By Ghulam Mustafa Zahid Ameenpuri
The well-known misguided Sufi, Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (d. 309 AH), was a heretic and a proponent of the doctrine of hulul (incarnation). Scholars of the truth have unanimously agreed on his disbelief and heresy. His fundamental belief was that Allah has incarnated in everything, which formed the basis of the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (unity of existence). Due to his disbelief and heresy, the scholars deemed his blood permissible, and he was executed.
None of the Sunni scholars considered him virtuous. Misguided Sufis are his staunch supporters, yet they tirelessly claim to be among the Ahl al-Sunnah. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (773-852 AH) writes about him:
"I do not see anyone advocating for al-Hallaj except those who adhere to his view, which is that he claimed the unity of the Creator and the creation. This is the belief of those who advocate for absolute unity (wahdat al-wujud). Thus, you see Ibn Arabi, the author of 'Al-Fusus', venerating him and disparaging Junayd."
(Lisan al-Mizan by Ibn Hajar; 2/315)
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi (508-597 AH) writes:
"The scholars of the time unanimously agreed on the permissibility of spilling al-Hallaj's blood."
(Talbis Iblis by Ibn al-Jawzi: 1/154)
Hafiz Ibn Kathir (701-773 AH) writes:
"The scholars of Baghdad agreed on the disbelief and heresy of al-Hallaj, and they unanimously decided to kill and crucify him. The scholars of Baghdad at that time were considered the scholars of the world."
(Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya by Ibn Kathir: 11/941)
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi (508-597 AH) writes:
"The scholars of the time unanimously agreed on the permissibility of spilling al-Hallaj's blood."
(Talbis Iblis by Ibn al-Jawzi: 1/154)
Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) writes:
"By shath (ecstatic utterances), we mean two kinds of statements invented by some Sufis. One is the long and broad claims of love with Allah and union that negate the need for outward acts until some people reach the claim of union and the lifting of veils, witnessing by sight and conversation without a mediator, saying:
'It was said to us this, and we said that', emulating Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj, who was crucified for making such statements. They quote his saying:
'I am the Truth', and what is narrated from Abu Yazid al-Bistami who said: 'Glory be to me, how great is my glory!'. This kind of speech has caused great harm among the common people, leading a group of people on the path of righteousness to abandon it and make such claims. This kind of speech is appealing to the natural disposition because it promises self-purification with the attainment of stations and states, without the need for outward acts. Hence, you see that the rich and the lazy are not deterred from making such claims and uttering foolish, embellished statements. Whenever such people are rebuked, they retort that this criticism stems from knowledge and argument, and knowledge is a veil, and argument is the work of the self. Such talk emerges from the inward by unveiling the light of the truth. This and similar heresies have spread in the lands and caused great harm among the common people. Thus, to kill someone who utters such blasphemies is better in the religion of Allah than saving ten others."
(Ihya Ulum al-Din by al-Ghazali: 2/292)
He also writes:
"From this, the notion of hulul (incarnation) and ittihad (union) emerged, and he (al-Hallaj) said:
'I am the Truth', which echoes the statements of Christians about the union of the divine and human nature or its concealment therein or its incarnation therein, as their expressions differ on this matter. This belief is entirely false."
(Ihya Ulum al-Din by al-Ghazali: 2/292)
(Siyar A'lam al-Nubala by Dhahabi, 14/345)
"Just as the tree of Sinai, without choice, became an instrument of the statement 'Indeed, I am Allah' due to the divine manifestation, likewise, Mansur, without choice, became an instrument of the statement 'Ana al-Haqq' due to the divine manifestation."
(Bawadir al-Nawadir by Thanvi, p. 398)
He further elaborates:
"Another possible interpretation is that he did not reveal this secret himself, but it was revealed by the Beloved Himself, meaning the one speaking 'Ana al-Haqq' is the same as the one who spoke from the tree of Sinai, 'Indeed, I am Allah.'"
(Isharat al-Ghayur by Thanvi, p. 143)
He continues:
"One degree of this manifestation is called tajalli (divine manifestation), as was the case with the tree of Sinai. If this manifestation occurs in the Perfect Man, then what is the objection?"
