Ch 10: Inside Knowledge

Next morning a maid-servant brought a note from Michael to Isabella
which said : Daughter Isabella ! I haveto talk to you on something;
you should come to me at once leaving all other work. I am waiting for
you. Isabella realised that it was in continuation of the previous
day's plan. Informing her mother she left for Michael's house, where
Peter and another well-known monk, highly popular and famous
throughout Spain for his ascetic life, were also present. Michael's
daughter Mirano hurriedly dispatched a messenger to call her other
friends and very soon all the friends collected there. Michael then
addressed Isabella.
Michael: Yesterday, you put off the matter by giving ambiguous answers
to our questions. Today I want to talk to you very frankly. Now say,
will youanswer my questions correctly?
Isabella: In the first place,I am not so able as to respond to your
questions and, secondly, there is no such matter asto need
interrogation. But you may ask and I will try to answer according to
my understanding.
Michael: Have you become a Muslim ?
Isabella: I answered this question yesterday and do not want to say
anything more.
Michael: Well, now say if you believe in the holy divinity and in
Jesus Christ being "God" with his necessary existence.
Isabella: I do believe God as God, not any man as God.
Michael: So it is clear thatyou do not believe in the divinity of Lord
Jesus Christ. Now what is left there in your being a confirmed Muslim?
Isabella: I mean that there is no proof anywhere in the Bible that
Jesus was God.
Michael: For God's sake, do not calumniate the Holy Bible. Have you
not read in the Bible that he was the "Son of God"?
Isabella: There have beenother "sons" of God also and so they should
also be called "God".
Michael: Never. Except Lord Jesus Christ, no other man was a true "son" of God.
Isabella (holding the Bible in her hand): Well, please explain to me
the meaning of this passage :"The Jews again lifted stones to strike
Christ who told them: I have shown you many good things from the
father; on which of these you are stoning me? The Jewssaid: We are not
stoning you on good acts but on your infidelity that beinga man you
call yourself God. Christ said: Does not your creed say that you are
God ? When it calls those God to whom divine revelations came, then
the person whom God sent to the world after glorifying him, howcan you
say that he talks infidelity. This is why I said that I am son of
God." [ Jonah, chapter 1, verses 31-36,]
Now the question is whatprevious Apostles have been called God?
Christians believe that these predecessors were called God
metaphorically and in love. I say the same. JesusChrist is also called
God inthe metaphorical sense and in love, and not because he was
really God as alleged.
Michael: Accursed girl! you have become very talkative. Having studied
from me you venture to ask the meaning of theseverses from me as if we
are ignorant and you arelearned. But just see, each of the previous
Prophets could not be God in the real sense, because they were not
innocent while our Lord Jesus Christ was sinless and innocent and
therefore he was also God.
Isabella: We are not talking of sin or innocence. The question is that
Jesus Christ called himself God as other Prophets were called. If
Jesus Christ was really God, then we have to admit that every other
Prophet was also God. Besides, in these verses Jesus Christ was
replying to the accusations of the Jews. If he were really the son of
God, he would have accepted the accusations of Jews.
Michael: Oh! How great! you are such a great scholar that you slight
us.It is now clear that you have been well grounded. If Jesus Christ
was not God but just a man, how could he constitute atonement for our
sins. And is any man free from sins?
Isabella: I do not understand how you concoct the rule that no one
among men can be innocent, although even in the Bible a man says about
Malik Sidq Shalem :"He without father, without mother, without
genealogy. Neither is there beginning of his life nor its end. but
just as kin to the son of God." [ Ecclesiaites, chapter 7, verse 3].
Then in the Bible it is written about Zacharias and his wife: "And
they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments
and ordinances of the Lord blameless." [Luke, chapter 1, verse 6.]
So it is clear that Malik Sidq Shalem, Zacharias and his wife were
certainly innocent, otherwise the words "just as kin to God" and
"blameless" would be meaningless. So innocence of Christ is not unique
but he was innocent like other innocent men. As to the case of
Atonement this is also not proved from the Bible, for no man can take
the load of other man's sins and least of alltaking the load of men's
sins on his head and dying on the cross. In fact, Jesus has declared
inthe Bible that salvation will be on the basis of acts and not by
atonement, as it is written: "For the Son of man shall come in the
glory of his Father, with his angels; then he shall reward every man
according to his works"[Matthew, chapter 16, verse 27.]; "And, behold,
one came and said unto him: Good what good thing shall I do, that I
may have eternal life. Christ said:… If thou wilt enter into life keep
the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do
no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou
shalt not bear false-witness." [Ibid., chapter 19. verses 1618. t 2 ].
It is proved from these verses that salvation is by acts alone.Christ
did not tell the man that he did not needdo anything as he
(Christ)would be atonement for him.
Michael: Girl, you seem tohave come to teach me. Do you not trust me?
I amyour teacher. Whatever I say you must believe. By your own wisdom
you cannot comprehend the delicate problems of religious law. The
question of atonement comes later. First the question of the divinity
of Jesus Christ should be settled. See Christ was taken to heaven in
life which Muslims also believe. Is it not the proof of his divinity?
Jesus Christ exhibited great miracles . He revived the dead, gave
sight to the blind. Do not these things prove his divinity? First you
must believe or reject divinity of the Lord and then talk of other
things.
Isabella: It was you who raised the question of Atonement. So I began
todiscuss it. If Jesus Christ can be God by being raised to heaven
alive, then Eli should also be God as he was also, according to the
Bible, raised alive to heaven [Kings, chapter 14, verse 12]. As to the
Christ reviving the dead and giving sight to the blind, that also does
not prove his divinity as other Prophets had also demonstrated
miracles asis clearly mentioned in the Bible. If these miracles can
make anyone God, then other Prophets were also God.
Peter: See, how this girl confuses us! O, foolish girl! The miracles
shown by other Prophets were not by their own power but by the power
of God, while Christ did miracles by his own power, whichproves that
he was God.
Isabella: In the first place miracles are not proofs about
prophethood, to say the least of divinity. That according to the
Christian creed it is not necessary that anyone who does miracles is a
prophet and when he cannot be even a prophet, how can he be God? Jesus
has said: "… I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I
do shall he do also; and greater work than these shall he do." [2
Kings, chapter 2, verse 12.]
As to your claim that the miracles of Christ were byhis own authority
while those of others they were by constraint, this isalso wrong for
the Bible proves that not only in performing miracles but in
everything else Jesus was as powerless as other Prophets. And whenever
Jesus performed any miracle he first prayed for the help of God. In
his miracle of bread and fish he sought the help of God and at another
placehe said to the Disciples that taking out of souls depended on
prayer. Christ revived a dead by praying to God.[See Matthew, 12 : 16
; Mark. 9: 29 ; Jonab, 11 : 41]
Isabella – A girl of Islamic Spain

