Header Ads

Header ADS



Ibn Abdillah As-sudaisiy Al-Iloori

Alhamdulillah, our Baba in Kano has finally spoken on the issue surrounding the interpretation of Q9:40. This step is commendable, but as expected, some of his comments were diversionary and confusing in a way that defeats the purpose of our call on him to refute the innovation in the first place. 

Though he opposed the Principal, one would expected him to use the opportunity to make a plain and untainted refutation and advise the Principal to retract his faulty position. Instead, he had to go back and forth perhaps to avoid being alleged of coming out against his Master. Despite agreeing with us that the Principal erred, he said it is not all what he said that can be rejected. 

One would wonder where the Principal was right on this matter - on the "Felix of Nola" claim or his way of attacking anyone who attempts to correct him? He even mentioned "Philip" in place of "Felix" elsewhere which means that his error and confusion on this topic is never in doubt. By the Principal's interpretation, he clearly meant the verse, and other verses by implication were not even about the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. This deviation is just monumental. Claiming to understand a verse of the Qur'ān to mean something different from what the companions رضي الله عنهم and all the scholars of Islām from one generation to another understood it to mean is the greatest statement of ignorance and arrogance I have heard in recent time. May Allāh save us from misguidance.

The provisions of Q9:38-40 are self explanatory that they do not require too much efforts to understand. Our Baba also explained the verses saying clearly that the second person mentioned in the last verse was not a stranger (it must be one of the companions) and the verses are not contradictory. Yet, he still said the view of the Principal on Q9:40 cannot be totally ignored. He even said some hadiths were reported to confirm that Abu Bakr was the one with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. But he failed to read just one of those hadiths despite the fact that they are clear and reported from different angles. His not reading the hadiths may just mean that he does not accept it to settle the matter on ground. He agreed with an historical account as would be seen later in this article. 

As much as I do not like to listen to non Sunnah oriented lectures, I had to watch Baba's video from the beginning to the end. In Sha Allāh, I will try to analyze some of the issues he brought up as follows:


Baba spoke about hating and loving people as a means of either entering paradise or hell-fire. He said hate and   love has something to do with elevation in life and that haters and lovers of a person with worldly elevation are extremists. But the truth is that hate and love is not generally defined by class or status. Even those who are considered lowly in society also have lovers and haters too. Even when you are poor and classless, you will still have lovers and haters - no doubt. I am glad that he confirmed that some people love the Principal blindly and do not see his flaws. He also said some hate him without noting his goodness. He said the moderation is to be in between.

However, it must be established that as far as love and hate is concerned, the moderate path that Islam and Sunnah calls to is for us to love and hate for the sake of Allāh. If we would love or hate someone, it should be because of Allāh. That is, we can love someone for promoting the pristine Islām. Then we must hate someone for calling to misguidance and failing to take corrections. In fact not hating deviants is dangerous to an individual's Deen. The concept of "al-walaa wal baraa" (alliance and dissociation) presupposes that as Muslims, it is a must for us to ally with those who call to Sunnah and dissociate with those who promote bid'ah and anti-Islamic ideologies. 

That was why I said in a recent article that I am free from anyone who insults the companions رضي الله عنهم ش and he is also free from me until he changes his ways. As Sheikhul Islām, Ibn Taymiyah , رحمه الله said in his Lāmiyah, the love of the companions رضي الله عنهم is our own madhab (school of thought) and we cannot love anyone who speaks ill of any of them. The scholars do say that abusing the companions of any of them رضي الله عنهم is a sign of the anger of Allāh on the one who does it. How can a Muslim be pleased with someone Allāh is likely to be displeased with it? To us, insulting any of them is like insulting all of them. Insulting any of them is like indicting the personality of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and that he was surrounded by wrong people when it is clear from the Qur'ān and Sunnah that they were the noblest group of people in the history of mankind - the people of the best generation of the Muslim Ummah.

