Tuesday, 18 February 2020

Nahiem Ajmal (Mufti Abu Layth)

Nahiem Ajmal (Mufti Abu Layth) Abu Lies 😈
In the clip posted below, the speaker, N Ajmal, makes his most outrageous and insolent statement to date, at least in public. I dwell on the motives toward the end, but prior to that I want to analyse that which is more pertinent—the speaker’s reasoning and evaluation of religious texts.

outrageous and insolent statement
^ From: 1:08:00

1:09:43 The physical condition of the Prophet’s body in the grave

This individual and those who think like him have the common trait of dismissing any religious text of Quran and Hadith that they find disagreeable.

This is done by referring to a verse of the Quran or a Hadith that is clear in its import as being allegorical, symbolic or totally meaningless.
In the case of Hadith, aside from reinterpreting as symbolic or allegoryhe may also dismiss the entire authenticity and validity of transmission of that Hadith. That is the main common theme in all his outrageous statements, whether this statement relates to legal rulings or belief.

The problem with this is twofold.

The first problem relates to a lack of being precise in what methodology is being employed in interpreting any religious text. Zero clarity on regulations, methodology, legal theory, principles of jurisprudence, hermeneutics, epistemology, logic and rational thought. This lack of being principled leads to denying whatever one disagrees without any real basisCase in note: his lack of distinction between a rational judgement and an empirical judgement.
A very basic point that any novice in Ashari theology will be able to articulate, never mind a self proclaimed or a “Pakistani Deobandi madrasah” jurisconsult.

The second problem is zero application of Arabic grammar, rhetoric and any other linguist Arabic devices that are absolutely essential to understanding Quran and Hadith.

So, in his denial of life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the grave as being literal, he reinterprets the Hadith to mean that the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) will never rot and disintegrate, and therefore he concludes that the body of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not preserved and he has disintegrated with the soil, alongside with other erroneous statements in that video 

Statements that are reminiscent of Ismail Dehlawi. 

Yet, this individual is unable to give any linguistic reasons. He furnishes no knowledge of Arabic rhetoric or any methodology of interpreting texts.
This unprincipled methodology, or no methodology at all, means anyone can reinterpret any text of the Quran or Hadith without recourse to principles that are rooted in the Arabic language and legal theory, as was set out by the like of Imam Shafi in his Risala. Applying the epithet ‘Maliki’ or ‘Shafi’ and yet being a total dunce regarding the agreed upon principles of those schools is very sad to say the least.

Because this individual cannot delineate his method of reasoning in either; legal theory, his method of reading into a religious text or totally unable to demarcate rules of rhetoric or Arabic grammar, I am totally convinced he is a total ignoramus and vacuous in his claim to any qualifications. 
This was clearly demonstrated in our discussion, that when being unable to answer simple questions, he simply obfuscated the entire discussion.

Additionally, in my counter to his claim regarding the return of Isa (peace be upon him), I mentioned one simple question which has been left unanswered to this day.

That question is: how does one simply dismiss a Hadith narrated by 28 companions with nearly a hundred chains as a mere forgery?

I challenged him to demonstrate the claim that the Hadith is a Christian forgery, as he claims, through an analysis of every chain. He has been unable and will remain unable to prove this, as like many things he has claimed in the past, are just that, claims, with no real substantiation.

Two common themes you will notice in his outrageous statements, which now many have become desensitised to and thus lost interest, are:

1. Adenial of the unseen, supernatural or miraculous and;
2. Outrageous verdicts that are deemed anomalies by normative Islam.

With regard to the first, which is a denial of the unseen or that which is miraculous, this is based upon the inability (I say inability because I genuinely believe he is unable) to make a distinction between a rational judgement and an empirical judgement. Hukm Aqli and Hukm Adi in Arabic, respectively. I will give a simple example of this so people may understand better.

If I said to an individual fourteen hundred years ago that metal can fly, he would reject it as impossible.
Or if I said I can travel from Makkah to Jerusalem in a short period of time, they would have also dismissed that as being impossible.

