Revolutionize Minds

Infallibility - An Islamic Discourse

2009-07-28T11:34:00.034+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Holy Quran 2:256

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Defining infallibility
Chapter 3: Shirk and the rational origins of infallibility
Chapter 4: The sunnah and its dependency on infallibility
Chapter 5: The mustahab and its importance in understanding infallibility
Chapter 6: The Quranic verses used against infallibility
Chapter 7: The Quranic verses supporting infallibility
Chapter 8: Samples of authentic Sunni narrations supporting infallibility
Chapter 9: Psychological and political reasons for the opposition against infallibility
Chapter 10: Conclusion

Chapter 1: Introduction

What is infallibility and how do we define it in an Islamic context? Do these definitions exaggerate the status of the Prophet and Imams? Or do they fall short in recognising the true merit of these holy personalities? And what are the consequences of committing to either one? Will one’s understanding that infallibility entails much more than commonly thought endanger his belief in the Oneness of Allah? Or will the allowance of wayward guides consequently put the Justice of Allah into question?

These questions merely introduce the enquirer to the difficult task of reconciling the many competing questions this discourse shall delve into. Yet in much the same way the surface of the ocean may at times possess chaotic and turbulent waves, if one immerses himself underneath them, he finds an environment much the opposite. It is thereby hoped, that by embracing infallibility in its entirety, one will see infallibility in a new light.

Chapter 2: Defining Infallibility

The closest meaning in Arabic to the concept of infallibility revolve around the words isma and masoom, which essentially means protection. This meaning will be discussed at a greater length later on in the piece.

For now we will delve into the English definitions of the words infallible and fallible as it is these definitions that have been the cause of much misunderstanding between the Shia and Sunni.

Of the varied definitions out there, the most common define our key terms as follows:

Infallible: Incapable of making an error.
Fallible: Capable of making an error.

There are two words in this definition that warrant clarification. The first is the word error. Every error includes every sin and mistake. Now throughout our discourse we will often use the phrase ‘sins and mistakes’. Our discussion of infallibility requires this distinction as some may argue Prophets do not sin but they do make mistakes. Thus although every sin is a mistake not every mistake is a sin, hence the need for the separation of the two terms.

The word incapable perhaps requires greater attention as the consequences of using this term means either one of two things:

1. The person does not possess the ability of making an error.

2. The person has the ability to make an error but Allah compels the person not to make an error.

In both instances, the concept of free will is removed because the person has no choice in not making an error. Now since we by and large believe in free will, such a proposition must be rejected for if it were plausible, it would mean the following two implications would arise:

1. Life would no longer be a test as there is no point to a test if you are incapable of making an error.

Allow us to imagine a student sitting an exam. On this exam he has multiple choice questions with answers being either A, B, C or D. Now imagine while holding his pencil, his teacher holds his hand over the students hand always moving it to the correct answer. We can see how the student is being compelled to give the right answer and so therefore, the student is incapable of getting the answer wrong. Now the obvious question here is what good is a test if it does not test?

The second implication is surmised as follows:

2. Any good deed performed will have no value as the person did not choose to perform the good deed but was rather compelled to.

In other words the good deed was not of there own volition and as such any reward should not be merited. This of course is what makes us humans superior beings.

It is clear therefore that all human beings including the Prophets and Imams must be capable of making errors. One may rightly argue therefore that the Shia must then agree that the Prophets and Imams are fallible since if we recall, the definition merely says ‘capable of making errors’. Now although this line of thinking is to some extent true, the connotations surrounding the word fallible does not allow the Shia to describe the Prophet and Imams as such. To elaborate further on this point, the non-Shia schools assert that because the Prophets and Imams are capable of making errors, they therefore must make errors. So their understanding of fallible has taken on a whole new meaning:

Definition of fallible: Capable of making errors.
Sunni understanding of fallible: Making errors.

Thus we can see the important difference between the original definition of fallible and the manner in which the non-Shia use the term. However the Shia are quick to point out that being capable of making an error does not mean that an error has to be made. The definition of fallible merely highlights that errors are possible. But possibility does not mean certainty. Although a person is capable of making an error, he or she does not have to. If we return to our example of the student and imagine the teacher removed his hand from the students hand so that now the student was free to make a choice, does it mean the student must now get the wrong answer? Rather, all it means is that the student is now capable of getting the wrong answer, but again, this capability does not mean the error must be made, he may very well get every answer correct depending how well he had studied.

However because there is this popular misconception that fallible means ‘making errors’, the Shia cannot use this term when describing the Prophets and Imams as it would imply the Shia believe the Prophets and Imams make errors. So in order to avoid this misunderstanding the Shia use the term infallible as it is the only english term that explicitly rejects this notion that Prophets and Imams make mistakes. Therefore it should be clear that the Shia do not use the term infallible according to its typical meaning:

Definition of infallible: Incapable of making errors.
Shia usage of the term infallible: Capable of making errors but will not.

Yet this alone is not sufficient enough to ensure a thorough definition of infallibility. For instance, if one was to assume the Prophet and Imams were infallible according to either school of understanding, one would need clarification on whether this infallibility entailed every aspect of their lives or only some of it. To elaborate, all Muslims agree Prophet Muhammad (s) was infallible when it came to recording the Divine revelation, yet when discussing infallibility beyond this point, stark contrasts emerge. These competing arguments shall be dissected in the subsequent chapters, yet for now, we shall complete the definition of infallibility according to the school of the Ahlul-Bayt as follows:

Infallibility incorporates infallibility of guidance and infallibility from sin and that both these areas of infallibility were and are present throughout the Prophet’s and Imams entire lives, from birth to death.

Chapter 3: Shirk and the rational origins of infallibility

For the average individual, it may initially seem remarkable that a Prophet can go through his entire life without ever making a single error in guidance or sin, especially if the Prophet is capable of doing so. This alleged impossibility has led to the argument that one needs to make such errors in order to be human.

This argument however has unwittingly contradicted the very fundamentals of Islam for if we entertain the idea that sinning and making mistakes are necessary attributes then the consequence is we are compelled to do them yet how is it that God can be Just whilst He simultaneously compels us to commit sins and mistakes? It is therefore a rational necessity to believe in infallibility. A logical deduction that best expresses this argument can be formulated as follows:

To believe in a Just God is to believe we are not compelled to sin.
To believe we are not compelled to sin is to believe it is possible not to sin.
To believe it is possible not to sin is to believe in infallibility.

Of course the reason why many may find such a proposition difficult to believe is due to the human being’s natural inclination to judge things based on their own strengths and weaknesses. Thus the notion that Prophets and Imams are sinless appears impossible since we as human beings often sin. Unfortunately this bias has led to a form of tunnel vision where the difference between what humans do and what makes a human has been neglected. Since we are not compelled to sin, sinning is not a necessary component that forms our being. It is merely something that we choose to do. So a more accurate description of what makes a human is to refer to those unique superior attributes that were given to us without our choice in the matter, some of which are our intellect, conscience and free will. Therefore, because these attributes were given to us they become attributes which are necessary and only the necessary attributes should be discussed whenever seeking to determine what ultimately makes a human.

An alternative argument against infallibility however surrounds the idea that infallibility is perfection and only Allah (swt) is perfect. While such an argument can be tackled from many fronts, it is sufficient to merely highlight here that everything that is dependant can never be considered absolutely perfect since dependency itself is an imperfection.

Yet perhaps the most influential line of thinking in opposing infallibility resides with the familiarity argument, specifically, if the Prophets and Imams are so perfect and since we are so imperfect, we would no longer be able to identify with them since there is no longer a connection between the two. In other words, the concern against infallibility is centered around making the Prophets and Imams into a type of demigod, which consequently means we will not be able to relate and feel close to them. In response however, the way we identify with the Prophets and Imams is not through their sin, but their suffering. Meaning that when we struggle through our own hard times, we remember the struggles and trials the Prophet and Imams had gone through and this will naturally inspire us to endure as they had. A perfect illustration of this point is to consider how a victim of a certain crime will immediately feel a close affiliation with someone who endured the same type of injustice as had happened to them. This closeness is precisely the identification the opponents of infallibility claim is missing. Equally as important to note, identification through mutual suffering is certainly a more healthier path than the alternative. For what incentive is there for the human to stop sinning if their heroes and guides sin as well? More on this point will be discussed later.

Alternatively, some may argue the Prophets and Imams may not sin, but they do make trivial mistakes. By trivial we mean errors that for instance did not affect Prophet Muhammad’s (s) explanation and implementation of Islam, an extreme example would be mistaking sugar for salt.

In response, the above argument neither proves nor disproves anything since infallibility in the Islamic context is solely concerned with matters relating to guidance and sin. Yet it still nonetheless poses an intriguing question for curious minds and as such we shall delve into it a little further.

Firstly, if the Prophet (s) can get it right every time on matters relating to guidance, then why would he make errors on minor and trivial things? If someone can accomplish a difficult task then it is highly unlikely that they fail on a task that is easy. For instance, consider a mathematical genius mistakenly adding two and two to equal five. Although theoretically possible it is not likely and so perhaps, not worthy of any prolonged deliberation. It poses the question then, what incentive do we have to believe Prophet Muhammad (s) made trivial errors anyway? Are we really going to argue tooth and nail that the Prophet (s) can make mistakes like mistaking sugar for salt? Why do we have to think less of the Prophet (s) if there is no necessity to do so? If the argument is to show that he is human then this is an argument which we have already addressed.

Perhaps the ideal way of approaching this argument is to consider that if the Prophets and Imams actually make such minor mistakes, then there will always be susceptible to making mistakes of greater significance. Picturing a water dam with a tiny crack may illustrate the consequences of this point more clearly. Although only drops of water may surface from the crack in the wall, the wall now becomes vulnerable to breaking entirely.

By clarifying some of these common misconceptions, we can pave the way towards demonstrating how infallibility is not such a miraculous thing as many have originally thought. A persuasive illustration of this begins with looking at our own experiences.

For example, it is safe to suggest we would never walk out in public naked even though we possess the ability. Yet despite this, none of us would ever do such a thing. The question is, why? Why would we never commit such an act even though we are capable of doing so? The explanation may naturally be because we see such an action as being completely detestable and abhorrent. Yet it does not explain why some others do not share the same sentiments. There are for instance elements in western society that deem it perfectly fine to display one’s naked body for all to see. This point of difference perhaps helps better address the question. It is such different levels of awareness that determines our ability to grasp notions of right and wrong, which subsequently affects the manner in which we conduct ourselves. Therefore, since a higher level of awareness can only be achieved through guidance, a higher level of guidance is what ultimately refrains one from engaging in such acts unbecoming.

From this example the following points have been demonstrated:

1. There are different levels of guidance.
2. The higher level of guidance reveals the reality of things we would not otherwise be aware of.
3. Upon being guided to a greater reality, our behavior is affected to reflect that greater reality.
4. Guidance can protect us from ever engaging in certain acts even though we have the choice to engage in those acts. In other words, guidance allows us to experience a percentage of infallibility.

It cannot be denied therefore that in one way or another we all experience these percentages of infallibility. This irrefutable reality is despite the fact that our level of guidance is so inferior to that of the Prophets. Why then some object to the Prophets being infallible should be seen as something quite strange. Indeed it is an act of arrogance to expect the Prophets to act in accordance to our level of guidance, a level that is so easily susceptible to errors. Rather, it would be only reasonable to conclude that if we can experience a percentage of infallibility with minimal guidance, then no doubt the Prophets can experience an infallible life. There is nothing remarkable about this prospect. If our own level of guidance were to increase, then our once small area of infallibility will now cover a wider range. This greater coverage would mean greater avoidance of errors. This fact is pivotal because if this level of guidance was to continue to increase, then naturally it would reach a point where errors are no longer made. In other words this point where errors stop will be where the varying degrees of correct actions begin. More on this point shall be discussed in later chapters.

Yet as far as this guidance as a mechanism of infallibility is concerned, some have sought to use it as a means of opening a plethora of other queries where not committing either way is seemingly the preferred option. For instance, is the kind of infallibility the Prophets and Imams exhibit attainable for others? If not then does this not raise serious implications on the debate surrounding the Justice of Allah (swt)? To elaborate, each of us are born under unique environmental factors which consequently means some of us are at a disadvantage to others who are born under more favourable circumstances. It is argued as a result of these unavoidable factors, infallibility is impossible which may mean that we are to some extent compelled to sin. As a result it is also said that infallibility simply cannot be defined as its definition is unable to address this dilemma. It is also argued that infallibility is neither able to address the necessity of an infallible Prophet before prophethood for such a belief is believed to make a mockery of God's actions by unnecessarily ‘playing’ with His creation.

The combinations of these questions are believed to present an irreconcilable picture of how this guidance as a mechanism for protection can be fairly administered and as a consequence, cannot be proven. While there are certainly explanations to the concerns raised here, a point the position misses is that one does not need to prove how a mechanism works in order to prove it exists. The same way many are completely oblivious to how an engine works does not mean they are unable to prove the engines results. To put simply, without the engine, the car is unable to produce force and motion. Infallibility works much the same way, without it, the fundamentals of Islam will no longer enjoy rational congruence as we shall shortly illustrate.

Returning to the questions posed, are we able to attain the same level of infallibility the Prophets and Imams had enjoyed? The answer this discourse shall present is a resounding no. Yet not because we generally speaking are incapable, but because no one had achieved it and no one will. The reason being is that Allah (swt) had already named Prophet Muhammad (s) as being the best of mankind. Had anyone else attained his level in the past, present or future, Allah (swt) would never have exclusively attributed Prophet Muhammad (s) this honorary title. Yet the capability of attaining such lofty levels should nevertheless not be cynically disregarded either. One only needs to read the following narration from hadith al-Qudsi to fully appreciate the extent of His guidance to those He deems worthy:

Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.
Hadith Qudsi 25

Yet can either of us lay claim that we deserve such a close affiliation with Allah (swt)? The question therefore of whether this alleged impenetrable exclusivity is fair or not is highly presumptuous. This point aside, such capabilities as illustrated in the narration just mentioned, clearly demonstrate that it is indeed possible to attain some level of infallibility. Yet what of those environmental factors said to prevent us from achieving such levels? The assumption here, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is that these disadvantageous environmental factors do not contain the choice of right and wrong, for how else can one be compelled to do a particular thing? Thus although compulsion is only real once this choice is taken away, we know such a position in itself contravenes the notion of free will and thus His Justice. As a result we are left with only one rational alternative and that is, these varying levels of environmental factors all contain the choice of right and wrong which means regardless of what position one is in, the choice always remains which means the possibility of infallibility remains along with it. Yet how can infallibility be possible for those whose environmental factors has not allowed one to be aware that the religion of Islam even exists? Even such an extreme example is by no means problematic as it is the Justice of Allah (swt) to judge every human being according to what their capacities allow. In other words, if one is not born under greater levels of responsibility, equally they are not born under greater levels of scrutiny and so long as an accessible option of right and wrong remain, infallibility remains possible and the Justice of Allah remains in tact.

However what of the question regarding the necessity for an infallible Prophet prior to prophethood? What constitutes necessity could very well have its own entire discourse. For instance, is it necessary for Allah (swt) to have created approximately 9000 species of birds? Perhaps not but how does one determine this in any case? In fact does it even need to be determined? For if the data proves there are approximately 9000 species of birds than its necessity is negligible for it is still a reality in either case. The point here is that it is once again highly presumptuous that every action of His must in some way be exclusively reserved for we the masses. In other words, it is His creation with which He can do as He please and as such, there does not need to be a necessity on a grand scale for Allah (swt) to devote a unique nearness to someone He loves. Equally as presumptuous is this notion that believing in the Prophets infallibility since birth is a too great a leap since making mistakes is the only way one learns. While certainly true that many lessons are learned through mistakes, it is also true that the wise learn from the mistakes of others and not themselves.

It is in any case a rational necessity to believe the Prophet was infallible since birth and this statement is based on the Quranic evidence which shall be presented in later chapters. The logical deduction however surmising what we discussed on this issue can be presented now as follows:

If an infallible life is an impossibility, we must be compelled to sin.
If we are compelled to sin, God is no longer Just
Therefore the belief in the possibility of an infallible life is a rational necessity.

A final concern centers on the argument that if the Prophet’s could get it right every time in anything they do, this would consequently mean they could not possibly possess any ignorance as they would always know the right approach. After all, our errors are based on ignorance. If there are no errors than there is no ignorance and the consequence of this is absolute knowledge. However, as we well know absolute knowledge can only be attributed to Allah. Therefore it is argued that to suggest the Prophets are infallible is tantamount to associating partners with Allah (swt).

In response, the argument only exists because it is focused solely on the outcome of infallibility rather than the mechanism itself. Recall the arabic words used to refer to infallibility involve the meaning of ‘protection’. This protection as we have earlier explained in detail, explains the way in which infallibility works. It is a protection achieved through a close guidance from Allah, in this case, a guidance which steers the Divine appointee clear from error. Therefore it is simply a rational impossibility for one to be guided while simultaneously possessing absolute knowledge, since the need for guidance is the proof of ignorance.

Yet ultimately, a proper understanding of the Oneness of Allah, tawheed, will ensure such hastily constructed arguments will never surface as it is the sharing of attributes with the Almighty that has been the impetus for much of the confusion. To explain further, since the idea of perfection is implied in infallibility, it is argued only Allah (swt) can be infallible since only He can be perfect. So as to elucidate on this misconception, consider the claim Allah (swt) makes when He says in the Quran the Prophet (s) has privilege to the Knowledge of the Unseen, or Islamically referred to as the Ghayb:

"He possesses the Ghayb and He does not discloses His Ghayb to anyone except to such a Messenger as He is well-pleased with."
(Holy Quran 72:26-27)

Does it mean here that Allah (swt) has made partners with the Prophet (s) by sharing one of His attributes? Rather, Allah (swt) is introducing a pivotal concept, a concept that is vital for our understanding of tawheed. and that is to recognise the difference between possessing an attribute and receiving an attribute.

For instance let us assume the Prophet (s) did not receive knowledge from Allah so that instead the knowledge of the Prophet (s) was inherent in himself. Such a belief would then mean this knowledge of the Prophet (s) is absolute. We can comfortably make this claim as the knowledge of the Prophet (s) in this example was inherent in himself which means the Prophet (s) did not receive knowledge from anyone, including Allah (swt). Therefore if the Prophet (s) is not a recipient of knowledge then he can only be the source of knowledge. To be the source of knowledge would then mean he can no longer be ignorant since all knowledge is derived from its source. Subsequently since the Prophet (s) would be the source, he would be all knowing. Or consider the popular attribute of mercy. Let us assume the Prophet (s) did not receive mercy from Allah (swt) so that the mercy of the Prophet (s) was inherent in himself. Again this would mean the Prophet (s) possesses an all encompassing attribute, in this case, mercy. The same logical flow applies. Since the mercy of the Prophet (s) was inherent in himself, the Prophet (s) could not be the recipient of mercy from anyone, including Allah (swt). So if the Prophet (s) is not a recipient of mercy then he can only be the source of mercy. As a consequence, because all mercy can only be derived from the source and since the Prophet (s) is the source of mercy in our example, it would make the Prophet (s) all merciful.

To clarify a point, the above hypothetical scenarios are of course blatant illustrations of shirk and no Muslim regardless of what school of thought they belong to believes that the attributes of the Prophet (s) are inherent in himself. However the purpose of the examples is to highlight a vital point, that is, we do share attributes with Allah (swt) yet this in no way compromises our belief in tawheed. Any suggestion otherwise will be a conclusion made in haste and little insight. For we have clearly demonstrated the difference between possessing an attribute and receiving an attribute. Thus regardless of what the Prophet (s) accomplished during his life, even the avoidance of mistakes, such attributes are all received from Allah which means the Prophet’s (s) attributes can never be absolute. Subsequently the accusation that only Allah (swt) can be infallible proves nothing except one’s unfortunate ignorance on the subject matter.

Chapter 4: The sunnah and its dependency on infallibility

There is unanimous agreement that the Prophet (s) must be infallible when receiving Quranic revelation. All sides rightly argue that because Allah (swt) has protected the Quran, there should be no errors. After all it does not make any rational sense that a book of guidance can at the same time contain errors. Therefore it is argued that in order for the Quran to remain a reliable source of guidance, the Prophet (s) had to be infallible upon receiving Quranic revelation so as to ensure no errors were made.

However there is a clear contradiction here from those who do not belong to the Shia school. On the one hand, it is argued that the Quran must not contain errors because it is a source of guidance, yet is not the Prophet (s) too, a source of guidance? Do we not say ‘Quran and Sunnah’? Why then can we so flippantly dismiss an erroneous Sunnah?

Remember that the Sunnah is something we need in order to understand the Quran. In fact Allah (swt) has said in the Quran that obedience to the Prophet (s) is obedience to Him. But how does Allah expect us to follow the Sunnah if the Prophet (s) had made errors in his life? Sure there are authentic hadith, but authenticity only confirms what the Prophet (s) said or did. But what if what the Prophet (s) said or did was a mistake? Such an occurrence would mean that not only would the people of his time be misguided, but also, the billions of Muslim generations who later followed his sayings and actions from these narrations would also be misguided.

Now this raises a serious dilemma one cannot ignore. If the Muslims followed something the Prophet (s) had mistakenly performed, can the blame for the subsequent misguidance rest on the Muslims? This would certainly not be fair, for the Muslims would only be following the command of Allah (swt), which is to obey the Prophet (s). Neither would it be right to hold the belief Allah (swt) wants us to follow the path of error as this would be incompatible with the religion of truth. How then is it possible to believe the Prophet (s) can commit errors in light of these dilemmas? For one would then be forced to ask, if Allah can command us to follow a source that misguides, then where would the error ultimately reside? The implications of such questioning is of course contrary to the reality of Islam, yet the hypothetical line of thought must be pursued so as to distinguish right from wrong. As a result, one will be able to discern that we cannot have it both ways. One cannot claim Allah (swt) does not misguide yet at the same time commands us to follow people that misguide. Unfortunately this is precisely the contradiction one must contend with if he or she believes in this concept of fallible Prophets.

To surmise this argument more succinctly, consider the following logical deduction:

To believe God is Just is to believe He will not compel us to make mistakes.
To believe God will not compel us to make mistakes is to believe He will not compel us to follow Prophets who makes mistakes.
To believe God will not compel us to follow Prophets who makes mistakes is to believe Prophets are infallible.

Chapter 5: The mustahab and its importance in understanding infallibility

Those Muslims opposed to the infallible life of the Prophet (s) immediately take the assumption that to believe in such a concept is tantamount to elevating the Prophet (s) to a god like figure. Yet as has already been discussed, such a stance is more born out of haste and emotion than any careful and rational thought. This chapter will introduce a vital point that will clear much of this misunderstanding.

Infallibility is only concerned with what is correct, not with what is ideal. To elaborate, our actions can be broadly divided into two categories, a wrong action and a right action. We can sub-divide these categories further. Under the category of a wrong action there will always be an action that is worse. Conversely under the category of a right action there will always be an action that is better. The equivalent of this sub-category according to Islamic terminology is the mustahab, meaning the recommended. These points are encapsulated in the illustration below:

.. worse .. wrong .. right .. better ..

Now consider a Muslim boy who performs his compulsory prayers but does not perform the recommended night prayers. His sister on the other hand not only performs her compulsory prayers but also performs the recommended night prayers as well. Sure the boy had not gone above and beyond the call of duty like his sister had and so will not receive as many good deeds she will. But more pertinent to our current focus, the boy had done nothing wrong from a jurisprudence standpoint as the law stipulates night prayers are only recommended and thus not performing those night prayers cannot be classified as a mistake.

His sister however has taken a spiritual path and so sees things much differently from her brother. To her there is no recommended action. She is of the belief that anything that will acquire one closer to Allah (swt) should be treated as being compulsory. She also believes that there is no highly discouraged action. In other words anything that distances our self from Allah(swt) should be treated as being forbidden. This outlook means that when she fails to perform the recommended action, she reacts as though she committed a grave crime because to her the recommended action is compulsory and failure to do the compulsory means she has sinned. However, we know that despite this personal outlook, no sin was committed as those actions deemed compulsory and recommended will always remain the same. Thus even though she may feel like she had committed a grave sin, jurisprudent law states otherwise.

And here lies a common misconception surrounding infallibility. The idea that because the Prophets sought forgiveness, it therefore must mean Prophets make mistakes. Yet as we have already illustrated, this suggestion must be dismissed for it is neglectful of the following factors:

1. The difference between a correct action and a better action.
2. How the Prophet’s view a correct action and a better action.

In fact, if we return to the example of the sister, she would always beg for forgiveness even if she were to always perform the recommended action. That is because she would always see herself as trying to pay an infinite debt with finite resources. In other words, she knows she will never be able to do enough. As a result of her inherent inadequacies, she never ceases to seek forgiveness from Allah (swt) regardless if she lived the rest of her life only engaging in the mustahab.

From this example we can extract three critical points that will prove vital to understanding the Quran and Infallibility:

1. Failure to perform the better action does not mean the action committed was wrong.
2. A correct action in Islamic jurisprudence can never be legally classed as a mistake.
3. The pious treat the recommended actions as compulsory. This in turn means the pious act as though they have committed a grave error when not performing the better action.

Chapter 6: Quranic verses used against infallibility

Accusation #1: Prophet Muhammad (s)

In order to defend the doctrine that Prophet Muhammad (s) commits sins and errors, the following verses are often referred to:

[Pickthal 40:55] Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin, and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours.

[Pickthal 47:19] So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest.

[Pickthal 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,

This they argue clearly disproves the notion that Prophet Muhammad (s) is infallible.

Response #1

There are essentially three guiding principles all Muslims must be aware of and implement whenever trying to better comprehend the Quran. These can be surmised as follows:

The best interpreter of the Quran is the Quran itself. In other words the first priority in seeking an explanation on a verse is to look at its related verses since none is better at elucidating than Allah (swt).
Contradictions are merely incorrect understandings. Thus contradictions unresolved means our interpretations and/or translations needs to be re-examined.
One word can have many meanings. Therefore the correct meaning chosen should not contradict and should fit the context.

So as to better illustrate these guiding principles consider the following example:

Verse 1 (V1) needs to agree with Verse 2 (V2)
V1 can be A, B or C
A contradicts V2, so Verse 1 cannot be A
B does not contradict V2 but B does not fit the context of V2, so V1 cannot be B
C does not contradict V2 and fits the context of V2, so V1 should be C

Having established these unanimously agreed upon principles, we shall endeavor to implement them and demonstrate the need to re-examine the translation for the verses in question.

Response #2:

[Pickthal 53:2] Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived;

[Pickthal 21:27] They speak not until He hath spoken, and they act by His command.

[Pickthal 4:80] Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, and whoso turneth away: We have not sent thee as a warder over them.

[Yusufali 76:24] Therefore be patient with constancy to the Command of thy Lord, and hearken not to the sinner or the ingrate among them.

These verses clearly illustrate, atleast on the surface, that there appears to be a contradiction in the Quran as on the one hand we read verses which appear to imply the Prophet (s) commits sins yet on the other hand Allah (swt) is explicitly informing us the Prophet (s) does not err. Yet recall that contradictions are merely incorrect understandings, which of course begs the question, which side of the argument is able to resolve this contradiction? The opposing schools attempt to resolve it by arguing that Allah (swt) has intended for us to understand the Prophet (s) is only infallible when it comes to receiving Quranic revelation. Yet in response, the following verse indicates that the Prophet (s) receives Divine revelation beyond the Quran:

[Yusufali 66:3] When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, "Who told thee this? "He said, "He told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)."

All schools within Islam are of the understanding that the wives the verse is referring too are both Aisha and Hafsa. These names however are not mentioned anywhere in the Quran. Yet as the verse explicitly states, Allah (swt) still revealed the identities to the Prophet (s), thereby proving the Prophet (s) receives revelation beyond the Quran. Since it is argued revelation determines infallibility, are the Sunni now prepared to concede the Prophet (s) is infallible beyond Quranic revelation?

The opposing argument also appears to be incompatible with the following verse:

“Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah…”

Would Allah instruct the Muslims to obey the Prophet (s) unconditionally if the Prophet (s) commits sins and errors? Imagine a scenario where the Prophet (s) mistakenly instructed us to do something that was wrong. The consequence, much of which we have already discussed, is absurd for we would be obeying Allah while committing a wrongful action.

Consequently, by establishing these contradictions, we have demonstrated the need for an objective re-examination of those verses used against infallibility.

Response #3

It is unfortunate, that despite the common awareness that the words in the Quran embody a rich content, a content that requires great skill when attempting to extract the appropriate meaning to apply, many abandon this duty of care. The result is erroneous interpretations and as we have just demonstrated in the previous section, unresolved contradictions. However it is hoped, by focusing on the varying definitions of the key terms and how these terms relate to the appropriate context, these inconsistencies shall be resolved.

The term istaghfir is one of these key terms which requires further focus. Although commonly interpreted to be the one who has fallen into error and sin and is now seeking forgiveness, it is also understood to mean one who supplicates to God for protection against falling into this error or sin. This is because the word is derived from the root ghafr, which translates to mean the covering of a thing that will protect it. Therefore the primary meaning is to seek protection against error and sin and thus any connotations with forgiveness must be treated as a secondary meaning.

For instance the following verse translated by Yusuf Ali mistakenly interprets ighfir to mean forgiveness:

(Yusufali 66:8) O ye who believe! Turn to Allah with sincere repentance: In the hope that your Lord will remove from you your ills and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow,- the Day that Allah will not permit to be humiliated the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their Light will run forward before them and by their right hands, while they say, "Our Lord! Perfect our Light for us, and grant us Forgiveness
(وَاغْفِرْ ) for Thou hast power over all things."

One will notice that the context of the verse is speaking of those who are in Jannah yet as we are all well aware, one cannot be admitted to paradise before his sins are forgiven. Thus the translation of waghfir to forgiveness is meaningless for why would someone seek forgiveness when his sins are already forgiven. Therefore the correct interpretation should read as follows:

(Shakir 66:8) … Our Lord! make perfect for us our light, and grant us protection, surely Thou hast power over all things.”

This example illustrates clearly that the term under investigation incorporates a wider meaning of seeking protection, not forgiveness. Thus when Allah (swt) explicitly says the Prophet (s) does not err, the Muslim is required to apply the meaning that is consistent with the other verses in the Quran. In this case, whenever terms like istaghfir are used in connection to the Prophets in the Quran, the Muslim is obligated to apply the meaning of protection.

Response #4

In the previous responses, we illustrated how imperative it is to become familiar with all the varying meanings one word may carry, particularly when one of its meanings may contradict other verses in the Quran. The same approach must be taken when considering the following verse and its word dhanb, commonly referred to as meaning sin or fault:

[Pickthal 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin (ذَنبِكَ) that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,

The Sunni often use this term dhanb as proof the Prophets commit sins. Yet once again the context of the verse has been neglected along with the wider meaning of the term.

Renowned commentator on the Quran, Allamah Tabatab’i in his Tafsir Al Mizan draws our attention to the context by first correctly reminding the reader that the initial verse of the surah is referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the subsequent verses are inseparably linked in context for the following verse begins with, ‘that’ while the third verse begins with ‘and that’:

[Pickthal 48:1] Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory,
[Pickthal 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,
[Pickthal 48:3] And that Allah may help thee with strong help

In other words any explanation of the second verse not consistent with the first must be disregarded. In light of this, if the Pickthal translation is believed to be correct, then we are required to assume that the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was a Divine victory so that Allah (swt) could now forgive the Prophet (s) of his past and future sins. This explanation however is clearly nonsensical for two reasons. Firstly, forgiveness of sins is not granted for one’s achievements but rather it is granted upon one’s sincere repentance. Secondly the implication of this explanation means that if Prophet Muhammad (s) were not successful in negotiating a favourable outcome from the treaty, than it would mean the Prophet’s (s) alleged sins would not be forgiven.

The correct interpretation of the verse rests in the examination of the word dhanb. Allamah Tabatab’i explains that although the term incorporates the meaning of sin, it also carries a wider meaning. He establishes this conclusion since dhanb comes from the verb form dhanaba, meaning ‘to follow’ and the noun form, dhanab meaning ‘tail; something that follows’. In other words, dhanb can be interpreted to mean consequence, which is why it is often referred to as sin, since every sin involves an evil consequence. In this case however, the consequence being referred to is the consequence of Prophet Muhammad’s (s) treaty with the Meccans. This would mean the verse will read as follows:

“Verily We granted thee (in the treaty of Hudaybiyya) a manifest victory; so that God may protect you from the past and future consequences of your (policy with the Meccans).”