Allāh is my Witness, I used to love the Principal so much out of the love that I have for his father and people of knowledge generally. I am neither a scholar nor student of knowledge. Why will I hate any scholar or student of knowledge for no reason? In the past, some of my friends would criticize the Principal and I will defend him. 

I had to withdraw my love for him for Allāh's sake when he first made his erroneous comments on "hijab" and failed to take corrections that were communicated to him from different quarters with wisdom. I have never seen that kind of arrogance before. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes. But when our attention is called to our errors, we must be humble enough to admit them and repent sincerely. Instead of taking corrections, the Principal will attack those who call his attention to the truth. As if that was not enough, he started opposing some of the foundations of Islām, such as misconception of the role of Sunnah in Islam; denial of return of Prophet Isa عليه السلام; insulting and mocking some of the companions رضي الله عنهم, attacks on noble scholars like Imām Bukhari, disobedience to the office of Sultan on moon-sighting issue  etc.

Therefore, loving him blindly after these dangerous ideologies that he is yet to retract despite having chance to do so is a great evil that can lead his lovers to kufr if care is not taken. How can a true Muslim love someone who has deviated this much? Anyone who loves him despite his glaring deviations and misleading comments is either ignorant of the pristine Islām or being hypocritical. If he returns to the truth today, we will restore his love. Hating him for insisting on these deviations is a sign of eemān because it is out of having protective jealousy for the Deen. And loving him despite his deviations is a sign of weak faith. Even a Muslim can't love his parents if they fall in these mess, let alone a non parent. Though he or she must still do good to his parents even if he or she is a Kāfir. It is not permissible to love anyone attacks the Sunnah. An attack against the Sunnah is an attack against the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Allāh says:

لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُّؤْمِنُوْنَ بِا للّٰهِ وَا لْيَوْمِ الْاٰ خِرِ يُوَآ دُّوْنَ مَنْ حَآ دَّ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوْلَهٗ وَلَوْ كَا نُوْۤا اٰبَآءَهُمْ اَوْ اَبْنَآءَهُمْ اَوْ اِخْوَا نَهُمْ اَوْ عَشِيْرَتَهُمْ ۗ اُولٰٓئِكَ كَتَبَ فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمُ الْاِ يْمَا نَ وَاَ يَّدَهُمْ بِرُوْحٍ مِّنْهُ ۗ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنّٰتٍ تَجْرِيْ مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الْاَ نْهٰرُ خٰلِدِيْنَ فِيْهَا ۗ رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ ۗ اُولٰٓئِكَ حِزْبُ اللّٰهِ ۗ اَ لَاۤ اِنَّ حِزْبَ اللّٰهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُوْنَ

You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred. Those - He has decreed within their hearts faith and supported them with spirit from Him. And We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally. Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him - those are the party of Allah. Unquestionably, the party of Allah - they are the successful. (QS. Al-Mujaadila: Verse 22)

It must also be noted that the gravity of the evils of an individual would determine whether or not his good sides should be weighed. If a person's deviations are so grievous that he keep misleading many ignorant people on and offline, his good sides will be meaningless. For instance, Fira'aun has his good sides too, but his kufr had to cover it up. Abu Tālib was a good man to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, but his kufr made his good deeds to be worthless and weightless. The good sides of disbeliever, or hypocrite or apostate will not remove him from hell-fire on the Day of Judgement. Allāh's aid is sought.

However, his hatred must be moderated in such a way that he will be refuted with wisdom. One can be harsh in one's refutation sometimes, to show the gravity of his deviations, but it is not necessary to insult him or mock him with his ill-health. That will not only be unislamic but defamatory according to the law. I recently wrote an article warning people from mocking him over his health issues. Anyone can fall sick. He should not also be excommunicated without following the laid down conditions. It is always better to avoid personality attacks and face the issues that are at stake. Using wrong methodology of refutation can lead some of his haters to hell-fire if care is not taken as Baba rightly said. So, we need to be careful of this. 


