that you are the same Dajjal whose description was given to us by Allah's Messenger.' Ad-Dajjal will say to the people: 'If I kill this man and bring him back to life again, will you doubt my claim?' They will say: 'No.' Then Ad-Dajjal will kill that man and bring him back to life. That man will say: 'Now I know your reality better than before.' Ad-Dajjal will say: 'I want to kill him but I cannot.' " [Ref: Bukhari, B30, H106, here.] Another Hadith says the man who will expose reality of Dajjal to people of Arabia will be Prophet Khadir (alayhis salam); mentioned in Quran due to his interaction with Prophet Musa (alayhis salam😞 “The Dajjal would then make an attempt to kill him (again) but he would not be able to do that. Abu Ishaq reported that it was said: That person would be Khadir.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H7017, here.] 13.3 – Dajjal Will Claim To Be al-Maseeh Jesus Son Of God, And Then God: (iii) Much like Muslims Christians are also waiting for Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) to descend. In order to win Christians over to his side. And for them to believe him Dajjal will claim to be Christ (i.e. al-Maseeh) of Christians. Then to sweeten the deal for them Dajjal will take the logical step and claim to be God/Lord: “Then a second time he will say: ‘I am your Lord.’ But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed, and written between his eyes is Kafir.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] Note Dajjals ‘supernatural’ actions would give credence to his claim in of being al-Maseeh and Lord/God and provide justification for Jews/Christians and maybe illiterate Muslims to accept his claim. 13.4 – Why Would Jews Follow A Claimant Of God-Hood: (iv) Someone may argue why would Jews follow a man who would claim to be Lord/God when it goes against their teachings of monotheism? Answer is that there is no indication all Jews would follow him. Hadith record’s seventy thousand Jews from Isfahan would follow him: “Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger said: The Dajjal would be followed by seventy thousand Jews of Isfahan wearing shawls.” [Ref: Muslim, B41, H7034, here.] It is quite possible these followers could be first wave of Jewish followers from Isfahan and he might gain more following on his arrival to Israel. All fallow him or seventy thousand fallow him it is irrelevent. Dajjal’s claim of Lordship/Godhood does not go against teaching of Judaism and their Bible. In Christian Bible, John 10:34, Jesus allegedly said to Jews that you accuse me of claiming to be god but your Bible says, you’re gods and children of God most High. And this is refference to Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34 exactly replicates it. In Exodus 7:1 Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) is said to be a God to Pharaoh and Prophet Haroon (alayhis salam) is said to be a Prophet. Thus my understanding is that these Jews would be extremely literate about their Old Bible. Their literacy and dedication is illustrated by their usage of Shawls. These Shawls are worn by Jews who are dedicated to study and practice of Judaism. Therefore they would be able to reconcile his claim of Lordship with their scripture without compromising their understanding of monotheism. It is worth noting Dajjal will be lieing/decieving to Jews as well. Therefore he will likely concoct a explanation justifying his claim to his Jewish followers. Dajjal’s reality would be no more then of a flamboyant Jewish Tele-Evangalist type Rabbi – with moto ends justify the means. However the cookie crumbles he would move with his followers from Isfahan/Iran to present state of Israel. His arrival on the scene would lead to a major war between Muslims and state of Israel. This war would end in destruction of destruction of Israel. (v) In conclusion it needs to be said Dajjal will claim to be al-Maseeh of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. And to do this he will juggle three different al-Maseeh roles. Al-Maseeh as a new Prophet. Al-Maseeh Jesus the son of God and Lord of Lords returning again. Al-Maseeh as a Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) descending again to fulfill what is foretold in Quran/Hadith. Dajjal being impostor, a charlatan will fool, Jews, Christians, and tiny minority of Muslims. 13.5 – Understanding No Prophet After Me In Relationship To Three Religions: (i) Observant readers would be asking: what does the previous A4 page had to do with Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being last and final Prophet? The previous section was foundation to explain following Hadith: “O slaves of Allah, remain steadfast. I will describe him to you in a manner in which none of the Prophets has described him before me. He will start by saying: ‘I am a Prophet.’And there is no Prophet after me. Then a second time he will say: ‘I am your Lord.’ But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed. And written between his eyes is Kafir.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] Dajjal will claim to be al-Maseeh and a Prophet of Jews. Jews believe their al-Maseeh will and is always a Prophet. Jews also rejected Prophet-hood of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Therefore when Dajjal will claim to be al-Maseeh of Jews he will be claiming to be a [new] Prophet. From Islamic point of view Prophet-hood has ended. And to refute his claim of being a [new] Prophet Allah’s Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He will start by saying: ’I am a Prophet. And there is no Prophet after me.’” (ii) We the Muslims are waiting for Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) to return as a Ummati of last/final prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Dajjal will also claim to be a Prophet and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) added that there is no Prophet after me: “He will start by saying: ‘I am a Prophet.’And there is no Prophet after me. Then a second time he will say: ‘I am your Lord.’ But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed. And written between his eyes is Kafir.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] This establishes that Dajjal will claim to be a Prophet. But not any Prophet; Dajjal, the impostor, the charlatan will falsely claim to be Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam), and on back of this Dajjal will claim he is a Prophet. To shut this door, Dajjal claiming to be Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) the last Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, there is no Prophet after me. When Dajjal claims to be al-Maseeh and on back of this says I am Prophet whom you’re waiting for; we will know he is Dajjal because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said there is no Prophet after me. (iii) Christians believe him to be part of God, part of Trinity as the Son of God. They also believe him to be a prophet. To be precise the Son of God acting as a prophet. They apply Biblical passages, Deutronomy 18:18, upon him in order to prove he was prophecised by Prophets of old. Also Christian Bible in book of Acts 3:22/23 indicates his followers believe him to be a Prophet. In regards to their belief; Jesus a Prophet and the son of God, Lord of Lords; and Dajjals claim of being Prophet al-Maseeh and Lord; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) said: “He will start by saying: ‘I am a Prophet.’And there is no Prophet after me. Then a second time he will say: ‘I am your Lord.’ But you will not see your Lord until you die. He is one-eyed, and your Lord is not one-eyed. And written between his eyes is Kafir.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] 13.6 – Mirza And His Claim Of al-Maseeh And Prophet-hood: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani claimed to be Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and said as a Prophet he recieves Wahi, here. Scribd image can be seen, here. Mirza’s claim of Wahi goes against following Ahadith which explicitly indicate revelation has ceased after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… (this worldly life). She said: I weep not because I am ignorant of the fact that what is in store for Allah's Messenger (in the next world) is better than (this world), but I weep because the revelation which came from the Heaven has ceased to come. This moved both of them to tears and they began to weep along with her.” [Ref: Muslim, B31, H6009, here.] “… People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a divine inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H809, here.] Why revelation has ceased? Prophet recieves Wahi that’s why Mirza claimed to be a Prophet. Despite his claim of Prophet-hood there is no Prophet after last Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and therefore no revelation. Mirza’s claim of being Prophet goes against following Ahadith: “Anas bin Malik narrated: The Messenger of Allah said: 'Indeed Messenger-ship and Prophethood have been terminated, so there shall be no Messenger after me, nor a Prophet.' He (Anas) said: ‘The ...'