Celebrating The Maulid

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
All praises are due to Allah, may His blessings and peace be upon our noble Prophet Muhammad, his family and companions.
The issue of celebrating ‘Maulid’ (what some call the birthday of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), in later generations up till this age of ours, has been viewed differently by many people, scholars and commoners alike. Many writings have been excellently presented on the subject by eminent scholars to the effect that this celebration has no basis from the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) thereby calling upon Muslims to desist from participating in it. But despite that you find many Muslims – viewing the matter from a purely sentimental and emotional perspective – still endulge in such practice and view any opposite opinion to be wrong. Some find it difficult to believe that the practice is alien to Islam, considering the fact most of the Muslim Ummah in almost all countries observe it or that some famous scholars known for their sincere service to Islam were reported to have been observing the Maulid.
This piece is a response to a brother with such a view. In an exchange between me and him on the issue he asked why is it that some scholars condemn the observance of maulid while we find some great scholars like Ibn Hajar (Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalaani, d. 852 a.h.) and Suyuti are reported to have been observing or attending the maulid congregation. In my response to him on an internet forum I wrote the following confirming that Ibn Hajar and Suyuti did not only endorse and observe the maulid but also presented some arguments in an effort to give it a legal bearing from some texts of the Qur’an or the Sunnah, then followed it with responses from the scholars especially from the Maliki Mazhab.

The stand of Ibn Hajar regarding maulid is clear and he had really endorsed its observance without any doubt. But this is not found in any of his books, or to be more precise I could not lay my hands on his justification for celebrating maulud and the arguments on which he based that from his own books, but his student Suyuti (‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Bakr As-Suyuti, d. 911 a.h.) quoted him. This I suppose he took directly from Ibn Hajar in one of his lessons.

I will therefore begin by quoting the complete text of Ibn Hajar’s statement and then follow it with the relevant responses. Suyuti states in his Husnul Maqsid Fi ‘Amalil Maulid from his Al-Haawi Lil Fataawi (vol.1 p.302-303):
((Shaikhul Islam, Abul Fadl Ahmad ibn Hajar was asked about celebrating the Maulid, and he answered with the following words:

((Originally celebrating Maulid is an innovation (bid’ah) which has not been reported from any of the pious predecessors ‘As-Salafus Salih’ from the first three generations of the Muslim Ummah. But all the same it contains some good and some bad things. So whoever pursues the good things in performing it, and avoids its opposite, it will be considered a good innovation (bid’ah hasanah). Otherwise it will be (a bad bid’ah).
It appears to me that celebrating the maulid can be deduced from an established source, that is the authentic hadith in al-Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) came to Madina and saw the Jews fasting the day of Ashuraa’. He asked them about that. They said: “this is the day on which Allah Ta’aala drowned Pharaoh and rescued Musa. So we fast it to show our gratitude to Allah Ta’aalaa”.
This infers that one can show gratitude to Allah for a favour He bestows on him, whether that favour is in the form of a blessing He granted him or for rescuing him from a hardship or trouble on a specific day. And that he repeats that celebration on the return of the like of that day every year. Thanking Allah can take the form of various types of ibadaats like prostration, fasting, voluntary alms and reciting (the holy Qur’an). And what kind of blessing is greater than the advent of this Prophet - the prophet of mercy – on that day?
Based on this, the exact and specific day ought to be pursued for the observance of maulid in order to correspond to the story of Musa on the day of Aashuuraa. He who does not take note of this will not care to observe the maulid on any day of the month. Some people even widened the matter and claim that the maulid should be observed on any day of the year. This of course entails some meanings that are unbecoming. This is as far as its initial observance is concerned.
But as regards what should be done in observing the maulid, people should confine themselves to what really gives the impression of showing gratitude to Allah. Like the aforementioned things: reciting the holy Qur’an, feeding the needy, voluntary alms giving and the recitation of some poems intended to praise the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) or that encourages religious devotion (zuhd), and that draws the mind towards the performance of good deeds. But as for the things which follow that, like the (sufi) samaa’ (songs joined with beating drums) and other types of entertainment, what we ought to say is that there is nothing wrong in permitting whatever is lawful from those activities such that it enhances happiness in respect of that day. And to prohibit whatever is known to be unlawful or disliked or is known to be non-preferable (khilaaful awlaa)) Unquote.

This is also mentioned by Al-Zarqaani in Sharhul Mawaahibil Laduniyyah vol.1 p.140, and As-Sharqaawi in his Hashiyah vol.7 p.423.

There are certain things to be noted from the above statement

1. That Ibn Hajar confesses that maulid is bid’ah;
2. And that non of the pious predecessors observed it;
3. That what made him permit it is that it entails some good things;
4. He endorses the categorisation of bid’ah into good and bad;
5. The basis of his stand is that he drew an analogy between maulid and the observance of the fasting of the day of Aashuraa;
6. That he was the first to draw this analogy;
7. The reason common between maulid and the day of Aashuraa is that both are a way of showing gratitude to Allah;
8. That maulid contains some negative and bad activities which, if avoided, it will be a good bid’ah.
9. That the exact date of the birth of the prophet should be pursued in observing the maulid. And this is something impossible, for one thing not known by many people (I don’t mean Ibn Hajar) is that the exact date of his birth is not known, at least through an authentic narration. There are several views on this date. Some say it was on the 2nd of Rabi’ul Awwal, while most of the scholars of hadith say it was on the 8th. Other views are that it was on the 10th or 12th or 17th or 18th. Some even claim that it was in the month of Ramadan and there is no authentic narration from the prophet himself (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) to support any of these views. The only thing established is that it was on Monday as mentioned by the prophet himself. But it is also established that he (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) died on the 12th of Rabi’ul Awwal. That is why Ibnul Haaj (a famous Maliki scholar said: “The most surprising thing is that how can they rejoice with drumming and other means of happiness because of his birth in this month (Rabi’ul Awwal) while he (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) died in the same month, and the ummah was inflicted with a great calamity not comparable with anything. Why didn’t they weep over his death…. Even though if they did that and continue to observe it every year it will all the same be a bid’ah.” Al-Madkhal vol.2 p.16-17. (See on the issue of the difference of opinion on this date Al-Mawahibul Laduniyyah 131-132 and Al-istee’aab by Ibn Abdil Barr, and Al-Bidayah Wan Nihayah by Ibn Katheer.

There are of course more to deduce from his statement.
The Aaashuuraa hadith is not the only proof on which the maulid is based. Rather the proponents of maulid have other arguments to support their claim of its lawfulness. I will briefly mention them here together with what other scholars said in response to those claims.

Two
Suyuti, immediately after quoting the above argument from Ibn Hajar said: “And it appears to me that celebrating maulid can be deduced from another established source. And that is what Al-Baihaqi reported from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) performed an ‘aqiqah for himself after becoming a prophet, even though it was reported that his grandfather Abdul Muttalib had done that for him on the seventh day of his birth. And it is known that it is not a normal practice to repeat the ‘aqiqah. This should therefore be taken to mean that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) performed that to express his gratitude to Allah Ta’aala for creating him and making him a mercy to the world. It should also be regarded as a legalization of that same action to his ummah, just as the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) used to recite the salatun Nabiyy. So it is recommended that we also express our gratitude over his birth, by joining up in congregations, feeding the needy and other types of ibadaat to demonstrate our happiness.” (Husnul Maqsid Fi ‘Amalil Maulid from vol.1 p.303 of Al-Hawi lil Fataawi).

Three
Another argument forwarded by Ibnul Jazariy in his book ‘Urfut Ta’reef Bil Maulidis Shareef’ and Shamsuddeen Ibnu Naarisriddeen Ad-Dimashqi in his ‘Mauridus Saadii Fi Maulidil Haadi’ is that Abu Lahab was seen in a dream and was asked about his situation in Hell. He replied: ‘I am in the hell fire. But the torment is lightened on me every Monday night and I suck some water from the tip of my finger. And this is because I freed Thuwaibah when she announced to me the good news of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) and for suckling him’. This is also mentioned by Suyuti in the aforementioned reference.

Four
The saying of Allah Ta’aala: ((Say: In the bounty of Allah and in His mercy therein let them rejoice. That is better than what they amass (of wealth)) Yunus: 58.
They say: To be happy with the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is demanded by the Qur’an, as seen in this verse. Therefore Allah orders that we rejoice in His mercy, and the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is the greatest mercy. See Al-Maulidur Rawiyy Fil Maulidin Nabiyy by Alawi Al-Maliki p.10.

These are the strongest arguments, at least which are traceable to the Qur’an and Hadith. There are others drawn from a more distant point of view, and others based on the fact that many people amongst whom some ulama participate in the observance of the maulid. Some of these are:
1. That the first person to innovate the maulid was a renowned just ruler;
2. That Ibn Batuta, in his travels, praised Muhammad ibn Muhiyiddin al-Tabari, one of the judges in Makkah at his time, for his observance of the maulid;
3. That the maulid is a way of remembering the most important personality ever created;
4. That the maulid is recommended by many ulama and that it is one of the good things introduced in Islam;
5. That it is a congregation of alms giving and praising and extolling the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam).
In addition to the various hadiths with some ambiguous meanings they cling to. Some of these are:
1. “Man sanna sunnatan hasanatan…”;
2. Ibn Mas’uud’s saying “Maa Raahul Muslimuna Hasanan fahuwa indallahi hasan” (Whatever the Muslims consider good is good in the sight of Allah);
3. The categorisation of bid’ah by some ulama into good and bad or into wajib, mustahab, mubah, haram and makruh;

Before responding to all these arguments, I think it is important we note some points.
1. The term ‘ibadah’ (worship) is defined as anything loved and pleased with by Allah, either in the form of a saying or action, explicit or implicit.
2. The term ‘bid’ah’ (innovation) denotes anything that possesses the following qualities:
Being an innovation
(One) Claimed to belong to the deen of Islam
(Two) Not having any legal origin. This is in line with the hadith of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) : “Man Ahdatha Fii Amrinaa Hadha Ma Laisa Minhu Fa Huwa Raddun” (Whoever innovated into this affair of ours (Islam) what does not belong to it, will not be accepted). (See Jaami’ul Uluumi Wal Hikam by Ibn Rajab vol.1 p.177). By this definition, worldly affairs like scientific and technological advancements, are not considered as ‘bid’ah’ even though they are innovated.
3. The hadith of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) ‘Kullu bid’atin dalalah’ (Every innovation is a bid’ah) is a generalisation comprising all kinds of bid’ah as far as the aforementioned definition is concerned. So there is no bid’ah that is good in Islam.
4. Drawing near to Allah through any ibadah must be in line with the shari’ah in two basic points:
(One) Establishing the origin of that ibadah by authentic legal evidence. Therefore it should not be deduced from a false hadith or based on the saying of someone whose saying or action is not a binding ‘hujjah’.
(b) Preserving the original mode of performing the ibadah as taught by the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam).(See Qawaa’idu Ma’rifatil Bida’ip.66).
5. Any act of worship originating from mere reasoning, desire or sentiment, like the saying of an alim, some devoted Shaikhs, or customs of some countries or communities, or some tales or dreams, is considered a bid’ah. (See Al-’itisaam by As-Shatibi vol.1 p.212-219).
6. Any act of worship abandoned by the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam), that is, he did not perform it, even though the factors necessitating its performance were established to prevail, and all obstacles preventing the performance were nonexistent, the performance of that act by somebody else is a bid’ah. E.g. the outward expression of the ‘niyyah’ (intention) to enter into prayer, pronouncing the call to prayer (al-adhan) in prayers other than the five daily prayers and praying two rak’aats after performing the sa’ayi between Safa and Marwa. (See Al’itisaam vol.1 vol.361-364).
7. Any act of worship not performed by the pious precessors (As-Salafus Salih) of the first three generations, that is the Sahabah, the Tabi’een and the At-Ba’it Taabi’een or not reported by them, or not written in their books, or not mentioned by them in any of their gatherings, even though the factors necessitating its performance prevailed and there were no obstacles to prevent the performance, is considered a bid’ah on the part of later generations to perform that act. This is clear in the saying of the famous companion of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) Hadhaifa ibnul Yamaan (may Allah be pleased with him), when he said to some of the Taabi’een: “Any ‘ibadah’ not practiced by the companions of the prophet, do not practice it. The first did not leave any saying for the last. So fear Allah O you people, and cling to the path of those before you”. See Al-Amr Bil ittibaa’I 62, and Bukhari narrated something near in meaning in hadith No. 7282.
Examples of these acts are the performance of the prayer known as ‘Salatur Raga’ib’ performed by some people in the month of Rajab, and the observance of maulid. This is because the factors necessitating the performance of these acts were not only found in the days of those predecessors, but were even more effective and powerful, and there were no obstacles to prevent them from performing these ibadah. (See At-Targhib an Salatir Ragha’ib al-Maudu’ah p.9, and al-Ba’ith ‘ala Inkaaril Bida’I Wal Hawadith by Abu Shamah p.47 and Iqtidaaus Siraatil Mustaqim vol.2 p.614). Ibnul Haaj, in his al-Madkhal says: “If the maulid will be free from Samaa’ and what it entails and is confined to feeding relatives and friends, it is all the same a ‘bid’ah’ from its mere intention. Because that is an addition to the deen and it is not among the works of the past Salaf. And following the Salaf is better, nay more incumbent than introducing an intention contrary to their own, because they are the best in following the sunnah of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam), best in honouring and extolling him and his sunnah. They precede the whole mankind in embarking upon his sunnah. It has not been reported from any of them that he intended performing the maulid. And we follow their steps. Whatever sufficed them should suffice us…” Al-Madkhal vol.2 p.11-12. And see him on page 26 of the same volume where he says that some people substitute the samaa’ and other activities performed in the maulid, with the reading of Sahihul Bukhari. He said: “Even though the reading of hadith is in itself a great act of bringing one near to Allah, and an act of ‘ibadah’ in which there is blessing and much goodness, one should perform that according to its laid down rules, but not in the name of maulid. Don’t you see that the prayer is one of the greatest means of getting near to Allah, but if one will perform a prayer before its specified time he will be blamed and be considered as violator of the law. So if this is the situation of prayer, what would be of something else.” For information, Ibnul Haaj is one of the famous Maliki scholars. Shaikh Uthman dan Fodio depended intensively on his writings especially this Madkhal. This is known to anyone conversant with the writings of Dan Fodio (rahimahullah). See for example Bayaanul Bida’I and Ihyaaus Sunnah Wa Ikhmaadul Bid’ah. Another Maliki scholar Al-Fakihaani wrote on the subject of maulid in his Al-Maurid fi amalil Maulid, when he was asked about it. He out-rightly condemned it in totality. Suyuti quoted it completely and tried to refute it but in vain. See Al-Hawi Lil Fatawi (vol.1 p.294).
8. The deen of Islam had been completed totally by Allah before the death of our noble Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). No ibadah is left out without being explained by the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Allah Ta’aala says: ((This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion)). Al-Maa’idah:3. In elaborating this meaning, Imam Malik says: “Whoever innovates a bid’ah which he considers good, has really accused Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) of betraying the message given to him. Because Allah Ta’aala says: ((This day I have perfected your religion for you…)). So whatever is not part of the deen at that time, will not be part of the deen today” See Al-‘itisaam vol.1 p.49). As-Shatibi also reported that Al-Qaadi Abu Bakr Ibnul Arabi narrated from Az-Zubair ibn Bakkaar that he said: “I heard Malik ibn Anas, when someone came to him and asked: ‘O Abu Abdullah, from where should I enter my state of Ihram? He said: “From Dhul Hulaifah (the Miqaat of the people of Madina) from where the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) entered his state of Ihram. The man said: ‘I want to do it from the mosque’. Imam Malik said: “Don’t do that! The man said: ‘I want to do it from the mosque, from the grave of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam)’. Malik said to him: “Do not do that, for I am afraid that a fitnah may afflict you”. He said: ‘What fitnah is in this? It is just some miles I am adding.’ Malik said: “What fitnah is more than to consider yourself ahead of the Prophet in attaining a virtue he could not reach? I heard Allah Ta’aala saying: ((And let those who oppose the Messenger’s commandment beware, lest some Fitnah should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them)). An-Nuur:63. (Al-‘itisaam vol.2 p.52-53, and Al-Wanshareesi in al-Mi’yaar Al-Mu’rib vol.11 p.116. Ibn Battah reported something near in meaning in his Al-Ibaanah Al-Kubraa vol.1 p.261-262).
As-Shatibi, after quoting this story, said: “The fitnah mentioned by Imam Malik in explaining the verse is true of all Ahlul Bid’ah, and it is their base on which they erect their building. For they view that what Allah mentioned in his book and what the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) enacted in his sunnah is less (in quantity or quality) than what their reasoning leads them to. That is what Ibn Mas’uud said when he met some people performing dhikr in congregation and in one tune: “You have really been guided to what your Prophet was not guided to, or that you have clung to a violation and a dalalah (going astray).
Having laid down this, let us return to the above arguments and take them up one after the other.
One: On Ibn Hajar and the Aashuuraa hadith
1.Ibn Hajar’s explanation of maulid based on the Aaashuuraa hadith after confessing that it is a bid’ah is something that cannot be put together. Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa (the famous student of Muhammad Abduhu) in his Fataawaa (p.2112-2113) dismissed this assertion. He said this is enough evidence to render the maulid unlawful, because how can Ibn Hajar affirm that it has not been reported from any of the salaf, and then claim to have an origin. Imam Malik says: “Nothing will reform the later generation of this ummah but what reformed the first generation”.
Had the Aashuuraa hadith been a proof to the observance of the maulid, the first generation of this ummah would definitely have deduced that from the text of the hadith. But having been abandoned by them, even though the factors necessitating the performance of maulid were found at that time, that is their love for the Prophet, their love for honouring him, their love for feeding each other and for dhikrullah, it is not proper for someone in the later generations to use that same text in a meaning different from what they understood from it. As-Shatibi has spoken comprehensively on this qaa’idah (general rule), that is, whatever interpretation to a text not established to have been practiced by those early generations, should not be practiced by later generations in any form of worship. This is because their abandonment of this practice is a consensus that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) did not mean that by the text, and it is not proper to violate an ‘ijmaa’. As-Shatibi said: “Whatever is practiced by later generations from this type, is really against the ijmaa’ of the first generations. And whoever violates an ijmaa’ is in clear error, for the ummah of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) will never agree collectively on anything astray. So whatever they practiced or abandoned is the sunnah, and is what ought to be given consideration, nay it is real guidance. There are only two things: something right and something in error. Whoever go against the salaf is in error, and this is enough. This is also true of the weak hadith with which the ulama did not work. That is why the claim of the Rafidah (Shi’ite) that the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) explicitly said in a clear text that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) should be the Khalifah immediately after him, was not entertained. Because the practice of the whole Sahabah was against this claim and shows its falseness, for the Sahabah will never be collectively and as a whole astray” Al-Muwaafaqaat Fi Usulis Shari’ah vol.3 p.71). He further said: “Many at times you find the people of bid’ah and dalalah use the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah to forcefully make them bear their ‘mazhabs’. And they use the ambiguous words contained in those texts in the presence of the general public, assuming that they have something to cling to (in respect of their bid’ah). This has many examples…” He then cited some examples relevant to the matter. One of those examples is the claim of some people of the lawfulness of reciting the Qur’an and saying the dhikr in congregation by the saying of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) “Maj tama’a qawmun fi baitin min buyutillahi…” (No group of people will join up in a mosque, reciting the Qur’an and taking lessons from it …, unless the angels surround them…”, and the hadith: “Maj tama’a qawmun yadhkuruunallah…”. Another example is the claim of the lawfulness of dancing in the mosque based on the hadith that the Ethiopians once played with shields and spears in the mosque of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). And the claim of everyone who innovated or endorsed a bid’ah that the salaf also innovated some things not in existent in the days of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) like putting the Qur’an in the form of a book, writing different books on various subjects, keeping records in registers and so forth. He said: “All this is an error to this deen and an imitation of the path of the deviated”. He further explained that what these people mention is mostly part of ‘al-Masaalihil Mursalah’. And it is known that al-masaalihil Mursalah has no connection whatsoever with ‘ibadaat’ (acts of worship). See the aforementioned reference. It is really important for those of us versed in the arabic language to read this from the book itself, that is Al-Muwaafaqaat. See also his other book Al-itisaam on this subject vol.1 p231 upwards. He had treated this matter in detail and with perfect scholarship. Shatibi is also one the famous Maliki scholars who served the course of Islam profoundly. May Allah reward him and have mercy on him.
2. Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa added that the good things contained in the maulid as mentioned by Ibn Hajar that if pursued, maulid will be a good bid’ah, are not in itself bid’ah. The bid’ah is the special congregation in that special mode and style, in the specified time, and considering that to be part of the ‘Sha’aaril Islam” which is never established but with a nass from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
3. He also said: “that observing the maulid reached a stage where those who abstained form performing it are considered infidels. This makes it one of the basic foundations of aqeedah necessarily known from the deen, and this is clearly an addition to the foundations of Islam. And any additions to the foundation of Islam nullifies that particular addition and renders it alien and disowned by the Islam brought by the seal of the prophets (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam)…” Fatawaa Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa.
Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa was asked about some people in the Jawa area of Indonesia who claim that whoever does not attend the maulid is a kafir, and whoever does not stand up on hearing the word ‘Marhaban’, at the time of reading the story of maulid is a kafir. And if someone asks them: Is this ordered by Allah and His Messenger?, they say: You are a kafir. Shaikh Rasheed Ridaa answered to all these questions with the aforementioned statement.
One other thing of this nature is the claim of ahlul maulid that it is haram for one to fast on the day of maulid. Al-Hattab in his ‘Mawahibul Jalil’ quoted an event that occurred in respect of one Ibn Abbaad who said that he came out on the day of maulid and met one Alhaj Ibn ‘Aashir and some other men, and they brought some dishes of varieties of food. And when they invited him he told them that he was fasting. The man (Alhaj Ibn Aashir was very much annoyed to hear that and ordered him to break the fast, and told him that it was a day of eid, so it is unlawful to fast.