But this type of impossibility is classified as being an empirical impossibility and not a rational impossibility.
The very meaning of empirical impossibility is that we do not observe such a phenomenon.
According to the laws of physics or our simple observation of the norm we may deem those things as an empirical impossibility.

Yet if we have the means of breaking the norm, or the empirical, then a breach of the norm is possible.
So fourteen hundred years later we observe metal flying in the form of an aeroplane and we see that a person can travel from Makkah to Jerusalem in a short period of time.

These impossibilities and possibilities are what miracles relate to and not what is termed as a rational impossibility. A rational impossibility, on the other hand, is that which the mind deems as being impossible without any recourse to empirical observation to external phenomena.

[*] So when Abu Lahab denied the miraculous night journey of the Prophet (peace be upon him), or when Richard Dawkins mocks the Buraq, it is only because they do not know this distinction or fail to accept this distinction.

So, with our modern Abu, there is a lack of comprehension of these simple distinctions and subsequently a total denial of the divine being able to suspend the laws of physics. As a corollary to this, the modern Abu, denies anything which he finds credulous, like miracles or the lives of the prophets in their graves.

This materialist and sensory approach of Abu lies of course in his educational background and association with Isha’at alUlum and the nefarious Younas Numani, a rabid mamati’ Deobandi.
A brand that denies lives of the prophets in their graves vociferously and is condemned by other ‘hayati’ Deobandis. His educational background of nearly a decade in Pakistani madrasahs has immensely affected his psyche, and anyone who has an inkling of understanding regarding this madrasahs will know what I am alluding at.

However, I believe, his current stand, as it is clear from his atrocious ‘verdicts’, is that of an atheist, who cannot profess his atheism or agnosticism as of yet. For whatever reason he pretends to be a Muslim is a secret known to himself.

I posted on his diatribe on a WhatsApp group:

This man, in the video, claims numerous Quranic and Hadith texts are symbolic or allegorical.
In the video below, he states that the Hadith on the isthmus life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are symbolic, and therefore believes foul things, similar to his ancestor Ismail Dehlawi and worse (listen to clip). Here

This individuals problem is that he cannot delineate an epistemology or even suggest what rules of rhetoric (balagha) he applies to religious texts. This is due to a few factors, including compounded ignorance of any science and a desire to remove any meaning to Islam as a whole.

This individual, I believe, is an atheist who doesn't have the courage to openly denounce faith.
His inability to demarcate a methodology, in language or rationality, means speech has no real meaning. So if I say 'Someones mother ate haram when she conceived him, or Satan sired him', and then deny this has any literal meaning or import, and it is allegorical in meaning, then words have no substance.
The only cure to this miscreants diabolical behaviour is to either ignore him or insult his mother and then utilise his own method (or no method?) and say it isn't literal!

The real Maliki, not the plastic “Maliki’ like Abu,

Sayyid Muhammad Bin Alawi Maliki wrote:
It is established that our Prophet ﷺ possesses an isthmus-life that is greater and more perfect than that of any other, of which he himself told us. It is equally established that he is intimately connected with the Community, fully cognizant of their states, seeing their actions, hearing their speech, replying to their greetings, and the hadiths to that effect are numerous. Read Full Here

Shaykh Asrar Rashid : Post Here


Critiquing the flawed methodology of Abu Layth
Here Video: 11K views  (19/02/2020)


