Monday 15 August 2011

The reality of belief in the Messengers

 

What is meant by belief in the Messengers?


Praise be to Allaah.
 

 

Belief in the Messengers implies four things: 

1 – Firm belief that Allaah sent to every nation a Messenger
from amongst them, to call them to worship Allaah alone and to disbelieve in
everything that is worshipped instead of Him, and that they (the Messengers)
were all truthful, speakers of the truth, righteous, wise, pious and honest,
and that they conveyed everything with which Allaah sent them, concealing
and altering nothing. They did not add even one letter from themselves or
omit anything. 

“Are the Messengers charged with anything but to convey
clearly the Message?”

[al-Nahl 16:35 – interpretation of the meaning] 

Their message was the
same, from the first to the last of them, based on the principle of Tawheed,
i.e., that all kinds of worship should be devoted to Allaah alone, beliefs,
words and deeds alike, and that everything that is worshipped instead of
Allaah is to be rejected. The evidence for that is the verses
(interpretation of the meanings): 

“And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad)
but We revealed to him (saying): Laa ilaaha illa Ana [none has the right to
be worshipped but I (Allaah)], so worship Me (Alone and none
else)”[al-Anbiya’ 21:25] 

“And ask (O Muhammad) those of Our Messengers whom We sent
before you: ‘Did We ever appoint aalihah (gods) to be worshipped besides the
Most Gracious (Allaah)?’”[al-Zukhruf 43:45] 

And there are very many similar aayahs. 

With regard to the obligatory duties by which Allaah is to be
worshipped and the minor details of legislation, prayers and fasts may have
been enjoined on some nations but not on others, and some things may have
been forbidden to some and permitted to others, as a test from Allaah. 

“Who has created death and life that He may test you which
of you is best in deed”

[al-Mulk 67:2 – interpretation of the meaning] 

The evidence for that is the verses (interpretation of the
meaning): 

“To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear
way”

[al-Maa’idah 5:48] 

Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said “(This
means) a way and a path.” Mujaahid, ‘Ikrimah and many of the mufassireen
said likewise. 

In Saheeh al-Bukhaari (3443) and Saheeh Muslim
(2365) it is narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: “The Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The Prophets are like
brothers from one father, their mothers are different but their religion is
one’” – i.e., the Prophets are united on the principle of Tawheed, the
message with which Allaah sent every Messenger whom He sent, and which He
included in every Book that He revealed, but their laws differed as to
command and prohibitions, what was permitted and what was forbidden.  

Whoever disbelieves in the message of one of them has
disbelieved in all of them, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“The people of Nooh (Noah) belied the Messengers”

[al-Shu’ara’ 26:105] 

Allaah described them as disbelieving in all of the
Messengers even though there was no Messenger other than Nooh at the time
when they disbelieved. 

2 – Belief in those Messengers whose names we know, such as
Muhammad, Ibraaheem, Moosa, ‘Eesa and Nooh (may blessings and peace be upon
them all). With regard to those who have been mentioned in general terms but
whose names we do not know, we are obliged to believe in them in general
terms, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“The Messenger (Muhammad) believes in what has been sent
down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in
Allaah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say,) ‘We make no
distinction between one another of His Messengers’”

[al-Baqarah 2:285] 

“And, indeed We have sent Messengers before you (O
Muhammad), of some of them We have related to you their story. And of some
We have not related to you their story”

[Ghaafir 40:78] 

And we believe that the Final Messenger was our Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him), and there is no Prophet after him, as Allaah says
(interpretation of the meaning): 

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is
the Messenger of Allaah and the last (end) of the Prophets. And Allaah is
Ever All-Aware of everything”[al-Ahzaab 33:40] 

In al-Bukhaari (4416) and Muslim (2404) it is narrated from
Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of
Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) went out to Tabook, and appointed ‘Ali as his deputy (in
Madeenah). ‘Ali said, “Are you leaving me in charge of the children and
women?” The Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Does it not please you that you are
to me like Haroon to Moosa? But there will be no Prophet after me.” 

Allaah favoured him and singled him out for great blessings
which were given to no other Prophet. For example: 

1-    
Allaah sent him to all of the
two races of mankind and jinn, whereas each Prophet who came before him was
sent only to his own people.

2-    
Allaah supported him against
his enemies by striking fear into the hearts of all his enemies within the
radius of one month’s travel.

3-    
The earth was made a place of
prayer and a means of purification for him.

4-    
War booty was made permissible
for him, where it had not been permitted to any Prophet before him.

5-    
He will be granted the position
of greater intercession. 

And there are many other special favours that have been
bestowed upon him (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him). 

3 – Believing in the sound reports that have been narrated
from the Messengers. 

4 – Following the laws of the Messenger who has been sent to
us, namely the Final Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who was sent to all of mankind.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they
make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in
themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full
submission”[al-Nisa’ 4:65] 

We should note that belief in the Messengers bears great
fruit, such as: 

1-    
Knowledge of the mercy of
Allaah towards His slaves and His care for them, as He sent the Messengers
to guide them to the path of Allaah and to show them how to worship Allaah,
for human reason alone cannot come to know that.

2-    
Giving thanks to Him for this
great blessing.

3-    
Loving and venerating the
Messengers (blessing and peace be upon them), and praising them in the
manner that befits them, because they are the Messengers of Allaah, and
because they worshipped Him and conveyed His Message, and were sincere
towards His slaves. 

And Allaah knows best. 

Proper etiquette when describing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

 

Can it be said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was a “Bedouin”?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Our Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) is the noblest of creation and the leader
of mankind, the most beloved of Allaah’s creation to Allaah. He has a
station of praise and glory, a cistern to which many will come (on the Day
of Resurrection). Allaah chose him from among all the children of Adam, and
selected him from among the best of the Arabs in descent and lineage. He was
born in the greatest of Arab cities of that time, in Makkah al-Mukarramah,
the best spot on earth, the most beloved of land to Allaah, which the Holy
Qur’aan calls Umm al-Qura (Mother of Towns) because of its status in Arabia
and in the whole world. 

Allaah, may He be glorified
and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And this (the Qur’aan)
is a blessed Book which We have sent down, confirming (the Revelations)
which came before it, so that you may warn the Mother of Towns (i.e. Makkah)
and all those around it”

[al-An’aam 6:92]. 

This noble status of the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) generated complete
respect in the hearts of his companions. Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be
pleased with him) stepped back from his position leading the prayer so that
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) could lead the
prayer, and he said: It is not for the son of Abu Quhaafah to pay in front
of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (684) and Muslim (421). 

Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari (may
Allaah be pleased with him) refused to go up on a roof beneath which was the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Narrated by Muslim (2053). 

‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may
Allaah be pleased with him) used to say: I could not look him in the eye
because of awe. If I were to be asked to describe him I would not be able
to, because I could not look him in the eye.  Narrated by Muslim (121). 

When al-Bara’ ibn ‘Aazib
listed, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did,
the animals that are not permitted as sacrifices, he said: My fingers are
shorter than his, and my fingertips are shorter than his, (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him). Narrated by Abu Dawood (2802); classed as
saheeh by Ibn Daqeeq al-Eid in al-Iqtiraah (p. 121) and by Shaykh
al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. 

And there are other kinds
of etiquette in which the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) set the
example for all of mankind in respecting and honouring the best of the
Messengers and the leader of mankind, (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him). 

As for describing him
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ways that are not
appropriate, or using inappropriate words, or narrating anything that
implies disrespect towards him, this is an abhorrent lie and blatant kufr,
because it is distorting facts and transgressing against the best of
Allaah’s creation, and no one does that but one who does not know proper
etiquette and who has no manners and no faith. 