This explanation not only squashes any claim the Quran contradicts itself, but it has also made coherent sense of the continuation between the first and second verses.

Accusation #2: Prophet Muhammad (s)

The initial verses in Surah Abasa were revealed after the Prophet (s) allegedly frowned at a blind man who interrupted his lecture. It is argued that this proves the Prophet (s) makes mistakes.

[Yusuf Ali 80:1] (The Prophet) frowned and turned away,
[Yusuf Ali 80:2] Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
[Yusuf Ali 80:3] But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-
[Yusuf Ali 80:4] Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?
[Yusuf Ali 80:5] As to one who regards himself as self-sufficient,
[Yusuf Ali 80:6] To him dost thou attend;
[Yusuf Ali 80:7] Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).
[Yusuf Ali 80:8] But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,
[Yusuf Ali 80:9] And with fear (in his heart),
[Yusuf Ali 80:10] Of him wast thou unmindful.
[Yusuf Ali 80:11] By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:

Response #1

Allah (swt) never addressed the Prophet (s) by name in the beginning of this chapter, which should compel one to at least enquire further as to the accuracy of the accusation.

In addition, when considering that the Prophet (s) was receiving revelation through Gibrael from Allah (swt), one would assume he would not be addressed in the third person if he allegedly committed this serious offence.

Response #2

Clear proof that it was not the Prophet (s) who had frowned is demonstrated in the following verses:

[Yusuf Ali 80:5] As to one who regards himself as self-sufficient,
[Yusuf Ali 80:6] To him dost thou attend;

From these verses we can see that there was a third person involved in this episode. So now the reader is forced to ask, was the one who frowned at the poor blind man the Prophet (s), or this rich man who arrogantly considered himself to be free from need?

Indeed it is both remarkable yet very unfortunate, that amongst some Islamic circles, there is a preference to protect the image of an arrogant rich man rather than our beloved Prophet (s). There is a hidden agenda here which explains why this occurs, yet we shall discuss this in chapter 9.

Response #3

It is contradictory to the Prophet’s (s) character when considering the following verses:

And most certainly you are on sublime morality (exalted standard of character).
(Holy Quran 68:4)

Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived; (Holy Quran 53:2)

In light of these verses and many which are similar, how does the heart and his reason conclude that the kindest and most patient of men, whom Allah (swt) declared as the one who ‘does not err’, treat a blind man so disrespectfully that he deserved a condemnation from Allah (swt)? Such an occurrence does not match neither Allah’s statements regarding the Prophet (s) nor does it match the Prophet’s (s) proven sublime character.

Response #4

In his tafsir, Allamah Tabatabai presents references and expands on this event in detail. To paraphrase, the situation that had transpired was that a blind man had approached the Prophet (s) while giving his speech to the Qurashites. Although the Prophet (s) did not address the blind man’s issues immediately, he did welcome him kindly, so kindly in fact that he paused his speech so that the blind man could sit near him. The wealthy Qurashites found this act offensive. They could not understand how the Prophet (s) could welcome a man of such low status amongst them and that he saw him as being important enough to stop his speech. As a consequence, one of these Qurashites frowned at the blind man and turned away from him.

Accusation #3: Prophet Adam (as):

There are some that wish to argue that Adam’s (as) disobedience to Allah (swt) is a clear sign that Prophets cannot be infallible. The verses often quoted to support this position are the following:

[Shakir 7:23] They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers.

[Shakir 20:121] Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the garden, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil (to him).

Response #1:

After reading the verses regarding the story of Adam (as), it should become apparently clear that Adam (as) only became a Prophet/Caliph after being sent to earth:

[Shakir 2:30] And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif…

Notice Allah (swt) did not state He will make Adam (as) a Caliph,‘in the garden and earth’. Neither did Allah (swt) say, ‘I am going to make Adam (as) a Caliph’ without further elaboration. Perhaps if that was the case then one may be able to claim Adam (as) was a Caliph regardless where he resided. However, this cannot be a possibility since Allah (swt) did in fact elaborate by explicitly stating, “…I am going to place in the Earth a Caliph.”

Thus the story of Adam (as) eating from the tree in no way refutes his infallibility as his Caliphate had begun since his arrival on earth.

Response #2:

Adam (as) could not have deviated during his stay on earth as the following verses attests to:

[Shakir 15:39] He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate

[Shakir 15:40] Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones.

[Shakir 15:42] Surely as regards My servants, you have no authority over them except those who follow you of the deviators.

[Shakir 17:65] Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector.

In light of the above verses, how is it possible for Adam (as) not to be infallible on earth when the Quran explicitly states the Shaytan will deviate all except the servants of Allah (swt). Or are we to suggest Adam (as) was not a servant of Allah (swt)?

Response #2:

It cannot be argued that the prohibition to eat from the tree was because it would result in the demise of Adam (as). The status of Adam (as) excelled to a higher level after being sent to earth. That is for the two reasons already previously mentioned:

1. He was made a Caliph for earth.
2. The Shaytan could no longer deceive him after being sent to earth.

So we can see here that Adam’s (as) expulsion from the garden and thus subsequent loss of physical comforts was certainly not a punishment. An environment that excels your status and strength and thus nearness to Allah (swt) is in fact a blessing. It is a blessing that can also be described as a necessary evolution in spirituality.

To elaborate on this point, consider the example of a child who had been given everything in life. Now compare this child to another child that needed to work for his basic necessities. It is easy to discern which child would be more appreciative of certain luxuries in life. Of course no parent would want to put their child through unnecessary hardship just so he learns concepts like gratitude. However, despite the extraordinary amount of love a parent holds for their child, there comes a time when the parent wants their child to become independent. That is not because the parent does not love their child. The parent understands that although life will be much more difficult with more responsibilities, the child will nonetheless develop into a better human being. That is because the child would have matured whilst at home and would now be ready for an environment that can not only teach him more about life but will also allow him to experience greater joys than he could have otherwise achieved. So we can see that the home is actually a training ground where the child will develop the necessary knowledge and skills needed for the outside world. This voluntary transition from the easy to the difficult is what is needed for the soul to realise its potential. Without this transition the development of the soul will remain stagnant.

Shaytan was oblivious to this reality which was why he encouraged Adam (as) to approach the tree. Yet had he have known what Adam (as) would later have become as a result of approaching the tree, the Shaytan would never have attempted to deceive Adam (as). This is a testament to the Greatness of Allah (swt), for while the whole time the Shaytan thought he was doing the deceiving, it was in fact Allah (swt) who had deceived Shaytan.

Accusation #4: Prophet Musa (as)

[Shakir 18:72] He said: Did I not say that you will not be able to have patience with me?

[Shakir 18:73] He said: Blame me not for what I forgot, and do not constrain me to a difficult thing in my affair.

Since this wonderful story of Musa (as) and Khizr (as) is well known, we shall not delve into the specific events surrounding their encounter. Instead, we will ensure our focus remain on infallibility by extracting the verses above which is believed to prove Prophets cannot be infallible, for if they were, Musa (as) would never have been impatient nor would he have forgotten the warning Khizr (as) had imparted on him.

Response #1

Musa (as) enacted exactly what was required of him according to his knowledge at the time. Therefore, would a pious Muslim let alone a Prophet of God, ever stand idly by in silence while they believed the laws of Allah are being openly transgressed right before their eyes? Perhaps more pertinent, would voicing protest here ever constitute impatience how we typically know it? Musa’s (as) ‘impatience’ was not for any selfish motive as is often the case of such a trait. In fact this particular impatience towards injustice is admirable for the intent is to eagerly return to the laws of Allah. This pivotal factor is unfortunately neglected and thus any suggestion Musa (as) made an error needs to be dismissed for it completely ignores this universal concept that justice delayed is justice denied.

Response #2

There is a direct link between knowledge and patience as is demonstrated in the following question Khizr (as) posed to Musa (as):

[Shakir 18:68] And how can you have patience in that of which you have not got a comprehensive knowledge?

This question illustrates that had Musa (as) known what Khizr (as) had, he would have never questioned Khizr’s (as) actions, for he would have been aware of the higher purpose. If we understand this concept properly, we would then realise that Khizr (as) would act in a similar way had Musa (as) known something of an ever higher purpose and that this role reversal between the two could go on indefinitely. In other words, one of the lessons being taught in this story is to appreciate our own minuteness, in fact our nothingness in relation to the Knowledge of Allah (swt). As a consequence, there will always be a better course of action as a result of our ignorance. That is not to say our prior actions were wrong, it is merely to highlight that Allah (swt) can at any stage inform us of something better. How unfortunate it is that this story which contains such profound lessons is being used to bring down the status of our beloved Prophet.

Response #3

There are certain situations where the act forgetting is not a mistake. For instance, in the following verse, one of the methods Allah uses to abrogate verses in the Quran is to make people forget:

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? (Holy Quran, 2:106)

Now one may argue the above verse is completely irrelevant to the case of Musa (as) as it is an exception to the rule. Yet the problem here is we simply have no evidence for this presumption as Allah (swt) gives no indication He will only make people forget when abrogating a verse. The only thing we can conclude with certainty from the verse is that Allah (swt) will cause people to forget if there is benefit in doing so. This can be proved through a simple example that is an irrefutable piece of evidence.

Assume we were waiting at a traffic light. We forget to check that the light had turned green. Had we driven off sooner we would have driven into the path of an oncoming truck that was running a red light. Perhaps to the non-Muslim this would simply be interpreted as a lucky event. To the Muslim however, the immediate reaction would be to recite alhamdulillah. Now one cannot praise and thank Allah without acknowledging that what had happened was the will of Allah (swt). In other words, we are essentially praising and thanking Allah (swt) for making us forget.

Response #4

The point that the warning came from Khizr (as) and not Allah (swt) should not be neglected. Allah (swt) had given no instruction to do as Khizr (as) says. The only information Allah (swt) had told Musa (as) about Khizr (as) was that he was highly knowledgeable. Had however the warning to be patient come from Allah (swt) Himself, Musa (as) would have obeyed without question. Consider for example the order that Allah had sent to Ibrahim (as) in which he was required to kill his own son. The reaction of Ibrahim (as) was complete compliance and thus, this is sufficient reason to believe Musa (as) would have reacted in the same way had the warning come from Allah (swt).

So allow us to now appreciate the situation Musa (as) was placed in. He was required to remember the warning of someone who was essentially a stranger while this very stranger was violating what Musa (as) believed to be the laws of Allah. Such a situation introduces a vital factor, that is, the greater the magnitude of a specific event, the greater it will compel you to forget a prior event that was of lesser importance.

To elaborate on this point further, consider a learner driver taking driving lessons from an instructor. The instructor warns this driver to do everything he says. The driver agrees to these conditions. During the course of the training, the instructor tells the driver to turn left even though there was insufficient time to do so. Yet the driver remembers the instructors warning to do everything he says. So despite the danger, the driver brakes hard and turns left. However, later on the instructor tells the driver to run over a little boy crossing the street. Will the driver at this point remember the warning the instructor gave, to do everything he says? The answer is no because the magnitude of killing a small boy will simply not allow you to remember the initial warning the instructor gave, for there is a big difference between being told to turn left and being told to murder a child. It is this preoccupation with that thing of greater magnitude which Musa (as) similarly experienced and to be expected to simultaneously remember something trivial in comparison is an impossible task which Musa (as) was quick to point out:

[Shakir 18:73] He said: Blame me not for what I forgot, and do not constrain me to a difficult thing in my affair.

In other words, the situation that Allah (swt) had placed Musa (as) in, compelled him to react the way he did. This understanding is supported by the following verse:

[Shakir 18:69] He said: If Allah pleases, you will find me patient and I shall not disobey you in any matter.

Here Prophet Musa (as) had an expectation, that whatever actions of his were to follow, would be in accordance to what pleased Allah (swt). None should doubt that Musa’s (as) hope here was not fulfilled since the lesson Allah (swt) was imparting to His Prophet could not have received the impact intended had Musa reacted any other way.

Accusation #5: Prophet Musa (as)

[Shakir 28:15] And he went into the city at a time of unvigilance on the part of its people, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his party and the other of his foes, and he who was of his party cried out to him for help against him who was of his enemies, so Musa struck him with his fist and killed him. He said: This is on account of the Shaitan's doing; surely he is an enemy, openly leading astray.

[Shakir 28:16] He said: My Lord! surely I have done harm to myself, so do Thou protect me. So He protected him; surely He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.
It is argued here that Musa (as) sought forgiveness because he unintentionally killed a innocent man and thus he cannot be infallible.

Some suggest here that Musa (as) had committed a sin by mistakenly killing another human being.

Response #1

The immediate question that comes to mind is since when is an enemy of Musa (as) innocent? If Allah (swt) Himself declares someone an enemy, how can any Muslim claim that particular person is innocent?

Response #2

As we earlier discussed in greater detail, phrases like Faghfir-li also incorporates the meaning of ‘protect’. Yet even if we apply the definition ‘forgive’, it still does not compromise Musa’s (as) infallibility. Musa (as) did not seek forgiveness for killing a man mistakenly, he sought forgiveness because he feared he had compromised his mission as Musa (as) was not yet permitted to publicly declare his war on the infidels. Thus he feared his action may have hastened an open aggression that he was not yet ready for.

Now one may argue that this was also a mistake. Yet the question we must ask is what was the alternative for Musa (as)? Would it be right for him to do nothing while his supporter was being killed? Surely not. So are we to believe it’s a case of ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’? Yet where is the Justice of Allah in that?

Accusation # 6: Prophet Yunus (as)

[Yusufali 21:87] And remember Zun-nun, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness, "There is no god but thou: glory to thee: I was indeed wrong!"

The verse above refers to the story of Prophet Yunus (as), who had tirelessly tried to guide the people of the city Nineveh. The people however were stubborn in their rejection and refused to concede any of the evidences Prophet Yunus (as) had brought forward. This stubbornness forced Prophet Yunus (as) to finally leave them, the consequences of which we are well aware. It was during his time in the belly of the great fish that he realised Allah (swt) was teaching him a lesson, that he should not have left the people of Nineveh despite their wickedness. The words from Prophet Yunus (as): “Glory be to Thee, I was indeed wrong” is said to be proof Prophets make mistakes.

Response:

No one can cast any aspersions or doubt as to the commitment and persistence Prophet Yunus (as) had gone through. Therefore to think for a moment that what Prophet Yunus (as) sees as a mistake is something we ourselves can identify with, is audacious to say the least. Meaning, although Prophet Yunus (as) had been patient with the people he eventually left, it was a level of patience that certainly no one else would have been able to achieve. Yet Allah (swt) had informed Prophet Yunus (as) of something better, to which he expressed regret of not being able to perform. Thus rather than being admonished in the belly of the whale for a mistake, Prophet Yunus (as) and we also for that matter, are being informed that there always exist superior paths which can bring us closer to the Almighty. As a result, these paths are perpetual and infinite, which although demonstrates that we can never do enough for Allah (swt), it also reveals that those whom Allah (swt) loves, will be rewarded with a path that will bring them to a closer proximity to Him.

Chapter 7: The Quranic verses supporting Infallibility

Proof #1

By the star when it sets,
Your companion (i.e., the Prophet) does not err, nor is he deceived
Nor does he speak out of his desire
It is no less than a revelation that is revealed
The Mighty in Power has taught him (Holy Quran 53:1-5)

Those opposed to the Shia understanding of infallibility explain this verse to mean the Prophet’s infallibility is limited to Quranic revelation only. Seeing as though we have already discussed the serious consequences of this understanding, referring to our earlier discussion on this matter will suffice.

Another reason for opposing this verse as proof for infallibility is the fact that the verse is in the present tense and so should read as follows:

Your companion did not err, now was he deceived.

Thus it is argued because the verse is in the present tense, it was referring to a specific situation only. This specific situation was where the non-believers were ridiculing Prophet Muhammad (s) for accepting Islam and here, Allah (swt) was simply rebuking them by saying the Prophet (s) did not make a mistake. So rather than being proof for infallibility, this is Allah (swt) protecting the message only.

As has already been emphasised throughout this piece, before accepting any translation of the Quran, we need to be careful and ensure the implication of the translation fits solid reasoning for this is the only way to understand the proper context in which the verse was intended.

While it is true therefore that Allah (swt) was protecting the message, to suggest He was protecting the message only raises a serious dilemma and that is, how can Allah (swt) protect the message if the Prophet (s) makes mistakes? We have already discussed in detail that such an outcome is simply not compatible with the fundamentals of Islam. It is for this reason that even if we assume the Prophet (s) did make mistakes, the aim of the verse would still subsequently be defeated for what is the point of Allah (swt) proclaiming the Prophet (s) did not make a mistake in choosing Islam if the Prophet (s) makes mistakes in guiding people in Islam? For instance, although it is true that every nation needs an army to defend it self, the purpose of the army becomes pointless if the army is comprised of children with sticks and stones. Thus the verse reveals a rational necessity to support infallibility.

Proof #2

Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah (Holy Quran 4:80)
O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority (Ulul-Amr) from among you. (Holy Quran 4:59).

As previously mentioned, since we believe the orders of Allah (swt) distinguish the right path from the wrong one, than there is simply no possibility that we can obey Allah (swt) while simultaneously being on an erroneous path. Thus when Allah (swt) states obedience to the Prophet (s) is obedience to Him, it becomes rationally impossible for the Prophet (s) to make mistakes. Therefore these verses are irrefutable proof that the Prophet (s) is infallible.

In addition, verse 59 of Surah Nisa also proves that infallibility is not reserved solely for Prophets. Proof of this resides in the following sentence:

obey the Messenger and those vested with authority (Ulul-Amr) from among you.

The word ‘obey’ here is unconditional since it is referring to obedience to the Prophet (s) yet Allah (swt) continues by saying ‘and the Ulul-Amr’, meaning the unconditional word of ‘obey’ must also include the Ulul-Amr. The result is a clear proof that the Ulul-Amr must also be infallible. As will be shown in the following evidences, this is completely consistent with other verses in the Quran.

Proof #3

[Yusufali 33:33] And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

This verse could very well have its own entire discourse given the vast amount of debates surrounding its meaning. Yet there are essentially two main points of difference between the Shia and Sunni regarding this verse. The first is obviously whether or not the verse is referring to infallibility and the second is who exactly is included in the Ahlul-Bayt (as)? It is common knowledge amongst Islamic circles that the Shia include the Prophet (s), Ali (as), Fatima (as), Hasan (as), Husayn (as) and the nine pure descendants of Husayn (as), the last being Imam Mahdi (may Allah hasten his appearance), as being the only members Allah (swt) is referring to in this verse. The Sunni, although not agreeing with the infallibility and most of the political authority of the aforementioned names, agree these persons are part of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). However they are strongly opposed to the exclusion of the wives from this last sentence, believing that they too ought to be included.

Both these points of contention are displayed in the manner the verse is translated. For instance there is a stark difference in meaning when one compares the Sunni translation of Yusuf Ali and the Shia translation of Shakir:

[Yusufali 33:33] ... And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

[Shakir 33:33] … Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.

The implication here is that by ‘removing’ the impurities from the Ahlul-Bayt (as), as opposed to ensuring they ‘keep away’, the Ahlul-Bayt (as) could not be infallible. In other words, the Ahlul-Bayt (as) commit sins yet Allah will ensure He always removes such impurities. Such a form of purification that is being referred to in this verse is argued to be not unlike the many other verses in the Quran where Allah (swt) speaks of pure believers. The following verse is commonly referred to in this case:

“For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly in repentance and loves also those who keep themselves pure and clean” (Holy Quran 2:222)

The Sunni’s therefore contend, verses like the one above, proves 33:33 cannot mean the infallibility of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) for if it did, then all the believers would be infallible since Allah has referred to those believers as being pure as well.

In addition it is also argued that if attention is paid to the whole verse, it will be realised that 33:33 is merely explaining that if the wives of the Prophet (s) fulfill their obligations set out by Allah (swt), then Allah (swt) will purify them in the same manner as He would any other believer. Therefore it is said any reference to infallibility becomes an intentional misrepresentation to support the fundamentals of the Shia belief.

However an objective analysis of these points raised shall reveal unfortunate occurrences of negligence.

Firstly, the word tathiran has a nunation on the end or in Arabic a tanween, which typically denotes that the word is indefinite, now a good way of understanding what indefinite means is to think of it as having no limits. For example if you say bring me an apple, you’re asking for any apple so the word ‘an’ in English works as an indefinite article. So it’s because of this tanween, Yusuf Ali translated this phrase as ‘pure and spotless’ and it’s why Shakir translated it as ‘a thorough purifying’. So we can see here that this word tathiran fits perfectly with the definition of infallibility with regards to sin because no sin would mean one is ‘spotless’.

Secondly, earlier in the sentence Allah uses the word al rijs, which essentially means something impure. Now the ‘al’ in Arabic is usually considered the equivalent of ‘the’ in English, which is why ‘al’ is seen as a definite article. Now a definite article works opposite to the indefinite article, in other words it is limited. Now a limited rijs may seem inconsistent with a perfect purification, because how can one be perfectly purified if there is still rijs remaining? However, in Arabic grammar the ‘al’ can also encompass all, much the same as the indefinite, a good example is Alhamdu, which is of course all praise. So in order to maintain there is no contradiction with perfect purification, Yusuf Ali rightly translated this phrase as ‘all abomination’, which by the way is again consistent with the definition of infallibility with regards to sin.

This understanding is also supported by various narrations in the Sunni literature. It is reported the Messenger of Allah recited:

"Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification". (Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33) and then the Messenger of Allah said: "Thus Me and my Ahlul-Bayt are clear from sins."
Sunni reference:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, as quoted in: al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v5, pp 605-606,198 under the commentary of Verse 33:33 of Quran
Dala'il al-Nabawiyyah, by al-Bayhaqi

"It is this and nothing else that Allah willed to ward off every badness and indecency from the people of the family of Muhammad and to keep them clear from every contamination and sin!"
Sunni reference:
Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p5 under commentary of verse 33:33

These points raised prove the purification in the last sentence of 33:33 is a reference to the infallibility of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). As a result, the wives must be excluded from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) for none disputes that some of them, namely Aisha and Hafsa, had committed sins of a grievous nature numerous times. For instance, it is well known that Aisha and Hafsa backbited against the Prophet (s), which led to Allah (swt) threatening the wives with the Prophet’s (as) divorce as the following verse affirms:

If he divorces you, Allah may give him instead wives better than you who will be submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, inclined to fasting, widows and maids. (Holy Quran 66:5)

It is worth noting that backbiting is amongst the most soul destroying vices and one can only imagine the consequence if done against the Prophet (s). Yet the main point here is that like all sins, they are impure which means Allah (swt) could never have been referring to the wives when speaking of the perfect purification,

Yet perhaps paradoxically, it is such sins which makes the inclusion of the wives in the Ahlul-Bayt (as) an attractive option, for their inclusion has become a tool for opposing infallibility. To elaborate, while the alleged sins of the Prophet (s) have proven to be highly contested, the sins of the wives have not. In other words, the last sentence in 33:33 cannot possibly be referring to infallibility if the wives are included in the Ahlul Bayt (as).

Yet one particular consequence of this forced inclusion means one must interpret that the last sentence in 33:33 should not be understood to mean Allah (swt) ‘kept away’ all impurities, but rather, Allah (swt) continually ‘removes’ such impurities. This subtle translation of words, which we had introduced earlier, is not met without fundamental problems. Recall that rational deduction concludes the consequence of unconditional obedience is infallibility. Now since the Prophet (s) is obviously the central figure amongst the Ahlul-Bayt (as), how could he have enjoyed unconditional obedience for the time the al rijs was still a part of his being? Imagine the Prophet (s) plagued with vices such as anger, envy and pride, how is it possible that his guidance not be affected? How is it possible he could have preached against committing these ugly deeds without being a hypocrite himself? Such grave implications clearly indicate that any type of rijs Allah (swt) had referred to, must have been kept away from the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

It is unfortunate that despite all these factors, they are ignored, perhaps primarily because many are still unable to resolve the question as to how Allah (swt) could not be referring to the wives at the end of 33:33 when the rest of this verse and the previous verses were all clearly referring to them? In other words, if Allah really wanted to exclude the wives, why was He referring to them in the same verse, why not an entirely separate verse? Surely then it would make things much more clear and avoid such speculation.

In response, dismissing critical facts simply because it allows us to evade those questions that challenge what we sub-consciously think is better, is certainly not remaining true to how one should approach the Quran. In fact, it is no different to those Sahaba who questioned the wisdom of the Prophet’s (s) orders numerous times simply because it did not fit the mould of what they thought was best. Our role with regards to the Quran is to ponder each and every verse taking into account all the facts associated with it and accepting whatever outcome the truth demands.

Secondly, the question posed is unlike the plethora of many questions all Muslims encounter when reading the Quran. In fact one can be just as inquisitive as a child who responds with why and how to every answer given and to every word read. The school of the Salafiyyah are huge proponents of accepting things the way they are without further investigation. Take for instance their belief that Allah (swt) can have a Face and Hands. When asked how this is possible their response is to typically claim we should not ask how as Allah (swt) says He does and this should be sufficient enough reason to accept it without further questioning. Although not condoning such careless rational and textual insight, the point is quite clear. It is of little significance therefore if the fallible camp fails to understand how Allah (swt) could exclude the wives from the Ahlul-Bayt when He was already referring to them in the same verse. Yet interestingly, this same school is now all of a sudden being influenced by the how question when there is simply no need. To put it simply, if the textual and rational evidence points to X, why does it matter where X is?

It should be emphasised that this discourse is in no way endorsing a non inquisitive approach to the Quran. Rather, quite the opposite has been demonstrated for questions such as the one posed are not intended to be evaded but rather embraced, as it is a means to both encourage reflection while also sifting the masses as to who follows the truth as opposed to who wants the truth to follow them. Such outcomes would not be possible if the Quran was given any other way. It has such a rich text and delivered in such a way that if one attempts to sincerely ponder it, they will discover themselves immersed in a bottomless ocean of wisdom. Therefore although not required, we shall delve further into the question posed so as to ensure this discourse continues to feed the inquisitive mind.

We shall begin answering the question by first noting that the last sentence in 33:33 is in the masculine gender, which means that atleast one male is being addressed. The question is why? Why after having referred to only the wives does Allah (swt) suddenly switch from feminine to masculine? One answer could be that whenever the People of the House is mentioned, it naturally must include the Prophet (s), Ali (as), Hasan (as) and Husayn (as) as they typically represent members of a family. Yet why include the men here when the emphasis and specific instructions was intended solely for the wives? To illustrate this further, we read verse 30 specifically warning the wives, not the men, that their disobedience will be met with a punishment that is doubled:

[Yusufali 33:30] O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.

In the following verse, Allah (swt) again refers to the wives, this time informing them that their devout obedience will be met with a reward doubled:

[Yusufali 33:31] But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.

The proceeding verses keeps the focus on the wives, this time issuing another warning, to speak justly and to remain inside their homes:

[Yusufali 33:32] O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

[Yusufali 33:33] And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

If indeed the purification in the last sentence were for those wives that heeded these instructions and warnings, why was the masculine text used? Were Ali (as), Hasan (as) and Husayn (as) also required to stay indoors in order to be purified? One may argue that although many of these instructions and warnings were not applicable for Ali (as) Hasan (as) and Husayn (as), there were some that clearly were, as for instance establishing regular prayer and giving charity. Although this argument is certainly true, why then was not the masculine text used for these previous instances seeing as though Allah (swt) is allegedly addressing them as well?

The only explanation that encompasses a rationale which simultaneously protects the Quran’s grammatical integrity is to argue that a clear distinction is being made between the wives and the Ahlul-Bayt (as). In other words, by mentioning the wives in the same verse, Allah has masterly created a perfect occasion to exclude them from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) by illustrating that despite how great or sinful the wives were, they are not meant to be included amongst those infallible members of the Prophet’s (as) Household.

So as to elaborate in more detail, allow us to consider the word family. Naturally this word on a basic level will incorporate a husband, a wife, brothers and sisters. Yet we may need to revise this understanding when describing the family in more detail. For instance the phrase good family may necessitate a redefining of who is included under this term for a husband, a wife and their daughter may all live a life of virtue, but the son may be governed by a host of vices that has led him to do numerous terrible things. Although he is family, he will certainly not be considered to be amongst those intended as being good. This example therefore illustrates two important points. The first is that a descriptive characteristic used to describe a family may result in the exclusion of some of its members. The second point is simply, that there can be no exclusion without mention of the excluded. Therefore it makes perfect sense then that Allah (swt) exclude the wives from infallibility after they and their obedience, or lack thereof, were the current focus.

Proof #4

And when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain commands and he fulfilled them. Then He said: Lo! I appoint you an Imam for mankind. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be Imam)? He said: My covenant does not reach the wrong-doers (among them).
(Holy Quran 2:124)

For the observant reader, this verse epitomises a common theme that has been consistently emerging throughout this investigation and that is the relationship between Imammate and infallibility. Namely, Allah appoints the leaders of mankind and these leaders enjoy unconditional obedience which as a consequence, proves their infallibility. All these aspects are entailed in this one verse.

Prophet Ibrahim (as) was already a Prophet when Allah granted him the status of Imam. Without veering our discourse off into another direction it should suffice to say here that this is clear proof that the status of Imammate is much more than commonly thought of amongst the other schools in Islam. In any case, the point pertinent to our focus is that upon Ibrahim’s (as) request to Allah (swt) to grant his offspring this lofty position as well, Allah (swt) granted it by affirming this position will not reach the wrong doers. Now since Prophet Muhammad (s) is obviously the offspring of Ibrahim (as), it subsequently means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are included here as well. This alone however is not what proves their Imammate or their infallibility for lineage alone is not what determines one’s authority. It is when Allah (swt) says that His promise will not reach the dhalim or wrong doers that the proof becomes evidently clear, for the word dhulm is commonly understood to mean an injustice or transgression committed against oneself or others. Since this dhulm cannot reach the Prophet (s), he and his Ahlul-Bayt (as) must subsequently be free from every kind of dhulm, or in other words, every kind of impurity and thus possess the perfect purification as surah and ayah 33:33 explicitly affirms.

Chapter 8: Samples of authentic Sunni narrations proving infallibility

Proof #1

Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Allah never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the Prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisors: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it, and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (Ma'soom) is the one who is protected by Allah.'" Sunni reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.306

There are several key points one can extract from the above narration yet pivotal to our investigation is that there is such a thing as a masoom and that this masoom does not necessarily have to be a Prophet.

Proof #2

The messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."
Sunni reference:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, as quoted in: al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v5, pp 605-606,198 under the commentary of Verse 33:33 of Quran
Dala'il al-Nabawiyyah, by al-Bayhaqi

This famous and authentic narration has beautifully expressed both the Ahlul-Bayt’s authority and infallibility. To illustrate, since the Quran is a book of guidance and since the Ahlul Bayt do not separate from the Quran, they cannot misguide which can only mean one thing, they are infallible.

It is little wonder therefore that this narration is rarely mentioned amongst other schools of thought within Islam for it not only supports the Shia concept of infallibility, it also demonstrates the Ahlul-Bayt’s superiority since the Prophet (s) had explicitly instructed the Ummah to adhere to his Ahlul-Bayt, thus proving their successorship.

Chapter 9: Psychological and Political reasons for the opposition against Infallibility

Of the points raised thus far, one will be able to discern that the objections to infallibility can be categorized into two key motivators, one being psychological and the other being political.

