By Ismail Ibrahim
(This piece is based on a response given to a South African Mufti who ignorantly spoke out against anyone whom he perceived to be ‘Salafi’ towards the end of 2011)
A. For those who are caught up in it, this issue of contention needs no introduction. The debate is South Asian in nature; its exportation is mainly down to migration. Ask an Arab or a Sub-Saharan African not caught up in this and they’ll express total ignorance over Hayati v. Mamati.
B. What I propose is that we need to make a clean break from these useless, ambiguous, vague, non-universal terms of ‘Hayati v. Mamati’, as they make no sense. One cannot hold a discussion, let alone a debate, if universal terms – let alone terms used by only in the polemics in one region of the Muslim world, like Hayati and Mamati – are not even defined. Yet it is a fact that both groups in the Sub-Continent and elsewhere pronounce Takfir and Tabdi` on each other just over these terms, refusing to perform Salah behind one another, without ascertaining the substance of its underlying beliefs and its ramifications.
C. I propose that we discuss this issue under the banner of whether the Prophets are living a Dunyawi (worldly) life or Barzakhi (interim) life in their graves. These two simple terms are more clear and transparent in their implication.
D. Establishing our position, we say that the Prophets (peace be upon them) are alive, living the life of the Barzakh (interim stage between the worldly life and the life of the Hereafter), and have tasted the death that befalls upon everyone in the worldly life. The manner and modality of the life in Barzakh is unknown as it pertains to the unseen. We believe in whatever has been authentically narrated to us regarding aspects of the Barzakhi life. We say that the Prophets’ lives in the graves are the best in terms of Allah’s bounty upon them, but we do not say that they are living a fundamentally different life from any other human being who has died, just like we do not say the people of Heaven and Hell will be living two different lives; rather we say both will be in living the same genus of life: the life of the Hereafter.
E. Given that post-death pre-Hereafter is known as the Barzakh, we submit that ‘Barzakhi life’ is the default position. The proponents of ‘worldly life’, being the claimants against the default, have attempted to present some evidences to justify their stance that the Prophets (peace be upon them) are living a worldly life. In reality, they are just doubts and cannot override the default ‘Barzakhi life’ position. A list of their doubts and the responses to them are as follows.
F. One doubt they have is that they perform Salah in the grave, as narrated in the Hadith. The answer to this is that it is a Salah of the Barzakhi life and has no connection whatsoever with the worldly life. Had this been evidence, then people falling into prostration on the Day of Judgement when they shall witness Glorious Shin of Allah can too be categorised as living a worldly life.
G. Another doubt they have is that the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) cannot remarry after he passed away. We respond by saying that reason why his wives cannot remarry is the verse of Surat 'l-Ahzab, not because he is living a worldly life. However, one might ask the wisdom behind this ruling: some opponents might argue that the wisdom for this is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is living a worldly life. The response to this is that a plausible, and far stronger, alternative explanation for this ruling of Surat 'l-Ahzab: it has been established in some narrations from the Companions, as well as the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself, that the wife in Paradise is with the last husband she had in the world; it is submitted that it would be degrading of both the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the wife that she goes to somebody else in Paradise who is of a lower rank by having married another husband in the world. The Athar of Hudhayfah bin 'l-Yaman and his wife is present in Sharh Mushkil 'l-Athar by Imam al-Tahawi. Al-Tahawi himself explicitly states that this is the reason why the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) cannot remarry. Al-Tahawi was a master and if there was any potential of the reason for the ruling of Surat 'l-Ahzab being based on the erroneous notion that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is living a worldly life, he would have surely mentioned it. In fact, nobody from the Salaf has ever suggested this.
H. Another misconception they carry is that the estate of the Prophet (peace be upon him) goes to charity, not inheritance. The answer to this is: Why did Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) initially ask for her inheritance? Was she not aware of that her father, the Prophet (peace be upon him), is living a worldly life in the grave? Moreover, when senior Companions explained the matter to her, not one of them ever mentioned that the basis for the ruling is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is living a worldly life. The basis for the ruling is the Hadith; the wisdom perhaps behind the Hadith is that the Prophets produce heirs of only knowledge, not material wealth.
I. Another doubt that people have is that he can listen to people sending salutations to him, and that he responds to them. This however, once again, is a matter of the unseen. Using this as evidence is incorrect and is beyond the jurisdiction of any human being. This has no connection whatsoever to the issue of the life of the Prophets (peace be upon them). In a nutshell, interaction between those in the worldly life and those in the Barzakhi life, whether physically, in a dream or otherwise by the will of Allah, does not constitute any evidence whatsoever.
