[AbdurRahman.org] Perennialist Poison In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

P E R E N N I A L I S T P O I S O N I N M A R T I N L I N G S ’

B I O G R A P H Y O F T H E P R O P H E T

A Discussion with Martin Lings

Aboo Bilaal Mustafaa al-Kanadee

Version 1.0

INTRODUCTION:

Martin Lings’ biography of the Messenger ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam ) has gained wide

popularity over the recent period, and it continues to be sold and recommended

unabated. This is so in spite of what we have come to know of both its author and the

book itself. We are thus prompted to issue this booklet containing three letters that

were printed in the Saudi Gazette regarding the Seerah . The first letter was written by

our esteemed Salafee brother, Aboo Bilaal ( rahimahullaah ), the second being Lings’

reply to it and the third comes from Aboo Bilaal as a counter-reply. Mr. Lings sent no

further response after the counter-reply from our brother Aboo Bilaal. The letters

appear as they had been published with minor spelling and printing corrections.

It is hoped that a reading of these letters will – if Allaah so wills - help the Muslims

protect themselves from being influenced by false ideas and values and enable them to

distinguish the misguided and misled amongst us. May Allaah establish our feet firmly

in the path of our Messenger Muhammad ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam ) and protect us

from ever compromising truth with error willingly, aameen .

ABOO BILAL’S LETTER OF CAUTIO N:

Sir, Congratulations on the opening of a religious section in your newspaper, entitled

The Message . I trust it will be of great service disseminating valuable information

regarding various aspects of the Islaamic faith.

However, I must admit that I was dismayed to see that you have begun a serial of

excerpts from Martin Lings’ biography of the Prophet Muhammad ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa

sallam ). The reason for this is that the book – although its document of the Prophet’s

life as portrayed in the Glorious Qur‘aan and the authentic Sunnah .

I would like to draw your attention to a few facts which I trust will clarify my point. Mr.

Lings draws heavily on sources which, although ancient, are not fully trustworthy; for

example: al-Waajidee’s Maghaazee , and al-Azrajee’s Akhbaar Makkah . The former is

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

replete with forged and weak traditions, and its author, al-Waajidee has been

unanimously assessed by critics of hadeeth literature to be rejected as a narrator of

traditions. This heavy dependence of Mr. Lings upon spurious sources for his narrative

renders his biography unreliable as an exposition of the impeccable life and times of

the Prophet of Islaam. There are in fact quite a number of examples in the book which

clearly indicate certain gross errors as well as distorted views of the author; however,

lack of space permits me to mention only a few, in brief.

At the beginning of his treatise (p. 1-2), Lings chooses to quote from the distorted texts

of the Bible’s Book of Genesis (ch. 15 v. 5), rather than rely on authentic narrations of

the Prophet Muhammad regarding the story of Abraham and how he settled his wife

Hagar and son Ishmael at Makkah. The Biblical account put Ishmael’s age at 13,

whereas the traditions of al-Bukhaaree indicate that he was a suckling babe at the time

of their arrival in Makkah. It could be said, with justification, that the age difference is

of minor significance – and this can be readily conceded – however, there is a vital issue

at stake here; viz., Mr. Lings’ view of what is to be regarded as dependable source

material for his writing.

When he was justifiably criticized for his quoting from the Bible instead of Islaamic

sources in an article entitled “Unscrupulous writing about the Prophet” in a local

newspaper, Mr. Lings later replied, “I myself am more prepared to accept what Divine

Revelation tells us than what was handed down in Arabia by word of mouth from

generation to generation.”

He further labels the authentically established Islamic version of the story as traditions of

the Arabs. Thus he considers the interpolated and distorted text of the Bible “Divine

Revelation”, whereas the authentic narrations of the Prophet related to us on the

authority of al-Bukhaaree are mere “traditions of the Arabs”, and therefore – it is

assumed – unreliable. The Prophet has said, “Verily, I have been given the Qur‘aan and

that which is like unto it, along with it,” i.e., the Prophetic Sunnah which we are obliged

to accept as another aspect of the final Divine Revelation; if it has been verified to be

transmitted to us in a dependable manner.

