The Albaani Site

Translation from the Works of the Reviver of this Century

Category: Affairs of Creed [Aqeedah]

May 23, 2012

Did the Messengers or Prophets Fall Into Minor Sins?


 

Questioner: Did the Messengers fall into minor sins?

Al-Albaani: Before answering this question right away, [I’d like to say that] I believe it is a non-issue as they say today, because it is not connected to methodology or to the rectification of our aqidah or actions. It is only something connected to those Messengers or Prophets who preceded the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, so I do not hold that questions like this should be given much notice, but [having said that] we have to answer it to disclose the knowledge we have regarding this issue.

We believe that the unequivocal infallibility of the Prophets and Messenger is, firstly, regarding conveying the da’wah, and, secondly, from knowingly falling into major sins.

As for falling into minor sins which do not result in anything except [to show] an absence of absolute perfection then there is no harm in some of that occurring by the Prophets and Messengers–and this is so that it remains established in the hearts of the believers that absolute perfection is for Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds, Alone, Who has no partner.

And there are many parts and proofs in the Quraan establishing this reality concerning more than one Prophet or Messenger. [For example] the story of Aadam عليه السلام when the Lord of the Worlds prohibited him from eating from the tree, and His Saying, “And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred.” [Taa Haa 20:121], and the Noble Quraan saying concerning our Prophet عليه السلام, “He frowned and turned away,” [Abasa 80:1] “May Allaah pardon you, [O Muhammad]. Why did you give them permission [to remain behind]?” [Tawbah 9:43]. All of this proves that it is possible that a Prophet may be susceptible to minor sins which do not befit the rank of Prophethood–but are they blemished by that? The answer is no, because these are human traits.

[For example]: is a Prophet or Messenger criticised for being susceptible to that which people in general are susceptible to, like making an unintentional mistake or forgetting? We say no, there is nothing preventing the fact that a Messenger or Prophet may be susceptible to such things, because such things do not affect the station of da’wah which the Messengers were sent to all mankind with.

So his saying عليه السلام reported by the two Shaikhs from Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood, may Allaah be pleased with them both, [in which he stated that] the Prophet prayed five rak’ahs for the midday prayer, so when he gave salaam they said, ‘You prayed five,’ so he performed two prostrations of forgetfulness and then said عليه السلام, ‘I am only a man like you, I forget as you do, so when I forget, remind me.’ [Bukhari and Muslim]

So it does not harm the status of Prophethood or that of being a Messenger that something should transpire from them which had it not would have been more perfect–but absolute perfection is for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic.

It would be more perfect if the Messenger عليه السلام did not forget, but Allaah’s Wisdom necessitated that he did, but this forgetting does not affect the da’wah because he does not forget that which is connected to conveying the message [da’wah], and our Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, points to this reality by His Saying, the Most High, “We will make you recite and you will not forget, except what Allaah should will,” [A’laa 87:6-7] like [for example] an aayah which he had conveyed to the people which he might forget, i.e., he has conveyed the Message and fulfilled the trust [that was upon him] … it is possible that after performing this obligatory conveyance [of the Message] the Messenger عليه السلام may forget something which he had [previously] conveyed to them, as occurs in Sahih Bukhari where he entered the mosque one day and heard a person reciting the Quraan and so said, ‘May Allaah have mercy on so and so, he reminded me of an aayah I had been made to forget.’

So the Prophet’s forgetting عليه السلام an aayah like this does not harm that which is connected to conveying it–because he already has–and that is why that person was able to recite it, and when he did, the Messenger عليه السلام remembered it.

So such forgetfulness does not harm him.

Likewise, some of the Prophets and Messengers falling into some minor sins does not harm them, because it does not turn those who are being called away from their call in opposition to falling into major sins, and for this reason, they are too exalted from falling into major sins to the exclusion of minor sins.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 188.

Leave a comment
May 22, 2012

Can People See The Angels?


Questioner: Can people see the angels?

Al-Albaani: In the form Allaah created them in, no. In forms which they may imitate, then of course.

And Ai’ishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, and others saw Jibreel in the form of Dihyah al-Kalbi. As for seeing Jibreel in his original form, then that was not granted to anyone except the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 322.

2 Comments
May 13, 2012

Was al-Hajjaaj ibn Yusuf ath-Thaqafi a Kaafir?


Questioner: What is the correct view regarding al-Hajjaaj ibn Yusuf ath-Thaqafi?  Was he a kaafir?

Al-Albaani: Even though we attest to the fact that al-Hajjaaj was a profligate oppressor, we do not know that he denied anything known to necessarily be from the religion.  So it is not allowed to declare him to be a disbeliever based only on the fact that he was wicked, oppressed and killed innocent Muslims.

Fataawaa al-Madinah, 14.

Leave a comment
May 9, 2012

Is There a Difference Between Kufr [Disbelief] and Shirk [Polytheism]?


Al-Albaani: The reality is that the case with every beginner student of knowledge, and I was like that and probably still am, I used to read this hadith and it would be problematic, because in some narrations [there occurs], “There is nothing between a man and disbelief except abandoning the prayer. So whoever abandons the prayer has disbelieved,” and in some narrations, “… then he has committed shirk.”

Interjection: Subhaanallaahil-Adheem.

Al-Albaani: I used to ask how can he have committed shirk? Yaa akhi, this person who has left praying, especially the one who does so out of laziness, how has he committed shirk?

I used to think that maybe there was a mistake on behalf of the narrator [of the hadith], I was a student of knowledge, then later our Lord granted me success in understanding, even if it was when I was older alhamdulillaah, [he granted me success in understanding it] such that I recognized that legislatively, as opposed to linguistically, there is no difference between kufr and shirk.

So all kufr is shirk and all shirk is kufr there is no difference between them legislatively, linguistically there is, because in the language kufr means to cover. Shirk is to make something a partner of another, like the polytheists who make equals with Allaah.

But later I came to recognise that every unbeliever, even if he wasn’t a polytheist linguistically, he was in reality. No unbeliever is free from being anything but a polytheist [mushrik], our Lord said, “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire?” [Jaathiyah 45:23] He took as his god his own desires, so, everyone who follows his desires has made it a partner with Allaah, thus, any kufr–[for example] if someone were to reject a letter from the Noble Quraan it would mean that he has put his intellect in charge and has taken it as a god and it is from this angle that the shirk has come.

So, the one who said that all disbelief is polytheism and all polytheism is disbelief spoke truthfully, not like the one who says that not all kufr is shirk like you heard from at-Tahawi.

In reality this is knowledge which is very rare and is something through which many, many problems are resolved, from them being the verse, “Indeed, Allaah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” [Nisaa 4:48]

I read [a mention of] a problem about this verse in the Al-Manaar magazine which Sayyid Rashid Rida used to publish.  An objection came his way which stated that the meaning of the aayah is that these unbelieving Europeans who believe in ‘nature’, they call it nature, i.e., that this universe has a creator and who do not know any more than that, it is possible that Allaah will forgive them because they are not polytheists. And so Sayyid Rashid Rida at that time was not able to give an answer like this one which if he had known then would have been the conclusive judgement, [i.e., that] all kufr is shirk and all shirk is kufr.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 341.

1 Comment
May 7, 2012

Answering Those Who Accuse Ahlus-Sunnah of Having Irjaa


The PDF: Accusing Ahlus-Sunnah of Having Irjaa.

Questioner: Our Shaikh, some books have surfaced which talk about the issue of declaring others to be disbelievers [takfir], and they cite some proofs regarding the issue of eemaan with which they accuse the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah in this issue as being that of the Murji’ah, and they mention some statements of Ibn Abil-Izz and at-Tahaawi. So what is your response to this doubt [they raise]? May Allaah reward you with good.

Al-Albaani: Our answer is that firstly, the fundamental difference between the real Ahlus-Sunnah and the real Murji’ah is from two angles: that Ahlus-Sunnah believe that righteous actions are from eemaan, the Murji’ah do not believe that and openly state that eemaan is to acknowledge with the tongue and to attest to that with the heart–but that righteous actions are not from eemaan, and through that they reject many texts which, now at the very least, we are not in need of mentioning, unless compelled to.

This is the first point in which the Murji’ah oppose the real Ahlus-Sunnah.

The second point, which branches off from the first, is that Ahlus-Sunnah say that eemaan increases and decreases, [that] it increases through righteous action and decreases through disobedience. The Murji’ah deny this legislated reality and say that eemaan does not increase or decrease.

So the accusation of those people you alluded to [in your question]–and the responsibility is on the narrator [of correctly relaying what he is conveying, i.e., the answer I give is based on the question you ask]–the accusation of these present-day writers saying that Ahlus-Sunnah are Murji’ah in the issue of eemaan shows one of two things, and even the better of the two choices is bitter: either that they are ignorant of this reality, or that they are wilfully ignoring it. How can they accuse people who say that eemaan includes righteous actions and that it increases and decreases–how can they accuse them of being Murji’ah?

And the Murji’ah oppose these people [i.e., Ahlus-Sunnah] from the very root, saying that eemaan does not include righteous actions and does not accept any increase or decrease to such an extent that one of their heads used to say, ‘My eemaan is like that of Jibreel,’ عليه السلام, and he might truly believe that, but he has not been truthful with the text of the Book of his Lord by saying, ‘My eemaan is like that of Jibreel,’ because he believes that eemaan has no connection to prayer, worship and piety and that it is just eemaan, and that this eemaan which is just belief does not increase or decrease since if it did decrease below [the level] of certainty [it would mean that] doubt and uncertainty would enter it and then at that stage it would not benefit.

But eemaan does not accept rigidity … like [for example] this light, like this place, every time the light spreads in it the place expands and expands endlessly.

So the accusation of these people against Ahlus-Sunnnah … these people who make these accusations [against Ahlus-Sunnah] and who appear to follow the Khawaarij, [the Khawaarij being] those who make statements like this and who declare people who commit major sins to be disbelievers and who oppose many, very many texts from the Book and the Sunnah in that–how strange it is that they accuse the multitudes of Muslims from the Companions and those who followed them and those who followed them, people whom Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه سلم testified to as being the best of generations, [how strange it is that they] accuse them of being Murji’ah, and by doing so oppose the great multitude of texts from the Book and the Sunnah.

And in my opinion, answering this fabrication does not require more elaboration than what I’ve just mentioned, and maybe in this much there is sufficiency, inshaa Allaah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 764.

Leave a comment
May 1, 2012

Is a Person who Commites Suicide a Kaafir?


Questioner: His saying عليه الصلاة والسلام as occurs in Sahih Muslim, “Whoever kills himself with a piece of iron will have that iron in his hand, thrusting it into his belly in the Fire of Hell forever and ever,” the hadith. What kind of eternization is it? And does it necessitate disbelief?

Al-Albaani: Yes, what is apparent from the hadith is that it is talking about someone who holds suicide to be permissible, such a person will be in it forever and ever as is described in the hadith.

And we hold disbelief to be of two types as the people of knowledge and verification say: kufr in belief and kufr in actions. So whoever performs an act of the unbelievers and acknowledges the mistake of that action, he believed that he made a mistake in following the Legislation but his desires overcame him and the soul which is a persistent enjoiner of evil overcame him–then his disbelief is in action. As for if he coupled that with holding it to be permissible in his heart then that is kufr in belief and with that a Muslim leaves the religion.

So [a hadith] like this is taken to refer to the one whose kufr was in belief, because no one except an unbelieving polytheist who associates partners with Allaah تبارك وتعالى will abide in the Fire forever.

Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, where do we take the fact about holding it to be permissible, that when he holds it to be permissible … from the apparent meaning of the hadith?

Al-Albaani: From the noble verse, “Indeed, Allaah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills,” [Nisaa 4:48] and from the description of this punishment, because no-one who has a speck of faith will abide in the Fire forever.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 300.

