Did the Holy Prophet (PBUH) See Allah (SWT) on Isrâ’ and Mi‘râj ?

[ihsan]

If God is "a Light" and the Prophet said, "how could I see Him," then it is clear that this statement means that it was not possible for him to see Him. In fact, this hadith seems to be making a point that the Prophet was informed and knew well that God was "a Light" but that he did not even see that. So if God is Light and the Prophet said that he could not see God, then the statement should be relegated to knowledge of God being a Light to other than vision.

As for the verses I provided that "no vision can encompass" not meaning that one cannot see Him is completely wrong. If vision, anyone's, cannot encompass/see/ascertain God then how is it that one is not allowed to say that no one can see God? The verse is clear and with the other verses provided the matter is obvious.

Regards

As a side note, the hadeeth is related in two different ways that I found.

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Did you see thy Lord? He said: He is a Light;. how could I see Him?

Abdullah b. Shaqiq reported: I said to Abu Dharr: Had I seen the Messenger of Allah, I would have asked him. He (Abu Dharr) said: What is that thing that you wanted to inquire of him? He said: I wanted to ask him whether he had seen his Lord. Abu Dharr said: I, in fact, inquired of him, and he replied: I saw Light.

These are two very different responses, but both of them deny any viewing by the Prophet (S). It is quite obvious that the first report is more inaccurate than the latter, in light of the Quran and other hadeeth. The reason for this is the Quran clearly states that Allah only speaks to his Prophets behind a veil. From the quote of ibn Qayyim, there is another hadeeth attributed to Abu Dharr from Sahih Muslim which states that the Prophet (S) denied that he could have seen Allah, by stating that his veil was light. As far as the issue of the veil, there are other hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim which refer to it:

Abu Musa reported: The Messenger ofallah (may peace be upon him) was standing amongst us and he told us five things. He said: Verily the Exalted and Mighty God does not sleep, and it does not befit Him to sleep. He lowers the scale and lifts it. The deeds in the night are taken up to Him before the deeds of the day. and the deeds of the day before the deeds of the night. His veil is the light. In the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr (instead of the word" light" ) it is fire. If he withdraws it (the veil), the splendour of His countenance would consume His creation so far as His sight reaches.

A'mash has narrated this hadith on the same authority and said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was standing amongst us and he told us four things. He then narrated the hadith like the one reported by Abu Mua'wiya, but did not mention the words" His creation" and said: His veil is the light.

This hadeeth clearly states that their is a veil between God and his creation and that it is light. Other additions are included in some of the hadeeth, as is obvious. Among such additions are the attributed hadeeth to Abu Bakr (R) that, if the veil is removed, all of creation would be consumed by his brilliant countenance.

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “ ‘The (Prophet’s) heart belied not what he saw, and indeed he saw Him at a second descent.’ [al-Najm 53:11-12] (This means that) he saw Him twice with his heart.” (Narrated by Muslim, al-Eemaan, 258).

The idea that ibn Abbass (R) would make such a statement baffles the mind, considering the very surah states about the Prophet (S) during these experiences:

The (Prophet's) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw.
Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw?

The Quran is stating that the heart of the Prophet (S) had no doubts in what the Prophet (S) saw with his own eyes. There was no chance of what the Prophet (S) was seeing was his own imagination. Further, the claim that ibn Abbass (R) believed the Prophet (S) saw God Almighty from Surah Najm makes no sense, considering the Surah itself is clearly referring to Gabriel (AS), not God Almighty. Before even describing Gabriel in similar terms thatthe Quran does in other places, Allah starts off this description with:

It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
He was taught by one Mighty in Power,

The teaching is attributed to the person who is bringing the inspiration down to him. Even the hadeeth attributed to Aisha (R) states that the Mother of the Faithful asked who that being was in SUrah Najm:

