Ma’ Salama

Question:

After request by the United States of America, Pakistan is thinking of sending its troops to Iraq to assist the U.S. army. Is it permissible for the Government of Pakistan to send its troops to Iraq to assist the U.S. army?

Answer:

In such prevalent situation when America has oppressively captured Iraq, it is impermissible for Pakistan or any other Muslim country to send its troops to assist the American military. The following reasons make this matter crystal clear:

1- By attacking Iraq, the United States has displayed immense tyranny and oppression and has violated not only Islamic laws but all sound laws and ethics. Sending forces on its request to Iraq is the same as agreeing to its tyrannical attack, and there is no need to present any evidence for it being haram.

2- After establishing its dominancy in Iraq, the United States is asking various countries to send their forces in order to makes its occupancy permanent. From a Shari’i viewpoint the situation is as such that if any non-Muslim nation attacks a Muslim nation, when necessary, it is wajib on all Muslims to defend it. And if a Non-Muslim nation occupies a Muslim country, then it is wajib on all the Muslim governments to end its occupation as soon as possible and to achieve that they should use all possible means. It is obvious that instead of bringing an end to such a tyrannical occupation, making it stronger is, without question, haram and impermissible.

3- Even after occupying Iraq and oppressing Iraq with its military might, Iraqi Muslims are continuously opposing and retaliating against the American occupancy and they have full rights to do such. At such a time, it is fardh (obligatory) on the entire Muslim world to help and fully back these Iraqi Muslims. In this scenario, sending troops under U.S. command will result in Muslim forces being made to face these Muslims. This claim that the Pakistani forces are being called to Iraq to ensure peace is admittance that they will be made to clash against Iraqi Muslims who are striving against the U.S. occupancy. To help the Non-Muslim usurpers against Muslims is clearly against the clear texts of Qur’an and Sunnah. No Muslim can have any doubts about this being haram. Qur’an clearly states:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا عَدُوِّي وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَاء تُلْقُونَ إِلَيْهِم بِالْمَوَدَّةِ وَقَدْ كَفَرُوا بِمَا جَاءكُم مِّنَ الْحَقِّ

O you who believe, do not take My enemies and your enemies for friends, expressing love with them, while they have rejected the Truth that has come to you – Surah Mumtahinah 60:1

The incident which is referred to in the verse is that Hadhrat Hatib ibn Abi Balta’a رضی اللہ عنہ  had only done this much that in hope that his relatives in Makkah would be shown leniency by the pagans of Makkah, he informed the pagans that the Muslims were preparing to attack them. (Sahih Bukhari)

Even though the Muslims did not face any significant loss because of this, the Qur’an strictly warns against such actions (Tafsir Ibn Kathir v.4 p.345) and made it a law that any cooperation and friendship with non-Muslim forces which are against the interest of the Muslims is not permissible. In the same Surah mentioned above, Allah (swt) has further clarified this matter:

لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

إِنَّمَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ وَظَاهَرُوا عَلَى إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَن تَوَلَّوْهُمْ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

Allah does not forbid you as regards those who did not fight you on account of faith, and did not expel you from your homes, that you do good to them, and deal justly with them. Surely Allah loves those who maintain justice.

Allah forbids you only about those who fought you on account of faith, and expelled you from your homes, and helped (others) in expelling you, that you have friendship with them. Those who develop friendship with them are the wrongdoers. – Surah Mumtahinah 60:8-9

In these verses it is clearly stated that it is haram to help and assist such non-Muslims who wage war against Muslims and destroy them and such who helped these non-Muslims. America has targeted thousands of Muslims with its barbaric and savage ways and has not only displaced thousands of Muslims from their homes but has also helped Israel who is guilty of these crimes since ages. Thus America, without a shadow of doubt, comes under the command of this verse and this verse holds to be true regarding the assistance of the United States. Friendly relationship with the non-Muslims against the Muslims being Haram is mentioned in many verses under different topics. The following verse is a clear example for the Muslims in this matter:

الَّذِينَ يَتَّخِذُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاء مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَيَبْتَغُونَ عِندَهُمُ الْعِزَّةَ فَإِنَّ العِزَّةَ لِلّهِ جَمِيعًا

Those who take the disbelievers for friends rather than the believers. Are they seeking honor in their company? But, indeed, all honor belongs to Allah

-Surah Nisa 4:139

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاء مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَتُرِيدُونَ أَن تَجْعَلُواْ لِلّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ سُلْطَانًا مُّبِينًا

O you who believe, do not take the disbelievers for friends instead of the believers. Do you want to produce before Allah a clear evidence against yourselves?

-Surah Nisa 4:144

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians for intimate friends. They are friends to each other. Whoever takes them as intimate friends is one of them. Surely, Allah does not take the unjust people to the right path.

-Surah Maidah 5:51

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُواْ دِينَكُمْ هُزُوًا وَلَعِبًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ وَالْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَاء وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

O you who believe, do not take those who have taken your Faith in jest and fun for friends from those who have been given the Book prior to you, and the disbelievers. Fear Allah, if you are believers.

-Surah Maidah 5:57

4- In light of the verses mentioned above and many of the sayings of Rasulullah ﷺ, many of the jurists of the ummah have stated this principle that to take help from non-Muslims against a common enemy is only permissible if the non-Muslims fight under the flag of the Muslims and after winning the war, the rule of the Muslims should prevail. Imam Abu Bakr Hassas رحمۃ اللہ علیہ writes under the abovementioned verse from Surah Nisa:

و ھذا یدل علی انہ غیر جائز للمؤمنین الاستنصار بالکفار علی غیرھم من الکفار اذ کانوا متی غلبوا کان حکم الکفر ھو الغالب ۔

It is learnt from this verse that it is not permissible for the Muslims to take the help of the kuffar against other kuffar in a situation where after victory the rule of the kuffar will prevail. (Ahkamul Qur’an v.2 pg.352)

Imam Muhammad رحمۃ اللہ علیہ states:

لا بأس بأن یستعین المسلمون بأھل الشرک علی اھل الشرک اذا کان حکم الاسلام ھو الظاھر علیھم

If Muslims take help from people of shirk against another party of people of shirk then there is no hesitation in this as long as Islam prevails over them. (Sharh al-Seer al-Kabeer v.3 pg.186)

On the other hand, if a non-Muslim nation invites Muslims to fight against another non-Muslim nation, the rule is the same that Muslims are not allowed to assist either of them. However, if there is fear that if such an invitation is rejected, they will kill Muslims then it is permissible to assist them. Imam Muhammad رحمۃ اللہ علیہ states:

لا ینبغی للمسلمین أن یقاتلوا اھل الشرک مع اھل الشرک ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ و لو قال اھل الحرب لاسراء فیھم قاتلوا معنا عدوّنا من المشرکین وھم ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ فاذا کانوا یخافون اولك الآخرین علی انفسھم فلا بأس بأن یقاتلوھم

It is not permissible for the Muslims that they should join with one group of Mushrikeen to fight against another group of Mushrikeen. And if ahl al-harb say to the Muslim prisoners to assist them against their enemies who are Mushrikeen, and they themselves are also Mushrikeen, then if these prisoners fear for their lives from the hands of these Mushrikeen, it will be permissible for them to fight alongside them against their Mushrikeen enemy. (Sharh al-Seer al-Kabeer v.3 pg.241-2)

All this is regarding the situation of joining with the non-Muslims and fighting against other non-Muslims. However, if the non-Muslims wage war against Muslims and invite other Muslims to assist them in fighting the Muslims then it is impermissible even in a state of coercion. This means, even if Muslims fear being killed by non-Muslims if they reject their invitation to fight against another group of Muslims, it will still be impermissible for them to accept the invitation even though he is killed as a result of this rejection. Imam Muhammad رحمۃ اللہ علیہ states:

و ان قالوا لھم قاتلوا معنا المسلمین و اِلَّا قتلناکم، لم یسعھم اقتال مع المسلمین ۔

And if they say fight alongside us against Muslims otherwise we will kill you, even then it is not allowed for them to fight against the Muslims. (Sharh al-Seer al-Kabeer v.3 pg.242)

Imam Sarakhsi رحمۃ اللہ علیہ says in commentary of the above:

لأنّ ذلک حرام علی المسلمین بعینہ فلا یجوز الاقدام علیہ بسبب التھدید بالقتل کما لو قال لہ: اقتل ھذا المسلم و اِلَّا قتلتک ۔

Because it is haram for Muslims to wage war against other Muslims thus it is not allowed for Muslims to do the same under death threat. This is like the situation where someone would say ‘Kill this Muslim or I will kill you’ (that to kill this person is not permissible even in this scenario). (Sharh al-Seer al-Kabeer v.3 pg. 242)

The summary of the matter is that it is against the clear texts of Qur’an and Sunnah for the Pakistani army to stand against these Iraqi Muslims who are fighting and struggling against the tyranny and oppression of the U.S. military. This is also against the Pakistani custom and the purpose of the Pakistani army. And if God forbid such a step is taken then this will be a stain on the honor and dignity of the Pakistan army.

