Monday, May 20, 2019

Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid, PART-15


So, today we’ll be discussing the ninth misconception, and it’s the final misconception that the author talks about, in the book. So, we finished all the misconceptions or this will be the ninth.

As we talked about in the beginning, the book is divided into three sections. The first is a lengthy introduction that talks about the topics, the second is nine misconceptions that the mushrikin use to try to justify their shirk by the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and the third which we’ll get into insha’Allah next week or the week after.

So, we’ll talk about what the author says right now, then we’ll explain it. He says,
“When it has been established that those who the Messenger (saws) fought were of sounder intellect and less severe in their shirk than these people nowadays, then you should know that the contemporaries have a doubt which they present and reply to what we have mentioned.” 

So, now he’s talking about the mushrikin and all of the misconceptions that they bring. So, we know that the Muslimin bring evidences from the Qur’an and the Sunnah to disprove these misconceptions or to refute these misconceptions that the author mentions from them. So, they try to reply to these answers. 

So, he proved or he discussed as we talked about last week, that the mushrikin at the time of the Prophet (saws) weren’t as bad as the mushrikin that came later on, and that was for a number of reasons. One of them was that they would only perform in times when they weren’t in need or they weren’t in severe situations, while the mushrikin later on performed shirk all the time.

Also, the mushrikin in the time of the Prophet (saws) performed shirk with people who weren’t bad at all compared to the mushrikin that came later on. So, we know that the Christians, their shirk is through ‘Isa (as) and Maryam (ra‎) and we know that even the kuffar of Quraysh, much of their shirk was through the Salihin, or some of them was through the Mala’ika, as opposed to later on, the mushrikin they would perform shirk with things that were inanimate, that weren’t obeying of Allah and they weren’t disobeying. They had no ‘aql. Or they would perform shirk with people who were fussaq or evil people who were kuffar, and people who were leaders of shirk.
So, he’s saying now that the people who say this, they have arguments that they try to use to prove what they say. So, he says,
“So, this is of their greatest of doubts, so pay careful attention to the answer, so this doubt is that they say: “Verily, those whom the Qur’an was revealed upon, or those who it was revealed for, did not testify that none has the right to be worshipped in truth except Allah, and they rejected the Messenger (saws) and they rejected the Resurrection, and they rejected the Qur’an and they declared it to be from the magic or from the Sihr. Whereas we testify, that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger and we believe in the Qur’an, and we have faith in the Resurrection, and we pray and we fast so how can you make us to be like those kuffar.”So, he’s bringing now this Shubuha’ that they have, or this misconception. So, he says that,
“The answer to this is: that there’s no difference amongst the scholars that if a man believes in the Messenger (saws) and he disbelieves in something from him…”

So, he believes in part of what he came with and disbelieves a part of it, there’s no dispute among scholars,
“…that this person would be a kafir. He would have left Islam or he wouldn’t have entered Islam to begin with.”

So, if right from the beginning, he didn’t accept something from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, he wouldn’t have entered Islam to begin with, if he believed in it and he rejected it later on, he would have left Islam. So, then he says,
“And likewise, when he believed in part of the Qur’an and rejected part of it, such as the one who affirmed Tawhid, and he rejected the obligation of the prayer, or affirmed Tawhid and the prayers, then rejected the obligation of the Zakat.”

So, if someone accepts the Shahadah, and accepts the Qur’an, and accepts the fasting but rejects the Zakat, obviously they wouldn’t be Muslim. And then he continues and says,
“Or if they affirmed all of these things, but rejected the obligation of fasting, or affirmed all of this but rejected the obligation of Hajj, when the people of the time of the Prophet (saws) did not comply with the obligation of Hajj, and Allah revealed concerning them…”

So, now he’s saying, even when people in the time of the Prophet (saws) accepted most things, but some of them wouldn’t follow the command of Hajj, Allah revealed,
“And the hajj to the house is a duty upon mankind to Allah, those who can afford the expenses, and whoever disbelieves then indeed Allah is not in need of the ‘Alamin [so of His creation].” [3:97]