J. Another doubt they have is that the bodies of the Prophets (peace be upon them) do not decompose. Whereas this assumption is indeed based on a Hadith that has been considered authentic by scholars, there is no evidence that the preservation of their bodies is indicative of a worldly life. If this was an indication, it would mean that martyrs – whose noble post-martyrdom and post-burial stories are preserved in the annals of history – are all living a worldly life as well. In addition, the subsequent fallout of the martyrs’ widows cannot remarry and their inheritance cannot be distributed amongst their heirs. In fact, it would have to be argued that even Abu Jahl (due to famous Athar of him being coming out of his grave and being constantly punished – passively authenticated by some Deobandi lecturers, though its authenticity is highly disputed by the experts), as well as any other rejecters of Islam who are punished in the grave; since these are all acts that can take place in this world as well – are too living a worldly life. (Note: Some other researchers do not subscribe to the absolute authenticity of non-decomposition, hence they are under an obligation to remain silent over the issue; it does not mean they automatically believe that the bodies of the Prophets (peace be upon them) decompose just because they do not consider the narration to be authentic)
K. One doubt the opiners of worldly life have is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) hears the salutations that are conveyed to him at close range nearby his grave, just as he used to hear in his lifetime. The answer to this doubt is multifold:
- most importantly, the authenticity of the Hadith is severely disputed, and in the presence of such dispute, it should not be able establish any definitive belief, nor can it be used as evidence against opponents;
- it would have to be assumed – without scholarly precedent – that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is under a state of a perpetual miracle, like the Quran, in the sense that he is able to hear salutations that other people would not be able to hear at such a distance, especially when people nearby his grave do not even raise their voices – whether there is any reputable, diligent scholar who counted this as a prophetic miracle is for the claimants of worldly life to present;
- even if it is proven that the Hadith is authentic, it can still be assumed that such activity is taking place as part of his Barzakhi life, not worldly life.
L. One final doubt they carry is that, if it is assumed that the Prophets are merely living a Barzakhi life like everyone else, then they would be no different than other Muslims or even disbelievers, and this is the ultimate insult and disrespect. The answer to this specific doubt, on top of what has already been mentioned, is multifold, as we are prepared to discuss in several points as follows.
M. The Hadith stating they are alive doesn’t mean they are living a worldly life. If one subscribes to worldly life, they would also then have to subscribe to the notion that the Prophets eat and drink (which is actually the belief of some, who believe in this just for the sake of consistency).
N. Assuming even that the Hadith is indicative of a different life other than Barzakhi life, why do these people have to believe it is a ‘worldly life’? There is zero evidence for the specification that should be considered a ‘worldly life’.
O. Since they don’t want to believe in Barzakhi life,why don’t such people come out with 'another type' of life? What is so special about ‘worldly life’ anyway that makes such opiners feel that the Prophets are granted a worldly life?
P. Even in the life of the Hereafter, regarding those in Hell, Allah says in Surat 'l-A`la, “Then he shall not die nor live.” Based on their argument for the ‘need of differentiation’, it would mean that the People of Hell would have to be classified to be living a life that is not the Life of the Hereafter, because Allah negated 'life' from them. Of course, that would be ludicrous.
Q. Why don’t these same people afford the martyrs ‘worldly life’ as well (and by extension the Siddiqin, who are higher in rank than the martyrs)? Their life has been affirmed in the Quran; in fact, there is a Quranic order not to refer to them as 'dead people'. Why isn’t the same so-called virtue of ‘worldly life’ accorded to martyrs and the Siddiqin?
R. Just because our Prophet (peace be upon him) saw the Prophets outside of their graves doesn’t mean they were living a non-Barzakhi life. Rather, we say that this was a bounty blessed by Allah to his Prophet that he was able to interact with people in the Barzakh.
S. The Ahl 'l-Sunnah also believe that one who was never buried (e.g. drowned) would be questioned by Munkar and Nakeer just life everyone else buried in graves are. The "grave" is not central to the concept of "Barzakh". Graves are from the Ahkam of the Dunya; Barzakh is something related to the unseen, and this aspect of the unseen was uncovered for our Prophet.
T. We also believe that Jesus was in his a worldly life (but the modality of which we do not know as it is the unseen) when our Prophet interacted with him in Isra and Mi`raj, simply because he has not died and is not in the stage of the Barzakh. And likewise, the modality of Jesus's currently status is unknown as that is a matter of the unseen.