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B8, H2272, here.] He (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also said he is al-Aqib and it means, last, after whom there is no Prophet: “… I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected there after; and I am also Al-Aqib (i.e.the end, the last).’” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H732, here.] “… I said to Zuhri: What does (the word) al-Aqib imply? He said: One after whom there is no Prophet. And in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ma'mar and Uqail there is a slight variation of wording.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5812, here.] These Ahadith establish Mirza’s claim of being a Prophet and receiving Wahi goes against teaching of Islam. Qadiyanis typically argue Mirza is a prophet of former era and the verse of Khatam al-Nabiyeen prohibits coming of new Prophets but not old Prophet returning (i.e. Prophet Isa alayhis salam) and receiving Wahi. First of all the Ahadith make it clear REVELATION/WAHI has ended. Secondly even if a former Prophet was to return his return would be of an Ummati and not Nabi. 14.0 – Prophet Muhammad Chronologically Last Prophet In Unquestionable: You Said: “If Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is chronologically the last Prophet: …” You seem to be questioning meaning of Khat-m al-Nabiyeen so lets present brief summary of earlier discussion. Ibn Manzur (rahimullah) full six-hundered years before Mirza in his Lisan ul-Arab, here, dedicated number of pages discussing meaning of Khtm (i.e. ختم, seal, close) and words which have been derived from it. After discussing meanings of various derivatives he comes to meaning of Khatim/Khatam and explicitly states both words mean end/last, with his example, saying Khat-m of a nation is last of it, here. In Imam Muhammad, Ibn Muhammad Murtaza, al-Zabidi in his dictionary, Taaj ul-Uroos, states the Khatam means last-one of nation like Khatim, and in same meaning (of last-on, end-one) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said in verse: “… but he is the Messenger of Allah and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All-Aware of everything.” Further more evidence of Quran, Hadith, and prophetic interpretation establishes meaning of word Khat-m in verse, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Khat-m of the Prophets, is is last/end. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed words, Khatm al-Nabiyeen, and right after it said, there is no Nabi after me. He illustrated his interpretation by giving example of a palace of Nabuwah missing a piece but in all other aspects is complete. He then said I am that missing piece/Nabi who has completed/perfected the palace of Prophet-hood. He also said when a Nabi from Bani Israeel died he was replaced by another but there is no Prophet after me. 14.1 - How Descension Isn’t Contradicting Khat-miyyah Of Prophet: You Said: “(i) Then how is it that the Messiah son of Maryam who is a Prophet of God, will descend in the latter days?” (ii) How do you resolve this puzzle?” (i) We cannot contradict and hold to any different position against evidence of Quran/Hadith. As such we are forced to accept Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will return. Needless to say both parties are in agreement that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will descend. (ii) When it is evident from text of Quran/Hadith that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was sent to Bani Israeel and not to mankind. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to was sent to entire Jinn/mankind. Then it should not be difficult to logically deduce that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) cannot be Nabi/Prophet to entire mankind. And if Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was returning as a Nabi of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Ummah – i.e. of entire mankind – then it must be proven that he was sent to entire mankind before his ascension. And if Qadiyanis believe and say his Prophet-hood was upgraded and he was suppose to be sent as a Nabi of entire mankind then this too requires evidence from Quran/Hadith. In absence of such evidence we are forced to conclude Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) cannot be Nabi of Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (iii) According to evidence of Quran/Hadith Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was last/final Nabi and Rasool and after him will be no Nabi, or Rasool. He has closed the gate of Prophet-hood and Wahi/revelation has ceased after him. (iv) Computing facts and without contradicting any of them we have no other choice but to accept and believe return of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will be of an Ummati of last and final Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Therefore his descension and Khatamiyyah are in total agreement. 15.0 - Qadiyani Refutation Has To Be Line With Quran, Hadith, And Jammah: Can you be kind enough to disprove what has been established from Quran/Hadith against Qadiyanism. Please do bear in mind your refutation of what I established so far has to agree with Quran/Hadith, and logic that agrees with Quran/Hadith. And what you say also should be in accordance with teaching of Jammah/majority of Muslims. 15.1 - Conditions Are Based On Quran/Hadith And Not Unfairly Invented: (i) Why is it important teaching any/every agree with Quran/Hadith? Islam is known to us from Quran and Hadith. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has explained Islam to us. And his explanation is in Hadith. Anywho claims to be Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) their teachings must be in agreement with ALL teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). (ii) Quran and Hadith is understandable but why Jammah/majority of Muslims? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed us that Jammah, main-body, the majority of Muslims will remain upon guidance : “One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] “… Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] “… Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] Anyone clued about numbers of Qadiyanis and Muslims will confirm that Qadiyanis are not even one percent compared to total Muslim numbers. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed us Muslims to stick to majority of Muslims and their understanding because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not make his Ummah agree upon an error. Vast majority, in fact the entirity of Muslim scholarship accepts/rejects Hadith on basis defects Sanad and on basis of faults in narrators of Hadith. Yet Mirza rejects/accepts Hadith on basis of alleged revelation received. And this is proof Mirza is misguided because he has gone against the practice of Jammah of Muslims. Further more every belief which Mirza erected on basis of his lie-of-revelation is misguidance and error and proves he died death of Jahiliyyah (i.e. upon pre-Islamic state of Kufr😞 “… for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] al-Hasil whatever Mirza preaches and whatever you will write to refute me all of it has to agree with two main sources of religion of Islam, Quran/Hadith. And thirdly it has to agree with explanations and position held by Jammah of Muslims, the majority of Muslims. If what he wrote, and you write in response to me contradicts any of these three you’re upon misguidance. 16.0 - Types Of Debaters/Discussers And Reason For Certain Behaviour: Experience gained after debating/discussing literally hundereds of times on internet taught me there are three types of debaters/discussers: (i) Responds entire content of opposing party, answers questions asked, ask questions, presents his own understanding and its evidence, remains upon subject of discussion. (ii) Responds to parts not central to subject of discussion, cherry picks and avoids responding/refuting parts which are bitter to touch, jumps from one subject to another. (iii) Scheming and tactical, and non-stop questioner – every answer/clarification gives him ammo to ask more questions. (iv) Brother Cherub786 is the last type of debaters/discussers. Brother Cherub786 is asking these questions with Qadiyani understandings in his mind, conviction in his heart, and belief that nothing in Quran/Hadith will refute Qadiyanism. He is not asking questions to gain knowledge but to expose errors of Islamic belief and hoping that while answering these questions I will come to recognize, what he percieves to be, contradictions betweens orthodox Islam’s teaching and Quran/Ahadith. And when his percieved contradiction/error becomes obvious in my response then brother Cherub786 will step in and say this is how this contradiction is resolved. Or this is the proof for what I believe. And this resolution happens to be belief of Mirza and Qadiyanis therefore Qadiyanism is right and true Islam, and your Sunnism is wrong. Readers should note he did exactly this – see 16.2 sub section (a) and (b). (v) Please bear in mind the information in this section because it explains what I wrote in following section. 