Baba's illustration regarding 'Ali Ibn Abī Tālib رضي الله عنه on the love of Shias and hatred of the Khawarij is irrelevant in this case because 'Ali was not just a Sohābah but a Rightly Guided Caliph whose righteousness is already confirmed. Loving 'Ali to the point of calling him God and hating him are both kufr. So, moderately hating the Principal because of his deviations and refusal to withdraw his kufr comments is in order. His case is totally different from that of Ali رضي الله عنه.


Baba said since the Principal started Tafseer this year, people have started speaking against him. He said the issues raised in the Tafseer should not cause controversy if not for those loving and hating him blindly. The truth on this is that people will continue to talk as long as he does not stop committing further blunders. If he does not stop committing these grave errors, the people of Sunnah will not stop talking. That is the tradition from one generation or the other. 

A deviant does not appear except that Allāh will raise sincere scholars that would deal with him and his heresies. This is one of the ways through which Allāh protects His Deen. Trying to shut people up because of the Principal occupy in society will not make the Sunni scholars of this era to spare him. Then the propaganda that it is the institution that is being attacked will never work because there are products of the same institution refuting his heresies. There are even some among his siblings and loyalists of his father when he was alive refuting his heresies. Refuting to his innovations is a must for people of knowledge.

Let us even come to think of it, is he the only one doing Tafseer in Yorubaland during Ramadan. Khalifatul Adabiyyah has also started Tafseer from Day 1 and people have been listening and watching it all over the world, and there are no complaints about him. The position of the Khaleefatul Adabiyyeen too is exalted as an inheritor of a great scholar in the history of Yorubaland (Sheikh Muhammad Kamaludeen Al-Adabiy رحمه الله). But why are people not complaining about his own Tafseer? There are other shuyūkh holding their Tafseer on a daily basis in the month of Ramadan and they are not causing problems in this ummah. This only shows that it is the Principal that should check himself and his sources of knowledge.


Anyone who wants to be saying new things in the Deen will only end up saying nonsense because this Deen has already been perfected by Allāh (See Qur'ān 5:3). Baba said the Principal says new things or things that people have never heard before. It is important to clarify that there is nothing he has said so far to distort the Deen that has not been said before by past deviants. Is he not taking his knowledge from the internet? Whatever he says are from what some people must have said in the past. His deviations are not new because he drew them from some unorthodox sources. They are either copied from the Shias who hate the People of Sunnah with passion or from the orientalists who studied Islām purposely to distort it. How can a reasonable Muslim be picking from the books of non Muslims and atheists just because he wants to attack the Sunnah and its people? What has the People of Sunnah done to him? Is there any property they have hijacked from him? The truth is that no one can silent the Sunnah and its people. They are the Tāifatul Mansūrah (The Assisted Group). The Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

لا تزال طائفة من أمتي ظاهرين على الحق، لا يضرهم من خذلهم، حتى يأتي أمر الله وهم كذلك

A group of my nation will continue to prevail upon the truth, and those who forsake them will not harm them, until the command of Allāh comes and they are like that. [Muslim, 1920]

One of the unique things about the People of Sunnah is that they do not side one another upon error or evil especially if it is glaring. No one is is perfect. No matter how big our scholars are, they have those who still strive to call their attention to their mistakes when they err. For instance, when Ustadh Muhammad 'Ali Jabata came up with takfeer ideology, virtually all the scholars within the fold of Sunnah stood firmly against him. When some of our scholars were trivialising the bid'ah of some deviant groups ascribing to Sunnah, some Sunni scholars called their attention to it with wisdom. When some of our young scholars are going overboard in their tabdee' of scholars of Sunnah, some trustworthy and reliable scholars called their attention to it. This is how things should be. This is what makes the people of Sunnah clearly different from the people of bid'ah. 

The People of Bid'ah would see falsehood and support it either directly or indirectly because the person behind it is their teacher or mentor. 


