Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (d. 309 AH), the famous misguided Sufi, was a zindiq and a Hulooli (one who believes in incarnation).
There is a consensus and agreement of the scholars of truth on his disbelief and heresy. His fundamental belief was that Allah Ta’ala incarnates (permeates) in everything. He was the founder of the creed of Wahdat al-Wujud (the unity of existence). Because of his disbelief and heresy, the scholars declared his blood permissible and he was executed.
None of the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah considered him good. Misguided Sufis are his staunch supporters, yet despite this they never tire of calling themselves Ahl al-Sunnah. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him (773/852 AH), writes about him:
ولا أری نیتعصّب للحلاج اِلّا من قال بقولہ الّذی ذ کر أنّہ عیّن الجمع ، فھذا ھو القول أھل الواحدۃ المطلقۃ ، و لھذا تری ابن عربّی صاحب ” الفصوص” یعظّمہ و یقع فی الجنید ۔۔۔۔۔
“I see none holding partisanship for al-Hallaj except one who holds his doctrine, which is reported from him, namely that he affirmed jam’ (union between the Creator and creation). This is the view of the people of absolute unity (Wahdat al-Mutlaqah, i.e. Wahdat al-Wujud). That is why you will see Ibn Arabi, the author of the book named al-Fusus, glorifying him and insulting al-Junayd…”
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him (508-597 AH), writes:
اتّفق علماء العصر علی اِباحۃ دم الحلّاج “
All the scholars of that era had agreed that the blood of Hallaj was permissible.
Hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him (701-773 AH), writes:
و قد اتّفق علماء بغداد علی کفرِ الحلاج و زند قتہ، و أجمعو علی قتلہ و صلبہ ، و کان علماء بغداد اِذ ذاک ھم علماء الد ّنیا ۔
“The scholars of Baghdad agreed on the disbelief and heresy of Hallaj, and they unanimously agreed to kill him and crucify him, and at that time the scholars of Baghdad alone were the (leading) scholars of the world.”
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him (508-597 AH), writes:
اتّفق علماء العصر علی اِبا حۃ دم الھلّاج ۔
All the scholars of that era had agreed that the blood of Hallaj was permissible.
Abu Hamid, Allama al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH), writes:
وأمالشّطج فنعنی بھ صنفین من الکلام أحدثھ بعض الصّوفیہ ، احدھما الدّعاوی الطّویلۃ العریضۃ فی العشق مع اللہ تعالی والوصال المغنی عن الأعمال الظّاھرۃ حتّی ینتھی قوم الی دعوی الاتّحاد و ارتفاع الحجاب والمشاھدۃ با لّرؤیہ والمشافعۃ بالخطاب، فیقولون: قیل لنا کذا و قلنا کذا ، و یتشبّہون فیہ بالحسین بن منصور الحلّاج الّذی صلب لأجل اطلاقہ کلمات من ھذاہ الجنس ، و یستشھد ون بقولہ: أنا الحقّ، وبما حکی عن أبی یزید البسطامّی أنّھ قال: سبخانی، و ھذا فنّ من الکلام عظیم ضررہ فی العوّام حتّی ترک جماعۃ من أھل الفلاحۃ فلاحتھم و أظھر وامثل ھذہ الدّعاوی،فانّ ھذا الکلام یستلذّہ الطّبع اذفیھ فیھ البطالھ من الأعمال مع تزکیۃ النفس بدرک المقامات والأحوال ،فلا تعجز الأغنیاء عن دعوی ذ لک لأنفسھم ولا عن تلقف کلمات مخبطۃ مزخرفۃ، و مھما أنکر علیھم ذلک لم یعجز و اعن أن یقولوا ھذا انکار مصدرہ العلم والجدال ۔والعلم حجاب، والجدل عمل النّفس،و ھذا الحد یث لا یلوح الامن الباطن بمکاشبۃ نور الحق ،فھذا و مثلہ ممّا قد استطار فی البلاد شررہ و عظم فی العوّام ضررہ ، حتی نطق بشی ء منہ،فقتلھ أفضل فی دین اللہ من احیاء عشرہ۔۔۔