The second example is Mr. Lings’ rendering of the relationship between the Prophet

and Zaynab, for this creates the impression of a passionate romantic love affair between

them. He paints a picture of Zaynab at her house who – being lightly clad – upon

hearing of the Prophet’s arrival at her door, was so eager to greet him that she leapt she

leapt to her feet and ran to the door, to invite him to stay until her husband Zayd

returned” (p. 213). That is, she was improperly dressed, and the Prophet was overcome

with passion, amazed at her beauty. Mr. Lings’ borrowed his “story” from certain forged

narrations of al-Waaqidee et al., and these were aptly described by some critics

absolutely unacceptable for such a Hollywood film”. Obviously, such material is

absolutely unacceptable for such a sacred subject as the life of the Prophet Muhammad,

his virtuous wives and righteous Companions.

The final example I will mention – and perhaps the most detrimental – which clearly

points to gross misconceptions and distortions of the Prophet’s Seerah by Mr. Lings’ is

the incident of the Prophet’s entry into Makkah on the Day of Victory. It is well known

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

that he was commissioned by the almighty Allaah to purify the Ka’bah of all signs of

polytheism, by ridding it of all the idols surrounding it. Furthermore, the Prophet

ordered his companions to destroy and efface everything which remained inside the

Ka’bah by way of painting or sculpture, and to remove such before he entered inside to

pray. This has been authentically related in the compilation o f al-Bukhaaree et al.

Lings on the contrary, relates another “story” (p. 300) gleaned from the forged

narratives contained in his so-called “dependable ancient sources” (i.e. al-Waajidee, al-

Azrajee et al.). This “story” totally contradicts what has been authentically related

regarding this incident and contradicts the essential principle of Tawheed , for Lings’

writes the following: “Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus and a

painting of an old man said to be Abraham, the walls inside (the Ka’bah ) had been

covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand protectively over the icon, the

Prophet told ’Uthmaan to see that all other paintings, except that of Abraham, were

effaced.”

I ask: Can it be believed that the Prophet ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam ) would protect

such icons of Mary, Jesus and Abraham in this manner, and that he would allow these

idols to be left intact inside the sacred Ka’bah , the very symbol of pure unadulterated

Tawheed ?! The answer should be quite obvious to anyone possessing firm faith and good

sense, for if such a story were true- and it certainly isn’t – then it follows that the

Prophet affirmed the very symbols of polytheism and by implication, it indicates that he

approved of the distorted existing versions of the previously revealed religions of

Christianity and Judaism, symbolised by his protection of their two respective icons.

And that is precisely the aim of Lings mentioning this forged tale, since it is consistent

with the false doctrine and philosophy to which he adheres and which he avidly

propounds in his other writings, namely, The Perennial Philosophy . The principal theme

of Perennialism is that all religions are in reality one, and mutually supportive and

acceptable; it is merely their “outer” manifestations which appear to differ! Refer to

Lings’ book, The Eleventh Hour (p. 71, 74, 77, 80). He furthermore believes in

reincarnation (p. 26-29) and the pagan theory of pantheistic monism, i.e., the union of

man and God (p. 104, 106).

Needless to say, such aberrant doctrines and tenets are totally contrary to the pure and

unadulterated teachings of Islaam as contained and preserved in the Gracious Qur‘aan

and the authentic Prophetic Sunnah ; the sole criteria for distinguishing truth from error

and falsehood.

Sincerely,

Aboo Bilaal Mustafaa al-Kanadee

Imaam, Medical City Mosque,

King Khaalid Nat. Guard Hospital,

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

MARTIN LINGS’ RESPONSE:

Sir,

Having discussed my life of the Prophet as unreliable, Mr. Kanadee goes on to say that

‘lack of space permits him to mention only a few examples of the gross errors as well as

distorted views of the author’. In fact only three are mentioned but we may assume that

there are the worst, that is, the grossest and most distorted. Let us examine them.

The first is now out of date, because in the latest edition of my book, the Biblical

statement that Ishmael was 13 when he came to Makkah has been omitted and

replaced by what is generally believed by Muslims, namely that he was a babe in arms.

