Saturday, 14 December 2013

Daughter, Sister, Wife & Mother of Prophets?



Message sent to me:


Question: Who is the only woman whose father, husband, brother and son were Nabīs?
Answer: Layyā bint Ya‘qūb – her father was Ya‘qūb عليه السلام ; her husband was Ayyūb عليه السلام ; her brother was Yūsuf عليه السلام ; and her son was Ẓul Kifl عليه السلام .  

My comment:

At the outset, it should be mentioned that there are many unheard of narrations circulating through the blessings of ash-Shaykh Email, al-Allāmah Blackberry and al-Mufti Facebook etc. The scholars are under no obligation to verify each of these circulations. The onus is upon the circulator to prove the authenticity of what he distributes

عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال
   البينة على المدعي
Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “The burden of proof rests upon he who makes the claim.” [al-Bayhaqī]

That being said, my instinct tells me that the Layyā “narration” is but an attempt to provide a female equivalent to the Ḥadīth mentioning Yūsuf عليه السلام  as being Nabī, son of Nabī, son of Nabī, son of Nabī.

Daughter of Ya‘qub عليه السلام

Despite the story of Yūsuf عليه السلام  being the single most detailed continuous story narrated in the Qurān, the only names mentioned in it are that of his and that of his father. This is because the Qurān is a book of guidance and does not detail dates, names, places etc. as the Hebrew scripture does. However, it is permitted to refer to the Hebrew books for such details – where they make sense and do not contradict anything established by Islām – for Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم  said:

عن عبد الله بن عمرو: "بلغوا عني ولو آية، وحدثوا عن بني إسرائيل ولا حرج، ومن كذب علي متعمداً، فليتبوأ مقعده من النار
Convey from me even if it be an Āyah. Narrate from the Children of Isrāīl and there is no harm in it. But he who intentionally lies against me should prepare his resting place in the Fire.” [al-Bukhārī]

According to Genesis, “Leah” or Layyā was a wife of Ya‘qūb عليه السلام  who bore him his only daughter, Dīnah. This already debunks the fictitious Layyā, supposed daughter of Ya‘qūb عليه السلام . Genesis further describes her being raped by an idol-worshipper. The Hebrew sources describe her only child, variously a boy or a girl, as the product of that rape. Even if a boy, it would be impossible for Dīnah/Layyā to be a mother of a Nabī, since the Qurān describes Prophets as pure of lineage. Ẓul Kifl عليه السلام  could not be the product of rape.

Sister of Yusuf  عليه السلام

Firstly Yusuf عليه السلام  did not have a full sister. He was the son of Rachel (Rāḥil) whilst Dīnah was the daughter of Leah (Layyā). That aside, Dīnah has been discussed above.

Mother of ul Kifl عليه السلام

Ẓul Kifl عليه السلام  is mentioned twice in the Qurān. Although suggestions have been made, he is not clearly identified with any figure in the Bible with absolute certainty. If we accept the suggested names, we also accept that none of them are grandchildren of Ya‘qūb عليه السلام. If we avoid the suggested names and restrict our discussion to Islāmic sources, then neither the Qurān nor Ḥadīth mention his mother. I cannot check every Tafsīr, but neither Ibn Kathīr, al-Baghawī nor al-Qurṭubī mention his mother. Surely being the grandson of Ya‘qūb عليه السلام  would have merited a mention?

Furthermore, the narration which the Books of Tafsīr quote from Ibn ‘Abbās , describing how Ẓul Kifl عليه السلام  attained his position, makes it abundantly clear that this was generations after Ya‘qūb عليه السلام  when there was a large population descended from him and a kingdom had been established. In other words, he was born after Mūsā عليه السلام  and was no son of any daughter of Ya‘qūb عليه السلام :

عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما، قال: "إن نبياً من أنبياء بني إسرائيل، آتاه الله الملك والنبوة، ثم أوحى الله إليه أني أريد قبض روحك، فاعرض ملكك على بني إسرائيل، فمن تكفل لك أنه يصلي بالليل حتى يصبح، ويصوم بالنهار فلا يفطر، ويقضي بين الناس فلا يغضب، فادفع ملكك إليه، فقام ذلك النبي في بني إسرائيل وأخبرهم بذلك، فقام شاب،
Allāh granted a Nabī from amongst the Prophets of Banū Isrāīl kingship and prophethood. Allāh revealed to him, “I intend to seize your soul. So present your kingdom to Banū Isrāī. He who guarantees (kifl) you that he will offer Ṣalāh until the morning; and fasts during the day without breaking it; and will judge amongst the people without becoming angry; then give him the kingdom.”
The Nabī stood amongst Banū Isrāīl and informed them of that. A young man stood…..