By shathh we mean two types of speech invented by some Sufis. One of them is the lengthy and broad claims of love for Allah Ta’ala and union that makes one independent of outward actions, to the extent that some people reach the claims of unity (wahdat al-wujud), the removal of the veil (between Creator and creation), direct vision of Allah, and direct speech with Him. So they say: “We were told such-and-such, and we said such-and-such.” In this they imitate Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj, who was crucified for uttering words of this kind, and they cite as evidence his saying “Ana al-Haqq” (I am Allah), and similarly they cite the statement of Abu Yazid al-Bistami that he said “Subhani, Subhani” (Glory be to me, glory be to me). The harm of this type of speech among the common people has become great, to the extent that a large group of people who were following the path of success abandoned their path and began to make such claims. The reason is that the nature greatly enjoys this type of speech, because in it there is the claim of purifying the soul through attaining stations and states while abandoning actions. Therefore, you cannot stop ill-minded people from making such claims for themselves or from uttering ornate, foolish words. Whenever they are objected to, they never fail to say that this rejection stems from knowledge and argument; knowledge is a veil, argument is an activity of the soul, and these matters emerge from the inner self through the unveiling of the light of Allah’s truth. This evil and other such nonsense has spread its harm across the lands and greatly increased its damage among the common people, to the extent that killing one who utters a bit of it is better in the religion of Allah than giving life to ten people…”
He also writes:
و من ھنا نشأ خیال من اّعدّی الحلول والاتحاد و قال: أنا الحق ، و حولہ ید ندن کلام النصّاری فی دعوی اتّحاد الّلاھوت والنّاسوت أو تد رّعھا بھا أو حلولھا فیھا علی ما اختلف فیھم عبارتھم ،و ھو غلط محض۔۔۔۔
“From here arose the notion of one who claims incarnation and union and says: ‘I am Allah.’ The speech of the Christians about the union of the divine nature (lahut) with the human nature (nasut), or its envelopment or incarnation in it, is close to this, although their expressions on this differ. This belief is utterly false…”
Allama al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him (326-847 AH), writes:
فتدبّر یا عبداللہ !ط نحلۃ الحلّاج الذی ھو من رؤوس القرامطۃ ، و دعاۃ الزند قۃ ،و انصف ،و تورّع ،و اتّق ذلک ،و حاسب نفسک ،فا ن تبرھن لک أنّ شمائل ھذاالمرء شمائل عد وّ للاسلام، محبّ للرسالۃ ،حریص علی الظھور بباطل و بحقّ، فتبّر أمن نحلتہ ، و ِان تبرھن لک والعیاذ باللہ ۔ أنّھ کان۔ والحالۃ ھذہ۔ محقّا ، ھاد یا، مھد یّا فجدد اِسلامک،واستغث بربّک أن یوفّقک للحق، و أن یثبّت قلبک علی دینھ ، فاِنّما الھدی نور یقذفھ اللہ فی قلب عبدہ المسلم ولا قوّۃ الّا باللہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
“O servant of Allah, reflect on the creed of this Hallaj, who was a leader of the Qaramita (extreme and dangerous Rafidis) and a powerful caller to heresy and irreligion. Be fair and impartial, refrain from it, and take account of yourself. If it becomes clear to you that this man’s characteristics are those of an enemy of Islam, a lover of leadership, and one who desires to dominate by mixing falsehood with truth, then immediately renounce his creed! And, Allah forbid, if despite this situation you find him to be in the right, rightly guided and a guide to guidance, then renew your Islam and ask your Lord for help that He grant you the success of the truth and keep your heart firm upon His religion, for guidance is a light that Allah casts into the heart of His Muslim servant. There is no power except with Allah…”
Despite this, in defence of the statement attributed to al-Hallaj, “Ana al-Haqq” (I am Allah), Ashraf Ali Thanvi, the “Hakim al-Ummat” of the Deobandis, writes:
Just as the tree of Sinai, without its own choice, became a manifestation of the word “Inni ana Allah” through the operation of the Truth, in the same way Mansur, without his own choice, became a manifestation of the word “Ana al-Haqq” through the operation of the Truth.