Two: Suyuti’s argument with the hadith of Aqiqah
This is simply refuted by the fact that the hadith is not authentic. When asked about whether the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) really performed aqiqah once more for himself, Imam Malik answered: “Tell me about the Sahabah for whom the aqiqah was not performed in Jahiliyyah, have they done that themselves after embracing Islam? This is sheer false” See Ibn Rushdin’s Al-Muqaddimaatul Mumahhidaat vol.2 p.15.
The hadith in question is reported through one Abdullahi ibn al-Muharrar, who is termed by many scholars of hadith as: ‘Da’eef Jiddan’, ‘Munkarul Hadith’ or ‘Matruuk’. See Al-Musannaf by AbdurRazzaaq As-San’aani (d. 211 h) vol.4 p.325, and Al-Majruuhin by Ibn Hibban vol.2 p.29. He said in respect of Abdullahi ibn Muharrar: “He was one of the most devoted people but he used to tell lies without knowing, and used to twist narrations without understanding”.
An-Nawawi states: “As for the hadith mentioned by As-Shiraazi that the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) performed aqiqah for himself, it is reported by Al-Baihaqi through Abdullahi ibn al-Muharrar that the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) … . This is a false hadith” (Al-Majmuu’ by An-Nawawi vol.8 p.330, see also: At-Talkhisul Habeer by Ibn Hajar vol.4 p.147).
One surprising thing is that Al-Baihaqi himself after quoting the hadith stated that it is Munkar, but all the same Suyuti dwelled on the hadith to legalise ‘maulid’ without mentioning the ruling of Baihaqi on it. See As-Sunanul Kubra by Baihaqi vol.9 p.300.
But Az-Zarqaani in his sharhul Mawaahib after quoting Suyuti’s deduction from the hadith commented: “An-Nawawi said this hadith is false. So deducing (maulid) from it is out of place” Sharhul Mawahibil Laduniyyah vol.1 p.140.

Three: On the story of Abu Lahab
1. The text as narrated by Al-Bukhari is not as Ibnul Jazari and Ibn Nasirid Deen claimed. Al-Bukhari narrated from Al-Hakam ibn Nafi’ from Shu’aib from Az-Zuhri, he said Urwatu ibnuz Zubair told me that Zainab bint Abi Salama told him that Umm Habiba bint Abi Sufyan said: “I said: O Allah’s Messenger, marry my sister, the daughter of Abu Sufyan’. The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “Do you like that? I replied, “Yes, for even now I am not your only wife and I like that my sister should share the good with me”. The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “But that is not lawful for me”. I said: “We have heard that you want to marry the daughter of Abu Salama”, He said: “You mean the daughter of Umm Salamah?” I said, “Yes” He said, “Even if she were not my step-daughter, she would be unlawful for me to marry as she is my foster suckling niece. I and Abu Salama were suckled by Thuwaiba. So you should not present to me your daughters or your sisters (in marriage)”. Urwah said: “Thuwaibah was a freed slave woman of Abu Lahab. Abu Lahab freed her, and she suckled the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). When Abu Lahab died he was seen in a dream by one of his relatives in a terrible situation in hell. He said to him: “What did you meet? Abu Lahab said: I did not meet (anything but torment), except that I was given water in this (in Abdur Razaq’s narration: He pointed to a dot on his finger) for freeing Thuwaibah”. (Sahihul Bukhari together with Fathil Bari vol.9 p.48 hadith No. 5101).
From this text you will find that:
(a) The part of the text containing the issue of freeing Thuwaibah is from the saying of Urwah without mentioning who told him that. This is what the scholars of hadith call ‘hadith mursal’, and it is part of the weak hadith which is not accepted. (See Fathul Bari vol.9 p.49).
(b) There is no mention that the reason for freeing Thuwaibah is that she brought Abu Lahab the good news of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam).
(c) There is no mention of the word ‘every Monday’ as asserted by Ibnul Jazari and As-Suhaily (See Suhaili’s assertion in Fathil Bari vol.9 p.48).
(d) Moreover what is confirmed by the scholars of Sirah (Biography of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is that Thuwaibah was not freed until after the Hijrah of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Ibn Sa’ad (d 230 h) says: “When the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) was at Makkah he used to send her (Thuwaibah) some gifts, and Khadijah also used to be generous to her. At that time, she was a slave to Abu Lahab. Khadijah made some efforts to buy her from the hands of Abu Lahab so as to free her, but Abu Lahab refused that. But when the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) migrated to Madina Abu Lahab freed her” At-Tabaqaatul Kubraa by Ibn Sa’ad vol.1 p.108. This is confirmed by Ibn Abdil Barr in his Al-istee’aab vol.1 p.12, and Ibnul Jauzi in his Al-Wafaa Bi Ahwaalil Mustafaa vol.1 p.106-107, and Al-Muhibb At-Tabari in his Dhakhaairul ‘Uqbaa Fi Manaaqibi Dhawil Qurbaa p.259, and Ibn Hajar in Al-Isaabaah Fi Tamyeezis Sahaabah vol.4 p.250.
(e) One other thing is that a kafir will never benefit in the hereafter from any deed he performed in this world, for Allah Ta’aala says: ((And We shall turn to whatever deeds they did, and We shall make such deeds as scattered floating particles of dust)) Al-Furqaan:23. That is because the condition for accepting a deed is that it should be with a perfect intention, and this not found in the case of a kafir. So freeing Thuwaibah by Abu Lahab as shown in this mursal hadith is insignificant. This is not like the case of Abu Talib which is established by an authentic hadith. See Fathul Baari by Ibn Hajar vol.9 p.49.
(f) Moreover this case is based on a dream we do not know who saw it. And even if we know it is known that legal rulings such that prohibit or make something lawful are never based on dreams.
Four
The argument based on the verse of Suratu Yunus, is also out of place. That is because interpreting the ‘mercy’ mentioned in the verse to mean the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is something none of the scholars of the first generation of Muslims claimed. And we have mentioned from the saying of Shatibi, when discussing Ibn Hajar’s deduction of maulid from the Aashuuraa hadith, that any meaning not mentioned by the salaf in their interpretation of the Qur’an, is not accepted, especially when that interpretation is meant to buttress the validity of an innovated ‘ibadah’.
Al-Imam At-Tabari, in his voluminous exegesis of the Qur’an and the best in that field, quoted eighteen separate narratives from the Salaf on interpreting this verse. None of them interpreted ‘mercy’ to mean the person of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam). Shatibi is not the only alim to make this bold warning. Al-Imam At-Tabari who is known to be the author of the best and more comprehensive book of Tafsir, even though he lived in the last part of the third century and died in the beginning of the fourth century of Hijrah, he denied himself the right to interpret the Qur’an contrary to the interpretations narrated from the salaf. In his Tafsir vol.15 p.188, when interpreting the verse: ((And offer your prayer neither aloud nor in a low voice, but follow a way between)) Al-Israai:110, he preferred the saying of Ibn Abbas on the meaning of ‘prayer’, ‘aloud’ and ‘in a low voice’. He then mentioned another interpretation of his own, but said: “If not for the fact that I have already mentioned the sayings of scholars of tafsir and I do not consider it permissible to oppose what is reported from them, I would have said that it is good to interpret the verse as follows…. But we do not regard it proper, because the consensus of the masters of tafsir is contrary to that”. In his commentary on another verse he said: “I have preferred this interpretation because it is in agreement with the interpretation of the Sahabah and Tabi’een, because we do not allow going contrary to what is reported from them”. Tafsirut Tabari vol.16 p.151.
But this is not to say that the prophet is not a mercy because this is confirmed by an independent verse. Allah says: ((We have not sent you but as a mercy for the whole creation)). But in this verse there is nothing to necessitate this interpretation. And moreover the word ‘rahmah’ independently or in the genitive form came in the Qur’an about 116 times, and no reasonable person will claim that it means the person of the prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) in all these places and in its different contexts. The fact is therefore that the proponents of observing the maulid festival only cling to this particular verse because of the mention of the word: ‘fal yafrahu’ (let them rejoice), and this is exactly what Shatibi outlined previously that one of the methodologies of the people of bid’ah is that they cling to some words with ambiguous meanings to claim the validity of their mazhab. This affirms the need to go back to the interpretation of the first generations. May Allah guide us all.
As regards the other arguments mentioned, I don’t think they deserve our time and energy. The only thing that remains is the issue of categorizing bid’ah into good and bad or wajib manduub mubah etc. and the hadith : Man sanna sunnatan hasanatan… I hope I will have the time to write on that. But for a detailed and more erudite information on this issue one should read the book ‘Al-Qaulul Fasl’ by Shaikh Isma’il Al-Ansari.

Wa sallallahu wa sallama wa baaraka ala Nabiyyina Muhammad wa ala aalihi wa sahbih.

Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh

Abubakar Muhammad Sani

Islamic University Madina

Rabee’ul Awwal 1422

Identifying The Term: "Ahl As-Sunnah Wal Jama'ah"

HISTORY OF ISLAMIC THEOLOGY III
DEFINING AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA’AH

All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, may His salah and salam be upon His messenger, his noble family and Sahabah.

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Eid Mubarak,

In my previous discourse, I talked about the definition of Shi’ah and Shi’ism from the Shi’ite and non-Shi’ite scholars. This time we look at the term Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, the literal and technical meanings of the words, and some characteristics outlined to distinguish them from all sects.

The term Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, as is seen, is made of three words : Ahl, Sunnah and Jama’ah. We should therefore know each of the words in its original Arabic meaning, so as to have the right conception of the words put together.

AHL
The word ‘Ahl’ in arabic is used to ascribe something to someone. The ‘Ahl’ of anything is he who is more distinguished with it, or the one to whom it is ascribed. The Arabs usually say : the ‘Ahl’ of any person are those intimate with and close to him - and they sometimes confine that to one’s wife or wives, and the ‘Ahl’ of a house are its inhabitants, the ‘ahl’ of any mazhab are its followers, and the ‘ahl’ of Islam are those who adopt the religion of Islam. (See Mu’jamu Maqaayees al-Lughah by Ibn Faaris, under the term ‘a.h.l.’).

SUNNAH
And the word ‘Sunnah’ literally denotes a way, a path or a conduct and behaviour, either good or bad. (See Lisaanul Arab by Ibn Manzuur and Ghareebul Hadith by Ibnul Atheer, under the term ‘a.h.l.’). It is in accordance with this literal meaning goes the saying of the Prophet e : ((You will definitely follow the way of those before you ...)) (Sahih Bukhari hadith No. 3456, and Sahih Muslim No. 2669. And the Prophet’s e saying: ((He who sets a good precedent in Islam, there is a reward for him for this (act of goodness) and also the reward of him who acted according to it subsequently, without any deduction from their rewards; and he who sets in Islam an evil precedent, there is upon him the burden of that, and also the burden of him who acted upon it subsequently, without any deduction from their burden)). (Sahih Muslim Book 5, The Book of Zakat, No. 2219).