Question:

Some Muslims sometimes say, “Non-Muslims are better than Muslims.” Is there anything wrong in saying this?

Answer:

Muslims should refrain from making such statements because of the risk of becoming Kuffaar. Nassabul Ihtisaab (Chapter 33 Page 72) quotes the following from a chapter of Seeratudh Dhakheera discussing words of Kufr:

“A Muslim teacher becomes a Kaafir if he tells his students that the Jews are much better than the Muslims because they fulfill the rights of those who teach their children.”

Fatawa Rahimiyyah (Vol.1, pg.68)

Q: What is the ruling regarding videogames, which are now prevalent in our society, if no betting or rewards for winning a game are involved in it and they normally consist of various things including sharpshooting etc.

A: Videogames are not permissible due to some reasons from what has been learnt regarding them. Firstly, there is no deeni or bodily benefit in it and that game which is void of these two benefits is impermissible.

Secondly, time and money gets wasted in it and it makes one hinder from the remembrance of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala).

Thirdly, once playing these games become a habit, it is hard to leave it.

Fourthly, many games involve pictures and photographs which are impermissible in shar’iah.

Fifthly, although children receive enjoyment by playing these games, it is haram to receive enjoyment from something which is forbidden. In fact some jurists have stated that it is kufr to do such. Apart from this, it corrupts the minds of the children and hinders the receiving of beneficial education and the children lose interest in acquiring beneficial education or doing other things that are beneficial for them.

Based on these reasons, videogames fall under what is referred to in the following verse of the Qur’an:

“There is a man among the people who buys discourses of distracting amusements لھو الحدیث so that he may mislead (people) from the Way of Allah and make a mockery of it. For such people there is a disgraceful punishment.” – [Surah Luqman 31:6]

Hadhrat Hasanرضی اللہ تعالی عنہ has stated regarding “Lahu al-Hadith” that it includes all those things which hinder a person from the worship and remembrance of Allah, for example, useless talk tales, jokes, absurdities, using musical instruments etc.

Remember, although the reason of revelation for the above verse is regarding a specific context, the words used are common and can be applied for any situation – meaning, any game which is not beneficial and wastes money as well as time, will fall within the boundaries of the above verse. And because videogames have all these harms in it, it is impermissible. Thus spending money and time in it is impermissible and it is obligatory to leave it.

(Aap Kay Masa’il Aur Unka Hal, V.7 pg336)

By Ebrahim Saifuddin

Introduction

Women require a wali (guardian) who ensures and secures their rights. The question over here is whether the woman needs permission from her wali to marry or whether she has the right to marry anyone whom she likes without permission. The Shafi’i, Maliki and Hanbali schools say that nikah entered into by a woman herself, without the permission of her wali, is invalid and void. The Hanafi ruling on this matter is that a woman can enter into a marital contract by herself without permission from her wali. The definition of such a “woman” will come later on and it does not incorporate every woman.

The position of all the four schools in Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’a is that the rulings of all four schools of thought are valid. However, the ghair muqallid accuse the Ahnaf of following an opinion contrary to hadith. This allegation of theirs is quite baseless and it is only due to their superficial knowledge of hadith as well as of the ruling of the Hanafi school that they raise such allegations.

To read the rest of this article please visit the following link:

Marriage without Wali @ PeopleofSunnah.com

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Translated by Zameelur Rahman

An original Deoband.org article

Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn al-Sabbah and ‘Ali ibn Hujr al-Sa’di narrated to me: both from Sharik. Ibn Hujr said: Sharik informed us: from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Umayr: from Abu Salamah: from Abu Hurayrah: from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace): he said:

“The truest word spoken by a [pre-Islamic] Arab in poetry is this verse of Labid: Behold! Apart from Allah everything is vain.” (Sahih Muslim)

Some people adduce the poem of Labid (Allah be pleased with him) as proof that the doctrine of the Oneness of Being (Wahdat al-Wujud) is correct. This doctrine along with its corresponding doctrine of the Oneness of Perception (Wahdat al-Shuhud) is not among the doctrines that are necessary in the religion to know or to believe in their validity or invalidity. Rather it is best not to be preoccupied with it and not to discuss it, because it is a dangerous subject, discussion of which may lead to heresy (zandaqah) and apostasy (ilhad).

The reality is that it is a philosophical and dialectical question, the true nature of which human minds are incapable of comprehending.  We have not been commanded in the religion to fine-tune these matters. The safest path in the like of them is what the pious predecessors practiced by consigning (tafwid) their reality to Allah Most High while leaving preoccupation with the like of these philosophical fine-tunings which have no clear ruling in the texts of the Shari’ah.

Due to this we did not wish to discuss this topic nor increase the length of the book in verifying its reality. However, since discussions on this topic have become more frequent as has occurred among the philosophers and Sufis of the Muslims, and many kinds of extremism have surfaced in it from various sides, it behooves us to write a short essay here on the different positions on this issue, in order to caution people against extremism, whether that extremism is in the matter at hand, or in declaring the adherents of these positions as right or wrong. And Allah Most High is the Helper.

The article [of faith] which the adherents of Islam, rather the adherents of all heavenly religions, have agreed upon is that independent beginningless eternal existence belongs to none besides Allah Most High, and that He Most High is the One who created the cosmos and originated it, and that all creatures were non-existent and came into the domain of existence by the creation of Allah Most High and His origination. However, they differed in the manner in which the creatures are characterised by “existence”, according to four positions:

[1] The majority of the ‘ulama of the Shari’ah took the position that the existence of possible creatures is a real existence that is acquired, in the sense that it is dependent on the will of Allah Most High, His creation and His origination.

[2] Some of the Muslim philosophers expressed the view that their existence is relative (idafi).

[3] The adherents of the doctrine of the Oneness of Being, and the foremost of them is Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi (Allah have mercy on him), expressed the view that their existence is purely imaginary (khayali).

[4] The adherents of the doctrine of the Oneness of Perception, and the foremost of them is Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani^[1](Allah have mercy on him), expressed the view that their existence is a shadow existence (wujud zilli).

As regards to the difference between real acquired existence (al-wujud al-haqiqi al-muktasab) and relative (idafi), imaginative (khayali) and shadow (zilli) existence, it will become clear with [the help of] an illustration or an analogy, and that is if we were to put a glass before the sun, the sun would produce four changes in the glass:

The first change is that the glass would become warm due to the heat of the sun. The existence of heat and warmth in the glass in this state is a real existence different to the existence of the heat of the sun. This is proven by the fact that if the glass’s opposition to the sun was removed, the heat of the glass would remain for a while. Hence, this is a proof for the difference between the reality of heat and the reality of warmth. However, the warmth of the glass is acquired from the heat of the sun and is dependent on it. This is an illustration or analogy of real acquired existence.

The majority of the ‘ulama have taken the view that the existence of possible entities and creatures is a real acquired existence, in the sense that Allah Most High is the One that created its existence. However, real existence is different from the existence of Allah Most High. Moreover, the existence and existent are both complete and separate. Real existence is divided into two types: the beginningless independent existence by Itself, and this existence belongs to none besides Allah Most High; and an acquired temporal existence, and this is a quality of all possible entities. Likewise the existent is divided into two types: the beginningless independent existent and this is none besides Allah Most High, and a contingent created existent, and this includes all possible entities.

