Saturday, 2 July 2011

Salafis say: “Allah is Attributed with Hesitation”



Salafis Say:

Allah is Attributed with Hesitation”:

'A conflict between Two Wills'

Shaikh Saleh Aal Shaykh said:

أما صفة التردد فهي تُثْبَتُ لله على ما جاء، لكن تَرَدُّدُهُ بحق، وتردده ليس تَعَارُضَاً بين علمٍ وجهل أو بين علمٍ بالعاقبة وعدم علمٍ بالعاقبة، وإنما هو تردُّدٌ فيما فيه مصلحة العبد، هل يقبض نفس العبد أم لا يقبض نفسه، وهذا تردّدٌ فيه رحمة بالعبد، وفيه إحسان إليه ومحبة لعبده المؤمن وليس من جهة التردد المذموم الذي هو عدم الحكمة أو عدم العلم بالعواقب.
يعني تردد فلان في كذا، صفة مذمومة أنه يتردّد، إذا كان تردده أنه ما يعلم، أتردد والله أفعل كذا أو أروح ولا ما أروح، لأنه إما عنده ضعف في نفسه أو أنه يجهل العاقبة، فتردد أتزوج ولا ما أتزوج، أشتري أم لا أشتري لأنه ما يدري هل فيه مصلحة له، أم ليس فيه مصلحة، هذا هو التردد الذي هو صفة نقص في من اتصف بها، ترددٌ ناتجٌ عن عدم العلم بالعاقبة، أما التردد الذي ورد في هذا الحديث هو تردد بين إرادتين لأجل محبة العبد "ما ترددت في شيء أنا فاعله ترددي في قبض نفس عبدٍ مؤمن يكره الموت وأكره مساءته ولابد له من ذلك"، وهو تردد لا لأجل عدم العلم ولكن لأجل إكرام العبد المؤمن ومحبة الرب ? لعبده المؤمن.
فهو إذاً ترددٌ بحق وصفة كمال لا صفة نقص فيُثبَتُ على ما جاء في هذا الحديث مُقَيَّدَة لا مطلقة.


Rough translation: As for the attribute of Taraddud (hesitation), it is affirmed for Allah as it came, but His taraddud is with haqq, His hesitation is not a conflict between knowledge and ignorance, or knowledge of the outcome or not knowing what the outcome will be, but it is a hesitation in what is good for the slave, does He take away the soul of the slave or not, and this hesitation is of mercy to the slave, kindness to him, and love for His believing slave, and isn't the condemned hesitation, which is non-wisdom, or having no knowledg eof the outcome.


Meaning, the hesitation of someone for something, is a condemned attribute that he is hesitant, because his hesitation is because he does not know, (saying) "I am hesitant, do I do this, or I go or I don't go", because he has a weakness in himself or because he is ignorant of the outcome, so he is hesitant, "do I get married or don't I" or "do I buy or not", because he doesnt' know if there is a benefit in it for him or not, this is the hesitation that is the attribute of imperfection for whomever is described with it, a hesitation that is a result of ignornace of the outcome, but the hesitation mentioned in the hadith is the hesitation between two wills because of His love for His slave, (here he quotes the hadith:

"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, and it is a must for him.")

It is a hesitation not because of ignorance, but because of honoring the believer and the love of the Lord for His believing slave, so it is a hesitation of haqq, and is an attribute of perfection not an attribute of imperfection, so it is to be affirmed as it has come in this hadith, restricted not absolute (general).


Shaikh Abdel Aziz Ar-Rajhi

الأسئلة:
س: أحسن الله إليكم هل يوصف الله بالتردد كما في الحديث القدسي (وما ترددت في شيء أنا فاعله ترددي في قبض نفس عبدي المؤمن…) الحديث؟

ج: نعم كما وصفه الرسول -عليه الصلاة والسلام- لكن هذا التردد ليس كتردد المخلوق الذي يدل على الضعف، ولكنه تعارض الإرادتين كما بين في الحديث، فالله تعالى يريد ما يريده عبده المؤمن، والمؤمن يكره الموت، فالله يريد ما يريده عبده المؤمن، ولكن الله قضى وقدر أنه يموت، فهذا تعارض إرادتين إرادة الموت؛ لأن الله قدره، وإرادة ما يريده العبد وهو كراهة الموت ولا ينافي هذا التردد ترجيح إحدى الإرادتين؛ لأن الموت لا بد منه نعم.