But technically, the term ‘Sunnah’ varies according to the different fields of Islamic knowledge. Its meaning as per the ‘Muhadditheen’ differs from the meaning it takes according to the ‘Fuqaha’a’ as well as it differs from the meaning attached to it by the scholars of Usulul Fiqh.
According to Ahlul Hadeeth, ‘Sunnah’, as Ibn Hajar Al-’Asqalaniy (d. 852) put it, means ‘any saying or deed of the Prophet e, or the affirmation of anything done in his presence or what he intended to do (even if he did not actually do it)’ (Fathul Bariy vol. 13 p. 245). Another scholar puts it this way : ‘any saying or deed of the Prophet e, or the affirmation by him of anything done in his presence, and any description reported of his nature or manners, or his biography, before or after receiving divine revelation.’ (See Usulul Athar by Tahir ibn Saleh al-Dimashqiy p. 3, and As-Sunnah Wa Makanatuha Fit-Tashree’i by Mustapha As-Siba’eey, p. 47).
As for the Fuqahaa’a, they take ‘Sunnah’ to mean : ‘anything established to be reported from the Prophet e and is not classed to be ‘Fard’ or ‘Wajib’. It is therefore synonymous to ‘Mandub’. (See Irshaadul Fuhul by As-Shawkaaniy p. 31).
To the scholars of Usulul Fiqh, ‘Sunnah’ means : Anything reported from the Prophet e specifically, and not clearly stated in the Holy Qur’an, but mentioned by the Prophet e from his own self, either in the course of explaining the meanings of the Qur’an or not. (See Al-Muwafaqaat by As-Shatibiy (d. 790). By this, Sunnah is confined to what comes from the Prophet other than the Qur’an. (See As-Sunnah Qablat Tadween p. 16).
Another usage of the term ‘Sunnah’ is in a general concept in reference to the Islamic injunctions derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah as a whole, or the fundamentals derived thereof by way of ‘istinbat’. It is also used to refer to what is in agreement to that from the sayings and deeds of the Sahabah, the Tabi’een and those who follow them in goodness, considering that to be explanations of the whole Shari’a.
This meaning is what is refered to in the authentic hadith of the Prophet e : ((Follow my ‘Sunnah’ and the ‘Sunnah’ of the rightly guided caliphs after me)) and his saying : ((He whoever turns away from my ‘Sunnah’ is not of me)).
‘Sunnah’ is also used to refer to what opposes ‘Bid’ah’. This usage aroused at the emergence of various sects which deviated from the path of the Prophet e . As-Shatibiy said : “(The term Sunnah) is used in opposition to ‘Bid’ah’, they say :Mr. A. is on the ‘Sunnah’, when his deeds are in agreement with the teachings of the Prophet e, either those deeds are clearly stated in the Qur’an or not, and they say : Mr. B. is on the ‘Bid’ah’ when his deeds are contrary to that” (Al-Muwafaqaat, vol. 4 p. 4.see also Majmu’u Fatawa ibn Taymiyyah vol. 21 p. 317).
And Ibn Rajab (d. 795) says : “Sunnah means a followed path, and that includes sticking fast to the beliefs, deeds and sayings of the Prophet e and his rightly guided caliphs. This is the complete Sunnah, and that is why the (pious) predecessors (As-Salafus Salih) in the past did not use the term but to include all the afore mentioned. This was reported from Hasan Al-Basri, Al-Auzaa’eey and Al-Fudail ibn ‘Iyaad” (Jami’ul ‘Ulumi Wal Hikam vol. 2 p. 120).
This last usage and the one before it are meant by the word ‘Sunnah’ whenever matters of creed and belief are discussed.

JAMA’AH
The word ‘Jama’ah’ literally is derived from ‘al-jam’i’ meaning gathering or collecting something that has been scattered. (See al-Qaamusul Muhit, under the term j.m.’a). Jama’ah therefore means to gather and come together, the opposite of which is separation, dispersion and disunion, later on it was used to address a set of people that come together for a common purpose.
Wordings of scholars differ as to the technical meaning of the word ‘Jama’ah’, but nevertheless do not go beyond two essential points :
a. that ‘jama’ah’ is the path of the Prophet e, the Sahabah and the eminent scholars, comprising of both beliefs, conducts and other fundamentals.
b. that ‘jama’ah’ is the entire muslim Ummah under the leadership of an Imam following the teachings of Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet e. (See al-i’tisaam by as-Shatibiy vol. 2, p. 260-265).

THE TERM AHLUS SUNNAH WAL JAMA’AH

From the previous definitions of the three words ‘Ahl’, ‘Sunnah’ and ‘Jama’ah’, we can arrive at a clear meaning of the term ‘Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah’, and say that: Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah are the most distinguished people in following and complying strictly with the religion of Islam according to its two main fundamental sources - the Qur’an and the Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet e). They are the only part of the Ummah able and ever striving to maintain the original teachings of Islam as it was in the days of the Prophet e and the Sahabah. They hold in high esteem the Sahabah, the Tabi’een and the At-Ba’ut Tabi’een, and follow their steps in practising Islam as they were the best of people on earth in knowing, believing and practising what Allah Ta’ala ordained to be worshiped with, and as the immediate witnesses to the divine revelation and the direct subjects of the prophetic teaching, they examplified the best result ever expected of any follower of the religion of Islam.
Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah attach much importance to the establishment of unity and harmony between themselves and between those in authority over them, in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet e, and do not go out of these bounds unless they witness clear apostasy, obviously contrary to the fundamentals of the religion of Islam.
In other words, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah are the Sahabah(1), Tabi’uun, At-Ba’ut Tabi’een and those who follow them amongst the eminent scholars (the mujtahiduun) (2)and those who follow their steps in compliance with the Qur’an and the Sunnah to the last day.
Ibn Hazm (d. 456 may Allah have mercy on him) says : “The Ahlus Sunnah we will mention are the followers of the truth, anyone other than them is termed ‘Ahlal Bid’ah’. They (Ahlus Sunnah) are the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them all) and everyone who follow their steps from amongst the best Tabi’een (may Allah have mercy on them), then the Ahlul Hadeeth and those who follow them from amongst the Fuqaha’, generations after generations up to this day of ours, and those who imitate and follow their examples from the common men from all parts of the globe” (Al-Fisal Fil Milali Wal Ahwaa’i Wan Nihal vol. 2, p. 271).

SOME MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS OF AHLUS SUNNAH
1. They do not belong to any name other than ISLAM and MUSLIMS. Any other title ascribed to them - such as Ahlus Sunnah, Ahlul Hadith, Al-Firqatun Najiyah, At-Ta’ifatul Mansurah, the followers of As-Salafus Salih (the pious predecessors) - are mere descriptions of the ways and methods by which they differ from all sects and denominations claiming the general name ‘Islam’. Al-Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) says : “Ahlus Sunnah have no appellation with which they are known, neither ‘Jahmiyy’, nor ‘Qadariyy’ or ‘Rafidiyy” (See Al-intiqa’a Fi Fadaailit Thalathatil Fuqaha’a by Ibn Abdil Barr p. 35, and Tartibul Madarik by Al-Qadi Iyad vol. 1, p. 172)
2. They do not ascribe themselves to any ‘person’ or party or ethnic group, but the person of the Prophet e, and their allegiance to or repudiation of anyone is only based on the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and one’s compliance with or deviation from them.
3. They totally submit to the Holy Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet e as their major sources.
4. They do not prefer their human reasoning over the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
5. They strictly follow the Sunnah and discard all innovations.
6. They are always average and intermediate in matters of creed. They are neither extremely beyond limited bounds nor in remiss.
7. They adhere to the unity of the Muslim Ummah.
8. They attach much importance to reciting, memorizing and knowing the meanings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

The term ‘Ahlus Sunnah’ is also used to include the whole muslim Ummah except the Shi’ahs (Rafidah). Every non-Shi’ite is therefore Ahlus Sunnah even if he carries with him some amount of ‘Bid’ah’. They say : Mr. A is Sunni and Mr. B is Shi’iee (Rafidee). This is because the Shi’ites (Rafidah) are “the most distant from the Qur’an and Prophet’s hadith, among all Ahlul Bid’ah. That is why it is famous amidst the common men that the Shi’ites deviate from the Sunnah more than anyone. So the generality of the muslim Ummah do not know anyone to be against the Sunni but the Rafidah. It is therefore known that whenever one says : I am a Sunni, he definitely means he is not a Rafidee” (Majmoo’u Fatawa Ibn Taimiyyah vol. 3 p.357).
Based upon this meaning, the term Ahlus Sunnah denotes all muslims other than the Shi’ah Rafidah. This terminology has, to a greater degree, a sense of reality, because the Fundamentals of the Shi’ah (Rafidah), like the issue of Imamah, their stand on the Sahabah, the issue of al-Badaa’a, Infallibility of Imams etc, are in totality different from the fundamentals of all sects other than them.
Al-Imam Sufyan at-Thauriy (may Allah have mercy on him), clearly indicates this meaning when he was asked on compliance with the Sunnah, he said : “Offering priority to Abubakar and Umar” (See Sharh Usulu I’itiqaadi Ahlus Sunnati Wal Jama’ah by Al-Lalakaa’i vol. 1, p. 152, Az-Zahabiy said that this saying is authentic from the Imam, see Tazkiratul Huffaz p. 206).
Ibn Taimiyyah says : “The word Ahlus Sunnah is meant to refer to anyone who affirms the caliphate of the three (Abubakar, Umar and Usman). So all sects are included in that term but the Rafidah. It also means the followers of Hadith and pure Sunnah, in that case it comprises only those who affirm the attributes of Allah (as-Sifat) and those who say : The Qur’an is not a creation (but the word of Allah), and that Allah will be seen on the day of judgement, and believe in Qadar (the fate) and other fundamentals known to Ahlul Hadith and Sunnah” (Minhajus Sunnah vol. 2, p. 221).

Full details as regards these points will be discussed in due course, in sha Allah.

(1) Ali e and all Ahlul Bait inclusive, because they were true and famous Sunnis and never did they claim to be anything other than that, as will come to be known in sha Allah.
(2) The name ‘Mujtahiduun’ is not confined to the Imams of the four famous schools of Jurisprudence as some people assert, but rather there were other mazahibs before and at the time of these four. To be more precise, the term Ahlus Sunnah was there before the Imams of these four mazahibs. Ibn Taimiyyah says : “The term ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is old and known far before Allah created Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi’i and Ahmad. Because it is the path of the Sahabah which they received from their Prophet e ...” (Minhajus Sunnah vol. 2, p. 482). Therefore whoever defines ahlus Sunnah as being the followers of the four schools of jurisprudence is either ignorant of the term or is heading to something else other than identifying ahlus Sunnah.

Wassalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah,

Abubakar Muhammad Sani

SHIRK (POLYTHEISM) AND THE SHI’ITE DILEMMA

It is not a hidden fact that the basis upon which the whole teachings of Islam lie and the core issue of its message is the full realization of Tawheed - the worship of Allah alone, as the One and only God. To him the servant should dedicate all his deeds, his sayings and even his thoughts. His hopes, his fears, his trust, prayers, supplications, cries for help, asking for forgiveness, his true and perfect love and all other aspects of ibadah must solely be towards gaining the pleasure of Allah. ((Say: Truly my prayer, my sacrifice, my life and my death are all for Allah, Lord of the worlds)) [Al-An'aam 6:162]. In this regard we find that the definition of the term ibadah to mean ‘everything that Allaah the Most Exalted loves and approves of from the apparent and hidden sayings and deeds’ is not out of place.
It is for this and only this purpose Allah created man and jinn. Allah says: ((And I created not the Jinn and men except that they should worship Me (Alone) [Surah Al-Dhariyaat: 56]. All other activities of life engaged by these two models of creation are of a secondary importance and are meant to help them achieve the goal of pleasing Allah to the fullest and the most perfect level possible.
And it is for this purpose Allah sent all His messengers. Allah said: ((And We did not send any Messenger before you but We revealed to him that: None has the right to be worshipped but I, so worship Me)) [Al-Anbiyaa: 25]. It has therefore been made clear by Allah Ta’ala that all messengers were sent with Tauhid. In another verse He said: ((Ask the messengers whom We sent before you: Did We appoint any deities other than (Allah) Most Gracious to be worshipped)) [Az-Zukhruf: 45].
He furthers says: ((And Verily, We have sent among every nation a messenger (proclaiming): Worship Allah (Alone) and avoid all false deities)) [An-Nahl: 36].

THE MEANING OF SHIRK
Shirk is the most grievous offence Allah has prohibited, and the punishment attached to it is a permanent stay in the torment of hell. Allah Has decreed that He will not forgive one who dies committing shirk. He says: ((Verily Allah does not forgive that Shirk be made with Him, but He forgives whatever is below that to whomever He wishes)) [An-Nisaa: 48].
He also said: ((Verily whosoever associates partners with Allaah, then indeed Allaah has made Paradise unlawful for him, and his station is the Fire. And the transgressors will not have any helpers)). [Al-Ma‘idah: 72].
Shirk nullifies all good deeds, as Allah the Exalted said in respect of the most noble of His creation, that is the prophets and messengers: ((…But if they had joined in worship others with Allah, all that they used to do would have been nullified)) [Al-An’aam: 88]. With this same warning He addressed the best of His creation, Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, saying: ((And it was already revealed to you and to those before you, that if you should associate anything with Allah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers)). [Az-Zumar: 65]. If a heavy warning such as this would be addressed to our noble prophet, even though Allah Has already perfected him and made him infallible against shirk and other sins, what will you say about other individuals and nations of his ummah?
So the meaning of shirk is to associate a partner with Allah, either in worship, that is by directing any form of ibadah to someone or something other than Him, which is called shirk of ‘Uluhiyyah’ (worship), that is by prostrating, calling for help in times of trouble, seeking forgiveness of sins, seeking relief from any hardship or illness, asking for one to enter paradise or be saved from entering hell or slaughtering an animal all in the name of other than Allah.
It may also be in terms of Rububiyyah (Lordship), that is, the belief that someone or something apart from Allah has any share in the creation, sustenance, governance of the world or granting lives or fertility to humans and non-humans etcetera.
It may also be in terms of Al-Asmaa and Sifaat (Names and Attributes), that is to believe that one other than Allah can be named or described with the exclusive attributes of Allah.
But as regards the legal ruling on the person committing shirk, scholars have divided shirk to be of two or three types:
The major Shirk, the performance of which causes one to be out of the fold of Islam and abide in the hell fire forever, such as the acts listed above.
The minor Shirk; which does not render one who commits it out of the fold of Islam. Things such as swearing in the name of other than Allah, showing up (Riyaa), etc fall in this category. There is much detail pertaining these and should be read from their special sources.

