WAHABISM AND MONOTHEISM

In his Kitabut­Tawhid, page 225, Ibn Khuzeima records:

As much as I conceive, Aisha uttered her words while she was highly enraged. It was more becoming for her to use a better utterance for communicating her idea. It is unacceptable for any to pronounce, "Ibn Abbas, Abu Dherr, Anas Bin Malik or any group of people had forged a grave fabrication against their Lord!" People, however, may use words of less value during rage. The extensiveness of this matter can be summarized by stating that Aisha, Abu Dherr, Ibn Abbas and Anas Bin Malik were engaged in dispute appertained to the subject whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) had seen his Lord or not. Aisha (God please her) answers with negation, while Abu Dherr and Ibn Abbas (God please them) affirm so. Aisha does not relate that the Prophet himself has informed her of not seeing his Lord, the Elevated (!), she only repeats Quranic Verses, (Visions comprehend him not,) and (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;). A scrutinizing glance at the Verses involved, with being guided to the correct, exposes that both have nothing inciting to forging grave lies against Allah! God's saying, (Visions comprehend him not), may refer to two meanings adopted by followers of conception of Allah's seeableness. First, it may be accordant to the saying of 'the Quran's interpreter' addressed at Ikrima, the slave, "That is His brilliance which is his brilliance. Nothing would comprehend Him when He comes into view by His brilliance." The second meaning is that people's eyes cannot comprehend Him. Pursuant to the Arabic tongue, the item 'absar' ­visions­ includes commonly a group's eyes. It is unfeasible to use 'absar' for individuals' eyes. The item 'basar' ­vision­ expresses an individual's eyes. In a like fashion, it is impracticable to use 'basaran' ­two visions­ for expressing an individual's eyes. Hence, it is unacceptable to use 'absar' for expressing a single individual's organs of sight. Falsity and prevarication shall be certainly imputed to us if we claim that visions can see our Lord in this world.

Claiming of the Prophet's having seen his Lord exclusively does not propose that visions have seen the Lord in this world. How is it, ye, possessors of intellects, practical for those who deny the Prophet's having seen his Lord exclusively, to prove that visions have seen the Lord. Perceiving this point leads to understanding that Ibn Abbas, Abu Dherr, Anas Bin Malik and their adherents had neither forged grave lies against Allah nor had they opposed a single letter of Allah's Book regarding this question!!

Aisha uttered the Verse, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;), during providing evidences on impracticability of the Prophet's having seen his Lord. Neither Abu Dherr, 

Ibn Abbas, Anas Bin Malik (God please them) nor did any of their followers, in the question involved, allege that Allah communicate the Prophet in these very moments of seeing. Therefore, none could attest any sort of contrast to the Verse concerned. Those claiming the Prophet's having seen his Lord are not opposing God's saying, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;). Those claiming God's having communicated the Prophet at the same time of their reciprocal optical viewing, are only opposing the Verse.

In spite of his exalted standing, scholarship, god­fearing and position in Islam and knowledge, Ibn Omar seeks the reality of this question from the Quran's interpreter and the Prophet's cousin. "Has the Prophet (peace be upon him) seen his Lord?" Ibn Omar asks Ibn Abbas as he esteems his full acquaintance of this question. It was proved that Ibn Abbas could certify the Prophet's having seen his Lord. This question, in fact, is not attained by intellects, opinions, hearts and conjecture. Such a knowledge is received through prophetic course only. This course, however, is limited to a divine book or a favorable prophet. As much as I am to surmise, no single acquainted individual may doubt that personal inference and conjecture were the authors of Ibn Abbas's claiming of the Prophet's having seen his Lord. The same may be said about Abu Dherr and Anas Bin Malik.