Answer: yes, as the Messenger -Alayhi As-Salatu Wa-Salam- described Him, but this taraddud (hesitation) isn't like the hesitation of creation that indicates weakness, but it is a conflict between two wills as the hadith explains. Allah Ta'ala wants what the believing slave wants, and the believer does not like death, so Allah wants what His believing slave wants, but Allah Has decreed that He die, so this is a conflict between two wills, the will for him to die, because Allah decreed it, and the will of what the slave wants, which is hating death, and this hesitation does not go against the outweighting of one will over the other, because death is a must.

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=5817


Quote:

Um Abdullah M.

Moderator of Salafi/Wahabi Aqeedah Forum

"Question: 'Is Allah (swt) attributed with Hesitation (taraddud)......?'

Answer (tr. Um Abdullah): Yes, as the Messenger -Alayhi As-Salatu Wa-Salam- described Him, but this taraddud (hesitation) isn't like the hesitation of creation that indicates weakness, but it is a conflict between two wills as the hadith explains.

Allah Ta'ala wants what the believing slave wants, and the believer does not like death, so Allah wants what His believing slave wants, but Allah Has decreed that He die, so this is a conflict between two wills, the will for him to die, because Allah decreed it, and the will of what the slave wants, which is hating death, and this hesitation does not go against the outweighting of one will over the other, because death is a must.

[End of quote]

...

and here:

Musleemah

Senior Member -Join Date:May 2006

Gender: female Madhhab: Hanbali

Posts:1,459

Here

No! Hold on ...she's here:

NMS

Here

----------------------------------------


The great Imâm

`Izz al-Dîn Ibn `Abd al-Salâm

wrote a treatise on the principles of metaphorical interpretation of the Holy Qur'an according to the Ash`arî School entitled:

al-Ishâra ilâ al-Ijâz fi Ba`d Anwâ` al-Majâz

(Ed.Uthmân Hilmî, Cairo: al-Matba`at al-`Amira, 1313/1895) which recently received a new edition.

In it he states:

15. His hesitancy (taraddud)
= In the hadith qudsî

(5)

"Nor do I hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take back the believer's soul, for he hates death and I hate to hurt him,"

(6)

a metaphor of the superlative rank of the believer in the Divine presence and synechdoche for a lesser hurt to prevent a greater harm, as in the case of a father's severance of his son's gangrened hand so as to save his life.

[...]

The hadith in Sahih Muslim clearly indicates that the time of death for everything has already been written and decided way before we were even created:

‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As narrated that the Prophet [sallallahu alayhe wa sallam] said:

Allah foreordained (qaddara) all the destinies (al-maqâdîr) before creating the heavens and the earth by fifty thousand years.”

{Narrated from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As by al-Tirmidhi (hasan sahîh gharî and Ahmad; also by Muslim with the following wording:

Allah inscribed kataba) the destinies of all created things before creating the heavens and the earth by fifty thousand years, while His Throne stood over the water (wa‘arshuhu ‘alâ al-mâ’)

...

Also hadith #19 from the Forty Hadith of al Imam An Nawawi [RH] says:

Abu al-‘Abbas ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, radiyallahu anhuma, reported:

One day I was behind the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and he said to me:

"O young man, I shall teach you some words [of advice] : Be mindful of Allah, and Allah will protect you. Be mindful of Allah, and you will find Him in front of you. If you (have need to) ask, ask of Allah; and if you seek help, seek help from Allah. Know that even if the Nation (or the whole community) were to gather together to benefit you with something, they would not benefit you with anything except that which Allah has already recorded for you, and that if they gather together to harm you with something, they would not be able to harm you with anything except that which Allah has already recorded against you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried." [Al-Tirmidhi relates this and says: It is a good, genuine Hadith]

