Is THEM Guilty of Shirk? - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

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