The second change in the glass facing the sun is that it emits light due to the radiation of the sun but this light which the glass emits is not different to the light of the sun. Rather, it is the same as the light of the sun, but it is distinguished from it by a specific relation acquired by it due to the ascription of the glass to it. And the proof of it being from the light of the sun is that it disappears when the opposition between the sun and the glass is removed. This is an analogy of relative existence since the existence of the light of the glass, from the perspective that it is the light of the glass, is not real, and it is only the light of the sun by which the glass acquires a specific attribution by it. Hence, the light of the glass is the same as the light of the sun, although it is distinguished from it by this specific relation.

Some of the Islamic philosophers have taken the position that the characterisation of possible entities by existence is but analogous to the description of the glass with light in this illustration. When Allah Most High wanted to create the possible entities He gave them a specific connection, whose true nature is unknown, to the existence that is subsisting in itself. He did not give it an existence different from that existence, but it is described as [having] existence by virtue of this connection which Allah Most High gave to it. Hence, the existence according to them is real and partial, and the existent is complete and separate.

The third change in the glass facing the sun is that the disc of the sun appears in the glass as though it is located in it. However, the reality is that the image of the sun which appears in the glass does not have a real existence since it is not the same as the sun, as is clear, or an apparition of it or a replication of it, rather it is purely fantasy and imaginary. Its reality is nothing except that the visual rays, when it descends on the glass, it turns to the sun, so the sun appears in those visual rays. Thus the image of the sun reflected in the glass is an imaginary image, generated only by visual rays. Hence, if one were to close his eye, the image of the sun will no longer remain in the glass. If, therefore, it had an actual existence in the glass, that existence would not disappear upon closing the eye. This is an illustration of imaginary existence.

One of the adherents of the doctrine of the Oneness of Being, and the foremost of them is Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi (Allah Most High have mercy on him), would say that the existence of Allah Most High is eternal and beginningless, and there was nothing before the creation of the world besides this beginningless eternal existence along with His names and attributes, and this is what is called in their terminology “external existence” (zahir al-wujud). All the possible entities were non-existent in the exterior but its detailed knowledge was available to Allah Most High. These possible entities from the perspective of their being known to Allah Most High are called in the terminology “the immutable entities” (al-a’yan al-thabita). Hence, when Allah Most High intended to remove the world from pure non-existence, He manifested these immutable entities upon external existence, by different levels of manifestation and in a manner whose true nature is known only to Allah. Thus, the reflections of these immutable entities were manifested into external existence, whereby they do not acquire an existence from the outside, nor do they acquire the ability to penetrate into external existence, and it only acquires an imaginary existence that appears from the outside as though it is an external existence, just as the disc of the sun acquired an imaginary existence in the glass without it acquiring a real existence externally. Thus, the real existent is none other than Allah Most High and the entire world is a reflection of the immutable entities and is nothing but pure imagination, which appears to be existent externally, but is not existent with a real existence.

Moreover, although Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi (Allah have mercy on him) claimed that the existence of the world in its entirety is purely imaginary, he nevertheless believed that the imagination has different levels. Hence, from the imaginary existent is that which disappears by stepping up the imagination, thus rules do not pertain to them; and from it is that which does not disappear by stepping up the imagination, so it is proper that some rules pertain to it. The existence of the world is from the second type of imaginary existence which does not disappear by stepping up the imagination, and for that reason it is correct for the rules of the Shari’ah to pertain to it. So, what some people raise as an objection to him that the view of the entire world being purely imaginary necessitates the view of the negation of laws and rules, is an objection not brought about by what Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi said.

The fourth change in the glass facing the sun is that the shadow of the glass falls on the earth. This shadow does not have a real existence. It is but an original darkness encompassed by light, and by this encompassment it becomes an image from the outside called a shadow. This is an illustration of shadow existence.

The adherents of the theory of the Oneness of Perception, and the foremost of them is Shaykh Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani (Allah have mercy on him), would say before the creation of the world there was nothing existent besides Allah Most High and all the possible entities were non-existent. Thus, the names of Allah Most High and His attributes were existent with a beginningless existence, and these are an expression of the attributes of perfection. In contrast to them are the non-existent imperfect entities, like incapacity in contrast to power, and ignorance in contrast to knowledge. When Allah Most High intended to create the world, He manifested the attributes of His perfection on these non-existents, so the image of the perfections reflected on these non-existents, and by this reflection emerged the realities whose substance (maddah) are the non-existents and their forms (surah) these reflections. Thus they are not existent with a real existence, due to originally being non-existents and imperfect entities, but they are by virtue of this reflection not considered pure non-existents. Hence, their existence is not a real existence, because the real existence is none besides Allah Most High, and not a purely imaginary existence as Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi said, but it has a level between the two levels, like the existence of a shadow, and is called a shadow existence.

I summarised this synopsis of the four positions on this issue from the book Bawadir al-Nawadir by the teacher of our teachers Muhammad Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (Allah Most High have mercy on him).

As regards to the safest position in the like of these issues, it is what we set forth beforehand, in leaving discussion about it and consigning its reality to Allah Most High. Thus we believe generally in that the existence of Allah Most High is independent, complete, eternal and beginningless, while the existence of creatures in their entirety is a temporal existence dependent on the will of Allah Most High and it is imperfect in all respects relative to the existence of Allah Most High. As regards to the true understanding of this imperfect existence and the manner in which the creatures are characterised by it, we are not commanded to investigate this and arrive at its true nature. There is no way for us to have firm resolve in this at all.

It appears the position of the majority of the ‘ulama, which is the first from the four positions we mentioned earlier, is the preponderant one, due to it being closest [in keeping] to His statement Most High, “Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, ‘be’, and it is!” (Qur’an 36:82). As regards to what Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi and Shaykh Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani (Allah Most High have mercy on them) said, we assign its reality to Allah Most High, and we do not speak insolently about them, for indeed they spoke about these issues due to a reason they know best, and there is nothing in what they said that directly clashes with the texts. However, at the same time there is nothing in the texts which necessitate adhering to their views or being resolute about what they said. Whoever construes the texts of the Shari’ah to express one of these views, then his construal is not devoid of being a distortion (tahrif) or extremism (ghuluww), or forced interpretation (takalluf) and an aberration (ta’assuf), for indeed the texts of the Shari’ah are silent on these issues the true reality of which human minds are unable to comprehend.

So whoever holds, in regards to the discourse of this topic, to the correctness of the doctrine of the Oneness of Being from the perspective that Allah’s Messenger (Allah blessed him and grant him peace) approved the judgement of the vainness of all things besides Allah Most High, it is a fixation in the matter and far-off from acquiring any benefit, because it is not the intent of the poem to discuss the manner in which creation is characterised by existence. The intent is only that all things besides Allah are imperfect and death will overtake them, whereas imperfection or death does not occur in Allah Most High. How excellent is what the teacher of our teachers Al-Thanawi (Allah Most High have mercy on him) said in Bawadir al-Nawadir (p. 716):

“Indeed the issue of the Oneness of Being and Oneness of Perception is from the issues learnt through unveiling (kashfi), which are not indicated by a text, and the objective of these issues is not to oppose a text. As for struggling to establish them using the texts, if the text contains their possibility, then its mention is by way of supposition, and although this is not extremism, it is forced interpretation; and if it is elevated from the level of mere supposition to the level of firm conviction and confidence it is extremism; and if it is not contained as a possibility in the text then the claim of that issue being established by the text, whether as a supposition or as firm conviction, is a clear distortion (tahrif) of the texts.

“As regards to when this claim is not by way of an explanation (tafsir) and interpretation (ta’wil), rather it is by way of a consideration (i’tibar), if the asserted tenet is supported by another text, then this consideration is included in the boundaries of the Shari’ah. As regards to when the asserted tenet is not established by a text, then indeed mention of it by way of a consideration of it, is also forced interpretation.”

And Allah Most High knows best.

Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim 4:372-77

1. Shaykh Ahmad al-Sirhindi al-Faruqi (d. 1624)

Source

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Translated by Zameelur Rahman

An original Deoband.org article

Hamid ibn ‘Umar narrated to us: Abu ‘Awanah narrated to us: from Tariq: from Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab: he said:

“My father was one of those who pledged [allegiance] to Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) at the tree^[1]. [My father al-Musayyab] said: ‘Then we proceeded [to Makkah] the following year, as pilgrims, and the tree’s location was hidden from us. So if it is clear to you, then you are more knowledgeable than us!’” (Sahih Muslim)

His statement “its place was hidden from us”: it is mentioned in the following narration: “then they forgot its location the following year”, and in the narration of al-Bukhari: “its location was unclear to us”. Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them both) related the same incident according to al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad (no. 2958). He said “We returned the following year and no two of us agreed about the location of the tree beneath which we pledged [allegiance]. This was a blessing from Allah.”