The psychological reasons touched on discussed the human beings rash tendency to judge matters based on their own experience. More specifically, because we sin, the prevailing assumption will be the Prophets and Imams must sin as well. As a result, this assumption has born the argument that sinful Prophets are necessary so that they not only remain human, they remain humans we are able to identify with. Yet such concerns of losing an affinity with the Prophets, an argument already discussed earlier in our piece, is perhaps not the primary concern for many, if any concern at all. Rather, the argument is pushed as it serves its purposes of concealing and subsequently, feeding the human beings darker inclinations. In Surah Yusuf Ayah 12 Allah (swt) states:

…the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy… (Holy Quran 12:53)

This natural tendency towards evil subsequently means the idea of sinful prophets becomes appealing for it protects this inclination in a multitude of ways. Perhaps the most prominent is the human beings remarkable ability to find comfort and justification for the wrongs they commit. For instance consider the life of a smoker. The financial, health and spiritual reasons should be enough to compel him to quit. Yet the struggle to quit is seen as being so overwhelming that the human being is able to find justification for each one of these harsh realities. The financial reasons to use one’s money more wisely is offset by the individuals savings and contributions to charity. The health concerns surrounding smoking is dismissed after recounting the stories of people reaching old age having smoked their entire lives. The adverse spiritual effects of smoking is believed to be negated by the good deeds one performs. Now are we really to believe had the Prophets been smokers, smokers themselves will not add this to their arsenal of excuses? Thus one can see, this unyielding ability for the human being to find comfort in sin through flexible justification is certainly an influential force, although most would like to deny it for themselves. In light of this, how can sinful Prophets help repel mans inclination towards evil when the mere existence of their sinful nature provides the perfect justification for committing it? It is precisely the reason there exist narrations assaulting the sublime character of our beloved Prophet (s). The literature in both Bukhari and Muslim depict the Prophet (s) as being of such a weak character, that he forgets to perform ablution, forgets which rakat he had prayed and is even susceptible to being bewitched so what he imagines to do a thing which in reality he had not. Yet this assault on the Prophet’s (s) character is not only on par with our own weak and sinful nature, in many instances it is worse. Consider for instance the following narration:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: While Allah's Apostle was carrying stones (along) with the people of Mecca for (the building of) the Ka'ba wearing an Izar (waist-sheet cover), his uncle Al-'Abbas said to him, "O my nephew! (It would be better) if you take off your Izar and put it over your shoulders underneath the stones." So he took off his Izar and put it over his shoulders, but he fell unconscious and since then he had never been seen naked. Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 360

As mentioned earlier, we all experience percentages of infallibility, meaning there are some things we will simply not do despite having the choice to do them. The example given to better illustrate this point was our refusal to reveal our private parts in public for all to see. Yet such an easy task for us was one allegedly too difficult for the Seal of the Prophets. Obviously the narration is false yet it clearly reveals a concerted effort to tear the status of the Prophet down. Unfortunately the collections of hadith are replete with such narrations as the following indicates:

Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. 'Amr came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.
Muslim Book 008, Number 3426

So outrageous was it that the Prophet (s) could order a boy of puberty to suckle a woman just so that the two could become unlawful to one another, that Ibn Abu Mulaika feared to narrate the tradition. Understandably so, not only does the order directly oppose the Quran which states the period of fosterage is the first two years of the child’s life, it also so appallingly violates the code of conduct between non-mahrams. Such a lack of knowledge and questionable morals is certainly unbecoming of us fallible souls let alone a Prophet of God. The implication therefore is quite serious for if the Prophet (s) can commit such horrific errors, errors we ourselves would easily avoid, then does it not mean we have found an area of conduct where we are more superior than the Prophet (s)? Now Muslims for instance may well claim they are not worth the dirt the Prophet (s) walks on, yet if they find certain actions repulsive, actions they believe were allegedly committed by the Prophet (s), then it could be rightly argued such a claim they so proudly make would not be worth the dirt they themselves walk on. In any case, this depiction of the Prophet (s) making the same mistakes as we do and in some cases, mistakes much more grave than our own, means the perfect justification for excusing sin has now become discreetly sanctioned.

Political ambitions too have proven to be a key reason behind the support for fallible prophets. For instance it is certainly advantageous for any ruling Caliph to publicize a Prophet of errors and questionable conduct for it gives them a green light to rule in a manner not consistent with the strict rule of law and etiquette in Islam while simultaneously not suffering the threat of any serious upheaval. The philosophy of predetermination was born as a result of similar political goals. By propagating the myth that ultimately we have no choice, the political advantages presented were enormous for it meant those who had attained power over the Muslim masses had done so because Allah (swt) preferred these rulers over anyone else and thus any opposition to their rule is in fact an opposition against the will of Allah (swt).

Yet the main political impetus behind the opposition to infallibility has been alluded to throughout our discourse. That is, any acknowledgment that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) were infallible is an acknowledgment that it is they who ought to lead for any rational person will be able to discern an infallible leader is superior to one who is fallible. Such a prospect naturally threatened the aspiring kingdoms at the time and the others that were to follow. The political assassinations of all but one of the infallible twelve successors the Prophet (s) spoke of, from Imam Ali (as) to Imam Askari (as), is irrefutable proof of the threat these pure souls had posed. This threat was noticed early in the piece which led some like Muawiyah to publically sanction the cursing of Imam Ali (as). Other methods included avoiding Imam Ali (as) altogether. It is well known that in the most revered collections of Sunni hadith, that being Bukhari, only 1% of hadith has been narrated by Imam Ali (as). Yet a more effective means found to neutralize a formidable political foe like the Ahlul-Bayt (as), was to use the narrations as a propaganda tool, in this case, by attacking the character of our beloved Prophet (s), he could no longer be seen as infallible and subsequently neither could his Ahlul-Bayt (as). In other words, if the Ahlul-Bayt (as) were no longer infallible then they no longer had the God given right to lead. The implication of such a conclusion however means those notable positions of leadership in the early years over the Muslim ummah, with the exclusion of Imam Ali (as), were all unlawfully usurped. As a consequence, a vested interest in opposing infallibility has emerged amongst the Muslims so as to protect these leaders they have learnt to adore. Thus the unwarranted paranoia surrounding infallibility, all of which we have discussed in our discourse, has emerged as a necessary consequence of the opposition against the exclusive successorship of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

Chapter 10: Conclusion

Trust is an expectation, a reliance that is believed to be worthwhile. Yet this reliance is only experienced once earned through some form of mechanism that proves a person, thing or belief should be trusted. For instance a cautious person will trust a friend only after difficult trials have proven the friendship. Alternatively this mechanism may take another form. Millions of passengers place their trust in aviation technology to deliver them safely through the skies from one side of the world to another. In other words trust is only given to someone or something that is capable of delivering the expectation. Our discourse therefore has demonstrated, from a rational and textual standpoint, that this capability which enables the Muslim to trust, is in fact the infallibility of the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as) for this mechanism has proven to be a rational necessity for the integrity of Islams fundamentals. To dispute the nature of this mechanism and conclude otherwise will unavoidably compromise these very fundamentals. Yet confidence is precisely the expectation one should possess when relying on the Almighty and as such, due to His Infinite Wisdom and Justice, has implemented infallibility in His representatives, for far Exalted is He, to ever betray one’s trust in Him.

Submission is harmony

2007-02-18T22:17:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

There was once a King of Spain who wanted to learn Arabic. No one in his region spoke it except for one old man. This old man was summoned to the Kings palace where he was immediately instructed to give his first lesson to the King. During the lesson the old man excused himself informing the King that since it was noon it was time for him to pray.

The King laughed mockingly.

“O you poor man, what type of religion do you follow? I can pray to my god any time I please”

The old man smiled revealing his was not perturbed by the King’s offensive on his religion.

“As can I” the old man responded. “Yet how unfortunate it is, whenever you call God He is there but when God calls you, you are not”

The King was taken aback by the old man’s response. Yet not content with being upstaged the King continued.

“Your religion of Islam says God is All Forgiving, thus it does not matter whether you are late for your prayer or even if you miss your prayer for your God will forgive you. If He does not then He is not the All Forgiving”

The King’s facial expression was one of pride, he was clearly pleased with the argument he put forward.

“Forgiveness is never given without repentance and repentance is never proven without rectification”

The King became flustered.

“You can rectify tomorrow. For now you will continue to teach me this language”

“I may not see tomorrow” replied the old man.

“If you do not continue to teach I will ensure you do not see tomorrow” threatened the King.

“So be it. There is no better prayer performed than the one who believes it is his last”

The King suddenly became fascinated at the old mans uncompromising obedience to his God.

“Your unyielding submission to your religion leads me to believe it does not allow you to think for yourself. You cannot deny this. You are told when to pray, how to pray, how to wash, what to eat and many other things, the list goes on. This is not a liberating religion.”

“Do me the honor of informing me as to how I teach?” the old man asked.

The King was confused.

“You teach well but how is this relevant?”

“Is it possible for someone to teach better than I?”

“Yes it is possible, but again how is this relevant?”

“Do you not see that any thing could be performed better?”

“This is true, but old man, you have not told me how all this is relevant?”

“Do you believe God is All Knowing?”

“Yes. Now old man, tell me the relevance of your questioning before I have my guards cut off your head”

“I have shown you that there is an ideal way of doing any particular thing and there is none better to show us what that ideal way is than the All Knowing.”

"Old man what you are suggesting is we cannot think for ourselves"

"Did you summon me to your palace?"

"Yes"

“May I ask why?”

“Old man what type of foolish questioning is this? You know the language I wish to learn who else will teach me?”

“Indeed. Now from what I had taught you thus far, have you listened attentively?”

“Yes”

“Will you implement everything I have taught you?”

“Yes. Old man you are testing my patience, now get to the point”

“You have exercised your free will in choosing me as your teacher. You have also exercised common sense in choosing me as I know the language you wish to learn. You have also given me total submission for without it, you will not be able to speak this language. Only a liberated mind can recognize he who is worthy of total submission for such a person will also recognize that with this total submission you improve and when you improve, things work how they should and when things work how they should there is harmony.

Now take a look outside. Do you notice complete harmony between the sun, the earth, the water, the vegetation, all working in unison together, a most beautiful equilibrium, achieved only through total submission. He, the Almighty, the Author of this perfect system is showing us in the most manifest of ways, we too can achieve the same equilibrium and harmony, this time between mind, body and soul. All one must do is submit. Yet because man has free will everything submits except him and the result? Wars, oppression, injustice, depression and yet audaciously, despite all that, when man does not submit to Gods will he claims to have a liberated mind!

Nay only the foolish and arrogant mind will do contrary to what the All Knowing advises. And this is the difference between you and I. My common sense recognizes the All Knowing is best to teach me about life and how it should be lived, from the fundamental to the minor. And this is where the treasures of life are found, through submission. For one cannot understand its secrets and experience nirvana with its Author when one is opposed to His divine system.”

What do we really look like?

2007-02-18T02:25:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

We all heard the story of Pinnochio. Every time he lied his nose would grow longer. Imagine this were true for all human beings. How many would make sure they always tell the truth? Most likely all of us. Now imagine our nose would also grow longer every time we sinned. How many would constantly critique our actions, making sure that what ever we do, we do not sin? Again most likely all of us.

So question, why didn’t Allah manifest the consequence of sin as it seems this is the only means by which all of us will collectively seek to be virtuous beings.

A moments reflection will reveal that if every virtuous deed was manifestly rewarded immediately and if every evil deed was manifestly punished immediately, then both patience and faith will no longer have a need. Why?

Well that is because patience and faith are inseparably intertwined, i.e. one will not be able to wait for things to improve if one does not have faith. Yet if one does not need to exercise patience, one does not need to have faith. So if every good deed is rewarded immediately patience would not be needed and so in turn faith would also no longer be needed.

Now consider this, if patience and faith are no longer necessary, than how will the virtuous and the corrupt ever be separated? The reason the corrupt engage in sin is because they have no patience. They want immediate gain which is why they lie, cheat and steal. Yet they would not need to do this if every good deed was rewarded immediately. So we can see here that any value a virtuous deed had is now completely gone for even the would be wicked would engage in virtuous deeds.

So Allah has placed a veil. That veil is none other than this world, which is merely a shadow of our real existence, the hereafter. Thus it is this shadow that conceals the manifest consequences of good and evil and so it is here where the true believers are separated from the evil doers.

Now we should be aware that every action, every word, every thought, is motivated by our virtues and vices. None can dispute this. For instance, it may be our sincerity that drives us to a certain action, or perhaps our ego, whatever the motivation may be, it will be from either the two warring parties, virtue or vice. This is the mother of all wars. A war in which its aftermath will be manifested at our death, revealing the condition of our soul and thus, the side we ultimately chose. A heavenly warrior of virtue beaming of light, or a hellish indescribable creature of vice, doomed to darkness.

The sift

2007-01-14T04:55:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Ya Allah, do me the undeserved honor of defending Thou religion, from those who have distorted it.

Ya Allah and give me the patience and forbearance to stand firm against those packs of laughing hyenas, who find bravery and comfort in their numbers.

Ya Allah and protect me from the spineless, they who run with the herd for fear of their intimidation, for the loyalty of the spineless is as strong as a fallen leaf on a windy day.

Ya Allah I beg Thee to save me from their vice and their cowardice that caused them to let the truth go when Thou had increased its temperature.

Ya Allah, Thou art truly the All Wise, for Thou knows how to sift the masses revealing those few precious jewels, they who walk the path of truth, even when it be a hot bed of coals.

A conversation with a mountain

2006-12-03T15:17:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

I am words, I can do incredible things.

I can help you be inspired.
I can help you be wise.
I can help you hope.

But my powers only take me so far.

I found that out the day I tried to visit the summit of a mountain so as to describe the beautiful view from up there.

Yet the mountain prevented me.

So I looked up at the mountain and I asked it:

“Why do you not permit me to visit the summit?”

The mountain stared back at me not uttering a word.

In frustration I tried again to climb the mountain yet found myself not being able to move.

I looked up at the silent mountain towering over me.

Then suddenly… I heard the silent mountain...

I am high and thus I am steep.
So you cannot reach me without blood, without sweat and without tears.
This is only the fair price.

Yet I am merely words.

Awake the Lion within

2006-11-26T01:44:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

The world chains him not.
The majority fears him not.
Pride defeats him not.
And apathy tempts him not.
Nay, these armies can not bring him down.
Nay, he still stands, he still fights, majestically and heroically.
How?
O it is naught but the love of Allah that has awoken his Lion within.
Love so strong, that never can Shaytan's armies hold back the Lion within.
O the courage.
O the grace.
O the nobility.
And O the reward!
Allah looking upon him well pleased.
This is his nirvana.
This, during the battle, beneath the blood of his and his enemies, you will see his smile.
And he will tell you.
Awake.
Awake the lion within.
Bare its teeth.
Let it roar.
Prove your love.
For love not proved is love not real.
Awake.
Awake the Lion within.

Ahlul-Bayt (as)

2006-11-26T00:08:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

"Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you with a perfect purification" (Holy Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33)

Ibn Abbas Narrated that: The Messenger of Allah recited "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification". (Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33) and then the Messenger of Allah said: "Thus Me and my Ahlul-Bayt are clear from the sins."

Sunni reference:

Sahih al-Tirmidhi, as quoted in: al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v5, pp 605-606,198 under the commentary of Verse 33:33 of Quran Dala'il al-Nabawiyyah, by al-Bayhaqi

"It is this and nothing else that Allah willed to ward off every badness and indecency from the people of the family of Muhammad and to keep them clear from every contamination and sin!"

Sunni reference:

Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p5 under commentary of verse 33:33

Narrated Aisha: One day the Prophet (PBUH&HF) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husain came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33)."

Sunni reference:

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."

Sunni reference:

Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

Ja'far Ibn Abi Talib narrated: When the Messenger of Allah noticed that a blessing from Allah was to descent, he told Safiyya (one of his wives): "Call for me! Call for me!" Safiyya said: "Call who, O the Messenger of Allah?" He said: "Call for me my Ahlul-Bayt who are Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain." Thus we sent for them and they came to him. Then the Prophet (PBUH&HF) spread his cloak over them, and raised his hand (toward sky) saying: "O Allah! These are my family (Aalee), so bless Muhammad and the family (Aal) of Muhammad." And Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, revealed: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a thorough purification (Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33)".

Sunni references:

al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, p148. The author then wrote: "This tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim)."
Talkhis of al-Mustadrak, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p148 Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v3, p33

Umm Salama said: "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not one of the members of your family?" The Holy Prophet replied: "You have a good future but only these are the members of my family. O Lord! The members of my family are more deserving."

Sunni reference:

al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416

Umm Salama said to the Holy Prophet: "Am I also one of them?" He replied: "No. You have your own special position and your future is good."

Sunni references:

Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p289; Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p198

al-Tabari quotes Umm Salama saying: I said, "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not also one of your Ahlul-Bayt?" I swear by the Almighty that the Holy Prophet did NOT grant me any distinction and said: "You have a good future."

Sunni references:

Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p7 under the commentary of verse 33:33

Narrated Yazid Ibn Hayyan: We went to Zaid Ibn Arqam and said to him: You have found goodness (for you had the honor) to live in the company of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the Hadith is the same (as 3 traditions before) but the Prophet said: "Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of them is the Book of Allah...", and in this (Hadith) these words are also found: We said: "Who are his Ahlul-Bayt (that the Prophet was referring to)? Are they his wives?" Thereupon Zaid said: "No, by Allah! A woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a while; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and her people. The Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet are his lineage and his descendants (those who come from his blood) for whom the acceptance of charity (Sadaqah) is prohibited."

Sunni reference:

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #37

For Fatimah (as)

2006-11-10T03:03:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Ya Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, the Chief of the women in Jannah.

May Allah never allow me to side with anyone who disputed with you. For the words of your father has reached me and due to the Justice of Allah, those same words have reached the pages of all schools, words which have shun light amidst the darkness of confusion, words like the sword of your husband Ali, separating truth from falsehood, words which echo in my heart relentlessly and repeated at every opportunity, words whose adherence will either save on the Day of Judgement or whose neglect will most certainly haunt.

I now repeat again those words of the Rasool, proudly and defiantly:

“Adhere to Quran and Ahlul-Bayt and you will never go astray after me”

What?! And they audaciously disputed with you, you, the Ahlul-Bayt! And we, we audaciously sided with them?! Them, who angered you till your last breath!?

Nay not your Shia Ya Fatimah! For your Shia are not lured by the treasures of the world nor are they spineless to fear standing against the majority like you and your son Husayn. We have continued to respond to the call of your father, the Messenger of Allah, we, your Shia, side with you, always.

The Sahaba: The Uncut Version

2006-11-07T21:28:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

To the anti-Shia:

You are those sahaba that abandoned the Prophet (s) in battle, you are those sahaba that accused the Prophet (s) of speaking no sense, you are those sahaba that sided against Fatimah (as), you are those sahaba that waged a war against Ali (as).

We are what we choose.

Alhamdulillah I am Shia.

Introduction

All Muslims agree some of the Sahaba made grave errors. However the Sunni’s argue we should not find faults with them because despite these errors they were still just and righteous and so they remain a reliable source of guidance. The following quotes from Sunni best reflect this position:

We believe that the Sahaba were not innocent of the minor or major sins, but their qualities and deeds were so virtuous and superior that they cause the pardon of the errors committed by them. We believe that if any of the Sahaba committed mistake, he either repented or performed such virtuous deeds that they are either pardoned or will be interceded for by the Prophet (s.a.w.) as they are most deserving of his intercession.
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=74

Our attitude towards the Sahaba should be that of love, respect, peace and purity of our hearts and tongues. Allah has described this in His saying: "And those who come after them say: 'Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed.'" [59:10] And the Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "The sign of faith is love of the Ansar and the sign of hypocrisy is the hatred of Ansar" [al-Bukharee, Muslim]. Why should we not be thankful to those who believed in the Prophet, assisted him, strove with their lives and wealth to make the Word of Allah supreme, preserved and transmitted to us our Religion? Who is more deserving that we pray for them and speak of them in the best manner and think of them with the best thoughts?

We should therefore mention their virtues and remain silent about any mistakes they made and about anything that occurred between them, as the Prophet (s.a.w.) advised us: "When my Companions are mentioned then withhold" [Saheeh, at-Tabaranee]. And he also said, "Do not abuse my Companions, for if any of you were to spend gold equal to (mountain of) Uhud in charity, it would not equal a handful of one of them or even half of that" [al-Bukharee, Muslim]. And he said, "Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people" [Saheeh, At-Tabaranee].
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=74

So even if some of the Sahaba fled battles, insulted our Prophet (s), waged wars against their fellow Muslims, killed innocent people, ignored the Prophet’s (s) Sunnah, introduced innovations and cursed one another, they remain a reliable source of guidance. Make sense?

The Shia argue the only people we can follow unconditionally are those whom Allah has commanded us to follow unconditionally, they being the Prophets (s) and Imams for it is only His Divinely appointed representatives that will not commit grave errors which is precisely why only they can be a reliable source of guidance. Yet to suggest the Sahaba of the Prophet (s) shares near or same reliability is nothing short of insulting and illogical. Particularly when every previous Prophet mentioned in the Quran had problems with their companions! Sure it would be nice if all the Sahaba were this time different, that they were all just and righteous, but no matter how nice the thought, it cannot be believed if the Quran and Sunnah do not support it.

Yet such is the nature of most human beings that there search for the truth is not governed by reason, but is rather governed by what it is comfortable with and the two are not always the same.

For instance, the sinful are comfortable with the sinful for every human being is comfortable with its own kind. Thus the sinful will defend the sinful for any challenge to them is a challenge to themselves. Consider now the following narration:

Narrated Hudayfh Ibn al-Yaman: Prophet said: "There will come rulers after me who do not guide to my guidance and do not practice my Sunnah, and the hearts of some them are the hearts of Satans but they are in the body of human." I said: "What should we do at that time?" Prophet (PBUH) said: "You should just listen to them and obey those rulers. No matter if the hurt you and take your wealth, you should follow them and obey them."

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of al-Imaarah (chapter 33 for the Arabic version), Section of necessity of joining the majority,1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3, p1476, Tradition #52

If we are to take the Quran as the leading authority on our religion, then this narration above is clearly false. So what would be the character of the person who fabricated this nonsense? And what would be the character of those who will dare defend it? Only a sinful person will seek to justify the faults of their comrades in sin.

Interestingly, this section in ‘Sahih’ Muslim is entitled, “Necessity of joining the majority”. Again one can only scratch their head in confusement as to how such a concept can be portrayed as Islamic in light of the Quran:

And if you obey the majority of those on earth, they will lead you astray from the path of God. (Holy Quran 6:116)

In fact the Quran is replete with verses where Allah mocks the majority. Yet once again this is an example of the truth being compromised for that which we are comfortable with. In this case, those of weak character will always find comfort in the majority for they are too spineless to stand alongside a few.

This discourse will not judge what is truth based on which group is larger, but will rather use the Quran, Sunnah and reason to be our guide in determining which path is correct.

The superiority of the Shia approach

In a nutshell Shia do not learn Islam from those who committed bad deeds. Even if their intentions were allegedly sincere, sincerity does not protect one from errors. So in order to ensure we follow Islam correctly it is imperative we know the authenticity of the sources we take from.

One method in which we determine this authenticity is discovering the character of those who both explain the Holy Quran and narrated the traditions of our beloved Prophet (s). If any of these personalities were guilty of certain injustices than they can no longer be viewed as a reliable source of information. The Shia base this reasoning from both a Quranic and logical perspective:

“O Believers, if an unrighteous person comes to you with information, you should verify it or else you might inflict harm on a people in ignorance and then end up regretting what you have done” (Holy Quran 49:6)

Firstly, how do we know who is an unrighteous person? And secondly, why is it important to know who an unrighteous person is?

We can answer these questions by first acknowledging that it is not possible to know an unrighteous person except through their words and actions. Thus, according to the Quran, if such a person presents us with information it is incumbent upon us to not accept it blindly.

Now here lies the contention between the Shia and Sunni. The Sunni argue that although it is correct to not blindly follow anyone, the Sahaba are an exception. Let us take a look at the Quran and Sunnah now to find out if this is indeed true.

Quran

"And of the people of Medina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but We know them. Twice will We punish them, and then they will be cast into severe punishment" (Holy Quran 9:101)

"And on the day of Hunayn when your large numbers elated you but yet availed you naught, the land constrained you despite its width, and you turned in retreat. Allah sent tranquillity on the Prophet and on the believers and sent down an army which you did not perceive, and punished those who disbelieved, that is the chastisement for the disbelievers" (Holy Quran 9:26)

"And among them are those who took a covenant with Allah saying: "If He gives us of His bounty, we will surely spend in charity and be among the righteous people". But when He gave them of His bounty, they were miserly with it and turned back aversively. So He filled their hearts with hypocrisy until the day they meet Him due to their breaking the promise with God which they gave, and because they lied" (Holy Quran 9:77)

"When the hypocrites come to you they say: 'We bear witness that you are the Messenger of Allah'. Allah knows that you are His Messenger, and Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are liars. They have made their oaths as a shield and turn [people] away from Allah. Evil indeed is that which they do! That is because they believed and then disbelieved. Their hearts were sealed and they do not understand" (Holy Quran 63:3)

"Do you not see those who claim to believe in what was revealed unto you and what was revealed before you? They seek judgement from the evil ones even though they were ordered to disbelieve in them. Satan wishes to lead them astray completely. When it is said to them: 'Come to what Allah has revealed and [come] to the Messenger', you see the hypocrites turn away from you in aversion. Yet when misfortune befalls them due to what their own hands have earned, they come to you swearing by Allah, saying: 'We merely wished goodness and success'" (Holy Quran 4:62)

"Allah knows those from among you that hinder people and those who say to their brothers: 'Come to us and you will not have to fight except for a little while'. Covetous they are over you. When fear comes, you will see them looking towards you, their eyes rolling as though death hovers upon them. And when the fear is gone, they assail you with sharp tongues, desiring good. They do not believe and Allah has made their deeds of no avail, that is easy for Allah" (Holy Quran 33:19)

"And among them are those who listen to you until, when they leave you, they say to those who have been given knowledge: "What did he just say?" They are those whose hearts Allah has sealed and they follow their own desires" (Holy Quran 47:16)

"Those who lagged behind from among the desert Arabs will say to you: 'We were busy with our properties and our families. So seek forgiveness for us'. They utter with their tongues what is not in their hearts" (Holy Quran 48:11)

Bukhari

Bukhari Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 586: Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab: The companions of the Prophet said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam)

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584: Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."

Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 404: Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet did something as it was allowed from the religious point of view but some people refrained from it. When the Prophet heard of that, he, after glorifying and praising Allah, said, "Why do some people refrain from doing something which I do? By Allah, I know Allah more than they."

Bukahri Volume 8, Book 76, Number 590: Narrated 'Uqba bin 'Amir: Once the Prophet went out and offered the funeral prayers for the martyrs of Uhud, and then went to the pulpit and said, "I am a predecessor for you and I am a witness for you: and by Allah, I am looking at my Fount just now, and the keys of the treasures of the earth (or the keys of the earth) have been given to me: and by Allah, I am not afraid that you will worship others besides Allah after me, but I am afraid that you will strive and struggle against each other over these treasures of the world."

Bukhari Volume 8 Number 434 The Prophet (s) said: By Allah! I am not afraid that you become polytheist after me, but I am afraid that you will start competing (for the luxuries of this world)

Bukahri Volume 2, Book 13, Number 59 : Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: While we were praying (Jumua Khutba & prayer) with the Prophet (p.b.u.h), some camels loaded with food, arrived (from Sham) The people diverted their attention towards the camels (and left the mosque), and only twelve persons remained with the Prophet. So this verse was revealed: "But when they see Some bargain or some amusement, They disperse headlong to it, And leave you standing." (62.11)

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 276: Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib: The Prophet appointed 'Abdullah bin Jubair as the commander of the infantry men (archers) who were fifty on the day (of the battle) of Uhud. He instructed them, "Stick to your place, and don't leave it even if you see birds snatching us, till I send for you; and if you see that we have defeated the infidels and made them flee, even then you should not leave your place till I send for you." Then the infidels were defeated. By Allah, I saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs. So, the companions of 'Abdullah bin Jubair said, "The booty! O people, the booty ! Your companions have become victorious, what are you waiting for now?" 'Abdullah bin Jubair said, "Have you forgotten what Allah's Apostle said to you?" They replied, "By Allah! We will go to the people (i.e. the enemy) and collect our share from the war booty." But when they went to them, they were forced to turn back defeated. At that time Allah's Apostle in their rear was calling them back. Only twelve men remained with the Prophet and the infidels martyred seventy men from us.

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 638: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: 'Ali bin Abi Talib sent a piece of gold not yet taken out of its ore, in a tanned leather container to Allah's Apostle . Allah's Apostle distributed that amongst four Persons: 'Uyaina bin Badr, Aqra bin Habis, Zaid Al-Khail and the fourth was either Alqama or Amir bin At Tufail. On that, one of his companions said, "We are more deserving of this (gold) than these (persons)." When that news reached the Prophet , he said, "Don't you trust me though I am the truth worthy man of the One in the Heavens, and I receive the news of Heaven (i.e. Divine Inspiration) both in the morning and in the evening?" There got up a man with sunken eyes, raised cheek bones, raised forehead, a thick beard, a shaven head and a waist sheet that was tucked up and he said, "O Allah's Apostle! Be afraid of Allah." The Prophet said, "Woe to you! Am I not of all the people of the earth the most entitled to fear Allah?" Then that man went away. Khalid bin Al-Wahd said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I chop his neck off?" The Prophet said, "No, for he may offer prayers." Khalid said, "Numerous are those who offer prayers and say by their tongues (i.e. mouths) what is not in their hearts." Allah's Apostle said, "I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies." Then the Prophet looked at him (i.e. that man) while the latter was going away and said, "From the offspring of this (man there will come out (people) who will recite the Qur'an continuously and elegantly but it will not exceed their throats. (They will neither understand it nor act upon it). They would go out of the religion (i.e. Islam) as an arrow goes through a game's body." I think he also said, "If I should be present at their time I would kill them as the nations a Thamud were killed."

Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 428: Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said, in an army) and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari man (on the buttocks with his foot). The Ansari man said, "O the Ansar! (Help!)" and the emigrant said. "O the emigrants! (Help!) Allah's Apostle heard that and said, "What is this call for, which is characteristic of the period of ignorance?" They said, "O Allah's Apostle! A man from the emigrants kicked one of the Ansar (on the buttocks with his foot)." Allah's Apostle said, "Leave it (that call) as is a detestable thing." 'Abdullah bin Ubai heard that and said, 'Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return Medina, surely, the more honorable will expel therefrom the meaner." When this statement reached the Prophet. 'Umar got up an, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite ('Abdullah bin Ubai)!" The Prophet said "Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions." The Ansar were then more in number than the emigrants when the latter came to Medina, but later on the emigrant increased

Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 274: Narrated Aisha: Allah's Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, "O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me," Sad bin Muadh Al-Ansari got up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! By Allah, I will relieve you from him. If he be from the tribe of (Bani) Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off; and if he be from our brethren, the Khazraj, then you give us your order and we will obey it." On that, Sad bin 'Ubada got up, and he was the chief of the Khazraj, and before this incident he had been a pious man but he was incited by his zeal for his tribe. He said to Sad (bin Muadh), "By Allah the Eternal, you have told a lie! You shall not kill him and you will never be able to kill him!" On that, Usaid bin Hudair, the cousin of Sad (bin Muadh) got up and said to Sad bin 'Ubada, "You are a liar! By Allah the Eternal, we will surely kill him; and you are a hypocrite defending the hypocrites!"

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 49, number 871: "Az-Zubair told me that he quarrelled with an Ansari man who had participated in (the battle of) Badr in front of Allah's Apostle about a water stream which both of them used for irrigation. Allah's Apostle said to Az-Zubair, "O Zubair! Irrigate (your garden) first, and then let the water flow to your neighbor." The Ansari became angry and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Is it because he is your cousin?" On that the complexion of Allah's Apostle changed (because of anger) and said (to Az-Zubair), "Irrigate (your garden) and then with-hold the water till it reaches the walls (surrounding the palms)." So, Allah's Apostle gave Az-Zubair his full right. Before that Allah's Apostle had given a generous judgment beneficial for Az-Zubair and the Ansari, but when the Ansari irritated Allah's Apostle he gave Az-Zubair his full right according to the evident law. Az-Zubair said, "By Allah ! I think the following Verse was revealed concerning that case: "But no by your Lord They can have No faith Until they make you judge In all disputes between them." (4.65)"

Bukhari Volume 9 Number 299: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet sent (an army unit under the command of) Khalid bin al-Walid to fight against the tribe of Bani Jadhima and those people could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna," but they said, "Saba'na! Saba'na! " Khalid kept on killing some of them and taking some others as captives, and he gave a captive to everyone of us andordered everyone of us to kill his captive. I said, "By Allah, I shall not kill my captive and none of my companions shall kill his captive!" Then we mentioned that to the Prophet and he said, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid bin al-Walid has done," and repeated it twice.