Mr. Kanadee may be unaware of this; but in any case he has no right to accuse me of

labeling traditions of the Prophet as traditions of the Arabs . If I had found recorded any

statement by the Prophet himself that Ishmael was a babe at that time, I would have

immediately accepted it without bothering to consult Genesis in order to remind

Christian and Jewish readers of the promises which their Bible records as having been

made by God to Abraham on behalf of Ishmael.

As to the second example of my gross errors and distorted views, it has to do with what

led up to the Prophet’s marriage with Zaynab. Let your readers look at (p. 213) and they

will find that like the rest of my book it is full of the greatest veneration for the

Prophet. He is portrayed as a man in total domination of his desires, a man who is not

prepared to let his own individual feelings sway his behavior from the norm in any

respect. The incident in question has, for all men, a great spiritual value, which is, to

say the least, not characteristic of Hollywood films! The account of the Prophet’s visit to

the house of Zaynab and of his sudden consciousness of his love for Zaynab is given not

only by Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat from which I have taken it, but also by Tabari, Baydawi,

the Jalayn and others of the great Qur’an commentators. The Prophet’s exclamation

upon his first awareness of the love in question is quoted throughout Islamic literature:

Glory be to God, the Infinite! Glory to Him who disposeth men’s hearts! These words have

become a precious part of our Islamic heritage, and they are indeed worthy of

meditation, for the lesson they teach us is profound. We have here a supreme example

of true spiritual objectivity which does not allow the strongest emotional impact to

divert it from the remembrance of God, Allah . It is also highly significant that it was

God who put this love into his heart. But as to our critic, he glosses my words amazed

at her beauty by overcome with passion; and since I and my sources have been at such

pains to show precisely that the Prophet was not overcome – indeed, that is the main

point of the page in question and no reader could be in doubt about it – Mr. Kanadee

is here guilty of no less than a serious calumny against me and those whom I have

followed.

As to the third example of my gross errors and distorted views, it has to do with an icon

of the Virgin and Child which a Christian had painted on inside wall of the Ka’aba.

According to all authorities, on the day of the Victory of Makkah the Prophet entered

the Holy House and ordered the effacement of the paintings on its walls. Some

accounts do not mention any exception; according to others the Prophet placed a

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

protective hand over the icon while ordering that the other paintings should be effaced

except one of Abraham. In my book I mention both accounts; the reader can take his

choice. But the authorities for the exception are good; al-Wagidi quotes Ibn Shihab az-

Zuhri; and al-Azraqui quotes Ibn Ishaq which shows that the incident must abridged by

Ibn Hisham. I wished to mention it because it is particularly pleasing to Western

readers. But as to exactly what happened on that occasion God knows best, Allahu a’lam

Our critic would do well to ponder these last words instead of claiming to have absolute

certainty that the men who believed this incident to be true are wrong and that he is

right, men who lived incomparably nearer the time of the Prophet than we do and who

were no less set than we are on recording the truth.

Moreover we must remember that the Prophet was bent on destroying the pagan idols

and the paintings of the deities which the Quraysh and the other Arabs worshipped.

The icon was in a different category, not pagan and not worshipped by Quraysh who

were even accustomed to laughing at the mention of Jesus (Qur’an 43, 57). How can

anyone claim to be absolutely certain that at the moment in question the Prophet was

not moved to make a gesture of adab towards a brother Messenger? Allahu a’lam. But

Mr. Kanadee writes, ‘If such a story were true – and it certainly isn’t – then it follows

that the Prophet affirmed the very symbols of polytheism and by implication it indicates

that he approved of the distorted versions of the previously revealed religions of

Christianity and Judaism’. Our critic is here on very unsafe ground; for whatever the

truth of the above story may be, no one doubts that after the Victory of Makkah the

Prophet made treaties with various Christian communities and these pacts bound him

to protect their churches, all of which contained icons similar to this painting in the

Ka’aba. Moreover he expressly invited a delegation of Christians from Najran to make

use of his mosque in Madina for the performance of their Christian rites. But Mr.

