"asma'un sammaytumuha" means: you named these idols as gods. tafsir qurTubi: إِنْ هِيَ إِلاَّ أَسْمَآءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ أي ما هي يعني هذه الأوثان إِلاَّ أَسْمَآءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ يعني نحتموها وسميتموها آلهة tafsir tabari: "these are names you named and term that these are gods.." ============= from zamakhshari's tafsir paraphrased: "these are mere names without any underlying reality. or it means: you claim these names as those of God out of your own caprice." ============= of course, imam razi has a multi-layered discussion and the key points (other than mentioned above) paraphrased from tafsir kabir:"these are just names for these idols and you claim they are gods. for example to deride someone, it is said: 'zayd is nothing but just a name'." "these are names you crafted of your own desires and claim that they are names of Allah ta'ala." and a number of language notes for those interested. ----- going back to qurTubi's tafsir: وقيل: إن الّلات فيما ذكر بعض المفسرين أخذه المشركون من لفظ الله، والعُزَّى من العزيز، ومَنَاة مِن مَنَى الله الشيءَ إذا قدّره. it is said: that laat according to some exegetes that the pagans (polytheists) took from the word Allah, uzza from Aziz, manat from mana Allah as-shayy when He ordained it. ==== Allah ta'ala knows best.
i asked because unbeknown mentioned uzza too along with others. specifically for laat, manaat and uzza, the Quran says directly:
yes, pious people have been worshipped by previous nations. and what they say about worshipping pious people is right. BUT, we do not worship anyone except Allah ta'ala. we say that worshipping anyone or anything other than Allah ta'ala is explicit polytheism. ---- this is the najdis favourite strawman - accuse you of worshipping saints and then equate you with heretics of yore. pay them with same coin to them: prophets were disrespected and even killed by their followers in previous nations, even when acknowledging them as their leaders - same what najdis are doing by hacking at our roots.
Brother would appreciate if you could expound on the point made by UBK were he quoted Martin lings, under the light of what other classical scholars have mentioned regarding the names Abd manaf and abdul uzza. Also is there any truth to najdi claim that pious have been worshipped in the previous ummahs and how do we interpret these hadiths Ma'salam
that is a very very important point that needs to be highlighted. jazakAllahu khayran for this. ---- in fact, i wanted to insert this in TKM, but as it was a peripheral issue, left it out. this statement instantly took me back to the book: sayf al-maslul of imam subki. at that time i made a mental note to mention this in a post or something; and then i forgot. the editor of sayf, sh.iyad al-ghawj, has appended a number of useful fatawa and citations in his edition. the first mas'alah under miscellaneous masayil, is about a person who cursed the father of RasulAllah SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam; this fatwa is by imam abu bakr ibn al-arabi al-maliki (d.543 AH). the gist of the fatwa is that it is forbidden to speak ill of the parents of RasulAllah SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam (regardless of whether one considers them as muslims or not) as it hurts him; and one who hurts the Prophet SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam is accursed - the damnation of Allah ta'ala is upon him vide the ayah (33:57, surah al-ahzab): --------------- this extract appears on pages 583-585 of sayf al-maslul. this fatwa is extracted from the book mi`yar al-mu`rib wa'l jami`y al-mughrib `an fatawi ahl ifriqiyyah wa'l andalus wa'l maghrib. compiled by abu'l `abbas wanshirisi (d.914 AH). see vol.12/pages 257-262 which has additional information to the above, by qaDi abu muHammad al-awsi who mentions more hadith and verses that for the argument. --- indeed, none except a shaqi will say such a thing. and we do dua just as shaykh ibn al-arabi said in the beginning of his answer:"we read your question and (we beseech) Allah ta'ala to protect us and you from mischief and evil; and may He honour us by granting protection from tribulation and ordeal. this is an age when vermin are let loose and when people speak without restraint, transgressing their limits and even impinging upon the honour of Prophets, the chosen and righteous slaves of Allah. and even going further, (and saying forbidden things) concerning Mustafa SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam." ================== the damnation of Allah ta'ala is upon those who hurt Mustafa SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam by speaking ill of his family.
clarification Some people might misconstrue this to mean that anyone can say anything about the blessed parents (radhiAllahuanuma) just because there is a difference of opinion. I personally know at least two incidents in which najdi-mongrels openly badmouthed them but thankfully after one of these the local sunni ulema were able to hold a jalsa right outside their 'mosque' and refute them and challenge them to an open debate. By Allah's('azzawajal) grace they were able to contain the fitnah in time and shut the barking dogs up. If I remember correctly, Imam Suyuti (rahimahullah) has proved that even if one does not accept the interpretations in favor of their iman he has no right to express his ideas in a public gathering whatsoever much less in a disparaging manner. This is not a non-issue. An excellent discussion on this topic can be found in Tafseer-e-Naeemi for the verse 219 of surah al-Shu'araa in which the erudite commentator has discussed some novel points not discussed by Alahazrat('alahirrahmah) in his works relating to this topic (as per one of the scholars who refuted the najdiyyah in the above mentioned incident). Wassalaam.