Al-Hafiz said in al-Fath (6:118) under the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar “The explanation of the wisdom behind this is that no misdeed will ensue as a result of the good that occurred beneath it. Were it to remain, it would not be safe from some ignorant people glorifying it, until it may lead them to the belief that it has the power to benefit or harm, as we see today plainly in that which is lesser than it [in value]. Ibn ‘Umar alluded to this by his statement ‘this was a blessing from Allah’ by which he meant its obscurity to them was a blessing from Allah Most High after that. It is possible that the meaning of his statement ‘a blessing from Allah’ is that the tree was the place of Allah’s mercy and the location of His pleasure, due to the descent of pleasure over the believers near it.”

Al-Hafiz said in al-Maghazi (7:448) “Moreover, I found that according to Ibn Sa’d, with an authentic chain from Nafi’, ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) was informed that a group of people approached the tree and prayed near it, so he admonished them, and commanded it be cut down and so it was cut down.”

The Issue of Seeking Blessing (Tabarruk) through the Relics (Athar) of the Prophets and the Pious

Some ‘ulama adduce from this narration of Ibn Sa’d proof that tabarruk through the relics of the pious is prohibited. However, this inference is not strong, because it is possible ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) cut down the tree because he was aware that the tree at which the pledge was taken was not known to anyone; and because the tree that people claimed was the Tree of Ridwan and prayed near, should not be identified as the tree at which the pledge was taken. This is proven by what al-Bukhari transmitted in al-Maghazi with the complete [wording] of the hadith of this chapter whose phrasing is:

From Tariq ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman: he said: “I went as a pilgrim and I passed by a group of people praying, so I asked: ‘What mosque is this?’ They said: ‘This is the tree at which Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) pledged the allegiance of Ridwan.’ I then went to Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab and related this to him, and Sa’id said: My father narrated to me that he was one of those who pledged [allegiance] to Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) beneath the tree. He said: ‘When we went out the following year we forgot its location and were unable to recognise it.’ Then Sa’id said: ‘Verily the Companions of Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not know and you know [its location], so you are more knowledgeable than them!’”

It is, therefore, clear that the tree which the people would pray near was not the tree beneath which the pledge of Ridwan occurred, and for this reason Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab did not repudiate them for their tabarruk in praying near it; he only repudiated their tenacity in specifying the location of that tree. So it is possible ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) cut down the tree from this standpoint, not because he did not believe in tabarruk through relics. As regards to what has passed from [the narration of] Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) in which he said: “If I could see I would show you the place of the tree”, this does not prove anything besides that he (Allah be pleased with him) was confident in his knowledge of the location of the tree and that he could guide to it to the best of his belief. This does not entail that it corresponds to the same thing.

The permissibility of tabarruk through the relics of the Prophets and the pious has been established from a number of hadiths:

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-Libas, Bab ma Yudhkaru fi l-Shayb (no. 5896) from ‘Uthman ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Mawhab (Allah be pleased with him) that he said: “My people sent me with a bowl of water to Umm Salamah (Allah be pleased with her).” Isra’il approximated three fingers [indicating the small size of the container] in which there were some hairs of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). ‘Uthman added: “If any person suffered from an evil eye or some other disease, he would send a vessel (containing water) to Umm Salamah. I looked into the container [that contained the hair of the Prophet] and saw a few red hairs in it.”

Al-Hafiz said under it in al-Fath (10:353): “The intended meaning is that one who complained [of an illness] was sent to Umm Salamah with a vessel, in which she placed those hairs and bathed them in it and then returned it. The owner of the vessel would then drink [from it] or bathe with it in seeking a cure from it. Thus, he would acquire its blessing.”

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-Isti’dhan (no. 6271) from Anas (Allah be pleased with him): “Umm Sulaym (Allah be pleased with her) used to spread a leather sheet for the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and he used to take a midday nap on that leather sheet at her home.” Anas said: “When the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) had slept, she would take some of his sweat and hair and collect it in a bottle and then mix it with suk (a kind of perfume) while he was still sleeping.” Abu Thumamah said: “When the death of Anas bin Malik approached, he advised that some of that suk be mixed with his hanut (perfume for embalming the dead body).” He said: “and it was mixed with hishanut.” Muslim added in his narration: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) woke up and said ‘What are you doing?’ She said ‘We hope for its blessing for our children.’ He said: ‘You have done what is right.’” This is unequivocal in [proving] the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) approval of her act.

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-Ashribah, Bab al-Sharb min Qadh al-Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam (no. 5637) in the hadith of Sahl ibn Sa’d (Allah be pleased with him): “Then the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his Companions went towards the shed of Bani Sa’ida and sat there. Then he said, ‘Give us to drink, O Sahl!’ So I took out this bowl and gave them to drink from in it.” The sub-narrator added: “Sahl took out for us that very bowl and we all drank from it.” He added: “Later on ‘Umar bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz requested Sahl to present it to him as a gift, and he presented it to him as a gift.”

This hadith is to come from the compiler (Muslim ibn Hajjaj) in Kitab al-Ashribah (Bab Ibahatu al-Nabidh) if Allah wills, and al-Nawawi said under it: “This contains [proof] of tabarruk through the relics of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), that which he touched, wore or took as a means. This is close to something that has been agreed upon. The Predecessors (salaf) and the Successors (khalaf) practiced tabarruk through praying at the prayer-place of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) at the Noble Rawdah, and entering the cave which he entered etc. Related to this is the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) giving Abu Talha (Allah be pleased with him) his hair to distribute amongst the people and his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) giving his loincloth to shroud his daughter…”

From them is what al-Bukhari transmitted in Kitab al-Ashribah (no. 5638) from ‘Asim al-Ahwal that he said: “I saw the bowl of the Prophet with Anas bin Malik, and it had been broken, and he had mended it with silver plates. That bowl was quite wide and made of Nadar wood. Anas said, ‘I gave the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to drink from that bowl more than so-and-so times.’” Consider how Anas cared for the bowl to the extent that he mended it with silver plates after it had broken. This [act] is nothing besides tabarruk through it.

From them is what Ibn al-Sakan transmitted from Thabit al-Banani that he said: “Anas ibn Malik said to me: ‘This is a hair from the hairs of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace). Put it beneath my tongue’” He said “So I placed it beneath his tongue and he was buried while it was beneath his tongue.” Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned this in al-Isabah (1:84) in the biography of Anas (Allah be pleased with him).

As for tabarruk through religious places (mashahid) and visiting them, the most balanced view on this is what Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that “he was asked whether a man should go to those religious places (mashahid) in Madinah and outside Madinah? He said: ‘With regards to the hadith of Ibn Umm Maktum (Allah be pleased with him) that he asked the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to come and pray in his house so he could adopt [that area] as a place of prayer, or regarding what Ibn ‘Umar used to do by tracing the places from the journey of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) until he was seen pouring water at a certain place and was asked about this and said the Prophet would pour water here.’ Ahmad said: ‘As regards to this, there is no harm’ and he said: ‘there is a dispensation in this.’ Then he said: ‘However people go too far in excess and go overboard on this purpose’. He then mentioned the grave of al-Husayn (Allah be pleased with him) and what the people do near it. Al-Khallal narrated these in Kitab al-Adab.”

Al-Hafiz ibn Taymiyyah (Allah have mercy on him) after relating the statement of Imam Ahmad said: “With regards to religious places which are places at which the relics of the Prophets and pious are present, and are not mosques, like certain places in Madinah, Abu ‘Abdullah (Ahmad ibn Hanbal) distinguished between a few which people do not take as places of celebration (‘id) and many which they take as places of celebration, as has passed. This distinction combines between the narrations and statements of the Companions, for indeed al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih from Musa ibn ‘Uqbah that he said: ‘I saw Salim ibn ‘Abdullah searching for places in the road and praying at them, and he narrated that his father (Ibn ‘Umar) would pray at them, and that (Ibn ‘Umar) saw the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) pray at those places.’ Musa said: ‘Nafi’ narrated to me that Ibn ‘Umar would pray at those places.’” See Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim by Ibn Taymiyyah (pp. 374-5).