Allaah, may He be glorified
and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“If you ask them (about
this), they declare: ‘We were only talking idly and joking.’ Say: ‘Was it at
Allaah ( عز و جل ), and His Ayaat
(proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His
Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) that you
were mocking?’

66. Make no excuse; you
disbelieved after you had believed. If We pardon some of you, We will punish
others amongst you because they were Mujrimoon (disbelievers, polytheists,
sinners, criminals)”

[al-Tawbah 9:65-66] 

al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad (may Allaah
have mercy on him) says in al-Shifa (2/214): 

It should be noted – may
Allaah bless us and you – that everyone who reviles the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or criticizes him, or attributes some
shortcoming to him in his character, lineage or religious commitment, or any
of his attributes, or hints at that, or likens him to something by way of
reviling him, disrespecting him, belittling him, derogating him or finding
fault with him, is reviling him and comes under the same ruling as one who
reviles him, and should be executed. … The same applies to one who
attributes to him anything that does not befit his status by way of
criticism, or who uses foolish words when talking about him, or criticizes
him because of some of the calamities and disasters that befell him, or
tries to undermine his position because of some of his human
characteristics. 

There is consensus on all
of this from the scholars and imams who issue fatwas, from the time of the
Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) until the present day. End
quote. 

Undoubtedly using the word
Bedouin or describing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) as a Bedouin is obviously a kind of belittling him and criticizing
him, because describing someone as a Bedouin is derogatory, as it implies
ignorance, frivolity and roughness, whereas the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) was guided and taught by the Lord of earth
and heaven. He is described in the Tawraat (Torah) as: “He is not coarse or
uncouth, shouting in the marketplace.” And Allaah, may He be glorified and
exalted, described him as (interpretation of the meaning): “And verily,
you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) are
on an exalted (standard of) character” [al-Qalam 68:4]. So how can a
liar dare to describe him in any other terms?  Undoubtedly such audacity
deserves to be punished in this world and in the Hereafter. 

Allaah says (interpretation
of the meaning): 

“But those who annoy
Allaah’s Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم)
will have a painful torment”

[al-Tawbah 9:61].

Al-Nawawi said in Sharh
Muslim (1/169): 

The people of the desert
are the Bedouins, among whom ignorance and harshness are prevalent. Hence it
says in the hadeeth: “Whoever lives in the desert will become harsh.”
Al-baadiyah (the desert) and al-Badu (the Bedouin) refer to that which is
outside of the city as opposed to that which is civilized; the adjective is
badawi. End quote. 

The scholars have ruled
that every description which detracts from the status of the Messenger
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is kufr, even if it does not
state it clearly. Ibn Wahb narrated that Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy
on him) said: Whoever says that the cloak of the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) was dirty, intending thereby to criticize
him, is to be executed. 

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulaymaan
(one of the Maaliki scholars, who died in 291 AH) said: Whoever says that
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was black, is
to be executed. 

The fuqaha’ of Andalus
ruled that Ibn Haatim al-Mutafaqqih al-Tulaytali was to be executed and
crucified, because of the testimony against him that he disrespected the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and called him
during his debate “the orphan” and so on, and claimed that his asceticism
was not deliberate, and that if he had had the means he would have eaten
good food, and so on. 

All of the above was
mentioned by al-Qaadi Iyaad in al-Shifa (2/217-219), then he said: 

Similarly, I say that the
ruling on the one who belittles him, or criticizes him for tending sheep, or
for making mistakes in prayer, or for forgetting, or for being bewitched, or
for being wounded, or for some of his armies being defeated, or for being
harmed by his enemies, or for going through some hardship, or for loving his
wives, the ruling on all of that, for the one who intends thereby to
belittle him, is that he should be executed. End quote. 

Calling him (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) a Bedouin is an obvious lie, because he
lived in Makkah, then migrated from there to Madeenah, which are the two
best cities in the entire world, so how could he have been a Bedouin? 

He did not live in the
desert except when he was a small child, when he was nursed among the
Bedouin of Banu Sa’d, by his wet nurse Haleemah al-Sa’diyyah. See:
al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah al-Saheehah by Dr. Akram al-‘Umari (1/103).  

Dr. Jawaad ‘Ali said in
al-Mufassal fi Tareekh al-‘Arab qabl al-Islam (4/271): 

Arab society was both
Bedouin and settled, people of tents and people of houses. As for the people
of houses, they were the settled inhabitants of the towns, who lived on
farms with date palms and livestock, and travelled about in the land for
trade. As for the people of tents, they were desert nomads who lived on the
milk and meat of camels, moving about seeking green land and places where
rain fell, where they would set up their tents and stay there so long as the
land was fertile and their animals could graze, then they would move on,
seeking pasture and water, and they were constantly on the move.  

Settlement was known, and
the settled Arabs were known as ahl al-madar (people of bricks). They were
known as such because the buildings of the towns were built of madar, which
were bricks of dried mud. 

And it was narrated that
the people of the desert were called ahl al-wabar because they had tents of
wabar (hair), to distinguish them from the town dwellers who had buildings
made of bricks. 

The name ‘Arab was given to
the city-dwellers only, i.e., to the settled population. The people of the
desert were known as A’raab. End quote. 

Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan
al-Diddu (may Allaah preserve him) was asked: 

Why does Allaah say that He
only sent a Messenger from the people of the towns? 

He replied: 

With regard to the Prophets
being chosen from among the people of the towns, as Allaah mentions in His
Book, that is more appropriate to their high status, because the
desert-dwellers are always more arrogant and more ill-manners, and less
clean than others. Therefore Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning): 

“The bedouins are the
worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the
limits (Allaah’s Commandments and His Legal Laws) which Allaah has revealed
to His Messenger”

[al-Tawbah 9:97] 

Being a city-dweller is not
the matter of lineage, so when a person is said to be a Bedouin, it does not
mean that his father was also a Bedouin, rather it means that he himself is
a Bedouin. So if a person from the desert settles in a town, then he is no
longer a Bedouin. So this description has to do with an individual person
and has nothing to do with his father, grandfather or lineage. 

The Messengers (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon them) were sent to guide and lead mankind. So
they had to know how to run affairs and this is something of which the
people of the deserts have no knowledge and to which they pay no attention.
Rather the people of the deserts live by hunting or following their flocks,
and they have many false notions and illusions. Ahmad narrated in
al-Musnad that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) said: “Whoever seeks game will lose some of his reasoning and whoever
lives in the desert will become hard-natured.” Hence the Messengers were
chosen from among the population of towns and cities. End quote. Silsilat
Duroos Manshoorah (lesson no. 3/p. 9) 

The great scholar
‘Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen (may Allaah preserve him) said: 

The same applies to anyone
who mocks any of the signs of Allaah, or the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him). It was narrated that a writer once wrote
something attacking the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) and saying that he was a Bedouin and that he tended sheep, and he lived
at a time when there was no progress, and there was no such and such.
Undoubtedly this is an attack on Islam, because this religion came to us
through this noble Prophet, so the one who attacks him by saying that he was
ignorant or that he was a Bedouin who did not know anything, or that what he
brought was just his own ideas, or that it was something that he imagined,
or that he intended thereby to become famous and acquire followers and so
on, is to be regarded as telling lies against Allaah and as disbelieving the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who brought this
religion, and as rejecting the Qur’aan and the entire sharee’ah. Undoubtedly
this is also a slander against Islam and against ‘aqeedah. This is what is
mentioned in the verse (interpretation of the meaning): “Say: Was it at
Allaah ( عز و جل ), and His Ayaat
(proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His
Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) that you
were mocking?” [al-Tawbah 9:65]; what is meant by mocking Allaah is
mocking His names and attributes, or mocking His words and criticizing them.
That also includes mocking the Qur’aan, as Allaah describes the kuffaar as
saying (interpretation of the meaning): “Those who disbelieve say: ‘This
(the Qur’aan) is nothing but a lie that he (Muhammad
صلى الله عليه وسلم) has invented, and
others have helped him at it.’ In fact, they have produced an unjust wrong
(thing) and a lie” [al-Furqaan 25:4]. 