(Isharat al-Ghayur by Thanvi, p. 147)
Deobandi scholar Zafar Ahmad Thanvi also writes:
"Another interpretation could be that at that time, Ibn Mansur’s tongue became the instrument of divine speech. The statement 'Ana al-Haqq' came from his tongue just as 'Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds' came from the tree of Moses. It is clear that the tree did not claim to be Allah, the Lord of the worlds, but rather it was an instrument of divine speech. Likewise, it can be thought that Ibn Mansur, under the overpowering states, spoke divine words. Such situations often occur with the gnostics when Allah speaks through their tongues, which the followers of the mystical path understand. So, it is possible that 'Ana al-Haqq' was uttered by Ibn Mansur, but it is not certain that Ibn Mansur himself claimed 'Ana al-Haqq'."
(Siyarat Mansur Hallaj by Zafar Ahmad Thanvi, p. 50)
Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (rahimahullah, d. 324 AH) writes:
"The Jahmiyyah claim, like the Christians, that the Word of Allah was encompassed by the womb of Mary (may Allah be pleased with her). The Jahmiyyah even exceeded this by claiming that the Word of Allah was created and embodied in a tree. Thus, they must conclude that the tree was speaking with that Word and that a created being spoke to Musa, saying, 'Indeed, I am Allah, there is no deity except Me, so worship Me.' If the Word of Allah was created in the tree, then it means a creation said to Musa, 'Indeed, I am Allah.' However, Allah says:
'But the word from Me will be fulfilled: I will surely fill Hell with jinn and people all together.'
(Qur'an 32:13). Allah's Word is from Him, so it is not permissible to say that His Word, which is from Him, was created in a tree, just as it is not permissible to say that His knowledge, which is from Him, was created in something else. Allah is far exalted above this."(al-Ibanah an Usul al-Diyanah by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, p. 68)
He further writes:
"Allah said:
'It is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger to reveal by His permission what He wills.'
(Qur'an 42:51). If the Word of Allah could only exist created in something created, then there would be no meaning to the necessity of these conditions because, according to the Jahmiyyah, all creation hears and finds the Word created in something other than Allah. This undermines the status of the prophets, and it means that if Allah’s Word to Musa was created in a tree, then anyone who hears Allah’s Word from a prophet or an angel bringing it from Allah would be of a higher rank than Musa, as they heard it from a prophet while Musa heard it from a tree. Furthermore, they would have to claim that a Jew hearing the Word of Allah from a prophet is better than Musa, for the Jew heard it from a prophet of Allah, while Musa heard it created in a tree."(al-Ibanah by al-Ash'ari, p. 109)
Imam al-Ajurri (rahimahullah, d. 360 AH) writes:
"If one of them says that Allah created a Word in a tree and spoke to Musa through it, he is committing disbelief because he claims that the Word of Allah is created. Allah is far above that. This means that a creation is claiming divinity, which is a most heinous and vile statement. He is told: O heretic! Is it permissible for anyone other than Allah to say, 'Indeed, I am Allah'? We seek refuge in Allah that such a person be a Muslim; he is a disbeliever who must be asked to repent. If he repents and renounces his bad creed, he is spared; otherwise, he must be killed by the Imam. If the Imam does not kill him or ask him to repent, knowing his creed, he is abandoned, not spoken to, not greeted, not prayed behind, his testimony is not accepted, and no Muslim should marry his daughter."
(al-Shari'ah by al-Ajurri, p. 313)
(Al-I'tiqad by Bayhaqi, pp. 97-98)
"Whoever says that Allah did not personally speak but created speech in a tree or otherwise, it implies that the tree was the one saying, 'Indeed, I am Allah.' This is not like when people say, 'The emir has called,' when he sends a caller, for the caller on behalf of the emir says, 'The emir has ordered this,' and 'The sultan has decreed this,' but does not say, 'I have ordered you.' If he did, people would ridicule him.