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 611: Narrated Abu Qatada: When it was the day of (the battle of) Hunain, I saw a Muslim man fighting with one of the pagans and another pagan was hiding himself behind the Muslim in order to kill him. So I hurried towards the pagan who was hiding behind the Muslim to kill him, and he raised his hand to hit me but I hit his hand and cut it off. That man got hold of me and pressed me so hard that I was afraid (that I would die), then he knelt down and his grip became loose and I pushed him and killed him. The Muslims (excepting the Prophet and some of his companions) started fleeing and I too, fled with them. Suddenly I met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab amongst the people and I asked him, "What is wrong with the people?" He said, "It is the order of Allah" Then the people returned to Allah's Apostle (after defeating the enemy). Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever produces a proof that he has killed an infidel, will have the spoils of the killed man." So I got up to look for an evidence to prove that I had killed an infidel, but I could not find anyone to bear witness for me, so I sat down. Then it came to my mind (that I should speak of it) and I mentioned the case to Allah's Apostle. A man from the persons who were sitting with him (i.e. the Prophet), said, "The arms of the deceased one whom he ( i.e. Abu Qatada) has mentioned, are with me, so please compensate him for it (i.e. the spoils)," Abu Bakr said, "No, Allah's Apostle will not give it (i.e. the spoils) to a weak humble person from Quraish and leave one of Allah's Lions who fights on behalf of Allah and His Apostle." Allah's Apostle then got up and gave that (spoils) to me, and I bought with it, a garden which was the first property I got after embracing Islam.

Bukhari Volume 6 Number 438: Narrated Umar: The wives of the Prophet out of their jealousy, backed each other against the Prophet, so I said to them, "It may be, if he divorced you all, that Allah will give him, instead of you wives better than you." So this Verse (66.5) was revealed.

Bukhari Volume 6 Number 436: Narrated Ibn Abbas: I intended to ask Umar so I said, "Who were those two ladies who tried to back each other against the Prophet?" I hardly finished my speech when he said, They were Aisha and Hafsa"

Bukhari Volume 5 Number 168.b Narrated Aisha: Once Hala Bint Khuwailid, Khadija's sister, asked the permission of the Prophet to enter. On that, the Prophet remembered the way Khadija used to ask permission, and that made him sad. He said, "O Allah! Hala!" So I became jealous and said, "What makes you remember an old woman amongst the old women of Quraish an old woman (with a teethless mouth) of red gums who died long ago, and in whose place Allah has given you somebody better than her?"

Bukhari Volume 7 Number 570: Narrated al-Qasim bin Muhammad: Aisha, (complaining of headache) said, "Oh, my head"! Allah's Apostle said, "I wish that (i.e., your death) had happened while I was still living, for then I would ask Allah's Forgiveness for you and invoke Allah for you." Aisha said, "A likely story! By Allah, I think you want me to die; and If this should happen, you would spend the last part of the day sleeping with one of your wives!"

Bukhari Volume 2 Number 196: Narrated 'Aisha: "When the prayers were first enjoined they were of two Rakat each. Later the prayer in a journey was kept as it was but the prayers for non-travellers were completed." Az-Zuhri said, "I asked 'Urwa what made Aisha pray the full prayers (in journey)." He replied, "She did the same as 'Uthman did."

Bukhari 2 Number 188: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: I offered the prayer with the Prophet, Abu Bakr and 'Umar at Mina and it was of two Rakat. 'Uthman in the early days of his caliphate did the same, but later on he started praying the full prayer.

Bukhari Volume 2 Number 640: Narrated Said bin al-Musaiyab: Ali and 'Uthman differed regarding Hajj-at-Tamattu' while they were at 'Usfan (a familiar place near Mecca). 'Ali said, "I see you want to forbid people to do a thing that the Prophet did?" When 'Ali saw that, he assumed Ihram for both Hajj and 'Umra.

Bukhari Volume 2 Number 634: Narrated Marwan bin al-Hakam: I saw 'Uthman and 'Ali. 'Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu' and Hajj-al-Qiran (Hajj and 'Umra together), and when 'Ali saw (this act of 'Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and 'Umra saying, "Lubbaik for 'Umra and Hajj," and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet on the saying of somebody."

Bukhari Volume 3 Number 227 Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever prayed at night the whole month of Ramadan out of sincere Faith and hoping for a reward from Allah, then all his previous sins will be forgiven." Ibn Shihab (a sub-narrator) said, "Allah's Apostle died and the people continued observing that (i.e. Nawafil offered individually, not in congregation), and it remained as it was during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the early days of 'Umar's Caliphate." 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Abdul Qari said, "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 alone or a man praying with a little group behind him. So, 'Umar said, 'In my opinion I would better collect these (people) under the leadership of one Qari (Reciter) (i.e. let them pray in congregation!)'. 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, 'What an excellent Bid'a (i.e. innovation in religion) 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."

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325: Narrated 'Aisha: After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.

Bukhari Volume 9 Number 468 and Volume 7 Number 573: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was 'Umar Ibn al-Khatttab, the Prophet said: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." 'Umar said: "The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah's Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray," while the others said what 'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah's Apostle from writing a statement for them.

Muslim

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of "Kitabul-Wasiyyah" in section "Babut-Tarkil-Wasiyyah", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3,P1259, Tradition (#1637/21): Ibn Abbas said: "Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was!" Then Ibn Abbas cried severely so that his tears flowed to his cheeks. Then he added Prophet said: "Bring me a flat bone or a sheet and an ink so that I could write (order to write) a statement that will prevent you people to go astray after me." They said: "Verily the messenger of Allah is talking no sense."

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of Virtues of Companions, Section of Virtues of Ali, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #38: The Governor of Medina who was one of the members of the house of Marwan called Sahl Ibn Sa'd, and ordered him to curse Ali. But Sahl refused to do so. The governor said: "If you don't want to curse Ali, just say God curse Abu Turab (the nickname of Ali)." Sahl said: "Ali did not like any name for himself better than Abu Turab, and Ali used to become very happy when somebody would call him Abu Turab."

Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter DLXXXI (Titled: Ila and Keeping away from the wives), v2, p763, Tradition #3507. Umar Ibn al-Khattab reported: When Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) kept himself away from his wives, I entered the mosque and found people striking the ground with pebbles and saying: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) has divorced his wives, and that was before they were commanded to observe seclusion. Umar said to himself: I must find this today. So I went to Aisha and said (to her):O Daughter of Abu Bakr, have you gone to the extent of giving trouble to the Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)? Thereupon she said: Son of Khattab! You have nothing to do with me. You should look to your own receptacle (i.e., your own defects, or your own daughter). He (Umar) said: I visited Hafsa, daughter of Umar and said to her: O Hafsa! This (news) has reached me that you cause Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) trouble. By Allah! You know that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) does not love you, and had I not been (your father) he would have divorced you. (On hearing this) she wept bitterly

Other Sunni Collections:

When Ubaydullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said "In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha's) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person", then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: "Do you know who this 'other man' was?" Ibn Utbah replied: "No." Then Ibn Abbas said: "He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context."

Sunni References: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, pp 34,228: al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, part 2, p29: History of al-Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1800-1801: al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 544-545: al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, part 2, p29: al-Sunan al-Kubra, by al-Bayhaqi, v3, p396

They demanded confirmation of the oath, but Ali and al-Zubair stayed away. Al-Zubair drew his sword (from the scabbard), saying, "I will not put it back until the oath of allegiance is rendered to Ali." When this news reached Abu Bakr and Umar, the latter said, "Hit him with a stone and seize the sword." It is stated that Umar rushed (to the door of the House of Fatimah) and brought them forcibly while telling them that they must give their oath of allegiance willingly or unwillingly.

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v9, pp 188-189

When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said: "By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."

Sunni References: History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1118-1120: History of Ibn Athir, v2, p325- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975: Tarikh al-Kulafa, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p20: al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20

Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him."

Sunni Reference: History of Tabari, English version, v9, pp 186-187

Umar: "O' daughter of the Prophet! I didn't love anyone as much as I loved your father, nor anyone after him is more loving to me as you are. But I swear by Allah that if these people assemble here with you, then this love of mine would not prevent me from setting your house on fire."

Sunni references: History of Tabari, in the events of the year 11 AH: al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, beginning of the book and pp 19-20: Izalatul Khilafa, by Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, v2, p362: Iqd al-Farid, by Ibn Abd Rabbah al-Malik, v2, chapter of Saqifah

Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): "I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you."

Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140

Abu Bakr asked Ali to support him, but Ali refused, then Umar went toward the Ali's house with a burning torch. At the door he met Fatimah who said to him: "Do you intend to burn the door of my house?" Umar said: "Yes, because this act will strengthen the faith brought to us by your father."

Sunni reference: al-Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586

When Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan put al-Mughairah Ibn Shubah in charge of Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October 30, 661), he summoned him. After praising and glorifying God, he said: "Now then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the past... The wise might do what you want without instruction. Although I have wanted to advise you about many things, I left them alone, trusting in your discernment of what pleases me, what helps my regime and what sets my subjects [raiyyah] on the right path. I would continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not refrain from Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God's mercy upon Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions of Ali, keep at a distance, and don't listen to them. Praise the faction of Uthman, bring them near, and listen to them."

Sunni reference: History of Tabari, English version, events of year 51 AH, Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: If one while praying between the Rukn and Maqam (near Ka'bah) and fasting, dies but with the hate of the family of Muhammad, he will enter the Fire. And he who abuses my Ahlul-Bayt is verily an apostate and is driven out of Islam. And he who inflicts pain on my progeny upon him is the curse of Allah. And he who hurts me by hurting my progeny has verily hurt/angered Allah. Certainly Allah has made Paradise forbidden to he who does injustice to my Ahlul-Bayt, or kills them, or assists against them, or abuses them.

Sunni reference: al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, p357 who said this tradition is authentic.

Reflections

There are some pressing questions the Shia are quick to point out.

Firstly, would discovering a mistake a companion committed constitute abuse? If so then what is the position of those who documented these discoveries? If it is an injunction from Allah that we be silent on the crimes of some of the Sahaba, why has Bukhari and others documented them?

Secondly, if one chooses to not follow certain Sahaba because of their acknowledged crimes, how would this constitute misguidance from a Quranic and logical perspective? Will Allah punish those who are simply exercising caution, a requirement commanded by Allah Himself?

Finally, what does one do in those cases where the Sahaba fought one another? Do we not choose sides? If we do not choose sides we will not be following any Sahaba. If we do choose sides on what grounds do we choose? And how can we claim we must follow all Sahaba unconditionally yet at the same time not agree with some of them?

Clearly there are some fundamental inconsistencies with this approach. Yet Glory be to Allah, for He would not leave the Ummah an excuse to follow conjecture, neither would the Prophet (s) abandon the Ummah amid such confusion, for our beloved Prophet (s) had said:

The messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to both of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."

Sunni references:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5, pp 182,189,350,366,419
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl Allah, v1, p44.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Quran (four traditions)
al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder, Lebanon.
al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16
... and many more ...

We can clearly see that Allah and His Messenger left the Ummah clear guides, that when the Sahaba disputed one another, we know who to follow. As for those Sahaba that fought with the Ahlul-Bayt (as), the official Shia response is to echo the words of our beloved Prophet (s):

"I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt."

As for those dear Sahaba that uncondtionally supported our beloved Prophet (s) during and after his departure, let us read their praise from our Imam, Imam Zainal Abideen:

O God, and as for the Companions of Muhammad specifically, those who did well in companionship, who stood the good test in helping him, responded to him when he made them hear his messages' argument, separated from mates and children in manifesting his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening his prophecy, and through him gained victory; those who were wrapped in affection for him, hoping for a commerce that comes not to naught in love for him; those who were left by their clans when they clung to his handhold and denied by their kinsfolk when they rested in the shadow of his kinship; forget not, O God, what they abandoned for Thee and in Thee, and make them pleased with Thy good pleasure for the sake of the creatures they drove to Thee while they were with Thy Messenger, summoners to Thee for Thee.
Imam Zayn al-'Abidin , Sahifa al-Kamilah, p. 27

Love is action

2006-11-04T11:59:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

A traitor a deserved term, a foolish traitor perhaps a better one. For look at what has become to the oath of allegiance to Thee, a fallen leaf at the mercy of the wind, so weak, so vulnerable, that the cheap allurements of the material world is capable of purchasing our loyalty from Thee. O the insult, to Thee and ourselves, that love can be compromised so easily, yet certainly love purchased is a love that never was. For how can it be love without loyalty to Thee? How can it be love when sincere time with Thee is all but minimal? And how can it be love when the actual yearning for proximity is to other than Thee? O we cry when others are unjust to our own selves, yet we commit the same crime to Thee!

O the betrayal, punishment therefore our deserved fate, yet forgiveness is Thou offer! How? To a traitor that will no doubt betray again, a traitor who turns to Thee in times of need while neglecting Thee in times of ease, yet Thou still helps! How? And how do we repay this undeserved reprieve? Do we stand before Thee shamefully? Or do we foolishly and audaciously abuse Thou Compassion with our continued neglect? O what a miserable condition an honest reflection unveils, that our declaration of love to Thee fails to move far beyond words.

The right path is only for the worthy

2006-09-27T20:54:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

There was once a King who was the leader of a powerful army. The King loved his soldiers and the soldiers declared their love for him. So strong was this love that the King never questioned their loyalty. That was until the day an army from the west invaded his kingdom. When the King gathered his troops to drive back the occupying forces, they met an army that was ten times its size. The King made a powerful speech telling his soldiers it is better to die standing than live kneeling. Yet despite the Kings inspiring words and despite the declaration of loyalty from his soldiers, they all ran away home or joined the opposing side. All but one remained ready to fight, an elderly man. The King asked him why he stayed by his side.

The old man answered: “The world cannot purchase my love for thee, not pain, not loneliness, not ridicule”

The King smiled at the old man then looked up to the sky and said: “True love is attained through loyalty and loyalty proven through adversity. Without adversity loyalty can never be known and without loyalty love can never be experienced”

Existence, by Mujahid Khalfan

2006-08-16T17:26:00.000+10:00

With the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful

Some important terms-

Necessary Being: A being that cannot be assumed not to exist in anyway whatsoever without contradicting your self. (The following is an example of a Necessary proposition. “The number two is even”. I cannot assume in anyway whatsoever that the number two can be other than even. For if I assume otherwise I will contradict myself.) This is of course not an example of a necessary being but it is to help you get acquainted with what it means to be Necessary. And that is, you cannot assume it to be otherwise.

Possible Being: A being that can be assumed not to exist and exist without contradiction. For example: a unicorn. If you assume a unicorn to exist, you will not contradict yourself. Thus a unicorn is a possible being.

Impossible Being: something that you cannot assume its existence for it will entail a contradiction. For example: a circular square. The existence of a circular square cannot be assumed to exist for these two shapes run contrary to each other.

[112:1] Say: He, Allah, is One (non numeric sense).[112:2] Allah is He on Whom all depend (Allah is independent).[112:3] He begets not, nor is He begotten.[112:4] And none is like Him.

The Three Fundamental Reasoning’s

The existence of Allah is self-evident. But why is it we find people doubting His existence? There are three reasons.

One is because such a person thinks of Allah to be an idol of some sort. Such a person has a wrong conception of Allah. And if this is the case then it is no surprise that he will not be able to find this fake idol!

The second reason is because such a person is unaware of his own awareness of Allah Almighty. There are many things that are self-evident that we can be unaware of. All we have to do is just bring our attention to it. All we have to do is make ourselves aware of our awareness of Allah! For example, let us take a look at the following self-evident proposition: “the part is lesser than the whole”. Throughout the day we were not paying attention to this basic fact until someone brought it to our attention and said “the part is lesser than the whole”! This is an example of us being unaware of our awareness of a self-evident truth.

The third reason is because such a person thinks God can be assumed not to exist. God who is a necessary Being cannot be assumed not to exist because assuming His non-existence will entail a severe contradiction.

Self Questioning.

How does one know if he has the right conception of Allah? He knows that he has the right conception of Allah when he truly believes that Allah is extremely self-evident. It is when he believes that Allah is the first thing a person knows! If we think Allah is not self evident and not the first thing that everybody knows, then we for sure have a wrong conception of Him.

The Solution!

What do we do if we have a wrong conception of Allah and if we want to know who Allah is? The solution is very simple. Since Allah is the first thing a person knows; since He is the most self-evident, then all we now have to do is ask ourselves “what is the most evident thing we know?” And this is non-other than Existence itself, or Reality. This concept is the simplest concept known to man. And it is for this reason that Existence or Reality cannot be defined properly. If something is the simplest concept (Existence) known to man, what other simpler concept can be used to define this concept of existence or reality? Existence is thus something self evident and everyone is aware of it. Existence or Reality can never be doubted, for they cannot be assumed not to exist. If anyone tries to assume its non existence, they will contradict themselves. No one can say Existence does not exist because he would be assuming some sort of existence in order to even say what he is saying. No one can say “Reality does not exist” because what this person means to say is: “Reality really does not exist”. He would be assuming a reality. This is precisely what the characteristic of a Necessary Being is i.e. “can absolutely not be assumed not to exist”. And we must pay close attention to what “absolutely” means. This means that any attempt to negate reality whatsoever will actually be affirming it. To put it more clearly, “the negation of Reality is its own affirmation”.

What isn’t Existence or Reality!

Now if we thought that reality is the sum of all the things that we see around us, then we are indeed mistaken. Because whatever these things are, we can assume their non existence without contradiction. If I assume the universe’s non existence, will I contradict myself? No! So Reality is not this universe because Reality is absolutely eternally necessary and this universe is but a possible entity. Can Reality/Existence be numbered? Can we say Reality is one or can we say there are two realities? No we cannot, because anything that can be numbered can be contained in the mind and thus can be assumed not to exist without contradiction. Anything that can be numbered is thus a possible being, not a necessary being. So Reality we should say is One with a capital “O” meaning One in the non numeric sense.

Why is even an eternal possible thing dependant?

Can a possible being be Independent? Let us say that this possible universe is eternal. Let us say there are some ghosts like creatures that have always existed! Can these possible ghosts like creatures or this possible eternal universe be Independent of anything else? Is this a possibility? In other words, is it possible for an eternal possible being to be Independent? The answer is no! Because we can ask the following question: “Why does this possible being exist?” When someone asks why this? Or why that, it is assumed that this or that thing has a cause for it to exist. And the Cause is that thing which the effect depends on.

Of course someone may say “I can ask Why Reality exists and this would make Reality in need of a cause.” But this is because he doesn’t know that you can only ask “why” to possible things. For example, you cannot ask why a triangle has three sides, because it is necessary for a triangle, if it exists, to have three sides. You can ask why it is sunny today because it is not necessary for it to be sunny. A sunny day, a rainy day, a cloudy day, is possible and thus you can question them.

In other words it is a self-evident fact that all possible beings must depend on their cause. But does this mean that it is impossible for a possible being to be eternal because of its need for a cause? Absolutely not! The criterion for a things need for a cause is not that it should not be eternal but simply because it is a possible being.

In other words if there is at least one possible being that has existence then obviously it must depend or get its existence from Existence itself. If I see a possible being, the only reason I see necessity in their existence is obviously because it is getting their necessity from non other than the Necessary Being. If I see a possible Being that is real then obviously it must depend on Reality. So as long as there is one possible being, you can conclude deductively that there is a necessary Being.

In fact this is the Reason why only Existence or Reality exists! Nothing else exists! How can anything but Existence exist? The possible beings are just a mirage, an illusion, just shadows. Why? Because whatever perfection that possible being has (which must be its existence) that existence belongs to Existence.

A teacher once said that Existence is like a light that you use to see other things. Let us turn our attention to this verse from the Holy Quran:

[24:35] Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not-- light upon light-- Allah guides to His light whom He pleases, and Allah sets forth parables for men, and Allah is Cognizant of all things.

And finally we conclude with a quote from an Islamic Philosopher (Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli):

“God’s invisibility is due to the severity of His manifestation; and His remoteness is because of His extreme proximity. If an entity’s manifestation were to be more evident than knowledge, notion, and knower, and it were to be so near that even nearer than a thing is to itself, such a keen manifestation necessarily creates invisibility, and such extreme proximity causes distance. This invisibility and distance is, however prevalent with respect to the eyes which are veiled; because someone who sees himself, he cannot see God. However by resisting the temptations of the ego and liberation from inequities of conceit, man’s inability can be reversed, and then in proportion to his ontological capacity he may view God. And by admitting “We know Thee not, the knowing Thou deserve”, he may refine His gnosis to perfection.”

Essay on "Does God Not Exist" Debate, by Mujahid Khalfan

2006-07-31T13:40:00.000+10:00

This persuasive factual speech was well organized and was formatted to deal with the general theme of the topic; “Does God Not Exist?” From the logic point of view however, there were many problems with Dan’s arguments. He was attacking straw man most of the time, and said many things that were irrelevant to his opponent Rajabali and the majority of the audience. I also don’t think Dan really took into consideration the difference between the Islamic ideology and other ideologies.

In the beginning Dan started out by saying there are millions of good Americans who do not believe in god. He said most of them are Buddhists. It would have been better if Dan supported this fact. It turns out that Buddhists are not atheists, they are non theists. Buddhists don’t deny the existence of God.

Dan mentions that he doesn’t need a god or any authority to tell him what to do. All he uses is reason. He said the only guidance is reason. And that is what enables him to be a good moral person. Dan says “for me the only guide to truth is reason – not faith, not tradition, not authority and not revelation.” In this part he rejects tradition. But this is a weak argument because this implies that he rejects the law of the lands for example the laws in the United States are traditional laws. In fact from a rational point of view it would be absurd for there not to be a set of universal laws. The same way governments have their own laws God has established laws and regulations for his creation.

Another very irrelevant thing Dan mentioned was recommending the audience to read Ibn Warraq’s book about Islam. This had nothing to do with the topic at hand. If he feels the need to talk about a book, he should only talk about a book, if it relates to the theme of the debate. If ibn Warraq had some points about the existence of God, he should have highlighted that specific point by bringing it to the audience’s attention.

Dan made a very interesting approach of trying to convince the audience that God doesn’t exist by showing the similarities between himself and his opponent and then showing the audience that the only difference he has is that he believes in one less god than his opponent. By doing this, Dan makes it seem to the audience that he is more correct and advanced in thinking and belief. The problem with this argument is that it isn’t really an argument, its just rhetoric. The reason is because there is no rational deduction that can be drawn from what he says. Dan says basically that because long time ago people believed in many gods, goddesses and mythological creatures and as time progressed the myths and gods decreased because of scientific discoveries, its reasonable to say that the absolute One God of the Abraham is also a myth and is false. Dan is saying that because in history most people were wrong in their beliefs, it therefore means that to believe in One Absolute God is wrong. This is a very bad induction. It is like saying that because long time ago people’s sciences were wrong; it would mean that our science of today is wrong. The science that we have today did not start of perfect. It was not spontaneously established. The scientific steps and similar concepts evolved gradually. Science started of deficient and then became perfected through trail and error. We see that there is not a single civilization of the past that lacked some sort of belief in a supreme being, a provider or creator, be it gods or goddesses. This is a manifestation of man’s inherent nature to believe in God. Just like how science was perfected through trial and error, the way to the One True God can be achieved through trail and error. Dan failed to provide a rational argument for God’s non existence. It’s not a bad thing to use rhetoric for the purpose of not sounding boring or bland, but to use rhetoric devoid of reasoning is not good in a debate. Rhetoric which is completely devoid of logic and reasoning sounds dogmatic and would therefore not fulfill the purpose of a debate.

Dan then clarifies his position by saying that he is not just a soft atheist (lacks belief in God) but he goes a step further by denying God’s existence; he is a strict Atheist. Dan said he will provide reasons from both perspectives. He said he will show why it’s reasonable to lack belief in God and will also show why God does not exist. By doing this Dan assures the audience of how firm his foundation is in the non existence of God. He is showing the reasoning of the soft atheists and the strong atheists. This is all planned out strategically to lessen the burden put on him by the topic of the debate, “Does God Not Exist?” By showing the reasoning for a soft atheist (which he doesn’t have to show), he will make the statement, “Does God Not Exist?” seem absurd and silly.

Dan quoted a verse from the Bible of God’s evident nature. Then he proceeded to give his first reasoning to show why it is reasonable to lack belief in God. Dan simply says “it is so obvious that God’s existence is not obvious”. In the mind of a skeptic this statement would automatically shatter the question; “Does God Not Exist?” and would make it look weak and unreasonable.

Dan shouldn’t have used a verse from the Bible rather he should have used a verse or verses from the Holy Qur’an since his opponent and the majority of the audience were Muslims.

Dan tells the audience that he does not agree to the fact that the lack of evidence for X’s existence is not evidence for X’s non existence. This is a claim which is not supported by any sort of reasoning.

Dan tells the audience that it is obvious that God’s existence is not evident for the very fact that they is having the debate in the first place. Dan says that if God’s existence is evident why is it there are a number of atheists that exist? Why would there be atheists in the first place? People don’t debate over gravity. People don’t doubt that gravity exists, because gravity is evident.

The above is just one of Dan’s fallacious arguments. Dan doesn’t understand that in Islam, God is not just evident as in how gravity is evident, but rather God is self-evident, as in the axioms, “the part is lesser than the whole”, “the principle of non contradiction” or “there is a reality”. If people are unaware of such evident propositions then it can be established by just drawing their attention, by observation, or through rational arguments. A person can never be unaware of God’s existence; rather he is unaware of his own awareness of God’s existence. It also seems Dan has forgotten the basics of philosophy. It seems that he has forgotten that there were people who actually negated reality. They were called sophists. They even had huge debates with people concerning reality. The question Dan should answer now is, “How is it something which is so evident like reality ever is debated?” It sure can happen, because it did happen. Reality, if doubted must be established or proven by bringing it to ones attention or through rational arguments. If someone says that there is no reality then one rational counter argument would be, “the negation of reality is its affirmation”. In other words, if someone says that “there is no reality”, he is saying that “there is really no reality” which is its own affirmation or a paradox. In fact a rational argument can be shown on how it is possible for one to doubt God’s existence even though His existence is self-evident. An Islamic philosopher says:

“God’s invisibility is due to the severity of His manifestation; and His remoteness is because of His extreme proximity. If an entity’s manifestation were to be more evident than knowledge, notion, and knower, and it were to be so near that even nearer than a thing is to itself, such a keen manifestation necessarily creates invisibility, and such extreme proximity causes distance. This invisibility and distance is, however prevalent with respect to the eyes which are veiled; because someone who sees himself, he cannot see God. However by resisting the temptations of the ego and liberation from inequities of conceit, man’s inability can be reversed, and then in proportion to his ontological capacity he may view God. And by admitting “We know Thee not, the knowing Thou deserve”, he may refine His gnosis to perfection.”

Dan tells the audience that when people pray to X, that means they feel insecure about X’s existence. He tries to convince the audience by making a joke out of prayers in general. He made the audience laugh but did not provide any reasoning to support his claim. To make the audience laugh is not bad, but to claim something like that without providing any sufficient reasoning just begs for a question; “Why?”

Dan made it seem to the audience that Isaac Newton believed in God just because of the gap of knowledge he had in regards to the planets moving in a single plane. This is probably not true, because Newton probably had belief in God before his discovery. Even if it is true that Newton believed in God because of the gap of knowledge that he had, that is not necessarily true for the audience or for his opponent. Dan argues that man believes in God because of a gap in knowledge. For example ancient people didn’t know where thunder came from or how it was caused and they filled that gap of knowledge with a god, namely Thor. Dan gave several such examples, and then said the arguments his opponent will show will be a god of the gaps type of argument. That did not happen. Dan assumed that his audience believes in God because of a gap in their understanding of the physical universe. I don’t know much about other religions, but in Islam, to allude to God’s existence just because of a gap in the understanding is not in keeping with the style of the Quran or with the Islamic tradition of proving God’s existence.

“The Holy Qur'an never relies for the evidence of the existence of the One God on cases where the system of natural law and order appears to have been violated. It relies in this regard on cases whose preliminaries and natural causes are known to the people, and it cites this order itself as a testimony to God's existence.” (By Mutahhari: Muslim philosopher)

The reason why Islam does not use our ignorance of the mechanism of the universe as evidence of God’s existence is because the ignorance is irrelevant to God’s existence. In fact if one were to allude to God’s existence solely because of ignorance of something then it would be limiting God. For example, long time ago, whenever someone would get the flu, people would say God did it! Then, when it was discovered that the flu is caused by bacteria, those people then said that instead of God causing the flu, God caused the bacteria because “we already found the cause of the flu”. So God takes a step back whenever science progresses. Then when science finds out where the bacteria come from, God would have to take another step back. According to Islam, this concept of God retreating or limiting God to the unknown is actually not acceptable because it’s limiting God. It is like saying because I don’t know the full or complete mechanism of a particular clock, that clock thus has a maker. If I do know the complete mechanism of the clock, it would mean the clock has no maker. Dan attacks straw man by attacking such absurd ideologies. Einstein’s following saying runs parallel to the Islamic ideology.

“I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research”

It is because of God man feels encouraged to discover and learn about His beautiful creation. The Holy Quran encourages man to examine and understand the universe for this reason. “Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.” (2:164)

The Islamic ideology is the ideology Dan should concentrate on and argue about, since his opponent is a Muslim. If not, he would be attacking a straw man which is one of the worst kinds of fallacies.

After that Dan applies the principle of falsifiabilty on God’s existence. He says that in order for the proposition “God Exists”, to even make sense, it must be falsifiable. This law is by Charles Popper which was not meant for it to be applied everywhere. Dan immaturely applies it on God’s existence. The reason why this law can’t be applied everywhere is because if it can, then “reality” should be falsifiable. The proposition, “the part is lesser than the whole” should be falsifiable; but they are not falsifiable. If Dan says that if any un-falsifiable proposition doesn’t make sense and isn’t worth talking about, then he should say that “reality”, or “the part is lesser than the whole” doesn’t make sense or isn’t worth talking about.

Dan then gives arguments for God’s non existence by using this argument: if X has conflicting or contrary attributes, X does not exist. Dan says that because God’s attributes are contradicting each other, God does not exist. For example, In Islam two of the many attributes God has is that He is Infinitely Merciful and Infinitely Just. These two attributes conflict. The problem with this argument is that he attacks a straw man again. In Islam these conflicting attributes are not a problem, because in Islam such attributes are given by God to man for our ease of understanding and for having an idea of who God is. God is absolute and not relative like this world. Creatures compartmentalize things because this is how the relative world operates. God therefore gives us different attributes for it to be intelligible (for our ease of understanding). The attributes are not the Reality of God rather they point to the Reality of God. Relative beings will never be able to comprehend the real attributes of God, because God is absolute. In fact the goal of a Muslim is not to treat God’s attributes as separate. A Muslim starts of to know God with the aid of the attributes given to him. Then as his faith increases, gnosis increases, his knowledge of God increases he will realize that the attributes he was given are actually just relative concepts which point to an infinite/absolute reality. That Absolute Reality has attributes which are totally different from this relative world. The attributes of the absolute Reality are actually together in a way the relative mind would not understand. The attributes are not an accident but are rather part of God’s Essence.
This is part of a sermon by the first successor of the Holy Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h), Imam Ali son of Talib (p.h.u.h) talking about the attributes of God given to man and how they are not the actual Essence of God rather they point to the Essence of God (a reality where His (unintelligible attributes are actually His essence) and how when man reaches a high degree of faith he will deny the attributes given to man (relative attributes).
“The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.” (nahjul balagha: sermons and maxims of Imam Ali (a.s) sermon: # 1 )

Finally Dan makes a seemingly good point by asking Rajabali that he is a good man and he would have stopped 9/11 if he had the ability, why didn’t God prevent 9/11? But the fallacy Dan makes with this argument is he is equating the goodness of man with the goodness of God. The goodness of man is relative to the laws God makes. The goodness of God is however not relative to the laws He makes for man (for example “do not kill innocent men”). The goodness of God is because of His infinite wisdom/knowledge which man doesn’t have access to in order to judge Him. To use man’s litmus test for knowing whether or not God is good or bad is absurd. Man’s litmus test is specifically for man and not for a different category.

