کمیونٹی میں تلاش کریں

Introduction: Shaikh Abu Rumaysah wrote an extensive article in which he presented his sects Khariji understanding on subject of innovation. Part of this article is dedicated to refuting arguments which Muslims present to refute his understanding of innovation. At explanation number three he attempts to explain the Hadith from Sahih of Imam Muslim (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) regarding followers of good Sunnah being rewarded equal to one who introduced it. Briefly, his position on this Hadith is to be understood according to context, and that charity was already part of Islam hence the phrase was uttered for sake of reviving a Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and this principle is not for introduction of praiseworthy innovations. His position will be judged from Islamic perspective so the truth of matter is revealed for the Muslims. An Invitation To Access Evidence And Dialogue: In the beginning of the article the writer/compiler Abu Hanna wrote why this article was penned. There is mention of many accusations hurled against them, which is of no interest of servant. The author of first statement continued to write: “We ask the brothers and sisters to look for the 'clear argument', to consider the evidence that is provided herein. Do not let this article be a cause for creating more fitna (trials), but instead an opportunity to see a way forward for some reconciliation.” He continues to write: “If you do disagree with this article, then let this be a chance to start a dialogue between us and you rather than a war of words. You know our evidence, please show us yours and let us approach the issue with the scholastic behavior of our predecessors.” As a Muslim one cannot agree with the content of article because it contradicts words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and is based on distortion of clear and emphatic teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Hence it is in spirit of fair academic sincere dialogue, servant will present the Islamic approach to understanding the set of Ahadith in question. We are commanded to change the evil in following ways: “Whoever among you sees an evil action and can change it with his hand (by taking action), let him change it with his hand. If he cannot do that, then with his tongue (by speaking out); and if he cannot do that, then with his heart (by hating it and feeling that it is wrong), and that is the weakest of faith.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H4013] And if writing can be considered internet form of speech then the most befitting way to rectify the misguidance is by writing a response pointing to misguidance. The objective is, to guide to path of Islam, neither to humiliate nor to hurt the feelings of those who follow the path contrary to Prophetic teaching. Effort has been made to maintain an academic decorum, but if there is slip, then servant humbly requests; you bare it knowing companions suffered far greater for sake of religion of Islam then a stinging word. Servant ends with: “Remember that at times, due its inherent power the truth can be somewhat painful at first, but acceptance and submission to it is ultimately the objective of every sincere student of knowledge. As Allah the Truth says (what means), "Nay, we fling down the truth against falsehood so it smashes through its mind, and behold, it vanishes." “[Ref: Surah al-Anbiya 21:18] If Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) permits the author of this article will be notified and given opportunity to respond. Any beneficial developments will be published on the forum. Articles On This Subject Which Support Islamic Position: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave many principles in numerous Ahadith which are in a specific context but those principles are generally applied by Muslims and Khawarij to judge all modern issues. The following article shows Khariji sectarian bias remains in regards to Ahadith of good Sunnah but the generality of Ahadith is maintained in other Ahadith, here. Yet Khawarij only restrict the principles given in the Ahadith of good Sunnah to their context because these Ahadith establish legitimacy of introducing praiseworthy innovations into Islam and tell of reward for emulating these Sunnahs. Next one demonstrates that the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can be taken literally and interpreted, and both methodologies are valid, and presents Islamic position, here. Also by contextualizing Ahadith can negate the generality and this means all principles which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are according to the context and cannot be used as a guiding principle outside of contextual relevance as demonstrated, here. It is established from Hadith that word Sunnah is being used in meaning of innovation and the benefit of this is that it eliminates the argument; the Ahadith of good Sunnah are about reviving Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), here. Lastly another article argues words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are part of revelation and regarding revelation Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said that it is jawami al kalim in nature (i.e. meaning shortest expression with vast meanings). Therefore the principles which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave in Ahadith of good Sunnah and bad Sunnah are short but express vast meanings. For these principles to be in line with jawami al kalim nature they must not be restricted to context but all valid interpretations must be accepted. May they be historical, contextual, and intertextual, here. Full Explanation Of Shaikh Abu Rumaysah: The Hadith: “He who sets a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards; and he who sets in Islam an evil Sunnah, there is upon him the burden of that, and the burden of him also who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2219] The evidence that they derive from this hadith is that people can invent new practices in Islam which are either good or bad. Of course, if they were to take the hadith in its full context then it is not possible to derive this meaning. The context of the hadith states that a group of poor people came to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) so he asked those around him to give charity, but no one came forward - so much so that signs of anger could be discerned on the face of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), so one of the companions stepped forward and gave charity, so the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said the above hadith. Firstly, the word 'Sunnah' which is used in this hadith cannot be understood to mean the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), because that would imply that there is something bad in the Sunnah; rather it is to be understood in its linguistic meaning of 'practice’. Secondly, this action the companion did was not something new in Islam, since giving charity was already legislated from the very first days of Islam; rather he was simply implementing it, so the statement of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) "a good Sunnah" was said at a time when the people were reluctant to give charity, so one man started to give the charity and others followed him in it. Thus, he revived a Sunnah at a time when the people were reluctant to practice it, and this is the meaning of "a good Sunnah” Hence, in the early works of 'Aqeedah, this hadith was included under the chapter headings, "The reward of the one who renews the Sunnah." [For example Sharh Usool I'tiqaad 1/50] The meaning of "a bad Sunnah" is similar. It is renewing or starting something that the Shari’ah has already declared to be bad, and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) gave the example of the two sons of Adam (alayhis salaam wa 'alaa nabiyina), one killing the other. So upon the murderer was the sin of the killing and the sin of all those that killed after him, without their sins being reduced. Thirdly, the hadith uses the terms 'good' and 'bad', and the Shari’ah has already defined in its totality all that is good and all that is bad. This is what is pointed to in the statement of Imam ash-Shaafi'ee in his refutation of Istihsaan (declaring something to be good) when he said, "Whoever declares something to be good, he has declared it part of Shari’ah." [Ref: ar-Risala][!] [Ref: MuslimConverts] The Hadith In Discussion: “Jarir bin Abdullah reported that some desert Arabs clad in woolen clothes came to Allah's Messenger. He saw them in sad plight as they had been hard pressed by need. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted people to give charity, but they showed some reluctance until (signs) of anger could be seen on his face. Then a person from the Ansar came with a purse containing silver. Then came another person and then other persons followed them in succession until signs of happiness could be seen on his (sacred) face. Thereupon Allah's Messenger said: He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil practice 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 being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Key Points Of Shaikh Abu Rumaysah’s Explanation: i) Statement of Hadith in discussion is to be understood in the context of historical event. ii) Word Sunnah is not in meaning of Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in linguistic meaning of practice. iii) The charity was part of Islam even before the event took place. iv) Companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) implemented the charity when people were reluctant. v) He revived a Sunnah/the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by giving charity. Key Points Of Hadith Of Sahih Muslim: i) Poor people came to Masjid Nabvi belonging to tribe of Mudar. ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave khutbah (i.e. speech) reminding the companions about their bond with one another through Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam)[1] and exhorted them to give charity. iii) Companions were reluctant which angered Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and signs of it showed on his face. iv) A companion came with purse of silver and donated it. This started a chain reaction and all companions contributed according to their capacity. This continued until signs of happiness Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were visible on his face. v) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told of equal reward for one who sets/introduces a good Sunnah in Islam and those who follow this good Sunnah. Meaning Of Word Sunnah In Hadith Of Good And Bad Sunnah: Both of us agree, word Sunnah in Hadith of bad Sunnah in literally means way and practice. Shaikh Abu Rumaysah has stated: “… the word 'Sunnah' which is used in this hadith cannot be understood to mean the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), because that would imply that there is something bad in the Sunnah; rather it is to be understood in its linguistic meaning of 'practice’.” If the word Sunnah is considered in context of the phrase, he who introduced a bad Sunnah into Islam, then implication of this is; bearing of burden being told is for something which is not already part of Islam. Note innovation is not part of Islam hence the word way/practice is in meaning of innovation. A Hadith from Tirmadhi which has exactly same meaning uses the word Bid’ah (i.e. innovation) instead of Sunnah (i.e. practice), here: “ And if anyone introduces a misguiding innovation with which Allah and His Messenger are not pleased then he gets a sin like the sins of those who observe it and nothing is deducted from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2677] This establishes part of Hadith of Muslim (i.e. bad Sunnah) is about innovation and note both parts of Hadith of Muslim (i.e. good Sunnah and bad Sunnah) are grammatically exactly same apart from words which give each principle a distinctive meaning. Therefore in the Hadith of Muslim the word Sunnah phrase, good Sunnah, is in meaning of innovation. To strengthen the Islamic position note, if the word Sunnah is considered in context of the phrase, he who introduced a good Sunnah into Islam, then implication of this is; reward being told is for something which is not already part of Islam innovation is not part of Islam hence the word way/practice is in meaning of innovation. Good Sunnah Is Reviving Which Is Already Part Of Islam: Considering the following part of quote: “Second, this action the companion did was not something new in Islam, since giving charity was already legislated from the very first days of Islam; rather he was simply implementing it, so the statement of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) "a good Sunnah" was said at a time when the people were reluctant to give charity, so one man started to give the charity and others followed him in it. Thus, he revived a Sunnah at a time when the people were reluctant to practice it, and this is the meaning of "a good Sunnah.” And considering the following: “The meaning of "a bad Sunnah" is similar [to good Sunnah]. It is renewing or starting something that the Shari’ah has already declared to be bad …” I have come to conclusion that brief position of Shaikh Abu Rumaysah would be two possibilities: i) Meaning of a good Sunnah is renewing or reviving something that the Shari’ah has already declared to be good. ii) Meaning of a good Sunnah is renewing or reviving something that the Shari’ah has already made part of Islam. Question for Shaikh, is reciting Salat (i.e. sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) after mentioning Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) a good Sunnah? You will agree it is good Sunnah. Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declare this as good Sunnah? Is reciting Salat after mentioning Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) part of Islam? No it isn’t! Yet you agreed it is a good Sunnah. The people of knowledge know; reciting Salat after mentioning of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was started by Imam Ma’lik (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) and this practiced continued to be enjoined by Muslims ever since. There is reward for Imam Ma’lik (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) due to starting this good Sunnah and those who follow his example, according to following: “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Point to note is, your definition of good Sunnah is invalid. Introducing good Sunnah into Islam does not mean reviving a prophetic Sunnah rather it means something which was not part of Islam but is made part of Islam via Ijtihad. Claiming Of Reviving Prophetic Sunnah Of Charity: Ahadith record Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) exhorted the companions to give charity, here: “Jarir bin Abdullah reported that some desert Arabs clad in woolen clothes came to Allah's Messenger. He saw them in sad plight as they had been hard pressed by need. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted people to give charity, but they showed some reluctance until (signs) of anger could be seen on his face. Then a person from the Ansar came with a purse containing silver. Then came another person and …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] There was no need of reviving of prophetic Sunnah of charity. It was alive amongst them, and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was alive, encouraging good and forbidding evil. Reviving is of those prophetic Sunnahs which have been erased from the memory of Muslims, and reviving of prophetic Sunnahs is only after death of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), here: "I am ready to know O Messenger of Allah!" He said: "That indeed whoever revives a Sunnah from my Sunnah which has died after me, then for him is a reward similar to whoever acts upon it without diminishing anything from their rewards." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2677] "I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Whoever revives a Sunnah of mine that dies out after I am gone, he will have a reward equivalent to that of those among the people who act upon it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H210] Shaykh interpreted the reluctance of companions to give charity has death of prophet Sunnah. Reluctance of companions to give charity cannot be interpreted to mean prophetic Sunnah of giving charity was dead amongst them and which needed reviving. Burden of proof is upon Shaykh to establish; prophetic Sunnah of giving charity was forgotten/dead in life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which was being revived by companion. As for the Islamic position, servant has already established it with evidence. Note, there was no need for reviving the prophet Sunnah of giving charity because it was known to companions and by establishing this position the basis of Abu Rumaysah’s argument has been refuted. Hence the literal meaning of prophet words in Hadith of, whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam, stands: “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Companion Introduced Nothing New Into Islam: He writes: “…this action the companion did was not something new in Islam, since giving charity was already legislated from the very first days of Islam; rather he was simply implementing it …” Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] So my question is, the first person who initiated the donation process what was his contribution to Islam? Note, the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are clear that one who introduces a good practice in Islam he will get reward equal to those who follow his Sunnah. By giving charity he merely initiated a process of giving charity and he did not introduce this practice into Islam because charity and giving charity was already part of Islam. Companion Revived A Prophetic Sunnah: He writes further: “… so the statement of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) "a good Sunnah" was said at a time when the people were reluctant to give charity, so one man started to give the charity and others followed him in it. Thus, he revived a Sunnah at a time when the people were reluctant to practice it …” Abu Rumaysah saying that he revived a Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by being the first one to donate does not fit the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were, he who introduces a good Sunnah of Islam, then the context would fit the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are: he who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam. Note the Hadith states, one who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam and implication of which is; the Sunnah being introduced into Islam is not part of it already. Therefore the arguments that this statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was about reviving the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is incorrect. The position of Abu Rumaysah; this statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is to be understood in the historical context is proven wrong. It is wrong on the basis that this statement is about which is not part of Islam and the companion only initiated charity which was part of Islam. Hadith Was Part Of Reviving A Sunnah: He wrote: “Thus, he revived a Sunnah at a time when the people were reluctant to practice it, and this is the meaning of "a good Sunnah” Hence, in the early works of 'Aqeedah, this hadith was included under the chapter headings, "The reward of the one who renews the Sunnah." [For example Sharh Usool I'tiqaad 1/50] Answer to this is; there are two components of the following Hadith, one is introducing into Islam [which is not part of it already] and the other is connected with reviving good/bad innovated Sunnah, here: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil practice 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 being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] The Hadith has an innovating component and reviving component, and it was part of reviving corpus cause of reviving component. It is due to foolishness that one ignores the following part of Hadith: “… He who introduced some good practice in Islam …”, and is only focusing at the following part only: “… which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect, …” Also note, reviving component of the Hadith is connected with innovating component of Hadith hence it means, those who revive the newly introduced practice into Islam will have equal reward to one who introduced it. Hence it was part of reviving corpus not because of reviving Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but it was in such collections due to reviving newly introduced Sunnah into Islam. Bad Sunnah Is Renewing Which Is Already Declared Bad: He wrote: “The meaning of "a bad Sunnah" is similar. It is renewing or starting something that the Shari’ah has already declared to be bad …” According to Shaikh Abu Rumaysah meaning of bad Sunnah is renewing something which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) already declared sinful/bad. Question for Shaikh, could you guide me to a verse of Quran or Hadith in which pole dancing almost naked in presence of none family males is declared bad/sinful? No! I didn’t think you could quote me a Hadith or Ayah either but is watching pole dancing bad/sinful or not? Sinful! Has the Shari’ah already declared it bad? An honest answer is, no! Point here is pole dancing is not renewing which Shari’ah has declared bad/sinful but it is still bad and this refutes your position, quoted above. Another question, was oral ###### declared bad by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or by Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? No! Is oral ###### bad or not? Bad![2] Has the Shari’ah declared oral ######, bad? Another honest and truthful answer is, no! The point is renewing or starting something Shari’ah has already declared to be bad is not the definition of bad Sunnah. Engaging in something which Shari’ah has declared bad, is sinful. Bad Sunnah is, a Sunnah which is introduced into religion of Islam and is composed religious/non-religious activities but component of which is engaging in Haram, or Shirk, or Kufr. To explain this with an example, filthy rich money-Shaikh goes to perform Hajj. He takes with him the finest quality wine bottles, 20k a piece. An imported infidel butler and the money-Shaikh is accompanied by 10 of the sluttiest sluts of Europe in sluttiest clothes possible. Monkey-Shaikh is fit as a fiddle but he is carried by these sluttiest sluts on a throne made out of gold thread embroidery and on his head is diamond crown. His sluts carry him around the Kabah for first Tawaf, and the butler pours the fine wine in glass for him. He sips bit by bit until second Tawaf begins and butler being professional pours the second glass of cold fine wine. The money-Shaikh ends his seventh Tawaf with his seven glass of fine wine. His behavior becomes a yardstick for filthy rich Arabs and all emulate his Sunnah closely as they can. Now question is, is this renewing or starting something which Shari’ah has declared bad, or is it a new bad Sunnah? It is a new bad Sunnah into religion of Islam. Will money-Shaikh earn the equal sin of those who follow his newly invented reprehensible Sunnah? Damn right he will because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) 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 their being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Important point here is that principle is not just for historical context but it is to be applied generally to all new reprehensible innovations/practices. The Issue Of Relevance Of Second Sentence Of Statement: Now if the first sentence of good Sunnah in Islam was said in context of historical event then it must be that the second sentence was also in context of historical event. The second sentence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) statement is: “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 being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] What is the reprehensible Sunnah which the companions introduced which resulted in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) telling them that they will be bearing the burden of introducing evil Sunnah? Shaikh Abu Rumaysah does not answer this question but instead he interprets the Hadith out of the context. An educated estimation would be that his response would be as follows: companions were eliminating the Sunnah of giving charity in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) due to their reluctance and this was evil Sunnah. Does this statement apply to all types of reprehensible Sunnahs or just the one you pointed out? If he says to all types of reprehensible Sunnahs then note he has taken this statement out of historical context. This statement was in context of reluctance to give charity according to his methodology hence it can only be applied to similar event. If he was to interpret it generally he is going against his own position of interpreting the Hadith according to context, and he did go against his own principle. He interpreted the second sentence of the Hadith in light of Hadhrat Adam’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) son murdering his brother, he wrote: “The meaning of "a bad Sunnah" is similar. It is renewing or starting something that the Shari’ah has already declared to be bad, and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) gave the example of the two sons of Adam (alayhis salaam wa alaa nabiyina), one killing the other. So upon the murderer was the sin of the killing and the sin of all those that killed after him, without their sins being reduced.” This establishes that Shaikh Abu Rumaysah interpreted the Hadith and went against what he complained about in the beginning of his response (i.e. words of Hadith are interpreted out of context). If the context was so fundamental to understanding the statements of Hadith in discussion why would he leave it and interpret it with Hadith of son of Adam (alayhis salaam)? Point here is; context is important but the principles are not limited restricted to the context only. Interpretation Of Bad Sunnah Critically Analyzed: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "Whenever a person is murdered unjustly, there is a share from the burden of the crime on the first son of Adam for he was the first to start the tradition of murdering." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H552] It is clear that son of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) was the first person to start murder and one who follows his footsteps receives equal sin to him and this agrees with the following principle: “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 being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Note the word underlined here: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently …” This points to reprehensible Sunnah which was not part of Islam before but is being made part of Islam by son of Adam (alayhis salaam). Murder was an evil Sunnah which did not exist prior to incident mentioned in Hadith of Bukhari. In this context the meaning of Hadith of Bukhari compliments the following perfectly: 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 being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Hence if a bad practice is introduced in Islam then continuously revived by others then all those who renew it are equally sinful for emulating it and son of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) did introduce a bad Sunnah of murder which was without a precedent. Therefore this incident of Bukhari is proof of Islamic position not Khariji position because an evil Sunnah is introduced and then followed. And in part of good Sunnah the Shaikh Abu Rumaysah’s position is that nothing new was introduced only an old practice was revived. Note he wrote meaning of bad Sunnah is similar to good Sunnah: The meaning of "a bad Sunnah" is similar. It is renewing or …” If this is indeed the case then companion must have introduced a good Sunnah into Islam which was not part of it prior to the event. The Companion Introduced An Innovation Into Islam: The companion acted on the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) amongst reluctant group of people. It maybe that it was first occasion where the companions were reluctant to give charity to their fellow Muslims. Hence he is the first one to give charity amongst reluctant people, and this can be deemed as a good Sunnah, and in context of reluctance of companions, and in context of being first companion stepping up to give charity, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H6466] Implication of which would be that in context of reluctance of all companions Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) termed the action of companion as a good Sunnah in Islam. This explanation holds to the literal meaning of statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and keeps in touch with the historical event. Also note, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced the concept of charity in Islam and those who follow his example will have reward. With both interpretations a Sunnah is being introduced into Islam which is followed by others or revived by others. The Issue Of Context And Generality: Sa’d bin Ubada (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said: "If I saw a man with my wife, I would strike him (behead him) with the blade of my sword." In context of this Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "You people are astonished at Sa`d's Ghira. By Allah, I have more Ghira than he, and Allah has more Ghira than I …” He continued to inform us: “… and because of Allah's Ghira, He has made unlawful shameful deeds and sins done in open and in secret. And there is none who likes that the people should repent to Him and beg His pardon than Allah, and for this reason He sent the warners and the givers of good news.” [Ref: Bukhari, B93, H512] In the context of Sa’d bin Ubada’s statement the following words mean, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has prohibited adultery [which is a sin] done openly or secretly: “He has made unlawful shameful deeds and sins done in open and in secret.” Yet these words are not restricted to context but apply to all shameful deeds [according to Shari’ah] and sins. Even though the words can be interpreted according to context yet generality of these words remains intact allowing for application of these words to other shameful and sinful actions. Note, the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) quoted in Hadith do not entirely fit the context but do have some connection with context. In similar fashion the following words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) have relevance to context because reviving a practice (i.e. of giving charity) by engaging in it by others is part of Hadith: “He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H6466] This statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not entirely fit into context like statement of shameful deeds but has loose connection with context. And similar to Hadith of shameful deeds the generality of meaning of the statement cannot be negated because the statement begins with, he who introduced a good Sunnah in Islam, which is indication that reward being told further on is for a practice which is not already part of Islam. An Exhortation To One Who Distorts Prophetic Words: It was Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to give general guidance relating to an event but provide a principle on basis of which the Muslims can judge issues which are were not addressed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The principle of good Sunnah and bad Sunnah are part of these principles and to limit and restrict their understanding to an era, or a people, or event, takes away from Muslims a source of guidance. The one who negates the generality of these words, opposes what the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about his Prophetic words: "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and …” [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H220] The principles of good and bad Sunnah carry wide range of meanings which your sectarian entrenched mind cannot comprehend and refrain from what your intellect cannot grasp and fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not oppose His beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated about such people: “And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.” [Ref: 4:115] You have no excuse, neither of lack of knowledge, nor of those who are in state of oblivion and as a reminder note the following words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), here: "The best speech is Allah's Book and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad." [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H120] The guidance of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is in form of principles and his guidance is best guidance. He has told of reward for one who brings into Islam good innovation and for those who follow this innovated Sunnah has declared equal reward. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: "It is not fitting for the believing man nor for the believing woman, that whenever Allah and His Messenger have decided any matter, that they should have any other opinion." [Ref: 33:36] Believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as he was to believed, and accept the guidance of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as it was to be accepted, and have no opinion over the verdict of Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Conclusion: It is true the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about good Sunnah into Islam can be loosely interpreted in light of the historical context but the statement itself establishes its generality which allows multiple interpretations, including literal. To force the historical context upon a statement which is general, and to restrict the generality, and to reject the generality based on context is heretical. As matter of principle, a general statement can be interpreted in a context but it cannot be limited by the contextual interpretation, neither the generality can be altered due to contextual interpretation. The generality remains unaffected by contextual interpretations or theological expositions. Footnotes: - [1] Alterations have been made into the text. The first alteration is the text of Hadith in discussion has been inserted instead of paraphrased translation with reference. Salawat have been bracketed and some Arabic words have been capitalized and spelling of the words has been altered also. The last part of the content has been omitted because it was not connected with explanation of Hadith in discussion. There may be other alterations but none effects the original meaning of content. - [2] “Mundhir bin Jarir reported on the authority of his father: While we were in the company of the Messenger of Allah in the early hours of the morning, some people came there (who) were barefooted, naked, wearing striped woolen clothes, or cloaks, with their swords hung (around their necks). Most of them, nay, all of them, belonged to the tribe of Mudar. The color of the face of the Messenger of Allah underwent a change when he saw them in poverty. He then entered (his house) and came out and commanded Bilal (to pronounce Adhan). He pronounced Adhan and Iqima, and he (the Holy Prophet) observed prayer (along with his Companion) and then addressed (them reciting verses of the Holy Qur'an): '" 0 people, fear your Lord, Who created you from a single being" to the end of the verse," Allah is ever a Watcher over you" (iv. 1). (He then recited) a verse of Sura Hashr:" Fear Allah. and let every soul consider that which it sends forth for the morrow and fear Allah" (lix. 18). (Then the audience began to vie with one another in giving charity.) Some donated a dinar, others a dirham, still others clothes, some donated a sa' of wheat, some a sa' of dates; till he (the Holy Prophet) said: (Bring) even if it is half a date. Then a person from among the Ansar came there with a money bag which his hands could scarcely lift; in fact, they could not (lift). Then the people followed continuously, till I saw two heaps of eatables and clothes, and I saw the face of the Messenger glistening, like gold (on account of joy). The Messenger of Allah said: He who sets a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards; and he who sets in Islam an evil Sunnah, there is upon him the burden of that, and the burden of him also who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2219] - [3] It is bad due to implicit evidence of following Hadith: “… and because of Allah's Ghira, He has made unlawful shameful deeds and sins done in open and in secret.” [Ref: Bukhari, B93, H512]