Kanadee comes dangerously close to criticizing the Prophet, for what is implied in the

story which he says is false is also implied in the undisputed act of spiritual generosity

which we have just mentioned. It is likewise implied by the pacts, for to protect icons is

a positive gesture, wherever they may be, it means allowance if not approval. Moreover

and above all, by identifying the existing versions of Christianity and Judaism with

polytheism, Mr. Kanadee thereby reflects the clear distinction made by God between

polytheism, which Islam absolutely forbids, and Christianity and Judaism which He

compels Islam to allow and to protect until the end of time.

Having said say about my life of the Prophet he adds, in case his readers are not yet

shuddering at my gross errors and distorted views, three calumnies in correction with my

other books. Firstly he says that Lings has mentioned “this forged tale since it is

consistent with the false doctrine and philosophy to which he adheres and which he

propounds in his other writings, namely the Perennial Philosophy. The principal theme

of Perennialism is that all religions are really one, and mutually supporting and

acceptable.”

That is not correct: he should have said ‘That all true religion is in reality one.’ The

Qur’an defines the Perennial Religion in the words Verily religion with God is Islam . But

we have to understand the word Islam here in its wider sense for the Qur’an affirms

that Jesus and his companions were Muslims and it says the same of every messenger of

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

religion and his first followers. Perennial Philosophy is not in the least concerned with

pseudo-religion, nor is it concerned with various distortions and deviations from true

religion. Mr. Kanadee should not write about what he does not understand. Then he

accuses me of believing in reincarnation, a charge which is the opposite of the truth since

reincarnation is one of the false beliefs which my writings continually refute. Thirdly he

says that I believe in the theory of pantheistic monism , i.e. The union of man and God. No, I

do not believe in pantheistic monism; but I do believe in a blessing which is greater

than Paradise (see Qur’an, IX, 72) namely Ridwan, and which was defined by God on

the tongue of His Prophet in a hadith qudsi in terms of which suggest a certain measure

of union: “My slave ceases not to draw near to Me with devotions of his free will

( nawafil ) until I love him; and when I love him I am the hearing with which he hears,

the sight with which he sees, the hand with which he grasps and the foot on which he

walks, (Bukhari, LXXXI, 37).

Now let me put to your readers the following question. How is it that this book which

since its publication in 1982 has been so highly praised by Muslim scholars all over the

world, and has been awarded first prize in a competition for the best life of the Prophet

by a panel of Sirah experts specially chosen by the Ministry of Religious Affairs in

Pakistan – how is it that it should be dismissed as unreliable by a relatively new convert

to Islam who has certainly not had the time to acquire the qualifications of the eminent

authorities just referred to. Moreover it was not merely a question of a prize: Such was

the enthusiasm of these authorities that the government of Pakistan decided to

distribute copies of my book free of charge amongst members of their armed forces,

and they produced a special edition of 15,000 copies to be printed in Lahore for the

purpose. Quite independently of this, a scholar from the Muslim community of Cape

Town writes in his review of the book: “This work should be translated into Arabic so

that the whole of the Arab world may drink from it. It should be the prescribed text on

the Nabawi period in all institutions of learning everywhere, in madaris , colleges,

institutes and universities, as well as in all libraries, local, municipal, institutional,

mosque and personal.”

The chief criticism made by Mr. Kanadee is that I have drawn heavily on Kitab al-

Maghazi which “is replete with forged and weak traditions and its author al-Waqidi has

been unanimously assessed by critics of hadeeth literature to be rejected as a narrator of

traditions.” Our readers will by now have come to realize that the words gross and

distorted, so persistently used by Mr. Kanadee of me, are in this case something of a

boomerang. The truth of the matter in question is that there are certain books,

including al-Waqidi’s which are precious and almost indispensab le mines of

information about the early years of Islam and which are consequently to be found in

every self-respecting library throughout Dar-al-Islam. Within this venerable class of

books some scholars have judged that Kitab al-Maghazi, contains more weak hadith

than, for example, the works of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa’d. Not one of them would say

that al-Waqidi’s masterpiece is ‘replete with forged traditions’, because in the first place

only God – and the forger – can know whether a tradition is forged. On the other

hand, it is universally admitted that many so called “weak traditions” may in fact be

true. In any case, in drawing upon all my sources, I have been at great pains to be

selective.