Baba also said people do curse the Principal for saying those new things he says instead of engaging him. This is not totally true. Though some among those who lay claim to Sunnah are guilty of insulting him. But most of the scholars of Sunnah who that I know had refuted him in the past have done so with with wisdom except Alfa Jabata who is well known for his Takfeer ideology and abusive da'wah. The people of Sunnah are also free from Alfa Jabata till he retract his Takfeeri ideologies too. What scholars of Sunnah do while refuting the Principal is to clarify his errors, expose his ignorance and warn the Muslims against him. This is not bad because the Deen must be protected against corruption.


Baba said the Principal does not get angry or fight anyone regarding the opinions he holds because it is useful to him. This statement is false. There are many instances where he had mocked and insult those who opposed him on issues. In fact, on one occasion, he was so furious that he was bragging that he has knowledge more than those refuting him. It is a must for a Muslim to be pained whenever an aspect of Sunnah is being undermined, especially when the person doing it has no convincing evidence. For instance, the established truth from all the scholars of Islam from one generation to another is that the person in the cave with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه. Anyone with an opposing view must bring evidence. Otherwise, he is a deviant, and it is not Islamic to ally with a deviant who does not take corrections.


Baba said he disagreed with the Principal that it was not Felix of Nola that was in the cave with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. But unfortunately he was still praising him upon the deviation. He said: I want you to know his (the Principal's) excellence before he lives your midst. This statement confirms our earlier position that these people are part of the problems. They praise and rever the Principal in ways that he will not know he is doing evils. They do not tell him the truth. What is the excellence of someone who speaks without knowledge? 

What is the excellence of someone who opposes the texts arrogantly? The best for a Muslim is to dissociate him or herself from anyone who distorts any aspect of the Deen. More so, the issues he distorted are 'aqeedah (creed) issues upon which opinions are not allowed. The matters of 'aqeedah are Tawqeefiyyah (to be accepted as they are) and not to be disputed. It is matters of fiqh (jurisprudence) that the scholars have the liberty to research and debate on.


Baba also said clearly that he does not see what the Principal is doing as something bad. What more evidence do we need to buttress the fact that it is dangerous to learn the Deen from people who do not even understand the basis of the Sunnah and 'Aqeedah of Islām? They do not have "Al wala wal baraa". He was still declaring his allegiance for him. Even though he believes the Principal's interpretation of Q9:40 was wrong, he still said he sees nothing wrong in his controversial sermons. Subhanallah. He said, after all, the Principal is not forcing his views on anyone. This only shows that Baba too is one of those being blinded by the Principal's love. Why is it so hard for him to categorically say he was wrong and urge him to change his stance because it could amount to kufr? 

Baba said the Principal should be given excuse of being a mujtahid (researcher) who gets one reward if he makes a mistake or double reward if he turns out to be correct in his research. The excuse of being a mujtahid is not to be given to just anyone except the people of knowledge who are sincere upon it. The deviants who distort the Deen do not have this privilege as Al-Imam Al-Barbahāree رحمه الله said in Sharhus Sunnah. This shows that the knowledge of the sharī'ah is not just about understanding Arabic and being able to read Arabic texts alone without a teacher. The knowledge of Islamic law must be taken from trustworthy people before anyone can be qualified to talk about it.


Baba raised an issue on whether or not it was Abu Bakr that was with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. He said history had it that one Abdullahi bin Bakr was the one with him. He said the mix up was from the name because Abu Bakr was also Abdullah (Ibn Quhafah). The question here is, why not stick to the specific authentic hadiths reported on this matter? Why placing seerah account over a hadith just to prove that the Principal was not totally wrong? It is very clear that the people of bid'ah do not accept hadiths except it conforms with their desires. It is clear that their research is based on the works of shias and orientalists. 