He also writes:
Another possible meaning is that I did not reveal this secret; the Beloved Himself revealed it, meaning that the Speaker with “Ana al-Haqq” is the same One, just as the word of Truth “Inni ana Allah” appeared from the tree of Sinai.”
He further writes:
“This manifestation at one level is also called tajalli (divine manifestation), just as there was tajalli in the tree of Sinai. If there is a tajalli of speech in the perfect human being, what is far-fetched about that?
“Janab Zafar Ahmad Thanawi Deobandi writes:
And another interpretation is also possible: that at that time the tongue of Ibn Mansur was the interpreter of the word of Truth. The “Ana al-Haqq” came from his tongue in the same way that the voice “ اِنّی أَ نا اللہ ربُّ العالمین” came from the tree to Musa. Clearly the tree did not call itself Allah, Lord of the worlds; rather at that time it was the interpreter of the Divine speech. The same can be assumed about Ibn Mansur, and in the dominance of states and experiences it often happens that Allah speaks through the tongue of the gnostic, which the seekers who are people of states can understand. Thus it can be accepted that “Ana al-Haqq” came from Ibn Mansur’s tongue, but it is not accepted that Ibn Mansur himself said “Ana al-Haqq.”
Commentary:
This is an extremely misguiding and disbelieving belief, the result of false interpretations by the mutakallimun. None of the Ahl al-Sunnah holds it. This clearly shows that Thanawi and his companions and followers were firm believers in the doctrine of incarnation (hulul), which is pure kufr. It is a clear insult to Allah, Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, and an insult to Sayyiduna Musa (peace be upon him), and also a clear proof of their ignorance, an insult to the Holy Quran, and a pure distortion of its meaning. The Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah have strongly refuted it, as follows:
1. Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 324 AH) writes:
و زعمت الجھمیّۃ کما زعمت النّصاری أنّ کلمۃ اللہ تعالی حواھا بطن مریم رضی اللہ عنھا و زادت الجھمیّۃ علیہم ، فزعمت أن کلام اللہ مخلوق حلّ فی شجرۃ ، و کانت الشجر-ہ حاویۃ لھ،فلزمھم أن تکون الشجرۃ بذلک الکلام متکلّمۃ، ووجب علیھم أنّ مخلوقا من المخلوقین کلّم موسی و أنّ الشجرۃ قالت: یا موسی اِنّی أنا اللہ لا الھ اِلّا أنا فاعبدنی،فلو کان کلام اللہ مخلوقافی شجر-ۃ لکان المخلوق قال: یا موسی اِنّی أنا اللہ أنا فاعبدنی ، و قد قال تعالی : :” ولکِنّ حقّ القََول مِنّی لَا ملئنَّ جھنّم مِنِ الجّنِۃ َوالّناِس اَجَمعین” و کلام اللہ من اللہ تعالی فلا یجوز أن یکون کلامھ الّذی ھو منھ مخلوقافی شجرۃ مخلوقۃ ،کما لا یجوز أن یکون علمہ الذّی ھو منھ مخلوقا فی غیرہ ، تعالی اللہ عن ذلک علوّا کبیرًًا۔
Like the Christians, the Jahmiyya also thought that the word of Allah was enclosed by Maryam (may Allah be pleased with her) in her womb. The Jahmiyya went further than this and said that the speech of Allah was a created thing which entered a tree, and the tree enclosed that speech within itself. Thus it becomes necessary for the Jahmiyya that the tree itself was the one speaking with that speech, and that a created being spoke to Musa (peace be upon him), and the tree itself said: “O Musa, indeed I am Allah, there is no god but I, so worship Me.”… If the speech of Allah was created in the tree, then it would be the created thing that said to Musa (peace be upon him): “O Musa, indeed I am Allah, so worship Me.” But Allah the Exalted has said: (But the word from Me has come true: I will surely fill Hell with jinn and mankind all together). The speech of Allah is from Allah the Exalted, so it is not permissible that His speech, which is from Him, is a created thing in a created tree, just as it is not permissible that His knowledge, which is from Him, is created in something other than Him. Allah is far exalted above that with great exaltedness.