It is narrated on the authority of Masruq that he said: I was resting at (the house of) 'A'isha that she said: O Abu 'A'isha (kunya of Masruq), there are three things, and he who affirmed even one of them fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I asked that they were. She said: He who presumed that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) saw his Lord (with his ocular vision) fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I was reclining but then sat up and said: Mother of the Faithful, wait a bit and do not be in a haste. Has not Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said:" And truly he saw him on the clear horizon" (al-Qur'an, lxxxi. 23) and" he saw Him in another descent" (al-Qur'an, iiii. 13)? She said: I am the first of this Ummah who asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said: Verily he is Gabriel. I have never seen him in his original form in which he was created except on those two occasions (to which these verses refer) ; I saw him descending from the heaven and filling (the space) from the sky to the earth with the greatness of his bodily structure. She said: Have you not heard Allah saying." Eyes comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. and He is Subtle, and All-Aware" (al-Qur'an, v. 104)? (She, i. e. 'A'isha, further said): Have you not heard that, verily, Allah says:" And it is not vouchsafed to a human being that Allah should speak unto him otherwise than by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger (angel), so that he revealth whatsoever He wills. Verily He is Exalted. Wise" (al. Qur'an, xii. 51) She said: He who presumes that the Messengerof Allah (may peace be upon him) concealed anything, from the Book, of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says:" O Messenger! deliver that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord, and if thou do (it) not, thou hast not delivered His message" (al-Qur'an, v. 67). She said: He who presumes that he would inform about what was going to happen tomorrow fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. And Allah says" Say thou (Muhammad): None in the heavens and the earth knoweth the unseen save Allah" (al-Qur'an, xxvii 65).

As a side note, Bukhari has this same hadeeth, but in a different variation, with a lot of information lacking.

Narrated Masruq:

'Aisha said, "If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar, for Allah says: 'No vision can grasp Him.' (6.103) And if anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen the Unseen, he is a liar, for Allah says: "None has the knowledge of the Unseen but Allah."

It actually tells you a lot about the 'perfection' of the hadeeth books.

[ihsan]

Please show me where I used the word consensus or even remotely alluded to it in relation to the Prophet's (Allah bless him and give him peace) vision? I am not the one who quoted Ibn al-Qayyim in this discussion. So please do not put words in my mouth and I can see that it is time for me to leave, so have a nice day.

Sorry, but you invoked number to prove your point.

For the record, I said he saw Him with his basirah, not his basr. And there is plenty of evidence of that from the hadith and such an occurrence is reported from no less than twenty Companions, as Ibn Kathir mentioned in his tafsir if I am not mistaken.

Whether the word is consensus or twenty Companions, the point is clear. The statement of ibn Qayyim, who was the contemporary of ibn Katheer, says something that is explicitly different than what you claim ibn Katheer said. ibn Qayyim quotes Uthman saying NOT A SINGLE Companion, with the exception of ibn Abbass (R), claimed the Prophet (S) saw Allah. Uthman even states that some scholars stated that ibn Abbass, himself, never said the Prophet saw Allah.

[Al-Boriqi]

ihsan

As even you quoted from ibn Qayyim:


Quote:
The Companions differed whether the Prophet MHMD Allah bless and greet him – actually saw his Lord that night [of isrâ’ and mi‘râj] or not. It is authentically narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet MHMD Allah bless and greet him – saw his Lord, and also authentically related that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “He saw Him with his heart.” It is also authentically related from ‘A’isha and Ibn Mas‘ud that they denied such vision, saying that the words of Allah Most High (And verily he saw him, yet another time, at the Lote Tree of the Farthest Boundary) (53:13) refer to Gibrîl (Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Ma‘ad 3/34)

so he narrated the two opinions. so what

Which verse alludes to the fact that the Prophet (S) saw his Lord?

the one I alreay quoted

The verse I quoted is the conclusion of the what precedes it, including 53:13. So how can you argue it has nothing to do with the situation?

i don't know reall, i don;t feel like making a misken style takhreej on the issue unnecesarily

The only verses that in any way relates to whether a Prophet can see God or not all point to the exact opposite and that is, it is impossible for even a Messenger to speak to God face-to-face.

there is no verse that speaks of anything your talking about explicitly nor implicitly minus the ayaah regarding musa, in which Musa asked to see Allah to which Allah's reply was "You cannot see me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me."

in other words, Allah, being the All-KNowing" alreay gave the answer that "no you cannot see Me for nothing can see me in this life"
The "cannot see Him" is divided into two, physical, and spiritual
1. physically because the physical reality cannot bear the sheer force of the Glory that is with Allah. The mighty mountain is a clear example of that
2. spiritual because it defeats the purpose of emaan

Allah did not say "you will not be able to see Me" rather he gave another clause, which has importance and relevence, that being "But if you look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me". In other words seeing Him is not an "impossibility" even in this life, provided that the creation is ABLE to withstand the sheer Glory of Allah. Again this impossibility is linked to the fact that we KNOW as a surity that creation cannot stand to actually witness his unveiling of Himself. Therefore impossibility is rendered from that aspect, and not the absolute inability for Him to be seen

In Surah Shoora, the impossibility is directly related to the revelational phenomenon

i have no idea what your talking about. please share with us this ayaah

So to argue that the forbiddance isn only conditional to the 'physical' state of the Prophet (S) has no basis whatsoever.