jazakAllah I meant their positions regarding what a person not reached by the message of Islam is obliged to know/believe. Imam Suyuti as per the article linked above and the general ashari position and Imam Nawawi as quoted in al mutaqad and as per keller's translation of Reliance of the Traveller. Yet, I had no idea that Imam Nawawi had a different opinion about the iman of the Prophet's(peace be upon him) blessed parents. Will have to find more. right. I realize that in the last paragraph in the post above I have used some words which imply certainty when in fact most of it is speculative. jazakAllah for the reminder. on other forums maybe but I think on this forum a lot has been said to alert the readers regarding perennialism. anyways, I agree that I should either not use or put warnings. comparison with qadiyanis drives home the point forcefully. I never saw it in that light. Not saying that I took it lightly but just that there is a difference, due to several reasons, discussing which would derail the thread. I wrote that based on what I had heard or read a long time back. I realize that I have mixed up two different hadiths from bukhari shareef. It's 'Lat' who was human: see 382. The other two were not. One was a stone and the other a tree as per Yusuf Ali's commentary of the verse in surah an-najm. I did use the word 'reported', in the sense of 'qeela'. wallahua'alam. Wassalaam.
It is interesting that you mention imams Nawawi and Suyuti. As I know, their opinions on this topic, regarding the parents of the Prophet, 3alaihis salat-o-salam, are opposites. There is no ijma3 on this topic, as Ala Hazrat has also stated in Shumul al-Islam li-Usul al-Rasul al-Kiram. There are differing opinions. My suggestion to you is to by all means adhere to any scholarly opinion and even bring forward the primary proofs from whichever side you feel is right, but please do not try to apply your own analysis, as firstly there is no need for it, secondly you (i mean all of us common people) are bound to fumble. Furthermore, I wouldn't be caught dead quoting martin lings, on any topic at all, as he was a perennialist, and specially in these times when people are promoting him and his ideology, it is not wise to flash his name and let people be confused into thinking he was a Muslim scholar. If a qadiyani even said something right, would you quote him? No. If really something is right, you will either prove it based on common sense, or from its original non-qadiyani truthful source. The same should be the case here too. It is incredibly dangerous, foolish, and irresponsible for any Sunni to cite martin lings or any other perennialist. can you bring a reference for this please.
my two cents more interesting is the story of how 'abd al Muttalib (radhiAllahuanu) came to be known as such: Muttalib took his nephew with him on the back of his camel; and as they rode into Mecca he heard some of the bystanders say as they looked at the young stranger: "'Abd al-Muttalib", that is, "al-Muttalib's slave". "Out upon you," he said, "he is no less than the son of my brother Hashim." The laughter with which his words were greeted was but a prelude to the merriment that was caused throughout the city as the story of the blunder ran from mouth to mouth; and from that day the youth was affectionately known as 'Abd al-Muttalib. a report is only as authentic as its chain and incidents reported by historians are generally less authentic than those reported by traditionists so at times they have to be either ignored as outright fabrications or interpreted in the light of ahadith whereas their import may sometimes have to be completely subsumed in the meaning and context proffered by the contesting ahadith literature. do not forget that 'abd can be used in several contexts as seen from the example quoted above. Just as 'abd-al-muttalib does not necessarily mean 'worshipper of muttalib', 'abd-al-Uzza can be construed to mean things other than 'worshipper-of uzza' - regardless of the fact that these personalities were looked upon as deities by the majority of hijazis. It must be borne in mind that these are reported to have been pious individuals who were deified in later times. So if one can be named 'abd-al-mustafa' and 'ghulam-e-gaus' and still remain on tawheed then why not in the former case? finally, all this justification and rationalization can stand only because of clear ahadith regarding the purity of the Prophet's (peace be upon) lineage. this point is very pertinent. Islamic laws regarding what constitutes kufr and what does not - and which things are and always have been kufr, such as shirk - and which are kufr merely due to external implications rather than the action in itself, such as bowing to an idol revered as a deity - and other such concomitant intricacies - cannot be applied to the period of jahilliyyah. So the rulings on actions (such as respecting a deity, not with the belief that it shares in the divinity of God, but simply to appease the society over which one has to govern) carried out prior to the advent of Islam will necessarily differ to those after it. I suggest you read what Imam Nawawi, Imam Suyuti et al. have to say regarding the ahl-al-fitrah and those not reached by the message of Islam. Allah('azzawajal) knows best. wassalaam.