 Then he says,
“The one who affirmed a of this [so he accepts all of the five Arkan or the pillar of Islam] but then rejected the Resurrection, then he is a kafir by consensus and his blood and his wealth would be halal or lawful, just as He Azzawajal said or that Allah said, the meaning of which is, “Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers, and wish to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers, by saying “We believe in some of it and we reject others”, and wish to adopt a way in between, they are in truth disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers, a humiliating torment.” [4:150-151]

So, Allah here rejected the Islam of anyone who accepted some of the Messengers and rejected some of them. So, it’s not sufficient to accept one or two or some of them, rejecting one is rejecting all of them. Just like rejecting one part of the religion, is a rejection of the whole thing. You can’t pick and choose. So, if one part is rejected, it’s the same as, or almost the same as the whole religion was rejected.

Then he says,
“So, Allah has made it explicitly clear in His Book, that whoever believes in a part of it, and disbelieves in a part of it, then he is a kafir in truth, then this doubt comes to an end, and this doubt is the one the people of al-Ahsa mentioned in his book, that he sent to us.” 

So, the author here is talking about, in his time, when he was calling to Tawhid, some of the people around him rejected this, and they would write books, and they would write Risalah’s and things like this to try and refute this da’wah, and one of the people who did this was someone who was from the town of al-Ahsa, or the city of al-Ahsa, and he brought up this misconceptions.

Then he says,“It can also be said, that if you affirm that the one who believes in the Messenger, that he believes in everything then rejected the obligation of the prayer, he is a kafir, whose blood and wealth become lawful by consensus, and likewise if he affirms everything except the Resurrection and likewise, if he rejects the obligation of fasting and believes in everything else…”

So, he’s going through again, the different types of things that a person might accept or reject, but it still wouldn’t benefit him.

And he said,
“The various schools of thought do not differ on this, since the Qur’an itself has spoken of this, thus it is known that Tawhid is the greatest obligation that the Messenger (saws) came with and it is greater than the prayer, the Zakat, the fasting and the Hajj.”

So, here he’s saying or he’s explaining that, if someone rejected even the hajj, the fifth of the pillars, we know that the person would leave Islam. So, why would we then think that if someone did the four pillars then nullifies his Tawhid that somehow that would be…he still would be Muslim. By not doing the fifth of the five would remove someone from Islam, then why would we think that the first of the five of the pillars, it’d be fine to not have that fulfilled but you’d still be Muslim. So, that’s what the author is saying here.

Then he says,
“So, how can it be when a man rejects any of these matters, he disbelieves, even if he acts upon everything that the Messenger of Allah (saws) came with, and yet if he rejects Tawhid, that is the Deen of all the Messengers, he does not disbelieve. Subhan’Allah how amazing is this ignorance.”

So, we know that the Anbiya’ would come with different Shari’ahs, but the basis of Shari’ah from every Prophet, was the Tawhid, so how could it be that, if someone performed the five salawat, and they gave the zakat, and they performed the fasting and the hajj, but they didn’t accept them from Islam, so they even did them, but not following or accepting some of these Shara’a, or some of these legislations would remove someone from Islam, even though these legislations would differ from Prophet to Prophet, but rejecting or nullifying the basis of the da’wah of this Messenge (saws) and every Messenger before him, somehow that would be acceptable.

Then he says,
“It could also be said that those Companions of the Messenger of Allah (saws) that they fought Banu’ hanifah, and yet they had accepted Islam with the Prophet (saws) and they testified to La ilaha ila Allah, and that Muhammad was the Messenger of Allah and they prayed, and they would pronounce the adhan.”

So, here he is referring to Musaylamah al Kadhab and his people. They were from Banu Hanifah or the tribe of Banu’ Hanfifah. So, these people, some of them were in the time of the Prophet (saws) had actually accepted Islam during his time, yet despite this, when they followed Musaylamah, even though they still accepted the Prophet (saws) as a Prophet, when they followed another Prophet after him or claimed that someone else was a Prophet, the Sahabah fought them and declared them to be kuffar. So, that’s what he’s referring to here.