Though the hadith of Aishah رضي الله عنها mentioned the fact that Abdullah bin Urayqah Ibn Bakr was involved in the journey as an agent. But he was not the one in the cave with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Aishah رضي الله عنها said in the lengthy hadith:

ثُم لحِقَ  رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ بِغَارٍ فِي جَبَلِ ثَوْرٍ فَكَمَنَا فِيهِ ثَلَاثَ لَيَالٍ يَبِيتُ عِنْدَهُمَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَهُوَ غُلَامٌ شَابٌّ ثَقِفٌ لَقِنٌ،‏‏‏‏ فَيُدْلِجُ مِنْ عِنْدِهِمَا بِسَحَرٍ فَيُصْبِحُ مَعَ قُرَيْشٍ بِمَكَّةَ كَبَائِتٍ،‏‏‏‏ فَلَا يَسْمَعُ أَمْرًا يُكْتَادَانِ بِهِ إِلَّا وَعَاهُ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَهُمَا بِخَبَرِ ذَلِكَ حِينَ يَخْتَلِطُ الظَّلَامُ...

...Then Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr reached a cave on the mountain of Thawr and stayed there for three nights. 'Abdullah bin Abi Bakr who was intelligent and a sagacious youth, used to stay (with them) over night. He used to leave them before day break so that in the morning he would be with Quraish as if he had spent the night in Mecca. He would keep in mind any plot made against them, and when it became dark he would (go and) inform them of it... [Sahih Bukhari 3905]

It is baffling how Baba could ignore this authentic hadith reported in the Sahih Bukhari that clearly states that the person with Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave was Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه and go ahead to bring up the hadith of Sālim (on leading prayers and excellence of knowing the Qur'ān) that has no bearing on the topic of discussion just to cause confusion. However, like I mentioned earlier, the source of this distortion is the Shia sect and the orientalists. There is no doubt that it was from them that Baba picked this shubhah from and not that it was his own personal analogy as he claimed.

HADITH OF ABU BAKR رضي الله عنه 

There are hadiths confirming that it was Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه that was with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. Let us have a look at this Hadith:

عن أبي بكر الصديق ـ رضي الله عنه ـ عبد الله بن عثمان بن عامر بن عمر ابن كعب بن سعد بن تيم بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي بن غالب القرشي التيمي ـ رضي الله عنه ـ وهو وأبوه وأمه صحابة ـ رضي الله عنهم ـ قال: نظرت إلى أقدام المشركين ونحن في الغار وهم على رؤوسنا، فقلت: يا رسول الله، لو أن أحدهم نظر تحت قدميه لأبصرنا. فقال: «ما ظنك يا أبا بكر باثنين الله ثالثهما» متفق عليه.

On the authority of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq - may Allāh pleased with him - Abdullah bin Uthman bin Amer bin Omar bin Ka’b bin Saad bin Taym bin Murrah bin Ka’b bin Luay bin Ghalib Al-Qurashi Al-Taymi - may Allāh be pleased with him - and he, his father and his mother were Companions - may Allāh be pleased with them - he said: I looked To the feet of the polytheists while we were in the cave and they were on our heads. I said: O Messenger of God, if one of them had looked under his feet, he would have seen us. He said: “What do you think, Abu Bakr, of two things, of which God is the third?”[Sahih Bukhari, 3653]

The above hadith is very clear to the effect that it was Abu Bakr that was with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. It is a direct and first hand information from Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه himself regarding who was in the cave with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Hadith is authentically reported by Imām Bukhari, Muslim and some other scholars of hadith. Baba did not even read this particular hadith despite its clarity, perhaps because he knew how clear it is against the position he holds. The Hadith of Salim (also reported in Sahih Bukhari) was the one he read because he thinks it has a loophole he wished to hide under to support his doubt regarding who was actually with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Sālim  used to lead the Muhājirun in prayers at Masjid Quba in Madeenah before the arrival of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Hadith indicated that Abu Bakr and others رضي الله عنهم were also with them. So, he came up with the question: how can Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه be the one with Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave and still be with some companions in Quba Madeenah? 