my two cents excerpts from Lings': 'Abd al-Muttalib did not pray to Hubal; he always prayed to God- to Allah. But the Moabite Idol had been for generations inside the House of God and had become for Quraysh a kind of personification of the barakah, that is the blessing, the spiritual influence, which pervaded that greatest of all sanctuaries. There were other lesser sanctuaries throughout Arabia and the most important of these in the Hijaz were the temples of three "daughters of God" as some of their worshipers claimed them to be, al-Lat, al-'Uzzah and Manat. From his earliest years, like the rest of the Arabs of Yathrib, 'Abd al-Muttalib had been brought up to revere Manat whose temple was at Qudayd on the Red Sea, almost due west of the oasis. More important for Quraysh was the shrine of al-'Uzzah in the valley of Nakhlah, a camel day's journey south of Mecca. Another day's journey in the same direction brought the devotee to Ta'if, a walled town on a luxuriant green tableland, inhabited by Thaqif, a branch of the great Arab tribe of Hawazin, AI-Lat was "the lady of Ta'if", and her idol was housed in a rich temple. As guardians of this, Thaqif liked to think of themselves as the counterpart of Quraysh; and Quraysh went so far as to speak currently of "the two cities" when they meant Mecca and Ta'if. But despite the wonderful climate and fertility of "the Garden of the Hijaz", as Ta'if was called, its people were not unjealous of the barren valley to their north, for they knew in their hearts that their temple, however much they might promote it, could never compare with the House of God. Nor did they altogether wish it were otherwise, for they too were descended from Ishmael and had roots in Mecca. Their sentiments were mixed and sometimes conflicting. Quraysh on the other hand were jealous of no one. They knew that they lived at the centre of the world and that they had in their midst a magnet capable of drawing pilgrims from all points of the compass. It was up to them to do nothing that might diminish the good relationship which had been established between themselves and the outlying tribes. 'Abd al-Muttalib's office as host of pilgrims to the Ka'bah imposed on him an acute awareness of these things. His function was an intertribal one, and it was shared to a certain extent by all Quraysh. The pilgrims must be made to feel that Mecca was a home from home, and welcoming them meant welcoming what they worshipped and never failing to show honour to the idols they brought with them. The justification and authority for accepting idols and believing in their efficacy was that of tradition: their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers had done so. None the less, God was, for 'Abd al-Muttalib, the great reality; and he was no doubt nearer to the religion of Abraham than most of his contemporaries of Quraysh and Khuza'ah and Hawazin and other Arab tribes. But there were -and always had been -a few who maintained the full purity of Abrahamic worship. They alone realised that far from being traditional, idol worship was an innovation -a danger to be guarded against. It only needed a longer view of history to see that Hubal was no better than the golden calf of the son's of Israel. These Hunafa',' as they called themselves, would have nothing to do with the idols, whose presence in Mecca they looked on as a profanation and a pollution. Their refusal to compromise and their frequent outspokenness relegated them to the fringe of Meccan society where they were respected, tolerated or ill-treated, partly according to their personalities and partly according to whether their clans were prepared to protect them or not. 'Abd al-Muttalib knew four of the Hunafa', and one of the more respected of them, Waraqah by name, was the son of his second cousin Nawfal, of the clan of Asad. Waraqah had become a Christian;and there was a belief among Christians of those parts that the coming of a Prophet was imminent.
Brother, May Allah Ta'ala forgive my shortcomings if i have misunderstood the question. Regarding the topic, There could be socio-political reasons for such names. However, For creedal issues It would be wrong to judge these actions as per the standard of Shariat-e-Mohammadi (Alaihis-salat-o-was-salam), as they are considered as people of fitra. Hence, we need to understand the topic in the context of scholarly opinion and Hadith-e-Mubaraka mentioned in the first post. Ma'salam
Br Saeed you may have misunderstood the question (or may have been me). The question is: Abdul Muttalib is a believer and believes in 1 God. Why did Abdul Muttalib name his son Abdul Uzza - which translates as the "slave of the name of an idol"?
Fair enough! Let's go step by step please tell me what do you understand from the quote of Imam Izzuddīn ibn Abdul Salām
Sorry but nothing in your answer explains why these people were named as the slaves/worshippers of idols.
Assalamualaykum, One of the reasons could be because he was from people of fitra (Hanafiyya) Imām Izzuddīn ibn Abdul Salām said (in al-Amalī), Every Prophet was sent to his own particular people except ours, which means that every people not previously sent to, is of the fitra, except the descendants of a Prophet that are born in other nations [e.g. the descendants of Ibrahīm leading to Shu`ayb], because his Law addresses them as well. But if the previous dispensation becomes obliterated, then all people become people of the fitra.” This is categorical proof that the noble parents are without doubt of the fitra, because they are neither descendants of ‘Isā nor of his nation. Secondly, such names were explicitly prohibited in Shariat-e-Muhammadi (Peace be upon him) Important hadith in this context Wathila b. al-Asqa' reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily Allah granted eminence to Kinana from amongst the descendants of Isma'il and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Kinana and he granted eminence to the Quraish amongst Banu Hashim and he granted me eminence from the tribe of Banu Hashim. [Muslim :: The Book Pertaining to the Excellent Qualities of the Holy Prophet (may Peace be upon them) and His Companions (Kitab Al-Fada'il) : Hadith 5653] Please check the below link for more clarity on the topic http://marifah.net/articles/prophetsparentssaved-jalaluddinalsuyuti.pdf Salam
Salam. Can anyone explain why sayyiduna abdul muttalib named his sons Abdul uzza (I.e. Abu lahab) and abd Manaf (I.e. Abu Talib). One of the ancestors of the prophet sallallahu alayhi wasalam was also called abd manaf. Note: manaf and uzza were names of idols.