He further writes:
و قد قال اللہ تعالی : وَ مَا کَانَ ِلَبَشَرِِ اَن یُّکلِّمُھ اللہُ اِلّا َو حیًًاَاَو مِن وَراءِ حَجَاب اَو ُیرسِلِ َرسُولًًا فََیُوحِیَ بِاذ نِھ مَا یَشَاء:، فلو کان کلام اللہ لا یوجد ألّا مخلوقا فی شیئ مخلوق لم یکن لاشتراط ھذہ الوجوہ معنی، لأنّ الکلام قد سمعہ جمیع الخلق ووجدوہ۔۔ بزعم الجھمیّۃ ۔۔ مخلوقا فی غیر اللہ تعالی و ھذا یوجب اِ سقاط مرتبۃ النّنییّن صلوات اللہ علیہم اجمعین۔ و یجب علیہم اِذا زعمو اأنّ کلام اللہ لموسی خلقھ فی شجرۃ أن یکون من سمع کلام اللہ عزّ و جلّ من ملک أو من نبیّ أتی بھ من عنداللہ أفضل مرتبۃ من سماع الکلام من موسی ،لأنّھم سمعوہ من نبیّ ، ولم یسمعھ موسی من اللہ عزّو جلّ و اِنّما سمعھ من شجرۃ ، و أن یزعمو أن الیھودی اِذا سمع کلام اللہ من النبّیّ علیہ الصلواۃ والسلام افضل مرتبۃ فی ھذا المعنی من موسی آلأنّ الیھودی سمعھ من نبیّ من انبیاء اللہ ،و موسی سمعھ مخلوقا فی شجرح لم یکن مکلّما لموسی من وراء حجاب ، لأنّ من حضر الشجرۃ من الجنّ والاِنس قد سمعو الکلام من ذلک المکان ، و کان سبیل موسی غیرہ فی ذلک سواء فی أنھ لیس کلام اللہ لھ من وراء حجاب ۔ ثمّ یقال لھم : اِذا زعمتم أنّ معنی أنّ اللہ عزّ و جلّ کلّم موسی : أ نّھ خلق کلاما کلّمہ بھ فی الشّجرۃ، و قد خلق اللہ عند کم فی الذّراع کلاما، لأنّ الذّراع قالت لرسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلّم : لا تأکلنی ،فاِ نی مسمومۃ ، فیلزمکم أنّ زلک الکلام الّذی سمعھ النّبیّ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلّم کلام اللہ تعالی ، فاِن استحال أن یکون اللہ تکلّم بذلک الکلام المخلوق فما أنکرتم من أنّھ یستحیل أن یخلق اللہ عزّ و جلّ کلامھ فی شجرۃ ، لأنّ الکلام مخلوق ، لا یکون کلام للہ ، فاِن کان کلام اللہ و کان معنیب أنّ اللہ تکلّم عند کم أنّھ خلق الکلام ، فیلزمکم أن یکون اللہ متکلّما بالکلام الّذی خلقھ فی الذّراع ، فاِن أجابوا اِلی ذلک قیل لھم : فاللہ تعالی علی قولکم ھو القائل : لا تاکلنی ، فاِنی مسمومۃ ، تعالی اللہ عن قولکم وافترائکم علیہ علوّا کبیرًًا ۔
Allah the Exalted said: (It is not for any human that Allah should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger who reveals by His permission whatever He wills). If the speech of Allah were found only as something created in a created thing, then making these conditions would have no meaning, because according to the Jahmiyyah all of creation hears it from other than Allah, in a state where it exists as something created in a being other than Allah. This necessitates the lowering of the rank of the Prophets. When those Jahmiyyah claim that Allah created His speech to Musa in a tree, it then follows for them that whoever heard the speech of Allah from an angel or from a messenger who brought it from Allah would be superior to Musa in hearing the speech, because they heard it from a Prophet, whereas Musa peace be upon him did not hear it from Allah Azza wa Jall but heard it from a tree. Furthermore, it also follows for these Jahmiyyah that they must claim that a Jew who heard the speech of Allah from his Prophet is superior to Musa in this matter, because the Jew heard it from a Prophet of Allah, while Musa heard it as something created in a tree. If the speech of Allah was created in a tree, then Allah would not have spoken to Musa from behind a veil, because every jinn or human present at that place would have heard the speech from that very place. Thus the means by which Musa and others heard it would be the same, in that they did not hear the speech from behind a veil. Then it should be said to those Jahmiyyah: when you claim that the meaning of Allah speaking to Musa is that He created speech in the tree and then spoke to Musa through it, then it follows that Allah also created speech in the flesh of the shoulder, because the shoulder meat said to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, “Do not eat me, for I am poisoned.” Therefore, according to you, it follows that the speech which the Prophet ﷺ heard was the speech of Allah.”