16.1 – Context Revealing Why Cherub786 Asked Fired Back With More Questions: While I was writing response to Qadiyani’s following questions: “If Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is chronologically the last Prophet: (i) Then how is it that the Messiah son of Maryam who is a Prophet of God, will descend in the latter days? (ii) How do you resolve this puzzle?” Sections 8.0 to 14.1 are in response to these two qestions. I was saying that while I was writing answer, Cherub786, reposted these two questions to bring them to light. Or maybe he thought I was ducking these two questions because his deduction was return of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) establishes Khatam al-Nabiyeen does not mean last/end of Prophets. Whatever his intention/motive was these questions were posted once again. To begin a discussion by asking few questions and then developing discussion/debate based on the answers is absolutely fine. But brother Cherub786 made a habbit of asking questions – twice in a row. Thus it became apparent brother will not acknowledge fault, mistake, or even respond to criticism levelled against Qadiyanism so I wrote: “I am working on it. It is not being written on urgent basis because you're not answering questions asked, or even acknowleging you were wrong. Instead you just proceeded toward a new direction. And typically that is a sign person will not respond to anything and will continue to ask questions till cows fly. I will respond to your last post (i.e. sections 8.0 to 14.1). After that if you do not respond to what Iwrote in my previous post as it deserves to be responded to, then I will just leave you to it.” And in response to my post brother Cherub786 wrote: “I shall respond to some of your points, but I advise you not to write such long winded answers. Let's have a dialogue.” And low and behold brother Cherub786 came back with more questions. His ‘response’ will be quoted in its entirity in following section. 16.2 – Qadiyani Brother’s, Cherub786, Response To Islamic Arguments: "Wahi came to Prophets via Gibraeel (alayhis salam) n Mirza said angel Teechi Teechi comes to him delivering reports. Proof that he was lieing." Is Archangel Gabriel (alayhis salam) he Angel of Revelation exclusively, or is it that other Angels can also bring revelation from Allah (jallala jalahu)? [Cherub786.] "al-Maseeh Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) was sent to Bani Israeel …" If Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) was sent to Israel how will he be sent for this Ummah in the latter days? [Cherub786.] "Yet Wahis gate has been closed and no prophet will recieve Wahi after last final prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)." What is the proof that the gate of Wahi has been closed? Is there any Ayah in the Quran or a Hadith to that effect? [Cherub786.] "In Hadith Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also says Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will perform Salah behind Imam Mahdi …" Please quote this Hadith will full citation. [Cherub786.] "If that is the case then in the six hundered years between Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) there was no Nabi/Rasool. During that period did the Nabuwah become curse?" (a) First let me prove that Nubuwwah is a blessing from the Quran itself: “And when Moses said to his people, ‘O my people, call to mind Allah’s favor upon you when He appointed Prophets among you.” (Surah 5:20) So the Quran describes the appointing of Prophets among Israel as a Ni'mah. (b) The period between the Messiah and Prophet Muhammad (upon him be peace and blessings) is known as the Fatrah. Although there is a Hadith which says, "there was no prophet between me and him" according to Surat YaSin (36:13-14) there were three Messengers of Allah sent to a town (Antioch). According to majority of the exegetes they were Messengers who came after the Messiah, being from his Ummah, or from his disciples. That should be sufficient for now. [Cherub786.] 16.3 – And Some After Thoughts About Why I Decided To Respond: Initially I had absolutely no plans to respond to our Qadiyani brother Cherub786. But all changed when I read the last part of his response – where he says Messengers were sent to Antioch. And then I thought, if I am to respond why not just to his entire post? Are you lazy when it comes to writing? No! You don’t have time? Plenty of time! And I had come to conclusion I have excuse so I decided I will respond comprehensively and refute all avenues of Qadiyani argument. And following is the story of how it all came to be. 17.0 - Angel Of Wahi/Revelation Only Jibraeel (alayhis salam😞 I had written Mirza claims angel Teechi Teechi delivered Wahi to him. Yet Wahi was sent to Prophets via angel Jibraeel (alayhis salam) therefore he is a liar. In response to which Qadiyani brother Cherub786 asked the following question: “Is archangel Gabriel the angel of revelation exclusively, or is it that other angels can also bring revelation from Allah?” This certainly was a response but not justification or proof. 17.1 - Burden Of Evidence Is Upon Qadiyanis, And No Angel Came To Mirza: (i) What you really need to do is to prove there is an angel called Teechi Teechi and that he delivered Wahi to Mirza. Mirza made this claim and you believe it. Now it is Mirza’s and your responsibility to prove it. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “’… 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.” [Ref: Forty Ahadith – Nawavi, Hadith 33] (ii) I should point out there is not even chance of a Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “... And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219, here.] Nor was/is there any possibility of any receiving revelation because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “… People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a divine inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H809, here.] al-Hasil there can be no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor there any chance of a Prophet receiving revelation from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this proves Allah (subnanahu wa ta’ala) did not send Wahi to Mirza via an angel called Teechi Teechi. 17.2 – By Allah There Is No Doubt Mirza Received Revelation: Aren’t you being controversial with that heading Mr Ali? Deobandi hold your killing you is Halal for me. Smile. (iii) I am not contesting Mirza receiving revelation. I actually accept and firmly and genuinely believe he received Wahi. But I do not believe he received Wahi from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor I believe his Wahi came through an angel. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Shayateen inspire/reveal to their friends to dispute with Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Muslims: “And certainly, the Satans do inspire (i.e. لَيُوحُونَ) their friends to dispute with you, and if you obey them then you would indeed be polytheists.” [Ref: 6:121] This indicates Shayateen send their own Wahi to their own friends to cause rift and sow chaos amongst Muslims. Another verse of Quran explains these friends of Shayatin are people and Jinn; each doing the bidding of their Shayatin masters: “And so We have appointed for every Prophet enemies - Satans among mankind, and Jinn, inspiring (i.e. يُوحِي) one another with adorned speech as a delusion (or by way of deception).” [Ref: 6:112] There is no doubt in my mind Mirza was receiving Wahi some of his close friends as well as Shayatin/Jinn. It is likely a Shaytan introduced himself to Mirza as angel Teechi Teechi. This Jinn and others massaged his ego enough for him to believe he is combination of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah). And revealed to him misguidance as Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Wahi which compelled Mirza to alter religion of Islam. And he tried make Islam compatible with his Satanic Jinn’s Wahi. Sending of Prophets has ceased and Wahi being sent to Prophets has ceased: “… People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a divine inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H809, here.] Therefore Teechi Techi and others could have been names of Jinns who revealed misguidance as Wahi of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but definitely not angel. 