Undoubtedly they have
committed something that shows their lack of faith and religious commitment,
and because of that Allaah describes what they say as being kufr. The same
applies to those who slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) and say that he was ignorant or that he was a Bedouin, and so
on. End quote from the shaykh’s website under the following URL:

 

http://www.ibn-jebreen.com/print.php?page=6377 

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (may
Allaah preserve him) said in Mu’jam al-Manaahi al-Lafziyyah (496): 

Describing the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as a Bedouin is contrary to the
Holy Qur’aan, because he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
was one of the Arabs who dwelt in towns, not a desert-dweller. Allaah says
(interpretation of the meaning): “And We sent not before you (as
Messengers) any but men unto whom We revealed, from among the people of
townships” [Yoosuf 12:109].  

Those who have doubts in
their hearts always say things that prove their misguidance. In the 1390s
AH, a Bedouin writer wrote an article in which he stated clearly that the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was a Bedouin, but
he was refuted by Shaykh Hammoud ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Tuwaijri al-Najdi in an
essay entitled Manshoor al-Sawaab fi’l-Radd man za’ama anna al-Nabi
sall-Allaah ‘alyhi wa salaam kaana min al-A’raab. And Allaah knows best.
End quote. 

Shaykh Muhammad al-Mukhtaar
al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Silsilat Duroos Sharh
Zaad al-Mustaqni’ (lesson no. 395, p. 7): 

If a person reviles the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) directly by cursing
– Allaah forbid – or belittling him such as describing the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a way that belittles him,
such as saying that he was a Bedouin who tended sheep, intending thereby to
denigrate him (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and other
such phrases, then he is judged to be a kaafir. End quote. 

And Allaah knows best.

 

Which is better – the Ka’bah or the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?

 

Is the Ka’bah better or the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?.

Praise be to Allaah.

In the answer to question
no. 97384 we have explained that many scholars regard the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as the best of creation, and in
their discussion they also said that he is better than the Ka’bah.  

This preference applies
only to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
himself, not to the grave in which he is buried. 

Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah
have mercy on him) was asked about two men who were disputing. One of them
said that the soil of the grave of Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) is better than the heavens and the earth. The other
said: The Ka’bah is better. Who is right? 

He replied: Praise be to
Allaah. As for Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
himself, Allaah has not created anything nobler than him. As for the soil
(of the grave), it is not better than the Ka’bah, the sacred House, rather
the Ka’bah is better than it, and none of the scholars suggested that the
soil of the grave is better than the Ka’bah apart from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad. No
one said that before him and no one else agreed with him afterwards. And
Allaah knows best.  

Al-Fataawa al-Kubra
(4/411) and Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (27/38). 

And Allaah knows best.

Who was the person who was made to resemble ‘Eesa (peace be upon him)?

 

I have a few question about the one who was crucified instead of Isa (peace be upon him) I have seen in one place saying that the one who betrayed Isa (PBUH) was made to look like Isa and was crucified and I have seen in another place saying that one Isa’s companions volunteered to be crucified instead of Isa. I am confused, can you tell me which one is true?.

Praise be to Allaah.

The Qur’aan states that
‘Eesa (peace be upon him) was not crucified or killed, and that he was
lifted up to heaven. There is no text of the Revelation that tells us the
details of what happened on the day when that was made to appear to the
Jews, but there is a saheeh report from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased
with him) that the Messiah (peace be upon him) said to those of his
companions who were with him in the house: “Which of you will be made to
look like me and be killed in my stead, and he will be with me in the same
level as me (in Paradise)?” A young man who was one of the youngest of them
stood up, and he said to him: “Sit down.” Then he repeated it and that young
man stood up again, and he said: “Sit down.” Then he repeated it again and
that young man stood up and said, “I (will do it).” He said: “You are the
one.” So he was caused to look like ‘Eesa and ‘Eesa was lifted up from a
window in the house to heaven. Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him)
said in his Tafseer (4/337), commenting on this report: This is a
saheeh isnaad going back to Ibn ‘Abbaas. Similarly it was narrated from more
than one of the salaf that he said to them: “Which of you will be made to
look like me and be killed in my stead, and he will be my companion in
Paradise?” End quote. 

Then he (may Allaah have
mercy on him) said (4/341): Ibn Jareer favoured the view that all of his
companions were made to look like ‘Eesa. End quote. This was mentioned in a
report narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih which was narrated by Ibn Jareer (may
Allaah have mercy on him) and quoted by Ibn Katheer (4/337), in which it
states that when they surrounded ‘Eesa and his companions and entered upon
them, “Allaah made them all appear in the form of ‘Eesa and they said to
them, ‘You have bewitched us; send forth to us ‘Eesa or we will kill you
all,’ until they sent forth one of their number after ‘Eesa promised
Paradise to him, and they took him and crucified him.” 

But Ibn Katheer said after
that: This is a very strange story. End quote. 

He also (may Allaah have
mercy on him) said (4/341): Some of the Christians claim that Judas Iscariot
– who is the one who led the Jews to ‘Eesa – is the one who was made to look
like ‘Eesa so they crucified him, and he said: I am not the one you want, I
am the one who led you to him. Allaah knows best what really happened. End
quote. 

With that, Ibn Katheer (may
Allaah have mercy on him) concluded his discussion of this topic: Allaah
knows best what really happened. 

Knowledge of this matter is
of no great benefit; if we needed to know that, our Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have told us. 

And Allaah knows best.

 

The anti-Islam Dutch film – comment, criticism and advice

 

A Dutch film has recently been released that maligns Islam and Muslims, and describes them as terrorists. What is your advice to the Muslims concerning this matter?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

The conflict between truth and falsehood is
an ancient one. The troops of falsehood continue to confront the truth at
all times and in all places. But Allaah caused them to be defeated by the
strength of the truth and He hurls the truth against falsehood and destroys
it, so it is bound to vanish.  

Ever since Iblees was humiliated and refused
to respond to the command of Allaah to prostrate to Adam (peace be upon
him), he began to plot against the truth and its followers. Iblees asked his
Lord for a respite, not so that he could repent, but so that he could plot,
and increase the number of his followers and bring them into the Fire of
Allaah, where he will stand and address them, saying: 

“ ‘Verily, Allaah promised you a promise
of truth. And I too promised you, but I betrayed you. I had no authority
over you except that I called you, and you responded to me. So blame me not,
but blame yourselves. I cannot help you, nor can you help me. I deny your
former act in associating me (Satan) as a partner with Allaah (by obeying me
in the life of the world). Verily, there is a painful torment for the
Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)’”

[Ibraaheem 14:22]. 

Secondly: 

Islam has faced many great plots, but Allaah
has guaranteed to protect His religion, because He has made it the best of
religions and the final religion. 

Thirdly: 

Here we are dealing with a new incident, but
it will not be the last, because of the devils among mankind and the jinn
and their ultimately hopeless attempts to impugn this religion, this Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and this Holy Book. 