2. Imam al-Ajurri (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 360 AH) writes:
فاِن قال قائل منھم : خلق اللہ عزّ و جلّ کلاما فی شجرۃ، و کلّم بھ موسی ، قیل : ھذا ھو الکفر ،لانّھ یزعم أنّ الکلام مخلوق ، تعالی اللہ عزّ و جلّ عن ذلک ، و یزعم أنّ مخلوقا یدّعی الربوبیّۃ ، و ھذا من اقبح القول و أسمجھ ، و قیل لہ : یا ملحد ! ھل یجوز لغیر اللہ أن یقول : اننّی أنا اللہ ؟ نعوذ باللہ أن یقول قاہل ھذا مسلما، ھذا کافر، یستتا ب ، فاِن تاب و رجع عن مذھبھ السّوء و اَلّا قتلتھ الامام ،فاِن لم یقتلھ الاِمام و لم یستتبھ و علم منھ أنّ ھذا مذھبھ ھجر ، و لم یکلّم ، و لم یسلّم علیہ ، ولم یصلّ خلفھ ، و لم تقبل شھا د تھ ، ولم یزوّجھ المسلم کریمتہ ۔۔۔
If one of those Jahmiyyah says that Allah created speech in a tree and spoke to Musa through it, it should be said to him: this is disbelief, because he claims that the speech of Allah is created. Allah is exalted above that. He supposes that a creature claims lordship. This is an ugly and utterly repugnant statement. It should be further said to him: O heretic, irreligious person! Is it permissible for other than Allah to say, “Indeed I am Allah”? We seek Allah’s refuge from a person who says this being a Muslim! This is a disbeliever. He should be made to repent. If he repents and returns from his evil creed, well and good; otherwise the ruler should execute him. If the ruler does not execute him, nor does he make him repent, and his creed becomes known, then he is to be shunned: no one should speak to him, greet him, pray behind him, or accept his testimony, and no Muslim should give his daughter to him in marriage.
3. Hafiz al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 458) writes:
فلو کان کلام اللہ لا یوجد اِلّامخلوقا فی شی مخلوق لم لا شتراط ھذ ہ الوجوہ معنی ، لاستواء جمیع الخلق فی سماعہ من غیر اللہ وو جودھم ذ لک عند الجھمیّۃ مخلوقا فی غیر اللہ، و ھذا یوجب اِ سقاط مرتبۃ النّبییّن صلوات اللہ علیھم اجمعین،و یجب علیھم اِ ذا زعموا أنّ کلام اللہ لموسی خلقہ فی شجرۃ ، أن یکون من سمع کلام اللہ من ملک او من نبیّ أتاہ بھ من عند اللہ افضل مرتبۃ فی سماع الکلام من موسی، لانّھم سمعوہ من نبیّ، ولم یسمعھ موسی علیہ السلام من اللہ،و اِنّما سمعھ من شجرۃ، و أن یزعمو أنّ الیھود اِذ سمعت کلام اللہ من موسی نبیّ اللہ افضل مرتبۃ فی ھذا المعنی من موسی بن عمران لأنّ الیھود سمعتھ من من نبّی من الانبیاء و موسی سمعو مخلوقا فی شجر-ہ ، ولو کان مخلوقا فی شجرۃ لم یکن اللہ عزّ و جلّ مکّلما لموسی من وراء حجا ب ،و لأنّ کلام اللہ عزّ و جلّ لموسی علیہ السلام لو کان مخلوقا فی شجرۃ کما زعمو الزمھم أن تکون الشّجرۃ بذلک الکلام ،ووجب علیھم أنّ مخلوقا من المخلوقین کلّم موسی و قال لھ: اِنّنی أنا اللہ لا الھ الّا أنا فاعبدنی ، و ھذا ظاھر الفساد ۔۔۔۔۔
“If the speech of Allah were found only as something created in a created thing, then stipulating any of these qualifications would have no meaning, because all creation hears it from other than Allah, and according to the Jahmiyyah it exists as something created in other than Allah. This causes the rank of the Prophets to be diminished. When they claim that Allah’s speech to Musa was created in a tree, it follows for them that those who heard that speech from an angel or from a Prophet who brought it from Allah are superior to Musa in