ORIGIN OF SHIRK
In the beginning the human society was free from Shirk. Allah created Adam and Hauwa as Muslims, their children followed their religion and believed in one God, and this single family grew into a great nation, all in Islam and in the worship of Allah alone. Shirk only came later on after mankind deviated from the teachings of the Prophets. That is because Allah creates his slaves and guides them through what is called Fitrah (the primordial nature, the inbuilt instinct and the natural inclination to believe in a Supernatural Being, a Creator, a Sustainer). This nature is only diverted by some external and alien forces that may either be as a result of what may be called an ‘environmental pollution’ that brings new ideas, thoughts and teachings, and subsequently changes it to something different.
Allah the Most Exalted said: ((Mankind was one Ummah, then Allah sent prophets bringing good news and warnings)) [Baqarah :213].
Ibn 'Abbas - radiallaahu 'anhu - said: “Between Nuh (Noah) and Adam were ten generations, all of them were upon Sharee'ah (law) of the truth, then they differed. So Allah sent prophets as bringers of good news and as warners” Related by Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree in his tafseer (4/275) and al-Haakim (2/546) who said: “It is authentic according to the criterion of al-Bukhari” Adh-Dhahabee also agreed.
As against the claim of some historians and philosophers that the origin of man is polytheism, and that Tauheed visited him later.
Ibn 'Urwah al-Hanbalee (d.837 H) said: “This saying refutes those historians from the People of the Book who claim that Qaabil (Cain) and his sons were fire-worshippers” Al-Kawaakibud-Duraaree fee Tarteeb Musnadul-Imaam Ahmad'alaa Abwaabil-Bukhaaree (6/212/1).
Allah the Most Exalted said in a hadith Qudsi “I created all my servants upon the true Religion (upon Tawheed, free from Shirk). Then the devils came to them and led them astray from their true Religion. They made unlawful to people that which I had made lawful for them, and they commanded them to associate in worship with Me, that which I had sent down no authority”. [Related by Muslim (8/159) and Ahmad (4/162) from 'Iyaadh ibn Himaar al-Mujaashi'ee radiallaahu 'anhu].
The Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam also said: “Every child is born upon the Fitrah but his parents make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian. It is like the way an animal gives birth to a natural offspring, have you noticed any born mutilated, before you mutilate them?”
Abu Hurayrah said: Recite if you wish (the verse): ((Allah's fitrah with which He created mankind. There is to be no change to the creation (Religion) of Allah)). [Surah ar-Rum 30:30]. Related by Al-Bukhaaree (11/418) and Muslim (18/52).
One important thing to be noted in this regard is that shirk came to mankind through one and only one avenue: Al-Ghuluww (exceeding limits, and excessive love) in respect of some pious individuals and righteous worshippers, believed to be closer to Allah.
This is understood clearly from the interpretation of the statement of Allah: ((And they have said: You shall not forsake your gods, nor shall you forsake Wadd, nor Suwaa', nor Yaghooth, nor Ya'ooq, nor Nasr)). [Nuh: 23].
It has been related by a group from the Salaf (Pious Predecessors) in many narratives, that these five deities were righteous worshippers. However, when they died, Shaitan whispered to their people to retreat and sit at their graves. Then he whispered to those who came after them that they should take them as idols, beautifying to them the idea that you will be reminded of them and thereby follow them in righteous conduct. Then he suggested to the third generation that they should worship these idols besides Allah - the most high - and he whispered to them that this is what their forefathers used to do!!!. So Allah sent to them Nuh alaihis salatu was salam, commanding them to worship Allah alone. However none responded to his call except a few. Allah the Most Exalted related this whole incident in surah Nuh.
Ibn 'Abbas relates: ‘Indeed these are five names of righteous men from the people of Nuh. When they died Shaitan whispered to their people to make statues of them and to place these statues in their places of gathering as a reminder of them, so they did this. However, none from amongst them worshipped these statues, until when they died and knowledge was forgotten. Then (the following generation) began to worship them’. Related by al-Bukhari (8/534).
It is therefore clear from this that those people, when they started worshipping those idols, did not have in their minds that they were worshipping the physical structures of the idols they made with their own hands. But rather they used to reflect in their inner minds the pictures of those pious and righteous worshippers. And if they ever brought to mind that they were worshipping idols, they definitely did not believe that those idols were their creators who gave life and sustenance to them. They rather worshipped them for one purpose and that is for those pious and righteous servants of Allah (now in the form of statues) to bring them also near to Allah.
This fact has been dealt with so clearly in the Qur’an as to leave no doubt in the mind that the Mushrikun whom have been addressed by Allah in the Qur’an did not believe in any creator other than Allah, but nevertheless they worshipped their idols Laat, ‘Uzzah, Manaat, Hubal and a host of others (historians relate that about 360 of them were inside the Ka’abah alone) that they might make them draw closer to Allah.
Allah the Most Exalted said: ((And if you were to ask them: “Who has created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon?” they will surely reply: ‘Allah’. How then are they deviating?)) [Al-‘Ankabuut: 61].
He also said: ((Say: To whom belong the earth and all the beings therein? If you know? They will say: ‘To Allah’. Say: “Will you not then remember?”. Say: Who is the Lord of the seven heavens, and the Lord of the Great Throne?” They will say: ‘Allah’. Say: “Will you not then fear Allah?” Say: “In Whose Hand is the sovereignty of everything, and He protects (all), while against Whom there is no protector, if you know?”. They will say: ‘All that belongs) to Allah’. Say: “How then are you deceived and turn away from the truth?” [Al-Mu’minun: 84-89].
So none of them ever believed that it was the idols who sent down rain, fed the people, or governed the world. This clearly shows that their Shirk is only borne in the fact that they had set up some personalities other than Allah whom they loved just as they loved Allah, whom they feared just as they feared Allah, whom they ask for their personal needs. And nevertheless Allah called them Mushrikun, Kafirun (polytheists and unbelievers) and made it obligatory upon the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam to fight them until they profess that there is no Ilah (DEITY) - mark it here very well, deity not creator - but Allah.
Therefore to claim that one can call someone among his dead saints, pious worshippers or his Imam to grant him the type of help none but Allah can do, and claim that not to be called shirk because he ‘did not believe them to be lords, creators etc’ is baseless and utterly false. If that is the case, would they allow one to prostrate to an idol or any statue and ask him to give health to his ill relative or son, or seek its help in emergencies like earthquakes, floods and other calamities as long as the person does not believe the idol to be his lord and creator?

DU’AH (CALLING) OTHER THAN ALLAH IN HARDSHIPS
Many people among the callers of other than Allah for help in times of hardships mix up issues and fail to distinguish between two distinctive things. They absurdly ask: “Is it polytheism to make requests of other people for the fulfillment of our desires? If this were true, the whole of humanity is polytheistic. If to seek help from others is polytheism, why did the Prophet seek help from people?”

It must be noted here that they make these types of questions just to make room for their polytheistic and innovated types of du’ah to be accommodated within the tenets of Islam. Otherwise they fully know that there is clear and unqualified difference between what they practise and what the Shari’ah allows.
It is allowed for one to ask the help of his fellow human being that is alive, present and able, either in times of hardship or otherwise. We find this in the story of Musa alaihis salam when he entered Median ((…at a time of unawareness of its people: and he found there two men fighting, - one of his party and the other of his foes. The man of his party asked him for help against his foe, so Musa struck him with his fist and killed him…)) [Al-Qasas: 15]. The Arabic word used here is ‘Fastaghathahu’ (asked him for help), and he gave the help. This is not shirk because Musa was there present, alive and able to help and had indeed helped. No where something like this has been called shirk. The examples are so many in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
What is not allowed is where one calls upon a dead person in his grave, or an absent person or a stone, a tree, a statue, a necklace, a cow, a string etc.. and seeks his/its help on matters none can do anything about but Allah, like asking him to cure your illness or forgive your sins or save you from the effects of the evil eye, or ask him to guide you, or make you enter paradise, or save you from the torment of fire, or intercede and solicit for you on the day of judgement, or increase you in wealth, or save you from the dangerous and harming plots of your enemies against you …et cetera.
All these are things no dead man – not even the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam - has the right and ability to hear or answer, not to talk of some others.
As regards At-Tawassul (that is, seeking nearness to Allah) through other means, scholars have classified it into two main categories: The lawful, which is according to the sunnah, and the innovated (bid’i). The lawful is of three types:
To ask Allah through invoking His Most Beautiful Names and Attributes
To ask Allah by virtue of some good deeds one has performed himself
To ask a live pious servant to supplicate Allah on your behalf
The innovated one is to ask Allah by virtue of the personality of a human being or any of Allah’s creatures. Such as to say: O Allah, forgive my sins because of my Sheikh or Imam or for his position in your sight.
This clearly shows us that the issue of ‘Umar radiyallahu anhu when he came to ‘Abbas during the famine and made tawassul with him, falls within the third type of the lawful category, that is seeking the du’ah (supplication) of a pious person. And ‘Abbas was pious without any doubt and also a member of the family of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. But the people of Bid’ah only mix these things up knowingly so as to cast doubts in the minds of the ignorant.
From the foregoing it is clear that what is termed Shirk is to call other than Allah on issues none can help but Allah. That is why Allah censured the polytheists for calling and worshipping those idols instead of Him. And the usual answer was that they worshipped them so that they make them draw closer to Allah.
To have a clear picture of what Tawheed means let every Muslim ponder upon the meanings of the following verses: Allah said:
((Say: ‘Call unto those besides Him whom you pretend (to be gods). They have neither the power to remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another place. Those whom they call upon, they themselves seek and desire the means of approach to their Lord, as to which of them should be nearest and they hope for His Mercy and fear His Torment. Verily the Torment of your Lord is to be feared)) [Al-Israa (17): 56-57].

Meaning that those people to whom the polytheists supplicate themselves are desiring and seeking means of approach to draw close to their Lord. Ibn Abbas and Mujahid said, “They are ‘Isa and his mother, ‘Uzayr, the Angels, the sun, the moon and the stars”
Ibn Mas’ud said, "A group of people used to worship a party of the Jinn. The Jinn then accepted Islam and the people who used to worship them were unaware of this and stuck to their worshipping them so Allah condemned them.
Therefore according to all the opinions concerning the meaning of this verse, Allah censured whosoever supplicated to a created being when in fact that created being itself worships Allah and seeks to draw closer to Him - hoping and fearing Him. Included in this are all of the Angels, the Prophets and the righteous from amongst mankind and Jinn.
So if it is not permissible to supplicate to these creatures that have been exalted and are close to Allah then it is even more the case that those disobedient to Allah, such as the devils and jinn, cannot be supplicated to. The verse refers unrestrictedly to all who supplicate to other than Allah.

He made clear that the person who is supplicated to is not able to remove any harm from the one who supplicates or even shift the harm to another place saying,
((Say: ‘Call upon those whom you assert (to be gods) besides Allah, they possess not even an atoms weight - either in the heavens of the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor is there for Him any supporter from among them. Intercession with Him is of no avail except for him who He permits)) [as-Saba (34): 22-23]
Therefore Allah explained that the created being does not have the sovereignty just as he does not have any share in it and just as he does not help Allah in any form or fashion. All he can have is the ability to intercede but this intercession is of no avail unless Allah grants him permission to intercede. Allah said:
((And they worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them and they say: ‘these are our intercessors with Allah.’ Say: ‘Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and the earth?’ Glorified be Allah, Exalted is He above all that they associate with Him)). [Yunus (10): 18]

((And warn therewith those who fear that they will be gathered before their Lord, when there will be neither a protector nor an intercessor for them besides Him)) [al-An`aam (6): 51].

((But remind them with (the Qur`aan) lest a person be given up to destruction for that which he has earned, when he will find for himself no protector or intercessor besides Allah)) [al-An`aam (6): 70]

((Allah, it is He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in Six Days, then He Rose over the Throne. You have none besides Him as a protector or an intercessor, will you then not take heed?" [as-Sajdah (32): 4].

((Surely, your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days and then Rose Over the Throne, disposing the affair of all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave. That is Allah, your Lord; so worship Him (Alone) so will you not take heed?)) [Yunus (10 ): 3]

((Who is there that can intercede with Him except after His permission?)) [al-Baqarah (2): 255]

((And how many are the Angels in the heavens whose intercession will be of no avail except after Allah has given leave for whomsoever He Wills and Pleases)) [an-Najm (53): 26].

Then here we come to another issue, which is the striking difference between the polytheists of the older generations, that is, those of the time of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam – who were addressed in the Qur’an directly and those of this generation. We will find the former only worshipped their false gods in times of happiness and ease. But in times of hardships they immediately turned to Allah for they knew really that He alone can save them. Nevertheless Allah called them Mushriks and unbelievers and called them to quickly redress the issue and make the situation one, by calling upon Him alone in all times. Read the following verses and think over them for a while.
Allah said: ((Take not two gods in worship. Indeed He is One God then fear Me (and Me Alone). To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth and to Him belongs perpetual sincere obedience. Will you then fear any other than Allah? Whatsoever of blessings and good things you have, it is from Allaah. Then, when harm touches you, unto Him you cry aloud for help. But when He has removed the harm from you, behold! Some of you associate others in worship with their Lord. So (as a result of this) they deny the favours We have bestowed on them! Then enjoy yourselves but you will soon come to know!)) [An-Nahl : 51-55].
He further said: ((And when they embark on a ship, they invoke Allah, making their Faith pure for Him only: but when He brings them safely to land, behold they give a share of their worship to others)) [Al-‘Ankabuut: 65].
But look at some people now. They turn to their Sheikhs, Imams, Saints at all times, even at times of hardships.