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

Mr. Kanadee and I are both of Western and non-Islamic extraction. One of the great

differences between us is that I am more than 80 years old and I entered Islam over 50

years ago. I have had therefore more time to learn something about Islamic ways and in

particular about Islamic adab. I am also old enough to have learnt that there is a margin

where different opinion alone is correct. If Mr. Kanadee had written to the Saudi

Gazette and said, ‘Since you have begun a series of excerpts from Martin Lings’

biography of the Prophet ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam ), might I suggest that you do not

include (p. 213) and 300) (he might have wished to mention other pages also) because

they contain information which in the opinion of some authorities may not be

accurate’ – if he had written this, I would have found his intervention altogether

admissible.

Is it not somewhat ironical that while he is pouring abuse upon me and my book, the

publishers are being besieged by Muslim organizations from all over the world with

requests to make my book more easily available inasmuch as it is the perfect antidote to

the poison of the present attacks which are now being made against Islam and the

Prophet ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam ).

Aboo Bakr Siraj ad-Din

Known as Martin Lings

London

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

ABOO BILAL’S COUNTER REPLY:

Having read Martin Lings’ response ( Saudi Gazette March 10) to my previous criticism

of his biography of the Prophet Muhammad ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam ), as well as his

adherence to the Perennial Philosophy, and finding it untenable, I am obliged to reply

by – way of counsel ( naseehah ) – for the sake of Allah, His Messenger and the Ummah of

believers.

First I must commend Mr. Lings’ on his ability to admit at least some of his errors and

for his willingness to correct them; for reversion to the truth is a virtue, as it is rightly

said. On the other hand, it distresses me greatly to see him struggling under the

influence of certain unfortunate misconceived notions about Islaam in general, and the

Prophetic Sunnah , in particular.

Take for example, Mr. Lings’ insistence on retaining his romantic account of the

Prophet’s falling in love with Zaynab as recorded in Ibn Sa’d and the commentaries of at-

Tabaree, al-Baydaawee, and others whom he designates authorities – as if they were

somehow infallible. I reiterate that these narrations have been assessed by the scholars

of Hadeeth criticism to be rejected ( mardoodah ) due to the weakness of the narrators

and the disconnection of the chains of transmission; a fact which renders them

unacceptable for the purpose of application in matters of Religion . That is the reason

given by Ibn Katheer, the hadeeth scholar and commentator, for his refusal to include

them in his famous tafseer which is an abridged version of at-Tabaree’s commentary.

Refer to Tafseerul-Qur‘aanil-’Adheem (6/420).

Another example is Mr. Lings’ facile attempt to defend the fabricated story of the

Prophet (on the Day of Victory over Makkah) which has him placing his hands

protectively over icons of Jesus, Mary and Abraham inside the Ka’bah , and leaving them

intact instead of having them effaced. Frankly, I am amazed at Mr. Lings’ obvious lack

of familiarity with the noble Hadeeth sciences, especially Hadeeth criticism which deals

with the assessment of the degree of veracity of Prophetic traditions. It is a thoroughly

precise and exacting science which is the exclusive property of the Muslim Ummah as

no other peoples possess anything remotely near to its thoroughness and precision.

Such a noble science protects our faith from the invasion of blameworthy innovations

and inventions, for nothing is accepted in matters of Religion unless it is related on the

authority of an acceptable isnaad (chain of transmitters).

In light of the above, let us look at a few of Mr. Lings’ untenable pronouncements

relating to some aspects of hadeeth criticism. Take, for example, his outlandish

statement regarding al-Waaqidee’s al-Maghaazee , “Not one of (the scholars) would say

that al-Waaqidee’s masterpiece is replete with forged traditions,’ because in the first

place only God – and the forger – can know whether a tradition is forged!!” Now the

truth of the matter is that the eminent specialists in the branch of hadeeth sciences

known as ’ Ilmur-Rijaal have unanimously rejected al-Waaqidee as a narrator of

prophetic traditions. A cursory glance at their ruling regarding him will be enough to

refute Lings’ totally erroneous claim. The great hadeeth critic Ibn Hajar relates that al-

Imam ash-Shaafi’ee has said of al-Waaqidee’s books: “They are all lies.” An-Nisaa’ee

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

states that “al-Waaqidee was well known for his fabrications of prophetic traditions.”

