کمیونٹی میں تلاش کریں

Yei aur badmazhab say bachnay kay leay jo mazeed ahadees , sahaba kay aqwal hain un ka scan darkar hai jaisay Sahaba kiram in kay salam ka jawab na daitay thay jazak Allah

Introduction: This article has been written in form of question and answer. These questions are product of my Wahhabi mind. Questions are fairly basic and get complex as the article progresses. After question nine Wahhabi side in me kicked in and asked really tough questions and Sunni side replied with best of my knowledge and ability. Objective was that someone with basic knowledge of subject of innovation can read this and use it as a spring board for further study into subject. Question And Answer Session: Q1: What is innovation? Answer: Linguistically anything newly invented is innovation. Technically anything not explicitly stated by name/label in neither Quran nor it was by taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is innovation. Q2: Is there a Shar’ri definition of innovation as opposed to linguistic definition of innovation? Answer: Yes, there are Shar’ri definitions of innovations but these definitions depend on type of innovation. Q3: How many types of innovations are there? Answer: Islam divides innovations into two major categories; i) praiseworthy ii) and blameworthy. Praiseworthy innovation is permissible and blameworthy is prohibited. Q4: What are the definitions of these two types of innovations? Answer: The definition of praiseworthy innovation is as follows: Any innovated practice/custom which has implicit evidence from Quran/Hadith. Other side of praiseworthy innovation is: Any innovated practice/custom which is composed of acts of worship, charity, preaching, and other Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is praiseworthy innovation. Definition of blameworthy innovation is as follows: Anything innovated which does not have implicit evidence from Quran/Hadith. Other side of reprehensible innovation is: Any innovated practice/custom which is composed of Shirk, or Kufr, or engaging in Haram, or eating Haram, or any sinful activity is blameworthy innovation. Q5: What is implicit/indirect evidence in context of subject of innovation? Answer: Implicit/Indirect evidence fundamentally is corroborating activities in a custom/practice from Quran and Hadith. A properly corroborated practice/custom will be amalgamation of various Islamicly sanctioned practices. Q6: What type innovation is permissible? Answer: If an innovated practice is composed of, acts of worship, charity and other Islamicly sanctioned activities then it is permissible Q7: What type of innovation is prohibited? Answer: If an innovated practice is composed of acts which lead to Shirk/Kufr, engaging in or eating Haram and other sinful activities then the innovation is reprehensible. Q8: Will there be reward for engaging in praiseworthy innovations and punishment for blameworthy? Answer: Yes, there will be reward from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for engaging in praiseworthy innovations and punishment for acting upon blameworthy innovations. Q9: If an innovation is composed of islamicly sanctioned activities and Islamicly condemned activities then what would be the judgment regarding the innovation? Answer: The polytheists of Makkah performed Tawaf of Kabah naked and chanted a polytheistic Talbiyah. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed the companions to perform Tawaf with Ihram and corrected the Talbiyah to conform to Tawheed. Hence it would be appropriate to remove the aspects which contradict teaching of Islam and practice it with aspects which conform to teaching of Islam. Q10: Hadith indicates; every innovation is misguidance, [1] therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not reward innovations/misguidance. Question is how can there be reward for [praiseworthy] innovation? Answer: Hadith of every innovation is misguidance is in context of misguiding innovation.[2] Misguiding innovations are those which contradicts teaching of Islam and every innovation which is composed of polytheistic, sinful, activities is [evil, reprehensible, blameworthy, erroneous, and] misguiding innovation. Reward is not based on the name of innovation but based on what it is composed of. Praiseworthy innovations are composed of Islamicly sanctioned activities such as Dua (i.e. supplication), Nawafil (i.e. optional prayers), Tilawah (i.e. recitation of Quran), Sadqah (i.e. optional charity), Bayanaat (i.e. speeches), and distribution of food to poor, family and friends. These are practices which are Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hence reward is guaranteed. Engaging in these Sunnahs under a new name (i.e. Urs, Milad, and Khatam) does not make the practice of them a sinful activity. Q11: You have restricted the application of every invention is innovation [and] every innovation is misguidance, in context of blameworthy innovation. Is there any evidence for this interpretation of Hadith? Answer: The evidence for this Takhsees/interpretation is found in another Hadith where Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have 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] In another Hadith the word innovation (i.e. bidda) is used: "And whoever introduces an ضَلاَلَةٍ بِدْعَةَ (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] Based on these Ahadith it is clear that Islam recognises blameworthy innovations/practices. Hence in the Hadith of every invention is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was stating about innovations which are Dhalalah/Say’yah. Only reprehensible innovations which are composed of Shirki/Kufri or sinful activities can earn displeasure of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and take the practitioner to hellfire. Q12: Is there evidence for the concept of ‘good innovation’ in religion of Islam? Answer: It has been narrated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "Whoever introduces a good Sunnah (i.e. 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, H203/209] In the Hadith recorded in Sahih Muslim Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have explicitly stated that one who introduces good Sunnah into religion of Islam, hadith: “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. 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] Note that in the above two Ahadith word Sunnah has been used but the meaning in context is obvious of innovation. To put it simply the Hadith means; he who introduced some good innovation into religion of Islam then the innovator and the followers would earn equal reward without their rewards being diminished in any way. There is Hadith in which Hazrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) gathered the companions under leadership of one Qari and remarked this was an excellent innovation: "I went out in the company of 'Umar bin Al-Khattab one night in Ramadan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. A man praying individually, or a man (i.e. Imam) praying with a small group behind him. So Umar said, in my opinion I would better collect these [people] under the leadership of one Qari. 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: هَذِهِ الْبِدْعَةُ نِعْمَ عُمَرُ قَالَ (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] This statement of Hazrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) goes to establish that religion of Islam has place for praiseworthy innovations on basis of which he declared his innovation as excellent. Q13: Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated regarding newly invented innovations: « من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو ردٌّ» Translation: "Whoever innovates something in this matter of ours (i.e. Allah and RasoolAllah) that is not part of it, will have it rejected." [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266] In another Hadith it is stated: « وَمَنْ عَمِلَ عَمَلًا لَيْسَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْرُنَا فَهُوَ رَدٌّ » Translation: “He who does an act which we (i.e. Allah and RasoolAllah) have not commanded, will have it rejected (by Allah).” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] It is apparent from both these Ahadith that all ‘praiseworthy’ innovated practices will be rejected by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) yet you say they will be rewarded. Could you explain this contradiction? Answer: You have misunderstood the Ahadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Suppose Yoga is made part of Islam as means of worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Would this be valid form of worship in religion of Islam? Will Yoga be accepted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and rewarded? Yoga is not Islamicly accepted mode of worship nor it was sanctioned by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and whosoever worships Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) employing it, will have his worship rejected. Rejected on the basis that Yoga is not from the Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) nor it is from commandments of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Regarding which is not from commandments of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor from not his Sunnahs, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “He who does an act which we (i.e. Allah and RasoolAllah) have not commanded, will have it rejected (by Allah).” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] "Whoever innovates something in this matter of ours (i.e. Allah and RasoolAllah) that is not part of it, will have it rejected." [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266] Now coming to the praiseworthy innovated practices, as stated earlier are composed of acts of worship such as performing of optional prayers, recitation of Quran, supplication, and fasting. In addition, they consist of acts of charity, distribution of food, and are educational. All this is established from the Quran and Hadith, and many are Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) hence they will not be rejected and will be rewarded because these are good deeds. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “Indeed, this Qur'an guides to that which is most suitable and gives good tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a great reward.” [Ref: 17:9] “They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous.” [Ref: 3:114] The Saliheen (i.e. righteous) are told of good return from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “Those who have believed and done righteous deeds - a good state is theirs and a good return.” [Ref: 13:29] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states those who do good Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not darken their faces nor they will be humiliated and they are people of paradise: “For them who have done good is the best [reward] and extra. No darkness will cover their faces, nor humiliation. Those are companions of paradise; they will abide therein eternally.” [Ref: 10:26] The reward on good deeds is promised by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and he has promised entry into paradise for those who do good. The innovations which are composed of acts of worship, charity, Islamic education are good deeds and will be rewarded and will be accepted in light of Quranic teaching. Q14: If one abstains from praiseworthy innovated practices is one sinful? Answer: The innovated practices such as celebration of birthday of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), wide range of Esal Al Sawab (i.e. sending of reward) practices, under various names/labels, all are optional. If one does not take part in them there is no blame of sin upon an individual. Q15: If one believes the indicated innovated practices are reprehensible is this sinful? Answer: Islam judges based on content and not on the label. These practices are made up of worship, charity and various other Sunnahs. Therefore to consider these practices sinful/blameworthy is to consider the Islamic acts of worship, charity and Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as sinful/blameworthy. If one consider these innovated practices reprehensible/sinful due to his ignorance and lack of knowledge, without understanding what the implications of his belief are then one is heretic. If one fully understands the implications of his belief and deems the entire praiseworthy innovation as blameworthy/sinful. Including name and the components which make praiseworthy innovation as whole, such as acts of worship, charity and Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then the person is guilty of disbelief, which invalidates belief in Islam. Q16: Salafism judges on label and based on the contents of practice. Both the name and components of practice have to be explicitly stated for it to be permissible. Hence if the name of practice is not found in the Quran and Hadith then according to Salafi methodology the practice is [reprehensible] innovation. How do you respond to this line of argument? Answer: Technically permissibility is not judged on explicit mention of name and methodology of an innovated practice. Explicit name and methodology of a practice is requested when one has to establish if a practice is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or not. Anyone asking for explicit evidence of name as well as methodology of an innovated practice to establish permissibility is foolish and unqualified to issue a judgment on aspects related to Islam. If permissibility is established based on name and the content then note that name of Sahih of Imam Bukhari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) has not been mentioned in Quran or in any Hadith and nor there is any explicit named reference for any other Hadith book. Should we prohibit the reading of Ahadith books because these collections are [reprehensible] innovations and warn people against reading these Ahadith books just on the basis that names of these Ahadith collections have not been stated in Ahadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? [3] The label in Islam is not essential for establishing permissibility but the components which make a practice are essential for permissibility. Moving on, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states in Quran regarding the Christian monks that they invented monasticism: “Then We sent following their footsteps Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy, and monasticism which they innovated We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allah. But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient.” [Ref: 57:27] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) goes on to state, the monks invented it to please Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but they did not act upon their innovation as they should have. From among those who practiced monasticism and believed in the message of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) were rewarded by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This interpretation is supported by Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “(Then We caused Our messengers) one after the other (to follow in their footsteps) to follow Noah and Abraham from their respective offspring; (and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow) these Messengers, (and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy) towards each other (in the hearts of those who followed him). (But monasticism they invented) they built monasteries and cloisters to escape the sedition of Paul, the Jew. (We ordained it not for them) We did not enjoin monasticism upon them. (Only seeking Allah's pleasure) they did not invent it except to seek Allah's good pleasure, (and) had We enjoined it upon them (they observed it not with right observance) they would not have given it its right due. (So We give those of them who believe) among the monks (their reward) double for their faith and worship; these are the ones who did not contravene against the religion of Jesus. 