The jurists of Fiqh differ from one another on
Fiqhi issues but they do not call one another Kafir on this basis. Yes, there
are great differences among Hanafis, Shafeis, Malikis and Hanbalis on Furui
issues related to Ilm al-Fiqh, but at the same time, they have great respect
for one another. For common people these jurists have done a great help,
especially for derivative rulings (Furui Masaail) related to Purification
(Taharat) Ablution (Wudu), Fasting (Roza), Pilgrimage (Hajj) etc. Today’s world
needs such jurists who can better resolve the newly-rising issues, as their
methodologies and skills were largely appreciated by the scholars who studied
What is important to note here is that they
unanimously do Takfir of those people who take position against any parts of
Zaruriyat-e-Deen concerning Aqaid.
Yes it is hard to study them comparatively but it
is not beyond perception as long as one is passionate and sincere in his
pursuance of learning.
Quoting #Qur’an’s Fighting Verses In Isolation To Promote #Violence Or Defame #Islam Amounts To Treacherous Misrepresentation Of Its Message Of #Peace And #Reconciliation
Click the link to
On Abrogation As I have explained many a time, abrogation refers to replacing a moral principle in a previous scripture, by a better one in a later one. One example is replacing the principle of reciprocity with the principle of Ahsan or returning evil with good and forgiveness. There are many more examples that I can think of such as animal sacrifice which made sense when animal was your only wealth and most of what you owned. In the early period, there must have been a need for a more active communication between man and God and God conveyed His acceptance of the sacrifice by consuming the sacrificed animal with fire from Heaven. If it was not consumed, it meant that God had rejected the sacrifice. The fight between Cain and Abel was over the same issue. The sacrifice of one was accepted and of the other rejected which led to the killing of the righteous brother by the unrighteous one. Over a period, the practice changed to burnt offerings to God. The one who sacrificed, himself burnt the animal and offered it to God. This changes completely for the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh) and God says that neither the flesh nor the blood of the animal reaches God but only your piety and we are asked to consume the flesh of the animal sacrificed. Also, the practice of sacrifice is restricted to Hajj only and even then, there is an option to fast for ten days instead of sacrificing an animal.
Consider the following verses:
(75:16) Move not thy
tongue concerning the (Qur´an) to make haste therewith.(17) It is for Us to
collect it and to promulgate it: (18) But when We have promulgated it, follow
thou its recital (as promulgated): (19) Nay more, it is for Us to explain it
(and make it clear):
The prophet would anxiously recite repeatedly what was revealed
to memorise being afraid that he may otherwise forget what was revealed to him.
God is assuring him that there is no need to do so and it is Allah’s
responsibility to ensure that the Quran is correctly collected and promulgated.
And in the following verses, Allah is further putting the Prophet’s mind at
rest by saying that even if he forgets a part, it will only be as Allah wills.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that the Prophet will be made to forget any part
and even if he does, that part can be revealed again. These verses are only to
put the Prophet at ease and relieve him of the anxiety about the stupendous task.
(87:6) By degrees
shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget,
(7) Except as Allah
wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden.
Abrogation simply does not refer to any verse of the Quran,
and in view of Allah’s assurances in 75:18,19, there can be no doubt about the
correctness of any part of the Quran or any question of omission or
over inclusion or even any question of dependency on any source outside of the
Quran to understand the Book.
I consider it blasphemous to attribute anything that goes by
the name of hadith qudsi or any other hadith to Allah or to the Prophet(pbuh).
These are mostly stories concocted by the story tellers and are misleading and
can only lead the Muslims astray and the reason for their backwardness and for
their lack of understanding of the Quran.
Comment on verse 9:5
(9:5) But when the forbidden months are
past, then fight and slay the Mushrikin wherever ye find them, an seize them,
beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if
they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then
open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
isolation, no one can act based on 9:5 because one must figure out what those
forbidden months are during which one cannot act. This forces the reader to
read the other verses that explain what those months are.