Introduction: According to Ahadith the collection of Quran into a single book was a praiseworthy innovation. Shaikh Abu Rumaysah of Salafi/Wahhabi sect believes otherwise and has penned/typed a refutation against Muslims. Apart from citing clear evidence which establishes the companions considered the collection of Quran in single book format as a good Sunnah servant will also directly address the key points of Shaikh Abu Rumaysah. This topic has already has been addressed in another article, here. Shaikh Abu Rumaysah’s Written Material: “The collection of the Qur'an into one book after the death of Rasulallah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) and the statement of Abu Bakr, "How can we do that which was not done by the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam." [Ref: Bukhari] The proof, according to them, being that the companions collected the Qur'an in a book form after the time of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) without him enjoining it. Hence it being an innovation which the companions agreed upon as being good. Upon closer examination this is actually evidence against these people, not for them. When Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) came to Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and said that the Qur'an had to be collected as a book. He did not argue on the basis of bid'ah hasanah, rather he argued on the basis of necessity because many of the people who had memorized the Qur'an by heart were being martyred. Therefore the Qur'an was in danger of being lost and hence it had to be collected in book form. When Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) replied, he did not say, "Oh yes I agree with you, this is a bid'ah hasanah," Rather he argued that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not do this, so how could they? It was only after the necessity was made clear to him that he agreed. So, in conclusion, the collection of the Qur'an as a book was something the companions agreed upon due to necessity, not considering it to a good bid'ah.” [Ref: MuslimConverts] Hadith On Subject Of Compiling Quran In Book Format: “Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me owing to the large number of casualties in the battle of Al-Yamama, while `Umar was sitting with him. Abu Bakr said: `Umar has come to me and said, 'A great number of Qaris of the Holy Qur'an were killed on the day of the battle of Al-Yamama, and I am afraid that the casualties among the Qaris of the Qur'an may increase on other battle-fields whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I consider it advisable that you should have the Qur'an collected.' I said, 'How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?’ Umar said: هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ (i.e. By Allah, it is good). `Umar kept on pressing me for that till Allah opened my chest for that for which He had opened the chest of `Umar and I had in that matter, the same opinion as `Umar had." Abu Bakr then said to me (Zaid), "You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the divine inspiration for Allah's Messenger. So you should search for the fragmentary scripts of the Qur'an and collect it (in one Book)." Zaid further said: By Allah, if Abu Bakr had ordered me to shift a mountain among the mountains from one place to another it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said (to `Umar and Abu Bakr), "How can you do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?" Abu Bakr said, هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ (i.e. By Allah, it is beneficial.) Zaid added: So he (Abu Bakr) kept on pressing me for that until Allah opened my chest for that for which He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and `Umar, and I had in that matter, the same opinion as theirs. So I started compiling the Qur'an by collecting it from the leafless stalks of the date-palm tree and from the pieces of leather and hides and from the stones, and from the chests of men (who had memorized the Qur'an). I found the last verses of Sirat-at-Tauba: "Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves--' (9.128/129) from Khuza`ima or Abi Khuza`ima and I added to it the rest of the Sura. The manuscripts of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him. Then it remained with `Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and then with Hafsa bint `Umar.” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] Judge By Revelation And What Prophet Taught: Companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) judged, and the Muslim scholars continue to judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has revealed, and what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained thereof. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) provided principles which help the scholars of Islam to issue rulings regarding issues which have not been directly addressed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The collection of Quran in book format was one such issue which was not instructed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) neither by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Hence the basis of collecting the Quran had to be established via ijtihadi reasoning which requires in-depth knowledge about the principles which can be employed to aid correct understanding. Something About The Hadith Quoted Above: Readers should be aware that Ahadith do not always provide comprehensive account of the events which they are narrating. Sometime a Hadith is briefed by a narrator, and in another version of Hadith, another narrator may add more detail. Sometimes details are completely eliminated. Hadith of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) suggesting gathering of fragments to compile a book indicates part of material is not narrated and evidence of this is found in the following: “Umar kept on pressing me for that till Allah opened my chest for that for which He had opened the chest of `Umar and I had in that matter, the same opinion as `Umar had." [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] As far as my knowledge, there is no detailed account of what Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to convince him it is good to compile Quran as a book. Surely, he did not repeat again and again: هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ“, until he annoyed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to submission. He must have argued his case employing prophetic guidance as evidence to strengthen his case. What is sure, whatever his argument was it was based on teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Hadhrat Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) pressing Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was not in form of violence. The Islamic Position On Gathering Of Quran As A Book: After battle of Al Yamama which was fought against the Musailmah the liar Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) approached Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and suggested that Quran be collected in book format. Hadhrat Abu Bakr replied to him by asking: “How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?” It is important to point out his reluctance was not due to his disinterest in preserving Quran, or spreading of message of Islam. His not wanting to collect the fragmentary Quran into a single book has to be understood in light of subject of innovation and his reluctance was due to his fear of introducing a reprehensible innovation. In simple language Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said, how can he dare to innovate something, such as collecting of Quran in a book, which the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not do? Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) reasons with him by saying: “Umar said: هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ (i.e. By Allah, it is good/beneficial).” Note, such high caliber companions would judge all instances of their life by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed, and what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had taught. Therefore statement of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) has to be understood in light of teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Islamic position is, that Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware of the following statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and on basis of this he argued collection of Quran is [Sunnah] Khayr (i.e. good), here: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect..” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And his persistence paid and Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) eventually realized the importance of collecting Quran and recognized collecting Quran is good Sunnah, and commissioned it. Shaikh Abu Rumaysah Argument Against Islamic Position: Shaikh presents position of Muslims on subject of gathering of Quran into a book format: “The proof, according to them, being that the companions collected the Qur'an in a book form after the time of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) without him enjoining it.” Then he goes on to present the position of Muslims in his own words: “Hence it [is] being an innovation which the companions agreed upon as being good.” Responding the position Shaikh continues to writes: “Upon closer examination this is actually evidence against these people, not for them.” Shaikh’s closer inspection yields that Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) argued on basis of necessity and not on grounds of Bid’ah/Sunnah Hasanah, here: “When Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) came to Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and said that the Qur'an had to be collected as a book. He did not argue on the basis of bid'ah hasanah, rather he argued on the basis of necessity because many of the people who had memorized the Qur'an by heart were being martyred. Therefore the Qur'an was in danger of being lost and hence it had to be collected in book form.” Shaikh cites death of companions as being possible cause of Quran being lost and states this was the reason on basis of which fragmentary Quran had to be gathered in book format with intention of preserving Quran. Issue Of Danger Of Quran Being Lost Due To Death Qaris: Shaikh argued Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) suggested gathering of fragmentary Quranic texts to compile a book because he feared the Quran maybe lost and this is established from the text of Hadith in discussion: “… and I am afraid that the casualties among the Qaris of the Qur'an may increase on other battle-fields whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost.” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] Other alternatives to compiling were also available, such as assigning new roles to the Hufadh in battle field rather than combative roles, or encouraging others to memorize to Quran, including the children and women folk. Death of seventy Hufadh was not major loss of lives to threaten disappearance of book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because there were thousands who had memorized the Quran in life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If there was ever chance of such disappearance, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have provided precise instructions for its compilation into book format. In fact Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) took the responsibility of preserving the Quran Himself: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” [Ref: 15:9] Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) thought about disappearance of Quran but maybe not realized the possibility of textual corruption and variant readings. Compiling Quran in book format the Quran was exposed to new dangers. The issue of preservation of Quran was by writing is not definitive because the Jews had Taurah written yet it has been completely distorted and lost. Written or memorization both were risk based and both came with benefits. Memorization, hard copies or combination of both, none of these were sure guarantee for preservation of Quran. Even if the written route was not taken, and Quran only had been committed to memory, deaths of Hufadh, or persecution would cause the Quran to be lost because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would not allow his promise to be falsified. Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had good intention and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will reward him according to his intention and the good he achieved will earn him great reward. Yet it must be said, ground of his justification was invalid. Compiling Of Quranic Fragments Into Book Is Part Of Islam: First of all, Shaikh himself quoted a statement of Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) which is also being presented, here: "Whoever declares something to be good, he has declared it part of Shari’ah." [Ref: ar-Risaala] Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) declared gathering of Quranic fragments into one book as something good and evidence of it is here: “I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" `Umar said: هَذَا وَاللَّهِ خَيْر. (i.e. By Allah, this is good.) `Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized." [Ref: Bukhari, B61, H509] In other words, Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) declared gathering of Quran into book format as a matter of Shari’ah. Note law of Shari’ah is Islam. Therefore what is part of Shari’ah cannot be judged on basis of necessity alone, and cannot be made part of religion of Islam on basis of necessity. There has to be a mechanism in Islam which allows it to be introduced into religion and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits it will be established. Necessity In Religion Is Not Mother Of Do Thou As You Wilt: Every necessity has to be met with ways which religion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has permitted. A man fought extremely well against the polytheists in a war but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had informed the companions he will be in hell. Eventually he was injured and could not tolerate pain and committed suicide hence earning hell fire for eternity.[1] His requirement was to alleviate the extreme pain he is suffering and this necessitated medicine not suicide. Point here is, that necessity by itself is not valid basis of doing something. Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced into Islam, or it should be said, Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made part of Shari’ah something which was not part of it. How could it be accepted by Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and how could he argue to compile fragments of Quran when there was no basis for making something part of religion in Shari’ah? Both these companions and generally all of the companions all agreed upon it because there was something in prophetic guidance which allowed it to be introduced into Islam. Statement Of Hadhrat Abu Bakr Is Evidence Against Position Of Muslims: Shaikh writes the incident mentioned in the Hadith is evidence against the Muslim position: “Upon closer examination this is actually evidence against these people, not for them.” Servant speculates Shaikh wrote the following underlined which he deemed evidence against us: “When Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) replied, he did not say, "Oh yes I agree with you, this is a bid'ah hasanah," Rather he argued that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not do this, so how could they? It was only after the necessity was made clear to him that he agreed.” Shaikh is referring to the following words of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) found in above quoted Hadith: "How can you do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?" [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] Firstly, question needs to be asked, why are these words against us? If these words are against us because Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asking, how he could introduce a Sunnah which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not introduce then please inform me how could he agree to innovation being made part of religion on basis of necessity? Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say, on basis of necessity one can introduce innovation, and on basis of necessity innovation will be accepted? If necessity legitimizes actions which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not do then necessity is mother of all innovations. Coming to necessity argument, doing good deeds is a necessity to gain mercy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on day of judgment. Celebrating birth day of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is amalgamation of Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Due to necessity of doing good deeds, celebration of Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) should be agreed by you, but do you? Secondly, if statement of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was not something which you considered against us but considered the argument which you based on it (i.e. argument of necessity) then answer the following question: Do you agree that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asking, how can I introduce an innovation which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not introduce as Sunnah. You’re very learned, and hopefully reasonable, and confidence is high enough to say, your learn-ship will agree his reluctance was due fearing that he may be introducing an innovation. In this context, considering your position of necessity forcing Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to agree with Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) means he agreed that necessity is valid ground for introducing an innovation. This was the reason on which servant speculated that meat of matter against the Muslim position was the statement of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and it is because of this that the circle starts again with: How could he agree to innovation being made part of religion on basis of necessity? Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say, on basis of necessity one can introduce innovation, and on basis of necessity innovation will be accepted? Answering The Questions On Behalf Of Muslims: Necessity of compiling fragmentary Quran into a single book format by itself is fine understanding but the context in which the Shaikh presents lacks the proper foundation from Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Our Shaikh cannot present the foundation because if he does so the dispute will be no more. There is no Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has explicitly stated one can introduce innovation into to religion on basis of necessity because in religion of Islam necessity is not basis of making something permissible or impermissible. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did say: “Messenger of Allah said, "Whoever guides someone to virtue will be rewarded equivalent to him who practices that good action." [Ref: Muslim, B1, H173] “Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in their slightest.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] If one judges fairly, one can see Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) guided Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to good deed by reasoning with him to compile Quran from fragments and from memory of Hufadh hence he will be rewarded. Both these companions worked together and reasoned with another companion who was then given the task of compile Quran from texts as well as memory of Hufadh. So a good Sunnah was introduced and those who read from this compiled Quran all earn equal reward to the one who compiled, and the one who initiated the idea, and the one who ordered the task to be carried out, and those who helped. Tackling The Key Points Of Shaikh By Horns: Shaikh believes, Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) none of them believed gathering fragmented Quran into a book is a good innovation and this is misguided understanding. The Ahadith record Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: “I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" `Umar said: هَذَا وَاللَّهِ خَيْر. (i.e. By Allah, this is good.) `Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized." [Ref: Bukhari, B61, H509] Another version has the following words: “Then I said (to `Umar and Abu Bakr), "How can you do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?" Abu Bakr said, هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ (i.e. By Allah, it is beneficial.) Zaid added: So he (Abu Bakr) kept on pressing me for that until Allah opened my chest for that for which He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and…” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] Note, he declared the compiling the Quran from fragmentary and memory as Khayr. This word is very important because it was used by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in context of innovating Sunnah Khayr (i.e. good Sunnah) in the following two Ahadith: “Whoever initiates a Sunnah خَيْرًا (i.e. good Sunnah) that is followed, he will receive a perfect reward for that, and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest. " [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H204] “Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever starts a سُنَّةَ خَيْرٍ (i.e. good Sunnah) which is followed, then for him is a reward, and the likes of their rewards of whoever follows him, there being nothing diminished from their rewards." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2675] This is clear proof that Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was guiding Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) toward these Ahadith. Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s Reluctance And Hadhrat Umar’s Justification: When seventy Hufadh died in battle of Al Yamama then Hadhrat Umar approached and urged Hadhrat Abu Bakr to compile the Quran from various sources to preserve it. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) replied: “How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] He said this because he feared introducing a reprehensible innovation into religion of Islam regarding which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: "And whoever introduces an بِدْعَةَ ضَلاَلَةٍ (i.e. reprehensible innovation) with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] Regarding the ones who introduced the reprehensible innovation and those who follow it Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “And whoever introduces a سُنَّةً سَيِّئَةً (i.e. reprehensible practice) that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) replied by saying that this is a Khayr: “Therefore I consider it advisable that you should have the Qur'an collected.' I said, 'How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?’ Umar said: هُوَ وَاللَّهِ خَيْرٌ (i.e. By Allah, it is good). `Umar kept on pressing me for that till Allah opened my chest for that for …” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] By he was referring to those Ahadith which state about Sunnah Khayr being good and reward worthy: “Whoever initiates a Sunnah خَيْرًا (i.e. good Sunnah) that is followed, he will receive a perfect reward for that, and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest. " [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H204] “Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever starts a سُنَّةَ خَيْرٍ (i.e. good Sunnah) which is followed, then for him is a reward and the likes of their rewards of whoever follows him, there being nothing diminished from their rewards." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2675] In other words he told Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) that the task of compiling Quran is a good Sunnah which is reward worthy. One version uses the word Sunnah Salihah to mean good Sunnah: "Jarir b. 'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The servant does not introduce سُنَّةً صَالِحَةً (i.e. good practice) which is followed after him. The rest of the hadith is the same." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6468] Yet another version has the words Sunnah Hasanah: “He who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good practice in Islam), there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Note, the Hadith states, he who introduces into Islam, this is indication that what is being introduced is not already part of Islam, and what is not part of Islam is innovation.[2] It was this proof which convinced Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) that compiling Quran was introducing good Sunnah/Bid’ah into Islam. Conclusion: Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) debated with Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to persuade him to compile Quran from various sources. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was reluctant due to fearing innovation but Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) managed to persuade him to commission the collection of Quran on grounds of it being a Sunnah Khayr (i.e. good Sunnah). Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] “Narrated Sa`d bin Sahl As-Sa`idi: The Prophet looked at a man fighting against the pagans and he was one of the most competent persons fighting on behalf of the Muslims. The Prophet said, "Let him who wants to look at a man from the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire, look at this (man)." Another man followed him and kept on following him till he (the fighter) was injured and, seeking to die quickly, he placed the blade tip of his sword between his breasts and leaned over it till it passed through his shoulders (i.e., committed suicide)." The Prophet added, "A person may do deeds that seem to the people as the deeds of the people of Paradise while in fact, he is from the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire: and similarly a person may do deeds that seem to the people as the deeds of the people of the (Hell) Fire while in fact, he is from the dwellers of Paradise. Verily, the (results of) deeds done depends upon the last actions." [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H500] - [2] For full detail read the following article which explains in great detail with corroborating evidence to prove Sunnah in this Hadith means innovation, here.

Introduction: Muslims believe companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced praiseworthy innovations/practices into religion of Islam. One such innovation was introduced by Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) in form Taraweeh prayer during the month of Ramadhan. Our opponents believe there is no such a thing as praiseworthy innovation in Islam. Hence they argue Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) only revived/reinstated a Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Therefore the objective of this article would be to present the Islamic position in light of Islamic sources and critically examine evidence of anti-Islamic elements to demonstrate their misguided belief. Ahadith At The Centre Of Dispute: “Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Qari said, "I went out with Umar ibn alKhattab in Ramadhan to the mosque and the people there were spread out in groups. Some men were praying by themselves, whilst others were praying in small groups. Umar said, 'By Allah! It would be better in my opinion if these people gathered behind one reciter.' So he gathered them behind Ubayy ibn Kab. Then I went out with him another night and the people were praying behind their Qur'an reciter. Umar said, نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ (i.e. How excellent this innovation is!) But what you miss while you are asleep is better than what you watch in prayer.' He meant the end of the night, and people used to watch the beginning of the night in prayer." [Ref: Muwatta Malik, B6, H3] “Abdur Rahman bin 'Abdul Qari said, "I went out in the company of 'Umar bin Al-Khattab one night in Ramadhan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. A man praying alone or a man praying with a little group behind him. So, 'Umar said, 'In my opinion I would better collect these (people) under the leadership of one Qari (Reciter)’. So, he made up his mind to congregate them behind Ubai bin Ka'b. Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their reciter. On that, 'Umar remarked نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ (i.e. what an excellent innovation this is) but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.' He meant the prayer in the last part of the night. (In those days) people used to pray in the early part of the night." [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] Shaikh Abu Rumaysah’s Position On The Issue: “When Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu) was the Khalifah, he collected the Muslims to pray in congregation for Tarawih prayers, and said, "What a good bid'ah this is." [bukhari] From this, they derive their belief of a good innovation. Firstly, it becomes necessary to explain the context of what happened. When the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) first emigrated to Madeenah, the Muslims prayed tarawih individually, and then for three nights they prayed in congregation behind the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam). After this, he stopped them doing so saying, "I feared that it would become obligatory upon you." So after this the Muslims would pray individually or in small congregations throughout the rule of Abu Bakr, and the beginning of Umar's (raddi Allaahu anhu) rule. Then Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu) came to the masjid and saw the Muslims praying in small groups behind different Imams, so he collected them together in one congregation behind one Imam and made the aforementioned statement [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227]. So how can this action of 'Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu) be understood to be a new act of worship when the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) did it during his lifetime? Secondly, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) gave the reason why he stopped the congregational prayer, because revelation was still descending, and he feared that praying in congregation might become obligatory upon his nation and hence make the religion hard upon them. After the death of Rasulallaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) revelation ceased so this concern was no longer necessary. Hence Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu) reinstated the Tarawih prayer in congregation during his rule because he knew that his action could not be made obligatory upon the Ummah. Thirdly, all the companions agreed upon this action of ‘Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu), thus there was a consensus (ijma) on it. And the scholars of Usool (fundamental principles) have stated that ijma cannot occur except when there is a clear text for it in the Sharee'ah. So what is the correct understanding of 'Umar's (raddi Allaahu anhu) words, "a good bid’ah”? The word bid'ah here is to be understood in its linguistic sense, "something new," because Tarawih in one congregation was not present during the rule of Abu Bakr (raddi Allaahu anhu) and the beginning of 'Umar's (raddi Allaahu anhu) rule, hence in that sense it was something new. The Sharee'ah sense (defined earlier) cannot be understood here because it does not fulfil the conditions of being a new act of worship. Abu Yusuf said, "I asked Abu Hanifah about the tarawih and what 'Umar did and he said, 'The tarawih is a stressed Sunnah, and 'Umar did not do that from his own opinion, nor was there in his action any innovation, and he did not enjoin it except that there was a foundation for it with him and authorization from the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam.'" (Sharh Mukhtaar as quoted from him in al- Ibdaa of Shaikh Ali Mahfooz P80) [Ref: MuslimConverts] Common Ground Between Position Of Muslims And Anti-Islam Element: It is true that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had performed Taraweeh for three days consecutively and on the fourth night did not attend the Masjid, and next day he informed the companions that he did not lead them in prayers because he felt it will be made compulsory. Following Hadith is evidence of this: "Allah's Messenger went out in the middle of the night and prayed in the mosque and some men prayed behind him. In the morning, the people spoke about it and then a large number of them gathered and prayed behind him (on the second night). In the next morning the people again talked about it and on the third night the mosque was full with a large number of people. Allah's Messenger came out and the people prayed behind him. On the fourth night the Mosque was overwhelmed with people and could not accommodate them, but the Prophet came out (only) for the morning-prayer. When the morning-prayer was finished he recited Tashah-hud and said, "Amma ba'du, your presence was not hidden from me but I was afraid lest the night prayer should be enjoined on you and you might not be able to carry it on." So, Allah's Apostle died and the situation remained like that." [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H229] The last part of Hadith high-lighted indicates that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not lead the companions for Taraweeh prayers after first three days. This establishes Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to perform Taraweeh in congregation, under leadership of a Qari is for three days. Taraweeh Is Not A New Act Of Worship: Our Shaikh writes: “Then Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu) came to the masjid and saw the Muslims praying in small groups behind different Imams, so he collected them together in one congregation behind one Imam and made the aforementioned statement [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227]. So how can this action of Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu) be understood to be a new act of worship when the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) did it during his lifetime?” Did we claim that Taraweeh was new act of worship? Your question is based on your faulty understanding that we believe Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced an innovation. Saying it emphatically, we Muslims do not believe Taraweeh is new act of worship. We believe that Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) took a Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and issued it for entire month. This brought about recitation of entire Quran and Taraweeh under leadership of an Imam for entire month. This action of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was without precedent of prophetic Sunnah hence it is نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ (i.e. excellent innovation) سُنَّةَ خَيْرٍ (i.e. good precedent), سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good practice), سُنَّةً صَالِحَةً (i.e. righteous practice) and there is reward for one who issued it for entire month and for those who follow it.[1] Hadhrat Umar’s Reinstating Taraweeh: Our Shaikh writes: “Secondly, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) gave the reason why he stopped the congregational prayer, because revelation was still descending, and he feared that praying in congregation might become obligatory upon his nation and hence make the religion hard upon them. After the death of Rasulallaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) revelation ceased so this concern was no longer necessary. Hence Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu) reinstated the Tarawih prayer in congregation during his rule because he knew that his action could not be made obligatory upon the Ummah.” Firstly, it is agreed by both parties that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not wish to make religion hard for his followers therefore he abstained from Taraweeh after the initial three days. Secondly, Shaikh claims Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) reinstated a Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Reinstate, means to restore something to former position or state. He would be reinstating prophetic Sunnah of Taraweeh if the amount was three days lead by an Imam. Or if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had left instructions saying, after my departure from this world reintroduce the Qiyam/Taraweeh for entire month of Ramadhan. He took a prophetic Sunnah and increased number of days for which it is performed – entire month of Ramadhan, with an Imam leading, reciting entire Quran and declaring that he ‘reinstated’ the Taraweeh prayer in congregation is deception. Thirdly, our Shaikh should be presenting evidence to justify why Taraweeh prayer is not innovation in religion of Islam, or why Taraweeh is not innovation in terms of Shari’ah. The reason given, why Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) reintroduced Taraweeh – ceasing of revelation is relative between Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu).[2] Does this reason justify the Salafi/Wahhabi belief; Taraweeh is not an innovation in terms of Shari’ah? This point is hardly an argument in defense Salafi/Wahhabi position. Shaikh attributed to Imam Ash-Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) the following statement: "Whoever declares something to be good he has declared it part of Shari’ah." [Ref: ar-Risala] Hence it would be appropriate to respond to him with something from him. Judging on this statement one is forced to admit Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced an excellent innovation into Shari’ah. Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) had following position regarding the Taraweeh prayers being initiated for entire month: “It was narrated to us by Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl who had it narrated to him from Abul-Abbas Al-Asam who said Rabi ibn Sulayman narrated to us from Imam ash-Shafi’s that he said, “Innovated matters in religion are of two kinds: 1) Whatever is innovated and is contradicts the Book, or the Sunnah, or a narration, or Ijma – then this is an innovation of misguidance. 2) Whatever is innovated of good and that does not contradict any of these – then this is a novelty which is not blameworthy. And Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadhan: نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ (i.e. what a good innovation this is!) meaning something new not previously present, and if done does not rebut anything which existed before.” [Ref: Reported by al-Bayhaqi in Manaqib ash-Shafi'I, 1/469][3] This establishes Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) believed Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had introduced an innovation but it did not contradict teaching of Islam and such innovations are considered praiseworthy innovations. Companions Agreed Upon Action Of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’al anhu): Our Shaikh wrote: “Thirdly, all the companions agreed upon this action of Umar (raddi Allaahu anhu), thus there was a consensus (ijma) on it. And the scholars of Usool (fundamental principles) have stated that ijma cannot occur except when there is a clear text for it in the Sharee'ah.” There are two points that need to be addressed here. Firstly, Ijma does not require clear text from Quran or Sunnah. Rather Ijma on something which the Muslim scholars come to agree on even if the evidence of it is implicit would be valid based on the Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which states: “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] Ijma can only be beneficial if it is based on issues which are lacking strong evidence and scholars come to reconcile them via indirect evidences. There is no need for Ijma on issues which are stated in clear emphatic texts. Coming to issue of Taraweeh, it is clearly established that the Sunnah Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was to lead Taraweeh for three days as an Imam, and then Taraweeh was abandoned in single Jammat form. Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) issued it for entire month under leadership of an Imam. Considering these facts it is obvious our Shaikh is fabricating Ijma to support his position. Where is the clear text on which companions agreed upon full Ramadhan month Taraweeh deeming it to be prophetic Sunnah? Bring forward your proof if you are truthful. Absence of proof for your claim can be used to argue; Ijma of companions over full month Taraweeh was based on the fact that it is a praiseworthy innovation/practice, evidence of which has been quoted in footnote one. Word Innovation Is Used In Linguistic Sense: Shaikh has conceded that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) only performed it for three days, here: “When the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) first emigrated to Madeenah, the Muslims prayed tarawih individually, and then for three nights they prayed in congregation behind the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam). After this, he stopped them doing so saying …” Shaikh also writes that Taraweeh under single Imam was absent during time of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Khilafat: “… because Tarawih in one congregation was not present during the rule of Abu Bakr (raddi Allaahu anhu) and the beginning of Umar's (raddi Allaahu anhu) rule, hence in that sense it was something new.” In other words Shaikh agrees that, prophetic Sunnah of Taraweeh was three days because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) led the prayers as Imam for only three days and then it was abandoned. After which it was not performed under leadership an Imam during the Khilafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) neither in the beginning period of Hadhrat Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Khilafat. Considering meaning of innovation in linguistic sense (i.e. something new, something new which does not have a precedent), and in Shar’i sense of something new which does not have precedent from Quran or Sunnah, one is forced to conclude that Taraweeh as performed, is a praiseworthy innovation for following reasons. It is performed for entire month of Ramadhan, under leadership of an Imam/Qari, and recitation of entire Quran takes place. Therefore Shaikh’s saying that usage of نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ by Hadhrat Umar was in linguistic sense is grand lie: “The word bid'ah here is to be understood in its linguistic sense, "something new," because Tarawih in one …” Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) Said Its Not Innovation: Shaikh wrote: “The Sharee'ah sense (defined earlier) cannot be understood here because it does not fulfil the conditions of being a new act of worship. Abu Yusuf said, "I asked Abu Hanifah about the tarawih and what 'Umar did and he said, 'The tarawih is a stressed Sunnah, and 'Umar did not do that from his own opinion, nor was there in his action any innovation, and he did not enjoin it except that there was a foundation for it with him and authorization from the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam.'" [Sharh Mukhtaar as quoted from him in al- Ibdaa of Shaikh Ali Mahfooz p80] It is hard for to accept what is being attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) because Salafi’s are known for altering texts of classical books so the point of view expressed conforms to their sectarian understanding. Note my explanation is not authentication of the statement attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). My comments are valid if the statement is verified and genuinely attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). There are number of things which need to be pointed out. Firstly, Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) used a definition of innovation according to which anything which is established from indirect/implicit evidence is not innovation even if part of it is established. His definition of innovation was: Any action/belief which can be established from Quran/Sunnah via implicit or via generality is not an innovation. And the opposite was: Any action/belief of which there is no Asal (i.e. foundation - explicit or implicit evidence) such is innovation. There is clear evidence of Qiyam/Taraweeh being performed under leadership of an Imam. Imam being Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hence it was prophetic Sunnah for three days. According to Imam Abu Hanifah’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) definition of innovation Taraweeh would not be innovation even if it was performed for entire month of Ramadhan or just three days because the foundation of it exits. Following article sheds some light onto the methodology employed by Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) and explains why he did not deem it as innovation, here. Secondly, the statement of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) is to be understood in following meaning: “Abu Yusuf said, "I asked Abu Hanifah about the Tarawih [being Sunnah of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam] and what Umar did [in form of gathering people under one Qari] and he [Abu Hanifa] said, 'The Tarawih is a stressed Sunnah, and 'Umar did not do that from his own opinion, nor was there in his action any innovation [because Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam lead Taraweeh as an Imam for three days and companions followed him], and he did not enjoin it [for entire month of Ramadhan] except that there was a [Ijtihadi] foundation for it with him and authorization from the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam [in form of follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of rightly guided Khulafah].” There is reason for this, Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) only commented on the concept of Taraweeh being Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He did not state Taraweeh for entire month of Ramadhan had foundation in Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Rather his statement is to be understood in light of fact that there is no evidence that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) ever performed Taraweeh for entire month. Hence the foundation being stated is of Ijtihad, and Hadhrat Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Ijtihad to issue Taraweeh under leadership of an Imam for entire month of Ramadhan is praiseworthy innovation because prophetic Sunnah is of three days. Thirdly, did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) perform Taraweeh for entire Ramadhan? Even our Shaikh Abu Rumaysah agrees that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed it for three days. Shar’i meaning of innovation are, something which is new and without precedent in book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Entire month Ramadhan Taraweeh under leadership of a Qari is without precedent hence an innovation, and in words of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) excellent innovation. Fourthly, note the strategy used by Shaikh to strengthen his position. When it suited his interest he quoted Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) or at the least he thought so and ignored Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). He was aware that Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) used a definition of innovation according to which Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced a praiseworthy innovation. Please take note of it for the second time: “It was narrated to us by Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl who had it narrated to him from Abul-Abbas Al-Asam who said Rabi ibn Sulayman narrated to us from Imam ash-Shafi’s that he said, “Innovated matters in religion are of two kinds: 1) Whatever is innovated and is contradicts the Book, or the Sunnah, or a narration, or Ijma – then this is an innovation of misguidance. 2) Whatever is innovated of good and that does not contradict any of these – then this is a novelty which is not blameworthy. And Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadhan: نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ (i.e. what a good innovation this is!) meaning something new not previously present, and if done does not rebut anything which existed before.” [Ref: Reported by al-Bayhaqi in Manaqib ash-Shafi'I, 1/469] Fifthly, after Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had introduced Taraweeh for entire month, and people had followed it hence he declared it as an excellent innovation because he knew the saying of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) regarding introducing good innovations/practices: “He who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good Sunnah in Islam), there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] And he was aware what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had stated regarding introducing evil innovations: “And whoever ابْتَدَعَ بِدْعَةً(i.e. introduces an innovation) that is acted upon, will have a burden of sins equivalent to that of those who act upon it, without that detracting from the burden of those who act upon it in the slightest.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H209] “And he who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً سَيِّئَةً (i.e. evil precedent in Islam), there is upon him the burden of that, and the burden of him also who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] So he wanted it to be known his innovation was praiseworthy and not blameworthy. Islamic Understanding Of The Matter: Hadith records Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) attended Masjid in month of Ramadhan and decided to gather the companions under Hadhrat Ubayy ibn Kab (radiallah ta’ala anhu). When he attended the Masjid again he saw the practice had taken its root amongst the companions hence he remarked it was excellent innovation. It is established Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Taraweeh as an Imam for three days. Yet Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) instructed Taraweeh under leadership of an Imam for entire month and this was excellent innovation of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Note, there are two excellent innovations, i) Taraweeh being performed for extra 26/27 days, ii) 26/27 days of Taraweeh with an Imam. Also note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) must have recited number of chapters of Quran. In 26/27 extra days of Taraweeh prayers from first Surah to last is recited, and this certainly is another excellent innovation. Hence Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) can be accredited with three excellent innovations. The Shar’ri meaning of innovation is that which does not have precedent in Quran or Sunnah. Considering the meaning of innovation and following details of Taraweeh prayers it is evident, performing Taraweeh for entire month, under leadership of a Qari, reciting entire Quran [and more], is without prophetic precedent hence it is an innovation in terms of Shari’ah. This realization leads Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to exclaim, what an excellent innovation Taraweeh prayers is. Conclusion: Servant has established Taraweeh for entire month of Ramadhan, and under leadership of a Qari, and recitation of Quran from the beginning till the end, is an excellent innovation because there was no prophetic precedent in form of Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Statement of Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) supports the position of Muslims; Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced an excellent innovation. Also according to criteria of Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) to declare something good is to make it part of Shari’ah hence Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made Taraweeh via Ijtihad a part of religion of Islam.[4] Statement of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) has been reconciled via point of Ijtihad to Islamic position because basis of Ijtihad in this context is innovation hence outcome of Ijtihad of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was praiseworthy innovation. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] “Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their reciter. On that, 'Umar remarked نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ (i.e. what an excellent innovation this is) but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.' He meant the prayer in the last part of the night. (In those days) people used to pray in the early part of the night." [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] “Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever starts a سُنَّةَ خَيْرٍ (i.e. good Sunnah) which is followed, then for him is a reward and the likes of their rewards of whoever follows him, there being nothing diminished from their rewards." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2675] "Jarir b. 'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The servant does not introduce سُنَّةً صَالِحَةً (i.e. good Sunnah) which is followed after him. The rest of the hadith is the same." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6468] Another Hadith establishes that good Sunnah for which the reward is being told is being made part of Islam: “He who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good Sunnah in Islam), there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] "Jarir b. 'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger as saying: The servant does not introduce سُنَّةً صَالِحَةً (i.e. good Sunnah) which is followed after him. The rest of the hadith is the same." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6468] - [2] Didn’t the revelation cease during the time of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu)? Did he not know that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is the last/final Prophet and Messenger, and there is no Messenger or Prophet after him? And did he not know nothing can become compulsory for the Ummah without a Prophet or Messenger? So why did he not reintroduce Prophetic Sunnah of performing Taraweeh for three days behind a Qari or introduce it for entire month? Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) knew there is no Prophet or Messenger after the last and the final Prophet and the Messenger Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and he knew nothing can be made part of religion as obligation after him. Despite knowing this he did not reintroduce Taraweeh, not three day Taraweeh under leadership of an Imam, and not of entire month. The mind set of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was demonstrated on issue of compiling Quran. When it was suggested to him by Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to compile Quran from all fragments Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) remarked: “How dare I do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?” [Ref: Bukhari, B89, H301] If it occurred to him to introduce Taraweeh then he abstained from it because he did not wish to do anything which Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not do. Hence it can be said that he feared it would be an innovation. - [3] Opponents of Islam have argued, Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl is unknown hence the narration is weak and cannot be evidence of Imam Shafi’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) position. Unknown to them, Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl as-Sayrafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) has been mentioned by Imam Dhahabi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in his, Siyar Al A’laam An-Nubala, as trustworthy and reliable narrator. Shaikh Salahud-Din as-Safadi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in his, Kitab Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyat, stated about him; he is well known and trustworthy scholar. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits a separate article will be written to prove the reliability of these narrators. - [4] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said regarding introducing a good Sunnah into religion of Islam: “He who introduces a فِي الإِسْلاَمِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً (i.e. good practice in Islam), there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Knowing this Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) declared gathering Quran in a book format is good, and evidence is here: “I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" `Umar said: هَذَا وَاللَّهِ خَيْر. (i.e. By Allah, this is good.) `Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized." [Ref: Bukhari, B61, H509] This was the basis on which Imam Shafi (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) based his principle: "Whoever declares something to be good he has declared it part of Sharee'ah." [Ref: ar-Risaala]

