Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad
Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad
Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Ru‘ya, with one possible exception: A‘isha. With her, however, it is not at all clear that even she<br />
categorically rejected Ru‘ya. I demonstrate that there is reason to believe that she might have actually<br />
affirmed a Ru‘ya, just not a ru‘ya bi-l-absar or Vison <strong>of</strong> the Eyes. The bottom line is that I demonstrate<br />
that the sources DO NOT present the Sahaba as ―disagreeing irreconcilably (ikhtilaft mutabayin)‖ over<br />
whether or not the Prophet saw God: 19+ Companions affirmed that he did – including Ibn Mas‘ud, Abu<br />
Hurayra, Abu Dharr – while only one companion allegedly explicitly rejected it, A‘isha.<br />
I demonstrate that there WAS a dispute among the Sahaba related to Ru‘ya, but it was over the following<br />
matters:<br />
1.] <strong>Is</strong> Surat al-Najm a record <strong>of</strong> the Ru‘ya or no?<br />
2.] Was the Prophet‘s Ru‘ya related to the Mi‘raj (Ascension to Heaven) or <strong>Is</strong>ra (Nocturnal Journey) or<br />
no?<br />
3.] Was the Ru‘ya bi ‗l-absar, with the eyes <strong>of</strong> the Prophet‘s head, or bi ‗l-qalb, with the eyes <strong>of</strong> his heart,<br />
i.e. a dream vision?<br />
I demonstrate in that dissertation that the Companions who answered no to 1.] and 2.] DID NOT reject<br />
Ru‘ya (e.g. the Ru‘ya would have occurred in Medina rather than early Mecca as Najm would imply, and<br />
that it was independent <strong>of</strong> the Mi‘raj and <strong>Is</strong>ra). I also demonstrate that however one answered 3.],<br />
Traditionalist Sunnis affirmed that it was a real vision <strong>of</strong> Allah.<br />
My dissertation also demonstrates Bro Mubaashir‘s error in conflating an alleged rejection <strong>of</strong> Ru‘ya with a<br />
rejection <strong>of</strong> an anthropomorphic God and an affirmation <strong>of</strong> an invisible, incorporeal diety à la al-<br />
Ghazzali. Because a Classical figure, Sahaba or otherwise, is on record denying Ru‘ya does not mean that<br />
individual necessarily rejects anthropomorphism. The text-book case here is the great hadith scholar from<br />
Herat, al-Darimi (d. 895) whose Radd ala Jahmiyya and his Radd ala Bishr al-Marisi<br />
unambiguously show him to be an (some would say extreme) anthropomorphist. Yet, he just as adamantly<br />
rejected a ru‘ya report <strong>of</strong> Ibn Abbas and privileged A‘isha‘s rejection. But his reasoning was text-critical,<br />
NOT theological. He unapologetically affirmed an anthropomorphic God while just as unapologetically<br />
rejecting some very anthropomorphist Ru‘ya reports.<br />
Thus, there is no warrant at all for Bro Mubaashir to cite my dissertation as evidence that there were<br />
some Black Arabs advocating the invisible, incorporeal god <strong>of</strong> Jahm and al-Ghazzali. Nothing in chapter<br />
six or any other chapter in it suggests that. None <strong>of</strong> the persons erroneously identified in the two quotes as<br />
‗rejecters <strong>of</strong> Ru‘ya‘ - Ibn Mas‘ud, A‘isha, Abu Hurayra, Abu Dharr - is on record affirming an invisible,<br />
incorporeal God. The lone possible exception and explicit rejecter <strong>of</strong> Ru‘ya, A‘isha, was herself rejected<br />
by the Black Arabs! Listen to the words <strong>of</strong> <strong>Muhammad</strong> b. <strong>Is</strong>haqq b. Khuzayma (d. 924), the most<br />
prominent Shafi‘i in Nishapur at the time and considered the ―chief <strong>of</strong> the hadith scholars (ra‟s almuhaddithin)‖:<br />
A‘isha did not report from the Prophet (s) that he informed her that he did not see his Lord, May He be<br />
Exalted and Great. She simply recited [God‘s] words, ―Visions comprehend Him not‖ and ―It is not for<br />
man that Allah speaks to him except (through) revelation.‖ (But) from the contemplation <strong>of</strong> these two<br />
verses and in accordance with attainment <strong>of</strong> the ―Right,‖ it is known that there is not in either <strong>of</strong> the two<br />
verses that which merits charging one who said that <strong>Muhammad</strong> saw his Lord with lying against Allah….<br />
the Tribe <strong>of</strong> Hashim, collectively, contradict A‘isha (m) in this matter and they, all <strong>of</strong> them, used to affirm<br />
that the Prophet (s) saw his Lord twice. The agreement <strong>of</strong> the Tribe <strong>of</strong> Hashim is…more appropriate<br />
than A‘isha‘s isolated statement. Companions who are known did not follow her, nor did any woman<br />
from the wives/women <strong>of</strong> the Prophet, nor any <strong>of</strong> the female Successors (Kitab al-tawhid, 225ff).<br />
65