--


- - - - -

And Allah Knows the Best!

- - - - -

Published by :->
M NajimudeeN Bsc- INDIA

- - - - - - -

Is it permissible to say “So and so is my benefactor (wali ni‘mati)”?

Is it permissible to say "So and so is my benefactor (wali ni'mati)"?
Praise be to Allah.
The basic principle is that the One who is to be described as wali
an-ni'mah (benefactor or source of blessings) is Allah, may He be
exalted,Who bestows His abundant blessings, both visible and
invisible, upon His slave.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
All goodness is to be attributed to Allah; it is in His hands, by His
leaveand from Him. He is the benefactor and source of the individual's
blessings, as He is the One Who initiated them without anyone being
entitled to them; He bestows them upon him,even though the individual
may be displeasing Him by his turning away from Him and his negligence
and sin. So Allah deserves all praise and thanks, and the slave
deserves blame, criticism and shame.
End quote from al-Fawaa'id, p. 113.
But that does not prevent any of His slaves whom He has blessed from
being a benefactor or source of blessings to another of His slaves.
Yetit must be noted that there is a huge difference between the true
blessings of Allah to all of His slaves, as He is the Creator of those
blessings and the One Who divides provision among them and causes
provision to come down from His stores, and the blessings that some of
His slaves bestow upon others, from what Allah has given to them and
caused them to possess and put under their control. They are no more
than a means of directing the blessings of Allah to other slaves of
Allah. The blessings bestowed by the Creator are unlimited, whereas
the blessings bestowed by people are limited to what Allah has given
to them.
Giving the name "benefactor" or"source of blessings" (wali an-ni'mah)
to the one who does a favour is something that is knownin Arabic
language and in Islam. The closest thing to that and the most
well-known example is the use of this name for a master who has
manumitted a slave.
Al-Bayhaqi (21966) narrated that Huzayl ibn Shurahbeel said: A man
came to 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood and said: I manumitted a slave of mine
and made him a saa'ibah (a freed slave with no wala' connection to
anyone), then he died and left behind some wealth. 'Abdullah said: The
people of Islam did not free slaves as saa'ibah; rather the people of
the Jaahiliyyah used to do that. You are his heir and his benefactor
or the source of his blessings (wali ni'matihi). If you are not
comfortable with that, then show it to us and we will put it in the
bayt al-maal (the treasury of the Muslims)."
This report was originally narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6753
Al-Qaadi 'Iyaad (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Mashaariq (2/18):
The "benefactor" or "source of blessing" (wali an-ni'mah) is the one
who manumits a slave. End quote.
Al-Jassaas (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Ahkaam al-Qur'aan (2/231):
(It refers to) the master who has manumitted a slave, because he is
the source of the favour of manumission. Hence he is called "source of
blessing" or "benefactor" (wali an-ni'mah). End quote.
He also (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
He (the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) made the
rights of the "benefactor" or "source of blessing" (wali an-ni mah,
i.e., the master who manumits a slave) like the rights of the father.
The evidence for that is the hadeeth: "No son can repay his father
unless he finds him enslaved and buys him and manumits him." (Narrated
by Muslim, 1510). So he described the ransom of the father as
equivalent to his rights (over his son), andequal to his favours to
his son.
End quote from Ahkaam al-Qur'aan, 1/169
See also: Sharh Muntaha al-Iraadaat, 2/500; Kashshaaf al-Qinaa',
4/405; Ikhtilaaf al-A'immah al-'Ulama', 2/85; Anees al-Fuqaha', p. 98;
al-Fawaakih ad-Dawaani, 2/250
In linguistic terms:
Ibn Manzoor (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The master who is the "benefactor" or "source of blessings" is the one
who manumits the slave i.e., he blesses his slave by manumitting him.
End quote from Lisaan al-'Arab, 15/405
See also: Tahdheeb al-Lughah, 5/205; al-Misbaah al-Muneer, 2/614; Taaj
al-'Uroos, 40/243.
Based on that, there seems to be no reason not to use this phrase to
refer to some people, bearing in mind the difference mentioned above.
However there is the fear that this matter may involve some going to
extremes and exaggerating about people. In that case it should not be
used for that reason, not becausea person cannot be a source of
blessing to another.
And Allah knows best.