Introduction: Recently during discussions with a Salafi about the nature of innovations in Islam. The Salafi ‘student of knowledge’ presented me translation of Ibn Uthaymeen’s small pamphlet size MSWord format copy of a Arabic work. He requested me to read and think about the contents and note the strenth of Ibn Uthaymeen’s reasoning against the legitimacy of praiseworthy innovations. He was convinced, once his this booklet was understood by me, it would be impossible for me to hold to the position of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jammat. Instead it will force me to back-track into Salafism. In this word format he highlighted a certain [portion which will be quoted below] and requested that special attention needs to be paid to it. After reading the entire treaty and much mulling over its line of reasoning and understanding the in-between the line material it was decided best response would be in a written format. Below is the written response which al hamdu lillah demolished the castle of Wahhabiyyah. 1.0 - Salih Al Uthaymeen’s Position In His Own Words: “That the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not leave anything which the people are in need of in their worship, their dealings with one another and their livelihood without having explained it is proven to you by His speech, the Exalted: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and have completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islaam as a religion.” When this matter has been explained [that Islam is perfected/completed then] - O muslim - know that every one who innovates something in the religion of Allah (azza wa jal) even if it is with a good intention, then his innovation, along with it being misguidance, will be considered a defamation of the religion of Allah (azza wa jal) and will be considered a denial and rejection of Allah (azza wa jal) the Exalted in His speech: “This day have I perfected for you your religion …” Since this innovator who innovated a matter into the religion of Allah (azza wa jal) which is not from the religion of Allah (azza wa jal) is saying silently that the religion has not been completed because this matter which was left out, and which he innovated, can be used to draw closer to Allah (azza wa jal).” [Ref: Innovations In The Light Of Perfection Of Shari’ah, by Muhammad bin Salih Al Uthaymeen] 1.1 - Salih Al Uthaymeen’s Position In My Own Words: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the source of perfection/completion which is beyond improvement. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) perfected/completed the religion of Islam and any additions or alterations to perfection/compeletion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cannot be praiseworthy. This is the reason Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) told any/every innovation made part of Islam [after completion/perfection of Islam] is misguidance which takes to hellfire. Hence, there can be no and there is no, valid basis for praiseworthy innovations in Islam. By introducing ‘praiseworthy’ innovations into Islam one is negating the completion/perfection of Islam and improving upon what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) left us with and is implying that Islam was not perfected/completed.[1] 2.1 - Islam Is The Perfection/Completion Of Islams: Religion of Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) and his followers, Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and his followers was Islam: “And Moses said: ‘O my people! If you have believed in Allah, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims.’” [Ref: 10:84] “And when I Allah inspired the disciples [of Jesus] to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: ‘We believe. And bear witness that we are Muslims.” [Ref: 5:111] It is recorded in the Hadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated that the religion of all Prophets was Islam: "I am most akin to Jesus Christ among the whole of mankind, and all the Prophets are of different mothers but belong to one religion and no Prophet was raised between me and Jesus." [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5835] Their versions of Islam were suitable for their immediate evoriments but the Islam given to our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is a continuation of previous versions of Islam and perfection/completion of all those religions of Islam and is a universal message. Hence to argue on basis; our Islam is perfection/compeletion of previous versions of Islams therefore one cannot introduce praiseworthy innovations into our Islam, is utterly useless reasoning, because perfection/compeletion of older versions does not rule out praiseworthy innovations via Ijtihad. 2.2 - Islam Is Perfection/Compeletion In Itself: Improvements are made by Prophets/Messengers and there is no Prophet/Messenger with revelation after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah, of all things, Knowing.” [Ref: 33:40] Hence the version of Islam given to our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is perfect/complete and beyond any need of improvements - Islam is perfection/compeletion in itself but this does not mean praiseworthy innovations cannot be made part of Islam via Ijtihad. 2.3 - Allowing Innovated Practices Is Part Of Perfection/Compeletion Of Islam: Part of compeletion/perfection of Islam that it incorporates teachings which enable the Muslims to incorporate new practices into Islam via Ijtihad. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said in numerous Ahadith: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] As long as the newly introduced Sunnahs/Biddahs agree with fundamental principles of Islamic worship, charity, enjoining good, prohibiting wrong and we do not invent a new act of worship but we assemble the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallalu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) under various names, we inroduce good Sunnah. For which there will be reward one who invents it and those who adhere to it and those who call to it: “He who called (people) to righteousness/guidance, there would be reward (assured) for him like the rewards of those who adhered to it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6470] 2.4 – Perserving The Compeletion/Perfection Of Islam: Shara’i evidence firmly established new praiseworthy Biddah/Sunnah can be introduced into Islam and it would be permissible to act on them and acting on these praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs will earn reward from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Islam was perfected/completed but in this perfected/completed Islam room was created for incorporation of praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “We have, without doubt, sent down the Reminder (i.e. the Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (i.e. from corruption).” [Ref: 15:9] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has promised to protect the completion/perfection of Islam from corruption and if introducing praiseworthy innovations into Islam was corruption of Islam then Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not have created the room for them. Therefore the perfection/completion of Islam will not be effect by newly introduced praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs into religion of Islam. 3.1 - Distorting The Perfection/Compeletion Of Islam: As Muslims we cannot nor we can believe that a Prophet can come after our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and abrogate or subsitute or add or ommit or alter any thing that has been taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). We must adhere to the Islam taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) without engaging in mentioned to maintain perfection/compeletion of Islam. If one engages in abrogation of matters in Ayaat/Ahadith without valid proof, or alters a method taught in Quran/Hadith, or subsitutes a action/belief by another not established with Quranic/Hadith evidence, or adds to a ritual practice or Quranic text which was not part of it, then such person engages in mutilation of Islam. He/She defaces the perfection of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and it is akin to indirectly claiming God-hood or Prophet-hood.[2] As Muslims we have ensured the teaching of Islam are protected from corruption and we have not made anything part of Islam which defaced Islam. 3.2 - Those Who Defaced Their Versions Of Islam: The Yahood/Nasara defaced the Islams given to them by their respective Prophets and took their innovative religions as the Islams of Prophets Musa/Isa (alayhis salam). In short they alterted the Islams and made them into monsteracities which they are recognized by at present. The message and teaching of Quran are still preserved and easily accessible. There has been no alteration, addition, ommition and abrogation of Quranic message of Islam in the Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) like it happened to the religions of previous Prophets. Therefore the completion, the perfection of Islam is preserved and nothing of Islam has been defaced, or removed, or omitted, or abrogated, or altered. 3.3 – True Act Of Defacing Of Islam: True defamation of Islam would be, if one engages in altering the order of actions performed in prayers. One starts his prayers with prostration and ends it with standing or recites Surah Fatihah in prostration three times and recites twenty hail Mary’s (i.e. Ave Maria). Another example would be to believe that some parts of Quran have been omitted/deleted by Muslims. Or to add another verse to the end of Surah Fatiha, such as; lana tulillahi alal kazibeen, and believe it is part of Quran. Or altering the confession of Tawheedi creed to; there is no god except three in the One god and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. These are examples of improvements/innovations which in reality deface Islam not praiseworthy innovations. A praiseworthy innovation introduced into Islam via Ijtihad and which was not and is not believed to be Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and it accords with teaching of Islam, does not effect the compeletion/perfection of Islam, rather it compliments it. 4.1 – Innovated Sunnah In Line With Perfection/Completion Of Islam: During the Khilafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Musailamah claimed Prophet-hood. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) sent armies to eliminate this Dajjal. At the end of wars some seventy Hufadh had fallen in the way of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) realized if the Hufadh continue to receive matyrdom at this rate sooner or later Quran will be lost, so he visited Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu). He said to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (subhanahu wa ta’ala): "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." At this point one can say, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was opinion that collection of Quran as a single book format is a innovation which will deface the perfection/completion of Islam, so he said: "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Hadhrat Umar (subhanahu wa ta’ala) trys to convince him that it is a good Sunnah which does not effect the perfection/completion of Islam by saying: "By Allah, that is a good project.” Hadhrat Abu Bakr (subhanahu wa ta’ala) continues saying: "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized." [Ref: Bukhari, B61, H509] Hadhrat Abu Bakr (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is now convinced that compiling Quran in a book is a praiseworthy innovation which even Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not engage in nor instructed. He also understood that religion of Islam was complete and all that was part of fundamental teaching Islam has been made part of Islam by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He also realized that the perfection/completion of Islam is not effected by a innovative praiseworthy Sunnah and nor do the praiseworthy innovations deface the perfection/completion of Islam. He also understood, by compiling Quran in a single book it does not amount to him ordering completion/perfection of Islam after Islam was perfected/completed.[3] 4.2 – Khalifah Gives Instructions To Engage In Praiseworthy Innovation: Hadhrat Abu Bakr (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says to a Sahabi: “You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Messenger. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." The Sahabi narrator added: “By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an.” Then he said to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (subhanahu wa ta’ala) what Hadhrat Abu Bakr (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said to Hadhrat Umar (subhanahu wa ta’ala) when he had suggested compiling Quran in single book format: "How will you do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?" The Hadith continues: "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and `Umar.” [Ref: Bukhari, B61, H509] Once the companion realized the goodness in this praiseworthy Biddah/Sunnah and just like Hadhrat Abu Bakr realized it does not amount to blameworthy innovation [which disfigures the perfection/completion of Islam] he began gathering and compiling Quran into single book format and the result was Quran in our possesion today. 5.1 - The Destroyer of Perfection/Completion Of Islam: The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained all essentials of religion of Islam. He explained the concept of worship, types of worship, the method of worship and when to worship. He explained Zakat, Sadqa, Khayrat, and all issues connected with charity. He taught how to perform Ghusul and when to perform Ghusul. He taught the method of Wudhu and when to perform Wudhu. In short he taught all aspects of daily life and this is completion/perfection of Quran and Islam, stated: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and have completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islaam as a religion.” [Ref: 5:3] Islam is religion of micro-guidance, it aims to guides/manage all affairs. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) made Islam for mankind and for those who will come till the judgment day. Our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained the affairs which were happening in his time but left principles via aid of which we will be able to judge matters to arise after, and part of these principles the teaching is: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Therefore Muslims know that praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs are part of perfection/compeletion of Islam. One who argues against and believes; praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs are against the teaching of Islam is guilty of innovation. He refutes/rejects a teaching of Islam, which daringly can be said to be established by Tawatir. Even though one has good intentions his innovation is misguidance and is a distortion of perfection/completion of Islam – the religion approved by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The innovator of reprehensible innovation is indirectly claiming the right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for himself – claims to have the right to legislate religion. Or he is claiming to be spokes person of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) after it has been clearly stated there is no Nabi/Messenger with Shari’a after our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reported to have said: “Aishah reported the Messenger of Allah as saying: if any one introduces into this affair of ours anything which does not belong to it, it is rejected. Ibn Isa said: the prophet said: if anyone practices any action in away other than our practice, it is rejected.” [Ref: Dawood, B41, H4589] O Muslims, therefore believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as your God and believe in His beloved Messenger Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as the last/final Prophet. O Muslims, reject those who exercise the right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and exercise the right of a Prophet to disfigure the perfection/completion of Islam and reject their reprehensible innovations. They oppose Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His beloved Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). O Muslims, you oppose such a individual and his party and believe what is taught by Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If you do not then know in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the only acceptable religion is of Islam and you will be amongst the loosers in day of judgment: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” [Ref: 3:85] This is Islam is composed of teaching of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and if you leave him and obey the rival and enemy of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) then you have preffered for your self religion other then perfected/compeleted religion of Islam. You have chosen for your self; the religion of Shaytan, the religion of Ibn Uthaymeen but not the religion of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). O heretics, you be to your religion and know that we believed in Islam and we believed in our Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when he said: “Whoever introduces a good practice that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in their slightest. And whoever introduces a bad practice that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] This the best of guidance of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and what opposes his teaching is innovation and every teaching which opposes and disfigures the perfection/completion of Islam takes to hellfire. 5.2– Blameworthy Innovations Harm Perfection/Completion Of Islam: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “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: Bukhari, B4, H1885] and in another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “The worst of things are those that are newly invented; every newly-invented thing is an innovation and every innovation is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire.” [Ref: Sunan Nisa’I, B19, H1579] It is established Ibn Uthaymeen the chief of group of Satan, the leader of the Khawarij, opposed Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in regards to introducing praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs into Islam, hence he introduced a blameworthy innovation into Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated: “He who enacted any act for which there is no sanction from our behalf, that is to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] "If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our affair religion, that thing is rejected." [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861] In obedience to Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) we reject Ibn Uthaymeen’s innovation which defaced the perfected/completed Islam. Conclusion: Religion of Islam is has been completed and perfected by Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) last and finale Prophet – Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The beloved Prophet and the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed one who introduces praiseworthy Biddah/Sunnah into Islam which is followed after him it will be rewarded by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and those who call toward such praisworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs they will also be rewarded like the ones who act upon it. The teaching which permit introduction of praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs into Islam is part of perfection/compeletion of Islam and as long as the innovated practice is in accordance with the teaching of Islam and does not contradict the teaching of worship, charity, encouraging good, forbidding evil, and it aids Islam, then it is a good Sunnah/Biddah. The real true enemy of Islam, the destroyer and negater of perfection/completion of Islam is Ibn Uthaymeen the enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He has censored praiseworthy Biddah/Sunnah which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permitted and about which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) told of reward – for one who innovates and one who practices it. Ibn Uthaymeen and the Khariji minions of Iblees from Najd have found fault in the perfection/completion of Islam. Hence they have rejected the conceptual validity of introducing praiseworthy Sunnahs/Biddahs into Islam. The Khariji’s reject this teaching of Islam and the fruits of this teaching. Therefore the innovation and the distortion of perfection/completion of Islam is from Khawarij and their scholars, and in this context Ibn Uthaymeen the cursed. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] If anyone is unhappy about my presentation of Ibn Uthaymeen’s reasoning then please be my guest and present his position from his own work better then my representation. Rest assured I have greatly improved the strenth of his reasoning. In other words his reasoning is presented more precisely, more elequently, more forcefully then Mr Ibn Uthaymeen did. - [2] If he affirms Prophet-hood or God-hood with his tongue and it is not impliedfrom his actions then such a person is Kafir, otherwise such a person is heretic of worst kind. - [3] Ibn Uthaymeen wrote:” Since this innovator who innovated a matter into the religion of Allah (azza wa jal) which is not from the religion of Allah (azza wa jal) is saying silently that the religion has not been completed because this matter which was left out, and which he innovated, can be used to draw closer to Allah (azza wa jal).” Based on this statement of Ibn Uthaymeen, one is forced to conclude that Mr Ibn Uthaymeen’s regarding Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Abu Bakr position would be they were completing/perfecting Quran which was left uncomplete/imperfect by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and by His Messenger Muhammad (sallallahu alayh wa aalihi was’sallam).

باطل فرقوں اور بدمذہبوں کا رد اور ان کے اعتراضات کےمنہ توڑ جوابات https://telegram.me/ISLAHEAQAAID علمائے اہلسنت کی نئی کتب Pdf فائیل میں حاصل کرنے کے لیئے تحقیقات چینل ٹیلیگرام ضرور جوائن کرلیں https://t.me/tehqiqat دعوت اسلامی کی کتب https://telegram.me/DawateislamiBooks