The one who called Musa said, 'Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds,' which no angel can say unless he is conveying it from Allah. As we read the Qur’an, and when the angel is commanded by Allah to call, he says, as established in the Sahih from the Prophet (peace be upon him), 'When Allah loves a servant, He calls Jibril, saying, "I love so-and-so, so love him," then Jibril calls out in the heavens, "Allah loves so-and-so, so love him."' When Jibril calls out in the heavens, he says, 'Allah loves so-and-so, so love him,' and Allah says to Jibril, 'I love so-and-so.' Thus, when the angels called out to Zakariya, Allah said: 'So the angels called him while he was standing in prayer in the sanctuary:
"Allah gives you good news of Yahya."' (Qur'an 3:39). And He said: 'And when the angels said, "O Mary, Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds."' (Qur'an 3:42). It is never permissible for a created being to say, 'Whoever calls upon Me, I will answer him; whoever asks of Me, I will give him; whoever seeks My forgiveness, I will forgive him.' When Allah creates a characteristic in a place, that place becomes characterized by it. So, when He creates knowledge, power, life, movement, color, hearing, or sight in a place, that place becomes knowledgeable, powerful, living, moving, colored, hearing, and seeing. The Lord is not characterized by what He creates in His creation but by His own attributes inherent in Him.
If the call were created in a tree, the tree would be the one saying, 'Indeed, I am Allah.' If what the Lord created in others were His speech, and He had no speech except what He created, then His causing the parts of a human being to speak on the Day of Resurrection would be His speech, the pebbles' glorification and the stone's greeting the Prophet (peace be upon him) would be His speech. Indeed, it would necessitate that every speech in existence be His speech, for it is established that He is the Creator of everything. This is the implication of the beliefs of the proponents of hulul (incarnation) and ittihad (union), like Ibn Arabi, who said: 'Every speech in existence is His speech, whether it is prose or poetry.'"
(Minhaj as-Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/219)
"Their evidence from Allah’s words: 'And it was called out from the right side of the valley in the blessed spot from the tree...' (Qur'an 28:30) is incorrect in suggesting that Allah’s speech was created in the tree, and Musa heard it from there! They are blind to what comes before and after this phrase. For Allah said: 'So when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley...' (Qur'an 28:30). The call is speech from a distance, and Musa heard the call from the side of the valley. Then He said: 'In the blessed spot from the tree,' meaning that the call was in the blessed spot near the tree, just as one says, 'I heard Zaid's speech from the house,' meaning it was from the house, not that the house was speaking! If the speech were created in the tree, the tree would have been saying, 'O Musa, indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds.' Did anyone other than the Lord of the worlds say, 'Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds'? If this speech were from other than Allah, then Pharaoh’s statement:
'I am your highest lord' would be true, as both statements, according to them, are created and said by other than Allah! They distinguish between the two statements based on their false principles: that one was Allah’s speech created in the tree, and the other was Pharaoh's created speech! They have engaged in distortion and substitution, believing in a creator other than Allah."
(Sharh al-Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah, pp. 174-175)
"I saw the tree from which Musa was called; it was a green tree."
This has several issues:
(Muwafaqat al-Khabar al-Khabar by Ibn Hajar, 1/364)
Thus, Hafiz Ibn Kathir's statement in his Tafsir that "its chain is reliable" is not correct.
The well-known misguided Sufi, Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (d. 309 AH), was a heretic and a proponent of the doctrine of hulul (incarnation). Scholars of the truth have unanimously agreed on his disbelief and heresy. His fundamental belief was that Allah has incarnated in everything, which formed the basis of the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud (unity of existence). Due to his disbelief and heresy, the scholars deemed his blood permissible, and he was executed.
None of the Sunni scholars considered him virtuous. Misguided Sufis are his staunch supporters, yet they tirelessly claim to be among the Ahl al-Sunnah. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (773-852 AH) writes about him:
"I do not see anyone advocating for al-Hallaj except those who adhere to his view, which is that he claimed the unity of the Creator and the creation. This is the belief of those who advocate for absolute unity (wahdat al-wujud). Thus, you see Ibn Arabi, the author of 'Al-Fusus', venerating him and disparaging Junayd."
(Lisan al-Mizan by Ibn Hajar; 2/315)
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi (508-597 AH) writes:
"The scholars of the time unanimously agreed on the permissibility of spilling al-Hallaj's blood."
(Talbis Iblis by Ibn al-Jawzi: 1/154)
Hafiz Ibn Kathir (701-773 AH) writes:
"The scholars of Baghdad agreed on the disbelief and heresy of al-Hallaj, and they unanimously decided to kill and crucify him. The scholars of Baghdad at that time were considered the scholars of the world."
(Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya by Ibn Kathir: 11/941)
Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi (508-597 AH) writes:
"The scholars of the time unanimously agreed on the permissibility of spilling al-Hallaj's blood."