(1) A (declaration) of immunity from
Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Mushrikin with whom ye have contracted
(2) Go ye, then, for four months,
backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye
cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame
(3) And an announcement from Allah and
His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,-
that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Mushrikin.
If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye
cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to the kafaru.
(4) (But the treaties are) not dissolved
with those Mushrikin with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not
subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your
engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
four verses describe the context for 9:5. The four-month period of amnesty starts
from the date of announcement on the day of the Great Pilgrimage of the year of
revelation of the verse. with exemptions as in 9:4, 9:6 and 9:7 for their
crimes described in verse 9:8 to 9:13.
9:5 is one-time judgment on the Mushrikin of Mecca of the prophet’s times with
exemptions covered by three verses and for their crimes described in seven
verses. These verses cover a very specific set of people of the Prophet’s times
for their specific crimes and are inapplicable to any other people.
amazes me that no scholar explains these transactional verses in this manner
and treats them as laying down a general law! The general law must be derived
which is what I have done in my article: The Principles of War from the Quran
relevant portion reproduced below:
Surah Taubah describes the judgment on the
vanquished enemy. The General Principles underlying the judgment on the
vanquished religious persecutors are as follows:
Let those vanquished persecutors who fought but never violated their treaties,
the freedom to practice their faith and live peacefully, if they agree to
become your willing subjects.
To those who were treacherous and fought in violation of their treaties,
provide protection if they seek protection. Make them hear the word of God and
if they still refuse to accept your religion, escort them to a safe place
outside your territory.
Those who were treacherous and fought in violation of their treaty, are allowed
4 months of time in which they are free to migrate to a neighbouring country or
accept the victor’s faith. Those who remain defiant at the end of the amnesty
period may be killed.
As may be seen, the rules are extremely generous.
If it was a fair war without violation of treaty, the vanquished simply must
accept the new political authority and become willing subjects and can live
peacefully practicing his faith. The treacherous violators of treaties can also
save their lives by accepting exile or the victor’s faith. These rules are in
no way unfair for a people who had fought to annihilate the religion of their
In any other war where religion is not the issue,
it is only treachery of the combatants alone that is punishable by death or
exile. The remaining people simply must become willing subjects of the victors
or may choose to migrate.
from my previous comment, the verses which command the Muslims to fight (2:190
and 22:39,40) say “fight those who fight you”
There is simply no Meccan verse about
fighting and therefore there is no Meccan verse which is preventing the Muslims
from fighting or commanding them to fight.
There is no Meccan verse which says, “do not fight those who
fight you” or “suffer patiently those who fight you” or anything about fighting
and therefore there can be no Meccan verse abrogated by 2:190 and 22:39.
What can be said about the classical scholars who prepare a list of Meccan verses abrogated by 2:190 and 22:39? They have very loose standards of scholarship and are little better than barbarians.
“What are the Makki Verses
Which Prevented Muslims from Fighting even in defence?”
There is no
makki verse preventing the Muslims from fighting. The correct position is that
there is no makki verse commanding the Muslims to fight. The Muslims were
simply not in any position to fight in Mecca. They were numerically greatly
inferior in Medina also and unwilling to fight but had to be motivated to fight
and even tricked into fighting. The battle of Badr was such a battle in which
they were tricked into fighting a vastly superior army with promises of help
with three thousand angels and showing in their dreams a small enemy force.
(8:43) Remember in thy dream Allah
showed them to thee as few: if He had shown them to thee as many, ye would
surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in (your)
decision; but Allah saved (you): for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all)
(3:123) Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye
were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your
(124) Remember thou saidst to the
Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three
thousand angels (Specially) sent down?
(125) "Yea, - if ye remain firm,
and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your
Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught.