The mentioning of this Hadith on this matter is just to bring about confusion and cast doubt in the minds of the people on who was with the Prophet, صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. The comments section speaks volume on this. This confusion was originally that of the Shia and it is evident in their writings. Baba was saying it as if he was bringing up something new. It is not new. The source of the doubts he intended to create is very clear.

What the scholars usually do when two or more hadith seems to be contradictory is to combine them together to give the best nearest interpretation. The fact that Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه left Makkah with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم does not mean he could not have reached there before the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Anything could have happened that made Abu Bakr to be present in Quba. The hadith of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه cited above deserves better consideration in this context to resolve the matter on ground because it is direct and straightforward. The hadith clearly confirmed Abu Bakr was the one in the cave with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. So, there is nothing to get confused about here. 

Even Sheikh Adam Abdullahi Al-Iloory رحمه الله opined in one of his lectures that it was Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه who partnered the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. But these people will still abandon Sheikh's view out of desire and hero worship of the Principal. Sheikh Muhammad Kamaldeen Al-Adabi رحمه الله also expressed the same view in one of his  evergreen lectures on "Hijrah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم with Abu Bakr رضي الله". This is the position of our Babas from time immemorial. None of them deviated from this position. Anyone who brings something different to this from Shia sources and those supporting him or creating non existing doubts in the minds of Muslims on this matter on account of hizbiyyah (unhealthy partisanship) with an individual or institution are not to be taken seriously. They are on their own. May Allāh guide them to Sunnah.


Baba also brought up a claim that the verse kept referring to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم alone. He said if the person with him was Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه, Allāh would have pluralise His statements when He said He descended on the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم with His sakeenah and unseen soldiers. This is just a mere fikrah (thought) brought up to rejects clear and unambiguous hadiths. Where are these dangerous thoughts coming from? It is just as if these people are working for enemies within (Rāfidhis) and enemies outside (Mustashrikūn -orientalists). Allāh can chose to address the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم alone even while Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was with him. No one can teach Allāh how to talk. He knows best why He used third person singular pronoun to address His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and this does not in any way raise a reasonable suspicion that it was not Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه that was with him. 

One wonders how a scholar will neglect all books of tafseer and focus on shubhāh (doubts). The scholars of tafseer did not differ on the identity of the person who was with the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. They all agreed it was Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه. In fact, the scholars argued as to whom the sakeenah of Allāh was upon. Many of the scholars, including Al-Hāfidh Ibn Kathir (Tafseerul Qur'ān Kareem, 4/155), At-tabarānī (Jāmi'ul Bayān, 14/261); Az-zamakhsharī (Al-Kashāf, 2/260); Ibn Al-Jazyi and (At-tasheel, 2/76) said it applied to Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. This is also the view of As-shinqeetī in Adwāul Bayān, 7/397

Some scholars opined that the sakeenah was for Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه. For instance, Habeeb Ibn Abī Thābit رحمه الله  said:

 نزلت على أبي بكر ، فأما النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فكانت سكينته عليه قبل ذلك

It was on Abū Bakr, as for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم , the sakeenah of Allāh was already with him before then [Tafseer Ibn Abī Hātim,6/1801]

It was clear from the video that Baba strongly believed that Abdullah Ibn Bakr was the one who was with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in the cave. He said this was why Allāh did not address them together in the verse. This position calls for concern because if the person with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was a Kāfir as Baba claimed, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would not have told him لا تحزن إن الله معنا (do not be sad, Allāh is with us). This implication of the above statement in tauhid clearly shows that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was addressing a Muslim. And that Muslim was Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه. 

The statement لا تحزن إن الله معنا is so strong that the one to whom it could be addressed was a Muslim who understood its value and not a Kāfir as Baba and the source he relied upon claimed. In addition, this is one of the many incidents that showcase the strength of the eemān of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه  and how much the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم trusted him. The statement has a lot to do with the concept of At-tawakkul in Islām. Perhaps, this was why the hadith was the first to be mentioned by Al-Imām An-nawawi in the Chapter of At-tawakkul in his book "Riyādh Saliheen". It even sounds somehow to insinuate that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would be with a Kāfir on such a significant moment.