18.0 - Descension Of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Will Be In Which Capacity: In my earlier response I stated Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was sent as a Prophet to Bani Israeel. Mirza claimed to be second coming of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and a Prophet of entire mankind. Which establishes Mirza’s claim of Prophet-hood is incompatible with reality of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Instead of refuting explaining away my evidence in support of my position, or refuting Islamic understand through contradictory evidences Qadiyani brother asked: “If Masih Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam) was sent to Israel how will he be sent for this Ummah in the latter days?” This is hardly a response which brother Cherub786 said will follow but I respond to it. 18.1 - Prophet Isa (alayhis salam), He Was Sent To Bani Israeel: (i) Our Qadiyani brother like all Qadiyanis believes and agrees with, Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) being sent to Bani Israeel. I don’t know the technical word for this type of, if, but it often used to bring contradictory evidence to light. There is no, if, in regards to Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) being sent to Bani Israeel. He indeed was sent to Bani Israeel as following evidence prove: “And He will teach him the Book and Al-Hikmah (and) the Taurat and the Injeel. And will make him a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): ‘I have come to you with …” [Ref: 3:48/49] “And (remember) when Isa, son of Maryam said: ‘O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you, confirming the Taurat before me, and giving glad tidings of a ...’" [Ref:66:6] 18.2 – Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) an Ummati And A Imam: (ii) In which capacity will Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) return? This answer has been comprehensively responded to in my second rebuttle which starts from section 8.0 and ends at 14.1. Instead of a lengthy response I will quote Hadith: “It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah observed: What would you do when the son of Mary would descend amongst you and would lead you as one amongst you? Ibn Abi Dhi'b on the authority of Abu Huraira narrated: Your leader amongst you. Ibn Abi Dhi'b said: Do you know what the words: "He would lead as one amongst you" mean? I said: Explain these to me. He said: He would lead you according to the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Apostle.” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H292, here.] Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) would lead us as a Ummati and like an Ummati would have led us - meaning a Ummati would lead us upon teaching of Quran/Sunnah. And as an Ummati he would do all as he could to make Islam superior over all ideologies and religions: "It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon hate it." [Ref: 9:33] And to make this happen it is recorded Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will fight for cause of Islam: “… looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] And this cause is to fight for Quran/Sunnah until both have been established as superior over all religions and ideologies. 18.3 – Mirza Goes Against Quran And Prophetic Sunnah: Hadith makes if clear Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) would lead Ummah following and leading according to teaching of Quran/Sunnah. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani completely did the opposite of what is stated in the Hadith. Instead of ruling/judging and bringing people to Quran/Sunnah Mirza climbed the closed gate of prophet-hood and said Wahi comes to him. He says Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has made his teachings/Wahi the ship of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) – meaning anywho excepts it will be saved and anywho rejects it will be in hell-fire. He also said explicitly that Wahi sent to him also renew crucial parts of Shariah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). For referrence see, Arbain, Roohani Khazain, Vol17, P435/436, here, Urdu. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani not only contradicted Islamic teaching he was also smart enough to go against his own teachings but that is another article. Instead of calling people to Quran/Sunnah he invited people to his Satanic Wahi proving he was a major Liar and minor-Dajjal. 19.0 – Qadiyani Said Quote Me Evidence Wahi To Prophets Has Ended: In my earlier response [section 1.11] it was said Mirza claimed to receive Wahi yet gate of Wahi has been closed. And no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will receive Wahi. Reacting to that comment brother Cherub786 enquires: “What is the proof that the gate of Wahi has been closed? Is there any Ayah in the Quran or a Hadith to that effect?” Originally evidence was not offered that is why brother Cherub786 as demanded it. I assumed it would be known him. While writing my third rebuttle I have completely over hauled the first two rebuttles and inserted evidences where I believed it was important to do so. Anyhow once again this is not really a response just continuation of un-ending questions. 19.1 – Evidence Wahi To Prophets Has Ended And No Prophet After Last Prophet: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “… the Messenger of Allah said: ‘The Hour shall not ... And indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah,each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. And I am the last of the Prophets, there is no Prophet after me.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2219, here.] “… The Prophet said: ‘The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.’ The people asked: ‘O Allah's Messenger! What do you order us (to do)?’ He said: ‘Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H661, here.] In another Hadith it is recorded he said: “Abu Hurairh reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The similitude of mine and that of the Apostles before me is that of a person who built a house quite imposing and beautiful, but for one brick in one of its corners.” Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ended it by saying: “People would go round it, appreciating the building, but saying: Why has the brick not been fixed here? He said: I am that brick and I am the last of the prophets.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5675, here.] This proves there is no Prophet after last Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the Wahi that came to Prophets has therefore ceased. And following Ahadith explicitly state and prove after his departure from earthly life Wahi received by Prophets has ceased: “… (this worldly life). She said: I weep not because I am ignorant of the fact that what is in store for Allah's Messenger (in the next world) is better than (this world), but I weep because the revelation which came from the Heaven has ceased to come. This moved both of them to tears and they began to weep along with her.” [Ref: Muslim, B31, H6009, here.] “… People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a divine inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in front of us, and we will not call him to account about what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge him for that; ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B48, H809, here.] Only thirty Liars and minor-Dajjals will claim prophet-hood: “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: Last Hour would not come until there would arise about thirty impostors, liars, and each one of them would claim that he is a messenger of Allah.” [Ref: Muslim, B54, H108, here.] “Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said: ‘The Hour will not be established till there is a war between two groups among whom there will be a great number of casualties, though the claims (or religion) of both of them will be one and the same. And the Hour will not be established till there appear about thirty liars, all of whom will be claiming to be the messengers of Allah.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H806, here.] Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani was none other then a Liar and a minor-Dajjal. 