---

In the attribution of literal hesitancy to Allah Most High there is a hodgepodge of not just one but several heresies presupposing that Allah Most High has two conflicting wills, is not sure what to do, checks with His servant first, does not know in advance then finds out, feels remorse or regret.... Some of that resembles the doctrine of bada' (change of Divine will through 'finding out' something new) which is a classic Rafidi stance, some of it resembles the creature's khalq of his own actions, which is a Qadari stance, some of it Christian anthropomorphism/union, and some of it is just old Greek/Latin/pre-Islamic paganism, making up human emotions and affects for one's ma`bud as they go along.

The hidden blessing of their coming out with such heresies is that they lay bare the utter dalal and iflas of Wahhabi doctrines and illustrate Imam al-Razi's (rahimahullah) statement that the mujassim does not worship Allah Most High, but some body sitting on some chair somewhere. It makes it easier for the common public to distinguish between kufr posing as iman in our midst.

Imam al-Baydawi rahimahullah said in his Tafir on the explanation of {al-rahman al-rahim}: "Compassion (al-rahma), lexically, is the tenderness of the heart and an inclination that entails the showing of favor and good treatment, whence 'womb' (al-rahim) since it curves around its content. But the Names of Allah Most High are taken only in consideration of outcomes (bi-i`tibar al-ghayaat), which are acts (af`al), and not of inceptions (mabadi'), which are affects (infi`alat)."

Imam al-Suyuti rahimahullah in his unfinished Hashiya [to Surat al-Tawba] on al-Baydawi entitled Nawahid al-Abkar comments:

"Its upshot is that it is impossible to attribute literal compassion to Allah Most High, therefore it is explained as 'that which it necessitates' (tufassaru bi-lazimiha)."

A few lines down, on the last verse of Surat al-Fatiha, al-Baydawi states:


"Anger is the flaring of the psyche wanting revenge. When attributed to Allah Most High the intent is culmination and outcome as already discussed."


This method and its examples are demonstrated by Imam al-`Izz Ibn `Abd al-Salam rahimahullah in his treatise al-Ishara ila al-Ijaz fi Ba`d Anwa` al-Majaz, ed. `Uthman Hilmi ([Cairo:] al-Matba`at al-`Amira, 1313/1895) p. 104-112 in which he states:

"According to the Shaykh [al-Ash`ari], rahma means God's willing (irada), for His servant, of whatever one showing compassion wills for the one who is shown it" and so for all states or acts that connote affect (infi`al),need, spatiality or corporeality such as friendship (mahabba), love (wudd), good pleasure (rida), gratitude (shukr), laughter (dahik), happiness (farah), patience (sabr), jealousy (ghira), shame (haya'), testing (ibtila'), sarcasm (sukhriyya), mockery (istihza'), scheming (makr), deceit (khid`), astonishment (`ajab), distance (as when referred to as dhalika, dhalikum), hesitancy (taraddud), establishment over the Throne (istiwa'), leisure (faragh), baring ofthe shin (kashf al-saq), wrath (ghadab), resentment (sukht or sakhat), grief (asaf), hatred and spite (qila, maqt, bughd), enmity (`adawa), and malediction (la`n).

Al-Hamdu lillahi al-ladhi hadana li-hadha wa-ma kunna li-nahtadiya lawla an
hadana Allah!

Was-Salam,

GF Haddad

---

SALAFI AQIDAH VS SUNNI AQIDAH


Friday, 1 July 2011

Gustakh-e-Rasool




Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (d.1328CE)

Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab Najdi (d.1792CE)


Ismael Dehlvi (d.1830)
Qasim Nanotvi (d.1879)
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d.1905)
Khalil Ahmad Anbethawi (d.1927)
Ashraf Ali Thanvi (d.1943)



Wahhabi/Deobandi says:

“...do not call us Gustakh e Rasool

We call your founding forefathers/elders (akaabir) Gustakh e Rasool! 

and all those wahhabi/Deobandis who... respect, praise and send (RA) upon them, knowing very well what they uttered/wrote in their original books... then he/she is also Gustakh e Rasool!