Wife of Ayub عليه السلام

The Mufassirūn have written extensively about the wife and children of Ayūb عليه السلام . They describe Allāh’s gifts to the Nabī who had succeeded in the tests put upon him. This included the loyal wife and restoration of his deceased children and additional offspring as well. They debate whether the children were resurrected or are to be restored in the Ākhirah. Again, neither Ibn Kathīr, al-Baghawī nor al-Qurṭubī mention his wife being the daughter of Ya‘qūb عليه السلام , which would have been a pertinent point in listing Allāh’s  favours in regards his family. Even the Bible does not mention her name.

In all the discussion on the offspring, none mentions Ẓul Kiflعليه السلام  as being amongst them. This would have been a most glaring omission in the light of the Qurān describing other prophets (Yūsuf, Yaḥyā and ‘Īsā) as gifts to the virtuous (Ya‘qūb, Zakarīyā and Maryam). How then does the Qurān and commentators maintain silence on Ẓul Kifl عليه السلام being the supposed son of Ayūb عليه السلام

Although not a unanimous view, the possibility of Ayūb عليه السلام  being European and not Asian, makes the above parentage of an Asian Nabī even more farfetched.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Ummah should be far more careful of what they narrate as fact. In regards the above, I believe the balance of facts point to it being a fiction.  


سليمان الكندي

Saturday, 7 December 2013

Death of Mandela or death of Imaan?



It is perhaps more a statement of my own arrogance and weak spiritual condition, instead of that of others, that I often react with incredulity to some people’s views. Is that not obvious? Do they not know what the Qurān says? How can they believe that?

These reactions of mine display a lack of patience far from the Sunnah. If Allāh has granted me some understanding of His Speech and that of His Rasūl  صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم , I should be patient enough to explain to those who have drawn their own conclusions as opposed to drawing guidance from Allāh and His Rasūl صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم , but really, it is so difficult! On the other hand, those who have knowledge, and deliberately distort Allāh’s Word for their own material gain, are no better than Jewish Pharisees in my eyes. In fact they are worse. They have been admitted into the best Ummah and have knowledge of the best scripture and yet walk in the footsteps of Rabbis.

Reaction to the death of Nelson Mandela

Since the death of Nelson Mandela, I am overcome with grief, not at his death, but at the dangerous reaction from certain quarters. Rather than mourn over Mandela. I grieve over statements from Muslims which contradict the Qurān they are supposed to follow, and to put it lightly, such contradictions surely have a negative effect on one’s Īmān.
Muslims have been texting messages such as:
·         May Allāh grant him Jannatul Firdaws.
·         May Allāh accept his good and forgive him.
·         May he rest in peace.
·         Etc.

Moreover, a South African politician not only sings his praises at the Jumu‘ah platform, but expects the ‘Ulamā to toe his line.

But what is Allāh’s reaction?

Allāh’s reaction is known. I earnestly beg all Muslims who have held an opinion contrary to the Word of Allāh to sincerely and immediately repent. How possibly can any of the above statements and praising one who died denying Allāh be at all justified when Allāh says:

إن الذين كفروا وماتوا وهم كفار أولئك عليهم لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين. خالدين فيها لا يخفف عنهم العذاب ولا هم ينظرون
Verily those who disbelieved and died as disbelievers then upon such be the curse of Allāh, the angels and all mankind. May they be forever in it [the curse or Hell]. Punishment will not be lightened for them and they will not be granted respite. [al-Baqarah: 161-2]

Allāh is clear that:

·         Those who die as disbelievers are under His curse.
·         The angels also curse him.
·         As opposed to the politician who said that what happens in the grave is not under discussion, only the good of Mandela, the rest of mankind who submit their opinions to Allāh curse those who die denying him. According to al-Imām al-Baghawī, the disbeliever will even curse himself.
·         Unlike a believer who can hope for eventual release, the disbeliever is punished forever. Allāh makes no distinction how good or bad he was.
·         There is no lightening of the punishment.
·         It is continuous with no respite. 