This incident is what has been wrought by
the sinful hands of a man called Geert Wilders, the leader of the “Freedom”
Party, which is a right-wing, racist Dutch party. He wanted to slander this
great religion in order to become well known and to make political gains,
but Allaah foiled him and he will be foiled time and again, in sha Allaah.
This hater made a short film of seventeen minutes about Islam and the
Qur’aan, filled with lies and fabrications, and he called it “Fitnah”! If
what he said was presented to an academic institution or university, he
would deserve to be rebuked and scorned, because of his lack of objectivity,
and because of his distortion of facts. 

His film starts and ends with an offensive
image of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that
was drawn by the sinful, criminal hands of the Danish artist. At the
beginning it shows a bomb in the turban of the so-called picture of the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), where the fuse has
just been lit. At the end of the film, the fuse has burnt down, then it
explodes. Thus he wants to send the despicable message that Islam came to
wreak havoc and destruction, and that remaining silent about it will lead to
the demise of non-Muslim civilizations and nations. 

Fourthly: 

We can divide our opinions about this evil
film into a number of categories: 

1.    
Verses which are
quoted out of context and their meanings distorted.

For example: 

(a)

The first verse to be quoted in his film is
(interpretation of the meaning):  

“And make ready against them all you can
of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to
threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy, and others besides…”

[al-Anfaal 8:60]. 

The quotation reaches this point but does
not complete it. He wants to highlight the word “threaten” to indicate that
Islam equals terrorism, which is how many haters and ignorant people want to
label Islam.  

We are not ashamed of what is in the Book of
Allaah and we do not deny this verse, rather we worship Allaah by reciting
it, and we ask Him to help us to act in accordance with it. But we reject
his quoting this part of it on the basis of two things, to keep the
discussion short: 

Firstly, what he is denouncing Islam for is
something that is done by all great and mighty nations. They produce lethal
weapons, atomic bombs, planes, submarines and so on, to defend themselves
and to threaten their enemies lest anyone attack them. This is what is meant
in this verse. The kaafirs who occupy Muslim lands could not have dared to
do so except when the Muslims ceased to implement this verse. The most
recent example of that is Iraq, where
they put pressure on the government to destroy their weapons and missiles,
then when that had been done and confirmed, they invaded and occupied the
land, and mistreated its people. 

Secondly, understanding the context of the
verse properly will prove wrong the label of terrorism that he wants to
apply to Islam, as he and his gang understand it. The verse which comes
directly after this one says (interpretation of the meaning):  

“But
if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in
Allaah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower”

[al-Anfaal 8:61]. 

(b)

The second verse that is heard in the film
is (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Surely, those who disbelieved in Our
Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), We
shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We
shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly,
Allaah is Ever Most Powerful, All‑Wise”

[al-Nisa’
4:56]. 

The deception here is that this movie
director quotes this verse to show viewers that Islam enjoins burning those
who go against it until their skin is cooked, and this is something that
Allaah has prescribed for them. 

This may be refuted on two counts: 

Firstly, what he does is a foolish
deception, because in this verse Allaah is speaking of the punishment of the
kaafirs on the Day of Resurrection, not in this world. It is followed by
mention of the reward of the believers who affirm His Oneness (Tawheed): 

“But those who believe (in the Oneness of
Allaah — Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, We shall admit
them to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise),
abiding therein forever. Therein they shall have Azwaajun Mutahharatun
(purified mates or wives), and We shall admit them to shades wide
and ever deepening (Paradise)”

[al-Nisa’
4:57]. 

Secondly, even the briefest pondering of
this verse will show the lies, fabrications and misquotations of this
director. In this verse, Allaah says “We shall change them for other
skins”. Are the Muslims able to change the skins of those whose skins
are burned in this world?! 

2.    
Fabricated pictures,
or pictures that do not show what he is trying to prove, or that show things
which are denounced in Islam altogether 

For example: 

(a)

Pictures of a group of Raafidis – Shi’ah –
wounding themselves and their children with sharp tools, causing their heads
to bleed, in a disgusting scene. This is not part of our religion, rather it
is done by some of those who call themselves Muslims out of ignorance and
misguidance on their part. 

The picture which shows swords being held
aloft covered with blood is also an image of the Shi’ah on their special
occasions, but the lying filmmaker wants to make people think that these are
Muslims and that they have just finished a party where kaafirs’ heads were
cut off. 

(b)

Another ridiculous and clearly false image
is the picture of Muslim women in niqaab waving placards on which it is
written “God bless Hitler”! 

We say: This is clearly a lie and a
fabrication. In our religion we are forbidden to pray for the one who dies a
kaafir. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“It
is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allaah’s
forgiveness for the Mushrikoon, even though they be of kin, after it has
become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they
died in a state of disbelief)”

[al-Tawbah 9:113]. 

How can women who wear niqaab and adhere to
the rulings of Islam pray for blessing for Hitler? 

3.    
Video clips, some of
which contain facts which cannot be doubted and others contain distortion of
facts and deceive viewers. 

For example: 

(a) 

A fabricated meeting with a little girl. It
is obvious that they have not presented her or fabricated her story very
well, for two reasons: 

Firstly, she is wearing hijab, and they are
asking her about her religion. It is obvious that she is acting.

Secondly, the child who was acting was asked
about her opinion of Jews and Christians and she said that they are monkeys
and pigs. 

This is not part of our religion; Islam does
not say that the Jews and Christians are monkeys and pigs, rather it says
that a group of Jews in the past tried to use tricks to circumvent the laws
of their Lord, so Allaah punished them by turning them into monkeys. Allaah
says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And indeed you knew those amongst you
who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to
them: ‘Be you monkeys, despised and rejected’”

[al-Baqarah 2:65] 

“So when they exceeded the limits of what
they were prohibited, We said to them: ‘Be you monkeys, despised and
rejected’”

[al-A’raaf 7:166]. 

(b)

Showing video clips out of context, such as
the clip of a khateeb (preacher) who brandishes a sword and threatens the
kuffaar. 

This Shaykh is well known. He was Iraqi and
he waved the sword during his khutbah (sermon) to encourage the people to
fight against the kuffaar who are occupying his country, and he was killed
by the Raafidis – may they get from Allaah what they deserve. What does he
expect the Muslims to do if their land is occupied? Give up their wealth and
their honour, and wait to be killed, or approve and forgive the criminal
occupier?! No, Islam is a religion of pride and dignity, and the Muslims
refuse to be humiliated; they have no alternative but to fight the occupier.
This is confirmed by every religion and law on earth. In fact the leader of
the occupation himself said, “If my country were occupied I would fight the
occupier.” If we assume that he would indeed fight and not run away, he is
only speaking the truth, i.e., that the occupier is to be fought. 

What is wrong with the Muslims fighting a
jihad against those who occupy their land? 

Fifthly: 

The main ideas of the film are all aimed at
insulting Islam by mocking and making fun of the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him); by reviling the Qur’aan and calling it a
“fascist” book, as it says in the film; and by warning of the danger of
mosques. All of that the filmmaker tries to do in his short film by use of
video clips, moving images and the accompanying music, but he fails
miserably, because he uses lies, falsification and deceit, which will never
be accepted by the viewer, even if he is a kaafir. 

But Allaah has caused his plot to backfire,
because the people in Holland are
rushing to buy Islamic books and copies of the Qur’aan, to see what is in
them, and they will see in them that which will show the falseness and
fabrication of what this failed filmmaker has produced. This has indeed
happened; three people from that country became Muslim after watching the
film, and Dutch companies have threatened to take this filmmaker, who is
also an MP, to court if Muslim countries boycott their products. Thus this
MP will be humiliated and shamed, and the evil plot will not affect anyone
but its authors. 