Leave a comment
April 28, 2012

Does Talking About Allaah’s Names and Attributes Cause The Common Folk to Doubt?


Questioner: May Allaah reward you with good. Regarding mentioning [Allaah’s] Names and Attributes, some people say that the callers to Allaah must not speak about this issue in front of the common masses and riffraff, because delving into such things leads to placing doubt in them, so how true is this statement?

Al-Albaani: We say to these people: then you [find and] speak about something in front of the common folk which is better than that, you speak about something which is better than that.

And if talking about that does not impress you then you have to speak about something which does other than that, and if you can’t [find something better than Allaah’s Names and Attributes to talk about]–and you won’t be able to–then you will hear what will not please you and this is the thing that doesn’t please you, [but] what is important is that it pleases your Lord. And this is what has reached us from the Salaf’s knowledge and what we hold as religion before Allaah.

And the common folk, as I said to you just now, are upon the natural inborn inclination [that Allaah created man on, al-fitrah], when it is said to them that, ‘[Allaah is] not above, and not below …’ [as the deviant sects say when explaining Allaah’s Names and Attributes] their hearts disapprove of that, but when it is said to them that, ‘Allaah is above all of His creation and there is no created thing above Him,’ [as is the aqidah of the Salaf], then this is what goes with the sound inborn inclination [that Allaah created them on], “… the fitrah of Allaah which He has created [all] people upon.” [Rum 30:30].

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 314.

Leave a comment
April 25, 2012

The Shaikh’s Precision in Correcting the Questioner’s Question | Praying Behind Someone who May Reject Some Hadith and Being Careful of Takfir


Questioner: Praying behind Imaams who display polytheistic innovations, in Libya there are many ignorant Imaams, and some of them, even the students amongst them … but they have polytheistic innovations, and some of them reject some aayahs or some hadith.

Al-Albaani: Reject some aayahs?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: How is that?

Questioner: For example, he rejects the night-journey [al-Israa], the story of the night-journey, he rejects it from its very foundation.

Al-Albaani: Don’t say that.

Questioner: This is present amongst us.

Al-Albaani: ‘Slow down! Slow down!’ as the Turks say [Trans. note: the Shaikh used a Turkish expression here for, ‘Slow down!’: ‘Yavaş! Yavaş!’].

You shouldn’t attribute to a Muslim that he rejects the night-journey, because what comes to mind from this … especially when I think you said, ‘some Quranic aayahs,’ then this is a mistake.

You want to say that he rejects some of the meanings of some Quranic aayahs, or are you insisting on your initial statement?

Questioner: Some of them reject ya’ni, the meaning of the exegesis [tafseer] of the aayah for example.

Al-Albaani: You’ve come to what I was saying, you’ve come to what I was saying … stay with me, stay with me it’s better for you: you want to say that they reject some of the meanings of some aayahs.

For you to say that some of them reject aayahs or some aayahs is a mistake, because the result will be very dangerous and there is a big difference between someone who misinterprets an aayah taking it away from its apparent meaning but who still believes that it was sent down from the sky, such a person is a misguided Muslim … [and between] the one who rejects the aayah from its very foundation, for he is a kaafir who has apostatized from his religion.

So I think that you mean some of those who misinterpret, some contemporaries who believe that the Prophet was taken on his night-journey in soul and not with his body, this is what you mean when you say, ‘They reject?’

Questioner: Yes, but some of them reject the hadiths from their very foundation.

Al-Albaani: I’m talking about the aayah.

Questioner: Yes, this is about the aayah, yes.

Al-Albaani: So, they believe in the aayah about the night-journey but they reject its meaning. What do they say about its meaning, how do they interpret it?

Questioner: That he was not taken on the night-journey, some of them reject that he was taken on the night-journey.

Al-Albaani: What do they say about the aayah? So long as they believe in the ayaah [they must have an interpretation for it]. What is the meaning they believe in concerning this aayah? Is it the meaning I mentioned to you?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: That he was taken on his night-journey in soul only [and not bodily].

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Or do they have something else [they interpret it with] which we don’t know?

Questioner: That is what they say.

Al-Albaani: Okay, so, I repeat that it is not permissible to say about these people that they reject the aayah of the night-journey. We correct our expression concerning them and say that they reject the correct meaning of this aayah, correct?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: After this you can go back [to mentioning your other point] that they reject hadiths.

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: These people who reject the hadiths are in one of two states. They either reject the hadiths as the second reference after the Noble Quraan … an absolute rejection of hadith, such people are not Muslims, and I do not think that you mean this regarding the people you asked about? Is that right?

Questioner: They reject …

Al-Albaani: Is that right?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: I’m putting you at ease, why do you want to give a lecture for your answer? [I asked you], ‘Is that so?’ Say, ‘Yes,’ or ‘No.’ Say what you want, what you believe …

I think that you do not want to say about these people that they reject all hadith?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: So they reject some hadith?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: From them are the hadith of the night-journey and ascension, correct?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: Okay.

What is the difference between rejecting all hadiths and rejecting part of them?

Rejecting all hadiths necessitates a rejection of the Quranic texts and I think this does not require any further elucidation, for this reason, whoever rejects the Sunnah is not a Muslim, because he does not believe in the Quraan, ‘And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it …’ [Al-Hashr:7] to the end of the aayah.

As for those people who reject some of the hadiths and this was present in the past and now … nowadays one of those who attributes himself to Ahlus-Sunnah and who has become famous for rejecting many authentic Prophetic hadiths is the Egyptian, Azhari Shaikh, Muhammad al-Ghazaali.

He does not reject the Sunnah [as a whole], he does not reject hadiths from their very foundation as far as is apparent and Allaah is his Judge, but he rejects many hadiths.

It is not allowed to declare him to be a disbeliever because he never rejected the Sunnah from its foundation, but without doubt, he is not upon guidance from his Lord when he rejected many authentic hadiths which the Ummah has met with acceptance, so he is in manifest misguidance in this regard.

And there is no doubt that when people like him fall into such misguidance he will have many followers in [differing] countries, and I think he used to be a teacher where you are or with some of your neighbour[ing countries], so his infection spread to those near him. So our stance regarding these people is that we advise them and argue with them in a manner that is best.

After we have fulfilled the obligation of advising, directing and educating and they still persist in their clear misguidance we describe them as being misguided and do not increase upon that, i.e., we do not declare them to be disbelievers.

Based upon this we go back to the answer [to your question]: is the prayer behind them correct or null and void?

The answer is that the prayer is correct because we pray behind every righteous or wicked Muslim so long as he is still in the fold of Islaam however far from us he may be in ideology or creed [and so long as] he has not opposed a text which the Muslims are united upon.

So if there is a text and they do not interpret it in a new way but with something which was well-known from some people in the past and the Muslims [who were correct in those times] did not declare them to be disbelievers because the issue may have the possibility of being interpreted in that way, and with the possibility [of it being interpreted that way] the deduction ceases to be valid … then we cannot declare this type from the Ummah to be disbelievers.

And so long as the issue is like that, then prayer behind them is correct–but naturally we advise the one who finds an Imaam better in aqidah and behaviour than this one, not to pray behind that [deviated] Imaam.

Questioner: Okay, the other type who has some shirk for example in Uluhiyyah, he worships or visits the graves and seeks blessings from them and so on?

Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that this is a type of shirk, but declaring them to be disbelievers does not happen until after the proof has been established.

So for example when you see an Imaam who does not believe in Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah [correctly], worshipping others along with Allaah by calling on other than Allaah for example at times of difficulty and taking an oath and sacrificing for other than Allaah the Mighty and Majestic at times of celebration–there is no doubt that this is disbelief, but we can’t say that he is a disbeliever except after making him understand especially if he is a foreigner [i.e., not an Arabic speaker].

Because [look at] our problem today with the Arabs who are supposed to understand the Quraan as the One who sent it down from the sky intended it to be, [and know] what do you think the case will be with non-Arabic speakers? What about those from the Arabs who became foreigners [and now don’t speak Arabic]?! They are like the foreigners who do not understand the Quraan.

Thus, before rushing to declare them to be disbelievers and emitting them from the fold of their religion, it is obligatory to establish the proof against them.

If they renounce it, then the Saying of our Lord the Blessed and Most High is true concerning them, “And they rejected them, while their [inner] selves were convinced thereof …” [Naml 27:14] [it is] then that we emit them from the fold of Islaam and care not.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 547.

Leave a comment
April 18, 2012

When Can You Exclude Someone from Ahlus-Sunnah or Call Him an Innovator? | End | Someone Who Sincerely Seeks the Truth But Then is Mistaken, Even in Aqidah or Usool, is Excused and Receives One Reward


Continuing from the first post.

Questioner: Yes, we said, ‘When is a man excluded from Ahlus-Sunnah? Is it when he believes in a creed other than theirs? And if he falls into some opposition to what Ahlus-Sunnah were upon even if it is only in one subsidiary issue, is he called an innovator?

Al-Albaani: This is an important question. It is possible to understand its answer in light of the answer to the previous question. So we say:

If he sought the truth and that which was correct but missed it then it is not permissible to say that, ‘He is not from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah,’ just because he fell into a mistake even if we were to say that he fell into innovation, as occurs in your question.

Many, as the students of knowledge will know let alone the people of knowledge, many scholars fell into that which was haraam, but did they wilfully intend it? Far be it! So are they sinful in that? The answer is: no.

Thus, there is no difference between a scholar who falls into declaring halaal something which Allaah has made haraam and for which he is [still] rewarded [one time] and between another scholar who fell into an innovation unintentionally, he was aiming for the Sunnah but missed it, there is no difference between these two.

For this reason, we complain now about this new revolution which has erupted in Saudi between Ahlus-Sunnah themselves, whereby those whom it is thought have opposed Ahlus-Sunnah in some issues have appeared and so they [i.e., other people] declared them to be innovators and excluded them from Ahlus-Sunnah. It would have been enough for them to have said, ‘He is mistaken,’ firstly, then it was upon them to establish the proof from the Book and the Sunnah and what the Salaf as-Saalih were upon, secondly.

As for increasing the disunity with even more splitting and differences, then this is not from the practice of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, ever.

For this reason, it is not permissible to throw out someone who may have made a mistake in an issue, in accordance with the detail [I] previously mentioned: no matter whether that mistake was in the fundamentals [usool], or the subsidiary issues [furoo], or in aqidah or in fiqh–it is not permissible to declare him to be misguided, but rather he should be dealt with in a manner that is best.

What else?

Questioner: And if the Ahlus-Sunnah are able to bring that person and establish the proof against him in that which he has opposed the manhaj of Ahlus-Sunnah in, and despite that he still refuses to return to what they are upon, is he [then] declared to be an innovator or not?

Al-Albaani: The answer to this is also understood. If he stubbornly resists and persists then he is declared to be an innovator.

But if he says, ‘I do not see the correct stance to be in what you are saying,’’ in fact, he flips it back on them and in turn says that they are mistaken, then the issue remains one of a difference between him and them and it is not fitting that we believe that we know that in his heart he [really] believes the opposite of what he disclosed on his tongue and that he is thus a hypocrite.

We are not, as the Prophet عليه السلام indicated in the authentic hadith, ‘Why didn’t you split his heart open?’ [in the story] where that polytheist had fallen under the sword of a Muslim and so said, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah,’ so he didn’t pay any attention to it and killed him, and the story is well-known, so he عليه السلام said, ‘Where were you in relation to the statement, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah?’

He said, ‘He only said it out of deception and the fear of being killed.’ So he عليه السلام said, ‘Why didn’t you split his heart open?’