(Talbis Iblis by Ibn al-Jawzi: 1/154)
Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) writes:
"By shath (ecstatic utterances), we mean two kinds of statements invented by some Sufis. One is the long and broad claims of love with Allah and union that negate the need for outward acts until some people reach the claim of union and the lifting of veils, witnessing by sight and conversation without a mediator, saying:
'It was said to us this, and we said that', emulating Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj, who was crucified for making such statements. They quote his saying:
'I am the Truth', and what is narrated from Abu Yazid al-Bistami who said: 'Glory be to me, how great is my glory!'. This kind of speech has caused great harm among the common people, leading a group of people on the path of righteousness to abandon it and make such claims. This kind of speech is appealing to the natural disposition because it promises self-purification with the attainment of stations and states, without the need for outward acts. Hence, you see that the rich and the lazy are not deterred from making such claims and uttering foolish, embellished statements. Whenever such people are rebuked, they retort that this criticism stems from knowledge and argument, and knowledge is a veil, and argument is the work of the self. Such talk emerges from the inward by unveiling the light of the truth. This and similar heresies have spread in the lands and caused great harm among the common people. Thus, to kill someone who utters such blasphemies is better in the religion of Allah than saving ten others."
(Ihya Ulum al-Din by al-Ghazali: 2/292)
He also writes:
"From this, the notion of hulul (incarnation) and ittihad (union) emerged, and he (al-Hallaj) said:
'I am the Truth', which echoes the statements of Christians about the union of the divine and human nature or its concealment therein or its incarnation therein, as their expressions differ on this matter. This belief is entirely false."
(Ihya Ulum al-Din by al-Ghazali: 2/292)
Imam Dhahabi's (rahimahullah, 326-847 AH) Commentary on Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj
"Reflect, O servant of Allah, on the creed of al-Hallaj, who was among the leaders of the Qaramitah (extremist and dangerous sect of Rafidah) and a staunch advocate of heresy. Be fair, unbiased, and cautious. Evaluate yourself. If it becomes clear to you that the characteristics of this man are those of an enemy of Islam, a lover of prominence, and someone eager to dominate through a mixture of falsehood and truth, then immediately abandon his creed. And Allah forbid, if despite this, you find him to be justified, a guide, and a rightly-guided one, then renew your Islam and seek help from your Lord to guide you to the truth and keep your heart firm on His religion. Indeed, guidance is a light that Allah casts into the heart of His Muslim servant, and there is no power except with Allah."(Siyar A'lam al-Nubala by Dhahabi, 14/345)
The Stance of Deobandi Scholars on al-Hallaj's Claim of "Ana al-Haqq" (I am the Truth)
Despite the notorious attribution of the statement "Ana al-Haqq" (I am the Truth) to al-Hallaj, the Deobandi scholar Hakim al-Ummah Ashraf Ali Thanvi writes:"Just as the tree of Sinai, without choice, became an instrument of the statement 'Indeed, I am Allah' due to the divine manifestation, likewise, Mansur, without choice, became an instrument of the statement 'Ana al-Haqq' due to the divine manifestation."
(Bawadir al-Nawadir by Thanvi, p. 398)
He further elaborates:
"Another possible interpretation is that he did not reveal this secret himself, but it was revealed by the Beloved Himself, meaning the one speaking 'Ana al-Haqq' is the same as the one who spoke from the tree of Sinai, 'Indeed, I am Allah.'"
(Isharat al-Ghayur by Thanvi, p. 143)
He continues:
"One degree of this manifestation is called tajalli (divine manifestation), as was the case with the tree of Sinai. If this manifestation occurs in the Perfect Man, then what is the objection?"
(Isharat al-Ghayur by Thanvi, p. 147)
Deobandi scholar Zafar Ahmad Thanvi also writes:
"Another interpretation could be that at that time, Ibn Mansur’s tongue became the instrument of divine speech. The statement 'Ana al-Haqq' came from his tongue just as 'Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds' came from the tree of Moses. It is clear that the tree did not claim to be Allah, the Lord of the worlds, but rather it was an instrument of divine speech. Likewise, it can be thought that Ibn Mansur, under the overpowering states, spoke divine words. Such situations often occur with the gnostics when Allah speaks through their tongues, which the followers of the mystical path understand. So, it is possible that 'Ana al-Haqq' was uttered by Ibn Mansur, but it is not certain that Ibn Mansur himself claimed 'Ana al-Haqq'."
