Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

That this hadith indicates that Allah has a form after which Adam‘s was pattered was affirmed by
many of the great ulema of the Classical Period, including Imam Ahmad (as we saw) and the famous
hadith scholar Abu Muhammad b. Qutayba (d. 889) who explained: ―That Allah should have a form is
no stranger than His having two hands, fingers and eyes…God possesses an actual form, though it is not
like other forms, and He fashioned Adam after it.‖
My argument was also based on the authenticated reports according to which Allah came to the
Prophet in a most beautiful human form. I quoted and discussed there the sahih hadith:
Mu‘adh b. Hisham < Hisham b. Abi ‗Abd Allah < Qatada < Abu Qilaba < Khalid b. al-Lajlaj < Ibn
Abbas: The Prophet said: ―I saw my Lord in the most beautiful form (fi ahsan suratin). He said to me: ‗Oh
Muhammad! – ‗Here I am, Lord, at your order!‘ He said to me: ‗Do you know over what the Sublime
Council disputes?‘ – ‗No, Lord, I don‘t know that.‘ Then he put his hand between my shoulder blades, to
the point that I felt its coolness between my nipples…‖ (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad 1, 5:243; al-Tirmidhi,
Jami’ al-Sahih, 9: 106ff, #3288; al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Durr al-manthur, 7:203.)
Now my argument is based on more than these, but time permitted a discussion of only these in my
lecture in Philly. The rest of my arguments are laid out in my book.
Regarding Bro Mubaashir‘s response to what he presents as my argument, there are three points
that I would like to address here. He says,
―As a follower of Imam Waarithud-Deen Mohammed, it is important that I point out that we have been
taught that the Qur'an is the number one source of our guidance and is the criteria by which we judge the
validity of all knowledge, including the reports (hadeeth) of what Prophet Muhammad said and the
debates between scholars. I would also note that students of Imam Mohammed do not accept hadeeth at
face value, even Sahih hadeeth, without first sifting them through the lens of the Qur'an‖
It must be mentioned in this regard that 1.) Bro Mubaashir did invoke hadith (viz. the Hadith of Jibril) to
make a theological point (i.e that Allah cant be seen) and 2.) as I have demonstrated in Part I, it is not the
―lens of the Qur‘an‖ through which Bro Mubaashir sifts hadith and views my claims; it is demonstrably
the lens of his own ideology through which he read the Qur‘an and Sunna and judges my arguments. And
while this is perfectly natural and even inevitable – we all to some degree read these sources from our own
theological perspective– it is important to call it what it is, his interpretation of the Qur‘an, and desist from
calling it what it is not, the ―clear‖ position of the Qur‘an itself. This is ever more urgent because I have, I
believe, demonstrated that his interpretations of the Qur‘an and Sunna are not consistent with the Arabic
philology.
Bro Mubaashir then advances the following ‗rebuttal‘ of what he has erroneously presented as my
argument
―Allah says in Sura 17:89, ‗And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of
comparison, similitude, parable: yet the greater part of men refuse (to receive it) except with
ingratitude!‘ This, and many verses, tell us that you will find parables, comparisons in the Qur'an
and that the purpose of these parables, similitudes, comparisons is to explain things to men and
women. If Allah uses parables and comparisons to teach, isn't it reasonable to recognize that His
prophet would use parables and comparisons to try and teach the people also? That is common
sense, isn't it?
22