How Are The Prophets Protected From Error And Sin?  

I come from a Christian background and so I was raised to think of the prophets (except for Jesus) as capable of sin. And I actually don't think that it would be so terrible if occasionally some of the prophets said "Do as I say, not as I do". But I think my real difficulty with the issue is that it seems like I've often heard the claim that there is agreement (ijma) that all the prophets are protected from sin to some degree but 1) I'm not sure of what the limits are of that protection. And I'm not sure where this principle is found in the Quran and sunnah. Can you please clarify?

Wa `alaykum as-Salam,

Ibn al-Juwayni (Imam al-Haramayn) said in al-Irshad (p. 298-299):

"As for sins that are considered small, according to specificity as we shall explain, the minds do not deny them [as possible for Prophets]. I did not come upon a categorically explicit transmitted proof either negating them or asserting them [as possible]. For explicitly categorical proofs come either from explicit texts (nusus) or from consensus (ijma') and there is no consensus [either], since the ulema differ over the possibility of small sins for Prophets. The explicit, unambiguous or un-interpretable texts that would categorically establish the principles pertaining to this issue are simply not found. So if it is said that since the matter is conjectural, what is the strongest conjecture in the matter in your opinion? We say: Our strongest conjecture is that they are possible. The stories of the Prophets in many a verse of the Book of Allah Most High bear witness to that [conjecture]. But Allah knows best what is right."

Imam al-Ghazzali said the same in substance in al-Mankhul (p. 223), a youthful work consisting of his class-notes from Imam al-Haramayn.

But Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki said in his Qasida Nuniyya:
"They said Allah precludes small sins from Prophets and in our [Ash'ari] School are two positions.
"Preclusion is narrated from the Master(*) and al-Qadi `Iyad, and it is the strongest position.
"It is the position I take and was that of my father [cf. Taqi al-Din al-Subki, al-Ibhaj 2:263], exempting their rank from any defect.
"Al-Ash'ari is our Imam but in this we differ with him one and all.
"And we say that we are on his path but his companions are split in two parties over the matter.
"Some Ash'aris even said Prophets are completely free of forgetfulness.
"Yet all are considered al-Ash'ari's followers. This dissent does not expel them from that status." (*) The Master = Abu Mansur `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, author of Usul al-Din, al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq, and other important works of doctrine.

Source: Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:387-388).

So the conjecture of Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478) and his student Hujjat al-Islam (d. 505) was NOT retained by later Ash'aris nor earlier ones other than al-Ash'ari himself. Instead, the majority of the ulema including the Imams of the Four Schools of Law followed what they considered to be the stronger position, namely that Prophets are protected even from small sins.

Thus al-Amidi said in al-Ihkam (1:171) that all but the Khawarij concur Prophets are protected from the minor sins if the latter bear on their character. If, however, it comes to a rare word spoken out of anger, then the majority of the Ash'aris and Mu'tazilis allow it.

Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa' said that the Jumhur of the Jurists from the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from all minor sins because one is required to follow them in the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that this is obligatory to believe.

Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini's (d. 418) position was that no sin great or small issues from Prophets whether deliberately or by mistake and this is also our position." (Taj al-Din al-Subki Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Wusta as cited in the Kubra (4:260)).

Imam al-Zarqani said in his monumental commentary on al-Qastallani’s al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya (5:361) [Al-Qastallani’s original text is in parentheses):

<<(And among his Mu'jizaat [stunning miracles] is that he is immune from sins) before Prophethood and after it (both great and small, both by deliberate commission and by mistake) according to the soundest view, outwardly and inwardly, in secret and in public, in earnest and in jest, in contentment and in anger. And how not, when the Companions were unanimous in following him and faithfully imitating him in all his acts? (As were the Prophets) Al-Subki said: "The Umma concurs on the true immunity ('isma) of Prophets, in what pertains to conveyance and other, from grave and small, contemptible sins as well as persistence in small sins but there is disagreement over small sins that do not detract from their rank. The Mu'tazila and many others allow them. The preferred view is that they are precluded because we have been ordered to follow them in what issues from them; how then could something inappropriate occur on their part? As for those that deemed it possible, they did not do so on the basis of any textual stipulation or proof." That is, they only clang to externalities which, if they followed their logical conclusions, would lead them to violate consensus and take positions no Muslim takes, as expounded by `Iyad [in al-Shifa'].>>

They concurred that a necessary attribute of Prophets is absolute trustworthiness (amana):

"And essential for them [Prophets] is absolute trustworthiness"

(Jawharat al-Tawhid, verse 59)

which necessitates true immunity ('isma) or from haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts (khilaf al-awla) (and even some of the mubah or indifferently permitted) except for a necessity of legislating a law, because Allah Most High made them our qidwa - obligatory paradigmatic model to follow without exception - and He does not want us to follow any haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts.

{Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much} (33:21).

Further, Allah Most High praised and literally exalted the Prophet’s character in no uncertain terms:

{And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature} (68:4).

The apparent counter-examples found in the Qur’an all without exception have interpretations that confirm the over-riding principles derived from the above verses and the conclusions of the majority of scholars (jumhur) I have just documented. For example, our liege-lord Adam’s “disobedience” (upon him peace) meant forgetfulness, or he was given Prophethood after he was forgiven. The consensus is that Prophets were sinless but were not necessarily created so nor made so from the very beginning of their Prophetic mission.

Yet such verses are a mercy from Allah Most High and His confirmation of other verses to the effect that the Holy Prophet is one of mankind, not an angel, and so were previous Prophets, so that mankind will have no excuse such as the claim that he and they were impossible to imitate or understand etc. - and Allah Most High knows best.

As for the question whether protection ('isma) from sin is the absence of volition, i.e. that the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, "could not" rather than "would not" sin and that he was devoid of free will in this regard, this is incorrect. We may describe isma in terms of Wilaya, Nubuwwa, Wahi, Tawfiq, Hifz, and others but not as absence of free will. And Allah knows best.

The closest text to this issue is probably the following explanation of the hadith of the removal of the black clot from the heart of the Prophet, upon him peace. I came across this beautiful passage in Ibn al-Subki's Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al- Kubra (10:266-267):

"I heard my father - Allah have mercy on him - say, when he was asked about the black clot that was removed / from the heart of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him – in his childhood, at the time of the splitting of his breast, and the statement of the angel to him, 'This is Satan's lot from you (hâdhâ hazhzh al-shaytâni minka)':

<<This clot Allah created in the hearts of human beings as naturally fit (qâbilatan) for whatever Satan casts into it and it was removed from his heart - Allah bless and greet him - so that no place remained in it fit for anything Satan could cast. This is the meaning of the hadith. There was no lot for Satan in the Prophet whatsoever. What the angel threw out was only a matter present in all human constitutions. That capacity was removed but its presence did not [in the first place] necessitate that anything had been cast into the heart. If you asked, "Why was that capacity created in that noble person when it was possible to create it without it?" I say, Because it is part of the human constituents. So its creation is part of the completion of human creation and is indispensable, while its removal is a Divine command that took place later on.>>

"I saw in the hand-writing of my brother, our Shaykh the Imam Abu Hâmid Ahmad, Allah save him, that he saw my father in dream on top of a high mountain lush with magnificent gardens. In my brother's hand was a lantern by the light of which he was reading to my father the text of the above discussion. He then thought that the lantern had gone out and began to repeat to my father, 'The lantern is out', several times. My father raised his head and told him, 'No'. My brother looked and saw that it was as my father said; 'But,' he said, 'there were lights on my father many times stronger than the light of the lantern and this is why I had thought it went out. In my sleep it came to my heart that those lights were because of the blessings of this research.'" End of the text from Ibn al-Subki.

The writer of these lines heard another moving explanation of the “black clot removal” related from the great Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, namely, that the clot consisted in the portion of the disbelievers at whose eternal doom, had it not been removed, the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) would have felt unbearable mercy on the Day of Judgment because he was created and sent as a mercy for the universes. Even so, the Prophet shall include them in his intercession at the time all creatures stand in wait under the sun for the Judgment to begin! So Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions until the end of time and for all eternity.

The purification of the heart of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, as a young boy is also a proof that he received `Isma even before his Nubuwwa, and Allah knows best.

See on this topic, in addition to the above sources:

- Al-Razi, `Ismat al-Anbiya' (`Ilmiyya p. 28, top)
- Al-Laqani, Jawharat al-Tawhid verse 59.
- Al-Laqani, Ithaf al-Murid (p. 179-180).
- Al-Bajuri, Sharh al-Jawhara.
- Al-Sawi, Sharh al-Jawhara (p. 280).
- Al-Rifa`i, al-Ma`rifa (p. 77-78).
- Al-Hashimi, Miftah al-Janna (p. 204)
- Nuh `Ali Salman, Sharh al-Jawhara (p. 124-125).
- Al-Maliki, Muhammad (sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) al-Insanu al-Kamil
- Siraj al-Din, Sayyiduna Muhammad (sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam), etc.

See also al-Shatibi's Muwafaqat (3:265).

And Allah knows best.

As a general note unrelated to this particular question, it is advisable not to approach the status of Prophethood with enquiries except with the highest good manners. Prophets are the elect of the Creator and like or above the angels in rank. We should take care, also, to focus on what is vital to our salvation and relinquish pursuits that are not only irrelevant but actually damaging to faith and works.

Hajj Gibril


Umar's Marriage with Umm Kulthum bint Ali (Allah be well-pleased with them)


Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim

The Marriage of `Umar ibn al-Khattab with Umm Kulthum bint `Ali Allah be well-pleased with all of them.

The marriage of `Umar with Umm Kulthum al-Hashimiyya (6-49) the daughter of `Ali and Fatima took place on the year 17 of the Hijra. `Ali gave her away to `Umar upon his request although he was afraid at first that `Umar might not accept her due to her youth and because he wished her to marry one of her cousins among the sons of Ja`far ibn Abi Talib. But `Umar said, ‘Marry her to me for I swear I have toward her more dedication to excellent companionship than any man on the face of the earth.’

`Umar gave her a dowry of 40,000 dirhams in honor of her lineage to the Messenger of Allah, upon him blessings and peace.

He came to the Muhajirun among the Companions as they sat between the Grave and the Pulpit ‘their usual place for meeting `Umar to discuss news: ‘Felicitate this newlywed!’ Then he told them he had married `Ali’s daughter Umm Kulthum and said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say, upon him blessings and peace: ‘Every lineage and means will be severed on the Day of Judgment except my lineage and my means.’ I have kept company with him and wished to add this also.’ Later he again said, on the pulpit: ‘Do not disparage me [for marrying a young girl], for I heard the Prophet say, upon him blessings and peace: ‘On the Judgment Day every means will be cut off and every lineage severed except my lineage.’’

It is well-known that our liege-lord `Umar ibn al-Khattab, Allah be well-pleased with him, had a particular veneration for the Prophetic Household (Ahl al-Bayt) as illustrated by the following additional reports:
a. Ibn Sa`d narrated from al-Sha`bi and al-Hasan that al-`Abbas had some need of `Umar one day and said to him:

"Commander of the Believers, suppose the uncle of Musa, upon him peace, came to you as a Muslim, how would you treat him?" He replied, "I swear by Allah that I would treat him well!" Al-`Abbas said, "Well, I am the uncle of Muhammad the Prophet - upon him and his House blessings and peace!" `Umar said, "Abu al-Fadl, and what do you suppose? By Allah, your father [`Abd al-Muttalib] is certainly dearer to me than my own father!" He said, "By Allah?" `Umar said, "By Allah, yes! Because I know that he [`Abd al-Muttalib] is dearer to the Messenger of Allah than my own father, therefore I prefer the love of the
Messenger of Allah to my love."
b. A man disparaged `Ali ibn Abi Talib in the presence of `Umar whereupon the latter said: "Do you know the dweller of this grave? He is Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. And `Ali is the son of Abu Talib ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. Therefore, do not mention `Ali except in a good way for if you dislike him you will harm this one in his grave." Narrated by Ahmad with a good chain in Fada'il al-Sahaba (2: 641 #1089).
 
c. After `Umar saw al-Husayn ibn `Ali ibn Abi Talib waiting at his door he said to him: "You are more deserving of permission to enter than [my son] `Abd Allah ibn `Umar! You see the goodness that was placed on our head; [therefore] first Allah then you [the Prophetic Household]" and he placed his hand on his head as he spoke. Narrated by Ibn Sa`d, Ibn Rahuyah, and al-Khatib.
 
d. `Umar distributed garments to the Companions but found nothing appropriate for al-Hasan and al-Husayn so he sent a message to Yemen and had a kiswa sent, which he offered them. Then he said, ‘Now I am content.’ Narrated by Ibn al-Jawzi in Manaqib `Umar (p. 97).