Madad Shafaee Fuqah.pdf

Introduction: Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Hadhir Nazir. The opponents of Islam assume that Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Hadhir as well as Nazir on every spec of Earth. And this misconception has lead the opponents to present few rational arguments as refutation of Hadhri Nazir without even realising their argument does not apply to Islamic belief. So objective of this article is to explain what Hadhir Nazir mean and how Hadhir Nazir is to be understood. Meaning Of Hadhir Nazir And Its Application: Hadhir Nazir is employed instead of Shahid (i.e. witness). Hadhir is linguistically means present and means presence with a body, in line with creation’s characteristic – i.e. material and dimensions. Hadhir when it referrs to Jism (i.e. body) of RasoolAllah (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then it is in literal/linguistical meanings – present with clay body. When it referrs to Ruh (i.e. soul) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then it referrs to presence of Ruh with material which Ruh is made (i.e. Noor). Nazir means seeing and it referrs to seeing of eyes. When Nazir is used for bodily eyes of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then it is referring to sight dependent upon sunlight. When it is used for Rooh of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then it is not it is not literal/lingustical but spiritual sight and this sight is dependent upon Noor from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not sunlight. Also bare in mind Shahid is inclusive of hearing and even though hearing is not indicated linguisitcally in words Hadhir Nazir hearing should be implied by default. In context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) supernatural and natural hearing of Jism (i.e. body) and Rooh (i.e. soul). Manner In Which One Can Be Shahid/Shaheed (Hadhir Nazir) : A person is Hadhir as far as his hands can reach and on the spot he is standing, or sitting, or resting on but he is Nazir at ranges beyond his physical reach. Therefore it would be accurate to say person is Hadhir in a place but Nazir as far his vision reaches or he can hear. Consider radar as an example it is present in a place – suppose Manchester Airport - yet it can track planes which are hundreds of miles from its physical location – suppose – France, Germany, and Spain. Even though the radar may not be at the place where the plane is currently flying but its capability of tracking the plane miles away would make it a ‘witness’. Witness in the sense; the information acquired from it will be trusted and will be used to make judgments for air traffic. Just as a actual witnesses testimony would be relied upon to make a judgment in court. Point is that a witness does not need to, and is not Hadhir, in every place with body. Rather being in close proximity to the event, or being in a position from where one can see/hear the events unfold is sufficient to be witness. And within limited capacity all living and hearing/seeing creatures are Hadhir Nazir (i.e. witness). In context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) it means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) is Hadhir where his body/soul is Hadhir and Nazir/Sami as far as he can see and hear. In context of belief of Hadhir Nazir this translates to; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessing (i.e. seeing, and hearing) of good/bad deeds of all nations before his birth and witnessing of good/bad deeds of Muslim Ummah and Jinn/Mankind. For details please see following article; here. Conclusion: Linguistic meaning of Hadhir Nazir is present and observing. It is derivative of Shahid/Shaheed (i.e. witness) hence it would be inclusive of hearing. Hadhir Nazir have different meanings depending upon what it referrs to. It is not essential for a Hadhir Nazir (i.e. witness) to be Hadhir at every where with body. Rather presence at a location and observing the event unfold would be suffient to fullfill the criteria of a witness. Implication of which is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not need to be present physically/spiritually all over the earth rather he can witness the deeds being at a location. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Typically it is assumed that Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be Hadhir Nazir with jismani (i.e. bodily) sense. But reality is Ahlus Sunnah believe him to be Hadhir Nazir in number of ways. And this article will shed some light on the details. Hadhir Nazir And Its Categories: Hadhir Nazir is another way of saying witness. Every kamil (i.e. perfect) witness in essences and attributes is Hadhir (i.e. present), Nazir (i.e. observing) and hearing. There are four ways in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is believed to be Hadhir Nazir: i) Nooraniyyah, ii) Roohaniyyah, iii) and Jismaniyyah. Nooraniyyah and Roohaniyyah involve continously witnessing deeds before and after birth. Jismaniyyah is connected with witnessing of the deeds by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) around him and supernaturally witnessing deeds of all of his Ummat to come till the day of judgment. Hadhir Nazir Nooraniyyah: Nooraniyyah, for lack of better word, means LIGHT. Please note, every Noor is visible light. Angels are Noor but not visible light and they are a form of light which cannot be detected and will never be detected with instruments. Nooraniyyah is referring to Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyyah – the reality of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) – which according to scholars of Ahlus Sunnah and Hadith is; Noor of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was the first creation created by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It was divided into four parts one was kept and other three were used to create the remaining creation. And in this sense the living and the dead matter [dead from our perception of life but in reality it is also alive and worships Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala] are all connected with their source [the Noor from where they were seperated]. Ulamah explain just as a limb is connected with body and body/soul knows what the limb does in the similar sense Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is connected with the creation and he was/is aware of actions of Jinn and mankind. As well as all the happenings in the universe. Hadhir Nazir Jismaniyyah: Jismaniyyah referrs to body (i.e. jism) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and is related to his earthly life. There are two types of witnessing: i) Natural, ii) and supernatural. Natural witnessing is seeing with eyes hearing with ears of events which take place around the person. Supernatural, as evidenced by Ahadith, is seeing all the good/bad actions of his entire Muslim Ummah during in his life time. Hadhir Nazir Roohaniyyah: Roohaniyyah is related to Ruh (i.e. soul) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It has two components: i) Before birth, ii) and after death. First -: Soul of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) existed after its creation and it observed the good/bad actions of all nations before birth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while adressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about past events questions: Have you not seen? Did you not see? Ulamah have explained this is because soul of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has seen good/bad actions of nations before his birth. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) refferences so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can recall events so he can closely relate the verses to events which the verses referr to. Second -: It involves observing the deeds iia) of believing Ummah iib) and Ummah to which he was sent to guide – i.e. mankind. In the case of (iia) Rooh of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) without middle observes good/bad deeds and as evidenced by Ahadith angels also present to him good/bad deeds of his Ummah after his departure from earth. With regards to (iib) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directly observes their good/bad deeds [just like the first group] because he has been sent to mankind as a witness (i.e. Shahid/Shaheed) which nessceiates witnessing of good/bad actions to be a truthful witness. Conclusion: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is believed to be witness (i.e. Hadhir Nazir) over the actions of Jinn and mankind in three ways. Nooraniyyah is connected with being personally aware of deeds of mankind as one is aware of one’s limbs. Roohaniyyah is connected with witnessing of soul of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of events before and after his birth and death. And Jismaniyyah is related to earthly life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) where he ordinarily and supernaturally witnessed the good/bad deeds of his Ummah. Note the evidences for each is different and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills all three categories will be explained in light of relating evidences. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Aqeedah of Hadhir Nazir is a disputed subject amongst the various factions of Muslims. A group of Muslims believe it is fully in accordance with teaching of Quran and Sunnah. The disbeleiving faction holds to position that it is against teaching of Quran/Sunnah and to believe in Hadhir Nazir is Kufr and major Shirk. And their this judgment is extremism and it only invalidates their own Islam. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills the legal rulings regarding disbeliever of Hadhir Nazir from Islamic perspective will be presented along side its status in Islamic theology. Being Sent As A Witness And It’s Implications and It’s Ruling: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as Shahid (i.e. witness) in following verses: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] Fundamentally this verse means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was sent as a hearing and seeing type of witness during his earthly life. And following verse without interpretative modifiers (i.e. other verses of Quran and Ahadith) fundamentally means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was sent to people of his time as a hearing/seeing witness: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] In his earthly life’s context negating his hearing and seeing of his immediate surroundings would be Kufr. With interpretative modifiers these verses expand the hearing and seeing to Muslim Ummah and mankind. Fundamental requirement to be Muslim when these verses are quoted is to affirm hearing/seeing in limited sense. Status According To Islamic Scholarship: First and foremost it is important to point out that Hadhir Nazir related to Fadhail (i.e. merits) of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and it is established by Zanni evidences. It is principle of Muhaditheen to employ Daif (i.e. weak) Ahadith for Fadhail along side fair and authentic Ahadith. And this is not to say that Hadhir Nazir is established from Daif Ahadith. Rather to point out that in principle even Daif Ahadith can be used. As such it is not part of fundamental creed and it is not from essentials of Islam. The Ruling For One Who Disbelieves: Therefore rejection of Hadhir Nazir will not expel a disbeliever from Islam. But it is established soundly and it is deemed valid teaching/belief by Jamhoor (i.e. majority) of Ummah regarding which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Abu Dhār (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 Ummah on guidance." [Ref: M.I.Ahmad, Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, H20776] “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My Ummah will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] These two Ahadith instruct the Muslims to follow the majority. Therefore by virtue of majority holding to this belief of Hadhir Nazir it is further strenthened. And this majority is of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah (i.e. people of Prophetic Sunnah and of group). And rejection of it therefore will lead to misguidance and expulsion Jammah into heresy. Conclusion: Belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is hearing and seeing witness and had witnessed events (i.e. deeds) that had taken place before his birth. And continues to oberserve the deeds of Muslims and mankind is established from Zanni and Tafsiri evidences as such rejection of it is not Kufr and does not invalidate Islam of an individual who dispbelieves in it. But Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being sent as a witness means he was hearing and seeing the events taking place around him. Rejection of this results in natural meaning of being sent as Shahid and therefore it is Kufr and it would invalidate beliefe in Islam. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Introduction: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated in Quran; Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a Shahid/Shaheed (i.e. witness). One sent as a witness is sent to witness with eyes/ears. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent to mankind hence natural conclusion is that he witnesses deeds of entire mankind. Deobandis/Salafis believe he indeed is sent as a witness to mankind but does not see/hear the actions of mankind. In other words they believe he is witness but ascribe no quality to him which establish that he is witness. Its like believing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Rabb (i.e. Lord) without qualities of Rububiyah. Or believing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Khaliq (i.e. Creator) without believing He creates. Affirmation of word but without believing the natural meaning. Muslims believe in the word and its implications. And as result we believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) fullfils the criteria which he needs to be a witness. To put it simply he sees and hears the actions of those whom he was sent as a witness – i.e. mankind. Heretical Reasoning For Their Belief: I had stated in a discussion: “Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Shahid (i.e. witness) and a witness must posess two qualties; Hadhir (i.e. present phisically) as well as Nadhir (hearing, seeing). And without these qualities one can not be a truthful witness. Our belief is that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Hadhir in his heavenly resting place in Madinah ash'shareef but soul is able to move as soul of Musa (alayhis salam) was able to move from place to place while keeping touch with the body of Musa (alayhis salam) and Nadhir upon his Ummah. Ability of Hadhir Nadhir is a mojzaati qudrat which …” With regards to underlined a Deobandi brother with the name of Mustafvi wrote the following while discussing with me on topic of Hadhir Nazir: “It is true that your above mentioned two qualities have some weight but these two are not compulsory in all the cases. One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” [Ref: Mustafvi, Private Discussion, Publicised, Post 1.] Mustafvi brother in context of my evidences is attempting to argue that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not need to directly witness events as they happen rather he can/will bear witness upon being informed by truthful/reliable witnesses of his Ummah. This establishes hearing/seeing is not essential to be a witness rather receiving news of event is enough to bear witness. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills this position would be criticised within Shar’ri boundaries. Note arleady this quote was addressed in another response, here, and this response will focus another aspect. The Baseless Deobandi/Salafi Position: Neither Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and nor the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated in Quran or Sunnah that a witness is one who has been informed by another nor said witness can bear witness upon being informed by another. This principle of heretics is based on elevating their self to status of gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire?[1] Then would you be responsible for him?” [Ref: 25:43] And are worshiping their own whims and desires instead of submitting to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Making religion of Islam how they want it to be instead of making themselves into image of Islam. There is no evidence whatsoever which establishes or suggests - in Dunya or Aakhira - that if Zayd saw x y z happening and Zayd truthfully informs Amr of x y z then Amr would also become a witness of the event. Nor there is evidence which establishes or suggests - in Dunya or Aakhira - that Amr would be deemed as first hand witness due to receiving news from Zayd. Belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will qualify to be a witness upon being told by his Ummatis can only be valid if the mentioned rule can be established from Quran and Sunnah. Witnessing Of No-Witness And Its Worth: Take the following scenario into account: Zayd has been accused of murder. Amr and Bakr hear the news from Khalid that Zayd has murdered Akhtar. Amr and Bakr are truthful and upstanding members of community. Amr and Bakr testify in court Zayd has killed Akhtar. Note the two witnesses criteria has been met by witnessing of Amr and Bakr. In court of Shari’a will Zayd receive capital punishment or any punishment due to witnessing of Amr and Bakr? Well in light of following the head of Zayd would role like a football: “One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” A intelligent person even with basic understanding of Islamic judicial system will know; Zayd will not be charged or punished because of Amr and Bakr’s testimony unless Khalid bear witness and then takes an oath [to fulfill the criteria of two witnesses] that he saw Zayd committ the murder. Amr and Bakr’s testimony is nill and void in murder case. Same scenario but different dispute, with addition of Uthman: Khalid and Uthman both saw the murder taking place. Khalid wasn’t aware that Uthman witnessed the murder and saw Khalid at the crime scene. Khalid denies being at the crime scene in court. Uthman claims Khalid also witnessed the murder. In this case Amr and Bakr can truthfully testify that Khalid informed them of the murder. In other words Amr and Bakr would be coroborating the account of Uthman. Once truth of matter is established that Khalid was afraid of bearing witness but he was witness. Supportive evidence of Amr/Bakr will establish Khalid was also witness to murder then Zayd will receive punishment. But Amr’s and Bakr’s witnessing to murder on account of being informed by Khalid is nill and void. Their testimony will only become cause for Khalid to be summoned by court to give testimony but it will not serve basis for judgment of murder case. Apart from following Deobandi/Salafi rule being completely and absolutely against the established procedures of Islamic legal system: “One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” This rule opens door injustice: Truthful/Trustworthy members of community end up believing in town gossip [and without verifying it] report the incident to police and when incident is presented to Qadhi they testify Akhtar stole x y z. The result would be Akhtar getting his hand chopped off. Firstly in this judgment Islamic requirements of eye-witnesses werent met. Secondly being truthful/trustworthy is not sole requirement for witnessing rather the fundamental requirement is witnessing the events with eyes/ears. Islamic judicial systems first requirement is witnessing and then truthfulness trustworthiness would be considered. Thirdly the victim of crime has to exist and his complain has to be genuine. Mere testimony of truthfull and trustworthy bearded Arabic speaking Tasbih rolling Muslims is not enough against another believer/disbeliever. Prophets Will Testify Against Their Own Nations: Truthful Prophets will testify in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that they delivered the message given to them but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will ask them to produce witness. It is recorded in Hadith that Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) will testify in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that he delivered the message given to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to his nation. And his Ummah will negate this and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will ask Nuh (alayhis salam) to bring forth witness in his own defence: “Allah's Messenger said, "Noah will be brought (before Allah) on the Day of Resurrection, and will be asked: 'Did you convey the message of Allah?" He will reply: 'Yes, O Lord.' And then Noah's nation will be asked: 'Did he convey Allah's message to you?' They will reply: 'No warner came to us.' Then Noah will be asked: 'Who are your witnesses?' He will reply: 'Muhammad and his followers.' Thereupon you …” [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H448] The above Hadith only gives example of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) and his Ummah. In actuality Ummah f every Prophet will be questioned and every single one of them would deny reicieving the message from their Prophet and we the Muslims and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will testify they delivered the message:“So how (will it be) when We bring from every nation a witness and we bring you (O Muhammad) against these (people) as a witness?” [Ref: 4:41]“And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. And indeed, it is difficult except for those whom Allah has guided. And never would Allah have caused you to lose your faith. Indeed Allah is, to the people, Kind and Merciful.” [Ref: 2:143] Please note these truthful and trustworthy Prophets of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are testifying in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that they have delivered the message given to them by Him. If following rule was true then wouldn’t Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) accept the testimony of His trustworthy and truthful servants:“One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asking His truthful and trustworthy servants the Prophets to produce a witness in support of their claim is suffient evidence to refute the invented innovated principle. There are roughly hundered twenty-four thousand Prophets/Messengers and this amounts to roughly same numbers of reasons why this principle is wrong. Conclusion: Brother Mustafvi’s statement is completely without basis. There are no textual evidences which support bearing witness without seeing/hearing the event. Islamic legal system will not use the testimony of two truthful witnesses who haven’t seen the events to which they bear witness even if they claim they have been informed by two more first hand witnesses. And the greatest evidence against brother Mustafvi’s understanding is witnessing of Prophets against their own nations and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) demanding witness from them. If truthful/trustworthy person bearing witness was legitimate concept then who would be more truthful/trustworthy then the Prophets? But despite their truthful/trustworthiness Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not accept their testimony and will demand witnesses to coroborate his testimony. Alhasil this concept of brother Mustafvi is invalid and against established teaching of Islam. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] “Then Allah tells His Prophet that if Allah decrees that someone will be misguided and wretched, then no one can guide him except Allah, glory be to Him: “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.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 25:43]

Introduction: Deobandi brother with the name of Mustafvi made a statement in order to argue against Islamic belief of Hadhir Nazir. This article will focus on the statement and try to understand on which basis brother Mustafvi made the statement and how his statements could be interpreted in light of creed of Hadhir Nazir. Please note he might not have intended the details derived and beliefs attributed to him from his statement [in 1.0 and refuted in 1.1 to 1.2] because it is very unlikely he would be familiar with the topic of Hadhir Nazir comprehensively as a educated believer would be. But despite possibility of lack of knowledge his statement is being interpreted as if he was fully aware of all in’s and out’s this belief and implications of his statement. Objective is to comprehensively explore all possible angles of topic of Hadhir Nazir and his statements happens to be a mean to one such detail. The only material directly related to his statement and to him is from 0.1 to 0.2. 0.0 - My And Brother Mustafvi’s Statements: In my discussion with brother Mustafvi on topic of Hadhir Nazir I had written the following: “Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Shahid (i.e. witness) and a witness must posess two qualties; Hadhir (i.e. present phisically) as well as Nadhir (hearing, seeing). And without these qualities one can not be a truthful witness. Our belief is that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Hadhir in his heavenly resting place in Madinah ash'shareef but soul is able to move as soul of Musa (alayhis salam) was able to move from place to place while keeping touch with the body of Musa (alayhis salam) and Nadhir upon his Ummah. Ability of Hadhir Nadhir is a mojzaati qudrat which …” He responded with the following: “It is true that your above mentioned two qualities have some weight but these two are not compulsory in all the cases. One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” [Ref: Mustafvi, Private Discussion, Publicised, Post 1.] 0.1 - Chain Of Transmission And Its Major Components: To be a truthful and trustworthy person witnessing of event is essential. If Bakr is truthful and trustworthy and he witnesses x y z and informs Amr x y z has happened. Then for his truthfulness and trustworthiness to be established it is important that event has taken place and that Bakr witnessed it for himself. Even though the chain of transmission of Khabr (i.e. news/report) may not from eye-witness to eye-witness but it is reiable because Bakr has witnessed it and on account of his eye-witnessing it has passed from eye-witness to truthful to truthful. This is how chain of transmission in Hadith works. A authentic Hadith via many narrators it goes back to a companion who heard and saw Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) acted in such a fashion or utter the words of Hadith. Alhasil -: A truthfull and trustworthy individual witnesses a event and then transmits this information to a truthfull person. Then this report is transmitted continously from truthful to truthful. And this report will be trustworthy and truthfull, and is to be believed.’[1] Note this is the foundation on which brother Mustafvi made his statement. 0.2 - Error In Brother Mustafvi’s Statement: Brother Mustafvi’s statement is based on valid principle from principles of Hadith but his statement is incorrect because he inserted into it his error. Firstly the very basic error is that he does not mention witnessing by an eye-witness. One who originates the Khabr must be eye witness to the event he reports otherwise he is lieing or at least spreading rumours as actual events. Secondly one who hears a Khabr does not become witness to the event nor he qualifies to testify as an eye-witness, or as a non-eye-witness. Note which he claims having truthful Khabr qualifies the knower of news as a witness and can bear witness: “One can be a witness without being present physically and can give witness on the basis of his knowledge provided to him by some truthful and trustworthy.” There are thousands of Sahih (i.e. authentic) Ahadith and there are Mutawatir [is grade above, authentic] Ahadith but none claims to be witness on basis of them. Nor can claim to qualify as an eye-witness of event narrated in Hadith. Being informed by another and testifying on account of it is testimony of one’s own faith.[2] And its worth in court of law is no greater then it. 1.0 - Two Contexts His Statement Can Be Interpreted: There are two ways brother Mustafvi’s statement can be interpreted: i) From Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). ii) And from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to the present. Note brother Mustafvi’s statement was written in effort to refute Islamic belief of Hadhir Nazir. Therefore in the 1st case it implies, brother Mustafvi believes, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was informed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) what the nations did before he was sent as last/final Nabi and he will bear witness on account of this learnt knowledge . And in the 2nd case it means, brother Mustafvi believes, we the Ummah will educate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about what nations did after him and he will testify on account of what we tell him. In both cases Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) direct witnessing of the events has been removed and replaced with being informed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and by his own Ummah. In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directly witnessing events is being negated. 1.1 - The Error Of Brother Mustafvi’s Understanding: There is no evidence to suggest that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be bearing witness on account of being informed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or in other words will be giving testimony of his faith in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is Qiyas (i.e. analogy) based on Hadith which states Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will testify in defence of Prophets upon being informed by last/final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “… It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ And he will say: ‘Yes.’ Then his people will be called and it will be said: ‘Did he convey the message to you?’ They will say: ‘No.’ Then it will be said: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: ‘Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4284] Qiyas was/is not foundation of Islamic creed. Nor there is proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will testify on account of being informed by his own Ummah regarding events transpired after him. Again this is also based on Qiyas and both of these are against clear emphatic teachings of Quran. 1.2 - Islamic Verdict On 1st Scenario: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “So how (will it be) when We bring from every nation a witness and we bring you (O Muhammad) against these (people) as a witness?” [Ref: 4:41]“And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you. And We did ...” [Ref: 2:143] “Allah named you Muslims previous (scriptures) and in this (revelation) that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people.” [Ref: 22:73] The Ummah will bear witness in defence of Prophets. Note following Hadith explains what type of testimony they will give: “He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’” Then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will question the Ummah about how they know Prophets delivered the message to their nations and they will say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed them of it: “He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: ‘Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4284] This establishes Ummats testimony is of their Iman. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not question Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): Who informed you? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) ensured that Muslims know Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has not witnessed the events regarding which they have testified. For Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) this route is not taken and this indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had witnessed these events spiritually.[3] And proof of this is are those verses in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) within context of historical events says: “Have you not seen[4] how your Lord dealt with Aad.” [Ref: 89:6] “Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the companions/army of elephant.” [Ref: 105:1] “Have you not seen those elders of the children of Israel after the time of Moses …” [Ref: 2:246] And these verses are supported by Hadith a narrated in Musnad of Imam Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): “عرضات الأنبيا أممها و اتباعها من أممها” Which means: “Presented before me were [all] Prophets and their nations along side [their believing] followers.” This goes on to establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed the deeds of those before him and use of, ‘ألم تر’ , is referrence to seeing if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Alhasil the first belief of brother Mustafvi is refuted. Islamic Verdict On 2nd Scenario: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Indeed, We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner.” [Ref: 48:8] "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] And he is sent to mankind: "Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you as a Messenger to mankind, and Allah is Sufficient as a Witness." [Ref: 4:79] He is a Prophet sent to mankind as a witness like Musa (alayhis salam) was sent to Firawn: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent as a hearing and seeing witness to mankind like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) was sent to Fir’awn. Note one who is sent as a witness must witness over whom he was sent to witness and without his witnessing he is not witness. Yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is witness and sent as a witness. Hence his witnessing of deeds of mankind is established from ever since he was sent as last/final Prophet and Messenger. There are number of Ahadith which establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has witnessed everything: "Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these? [...]" [Ref: Tirmadhi, Vol5, H3246, Tafsir Surah Sad] "Narrated Hakim Bin Nafi, Saeed Bin Sinan, narrated Abu Zahriyat, Kathir Bin Murra Abu Shajara al-Hadhrami, Ibn Umar said: Abdullah bin Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) that Sayyiduna Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Indeed this entire world is in front of me so that I can observe everything in it. I can see everything in this world and everything that will take place till the Day of Qiyamah. I see the entire world as I see the palm of my hand". [Ref: Kitab al-Fitan, 1st Chapter, Hadith No. 2, by Hafidh Naeem Bin Hammad al-Marwazi] On account of this knowledge Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed all that was to transpire from beginning of creation till the entering of people in paradise/hell: “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B54, H414] Alhasil all this evidence goes on to refute the notion mentioned in second belief of brother Mustafvi. Conclusion: If brother Mustafvi’s statement is interpreted in light of science of Hadith even then it fails to meet the criteria because the originator of chain must be witness the event and then to narrate it to others. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) bore witness without witnessing himself then the rule of chain originator being first hand witness to event is broken. Yet verses of Quran and Hadith of Musnad Ahmad establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed Prophets and their nations and their beleiving followers and their actions. In light of this the chain originator is actual witness and he narrated and Ummah believed and bore witness. But whole objective of inventing ‘bearing witness without witnessing the events’ was to negate actual witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which has failed even if your philosophy of bearing witness without witnessing the event was believed. Even then it would be true for the Ummah and not for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Also if Ummah informing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about what transpired after him is considered in light of your rule then implication is Ummah has seen it and it will inform Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). This was invented with objective to refute actual witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Yet the Quranic verses and quoted Ahadith establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) himself witnesses and had witnessed the deeds of all happenings till the judgment day. If we disregarding the fact Ummat informing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is without scriptural support. Even then it would imply, Ummat witnessed the events, and they informed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), who also had witnessed the events himself. Therefore scenario would be similar to angels presenting deeds of people to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) despite the fact that He is already aware of them. Or similar to, angels presenting to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’salam) salutations of his Ummah despite the fact that good/bad deeds were already seen by him and are seen by him. Alhasil however the ball is rolled the witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) cannot be refuted. Hence it would be better to let go of innovative concept of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) testifying for what is established from textual evidences. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] A example: Truthful and trustworthy people have transferred Quran and authentic Ahadith and on basis of information in these we believe and testify; there is no Ma’bud (i.e. deserving of worship) except Allah and Prophet Muhammad is Messenger of Allah. Note this testimony is of ones own Iman (i.e. faith) and not of an out side event. Testimony of faith only the person can express none else because one is aware of his own belief. Hence person testifying as such is first hand witness. - [2] Like it is in the case of following Hadith: “He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: ‘Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4284] Note the Ummah will testify and the Ummah of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) will question the testimony of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Ummah would be questioned who informed you and they will say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Note He will not question Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) testifying against Ummah of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam). Ummah will bear testimony on basis of their own faith in truthfullness and trustworthiness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). - [3] Two logical conclusions can be made because of this: i) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be testifying on account of being informed like his Ummah. And there was no difference between testimony of Ummah and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hence there was no need to pursue it further. ii) Testimony of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was in result of actually witnessing the events therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not pursue to negate his actual witnessing. But Ummah had testified on account of being informed by RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) ensured it was pointed out. Resolution -: Firstly please note Qiyas is not foundation of creed and to believe in first contention is to put faith in Qiyas. This is why I only mentioned the second contention in my main article. Secondly there are numerous places in Quran where Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions events which had transpired long before birth of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In some cases Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while adressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) begins the narrative with: “Did you not see!” And this is to attest that he saw and he is being reminded. From this scholars of Ahlus Sunnah assume position; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessed the events prior to his brith and he is being asked to recall the events. Alhasil -: This goes on to establish the Islamic position taken in the article. - [4] The older translations of Quran in English and Urdu translated the words, ‘ألم تر’ , to denote seeing but new Wahhabi translation, Sahih International, has started the tradition of translating these verses: “Have you not considered …” The objective is to do away with the natural meaning of words due to the implications. They, insha Allah, will never succeed in distortion of Quran because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made it clear that he saw the Prophets and their nations before him.