hearing it, because they heard that speech from a Prophet, whereas Musa did not hear that speech from Allah but from a tree. Furthermore, it follows for them that they must claim that the Jews, when they heard the speech of Allah from Allah’s Prophet Musa, were superior to Musa ibn Imran in that hearing, because the Jews heard it from Musa, one of Allah’s Prophets, while Musa heard it from a created tree. If this speech had been created in a tree, Allah would not have been speaking to Musa from behind a veil, and it would follow that one of the created beings spoke to Musa and told him, ‘I am Allah, worship me,’ and this is clearly corrupt speech…”
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) (661-728 AH) writes:
و من قال اِنّہ بنفسہ لم ینا د، و لکن خلق نداء فی شجرۃ أو غیرھا لزم أن تکون الشّجرۃ ھی القائلۃ : اِنّی أنا اللہ ،و لیس ھذا کقول النّاس : نادی الأمیر ، اِذ أمر منادیا، فاِنّ المنادی عن الأمیر یقول: أمر الأمیر بکذا و رسم السّلطان بکذا، لا یقول: أنا أمرتکم ، و لو قا ل ذ لک لأنہ النّاس ، والمنادی قال لموسی : اِ نّنی أنا اللہ لا الہ اِلّا أنا فاعبدنی، اِنّی أنا اللہ ربّ العالمین ، و ھذا لا یجوز أن یقولہ ملک اِلّا اذا بلغہ عن اللہ کما نقرأ نحن القرآن ، والملک اِذا أمرہ اللہ بالنّداء قال، کما ثبت فی الصّحیح عن الّنیّ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلّم أنّھ قال: ((اذا أحبّ اللہ عبدا نادی جبریل : اِنّی أ حبّ فلانا فأحبہ ، ثمّ ینادی جبیریل فی السّماء : اِنّ اللہ یحب فلانا فاَحبّوہ ۔۔۔ )) فجبریل اِذا نادی فی السّماء قال: اِن اللہ اللہ یحب فلانا فاَحبّوہ، واللہ ازا نادی جبریل یقول: یا جبریل اِنّی احب فلانا و لِھذا نادت الملئکۃ زکریا قال اللہ تعالی : ” فَناتہُ المَلئِکَۃُ وَ ھُوا قَائمُُُ ُ یُصَلّی فِی المِحرَابِ اَنّ اللہَ یُبَشِرکَ بِیِحیی ۔۔۔۔ ” و قال : ” وَاِذ قِالتِ المِلئکَۃُ یا مَریمُ اِنّ اَللہَ اَصطَفَاکِ وَ طَھَرکِ و اَصطَفَاکِ علی نَسَا ءِ العَالَمِینَ ” ولا یجوز قطّ لمخلوق اَن یقول : من ادعونی فاستجیب لھ ، من یسألنی فأعطیہ ، من یستغفر نی فأغفرلہ ، و اللہ تعالی اِذا خلق صفۃ فی محلّ کان المحلّ متصفا بھا ، فاِذا فی محلّ علما أو قدرۃ أو حیاۃ أو حرکۃ أو لونا أو سمعا أو بصرا کان ذلک لامحلّ ھو العالم بھ القاد ر المتحرّک الحیّ المتلون السّمیع البصیر ، فاِنّ الرّبّ لا یتصف بما یخلقہ فی مخلوقاتہ ، و اِنّما یتصف بصفاتہ القائمۃ بہ، بل کلّ موصوف لا یوصف اِلّا بما یقوم بہ ، لا بما یقوم بغیرہ ولم یقم بہ ، فلو کان النّداء مخلوقا فی شجرۃ لکانت ھی القائلہ : اِنّی أنا اللہ ، و اِذا کان ما خلقہ الرّب فی غیرہ کلاما لہ، و لیس لہ کلام اِلّا ما خلقہ لزم أن یکون اِنطاقہ لأعضاء الانسان یوم القیامۃ کلاما لہ ، و تسبیح الحصی و تسلیم الحجر علی الرسول کلام لہ ، بل یلزم أن یکون کلّ کلام فی الوجود کلامھ، لأنّھ قد ثبت أنّھ خالق کل شیء ، و ھکذا طرد قول الحلو لیّۃ التّحادیّۃ کا بن عربیّ ، فأنّھ قال: و کلّ کلام فی الوجود کلامھ سواء علینا نثرہ و نظامہ ۔۔۔۔