The above hadith is clear enough to show that Abu Bakr was the one in the cave with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and there is no reason to doubt it. One of the scholars said:

وفاداه يوم الغار طوعا بنفسه .

              وواساه بالأموال حتى تجردا

And he (Abu Bakr) voluntarily assisted him on the day of the cave... and aided him with his money till it finishes.


Abdullahi Ibn 'Umar رضي الله عنهما reported:

كَانَ سَالِمٌ مَوْلَى أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ يَؤُمُّ المُهَاجِرِينَ الأَوَّلِينَ ، وَأَصْحَابَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي مَسْجِدِ قُبَاءٍ فِيهِمْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، وَعُمَرُ ، وَأَبُو سَلَمَةَ ، وَزَيْدٌ ، وَعَامِرُ بْنُ رَبِيعَةَ

Sālim, the servant of Abu Hudhayfah, used to lead the first immigrants and the companions of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) in the Quba Mosque. Among them were Abu Bakr, Omar, Abu Salamah, Zaid, and Amer bin Rabi’ah.”[Sahih Bukhari]

The hadith of Sālim that he later brought is also from the plots of the Shias to cast doubt on the clear hadith of Abu Bakr mentioned cited above. Their objective is to establish a non existent contradiction between the two hadiths. They hate Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه so much that they can create any confusion to rubbish any hadith pointing to his virtues and honour. It must be noted that some authentic hadiths may look contradictory, but they are not in the real sense. This is not uncommon in Islamic jurisprudence. Even some verses of the Qur'ān may appear to be contradictory. It is the people of knowledge who know how to resolve them using some principles of Islamic jurisprudence. When they are done with their analysis, it will be clear that there is no contradiction in them. I strongly implore scholars of Sunnah to do justice to this shubhah (confusion) raised by the antagonists of Sunnah.

In this case, what jurists usually do is to combine the hadiths or verses that may appear contradictory together and interpret them while considering all surrounding circumstances. For us to understand this matter better, let's look at this illustration. On our way to Lagos, it is possible to leave Ilorin together and not get to Lagos together. The journey of Makkah to Madeenah is far and took the Salaf days or even months. The scholars may say that perhaps Abu Bakr got to Madeenah before the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Is this not possible? The fact that he left with him may not mean they reached there together. It could be that Abu Bakr met Sālim leading some other companions رضي الله عنهم at Quba. This is how the mind of a true and sincere scholar should work and not insinuate contradictions between two or more authentic hadiths. But there are even clear hadiths showing that Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه actually left Makkah and arrived Madeenah in the company of his friend, Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه.

I even sensed a systematic or subtle attack on Imām Bukhari and his work here. Baba did not categorically say that hadiths in Sahih Bukhari are contradictory, but sadly, that was the implication of his conclusion. More so, the lengthy hadith of Aishah رضي الله عنها on how the hijrah journey was made clearly showed that it was even the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم who delayed the migration of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه so that he can go with him whenever Allāh instructs him to leave. It was narrated:

‏‏‏‏‏‏  وَتَجَهَّزَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قِبَلَ الْمَدِينَةِ،  فَقَالَ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:‏‏‏‏ "عَلَى رِسْلِكَ فَإِنِّي أَرْجُو أَنْ يُؤْذَنَ لِي"، ‏‏‏‏‏‏فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ:‏‏‏‏ وَهَلْ تَرْجُو ذَلِكَ بِأَبِي أَنْتَ، ‏‏‏‏‏‏قَالَ:‏‏‏‏ "نَعَمْ"،‏‏‏‏ فَحَبَسَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ نَفْسَهُ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِيَصْحَبَهُ وَعَلَفَ رَاحِلَتَيْنِ كَانَتَا عِنْدَهُ وَرَقَ السَّمُرِ وَهُوَ الْخَبَطُ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍ

Abu Bakr also prepared to leave for Medina, but Allah's Apostle said to him, Wait for a while, because I hope that I will be allowed to migrate also. Abu Bakr said, Do you indeed expect this? Let my father be sacrificed for you! The Prophet said, Yes. So Abu Bakr did not migrate for the sake of Allah's Apostle in order to accompany him. He fed two she-camels he possessed with the leaves of As-Samur tree that fell on being struck by a stick for four months. [Sahih Bukhari, 3905]

In this case, effect should have been given to the clearer hadith that specifically established that it was Abu Bakr that was in the cave. This was what Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar رحمه الله said in his book "Fathul Bāri" specifically on the relationship between the hadiths. It is just like the case of two hadiths - one saying the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used not to urinate while standing and another hadith that established the fact that a companion رضي الله عنه saw him urinating while standing. The two hadith are authentic. But effect is to be given to the hadith of a companion who said he saw the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم urinating while standing because it was specific and straight forward. It will now mean that urinating while standing depends on the circumstance we find ourselves. There are situations where the best thing is to urinate while standing and there are situations where the best thing is to bend to urinate. So, there is no contradiction in these hadiths.

This our religion, Islam is so perfect. It was Allāh Who perfected His religion by Himself. Part of those Allāh has used to perfect it are the People of Hadith from one generation to another. They are so thorough in their works to the extend that it is difficult to corrupt. So, thinking that an authentic hadith will contradict another authentic hadith or verse of the Qur'ān is mischievous. If anyone does not understand a hadith, he should rather ask the people of knowledge for clarification. This is better than insinuating contradictions in the Book of Allāh or the Sunnah. Allāh says:

اَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُوْنَ الْقُرْاٰ نَ ۗ وَلَوْ كَا نَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللّٰهِ لَوَجَدُوْا فِيْهِ اخْتِلَا فًا كَثِيْرًا

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction. (QS. An-Nisaa: Verse 82)


Baba called for the unity of sects in Islām. But the call for unity of Muslim has only one condition - readiness to abide by the Qur'ān Sunnah. Then our division as a Ummah is inevitable. It was predicted by the prophet in the Hadith of 73 sects. Allāh says:

وَا عْتَصِمُوْا بِحَبْلِ اللّٰهِ جَمِيْعًا وَّلَا تَفَرَّقُوْا ۖ 

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. (QS. Aal-i-Imraan: Verse 103)

The rope of Allāh as explained by scholars is the Qur'ān and Sunnah. Before we can have the much desired unity, we must all return back to the pristine Islām.


Baba also accused the people of Sunnah of claiming to be perfect and knowing more than others. This is wrong. He is even the who always claim to know more than anyone. This is clear in the way he addresses issues. He feels he can delve into any aspect of the Deen without expertise.  In the video, his presentation shows that he felt he had dealt with issue on ground and there is no other way. Where as, he only ended up confusing the Ummah more on the issue by suggesting that Sahih Bukhari contradicted itself. This is the same Sahih Bukhari that the Principal had denigrated in the past. This is a Shia methodology of tackling issues. 

The people of Sunnah do not claim to be perfect. What the scholars of Sunnah call to is clear knowledge according to Qur'ān and Sunnah and not just Google based opinions and thoughts. The sources of the sharī'ah (Qur'ān, Sunnah and Ijmā' of the Sohābah) should always be the point of reference while dealing with religious matters. The path of Islam and Sunnah is clear without ambiguity.  Allāh says:

قُلْ هٰذِهٖ سَبِيْلِيْۤ اَدْعُوْۤا اِلَى اللّٰهِ ۗ عَلٰى بَصِيْرَةٍ اَنَاۡ وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِيْ ۗ وَسُبْحٰنَ اللّٰهِ وَمَاۤ اَنَاۡ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِيْنَ

Say, This is my way; I invite to Allah with insight, I and those who follow me. And exalted is Allah; and I am not of those who associate others with Him. (QS. Yusuf: Verse 108)

No comments

Powered by Blogger.