Introduction: Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is witnessing the actions of mankind and had witnessed the actions of nations before him. This belief in nutshell is called Hadhir Nazir. When concept of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) bearing witness in defence of Prophets is coupled with belief; to be truthful witness hearing/seeing of events is a fundamental requirement then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessing the actions of nations before him is established. Anti-Islam element within Ummah disbelieves in this teaching of book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and to refute it present various arguments. Brother Mustafvi’s Point Three -: Ummat Hadhir Nazir: “Assalmo alilum! I am going to make a quite brief comment on your a bit long post. (i) In the Quran Prophet Muhammad and His Ummat has been called ‘Shahid’.[1/2] (ii) It has been made clear in Sahih Ahadith that in which way and sense these two (i.e. RasoolAllah and Ummat) have been called ‘Shahid’ - i.e this ummat will bear witness upon previous ummats on the basis of their knowledge provided to them by Prophet and than Prophet will testify [over] his Ummat.[3] (iii) If you keep on insisting that two abilities (i.e. hearing and seeing) are must for Shahid than you will have to accept that this whole ummat is Hadhir Nazir as it has been called Shahid.[4] (iv) now come to that verse where Prophet(saw) has been called mutlaqan Shahid i.e 33:45 for this i am going to paste what Imam razi said in his tafseer: …” [Ref: Mustafvi, Private Discussion, Hadhir Nazir Discussion, Publicised, Post 3.] Explanation Of Evidence Of Anti-Islam Element: It is recorded in book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: 2:143] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained the verse with example of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) in following Hadith: “Allah's Messenger said: “‘Noah will be brought (before Allah) on the Day of Resurrection, and will be asked: 'Did you convey the message of Allah?’ He will reply: 'Yes, O Lord.' And then Noah's nation will be asked: 'Did he convey Allah's message to you?' They will reply: 'No warner came to us.' Then Noah will be asked: 'Who are your witnesses?' He will reply: 'Muhammad and his followers.' Thereupon you will be brought and you will bear witness." Then the Prophet recited: 'And thus We have made of you a just and the best nation, that you might be witness over the nations, and the Apostle a witness over you.'” [Ref: Bukhari, B92, H448] On basis of Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) bearing witness in defence of Prophets would it be correct to conclude Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Hadhir Nazir? If not then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not witnessing the actions of nations before him. Ummah Will Bear Witness Upon Being Informed By Prophet: Hadith documented in Musnad of Imam Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) and Sunan of Ibn Majah indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was intrepreting the same verse 2:143 and stated: “… It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ And he will say: ‘Yes.’ Then his people will be called and it will be said: ‘Did he convey the message to you?’ They will say: ‘No.’ Then it will be said: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’ He will say: ‘Muhammad and his nation.’ So the nation of Muhammad will be called and it will be said: ‘Did this man convey the message?’ They will say: ‘Yes.’ He will say: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message, and we believed him.’ This is what Allah says: ‘Thus We have made you, a just (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger be a witness over you.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4284] Hadith reveals Ummah will be questioned on how do they know the Prophet delievered the Message and the just Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will respond that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has informed them that Prophets delivered the message. This establishes Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will negate being first hand witnesses to events. In light of this fact; belief of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnessing the actions of previous nations on account of following verses cannot be challenged because Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has negated Hadhir Nazir, witnessing the actions of previous nations by themselves: “And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” [Ref: 2:143] “Allah named you Muslims before and in this (revelation) that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people.” [Ref: 22:78] Instead the Ummah affirmed that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has informed them. And there is no evidence to suggest that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has informed his Ummah after being informed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or to suggest that he did not actually witness the events himself with permission and power granted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore natural conclusion would be; Hadhir Nazir ability is negated for Ummah, or in other words hearing/seeing type of witnessing is negated, for Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but not for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Conclusion: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) established in his book that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his Ummah is to be witness over nations before them. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained when the nations of earlier Prophets will deny receiving the Message given to their Prophets then the Prophets will say Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness in their defence. Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will proceed to bear witness in defence of Prophets. Upon being questioned how the knows that Prophets delivered the message to their respective nations the Ummah will respond that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has informed them. Establishing the Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was/is not; Hadhir Nazir, hearing/seeing type of witness. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] (i) In the Quran Prophet Muhammad and His Ummat has been called ‘Shahid’. “Ummah of Prophet (sallalahu aalayhi was'sallam) is called Shuhada (i.e. witnesses) and not Shahid (i.e. witness). They will be called to bear witness and not because they are witness to the events: "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; ..." [Ref: 2:143] In another verse the same is affirmed: "How then if We brought from each people a witness, and We brought you as a witness against these people!" [Ref: 4:41] And Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) has been sent as a actual seeing/hearing type of witness upon his Ummah and previous nations: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) will be called to give testimony as a Shaheed (i.e. a witness) because he is Shahid (i.e. Witness). Where as the Ummah will be called on day of judgment as witnesses to testify in defence of Prophets. To give statement of faith demonstrating their belief, in teaching of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and truthfulness of Prophets. And this witnessing would be in meaning of; affirming their faith as the Hawariyoon of Isa (alayhis salam) affirmed their faith in being Muslims: “And when I (Allah) revealed to Al-Hawariyyun (the disciples) [of 'Îsa (Jesus)] to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: "We believe. And bear witness that we are muslims." [Ref: 5:111] [Ref: Private Discussion, Hadhir Nazir Discussion, Publicised, Edited Post 4, by Muhammed Ali Razavi] - [2] There is not a single verse in Quran in which Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been called Ummat Shahidah (i.e. a witness nation). Or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: You’re witness nation. Or said: We have sent you as a witness nation. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said - note the referrence to future -: “… you’re a just nation so that you will be shuhada alan – naas (i.e. witnesses over mankind) and the Messenger will be Witness over you.” This indicates Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is currently not witness but will be in future. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained when he and his Ummah will be witness – i.e. day of judgment. On that day the Ummah will bear witness in defence of Prophets because they were informed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Prophets delivered the message given to them. The uniqueness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in being witness is that he was as a witness in earthly life: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] This gives meaning; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been witness since he was sent as a last and final Prophet and Messenger. - [3] (ii) It has been made clear in Sahih Ahadith that in which way and sense these two (i.e. RasoolAllah and Ummat) have been called ‘Shahid’ - i.e this ummat will bear witness upon previous ummats on the basis of their knowledge provided to them by Prophet and than Prophet will testify [over] his Ummat. (ii) First of all Ummah RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) no where as been called Shahid. Can you quote me a reference for your claim, thank you. Secondly it has been established with Sahih Ahadith that Prophet's Ummat will bear witness in defence of Prophets because Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) himself has also informed them. Therefore we the Ahlus Sunnah have no objection to accepting that Ummah will bear witness on being told by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). But we do object to your Qiyas assumption: ‘Since Ummah of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) will bear witness upon being told by Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) therefore it must be that Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) will bear witness upon being told by truthful, trusted Muslims from his Ummah.’ Please quote me a single Sahih, definitive meaning Hadith, or verse of Quran which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness because he will be told by truthful, trusted Muslims about what has happened after him. You believe in qiyaas instead of what Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) revealed: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] We know on what basis the Ummah will bear witness – i.e. being told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Prophets delivered the deens given to them. My question is on what basis will Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) bear witness against the previous nations? I make a educated guess and say your answers could be: (i)“On the basis of Quran in which Allah told stated that Prophets delivered their deen to their nations.” (ii)“Truthful, trusted Ummah of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) will bear witness and on this basis Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) will bear witness.” Now if you say on the first one then my question which I have already asked: Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) used the word Shahid in following verse: “O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Shahid, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] If Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) did not mean type of Shahid who fullfils the conditions of Shahid then why did Allah use such a word? If the apparent meaning of hearing/seeing type of Shahid/Witness is rejected then the word serves no purpose whatsoever. And if your choice is second then this is the paradox of witnessing because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told the Ummat that Prophets delivered their messages to their nations. And now in hereafter, on the day of judgement, the one who informed his Ummah, will be told by the truthful and trusted Muslims, that Prophets delivered to their nations the message given to them.What a irrational, illogical, and irreligious innovation this concept of yours is. Correct interpretation of Hadith is that Ummah will say they were told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will then ask Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he will affirm that he has told his Ummah that Prophets passed the Deen given to them by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to their nations. And Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) will not ask Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): Who told you prophets delivered the Deen given to them? Because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated He has sent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as a seeing/hearingwitness upon his Ummah and previous Ummahs. [Ref: Private Discussion, Hadhir Nazir Discussion, Publicised, Edited Post 4, by Muhammed Ali Razavi,] - [4] (iii) If you keep on insisting that two abilities (i.e. hearing and seeing) are must for Shahid than you will have to accept that this whole ummat is Hadhir Nazir as it has been called Shahid. (iii) I am not insisting on anything other then the established facts of Quran. Where as you my brother are arguing purely based on speculative knowledge and assumptions. And neither of these two are source of Deen. You have assumed; Ummat is Shahid because they will be witnesses in defence of Prophets. You have assumed just because Ummat has been told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Prophets delivered the Deen given to them it nesseciates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be bearing witness based on information given to him someone truthful and trusted. Yet there is no proof either of these. Ummat is indeed Hadhir Nazir. In fact entire mankind and Jinkind is Hadhir Nazir in their limited attributes and restricted evoriments but not Hadhir Nazir in the sense that every individual of Ummat is hearing/seeing every action of Jinn and Mankind. This miralous ability is only granted to Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) because he was sent as a Shahid mutlaq: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] [Ref: Private Discussion, Hadhir Nazir Discussion, Publicised, Edited Post 4, by Muhammed Ali Razavi,]

Introduction: Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was sent as a hearing/seeign type of Shahid/Shaheed (i.e. witness). We also believe he was sent to entire Jinn and mankind as a Nabi and Shahid/Shaheed over them. In connection with these beliefs we also have belief that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness to actions of Jinn/mankind on judgment day. And to be a true Shahid/Witness one must have seen/heard the events regarding which he/she will be called to bear witness. Therefore Prophet (sallallahua alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnesses all actions of Jinn and mankind. Anti-Islam Element Disbelieve In Islamic Teaching: Anti-Islam elements rejects this Islamic teaching and argues stating: It is not fundamental requirement to be an actual hearing/seeing type witness to be true Shahid and Shaheed. Instead a truthful person - who has witnessed the event - can inform another and the informed can bear witness on account of that truthful person. The basis for their this argument is; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness after his Ummah in defence of Prophets therefore he will be [indirectly] informed by truthful Muslims and he will bear witness on account of their testimony. Please note this evidence of anti-Islam element was discussed in detail, here, in sections 3.1 to 3.4, where the invalidity of principle was established along with correct understanding of Hadith. And to their invented principle they present many evidences from Quran/Ahadith and witnessing of Khuzaimah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) of part of their supporting evidences. The Ahadith In Which Khuzaimah Bore Witness: “It was narrated from 'Umarah bin Khuzaimah that his paternal uncle, who was one of the companions of the Prophet told him that:the Prophet bought a horse from a Bedouin and asked him to follow him, so that he could pay him for the horse. The Prophet hastened but the Bedouin was slow. Men started to talk to the Bedouin and make offers for the horse, and they did not realize that the Prophet had bought it, until some of them offered more than the Prophet had bought it for. Then the Bedouin called out to the Prophet and said; "Are you going to buy this horse or shall I sell it?" The Prophet stood up when he heard him calling and said: "Have I not bought it from you?" He said: 'No, by Allah, I have not sold it to you and the Prophet said "I bought it from you." The people started to gather around the Prophet and the Bedouion as they were talking, and the Bedouin started to say: "Bring a witness who will testify that you bought it." Khuzaimah bin Thabit said: "I bear witness that you bought it." The Prophet turned to Khunzimah and said: "Why are you bearing witness?" He said: "Because I know that you are truthful O Messenger of Allah." Prophet made the testimony of Khuzaimah equivalent to the testimony of two men.” [Ref: Nisai, Book 44, Hadith 4651] “Narrated Uncle of Umarah ibn Khuzaymah: The Prophet bought a horse from a Bedouin. The Prophet took him with him to pay him the price of his horse. The Messenger of Allah walked quickly and the Bedouin walked slowly. The people stopped the Bedouin and began to bargain with him for the horse as and they did not know that the Prophet had bought it. The Bedouin called the Messenger of Allah saying: If you want this horse, (then buy it), otherwise I shall sell it. The Prophet stopped when he heard the call of the Bedouin, and said: Have I not bought it from you? The Bedouin said: I swear by Allah, I have not sold it to you. The Prophet said: Yes, I have bought it from you. The Bedouin began to say: Bring a witness. Khuzaymah ibn Thabit then said: I bear witness that you have bought it. The Prophet turned to Khuzaymah and said: On what (grounds) do you bear witness? He said: By considering you trustworthy, Messenger of Allah! The Prophet made the witness of Khuzaymah equivalent to the witness of two people.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B24, H3600] Understanding Ibn Khuzayma’s Witnessing: When Bedouin said who will bear witness for you that you purchased this horse then Ibn Khuzaymah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: “I bear witness that you have bought it.” Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was aware Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not witness the transaction and therefore he enquired from companion: “Why are you bearing witness?”, “On what (grounds) do you bear witness?” In response companion said: (-قَالَ بِتَصْدِيقِكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏) Note the quoted online translations do not provide literal translation but give a interpretative translation – which are correct on their own merit. Translation closer to wording would be: “He said: By affirming/attesting to what you said.” Or alternatively: “He said: By believing what you said.” Which ever translation (i.e. mine or quoted in earlier section) you ascribe to Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is merely attesting to what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said. In other words Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was bearing witness because he heard Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say that he purchased the horse from Bedouin: “Then the Bedouin called out to the Prophet and said; "Are you going to buy this horse or shall I sell it?" The Prophet stood up when he heard him calling and said: "Have I not bought it from you?" He said: 'No, by Allah, I have not sold it to you. And the Prophet said "I bought it from you.” This establishes Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was not bearing witness as a hearing/seeing type of witness but due to his belief in truthfulness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Hadith goes on to state Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated from that moment onwards Ibn Khuzayma’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) witnessing is equal to witnessing of two men: “The Prophet made the witness of Khuzaymah equivalent to the witness of two people.” This unique station was granted to Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) because he demonstrated fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and demonstrated belief in truthfulness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “O you who believe! Have fear of Allah, and believe in His Messenger, He will give you a double portion of His mercy, and He will give you a light by which you shall walk.” [Ref: 57:28] Such witnessing is of belief and cannot be used and was not used by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to support his own position, here. The Incident Mentioned In Hadith Is Not Evidence For Principle: You believe: ‘Truthful person - who has witnessed the event - can inform another and the informed can bear witness on account of that truthful person.’ You have stopped short of stating if such witnessing would be sufficient to judge the case in favour of party or not. The real issue is; if this type of testimony in a dispute would be valid grounds to judge the case in favour of a disputing party. Due to anti-Islam elements belief, against Hadhir Nazir, it seems one who presents this Hadith in principle believes such witnessing does resolve the dispute in favour of a party. Question begs to be asked on the ground: When it is evident a person is bearing witness to an event which he/she has not witnessed with eyes/ears. And is only doing so due to being informed by a truthful person then will his witnessing in support of a party settle the dispute in favour that party? Absolutely not! This has never happened in history of Islam. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) accepted the witnessing of Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and judged the issue in his own favour then this incident could only have been valid evidence against the notion that in disputes witnessing required is hearing/seeing type. And there absolutely no evidence to suggest that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used witnessing of Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to decide the dispute in his own favour. Conclusion: Ibn Khuzaima (radiallah ta’ala anh) bore witness in defence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because of his firm belief and conviction in truthfulness of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had accepted the witnessing of Ibn Khuzayma (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and judged the dispute in his own favour. Then it could have been a valid argument against Islamic notion; witnesses in all a criminal acts has to be hearing/seeing type. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness to actions of his own Ummah and in defence of Prophets, against their nations, saying the Prophets delivered the message of Islam to their nations. This type of testimony requires hearing/seeing type of witnessing and one who bear witness without witnessing the events is a false witness and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not give false testimony. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Muslims believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to Jinn and mankind as a hearing/seeing type of Witness. The opponents who disbelieve use various indirect evidences of Quran/Hadith and present a reasoned argument in attempt to discredit this Islamic teaching. They reason on account of verses of Quran, or this Hadith; if he was Hadhir Nazir then x, y and z took place and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did nothing to reveal he knows what will happen or prevent it from happening. Therefore he was not Hadhir Nazir, or in other words, he was not sent to Jinn/mankind as a hearing/seeing type of witness. A Demonstration Of One Such Argument: The heretic element states, Hafsa (radiallah ta’ala anha) and Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) schemed to prevent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) spending more time with his wife Zaynab (radiallah ta’ala anha) by saying the can smell strong odour of Honey/Mimosa from him. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was Hadhir Nazir then he would have witnessed that his wives had made this plan. There are many such arguments invented to refute witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Potential Arguments Against Hadhir Nazir Number In Thousands: There are potentially thousands of such arguments which can be generated against Islamic creed of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being sent to Jinn and mankind as a hearing/seeing type of witness. A Muslim can devote life time arguing and counter-arguing on this point alone if correct methodology isn’t taught. And none should be involved so deeply into the topic where every objection, every argument, every point has to be refuted of opponents of Islam, so they may believe. Instead correct Islamic teaching should be taught followed by principle to follow in the next section. Building Case For Principle -: Plurals, We, Us, Our: We Muslims believe in Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), here, and believe He is Wahid (i.e. the One) as indicated by the following verse: “Say: He is Allah, the One.” [Ref: 112:1] Despite this there are many verses of Quran where plurals, We, Our, and Us are used by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for Himself: “Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them.” [Ref: 2:3] “And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. “ [Ref: 2:23] “And they wronged Us not - but they were wronging themselves.” [Ref: 2:57] On basis of these evidences someone argues: If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was the Only One God then plurals would not have been used. Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is One supreme God and all other gods indicated by We, Our, Us are His subordinates. Is this valid argument against monotheism of Islam? And will you reject the established teaching of Islam and believe his distortion? No! Building Case For Principle -: Knower Of Unseen And Apparent: We Muslims believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is knower of Ghayb and Shahadah and this is established by many verses. Here just one is being quoted: “Say, "O Allah, Creator of the heavens and the earth, knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between your servants concerning that over which they used to differ." [Ref: 32:6] A ‘true Muwahid’ of Salafism argues, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not aware of Ghayb (i.e. hidden/unseen) and Shahadah (i.e. apparent/witnessed). He basis his logic on the following verse:“’And what is that in your right hand, O Moses?’ He said, ‘It is my staff; I lean upon it, and I bring down leaves for my sheep and I have therein other uses.’" [Ref: 20:17/18] And reasons He enquired what was in hand of Musa (alayhis salam). And Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) too believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) didn’t know what was in his hand and what function it played in his life so he educated Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had known He would not have enquired. And if Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knew he would not have informed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and educated Him about its functions. And then he goes on to reinterpret the verse, knower of unseen and the apparent, in context of revelation and in context of historical event which resulted in revleation of verse, and says this verse does not mean that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is knows all past present future. Will your belief based on the literal, apparent, clear emphatic meaning of verse be refuted: “Say, "O Allah, Creator of the heavens and the earth, knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between your servants concerning that over which they used to differ." And will you believe in his Taweel? No! Because the explicit cannot be negated by reasoned argument derived from implicit evidence. Building Case For Principle -: Angel Informs About Stages Of Embrio: Muslim believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is fully aware of all that is happenings which is established from following evidence. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “And with Him are the keys of the Ghayb (i.e. hidden, unseen); none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And ...” [Ref: 6:59] They keys of Ghayb are five mentioned in the following verse and one is knowledge of what is in the womb: “Indeed, (i) Allah has knowledge of the Hour (ii) and sends down the rain (iii) and knows what is in the wombs. (iv) And no soul perceives what it will earn tomorrow, (v) and no soul perceives in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” [Ref: 31:34] All that in the whomb is Ghayb therefore according to following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Ghayb of womb: “Say, "O Allah, Creator of the heavens and the earth, knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between your servants concerning that over which they used to differ." [Ref: 32:6] A person believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows what is in the womb because the angel appointed by Him on it informs Him. He quotes the following Hadith as proof of his belief: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "At every womb Allah appoints an angel who says, 'O Lord! A drop of semen, O Lord! A clot, O Lord! A little lump of flesh.’ Then if Allah wishes (to complete) its creation, the angel asks, (O Lord!) Will it be a male or female, a wretched or a blessed, and how much will his provision be? And what will his age be?' So all that is written while the child is still in the mother's womb." [Ref: Bukhari, B6, H315] And then he reasons, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was able to hear/see what is in the womb the angel would not inform Him of each stage. Therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only knows what is in the womb because the apointed angel informs of it. Based on his belief, Hadith, and the reasoning question needs to be asked: Is his belief authentically supported by evidence of Quran and Hadith? And will you believe in his Taweel? No! Building Case For Principle -: Witnessing Of Deeds By Allah: Suppose true Salafi Muwahid believes, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only knows Ghayb when he is informed by events of Ghayb by angels. He quotes the following Ahadith: “… Why do you fast on Monday and Thursday, while you are an old man? He said: The Prophet of Allah used to fast on Monday and Thursday. When he was asked about it, he said: The works of the servants (of Allah) are presented (to Allah) on Monday and Thursday.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B13, H2430] “Those are two days in which deeds are shown to the Lord of the worlds, and I like my deeds to be shown (to Him) when I am fasting." [Ref: Nisa’i, B22, H2360] He interprets all verses of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowing Ghayb and being Alim Ul Ghayb (i.e. Knower of Ghayb) in light of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being informed by angels. He argues if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Ghayb by Himself then why would the angels present to Him the record of deeds! Only reasonable and justified understanding is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Himself and directly does not know what Jinn and mankind are engaged in therefore angels present to Him the record of deeds. And will you believe in his Taweel when it is evident from following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) sees our actions: “Say, "Make no excuse - never will we believe you. Allah has already informed us of your news. And Allah will observe your deeds and His Messenger; then you will be taken back to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do." [Ref: 9:94] One word answer: No! Principle Cause Of Rejection Of Reasoned Arguments: Amongst the Islamic Scholars universally accepted principle is: Any belief or practice emphatically indicated by Quran or Hadith cannot be invalidated/refuted by a reasoned argument derived from indirect evidence. Always the clear text of Quran or Hadith will supercede any belief/practice supported by implied argument. Prophet Of Allah Sent As A Shahid/Shaeed: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: "We have truly sent thee as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings, and as warner." [Ref: 48:8] "O Prophet! Truly We have sent thee as a witness, a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner." [Ref: 33:45] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a hearing/seeing type of witness – like of which was sent to Pharaoh: “We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent to mankind: “… concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): 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] Therefore he was sent as a witness upon mankind – of his time and to come. In another verse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be brought as a witness against nations that preceded him: “How then (will the sinners fare on judgment day) when We shall bring forward witnesses from within every community, and bring thee as witness (i.e. Shaheed) against them?” [Ref: 4:41] Indicating he was witnessed the deeds of nations before him. Based On Indirect Evidence Presenting Reasoned Arguments: Unfortunately the anti-Islam element employs reasoned arguments to challenge and refute the Islamic belief of; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being sent to mankind as a hearing/seeing type of Shahid (i.e. Hadhir Nazir). It should be impressed upon them: Explicitly stated belief/practice cannot be invalidated/refuted by reasoned argument based on implicit evidence. Only way the explicitly stated belief/practice can be invalidated/refuted is if same belief/practice is abrogated with verse of Quran or a Hadith. And if you claim belief; Prophet (sallallahua layhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being sent to Jinn/mankind as a hearing/seeing type of Shahid was abrogated then burden of proof is upon the claimant to establish his claim with backing of Quran/Hadith and scholarly evidences. Conclusion: Reasoned arguments can be presented to undermine the very foundation of Islamic belief. Such arguments should not be utilised and cannot be taken seriously when they contradict explicitly stated teachings of Islam. At times a convincing explanation can be given to refute the implied argument but when such explanation cannot be forwarded due to lack of textual evidences even then there are no proper grounds to reject a Islamic belief established from explicit text of Quran/Hadith. Some arguments presented against witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) may fall into this category but belief of Hadhir Nazir should be held with confidence because a reasoned argument derived from implicit evidence cannot refute emphatic text of Quran/Hadith. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Two principles were derived in an attempt to explain what would be linguistic and what would be legal innovation in an article responding to argument; Ibn Umars (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made statements, Salat ad-Duha is excellent/fine innovation, in linguistic sense, here. And it was argued that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not believe Salat ad-Duha was Prophetic Sunnah hence he made the statements in legal (i.e. Shar’ri sense). Later after careful consideration it was realised these statement, Salat ad-Duha is fine/excellent innovation, was made in context of Salat ad-Duha of congregation. And this prompted me to rectify my understanding, here. My opponent in the light of lattest readjustment has responded to me in the hope of refuting Islamic position – Islam has made provisions via which good innovations can be made part of Islam. An Email Arguing Against Islamic Position: In your lattest post you have acknowledged statements of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) regarding Salat ad-Duha are in context of congregation, in Masjid other than Haram/Quba, and a day on another than Saturday. This means you take the Ahadith in which Salat ad-Duha has been stated to be good/fine innovation and dear innovation to be referring to performing of Salat ad-Duha in congregation, in Masjid other than Haram/Quba, and a day on another than Saturday. And this implies you believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Salat ad-Duha in congregation and Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was unaware of this. Your admission changes the dimensions of the discussion because it is stated in Hadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Salat ad-Duha in congregation: “Bilal replied in the affirmative. I said, 'Where)?' He replied: 'Between these two pillars and then he came out and offered a two rak`at prayer in front of the Ka`ba.' "Abu `Abdullah said: Abu Huraira said, "The Prophet advised me to offer two rak`at of Duha prayer. " Itban (bin Malik) said, "Allah's Messenger and Abu Bakr, came to me after sunrise and we aligned behind the Prophet and offered two rak`at."[1] [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H268] And your own principle states: “Knowing y is Quranic/Prophetic teaching but despite this saying y is excellent/fine innovation. In this context, the y practice which is being called innovation is in Lughvi (i.e. linguistic) sense.” This establishes that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed Salat ad-Duha in congregation to be linguistic innovation. All I demand is, you to establish that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was unaware of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performing Salat ad-Duha in Masjid, in congregation, and in public. If this is established by you my argument [against Islam allowing good innovations] stands refuted and if you fail your argument [of Islam permitting good/fine innovations] stands refuted. Assumption – He Was Aware Of ad-Duha In Congregation Is Prophetic Sunnah: It is heart warming to see you employ my own principle to refute Islamic arguments and this points you have granted the principle a degree of credibility. The problematic aspect is that you have assumed Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware of Salat ad-Duha performed in congregation is Prophetic Sunnah and despite having this knowledge he went on to Salat ad-Duha in congregation is excellent/fine innovation.You have claimed my principle substantiates your position; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made the statement Salat ad-Duha in congregation being linguistic innovation. For your argument to be valid you must establish Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware of Salat ad-Duha in congregation being prophetic Sunnah. Merely establishing it is Prophetic Sunnah cannot proof of, and is not proof, Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) being aware of Salat ad-Duha in congregation being Prophetic Sunnah. Ibn Umar Wasn’t Aware Of It Being Prophetic Sunnah: The notion that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware of Salat ad-Duha in congregation being Prophetic Sunnah is senseless. The evidence establishes; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not perform Salat ad-Duha which he termed innovation: “Narrated Muwarriq: I asked Ibn `Umar: "Do you offer the Duha prayer ?" He replied in the negative. I further asked …" [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H27] And he believed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his first two Khulafah did not perform it: “. I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H27] Naturally Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) would and will have no reason to object to or to not to perform Salat ad-Duha in congregation if he believed it was Prophetic Sunnah. And if he believed it was Prophetic Sunnah why would he say it was not performed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)! And why would he himself not perform it if he believed it was Prophetic Sunnah? Considering The Impossible – He Was Aware Of It Being Sunnah: Here we suppose he was aware that Salat ad-Duha in congregation was Prophetic Sunnah. Will this establish his statements about Salat ad-Duha being excellent/fine innovation were made in linguistic sense? One word answer: No! Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not performing and his first two Khulafah not performing Salat ad-Duha would go on to force conclusion that the scholarly opinion about Ibn Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) statements (i.e. Salat ad-Duha is excellent/fine innovation are with regards to Salat ad-Duha of congregation) is incorrect. The reason being for this is; otherwise if the Ahadith are understood in context of Salat ad-Duha of congregation than Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is made to say a Prophetic Sunnah was not performed by two Khulafa and himself, and by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), which would be complete non-sense. And this contradictory non-sense naturally would force the scholarship to reconcile the difficulty by forming another opinion which would lead to conclusion that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was reffering to another aspect of Salat ad-Duha as excellent/fine innovation – not Salat ad-Duha of congregation. Alhasil there is no way out of Islamic position. Only slight modification - such as Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala ahu) deemed xyz aspect of Salat ad-Duha to be fine/excellent innovation [and believed Salat ad ad-Duha of congregation to be Sunnah] would result in refutation of your position. Hence it would be in your interest to conform to following the majority aspect of Prophetic teaching because there is no alternative way out of Islamic position – i.e. Islam allows good innovations to be made part of it. Islamic Scholarship Said Ahadith Are About Ad-Duha Of Congregation: You have stated for me to refute your position all needs to be established is that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was unaware of Salat ad-Duha in congregation being Prophetic Sunnah. Note Islamic scholarship has stated that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made the following statements about Salat ad-Duha performed in congregation [with two other reasons]: “Narrated Muwarriq: I asked Ibn `Umar: "Do you offer the Duha prayer [in congregation]?" He replied in the negative. I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it [in congregation]?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it [in congregation]?" He replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did the Prophet use to pray it [in congregation]?" Ibn `Umar replied, "I don't think he did." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H27]“Narrated Mujahid: Urwa bin Az-Zubair and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer [in congregation]. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it [in congregation] was an innovation.” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] "It is an innovation [in congregation] and what a fine innovation it is [in congregation]!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, 3] "At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer [in congregation]." [Ref: Musannaf Abd Razzaq, Vol3, Pages 78/79] If understanding of Islamic scholarship is correct and your position; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware of Salat ad-Duha in congregation being Prophetic Sunnah than there is contradiction between what you assert and what is established from these Ahadith. And based on the Prophetic teaching of following Jamhoor (i.e. majority), and Sawad al Azam (i.e. group of great majority) these Ahadith are proofs as requested and they refute your position. If He Was Unaware Of It Being Prophetic Sunnah: He is reported to have stated; he does not perform Salat ad-Duha, nor did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), nor did Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and not his father – Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha. And if he made this statement about Salat ad-Duha in congregation than why would he consider it Prophetic Sunnah? Do you believe Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) will state a Prophetic Sunnah was not acted on by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when he is all too well informed that it is indeed a Prophetic Sunnah? He is a Sahabi and not a Wahhabi that he will lie or distort his religion. He is from the best of Ummah and by Ijmah of Jammah of Muslims a righteous Muslim and he is above such deception. Therefore only logical conclusion can be that he genuinely did not believe Salat ad-Duha of congregation as Prophetic Sunnah. He Learnt It Was Sunnah Latter In Life: You may attempt to argue; he deemed it Salat ad-Duha of congregation as fine/excellent innovation at one stage but later learnt it was Prophetic Sunnah. Even though the assertion that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) during later period of life found out Salat ad-Duha of congregation is Prophetic Sunnah, is unestablished but I feel compelled to address it. Even if this was true you cannot interpret his earlier period position with latter awareness. Suppose a child at the age of three believed Santa Claus was real but later in his teenage years realised it wasn’t the case. Would it be correct to reinterpret his three years of age’s understanding in light of when he was fifteen? Point being made is that if Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed in his latter life, it was Prophetic Sunnah, even then his early lifes statements cannot be reinterpreted to conform to his latter lifes understanding. Rather those statements should be and would be understood in context of his knowledge/belief when he made the statements. In other words Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) statement, Salat ad-Duha is excellent/fine innovation, will be interpreted in his early lifes understanding when he made them. And if he was unaware of them being Prophetic Sunnah than as per the principle his statement was made in Shar’ri sense. Instructs Earlier Statements To Be Interpreted In Light Of Latter: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was unaware and then learnt Salat ad-Duha of congregation was Prophetic Sunnah latter in his life. And he changed his position and he then instructs everyone: Interpret my earlier statements in such a way that they conform to my latter position. This is hypothetical scenario. Will this mean Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) does not believe in Islam permitting good innovations, or Islam allowing innovation to be introduced into it? Ofcourse not because he has retracted from his erroneous position regarding Salat ad-Duha and has not rejected, disowned the basis (i.e. Islam has created room to allow good innovations to be made part of) on which he made the judgment regarding Salat ad-Duha in congregation being good innovation. Interpreting The Statements In light Of Earlier And Latter Position: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said regarding Salat ad-Duha of congregation that it is fine/excellent innovation: “Ibn Ulayyah narrated to us, Jarir narrated, al-Hakim bin A'raj narrated; I asked Muhammad about Salat ad-Duha, while he was sitting near the house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He said: It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, 3] And out of all the innovations which originated Salat ad-Duha was most beloved to him: "At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer [of Salat ad-Duha in congregation]." [Ref: Musannaf Abd Razzaq, Vol3, Pages 78/79] If his statements are interpreted in light of latter life and his instruction, which I hypothised, then his statements would be in linguistic sense in light of my principle: “Knowing y is Quranic/Prophetic teaching but despite this saying y is excellent/fine innovation. In this context, the y practice which is being called innovation is in Lughvi (i.e. linguistic) sense.” And if his statements are interpreted in light of ealier life during which he believed Salat ad-Duha was not Prophetic Sunnah then it was Shar’ri judgment and this would be in accordance with my other principle: “Believing y is not Prophetic Sunnah and then termining it a good innovation is legal ruling [or in other words, Shar’ri judgment] about an innovation.” And fact is that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) changing his position would not refute the Islamic understanding because it merely establishes he rectified his erroneous which he had about Salat ad-Duha. In other words he still held to the notion Islam allows good innovations to be incorporated into it. And even if he had disavowed the notion that Islam allows good innovation he cannot overrule the Prophetic teaching in this regard:“He who introduces a good Sunnah in Islam, there is a reward for him for this and reward of that also who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards …” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Conclusion: It is not logical to assume, Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was aware Salat ad-Duha is Prophetic Sunnah, when there is no evidence to establish it and the only ‘evidence’ on which is is assumed establishes nothing other than; it is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). If Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had changed his opinion later in his life regarding Salat ad-Duha of congregation not being innovation even then his earlier judgment would be based on Islamic understanding; Islam allows and has introduced provisions to incorporate good innovations into it. And there was/is no evidence that he disavowed this teaching of Islam. And if the, impossible, strikes than the Prophetic principle telling of reward for introducing good Sunnah in Islam is suffient proof against him. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnote: - [1] “Narrated Mujahid: Somebody came to the house of Ibn Umar and told him that Allah's Messenger had entered the Ka`ba. Ibn Umar said, "I went in front of the Ka`ba and found that Allah's Messenger had come out of the Ka`ba and I saw Bilal standing by the side of the gate of the Ka`ba. I said: 'O Bilal! Has Allah's Apostle prayed inside the Ka`ba?' Bilal replied in the affirmative. I said: 'Where?' He replied: 'Between these two pillars and then he came out and offered a two rak`at prayer in front of the Ka`ba.' "Abu Abdullah said: Abu Huraira said: "The Prophet advised me to offer two rak`at of Duha prayer." Itban (bin Malik) said: "Allah's Messenger and Abu Bakr came to me after sunrise and we aligned behind the Prophet and offered two rak`at." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H268]