Actually, im not arguing at all over any forbidence for there is no text explicitly nor implicitly that states that it is absolutely impossible to see Allah, and the ayaah that specifically mentions that is with regard to Musa which I quoted above, which links the realm of impossibility of seeing Him through the route of this world can handle it. Were we and the earth to withstand the vision, then that impossibility would be uplifted, as the ayaah clearly indicates.

This is actually quite laughable BTW. Talk about exxaggeration...

when it comes to exageration like this, i like to add a little humor to it.

He has human through and through, who split the moon, turned sticks into weapons, healed injuries with is saliva, fed hundreds from a single loaf of bread, satiated the thirst of three hundred people with a single wudu pot, whose sweat was sweeter than musk and whose blood and urine were pure and medicinal. All by Allah's leave. What exactly is your point?

جزاك الله خيرا وبارك فيك

The Quran rejects the alleged 'hadith evidence' because the impossibility of seeing Allah face-to-face is in the context of the revelational phenomenon, when Muhammad's (S) mode of perception was clearer than his normal, everyday perception.

with all do respect, Allah does not reject Himself, nor does He reject the Prophet, nor does the prophet reject Allah's kalaam. it is you who are reading into them a western styled contradiction.

Just curious, logical or not, do you have a source of that belief other than Shaykh Muhyiddin and the Deobandis who frequently include his relevant opinions in their works? By the way, I am also curious to know the answer to my question. It wasn't directed at Hussein. How do you feel or what is the "hukm" of scholars who quote Ibn `Arabi and consider him to be not only a Believer, but a scholar of the highest caliber, in spite of what is attributed to him?

1. yeah, Qadhi iyaad is the one whom i got this opinion from.

2. firstly, my feeling has no play in anything
secondly, i am the last person on earth who can give a hum on a person so whatever i say does not matter to begin with
thirdly, had my opinion actually counted, i would say that regarding him, two forms emerge. the first being those who fall into this idea and agree with is philosophy. the second, being those who merely extratc what they perceive a benefit in, while negating his philosophy as a source of saheeh thought and belief. Of course, those who agree ith his philosophy, and are educated to the orthodox creed, and continue to hold the hallaji creed, are all apostates for whoever does not affirm the kufr of the disbelivers is himself a disbeliever, as a general rule this is applied. specifically, regarding a said individual, his case is looked into, by people much more qualified than poor old me.

I remember a similar hukm was given regarding Ibn Sina al-Batini, and the ruling that was given to those "Muslims" who did not view him to be a kaafir, after coming to know of his creedal beliefs of course.

The idea that ibn Abbass (R) would make such a statement baffles the mind, considering the very surah states about the Prophet (S) during these experiences:

what baffles the mind is you perception of the entire matter. Considering that Ibn Abbass arabic is based on the pristine style of the arabs, and yours does not reach nahw, and considering that Ibn Abbass new what each ayaah meant and when it was revealed and to whom. Id take his logical deductions over your absurd mutazili based ideas

and to let you know, the more stronger opinion is that Ibn Abbass agreed he did not see Him literally with his eyes, but by his heart, meaning of his baseerah, and as stated before, his vision in this state even exceeds the actual sight of man. And infact this is what I incline to more for the actual literal statement that deals with the prophet seeing Allah is the hadeeth that states "how could I, He is light" and "i saw light" and considering that the hadeeth that "if Allah lifts His veil, all of creation will be obliterated"

Therefore, when Im arguing that He saw Allah, Im arguing from the route that He saw him in his baseerah of which Ibn Abbass words as "his heart". I do not subscribe to the notion that He saw him with his naked eye.

Further, the claim that ibn Abbass (R) believed the Prophet (S) saw God Almighty from Surah Najm makes no sense, considering the Surah itself is clearly referring to Gabriel (AS), not God Almighty

what the heck are you talking about

firstly, can you cite for us the ayaah where Ibn Abbass is talking about. secondly, after reading the surah i did not see jibreel mentioned explicitly or otherwise. Infact, the entire surah is dedicated to Allah's enjoinment of Good and the forbidding of evil from the route of reminders to us.

As a side note, Bukhari has this same hadeeth, but in a different variation, with a lot of information lacking

has it ever occured to you that that information is weak.