And that person was a mushrik, and what is apparent makes one feel no doubt that he said it out of the fear of being killed, so [then] what is the matter with us regarding a Muslim who testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His Messenger and he stands by the Book and the Sunnah and the manhaj of the Salaf as-Saalih but who made a mistake in an issue and the proof was [then] established against him–and we say this [i.e., we say that the proof was established against him] with some reservation, because not everyone who argues is upon knowledge, but we will assume [in this example] that the proof really was established against him by a noble scholar or scholars, but he [still] was not convinced—then Allaah is the one who will judge him, and it is not permissible for us to give precedence to a mistake or mistakes [made by that person] over a multitude of that which [he] is correct [in].

The issue in this knowledge-based matter is exactly like that which is connected to righteousness or wickedness: it is not possible for a Muslim not to fall into some opposition to the Sharee’ah, i.e., he will definitely commit a sin or make a mistake, and each one of us errs as we all know. So, when we see a person has made a certain mistake or committed a certain sin, do we say that, ‘He is a disobedient sinner [faasiq],’ do we say that, ‘He is a criminal [faajir]?’ Or do we go by what is predominate? [We go] by that which is predominate—likewise the knowledge-based issue [we are discussing] is the same [i.e., just as you can’t call someone who falls into a sin a faasiq or a faajir you similarly cannot call someone an innovator based upon one mistake].

Questioner: The Shaikh of Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah], may Allaah the Most High have mercy on him, mentioned in [his book], Iqtidaa as-Siraatal-Mustaqeem fee Mukhaalafati Ahlil-Jaheem that a man might attend an occasion like the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday or another such innovation and be rewarded for it due to his good intention and his lack of knowledge about the fact that the occasion he attended is something in opposition to what has come from Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, what do you say about that?

Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that this speech is that of a man who is a scholar, and it is enough for you that the one who said it is the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, he says, ‘… and he doesn’t know,’ so do we say, ‘He has to know everything?’ [i.e., do we expect a person to know absolutely everything such that he will never make a mistake?]

But I will say something else: it is permissible for a Muslim to attend a place like these [where such things are happening], and which he knows are newly-invented matters and are not legislated, not doing so to flatter [those who are performing that innovation] and nor to be seen [out of hypocrisy] but in order to inform [the people] about its lack of being something legislated.

Or if he is not able to … or the general situation does not enable him to renounce the origin/basis of this innovation, then he renounces that which may occur in that matter, which, if he does renounce, will not lead to a harm that is greater than the good which he is informing and reminding the people about.

And this, of course, is according to the well-known fiqh principle with the people of knowledge that bringing about the good takes precedence over repelling the harm and the opposite is true totally when the harm which is assumed will take place, is more than the benefit which he seeks … and we know that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to attend the meeting places of the polytheists, and there is no doubt that much, very much wrongdoing would occur there … and which one of us doesn’t know that when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم was praying in the Masjid al-Haraam he used to be harmed and amnion and dust and unclean things would be placed on his back صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, whilst he was praying, but he would attend the[ir] gatherings in order to perform the obligatory duty of calling them to tawheed as is known from his biography عليه الصلاة والسلام.

But in addition to this when Allaah gave him the conquest of Makkah and he entered and prayed inside the Ka’bah and Aai’ishah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with her wanted to follow the example of her Prophet and husband by praying inside the Ka’bah [too], he عليه السلام said to her, ‘Pray in the hijr [the area at the side of the Ka’bah within the semi-circular wall], for it is from the Ka’bah and when your people’s funds ran short they removed the hijr from the Ka’bah,’ he said عليه السلام and here is the point we are proving, ‘Were it not for the fact that your people just left shirk I would have demolished the Ka’bah and built it upon Ibrahim’s foundation عليه السلام and would have made two doors for it on the ground. A door for them to enter from and a door for them to exit from.’

So, he عليه السلام left the Ka’bah with the deficiency that the Arabs rebuilt it upon in the Days of Ignorance, why? He said, ‘Were it not for the fact that your people just left shirk I would have demolished the Ka’bah …’ he feared عليه الصلاة والسلام that when those who had just recently embraced Islaam would see the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام demolishing the Ka’bah [they would have said], ‘He never left anything of ours, he even demolished Allaah’s Forbidden Sanctuary!’ So the Prophet عليه السلام established as a Sunnah the wisdom behind enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with such good words.

So if a man attended an event or place where there were wrong acts and newly-invented affairs in order to rectify them then he is rewarded for that, but if he does not know that it is a wrongful act or a newly-invented matter then there is nothing against him, [the affair rests upon] him and his intention, as the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy on him, said.

I think you have obtained your answer, and more.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 734.

1 Comment
April 18, 2012

When Can You Exclude Someone from Ahlus-Sunnah or Call Him an Innovator? | 1 | Someone Who Sincerely Seeks the Truth But Then is Mistaken, Even in Aqidah or Usool, is Excused and Receives One Reward


This sitting was concluded on the 22nd of Dhul-Qa’dah 1413 which corresponds to 12th May 1993.

Questioner: All praise is due to Allaah, Lord of the Worlds, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah, his family, Companions and whoever followed him in good until the Day of Judgement.

Your eminence, Shaikh, may Allaah reward you with good. I have some issues which I and others from the people of Medinah have found to be problematic, if you could please and with thanks from us, may Allaah reward you with good, give us an answer, in the detail that we [have come to] expect from you.

From these issues is [the question]: when is a person emitted from Ahlus-Sunnah? Is it when he believes as creed something different to their creed? And when he does fall into things which oppose the Ahlus-Sunnah, is it allowed to declare him to be an innovator straight away or after establishing the proof against him? And if it is not easy to establish the proof against him, either due to the death of that person or because of it being such a long time ago, or because it is [just] not possible to meet him in order to establish the proof against him [what do we do?].

So advise us [of the answer], and we thank you [for that].

Al-Albaani: Your question, may Allaah bless you, contains many [different] questions. If you would split between one question and the next, or put the paper in front of me so I can give you the answers to these parts which make up that one question.

Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, I will repeat it point by point.

Al-Albaani: Point by point.

Questioner: Okay.

Al-Albaani: The first question?

Questioner: The first question: when is a person emitted from Ahlus-Sunnah, is it when he believes a creed other than their creed or when he falls into a few things which oppose their creed?

Al-Albaani: Yes. I say, and I ask Allaah the Mighty and Majestic for success in being correct in what I say:

It has become common amongst the scholars of the past and those of today that when a Muslim makes a mistake in what the scholars call the subsidiary issues [furoo] he is excused, but that if he makes a mistake in the fundamentals [usool], in aqidah, he is not—we believe that, firstly, this differentiation does not have any proof in the Legislation, and that secondly, it is obligatory upon a Muslim to, always and forever, seek to know the truth in that which the people have differed, whether that is connected to the fundamentals or the subsidiary issues or in aqidah or in the ahkaam.

So if he expends all his effort to come to know the truth in that which the people have differed and is correct then he has two rewards and if he is mistaken then he has one, as is well-known from the hadith of the Prophet reported in the Sahih, “If a judge passes judgment and makes Ijtihad and he is right then he will have two rewards.  And if he makes a mistake he will have one,” this is the basis/foundation.

Secondly, if a Muslim was eager in wanting to know the truth yet made a mistake, even if it is in aqidah or the fundamentals, then, firstly, he is not held to account for that—rather he is rewarded one time for his mistake, and secondly, due to what was previously mentioned [just above].

This is confirmed by the saying of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم which occurs in the Saheeh from the hadith of Hudhaifah ibn al-Yamaan and other noble Companions, [where they reported] that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said, “Amongst the people preceding your age, there was a man who had never done any good. While he was on his death-bed, he called his sons and said, ‘What type of father have I been to you?’ They replied, ‘You have been a good father.’ He said, ‘I have sinned against my Lord and if Allaah has power over me, He will punish me severely. So when I die, burn me and scatter half of the resulting ashes in the sea and half in the wind.’ His sons did accordingly, but Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said, ‘Be so and so,’ and so he became a fully formed man. Then He said to him, ‘What made you do so?’ He replied, ‘Fear of you.’ So Allaah said, ‘I have forgiven you.’”

So Allaah the Mighty and Majestic forgave this person even though he had fallen into disbelief and shirk, [and he fell into this disbelief and shirk] through this will of his, which may not, amongst all of the wills that we have known or come across, have an equivalent in terms of its injustice and oppression. [But] Allaah did not take him to account, in fact He forgave him, because He knew that he didn’t leave that unjust will except out of [his] fear of Him.

Thus, the Muslim … [and] now comes the summary of the answer … when a Muslim seeks Allaah the Mighty and Majestic’s Face in all that he holds as religion before Him and takes as creed concerning Him, but then misses the truth, then there is no doubt that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic will forgive his mistake—in fact he will be rewarded for it one time.

This is what we hold as religion before Allaah and this is the fatwa we give–always and forever.

And the summary of that is: that it [i.e., believing otherwise] is in opposition to the foundation and principle that Allaah does not hold a person to be accountable for what he is mistaken in but only for that which he wilfully intended, and secondly, due to [the reasons given when explaining] this authentic hadith [mentioned above].

What’s next?

Questioner: Next is that the Shaikh of Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah] may Allaah have mercy on him, mentioned in [his book], Al-Iqtidaa, he mentioned that a man may be rewarded for his presence at the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday or for an innovation depending on his purpose and intention, what do you say about that?

Al-Albaani: This is not a question … this wasn’t read out just now, you read a question which included many others.

Questioner: Yes …

Al-Albaani:So maybe you have taken a leap like that of a gazelle!

Questioner: Yes, I leapt.

Al-Albaani: Why did you jump?

Someone else: Go back to the first.

Questioner: Shall we go back to the first?

Al-Albaani: We said that your first question was composed of [many different] questions, so just now you repeated the first part of it and I gave you the answer, because you based many questions upon the first which was whether he leaves the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah …

Questioner: Okay.

Al-Albaani: Yes?

Questioner: Now … would you like me to …

Al-Albaani: Ya’ni, there are things you jumped over …

Questioner: Yes, O Shaikh.

Al-Albaani: I don’t know, maybe if you are not in need of them then that is up to you, but I feel as though you are in need of the rest of the answers.

Questioner: Yes, we said, ‘When is a man …

3 Comments
April 6, 2012

Is There an Established Date for the Israa and Mi’raaj?


 

Questioner: Do you recall anything concerning the likely date of the Prophet’s night-journey [Israa] and his ascension [mi’raaj]?

Al-Albaani: There is nothing established concerning it.

Questioner: There’s nothing established until now?

Al-Albaani: Not at all.

Questioner: And the hadith which says that it was on the 18th of Rabee’ul-Awwal, what is its grading?

Al-Albaani: It’s a mu’addal narration.

Questioner: ‘Mu’addal’ meaning weak [da’eef]?

Al-Albaani: Yes.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 594.

1 Comment
February 16, 2012

The Difference Between Inspiration [Ilhaam] and Revelation [Wahy]


From Jaabir, may Allaah be pleased with him, who said, “When the time of the Battle of Uhud approached, my father called me at night and said, “I think that I will be the first amongst the Companions of the Prophet to be martyred. I do not leave anyone after me dearer to me than you, except Allah’s Apostle’s soul and I owe some debt and you should repay it and treat your sisters favourably (nicely and politely).” So in the morning he was the first to be martyred and was buried along with another (martyr).” [Bukhaari]

Shaikh al-Albaani said, “It should be known that this is not to be considered as having knowledge of the Unseen, for no-one except Allaah knows the Unseen, and nor is it from the category of Allaah showing His servants some of the Unseen as many ignorant people think it is, for Allaah the Most High said, “[He is] Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His [knowledge of the] unseen to anyone except a Messenger He has approved of.” [Jinn 72:26-27] [i.e., Jaabir’s father was a Companion not a Messenger]

Rather [this incident] comes under the category of truthful inspiration [al-Ilhaam as-Saadiq], and the difference between it and revelation [wahy] is that inspiration [al-Ilhaam] is not safe from error or the fact that it may not materialise, unlike revelation [wahy] which is always infallible.”