24 among these were in the Yemen and when they heard of the Prophet (pbuh) they believed in him and joined his religion, (but many of them) of the monks (are evil-livers) disbelievers, these are the ones who went against the religion of Jesus.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 57:27] This goes on to establish that the name and the practice of monasticism was innovated by the followers of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) still rewarded those who engaged in monasticism and still believed in teaching of Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam). Here we have approval of a practice which was not taught by Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam) with name or by method and yet those who adhered to it were rewarded. So based on this precedent we can judge that teaching of a practice by name is not fundamental to establish legitimacy. The verse establishes that if a practice (i.e. monasticism) is not taught [by name or methodology] neither prohibited [by name or methodology] and it is invented to please Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and observed correctly the reward will be granted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Q17: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated the religion of Islam has been completed: “This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” [Ref: 5:3] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: "Whoever innovates something in this matter (i.e. religion) of ours (i.e. Allah and RasoolAllah) that is not part of it, will have it rejected." [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266] The religion of Islam has been perfected and this means nothing else is required for guidance other than what is revealed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has informed that innovation would be rejected. Considering this evidence, how can it be correct to believe that one can introduce a practice into Islam which would be rewarded? Answer: Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. 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] Therefore one cannot negate the permissibility of reward worthy innovations into Islam and to negate it is heretical and an innovation. Indeed the religion of Islam has been perfected and completed. One must understand that religion of Islam was perfected and completed with the Hadith which states an individual who introduces into Islam a good Sunnah will earn equal reward to those who follow his innovation. The perfection of Islam is not harmed by introduction of good Sunnahs into Islam and if it was affected in any way then the Messenger of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not have stated contrary to it. Innovations are recognized as later additions and it known that they were/are not part fundamental Islam which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught in his life time. It is also understood that these are not compulsory nor Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Q18: Now question is, why are they said to be part of Islam when it is given that they are not part of [fundamental teaching of] Islam which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught? Answer: Answer to this question has got to do with [logical] semantics therefore it is important one understands the forthcoming point properly. In Arabic language if something (i.e. y) attaches to a part then y would be referred as the part with which it is attached. As an example, Arabs say, his head turned grey, and by this the implied meaning is, his hair turned grey. Even Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used this method. A sign of judgment day is that thigh/leg would speak to a person. Note: the mobile phone is placed in trouser pockets hence it refers to it. Wahhabi sect’s true followers known as ISIS have called their Khariji state as an Islamic state. Question is why have they named it Islamic state? Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) label it ISIS in His book? Or did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permit the bloodshed, rape, pillage and destruction of lands of Muslims in His book? Or did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) appoint Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi as Khalifah in His book? So why is it labelled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria? What is Islamic about it? A supporter of these people would argue it is called Islamic because it is based on precepts of Islam. [4] Demonstration of this principle is also obvious in regards to Qadiyanism also known as Ahmadiyyah. Qadiyaniyyah believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (lanatulillah) as Prophet and therefore are out of fold of Islam. Technically Qadiyanism is an independent religion. Yet they are counted amongst the deviants sects of Islam and example of this is at IslamQA Wahhabi website. From these examples we have a principle, y which is connected to or based on z is considered part of z. Using the principle we come to understanding that, innovations are said to be part of Islam because they are based on teaching of Islam and connected to teaching of Islam due to practices which make up an innovation. Hence it is clear that praiseworthy innovations are not part of fundamental Islam which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught but are said to be part of Islam because the foundation of activities is from Islam. Hence these innovated practices do not go against the belief that Islam is perfected and completed. Q19: And what need is there for [praiseworthy] innovations when all that we need to enter paradise is what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught? Answer: It must be said that the book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is enough for guidance and success in this earthly life and in hereafter. Q20: So then there is no need for [praiseworthy] innovations, is it? Answer: Note, all praiseworthy innovations are composed of Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are an example of good deed which he has set to follow, and evidence of this is: "Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah, a good example [of deeds] has been set for the one who seeks Allah, and the Last Day, and [for one who] thinks constantly about Allah." [Ref: 33:21] Emulating Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) itself is a good deed and Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are good deeds with which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is pleased with. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated that Muslims should do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, evidence of it is this: “Narrated Aisha: The Prophet said, "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news, because one's good deeds will not make him enter Paradise." [Ref: Bukhari, B76, H474] Also in another Hadith he instructed to do good deeds within ones capacity because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) rewards without tiring, and following Hadith is evidence: “Do [good] deeds within your capacity because Allah never gets tired of giving rewards till you get tired of doing good deeds." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H251] Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are part of praiseworthy innovations and his Sunnahs are examples of good deeds, and we are instructed to do good deeds. There is no fundamental need for praiseworthy innovations but these innovations serve an important purpose and that is of accumulating good deeds. Q21: Is there a Shar’ri obligation to act on these [praiseworthy] innovations? Answer: There is absolutely no Shar’ri obligation upon any Muslim to take part in praiseworthy innovations. These praiseworthy innovations are optional practices if practiced then praiseworthy innovations bring reward if avoided bring no blame. Q22: So when there is no need for praiseworthy innovations, nor there is any Shar’ri obligation to act on them, and we can go to paradise without engaging in these [praiseworthy] innovations then why should we create them and why would Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) create room for[praiseworthy] innovations? Answer: I will begin by answering your last question first. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were aware that no religion remains pure and eventually the teachings of Prophets are distorted as time progresses. As such principles were introduced into Islam and part of these principles is principle of good innovation in Islam being rewarded, and bad innovations being sinful. Based on which his followers can take part in reward worthy practices that emerge after him and discard the sinful innovations. Coming to your first question, even though Muslims do recognize the concept of introducing praiseworthy innovations into Islam yet we do not introduce praiseworthy innovations into Islam at will. If we acted on the principle as given by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then there would have been countless praiseworthy innovations composed of Sunnahs of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). So even we the Muslims recognize the need to holding to Islam which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught in his life time and understand there is no need for praiseworthy innovations. Incase a praiseworthy innovation is introduced we judge based on the principle which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught and as a matter of principle we do not reject praiseworthy innovations because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has told of reward for engaging in them. In short, we should not introduce praiseworthy innovations and our focus should be the fundamental Islam which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught. If a praiseworthy innovations is introduced then as Muslims we should not oppose it because as told by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), it is reward worthy. Q23: Coming to those [praiseworthy] innovations which have been passed on by our ancestors such as celebrating the birthday of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Why is so much emphasis put on these [praiseworthy] innovations? Answer: The Khawarij oppose the Muslims because they deem the praiseworthy innovations to be reprehensible innovations and tell Muslims that if they engage in the praiseworthy innovations they will burn in hell. Yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has told of equal reward for the one who introduces and those who follow his footsteps. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.” [Ref: 3:110] One can forbid wrong in three ways, use physical force, speak out against it, or declare it in heart to be wrong. Note, the Khawarij prohibit praiseworthy innovations and declare them as sinful and this is wrong because they oppose what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught.[5] We are obliged by the verse of Quran to forbid the Khawarij from declaring something good to be sinful. So we the Muslims speak out against the heretical methodology of Khawarij and their heretical understandings. Sign of best nation from mankind is that they enjoin what is good and we also partake in the right/good innovations because taking part in such innovations also a form of opposition to the Khawarij. Q24: How can the dispute about [praiseworthy] innovations be resolved in your understanding? Answer: Idealistic absolute reconciliation is not possible between the Muslims and Khawarij due to fundamental differences in methodology. If Khawarij accept that the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) have jawami al kalim (i.e. short phrase bearing widest meanings) nature and if their understanding of Ahadith on subject of innovation is corrected then the dispute with Khawarij can be resolved in favor of Muslims. Q25: You don’t believe the definitions of innovation have something to do with the differences? Answer: The Muslims divide innovation into two major categories: praiseworthy and blameworthy. Praiseworthy is which is based on teaching of Quran and Sunnah, and blameworthy is which contradicts the teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Muslim scholars also purposed the definition of innovation which now is bench mark of Khawarij. In this methodology of innovation anything which is not supported from teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) with explicit or implied evidence was an innovation. Note in their terminology when a practice is declared as an innovation, it means reprehensible innovation, and praiseworthy innovations were declared as Sunnahs in this methodology.[6] The Khawarij removed condition of implicit evidence (i.e. Ijthadi evidence) and made explicit evidence as the criteria for judging permissibility especially against Muslims. Therefore with minor adjustments this definition can be reconciled with Islamic methodology but in Khariji belief system there is no room for introducing good Sunnah into Islam hence the definition will not be altered to conform to definition of early Islamic scholarship. The difference in definitions of innovations by itself is really significant. The understanding of Ahadith relating to subject of innovation is cause of these definitions and depending on how Ahadith are understood the definition and principles surrounding are derived. So for correct definition the proper understanding of Ahadith relating to subject of innovation is fundamental requirement. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi Footnotes: - [1] “Jabir b. Abdullah said: When Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) delivered the sermon, his eyes became red, his voice rose, and his anger increased so that he was like one giving a warning against the enemy and saying: "The enemy has made a morning attack on you and in the evening too." He would also say: "The Last Hour and I have been sent like these two." And he would join his forefinger and middle finger; and would further say: "The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best of the guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad. And the most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation is misguidance." He would further say: I am more dear to a Muslim even than his self; and he who left behind property that is for his family; and he who dies under debt or leaves children (in helplessness), the responsibility (of paying his debt and bringing up his children) lies on me." [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885] - [2] "And whoever introduces an ضَلاَلَةٍ بِدْعَةَ (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] - [3] Please note, permissibility is stated to be only established if name and content both are stated if one of the two is missing then according to Salafi methodology the innovated practice is [reprehensible] innovation. - [4] Note, these people have nothing do with religion of Islam. Wahhabi’s are all upon the methodology of Khawarij and about Khawarij Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said they are people of Kufr. - [5] “That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah - then indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” [Ref: 59:4] “Do they not know that whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - that for him is the fire of Hell, wherein he will abide eternally? That is the great disgrace.” [Ref: 9:63] - [6] Not Sunnah in meaning of Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but Sunnah in meaning of good reward worthy Sunnah: “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. 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]