Umm Kulthum bore `Umar Zayd al-Akbar, known as Ibn al-Khalifatayn (= ‘Son of the Two Caliphs’ i.e. `Umar and `Ali) who became renowned for his great beauty, and a daughter, Ruqayya.

After `Umar died she remarried, upon `Ali's order, with `Awn ibn Ja`far ibn Abi Talib. When `Awn died `Ali remarried her with `Awn's brother Muhammad ibn Ja`far. Ibn Sa`d and al-Daraqutni claim that when the latter also died young, she remarried with his brother `Abd Allah ibn Ja`far who was widowed of her sister Zaynab bint `Ali ‘an anachronism since Zaynab outlived Umm Kulthum and was present at Karbala’ where her two sons from `Abd Allah, Muhammad and `Awn [both named after their uncles], were killed.

Zayd al-Akbar died a young man, childless, from a stone throw in the time of Mu`awiya. Umm Kulthum died at the same time and Sa`id ibn al-`As ibn Sa`id or Ibn `Umar prayed over them, Allah have mercy on them.

Sources:

Ibn al-Jarud, al-Muntaqa [an entirely sahih book] (p. 142);
al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar, al-Muntakhab min Azwaj al-Nabi SallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam (p. 30-31);
al-Dulabi, al-Dhurriyat al-Tahira (p. 62);
Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (8:337-340=8:463-464);
al-Siyar wal-Maghazi (p. 248);
Tarikh al-Ya`qubi (2:260);
Ibn Shabba's Tarikh al-Madina (2:654);
Nasab Quraysh (p. 352);
`Abd al-Razzaq, Musannaf (3:465);
al-Nasa'i, Sunan (4:71) and Sunan Kubra (1:641);
al-Bukhari, Tarikh al-Saghir (1:102);
Ibn Qutayba, Ma`arif (p. 107, 122);
al-Tabari, Tarikh (4:199 and 5:335);
al-Daraqutni, Sunan (2:79);
al-Bayhaqi, Sunan Kubra (4:33);
Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Isti`ab (4:490-491);
al-Nawawi, Tahdhib al-Asma' wal-Lughat (2:267 #1219);
al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (Dar al-Fikr ed. 5:22-24) and Tarikh al-Islam (4:58-59, 4:137-139, 4:227, 5:21);
al-Dimyati, Nisa’ al-Rasul (p. 128);
Ibn Hajar, Isaba (4:492 #1481);
Ibn al-Athir, Usd al-Ghaba (7:387-388) and al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (3:54, 4:12);
al-Suyuti, al-Hawi lil-Fatawa (2:179); etc.

 

The following is a reply to various claims and inaccuracies posted at the following site as of March 1, 2004:

http://www26.brinkster.com/sdolshah1/umtu.htm

Umme Kalthum's Marriage To Umer

>In Mishkat Shareef, it is reported that when Abubakr and Umar asked the holy Prophet [saww] for his daughter, Lady Fatima [sa]'s hand the Prophet [saww] replied she is too young to marry. If this is correct then think rationally over the fact that, Umme Kulthum [sa] whose mother was too young to marry these people, marries these same personalities, does this make sense? <

Observe in the above lines the jump from the hadith "she is too young to marry" to the spin that she "was too young to marry these people".

Rather, as Sharh al-Mishkaat states (Dar al-Fikr ed. 10:476-477), she had been asked at an early time and the Prophet waited, upon him blessings and peace, for specific heavenly revelation concerning Fatima, period.

This is confirmed by the other version of the proposal of the Two Shaykhs of Islam - Allah be well-pleased with them - Abu Bakr and `Umar, in which the Prophet replies, upon him and his Family and Companions blessings and peace: "The qada' [concerning this decision] has not been revealed yet."

>Secondly, Umer's daughter, Hafsa was a wife of Prophet Muhammad. This makes Hafsa the Step-mother of Hz Fatima and the Step-Grandmother of Umme Kalthum, the daughter of Ali and Fatima. Do you know what this means? It makes Umer the Step-Great Grandfather of Umme Kalthum. The sunnis claim the daughter of Ali married her Great Grandfather? Is such sort of marriage allowed in Islam, please prove from the Quran<

It also makes Hadrat Umar - Allah be well-pleased with him - the step-grandfather of Fatima whom he did ask in marriage and the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, did not reply "This is not allowed in Islam"!

The reason is, this sort of marriage is definitely allowed in Islam and this *is* proven from the Qur'an. Read again the verses defining who is mahram from who is not in Surat al-Nisa'!

>Umm Kulthum was the daughter of Ali Ibne Abi Talib. Sunni Historical evidence shows that the marriage of Umm Kulthum and Umar took place in the year 17 Hijri when Umm Kulthum was 5 or 4 years of age. This would put her date of birth to 12 or 13 Hijri. History of Abul Fida, vol I p 171 - al Farooq by Shibli Numani, vol II p 539<

The above is a deceptive way of quoting because the sources only mention the date of the marriage as the year 17. They do not say Umm Kulthum was 5 or 4 that year nor anything about her date of birth. This is your own claim inserted as an historical premise, followed by your own conjecture.

Besides, the "History of Abul-Fida" is by the king of Hama, Isma`il ibn `Ali ibn Mahmud (d. 732) and Nu`mani is a contemporary. Surely, they must have an earlier transmitted basis for whatever they supposedly say. However, they did not say anything other than the date of marriage as the year 17.

Ibn Kathir's Tarikh states the year 16 for the marriage of `Umar with Umm Kulthum; so she was between 10 and 12 since her date of birth is mentioned by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' as around the 6th year after the Hijra. Allah knows best from where the claim that she "was 5 or 4" comes from.

Among the Shi`i sources that narrate the fact of this marriage from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir with the statement "Umm Kulthum bint `Ali ibn Abi Talib died at the same time as her son Zayd ibn `Umar ibn al-Khattab" and the narration from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that "`Umar ibn al-Khattab married Umm Kulthum bint `Ali `alayhi al-Salam with a dowry of 40,000 dirhams":
1. Agha Burzug al-Tahrani's al-Dhari`a (5:184).
2. `Ali ibn Muhammad al-`Alawi's al-Mujdi fi Ansab al-Talibiyyin (p. 17).
3. Al-Fadil al-Hindi's Kashf al-Litham (2:312).
4. Al-Hurr al-`Amili's Wasa'il al-Shi`a Al al-Bayt (15:19, 17:594, 21:263, 26:314).
5. Muhammad ibn Habib al-Baghdadi's al-Munammaq fi Akhbar Quraysh (p. 301).
6. Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabili's Majma` al-Fa'ida (11:530).
7. Al-Muhaqqiq al-Naraqi's Mustanad al-Shi`a (19:452).
8. Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawari's Kifayat al-Ahkam (p. 307).
9. Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Rawhani's Fiqh al-Sadiq (24:496).
10. Al-Shahid al-Thani's Masalik al-Afham (13:270).
11. Al-Shaykh al-Amini's al-Ghadir (6:136-137).
12. Al-Shaykh al-Tusi's al-Mabsut (4:272)
13. and Tahdhib al-Ahkam (9:362-363).
14. Al-Shaykh al-Jawahiri's Jawahir al-Kalam (39:308).

>Historical evidences show that Hazrat Fatima (May Allah bless her) passed away 6 month after the demise of his father, Her father -- Allah bless him and greet him and thus her date of death was in the year 11 Hijri, and that Umm Kulthum, daughter of Ali was born in the year 9 Hijri. Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English Version, Tradition 5.546 - Anwarul Hussania, v3, p39 <

The above reference to al-Bukhari contains nothing about Umm Kulthum. Rather, al-Bukhari narrates in his Tarikh al-Saghir (1:102) – like everyone else - that Umm Kulthum had married `Umar. As for her date of birth it is 6 Hijri as cited above.

>Then how is it possible for Umm Kulthum to be born after the death of Hazrat Fatima (as) if the Sunnis claim that she was married to Omar in the year 17 Hijri at an age of 4 or 5 years, that would put the date of birth as 12 or 13 Hijri, which is long after the death of her mother?!<

The Sunnis do not claim that she was 4 or 5 in the year 17 but 11 or 12.

>Sunni historical evidence shows that Umm Kulthum (the so-called wife of Umar) died before 50 Hijri, since Imam Hasan (as), Abdullah ibn Umar and Sa'ad bin Abi Waqas offered the funeral prayers.<

Not Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas but Sa`id ibn al-`As (2-59) and he was the imam as the (universally respected) governor of Madina who had dearly wished to marry Umm Kulthum but desisted when he learnt of al-Husayn’s disapproval. It is also possible that he let Ibn `Umar be the imam. In the congregation there was also Abu Qatada (d. 54). This is agreed upon in BOTH the Sunni sources and the 14 Shi`i sources cited above. Some narrations in Ibn Sa`d, al-Bukhari, and al-Bayhaqi state that al-Hasan (d. 49) was part of the congregation, which brings the terminus ante quem for Umm Kulthum’s death to 49.

> Also it is worthy to note that Imam Hasan (as) was martyred in the year 50 Hijri. [Sources deleted] Or 49. But then other references show that Hazrat Umm Kulthum ( Blessings on her, the daughter of Imam Ali and Fatima Az Zahra ) were present in Kerballa during the year 61 Hijri.<

ONLY SOME non-Sunni sources that stand out for their unreliability, such as Muruj al-Dahab by the Mu`tazili chronicler (akhbaari) al-Mas`udi (d. 345); Sharh al-Akhbar fi Fada'il al-A'immat al-At-har (3:198) by the ex-Maliki apostate (murtadd cf. Siyar, Fikr ed. 12:284), al-Qadi al-Nu`man ibn Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Maghribi (d. 363); Muthir al-Ahzan by Ibn Nama al-Hilli (d. 645); and Bihar al-Anwar by Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi (d. 1111) among other similarly unscrupulous sources.

However, that claim is not found in the 14 Shi`i sources cited earlier nor in the Sunni sources.

The Siyar (Fikr ed. 4:418) among other Sunni sources only name the following Ahl al-Bayt women as present at Karbala' and taken prisoner:
? Zaynab and Fatima the daughters of `Ali;
? Fatima and Sukayna the daughters of al-Husayn;
? al-Rabab al-Kalbiyya the wife of al-Husayn and mother of Sukayna;
? Umm Muhammad the daughter of al-Hasan ibn `Ali.

Sukayna is the one that spoke the famous words to Yazid, "Have you taken prisoner the daughters of the Messenger of Allah??" which words are spuriously attributed to Umm Kulthum bint `Ali in some of the non-Sunni accounts such as al-Raghib al-Asfahani's Maqatil al-Talibiyyin (p. 79) and the above-cited sources.

The only Umm Kulthum present in the whole episode of Karbala' was Yazid's own wife, Umm Kulthum bint `Abd Allah ibn `Amir.