How possibly does a slave then utter words contrary to the decree of Allāh? Such a slave must surely be unaware of what Allāh says, and will repent when he learns the truth. No doubt.      

Good deeds of disbelievers – Abū Ṭālib

Good deeds? Is there anyone on the face of the earth who can match the deeds of Abū Ṭālib who raised the orphan boy, Muḥammad bin ‘Abdillāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم , as if he were his own son since the age of 8? Which Muslim, living or dead, can claim to have a deed equal Abū Ṭālib’s protecting Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  for a decade when the Quraysh opposed him? These are not good deeds, these are GREAT deeds. Add to this that Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  loved him most intensely. The Qurān even testifies to the sadness of Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  that his beloved uncle never embraced Islām:

إنك لا تهدي من أحببت ولكن الله يهدي من يشاء وهو أعلم بالمهتدين
Verily you do not guide those whom you love, but it is Allāh who guides whom He wills. He knows best those deserving to receive guidance. [al-Qaṣaṣ: 56]

Yet when he died, Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  clearly said that he is to be in Hell. If good deeds were sufficient, then Abū Tālib would be destined for Jannah, not Hell. Let alone Mandela, the most pious of Muslims cannot match either his service to Islām, or the love Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  had for him. Yet he is condemned to eternal damnation.

Muīm bin ‘Adī & Ibn Jad‘ān

Muṭ‘im bin ‘Adī was a distant uncle of Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم . Every Muslim should learn at least two of his amazing and unmatchable deeds:
·         When Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم   was exiled into the Glen of Abū Tālib and starved there for three years, Muṭ‘im bin ‘Adī helped terminate the boycott.
·         When the people of aṭ-Ṭāif brutally stoned Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم   and he had no physical refuge, it was Muṭ‘im bin ‘Adī who protected Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  and allowed him to return to Makkah. 

Were I to live a million years, I would never be able to match either deed. Yet I thank Allāh for granting me Īmān, for despite my paucity of deeds and profusion of sin, I am an Ummatī of Muḥammad صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  unlike the disbeliever, Muṭ‘im bin ‘Adī. 

‘Abdullāh bin Jad‘ān was legendary for his generosity and nobility of character. In fact, before Islām, Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  joined him in assisting  a trader who had been cheated by a prominent man of Makkah. Sadly today there are Muslim traders who are cheats. On one occasion alone, Ibn Jad‘ān imported 2000 camel-loads of wheat, honey and butter from Syria, not for trade, but he publicly invited all and sundry to come and eat from his food. 

Again, I cannot match his one donation throughout my life, but what does Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  say about him? Al-Imām Muslim narrates:
عن عائشة قالت قلت يا رسول الله ابن جدعان كان في الجاهلية يصل الرحم ويطعم المسكين فهل ذاك نافعه قال لا ينفعه إنه لم يقل يوما رب اغفر لي خطيئتي يوم الدين
 ‘Aishah said, “O Rasulullāh! In the pagan time Ibn Jad‘ān used to maintain family ties and feed the poor. Will that benefit him?”
“No,” he replied, “For he never said, even a single day, ‘O my Rabb, forgive my sin on the Day of Reckoning.’”

I would further point out that the Muḥaddith, al-Imām an-Nawawī, labelled this Ḥadīth under, “Proof that good deeds do not benefit one who dies upon disbelief.” Some of us hold al-Imām an-Nawawī in greater regard than what we hold the politician who praises one who dies upon disbelief, at Jumu‘ah.

Condoling with disbelievers

Our neighbours have rights over us, even if they reject Allāh. This is what Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  taught us. Consoling them during their grief is but good character and fulfilling their right. This is not what I dispute. I dispute extending “good wishes” to the extent that we contradict the Qurān. I dispute praising a disbeliever in the house of Allāh.