(Siyarat Mansur Hallaj by Zafar Ahmad Thanvi, p. 50)
Commentary
This is a highly misleading and blasphemous belief resulting from the false interpretations of the theologians. No one among the Ahl al-Sunnah subscribes to this belief. It is evident from this that Thanvi and his followers were staunch advocates of the doctrine of hulul (incarnation), which is pure disbelief. It is a blatant blasphemy against Allah and a clear insult to Prophet Musa (peace be upon him), reflecting their ignorance and disrespect towards the Holy Qur'an. The Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah have strictly refuted such beliefs:Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (rahimahullah, d. 324 AH) writes:
"The Jahmiyyah claim, like the Christians, that the Word of Allah was encompassed by the womb of Mary (may Allah be pleased with her). The Jahmiyyah even exceeded this by claiming that the Word of Allah was created and embodied in a tree. Thus, they must conclude that the tree was speaking with that Word and that a created being spoke to Musa, saying, 'Indeed, I am Allah, there is no deity except Me, so worship Me.' If the Word of Allah was created in the tree, then it means a creation said to Musa, 'Indeed, I am Allah.' However, Allah says:
'But the word from Me will be fulfilled: I will surely fill Hell with jinn and people all together.'
(Qur'an 32:13). Allah's Word is from Him, so it is not permissible to say that His Word, which is from Him, was created in a tree, just as it is not permissible to say that His knowledge, which is from Him, was created in something else. Allah is far exalted above this."(al-Ibanah an Usul al-Diyanah by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, p. 68)
He further writes:
"Allah said:
'It is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger to reveal by His permission what He wills.'
(Qur'an 42:51). If the Word of Allah could only exist created in something created, then there would be no meaning to the necessity of these conditions because, according to the Jahmiyyah, all creation hears and finds the Word created in something other than Allah. This undermines the status of the prophets, and it means that if Allah’s Word to Musa was created in a tree, then anyone who hears Allah’s Word from a prophet or an angel bringing it from Allah would be of a higher rank than Musa, as they heard it from a prophet while Musa heard it from a tree. Furthermore, they would have to claim that a Jew hearing the Word of Allah from a prophet is better than Musa, for the Jew heard it from a prophet of Allah, while Musa heard it created in a tree."(al-Ibanah by al-Ash'ari, p. 109)
Imam al-Ajurri (rahimahullah, d. 360 AH) writes:
"If one of them says that Allah created a Word in a tree and spoke to Musa through it, he is committing disbelief because he claims that the Word of Allah is created. Allah is far above that. This means that a creation is claiming divinity, which is a most heinous and vile statement. He is told: O heretic! Is it permissible for anyone other than Allah to say, 'Indeed, I am Allah'? We seek refuge in Allah that such a person be a Muslim; he is a disbeliever who must be asked to repent. If he repents and renounces his bad creed, he is spared; otherwise, he must be killed by the Imam. If the Imam does not kill him or ask him to repent, knowing his creed, he is abandoned, not spoken to, not greeted, not prayed behind, his testimony is not accepted, and no Muslim should marry his daughter."
(al-Shari'ah by al-Ajurri, p. 313)
Hafiz Bayhaqi (rahimahullah, d. 458 AH) Writes:
"If Allah's speech could only be found as created in a created thing, then there would be no meaning in stipulating these conditions, as all creation would be equal in hearing it from other than Allah, and according to the Jahmiyyah, it would be found created in other than Allah. This leads to the lowering of the rank of the prophets, peace be upon them all. If they claim that Allah’s speech to Musa was created in a tree, then those who heard Allah's speech from an angel or a prophet who brought it from Allah would be of a higher rank than Musa in hearing the speech, because they heard it from a prophet, while Musa did not hear it from Allah but from a tree. They would also have to claim that the Jews, when they heard Allah’s speech from Musa, the prophet of Allah, were of a higher rank in this respect than Musa ibn Imran because the Jews heard it from a prophet among the prophets, while Musa heard it from a created tree. If this speech was created in a tree, then Allah was not speaking to Musa from behind a veil, and it follows that a created being among the creation was speaking to Musa, saying, 'Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds,' which is clearly false."(Al-I'tiqad by Bayhaqi, pp. 97-98)
Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah, 661-728 AH) Writes:
"Whoever says that Allah did not personally speak but created speech in a tree or otherwise, it implies that the tree was the one saying, 'Indeed, I am Allah.' This is not like when people say, 'The emir has called,' when he sends a caller, for the caller on behalf of the emir says, 'The emir has ordered this,' and 'The sultan has decreed this,' but does not say, 'I have ordered you.' If he did, people would ridicule him.