Conclusively, we should repeat the words of Mu'ammar Bin Rashid regarding discrepancy between Aisha (God please her) and Ibn Abbas (God please him) about question of Allah's optical seeableness. "For us, Aisha is not more knowledgeable than Ibn Abbas." We add that Aisha, the veracious and daughter of the veracious and dearest of God's dearest, was educated and jurisprudent. Ibn Abbas, on the other hand, was cousin of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who supplicated God to bestow him with wisdom and knowledgeability. This is the operation of that supplication. He is named the Quran's interpreter. Al­Faruq (God please him), as well, was wont to accept Ibn Abbas's opinions even contrasted to others of older age and superiority in accompanying the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is impossible to say that Ibn Abbas forged a grave lie against Allah, just because he affirmed a matter denied by Aisha (God please her). Even in cases of misrepresentation of a Quranic Verse or a prophetic tradition, scholars should never utter such a statement. How is it then admissible to impute forging grave lies to Allah to individuals proving a matter not explicated in the Quran or through the Prophet's traditions? Understand this question and make not mistakes!!

This was a part of Ibn Khuzeima's words. He was, however, the tutor of compilers of the Sahih books and the grand instructor. He spared no efforts for proving Aisha's flaw in denial of the Prophet's having seen his Lord with his own eyes. These replicative words were too rude to be stood even by the 

revisor of his book; Sheik Mohammed Khalil Harras, an instructor in College of Religion Principals in Al­Azhar. In his commentary, Harras writes down:

Aisha (God please her) only traverses and denies the matter involved affirmatively. She said to Masruq, "Your words have made my hair chill!" It is unrightful for the author ­Ibn Khuzeima­ to learn his mother civility!! She did realize what to say. Secondly, Aisha (God please her) addresses generally without identifying any addressee. No narration mentioned that Ibn Abbas had claimed the Prophet's having seen his Lord with his own eyes. He only claimed that it was with heart and mind. Saving Ibn Abbas, the general companions of the Prophet, such as Ibn Mas'ud and others, were agreeing with Aisha in question of denial of Allah's optical seeableness. Regarding the other wives of the Prophet, despite the fact that none of them could occupy any part of scholarship and jurisprudence Aisha enjoyed, no single narrative revealed they had disagreed her in the question concerned. Attesters of a matter should provide evidences. Attesters of Allah's optical seeableness could not provide any. Hence, denial is the origin till an evidence is proved. Aisha (God please her) supported her claim of denial with some Quranic Verses as testifiers. Correctness of a claim is regarded after an evidence is provided. Otherwise, denial is preferred since it does not need an evidence. How should that grand instructor have been disappointed by his knowledgeability when he misthought that the denied matter was visions' comprehending Him in such a way that providing a single vision was involved, comprehension should be realizable!! Considering someone says, "I do not have pomegranate." This claim does not mean that he may have a single grain of pomegranate. God's mercy be upon Ibn Khuzeima. He had erred. None, however, is perfect.

In addition to the previous words of Sheik Mohammed Harras, we may add the following:

Except for Abu Dherr's question and Aisha's asking the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), there was no single narrative recorded in references of hadith relied upon by Sunnis, our brothers, regarding the optical seeableness involved. Denial of Allah's optical seeableness, however, was confirmed in the two narratives previously excluded. Personal inference was the proof of those who claimed the Prophet's having seen his Lord with his own eyes. They, however, rested upon no narrative at all.

Contradiction, in fact, occurs between narratives of Abu Dherr and Aisha regarding the Prophet's denial of his having seen his Lord from a side, and personal inference from the other. Ibn Abbas's narratives are so contrasted and confused that they should be ruled as ineffective. Therefore, the origin, which is denial of the question involved, is supposed except in case that an evidence is provided. 

Before he denounces Aisha, Ibn Khuzeima himself had recorded narratives related by Ibn Abbas concerning denial of Allah's seeableness. On Page 200, he writes down:

With reference to exegesis of the Verse, (And certainly he saw him in another descent.), variant narrations were ascribed to Ibn Abbas. Some related that sight had been with the heart.