السلام على من اتبع الهدى Is Mazmon par InshaAllah Tafseeli guftago hogi Abhi filhall Imam jalalludin syuti ki kitab IMAN E Waldain par parish karaha hon kyun Kay Wahabi or Deobandi Hazrat Jo Kay MazAllah Nabi صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم Kay Waldain ko Kafir kehtay hen dekhya👉 Sochne Ka Maqam Hai Yeh Wahi Deobandi Wahbi Hai Jo Kafir Ko Kafir Kehne Se Hume Rokte Hai Lekin Jab Baat Nabi Alayhissalam Per I Toh Inke Walidein Ko Kafir Bolna Kya Apni Kitabo Me Likh B Diya. Ibn Taymiyah Jo 661 Hijri Me Paida Hua Mulk E Sham Me ,Isne Ek Kitab Likhi , Iktsa Us Siraate Mustaqeem, Is Kitab Me Ibn Taymiyah Ne Bada Zor Lagay K Nabi Alayhisssalam K Walidein Dono Kafir Thay Aur Unka Inteqal Kufr Per Hua . Ibn Taymiyah Ki Taqleed Karte Hue Tamam Wahbi Nabi Alayhissalam K Walidein Ko Kafir Kehte Hai , Maz ALLAH Isi Tarah Deoband K Bahut Bade Alim Guzre Hai Jinka Naam Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi Hai , Inhone B Apne Fatwe Me , Yaani Fatawa Rasheediya Me Safa 104 Per Ek Sawal K Jawab Me Kaha K Hazrat Swallallahualaihiwasallam K Walidein K Imaan Me Ikhtelaf Hai ,Hazrat Imam Sahab Ka Mazhab Yeh Hai K Inka Inteqal Halat E Kufr Me Hua Hai Faqat. Maz ALLAH. Yeh Haal Hai Deobandi Wahbi Ka Filhall Aik kitab paish karraha hon Aur InShaAllah jald Az Jald is mamlay may QURAN AUR HADEES Kay Saath wapas Aon ga AUR Sabit Karon ga Kay Wahabi AUR Deobandi jhootay hen Waldain Mustafa Momin bhe thay AUR jannati bhe لبیک لبیک لبیک یا رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم 27187818-WALDAIN-MUSTAFA-KA-ZINDA-HO-KAR-IMAN-LANA.pdf