Sixthly: 

Allaah has clearly supported His religion.
Since the launch of the movie was announced, non-Muslim organizations,
governments and individuals have denounced this filmmaking MP, and stated
that Islam has nothing to do with violence and terrorism, and that Muslims
themselves are victims of terrorism as well as others. Among those who have
denounced and objected to the actions of this filmmaking MP is the Prime
Minister of the Netherlands, who said strong words against it; the Secretary
of the United Nations; the European Union; and a number of politicians,
leaders and countries. Satellite channels, both public and private, have
refused to show this film, and he could only find one web site that would
publish it. 

In Mufakkirat al-Islam (Saturday 22 Rabee’
al-Awwa; 1429 AH/29 March 2008), it
says: 

In Brussels, the European Parliament
condemned this offensive film, and the President of the Parliament,
Hans-Gert Pöttering, attacked the Dutch MP Wilders, saying: The contents of
the film seem designed to stir up the religious sensitivities of Muslims in
the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide. 

He added: On behalf of the European
Parliament, I emphatically refuse to accept the film’s message that Islam is
a violent religion – indicating that he fully endorsed the statement of the
Dutch government which rejected the film “Fitnah”. 

Similarly, the European Union issued a
statement that it regarded the fifteen-minute-long film as hostile and
offensive to Islam, and likely to spread hate. End quote. 

As for the Muslims, they took action to
denounce and condemn the film, and they issued statements and warnings
against continuing to malign the symbols of our religion. Some countries
threatened to cut ties with the
Netherlands, and MPs in some countries demanded the expulsion of the Dutch
ambassador and boycotts of Dutch products. Despite the weakness and disunity
in which the Muslims are living, this was regarded as great support for
Islam, as there are people among both the kuffaar and the Muslims who are
defending our religion. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands himself sent a
letter to the Shaykh of al-Azhar, stating that his government objected to
the production and showing of this film, and that a case had been brought
before the Dutch courts. 

How would the situation be if the Muslims
were truly united and they had the strength to instil respect and awe in the
hearts of those haters and fabricators?  

Seventhly: 

It seems to us that this lying MP wanted to
achieve certain aims by making this film, including the following: 

1.    
Personal gain, fame
and victory at the polls. 

2.    
Pleasing the Jews.
That is obvious in his film, as in a number of clips he expresses sympathy
for them. But they are occupiers and criminals. At the same time as he
speaks of killing by Muslims, he forgets or pretends to forget two things: 

(i)               
That the one who
burned millions of Jews was a Christian, namely Hitler, who said in his book
Mein Kampf that this was on the orders of God!

(ii)             
That the Jews killed
and expelled a great number of Muslims, and they were not ashamed to call
their latest battle against Gaza a
“holocaust”. 

3.    
Alerting the West to
the high percentages of Muslims in their countries, and saying that large
numbers of Muslims poses a danger to
Europe. 

4.    
Alerting
Europe in general, and the Netherlands in
particular, to the spread of mosques in their lands. This is clear from his
showing pictures of mosques in the Netherlands, to warn of their presence. 

5.    
Attempting to ban
circulation of Qur’aans in Europe,
and computing the Holy Qur’aan to Hitler’s book Mein Kampf! Hence he
describes the Qur’aan as “fascist”, which is a word that is indicative of
violence and harshness 

Allaah has humiliated this filmmaking MP by
means of this pathetic work that is filled with lies and fabrications.
People will see the difference between lies and the truth when they read the
Holy Qur’aan and what has been written about Islam and about him by the wise
among their own people. This film will motivate them to read and find out,
in sha Allaah, and perhaps it will be the cause of many being saved from
misguidance. 

Eighthly: 

The basic message of this film is to
describe Islam as a terrorist and violent religion. But this is no more than
a fabrication. Islam is the religion of mercy, justice and humanity. It is
what saved the people of other religions from the injustice and wrongdoing
of their rulers, as happened in
Andalusia,
Egypt and other countries in which people of
other groups were badly mistreated, including the Jews. 

Israel Wolfenson says: 

The minor losses incurred by the Jews in the
Hijaz are insignificant in comparison with the benefits that the Jews gained
with the emergence of Islam. The Muslim conquerors saved thousands of Jews
who were spread throughout the lands of the
Roman Empire, and who were faced with all
kinds of persecution. 

Al-Yahood wa’l-Tahaaluf ma’a al-Aqwiya’
by Dr. Nu’maan ‘Abd al-Razzaaq al-Saamara’i, quoted in an article by
Professor Khaalid Joodah, al-Faariq al-Insaani bayna Hadaarat al-Islam wa
Thaqaafat al-Gharb. 

Islam is not a religion which accepts
humiliation, and jihad for the sake of Allaah is one of its main principles
and one of the greatest of deeds in Islam. It is prescribed in order to
protect the Muslims from their enemies, to convey the religion of Allaah,
and to spread the word of Tawheed (divine Oneness) throughout the world.
Islam does not say that people must be forced to enter it, because one of
the conditions of Islam (being Muslim) is sincerity, and if there is no
sincerity then one is a hypocrite among the ranks of Muslims, and Islam does
not want this base characteristic among its followers. On the other hand, we
find that priests and monks have played a part in forcing people to accept
Christianity in Europe and elsewhere,
and the numbers of people who were slain in pursuit of this aim is very
great indeed; historians say that they are between 7 and 15 million! 

Another obvious wrong is focusing on the
mistakes of some Muslims who were denounced by Muslim scholars and leaders
for killing innocent people and attributing that to Islam – as happens in
some clips in the film about the bombs on the trains in
London and Madrid and the like. All of that
was denounced by Muslim scholars, even though these deeds were a reaction
against wrongdoing and oppression. At the same time they ignore those who
were slain in the First and Second World Wars in which tens of millions died
– 14 million in WW1 and 55 million in WW2. Those wars were not between the
Muslims and Christians, rather they were amongst themselves. They did not
make any mention either of the people killed in Japan by the American Atomic
bombs, or the “Red Indians” (Native Americans) killed by the Americans, or
the Asian people also killed by the Americans, or those who were killed by
colonialists and occupiers. 

They ignore the destruction and terrorism
wrought by the crusader attacks against Muslim lands; they ignore what
America and its allies are doing
today in Afghanistan and Iraq; what the Serbs did with the blessing of the
priests in Bosnia; and much, much more. If there are things that history may
forget about, it can never forget what the Inquisition did, especially in
Spain. 

Gustave le Bon says in his book Arab
Civilization: 

Ferdinand promised to give the Arabs freedom
of religion and language, but in 1499 the persecution of the Arabs began,
which lasted for centuries, and which did not end until the Arabs had been
expelled from Spain. It started with
forcing Arabs to be baptized, then the Inquisition ordered that many of
those who had been baptised be burned on the grounds that they were not
really Christians. This “purging by fire” continued slowly because it was
not possible to burn millions of Arabs in one go. 

The “pious” Cardinal of Toledo, who was the
head of the Inquisition, advised cutting off the heads of all the Arabs who
did not become Christian, men, women, old people and children. The Dominican
monk Baleda did not think that this was sufficient, and advised that the
Arabs who had become Christian should also be beheaded, as well as those who
had remained Muslim. His reason for doing so was that it was impossible to
know whether the faith of those Arabs who had become Christian was sincere,
so it was preferable to kill all of the Arabs with the sword, so that God
could judge between them in the afterlife, and send to Hell those whose
Christianity was not sincere!

We can only admit that we cannot find such vicious conquerors who should be
condemned for unlawful slaughter like that committed against the Muslims! 

Hadaarat al-‘Arab
(p. 270-272) 

Anyone who thinks about it now will find
that the terrorists are people of other religions, Christians, Jews, Hindus
and Sikhs; he will find that the Muslims are the victims of this terror.
When will the sleepers wake up?! When with the heedless become aware? 