Imam al-Bukharee and Imaam Ahmad call him “a liar whose narrations are to be

rejected.” Aboo Daawood emphatically says of him: “I’d never record or relate his

hadeeths ; I have no doubt at all that he used to forge traditions.” Other eminent

Hadeeth scholars have variously described him as a liar, forger, counterfeiter, rejected, etc.

For details see Ibn Hajar’s Tahdheebut-Tahdheeb (9/363 -368).

So much for Mr. Lings’ bold claim that “not one of the scholars would say al-

Waaqidee’s masterpiece is replete with forged traditions’.” I agree with Mr. Lings’; truly

al-Maghaazee is a masterpiece – in forgery that is! As for the latter part of his claim that

“only God – and the forger – can know whether a tradition is forged”, it is like saying:

“Only God – and the forger – can know whether a certain bank note is forged.” Surely

he must realize that Hadeeth scholars employ a meticulous scientific system of research

with exacting standards; they can tell a forged hadeeth as accurately as an expert on

counterfeiting tells a phoney bill from an authentic one. Moreover, I wonder Mr. Lings’

realizes the ramifications of his statement, for it necessarily follows that we cannot in

certainty say that any is forged – since only Go d and the forger can know for sure – and

by extension, why not use these hadeeths freely as Mr. Lings’ does in his books; and is

the common practice by the various adherents to the various deviated sects and cults.

The other gross and baseless generalization made by Mr. Lings’ is that “it is universally

admitted that many so -called ‘weak traditions’ may in fact be true.” Firstly it must be

emphatically stressed that there is no such universal admittance as claimed. Secondly,

the theoretical possibility that a certain weak tradition may be true , is not at all the point

at issue here. The fact of the matter is that once a hadeeth has been assessed to have the

degree of weakness – after taxing research and scrutiny – it is no longer permissible – by

consensus – to apply it in matters of Deen. Mr. Lings’ usage of certain previously –

mentioned for the sake of brevity – calls into question the author’s claimed “scrupulous

and exhaustive fidelity to authentic and reliable sources.” (back cover 1986 edition).

After including weak and forged hadeeths in his seerah , can Mr. Lings’ really claim that

he has been “at great pains to be selective ?”

Now to return to the claimed story of the Prophet’s protection of the icons and Mr. Lings’

attempts at fanciful sophistry in explaining how such a forged story might be possible .

He claims that the icons of Jesus, Mary and Abraham were in a different category than

the other idols, “not pagan and not worshipped by Quraysh” and other Arabs. Does

Mr. Lings’ think that these statues, icons and paintings were placed inside the Ka’bah

solely for the purpose of decoration?! Obviously they were placed there to be

worshipped along with Allaah, as is related in the Qur‘aan wherein the pagan Arabs are

quoted as saying about their idols: “We worship them only that they may bring us near

to Allah.” Such polytheists would not have had the least compunction about

worshipping a few more idols such as the three icons mentioned, since they hoped that

all of these might bring them near to Allaah!

As for Mr. Lings’ question: “How can anyone claim to be absolutely certain that at that

moment in question the Prophet was not moved to make a gesture of adab towards a

brother Messenger?,” the reply is from two points of view. Firstly, there is to be found

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

in the compilation of Ibn Khuzaymah et al an authentic hadeeth which serves as

devastating reply to Mr. Lings’ untenable suggestion of adab . It is related that the

Prophet also was shown the statues of Abraham and Ishmael, the former depicted

clasping diving arrows, whereupon he ordered for them to be turned out of the Ka’bah

and toppled upon their faces, resulting in their being smashed to pieces. Would Mr.