The upshot is that if visiting these religious places is like visiting historical sites, or to envision what happened there of blessed acts, and to increase faith and contentment by remembering them, and to attain blessings from them, there is no harm in that. As for taking them as places of celebration or believing that they benefit or harm or glorifying them in ways that resemble worship (bima yushbih al-’ibadah), that is not permissible.

By this [principle] is understood what Sa’id ibn Mansur narrated in his Sunan from Ma’rur ibn Suwayd that he said with regard to ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him): “We went out with him in the Hajj he performed … When he returned from Hajj he saw people hastening to a mosque. He said: ‘What is this?’ They said: ‘The mosque at which Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed.’ He said: ‘This is how the Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book) before you perished. They took the relics of their Prophets as synagogues. One who finds the prayer there should pray and one who does not find the prayer there should leave.’”

And in a narration from him “he saw the people going along paths and said: ‘where are these people going?’ And it was said: ‘O Commander of the Believers! The mosque at which the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) prayed.’ He then said: ‘Those before were destroyed for the like of this. They would trace the relics of their Prophets and take them as churches and synagogues, so whoever from you acquires the prayer in these mosques should pray and whoever does not should leave and not [pray] there purposefully.’”

Thus ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) disliked taking the prayer-place of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as a place of celebration, fearing that this will lead to innovations and abominations. Otherwise it has been proven ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) showed eagerness in protecting the relics [of the Prophet] in what al-Bukhari transmitted from al-Zubayr that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) requested from al-Zubayr (Allah be pleased with him) the spear with which he killed Abu Dhat al-Karish on the day of Badr. In it is mentioned: “When Allah’s Messenger died, al-Zubayr took it back. After that Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) demanded it and he gave it to him, and when Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) died, he took it back. ‘Umar then demanded it from him and he gave it to him. When ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with him) died, al-Zubayr took it back, and then ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) demanded it from him and he gave it to him. When ‘Uthman (Allah be pleased with him) was killed, the spear remained with Ali’s (Allah be pleased with him) offspring. Then ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (Allah be pleased with him) demanded it, and it remained with him till he was martyred.” See Kitab al-Maghazi in Sahih al-Bukhari, Bab Shuhud al-Mala’ikati Badran.

This proves the importance the rightly guided caliphs, particularly al-Faruq (Allah be pleased with him), attached to preserving a spear although there are many spears in the world. This was not [done for any reason] besides [the fact] that the spear remained with Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) for a period of time, so they soughttabarruk through it.

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim vol 3 pp. 301-5)

Source

By Mufti Yusuf Mullan

An original Deoband.org article

The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern skeptic and atheist in mind. Drawing from the works of Imam al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) and others, each premise is accompanied with an explanation of the exact ‘manner of deduction’ (kayfiyyat al-wazn), so the reader may appreciate exactly what is being done.

Using only intuitively deductive modes of argument which have their origin in the Qur’an and which no sane human being can reject, the argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (ithbat al-wajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, Who created him? This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (musta’hilat).

Certain areas where the doubt casters attempt to undermine our proof have been given extra attention. Most major objections have been dealt with in the main body of the article.

Premise 1: [I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say:] The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.

The purpose of the first premise is to prepare a subject and place it in a class based on a consideration relevant to our argument. Here the subject is the movement of my hand. Is this act something or is it nothing? Obviously, it is something. What do we call it? Let’s agree on a term. Given that prior to my initiating this movement, my hand was in my lap. It was stationary. When I lifted it, it began to move. The movement which was not there earlier, only now began to exist. Based on this obvious reality, we suggest that the predicate for the first premise should be ’something which began to exist’. We will ask our opponent, whether this is an accurate categorization or not. We maintain that this is simple conveyance of meaning based on clear use of language. In the first premise we are not ‘proving’ anything. We rely on one-time direct observation in validating this first premise. It does not involve any experiment, induction or deduction.

‘Beginning to exist’ is a simple meaning which is clear. What it contains is the simple notion of a previously non-existent act entering into the realm of extra-mental existence. What else do we intend by this phrase? Do we have any elaborate notions regarding this phrase? We say, this is an irrelevant question. Forget what we believe. Do you or do you not accept that the hand was stationary. Subsequent to that, it began moving. What problem can there then be, if we choose to call it exactly what it is.

If one needs to contrast the phrase with something which did not begin to exist, then this is very easy. Any imaginary movement can be used to illustrate the opposite of ‘beginning to exist’. We obviously believe in more than this which will be the ultimate conclusion of the entire argument. The point is, that our first premise does not in any way depend on this conclusion. In order to accept the idea of ‘beginning to exist’ one is not required to acknowledge at the very outset an extra-mentally existing Entity which never began to exist, i.e. eternally existent. This is not the only opposite to our phrase ’something which began to exist’. The more obvious and universally agreed upon opposite are those possible acts which have yet to begin. Any yet to exist possible act will suffice. We can now move to the second premise.^[1]

Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

In this second premise we have taken the predicate of the previous premise (something which began to exist) and have made a universal judgment upon it. If we are successful in demonstrating the truth of this universal judgment, then by rational necessity whatever we say here regarding ‘things which begin to exist’ as a class will need to extend to the subject of our first proposition, i.e. the movement of my hand. This is an intuitively valid form of deduction. We call it the Great Rule of Equivalence. It involves 2 premises; a minor one which simply prepares a subject and makes it belong to a class, and a major premise which takes the class and makes a universal judgment on it. The purpose is to extend the judgment on the class to the particular contained within the minor premise.

The Great Rule is very powerful and, as mentioned, intuitively deductive. It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction. The brilliant example of this given by al-Ghazali in the Qistas is that of an animal with an inflated stomach. We see it in front of us and someone claims that it is pregnant. The animal happens to be a mule. In order to disprove the assertion of whoever claimed it was pregnant, you will have to do 2 things in a particular order. Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the animal is indeed a mule. Otherwise, whatever claim you make about mules, even if u can prove it, will be totally irrelevant. Hence the first step would be to observe the animal and determine that it is definitely a mule. Once done, you can now draw attention to the fact that all mules (as a class) are sterile. You will ask, Do you not know that this animal is a mule? The person will say, Yes… Do you not know that all mules as a class are sterile? He will reply, Yes… Now you know that the animal standing in front of us is not pregnant.^[2]

How then do we demonstrate the truth of the proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’? Is it by accepting this to be a self-evident axiom not in need of being proven, or is it done by surveying the particulars of the principle, i.e. by way of induction, or by way of some other method? We say, it is indeed a self-evident truth. It is one of those things which are ingrained in our very nature. This knowledge is not ‘acquired’ through experience. Instead it is used in arguments to prove other less self-evidently true claims. Had it been inductive, an old person, 70 years of age would be more convinced of its veracity [because of having many more opportunities to have tested the principle] than say a child of 8 or 9 years. This however is definitely not the case. Children and old people share exactly the same degree of conviction regarding this principle. Furthermore, we draw attention to the fact that knowledge of real extra-mental things in the world is something we do not doubt. This knowledge however is based entirely on the causality principle. If you were to enter a room with your eyes closed, you would not know what is in the room. When you open your eyes, only then, knowledge of what is in the room will be gained for you. We say, if you do not have doubt regarding knowledge of the real existence of the things in the room, you should also not doubt the principle which was the basis for this knowledge. This is what we mean when we say that this principle is self-evidently true. Another example of something which is self-evidently true is the impossibility of contradiction.

As far as the truth of our second premise is concerned, many will be satisfied with what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some will naturally need more. Not a problem. We have a second method of demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is nothing more than taking one 1st principle (the causality principle) and returning it to another more clear 1st principle, namely the impossibility of contradiction. The questions to our opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be true? If these three obvious points are conceded, we may proceed:

The direct opposite of ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’. Anything which begins to exist by definition can not be necessarily existent [whether such a category actually exists or not is not the point currently. Our opponent is free to believe that it is purely hypothetical]. Otherwise it would have been existent since eternity past. Similarly, it can not be impossible because impossible things do not happen in which case it would not have begun to exist. Since such a thing can neither be necessary, nor impossible, it must be merely possible (another word for which is contingent). Therefore, with respect to the very nature of such a thing, both existence and non-existence are equal. That it is to say, there is nothing in its very nature which requires existence (since it is not necessary), nor is there anything in its very nature which requires non-existence (since it is also not impossible). Thus the two are indeed equal.