 And he says,
“If the person tries to reply to this and says: “But they said that Musaylamah was a Prophet, then we say: “this is what we’re trying to get at” [so this reply is exactly what we want], for if a person raises a man to the level of a Prophet, disbelieves and his wealth and his blood becomes halal, and for whom the Shahadahtayn are of no benefit, nor the prayer…”

So, he’s saying now, if someone who took just a man and made him like a Prophet, that all of the things from Islam that he performed, wouldn’t benefit him, then what would we say about someone, who didn’t put someone at the level of Prophet but he puts someone at the level of an Ilah. Obviously, that would be much worse. So, he says,
“So, how is it for the One who raises Shamsan and Yusuf or a Companion, or a Prophet to the level of the Jabbar of the Heavens and the Earth, subhan’Allah, how great is His affair.” 
So, here he’s referring to someone named Shamsan, and someone named Yusuf, it’s not important to know exactly who they were, the important thing is that in the time of the author, they were people who the mushrikin took as Ilah or ‘Aliha. So, they would go to their graves and they would make du’a to them, and they would make Thab'h around their graves and so on.

The point that he’s trying to make is, if taking someone and saying he’s a Prophet, would make every part of their Din useless, then how about someone who takes someone who’s either a Prophet or less than a Prophet like a companion, or someone who isn’t even a companion, and might even be a kafir, what if they take them, and put them at the level of Allah by worshipping them.

And then he says,
“Thus, does Allah seal the hearts of those who do not know.” [30:59]

And then he says,
“It is also said that those whom ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib burned with the fire, all of them claimed Islam, and they were the associates, or they were the Companions of ‘Ali and they acquired knowledge from the Companions. However, they believed concerning ‘Ali, a belief similar to what the people believe about Yusuf and Shamsan.”

So, again, what he’s saying is that during the time of ‘Ali, and this hadith is in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas. During his time, people came to him and said, “you’re Allah”, and this is the beginning or some of the ancestors of the Rafidah and more particularly the Nusayriyyah, so certain types of the Shi’a, they came to ‘Ali and said “you’re Allah”.

So, ‘Ali dug a giant pit, or had a giant pit dug, and fires were lit in them and he threw them all in this fire as a punishment as what they were saying about him, as it was an insult to Allah.

All of these people claimed to be Muslim, they prayed, they would give the Zakat, they fast, they would make Hajj, they were from the companions of ‘Ali and they would take their knowledge from the Sahabah, yet despite this, they didn’t say “well it’s fine because you’re claiming Islam” or “it’s fine because you’re praying”, none of this benefited them whatsoever.
“How then did the Companions agree upon their disbelief and in executing them. Do you think that the companions declared Muslims to be disbelievers or kuffar? Do you think that holding disbelief concerning Taj [and this is another person that some of the mushrikin would treat in a similar manner, that disbelief doesn’t harm them and yet holding disbelief about ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib is disbelief.”

So, his point here is he’s saying, who’s better ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, or someone who came after him who wasn’t from the Sahabah? Obviously, we would say ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. We know that he’s the Sahabah, he was from the Khulafa ash-Rashidin, the fourth of them, we know that the Prophet (saws) married his daughter Fatimah to him, we know that he promised him or gave him tidings that he’s in Jannah and so on and so on.

And we know that the virtues of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, they can be spoken about for hours and hours. So, if saying something like this was deserving of death according to the Sahabah, then what would we say about someone who said this about someone who came after them and go to their grave and say “he is Allah”, or “Allah entered his body”, or “he’s the embodiment of Allah on the earth”, or we can go to his grave and make du’a to him or thab’h for him, or he’ll help us if we need help and so on and so on.

Obviously, this one would be much worse who says this about ‘Ali, and even the one who said it about ‘Ali, he’s at some of the worst of creation.
Then the author says,
“It is also said that Bani Ubayd al-Qad’a… who are those who took over Morroco and Egypt during the time of Banu Abbas…”
And we’ll talk about them right away…

So, he’s talking about a group of, and we’ll talk about them in a bit, a group of the kuffar who took over northern Africa, from who we call the Fathimiyyah.
“…a group of them, all of them testified that there is none to be worshipped except Allah, and that Muhammad was the Messenger of Allah, and they claimed Islam, and they prayed Jumu’ah and Jama’ah however, when they manifested some opposition to the Shari’ah, so when they began to openly show opposition to the Shari’ah, different to that which they are upon, the scholars reunited concerning their disbelief and fighting against them, and that their land had become a land of war or dar al-harb, and so the Muslims made expeditions against them until they delivered the lands of the Muslims from their hands.” 