Introduction: Muslims believe, a witness is he/she who has seen/heard the events unfold in their presence. And it is due to this we believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness on day of judgment because he would have heard/seen the events regarding which he will be called to witness. Contrary to belief of Muslims some believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness without ever having seen/heard the events. And they believe to be a truthfull witness it is not fundamentally important that a person hears/sees events. Instead one can bear witness on account of being informed by truthfull person/people. They present various evidences to justify their un-Islamic notion in order to refute Islamic belief of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being sent as a Shahid, or hearing/seeing type of witness. Please refer to the following article, it exposes the methodological error for using such evidence, here. 0.0 - Evidence Employed Anti-Islam Eliment: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever performs Wudu' and does it well, then says: " أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ" eight gates of Paradise will be opened for him, and he may enter through whichever one he wishes.'" [Ref: Nisai, B1, H148] This Hadith indicates merit of saying after Wudhu:أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ . In light of this Hadith there are Muslims who say, I bear witness none is worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. In our call to prayer (i.e. Azhan) the words narrated are – repetition ommitted -: “Allah is the Greatest! (…) I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah. (…) I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger Allah. (…) Come to the Prayer. (…) Come to the prosperity. (…) Allah is the Most Great. (…) None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B3, H709] The Mu’azzin (i.e. caller), and Muslims generally say: I bear witness none is worthy of worship except Allah (i.e. أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا ٱلله). And also testify saying: I bear witness Muhammad is Messenger of Allah (i.e. أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱلله). 0.1 - Anti-Islamic Reasoning Against Station Of Shahid/Shaheed: The above evidence establishes: To be a truthful witness it is not fundamental requirement to be a first hand witness. A truthful person, bearing witness to a truth, can bear witness to the truth without having seen/heard the events to which he bears witness, despite this his witnessing will considered truthful and is to be accepted. Therefore your belief of Hadhir Nazir is refuted because it is based on principle; to be a truthful witness one must hear/see the events regarding which he will testify. 1.0 – Believing In What Allah And What Prophet Taught: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the Muslims to believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in following verse: "Believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet." [Ref:7:158] "We sent you as a witness and a bringer of good news and a warner so that they might believe in Allah and His Messenger." [Ref: 48:8/9] Other verses of Quran state Muslims are instructed to believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa’sallam) and what sent down with him in form of Book: “So believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Qur'an which We have sent down. And Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” [Ref: 64:8] “O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before.” [Ref: 4:136] Part of believing in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and in Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the Quran is to testify; there is no Ilah except Allah, and Prophet Muhammad is Messenger of Allah. 1.1 - The Witnessing Of Muslims To Ilahiyyah: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “Say: "What thing is the most great in witness?" Say: "Allah is witness between me and you. This Qur'an has been revealed to me that I may there with warn you and whomsoever it may reach. Can you verily bear witness that besides Allah there are other Alihah (i.e. gods)?" Say "I bear no (such) witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the only one Ilah. And truly I am innocent of what you join in worship with Him." [Ref: 6:19] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gives the instruction for correct answer: “There is no god but He: That is the witness of Allah, His angels, and those endued with knowledge, standing firm on justice. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Power, the Wise." [Ref: 3:18] In this verse there are two types of witnessing indicated: i) witnessing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) about His Ilahiyyah, ii) witnessing of angels and those who have been enriched with knowledge of Prophet Muhammad revelation (i.e. Quran). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has bore witness/testified about non-existance of another god beside Him. His witnessing is of hearing/seeing type of witness because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is all-hearing and all-seeing. The angels and men enriched with knowledge they testify/witness to it because they have been instructed to believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and by the revealed book (i.e. Quran). And in this context the relevent words of call to prayer serves the objective of affirming one’s belief in uniqueness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). 1.2 - The Witnessing Of Muslims To Risalah: Coming to affirmation of Messenger-ship of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Non-Muslims recited, and in following example Thumama Bin Uthal (i.e. Sumamah bin Usal) recited the following phrase to convert to Islam: "I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and also testify that Muhammad is His Apostle!” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H658] And this is indication that testification of such type are mere affirmation of one’s belief in uniqueness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and affirmation of one’s belief; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) chose Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as His Mesenger. In the following verse it is recorded that Munafiqeen bore witness that Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), first Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) bears witness to truth of Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) claim of Messenger-ship, and then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states they, the Munafiqeen, are lieing:“When the hypocrites come to you: They say: "We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah." And Allah knows that you are His Messenger, and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars.” [Ref: 63:1] 2.0 – Witnessing Is Connected With Belief: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) connected their witnessing/testifying with their belief, and to be precise lack of belief. The reason given why their testification is termed as lie is given in the following verse: “That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand.” [Ref: 63:3] So Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) rejects their statement, "We testify that you are the Messenger of Allah .", because they believed in Messenger-ship of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and then disbelieved in Islam but continued to pretend that they are Muslims. Expressing the same differently -: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) took their witnessing in meaning of belief as in: "We believe that you are the Messenger of Allah." Yet they had no belief to support their statement so Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “And Allah knows that you are His Messenger, and Allah testifies that the hypocrites are liars.” “That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand.” [Ref: 63:3] This establishes that bearing witness regarding Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Messengers, or anything else, or to which he/she is not, or cannot be actual eye witness, is witnessing of faith/belief of one’s belief, which we are instructed to affirm by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as Muslims. This would be similar to how the Hawariyoon of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) testified of their belief: “And when I revealed to Al-Hawariyyun to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: "We believe. And bear witness that we are muslims." [Ref: 5:111] 3.0 - Truthful Witness And False Witness: If a Muslim states the following believing he is first-hand witness (i.e. hearing/seeing type of witness) then he has bore a false witness: “I bear witness [as a first hand witness] that there is none worthy of worship except Allah. I bear witness [as a first hand witness] that Muhammad is the Messenger Allah.” Note the above statement is completely inaccurate because ‘truthful person’ is bearing witness as a first-hand witness to something which ‘truthful person’ isn’t first-hand witness because it entails hearing/seeing, all, creation, including Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and His actions.[1] If a person states the following with full knowledge of personal belief and with intention of affirming personal belief then his witnessing is truthful: “I bear witness [with full knowledge and with intention of affirming my belief] that there is none worthy of worship except Allah. I bear witness [with full knowledge and with intention of affirming my belief] that Muhammad is the Messenger Allah.” This statement is absolutely correct because truthful witness is bearing witness about his belief inteachings of Islam. And you will agree anyone who bears witness to the Shahadatayn (i.e. two witnessing) believing he/she is first-hand witness told a odious lie and such witnessing is to be rejected. Truthful witnessing is if a Muslim bears witness to own belief. Substantiating fact is that person uttering these words does not have personal knowledge to qualify him to be a hearing/seeing type of witness hence by default it should be seen as; statement of personal belief, or in other words; witnessing of personal belief. 3.1 – Refuting The Innovated Principle Of Witnessing: The evidence which you employed only establishes there are two possibilities for being a witness when affirming Shahadatayn: i) first-hand witness, ii) bearing witness of one’s own belief. And the one who bears witness to it as a first-hand witness lies and a Muslim who does so affriming his belief in Shahadatayn can only bear witness truth. I quote: “To be a truthful witness it is not fundamental requirement to be a first hand witness.” Your statement is clearly against established and reasoned position because even witnessing of Shahadatayn is first-hand witnessing. Undeniably, to be a truthful witness, one must be first-hand witness regarding events which he/she testifies of. I quote: “A truthful person, bearing witness to a truth, can bear witness to the truth, without having seen/heard the events to which he bears witness, despite this his witnessing will considered truthful and is to be accepted.” First of all this principle is batil (i.e. false) because there is no corraborating evidence to establish this. And the evidence you used does not support it and this was sufficiently demonstrated. Any person, truthful/liar, can bear witness to a truth, such as Shahadatayn, without being first-hand witness and their testimony would be truthful becausee it is of person’s belief. 3.2 – Failure Of Principle – Truthful Witnesses Bearing Witness To Truth: Your principle was interpreted in light of the evidences you employed but your objective was to use this, unestablished/unsubstantiated, principle to negate the validity of Islamic belief of Hadhir Nazir. And this can only be done if your, unestablished/unsubstantiated, principle is for general use, so lets address this principle of yours:“A truthful person, bearing witness to a truth, can bear witness to the truth, without having seen/heard the events to which he bears witness, despite this his witnessing will considered truthful and is to be accepted.”A Hadith records, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told: “A Prophet will come on the Day of Resurrection accompanied by one man, and a Prophet will come accompanied by two men, or more than that. Then his people will be called and it will be said to them: ‘Did this one convey the message to you?’ And they will say: ‘No!’ It will be said to him: ‘Did you convey the message to your people?’ and he will say: ‘Yes.’ It will be said to him: ‘Who will bear witness for you?’” [Ref: Ibn Maajah, B37, H4284] This is completely against your principle which states, witnessing of a truthful person, bearing witness to a truth, without being first-hand witness is truthful, and is to be accepted. Yet this Hadith establishes that a truthful witness, a Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), who had heard/seen the events as first-hand witness does, testifies in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), that he delivered the Message entrusted to him. But Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the all-knower and all-seer enquires: “Who will bear witness for you?” And in response he would say: “Muhammad and his ummah!” Note when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) didn’t accept the testimony of a Prophet who had witnessed events he testified about how can you even contemplate He would accept testimony of people who were not first-hand witnesses to the events? According to your principle if testimony is to be accepted then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) should readily accept the testimony of Prophet against his own Ummah. Not only the mentioned Prophet meets all the criterias metnioned in your principle but exceedes the requirement of your principle because he is actual witness. This proves your principle is invalid. 3.3 - A Valid Counter Argument And A Response: You could expand your principle to add the underlined: “… despite this his witnessing will considered truthful and is to be accepted if he is not a party in dispute.” And then argue; he was a party therefore his witnessing was rejected but if he wasn’t a party then even if the mentioned Prophet wasn’t actual witness his testimony will be accepted, and this argument is respectable but your selective application of correct principles isn’t. Firstly, In another article, linked, it was established witnessing required to establish a criminal act is of hearing/seeing type. You cannot apply some of court precedure and reject others after all judgment day is the grandest court to be established to judg disputes. Disputant being unable to bear witness in his/her own defence is to be taken with criteria that truthful witness is one who bears witness of events which has been seen/heard by witness. Secondly, Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is mentioned in Quran as, just/balanced Ummah, as such Ummah will be asked to bear witness in defence of the mentioned Prophet: “’Did this one convey the message to his people?’ They will say: ‘Yes!’ It will be said: ‘How did you know that?’ They will say: ‘Our Prophet came to us and told us that the Messengers had conveyed the message.’” [Ref: Ibn Maajah, B37, H4284] The just nation, the balanced nation of last and final Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness in defence of the mentioned Prophet. And I quote: “A truthful person, bearing witness to a truth, can bear witness to the truth, without having seen/heard the events to which he bears witness, despite this his witnessing will considered truthful and is to be accepted [if he is not a party in dispute].” Now if your principle conformed to teaching of Islam then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would have accepted their testimony. 3.4 – Prophet Muhammad Bears Witness: But instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will ask them, how do you know this Prophet delivered the message and they will say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had informed them. Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be called to bear witness in defence of the mentioned Prophet and he will bear witness – as mentioned in following Hadith: “So, I and my followers will stand as witnesses for him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H555] Note the Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness first and then RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness over his own Ummah: “That is the words of Allah, ‘Thus We have made you a just (and the best) nation.’ He said: Just, so that you will be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” (Ref: 2:143) [Ref: Ibn Maajah, B37, H4284] This establishes that if your principle was valid then witnessing would have stopped at the Ummah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Ummah as whole is upon justice and balance. Conclusion: We Muslims bear witness to Ilahiyyah and Risalah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because this is teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and it also is Prophetic Sunnah. A truthful witness in Shar’ri terms is one who has seen/heard the events to which he bears witness about. To be an eye witness over the Shahadatayn the requirement is; an individual is able to see/hear all and testify, I bear witness none is worthy of worship except Allah, and be witness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) appointing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as His Messenger and this is impossible. The only possibility, believable, and true understanding of Shahadatayn is that a person is bearing witness to his/her own belief by saying, أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ. And this witnessing is of first-hand witness. And witnessing is connected with belief as the verses 63:1/3 demonstrate and therefore saying, I testify, is akin to saying, I believe. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnote: - [1] The reason behind this is that to be witness to Wahdaniyyah (i.e. Oneness) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as mentioned in, أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ , one must be aware of, all, creation to testify as a first-hand witness. Witness on actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because if one claims that he is first-hand witness then he must have been witness upon the event of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being confered with the role of Messenger of Allah.