(126) Allah made it but a message of
hope for you, and an assurance to your hearts: (in any case) there is no help
except from Allah. The Exalted, the Wise:
(127) That He might cut off a fringe
of the Unbelievers or expose them to infamy, and they should then be turned
back, frustrated of their purpose.
(128) Not for thee, (but for Allah),
is the decision: Whether He turn in mercy to them, or punish them; for they are
and 128 make clear in the early Medinan period immediately after the battle of
Badr, that only a small number of the enemy fighting “ṭarafan mina alladhīna
kafarū” would be punished or disgraced, and Allah would turn in mercy towards
the greater number of them although all of them are wrong-doers or zalimun.
Indeed, only a couple of thousands died fighting and the rest accepted Islam.
is a Medinian verse and is about the Jews and not about the Mushrikin. There is
no command to fight the Jews. How is this verse then cited as a Meccan verse
and among those the classical scholars consider as abrogated?
remaining verses cited in the article have nothing to do with fighting and to
do with how to deal with others at the individual level while inviting them to
Islam. How do the classical scholars consider them as abrogated? For example,
(50:45) We know best what they say;
and thou art not one to overawe them by force. So admonish with the Qur´an such
as fear My Warning!
So, is it OK
now to overwhelm them by force if they don’t agree, and force Islam down their
throats according to the classical scholars? Should we replace the verse by “
You know what they say; and thou art charged
to overawe them by force. So, fight with the sword such as do not fear My
Warning?” If not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated?
replace, “Repel evil with
the best deeds; We well know the matters that they fabricate”. (23:96) With “Kill the fabricators of
untruth?”. If not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated according to the classical
replace, “Then if they turn away, O
dear Prophet, upon you is nothing but to clearly convey (the message)”. (16:82) with, “Then if they turn
away, kill them, because upon you is nothing but to make them accept (the
If not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated according to the classical
replace, “Therefore advise;
indeed, you are a proclaimer of advice. (The Holy Prophet is a Remembrance from
Allah.) You are not at all a guardian over them”. (88:21-22) with “Therefore compel, indeed you
are a mahi or the one to compel and charged with eradicating kufr/shirk” If
not, then in what sense is the verse abrogated according to the classical
classical scholars apparently make those substitutions in their minds because
of which extremism thrives and unless we cut off such bigots completely, there
is no hope.
John, would you please say good bye to the idea demonstrated in your comment.
Your idea is not yours but has been borrowed from the orientalists who studied Islam for a particular purpose.
Please also see
what Solomon A. Nigosian writes, “Most historians agree that modern Western
thought is the direct result of the intellectual culture of Spanish Islam.” (Solomon
A. Nigosian, “Islam: Its History, Teaching and Practices” p. 25) Some historians,
on the other hand, disagree with what most historians agree.
takes what suits him. I do not want to present details concerning “who borrowed
what and from where”.
practicable in every age. Please read my article above and make a valuable
comment which can develop good relationship.
Hidayat, the Arabic word, literally means guidance, instruction,
righteousness or the true path.
The word hidayat is comprehensively used among the scholars.
In Islamic books, it is generally divided into meanings 1) Isaal ilal Matloob
and 2) Ira’at al-Tariq. The scholars of Islam unanimously agree that when
hidayat is referred to God Almighty, hidayat means Isaal Ilal Matloob and when
Hidayat is referred to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Quran it means
Ira’at al-Tariq. In other words, when God Almighty gives hidayat, it is Isaal
ilal Matloob from where it is impossible for one to go astray and when the
beloved Prophet or the Quran gives hidayat it is Ira’at al-Tariq from where it
is possible for one to go astray.
Generally it is said that if hidayat in Arabic is used
as ‘Muta’addi bado Mafo’ol’ and the second Mafo’ol is used without preposition ‘ila’
or ‘laam’ it is referred to the meaning ‘Isaal ilal Matloob’. But when its
second mafool is used with ‘Ila’ or ‘laam’, it is referred to the second
meaning i.e. ‘Ira’at al-Tariq.