Whenever any contingent being [or attribute, act, event] leaves the realm of non-existence and becomes existent [such as the movement of my hand, subsequent to it being stationary in my lap] , it will necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over its non-existence. Otherwise, this is impossible on account of involving preponderance without a preferrer. This is a contradiction because it leads to non-equality in existence and non-existence of that wherein equality of the two was assumed [in the previous paragraph]. Since contradictions are impossible, our antithesis ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ is definitely false. Since both a thesis and its antithesis can not be false, our original proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is necessarily true.

The conclusion of the argument until this point is:

Premise 3: Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.

The above concludes the first leg of our argument. We will now take the conclusion arrived at from the above, namely ‘a cause’ and make it the subject of a new argument using another mode of argument called the Rule of Opposition. But before this, let us remind that in all of the above steps what we did not do is mention the word God. Not even once. Even the term ‘necessarily existent’ only occurred once, and that too in a hypothetical context. The phrase ‘eternally existent’ similarly occurred once in order to illustrate that the first premise did not rely on our adversary’s acceptance of eternal existence. This is an important point, namely that the above steps were clearly traversed without any reliance on our ultimate conclusion or anything entailed thereby. Therefore, it is accurate when we say, we did not expect our adversary to entertain any notion which he does not already believe to be true.

Having arrived at the conclusion in step 3, we are now ready to introduce the Rule of Opposition. This is another intuitively deductive mode of argument the veracity of which no sane human being can doubt. The example of it is that of a man whom we observe walking into a house through the door. The house has only two rooms and no windows. We then follow him through the door and look for him in one of the two rooms. We do not find him to be there. What is the conclusion? He must by rational necessity be in the other. He can not be in neither. So, sometimes our knowledge of him being in a particular room is by observing him there directly, and at other times it is by finding the other room empty of him.

In the previous argument we established with zero probability of the opposite alternative that the movement of my hand definitely has a cause. Now, we will restrict this conclusion of the previous argument within two exhaustive possibilities. One of these two will be based on what our adversary understands from causality and existence. We will tailor for him a very specific analogy in order to demonstrate that the cause for the movement of my hand can not be what he understands from both causality and existence. This will be because his side of the disjunction involves glaring absurdities which are universally accepted. Contradiction is impossible. Therefore his side of the disjunction is likewise impossible. This will force us to look into the other side of the disjunction. Naturally, this other side, by rational necessity, will need to contain whatever it takes to remove the absurdities inherent within the false side of the disjunction. Just as both of our positions can not be true at the same time, it is not possible for both to be false at the same time. One will necessarily need to be true, while the other will need to be false. This is the Rule of Opposition.

Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.

This has been thoroughly explained in the previous section. The B side of the disjunction is our true claim. It is yet to be proven. Do not worry. We will do that towards the end of the argument. Placing it right there in the premise for the world to see is totally valid, since we are now dealing with a disjunction. It will be our task to illustrate how side A involves glaring absurdities, and how these absurdities can not be removed in any way except by accepting what we will place on the B side of the disjunction. This is what the Rule of Opposition is supposed to do after all.

Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.

To claim that the cause which resulted in the movement of my hand was of the very same nature as the movement itself, namely something which itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this necessitates that the movement of my hand remain in the realm of non-existence, whereas in premise 1 we confirmed that the hand did move.

If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur.

At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of: Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime. Existence and causality can not occur independent of spacetime. Therefore, the journey stops at this event. If you want to continue the journey beyond this point, you must bring proof.

We will reply thus: Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite time in the past [based on whatever consideration] is itself unwarranted and unjustified based on your own principles. We do not entertain any of this. Our position is yet to be explained. Do not worry.

If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series.

In utter desperation, he or she will now ask, OK, you tell us, what happened? You will inadvertently say, there was an Entity in the background all along who pulled the trigger for the first soldier. Where did this Entity come from? He was never part of the equation. This is absurd. If you can entertain this absurdity, I can claim that the very first unit in the series occurred causelessly. What’s the difference?

We will respectfully remind them at this point that we are still discussing their side of the disjunction. There are no soldiers for us, as will become clear very shortly. Be patient. This whole analogy was carefully tailored to reflect only our adversary’s notions of existence and causality. This is why there is no such Entity as part of the equation. We are not being gratuitous. Not at all.

From the above, it is quite clear that the movement of my hand can absolutely not have been caused by something which is of the same nature as the movement itself, namely contingent.^[3] This is because, for the cause to be contingent results in an infinite series of causes going back in the past which can never be traversed and concluded. Since the series can never be concluded, the movement of my hand can never have had a chance to exist, whereas we confirmed that the hand did move. Both the movement of my hand (Premise 1) and the non-existence of this movement (Premise 5) at the same time is a contradiction. Therefore, side A of the disjunction is clearly impossible.

Premise 6: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].

This brings us to the conclusion of our argument. There is not much left for us to do at this point! Everything has already been explained in sufficient detail. Having disproved the false side of the disjunction, naturally, the only way my hand could have moved, since that could not have happened causelessly (Premise 2), and it also could not have happened based on a contingent cause (Premise 5) — the true reason my hand moved must have been by the creation of a necessarily existent being, free of all of the properties which led to the glaring absurdities discussed above. This must be so. This Entity can not have a beginning for its existence. Otherwise He too would need a cause [or Creator], thus bringing us back to the soldiers.

This not having a beginning coupled with positing the non-existence of the Entity leading to absurdity is exactly what we mean by necessary existence. Nothing else. At this stage of the argument it is not a claim. It is not something we are respectfully asking our skeptic to entertain. No. It is the very conclusion proven through a compelling argument, with zero probability of the opposite alternative. The whole point behind this is my hand did move. There is no doubt about that. Making the movement dependent on any of the things discussed until now leads to its non-occurrence, which contradicts its beginning to exist. Therefore, we will have to entertain whatever it takes to remove the absurdities. There is no other way.

Part of this ‘whatever it takes to remove the absurdities’ is will, power and knowledge, constitutive of which is life. Will, power and knowledge can not occur without life. Along with the essence of this necessarily existent being [which we can not comprehend due to our limited intellects], we argue that there is something there on the B side of the disjunction which is specifying the time, place, quality, quantity etc. of all the bodies, attributes and events occurring in the universe. We will call this ’something’ will. So that by which the specification of the contingent beings occurs is will, and that by which they are brought into existence is power. Furthermore, a necessarily existent Being who creates based on specification, can not create what he does not know.

Finally, He must be one. Because if there were multiple such necessarily existent beings then the removal of the absurdities discussed above could have alternatively been attributed to either of the two, thus resulting in the other being dismissible. This contradicts the necessary existence of that other, whereas we assumed them both to be necessarily existent. This is a contradiction, and what led to it must be impossible, namely the positing of multiple necessarily existent being. Therefore, He must by rational necessity be one.

1. What this means is that the true division according to us is a three-way division: 1. Things which began to exist, 2. Possible things which are yet to actually begin. Instead they remain in the realm of imagination e.g. a hypothetical movement of my hand which could have occurred, but did not, 3. The necessarily existent Entity which exists in a real sense and has no beginning.

The opponent agrees with us on the first two types but denies this third one. According to him everything which exists [period] has a beginning. According to him, there is no such thing as an Entity which exists and yet has no beginning. In other words, our opponent maintains only a two-way division, instead of a three-way division like we do.

The point behind this paragraph in the article is to illustrate that in order for the phrase ’something which begins to exist’ to be meaningful, all we are requiring from our opponent is to accept the agreed upon two-way division. He is free to believe that everything which exists [without exception] has a beginning. We will force him to the third type (which is our ultimate conclusion) through the remaining steps of the argument.

2. Before moving on to demonstrate the truth of our second premise we need to clear up quickly one objection the doubt casters like to use to undermine our proof. They think very highly of what is to come. I think the objection is complete nonsense and doesn’t apply to begin with. For this reason, I’m placing it in the footnotes for anyone interested. They claim that the statement ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is a mere tautology, void of any real meaning. There is no room for this objection, but they like to keep repeating it. They are suggesting that our premise is a mere wordplay. According to them, ‘Everything which begins to exist’ [based on our elaborate understanding of it] already contains the idea of causality. Thus it is a redundant and repetitive statement similar to ‘All bachelors are unmarried’. Since that is the case, the premise does not even convey any new information.