The one who called Musa said, 'Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds,' which no angel can say unless he is conveying it from Allah. As we read the Qur’an, and when the angel is commanded by Allah to call, he says, as established in the Sahih from the Prophet (peace be upon him), 'When Allah loves a servant, He calls Jibril, saying, "I love so-and-so, so love him," then Jibril calls out in the heavens, "Allah loves so-and-so, so love him."' When Jibril calls out in the heavens, he says, 'Allah loves so-and-so, so love him,' and Allah says to Jibril, 'I love so-and-so.' Thus, when the angels called out to Zakariya, Allah said: 'So the angels called him while he was standing in prayer in the sanctuary:
"Allah gives you good news of Yahya."' (Qur'an 3:39). And He said: 'And when the angels said, "O Mary, Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds."' (Qur'an 3:42). It is never permissible for a created being to say, 'Whoever calls upon Me, I will answer him; whoever asks of Me, I will give him; whoever seeks My forgiveness, I will forgive him.' When Allah creates a characteristic in a place, that place becomes characterized by it. So, when He creates knowledge, power, life, movement, color, hearing, or sight in a place, that place becomes knowledgeable, powerful, living, moving, colored, hearing, and seeing. The Lord is not characterized by what He creates in His creation but by His own attributes inherent in Him.
If the call were created in a tree, the tree would be the one saying, 'Indeed, I am Allah.' If what the Lord created in others were His speech, and He had no speech except what He created, then His causing the parts of a human being to speak on the Day of Resurrection would be His speech, the pebbles' glorification and the stone's greeting the Prophet (peace be upon him) would be His speech. Indeed, it would necessitate that every speech in existence be His speech, for it is established that He is the Creator of everything. This is the implication of the beliefs of the proponents of hulul (incarnation) and ittihad (union), like Ibn Arabi, who said: 'Every speech in existence is His speech, whether it is prose or poetry.'"
(Minhaj as-Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah, 2/219)
Imam Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi (rahimahullah, d. 792 AH) Writes:
"Their evidence from Allah’s words: 'And it was called out from the right side of the valley in the blessed spot from the tree...' (Qur'an 28:30) is incorrect in suggesting that Allah’s speech was created in the tree, and Musa heard it from there! They are blind to what comes before and after this phrase. For Allah said: 'So when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley...' (Qur'an 28:30). The call is speech from a distance, and Musa heard the call from the side of the valley. Then He said: 'In the blessed spot from the tree,' meaning that the call was in the blessed spot near the tree, just as one says, 'I heard Zaid's speech from the house,' meaning it was from the house, not that the house was speaking! If the speech were created in the tree, the tree would have been saying, 'O Musa, indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds.' Did anyone other than the Lord of the worlds say, 'Indeed, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds'? If this speech were from other than Allah, then Pharaoh’s statement:
'I am your highest lord' would be true, as both statements, according to them, are created and said by other than Allah! They distinguish between the two statements based on their false principles: that one was Allah’s speech created in the tree, and the other was Pharaoh's created speech! They have engaged in distortion and substitution, believing in a creator other than Allah."
(Sharh al-Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah, pp. 174-175)
Commentary
This claim that Allah's speech was created in the tree is highly flawed. The statement attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him):"I saw the tree from which Musa was called; it was a green tree."
This has several issues:
- The chain of narration is extremely weak.
- Imam Abu Mu'awiyah is known for tadlis (concealment in transmitting Hadith).
- Imam al-A'mash is also known for tadlis. Both are narrating with 'an' (from), which does not indicate direct hearing.
- Abu Ubaydah did not hear from his father, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar writes:
(Muwafaqat al-Khabar al-Khabar by Ibn Hajar, 1/364)
Thus, Hafiz Ibn Kathir's statement in his Tafsir that "its chain is reliable" is not correct.