There is some technical debate over its area of
application. The author of Kashshaf [Mutazilite tafsir book] has discussed it
and Allama Taftazani [a classical Sunni scholar] has written a footnote on it. Technically
checking the details of Allama Taftazani, there are some defects in his explanation
of hidayat and it is for this reason that Qazi Baidawi [another classical Sunni
scholar] has detailed in his tafsir that hidayat comprises of both 1) Isaal
ilal Matloob and 2) Ira’at al-Tariq. The author of Noorul Anwar in his
commentary on the book Al-Manar has covered this topic in short but
comprehensive way. Besides the author of famous logical book ‘Sharh Tahzeeb’
has also discussed it in some details.
Please take the following also as a classical evidence,
Ibn Faruk sests forth an Asharite view
..فوق خلقه وأن ذالك راجع إلى فوقية المنزلة والرتبة وفوقية القدرة العظمة . وأما
الفوقية بالمسافة والمكان فمحال في وصفه. (مشكل، 453و 15-17)
God Almighty is above His creation in the sense that he is
above [it] in rank, degree, power and majesty. As for his being above [it] in
the spatial sense—it is impossible to describe Him thus. (Mushkil 453, 15-17)
@Kaniz Fatma sahiba, (comment 3)
Mutashabihat verses including the verse of ‘istiwa’ are
interpreted in accordance with muhkamat verses whose meaning is firm and clearly
established. The consensus, Shehikh Ramadan al-Buti says, “in place regarding
these texts is the refraining from applying to them any meaning which
establishes sameness or likeness between Allah and His creatures, and the
refraining from divesting their established lexical tenor. The obligatory way
to proceed is either to explain these words according to their external
meanings which conform with divine Transcendence above any like or partner, and
this includes not explaining them as bodily appendages and other corporeal
Many classical scholars preferred taweel (metaphorical
interpretation) to avoid anthropomorhismic implications. For example, Imam
Al-Ghazali argues, that the literal meaning of the term ‘al-istawa’ leads to
corporealism which is denied by all the parties concerned; therefore it is not
appropriate to be ascribed to God Almighty who is neither a body nor
To save the people from confusion or anthropomorhism, and in
reply to your question, some metaphorical meanings [taweel] are presented as
logical interpretation, with reference to the book “al-qawari al-qahhar fi
1. The term ‘istiwa’
is interpreted as connoting might or power (qahr) and dominance (ghalba). This is
created and proved by the language of Arab. Since Arsh is above and highest of
all creations, therefore, this was simply mentioned to mean that Allah is
Mighty [qaahir] and Predominant [ghaalib] over all creations.
means elevation [‘uluw] which is an attribute of Allah, in the sense of rank
and being the King, and not in the sense of elevation in any particular place
Imam Baihqi has mentioned these two meanings in his book ‘Kitab
al-Asma wa al-Sifat’.
means intention (qasd or irada), as “thumma istiwa ala al-arsh” means “He formed
an intention (qasd) towards Arsh, i.e. intention to create ‘arsh [throne]. This
tawil [metaphorical interpretation] was made by a Sunni Imam Abul Hasan Ash’ari.
Ismail Zarir said, “This [‘Asha’ri] view is correct”, as Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti
quoted it in his book ‘al-itqan]’.
means completion of work i.e. He Almighty completed series of creation on Arsh
(throne). There is nothing outside Arsh; whatever has been created and whatever
will be created in the world and Hereafter is not outside the boundry of Arsh
as it encompasses all creations. The better exegetical interpreation [tafsir] of
the Quran is what is done by the Quran itself. Istiwa in the meaning of ‘completion’
is mentioned in the Quran. Allah Almighty says,
“And when he reached his maturity
and complete strength [istawa]......” (28:14)
Allah Almighty also says,
“...Their trait is mentioned in
the Injeel; like a cultivation that sprouted its shoot, then strengthened it,
then thickened and then stood firm [fa-i-stawa] upon its stem...” (48:29). In this
verse ‘istiwa’ refers to the state of completion [halat-e-kamal]. This tawil
[metaphorical interpretation] was quoted by Ibn Hajar Asqalani from Abul Hasan
Ali b. Khalf Ibn Battal. This is the speech of Imam Abu Tahir Qazwini as
mentioned in Siraj al-Uqul and quoted in the book ‘Al-Yawaqeet’ authored by
Abdul Wahhab Sha’rani.