We say, our adversary forgets that he or she already agreed with us, when we asked about the movement of my hand and whether it is accurate to call that movement something which began to exist. He or she forgets that it is this very term agreed upon between us in the earlier premise which is being carried forward to the second premise. Forget our own elaborate understanding. Concentrate on what the words actually mean. So, if the term already contains causality, then this is what we want from them in the first place. By agreeing to the term earlier, they have simply relieved us from one step in the argument. The truth is that this criticism is utter garbage. They know very well that causality is not constitutive of ‘beginning to exist’ just like the angles of a triangle totaling 180 degrees is not constitutive of the reality of a triangle. Meaning it is possible to conceive a triangle which is nothing more than a figure encompassed by three sides without being aware of the reality of the angles needing to total 180 degrees. In exactly the same way, beginning to exist is something, and having a cause is something else. Yes. The two are definitely concomitant and it is not possible for something to begin to exist and not have a cause [as we will demonstrate in the main proof], just like a triangle can not exist without its angles totaling 180 degrees. But does that mean causality is contained within the very meaning of beginning to exist? This is nonsense. This is an objection brought solely to undermine our proof with no other justification besides not wanting us to use the premise.

3. As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist. So, if one attributes the movement of my hand to immediately preceding organs, tissues and skeletal muscles, while attributing these earlier movements to the flow of blood and neurological phenomena– if one claims that these are the only reasons why things begin to exist, we will place the soldiers in front of them and ask for a reply. Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation. It is not causality in the sense that was established in the second premise. The Creator who created the movement of my hand through his will, power and knowledge and maintains my existence at each and every moment has chosen for the world to function in this way. He creates the earlier events and also creates the subsequent events. His habit is for these things to always co-exist. To those who are unaware of the true reality, this gives the impression of causality between these events. The rational mind, however, understands that incomplete induction is no proof which could lead to absolute certainty. Our repeated observations of fire burning does not necessarily entail that it is the fire that does the actual burning. This is because no matter how many times we make the observation, we will never be able to make complete induction. We can thus never claim that it will always be the case.

Every now and then, the Creator, Exalted be He, will do something which contradicts the normal pattern based on His infinite wisdom and in order to guide His creation to the truth. This is the basis of miracles. A miracle is an act of God done contrary to the normal pattern of observed cause and effect. In the case of a miracle, He will do this in order to strengthen a Prophet in his claim to prophethood. The act thus stands in the place of the Almighty Himself saying, ‘My servant has spoken the truth’.

Source

By Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Translated by Zameelur Rahman

An original Deoband.org article

Zuhayr ibn Harb and Ibn Numayr narrated to me: both of them from al-Muqri’. Zuhayr said: from ‘Abdullah ibn Yazid al-Muqri’: he said: Haywah narrated to us: Abu Hani informed me: that he heard Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Hubuli: that he said: ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-’As (Allah be pleased with him) says: that he heard Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) say:

“Verily all the hearts of the children of Adam are between two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful like one heart. He disposes of them however He wills.” Then Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: “O Allah! Disposer of Hearts, dispose our hearts to Your obedience.” (Sahih Muslim)

His statement “two fingers of the fingers of the Most Merciful”: al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “This is one of the hadiths of attributes and there are two views in regards to them which have just preceded:

“One of them is to believe in them without venturing into ta’wil (interpretation) or trying to understand its meaning. Rather, one believes it is the truth and that its outward purport is not intended. Allah Most High said: ‘Naught is as His likeness’ (42:11).

“And the second is to interpret them in a manner that is befitting. According to this, the intended meaning is figurative. This is just as is said, ’such and such a person is in my grasp and in my palm’; it is not intended by it that he took up residence in his palm, rather the intent is: he is under my power. It is said, ’such and such a person is between my two fingers, I turn him however I wish’ i.e. that he is under my control and I will dispose of him how I wish. Thus, the meaning of the hadith is that He (Glorified and High is He) disposes of the hearts of His servants and other hearts besides them however He wills. None of them are thwarted from him, and what He intends does not escape Him, just as what is between the two fingers of man is not thwarted from him. Thus, He addresses the Arabs [in a manner] by which they will understand it and the like of it by [making use of] sensual meanings that give assurance to their souls. If it is said: Allah’s Power is one, and ‘two fingers’ (isba’an) is for duality, the response is that it has preceded that this is figurative and metaphorical, so the simile (tamthil) occurred in accordance to what they are used to without intending thereby duality or plurality. And Allah knows best.”

The weak servant (Allah pardon him) says:

Imam al-Nawawi (Allah Most High have mercy on him) only mentioned two paths (madhhabs) of the ‘ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah in the likes of these texts which attribute a finger to Allah (Most High), or a hand, or a palm, and other things besides these.

The first of them is the path of tafwid (relegation) and this is the position of the majority of the muhaddithin (hadith scholars) and predecessors (salaf), and the second is ta’wil (interpretation), and this is the position of most mutakallimin(scholastic theologians).

There is a third path which a group of the predecessors took, and al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi, ‘Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (Allah Most High have mercy on them) preferred, and it is that the intended meaning of “finger” is its literal sense (ma’naha l-haqiqiyyah) but it is an attribute of Allah (Most High), is not a limb and is not like the fingers of creation, rather its kayfiyya (modality) is unknown.

‘Allamah Ibn Daqiq al-’Id mentioned a fourth method which was approved by many ‘ulama. He said: “We say about the problematic attributes, it is true and truthful according to the meaning Allah intended. Whoever interprets it, we consider [the interpretation]. If its interpretation is close, in accordance with the language of the Arabs we do not reject it, and if it is distant, we refrain from it and return to affirming [the intended meanings of the attributes] while declaring transcendence. That which is from the attributes whose meaning is apparent and clearly understood from the conversation of the Arabs we understand it in accordance with that, like His statement ‘In that I neglected the side of Allah (janb Allah)’ (39:56), for indeed the intended meaning of it in their popular usage is ‘duty to Allah (haqq Allah)’, so there is no hesitation in understanding it in accordance with this [meaning]. Similar is his statement: ‘Verily, the heart of the son of Adam is between the two fingers of the Most Merciful’, for indeed the intended meaning of it is that the will of the son of Adam’s heart is controlled by Allah’s Power and what He brings down on it.” Al-Hafiz transmitted this in Fath al-Bari (13:383), Kitab al-Tawhid, Bab ma Yudhkaru fi l-Dhati wa l-Nu’ut

All four paths are conceivable (muhtamilah). Multitudes of the verifying scholars have taken every one of them. For indeed the important thing in creed (‘aqidah) is declaring Allah (Most High) beyond tashbih (comparison) and ta’til (negation), and every one of these four paths is firmly convinced of this. The difference between them is not a difference in creed, for indeed the creed is declaring Allah beyond tashbih and ta’til, and it is only a difference of opinion in expressing that creed and basing them on the texts. So not one of these paths is entirely baseless or absolutely misguided, even if theoretical debates and arguments have not ceased to run between them for many centuries. Occasionally browbeating, exaggeration and excess occurred in them from the various sides and occasionally one of them steered in the direction of trespassing the limits of moderation, but the truth is that the basis of the dispute is nothing but an ijtihadi (judgemental) dispute, akin to the differences of the fuqaha (jurists) in juristic matters which are open to interpretation (mujtahad fiha). For this reason, outstanding scholars of the ummah, adherent devotees to the Book and the Sunnah of whose being from the people of truth and from the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah is not in doubt, took every opinion from these four opinions.

It is apparent that the path of the majority of the predecessors (salaf) was tafwid, and this is the safest, most prudent [path] and most in accordance with His statement (Most High): “no one knows its interpretation except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: we believe therein’” (3:7). We have spoken on this matter in some detail in our writings around Tafsir ‘Uthmani which is from the sum of our Arabic essays. See, for elaboration of all sides of the matter,Kitab al-Asma’ wa l-Sifat by al-Bayhaqi, Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih by Ibn al-Jawzi, Sharh Hadith al-Nuzul by Ibn Taymiyyah and Bawadir al-Nawadir by Shaykh Ashraf ‘Ali al-Thanawi (Allah Most High have mercy on them).