So, he’s saying here that Banu Ubayd al-Qad’a, who were this group who took over much of northern Africa, all of the scholars of the Muslimin at the time, they had performed consensus that these people weren’t Muslim. Despite the fact that they said they were Muslim, they would establish and pray the Jumu’ah and the Jama’ah salat, so obviously all the five salawat, and they would do whatever they would do that would comply with the Shari’ah outwardly.

But despite this, the Muslimin…and we could go into lots of details about this situation, but the Muslimin said that they were kuffar, and that you had to fight them, and that if you weren’t in the land, you couldn’t go to that land, unless you were going there to fight them, and if you were in the land, you had to leave, the only time you didn’t have to leave was if you were trying to stop them or if you couldn’t leave for whatever reason.

So…and the whole area according to the scholars at the time was declared dar al-harb, so meaning that it was a land of kuffar at the time. So, obviously, the people who were living there weren’t all kuffar, but the land itself, because it was being controlled by people who left Islam, the Muslimin, and the scholars at the time, declared it to be a land of war, meaning that it needed to be returned back to the Muslimin, even though all these people claimed to be upon Islam.

So, then the author continues and he says,
“And it could also be said that, when the very first ones did not disbelieve except due to their combining between shirk and disbelieving the Messenger (saws) and the Qur’an, and the Resurrection and other matters, then what exactly is the meaning of the chapter of the scholars of every school of thought have mentioned, the chapter of the ruling upon an apostate. And this one [the apostate] is the one who disbelieves after his Islam.”

So, his point here is he’s saying that these people who say, anyone who says he’s Muslim is a Muslim, regardless of what he does, regardless of what he says, regardless of what he believes, that it’s impossible for him to ever leave Islam, and we can’t say that anyone who says he’s Muslim isn’t Muslim, it could never ever be said at any point.

What’s the point of the chapter that you’ll find in almost every book of fiqh that talks about the rulings of an apostate, or the ruling of a murtad or someone who leaves Islam. If you can’t leave Islam, why do scholars have books on how to deal with them, what’s the ruling on them, what happens to their wealth, what happens to their marriage, how do they define what their kids are, if they have kids when they’re in that state, all of these things. If it’s not possible for someone to leave Islam ever, why are scholars having chapters and chapters, and books talking about this matter.

Then he says,
“Then they mentioned many types of disbelief.”

So, they would go into this book and say “this is a type of disbelief” and show that if someone does, says or believes these things, that they’ve left Islam.Then he says,
“Everyone of which necessitates disbelief, and makes lawful a person’s blood and his wealth, until they even mentioned some matters that would be considered very light to the one who committed them. Such as statements he makes with his tongue as opposed to his heart, or a word that he says out of jest and playing around.”

So, his point here is that if you look at the books of fiqh, depending on which madhab, they would mention certain things that would remove a person from Islam, but if someone said or did them, many people would think what’s the big deal with that, what’s the harm in that. So, for example, putting on a necklace that has a cross on it, someone would say all you did was put something on your neck.

There’s a consensus that, that would remove you from Islam. Imitating leaders of kuffar, so for example, if a person dressed like a priest. Someone would say, “Oh I was just doing it out of a joke”, this is another thing that the scholars have talked about that would remove someone from Islam. So, even things like this that wouldn’t come across someone’s mind. Scholars have talked about what to do with a person who does these types of things.
 Then the author says,
“It is also said that those about whom Allah said, “They swear by Allah that they said nothing [meaning that they didn’t do anything wrong], but really they said the word of disbelief and they disbelieved after their acceptance of Allah.” [9:74]

So, he’s saying here that these people were saying, we didn’t even say anything wrong but Allah is saying, yes they did and this statement or the statements that they made, so these people at the time of the Prophet (saws) had actually left Islam with this statement that they didn’t even see to be something that was wrong.

