Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a simple explanation for this: R. M. Frank, in a thorough analysis of Jahm‘s doctrine, demonstrated clearly and unambiguously that his doctrine is neoplatonic in structure and that Jahm‘s was ―the first clearly defined attempt to adopt an identifiable Greek philosophical system to an islamic theology (―The Neoplatonism of Gahm Ibn Safwan,‖ Le Museon, 58 [1965], 396). You see Bro Mubaashir, al-Ghazzali did not introduce the Hellenizing theology and its ‗spook god‘, Jahm did, and he offered it as an alternative to the God of the Black Arabs (the black sheep) whom he was apparently disgusted by. Jahm said regarding the Throne verse (20:5) which, at times, was at the center of the anthropomorphism debate later: ―Could I scratch that out, I would.‖ 2.2. JAHM‘S AND AL-GHAZZALI‘S ‗SPOOK GOD‘ AMONG THE BLACK SAHABA? Bro Mubaashir, I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to read some of my dissertation and I fully understand that for someone with your undoubted schedule it is simply unreasonable to expect the whole 300+ pages to be read. I do, however, wish you could have read more than you actually did, or had more time to digest what you did read; this would have no doubt benefitted your Reply, I believe. As it is, you seem to have completely missed my point. Bro Mubaashir lifts two quotes from my dissertation which he feels contradict my thesis that (in his words) ‗Johnny come-lately, white, non-Semitic Arabs‘ introduced into Islam this ‗spook god‘. He feels these quotes demonstrate that the idea existed already among the Semitic Black Arabs, i.e. the Sahaba. The quotes are as follows: ―Dr. Wesley quotes Gibril Fouad Haddad in his study on ‗The Vision of Allah in the World and the Hereafter: ‗Many sound reports show that the Companions differed sharply whether the Prophet saw Allah or not. Ibn 'Abbas related that he did, while Ibn Mas'ud, 'A'isha, Abu Hurayra, and Abu Dharr related reports to the contrary, stating that the verses of Sura AlNajm and other Suras referred [to] Jibril and that the Prophet said that he saw light.‘ (Dr. Wesley Dissertation)‖ ―Dr. Wesley also makes the following quote from editors of a book, Kitab al-Ru'ya: ‗The fifth problem regarding the Prophet's vision of his Lord Most High in this world. The Salaf and the Khalaf disagree irreconcilably (ikhtilaft mutabayin) over this issue, some affirming, others denying, while others suspending judgment (al-mutawaqqif). As for those who affirm that (the Prophet) saw his Lord Most High there is a group of the Sahaba and the Tabi'in and others. 'AbdAllah b. 'Abbas, Interpreter of the Qur'an, and Anas b. Malik, Abu Dharr, and it is reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra, and Ibn Mas'ud...and Ka'b al-Abbar. As for those who are of the opinion that the Prophet did not see his Lord Most High, a group of Sahaba and the Tabi'in also: our Mother 'A'isha and Ibn Mas'ud. And it was disputed regarding him and Abu Hurayra and Abu Dharr.‘ (Dr. Wesley Dissertation)‖ Again, Bro Mubaashir believes that these quotes demonstrate that centuries before al-Ghazzali there were at least some Black Arabs who advocated the same type of god that al-Ghazzali later advocated, i.e. those Black Arab Sahaba who allegedly argued against Ru‘ya. The ‗spook god‘ is thus an indigenous Black Arab contribution. Bro Mubaashir has profoundly misread my work. These two quotes actually open the chapter (Chapter 6) that Bro Mubaashir appeals to. In the remainder of the chapter I actually demonstrate that the authors of both quotes are wrong, and that there was NO dispute among the Sahaba as they present it in these quotes. I demonstrate that those Sahaba who allegedly rejected Ru‘ya – Ibn Mas‘ud, A‘isha, Abu Hurayra, Abu Dharr – actually DID NOT reject 64
Ru‘ya, with one possible exception: A‘isha. With her, however, it is not at all clear that even she categorically rejected Ru‘ya. I demonstrate that there is reason to believe that she might have actually affirmed a Ru‘ya, just not a ru‘ya bi-l-absar or Vison of the Eyes. The bottom line is that I demonstrate that the sources DO NOT present the Sahaba as ―disagreeing irreconcilably (ikhtilaft mutabayin)‖ over whether or not the Prophet saw God: 19+ Companions affirmed that he did – including Ibn Mas‘ud, Abu Hurayra, Abu Dharr – while only one companion allegedly explicitly rejected it, A‘isha. I demonstrate that there WAS a dispute among the Sahaba related to Ru‘ya, but it was over the following matters: 1.] Is Surat al-Najm a record of the Ru‘ya or no? 2.] Was the Prophet‘s Ru‘ya related to the Mi‘raj (Ascension to Heaven) or Isra (Nocturnal Journey) or no? 3.] Was the Ru‘ya bi ‗l-absar, with the eyes of the Prophet‘s head, or bi ‗l-qalb, with the eyes of his heart, i.e. a