Abu Jahl passed by him and asked him mockinglyWas there anything from heaven?
The Messenger of Allah said: Yes.
Abu Jahl asked: What is it?
The Messenger of Allah said: I was given a miraculous night journey.
Abu Jahl asked: To where?
The Messenger of Allah said: To Bayt al-Maqdis.
Abu Jahl said: Then you came back to be among us?
The Messenger of Allah said: Yes.
Abu Jahl deciding not to belie him in order to encourage him to tell it to the people, he cunningly said: If I invite people over here, will you tell them what you have told me about?
The Messenger of Allah said: Yes.
The Messenger of Allah said: I was given a night journey.
They said: To where?
The Messenger of Allah  said: To Baytul Maqdis.
Abu Jahl said: then you came back to be among us?
The Messenger of Allah said: Yes.
Then some of them clapped their hands while others put their hands on their heads, as a gesture of disbelief.
They asked: “Can you describe the Mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis in Jerusalem as some of us have travelled to Jerusalem before and saw the Mosque?”
The Messenger of Allah said:
I started describing it to them until I could no longer do that. Then, Jibril  brought a view of the mosque close to the neighboring house of `Uqail, then I resumed describing it while I was looking at it.”
The Messenger of Allah added that the description included details that I no longer remember.
The people, then, commented saying: “Concerning the description of Bayt al- Maqdis, by Allah, he told the truth.” (Musnad Ahmad)

[*] The following morning, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم went to the Quraysh’s Tribal meeting place, and when Abu Jahl came up to him, he informed him of his journey. Abu Jahl then called all the people to hear the Prophet’s story, and when he related it to them, they stared at him in amazement and disbelief. 
Some of the people ran to Abu Bakr and told him and his companions that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم claimed that he went to Jerusalem, made Salah there, and returned to Makkah in one night. They told him that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was at the Ka’bah telling people. When they told him that they were sure that he would also leave Islam, because it was obvious to them that Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم must be lying. (MazAllah)
But Abu bakr told them, By Allah, if he actually said that, he has told the truth. There really is nothing to be amazed about, for he has told me that information comes to him from Allah, from the sky to the earth, in an instant during the night or day and I believe him. And that is even more strange.” Because of that statement of Abu Bakr, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gave him the title of “as-Siddiq (the truthful).”


Nouman Ali Khan product of the Wahhabiyyah insults Holy Prophet(s)


Khizar Hayat Bakharvi  😈


Abu Dhar said, “I was with the Prophet (Sallal lahu aliwasalam) one day and I heard him saying: “There is something I fear for my Ummah more than the Dajjal.” It was then that I became afraid, so I said: “Oh Rasool Allah! Which thing is that?” He (S) said; Misguided and astray scholars.”
(Reference:-Recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (no.20335, 21334 and no.21335)


(Edited by ADHM)

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

Christian v Salafi

Question: During a debate with a Christian, the Christian asked

'Is it possible for God to indwell in the creation?'

The Christian asks this in order to validate the deification of Jesus (peace be upon him).

A Muslim responded by saying that God can indwell in His creation and that is the Hanbali, Athari, position on taking some of the verses and hadith literally.

This is has confused me. Is this the actual Hanbali position?

Answer: The answer given by the Muslim is totally incorrect
It is incorrect due to its incoherence, and the additional erroneous conclusions thereof, but also the false ascription to the correct Hanbali (Athari) creed.

This position is totally incorrect as Allah (Most High) bears no resemblance to creation in any way whatsoever. 
If He bore resemblance to the creation, then He would be similar to them and contingent, and that is an impossibility. 
It is an impossibility because anyone that bears resemblance to creation and therefore is contingent, cannot be the Divine creator. Therefore God indwelling in any of His creation is a rational and textual impossibility.

The erroneous position you have described is in fact the position of Ibn Hazm and not the Hanbali (Athari) position. Ibn Hazm wrote in alFisal that if God had wanted to take a son, He would be able to do so!

This position of Ibn Hazm was refuted by Imam Sanusi and others.
This position is also incorrect because the divine power only relates to possibilities and not impossibilities.
Therefore, taking a son or indwelling in the creation, are rational impossibilities and do not fall under the divine power.

As for taking verses of Qur'an or Hadith, the outward meaning of which entails anthropomorphism, corporeality or resemblance, then this is not the Hanbali position. 
The Hanbali position is to recite such verses and hadith and leave the meaning to Allah (Most High).

There is a distinction between the Hanbali school and the Taymiyyah/Wahabi slant on the Hanbali school. 

The Wahabis, psuedo Salafism, and Taymiyyan interpretations do not represent the correct Hanbali positions. 