Praising a disbeliever in the Masjid

The Masjid is established for the remembrance and praise of Allāh:
في بيوت أذن الله أن ترفع ويذكر فيها اسمه يسبح له فيها بالغدو والآصال
In houses which Allāh has commanded be erected and wherein His Name is mentioned and He is praised in them morning and evening. [an-Nūr: 36]

Allāh dislikes the praising of a sinner. Abū Ya‘lā, Ibn Ḥajar, Abū Nu‘aym and al-Bayhaqī record the Ḥadith narrated by Anas رضي الله عنه :
عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، قَالَ : قَالَ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " إِذَا مُدِحَ الْفَاسِقُ اهْتَزَّ لِذَلِكَ الْعَرْشُ ، وَغَضِبَ لَهُ الرَّبُّ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ
When an open sinner is praised the Throne shakes at that and Allāh Most Mighty and Majestic becomes angry. 

How much more serious is it when the praise is in the Masjid, and how much worse than a sinner is one who died rejecting Allāh? The ploy that Islām acknowledges the achievements of disbelievers is only viable to those who cannot distinguish between a simple record of history and singing someone’s praise. Every Ḥadīth of Abū Ṭālib is a simple unbiased record of fact, whether that he did good, or that he is eternally condemned. Is there a single authentic narration of Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  singing his uncle’s praises after he died? Rather there is proof that that would have angered Allāh.

Is Islām compromised still Islām?

If the above gives the impression that I am advocating a hard-line hostile attitude to disbelievers, then I apologise, that was not my intention. By all means let us show the character of Rasūlullāh صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم  to them. We should condole, and a simple statement of acknowledging the historical record of a person’s deeds might also be in order, in a given context. Let us however pause and draw a breath, to ask ourselves if we have not overstepped the bounds when we offer opinions which contradict the Qurān. There might be scope in differing presentations when dealing with them, but if we compromise basic principles to appease disbelievers, where is the line drawn? Is the eventual product after compromise and yet more compromise still Islām?


سليمان الكندي

Sunday, 24 November 2013

Presenting the Quran & rational thought to Saudi apologists


Merriam-Webster defines Apologetics as:

1
:  systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2
:  a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity


Amongst the Muslim community, there are those who defend the Saudi regime as if defending their religion or a doctrine. These apologists either have financial interests in doing so, or at the very least, subconsciously seek to soothe their hidden guilt at allowing an anti-Islāmic force to rule the sacred soil of Arabia. They are not bothered at the broader issues and crises of Islām as long as they can continue their lifestyle as they please.


The arguments they present are patently naïve and never refer to the Qurān or adīth, for indeed the sacred texts of Islām cannot condone the existence of a tyrannical, treasonous regime devoted to Ghayrullāh. To even call these arguments “apologetics” is a kindness, for apologetics is defined to be “systematic,” unlike the statements of Saudi apologists. 


   "The excesses of the Saudis are to be balanced against their great service to the Muslims"


Okay, so the Saudis have made the Maṭāf marble when previously awāf was more physically taxing. They have installed air-conditioning and many other material amenities. This is not in dispute. What I do dispute is firstly, this argument presents nothing of a scriptural basis. It is pure concocted defence. Secondly the defence is invalid.


·         The apologists pretend that the Saudis have spent of their own personal wealth in the cause of Allāh and deserve recognition for this supposed selfless sacrifice. How many minutes of honest labour have the Saudis engaged in and how many millilitres of sweat have they perspired to acquire this wealth of “theirs”?  Unless the apologists wish to stoop to unheard of levels of shamelessness, nobody is able to deny the fact that the thousands of Saudis who call themselves princes are nothing but parasites leeching off the wealth of Allāh and the Ummah. When they do engage in work, it is in the fields of drug trafficking, stealing property from commoners, taking loans and not repaying and the like.
·         When the Jews offer the Palestinians some scraps of amenities, we are not impressed, and rightfully so. The wealth is stolen and if a portion is thrown back, why should the victim show gratitude? What is the difference between Jewish and Saudi theft?
·         The amounts spent on the aramayn should be weighed against the mind boggling billions which the House of Saud lavishes not just on extravagant lifestyles, palaces and yachts, but Allāh alone knows the incalculable amount spent on gambling and prostitution. Consider just two facts – ABC reported in 2004 how Saudi princes paid prostitutes of both sexes in the French  Riviera up to $50,000 per session; and consider that in 1969, i.e. just two years after the loss of al-Aqṣā, Fahd gambled 5.6m USD away in a single night. Adjust that to current values and ask with what face do the apologists ask us to be grateful to this house?
·         Even if the wealth came from the personal funds and generosity of the Saudis, I would advise the apologists to read the Qurān, at least once in a while. Remember that Pharaoh had raised Mūsā ‘alayhis salām since he was a baby. He not only paid for his food, clothing and the roof over his head, even the mother’s milk which Mūsā ‘alayhis salām drank was not for free. Pharaoh paid his mother to breast-feed him. The Qurān describes how the now Nabī Mūsā ‘alayhis salām denounces the shirk and tyranny of Pharaoh. Pharaoh responds in the same vein as the apologists and reminds Mūsā ‘alayhis salām of his past generosity to him. I shall limit myself to quoting the reply of Mūsā ‘alayhis salām. If an explanation is needed on comparing the two scenarios then may Allāh have mercy!