You have mentioned
some good points in your comments.But the terms “istiwa alal arsh” are used for
different meanings. It would be better if you could explain all the meanings of
“istiwa alal arsh” with authentic evidence. In addition to that, please tell me
which meaning is accepted in classical Islamic study
is He Who has sent down to you (O beloved Prophet Mohammed – peace and
blessings be upon him) this Book (the Qur’an) containing the verses which are
muhkamat (verses that have a clear meaning)– they are the core of the Book –
and other verses the meanings of which are indistinct; those in whose hearts is
deviation pursue the verses having indistinct meanings, in order to cause
turmoil and seeking its (wrongful) interpretation; and only Allah knows its
proper interpretation; and those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it,
all of it is from our Lord”; and none accept guidance except the men of
author of Muwadhih al-Quran writes in the commentary of this verse, “Allah
Almighty says He has revealed some verses whose meaning is not clear. So those who
are astray interpret them by their mind and those who have sound knowledge interpret
them by way of those verses which are the core of the Book [i.e. muhkamat
verses]. They try to understand them in line with the muhkamat verses. However if
they are unable to do so, they leave this matter up to Allah, thinking that
Allah alone knows best and that it is enough for us only to believe in that
case. (Muwaddih al-Quran by Shah Abdul Qadir, p.62)
@KF Tanzeehi Aqaid that I wrote in my previous comment with reference
to the book “Qawariul Qahhar...” are countless in the same book. These fifteen
[creeds] mentioned in the previous comments were quoted as per needs. In
addition to them, all other issues [related to creeds] originate from the first
three creeds [out of 15 creeds] and the origin of all origins is the first
creed which is implication and summary of all Tanzihi creeds. Their evidence is
those Quranic Ayaat which described glorification [tasbeeh] and sanctification
[taqdees] of Allah Almighty, His eternity, perfection, purity, independency and
that He is unmatched. The aayaat-e-tasbeeh [i.e. Quranic verses which refer to glorification
of Allah] themselves are multiple in number. Allah the Most High says, “It is
Allah, except Whom there is no God; the King, the Pure, the Giver of Peace, the
Bestower of Safety, the Protector, the Most Honourable, the Compeller, the
Proud; Purity is to Allah from all what they ascribe as partners (to Him)!”
(Quran 59:23). Allah Almighty says, “Allah is Independent (Unwanting) of the
entire creation!” (Quran 3:97). Allah Almighty says, “To Allah only belongs
whatsoever is in the heavens and in the earth; indeed Allah only is the
Absolute, the Most Praiseworthy.” (Quran 31-26) Allah Almighty says, “The Maker
of the heavens and the earth; He has created pairs for you from yourselves and
pairs from the animals; He spreads your generation; nothing is like Him; and He
only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing.” (Quran 42:11) Allah Almighty says, “Lord of the heavens and
the earth and all that is between them – therefore worship Him and be firm in
His worship; do you know any other of the same name as His?” (Quran 19:65)
Allah Almighty says, ““And there is none equal to Him.” (Quran 112:4)
There are hundreds of aayat relating to these issues. These aayaat
are muhkammat. They are Umm al-Kitab [i.e. the core of the Book. There is
neither hiddenness [khafa’] nor ambiguousness [ijmal], nor difficulty or
abstruseness [ishkaal] in their meaning. Whatever meanings come from their
clear [sareeh] words; it is categorically essential to believe them, without
making any sort of changing, specification and taaweel [in these clear meanings].