An example of correct Hanbali creed is the work 'Qalaid alIqyan' of Ibn Balban, for instance. 
The psuedo Atharis today are simply Wahabis and do not represent Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal anymore than the Twelvers represent Imam Jafar alSadiq.

The correct Sunni schools in creed are the Ash'aris, Maturidis and the Atharis (Hanbalis).
However, what you have described is not Athari but of a Taymiyyan origin, as Ibn Taymiyyah was heavily influenced by Ibn Hazm. In fact Ibn Taymiyyah had memorised the entire 'Muhalla' of Ibn Hazm and based many of his verdicts on it!


`Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa`id ibn Hazm, Abu Muhammad al-Farisi al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi al-Yazidi (d. 465 AH)

An example of Ibn Hazm's extreme positions is his declaration that any type of analogy (qiyas), or imitation (taqlid), or legislative opinion (ra'y) was outside the pale of Islam, a position in which he contravened the totality of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna.

An example of his positions is his explanation of the Prophet's -- Allah bless and greet him -- hadith: 
"Let no-one urinate in still, non-running water then use it to bathe."1

Ibn Hazm stated the following absurd inferences:

- The interdiction to bathe applied only to the one who urinated; thus, anyone other than him may use that water to bathe;
- It applied only if one urinated into the water. He and anyone else might therefore use the water to bathe if the urine reached the water indirectly, for example after falling on high or nearby ground first, or being poured in it from a container;
- It applied only if one urinated in it, not defecated in it.[2]

 Imam Al-Nawawi said of the above opinions: "All this which Ibn Hazm held is in contravention of the consensus of the scholars, and is the ugliest example of hardened literalism reported from him."[3]
[2]. Al-Khisal al-Hafiz li Jumal Shara'i` al-Islam in two volumes.
[3]. Al-Mujalla in two volumes.

In addition, Ibn Hazm in his books violated Islamic etiquette in his revilement of past scholars with whom he disagreed, to the extent that Abu al-`Abbas ibn al-`Arif compared his tongue to al-Hajjaj's sword. 
As a result some scholars had him exiled and his books burnt and condemned, while others considered them mines of "pearls mixed with trinkets" in al-Dhahabi's words.
He is known for his rabid enmity to Ash`aris whom he all but declares disbelievers in al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Nihal with statements such as: "This is the position of Jahm ibn Safwan, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari, and their followers."

Ibn al-Subki comments: "Ibn Hazm has no idea of al-Ash`ari's school and does not distinguish between it and the Jahmiyya," noting that the Maliki scholar Abu al-Walid al-Baji and others had Ibn Hazm expelled, and the Fisal declared forbidden reading, because of its attacks on the Imams of the Muslims.[4]  Ibn Taymiyya imitated Ibn Hazm in this.[5]

[4]. Al-Muhalla in eight volumes.
[5]. Hujja al-Wada` in one volume.

Dawud ibn ‘Ali ibn Khalaf Dhahiri of Isfahan (d. 270/883) and ‘Ali ibn Ahmad Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064) were not Hanbalis but Dhahiris.

Dawuud Al-Thaahiri (201-270 AH/ 816-884 AD) is generally regarded as the first literalist, as he denied analogical reasoning, but he was not a mushabbih, for the Shafi`i scholars generally respect him.

They know him best as he is considered to have been a student of Al-Shafiˆi or his direct students in the beginning.

The most famous representative of his school is Ibn Hazm of Spain, who was extreme in his literalist views to the extent that he saw a difference between urinating in water and urinating in a vessel and then pouring it into the water. *Yet his extreme literalism did not carry him to the extent of believing that Allah is physical.

He said, “…verily what is in a place will not be other than a body or an incidental characteristic in a body. Nothing else can be true, and neither the mind nor one’s imagination accepts anything else at all. So if Allah is not a body or an incidental characteristic of one, then it holds that He is not in a place at all. (Al-Fisal Fil-Milal 2/98)”


The Sources of Ibn Taymiyyah's Ideas!
Ibn Taymiyya
Guru of Anthropomorphism


(Edited by ADHM)