>Long after the incident of Kerballa Hazrat Zaineb binte Ali ( blessings on her ) died, then it was that Hazrat Abdullah bin Jafer Tayyar were married to Hazrat Umm Kulthum binte Ali (blessings on her ). It is more likely that `Abd Allah ibn Ja`far (d. 80), unlike his two brothers `Awn and Muhammad [he also named his sons thus], was never married to Umm Kulthum (d. <49) at all but only to her sister Zaynab (d. 61). There is no contradiction to the fact that before Umm Kulthum binte Ali (blessings on her), Hazrat Zaineb (blessings on her) were married to Abdullah bin Jafer (blessings on him)<

The marriage of Zaynab to `Abd Allah ibn Ja`far is unquestioned.

> Also it is true that till the year 61 Hijri (incident of Kerballa ) Hazrat Zaineb were alive, and that Umm Kulthum binte Ali were married after the year 61 Hijri to Hazrat Abdullah bin Jafer<

Incorrect: Zaynab was at Karbala? But Umm Kulthum had died before 49.

>But where does the contradiction lie? With respect to the first references, the lady married to Omar by the name Umm Kulthum died in the year before 50 Hijri, as Imam Hasan ( as ) had offered her funeral prayers. This leaves us to believe that the Umm Kulthum married to Omar were in fact some other lady and NOT the daughter of Imam Ali (as). Roza tul Ihbab Volume 3 page 585 - Al Bidayah wa al-Nihayah – Tareekhe Khamees Volume 3 page 318<

This nonsense is definitely not in the latter two references nor even in the 14 Shi`i sources other than the few discrepant sources I've identified.

>The Sunni scholar Ibn Qutaybah in his book "al Maarif " mentioned that all the daughters of Imam Ali(as) were married to the sons of Aqeel and Abbas with a few exceptions, but he did NOT mention the claim that Umm Kulthum (May Allah bless her) were married to Omar. The exceptions were for Ummul Hasan binte Saeed and Fatima. al-Maarif, Ibn Qutaybah, p 80<

Wrong.

Ibn Qutayba said in al-Ma`arif (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyya, 1987) p. 122:

"THE DAUGHTERS OF `ALI IBN ABI TALIB: As for Zaynab the elder daughter of Fatima, she was [married] with `Abd Allah ibn Ja`far and gave him children whom we already named. As for Umm Kulthum the elder, also the daughter of Fatima, she was [married] with `Umar ibn al-Khattab and gave him children we also already named. When `Umar was killed Muhammad ibn Ja`far ibn Abi Talib married her. He died before her then `Awn ibn Ja`far ibn Abi Talib married her and she died before him. The rest of `Ali's daughters were married off to the sons of `Aqil and the sons of al-`Abbas except Umm al-Hasan – she was married to Ja`da ibn Hubayra al-Makhzumi -- and except Fatima -- she was married to Sa`id ibn al-Aswad of Banu al-Harith ibn Asad."

The same Ibn Qutayba also says in the same book (p. 107):

"THE CHILDREN OF `UMAR IBN AL-KHATTAB FROM HIS BLOOD AND THEIR DESCENDENTS: .... also Fatima and Zayd, their mother being Umm Kulthum the daughter of `Ali ibn Abi Talib from his union with Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah upon him blessings and peace. It is also said that Umm Kulthum's daughter from `Umar was named Ruqayya...."

>For those who claim that such marriage happened; kindly answer the following questions. What was the age for Omar at the time of the marriage?<

Approximately forty-seven. Umm Kulthum was between 10 and 12.

>When Omar died what was the age of Umm Kulthum?<

Between 17 and 19. `Umar was fifty-four or five.

> Could you briefly state the names of the wives of Omar?<
1. `Atika bint Zayd ibn `Amr al-`Adawiyya.
2. Fukayha who gave him offspring. [Mulk al-yamin]
3. Luhayya al-Yamaniyya who gave him `Abd al-Rahman al-Asghar or al-Awsat, the latter known as Abu Shahma whom `Umar whipped for drunkenness. [May have been mulk al-yamin]
4. Mulayka bint Abi Umayya al-Khuza`iyya who may have given him `Ubayd Allah.
5. Qariba bint Abi Umayya al-Makhzumiyya [in Jahiliyya].
6. Subay`a bint al-Harith al-Aslamiyya.
7. Umm `Asim Jamila bint Thabit al-Awsiyya who gave him `Asim.
8. Umm Hakim bint al-Harith al-Makhzumiyya who gave him Fatima.
9. Umm Kulthum bint `Ali al-Hashimiyya who gave him Ruqayya and Zayd al-Akbar but Ibn Qutayba in the Ma`arif names them Fatima and Zayd.
10. Umm Kulthum bint (`Amr ibn) Jarwal al-Khuza`iyya who gave him Zayd al-Asghar and `Ubayd Allah [in Jahiliyya] and whom al-Waqidi also calls Mulayka bint Jarwal, followed in this by Ibn Qutayba, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn al-Athir.
11. Zaynab bint Maz`un al-Jumahi who gave him `Abd Allah, Hafsa, and `Abd al-Rahman al-Akbar [in Jahiliyya and Islam].

>Could you assert to the truthfulness of the character of the person who narrated this story?<

There are so many that it is mutawatir (mass-transmitted) including from the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt such as Ja`far al-Sadiq, from his father.

>( I am talking about Zubair bin Bakar )?<

He is "thiqa thabt" (extremely trustworthy) according to al-Baghawi and al-Khatib while al-Daraqutni, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and others simply grade him thiqa, which is the highest grade of reliability.

>Do you know how many children were born of Umm Kulthum with the marriage to Omar?<

Two: a boy and a girl.

> Who was this Umm Kulthum then?

The daughter of `Ali and Fatima, raghima anfuk.

>It would be appropriate to mention the other wives of Omar at this juncture, not only during his pagan days but also after embracing Islam. His first wife was Zainab sister of Uthman b. Mazun. His second wife was Qariba, daughter of Ibn Umait ul Makzami, and sister of the Holy Prophet's ( saw ) wife Umm Salma (May Allah be pleased with her). She was divorced in 6 A.H after the conclusion of the Truce of Hudaibiya. His third wife was Malaika, daughter of Jarul al Khuzai, who was also called Umm Kulthum, also she did not embrace Islam and was divorced in 6 A.H. On arrival at Medinah he married Jamila, daughter of Asim b. Thabit who was high placed Ansari and had fought at Badr. Jamila first name was Asia which the Holy Prophet (saw) changed to Jamila on her conversion to Islam. Omar divorced her also for some unknown reason. Omar also had other wives namely, Umm Hakim, daughter of al Harith b. Hisham al Makhzumi, Fukhia Yamania and Atika, daughter of Zaid b. Amr b. Nafil. Al Faruq - Volume II by Shibli Numani English Translation

See the list I gave.

>... There was another Umm Kulthum who had been his wife but Historians make a clear distinction between the two...

.... Yes, and they assert that he married both....

>Now I would like to pose the following questions: Who is this other Umm Kulthum that has been mentioned in the historical references? Is she the same Umm Kulthum that was divorced (Malaika the third wife) in 6 A.H?

According to al-Waqidi, yes.

> We also know that there were ' two ' Umm Kulthum's as Shibli Numani writes above, correct?

Definitely.

>Or is she the same Umm Kulthum that is the daughter of Abu Bakr? If yes then why doesn't the author point out so? What is the clear distinction then?

The distinction is clear as day, they were two different persons. Move on.

There were at least nine Companions named Umm Kulthum. Add the Umm Kulthums of Jahiliyya and those of the Tabi`in. The fact that it was a popular proper noun might be confusing to some.

>Here is the answer by from the historical documents: After the death of Abu Bakr a daughter was born to him that was named Umm Kulthum. Please refer to the following Sunni references to confirm this fact. [deleted]

This fact is undoubted and irrelevant.

>Please also do bear in mind that Abu Bakr died in the year 13 A.H as mentioned in the following Sunni book of reference. [deleted]

Ditto.

>This would imply that the original claim made by the first references I gave for the age of Umm Kulthum at the time of marriage of 4 or 5 years would stand correct.

Actually, you gave no references to that effect but conjectured the age yourself, which we established was completely inaccurate. However, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq might well have been 3 or 4 at the time.

>Since for Umm Kulthum binte Abu Bakr to be born in 13 A.H and married in 17 A.H would give her an age of 4 years. Since Aisha was the elder sister of Umm Kulthum binte Abu Bakr, for this reason Omar had sent for Umm Kulthum hand's to Aisha, and Aisha had accepted this. Tareekhe Khamees Volume 2 page 267 - Tareekhe Kamil Volume 3 page 21 - Al Istiab by Ibn Abdul Barr Volume 2 page 795

Except that the same sources state that Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr *adamantly rejected* `Umar's proposal, after which `A'isha supposedly consulted `Amr ibn al-`As who supposedly dissuaded `Umar from pursuing the matter and supposedly persuaded him to ask for `Ali's daughter instead.

However, the same sources all agree with the remainder of the sources to the fact that `Umar ibn al-Khattab married the daughter of `Ali and Fatima, Allah be well-pleased with all of them, as referenced above.

Nor is there any contradiction between the two incidents supposing the proposal to Abu Bakr’s daughter actually took place and fell through.

>This leaves us no doubt to believe that Umm Kulthum who was the daughter of Abu Bakr was married to Omar and NOT Umm Kulthum the daughter of Imam Ali (AS) !!!

I have not seen this incoherent claim earlier than in the pages of al-Anwar al-`Alawiyya wal-Asrar al-Murtadawiyya (p. 436) by an ignoramus named al-Shaykh Ja`far al-Naqdi (d. 1370) who had the gall to introduce this fantasy with the words: "I say, I saw in a book whose title I do not remember at the moment, that of the Imams of guidance said, upon them peace....." A lie, no transmission chain, and no source -- Shi`ism in a nutshell.

Rather, as all of the above Sunni and Shi`i sources already showed, there is no doubt that the wife of `Umar was Umm Kulthum the daughter of `Ali.

In addition:

When `Ali was struck down by Ibn Muljam, Umm Kulthum said: "Ma li wali-Salat al-ghadat, qutila zawji Amir al-mu'minin salata al-ghadah, wa-qutila abi Salata al-ghadah! - What does the morning prayer want with me? My husband the Commander of the believers was killed at the morning prayer and my father was killed at the morning prayer!"

Narrated from al-Asbagh al-Hanzali by Ibn `Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (42:555) cf. al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam (3:648-649) and Ibn Kathir, Bidaya (8:14).

Perhaps it was another `Ali, another Ibn Muljam, another Umm Kulthum, another Commander of the believers? Like they come up with another Tabari, another Ibn Qutayba......

> Khateeb in his Tar'eekh even mentions that she tells her father that he called me, kissed me and then grabbed my ankle and said, "tell you father that I am pleased!

Yes, at the time `Ali himself had sent her to `Umar, and that report does state that he had dressed her up. `Abd al-Razzaq's version of the same report in his Musannaf (6:163 #10353) specifies that `Ali had previously told `Umar: "I shall send her to you and, if you agree, then she is your wife and I have married her to you."

Narrated in al-Khatib's Tarikh Baghdad (6:182), entry on Ibrahim ibn Mihran ibn Rustum al-Marwazi, with a fair chain according to Dr. Khaldun al-Ahdab in his book Zawa'id Tarikh Baghdad (5:209-214 #901).

Allah knows best.
Hajj Gibril


Sayyida A'isha and Ahl al-Bayt


The Ummaahatul Momineen rizwanullah anhunna ajmaeen are part of Nabi Sallalho Alahi wasslam AhlayBait or not? What the Ulama of Ahlesunna wal jama say about that?


Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah:

Yes, the Mothers of the Believers are definitely part of the Ahl al- Bayt of the Prophet, upon him and them blessings and peace, as indicated by the sayings of Allah Most High in His Book according to the understanding of the Ulema of Tafsir.