We said to this lying MP who is calling us
to rip the terrorist pages out of the Holy Qur’aan – as he claims: Come and
let us see what your Holy Bible says about terrorism: 

If you are a Jew who believes in the Old
Testament, then see what is attributed to the Lord, when He said to Moses in
Deuteronomy 20:10, 16-17: 

“When you march up to attack a city, make
its people an offer of peace … 

However, in the cities of the nations the
LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything
that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites,
Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has
commanded you.” 

If you are a Christian and want something
from the New Testament, then here are some texts from it. 

In Matthew 10:34-36, it is narrated that
Jesus (peace be upon him) said: 

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring
peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn 'a man against
his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law

36 a man's enemies will be the members of
his own household.” 

For more information see al-Sayf bayna
al-Qur’aan wa’l-Kitaab al-Muqaddas by Dr. Habeeb ‘Abd al-Malik. 

 


http://www.elforkan.com/7ewar/showthread.php?t=7597
 

Ninthly: 

What the Muslims should do now is: 

1.    
Not cause problems
in their own countries, such as demonstrations in which property is
destroyed or blood is shed.

2.    
Refer the matter to
scholars and wise men to deal with it, or something similar.

3.    
Strive to adhere to
Islam in word and deed, which means taking part in spreading Islam and
annoying the kaafirs who hate Islam and the Muslims.

4.    
Call people to
Allaah with wisdom and knowledge, distribute translations of the meanings of
the Qur’aan and easy-to-read Islamic books, and seek the help of trustworthy
Islamic organizations and trustworthy scholars in doing so. 

And Allaah is the Guide.

Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers

 

Please clarify the evidences that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the last messenger and prophet. As all evidences are clear that he is the last prophet only and does not indicate that he is the last messenger.

Praise be to Allaah.

The scholars (may Allaah
have mercy on them) differed concerning the difference between a Prophet and
a Messenger. The majority of scholars are of the view that a Prophet is one
who received Revelation from Allaah but was not commanded to convey it,
whereas a Messenger is one who received Revelation and was commanded to
convey it. 

But despite this difference
of opinion, they are unanimously agreed that a Messenger is superior to a
Prophet, and that a Messenger attained the honour of Prophethood and more.
Hence they said: Every Messenger is a Prophet, but not every Prophet is a
Messenger. 

Thus it is clear that
everything which says that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets and that there is no Prophet
after him indicates that there is no Messenger after him either, because
there cannot be any Messenger who is not also a Prophet. 

If the text said that the
Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is the
Seal of the Messengers, that would not suggest that there would be no
Prophet after him, because it would be possible for there to be a Prophet
who was not a Messenger.  

But, the text states that
the Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is
the Seal of the Prophets and that there will be no Prophet after him and
this means that there can be no Prophet after him and no Messenger after
him. 

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah
have mercy on him) said: 

“but he is the Messenger
of Allaah and the last (end) of the Prophets” [al-Ahzaab 33:40].
This verse states that there will be no Prophet after him, and if there will
be no Prophet after him, then there can be no Messenger after him either,
because the status of Messenger is higher than the status of Prophet; a
Messenger is also a Prophet but the converse is not necessarily the case. 

Tafseer Ibn Katheer
(3/645). 

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may
Allaah have mercy on him) said: If he was the Seal of the Prophets then he
was also the Seal of the Messengers for sure, because there is no Messenger
who is not also a Prophet. Hence it is said: Every Messenger is a Prophet
but not every Prophet is a Messenger. End quote. 

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn
‘Uthaymeen (1/250). 

And Allaah knows best.

 

He is confused about Yoosuf saying “Mention me to your master”

 

Does Allah punish his prophets? In the story of Yusuf (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), was he left in prison for a number of years as a punishment from Allah because he asked one of his prison mates to mention him to his master, while only Allah should be called Master.

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

We have previously discussed the fact that the Prophets (may be the
blessings and peace of Allaah be upon them all) are infallible and protected
against major sins, bad attitudes and vile actions that are contrary to
chivalry.  

See the answers to questions no.
7208 and
42216. 

Secondly: 

With regard to the story of Yoosuf, the more correct of the
two opinions in the commentary thereon is that the one who forgot to mention
him to his lord (master) in this verse was not Yoosuf (peace be upon him)
but the other prisoner, whom Yoosuf asked to mention him to his lord (master
or king).  Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And he said to the one whom he knew to be saved: “Mention
me to your lord (i.e. your king, so as to get me out of the prison).” But
Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord. So [Yoosuf
(Joseph)] stayed in prison a few (more) years”

[Yoosuf 12:42] 

As the apparent meaning of the commentary on the verse is
that the one who forgot was the one who was supposed to convey the message
from Yoosuf to the ruler of Egypt, there is nothing in the content of this
message – to remind the ruler about Yoosuf – that undermines the position of
Prophethood or is contrary to the idea of putting one’s trust in Allaah and
referring one’s needs to Him. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: Allaah said: “But
Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention it to his lord”. It was said
that he caused Yoosuf to forget to remember his Lord, when he said, “Mention
me to your lord.” And it was said that the shaytaan caused the one who
was saved (from person) to forget to mention him to his lord. This is the
correct view, because it follows on from the words “Mention me to your
lord”. Allaah said: “But Shaytaan (Satan) made him forget to mention
it to his lord”. The pronoun refers to the nearest person if there is no
evidence to the contrary, and because Yoosuf would not forget to remember
his Lord, for he was always remembering his Lord. Before interpreting the
dream he had called them both [his two fellow prisoners] to believe in his
Lord, and said to them:

“O two companions of the prison! Are many different lords
(gods) better or Allaah, the One, the Irresistible?

40. “You do not worship besides Him but only names which
you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allaah has sent
down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allaah. He
has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is
the (true) straight religion, but most men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:39-40] 

And before that he had said to them:

“No food will come to you (in wakefulness or in dream) as
your provision, but I will inform (in wakefulness) its interpretation before
it (the food) comes. This is of that which my Lord has taught me. Verily, I
have abandoned the religion of a people that believe not in Allaah and are
disbelievers in the Hereafter (i.e. the Kan‘aanyyoon of Egypt who were
polytheists and used to worship sun and other false deities).

38. “And I have followed the religion of my fathers, —
Ibraaheem (Abraham), Ishaaq (Isaac) and Ya‘qoob (Jacob) [عليهم
السلام ], and never could we attribute any partners whatsoever to
Allaah. This is from the Grace of Allaah to us and to mankind, but most men
thank not (i.e. they neither believe in Allaah, nor worship Him)”

[Yoosuf 12:37-38] 

Thus he mentioned his Lord, and this is what his Lord had
taught him, because he left the religion of mushrik people who did not
believe in Allaah even though they acknowledged the existence of a Creator,
and they did not believe in the Hereafter, and he followed the religion of
his forefathers, the leaders of the believers, whom Allaah has made leaders
calling people to Him – Ibraaheem, Ishaaq and Ya’qoob. He mentioned his
Lord, then he called them to believe in his Lord, then after that he
interpreted the dream and said: 

“O two companions of the prison! As for one of you, he (as
a servant) will pour out wine for his lord (king or master) to drink” [v.
41] 

Then when he had finished interpreting the dream, “he said
to the one whom he knew to be saved: ‘Mention me to your lord (i.e. your
king’)”, so how could the shaytaan have caused Yoosuf to forget to
mention his Lord? 

Rather the shaytaan caused the one who was saved (from
prison) to forget to mention Yoosuf to his lord (or master, the king).  

