The Verse in Surah al-Abasa, the Blind Man and the Nobles of Quraysh: Incorrect Analogy and Use of the Text and Ignoring the Important Guiding Principles Derived by the Scholars from the Text

In his attempt to rebut what is readily apparent to a casual observer [that he got used for the better advantage of the Nation of Kufr (no matter what his intentions might have been in the process)] Tahir Wyatt gave the explanation that he was approached by a person affter a lecture in Maryland who he alleges was part of "an initiative to teach the Sunnah" (to followers of the Nation) and wanted Tahir to participate in it. In reality, this turned out to be a month-long, black-centric, daily Radio show slot involving mostly "Nation of Islam" speakers. One of its clear objectives was to highlight black achievement and this all fits in with the black-nationalist and black-divinity doctrines of the "Nation of Islam". To justify his action, Tahir used the first verse of Surah al-Abasa:

One thing that kept going through my mind was the saying of Allaah: {He frowned and turned away}

His intent here is to say that he did not want to refrain from presenting guidance. However, the context of this verse is that the blind man that came to the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) wanted instruction in the religion, fearing Allaah, wanting purity for himself. Turning to him would result in a certain and attainable benefit, as opposed to a presumed, uncertain benefit in the form of turning to the nobles of Quraish, whose Islam the Messenger was hoping for.

Imaam al-Sa'dee (rahimahullaah) said in his tafseer:

And this is a big benefit, it is (the benefit) intended by the sending of the Messengers, and the admonition of the admonishers and the reminder of those who remind. So turning to the one who came to you in person, needing that from you, is the more befitting obligation. And as for you giving attention to and turning to the affluent rich one who does not ask nor seek advice (regarding his affair) due to the absence of his desire for goodness, alongside your leaving the one who is more important than him, then it is not desirable for you (to do that). For there is no blame upon you if he (the affluent rich one) does not become purified. If he did not become purified, then you will not be held account for what he does of evil. So this indicates the well-known principle "A known matter is not abandoned for an imagined one nor a certain, attainable benefit (abandoned) for an imagined one" and that it is desirable to turn to the seeker of knowledge, who is in need of it, eager for it, more than (turning to) others.

Tahir Wyatt himself reveals his out-of-context use of this verse and the lack of observation of the principle this verse indicates when he said towards the end of his article:

I do not claim to have succeeded in my effort to clarify the religion of Islam and the finality of our Prophet's (sallallahau alayhi wasallam) message, but I did try. I have no idea if I'll be afforded the opportunity to speak to an audience with Nation of Islam members again, but if so, my hope is that some of you will give me more ideas on how to speak to them about Islam in a strategic manner, not chastise these efforts or undermine them

These words clearly point to an unsure and uncertain man. Tahir's attempted analogy between what was better for the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to do, which is to go for the attainable benefit (upon the interpretation of that verse by the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah), and what he himself did (deciding to participate in the alleged initiative to teach the Sunnah) is invalidated by his own statement above through more than one consideration. The first is that he says he does not know whether he succeeded in his efforts. Here, he has just admitted he never proceeded into what would be a certain and attainable benefit.

The second is that the correct way to analogise would be if Tahir was in a situation where a believer came to him and wanted instruction in the religion and there were also affluent, high-society members of the Nation in whose (valid) Islam he had hopes for. So, in the mere action of making istidlaal by that verse, it would have been necessitated upon Tahir Wyatt to turn to the believer and ignore the high-society members of the Nation. This is clear for anyone who reflects upon this, the context of this verse does not fit the situation Tahir is trying to justify.

Thirdly, if you are asking others for "more ideas" on speaking in a "strategic manner" after expressing uncertainty about what you might have achieved (if anything), it begs the question as to whether you were qualified to enter into this matter in the first place.