The evidence from the Quran that “the tashabaha” cannot be
taken literally are several verses. Consider the following verse:
(2:74) Thenceforth were your hearts hardened: They became
like a rock and even worse in hardness. For among rocks there are some from
which rivers gush forth; others there are which when split asunder send forth
water; and others which sink for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unmindful of
what ye do.
The heart muscle always remains soft and in no case becomes
as hard as a rock. It can be easily cut with a surgeon’s knife.
There are more such verses such as Ayat -al Nur 24:35 from
which it is clear that the verse cannot be taken literally.
The Quran says in Surah Ikhlas that “There is none like unto
Him”. If there is none like unto Him, then all description of Him can be only
using “tashabaha” or similitudes and we should avoid taking it literally.
So, the books that try to describe Him are also conjecture.
We can get some idea of how Allah can see everything, record everything, be
everywhere, and be in a position to intervene instantaneously, from the
possibilities of modern technology covering surveillance, monitoring and
Allah has created a Universe that He can control and necessary
mechanisms/agents for it such as angels. An angel may not also be what we
imagine from the description in the Quran. The Quran uses terms that we can
understand. Angels may not necessarily have wings, but they can move on the land
and through space.
Islam does not accept the faith of anthromophormism. However some sects rely on
literal interpretation of Mutashabihat verses and ahadith to claim their
statements are a summary of the book “Al-Qawahirul Al-Qahhar fi mujassmatil
fujjar”. In this book Alahazrat the author of the book has discussed, in
exemplary scholastic details, fifteen
creeds of Ahlus Sunnah. The book was written by Alahazrat
originally into Urdu and then translated into Arabic by his great grandson
Allama Akhtar Raza khan Azhari.
الله تعالى منزه من
كل عيب ونقصان
كل يحتاج إليه ولا
يحتاج سبحانه وتعالى إلى شيء أصلا في شيء بأي حهة
منزه عن مشابهة الخلق
لا يتطرق إليه التغير
هو الآن كما كان في الأزل ولا يزال كما كان إلى الأبد، ولا يجوز أبدا أن يكون أولا
في طور ثم يتطور إلى حالة أخرى
ليس بجسم ولا علاقة
لشيء جسماني بذاته تعالى
لا يعرض له المقدار
حتى يقال "إنه بقدر كذا كذا" لا طويل ولا عريض ، ولا ذو جرم ولا سخين،
ولا رقيق ولا كثير ولا قليل وفي العد والوزن لا كبير ولا صغير ولا ثقيل ولا خفيف
هو منزه عن الشكل لا
منبسط ولا منقبض ولا مدور ولا طويل ولا مثلث ولا مربع ولا مستقيم ولا منحرف، وليس
ب صورة غير ما ذكر
منزه عن حد وطرف
ونهاية وليس بغير المحدود على معنى أن يكون منبسطا لا إلى غاية، بل المراد أنه
منزه عن المقدار وغيره من جميع الأعراض، المهم أن قولنا "ليس بمحدود"
لنفي الحد وليس لإثبات المقدار إلى نهاية
لم يتكون من شيء
لا يمكن فرض الأجزاء
أوا لحصص في ذاته تعالى
منزه عن الجهة والطرف
كما لا يجوز أن نقول: هو عن اليمين أو الشمال أو تحت، كذالك لا يقال: هو
"قدام أو وراء أو فوق" على معنى الجهة
لا يجوز أن يتصل
بمخلوق ويكون متعلقا به
ولا يفارق مخلوقا
بحيث يكون بينه تعالى وبين المخلوق مسافة فاصلة
لا يفتقر للمكان ولا
منزه عن القيام
والقعود والنزول والصعود والحركة والسكون وغيرها من سائر عوارض الجسم والجسمانيات
1. Allah Almighty is free from
every defect or shortcoming.