as salam alaikum aik wahabi / deobandi kitab mai parha tha kay gustakhana kalmat mai qail ki niyyat ka koi aaitabar nahe yei wahabio nay he likha ab wo reference naeh mil raha kisi ko yad hai tu reference aur scan bata dain jazak Allah

AS SALAMO ALAIQUM YE AITRAZ DEOBANDRO NE KIA HAI KI TUM BARELVI BAHISHTI ZEWAR JILD 2 ME THANVI KI NAJASAT CHATNE WALI IBARAT KA MAZAK BANATE HO BALKE ULMA E AHNAAF NE BHI YEHI FATWADIA HAI KI NAJASAT CHAT KAR SAF KRO TO UNGLI PAK HO JAYENGI .. AUR FATWA E RIZVIA ME BHI YE HI MSLA LIKHA HAI... kya ye fatwa sahi hai aur thanvi ka najasat chatne ka fatwa aur alahazrt ke fatwe me kya farq hai

Madad Shafaee Fuqah.pdf

Umeed hai tamam Sunni Bhai Khariyat se honge. Me Taqriban 3 saal k bad aaj IslamiMehfil.com per phir se online aya ho ... Haal hi me Dar ul Uloom Deoband k Fazil Mufti Mehmood Madani Deobandi Sultan ul Hind Hazrat Khuwaja Gharib Nawaz ki Bargah me hazir hue aur chadar bhi charhai. Is silsile me ek video aur chand tasaweer manzar e aam per aai hai jo kh mene zeel post ki hai. Mareed Videos aur pictures bhi InshAllah isi thread pr update kr di jayengi. Deobandio lagao apne is mufti pr shirk ka fatwa..

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.

Rashid Ahmed Gangohi (kawwa khor) Fatawa Rashidiya Me Page No 575 Pe Likhte Hain Ke Hindu Ke Festival Me Bane Bhooj (Khana) Khana Durust Hai Gair Muslim Ke Festival Ke Bhooj(Khana) Inke Liye Jaiz Hai Lekin, Jis Khane Pe Hum QURAAN Ki Ayat Padh Dete Hain Wo Inke Liye Suwar Se Bhi Zeyada Haram Hojata Hai. 110% ye usi mazhab ke manne wale hain jinka Bhooj(Khana) inke liye halal hai ! Uski Scan Copy Sath Me Upload Kar Raha Zaroor Dekhen !

AZAAN E QABR SE MUTALIK EK SAWAAL KA JAWAAB BY MUFTI MUHAMMED AAQUIB QUAADRI SAQAFI SAHAB QIBLA

Deobandiyon ki Pasandeeda Batein by abu arqam for more videos on Radde Wahabi Subscribe our youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/aarifwaghoo

Deobandi Ummat mein Fitna Fasaad Failate hain by Abu Arqam Razvi

Tableeghi Jamaat Walon par Pabandi Lagu by Maulana Shahir Raza

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.