20.0 - Imam al-Mahdi Leading Salah And Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Following: In order to prove Mirza cannot be Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) individually or two combined in one; I had said Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will perform Salah behind Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) according to Hadith. Qadiyani responded by asking for referrence: “Please quote this Hadith will full citation.” Qadiyani has realized the implications that if Islamic position is supported as presented by me then Mirza cannot be combined two in one. He asked for evidence which establishes both are two different personalities. First I will address foundation of Qadiyani misguidance. And then in, 20.4, I will provide demanded evidence. 20.1 - Mirza Taught Prophet Isa And Imam Mahdi Are One And The Same: Qadiyanis believe Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) will be one and the same personality. You have to note Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani was foundation of this belief. He came up with this belief on account of a DAIF (i.e. weak) Hadith recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah. It states the only Imam al-Mahdi is Prophet Isa (alayhis salam😞 “… Messenger of Allah said: ‘Adhering to religion will only become harder and worldly affairs will only become more difficult, and people will only become more stingy, and the Hour will only come upon the worst of people, and the only Mahdi is Isa Ibn Maryam.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4039, here.] That last part of Hadith does not fit into the context of narration. The addition seems random and it seems someone inserted this into text of Hadith. Imam Zahbi (rahimullah) in his Mizan ul-Itidaal said this report is rejected/Munkar. 20.2 - Reconciliation Between Seemingly Contradictory Ahadith Is Best Policy: This Hadith is against other authentic Ahadith. There is are two routes to take, one to completely abandon the Hadith on two accounts, it is Daif, and because it contradicts numerous Sahih/Hassan Ahadith. Or to reconcile this Hadith with others so no conflict remains. I have always preferred reconciliation. Practice of reconcliation between Ahadith is common and best demonstration of it is in Ahadith of innovation. There is obvious contradictions which are reconciled one way or another. Take for example, every innovation is misguidance which takes to hell-fire. Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are innovations in linguistic sense but are they misguidance? Wait before you give verdict. Another Hadith states whoever introduces a good Sunan in Islam for him and one who follows it will have equal reward. So will Imam Bukhari, and Imam Muslim have reward as well as those who followed their footsteps and benefited from these books of Ahadith? Because both sets of Ahadith are equally valid we have to explain both sides so there remains no contradiction between them. Point being made is reconciliation is not a new thing but a standard practice in scholarship of Hadith. So reconciling the Hadith with more authentic Ahadith is absolutely fine. Clearly a Da’if Hadith cannot over-rule numerous Sahih and Hassan Ahadith. In the best case scenario Hadith of, only al-Mahdi is Prophet Isa (alayhis salam), has to be reconciled with authentic Ahadith, in the worst case scenario because it is Da’if/weak we reject it completely. In both cases the Hadith cannot over-rule literal reading of authentic Hadith. 20.3 - Reconciling Weak Hadith With Numerous Authentic Hadith Is The Way: Methodology of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah is to bring reconciliation between Ahadith which seemingly are contradictory. Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah), and others have said that the Hadith means, and the only perfect, the only true, the only Masoom i.e. without-sin al-Madhi is Prophet Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam). According to this interpretation Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is said to be al-Madhi in his own right. Word Mahdi is not in technical usage but in linguistic usage. In other words it should be translated as, and the only rightly-guided one is [Prophet] Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam). The phrase in this light means, and the only perfect and sinless rightly-guided one is Isa Ibn Maryam (alayhis salam). In other words Hadith is saying Imam al-Madhi (rahimullah) man from progeny of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will not be more pious, righteous, and without fault and sin compared to Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). And following Hadith is proof that Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) will be prepared for his responsibility over a night: “It was narrated from Ali that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Mahdi is one of us, the people of the Household. Allah will rectify him in a single night.’" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4085, here.] This Hadith hints that life of Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) before/after his preparation may not be 100% free of sins/faults because he is an Ummati and not a Prophet. And only Prophets are Masoom (i.e. sinless, fault-less). 20.4 - Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) Perform’s Salah Behind Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah😞 One Hadith states Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will lead Salah and the other says Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) will lead the Salah: “He said: 'On that day they will be few, and most of them will be in Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem), and their leader will be a righteous man. When their leader has stepped forward to lead them in Subh/Fajr prayer, 'Isa bin Maryam will come down to them. Their leader will step backwards so that Isa can come forward and lead the people in prayer, but Isa will place his hand between his shoulders and say to him: ‘Go forward and pray, for the Iqamah was given for you.’ Then their leader will lead them in prayer. When he has finished, Isa will say: ‘Open the gate.’ So they will ...” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4077, here.] Natural conclusion is that Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will perform Salah under leadership of Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah). And there is no reason to assume Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) would not perform Salah. In fact Hadith establishes he would be a Ummati and lead the Muslims in accordance with Quran and Sunnah: “It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah observed: What would you do when the son of Mary would descend amongst you and would lead you as one amongst you? Ibn Abi Dhi'b on the authority of Abu Huraira narrated: Your leader amongst you. Ibn Abi Dhi'b said: Do you know what the words:" He would lead as one amongst you" mean? I said: Explain these to me. He said: He would lead you according to the Book of your Lord and the Sunnah of your Apostle.” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H292, here.] And without doubt Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will himself also be embodiment of Quran and Sunnah therefore performing Salah under leadership of Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) does not go against what is known from Hadith. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Salah behind companions on few ocasions and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) would not be make exception to this Sunnah. 21.0 - Prophets Between Prophet Isa And Muhammad - Qadiyani Contradicts Hadith: In the initial questioning brother Cherub786 asked if prophet-hood was a curse or blessing. And went on to say if it was a blessing then why has it ceased: “(i) Is Prophet-hood (Nubuwwah) a blessing or curse? (ii) If it is a blessing why has it ceased.?” Built-in implication is prophet-hood is a blessing and it has not ceased therefore if it has ceased then it is curse. A part of my response contained following: “I want to ask you something: (i) Are you saying stop of Nabuwah is a curse? (ii) If that is the case then in the six hundered years between Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) there was no Nabi/Rasool. During that period did Nabuwah become curse? (iii) What is your basis for your belief/understanding: (a) Stop of Nabuwah temporarily would not amounts to Nabuwah being curse/barbarity/injustice? (b) Stop of Nabuwah permanently would a amount to Nabuwah; being curse/barbarity/injustice? Bring forward your proof if you're truthful.” He should not be responding to section two but sections threeA and threeB because Qadiyani notion is temporary stoppage does not amount to but permanent end of Prophets is a curse and injustice. In my extensive response it was explained end of prophet-hood itself is a mercy/favour/blessing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Instead brother responded saying three Prophets came after Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Yeah! Just three for entire