وتلك نعمة تمنها علي أن عبدت بني إسرائيل
And that is the favour which you flaunt against me despite your enslaving Banū Isrāīl? [ash-Shuara: 22]

"If Allāh was unhappy with the Saudis He would not allow them control over the Ka ‘bah"

If not for the fact that I have heard this argument many a time, I would feel it a sheer waste of time to even respond to it.

·         Three centuries before Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم  ‘Amr bin Luayy al-Khuzāī ruled Makkah. It was this wretched person who defiled the Ka‘bah and introduced idolatry to Makkah. According to the Saudi apologists, control of the Ka‘bah is indicative of Allāh’s sanctioning a ruling. By this reasoning, Allāh sanctioned the rule of ‘Amr and the idolators for the next three centuries. Note that the Saudis have not yet completed a century of ruling Makkah, as opposed to the three centuries of idolatrous rule. If we extend the strange reasoning of the apologists, this would mean that Allāh is triply more pleased with the idolaters than with the Saudis.
·         Again, if Allāh is pleased with whoever rules Makkah, what was the purpose of Rasūlullāh militarily صلى الله عليه و سلم opposing the government of Makkah and conquering Makkah?
·          During the Islāmic period Makkah has been ruled several times by the Shī‘ah. These included the Qarāmatīyah and Fāṭimīyah, both whom subscribed to Ismā‘īlī heresy i.e. ‘Alī رضى الله عنه is God incarnate! So… was Allāh pleased with these governments?
·         Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم  has informed us that Ẓū Suwayqatayn will conquer Makkah and demolish the Ka‘bah. Indeed, by the reasoning of the Saudi apologists, Allāh’s pleasure not only encompasses pious rulers such as  Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, but a host of tyrants and disbelievers who have ruled and will rule Makkah.
·         I again ask the apologists to refer to the Word of Allāh. Al-‘Abbās رضى الله عنه  is honoured as both a aḥābī and uncle of Rasūlullāh  صلى الله عليه و سلم  , notwithstanding his relative late entry into Islām. In fact he fought on the Quraysh side at Badr. He held a post in the Quraysh government and could be termed as the Minister of Ḥajj and Custodian of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām. He defended his perceived honour in regards the early Muslims by saying, “You may have preceded us in Islām, Hijrah and Jihād, but indeed we maintained the building of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām and gave water to the pilgrims and spent on the needy.” Allāh’s reply in the form of the 19th verse of at-Tawbah should be well heeded by those who defend the House of Saud:

أجعلتم سقاية الحاج وعمارة المسجد الحرام كمن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وجاهد في سبيل الله لا يستوون عند الله والله لا يهدي القوم الظالمين
Do you make the giving of water to the pilgrims and building the Sacred Masjid equal to those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and strive in Allāh’s way? They are not equal in the Sight of Allāh! And Allāh does not guide the wrong-doing folk.

Although the scum of kufr seems to be overwhelming the pure river of Islām, inshāllāh Allāh’s Dīn will soon triumph. Islām’s triumph is guaranteed, Allāh alone knows when. The question each Muslim should ask, is whether he or she wishes to sell his or her religion and associate with the scum for the sake of temporary worldly pleasure, or whether he or she wishes to be amongst Allāh’s party. May Allāh guide us all.

سليمان الكندي