Introduction: Just a week ago an article was published responding to one of the best and well thought counter arguments in defense of Shaykh of Najd, here. And a member of the IslamiMehfil forum sent me a private message and requested connection between Dhil Khuwaisirah’s group of Satan and Khawarij should be established and link should be explained to prove they are one and the same. This was something really important because indeed group of Satan being sect of Khawarij has been taken for granted. Also there is indeed mutual agreement between all factions; Khawarij and group of Satan are one and the same sect. And this alone should be suffient because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed to adhere to majority and on this issue there is agreement between entirity of Ummah. So natural the mutual agreement cannot be upon misguidance but as it has been pointed out in the message mutual agreements can be dissmissed has it has happened countless times. Hence it is imperative to establish connection between, what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) labelled as ‘group of Satan’, and what we later came to know as Khawarij. It is recommended that readers also familiarise with the content of following article as it will be accessory to better understanding this article, here. A Private Message Requesting Explanation: “Salam, brother Muhammed Ali, I am Sunni and Razvi. Just letting you know this in advance so you don’t take what I have to say the wrong way. I have just finished reading your lattest article, here. It was a brilliant response to Salafi’s accusation but there are certain aspects I wish you clarify them. You said Dhul Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi with the group of Satan which you convincingly proved with evidence. From there you stated Dhul Khuwaisirah was from Khawarij. Further on you went to link Wahhabi movement with Dhul Khuwaisirah - in progeny and geneology - part of response. In a bid to prove that Wahhabi movement is also part of Khariji sect. It seems understanding that group of Satan were Khawarij is being taken for granted. So far the Wahhabis nor any other group has denied group of Satan being the sect of Khawarij - maybe due to mutual agreement - but sooner or later someone will question this unestablished connection. And I would like that someone. Could you please provide evidence which establishes group of Satan are Khawarij. Note I am not saying there isn’t connection but I don’t want to take it for granted because mutual agreement would/could be challenged and a position supported by concrete evidence even if challenged can be held with confidence.” [Note: Edited by, MuhammedAli] 0.0 - Dhul Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi From The Region Of Najd: Dhul Khuwaisirah also known as Abdullah and Hurqus Ibn Zuhayr thought Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was unjust in his distribution. Hadith records: “While we were with Allah's Messenger who was distributing there came Dhul Khuwaisira. A man from the tribe of Bani Tamim and said: "O Allah's Messenger! Do Justice." [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807] Note Hadith records Dhul Khuwaisirah belonged to the tribe of Bani Tamim and Hadith indicates Bani Tamim was located on other side of desert of ad-Dahna. Implying between Hijaz and Banu Tamim is desert of ad-Dahna: “Apostle of Allah, he did not ask you for a true border when he asked you. This land of Dahna is a place where the camels have their home, and it is a pasture for the sheep. The women of Banu Tamim and their children are beyond it.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B19, H3064] Please visit following link to see the location of ad-Dahna is in Najd of Arabian Peninsula, here. And then note the location of Banu Tamim in the following map, here. This establishes Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi lived in the region of Najd. 0.1 - Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamim And His Companions: Hadith records: “While we were with Allah's Messenger who was distributing there came Dhul Khuwaisira. A man from the tribe of Bani Tamim and said: "O Allah's Messenger! Do Justice." The Prophet said, "Woe to you! Who could do justice if I did not? I would be a desperate loser if I did not do justice." After Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamim accused of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of injustice Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) sought permission to kill him. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) refused and informed the audience: “Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "Leave him, for he has companions who pray and fast in such a way that you will consider your fasting negligible in comparison to theirs. They recite Qur'an but it does not go beyond their throats and they will desert Islam as an arrow goes through a victim's body.” In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informed his companions that Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi has companions who are outwardly very pious. He described how they will be identified: “The sign by which they will be recognized is that among them there will be a black man, one of whose arms will resemble a woman's breast or a lump of meat moving loosely. Those people will appear when there will be differences amongst the people." [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807] 0.3 - Group Of Satan In Direction Of East In Region Of Najd: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on behalf of Sham (i.e. greater Syria), Yemen and a man from Najd persistently requested Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to invoke blessings for Najd and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) responded by saying: "They said again, "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said, "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the group of Satan." [Ref: Bukhari, B17, H147] In another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated the same but while facing/pointing toward direction of East: “The Prophet stood up beside the pulpit and said, "Afflictions are there! Afflictions are there, from the side where ‘group of Satan will come out’, or said, ‘the side of the sun’." [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H212] “Narrated Ibn 'Umar: I heard Allah's Apostle while he was facing the East, saying, "Verily! Afflictions are there, from the side where group of Satan will come out." [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H213] Note region of Najd is due/precisely in direction of East from Madinah. Regarding this group of Satan to emerge from direction of East and from region of Najd Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “The Prophet said, "There will emerge from the East some people who will recite the Qur'an but it will not exceed their throats and who will go out of (renounce) the religion as an arrow passes through the game, and they will never come back to it unless the arrow, comes back to the middle of the bow (by itself). The people asked, "What will their signs be?" He said, "Their sign will be the habit of shaving.” [Ref: Bukhari, B93, H651] 0.4 - Dhil Khuwaisirah, His Companions, In East And Najd, Are Group Of Satan: Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi and his companions were situated in East of Madinah, and were residents of Najd, and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) described Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamim as well as his companions as group of Satan. This group of Satan will recite Quran but what they read will not reach their heart and they will be recognised by presence of a man with fleshy-hand resembling breast of female and the group as whole will trade mark shaving of their heads. 1.0 - Khawarij And Group Of Satan - Would Recite Quran: Hadith states regarding the group of Satan in direction of East and in region of Najd: The Prophet said, "There will emerge from the East some people who will recite the Qur'an but it will not exceed their throats and who will go out of (renounce) the religion as an arrow passes through the game, and they will never come back to it unless the arrow …” [Ref: Bukhari, B93, H651] “Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "Leave him (i.e. Dhil Khuwaisirah)! For he has companions (whom Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam described as group of Satan) who pray and fast in such a way that you will consider your fasting negligible in comparison to theirs. They recite Qur'an but it does not go beyond their throats and they will desert Islam as an arrow goes through a victim's body.” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807] And regarding Khawarij a companion was asked and he answered: “Did you hear the Messenger of Allah making a mention of the Khawarij? He said: I heard him say; there would be a people who would recite the Qur'an with their tongues and it would not go beyond their collar bones. They would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2336] Similar Hadith narrates the: “Zaid bin Wahb Juhani reported and he was among the squadron which was under the command of Ali and which set out (to curb the activities) of the Khawarij. Ali said: O people, I heard the Messenger of Allah say: There would arise from my Ummah a people who would recite the Qur'an, and your recital would seem insignificant as compared with their recital, your prayer as compared with their prayer, and your fast, as compared with their fast. They would recite the Qur'an thinking that it supports them, whereas it is an evidence against them. Their prayer does not get beyond their collar bone; they would swerve through Islam just as the arrow passes through the prey.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2333] 1.1 - Khawarij And Group Of Satan – Apparently Righteous: In another Hadith description of group of Satan is given as: “Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "Leave him (i.e. Dhil Khuwaisirah)! For he has companions (whom Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam described as group of Satan) who pray and fast in such a way that you will consider your fasting negligible in comparison to theirs.” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807] A companion enquired from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (radiallah ta’ala anhu); if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold something about Haruriyyah (i.e.Khawarij): "Did you hear the Messenger of Allah mention anything about the Haruriyyah?” In response Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: “He said: 'I heard him mention a people who would appear to be devoted worshippers: "Such that anyone of you would regard his own prayer and fasting as insignificant when compared to theirs.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H169] 1.2 - Khawarij And Group Of Satan – They Will Become Kafirs: Dhil Khuwaisirah’s group of Satan is described as group of Kufr who will cleanly leave religion of Islam in the following Hadith: “Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "Leave him (i.e. Dhil Khuwaisirah)! For he has companions (whom Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam described as group of Satan) who pray and fast in such a way that you will consider your fasting negligible in comparison to theirs. (…) and they will desert Islam as an arrow goes through a victim's. So that the hunter, on looking at the arrow's blade, would see nothing on it; he would look at its Risaf and see nothing: he would look at its Na,di and see nothing, and he would look at its Qudhadh and see nothing (neither meat nor blood), for the arrow has been too fast even for the blood and excretions to smear.” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807] Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (radiallah ta’ala anhu) ascribes the same quality to the Khawarij in the following Hadith: “It was narrated that Abu Salamah said: "I said to Abu Sa'eed Khudri: 'Did you hear the Messenger of Allah mention anything about the Haruriyyah (i.e. a sect of Khawarij)?' He said: ... But they will pass through Islam like an arrow passing through its target, then he (the archer) picks up his arrow and looks at its iron head but does not see anything, then he looks at the shaft and does not see anything, then he looks at the band: that which is wrapped around the iron head where it is connected to the shaft, then he looks at the feather and is not sure whether he sees anything or not." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H169] 1.3 – Companions Applied Characteristics of Satan’s Group Upon Khawarij: Companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) applied the Ahadith regarding the group of Satan upon Khawarij. They applied the Ahadith descrbing characteristics of group of Satan such as recitation of Quran without going below collar bones, outward extreme piety that even the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would feel embrassed, and going completely out of Islam upon Khawarij. This establishes that companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) understood group of Satan to be sect of Khawarij and they were witnessing the Khawarij and their understanding and application of these descriptions upon Khawarij cannot be wrong. 2.0 - Rightly Guided Caliph Ali Wages War Against Khawarij: Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) reasoned with his followers/army: “You would be marching towards Muawiya and the people of Syria and you would leave them behind among your children and your property (to do harm). By Allah! I believe that these are the people (against whom you have been commanded to fight and get reward) for they have shed forbidden blood, and raided the animals of the people. So go forth in the name of Allah (to fight against them).” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2333] Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) described sign of Khawarij said among the Khawarij will be man with defective hand: “Ubaidah narrated from Ali bin Abu Talib: That he mentioned the Khawarij, and said: "Among them there will be a man with a defective hand, or a short hand, or small hand. If you were to exercise restraint I would tell you of what Allah has promised upon the lips of Muhammed for those who kill them." I said: "Did you hear that from Muhammed?" He said: "Yes, by the Lord of the Ka'bah!' - three times." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H167] The Khawarij fought army of Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) at Naharwan. Their leader Abdullah bin Wahb al-Rasibi instructed them to use swords in the battle and all of them were killed with two casualities on Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) side: “Salama bin Kuhail mentioned that Zaid bin Wahb made me alight at every stage, till we crossed a bridge. Abdullah bin Wahb al-Rasibi was at the head of the Khawarij when we encountered them. He (Abdullah) said to his army: Throw the spears and draw out your swords from their sheaths, for I fear that they would attack you as they attacked you on the day of Harura. They went back and threw their spears and drew out their swords, and people fought against them with spears and they were killed one after another. Only two persons were killed among the people (among the army led by 'Ali) on that day.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2333] The battle resulted in utter anahilation of Khariji army under the command of Abdullah bin Wahb al-Rasibi and afterwards Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) instructed soilders to search for the man with short defective hand – whose hand resembelled female breast and he was a dark-skinned/black skinned man: “'Ubaidullah b. Abu Rafi', the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah said:When Haruria (i.e. the Khawarij) set out and as he was with Ali bin Abu Talib … The most hateful among the creation of Allah is one black man among them. One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast. When 'Ali b. Abu Talib killed them, he said: Search (for his dead body). They searched for him, but they did not find it (his dead body). Upon this he said: Go (and search for him). By Allah, neither I have spoken a lie nor has the lie been spoken to me. Ali said this twice and thrice. They then found him (the dead body) in a ditch. They brought body till they placed it infront of him. Ubaidullah said: And, I was present at (that place) when this happened and when Ali said about them. A person narrated to me from Ibn Hanain that he said: I saw that black man.” [Ref: Muslim, B5, H2334] Following verse was revealed regarding the man with breast like hand: “And among them are men who accuse you in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.” [Ref: 9:58] And this is evident from the following Hadith: “The sign by which these people will be recognized will be a man whose one hand will be like the breast of a woman. These people will appear when there will be differences among the people.” Abu Sa'id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet and also testify that Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet was brought to Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person: 'And among them are men who accuse you in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.'” [Ref: Bukhari, B84, H67] 2.1 - Identifying The Man Regarding Whom Verse 9:58 Was Revealed: It is recorded in Hadith that: “The man with the description given by the Prophet was brought to Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person: 'And among them are men who accuse you in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.'” [Ref: Bukhari, B84, H67] And this man regarding whom the verse was revealed was none other than Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi because he accused Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being unjust in distribution of gold alloy sent by Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) from Yemen: “Narrated Abu Sa'id:While the Prophet was distributing (something) Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira At-Tamimi came and said, "Be just, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said,… The sign by which these people will be recognized will be a man whose one hand (or breast) will be like the breast of a woman. These people will appear when there will be differences among the people." Abu Sa'id added: I testify that I heard this from the Prophet and also testify that 'Ali killed those people while I was with him. The man with the description given by the Prophet was brought to 'Ali. The following Verses were revealed in connection with that very person: 'And among them are men who accuse you in the matter of (the distribution of) the alms.’” [Ref: Bukhari, B84, H67] Alhasil the man whom the verse was revealed was Dhil Khuwaisirat at-Tamimi and the description given of a man with breast like hand was of Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi’s and he was one of the Khawarij. 2.2 - Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi Connected With The Khawarij: It is recorded in Hadith: “Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: While we were with Allah's Messenger who was distributing (something), there came Dhu-l- Khuwaisira, a man from the tribe of Bani Tamim and said, "O Allah's Messenger! Do Justice." The Prophet said, "Woe to you! Who could do justice if I did not? I would be a desperate loser if I did not do justice." `Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "Leave him, for he has companions who pray and fast in such a way that you will consider your fasting negligible in comparison to theirs. They recite Qur'an but it does not go beyond their throats (i.e. they do not act on it) and they will desert Islam as an arrow goes through a victim's body, so that the hunter, on looking at the arrow's blade, would see nothing on it; he would look at its Risaf and see nothing: he would look at its Na,di and see nothing, and he would look at its Qudhadh ( 1 ) and see nothing (neither meat nor blood), for the arrow has been too fast even for the blood and excretions to smear. The sign by which they will be recognized is that among them there will be a black man, one of whose arms will resemble a woman's breast or a lump of meat moving loosely. Those people will appear when there will be differences amongst the people." I testify that I heard this narration from Allah's Messenger and I testify that `Ali bin Abi Talib fought with such people, and I was in his company. He ordered that the man should be looked for. The man was brought and I looked at him and noticed that he looked exactly as the Prophet had described him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807] When Abu Barzah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked about Khawarij in order to pin point the identity of Khawarij he narrated the event of Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi in which he accused Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of being unjust in distributing gold alloy: “It was narrated that Sharik bin Shihab said: "I used to wish that I could meet a man among the Companions of the Prophet and ask him about the Khawarij. Then I met Abu Barzah on the day of 'Id, with a number of his companions. I said to him: 'Did you hear the Messenger of Allah mention the Khawarij?' He said: 'Yes. I heard the Messenger of Allah with my own ears, and saw him with my own eyes. Some wealth was brought to the Messenger of Allah and he distributed it to those on his right and on his left, but he did not give anything to those who were behind him. Then a man stood behind him and said: "O Muhammad! You have not been just in your division!" He was a man with black patchy (shaved) hair, wearing two white garments. So Allah's Messenger became very angry and said: "By Allah! You will not find a man after me who is more just than me." Then he said: "A people will come at the end of time; as if he is one of them, reciting the Qur'an without it passing beyond their throats. They will go through Islam just as the arrow goes through the target. Their distinction will be shaving. They will not cease to appear until the last of them comes with Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. So when you meet them, then kill them, they are the worst of created beings." [Ref: Nisai, B37, H4108] This indicates the Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi was a Khariji and his companions were in fact the group of Khawarij. 2.3 – Putting The Evidence Into Perspective: It was established that Wahb al-Rasibi was the leader of Khawarij who fought Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) at Nahrawan. After the Khawarij were completely anahilated Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) instructed the body of man with hand like a female breast be searched for. He was found amongst the dead of the Khawarij and verse, they accuse you with regards to charity, was revealed concerning this man. Ahadith establish the man accused Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of injustice with regards to distribution of charity was Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi. Establishing Dhil Khuwaisirah was the man whom Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) described as dark skinned man, shaven head, female breast like hand. Conclusion: Dhil Khuwaisirat at-Tamimi accused Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being unjust in his distribution of gold alloy. This angered Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he informed the companions that there are others like Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi. Dhil Khuwaisirah belonged to tribe of Banu Tamim and it was situated in East of Madinah and in region of Najd. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) went on to inform his companions that from the direction of East, in region of Najd, group of Satan would emerge. Evidence establishes this group of Satan was none other then Dhil Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi. Hadith establishes that Dhil Khuwaisirah was amongst those Khawarij who fought against Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and also points out verse of charity was revealed with regards to him. After the battle Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) instructed his companions to search the dead of Khawarij and body of Dhil Khuwaisirah was found at the bottom of a ditch. In addition to this the companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) applied the Ahadith of group of Satan upon Khawarij indicating they believed group of Satan to emerge from Najd was sect of Khawarij. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a Shahid/Shaheed in meaning of hearing/seeing type of witness. The opponents of Islam reject and argue against this belief on account that witnessing does not require him to be first hand witness. Rather Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can bear witness without being an actual witness. They believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness on judgment day upon being informed by members of his Ummah. To substantiate their position they quote various evidences which indicate person/people bearing witness without having to see/hear anything of the event. This short article, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills, will expose the error of their methodology and in-appropriateness of their evidence. Two Types Of Witnessing: There are two types of events to which a Muslim can bear witness, the external and the internal. External witnessing involves sight/sound and it involves an event being heard/seen by an individual. And then this individual bears witness in court recollecting from memory what was seen and heard. The second type, the internal, witnessing is based on knowledge. Knowledge derived from senses, other then eye/ear, without external event, which involves ability of self assessment and then declaration of what was found internally. Situational Appropriate Witnessing: First type of witnessing - or external – involves yourself/another, and always involves an event unfolding, visually/audibly, which you/another can see/hear. This type of witnessing requires being first hand witness to bear truthful witness in court of law and in this context the greatest court of law, aka judgment day. And it is connected with crime/sin and punishment aspect of law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And the one who does not meet this criterion is not truthful witness. The second type - internal - witnessing involves no audible/visual event, nor it involves another person, it is strictly about one’s oneself. And the type of witnessing involves personal belief to which none can be witness with their eyes/ears. The one who can bear witness about his own belief/faith is the person’s self. Abdul Wahid cannot bear witness about the true state of belief of Abdullah. He can bear witness to what Abdullah declares. The true knowledge of belief/faith of Abdullah, only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Abdullah know. The internal type of witnessing is for declaring personal belief, and it cannot be used, and is not used in criminal trials. Hadhir Nazir And The Two Types Of Witnessing’s: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will bear witness regarding the actions of his Ummah and the actions of previous nations on judgment day as established in the Quran and Ahadith. And as per rule the type of witness required is - external witness - one who is has heard/seen the events as a first hand witness. Any witnessing of - internal witness – is not acceptable because individual/people are bearing witness about their personal beliefs/convictions which they have. Conclusion: In Islam there are two types of witnessing’s, a type which is related to court, crime, and punishment. And this witnessing requires one bearing witness about actions/events does so after audibly or visually witnessing the details of events. In context of court - bearing witness when person has not seen/heard the events, but has bore witness after being informed by another, such a person is not truthful witness. One who bears witness of his inner belief/faith, does so based on the first hand knowledge, which none can have other than the person, making the statement. And such witnessing is not and was never binding in court. The required type of witnessing for ciminal activity and for punishment is first hand witnessing. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a Shahid and stated he will bear witness in defence of Prophets passed before him. And being sent as a Shahid, and being sent to mankind means he is witness upon actions of mankind. A true testimony requires the witness with his own eyes/ears witnesses the events. Due to this Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shahid aka Hadhir Nazir upon actions of Jinn and mankind. And testimony without being actual witnessing the events is bearing false witness and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is the flag bearer of truth and he will not give false testimony. Khawarij accuse Muslims of being guilty of major Shirk for believing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Hadhir Nazir. The reason they give is; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone is Shahid in a manner which you Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be Shahid aka Hadhir Nazir. In other words they declare the Muslism to be worst type of disbelievers for believing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) witnesses the deeds of Jinn and Mankind as a first hand witness hears/sees the events unfold in form of sounds and images. And their accusaton is proof of their ignorance of true Islamic belief, and ignorance of principle methodology of determining Tawheed and complete ingorance of principle of determing Shirk. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits a detailed explanation will be given in this article. Witnessing Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): All natural and supernatural powers which manifested during the life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) including his witnessing of deeds of Jinn and mankind is with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). With power being given by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is completely and absolutely like every creation dependent upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in his essences, attributes and actions. Including his ordinary and extraordinary ability of Hadhir Nazir. Muslims believe this extraordinary ability of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is of miracolous nature. He is dependent upon existence of creation to exercise his ability of Hadhir Nazir and is limited restricted to creation. And his ability is dependent upon existence of place, direction and time. And as a creation his means of acquiring knowledge are limited restricted to his state of being. And each state has its own limitations and restrictions and in no way possesses his supernatural power of Hadhir Nazir equale to or greater then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). To believe as such would be Shirk. Witnessing Of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): In comparision, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shahid in accordance with His Essence. He was/is Shahid independently of anyone and is subsisting in all His attributes. He was/is present (i.e. Hadhir) without a place and was/is hearing and seeing (i.e. Nazir) without needs of created means (i.e. organs). There is no authority above Him controlling limiting His capacity of Shahid and Sami (i.e. hearing) and Baseer (i.e. seeing). And to equate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) ability of Shahid and Sami and Baseer in absolute terms would be major Shirk. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is knower of all Ghayb that is in perserved Tablet and that will happen in hereafter. In addition to this Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possesses knowledge of all Mumkinaat (i.e. possibilities). And to equate any being with all knowledge of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), including knowledge of all possibilities, or limitless possibilites, is major Shirk. The Clear Distinction Between Station Two Shahids: The above two sections make it abundantly clear in which way Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to be Shahid is clearly apart from how Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is believed to be Shahid. But this two sections require intermediate level knowledge of Tawheed and Shirk and good deductive skills to figure out why and how belief of Hadhir Nazir is not Shirk. Therefore it is important to make this topic simpler and make it easier for readers to easily understand the subject. Following sections will attempt to deal with the topic from simple perspective and it should allow readers to properly understand the error of Khawarij. Two Principles One Of Tawheed And One Of Shirk: Tawheed of Sifaat (attributes) and of Afaal (i.e. actions) is extreme perfection beyond which attribute/action cannot be perfected. And Shirk is extremly perfected - unimprovably perfected - attribute/action being given to creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). A person believes Kiraman Katibeen - two angels - witness the actions of entire Jinn and Mankind on earth and then record these good/bad actions. Has this person made these two angels partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Please read the two rules again and try to figure out before continuing. It is not Shirk because witnessing can be perfected/improved to include moon and entire universe. Hence the believer has not attributed the two angels the attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). A person believes, Gibraeel (alayhis salam) has limitless knowledge. There is no beginning nor end to his knowledge. Is this belief Shirk? It is indeed Shirk because limitless knowledge, without beginning, and without end, such perfection level that it cannot be improved or further perfected. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possesses limitless knowledge, which is without beginning and without end and attributing it to Gibraeel (alayhis salam) is an act of major Shirk. Hadhir Nazir In Light Of Two Principles: Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shahid upon actions of Jinn and Mankind. He was witnessing the actions before his birth when he existed in form of Ruh (i.e soul) and witnessed the actions in his life time ordinarily and extraordinarily after his station of Shahid was perfected as much as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) willed. And continues to observe the actions mankind [including his believing and disbelieving Ummah] after his departure from earthly life. And in light of this belief it should be apparent; perfection of station of Shahid is of such level that it can be improved to include actions creatures of land, see, air, and angels. Hence level of perfection of Shahid granted to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and believed for him by Muslims is improvable. Therefore Hadhir Nazir is not Shirk of attributes – polytheism in attribute of Shahid. Note we Muslims believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shahid over all creatures of universe and every spec of universe. And Shahid over the paradise and hell and over all occupants of paradise and hell. In nutshell He is Shahid limitless, timeless, without beginning and without end. His station of Shahid is perfected to a level that it is above improvement. Two Important Points Worth Remembering: Firstly diametric opposite of love is hate, of light is darkness, of good is bad, of sweet is bitter, and of Tawheed is Shirk. As such the description of each is exactly the opposite of the other. To believe in One Ilah (i.e. God/Mabud) is Tawheed. And two believe in many is Shirk. To believe is no Ilah is Shirk and to believe in One is Tawheed. Secondly it is important to point out that belief of Khawarij will be implied based on what we the Muslims believe and by backtracking from their allegations. And it is very unlikely they believe what would be unearthed. Therefore do not charge them of believing it unless they profess it with their tongue. Their principles methodology of determining Shirk is definitely defective which casts doubts on their understanding of Tawheed. Khawarij In Light Of Their Own Accusation: Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) observed the actions of nations - Jinn and Mankind - before him and continues to observe the actions of nations after his earthly life. The Khawarij accuse the Muslims of being guilty of major Shirk due to this belief. And Tawheed is diametric opposite of Shirk. We know what Muslims believe, which the Khawarij declare to be major Shirk. Based on this natural deduction would be; belief of Tawheed of Khawarij regarding attribute of Shahid is; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only observes the actions of Jinn and Mankind - of people before Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) birth and after his death. And considering this belief of Shahid as Tawheed - the pinnacle of perfection beyond which there can be no perfection - is utterly/absolutely preposterous and nothing less then Kufr. This preposterious beliefe cannot and is not the Tawheed of Shahid, nor it can be, nor it is, criteria on which Tawheed/Shirk can be determined. Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) station of Shahid is perfected to such extant improvement is impossible. Alhasil in context of Islamic belief and in context of accusation of Khawarij we backtrack to find charge of Shirk is based on defective understanding of Tawheed of Shahid. Conclusion: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shahid over all things. He witnesses all actions of all creatures: creatures of land, sea, air, angels, Jinn, and wives of paradise (i.e. Hoori’s). And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) witnesses all universe, paradise, hell and their occupants, every spect, atom, particle, lesser, or greater then these. He was Shahid from eternity, self suffient, independent, perfected beyond improvements … Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shahid over the actions of those creations of whom he will bear witness on judgment day – including actions of Jinn and Mankind before birth and after his departure from earth. His this extraordinary ability is granted to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and it is limited restricted to his actions of Jinn and mankind. He is entirely dependent upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). There was beginning and there is end to his station of Shahid. The criteria of determining Shirk for Shahid is; a perfection of Shahid which is beyond improvements. And those who judge Islamic belief Hadhir Nazir to be Shirk have defective understanding of principle methodology of determining Shirk and Tawheed because they employ an understanding of Shahid as criteria of determining Shirk of attributes when it is not. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Introduction: Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shahid (i.e. Hadhir Nazir). The opponents of Islam argue against this belief on the basis of their Satanic logic. Anti Hadhir Nazir arguments are composed of, or based on, half-baked truths. Following is one such argument which was presented during a discussion on this subject. Argument Against Hadhir And Nazir: Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "You will be gathered, bare-footed, naked and not circumcised." He then recited: “As We began the first creation, We, shall repeat it: A Promise We have undertaken: Truly we shall do it.” (21:104) He added, "The first to be dressed on the day of resurrection will be Abraham, and some of my companions will be taken towards the left side and I will say: My companions! My companions! It will be said: 'They renegade from Islam after you left them.' Then I will say as the pious slave of Allah said. 'And I was a Shaheed over them while I dwelt amongst them. When you took me up you were the Raqeeb over them, and you are a Shaheed to all things. If you punish them they are your slaves. And if you forgive them, Verily you, only you are the all-Mighty, the all-Wise." (5:117/118) [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H568] This establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not Shahid/Shaheed (i.e. Hadhir Nazir). If he was he would know that these people abandoned Islam after his death and were no longer his companions but they are apostates. Methodology Of Refutation: In order to refute the allegation we will have to establish that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew during his life time and will know on the judgment day that they are not companions but apostates. The other part connected to this is; why would Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say these people are my companions when it is obvious they were not his companions. Answering this question would further clarify the confusion and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits a separate article will be written to give number of reasons. Prophet Knew They Are Not Companions: Following Hadith establishes that the apostates were amongst the companions: “Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force. Whereupon I will say: 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B88, H173] Following Ahadith explains that the ‘you’ is directed toward companions: “Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab: The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam).” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H586] “Some men from my companions will be brought and taken towards the left side, whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, (these are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You do not know what new things they introduced (into the religion) after you.' I will then say as the righteous pious slave …." [Ref: Bukhari, B65, H4740] We have established Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made distinction between his companions and apostates by saying, some men from my companions will be taken toward the left side. This indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in the world knew they would be apostates and not companions. Also the Hadith itself is proof that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew they would be apostates because he has informed us of an event taking place in distant future. Once he refers to them as his companions Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will pose a rhetorical question as to remind him about the identity of the men: “... Allah's Messenger said: I would be on the Cistern so that I would be seeing those who would be coming to me from you, but some people would be detained (before reaching me). I would say: My Lord, they are my followers and belong to my Ummah, and it would be said to me:فَيُقَالُ أَمَا شَعَرْتَ مَا عَمِلُوا بَعْدَكَ وَاللَّهِ مَا بَرِحُوا بَعْدَكَ يَرْجِعُونَ عَلَى أَعْقَابِهِمْ (i.e. Don’t you know what they did after you?) By Allah, they did not do good after you, and they turned back upon their heels. He …” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5684] Then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will remember the Kufri innovations of the men and the identities. Prophet Will Recognize Apostates And They Will Recognize Him: Hadith states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would recognize the apostates and they would recognize him on day of judgment: " The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come to me some people, whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me, but a barrier will be placed between me and them.” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H585] Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them … Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.' I asked: "Where?' He said, 'To the Fire, by Allah.' I asked, What is wrong with them?' He said …” [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H587] Further confirmation of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recognizing the apostates and proof of apostates recognizing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is in the following Hadith: "One will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. Another will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. I will say; without doubt I recognize your ancestry but you innovated after me and you became apostates by turning on your heels."[1] [Ref: Msnd Ahmad, Baqi Msnd Al Muksireen, Sa’id Khudri, Hadith 11284]They will address Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by his name indicating they have recognized him and he will recognize them and will know about their ancestry and will be aware of their apostasy. The Apostates Are The Leaders/Creators Of Kufri Innovations: The Ahadith reveal those who were being turned away from the Hawd Al Kauthar were originators of innovations [in other words leaders of heretical sects] and this is evident from the rhetorical tone of question being asked: “Then some men from among my Ummah will be brought and will be taken toward the left. I will say: 'O Lord, my companions.' It will be said: 'Do you not know what they innovated after you were gone?’ And I shall say what the righteous slave said: 'And I was witness over … If You punish them, they are Your slaves, and if You forgive them, verily, You, only You, are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.' And it will be said: 'These people kept turning away since you left them.'" [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H2089] Question itself implies that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew they created innovations which resulted in their apostasy. Similar meaning can also be taken from the following Hadith: "... Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I shall be your harbinger on the Reservoir {Al Kauthar}; therefore, be cautious lest one of you should come (to me) and may be driven away like a stray camel. I would ask the reasons, and it would be said to me: You don't know what innovations they made after you? And I would then also say: Be away.” [Ref: Muslim, B30, H5686] It is recorded in Hadith of Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman (radiallah ta’ala anhu) that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will knows names of innovators, tribe they will belong to, and names of their: “I swear by Allah, I do not know whether my companions have forgotten or have been made to forget. I swear by Allah that the Apostle of Allah (sallalahu alayhi was'salam) did not omit in his mention leader of any fitnah to appear up till the end of the world – each would have followers the number of three hundred and upwards, and he mentioned to us his name, his father's name and the name of his tribe.” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B35, H4231] And it is based on this earthly knowledge Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will know the names of innovators, tribes, and names of their fathers when these innovators approach him on the Hawd. And proof of this is in the following Hadith: "One will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. Another will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. I will say; without doubt I recognize your ancestry but you innovated after me and you became apostates by turning on your heels." [Ref: Msnd Ahmad, Baqi Msnd Al Muksireen, Sa’id Khudri, Hadith 11284] Conclusion: It is obvious that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knew in his earthly life that those being turned away from Hawd Al Kawthar are not his companions but apostates who introduced Kufri innovations. Also on judgment day Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will know the people being prevented from reaching him are apostates. He will also know the names of these innovators, the tribes they belonged to, and will know the names of their fathers on judgment day. It is also evident that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will recognize them and they will recognize him on the day of judgment. Hence there is no chance of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not being truly aware of the reality of these people. At the very minimum it has been soundly established that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not address them as companions due to lack of knowledge about their innovations and apostasy. It is yet to be established, the reasons due to which he referred to apostates as his companions and that if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits will be explained in another article, here. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1]"You think my nearness to my tribe will not benefit them? By Allah, nearness to me [via blood relation] will be rewarded on earth and in hereafter. On judgment day a tribe will be raised who will be ordered to go toward the left. One will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. Another will say: O Muhammad! I am so son of so. I will say; without doubt I recognize your ancestry but you innovated after me and you became apostates by turning on your heels." [Ref: Msnd Ahmad, Baqi Msnd Al Muksireen, Sa’id Khudri, Hadith 11284]

Salam Dear brothers and sisters! I would like to introduce a great opportunity for seekers of knowledge who want to start darse nizami classes online! https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288475061361317&id=274029662805857 Ustade muhtaram Mufti Haider Ali Qadri is a very skilled teacher of the darse nizami subjects and alhamdulillah me and my brother are studying under him for two years now alhamdulillah and currently reading usool us shashi. Mufti sahab is very skilled and has a very unique way of teaching. Rooh ul madina is the academy that mufti sahab has established. Mufti Haider Ali Qadri is a direct student of mufti akmal sahab (director of al-furqan scholars academy karachi) and has graduated from Al furqan scholars academy with a sanad of mufti from mufti akmal sahab. The courses we offer are for both brothers and sisters ! The courses are held in urdu and we currently have sisters who are studying under mufti sahab. For more information about the courses we offer and information about mufti sahab please visit: www.roohulmadina.com https://www.facebook.com/Rooh-Ul-Madina-Academy-274029662805857/info?tab=page_info We also have a branch in sweden where the students of Mufti sahab are working with monthly duroos in swedish, to access the duroos in swedish please visit: www.roohulmadina.se We also have a online webshop where the books of sunni ulama are present for anyone who wants to buy from anywhere in the world! The webshop also has books that are part of the darse nizami curriculum! http://roohulmadinawebshop.com If you have problems in applying via our website you can add mufti sahab directly on skype and talk to him from there. Skype id: haiderali.qadri Please spread this message to as many possible! Jazak ALLAH Khakpaey Ulama wa fukaha Muhammad Ali Nazar Qadri Razawi