It actually tells you a lot about the 'perfection' of the hadeeth books.

actually it speaks louder about a people who hapharzardly quote form it when they want and deny what goes against their sensitivities having no usool on which they judge "malakum kaifa tahkamoon".

As for normal people, its speaks volumes in the care they took to preserve all the statements of the companions, giving us a backbone to work with.

Whether the word is consensus or twenty Companions, the point is clear. The statement of ibn Qayyim, who was the contemporary of ibn Katheer, says something that is explicitly different than what you claim ibn Katheer said. ibn Qayyim quotes Uthman saying NOT A SINGLE Companion, with the exception of ibn Abbass (R), claimed the Prophet (S) saw Allah. Uthman even states that some scholars stated that ibn Abbass, himself, never said the Prophet saw Allah.

what is your point. it seems you are arguing or contending with this, over which this very issue helps you prove your point.

secondly, so what. Ibnul-qayyim is not Ibn Katheer. both being contemporaries and students of their shaykh (among other shaykjhs they had). They both had some drastically varrying opinions, all of fiqh, of course, but i would not negate that they may have differed over this very issue.

thirdly, Ibn Katheer cites a bunch of oddities in what he narrates because his manhaj in compiling works is to "narrate everything that was said concerning a topic". he would start with the authentic one,s then the sound ones, then the weaker ones, then the strange and odd ones. and that is one of the problems sufis in general have with the translation of his tafseer cause the translation team left out the oddities and only added the sound and authentitic ones, thus calling it an "abridgement" of his tafseer.


oh yeah, i do want to comment on a mistake that I made in a claim, whcih i got from Qadhi Iyaad. I had stated that His seeing Allah was made as a trial due to the ayaah "And We made not the vision which we showed you but a trial for mankind"

here is what Ibn Abbass says of it
"This is the vision that the Messenger of Allah saw with his own eyes during the Journey by Night, and the cursed tree is the tree of Zaqqum.'' This was recorded by Al-Bukhari

meaning the trial was in regard to the witnessing of events and people he had seen, not about Allah.

[ihsan]

so he narrated the two opinions. so what

Do you not get it? That 'other ayah' in Surah Najm you speak about, if it is the one I am think you are referring to, is summed up in the statement "he saw the greatest signs of his Lord".

the one I alreay quoted

You quoted a verse which you claim he saw His Lord, which has nothing to do with His Lord, because that very verse is ultimately qualified with the statement "he saw the greatest signs of his Lord'.

there is no verse that speaks of anything your talking about explicitly nor implicitly minus the ayaah regarding musa, in which Musa asked to see Allah to which Allah's reply was "You cannot see me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me."

Again, repeating it for the hundred time:

It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.

This verse is explicit and implicit that nobody can see Alla in this life, not even a Messenger. This verse is clearly alluding to the revelational phenomenon, which means it refers to the prophetic mode of perception.

i

n other words, Allah, being the All-KNowing" alreay gave the answer that "no you cannot see Me for nothing can see me in this life"
The "cannot see Him" is divided into two, physical, and spiritual
1. physically because the physical reality cannot bear the sheer force of the Glory that is with Allah. The mighty mountain is a clear example of that
2. spiritual because it defeats the purpose of emaan

Allah did not say "you will not be able to see Me" rather he gave another clause, which has importance and relevence, that being "But if you look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me". In other words seeing Him is not an "impossibility" even in this life, provided that the creation is ABLE to withstand the sheer Glory of Allah. Again this impossibility is linked to the fact that we KNOW as a surity that creation cannot stand to actually witness his unveiling of Himself. Therefore impossibility is rendered from that aspect, and not the absolute inability for Him to be seen

Seriously, have you even read your twisted logic? The statement is meant to demonstrate a practical proof why ALlah cannot be seen in this life. It, in no way, means that a person can see Allah in this life provided he fulfills some conditions. Do you know what the mountains meant to the Arabs and people like Musa (AS)? Why were they called the 'eternal ones? If the mountains could not bear the manifestation of ALlah's glory, then what to say of a human being? Further, the person who was knocked senseless was a Prophet of God, which pretty much means that even the best of men were not given access to this favor.

i have no idea what your talking about. please share with us this ayaah

I have shared it many times, and Cuck was the first one to originally quote it. I mean, it seems your so blind in your 'scholarship', you can't see something so explicit and obvious.

It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.