Note:
We don't call every tom, dick and harry among the 
Wahhabi/Deobandi sect Gustakh e Rasool !


Deobandi says:
“...do not call our deobandi akabir Kafir or send Lanaat (LA) upon them...”

Why?

because they wrote over 1000's of Islamic books!

1 word of kufr renders these 1000's books useless!

Your Wahabi-Deobandi/Tableeghi elder’s/ founders:
Ismael Dehlvi,Qasim Nanotvi,Rashid Ahmad Gangohi,Khalil Ahmad Anbethawi and Ashraf Ali Thanvi...etc

Any Muslim who has knowledge and praises these wahhabi/deobandi maulvis is risking his own Imaan!
Why?
Note:
Imam lbne Hajar in his work Al-Aalam, in chapter of approved unbelief, has quoted references from the illustrious religious scholars as under:
“Whoever utters blasphemy, or whoever appreciates it or shows pleasure upon it, commits blasphemy”.


Most of them say:
" WE had no knowledge..."

Start from Here:

THE RISE OF WAHHABI FITNAH
INDIAN SUBCONTINENT
(1239 AH - 1823 CE)
---

---
AQIDA OF THE ELDERS OF DEOBAND
THE FOREFATHERS OF DEOBANDI & TABLEEGHI SECT
PART1 PART2 PART3
---

---

---


Not to forget:

The Nobel Quran

Surat Al-'Ahzāb (The Combined Forces)

33:57

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذَابًا مُّهِينًا

Translation:

Muhsin Khan
Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger (SAW) Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.
Pickthall
Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.
Yusuf Ali
Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
---

To disrespect / trouble the Holy Prophet – peace and blessings be upon him – is blasphemy.

Note!
YOU MUST NOT DOUBT THE KUFR of these Wahhabi/Deobandi elders/founders, otherwise You are exposing YOUR OWN IMAAN TO DANGER!

We do not call every person from Wahabi/Deobandi a kafir (Gustakh e Rasool)
many of them are following that movement blindly without knowledge.

When we call someone a "Gustakh e Rasool" it is only referring to those Deobandis who defend the kufr commited by their elders, which can never be defended as you know very well!

There are those deobandis who praise and send (RA) to: Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab Najdi.
Why?

The Wahhabi influence on them has been very detrimental and it is something they find very hard to escape from, and for this reason they have deviated from the right path.

The Right path of Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi (RA) (d.1762AD) and his children:

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi (RA) (d.1823AD)
Shah Rafiuddin(RA)
Shah Abdul Qadir (RA)
Shah Abdul Gani(RA)

Also If you study the aqeeda of
Haji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki(RA)(d. 1899 AD) the Murshid (Shaykh) of the deobandi scholars, you will find that he was a Pure Sunni, but sadly his disciples abandoned his way after his demise.

---



Ashraf Ali Thanvi’s


Hifzul Iman


In 1319 AH (1901 C.E)

Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanvi answered a question regarding:

'Ilm-e-Ghayb and published it as: Hifzul Iman in this book, he has compared the knowledge of Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam or to show its size or smallness to madmen and animals and has said there is nothing unique to Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam regarding this knowledge.

click on scan to enlarge

The actual paragraph is this:
"And then, if it is correct to attribute the knowledge of the unseen (ilm ghayb) to be possessed by Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam, as Zayd says, then it remains to be asked, which one he (the questioner) refers to.?Is it only a 'part' of it (baáĎ) or 'complete'; if he refers to'part', then what is extraordinary about Rasulullah in possessing it? Such knowledge of unseen is also possessed by all and sundry (Zayd, Amr); even infants, lunatics and all the animals and quadrupeds.