Introduction: Subject of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being appointed on the station of Shahid (i.e. Hadhir & Nazir) is a controversial one. Muslims believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is witness to actions of Jinn and mankind due to his appointment but the antagonists disbelieve in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed about his station of Shahid. As such they argue against Muslims with their own evidences to refute Islamic belief. Potent Argument Against Hadhir Nazir: One of the antagonists during a with a Muslim presented the following verse of Quran: “Have you not considered that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is on the earth? There is no private conversation between three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them, and no less than that and no more than that except He is with them wherever they are. Then He will inform them of what they did, on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, of all things, Knowing.” [Ref: 58:7] On basis of this he argued; if there is a private conversation between three then fourth is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and if the meeting is between five participants then sixth is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Now if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was also witness to actions of Jinn-kind and mankind then the verse should have amounted to mean: If the meeting is between three fourth is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and fifth is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or it should have amounted to: When the secret meeting is between five participants then sixth is Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and seventh is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He also argued that the verse of Quran states: “… and no less than that and no more than that ...” therefore there can be no less present listeners nor greater than the mentioned in the verse. Hence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not Hadhir Nazir because if he was Hadhir Nazir then he would be fourth and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would be fifth yet the verse states, no less than that and no more. The Methodology To Be Employed: The argument, there cannot be more or less listeners to a private meeting except those who are present and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will be dealt first. Then subject of other listeners listening to secret meeting will be discussed and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permitted position of Muslims will established in light of Quran and Hadith. Interpreting No Less Than That And No More Than That Part Of Verse: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “There is in no private conversation between three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them …” Note the verse uses three and five as an example to illustrate the point. Then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “… and no less than that and no more than except that He is with them wherever they are.” The meaning of this part of verse can be best explained as following: If there are two people engaged in secret meeting third would be Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Note, two is less than three and less than five hence the following verse applies to it: “… and no less than that (i.e. three and five) and no more than that except He is with them wherever they are.” If there are six people engaged in a secret meeting than seventh would be Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Note, six is more than three and more than five hence the following part applies to it: “… and no less than that and no more than that (i.e. three and five) except He is with them wherever they are.” Or suppose, four people are in a secret meeting than fifth is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In this example four is greater than three and less than five hence following applies to it: “… and no less than that (i.e. five) and no more than that (i.e. three) except He is with them wherever they are.” Meaning Of Verse In Simple Words And Its Implications: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “There is no private conversation between three [people] but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five [engaged in secret counsel] but that He is the sixth of them, and no less than that [i.e. three and five people] and no more than that [three and five people] except He is with them wherever they are.” [Ref: 58:7] After interpretation of this verse it should be evident to Muslims; the opponent of Muslims misconstrued the verse to mean that there cannot be more or less participant listeners to secret meeting. The verse merely means if there are more or less than three or five people engaged in secret meeting Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is also part of it. The fundamental point of the verse is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is fully aware of the secret meetings of people, as stated here: “Know they not that Allah knows their secret ideas, and their secret counsels, and that Allah is the All-Knower of the unseen.” [Ref: 9:78] Angels Also Are Part Of Secret Meetings: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Have you not considered that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is on the earth? There is in no private conversation between three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them, and no less than that and no more, except that He is with them wherever they are. Then He will inform them of what they did, on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, of all things, Knowing.” [Ref: 58:7] Now read the following verse in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “And indeed [appointed] over you are keepers. Noble and recording they know whatever you do.” [Ref: 82: 10/12] In another verse of Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “[Remember] that the two receivers (recording angels) receive (each human being), one sitting on the right and one on the left (to note his or her actions).” [Ref: 50:17] In light of these two verses it is evident that the people present in the secret counsel, and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and the recording angels are witness to the events of secret counsels. This deduction is clearly stated in another verse of Quran: “Or do they think that We hear not their secrets and their private counsels and Our messengers are by them to record.” [Ref: 43:80] Potent Response To Potent Argument: It is clear that in a secret counsel apart from the, human participants, angels and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are aware of the proceedings. Yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “There is in no private conversation between three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them, and no less than that and no more, except that He is with them wherever they are.” This verse excludes the mention of angels being first hand witness to events of secret meeting. Hence question begs to be asked is the verse comprehensively stating who the witnesses to events of meeting or not? Of course not, the verse merely is stating that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is witness to the events of secret meetings without excluding others. Hence this verse of Quran cannot be used to refute Islamic belief of Hadhir Nazir because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: "O Prophet! Truly We have sent you as a Witness, a Bearer of Glad Tidings, and Warner." [Ref: 33:45] In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you, even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) states that he has been sent as a Prophet to entire mankind: “… concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): 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] Hence he is witness upon entire mankind and he will be called as a witness to bear witness against the nations of previous Prophets because he is a witness: “One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring you as a witness against these (people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.” [Ref: 16:89] The verse in discussion does not state Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is witness nor does it exclude witnessing of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Just like it does not include/exclude the angels witnessing the deeds and recording in the book of deeds. We as Muslims affirm both because these are established with other verses of Quran. Conclusion: Opponent of Islam had misconstrued the meaning of verse and arrived at the understanding; none apart from the participants of secret meeting and Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) witness the events but contrary to this distorted understanding of verse it is established from explicit teaching of Quran that angels and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) are witness upon deeds of mankind. Due to witnessing angels write the deeds of mankind and Jinn-kind into book of deed, and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) observes the deeds, and will be called as a witness on day of judgment. Wama Alayna Ilal Balaghul Mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi

Introduction: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has reportedly stated, one who introduces into Islam a good Sunnah he/she will be rewarded and those who act on this good Sunnah will also receive equal reward, Hadith: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] From the literal reading of the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) it is clear that it is permissible to introduce into Islam good Sunnahs/Biddahs and to follow them. If it was impermissible to introduce good Sunnahs/Biddahs into Islam then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not have told of reward. The Muslims believe the literal implications of this Hadith and accept all interpretations that can be derived according to historical context. Prophetic teaching is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted ‘Jawami Al Kalim’ meaning the ability to express vast meanings in few sentences. Hence the multiple interpretations of this Hadith are in agreement with this nature of prophetic words hence all are valid. Now, the opponents of religion of Islam argue against the literal implications and interpret the Hadith in historical context in order to negate the understanding of Muslims. Their understanding is; in a gathering where people are reluctant to give charity, one who gives charity and those who follow his example all will receive equal reward. Readers should note, this is article is continuation of response given to brother Sa’id Imtiaz, here and here. Evidence For Validity Of Holding To Literal Meaning Of Prophetic Words: Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave following instruction to a group of Sahabah after returning from the battle of Al Ahzab: “None of you Muslims should offer the Asr prayer but at Banu Quraiza's place.” While they were travelling toward the tribe of Quraiza the Hadith records: “The Asr prayer became due for some of them on the way.” This divided the companions into two groups, one group said: “We will not offer it till we reach it, the place of Banu Quraiza.” While the other group said: “No, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet did not mean that for us.” The Hadith goes on to record that the difference of opinion was brought to attention of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) who did not rebuke either group: “Later on it was mentioned to the Prophet and he did not berate any of the two groups.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H445] Position Of Both Group Of Companions On This Matter: The first group acted on the literal instructions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and did not perform Asr prayer. They second group of companions via Ijtihad came to conclusion that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not preventing them from performing Asr prayer on the way but he was instructing them to travel quickly and reach the destination before Asr prayer and then perform the Asr prayer. So they realized they will not reach destination before the Asr prayer time expires and worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is more important then reaching a destination quickly hence they decided to perform the prayers on the way: “… (Some) people being afraid that the time for prayer would expire, said their prayers before reaching the street of Banu Quraiza.” [Ref: Muslim, B19, H4374] The other group they said: “We will not offer it till we reach it, the place of Banu Quraiza.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H445] “We will not say our prayer except where the Messenger of Allah has ordered us to say it even if the time expires.” [Ref: Muslim, B19, H4374] This establishes one group of companions held to literal instructions and made no Ijtihad hence did not perform prayers on the way to destination and also establishes one group of companions did engage in Ijtihad and performed prayers on the way to said destination. Reaction Of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) To This Difference: Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim record the following words regarding this difference of opinion between the companions: ”When he learned of the difference in the view of the two groups of the people, the Messenger of Allah did not blame anyone from the two groups.” [Ref: Muslim, B19, H4374] “Later on it was mentioned to the Prophet and he did not berate any of the two groups.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H445] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) not correcting any group indicates both groups of companions were correct in their approach because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Whoever among you sees an evil action, and he is able to change it with his hand, then change it with his hand (by taking action); if he cannot, (do so) with his tongue then with his tongue (by speaking out); and if he cannot then with his heart (by hating it and feeling that it is wrong), and that is the weakest of faith.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B5, H1275] Disobedience to command of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is form of Munkir (i.e. evil/wrong) hence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have clearly pointed out the error of Ijtihad if there was any. Therefore the conclusion both groups were correct in their understanding is established. The Principle Derived From Incident Of Banu Quraiza: From this historical event it is established; literal implications of prophetic words and interpreted implications derived using tool of Ijtihad are both be correct. If any of the two interpretations of prophetic words was in contradiction with Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) teaching he would have corrected the wrong party. An important point, both groups were correct hence Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) methodology is of literal and reinterpretation. Hadith Of Good Sunnah In Light Of Approved Methodologies: Understanding the prophetic words literally and acting upon them as Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed is established. Also reinterpreting the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in light of other evidence is also established. The following prophetic words now can be understood according Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) approved methodologies: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] The literal reading of Hadith establishes reward for introducing good Sunnahs/Biddahs into Islam and which is akin to establishing permissibility of introducing good Sunnahs/Biddah into Islam. The reinterpreting methodology establishes reward for engaging in prophetic Sunnahs which people are reluctant to practice and this is akin to granting permission for engaging in prophetic Sunnahs which people are reluctant to engage. Conclusion: Prophetic words are according to ‘Jawami Al Kalim’ nature hence they can be interpreted differently depending on the evidence. From the Hadith of Bani Quraiza it was deduced that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) approved the actions of two groups of companions who differed over the meaning of prophetic words. One group held to the literal meaning of words while the other reinterpreted the words and came to different understanding. As a result one group did not perform their prayers until they reached their destination while the other performed it on the way to destination. In context of objective of this article it is important to point out; the Muslims in regards to the Hadith of good Sunnah hold to the literal meaning and consider it permissible to create good Sunnah/Biddahs and introduce them into Islam with hope of gaining reward from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), while accepting the interpretation presented by opponents of Islam. It is important to point out, we the Muslims accept the interpretation of Hadith in discussion but not their understanding of; it is not permitted to introduce good innovations into Islam.

Introduction: In exchanges with brother Sa’id Imtiaz it was argued; Islam permits good Biddahs/Sunnahs into Islam and there is reward one who innovates a good Sunnah and those who follow them, a understanding based on the following: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] In response to my line of argument, Wahhabi brother quoted two Wahhabi scholars and one from these two was Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid, he is prominent scholar of the sect. Their methodology of interpretation was; the ‘good Sunnah’ is to be interpreted according to the context. The interpretation which they presented according to the methodology was; reviving a prophetic Sunnah is good Sunnah and all those who follow the newly revived Sunnah will earn equal reward. Comprehensively this would be as; reviving a prophetic Sunnah which has been neglected, or forgotten, or people are reluctant to practice it, is the good Sunnah and all those who follow the newly revived Sunnah will earn equal reward. Comprehensive response to this line of argument against Islam has been posted here. Methodologies And Interpretations On Trial: There is absolutely no need to dedicate time and critically examine the argument presented and therefore no effort will be made. The already written is sufficient to straighten the crooked path of heretics, if they lend it an ear. In here the methodologies employed to interpret the Ahadith in question by the Muslims and their opponents will be on trial. In an effort to determine which methodology is valid and which interpretation is valid. To properly analyze the methodologies and establish consistency in its application another set of Ahadith will be introduced into discussion which are essential part of the discourse, namely Ahadith of ‘newly invented matters’. The Methodology Of Interpretation To Be Employed: If the Ahadith of ‘newly invented matters’ are to be interpreted in the historical context which surround them and these Ahadith are not be interpreted according to generality wording then there is no need to interpret the Hadith of ‘good Sunnah’ according to generality of wording then they also should be interpreted according to their historical context. If the Ahadith of ‘newly invented matters’ are interpreted according to generality of words and these Ahadith are not restricted to their context but their generality is used then same methodology of interpretation is to be employed for Ahadith of ‘good Sunnah’ and this is to be fair and impartial. The Hadith Of Divine Decree And Adhering To Prophectic Sunnah And Predecessors: “Sufyan said (according to one chain), and Abu al-Salit said (according to another chain): A man wrote to 'Umar b. 'Abd al-Aziz asking him about Divine decree. He wrote to him: To begin with, I enjoin upon you to fear Allah, to be moderate in (obeying) His Command, to follow the Sunnah of His Prophet and to abandon the novelties which the innovators introduced after his Sunnah has been established and they were saved from its trouble; so stick to Sunnah, for it is for you, if Allah chooses a protection; then you should know that any innovation which the people introduced was refuted long before it. […] So accept for yourself what the people (in the past) had accepted for themselves for they had complete knowledge of whatever they were informed and by penetrating insight they forbade; they had more strength (than us) to disclose the matters and they were far better (than us) by virtue of their merits. If right guidance is what you are following, then you out-stripped them to it. And if you say whatever the novelty occurred after them was introduced by those who followed the way other then theirs and disliked them. It is they who actually outstripped, and talked about it sufficiently, and gave a satisfactory explanation for it. Below them there is no place for exhaustiveness, and above them there is no place for elaborating things. Some people shortened the matter more than they had done, and thus they turned away, and some people raised the matter more than they had done, and thus they exaggerated. They were on right guidance between that. You have written (to me) asking about confession of Divine decree, you have indeed approached a person who is well informed of it, with the will of Allah. I know what whatever novelty people have brought in, and whatever innovation people have introduced are not more manifest and more established than confession of Divine decree. The ignorant people in pre-Islamic times have mentioned it; they talked about it in their speeches and in their poetry. They would console themselves for what they lost, and Islam then strengthened it. The Messenger of Allah did not mention it in one or two traditions, but the Muslims heard it from him, and they talked of it from him, and they talked of it during his lifetime and after his death. They did so out of belief and submission to their Lord and thinking themselves weak. There is nothing which is not surrounded by His knowledge, and not counted by His register and not destined by His decree. Despite that, it has been strongly mentioned in His Book: from it they have derived it, and from it they have and so they also read in it what you read, and they knew its interpretation of which you are ignorant. After that they said: All this is by writing and decreeing. Distress has been written down, and what has been destined will occur; what Allah wills surely will happen and which He will not, will not occur. We have no power to harm or benefit ourselves. Then after that they showed interest (in good works) and were afraid (of bad deeds).” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B41, H4595] The Hadith Of Newly Invented Matters And Sticking To Sunnah: “It was narrated from 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Amr As-Sulami that: He heard Al-'Irbad bin Sariyah say: "The Messenger of Allah delivered a moving speech to us which made our eyes flow with tears and made our hearts melt. We said: 'O Messenger of Allah. This is a speech of farewell. What did you enjoin upon us?' He said: 'I am leaving you upon a (path of) brightness whose night is like its day. No one will deviate from it after I am gone but one who is doomed. Whoever among you lives will see great conflict. I urge you to adhere to what you know of my Sunnah and the path of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And you must obey, even if (your leader is) an Abyssinian leader. For the true believer is like a camel with a ring in its nose; wherever it is driven, it complies." [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H43] “Narrated Al-'Irbad bin Sariyah: "One day after the morning Salat, the Messenger of Allah exhorted us to the extent that the eyes wept and the hearts shuddered with fear. A man said: 'Indeed this is a farewell exhortation. So what do you order us O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'I order you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to listen and obey [to your leader] even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, who ever among you lives, he will see much difference. Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa', cling to it with the molars.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B9, H2676] The Ahadith Of Introducing Good Sunnah And Reward: “It was narrated from Mundhir bin Jarir that his father said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever introduces a good Sunnah that is followed, he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in their slightest. And whoever introduces a bad Sunnah that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] “Jarir b. Abdullah reported that some desert Arabs clad in woolen clothes came to Allah's Messenger. He saw them in sad plight as they had been hard pressed by need. He (the Holy Prophet) exhorted people to give charity, but they showed some reluctance until (signs) of anger could be seen on his face. Then a person from the Ansar came with a purse containing silver. Then came another person and then other persons followed them in succession until signs of happiness could be seen on his (sacred) face. Thereupon Allah's Messenger said: He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Hadith Of ‘Divine Decree’ Contextualized: “A man wrote to 'Umar b. 'Abd al-Aziz asking him about Divine decree. He wrote to him: To begin with, I enjoin upon you to fear Allah, to be moderate in (obeying) His Command, to follow the Sunnah of His Prophet [about divine decree] and to abandon the novelties [of negating divine decree] which the innovators introduced after his Sunnah [of divine decree] has been established and they [the Sahabah] were saved from its trouble; so stick to Sunnah [in this matter of belief], for it is for you, if Allah chooses a protection; then you should know that any innovation [regarding divine decree] which the people introduced was refuted long before it. […] So accept for yourself what the people (in the past) had accepted for themselves [regarding the belief of pre-ordained destiny] for they had complete knowledge of whatever they were informed [about divine decree] and by penetrating insight they forbade [discussion regarding divine decree]; they had more strength (than us) to disclose the matters [of divine decree] and they were far better (than us) by virtue of their merits. If right guidance is [Allah has not pre-ordained all things, which is] what you are following, then you out-stripped them to it. And if you say whatever the novelty occurred [in this matter of divine decree] after them was introduced by those who followed the way other then theirs and disliked them. It is they [the predecessors] who actually outstripped and talked about it sufficiently and gave a satisfactory explanation for it. Below them there is no place for exhaustiveness [on this matter of divine decree] and above them there is no place for elaborating things [with regards to divine decree]. Some people shortened the matter [of divine decree] more than they had done, and thus they turned away [from the path predecessors], and some people raised the matter more than they had done, and thus they exaggerated [the path predecessors in this regard]. They [the predecessors] were on right guidance between that. You have written (to me) asking about confession of Divine decree, you have indeed approached a person who is well informed of it, with the will of Allah. I know what whatever novelty people have brought in [regards to the divine decree] and whatever innovation people have introduced [in connection with divine decree] are not more manifest and more established than confession of Divine decree. The ignorant people in pre-Islamic times have mentioned it; they talked about it in their speeches and in their poetry. They would console themselves for what they lost, and Islam then strengthened it [the belief in pre-ordained divine decree]. The Messenger of Allah did not mention it in one or two traditions, but the Muslims heard it from him, and they talked of it from him, and they talked of it during his lifetime and after his death. They did so out of belief and submission to their Lord and thinking themselves weak. There is nothing which is not surrounded by His knowledge, and not counted by His register and not destined by His decree. Despite that, it has been strongly mentioned in His Book: from it they have derived it, and from it they have and so they also read in it what you read, and they knew its interpretation of which you are ignorant. After that they said: All this is by writing and decreeing. Distress has been written down, and what has been destined will occur; what Allah wills surely will happen and which He will not, will not occur. We have no power to harm or benefit ourselves. Then after that they showed interest (in good works) and were afraid (of bad deeds).” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B41, H4595] Hadith Of ‘Beware Of Newly Invented Matters’ Contextualized: "One day after the morning Salat, the Messenger of Allah exhorted us to the extent that the eyes wept and the hearts shuddered with fear. A man said: 'Indeed this is a farewell exhortation. So what do you order us O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'I order you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to listen and obey [to your leader and do not rebel against his authority] even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, who ever among you lives, he will see much difference [leading to rebellion]. Beware of the newly invented matters [which lead to rebellion against a Khalifah because] for indeed they are misguidance. Whoever among you sees that [time of differences and rebellion], then he must stick to my Sunnah [which prohibits rebellion against Khalifah] and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafah, cling to it [i.e. Sunnah] with the molars." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B9, H2676] Ahadith Of ‘Good Sunnah’ Contextualized: “’Whoever introduces a good Sunnah [i.e. giving of charity by Ansari companion and] that is followed, he [the Ansari companion] will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in their slightest. And whoever introduces a bad Sunnah [such as being stingy and not spending in the way of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and if] that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] Important Note Regarding The Forth Coming Discussion: Hadith of divine decree will not be discussed because it is too long. It is solely being presented so people understand the limitation contextualization and how such contextualization limits the understanding of Hadith and its application. Readers are more then welcome to follow the methodology used and demonstrate how the divine decree Hadith is affected and how such contextualization negates comprehensiveness of guidance contained in Ahadith. Due to Ahadith of ‘beware of the newly invented matters’ and Hadith of ‘good Sunnah’ being shorter, they will be discussed in detailed. Interpreting Hadith Of ‘Beware Of The Newly Invented Matters’ According To Context: Contextually Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) warned against innovation of rebellion/disobedience to Khalifah: “I order you to have Taqwa of Allah [i.e. fulfill your obligations, enjoin good and forbid evil] and to listen and obey [to your leader and do not rebel against his authority] even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, who ever among you lives, he will see much difference [leading to rebellion]. Beware of the newly invented matters [which lead to rebellion against a Khalifah because] for indeed they are misguidance. Whoever among you sees that [time of differences and rebellion], then he must stick to my Sunnah [which prohibits rebellion against Khalifah] and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafah, cling to it [i.e. Sunnah] with the molars." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B9, H2676] Contextualizing this Hadith limits the application of this Hadith to innovations in general and it contradicts Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) words where he stated he has been granted ‘Jawami Al Kalim’. Hadith Of ‘Beware Of The Newly Invented Matters’ According To Generality Of Words: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) warned against innovation with following words: “I order you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to listen and obey [to your leader] even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, who ever among you lives, he will see much difference. Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa', cling to it with the molars.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B9, H2676] The generality of the Hadith quoted permits it to be applied to all types of innovations and the generality is in accordance with ‘Jawami Al Kalim’ nature of prophetic words. Interpreting Hadith Of ‘Who So Ever Introduces A Good Sunnah’ According To Context: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “’Whoever introduces a good Sunnah [i.e. giving of charity by Ansari companion and] that is followed, he [the Ansari companion] will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in their slightest. And whoever introduces a bad Sunnah [such as being stingy and not spending in the way of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and if] that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] Contextually this Hadith is about a companion and the group of companions who followed his example and acted on the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Based on the context the Hadith means when people are reluctant to give charity and the first one to start and those who follow, all will get equal reward. It also means for the modern Muslim; one who is acting on the prophetic Sunnah of giving charity then you are following the example of the Ansari companion and you will get equal reward. Hadith Of ‘Who So Ever Introduces A Good Sunnah’ According To Generality Of Words: Understanding the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in general meaning and without restricting it to historical context yields following understanding: “Whoever introduces a good [non-prophetic] Sunnah [which accords with teaching of the religion and if] that is followed [by others beside him, then] he will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in their slightest.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] Maintaining and holding to generality of words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) establishes permissibility of introducing praiseworthy Sunnahs and reward for them. Putting it into perspective of history, Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had the idea to collect the Quran in one book format. He introduced this Sunnah and Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) implemented his idea and the result of this was Quran which we possess as a single book. There is reward for him for purposing the compilation of Quran and those who follow and publish Quran. Generalizing on the historical context, one can derive the following principle: “Whoever introduces a good Sunnah [such as initiating action on prophetic Sunnah and if] that is followed [by others] he [the initiator of action on prophetic Sunnah] will receive its reward and a reward equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their reward in their slightest. And whoever introduces a bad Sunnah that is followed, he will receive its sin and a burden of sin equivalent to that of those who follow it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H203] This generalized principle in historical context can also be interpreted to mean, when people are reluctant to engage in a particular religious activity, one who starts it and those who follow his example all will get equal reward. The contextualization and the derived principle from historical context negate the ‘Jawami Al Kalim’ nature of prophetic words which have been established in this part. In short the generality of Hadith accords with prophetic teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) being given ‘Jawami Al Kalim’. All Ahadith On The Subject Of Innovation Have A Historical Context: There are many Ahadith about the topic of innovation but all of them have a particular event associated with it. Even if the historical context has not been narrated it is entirely logical to assume there was a historical context. Hence all those Ahadith are also in context of historical events and cannot be taken as general principle. Even the Ahadith narrated without the historical context give instruction of rejection teachings/practices which go against the clear injunctions and the spirit/essence of Islam. Therefore even these Ahadith are restricted to the context of innovations which contradict the teaching of Islam. The Effect Of Restricting Ahadith Of Innovation To Historical Context: By interpreting the Ahadith of innovation in context of historical events we solely restrict its application to a particular event. And if all Ahadith of innovation are restricted to a context and interpreted in context of an event then we have no prophetic guidance on matters of innovations. Pay attention, if all Ahadith are restricted to a context and the generality of the meaning of sentences is negated then is there anything which prohibits innovations? If you say yes, then to be consistent in methodology Ahadith are to be interpreted in context like the Hadith of good Sunnah is interpreted in context of historical event. If this method is applied to all the Hadith then there is no Hadith which prohibits innovations. If Hadith are restricted and interpreted according to context and generality is negated then end result is; both Quran and Ahadith are silent about subject of innovations other then addressed in the Ahadith. And about issues on which Quran and Ahadith are silent Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “The lawful is what Allah made lawful in His Book, the unlawful is what Allah made unlawful in his Book, and what He was silent about; then it is among that for which He has pardoned." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B22, H1726] Excused by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is allowed as favor by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] Therefore interpreting Ahadith in a particular context to negate generality of Ahadith of good Sunnah and generally of all Ahadith in connected with subject of innovation will not harm the position of Muslims. Rather our position that all innovations composed of Islamicly sanctioned acts of piety are permissible is also established from Ahadith quoted above. The Effect Of Maintaining Generality Of Ahadith Of Innovation: Holding to the generality of prophetic words about subject of innovation including the Ahadith of ‘introducing good Sunnah’ is in accordance with ‘Jawami Al Kalim’ nature of prophetic words. Result of this is that all Ahadith of innovation can be applied to every single innovation which does not accord with the teaching of Islam. This generality of words in connection with Hadith of ‘introducing good Sunnah’ establishes that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has permitted introduction of good Sunnahs into Islam and told of reward for those who engage in the newly introduced good Sunnah. In addition, the Ahadith quoted above indirectly establish the legitimacy of good Sunnahs into Islam. Conclusion: If the Ahadith of innovations and good/bad Sunnahs is interpreted in historical context of a particular event and their generality is negated even then the permissibility of engaging in actions which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not forbid but remained silent on would be established. The generality and the literal reading of the prophetic words of good Sunnah Hadith undeniably establish the position of Muslims and refute the opponents of Islam. What ever the methodology of interpretation is adopted by the opponents of Islam if that methodology is applied consistently and without practicing selectivism then the conclusion would be as explained.