Regarding the primary evidence of the Book of Allah addressing the wives of the Prophet () (Sura 33) as "Ahl al-Bayt":

28. O Prophet! Say unto THY WIVES: If ye desire the world's life and its adornment, come! I will content you and will release you with a fair release;

29. But if ye desire Allah and His messenger and the abode of the Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good among you an immense reward.

30. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.

31. And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision.

32. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Ye are not like any other women. If ye Keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech.

33. And stay in your [F] houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the Bedizenment of the Time of ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you [M/F], O FOLK OF THE HOUSEHOLD, and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough cleansing.

34. And bear in mind that which is recited in your [F] houses of the revelations of Allah and wisdom. Lo! Allah is Subtile, Aware.

It is clear that a switch from feminine to masculine with reference to The address to Ahl al-Bayt means

(1) the grammatical value of Ahl is Masculine and/or

(2) at least one man is included with the feminine group being addressed. The latter group would thus consist in the wives of the Prophet () *together* with the Mantle (`Itra): `Ali, Fatima, and their Children.

This is confirmed by the majority of the scholars of Qur'anic commentary.

In addition, it includes the zakât-forbidden Muttalibi families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and `Abbas; while Haqqi in Ruh al-Bayan added Salman al-Farisi according to the explicit hadith "Salmanu minnâ Ahl al-Bayt" as a proof that the freedman is part of a man's household, while Shaykh Muhyi al-Din Ibn `Arabi in his Futuhat (2:126-127) explained Ahl al-Bayt in the Salman hadith as referring to each Muslim that acquires the attributes of his Master i.e. the Prophet (). The latter sense is confirmed by the narrations stating: "Do not come to me with your lineages on the Day of Resurrection! My Family is every Godwary believer" and "Every Prophet has a Family and carriage; my Family and carriage are the Believer" (âlî wa `iddatî al-mu'min).

In conclusion, Ahl al-Bayt has many meanings according to context, and The context of 33:33 is: first the wives of the Prophet (), then the Wives together with the noble `Itra, and Allah knows best.

Al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (6:615): "Allah Most High quit using the feminine pronoun in his address and turned to the masculine by saying {liyudhhiba `ankum al-rijsa = to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural]}, so as to include both the women of his [i.e. the Prophet's] house and the men. Explanations have differed concerning the 'Ahl al-Bayt' but the most appropriate and correct is to say they are his children and wives; al-Hasan and al-Husayn being among them and `Ali being among them... due to his cohabitation with the daughter of the Prophet () and his close companionship with the Prophet ()."

Al-Baghawi, Ma`alim al-Tanzil (2:393): "In this verse [Hud 73] there is a proof that wives are part of Ahl al-Bayt. ... (3:428) He means by Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] the wives of the Prophet () because they are in his house and this is the narration of Sa`id ibn Jubayr from Ibn `Abbas."

Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): "The Shi`a's claim that verse 33:33 Is specific to Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with them - ... and their adducing it as proof of their immunity from sin (`ismat) and of the probative character of their consensus, is weak, Because restricting the meaning to them is not consistent with what precedes the verse and what follows it. The thread of speech means that they are part of the Ahl al-Bayt, not that others are not part of it also."

Al-Khazin, Lubab al-Ta'wil fi Ma`ani al-Tanzil (3:490): "They [Ahl al-Bayt] are the wives of the Prophet () because they are in his house." Then he mentions the other two explanations, namely, that they are the `Itra or that they are the families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and al-`Abbas.

Al-Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqa'iq al-Ta'wil (3:490): "There is in it [verse 33:33] a proof that his wives are part of the Folk of his Household (min ahli baytihi). He said 'from you [M] (`ankum)' because what is meant are both the men and women of his family (âl) as indicated by {wa yutahhirakum tathîran = and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough cleansing} >from the filth of sins."

Al-Tabari, Tafsir (22:7) [after citing reports explaining Ahl al-Bayt to mean the `Itra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #734): From `Ikrima concerning 33:33: "It is not as they claim, but the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet ()."

Al-Zamakhshari, Tafsir al-Kashshaf (2:212): "In this [33:33] there is an explicit proof that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)."

Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280) and al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (9:48-49): "Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata', al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet () are specifically meant [in 33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before in the verses. While Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada - it is also related from al-Kalbi - said that those meant are specifically `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the masculine, but this was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the verse [Hud 73].... A third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and the `Itra]... A number of the verifying authorities consider this the most correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others."

Al-Jalalayn: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] i.e. the wives of the Prophet ()."

Al-Sawi, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn: "It was said the verse [33:33] is comprehensive (`âmma) to mean the People of his House in the sense of his dwelling and these are his wives, and the People of his House in the sense of his lineage and these are his offspring."

Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (6:603): [after citing the narrations of the `Itra] Ibn Sa`d narrated from `Urwa that he said: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] means the wives of the Prophet () and it was revealed in the house of `A'isha."

Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi `Ilm al-Tafsir (6:378): "Then He showed their superiority over all women when He said: {You [feminine] are not like anyone [masculine] of the women} (33:32). Al-Zajjaj [the philologist] said: 'He did not say, "like any other woman" in the feminine, because the masculine form denotes a general exclusion of both male and female [human beings], one and all.'"

Al-Bukhari, Sahih: Hadith from Anas: The Prophet () visited `A'isha and, upon entering her house, said: "As-Salâmu `alaykum Ahl al-Bayt! wa rahmatullah." Whereupon she responded: "Wa `alayka as-Salam wa rahmatullah, how did you find your wives [ahlak]? May Allah bless you." Then he went around to see all of his wives and said to them exactly what he had said to `A'isha.

Al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-`Aziz (2:865): "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] meaning, the wives of the Prophet () and the men [and women] of the People of his House."

Al-Tha`alibi, Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (2:212): "This verse [Hud 73] shows that the wife of a man is part of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)... and 'the House' in Surat al-Ahzab [33:33] refers to the dwelling quarters [i.e. of the wives]."

Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (3:532) and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #733): From Ibn `Abbas: "This verse [33:33] was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet ()."

Ibn Jama`a, Ghurar al-Tibyan fi Ma lam Yusamma fi al-Qur'an (p. 421 #1201) and al-Suyuti in Mufhamat al-Aqran fi Mubhamat al-Qur'an: "Ahl al-Bayt in verse 33 are the Prophet and his wives. It was also said they are `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and it was also said they are those for whom sadaqa is unlawful [i.e. Âl `Aqil, Âl `Ali, Âl Ja`far, and Âl al-`Abbas]."

Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (2:197): "The phrasing of the Qur'an [in Surat al-Ahzab] shows that the wives are meant, that the verses were revealed concerning them, and that it is impossible to exclude them from the meaning of the verse. However, since others were to be included with them it was said with the masculine gender: {Allah desires to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural], O Folk of the Household}. It is then known that this desire comprises all the Folk of the Household - both male and female - as opposed to His saying {O wives of the Prophet} and it shows that `Ali and Fatima are more [specifically] deserving of this description ["Ahl al-Bayt"] than the wives."

Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:378-379): "It [the verse Hud 73] shows that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi) because the angels names Ibrahim's wife as being of the People of his House, and so has Allah Most High said when addressing the wives of the Prophet - Alah bless and greet him - when He said:... [33:33]. His wives are part of those meant because the beginning of the address concerns them."

Abu al-Su`ud, Irshad al-`Aql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Qur'an al-Karim (7:103):

"This [33:33], as you see, is an explicit verse and a radiant proof that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi), ruling once and for all the invalidity of the opinion of the Shi`is who narrow it to mean only Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with them. As for what they claim as their proof [hadith of the Mantle], it only shows that they [the Four] are part of Ahl al-Bayt, not that other than them are excluded."

WAllahu a`lam.

Hajj Gibril


What Is The Difference Between a Non-believer And A Disbeliever?  

"Further, it is wrong to attribute to Islam the teaching that the non-believer will abide in hell forever. Rather, the disbeliever will; while the non-believer is given another chance until he either believes or disbelieves." (From a previous answer). I'm not sure what the above means.


Wa `alaykum as-Salam, May Allah reward you for your work.

This is the reply:

Imam al-Suyuti said in his Fatwa titled "Methods of Those With Pure Belief Concerning the Parents of the Prophet upon him blessings and

Peace" (Masalik al-Hunafa' fi Walidayy al-Mustafa) in al-Hawi lil-Fatawa:

Ahmad, Ibn Rahawayh, Ibn Marduyah, and al-Bayhaqi in al-I`tiqad `ala Madhhab al-Salaf Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a who said it is sahih through Aswad ibn Sari` narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: Four will present excuses on the Day of Resurrection: The deaf one, the idiot, the senile old man, and the one who died in Fatra (the time between Prophets). The first will say, I didn't hear anything; the second, Islam came and street-children were throwing dung at me; the third, Islam came and I did not have my wits about me, and the fourth: my Lord, no Messenger came to me. Allah will Himself take their covenant to obey Him. They will be told to enter the fire (as a test). Those who obey will find it cool and safe, while those who refuse will be dragged to it. (Aswad, Abu Hurayra)

Al-Bazzar and al-Tirmidhi who graded it hasan narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The one who died in Fatra, the retard, and the infant will say respectively: No Book or Messenger reached me; You gave me no mind wherewith to understand good or evil; I did not have a chance to do anything. A fire will be presented to them and they will be told to enter it. Those who would have done well in life will obey and enter it (temporarily) while those who would have disobeyed in life will refuse. Allah will tell them: You disobey Me (seeing Me), so how could you obey My Messengers in My absence? (Abu Sa`id al-Khudri)

Al-Bazzar and Abu Ya`la narrated tha same as b) with the addition of the senile old man. Those who obey and enter the fire will go across it speedily. (Anas)

`Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hatim, with an authentic chain that meets the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim: The Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The one who died in Fatra, the idiot, the deaf, the mute, and the senile will be sent a messenger (at that time) who will say: Enter the fire. They will argue and say: How can it be when no messenger reached us? But woe to them! If they had entered it they would have found it cool and safe. Whoever accepts and obeys will enter it. Abu Hurayra added: Read, We never punish until We send a messenger? (17:15).

Al-Bazzar and al-Hakim, who graded it sahih by the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The people of Jahiliyya will come on the Day of Judgment carrying their idols on their backs. Allah will question them and they will say: Our Lord, You did not send us a Messenger and nothing from You reached us. If you had sent us one, we would have been your most obedient servants. Allah will say: Shall I test your obedience? And He will tell them to enter the fire and stay in it. They will enter it and return again, in fear of its fury and exhalations, and they will say: Our Lord, protect us from it. He will say: Didn't you promise to obey Me if I ordered you something? They will pledge again and enter it, only to come back and plead again. The Prophet said: Had they stayed in it the first time, they would have found it cool and safe. (Thawban)

Al-Tabarani and Abu Nu`aym narrated that the Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: The retard will come on the Day of Judgment together with the one who died in fatra and the infant etc. (same as(e)) They will keep coming back although the fire would not have hurt them, and Allah will say: I knew your actions from afore, so take them (O Fire).

Al-Tabari commented: Know that Ahl al-Sunna have one and all agreed on the fact that THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE OF RULINGS EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF REVEALED LAW AS OPPOSED TO THE PRODUCTIONS OF THE MIND, while opponents of the truth such as the Rafidah [Rejecters of the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs], the Karramiyyah [anthropomorphists], the Mu`tazila [rationalists] and others consider that the derivation of rulings have different bases, some revealed, some based on pure reasoning. As for us [Ahl al-Sunna], we say that NOTHING IS RULED AS OBLIGATORY BEFORE THE COMING OF A PROPHET.?