“Whoever says that Allah the Exalted did not call out to Musa Himself, but rather created a call in a tree or elsewhere, it would follow that the tree itself was the one saying, ‘Indeed I am Allah,’ whereas that is not the case. This is not like people saying ‘the Amir called out’ when he sends a herald, for the herald on behalf of the Amir says, ‘The Amir has ordered such and such, and the sultan has issued such and such,’ and does not say, ‘I am ordering you.’ If he were to say that, the people would disgrace him. The one who called out said to Musa, ‘Indeed I am Allah, there is no god but Me, so worship Me; indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.’ This is not permissible for any angel to say when conveying a message from Allah, as we read in the Qur’an. When Allah commands an angel to call out, the angel says, as is established in Sahih al-Bukhari from the Prophet ﷺ, that he said: ((When Allah loves a servant, He calls out to Jibril: ‘Indeed I love so-and-so, so love him.’ Then Jibril calls out in the heavens: ‘Indeed Allah loves so-and-so, so love him…’)). So when Jibril calls out in the heavens, he says: ‘Indeed Allah loves so-and-so, so love him,’ and when Allah calls out to Jibril, He says: ‘O Jibril, indeed I love so-and-so.’ For this reason the angels called out to Zakariya; Allah the Exalted says: ‘The angels called out to him while he was standing in prayer in the sanctuary: Allah gives you the good news of Yahya…’ And He said: ‘And when the angels said, O Maryam, indeed Allah has chosen you, purified you, and chosen you over the women of the worlds.’ It is absolutely not permissible for any creature to say, ‘I am Allah, Lord of the worlds,’ nor can any creature say, ‘Whoever calls upon Me, I will answer him; whoever asks Me, I will give to him; whoever seeks forgiveness from Me, I will forgive him.’ When Allah the Exalted creates an attribute in a place, that place becomes characterized by that attribute. So when He creates knowledge, power, life, movement, color, hearing, or sight in a place, that very place is the one who knows, the one who has power, the one who moves, the living one, the one who is colored, the one who hears and the one who sees, because the Lord is not characterized by what He creates in His creatures; He is characterized only by His attributes which subsist in Him. Every characterized thing is characterized only by what subsists in it, not by what subsists in something else and does not subsist in it. So if the call was created in a tree, then that tree would be the one saying, ‘Indeed I am Allah.’ And if the speech which Allah creates in something other than Himself were His speech, and He has no speech except what He creates, it would follow that the speaking of the limbs of a human on the Day of Resurrection would be His speech, the glorification of pebbles would be His speech, and the greeting of a stone upon the Messenger would be His speech. Rather, it would follow that every speech in existence is His speech, since it is established that He is the Creator of everything. The same extension applies to the saying of the incarnationist and unionist (Hulūliyya Ittihādiyya) such as Ibn Arabi, who said: ‘Every speech in existence is His speech, whether it be prose or verse…'”
Imam Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi (d. 792 AH) writes:
وما أفسد استد لالھم بقولہ تعالی ” نُودِیَ مِن شَاطِی ءِ وادِی الایمَن فِی البُقعَۃِ المُبَارَکَۃِ مِنَ الشَّجَرۃ ۔۔۔۔” علی أنّ الکلام خلقہ اللہ تعالی فی الشّجرہ ، فسمعھ موسی منھا! وعمو عمّا قبل ھذہ الکلمۃ وما بعدھا فاِنّ اللہ قال : ” فَلَمّا أَ تَاھَا نُودِیَ مِن شَاطِی ءِ وادِی الایمَن” النداء ھو الکلام من بُعد ، فسمع موسی ۴ النّدا من خافۃ الوادی ، ثمّ قال: ” فِی البُقعَۃِ المُبَارَکَۃِ مِنَ الشَّجَرۃ: أی أنّ النداء کان فی البقعۃ المبارکۃ من عند الشجر-ۃ ، کما یقول سمعت کلام زید من البیت ، یکون من البیت لابتداء الغایۃ، لا أنّ البیت ھو المتکلم ! و لو کان الکلام مخلوقا فی الشّجرۃ لکانت الشجرۃ ھی القائلۃ: ” یَا مُوسی اِنِّی أنَا اللہ ربُّ العَالَمِین ” و ھل قال: اِنِّی أنَا اللہ ربُّ العَالَمِین، غیر ربّ العالمین ؟ و لو کان ھذا الکلام بدامن غیر اللہ لکان قول فرعون : أنا ربکم العالی صدقا اِذ کلا من کلامین عندھم مخلوق قد قالھ غیر اللہ ! و قد فرّقو بین الکلامین علی أصولھم الفاسدہ : أنّ ذاک کلام اللہ خلقہ اللہ فی الشّجرۃ ، وھذا کلام خلقہ فرعون ! فحرّ فو و بدّ لو واعتقد و ا خالقا غیر اللہ ۔۔۔۔ “
How flawed is the argument of the Jahmiyya from the saying of Allah, نُودِیَ مِن شَاطِی ءِ وادِی الایمَن فِی البُقعَۃِ المُبَارَکَۃِ مِنَ الشَّجَرۃ, that Allah created speech in the tree and then Musa heard it. They have become blind to what precedes and follows this saying of Allah, for Allah says فَلَمّا أَ تَاھَا نُودِیَ مِن شَاطِی ءِ وادِی الأَیمَنِ. Nida’ refers to speaking from a distance, and Musa heard the speech from within the valley. Then it was said, “فِی البُقعَۃ المُبَارکَۃ مِنِ الشّجَر ““, meaning the call was from the blessed place near the tree. It is like when a person says, “I heard Zayd’s speech from the house,” where “from” (min) denotes the starting point; it does not mean that the house was speaking. If this speech were created and produced in the tree, the tree would be the one saying, “O Musa, indeed I am the Lord of the worlds.” Did anyone other than the Lord of the worlds say, “I am the Lord of the worlds”? If this speech had come from other than Allah, then Pharaoh’s saying “I am your highest lord” would be true, because both speeches, according to the Jahmiyya, are created and both are spoken by someone other than Allah. But according to their corrupt principles they distinguished between the two speeches: that one is the speech of Allah which He created in the tree, and this is the speech which Pharaoh created! They have resorted to distortion and alteration, and they have held the belief that there is a creator besides Allah.”
Note:
Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
رایت الشّجرۃ الّتی نودی منھا موسی سمرۃ خضراء۔۔۔۔۔۔
” I saw the tree from which Musa (peace be upon him) was called; it was green.”
Commentary:
1: The chain of this statement is severely “da’if” (weak).
2: Abu Mu’awiya is “mudallis” (a concealer of defects in narration).
3: Imam al-A’mash is also mudallis. And both of these Imams narrate with “‘an” (from).
4: Abu Ubayda did not hear from his father, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:
فاِنّہ عند اللہ کثر لم یسمع من ابیہ ۔۔۔۔۔۔
“According to the majority, he (Abu Ubayda) did not hear from his father (Sayyidina Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him).”
Therefore, Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 5/17) saying that its chain is “isnaduhu muqarib” (its chain is close to acceptable) is not correct.