Delaying stoning the Jamaraat during the days of Tashreeq for a necessary reason

I stoned the Jamaraat onthe second night at 10 p.m., but I had no
choicein the matter. Is there any sin on me in that or not? There were
two women and a man with me and they were all sick.
Praise be to Allaah.
Whoever delays stoning the Jamaraat on the eleventh day of
Dhu'l-Hijjah until night comes – and delays it for a legitimate shar'i
reason – and stones the Jamaraat at night, does not have to do
anything to expiate for that.
Similarly if a person delays the Ramiy (stoning of the Jamaraat) on
the twelfthday and does it at night, that is acceptable and there is
no sin on him, but he has to spend that night in Mina and do theRamiy
on the thirteenth day after noon, because he did not do it on the
twelfth day before the sun set. But to be on the safe side he should
try todo the Ramiy during the day in the future.
And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and
peace upon our Prophet Muhammad.

--


- - - - -

And Allah Knows the Best!

- - - - -

Published by :->
M NajimudeeN Bsc- INDIA

- - - - - - -

Meaning of the verse “Whoever hastens to leave in two days”

My question is about hastening to leave during Hajj. Why does the one
who hastens leave depart on the twelfth (of Dhu'l-Hijjah) and the one
who stays departs on the thirteenth, when Allaah says "Whoever hastens
to leave in two days" [al-Baqarah 2:203]? Wouldn't that mean that the
one who hastens would leave on the eleventh?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The meaning of the verse is one who hastensto leave within two daysof
the days of al-Tashreeq, which are the eleventh, twelfth and
thirteenth. So hastening to leave means leaving on the twelfth.
Perhaps the questioner assumed thatthat first day was the day of Eid,
but this is incorrect.
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
I would like to alert our brother pilgrims to this mistake, because
many pilgrims assume that what is meant by the verse "Whoever hastens
to leave in two days" [al-Baqarah 2:203 – interpretation of the
meaning] is leaving on the eleventh, so they count the two days as the
day of Eid and the eleventh of Dhu'l-Hijjah. But this is not the case,
rather this is a misunderstanding, because Allaah says (interpretation
of the meaning):
"And remember Allaah during the appointed Days. But whosoever hastens
to leave in two days, there is no sin on him"
[al-Baqarah 2:203]
The appointed days are the days of al-Tashreeq, and the first of the
days of al-Tashreeq is the eleventh. Based on this, the phrase
"whoever hastens to leave in two days" means in two daysof the days of
al-Tashreeq, which is thetwelfth. So people should make sure that they
understand this matter correctly, so that they will not make mistakes.

--


- - - - -

And Allah Knows the Best!

- - - - -

Published by :->
M NajimudeeN Bsc- INDIA

- - - - - - -