One more time:

This is referring to Prophets, and is especially pertinent to the objection of the disbelievers regarding Muhammad (S). They were asking him (S) why God didn't speak to him face-to-face. Yet, I'm being told that Muhammad (S) saw God, whether with the heart or eyes?

Actually, im not arguing at all over any forbidence for there is no text explicitly nor implicitly that states that it is absolutely impossible to see Allah, and the ayaah that specifically mentions that is with regard to Musa which I quoted above, which links the realm of impossibility of seeing Him through the route of this world can handle it. Were we and the earth to withstand the vision, then that impossibility would be uplifted, as the ayaah clearly indicates.

I really think you have no appreciation of literature and implicit meanings.



with all do respect, Allah does not reject Himself, nor does He reject the Prophet, nor does the prophet reject Allah's kalaam. it is you who are reading into them a western styled contradiction.

what baffles the mind is you perception of the entire matter. Considering that Ibn Abbass arabic is based on the pristine style of the arabs, and yours does not reach nahw, and considering that Ibn Abbass new what each ayaah meant and when it was revealed and to whom. Id take his logical deductions over your absurd mutazili based ideas

You right, ibn Abbass' Arabic was pristine, which leads us to a certain nmber of possibilitiues:

1. The possibility that you just stated
2. The possibility that ibn Abbass made such a glaring error
3. Or the fact that such an opinion can't really be attributed to ibn Abbass. As I stated before, from the quote provided by ibn Qayyim,

"some of them excluded Ibn ‘Abbaas and said that he was not one of those who said that."

There were scholars that denied that ibn Abbass (S) ever made the claim.

and to let you know, the more stronger opinion is that Ibn Abbass agreed he did not see Him literally with his eyes, but by his heart, meaning of his baseerah, and as stated before, his vision in this state even exceeds the actual sight of man. And infact this is what I incline to more for the actual literal statement that deals with the prophet seeing Allah is the hadeeth that states "how could I, He is light" and "i saw light" and considering that the hadeeth that "if Allah lifts His veil, all of creation will be obliterated"

WHy do you cut out what is relevant to the whole post, and act as if nothing happened. Surah Najm says explicitly:

"His heart did not lie about what he SAW?"

This means, whatever the Prophet (S) actually saw, was with his own eyes. The heart itself confirmed that it wasn't his own imagination. There is no such concept as seeing ALlah or Gabriel with the heart, in surah Najm.

Therefore, when Im arguing that He saw Allah, Im arguing from the route that He saw him in his baseerah of which Ibn Abbass words as "his heart". I do not subscribe to the notion that He saw him with his naked eye.

what the heck are you talking about

firstly, can you cite for us the ayaah where Ibn Abbass is talking about. secondly, after reading the surah i did not see jibreel mentioned explicitly or otherwise. Infact, the entire surah is dedicated to Allah's enjoinment of Good and the forbidding of evil from the route of reminders to us.

It is an inspiration sent down, taught by one mighty in power

Who taught the inspiration that was sent down to the Prophet (S)? The Quran uses a very similar description for Gabriel in SUrah Takwir. The reason power and might is chosen is because the Quran is referring to how the djinns cannot interfere with the Quranic revelation. To add further support, the Quran then compares the Prophetic conception of this angel with the idolaters, who argued angels were females and daughters of ALlah.

has it ever occured to you that that information is weak.

Maybe that is why I wrote a comment about the 'perfection' of hadeeth... You do know both of these hadeeth are included in Muslim and Bukhari. What does that say for your opinion on the 'saheeh' nature of hte two works?

actually it speaks louder about a people who hapharzardly quote form it when they want and deny what goes against their sensitivities having no usool on which they judge "malakum kaifa tahkamoon".

I don't worship an usool. An usool is an artificial construct.. When that artifical construct becomes absolute, then there is an obvious problem, as is domenstrated in your response. Common sense is thrown out the window and explicit Quranic evidence is interpreted in some bizarre ways just to favor an usool...

As for normal people, its speaks volumes in the care they took to preserve all the statements of the companions, giving us a backbone to work with.

Really.. SO ibn Katheer says that 20 Comp[anions said that the Prophet saw Allah, and ibn Qayyim says not a sigle one did. Maybe people make things up and attribute them to the Companions in light of theological debates???

secondly, so what. Ibnul-qayyim is not Ibn Katheer. both being contemporaries and students of their shaykh (among other shaykjhs they had). They both had some drastically varrying opinions, all of fiqh, of course, but i would not negate that they may have differed over this very issue.