Imam Fakhr al-Din Razi said in the Mahsul: TO BE THANKFUL TO THE ONE CREATOR IS NOT A MIND-BASED OBLIGATION, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MU`TAZILAbSAY. IF IT WERE, THOSE WHO LEAVE THAT ACTION BEFORE A PROPHET IS SENT TO THEM WOULD BE PUNISHED, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE [citing 17:15].

Similarly those of his school [i.e. kalam] as well as Baydawi and Taj al-Din Subki said: WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHOM DA`WA DID NOT REACH DIE SAVED, AND THAT WHILE ALIVE THEY ARE NOT FOUGHT AGAINST UNTIL THEY REJECT A CLEAR CALL, AND THAT THEY ENJOY PROTECTION IN THEIR LIFE AND POSSESSIONS, etc.

Now this method of ruling (exemption from punishment), does it apply to all the people of the Jahiliyya? No, rather it applies specifically to those who have never been reached by the call of a previous Prophet. As for those who have been reached and who have rejected that previous Prophet, no one disputes that they are definitely (ruled to be) in the fire.

End of al-Suyuti's words, Allah be well-pleased with him, have mercy on him, and continue to benefit us through him, Amin.

Hajj Gibril

Related Questions
Fate of Non-Muslims in the Afterlife



Replies To Questions On Hinduism 

During a talk on Hinduism, the speaker raised these questions. Could you please reply to them?

1. Hinduism does not recommend a person to follow any book whether its 1400 or 2000 years old, instead it allows man to attain the supreme conscious within himself.

2. Hinduism has pluralism and tolerance, whereas Islam lacks tolerance and pluralism

3. Hinduism allows the man to attain the supreme good through the process of a multifaceted theory of truth (i.e. One in many realities) whereas Islam speaks of only one dimensional truth (i.e. ones of reality).

4. Hinduism offers no eternal hell whereas in Islam a non-believer will abide in hell for eternity.

5. Islam claims it only has ultimate truth and salvation is achieved only through it, while Hinduism acknowledges that everyone has the truth and anyone can achieve salvation.

6. Why should a person follow the dogmas and rigid doctrines of Islam?

7. Why should a person obey the Islamic God, who will barbecue the non-believer in hell for Eternity?

8. Theory of Karma frees man from the fear of the Jealous God of the Abrahamic faiths

9. The absolute monotheism of Islam is the root cause of intolerance whereas absolute monism (i.e. the Vedanta Philosophy of Shankara) is accommodating and accepts diversity


In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

A man-made philosophy can never match an iota of the goodness of the Divinely-revealed true Religion much less be superior to it, and all the sadhus (Hindu ascetics) and gurus (Hindu spiritual guides) of humankind put together cannot match an iota of the goodness of a single Divinely-appointed prophet.

Further, of all the historical dispensations of the true Religion, Islam alone holds true until the end of time while all others are abrogated and no longer efficacious as spiritual paths, nor incorrupt as Divine Self-disclosures. Hence the Prophet Muhammad, upon him blessings and peace, alone is to be followed until the end of time while all the others came and went; and he alone is to be universally followed while they came only for their own people including Jesus who came only for the Israelites.

Hence Judaism, Christianity, Vedantism (a sect of Hinduism), any and all other purported paths of enlightenment and religious laws can no longer help the spiritual wayfarer to reach the supreme good – which is knowledge of God – except insofar as a terminally-stationary plane can help the traveller fly to his destination: he is inside the plane, the plane is thought by those in it to be fuelled and ready, but it no longer takes off and never will again.

In reply to the above points:

1. Hinduism does not recommend a person to follow any book whether its 1400 or 2000 years old, instead it allows man to attain the supreme conscious within himself.

In the pursuit of the supreme good “The Book” is not followed because of itself nor is it worshipped nor is its worth defined by its antiquity but rather by its quality as the uncreated Divine Speech from cover to cover, unlike any other book on the face of the earth. If any volume contains a recipe for attaining supreme consciousness it is the Discourse of its Maker Himself. Nor can “the supreme conscious within himself” be other than knowledge of God because there is no higher consciousness for creatures. However, inferior stations might be reached through self-denial and meditation which might be erroneously thought to be the supreme conscious by those that possess an incomplete knowledge.

2. Hinduism has pluralism and tolerance, whereas Islam lacks tolerance and pluralism

Islam certainly has more tolerance and pluralism than Hinduism or any other state belief can prove, as shown by the brilliant lives of the non-Muslim citizenry of Muslim states such as Andalusia and Mughal India.

3. Hinduism allows man to attain the supreme good through the process of a multifaceted theory of truth (i.e. One in many realities) whereas Islam speaks of only one dimensional truth (i.e. ones of reality).

To claim that Islam lacks a “multifaceted theory of truth (i.e. One in many realities)” and “speaks of only one dimensional truth” only shows ignorance of the ninety-nine Names of God in Islam and the relationship of the Divine Attributes to creation.

4. Hinduism offers no eternal hell whereas in Islam a non-believer will abide in hell for eternity.

Hinduism certainly teaches belief in eternal hell in the possibility of enduring bad karma for evil people. Further, it is wrong to attribute to Islam the teaching that the non-believer will abide in hell forever. Rather, the disbeliever will; while the non-believer is given another chance until he either believes or disbelieves.

5. Islam claims it only has ultimate truth and salvation is achieved only through it, while Hinduism acknowledges that everyone has the truth and anyone can achieve salvation.

So then, both Islam and Hinduism agree that Islam has the truth and achieves salvation. Why are you still not Muslim?

6. Why should a person follow the dogmas and rigid doctrines of Islam?

Because in Islam dogmas and what you call rigid doctrines are enlightened and rational and lift up the human condition. Islam is easy in comparison to man-made rituals, such as the Hindu daubing of one’s living quarters with cow-dung or the awful and iniquitous caste system, or the hellish karma cycle that condemns man to a perpetual abyss short of superhuman near-infallibility.

7. Why should a person obey the Islamic God, who will barbecue the non-believer in hell for Eternity?

Because our God commands nothing but what a sane conscience recognizes as pure goodness and truth, to deny which is enough in itself, regardless of any other-worldly hell, to roast that conscience in the unbearable fire of remorse and on the barbed spits of self-betrayal.

8. The Theory of Karma frees man from the fear of the “Jealous God” of the Abrahamic faiths

See replies 4 and 6.

9. The absolute monotheism of Islam is the root cause of intolerance whereas absolute monism (i.e. the Vedanta Philosophy of Shankara) is accommodating and accepts diversity

Accommodation and diversity are nice accidents, not the goal of the pursuit of truth. However, if they are goals in Hinduism then they should lead every sincere Hindu to Islam eventually. As for the Muslim tradition, we already replied (paragraph 2) if you mean by them pluralism and tolerance. Otherwise, the retrospective gaze of the accomplished ego-less spiritual seeker is all-accepting and all-loving because it realizes or experiences that everything Allah does is good without exception and He knows best.

Hajj Gibril


Language of veneration is obligatory when talking about the Noble Companions of the Beloved Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)


Answer One:

Muslim friend and brother:

Regarding your question about some Ommayad Companions and Tabi`in, the terms of which I will not repeat, and which you titled "Wrong Silsila?" for a reason Allah knows and judges best.

What is the purpose of your question? I ask because it violates one of the fundamentals of Islamic Belief as you may read in Imam Abu Hanifa's Fiqh al-Akbar and Imam al-Tahawi's `Aqida:

"WE DO NOT MENTION THE COMPANIONS EXCEPT IN GOOD TERMS."

Learn it, practice it. Emblazon it in your heart with a gold frame and frequent festive, expensive fireworks.

That means we do not even say of them: So and so used to be a mushrik before Islam, So and so used to drink wine etc. because the truth of such statements is marred by a noticeable stench of disparagement. So much that it avails nothing to say RADYALLAHU `ANH and then mention such things in the same breath!

If you truly mean taraddi then know that Allah has no rida for contemnors of His Prophet's Companions whether the first or the last of them.

As Ibn al-Mubarak said - Allah have mercy on him and thank him:

"The dust in the nostrils of Mu`awiya's horse is better than `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz!"

Meaning, better than the fifth of the Khulafa' Rashidin, as Imam al-Shafi`i named `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz - Allah be well-pleased with them.

This is the language of TA`ZIM among Ahl al-Sunna. It is FARD because it is part of the Ta`zim of Allah Most High and His Prophet, upon him blessings and peace as well as upon his Family and ALL his Companions.

Abu `Urwa al-Zubayri said:

"We were with Malik ibn Anas when they mentioned a man who found fault with the Companions of the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Alihi wa-Sahbihi wa-Sallam. When he heard this, Malik recited the verse:

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. You (O Muhammad) see them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the Torah; and their likeness in the Gospel is like as sown corn that sends forth its shoot and strengthens it and rises firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the disbelievers with (the sight of) them. (48:29)!

"Then Malik said (after the mention of the kuffar in the verse): 'Whoever among the people has become one who harbors spite towards any of the Companions of the Prophet, this verse has hit him.'"

Narrated by Abu Nu`aym in the Hilya (6:327) and al-Khallal in al-Sunna (2:478) cf. `Iyad, al-Shifa (Fikr ed. 1:54).

 

My Second Question is regarding these ahadith Ahle Bayt is like Noah's Ark , Whosoever embarks it will succeed and whosoever is left behind has failed... Kindly tell me the source of this hadith and how sound it is...

[1] ‘Lo! Truly, the people of my House are, among you, similar to Nuh's ark. Whoever boards it is saved and whoever remains away from it perishes.’

Narrated from Abu Dharr by al-Hakim with a weak chain according to al-Suyuti in al-Jami` al-Saghir and by al-Tabarani in al-Awsat (5:306) and al-Tabari.

Another version states: ‘and whoever remains away from it drowns.’

Narrated from `Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr by al-Bazzar with a fair chain cf. al-Suyuti in al-Jami` al-Saghir because of Ibn Lahi`a [cf. Ibn Hajar, Mukhtasar Zawa'id Musnad al-Bazzar (2:333 §1965)]; from Ibn `Abbas by al-Quda`i in Musnad al-Shihab (2:273), Abu Nu`aym in the Hilya (1985 ed. 4:306), al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani with a very weak chain as indicated by al-Haythami in the Majma` (9:168) and his colleague Ibn Hajar in his Mukhtasar (2:334 §1967); and from Abu Dharr by Ahmad in Fada'il al-Sahaba (2:785), al-Hakim (3:151=1990 ed. 2:373, 3:163), al-Quda`i in Musnad al-Shihab (2:274), all with a similar weak chain according to al-Dhahabi, also by al-Tabarani, Abu Nu`aym in the Hilya (1985 ed. 4:306), and others.

[3] Another version adds to the latter: ‘And whoever fights against us at the end of time is like those who shall fight on the side of the Antichrist (Dajjal).’

Narrated from Abu Dharr by al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani, both with very weak chains as stated by al-Haythami (9:168) and Ibn Hajar in his Mukhtasar (2:333-334 §1966). Al-Quda`i in Musnad al-Shihab (2:273) narrates it with a similar chain.

[4] Another version adds instead: ‘And like the gate of Repentance (bab hitta) for the Israelites.’

Narrated from Abu Dharr by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir. Al-Suyuti cites it in Ihya' al-Mayt (p. 74 §26).

[5] Another version adds: ‘Whoever enters it is forgiven.’

Narrated from Abu Sa`id by al-Tabarani in al-Saghir and Awsat with weak chains containing several unknown narrators as stated by al-Haythami (9:168). Al-Suyuti cites it in Ihya' al-Mayt (p. 76 §27).

[6] `Ali said - Allah be well-pleased with him and ennoble his countenance: ‘Our similitude (i.e. the Family of the Prophet upon him and them blessings and peace) in this Community is none other than that of Nuh's ark and the Gate of Repentance for the Israelites.’