Al-Qasim Bin Mohammed Bin Ebbad Al-Muhellebi: Abdullah Bin Dawud Al-Khureibi: Al-Amesh: Ziyad Bin Hussain: Abul-Aliya:

Regarding God's saying, (And certainly he saw him in another descent.), Ibn Abbas stated, "He had seen Him with the heart."

Ismail: Abdurrezaq: Israil: Semmak: Ikrima:

Regarding God's saying, (The heart was not untrue in making him see what he saw.), Ibn Abbas stated, "He had seen Him with the heart."

The strange matter is that in the commencement of his commentary, Ibn Khuzeima overlooked Aisha's manifest narrative concerning the Prophet's denying seeing his Lord. Importunately, he insisted on reckoning that narrative with personal opinion and inference. Finally, he had to declare that Aisha's relation was tradition of the Prophet. Nevertheless, he imposed Ibn Abbas's saying as a hadith standing against Aisha's. He ruled that Ibn Abbas's narrative must have been following Aisha's. How did he realize that Ibn Abbas's saying had been a narrative, and following Aisha's? Even if this is acceptable, Aisha's narrative is such an absolute denial that it opposes and traverses the converse ones. Ibn Abbas's narration is a partial affirmation. How is it, then, acceptable to prefer to the previous? Furthermore, how could Ibn Khuzeima conclude a general ruling of preferring narratives of affirmation to those of denial in case of contradiction, deciding the previous as repealing the latter? Would he, then, apply this ruling on narrations denying the Prophet's having nominated Ali in his will and those proving this question? As for his ruling, narratives affirming the Prophet's having nominated Ali (peace be upon him) for succeeding him in leadership should be preferred to those denying. In addition, would Ibn Khuzeima commit himself to the claim that Ibn Abbas's words are always preferred to Aisha's? In this case, he should regard his testimony that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had nominated Ali (peace be upon him) as his successor in leadership, and ordered Muslims of declaring their fealty to him in Ghadir Khum just after the Farewell Pilgrimage 11. And, similarly, he should overlook Aisha's testimony that the Prophet was deceased before he had willed of anything to anybody!! 

____________

11. The Farewell Pilgrimage is the final pilgrimage peformed by the Prophet. 

Ibn Khuzeima would never commit himself to anything! Because he was brought up and fed with conception of Allah's optical seeableness, he is ready to engage himself in confiscatory, inferential and seemingly contradictory affairs for proving that conception.

In his Tafseerul­Menar, part 9 page 148, Mohammed Abduh did say honorably:

Consequently, it is realizable that Ibn Abbas's narrations contrary to Aisha's, was only personal inference without being imputed to the Prophet. Reports of Ibn Abbas's dedicating seeing by heart is acceptable contradiction to the authentic exegesis of Sura of Najm, imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), that it was Gabriel, the Angel, whom had been seen by the Prophet in his actual appearance. Likewise, Ibn Abbas's saying, related by Ikrima, was probably conceived from Ka'bul­Ahbar about whom Muawiya, the narrator, say: "Lies were largely uttered by Ka'bul­Ahbar." This saying, however, is recorded by Al­Bukhari. Ibn Isaaq, the reporter of the other narrative, is fabricator. He is trusted in reports regarding battles only, not hadiths. Hence, his report involved is valueless. In reports and conceptions, Ibn Abbas's absolute affirmation is preponderant.

From words of Mohammed Abduh, recorded in Tafseerul­Menar, part 9 page 139, we can perceive that Aisha's words are judged as evidential inference if inference is ascribed to her. He says:

Aisha, one of the most eloquent people of Quraish, refers to visions' incomprehensibility as an evidence on denial of Allah's seeableness in regard to the difference between the two. She also provides God's saying, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;), as another evidence. Scholars, however, applied these evidences to Allah's seeableness in this world. Like this world, Allah's visual comprehensibility is also impracticable in the Hereafter.