How many Companions claimed that the Prophet saw Allah according to these two? And hoow is rthat an issue of fiqh?

meaning the trial was in regard to the witnessing of events and people he had seen, not about Allah.

Which mean sthat there is no verse states the Prophet (S) asaw ALlah?

[hasan]

what is the actual contention here, is it whether Our Beloved Prophet was displaced physically from one place to another with the final destination being the meeting with our Creator or whether he remained at one place and just dreamed the vision?

[hlatif]

Salaam all,

It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.

related to " behind the veil", one has to keep in mind that the possibilities include, not seeing anything behind the veil, to seeing something in a blurred fashion and so forth. So, behind the veil does not absolutely negate vision. It may negate clear vision. So the statement of seeing light, can be and probably was interpeted as either no vision or blurred vision of the eye, which explained the differences of opinions of the Sahaba.

Take care all and have a great day.


Hussein

[hasan]

Salaam all,


related to " behind the veil", one has to keep in mind that the possibilities include, not seeing anything behind the veil, to seeing something in a blurred fashion and so forth. So, behind the veil does not absolutely negate vision. It may negate clear vision. So the statement of seeing light, can be and probably was interpeted as either no vision or blurred vision of the eye, which explained the differences of opinions of the Sahaba.

Take care all and have a great day.


Hussein

True, our Creator may be likened to light behind silhoettes of light. The closer one gets the more annihilated one may become, if anyone can understand what that means. Our Beloved Prophet went closer to Our Creator than Hasret Jibril, would this mean he went closer than any Angel? Would he have had a better view of our Creator than Hasret Jibril. Can Prophets hear the Kalimat of Allah without the Wahy or Angels. Can the Veil also be dipictive of Ilham as well as a Burning Bush? Is this verse only applicable to Men while living on Earth? Would it still be applicable after Judgement day?

[ihsan]

Salaam all,


related to " behind the veil", one has to keep in mind that the possibilities include, not seeing anything behind the veil, to seeing something in a blurred fashion and so forth. So, behind the veil does not absolutely negate vision. It may negate clear vision. So the statement of seeing light, can be and probably was interpeted as either no vision or blurred vision of the eye, which explained the differences of opinions of the Sahaba.

Take care all and have a great day.


Hussein

Wa salaam

If you notice, the subject of the verse is Allah, not the Messenger. Allah is saying why ALLAH does not speak to a Messenger face-to-face.. It has nothing to do with an alleged inability of the Prophet (S) to see clearly or not clearly. Further, the Quran then states that the Prophet (S) is no exception to the tradition of God Almighty as it relates to his Messengers.

And I hardly believe that the Companions could have missed such a clear and obvious point, which leads us to the claims regarding what Companions believed or didn't believe, when certain figures claim that this and that was what the Companions believed, despite such clear verses from the Quran denying that such an opinion is even possible.

[hlatif]

Salaam Ihsan,

If you notice, the subject of the verse is Allah, not the Messenger. Allah is saying why ALLAH does not speak to a Messenger face-to-face.. It has nothing to do with an alleged inability of the Prophet (S) to see clearly or not clearly. Further, the Quran then states that the Prophet (S) is no exception to the tradition of God Almighty as it relates to his Messengers.

You claim that the prophet could not see Allah because God will speak to him behind a veil. I responded that the veil dose not have to completely obstruct the vision, even if it is for one particular person, the prophet (pbuh).

And I hardly believe that the Companions could have missed such a clear and obvious point, which leads us to the claims regarding what Companions believed or didn't believe, when certain figures claim that this and that was what the Companions believed, despite such clear verses from the Quran denying that such an opinion is even possible.

There are many possibilities:
1- May be your clarity of vision is so much better.

2- May be they did not necessarily differ, but were saying the same thing but in different words. for example: aisha saying not seeing as in meaning, not clearly, whereas others accepted any vision even if unclear. Other scenarios are possible as well.

3- May be you see clear as in narrow in the range of understanding while they saw more width and a wider range.

Not everything is as narrow as you like to view it, brother.

Hussein

[ihsan]

You claim that the prophet could not see Allah because God will speak to him behind a veil. I responded that the veil dose not have to completely obstruct the vision, even if it is for one particular person, the prophet (pbuh).