Narrated from `Abd Allah ibn al-Harith by Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannaf (6:372) and from Abu Dharr by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Bazzar in his Musnad with a very weak chain as indicated by al-Haytham (9:168).

Imam Malik spoke of the Sunna in similar terms as narrated from Ibn Wahb by al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (7:336) and al-Suyuti in Miftah al-Janna fil-I`tisam bil-Sunna (p. 162 §391).

Hajj Gibril



Jihad al-Nafs: Spiritual Striving


I have read that if you miss your salah you will receive 15 punishments...some people say that this is made up, is this true?


Wa `alaykum as-Salam:

There is no such specific evidence, but its gist can be inferred from a variety of evidences.

>another thing is that there's a hadtih regarding jihad an nafs: "The best type of jihaad is the jihaad of the one who strives against his own self (jihaad al-nafs) for the sake of Allaah." it doesn't state which hadith it is from. But some people also  say that this is fabricated? Is this correct???

Allah Most High said:

{And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself} (29:6). {As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers.} (29:69) This is a Meccan Sura and the two verses refer to Jihad al-Nafs.

There was no military jihad then. Without jihad of the nafs, fighting leads to Hellfire.

Allah Most High said:

{WA NAFSIN WA MAA SAWAAHA, FA-ALHAMAHA FUJURAHA WA TAQWAHA. QAD AFLAHA MAN ZAKAAHA WA QAD KHAABA MAN DAS-SAAHA}

"By the nafs and the proportion and order given to it, and its inspiration as to its wrong and its right; Truly he succeeds who purifies it, and he fails that corrupts it" (91:7-10). This is also a Meccan Sura.

Without purification, the nafs remains a "soul that enjoins evil" (al-nafs al-ammara bil-su') until it surrenders itself in total obedience to the call of animal passions and shaytan.

Allah Most High said:

{Have you seen the one who chooses for his god his own lust?} (25:43). {He followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if you attack him he pants with his tongue out and if you leave him he pants with his tongue out} (7:176). These are both also Meccan Suras.

About the person who controlled the passion of his ego Allah says: {But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust, Lo! The garden will be his home} (79:40-41). This is also a Meccan Sura.

The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr. Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period.

Further, the Prophet said, upon him peace:

1. << The mujahid is he who makes jihad against his nafs (ego) for the sake of obeying Allah. >>

- Ibn Hibban (#1624, 2519): Authentic;

- Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut (Commentary on Ibn Hibban): authentic;

- al-Hakim: sahih;

- `Iraqi confirms him;

- it is also in Tirmidhi, Ahmad, and Tabarani;

- Albani included it in the "Sahiha".

2. "`A'isha, Allah be well-pleased with her, asked:

'Messenger of Allah, we see jihad as the best of deeds, so shouldn't we join it?'  He replied, 'But the best jihad is a perfect Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah).'" (Sahih Al-Bukhari #2784)

3. On another occasion, a man asked: "Should I join the jihad?" The Prophet asked, upon him peace, "Do you have parents?" The man said yes. The Prophet said: "Then do jihad by serving them!"  (Sahih Al-Bukhari #5972)

4. Another man asked: "What kind of jihad is better?" The Prophet replied, upon him peace: "A word of truth spoken in front of an oppressive ruler."  (Sunan Al-Nasa'i #4209)

5. The Prophet also said, upon him peace: << The strong one is not the one who overcomes people, the strong one is he who overcomes his nafs ego]. >>

Al-Haythami declared it authentic in Majma` al-Zawa'id.

6. The Prophet, upon him peace, said to Abu Sa`id al-Khudri:

"Even if one strikes unbelievers and idolaters with his sword until it breaks, and he is *completely* dyed with their blood, the Rememberers of Allah are above him one degree."

The above authentic hadiths provide additional explicit evidence - especially 1 and 5 - refuting the lie that "all the evidence for jihad al-nafs is fabricated or weak."

Further:

Allah Most High is Tayyibun and accepts only the Tayyib. He declares in the Qur'an that He accepts acts of worship only if they are based on:

- purification of the self (qad aflaha man zakkaha)

- soundness of the heart (illa man ata Allaha bi-qalbin salim)

- an humble spirit (wa-innaha lakabiratun illa `alal khashi`in)

Purification of the Intention is the general heading for these. That is why the Imams (e.g. Bukhari, Shafi`i, Nawawi) always began their books of fiqh with the hadith of intention: "Actions count only according to intention."

An act outwardly considered worship but performed without pure intention is not considered worship, even fighting and dying in defense of Muslims. The Prophet, upon him peace, explicitly said of one such fighter that he was bound for the fire.

In fact, purification of intention is needed for all five pillars of Islam. Such purification is a fard `ayn and is required of all.

Thus those that claim there is no jihad al-nafs in Islam have imperiled their Islam and might make their shahada, salat, zakat, sawm, hajj, AND jihad worthless. Allah is our refuge from this.

Hajj Gibril


Is there any proof that the moon split in two for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)?

I would like to know if there are any proofs on Moon splitting in two halves? Currently I hear Muslim scholar explains splitting of the moon as "ploughing of moon by Man" (as Arabic translated refers). How correct is it?


Walaikum assalam wa rahmatullah,

The Qur'an mentions it in Surat al-Qamar.

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir and al-Kattani in Nazm al-Mutanathir (#264) include it among the mass-narrated narrations. The scholars said this miracle took place at Mina in Makkah about five years before the Holy Prophet's hijra to Madinah.

See also http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4482/moon.htm

Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani relates in one of his books a visit to one of the Christian courts in his time in which this topic was discussed. He said,

"On Sunday, the emperor sent for me saying, 'Part of what the emissary does is to attend the meal, and we would like you to reply come to our food and not to disparage all of our customs. I told his messenger, 'I am one of the Muslim scholars and I am not like the emissaries of the army and others. Those do not know what is obliged of them in these situations. The king knows that scholars have no excuse when they enter into these things knowingly. I fear that there will be pork on his table and things which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden the Muslims.' So the translator left and then came back and said, 'The king says to you, '"On my table and in my food there is nothing you would dislike. I have recommended what you will be brought. We do not consider you like other emissaries, you are greater. The pork you dislike will not be in your presence."' So I went and sat. Food was presented and I stretched out my hand but I suspected the food and did not eat any of it although I did not see on the table anything disliked. When the food was finished, the assembly was fumigated and perfumed.

"Then the Emperor asked, "What is your position about your claim of your Prophet's miracle in splitting of the moon?' I replied, 'It is sound in our view. The moon was split in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so that people saw it. Those who were present and looked or happened to look saw in that state.' The emperor asked, 'How is it that all people did not see it? I replied, 'Because people were not prepared and told that it would be split and that that would occur.' He said, 'There is a relationship and kinship between you and it in any case. The Greeks and other people do not know it. Only you saw it.' I said, 'There is a special relationship between you and this table [which was sent down to 'Isa and the Apostles]. You believe it rather than the Jews, Magians, Brahmans, and atheists, especially your neighbours. All of them deny this. You believe it rather than others.' The king was confused and said in his own language, 'Glory be to God!' So he ordered that a certain priest be summoned to speak to me.

"They brought a man who resembled a wolf and had straight fair hair. He sat and was told what the question was. He said, 'That which the Muslim says is necessary. It is the truth. I do not know of any other answer to it except what he said.' I asked him, 'Do you say that when there is an eclipse, all of the people of the earth see or only the people of the area where it occurs.' He replied, 'Only those in the area see it.' I said, 'So why do you deny the splitting of the moon when it occurs in one place where only the people of the area and those who are prepared to look at it see it? As for the one who turns from it, even if he is in the places where the moon is not seen, will not see it.' He said, 'It is as you said. No one will debate it. The discussion is about those who transmitted it. As for the attack by another aspect, it is not sound.'

"The emperor asked, 'How are the transmitters attacked?' The Christian said, 'If signs like these are true, then they must be transmitted by a large number to a large number so that knowledge of it would have reached us. If it had happened, we would necessarily have had knowledge of it. We do not have knowledge of it, and so that indicates that the report transmitted is false.' So the emperor turned to me and said, 'Your reply?' I said, 'What he holds about the descent of the table is what I hold about the splitting of the moon. It could be said, "If it were true that the table had been sent down, then it would be necessary that a large number transmit it, and there would be no Jew, Christian or pagan who did not know this by necessity. Since they do not know that by necessity, then the report is a lie.' The Christian, emperor and those present were speechless. The people dispersed on that."

- Hajj Gibril.

 




How Many Wives Will The Believers Have In Paradise?   

Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah:

The stronger hadiths indicate that the Believers shall have two wives, in Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurayra, from the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace: “Each man among them shall have two wives, the marrow of each of the two wives' shanks will be seen glimmering under the flesh, and there is not in all Paradise a single unmarried man.” They will have up to a hundred concubines in Paradise while the Shuhada’ shall have seventy-two wives, numbers indicating abundance rather than an exact quantity, and Allah knows best.

Some texts:

1. Al-Miqdam ibn Ma`dikarb said, Allah be well-pleased with him: The Messenger of Allah said, upon him blessings and peace:

“For the Shahid in the Divine presence there will be six qualities: [1] he will be forgiven from the first moment his blood is spilled; [2] he shall see his seat in Paradise and be protected against the punishment of the grave; [3] he shall be safe from the Greatest Terror [the rising of the dead]; [4] he shall be crowned with the diadem of dignity, one ruby of which is worth more than the entire world and its contents; [5] he shall be coupled with seventy-two spouses from the wide-eyed maidens of Paradise; and [6] he shall be granted to intercede for seventy of his relatives.” Ahmad and al-Tirmidhi narrated it and the latter said: “This is a fair, sound, single-chained hadith” (hasan sahih gharib).

2. Anas said, Allah be well-pleased with him: The Messenger of Allah said, upon him blessings and peace:

“The servant in Paradise shall be married with seventy wives.” Someone said, “Messenger of Allah, can he bear it?” He said: “He will be given strength for a hundred.” Abu Nu`aym in Sifat al-Janna, al-`Uqayli in the Du`afa’, and al-Bazzar in his Musnad.

2a. From Zayd ibn Arqam, Allah be well-pleased with him, when an incredulous Jew or Christian asked the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, “Are you claiming that a man will eat and drink in Paradise??” He replied: “Yes, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, and each of them will be given the strength of a hundred men in his eating, drinking, coitus, and pleasure.” Ahmad, al-Nasa’i in the Sunan al-Kubra, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn Hibban, and al-Hakim who declared it sahih.

Note that the Jews succeeded in “disappearing” all notion of a next life from their religion while the Christians succeeded in making it an ethereal abstraction. The Mu`tazila and other minority sects went that path also as do those who deny the reality of the punishment and reward of the grave, Hellfire, the Prophet’s Basin, the Bridge, the Balance, the Vision of Allah Most High etc.

3. Abu Sa`id al-Khudri said, Allah be well-pleased with him: The Messenger of Allah said, upon him blessings and peace:

“The humblest of the People of Paradise shall have eighty thousand servants and seventy-two wives. A palace of pearl and peridot(a: A pale green variety of chrysolite; used as a gemstone) and sapphire shall be erected for him as wide as the distance between al-Jabiya [a valley about 70 kms. East of Makka] and San`a’ [in Yemen].” Al-Tirmidhi and Ahmad narrated it.

4. Abu Hurayra said, Allah be well-pleased with him: The Messenger of Allah said, upon him blessings and peace:

“The humblest of the People of Paradise in rank shall have seven levels and as he will be on the sixth, below the seventh, he will have three hundred servants, every morning and evening three hundred dishes of gold shall be brought before him, every dish carrying something the other does not. He will taste pleasure as sharply with the first dish as he will with the last. He shall say, ‘My Lord! If you gave me permission, I would feed all the people of Paradise and water them from what I have and nothing should go missing from it.’ He will most certainly have seventy-two wives from the wide-eyed maidens of Paradise, the couch of only one of whom is as wide as a square mile on earth.” Ahmad narrated it in the Musnad.