Those who were of this opinion said: It would have been
better to put his trust in Allaah and not say, Mention me to your lord; when
he forgot to put his trust in his Lord, he was punished by staying a few
years more in prison. 

It may be said that there is nothing in his saying “Mention
me to your lord” that is contrary to putting one’s trust in Allaah
(tawakkul), rather Yoosuf said: “The command (or the judgement) is for
none but Allaah” [v. 40], just as his father’s words, “Do not enter
by one gate, but enter by different gates” [v. 67], were not contrary to
putting one’s trust in Allaah, rather he said: “I cannot avail you
against Allaah at all. Verily, the decision rests only with Allaah. In Him,
I put my trust and let all those that trust, put their trust in Him” [v. 67]. 

Moreover, Allaah has testified that Yoosuf is one of His
sincere slaves, and the sincere person cannot be sincere if he puts his
trust in anything other than Allaah, because that is shirk, and Yoosuf was
not a mushrik, either in worship or trust. Rather he put his trust in his
Lord with regard to his own actions, as he said: “Unless You turn away
their plot from me, I will feel inclined towards them and be one (of those
who commit sin and deserve blame or those who do deeds) of the ignorant”
[v. 33]. How could he not put his trust in Him with regard to the actions of
His slaves?  

His saying “Mention me to your lord” is like his
saying to his master, “Set me over the store‑houses of the land; I will
indeed guard them with full knowledge” (as a minister of finance in Egypt)”
[v. 55]. When he asked to be appointed as governor for a religious purpose,
that was not contrary to putting one's trust in Allaah, and it was not the
kind of seeking high position that is forbidden. So how could his saying to
the boy, “Mention me to your lord” be contrary to putting one’s trust
in Allaah, when all it involved was telling the king about him so that he
would know about his situation and the truth would become clear, and Yoosuf
was one of the most steadfast of people. 

Hence after this request – “And the king said: ‘Bring him
to me’” [v. 50] – was made, Yoosuf said: “Return to your lord and ask
him, ‘What happened to the women who cut their hands? Surely, my Lord
(Allaah) is Well‑Aware of their plot” [v. 50]. So here Yoosuf referred
to the “lord” (master) of that man, as he mentioned him before. And he said:
“Return to your lord and ask him, ‘What happened to the women…” In
saying “Mention me to your lord”, he did not fail to do something
that was obligatory and he did not do something that was haraam, such that
Allaah would punish him by leaving him in prison for a few more years. 

What is meant is that Yoosuf did not commit a sin that was
referred to in the Qur’aan, and Allaah does not tell us of any sin that any
of the Prophets committed but He also tells us that he asked for forgiveness
for it. But Allaah does not tell us that Yoosuf asked for forgiveness for
these words. 

End quote from Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (15/112-118). 

Thirdly: 

With regard to Yoosuf (peace be upon him) saying when he was
in prison, “Mention me to your lord”, this is not the lordship of
worship, rather it is the lordship of kingship and control. Al-Fayroozabaadi
said: The lord of anything is its owner or the one who is entitled to it or
to whom it belongs. But no one can be called the Lord in a general sense
except Allaah, may He be exalted, who is looking after all creatures. But
when it is mentioned in conjunction with something else in the possessive,
then it may be said of Allaah and of others, such as Rabb al-‘Aalameen (Lord
of the worlds), rabb al-daar (owner of the house). End quote. 

Basaa’ir Dhuwi’l-Tamyeez
(3/29). 

Al-Raaghib al-Asfahaani said: It may be said; rabb al-daar
(lit. lord of the house), rabb al-faras (lord of the horse) meaning the
owner thereof. It is on this basis that Allaah tells us that Yoosuf said “Mention
me to your lord”. End quote, 

Al-Mufradaat fi Ghareeb al-Qur’aan
(186). 

What al-Raaghib (may Allaah have mercy on him) meant was that
the usage of the word rabb (lord) in this verse is permissible, because lord
here refers to his master or ruler, not a lord in an absolute sense; that
may only be said of Allaah, may He be exalted. 

But he may be confused and think that this is not allowed, as
in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah in which the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “None of you should say, Give food to
your lord (rabb), help your lord with wudoo’, give water to your lord. Let
him say sayyidi or mawlaaya (my master). And no one of you should say my
‘abd or my amah (referring to his slave); let him say my fataa or my fataah,
or my ghulaam.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2552) and Muslim (2249). 

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The scholars
said: The word al-Rabb, with the definite article al-, cannot be applied to
anyone except Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted. But it may be used in
conjunction with something else, in the genitive, e.g., rabb al-maal (the
owner of the wealth), rabb al-daar (the owner of the house) and so on. An
example of this is what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) said, in the saheeh hadeeth about the lost camel, “Let it be until
its owner (rabbuha) finds it, and in another saheeh hadeeth, “until the one
who has wealth (rabb al-maal) will be worried about finding someone to
accept his wealth (zakaah).” (It also appears) in the words of ‘Umar (may
Allaah be pleased with him) in al-Saheeh, “… the owner (rabb) of the
herd of camels and flock of sheep…” And there are many other well-known
examples in the hadeeth.                                              

The scholars said: It is only makrooh for a slave to say to
his master “rabbiy (my lord)” because by saying this he is making someone a
partner with Allaah in lordship. 

With regard to the ahaadeeth “until its owner (rabbuha) finds
it” and “owner (rabb) of the herd of camels” and so on, the word is only
used here because it refers to things that are not accountable. They are
like houses and wealth. Undoubtedly it is not makrooh to say rabb al-daar
(owner of the house) or rabb al-maal (owner of the wealth). 

With regard to the words of Yoosuf, “mention me to your
lord”, there are two answers: 

1 – That he was addressing him in terms that he was
accustomed to; such usage is permissible in cases of necessity, as Moosa
(peace be upon him) said to al-Saamiri: “And look at your ilaah (god)”
[Ta-Ha 20:97], i.e., look at that which you have taken as a god. 

2 – This was the law of those who came before us, and the law
of those who came before us is not a law for us if our law tells us
something different. There is no difference of scholarly opinion concerning
this point. 

The scholars of usool only differed concerning the laws of
those who came before us if there is no narration stating that our law is
either in agreement with it or differs from it – is it a law that is
prescribed for us too, or not? End quote. 

Al-Adhkaar by al-Nawawi
(1/363). 

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The
reason for the prohibition is that that the right of Lordship belongs to
Allaah alone, because the lord is the owner, the one who is maintaining a
thing, and that is true only of Allaah, may He be exalted. 

Al-Khattaabi said: The reason why it is not allowed to call
another person one’s rabb (lord) is that man is under the care of al-Rabb
(the Lord, Allaah), and he is required to show sincere belief in the Oneness
of Allaah (Tawheed) and avoid associating anything with Him (shirk), so it
is makrooh for him to use the same name lest it come under the heading of
shirk. There is no differentiation in this case between the free man and the
slave. As for other things, animals and inanimate objects, which are not
obliged to do acts of worship, it is not makrooh to use this word in the
genitive with reference to them, such as saying rabb al-daar (owner of the
house) or rabb al-thawr (owner of the bull). 

Ibn Battaal said: It is not permissible to call anyone except
Allaah rabb (lord), just as it is not permissible to call anyone else ilaah
(god). What is to be used exclusively for Allaah is the word al-Rabb (the
Lord) with the definite article, without mentioning anything in conjunction
with it. But when it is used in conjunction with another word, in the
genitive, it is it permissible to use it, such as when Allaah tells us that
Yoosuf (peace be upon him) said: “Mention me to your Lord” and he
said: “Return to your lord” [Yoosuf 12:50], and when the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, describing the portents of
the Hour, “When the slave woman gives birth to her lord (i.e., master,
rabbaha).” This indicates that the prohibition on using this word
applies only to its use with the definite article (al-Rabb), and it is
possible that the prohibition is aimed at avoiding usage with reference to
human beings of words that are befitting only for Allaah. Reports which
indicate otherwise may be taken as meaning that it is permitted. Or it may
be that it is not allowed to do that a great deal and take that usage as a
habit, and it does not mean that it is forbidden in all cases. End quote. 