This persuasive speech was formatted well to deal with the debate topic but used fallacious reasoning and arguments. In many places Dan attacked a straw man. Dan is very fond of using rhetoric only. Finally, Dan should be well acquainted with who ever he is arguing against; he wasn’t with Rajabali.

The edge

2006-07-29T01:05:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

After much deliberation the young man decided he would end his life. His sadness over the many tragedies in his life as well as the many failures was just too much to bare. He walked towards the edge of the cliff. It was a long way down and a fall from that height would most certainly kill him. Just as he was about to step over the edge he heard the words: I’m sorry

The young man looked to his left. There was an old man sitting down leaning against a large rock. The young man was initially in shock after realizing someone was on the cliff with him. Yet his shock soon turned into horror after noticing the condition of the old man. The leprosy had spread across most of his face. He also had a missing eye, a missing arm and a wooden peg that replaced his missing foot. The young man could not conceal his discomfort at what he saw. Yet he was also confused as to why the old man would be sorry.

The old man noticed his puzzled look and continued to speak: “You see I spend much of my time up here because down there the people cannot bare to see my condition. Here I am alone and am not a burden on anyone. Do not worry you can stay here as I will leave to find another place so that you may enjoy the view in peace”

The young man was amazed at the selfless gesture yet was too depressed to care.“I did not come here to enjoy the view. I came here to end my life. Why you haven’t as well is something I cannot understand”

The old man smiled as he returned his gaze towards the purple horizon.“Why would I end my life after God has blessed me so bountifully?”

The young man could not help but think that the old man was not only crippled with his desease yet was also mentally disturbed.

“Blessed?” The young man questioned astonishingly. “You look like God has cursed you”

The old man quickly responded. “God is Just. He will not test anyone with a trial they are unable to pass. Reason then dictates that the more difficult the trial the more capable the person and the more capable the person the more closer to God he can be. I would not trade my condition for the world if it meant I would have to distance myself from Him even if that be only an inch”

The young man shook his head. “You poor man, although what you say is noble I am afraid there is no truth to it. It is merely a pretty idea conceived so that you may cope with your condition. Have you not realized if you want someone to love you the last thing you do is put them through a torturous trial? Surely if God loves us He will make it easy for us”

The old man smiled again. “Since when is it in the best interests for a child to be spoiled? Of course for the child there is no greater injustice committed as when it does not get what it wants. Yet ofcourse it is only after the child’s maturity that they then realize those initial injustices of not getting what it wants were not injustices at all, but rather they were acts of love that prepared the child for something better. So do not continue to be that child by now trying to assume the role of your parent, who in this case is the All Knowing.”

“Old man, whatever the purpose of our trials, it cannot be worth it for why then would I be standing on the edge of this cliff wanting to give up?”

The old man looked into the young man's eyes. “The world will always let you down. Experience of life will attest to this fact. Why then continue to rely on it? You stand today on that edge because your search for contentment is found in those things that will inevitably abandon you. Once it does abandon you then so will your contentment along with it. Do you not see how God is speaking to you? The world keeps on failing you and you keep turning to it for comfort, why? Do you need more loss and pain to realize the world will always let you down again and again. Do you not see how God is inviting you to Him when ever you feel you have no where else to turn? Do you not see He will be your Friend when you have none, He will be your Witness when you have none, He will be your Refuge when you have none and He will be your Hope when you have none. This hardship you experience is His invitation for your prayer as it is your prayer that is the seed which springs forth hope, with this hope will spring forth strength, with this strength will spring forth freedom and with this freedom will spring forth contentment. Here you will realize there is no struggle too difficult for knowing Him as He Himself is the ultimate intoxication”

True love

2006-07-22T02:36:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

True love begins when one ceases to put themselves before the object of their alleged affection. For otherwise how can it be love unless it is the love for the self? Yet where is the nobility in that? Surely love and nobility can only intertwine through self sacrifice. No amount of colourful words nor even intent can ever compensate. As what greater testimony of love is there if one has given the self away?

A memoir of a tyrant

2006-07-22T02:35:00.000+10:00

Oh if only the masses knew how precarious my rule is, my demise would surely be met before the setting of the sun. Yet how fortunate I am that the masses are such a pathetic lot, that their capacity to struggle does not extend beyond their physiological needs. Simply some bread and a roof and they are pacified and I tolerated. Bitterly perhaps, yet tolerated nonetheless. So they ought not complain, for they have none to blame but themselves as where has any treasure been gained without the cost of blood, sweat and tears? Their inaction is simply my invitation. They deserve their fate for it is a world where the strong dictate.

The heavy price

2006-07-22T02:28:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

There was once a King that was known for his generosity. He would often reward his servants handsomely if ever they performed what was asked of them. One day the King held a competition for all the craftsmen in his kingdom. The task was to create the best innovative toy for his youngest son in seven days. The winner would receive a pot of gold. All the craftsmen spent days and nights designing and creating their toys. Even those who were not craftsmen attempted the task. Yet there was one man who did not participate. It was not because he did not need the prize. In fact he needed it more than most as he was extremely poor. Yet the reason he did not participate was for two reasons.

The first was due to the amount of contestants involved. Although many like he had no skill, equally as many however did. The chances of him winning therefore was slim to say the least. The second reason was because nothing went his way. Everything that he hoped to happen never happened and everything he hoped would never happen eventually happened. He felt that by not participating he would avoid the disappointment of losing. So instead he decided it would be far better to catch up on some much needed sleep.

When the seven days passed the King decided a winner. It was a remarkable day. Everyone who participated was rewarded with a small pot of gold, enough to live comfortably for a very long time. When the poor man heard of this news he never smiled again. The regret of not participating never ceased to torment him. Whenever he was unable to afford a proper meal for his wife and son he would bury his face in his hands, crying while imagining the pot of gold he so easily could have had. The poor man ended up wishing the competition the King held never happened so that at least he would have been free from the unrelenting regret he was feeling.

One day his son asked him why he never smiled anymore. His father replied with the following words: “Dear son, always remember time waits for no man so do not allow inaction to come back to haunt you for there is nothing more tormenting then missed opportunity. Although it is easy to not try, the consequence, which I now realize, is never worth it, for painful regret is the price one will have to pay. Avoid this heavy cost by never ceasing your efforts for I also realize that success is not the result, it is the effort itself and every effort will be rewarded”

The guilty shout the loudest: A message to the anti-Shia

2006-03-24T08:29:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

It is only natural to want people to follow what we believe to be correct. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting this. In fact it is an admirable trait to want what we believe is best for others. The problem however is that most human beings do not know how to react to those who remain steadfastly resolute to their own school of thought. As Muslims though we are fortunate that we have the Quran and the example of our beloved Prophet (s) to guide us on how one ought to conduct themselves amidst such a wide array of different beliefs. Consider the following verse for example:

"Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and reason with them in the best way. Lo! your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who are rightly guided" (Holy Quran 16:125)

Now ultimately we as Muslims understand that it is Allah who guides. But as the above verse clearly demonstrates, we have a responsibility to behave in a manner that best helps create an environment where the truth can easily blossom. So it is important to remember that our responsibility to behave in the correct manner should not forfeit simply because others have rejected the truth after being presented with clear evidence. Allah will judge them accordingly. But Allah will also judge us on whether we have done our duty. After all it can not be denied that our behavior can attract people to the truth or drive them away from it.

Proof of this is exemplified in the Prophet (s) himself as it was his respect for humanity accompanied with his kindness and compassion which attracted people to adopt the correct path. The Quran attests to this fact with the following verse:

“Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you…” (Holy Quran 3:159)

If however we behaved and gave dawah in a manner that was in complete contrast to how the Prophet (s) would have behaved, then this would undoubtedly drive people away from the truth. God forbid that be the case as Allah will hold us to account for such a consequence of un-Islamic behavior.

Keeping all this in mind, let us now turn our attention the chorus of the following nasheed:

Why don’t you beat yourself? You filthy Shia
Why don’t you beat yourself? You filthy Shia
Beat yourself, beat yourself, kill yourself, slash yourself

( The mp3 link to the above song is currently down. But here is another nasheed equally as shameful: Click here )

Now although the Prophet (s) never cut himself when mourning the death of a loved one, neither did the Prophet (s) ever behave in such a vulgar manner as to call someone filthy or tell them to go commit suicide simply because they had a different belief.

So in light of the teachings in the Quran and the example of our beloved Prophet (s), how is it possible for self-confessed Muslims to behave in a manner so cruel and vulgar, a manner so contrary to our Prophet (s)? What is it about such people that make them incapable of harmonious dialogue?

The answer can better be understood by first realizing a distinguishing characteristic of those that follow the correct path. That characteristic is that they are typically always on the defense. Take for instance Muslims as a whole. We as Muslims are constantly hounded for our beliefs. We continually have to respond to the false accusations made against us. The reason for this constant barrage of attacks is simply because Islam is a threat to their belief system. It is a threat because the core doctrine of Islam is so rational, that if any other school of thought was to be compared against it, Islam will expose the inherent flaws of those alternative schools of thought.

Unfortunately some of those who belong to those alternative schools are so comfortable in their social standing that they do not want to jeopardize that by reverting to another belief. As a result, they ignore the rational proof of Islam and use the accusations others make against it as a justification for why they are not Muslim.

Yet the people responsible for the hate are those who are too proud to accept the rational reality of Islam. It is these people that feel compelled to not only aggressively insult Muslims but to also come up with as much accusations against Islam as possible. This is designed to serve two key aims.

The first aim is to convince their own self that what they follow is true. By trying to find faults in other faiths, they build a false sense of security that their own faith is now superior.

However you don’t defend your position by attacking someone else’s. This is the last resort of those unable to defend their position. That is why those that follow the truth much prefer their belief to be discussed because the truth is clear from error and because the truth is clear from error, it will defend the accusations made against it while simultaneously highlighting the inferiority of the belief that the accusers of the truth hold.

The second aim is intimidation. The main purpose of the attacks are not designed to guide Muslims, but rather it is designed to show all the non-Muslims that this is the treatment they should expect to receive if any of them are to become Muslim thereby aiming to prevent people from accepting Islam.

Yet have such approaches ever produced any real success for the anti-Islamic movement? There are still reverts to Islam despite the propaganda that is desperately trying to allege Islam is so obviously wrong. But that is really not the point. The point is that although such approaches may produce some minor success in terms of influencing some people not to accept Islam due to the cunning and intimidating propaganda, that short term success will only be to their detriment in the hereafter. Remember if our behavior drives people away from the truth then we will be held to account for that.

Thus the same must be said regarding the anti-Shia movement. The appalling and deceitful behavior that is typically accompanied with this movement will not only be to the detriment of the anti-Shia in the hereafter, but also a detriment in this life as well. That is because they are inadvertently highlighting the same approach and insecurities the anti-Muslims are precisely guilty of which is proving to continually benefit the Shia.

In fact it would be cause for concern if the truth is not vehemently attacked as there is always a war waged against the truth. This is the Wisdom of Allah, that He allow the enemies of the truth to bring the truth in the spotlight so that the accused can now have the right of reply, a reply for all to see. Glory be to Allah.

So to the accusers of the Muslim Shia, here is some more of our reply to you:

Follow Quran and Ahlul-Bayt Rasool said
It is in your books ask why you haven’t read
Better for you to question what you’ve been fed
So you can be a Shia of Muhammad

At Ghadeer what was the meaning of mawla?
You say it was friend we say it is leader
But never there was successors through shura
Not anywhere in the Quran or in sunnah

Rasool said twelve successors but you say four
Rafidha you say but it’s you who ignore
You fight just like the sahaba did before
You must follow the Ahlul-Bayt to be sure

Dispute over Fadak is easy to choose
You’re my choice Zahra the truth you never lose
Yet they side against you how can they confuse?
Your stand a clear sign, no need for more clues

Have you heard what our dear Rasoolullah said?
To anger Fatimah angers Muhammad
It is in your books ask why you haven’t read
Muhammad can’t be angry at the guided

Curse anyone who had harmed the Ahlul-Bayt
There is no reason for you to hesitate
Quran and Ahlul-Bayt will not separate
Anyone who had harmed them we know their fate

You say we have to love all the Sahaba
How can I when they had killed one another?
They fought Ali so they fought Rasoolullah!
Are you going to let them be your teacher?

We ask you pray on our behalf Ya Ali
Ya Allah all our needs come from Thee only
Through the Gate of Knowledge can we soar to Thee
The Ahlul-Bayt taught us tawheed perfectly

We don’t believe Allah has feet as you say
Do you know what type of God that you portray?
You can’t partition Allah in any way
Learn from the Ahlul-Bayt and do not delay

You do not like we thump our chests but so what?
Yes some of us bleed and most of us do not
But we remembered Husayn while you forgot
Like Husayn we too will stand despite your plot

You have the audacity to mock Mutah
Despite it being in Quran and Sunnah
How is it you can mock the law of Allah
The Rasool commanded Mutah remember

Ya Sadiq what a shame they do not know you
You the teacher of theirs if only they knew
They abused one another except for you
For you are the Ahlul-Bayt respect is due

I bear witness there is no god but Allah
And Muhammad is the Rasool of Allah
Yet you call me filthy Shia rafidha
So is this what you call the Rasool’s dawah?

O you Ya Muhammad I will imitate
Truth with me no reason to intimidate
The guided will behave like the Ahlul-Bayt
You aggressors should learn how to contemplate

Yes, brothers and sisters in humanity
Atleast this is what should be our unity
O Where is your Islamic mentality?
Better for you to learn some humility

What ever school our enemies see the same
It is the divide and rule Zionist game
You continue to help them have u no shame?
Your fight will only be our enemies gain

Why is it you fear civil discussion?
Let us sit down in peace and use our reason
But your no match so you turn to aggression
So you hide your flaws but truth you abandon

Islamic Revolution of 79’
All the way to Hizbollah this is our time
The Shia world over no one can confine
Unite and defeat our enemies design

Your dead

2006-03-03T18:13:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Birth ----------------- Past ----------------- Present ------------- Future (?) ------- Death
{ ------------ KNOWLEDGE ------------------ }{ ------------ IGNORANCE ------------ }

We know that our death is a certainty so as a consequence, the time between this very moment and the moment of our death is a certainty too. Now since we do not know what will transpire between now and then, the time between this moment and our death can only be described as our ignorance.

However as time rolls on, we become more aware of what has transpired into what was previously the unknown. This increase in awareness as a result of time means that time is actually the removal of ignorance. For instance, we will always have more information on our life now than when we did moments earlier and we will always have more information on our life in the future than what we do now. Hence we can see the manner in which our ignorance diminishes as we race towards our death.

Now the question is, has what is to transpire in the future already occured? Or has it yet to occur? However, can we really say our future has yet to occur simply because we are ignorant of the future? Since when does ignorance determine what is reality? Is reality only determined by what we are currently aware of? If that is so then the future is not a reality for we are not aware of the future. Yet such a proposition is ofcourse absurd for the future is as inescapable as our death and so the future is as real as our death. How then for instance can we say our death has yet to occur? Especially since the time of our death is the point at which we are no longer ignorant. But it is only because we are ignorant now that makes us unaware of the fact that we are already dead.

The Islamic perspective is a confirmation of this fact. We as Muslims understand Allah is All Knowing, thus He is simultaneously aware of the past present and future. Who then are we to say our death has yet to occur when Allah is at this very moment a Witness to our death?

Islam and the sublime character.

2006-03-01T13:58:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

"O Mankind, we created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you in to tribes and nations so that you may know each other (not that you despise each other). Verily, the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is most righteous of you." (Holy Quran 49:13)

How many of us would treat a person of higher social status differently from someone who was unknown to the community and did not enjoy the same academic or economic background? Many of us would say no, we would not treat anyone differently. However, what we say and what we do is another thing all together, especially when there are times we are not aware of what we do. For instance, all of us want to be seen as someone important and so often what happens is our behaviour changes when dealing with those people of power and influence, we become more humble and observant of proper etiquette. We do that because we want to be associated with them in that social rank as that is where people are admired and respected.

However, in Islam everyone is created as equals and if anyone was to be superior over the other, it would be for no other reason than because of their nearness to Allah. So all those factors like race, nationality and social status, do not in any way determine that one human being is better than the other. Such an approach to humanity makes Islam an inclusive religion for all people, where everyone should feel welcomed, where everyone should be treated with respect, where everyone should feel honoured to give their time irrespective of who the other person is, and finally, where everyone should be valued.

Our beloved Prophet (s) addressed this evolution in behaviour and outlook on people when he said:

“I have not been sent save to perfect noble manners”

Now one will find that when observing the behaviour of the Prophet (s) and Imams (as), they always treated everyone in the same manner, from the known to the unknown, from the powerful and strong to the weak, from the rich to the poor, everyone of them would be treated with great value for no other reason than because they were human beings.

Consider for instance the following story related to Imam Kadhim (as):

One day Imam Musa Kazim was passing by the tent of a Nomad who was a black man. He went up to him and said “Salam-Alaikum”, in a warm and friendly manner.

Upon leaving he said good-bye to him in a very kind manner with these words: “If there is anything I can do for you, I’m more than willing to do it”.

One of the followers of the Imam who saw this attitude said “Is it suitable for you, the son of the Messenger of Allah, to sit and talk with a man of no reputation and make such an offer as: ‘If you need me in any work, I’m more than willing to do it’? Is it right for a man of great dignity to talk to a man like that?”

The Imam replied, “This is one of Allah’s creatures. Allah has created all men equal. Besides, as a Muslim, he is our brother in faith. After all, life does not remain the same forever. One who needs help today may be the one who will able to help us tomorrow when we’ll need help! If we don’t pay any attention to him today, one day when we may need him we will be embarrassed to ask him for help”

Such accounts of our Imams (as) all have the same powerful messages. The first of those messages is simply that we should not feel superior to anyone, regardless of our social and religious status. This can best be illustrated by pondering over the following beautiful account of Prophet Musa (as):

God inspired Musa (as): Whenever you come to me supplicating, bring with you one from whom you are better. Musa (as) did not dare to say he was better than others. Therefore he stopped finding such a person among human beings and began to search among animals till he came across a mangy dog. He said to himself: I will take it with me. He put a rope around its neck and pulled it behind him. On the way he untied the rope and set the dog free. When Musa (as) reached the supplication site, God said to him: O Musa! Where is the man We had ordered you to bring? Musa (as) said: O God! I could not find it. God said: By My glory, even if you had brought one person, I would have erased your name from the book of Prophets.

Such humbleness is imperative because the result of being humble towards anyone we come to meet, is that they immediately become worthy of our time, worthy of our remembrance and worthy of our kindness because we now no longer see ourselves as being superior over any one.

There is however another imperative message that our beloved Prophets (s) and Imams (as) are teaching us. That message is to not choose what society values over what Allah (swt) values for the pleasure of Allah is more important than the pleasure of others.

To elaborate on this point, consider the example of a person demonstrating an extraordinary display of humbleness and kindness to those people of power and influence yet such benevolence diminishes or disappears entirely when dealing with those who have no social ranking. Such a turn in behaviour can only be described as an act of hypocrisy and cowardice. It is hypocrisy because our true ugly nature is revealed when there is no social gain or praise to be had. And it is cowardice because such kind behaviour is not to please Allah, rather such kind behaviour is solely aimed at feeling accepted and safe amongst those of power and influence. This pathetic condition is illustrated with the following account of a strangers encounter with Imam Ali’s (as) great friend and soldier, Malik-e- Ashtar (ra):

A tall and well built man with a face tanned with the sun and a healed cut on his eyebrow that tell the tale of warfare, walked with determined steps.

A merchant threw a handful of waste at him so that he may provide a moment’s entertainment in the market. But the man continued to walk as determined without a slight response.

Another merchant went to the offender and asked: “Do you know the man whom you just offended?”

“No. I don’t know him. He was one of the thousand who pass by us everyday. Who was he anyway?”

“Seriously, didn’t you recognise him? This passer by happened to be the general commander Malik-e Ashtar.”

“No, was this man Malik-e Ashtar, was this the man whose name startles people and shakes his enemies?”

“Yes, this was Malik”

“Woe unto me! What did I just do? He might just order now and I will be severely punished. I shall run after him and plea that he forgives me.”

He ran after Malik. He noted that he went towards a Masjid. He followed him to the Masjid. There, he saw him stand for prayer, He waited till Malik was done. The merchant went to him and introduced himself while crying and apologizing to Malik. He said: “I am the same person who offended you.”

Malik said: “By Allah I came to the Masjid for you. I understand that you are misguided and unwise, that you bother people without a reason. I felt sad for you. I came to the Masjid to pray for your guidance to the right path. I didn’t have an intention to hurt you as you thought I might have”.

We can see that submissiveness to people of power and influence, whether it be due to fear of punishment or hope of inclusion in higher social ranks is indeed an ugly trait, a trait that reflects a weak character. As we have seen, the consequence of such a weak character is that it limits our ability to behave in an equal manner to all people, ensuring that the rights of everyone are honoured.

Islam however seeks to strengthen the human being, a human being whose behaviour is not affected by the threats of people, nor whose behaviour is bribed by the cheap attractions of social recognition and praise. Rather, Islam seeks to evolve the human being to a character that is powerfully sublime, a character that has the ability to make everyone feel a genuine sense of humanistic worth.

The bridge

2006-02-21T12:43:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

“Son”, the boy’s father gently placed his hand on his son’s shoulder. “Wake up its time for prayer”

The father removed the sheets and blanket encouraging his son to wake up. The boy was so sleepy he could barely keep his eyes open. He then curled up into a ball after noticing how cold it was. He pulled back the sheets and blanket and closed his eyes. “Ten minutes” he mumbled.

The boy’s father sighed leaving him as he went to go pray. Sure enough upon his return his son was fast asleep snoring away. Once again the father gently placed his hand on his son’s shoulder giving it a slight shake. “Son”

The boy scrunched up his face not happy he was woken up yet again.

“Son wake up you will miss your prayer”

The boy buried his face in the pillow and mumbled something incoherent. The father let him be. A couple of hours later the boy finally woke up. When he did he noticed a piece of paper beside him. It was a note from his father. It read:

Salam Alaykum Son, I hope you slept well. I prepared for you something to eat. After you finish eating meet me at the bridge. I’ll be waiting for you. Love you.

The son had a sudden feeling of guilt and worry. He jumped out of bed, quickly got dressed and started making his way to the bridge not bothering to eat what his father prepared for him as he was too eager to find out what was going on.

After jogging a mile he finally reached the local bridge his father was referring to. What he saw was both shocking and confusing. His father was on the bridge building what appeared to be a house. There were a few other people watching his father with the same confused look, except they were laughing.

The son cautiously walked towards his father.“Salam alaykum”

“Wa alaykumu salam son”

“What are you doing?” the son asked eagerly.

“Pass me that timber beside you please”

The son picked up the piece of timber and passed it to his father still awaiting an answer.

“I’m building a house” the father finally replied as he started to hammer in a nail.

The son was beginning to wonder if his father had lost his mind.“Why are you building a house on a bridge?”

“Why what’s wrong with building a house on the bridge? And just look at the view, isn’t it beautiful?”

The son looked at the view in admiration. “Yes the view is beautiful” the son conceded while returning his attention back to his father, “but a bridge is a means for getting to the other side, it’s something that we travel on, not something that we live on.”

The father put down his hammer and nails. “Son, is not life the same? If you do not want to look as foolish as I am right now building a house on a bridge, then do not invest everything you have in the comforts of this temporary abode called life. Or do you believe this short journey is the ultimate destination? Are you really that short sighted? Do you really want to sleep throughout this travel called life having gathered no good deeds to build a beautiful home in the Hereafter? Are you really going to meet Allah having valued the comforts of the world like a few more minutes of sleep as being more valuable than Him? If so pass me another piece of timber”

The father extended his hand waiting for that piece of timber. Instead the father received a hug from his son after realising what his father had just taught him.

Interview with the Shaytan

2006-02-18T09:07:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

What is your aim?

My aim is to increase the distance between you and Allah.

How do you do this?

I offer you unlimited worldly pleasures so that you may forget Allah. Many of you do not need any encouragement. But among you there are some that are cautious, some that exercise moderation. Yet I am not concerned for I have a plan for these people, a plan that rarely fails.

What plan is that?

I whisper to you, informing you of how much better you are than others.

What does this do?

When I remind you of how much better you are than others, you always foolishly find a sense of comfort. In reality though you should be worried because I never show you how far away from Allah you actually are. I do my utmost to conceal this from you as I want you to be comfortable. The more comfortable you are the more you do not feel the need to make any changes. You simply justify and excuse your inaction by comparing yourself to those lower than you. This is a state of paralysis that does not allow you to ascend to Allah. Even if you are aware of this paralysis I am not concerned for I have another plan.

What plan is that?

So as to keep you indifferent to your paralysis, I remind you Allah is All Forgiving and this keeps you comfortable with where you are. But I do not tell you His forgiveness is dependant on your effort. I do not tell you that real love is shown not said.

You mentioned how comparing ourselves to those lower than us keeps us in a state of paralysis. What if we compare ourselves to the Prophet and Imams, wouldnt this make us realise we must try harder?

Normally yes but then I always have a plan of attack. In such a case I remind you that no one can be like the Prophet and Imams. You then foolishly interpret this to justify your paralysis by believing that Allah will understand why you are unable to journey to Him because you are not special like the Prophet and Imams are. But I do not tell you Allah sent you these people to be followed so that you too can be special.

What is your plan of attack for those who are embarking on the journey to Allah?

I whisper to you, informing you of how pious you are. I prove this by making you focus on the praise other people give you. Eventually you enjoy the praise to the extent that you end up worshiping Allah to be praised. You will not dare acknowledge this for you believe you are pious. This plan of attack is the most gratifying for I was able to turn a potentially great monotheist into a foolish polytheist, in this case, someone who worships himself along side Allah.

Who are those that can defeat your cunning plans?

They are those that never cease to critically analyse themselves, they are the self critical. As a result of their critical analysis, they are always aware of their flaws and therefore they are always humble. If the whole world were to praise them they would be more self critical. I try to counter this by whispering to them how noble it is for them to be so self critical, hoping to get them to relax. But because they are so self critical, they never rest as they feel they are not doing enough so they continue to strive to better themselves. That is because they are in love with Allah. I am envious of this love for it is real love. The love where all you want to do is to never stop getting closer to the object of your affection and so there is nothing that can get in the way, even me. I fear them as they are with Allah. I try to tell them I fear them but they are too self critical to know. I try to tell them that they are the ones Allah has said I cannot touch but they are too self critical to know. How then can I get them to stop being self critical when it is their joy and refuge to be self critical?

God belief vital for social harmony

2006-02-17T15:40:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Imagine there was a society that no longer had any laws, that there was no one to administer punishment whenever unjust acts were committed. Naturally to live in such a place would be uneasy to say the least because our safety and possessions will be at the mercy of other people’s goodness. Now since not everyone has our best intentions in mind and since unjust acts are still committed despite the threat of punishment, one can only imagine the escalation of crime if ever that threat of punishment suddenly disappeared.

However we can see that despite this sad condition of our moral servitude, the threat of punishment can nonetheless go to some lengths in curbing what would otherwise be mass deviant behaviour and this in turn translates into a relatively safe and cohesive society. Relative however is the key word as someone who was a victim of a horrific crime such as rape would most likely not consider the society in which they live as being cohesive and safe.

So although the threat of punishment may stem the tide of crime, it clearly does not stop it. The question is why?

Political parties world wide have been arguing over what needs to be done to solve this social evil. A popular solution that is always put forward is the need to get tougher on crime. Now although harsher penalties may be a significant influencing deterrent, crimes nonetheless continue to occur. Not only do crimes still occur, but because many crimes go unpunished, we have no option but to conclude that all political and judicial systems are simply unable to administer this concept of justice. It is precisely this inability that reveals why crimes still occur.

For instance, if it was known justice was able to be carried out each and every time, there would rarely be a crime let alone a major crime. The reason for this is simply because if our law enforcement bodies was always able to catch every crime committed and if our judicial system was always able to administer the appropriate punishment for those crimes, then there could no longer be the belief that one can commit a crime and get away with it. But it is because of this belief that one can indeed get away with a crime that inevitably results in the decision to go ahead with that crime.

And here lies the priceless benefit of believing in God. That is, even though our law enforcement bodies are incapable of always administering justice, those that believe in God nonetheless believe that they still cannot get away with a crime for they understand that such actions will be punished in the hereafter.

That is not to say those that believe in God do not commit crimes nor is it saying those that do not believe in God are bad people. However this does not mean God belief is no longer a priceless asset for society.

For instance, just because our laws that threaten punishment do not prevent people from committing crimes, does not mean it provides no benefit for society for without these laws the state of society will be that much more miserable. And so the same must be said for the belief in God, the only difference being that this belief is more of an effective deterrent than any man made threat because such man made threats cannot be carried out if the person believes he or she can get away with the crime. Yet when it comes to the belief in the hereafter where God will punish all crimes, one can no longer believe they can get away with it. Even a staunch atheist must concede that irrespective of whether God exists or not, a belief no crime will go unpunished is better to have than not to have.

Sure an atheist may well argue that they do not need God or any form of punishment to behave. Yet this is besides the point as we cannot expect everyone to adhere to our intuitive moral awareness. The condition of human beings as a whole is such that we need all the help we can get and so the stronger the belief in the hereafter, the less likely one will commit a crime, at least a major one. Yet to encourage this idea that there is no afterlife and so there is no recompense for our actions is to simply give a green light to those who want to take advantage of the inability of our law enforcement bodies to catch and punish all crimes.

Recall that we began this discourse by imagining a society that had descended into lawlessness. Who would you prefer your neighbour to be in such a scenario? Someone who believes they can commit a crime and get away with it? Or someone who believes that no crime goes unpunished? In fact, who would you prefer your neighbour to be now?

Necklace, By Anonymous

2006-02-05T12:23:00.000+10:00

The cheerful little girl with bouncy golden curls was almost five. Waiting with her mother at the checkout stand, she saw them, a circle of glistening white pearls in apink foil box.

"Oh Mommy please, Mommy. Can I have them? Please, Mommy, please?" Quickly the mother checked the back of the little foil box and then looked back into the pleading blue eyes of her little girl's up turned face.

"A dollar ninety-five. That's almost $2.00. If you really want them, I'll think of some extra chores for you and in no time you can save enough money to buy them for yourself."

"Your birthday's only a week away and you might get another crisp dollar bill from Grandma." the mother said.

As soon as Jenny got home, she emptied her penny bank and counted out 17 pennies. After dinner, she did more than her share of chores and she went to theneighbor and asked Mrs. McJames if she could pick dandelions for ten cents. On her birthday, Grandma did give her another new dollar bill and at last she had enough money to buy the necklace.

Jenny loved her pearls. They made her feel dressed up and grown up. She wore them everywhere, Sunday school, kindergarten, even to bed. The only time she took them off was when she went swimming or had a bubble bath, because Mother said if they got wet, they might turn her neck green.

Jenny had a very loving daddy and every night when she was ready for bed, he would stop whatever he was doing and come upstairs to read her a story.

One night as he finished the story, he asked Jenny," Do you love me?"

"Oh yes,daddy. You know that I love you."

"Then give me your pearls."

"Oh, daddy, not my pearls. But you can have Princess, the white horse from my collection, the one with the pink tail. Remember, daddy? The one you gave me. She'smy very favorite."

"That's okay, Honey, daddy loves you. Good night." And he brushed her cheek with a kiss.

About a week later, after the story time, Jenny's daddy asked again, "Do you love me?"

"Daddy, you know I love you.""Then give me your pearls."

"Oh Daddy, not my pearls. But you can have my baby doll. The brand new one I got for my birthday. She is beautiful and you can have the yellow blanket that matches her sleeper."

"That's okay. Sleep well. God bless you, little one. Daddy loves you."

And as always, he brushed her cheek with a gentle kiss. A few nights later when her daddy came in, Jenny was sitting on her bed with her legs crossed Indian style. As he came close, he noticed her chin was trembling and one silent tear rolled down her cheek.

"What is it, Jenny? What's the matter?"

Jenny didn't say anything but lifted her little hand up to her daddy. And when she opened it, there was her little pearl necklace.