six hundred years and that proved prophet-hood is not curse. All ‘three’ came togather and supposing they lived 100 years. Therefore 500 years gap was not curse and injustice even though it should be in Qadiyani brother’s logic. I am getting ahead of myself here. Our Qadiyani brother is selectively responding to underlined part: (a) “First let me prove that Nubuwwah is a blessing from the Quran itself: “And when Moses said to his people, ‘O my people, call to mind Allah’s favor upon you when He appointed Prophets among you.” (Surah 5:20) So the Quran describes the appointing of Prophets among Israel as a Ni'mah. (b) The period between the Messiah and Prophet Muhammad (upon him be peace and blessings) is known as the Fatrah. Although there is a Hadith which says, "there was no prophet between me and him" according to Surat YaSin (36:13-14) there were three Messengers of Allah sent to a town (Antioch). According to majority of the exegetes they were Messengers who came after the Messiah, being from his Ummah, or from his disciples. That should be sufficient for now.” 21.1 - Prophet-Hood A Blessing/Favour Upon Bani Israeel And Mankind: The very first question Qadiyani brother Cherub786 asked: “Is prophet-hood (Nubuwwah) a blessing or curse? If it is a blessing why has it ceased?” In other words he asked me if prophet-hood was a barakah or a curse. I responded saying: “Prophet-hood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) and all Prophets was/is Rahma/mercy and not a curse.” Prophet-Hood is a blessing, mercy, favour and anything else it can be but not curse. There was no need nor demand from me to establish it is a blessing but our Qadiyani brother felt urge to prove it is a blessing by proving it is a Niamat: “First let me prove that Nubuwwah is a blessing from the Quran itself: “And when Moses said to his people, ‘O my people, call to mind Allah’s favor upon you when He appointed Prophets among you.” (Surah 5:20) So the Quran describes the appointing of Prophets among Israel as a Ni'mah.” In other words he didn’t prove his position from Quran. He merely established it from deduction – i.e. it is Niamat therefore a blessing. I am just penny pinching. In reality there was no need to prove it directly or indirectly through deduction because everything good from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is a favour, mercy, blessings even in absence of clear/emphatic proof. 21.2 - Asnwered, Is Prophet-Hood Curse, But Still Remains UnAnswered: Qadiyanis priestly class is promoting notion end of prophet-hood makes prophet-hood a curse. And I refuted and demanded evidence for this notion. And my refutation consisted following question: "If that is the case then in the six hundered years between Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) there was no Nabi/Rasool. During that period did the Nabuwah become curse?" Brother Cherub786 your response in a nut-shell is: Three Messengers were sent after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “The period between the Messiah and Prophet Muhammad (upon him be peace and blessings) is known as the Fatrah. Although there is a Hadith which says, "there was no prophet between me and him" according to Surat YaSin (36:13-14) there were three Messengers of Allah sent to a town (Antioch). According to majority of the exegetes they were Messengers who came after the Messiah, being from his Ummah, or from his disciples. That should be sufficient for now.” If my common sense, logic, and intellect is still intact. You in a round about way you said, it is not curse because Messengers were sent to city of Antioch. There are three issues that need responding to: (i) Temporary or permanent stoppage of Prophets curse or not? (ii) What do these verses mean? (iii) Were there any Prophets/Messengers after ascension of Prophet Is (alayhis salam) and before anouncement of Prophets Muhammad’s prophet-hood? 21.3 - Many Faces Of Temporary Stoppage Of Prophet-Hood Is Curse Or Not: Is stoppage of prophet-hood curse? (i) Unfortunately you’re not really thinking things through. You said three Messengers were sent to city of Antioch. I say: These verses say three Messengers were sent to Antakya in one go. If these Messengers were sent one hundred years after, or two, or three, or four, or five hundred years after, or any figure in between this period. Surely these Messengers did not live for entire six hundred years. From after death of these three Messengers to the proclaimation of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prophet-hood was Nabuwah a curse? With slight variation in wording the question still stands and stands unanswered. I also recall asking for evidence on which you Qadiyanis have based the philosophy of prophet-hood becoming curse if prophet-hood comes to an end. Which you so conviniently ignored. I know why you ignored because there is none, zilch, zero number of evidences proving this halluciation of Qadiyanism. (ii) Taking my question line a step further. You believe Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be a Prophet and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani to be a Prophet. Agree or no? Mirza claimed prophet-hood roughly hundred-forty to hundred-fifty years ago. Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to Mirz Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani suppose the gap is of one thousand fifty years. Question to you is: Was prophet-hood curse during this period? (iii) Accept the reality and acknowledge that stoppage of prophet-hood is not curse. And I myself, and the Qadiyani priests are wrong to hold to view that end of prophet-hood is a curse. Three Messengers were sent to Antioch; what about the rest of mankind? Does prophet-hood become a curse for Chinese, Indians, Europeans, Aztecs because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sent no Prophets/Messengers to them when residents of Antioch were denying their Messengers? Who is the Prophet at this moment, and where is he, and to whom he was sent? If there is none, and you will agree there is none then is prophet-hood a curse? Please wake up for your own sake. Permanent or temporary end of prophet-hood does not mean prophet-hood turns into a curse, injustice, barbarity, or whatever else you think it is. You cannot escape the damning implications of my questions on your belief. If we believe Qadiyani hallucinations then prophet-hood was curse from day one to present because it being favour/Niamat for Bani Israeel does not mean it was also so for people of subcontinent, Chinese, Aztecs etc. Niamat for one nation and curse for other mankind? Stop before it is too late and return to Islam. 21.4 - No Prophet After Prophet Isa And Before Prophet Muhammad: Hadith records period of gap between Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was around of six hundred years: "Narrated Salman: The interval between Jesus and Muhammad was six hundred years." [Ref: Bukhari, B58, H284, here.] Ahadith establish there is no Prophet between Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “… ‘I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H651, here.] “… I am most akin to the son of Mary among the whole of mankind and the Prophets are of different mothers, but of one religion, and no Prophet was raised between me and him.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5834, here.] “… There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descent (to the earth). When you ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] There are more Ahadith but I just cherry picked one from each collection. This Hadith has reached degree of Tawatur and is deemed Mutawatur – which is degree above Sahih/authentic. So you cannot question and challenge it without sounding illiterate. 21.5 - Some Important Principles To Adhere By: Please bear in mind following. When authentic Ahadith reveal something and a commentator says x, y, z about verse of Quran which you think goes against Hadith. Then you misunderstood Quranic verse, or you misunderstood Hadith, or you didn’t understand commentator what wrote. In this case you didn’t understand verse and didn’t understand the commentators. Another thing, when a Hadith is authentic, and a commentator says something which you think goes against the Hadith. You leave the commentator and not the Hadith. Why? Because guidance of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is better then Mufassirs understanding of a verse. There is no contradiction between what Quran teaches and what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught. Therefore fault the Mufassir and even better blame your own third class intellect. I always do. Make Dua for guidance and try again. 