Fath al-Baari (5/179). 

To sum up: 

The word al-Rabb (the Lord) which applies only to Allaah is
that which appears with the definite article, but when the word is used in
conjunction with something else, especially if it is something that has no
power of rational thought and is not obliged to worship Allaah, then it is
permissible. That includes this verse. 

It may also be said that the interpretation is that he was
addressing them in their language that they knew, or that this was
permissible for them. 

And Allaah knows best.

Was ‘Eesa (Jesus – peace be upon him) a Jew?

 

Do muslims believe jesus was a jew? in the bible is says jesus was a jew.

Praise be to Allaah.

‘Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus son
of Mary – peace be upon him) was one of the noble Prophets of Allaah, and
one of the Messengers of strong will, whom Allaah sent to the Children of
Israel, and taught him the Torah and Gospel, and stated that he had come to
confirm what was in the Torah, i.e., to reaffirm what was said in it, except
that he abrogated some of its rulings, and permitted to his followers some
of what was forbidden in it. 

Allaah says (interpretation
of the meaning):

“And He (Allaah) will
teach him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] the Book and Al-Hikmah (i.e. the Sunnah, the
faultless speech of the Prophets, wisdom), (and) the Tawraat (Torah) and the
Injeel (Gospel).

49. And will make him
[‘Eesa (Jesus)] a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): ‘I have come
to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, a
figure like that of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by
Allaah’s Leave; and I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I
bring the dead to life by Allaah’s Leave. And I inform you of what you eat,
and what you store in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you
believe.

50. ‘And I have come
confirming that which was before me of the Tawraat (Torah), and to make
lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with
a proof from your Lord. So fear Allaah and obey me’”

[Aal –‘Imraan 3:48-50] 

“And in their footsteps,
We sent ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), confirming the Tawraat (Torah)
that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was
guidance and light and confirmation of the Tawraat (Torah) that had come
before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”

[al-Maa'idah 5:46] 

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah
have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer (2/44):

Tawraat and Injeel: The
Tawraat is the Book that Allaah revealed to Moosa ibn ‘Imraan, and the
Injeel is the Book that Allaah revealed to ‘Eesa (peace be upon them both).
‘Eesa (peace be upon him) followed them both. End quote.  

He also (may Allaah have
mercy on him) said: 

“confirming the Tawraat
(Torah) that had come before him” means, following it, not going against
what was in it, except in a few matters where he explained to the Children
of Israel that concerning which they differed, as Allaah tells us that the
Messiah (peace be upon him) said to the Children of Israel: “and to make
lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you”. Hence the sounder view
among the scholars is that the Injeel abrogated some of the rulings of the
Tawraat. End quote. 

Tafseer Ibn Katheer
(3/126) 

Hence it is known that
‘Eesa (peace be upon him) believed in the Torah which was revealed to Moosa
(peace be upon him) and followed it; he did not go against it except in a
few matters. 

The religion of Moosa,
‘Eesa and all the Prophets was, generally speaking, Islam, which means
believing in the Oneness of Allaah (Tawheed) and worshipping Him alone with
no partner or associate, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“Truly, the religion
with Allaah is Islam”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:19] 

“And whoever seeks a
religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the
Hereafter he will be one of the losers”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] 

And He tells us that Nooh
(peace be upon him) said (interpretation of the meaning):  

“and I have been
commanded to be of the Muslims (i.e. those who submit to Allaah’s Will)”

[Yoonus 10:72] 

And He tells us of
Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) (interpretation of the meaning):  

“Ibraaheem (Abraham) was
neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim Haneefa (Islamic
Monotheism — to worship none but Allaah Alone) and he was not of
Al‑Mushrikoon”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:67] 

And He tells us that Moosa
(peace be upon him) said (interpretation of the meaning):

“ ‘O my people! If you
have believed in Allaah, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims
(those who submit to Allaah’s Will)’”

[Yoonus 10:84] 

And He tells us that Yoosuf
(peace be upon him) said (interpretation of the meaning):

“ ‘Cause me to die as a
Muslim (the one submitting to Your Will), and join me with the righteous’”

[Yoosuf 12:101] 

So it cannot be said of
Moosa that his religion was Judaism, rather his religion was Islam, and his
followers were called Jews (al-Yahood) because they said Hidna ilayka
i.e., we have repented and come back; or because they are called after
Yehoodhah (Judah) the oldest of the sons of Ya’qoob (Jacob – peace be upon
him). Similarly, the religion of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) was Islam, not
Christianity. The Christians (al-Nasaarah) are his followers who supported
him (nasaruhu). 

But he (peace be upon him)
was a follower of the Tawraat (Torah), who followed and affirmed it, because
he was one of the Children of Israel, to whom Moosa (peace be upon him) had
been sent, then Allaah revealed to him the Injeel (Gospel) in which was a
confirmation of what was in the Torah, as stated above. 

What we have mentioned
means that the religion brought by ‘Eesa was Islam, if what the questioner
meant was to find out and ask about his religion. 

But if he was asking about
the lineage of the Messiah (peace be upon him) and the people among whom he
was born and to whom he was sent, then the Prophet of Allaah ‘Eesa (peace be
upon him) was indisputably one of the Children of Israel, the Children of
Israel who subsequently became known as the Jews, as we have indicated
above. 

What the scholars state
here is that he is to be attributed to his lineage and people, so it may be
said that he was one of the Children of Israel. As for the word “Jew”, it is
used to refer to a specific religion, so it should be avoided when referring
to ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), even though we know that his people were the
Children of Israel who used to follow the law of the Torah before him, and
he came to confirm what was in it except for a few rulings which he
changed. 

Ibn al-Atheer (may Allaah
have mercy on him) said:  

‘Imraan ibn Mathaan [i.e,
the grandfather of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and the father of Maryam] was
one of the descendants of Sulaymaan ibn Dawood (Solomon son of David). The
family of Mathaan were the leaders and priests of the Children of Israel.
End quote. 

Al-Kaamil fi’l-Tareekh
(1/251). 

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah
have mercy on him) said: 

There is no dispute that
she [Maryam – peace be upon her] was one of the descendents of Dawood (peace
be upon him). Her father was ‘Imraan the prayer leader of the Children of
Israel of that time. End quote. 

Al-Bidaayah
wa’l-Nihaayah (2/52). 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn
Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: 

There is no doubt that the
people of Moosa were the Children of Israel, and the Torah was revealed in
their language. The Children of Israel were also the people of the Messiah
(peace be upon him). The Messiah spoke their language. Neither of these two
Messengers addressed anyone in any language other than Hebrew; neither of
them spoke Latin, Syriac, Greek or Coptic. End quote. 

Al-Jawaab al-Saheeh li
man baddala Deen al-Maseeh (2/94). 

He also said: 

It is known from the
consensus of the Christians that the Messiah did not speak anything other
than Hebrew, like the other Prophets of the Children of Israel, and that he
was circumcised on the seventh day like all the Children of Israel; he
prayed facing their “qiblah” or direction of prayer, and he did not pray
towards the east or enjoin praying towards the east. End quote. 

Op. cit. (3/32). 

For more information please
see the answer to question no. 10277. 

And Allaah knows best.