Tahqiq Mishkaah al-Masaabih, 3/1674.

1 Comment
February 5, 2012

When he comes, Imaam Mahdi will not be able to do More than what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did


Shaikh al-Albaani said, “O my brother Muslim, know that many of the Muslims today have strayed from the truth in this issue. From them are those who hold it to be a settled fact that an Islamic state will not be established except with the emergence of the Mahdi! And this is a myth and is misguidance which the devil throws into the hearts of many of the masses, especially the Sufis among them–and there is nothing in the hadiths of the Mahdi which indicates that at all.

Rather, all of those hadiths do not go beyond the fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gave glad tidings to the Muslims of [the coming of] a man from his household, and he described him with outstanding characteristics, the most important of them being the fact that he will judge by Islaam and spread justice amongst mankind.

So in reality, he is one of the revivers which Allaah sends at the head of every one hundred years, as is authentically reported from him صلى الله عليه وسلم. So just as that [i.e., the emergence of a reviver at the head of every one hundred years] does not necessitate the abandonment of striving to seek knowledge and acting upon it to revive the religion, then likewise, the emergence of the Mahdi does not mean relying totally on him [tawaakul] without making preparations and without taking steps to establish Allaah’s rule on earth.

Rather the opposite of that is correct. For indeed the Mahdi’s efforts will not be greater than those of our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم who spent twenty-three years working to establish the foundations of Islaam and its state–so what can the Mahdi possible do if he emerged today and found the Muslims split into sects and groups, and [found] their [bad] scholars, except for a few of [the good ones among] them, to have been taken as heads by the people! He would not be able to establish the nation state of Islaam except after uniting their word and uniting their ranks, under one banner, and this without doubt requires a long time which Allaah knows best as to just how long.

So both the Legislation and the intellect demand that the sincere Muslims carry out this obligation such that when the Mahdi does come, he will not be required except to lead them to victory and if he doesn’t come [in their time, then at the very least] they will have fulfilled what was obligatory upon them, and Allaah says, “And say, ‘Do [as you will], for Allaah will see your deeds, and [so will] His Messenger …’”” [Tawbah 9:105]

As-Saheehah, 4/42-43.

Leave a comment
February 4, 2012

How Many Pairs of Scales Will There Be on the Day of Judgement?


 

Questioner: The Most High said, “And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection,” [Anbiyaa 21:47], so will the scales on the Day of Resurrection be a single pair or a number of scales?

Al-Albaani: There is no doubt that it is not allowed to alter or replace the wording of the Quraan. So as long as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has used the word, ‘[pairs of] scales’ then it is ‘[pairs of] scales,’ [i.e., as opposed to a single pair of scales].

And there is nothing stopping these pairs of scales being different as we know they are from the Unseen, and it is not fitting that we picture them to be a specific pair of scales, how can we when the scales found in this world now have become numerous and of many variations. So it is all the more so that on the Day of Resurrection there will be multiple/various pairs of scales.

So as long as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic has mentioned scales in the plural form in such Quranic wording, I hold it to be a denial of the [correct] meaning for [the term] ‘pairs of scales’ to be explained to mean ‘a pair of scales,’ and this is not from the way of the Salaf.

Fataawaa Jeddah, 36.

Leave a comment
February 3, 2012

Are There People in Paradise or the Fire Now?


 

Questioner: O Utsaadh! Are there people who have now entered Paradise or people who have entered the Fire? Like the aayah in Surah Yaa Seen, “It was said to him, ‘Enter Paradise.’” [Yaa Seen 36:26]

Al-Albaani: This is about what will be. As for now, there is nothing but the life of al-Barzakh. Entering Paradise or the Fire is appointed at the Reckoning … [at] the resurrection on the Day of Resurrection.

Questioner: Even the martyrs and Prophets?

Al-Albaani: All of them. But their souls are in a specific state of bliss as he عليه السلام said, “The souls of the martyrs are in the crops of green birds, eating from the fruits of Paradise,” and likewise, “The souls of the believers are in the bellies of green birds, eating from the fruits of Paradise.” So this bliss is that of the souls, as for the bliss of the body and soul together and likewise the torment [of them both together], that will not be except after the resurrection.

Questioner: Okay, O Ustaadh! What we understood, according to our intellect, is that when a person is living, his soul and body are interconnected …, when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic says, “Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive …” [Aali-Imraan 3:169] what I mean is [i.e., what I understand from the aayah is], ‘Nay, they are alive …’ i.e., alive as in the soul is in the body, connected.

Al-Albaani: This is something well-known which does not need to be asked about, the Prophet explained it for you and gave you the answer and I mentioned it to you earlier … the souls of the martyrs are in the crops of green birds, what does this mean? That firstly, the life of a martyr is commensurate with his rank before Allaah and, secondly, [at the same time it is also commensurate] with his existence in barzakh.

Life differs.  Life in Barzakh differs from life in this world, and life in the Hereafter differs from both of those forms of life together, life in the Hereafter is different from life in al-Barzakh and life in this world too.

For this reason it is not permissible for a person to employ analogical reasoning [qiyas] … making an analogy of that which is Unseen based upon that which is, such that you say, ‘We don’t know life except in this manner!’

Don’t use this life which you are familiar with to make an analogy of that life which you are not acquainted with; especially when some texts have been related which totally clarify for you the fact that the life of martyrs which our Lord the Mighty and Majestic affirmed in the Quraan, saying, “Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, receiving provision …” … what is their provision?

It is not [various] dishes like those we have, their provision is that they eat by way of what that green bird eats, this is the provision [being referred to], the hadith explains the Quraan.

Questioner: When the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام saw Paradise and the Fire and found those who were being punished therein and those who were in bliss, how is that then?

Al-Albaani: Yes, the [differing] states that the Companions of Paradise and those of the Fire will be in [i.e., after Barzakh, on the Day of Judegement] was unveiled to him–this is the true unveiling [kashf] which the Sufis have stolen and attributed to themselves; it [i.e., such kashf] is only for the Prophets and Messengers.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 28.

The video:

3 Comments
February 2, 2012

Is Paradise Forbidden for a Child born of Fornication?


Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “No one who is disobedient to his parents, no one who reminds others of his favours, no drunkard, and no fornicator [lit: ‘son of fornication’] will enter Paradise.” Reported by Nisaa’i and others.

The Imaam said, “His saying, ‘… and no son of fornication will enter Paradise …’ is not to be taken upon its apparent meaning, rather what is meant is the person who fornicates such that it becomes his overwhelming characteristic, and so as a result of that he deserves to be attributed to it, and thus it is said of him, ‘He is the son of fornication,’ just as those who are addicted/love the dunyaa are attributed to it, it being said of them, ‘Sons of the world,’ due to their knowledge and their addiction/love of it, and just as the traveller is called, ‘Son of the road,’ [cf: Surah Baqarah 2:177, ‘ابن السبيل’].

So, ‘the son of fornication,’ is like these expressions, it is said of the one who is given to fornication such that its habituality has become attributed to him, and fornication has become his overwhelming characteristic, such a person is the one referred to in his saying, ‘… and no son of fornication will enter Paradise …’

The child who is born out of fornication and who himself is not a fornicator is not what is meant here … and I benefitted by acquiring this meaning from the speech of Ibn Ja’far at-Tahaawi, may Allaah have mercy on him, and his explanation of this hadith.

And Allaah knows best.

As-Saheehah, 2/280-283.

12 Comments
January 31, 2012

Al-Albaani and the False Prophet


The Shaikh said, “Not too long ago I had a meeting with a man who claimed that he was the Mahdi. So we met and I put this frank question to him:

“Are you the Mahdi meaning a Muslim who is rightly guided, a righteous Muslim, or are you ‘the’ Mahdi about whose arrival we have been given glad tidings?”

He said, “No. I am the Mahdi about whose coming glad tidings have been mentioned in the hadiths.” Then he started to speak.

I wanted to know how best to tackle him, so I listened to him and then he said, “Some of the hadiths regarding the Mahdi are authentic and others are weak.” This was sound.

After he finished, I said, “Can I ask you a question?”

He said, “Please do [tafaddal].”

I said, “If you could please give us some of the authentic and weak hadiths you just alluded to.”

So the miskeen was at his wit’s end and did not know what to say. He twisted and turned, saying what he had said before, until finally he said, “Tonight, I will not speak about these hadiths.”

Interjector: Allaahu Akbar!

Al-Albaani: He didn’t want to speak. So I said, “Why? Do you think this discussion is going to be according to how you want it? I asked you a question, you have to answer. You claim to be the Mahdi … the one who is a guide for the people, amongst the people are scholars and ignorant folk, righteous people and sinners–the real [Imaam] Mahdi is supposed to bear [the responsibility of guiding] the people not the other way round, with the people bearing [the responsibility of guiding] him. Because the Mahdi is all good, he is full of knowledge and so on. For this reason, I ask that you present us with some of the authentic and weak hadiths [that you alluded to].”

He said, “Tomorrow, I will bring them.”

I said, “No. I will not continue until tomorrow, and who can guarantee for himself that he will live until tomorrow?”

[Again] he started to go this way and that.

At the end I said to him, “Okay! We will give up half of the request but not the other. I asked you to bring some authentic and weak hadiths, I will let you off regarding the weak: bring some of the authentic ones.”

But he had nothing, and if he had mentioned any, they would obviously have been a proof against him. He was a man from whose appearance you wouldn’t judge him to be a Muslim: clean-shaven, head uncovered, obese, and he couldn’t recite an aayah correctly as it had been revealed by Allaah.

And the strange thing was that this miskeen thought that he was a Messenger from Allaah.

Interjector: His brother followed him.

Al-Albaani: Sorry?

Interjector: The person who followed him was his brother.

Al-Albaani: Right, his brother followed him. So he said that he was a messenger from Allaah but not a prophet. Look at the miguidance?! He had made a plan so that he could deceive the people: you know the clear hadiths, “There is no prophet after me …” but because of his ignorance it seems as though he did not picture there to be a hadith which says, “There is no messenger after me,” and that is why he claimed to be a messenger but not a prophet.

So I said to him, “You say you are a messenger …” and he said that Allaah revealed the Quraan to him afresh yet along with that he couldn’t even read it properly, making clear mistakes when reading it, reading a dammah in the place of a fathah and a fathah in the place of a dammah and so on.

Interjector: Had he memorised the Quraan?

Al-Albaani: No … only some aayahs. He brought a mushaf, and the mushaf has all the diacritical marks yet along with that he still made mistakes. So I said to him, “How can revelation have come down upon you … if we were to read the Quraan and make a mistake there would be nothing strange about that because it was not revealed to us afresh: [but] how can you make mistakes when reading it [since you claim it was revealed to you all over again]?”

I asked him some questions to uncover his ignorance and misguidance, saying, “What do you believe, are the messengers infallible or not?”

He said, “Infallible in some things and not others.”

I said, “Clarify.”

He said, “Infallible in their delivery of the message and not infallible in what is besides that.”

I said, “Do you have anything else you want to add?”

He said, “No.”

So I said, “So [according to what you just said], it is possible that they can steal, it is possible that they can fornicate and so on.”

Naturally, this was a strong doubt [I raised concerning his futile definition, a definition which, once this doubt was raised] he did not apply to himself, but instead, as was his habit, he fled from it.

I asked him [moving the argument along since he couldn’t answer the previous one], “So a messenger is infallible in delivering the message?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Okay, but just an hour ago you [in fact] made it clear that you are not infallible: the Quraan has been sent down to you again [as you claim] but you couldn’t read it as it has been sent to you, afresh. So this is a proof that you are not infallible and following on from that, you are not a messenger as you claim.”

The debate continued like this between me and him until finally I said to him, “Is there a difference between a messenger and a prophet?” I wanted to see what the difference [in his eyes] was since he had confined himself to being a messenger and not a prophet.