Lings’ suggest that the Prophet has shown “poor” adab to his brother Messengers here

by having their images toppled on their faces and destroyed? Such a “gesture of adab ” as

suggested by Mr. Lings’ is obviously totally erroneous in light of the preceding hadeeth .

Secondly, it must be asked: would such an alleged act of “protecting” the icons of Jesus,

Mary and Abraham not be considered a gesture of bad adab towards Allah the Exalted

and His inviolable House, the very symnbol of Tawheed .

Mr. Lings then goes on to claim that the story of the Prophet’s supposed protection of

the icons in the Ka’bah is supported by his “spiritual generosity” for he allowed

Christians to make use of his mosque; and by the pacts and treaties which allowed

them to have icons in their churches. The reply to this argument may be phrased in the

following questions: Does Mr. Lings wish to imply that the Prophet allowed them to set

up their icons in his mosque for the performance of their Christian rites? If the answer

is an emphatic “no!” – which I trust it must be – then the analogy presented bears no

weight whatsoever. The same may be said regarding the treaties for the mere fact that

dhimmees are allowed to have icons in their churches in no way constitutes the slightest

“proof” for Mr. Lings’ opinion that such icons could be “protected” by the Prophet and

left inside the House of Allah which was dedicated to His sole worship.

Furthermore, since it has been unconditionally established that the story of the icons is

a fabrication transmitted by way of certain known forgers of traditions, and it is

contradicted by authentic narrations of al-Bukhaaree which consistently verify the

Prophet’s having completely destroyed and/or effaced all of the idols, paintings and

icons inside as well as outside of the Ka’bah , it is a gross error that one draw upon this

concocted story and then claim anything is validity implied therein.

Moreover, Mr. Lings unwittingly comes dangerously close to committing a grave

transgression against the Prophet of Islaam ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam ), by upholding

this forged tradition, for it necessarily follows from his untenable rendition of the

auspicious event of the Conquest of Makkah that the Prophet failed to carry out the

Divide Order to purify the most sacred House of its defilement caused by the presence

of various idols. This amounts to an accusation of negligence on his part, or even

contravention of the Divide Command.

However, this is only “the tip of the iceberg” regarding Mr. Lings’ various misleading

pronouncements concerning Islaam in particular and religion in general. Despite his

outright denial (in his letter of a belief in pantheistic monism (i.e. the unity of man and

God), he admits to it in the same breath since he opines (wrongly, course) that the

hadith qudsi he quoted “suggests a certain measure of union.” Obviously, any “measure”

whatsoever of union constitutes union. Furthermore, he clearly espouses the doctrine in

his book The Eleventh Hour . For example on (p. 10) he says, “The Kingdom of heaven is

within you. This truth is the basis of esoterist, the science and discipline of inwardness,

Perennialist Poison

In Martin Ling’s Biography of the Prophet

www.troid.org

and the aspiration of the esoterist goes beyond salvation to sanctification, which in its

highest sense is deification, that is, union (the Hindu yoga) with the Absolute Infinite

Perfection of the Divine Essence. This extinction of all relativity is the nirvana of

Buddhism; and in Islamic mysticism the saying that ‘the Sufi is not created’ testifies to

the same ultimate Reality.” In another pronouncement on this subject Mr. Lings’

quotes from the master and veritable “High Priest” of Perennialism Frithjof Schuon

who claims that “On the one hand, space together with time, then the existence of

things, and then their qualities, ‘prove’ God; on the other hand, they ‘are’ God, but

seen through the veil of ‘Outwardness’ or of ‘Distance’.” (p. 107) In fact, this statement

indicates adherence to a belief in the essential union between the rest of creation and

God! The doctrine of “union” with God is rejected by Islaam which maintains a clear

distinction between the created and the Creator.

As far as reincarnation is concerned, I stand by my claim that Mr. Lings’ subscribes to

this concept precisely according to the definition of the term, which is, “Rebirth in new

bodies or forms of life” (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, p. 722). True, Mr. Lings does

not subscribe to the theory that a human (or other being) can be reborn into the same

world twice. As for being reborn into a number of other worlds and existences, he

confirms that such a thing – in his view – is the real state of affairs as is witnessed from