2. Everybody and everything needs
Him; and He does not need anything or anybody.
3. He is free from bearing any similarity
4. He does not change. Just as
He was possessed of His attributes in pre-eternity (Azal), so He shall remain with
the same attributes forever. It is absolutely impossible [muhal] that He was something
before, and then turned to become something else.
5. He is not a body. He is free
from everything that is suggestive of bodies.
6. “He is transcendent from
magnitude; one cannot say this much, this big and so forth. [He is not] tall,
wide, thick, thin, little or more, countable or weighable, big or small, heavy
7. He transcends having a shape
– [He is] neither wide or narrow, nor spherical or long, nor triangular or
conical, nor straight or oblique nor any other shape.
8. He transcends having extents
or limits; He is not ‘unlimited’ in the sense of being [physically] spread out
without a limit; that is, He transcends having any concept of magnitude. In
other words, when we say He is transcendent from limits, we mean negation of
imposing any limits; not the attestation of unlimited magnitude.
9. He is not made from
10. Parts and sections cannot
be conceived or considered in Him, even hypothetically.
11. He is transcendent from
directions or edges or [being on a] side. One cannot say that He is on the
right or left; or front and back; similarly, [in this sense of direction] He is
12. He is not attached with
anything in the creation such that He is in contact [with something].
13. He is not detached from the
creation – to mean that there is a [physical] distance between Him and His
14. He is transcendent from
place and location.
15. He transcends all
conditions and necessities for bodies like standing, sitting, descending,
ascending, walking, stopping etc.
(Al-Qawahirul Al-Qahhar fi mujassmatil fujjar)
The article is very scholastic.
But what about those who prove the
faith of anthropomorphism on the basis of literal interpretations of some
mutashabihat verses and ahadith? As far as I know Islam does not accept the
faith of anthropomorphism.
4th and final comment in continuation of the previous 3. All 4 comments are to be read together.
So, what do we make of this penchant for interpretation? Why
is every scholar interpreting? People love to give their own meaning and hate
being told in very precise terms. They want control over what they would like
to believe which is why, they interpret the Quran rather than take what it
says. They have also built an alternate body of literature based on concocted
stories of what the Prophet said which they use this to “interpret”. What is
the net effect?
They worship only one deity, but that deity is not Allah, because
His commands have been replaced by the interpretations.
They do not follow Muhammad (pbuh) either, but a caricature of
him which they have assiduously built by concocting the ahadith.
And they think that reciting the Kalima will deliver them! The
Muslims follow the whims of their various imams and not the Deen of Allah.
First, let us question why the
Quran needs to be interpreted. Whose speech requires to be interpreted? We know
that we need to interpret the speech of:
1. A Child who has not yet learned to
2. An imbecile
3. Another category of speech or writing
that is interpreted is poetry and literature.
We never try to interpret the speech of sane intelligent honourable
persons but take them on their word.
The Quran informs us that it is not poetry nor is it the word
of an imbecile or mad man but the word of a most honourable messenger of Allah.
It therefore does not require to be interpreted but taken on its word or its
most direct literal meaning. What of the Mutashabihat verses? These also do not
require interpretation but knowing which of the words have been used as a
metaphor, which is also never in doubt.
art not, by the Grace of thy Lord, mad or possessed.
have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no
less than a Message and a Qur´an making things clear:
Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger,
with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne,
authority there, (and) faithful to his trust.
(22) And (O
people!) your companion is not one possessed;
That this is indeed a qur´an Most Honourable,
none shall touch but those who are clean:
Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.
(81) Is it
such a Message that ye would hold in light esteem?
Understanding the Message, and deriving the eternal
principles from it, is not interpretation. It is simply making a systematic
study of the Quran. Most of Islamic scholarship however lacks in systematic
study and abounds in interpretations!