He said, “There is a difference but no-one except Allaah knows it .”

I said, “Okay. You’re a messenger and not a prophet?”

He said, “Yes.”

So I said, “That is a proof that you know a messenger differs from a prophet: so how does this go with your statement that, ‘No-one knows the difference except Allaah?’”

In summary, the group of people present detected his misguidance and his ignorance of the Sharee’ah.

And subhaanallaah! His brother … in the end I admonished both of them, saying to his brother, “Fear Allaah. The least that can be said about your brother is that the issue has become obscure to him [such that he sees himself to be correct] and that he is a person imagining things and is deluded and so on. Don’t you see how he is asked questions but cannot answer them?”

And I challenged them, saying, “What do you know about the sharee’ah? Do you know how the Prophet used to pray? I challenge you now. Stand and pray.”

He said, “I don’t want to pray.”

… during the debate between me and him, this person, what was his name, Khaleel?

Interjector: Khaleel … Khaleel is his brother’s name.

Al-Albaani: When I was debating with the self-professed Mahdi, his brother would interrupt. [I would say to him], ‘Yaa akhi, this is not the way to debate. I’m speaking to your brother why are you interfering? If your brother allows you to speak I have no objection but I’m only one person and can only speak to either you or him …” because there was a chair here and there and his brother was next to me. “So I speak with him one time and the other with you … who am I supposed to talk to.” In order to defend his brother’s mistake [the claimant to prophethood] said, “I give him permission to speak.”

So I said, “Then we will leave you [i.e., the false Mahdi] now and speak to your brother. When we asked him [i.e., your brother, the false Mahdi] to get up and pray … who didn’t want to? [He didn’t], your brother, the ‘Mahdi.’ So we said okay.

[Now], you’re his brother–you stand and pray so we can see.’”

He said, “No. Not until he [my brother, the ‘Mahdi’] gives me permission.”

[I said], “He [already] has given you permission … didn’t he say that he gives you permission to say or do anything?”

In summary, their ignorance has blinded their hearts.

You know the [false] Mahdi whose name is Ghulaam Ahmad al-Qadiyani, he was a man who had knowledge, a complete Dajjaal with knowledge, but these miskeens are ignorant people who don’t know a thing from the Sharee’ah and don’t [even] know how to read the Quraan … they don’t know the language … they don’t know anything.”

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 28.

Leave a comment
January 29, 2012

Are the Aayahs About Allaah’s Attributes Regarded as Being from the Precise or Unspecific Aayahs [Muhkamaat and Mutashaabihaat]?


 

Questioner: A questioner is asking whether the aayahs and hadiths that talk about Allaah’s Attributes are from the precise [muhkamaat] aayahs or hadiths] or the unspecific ones [mutashaabihaat, cf: Surah Aali-Imraan 3:7] … as the Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said …

Al-Albaani: From one angle, namely in that which is connected to the exact nature [i.e., the ‘how?’] of those Attributes, they are from the unspecific aayahs [al-mutashaabihaat, but] from the other angle they are not [regarded as being from the unspecific ones but rather are from the precise [muhkamaat] aayahs] in that they have a clear meaning.

As we just said now that the saying of the Salaf, ‘Pass them on/relay them as they have come,’ i.e., as they are understood in the Arabic language and we mentioned the example of [Imaam] Maalik about that previously too. So in this sense they are not from the unspecific [aayahs], i.e., in that they have a [linguistic] meaning well-known in the Arabic language.

But as regards the exact nature [of those Attributes they talk about] then they are regarded as being from the unspecific aayahs [mutashaabihaat], because it is not possible for us to know the exact nature [i.e., the ‘how?’] of Allaah’s Dhaat, and following on from that it is not possible for us to know the exact nature of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic’s, Attributes either.

For this reason some of the Imaams of Hadith, like Abu Bakr al-Khateeb [al-Baghdaadi], author of the well-known [encyclopaedia], ‘The History of Baghdaad,’ [said that] the same is said concerning the Attributes as is said concerning [Allaah’s] Esssence/Dhaat, both in negating and affirming, that which is said concerning the Esssence/Dhaat is said concerning the Attributes.

So just as we affirm [Allaah’s] Essence/Dhaat [i.e., His very existence] and we do not deny it–for such a denial is total and utter rejection [of Allaah]–then we say the same about [Allaah’s] Attributes: we affirm them and do not negate them, but just as we do not ask exactly ‘how?’ His Essence/Dhaat is [but still affirm it], then in the same way we do not ask ‘how?’ His Attributes are [but still affirm them].

This is the answer to the question.

789 | Fatwaawaa Imaraat, 2.

The video:

1 Comment
December 27, 2011

A Refutation of a Doubt Concerning The Descent of Jesus, the Son of Mary عليه السلام


 

Questioner: Some scholars say that Jesus’ descent عليه السلام or that the hadith of the Anti-Christ [Al-Maseeh ad-Dajjaal] is weak and that it has no basis because Jesus عليه السلام… i.e., after a human passes away or was living on earth, he will not return again until the Day of Resurrection, he will not return to earth again, and the aayah they used as a proof is, “[Mention] when Allaah said, “O Jesus!  Indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself …” Aali-Imraan 3:55 to the end of the aayah, so it means that his death has taken place, so how will he be able to descend after his death?

Al-Albaani: The answer, quite frankly, is that those who make such statements … and the onus is on the narrator, i.e., you are the narrator so the onus is on you, you are the one who is transmitting [what they said, i.e., the onus is on you to have asked the question correctly and thus the answer I give will be based upon what you asked].

So the quotes that you just transmitted are from people who are not scholars, why [are they not scholars]? Because where does a scholar take his knowledge from? “Allaah said … Allaah’s Messenger said …” okay, after, “Allaah said … Allaah’s Messenger said …” we have nothing except what the Salaf as-Saalih said.

How do we understand what Allaah said in His Book and what His Prophet said in his hadith?  [We do so] according to what the Salaf as-Saalih were upon. And I will remind you of the aayah, “And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers–We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.” Nisaa 4:115

So now, this quote which you narrated to us from those people, is it, “… the way of the believers …” [as mentioned in the above aayah?] Is it the way of the Salaf? Is it the way of the four Imaams? Fourteen Imaams? Forty? As we mentioned, the scholars of the Muslims, maa shaa Allaah [are great in number].

I say: this is not the way of the believers, this is the way of one of two men:

Either an ignorant Muslim or a kaafir who is concealed amongst the Muslims and who tries to scheme against or corrupt the creed of the Muslims with philosophising like the type you mentioned.

And which is what? That Allaah said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself …” … we say to this person: what does, “… indeed I will take you …” mean? Is the word al-Wafaah [which is the word used in the aayah] only used to mean death in the Arabic language? The answer is no, because al-Wafaah [death] comes with the meaning of sleep? True or not?

Questioner: True.

Al-Albaani: “And it is He who takes your souls by night and knows what you have committed by day. Then He revives you therein [i.e., by day] that a specified term may be fulfilled.” An’aam 6:60

Questioner: Allaah takes [Trans. note: same verb as the one used in the aayah mentioned in the question about Jesus] the souls at the time of their death, and those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a specified term. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” Zumar 39:42

Al-Albaani: Yes, the aayahs in the Noble Quraan explain each other. So the verb الوفاة/al-Wafaah [lit. death] does not mean death [here], and concerning this ayaah that which comes after, “… indeed I will take you …” explains it. Who is being addressed? Jesus. So let us, by way of explanation, say, “… indeed I will take you, O Jesus …” in soul and body, and [then Allaah said] , “… and raise you to Myself …” who is being addressed here? Jesus. Namely, [“I will raise you to Myself …”] [both] your soul and your body.

Like His Saying, the Most High, in Surah al-Israa which [brother] Abu Bakr mentioned just now, even though in doing so he was wrong [i.e., in a previous question], “Exalted is He Who took His Servant [i.e., Prophet Muhammad] by night from al-Masjid al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsaa …” Al-Israa 17:1 some of the tafsir scholars of the past and hadith scholars said that the Prophet’s Ascension was by his soul and not his body, but the people of knowledge refuted them, saying, [in the aayah] “Exalted is He Who took His Servant [i.e., Prophet Muhammad] by night from al-Masjid al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsaa …” the servant is in body and soul, likewise Jesus is body and soul, so He said, “… indeed I will take you …” i.e., I will take your body and soul and raise you up to Me, i.e., just as you are, with your body and your soul.

The clear Arabic tongue mentioned in unanimous [mutawaatir] hadiths from the Prophet عليه السلام supports this meaning, in some of those hadith he said, “Verily, Jesus the son of Mary will descend among you as a just judge. And so [he] will break the cross and kill the pigs, and wealth will become so abundant that no one will accept it. And a [single] prostration that day will be more beloved to a believer than the world and everything in it.” Bukhaari and Muslim.

So, the Prophet عليه السلام confirmed this raising which was mentioned in the previous aayah, “… and raise you to Myself …” and there is an ending [to this], which is that this revered individual who will be taken up [to Allaah] in both body and soul will then descend as a just ruler, break the Cross, kill the pigs and so on until the end of the hadith.

So Jesus عليه السلام is alive in Heaven.

He will descend to establish for these Christians who took him as a deity instead of Allaah, the Blessed and Most High, that he is a servant on one hand and that Muhammad عليه السلام is better than him on the other, since he will judge by his [i.e., Prophet Muhammad’s عليه السلام] sharee’ah and will be a part of his Ummah.

Such that in another authentic hadith there occurs that he said, “Jesus the son of Mary will descend by the white minaret in the eastern part of Damascus on the wings of two angels,” this is in Sahih Muslim in another hadith [it is mentioned that] when he descends at Fajr time, it will have been established for Muhammad the Mahdi [to lead it], Muhammad the son of Abdullaah al-Mahdi, well-known as The [Imaam] Mahdi, so the prayer would have been established for him to lead, but when he sees that Jesus عليه السلام has descended he will ask him to go forward to lead it, but Jesus will say, ‘No, an honour bestowed by Allaah on this Ummah.’ So Jesus the Prophet of the Christians and the Jews who disbelieved in him–will follow [Imaam] Mahdi in prayer, [Mahdi] who is a person from the Ummah of the Prophet صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ.

All of these hadiths are authentic.

For this reason, al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani and many others like him from those well-acquainted with the science of hadith say that the hadiths about the belief concerning the descent of Jesus عليه السلام at the end of time are unanimous [mutawaatir]. It is not the hadith of [only] one person which maybe authentic and maybe weak [no, it is unanimous].

Hadiths which have come from different paths of narration as you just heard now. Just now I quoted you three hadiths without straining myself [i.e., they are so well-known and numerous], you see, so if a person wanted to gather all of the hadiths [about this] for you … one time I gathered forty authentic hadiths [about it], some of the [hadiths of the] Companions have more than one path of narration … etc.

So how is it [then] said about this hadith, “It is weak.”

It [really] means that it is not possible that any hadith can be regarded as authentic by such people.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 528.

The video:

6 Comments
November 4, 2011

The Extremist Sufi Saying, ‘Allaah is a monk in a church …’ The Disbelief of Those Who believe in the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] |End


Then he عليه السلام implemented this method with a Companion of his: it reached him that Abdullaah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas–the Companion, the son of a Companion, may Allaah be pleased with them both–it reached him that his father married him off to a girl from Quraish.  He [i.e., Amr ibn al-Aas] visited her one day and asked her about her husband [i.e., his son].

So she said to him, ‘There is no problem with him except that he has not yet approached our bed. He stands to pray at night and fasts during the day,’ i.e., he got married but didn’t get married.

This was difficult upon Amr so he complained about his son to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So he عليه الصلاة والسلام said to him, ‘O Abdullaah! It has reached me that you spend the night in prayer and fast during the day and that you do not approach women [i.e., your wife].’ He said, ‘It is as such, O Messenger of Allaah!’