ANd I responded by saying the subject of the verse is Allah, not the Messenger. In fact, the very reason is given in this verse why ALlah does not speak to his Messengers 'face-to-face':

"It is not befitting"

So what does that say for the possibility that it had to do with 'blurred vision'? You see how exquisite the Quran is, in it's word choice? It is called the furqan for a reason.

There are many possibilities:
1- May be your clarity of vision is so much better.

2- May be they did not necessarily differ, but were saying the same thing but in different words. for example: aisha saying not seeing as in meaning, not clearly, whereas others accepted any vision even if unclear. Other scenarios are possible as well.

3- May be you see clear as in narrow in the range of understanding while they saw more width and a wider range.

Not everything is as narrow as you like to view it, brother.

Your whole assumption is predicated upon the fact that this was the true view of the Companions, which as I stated, isn't a proposition I hold true. Even ibn Katheer and ibn Qayyim flatly contradict each other over what was allegedly the opinion of the Companions. And the Quran is the basis of the Prophetic mission. It is the balance by which one weighs truth and what was the opinion of the Companions, not some person 300 hundred years after the fact claiming this or that is what the Companions believed.

[Ron]

Salam Lumumba,

For the record, I said he saw Him with his basirah, not his basr. And there is plenty of evidence of that from the hadith and such an occurrence is reported from no less than twenty Companions, as Ibn Kathir mentioned in his tafsir if I am not mistaken.

Obviously there's a difference of opinion.

He has human through and through, who split the moon, turned sticks into weapons, healed injuries with is saliva, fed hundreds from a single loaf of bread, satiated the thirst of three hundred people with a single wudu pot, whose sweat was sweeter than musk and whose blood and urine were pure and medicinal. All by Allah's leave. What exactly is your point?

The point is not to exaggerate his being. We can't simply assign him supernatural powers as we please and surely we can't just make the claims of supernatural vision due to that sentence in the hadith you quoted. The Qur'an is emphatic about his (pbuh) human-ness and mentions several times its view of miracles.

In conjunction with other hadith which indicate that his relation to the world was not like everyone else's, it really is not that far-fetched. If I find an exact reference, I will post it, but there are more explicit statements than what al-Boriqi mentioned. However, among them that requires no referencing is the famous statement where the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) forbade the Companions from fasting perpetually as he had done. When asked why he could do it, but they could not, he (Allah bless him and give him peace) replied, "I AM NOT LIKE YOU, I am provided food and drink."

You're missing the point. It is so that we don't project supernatural qualities to him. God blessed him, no doubt. If he was provided with food that's fine. If all the miracles attributed to him are true that's fine as well but we cannot go beyond the boundaries of what has been clearly lain out.

That was not how I used the hadith. Rather, I mentioned it to demonstrate that the Prophet's (Allah bless him and give him peace) basira was so strong and prominent that it was akin to everyone else's physical eyesight. There are other hadith which indicate this, the combination of which cannot be readily interpreted in the manner that you have done. But considering the skepticism, an exact citation is warranted.

It is warranted, I agree. In fact, if you could bring something about the "basira" matter I would appreciate it.

Apart from the misunderstanding that occurred in between basr and basira, the interpretation that the exegesis give to the verse is that the combined limited eyesight of the entire creation cannot encompass the Infinite Entity. If you reject that interpretation, given the absolute nature of the statement in which no exceptions are given, you are left to explain why vision is affirmed in the Akhira if the verse means that Allah cannot be seen whatsoever.

I don't reject that interpretation, which seems to say that, as I've been saying, that God cannot be seen. It makes no qualifications whatsoever. It does not make exemptions. In other words, it speaks directly to the heart of this matter that the Prophet could not have seen God. Hussein pointed out another version of the hadith I gave and it says all he saw was Light. If we accept this then it is the veil that is spoken of in the Qur'an. While this may sound unpleasant I must say that little matters like this, that have no bearing on one's relationship, tend exalt personalities to levels that are unacceptable in Islam. Other people of other religions have idolized their prophets and men-of-God, which as you know has its own effects eventually.

In terms of the Prophet's experience during the mi`raj, we are not really in disagreement. I just affirm the existence of a mode of perception based upon hadith evidence that you apparently deem to be superstition.

The experience is not an issue to me. Whether one believes it was a dream or vision or physical or whatever it is not something I want to argue about. My only contention thus far has been ascribing powers to the Prophet that I have not been shown any basis for. I didn't claim superstition, I just said that we cannot just project our opinions on the reality of the matter.

Regards

[lumumba_s]

Obviously there's a difference of opinion.

I never said that there was not and specifically stated that it was a non-issue.