SHIRK IN SHI’ISM
In this section I will prove – from authentic and reliable Shi’i sources (not the internet) – that the Shi’ites surely condone and practise shirk. Not only the shirk of calling Imams in times of calamities like earthquakes and the like, but shirk even in the case of Rububiyyah (believing that there are other lords beside Allah and have share in His attributes of governance).
First, it is very important to know that the fundamental pillar upon which the Shi’i religion is based – (mark that whenever the word Shi’ism is used in this time of ours it refers to the Imami or Twelver Shi’ites) - is the issue of Imamah. In this regard we would not be surprised to find that the Imamah of Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu and his progeny is more important than Tauheed, and it will be seen from their books that the Qur’anic texts ordering the worship of Allah alone, have been changed to mean the Imamah of Ali and the Imams, while the texts forbidding shirk have been made to mean associating others with the Imams in Imamah.
In their commentary on the statement of Allah: ((And it was already revealed to you and to those before you, that if you should associate anything with Allah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers)) [Az-Zumar: 65], they say: “Meaning: if you should associate another with him in Wilayah (leadership), surely…” (These are the words of Al-Kafi of Kulaini vol. 1 p. 427 No. 76). But in the Tafsir of Al-Qummi (vol. 2 p. 251) it is said: “If you order for the leadership of anyone together with the leadership of ‘Ali after you, surely your works would be useless”. The author of the Tafsir of Al-Burhan cited four narratives to this effect. (See Tafsirul Burhan vol. 4 p. 83).
They further quoted as the basic reason for the revelation of this verse a tradition: “…that when Allah revealed to His Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa aalihi to appoint ‘Ali as a sign for men, Mu’aadh ibn Jabal sneaked to him and said: ‘Join together with his leadership, the leadership of the First and the Second (meaning Abubakar and ‘Umar) so that people will whole-heartedly accept your view and trust you’. So when Allah revealed: ((O Messenger! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord)) [Al-Ma’idah: 67], the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa aalihi reported to Gabrael saying: ‘People will deny me and would not accept it from me’, upon which Allah the Most Exalted sent down: ((if you should associate anything with Allah, your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be amongst the losers)). [Tafsir Al-Burhan vol. 4 p. 83].
Somewhere else, in their commentaries on the verse: ((Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!)) [An-Naml: 61], they report from Abu Abdillah (Ja’afar As-Sadiq) that he said: ‘Is there any Imam of guidance and another of false in one era?)) [Biharul Anwar vol. 23 p. 391 and Kanzu Jami’il Fawa’id p. 207.
They also changed the meaning of Allah’s statement: ((And of mankind are some who take others besides Allah as rivals (to Allah). They love them as they love Allah)) [Al-Baqarah: 165], to mean: “They are the friends of So-and-So who took other Imams instead of the one appointed for people by Allah”. (See Al-Ghunyah by An-Nu’mani p. 83; Biharul Anwar vol. 23 p. 359 and Al-Burhan vol. p. 172).
This is just to cite one or two examples, otherwise the Shi’ites distorted the meanings of many – if not all of the – verses on Tauhid and prohibiting shirk, to mean the affirmation and belief in the Imamah of ‘Ali and ahlul bait, and prohibiting any association with them.
To make clear the meaning of Shirk according to them, they said: “Whoever joins the Imamah of the one whose Imamah is from Allah with that of the one whose Imamah is not from Allah is a MUSHRIK (polytheist)” (See An-Nu’mani, Al-Ghaibah p. 82 and Biharul Anwar vol. 22 p. 78).
Ibn Babawaihi Al-Qummi whom they call As-Saduq says: “Allah will not leave the Ummah at any point in time without an infallible Imam. So whoever worships a lord who did not set the unmistakable proof (concerning Imamah), is only worshipping other than Allah” (See the book ‘Ilalus Shara’i’i p. 14, and Beharul Anwar vol. 23 p. 83). Meaning that whoever believes in Allah as his Lord and worships Him sincerely, but believes that Allah Has not evidently made ‘Ali an Imam and did not expressly mention him to be the Imam after the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, is just worshipping other than Allah!!!.
And these are exactly the words of Al-Majlisi, the author of Biharul Anwar where he said: “Let it be known that wherever the word ‘Shirk’ or ‘Kufr’ is used (meaning in their books) it refers to the one who does not believe in the Imamah of Amirul Mu’minin (‘Ali) and the Imams from his offspring, and prefers some other people over them, which indicates that they are unbelievers, and Hell is their abode” (Biharul Anwar vol. 23 p. 390).
According to the Shi’ites, Allah will only accept the deeds of a person if he believes in the Imamah of Ali irrespective of what his other deeds are. They say: “Allah has appointed ‘Ali as a sign between Him and His creation. Hence, whoever affirms him is a ‘Mu’min’ (believer); and whoever denies him is a ‘Kafir’ (unbeliever); and whoever is ignorant of him has gone astray. But whoever appoints any other with him is a ‘Mushrik’ (polytheist); whoever comes (on the day of Judgement) believing in his Imamah will enter paradise” (Usulul Kafi vol. 1 p. 437).
Statements to this effect are numerous in their reliable books, even though whenever you discuss with them or visit their web sites they display something else – based on Taqiyyah - or even disclaim these ideas, but none of them dare claim that the mentioned books are not reliable to them and up till this time after hundreds of calls from some deluded Muslims, who usually fall prey to their deception, that the Shi’ites should disown these books and go back to the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, no one will answer their call.
We now come to the issue of calling upon their Imams in times of hardships. After knowing fully what these so-called Imams stand for in the Shi’i tenet, one will not be surprised to find that the Shi’ites regard them also to be their intermediaries between them and their Lord, and that whoever calls them for help in whatever situation he finds himself they will answer him on behalf of Allah; and whoever calls Allah and asks Him in their names, Allah will surely answer him. That is why they dedicated duties to each one of their Imams as regards conferring benefits and inflicting harm to people.
They thus said: “As far as Ali bin Al-Hussein is concerned, his name should be invoked to save people from tyrant rulers as well as from the evil whispering of the Devil. Muhammad bin Ali and Jaafar bin Muhammad, will be responsible for the terrors of the Day of Judgment and what it deserves in terms of guiding people to the true way of worshipping Allah the Omnipotent and obeying His commandments. Musa bin Jaafar, was assigned the duty of mediation to God Almighty for those who seek good health from Him. As for Ali bin Musa, you should seek through him safety when travelling either by land or sea. As regards Muhammad bin Ali, through him sustenance will be proceeding from God Almighty. While through Ali bin Muhammad’s name, the optional acts of devotion, nice treatment of brothers toward each other, and all other acts of obedience and worship of Allah Almighty will be accepted. Regarding Al-Hassan bin Ali, his duty and obligation is specifically for the hereafter. Whereas the responsibility of the Master of the Time (i.e. the Mahdi the last Imam), is to rescue the people who are about to be stabbed to death, if they appeal for his assistance” (Biharul Anwar vol. 94 p. 33).
The author then illustrated in his book the supplication to be said earnestly when appealing for the aid of the Imams within the scope of their duties and obligations as elaborated above.
In this respect, Al-Majlisi concluded that the Imams are the greatest medicine and means of cure for whosoever intercedes with them. Hence, the Shi’ites’ prescribed supplications are made in the aforementioned pattern of placing their hope in their Imams and seeking their assistance. They therefore turn to them for aid when in distress and invoke their names respectively, as has been reported in one of their awaited Imam’s narrative, in the following text: “O pillars of the land, judges of all rulings, gates of faith, and granters of help, it is decreed that by you the execution of His Will is obligatory and inseparable. Nothing comes from Him without you being its reason and the obvious way towards its occurrence. There is neither deliverance nor resort from fear except by taking shelter in you, and there is no way we can do without you, O eyes of God that never relent” (Bihar Al-Anwar vol. 94 p. 37).
Why then should one be surprised to hear them saying ‘O ‘Ali come to our aid’, O ‘Ali provide supplies’, O Husain save our people from so and so? Or name themselves 'Abd Al-Husaini', 'Abd Ar-Rida' etc.
In fact, the originators of this blasphemous ideology were so audacious and bold enough to assert in one of their reliable sources of Hadith, the claim that: “Supplications of all the prophets and messengers of God Almighty were accepted to Him by solicitation and mediation of the Imams (May peace and blessings of God be upon them all.) (Bihar Al-Anwar vol. 26 p. 319). Al-Majlisi even made this statement the title of a chapter in the mentioned book, and quoted many narratives to confirm the claim. One of them says: “It was reported that Imam Ridha [on him be peace] said: “When Prophet Nuh alaihis salam was about to drown in the flooding waters, he invoked God Almighty by our names. Hence God Almighty came to his rescue. When Prophet Ibrahim alaihis salam was thrown into the scorching fire, he prayed to God through our names, and God Almighty ordered the fire to be cool and a means of safety for him [Ibrahim]. When prophet Musa alaihis salam struck the Sea with his rod in quest of a path, he invoked God with respect to our names and God made the sea dry out. Finally when the Jews plotted to kill Isa [Jesus] alaihis salam, he supplicated to God by mentioning our names and was rescued from death. God eventually raised him up” (Biharul Anwar vol. 26 p. 325; and Wasa’il As-Shi’ah vol. 4 p. 1143).

But despite all these, the Shi’ites always try to delude people in making them believe that they are not practising shirk, falsely asserting that one is only considered a polytheist when he calls upon something and believes it to be his lord. I have discussed this earlier and proved that it is baseless. Nonetheless, let us go through Shi’ite sources to see whether we can easily take their words.

Do the Shi’ites ascribe lordship (Rububiyyah) to their Imams?
In Mir’aatul Anwar, quoting from Basaa’ir Ad-Darajaat by As-Saffar, they falsely attribute to ‘Ali (radiyallahu ‘anhu) that he said: “I am the lord of the earth, by whose strength it stays firm” (Mir’aatul Anwar p. 59). And they cunningly claim that he meant: ‘I am the Imam of this world’, and mischievously believing that to be the interpretation of the verse: ((And the earth will shine with the light of its Lord)) [Az-Zumar: 69].
In the same book and page, the author quoted another narration on the interpretation of the verse: ((As for him who does wrong, we shall punish him, and then he will be brought back unto his Lord, Who will punish him with a terrible torment)) [Al-Kahf: 87], saying that: ‘He will be brought back to Amirul Mu’minin who will punish him with a terrible torment’.
Al-Kulaini gave the following title to one of the chapters of his book Al-Kafi: ‘That the whole of the earth belongs to the Imam’ (Usul Al-Kaafi vol. 1 p. 407). In the chapter he mentioned a narrative: from Abu Basir from Abu Abdillah alaihis salam, that he said: “Do you not know that the world and the hereafter all belong to the Imam; he puts it where he so wishes; he gives it to whom he so wishes; all this is lawful to him from Allah…” (Usul Al-Kaafi vol. 1 p. 409).
These and thousands of other narratives are all contained in reliable Shi’i sources for whoever wishes to see for himself.

In conclusion I ask Allah the Most Exalted to guide the whole Ummah to stick to the message He gave Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the message of Islam, the message of Tawheed. May He in His infinite Mercy throw His light in the minds of the deluded. Lastly I advise my Muslim brothers that each and every one of us should save a little of his time to read the Qur’an on a daily basis – in any language he can understand, and ponder upon its meanings. It is really a message addressed to him, personally to him. It is a book of understanding. When one comes upon something the meaning of which he fails to grasp, he should not make quick conclusions, but ask who know. Read the hadiths of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. In these are the light to guide you to the path of pleasing your Lord, the One and only God deserving to be worshipped.

Wa sallallahu wa sallama wa baraka ‘ala Nabiyyina Muhammadin wa ‘ala Aalihi wa Sahbih.


Abubakar Muhammad Sani
Madina
22 Dhul Qi’dah 1424

Philosophy – An Islamic Perspective

In this piece, I intend to look at the term ‘philosophy’, or to be more precise, what has come to be known as ‘Islamic Philosophy’, and the centuries old conflict between the Muslims and the philosophers, and show that Islam, as a complete way of life, does not need philosophy – the ancient or the medieval or the modern - to improve the lives of its subjects, socially, politically and more especially religiously. By the word need, I mean to assert that Islam is never considered deficient, incomplete, outdated or incapable of attending to the needs of its adherents just because it discards philosophy.
I will then come to discuss the fallacies involved in philosophy generally and particularly those to do with the Islamic faith. I will further show that Muslim scholars like Ibn Taimiyyah and admirers of his line of thought, chose to do away with philosophy not out of ignorance of what it entails, or because their intellects lack the essential faculties with which to grasp and perceive what philosophy has to offer for mankind, but for the fact that its ideas and teachings, more especially in metaphysics (ma wara at-tabi’ah) and politics, negate the basic foundations of the message of Islam.

The word ‘philosophy’, literally, meaning ‘love of wisdom’, from the Greek root philo (meaning love) and sophia (meaning wisdom), has been variously defined in its technical sense by many philosophers past and contemporary. So, philosophy historically has been understood in different ways by different philosophers and outsiders to philosophy. It has been put by some to mean love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline, while others assert that philosophy is a system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. Others say: it is the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. It is also said to refer to the discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology, or a set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising, or a system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. The definition more relevant to this discussion is the one which refers to philosophy as investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. The main theme of the knowledge and values here of course, comprises the disciplines mentioned above, i.e. logic, ethics aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology.
Ancient philosophy stemmed out from what the Greek called their quest for truth through inquiry independent of theological creeds. This made the most distinguishing characteristics of philosophy to be that it rejects dogma and deals with speculation rather than faith, as against theology which is wholly based on received truths and sets of creeds. Philosophy calls upon man to search for the reality of almost everything, tangible and intangible, seen and the unseen. The main subject matter of philosophy is put by some in the following questions:
· What is truth? How or why do we identify a statement as correct or false, and how do we reason?
· Is knowledge possible? How do we know what we know?
· Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right, and which wrong? Are values absolute, or relative? In general or particular terms, how should I live?
· What is reality, and what things can be described as real? What is the nature of those things? Do some things exist independently of our perception? What is the nature of space and time? What is the nature of thought and thinking? What is it to be a person?
· What is it to be beautiful? How do beautiful things differ from the everyday? What is Art?
· Does free will exist, or are our lives determined through a destiny planned long before we were even born?
· How did this world come to be? Who is ‘god’ or ‘God’. Does he or He really exist?
Al-Kindi, the famous philosopher we will come to discuss, puts philosophy to mean: ‘the knowledge of the realities of things according to human capacity’, and metaphysics according to him is ‘knowledge of the First Reality which is the Cause of every reality’. (Abu Rida, Rasa’il al-Kindi al-Falsafiyyah 1/97).
As regards the above questions he puts them this way: ‘Philosophy is concerned with four questions also, since … the philosopher inquires into ‘the whether, the what, the which, and the why’, or the existence, the genus (or species), the differentia, and the final cause of things. Thus whoever knows the matter knows the genus, whoever knows the form knows the species, as well as the differentia which it entails; and once the matter, form and final cause are known, the definition, and eo ipso, the reality of the definiendum are known also’ (Abu Rida, Rasa’il 1/101, quoted in Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 70, 1983).
These questions, as important as they are, the philosopher turns to his own intellect in search of their answers, and if subjected to tight scrutiny these questions are meant to challenge any given knowledge especially that which is divinely revealed, and deride it by giving it the title ‘dogma’, thereby paving the way for them to wholly rely on the human intellect as the only source of knowledge, and as seen in the aforementioned examples, they pose these questions in a logical manner, historically using syllogisms of traditional logic.
And the result amazingly comes out to be sort of disgusting. In my humble understanding, philosophy is just a roundabout way of telling you what you know.

Philosophy is also distinct from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available. Originally, science as such did not exist and philosophy covered the entire field, but as facts became available and tentative certainties emerged, the sciences broke away from metaphysical speculation to pursue their different aims. That is why we don’t find Islam frowning at the natural and social sciences in so far as they are in agreement with its established laws that are based on revelation from Allah to the infallible Messenger.