And this hadith is long and I will summarise it by saying that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم laid down a methodology for him which he could worship Allaah through and gather, as they say today, between the right of the body and the right of the nafs on the other hand, and the right of the soul, i.e., worship.

So he said, and he used to stand all night finishing the Quraan in it, and would always fast, he said regarding the recitation of the Quraan and this is at the end of the story which is long, he said, ‘Read the Quraan in three nights. For whoever reads it in less than three has not understood it.’

And concerning that which was connected to fasting he told him initially to fast three days every month, and a good deed is rewarded tenfold, so it would be as if you would have fasted the entire month, so Abdullaah would reply, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I am a youth and have strength. I can do more than that.’

And here you will notice the difference between that generation and our generation of today.

A youth in his prime, whose father married him off to a girl from Quraish, he turns away from her and [instead] stands to pray all night and fast during the day and … so on and so on.  And when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم tells him to take it easy upon himself he replies to him saying, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I am a youth and have strength. I can do more than that.’

Today you have the opposite of that.

A youth will grow up upon obedience to Allaah and all around him you will find people repelling him, both those near to him and those distant: firstly the father, secondly, the mother, they will say to him, ‘You’re still a youth. You can worship later.’

Look at the difference between that time and this.

The point is that eventually he صلى الله عليه وسلم told him to fast a day and miss the next for such was the Fast of Dawud عليه السلام who would not flee from the enemy when he met them.

[But] Abdullaah replied, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I want better than that.’  He replied, ‘There is nothing better than that.’

So where is this pretentious ascetic Sufism, contradicting the Quran and Sunnah [by going further than what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم instructed his Companions with].

Thus, that which in Sufism truly agrees with the Quraan and the Sunnah, then remove this name [i.e., ‘Sufism,’ from it] and remain on the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.

And whatever opposes the Book and the Sunnah, then we throw it aside.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 632.

Leave a comment
November 2, 2011

The Extremist Sufi Saying, ‘Allaah is a monk in a church …’ The Disbelief of Those Who believe in the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] |3


And from that are two hadiths reported in Sahihs Bukhaari and Muslim. One of them is the hadith of Anas ibn Maalik, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, who said some people came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم but did not find him.

They asked his family about his worship, about his standing for prayer at night and during the day, and his relationship with women [i.e., his wives].  So his family spoke about what they knew and said that he عليه السلام would fast and eat, stand to pray at night and [also] sleep, and would marry women.

Anas said that when they heard that they regarded it as being little, i.e., they thought that the Prophet’s worship was little, because they pictured: the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله ليه وسلم sleeps at night?  Surely, he must stay awake all night?!  Likewise, he breaks his fast? Surely, he must fast all the time?! And he marries women?

And some people say that, ‘Knowledge was lost between the thighs of women.’ [i.e., due to concern about their intimate relationships with their wives.]  How can the Prophet marry four, eight or more?

So they regarded his worship as being little–but then they turned to themselves and said, ‘This is the Messenger of Allaah. Allaah has forgiven him his past and future sins.’

The reality is that these statements emanate from people … who had newly embraced Islaam, because it is not possible that a person who understood his Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم sublime perfection which has no comparison, to say, ‘Why does the Prophet marry? Why does he sleep? Why does he eat? Allaah has forgiven him his sins …’ It is not befitting that such statements be said, but it happened as such.

The important thing is that they turned to themselves and said, ‘This is the Messenger of Allaah, Allaah has forgiven him his past and future sins.  So we must toil and exhaust ourselves and worship Allaah until He forgives us.’

What was the way to achieve that, in their opinion?

One of them said, ‘As for me, I will fast and never break it.’  The other said, ‘As for me, I will stand in prayer and not sleep.’  And the third said, ‘I will never marry women.’

Then they left.

After some time the Prophet عليه السلام came and was told about them. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم gave a short sermon and said, ‘What is the matter with a people who say such and such? I fear Allaah more than you do, and I am the most obedient and dutiful among you to Him. As for me, then I fast and break the fast, I pray at night and sleep and I marry women. So whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me.’

Here is the point, ‘So whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me.’  So these righteous Sufis of old, I am not referring to Ash-Sha’raani’s group and his likes and [those who believe in] the Unity of Being. No. These people departed from the guidance of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and so came with old Buddhist, Indian ways which they inherited, and maybe they were foreigners [non-Arabs] who entered Islaam and did not understand it properly.  Thus coming up with a way of punishing the soul under the assumption of purifying it.  And here is your Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saying, ‘So whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not from me.’

Leave a comment
November 1, 2011

The Extremist Sufi Saying, ‘Allaah is a monk in a church …’ The Disbelief of Those Who believe in the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] |2


As you must have heard by now, Abu Talhah Daawood ibn Ronald Burbank, passed away in an accident in Jeddah along with his wife today.  It is truly distressing news, and one can only take comfort in the fact that they were on their way to perform Hajj, were in ihraam and that they died in a fire, one who does so being regarded as having died the death of a martyr, and one who dies in ihraam is raised in ihraam, saying the talbiyyah.  His sons were able to leave the vehicle and then the explosion caught Daawood and his wife, and as far as I have heard, the janaazah will be held in Makkah tomorrow.

May Allaah have mercy on them both, forgive us and them, accept their righteous deeds and forgive them their shortcomings, and grant them both a place in Firdous, wa sallallaahu alaa Muhammad, aameen.

There is a paragraph or two written about the accident in this article.

Here’s is today’s post, continuing from the first post.

Shaikh al-Albaani said, “There is a type which is less [severe] than it, and it is the person who has deviated in his conduct from that which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was upon by burdening the soul with more than it is able to bear, in the name of refining it. And here we say: we, as Muslims, are not in any need whatsoever of a means which we–in order to nurture ourselves–take on through a way other than that of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

How so when in the hadith which Imaam Ahmad reports in his Musnad and others in their collections from Jaabir ibn Abdullaah al-Ansaari, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, [there occurs that he] said that, ‘One day the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saw a page in the hand of Umar ibn al-Khataab which he was reading. He said, ‘What is this, O Umar?’ He said, ‘This is a page a man from the Jews wrote for me.’ So he عليه الصلاة والسلام said, ‘O Son of al-Khattaab! Are you all puzzled/bewildered as the Jews and Christians were puzzled/bewildered?’ [Compiler’s note: it is as though the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is saying, ‘Are you puzzled/bewilderd about the Truth and not sure that you are upon it such that you have to return to the narrations of the Jews?’] By the One in Whose Hands is the soul of Muhammad! If Moses were alive he would have no alternative but to follow me.’’

So if Moses, the one whom Allaah spoke to and to whom He revealed the Torah directly, met the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم it would not be possible for him to follow his Torah–rather he would have no choice but to follow our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Thus: how is it with us today that in the name of Sufi Islaam we nurture ourselves through a certain method of burdening [ourselves] under the impression that it is a [way of] refining the soul that orders evil, [doing so by] being severe/harsh against it.

They have very strange and odd stories. One of them, and this was in the time of the early generations whose righteousness has been testified to, [and was a time when] Sufism had started to raise its horns, … as for that which followed later in the time of ash-Sha’raani–and what will make you understand what ash-Sha’raani was, then narrate [the reality about him] and there is no harm in doing so … amongst them would be someone who would wear the coarsest of garments and then immerse himself in the Tigris River on a bitterly cold day. Then he would stand on the roof of his house, the cold wind whipping his face. [When asked], ‘What is this?’ He replied, ‘Refining the soul.’

This is not a refining of the soul, it is punishing it.

And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, in Truth–and we need to recognise the effect of this statement in our knowledge and Islamic [way of] life today–, ‘I have not left anything which will bring you closer to Allaah except that I have ordered you with it, and I have not left anything which will distance you from Allaah and bring you closer to the Fire except that I have forbidden you from it.’”

Leave a comment
October 9, 2011

The Extremist Sufi Saying, ‘Allaah is a monk in a church …’ The Disbelief of Those Who believe in the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | 1


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Questioner: The Sufis have recently come to our city, what advice can you give us?

Al-Albani: There is an old difference between the Muslims about the Sufis. The reality is that this name, Sufism [tasawwuf], and those who affiliate themselves to it, the Sufis, have many different meanings.

We know from our interaction with many of them that when the proof is established against them they say, ‘Sufism is nothing except clinging to the manners of Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, like abstaining from the world and desiring the Hereafter,’ this is what they say when the proof is established against them.

Thus we say that if this is what Sufism is in your opinion, then the difference between us and you regarding the word remains. Remove this word, ‘tasawwuf,’ because it has become a word having a great many meanings. One of which we mentioned just now, [i.e.,] sticking to noble manners and abstaining from the world and turning to the Hereafter. There is no need for us to use this name whose meaning is dubious when referring to that affair which [the Muslims] are united upon, i.e., sticking to the manners of Allaah’s Prophet عليه السلام and abstaining from the world and devoting oneself to the Hereafter.

But the reality is that [the word] tasawwuf [Sufism] has meanings far removed from this correct meaning [mentioned above]. And sometimes this distance [from the Truth] takes the one who is upon it out of the fold of Islaam, and sometimes it will place him among one of the misguided groups.

As for the first group [i.e., the people who have left the fold of Islaam], then it refers to those who believe in what the people of knowledge refer to as the creed of unity, or The Unity of Being/Existence [Wahdatul-Wujood] to be more precise. The Unity of Being, which is pure denial [of Allaah, ilhaad], means Nature, as expressed by naturalists (believers in naturalism), i.e. there is nothing but matter.

One of them says, ‘Everything that you see with your very eye is Allaah.’ So it’s nature, everything that you see with your eye is Allaah!

A second says:

And the dog and the pig are nothing but our God.
And Allaah is nothing but a monk in a church.

A third [Ibn Arabi, the Sufi] says:

God [Rabb] is man and man is God
How I wish to know who the one ordered (to perform worship) is

If you say man (is the one ordered), then that is a denial (of the presence of a God, based on the concept that God is man and man is God!)
And if you say God, how can He be obligated?!

A fourth:

When the Magians worshipped the fire
They worshipped nothing but the One, the Irresistible Subduer
[i.e., Al-Qahhaar, Allaah]

All of these are statements written down in their books through which they seek blessings. A belief [aqidah] such as this takes one outside the fold of Islaam, for it is a creed greater in disbelief than that of the Jews and Christians.

This reminds me of the saying of one their extremists, ‘The Jews and Christians only disbelieved because the Jews restricted Allaah to being in Uzair, and the Christians confined Him to being in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit–but as for us, we have generalized Him to be in all things.’

For this reason from their words of remembrance [dhikr]–and their dhikr is not from that of the Muslims, that which the Prophet mentioned [when he said], ‘The best form of remembrance is, ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah,’–their remembrance is, ‘He, He …’

And they [also] say other phrases which, regretfully, some of the general masses with us in Syria have latched on to. You’ll find one of them sitting, wanting to remember Allaah, and so he will say, ‘There is nothing other than Him.’ What does, ‘There is nothing other than Him,’ mean? [This is incorrect because] there is a Creator and then there is the creation.

So this is the creed of The Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood], wording which is mentioned by some people, but they have not paid attention to the misguidance found therein.

Like these phrases totally is the saying of many of the common folk and their scholars, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists, Allaah is everywhere …’ [this is] the creed of The Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood], but along with that it is the creed [aqidah] of the Ash’aris and Maturidis of the end of time.

[They say], ‘Allaah is in all places,’ this [i.e., where we are sitting right now] is a place, is Allaah here?  What is here?  Zaid, Bakr, Amr, matter, a wall, air and so on–is Allaah here?!

‘The Most Gracious rose over the [Mighty] Throne [in a manner that suits His Majesty],’ [Taa Haa 20:5]  This is the creed of the Salaf as-Saalih.