21.6 - Chapter YaSin (36) Verses 13/14 Three Messengers Sent To Antakya: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And present to them an example: the people of the city, when the messengers came to it - When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said: ‘Indeed, we are messengers to you.’" [Ref: 36:13/14] There are two opinions about these verses: (a) The Messengers mentioned were indeed Prophets. And town Antakya is not Antioch but a town whose where abouts is not known. This is the strongest and natural understanding of these verses. (b) These were Ummatis of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). And they were sent by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) sent as his messengers to guide the Jews of Antioch. This is a weak interpretation. (ii) Despite difference of opinion between commentators of Quran both parties hold to understandings which do not contradict prophetic teaching mentioned in Ahadith because: (a) Those who said they were Prophets/Messengers in technical sense. Out of them not a single commentator said they were Prophets/Messengers sent after Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and sent before Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Every single one of them said they were Prophets/Messengers of ancient times even before the time of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). (b) Commentators who said these were messengers sent to city of Antioch they made it clear that these messengers were not Messengers in techincal sense but in linguistic sense of emissaries. (iii) In other words none of the commentators negated/contradicted the text of following Hadith: “… There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descent (to the earth). When you ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) mentions position of both parties and explains in detail how/why each party held their position, here. 21.7 – Logical Deduced Meaning Of Chapter YaSin Verses 13/14 : (i) In this part we suppose the verses were about disciples of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “And present to them an example: the people of the city, when the messengers came to it - When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said: ‘Indeed, we are messengers to you.’" [Ref: 36:13/14] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said in numerous Ahadith which have reached to level of Tawatur that there was no Nabi before him and after Prophet Isa (alayhis salam😞 “… ‘I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H651, here.] “… I am most akin to the son of Mary among the whole of mankind and the Prophets are of different mothers, but of one religion, and no Prophet was raised between me and him.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5834, here.] “… There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descent (to the earth). When you ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B38, H4310, here.] Ulamah have said that every Messenger is a Prophet but not every Prophet is a Messenger because every Messenger is sent with a message, a book to convey to his people. Non-Messenger Prophet recieves Wahi but no message. Such a Prophet is to guard, guide, and explain scripture of another Messenger-Prophet. A example would be Prophet Haroon (alayhis salam). (ii) When we hold to both Quran/Hadith only viable option remaining is these messengers were disciples of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) referrenced as messengers. And whom Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) sent as his own messengers to Jews of Antioch/Antakya. Otherwise if the three mentioned messengers were Messengers in technical sense then they would also have been Prophets. This would go against prophetic teaching that were no prophets between me and him: “… and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H651, here.] Only viable solution is they were sent as messengers by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) to Jews of Antakya and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) addressed them as messengers linguistically and not technically. 21.8 - Use of Word Rasool/Rusul In Linguistic Sense In Ahadith: In following Ahadith word messengers has been used for ordinary companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 "The Prophet told his companions of what had happened (to those ten spies) on the same day they were martyred. Some Quraish people, being informed of `Asim bin Thabit's death, sent some messengers to bring a part of his body so that his death might be known for certain, ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H325] "I stayed in (Mecca) till Islam spread in it (i.e. Mecca). Then I left for Taif, and when the people (of Taif) sent their messengers to Allah's Messenger, I was told that the Prophet did not harm the messengers; So I too went out with them till I reached Allah's Messenger. When he saw me, he said, 'Are you Wahshi?' I said, 'Yes.' He said, …" [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H399] This indicates every usage of word messenger/messengers is not always used in technical sense. In this light word Mursaloon/messengers can easily be interpreted in linguistic sense meaning messengers/emissaries. 21.8 – Misleading Claim About What Is Found In Tafasirs Of Quran: You wrote: “Although there is a Hadith which says, "there was no prophet between me and him" according to Surat YaSin (36:13-14) there were three Messengers of Allah sent to a town (Antioch). According to majority of the exegetes they were Messengers who came after the Messiah, being from his Ummah, or from his disciples. That should be sufficient for now.” I understand that you’re conveying meanings that Ummatis of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) were sent as Prophet-Messengers. In other words you’ve stated that commentators said three disciples, or three Ummatis of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) were sent as Prophet-Messengers after him. You’re completely misrepresenting what the commentators stated. And I don’t think your representation is willful distortion but bought on by incfluence of Qadiyanism and due to lack of proper understanding of Quran/Sunnah. I challenge you to quote me a single Mufassir who said they were sent as Prophets/Messengers after Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and before Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Or said the Ahadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said, there is no Prophet between him and me, are wrong because Prophets/Messengers came between two last Prophets. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) is last Prophet from Bani Israeel and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last/end of all Prophets – thus the phrase two last Prophets. Anyhow it is absolutely clear Mufassireen who said messengers were sent to Antioch after Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) they clearly indicated use of messengers is in linguistic sense and not technical Shar’ri sense of Messenger. Don’t read what Mufassireen wrote through pinhole of Qadiyanism but through teaching of Quran/Sunnah and through lense of what writers themselves believed then you won’t misunderstand them. 22.0 - Concluding Remarks On Descension, Khatamiyyah, And Thirty Liars/Dajjals: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold there will be thirty minor-Dajjals and major-Liars claiming to be Prophets and Messengers. He went on to say but there is no Prophet after me. It is also recorded in Ahadith Wahi sent to Prophets has ceased/ended. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) ended line of prophet-hood because He deemed it to be so. He perfected and completed Islam, firmly rooted Islam in hearts minds of Muslims and scholars. And part of this completion and perfection is to protect Quran and Islam from distortion/innovations which change the nature of Islam. He also implimented system of Mujadids – who will be born at the end/beginning of a century to protect and revive Islam thus ending the need for more Prophets. Another reason line of prophets ended because it is an act of mercy upon this Ummah and to prevent it from splintering into many Ummats - each following a new Prophet. And prophet-hood line ended because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wanted to honour the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ummah for achieving manumentous task of firmly establishing Islam upon earth throuh blood and sweat. It needs to be pointed out Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) will descend. He will fight for the cause of Islam and will be a Ummati. He will live, teach, judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in Quran and according to Sunnah of his last Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In this light it will be evident Muslim belief of Khatamiyyah would not be negated by descension of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). He cannot be Nabi of Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because his commission was for only Bani Israeel and not for Ummah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). There is no precedent in Quran/Ahadith in which a Prophet was reassigned to another Ummah after his initial commissioning came to end. And there is no evidence to suggest Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was or is to be re-commissioned as Nabi of mankind. And to adopt a belief which has no evidential support from Quran/Ahadith is a rejected/misguiding innovation and every such innovation takes to hell-fire: "Narrated Aisha: Allah's Messenger said: 'If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected.'" [Ref: Muslim, B49, H861] "The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best of the guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad. And the most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation is error." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] 22.1 – Conclusion About Mirza In Light Of His Claims, Lies, And Distortions: It is also recorded in Ahadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold about a rightly-guided Imam. His fathers name would be name Abdullah, his name will be Ahmad/Muhammad, from progeny of Hadhrat Fatima (radiallah ta’ala anha) and descendant of Imam Hassan (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Mirza claimed that he is Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) but his lie is obvious on basis mentioned information. Mirza’s father’s name was Mirza Ghulam Murtaza and not Abdullah. He was descendant of Mughal/Mongol/Turks and not from descend of Hadhrat Fatima (radiallah ta’ala anha). Nor of her son Imam Hassan Ibn Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu). This is enough to refute his claim. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani also claimed to be a Prophet and to be precise Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and wrote he receives Wahi. Proving he is one of the Liars and minor-Dajjal. Mirza also claimed to be Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) yet he does not and did not fit any signs which would help the Muslims to identify him. In fact in his on books he has stated he is not the Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) which the Ahadith are talking about and such Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) might come to lead Ummah sometime in future. But the Liar failed to realize that Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) of Ahadith and descension of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) mentioned in Ahadith – indicate both would be contempories as evidenced by one asking the other to lead Fajr Salah. So Mirza’s saying I am Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) naturally means a Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) should be his contempory. Mirza said he is Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) two in one = Two-in-One-ty. We know from Ahadith Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and Imam al-Mahdi (rahimullah) are two separate persons because Ahadith establish one would ask the other to lead the Fajr Salah. Mirza the minor-Dajjal and a major-Liar got caught-up in his own lies and distortions. Wama Alayna Ilal Balagh ul-Mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Coming soon ...

Salam alaykum, Allah ta'ala jaza e khayr deh. Taghleeq Ta'liq Alas-Sahih ul-Bukhari, page 259 ka scanned referrence: https://www.scribd.com/document/489497442/Ibn-Umars-Statement-About-Khawarij-With-Sahih-Sanad

Internet par browsing kay doran Mirza Jhelumi saab nay MINDUNILLAH par kuch kaha is kay jawab mein Khadim nay yeh mukhtasir likha heh. Insha-Allah yeh material is thread ki tamam behas ko sulja deh ga aur Sunni/Wahhabiyun wasteh ikhtilaf/mozoo ko samajnay mein asaani kar deh ga. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mindunillah: Quran mein Mindunillah unneh kaha gaya heh jin ko Arab/Yahoodi/Christian Mushrikeen nay darja Ilah/Rabb deeya huwa thah. Magr Allah nay mindunillah unneh tehraya joh jahannum ka eendan baneh gay. KAHA aur TEHRAYA mein farq samjen. Asool samaj lenh shahid aap ko bi meri tara Wahhabiat say toba ki tofeeq mil jahay: Har woh jissay TEHRAYA gaya heh ussay KAHA bi gaya heh. Har woh jissay KAHA gaya ussay TEHRAYA nahin gaya. Har woh jissay TEHRAYA gaya woh jahannum ka eendan heh. Har woh jissay kaha gaya woh jahannumi nahin. Haqiqat mein aur Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala kay mutabiq mindunillah woh heh jissay Mushrikeen nay bayana/kaha aur Allah nay TEHRAYA heh. Jissay Quran mein kaha magr tehraya nahin gaya woh mindunillah nahin. Wahhabi/Deobandi KAHAY jani wali ayaat pesh keren gay magr aik ayaat aisi pesh nahin kar saktay jis mein Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) nay Nabi, Waliyun ko Mindunillah tehraya heh keun kay tehrahay janay walay jahhanum ka eendan hen. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is kay ilawa Englsih mein Tafseel say likh raha hoon kay Mindunillah kon hen, kesay bantay hen aur kesay pechanay jahen gay.

11 saal baad mein apnay sawaloon ka jawab likh deta hoon. Deobandi/Wahhabi la-jawab rahay toh mein hi wazahat kar doon. Pehlay doh sawaloon: * Yaqoob alayhis salam Allah kay Nabi unoon nay ek aur Nabi Yusuf alayhis salam ko Sajdah tazeemi keeya, Mushrik keyun nahin thay. * Farishtoon ka Sajdah joh Tazeem e Adam alayhis salam meh deeya gaya, Shirk Fil Ibadat keyun nahin? Yaqoob (alayhis salam) aur farishtay Shirk kay murtaqib aur Mushrik nah honay kee waja yeh thee keh: SAJDA ko IBADAT bananay wala aqeedah aur niyat mojood nahin thee. Yehni Nabi Yaqoob (alayhis salam) aur Farishtoon ka aqeedah nahin thah kay jin ko woh Sajdah e tazeemi kar rahay hen woh ILAH/RABB/MALIK/KHALIQ waghayra thay balkay abdullah jaan/maan kar Sajdah e tazeemi keeya. Is waja say Sajdah Shirki nahin thah. Dosri waja kay IBADAT wasteh NIYAT E IBADAT lazam heh. Ilah/Ma'bud ko pukarna aur Sajdah IBADAT ki niyat say karnay say SAJDAH ibadat ka banta heh. Yaqoob (alayhis salaam) aur Farishtoon nay joh Sajdah tazeemi keeya woh in donoon say khali thah is waja say ibadat nah huwi aur woh Mushrik nah huway. Tesra aur chotha sawaal: * Hindu ka Sajdah joh Tazeeem e Rama Karishna Seeta Geeta Snake and Elephant gods ko keeya jata heh Shirk Fil Ibadat keyun heh? Pehlay doh sawaloon kay jawab say wazia huwa kay asal waja Shirk aqeedah aur niyat banti heh amaal ussee waqt Shirki hotay hen jab aqeedah Shirki ho aur phir niyaat e ibadat say kohi amal keeya jahay toh ibadat lazam hoti heh. Hindu ka aqeedah heh keh woh buttoon ko khuda manta heh aur deeghir amaal ibadat buttoon ki ibadat ki niyat say karta heh jis waja say Mushrik ho jata heh. Chotha sawal: * Namaz meh Niyat Ibadat e Illahi kee ho, agay Imam khara ho aur us kay peechay kharay ho ker Sajday kerna, qayam krna, rakooh kerna, tajjud meh bethna, salam phirna, Shirk Fil Ibadat keyun nahin? Is ka jawab pehlay sawal kay jawab say hi heh. Namazi cha-hay Imam peechay kharay hoon aur agay banda ho, idol ho, car ho, Kabah ho, qabr ho, mazaar ho, kuch bi ho bazahir amal ko dekh kar yeh tayyun nahin keeya ja sakta kay yeh us ki ibadat kar raha heh. Keun kay aisay agar tayyun keeya jata toh phir Kabah pooja ka ilzaam bi lagaya ja sakta heh. Shirk aur Ibadat is waja say nahin keun kay joh Namazi hen woh nah toh Imam ki Ibadat ki niyat say us kay peecha jama hotay hen aur nah us ko Ilah yehni mabud mantay hen. Balkay woh sirf aur sirf Allah ki ibadat wasteh kharay hotay hen aur jaisi niyat aur aqeedah waisay hi amal ginna jahay ga. Akhir mein: *Shirk e Akhbar, Aqahid kee waja say lazam ata heh ya Amaal kee waja say? Islam mein Shirk e akbar aqahid ki bunyad par lazam ata heh amaal ki bunyad par nahin. Allah ko baghayr Ilah/Allah manay sajda ibadat us ki Ibadat nahin. Isee tera Allah ko Ilah maan kar mabud man kar magr niyat ibadat nah ho sirf sajdah karna maqsood ho toh phir bi ibadat nahin hoti. Ghayrullah ki Ibadat asallan Kufr heh Shirk nahin. Ibadat ko Shirk is leyeh tehraya jata heh keun kay us mein Shirki aqahid ka zikr hota heh. Yeh sab maloom honay kay baad yeh bi jaan lena chahyeh keh Wahhabi/Deobandi hazraat Shirk/Kufr ko amaal ki bunyad par janchtay hen aur amaal ki bunyad par hi fatwah Shirk/Kufr jari kartay hen. Qabr ko Sajdah kartay dekha foran Shirk ka hukm jaari kar deeya. Kissi ko waseelah istighathah ka amal kartay suna toh fori Shirk aur Kufr, Kafir Mushrik ka fatwah jari kar deeya. Yeh tareeqa e wardat Islam ki taleem kay khilaaf heh keun kay Shirk aqahid ki bunyad jancha jata heh nah keh amaal ki bunyad par. Is ghalti ki waja say Deobandi/Wahhabi na-haq Musalmanoon ko Kafir/Mushrik tehra kar qatal kartay rahay hen aur qatal ko jaiz aur sawab samajtay hen.