This brings us to the issue of what some people call ‘Islamic Philosophy’. From the outset, it is highly imperative to assert, with utmost certainty, of course, that Islam, as taught and embodied by the Qur’an (the Holy Word of Allah) and the Prophetic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) has nothing called ‘philosophy’ born and bred by it, or claimed to be its own. The word, the source and the teachings are totally alien to Islam. On another side there is also nothing called ‘Islamic Philosophers’, if the genitive manner of the two words here means that Islam professes philosophy and has a group of ‘scholars’ whom it charges with the responsibility of learning, expounding and teaching what is called philosophy and allows them bear the nomenclature ‘philosophers’, and endorses all the ideals and beliefs they teach, such that one may eventually ascribe that to Islam. This is not found anywhere in the vast literature of classical and orthodox Islam based on the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Yes one may address it: ‘The philosophy that is ascribed to Islam’ and the men ‘the so-called Muslim Philosophers’.
In the life time of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), the Companions never tried to search for any other source of guidance apart from the Qur’an being revealed to the Prophet through Angel Gabriel (alaihis salam), and the practical teachings of the Prophet himself. By mere listening to him reciting the words of Allah, they comprehended the whole of the message, they believed the whole of it, certainly believing it to be true, upholding its teachings to be superior to and surpassing the ancient beliefs and customs they inherited from their forefathers. They considered any other source running counter to the Qur’an and the prophet’s teachings to be a negation of the message and the messenger. No foreign knowledge or philosophy was ever ascribed to them. They lived and died according to Allah’s message. It was only after the conquest of Persia in the days of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu) when the Muslims entered the Persian lands, they found among the huge number of its treasures, large amounts of books. At that time Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas (radiyallahu ‘anhu), the Muslim Jihad commander, wrote to ‘Umar asking him of what to do with them. ‘Umar wrote him saying: ‘Throw the whole of them in the sea. If there is any guidance in them, we are content that Allah has guided us to what is better. And if they contain falsehood and deviation, then we are pleased that Allah saved us from their evil’. All the books were instantly drown and nothing was left. (Ibn Khaldun: Al-Muqaddimah 2/603).
This stern action from Umar is of course, a practical application of a personal lesson he got from the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), when one day ‘Umar was holding a piece of writing he got from a Jew, which turned out to be a portion of the Torah. At the sight of that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was enraged, and said: “Are you people that reckless about it (the message of Islam), O, Ibn Al-Khattab? I swear by Allah, I have brought it to you perfect and pure. Do not ask them (the Jews) anything, for they may tell you something that is true and you reject it, or they may tell you what is false and you believe them. I swear by Allah, if Moses were alive, he would have no choice but to follow me!” (Reported by Al-Imam Ahmad, Al-Musnad 3/387; Al-Darimi, As-Sunan 1/115; Ibn Abi Shaibah, Al-Musannaf No. 26421; Ibn Abd Al-Barr, Jami’ Bayanil Ilmi Wa Fadlihi 2/42; Al-Bazzar, Abu Ya’laa, Al-Baihaqi etc.).
So, if the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) will prohibit the Muslims from following a book once revealed by Allah to Musa alaihis salam, how can they be subjected later on to the dictates of the star-worshipping Greeks?
This perfect and pure character of Muhammad’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) message continued to guide the whole Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula, and the former Byzantine and Persian empires that were brought under the rule of Islam.
The coming together of Islamic teachings with Greek Philosophy did not happen overnight. It rather materialized through two important stages that need to be studied in detail.
First: The Emergence of Foreign fields of knowledge and sciences into the Muslim community, and this owes itself to the following factors:
One. The role played by the University of Alexandria and other institutes that engaged in teaching and spreading philosophy as a special field of knowledge. As an important and strategic centre economically, industrially and culturally, the city of Alexandria became the greatest oriental civilization centre where various nations – from the Greeks, the Egyptians, Jews, Italians, Arabs, the Persians, Ethiopians, Indians, Syrians, the Nubians etc. - came together, and its inhabitants were well versed in Philosophical studies, so eventually its university was the first centre in the world for the studies of Greek philosophy. (See Will Durant, History of Civilization 11/99-101 Ar). In addition to its important place in philosophy Alexandria reached its peak in cultural development under the influence of a government professing the Christian religion at that time, and this naturally indicates why Neo-Platonism gained ground, as a result of its founders strive to harmonize Christian religion with the Greek schools especially that of Plato. It could be rightly asserted that Neo-Platonism represents a selective systematisation of the works of Plato, plus elements from Aristotle and Stoicism. The Neo-Platonists did not see themselves as following a new philosophy: they believed that they had re-discovered the true meaning of Plato’s teachings. This school, originally founded by, and popularly ascribed to Plotinus (205-270 C.E) gave rise to different schools of thought whose main aim was to search deeply into religious facts but through allegorical methods founded by Greek philosophers. So, it was Neo-Platonism that had the greatest influence upon Christian theology from the fourth century until it was displaced by Aristotelianism in the Middle ages.
But before Plotinus, Philo (20 BCE – 40 CE), a Hellenised Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, did a lot to pave the way for other philosophers after him for the project of bridging the wide gap between revelation and Greek philosophy, as he included in his philosophy both Greek wisdom and Judaism which he sought to fuse and harmonize by means of the art of allegory that he had learned as much from Jewish exegesis as from the Stoics.
These philosophers were overwhelmed by the ‘accuracy’ of Plato’s idealism that they sought to necessarily bring the revealed facts to come to consent with them. This job, they found easy for the fact that Plato’s ideas differed from others in that they were mystic in nature, so their influence on Christianity was apparent. It is believed that Pauline Christianity was a direct result of Philo, whose teachings some of the Christians accepted whole-heartedly. It was he who laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. So it was upon this solid foundation Plotinus laid his teachings in the days when Christianity was the religion of the government in Alexandria.
Alexandria continued to be the world’s centre of civilization up to the Muslim conquest of Egypt, when it came under Islam. Its university also continued to be the centre of Greek philosophy the world over. Al-Mas’udi suggests that it was during the reign of ‘Umar ibn Abd Al-‘Aziz that the school in Alexandria was relocated to Antioch (Antakia) (a boarder city between the former Byzantine and the Muslim world at that time). The Muslims therefore found themselves amidst a stronghold of Greek philosophy that was camouflaged in a religious form, a factor that facilitated their being attracted so easily. One other important factor that influenced the spread of Greek philosophy was the tolerant attitude of the caliphs of those days who let the adherents of all religions to practice their religion without hindrance. So, many Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Magians and all kinds of pagans were left to freely spread their religion among the Muslims, and were brought so close to the government that some of them even threw challenges for debates in matters of belief between them and the Muslims.
One of the notable communities that enjoyed this ‘tolerance’ to a very large extent was the Syriacs (i.e. members of the Eastern Syrian Church). These people played a vital role in the spread of Greek philosophy in the Eastern Muslim world, for they had instituted many schools before the Muslim conquest of the area, in Edessa (al-Ruha) (now in Turkey), Nasibis (now in Syria) and Jundishapur (now in Iran) through which they disseminated philosophical studies in Syria and Mesopotamia (Iraq). So when the Muslims conquered the area they met those schools and witnessed Greek philosophy flourishing amidst the inhabitants of the areas. Some Muslims therefore showed their interest in learning from the Syriacs what that ‘mysterious’ sort of knowledge entails. This is where the Muslims started to get in contact with the Greek philosophy. De Purr concludes that: “The Syriacs and the Arabs started philosophy where the Greeks stopped” (History of Islamic Philosophy p. 26).
Before concluding this part, it is imperative to emphasis the importance of the School of Jundishapur, founded by Chosroes I (Anusharwan) around the year 555, for it stands out as a major institution of Hellenic learning in Western Asia whose influence was destined to extend to the world of Islam in ‘Abbasid times. For after Justinian closed the school in Athens, in 529, seven of the most influential philosophers of the time were cordially welcomed by Anusharwan to serve in his school. The school, with its medical faculty, its academy and observatory, achieved great fame and was still flourishing when Baghdad was founded in 762 by the ‘Abbasid caliph Al-Mansur. Since Jundishapur was near Baghdad, the Persians were in close political contact with the ‘Abbasid caliphate. Consequently it is from this school that important scientific and other intellectual developments spread throughout the Muslim empire. (Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy p. 4, 1983).
The caliphs used to seek from the school expert court physicians to assist them in their courts. Most of those physicians sent by the school were members of the Christian Nestorian family of Bakhtishu, and they served the caliphs loyally for over two centuries. This explains the role played by those schools in the spread of Greek philosophy among the Muslims.
The Second Factor: The Roles Played by some Individuals
The Muslim conquest of the various countries of the East and West brought them into contact with many nations with differing cultures and customs that negate the message of Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). The ‘intellectuals’ of those communities were at that time free either to profess Islam openly and become Muslims, or only declare being Muslims openly but retain their old pagan practices secretly, or out-rightly declare to remain non-Muslims. Those people had surely played a vital role in bringing Greek philosophy near the Muslims. The most notable among them are: the Jewish philosopher Maimonides (Musa ibn Maimun ibn Yusuf Abu ‘Imran Al-Qurtubi). This is one of the most notorious philosophers that influenced some Muslims of his time, for he was born in Cordova in 529 A.H. and traveled to various parts of Andalusia (Spain). He lived in Fez for nine years pretending to be a Muslim, memorized the Qur’an and became well versed in the Maliki law predominant in the region, but on returning to Egypt he publicly declared his Jewish religion and became the spiritual leader of the Egyptian Jews for about thirty four years. He became so close to the famous Muslim ruler of the time Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi (Saladen) and was made the personal medical doctor of his eldest son Nurud Deen, and Al-Qadi Al-Basyani, one of the viziers of Salahuddin. He used his position in raising the level of the Jews in Egypt. In fact when Salahuddin recaptured Jerusalem from the Christians and intended to drive the Jews away from the land, Maimonides convinced him to let them stay and he did.
As for his role in spreading philosophy among the Muslims he did that through about thirteen of his writings the most important of which is “The Guide for the Perplexed”. This book was studied by Muslims of his time under close supervision of outstanding Jewish teachers. He was the first to declare that the Bible must be brought to consent with human reasoning. (Will Durant 14/129 Ar.). He lived for about twenty years never carried away from his treatise on expounding on the Mishna for which he was raised by the Jews to the highest level among the expounders of the Talmud.
His sons carried on with his assignment of spreading philosophy among the Muslims and Jews alike, among whom are Ibrahim ibn Musa, his grandsons Dawud ibn Ibrahim and Sulaiman ibn Ibrahim.
Mention must also be made of the role played by The Zoroastrian Philosopher and astrologer, Nobakht, who was one of the closest people to Abu Ja’far Al-Mansur the ‘Abbasid caliph (D. 158 A.H.). He engaged fully in the study of astrology and spread of philosophy. When he was too old, Al-Mansur, who was deeply fond of philosophy and astrology, demanded him to bring his son to pick from where he stopped. He brought his son Abu Sahl. (This name was given to him by Al-Mansur, as a result of his amazement with his original name. In a ridiculous narrative it is reported that when Al-Mansur asked the young man what his name was he replied: ‘Khurshmadh Mah Taimadh Ma Baazaar Daabad Khusro Nahshah’. Al-Mansur asked him: is your name the whole of these words? He said yes, and at that point in time he called him Abu Sahl).
As noted above this slack and too ‘tolerant’ attitude of the caliphs in matters of belief contributed so much to the spread of philosophy among the Muslims.
The Third Factor: The Role of Translations
Ibn An-Nadeem, the most ancient source in this respect traced the earliest efforts of translating alchemical, astrological and medical works to Khalid ibn Yazid (d. 85 or 90 AH), the Umayyad prince who turned to the study of alchemy., and was highly fond of it. He was the first to bring foreign translators to render chemical works into Arabic, and that was the first translation that occurred in Islam, although it was confined at that time to some fields like wisdom and general history of philosophy, without getting into the deeper aspects of the metaphysical studies of Greek philosophy.
Then came the era of the ‘Abbasids when those steps were continuously taken seriously to import foreign books and translators to a very large extent, starting in the time of Abu Ja’afar Al-Mansur, the second ‘Abbasid caliph, who was referred to above. One of the most notable contributors in the field of translation during the reign of Al-Mansur was Abdullah ibn Al-Muqaffa’, a Persian convert from Zoroastrianism, who was killed in the year 142 A.H., and who translated to Arabic many works of Aristotle on logic. He also translated the fables of the Indian sage Bidpai, known as Kalilah Wa Dimnah, a literary classic which continues even now to be regarded as a model of Arabic prose. It was alleged that he translated it in order to replace the Qur’an that occupied the minds of the Muslims.
In the time of Harun Al-Rashid (d. 198 A.H.) a special translation academy was founded called “Baitul Hikmah” (House of Wisdom). The preponderance of astronomical and astrological works is linked to a significant feature of the reign of this caliph, who assigned his vizier, Yahya ibn Khalid Al-Barmaky (d. 190 A.H.), a notorious Zindeeq known for his secret conspiracies against Islam (See As-Suyuti, Saunul Mantiq p. 7-8). He was known to have sent to the Roman ruler of that time asking for the huge amount of Greek literature in their possession to be sent to the Muslim lands. The Roman ruler himself, as it was related, had packed those books in a secure place underground and blocked it from the top with a solid building, for fear of his people getting into contact with them so as not to divert them from their Christian faith. Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Zaidin Al-Qirawani (the renown Maliki scholar and author of Ar-Risala, d. 386 A.H.), was reported to have referred to this incident. He said: “May Allah bless the Umayyads; none of their caliphs was known to invent any bid’ah into Islam, and most of their servants and close labourers were Arabs. But when it was the turn of the ‘Abbasids, their governments were wholly supported by Persian servants and viziers, most of whom were accused of disbelief and concealing a great deal of hatred and contempt against Islam and the Muslim government. As such they introduced serious innovations that could undermine and cause the end of Islam. If not for the fact that Allah (subhanahu) Has promised his prophet that his deen and its adherents will prosper and be victorious to the day of Judgement, they would have destructed Islam, although they have already injured it and weakened its pillars, but Allah will surely fulfill His promise in sha Allah…” he then listed the innovations that found way into Islam in the reign of the Abbasids, among which is the act of importing Greek literature to Muslim lands. He then mentioned when the books were brought to Yahya ibn Khalid Al-Barmaki, he called on all philosophers to come and get to acquaint themselves with them, and free inter-religious and inter-denominational debates were conducted in his house for a long period. Among the books imported was one “Definition of Logistics” on which Ibnu Abi Zaidin Al-Qirawaani commented: “Hardly will one go through this book and remain free from Zandaqah…”. (Reported by Al-Maqdisi, Al-Hujjah ‘ala Tarikil Mahajjah p. 954-957, and Ad-Dabbi, Bughyatul Multamis p. 144, from Al-Humaidi in Jadhwatul Muqtabis p. 109).
This is as far as the reign of Haroun Ar-Rashid is concerned. In the time of Al-Ma’mun, the seventh ‘Abbasid caliph, the issue of translating Greek literature reached its apogee, when he sent to various foreign leaders asking for the books to be sent to him, and he was known to personally oversee the practice himself under curious and regular supervision. Suyuti comments on this: “… Be that as it may, the knowledge of the ancients came to Muslims in the first century after they conquered the A’aajim (non-Arabs), but it was not rampant between them as the Salaf were warning and prohibiting people from plunging into reading them. It was later in the time of Al-Barmaky that they were made prevalent, and their spread was strengthened by Al-Ma’mun”. (Saunul Mantiq p. 11-12).
Al-Ma’mun was not only confined to encouraging the translations of Greek books, but rather he boldly imposed their contents on his subjects. Scholars among the Salaf, like Al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yazid ibn Haroun and others were repressed and tortured for refusing to endorse the Kufr that was found in the Greek literature.
But despite all this you find some contemporary pseudo-philosophers calling Al-Ma’mun the most liberal and tolerant Muslim leader in history who gave people their right of thought and expression and set them free from the bonds of irrational dogma. One of them (Muhammad Lutfy Jumu’ah, in his History of Islamic Philosophers, intro) even considered this to be one of the prides of Islam as it is an element that gave rise to the development of ‘Islamic thought’ in the form of the various sects of bid’ah and religious denominations, each contributing with his own ‘interpretation’ of Islam, and asserted that Al-Ma’mun’s greatest contribution to Islamic thought was his support of the Mu’tazilah. Majid Fakhry, another contemporary philosopher calls him ‘the most enlightened caliphs of the period’. (A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 8).
It is not irrelevant to mention some of the books translated to Arabic within those periods of time.
From Greek to Arabic: 8 works written by Plato on philosophy, 19 works for Aristotle in philosophy and logic, 10 by Hippocrates in Medicine, 48 by Galin, 20 by Euclid and Ptolemy.
From Syriac to Arabic, about 20 works, from Persian to Arabic about 20 other works, 20 from Latin and Hebrew to Arabic and 30 from Sanskrit to Arabic, all by a number of philosophers.
This totals to around 195 books, a little number compared to the great number imported. Some researchers list the number of books translated in the reign of Ma’mun alone to about 256 books.
And all of the translators have been Christians of the Nestorian or Jacobite sect, except for an outstanding translator in the person of the pagan astrologer-philosopher Thabit ibn Qurra, who hailed from Harran in north Syria, settled in Baghdad. (For a detailed study on the translators and the books translated see: Muhammad Lutfy (Tarikhu Falasifatil Islam, intro., and Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 12-19).
The Impact of the Translations on Muslims
The negative impact of these works on the Muslim mind cannot be overemphasized. To say the least, Muslims were occupied with the study of philosophy as against the study of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), a factor that gave rise to an enormous increase in the number of sects claiming to belong to Islam, and this eventually added to the rift of the Ummah and taking it as far away from the teachings of Islam as possible.

Stage Two: Mixing The Deen of Islam With Philosophy
The study of all the different fields of Greek philosophy having gained ground within the Muslim community, a new type of Muslim emerged, dedicated to the ideal that he called Falsafah. At first they concentrated on natural science, but then, inevitably, they turned to Greek metaphysics. They were so amazed with the logical systematization of the knowledge, the method of presenting its cases and arriving at results that, as the case with their Christian and Jewish predecessors, they found themselves amidst a gigantic problem: how can the revealed facts of Islam as contained in the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions be subjected to these logical laws and how can they be applied to arrive at results that are in line with human ‘reasoning’? Allah has told us he created the worlds, the heavens, the earth and all that is between them, how can this be established through the principles of Greek logic? Nay, first and foremost, how do we ‘prove’ and ‘establish’ the existence of this ‘Creator’.
The fundamental mistake of these ‘new set’ of philosophers was, as put by Karen Armstrong: “They believed that the God of the Greek philosophers was identical with Allah. Greek Christians had also felt an affinity with Hellenism but had decided that the God of the Greeks must be modified by the more paradoxical God of the Bible: eventually,… they turned their backs on their own philosophical tradition in the belief that reason and logic had little to contribute to the study of God. The Faylasufs, however, came to the opposite conclusion: they believed that rationalism represented the most advanced form of religion and had evolved a higher notion of God than the revealed God of scripture. … There were problems, however. We have seen that the God of the Greek philosophers was very different from the God of revelation; the Supreme Deity of Aristotle or Plotinus was timeless and impassible; he took no notice of mundane events, did not reveal himself in history, had not created the world and would not judge it at the end of time. Indeed history, the major theophany of the monotheistic faiths, had been dismissed by Aristotle as inferior to philosophy. It had no beginning, middle or end, since the cosmos emanated eternally from God. The Faylasufs wanted to get beyond history, which was a mere illusion, to glimpse the changeless, ideal world of the divine… Such a faith in a wholly rational universe seems naïve to us today, since our own scientific discoveries have long since revealed the inadequacy of Aristotle’s proofs for the existence of God.” (A History of God p. 170-171).
The new philosophers therefore set off in their search for ways of fusing the principles of Islam in the belief in One Creator, who created from nothing, who is omnipotent, omniscience, “His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. He gives life and causes death, and He is over all things competent. He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant, and the Intimate, and He is, of all things, Knowing. It is He who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He knows what penetrates into the earth and what emerges from it and what descends from the heaven and what ascends therein; and He is with you, wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing. His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. And to Allah are returned [all] matters. He causes the night to enter the day and causes the day to enter the night, and He is Knowing of that within the breasts” [Suratul Hadeed 2-6]. They want all these simple and clear declarations from the Only One Who Made Such Claims to necessarily succumb to ‘logical’ laws set by pagan Greeks who worship the celestial spheres created by Allah.
We now take a look at the early philosophers among the Muslims and who were its aberrant exponents and flag-bearers, through whom the Muslim world came to be deluded and misguided. It is not out of place to assert that these people – all of them – were not well versed in the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).