So this type of Sufism is the severest of the most severe forms of disbelief found on the face of the earth.

[Translator’s note: The following is another example of the extremists amongst them: ‘Sulaimaan bin Ali bin Abdullah al-Tilmisaani d. 690AH.  He is highly revered among Sufis.  The Shaikh of Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said about him, “He used to make all forbidden things lawful.  To such an extent that some of the reliable people reported that he said:

‘The daughter, the mother, all (foreign) women–all of them are one and the same–there is nothing forbidden in that for us.  It is only the ones who are veiled that say that that is haraam.  So we in reply say to them: ‘It is haraam for you (not us).”  (Majmoo’atur-Rasaa’il (1/184).

This Sufi Tilmisani once passed by a mangy, scabby dead dog on the street whilst he was talking to his companion about Wahdatul-Wujood (the Unity of Being/Existence).  So his companion said to him, “Is this also the Essence (Dhaat) of Allaah?” pointing to the dead dog.  So Al-Tilmisani replied:

“Yes.  Everything is His Essence.  There is nothing that is outside His Essence (Dhaat).”

High is Allaah above what the Sufis ascribe to Him!’

(Majmoo’atur-Rasaa’il (145) of Ibn Taymiyyah).]

Leave a comment
October 7, 2011

The Extremist Sufis and the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | End


So this discussion [that we’re having] is concerning refining such wording–so clarify what you mean.

From the goals that the Legislator laid down is a refinement of the terminology used, so when referring to Allaah’s Knowledge, instead of us saying, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists … Allaah is present everywhere,’ we should say, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge,’ because the first expression, i.e., ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ is connected to the aqidah of the extremist Sufis who say, ‘There is no He but He,’ so [according to them] there is no [distinction between] Creator or created, as one of them said:

When the Magians worshipped the fire
They worshipped nothing but the One, the Irresistible Subduer [i.e., Allaah]

Because [according to these people] Paradise, the Fire, the Creator, the creation, all of these things have no reality, and in summary [they say], ‘There is no He but He,’ they say, ‘Everything that you see with your very eye is Allaah!’

Thus it does not befit a Muslim to say a word which he will be compelled to explain afterwards. [So] make a clear statement–and there is nothing clearer than the Quraan, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’

As for you saying a sentence and then saying after it [having being compelled to explain it], ‘By Allaah! I mean such and such …’ then [in answer to this] the Prophet عليه الصلاة والسلام said … and this was part of his disciplining us and teaching us manners, manners which if we followed we would have succeeded, [he said], ‘Do not say something which you have to make an excuse for before the people.’ [Compiler’s note: Reported in Sahih al-Jaami’ no., 742 with the wording, ‘And do not say something which you have to seek an excuse from …’]

And in another shorter narration there occurs, ‘Beware of that which you must seek an excuse from.’

So don’t say, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists, Allaah is present in all that exists,’ because you will face many objections and much criticism which you will have no way of answering.

It will be said to you, ‘The place which a Muslim is forced to go to two or three times a day, a place which he wishes he wouldn’t have to enter, is your Lord there too?’ Likewise, with [places such as] sewers etc., a Muslim does not say this.

So take back this statement of yours.  Do not say it.

This is complicated, so what should we believe and what should we say? [What should we say] instead of, ‘Allaah is everywhere?’ Namely, when we speak about the One who is worshipped Himself, i.e., Allaah, [which is] the Name of Supreme Greatness [Ismul-Jalaalah], known amongst all Muslims, [what should we say?]

We know that the saying of some of them that ‘Allaah is everywhere,’ is a mistake and that what is meant is His Knowledge, so we say [to these people]: when referring to Divine Knowledge let your wording be correct, say, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’

But when we speak about Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, about the Divine Dhaat what should we say?

It has been reported from one of the Salaf, Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, who is from the major Shaikhs of the Imaam of the Sunnah, Imaam Ahmad, may Allaah have mercy upon him … he said in a statement which gathered and included [a summary of the topic at hand], he said, ‘Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence [bi dhaatihi]. Separate and distinct from His Creation. And He is with them in His Knowledge.’

The previous discussion [that], ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge,’ is an explanation of this last sentence, ‘And He is with them in His Knowledge.’

But at the beginning of this statement [of Ibn al-Mubaarak] he spoke about the Diving Dhaat, he said that Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence [Dhaat], he based this statement upon many aayahs from the noble Quraan, [such as], ‘The Most Gracious rose over the [Mighty] Throne [in a manner that suits His Majesty],’[Taa Haa 20:5] ‘To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (the goodly words i.e., the goodly words are not accepted by Allaah unless and until they are followed by good deeds),’ [Faatir 35:10]

And in the famous hadith, ‘Have mercy on those on earth and the One above the Heavens will have mercy on you,’ it is as though this hadith is an excerpt from His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, ‘Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allaah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, then behold it shakes (as in an earthquake)? Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allaah), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning?’ [Mulk 67:16-17] Imaam Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak, the Shaikh of Imaam Ahmad, is expressing [the meaning of] these ayaahs [quoted above] and others [in that statement of his].

The Haafidh of Damascus, adh-Dhahabi, collected such statements in a book particular to this topic, which is printed and is called ‘The Ascendancy of the Most High, the Oft-Forgiving’ [Al-Uluww lil-Aliyyil-Ghaffaar]. In this book, he collected those aayahs which talk about this characteristic of the Divine Dhaat, i.e., the characteristic of being totally and absolutely above all creation.

The aayahs, hadiths, sayings of the Companions, narrations from the Salaf, amongst whom are the four Imaams, [which adh-Dhahabi collected in that book] all talk about what Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak gathered in that one sentence, ‘Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence, separate and distinct from His Creation …’ so he nullified the belief of indwelling [hulool], Allaah being the One in no need of any of His Creation.

But this ascendancy which it is not possible for the human intellect to grasp or imagine does not mean that any secret is hidden from Him, Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak said, ‘And He is with them in His Knowledge.’

So this brief sentence has collected [the meaning contained in] tens of aayahs and hadiths and sayings from the Salaf, so that the creed of the Muslim can be correct and far removed from that of ‘the Unity of Existence’ [Wahdatul-Wujood] and far removed from [believing in] ‘indwelling’ [hulool] which some of the misguided sects affirm.

Allaah the Blessed and Most High is above His Throne in His Essence, separate and distinct from His Creation and He is with them in His Knowledge.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 69.

Leave a comment
October 6, 2011

The Extremist Sufis and the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | 2


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Thus, when a heedless Muslim says that Allaah is present in all that exists he will intend one of two things by it, and they are totally contradictory: the true existent, i.e., Allaah, and the possible existent, i.e., the creation. If he intends this meaning, then he has fallen into a creed other than wahdatul-wujood, i.e., [he has fallen into] hulool [divine indwelling].

You know, for example, that some Islamic groups believe that Allaah enters/dwells within certain esteemed–according to them–personalities.

You will see these Alawites or Ismailis for example, maybe you have read a lot about the Ismailis whose leader is the Aga Khan, every year he would be weighed in gold in America.

So they believe that the one worshipped transmigrates into him, indwells in him; this is called hulool.  It is less than wahdatul-wujood which we just spoke about.

Wahdatul-Wujood is referring to something which cannot be separated one from the other, in hulool Allaah is separate and distinct from His creation as the scholars say but, according to them [i.e., the extremist Sufis] obviously, He has indwelled and transmigrated into a person.

So when this person who says that Allaah is present in all that exists means that there are two existents, then that means that one of them entered the other, instead of entering a person He entered the entire universe. This, of course, is disbelief and absolutely no Muslim doubts that it is.

And if by [the statement], ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ he intends the first meaning, i.e., there is no Creator or created, there is only one thing, then this disbelief is much more severe.

You see these Muslims who fast and pray along with us and we pray behind them etc., if you were to say to one of them, ‘‘[Your statement that] Allaah is present in all that exists,’ does it mean one of these two meanings?!  Does it mean the total unity of existence that the Sufis refer to, i.e., that there is no Creator or created, or does it refer to indwelling [hulool], i.e., that Allaah created the creation then entered it?’–I do not think that a Muslim can believe such a creed as either of these.

So, why do you use this statement?  Why don’t you emulate the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said, ‘None of you should say, ‘My soul has become evil [khabuthat],’ but he should say, ‘My soul has become remorseless [laqisat].’  The meaning of [the Arabic word], ‘khabuthat’ is the same as ‘laqisat,’ ‘laqisat’ means ‘khabuthat,’ but the Prophet wanted us to talk about ourselves with kind words even though the meaning is the same.

So what is wrong with us? When we talk about our Lord the Blessed and Most High it is not allowed for us to say a word which can give an impression of disbelief or misguidance.

In reality, when such topics are discussed and most of the people present take heed [of the point being made], as though some of them had hitherto been in heedlessness, some of them will say, ‘We don’t mean that Allaah the Blessed and Most High has entered all of His Creation Himself,’ and we didn’t say that they did intend that, for if they had–and this is another topic–it would be disbelief, but the point being discussed now is about refining the terminology [being used].

So, [we ask these people], ‘What do you mean by, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists?’ [They reply, saying,] ‘His Knowledge.’

How beautiful!

Without doubt, Allaah has encompassed all things in His Knowledge, He has encompassed all things, the Blessed and Most High–but the wording used is incorrect.

You want to talk about Allaah’s Knowledge, then say, ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’ [Talaaq 65:12], a text from the Noble Quraan [itself], ‘Allaah surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’ [Say], ‘Not a secret in the earth or the heavens is hidden from Him.’ [But] don’t say that Allaah, the One who is worshipped and possesses every characteristic of perfection and Who is free from every shortcoming–don’t say that, ‘Allaah is everywhere,’ [or] ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ instead say, ‘He surrounds (comprehends) all things in (His) Knowledge.’

Leave a comment
October 5, 2011

The Extremist Sufis and the Unity of Being [Wahdatul-Wujood] | 1


Al-Albani: All of you must have heard of a group called the Sufis, and of a [type of] knowledge, or Sufi spiritual path [sulook] known as tasawwuf.

The people who ascribe themselves to this tasawwuf are of differing ranks, some of them have overstepped all limits and left Islaam in the name of Islamic Sufism, left Islaam just as a strand of hair is pulled out of dough [i.e., totally].  Why?

Because their interpretation of aayahs from the noble Quraan [is so incorrect that it] and philosophy and apostasy are one and the same. In the eyes of the scholars of the Muslims they are known as the people who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood [lit: the unity of existence], the ones who say the same thing as the atheists, but their wording differs from that of the atheists, they say, ‘There is nothing except one.’ So [according to them] the universe that we see is Allaah. For this reason they are called people who believe in Wahdatul-Wujood.

The Muslims say that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah [Laa ilaaha illallaah], in this sentence there is an affirmation and a negation. There is a negation of whoever might interpret falsely (the presence of another god), then the affirmation that Allaah is the one and only God, the Most High.

As for those Sufis, then they say, ‘There is no He but He.’ They then paraphrase it and make it a form of remembrance which they repeat for themselves, [saying], ‘He, He …’ This is a dangerous deviation as you can see, i.e., a denial of the true existence of Allaah, and following on from that, a denial of the legislation, no Islaam … no Judaism, no Christianity–because there is no [differentiation between the] slave and the Lord, a Lord who obligates others to worship Him and a slave who is obligated to worship. For this reason one of them said:

God [Rabb] is man and man is God
How I wish to know who the one ordered (to perform worship) is

If you say man (is the one ordered), then that is a denial (of the presence of a God, based on the concept that God is man and man is God!)
And if you say God, how can He be obligated?!

[According to them] there is no He but He. So in the end: He is He!

There are words that emanate from Muslims who bear witness [by saying] Laa ilaaha illallaah Muhammad Rasulullaah, these people are not atheists but they will sometimes utter words which lead them to that false aqidah. This is something very dangerous and hardly any but a few are safe from it.