5. Abu Umama said, Allah be well-pleased with him: The Messenger of Allah said, upon him blessings and peace:

“None is made to enter Paradise by Allah Most High except Allah Most High shall marry him to seventy-two wives, two of them from the wide-eyed maidens of Paradise and seventy of them his inheritance from the People of Hellfire, not one of them but her attraction never lags nor his arousal ever wanes.” Narrated by Ibn Majah, Ibn `Adi in the Kamil, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Ba`th wal-Nushur. Al-Suyuti marked its chain as “fair” (hasan) in al-Jami` al-Saghir (§7989).

6. Ibn Abi Awfa said, Allah be well-pleased with him: The Messenger of Allah said, upon him blessings and peace:

“Every man from the People of Paradise shall be married off to four thousand virgins, eight thousand slave-girls, and one hundred wide-eyed maidens of Paradise. They shall all meet him within every seven days. They shall say with their exquisite voices no creature has ever heard the like before: ‘We are the everlasting women, we never grow old, we are the refined women, we never grow sour, we are the ever-pleased women, we never anger, we are the sedentary ones, we never travel away, blessings to him who is for us and we are for him!’” Abu al-Shaykh in al-`Azama and al-Bayhaqi in al-Ba`th wal-Nushur.

7. Hatib ibn Abi Balta`a said, Allah be well-pleased with him: I heard the Messenger of Allah say, upon him blessings and peace:

“The believer in Paradise shall be married off to seventy-two women, seventy women of the hereafter and two women of the women of this world.” Narrated by Ibn al-Sakan in Ma`rifat al-Sahaba and Ibn `Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq.

8. Abu Hurayra said, Allah be well-pleased with him:

It was asked, “Messenger of Allah, do we reach our women in Paradise?” He replied, “A man will reach in a single day one hundred virgins.” Al-Tabarani in al-Saghir and al-Awsat, Abu Nu`aym in Sifat al-Janna, and al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad. Abu Dya’ al-Maqdisi declared it sahih according to Ibn al-Qayyim in Hadi al-Arwah and Ibn Kathir in al-Fitan wal-Malahim and so did Khaldun al-Ahdab in Zawa’id Tarikh Baghdad (§100).

9. Ibn `Abbas narrated something similar. Abu Ya`la in his Musnad with a good chain as indicated by al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa’id.

10. Jabir said, Allah be well-pleased with him: I heard the Messenger of Allah say, upon him blessings and peace:

“I entered Paradise and saw that most of its dwellers were women.” Narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Ba`th wal-Nushur and Ibn `Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq.

May Allah grant the highest levels in Paradise to this mercied Umma for the sake of the Most Honored Being in the Divine Presence, our liege-lord Muhammad, upon him and his Family and Companions blessings and peace.

Hajj Gibril


Takfir - Anathematizing  

Does any person (be it a regular person or a an 'alim) have the right to put any other person (who claims to be Muslim), out of faith?... if yes, is there anything in the the Quran or Sunnah that would prove it? and if no, then isn't this very act of calling a "Muslim claimee" out of faith, haram/sinful?


Wa `alaykum as-Salam:

This reply is in two parts, the first are some primary texts and the second some Hanafi fatwas on the issue.

Imam Abu al-Qasim ibn `Asakir narrates in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 373-) with his chains:

1. >From Khaddash ibn `Iyash:

We were sitting in a circle in al-Kufa when a man among us said: "We were sitting with Abu Hurayra whereupon a young man passed by. A man sitting with us said: 'This is a Kafir from among the people of the Fire.' Abu Hurayra rose and went to speak with the young man, asking him: 'Who are you?' He replied: 'Son-and-so, son of So-and-so.' Abu Hurayra said: 'Allah have mercy on your father!' The young man was looking around, so he asked him: 'What are you looking for?' He replied: 'I have not prayed yet.' Abu Hurayra said: 'So you pray?' The young man replied: 'Subhan Allah!' Abu Hurayra: 'And you say Subhan Allah?' He said: 'La Ilaha illAllah!!' Abu Hurayra: 'And you say La Ilaha illAllah?' The young man said: 'I would prefer not to leave Salat even if I were given all there is on the face of the earth.' Abu Hurayra said: 'Allah have mercy on you. Allah have mercy on you. Allah have mercy on you.' Then he came back to his seat in the circle and said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say: "Whoever bears testimony against a Muslim of which the latter is not deserving, let him prepare for his seat in the Fire."'"

2. >From `Ubayd Allah ibn `Umar, from Nafi`:

A man said to Ibn `Umar: "I have a neighbor who bears witness against me that I commit shirk." He replied: "Say: 'La Ilaha illAllah,' you will make him a liar."

3. >From Sawwar ibn Shabib al-A`raji:

I was sitting in Ibn `Umar's house when a man came and said: "O Ibn `Umar! There are groups of people bearing witness against us and attributing to us kufr and shirk." Ibn `Umar replied: "Woe to you! Did you not say: 'La Ilaha IllAllah'?!" Whereupon the entire household began to say La Ilaha IllAllah until the house was shaking.

4. >From al-A`mash, from Abu Sufyan:

We came to see Jabir ibn `Abd Allah who lived in Makkah and resided with the Banu Fihr. A man asked him: "Did you [the Companions] use to call anyone from the People of the Qibla [i.e. Muslims], 'Mushrik'?" He replied: "I seek refuge in Allah." The man continued: "Did you call anyone from them 'Kafir'?" He said: "No."

Fatwas...

as-salaam `alaykum,

Forwarded message:
----

The Fatwas: Look at the strictness with which we are warned not to pronounce someone a Kaafir. Hadrat Ibn Abideen says in his Radd al-Muhtar: "The Fatwa of Kufr is not given to a Muslim when his words have the possibility of being interpreted in better (Hasan) manner (not amounting to Kufr)".(vol 3/p.283)

But yet we should not shy away from the Fatwas; as Hazrat Junayd al-Baghdadi did in case of Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (NafaHaat - Hazrat Jami) and Izz Abd as-Salaam in case of Shaykh Muhiyuddeen ibn al-Arabi Qaddasallahu Asraarahum wa Nafa'na bihim wal Muslimeen. "And it is mentioned in some other place 'I have heard that Izz ad-Deen Abd as-Salaam disapproved (YuT'yinu) of Hazrat Ibn 'Arabi, and he called him a Zindeeq. Another day, one of his disciples told him, that he wished to see a Qutub [a grade of Waliyah]. He [Izz ad-Deen Abd as-Salaam] pointed towards Hazrat Ibn 'Arabi. The disciple [was perplexed] said, "but you disapprove of him", he replied "THAT is the ruling according to Sharia' (Dhahir) or something like that...." (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.294)

And there is consensus that the slanderer of the Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam is a Murtadd. "The ibarat of Shifa is as follows: Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir held that the consensus of the scholars on the matter that the slanderer of the Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam should be executed (killed). And others who said so are Malik ibn Anas, Layth, Ahmed ibn Is-Haaq and so is the Madh-hab of Shafiyi and it is also the ruling of Hazrat Abu Bakr RaDiyallahu 'Anhu, and neither is his Tawba (repentance) accepted. Others who said so are Abu Hanifa and his followers (AS-Haab) and Thawri and the Scholars of Kufa and Awzayee....." (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.294)

"And the summary of all this is that there is Ijma'a (consensus) that he who insults the Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam is a Kafir." (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.294)

Elsewhere he (Ibn Aabideen) says: "I say, and I have seen it in Kitaabul Kharaaj by Imam Yousuf that if a Muslim slanders the Messenger Sallallahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam or belies him (kadhdhaba) or finds fault ('aaba) or degrades (tanaqqasahu) be it known that he has disbelieved in Allah Ta'aalah and his wife goes out of his Nikah.. (Baanat minhu imra-atahu)" (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.291)

"It is clear from this that those who slander the Angels or any of the Prophets (Alayhimus Salaam), he is declared a Kafir. And this is that type of Kufr where he is left off if he does Tawba, else he is executed (killed)." (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.292)

"It is said in Bazzaziyyah from Khulasa that a Rafidi if he slanders the Shaykhayn [Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu 'Anhuma] and damns them (swears at them) he is a Kafir. If he only holds Hadrat Ali (RaDiyallahu 'Anhu) superior to him he is a heretic (Mubtadiy)." (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.293)

And Ibn Abideen goes on explaining and debating at length about this and other such statements whether the slanderer of Sahaba is Kafir or not. If he is declared a Murtadd; is he executed or left off after Tawba; whether his Tawba is accepted or not and so forth. He also gives a reference to a book by Mullah Ali Qari who is reported to have opposed the position held as quoted from Khulasa above in it.

Ibn Aabideen says, that even Khariji's are not considered as Kaafirs: "It is mentioned in Fath al-Qadeer that the Khawarij who hold that it is permissible to kill Muslims and take away their belongings (loot their maal) and call as Kafirs to the Sahaba, the ruling regarding them among majority of the scholars (Jamhoor) and the people of Hadeeth is that they are considered as rebels (Hukm of Bughat)" (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.293)

But yet Hadrat Ibn Abideen gives HIS verdict on page 294, vol.3: "Yes, there is no doubt in the kufr of he who caluminates (Qadhafa) Hadrat Aayisha RaDiyallahu Anha by accusing her of inchastity or refuses to believe that Hadrat Abu Bakr Siddiq was a Sahabi or believes in the deification (Uluuhiyyah) of Hadrat Ali RaDiyallahu Anhu or in that that Hadrat Jabrayeel Alayhis Salaam did a mistake in bringing the Wahy or the like, it is open KUFR obviously (Min al-Kufris SareeH) for it (such beliefs) opposes the Qur-aan." further he says: "And the Rafidi who slanders the Shaykhayn RaDiyallahu Anhuma but yet DOES NOT calumniate Hadrat Aayisha RaDiyallahu Anha by accusing her of inchastity (Qadhf) NOR disbelieves that Hadrat Siddiq RaDiyallahu Anhu was a Sahabi etc., then it is not kufr and nor is it without Tawba but it is Heresy and Innovation (Dalal, Bid-ah) and the rest of the matter shall be discussed in the first part on rebels, Insha Allah (Bab al-Bigha)"

Note here that Ibn Aabideen, is debating on the slander of Sahaba not the denial of the Khilafat of the Shaykhayn RaDiyallahu Anhuma.

He says on page 310/ vol.3 - Bab al-Baghi:"It is clear from Kitab al-Musaayirah by consensus on the Takfeer (Ruling that someone is Kafir) of he who opposes the Basics of Religion (Usuul al-Deen) and the Obligatory matters [Matters which are obligatory to be believed in ] (Darooriyyat). For example that the universe ('Aalam) is from eternity (Qadeem) [without a beginning] or in the refusal of the belief that people will be brought forth with their bodies on Judgement Day. (Hashr al-Ajsaad)"

But then, we also have fatwas from other luminaries many of which I quote on the authority of Imam Ahmed Rida. (These can be found in the tenth volume of Fataawa ar-RiDawiyyah: pages 516-527 / Vol.10)

It is said by Shaykh Barjandi in Sharah Niqaayah: "He who refuses to accept the Imamah of Hadrat Abu Bakr as-Siddiq RaDiyallahu 'Anhu is a Kafir. Some opine that he is a Mubtadiy (a heretic) and not a Kafir but the truth of the matter is (As-SaH) that he is a Kafir. And so also is the case of he who refuses to accept the Khilafah of Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu 'Anhu. And this is the most correct ruling."