(Takmilah Fath al-Mulhim Vol 5. pp. 379-80)

Source

By Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani
Translated by Zameelur Rahman

An original Deoband.org article

Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah and Zuhayr ibn Harb narrated to us: both from Ibn ‘Ulayyah. Zuhayr said: Isma’il ibn Ibrahim (Ibn ‘Ulayyah) narrated to us: from Abu Hayyan: from Abu Zur’ah ibn ‘Amr ibn Jarir from Abu Hurayrah that he said:

“One day the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) appeared before the people and a man came to him and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is iman (true faith)? He replied: That you believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, His meeting, His Messengers and that you believe in the Resurrection hereafter.’

“He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is islam (submission). He replied: islam is that you worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him, you establish the prescribed salah, you pay the obligatory zakah and you fast during Ramadan.’

“He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is ihsan (excellence)? He replied: That you worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you see Him not that He sees you.’

“He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, when is the Hour? He replied: The one who is asked about it knows no better than the inquirer. I will, however, narrate to you some of its portents: when the slave-girl will give birth to her master, this is one of its portents; when the naked, barefooted would become the chiefs of people, this is one of its portents; when the shepherds of black camels would compete in high-rise buildings, this is one of its portents.’

“The knowledge of the Hour is among the five which none knows but Allah. Then he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) recited: ‘Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah alone. It is He Who sends down rain, and He Who knows what is in the wombs. Nor does anyone know what it is that he will earn on the morrow: Nor does anyone know in what land he is to die. Verily with Allah is full knowledge and He is acquainted with all things.’” (31:34)

Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) said: “Then the person turned back and the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Bring that man back to me.’ They went to bring him back, but they saw nothing. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) remarked: ‘this was Jibril, he came to teach the people their religion.’” (Sahih Muslim)

His statement “among the five which none knows but Allah”: the knowledge of the time of the hour is from the five which none knows but Allah.

Al-Qurtubi said: “No one can expect to know one of these five matters because of this hadith. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) explained the statement of Allah Most High: “With Him are the keys of the ghayb (unseen), that none knoweth but He” (6:59) as these five. And this [hadith] is from the authentic [narrations].” Al-Qutubi said: “So whoever claims knowledge of one of these without a chain back to Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he is a liar in his claim.” He said: “As for conjecture about the ghayb this is possible for the astrologer and other than him when it is [extrapolated] from a general law, and this is not knowledge. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr transmitted ijma’ (consensus) on the prohibition of accepting fees and wages and offering it for such speculative knowledge. It has been transmitted from Ibn Mas’ud (Allah be pleased with him) that he said: ‘Your Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was granted knowledge of all things besides these five.’ The like of it [was narrated] from Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them both) in marfu’ form. Ahmad transmitted both of them. Humayd ibn Zanjawayh transmitted from one of the Companions that he mentioned the knowledge of the time of the eclipse before its occurrence, and the Prophet repudiated him saying, ‘Verily the ghayb is five’ and he recited the verse [31:34], ‘and what is unseen besides these, are known to some and unknown to some.’”

‘Ali al-Qari said: “If you ask: the Prophets and the Saints (Awliya) have indeed given much information on these five, so wherefore the restriction? I reply: the restriction is by consideration of their universals, not their particulars. He Most High said ‘He revealeth unto none His ghayb, Except a messenger whom He has chosen’ (72:26-7), on the basis of the istithna (exception) being muttasil (connected)^[1] as is the norm. Furthermore, what some of the Saints mentioned by way of karamah (miracle) in giving information of some of the particulars from the content of the universals of the verse, it is possible by way of mukashafa (unveiling), ilham (inspiration) or manam (dream), which are probabilistic (zanniyyat), and are not designated as certain knowledge.”

And he said in another place: “Indeed ghayb consists of cores (mabadi’) and appendages (lawahiq). The cores are not disclosed to an angel brought nigh (malak muqarrab) or a Prophet that is sent (nabi mursal). As for the appendages, they are what Allah reveals to some of His beloveds from the tablet of His knowledge, and this is then excluded from absolute ghayb (al-ghayb al-mutlaq), and becomes relative ghayb (ghayb idafi). This [disclosure occurs] when the pure spirit is illuminated, and its light and illumination increases by turning away from the shadows of the world of senses, clearing the mirror of the heart from natural rust, persevering in [acquiring] knowledge and [performing] good works, and effusion of divine lights, until the light strengthens and expands in the accomplishment of one’s heart; then the inscriptions written in the Preserved Tablet are reflected onto it, and it is shown the divine secrets (mughayyabat), and is given free-disposal in the lower world of bodies. Rather, thereupon the purest effusion becomes manifest by true gnosis of Him which is the most glorious of bestowals, so what of [bestowals] besides this?”

The weak servant (Allah pardon him) says:

Since areas [of study] consist of principles (usul) and peripherals (furu’), actual knowledge of them is restricted to knowledge of their principles. As for knowledge of the peripherals without knowledge of the principles, it is not regarded as knowledge by the scholars and experts [of the field], and it is only knowledge in its linguistic sense according to the general public who are limited [in their expertise]. An example of this is when one of the people memorises thousands of particular juristic rulings like the wajibs (the compulsory), the harams (the unlawful), the mandubs (the recommended) and the makruhs (the disliked), he is not called according to them an ‘alim (scholar) or a faqih (jurist), until he knows its principles and its universals. On the other hand, one who knows the principles of the rulings and their sources is an ‘alim and a faqih according to them, even if recalling some of the particulars and peripherals escapes him, for indeed the principles and the universals are the keys to the peripherals and the particulars, and not the other way round.

This is how it should be understood in this context that the unqualified application of [the designation] ‘alim al-ghayb is not suitable except for one who knows the principles of ghayb and its universals. As regards to cognizance (ittila’) of some of the divine secrets (mughayyabat), even if it is extensive, it is not called knowledge (‘ilm), nor is one who acquires them an‘alim, except as a kind of vagueness [in expression], until one knows their principles and foundations, and these principles and universals are the keys of the ghayb which are with Allah Most High. None knows them but He.

Hence, the knowledge of these five matters mentioned in the hadith of the chapter, is specific to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), whereby none from the creation can expect to acquire their principles and their universals, in the same way one of them acquires the time of the eclipse of the sun or the moon by [recourse to] the mathematical laws of nature, for example, and he reports it before it occurs by specifying its precise time in distant lands. For such, the likes of it are not regarded as knowledge of the ghayb according to the ‘ulama, since it is acquired by the erection of evidences that point to it.

Yes, disclosure of some of His (Most High) knowledge and revealing some of His secrets (ghuyub) is possible and has occurred with regard to some of the servants, but this is by way of a partial presentation (al-’ard al-juz’i) only, and it is not encompassment of the principles of ghayb and universal knowledge at all. If this partial disclosure occurred to [an individual] other than the Prophets (upon them prayers and peace) one cannot be certain about his integrity, safety and protection from the machinations of Satan, delusions of the self, etc. When it occurred to the Prophets (Allah’s Prayers and His peace on them), its integrity, and safety from the interference of Satan, confusions of the self and all that removes its authority, is certain.

Thus, Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) does not reveal, i.e. does not empower, any with his ghayb whereby the possibility of error or delusion effectively does not come into contact with it, except one He has chosen as a Messenger [i.e. according to Qur'an 72:26-7]. Hence, He empowers the Messenger with whatever He wills from His ghayb, and He has not left any from among men and jinn that are able to corrupt him or prevent the establishment of his signs, “… for indeed a band of watchers (from the angels) march before him and behind him, that He may know that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord: and He surrounds all that are with them, and takes account of every single thing” (Qur’an 72:27-8).

From this account, the distinction between the revelation (wahy) of the Prophets and the unveilings (kushuf) of the Saints becomes clear, [as does the fact] that the knowledge of the five matters mentioned in the hadith of the chapter is specific to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). This specificity does not necessitate by its mention the negation of the specificity of other knowledge besides these, for indeed it is possible that the specification recited [in the verse] is for [general] benefit, or due to the particular circumstance in the revelation of the verse. And Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) knows best what is right.

(Fath al-Mulhim vol. 1 pp. 462-3)

1. In a muttasil exception, the exception is from the same category as that from which it is excluded. In this case, therefore, the knowledge that is disclosed is from the same category of ghayb, if the exception is believed to be muttasil

Source