Now in our normal gatherings [you will hear] one of them say whether on a particular occasion or not, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ [this statement of theirs] equals, ‘There is no He but He.’

You will hear [this statement] many times, ‘Allaah is present in all that exists,’ and after close scrutiny of its meaning and purport and what it entails one can see that it equates to the saying of the Sufis–the extremists amongst them obviously–who openly declare that, ‘There is no He but He.’

There are Two Existents Not One

Because if we were to ponder over the declaration of truth which is when a believer truly says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped except Allaah,’ [then we will find] that it establishes two existences.

‘None has the right to be worshiped except Allaah,’ negates the false deities which are worshipped other than Allaah, and they are present [as is mentioned, for example,] in the Quraan in the statement of Noah to his people, “And they have said, ‘You shall not leave your gods, nor shall you leave Wadd, nor Suwa’, nor Yaghuth, nor Ya’uq, nor Nasr.’” [Nooh 71:23] These were idols worshipped instead of Allaah, for that reason when Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent Noah عليه السلام to his people he ordered them to worship Allaah alone.

So, ‘None has the right to be worshiped …’ is a negation of the false deities which are present. ‘… except Allaah,’ is an affirmation of the existence of the Truth, i.e., Allaah the Blessed and Most High.

So there are two existences.  It is not possible for a Muslim who, firstly, understands his Islaam and who, secondly, believes that Allaah created him, not to affirm two [separate] existents.

The scholars of tawheed refer to the First Existent, i.e., that of the Creator the Most High, He exists in His Essence, i.e., is eternal, having no beginning. So His existence is termed as being the necessarily existent [Waajibul-Wujood].

As for the other existent then it is [called] the contingent or possible existent which is mankind and all creation. Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said to it, ‘Be!’ And it was. So it was preceded by nonexistence in contrast to the existence of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic–for He is the First having no beginning, as you all know.

Leave a comment
October 2, 2011

A Refutation of Those who Accuse Ahlus-Sunnah of Confining Allaah to a Place | End


And I had already spoken to him about the fact that Allaah was and there was nothing with Him … so there was nothing there [with Him], thereafter He said, ‘Be!’ and the creation was.  If we conclude that we haven’t reached the Throne yet and in your opinion those angels are above the Throne: then what is above the Throne?  Nothing or something [wujood/existence/being/entity]?

The Azhari Shaikh: No, nothing.

[So I said] because we had agreed that nothing was in existence before Allaah the Blessed and Most High created the heavens and the earth … Allaah was and nothing was with Him … so before Allaah created anything there was nothing–so when your knowledge leads you to understand that the Kuroobiyoon angels are above the Throne and that nothing from the universe is there after that, the creation having ended … [thereafter] when the Salafis say that Allaah the Blessed and Most High rose over, i.e., ascended over, the [Mighty] Throne–why do you accuse them of having confined Allaah the Mighty and Majestic to [a place in] His universe when there is no universe there?

For the universe is limited and restricted and in our opinion the end of the universe and its highest part is the Throne and in your opinion it is the Throne and then above it are the ‘Kuroobiyoon Angels,’ and then nothing after that.

So the correct aqidah according to both the intellect and the text is truly that of the Pious Predecessors–because they did not say that Allaah is in a place, as you [falsely] assume, because there is no ‘place’ beyond the Throne, only total and complete nonexistence [of anything] except Allaah the Blessed and Most High.

But what is the matter with you when you fled from that which you accused the Salafis of, [something] which they are [in fact] free of–since [we say that] Allaah is not in a place because there is no universe or place after the [Mighty] Throne, Allaah having ascended over it–but what’s the matter with you fleeing from affirming this attribute for Allaah the Blessed and Most High, i.e., the attribute of declaring Him completely free of any likeness to His creation and not ascribing the qualities of the creation to Him [tanzeeh], because He is not in the universe.

So how is it that you say He is everywhere, you confine Him to being inside His universe which He created after it was not in existence?

So you are the Mushabbihah, and you are the Mujassimah [anthropomorphists].

And we the Salafis are nothing other than those who go by what Allaah the Most High said, ‘There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer,’ [Shuraa 42:11] and upon this aayah, upon [the meaning contained in] its beginning and end, we declare Him, the Most High, to be totally and utterly free of any likeness to His creation and do not ascribe the qualities of the creation to Him [tanzeeh], whilst affirming [His] Attributes as befits His Majesty and Exaltedness.

Fataawaa Jeddah, 17.

The video:

2 Comments
October 1, 2011

A Refutation of Those who Accuse Ahlus-Sunnah of Confining Allaah to a Place | 2


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Al-Albani: Do you agree with me that Allaah was and there was nothing [in existence] with Him?

The Azhari Shaikh: Of course.

Al-Albani: Was the Throne there when Allaah was?

The Azhari Shaikh: No.

Al-Albani: So Allaah was and there was nothing with Him and then He created the Throne?

The Azhari Shaikh: Yes.

I carried on with him in this manner and then said: We are now on earth, what is above us?

The Azhari Shaikh: The sky.

Al-Albani: Then?

The Azhari Shaikh: The second.

And we carried on like this until we came to the seventh. Then I said to him, ‘What is above the seventh?’

The Azhari Shaikh: The Throne.

I said–and here is the crux of the matter– what is above the Throne?

The Azhari Shaikh: The Kuroobiyoon Angels.

So this was the first time in thirty years that I heard this name. I said, ‘What? The kuroobiyoon angels are above the Throne?’ We know that it is the Creator of the Throne who is above the [Mighty] Throne according to the aforementioned aayah and the Salaf’s interpretation of it [which states that] He rose over the Throne, i.e., ascended over it, and as those relied upon in this matter said:

And the Lord of the Throne is above the Throne but
Without describing Him as being in a place or being connected [to the Throne]

So Allaah is in no need of the worlds, but for the first time I was [now] hearing that it is the kuroobiyoon Angels that are above the Throne, [so I asked him], ‘Do you have an aayah which establishes, firstly, that there are angels called, ‘The kuroobiyoon Angels?’

The Azhari Shaikh: No.

Al-Albani: Okay. Do you have a hadith in which a mention of them has been made with this name?

The Azhari Shaikh: No.

Al-Albani: So then where did you get this aqidah that above the Throne are the Kuroobiyoon Angels?

The Azhari Shaikh: This is what our Shaikhs at the noble Azhar University taught us.

So I said how strange. I know that [from what] the Azhari scholars teach their students in their lectures concerning that which is connected to the principles of aqidah and Usool al-Fiqh is that, ‘[Points of] aqidah are not established through aahaad hadith which are authentic,’ so how have they taught you a point of aqidah that is not mentioned in the Quraan nor the Sunnah? How have you come to believe this?

He was dumbfounded.  I continued and said to him, ‘Imagine that those angels who you call the Kuroobiyoon are above the [Mighty] Throne–what is above them?

So he stopped.  Baffled.

And I had already spoken to him about …

2 Comments
September 30, 2011

A Refutation of Those who Accuse Ahlus-Sunnah of Confining Allaah to a Place | 1


 

Questioner: Who are the kuroobiyoon [Cherubim] Angels?

Al-Albaani: Who are the kuroobiyoon Angels? As far as I know, there is no hadith in which a mention of this name has been made of the Angels, ‘the kuroobiyoon Angels.’ And in reality for thirty years this name had not passed by me in the hadiths which I had read in hundreds if not thousands of books, most of which were manuscripts, until [finally] I heard a mention of them in Mina during Hajj.

I was sitting during a calm, beautiful night during the days of Munaa speaking to some of our Egyptian, Syrian and other brothers from Ansaar as-Sunnah, when a Shaikh came in, gave salaam, sat down and started listening [to what was being said]. After I stopped speaking for a short while he entered the discussion and started speaking.

It became apparent from what he said that he was from those who had studied at Azhar University and who harboured a hatred against the Salafi da’wah or the da’wah to tawheed, and that he was affected by some of the false claims which are attributed to the group of tawheed in all the Muslim lands, whether here or Egypt or Syria or any other place.

So he started to attack and say that the Wahaabi da’wah was a good call but [the problem was] that they liken Allaah to the creation.

So I asked him, ‘How is that?’

He replied that they say that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic–Subhaanallaah he was declaring the Quraan to have a mistake without even realising it–he said, ‘They say that Allaah rose over the Throne.’

So I said, ‘Is that their saying or the saying of the Lord of all the worlds?’

He corrected himself and said that they explain the aayah to mean that Allaah is sitting on His Throne. I said to him: my brother, the difference between them and those who oppose them is not in likening the Lord of the worlds to the creation since they are united that it is falsehood.

Rather, the difference is in whether it is correct to interpret [the word used in the aayah] ‘istiwaa’ [rose over] to mean isteelaa [conquered] or is the correct interpretation that istiwaa means ista’laa [ascended over]? So I started talking about this topic at length.

And naturally the summary of the Salafi creed in this issue is that Allaah has the characteristic of being above all things [fawqiyyah]. So he latched on to this [statement] and said, ‘Is it possible [to believe] that Allaah the Mighty and Majestic is above the Throne? That would mean that we have situated him in a place.’

So I said to him, ‘No, this is a mistake on your part and we declare ourselves to be free from a belief which confines Allaah the Mighty and Majestic to a place whereas He is the All-High, the Most Great.’ Then I started to debate with him in a specific way and so said to him …’

2 Comments
September 28, 2011

Last Post and PDF of the Discussion on the Ascendancy of Allaah


 

This is the last post from the lecture.  Now what’s the point of reading this and not helping to spread it?  Forward the PDF to whoever you can, here it is: Ascendancy

Al-Albaani: At this moment we are in a house [of Allaah, i.e., a mosque], a place that is from the most excellent of places as occurs in the Saheeh [where it is mentioned] that the Prophet of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about the best and worst of places, so he said that the best places are the mosques and the worst are the marketplaces.

In the marketplace there are places that are even worse than the market [itself], like the lavatories for example, so the marketplace is from the worst of places as you just heard, and even worse than it are the lavatories, in some markets there are bars, pubs, brothels and so on.

Is Allaah the Mighty and Majestic in these places in His Essence [based upon the aayah], ‘… and He is with you wherever you are?’

Never!

Rather He is above His Throne as Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak said—but He is with you in His Knowledge, no secret is hidden from Him in the earth or the heavens.

So let not the intending meaning of this aayah be difficult for anyone to understand: Allaah’s [Dhaat] Essence, Allaah’s [Dhaat] Essence is free of all creation, ‘Allaah was and nothing was with Him.’

So, ‘… and He is with you wherever you are …’ He is with you wherever you are in His Knowledge.

No person says, ‘By Allaah, I’m [here] between the four walls [of this place], so there is a veil between me and my Lord such that He cannot see me,’ no, no one says this except an unbeliever who denies the existence of Allaah the Mighty and Majestic.

The same is said about aayahs like, ‘…Indeed, I am with you both.  I hear and I see.’ [Taa Haa 20:46]

The last part of this aayah explains its first part, and its first part the last, ‘… Indeed, I am with you both.  I hear and I see.’  This sentence is an explanation of His Saying, the Most High, ‘… Indeed, I am with you both …’ how? ‘I hear and I see.’

So He was with them when He sent them to Pharaoh and ordered them to remind him [of Allaah] and to make him fear [Allaah].  Allaah said to them, ‘Fear not.  Indeed, I am with you both.  I hear and I see.’

So this sentence, ‘… I hear and I see,’ is an explanation of His Saying, the Most High, ‘… Indeed, I am with you both,’

He is not there [Himself] as someone who would lead an army would be, or present as the head of an army would be–no, it is not like that–Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, is free and in no need of the world.  He regulates the universe from the heavens to the earth while having ascended and being above The Throne, as He, the Most High, has stated.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 741-742.

The video:

Leave a comment