Original Urdu wording:
phir yê ke âp kî dhât muqaddasa par `ilm-e-ghayb kâ hukm kiyâ jânâ agar be qawl zayd sahîh hô tô daryâfat talab amri yê hê ke us ghayb se murâd ba`z [ba`D] ghayb hê yâ kul ghayb agar ba`z `ulûm ghaybiyya murâd hê tô is mê Huzûr hi ki kyâ takhsîs hê AYSÂ `ilm-e-ghayb tô zayd-o-`amr-o-balke har sabî-o-majnûn balke jamî`Haywânât-o-bahâhum ke liye bhi Hâsil hê kayûn kê har shakhs kô
kisî ne kisî aysî bât kâ `ilm hôtâ hê jô dusrê shakhs se makhfi hê)


See the original scan: Refuting Deobandi Mufti: Part 3: Here

The Deobandi author in an attempt to justify this writing says that:
“This statement should not be taken as interpreted by Imam Ahmed Raza Khan RH ".

Who on this earth need any interpretation of this statement?
It is clear like sun shining in the sky . This is such an ugly statement that no Muslim would like to read this statement , forget about talking about those people who have this belief or those who try to justify this.

The Deobandi author says that to make the meaning clear Mawlana Asharf ali thanvee made changes in the text!
This is another lie. He made changes when muslim population read this and started abusing him ! He never did tawba/repent and all he did was to change the word:
'Aysa' which means: (this sort of)

For this ugly statement in which Ashraf Ali Thanvi has compared the prophetic knowledge of the unseen with the knowledge possessed by infants, lunatics,sundry,animals and quadrapeds ( four legged animals).
Two hundresed and sixty eight (268) scholars of Ahlus sunnah from Indian subcontinent and thirty three (33) scholars from Makkah al mukarramh and Medina al munawwara issued fatwa of kufr upon  Ashraf Ali Thanvi.

1. The fatwa of Kufr which was issued upon Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvee by Imam Ahmed Raza al Barelwi (Rahimullah) and 33 scholars of Makkah and Medina , was due to Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi comparing the prophetic knoweldge of the unseen (Ghayb) with the knowledge possed by Zayd and `Amr, ( that is any tom and harry) in fact, every person and mad man, in fact, all animals and sundry.

2 The fatwa which was issued upon Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi has nothing to do with denial of ilm e ghayb (knowledge of the unseen) which prophet had. 


The blasmphemous comment was used to degrade our beloved prophet ( sal allahu alaihi wa sallam).

They say: Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (RH) made an interpretation of that text of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and if the interpretation was not made, it will not amount to Kufr.

To refute this confusion we need to know Two Basic Facts:

1) Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (Rh) DID NOT make any interpretation of the text. He translated it word by word into Arabic and presented it to the scholars of Makkah and Medina. The original Urdu text of fatwa and its Arabic translation, both are online. If anyone says Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (rh) made interpretation he should bring evidence in support of such a claim.

2) 268 leading muftis of Indian subcontinet, from Sindh (present pakistan), Firangmahal , Lucknow , Hyderabad , Rampur etc, issued the fatwa against Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. They also did not make any interpretation.

It is very important to refute this confusion being created. Please read this and show me where is Imam Ahmed Raza (rh) involved in this?

The paternal grandson of Hazrat Sayyid Muhammad Jilani Qadri Hyderabadi,
Sayyid Nazeeruddin son of Sayyid Moinuddin, expresses his disgust at this statement: [of Ashraf Ali Thanvi]

“Some people brought the book, Hifzul Iman by Ashraf Ali Thanwi to my grandfather (Sayyid Muhammad Jilani Qadri) and asked about it. He read the book and said,
Molvi Ashraf Ali has written an utmost disrespectful thing about ‘Ilm-e-Ghayb”.

A few days after this, Molvi Ashraf Ali was sitting in Makkah Masjid in Hyderabad. My grandfather stood and expressed his disgust at the book and said, “This paragraph stinks of Kufr.”

A few days later, there was gathering of Ulema at the house of Mawlānā Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad (son of Mawlānā Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi). Since he had great affection for my grandfather he invited him too. At the gathering, the Ulema expressed their views on the paragraph in Hifzul Iman. My grandfather mentioned the disgust he felt and presented a fatwa against the book.