(1) Al-Kindi
The first among the philosophers attributed to Islam, to apply the rational method to the Qur’an and the principles of Islam was Al-Kindi, Abu Yusuf Ya’qub ibn Ishaq, a scion of the famous South Arabian tribe of Kindah, born in the year 185 A.H. in Kufah. He was titled the Arab philosopher due to his Arabian lineage. He got his early education in Basrah and Kufah, although the source of his patronage or tutelage in real Islamic education is still a mystery. The most early information about him was that he was known to be a Mu’tazili, very much fond of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. He was fluent in Syrian and Greek languages. In Baghdad he enjoyed the patronage of Al-Ma’mun, then al-Mu’tasim and Al-Wathiq, whose interest in the dissemination of philosophical studies needs not be repeated. He wrote a lot on philosophy. Ibn An-Nadeem attributed to him 242 works on logic, metaphysics, arithmetic, spherics, music, astronomy, geometry, medicine, astrology, theology, psychology, politics, meteorology, topography, prognostics and alchemy (See: Ibn An-Nadeem Al-Fihrist p. 371-379). He was so fond of the Greeks that he claimed one of his grandfathers to have been one. De Purr asserts that: “It is from this angle that Al-Kindi attached more importance to Persian and Greek civilizations more than he attached to the religion of the Arabs and their virtues. Nay, he opined that Qahtan, the grand patriarch of the Southern Arabs was a brother to Yunan who was a scion of Igreek”. (Tarikhul Falsafatil Islam p. 236 Ar.).
Al-Kindi was so fond of Socrates that he wrote much on his person, works and views, in an effort to fuse his views with those of Aristotle within the bounds of Neo-Platonism.
As regards Al-Kindi’s extent of commitment to ‘his’ religion of Islam, lets see what Al-Dhahabi, the famous Muslim historian said: “As regards wisdom of the Ancients (philosophy), Greek logic, astronomy, astrology, medicine etc, (Al-Kindi) was a head, second to none in that deserted knowledge. He was more excellent in engineering and music. As regards his religion, he was accused (of being a Zindiq). He was a miser, devoid of any sense of honour and virtue…He once attempted to compile a similitude of the Qur’an but gave up failingly after some days”. (Siyaru A’alamin Nubalaa 12/337).
Al-Kindi died in 258 or 260 A.H.
Al-Kindi is considered by many to be more closer to Islam than the rest of major philosophers, whom we would come to discuss, especially in his view on creation, although not perfectly clear, but was not in agreement with that of Aristotle, the real model of other philosophers among the Muslims. But a good indication to the fact that even though his views on some issues might have been closer to Islam, looking at his closest student and successor, Ahmad ibn At-Tayyib Al-Sarakhsi, who followed al-Kindi’s footsteps in philosophy, will show how the negative impact of his teachings, as this student of his pushed the limits of familiarity with the caliph of his time, Al-Mu’tadid, too far, thereby taking the liberty of broaching heretical themes in his discourses with him, where he openly showed his doubts in the religion of Islam in many aspects, to the extent that he wrote in some of his treatises words of attack on the prophets whom he regarded charlatans, an issue that cost him his life in the hands of the caliph. (See: A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 95-96)
We would not pass this juncture without discussing about another successor of al-Kindi, Ibn Al-Rawandi (d. 910 CE) one of the most notorious malahidah (although you find writers like Majid Fakhry calling him ‘radical … free thinker’, to lighten the gravity of what is ascribed to him, nay terming the sources reporting his heretical views as ‘undoubtedly hostile sources’). This philosopher was reported to have repudiated the grand supernatural themes of revelation and miracle, as well as the very possibility of a satisfactory rational answer to the question of God’s existence and the rationality of His ways. (See: Al-Khayyat, Kitab al-Intisar p. 11-12). He even regarded the idea of revelation as superfluous. He argued that human reason was sufficient to determine the knowledge of God and the distinction between good and evil. Nay, to him, the most important miracle, according to Islam, which is the literary perfection of the Qur’an, is quite untenable, and that there is nothing miraculous about it, finally terming it to be irrelevant to foreigners to whom Arabic is an alien tongue. He also professed the eternity of the world and the superiority of dualism (Manichaenism) over monotheism, and the vanity of divine wisdom etc. His views did not stop there, rather he was reported to have ridiculed the Qur’an and Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). (A History of Islamic Philosophy, 96-97).
One other most notorious philosopher was Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya Al-Razi, called Rhazes in Latin sources. He was believed by some, to be the greatest nonconformist in the whole history of Islam. He was born in Rayy in Khurasan and died around 925 CE. He turned to philosophy and became one of the greatest medical doctors of his time. Some of his views include his belief, in emulation of Plato, that the soul is eternal as the creator, and that philosophy is the only pathway to the soul’s purification and its release from the fetters of the body. He rejected outright the concept of revelation and the role of the prophets as mediators between God and man. He reasoned that prophecy was either superfluous, since the God-given light of Reason was sufficient for the knowledge of the truth, or obnoxious, since it has been the cause of so much bloodshed and warfare between the one people (meaning the Muslims) who believed itself to be favoured with divine revelation and the other less fortunate peoples.

(2) Al-Farabi
The second of those major ‘Falasifas’ was Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan Al-Farabi. Born in Farab in Transoxiana in Turkistan in the year 259 or 260 A.H. Al-Farabi was hailed by most writers in this field as the leading logician and expositor of Plato and Aristotle in his day. He grew up in Damascus where he devoted himself to reading philosophical books at night by the ‘watchman’s torch’, while working as a garden keeper by day. (Ibn Abi Usaibi’ah, Uyunul Anbaa vol. 2 p.134.). He later went to Baghdad where he spent much of his time learning logic, philosophy, music and mathematics in the hands of the leading ‘teachers’ of the day: Matta ibn Jonah and Yuhanna ibn Hailan, two Christian philosophers. He then moved to Halab where he got associated with the Hamdani Shi’ite family, and was highly respected by Saif al-Daulah who was very fond of arts and letters. Al-Farabi died in Damascus in 339 A.H. He was believed to be fluent in 70 languages (Siyar A’alaamun Nubalaa 15/417). It was related that for his mastery of music, he once entered the court of Saif Al-Daulah, debated with scholars in various arts, after which he brought out his lute (musical instrument) and played it until every man sitting there was made to laugh and become happy. Then he instantly changed the tune to make all the people fall asleep, and he left the place. (See Wafayatul A’ayan 5/155-156 and As-Siyar 15/417).
Al-Farabi then changed his direction towards studying the works of Aristotle, and was believed to excel in that. He wrote a lot of his works in expounding Aristotle’s works. All in all he was said to write about 102 books.
As regards his effort of harmonizing religion with philosophy, he was believed to extract for himself a new methodology no one ever applied. For he started by trying to bring that deluded harmony between the works and ideas of his philosophic ancestors, Plato, Aristotle and their folks after which he tried to fuse that whole knowledge with that of religion. It is in this regard and in trying to practically apply Plato’s theory of his Republic where he said that a good society must be led by a philosopher who ruled according to rational principles, Al-Farabi, considering the fact that he was living in a Muslim society, under a Muslim rule, purported that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) had been exactly the kind of ruler that Plato had envisaged. He had expressed the timeless truths in an imaginative form that the people could understand; so Islam was ideally suited to create Plato’s ideal society. One will critically point out the folly in al-Farabi’s example here in his effort to bring Islam in consent with his ancestors religion. That is because, he knew quite alright that Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did not rule according to rational principles, but according to a law revealed to him by the Creator of the heavens and earth. But as he did not have the courage of the likes of Abu Bakr Ar-Razi, he couldn’t dare say the Islamic society was not a good example of his masters Republic, which he considered the yardstick in measuring a good society from a bad one.

One fact remaining ironically disturbing regarding the teachings of Al-Farabi is that he was not known to have a Muslim teacher, nor did he produce a close Muslim student; all the students that excelled and became his successors were Christians. That is why he was accused of being a Zindiq. Will Durant said: “This mysterious mixture, in addition to his writings, may have been the reason why he was accused of being a Zindiq” (Qissatul Hadarah vol. 13/204 Ar). De Purr also asserted: “As for true Islamic scholars, they have indeed accused him of being a Zindiq, and it stays as a mark on him. And this might have definitely been supported by sound reasons” (Tarik Al-Falsafah fil Islam p. 226 Ar).

As regards his opinion on creation, Al-Farabi was totally with Aristotle in professing that this world was not actually created by Allah ex nihilo. Karen Armstrong spelt it out: “But al-Farabi stayed close to Aristotle. He did not believe that God had ‘suddenly’ decided to create the world. That would have involved the eternal and static God in unseemly change. Like the Greeks, al-Farabi saw the chain of being proceeding eternally from the One in ten successive emanations or ‘intellects,’ each of which generates one of the Ptolemaic spheres: the outer heavens, the sphere of the fixed stars, the spheres of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun Venus, Mercury and the Moon…. There were obvious differences from the Koranic vision of reality, but al-Farabi saw philosophy as a superior way of understanding truths which the prophets had expressed in a poetic, metaphorical way, in order to appeal to the people”. (A History of God, p. 175).

(3) Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna in the West).
He is Abu ‘Ali Husain ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Sina, born in Afshinah, a village in Bukhara in the year 370 A.H., later on moved with his family to Bukhara, where he received his early instruction in writing, arithmetic, jurisprudence and logic. His father and his brother were Isma’ili (a Batini Shi’ah sect) propagandists of the high order, so Ibn Sina was brought up as an Isma’ili. His interest in philosophy appears to have developed from listening to conversations between his father and another of his Isma’ili teachers. By the age of eighteen he had mastered logic, physics, and mathematics. This he said he did within a year after having the privilege of confining himself in the library of the Emir of his area when he was seventeen, and in just one year he read and memorized all the books in the library. He was said to read the book of Metaphysics by Aristotle forty times, memorized it off head, but was still unable to comprehend the intent of its author until he lighted incidentally on a copy of al-Farabi’s Intentions of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which at once illuminated for him Aristotle’s meaning.
He was an expert medical practitioner and this led him to have association with the Samanid Sultan of Bukhara, Nuh ibn Mansur, who was suffering from an incurable disease, which Ibn Sina was able to cure.
Ibn Sina himself did not live very long, for, he died at the age of 58 as a result of his excessive indulgence in wine and sex, after repeated efforts to cure himself of colic by unorthodox methods. (See: A History of Islamic Philosophy p. 129-130).
The efforts of making religious facts come to consent with philosophy was best exemplified by Ibn Sina, although failingly. The ‘Abbasid caliphate was in decline, and it was no longer so easy to see the caliphal state as the ideal philosophic society described by Plato in the Republic. Naturally Ibn Sina sympathized with the spiritual and political aspirations of the Shi’ah, but he was more attracted to the Neoplatonism of philosophy. Ibn Sina worked out a rational demonstration of the existence of God based on Aristotle’s proofs which became standard among later medieval philosophers in both Judaism and Islam… Ibn Sina saw it as a religious duty for those who had the intellectual ability to discover God for themselves in this way to do so, because reason could refine the conception of God and free it of superstition and anthropomorphism. (A History of God, p. 182-183).
As his predecessor, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina also rejects the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. (See his An-Najat (Cairo, 1938) p. 213-214; and Ilahiyyat, 2/266-267. See also Michael E. Marmura, Efficient Causality in Avicenna, An Essay in Islamic Theology and Philosophy, Studies in Honor of George F. Hourani, p. 181).
Ibn Sina is of the opinion that prophecy is attainable by any body, as its basic prerequisites are: a sound sense of intuition, a strong sense of imagination such that whatever he imagines in his mind materializes in reality, and a spiritual power that makes him able to effectuate things. (See: Ibn Sina’s Al-Shifaa p. 63-244, see also: W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Edinburgh University Press, 1979, p. 97).

(4) Ibn Rushd (known in the West as Averroes).
Abul Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, known in Islamic literature as ‘Ibn Rushdin Al-Hafid’, meaning the grandson, to differentiate him from his grandfather, Ibn Rushdin Al-Jadd’. Al-Hafid was born in Cordova in Andalusia in the year 520 A.H. a month after the death of his grandfather. Abul Walid led a life full of controversy and died in 595 A.H. at the age of 75. Unlike his predecessors among the Muslims fond of philosophy, Ibn Rushd was brought up in a fiqhi backround. Himself and his forefathers before, were grand Maliki scholars and judges in Cordova. Ibn Rushd has written one of the most vital books on fiqh on a comparative basis between the Maliki and other mazhabs. In his early years, therefore, he studied Islamic law, Arabic language and medicine. He later on turned to the ‘knowledge of the ancients’ (philosophy) and excelled in it. (See: Ad-Dhabi, As-Siyar 21/8).
In the reign of caliph Ya’qub ibn Yusuf ibn Abd Al-Mu’min, Ibn Rushd devoted his time to summarizing the works of Aristotle. He is believed by many philosophers to be the most extreme in extolling and revering Aristotle. Muhammad Lutfy Jumu’ah asserts that: “His reverence for Aristotle knows no bounds: he considers him as the man whom God permitted to reach the highest summit of perfection in wisdom and intellect. He ascribes even the qualities and attributes of God to him. Of a fact, had he been a polytheist, he would have raised Aristotle to the position of the Lord of all lesser gods”. (Tarikhu Falasifatil Islam p. 155).
This might have been the reason for which he was summoned by the jurists in Cordova in a special court, and after a session of queries, they issued a verdict to the effect that Ibn Rushd has been declared ‘kafir’ and ‘zindiq’ and prohibiting all Muslims from reading his books. As a result of that the Sultan, Al-Mansur billah Ya’qub ibn Yusuf sent him on a compulsory exile to a Jewish village near Cordova and his movements were confined. A special order was also given to all parts of the Muslim Andalusia that Ibn Rushdin’s writings should be deserted and burnt at stake except those on Medicine, Mathematics and other sciences. (See Al-Dhahabi, Tarikul Islam vol. 42 p. 223-224). Although some historians believe that the reason behind the Sultan’s action was purely political and not as a result of Ibn Rushd’s blaspheme acts and inclinations, because in the end, after the interference of some influential persons, the Sultan pardoned Ibn Rushd and was once again among his closest associates, and was allowed to return to Maraqish (now in Morocco) up to his death. (See: Ibn Abi ‘Usaibi’ah, ‘Uyunul Anbaa p. 532).
Among the philosophers professing Islam, Ibn Rushd is the most celebrated in the sight of Western contemporary philosophers. It is on his works in which he expounded and improved the ideas of the ancient philosophers, most of them rely.

Fallacies of Philosophy and the Philosophers

Before looking at this point, it is important to make a clear distinction between the fields of knowledge in which the philosophers missed their steps and went counter to the principles of Islam, and those in which they are considered to have contributed immensely to the development of human life. I have shown above that sciences, considering its nature and field of study, ‘gained’ its independence from philosophy. Sciences is mostly based on factual findings that are or can be established through practical experiments. Philosophers professing Islam have indeed contributed in various fields of physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, astronomy, medicine etc. Their intellectual brilliance has been correctly displayed in these fields that now become indispensable in the running of human life. This fact has been acknowledged by the strongest critics of philosophy, in the persons of Al-Ghazali and Ibn Taimiyyah. “A greater portion of the discussions of these philosophers”, wrote Ibn Taimiyyah, “relating to physics is quite clear, detailed and convincing. They possessed intellect and aptitude to understand these subjects and, instead of being predisposed to any particular view, they seem to be searching for what is right and correct”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Bakri, p. 143). Expressing similar views about the Greek mathematics he wrote: “The mathematical formulas dealing with numerals are quite convincing and are unanimously accepted by all scholars. Every man has to have some knowledge of these for one needs them for conducting his daily business as also for further studies. Who can dispute that one is not half of two? In fact, their equations are acceptable for they have no inexactness to which any objection could be raised. This is the beginning of their philosophy which is invented by Pythagoras…”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 134).