Continuing from my previous comment, let us look at the questions the author asks:1) did the “sword verse” 9:5 really abrogate verses of peace and forbearance? 2) Who are the Mushrikin mentioned in the Verse 9:5? 3) What are the Makki Verses Which Prevented Muslims from Figitng even in defence? 4) What is actually meant when some scholars say the verse 9:5 abrogated verses of peace and forbearance?The right questions are:What were the conditions and circumstances of the Muslims during the Meccan period? What was the right behaviour for those conditions prescribed by the Quran. Did the prescribed behaviour produce the right outcomes? Was there any alternate behaviour that would have better served the Muslims? What would have happened if the Muslims had acted during the Meccan period as per the commands of Allah during the Medinian period? Was there any injustice to any people in the prescribed behaviour?A similar analysis can be carried out for the Medinian period. It must be also borne in mind that each command that deals with appropriate behaviour with the other is either:a) based on specific circumstancesb) independent of circumstances and an eternal principle or law.Such an analysis yields the following answers:1. The eternal unchanging principles that cannot be compromised by any circumstance.2. The eternal unchanging principles of war.3. The eternal unchanging principles of justice4. The eternal unchanging principles of moral living5. Nature of God and man’s relationship with GodThese are covered in my articles:
The Principles of War from the Quran
The Importance of Rendering Justice in Islam
Deen-e-Islam or the Moral Way of Living in Islam
The Role Models in the Quran
The Quran, Islamic Theology, Philosophy And The Sciences
- What Is God And How Do We Go About Trying To Know God Better? (Part 1)
The Quran, Islamic Theology, Philosophy and the Sciences
– On Soul and the Creation of Man (Part 2)
The Quran must be understood and
taught as a set of principles appropriate for dealing with the given 'nature of
things' which would enable us to make
informed choices and judgments as we would then know, with a high degree of
certainty, the likely outcomes of our actions in a given set of circumstances, and
avoid information overload. Prior to Charles Darwin, biology was a mass of
unrelated facts about nature. Darwin tied them together in three principles of
evolution: 1. Random genetic variation, 2. Struggle for existence and 3. Natural
selection. We do not need to know every
detail today, and a mere sample is necessary to understand the universal
principles and make sense of the world of biology.
The mixing up of verses from the
Meccan and Medinian period is symptomatic of inability to make a distinction
between what is appropriate behavior for different situations. The Meccan
period verses teach appropriate behavior when living as a dispersed, politically
weak, minority. The Muslims were in the same situation as Jesus was, and the
message is similar to what the Bible teaches and equally free of legislative
verses since Muhammad (pbuh) had no political power to promulgate laws and
ensure compliance. Since living as a minority is, and will remain the condition
of Muslims in several countries, how can the Meccan verses be treated as
The Medinian period teaches how
to use political and military power for ensuring justice and ending oppression.
The clear principles of war, treaties, treatment of the vanquished are covered in
this period. Where is the question of putting up with torture and persecution when
you have political and military power? And where is the question of violent
resistance when you can be easily annihilated? Moreover, the verses regarding
war and punishment are for the ruler and not for the common man for whom the verses
of restraint, forbearance and forgiveness apply at all times. The appropriate treatment
for kidney stones could be taking medicine or surgery depending on several
factors such as the size of the stones, the age and medical condition of the
patient etc. Nobody argues that the two treatments contradict each other. Why
is it then so difficult to understand that the Meccan and Medinian verses are
for different situations and they neither contradict each other nor abrogate
The principles covering the relationship between spouses
is similarly governed by the ‘nature of things’ and the need to maintain
balance of power without endangering the marriage since divorce is more harmful
to the interests of the woman than to the man.
When understood in terms of appropriate
principles based on the ‘nature of things’, we have a means for understanding
and refining especially when the ‘nature of things’ is not constant but changing.
The bane of Islamic scholarship
is that it still struggles as the biologists did prior to Darwin. For every
question they deal with overload of information much of which is irrelevant to
the question and therefore end up tying themselves in knots.