Then he says,
“Have you not heard that Allah declared them to be disbelievers by a mere word that they uttered, alongside their being from the time of the Prophet (saws) and their having fought alongside with him, and prayed with him, and given Zakat, and made Hajj, and they had Tawhid.”

So, he’s saying that, these people who Allah said this about, they claimed Islam, they prayed with the Prophet (saws), they gave the Zakat, they fasted, they made Hajj, they fought with the Prophet (saws) against the kuffar, but when they said something, or they said a word, that they didn’t even see was a big deal, Allah declared that they weren’t Muslim anymore.”

And he says,
“And likewise, those whom about Allah said, “Was it at Allah and his Ayat, and His Messenger that you were mocking, make no excuse, you have disbelieved after you have believed.” [9:65-66]

So, here Allah is telling us, these people, they were only mocking, they weren’t saying anything that they really believed in. They weren’t saying that, “we believe that the Prophet (saws) is such and such”, or “the Sahabah are such and such”, or “the Qur’an is such and such.”

They were saying things to just pass the time, and they were making jokes, but Allah judged upon them is that they have disbelieved, and their excuse that, “we were only joking”, doesn’t benefit them, and Allah didn’t accept it from them, but He didn’t say “you weren’t joking”. So, this is an important thing.

So, people might say “maybe they weren’t joking, maybe they really believed it.” But when they said, these people were mocking the Sahabah and the Qur’a of the Prophet (saws), they were joking, they didn’t actually believe bad things about the Prophet (saws) because when they said we were only joking, Allah didn’t say “No, you weren’t joking”, He said “don’t give any excuses, you have disbelieved after your Iman.” So, this excuse that you’re giving isn’t going to benefit you, so this is the point of this verse.

Then the author continues, he says,
“So, those who were with the Messenger of Allah (saws) in the expedition of Tabuk…”

And this is referring to when this verse came down, this was mentioned by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Hatim, that this verse came down at the time of Tabuk.

And he says,
“…about whom Allah made it clear that they have disbelieved after having faith, they uttered a word and then they mentioned it was only out of jest or only out of joking, so reflect upon this doubt which is their saying, you declare it to be disbelievers, those from the Muslims who’d say La ilaha ila Allah, and who pray and fast, and reflect upon its answer for it is amongst the most beneficial in what is in these papers.”

Then he says,
“And the proofs for what we have mentioned is contained in the description of Allah or what He gave about Bani Isra’il, even though they were Muslims…”

So, he’s talking about the story of Musa (as) and his companions, who were obviously Muslims, they were following their Prophet, and they had knowledge and piety.

“So, they asked Musa or they said to Musa, “Or make a god for us as they have a god.” [7:138]

So, if we look to the story of Bani Isra’il, their story in the Qur’an, that Allah mentions that when they were with Musa (as) they passed by a people who were staying around or they were making I’tikaf, or they were staying around some idols that they had, they said to Musa, “make a god for us like they have a god.” Then we know that Musa made ‘Inkar and he rebuked them, so he’s saying that this is another similar thing. We know that they were with their Prophet, we know that they were Muslim, but they we know that they weren’t in a good situation after they said this.

 Then he says,
“Also, some of the companions said, “Make for us O Messenger of Allah, Dhaat Anwat.” So, the Prophet (saws) swore that their statement was similar to that of Bani Isra’il, “make for us a god.” But the mushrikin have an argument that they use to try to refute the proper understanding of this story, and that is that they say, that Bani Isra’il did not become disbelievers by their actions, neither did the Companions when they asked the Prophet (saws) for Dhaat Anwat.”

And he says,
“We respond by stating, Bani Isra’il did not actually do this act and likewise nor did the Companions…”
So, he’s saying here that when Bani Isra’il asked for this, Musa (as) didn’t give it to them and it wasn’t legislated for them, so they never followed through with it.

And he says,
“There’s not difference of opinion if Bani Isra’il went ahead with this act…”
Meaning that they took a god with Allah, then they would have become disbelievers.”
“…Likewise, there’s no difference of opinion if the Companions disobeyed the Prophet (saws) when he prohibited them and instead had taken a Dhaat Anwat after this prohibition, then they would have become disbelievers and this is the point. But this story has a number of benefits that we can derive from it. The first of these is that a Muslim, even if he is a scholar, might fall into some types of shirk while he is unaware.”