With a little quiver, she finally said, "Here, daddy, this is for you."

With tears gathering in his own eyes, Jenny's daddy reached out with one hand to take the dime store necklace, and with the other hand he reached into his pocket and pulled out a blue velvet case with a strand of genuine pearls and gave them to Jenny. He had them all the time. He was just waiting for her to give up the dime-store stuff so he could give her the genuine treasure.

So it is, with our CREATOR!. He is waiting for us to give up the cheap things in ourlives so that he can give us beautiful treasures. Isn't God good? Are you holding onto things that God wants you to let go of? Are you holding on to harmful or unnecessary partners, relationships, habits and activities that you have come so attached to that it seems impossible to let go?

Sometimes it is so hard to see what is in the other hand but do believe this one thing....God will never take away something without giving you something better in its place.

Holy Quran said: "LAN TANALUL BIRRA HATTA TUNFIQUU MIMMATUHIBBUUN - You will never achieve goodness until you give out what you love the most".

Source: http://www.islamicentre.org/articles/12.pdf

The Revolution of Imam Husayn (as)

2006-02-02T20:12:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Why is it, the vast majority of human beings are against concepts like cruelty and injustice yet such concepts are nonetheless prevalent realities across the globe, realities that only seem to be getting worse?

For instance, why is it no human being would want some innocent child to starve to death, yet this happens every day and it happens everyday by the thousands? How can that be? How can the masses be so ineffective, so powerless?

It is as if humanity is being plagued by a cancer, a cancer that has now engulfed and entrenched itself so deep, that humanity has now fallen on its death bed and is barely registering a pulse.

What debilitating type of cancer are we suffering from? A cancer that has destroyed our immune system, the very system designed to protect humanity. A cancer that has turned us into the walking dead, lifeless, passionless and indifferent, where instead of roaring like lions showing our teeth if ever the rights of humanity are even remotely threatened, we can barely muster a whimper because we are so intoxicatingly passive. Yet when it comes to chasing the comforts of the world or defending one’s ego, we turn into ferocious lions indeed.

But who is going to defend humanity now that we have abandoned our guarding posts for such a cheap price, leaving humanity to the mercy of the wicked? Who is going to awaken us from our pathetic slumber so that we are no longer de-sensitised to the plight of humanity?

Enter the grandson of our beloved Prophet (s), the son of Imam Ali (as), Imam Husayn (as), he, the one who on that fateful day at Karbala became the source of burning inspiration. This was his victory, an inspiration that could have only been born out of a tragedy, for it is only a tragedy that is able to provide that spark our dead souls so desperately need, a tragedy that instils in us a rage, a rage of passion, a passion to change, to change for the better, a passion to fight, to fight our own demons, to revolutionize the soul and thus give birth to new soldiers, soldiers who now fly the real flag of Islam, this is the call of Imam Husayn (as), this is his revolution, a revolution we can not join through tears alone. That is not why Imam Husayn (as) witnessed the butchering of his family, that is not why he ended up drenched in blood with spears protruding all over his body as he continued to charge holding on to his sword with such a majestic ferocity that he could still drive back an army of thousands.

Imam Husayn (as) is calling us to struggle the way he struggled, to prove your love for Allah (swt) for he sacrificed everything for the His love, he lost half his meagre 72 army because they had stopped to pray.

Imam Husayn is showing us love is proportionate to our struggle and it is a worthy struggle, so worthy he sacrificed himself to invoke in us that zeal to fight. Are we not ashamed to decline his invitation?

So fight and fight with passion for the battle of humanity begins with the battle of the self. So fight to concentrate during prayer, fight the ego, fight to be objective, fight to be patient, fight to lower the gaze, fight to wear the hijab both inner and outer, fight to do all that which pleases Allah for that is the call of Imam Husayn (as), accept his call so we can now be fighting along side him at Karbala.

Islam calls people to Reason and not to have Blind Faith! by Mujahid Khalfan

2006-01-15T17:20:00.000+10:00

Allah says in the Holy Quran:

[Quran 67:10] And they shall say: Had we but listened or pondered, we should not have been among the inmates of the burning fire.

[Quran 8:22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not rationalize.

The aforementioned verses show how much Islam emphasizes on thinking and pondering. It is such an important feature in Islam. This is one of the things that make Islam unique and different from all other religions and ideologies in the World.

The Quran encourages and calls upon people to think, ponder, and rationalize and to draw to conclusions the proper way. From the Islamic point of view “worship” is not confined to the physical worship like prayer and fasting. Worship in Islam is also not confined to the financial worship. In Islam there is another kind of worship as well; it is the worship which consists of thinking, pondering, and reflecting. If this mental worship of thinking and pondering leads to the awakening of man, then it is far superior to many years of physical worship.

Think about this and ask yourself the following questions:

Whatever religion you follow, ask yourself how you have arrived at the conclusion that what you believe in is right.

Ask yourself how is it atheists arrive at the conclusion that God doesn’t exist.
How did they conclude with that?

How have Muslims, Christians, Jews or Hindus concluded that they are on the right path? How have they arrived at that conclusion?

How is it that some people arrive at the conclusion that they will be able to see God in the hereafter?

If we come to see, we realize that these different beliefs and ideologies that are mentioned above are just different conclusions people arrive at or draw. Some of the conclusions are right and some of them are wrong.

The reason why people arrive at wrong conclusions is because it is the outcome of incorrect thinking. In other words incorrect thinking or wrong thinking automatically makes man arrive at wrong conclusions.

In Islam it is not enough for Muslims to acknowledge its doctrinal tenets unquestioningly or as a family tradition. A Muslim that says “there is no god but Allah and Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) is the messenger of Allah” has indeed arrived at the right conclusion, “outwardly speaking”! But has he arrived at the right conclusion “inwardly”? In Islam if a Muslim’s conclusion of “there is no god but Allah and Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) is the messenger of Allah” was the outcome of wrong thinking then his inward conclusion is wrong. If conclusion of “There is no god but Allah and…” was the outcome of wrong thinking, then although he may be arriving at the right conclusion outwardly (with the composition of the words and what he/she utters/from the exterior), but inwardly he has not really arrived at the right conclusion because he in reality is not saying “there is no god but Allah and Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) is the messenger of Allah”.

Because wrong thinking causes man to arrive at wrong conclusions, the Holy Quran has pointed out the factors that cause wrong thinking and has explained to man what to do to avoid error and deviation.

The factors that cause wrong thinking in light of the Holy Quran

1. Reliance on conjecture instead of sure knowledge

[Quran 6:116] Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only.

People must have certainty about something. They should make sure that their knowledge is correct. People should do independent research and should not rely on mere guesswork. Why? To be certain that the tools they use (info/facts/knowledge) in order to draw conclusions are correct.

The Holy Quran strictly forbids following a conjecture. Allah says…

[Quran 17:36] And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.

The interesting thing is that philosophers agree that dubious knowledge is the main cause of mistakes. In fact many centuries after the Quran was revealed Descartes the famous philosopher declared this to be the first principle of Logic. He said "I do not consider anything to be a reality unless it becomes obvious to me. I avoid haste, association of ideas and predisposition; and accept only that which is so clear and distinct that there can be no doubt about it"

2. Biasness influencing decision making

If man wants to judge rightly, he should fully maintain his impartiality. In other words he should seek truth only, and accept without hesitation what evidence proves. He should behave exactly like a judge in a court of justice, who while studying a case ought to be neutral to the claims of both the parties. If he is biased towards one party, the arguments in favor of that party will unconsciously attract his attention and the arguments against it will automatically be missed by him. That is what will mislead the judge.

If man is not neutral and his thinking is lop-sided, the pointer of his thinking will unconsciously be inclined towards his personal liking and personal desire. That is why the Holy Quran regards the base desires as much a source of error as reliance on a guess and conjecture. It says:

[Quran 53:23] They follow but conjecture and that which themselves desire.

3. Haste (Hastily believing or Hastily denying something)

Firstly it is important to understand that since mankind’s knowledge is not enough, we should be careful when drawing conclusions because we might not have enough knowledge for us to properly conclude.

[Quran 17:85] You have been given but little knowledge.

Imaam Jafer Sadiq (a.s) (one of the leaders in islam and one of the greatest thinkers in the World) said: "In the two verses of the Holy Qur'an Allah has warned men against two things:

(i) He has said that they must not believe a thing unless they have sure knowledge about it (Warning against hasty believing).
(ii) He has said that they must not deny a thing unless they have sure knowledge about it (Warning against hasty denial).”

The two verses are below.

[Quran 7:169] Were they not asked in the Book to give an undertaking that they would speak nothing concerning Allah except the truth?

An example of Hasty believing: Some Muslims believe that they will be able to see God on the Day of Judgment. Why do they believe in this absurdity? Because they are being told that Sahih Bukhari is right and in Sahih Bukhari it says that the believers will be able to see God:

Jarir bin 'Abdullah narrated: The Prophet said, "You will definitely see your Lord with your own eyes." - Sahih Bukhari, v9, Hadith #530

Jarir bin 'Abdullah narrated: Allah's Apostle came out to us on the night of the full moon and said, "You will see your Lord on the Day of Resurrection as you see this (full moon) and you will have no difficulty in seeing Him." - Sahih Bukhari, v9, Hadith #531

They also believe that God will be seen on the Day of Judgment because they are told that it says it in the Quran that faces on that Day (Day of Reckoning) shall be looking to their Lord.

[Quran 75:23] Looking to their Lord.

These people hastily believed in something. They did not look at all the arguments. For example, logic dictates that a finite being cannot see, grasp, comprehend an infinite being, because if that were the case then the infinite being would no longer be infinite. Even if people say that the human being’s physical laws on that Day shall be extended, that does not change God’s nature of being infinite.

Furthermore, these people do not se that in the Quran there is a verse that tells us how to understand the Quran.

[Quran 3:7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

This verse tells us that the Holy Quran is made up of two kinds of verses, decisive verses and allegorical verses. For the allegorical verse, they have to be returned to the decisive verse because the decisive verses are “Ummul Quran” or Mother of the Quran. They are the verses in which the other verses have to be returned to. That is why a mother in Arabic is called “Umm”. The people who do not return the allegorical verses to the decisive verses, they have perversity in their hearts. For more information regarding this verse click on the link below.

http://www.almizan.org/Discourses/QD21.asp

The verse “Looking to their Lord 75:23 ” is an allegorical verse and must be referred to a decisive verse. The decisive verse in the Quran is

[Quran 6:103] Vision comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware.

………………………

[Quran 10:39] In fact they denied that of which they had not enough knowledge.

An example of Hasty denial: Some Atheists are what they are because they were indoctrinated with a false belief or religion. They realized that many of the religious practices and beliefs are absurd, irrational and just don’t make any sense. So these people get so frustrated that not only do they renounce their faith in that particular religion but condemn all religions and say all religions are absurd and illogical. They denied something they didn’t have knowledge about and so end up denying in haste.

4. Traditional thinking and looking at the past

Man has a natural tendency to readily accept an idea or a belief that was accepted by the past generations, without giving it any further thought. The Holy Qur'an reminds people that they should have independent thinking and should not accept anything without judging it carefully, simply because it was accepted by others in the past. The Holy Qur'an says:

[Quran 2:170] We follow the traditions of our forefathers. What! Even though their forefathers did not understand anything and had no guidance.

5. Cult of Personality

Another cause of wrong thinking is the cult of personality. Because of the great respect in which they are held, the celebrated historical and contemporary personalities influence the thinking and the will of others. In fact the famous personalities control the thinking of others, who think as they think and have the same opinions as they have. Other people do not dare differ from the great people and so lose their independence of thought and will.

The Holy Qur'an calls upon people to think independently and not to follow their elders and other influential personalities blindly, because to do that is likely to bring them bad luck.

The Holy Qur'an tells us that the misguided people will be saying on the Day of Judgment:

[Quran 33:67] Our Lord! We obeyed our chiefs and great men who misled us from the right path.

It is very important that Muslims should understand Islam and should believe in it with conviction and certainty. They should employ the methods of correct thinking instead of incorrect thinking. Incorrect thinking leads man to arrive at faulty conclusions. A Muslim that arrives at his or her conclusion by incorrect thinking has in reality not arrived at the right conclusion of “There is no god but Allah and Prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h.)”

When a Muslim concludes correctly, he/she will realize what Islam really is:

“It is indeed a religion founded on truth.
It is such a fountain-head of learning that several streams of wisdomand knowledge flow from it.
It is such a lamp that several lamps will be lit from it.
It is a lofty beacon of light Illuminating the path of Allah.
It is such a set of principles and beliefs that will fully satisfy every seeker of truth and reality.

Know you all that Allah has made Islam, the most sublime path for the attainment of His supreme pleasure and the highest standard of his worship and obedience.He has favoured it with noble precepts, exalted principles, undoubtable arguements, unchallengable supremecy and undeniable wisdom.It is up to you to maintain the eminence and dignity granted to it by the Lord, to follow it sincerely, to do justice to its articles of faith and belief, to obey implicitly its tenets and orders, and to give it the proper place in your lives.”

-IMAAM ALI (a.s)

An interview with a soldier

2005-12-23T08:23:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

What is the toughest battle you have ever fought?

The battle I am fighting every waking moment of my life, the battle against the self.

Why is that the toughest battle?

The battle only stops when your asleep and the injuries you attain in this battle need to be treated immediately, otherwise they will be treated via the flames of hell.

What injuries are they?

Pride, pretending virtuousness, nationalism, envy, anger and backbiting.

What is the worst of these injuries?

Pride.

Why?

Pride is self admiration which is the worship of the self.

How do you know you have it?

Be wary if you do not continually ask yourself if you have it, regardless of your level of knowledge and spirituality. Remember the Shaytan was the best of worshippers yet it was his pride that was the cause of his downfall.

How do you treat these injuries?

With the weapons Allah has bestowed with us, one of which is my most prized.

What weapon is that?

It is my will, my resolve.

Why is that your most prized weapon?

Without will, I am unable to raise my other weapons.

What weapons are those?

My sincerity, my patience and my repentance.

Why is sincerity important?

My other weapons will have no effect without sincerity.

Why is patience important?

I pray this answer reaches those who have lost hope or are about to lose hope. I pray that they continue with their good deeds and that they continue to endure their hardships and I pray they do these things without expecting immediate reward. I pray they do this and that they hang on, even if their efforts go unrewarded till their deaths. O please hang on you blessed souls, as Allah looks upon you well pleased, for do you know, if He were to immediately reward those who performed righteous acts or experienced hardships, then they would no longer be superior to the wicked? For remember the wicked perform evil for immediate rewards. So be not like them and hang on, be patient as you are the warriors of Karbala, continue your noble fight, for you are loved by Allah.

Why is repentance important?

Some think that they have made too many mistakes in this battle to be able to stand back up. They think it is now too shameful to expect forgiveness. They are the ones now who are chained to self pity. They have abandoned us when we need them the most. Now there state is difficult to see. They have become wilful spectators of the battle between virtue and vice. They are no use to us anymore which is why they reluctantly wave the flag of vice with heads bowed in shame. I say to them what the most righteous servants of Allah has said, that is, Allah loves those who have sinned yet are sad and repentant then he does those who do a good deed yet are proud and arrogant. O sinful soul, do you see how repentance breaks the chains of self pity? Do you see how it invites you back to the battle? Do you see there is still hope. Do not decline this invitation for it is an invitation from Allah.

If we ask Allah to win us this war, will our success be gauranteed?

Asking alone is not enough as Allah helps those who helps themselves. This way, if we do win, then we share some of the responsibility of our success. This is a testament to the Benevolence of Allah.

Any final advice?

Discomfort the self.

What do you mean?

The struggle against the self has not begun if the self feels no pain, for there can be no struggle without pain. This pain is vital for your comfort.

How does one feel pain yet comfort at the same time?

There is no sweeter comfort than to do what is right.

Knowing the tactics of your enemy

2005-12-21T08:12:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

A fish ends up on the fry pan because it was deceived. Had it known what it wanted was also accompanied with a hook, it would have looked for food elsewhere. This is how the Shaytan lures. He knows that misguidance is only effective when the truth is wrapped around the hook of falsehood. He at times does not even need to conceal the hook, just a little of the truth is enough to snare his prey. With the cautious however, he uses more of the truth, making it more irresistible to refuse, and so the Shaytan snares them as well.

This serves as a warning, everyone has some of the truth, but some more of the truth is not an indication of guidance, as it still only takes one hook of falsehood to deceive.

The Justice of Allah and why we suffer

2005-12-20T12:48:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

And We will most certainly try you with somewhat of fear and hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits; and give good news to the patient, Who, when a misfortune befalls them, say: Surely we are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return. Those are they on whom are blessings and mercy from their Lord, and those are the followers of the right course. (Holy Quran 2:155-157)

Innocent people die every day and many suffer tremendous pain before they die. Much of these deaths and sufferings are caused by those factors no innocent human being could be responsible for, such as earthquakes and floods. Now because God is capable of preventing innocent people from undergoing this suffering, why doesn’t He spare them? In particular, why doesn’t He in the very least spare the children?

Consider for example the many children who drown while swimming at the beach because they had the unfortunate circumstance of being caught in a rip that dragged them back out into the sea. Why wouldn’t God reverse this motion of the sea and thus bring them back to safety? If it is a test for the parents, is it fair for children to suffer by being the test subject?Why is it, if we were to cause a child to drown it would be cruel and unjust but if God does it He is still Compassionate and Just?

Whether we are theists or atheists, every thought provoking question about Allah such as the one above, is an invitation for us to gain nearness to Allah for it is every one of these thought provoking questions that provides an opportunity to realise His Greatness.

Part One: Realising the Justice of Allah by realising His Greatness

The wisdom behind pain and suffering is not only so that we may understand and appreciate the value of when we are healthy and happy, but there is also something more profound. That is, pain and suffering is the means for realising ultimate greatness and it is the access to such greatness that makes the path to it, one that is always fair and just.

To elaborate on this point, let us consider the concept of love. The human being is capable of the most extraordinary self sacrifice all in the name of love. For instance, a mother would not hesitate to leap in front of a speeding car so as to save her child from being hit and she will do it without the slightest hesitation, even if she knows her effort will be futile. This self sacrifice not only ascends one to a sublime character, but it demonstrates that the high price of pain, next to love, becomes all of a sudden worthless and it is this comparison that reveals how incredibly great love is. Now such greatness means that any self sacrifice in the name of this great thing called love, is always worth it and because it is worth it, there is never a question of whether love is unjust.

Keeping this example in mind, let us now draw our attention to Allah. Our understanding of Allah is that all His attributes are absolute. Thus when we say Allah is Great, we mean that He possesses the attribute of Greatness in its entirety. Or in other words, He is Absolutely Great.

The concept of this absolute greatness means that it has so be something to great, that there is no self sacrifice high enough to dissuade you from wanting to be with it. It has to be something so great, that just to spend a moment with it, is an infinite number of times more worth, than an infinite life time of pain and suffering. And after spending a moment with it, it has to be so great that there is no pain and suffering like the pain and suffering of being kept away from it. Can you imagine how great that something must be? It is only now, via the knowledge of pain and suffering can we begin to imagine how incredibly great that something is. And that greatness is none other than Allah.

Now some may argue that it is still not fair to have to go through any pain in order to reach something good, even if it is only temporary. This argument however is still yet to recognise what exactly is the concept of absolute greatness. To explain, if the price of hardship is too high, then we are no longer talking about that which is absolutely great because simply it is no longer absolutely priceless.

Thus we can see it is only when we discuss relative greatness that the problem of injustice arises. Meaning, to perform something in return for something else that does not adequately compensate, presents a situation that is not fair, a situation that is unjust. However, we are no longer talking about Allah when speaking of Him in the relative sense for as we have already established, His greatness is absolute. So any path to that which is absolutely great is a path that is absolutely priceless and so therefore it is a path that is duly compensated and so, it is a path that is inherently just.

Part Two: Justice can only be realised when the capable are challenged.

To receive a difficult test, is an esteemed honour for it is a reflection of the level of our capabilities, the more difficult the test, the more capable we are. For instance, imagine our skills and strengths in mathematics were analysed over the course of a defined period. After this period, we were given a test. Now imagine this test to be highly problematic, the kind of test that only those gifted in mathematics could have hope of solving. You would naturally be daunted by the test, yet at the same time you would feel a sense of empowerment knowing that you have the skills to pass such a challenging test. Now imagine you had the skills, but your professor never gave you the opportunity to implement them. Would that be fair?

Let us continue with this concept by imagining a life where we had the power to change every problem and hardship that surfaces. Life would offcourse end up being easy. However, by taking away this challenging component in our life, it would mean our extraordinary capabilities could never be realised. The consequences of this should not be underestimated.

If we return to our previous example and imagine we are given a test that does not reflect our capabilities, we may pass the test with flying colours, but we will never know our true worth. We would never be able to stimulate our minds and excel as human being’s which is only possible in such schools of adversity.

But lets be honest, most of us would not care of evolving into human being’s that are sublime in character and profound in wisdom if it meant we had to be challenged. Most of us would instead prefer a life of continuous ease and comfort. However, a life of ease and comfort sounds a lot like heaven, where we no longer have to struggle, where everything fits into place just how we like it to be. Yet such a life then would have no purpose as what is the point of a test if it does not test? It would merely just be a waste of time.

But more to the point, such a life would never be fair because if we are denied the chance of realising our capabilities, then we would be cheated out of the chance to achieve something greater for ourselves. So not only would such a life be a waste of time, it would b inherently unjust as well.

Part Three: The necessity for the ignorant to be objective in order for justice to prevail.

The concept behind the saying, ‘you are innocent until proven guilty’, is born out of the fact that we are ignorant. It is because of this ignorance that we are compelled to refrain from making any rash judgments because we simply do not know the full story. We can see here the great importance objectivity has in our life for if we were to make rash judgements without first considering the evidence, it would mean our judgement would not be just and so the truth would never be known.

Allow us to consider the example of a man who lived his entire life as desert nomad. One day for the first time, this man saw in the distance a city and in the city there was a bull dozer tearing down beautiful buildings. What would he think? He would naturally perceive the bull dozer as carrying out a senseless act of destruction. Yet he would be completely ignorant of the engineering plans behind the destruction, a destruction that will eventually result in the creation of another more beautiful building. But to this desert nomad, the only thing he would conclude is that it is an unjust act and if he could stop it he would.

However, what if it came to his attention that the same bull dozer that was tearing down the buildings was the same bull dozer that helped create those beautiful buildings? Would it now be fair on his part to continue to condemn the act as being unjust? Rather, with this information, he would be aware of two critical points.

He would first be aware of his own ignorance, in particular his ignorance regarding the bull dozer. In turn he would be aware the bull dozer can no longer be considered as an instrument of injustice after realising the beauty it had helped create. With these two factors combined he would conclude that there must be a greater wisdom being played out that he was not aware of.

So we can see in this example how easily we beings of finite knowledge can think that we know the reality of the events surrounding us, yet the reality is far from what we think it is.

Yet life and we as human beings are designed in such a way, that it is only with the fertile mind of objectivity, can justice blossom. This is a testament to the Justice of Allah, for no author of such a system, can ever be unjust.

Welcome to the jungle, a warning (Part 2)

2005-12-14T12:44:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Welcome to the jungle, beautiful yet dangerous. Reason was the guide that led u to the safest path, this is my path, the path of truth. However, it is a path thwart with danger. The more one ascends up on this path, the more they look back and admire how far they have climbed. This is when the whispering snakes of Shaytan slide across our path. Beware from stepping on any of them, for their venom is that of pride. If it bites, you will one day become so proud, you will be incapable of acknowledging when you do go wrong.

So caution, keep your head down and be on guard for these snakes, for it is better to be ignorant yet humble, then to be wise yet arrogant. For even the wicked can be wise, but only the pious can be humble.

And also know, it is only the humble who will always leave the door open to my path, but importantly as well, the door to the ascension of sublime character.

The 'Hands' of Allah: Allegorical or Literal?

2005-12-10T18:31:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

When Allah refers to His 'Hands' and 'Face' are we meant to understand it in the literal or allegorical sense? Some argue to interpret 'Hands' and 'Face' as anything other than its literal meaning is to engage in tahreef which basically means distorting the intended meaning of the Quran. They argue we should accept the literal meaning and leave the question of how to Allah. They also argue this literal approach does not conflict with Tawheed because His 'Hands' and 'Face' are unlike ours.

However, it is because Allah is unlike anything, it is not possible for Allah to literally have 'Hands' and 'Face' because even if we say His 'Hands' and 'Face' are unlike ours they are still nonetheless parts of Allah. This partitioning of Allah likens Him to His creation and conflicts with His Oneness. For instance Allah has said He has created everything in pairs. Thus to say Allah literally has 'two Hands' means He is not only like His creation but it would also mean that Allah is no longer One in the absolute sense for He is divided into segments. We cannot ignore this partitioning of Allah for then we would be no different from the Christians who are at a loss to explain the partitioning of their god.

In addition, if Allah really meant for His 'Hands' and 'Face to be taken literally, then why would He say the following?

"...Everything (that exists) will perish except His Face..." (Holy Quran 28:88)

If we take this verse literally it will mean the literal 'Hands' of Allah will also perish. Now obviously no Muslim can take this verse literally. We must interpret 'Face' allegorically otherwise the literal 'Hands' of Allah will perish. Thus Allah would never say everything will perish except His 'Face' if His 'Hands' were meant to be taken literally.

It would be an appropriate place to remind ourselves here that we must first interpret the Quran by the Quran, meaning one verse will explain other verses. So if one verse clearly proves His 'Hands' and 'Face' is allegorical, then we must apply this allegorical approach on every occasion these words are mentioned. After all Allah is not the author of confusion. He will not use 'Hands' and 'Face' literally in one verse and allegorical in another.

Finally it should also be pointed out allegory is necessary in the Quran because we as finite beings are simply unable to appreciate what Allah actually is. We can only say He is unlike anything in the absolute sense. So it is only through symbolism of our existence that we can then better familiarize ourselves with the message being conveyed. For instance we know that Allah is All Powerful but will this statement alone help us appreciate that power? To us it is just a statement. The only way to attain a better appreciation is through familiarity of what we know. For example, imagine holding a finger just above an ant. From this example alone we can appreciate how vulnerable that ant is, how its existence relies on our mercy and how the ant is absolutely powerless if ever we wanted to squash that ant. Obviously we cannot compare our power with the power of Allah but through the symbolism of the hand, we can better appreciate His power and majesty.

So never was 'Hands' meant to be taken in the literal context just like darkness and light in the following verse is not meant to be taken literally:

"Allah is the gaurdian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness and into the light..." (Holy Quran 2:257)

It is no coincidence that Allah speaks of guidance allegorically.

The reality of freedom and the necessity of theocracy

2005-12-06T00:47:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

The word “free” means not being restricted by authority or external force. From this definition we can extract a critical point and that is, there is no such a thing as absolute freedom. We can say that because the human being always submits to something. Whether willingly or unwillingly, we are always going to be restricted by some type of authority, a force we are governed by. These authorities can be divided into two categories, the inner authority and the outer authority.

The inner authority is the driving force behind all our thoughts and actions. This driving force is represented by our vices and virtues. For instance, many of us live our lives under the dictatorship of pride, anger, lowly desires etc while others choose to be governed by morality, patience, reason etc.

All of these authorities involve some type of restriction, whether by choice or consequence. For instance, those who abide by morality will not commit adultery. That is a restriction of choice that is both willfully and happily made. On the other hand, those of us who are enslaved to our pride for instance will suffer the consequence of being restricted from acknowledging what is correct.

The outer authority represents those apparent laws of religion as well as the laws of people such as institutions like parenthood and in particular, governments.

It can be clearly demonstrated even in today times, that most secular and democratic governments place restrictions on freedom. This is made evident with the prohibition of acts such as murder, rape and theft. These prohibitions are enforced with the threat of punishment because not all of us willfully abide by the restrictions of morality. So we can see here how the outer authority serves as a safety net for the inner authority of virtue. Meaning if one does not want to abide by the authority of virtue the outer authority will try and compel them to do so. The wisdom behind this not only protects other members of society from being victims of such crimes perpetuated by vice, but this forced restraint also fosters an environment that prevents the human being from enacting on their inclinations of vice. This offers them an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves so as to one day perhaps willfully adhere to the inner authority of virtue.

Now although there is no opposition to these restrictions on freedoms when it comes to murder and so on, there is debate when it comes to those acts many argue do not hurt anyone. For instance; the freedom to gamble, the freedom to have extra marital affairs, the freedom to engage in public sexual conduct, the freedom to dress provocatively, the freedom to consume alcohol etc.

Although one can quite easily argue that such acts do in fact cause a great deal of harm to society, the argument neglects a critical point.

We mentioned that not all of us willfully abide by the authority of virtue. Or put in another way, some of us are susceptible to lives ruled by vice. So if we foster an environment that provides the tools for the authority of vice to be used, we cannot expect the everyone to not use those tools.

For instance, imagine a group of people bringing a crate of alcohol to the home of a alcoholic. Sure there may be some in that house who drink responsibly but can they really expect the alcoholic too? Are they being fair on this person by providing them the means to destroy his or her life? Is their ability to engage in unnecessary and dangerous acts like consuming alcohol more important then the welfare of the alcoholic? If we use this example in a broader context we can see how selfish human beings can be. That is, doing what we want seems far more important then the welfare of our society as a whole.

However, had the inner authority of virtue been adhered too, prohibitions on such dangerous trivial pursuits like alcohol would have been implemented and thus would have prevented alcoholics. For instance, imagine someone enjoys consuming alcohol. Yet the neighbor of this person destroyed his life because of alcohol. Assuming this person was selfless he would have requested that alcohol be banned in his area even though he enjoys alcohol. That is because this prohibition is the only way his neighbor can get his life in order now that alcohol would no longer be available. In other words, he would rather forsake alcohol to see his neighbor healthy.

So we can see a conflict emerging between the wants of individuals versus the condition of society as a whole. This is essentially the reality of the dispute between the concepts of secularism and theocracy. That is, the secularists defend those freedoms even when it damages society as a whole whereas the proponents of theocracy argue that such an approach defeats the purpose of what freedom is all about.

For instance, imagine society as a whole to be represented by the human body. Now this human body exercises its choice to smoke resulting in the destruction of lungs. Is the choice to smoke more important than the destruction of the lungs? If the lungs could speak it would scream in protest that such a choice is actually an infringement against its right to live and to live free from destruction!

We can see how secularism has confused freedom with selfishness. In doing so it has failed to find the right balance between allowing and disallowing certain freedoms since it has valued individual wants over the health of society. This is precisely why the system of theocracy is superior as it seeks to mirror the inner authority of virtue that values the health of society over individual wants. In other words selflessness over selfishness: virtue over vice.

Note to self

2005-12-03T10:30:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Don’t forget, when you exit this existence, your soul will remain how you left it. So perhaps you better stop investing all your time and energy on those things that have an expiry date. Or are you insane to continue to neglect the maintenance and nurture of something as priceless as the soul? You think you are prepared for death to unveil what condition you have left your soul in? Don’t be a fool. You will wake up to a hell, a hell created by your years of neglect and abuse.

Reflections of a humanist

2005-12-03T10:28:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

I live in a cynical world, a world that treats my kind as idealists. A world that audaciously has no time for us. I pity them. The way they hold their heads up high, feeling superior because of the light shade of their skin or because of the piece of dirt they originate from or the title they hold, or the income they have. Where are my people? Where are the ones who judge success by the development of character? Where are the one’s that have removed the chains of the material world from around their necks? The ones who suffer from the torment of the ignorant masses. The ones who think beyond their nose. Where are you? I want to tell you do not lose hope, I am here sharing your pain, ensuring the struggle lives, ensuring the revolution still has a pulse, a pulse that will beat stronger with every effort we humanists make, until the heart of humanity will reclaim its authority.

The game of chance

2005-12-03T10:26:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

There are many different schools of thought out there all professing to be the correct school. Now reason dictates that two conflicting sides can be wrong, but no two conflicting sides can be right. Naturally then the question that should be asked is, am I on the right path?

Perhaps we have been blessed and Allah raised us amongst those people who identify themselves with that one correct path which resulted in our joining them. However, in such a case can we really claim to be any different from those that follow the wrong path?

We ask this because after acknowledging that there is so many schools of thought out there with only one of them being right, how then can the mind be so careless and readily able to identify itself with the school it was raised up with? In reality what are the chances it is correct? Are we one of those minds that has become akin to that fallen leaf at the mercy of where ever the wind takes it? Meaning given another time and place, do we possess such minds that would more than likely believe in that which is different from what it believes now? If we are one of those minds, then the only thing separating us from those that follow the wrong path, assuming we are on the right path, is luck.

In the Holy Quran we read that games of chance are forbidden. Perhaps we can appreciate this verse in a new light. Life and our beliefs are not a game of chance, yet the human being's refusal to question the origin and validity of our assumptions often treats it as one.

The ultimate destination

2005-12-03T10:24:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

O you wretched and disobedient soul. Why do you hesitate to run to Allah? Have you found a better destination? What is the cause of your paralysis? You claim you are remorseful yet there you remain in the same place you were yesterday and the days before. What type of remorse is this? For remorse only surfaces when one seeks to make amends. What are you waiting for? Are you waiting for some life changing event that you hope will inspire you to stand back up and rejoin the battle? Or does the stench of your inaction need to become more unbearable before you can finally cleanse yourself with the journey to Allah?

Then remain there in your state of wishful thinking while death suddenly snatches you away. Perhaps then you will realize the foolishness of your postponement as you taste the punishment of regret.

Yes it is I your conscience. Be grateful you can still hear me. Be grateful I continue to terrorize you for the injustice you are committing against your own soul. And be grateful for this very moment which still offers you the invitation for change.

What is it?

2005-12-03T10:22:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

We all want it. We have all at some point journeyed with it. But not all of us can stay with it. Why? Because it is oblivious to what we want. It places no value on what we like or dislike. It is uncompromising. It can be punishing, it can be haunting. But it is priceless. Yet we sell it. And for what? For comfort, for our families, for our friends, for prestige. But we never admit it. What is it? It’s the truth.

Welcome to the jungle

2005-12-03T10:19:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Welcome to the jungle. So as to ensure your safety from the apparent and hidden dangers, I am assigned to be your guide. You will come to know you can do very little without me. So trust me and do not question me. Listen to me. You do, and I will not only show you the safest place to walk, I will lead you to the path with the most beautiful views, a path where the beauty increases with each step you take.

Along our way you will encounter the host of this treacherous jungle. Beware for he is cunning and has set out to lead you off this path of mine by setting up rival paths which are in reality nothing more than the vines that make up this jungle. Yet he will try to present to you a better path than mine with better views. You will initially decline for there is honor in following me. Yet he is smart and will use this against you. He will silently accompany us on our journey, walking behind you whispering softly in your ears. He will begin to make you believe you are more than you actually are. His vision of you will become appealing and if it does, you will claim that you are now my guide. You will deviate from my path in order to get a better look at your glorified self. You will drag me down this path of yours and here you will abuse me by forcing me to watch this horrid sight. My disgust will both insult and frustrate you and so, you will ignore me, inventing another me, an imaginary me who will willingly bend and twist to which ever path you take. It is here where you and I will become strangers, yet you will fool yourself into believing we are of the most intimate of friends.

I go by the name of reason and I am that with which Allah speaks to you by.

God's existence is self-evident, By Mujahid Khalfan

2005-12-03T10:17:00.000+10:00

The belief in God is axiomatic; it is self evident. It is through mans’ a priori intuition that he recognizes a supreme being. It is no wonder that part of the fabric and texture of civilizations of the past and until now was the belief in some sort of super natural power or God. The question one might ask is how the existence of God can be called axiomatic since there are people who are not aware or are capable of doubting God’s existence? This question can be answered by showing that it is possible for a person to doubt axioms if there is negative propaganda against the axioms. The above question can also be answered by showing that it is logical to say that no one can be unaware of any particular axiom rather he is not aware of his own awareness of that axiom. Another common question is if God’s existence is axiomatic what is the need for logical proofs for the existence of God and why it is even worth having debates over this on going issue? This question is answered by proving that even for any other kind of axiom there is a need for logical proofs.

It is possible to doubt axioms when there is negative propaganda against them. A good example to prove this is to see how the axiom that states “Parallel lines do not meet” can be doubted. If a very young child is constantly being told that parallel lines do meet at a point in time, will it not most likely be expected from the child to get brain washed and doubt that very axiom? Yes, the child will most likely get brainwashed if he does not use his/her intellect to reason out what he or she has been taught. This example shows that by negative propaganda on a particular axiom, that axiom can be doubted.

Axioms may require proofs even though they are self evident. This can be proven by taking a look at the aforesaid example of the child being brainwashed by negative propaganda against the axiom, “Parallel lines do not meet”. The only way for the child to unfetter himself from such propaganda, is to use intellect, logical proofs and reasoning to show that parallel lines don’t meet. The child in this case would have to use mathematical proofs, the slope formula and reason for himself that it is impossible for parallel lines to meet. This example shows why logical proofs are needed in demonstrating the validity of an axiom.
It is illogical for a person to conclude that Gods existence is not axiomatic just because he thinks he isn’t aware of His existence. If a closer look is taken at the example of the child being fed with wrong information, it will be noticed that before that child was even taught anything he was not unaware of the axiom that parallel lines don’t meet, rather he was unaware of his own awareness of the fact that parallel lines don’t meet. The child, before being taught anything, might feel or think that he isn’t aware of the axiom but in reality he is unaware of his own awareness of the axiom.

It may be argued that there isn’t any negative propaganda against God’s existence. This is not the case. In public schools, children are being taught about evolution like as if it is a fact and not a theory. Why can’t there be a theory taught about God being the creator and originator of everything. If intelligent design is taught in some North American high schools, why isn’t it taught in all high schools? Communist countries completely strip God by not incorporating God at all in their education system; in addition, they and do not allow freedom of religion. Propaganda does not have to be by a government or schooling system, it could be a child being brought up in an atheistic family constantly being taught that God is a myth and superstition. These facts tell us the reason why there is negative propaganda against the belief in God.

The belief in God is axiomatic even though His existence may be doubted because any other axiom may very well be doubted when there is negative propaganda against it. A person may not be aware of Gods existence just like how a child may not be aware of his own awareness of the axiom, “Parallel lines do not meet”. Because one might be influenced by the negative propaganda against the existence of God, logical proofs, and intellectual reasoning are needed to show the validity of Gods existence even though His existence may be as evident as the notion that parallel lines do not meet. The axiom that God exists is affirmed by mans’ a priori intuition; this can not be disproved.

Is God limited by the principle of non-contradiction?

2005-12-03T10:12:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

The principle of non-contradiction is a law of logic and self evident belief that a conjunction of contradictories of any entity is impossible. For example, white cannot simultaneously be non-white.

Now the question is, can God change this law? For instance can God make white simultaneously non-white? If He cannot then does it mean God is limited by His own law?

According to some theists this is precisely what it means and so therefore these theists argue that if God wills he can contradict the law principle of non-contradiction.

An example of some of these theists that subscribe to this school of thought are those that support religious concepts that violate this principle, such as the belief in the trinity. However if such a violation is possible, then it will allow for scenarios such as:

God is not limited so therefore He is free to make Himself limited.

There is a serious dilemma here because now it is irrelevant whether God can or cannot contradict the principle of non-contradiction because either way, one can still argue God is limited.

So how do we go about answering this dilemma? Can it even be resolved? To find out, let us take a closer look at this law:

A cannot simultaneously be non-A.

What this law is essentially saying is that A is a reality because no partners (ie. non-A) has been ascribed to it. However, if we were to ascribe partners to A, we would compromise the oneness of A and as a result, A would no longer be a reality.

Now if we were to reflect on the underlying message this principle is communicating, we can quickly realise that this law of logic is in fact identical to the concept of Tawheed, ie the Oneness of God. To illustrate this point, allow us to substitute the A with God:

God cannot simultaneously be non-God.

To suggest God can simultaneously be non-God is to ascribe partners with God, thus compromising His Oneness. This in turn not only goes against the principle of non-contradiction, but also against the essence of Tawheed.

So rather than being a limitation, the principle of non-contradiction is in fact an outcome of God’s existence because God cannot simultaneously be non-God. This means whatever proposition conflicts with the principle of non-contradiction, is actually challenging the validity of Tawheed.

Yet as we have already understood, challenging the principle of non-contradiction is in reality no challenge because the challenge has no reality. This is a manifest testament to the Greatness of God because every aspect of reality is the affirmation of Tawheed. So God can do anything yet He cannot exercise power over a proposition that challenges His Oneness because in such a case, there is nothing to exercise power over.

An axiomatic argument proving the existence of God, By Mujahid Khalfan and Revolutionary

2005-12-03T10:09:00.000+10:00

With the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Question: Is the cause always caused?

1. A cause caused is dependant on its cause for it to exist.
2. That which is dependant cannot bring itself into being.
3. Therefore not all causes are caused because
(i) if all causes are caused all causes are dependant
(ii) if all causes are dependant no cause would exist because that which is dependant cannot bring itself into being.

Question: Is there an absolute cause?

4. A caused cause is always relative. (see footnote 1)
5. The opposite to relative can only be absolute. (see footnote 2)
6. Therefore a cause not caused is not relative and so must be absolute.

Question: Can there be more than one Absolute Cause?

7. That which is limited cannot be absolute.
8. More than one absolute cause would be limited by the other.
9. Therefore there can only be one absolute cause.

Footnote 1. Definition of relative: Dependant on or interconnected with something else; not absolute.
Footnote 2. Definition of absolute: Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

Poem: The truth manifests in tragedies

2005-12-03T10:03:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

O poor soul, you still do not know right from wrong despite the tragedy? For a tragedy is that which separates truth from falsehood like Musa parted the sea.

What is it that blocks your vision? That not even a tragedy can change your decision?

Is it not enough your teachers angered the Prophets daughter Fatimah? O do you not know they have then angered Allah?

Then they fought the Prophet’s cousin and son in law Ali. And they knew there was no one better than he!

Then they butchered the Prophet’s grandson Husayn. O will you treat these tragedies in vain?

How can you dismiss these acts as just an innocent mistake? O what else must it take for you to awake?

Or is it, you take comfort in your teachers transgressions, To justify the sins in your confessions?

Or perhaps the truth conflicts with your fantasy? O when will you awake to the path of reality?

Have your forgotten Musa’s followers abandoned him for a cow? Now, it is to the world that Muhammad’s followers bow.

Except for the minority. But perhaps you take comfort in the majority.

Woe to these reasons that dismiss these tragedies. Reasons that are disguised by colourful stories.

And blessed are they that refuse to turn away from Allah’s signs. For it is there where the truth, shines.

Calling Reason: Intercession Explained

2005-12-03T08:55:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

"Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and reason with them in the best way. Lo! Your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who are rightly guided". (Holy Quran 16:125)

Part One: Not all Du’a is worship

The simplest definition of du’a is ‘to call’. Islamic terminology expands on this definition by describing it as a supplication to Allah whereby we ask Allah to help us by granting us our needs. It is therefore commonly identified with worship. So valuable is this form of worship that Imam Ali (as) describes du’a as ‘the best weapon of the believer’.

This importance is made manifestly clear in the Holy Quran as Allah (swt) urges the Muslims to invoke Him by calling upon His names:

“The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on Him by them…” (Quran 7:180)

“Call on Me, I will answer your (prayer)” (Quran 40:60)

“Call ye, then, upon Allah with sincere devotion to Him” (Quran 40:14)

“…and call upon Him, making your devotion sincere in His sight” (Quran 7:29)

Now although du’a is undoubtedly a form of worship, a problem would arise if we were to assume all du’a is worship. To demonstrate this point, consider the following verses:

“let us call (nad’u) our sons” (Quran 3:61)

“Make not your addressing (du’a) of the Prophet among you like your addressing (du’a) of one another” (Quran 24:63)

We can see that Allah (swt) is using the word du’a solely in accordance with its simplest definition and so has no connotations to worship whatsoever. We can make this conclusion for two reasons.

The first is Allah (swt) will never use the term du’a in reference to other than Him if all du’a was worship. The second is, if all du’a was worship then the above verses would be in direct conflict with the concept of monotheism and other verses in the Quran such as the following:

“so call not anyone with Allah” (Quran 72:18)

In addition, it would be highly impractical for all du’a to be reserved only for Allah. This is due to the fact that all human beings, either directly or indirectly call on other than Allah for help all the time.

For instance, we literally call on Mum, Dad, friends, teacher, doctor or police in times of sickness or trouble. Now if calling on other than Allah is the determining factor on whether we have made partners with Allah, then we have no option but to condemn ourselves and the entire Muslim ummah as polytheists. Now unless we are suffering from delusional paranoia, such an option is clearly unacceptable because the reasonable mind can easily discern that du’a and worship have often got nothing to do with one another.

So now the question which arises is: what is that determining factor that makes it permissible to call on other than Allah for help?

Part Two: Factor that determines when Du’a is not worship

This factor is one of the most basic principles of tawheed.Let us introduce this basic principle with a verse Muslims recite regularly:

“Allah, the eternally Besought of all!” (Holy Quran 112:2)

From this verse alone we understand:

1. Everything other than Allah is dependant on Allah and so, Allah is Independent from us all.

From this basic principle we can establish two elements that is vital for our understanding of tawheed and shirk. If these principles are not the foundation of our arguments, than it will inevitably lead confusion and thus our understanding of Islam will never be correct:

a) Any help we do receive from that which is dependant on Allah, ie an intermediary, that help ultimately comes from Allah.

Let us briefly discuss the concept behind the meaning of intermediary. The strict definition of the term is basically to be ‘in between’. Here the term is used in reference to that particular thing that Allah has created for us in order to satisfy a need. For instance, consider the need to quench our thirst. In order to satisfy that need we seek water. Now we can see that the water is in between ourselves and our need and thus, the water acts as an intermediary.

b) If Allah wills, he can prevent that which is dependant on Him from helping anyone or anything.

Let us implement the above principles with an example. Suppose we were to call on someone for help. For instance, we sought the help of a doctor to relieve us of our sickness. If we believe in the principles outlined, then we understand that the doctor is dependant on Allah and so any help we do receive, is not solely from the doctor himself. Rather, the help is from Allah via the doctor. We also understand that the doctor is directed by the will of Allah. This means that no matter how talented the doctor is, he or she can do nothing if that is what Allah wills.

Alternatively we also understand that no matter how untalented the doctor is, he or she can do anything if that is what Allah wills. So to summarise, to believe everything other than Allah is dependant on Allah means we understand that the fulfilment of our needs are from Allah and the intermediaries can do nothing without the will of Allah.This belief will always ensure that we worship Allah and He alone.

Part Three: Factor that determines when du’a is shirk

Du’a would constitute shirk when:

1. The intermediary called upon is believed to be independent from Allah.

Let us implement the above determining factor into the previous example discussed in part two. Suppose we believe the power of the doctor to heal was inherent in the doctor himself. This would mean that Allah is not helping us via the doctor, but it is solely the doctor himself that is helping us. What we have done here is to change the doctor from being an intermediary to being independent from Allah. This would immediately constitute shirk because we have made the doctor a rival to Allah and thus not subject to the will of Allah.

These factors discussed up until this point enjoy unanimous agreement. However, in recent times there has been a portion of the Muslim ummah that has argued there are more additional factors that determine when du’a is shirk. This has ultimately led to much confusion and division amongst the Muslim ummah. So let us take a look at those disputed factors and inshaAllah find where the truth resides.

Part Four: Disputed factors that determine when du’a is shirk

- Disputed Factor #1

It is argued du’a becomes shirk whenever:

1. Intermediaries are literally called upon rather than Allah (swt)

(As this was already discussed in detail in Chapter 1, a summarised response would suffice.)

The basis of the above claim is said to be proved by the following verse:

“so call you not anyone with Allah” (Holy Quran 72:18)

The argument generally only surfaces in response to those that say ‘Ya Muhammad’ or ‘Ya Ali’. Such an argument is quickly dismissed due to the following facts already discussed:

1. Not all du’a is worship
2. Belief in the factor that determines when du’a is not worship
3. The proponents of the argument themselves call on others besides Allah

To ignore these facts is actually an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Perhaps it is a case of not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story, or in this case a fear campaign. Indeed a slogan like, “Say Ya Allah, not Ya Muhammad or Ya Ali” is quite effective for it takes advantage and abuses the fear Muslims have of departing from monotheism. We can see government’s world wide attracting support and winning elections by playing on people’s fears and this is precisely the tactic that is being employed here.

However one only needs to scratch the surface to reveal the argument is totally devoid of any validity. This is why upon being made aware of the facts above, the argument quickly changes to something else entirely different (see below Disputed Factor #2).

- Disputed factor #2:

It is argued that du’a becomes shirk when:

1. The intermediary called upon is dead.

Shafa’at or intercession basically means resorting to petitioning an intermediary in order to reach a certain goal. The term is often used interchangeably with tawassul which is defined as ‘a means’ towards a goal.Earlier we gave the example of how all humans resort to water in order to quench our thirst. In this instance, the intermediary that is being referred to is our beloved Prophet (s) and other confirmed righteous servants of Allah like the Ahlul-Bayt (as). It is argued that by resorting to the Prophet or others, shirk has been committed because in order to fulfil our needs we should be resorting to Allah alone.

Before we continue, let us first identify exactly what kind of is being sought:

1. To ask our beloved Prophet (s) to ask Allah (swt) on our behalf for our requests to be granted. The reason for asking the Prophet (s) is due to the fact that he is the most righteous servant of Allah and so there is more hope the Prophets (s) request will be accepted by Allah (swt) than our own.

2. To ask Allah for the sake of His most righteous servants to accept our requests. Objection to this was pioneered by the late Ibn Tamiyah who remains a prominent scholar for some Muslims.

Let us read his opinion in an extract taken from an article entitled, ‘Shirkiya- Dua Calling on other than Allah’:

‘Ibn Tamiyah commented in this regard: “But whoever takes from them (Shaykhs, Awliya, Pirs etc..) as intermediaries between Allah and His creation… so that they are the ones to pass on to Allah the needs of His creations, since (they believe that) Allah gives the guidance and the sustenance because of their intercession, so that the people would ask them (the intermediaries) who will then ask Allah, just as kings intermediaries present peoples needs to the kings because they are closer to them from the need seeker. Whoever takes them as intermediaries in this manner, then such a person is a Kaffir and Mushrik and should be asked to repent and should be killed if he refuses, such people are Mushabbiha (resemblers) who have resembled the Creator to His creation and have adopted parters with Him”’

A contemporary scholar of the Abdul Wahab school, the late Chief Mufti of Saudi Arabia Bin Baz, similarly argues:

”Whoever sets up an intermediary between himself and Allah, whom he prays to, seeks intercession from and puts his reliance in, has blasphemed according to the consensus of the scholars.”

The Jaffari school, commonly known as the Shia, is diametrically opposed to the views presented regarding intercession. However we assume this particular scholar is not referring to a consensus that includes the Shia. Nonetheless, let us for the sake of objectivity find out if there is indeed a consensus amongst the four legitimate Sunni schools regarding intercession of the dead:

Imam Malik Anas, the founder of the Malaki school was once asked about the preferred direction one should be facing when making supplication. The choice put to him was the shrine of the Prophet (s) or the Qiblah. His response was:

Why do you want to turn away from the Prophet (s) when he (Prophet Muhammad (s)) is the wasilah (means) for you and for your father Adam, towards Allah on the Day of Resurrection. Turn to him (the Prophet) and seek his intercession (shafa'at).
Sharh al-Mawahib, vol. 8, p. 304-5; Wafa' al-Wafad, vol. 4, p. 1371; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah, p. 148; and Sharh Ibn al-Hasan 'ala al-Risalah al-Qirwani, vol. 12, p. 478).

Let us look at what some of the other prominent Sunni scholars have to say regarding intercession.

Sunni scholar al-Nawawi:

The pilgrim should face the shrine of the Messenger of Allah (s), make him a means (tawassul) towards reaching God and seek his wasilah as intercession (shafa'at), in the same manner as the Bedouin who visited the Prophet's shrine and standing beside it said: Peace unto you O Messenger of Allah, I have heard Allah has said:...Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64).
Therefore, I have come to you for forgiveness of my sins and seeking your intercession with Allah.
Al-Majmu', vol. 8, p. 274; Fayd al-Qadir, vol. 2, p. 134; I'anah al-Talibiyyin, p. 315.

Sunni scholar Khalil Saharanpuri collected over 75 fatawa from the leading Sunni scholars from the different parts of the world, he says:

In our opinion and that of our teachers, pilgrimage to the shrine of the Master of Messengers (my soul be sacrificed for him) is the most exalted of proximities, the most important of blessings, and the greatest of means (wasilah) for attaining lofty ranks. It could be said that it is an enjoinment almost to the degree of obligations, even if it requires the trouble of a journey to perform it and there is no other option other than to make efforts with life and wealth. Tawassul to the Prophets, saints, pious persons, martyrs and the righteous during supplications, whether in their lifetime or after their death, is permissible in the following manner: Allahumma inni atawassalu ilayka bi-fulan an tujiba da'wati wa taqdia hajati (O Allah! I beseech you by means of so and so a person, accept my supplication and grant my request).
Shaykh Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri, 'Aqa'id Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah fi radd al-Wahhabiyyah wa al-Bid'ah, translated into Persian by 'Abd al-Rahman Sarbazi, p. 86.

Sunni scholar Ibn Qudamah Hanbali:

Stand beside the tomb of the Prophet (s), and say: I have come to you for forgiveness of my sins and to seek your intercession with Allah.
Al-Mughni ma' al-Sharh, vol. 3, p. 588; al-Sharh al-Kabir ma' al-Mughni, vol. 3, p. 494.

Sunni Hanafi scholar, Kamal al-Din ibn al-Humam:

Then let him ask Allah for his need, using Allah’s Prophet as his means to Allah; (then he said): Let him ask the Prophet for his intercession and say: O Messenger of Allah, I am asking you for your intercession; O Messenger of Allah, I am using you as my means to Allah.
Fath al-Qadir 2:337

Sunni Hanbali scholar Ala al-Din al-Mardawi:

The correct position of the (Hanbali) madhab is that it is permissible in one’s supplication (du’a) to use as one’s means a pious person, and it is said that it is desirable (mustahab). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi: yatawassalu bi al-nabi fi du’a’ih – “Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah”
Al-Insaf fi ma’rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf ‘ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmed ibn Hanbal 3:456

Sunni Imam Hajar al-Haytami:

Imam al-Shafi’ was in Baghdad, he would visit the grave of Imam Abu Hanifa, give him salam, and then ask Allah for the fulfillment of his need through his means.
Al-Khayrat al-hisan fi manaqib al-imam Abi Hanifa al-Nu’man Ch. 35, p.63

Haytami also said:

Imam Shafi’i made tawassul through the Family of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) when he said: Al al-nabi dhari’ati wa hum ilayhi wasilati arju bihim u’ta ghadan bi yadi al-yamini sahifati The family of the Prophet are my means and my intermediary to him. Through them I hope to be given my record with the right hand tomorrow.
al-Sawa’iq al-muhriqa li ahl al-dalal wa al-zandaqa (cf. p.180) and al-Khayrat al-hisan (p.69)

Sunni Imam Sakhawi:

The emphasis and encouragement on visiting his noble grave is mentioned in numerous hadiths, and it would suffice to show this if there was only the hadith whereby the truthful and God-confirmed Prophet promises that his intercession among other things becomes obligatory for whoever visits him, and the Imams are in complete agreement from the time directly after his passing until our own time that this [i.e. visiting him] is among the best acts of drawing near to Allah.
Al-Qawl al-badi’ (p.160)

Sunni Shafi’ite Ghazzali:

The Prophet should be made the means (wasilah) and the intercessor (shafi'), and with face turned towards the tomb, the pilgrim should implore Allah for the sake and position of the Prophet with the words: "O Allah, indeed You have said, ‘Had they, who had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would have certainly found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful’ (Holy Qur'an 4:64); Allah, surely we have heard Your words and we obey Your command, by coming to Your Prophet to seek his intercession with You for our sins; how burdensome and heavy (are sins) on our backs! We repent of slipperiness, we confess our wrongs and our faults, accept our repentance for his sake, make Your Prophet intercessor for us, and exalt us for the sake of his position and his rights with You."Al-Ghazzali adds: It is recommended the pilgrim should go daily to the Baqi' Cemetery and after saluting the Prophet (s), make pilgrimage to the tombs of (Imam) Hasan ibn 'Ali, (Imam) 'Ali ibn al-Husayn, (Imam) Muhammad ibn 'Ali and (Imam) Ja'far ibn Muhammad (Allah be pleased with them), and also perform the Salat in the Mosque of Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her).
Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazzali', Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din, vol. 1, pp. 258-261.

It is unfortunate and one may even argue it is somewhat devious for the followers of Ibn Tamiyah and Abdul Wahab to imply that their views regarding intercession are views that represent the Ahlul-Sunnah. As we have just seen this is clearly not the case. In fairness however, Albani, another adherent to the school of Ibn Tamiyah makes the admission that there is not a consensus regarding intercession:

Imam Ahmad allowed tawassul by means of the Messenger alone, and others such as Imam ash-Shawkaanee allowed tawassul by means of him and other Prophets and the Pious. However we as is the case in all matters where there is disagreement, follow whatever is supported by the proof whatever that is, without blindly sticking to the opinions of men.
Albani, Tawassul, p.38

Albani however fails to mention that Imam Malik and Imam Shafi’i also permit tawassul by means of the Prophet (s) and the pious. It begs the question, who really is following the consensus?

In fact much of Albani’s works are extremely vilified by the contemporary scholars of the Ahlul-Sunnah. We read from Shaykh Hasan ‘Ali al-Saqqaf’s preface to ‘abd Allah al-Ghumari’s refutation of Albani entitled Irgham al mubtadi’ al-ghabi bi jawaz al-ghabi bi jawaz al-tawassul bi al-nabi (The compulsion of the ignorant innovator with the permissibility of seeking means with the Prophet):

Al-Sayyid ‘Abd Allah al-Ghumari and other hadith scholars as well as some of those who work with hadith have said: namely that Albani knows the correct facts in many matters but … is not to be relied upon for (assessing) a single hadith. This is the explicit position of many of the scholars such as the three muhaddiths al-Sayyid Ahmad al-Ghumari, al-Sayyid ‘Abd Allah al-Ghumari, and al-Sayyid ‘Abd al-‘Aziz; the shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda; the muhaddith of India and Pakistan Habib al-Rahman al-A’zami; Shaykh Isma’il al-Ansari; Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwama; Shaykh Mahmud Sa’id; Shaykh Shu’ayb Arna’ut; and tens of others among the experts in this field and those that deal with it. The People of Hadith therefore witness that the man’s word is not relied upon in the authentication and weakening of hadith because he authenticates and weakens according to whim and mood, not scientific rules, and whoever examines his sayings and writings can verify this.
Irgham al mubtadi’ al-ghabi bi jawaz al-ghabi bi jawaz al-tawassul bi al-nabi, p.7-9

Shaykh Hasan ‘Ali al-Saqqaf himself comments on Albani:

We know full well that it is Albani who betrays scholarly trust and deliberately misinforms the people.Albani has adduced worthless proofs as is his habit when embellishing falsehood.
Irgham al mubtadi’ al-ghabi bi jawaz al-ghabi bi jawaz al-tawassul bi al-nabi, p.23-25

Let us nonetheless look at those reasons why some argue that intercession is not permitted and find out where the truth resides.

We will begin with Bin Baz who writes:

The polytheists also testified to the Oneness of Allah but as the Holy Qur'an states, they tried to justify their worshipping of idols by saying: "...we worship them not but (in order) that they make us near to God..." (39:3). This is similar to the actions of those who make tawassul to those in the graves in order to seek proximity to Allah.
Risalatan Bayn al-Shaykhayn al-Ustadh Muhammad Wa'iz-Zadeh Khurasani wa al-Ustadh 'Abd al-'Aziz bin 'Abdullah bin Baz, pp. 32-33.

In response, seeking intercession from an intermediary with the belief and understanding that the intermediary is dependant on Allah and subject to His will can never be argued that intermediary is being worshipped. This manner of intercession is valid as is made clear in the Quran:

“Who can intercede with Him except the cases that He permits?” (Holy Quran 2:255)

“They (ie Prophets and Imams) do not say anything until He orders, and they act (in all things) by His command. He knows what is before them and what is after them and they offer no intercession except for anyone whom Allah accepts, and they are in awe and reverence of his glory” ( Holy Quran 21:27-28)

Thus the verse 39:3 in no way implies the polytheists have been condemned because they sought intercession. If we continue reading the verse we see that the idol worshippers who made the claim they were seeking intercession were in fact liars:

"...those who take guardians besides Him, (say) we worship them not but (in order) that they make us near to Allah; surely Allah will judge between them about what they differ; surely Allah does not guide the one who is a liar and an ingrate." (Holy Quran 39:3)

We can see that the idol worshippers were condemned for no other reason than for their worshipping others besides Allah. This is the understanding of Shia and is certainly the understanding of the Ahlul-Sunnah. Sunni Imam Shawkani says in his treatise al-durr al-nadid fi ikhlas kalimat al-tawhid:

Regarding what those who forbid tawassul to Allah through the Prophets and the saints cite their position, such as Allah’s sayings: “We only worship them in order that they may bring us nearer” 39:3 “Do not call on any other god with Allah, or you will be among those who will be punished” 26:213 “Say: Call on those besides Him who ye fancy; they have no power to remove your trouble from you or to change them. Those unto whom they cry seek for themselves the means of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they hope for His mercy and fear His wrath: for the wrath of thy Lord is something to take heed of” 17:57 These verses are irrelevant. Rather they support exactly the reverse of what the objectors to tawassul claim, since the verses are related to another issue. To wit: the verse “We only worship them in order that they may bring us nearer” explicitly states that they worship them for that purpose, whereas the one who makes tawassul through a scholar for example, never worships him, but he knows that he has a special distinction (maziyya) before Allah for being a carrier of knowledge; and that is why he uses him as a means.