dream vision? I demonstrate in that dissertation that the Companions who answered no to 1.] and 2.] DID NOT reject Ru‘ya (e.g. the Ru‘ya would have occurred in Medina rather than early Mecca as Najm would imply, and that it was independent of the Mi‘raj and Isra). I also demonstrate that however one answered 3.], Traditionalist Sunnis affirmed that it was a real vision of Allah. My dissertation also demonstrates Bro Mubaashir‘s error in conflating an alleged rejection of Ru‘ya with a rejection of an anthropomorphic God and an affirmation of an invisible, incorporeal diety à la al- Ghazzali. Because a Classical figure, Sahaba or otherwise, is on record denying Ru‘ya does not mean that individual necessarily rejects anthropomorphism. The text-book case here is the great hadith scholar from Herat, al-Darimi (d. 895) whose Radd ala Jahmiyya and his Radd ala Bishr al-Marisi unambiguously show him to be an (some would say extreme) anthropomorphist. Yet, he just as adamantly rejected a ru‘ya report of Ibn Abbas and privileged A‘isha‘s rejection. But his reasoning was text-critical, NOT theological. He unapologetically affirmed an anthropomorphic God while just as unapologetically rejecting some very anthropomorphist Ru‘ya reports. Thus, there is no warrant at all for Bro Mubaashir to cite my dissertation as evidence that there were some Black Arabs advocating the invisible, incorporeal god of Jahm and al-Ghazzali. Nothing in chapter six or any other chapter in it suggests that. None of the persons erroneously identified in the two quotes as ‗rejecters of Ru‘ya‘ - Ibn Mas‘ud, A‘isha, Abu Hurayra, Abu Dharr - is on record affirming an invisible, incorporeal God. The lone possible exception and explicit rejecter of Ru‘ya, A‘isha, was herself rejected by the Black Arabs! Listen to the words of Muhammad b. Ishaqq b. Khuzayma (d. 924), the most prominent Shafi‘i in Nishapur at the time and considered the ―chief of the hadith scholars (ra‟s almuhaddithin)‖: A‘isha did not report from the Prophet (s) that he informed her that he did not see his Lord, May He be Exalted and Great. She simply recited [God‘s] words, ―Visions comprehend Him not‖ and ―It is not for man that Allah speaks to him except (through) revelation.‖ (But) from the contemplation of these two verses and in accordance with attainment of the ―Right,‖ it is known that there is not in either of the two verses that which merits charging one who said that Muhammad saw his Lord with lying against Allah…. the Tribe of Hashim, collectively, contradict A‘isha (m) in this matter and they, all of them, used to affirm that the Prophet (s) saw his Lord twice. The agreement of the Tribe of Hashim is…more appropriate than A‘isha‘s isolated statement. Companions who are known did not follow her, nor did any woman from the wives/women of the Prophet, nor any of the female Successors (Kitab al-tawhid, 225ff). 65
Page 1 and 2:
Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? The Long O
Page 3 and 4:
ARGUMENT 1 First, Dr. Wesley refers
Page 5 and 6:
your Allah is one Allah. So stand t
Page 7 and 8:
"He ran the race." "He ran up the b
Page 9 and 10:
He adds to his case by saying that
Page 11 and 12:
Allah, only to turn around and say,
Page 13 and 14: In his review Bro Mubaashir display
Page 15 and 16: 1. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal affirmed t
Page 17 and 18: came to the Prophet as a young man.
Page 19 and 20: Sunna is a formless, invisible God
Page 21 and 22: Salaam Bro Dr Wesley Muhammad 3.] D
Page 23 and 24: ―When the Prophet tells his peopl
Page 25 and 26: This issue of the significance of t
Page 27 and 28: ―So if it is said (by the believe
Page 29 and 30: When Imam Mubaashir stated; ―As a
Page 31 and 32: 7.] Dr Wesley Muhammad - Response P
Page 33 and 34: ownership rights over this Islam th
Page 35 and 36: secondary meaning ―He manifested
Page 37 and 38: 9.] Dr Wesley Muhammad - Response P
Page 39 and 40: people say, ―He (God) is solid,
Page 41 and 42: ―Within the pages of the Holy Qur
Page 43 and 44: Salaam 12.] Kyle J. Ismail -Respons
Page 45 and 46: 14.] Dr Wesley Muhammad Response As
Page 47 and 48: To negate an act of the past we may
Page 49 and 50: Fakhr al-Din Razi (d. 1209) who, am
Page 51 and 52: which He bestowed on Mary, and a sp
Page 53 and 54: After all, how could we believe thi
Page 55 and 56: things, whoever says any of which,
Page 57 and 58: We are all familiar with the Greek
Page 59 and 60: Your positions were well laid out a
Page 61 and 62: Muslim and thus was an advocate of
Page 63: different opinions between the Saha
Page 67 and 68: In the Pushkin State Museum of Fine
Page 69 and 70: the sociological enigma of the mode
Page 71 and 72: 23.] Imam Salim Mu‟min Response t
show all

Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?