So, if we look at this, these were companions of Musa and these were companions of the Prophet (saws). Despite this, they asked for something that was wrong. So, this idea that anything a scholar does can’t be wrong, and we have to accept it, “he wouldn’t have done it if it was wrong”, how often do we hear that or “he wouldn’t say something that wasn’t correct”, if the Sahabah could be mistaken, to the point where the Prophet (saws) declared their statement to be almost like Bani Isra’il or exactly like Bani Isra’il said, “make a god for us like they have a god”, what do we expect from people after the Sahabah, but we give them more of an excuse. So, this is the first benefit that the author says.

“A second benefit, is to teach us to and to warn us, so we realise that an ignorant person’s statement, we understand Tawhid is of the greatest types of ignorance, rather it is a plot of the Shaytan.”

So, he’s saying that, if the Sahabah, because they were new in Islam, had misconceptions about Tawhid, and the Sahabah of Musa, had misconceptions, despite the fact that they were with the Prophet, they were with the person on Earth who Allah sent this knowledge to, so they were there when it was being revealed, they could have misconceptions about Tawhid, why would we think that someone after them from the scholars can’t have a misconception, or even worse someone who has never picked up a book, never sat through a lesson, he understands Tawhid, and he’s in a good space and he doesn’t have to put in any effort in learning his religion.He says,
“And a third benefit, if a Muslim strives to understand the truth and utters a statement of disbelief, without realising that it is disbelief, then it is pointed out to him and he repents immediately, such a person has not committed disbelief, and this is what occurred with Bani Isra’il and the Companions when they asked the Prophet (saws).”

So, he’s saying here that, if someone does their best to learn and he does something that’s wrong, even if it was kufr, if it was something that there was a misunderstanding about, and as soon as they clarify it to them and they stop it and go back to the truth, they don’t leave Islam.

So, this idea that people might say, “you’re saying that every Muslim is disbeliever”, or “there’s no excuses” or “no-one can make a mistake”, this is completely wrong. We’re saying that if it’s something that a mistake is acceptable in or if it’s possible that someone can make a mistake and then they turn away from the mistake, when the knowledge comes to them, of course they wouldn’t leave Islam, because they’re doing their best in trying to learn what is correct from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and they’re trying to follow Tawhid.

And then he says,
“And the final benefit is that even if a person does not enter into disbelief, he should be rebuked and reprimanded severely as the Prophet (saws) did.”

So, this is the last point, benefit that he mentions from this hadith, that even if someone does something wrong, and we say he had an excuse so he doesn’t leave Islam, or he had an excuse so he’s not deserving of punishment, it doesn’t mean that we say it’s fine what he said, or that we can’t say anything wrong to him, or we can’t be harsh with the person to an extent that we show him what he said was actually wrong.

So, this idea that we don’t want to tell anyone anything because we don’t want to offend them, this isn’t the point. The Prophet (saws) what did he say to the Sahabah, the best of creation after the Prophets, “by Allah, you’ve said exacty what Bani Isra’il said to Musa”. So, he didn’t say, “you’re new in Islam, I’ll let it go”, he was very harsh with them to an extent that it was acceptable.

So, this is the final point that the author mentions, so this is the final issue on this ninth misconception. So, this is the end of the authors words, next week I’ll add a few points and clarify a few issues from this, and then we’ll have finished the second part of the book. So, insha’Allah we’ll stop there. Wallahu A’lam.


Note:
Shaykh Haytham Sayfaddīn (may Allāh reward him) misunderstood the statement (at the end of his sharh #15), as imam Muhammad Ibn 'Abdil-Wahhāb stated elsewhere that this is considered a statement of minor shirk/minor kufr by his statement "kufr", and they become kuffār due to opposing the command of the prophets, not due to the statement turning from minor to major kufr. (May Allah reward the one who pointed this out).

Kashf ash-Shubuhat fit-Tawhid #15 [Transcribed] - By Shaykh Haytham Sayfaddeen

TO BE CONTINUED INSHA'ALLAH...


TO READ MORE, CLICK:


No comments:

Post a Comment