U. When we say that when our Prophet was touring Jannah and Jahannam, we believe he was still in his worldly life – we don’t say he switched to the Life of the Hereafter just because he visited places designed for Life in the Hereafter. The Prophet saw a lot of people in Mi`raj in Jahannam. We ask: What type of life were they in? If the Prophet saw all these people ‘physically’, it doesn’t mean they are still living are worldly life. It just means they are 'alive'.
V. We believe the life of the Prophets in the Barzakh is a special type of life, just as for the martyrs, but the Jins (genus) of life is the same.The same applies to this world: everybody is in the worldly life, but some have “Hayah Tayyibah” as mentioned in the Quran; in contrast, some have Hayah Khabithah. But it is still the same worldly life.
W. And in the Hereafter, some will have a high-quality life (Jannah); others will be living such a life that it will be as if they are neither living nor dead (Jahannam), but we all agree that the Jins (genus) of life for both sets of people is the Ukhrawi Life (the Life of the Hereafter).
X. Due to the aforementioned insurmountable evidence, I don’t see why people feel the need to treat the Life of the Barzakh any differently. Nor is there any evidence to suggest some people are living a ‘worldly life’ in what is the Barzakh. Our opinion is based on the notion that each person goes through ‘stages’. Each person goes through four stages: Arwah (Souls), Dunya (World), Barzakh (Interim), Akhirah (Hereafter). Whichever stage a person is in, he would be ascribed to that stage, so you have the Life of Arwah, the Life of Dunya, the Life of Barzakh, and the Life of Akhirah. As a result, for anybody to claim – without a shred of evidence – that some people in the Barzakh stage are living some sort of worldly life – without any precedent by the way from the Salaf who never once explicated that the Prophet are living a ‘worldly life’ in the Barzakh, nor is it in any text of theology – is nothing short of farcical.
Y. Though the evidences of the opinion opposite to us are baseless and unfounded, it should be noted that the ramifications of this difference are real and tangible. Because we believe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) has passed away from the worldly life, then:
- “requests of Shafa`ah” (Istishfa`) cannot be made, unlike in his lifetime when this was allowed;
- those of his position of worldly life believe that Shafa`ah can be sought from him by his grave, just like in his pre-death life;
- the issue of Tawassul to Allah via the Prophet’s supplication was allowed in his lifetime by agreement of both parties, but those who say he is living a worldly life after he passed away also allow it by his grave after his death;
- we say he is not living a worldly life hence only that which is in the texts, like sending salutations in the second person format is allowed (like in Tashahhud of Salah, or saying الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله (may Salah and Salam be on you, oh Messenger of Allah) from far away, believing that the angel conveys it; ironically this format of salutations is something most Deobandis disallow because of their Hazir Nazir polemic with the Barelwis, who allow saying الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله on the basis that the Prophet is everywhere).
Z. Finally, it is a false allegation by many of those claiming ‘worldly life’ to assume that we (i.e. those who opine for ‘Barzakhi life’) disbelieve in Istishfa` and Tawassul altogether, just becasue we disagree with their baseless (and needless) opinion of worldly life and the implementation of it in issues of Shafa`ah and Tawassul by the grave. We maintain that:
- asking the Prophet (peace be upon him) for Shafa`ah in his lifetime, as well as Tawassul through his Dua in his lifetime, is permissible;
- asking Allah to accept the Prophet’s Shafa`ah for us after his passing away is permissible;
- Tawassul to Allah via His Divine Names, Attributes and Actions is permissible;
- Tawassul to Allah via one’s faith or good deeds is permissible;
- Tawassul to Allah via the supplication of another person is permissible;
- supplicating to Allah and making Tawassul to Him via a pious intermediary per se, or his stature (جاه) in the eyes of Allah, is an innovation – I believe - as it lacks authentic evidence, though those who believe there is reasonable evidence for it are entitled to this opinion as jurists have subscribed to the authenticity of certain narrations, and this matter is one of valid difference;
- specific Tawassul expressions are suspended on evidence for them reaching us, even though they may be narrated from early scholars, like Imam Abu Yusuf who permitted اللهم إني أسألك بمعقد العز من عرشك, which we would not allow on the basis that no authentic evidence for it has reached us, though also acknowledging at the same time that Imam Abu Yusuf was aware of its evidence – our lack of knowledge however disallows us from subscribing to that Tawassul format; later Maturidis, however, rejected Imam Abu Yusuf’s stance on the principle that it potentially conflicts with their Maturidi creed (see tinyurl.com/c647r77, retrieved 1/5/12), casting aspersions on Imam Abu Yusuf’s scholarship, precision, foresight, and credibility in theology;
- Tawassul to Allah by supplicating to an intermediary is polytheism, like what the people in the Jahiliyyah did.
Comments