Fataawa Bazzaziyyah states: "It is Wajib to rule someone as a Kafir (Yajibu Ikfaarihim) who calls Hadrat Uthman, Ali, TalHa, Zubayr and Sayyidah Aayisha RaDiyallahu 'Anhum Ajama'een"

It is stated in Bahr ar-Raayiq (page.131) : "It is the most correct ruling (in this matter; As-SaH) that it is KUFR to refuse to accept/deny the Imamah of Hadrat Abu Bakr RaDiyallahu 'Anhu and so also is the case in the refusal (of the Khilafah) of Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu 'Anhu"

It is stated in Majma' al-Anhur: "The RafiDi if he just holds Hadrat Ali RaDiyallahu 'Anhu superior to Hadrat Abu Bakr (FaDDala) RaDiyallahu 'Anhu, he is a heretic; and if he denies / refuses the Khilafah of Hadrat Siddiq RaDiyallahu 'Anhu, he is a Kafir"

It is said in Tahtaawi 'ala Maraaqil FalaaH : "If one denies in the Khilafat of Hadrat Abu Bakr RaDiyallahu 'Anhu he is declared as a Kafir. But the truth of the matter is that this applies to (those who deny the Khilafah of) Hadrat Umar and Uthman too (RaDiyallahu 'Anhuma)."

Shaykh Allamah ibn Wahbaan said in his NaDHm al-Faraaid :

Wa Man La'ana ash-Shaykhayni Aw Sabba Kaafirun Wa Man Qaala Fil Aydee al-Jawaarihi Akfaru! Wa SaHHaHa Bi Nakri Khilaafat il--- al-Ateeqi Wa Fil Farooqi Dhaalika ADH-haru!

He who damns the Shaykhayn - Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat Umar RaDiyallahu 'Anhuma - or slanders/insults them, he is a Kaafir; And he who said that (the meaning of) Hands (as mentioned in the Qur-aan: Yadullaha..) means physical hands (Jawaarihi; attributing Jism, body to Allah SubHanahu Ta'aalah) he is a bigger Kaafir! And it is also true that the refusal to accept the Khilafah of HaDrat Ateeq (Abu Bakr) and Hadrat Farooq (HaDrat Umar) RaDiyallahu 'Anhuma is also a Kaafir as is obvious. (Mistakes of I'yraab if any are mine)

It is stated in Sharah Aqaayid an-Nasafiyyah and Tareeqah al-Muhammadiyyah and Hadeeqah an-Nadiyyah that : "And to say that a Wali (saint/imam) is superior (AfDal) to a Nabi (prophet) is (manifest) Kufr."

Last but not least Ibn Aabideen himself says in his Uquud ad-Durriyyah (vol.1/page.92) when asked "what is the ruling (fatwa) regarding the RafiDis?" replies : "They are Kaafirs for they have collected (Jama'uu) different kinds of Kufr (in their beliefs) and he who withholds (tawaqqafa) pronouncing the ruling that they are Kaafirs is himself a Kaafir" Qadi Iyad says in his Shifa:

"Wa lihaadha nukaffiru man lam Yukaffiru man kaana bighayri millatil Muslimeena minal milal aw waqafa feehim aw shakka aw SaHHaHa madh-habihim wa in ADH-hara ma'a dhaalika al-Islamu wa Iytiqaaduhu, wa'ataqada ibTilaali kullu madh-habin siwaahu fahuwa Kaafirun bi-IDH-hari maa A-DH-hara min Khilafin dhaalik"

And therefore we term him a Kafir who does not consider them khuffar who are not in the Millah (creed) of Islam; or deliberated in saying so or doubted in this or said 'true/right' about their Madhhab even though such a person may believe in all Islamic beliefs and the falsehood of all other beliefs, yet he is a Kaafir for the fact that he did the opposite (of what he believed).

It is said in Fataawa Bazzaziyyah, Durar wa Ghurar, Fataawa Khayriyyah, Durr al-Mukhtar and Majma' al-Anhur : "He who doubted in such a person (he, whose Kufr is obvious) and the fact that such a person would be tormented (Adhaabihi) has committed Kufr."
--
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad


Belief in the Descent of `Isa (Jesus)

I have learned that Hazrat Ees’a (as) will return from the heavens before Yaum’al-Qyamat [...] but I know a Muslim who will not believe in it. In Ahadith we find several which say that ibn Maryam (as) will return. This friend of mine interprets a verse from the Holy Quran kind of special. This verse is "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to wit `Worship Allah my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them and Thou art a Witness to all things."5:117 She says that this verse means that Jesus (as) will not know that the Christians believe in him as God’s son (nauzubillah). She continues and accuses me for shirk, and calls me kafir because I tell her that there is very many Muslims who think that ibn Maryam (as) will return. In Yusuf Ali’s interpretation notes I read that he wrote: “There is difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafa'u) to himself. One school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in the heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view.” How can I as her Muslim brother explain her that she can’t accuse other Muslims for being kafir, because I said: “ibn Maryam (as) will insha’Allah return”? [...] She says that a Muslim does not believe that ibn Maryam (as) will return.


Wa `alaykum as-Salam:

A Muslim of pure belief believes that Isa ibn Maryam, upon our Prophet and upon both of them peace, will certainly return. The proofs for this are mutawatir - mass-transmitted - and to reject them is the mark of misguidance and worse. In addition there are allusive proofs of his return in the Qur'an, among them:

{And He (the son of Mary) shall most certainly be a sign of the Last Hour. Have no doubt about it!} (43:61).

{There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them} (4:159).

Your friend is a person of foul innovation. In addition, she commits kufr in accusing a Muslim of kufr for believing something which does not justify such a charge but rather is the truth in which she herself is obliged to believe. If she is prone to commit such a major sin and will not repent, on top of holding deviant views, then it is best to get far away from such an evil friend even if she pleases you.

The reasoning that `Isa, upon him peace, did not know that Christians would commit polytheism after him is unrelated to his descent from heaven at the end of times. Muslims believe that Allah Most High spares His Prophets knowledge of the kufr of their followers after they leave this life, even as He may make them aware of all their other states. The good and bad deeds of this Umma are shown to the Prophet, upon him peace, in Barzakh, but not the apostasy of individuals so as not to harm him.

The difference of opinion whether `Isa died or was raised to the heaven alive and in the body, is also unrelated to his descent at the end of time.

Regardless of everything else Jesus WILL descend from the heaven. He will destroy the cross and kill the swine. The sincere among the Jews and Christians will enter Islam at his hand while the insincere will deny him and join the Dajjal - the Arch-Liar. He will renew the Shari`a of our Prophet Muhammad and kill the Dajjal. He will marry and have children and die together with the last band of believers left on earth, after which the Hour will rise. This is our Sunni faith and whoever wishes to disbelieve let them disbelieve.

Pure Muslim belief in relation to deviant pseudo-Muslim belief in the time we live in, is dearer and rarer than Islam itself in relation to other creeds. Cling to the faith of the pious predecessors and leave all the rest as so much smoke and whisperings.

Hajj Gibril


Pornography and the Shariah: Why must things be banned in society?


Dear Sir, I'm a South African working in London and have the pleasure of working with a Muslim colleague. We've been discussing various issues about religion and Islam. My view is that people should be free to choose their own way of life, the only condition being that they do not hurt or offend anyone else.

In our discussion, the topic of pornography came up and my colleague says ideally pornography should be banned. I personally find all porn repulsive but nonetheless feel that people should be allowed to make their own decisions and suffer their own consequences. If people choose to watch porn is it not their decision to make? How does it affect anyone else, as no one is forcing porn actors to do it, they choose to defile themselves. By banning things does this not remove a persons freedom of choice? I believe religion should be an individual choice and that no law or society should `police' people's lives. According to my colleague, Shariah law says pornography should be banned, and as I've said this prevents people making their own choice. Surely faith should be strong enough that things need not be banned but because people choose not to indulge in them because faith makes them strong enough to resist. I am not very religious but choose to have nothing to do with porn because I find it revolting. By having to resort to banning things is Islam not implying that it's lost the battle of hearts and therefore has to resort to policing in order to help society?

In addition, should Shariah law apply to everybody (not just with respect to porn, but also with things such as alcohol consumption, female dress code, etc.) including non-Muslims like myself?


Dear Sir,

Muslims and the Shari`a agree with you that "people should be allowed to make their own decisions and suffer their own consequences." This is, after all, the basis of freewill + accountability pre-conditional to our moral system together with that of the other two Abrahamic dispensations. And yet the West rightly does not allow individuals to make their own decisions regarding the life and death of oneself and others. Suicide and murder are illegal because they are deemed unacceptable infringements upon the rights of others even if they can be conceived as (misguided) exercises of individual rights. As Aristotle said in the beginning of his book of Ethics, knowing how to commit a crime well is not considered a science at all.

Islam possesses the most heightened sense of this balance between the rights of the individual and those of the society. Thus the domain in which the individual roams free and is accountable, does not encroach upon the domain of the societal mores with its own criteria of decency, order, beauty, mental health, and so forth. So if it is good for one or more individuals to cut down trees and  build tall cement structures, malls, and parking lots, for example, society also has the right to demand green space, playgrounds, and  healthy building material for people to live in, even if it curtails those individuals' right to profit or, as you eloquently said, "the only condition being that they do not hurt or offend anyone else."

It is the same with the control of the high-profit industries whose sole benefit is to indulge the lusts: alcohol and tobacco, drugs, gambling and prostitution, pornography. We may notice that (i) they all go together and (ii) are run mostly by the criminal element of  society known as "organized crime" families. With regard to tobacco,  Muslim authorities and societies have by and large thrown in the  towel. It is truly a pandemic running amok in the Muslim world  despite the valiant efforts of some of the Ulema to prohibit it.  With regard to alcohol, drugs and gambling the prohibition is much stronger as it has the word of the Qur'an as its basis.

With regard to prostitution it is widespread but kept out of sight except in certain Gulf mini-States whose rulers fear not Allah nor the Day of Judgment, and whose subjects are like cattle or dumber.

With regard to pornography it is an on-going battle in the Muslim world slavishly panting after its "Sexual Revolution" beginnings  in the West in the Sixties, which culminated with the Supreme Court decisions in the US in the Nineties first banning, then giving up  on banning pornography in the name of individual liberties - and damning the liberties of society and the family to hell.

We may call the nature of control a lid of public decency. As  long as these activities remain clandestine they remain shameful but if they are allowed to mix with broad daylight all shame is lost. For example, the Sultanate of Brunei has the words "Death for all drug traffickers under Brunei Law" written on every immigration landing form but turns a blind eye to cross-dressing on the street corners of its capital at night, as I was stupefied to find out during a late night drive through Bandar Seri Begawan.

The battle is not without hope in the Islamic world because there is still a deep-seated sense of shame and decency in individuals and their societies. There is also a deep-seated sense in most those countries if not all of them, that Religion is not a matter of individual choice and practice but a lifestyle that englobes the collective in all possible senses of the word: psychologically, historically, culturally, politically, legally. It is, to say the least, difficult for a Westerner to understand this unless he has lived in the East for a while and drunk in those values that  otherwise remain an anachronism if he is kind, and an affront to  his modernity if he were, like his modernity, born yesterday.

As to the important Question, "should Sharia law apply to everybody (not just with respect to porn, but also with things such as alcohol consumption, female dress code, etc.) including non-Muslims like  myself," as a theoretical Question the answer is yes, the Shari`a is ideally quite Spartan with respect to those issues, somewhat like Singapore or Switzerland with respect to public cleanliness, traffic, and other issues of societal rights. However, in practice, these things are treated with leeway in all Muslim countries including the most puritanical, as long as one indulges them out of sight and does not undress, imbibe, or fornicate ostensively.

Otherwise, it is really not an infringement on individual liberty nor a defeat of the battle for hearts to expect the man in the street to respect the public norms of decency in every culture. As you said, "people should be free to choose their own way of life, the only  condition being that they do not hurt or offend anyone else." The hubris of globalization is to try by all means to violat