The fallacies of the philosophers are therefore to do with other than the natural sciences, to be precise, in the field of metaphysics, dealing with the origin of creation, and other fields like ethics, politics, and more especially what has to do with prophecy. Most of the surmises of the Greek metaphysical concepts are not only unreasonable but stupid due to their naked ignorance, for had their speculative thought been restricted to the natural sciences without blundering into its metaphysical domain of absurdity, they would have saved themselves from becoming a laughing stock. Ibn Taimiyyah says: “So far as the knowledge of God is concerned, these unlucky people appear to be deprived of the truth. They have no knowledge of the angels, divine scriptures, and prophets of God, for they had heard nothing about these either in favour or against them. Only some of the later philosophers acquainted with the revealed religions have spoken about these matters”. (Tafsir Suratil Ikhlas, p. 57).
One reason Ibn Taimiyyah mentions many times is the fact that the Muslims came into contact with Greek philosophy and unfortunately their choice fell on the worst part of it, that is Aristotelian philosophy, the theories of which are more pagan than others. That is because discussions on theology in Aristotelian philosophy is limited and the mistakes found are grievous, for instance, Aristotle was the first to profess the eternity of the world and that there is not creator to it. These mistakes are seen by Ibn Taimiyyah to be mainly for the fact mentioned by some historians like Muhammad ibn Yusuf Al-‘Amiri, that unlike other philosophers preceding Aristotle, like Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato, who were able to travel to the land of the Prophets, Syria and were believed to have met Luqman Al-Hakeem and other followers of Prophet Daud, and Sulaiman (alaihima as-salam), Aristotle never traveled to the land of the Prophets, so his knowledge of the Prophets and their beliefs is nil. What he had was the knowledge of the Sabians upon which he drew to form the principles of the philosophy he extracted for his followers.(See: Naqdu Al-Mantiq p. 113, and Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 337).

To list some of the most grievous fallacies of those philosophers professing Islam, we mention the following:
· Their attitude of condoning shirk. This found way into the ideas of Sufi-Philosophers like Ibn ‘Arabi, Ibn Sab’een and At-Tilmisani, who see nothing wrong in a Muslim professing Judaism or Christianity or to worship idols or join any other religion. That is because the philosopher’s most important end as an individual, is to resemble Allah in his actions.
· Their belief in the origin of this world. They do not believe Allah to be the creator. Rather they believe that this world has been eternal together with whom they call the First Mover in every sense, neither before or after him. This Mover is the First Cause for the movement of the world. They believe that he is older than the world only in his essence not in relation to any time, he moves the world in a reflex sense and never moves himself. He is the cause of this world not in an active way. This is the final theory advanced by Aristotle which is handed over to later philosophers among the Muslims, and is what we mean when we say they do not believe that Allah has created the world ex nihilo (from nothing and with his intention). This is of course in total negation of Allah’s plain statement in the Qur’an that He created the world and everything from nothing, and that whenever He wishes the creation of anything He says: “Be and it is”.
· In relation to number two above, they believe that the world emanated from the first cause instantly at a time, not in a sequence.
· As regards the Angels, the ancient philosophers mentioned nothing positively or negatively. But their Muslim inheritors, having read from their predecessors the influence of the celestial spheres, the stars which they called ‘The Ten Intellects’, from whom emanate everything, they tried to fuse this idea into the Muslims belief in the Angels who act as messengers from Allah to his servants, act by Allah’s order to send down rain, etc. They call the angels ‘the Ten Intellects’, Jibril (alaihis salam), being the active intellect and the tenth. As intellects they are perceived by the philosophers as non entities, but rather imaginations.
· Their belief that Allah only knows things in a general sense not in their minute details.
· As regards prophecy and revelation, they believe that prophets are men with sound intellect that imagine things and relate them to their followers to serve their political interests. Based on this, they do not believe in any revelation, rather the prophets, who can be anybody with sound intellect and powerful sense of imagination, invent words of their own without Allah telling them anything. That is why they do not believe the Qur’an to be the Words of Allah, and the prophets are just a collection of liars, eloquently good in the rhetorical act of using words, relating things they imagine – like Paradise, hell, day of judgement, in order to ease their way of leading people politically.
· The philosophers claim that the Qur’an is full of anthropomorphic terms, so they must be given metaphorical meanings to purify the Qur’an from them. Majid Fakhry asserts: “Moreover, the anthropomorphic passages in which the Koran abounded made it imperative to resort to some process of allegorical interpretation in order to safeguard the immateriality and transcendence of God…”. (A History of Islamic Philosophy, xviii introduction). It is clear from this how the philosophers allude or expressly show that Allah is unable to tell us about Himself in a pure and perfect language, and that their words of describing Him are more pure and perfect. This is the back bone of the issue of the term Ta’weel in Muslim literature, and it found its way through the Mutakallimun (speculative theologians) to some books of tafsir. See for instance, the tafsir of As-Sawi (Hashiyatus Sawi ‘alal Jalalain vol. 3 p. 10), where he says “… for taking the words of the Qur’an and Sunnah in their literal and apparent meaning is one of the foundations of Kufr”. So these people believe that for one to believe in Allah he has to change the words of Allah Himself, especially those speaking about His attributes and His transcendent reality.
· In politics, the philosophers believe that a nation can only prosper if it is led by a philosopher and the principles of politics should be entirely philosophic and secular. Al-Farabi, the first to introduce the tradition of political philosophy into the world of Islam, “goes to say that the principles and rules that constitute siyasa are to be sought, not in the Qur’an and the Traditions, but in Aristotle’s Politica (kitab fil siyasa) and in Plato’s Republic (also kitab fil siyasa)”. (Fauzi M. Najjar, ‘Islamic Political Philosophy’, an essay in ‘Islamic Theology and Philosophy, Studies in Honor of George F. Hourani, p. 103). This is based on the philosophers deluded assumption that the most important end in human life is the attainment of ‘true happiness’, not gaining Allah’s pleasure through one’s actions as taught by Islam. And due to the fact that they do not believe in the Prophets as guiders of human beings according to the dictates of the Shari’ah, they sought their happiness through what their ancient predecessors extracted for them in terms of political ideology. That is why you find most of the political systems used or came to be used in history bear Greek names, like Democracy, Aristocracy, etc.

The Stance of The Salaf On Philosophy
Before concluding I would like to touch a little on the stance of the Salaf As-Salih with regard to philosophy. Many people have been deluded by the claim that Muslim scholars rejected philosophy because they could not understand it. This is totally false. The reason is that philosophy, in the fields shown above, teaches something that is contrary to Islamic teachings. Al-Imam Al-Shafi’ii, Muhammad ibn Idris, says: “People did not become ignorant and divided in their religion until after they deserted the Arabic language and inclined to the language of Aristotle”. (Quoted by Suyuti in Saunul Mantiq, p. 15).
An-Nawawi says: “We have shown previously the categories of the knowledge of the Shari’ah. On another side there are other parts of knowledge that are either prohibited or disliked or allowed. The prohibited are like learning magic… and philosophy…and whatever causes doubts in religion”. (Al-Majmu’ Sharh Al-Muhazzab, vol. 1 p. 27).
Ibn Al-Jauzi says: “Satan has deluded some people among the Muslims, through their so called sound intellect and brilliance. He showed them that the right path is following the ways of the philosophers because they possess wisdom. Muslims of later times were told of how those philosophers rejected the belief in a creator, rejected the Shari’ah and following its dictates, so they also left the shari’ah, left the performance of prayer, indulged in various prohibited acts, neglected the application of the shari’ah and hudud, left the religion of Islam…”. (Talbis Iblis p. 65-66).
Ibnus Salah says: “Philosophy is the foundation of all stupidity, corruption, doubts in religion and main causes of Zandaqah (hypocracy). Whoever engages in philosophy will be blinded from taking cognizance of the beauty of the pure Shari’ah…”. (Fatawa Ibn As-Salah p. 34-35).
Al-Dhahabi adds: “The man (referring to Ghazali) had written his Tahafut to refute the philosophers and expose them, but agreed with them on some issues assuming that they are correct according to Islam. His knowledge of the athar (traditions of the salaf) and the Prophetic Sunnah which supercede human reasoning, is limited…. If not for the fact that Abu Hamid (Ghazali) was one of the brilliant and sincere servants he would have been destroyed. One should therefore stay as far away as possible from these books of philosophy, and run away with his religion from the doubts of the ancients, otherwise he will fall into confusion. Whoever wishes to be on the safe side should devote himself to true and sincere ta’abbud (worship of Allah), and always asks Allah’s help to make him die a Muslim on the path of the Sahabah and Tabi’een”. (Siyaru A’laam An-Nubalaa vol. 19 p. 328-329).
The most gigantic effort in refuting philosophy and its principles came from the person of Ibn Taimiyyah, Ahmad ibn Abd Al-Halim ibn Abd As-Salam Al-Harrani (d. 728). When he came of age, Aristotelianism dominated the intellectual and literary scene owing to the influence exerted by Tusi (a staunch Shi’ite that acted well for the spread of philosophy) and his followers. It was the time when a thorough grasp of Aristotelian logic and philosophy was deemed to be the summit of one’s intellectual attainment, when nobody could dare raise a dissenting voice against the teaching of the Greek master. Ibn Taimiyyah was surprised or rather pained to see certain philosophers equating the prophetic teachings with the metaphysical speculation of the Greek philosophers. So Ibn Taimiyyah devoted his time to refute the principles upon which philosophy was built, using his gifted talent, sound intellect and going by the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah. His refute did not stop at the speculations of the philosophers among the Muslims, but he used to show with utmost brevity the contradictions in the sayings of their Greek masters, the incompatible discrepancies between the theories of the Greek philosophers and even correcting Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd on some theories they ascribed wrongly to Aristotle or Plato. He has knowledge of the original Greek books translated. He has a detailed treatise refuting Aristotle’s book on theology. He was well versed in logic and the principles of philosophy. He says on the ignorance of the philosophers: “The philosophers are absolutely unfamiliar with the unseen realities taught by the prophets as also with those comprehensive natural laws which envelop all beings and creations and whose knowledge could have helped them to correctly categorise all the existing things. The only person capable of attempting it is he who can encompass the whole varied existence, but the philosophers have but little knowledge of palpable objects and the laws related to it. This in fact shows their comprehension of just a small part of the general causes and principles of natural phenomena. But the existence of beings and causes not known to man far exceed that of which he has any knowledge. Thus all those persons whose knowledge is limited like that of the philosophers, are taken by surprise when they are told that numerous other objects such as prophets, angels, empyrean, heaven and hell also exist. They are surprised because they believe that nothing exists beyond what they know. This is also the reason why they try to interpret the facts of unseen realities told by the prophets in the light of limited knowledge of things they possess. Their arguments are really baseless for they have no positive evidence of the non-existence of things not known by them. Of a fact, to lack the knowledge of a thing’s existence is quite different from the non-existence of anything. It is not necessary that whatever we do not know does not have any existence. Their denial of the unseen realities is like the denial of the jinn by a physician on the ground that medical science does not afford any evidence of their existence, although medical science doe not prove their non-existence too. Similar is the case with others possessing knowledge in a particular branch of science. Whatever they find out outside the compass of their own knowledge, they deny simply out of their ignorance of it. The fact is that man has not been as much misled in owning and accepting things as in denying that of which he has no knowledge. This is a common weakness and natural propensity of human beings which has thus been spoken of by Allah: “Nay, they have denied that, the knowledge whereof they could not compass, and whereof the interpretation (in events) hath not yet come unto them”. (Suratu Yunus: 39).

Ibn Taimiyyah made a distinction between the philosophical concepts of antiquity and those of the later philosophers, which again affords a proof of the agility of his mind and the deep knowledge of Greek thought. He pointed out that it was Aristotle and the later philosophers after him wedded to the view of rationality who denied their predecessors’ concept in regard to the unseen realities and incorporeal objects. Describing the Aristotelian view of Greek philosophy he says: “The philosophers following the Aristotelian thought did not adopt the view held by the earlier masters and precursors of philosophy who believed in the creation of the universe and the existence of a super-natural world apart from the terrestrial one. They had spoken of the celestial world in a language which confirms the description of heaven given in the Traditions. Likewise, the ancients also believed in the resurrection of the dead as the writing of Socrates and some other philosophers affirm”. (Tafsir Suratil Ikhlas, p. 69).
After condemning and showing the fallacies entailed in Greek logic and arguments, Ibn Taimiyah showed how vivid and more rational are the arguments of the Qur’an. He writes: “The arguments put forth by the Qur’an are much more assuring and carry a deeper sense than the propositions of the philosophers and dialecticians. At the same time, the former do not suffer from paralogism which is a common feature of logical disputations”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 321). At another place he says: “Knowledge of the reasons advanced by the Qur’an as well as the self-evident marks and signs adduced in support of the existence of God, His sustentation of the world, His Oneness, His knowledge and power and the possibility of resurrection and retribution in the Hereafter is essential for acquiring the noblest human qualities”. (Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, p. 150).

The most important of Ibn Taimiyyahs writings in this field are: Ar-Radd ‘alal Mantiqiyyin, Naqd Al-Mantiq, Dar’u Ta’arudil Aql Wan Naql, Tafsir Suratil Ikhlas, As-Safadiyyah, Minhajus Sunnah, Bughyatul Murtad, An-Nubuwwat, Naqd Asas At-Taqdees, etc.
One cannot cover all his efforts in this little piece, and there are many treatises written particularly on Ibn Taimiyyah and Philosophy, and Greek logic, all in Arabic. Whoever wishes to expand should read the aforementioned works.

One other thing important in this respect is that Western writers and orientalists have deliberately neglected the works of Ibn Taimiyyah in their efforts to spread Muslim writings on philosophy, and the reason for that is surely not unknown, for the enemies of Islam have seen how erudite and pure the writings of this man are, and spreading them is just another way of spreading pure Islam, and this not what they came to do. That is why in almost all the Western or philosophical books the mention of Ibn Taimiyyah is in a derogatory style, to display that he was a staunch literalist. As an example Majid Fakhry, in his history of Islamic philosophy, devoted a couple of hundreds of pages discussing Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd, who were pro-philosophy. But on those against philosophy he gave only 20 pages under the title: Theological Reaction and Reconstruction, ‘Literalism and Neo-Hanbalism: Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taimiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab’. In these 20 pages he started with Al-Ghazali and his Tahafut in paragraphs, Ibn Hazm in a page and a half, and when he came to Ibn Taimiyyah he said: “Like al-Ghazali, but without his moderation, they both attack Greco-Arab philosophy in unequivocal terms. Even more vehemently than Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyah protests against the abuses of philosophy and theology and advocates a return to the orthodox ways of the ancients (al-salaf). It is as though in his religious zeal he is determined to abolish centuries of religious truth as they had been long before they became troubled by theological and philosophical controversies”. He further mentioned Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Abdul- Wahhab in one paragraph. (A History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 312-332).

No mention was there of Ibn Taimiyyah’s knowledge of philosophy and its fundamental principles, much less of talking about his ability to show the contradictions and discrepancies widely existent in ancient and medieval philosophical works. But he was cheaply termed ‘literalist’, ‘immoderate’, and his approach ‘vehement’, just to warn readers to beware of him, as his only quality is that he ‘hates’ philosophy for the sake its being philosophy.
This same trend we find now circulating amidst many Muslims influenced either by the writings of those orientalists or their students, or in their strenuous effort to defend the bid’ah they call people to, in any name. Anybody calling Muslims to follow the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah as understood by the Sahabah and Tabi’un, is named either a literalist or a quasi-salafi or the intolerant and immoderate Wahhabi or even calling him a terrorist, being the word chosen by the enemies of Islam to fight Muslims. For nothing but the fact that he refuses to worship any one or anything but Allah and takes Muhammad ibn Abdilllah -sallallahu alaihi wa sallam - to be his model and example.


To sum up, philosophy in metaphysics or politics is vain talk. To borrow once more from Ibn Taimiyyah, I say: Whatever good thing is found in any other religion or ideological thought, is found in Islam in a more better way. One can give his time to search for the good parts of any religion – Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Paganism, Cultism or any other thing called religion - or any path or any ideological thought, he will find the teachings of Islam to be more appealing to the human mind, more rational, more relevant and more importantly more closer to the attainment of Allah’s pleasure. The same thing with the Sunnah of the Prophet. Whatever good thing is found in any Muslim sect is found in the sunnah of the Prophet in a better manner.

I pray Allah to guide and help us in upholding the values of Islam and calling others to them in the most correct manner full of knowledge and wisdom, and may He in His infinite mercy, unite all Muslims on one word, that is the worship of Him alone and following the teachings of His noble Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.

Wa sallallahu wa sallama wa baaraka ‘ala Nabiyyina Muhammadin wa ‘ala aalihi Wa Ashaabih.