Fourthly, it is astounding to read Tahir Wyatt's statement, "I do not claim to have succeeded in my effort to clarify the religion of Islam and the finality of our Prophet's (sallallahau alayhi wasallam) message, but I did try" indicating his doubt about whether he did in fact clarify the deen of Islam and the finality of Messengership. This is bearing in mind he is a PhD student in aqidah. In 10 minutes it is possible to clarify the Tawhid of the Messengers and what opposes it and the finality of Messengership in a way that leaves no ambiguity. Tahir Wyatt knows that his lecture was really a reminder to seek knowledge, take action upon a deen that is complete and an encouragement to be people of the Qur'an and no Nationer is really going to be led to raise questions about his beliefs by such a type of lecture. If that is how you believe an audience of Nationers should be addressed, then it indicates your level of understanding. Tahir Wyatt knows this, and this why he says, in a clear defeatist undertone, "I do not claim to have succeeded in my effort to clarify the religion of Islam and the finality of our Prophet's (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) message, but I did try." A 10 minute explanation of the two parts of the shahaadah and what invalidates them would have been sufficient and an average Salafi who is not a student of knowledge, would have been able to do that fairly easily. In fact, Tahir Wyatt tells us, "After asking some other questions, I was assured that there were no restrictions on what I could say..." - he affirms he got reassurance that there were no restrictions on what he could say. If this is the case, and Tahir Wyatt was not gagged, clearly, 10 minutes is enough to say in a presentable way:

The Meaning of Laa ilaaha ilallaah is that none has the right to be worshipped in truth but Allaah alone. Whoever believes that any from the creation, such as what the Christians believe, that Jesus was God, or like what the Agha Khanis believe, in divine manifestations of Allaah upon this earth, or any other similar belief this is shirk and kufr and renders a person to an inhabitant of Hellfire, a true and real created entity with physical punishment. And the meaning of Muhammad Rasoolullaah is that Muhammad ibn Abdullaah, from Banu Hashim from the lineage of Ismaa'eel is the last and final Messenger of Allaah sent to mankind. There is no prophet or messenger after him. Whoever believes that any one thereafter receives revelation or is a Messenger sent by God, such as what the Qadiyanis believe about Ghulam Ahmad, or the Bahaa'is about Bahaa'ullaah, is a disbeliever, an inhabitant of the Fire. The Messenger Muhammad brought the final, complete message of Tawhid and the perfected Sharee'ah. Salvation is through obedience to Him, which is obedience to Allaah, the Most High. This is the statement and its meaning by which a person enters into Islam and whoever does not affirm it with this meaning, his Islam is not valid. Thereafter, the greatest obligations are prayer, and then fasting and then zakah and then the pilgrimage when one has the means. Whoever brings this Islam and dies upon it, man or woman, black, red or white, will enter Paradise, a true and real created entity which is other than this Earth, whose reward is eternal.

Here, you did not need to mention Farrakhan or even the Nation of Islam, or even revile them, yet you get the desired message across in a clear and unambiguous way as is required legislatively. This is the desired "wisdom" not the tamyee'ee wisdom Tahir Wyatt tries to pass off as actual wisdom. Tahir Wyatt said towards the end, "I have no idea if I'll be afforded the opportunity to speak to an audience with Nation of Islam members again..." - yes, a pity you could not explain Tawheed and Risaalah sufficiently to the Nationers with your knowledge that you were not gagged in any way and may not have had another chance to address thousands of them in this way again!

Finally, we do not chastise sincere and methodologically correct efforts to guide others, nor do we undermine them. But we do find fault with reckless, misjudged actions that give the people of kufr (and Baatiniyyah-types at that), let alone the people of innovation, something to boast about and use for their tactical advantage to get the wider credibility they desire. In this incident, Tahir Wyatt, in the eyes of the Nation of Kufr, was used to help legitimize their movement in front of various audiences. What is worse is that despite this being made clear to him, he tries, vainly, to defend himself and misuse both texts and scholarly verdicts to exonerate himself.

Finally, we ask Allah for safety and pardon. We ask that He protects the people of Islam from the likes of these Baatinees, the Nationers, and any others like them and that He guides those who are deceived by their leaders to the true and real Islam brought by the Messengers and guides them away from the kufr they have been misled to believe is Islaam. Ameen.

Abu Iyaad, 1st Shawwaal 1435H / 29th July 2014