Then, some days after this, my grandfather saw Sayyidina Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam in a dream:


The dear Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam expressed his happiness that my grandfather had refuted the book and had labelled it “Aqbah” (the most repugnant).
Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam said,
“I am happy with you. What do you wish for?”

My grandfather replied that he wished that his remaining life would be spent in Madina and that he be buried in Madina. His wish was granted and he migrated to Madina thereafter. He spent ten years there and passed away there in 1364 AH.21.
Hazrat Mawlānā Abul Khair Naqshbandi Mujaddidi Dihlawi was once resident in Kothi Ilahi Bakhsh, Meerut.

During his stay, Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad, son of Mawlānā Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi, and Mawlānā Ashraf Ali Thanwi came to one of his gatherings. A supporter of Mawlānā Ghulam Dastagir Qasuri read out the passage of Hifzul Iman.

Hazrat Shah Abul Khair Dihlawi found it utterly displeasing and said:

“Is this service to the religion? Your elders were upon our path. Why did you oppose this?”
Molvi Ashraf Ali Thanwi replied, “I have clarified this passage in another book of mine”.
Shah Abul Khair answered, So many people have diverged from the truth due to your book, what need remains of your clarification?”

Reference:
Maqamat-e-Khair, page 616. Shah Abul Khair Academy, Dehli
Bazm-e-Khair az-Zayd, page 11. Shah Abul Khair Academy, Dehli


... read more:



Read more :Here


--------------------

---


Part Four
The judgements concerning those who think 
the Prophet imperfect or curse him

Section OneThe Judgement of the Shari'a regarding someone
who curses or disparages the Prophet


Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or jies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the 'ularna' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.
Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses the Prophet is killed. These include Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the position of the Shafi'i school.


Qadi Abu'l-Fadl said that it is based on the statement of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. His repentance is not accepted. Something similar was stated by Abu Hanifa and his people, ath-Thawri and the people of Kufa and al-Awza'i about the Muslims. However, they said that it constitutes apostasy.
At-Tabari related something similar from Abu Hanifa and his companions about anyone who disparages the Prophet, proclaims himself quit of him or calls him a liar.

Sahnun said about those who curse the Prophet, "This is apostasy in exactly the same way as heresy (zandaqa) is. Therefore there is some dispute about whether such a person should be called to repent (as a Muslim) or whether he is an unbeliever. Is he to be killed by a hadd-punishment (as a Muslim) or for disbelief?" We will make this clear in Chapter Two. We do not know of any dispute among the 'ulama' of the community and the Salaf regarding the permissibility of shedding his blood.
Several people have mentioned that the consensus is that he is to be killed and considered an unbeliever. One of the Dhahirites, Abu Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Farisi, however, indicated that there is some disagreement about whether to consider someone who belittles the Prophet as an unbeliever. The best-known position has already been stated.

Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that the 'ulama' agree that anyone who reviles the Prophet and disparages him is an unbeliever and the threat of Allah's punishment is on him. The community's judgement on him is that he be killed. Anyone who has any doubts about such a person's disbelief and punishment is also an unbeliever. For a proof of this, Ibrahim ibn Husayn ibn Khalid, the faqih, uses the instance of Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayra for referring to the Prophet as "your companion."'[3]
Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said, "I do not know of any Muslim who disagrees about the necessity of killing such a person if he is a Muslim."

Ibn al-Qasim reports from Malik in the book of Ibn Sahnun, the Mabsut, and the 'Utibiyya and Ibn Mutarrif relates the same from Malik in the book of Ibn Habib, "Any Muslim who curses the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent."
Ibn al-Qasim said in the 'Utibiyya, "Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed. The community say that he should be killed just like the dualist. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him."

In the Mabsut from 'Uthman ibn Kinana we find, "Any Muslim who reviles the Prophet is killed or crucified without being asked to repent. The Imam can choose between crucifying him or killing him." In the variant of Abu'l-Mus'ab and Ibn Abi Uways, they heard Malik say, "Anyone who curses the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed, be he Muslim or unbeliever, without being asked to repent."
Asbagh said, "He is killed in every case, whether he conceals it or makes it public, without being asked to repent because his repentance is not recognised."
'Abdullah ibn 'Abdu'l-Hakam said that and at-Tabari related something similar from Malik Ibn Wahb related that Malik said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet's cloak (or button) was dirty, thereby intending to find fault with him, should be killed."