Sunni Shaykh Mustafa ibn Ahmed ibn al-Hasan al-Shatti:

..these verse do not support the Wahhabis’ claim that it is prohibited to use the means of the Prophets and the pious. This is very clear. Those who agree among Muslims about the permissibility and recommendability of seeking the Prophets and the pious ones as a means never meant to suppose any effective power originating in them. They never believed in such a belief at all! Rather, all Muslims believe that Allah Almighty is the doer of His own free deliberation, and He alone is the giver and taker of existence, of benefit and harm. This is one of the basic beliefs in Islam. The scholars never considered seeking the means of Prophets and the pious ones as consisting in mimman ittakhadha min dunillahi or “taking equals other than Allah” as the Wahhabis have claimed.
From the 1994 Waqf Ikhlas offset reprint of al-Shatti’s al-Nuqul al-shar’iyyah fi al-radd ‘ala al-wahhabiyya (The Legal Proof- Texts Concerning the Reply of the Wahhabi Sect)

Also confirmed by the late Mufti of Mecca, al-Sayyid Ahmad ibn Zayni Dahlan (.1304) who responded to this misunderstanding surrounding tawassul after the initial rise of the Wahabi movement:

Tawassul (using means), tashaffu (using intercession) and istighatha (asking help) all have the same meaning, and the only meaning they have in the hearts of the believers is that of tabarruk (using blessings) with the mention of Allah’s beloved ones, since it is established that He grants His mercy to all His servants for the sake of His beloved ones, and this is the case whether they are alive or dead, because in either case the actual effecting agent and true executor is Allah Himself, and these beloved ones are only ordinary causes for His mercy. Like any other secondary cause, they have no effective power of influence in themselves.
Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, Khulasat al-kalam fi umara’ al-balad al-haram (The summation concerning the leaders of the sacrosanct country) 2:245

Similarly Sunni Shaykh Salih al-Na’man both proclaims the permissibility of tawassul while condemning those Wahabi’s who are vehemently opposed to it:

..some of the Wahhabi’s today may be guilty of hastening to accuse others of disbelief (takfir), as they have done in the past with hundreds of thousands in the Hijaz whom they massacred even as they were saying la ilaha illallah, and as the Kharijis have done in the time of our Master ‘Ali – may Allah ennoble his countenance. In short, tawassul is not prohibited, rather it is legally commendable (mustahsanu shar’an), and it is not permitted to cast the label of shirk on the believer. This is what will be found in the established books of Islamic law. And Allah knows best.
Signature of the Secretary of Fatwas in Hama, Seal of the Ministry of Religious Endowments, District of the Muhafazat of Hama, Syria, 6 Jumuda I 1400 22 March 1989

Bin Baz cites another verse:

"And they worship beside Allah which can neither hurt them nor profit them, and they say: these are our intercessors with Allah..." (Holy Quran 10:18)

The implication that is being made here is that because the Prophet is dead, he is as much help to us now as an idol is as much help to us. This reasoning is short sighted for it neglects the fact that belief in and obedience to the Prophet(s) not only renders much benefit for the Muslim but in fact is what makes them a Muslim. Yet according to the adherents of Abdul Wahab, an inanimate object like a walking stick is of more help to us now than our beloved Prophet (s) can be of help (As Shahab As Thaqib, p.45-46). This comparison is both unfortunate and insulting in light of the following verses in the Holy Quran:

“It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe…” (Holy Quran 9:94)

“Work (righteousness): Soon will Allah observe your work and His Messenger and the believers” (Holy Quran 9:105)

“Think not of those martyred in the way of Allah as dead. Nay! They are living, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord” (Holy Quran 3:169)

These verses have made it explicitly clear that the Prophet(s) and other righteous believers that die in His way are:

1. Alive according to Allah (swt) and;

2. Observing our actions

This is proof beyond any doubt that just because the Prophet(s) is no longer physically with us, it is by no means an indication that he is cut off from the world. Thus since our beloved Prophet (s) is clearly still connected to this world, he is clearly still in a position to help. This understanding is confirmed by the following authenticated narration of the Prophet (s):

"Your deeds are presented to me. If they are good, I express my gratitude to Allah, and if the deeds are not good, then I pray to Allah for your forgiveness".
Haythami transmitted it in Majma'-uz-zawa'id (9:24) and said that that tradition had been reported by Bazzar (in his Musnad) and its sub-narrators are all of sahih (sound) hadith. 'Iraqi has confirmed the soundness of its chain of transmission in his book Tarh-ut-tathrib fi sharh-it-taqrib (3:297). Ibn Sa'd has recorded it in at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra (2:194). Qadi 'Iyad has inscribed this tradition in ash-Shifa (1:19); and Suyuti, recording it in al-Khasa'is-ul-kubra (2:281) and Manahil-us-sifa fi takhrij ahadith ash-Shifa (p.3), has commented that Ibn Abi Usamah in his Musnad has reproduced it through Bakr bin 'Abdullah al-Muzani and Bazzar in his Musnad who have relied on its narration by 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud with a sound chain of transmission. It has been endorsed by Khafaji and Mulla 'Ali Qari in their commentaries on ash-Shifa, i.e. Nasim-ur-riyad (1:102) and Sharh ash-Shifa (1:36) respectively. Hadith-scholar Ibn-ul-Jawzi has reproduced it in al-Wafa bi-ahwal-il-mustafa (2:809-10) from Bakr bin 'Abdullah and Anas bin Malik. Subki has copied this tradition in Shifa'-us-siqam fi ziyarat khayr-il-anam (p.34) from Bakr bin 'Abdullah al-Muzani, and Ibn 'Abd-ul-Hadi in as-Sarim-ul-munki (p.266-7) has authenticated its veracity. Bazzar's tradition has also been recorded by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidayah wan-nihayah (4:257). 'Asqalani narrated it through Bakr bin 'Abdullah al-Muzani in al-Matalib-ul-'aliyah (4:22-3#3853). 'Ali al-Hindi copied Ibn Sa'd's tradition in Kanz-ul-'ummal (11:407#31903) and from Harith (#31904). Nabhani related it in Hujjatullah 'alal-'alamin fi mu'jazat sayyid-il-mursalin (p.713).

Are we still going to claim that a walking stick is of more use to us than the Prophet (s)? It should also be noted here that the means of the Prophet’s (s) awareness is irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact he has knowledge and awareness of our actions. This awareness of the Prophet (s) and his ability to help is common knowledge amongst the Jaffari school and the other schools within the Ahlul-Sunnah. In regards to this, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt Shaykh Husanayn Muhammad Makhluf writes in his Fatawa shar’yya:

The deeds of the Community are shown to him [i.e. the Prophet (s)] everyday, and he glorifies Allah for the goodness that he finds, while he asks for His forgiveness for the small sins and the alleviation of His punishment for the grave ones: and this is a tremendous good for us. There is therefore “goodness for the Community in his life, and in his death, goodness for the Community. Moreover, as has been established in the hadith, the Prophet is alive in his grave with a special “isthmus-life” (hayat barzakhiyyah khassa) stronger than the lives of the martyrs which the Qur’an spoke about in more than one verse. The nature of these two kinds of life cannot be known except by their Bestower, the Glorious, the Exalted. He is able to do all things. His showing the Community’s deeds to the Prophet as an honorific gift for him and his Community is entirely possible rationally and documented in the reports. There is no leeway for its denial; an Allah guides to His light whomever He pleases; and Allah knows best.
Cairo: Dar al-I’tisam, 1405/1985. 1:91-92

Also consider the following narration:

Al-Utbi said: “As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: “Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful” (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord. Then he began to recite poetry: O best of those whose bones are buried deep in the earth,And from whose fragrance the depthAnd the height have become sweet,May I be the ranson for a grave which thou inhabit,And which are found purity, bounty and munificence!The he left and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: O Utbi, run after the Bedouin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him”
The report is mashhur (well known) and related by Nawawi,Adhkar, Mecca ed. P. 253-254, al-Majmu’ 8:217, and al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj, chapters on visiting the grave of the Prophet; Ibn Jama’a, Hidayat al-salik 3:1384; Ibn ‘Aqil, al-Tadhkira; Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni 3:556-557; al-Qurtubi, Tafsir of 4:64 in Akham al-Qur’an 5:265; Samhudi, Khulasat al-Wafa p.121 (from Nawawi); Dahlan, Khulasat al-Kalam 2:247; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir 2:306, and al-Bidayat wa al-nihayat 1:180; Abu al-Faraj ibn Qudama, al-Sharh al-kabir 3:495; al-Bahuti al-Hanbali, Kashshaf al-qina’ 5:30; Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Shifa; al-siqam p.52; Ibn Shu’ab al-iman #4178; Ibn ‘Asakir, Mukhtasar tarikh Dimashq 2:408; Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Jawhar al-munazzam [commentary on Nawwawi’s Idah]; Ibn al-Najjar, Akhbar al-Madina p.147.

A similar report is cited through Sufyan ibn Uyayna (Shafi’i’s shaykh) and through Abu Sa’id al-Sam’ani on the authority of ‘Ali. In addition, it is widely regarded the following authenticated narration alone is sufficient proof in itself:

Bukhari, Tirmidhi, and many others relate, through their chain of narrators from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said, "I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me." The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak'as of prayer, and then say:"Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: "for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me"]." The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) added, "And if there is some need, do the same."
This hadith was recorded was recorded by Bukhari in his "al-Tarikh al-kabir", Ahmad (4:138 #17246-17247), Tirmidhi (hasan sahih gharib -- Da`awat Ch. 119), Nasa'i (`Amal al-yawm wa al-laylat p. 417-418 #658-660), al-Hakim (1:313, 1:526), Tabarani in al-Kabir, and rigorously authenticated as sound (sahih) by nearly fifteen hadith masters including Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Shawkani, and Ibn Taymiyya.] by Ibn Majah in his Sunan (Book of Iqamat al-salat wa al-sunnat, Ch. on Salat al-hajat #1385), where he said it was rigorously authenticated (SAHIH), by Nasa'i in "Amal al-yawm wa al-layla", by Abu Nu'aym in "Ma'rifa al-Sahaba", by Baihaqi in "Dala'il al-nubuwwa", by Mundhiri in "al-Targhib wa al-tahrib", by Haythami in "Majma' al zawa'id wa manba' al-fawa'id", by Tabarani in "al-Mu'jam al-kabir", by Ibn Khuzayma in his "Sahih", and by others. Nearly 15 hadith masters have conformed that this hadith is Sahih.

You will notice that in the above narration the Prophet (s) was not physically present at the time of the blind man’s du’a due to the fact that the Prophet (s) instructed the blind man to “go and make ablution”. The Prophet (s) did not later say, “then come back to me”. Rather the blind was instructed that after ablution, he was to pray two rak’as and then immediately recite the du’a. Since it is clear that the living and the dead are exactly alike in terms of physical absence, there is no difference reciting such a du’a during the Prophet’s (s) life or after. This understanding is echoed from the scholars of the Ahlul-Sunnah. Fatwa of Shaykh Abu Sulayman Suhayl al-Zabibi:

From Uthman ibn Hunayf: He was with the Prophet at the time a blind man came to him complaining of his lack of eyesight etc. This is a sound hadith in which the Prophet explicitly orders those who have a certain need to make tawassul and call him in his absence – both in his life and after his death. This is precisely what the Companions understood from him.
Imam of the Mosque of Najjarin, Damascus1992 Waqf Ikhlas reprint of Sayyid Ahmed Zayni Dahlan’s section of his history of Islam.

Shaykh Yusuf wrote in his rebuttal to a “Salafi” critic entitled “The evidence of the Sunni Community (Adillah Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jamma’a):

This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the validity of tawassul through the dead.
Imam Ghazzali, The Reliance of the Traveller p.395-940

Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid has written in his “Rebuttals of Falsehoods” (Rudud ‘ala abatil):

As for calling upon the righteous (when they are physically absent, as in the words Ya Muhammad in the hadiths of Uthman Ibn Hunayf), tawassul to Allah Most High through them is permissible, the supplication (du’a) being to Allah Most Glorious, and there is much evidence for its permissibility.
Imam Ghazzali, The Reliance of the Traveller p.395-940

- Disputed Factor #3:

1. To believe the dead can hear is shirk

The proponents of the Ibn Tamiyah school argue that suggesting those who pass away can help is a belief of shirk because it attributes the characteristics of Allah to other than Him. To expand on this, it is argued that for the dead to see or hear they would need to be all seeing and all hearing. In addition it is argued that Allah (swt) has explicitly said in the Quran the dead cannot hear.

In response, if Allah (swt) did say the dead cannot literally hear then why did Prophet Shuaib (as) speak to the dead?:

“Then they ham-strung, and insolently defied the order of their Lord, saying: “O Salih! Bring about thy threats, if thou art a messenger (of Allah)! So the earthquake took them unawares, and they prostrate in their homes in the morning! So Salih left them saying: “O my people! I indeed convey to you the message for which I was sent by my Lord: I gave you good counsel, but ye love not good counsellors!” (Holy Quran 7:77-79)

What about our beloved Prophet Muhammad (s)? Did he make partners with Allah when he spoke to the dead?

Sulaiman b. Buraida narrated on the authority of his father what the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to teach them when they went out to the graveyard. One of the narrators used to say this in the narration transmitted on the authority of Abu Bakr:“Peace be upon the inhabitants of the city (ie graveyard).” In the hadith transmitted by Zuhair (the words are): “Peace be upon you, the inhabitants of the city, among the believers, and Muslims, and God willing we shall join you. I beg of Allah peace for us and for you”
Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2128

Also will Isa (as), upon his return, make partners with Allah when he calls out ‘Ya Muhammad’ beside the Prophets (s) grave?

It is revealed that th Prophet (s) knows his lovers and listens to them. Once he said to his companions about hadrat Isa (s) that he will return to this world. Then Hadrat Isa (s) will visit Madinah and the Prophet (s) said: And when he (Isa) will stand beside my grave calling: “O Muhammad!” I will respond to him.
Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani, al-Matalib-ul-‘aliyah, (4:23 #3853)

It is somewhat ironic that believing Allah (swt) literally has hands, face, eyes, feet and chins is not shirk yet believing the dead can hear is shirk. Nonetheless, it is indeed correct to say only Allah can be the all Hearing and the all Seeing for only the Absolute Being can possess such a faculty. Yet a different means of hearing can in no way even remotely imply that hearing must be absolute. It completely ignores the fact that there is more to be heard than just the living. For instance, consider the cries of hell, the flowing rivers in heaven, the sounds of past present and future, these are sounds the dead do not hear. It is clearly an ignorant proposition then to assume just because Allah may grant the ability for the dead to hear some of the living that they then must be all hearing.

Another point neglected is that there is a big difference between possessing an attribute of Allah and being given an attribute of Allah as the two can never be considered the same.Let us expand on this point by considering the following verse:

“He possesses the Ghayb and He does not disclose His Ghayb to anyone except such a Messenger He is well pleased with” (Holy Quran 72:26-27)

We know that Allah is the All Knowing, the Knower of the Unseen, yet it does not mean because our beloved Prophet (s) also knows the unseen that he too is now the All Knowing and thus making the Prophet (s) a partner with Allah. There is a big difference between possessing the Ghayb and receiving the Ghayb. A recipient of knowledge can neither claim ownership of knowledge, can neither claim independent knowledge nor can claim possession of all knowledge because that recipient is not the origin of knowledge. What this means is only the origin of knowledge can possess absolute knowledge. This understanding needs to be applied to all the attributes of Allah in order to understand the Quran. For instance consider the following verse:

“Now hath come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the Believers is he most kind and merciful.” (Holy Quran 9:128)

We see in this verse that Allah (swt) has said the Prophet (s) is merciful. Are we to say that Allah has committed shirk by attributing one of His characteristics to the Prophet (s)? God forbid. What we must do here then is to elucidate and say that the Prophet does not possess this attribute and so he is not merciful in the Absolute sense. In other words, just because the dead have the ability to hear in no way implies they are all hearing.

Yet the proponents of the Ibn Tamiyah school need to be able to show the dead cannot hear in order to prove intercession through the dead is both shirk and pointless. In order to try and achieve this they cite the following verse:

“Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead. Allah can make any that He wills to hear; but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves..” (Quran 35:22)

Let us view their explanation of this verse from an extract of an article entitled ‘The Faculty of hearing of the dead’:

Allah points to the difference between the living and the dead – they are not alike. He further clarifies to His prophet that he cannot make the rejectors of faith hear the message (for they are dead in heart and spirit) any more than he can make those in the graves hear what is spoken to them.
(Also see Tafseer at-Tabari, vol.2 p.36 and al-Qurtubi’s al-Jami, vol.13,, p.232)

Now keep in mind, the key question is, what difference is Allah (swt) speaking of in this verse? You will notice the commentary above does not address what difference Allah (swt) was referring to. Let us return to the commentary:

He further clarifies to His prophet that he cannot make the rejectors of faith hear the message..

Now obviously the rejecters of faith did literally hear the message, but the word hear in the commentary is used figuratively. They heard the message, but they refused to be guided, to adhere, to follow the message because they were ‘dead in heart and spirit’.

Let us return back to the verse:

“Nor are alike those that are the living and those that are dead. Allah can make any that He wills to hear…”

Allah (swt) is saying He is the One who can make people ‘hear’ the message. Now is the word ‘hear’ literal or figurative? It is plainly obvious the word ‘hear’ in this part of the verse must be taken as a figurative expression for the verse to take on any meaning. Even the commentary above had no option but to allude to the figurative nature of the verse. So we can conclude so far that Allah (swt) is saying He is the One who can make people ‘hear’ the message, ie ‘be guided to’, ‘adhere to’, ‘follow the’ message. Keeping this in mind, let us see what Allah (swt) says to the Prophet (s):

but thou canst not make those to hear who are (buried) in graves..”

If we are to continue with the figurative definition of the word ‘hear’ then the verse translates as follows:

The living and the dead are not alike..Allah can make any that He wills to hear, (ie to be guided to Islam)..But you, (ie the Prophet), cannot make those who are dead to hear,(ie to be guided to Islam).

Allah (swt) is saying the dead can no longer be guided, ie the rejectors of faith are like the dead. So the difference between the dead and living is:

It is possible to guide the living, but not possible to guide the dead.

Now if we are to keep the initial figurative definition of the word ‘hear’ and then abandon this figurative definition for the word ‘hear’ in the last part of the verse, which will give it a literal definition, the verse will translate as follows:

The living and the dead are not alike..Allah can make any that He wills to hear, (ie to be guided to Islam)…but you, (ie the Prophet), cannot make those who are dead to hear (literally)

This clearly does not make any sense. Let us return to the commentary to find out if it addresses the difference between the living and the dead:

He further clarifies to His prophet that he cannot make the rejectors of faith hear the message (for they are dead in heart and spirit) any more than he can make those in the graves hear what is spoken to them.

So what exactly is the difference between the living and the dead that Allah (swt) is referring too? The rejecters of faith not ‘hearing’ and the dead not being able to literally hear is a similarity because neither can be guided. That is not a difference. Or are we really to believe that the whole verse only wanted to say the difference is those that are alive can literally hear while those that are dead cannot literally hear? Yet even if this absurd suggestion is true, why does Allah (swt) use the word ‘hear’ in the first instance figuratively for those that are alive? It would defeat the purpose. If it is argued the difference being referred to is; the living can be guided and the dead cannot be guided because the dead cannot literally hear, then this would be nonsensical. The dead cannot be guided not because they cannot hear, but because they are dead! Meaning their test is over. Their time is up. No more chances. Let us take a look at the whole verse from a Yusuf Ali translation:

[Yusufali 35:22] Nor are alike those that are living and those that are dead. (Only)Allah can make any that He wills to hear (i.e. guide to his message); but thou canst not make those to hear (i.e. guide to his message) who are (buried) in graves.

So we can conclude here that the word ‘hear’ in both instances in the verse is used in the figurative sense. However yet again the adherents to the Ibn Tamiyah make the same error by attempting to use a similar verse to support their case:

“Truly thou canst not cause the dead to listen, nor canst thou cause the deaf to hear the call, (especially) when they turn back in retreat.” (Quran 27:80)

Allah addresses His messenger, Muhammad (saw), reminding him that he cannot make the disbelievers hear the invitation to Islam, for they are like the dead, who do not hear either.

In response, the disbelievers did hear the message of Islam. So the meaning of the words ‘hear’ and ‘listen’ cannot be taken literally. Obviously Allah (swt) is speaking figuratively, the meaning of the word ‘listen’ is ‘to be guided’ or ‘to follow’. So the logical commentary would be:

In the first verse Allah addresses His messenger, Muhammad (saw), reminding him that he cannot make the stubborn disbelievers hear (ie be guided to) the call of Islam, for they are like the dead, who can no longer be guided.

Let us take a look at the whole verse again from a Yusuf Ali translation:

[Yusufali 27:80] Truly thou canst not cause the dead to listen ( i.e. guide them to the message of Allah) , nor canst thou cause the deaf ( i.e. Kuffar) to hear the call (i.e. to get guidance), when they turn back in retreat (i.e. when these kuffar are even not ready to pay attention to the signs of Allah. But if these Kuffar ( Deaf ) pay attention in Signs of Allah then Allah will cause them to Hear (i.e. guide them to) his message).

Prominent Sunni Imam, Suyuti has issued a religious verdict on the two verses discussed and he says:

It is an Allegorical statement (an-Nafi Ja'a ala m'ana al -Majaz). The Real meaning of this is that "They cannot listen to Guidance (Ma'naha Sama' Huda) i.e. they are dead and cannot be guided anymore."
Al-hawi lil Fatawa, vol. 2 p. 169-175

It should be clear up until this point the verses are referring to the inability for the dead to be guided and in no way implies the dead cannot hear. To prove this is indeed the correct interpretation, consider the following narrations from the most reliable Sunni sources:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s apostle said: When (Allah’s) slave is put in his grave and his companions return and he even hears their footsteps, two angels come to him.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 456, Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number 6862

How is it possible to accept this narration on the one hand while still claiming the Quran says the dead cannot literally hear?Let us return to the same article, ‘Faculty of the hearing of the dead’ and see their explanation to the above narration:

This tradition only specifies another exception to the general rule. In this case, the deceased hears the shuffling feet of those who attended his funeral as they walk away. This is a momentary possession of the faculty of hearing which is terminated at the point at which the two questioning angels come to him.

In response, even if the dead were to hear only momentarily, the dead can still hear and so Allah (swt) would never have said the dead cannot literally hear! Also assuming the commentary is correct, what proof is there the faculty of hearing will remain terminated after the questioning? There is nothing in the narration that suggests the faculty of hearing will later be terminated.

Now allow us to turn to the narrations surrounding the events that occurred after the battle of Badr where the Prophet (s) addressed the dead. This event was narrated by Ibn Umar, Anas b. Malik, Ibn Shihab, Abu Talha and Aisha. Lets see what they have to say:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: "The Messenger of Allah spoke to the People (buried) in the Well saying: "Have you found out that what your Lord had promised you is true?" then someone exclaimed: "Are you calling out to the dead!" The Prophet replied: "You do not hear better than they do, except they do not respond."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 452

Anas b. Malik reported that: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) let the dead bodies of the unbelievers who fought in Badr (lie unburied) for three days. He then came to them and sat by their side and called them and said: O Abu Jahl b. Hisham, O Umayya b. Khalaf, O Utba b. Rab'ila, O Shaiba b. Rabi'a, have you not found what your Lord had promised with you to be correct? As for me, I have found the promises of my Lord to be (perfectly) correct. Umar listened to the words of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah's Messenger, how do they listen and respond to you? They are dead and their bodies have decayed. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, what I am saying to them, even you cannot hear more distinctly than they, but they lack the power to reply. Then'he commanded that they should be buried in the well of Badr.
Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number 6869

Narrated Ibn Shihab: These were the battles of Allah's Apostle (which he fought), and while mentioning (the Badr battle) he said, "While the corpses of the pagans were being thrown into the well, Allah's Apostle said (to them), 'Have you found what your Lord promised true?" 'Abdullah said, "Some of the Prophet's companions said, "O Allah's Apostle! You are addressing dead people.' Allah's Apostle replied, 'You do not hear what I am saying, better than they.'?"
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 360

Narrated Abu Talha: "On the day of Badr, the Prophet ordered that the corpses of twenty four leaders of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badr. ?? When he halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraish infidels by their names and their fathers' names, "O so-and-so, son of so-and-so and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Apostle? We have found true what our Lord promised us. Have you too found true what your Lord promised you? "'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!" Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, you do not hear, what I say better than they do." (Qatada said, "Allah brought them to life (again) to let them hear him, to reprimand them and slight them and take revenge over them and caused them to feel remorseful and regretful.")
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 314

Pay particular attention to what Qatada added at the end of the narration. Qatada was only a sub narrator. He heard it from Anas, who heard it from Abu Talha, who narrated it from Rasool Allah. In other words, Qatadah was not present at the event and the other narrators who were present never mentioned anything about Allah (swt) bringing the souls back to life. Now unless Qatadah had a revelation from Allah, Qatadah’s claim could have only originated from his own conjecture. Now despite how good one’s intention is, conjecture has no validity in the Sharia of Islam. This is of paramount importance because if there is any doctrine that is based on conjecture, that doctrine ought not to be followed.

In addition, if Qatadah’s claim was correct, the Prophet (s) would have said something to that effect. Let us take a look at Umar’s questioning of the Prophet (s):

“O Allah’s Apostle! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!”

Here, the Prophet (s) would have been obligated to inform Umar that Allah (swt) brought the dead back to life so that they were able to hear. Yet the Prophet (s) never said anything remotely to that effect:

“By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad’s soul is, you do not hear what I say better than they do”

Clearly the only thing the Prophet (s) is confirming here is that the dead can hear and they can hear better than we can! In fact, the Prophets (s) words here are completely consistent with other narrations that reveal the dead can even hear the shuffling of the feet on the ground.

Let us now turn to Aisha and see her views of the same event:

Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet stood at the well of Badr (which contained the corpses of the pagans) and said, "Have you found true what your lord promised you?" Then he further said, "They now hear what I say." This was mentioned before 'Aisha and she said, "But the Prophet said, 'Now they know very well that what I used to tell them was the truth.' Then she recited (the Holy Verse):-- "You cannot make the dead hear... ..."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 317: Translated by Mohsin Khan

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet said, "They now realize that what I used to tell them was the truth. "And Allah said, 'Verily! You cannot make the dead to hear (ie. benefit them, and similarly the disbelievers) nor can you make the deaf hear (27:80)"
Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 453: Translation by Mohsin Khan.

( A'isha said ) The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood by the well in which were lying the dead bodies of those polytheists who had been killed on the Day of Badr, and he said to them what he had to say, i.e.: They hear what I say. But he (Ibn 'Umar) misunderstood. The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) had only said: They understand that what I used to say to them was truth . She then recited: "Certainly,thou canst not make the dead hear the call...."
Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 2027, Translated by Siddiqi

Pay close attention to the following words of Aisha:

…This was mentioned before Aisha and she said, “But the Prophet said. ‘Now they know very well what I used to tell them was the truth’…Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 317: Translated by Mohsin Khan

…But he (Ibn Umar) misunderstood. The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) had only said: They understand what I used to say to them was the truth…
Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 2027, Translated by Siddiqi

We can see that Aisha is denying the Prophet (s) spoke to the dead at all! Who is right? Does it mean all the other narrators of the event were wrong in their unanimous agreement that not only did the Prophet (s) speak to the dead, but the dead could hear better than Umar? Further more, Aisha was not present at the event so how could she have known what the Prophet (s) said? We can see that Aisha is in the same predicament as Qatadah as both of their interpretations is different from all the other narrators of the event. Even worse, both of their interpretations are different from one another! We can see that this is one of the consequences of conjecture. If we all resorted to conjecture, despite how well intentioned we may be, we would still most likely all end up with different interpretations.

Returning to the article ‘Faculty of the hearing of the dead’, its proponents seek to nonetheless prove their doctrine on Qatada’s interpretation in the narration from Abu Talha:

This miraculous circumstance in which the corpses of the slain Quraysh were made to hear the Prophets address to them is a special case – an exception to the general rule that the dead do not hear.Ignoring the fact that there always seems to be ‘an exception to the rule’, they inadvertently attempt to prove Qatadah’s interpretation from a narration that says the opposite of what they claim: In another narration of this incident there is a slight variation in the wording of the text which follows: Ibn Umar related: “The Prophet (saw) stood at the edge of a well at Badr and said, “Did you find the promise of your Lord to be true?” Then he added, “Verily at his moment they hear what I am saying.” Let on this was mentioned to Aisha, whereupon she commented, “What the Prophet (saw) meant was, “Now they know that what I used to tell them is the truth” The she recited, “Verily you cannot make the dead hear [Surah an-Naml 27:80] up to the end of the verse” [Related authentically by al-Bukhari and others].Some often misconstrue the texts of the two aforementioned hadiths as proof for the contention that the dead can hear. However, the following arguementation refutes such a claim. This miraculous circumstance in which the corpses of the slain Quraysh were made to hear the Prophet’s address to them is a special case – an exception to the general rule that the dead do not hear. By a miracle, Allah, the Almighty, made them hear the scolding from the Prophet (saw) – only for the moment he spoke to them! This is clearly proven by the second narration itself, for their hearing was said to be conditioned by the moment when the Prophet (saw) called out to them in scorn and rebuke. He said, “At this moment they hear what I am saying.” Furthermore, in the first narration the Prophet (saw) does not deny Umar’s sound understanding of the verse’s general ruling that the dead do not hear. Rather, the Prophet (saw) merely clarifies for Umar that what occurred at Badr was a divine miracle and, therefore, an exception to the general ruling of the verse.

Notice how the above commentary completely ignores Aisha’s interpretation of the event? It dismisses it completely with the words ‘slight variation’. This ‘slight variation’ completely changes the context of the event. As already mentioned, according to Aisha, the Prophet did not speak to the dead, he spoke about them. Yet the commentary above mentions nothing of this. Obviously they don’t want to highlight the basis of their doctrine is in conflict with itself.

Now as far as the claim of the event being a miracle, the question which must be asked is why did the Prophet (s) not inform his companions it was a miracle?:

“By Him in Whose Hand lies the soul of Muhammad, you do not hear better than them what I just said”

Here, the only thing the Prophet (s) is confirming is the dead can hear and they can hear better that Umar! Where did the Prophet (s) explain this event was an ‘exception to the rule’? It is becoming blatantly obvious there is a desperate attempt to squeeze Qatadah’s opinion into the narration of the text in order to give it validity. Yet despite the attempts, there is not the slightest indication from the Prophet (s) that Allah (swt) had returned the dead back to life so they can hear!

In addition, a divine miracle is something unique that rarely occurs. Yet we have already established that the dead can hear the shuffling of the feet on the ground! Even if we are to believe the dead can only hear momentarily, the fact that it is common for them to hear is proof there is nothing miraculous about the dead hearing at all. In fact, the narrations are replete with our beloved Prophet (s) speaking to the dead:

Aisha said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them? He said: "Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, Go willing, join you."
Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127'

A'isha reported (that whenever it was her turn for Allah's Messenger [may peace be upon him] to spend the night with her) he would go out towards the end of the night to al-Baqi' and say: "Peace be upon you, abode of a people who are believers. What you were promised would come to you tomorrow, you receiving it after some delay; and God willing we shall join you. O Allah, grant forgiveness to the inhabitants of Baqi' al-Gharqad. Qutaiba did not mention his words:" would come to you".
Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2126

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace The upon him) went out to the graveyard and said: "Peace be upon you, the abode of the believing people. and If Allah so wills we shall join you.... (and so on and so forth) like the hadith narrated by Isma'il b. Ja'far except the words of Malik: Then some persons would be driven away from my Cistern."
Sahih Muslim, Book 002, Number 0483

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) came to the graveyard and said: "Peace be upon you! (O) the abode of the believing people and we, if God so wills, are about to join you.
Sahih Muslim, Book 002, Number 0482

Despite the overwhelming proof the dead do in fact hear, the reason why it is so staunchly opposed is because if the dead do hear, then the Prophet (s) is capable of helping, thus refuting the doctrine that intercession is haram. Yet the overwhelming evidence proves the contrary. So why does this particular doctrine have such a prominent voice even though it goes against the consensus of the learned? Sunni Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki provides us some insight in his book Shifa al-siqam fi ziyarat khayr al-anam:

Among those who fall into the category of “Ibn Taymiyya and his followers” on this issue: Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi who wrote al-Sarim al-munki in an attempt to refute Subki’s book Shifa’ al-siqam on the great merit of visiting the Prophet; the Saudi author Bin Baz who said: “the ahadith that concern the desirability of visiting the grave of the Prophet are all weak, indeed forged” (kulluha da’ifa bal mawdu’a) in the 1993 edition of Fath al-bari (3:387); Nasir al-Din Albani, who claimed that the visit to the Prophet ranks among the innovations in Talkhis ahkam al-jana’iz (p.110) and elsewhere in his writings; and Nasir al-Jadya’, who in 1993 obtained his Ph.D. with First Honors from the University of Muhammad ibn Sa’ud after writing a 600-page book entitled al-Tabarruk in which he perpetuates the same claim (p.322). One will find such books printed and distributed far and wide, while classical books of the Ahl al-Sunnah are deliberately ignored and made unavailable to Muslims at large.

The need for revolutionized minds

2005-12-03T00:28:00.000+10:00

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

The struggle to better ourselves as human being’s and society as a whole has been abandoned by the masses who have been subdued into a pacified hypnotic state governed by whimsical and temporal desires rendering them incapable of reasonable dialogue and useless as a means of resistance to injustice.

Symbolic of this pathetic condition is both represented and promoted by the ruling despotic plutocratic regimes disguised as so called democracies who have destroyed all hopes of a peaceful co existence with one another due to their crimes against humanity.

A revolution for global political and spiritual change is desperately needed. We can no longer ignore the cries of the oppressed and the spread of moral bankruptcy rampant in our societies. To remain in this state of slumber will not only be to the detriment of our selves, but our future children as well. So let us revolutionize our minds and believe each one of us can make a difference because together, our ripples of resistance will give birth to a tidal wave that will wash away those forces that have plagued humanity for so long. Humanity’s sad plight can change for the better, but it is dependant on whether we decide to do something about it. In the words of one of the greatest revolutionaries, Imam Husayn (as) had said:

“We are not responsible for the result, we are responsible for the duty"

So our duty, revolutionize the mind, polish the soul, reflect the reality and become the solution, this is our revolution for we cannot change the world until we change ourselves.