My only contention thus far has been ascribing powers to the Prophet that I have not been shown any basis for. I didn't claim superstition, I just said that we cannot just project our opinions on the reality of the matter.

I am not projecting anything and as I said, when I find the exact references, I will post them. They are found in Bukhari and Muslim, but such a general referencing is meaningless.

[hlatif]

Salaam Ihsan,

Hlatif
You claim that the prophet could not see Allah because God will speak to him behind a veil. I responded that the veil dose not have to completely obstruct the vision, even if it is for one particular person, the prophet (pbuh).

Ihsan
ANd I responded by saying the subject of the verse is Allah, not the Messenger. In fact, the very reason is given in this verse why ALlah does not speak to his Messengers 'face-to-face':

God is always behind a veil for humanity. That is one of the meanings and understanding of "Being on the throne". In here, it mainly emphasizes that the veil is present even when he is talking to the person "face to face". So, it is not, as you like to twist it, an issue of face to face. It is an issue of behind the veil. God's face is always facing us, behind that veil, whether we are speaking to Him or not, whether He is speaking to us or not.

Now, the opacity of the veil does not have to be the same for all. If it is, then there is still a possibility that it becomes less opaque to at least one of his creation at one particular occasion. The Aya does not say anything against that.

"It is not befitting"

So what does that say for the possibility that it had to do with 'blurred vision'? You see how exquisite the Quran is, in it's word choice? It is called the furqan for a reason.

It is not befitting to speak without a veil in between. It does not say that the veil should be totally opaque all the time, as you like to believe. Nor does it say anything about speaking face to face.

Your whole assumption is predicated upon the fact that this was the true view of the Companions, which as I stated, isn't a proposition I hold true. Even ibn Katheer and ibn Qayyim flatly contradict each other over what was allegedly the opinion of the Companions. And the Quran is the basis of the Prophetic mission. It is the balance by which one weighs truth and what was the opinion of the Companions, not some person 300 hundred years after the fact claiming this or that is what the Companions believed.

Ok, if you want to claim that the Sahaba did or did not say this or that, then the sayings came from early muslims within the first 200 years of Islam. That still counts, and you cannot dismiss it by saying that you can see clearly where they could not. It takes at least, a little of self reflection and humility before you jump emphatically on whatever you want to claim with certainty.

Take care and have a great day.


Hussein

[ihsan]

God is always behind a veil for humanity. That is one of the meanings and understanding of "Being on the throne". In here, it mainly emphasizes that the veil is present even when he is talking to the person "face to face". So, it is not, as you like to twist it, an issue of face to face. It is an issue of behind the veil. God's face is always facing us, behind that veil, whether we are speaking to Him or not, whether He is speaking to us or not.

Now, the opacity of the veil does not have to be the same for all. If it is, then there is still a possibility that it becomes less opaque to at least one of his creation at one particular occasion. The Aya does not say anything against that.

You have got to be joking, right? Do I really need to respond to this display of interpretive gymnastics? Are you expecting me to take this seriously?

It is not befitting to speak without a veil in between. It does not say that the veil should be totally opaque all the time, as you like to believe. Nor does it say anything about speaking face to face.

Oh, so the meaning is akin to God speaking behind a veil that can be see-through, but may not be, depending upon the person?

And yet, the Quran is talking about the mode of communication with respect to the best of men, the Messengers? And yet the Quran refers to two other modes of communication, one of them direct inspiration and the other, through an angel? Notice how in both cases besides the mention of the veil, the denial of actually seeing God is inferred. ANd your telling me there is a possibility that God could be talking about an opaque veil in this specific case? All I can say really, is wow....

Ok, if you want to claim that the Sahaba did or did not say this or that, then the sayings came from early muslims within the first 200 years of Islam. That still counts, and you cannot dismiss it by saying that you can see clearly where they could not. It takes at least, a little of self reflection and humility before you jump emphatically on whatever you want to claim with certainty.

Humility and self-reflection should lead a person to accept truth no matter where it comes from, even if that source comes from a person 1000 years after early Islam. My self-reflection doesn't allow me to accept such absurd interpretations under the assertion that other people held the belief, so I should... But I least I can take solace in the fact that the early Muslims disagreed...

[Al-Boriqi]

You have got to be joking, right? Do I really need to respond to this display of interpretive gymnastics? Are you expecting me to take this seriously?

look who's talking Mr. I interpreted "ate of the tree" as "Zeena"