One of our 'ulama says that people agree that anyone who curses any of the Prophets using the expression "Woe to him" or anything disliked is to be killed without being asked to repent.
Abu'l-Hasan al-Qabisi gave a fatwa that a man who called the Prophet "the porter, the orphan of Abu Talib" should be killed.
Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Zayd gave a fatwa to kill a man who was listening to some people discussing what the Prophet looked like. When a man with an ugly face and beard walked by, he said to them, "You want to know what he looked like? He looked like this passer-by in physique and beard." Abu Muhammad said, "His repentance is not accepted. He lied, may Allah curse him. That could not come out of a heart with sound belief."
Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed."

He was told about a man to whom someone said, "No, by the right of the Messenger of Allah," and he replied, "Allah did such a thing to the Messenger of Allah," mentioning some ugly words. People said to him, "What are you saying, enemy of Allah?" Then he said some even harsher things and added, "I wish for a scorpion for the Messenger of Allah." When someone asked him for fatwa about this man, lbn Abi Sulayman said, "Testify against him and I will be your partner," i.e. in killing him and getting the reward. Habib ibn ar-Rabi' said that is because trying to explain away the literal expression is not accepted because it is clear contempt and lack of respect for the Messenger of Allah. His blood is permitted.
Abu 'Abdullah ibn 'Attab gave a fatwa about a tax-collector who said to a man, "Pay and complain to the Prophet. If I ask or am ignorant, the Prophet was ignorant and asked," to the effect that he be killed.
The fuqaha' of Andalusia gave a fatwa that Ibn Ha tim, the scholar of Toledo, be killed and crucified because there was testimony that he made light of what is due to the Prophet. In the course of a debate, he called him "the orphan" and the in-law of the lion (i.e. 'Ali)," and claimed that his doing-without (zuhd) las not intentional. He alleged that if he had been able to have good things, he would have eaten them. He said other similar things.

The fuqaha' of the Qayrawan[4] and the companions of Sahnun gave a fatwa for the killing of Ibrahim al-Ghazari, a poet and master of many sciences. He was one of those who attended the assembly of Qadi Abu'l-'Abbas ibn Talib for debate. He was accused of objectionable things like mocking Allah, His Prophets and our Prophet. Qadi Yahya ibn 'Umar and other fuqaha' summoned him and commanded that he be killed and crucified. He was stabbed and crucified upside down. Then he was brought down and burned. One of the historians related that when the post to which he was tied was lifted up, the body turned around away from qibja. It was a sign to all and the people said, "Allah is greater!" Then a dog came and licked his blood. Yahya ibn 'Umar said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, spoke the truth," and he mentioned a hadith in which the Prophet said, "A dog will not lick a Muslim's blood."[5]

Qadi Abu 'Abdullah ibn al-Murabit said, "Whoever says that the Prophet was defeated is asked to repent. If he repents, it is all right. If not, he is killed because it detracts from the Prophet. Such a disparaging remark could not be said about the Prophet by anyone with understanding of his affair and certainty about his inviolability."

Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says anything disparaging about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.
Ibn 'Attab said that the Book and Sunna require that someone who intends to even slightly harm or disparage the Prophet, either by allusion or clear statement, must be killed.
Anything like this which is something that the 'ulama' consider to be a curse or disparagement necessitates that the one who says it be killed. Neither the early or later people disagree about that, but they disagree about the basis for killing him as we have indicated. We will make this clear later.

This is also my position regarding the judgment of anyone who belittles him or insults him about having been a shepherd, oversight, forgetfulness, sorcery, any wound he received, the defeat of one of his armies, injury by an enemy, the intensity of his illness or his being attracted to his wives. The judgement of all this is that the one who intends to disparage him by it is killed. The position of the 'ulama' is as we have already stated and it will be proved by what follows.

Translated by


Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley